Dimension JRNL 2 PDF

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 1, No 3, 2010
© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399
Effect of Pylon Shape on seismic response of Cable stayed bridge with soil
structure interaction
Siddharth G. Shah1, Desai.J.A2, Solanki.C.H3
1- Assistant Professor, CGPIT, Bardoli- Gujarat- India
2- Director & Professor, C G Patel Institute of Technology, Bardoli Gujarat- India
3- Associate Professor, Department. of Applied Mechanics, S.V.NIT –Surat, Gujarat-
sidhgshah@gmail.com
doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202010056
ABSTRACT
Cable stayed bridge are the most flexible bridge and getting popularity because of its
economy for longer spans and aesthetics. Here focus is given on the effect of shape of pylon
on the seismic response of cable stayed bridge, for this, the bridge span dimension and other
parameters are kept constant, and only the pylon shape is varied viz. A type, H type, portal
frame, spread pylon and pyramid shapes. The height of the pylon is kept constant for all the
shapes for comparison purpose. Here soil structure interaction effects are considered through
the soil-spring at the base. The 3D bridge model is prepared on SAP 2000 software and
bridge is analyzed seismically by Bhuj 2001, Earthquake India. The bridge response in terms
of pylon displacement, acceleration and base moment is obtained. The study reveals that the
shape of the pylon has great influence in the seismic response of cable stayed bridge. spread
pylon shape are better for resisting earthquake in longitudinal direction but weak in lateral
direction, but pyramid shape pylon is better because of its geometry in resisting earthquake
force from any direction and also SSI effects are minimum in this case. SSI effects are
predominant for soft soil conditions for all pylon shapes.
Keywords: Pylon Shape, Time History Analysis, Soil Structure Interaction, Seismic
Response, Soil Stiffness
1. Introduction
Bridges are critical life-line facilities which should remain functional without damage after an
earthquake to facilitate the rescue and relief operations. In recent years, several cable-stayed
bridges have been constructed on relatively soft ground , Betti (1993), which results in a great
demand to evaluate the effects of soil–structure interaction (SSI) on the seismic behavior of
the bridges, and properly reflect it in their seismic design. Soil Structure Interaction is
complicated phenomena involving three effects as stated by, Gazets (2006) are as following
1. Wave Amplification: seismic waves alters due to flexibility of soils

2. Kinematic Response: soil displacement is causing structure to displace
3. Inertial Reactions: structural movement continues and adds in to the displacement of soils.
This interaction effects were neglected previously but due to failure of so many massive
structure during earthquake event realized the significance of SSI. Thus SSI is given
importance and lots of research work is going on to study the effects of SSI on various
structures.
667
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) is a complex phenomenon for which research suggests

solution by using two different methods, Wolf (1985)
1. Direct method (scope of direct method is with time domain)

2. Sub-structure method (Sub-structure method operates in frequency domain)
The purpose of the towers is to support the cable system and transfer forces to the
foundations. They are loaded with high compressions and bending moments that depend on
the stay cable layout and the deck-tower support conditions. Towers can be made of steel or
concrete, being the latter generally more economic considering similar stiffness conditions.
However, their self-weight is generally higher than that of steel, which implies keeping in
mind local soil conditions and construction speed when using concrete. Thus, the seismic
response of the towers will be conditioned by several aspects, and in addition to the previous
idea, the geometric shape of the towers, which depends on the applied loads, cable-stay
system and aesthetic conditions, is a very important aspect. It is necessary to emphasize in the
fact that concrete design is undoubtedly heavier, inducing higher seismic forces. The effects
of SSI were studied by the software SAP 2000. SAP is finite element based program and is
recognized by international community for the research purpose. The modeling of any
problem in SAP is prepared as per following procedure
2. Modeling Procedure on SAP
1. Draw the geometry of the frame either by inserting coordinates or by linking the
nodes through member length.
2. Draw the required fixed support (No-SSI) or spring (SSI) according to the case.
3. Select the stiffness of the spring for SSI as the Winkler- approach. Which is taken as
200kN/m
4. Define the sections and materials for the members.
5. Define the loading values and load combinations to be applied on the structures.
6. Define the time history to be used for the dynamic analysis and include it in the
analysis case
7. Now assign the defined section to the members
8. Assign the loads to the joints or members as per the case
9. After assigning everything, set the analysis to be carried out and press run analysis
SAP program will generate the various results like joint displacements, joint forces, joint
reactions, mode shapes etc.
668
Figure 1: Different tower /Pylons available for cable stayed bridge
2.1 Modeling of Bridge
In the analysis of the bridge the most important part is modeling. For accurate results
modeling of the different components must reflect the actual forces and geometrical
properties. Different components of bridges like deck, pylon, cables foundation etc must be
modeled as per the actual forces they are subjected. For e.g. cable members shall be modeled
as truss member because they are going to subjected axial forces in majority. The bridge
considered here is situated at river missisippi, the details are given in Table-1.
Table-1: Details of Quincy bay view Cable stayed bridge material and sections –
After Wilson et al. (1985)
Sr.
Component Dimension Material Shape
No.
1. Cable 0.80 m Steel Circular
Deck Depth =0.2m
2.a Width = 16m RCC Rectangular
length=10m
End 1m x 0.4m
Steel I –section
2.b Beams tw = 0.15m
tf = 0.15m
0.7m x 0.25m
Intermediate
2.c tw = 0.10m Steel I -section
Beams
tf = 0.10m
1.2 m solid wall ,connecting
3. Pylon Bottom RCC
two legs
Pylon Intermediate at (2.2 m x 4.5m) - Hollow Rectangular
4. RCC
deck level (0.3m diameter hole) Box
(4.5m x3.3m)
Hollow Rectangular
5. Pylon Top -(0.9mx 1.8m) RCC
Box
669
Table 2: Details of dimensions and other parameters for different shape of Pylons
Sr. Pylon/ Tower

level Material shape & Dimensions
No shape
1.a „H‟ Shape bottom RCC Hollow Rectangular (24 x10m )–(8 x3.5)
Hollow Rectangular, (2.2 m x 4.5m) -
1.b „H‟ Shape Deck RCC
(0.3m diameter hole)
Hollow Rectangular (15m x6m)
1.c „H‟ Shape Top RCC
-(4.8mx 1.8m)
same at
2 „A‟ Shape RCC hollow rectangular (6mx4m) thickness=2.5m
all
Spread Pylon Hollow Rectangular Box (24.21x10.5m)
3.a bottom RCC
„Y‟ shape -(8.07 x 3.5m)
Spread Pylon Hollow Rectangular Box (18.72 x 5.48) –
3.b deck RCC
„Y‟ shape (6.24x1.82m)
Spread Pylon Hollow Rectangular Box (15.24x5.48m) –
3.c Top RCC
„Y‟ shape (5.08x1.82m)
Diamond/
same at
4 Pyramid RCC hollow rectangular (6mx4m) thickness=2.5m
all
shape
Table 3: Different Properties including lateral and rocking stiffness coefficients for three
types of soil considered in this study.
Soil-I Soil-II Soil-III

Sr.
Soil Properties Hard Soft medium
No
Clayey soil Silty soil Sandy soil
1 Unit weight of soil- (kN/m3) 20 18 19
2 Shear Strength-s (kN/ m2) 200 75 150
3 Poisson‟s Ratio- 0.3 0.4 0.35
4 Damping of soil- 0.02 0.06 0.04
5 Shear wave velocity –Vs (m/ sec) 1050 83 309
6 Shear Modulus-Gs (kN/m2) 269 x 104 12500 192 310
Young‟s modulus of
7 700 x 104 35000 500 x 103
Elasticity-E (kN/m2)
8.a Soil stiffness Kx (kN/ m) 252 x 104 4.60 x 104 8.62 x 106
8.b Soil stiffness Ky(kN/ m) 1050 x 104 5.52 x 104 10.3 x 104
8.c Soil stiffness Kz (kN/ m) 1028 x 104 5.36 x 104 10.0 x 104
8.d Soil stiffness Kx (kN m/rad) 8094 x 104 156 x 104 292 x 104
8.e Soil stiffness Ky(kN m/rad) 309 x 104 21.6 x 104 40.4 x 104
8.f Soil stiffness Kz (kN m/rad) 9808 x 104 532 x 106 729 x 106
The four different shape of pylons considered in this study are „H‟ shape, „A‟ Shape, „Spread
Pylon-Y‟ Shape, and „Diamond‟ shape, the details are given in Table-2. There are many
approaches to calculate stiffness coefficient for soil in translational and rotational directions.
670
In the first approach, vertical, lateral and rotational directions were calculated by theory of
the circular plate resting on the elastic half space as used by Luco(1990)
……(1)
……(2)
Where,
kh and kr are the horizontal and rotational stiffness respectively
Ch and Cr are Damping coefficient long horizontal and rotational directions respectively ,
is the unit weight of soil,
 is the average dimension of circular plate
is Poisson‟s Ratio and
G is shear modulus of the soil.
The soil beneath the foundation has been assumed of three different types as per the table-3
3. Dynamic Analysis Methods for Seismic analysis of Bridge [Time history method.]
Different methods are available to analyze the bridge seismically. Different methods uses
different concept the brief out line of each method is given below ,Clough & Penzin (1975)
3.1 The single-mode method (single-mode spectral and uniform load analysis)
In this method seismic load can be considered as an equivalent static horizontal force applied
to an individual frame in either the longitudinal or transverse direction. The equivalent static
force is based on the natural period of a single degree of freedom (SDOF) and code-specified
response spectra. Engineers should recognize that the single-mode method (sometimes
referred to as equivalent static analysis) is best suited for structures with well-balanced spans
with equally distributed stiffness.
3.2 Multimode spectral analysis
Here member forces, moments, and displacements due to seismic load can be estimated by
combining the responses of individual modes using the methods such as complete quadratic
combination (CQC) method and the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.
The CQC method is adequate for most bridge systems, and the SRSS method is best suited
for combining responses of well-separated modes.
3.3The multiple support response spectrums (MSRS) method
This provides response spectra and the peak displacements at individual support degrees of
freedom by accurately accounting for the spatial variability of ground motions including the
effects of incoherence, wave passage, and spatially varying site response. This method can be
used for multiply supported long structures.
671
3.4 The time history method
This is a numerical step-by-step integration of equations of motion. It is usually required for

critical/important or geometrically complex bridges. Inelastic analysis provides a more
realistic measure of structural behavior when compared with an elastic analysis.
When the structure enters the nonlinear range, or has non classical damping properties, modal
analysis cannot be used. A numerical integration method, sometimes referred to as time
history analysis, is required to get more accurate responses of the structure. The time history
analysis includes following steps.
The equation of motion of a multi support excitation would be excited by the displacement
array. And, the equation of motion for the multi support system becomes
..(3)
By using the uncoupling procedure, the modal equation of the nth mode can be written as
..(4)
In a time history analysis, the timescale is divided into a series of smaller steps, dτ. Let us say
the response at ith time interval has already determined and is denoted by ui, úi, üi, Then, the
response of the system at ith time interval will satisfy the equation of motion.
…(5)
The time-stepping method enables us to step ahead and determine the responses at the i + 1th
time interval by satisfying above equation, Thus, the equation of motion at i + 1th time
interval will be
..(6)
needs to be solved prior to proceeding to the next time step. By stepping through all the time
steps, the actual response of the structure can be determined at all time instants.
Figure 2: Bhuj earthquake time history
672
Table 4: Details of three earthquakes considered in this study
longitudinal direction Total time

Earthquake Recording station
Component PGA (g) (Sec)
Bhuj,2001 Ahmedabad N12W 0.080 120
4. Result & Analysis
Figure 3: Response of Max Acc (m/s2) for H shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral directions
for different foundation soils.
Figure 4: Response of Max Acc (m/s2) for A shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral directions
673
In this study the Bridge of Quincy bay view is modeled on SAP 2000 with different pylons
viz; H Shape, A shape, y/spread pylon, and Diamond /Pyramid shape pylon. For comparison
and study of the effect of shape of pylon the parameters like pylon height, span of bridge,
cable arrangement, deck width etc are kept constant for all the analysis, as done by
Tangaonkar & Jangid (2003)
Figure 5: Response of Max Acc (m/s2) for Y shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral directions
Figure 6: Response of Max Acc (m/s2) for Diamond/Pyramid shape pylon in longitudinal &
lateral directions for different foundation soils
The soil structure interaction effect is considered by three different soil conditions at the base
of pylon by assigning springs in vertical horizontal and rocking directions. The seismic
response in pylon is obtained by applying Bhuj earthquake time history in longitudinal &
674
lateral directions of bridge. The maximum acceleration produced in the pylon along the
height is plotted in the Figure (3-6).
Figure 7: Response of Max Displacement (m) for H shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral
directions for different foundation soils.
Figure 8: Response of Max Displacement (m) for A shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral
Figure 3 indicates the maximum acceleration distributions along the H shape tower/pier for
the cases Hard, Soft & Medium soil respectively. As the soil stiffness decreases, the
maximum acceleration above the bottom of pier decreases, and that at the top increases. This
trend is the same regardless of the direction of the earthquake.
675
Figure 9: Response of Max Displacement(m) for Y shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral
Figure 4-6 indicates the maximum acceleration distributions for the A shape, Spread pylon
and Diamond shape tower respectively along height. The distribution of acceleration is for
the cases Hard, Soft & Medium soil respectively. As the soil stiffness decreases, the
maximum acceleration in the tower increases. This trend is the same regardless of the
direction of the earthquake. The fact behind this could be the effect of soil structure
interaction, thus consideration of SSI effects is causing less force in the tower, and out of all
the shapes Pyramid shape is proven best to mitigate SSI effects because it attracts less force
and proves to be economical.
Figure 10: Response of Max Displacement(m) for Diamond/Pyramid shape pylon in

longitudinal & lateral directions for different foundation soils.
676
The distributions of maximum displacement (hereafter means the relative displacement

referring to pier base) along tower/pier for the cases Hard, Soft & Medium soil respectively
are shown in Fig. 7-10.
It can be seen that decreasing stiffness of soil leads to large displacement. this is observed for
almost all shapes of pylons but, The displacement is more pronounced in the case of A shape
pylon when earthquake is induced from transverse direction. This effect is minimum in the
case of pyramid shape pylon.
Figure 11: Response of Max. Moment (MNm) for H shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral
directions for different foundation soils
Figure 12: Response of Max. Moment (MNm) for A shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral
directions for different foundation soils
677
The distributions of maximum displacement (hereafter means the relative displacement

referring to pier base) along tower/pier for the cases Hard, Soft & Medium soil respectively
are shown in Fig. 7-10.
Figure 13: Response of Max. Moment (MNm) for Y shape pylon in longitudinal & lateral
Figure 14: Response of Max. Moment (MNm) for Diamond/Pyramid shape pylon in
It can be seen that decreasing stiffness of soil leads to large displacement. this is observed for
almost all shapes of pylons but, The displacement is more pronounced in the case of A shape
678
pylon when earthquake is induced from transverse direction. This effect is minimum in the
case of pyramid shape pylon.
Figure 15: Comparison of peak response of Max Acc (m/s2) for different shapes of pylon in
The Bending moment (hereafter moment) generated in structure members of bridges during
earthquakes is of crucial importance in aseismic design. Figure 11-14 shows the distributions
of maximum moment along tower/pier for the cases Hard, soft and medium soil respectively.
Figure 16: Comparison of peak response of Max. Displacement (m) for different shape pylon
in longitudinal & lateral directions for different foundation soils
679
Figure 17: Comparison of peak response of Max. Moment (MNm) for different shape pylon
in longitudinal & lateral directions for different foundation soils.
Decreasing the stiffness of soil reduces the moment in pier. this trend is amazingly same for
all the shapes of pylons and for both directions of earthquake. here also the effect of SSI is
predominant for the case of soft soil. from these figures it also clear that effect of pylon shape
is also governing the a seismic design of bridge because the pyramid shape pylon gives
lowest values of moment whereas the H shape of pylon give it a maximum. The peak values
of all the response are plotted in the fig (15-17) for the different pylon shapes in one figure
only. the figure 15 indicates that acceleration value is highest in the spread pylon shape for
longitudinal direction, where as the minimum values are observed for pyramid shape of pylon.
but when earthquake direction is changed trend is little different the peak value is observed
for the A shape pylon and minimum values is for pyramid shape. Figure 16 indicates the plot
of maximum displacement for different pylons. here it is clear that as earthquake direction is
changing from longitudinal to transverse the maximum displacement is changing from y
shape to A shape, thus displacement and acceleration is inversely proportion is proved here.
Figure 17 is the plot of Bending moment along the tower pier, the comparison shows that the
moment values are highest for H shape and Spread pylon shape when earthquake is in the
longitudinal direction, where as its more in H shape when it‟s in lateral direction., the reason
behind this could be the geometrical shape inducing higher moment of inertia resisting
earthquake forces. But pyramid shape is having less moment in both cases
5. Conclusion
In this study, the cable stayed bridge Quincy bay view bridge, is analyzed for four different
shapes of pylons on SAP 2000 software by time history method. The analysis was carried out
for three different soil conditions namely, soft, medium and hard soil to study the Soil
structure interaction effects and against the fixed base of structure-i.e. without SSI case. The
response in terms of displacement, ,max acceleration, and moment was plotted. The results
showed that,
680
1. There is a great influence of SSI effects in seismic response of bridge and it increases
fundamental time period of bridge for all pylons shapes.
2. The displacement and Moment response in the tower is minimized because of soil
structure interaction effects.
3. The pylon shape has great influence in mitigation of the SSI effects the result showed
that in comparison to rational A or H shape of pylon diamond shape of pylon is giving
less response. Hence if it is used practically will be proved economical
These conclusions are based on the analytical study on SAP software thus, experimental
verification is required before implementing in practice.
6. References
1. Betti R., Abdel-Ghaffar M., Niazy A. S., 1993, Kinematic soil-structure interaction
for long-span Cable-supported bridges, Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 415-430.
2. Chaudhary A. T. M, 2004 , Influence of pier stiffness degradation on soil-structure
Interaction in base-isolated bridges, Journal of bridge engineering, Volume 9, Issue 3,
pp -287–296.
3. Clough, R. W. and Penzien J. (1975), Dynamics of structures, McGraw- Hill Inc. 56-
114.
4. De Barros, F. C. P. and Luco, J. E. ,1990, Discrete models for vertical vibrations of
surface and embedded foundations, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics ,Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 289–303.
5. Desai A. K. & Desai J. A.(2009), “Effects of pylon shapes on dynamic behaviour of
cable-stayed bridges subjected to seismic loading” , Ph D Thesis, Dept of Applied
Mechanics SVNIT-Surat ,78-103.
6. Dicleli M. and Mansour M.Y. , 2003, Seismic Retrofitting Of Highway Bridges In
Illinois Using Friction Pendulum Seismic Isolation Bearings And Modeling
Procedures, Engineering Structures, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 1139–1156.
7. Dobry R. and Gazetas G. , 1988, Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping
of floating pile groups, Geotechnique, Volume 38, Issue 24, pp 557–574.
8. Fleming J. F. and Egeseli E. A., 1982, Dynamic behaviour of a cable-stayed bridge,
Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, Volume 8, Issue 1 , pp 1-16.
9. Gazetas G.(2006) “Seismic design of foundations and Soil–structure interaction”
13th wcee - keynote address k7, Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September, pp 36-57.
10.Gazetas, G. and Dobry R., 1984, Horizontal response of piles in layered soil, Journal
of Geotechnical engineering , Volume 110, Issue 1 ,pp 20–40
11.IS 1893-(Part-1) 2002 “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures”
Bureau of Indian Standards -2007.
12.Mylonakis G. and Nikolaou A. 1997, Soil pile bridge seismic interaction: kinematic
and Inertial effects. Part I: soft soil, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,
Volume 26 Issue 1, pp 337-359.
681
13.N. M. Newmark, and E Rosenblueth , (1971) Fundamentals of earthquake

engineering , Prentice-Hall, Newjersy. pp 1032-1059.
14.Nazmy A. S. and Abdel-Ghaffar A. M., 1990, non-linear earthquake response analysis
of long-span cable-stayed bridges: Applications, Earthquake engineering & structural
dynamics, Volume 19 Issue 1, pp 63-76.
15.NEHRP-2003 “Nehrp Recommended Provisions: For Seismic Regulations, for New
Buildings and other Structures” National Institute of Building Sciences.
16.S. R. Kaniraj (1988) ,Design aids in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Tata
McGraw-Hill : pp 345-402.
17.SAP2000. “Structural Analysis Programe” Integrated finite element analysis and
design of structures. Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, California, 1998.
18.Soneji B.B. and Jangid R.S., 2008, Influence of soil–structure interaction on the
response of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Volume 28 Issue 4, pp 245–257.
19.SP Guidelines (1990), “Specification for highway bridges”, Japan Road Association,
pp 47-52
20.Spyrakos C. C. (1992) “Seismic behavior of bridge piers including Soil-structure
interaction” Computers & structures, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 373-384.
21.Tongaonkar N.P., Jangid R.S. (2003) “Seismic response of isolated bridges with soil–
structure interaction” Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering, Volume 23, Issue 1,
pp 287–302.
22.Ucak A. and Tsopelas P. (2008) “Effect of Soil–Structure Interaction on Seismic
Isolated Bridges” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 134(7), pp 1154–1164.
23.Vlassis A.G. and Spyrakos. C.C.,2001, Seismically isolated bridge piers on shallow
soil stratum with soil structure interaction, Computers and structures, Volume 79,
Issue 1, pp 2847-2861.
24.Wilson J. C. and Gravelle W. (1991) “Modelling Of A Cable-Stayed Bridge For
Dynamic Analysis” Earthquake Engineering And Structural Dynamics, Volume 20,
Issue 1, pp 707-72.
682

Dimension JRNL 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dimension JRNL 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

1. Wave Amplification: seismic waves alters due to flexibility of soils

Soil-structure interaction (SSI) is a complex phenomenon for which research suggests

1. Direct method (scope of direct method is with time domain)

2. Modeling Procedure on SAP

Figure 1: Different tower /Pylons available for cable stayed bridge

2.1 Modeling of Bridge

Sr. Pylon/ Tower

Soil-I Soil-II Soil-III

3.2 Multimode spectral analysis

3.3The multiple support response spectrums (MSRS) method

3.4 The time history method

This is a numerical step-by-step integration of equations of motion. It is usually required for

Figure 2: Bhuj earthquake time history

Table 4: Details of three earthquakes considered in this study

longitudinal direction Total time

4. Result & Analysis

Figure 10: Response of Max Displacement(m) for Diamond/Pyramid shape pylon in

The distributions of maximum displacement (hereafter means the relative displacement

The distributions of maximum displacement (hereafter means the relative displacement

13.N. M. Newmark, and E Rosenblueth , (1971) Fundamentals of earthquake

You might also like