## 4 Comparative Analysis and Conclusions  
According to the above analysis in this article, from the impact of additional deformation during the construction phase, the additional tensile stress of the UHPC bridge deck, the bridge shape, the uniformity of cable force, the stress of the UHPC bridge deck and the stress of steel box girder during the bridge stage, the main conclusions are as follows:  
(1) Compared to the full hall support scheme, regardless of whether or not counterweight measures are used, the bridge line shape, cable force, and steel box girder stress during the completion stage of each scheme are not significantly different; the cable force error of the completed bridge is between \(\pm\)1% and \(\pm\)2%; the linear error of the completed bridge is within \(\pm\)5 mm; the stress difference of the completed steel box girder is between 6.8 and 7.2 MPa. When using bridge deck counterweight measures, all indicators will be slightly better than they will without counterweight measures.  
(2) When the UHPC bridge deck is poured without a counterweight (Scheme I), significant additional deformation (\(-\)24.8-12.5 mm) and additional stress (0.8-3.7 MPa) will occur during the construction phase; after the completion of the bridge, this plan will have a limited impact on the bridge shape and cable stress of the cable-stayed bridge, but it will generate significant tensile stress (about 14 MPa) in the UHPC layer. For this construction plan, adjusting the pouring sequence of the UHPC bridge deck will have a limited impact in terms of improving the aforementioned adverse effects. Setting post-pouring strips near auxiliary piers and bridge towers can reduce the stress of the UHPC bridge deck after completion by about 2 MPa.  
(3) When the UHPC weight balance pouring method is used for UHPC bridge deck (Scheme II), there will be certain additional deformation (\(-\)7.7-1.7 mm) and additional stress (0.8-1.4 MPa) during the construction stage; after the bridge is completed, significant tensile stress (11.9-12.7 MPa) will be generated in the UHPC layer. When balancing the weight of the entire bridge deck area, all indicators will be better than the weight of local areas on the bridge deck.  
(4) When the UHPC layer on the bridge deck and second-phase constant load counterweight Scheme III are used, the improvement of various indicators during the construction phase will be the same as that observed in Scheme II. The improvement of the UHPC layer during the completion phase will be significant, and can be significantly reduced to 1.0 MPa during the implementation of a full bridge counterweight. Besides, it can also be reduced to 8.2 MPa during the implementation of a local counterweight.  
In summary, when using the UHPC bridge deck structure for cable-stayed bridges, it is recommended to use a counterweight pouring scheme for UHPC pouring on the bridge deck, when the construction site conditions are limited; at least, local weight balancing schemes should be adopted, combined with comprehensive technical measures such as setting up post-pouring strips at the auxiliary piers and bridge towers.  
**Author Contributions**: Conceptualization, J.S.; methodology, J.S.; software, J.S.; validation, J.S. and Z.C.; formal analysis, J.S.; investigation, J.S. and Z.C.; resources, J.S. and Z.C.; data curation, J.S. and Z.C.; writing--original draft preparation, J.S.; writing--review and editing, J.S.; visualization, J.S.; supervision, J.S.; project administration, J.S.; funding acquisition, J.S. and Z.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research received no external funding.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement**: Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement**: Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement**: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.  
**Conflicts of Interest**: The authors declare no conflict of interest.