Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Stochastic response of suspension bridges for various spatial variability models

  • Adanur, Suleyman (Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University) ;
  • Altunisik, Ahmet C. (Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University) ;
  • Soyluk, Kurtulus (Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University) ;
  • Dumanoglu, A. Aydin (Karadeniz Technical University)
  • Received : 2016.09.02
  • Accepted : 2016.11.03
  • Published : 2016.12.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare the structural responses obtained from the stochastic analysis of a suspension bridge subjected to uniform and partially correlated seismic ground motions, using different spatial correlation functions commonly used in the earthquake engineering. The spatial correlation function employed in this study consists of a term that characterizes the loss of coherency. To account for the spatial variability of ground motions, the widely used four loss of coherency models in the literature has been taken into account in this study. Because each of these models has its own characteristics, it is intended to determine the sensitivity of a suspension bridge due to these losses of coherency models which represent the spatial variability of ground motions. Bosporus Suspension Bridge connects Europe to Asia in Istanbul is selected as a numerical example. The bridge has steel towers that are flexible, inclined hangers and a steel box-deck of 1074 m main span, with side spans of 231 and 255 m on the European and Asian sides, respectively. For the ground motion the filtered white noise model is considered and applied in the vertical direction, the intensity parameter of this model is obtained by using the S16E component of Pacoima Dam record of 1971 San Fernando earthquake. An analytically simple model called as filtered white noise ground motion model is chosen to represent the earthquake ground motion. When compared with the uniform ground motion case, the results obtained from the spatial variability models with partial correlation outline the necessity to include the spatial variability of ground motions in the stochastic dynamic analysis of suspension bridges. It is observed that while the largest response values are obtained for the model proposed by Harichandran and Vanmarcke, the model proposed by Uscinski produces the smallest responses among the considered partially correlated ground motion models. The response values obtained from the uniform ground motion case are usually smaller than those of the responses obtained from the partially correlated ground motion cases. While the response values at the flexible parts of the bridge are totally dominated by the dynamic component, the pseudo-static component also has significant contributions for the response values at the rigid parts of the bridge. The results also show the consistency of the spatial variability models, which have different characteristics, considered in this study.

Keywords

References

  1. Abrahamson, N.A. (1993), "Spatial variation of multiple support inputs", Proceedings of the 1st U.S. Seminar, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  2. Adanur, S., Dumanoglu, A.A. and Soyluk, K. (2003), "Stochastic analysis of suspension bridges for different correlation functions", Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Civil and Structural Engineering Computing, Egmond-aan-Zee, Netherlands, September, Volume 86, pp. 207-208.
  3. Adanur, S., Altunisik, A.C., Soyluk, K., Bayraktar, A. and Dumanoglu, A.A. (2016), "Multiple-support seismic response of bosporus suspension bridge for various random vibration methods", Case Studies in Structural Engineering, 5, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csse.2016.04.001
  4. Ates, S., Bayraktar, A. and Dumanoglu, A.A. (2006), "The effect of spatially varying earthquake ground motions on the stochastic response of bridges isolated with friction pendulum systems", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 26(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.08.002
  5. Atmaca, B. and Ates, S. (2012), "Construction stage analysis of three-dimensional cable-stayed bridges", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 12(5), 413-426. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2012.12.5.413
  6. Bi, K. and Hao, H. (2013), "Numerical simulation of pounding damage to bridge structures under spatially varying ground motions", Eng. Struct., 46, 62-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.012
  7. Brownjohn, J.M.W. (1994), "Observations on non-linear dynamic characteristics of suspension bridges", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 23, 1351-1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290231206
  8. Bryja, D. (2009), "Stochastic response analysis of suspension bridge under gusty wind with time-dependent mean velocity", Archiv. Civil Mech. Eng., 9(2), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60057-0
  9. Button, M.R., Der Kiureghian, A. and Wilson, E.L. (1981), STOCAL-User information manual; Report no UCB/SEMM-81/2, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  10. Callisto, L., Rampello, S. and Viggiani, G.M.B. (2013), "Soil-structure interaction for the seismic design of the Messina Strait Bridge", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 52, 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.05.005
  11. Cavdar, O. (2013), "Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of suspension bridges to near-fault ground motion", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 15(1), 15-39. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2013.15.1.15
  12. Chen, M.T. and Harichandran, R.S. (2001), "Response of an earth dam to spatially varying earthquake ground motion", J. Eng. Mech., 127(9), 932-939. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2001)127:9(932)
  13. Cheng, J. and Liu, X-L. (2012), "Reliability analysis of steel cable-stayed bridges including soil-pile interaction", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 13(2), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2012.13.2.109
  14. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill, Singapore.
  15. Der Kiureghian, A. and Neuenhofer, A. (1991), A response spectrum method for multiple-support seismic excitations; Report no UCB/EERC-91/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  16. Dong, H., Du, X. and Zhou, Y. (2015), "Pounding analysis of RC bridge considering spatial variability of ground motion", Earthq. Struct., Int. J., 9(5), 1029-1044. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.5.1029
  17. Dumanoglu, A.A. and Severn, R.T. (1990), "Stochastic response of suspension bridges to earthquake forces", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 19, 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190112
  18. Dumanoglu, A.A. and Soyluk, K. (2002), SVEM, A Stochastic Structural Analysis Program for Spatially Varying Earthquake Motions, Turkish Earthquake Foundation, TDV/KT 023-76, Istanbul, Turkey.
  19. Erhan, S. and Dicleli, M. (2014), "Effect of dynamic soil-bridge interaction modeling assumptions on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 66, 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.033
  20. Ghotbi, A.R. (2016), "Response sensitivity analyses of skewed bridges with and without considering soilstructure interaction", Structures, 5, 219-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.12.002
  21. Gunaydin, M., Adanur, S., Altunisik, A.C., Sevim, B. and Turker, E. (2014), "Determination of structural behavior of Bosporus suspension bridge considering construction stages and different soil conditions", Steel Compos. Struct., Int. J., 17(4), 405-429. https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2014.17.4.405
  22. Harichandran, R.S. and Vanmarcke, E.H. (1986), "Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time", J. Eng. Mech., 112(2), 154-174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1986)112:2(154)
  23. Harichandran, R.S., Hawwari, A. and Sweiden, B.N. (1996), "Response of long-span bridges to spatially varying ground motion", J. Struct. Eng., 122(5), 476-484. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:5(476)
  24. Hindy, A. and Novak, M. (1980), "Pipeline response to random ground motion", J. Eng. Mech. Div., 106(2), 339-360.
  25. Li, B. and Chouw, N. (2014), "Experimental investigation of inelastic bridge response under spatially varying excitations with pounding", Eng. Struct., 79(15), 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.012
  26. Luco, J.E. and Wong, H.L. (1986), "Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14, 891-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290140606
  27. Shrestha, B., Hao, H. and Bi, K. (2014), "Effectiveness of using rubber bumper and restrainer on mitigating pounding and unseating damage of bridge structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions", Eng. Struct., 79(15), 195-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.020
  28. Soyluk, K. (2004), "Comparison of random vibration methods for multi-support seismic excitation analysis of long-span bridges", Eng. Struct., 26(11), 1573-1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.016
  29. Soyluk, K. and Dumanoglu, A.A. (2004), "Spatial variability effects of ground motions on cable-stayed bridges", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 24, 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.11.005
  30. Uscinski, B.J. (1977), The Elements of Wave Propagation in Random Media, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
  31. Wang, J., Liu, W., Wang, L. and Han, X. (2015), "Estimation of main cable tension force of suspension bridges based on ambient vibration frequency measurements", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 56(6), 939-957. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.56.6.939
  32. Zerva, A. (1992), "Seismic loads predicted by spatial variability models", Struct. Safety, 11, 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(92)90016-G
  33. Zhang, Y.H., Li, Q.S., Lin, J.H. and Williams, F.W. (2009), "Random vibration analysis of long-span structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29(4), 620-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.06.007

Cited by

  1. Effectiveness of Soil–Structure Interaction and Dynamic Characteristics on Cable-Stayed Bridges Subjected to Multiple Support Excitation vol.18, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0069-z
  2. An analytical approach of behavior change for concrete dam by panel data model vol.36, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2020.36.5.521
  3. A factor mining model with optimized random forest for concrete dam deformation monitoring vol.14, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2021.10.004