## 4 Discussion on Results  
The pseudo-static results are shown in Figures 9-12 for the 21 working cases listed in Table 1, by comparing the presented theoretical method and the measured experimental value of the model test. From these figures, it can be learned that that the forces of the main-cable, displacements of the main-cable, horizontal deflections of the two towers and forces of the rail-cable in all working conditions by the presented theoretical method and the indoor-model test method all have the same distribution regularities, and the difference of all the mentioned results for these two methods is small, mostly less than 5%. Therefore, the theoretical results agree well with the results from the model test. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Working Cases** & **Contents** & **Working Cases** & **Contents** \\ \hline
1 & adjusting empty cables & 12 &
\begin{tabular}{c} erection of girders B19–21, \\ B17\({}^{\prime}\)-19\({}^{\prime}\) \\ \end{tabular} \\
2 & tension of rock-anchor cable & 13 &
\begin{tabular}{c} erection of girders B18, B16\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B17, B15\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B36 \\ erection of girders B35, B33\({}^{\prime}\) \\ \end{tabular} \\
5 & erection of girders B34, B32\({}^{\prime}\) & 17 &
\begin{tabular}{c} erection of girders B10–12, B8\({}^{\prime}\)-10\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B7–9, B5\({}^{\prime}\)-7\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B28-30, B26\({}^{\prime}\)-28\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B25-27, B23\({}^{\prime}\)-25\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B3, B1\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B24, B22\({}^{\prime}\) \\ erection of girders B22–23, \\ B20\({}^{\prime}\)–21\({}^{\prime}\) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Working cases of global model test of the Aizhai suspension bridge. Figure 9: Comparison of the main-cable forces at the anchorage point by the presented theoretical result and experimental result on different shifting-girder working cases: (**a**) Ishou side; (**b**) Chadong side. Figure 11: Comparison of the horizontal displacement of tower top along span by presented theoretical result and experimental result on different shifting-girder working cases: (**a**) Jishou side; (**b**) Chadong side. Figure 10: Comparison of displacement for main-cable by the presented theoretical result and experimental result on different shifting-girder working cases: (**a**) J14 cable at Jishou side; (**b**) C15 cable at Chadong side; and (**c**) mid-point of main span. Figure 9 shows the forces of the main-cable at the anchorage point under the 21 working cases. It can be learned that the forces of the main-cable at the anchorage points at both Jishou and Chadong sides are increasing, with the erection of the girder segment. The variation of the incremental cable forces is small when the subsequent girder segments are erected, only a slight decline is observed at the installation stage of the end girder segment. This is related to the temporary loads which includes the removing of the rail-cable and unloading of the shifting-girder trolley. Figure 10 shows the deflections of the main-cable on different working cases. From the beginning working case, the variation of the deflection for the main-cable at sling J14 (i.e., 1/4 main span \(L_{2}\)) first decreases and then increases, and reaches the maximum value when the erections of the girder segments are completed. Similarly, the variation of the deflection for the main-cable at sling C15 (i.e., 3/4 main span \(L_{2}\)) first decreases and then increases. Obviously, this similarity between the two main-cable's deflections at sling J14 and sling C15 is due to the symmetry of the global structure along the mid-span in the direction of main span. Affected by the two-pair rock anchor cable [22] at the Chadong side and the installation position of the girder segments, the deflection of the main-cable at sling C15 reaches its maximum value when the B5' girder segment is being installed.