This paper presents the result of a study on the effect of Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motions (SVEGM) on the dynamic responses of a long span bridge and the influence of soil types on SVEGM. The spatial ground motions are simulated according to conditional method by SIMQKE II record generator, based on real Northridge- 1994 earthquake time history in different soil types. The influence of soil type to change the time history along the bridge supports and the necessity of considering the SVEGM in dynamic analysis of long span bridges are investigated. State space method is used to solve the equation of motion directly in time domain. To emphasize the importance of spatial variability effects of earthquake ground motion, fixed base model of bridge is used, which neglects the soil-structure interaction. The study reveals that the assumption of uniform ground excitation in the analysis and design may not provide a realistic estimation of the dynamic response of long span bridges, specially, in medium and soft soil. Pounding potential of bridge adjacent decks, as an important dynamic design factor, is also increased significantly, specially, in firm and medium soil.
ZervaA. Response of multi-span beams to spatially incoherent seismic ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1990;19:819–32.
2.
DavoodiM, RazmkhahA, JavaheriA. Considering the effects of SVEGM on dynamic stress-strain distribution of embankment dams. Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal. 2012;45:529–41.
3.
DavoodiM, JafariMK, SadreddiniA. Effect of Multi-Support Excitation on Seismic Response of Embankment Dams. International Journal of Civil Engineering. 2013;11(1):19–28.
4.
ZhaoB, WangY, ChenZ, ShiY, JiangY, WangY. Research on the random seismic response analysis for multi-and large-span structures to multi-support excitations. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibrations. 2015;14(3):527–38.
5.
AASHTO, LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA; 2012.
HarichandranRS, WangW. Response of one- and two- span beams to spatially varying seismic excitation. Report no MSU/ENGR-88/002, Michigan (MI): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Michigan State University; 1988.
8.
PerottiF. Structural response to nonstationary multiple-support random excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1990;19:513–27.
9.
ZervaA. Effect of spatial variability and propagation of seismic ground motions on the response of multiply supported structures. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics. 1991;6:212–21.
10.
NazmyAS, Abdel-GhaffarAM. Effects of ground motion spatial variability on the response of cable-stayed bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1992;21:1–20.
11.
NakamuraY, Der KiureghianA, LiuD. Multiple-support response spectrum analysis of the Golden Gate Bridge. Report no. UCB/EERC-93/05, Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California; 1993.
12.
HarichandranRS, HawwariA,
SwiddenBN. Response of long-span bridges to spatially varying ground motion. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1996;122(5):476–84.
13.
Der KiureghianA, KeshishianP, HakobianA. Multiple support response spectrum analysis of bridge including the site-response effect and MSRS code. Report no UCB/EERC-97/02, Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California; 1997.
14.
SoylukK, SicacikEA. Soil-structure interaction analysis of cable-stayed bridges for spatially varying ground motion components. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2012;35:80–90.
15.
BiK, HaoH, ChouwN. Influence of ground motion spatial variation, site condition and SSI on the required separation distances of bridge structures to avoid seismic pounding. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2011;40:1027–43.
16.
ApaydinNM, BasS, HarmandarE. Response of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge under spatially varying multi-point earthquake excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2016;84:44–54.
17.
AdanurS, AltunisikAC, SoylukK, BayraktarA. Multiple-support seismic response of Bosporus Suspension Bridge for various random vibration method. Case Studies in Structural Engineering. 2016;5:54–67.
18.
MorrisNF. Dynamic analysis of cable-stiffened structures. Journal of Structural Engineering Division ASCE. 1974;100:971–81.
19.
NazmyAS, Abdel-GhaffarAM. Seismic response analysis of cable stayed bridges subjected to uniform and multiple-support excitations. Report no 87-SM-1, Princeton (NJ): Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University; 1987.
20.
NazmyAS, Abdel-GhaffarAM. Non-linear earthquake-response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: Theory. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1990;19:45–62.
21.
NazmyAS, Abdel-GhaffarAM. Non-linear earthquake-response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: Applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1990;19:63–76.
22.
BiK, HaoH. Numerical simulation of pounding damage to bridge structures under spatially varying ground motions. Engineering Structures. 2013;46:62–76.
23.
LiB, ChouwN. Experimental investigation of inelastice response under spatially vaying excitations with pounding. Engineering Structures. 2014;79:106–16.
24.
KaimingB, HaoH. Modelling and simulation of spatially varying earthquake ground motions at sites with varying conditions. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics. 2012;29:92–04.
25.
KarmakarD, Ray-ChaudhuriS, ShinozukaM. Seismic response evaluation of retrofitted Vincent Thomas Bridge under spatially variable ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2012;42:119–27.
26.
WangJ, CarrAJ, CookeN, MossPJ. The response of a 344m long bridge to non-uniform earthquake ground motions. Engineering Structures. 2009;31:2554–67.
27.
ChouwN, HaoH. Significance of SSI and nonuniform near-fault ground motions in brige response I: Effect on response with conventional expansion joint. Engineering Structures. 2008;30:141–53.
28.
ChouwN, HaoH. Significance of SSI and nonuniform near-fault ground motions in brige response II: Effect on response with modular expansion joint. Engineering Structures. 2008;30:154–62.
29.
ErhanS, DicleliM. Effect of dynamic soil-bridge interaction modeling assumptions on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2014;66:42–55.
30.
CallistoL, RampelloS, ViggianiGMB. Soil-structure interaction for the seismic design of the Messina Strait Bridge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2013;52:103–15.
31.
ShirgirV, GhanbariA, ShahrouziM. Natural frequency of single pier bridges considering soil-structure interaction. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2016;20:611–32.
32.
FentonGA. Error evaluation of three random fields. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 1994;120(12):2487–94.
33.
FentonGA. Simulation and analysis of random fields. Ph.D thesis, Princeton University, New Jeresy; 1990.
34.
Heredia-ZavoniE. Structural response to spatially varying earthquake ground motion. Ph.D thesis, Princeton University, New Jeresy; 1993.
35.
Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Brussels; 2004.
36.
ChopraAK. Dynamics of Structures Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ; 1995.
37.
DattaTK. Seismic analysis of structures. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clementi Loop, 02-01, Singapore; 2010.
38.
HartGC, WongK. Structural dynamics for structural engineering. John wiley and Sons; 2000.
