1 views

Uploaded by prakhar

- Hazard Maping in Ghana222
- Two Sample Hotelling's T Square
- EfficientFrontier Excel
- 14_14-0081
- 04252113
- Examples FTSA Questions2
- Time Series _SAS
- Conquest Tutorial 7 MultidimensionalModels
- Kalman Filter and Surveying Applications
- Lecture Notes on the Gaussian Distribution
- Seismic Blue 1.1 (1)
- [Basone Et Al., 2017] Incremental Dynamic Based Fragility Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures
- Paper 10
- Blood Pressure
- RiskMgt - VaR Measurement - Ex01 (D+S)
- 1 LN LinearTSModels Annotated
- ARMA-Chap 3
- Covariance Matrix
- 1983bssa Stochastic Sims
- lec32

You are on page 1of 19

multi-component non-stationary random ground motion

1 Department of Civil Engineering; Alexandria University; Egypt

2 Civil Engineering Department; Indian Institute of Technology; New Delhi 110016; India

SUMMARY

A Markov method of analysis is presented for obtaining the seismic response of cable-stayed bridges

to non-stationary random ground motion. A uniformly modulated non-stationary model of the random

ground motion is assumed which is specied by the evolutionary r.m.s. ground acceleration. Both

vertical and horizontal components of the motion are considered to act simultaneously at the bridge

supports. The analysis duly takes into account the angle of incidence of the earthquake, the spatial

correlation of ground motion and the quasi-static excitation. A cable-stayed bridge is analysed under a

set of parametric variations in order to study the non-stationary response of the bridge. The results of

the numerical study indicate that (i) frequency domain spectral analysis with peak r.m.s. acceleration as

input could provide more r.m.s. response than the peak r.m.s. response obtained by the non-stationary

analysis; (ii) the longitudinal component of the ground motion signicantly inuences the vertical

vibration of the bridge; and (iii) the angle of incidence of the earthquake has considerable inuence on

the deck response. Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: Markov method of analysis; seismic response of cable-stayed bridge; non-stationary

seismic excitation; modulating function; quasi-static bridge response

INTRODUCTION

A number of studies have been reported in recent years on the seismic analysis of cable-

supported bridges [19]. Some of these studies investigated also the eect of soilstructure

interaction on the seismic response of the bridge and made attempts to control the seismic

response using passive and hybrid control strategies. However, most of these studies have

been made either for a specied earthquake record or for an earthquake assumed to be a sta-

tionary random process. Very few studies considered an earthquake input as a non-stationary

random process. Hyun et al. [10] developed a method for non-stationary analysis of

suspension bridges subjected to multi-support excitations which was found to be mainly

Correspondence to: T. K. Datta, Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110016,

India.

E-mail: tkdatta@civil.iitd.ernet.in

Received 13 February 2002

Revised 25 March 2003

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 28 August 2003

376 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

dependent upon the enveloping function of the time history of ground motion. The non-

stationary responses were obtained in terms of time-dependent variance functions. There have

been many studies on simpler structures to obtain their response to non-stationary seismic

excitations [1117]. Lin [11] treated the non-stationary excitation as a sequence of random

pulses. By modelling the earthquake as a ltered Poisson process, Shinozuka et al. [16, 17]

developed a procedure to obtain the time-dependent variance of the response. Debchaudhury

et al. [12, 13] and Gasparini et al. [14, 15] developed a method for obtaining the response

of multi-degree of freedom systems to non-stationary seismic excitation using the Markov

approach. The advantage of the Markov approach for the non-stationary analysis of structures

for seismic excitation is that it does not require the derivation of the evolutionary frequency

response function H (w; t), which may be dicult to obtain in many complex structures such as

suspension bridges. Furthermore, the method directly obtains the evolutionary r.m.s. response

of the system. However, the application of the Markov approach for the response analysis

of cable-stayed bridges to non-stationary seismic excitation is not straightforward. It involves

some complexities because of (i) the horizontal component of ground motion contributing to

the vertical vibration of the deck and (ii) the contribution of the pseudo-static component of

vertical motion to the total vertical vibration of the bridge deck.

Herein, the vertical response of the bridge deck of cable-stayed bridges to multi-component

partially correlated non-stationary random ground motion is obtained using a Markov formu-

lation unlike that presented by Hyun et al. [10]. Furthermore, the formulation is fairly general

in the sense that it takes into account the eects of the angle of incidence of the earthquake,

the ratio between the horizontal and vertical components of ground motion, the quasi-static

component of the response, and the movements of the tower supporting the cables. The uni-

formly modulated non-stationary model of the ground motion is considered in the study. Using

the proposed method of analysis, a cable-stayed bridge is analysed under a set of parametric

variations in order to investigate the non-stationary characteristics of the bridge responses.

THEORY

Seismic excitation

Seismic excitation is assumed to be a multi-component uniformly modulated non-stationary

random process. The three components of the ground motion are assumed to be dened in

the three principal directions of the earthquake and are assumed to be directed along the

principal axes of the bridge x, y, z or shifted with an angle as shown in Figure 1. The evo-

lutionary r.m.s. acceleration for each component of the ground motion is specied. The spatial

correlation between the seismic excitations at two points is given by a correlation function.

where a and Ko are parameters which depend on the direction of wave propagation as well

as wave type and earthquake type. The values of a and Ko are taken as 4.769 and 2.756,

respectively, as given by Loh [18], rij is the distance between the stations i and j measured

in the direction of wave propagation, which is assumed to coincide with the major principal

axis of the ground motion (u) as shown in Figure 1.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK 377

Figure 1. Layout of the principal axes of the bridge (x; y; z) and the principal

directions of the ground motion (u; v; w).

The non-stationary support excitations are considered as the outputs of lters excited by

the evolutionary white noise. For the formulation of the problem, the lters are augmented at

each support degree of freedom and are dened by

Xf i + 2f i !f i X f i + !f2i Xf i = Si + Wi

i = 1; 2; : : : ; ns (2)

Si + 2si !si S i + !si2 Si = Wi

where ns is the number of exciting degrees of freedom, i.e. the size of the excitation vector;

{Xf } is the vector of output of lters which is the input to the bridge supports at their degrees

of freedom; !f i and !si are the i-th lter parameters representing the predominant frequencies

and the other two parameters f i and si represent the damping ratios; {S } is the vector of

intermediate response and {W } is the vector of evolutionary white noise having a covariance

matrix as

ww (t; t + ) = E {[W (t) w (t)] [W (t + ) w (t + )] T } = Q(t):() (3)

where w is the mean vector of {W }, () is the Dirac delta function and Q(t) is known as

the matrix of white noise intensities. By integrating both sides of Equation (3)

ww (t; t + )= Q(t)() d

(4)

ww (t; t + ) d =Q(t)

Thus, Q(t) is the integral of the covariance function of white noise excitation components. In

the present formulation, the elements of the intensity matrix are modelled as piecewise linear

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

378 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

functions of time, although they can take any shape. Typical elements of the covariance matrix

are

= qij (t):()

ij is the correlation function between excitations corresponding to the i-th and j-th d.o.f. and

is given by Equation (1), and Wi and Wj are the mean values of the i-th and j-th elements

of the vector {W }. In general, the ground motion is dened by its free-eld record which

is the output of the lter. The inputs to the lters represent the bed-rock excitation and the

lters reect the soil media. It will be subsequently seen that the formulation requires the

specication of the matrix Q(t) of the intensities of white noise. The elements of [Q(t)]

are determined with the help of the specied evolutionary r.m.s. acceleration of free-eld

ground motion and the characteristics of the lters as given by Soliman and Datta [19] and

Debchaudhary et al. [12, 13].

The bridge deck is idealized as a continuous beam over the outer abutments and the interior

towers as shown in Figures 2(a) and (b). The eect of the cables is taken as vertical springs

at the points of intersection between the cables and the bridge deck. The eect of the spring

stiness is taken as an additional vertical stiness to the exural stiness of the bridge. The

following assumptions are made for the formulation of the problem: (i) the bridge deck is

assumed to be a continuous beam (the girder and the tower are assumed to be axially rigid);

(ii) the beam does not transmit any moment to the tower through the girdertower connection;

(iii) the towers are assumed xed at the locations of the pier or well foundation; (iv) cables

are assumed straight under high initial tension due to dead load and are capable of supporting

negative force increment during vibration without losing the straight conguration; (v) an

appropriate portion of the mass of the cables is included in the dynamic analysis of the

bridge deck, and is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the idealized deck (in addition

to the deck mass); (vi) the beamcolumn eect in the stiness formulation of the beam is

considered for the constant axial force in the beam produced due to the initial tension in the

cable; and (vii) the cable dynamics are ignored for the bridge deck vibration, i.e., the tension

uctuations in the cable are assumed as quasi-static, and to not introduce any non-linearity

into the system.

The equation of motion for the dynamic displacement, i.e., the relative vertical displacement

y(xr ; t) of any segment r of the idealized deck with constant axial force Nr , neglecting the

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK 379

Figure 2. Problem identication: (a) layout of the bridge under multi-component ground motion;

and (b) idealization of the bridge deck.

Ed Ir 4

+ Nr 2

+ Cr + = P(xr ; t)

@xr @xr @t g @t 2

Wr

12 12

= gjr (xr )Xf j (t) cr gjr X f j r = 1; : : : ; Nb (7a)

g j=1 j=1

in which Ed Ir , Nr , Wr , g, and Ed are the exural rigidity, the constant axial force in the

r-th segment of the bridge deck produced by cables due to the dead load, the load per unit

length of the bridge, the acceleration due to gravity, and the modulus of elasticity of the

deck material, respectively. P(xr ; t) is dened as the applied load due to seismic excitations

at dierent support degrees of freedom. Xf j (t). j = 1; 2; : : : ; 12 are the accelerations at dierent

support degrees of freedom (Figure 2(a)) and gjr (xr ) is the vertical displacement of the r-th

segment of the bridge deck due to a unit displacement given at the j-th degree of freedom of

the supports. gjr (xr ) is obtained by solving for the entire bridge (i.e. deck, towers and cables),

considering no moment transfer between the deck and the tower, by a separate analysis using

standard structural analysis procedures. For multi-support excitation, it is quite often assumed

that the term Cr gjr , i.e., the damping force produced in the dynamic degrees of freedom due

to the movement of the support, may be ignored for a reasonable damping ratio since they do

not signicantly inuence the response [20]. With this assumption, the damping term of the

right-hand side of Equation (7(a)) is ignored and the equation retains the term containing the

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

380 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

ground acceleration only. The mode shapes and frequencies of the bridge are obtained by

the undamped free-vibration analysis as given by Chatterjee et al. [21].

The dynamic displacement y(xr ; t) at any point in the r-th segment of the bridge deck is

given by

y(xr ; t) = n (xr )n (t) r = 1; 2; : : : ; Nb (7b)

n=1

where Nb is the number of beam segments, n (xr ) is the n-th vertical mode shape of the r-th

beam segment of the bridge, and n (t) is the n-th generalized coordinate. Furthermore, the

generalized equation of motion for the relative vertical vibration of the bridge deck can be

written as

12

n (t) + 2n !n n (t) + !n2 n (t) = jn Xf j (t) (8)

j=1

where Xf j (t) is the support displacement corresponding to the j-th degree of freedom

(Figure 2(a)) which is the output of a set of lters excited by the evolutionary white noise

as given by Equation (2); X f j (t) and Xf j (t) are the derivatives of Xf j (t), and jn is the

modal participation factor dened as

Nb W Lr

gjr (xr ) n (xr ) d xr

r=1 g 0

jn =

Lr

j = 1; 2; : : : ; 8

Nb W

n2 (xr ) d xr

r=1 g 0

Combining Equations (2) and (8), the equation of motion of the bridge can be written in the

state space with white noise as input in the following form:

{Z(t)} = [A]{Z(t)} + [B]{W (t)} (9)

where {Z(t)} is the vector of state variables given by

[Z1j ; Z2j ; Z3j ; Z4j ; Z5n ; Z6n ; ] j = 1; : : : ; 12 and n = 1; : : : ; M (10)

Z5n =n ; Z6n = n n = 1; : : : ; M

Wj (t)=Wu cos Ww sin j = 5; 6; 7; 8 (x-direct)

Wj =Wu j = 1; 2; 3; 4 (y-direct)

Wj =Wu sin + Ww cos j = 9; 10; 11; 12 (z-direct)

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK 381

Wu , Wv , and Ww are the three components of ground motion and is the angle between Wu

and the x-direction (Figure 1). Explicit expressions of matrices A and B are given by Allam

[22]. The solution of Equation (9) in the time domain is given by

t

{Z(t)} = e[A](tt0 ) {Z(t0 )} + e[A](t) [B]{W ()} d (11)

t0

tk

e[A]t = [A]k (12)

k=0 k!

Equation (11) can be written as

t

{Z(t)} = [ (t; t0 )] {Z(t0 )} + [ (t; )] [B]{W ()} d (13)

t0

where

(t; t0 ) = e[A](t; t0 ) (14)

(t; t0 ) is the state transition matrix and may be calculated in dierent ways [2325]. Here,

the method of similarity transformation of matrix A is used for establishing (t; t0 ) [24]. The

covariance of the state variable

t1 t2

T

zz (t1 ; t2 ) = (t1 ; t0 )zz (t0 ) (t2 ; t0 ) + (t1 ; 1 )BQ(1 )(1 2 )B T T (t2 ; 2 ) d 1 d 2

t0 t0

(15)

The integral term is obtained by assuming t1 t2 , t0 61 6t1 and t0 62 6t2 , and the integration

is rst performed with respect to 1 , then with respect to 2 . In this case,

t2

zz (t1 ; t2 ) = (t1 ; t0 )zz (t0 ) T (t2 ; t0 ) + (t1 ; 2 )BQ(2 )B T T (t2 ; 2 ) d 2

t0

(16)

t

zz (t) = (t; t0 )zz (t0 ) T (t; t0 ) + (t; )BQ()B T T (t; ) d (17)

t0

If the mean of the excitation vector is assumed to be zero (i.e. W = 0), then Equation (17)

fully describes the state output vector {Z(t)}. Thus, the covariance matrix of response can

be calculated at any time t provided that the covariance matrix at any previous time t0 , and

the matrix of strengths of the excitations (i.e. intensity matrix [Q(t)] of {W (t)}) are known.

The method of calculation of the piecewise linear elements (Figure 3) of the {Q(t)} matrix

is given in detail by Debchaudhary et al. [12, 13] and Soliman and Datta [19].

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

382 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

The expression for the total displacement Y (xr ; t) at any bridge deck segment r at any time

t is given as

where

[ { } ] T = { 1 M }

[{X f }] T = [Xf 1 Xf 8 ]

Y2 (xr ; t) = [(xr )][ (t)][(xr )] T + [G(xr )][X f X f (t)][G(xr )] T

where [ (t)], [X f X f (t)], [X f (t)], and [X f (t)] can be easily assembled from the covari-

ance matrix of the state variable [zz (t)].

Similarly, the evolutionary mean square value of the bending moment can be obtained by

2 2

using E1 d d(x

x2

r)

and E1 d dG(x x2

r)

instead of (xr ) and G(xr ) respectively.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK 383

NUMERICAL STUDY

The example problem of the cable-stayed bridge, shown in Figure 4, is the same as that

considered by Morris [26]. Uniformly modulated non-stationary ground motion is expressed

in terms of the evolutionary r.m.s. ground acceleration. Three modulating functions, shown

in Figure 5, are considered in the study. The value of

fg (the peak value of the r.m.s.

ground acceleration) is taken as 0:61 m= s 2 . The ground motion is described along the principal

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

384 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

the angle of incidence = 0:0 , the ground motions in the three directions refer to those

corresponding to the longitudinal, vertical and transverse directions of the bridge. Three sets

of lter parameters (!si ; !f i = 0:1!si ; si = f i ) are used to represent soft, rm and very rm

soil conditions as (!si = 6:28; si = 0:4), (!si = 15:708; si = 0:6), (!si = 31:416; si = 0:8),

respectively. The strength intensity functions for the set of lter parameters describing the rm

soil for the three modulating functions are shown in Figure 6. It is seen that the maximum

value of the strength intensity function occurs at the same time where the corresponding

modulating function attains its peak. However, the shapes of the strength intensity functions

are not exactly the same as those of the corresponding modulating functions. The evolutionary

r.m.s. responses are calculated with lt =ld = 4; Ru : Rv : Rw = 1:0 : 1:0 : 1:0; = 0:0 and the set

of lter parameters corresponding to the rm soil condition, unless mentioned otherwise. Note

that the r.m.s. response denotes the r.m.s. value of the total response given by Equation (18).

The degree of non-stationarity is denoted by the sharpness of the modulating function. The

sharper the variation of the modulating function with time, the greater is the degree of non-

stationarity. Figures 7 and 8 show the evolutionary r.m.s. responses (standard deviation =

r.m.s. value since the random process is assumed with zero mean) for the points 3 and 9

representing the locations at the mid-points of the outer span and the inner span, respectively.

It is seen that the nature of the evolutionary response and its maximum value depend upon the

modulating function being used. The sharper the modulating function (modulating function

(1)), the smaller is the maximum value of the r.m.s. response. This is the case because

the energy contents of the excitation for the sharper (normalized) modulating function are

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK 385

(a) displacement response; and (b) bending moment.

less. Furthermore, the variation of the r.m.s. response with time is dierent from that of

the corresponding modulating function of excitation with time. This is expected because of

the combined eects of the lack of correlation between support excitations, the contribution

of the horizontal component of ground motion on the vertical deck displacement and the

contribution of the quasistatic component of the response on the total response. The eect of

the non-stationarity on the response is shown by the dierence between the maximum r.m.s.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

386 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

(a) displacement response; and (b) bending moment.

response and the r.m.s. response as obtained from the stationary analysis (frequency domain

spectral analysis). The latter is determined with input as double-ltered PSDF of ground

acceleration having

fg = 0:61 m= s 2 (i.e. the peak r.m.s. acceleration of the evolutionary input).

The dierence between the stationary r.m.s. responses and the maximum value of the non-

stationary r.m.s. responses is about 17% for the modulating function (2), about 25% for the

modulating function (3) and about 45% for the modulating function (1). For further parametric

studies, the modulating function (3) is used. It is apparent from Figure 5 that the dierence

between the two responses becomes less as the modulating function becomes wider. This

is the case because the degree of non-stationarity becomes more as the modulating function

becomes narrower.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

Table I. Eect of the ratio between the three components of ground motion on the r.m.s. responses.

1.0 : 0.4 : 0.6a 0.6 : 0.5 : 0.6a 0.8 : 0.5 : 0.6a

Stationary Non-stationaryb Stationary Non-stationaryb Stationary Non-stationaryb

Point D M D M D M D M D M D M

1 0.0204 0.0 0.0201 0.0 0.0255 0.0 0.0251 0.0 0.0255 0.0 0.0251 0.0

2 0.1289 1707 0.1053 1366 0.0876 1176 0.0718 948 0.1092 1456 0.0894 1170

3 0.1436 1658 0.1177 1332 0.0968 1153 0.0795 934 0.1212 1421 0.0992 1147

4 0.1201 1009 0.0987 826 0.0809 672 0.0667 551 0.1013 847 0.0835 694

5 0.0204 604 0.0201 533 0.0255 554 0.0251 490 0.0255 607 0.0251 537

6 0.1547 702 0.1276 601 0.1046 494 0.0868 425 0.1308 605 0.1082 520

7 0.2726 1247 0.2221 1012 0.1814 852 0.1482 696 0.2287 1059 1.0865 863

8 0.3099 745 0.2510 614 0.2061 534 0.1675 445 0.2599 649 0.2110 538

9 0.3047 1130 0.2438 882 0.2014 758 0.1612 604 0.2548 940 0.2040 747

D displacement (m), M bending moment (t.m.).

a

R u : R v : Rw .

b

Peak value of the evolutionary r.m.s. response (modulating function (3)).

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK

387

388 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

Figure 9. Strength intensity functions for dierent soil parameters (soil condition).

Table I shows the eect of the ratio between the three components of the ground motion on the

maximum r.m.s. responses obtained from the non-stationary analysis and the r.m.s. responses

obtained from the stationary analysis. Three dierent ratios (Ru : Rv : Rw ) between the three

components of the ground motion are considered for the study, namely, (i) 1:0 : 0:4 : 0:6;

(ii) 0:6 : 0:5 : 0:6; and (iii) 0:8 : 0:5 : 0:6. The angle of incidence of the earthquake is taken as

= 0:0 , i.e. the three components of the ground motion coincide with the principal directions

of the bridge (x; y; z). It is seen that the relative magnitude of the x components of the ground

motion has a predominant eect on the responses at the mid-points of the outer and the inner

spans. This is expected since the horizontal movement of the towers and the abutments (in

the longitudinal direction) substantially inuences the vertical movement of the bridge deck

because of the uctuation in the cable tension. Furthermore, it is observed that as Ru (= Rx )

decreases, the response also decreases. It is seen that a relative reduction in the vertical

component of the ground motion with a relative increase in the longitudinal component of

the ground motion may also increase the responses.

The dierent lter coecients denoting three dierent soil conditions have been used in

this study. The evolutionary strength functions for the three soil conditions are shown in

Figure 9. Although the evolutionary free-eld r.m.s. ground acceleration is the same for all

three soil conditions, the shapes of the evolutionary strength functions are dierent and hence

the evolutionary r.m.s. responses would be dierent for dierent soil conditions. This is the

case because the lter coecients (Equation (2)) modify the frequency contents of the free-

eld ground motion. Table II compares the maximum r.m.s. responses obtained from the

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

Table II. Eect of the nature of the evolutionary excitation due to soil conditions on the r.m.s. responses.

Soft soil Firm soil Very rm soil

(6.2832, 0.62832, 0.4, 0.4) (15.708, 1.5708, 0.6, 0.6)a (31.416, 3.1416, 0.8, 0.8)a

Stationary Non-stationaryb Stationary Non-stationaryb Stationary Non-stationaryb

Point D M D M D M D M D M D M

1 0.3794 0.0 0.3698 0.0 0.0509 0.0 0.0503 0.0 0.0104 0.0 0.0103 0.0

2 0.5124 5294 0.4736 4650 0.1549 2090 0.1272 1690 0.0613 885 0.0505 730

3 0.5813 5417 0.5391 4800 0.1707 2058 0.1403 1674 0.0670 888 0.0552 736

4 0.5319 4437 0.4981 4155 0.1427 1178 0.1178 968 0.0546 479 0.0449 397

5 0.3787 3001 0.3691 2782 0.0509 1065 0.0503 939 0.0104 552 0.0103 493

6 0.7816 3334 0.7418 3154 0.1847 886 0.1536 762 0.0638 396 0.0517 345

7 1.2069 3666 1.1332 3206 0.3181 1509 0.2600 1236 0.1109 681 0.0892 567

8 1.4097 2511 1.3268 2256 0.3615 964 0.2940 806 0.1203 464 0.0958 396

9 1.2211 2504 1.1330 2027 0.3522 1347 0.2850 1077 0.1186 553 0.0949 452

D displacement (m), M bending moment (t.m.).

Partially correlated: Ru : Rv : Rw = 1:0 : 1:0 : 1:0; = 0:0 .

a

Filter coecients !s , !f , s , f .

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK

b

Peak value of the evolutionary r.m.s. response (modulating function (3)).

389

390 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

Soft soil Firm soil Very rm soil

Point % Da Mb D M D M

1 2 0.3698 0.0 0.0503 0.0 0.0103 0.0

4 0.2432 0.0 0.0352 0.0 0.0062 0.0

3 2 0.5813 5417 0.1403 1674 0.0552 736

4 0.3456 3642 0.1246 1232 0.0346 580

5 2 0.3691 2782 0.0503 939 0.0103 493

4 0.2426 1792 0.0352 682 0.0062 345

9 2 1.133 2027 0.2850 1077 0.0949 452

1.221c 2504c 0.3522c 1347c 0.1186c 553c

4 0.7853 1424 0.2046 725 0.0625 361

0.8924c 1872c 0.2614c 1085c 0.0942c 428c

a

D = Displacement (m).

b

M = Bending moment (t.m.).

c

Stationary r.m.s. response.

non-stationary analysis with the r.m.s. responses as obtained from the stationary analysis. It

is seen from the table that the responses are more for the lter coecients corresponding to

the soft-soil condition. The reason for this is attributed to the fact that the frequency contents

of the excitations for the soft-soil condition are centred around a narrow band of frequencies

which are close to the fundamental frequency of the bridge. The dierence between the

responses obtained by the stationary and non-stationary analyses remains nearly the same for

the three lter coecients.

In order to study the eect of damping on the non-stationary response for dierent types of

excitations due to soil condition, the damping of the bridge is changed to 4% (in the original

data it is taken as 2%). The results for the two cases are compared in Table III. It is seen

that the peak value of non-stationary r.m.s. response is signicantly reduced. The decrease is

about 33%. The corresponding decrease is found to be about 25% for the stationary r.m.s.

response. Thus, the eect of damping is greater for non-stationary response analysis.

The eect of the angle of incidence () on the displacement response is shown in Table IV.

= 0:0 corresponds to the case when the major principal component of the earthquake

is along the longitudinal direction of the bridge and = 90 indicates the case where the

moderate principal component of the earthquake is along the longitudinal axis of the bridge

(Figure 1). The minor principal component of the earthquake is always in the vertical direc-

tion. Furthermore, = 90 denotes the case of fully correlated excitations. As the ratio between

the three components of the earthquake is taken as the same, the change in predominantly

eects the correlation between excitations at any two points by modifying the separation length

rij = Lij cos (Figure 1).

The table shows that the maximum response at any section of the bridge deck does not

necessarily occur for = 90 ; it may occur for an angle of incidence between 0 and 90 .

The responses are a minimum for = 90 , i.e. for fully correlated ground motion. The critical

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

Table IV. Eect of the angle of incidence of the earthquake () on the r.m.s. displacement.

= 0:0 = 30 = 45 = 70 = 90

Point Stationary Non-stationarya Stationary Non-stationarya Stationary Non-stationarya Stationary Non-stationarya Stationary Non-stationarya

1 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503

2 0.1549 0.1272 0.1641 0.1338 0.1685 0.1375 0.1322 0.1110 0.0823 0.0727

3 0.1707 0.1403 0.1811 0.1477 0.1870 0.1526 0.1442 0.1209 0.0855 0.0749

4 0.1427 0.1178 0.1512 0.1239 0.1570 0.1287 0.1203 0.1014 0.0740 0.0661

5 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503 0.0509 0.0503

6 0.1847 0.1536 0.2009 0.1665 0.2089 0.1735 0.1441 0.1217 0.0739 0.0662

7 0.3181 0.2600 0.3557 0.2898 0.3561 0.2914 0.2382 0.1962 0.0955 0.0802

8 0.3615 0.2940 0.4181 0.3387 0.3961 0.3229 0.2599 0.2124 0.1157 0.0945

9 0.3522 0.2850 0.4164 0.3333 0.3820 0.3068 0.2435 0.1948 0.1277 0.1046

Firm soil; partially correlated; Ru : Rv : Rw = 1:0 : 1:0 : 1:0.

a

Peak value of the evolutionary r.m.s. response (modulating function (3)).

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK

391

392 S. M. ALLAM AND T. K. DATTA

value of depends upon the section at which the response is obtained. This is the case

because the angle of incidence of earthquake inuences the response in a complex manner by

modifying the separation length being considered in the correlation function. Furthermore, the

dierence between the maximum r.m.s. response and the r.m.s. response as obtained by the

stationary and non-stationary analyses varies with . The value of for which this dierence

becomes a maximum depends upon the section at which the response is desired.

CONCLUSIONS

related random ground motion is obtained using a Markov approach. A uniformly modulated

non-stationary model of the random ground motion is assumed and is specied by the evolu-

tionary r.m.s. ground acceleration. The analysis duly takes into account the spatial correlation

of ground motion, the cabletowerdeck interaction and the quasi-static excitation. Using the

proposed method of analysis, a cable-stayed bridge is analysed under a set of parametric vari-

ations in order to investigate the non-stationary characteristics of the bridge responses. The

results of the parametric study lead to the following conclusions.

1. The shape of the modulating function depicting the degree of non-stationarity signicantly

inuences the evolutionary r.m.s. displacement response. The eect of the non-stationarity

is to decrease the r.m.s. response.

2. Frequency domain spectral analysis (stationary analysis) provides higher r.m.s. responses

(both displacement and moment) compared to the maximum r.m.s. responses obtained

by the non-stationary analysis; the dierence could be as much as 45%.

3. The sharper the modulating function, the greater is the dierence between the maximum

displacement r.m.s. response (of the non-stationary analysis) and the stationary r.m.s.

displacement response.

4. Responses are amplied for the lter coecients corresponding to soft-soil conditions.

However, the dierence between the maximum r.m.s. responses (both displacement and

moment) (of the non-stationary analysis) and the stationary r.m.s. responses remains

nearly the same for all soil conditions.

5. Fully correlated ground motion provides a smaller value of the displacement response.

6. The maximum displacement response does not occur for zero angle of incidence of earth-

quake (i.e., the major component coinciding with the longitudinal axis of the bridge). The

critical angle of incidence depends upon the response quantity of interest. Furthermore,

the dierence between the maximum r.m.s. response (of the non-stationary analysis) and

the stationary r.m.s. response diers with the angle of incidence of earthquake.

7. The longitudinal component of ground motion considerably inuences the vertical

vibration of the bridge deck.

REFERENCES

1. Abdel-Ghaar AM, Rubin L. Suspension bridges response to multi support excitations. Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE) 1982; 108:419 435.

2. Abdel-Ghaar AM, Rubin LI. Vertical seismic behaviour of suspension bridges. Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics 1983; 11:119.

3. Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaar AM. Modelling the nonlinear seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges with passive

control bearings. Computers and Structures 1995; 54:461 492.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE DECK 393

4. Elassaly M, Ghali A, Elbadry MM. Inuence of soil conditions on the seismic behaviour of two cable-stayed

bridges. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts 1996;

33(5):231A.

5. Zheng J, Takeda T. Eects of soilstructure interaction on seismic response of PC cable-stayed bridge.

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts 1996; 33:233A.

6. Zheng J, Takeda T. Eects of soilstructure interaction on seismic response of PC cable-stayed bridge. Soil

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1995; 14(6):427 437.

7. Villaverde R, Martin SC. Passive seismic control of cable-stayed bridges with damped resonant appendages.

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts 1995; 32(6):232A.

8. Allam SM, Datta TK. Seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges under multi-component random ground motion.

Engineering Structures 1999; 21(1):6274.

9. Park K-S, Jung H-J, Lee I-W. Hybrid control strategy for seismic protection of a benchmark cable-stayed bridge.

Engineering Structures 2003; 25(4):405 417.

10. Hyun CH, Yun CB, Lee DG. Nonstationary response analysis of a suspension bridge for multiple support

excitations. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 1992; 7:2735.

11. Lin YK. Nonstationary excitation and response in linear systems treated as sequences of random pulses. Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America 1965; 38(3):453 460.

12. Debchaudhury A, Gasparini DA. Response of MDOF systems to vector random excitation. Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE) 1982; 108(4):367385.

13. Debchaudhury A, Gazis GD. Response of MDOF systems to multiple support seismic excitation. Journal of

the Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE) 1988; 114(4):583 603.

14. Gasparini DA. Response of MDOF systems to nonstationary random excitation. Journal of the Engineering

Mechanics Division (ASCE) 1979; 105(2):13 27.

15. Gasparini DA, Shah A, Tsiatas G, Shein S, Sun W. Random vibration of cascaded secondary systems. Research

Report 8301, Department of Civil Engineering, Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio, 1983.

16. Shinozuka M, Sato Y. Simulation of nonstationary random process. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics

Division (ASCE) 1967; 94(1):11 40.

17. Shinozuka M, Yang JN. Peak structural response to nonstationary random excitations. Journal of Sound and

Vibration 1971; 16:505 517.

18. Loh CH. Analysis of the spatial variation of seismic waves and ground movements from SMART-1 array data.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1985; 13:561581.

19. Soliman HO, Datta TK. Seismic response of piping system to nonstationary random ground motion. Journal of

Sound and Vibration 1995; 180(3):463 473.

20. Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of Structures, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill: Singapore, 1993.

21. Chatterjee PK, Datta TK, Surana CS. Vibration of cable stayed bridges under moving vehicles. Structural

Engineering International (IABSE) 1994; 4(2):116 122.

22. Allam SM. Seismic response of cable supported bridges. Ph.D. Thesis, submitted to Indian Institute of

Technology, New Delhi, 1998.

23. Nigam NC. Introduction to Random Vibrations. MIT Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1983.

24. Sinha PK. Multi-variable Control; an Introduction. Marcel Dekker Inc: New York, 1984.

25. Lin YK. Probabilistic Theory of Structural Dynamics. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1967.

26. Morris NF. Dynamic analysis of cable-stiened structures. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1974;

100:971981.

Copyright ? 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:375393

- Hazard Maping in Ghana222Uploaded byadusappiah
- Two Sample Hotelling's T SquareUploaded byJoselene Marques
- EfficientFrontier ExcelUploaded byNikhil Gupta
- 14_14-0081Uploaded byMoganna Gowda
- 04252113Uploaded bySudhakar Spartan
- Examples FTSA Questions2Uploaded byAnonymous 7CxwuBUJz3
- Time Series _SASUploaded byManoj Kumar Manish
- Conquest Tutorial 7 MultidimensionalModelsUploaded byfafume
- Kalman Filter and Surveying ApplicationsUploaded bykateborghi
- Lecture Notes on the Gaussian DistributionUploaded byMayukh Maitra
- Seismic Blue 1.1 (1)Uploaded byvcontrerasj72
- [Basone Et Al., 2017] Incremental Dynamic Based Fragility Assessment of Reinforced Concrete StructuresUploaded byJose Manuel
- Paper 10Uploaded byArnoldo Tapia
- Blood PressureUploaded bykhan7ven
- RiskMgt - VaR Measurement - Ex01 (D+S)Uploaded byAlka Pandey
- 1 LN LinearTSModels AnnotatedUploaded byTeo Liang Wei
- ARMA-Chap 3Uploaded bygiangp
- Covariance MatrixUploaded byJavier Garcia Rajoy
- 1983bssa Stochastic SimsUploaded byManuel
- lec32Uploaded bykannanchammy
- Report(F-407).docxUploaded byAnonymous N5N0A0
- Eyeblink Artefact Removal From Eeg Using IndependentUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Flex Mg ArchUploaded bysdfasdfkksfj
- Bayesian Longitudinal Item Response Modeling With Restricted Covariance Pattern Structures. Statistics and Computing - Caio LucidiosUploaded bydbmest
- Jeb 12188Uploaded bylaspiur22blues7327
- Gab OrUploaded byfreddy_d85
- inf2b-learn-note10-2up.pdfUploaded byPintuabc
- Front MatterUploaded byNguyen Thanh Huong
- Sf 2940 FormsUploaded bydeeksha
- SimrelM FlowchartUploaded byRaju Rimal

- 09 - Oscillations (1)Uploaded byfazeelm24
- 66- DeMello and Cocordia PaperUploaded byAhmed Salam
- Coupled Oscillators an Informative ProblUploaded byPraneet Mehta
- P105A-16-10-syllabusUploaded byChristopherMason
- F2 - Chaos SlidesUploaded byDipen Patel
- Arabinda ThesisUploaded byJayanta Chakrabarti
- friction dampersUploaded byChetan B Arkasali
- 3.2947Uploaded byLei Zhou
- Harmonic Oscillator ProjectUploaded bysvhanu4010
- Douce Hydro Jarret 2012 GbUploaded byAurica Daniel
- Basics of Measuring the Dielectric Properties of MaterialsUploaded byjrpegoraro
- Sea Keeping Analysis for Preliminary DesignUploaded byTullio Opatti
- A Geisberger TUploaded byMurat K
- Introduction to structural motion control Capitulo 4 - Jerome J. Connor.pdfUploaded byCONSTHURAG2012
- test 1Uploaded byYash Sahitya
- Assigment 1.pdfUploaded byHimanshu Upadhyay
- Physics I Problems (149).pdfUploaded byBOSS BOSS
- tutorial_modal_analysis_Walter.pdfUploaded bySudan Shrestha
- 7.Engineering-Effect of Fluid Viscous Dampers on Multi-storeyed-Liya MathewUploaded byImpact Journals
- Applied tribology-Part-I.pdfUploaded bygorkinhos
- Physics FormularyUploaded byfizarimae
- 5. Properties of Matter & ShmUploaded bySameer Dar
- Circuit TheoryUploaded byMario Javier
- Lab01 Get Start SimulinkUploaded bySpin Fotonio
- CE1208 Wind EngineeringUploaded bySiva Reddy
- MCG4308_Lec4Uploaded byChristian Paultre
- DOM ProblemsSolvedinClassUploaded byrukmini_ramki
- Finite DifferenceUploaded byPavan Kishore
- Physics Flexbook StudyUploaded byRick Andrews
- IntroductionToSoftBodyPhysics-SkeelUploaded bymasondrool