You are on page 1of 63

Finite

Element Modelling of
Bosporus Bridge

Dissertation submitted as part requirement


for the Degree of Master of Science in
Structural Engineering

By
Farhad Huseynov


Supervisor:
Prof. James Brownjohn

The University of Sheffield


Department of Civil and Structural Engineering
September 2012

Declaration

I Farhad Huseynov declare that this dissertation study is my own work and that all the sources
that I have used or quoted have been acknowledged by means of complete references.

________________________
Farhad Huseynov
Signature

31.08.2012
Date

Abstract
The Bosporus Bridge is one of the two permanent transportation connections between
Europe and Asia in Istanbul. It carries the main arterial transportation link of the city, namely
O-1 motorway. Any broken link due to the bridge failure would totally ruin the whole
transportation system in the city. Due to importance and complexity of the Bosporus Bridge, in
this particular dissertation study special care was given to understand the real behavior of the
structure. The purpose of this research was to develop a sophisticated FE model with less
uncertainty that provides with a clearer understanding and higher confidence in estimating the
real behavior of the Bosporus Bridge.
To develop a FE model commercial software, namely ANSYS V12.1 was used which is a FE
modelling package that numerically solves wide range of mechanical problems. There are two
methods available to use ANSYS. The first method is by means of Graphical User Interface,
which is so called GUI and the second one is by means of script files. For this particular work,
second option was used to produce the FE models.
Dimensions of the structural components play an important role in the modelling process.
To develop an accurate FE model, dimensions have to be adopted as correct as possible. The
Bosporus Suspension Bridge was designed more than 40 years ago as a result softcopy of the
design drawings is not available. Therefore, the bridge major parts (towers, cables hangers and
the suspended box deck section) and overall shape were redrawn in accordance with the
design drawings using the AutoCAD software to get more accurate coordinates for the model.
Details of the structural components, geometric nonlinearities, cable sagging and stress
stiffening and profile of the deck structure are the main factors affecting the vibration
characteristics of the bridge. Sometimes, to define these properties accurately from the first
attempt is impossible during the modelling process. Producing a sophisticated

3-D FE model

of the Bosporus Suspension Bridge requires too much time and a lot of effort. Besides, in terms
of computer processing capacity, analyzing a 3-D FE model takes longer time compared to a 2-D
FE model. To facilitate the modelling process, initially two 2-D FE models were produced to
adopt the correct properties. The first 2-D FE model was restrained in the vertical plane and the
second one in the horizontal plane which provide vertical and lateral modes, respectively. Then
the results obtained from 2-D FE models were confirmed to be accurate by comparing them
II

with the experimental data available from the past studies. Afterwards, the same properties
were defined to develop a sophisticated 3-D FE model of the Bosporus Bridge.
Since the computer processing capacity is limited, modelling the bridge in three dimensions
with all the structural components is an impossible job. To overcome this issue, degrees of
freedom were reduced by introducing the equivalent super elements for the towers and the
suspended deck structure which are explained in detail in the related sections. The 3-D FE
model was divided into 4 major parts being cables, hangers, towers and the suspended deck
structure and was modeled separately. Then all the parts were combined together and
imported into ANSYS to develop a complete model. The model were analyzed both for static
and modal analysis. Finally the results obtained from the 3-D analytical model was compared
with the experiment data available from the past studies and was ensured that a sophisticated
3-D FE model works properly without any major warnings and represents the real behavior of
the Bosporus Bridge.

III

Acknowledgement
First and foremost, I would like to thank to my supervisor, Prof. James Brownjohn for the
valuable guidance and advice. This thesis would not have been possible without his help,
support and patience. Besides, I would like to thank to a PhD student, Rahi Rahbari, for his good
advice and friendship who never hesitated to share his knowledge and experience despite his
many other academic and professional commitments.
Last but not least I would like to thank my family. They were always supporting me and
encouraging me with their best wishes.

IV

Contents
Declaration ...................................................................................................................................... I
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... II
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................ IV
Contents ......................................................................................................................................... V
Figure List ..................................................................................................................................... VII
Table List ....................................................................................................................................... IX
1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................ 2
2.1

Principal Dimensions and Quantities ............................................................................. 5

FINETE ELEMENT MODELLING ............................................................................................... 6


3.1

Dimensions..................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1

Suspended Deck Structure ..................................................................................... 7

3.1.1.1

Longitudinal Parts .............................................................................................. 8

3.1.1.2

Main Diaphragm .............................................................................................. 10

3.1.2

Cables ................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.3

Hangers ................................................................................................................ 11

3.1.4

Towers .................................................................................................................. 12

3.1.5

Bridge Profile........................................................................................................ 13

3.2

2-D FE Model ................................................................................................................ 14

3.2.1

Deck Modelling .................................................................................................... 14

3.2.2

Cable Modelling ................................................................................................... 14

3.2.3

Hanger Modelling................................................................................................. 16

3.2.4

Tower modelling .................................................................................................. 17

3.2.5

Complete 2-D FE Model of the Bridge ................................................................. 17

3.2.6

2-D FE Model Analysis .......................................................................................... 17

3.3

3-D FE Model ................................................................................................................ 20

3.3.1

Equivalent Super Element for Suspended Deck Structure................................... 20

3.3.1.1

Modelling of the Original Box Deck Section..................................................... 20

3.3.1.2

Equivalent Plate Element ................................................................................. 25

3.3.1.3

Equivalent Box Deck Element .......................................................................... 28


V

3.3.1.4

Complete 3-D FE Model of the Suspended Deck Structure ............................. 31

3.3.2

Equivalent Super Element for Towers ................................................................. 32

3.3.3

Complete 3-D FE Model of the Bridge ................................................................. 33

3.3.4

3-D FE Model Analysis .......................................................................................... 34

3.3.4.1

Bridge Model with Different Cable Strains ...................................................... 34

3.3.4.2

Bridge Model with Additional Mass ................................................................. 38

3.3.4.3

Bridge Model with Different Boundary Conditions ......................................... 42

Model Validation.................................................................................................................. 45
4.1

Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results for Vertical Modes .................... 45

4.2

Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results for Lateral Modes...................... 46

4.3

Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results for Torsional Modes .................. 47

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 48

References ........................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................... 53

VI

Figure List
Figure 3-1 Example of original deck section drawing.....................................................................7
Figure 3-2 Example of deck section drawn by AutoCAD................................................................8
Figure 3-3 Deck section divided into 5 main parts......................................................................8
Figure 3-4 Standard upper deck plate drawn by AutoCAD.........................................................8
Figure 3-5 Standard side unit drawn by AutoCAD........................................................................9
Figure 3-6 Standard footway plate drawn by AutoCAD..............................................................9
Figure 3-7 Standard side plate drawn by AutoCAD.....................................................................9
Figure 3-8 Standard bottom flange plate drawn by AutoCAD...................................................10
Figure 3-9 Standard diaphragm drawn by AutoCAD..................................................................10
Figure 3-10 Arrangement of uncompacted cables (Brown & Parsons, 1975).............................11
Figure 3-11 Towers Drawn by AutoCAD.....................................................................................12
Figure 3-12 Side plates labels.......................................................................................................12
Figure 3-13 Suspended deck structure and cable profile.............................................................13
Figure 3-14 Arrangement of cables and hangers.........................................................................13
Figure 3-15 2-D FE model.............................................................................................................17
Figure 3-16 Analysis Results from 2-D FE model restrained on the vertical plane......................18
Figure 3-17 Analysis Results from 2-D FE model restrained on the horizontal plane.................19
Figure 3-18 Original deck section keypoint locations..................................................................20
Figure 3-19 Model of the original deck Section...........................................................................21
Figure 3-20 Diaphragms...............................................................................................................21
Figure 3-21 Complete meshed section (mesh size 500mm)........................................................22
Figure 3-22 Deformed shape of the original deck section for vertical bending...........................22
Figure 3-23 Deformed shape of the original deck section due Lateral bending..........................23
VII

Figure 3-24 Deformed shape of the original deck section due to torsion...................................23
Figure 3-25 Equivalent Plate........................................................................................................24
Figure 3-26 Deformed shape of equivalent plate under different loading conditions................26
Figure 3-27 Deformed shape of the equivalent box deck due to vertical bending (1st Case)....28
Figure 3-28 Deformed shape of equivalent box deck due to lateral bending (1st Case)............28
Figure 3-29 Deformed shape of equivalent box deck due to torsion (1st Case)..........................29
Figure 3-30 Deformed shape of equivalent box deck due to vertical bending (2nd Case)...........29
Figure 3-31 Deformed shape of equivalent box deck due to lateral bending (2nd Case).............30
Figure 3-32 Deformed shape of equivalent box deck due to torsion (2nd Case)..........................30
Figure 3-33 Complete 3-D FE model of the Bridge.......................................................................32

VIII

Table List
Table 3-1 Tower structure plate thicknesses...............................................................................12
Table 3-2 Strain values for main cables........................................................................................15
Table 3-3 Strain values for hanger elements................................................................................16
Table 3-4 Equivalent plate displacements obtained for different arrangements........................26
Table 3-5 Equivalent box deck element displacements obtained for different arrangements....28
Table 3-6 Comparison of vertical mode shapes and frequencies between case 1,2 and 3..........34
Table 3-7 Comparison of lateral mode shapes and frequencies between case 1,2 and 3...........35
Table 3-8 Comparison of Torsional mode shapes and frequencies between case 1,2 and 3.......36
Table 3-9 Comparison of vertical mode shapes and frequencies between case 1 and 2.............38
Table 3-10 Comparison of lateral mode shapes and frequencies between case 1 and 2............39
Table 3-11 Comparison of torsional mode shapes and frequencies between case 1 and 2........40
Table 3-12 Comparison of vertical mode shapes and frequencies between
case 1, 2, 3 and 4.......................................................................................................42
Table 3-13 Comparison of lateral and torsional mode shapes and frequencies
between case 1, 2, 3 and 4......................................................................................43
Table 4-1 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical results for vertical modes.......................45
Table 4-2 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical results for lateral modes........................46
Table 4-3 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical results for torsional modes....................46

IX

1 Introduction
Suspension bridges are the structures with the large dimensions and long service life.
Throughout the history of the suspension bridges, their behavior under different dynamic
loadings such as wind, earthquake and traffic loads was always a matter of concern. Before
1930s, suspension bridges were designed to resist only the static loadings however failure of
the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 gave a clue to researchers that the suspension bridges are
vulnerable to dynamic loading. To understand the behavior of suspension bridges under
dynamic loadings many remarkable theoretical and experimental studies were carried out by
different authors. Major advances have been achieved through the advances in computer
process capacity and the use of Finite Element (FE) Method. Ambient field measurements were
carried out for the Bosporus suspension bridge in Istanbul and data collected was compared
with already developed analytical model. It was proven that an accurate FE model is a useful
tool to simulate the real behavior of the existing suspension bridges (Brownjohn, et al., 1989).
Furthermore, a precise FE model can be helpful in regular inspections and modifications.
(Merce, et al., 2007)
Long span suspension bridges are very flexible and lightly damped structures. Throughout
their service life, traffic load may significantly change their dynamic behavior and affect the
fatigue life of the bridge. In fact 80-90% of steel structures failures are related to fatigue and
fracture. Therefore, British standards recommend FE method as an accurate method for fatigue
stress analysis in suspension bridges. (Chan, et al., 2003)

2 Background
Istanbul, being the largest and commercial city of Turkey is situated on the NW shore of Sea
of Marmara and is divided between two continents, Europe and Asia, by 22km long and
minimum of 1km wide stretch of water, namely Bosporus strait, which links the Black Sea with
the Sea of Marmara. For centuries, it was a challenging task for the communities to provide a
permanent crossing over the Bosporus strait. It is believed that the very first idea of a bridge
crossing the Bosporus dates back to the ancient times as recorded by the Greek writer
Herodotus in his histories. Once an engineer named Mandrocles designed a boat type bridge
(480 BCE) that stretched across the Bosporus, linking Asia to Europe, so that Darius I, the king
of the Achaemenid Empire (also called Darius the Great) move his army into position in the
Balkans to overcome the Macedon (Pericles, 1987). However, after that, till the half of the 20th
century no permanent link existed over the Bosporus and the transportation between two
parts of the city was provided by ferries but, following the rapid development in the city,
permanent link became mandatory. Although several engineering solutions were proposed
before 1950s, due to several reasons none of them drew a serious attention. Later with the
increase in demand on transportation, government started to give a serious consideration on
this issue and in 1956 feasibility study was performed by De Leuw Cather where it was
concluded that a permanent crossing is feasible and economically viable. The report was
accepted by government and following this several design proposals were presented by
different international companies mainly based in US by 1960. Unfortunately, later due to the
political issues in Turkey the project was postponed. Meanwhile the amount of traffic was
continuously increasing and after a while ferries could not cope up with the amount of traffic
and long delays become an issue. Thus in 1967, after a very careful assessment, mainly
considering its economical sides, Turkey government included the construction of the Bosporus
Bridge in its forthcoming 5 year plan of highway construction programme. (Brown & Parsons,
1975)

Prior to 1960 all the existing major suspension bridges had been built in USA but by 1966,
with the completion of Forth Road and Severn Bridges, UK experience was also available in the
market. Therefore, companies invited for tendering were both from USA and UK. British
structural engineering company, Freeman Fox and Partners, presented their preliminary
proposal in 1967 and formal agreement was made with them in January 1968 (Brown &
Parsons, 1975). Bosporus Bridge was designed as gravity anchored suspension bridge made of
steel with hollow towers, and inclined hangers, carrying the shallow box deck structure which is
located between the villages of Ortakoy and Beylerbeyi.
The Bosporus Bridge consists of one main span and two side spans. Only the main span was
designed as suspended structure which is spanning 1074 m over the Bosporus strait and is
carried by cables and hangers that transfer the load to the massive towers, having 165m height
on each end. Side spans, each 231m and 255m long on Ortakoy and Beylerbeyi sides,
respectively was designed independent of the cable and are carried by piers. The Construction
of the bridge was performed by the Turkish company, namely Enka Construction & Industry
Co. along with the contractors which are Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co. Ltd. (UK) and
Hochtief AG (Germany). The Construction started in 20th of February 1970 with the big
ceremony and finished in 30th of October 1973. When the bridge was opened to traffic it was
accounted the first bridge connection between Europe and Asia and had the 4th longest
suspension bridge span. However at the present it is the 19th longest suspension bridge span in
the world ranking. (General Directorate of Highways, Turkey, 1973)
The bridge total width consists of 8 lanes. Each direction has 3 lanes for daily vehicle traffic
and additional one emergency lane and one for pedestrians. After four years the bridge had
been opened for use, the pedestrians walk over the bridge was prohibited. Previously, they
could walk over the bridge reaching in it through the elevators inside the towers. Recently,
pedestrians are allowed to walk over the bridge only one day in a year (usually in October)
during the Intercontinental Istanbul Eurasia Marathon. Visitors to Istanbul in October can
sign up for the Marathon and have a chance to enjoy the view from the bridge.

The Bosporus Bridge reaches its 40 years of service life in 2013. As per maintenance
schedule, the bridge has to go through a full maintenance programme every 40 years where all
the hangers are needed to be replaced. Therefore, the bridge is planned to be closed for the
vehicular traffic for a year in early 2013 to carry out the maintenance works.
The traffic intensity is continuously increasing in Istanbul. As a result, both Bosporus Bridge
and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge, which is the second bridge spanning the Bosporus, are
exposed to heavy traffic load for which they were not designed. To overcome this issue, the
Turkish government started to consider the construction of the third bridge over the Bosporus
strait in early 2010. Following this, in 29th of May 2012 it was officially announced that the IC
Ictas-Astaldi consortium was awarded a contract for the Northern Marmara Highway Project
which includes the third bridge construction over the Bosporus. The site was located between
the Poyraz and Garipce villages and expected completion date is planned by the end of 2015.
The cost of the project was estimated as 4.5 billion Turkish Liras which is equivalent to 2.5
billion USD. (Exchange rate based on the Central Bank of Turkish Republic: 1 USD-1.8 TL. 26th of
August 2012)
The Bosporus Bridge is one of the two continuous transportation connections between
Europe and Asia in Istanbul. It carries the arterial transportation link of the city, namely O-1
motorway. Any broken link due to the bridge failure would totally ruin the whole
transportation system in the city. Due to importance and complexity of the Bosporus Bridge
special care was given by many researchers to understand the real behavior of the structure. In
this particular dissertation study, two 2-D FE models and a sophisticated 3-D FE Model of the
Bosporus Suspension Bridge will be developed using ANSYS V12.1 commercial software. The
purpose of this research is to develop a model with less uncertainty that provide with a clearer
understanding and higher confidence in estimating the real behavior of the Bosporus Bridge.

2.1 Principal Dimensions and Quantities (General Directorate of Highways, Turkey,


1973)
Total length of a bridge

: 1 560 m

Main Span length

: 1 074

Approach Spans (Ortakoy)

: 231 m

(Beylerbeyi)

: 255

Clearance over the sea

: 64 m

Height of the towers

: 165 m

Design Loads
Live load

: 1.33 tons/m

Wind Load

: 45 m/s

Ground acceleration

: 0.1 g

Main cable sagging

: 93 m

Tension in the main cables

: 15 400 tons/cable

Some Manufacturing quantities


Excavation

: 63 000 m3

Concrete

: 71 000 m3

Concrete reinforcement

: 4 000 tons

Steel

: 17 000 tons

Cables

: 6 000 tons

Cost of the bridge

: 191 785 265 TL (Turkish Lira)


23 213 666 USD

3 FINETE ELEMENT MODELLING


Suspension bridges are the complex structures with large dimensions. Details of the
structural components, geometric nonlinearities, cable sagging and stress stiffening and profile
of the deck structure are the main factors affecting the vibration characteristics of the bridge
(Apaydin, 2010). Sometimes, to define these properties accurately from the first attempt is
impossible during the modelling process. Producing a sophisticated 3-D FE model of the
Bosporus Suspension Bridge requires too much time and a lot of effort. Besides, in terms of
computer processing capacity, analyzing a 3-D FE model takes longer time compared to 2-D FE
model. Thus, to facilitate the modelling process, initially, two 2-D FE models were produced to
adopt the correct properties. The first 2-D FE model was restrained in the vertical plane and the
second one in the horizontal plane which provide vertical and lateral modes, respectively. Then
the results obtained from the 2-D FE models were confirmed to be accurate by comparing
them with the experimental data available from the past studies. Afterwards, same properties
were defined to develop a sophisticated 3-D FE model of the Bosporus Suspension Bridge.
In Bosporus Bridge side spans are not connected to cables and are carried by piers. Apart
from the small mass contribution to towers they do not have any significant influence on the
bridge behavior. Thus in all models the side spans were excluded in the model. The procedures
followed to produce both 2-D and 3-D FE models later will be covered in detail in the related
sections.
To develop the FE models commercial software, namely ANSYS V12.1 were used which is a
FE modelling package that numerically solves wide range of mechanical problems. There are
two methods available to use ANSYS. The first is by means of Graphical User Interface, which is
so called GUI and the second is by writing the script files. For this particular work, second
option was used to produce the FE models. Additionally, there are no predefined set of units
specified in ANSYS. It is the responsibility of the user to adopt the consistent set of units. The
units defined within the script files are as follows;
-Length (keypoint coordinates) - in mm
-Density- in tons/mm

-Second Moment of Area- in mm

-Area-in mm2

-Mass- in tons

-Force- in Newton

-Modulus of Elasticity- in MPa

Dimensions of the structural components play an important role in the modelling process.
To develop an accurate FE model, dimensions have to be adopted as correct as possible. The
Bosporus Bridge was designed more than 40 years ago as a result softcopy of the design
drawings is not available. Therefore, the bridge major parts (towers, cables, hangers and the
suspended box deck section) and overall profile of the bridge were redrawn in accordance with
the design drawings using the AutoCAD software to get more accurate coordinates for the
models.

3.1 Dimensions
Due to the absence of the softcopy of the bridge design drawings, bridge major parts and
overall profile of the structure were redrawn using the AutoCAD software as described in the
below sections

3.1.1 Suspended Deck Structure


Suspended deck structure consists of 60 box girders, each of 17.9 m long, 33.4m wide and
3m deep. Each box section is made up of 22 stiffened plates. 2 types of stiffeners were used
which are V shaped 6mm thick pressed through members for upper deck plates and single
sided bulb flat (S.S.B.F) stiffeners for elsewhere in the deck structure. Diaphragms are placed at
every 4475 mm apart along the length of the deck structure to prevent local buckling.

Figure 3-1 Example of original deck section drawing


7

Figure 3-2 Example of deck section drawn by AutoCAD

3.1.1.1 Longitudinal Parts


Box deck section was divided into 5 main parts as shown in the figure below and was drawn
separately using the AutoCAD software.

Figure 3-3 Deck section divided into 5 main parts

Part 1

Part 1 consists of 10 plates each of 2470mm wide and 17900mm long, stiffened with 6mm
pressed V shaped stiffeners and 12mm thick diaphragm plate which connects to the main
diaphragm and forming the upper part of the deck structure.

Figure 3-4 Standard upper deck plate drawn by AutoCAD

Part 2

Part 2 plays and important role in


deck section. It connects the upper
and lower deck and footway section. It
is made up of 2 plates, each of 9mm
thick and 17900mm long, stiffened
with 150x8x17750 S.S.B.F stiffeners
and 6mm thick diaphragm plate that
connects to the main diaphragm.

Figure 3-5 Standard side unit drawn by AutoCAD

Part 3

Part 3 is a footway section which consists of 3 plates, each of 8mm, 10mm and 12mm thick
and stiffened with 150x8x17750 S.S.B.F stiffeners and 8mm thick diaphragm plate

Figure 3-6 Standard footway plate drawn by AutoCAD

Part 4

Part 4 is bottom side section of


the deck structure which is made
up of 9mm thick and 17900mm
long

plate,

stiffened

with

150x8x17750 S.S.B.F stiffeners and


9 mm thick diaphragm plate that
connects to the main diaphragm
Figure 3-7 Standard side plate drawn by AutoCAD
9

Part 5

Part 5 consists of 7 plates, each of 9mm thick and 17900mm long welded together and
stiffened with 150x8x17750 S.S.B.F stiffeners and 9mm thick diaphragm plate which is
connected to the main diaphragm and forming the bottom deck section

Figure 3-8 Standard bottom flange plate drawn by AutoCAD

3.1.1.2 Main Diaphragm


Main diaphragm is made up of 6mm plate and stiffened with 2 types of stiffeners. In the
horizontal direction, 150x8 S.S.B.F stiffeners were provided and in the vertical direction, 75x6
flat stiffeners were used to achieve the required resistance. After all, the main diaphragms are
connected to the main deck diaphragm plates using 16mm black bolts.

Figure 3-9 Standard diaphragm drawn by AUTOCAD

10

3.1.2 Cables
The cables are built up from parallel wires, each 5mm in diameter. Initially, the main span
cables were designed to have 10414 wires (82 strands each having 127 wires) and both side
spans 11176 wires (88 strands each having 127 wires). However, during the tendering the
number of strands in the main cables was reduced to 19, each having 448 wires and an
additional 4 strands each of 192 wires, in the backstays. The final arrangement of cables for
main span and backstays became as shown in Figure 3-10 (Brown & Parsons, 1975)

Figure 3-10 Arrangement of uncompacted cables (Brown & Parsons, 1975)


After compaction the diameter of the main cables and the backstays became approximately
511mm and 528mm, respectively.

3.1.3 Hangers
The suspended deck structure is connected to the cables with the inclined hangers. Each
hanger is built up from single spiral galvanized wire strand with the approximate diameter of
52mm. The type of connections both with cables and suspended deck structure is pinned in
longitudinal direction. (Brown & Parsons, 1975)

11

3.1.4 Towers
The towers, being 165 m high, are made up from hollow steel
sections. Each tower has two columns which are connected by three
portal beams. Cross section dimensions and plate thicknesses
change over the height. Cross section dimension is 7000x5200 mm
at the bottom and 7000x3000mm at the top of the towers.
Table 3-1 tabulates the plate thicknesses for each plate (shown in
figure 3-12) along the height of the tower. To get an accurate
keypoint coordinates, the towers were drawn in three dimensions
using the AutoCAD software as shown in figure 3-11

Section

Height
(mm)

25000

19500

19500

19500

19500

19500

19500

18500

Plate A Plate
B
(mm)
(mm)
4677/
5570X22
4423.5X22
4423.5/
5570X22
4156X22
4156/
5570X22
3888.5X22
3888.5/
5570X22
3621.5X20
3621.5/
5570X22
3354X20
3354/
5570X22
3087X20
3087/
5570X22
2819.5X20
2819.5/
5570X22
2566X20

Plate C Plate E
(mm)
(mm)
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15
200X
800X22
100X15

Table 3-1 Tower structure plate thicknesses

Figure 3-12 Side plates labels


12

Figure 3-11 Towers


Drawn by AutoCAD

3.1.5 Bridge Profile


Bridge profile was derived in accordance with the design drawings. Deck shape was drawn
in a way that it forms a part of a circle in the vertical plane with the radius of 17900 m. All the
cable coordinates was calculated assuming it is catenary element under dead-load conditions.

Figure 3-13 Suspended deck structure and cable profile

Figure 3-14 Arrangement of cables and hangers

13

3.2 2-D FE Model


As already mentioned, because it is faster and easier to develop a 2-D FE model compared
to a sophisticated 3-D FE model, initially, two 2-D FE models of the bridge were produced using
ANSYS commercial software. First model restricts the vibration in the vertical plane, so that
allowed degrees of freedom are translations in longitudinal (UX) and vertical (UY) directions,
and rotation about Z-axis (ROTZ), whereas the second 2-D FE model allows vibration to take
place only in the horizontal plane, so that allowed degrees of freedom are translations in
longitudinal (UX) and lateral (UZ) directions, and rotation about Y-axis (ROTY). Otherwise,
modelling of the elements, which will be explained in detail in the sections below, is completely
similar for both 2-D FE models.

3.2.1 Deck Modelling


2-D suspended deck structure model was produced in ANSYS using BEAM 4, 3-D elastic
beam element. Keypoint coordinates were extracted from AutoCAD drawing, showing the
overall shape of the bridge, into EXCEL spreadsheet, to make them more accessible. Real
constants were assigned based on the provided axial area of steel, second moment of area for
vertical bending and second moment of area for lateral bending values which are 0.851 x 10 6
mm2, 1.238 x 1012 mm4 and 63.61 x 1012 mm4, respectively (The factors were attributed to
Dumanoglu (1985)). Materials were defined as linear isotropic with the Modulus of Elasticity of
205 x 103 MPa and Poissons ratio of 0.3. Based on the provided box deck structures mass,
10.84 tons/m, the equivalent density was calculated as 1.276 x 10-8 tons/mm3 (The factors were
attributed to Brown & Parsons (1975)). Finally, elements were meshed with the size of 500 mm
and two ends of the deck structure were restrained to move only in the longitudinal direction
(UX).

3.2.2 Cable Modelling


Cables were divided into different segments based on the hanger connection points and
taking the advantage of long geometry, were modeled as straight lines using LINK 10 element.
Key option 3 were activated as zero using KEYOPT command to define the cables as tension
only elements. Each cable element was labeled, using NUMSTR command, from 1001 to 1030
for west side and from 10001 to 10030 for east side, starting from the centerline of the main
14

span towards the towers. Backstay cables were labeled as 1031 and 10031 for Ortakoy and
Beylerbeyi side, respectively. Modulus of Elasticity, Poissons ratio and density were defined as
193 x 103 MPa, 0.3 and 7.8 x 10-9 tons/mm3, respectively. Area of main span and backstay
cables were defined as 2.05x105 and 2.19x105 mm2, respectively. Cables were meshed in a way
that each cable segment formed one element.
To calculate the initial strains for each cable element, horizontal component of tension
force was calculated using the H= WxL2/(8xd) formula as described below;
W=142.64

Total weight of the suspended structure calculated along the length (KN/m)

L=1074

Length of main span (m)

d=93

The sag in the cable (m)

H=221140

Total horizontal component of tension force for pairs of cables (KN)

Based on the calculated total horizontal component of tension force and angle of inclination
of each segment, initial strains were calculated as follows;
T=H/cos

Tension in each segment=Horizontal component of tension/ cosine of the angle

=T/A

Stress in the cross section= Tension force/ Area

=/E

Strain=Stress/Modulus of Elasticity

Table A-1 provided in Appendix A shows the list of strain values calculated for each cable
elements. For simplification, seven different strain values, from 0.002802 to 0.002955, were
used to define the initial strains in main span cable elements as shown in the below table
Line Number
Cable
West Side
East Side
Strain
From
To
From
To
Values
1001
1011
10001
10011
0.002802
1012
1015
10012
10015
0.002825
1016
1019
10016
10019
0.002847
1020
1023
10020
10023
0.002876
1024
1026
10024
10026
0.002906
1027
1028
10027
10028
0.002932
1029
1030
10029
10030
0.002955
Table 3-2 Strain values for main cables
The initial strain values for backstays will be calculated later during the static analysis which
will be explained in later sections.
Boundary conditions were defined as fixed at tower saddles and pinned in anchorages.
15

3.2.3 Hanger Modelling


Hangers were modeled as inclined lines using LINK 8 element. The keypoint coordinates
were already defined by cable and deck elements. Each hanger element was labeled, using
NUMSTR command, from 2001 to 2059 for west side and from 20001 to 20059 for east side,
starting from the centerline of the main span towards the towers. The Modulus of Elasticity,
Poissons ratio and density was assigned as 162x103 MPa, 0.3 and 7.8x10-9 t/mm3, respectively.
Area of each hanger was defined as 2.1x103 mm2. The vertical component of tension force in
each hanger was calculated by assuming that single hanger element carries it is own self-weight
and half weight of the deck structure between two adjacent hangers. Then the resultant
tension force was calculated based on the hanger inclination and initial strain values were
obtained as follows;
T=V/cos()

Resultant tension force=Vertical component of tension force/cosine of the angle

=T/A

Stress in section= Tension force/Area

=/E

Strain=Stress/Modulus of Elasticity

Table B-1 in Appendix B shows the strain values calculated for each hanger element. For
simplification, seven different strain values, from 0.001408 to 0.002810, were used to define
the initial strains in hanger elements as shown in the below table
Line Number
Hanger
West Side
East side
strain
From
To
From
To
Values
2001
2029
20001
20029
0.001540
2030
2031
20030
20031
0.001473
2032
2035
20032
20035
0.001450
2036
2041
20036
20041
0.001430
2042
2047
20042
20047
0.001417
2048
2058
20048
2058
0.001408
2059
20059
0.002810
Table 3-3 Strain values for hanger elements

16

3.2.4 Tower modelling


Towers were modeled with the same principals used in deck modelling. 3-D elastic beam
element (BEAM 4) was used to model the elements. The real constants were assigned based on
the provided axial area of steel, second moment of area for vertical bending and second
moment of area for lateral bending values which are 1.36 x 106 mm2, 9 x 1012 mm4 and 271 x
1012 mm4, respectively (The factors were attributed to Dumanoglu (1985)). The Modulus of
elasticity, Poissons ratio and equivalent density were assigned as 205 x 103 MPa, 0.3 and 1.07 x
1

-8
10ELEMENTS
t/mm3, respectively. Elements were meshed with 500 mm size and bottom of the towers

were defined as a fixed support.

3.2.5 Complete 2-D FE Model of the Bridge

AUG 23 2012
22:21:43

The complete 2-D FE model of the bridge was generated by combining the script files
written for each main part of the bridge and inserting them into ANSYS.
Y
Z

Figure 3-15 2-D FE model

3.2.6 2-D FE Model Analysis


To complete the model, backstay initial strain values are needed to be defined. They were
obtained by trial and error approach during the static analysis. The backstay initial strain values
were defined in a way that, deflection in the longitudinal direction at the top of the towers
3-D BOSBORUS
SUSPENSION
BRIDGEwere
FE MODEL
becomes
negligible.
Several values
tried and the initial strains for the backstays were

adopted as 3.068x10-3 and 3.003x10-3 for Ortakoy and Beylerbeyi sides, respectively. Finally,
each 2-D FE model was analyzed both for static and modal analysis. To verify the accuracy of
the properties defined within the script files, the results obtained from the modal analysis were
compared with the experimental data available from the past studies. The validation of 2-D FE
model later will be covered in detail under Model Validation chapter, however, for
illustration purposes; figure 3-16 and 3-17 sequentially compare the vertical and lateral mode
shapes and frequencies of the first five modes with the ambient vibration test results carried
out for the Bosporus Bridge by Brownjohn et al.(1989).
17

SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1394

AUG 23 2012
23:37:01

Static Analysis
Y
Z

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =1
FREQ=.123842
DMX =.011059

Maximum Displacement-1394 mm
AUG 23 2012
23:40:07

2-D FE model Restrained in the Vertical Plane


1
DISPLACEMENT

Vertical Modes

STEP=1
SUB =2
FREQ=.161966
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y
DMX =.016092

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =2
FREQ=.201773
DMX =.0134

3-D BOSBORUS
1

AUG 23 2012
23:40:41

V Mode 1: Theoretical frequency: 0.124 Hz


Experimental frequency: 0.129 Hz
Y
Z

AUG 23 2012
23:56:09

V Mode 2: Theoretical frequency: 0.162 Hz


Experimental frequency: 0.160 Hz
SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =3
FREQ=.228401
DMX =.012858

X
AUG 23 2012
23:40:59

V Mode 3: Theoretical frequency: 0.202 Hz


Experimental frequency: 0.182 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL


DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =4
FREQ=.281435
DMX =.011627

Y
Z

AUG 23 2012
23:41:14

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION


FE MODEL
V ModeBRIDGE
4: Theoretical

frequency: 0.228 Hz
Experimental frequency: 0.217 Hz
Y
Z

V Mode 5: Theoretical frequency: 0.281 Hz


frequency: 0.277 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE


FE MODEL
Experimental

Figure 3-16 Analysis Results from 2-D FE model restrained on the vertical plane
18
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =1
FREQ=.069158
DMX =.011647

AUG 24 2012
00:06:51

2-D FE model Restrained in the Horizontal Plane


1
DISPLACEMENT

Lateral Modes

STEP=1
SUB =2
FREQ=.19726
DMX =.012216

1
DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
00:07:11

L Mode 1: Theoretical frequency: 0.069 Hz


Experimental frequency: 0.070 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =3
FREQ=.316247
DMX =.023133

AUG 24 2012
00:07:22

L Mode 2: Theoretical frequency: 0.197 Hz


Experimental frequency: 0.209 Hz

13-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL


DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =4
FREQ=.319302
DMX =.023697

X
AUG 24 2012
00:07:34

L Mode 3: Theoretical frequency: 0.316 Hz


Experimental frequency: 0.284 Hz

DISPLACEMENT
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL
STEP=1
SUB =5
Y
FREQ=.407279
DMX =.015198
Z

3-D BOSBORUS

AUG 24 2012
00:07:46

L Mode 4: Theoretical frequency: 0.319 Hz


Experimental
frequency: 0.294 Hz
SUSPENSION BRIDGE
FE MODEL
Y

L Mode 5: Theoretical frequency: 0.407 Hz


frequency: 0.365 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE


FE MODEL
Experimental

Figure 3-17 Analysis Results from 2-D FE model restrained on the horizontal plane

Comparison of the results obtained from the 2-D FE models and the experimental data
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

assures that the input data used to produce the 2-D FE models represents the real behavior of
the bridge. Therefore, similar properties were used to develop a sophisticated 3-D FE model for
the Bosporus Bridge as described in detail in the below sections.

19

3.3 3-D FE Model


Representation of cables and hangers by finite elements in 3-D FE model is same as the 2-D
FE model that is by LINK 10 and LINK 8 elements, respectively, except that the full six degrees
of freedom are allowed at each node. Therefore, in this chapter steps to model the hangers
and the cables will not be covered. The major difference in 3-D FE modelling is that the
suspended box deck structure and the towers are now modeled by SHELL 63 elements, having
six degrees of freedom at each node instead of the BEAM 4 elements used in 2-D FE models.
Since the computer process capacity is limited, modelling the towers and the suspended deck
structure with all the details is an impossible job. Therefore, necessary actions should be taken
to reduce the degrees of freedom for the towers and the suspended deck structure. To
overcome this issue, equivalent super elements are now introduced and will be discussed in
the below sections.

3.3.1 Equivalent Super Element for Suspended Deck Structure


To develop a sophisticated 3-D FE model with the less degree of freedom the equivalent
deck structure was designed. To achieve more realistic 3-D FE model of the bridge, the
equivalent deck element should be designed in a way that it represents the actual properties of
the original deck structure. To do so, the real behavior of the deck structure is needed.
Therefore, a box deck section of 17.9m long was modeled in ANSYS to understand the real
behavior of the original deck structure.

3.3.1.1 Modelling of the Original Box Deck Section


To develop a model in ANSYS keypoint coordinates were exported from already drawn
AutoCAD drawing into Excel spreadsheets to make them more accessible. The box deck section
was divided into 6 main areas and the keypoint locations were defined as shown in Figure 3-18
(Next page). Each area was modeled separately within the different script files and later
combined together to generate the whole model of the original deck section.

20

Figure 3-18 Original deck section keypoint locations


Taking the advantage of the symmetric section, keypoints are labeled in a way that only
loop command (*DO) were used to define the areas for the model, which made the modelling
process faster and simpler. The model was developed in accordance with the design drawings
only with the minor differences. S.S.B.F type stiffeners were modeled with the exact
dimensions but as flat stiffeners. In the design drawing gap was provided between V-shaped
stiffeners and a diaphragm plate to avoid stress concentration in the weld connection which
was excluded in the model. Additionally, at the end of the deck section extra diaphragm was
provided to prevent local buckling and provide smooth stress distribution. Except that, the
model includes all the necessary details from the design drawings, including the horizontal and
the vertical stiffeners for the main diaphragms. All the areas were modeled with SHELL 63
1
element and meshed
with the size of 500mm. The materials are defined as linear isotropic with
AREAS
TYPE NUM

the Modulus of Elasticity of 205 GPA and Poissons ratio of 0.3. Density for all elements is
defined as zero to exclude the self-weight of the structure.

AUG 24 2012
13:02:59

Y
Z

3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

Figure 3-19 Model of the original deck Section

21

1
AREAS
TYPE NUM
AUG 24 2012
13:05:21

Y
Z

3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

Figure 3-20 Diaphragms


To calculate the properties of the box deck section all the nodes at 17900mm in Z direction
were fixed and force was applied at the other end of a section as shown in the figure 3-21.
Point loads were applied at two keypoints coinciding with hanger connection. Each point load
was assigned as 1000KN and the direction was depending on the type of the required
displacement.

Figure 3-21 Complete meshed section (mesh size 500mm)

22

Vertical Displacement

For the vertical displacement, the point load of 2000KN was applied in the negative
Y-direction and the maximum vertical displacement was obtained as 48.4mm from the analysis.
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =49.292
SMN =-49.266
SMX =.757818

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =49.292
SMN =-49.266
SMX =.757818

AUG 24 2012
13:20:31

Y
Z

MX

AUG 24 2012
13:21:22

Y
Z

MN

MX

MN

-49.266
-38.15
-27.033
-15.917
-4.8
-43.708
-32.591
-21.475
-10.359
3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

-49.266
-38.15
-27.033
-15.917
-4.8
-43.708
-32.591
-21.475
-10.359
3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

.757818

.757818

Figure 3-22 Deformed shape of the original deck section due vertical bending
Based on the obtained displacement the second moment of area for vertical bending (Ixx)
was calculated as follows;

Lateral Displacement

For lateral displacement 2000KN load was applied in the negative X-direction and the
maximum lateral displacement was obtained as 1.1mm from the analysis.
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =1.329
SMN =-1.131
SMX =.121954

AUG 24 2012
14:02:17

Y
MX

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =1.329
SMN =-1.131
SMX =.121954

AUG 24 2012
14:04:47

Y
MX

MN

MN

-1.131

-.991962

-.852722

-.713483

-.574243

-.435004

-.295764

-.156525

-.017285

.121954

-1.131

-.991962

-.852722

-.713483

-.574243

-.435004

-.295764

-.156525

3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

Figure 3-23 Deformed shape of the original deck section due lateral bending

23

-.017285

.121954

Based on the obtained displacement the second moment of area for lateral bending (Iyy)
was calculated as follows;

Torsional Deformation

For torsional deformation, coupled load each 1000KN was applied in the positive and
negative Y-direction and the deflection at the point load location was obtained as +/-23.1 mm.
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =27.476
SMN =-27.474
SMX =27.474

AUG 24 2012
14:23:05

Y
Z

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =27.476
SMN =-27.474
SMX =27.474

AUG 24 2012
14:39:44

X
Y
Z

MN

MX

MN

MX

-27.474
-15.263
-3.053
-21.369
-9.158
3.053
3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

9.158

15.263

21.369

27.474

-27.474
-15.263
-3.053
-21.369
-9.158
3.053
3-D ORIGINAL BOX DECK SECTION MODEL

9.158

15.263

Figure 3-24 Deformed shape of the original deck section due to torsion
Based on the obtained displacement, torsional constant (J) was calculated as follows;

24

21.369

27.474

3.3.1.2 Equivalent Plate Element


The equivalent plate element was modeled in ANSYS to fit with the original deck section
properties. The problems were encountered while matching the relatively similar properties in
original deck section for the equivalent plate, which will be covered in detail later in this
section. As a starting point in producing the equivalent plate, the width (b) of the plate was
taken as 28 m, the distance between the hanger points, and the length equal to the original
deck section length as 17.9 m. Areas were defined with 4 keypoints and SHELL 63 element was
assigned with the six degrees of freedom at each node. Plate was meshed with the size of
15 000mm which divided the plate area into four rectangular elements. The same principals,
used in the original deck section analysis, were applied for the equivalent plate. 1000KN point
loads were assigned at one end of a section, at two keypoints which are 28m apart and thick
diaphragm plate was attached to provide the uniform stress distribution. Nodes at the other
end of a section were fixed to behave as a cantilever. Initially, the material properties were
defined as linear isotropic with the Modulus of Elasticity of (Ex) 205GPa and Poissons ratio ()
of 0.3.
1
A-E-L-K-N
U
ROT
F

AUG 24 2012
15:35:12

Y
Z

Figure 3-25 Equivalent Plate


EQUIVALENT PLATE

25

To make the model ready for the analysis, thickness of the plate had to be defined, which
was the challenging part. To get an idea about the approximate thicknesses that would satisfy
each property of the original deck section (Ixx, Iyy, J), the equivalent thicknesses for each
property were estimated by following observations.
For bending about X-axis, the corresponding Ixx value for the equivalent plate is b*hb3/12
where the hb is the equivalent thickness for the bending about X-axis and was calculated as 548
mm. The equivalent plate was analyzed with the same thickness for bending about X-axis and
the displacement was obtained as 48.5 mm, which is same with the displacement obtained for
the original deck section. Referring now to second moment of area for the lateral bending (I yy)
the corresponding quantity for equivalent plate is hL *b3/12 where the hL is the equivalent
thickness for the bending about Y-axis and was calculated as 9.3mm. The equivalent plate was
analyzed with the thickness of 9mm and the displacement was obtained as 2.7mm, which is
very close to 1.1mm obtained for the original box section. Looking now to the last property
obtained for the original deck section, which is the torsional constant (J), the standard
expression of the torsional constant for solid rectangular sections is equal to

)) . For a thin rectangular solid section the

expression simplifies to b*ht3/3, where the ht is the equivalent thickness for torsion and
calculated as 744mm. The equivalent plate was again analyzed with the thickness calculated
for torsion and the displacement was obtained as 11.7 mm, which was still close to the value
obtained for the original deck section. Above observation shows that the equivalent
thicknesses corresponding to each property vary significantly and it is impossible to satisfy all
three properties together. Later, to extend the observation further, the equivalent plate was
modeled with the linear orthotropic material properties and different cases were tried. A trial
and error approach was used where the Modulus of Elasticity in Y-axis (Ey), In-plane Shear
Modulus (Gxy) and the thickness of the section (h) were changed. To match the properties of
the equivalent plate with the original deck section, displacement was taken as the common
property. Several analyses were carried out and the displacement values obtained from the
analysis were compared with the original deck section displacements as shown in Table 3-4.
The second row from the bottom, highlighted, has the closest displacement values, however,
not all the properties are satisfied as accurate as required. Displacement due to torsion varies
by 29 mm (~230%) from the displacement obtained for the original box deck section.
26

Figure 3-26 shows the deformed shape of equivalent plate under different loading
combinations.
EY
(GPa)
205
205
205
205
205
205
205
50

Vertical
Lateral displacement Torsional
H
displacement (mm)
(mm)
displacement (mm)
(mm)
required obtained required obtained required obtained
1.3
530
48.4
57.49
1.1
1.87
23.1
59.09
1.4
530
48.4
57.48
1.1
1.73
23.1
59
1
530
48.4
57.524
1.1
2.42
23.1
59.337
1
600
48.4
40
1.1
2.21
23.1
45.73
2
600
48.4
39.96
1.1
1.14
23.1
45.02
2
550
48.4
51.53
1.1
1.25
23.1
54.12
2
560
48.4
48.9
1.1
1.22
23.1
52.11
2
560
48.4
195.65
1.1
1.29
23.1
127.76
Table 3-4 Equivalent plate displacements obtained for different arrangements
GXY
(GPa)

1
NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =48.896
SMN =-48.89

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
MX
RSYS=0
DMX =1.432
SMN =-1.223

AUG 24 2012
16:46:19

AUG 24 2012
16:47:26

Y
Z

X
MX

MN

MN

-1.223

-48.89
-38.025
-27.161
-16.297
-5.432
-43.457
-32.593
-21.729
-10.864
0
EQUIVALENT PLATE
1

-1.087

-.951256

-.815362

-.679468

-.543575

-.407681

-.271787

-.135894

EQUIVALENT PLATE

NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =52.115
SMN =-52.107
SMX =52.107

AUG 24 2012
16:48:43

MX

Y
Z

MN

-52.107
-28.948
-5.79
-40.528
-17.369
EQUIVALENT PLATE

5.79

17.369

28.948

40.528

52.107

Figure 3-26 Deformed shape of equivalent plate under different loading conditions
Above discussed observations show that it is not possible to design an equivalent plate
element in ANSYS with all the required properties. To achieve more accurate properties an
equivalent box deck element is now introduced which will be covered in detail in the next
section.
27

3.3.1.3 Equivalent Box Deck Element


To get more accurate equivalent super element for the suspended deck structure, the
rectangular equivalent box deck section was designed using ANSYS. The same principles that
were used to model the original box deck section were applied for the equivalent box section.
The width of the equivalent box section was defined as 28m and the length equal to the
original box deck section length, 17.9m. To understand the contribution of diaphragms to
section resistances (except from preventing local buckling), two different cases are modeled. In
the first case, diaphragms are placed 4475mm apart similar with the original deck section and
in the second case, spacing of diaphragms was reduced to half as 2237.5mm. The thickness for
the inner diaphragms was assigned as 20mm and the outer diaphragm, which was placed at the
end of a section to provide a smooth stress distribution, was modeled with the thicker
dimension. The areas were defined with 4 keypoints and SHELL 63 element was assigned with
the six degrees of freedom at each node. Same boundary conditions and loading scenarios that
were used for the equivalent plate were defined for the equivalent box deck section. Areas
were meshed with the size of 5567 mm and the material properties were defined as linear
isotropic with the Modulus of elasticity (Ex) of 205GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.3. Again, to
match the section properties, displacement was taken as a common property. Trial and error
approach was used to match the properties of the equivalent box section with the original box
deck section, where the thickness of the bottom and top plates (t1), the thickness of the side
plates (t2) and the height of the section (H) were changed. Table 3-4 shows the results obtained
for different arrangements where the last row, highlighted, had the closest displacement
values. Based on the analysis results, the equivalent box deck section was designed 2m deep
with 13 mm and 12 mm thick plates for the upper and bottom plates, and side plates,
respectively.

28

Vertical
Lateral
Torsional
Displacement
Displacement
Displacement (mm)
(mm)
(mm)
requir- obtain requir- obtainrequirObtained
-ed
ed
ed
ed
ed
16
6
2250
48.3
48.53
1.1
1.04
23.3
20.06
16
6
2000
48.3
59.08
1.1
1.05
23.3
24.4
15
8
2000
48.3
56.46
1.1
1.08
23.3
23.5
14
10
2000
48.3
55.97
1.1
1.13
23.3
23.48
14
12
2000
48.3
53.77
1.1
1.118
23.3
22.62
16
12
2000
48.3
48.91
1.1
1
23.3
20.4
15
12
2000
48.3
51.2
1.1
1.05
23.3
21.44
Table 3-5 Equivalent box deck element displacements obtained for different arrangements

top/bottom
plates
thickness
(mm) t1

Side
plates
thickness
(mm) t2

Section
Height
(mm) H

1st Case: 4475mm Diaphragm Spacing

Vertical Displacement
Vertical displacement was obtained as -51.2mm
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =55.515
SMN =-55.506

Y
MX

AUG 24 2012
17:53:17

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =55.515
SMN =-55.506

AUG 24 2012
17:53:49

Y
Z

X
MX

MN

MN

-55.506
-43.172
-30.837
-18.502
-6.167
-49.339
-37.004
-24.67
-12.335
0
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

-55.506
-43.172
-30.837
-18.502
-6.167
-49.339
-37.004
-24.67
-12.335
0
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

Figure 3-27 Deformed shape of the equivalent box deck due to vertical bending ( 1st Case)
Lateral displacement
Lateral displacement was obtained as -1.05 mm
1

1
NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =1.872
SMN =-1.054

AUG 24 2012
17:55:46

Y
Z

MX

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
MX X
Y
RSYS=0
DMX =1.872
Z
SMN =-1.054

AUG 24 2012
17:56:08

MN

MN

-1.054

-.937085

-.819949

-.702814

-.585678

-.468542

-.351407

-.234271

-.117136

-1.054

EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

-.937085

EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

-.819949

-.702814

-.585678

-.468542

-.351407

st

-.234271

-.117136

Figure 3-28 Deformed shape of the equivalent box deck due to lateral bending ( 1 Case)
29

Torsion
The displacement due to torsion was obtained as +/- 21.4 mm
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =21.519
SMN =-21.443
SMX =21.443

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =21.519
SMN =-21.443
SMX =21.443

AUG 24 2012
17:58:08

Y
X

AUG 24 2012
17:58:40

MX
MX

Y
Z

MN

MN

-21.443
-11.913
-2.383
-16.678
-7.148
2.383
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

7.148

11.913

16.678

-21.443
-11.913
-2.383
-16.678
-7.148
2.383
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

21.443

7.148

11.913

16.678

21.443

st

Figure 3-29 Deformed shape of the equivalent box deck due to torsion (1 Case)

2nd Case: Diaphragms with 2237.5mm spacing

To understand the contribution of diaphragms to section resistances except from


preventing local buckling, the same equivalent box deck section was analyzed with the reduced
diaphragm spacing. The results showed that the diaphragms do not have any extra contribution
to section resistances. They are only designed to prevent local buckling and provide uniform
stress distribution.
Vertical Displacement
Vertical displacement was obtained as -51.3 mm
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =55.487
SMN =-55.478

Y
MX

AUG 24 2012
18:19:24

SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =55.487
SMN =-55.478

AUG 24 2012
18:20:02

Y
Z

MN

MN

-55.478
-43.15
-30.821
-18.493
-6.164
-49.314
-36.985
-24.657
-12.328
0
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

-55.478
-43.15
-30.821
-18.493
-6.164
-49.314
-36.985
-24.657
-12.328
0
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

Figure 3-30 Deformed shape of the equivalent box deck due to vertical bending (2nd Case)

30

X
MX

Lateral Displacement
Lateral Displacement was obtained as -1.06 mm
1

NODAL SOLUTION

NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =1.871
SMN =-1.055

Y
MX

AUG 24 2012
18:24:55

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UX
(AVG)
MX X
Y
RSYS=0
DMX =1.871
Z
SMN =-1.055

AUG 24 2012
18:25:13

MN

MN

-1.055

-.938005

-.820755

-.703504

-.586253

-.469003

-.351752

-.234501

-.117251

-1.055

-.938005

-.820755

-.703504

-.586253

-.469003

-.351752

-.234501

-.117251

EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

Figure 3-31 Deformed shape of equivalent box deck due to lateral bending (2nd Case)
Torsional Displacement
Displacement due to torsion was obtained as -/+21.4 mm
1

NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =21.482
SMN =-21.406
SMX =21.406

NODAL SOLUTION

AUG 24 2012
18:26:32

Y
Z

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
UY
(AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =21.482
SMN =-21.406
SMX =21.406

AUG 24 2012
18:26:45

MX

MX

Y
Z

MN

MN

-21.406
-11.892
-2.378
-16.649
-7.135
2.378
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

7.135

11.892

16.649

21.406

-21.406
-11.892
-2.378
-16.649
-7.135
2.378
EQUIVALENT BOX DECK

7.135

11.892

16.649

21.406

Figure 3-32 Deformed shape of the equivalent box deck due to torsion (2nd Case)

3.3.1.4 Complete 3-D FE Model of the Suspended Deck Structure


The suspended deck structure was modeled using the equivalent box deck sections. The
keypoint coordinates were extracted from 3-D AutoCAD drawing into EXCEL, to make them
more accessible. The areas were defined with four or six keypoints and SHELL 63 element was
assigned with six degrees of freedom at each node and meshed with the size of 5567mm. The
similar material properties and dimensions which were used for equivalent box section were
assigned for the suspended deck structure elements. Diaphragms are located with variable
spacing up to 4475mm apart and modeled as weightless elements. The weight of the
suspended structure was assigned by defining the equivalent density for upper, bottom and
31

side plates. The weight per meter of the original box deck section was provided as 10.84
tons/m. Based on this, the equivalent density was calculated as 1.226E-8 tons/mm3.

Boundary Conditions

The suspend deck structure connects to the towers by the rocker bearings which have a
great impact on bridge mode shapes and frequencies. Therefore, two A-frame rocker bearings
were modeled at each end of the suspended deck structure using BEAM 4 element. Geometric
quantities of a single frame element were calculated in accordance with the design drawings
and obtained as following
Area= 16x104 mm2
Izz= 60.4 x 106 mm4
Iyy=42.35 x 106 mm4
At the end of each BEAM 4 element COMBIN 7 revolution joint element was assigned to
work as pin connection in the longitudinal direction.

3.3.2 Equivalent Super Element for Towers


Another challenging task encountered during the 3-D FE modelling was producing an
accurate model for the towers. As already been mentioned, modelling the towers with all the
details, in terms of computer processing capacity, would be an impossible job to analyze.
Therefore, the equivalent structure for the towers had to be designed with the less degrees of
freedom. The same approach used in developing the equivalent super element for the
suspended deck structure is a convenient approach, however, it requires the in detail modelling
of at least one tower structure which is obviously too complicated and time consuming.
Therefore, a new approach was introduced at this point and explained step by step as
described below.
The towers were modeled as hollow sections. Keypoint coordinates were extracted from
3-D AUTOCAD drawing into EXCEL spreadsheet to make them more accessible. Same crosssectional dimensions that were used in the design drawings were adopted for the tower model.
The areas were defined with four or six keypoints and SHELL 63 element was assigned with the
six degrees of freedom at each node. Materials were modeled as linear isotropic with the
Modulus of Elasticity of 205 GPa and Poissons ratio of 0.3. The diaphragms were modeled with
32

the thickness of 60mm as weightless elements. The weight of the towers was assigned by
defining the equivalent density for main plates, which was calculated as 1x10-8 tons/mm3. In
the original design drawings opening was provided on the diaphragm plates for the elevator
shaft which was excluded in the model. Besides that, to reduce the degrees of freedom, towers
were modeled without any stiffeners. Instead, equivalent thickness was adopted for the main
plates by trial and error approach during the static analysis. Several different thicknesses were
tried in a way that, using the similar cable strain values that were defined during the 2-D FE
modelling, longitudinal deflection at the top of the towers becomes negligible. 30 mm
thickness end up with 0 mm deflection at the top of the towers in the longitudinal direction
hence was taken as the equivalent thickness for the tower model.

3.3.3
Complete 3-D FE Model of the Bridge
ELEMENTS

The complete 3-D FE model of the bridge was produced by combining the script
the
AUGfiles
24 for
2012
20:36:54

different parts and importing them into ANSYS

Y
X Z

Figure 3-33 Complete 3-D FE model of the Bridge

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

33

3.3.4 3-D FE Model Analysis


To understand the factors affecting the bridge behavior, a sophisticated 3-D FE model was
analyzed under different cases both for static and modal analysis and discussed in detail in the
next sections. The cases that were analyzed are as follows;
Bridge model with;

Case 1: Different cable strains,

Case2: Different mass,

Case 3: Different boundary conditions.

3.3.4.1 Bridge Model with Different Cable Strains


As already mentioned in the previous chapters, each cable and hanger elements have their own
strain values. However, to simplify the model 7 strain values were defined both for the cable
and the hanger elements within the script file. To verify this simplification, the model was
analyzed both with correct strains and with 7 different strain values. Besides that, to
understand the influence of the initial strains on the bridge behavior, strain values were
modified slightly that would provide less static deflection. To summarize, the bridge model was
analyzed both for static and modal analysis for three different cases which are as follows;
1. Correct strain values for each cable and hanger elements
2. Seven different values for both cable and hanger elements
3. Modified strains for case 2 that would provide less static deflection
Tables from 3-6 to 3-8 shows the natural frequencies and the mode shapes for vertical, lateral
and torsional modes of each case. Looking at case 1 and case 2, results show that the
difference between the relevant mode frequencies is negligible for all modes, thus using 7
different strain values for the cable and the hanger elements is a reliable simplification.
Referring now to case 3, the least static deflection that was possible to achieve is 1129 mm
which is very close to the previously achieved static deflection (1395mm- Case 2). Therefore,
there was no significant change in the natural frequencies which ensures that the initial strain
values already calculated and defined within the script files are close to reality.

34

1
DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1390

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1390

1st Case (Correct strains)

AUG 24 2012
22:30:10

DISPLACEMENT

2nd Case (7 different strains)

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1390

AUG 24 2012
22:30:10

AUG 24 2012
22:30:10

3rd Case (modified strains for case 2)

Static Analysis
1

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
DMX =.011077

Max. Static deflection: 1390 mm

STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
DMX =.011077

AUG 24 2012
22:38:31

Max. Static Deflection: 1395 mm

STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
DMX =.011077

AUG 24 2012
22:38:31

STEP=1
SUB =55
Y
FREQ=.162507
DMX BOSBORUS
=.016083 SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z
3-D

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 1: 0.125 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
DMX =.012855

V Mode 1: 0.125 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:45:45

V Mode 2: 0.163 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:45:45

Y
Z

AUG 24 2012
22:47:19

V Mode 3: 0.227 Hz

Y
Z

AUG 24 2012
22:47:19

AUG 24 2012
22:53:12

V Mode 4: 0.280 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 3: 0.227 Hz

Y
Z

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 4:0.281 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:53:12

STEP=1
SUB =64
FREQ=.366322
DMX =.012142

Y
Z

V Mode 4: 0.281 Hz
Y

Y
Z

V Mode 5: 0.366 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

35

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 5: 0.366 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Table 3-6 Comparison of vertical mode shapes and frequencies between case 1,2 and 3

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:47:19

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =64
FREQ=.366322
DMX =.012142

V Mode 5: 0.366 Hz

Y
Z

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
DMX =.011683

V Mode 3: 0.227Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:45:45

V Mode 2: 0.163 Hz

1
DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
DMX =.011683

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =64
FREQ=.366322
DMX =.012142

STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
DMX =.012855

1
STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
DMX =.011683

AUG 24 2012
22:41:48

V Mode 1: 0.125 Hz

V Mode 2: 0.163 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

1
STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
DMX =.012855

AUG 24 2012
22:38:31

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

Max. Static Deflection: 1129 mm

STEP=1
SUB =55
FREQ=.162507
DMX =.016083

AUG 24 2012
22:41:48

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =55
FREQ=.162507
DMX =.016083

AUG 24 2012
22:41:48

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

Y
DISPLACEMENT

Modal Analysis- Vertical Modes

Y
DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:53:12

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =51
AUG 24 2012FREQ=.070056
22:35:31DMX =.011447

AUG 24 2012FREQ=.070056
22:35:31DMX =.011447

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =51
FREQ=.070056
DMX =.011447

st

nd

1 Case

2 Case (7 different strains for both cables

(Correct strains for both cables and hangers)


1

DISPLACEMENT

Modal Analysis- Lateral Modes

AUG 24 2012
22:43:53

L Mode 1: 0.070 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =60
FREQ=.299889
DMX =.021873

1
DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:43:53

L Mode 1: 0.070 Hz
Y

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
DMX =.011732

STEP=1
SUB =60
FREQ=.299889
DMX =.021873

AUG 24 2012
22:49:43

1
DISPLACEMENT

L Mode 1: 0.070 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:49:43

L Mode 2: 0.203 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:51:17

L Mode 3: 0.300 Hz

L Mode 2: 0.203 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =61
FREQ=.306299
DMX =.021837

AUG 24 2012
22:51:17

L Mode 3: 0.300 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL


1

AUG 24 2012
22:53:31

AUG 24 2012
22:51:17

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =65
FREQ=.397849
DMX =.014833

AUG 24 2012
22:53:31

STEP=1
SUB =65
FREQ=.397849
DMX =.014833

Z
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL


1

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =65
FREQ=.397849
DMX =.014833

STEP=1
SUB =61
FREQ=.306299
DMX =.021837

L Mode 3: 0.300 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL


1

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

L Mode 4: 0.306 Hz

L Mode 4: 0.306 Hz

L Mode 4: 0.307 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

L Mode 5: 0.398 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

L Mode 5: 0.399 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Table 3-7 Comparison of lateral mode shapes and frequencies between case 1,2 and 3
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

36

L Mode 5: 0.398 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:49:43

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =61
FREQ=.306299
DMX =.021837

AUG 24 2012
22:43:53

STEP=1
SUB =60
FREQ=.299889
DMX =.021873

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

L Mode 2: 0.203 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:35:31

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
DMX =.011732

3rd Case
(modified strains for case 2)

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
DMX =.011732

and hangers)
1

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =51

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:53:31

1
STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
DMX =.01679

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
DMX =.01679

st

1 Case

2 Case (7 different strains for both cables

AUG 24 2012
22:53:01

(Correct strains for both cables and hangers)


1

1
DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:54:54

T Mode 1: 0.326 Hz

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =73
FREQ=.484078
DMX =.015859

AUG 24 2012
22:54:54

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =85
FREQ=.632018
DMX =.016728

AUG 24 2012
22:55:27

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:55:27

Y
Z

STEP=1
SUB =106
FREQ=.841913
DMX =.015836

AUG 24 2012
22:56:05

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:56:05

Y
Z

AUG 24 2012
22:56:52

T Mode 4: 0.842 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 4: 0.842 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:56:52

STEP=1
SUB =127
FREQ=1.042
DMX =.012037

AUG 24 2012
22:56:05

Y
Z

T Mode 4: 0.842 Hz

Y
Z

Y
X

T Mode 5:1.043 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

37

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 5: 1.043 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Table 3-8 Comparison of Torsional mode shapes and frequencies between case 1,2 and 3

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 3: 0.630 Hz

T Mode 5: 1.042 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =127
FREQ=1.042
DMX =.012037

Y
Z

1
DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:55:27

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

1
STEP=1
SUB =127
FREQ=1.042
DMX =.012037

STEP=1
SUB =106
FREQ=.841913
DMX =.015836

T Mode 3: 0.631 Hz

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 3: 0.632 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =106
FREQ=.841913
DMX =.015836

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:54:54

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =85
FREQ=.632018
DMX =.016728

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =85
FREQ=.632018
DMX =.016728

1
DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:53:01

Y
Z

3rd Case
(modified strains for case 2)

Modal Analysis- Torsional Modes

STEP=1
SUB =73
FREQ=.484078
DMX =.015859

Y
Z

AUG 24 2012
22:53:01

and hangers)

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =73
FREQ=.484078
DMX =.015859

STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
DMX =.01679

nd

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:56:52

3.3.4.2 Bridge Model with Additional Mass


Suspension bridges are the important structures with long term service life. To maintain the
integrity of the bridge, careful inspection and proper maintenance is compulsory. Sometimes,
during the maintenance works such as a road restoration, an extra weight might be added to
the dead load of the structure. To understand the importance of the change in bridge mass, in
terms of the bridge dynamic behavior, the model was analyzed in two cases. In the first case,
bridge mass was defined in accordance with the design stage whereas in the second case,
1tons/m extra distributed mass was added to the dead weight of the structure, by defining a
new equivalent density for the deck structure which was calculated as 1.3946x10-8 ton/mm3.
Each case was analyzed both for static and modal analysis and the results are tabulated in
tables 3-9 to 3-11.
The analyses results show that the vertical modes are the least affected mode due to the
extra mass added to the dead weight of the structure. No significant variations were observed
except slight change in the mode frequencies by up to 3% difference. Looking now to lateral
modes, slight variations (up to 5%) were observed here as well. However, the major difference
is, the model with the extra mass experiences the 3rd lateral mode (frequency: 0.309 Hz) with
both lateral and torsional deformation as shown in table 3-10.
Similar to vertical and lateral modes, the torsional mode also displayed a slight change in
mode frequencies. However, the main difference is that single noded asymmetric mode shape
appears at two slightly different mode frequencies (0.467 Hz and 0.472 Hz) in case 2 (model
with the different mass) whereas only one single noded asymmetric torsional mode shape was
observed in case 1. Overall, comparison of the modal analysis for case 1 and 2 shows that the
bridge behavior is sensitive to changes in bridge mass and any modifications that could change
the dead weight of the structure should be taken into account.

38

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1390

1st Case

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1821

AUG 24 2012
22:30:10

2nd Case (Different Mass)

AUG 25 2012
02:42:47

Static Analysis
Y

Y
Z

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
DMX =.011077

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
DMX =.011077

AUG 24 2012
22:38:31

Maximum Displacement: 1395 mm


Maximum Displacement: 1821 mm
Modal Analysis Vertical Mode
Y

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =55
FREQ=.162507
DMX =.016083

Y
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
DMX =.012855

Y
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.012855
22:45:45

V Mode 2: 0.163 Hz
Y
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL
DISPLACEMENT

V Mode 2: 0.158 Hz
Y
DISPLACEMENT
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL
STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.011683
22:47:19

V Mode 3: 0.227 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =64
FREQ=.366322
DMX =.012142

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =64
FREQ=.366322
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.012142
22:53:12

V Mode 4: 0.281 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

X
AUG 24 2012
22:53:12

V Mode 4: 0.277 Hz
Y

Y
Z

V Mode 3: 0.221 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:47:19

Y
DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

X
AUG 24 2012
22:45:45

1
X

STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
DMX =.011683

AUG 24 2012
22:41:48

V Mode 1: 0.124 Hz
1

STEP=1
SUB =55
FREQ=.162507
DMX =.016083

V Mode 1: 0.125 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:41:48

AUG 24 2012
22:38:31

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 5: 0.366 Hz
V Mode 5: 0.359 Hz
Table 3-9 Comparison of vertical mode shapes and frequencies between case 1 and 2
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

39

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =51
FREQ=.070056
DMX =.011447

st

1 Case

STEP=1
SUB =51
AUG 24 FREQ=.070056
2012
DMX =.011447
22:35:31

2nd Case (Different Mass)


Modal Analysis Lateral Mode

AUG 24 2012
22:35:31

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

L Mode 1: 0.070 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
DMX =.011732

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.011732
22:43:53

L Mode 1: 0.068 Hz
AUG 24 2012
22:43:53

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

1
DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =60
FREQ=.299889
DMX =.021873

STEP=1
SUB =60
FREQ=.299889
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.021873
22:49:43

X
AUG 24 2012
22:49:43

1
1

DISPLACEMENT
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =60
FREQ=.299916
DMX =.021898

STEP=1
SUB =59
FREQ=.308993
DMX =.016991

L Mode 2: 0.203 Hz
Y

AUG 25 2012
19:54:10

L Mode 2: 0.194 Hz
Y

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

AUG 25 2012
15:05:42

L Mode 3: 0.300 Hz (Fig. above is in horizontal1 3-D LBOSBORUS


Mode
3: 0.309
(Fig. above is in horizontal
SUSPENSION
BRIDGE Hz
FE MODEL
below is in vertical plane)
below is in vertical plane)

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =61
FREQ=.306299
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.021837
22:51:17

STEP=1
SUB =61
FREQ=.306299
DMX =.021837

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

AUG 24 2012
22:51:17

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =65
FREQ=.397849
DMX =.014833

L Mode 4: 0.306 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =65
FREQ=.397849
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.014833
22:53:31

L Mode 4: 0.318 Hz
AUG 24 2012
22:53:31

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

L Mode 5: 0.398 Hz
L Mode 5: 0.389 Hz
Table 3-10 Comparison of lateral mode shapes and frequencies between case 1 and 2
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

40

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
DMX =.01679

1st Case

DISPLACEMENT

2nd Case (Different Mass)


Modal Analysis Torsional Mode
STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.01679
22:53:01

Y
Z

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:53:01

STEP=1
SUB =70
FREQ=.466901
DMX =.016802

X
AUG 25 2012
15:15:25

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =73
FREQ=.484078
DMX =.015859

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

1
DISPLACEMENT
AUG 24 2012
STEP=1
22:54:54
SUB =73
FREQ=.484078
DMX =.015859

T Mode 1: 0.321 Hz
Y
Z

AUG 24 2012
22:54:54

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 2: 0.467 Hz
Y
Z

Y
Z

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =85
FREQ=.632018
DMX =.016728

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz

STEP=1
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL
SUB =85
FREQ=.632018
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.016728
22:55:27

T Mode 3: 0.472 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:55:27

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =106
FREQ=.841913
DMX =.015836

T Mode 3: 0.631 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =106
FREQ=.841913
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.015836
22:56:05

T Mode 4: 0.615 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:56:05

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =127
FREQ=1.042
DMX =.012037

T Mode 4: 0.842 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =127
FREQ=1.042
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.012037
22:56:52

T Mode 5: 0.815 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:56:52

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

T Mode 5: 1.043 Hz
T Mode 6: 1.015Hz
Table 3-11 Comparison of torsional mode shapes and frequencies between case 1 and 2
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

41

3.3.4.3 Bridge Model with Different Boundary Conditions


A-frame rocker bearings were designed to allow the movement only in the longitudinal
direction but resist the lateral and the vertical translations. However, throughout the bridge
service life there was a significant increase in traffic load in Istanbul, for which the bridge was
not designed. This issue raises a concern that the rocker bearings at the end of the suspended
deck structure might be jammed in due to overloading. To understand the impact of the
different boundary conditions in terms of the bridge behavior, different cases were analyzed
which are as follows;
Case 1: All the rockers free to move in longitudinal direction
Case 2: Both rockers are restricted to move in the longitudinal direction at ORTAKOY side
Case 3: One of the rockers is restricted to move in the longitudinal direction at ORTAKOY side
Case 4: All the rockers are restricted to move in the longitudinal direction
Tables 3-12 and 3-13 tabulate the results obtained both from static and modal analysis for
cases one to four, respectively. From the modal analysis first four mode shapes and the
corresponding frequencies are provided for each vertical, lateral and torsional mode.
Looking at the static analysis, results show that there are no significant changes in static
displacements and all the obtained values are very close. However, the modal analyses provide
some interesting results which worths to mention. For vertical mode, the results show that
depending on the boundary conditions, the first mode shape might be symmetric or
antisymmetric. In case one where the rockers were allowed to move freely in the longitudinal
direction, the first vertical mode shape is obtained as symmetric with 0.125 Hz frequency,
however, analyses results for cases 2,3 or 4, where the rockers either on one side or on both
sides restricted to move in the longitudinal direction, provide the first vertical mode
antisymmetric. This shows that throughout the bridge service life, the first vertical mode shape
might change from symmetric to antisymmetric shape depending on the boundary conditions.
Referring now to the lateral mode, analyses results show that the boundary conditions mostly
influence the second mode where around 10% increase was observed in mode frequencies.
Apart from this, there is no remarkable change in lateral modes. The torsional mode is the least
influenced mode due to the change in boundary conditions. Some of the mode frequencies
were changed slightly by up to 1%.

42

1
DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
DMX =1390

st

1 Case

1
DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
AUG 24 2012
DMX =1390
22:30:10

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

nd

2 Case

STEP=1
SUB =1

STEP=1
SUB =1
TIME=1
AUG 24 2012
DMX =1390
22:30:10

rd

3 Case

TIME=1
AUG 24 2012
DMX =1390
22:30:10

4th Case

AUG 24 2012
22:30:10

Static Analysis
Y
Z

Y
X

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
DMX =.011077

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =55
AUG 24 2012 FREQ=.162507
22:41:48 DMX =.016083

AUG 24 2012 FREQ=.162507


22:41:48 DMX =.016083

Max. Displacement: 1395 mm

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.012855
22:45:45

V Mode 2: 0.163 Hz
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 3: 0.227 Hz
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

Y
Z

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:45:45

V Mode 2: 0.206 Hz
1

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

V Mode 3: 0.228 Hz
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
Z

V Mode 4: 0.281 Hz

43

AUG 24 2012
22:47:19

V Mode 4: 0.281 Hz

Table 3-12 Comparison of vertical mode shapes and frequencies between case 1, 2, 3 and 4
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.011683
22:47:19

V Mode 3: 0.228 Hz

V Mode 4: 0.281 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

V Mode 2: 0.182 Hz

V Mode 3: 0.228 Hz
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

V Mode 1: 0.164 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y

AUG 24 2012
22:38:31

STEP=1
SUB =57
AUG 24FREQ=.227334
2012
DMX =.012855
22:45:45

STEP=1
SUB =58
AUG 24
2012
FREQ=.280824
22:47:19
DMX =.011683

V Mode 4: 0.281 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y


Z

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y


DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =52
AUG 24 2012FREQ=.12533
22:38:31DMX =.011077

STEP=1
SUB =57
AUG 24FREQ=.227334
2012
DMX =.012855
22:45:45

STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
AUG 24
2012
DMX =.011683
22:47:19

STEP=1
SUB =58
FREQ=.280824
DMX =.011683

DISPLACEMENT

V Mode 1: 0.162 Hz

V Mode 2: 0.193 Hz

Y
Z

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =52
FREQ=.12533
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.011077
22:38:31

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Y


DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =57
FREQ=.227334
DMX =.012855

DISPLACEMENT

V Mode 1: 0.162 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:41:48

STEP=1
SUB =52
AUG 24 2012FREQ=.12533
22:41:48DMX =.011077

V Mode 1: 0.125 Hz

Max. Displacement: 1366 mm

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Modal Analysis- Vertical Mode


Z

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =55

Max. Displacement: 1395 mm

STEP=1
SUB =55
FREQ=.162507
DMX =.016083

STEP=1
SUB =55
AUG 24 2012FREQ=.162507
22:38:31DMX =.016083

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

Max. Displacement: 1395 mm

Y
X

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =51
FREQ=.070056
DMX =.011447

STEP=1
SUB =51
AUG FREQ=.070056
24 2012
DMX =.011447
22:35:31

STEP=1
SUB =51
AUG FREQ=.070056
24 2012
DMX =.011447
22:35:31

STEP=1
SUB =51
FREQ=.070056
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.011447
22:35:31

st

nd

1 case
1
DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
DMX =.011732

rd

2 Case
3 Case
Modal Analysis- Lateral Mode
1

DISPLACEMENT

L Mode 1: 0.070 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
AUG 24
2012
DMX =.011732
22:43:53

L Mode 1: 0.070 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =60

STEP=1
SUB =60

L Mode 2: 0.203 Hz
Y

STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
DMX =.01679

L Mode 3: 0.300 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz
Z

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
3-D
BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:54:54

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz
Y

DISPLACEMENT

3-D
BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z
STEP=1

SUB =85
AUG 24FREQ=.632018
2012
22:55:27
DMX =.016728

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz

AUG 24 2012
22:55:27

T Mode 2: 0.484 Hz

Y
X

STEP=1
SUB =73
AUG 24FREQ=.484078
2012
DMX =.015859
22:54:54

1
X

SUB =85
AUG 24FREQ=.632018
2012
DMX =.016728
22:55:27

Y
X

DISPLACEMENT

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz
1

STEP=1
SUB =85
AUG 24FREQ=.632018
2012
DMX =.016728
22:55:27

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =73
AUG 24FREQ=.484078
2012
DMX =.015859
22:54:54

AUG 24 2012
22:53:01

L Mode 3: 0.301 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz

Y
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =73
AUG 24FREQ=.484078
2012
DMX =.015859
22:54:54

L Mode 3: 0.301 Hz
L Mode 3: 0.300 Hz
Modal Analysis- Torsional Mode

DISPLACEMENT

SUB =85
FREQ=.632018
DMX =.016728

STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.01679
22:53:01

AUG 24 2012
22:49:43

1 3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL


DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
3-D
BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

1 3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

L Mode 2: 0.225 Hz

STEP=1
SUB =63
FREQ=.326151
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.01679
22:53:01

T Mode 1: 0.327 Hz
1

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

FREQ=.299889
AUG 24 2012
DMX =.021873
22:49:43

DISPLACEMENT

DISPLACEMENT

STEP=1
SUB =60

L Mode 2: 0.208 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =73
FREQ=.484078
DMX =.015859

STEP=1
SUB =63
AUG 24FREQ=.326151
2012
DMX =.01679
22:53:01

L Mode 1: 0.086 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =60

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 2012
22:43:53

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 FREQ=.299889
2012
DMX =.021873
22:49:43

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
AUG 24
2012
DMX =.011732
22:43:53

L Mode 2: 0.215 Hz

DISPLACEMENT

L Mode 1: 0.071 Hz

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z

1 3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

DISPLACEMENT

AUG 24 FREQ=.299889
2012
DMX =.021873
22:49:43

DMX =.021873

4 Case

1
DISPLACEMENT

3-D
BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL Z
FREQ=.299889

DISPLACEMENT
STEP=1
SUB =56
FREQ=.203088
AUG 24
2012
DMX =.011732
22:43:53

AUG 24 2012
22:35:31

th

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

Y
X
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

T Mode 3: 0.631 Hz
T Mode 3: 0.632 Hz
T Mode 3: 0.632 Hz
T Mode 3: 0.632 Hz
Table 3-13 Comparison of lateral and torsional mode shapes and frequencies between case 1, 2, 3 and 4
3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

44

3-D BOSBORUS SUSPENSION BRIDGE FE MODEL

4 Model Validation
So far, the procedures followed to develop 2-D and 3-D FE models of the Bosporus
Suspension Bridge and different type of analysis that were performed to understand the bridge
dynamic behavior, were covered in the previous chapters. As a last step, to validate the
accuracy of the foregoing FE models, the analysis results will be compared with experimental
data available from the past studies.
Due to the importance of the Bosporus Bridge, remarkable theoretical works and full scale
dynamic tests were carried out by Brownjohn et al. (1989) and Tezcan et al. (1975) to estimate
the dynamic characteristics of the Bosporus Bridge. The first dynamic test was carried out by
Tezcan et al. (1975) using ambient vibration measurements in 1973, just before the bridge was
opened to traffic. Due to the limitations on the equipment used, only four vertical and one
torsional modes were identified between 0.2-05 Hz. However, later in 1987 Brownjohn et al.
(1989) carried an ambient vibration survey in the Bosporus Bridge where the vertical, lateral
and torsional modes between 0-1.1 Hz were identified. Using these past available results,
comparison were carried out for each vertical and lateral modes available from 2-D and 3-D FE
models and torsional mode available from 3-D FE model and reported in the below sections.

4.1 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results for


Vertical Modes
Analysis results obtained both from 2-D and 3-D FE models have shown that the predicted
vertical modes are quite close to the experimental results. Table 4-1 tabulates results obtained
both from current analytical and past experimental studies. The last two columns compare
sequentially 2-D and 3-D FE model analysis results with experimental studies.
Experimental studies carried out by Brownjohn et al. (1989) showed that the bridge
experiences its first vertical asymmetrical mode at two slightly different frequencies, one above
and one below the first symmetric mode. A Possible explanation given by the authors
(Brownjohn, et al., 1989) was that bridge had a dual character between two bearing conditions
and it was presumable changing depending on the traffic intensity. Accordingly, in the previous
sections, the analyses were carried out for similar cases where it was shown that the first
45

vertical asymmetric mode might appear before or after the first vertical symmetric mode
depending on the boundary conditions.

Theoretical
frequency (Hz)

Symmetry

Vertical Mode
Experimental frequency
(Hz)
Nodes Antinodes
Brownjohn Tezcan et
et al.
al.

2-D FE
Model

3-D FE
Model

0.124

0.125

0.129

0.162

0.163

0.202

0.182

0.228

0.227

0.281

0.281

0.371

Percent
difference (%)
2-D

3-D

0.16

0.18

11

0.217

0.233

0.277

0.282

0.366

0.362

0.357

0.453

0.444

0.446

0.44

0.561

0.543

0.544

0.665

0.636

0.637

0.775

0.728

0.739

0.9

0.833

10

0.83

0.9

0.833

10

0.852

1.032

0.938
s
10
11
0.959
7
Table 4-1 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical results for vertical modes

4.2 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results for


Lateral Modes
Comparison between experimental and analytical results is not simple for lateral modes.
Among the 9 modes identified during the test, only 4 modes (1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th modes) have
appreciable movement of deck structure. However, in other modes, the towers moved in
lateral direction together with main cables thereby the deck moved comparatively little
(Brownjohn, et al., 1989). Similar behavior was observed during the analysis for both 2-D and
3-D FE models. Table 4-2 (next page) shows theoretical frequencies, obtained from 2-D and 3-D
FE models, and the experimental frequencies. Looking at last two columns, percent differences
show that the theoretical frequencies are still close to the experimental frequencies.

46

Lateral Mode
Theoretical
frequency (Hz)
2-D FE
3-D FE
Model
Model

Symmetry Nodes Antinodes

Experimental
frequencyBrownjohn et al.

Percent
difference (%)
2-D

3-D

0.069

0.070

0.07

0.197

0.203

0.209

0.3163

0.2999

0.284

10

0.3193

0.306

0.294

0.4073

0.398

0.365

10

0.456

0.382

16

0.524

0.495

0.44

16

11

0.533

0.552

0.525

0.746
0.737
a
3
4
0.762
2
3
Table 4-2 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical results for lateral modes

4.3 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical Results for


Torsional Modes
Table 4-3 shows the frequency comparison for torsional modes. There is a good agreement
between experimental and theoretical frequencies except that experimental results show two
single noded asymmetric torsional modes however, only one single noded asymmetric
torsional mode was obtained from 3-D FE model. Similar behavior was observed during the
modal analysis where 3-D FE model was analyzed with extra mass. It worths to mention that
the bridge FE models were developed based on the design stage and there is no solid
information available whether the mass changed throughout its service life.
Torsional Mode
Theoretical
frequency (Hz)

Experimental
Percent
frequency (Hz)
difference (%)
Symmetry Nodes Antinodes
Brownjohn Tezcan
3-D FE Model
3-D
et al.
et al.
0.327
S
0
1
0.324
0.331
1
0.484
A
1
2
0.474
2
0.484
A
1
2
0.492
2
0.631
S
2
3
0.649
3
0.842
A
3
4
0.877
4
Table 4-3 Comparison of Experimental and Analytical results for torsional modes
47

5 Conclusion
Comparison of analytical and experimental results assures that the procedures followed
during the modelling process, particularly replacing the box deck section with the equivalent
box element, are the reliable approaches and provide the accurate results. Thus it can be
concluded that the models discussed so far represent the real behavior of the Bosporus Bridge.
However, the calibration of the model still might need some extra work to achieve better
results. As already discussed previously, the bridge model is sensitive to several factors such as
strains in the cables, mass of the structure, boundary conditions and etc. By tuning these
factors, the accuracy of the model could be slightly improved. Therefore, the following
recommendations are proposed for further studies.
First of all, its worths to mention that the boundary conditions for the FE models were
defined in accordance with the bridge initial condition which possibly changed throughout the
bridge service life. Thus defining the related properties after detailed inspection to represent
the current condition would enhance the accuracy of the model
Besides, the mass of the structure is another important factor that could be improved by
calculating the bridge mass in detail and defining the model in accordance.

48

6 References
Apaydin, N. M., 2010. Earthquake Performance Assessment and Retrofit Investigation of Two
Suspenion Bridges in Istanbul. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 30, pp. 702710.
Brownjohn, J., Blakeborough, A., Dumanoglu, A. A. & Severn, R. T., 1989. Ambient Vibration
Survey of the Bosporus Suspension Bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Volume 18, pp. 263-83.
Brown, W. C. & Parsons, M. F., 1975. Bosporus Bridge, Part I, History and Design. s.l., Institution
of Civil Engineers.
Chan, T. H., Guo, L. & Li, Z. X., 2003. Finite Element Modeling for Fatigue Stress Analysis of
Large Suspension Bridges. Journal of Sound and Vibration, Volume 261, pp. 443-464.
Dumanoglu, A. A., 1985. Asynchronous Seismic Analysis of Modern Suspension Bridges- Part I:
Free Vibration, s.l.: University of Bristol. Department of Civil Engineering.
General Directorate of Highways, Turkey, 1973. Record book: Istanbul Bogazici Koprusu
(Bosporus Suspension Bridge), Istanbul: KGM matbaasi.
Merce, R. N. et al., 2007. Finite Element Model Updating of a Suspension Bridge Using ANSYS
Software. Miami, Florida, U.S.A, Inverse Problems, Design and Optimization Symposium.
Pericles, G., 1987. Darius in Scythia: The Formation of Herodotus' Sources and the Nature of
Darius' Campaign. American Journal of Ancient History, 12(ISSN 0362-8914), pp. 97-147.
Tezcan, S., Ipek, M. & Petrovski, J., 1975. Forced Vibration Survey of Istanbul Bogazici
Suspension Bridge, Skopje, Yugoslavia: Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Seismology.

49

7 Appendix A
3-D FE Model

2-D FE Model

Line Number (from CL towards the towers)


West Side

East side

West

East

Cable
strain
Values

31

101

131

1001

10001

2.795E-03

32

102

132

1002

10002

2.795E-03

33

103

133

1003

10003

2.796E-03

34

104

134

1004

10004

2.797E-03

35

105

135

1005

10005

2.798E-03

36

106

136

1006

10006

2.800E-03

37

107

137

1007

10007

2.802E-03

38

108

138

1008

10008

2.805E-03

39

109

139

1009

10009

2.807E-03

10

40

110

140

1010

10010

2.811E-03

11

41

111

141

1011

10011

2.814E-03

12

42

112

142

1012

10012

2.818E-03

13

43

113

143

1013

10013

2.822E-03

14

44

114

144

1014

10014

2.827E-03

15

45

115

145

1015

10015

2.832E-03

16

46

116

146

1016

10016

2.838E-03

17

47

117

147

1017

10017

2.844E-03

18

48

118

148

1018

10018

2.850E-03

19

49

119

149

1019

10019

2.857E-03

20

50

120

150

1020

10020

2.864E-03

21

51

121

151

1021

10021

2.871E-03

22

52

122

152

1022

10022

2.879E-03

23

53

123

153

1023

10023

2.888E-03

24

54

124

154

1024

10024

2.897E-03

25

55

125

155

1025

10025

2.906E-03

26

56

126

156

1026

10026

2.916E-03

27

57

127

157

1027

10027

2.927E-03

28

58

128

158

1028

10028

2.938E-03

29

59

129

159

1029

10029

2.949E-03

30

60

130

160

1030

10030

2.961E-03

Table A-1 Main span cable strain values

50

8 Appendix B
3-D FE Model

2-D FE Model
Cable strain
Values

Line Number (from CL towards the towers)


West Side

East side

West

East

201

301

401

501

2001

20001

1.543E-03

202

302

402

502

2002

20002

1.543E-03

203

303

403

503

2003

20003

1.543E-03

204

304

404

504

2004

20004

1.543E-03

205

305

405

505

2005

20005

1.543E-03

206

306

406

506

2006

20006

1.543E-03

207

307

407

507

2007

20007

1.543E-03

208

308

408

508

2008

20008

1.543E-03

209

309

409

509

2009

20009

1.543E-03

210

310

410

510

2010

20010

1.543E-03

211

311

411

511

2011

20011

1.543E-03

212

312

412

512

2012

20012

1.543E-03

213

313

413

513

2013

20013

1.543E-03

214

314

414

514

2014

20014

1.543E-03

215

315

415

515

2015

20015

1.543E-03

216

316

416

516

2016

20016

1.543E-03

217

317

417

517

2017

20017

1.543E-03

218

318

418

518

2018

20018

1.543E-03

219

319

419

519

2019

20019

1.543E-03

220

320

420

520

2020

20020

1.543E-03

221

321

421

521

2021

20021

1.543E-03

222

322

422

522

2022

20022

1.543E-03

223

323

423

523

2023

20023

1.543E-03

224

324

424

524

2024

20024

1.543E-03

225

325

425

525

2025

20025

1.543E-03

226

326

426

526

2026

20026

1.543E-03

227

327

427

527

2027

20027

1.520E-03

228

328

428

528

2028

20028

1.492E-03

229

329

429

529

2029

20029

1.493E-03

230

330

430

530

2030

20030

1.472E-03

231

331

431

531

2031

20031

1.473E-03

232

332

432

532

2032

20032

1.457E-03

233

333

433

533

2033

20033

1.456E-03

234

334

434

534

2034

20034

1.445E-03

235

335

435

535

2035

20035

1.446E-03

236

336

436

536

2036

20036

1.436E-03

51

237

337

437

537

2037

20037

1.437E-03

238

338

438

538

2038

20038

1.430E-03

239

339

439

539

2039

20039

1.430E-03

240

340

440

540

2040

20040

1.424E-03

241

341

441

541

2041

20041

1.424E-03

242

342

442

542

2042

20042

1.420E-03

243

343

443

543

2043

20043

1.420E-03

244

344

444

544

2044

20044

1.416E-03

245

345

445

545

2045

20045

1.417E-03

246

346

446

546

2046

20046

1.414E-03

247

347

447

547

2047

20047

1.414E-03

248

348

448

548

2048

20048

1.411E-03

249

349

449

549

2049

20049

1.411E-03

250

350

450

550

2050

20050

1.410E-03

251

351

451

551

2051

20051

1.410E-03

252

352

452

552

2052

20052

1.408E-03

253

353

453

553

2053

20053

1.408E-03

254

354

454

554

2054

20054

1.407E-03

255

355

455

555

2055

20055

1.407E-03

256

356

456

556

2056

20056

1.406E-03

257

357

457

557

2057

20057

1.406E-03

258

358

458

558

2058

20058

1.405E-03

259

359

459

559

2059

20059

2.809E-03

Table B-1 Hanger elements strain values

52

9 Appendix C
Main
Span
3.32
0.08
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.16
8.02
2.25
0.08

Cables
Cable wrapping
Cable bands
Handropes
Protective treatment
Hangers and sockets
Suspended box steel work
Roadway surfacing
Footway surfacing
Parapets and crash
barriers
0.2
Services
0.22
Protective treatment
0.07
Total design dead load
14.54
Table C-1 Dead load of the main span measured along the length (tons/m) (Brown & Parsons,
1975)

53

Related Interests