The occurred damages during the past significant earthquakes have proved that vertical seismic excitation has tremendous effect on bridges. Three-component earthquake excitations are preferred to resemble the earthquakes. In this article, a cable-stayed arch bridge, a new type of bridge with the hybrid system of half-through arch and stay-cables, was analyzed under a set of different earthquake excitations (more than 21 ground motion records). Both vertical and horizontal components of the ground motions were considered to act simultaneously at the bridge supports. By using different three-component earthquake excitations, the dynamic responses of the bridge, including the displacements and accelerations of the main parts of the bridge, were obtained. The effects of various parameters such as soil type, epicentral distance, spatial variation of the ground motions, and dimensional variation of the structure were investigated. The results of the numerical study indicate that the cable-stayed arch bridge subjected to both horizontal and vertical components of earthquakes are more vulnerable than those subjected to horizontal ground motion only.
AllamSMDattaT (1999) Seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges under multi-component random ground motion. Engineering Structures21(1): 62–74.
2.
AllamSMDattaT (2003) Seismic response of suspension bridges under multi-component non-stationary random ground motion. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering5(1): 15–29.
3.
AllamSMDattaT (2004) Seismic response of a cable-stayed bridge deck under multi-component non-stationary random ground motion. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33(3): 375–393.
4.
AryanHGhassemiehM (2014) Mitigation of vertical and horizontal seismic excitations on bridges utilizing shape memory alloy system. Advanced Materials Research831: 90–94.
5.
ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2016) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings Other Structures. Reston, VA: American and Society of Civil Engineers.
6.
BahbouhLYamadaHKatsuchiH, et al. (2009) The behaviour of Akashi Kaikyo Bridge under multi support seismic excitation for low frequency motions. Earth Quake Resistant Engineering Structures104: 345–355.
7.
BiKHaoHRenW-X (2013) Seismic response of a concrete filled steel tubular arch bridge to spatially varying ground motions including local site effect. Advances in Structural Engineering16(10): 1799–1817.
8.
BisadiVHeadM (2010) Orthogonal Effects in Nonlinear Analysis of Bridges Subjected to Multicomponent Earthquake Excitation. Orlando, FL: Structures Congress.
9.
CamaraAAstizM (2012) Pushover analysis for the seismic response prediction of cable-stayed bridges under multi-directional excitation. Engineering Structures41: 444–455.
10.
DolšekMAzarbakhtA (2008) Ground motion record selection for the seismic design of structures. In: Proceeding in the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, 12–17 October.
11.
FanLHuSYeA (2001) Seismic Design of Long Span Bridges. Beijing: China Communications Press.
12.
Farahmand-TabarSBarghianM (2020) Response control of cable-stayed arch bridge using modified hanger system. Journal of Vibration and Control26(23-24): 2316–2328.
13.
Farahmand-TabarSBarghianM (Forthcoming) Formulating the optimum parameters of modified hanger system in the cable-arch bridge to restrain force fluctuation and overstressing problems. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering. DOI: 10.1007/s40430-020-02513-0.
14.
GhoshGSinghY (2009) Bi-directional effects on the response of an isolated bridge. International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering1(6): 6–10.
15.
HancockJWatson-LampreyJAbrahamsonNA, et al. (2006) An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets. Journal of Earthquake Engineering10: 67–89.
16.
HeGJZouZQNiYQ, et al. (2009) Seismic response analysis of multi-span cable-stayed bridge. Key Engineering Materials400–402: 737–742.
17.
HeLXShresthaBHaoH, et al. (2016) Experimental and three-dimensional finite element method studies on pounding responses of bridge structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions. Advances in Structural Engineering20(1): 105–124.
18.
HernándezJJLópezOA (2003) Evaluation of combination rules for peak response calculation in three-component seismic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics32(10): 1585–1602.
19.
HuangHSunYYangJN (2016) Global parametric identification of a cable-stayed bridge model under vertical excitations using SNLSE approach. Advances in Structural Engineering18(3): 381–393.
20.
JinMCWangBFFengZR, et al. (2012) Seismic response analysis of long span cable-stayed bridge by response spectrum method. Applied Mechanics and Materials204–208: 1992–1996.
21.
KimSDAhnJHKongYE, et al. (2015) Multi-support excitation shaking table test of a base-isolated steel cable-stayed bridge. Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea19(4): 161–171.
22.
KleinPYamoutM (2003) Cable-stayed arch bridge, Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Structural Engineering International13(3): 196–199.
23.
KunCChenYLarkinT, et al. (2013) An experimental investigation of the seismic response of a bridge due to simultaneous horizontal and vertical excitations. In: Proceedings of the Australian earthquake engineering society 2013 conference, Hobart, TAS, Australia, 15–17 November, pp. 17–15. Barton, ACT, Australia: Australian Earthquake Engineering Society.
24.
LiJBGeJ (2005) Seismic analysis of a 5-span half-through CFST arch bridge. World Earthquake Engineering25(3): 110–115.
25.
LinWChenSHYuJX, et al. (2016) Seismic behavior of long-span connected structures under multi-supported and multi-dimensional earthquake excitations. Advances in Structural Engineering16(9): 1579–1586.
26.
LopezOAChopraAKHernandezJJ (2000) Critical response of structures to multicomponent earthquake excitation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics29(12): 1759–1778.
27.
LopezOAChopraAKHernandezJJ (2001) Evaluation of combination rules for maximum response calculation in multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics30(9): 1379–1398.
28.
LuoSWangXWangT, et al. (2005) Considerations and study of innovative techniques for long-span cable-stayed arch bridge. Bridge Construction6: 31–33.
29.
MaJChenYJLiuLP (2011) Nonlinear seismic response analysis of half through CFST arch bridge under 3-D earthquake waves. Key Engineering Materials456: 67–76.
30.
MaKZhongJFengR, et al. (2019) Investigation of ground-motion spatial variability effects on component and system vulnerability of a floating cable-stayed bridge. Advances in Structural Engineering22(8): 1923–1937.
31.
MackieKRCroninKJNielsonBG (2011) Response sensitivity of highway bridges to randomly oriented multi-component earthquake excitation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering15(6): 850–876.
32.
Narayana MurthyTPatilGR (2015) Effect of vertical ground motion on reinforced concrete structures. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering2: 33–39.
33.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (2011) Selecting and scaling earthquake ground motions for performing response history analysis. In: NIST/GCR 11-917-15, NEHRP consultants joint venture for the national institute of standards and technology. Available at: https://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/nistgcr11-917-15.pdf
34.
QuanWLiHLiuX (2008) Seismic response of large-span cable-stayed bridge under multi-component multi-support earthquake excitation. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, 12–17 October.
35.
RahaiA (2004) Effect of earthquake vertical motion on RC bridge piers. In: The 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August.
36.
ReyesJCKalkanE (2012) How many records should be used in an ASCE/SEI-7 ground motion scaling procedure. Earthquake Spectra28(3): 1223–1242.
37.
ShresthaBHaoHBiK (2016) Seismic response analysis of multiple-frame bridges with unseating restrainers considering ground motion spatial variation and SSI. Advances in Structural Engineering18(6): 873–891.
38.
ShresthaBHaoHIbrahimNHJ, et al. (2016) On the effectiveness of rotational friction hinge damper to control responses of multi-span simply supported bridge to non-uniform ground motions. Advances in Structural Engineering19(10): 1575–1591.
39.
SunLWeiJXieW (2016) Experimental studies on seismic performance of subsidiary piers for long span cable-stayed bridge with energy dissipation. Advances in Structural Engineering16(9): 1567–1577.
40.
WangCZhaoJZhuL, et al. (2016) Effects of vertical excitation on the seismic performance of a seismically isolated bridge with sliding friction bearings. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration15(1): 187–196.
41.
WangHZhengW-ZLiJ, et al. (2019) Effects of temperature and lead core heating on response of seismically isolated bridges under near-fault excitations. Advances in Structural Engineering22(14): 2966–2981.
42.
WangWYanWDengL, et al. (2014) Dynamic analysis of a cable-stayed concrete-filled steel tube arch bridge under vehicle loading. Journal of Bridge Engineering20(5): 04014082.
43.
XiangY (2020) Multi-rib arch bridge strengthened by stayed-cable and field test. In: Proceedings of ARCH 2019. ARCH 2019. ArêdeACostaC (eds) Structural Integrity, Vol. 11, pp. 814–822. Cham: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29227-0_90
44.
XuLZhangHGaoJ, et al. (2018) Longitudinal seismic responses of a cable-stayed bridge based on shaking table tests of a half-bridge scale model. Advances in Structural Engineering22(1): 81–93.
45.
YanWMLiYChenYJ (2011) Seismic testing of a long-span concrete filled steel tubular arch bridge. Key Engineering Materials456: 89–102.
46.
YangHYinXHaoH, et al. (2016) Theoretical investigation of bridge seismic responses with pounding under near-fault vertical ground motions. Advances in Structural Engineering18(4): 453–468.
47.
ZhangYConteJPYangZ, et al. (2008) Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system. Earthquake Spectra24(2): 343–386.
48.
ZhengYChenBChenW (2016) Elasto-plastic seismic response of RC continuous bridge with foundation-pier dynamic interaction. Advances in Structural Engineering18(6): 817–836.
