See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314223590

Simplified Expression of Hydrodynamic Pressure on Deepwater Cylindrical

Bridge Piers during Earthquakes

Article  in  Journal of Bridge Engineering · March 2017

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001032

CITATIONS READS

10 603

5 authors, including:

Bai Xiaoyu Huidong Zhang

Beijing Jiaotong University Tianjin Chengjian University
1 PUBLICATION   10 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bai Xiaoyu on 05 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Simplified Expression of Hydrodynamic Pressure on
Deepwater Cylindrical Bridge Piers during Earthquakes
Hui Jiang1; Baoxi Wang2; Xiaoyu Bai3; Cong Zeng4; and Huidong Zhang5

Abstract: The expressions of hydrodynamic pressure based on the radiation wave theory are too complex to be conveniently utilized in engi-
neering applications; therefore, a simplified extraction that is accurate and concise for calculating the hydrodynamic effect on deepwater bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

piers is highly desirable for seismic analyses. With a further comparison between the elastic vibration and rigid motion of cylindrical piers sub-
merged in water, the hydrodynamic pressure of the cylindrical piers can be approximately acquired in terms of the added mass caused by rigid
motion based on the linear radiation wave theory. A simplified formula for the hydrodynamic pressure is proposed by elaborate data fitting, in
which the section radius of the pier and the water height are the main parameters. The accuracy of the proposed formula is validated by the radia-
tion wave theory and the potential-based fluid-element method. Results prove that the simplified expressions are not only accurate but also con-
venient in calculating the hydrodynamic pressure of cylindrical piers with a wide range of geometries. The applicability of the Morison equation
and the Goto-Toki formula is also presented. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001032. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Deepwater cylindrical pier; Hydrodynamic pressure; Added mass; Simplified expression; Radiation wave theory;
Potential-based fluid-element method.

Introduction
Deepwater bridges have become effective means across broad riv-
ers, straits, gulfs, and reservoirs (Feng 2009). Examples include the
Rio-Antirrio Bridge (Dobry et al. 2003), the East China Sea Bridge
(Liu et al. 2007), the Su Tong Yangtze River Highway Bridge
(Bittner et al. 2007), and the Xiangshan Harbor Bridge (Gao et al.
2008). The depths of the submerged parts of some deepwater bridge
piers exceed 100 m, and the diameters of some submerged bridge
foundations reach tens of meters. Taking Japan’s Akashi Kaikyo
Bridge as example, the maximum water depth near the midspan is
110 m. With a foundation diameter of 80 m, the submerged depth of
the cylindrical caisson foundation below the main tower is greater
than 60 m. In the past 20 years, growth has been noticed in terms
of the engineering application of deepwater bridges in China
(Feng 2009). Examples include bridges over many gigantic hydro-
power stations in the mountainous areas of western China, such as
the Mangjiedu Bridge, the Miaoziping Bridge, and the Yunyang
Yangtze River Bridge. The largest pier depth of these bridges
1
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong Univ.,
Beijing 100044, People’s Republic of China (corresponding author). ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2223-0088. E-mail: jianghui@bjtu.edu.cn
2
Assistant Engineer, CSCEC AECOM Consultants Co., Ltd., Lanzhou
730030, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: wbx0623@bjtu.edu.cn
3 during an earthquake into an added mass. Liaw and Chopra (1974)
Graduate Student, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong
Univ., Beijing 100044, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: 14121174@
bjtu.edu.cn
4
Doctoral Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong
Univ., Beijing 100044, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: 14121209@
bjtu.edu.cn
5
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin Chengjian
Univ., Tianjin 300384, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: zhhuidong@
126.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 31, 2016; approved on
December 1, 2016; published online on March 3, 2017. Discussion pe-
riod open until August 3, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
reaches 168 m, and the submerged depth of the pier may even
exceed 100 m. Because these areas in China are potential regions of
high seismicity, these bridges will inevitably suffer from the threat
of earthquakes in the form of associated hydrodynamic pressures.
As it is known, hydrodynamic pressure during earthquakes
may alter the vibration characteristics and dynamic responses of
deepwater structures. Therefore, an accurate estimation of the
hydrodynamic force of bridge piers under earthquakes is very im-
portant for the seismic design of deepwater bridges. The hydrody-
namic effects on offshore and reservoir structures have received
considerable attention. The earliest study on the hydrodynamic
force on deepwater structures during earthquakes began in the
1930s. Westergaard (1933) performed experimental and analytical
studies on the hydrodynamic forces of dams and proposed an ana-
lytical expression to calculate the hydrodynamic pressure. Savage
(1939) studied the influence of the cross-section shape on hydro-
dynamic pressure based on scale model experiments. Morison et
al. (1950) proposed a semiempirical formula of added mass (com-
monly called the Morison equation) for slender structures. Later,
Penzien and Kaul (1972) modified the Morison equation to ana-
lyze the earthquake-induced hydrodynamic pressure. Despite the
lack of theoretical basis, added mass is still a widely used concept
because of its simplicity (Park et al. 2011). Goto and Toki (1965)
also developed a method to transform the hydrodynamic forces
developed analytical expressions for the hydrodynamic pressure
of cantilever towers in water, considering the surface-wave and
water-compressibility effects. Tanaka and Hudspeth (1988),
Huang and Li (2011), and Li and Yang (2013) showed that the sur-
face waves and water compressibility could be of little conse-
quence and therefore ignored when analyzing the dynamic
response of slender cylinders surrounded by water in earthquakes.
Goyal and Chopra (1989) discussed the hydrodynamic pressure on
towers of arbitrary geometry but with two axes of plane symmetry,
and the effects of the tower–foundation–soil interaction under
earthquakes were included. Bhatta and Rahman (2003) analyzed
the wave forces by scattering and radiation for a submerged

© ASCE 04017014-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 floating cylinder. Zhou and Liu (2007) developed an analytical
method to consider the bending-torsion vibration properties of
submerged cylinders with arbitrary cross sections. Following the
work of Liaw and Chopra (1974), many later researchers studied
the fluid–structure interactions of single immersed cylinders. The
method based on the radiation wave theory, as proposed and
developed by Lai (2004), is regarded as of great importance with
which great achievements have been made. Lai et al. (2004) stud-
ied hydrodynamic pressure due to the outer water, whereas Liu et
al. (2008) conducted a similar study of hydrodynamic pressure
caused by the inner water and proposed the hydrodynamic pres-
sure expressions for circular hollow bridge piers. Li and Yang
(2013) and Du et al. (2014) analyzed and simplified the analytical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
formulas for the hydrodynamic pressures of circular hollow piers
and solid piers, respectively. Wei et al. (2015) originally devel-
oped simplified procedures for the efficient seismic design and
analysis of water-surrounded composite axisymmetric structures,
and effects such as higher-order vibration modes, water compres-
sibility, flexibility of underlying soil foundation, and weight of the
superstructure could be effectively taken into account.
The hydrodynamic pressure expressions based on the radiation
wave theory are complex because they include special functions,
integrals, and similar terms. To solve this problem, custom-made
programs developed from specific mathematical software are gener-
ally in need of massive calculation, thus they are difficult to utilize
in practical applications. Therefore, a simplified extraction to both
accurately and concisely calculate the hydrodynamic effects on
deepwater piers is highly desirable. In addition, the representative
simplified methods for the determination of hydrodynamic pres-
sure, such as the Morison equation (Morison et al. 1950) and the
formula proposed by Goto and Toki 1965), are semiempirical for-
mulas, and their application scopes need further investigation.
Further, Ju and Zeng (1983) and Lai (2004) found that the total
velocity potential under the linear radiation wave could be divided
into two parts as the velocity potentials from rigid motion and from
elastic vibration. Li and Yang (2013) reported that the added masses
caused by elastic vibration are approximately equal to that caused
by the rigid motion for the submerged cylinders. These outstanding
works provide important enlightenment and serve as the foundation
for the simplification of hydrodynamic pressure. Taking the radia-
tion wave theory as the basis, this paper develops a simplified for-
mula for calculating the hydrodynamic pressure on cylindrical piers
z y
Pier
Free surface
Water depth h
o x
Earthquake wave
Fig. 1. Geometry of hydrodynamic pressure on a cylindrical pier submerged in water
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014
over a large range of geometries. By making further comparison of
the added masses from elastic vibration with that from rigid motion,
the simplified expressions in terms of added mass can be obtained
through elaborate curve fitting. The accuracy of the proposed for-
mula is verified by conducting theoretical analysis and applying the
potential-based fluid-element method (PBFEM). In addition, the
applicability of the well-known Morison equation and Goto-Toki
formula is examined.
Mathematical Formulation Based on Radiation
Wave Theory
Radiation wave theory is an analytical method for solving the
hydrodynamic pressure, and lateral vibration equations of beams
are used to describe the lateral deformation of cylinders submerged
in water. To have a closed-form solution for the equation, the bridge
cylinder has to be deemed as a cantilever, with the bottom fixed and
the other end set free. These assumptions make it hard to consider
other factors simultaneously, such as the weight of the superstruc-
ture and environmental constraints, such as soil stiffness. Therefore,
the circular solid pier in deep water can be assumed as a flexible cyl-
inder partially submerged in the water, with the bottom end fixed.
As shown in Fig. 1, the water depth is h (m), and the diameter and
radius of the pier are D (m) and a (m), respectively. Both the cylin-
drical coordinate system (o-r-u -z) and Cartesian coordinate system
(o-x-y-z) are introduced, with the origin of the coordinate located at
the center of the pier bottom. Note that the z-axis is vertically
upward from the rigid ground, whereas the r-axis measures radially
from the z-axis, and the u -axis from the positive x-axis. The earth-
quake excitation propagates along the x-axis, and therefore, the pier
can be characterized by translational motion in the x-axis as well as
rotational motion about the y-axis.
The work by Liaw and Chopra (1974) showed that, when the
structural fundamental frequency is not very low and is far from the
wave period, the effect of the surface gravity waves and the water
compressibility would be small enough to be ignored. This was
verified by Tanaka and Hudspeth (1988), Huang and Li (2011), and
Li and Yang (2013). Therefore, water is assumed incompressible
and inviscid with irrotational motion, and surface waves are ignored
in the subsequent analysis. Before the occurrence of earthquake ex-
citation, the water surface remains flat, and a single radiation wave
r
θ
D =2a
x
Hydrodynamic pressure P
Rigid ground
04017014-2 J. Bridge Eng.
 is assumed to be created (Jacobsen 1949; Black et al. 1971).
Furthermore, the linear wave theory can be applied because the
vibration circular frequencies of common deepwater bridge piers
are not very small and the wave amplitude is tiny enough (Morison
et al. 1950; Sun and Toyoaki 1991). For the ideal potential fluid, the
bottom boundary is regarded as a smooth horizontal solid wall, and
a free surface assumption is adopted for the water surface. The pier
is assumed to vibrate with a circular frequency of v (Hz), and the
stimulated water moves with the same frequency (Lai 2004). Based
on the aforementioned assumptions and the definition of the two
coordinate systems, the radiation velocity potential [U (r, u , z, t)]
can be expressed in cylindrical coordinates as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ðM þ ME Þ€x þ C_x þ Kx ¼ ðM þ MR Þ€x g (7)
where M, C, and K = structural mass, damping, and stiffness matri-
ces, respectively; €x , x_ , and x = cylinder acceleration, velocity, and
displacement, respectively; and €x g = acceleration of the ground
motion.
Note that ME cannot be directly solved because its definition
includes the unknown function of the vibration mode shape [Xs ðzÞ].
Fortunately, the equation can be simplified according to the contri-
bution of Li and Yang (2013) for cylindrical hollow piers that the
added mass caused by rigid motion can serve as an approximate
substitution of the one caused by elastic vibration of the submerged
cylinder, so long as the submerged portion of the pier is divided into

U ðr; u ; z; tÞ ¼ f ðr; u ; zÞeiwt (1) a large number of units, and then the higher vibration modes of
deepwater piers can be well considered. Therefore, it is feasible to
where f (r, u , z) = spatial factor of the velocity potential; and t (s) substitute MR for ME , thus Eq. (7) can be rewritten as
denotes the time.
The governing equation for the water can be written in terms of ðM þ MR Þ€x þ Cx_ þ Kx ¼ ðM þ MR Þ€x g (8)
its hydrodynamic pressure in cylindrical coordinates. To satisfy
Laplace’s equation, it becomes Now Eq. (8) can be solved with the help of standard finite-element
software because the added masses on both sides remain the same. In
∂2 f 1 ∂ f 1 ∂ f ∂2 f
þ þ 2 2þ 2 ¼0 (2) addition, the effects of other factors, such as the weight of the super-
∂r 2 r ∂r r ∂u ∂z structure and soil–structure interactions, can be considered by using
the semianalytical and seminumerical approach, with a refined finite-
For a linear radiation wave, the total velocity potential of the element model of the entire bridge structure.
radiation wave [U (r, u , z, t)] can be divided into two parts: the ve- The hydrodynamic pressure applied on a cylindrical pier can
locity potential from rigid motion [U R(r, u , z, t) = f R(r, u , z, t)eiwt] now be represented by the added mass (MiR ) of node i caused by
and from elastic vibration [U E(r, u , z, t) = f E(r, u , z, t)eiwt] (Ju and rigid motion (Fig. 2) (Li and Yang 2013). For the sake of brevity,
Zeng 1983; Lai 2004) the detailed derivation procedures have been omitted
Ð
U ¼ UR þ UE (3) X1 K ðk aÞsinðk hÞ
1 n n Li cosðkn zÞdz
Mi ¼ 2 r ap
R
(9)
n¼1
K1 ðkn aÞkn2 h
0

According to the linear Bernoulli function, the relationship

between the hydrodynamic pressure [p(r, u , z, t)] and velocity
potential (U ) is where the submerged portion of the cylinder is divided into n units
with n þ 1 nodes. The length of the first and last unit is L/2, whereas
∂U the length of the other units is L. zi is the z coordinate of node i, and
pðr; u ; z; tÞ ¼  r ¼ iw r f ðr; u ; zÞeiwt (4)
∂t

where r (kg/m3) = water density.

The hydrodynamic force applied per unit length of the pier along n+1
the x-axis can be written as
ð 2p ð h
FP ðz; tÞ ¼ pða; u ; z; tÞa cos u dzdu (5) L
0 0
i+1
Accordingly, the overall hydrodynamic force applied per unit Ci Ki
Mi + MiR
length of the pier can be divided into the rigid motion component i Li
(FPR ) and the elastic vibration component (FPE ). According to previ-
ous studies (Liaw and Chopra 1974), a free surface wave and its
i-1
resulting added damping are negligible, thus the hydrodynamic
force can be simplified as (Lai 2004)
zi
ð1Þ
FpR ¼ w2 eiwt MR up0
ð2Þ 2 z
FpE ¼ w2 eiwt ME up0 (6)
1 x
where MR = added mass caused by rigid motion; ME = respective O
ð1Þ ð2Þ
added mass caused by elastic vibration; and up0 and up0 = peak val- Earthquake wave
ues of the absolute motion displacement and the deflection relative
to the pier bottom along the x-axis, respectively. Fig. 2. Simplified numerical calculation model of a cylindrical pier
The dynamic equilibrium equation of the submerged cylindrical submerged in water
pier under seismic excitations is as follows:

© ASCE 04017014-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 Li is the integral interval between node i–1 and node i. In the afore- Curve Fitting of Simplified Formula of
0
mentioned equation, K1 ðÞ and K1 ðÞ represent a modified Bessel Hydrodynamic Pressure
function of the second kind of order 1 and its derivative, respec-
tively, and kn represents the wave number. Eq. (14) shows that the added mass coefficient (Cai ) is still too com-
The added mass coefficient (CaRi ) of node i caused by rigid plex to directly apply in numerical calculation. Consequently, a
motion can be defined as more simplified term is necessarily required, which can be fulfilled
Ð by using the curve-fitting technique. Note that the database of sam-
MiR 2X 1 K ðk aÞsinðk hÞ
1 n n ð Þdz
Li cos kn z ple piers used for data fitting directly influences the accuracy and
Cai ¼
R
¼ (10)
rpa 2 a n¼1 K1 ðkn aÞkn h
0 2
feasibility of the expected simplified formula, and the deepwater
bridges were systematically investigated to determine the appropri-
To verify the conclusion of Li and Yang (2013) that the added ate size ranges around the world. Based on these surveys, the radius
masses caused by elastic vibration and rigid motion are quantita- (a) of the piers ranges from 1 to 15 m and the pier height (H) is
tively approximate, a comparison is made in the form of an within 200 m, as shown in Table 1. Notably, some a-H combina-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

added mass coefficient. The added mass coefficient related to
rigid motion (CaRi ) can be calculated as shown in Eq. (10), and
the corresponding coefficient related to elastic vibration (CaEi )
can also be deduced based on the radiation wave theory. To
avoid a tedious pile-up of equations, the detailed derivation pro-
cedures are not listed here, but can be inferred from the work of
Lai (2004).
Six groups of piers with heights of H = 20, 30, 60, 90, 120, and
150 m are selected. The water depth (h) is set equal to H for all cases
here for the convenience of comparison. Coefficients CaRi and CaEi
for different piers are calculated with MATLAB software, and their
distribution curves as functions of h and D/h are shown in Fig. 3.
The subscripts RM and EV represent rigid motion and elastic vibra-
tion, respectively. The figure shows that the CaRi and CaEi curves are
highly similar to each other over the whole water depth, which con-
sequently verifies the consistency of the added mass caused by rigid
motion and that caused by elastic vibration. Obviously, the calcula-
tion of the added mass caused by elastic vibration is much more
complex and time-consuming than that caused by rigid motion.
Therefore, it is meaningful to make the substitution as described in
Eq. (8).
However, because of the special functions and integrals included
in Eq. (10), specialized computing abilities are required, which
inevitably limit the engineering application of radiation wave
theory. Given that
MiR ¼ Miwater Cai (11)
where Miwater can be defined as
Miwater ¼ r p a2 (12)
then the added mass coefficient (Cai Þ of the hydrodynamic force is
ð P2 þ h1:5
2X 1
1 K1 ðkn aÞ
Cai ¼ sinðkn hÞ cosðkn zÞdz (13)
a n¼1 kn2 h K10 ðkn aÞ Li
tions are not reasonable in actual engineering projects, and the pur-
pose of this paper is to make sure that the achieved simplified
method is widely applicable by means of constructing a broad-
scope pier database. As previously mentioned, the water depth (h)
around the bridge pier is assumed equal to the pier height (H) in the
process of curve fitting.
The chi-square minimization algorithm is used to fit the data.
The best-matching function is found by minimizing the square of
the errors. The fitting process consists of the following procedures:
Step 1: The added mass coefficients of piers listed in Table 1 are
first calculated by MATLAB software without any simplification
using Eq. (14). According to the distribution of Cai , the first curve
fitting is performed using the data statistics software OriginPro 9.0.
Because the distribution shape of Cai is very close to that of the
built-in regressive function MnMolecular in OriginPro 9.0, this
function is then chosen for the first step of regression [Eq. (15)]. As
is known, each of the intermediate parameters used in the data
regression have no clear physical significance
y ¼ A1 ½1  ekðzi A2 Þ 
A1 ¼ f ða; hÞ
A2 ¼ gða; hÞ; k ¼ sða; hÞ (15)
where A1, k, and A2 = constants to be determined; zi = height of node
i, ranging from zero to h; and f, g, and s = functions of variables a
and h. The result of this step implies that A2 is almost equivalent to
the water depth (h), and therefore, A2 is set equal to h.
Step 2: Parameters A1 and k are fitted according to the water
depth (h). Based on the distribution of A1 and k along the water
depth for different pier radii (Fig. 4), the fitting functions are chosen
to conduct the second round of data fitting
P1 h1:5
A1 ¼
k ¼ k1 =h þ k2 (16)

where P1, P2, k1, and k2 = functions of the pier radius (a). After this
Eq. (12) defines the mass of water whose volume is equiva- step, the values of P1 and k1 are coincidentally close to 1.0 and 2.0
lent to that of a circular pier with unit height. kn is the wave num- by data regression. The correlation coefficients for P1 and k1 signify
ber, and kn equals ð2n  1Þp =2h (n = 1, 2…) according to the the reliable regression process as shown in Table 2.
boundary conditions. Substituting kn into Eq. (13) results in the Step 3: Parameters P2 and k2 are fitted according to the pier ra-
simplified expression of the added mass coefficient caused by dius (a). In view of the distribution curves of P2 and k2 along the
rigid motion pier radius (Fig. 5), the fitting functions are chosen to conduct the
third round of data fitting
 
K1 ð2n  1Þp a ð2n  1Þp ð2n  1Þp z  P2 ¼ l1 þ l2 a þ l3 a2
sin sin 
8h X 1 
2h 2 2h Li k2 ¼ l4 =a (17)
Cai ¼  
ap 2 n¼1 ð2n  1Þ2 K 0 ð2n  1Þp a=ð2hÞ
1
where l1, l2, and l3 in the parabolic function = functions of variable a;
(14) and parameter l4 = coefficient of the inverse function of variable a.

© ASCE 04017014-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Comparison of CaRi and CaEi : (a) h = 20 m; (b) h = 30 m; (c) h = 60 m; (d) h = 90 m; (e) h = 120 m; (f) h = 150 m

© ASCE 04017014-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 Table 1. Sample Solid Cylindrical Piers Used for Data Fitting Table 2. Correlation Coefficient of P1, P2, k1, and k2

a (m) H (m) Correlation coefficient

1 2–200 a (m) P1, P2 k1, k2
2 4–200
1 0.9976 0.9444
3 6–200
2 0.9982 0.9919
4 8–200
3 0.9992 0.9923
5 10–200
4 0.9997 0.9927
6 12–200
5 0.9999 0.9932
7 14–200
6 1.0000 0.9937
8 16–200
7 1.0000 0.9943
9 18–200
8 1.0000 0.9949
10 20–200
9 0.9999 0.9955
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11 22–200
10 0.9999 0.9960
12 24–200
11 0.9999 0.9964
13 26–200
12 0.9999 0.9968
14 28–200
13 0.9999 0.9972
15 30–200
14 0.9998 0.9957
15 0.9999 0.9978

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
pier radius (m)
(a)

1.0

0.8

0.6
k2

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
pier radius(m)
(b)

Fig. 5. Distribution curves of P2 and k2 along pier radius

Mi ¼ Miwater Cai
Fig. 4. Distribution curves of A1 and k along water depth with different
Miwater ¼ r p a2
pier radiuses
  

h1:5 2a þ h
Cai ¼ 1  exp ðz i  h Þ
Step 4: A simplified formula can be arrived at to calculate the ð0:1a2 þ 1:9a  1:7Þ þ h1:5 ah
hydrodynamic pressure of circular piers submerged in deep water, (18)
as shown in Eq. (18), which takes the water height (h) and the pier
radius (a) as the principal parameters. It should be noted that, if dif- The accuracy and convenience of the regression are the key indi-
ferent fitting regressive functions are used, different fitting expres- cators of its applicability. For least-squares nonlinear curve fitting,
sions might be achieved the regression quality can be evaluated by using the standard

© ASCE 04017014-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Comparison of added mass coefficients (Ca ) by Eqs. (18) and (14): (a) h = 10 m; (b) h = 20 m; (c) h = 30 m; (d) h = 60 m; (e) h = 90 m; (f) h =
120 m

© ASCE 04017014-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 deviations and correlation coefficients of the regression parameters.
The smaller the standard deviation is and the closer the correlation
coefficient is to 1.0, the higher the fitting quality will be. For the
conciseness of this manuscript, the details of standard deviations
are not listed here. The correlation coefficients for P1, P2, k1, and k2
are shown in Table 2. The correlation coefficient is 0.9833 for l1, l2,
and l3, and 0.9967 for l4, indicating that the aforementioned regres-
sion process is of high quality.
Test Based on Radiation Wave Theory
Test of Simplified Formula
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
To test the accuracy of the proposed simplified formula [Eq. (18)], a
simplified methods are the Morison equation (Morison et al. 1950)
and the formula proposed by Goto and Toki (1965). The Morison
equation was first introduced as a semiempirical formula for cylin-
ders in oscillatory flow, which lacks a rigorous theoretical basis but
has been widely applied in engineering practice. Later, the modified
Morison equation (Penzien and Kaul 1972) was introduced. When
the piers vibrate in still water, the hydrodynamic pressures described
by the modified Morison equation can be expressed as
r p D2 1
FP ¼ Ca €x ðtÞ  CD r D_x ðtÞj_x ðtÞj (20)
4 2
where r , Ca; and CD = mass density of water, inertial-force coeffi-
cient, and damping-force coefficient of water, respectively; x_ ðtÞ and
€x ðtÞ = absolute cylinder velocity and acceleration, respectively; and
comparison between Eq. (18) and Eq. (14) is performed. The distri-
bution curves of Ca resulting from the two different methods are
shown in Fig. 6. The subscript S refers to the proposed simplified
formula, and W refers to radiation wave theory [Eq. (14)]. Fig. 6
shows that the Ca curves for the two methods are rather close under
various conditions. Most of all, the solution of Eq. (18) agrees better
with that of Eq. (14) at all D/h values with the increase in h. To
quantitatively assess the accuracy of the proposed simplified for-
mula, the errors of the total added mass coefficient (RS) for the pro-
posed simplified formula are calculated based on radiation wave
theory
P
n P
n tional acceleration; A0 = cross-sectional area of the bridge pier; and a
CaS i  CaWi
i¼1 i¼1
RS ¼ P
n 100%
CaWi
i¼1
where n = number of nodes; and CaS i and CaWi = added mass coeffi-
cients used in the proposed simplified formula and radiation wave
theory, respectively.
The distribution curves of RS under different water depths are
shown in Fig. 7. The proposed simplified formula has good preci-
sion over a wide range of pier geometries. The error of the proposed
simplified formula is small, with a maximum value of 4.7%.
Therefore, the simplification in Eq. (18) is acceptable for most pier
geometries.
Comparison of Two Other Representative Methods
Researchers have performed numerous studies to develop alternative
methods calculating hydrodynamic pressure. Two representative
Fig. 7. Distribution of RS along D/h based on radiation wave theory
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014
D = diameter of the submerged cylinder. When the  influence  of the
free surface wave is ignored, CD equals zero. Ca r p D2 =4 repre-
sents the added hydrodynamic mass of the cylinder with unit length,
within which Ca is the added mass coefficient.
The added hydrodynamic mass on the cylinder with unit length
can be expressed by the Goto-Toki formula (Goto and Toki 1965)
 rffiffiffi
w0 A0 b b 3 y
m¼ 1 (21)
g a 4h h
where w0 = weight density of water; h = water depth; g = gravita-
and b = pier sizes in the vertical and horizontal directions of the hydro-
(19) dynamic pressures, respectively. When the bridge pier is a cylinder, a
and b should be of the same value. y denotes the distance between
the water surface and the cylinder with unit length. According to Eq.
(21), the added mass coefficients from the Goti-Toki formula can be
obtained by applying m divided by r p D2 =4.
The distributions of these two added mass coefficients along the
vertical height are compared by radiation wave theory, as shown in
Fig. 8. The subscripts G and W in Fig. 8 refer to the methods of the
Goto-Toki formula and radiation wave theory, respectively. The dis-
tribution curve of the Morison equation is a straight line because it
ignores the influence of water depth. The smaller D/h is, the smaller
the difference between the Morison equation and radiation wave
theory is. When D/h > 0.1, the difference between the Morison equa-
tion and radiation wave theory becomes noticeable. This demon-
strates that the Morison equation is more suitable for slender struc-
tures. As also shown in Fig. 8, the difference between the Goto-Toki
formula and radiation wave theory is quite large, featuring the much
smaller value from the Goto-Toki formula. The smaller D/h is, the
greater the difference between these two methods is. This demon-
strates that the Goto-Toki formula is not quite applicable for bridge
piers with common geometries.
To quantitatively assess the accuracy of the two methods, the
errors of the total added mass coefficients for all nodes in water
(RAM) are calculated based on radiation wave theory
P
n P
n
i 
CaAM CaWi
i¼1 i¼1
RAM ¼ P
n 100% (22)
CaWi
i¼1
where n = number of nodes; and CaAM W
i and Cai = added mass coeffi-
cients for the two methods mentioned earlier and the radiation wave
theory, respectively.
The distribution curves of RAM for the two methods are shown in
Fig. 9, where D/h varies from 0.05 to 1.0 and the water depth h
04017014-8 J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Comparison of added mass coefficients: (a) h = 20 m; (b) h = 30 m; (c) h = 60 m; (d) h = 90 m; (e) h = 120 m; (f) h = 150 m

© ASCE 04017014-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Distribution of RAM along D/h based on (a) Morison equation;
(b) Goto-Toki formula
changes from 20 to 150 m. The added mass coefficient by the
Morison equation is larger than that of the radiation wave theory,
with the error increasing as D/h increases. The maximum error
reaches 45% when D/h = 1. The Goto-Toki formula underestimates
the added mass coefficient, and therefore, the RAM values are nega-
tive. RAM decreases with the increase of D/h. The maximum error
of the Goto-Toki formula is 30% for D/h = 0.05, and the error
reaches its minimum value of 3% when D/h = 1. If 5% is defined
as the threshold of the error (jRAM j  5%), RAM is less than 5%
when D/h is less than 0.1 for the Morison equation, confirming
that this equation is reliable for slender piers, whereas RAM for
the Goto-Toki formula is less than 5% when D/h is close to 1.0,
confirming that the Goto-Toki formula is more appropriate for
piers with large D/h.
Potential-Based Fluid-Simulation Models
PBFEM
To evaluate the validity and accuracy of the proposed simplified for-
mula in this paper, the dynamic responses of the piers are analyzed,
and the PBFEM is introduced for comparison. The PBFEM was pro-
posed in the 1980s (Everstine 1981) and was validated and success-
fully applied for dynamic fluid–structure interaction problems in
civil engineering (Bathe et al. 1999; Bouaanani and Lu 2009). The
ADINA software implements the theory of the PBFEM to perform
fluid–structure interaction analysis. A dynamic-response analysis is
also conducted to discuss the applicability of the Morison equation
and the Goto-Toki formula.
© ASCE 04017014-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014
Reasonable Mesh Size of Model Elements
and Fluid Domain
It is known that the mesh sizes and the ratio between adjacent solid
elements and fluid elements can significantly affect the computation
effectiveness of the fluid–structure interactions. Fig. 10(a) shows a
cylindrical mesh, with fluid and solid elements having radial lengths
of lf and ls, respectively. The studies by Wei et al. (2013) showed
that, as the ratio ls/lf along the radial direction approaches 1.0, the
vibration analysis is more likely to converge. Therefore, the fluid–
structure interaction analysis in this study is conducted with an ls/lf
ratio of 1.0.
The fluid domain around the pier also has an influence on the ac-
curacy of the fluid–structure interaction analysis. A larger fluid do-
main provides more calculation accuracy at the expense of addi-
tional computing resources. Therefore, a reasonable fluid domain
size must be determined in advance. A pier with a height (H) of 30 m
and diameter (D) of 5 m is used as a representative case. The fluid–
structure interaction model using eight-node solid elements (for the
bridge pier structure) and eight-node potential-based elements (for
the surrounding water) programmed in ADINA software is shown in
Fig. 10(b). The water width (B) in the radial direction is set to 1, 3, 5,
7, 10, 11, and 13 times the radius (a). Fluid–structure interface ele-
ments are used to connect the potential-based finite elements and the
adjacent solid elements. Free-surface interface elements and infinite
interface elements are set for the top boundary and the other bounda-
ries, respectively.
The frequency distribution characteristics of the pier with differ-
ent water widths are then analyzed. As expected, Table 3 shows that
the accuracy increases as the size of the fluid domain increases.
Once the water width in the radial direction is 25 m, or 10 times the
pier’s radius, the result of the frequency analysis stabilizes. Based
on these findings, the water width (B) is set to 10 times the pier ra-
dius (a) in subsequent fluid–structure interaction analyses.
Pier Samples and Material Properties
Pier Samples
In addition to the vibration properties, the dynamic response of the
pier is also affected by the water. An accuracy analysis of the
dynamic response is therefore required. Two groups of solid bridge
piers are adopted for calculation. The heights (H) are 30 and 60 m,
with D/H values of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0. The corresponding
diameters (D) for the H = 30 m piers are 1.5, 3, 6, 15, and 30 m, and
those for the H = 60 m piers are 3, 6, 12, 30, and 60 m. The water
depth (h) for all piers is set to 80% of the pier height (H).
Material Properties
The pier is equivalent to a circular cantilever column with the bottom
end fixed and the other end set free. The material of the concrete
piers is assumed to be linear elastic for dynamic history analysis.
The modulus of elasticity is 30.0 GPa, the density is 2,500 kg/m3,
and Poisson’s ratio is 0.2. The bulk modulus and mass density of the
fluid are 2.2 GPa and 1,000 kg/m3, respectively.
Selected Loads
Three groups of loads are adopted to test the accuracy of the simpli-
fied formula based on the dynamic response. They include three
near-fault earthquake motions, three far-field earthquake motions,
and two harmonic excitations. Time-history analyses are performed,
followed by comparisons of results for the simplified formula, the
Morison equation, the Goto-Toki formula, and the potential-based
finite-element method.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Fluid element

lf
Fluid-structure interface

ls
Solid element
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

B B
Free surface interface element Free surface interface element
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
Infinite interface element

Infinite interface element

∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
∞ ∞
Rigid-wall interface element Rigid-wall interface element
Fluid-structure interface element
(b)

Fig. 10. Finite-element model of piers and surrounding water: (a) discretization of elements; (b) finite-element model

Table 3. Comparison of Vibration Property under Different Water motions are characterized by significant long-period pulses in both
Widths the acceleration and velocity time histories.
Frequency (Hz)
Setting of Harmonic Loads
Water width [B (m)] First order Third order Fifth order Sixth order
According to Table 4, the predominant periods (T) of near-fault and
2.5 (1a) 1.561 10.03 12.13 17.34 far-field earthquake waves are close to 0.7 and 0.4 s, respectively.
7.5 (3a) 1.590 10.40 12.27 17.33 Accordingly, two harmonic excitations are defined using the formula
12.5 (5a) 1.599 10.55 12.33 17.32 y ¼ sin ð2p ftÞ=5, with f = 1.43 Hz (T = 0.7 s) and f = 2.5 Hz (T =
17.5 (7a) 1.601 10.59 12.35 17.31 0.4 s), respectively. The duration time is set to 5T, which is 3.5 and
25.0 (10a) 1.602 10.60 12.35 17.31 2.0 s for the two harmonic excitations. The peak acceleration is also
27.5 (11a) 1.602 10.61 12.36 17.31 normalized to 0.2g. The acceleration time histories and response
32.5 (13a) 1.602 10.61 12.36 17.31 spectra of the two harmonic loads are shown in Fig. 13. Clearly, the
37.5 (15a) 1.602 10.61 12.36 17.31 harmonic load can be regarded as relative low-frequency earthquake
waves with several pulses.
Selected Earthquake Ground Motions
The earthquake ground motion is a complex random vibration
Test of Formulas by Vibration Properties
process where significant difference exists in spectrum character-
istics between near-fault and far-field earthquake ground motions. To assess the accuracy of the methods in calculating the fundamental
To test the accuracy and applicability of the proposed method under
vibration period of the piers, results of the three added mass methods
different types of earthquakes, six representative near-fault and far-
are compared with that of the potential-based finite-element method
field earthquake records are selected as inputs. These records are
using the equation
obtained from the Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion
Observation Systems (COSMOS 2013) and the Pacific Earthquake TAM  TPBF
RT ¼ 100% (23)
Engineering Research Center Ground Motion Database (PEER TPBF
2013). In Table 4, MW is the moment magnitude of an earthquake
event, and PGA and PGV are the peak ground acceleration and peak where RT = error of the fundamental periods calculated by the three
ground velocity, respectively. All of the records are normalized by added mass methods (the proposed simplified formula, the Morison
having the same PGA equal to 0.20g. Figs. 11 and 12 show the accel- equation, and the Goto-Toki formula); TAM = fundamental natural
eration and velocity time histories of the fault-normal component of periods determined from these methods; and TPBF = fundamental
the near-fault and far-field ground motions. The near-fault ground period given by the potential-based finite-element method.

© ASCE 04017014-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 Table 4. Parameters of Selected Near-Fault and Far-Field Earthquake Ground Motions

Earthquake Date (month/ Fault distance Predominant

type Record name Earthquake day/year) MW (km) period (s) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGV/ PGA (s)
Near-fault
1 RRS228 Northridge 1/17/1994 6.7 7.1 0.72 0.838 166.1 0.20
2 H-EMO000 Imperial Valley 10/15/1979 6.5 0.5 0.66 0.314 71.7 0.23
3 H-E07140 Imperial Valley 10/15/1979 6.5 0.6 0.70 0.338 47.6 0.14
Far-field
1 BAD000 Northridge 1/17/1994 6.7 56.1 0.42 0.100 5.75 0.06
2 H-C06000 Coalinga 5/2/1983 6.4 49.0 0.42 0.126 11.0 0.09
3 BRC000 Northridge 1/17/1994 6.7 61.6 0.40 0.109 8.2 0.08
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.2 45
35
0.1 25
15
0.0
5
-5
-0.1
-15
-0.2 -25
0 5 10 15 20 0 4 8 12 16 20

(a) (b)

0.2 40
30
0.1 20
10
0
0.0
-10
-20
-0.1 -30
-40
-0.2 -50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

(c) (d)

0.2 30

20
0.1
10

0.0 0

-10
-0.1
-20

-0.2 -30
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

(e) (f)

Fig. 11. Near-fault ground motions: (a) RRS228 acceleration; (b) RRS228 velocity; (c) H-EMO000 acceleration; (d) H-EMO000 velocity;
(e) H-E07140 acceleration; (f) H-E07140 velocity

Table 5 shows comparisons of the fundamental vibration periods agreement with that of the potential-based finite-element method.
under the four methods, and Fig. 14 illustrates the error distribution The maximum error is less than 0.9%, which demonstrates the va-
curves of the different methods. Clearly, the fundamental periods lidity of the proposed simplified method for a wide range of piers.
achieved by the proposed simplified formulas are in very close For the Morison equation, RT is less than 2% when D/H is less than

© ASCE 04017014-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 0.20 15
0.15
10
0.10
0.05 5

0.00 0
-0.05
-5
-0.10
-0.15 -10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

0.2 20
15
0.1 10
5
0.0 0
-5
-10
-0.1
-15
-20
-0.2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

(c) (d)

0.2 20
15
0.1 10
5
0.0 0
-5
-0.1 -10
-15
-0.2 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

(e) (f)

Fig. 12. Far-field ground motions: (a) BAD000 acceleration; (b) BAD000 velocity; (c) H-C06000 acceleration; (d) H-C06000 velocity; (e) BRC000
acceleration; (f) BRC000 velocity

0.1. As D/H increases, the error reaches its maximum value of
nearly 8%. For the Goto-Toki formula, RT has a maximum value of
approximately 2.2% for D/H = 0.01. The accuracy of the Goto-Toki
formula improves with an increase in D/H, reaching good agree-
ment at D/H = 1.0. These results show that, for the calculation of
vibration property, the Morison equation is most reliable for slender
piers, whereas the Goto-Toki formula is more appropriate for piers
with a larger D/H (such as 0.5 and above), which is consistent with
Fig. 9.
Test of Simplified Formulas by Dynamic Responses
It is also necessary to assess the proposed formula with the use
of dynamic-response analysis. Taking the pier with a diameter
of 1.5 m and a height of 30 m as an example, the dynamic
responses [moment (M), shear force (Q), and displacement
(d)] under the record of H-EMO000 are shown in Fig. 15. It
reveals that the results from the proposed simplified method
clearly overlap with those from the potential-based fluid-
element method.
Peak Values of Dynamic Response of the Piers
under Earthquakes
For the four calculation methods of the hydrodynamic force, the
relationships between the distribution curves of the peak dynamic
response and D/H are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. NFE and FFE
refer to near-fault earthquake motions and far-field earthquake
motions, respectively. For piers with heights of 30 and 60 m, the

© ASCE 04017014-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 response curves under two types of ground motions are similar. agreement with that of the potential-based fluid-element method
Generally, as D/H increases from 0.05 to 1.0, the moment and only at certain D/H points. A quantitative error analysis is per-
shear forces at the bottom of the pier increase, and the displace- formed in the next section.
ment at the pier top decreases. In particular, the values calculated
by the proposed formula have excellent agreement with those
from the potential-based fluid method. The response values given
by the Morison equation and Goto-Toki formula are in good Errors of Dynamic Response of Piers
under Earthquakes
Based on the aforementioned findings, the accuracies of the three
0.3
1 simplified methods are further studied from the error analysis per-
y = sin(2π ft )
0.2 5 spective in this section. The errors in the dynamic response calcula-
tion under earthquakes are defined as
0.1 !
1 X X
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 3
0.0 MAMi  MPBFi
3 i¼1 i¼1
-0.1 RME ¼ 100%
1X 3
-0.2 MPBFi
3 i¼1
-0.3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

(a)
9
0.3 1
y = sin(2π ft )
0.2 5 6

0.1
3
0.0

–0.1 0

–0.2
-3
–0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(a)
(b)
8
1.8 7
6
1.5
5
1.2 4
3
0.9 2
1
0.6 0
-1
0.3
-2
0.0 -3
0 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(c) (b)

Fig. 13. Time histories and acceleration spectra of harmonic loads: Fig. 14. Comparison of errors for fundamental natural periods: (a) H =
(a) T = 0.7 s; (b) T = 0.4 s; (c) acceleration spectra 30 m; (b) H = 60 m

Table 5. Comparison of Fundamental Natural Periods by Different Methods

Period (s) (H = 30 m) Period (s) (H = 60 m)

Potential-based Simplified Morison Goto-Toki Potential-based Simplified Morison Goto-Toki
D/H method formula equation formula method formula equation formula
0.05 1.373 1.378 1.398 1.343 2.750 2.760 2.790 2.691
0.1 0.685 0.688 0.702 0.674 1.373 1.377 1.401 1.350
0.2 0.345 0.346 0.357 0.342 0.690 0.693 0.712 0.685
0.5 0.149 0.151 0.157 0.150 0.299 0.301 0.315 0.301
1.0 0.093 0.094 0.100 0.094 0.186 0.187 0.200 0.188

© ASCE 04017014-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 4 3250

2 2750
2250
MN·m

MN·m
0
1750
-2
1250
-4 750
-6 250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-250
(a) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.3 (a)

0.2 200
(MN)

0.1
150
0.0

(MN)
-0.1 100
-0.2
50
-0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) 0

20 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

15
(b)
10
cm

20
5
0
15
(cm)

-5
-10 10
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
5
(c)

Fig. 15. Time histories of (a) moment; (b) shear force; (c) displace-
0
ment of pier (D1.5-H30) from H-EMO000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

(c)
!
1 X
3 X
3
QAM i  QPBFi Fig. 16. Distribution of peak values of pier (H = 30 m): (a) moment;
3 i¼1 i¼1 (b) shear force; (c) displacement
RQE ¼ 100%
1X 3
QPBFi
3 i¼1 or far-field earthquake motions; and MPBFi, QPBFi, and dPBFi = peak
! values of the bending moment, shear force, and displacement from
1 X3 X3
the potential-based fluid method under the ith earthquake motions.
dAMi  dPBFi
3 i¼1 i¼1
Tables 6 and 7 show the errors of the dynamic responses of the
RdE ¼ 100% (24) piers of H = 30 m and H = 60 m under earthquakes, respectively.
1X 3
The dynamic response from the proposed simplified formula is in
dPBFi
3 i¼1 very close agreement with that from the potential-based finite-
element method. The error of the simplified expression is less
where RM-E, RQ-E, and Rd-E = errors of the bending moment, shear than 1% when D/H = 1.0, although it is not a practical size for
force, and displacement, respectively, for the three added mass bridge engineering. These results demonstrate that the proposed
methods under earthquake motions; MAMi, QAMi, and dAMi = peak simplified formula is valid for the dynamic analysis of deepwater
values of the bending moment, shear force, and displacement from piers with a wide range of dimensional proportions. In Tables 6
the added mass methods under the ith (i = 1, 2, 3) selected near-fault and 7, the Morison equation gives the most conservative

© ASCE 04017014-15 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 17. Distribution of peak values of pier (H = 60 m): (a) moment;
(b) shear force; (c) displacement
predictions among the three methods. The error of the Morison
equation increases with D/H. The dynamic responses calculated
by the Goto-Toki formula are smaller than those calculated by
the potential-based fluid method, especially for piers with a D/H
less than 0.5. The results are close to those of the potential-based
method only for D/H near 1.0. These trends are consistent with
the results observed from the added mass coefficient analysis
and the structural modal analysis. As shown in Tables 6 and 7,
the distribution characters of errors under near-fault and far-field
earthquakes are identical.
Errors of Dynamic Response of Piers under
Harmonic Loads
The applicability of the three simplified methods is examined by
comparing the dynamic responses of the simplified methods with
that of the potential-based fluid method under the function of two
© ASCE 04017014-16
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014
harmonic excitations. The errors for each simplified method are
defined as
MAM  MPBF
RM-H ¼ 100%
MPBF
QAM  QPBF
RQ-H ¼ 100%
QPBF
dAM  dPBF
Rd - H ¼ 100% (25)
dPBF
where RM-H, RQ-H, and Rd-H = errors of the bending moment, shear
force, and displacement, respectively, for the three added mass meth-
ods under harmonic loads; MAM, QAM, and dAM = peak values of the
bending moment, shear force, and displacement, respectively, from
the three added mass methods; and MPBF, QPBF, and dPBF = peak val-
ues of the bending moment, shear force, and displacement, respec-
tively, from the potential-based fluid method. The errors for piers with
heights of 30 and 60 m are calculated to yield the following results.
Tables 8 and 9 show the errors of the dynamic response of the
piers of H = 30 m (T = 0.4 s) and H = 60 m (T = 0.7 s), respectively,
under the function of harmonic excitations. The results show that the
simplified formula produces a stable trend with a small error of less
than 3.0%. Although the predominant period (T) of the harmonic
load may affect the dynamic response of the piers, it does not appear
to disturb the accuracy of the proposed simplified formula. Thus, the
proposed formula is applicable to dynamic-response analysis under a
wide range of loads. For the Morison equation, the dynamic response
is greater than that from the potential-based fluid method, and the
error is larger for higher D/H ratios. The calculated values given by
the Goto-Toki formula are less than those by the potential-based fluid
method. Similar to the piers excited under earthquakes, the results are
in agreement with those from the potential-based method only for a
large D/H, with a corresponding error of less than 0.5%. The afore-
mentioned conclusions are consistent with those obtained from Fig. 9
and Tables 6 and 7. In brief, comparisons and analyses indicate that
the proposed simplified method is valid for describing the hydrody-
namic pressure of submerged piers with a wide range of geometries.
Therefore, finite-element software can be directly used to analyze the
vibration properties and dynamic responses of deepwater bridges
without the need for custom-made programs.
Summary and Conclusions
The expressions of hydrodynamic pressure based on the radiation
wave theory have remained a significant challenge for the acquisi-
tion of computational solutions due to their complexity. This paper
developed and proposed a simplified formula obtained through data
fitting for cylindrical bridge piers. The accuracy of the simplified
formula was evaluated, and the applicability of the Morison equation
and Goto-Toki formula was also systematically explored. Based on
the results presented and discussed herein, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. Based on the substitution of the added mass from elastic vibra-
tion for that from rigid motion, the equivalent added mass of
the hydrodynamic pressure from rigid motion is simplified by
data fitting, resulting in a simplified expression without the
inclusion of special functions or integrals.
2. The accuracy of the proposed simplified formula is evaluated
by conducting an analysis of the added mass coefficient, pier
vibration property, and dynamic responses. The calculated
added mass has desirable agreement with that from the
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 6. Errors of Dynamic Response of Piers under Earthquakes (H = 30 m)

Near-fault earthquakes Far-field earthquakes

Error D/H Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula
RM-E (%) 0.05 0.68 2.78 –3.52 1.79 9.00 –11.62
0.10 0.55 10.85 –5.30 0.60 1.88 –6.17
0.20 0.24 4.76 –3.35 1.28 15.26 –5.18
0.50 0.70 14.03 –0.74 0.88 20.17 –0.88
1.00 –0.11 16.39 0.59 0.92 16.76 1.86
RQ-E (%) 0.05 1.14 0.78 –1.98 0.58 1.94 –0.34
0.10 0.21 7.65 –4.92 –0.45 –3.77 –2.98
0.20 0.73 1.62 –3.38 0.49 11.72 –5.44
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.50 0.40 11.72 –1.50 0.42 13.49 –2.28

1.00 –0.47 14.29 –0.18 –0.27 14.41 0.09
Rd-E (%) 0.05 0.47 1.46 –3.14 1.77 8.98 –9.01
0.10 0.59 10.94 –5.21 0.67 2.10 –5.72
0.20 0.11 4.92 –3.04 1.20 15.67 –4.87
0.50 1.01 –2.40 –13.81 0.24 39.41 14.14
1.00 –0.74 16.20 0.12 0.03 16.34 3.97

Table 7. Errors of Dynamic Response of Piers under Earthquakes (H = 60 m)

Near-fault earthquakes Far-field earthquakes

Error D/H Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula
RM-E (%) 0.05 0.57 2.16 –4.25 0.10 –0.65 2.05
0.10 0.35 1.96 –3.41 1.25 6.95 –7.99
0.20 0.45 7.14 –3.76 –0.12 3.94 –3.13
0.50 0.02 10.91 –1.10 0.19 14.88 –3.31
1.00 –0.55 23.84 0.01 0.23 33.14 0.90
RQ-E (%) 0.05 1.59 2.55 –5.90 0.02 –2.25 5.44
0.10 0.78 0.87 –4.37 1.69 3.30 –3.87
0.20 0.19 3.70 –4.10 0.10 –3.37 –2.19
0.50 0.19 7.04 –2.11 0.38 18.07 –2.99
1.00 –0.14 13.20 0.39 –0.88 28.99 –3.02
Rd-E (%) 0.05 0.35 0.69 –2.84 –0.09 –1.16 –0.42
0.10 0.09 1.45 –2.88 1.28 8.37 –0.23
0.20 0.31 7.80 –3.45 0.12 3.39 –3.40
0.50 0.39 10.82 –1.25 0.55 15.04 –1.22
1.00 –0.04 23.25 –1.14 –0.47 14.11 0.33

Table 8. Errors of Dynamic Responses of Piers under Harmonic loads (H = 30 m)

T = 0.4 s T = 0.7 s
Error D/H Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula
RM-H (%) 0.05 0.76 0.96 –1.91 0.45 0.98 –3.28
0.10 1.32 1.72 –3.16 1.04 5.96 –8.46
0.20 1.60 22.11 –7.29 0.46 7.76 –3.65
0.50 0.02 9.29 –1.77 1.10 14.03 –0.40
1.00 0.29 17.16 0.45 0.02 9.26 0.46
RQ-H (%) 0.05 1.36 1.33 –3.02 1.36 1.33 –3.02
0.10 0.56 3.50 –8.06 0.56 3.50 –8.06
0.20 0.50 7.94 –3.83 0.50 7.94 –3.83
0.50 0.95 11.69 –0.99 0.95 11.69 –0.99
1.00 0.09 10.54 0.03 0.09 10.54 0.03
Rd-H (%) 0.05 0.46 0.67 –2.64 0.41 1.35 0.17
0.10 –0.26 –1.65 –0.93 0.97 6.46 –8.33
0.20 2.62 26.05 –6.79 0.38 7.30 –3.38
0.50 0.04 11.35 –1.01 0.70 14.03 –0.50
1.00 –0.80 18.61 0.05 0.72 15.44 0.17

© ASCE 04017014-17 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 Table 9. Errors of Dynamic Responses of Piers under Harmonic Loads (H = 60 m)

T = 0.4 s T = 0.7 s
Error D/H Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula Proposed expression Morison equation Goto-Toki formula
RM-H (%) 0.05 –1.52 –0.85 2.38 2.00 3.35 –6.93
0.10 1.84 4.99 –4.10 0.09 8.79 –3.09
0.20 –1.32 –1.91 –1.73 0.66 9.18 –4.67
0.50 1.84 26.40 0.20 0.49 11.11 –0.78
1.00 0.09 14.84 0.58 0.12 18.32 0.93
RQ-H (%) 0.05 –1.99 –3.51 6.56 2.28 3.00 –6.93
0.10 1.20 5.92 –4.56 1.11 4.76 –3.12
0.20 1.51 3.08 –2.51 0.25 6.70 –5.31
0.50 0.68 22.91 –1.25 0.31 8.84 –1.40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.00 0.10 13.47 –0.52 0.19 16.41 –0.28

Rd-H (%) 0.05 0.10 0.86 –2.56 0.41 0.61 –2.59
0.10 0.22 0.86 –2.64 0.09 8.79 –0.47
0.20 0.43 2.81 –1.48 0.64 9.42 –4.43
0.50 1.46 26.31 0.03 0.01 10.79 –1.12
1.00 –0.42 15.51 0.05 –0.39 17.71 0.54

radiation wave theory, with a maximum error value of 4.7%. Acknowledgments

The first-order natural periods for all piers analyzed in this
study are in close agreement with those from the potential-
based fluid method, with the error value less than 1%. The
dynamic responses for all piers under different loads are nearly
equal to those from the potential-based fluid method, and the
maximum error is 2.62%. These results verified that the pro-
posed formula is sufficiently accurate for the engineering appli-
cation of submerged cylindrical piers with a large range of pier
geometries.
3. The calculated values from the Morison equation are close to
those from the radiation wave theory and the potential-based
fluid method for piers with a diameter-to-water-depth ratio less
than 0.1. As this ratio increases, the Morison equation gives
conservative predictions and overestimates the hydrodynamic
effect. The maximum errors of the vibration period and
dynamic response are 7.53 and 39.41%, respectively. Thus, the
Morison equation applies to slender piers with a small diame-
ter-to-water-depth ratio.
4. The discussion of the Goto-Toki formula shows that it com-
monly underestimates the hydrodynamic effects when the
diameter-to-water-depth ratio is less than 0.5. The maxi-
mum errors of the natural vibration periods and dynamic
response reach 2.15 and 14.14%, respectively. As the diam-
eter-to-water-depth ratio approaches 1.0, the values from
the Goto-Toki formula agree closely with those from the
potential-based fluid method. This demonstrates that the
Goto-Toki formula is more reliable for piers with a large
cross-section area and small height, which are rare in actual
bridge engineering.
In conclusion, the simplified formula proposed in this study
results in substantial improvement in computational efficiency
without introducing any significant reduction in quality compared
with the more complex radiation wave theory and potential-based
fluid methods. Furthermore, the simplified formula is applicable to
a wide range of cylindrical pier geometries, such as both thin and fat
submerged piers with a diameter less than 30 m and a water depth
less than 200 m. The simplified method may be useful for practical
engineering and bridge-design specifications. Meanwhile, limited
to the complexity of the problem, the potential influences of higher-
order modes, soil stiffness, and weight of the superstructure on the
computation of hydrodynamic pressure are not discussed in this pa-
per, and further study still needs to be conducted.
Support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant 51378050), the 111 Project (Grant B13002), the Major
Project of China Railway Corporation (2013G002-A-3), and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant
2016JBM044) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to
Dr. George P. Mavroeidis at the University of Notre Dame
for valuable suggestions. The authors also express their gratitude to the
editor and reviewers for their instructive comments on the manuscript.
References
ADINA [Computer software]. ADINA R&D, Watertown, MA.
Bathe, K. J., Zhang, H., and Ji, S. H. (1999). “Finite element analysis of fluid
flows fully coupled with structural interactions.” Comput. Struct., 72(1),
1–16.
Bhatta, D. D., and Rahman, M. (2003). “On scattering and radiation prob-
lem for a cylinder in water of finite depth.” Int. J. Eng. Sci., 41(9),
931–967.
Bittner, R. B., Zhang, X. G., and Jensen, O. J. (2007). “Design and construc-
tion of the Sutong Bridge foundations.” DFI J., 1(1), 2–18.
Black, J. L., Mei, C. C., and Bray, M. C. G. (1971). “Radiation and scatter-
ing of water waves by rigid bodies.” J. Fluid Mech., 46(1), 151–164.
Bouaanani, N., and Lu, F. Y. (2009). “Assessment of potential-based fluid
finite elements for seismic analysis of dam-reservoir systems.” Comput.
Struct., 87(3–4), 206–224.
COSMOS (Consortium of organization for Strong Motion Observation
Systems). (2013). “COSMOS virtual data center.” hhttp://www.cosmos
-eq.org/i (Jul. 18, 2014).
Dobry, R., Pecker, A., Mavroeidis, G., Zeghal, M., Gohl, B., and Yang, D.
(2003). “Damping/global energy balance in FE model of bridge founda-
tion lateral response.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 23(6), 483–495.
Du, X. L., Wang, P. G., and Zhao, M. (2014). “Simplified formula of hydro-
dynamic pressure on circular bridge piers in the time domain.” Ocean
Eng., 85, 44–53.
Everstine, G. C. (1981). “A symmetric potential formulation for fluid-structure
interaction.” J. Sound Vib., 79(1), 157–160.
Feng, M. (2009). “China’s major bridges.” Proc., IABSE Symp. Rep.,
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich,
Switzerland, 1–24.
Gao, Y., Yuan, W. C., and Jin, X. G. (2008). “Soil-structure-water interac-
tion of a cable-stayed bridge under seismic excitation.” Proc., 14th
World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., International Association for
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo.

© ASCE 04017014-18 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014

 Goto, H., and Toki, K. (1965). “Vibration characteristics and aseismic
design of submerged bridge piers.” Proc., 3rd World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, International Association for Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo.
Goyal, A., and Chopra, A. K. (1989). “Earthquake analysis of intake-outlet
towers including tower-water-foundation-soil interaction.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 18(3), 325–344.
Huang, X., and Li, Z. X. (2011). “Influence of free surface wave and water
compressibility on earthquake induced hydrodynamic pressure of bridge
pier in deep water.” J. Tianjin Univ., 44(4), 319–323 (in Chinese).
Jacobsen, L. S. (1949). “Impulsive hydrodynamics of fluid inside a cylindri-
cal tank and of fluid surrounding a cylindrical pier.” Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 3, 189–204.
Ju, R. C., and Zeng, X. C. (1983). Vibration theory of elastic structure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Beijing Jiaotong University on 09/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
coupled with the liquid, Earthquake Press, Beijing, 1–9 (in Chinese).
Lai, W. (2004). “Dynamic response study of bridge in deep water under
earthquake and wave action.” D.E. thesis, Tongji Univ., Shanghai,
China, 20–48 (in Chinese).
Lai, W., Wang, J. J., and Hu, S. D. (2004). “Earthquake induced hydrody-
namic pressure on bridge pier.” J. Tongji Univ., 32(1), 1–5 (in Chinese).
Li, Q., and Yang, W. L. (2013). “An improved method of hydrodynamic
pressure calculation for circular hollow piers in deep water under earth-
quake.” Ocean Eng., 72(1), 241–256.
Liaw, C. Y., and Chopra, A. K. (1974). “Dynamics of towers surrounded by
water.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3(1), 33–49.
Liu, S. X., Li, Y. C., and Li, G. W. (2007). “Wave current forces on the pile
group of base foundation for the east sea bridge, China.” J. Hydrodyn.,
19(6), 661–670.
Liu, Z. Y., Li, Q., Zhao, C. H., and Zhuang, W. L. (2008). “Earthquake
induced added hydrodynamic pressure on circular hollow piers in deep
water.” J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ., 43(2), 200–205 (in Chinese).
MATLAB [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
© ASCE 04017014-19
View publication stats J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(6): 04017014
Morison, J. R., Johnson, J. W., and Schaaf, S. A. (1950). “The force exerted
by surface waves on piles.” J. Petrol. Technol., 2(5), 149–154.
OriginPro 9.0. [Computer software]. OriginLab Corporation, Northampton,
MA.
Park, M. S., Koo, W., and Kawano, K. (2011). “Dynamic response analysis
of an offshore platform due to seismic motions.” Eng. Struct., 33(5),
1607–1616.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). (2013). “PEER
Ground Motion Database.” hhttp://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/i (Jul. 18,
2014).
Penzien, J., and Kaul, M. K. (1972). “Response of offshore towers to strong
motion earthquakes.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 1(1), 55–68.
Savage, J. L. (1939). “Earthquake studies for pit river bridges.” Civ. Eng.,
9(8), 470–472.
Sun, K. M., and Toyoaki, N. (1991). “Earthquake induced hydrodynamic
pressure on axisymmetric offshore structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 20(5), 429–440.
Tanaka, Y., and Hudspeth, R. T. (1988). “Restoring forces on vertical circu-
lar cylinders forced by earthquakes.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
16(1), 99–119.
Wei, K., Bouaanani, N., and Yuan, W. C. (2015). “Simplified methods for
efficient seismic design and analysis of water-surrounded composite
axisymmetric structures.” Ocean Eng., 104, 617–638.
Wei, K., Yuan, W. C., and Bouaanani, N. (2013). “Experimental and nu-
merical assessment of the three dimensional modal dynamic response of
bridge pile foundations submerged in water.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000442, 1032–1041.
Westergaard, H. M. (1933). “Water pressures on dams during earthquakes.”
Trans. ASCE, 98(2), 418–433.
Zhou, D., and Liu, W. Q. (2007). “Bending-torsion vibration of a partially
submerged cylinder with an arbitrary cross section.” Appl. Math. Model,
31(10), 2249–2265.
J. Bridge Eng.