Collapse Failure of Prestressed Concrete Continuous

Rigid-Frame Bridge under Strong Earthquake Excitation:

Testing and Simulation
Zhouhong Zong1; Zhanghua Xia2; Haihong Liu3; Yale Li4; and Xueyang Huang5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the collapse failures of long-span continuous rigid-frame bridges under strong
earthquake excitations. This paper presents the results of a study in which a 1:15 scaled two-span prestressed concrete continuous rigid-frame
bridge model with box-type piers was tested using the shake-table array test system to investigate the seismic response characteristics. Two
nonlinear finite-element (FE) models were constructed. The first was a single-girder model that was used to simulate the seismic response
under weak seismic waves. The second was an explicit dynamic FE model that was used to simulate the collapse and failure mechanisms of
the scaled bridge under strong earthquakes. Testing revealed that the response of the central pier of the prestressed concrete continuous rigid-
frame bridge was the largest under seismic excitation, and the damage first appeared at the lower end of the central pier in all cases. The numer-
ical simulations revealed that traveling wave effects have a beneficial effect on the displacement at the top of all piers. The explicit dynamic
model was able to predict the failure modes and collapse process of the scaled bridge model. The plastic hinges emerging at the ends of the
piers were considered the main failure modes, and the collapse process changed with different seismic wave excitations. Such tests and analy-
ses can provide useful reference for the seismic-strengthening and anticollapse design of prestressed concrete continuous rigid-frame bridges
with a long span. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000912. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Prestressed concrete continuous rigid-frame bridge; Collapse failure modes; Shaking-table array testing; Strong earth-
quake excitations; Explicit dynamic FE model; Traveling wave effects.

Introduction
In the past 30 years, the prestressed concrete continuous rigid-
frame bridge has become one of the main selections for use in
crossing valleys and gulfs in modern highways and high-speed
railways. Usually, excellent seismic performance can be obtained
with this type of bridge because of the strong deformation
capacity of the tall piers used in the bridge design. At present, the
behavior of the continuous rigid-frame bridge under the action of
small and medium earthquakes can be well extracted from testing,
numerical simulation, and real earthquake damage, but the col-
lapse failures under very strong earthquake actions are not as
clear. For example, damage of the piers in prestressed concrete
continuous rigid-frame bridges was discovered in 2008 following
the Wenchuan Earthquake in P.R. China, which revealed that the
1
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast Univ., No. 2,
Sipailou Rd., Nanjing 210096, P.R. China (corresponding author). E-mail:
zongzh@seu.edu.cn
2 shaking-table tests at Fuzhou University, China. Li et al. (2014)
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou Univ., No.
2, Xueyuan Rd., Fuzhou 350108, P.R. China. E-mail: xiatian@fzu.edu.cn
3
Engineer, Henan Provincial Communications Planning & Design
Institute Co. Ltd, No. 70, Midlonghair Rd., Zhengzhou 450052, P.R.
China. E-mail: liuhaihong_02@163.com
4
Doctoral Student, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast Univ., No.
2, Sipailou Rd., Nanjing 210096, P.R. China. E-mail: liyale@seu.edu.cn
5
Engineer, Fujian Academy of Building Research, No. 52, Jintang Rd.,
Fuzhou 350014, P.R. China. E-mail: hxy3730334@163.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 22, 2015; approved on
January 12, 2016; published online on March 9, 2016. Discussion period
open until August 9, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
potential collapse failure may also occur in this type of bridge
under ultra-specification-level earthquake excitations (Han et al.
2009; Fan 2013).
In recent years, the shaking-table array system has become one
of the most favorable techniques to perform earthquake simulation
tests of whole-bridge structures under multiple-support excitations
(Huang et al. 2008). For example, Johnson et al. (2008), Chen et al.
(2008), Noguez and Saiidi (2012), and Saiidi et al. (2013a, b) have
separately conducted experimental research on two-span and four-
span continuous concrete bridges using the three-table array at the
University of Nevada at Reno. Zong et al. (2014) selected a 1:100
scaled model of a three-tower cable-stayed bridge to conduct shak-
ing-table testing under uniform and nonuniform excitations. Li et
al. (2015) presented the shake-table test of a 1:10 scaled typical
curved bridge with concrete box girders under spatial ground
motions, including traveling wave effect, local site effect, and
ground motion multidimensionality. Huang et al. (2014) used the
Ganhaizi Bridge as prototype. A 1:8 scaled bridge model with two
spans and three lattice high piers was designed for multiple-
tested a 1:40 scaled model of the Taizhou Changjiang Highway
Bridge incorporating different seismic structural systems on the
shake tables at Tongji University, China. In addition, the influences
of variations in those viscous dampers and elastic cables on the
response of the model were also investigated. These kinds of seis-
mic testing enhance the understanding of seismic behavior of
whole-bridge structures. However, there are few experimental stud-
ies focused on the seismic behavior of the whole prestressed con-
crete continuous rigid-frame bridge under multiple excitations.
Meanwhile, collapse analyses of bridge structures have gradu-
ally gained more attentions. For example, Miyachi et al. (2012)
carried out progressive-collapse analysis on a three-span continuous

© ASCE 04016047-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

 Warren truss bridge with a total span length of 230 m subjected
to four different live-load distributions by the large-deformation
elastic-plastic method. Based on an actual recent and serious
progressive collapse of stone arch bridges, Xu et al. (2013)
simulated the complete progressive-collapse process using the
MSC Marc program, and identified the most critical and vulnera-
ble regions of the stone arch bridges. Dymond et al. (2014) pre-
sented an investigation of the failure of a pedestrian suspension
bridge, including a structural analysis and a simple strength
evaluation of the anchor under combined axial force and
moment. Bi et al. (2015) and Salem and Helmy (2014) intro-
duced the numerical simulation of collapse failure for a multi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
needs of the seismic design for this type of bridge. Bridges are often
built in locations susceptible to multiple extreme hazards (e.g.,
earthquakes, vehicle collisions, tsunamis or storm surges, and
blasts, and their coupling effects), thus lending mismatched design
solutions to the multiple-hazard dilemma (Fujikura and Bruneau
2012). The goal is to develop a design that is beneficial for one haz-
ard while at the same time avoiding the possibility of making the
structure vulnerable to other hazards. Therefore, it is necessary to
study the collapse failure mechanism of prestressed concrete con-
tinuous rigid-frame bridges under ultra-specification-level earth-
quake excitations.
In this study, a 1:15 scaled two-span continuous rigid-frame

span simply-supported bridge and a three-span truss-arched bridge model was tested using the three-table array at Fuzhou
bridge. Deng et al. (2015) reviewed the main causes and mecha- University, China, and simulated until collapse failure using an
nisms of bridge collapse under different factors, including flood, explicit dynamic model with the aid of the LS-DYNA software pro-
earthquake, landslide, hurricane, typhoon, vehicle overloading, gram. The objective of the study was to investigate the seismic
and terrorist attack. The collapse analyses just described response until the progressive-collapse failure of a prestressed con-
focused mainly on the concise but comprehensive analysis of crete continuous rigid-frame bridge under multiple-support and
engineering examples under static loading; they seldom multidimensional excitations, and provide technical support for the
involved the analysis of collapse failure under seismic loading. anticollapse design of this type of bridge.
Zhou et al. (2014) presented a numerical simulation of the seis-
mic response until to collapse failure for a scaled multispan
cable-stayed bridge model under uniform excitations and non-
uniform excitations. Progressive-collapse analysis of pre-
stressed concrete continuous rigid-frame bridges under strong-
earthquake loading have seldom been investigated.
The current design standards (AASHTO 2007; Ministry of
Transport of the People's Republic of China 2008) cannot meet the

Table 1. Similarity Ratios of the Scaled Bridge

Similarity
Properties Physical quantities Dimension ratio
Fig. 2. Cross section of main girders (units are centimeters)
Geometry Length L 1/15
properties Linear displacement D 1/15
Angular displacement B 1
Material Modulus of elasticity E 1
properties Density P 1
Poisson ratio M 1
Strain « 1
Stress Eɛ 1
Equivalent quality density r 1.67
Dynamic Frequency v ¼ l1 ð r E1 Þ1=2 10
properties Damping ratio j 1/225
Horizontal acceleration E=ð r lÞ 9
Structural stiffness El 1/15
Structure weight r l3 1/2025 Fig. 3. Reinforcement setup of pier (units are centimeters)

Fig. 1. Elevation of the two-span bridge model (units are centimeters)

© ASCE 04016047-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

 Shaking-Table Testing of the Scaled Bridge Model seismic response of bridge structures, and the second one aimed to
provide verification for updates to the nonlinear analysis model.
While designing the scaled bridge model for shaking-table testing,
Bridge Model Design
the following basic requirements were considered: (1) The bridge
The shaking-table test was used as a verification experiment, with
two purposes. The first one aimed to obtain the basic feature of the Table 3. Multidimensional Uniform Excitation Cases
Table 2. Parameters of the Model Materials Input peak acceleration (m/s2)
Reinforcement Case Wave X y
Parameter diameter Parameter value
1 EC 0.5 0
Concrete grade C35 2 EC 0 0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cubic compressive strength (MPa) 34.6 3 EC 0.5 0.5

Elastic modulus (MPa) 3.22  104 4 JJ 0.5 0.425
Yield strength (MPa) Ø6 375.27 5 EC 1 0
Ø8 326.51 6 EC 0 1
Ultimate strength (MPa) Ø6 503.81 7 EC 1 1
Ø8 456.60 8 JJ 1 0
Elastic modulus (MPa) Ø6 2.11  105 9 JJ 1 0.85
Ø8 2.12  105 10 EC 2 2

Fig. 4. (Color) Construction and installation of the bridge model (images by Haihong Liu): (a) template of bridge model; (b) hoisting preparation; (c)
installation of the bridge model on the shaking table

© ASCE 04016047-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Accelerometer setup and numbering [Note: H1#, L1#, and V1# mean No. 1 accelerator in horizontal (x), longitudinal (y), and vertical (z); the
rest are similar]

Fig. 6. (Color) Details of the data-acquisition system (images by Haihong Liu): (a) accelerometers; (b) strain gauges; (c) laser displacement sensor;
(d) data-acquisition system

model should be simple in terms of its fabrication and construction.
(2) The similarity ratios of the model were determined according to
the size and capacity of shaking tables. (3) The bridge model should
be as large as possible to eliminate the effects of irregularity among
its configuration and variations in the properties of the model mate-
rials. Based on these requirements, the model bridge was geometri-
cally scaled to near 1:15 according to the basic size and construction
of an actual bridge structure, and the capacity of the three shaking
tables. The stiffness of the flexible foundations was not considered
in the bridge model. The stiffness of the abutment and the backfill
soil also was not included because of limitations of the experimental
conditions. According to the dynamic similarity regulations (Wang
2006), the similarity ratios of the model with respect to the proto-
type bridge were as shown in Table 1.
The bridge model dimensions are shown in Figs. 1–3. The total
length of the main girder was 12 m consisting of two spans, and the
height of the concrete box girder was 0.45 m at the pier top and 0.35
m at the midspan, and the bridge deck was 0.84 m wide, as shown in
Fig. 2. The main girder had a 0.4-m linear gradient segment. The
height of the pier was 3.2 m without considering the concrete foun-
dation height of 0.3 m. A box-type cross section was used in the
piers, the external size of the pier was 0.32  0.44 m, and the inter-
nal dimensions were 0.18  0.26 m, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Material Properties
C35 strength grade concrete was adopted in the bridge model for
both the main girder and the piers. The piers were reinforced with

© ASCE 04016047-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Input acceleration time history used for the shaking-table tests: (a) time-history curve of EC wave; (b) time-history curve of JJ wave
28u8 longitudinal bars and u6 stirrup space at 100 mm, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3. The main girder contained two 7u5 unbonded pre-
stressed tendons. The properties of the model materials are listed in
Table 2.
Model Construction and Installation
The bridge model was constructed in the structural lab. The rein-
forcement cage was installed first, and then the wooden formwork
of the model was made. [Fig. 4(a)]. Concrete was casted at a time.
The wooden framework was removed when the strength of the
concrete achieved at least 75% of compressive strength. The
bridge model was transported onto the shaking tables by a spe-
cially designed steel truss [Fig. 4(b)] and then fixed to the three
shaking tables with high-strength bolts [Fig. 4(c)]. The central
pier of the bridge model was attached to Shaking Table 1, and the
two side piers were placed at Shaking Tables 2 and 3, respec-
tively. A cast-iron chunk was installed as the supplemented mass
on the surface of the main girder, and a total of 3,300 kg supple-
ment mass was adopted during the testing to mimic the target
axial load ratio of 0.04.
Layout of the Sensors
The bridge model was instrumented with 31 accelerometers, 76
strain gauges, and 3 laser displacement sensors (Fig. 5). The accel-
erometers were used to measure the vertical, horizontal, and longi-
tudinal accelerations of the main girder, and the transverse and lon-
gitudinal accelerations of each pier. Concrete strains at the top and
bottom of the piers were measured using concrete strain gauges.
Reinforcement strains were also tested in the piers using the steel
strain gauges. The laser displacement sensors measured the longitudi-
nal displacement at the end of the main girder, the transverse dis-
placement at the upper end of the central pier, and the transverse dis-
placement at one of the side piers. The DEWESOFT data-acquisition
system was selected to obtain the acceleration and strain data, and the
sampling frequency was 200 Hz. The details of the data-acquisition
system are listed in Fig. 6.
Test Cases
An observed seismic wave, referred to in this paper as the El-
Centro (EC) wave, and a synthetic seismic wave, referred to in
this paper as the Jinjiang (JJ) wave, were selected as the input
excitations. These two seismic waves had time lengths of 40 and
50 s, respectively. The acceleration peak values of the two waves
were adjusted proportionately in the test cases. The time-history
curves of these input earthquake waves are given in Fig. 7. It can
© ASCE 04016047-5
J. Bridge Eng., 04016047
Fig. 8. (Color) Crack distribution in piers of scaled bridge (images by
Haihong Liu): (a) crack in Pier 2; (b) cracks in Pier 1 and Pier 3
be seen from Fig. 7 that the earthquake dominant frequencies
(EDFs) of the EC wave along the south-north were between 1 and
5Hz, and the EDFs of the JJ wave were around 5–20 Hz.
Therefore, both the EC and JJ waves had large influence on struc-
tures with high frequency.
The uniform excitations of the two earthquake waves were con-
ducted in both horizontal one-way and multidimensional directions.
The x-direction corresponds to the longitudinal direction of the
bridge model, and the y-direction corresponds to the transverse
direction. The input acceleration peaks were adjusted to 0.5, 1, and
2 m/s2, respectively. White-noise excitations were dispersed to
track the modal properties of the bridge model before each excita-
tion case started. Table 3 lists the test cases for the shaking-table
test.
For Cases 1–4, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the seis-
mic waves excited in the model was 0.05g, and the concrete strain
and reinforcement strain were in the elastic range, so the bridge
model worked in the elastic state during these cases. In Case 5,
cracks were observed in both Pier 2 and Pier 3, and the height of
crack in Pier 2 was 0.2 m, whereas the crack in Pier 3 was observed
only at the lower end of the pier. In Case 7, the seismic wave acted
both in the x- and y-directions, and the crack developed along the
pier’s height direction. The maximum heights of the cracks in Pier 2
and Pier 3 were 0.7 and 0.5 m, respectively, and the crack at the
height of 0.4 m was also found in Pier 1. The crack distribution is
shown in Fig. 8. It can be concluded from Cases 5–9 that the bridge
model was in the cracking stage when the PGA of the input seismic
waves arrived at 0.1g.
In Case 10, the PGA of the EC wave achieved 0.2g, and the
crack extended along the height direction slightly, but the strain of
the steel bar did not exceed the yield strength. After that, the testing
of the bridge model was ended, regrettably, because of faults in the
shaking-table system.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 4. Peak Acceleration in Each Case in x-Direction

Peak acceleration (m/s2)

Wave Case PGA (m/s2) Direction 1# 3# 5# 7# 9# 11# 13# 15#
EC 1 0.50 x 0.61 0.53 0.58 0.54 0.57 0.32 0.34 0.38
5 1.00 x 1.53 1.41 1.58 1.40 1.49 0.86 0.96 0.90
3 0.50 x/y 0.72 0.62 0.69 0.66 0.65 0.44 0.45 0.44
7 1.00 x/y 1.77 1.59 1.82 1.55 1.73 0.88 0.95 0.96
10 2.00 x/y 2.62 2.49 2.80 2.35 2.61 1.43 1.74 1.61
JJ 8 1.00 x 1.43 1.36 1.58 1.34 1.40 0.89 0.96 0.88
4 0.50 x/y 0.75 0.68 0.71 0.69 0.70 0.48 0.50 0.50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 1.00 x/y 1.73 1.57 1.74 1.59 1.64 0.97 1.02 1.02

Table 5. Peak Acceleration in Each Case in y-Direction

Peak acceleration (m/s2)

Wave Case PGA (m/s2) Direction 1# 3# 5# 7# 9# 11# 13# 15#
EC 2 0.50 y 0.79 0.88 0.92 0.93 0.84 0.42 0.49 0.56
6 1.00 y 1.31 1.43 1.49 1.48 1.48 0.75 0.83 0.99
3 0.50 x/y 0.86 0.93 0.97 0.99 0.90 0.45 0.51 0.55
7 1.00 x/y 1.30 1.43 1.59 1.59 1.65 0.83 0.89 1.12
10 2.00 x/y 2.82 3.38 3.08 2.91 2.84 1.83 2.04 1.95
JJ 4 0.50 x/y 0.64 0.74 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.45 0.51 0.51
9 1.00 x/y 1.70 1.79 1.89 1.80 1.70 0.87 0.93 0.92

Table 6. First Five Modal Modes of the Bridge Model

Order number FE Model 1 frequency (Hz) FE Model 2 frequency (Hz) Testing frequency (Hz) Characteristic of mode
1 8.003 8.235 8.115 First longitudinal floating vibration
2 14.937 15.040 15.012 First lateral bending vibration
3 21.533 21.123 21.235 First vertical bending vibration
4 30.836 28.913 29.803 Second vertical bending vibration
5 35.200 32.343 34.226 Second lateral bending vibration
Note: FE Model 1 is the single-girder model, and FE Model 2 is the explicit dynamic FE model.

Analysis of Test Results
Before starting the testing, the five-order frequencies and modal
shapes were extracted from measured acceleration signals with the
stochastic subspace identification method (Ren and Zong 2004), as
shown in Table 6. Because of the high piers, longitudinal vibration
of the model bridge occurred first, followed by transversal vibra-
tion. The vertical bending vibration was listed in the third order.
This conforms to the basic dynamic characteristics of a continuous
rigid-frame bridge with high piers and long spans.
Acceleration Response of Piers
In each testing case, the form of the acceleration time-history
response curve was basically the same at the piers, whereas the
peak acceleration responses at the upper ends of the piers were
larger than those at the lower end. The testing results are shown in
Table 4 and Table 5. The output peak accelerations were larger than
the PGAs of input seismic motions, which means that the PGAs of
input earthquake motions were amplified at the upper ends of all
piers. The largest peak acceleration responses in the central pier
were 182% of peak acceleration of input El-Centro seismic excita-
tion and 174% of peak acceleration of input Jinjiang seismic excita-
tion in the x-direction, respectively, and 194% of peak acceleration
of input El-Centro seismic excitation and 189% of peak acceleration
of input seismic Jinjiang excitation in the y-direction, respectively.
Compared with the peak acceleration responses at the upper
ends of piers subjected to uniaxial earthquake excitation, the peak
acceleration responses in action of biaxial seismic excitation were
slightly larger, as shown in Fig. 9, as in the example of El-Centro
earthquake excitation with a PGA of 1.0 m/s2. It can be concluded
that the biaxial earthquake excitation increased the peak accelera-
tion response of the bridge model. When the PGA of the input was
over 2.0 m/s2, the corresponding relationship was stepped into non-
linear, especially in the x-direction, as shown in Fig. 10.
Acceleration Response of Main Girders
The acceleration responses of the main girder were characterized by
the following features: (1) Under bidirectional horizontal seismic
action, the longitudinal acceleration response showed a W-shape
symmetry. The values at the top of the piers were greater than those
at the middle spans [Fig. 11(a)]. (2) Under bidirectional horizontal
seismic action, the lateral acceleration response presented the
inverted V shape symmetrically; the value at the top of the central
piers was the maximum, the values at the middle spans were second,
and the values at the tops of the two side piers were the minimum
[Fig.11(b)]. (3) The vertical vibration of the main girder was more
obvious under horizontal earthquake excitations. The values at the
middle spans were larger than those at the tops of the three piers, as
shown in Figs. 11(c) and (d), for example, when the 2.0-m/s2 PGA
of the EC wave excited in both the x- and y-directions, the vertical

© ASCE 04016047-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Comparison of acceleration response under uniaxial and biaxial input excitation: (a) longitudinal accelerations; (b) transverse accelerations

Fig. 10. Relationship between output peak acceleration and PGA of input EC wave

peak acceleration happened in the middle of the span between Pier
1 and Pier 2, and arrived at 0.84 m/s2.
Pier Strain Response
The basic feature of the strain response of the continuous rigid-frame
bride model can be obtained according to the strain time-history
response. The peak strains at the piers derived from each case showed
that both the concrete strain responses and the steel strain responses
under bidirectional excitation were larger than the corresponding
values under unidirectional excitation using the same seismic wave,
as shown in Fig. 12. The strains of the central pier were larger than
those of the side piers.
The nonlinear correlation relationships among the output peak
strains and input peak accelerations were also extracted while the
PGA of the input seismic wave was increased from 0.05 to 0.2g, as
shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen that the model was in the elastic
state when the PGAs of input seismic excitation were smaller than
0.1g. When the PGAs were bigger than 0.1g, the structural response
displayed nonlinear features.
Displacement Response
Fig. 14 presents the longitudinal and transverse displacement time-
history curves at the upper ends of the piers under the input seismic
wave excitations with peak acceleration of 0.1g. D1, D2, and D3
represent the longitudinal displacement, the transverse displace-
ment of the upper ends of the piers, and the transverse displacement
of the upper end of the central pier, respectively. To obtain the rela-
tive displacement of the main girder, the shaking-table displace-
ments were subtracted from the absolute displacement measured at
the upper ends of the piers.
When the input peak accelerations were 0.5 and 1.0 m/s2, respec-
tively, the displacements in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions excited by uniaxial seismic waves were obviously
smaller than those excited by biaxial seismic waves. The EC wave
was selected as an example and is shown in Fig. 15. Biaxial earth-
quake excitation amplified the peak displacement responses of the
bridge model.
Traveling Wave Effects Analysis
Single-Girder Model
The finite-element (FE) model of the scaled model was established
with the use of ANSYS (Shang et al. 2008). Spatial beam element
Beam188 was used to simulate the main girder with variable section
and piers. The truss element (Link8) with only tension stiffness was
adopted to model the prestressed tendons. Supplement mass was
simulated by Element Mass21. There were 395 nodes, 172
Beam188 elements, 48 Link8 elements, and 113 Element Mass21

© ASCE 04016047-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. (Color) Comparison of acceleration response of the main girder (0.1g): (a) longitudinal peak acceleration response; (b) lateral peak accelera-
tion response; (c) vertical peak acceleration response; (d) vertical acceleration time history at seven points

elements in the FE model. The boundary conditions were simulated

by fixing the 6 degrees of nodes at the bottom of each pier.
The Subspace Method in ANSYS was used to solve the modal
characteristics. The first five natural frequencies and modal shapes
were calculated and compared with the measured modes, as shown
in Table 6. It can be seen that the numerical calculations of the sin-
gle-girder model of the scaled model bridge agree well with those
from testing. The results indicate that the single-girder model was
accurate enough to study the dynamic characteristics and the seis-
mic response of the continuous rigid-frame bridge under small and
medium excitations.
Structural dynamic response analysis methods under multi-
ple-support excitations include the relative motion method
(RMM) (Clough and Penzien 1993), large-mass method (LMM)
(Leger et al. 1990), and displacement-based method (DBM)
(Wilson 1998). In the RMM, the total dynamic response under
differential support motions can be decomposed into pseudo-
dynamic and dynamic components. This method closely follows
logical reasoning. However, the calculation program should be
self-compiled, which is not possible to implement in the general
FE programs at present. On the other hand, the LMM and DBM
use numerical methods to solve motion equations under multi- Fig. 12. Strain response analysis under uniaxial and biaxial input exci-
ple-support excitation, and the approximate solutions of the seis- tation: (a) Peak Acceleration 13 reinforcement strain time-history curve
mic responses of structures subjected to differential support in Case 7; (b) peak strain response at the bottom of piers (1 = concrete
motions can be obtained. In the LMM, the attached large-mass compressive strain, Pier 1; 2 = concrete tensile strain, Pier 1; 3 = con-
points may lead to generation of additional damping force in the crete compressive strain, Pier 2; 4 = concrete tensile strain, Pier 2; 5 =
foundations of structures. The additional damping forces of the steel compressive strain, Pier 2; 6 = steel tensile strain, y, Pier 2)
large-mass points are very small for the large-periodic structures,
and their influence can be ignored. For this reason, LMMs are

© ASCE 04016047-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Relationship between output strain and PGA of input EC wave in x- and y-directions: (a) reinforcement strain; (b) concrete strain

Fig. 14. (Color) Displacement time-history curve under 0.1-g acceleration peak (units are millimeters): (a) longitudinal displacement at top of Pier 1;
(b) transverse displacement at top of Pier 1; (c) transverse displacement at top of Pier 2

largely adopted to conduct seismic response analysis of large-
span bridges under multiple-support excitation. In this study, the
LMM was adopted to analyze the seismic response of a pre-
stressed concrete continuous rigid-frame bridge under strong
earthquake excitation. Compared with the RMM, the structural
response using LMM is the total response, which cannot be dis-
tinguished into pseudo-dynamic and dynamic components.
FE Model Verification
Based on the single-girder FE model, the time-history analysis of
the scaled bridge under single-directional excitations and bidirec-
tional excitations was conducted by the Newmark- b method. The
seismic responses of three piers were approximately symmetric
under horizontal earthquake excitations. The measured and calcu-
lated displacement in test points D1, D2, and D3 were also compared
and are shown in Fig. 16. It can be seen from the figure that the dis-
placement peak values from the shaking-table test agreed well with
those from the FE model.
The acceleration and displacement response time-history curves
at the upper ends of the three piers are shown in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18,
respectively. It can be seen that the response tendencies of the
FE analysis were consistent with those from the shaking-table
tests. From these comparisons, it can be concluded that the single-
girder FE model can be used to predict the seismic response of the
two-span rigid-frame model bridge under small and medium

© ASCE 04016047-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Comparison of displacement response subjected to uniaxial
and biaxial input excitation: (a) EC wave, peak acceleration of 0.5 m/s2;
(b) EC wave, peak acceleration of 1.0 m/s2
Fig. 16. Comparison of testing and calculating peak displacement: (a) under EC wave excitation (0.05g); (b) under EC wave excitation (0.1g);
(c) under JJ wave excitation; (d) under EC wave excitation (0.2g)
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 04016047
multidimensional excitations. However, the implicit FE model
cannot directly simulate the whole failure process of the two-span
rigid-frame bridge to demonstrate the collapse mechanism and
failure under strong earthquake.
Traveling Wave Effects
The influence of the traveling wave effect on the acceleration
responses was investigated considering three different apparent
wave velocities, 300, 600, and 1000 m/s, under the EC wave with a
PGA of 0.2-g excitation. Compared with the longitudinal displace-
ment responses arriving at 6.555, 6.476, and 6.499 mm at the upper
ends of three piers under uniform seismic excitation, the longitudinal
displacement values were 5.39, 0.582, and 5.312 mm, respectively,
when the wave velocity was 300 m/s. The longitudinal displacement
did not increase, and the longitudinal displacement of the central
pier was obviously smaller than that of the side pier. With the appa-
rent wave velocity increased, the displacement response of the longi-
tudinal bridge at the upper ends of the two side piers became smaller,
and the responses at the upper end of the central pier became larger
so that longitudinal displacements at the upper ends of the three piers
were close finally.
The acceleration responses from nonuniform excitation and cor-
responding uniform excitation were calculated and compared. The
longitudinal acceleration ratios of the main girders are shown in
Fig. 19. With increasing wave velocity, the acceleration responses
increased accordingly. When the wave velocity arrived at 1,000
m/s, the acceleration responses were 1.901, 2.011, 1.972, 2.102, and
1.952 times the input uniform acceleration. This means that the lon-
gitudinal acceleration responses subjected to traveling seismic exci-
tation were bigger than those excited by uniform excitation. Thus,
the traveling wave effect cannot be ignored in seismic response
04016047-10 J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. (Color) Comparison of calculating and testing acceleration response in Case 9 (JJ = 0.1g, x þ y): (a) Pier 1; (b) Pier 2; (c) Pier 1

analysis of rigid-frame bridged. The test results of the internal force
of the piers also support this conclusion.
Collapse Failure Analysis
Explicit Dynamic FE Model
There are significant characteristics of discontinuity and highly
nonlinear and large deformation for the process of structural col-
lapse. With the traditional implicit FE method, it is difficult to simu-
late the collapse and failure mechanisms of a prestressed concrete
continuous rigid-frame bridge under strong earthquake excitation.
Therefore, LS-DYNA, a prominent explicit dynamic program, was
adopted to simulate the collapse and failure process of the scaled
bridge model under strong earthquake excitation.
In the explicit FE model, concrete was simulated by solid ele-
ment Solid164, which has eight nodes, with each node having 9
degrees of freedom. The truss element Link160 with only tensile
stiffness was adopted in modeling reinforcement, and pre-
stressed tendons were simulated by element Link167 with only
tensile stiffness. Supplement mass was modeled by Element
Mass166. The explicit FE model of the scaled bridge model was
established using 20,993 nodes and 18,017 elements, including
14,296 Solid164 elements, 3,072 Link160 elements, 136
Link167 elements, and 513 Mass166 element,. The boundary
conditions were also given considerable attention because of
their great influence on calculating the results, and were selected
to simulate the real fixed situation in the shake-table test. One
vertical and three rotational displacements were fixed, and 2 lat-
eral degrees of freedom were released in the input direction of
earthquake excitation. The explicit FE model of the scaled
bridge model is shown in Fig. 20.

© ASCE 04016047-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. (Color) Comparison of calculating and testing displacement response in Case 8 (EC = 0.1g, x þ y): (a) longitudinal displacement at top of
Pier 1; (b) transverse displacement at top of Pier 1; (c) transverse displacement at top of Pier 2

Fig. 20. (Color) Explicit dynamic model of the scaled bridge

The first five natural frequencies were calculated, as shown in

Fig. 19. Longitudinal acceleration ratios under nonuniform excitations
To correctly reflect the material properties, a piecewise linear
elastic-plastic material model (MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_
PLASTICITY)was adopted to model the concrete material. The
tensile stress and failure strain were 5.5 MPa and 0.0325  106 m « ,
respectively, in the failure criteria definition of the material. An
elastic-plastic servo hardening model (MAT_PLASTIC_
KINEMATIC) was used to simulate steel bars, and isotropic or
kinematic hardening was adjusted by a factor ranging between
0 and 1. Strain rate was determined with the Cowper-Symonds
model. The modulus of elasticity and the mass density of the
reinforcement were 2.1  10 5 MPa and 7,850 kg/m 3 , respec-
tively. The prestressing tendon was modeled by discrete beam
material (MAT_CABLE_DISCRETE_BEAM). The initial
tension was realized by setting offsets. The elastic modulus
was 1.95  10 5 MPa, mass density was 7,850 kg/m 3 , and ten-
don area was 140 mm 2 .
Table 6. The modal shapes were very similar to those from the
implicit FE method. The numerical calculated results of the
explicit FE model agreed well with the measured frequencies of
the scaled bridge. To explore the failure mode of the scaled two-
span rigid-frame bridge under strong earthquake excitation and
demonstrate the collapse process of components, two seismic
waves, the JJ wave and EC wave, were selected (shown in Fig. 7).
The difference of failure modes was investigated, considering the
different seismic waves and the different excitation directions.
The whole process of component failure of the scaled bridge was
demonstrated in animation form using LS-DYNA, and the failure
conditions at several key times under the EC wave and JJ wave
excitation are discussed next.
Failure Mode under the JJ Wave Excitation in the
Longitudinal Direction
The whole process of component failure of the scaled bridge under
the JJ wave in the longitudinal direction was simulated. The failure

© ASCE 04016047-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 21. (Color) Damage situation at key times under JJ wave in x-direction: (a) t = 7.3 s; (b) t = 11 s; (c) t = 13.9 s; (d) t = 14.9 s; (e) t = 16.5 s; (f) t =
19.2 s
conditions are presented in Fig. 22. The times at which plastic
hinges occurred are listed in Table 7.
The entire scaled bridge began to collapse when the peak accel-
eration of the JJ wave was 4.5g. All components of the scaled bridge
were within linear elastic conditions before 7.3 s. At 7.3 s, the con-
crete at the lower end of Pier 1, the upper and lower ends of Pier 2,
and the lower end of Pier 3 stepped into the nonlinear stage, as
shown in Fig. 21(a). The damage developed under the strong earth-
quake, and the plastic hinges inevitably appeared at both ends of
Pier 2. The concrete began to spall at the lower ends of Pier 1 and
Pier 3 at 11 s, as shown in Fig. 21(b). Further destruction of the
scaled bridge led to the plastic hinge occurring at the lower ends of
all three piers at 13.9 s. The damage conditions are shown in
Fig. 21(c). Subsequently, the plastic hinges appeared at the upper
end of Pier 1, and longitudinal displacement increased obviously at
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 04016047
14.9 s, as shown in Fig. 21(d). Finally, the whole scaled bridge col-
lapsed at 16.5 s, with a mass of concrete spall and steel bars ruptured
as shown in Fig. 21(e). It was noted that the main failure mode of
the scaled bridge subjected to longitudinal seismic waves included
the plastic damage at the upper and lower ends of the three piers and
large deformation in the longitudinal direction [Fig. 21(f)]. No
obvious failure was observed in the main girder.
Failure Mode under Bidirectional EC Wave Excitation
The collapse process of the rigid-frame scaled bridge was simulated
under a bidirectional EC wave with a peak acceleration of 2.7g.
During the calculation process, the damage occurred at the lower
end of Pier 2, followed by damage at the bottom of Pier 1 and Pier
3. This type of damage phenomenon was consistent with shaking-
04016047-13 J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 22. (Color) Final collapse situation under EC wave in x þ y direction (PGA = 2.7g, t = 26.4 s)

Table 7. Time Points of Plastic Hinges in Piers Table 8. Continuous Rigid-Frame Bridge with Variable-Height Piers

Position Time point (s) Pier height (m)

Input Collapsing peak
Pier 1 bottom 13.9 Model Pier 1 Pier 3 Pier 3 direction acceleration (g)
Pier 1 top 14.9
1 3.2 3.2 3.2 xþy 2.7
Pier 2 bottom 11
2 3.2 3.7 3.2 xþy 2.5
Pier 2 top 11
3 3.2 4.0 3.2 xþy 2.1
Pier 3 bottom 13.9
4 3.2 4.2 3.2 xþy 2.1
Pier 3 top 16.5

to the ratio of 0.80. Therefore, it can be concluded that adopting

table test results. The first plastic hinge also emerged at the bottom
of Pier 2 at 10.1 s. The scaled bridge began to collapse as the plastic
hinge took place simultaneously at the lower ends of Pier 1 and Pier
3, as shown in Fig. 22. It can be seen from the figure that a large
area of concrete crashed at the lower ends of all piers, and part of
the reinforcement ruptured. This damage led to severe tilt of the
scaled bridge in the transverse direction, as shown in Fig. 22.
Compared with the damage of the scaled bridge subjected to single-
directional seismic excitation, the damage under bidirectional exci-
tation was more severe.
Results show that the failure mode of the scaled bridge under
bidirectional seismic excitation was that the plastic hinge emerged
at the lower ends of all three piers, and then large transverse defor-
mation took place. It also can be concluded that the failure modes
were different from the failure modes of the scaled bridge subjected
to longitudinal JJ seismic waves in the position of plastic hinges and
collapse direction.
Influence of Central Pier Height on Collapse Modes
It was found that the damage and plastic hinge first appeared at the
lower end of the central pier of the scaled bridge in all cases, in ac-
cordance with the results of shaking-table tests. The collapse pro-
cess of the scaled bridge thus was further studied by changing the
height of the central pier under EC wave bidirectional excitations to
investigate the influence on collapse modes of different height ratios
between side piers and the central pier. The analysis results reveal
that the failure mode remained the same; the peak acceleration
according to collapse condition decreased obviously, as shown in
Table 8. Compared with the height ratio of side pier to central pier,
the peak collapse acceleration decreased to 77.8%, corresponding
similar height between the side and central piers in the design of
prestressed concrete continuous rigid-frame bridges can improve
their ability to resist earthquake action.
Conclusions
1. Bidirectional earthquake excitation had greater influence on the
seismic response of the scaled bridge compared with uniaxial
seismic action. The seismic response of the central pier was the
largest under the seismic wave excitation, and the damage
always first appeared at the lower end of the central pier.
2. Under bidirectional horizontal seismic action, the longitudinal
acceleration response of the main girder displayed a W-shaped
symmetry. The lateral acceleration response presented an
inverted V shape symmetrically, and arrived at the maximum
value at the top of the central pier. The vertical vibration of the
main girder was more much obvious under horizontal earth-
quake excitations. The values at the middle spans were larger
than those at the tops of the three piers.
3. The displacement responses at the tops of the piers of the scaled
bridge were greater than those at the bottoms of the piers. The
displacement response at the central pier was larger than that at
the side piers. The transverse displacements under the transver-
sal earthquake excitations were greater than the longitudinal
displacements under the longitudinal earthquake excitations.
The displacements under bidirectional excitations ere greater
than those from uniaxial earthquake wave input.
4. Both the acceleration and displacement response results of the
implicit FE simulation were consistent with those from the

© ASCE 04016047-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016047

 shaking-table tests, which indicates that the established single-
girder model can predict the seismic response of the two-span
rigid-frame scaled bridge under multidimensional small and
medium excitations. The acceleration responses of the scaled
bridge under nonuniform excitations became larger as the appa-
rent wave velocity increased. This indicates that the traveling
wave effect cannot be ignored in seismic response analysis of
rigid-frame bridges.
5. The explicit dynamic model was able to predict the failure modes
and collapse process of the two-span rigid-frame scaled bridge
under strong earthquake excitation with the use of LS-DYNA.
The plastic hinges emerging at the upper and lower ends of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 03/24/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
piers were considered as the main failure modes, and the collapse
process changed with different seismic wave excitations. For
example, when inputting the bidirectional EC waves, plastic
hinges emerged at the lower ends of all three piers, and then large
transverse deformation took place, which led to the transverse
collapse of the scaled bridge.
6. The damage and plastic hinges always first appeared at the bot-
tom of the central pier of the scaled bridge, in accordance with
the results from the shaking-table tests and numerical simula-
tion. Parameter analysis revealed that the failure mode
remained the same, but the peak collapse acceleration
decreased obviously with an increase in the length and diameter
ratios of the central pier.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51178101
and No. 51378112). This work was also supported by the Open
Fund from the National Engineering Laboratory for Technology
of Geological Disaster Prevention in Land Transportation,
Southwest Jiao Tong University, P.R. China (No. SWJTU-GGS-
2014001). The viewpoints of this paper represent only the authors'
opinions and do not represent the views of the funding
committees.
References
AASHTO. (2007). Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design,
Washington, DC.
ANSYS 12.0 [Computer software]. ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
Bi, K. M., Ren, W. X., Cheng, F., and Hao, H. (2015). “Domino-type pro-
gressive collapse analysis of a multi-span simply-supported bridge: A
case study.” Eng. Struct., 90, 172–182.
Chen, Y., Feng, M. Q., and Soyoz, S. (2008). “Large-scale shake table test
verification of bridge condition assessment methods.” J. Struct. Eng., 10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:7(1235), 1235–1245.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures, 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Deng, L., Wang, W., and Yu, Y. (2015). “State-of-the-art review on the
causes and mechanisms of bridge collapse.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000731, 04015005.
DEWESoft 6.6 [Computer software]. DEWESoft, Trbovljo, Slovenia.
Dymond, B. Z., Roberts-Wollmann, C. L., Wright, W. J., Cousins, T. E.,
and Bapat, A. V. (2014). “Pedestrian bridge collapse and failure analysis
in Giles County, Virginia.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000474, 04014006.
Fan, Z. H. (2013). “Research on collapse of rigid-frame bridge with super
high-rise piers under earthquake.” Master’s thesis, Wuhan Univ. of
Science and Technology, Wuhan, China (in Chinese).
© ASCE 04016047-15
J. Bridge Eng., 04016047
Fujikura, S., and Bruneau, M. (2012). “Dynamic analysis of multiha-
zard-resistant bridge piers having concrete-filled steel tube under
blast loading.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000270,
249–258.
Han, Q., Du, X., Liu, J., Li, Z., Li, L., and Zhao, J. (2009). “Seismic damage
of highway bridges during the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake.”
Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vib., 8(2), 263–273 (in Chinese).
Huang, B. F., Lu, W. S., and Zong, Z. H. (2008). “Study on model experi-
mental methodology utilizing the multiple earthquake simulation shake
table system.” China Civ. Eng. J., 41(3), 46–52 (in Chinese).
Huang, Y. F., Briseghella, B., Zordan, T., Wu, Q. X., and Chen, B. C.
(2014). “Shaking table tests for the evaluation of the seismic perform-
ance of an innovative lightweight bridge with CFST composite truss
girder and lattice pier.” Eng. Struct., 75, 73–86.
Johnson, N., Ranf, R. T., Saiidi, M. S., Sanders, D., and Eberhard, M.
(2008). “Seismic testing of a two-span reinforced concrete bridge.” J.
Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:2(173), 173–182.
Leger, P., Ide, I. M., and Paultre, P. (1990). “Multiple support seismic anal-
ysis of large structures.” Comp. Struct., 36(6), 1153–1158.
Li, J. Z., Yan, J. K., Peng, T. B., and Han, L. (2014). “Shake table studies of
seismic structural systems of a Taizhou Changjiang Highway Bridge
model.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000650, 04014065.
Li, X., Zhang, D. Y., Yan, W. M., Chen, Y. J., and Xie, W. C. (2015).
“Shake-table test for a typical curved bridge: Wave passage and local
site effects.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000643,
04014061.
LS-DYNA 971 [Computer software]. Livermore Software Technology
Corporation, Livermore, CA.
Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China. (2008).
“Guidelines for seismic design of highway bridge.” JTG/T B02-01-
2008, China Communication Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Miyachi, K., Nakamura, S., and Manda, A. (2012). “Progressive collapse
analysis of steel truss bridges and evaluation of ductility.” J. Constr.
Steel Res., 78, 192–200.
MSC Marc [Computer software]. MSC Software, Santa Ana, CA.
Noguez, C. A. C., and Saiidi, M. S. (2012). “Shake-table studies of a four-
span bridge model with advanced materials.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000457, 183–192.
Ren, W. X., and Zong, Z. H. (2004), “Output-only modal parameter identifi-
cation of civil engineering structures.” Struct. Eng. Mech.. 17(3–4),
429–444.
Saiidi, M. S., Vosooghi, A., Choi, H., and Somerville, P. (2013a). “Shake ta-
ble studies and analysis of a two-span RC bridge model subjected to a
fault rupture.” J. Bridge Eng., A4014003.
Saiidi, M. S., Vosooghi, A., and Nelson, R. B. (2013b). “Shake-table studies
of a four-span reinforced concrete bridge.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000790, 139(8), 1352–1361.
Salem, H. M., and Helmy, H. M. (2014). “Numerical investigation of col-
lapse of the Minnesota I-35W bridge.” Eng. Struct., 59, 635–645.
Shang, X. J., Su, J. Y., and Wang, H. F. (2008), ANSYS/LSDYNA dynamic
analysis method and engineering practice, China Water Conservancy
and Hydropower Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Wang, T. (2006). Structural testing of civil engineering, Wuhan University
of Technology Press, Wuhan, China (in Chinese).
Wilson, E. L. (1998). Three dimensional static and dynamic analysis of
structures: A physical approach with emphasis on earthquake engineer-
ing, Computer and Structures, Inc., Berkley, CA.
Xu, Z., Lu, X. Z., Guan, H., Lu, X., and Ren, A. Z. (2013). “Progressive-collapse
simulation and critical region identification of a stone arch bridge.” J.
Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000329, 43–52.
Zhou, R., Zong, Z. H., Huang, X. Y., and Xia Z. H. (2014). “Seismic
response study on a multi-span cable-stayed bridge scale model under
multi-support excitations. Part II: Numerical analysis.” J. Zhejiang Univ.
SCIENCE A, 15(6), 405–418.
Zong, Z. H., Zhou, R., Huang, X. Y., and Xia, Z. H. (2014). “Seismic
response study on a multi-span cable-stayed bridge under multi-support
excitations. Part I: Shaking table tests.” J. Zhejiang Univ. SCIENCE A,
15(5), 351–363.
J. Bridge Eng.