A Study of The Dynamic Behaviour of The Jamuna Multi-Purpose Bridge Under Different Seismic and Vehicular Loading PDF

A STUDY OF THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE JAMUNA
MULTI-PURPOSE BRIDGE UNDER DIFFERENT SEISMIC AND

VEHICULAR LOADING
A Thesis
By
SYED ZILLUR RAHMAN

Student No. 100504311
Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and technology, Dhaka-lOOO,
in partial fulfillment of the degree of
11111111111111 III 1111111111 1111111

#10~86~#
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)
JULY, 2008
A STUDY OF THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE JAM UNA MULTI-PURPOSE
BRIDGE UNDER DIFFERENT SEISMIC AND VEHICULAR LOADING
A Thesis
By
Syed Zillur Rahman
Student No. 100504311
Approved as to style and contents by
Dr. Raquib Ahsan Chairman

Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
BUET, Dhaka-IOOO
___ ~ L-_ ? _
Member (Ex-Officio)
Dr. Muhammad Zakaria
Professor and Head
BUET, Dhaka-IOOO
Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed Member

Professor
SUET, Dhaka-IOOO
~
--------------
Dr. Iftekhar Anam Member (External)
Associate Professor,
The University of Asia Pacific, Dhaka-12l2
11
DECLARATION
It is hereby declared that except for the contents where specific reference have been made to
the work. of others, the studies contained in this thesis is the result. of investigation carried out
by the author. No part of this thesis has been submitted to any other University or other
educational establishment for a Degree, Diploma or other qualification (except for
publication)
Signature of the Candidate
Syed ZilIur Rahman
iii
CONTENTS
Declaration III
Contents IV
List of Tables IX
List of Figures XI
List of Notations XIX
List of Abbreviations XXI
Acknowledgment XXll
Abstract XXlll
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
I.l GENERAL
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 3

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 3
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL 5
2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING 6
2.3 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 7
2.4 MODAL ANALYSIS 7
2.5 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS 8
2.6 MODE SUPERPOSITION METHOD 9
2.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE 10
2.8 SUMMARY 15
Chapter 3 BRIDGE PARAMETERS AND SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION

3.1 GENERAL 17
3.2 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION 17
3.2.1 Pile Configuration 18
3.2.2 Pier Stem 19
3.2.3 Deck Configuration 22
IV
3.3 ISOLATION SYSTEM 22
3.4 SEISMICITY OF BRIDGE SITE 25
3.4. I Instrumentation Plan 25
3.4.2 Free-Field Station 25
3.4.3 Sensors 27
3.4.4 Data Transmission Facilities 32
Chapter 4 REVIEW OF THE BRIDGE MODEL

4.1 GENERAL 33
4.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF THE BRIDGE 33
4.2.1 Bridge Layout Line 35
4.2.2 Deck Section 35
4.2.3 Pier, Diaphragm, Exterior Rail Girder 36
4.2.4 Bearing and Restraint 38
4.2.5 Applying Lateral Prestressing to the Deck 42
4.4 MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM 45
Chapter 5 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE

5.\ GENERAL 54
5.2 MODEL FOR ANALYS 54
5.3 EARTHQUAKE DATA FOR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS 55
5.4 LOCA nON OF THE SENSORS ON THE BRIDGE 59
5.5 ANALYSIS 62
5.5.\ Functions for Analysis 62
5.5.2 Load Cases 62
5.5.3 Analysis Cases 63
5.6 RUNNING ANALYSIS CASES 63
5.6 OUTPUT TABLES 66
Chapter 6 RESPONSE OF THE JAMUNA BRIDGE IN SEISMIC LOADING
6.\ GENERAL 67
v
6.2 COMPARISON OF THE RECORDED DATA AND DATA
OBTAINED FROM FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 67
6.3 GRAPHS TO COMPARE THE DATA AT PIER DECK ON
PIER 10 68
6.3.1 Acceleration on Pier p 10 along 3 direction 68
6.3.1.1 Comparison of the Acceleration data of deck
at PI 0 along longitudinal direction 69
at P 10 along transverse direction 72
at PI 0 along vertical direction 75
6.3.2 Velocity on Pier plO along 3 direction 77
6.3.2.1 Comparison of the Velocity data of deck
at PIO along longitudinal direction 78
at PI 0 along vertical direction 81
6.3.3 Displacement on Pier pi 0 along 3 direction 82
6.3.3.1 Comparison of the Displacement data of deck
at PI 0 along longitudinal direction 83
at P 10 along vertical direction 86
6.4 COMPARISON OF DATA OBTAINED FROM FEM MODEL
AND SENSOR AT MIDSPAN AT P9 AND PIO 87
6.4.1 Acceleration of Mid-Span deck between Pier P9 and PI 0 88
6.4.2 Velocity of Mid-Span deck between Pier P9 and P 10 90
6.4.1 Displacement of Mid-Span deck between Pier P9 and PI 0 93
6.5 SUMMARY 94
VI
Chapter 7 PREDICTION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE OF JAM UNA BRIDGE FOR
DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKES
7.1 GENERAL 96
7.2 TRANSFER RATION 96
7.3 APPLICATION OF TRANSFER RATIO 101
7.4 COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE
OBTAINED FROM FE MODEL WITH TRANSFER FUNCTION
RESULTS 103
7.5 APPLICATION OF EL CENTRO EARTQUAKE, IMPERIAL
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, USA, 1940 103
7.6 APPLICATION OF THE KOCAELI EARTQUAKE,
AUGUST 17, 1999 108
7.7 APPLICATION OF THE MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKE 113
7.8 APPLICATION OF THE NORTH RIDGE EARTHQUAKE I 18
7.9 SUMMARY 123
Chapter 8 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE DUE TO VEHICLE AND TRAIN
MOVEMENT
8.1 GENERAL 124
8.2 COLLECTION OF DATA 124
8.3 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS 128
8.4 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE IN DIFFERENT LOADING 129
8.5 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE TO DIFFERENT VEHICLE
WEIGHT 139
8.6 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE TO DIFFERENT VEHICLE
SPEED 145
8.7 COMPARISON AMONG DIFFERENT TRAIN DATA ISO
8.7.1 Comparison between the responses of two oil trains 152
8.7.2 Comparison between the responses of two broad gauge trains 153
8.8 COMPARISON OF RECENTLY RECORDED TRAIN DATA
WITH PREVIOUS DATA 154
VB
Chapter 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 GENERAL 155
9.2 CONCLUSIONS 155
9.3 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS 158
REFERENCES 160
APPENDIX A 164
APPENDIXB 169
VllI
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Salient features of the bridge 19

Table 3.2 Cross Sectional Properties of Pier Stem 20
Table 3.3 Free-field Instruments 26
Table 3.4 List of sensors and recorders installed on the bridge and bore-hole 29
Table 5. I Summary of ground motion in FF stations June 16, 2004 earthquake 59
Table 5.2 List of sensors and recorders on the bridge that are used for comparison
in this thesis 60
Table 5.3 Analysis Case: Dead 63
Table 5.4 Analysis Case: Modal 64
Table 5.5 Analysis Case: Gravity 64
Table 5.6 Analysis Case: Time History 65
Table 6.1 Summary of Acceleration data along longitudinal direction on P 10 71
Table 6.2 Summary of Acceleration data along transverse direction on PI 0 74
Table 6.3 Summary of Acceleration data along vertical direction on P 10 77
Table 6.4 Summary of Velocity data along longitudinal direction on P 10 79
Table 6.5 Summary of Velocity data along transverse direction on PI 0 81
Table 6.6 Summary of Velocity data along vertical direction on PI 0 82
Table 6.7 Summary of Displacement data along longitudinal direction on P 10 83
Table 6.8 Summary of Displacement data along transverse direction on PI 0 86
Table 6.9 Summary of Displacement data along vertical direction on P 10 87
Table 6.10 Summary of Displacement data along transverse direction at mid-span
between P9 and PI 0 90
Table 6.1 1 Summary of Velocity data along transverse direction at mid-span
between P9 and PI 0 93
Table 6.12 Summary of Acceleration data along transverse direction at mid-span
between P9 and PIO 94

Table 7.1 Comparison of response in transverse direction on bridge deck for
different earthquakes 123

Table 8.1 Data of Vehicle Speed and Weight (from west to east) 125
ix
Table 8.2: Maximum Amplitude and Frequency obtaining from BR-IX 138
Table 8.3 Comparison of maximum acceleration at thirteen bridge sensors for
various train da 104
Table 8.4 Comparison of acceleration in cm/sec2 due to train movement
recorded on bridge deck in transverse direction 151
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Location of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge 2

Figure 1.2: A view of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge taken from satellite 17
Figure 3.1: Typical seven-span module 18
Figure 3.2: General arrangement of piles 20
Figure 3.3: General arrangement of Piles 21
Figure 3.4: Cross-section of Pier Stem 21
Figure 3.5: Elevationof the Pier Stem 22
Figure 3.6: Deck cross-~ection 23
Figure 3.7: Schematic of pin-dissipating device 24
Figure 3.8: Free-field instrument setup 26
Figure 3.9: Triaxial accelerometer on the pile cap 27
Figure 3.10: Uniaxial accelerometer on the pile cap 28
Figure 3.11: Data recorders and the communication enclosure within the deck 28
Figure 3.12: Location of various accelerometer and displacement sensor in the
Jamuna Bridge at the pile and pier 30
Figure 3.13: Location of various accelerometers at deck of Jamuna Bridge 31
Figure 3.14: Connectivity among the sensors 31
Figure 4.1: 3D view with all piers and cantilever beams of present model from left side 33
Figure 4.2: Longitudinal profile of the model 34
Figure 4.3: 3d view of bridge model 34
Figure 4.4 (a): typical deck section at pier 35
Figure 4.4 (b): typical deck section at mid-span 36
Figure 4.5: 3D view of bridge deck with piers 37
Figure 4.6: 3d view of only pier, diaphragm and exterior girder 37
Figure 4.7: Bearing and shock transmission device of Jamuna Bridge
(a) fixed type (b) mobile type 38
Figure 4.8: Bearing and restraint layout from as built drawing 39
Figure 4.9: Assigning the link properties within the pier and the deck 39
Figure 4.10: Sap window shows Hysteresis diagram for the longitudinal direction
Xl
of the bridge for mid points of the all pier except the 4th. 40
Figure 4.11: Sap window shows link or support data for midpoint of the 4th pier
Vertical direction is free to move and horizontal two directions are fixed 41
Figure 4.12: Sap window shows link or support data for outer points of the pier, vertical
direction is fixed to move but both longitudinal and lateral directions free to move 41
Figure 4.14: Lateral prestressing layout for deck section from as built drawing 42
Figure 4.15 Sap window shows tendon is modeled as element 43
Figure 4.16 Sap window shows prestressing is done for odd number of tendon and
the jacking end is J-end 43
Figure 4.17 Sap window shows prestressing are done for odd number of tendon and
the jacking end is I-end 44
Figure 4.18: 3D View of the lateral prestressing tendon 44
Figure 4.19: Time period vs. mode no. of different model (Rahman, 2008) 47
Figure 4.20: Deformed shape of the mode no. I 48
Figure 4.21: Deformed shape of the mode no. 2 48
Figure 4.30: Deformed shape of the mode no. II 53
Figure 5.1: 3-D view of the model 55
Figure 5.2 (a): Earthquake data recorded at the West-End free field station along
longitudinal direction of the bridge 56
Figure 5.2 (b): FFT in Longitudinal direction of Earthquake data recorded at the
West-End Free field station 56
XII
Transverse direction of the bridge 57
Figure 5.3 (b): FFT in Transverse direction of Earthquake data recorded at the
West-End free field station 57
Vertical direction 58
Figure 5.4 (b): FFT in Vertical direction of Earthquake data recorded at the
West-End free field station 58
Figure 5.5 (a): Location of sensors on the bridge 61
Figure 5.5 (b): Location of Different Types of Accelerometer 61
Figure 6.1 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along longitudinal direction 69
Figure 6.1 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along longitudinal direction 70
Figure 6.1 (c): FFT ofFEM data obtained from FEM model 70
Figure 6.1 (d): FFT of sensor data 71
Figure 6.2 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along transverse direction 72
Figure 6.2 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along transverse direction 73
Figure 6.3 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along vertical direction 75
Figure 6.3 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along vertical direction 76
Figure 6.4 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along longitudinal direction 78
Figure 6.4 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along longitudinal direction 79
Figure 6.5 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along transverse direction 80
Figure 6.5 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along transverse direction 80
Figure 6.6 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along vertical direction 81
Figure 6.6 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along vertical direction 82
Figure 6.7 (a): Displacement obtained from FEM model along longitudinal direction 84
Figure 6.7 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along longitudinal direction 84
Figure 6.8 (a): Displacement obtained from FEM model along transverse direction 85
Figure 6.8 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along transverse direction 85
xiii
Figure 6.9 (a): Displacement obtained from FEM model along vertical direction 86
Figure 6.9 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along vertical direction 87
Figure 6.10 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along transverse
direction on mid-span of pier 9 and pier 10 88
Figure 6.10 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along transverse direction 89
Figure 6.11 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along transverse direction
on mid-span of pier 9 and pier 10 91
Figure 6.11 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along transverse direction 91
Figure 6.12 (a): Displacement obtained from FEM model along transverse direction
on mid-span of pier 9 and pier 10 93
Figure 6.12 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along transverse direction 94
Figure 7.1: Displacement of the bridge at BR-5X due the earthquake, June 17, 2004 98
Figure 7.2: FFT of the displacement of the bridge due the earthquake, June 17, 2004 99
Figure 7.3: Ground motion of the earthquake, June 17,2004 99
Figure 7.4: FFT of the ground motion of the earthquake, June 17,2004 100
Figure 7.5: TR vs. frequency plot 100
Figure 7.6: Theta vs. frequency plot 101
Figure 7.7: Ground motion of the EI Centro Earthquake 103
Figure 7.8: FFT of ground motion of the EI Centro Earthquake, Imperial Valley,
California, USA, 1940 104
Figure 7.9: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the EI Centro Earthquake,
Imperial Valley, California, USA, 1940 using FE model lOS
Figure 7.10: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the EI Centro Earthquake,
Imperial Valley, California, USA, 1940 by Transfer Function analysis 105
Figure 7.11: Acceleration obtained from FE model in deck in transverse direction
of Jamuna Bridge for EI Centro Earthquake, 1940 . 106
Figure 7.12: FFT of acceleration obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
xiv
direction of Jamuna Bridge for EI Centro Earthquake, 1940 106
Figure 7.13: Velocity obtained from FE model in deck in transverse direction of
Jamuna Bridge for EI Centro Earthquake, 1940 107
Figure 7.14: FIT of velocity obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for El Centro Earthquake, 1940 107
Figure 7.14: FIT of displacement obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for EI Centro Earthquake, 1940 108
Figure 7.15: Ground motion of the Kocaeli Earthquake, August 17, 1999 109
Figure 7.16: FIT of ground motion of the EI Centro Earthquake, Imperial Valley,
California, USA, 1940 . 109
Figure 7.17: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the Kocaeli Earthquake,
August 17, 1999 using non linear time history analysis of FE model 110
August 17, 1999 by Transfer Function analysis 110
of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli, 1999 III
Figure 7.20: FIT of acceleration obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli Earthquake, 1999 III
Figure 7.21: Velocity obtained from FE model in deck in transverse direction
of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli earthquake, 1999 112
Figure 7.22: FIT of velocity obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli Earthquake, 1999 112
Figure 7.23: FIT of displacement obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli earthquake, 1999 113
Figure 7.24: Ground motion of the Mexico City earthquake, Station I in
September 19, 1995 114
Figure 7.25: FFTofground motion of the Mexico City Earthquake, Station I in
September 19, 1995 114
Figure 7.26: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the Mexico City
Earthquake using non linear time history analysis of FE model 115
Figure 7.27: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the Mexico City
xv
Earthquake by Transfer Function analysis 115
of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City Earthquake 116
direction of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City earthquake 116
Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City earthquake 117
Figure 7.31: FFT of velocity obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City Earthquake 117
Figure 7.32: FFT of displacement obtained from FE model in deck in transverse
direction of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City earthquake 118
Figure 7.33: Ground motion of the North Ridge earthquake in January 17, 1994 118
Figure 7.34: FFT of ground motion of the North Ridge earthquake in January 17, 1994 119
Figure 7.35: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the North Ridge Earthquake
in January 17, 1994 using non linear time history analysis of FE model 119
Figure 7.36: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the North Ridge in January
17, 1994 by Transfer Function analysis 120
of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge Earthquake 120
direction of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge Earthquake 121
Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge earthquake 121
Figure 7.40: FFT of velocity obtained from FE model in deck in transverse direction
of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge Earthquake 122
direction of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge earthquake 122
Figure 8.1: The plate showing the speed and weight limit for vehicles passing
over the bridge 126
Figure 8.2: Loaded truck going towards the Jamuna Bridge in the track of the
weighing machine 126
XVl
Figure 8.3: A bus is going towards the Jamuna Bridge in the track of the
weighing machine 127
Figure 8.4: Weighing machine of the Jamuna Bridge near the eastern side 127
Figure 8.5: Measuring the speed ofa vehicle with the help of the speed Gun 128
Figure 8.6: Time history in Transverse direction on deck of the bridge (BR5) for
. .
a train data recorded on 20 May 2004 129
Figure 8.7: Fourier Spectrum of the acceleration data in transverse direction on
deck of the bridge (BR5) for a train which was recorded on 20 May 2004 130
Figure 8.8: Fourier spectrum of BR5 for a train which was recorded on 20 May 2004 130
Figure 8.9: Smoothened Fourier spectrum of BR5 for the train data recorded
on 20 May 2008 131
Figure 8.10: Fourier Spectrum ofBRIX for various traffic loads 132
Figure 8.11: Fourier Spectrum ofBR2Y for various traffic loads 132
Figure 8.12: Fourier Spectrum ofBR3Z for various traffic loads 133
Figure 8.14: Fourier Spectrum of BR5X for various traffic loads 134
Figure 8.15: Fourier Spectrum ofBR6Y for various traffic loads 134
Figure 8.18: Fourier Spectrum ofBRIOY for various traffic loads 136
Figure 8.19: Fourier Spectrum ofBRllX for various traffic loads 136
Figure 8.20: Fourier Spectrum ofBRI2X for various traffic loads 137
Figure 8.21: Fourier Spectrum ofBRI3X for various traffic loads 137
Figure 8.22: Acceleration of bridge deck (BR5) in transverse direction
vehicles from east 139
Figure 8.23: Acceleration of bridge deck in longitudinal direction (BR6)
Figure 8.24: Velocity of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5) vehicles from east 141
Figure 8.25: Velocity of bridge deck in longitudinal direction (BR6) vehicles from east 141
Figure 8.26: Displacement of bridge deck in transverse (BR5) direction
xvii
Figure 8.27: Displacement of bridge deck in longitudinal direction (BR6)
Figure 8.28: Acceleration of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5)
Figure 8.29: Velocity of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5) vehicles from east 144
Figure 8.32: Response qf bridge deck in form of acceleration in transverse
direction with respect to speed for vehicles weighing II to 15 tons 146
Figure 8.33: Response of bridge deck in form of acceleration in transverse
direction with respect to speed for vehicles weighing 19 to 22 tons 146
Figure 8.34: Response of bridge deck in form of acceleration in transverse
direction (BR5) with respect to speed for vehicles weighing of20 tons 147
Figure 8.35: response of bridge deck in acceleration in longitudinal direction
in respect of the speed of vehicles in weight of II to 15 tons 148
Figure 8.36: response of bridge deck in acceleration in longitudinal direction
in respect of the speed of vehicles in weight of 19 to 22 tons 149
Figure 8.37: The response of the bridge in acceleration (cm/sec2) with respect to
speed (km/h) and weight (ton) 149
Figure 8.38: Comparison of response of thirteen bridge sensors for different train data 150
Figure 8.39: Comparison of response of thirteen bridge sensors for two trains
carrying oil bogies 152
Figure 8.40: Comparison of response of thirteen bridge sensors for two train
of broad gauge 153
XV111
LIST OF NOTATION
a Real value of the FFTofthe ground acceleration recorded at the west-emlfree
field station in the north-south direction
b Imaginary value of the FFT of the ground acceleration recorded at the west-end
free-field station in the north-south direction
c Real value of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier PI 0 in
the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X
d Imaginary value of the FFTofthe displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier
PIO in the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X
u FFTofthe displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier PIO in the NS

direction; i.e. at BR5X
"g grollnd acceleration due to external source of excitation
"g FFTofthe grollnd acceleration
w Anglilar freqllency = 2JrV

0, Phase angle of the FFTofthe displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier PIO in
the NS direction
0, Phase angle of the FFTofthe ground acceleration recorded at the west-endfree-
field station in the north-south direction
0. Phase angle of the FFTofthe ground acceleration of the applied earthqllake
OR Phase angle of the FFTofthe response of the bridge to the applied earthquake
0, Phase angle ofTR
AI Absolute vallie of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier P 10
in the NS direction.
A, Absolute vallie of the FFTofthe grollnd acceleration recorded at the west-end
free-field station in the north-sollth direction.
XIX
BR Name of sensor channel
G Absolute value of the FFT of the ground acceleration of the applied earthquake
Hz Unitfor frequency
R Absolute value of the FFT of the response of the bridge to the applied earthquake
RI Imaginary value of the response of the bridge to the applied earthquake
R. Real value of the response of the bridge to the applied earthquake
T Absolute value ofTR
T, Imaginary vOllueofTR
T. Real value ofTR
xx
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BFT Backward Fourier Transformation

BTRC Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission
FE Finite Element
FEM Finite Element Model
FFT Fast Fourier Transformation
IFFT Inverse Fast Fourier Transformation
JMB Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge
NGI North Grand Island
PHU Pier Head Unit
PWD Public Works Datum
PDE Partial Differential Equation
RIC Reinforced Concrete
TR Transfer Ratio
UTC Universal Time Coordinate
VFD Viscousfluid damper
WIM Weigh-in-motion
XXI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to convey his profound gratitude to Almighty Allah for His graciousness,
unlimited kindness and blessings and for allowing him to complete the thesis.
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation and gratitude to his thesis supervisor,.
Dr. Raquib Ahsan, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, for his continuous supports, invaluable
ideas, excellent comments, feedback and most importantly his encouragement to carry out this
work. His knowledge, guidance and cooperation have provided the author as the basis and
inspiration to work.
The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. Mehedi Ahmed Ansary, professor,
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology,
Dhaka, for his valuable support to continue his thesis work.
The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the team members of the "Jamuna
Multipurpose Bridge Seismic Instrumentation Project" for giving me the opportunity to use
their data for my thesis.
The author expresses profound gratitude to his family members for their support, help and
inspiration
XXll
ABSTRACT
The Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is the longest and most important bridge in Bangladesh
which has established the long cherished road link between the East and West of Bangladesh.
The bridge is located il} a seismically active region. Seismic pintles have be",n used for
seismic protection of the bridge. The bridge was instrumented with accelerometers in order to
monitor the performance of the seismic devices as well as overall dynamic behavior.
An earthquake data were recorded on 17th June 2004 by sensors installed on the bridge as well
as by a number of Free Field Stations. The main objective of the present study is to analyze
response of a Finite Element Model (FEM) of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge which was
developed previously, due to that earthquake and compare the modeJ's response with the
actual response recorded by the bridge sensors. It is observed that the peak response in
acceleration, velocity and displacement of the bridge in the FEM analysis always comes later
than the recorded data on the bridge and the peak acceleration at all directions is higher in the
FEM model than the actual responses. The peak acceleration in actual response is 58% of the
FEM response in the longitudinal direction, 12% in the transverse direction and 30% in the
vertical direction. The peak velocity in actual response is 61 % of the FEM response in the
longitudinal direction, 32% in the transverse direction and 52% in the vertical direction. The
peak displacement in actual response is 85% of the FEM response in the longitudinal
direction, 69% in the transverse direction and 60% in the vertical direction. Response from
the FE model clearly shows the predominant frequency of the structure and also the
predominant frequency of the earthquake, but as the underlying soil has been ignored in the
model, it does not show the predominant frequency of the soil. On the other hand, the actual
response as recorded on the bridge shows the predominant peak of the soil and also that of the
structure but does not clearly show the predominant frequency of the earthquake because the
intensity of this particular earthquake was very low compared to the effect of the ambient
vibration.
The prime objective of the study is to predict the response of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge
due to different earthquake loads and compare the model's response with the results of a
XX11l
previous analysis using Transfer Ratio Function. The response of the FE model is much less
than the response of the Transfer Function. This is because of the nonlinear behaviour of the
bridge which is included in the FE model. The nonlinear behaviour of the bridge was not
included in transfer function analysis. The FE model provides an idea about how much
displacement may be reduced due to nonlinear behaviour. In-fact if soil-structure interaction
is considered in the model, the estimated response of the bridge might be further reduced. It is
also found that duration of an earthquake event is very important for the bridge response.
Weight and speed of a vehicle are major concern for the bridge. Study has been conducted to
observe the behavior o{ the bridge due to vehicular movement in different weight and speed
limit. Train induces a lot of vibrations in the bridge when it is in higher speed. Response of
the bridge due to heavily loaded truck with high speed is greater than that of the low speed
train. When these kinds of trucks frequently move on the bridge their response will be a major
concern for this bridge. Two weIght groups of vehicle can be noticed. One group weighs
between II to 15 tons, which are buses and other group of vehicles 19to 22 tones, which are
trucks. From the response between two weight groups less overlapping in acceleration is
found in the longitudinal direction and less overlapping in velocity is found in the transverse
direction. Thus acceleration data of the longitudinal direction and velocity data of the
transverse direction may be used for detection of overweight vehicles from the bridge
response. If the response of the bridge exceeds 2.05 cm/sec2 in the transverse direction then
the vehicle may exceed the weight limit of 20 tons or the speed limit of 40 km/h or the both.
On the other hand, if the response of the bridge exceeds 0.70 cm/sec2 in longitudinal direction
then the vehicle may exceed the weight limit of 20 tons or the speed limit of 40 km/h or the
both. Then the vehicle can be identified.
Previously train used to move at higher speed, therefore response of bridge was higher. Later
the train is restricted to run in a lower speed. Then the response of the bridge is lower than the
previous response. Response due to two broad gauge rails is also studied. They both have a
speed of 17 km/h. But the response of presently recorded data due to train movement is larger
than the previously recorded data. This may be due to the recently occurred cracks in the
bridge.
XXIV
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
The Jamuna Multi-purpose Bridge opened in June 1998, connects Bhuapur on east
bank of the Jamuna river to Sirajganj on its west bank. It is the 12th longest bridge in
the world and the second longest in South Asia (after Mahatma Gandhi Setu). It was
constructed over the Jamuna River, mightiest of the three major rivers of Bangladesh,
and fifth largest in the world in terms of volumetric discharge.
The bridge established a strategic link between the eastern and western parts of
Bangladesh. It generates multifarious benefits for the people and especially, promotes
inter-regional trade in the country. Apart from quick movement of goods and
passenger traffic by road and rail, it facilitated transmission of electricity and natural
gas, and integration of telecommunication links. The bridge is located on the Asian
Highway and the Trans-Asian Railway which, when fully developed, will provide
uninterrupted international road and railway links from South-east Asia to North-west
Europe.
Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is located in a seismically active region. The location of

the bridge is shown in Figure 1.1. The bridge is instrumented with sensors to record
and collect ambient, traffic and earthquake vibration data. A satellite view of the
Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is shown in Figure 1.2. The objective of such
installation is to observe and predict the dynamic behaviour of the bridge structure.
The main objective of the present study is to determine a methodology to predict the
dynamic response by developing a detailed model of the bridge and comparing its
dynamic behaviour with the actual structure.
••
r.
BANGLADESH
• • -
--
..'.'
__
. ....•.
.---
o=:'
---
-
----
-
••••••
"
Figure 1.1: Location of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge.
"
Figure 1.2: A view of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge taken from satellite
2
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The present study is aimed to observe the dynamic behaviour of the bridge under
different seismic and vehicular loading. A developed finite element model of a 7-span
module of the bridge is modified for performing time history analysis with the
earthquake data recorded on 17th June 2004. This earthquake.was recorded by all the
sensors of the bridge and also by three free-field sensors. The response of the bridge is
compared with the actual records of the bridge in the present study. Horizontal and
vertical curvatures of the bridge have been considered in the model. The study also
contains the response of the bridge with different loading conditions of the bridge.
This study gives the aljalysis of train movement with present and past-recorded data.
The principal objectives of the present study are:
I. To perform nonlinear Time History analysis with developed finite element

model of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge. The earthquake data recorded on 16th
June 2004 is given as input and response of the bridge model compared with
the records collected from the sensors located at the bridge deck.
2. To analyze response of the bridge when subjected to different earthquake

records.
3. To determine bridge behaviour under various vehicular loading condition.

Speed and weight of the vehicles are also considered for the study.
1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The research work involves the seismic response of the Jamuna Bridge. This work
also involves a study of the response to vehicular and train loading. The study
included prediction of the vibration of the bridge due to seismic activity. The
following are the scopes of the study
• The isolation device is considered In the finite element modelling of the
bridge.
• The horizontal and vertical curvatures of the bridge have been considered.
• The variation in the depth of the deck along its length is considered parabolic
as per the actual condition.
3
• The variation in the width of the deck along its length is considered parabolic
as per the actual condition.
• Time-history analysis is performed.
• Material non-linearity is not considered.
• Soil-structure interaction is ignored.
4
Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
Dynamic response has long been recognized as one of the significant factors affecting
the service life and safety of bridge structures. Even though considerable research,
both analytical and experimental, has been devoted to dynamic bridge behaviour, the
identification and extent of the controlling parameters that govern dynamic response
have still not been clearly identified. It is not feasible to experimentally test the
dynamic behaviour of civil structures due to their huge inertia. Strong motion data
acquired from such structures during seismic events can playa vital role in gaining
insight into the behaviour of these systems if a systematic procedure is adopted in
analyzing the acquired data. Several techniques, from the finite element modelling to
more sophisticated output error method have been devised by researchers.
It is extremely difficult to obtain analytical solutions for many engineering problems.

Analytical solutions can be obtained easily only for certain simplified situations. For
problems involving complex material properties and boundary conditions, the
engineer resorts to numerical methods that provide approximate but acceptable
solutions. The finite element method is such technique that is essentially product of
the electronic digital computer age. Models are widely used to predict the dynamic
characteristics of structures.
Finite element models can be used as a powerful tool for system identification (SI) in
the process of constructing or updating the mathematical model of a dynamic system
based on input and output observations. Among other applications, Sl can be applied
to structural health monitoring and damage assessment and comparing them with
previously determined values or originally intended values. Research interest in this
subject-area has increased steadily over the years. The major problem facing the
structural analyst contemplating the use of finite elements, lies in acquiring
appropriate knowledge to provide assurance that the finite element model produced
5
gives a reasonably reliable representation of the "real life" structure, and that errors
introduced by the modelling process can be identified and, if possible, quantified.
2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
The finite element analysis from the mathematical side was first developed in 1943 by
Richard Courant, who used the Ritz method of numerical analysis and minimization
of variational calculus to obtain approximate solutions to vibration systems. From the
engineering side, the finite element analysis originated as the displacement method of
the matrix structural analysis, which emerged over the course of several decades
mainly in British aerospace research as a variant suitable for computers. By late
1950s, the key concepts of stiffness matrix and element assembly existed essentially
in the form used today and NASA issued request for proposals for the development of
the finite element software NASTRAN in 1965.
The finite element method (FEM) is used for finding approximate solutions of partial
differential equations (PDE) as well as of integral equations such as the heat transport
equation. The solution approach is based either on eliminating the differential
equation completely (steady state problems), or rendering the PDE into an
approximating system of ordinary differential equations, which are then solved using
standard techniques such as finite differences, Runge-Kutta, etc.
In solving partial differential equations, the primary challenge is to create an equation

that approximates the equation to be studied, but is numerically stable, meaning that
errors in the input data and intermediate calculations do not accumulate and cause the
resulting output to be meaningless. There are many ways of doing this, all with
advantages and disadvantages. The finite element method is a good choice for solving
partial differential equations over complex domains (like cars and oil pipelines), when
the domain changes (as during a solid state reaction with a moving boundary), when
the desired precision varies over the entire domain, or when the solution lacks
smoothness.
6
2.3 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
All real physical structures behave dynamically when subjected to loads or

displacements. The additional inertia forces, from Newton's second law, are equal to
the mass times the acceleration. If the loads or displacements are applied very slowly,
the inertia forces can be neglected and a static load. analysis can be justified. Hence,
dynamic analysis is a simple extension of static analysis.
According to Mullen C.L, and Swann, C.T. (2001) all real structures having infinite
number of displacements have the difficulty to create a computer model with a finite
number of mass less \TIembersand a finite number of node displacement that will
simulate the behaviour of the real structure. The mass of a structural system, which
can be accurately estimated, is lumped at the nodes. However, the dynamic loading,
energy dissipation properties and boundary (foundation) conditions for many
structures are difficult to estimate. This is always true for the cases of seismic input or
wind loads. To reduce the errors that may be caused by the approximations
summarized in the previous paragraph, it is necessary to conduct many different
dynamic analyses using different computer models, loading and boundary conditions.
2.4. MODAL ANALYSIS
Modal analysis is used to determine the vibration modes of a structure. These modes
are useful to understand the behaviour of the structure. They can also be used as the
basis for modal superposition in response-spectrum and modal time-history analysis
cases. There are two types of modal analysis to choose from when defining a modal
analysis case. They are Eigenvector analysis and Ritz-vector analysis. Eigenvector
analysis determines the un-damped free-vibration mode shapes and frequencies of the
system. These natural modes provide an excellent insight into the behaviour of the
structure. Ritz-vector analysis seeks to find modes that are excited by a particular
loading. Ritz vectors can provide a beller basis than do eigenvectors when used for
response-spectrum or time-history analyses that are b?sed on modal superposition.
(SAP, 2000)
7
2.5 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
Time-history analysis is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamic response of a structure

to a specified loading that may vary with time. The analysis may be linear or
nonlinear. This analysis is used to determine the dynamic response of a structure to
arbitrary loading. A modal time-history ana.1ysis uses the method of mode
superposition, compared with a direct-integration time-history, which solves
equations for the entire structure at each time step. It is a highly efficient, special-
purpose algorithm for analyzing structures with limited nonlinearities.
The dynamic equilibri,!m equations to be solved are given by:

K lI(t) +C II (t) + M ii (t) = r(t)
Where, K is the stiffness matrix; C is the damping matrix; M is the diagonal mass
matrix; II, U and ii are the displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the structure;
r is the applied load. If the load includes ground acceleration, the displacements,
velocities, and accelerations are relative to this ground motion.
There are several options that determine the type of time-history analysis to be
performed:
• Linear vs. Nonlinear. There are two types of analysis. Sometimes linear analysis
needed and sometimes nonlinear analysis needed .
• Modal vs. Direct-integration: These are two different solution methods, each with
advantages and disadvantages. Under ideal circumstances, both methods should yield
the same results to a given problem .
• Transient vs. Periodic: Transient analysis considers the applied load as a one-time
event, with a beginning and end. Periodic analysis considers the load to repeat
indefinitely, with all transient response damped out. In a nonlinear analysis, the
stiffness, damping, and load may all depend upon the displacements, velocities, and
time. This requires an iterative solution to the equations of motion. (SAP, 2000)
8
2.6 MODE SUPERPOSITION METHOD
The mode superposition method is the most common and effective approach for
seismic analysis of linear structural systems. All types of loading can be accurately
approximated by piece-wise linear or cubic fUl)ctions within a small time increment.
After a set of orthogonal vectors have been evaluated, this method reduces the large
set of global equilibrium equations to a relatively small number of uncoupled second
order differential equations. The numerical solution of those equations involves greatly
reduced computational time. (SAP, 2000)
Modal superposition provides a highly efficient and accurate procedure for performing time-
history analysis. Closed-form integration of the modal equations is used to compute the
response, assuming linear variation of the time functions, f j (I), between the input data time
points. Therefore, numerical instability problems are never encountered. (SAP, 2000)
2.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF BRIDGES
Behaviour of bridges under the influence of seismic load has been a major point of
interest for engineers over a long period of time. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake
was a major turning point in development of seismic design criteria for bridges.
Although significant advances have been achieved since that time in the design and
construction of an earthquake resistant bridge, numerous gaps still remain in the
understanding of the seismic behaviour of bridges.
G. Thater et al. (1998) presented the analysis of estimation of bridge static response
and vehicle weights by frequency response analysis. A methodology is developed to
more accurately estimate the static response of bridges due to moving vehicles. The
method can also be used to predict dynamic responses induced by moving vehicles
using weigh-in-motion (WIM) techniques. Historically, WIM is a well-developed
technology used in highway research, since it has the advantage of allowing for the
stealthy automatic collection of weight data for heavy trucks. However, the lack of
accuracy in determining the dynamic effect in bridges has limited the potential for its
9
use In estimating the fatigue life of bridge structures and their components. The
method developed herein amends the current WIM procedures by filtering the
dynamic responses accurately using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Example
applications of the proposed method were shown by using computer-generated data.
The method is fast and improves the prediction of truck weight up to 5% of the actual
weight, as compared to errors up to 10% usil)g the current WIM methods.
Kunnath and Gross (1999) presented the inelastic damage evaluation of a typical
double-deck bent of the Cypress Viaduct which collapsed during the 1989 Lorna
Prieta earthquake. They developed a model of the bent consisting of spread plasticity-
based beam-column elements to represent the piers and the deck, and shear panel
elements to represent the pedestal region. Also an element fibre model was conducted
to determine beam and column moment-curvature relationships accurately. In
addition, a smeared-crack approach finite element analysis was employed to
determine the lateral load-deformation relationship of the pedestal regions. The model
of the Cypress Viaduct was subjected to the Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf ground
acceleration record in the plane of the bent. The analytical model was calibrated using
static lateral load tests, ambient and forced vibration tests, and observed performance.
The results of time-history analyses, which include a prediction of member damage,
indicate that collapse was initiated by a shear failure of the pedestal regions.
Both the serviceability and safety of bridge structures dynamic response during
earthquake is a very important factor. The controlling parameters that govern dynamic
response of a bridge depend on different structural attributes of a particular bridge.
Chaudhary at el. (2000 and 2002) identified the system parameters of base-isolated
bridges with the help of records made on a base-isolated bridge during a strong
earthquake. Tan et al. (2000) also developed an identification algorithm to investigate
dynamic properties of base-isolated highway bridges equipped with lead-rubber
bearings. A number of schemes for identification of dynamic parameters of bridges
have been developed in recent years. Most of the schemes are, however, for example
girder bridges of three to four straight spans.
Mullen and Swan (200 I) analysed the responses of a dormitory building and a
highway bridge on the University of Mississippi's main campus to simulated
10
earthquake conditions. Interaction between the facility structural models and
subsurface geology models has been computed using the ABAQUS three-
dimensional, nonlinear-dynamic, finite element code. Their facility structural
modeling has been supported by geological investigations including stratigraphic,
boring, and shear-wave velocity measurements performed at a variety of sites on the
campus. Seismic potential has been inve.stigated through field studies of faulting in
surrounding counties. Eigenvalue and time history analyses of the facility
structuraVsubsurface geology interaction models provide insight into the influence of
the subsurface geology on the response behaviour and damage that might occur in the
facility structures.
Shama et al (200 I) presented in their paper an experimental ambient vibration field

investigation with a companion computational modelling study of a cantilever truss
bridge. The ambient vibration experiments were conducted by them on the central
suspended span and two adjacent anchor spans of the North Grand Island (NGI)
Bridge. Three-dimensional finite element model of the bridge is validated against the
experimental results. Results from time history analyses using selected ground
motions are used to assess the damage threshold of the bridge. A nonlinear static
procedure using the capacity-demand spectrum approach is then employed to
evaluate the expected seismic performance of the structure. Results show that sway
frame members are especially prone to damage under earthquake-induced
deformations.
Kappos et al (2002) investigated the effect of a modelling approach, also including the
interaction phenomenon between supporting ground and the pier plus deck system, on
the seismic response of reinforced concrete (RIC) bridges with irregular
configuration, as well as its ramifications on the design of the piers. The bridge and its
foundation system, including the surrounding soil, are modelled by finite elements
plus the spring/dashpot/added mass discrete parameter system. A hierarchy of finite
element meshes is developed, starting with shell elements, and ending with linear
elements whose performance as far as dynamic loads are concerned is gauged to be
completely satisfactory. They gave a series of recommendations on when and how to
account for the influence of the ground in the design of the piers.
II
Ren et al (2003) presented an ambient vibration-based seismic evaluation procedure
of a three span continuous girder bridge. The procedure included field ambient
vibration testing, finite element (FE) modelling, selection of earthquake ground
motion, time history analysis and seismic safety evaluation of the bridge. Ambient
vibration tests were carried out to determine the dynamic characteristics of the bridge,
i.e. eigen frequencies, mode shapes a.nd damping ratios. A three-dimensional FE
model was calibrated based on the ambient vibration test results. The results of the
seismic analysis showed that a few steel members have to be strengthened.
Lou and Zerva (2004) presented in their paper a study of the influence of spatially
variable ground moti0!1s on the longitudinal seismic response of a short, three-span,
30-degree skewed, reinforced concrete highway bridge. Linear and nonlinear finite
element models are created for the bridge and linear elastic and nonlinear inelastic
time history analyses conducted. The time history with the smallest peak displacement
and the one with the largest peak displacement from the spatially variable ones are
then used as uniform input motions at all bridge supports. The comparative analysis of
the bridge model shows that the uniform ground motion input with the largest peak
displacement cannot provide conservative seismic demands for all structural
components-in a number of cases it results in lower response than that predicted by
spatially variable motions. The obtained results indicate that there is difficulty in
establishing uniform input motions that would have the same effect on the response of
bridge models as spatially variable ones. Consequently, spatially variable input
motions need to be applied as excitations at the bridge supports.
Lee et al (2005) presented a hysteretic shear-axial interaction model. Their model is

capable of representing the shear stiffness transitions due to axial force variation and
is implemented in a nonlinear finite element program. A comparative study has been
carried out by them for reinforced concrete column tests which shows that the
predicted response obtained with the new formulation agrees well with the test results
in terms of strength, stiffness and deformation characteristics. The evaluation of
displacement response for piers reveals that displacement is significantly increased
due to the effect of shear, thus increasing the imposed ductility demand, leading to
overall stiffness degradation and period elongation. This explains the damage pattern
of the piers more comprehensively than the case without shear.
12
Zhihao et al (2005) presented a seismic performance upgrading approach for steel
arch bridges using buckling-restrained braces as dampers against longitudinal
directional earthquake motions. Inelastic behaviour of a representative steel arch
bridge with buckling-restrained braces is investigated by three-dimensional modelling
and time-history analyses. The results are compared with those from the original
structure. They found that replaceJ!lent of diagonals of some parts by buckling-
restrained braces can greatly improve seismic performances of the steel arch bridge.
As a result, this approach is believed to be an effective way for seismic performance
improvement of new bridge designs as well as retrofit of existing ones.
A model of the Jamuna Bridge was developed with the finite element software
SAP2000 (BVET, 2005). The model, however, did not consider the presence of actual
geometry of the piers and curvature of the bridge. Ahsan et al (2005) identified the
dynamic parameters of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge in ambient transverse
vibration. A FE model of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge was established. All the
features of bridge are included in this model such as bridge horizontal curvature, the
curvature of the deck etc. A modal analysis was done to observe the bridge behaviour.
Mathematical models are derived for better understanding of dynamic parameters of
the bridge. Formulations for single and two degrees of freedom systems were
presented to compare dynamic parameters with ambient vibration of the bridge.
Mullen et al (2007) discussed a seismic damage evaluation procedure and multi-level

computational simulations are presented for an existing three-span, nine lanes,
Interstate Highway Bridge in north Mississippi, situated on the rapidly growing
southern perimeter of metropolitan Memphis, Tennessee. They presented nonlinear
damage response and displacement ductility performance predictions for the
reinforced concrete bents and their foundations using nonlinear, static and dynamic,
finite element models. Both 20 and 30 models have been developed by them using a
variety of features of the commercial software, ABAQUS. They presented a
performance-based evaluation including: 1) a pushover analysis of a 20 model of an
individual bent to estimate the shear and drift capacity, 2) eigen value analysis of 30
models having different representations of the foundation boundary conditions,
including a) fixed base, b) 6 OOF linear springs for soil beneath the footings, and 3)
30 computational simulations, both spectral and time history, of the bridge system
13
including substructures and superstructure, Prior to embarking on the damage
simulation, field vibration tests were conducted using a portable 4-channel
accelerometer system placed in two arrays targeting a characteristic lateral and a
longitudinal deformation mode, respectively.
Soneji and Jangid (2007) presented the performance of passive hybrid control systems
for the earthquake protection of a cable-stayed bridge under real earthquake ground
motion. A simplified lumped mass finite-element model of the Quincy Bay-view
Bridge at Illinois is used for the investigation. They used a viscous fluid damper
(VFD) as a passive supplemental energy dissipation device in association with
elastomeric and sliding isolation systems to form a passive hybrid control system. The
effects of non-linear viscous damping of the VFD on the seismic response of an
isolated cable-stayed bridge are examined by taking different values of velocity
exponent of the damper. The seismic response of the bridge with passive hybrid
systems is compared with the corresponding response of the bridge with only isolation
systems, as well as with the uncontrolled bridge. The results of the investigation show
that the addition of supplemental damping in the form of a viscous fluid damper
significantly reduces the earthquake response of an isolated cable-stayed bridge. The
nonlinear viscous damping is found to be more effective in controlling the peak
displacement of the isolated bridge while simultaneously limiting the base shear in
towers.
Rahman, (2008) identified the dynamic parameter of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge.

The amplitudes of bridge response due to the application of earthquakes of differing
magnitudes were evaluated in that study. For that purpose, dynamic parameters were
identified by ambient vibration assuming simplified geometry and deflection
parameters of the bridge. Finally, a multi degree of freedom system was formulated to
determine a Transfer Ratio function of the system. The concept of Transfer Ratio
(TR) allows one to use the actual recorded data to determine the system behaviour
without any simplified assumption regarding the geometry of the bridge. Using the
earthquake data recorded by the sensors a Transfer Ratio function was derived and
used to predict possible response of the Jamuna Bridge. This Transfer Ratio was
verified and also applied for the earthquakes of February 14 and August 5, 2006
14
recorded near the Jamuna Bridge. For case study, the earthquakes of El Centro,
Imperial Valley, California, USA in 1940 and Mexico City, September 19,1995 were
applied on the Transfer Ratio function to investigate the response of the bridge. A
detailed finite element model of the bridge considering all features of the bridge
geometry such as horizontal and vertical curvature of the bridge, variable deck
thickness etc was developeq. For this study eight different types of models are
developed. Modal analyses of the generated models are carried out. It was observed
that prestressing has no significant effect on modal periods. To make the model
simple hollow section at the top ofthe piers can be ignored as it has a very little effect
on modal frequencies. The piers can also be modelled using shell elements instead of
solid elements as both .the models give similar results. It was observed from the study
that the model with solid elements show slight increase in modal frequency. To model
the exterior rail girder and diaphragm frame elements can also be used. It increases
the modal value insignificantly. A comparative study of bridge response was carried
out at various locations under various dynamic loads such as ambient vibration, traffic
vibration, combined train and traffic vibration, only train vibration and earthquake.
From the responses of bridge under various dynamic loading, it was observed that
there was a common peak frequency at around 1.013Hz which almost matches with
the predominant frequency in transverse vibration as obtained from the finite element
model (1.00174 Hz) and the Transfer Ratio (1.0098Hz).
2.8 SUMMARY
The literature review reveals that finite element modelling and dynamic analysis has
been a major tool for the last one decade to verifY and determine vibration
characteristics. It is a non-destructive and user-friendly evaluation procedure. With
the advent of more sophisticated computing software and hardware, FEM can give
more accurate results of the actual response of structures without damaging the
structures. Seismic performance upgrading and retrofit approaches are of great
significance for a seismic consideration for bridges against major earthquakes. As a
result of the improved dynamic testing capabilities, engineers are able to determine
the ultimate performance characteristics of the structure's design without having to
IS
take physical risks. As a result of dynamic FEM, the need for expensive destructive
testing has been reduced substantially.
16
Chapter Three
BRIDGE PARAMETERS AND INSTRUMENTATION
PLAN
3.1 GENERAL
The Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge, opened in June 1998, is the longest bridge in
Bangladesh. It was constructed over the Jamuna River, the mightiest of the three
major rivers of Bangladesh, and the fifth largest in the world in terms of volumetric
discharge. The bridge provides the first fixed crossing of the Jamuna River linking
eastern and north-western parts of Bangladesh.
The 4.8 km long Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge (JMB) is located in a seismically active
region that can be subjected to moderately strong earthquakes. Special earthquake
protection devices have been used in the bridge and have been designed to resist
dynamic forces due to earthquakes with peak ground acceleration as high as 0.2g.
JMB is the first bridge in the country where seismic pintles have been used. The
pintles act as an isolation device for protection against earthquakes. Seismic
instruments have been installed on and around the Jamuna Bridge by July 2003 by
JMBA.
3.2 BRIDGE DESCRIPTION
The main bridge is slightly curved, about 4.8 krn long, prestressed concrete box-girder
type, and consists of 47 nearly equal spans of 99.375 m and 2 end spans of 64.6875
m. The total width of the bridge deck is 18.5 m. The main bridge is supported by
twenty-one 3-pile piers and twenty-nine 2-pile piers. There are 128 m long road
approach viaducts at both the ends of the main bridge. Seven-span module is shown in
Figure 3.1
17
'i.
e~pan.sron
,
pnl
73,OSm 6 spans at GG.375m 73.0Sm .l
1
26.325m
scale ol m ISO
.J
Figure 3.1: Typical seven-span module
There are six hinges (expansion joints) that separate the main bridge structure into
seven modules; two end modules, four 7-span modules and a 6-span module in the
middle.
The bridge consists of four lane roads with a single-track meter gauge railway and a
footpath. The crossing has been designed to carry a dual two-lane carriageway, a dual
gauge (broad and meter) railway, a high voltage (230 kilo volts) electrical inter-
connector, a 750 mm diameter high-pressure natural gas pipeline and
telecommunication cables.
The carriageways are 6.315 m wide separated by a 0.57 m width central barrier; the
rail track is located along the north side of the deck. On the main bridge, electrical
interconnected pylons are positioned on brackets cantilevered from the north side of
the deck. Telecommunication ducts run through the box girder deck and the gas
pipeline is located under the south cantilever of the box section. The height of the pier
stem varies from 2.72 to 13.05 m. They are founded on concrete pile caps, whose
shells were precast and filled with ill-situ reinforced concrete.
3.2.1 Pilc Configuration
The substructure of each module consists of three 3-pile piers and three or four 2-pile
piers for the six and seven span modules respectively. The foundations consist of
driven tubular steel piles, filled with concrete. Pile diameters are 3.l5m for the 2-pile
piers and 2.50m for the 3-pile piers, and toe levels vary from - 70.0 m PWD (Public
Works Datum) to -82.0 m PWD, with a head level of ",II m PWD. Pile configuration
is shown in figure 3.2 and 3.3. The thickness of the steel tube varies along the length
18
Table: 3.1 Salient features of the bridge
Length of bridge 4.8km

Length of viaduct of each side 128.0 m
Width of bridge 18.5 m
Number of spans 47+2
Length of each span 99.375 m
Length of end span 64.6875 m
Number of lanes 4
Number of rail-lines I
3 Pile Pier (2500 mm 00) 21
2 PilePier(3150 mm 00) 29
Number of Total Piers 50
Number of Total Piles 121
Tubular steel Pile Thickness 40 mm to 60 mm
A verage Length of Pile 83.0 m (72 m below river bed level)
Box girder segrnent length 4.0m
Absolute rake of Pile (Batter Pile) I: 6
Pier Stem height 2.72 m to 12.04 m
of the pile. For 2-pile system the thickness varies as 60mm (from pile cut-offupto_6.0
m PWO), 55mm (from -6.0 m PWO to -26.0 m PWO) and 50mm (From -26.0
PWO up to pile toe). And for 3-pile system the thickness varies as 50mm (from pile
cut-off up to -6.0 m PWO), 45mm (from -6.0 m PWO up to - 26.0 m PWO) and
40mm (from -26.0 PWO up to pile toe). Pile caps are of precast reinforced concrete
shell with in-situ reinforced concrete infill construction. They have a base level of
+ 11.0 m PWO, and so the piles are embedded some 7m within the caps. The pile caps
carry pier stems which in tum support the bearings. Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 shows
the general arrangement of piles.)
3.2.2 Pier Stem
The height of the pier stem varies from 2.72 to 13.05 m. They are founded on
concrete pile caps, whose shells were precast and filled with iI/-situ reinforced
concrete. The cross-sectional properties of hollow and solid sections are shown in
Table 3.2. The cross-section and elevation of the pier stem are shown in Figures 3.4
and 3.5. The reinforced concrete pier stems support pier heads which contain bearings
19
and seismic devices which allow movement of the deck under normal loading
conditions but lock moment in the event of an earthquake to limit overall seismic
loads through the structure and minimize damage. The hollow section of the pier stem
is filled with concrete up to 3 m of its height.
Cast in. situ

Mal Water COIlcrete Pier
+ 16m
Leyel
;Un Water
+6m
Level
Mal Bed Leve! +1.0 m
Tubular Structural
Sted Piles in-sit1l
t oncrete filled 2.5 -
3.15 m dia
PUe
Length
Min Bed Levet - 30 m 83m
PUe TDe Level - 12 m

2 PUe Pier 3 PUe Pier
Figure 3.2: General arrangement of piles
Table 3.2: Cross Sectional Properties of Pier Stem
Moment of inertia Moment of inertia

Area
Section type (longitudinal) (longitudinal)
(m2)
(m') (m')
Hollow 6.84 5.85 38.42
Solid 15.0 7.81 45.0
20
V~RIES 7,72
1027.00
...
-
'"
15 .•••• L
Conclete Plug
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE 1:250
CQo<;rete plug
.•.~
..
END ELEVATION
SCALE 1:250 12000-
""
MH-
.~
IUllot
•
•••
1400.1400
BEARING PLINTH
PLAN
TYPICAL 2 PILE PIER SCALE 1:125
Figure 3.3: General arrangement of Piles
400~
400~
400~
6400~
Figure 3.4: Cross-section of Pier Stern
21
Road Level jJlf? 33 SSm
-:-111-
0.4
27sm
i I()
~ Lever Arm
6m
-
("l
-'il- -+17m
'+14m
Figure3.5: Elevationof the Pier Stem

3.2.3 Deck Configuration
The main bridge deck is of multi-span precast prestressed post-tensioned concrete

segmental construction, with a varying depth box section constructed by the balanced
cantilever method. Each cantilever has 12 segments (each 4 m long), joined to a pier
head unit of 2 m long at each pier and by an in-situ stitch at mid span. The deck is
internally prestressed and of single box section (Figure 3.6). The width of the box
section, 18.5 m, is the same for all sections but the depth of the box varies between
6.5 m at the pier top and 3.25 m at mid-span. Accordingly, area and moment of inertia
both in longitudinal and transverse direction vary along the span. An expansion joint
is provided every 7 spans by means of a hinge segment at approximately quarter span.
The segments were precast and erected using a two-span erection gantry.
3.3 ISOLATION SYSTEM
The isolation system consisting of flat sliding bearings, pin dissipating elements and
shock transmitter units have been placed in between girders and the piers. Pin
dissipating device has been used as base-isolator for protection against earthquakes.
Two types of dissipating device were used depending Onthe mechanism of operation.
22
• Fixed Type Isolation Device:
The centre portion of each module has the fixed-type, i.e., in these locations (at the 3-
pile piers), there are multipin elastoplastic devices in which all horizontal movements
other than those occurring in very short durations are accommodated by the elastic
deformation of the pin elements.
• Mobile Type Isolation Device:
At the 2-pilepiers, mobile-type devices were used that include shock transmitters
with the multipin elements to allow slowly-occurring movements (like the
thermal expansions and contractions of the bridge superstructure) through
adjustments by the shock transmitters.
MGRa;l Raad Road
H.505 m-.I 10---8.300 m-----.l 10---8.300 ,m-,

-->I
GasLin,
ill
-.-._._._._.- _._._.~
l' 'I
...:.: . . .. '. :....•
Pier Head Unit ( PH U)
Figure 3.6: Deck cross-section
At sudden onset of loads, such as during an earthquake, the horizontal forces are
resisted by pin elements in both the fixed and mobile-type devices. The sharing of the
23
loads is achieved because the shock transmitter in the mobile locations locks up and
transmits the loads to the pin elements.
Figure 3.7 shows a schematic diagram of the isolation system which comprises of the
following major components (FIP Industrial, 1996):
• A central body with pin dissipating elements.
• An upper and a lower plate, between which the pins are affixed. The top plate
transmits the horizontal seismic loads from the superstructure to the pier
through the pins.
• A frame with two tapered faces is affixed to the superstructure. Two frames,
one on either side of the central body, with an outer surfaces tapered to match
the taper of the inner frame is attached to the top of the pier maintaining the
required clearances for the deformation of the pins. The inner and outer
frames together form a fail-safe mechanism.
The dissipating device for the mobile locations includes the same components as
described for the fixed devices plus a shock transmitter unit made of a one-piece
hydraulic cylinder that has both the end closed a double-headed piston rod that creates
two chambers within the cylinder.
I,. _I
'. ,
Ii, i "
.1 I' I ,
m H 12 SPIN sox 500

800
Figure 3.7: Schematic of pin-dissipating device
24
3.4 SEISMICITY OF THE BRIDGE SITE
Bolt (1987), in his report on the seismicity studies for the Jamuna Bridge, mentioned
that the adopted site of the bridge (24.42"N, 89.75°E) could experience shaking from
both great and moderate-sized distant earthquakes and from moderate near-site
earthquakes during the lifetime (considered as 100 years) of the bridge structure.
According to Bolt only one seismic source needs to be considered in postulating
strong ground shaking at the Jamuna Bridge site due to Bogra fault at a distance of 25
to 50 km. The design peak ground acceleration is 0.2 g.
Bolt mentioned that his work had been hampered by the lack of recordings from
seismographic stations in the region. He recommended that several strong motion
accelerometers should be installed near the bridge structure so that any local shaking
can be measured accurately.
3.4.1 Instrumentation Plan
It was planned to instrument one of the seven modules of the bridge and also to install
a few sensors at the abutment. The seven-span module next to the west-end module
(designated as Module 1 in the bridge design) was chosen because of its proximity to
the most likely source of a major earthquake. The bridge is designed for a peak
ground acceleration of 0.2g due to a 7.0 magnitude earthquake in the Bogra Fault
Zone, which is about 25-40 km from the west end of the bridge.
3.4.2 Free-Field Stations
There are seven free-field stations to measure the ground motions. Each station
(model ETNA) contains a triaxial accelerometer and a recorder built in a single unit.
The six free-field stations are located at the two bridge ends and on office complexes
of Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) in Gazipur, Mymensingh,
Natore and Bogra districts. The stations are 70-90 km apart from one another forming
an equilateral triangle as closely as possible on both the sides of the bridge. The
portable triaxial accelerometer has been installed at the Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology (BUET) Campus. In addition, one borehole sensor
25
placed at the west end of the bridge. Figure 3.8 shows free-field instrumentation.
Table 3.3 indicates the location and type of sensor used in free-field stations.
Figure 3.8: Free-field instrument setup.
Table 3.3: Free-field instruments
Model Location
Type
ETNA LGED, Bogra
ETNA LGED, Natore
ETNA Triaxial Accelerometer West-End
ETNA (NS, EW, Vertical) plus East-End
ETNA Digital Recorder LGED, Mymensingh
ETNA LGED, Gazipur
ETNA (Portable) BUET
26
3.5.1 Sensors
Two triaxial, one biaxial and five uniaxial accelerometer (Model Episensor) sensors
and three displacement sensors (Figure 3.9-3.10) were installed on Module 1 of the
bridge structure. There are thus 16 channels of data. These data are fed to three digital
K2 data recorders labelled Jamuna, Meghna and Surma. Each K2 recorder can support
up to six channels of data. It was decided to place the three recorders and the
communication enclosure close to one another within the box girder deck (Figure
3.11) near Pier PIO. The sensors and recorders installed on the bridge are listed in
Table 3.4 along with location and direction of measurement. All the sensors were
placed in their designated positions and each of them connected to one particular
channel of a recorder. Locations of various accelerometer and displacement sensor in
the Jamuna Bridge at pile, pier and deck are shown in Figure 3.11 and 3.12. These
were connected to one communication enclosure for data transfer to the data control
centre server through the 2.4 GHz wireless radio and antenna hoisted on a lamp post
of the bridge. The system was set at Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) through a
GPS.
Figure 3.9: Triaxial accelerometer on the pile cap.
27
Figure 3.1 0: Uniaxial accelerometer on the pile cap.
Figure 3.11: Data recorders and the communication enclosure within the deck.
28
Table 3.4: List of sensors and recorders installed on the bridge and bore-hole
K2 Data Sensor Type Channel Orientation Sensor Location

Recorder Label
Label
JAMUNA Displacement Dl X Across Isolation System
located y at Pier PIO
Displacement D2
inside y Across Expansion Joint
Displacement D3
bridge between Piers P7 and P8
deck near
PierPIO EPI Uniaxial BR9 Z Pile Cap at Pier P9
Accelerometer
EPI Biaxial BRIO X Deck at Pier P9
Accelerometer BRII y
MEGHNA EPI Uniaxial BR4 Z Pile Cap at Pier PI 0
located Accelerometer
inside EPI Uniaxial BR8 Z Deck at Pier PIO
bridge Accelerometer
deck near
Pier PIO EPI Uniaxial BRI2 X Deck at Midspan
Accelerometer between Piers P9 and
PIO
EPI Uniaxial BRI3 X Deck at Midspan
Accelerometer between Piers PI 0 and
PI I
SURMA BRI X
located EPI Triaxial BR2 y Pile Cap at Pier PI 0
inside Accelerometer
BR3 Z
bridge
deck near BR5 X
Pier PIO EPI Triaxial BRG y Deck at Pier P 10
Accelerometer
BR7 Z
PADMA ABI X
located at EPI Triaxial AB2 y West Abutment
west Accelerometer
AB3 Z
abutment
Borehole Triaxial BHI EW Borehole near West End
Accelerometer BH2 NS (58 m depth)
8m z
Note: X means orientation across the bridge (transverse direction)
Y orientation parallel to the bridge (longitudinal direction)
Z means vertical direction
29
• Urnaxial accelerome'er
o TriaxiAlacccleromcter
o Displace:mcnt sensor
Figure 3.12: Location of various accelerometer and displacement sensor in the

Jamuna Bridge at the pile and pier.
30
""
- ''9
IJridge deck
,
L
HI - Un" •.••1Jl1 ".,""1<1'011""'''''
Figure 3.13: Location of various accelerometers at deck of Jamuna Bridge.
GPS
2AGHz
Spread
SfWetrum
Radio
12V
K2 K2 Commu nkation
K2 Intermediate Master Box
Slave Slave
SURMA MEGHNA JAMUNA
AC
220V
External Elcternal
Interconnect Interconnect
-
0
0
Uniaxial Accelerometer
Biaxial Accelerometer
Triaxial Accelerometer
0 0 Displacement Sensor
Figure 3.14: Connectivity among the sensors
31
3.4.4 Data Transmission Facilities
Two steel masts were also constructed, one at each end of the bridge to hoist the GPS
and the radio spectrum antennas. The masts were made of steel tubes welded to be
13.716 m (east end) and 18.288 m (west end) high from the ground with supporting
guys in different directions. Permission for using radio antenna (spread spectrum) at
the bridge site for automatic transmission of data to data control centre computer was
sought well in advance from the relevant authority I.e. Bangladesh
Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRe), also they were informed about
the installation dates. Dedicated telephone line at the Data Control Centre needed for
transferring data from the bridge site to BUET was obtained after the installation
work. Another direct telephone line has also been obtained for the BUET Data
Analysis Centre.
32
Chapter Four
REVIEW OF THE BRIDGE MODEL
4.1 GENERAL
It is extremely difficult to obtain analytical mathematical solutions for many

engineering problems. Analytical solutions can be obtained easily only for certain
simplified situations. For problems involving complex material properties and
boundary conditions, the engineer resorts to numerical methods that provide
approximate but acceptable solutions. Finite element (FE) models are widely used to
predict the dynamic characteristics of structures. The objective of the study is to
analyze response of the Jamuna bridge model due to an applied earthquake and
compare the model response with the actual data found from the sensors located on
the bridge site. The study also attempts to fmd the applicability of the model to predict
the bridge response due to earthquake. Three-dimensional elastic FE model of Jamuna
Bridge was constructed using SAP 2000 which is shown in Figure 4.1.
4.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING OF THE BRIDGE
The study was confined on a portion of the bridge which is 695.625 m in length. This
portion is the 2nd module of the bridge from the western side. It is started from after
pier number 7th and end after pier number 14th which is shown in Figure 4.2. This
portion is divided into six equal spans with seven piers and two extended portions.
The 26.325m extended portion is directed towards west-side (Shirajgonj) and the
73.05 extended portions is directed towards east-side (Tangail).
'1/////
L
Figure 4.1: 3D view with all piers and cantilever beams of present model from left
side.
33
The portions are shown in Figure 4.3 which is single-cell box girder bridge. The
following assumptions are considered during modelling of the bridge-
• The structural behaviour of the bridge was assumed to be linear
ignoring material and other nonlinearity.
• Only nonlinearity of the isolator is considered.
• Only lateral displacement was considered in parametric study.
• Soil-structure interaction was not considered; modelling was done
up to pier system. The foundations of the piers were simplified and
modelled as fixed end supports.

• The longitudinal curvature of the bridge was considered.
• The variation in the depth of the deck along its length was
considered parabolic as per the actual condition.
• The variation in the width of the deck along its length was
considered parabo lie as per the actual condition
• The deck of the box girder bridge was modelled using shell
element and the pier of the bridge with hollow portion was
modelled using solid element.
• The diaphragm and the exterior girder of the bridge is modelled
with frame element.

• The lateral prestressing is considered but longitudinal prestressing
is not considered in the present study.
wr!-. ----III!_-----!-----!---- ..&----!'l----~---..M.. P14

LL'"
EJ<leoded P13
portion from PB P9 Pl0 Pll Extended
WestSide P12 portion from
E""tSide
Figure 4.2: Longitudinal profile of the model
horizontllll1y
restained in one
direction and free in
olher direction
Figure 4.3: 3d view of bridge model
34
4.2.1 Bridge layout line
The studied bridge has curvature in two directions one is horizontal and another is
vertical. In the horizontal direction there is a circular curve of radius of l2000m. On
the other hand the curvature in vertical direction is combination of 1460m straight line
of 0.05 percent gradient and then a circular curve which has a length of L880 m. and
then again a straight line of same length and same gradient as mentioned before.
Studied portion of the bridge is the second module from the western side, which lies
on the vertical gradient.
4.2.2 Deck section .
The cross-sectional characteristics and dimensional properties are shown in the Figure
4.4 (a) and 4.4 (b).
~ BC'
8700 I Q8QO
7600 11700 7600
I! I
.~.
~ '0:"
I
-~ ;/\ 21:!.-
,-.l
--,
I ."
r-I o•
~I ~I
7~OO 7'00 7100 , zm' :"X'O

0"" 'Ytf
6'00
TYPICAL qECK SEcnQN A r PIER
Figure 4.4 (a): typical deck section at pier
35
!100 ge~. _
"00 '1100 C91

1600
, }OO
31 ' c~o,.,.C' ~C .•O
) O.•:Uu lh't\
y
. •• I
.,,..81 ,'
L ..O_ .. -l
I
'" '" NOf(
'r
'00
On.l 'W'
'" 'OR OtIJ(NSlQPolS 'W' •
R('(R 10 hBle ~o.",..,
.II 1:1'
,l,ao\(
060'
TYPICAl prCK SECTION AT I.lIP-SPAN All dir'nen~onin mm

')CA4.( I 100
Figure 4.4 (b): typical deck section at mid-span
The deck section has three variations in parameters. These are as follows
I. Parabolic variation in depth (5.5m. at pier and 3.05 m. at mid span)
2. Parabolic variation in the thickness of bottom slab (.65 m. at pier and .2 m.
at mid span)
3. Parabolic variation in bottom slab width (6.4 m. at pier and 8.604 m. at mid
span)
The above three variation has been considered in the modelling of deck section and
also the thickness in the various part of the deck section is not uniform which also has
been considered in the model. A 3D view of the bridge deck is shown in Figure 4.5.
4.2.3 Pier, diaphragm, exterior rail girder
The pier is 6 m. in width and 2.5 m. thick. One of the most challenging parts of the
model is to model the pier as it has a notch in the top (.54 m.) and at bottom it is solid
(3 m.) but in the mid of the two the pier is hollow and it varies linearly .298 m. at the
first pier of the module and 0 m. at the end pier of the module. (Figure 4.6) There is
an exterior rail girder and a diaphragm is at the each pier above.
36
Figure 4.5: 3D view of bridge deck with piers
Figure 4.6: 3d view of only pier, diaphragm and exterior rail girder.
The diaphragm girder is 2.5 m. thick, its top portion is I m, the bottom portion is .5 m
and the side portion is 1.5 m in depth. The exterior rail girder is 2.5 m. thick and it
37
starts at a depth of 1.11 m. and end at a depth of .75 m. The diaphragm and exterior
rail girder was modelled using shell and frame element.
4.2.4 Bearing and Restraint
There are seven piers in a 8-span module. Each of the piers has three bearing points.
One is at the mid point of the pier and the other two are at the edges which are shown
in Figure 4.7. In the edges of the pier the bearings are multi directional and the mid
point bearings are of two types, the three piers of the each sides of the span has
horizontal restraint with shock transmission device and the one at the centre is
horizontal restraint without shock transmission device.
'I- c' 3e., lQ:lt:,.

.•
i
I
i
:---,
•,
!
~3.::':'-9
1 11
~
i
I
I
:~ I
j
1
1 ~ ~
!
I.~
;. 3e::,; ••;
"
.•..
. . ,
-
~
\\, \\
"-
(a)
Ii. 0' Bo., 'oot;"9
I
!
I
i
1t.9aOt';ng l;. E1eor'nq
(b)
Figure 4.7: Bearing and shock transmission device of Jamuna Bridge (a) fixed type
(used in PII) (b) mobile type (used in P8, P9, PIO, PI2, PI3 and P14)
38
•.••• 1
;:.,., l ••.
,
i I .c..'r -,-,,"q .6. .~+ .•.i{~

:;..
.~i
,.•.
...-:)+
~
~
~ - - - - - @- - - -- - -
, ,
Q - - - - - i- --- --i- .
,
'"-U~----~-------:
'.. _.~ .0,......;-,
I -'( _~ __
.0-
---,------------~----,.~t~:"-t,,\
.:,..' .~..~: t -
__,.."" I
BUJIIN(; lA~T IN 7 s;'k\; uOOUlE

,., ;'-"l
LEeE:>;:);
@ _ HQ~;;ro"lolr<!s:r:::;"~
(see c:l~owl"90/' /50;8)
Figure 4.8: Bearing and restraint layout from as
_ Ho,i:rO"~OI 'estfoi"t wit"
.•nocl< lrc"smis.,o" <::e'",e",
built drawing
•
•0" - Mul:;-di'IOC:;o"ol ~eor'''i
•
_ !l,1"tt;-dkecl;o"cl tleo,i"'i wit"
'e'Jt~o'''.'''' ""O bumpers
_ uni-direc\,o"cl ~e~.jn'i with
restroi".~, o"e b•.•••..••
p ••' ••
lri:JSupport T~ IMultiLinelilPlllstic iJ
"- Propertf Na." 1m Set Defatl Name
"-)I( Tol:a1Maulll'ld'W~
EJ "M' 10 Rotlllionalinertio!l1 10
-
C7 10 Rotatic:nallnertia 2 10
WiI "'""" Rotational Inertia 3 10
IJ!jJ
,,,
-
Directional PropertiM
D.ect:ion F'" N<wti>ea< PropeitieS
[ PM,P,,-~,
Advooced.. I
J
I Ul I I Mw,!»I'3!',,)W for Ul ..
",' ~ U2 I ModifylShow for U2...

drlO.
W U3
'"
I Mc.dlPJIShow for UJ..
ll!\l
r Rl 'r" r MoeJ,p)/Soo.•••f(rlRl ..
A'\. r R2 r r Modil',llShO\'llIOlR2.. OK
r R3 r r Mod!I~lj!:.h1)wJOf RJ
>i F.A1 o.~A1
l'
"3:oVJe¥.i
Figure 4.9: Assigning the link properties within the pier and the deck.
39
In Figure 4.9 the Sap window shows link or support data for mid points of the pier for
all piers except the 4th which has a horizontal restraint with a shock transmission
device. In these ul indicates vertical direction, u2 indicates longitudinal direction of
the bridge and u3 is lateral direction of the bridge. Vertical direction is free to move.
The support is assumed as multi linear plastic. Figure 4.10 shows the shows hysteresis
diag~am for the longitudinal direction of the bridge for mid points of all the piers
except the 4th The 4th pier (PI I) is fixed type. So the properties for the link are given
as a fixed type which is shown in Figure 4.11. For the outer side of the deck and pier
the link property are described in Figure 4.12 which shows vertically fixed and
laterally free in both sides.
Ed.!
IderlbOOn---------, Hystefesis TypeAo:l Pa-ame!:ers-------------,
PtopotyName
=---
JiDR Hyslefests Type '-Kin-ema---,.,<------ij
DiecOOn IU2
No Pa~ersAre ReQ.ired FlJ His Hystecesis Type
1M ltliiear PIasI£
T~
N.ro- ~es
PtopertiesUsedFa l.ine~~ Cases Hysl~es" DeliniionSk~ch

Muhilinear Plastic. Kinem.rtie
Effective Stiffness I~
EliecliveDattlPi>l 10
,
She~ Defonn,;", location
[_ DisI<noehomtoo,) 10.
:
I
,
I
MtJti..LineaI FOIce-DelOImalm Derrilm
I,I -"•
DisP
1 .0.2
2 .0.03
3 0
4 0.03
5 0.2
Ole\> Rows I
Figure 4.10: Sap window shows Hysteresis diagram for the longitudinal direction of
th
the bridge for mid points of the all pier except the 4
40
IMultiLinellr Plllstic iJ
[lilil Set Defllult Nllnle
TolIlIMIl$$!l<ldWeigl-t
MIl$$ I -10.---- Rollllionolinertill 1 10
Weight 10 Rotlltionllllnertia 2 10
Rol~ Inellia J 10
D.ectiona! Prapellies
Direclion filled NonLinellr Properties
[PD"" pm_,~
I Advllnced..
r U, r r t,MrlriOJlShrJwrc:,Ul
r;; U2
r;; U3
'"
'r"
r
r
r"D.-j,11'/5fll'U!r.t!
Mo j"~/Sf",. 'I fopU J

U.! Displa,;oColof
•
r R' r Modil~/Shl}"'" k., R1
r R2 r r Mod,i~/Show lOT A2 OK
r RJ r r Ma<:lifl'/Show fOl R) c.oc,l

~ ClellrAiI
th
Figure 4.11: Sap window shows link or support data for mid point of the 4 pier.
Vertical direction is free to move and horizontal two directions are fixed.
Eae "dit ~iew Q.efne arldQe O[lIW S.elect
D ~ I iii t'iil.-;-r:j, I 00 I • I ~ .I'J ~ ~ .s IIl:'ll til

assign AQllly2e D1SQlllY
3~
DesiIJl
.
Qptlons
;, 0"
I:!.elp
C1' *' I • • I ~~ I;J I ~ III ~I

I~
-. LinklSupport Twe Ilinelll iJ
Property Name ILSPl Sel Defllult Nllme I,
Tetal MllSSan::IWeicht
Mllss 10 Rotlllion.!llInellill1 10
Weight 10 Rotlllionlllinertia 2 [a
Aetlltilll'lellnertill3 10
Direclional Propetlies
Direction Filled Ploperlies
p Ul IrM;;;;f'iSJi",T~ .".-:11
P U2
'"
r Display Color •
P UJ r
,
r R' r
r R2 r OK
r R3 r C.sncel
~ Oear AI I
3.0 View 7
Figure 4.12: Sap window shows link or support data for outer points of the pier,
vertical direction is fixed to move but both longitudinal and lateral directions free to
move.
41
4.2.5 Applying lateral prestressing to the deck
To apply prestress one needs to consider the following criteria as follows

+ The average spacing of the prestress is .665m and our module is
695.625 m. it means we need 1046 tendon to apply.
+. The adjacent two tendons are different that is if one has a.dead end to
the right then the other has dead end to the left and the variation is all
through the same.
Considering these three complexities a small software was written (coordinate
calculator) in visual basic to make the difference of coordinate between each of the
tendons. Then half of the tendon to the zero point was produced and moved all along
the bridge with spacing of 1.330 m for right side dead end and again do the same
thing for left side dead end. (Figure 4.14)
For applying prestressing the data are taken from as built drawing are as follows,
~ Area of the tendon is 0.7258 sq. mm
~ Applied load is from one end and that is 755kN.
~ Curvature coefficient is 0.2
~ Wobble coefficient is 0.002 per meter
~ Anchorage slip is taken as 2 mm.
PLAN (4500mm' wide segment)

5::t1 1:~
Figure 4.14: Lateral prestressing layout for deck section from as built drawing.
42
Ei'oe ~dit :ilew ~ine ~doe Dr • I.,
[ltii'.~tJj! nc.1 ~I&'J
,
fi)
---I
Tendon Section Name Jten_evJl
~ endon Modeling Options For Analysis Model ~-----,

I
r Model Tendorl oilSLoods
(0 Model Tendon oilSElements
Tendon Parollmetels
Prestlen Type IPr:<slTe>~11011
MoIIIe1io111Ptoper~ ISTEEl
Tendon Propellies
r SpecilyTendonOioilmeter IJ OJ(Jol
r. SpecityTendonAreoil 17258E.04
TOlsioMl Constart ja385E-DB
Moment ollnerlkl /4,192£.()8
SneolllAr~ W533E~4
Oispl~ Coo I
::oJ
3.0 VieW Xo.'Qi!. '((l00 20.00
Figure 4.15 Sap window shows tendon is modeled as element.
U,,",' -I~,; QlI~lll

II N... I.",,,,, ::J I [ IKN m C ::J II
t;~:lrT;:~=J
Coo. c.,.
IlJ;l,F;::s:~~:"'~
r. J.End(End)oITendon r 0::...... 1755
r 80th Ends SWIllleOUSl)<
Friction&"ldAnchotollgelosses --------;:;:;:::=
ClJVoIItl.6e
Co~rlciert [Unilleu) 10.2
WobbieUlefhci~ (11m) i2.l)xJE'OJ
Arlehor~ 50lilSicllmJ i6.(XXH13
Olhef Loss PoIIIoIIII'Ieters

E"'stic ShortetYlg SIren (KN/m2] 11.426£<00
CreiP Shess {KN/m21 12.3m.OO
Sl'vrkage Shess (KN/m2) 1J,328E+03
SleeiRela:<alionShlm (KN/m2] 12,3m.OO

The 'Olhel Lou PoIIlo!lmelels"
~ appIjIto tendons tMl ere he&led 011'loads
II1II;e~~IS model FOllendonsltW are treollledoilSelel1'lenl$in the an*it
modellhese oIhelloss PoIIIM'It'lers
0lil0defined in lhe fMtel'al propeltieS,
Figure 4.16 Sap window shows prestressing is done for odd number of tendon and the
jacking end is I-end.
43
"0"
_l_O_'_d _0_"_"_"_"_m_"_I_._"'_,,_"'_, 3_I [ IKN, m. C
Jack FlOmHn Location Lo"d Type Tendtr'lload
r. I-End (Stalljof Tendon r. Force Force IKN)
r J.End (End] of Tendon r ca•••u 175~
r Both Ends Sim..lllaneOUfly
Friction .-mdAnchor"gc LO$ses

i:ufvall..-e Coefficient [Unillen] 10.2
Wobble Coefficient (11m) 12000E~3

Ancholage Set Skp 1m) 16000E~3
Other loss Parameters

Elaslic: Shortening Strm (KN/m2) 11.426E+08
Creep Stress IKN/m2] 12.377E+08
Shrinkage Siren (KN/m2) 1332&-08

Sleel R~laxaion Stress [KN/m2) 12317£>08
The "Other Lon P.!l!amelers" onl\! apply to tendons that are tlealed as Io<lds
in the: M1~sis model. FOI lendons that <lie heated as elements in lhe analysis
model these other loss pilfamelers are defined in the rn!llerial ptopelties.
Options -~-----~
r. Repl<'lce Ekisting lOo!lds
r Delete Exisiffl Loo!lds
.,
523 T endtins Seiticled DO YlJ,OO 20.00
Figure 4.17 Sap window shows prestressing are done for odd number of tendon and
the jacking end is I-end.
Figure 4.18: 3D View of the lateral prestressing tendon.
44
The portion below the pier is not designed and taken as fixed support. Thus the soil
structure interaction is not considered in this model.
4.3 MODAL ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM
Modal analysis was done with the help of different models of the bridge. (Rahman,
2008) The different FE models are described bellow.
I) Model-I. The model does not consider prestressing in the bridge deck, pier
system, diaphragm, exterior rail girder and longitudinal curvature. Vertical

curvature is considered in this model. Supports and restraints are provided by
hinge and roller as per actual condition.
2) Model-2. The model does not consider prestressing and the pier system.
Supports and restraint are provided by hinge and roller as per actual
condition. Internal diaphragm and Exterior rail girder are modelled with shell
element.
3) Model-3. The model does not consider prestressing and the pier system,
Supports and restraints provided by hinge are not as per actual condition, i.e.
the direction of restrains are not considered in this model. Internal diaphragm
and exterior rail girder are modelled' with shell element.
4) Model-4. The model does not consider prestressing in the deck. Pier system is
modelled with solid elements. Hollow sections at the top of the piers are not
considered. Internal diaphragm and Exterior rail girder are modelled with
shell elements.
modelled with solid elements. Hollow sections at the top of the piers are also
shell elements.
modelled with shell elements Hollow sections at the top of the piers are not
shell elements.
7) Model-7. The model does not consider lateral prestressing in the deck. Pier
system is modelled with solid element. A hollow section at the top of the
45
piers is also modelled. Internal diaphragm and Exterior rail girder are
modelled with shell element.
S) Model-S. The model considers lateral prestressing in the deck. Pier system is
modelled with solid element. A hollow section at the top of the piers is also
modelled. Internal diaphragm and Exterior rail girder are modelled with
frame element.
Modal analysis involves determination of natural frequencies and vibration modes of

the structure by eigenvector or ritz-vector method. Graphical presentation of time
period vs. mode number for various model are presented in Figure 4.19. In Figure
4. I9 it can be clearly seen that the graph is all about same for with prestressing and
without prestressing (that is model-S and model-7). On the other hand it can be said
that if everything remain same for model-7 and only the hollow section is not
considered then it has very little effect in the time period or the frequency (that is in
the model-4). Again there is little effect if every thing remains same as the model-4
(previous one) and the pier is made using shell element and in that case the time
period slightly decreases (that is in the model-6). From graph of model-2 and model-3
it can be easily said that the time period reduces significantly because of not
considering the bearing and restraint condition. From the graph of model-5 it can be
said that using frame element in diaphragm and exterior girder (other things remain
same as in the model-7) it increases the time period slightly. From the graph of the
model-! it can be said that the time period is very high at initial modes and the very
low at the 12th mode. The probable reason may be not considering the important
parameter of the bridge.
Model-S as described in the precious section IS the most sophisticated model

compared to others developed in the present study. Various mode shapes as obtained
by modal analysis of Model-S are described here. The main concern of this study is to
identify the modal parameter of transverse vibration of the bridge. After Modal
analysis of the bridge, mode I and mode 2 show the longitudinal vibration and their
respective frequencies are O.735Hzand O.S46Hz.
46
16
Time Period Vs. Mode no.
1.55
'5
Mode~3 XModel-4
1.45
14
• •
X ModeI-5 • Model-6
1.35
'.3
1.25
'.2
1.15
• •
"
105
U 0.95
~
'& 0,9
~
8. 0.85
• •
•
~ 0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
• • •• • •
0.6 "
0.55
•
••
0.5
0.45
" t I
0.4
0.35 • • y
0.3
0,25
02
0.15
2 3 4 5 6
Mode No.
7 6
• 10 11 12
Figure 4.19: Time period vs. mode no. of different model (Rahman, 2008)
Corresponding mode shapes are shown in Figures 4.20 and 4.21. The first transverse
vibration appears in the finite element model under mode 3 and its respective
frequency is 1.001747Hz. The mode shape is shown in Figure 4.22. Mode 4 of the
model shows both longitudinal and transverse vibration and its modal frequency is
I. 175Hz. Figure 4.23 shows the mode shape of mode 4. Under mode 5, mode 6, and
mode 7 the bridge vibrates in higher combined modes which is shown in Figures 4.24,
4.25 and 4.26. The enter deck of bridge vibrate transversely under mode 8 which is
shown in Figure 4.27. The transverse vibration with tortional effect are observed in
mode 9 and shown in Figure 4.28. The complex modal shape appears in mode 10,
mode II and mode 12 which are shown in Figures 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31 respectively.
47
Mode no: 1
Figure 4.20: Deformed shape of the mode no. 1
Mode no: 2
48
Mode no: 3
Mode no: 4
49
Mode no: 5
Mode no: 6
50
Mode no: 7
Mode no: 8
51
Mode DO: 9
Figure 4.28: Deformed shape ofthe mode no. 9
Mode no: 10
52
Mode no: 11
Mode no: 12
Figure 4.31: Derormed shape of the mode no. 12
53
Chapter Five
TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE
5.1 GENERAL
Jamuna Bridge is located in a seismically active region that can be subjected to

moderately strong earthquake from a number of sources. Bangladesh did not have any
modem recording station for monitoring strong ground motion. In the site-specific
seismicity study for the project (Bolt, 1987), one of the recommendations was to set
up several strong motion accelerometers near the bridge structures so that local
shaking could be measured accurately. Ambient vibration of the bridge is being
constantly monitored with the sensors installed in the bridge.
In the second half of the first year of the monitoring phase, one earthquake was
detected on June 17,2004 at 5:36:53 hrs BST (23:36:53 hrs GMT, June 16,2004) at
the Bridge West End free-field station. This was the first earthquake recorded by the
station after installation. The epicenter of this earthquake lies close to the bridge site.
All the accelerometers inside the bridge and bridge west end, east end and
Mymensingh free-field station were activated at this time. The accelerometers of the
other four free-field stations did not activate; it may be due to the intensity of ground
motion at those sites being lower than the trigger level set for starting the devices.
5.2 MODEL FOR ANALYSIS
The study was confined on a portion of the bridge which is 695.625 m in length. This
portion is divided into six equal spans with seven piers and two extended portions.
The 26.325m extended portion is directed towards west-side (Shirajgonj) and the
73,05 extended portions is directed towards east-side (Tangail).The portion is a
single-cell box girder bridge.
Span= 695.625 m
54
Six equal spans with seven piers
Two extended portions:
-- The 26.325m extended towards west-side
(Shiraj gonj)
--The 73 .05m extended portion is directed towards
East-side (Tangail)
The portion is single-cell box Girder Bridge.
Figure 5.1: 3-D view of the model
5.3 EARTHQUAKE DATA FOR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
For modal time-history analysis three directional earthquake data is used. This
earthquake data ware recorded l7'h June 2004. The results obtained from modal
history analysis are compared with the recorded data on the bridge deck during the
earthquake. The West-End free-field station is nearest to the instrumented bridge
module (7-span module next to West-end module). The ground acceleration at the
West-End free-field station had a maximum value of 42.2 cm/sec2 in the NS direction.
Input data was given for longitudinal, transverse and vertical direction. These
directions are also referred to as east-west, north-south and up-down.
55
The input data of earthquake recorded at the West-End free field station along
transverse, longitudinal and vertical direction are shown in Figures 5.2 to 5.5. Fast
Fourier Transforms (FFT) of earthquake data are also shown in these figures.
20
15 .
10
-5
-10 .
-, 5 .
-20
o 5 10 , 5 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e In sec
longitudinal direction of the bridge
0.35
0.30
0.25
~
~
0,20
"'
'K
E
-<
0.15
0.10
0,05
0.00
-0.05
0 6 e '0 12 16 16 20
Frequency in Hz
Figure 5.2 (b): FFT in Longitudinal direction of Earthquake data recorded at the
West-End Free field 5tation
56
30
20
"
E'"" 10
"
.!:
c: 0
0
~ -10
a;"
.:t" .20
-30
-40 .
-50
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e In sec
Transverse direction of the bridge
0.7
0.6
0.5
Q)
0.4
"0
~ 0.3
0.
E
~ 0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Frequency, Hz
Figure 5.3 (b): FFT in Transverse direction of Earthquake data recorded at the West-
End free field station
57
10
~g 6
'"
E 4
.=c" 2
0
;:: 0
r!
a; '" .2
"'"" -4
-6 ............
•8 ................
-10
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e In sec
Vertical direction
0.14
0.12
0.10
"
"0
..::>,
0.08
C.
E 0,06
<{
0.04
0.02
0,00
0 2 4 6 8 '0 12
Frequency in Hz
Figure 5.4 (b): FFT in Vertical direction of Earthquake data recorded at the West-End
free field station
58
Table 5.1 Summary of ground motion in free-field stations June 16,2004 earthquake
Derived Derived
Derived Max.
Latitude Max. Peak Max. Peak
Station Time Peak Ground
Channel & Ground Ground
ID# (GMT) Displacement
Longitude Acceleration Velocity
(em)
(cm/sec2) (em/sec)
Bridge X -16.674593 0.517800 -0.031480

West-
23:36:5 24.398°N
End y -42.208819 1.037485 0.046156
3 89.753°E
Z .8.905226 0.152260 -0.003576
Note: X represents East.West direction

Y represents North.South direction
Z represents Vertical direction
5.4 LOCATION OF SENSORS ON THE BRIDGE SITE
and three displacement sensors were installed on Module 1 of the bridge structure.
These data are fed to three digital K2 data recorders labelled Jamuna, Meghna and
Surma. It was decided to place the three recorders and the communication enclosure
close to one another within the box girder deck near Pier PI O. In this study three
directional earthquake data for modal time. history analysis is used. This earthquake
data ware recorded 17th June 2004. The results obtained from modal history analysis
are compared with the recorded data on the bridge deck by the sensors during the
earthquake. Three sensor locations were chosen for this comparison. These locations
are as follows:
• Deck at Pier P10, where an EPI Triaxial Accelerometer is attached to the K2
data recorder named SURMA located inside bridge deck near Pier PIO. This
sensor can measure data in all three directions such as longitudinal, transverse
and vertical direction. It is referred to as BR5, BR6 and BR7 respectively.
59
• Deck at Midspan between Piers P9 and PIO where an EPr Uniaxial
Accelerometer is connected to a K2 data recorder named MEGHNA
located inside bridge deck near Pier PI O.This sensor can measure data along
longitudinal direction and referred to as BRI2.
• Deck at Midspan between Piers PIO and PH, where an EPI Uniaxial
Accelerometer which is also connected to K2 data recorder MEGHNA
located inside bridge deck near Pier PI O.This sensor also measures data along
longitudinal direction and referred to as BR13.
Sensor locations are shown in Figure 5.5(a) and 5.5 (b).
Table 5.2: List of sensors and recorders on the bridge that are used for comparison in
this thesis
Channel
Sensor Type Orientation Sensor Location
Label
EPr Uniaxial Deck at Midspan between

Accelerometer BRIZ X Piers P9 and PI 0
EPr Uniaxial
Accelerometer Deck at Midspan between
BRI3 X Piers PIO and PI I
BR5 X
Deck at Pier PI 0
EPr Triaxial BR6 Y
Accelerometer
BR7 Z

Y means orientation parallel to the bridge (longitudinal direction)
60
~~.10
A Tmx.1
A",~"",I~
• Bali.
Acceierorraer
• ll1wial
Actefroo-aer
• Os;lil:e •• rt
s,"'"
Figure 5.5 (a): Location of sensors on the bridge
Triaxial
Accelerometer
• Biaxial
Accelerometer
• Uniaxial
Accelerometer
Pier-10
• Displacement
Sensor
Figure 5.5 (b): Location of Different Types of Accelerometer
61
5.5 ANALYSIS
A time-history analysis uses the method of mode superposition, compared with a

direct-integration time-history, which solves equations for the entire structure at each
time step. It is a highly efficient, special-purpose algorithm for analyzing structures
with limited nonlinearities. Only nonlinear material behavior in Link objects is
considered here; frame hinge and geometric nonlinearity are excluded. The modal
analysis of module is conducted by SAP 2000. In this analysis, the number of frame
elements is 40 and number of shell element is I 152. The support conditions are taken
as pin connection. From history analysis a model which gives the most effective result
is selected. The support conditions are taken as pin connection. Time history analysis
is a highly efficient, speGial-purpose algorithm for analyzing structures with limited
nonlinearities. In SAP when non linear properties are present in the element, they only
affect non linear analyses.
5.5.1 Functions for analysis
For modal time-history analysis three directional earthquake data is used. These data
are recorded at the West-End free-field station which is nearest to the instrumented
bridge module (7-span module next to West-end module). These earthquake data were
recorded on 17th June 2004. These three directional data are included as time history
function with earthquake acceleration data. The abscissa of these Functions are
always time, period, or frequency. Increment between abscissa values are constants
and the Function starts at abscissa zero. In this analysis time values are given at
interval of 0.005 sec.
5.5.2 Load cases
A Load Case is a specified spatial distribution of forces, displacements, temperatures,

and other effects that act upon the structure. A Load Case by itself does not cause any
response of the structure. In this analysis only Dead load case is defined with self
weight multiplier being one.
62
5.5.3 Analysis cases
Load Cases must be applied in Analysis Cases in order to produce results. An

Analysis Case defines how the Load Cases are to be applied (e.g., statically or
dynamically), how the structure responds (e.g., linearly or nonlinearly), and how the
analysis is to be performed (e.g., modally or by direct-integration.) An Analysis Case
may apply a single Load Case or a combination of Loads. In this analysis four
analysis cases were defined. Detailed descriptions of these cases are given on table
5.3.1 to table 5.3.4 below:
. Table 5.3: Analysis Case: Dead
Case name: Dead
Analysis Case Type: The linear static analysis of a structure

Static involves the solution of the system of
linear equations
Structural proper ties (stiffness,
Analysis type: damping etc.) are constant during the
Linear
analysis.
The analysis starts with zero stress. It

Initial Condition:
Unstressed state does not contain loads from any
previous analysis.
Load Type: Load
5.6 RUNNING ANALYSIS CASES
After defining a structural model and one or more Analysis Cases, the analysis cases
are explicitly run to get results for display, out put, and design purposes. When an
analysis is run, the program converts the object-based model to finite elements, and
performs all calculations necessary to determine the response of the Structure to the
loads applied in the Analysis Cases.
63
Table 5.4: Analysis Case: Modal
Parameter Name Comment
Case
Modal
name:
Analysis
Modal analysis is always linear. Modal analysis is used to
Case Modal
deter mine the vibration modes of a structure.
Type:
This analysis determines the undamped free-vibration
Analysis mode shapes and frequencies of the system. These natural
type Eigen
modes provide an insight into the behaviour of the
Vectors
structure.
Initial Unstressed The analysis starts with zero stress. It does not contain
Condition: state loads from any previous analysis.
Number of Max: 30
modes: Min:l
Table 5.5: Analysis Case: Gravity
Parameter Name Comments
Case name:
Gravity
Analysis Time history Which is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamical
Case Type: analysis: response of a structure to a specified loading that
may vary with
time
Analysis type: The stiffness, damping, and load may all depend
Non-Linear:
upon the displacements, velocities, and time.
For non linear modal time-history analysis, only

Time History the nonlinear behaviour of the Link/Sup port
Modal
Type elements is included.
Time History Transient analysis considers the applied load as a

Transient one-time event, with a beginning and end.
Motion Type
64
Initial The structure has zero displacement and
Condition: velocity, all elements are unstressed, and there is
Unstressed state:
no history of nonlinear
Deformation.
Modal This non linear modal time-history analysis can
Use modes
Analysis continue by using modes from the modal analysis
from case modal:
case: case.
Load Type: Load.
The number of output time steps is 100 in this

Number of
analysis and the size of the time steps is 0.1 in this
output time step:
Time step analysis.
100
data The time span over which the analysis is carried
Out put Time
out is 10 sec. Responses are calculated at the end
step size: .0.1
of each 0.1 sec increment.
Table 5.6: Analysis Case: Time History
Parameter Name Comment
Case name: Time History
Time history It is a step-by-step analysis of the

Analysis Case Type:
analysis dynamical response of a structure to a
specified loading that may vary with
time.
The stiffness, damping, and load may

Analysis type: Non-Linear: all depend upon the displacements,
velocities, and time.
For non linear modal time-history
analysis, only the nonlinear
Time History Type Modal
behaviour of the Link/Sup port
elements is included.
Transient analysis considers the
Time History Motion applied load as a one-time event, with
Transient
Type a beginning and end.
This analysis continues from a

Continue from state
Initial Condition: previous non linear gravity analysis.
at end of modal
It contains all loads, deformations,
history of Gravity
stresses, etc., from that analysis case.
Analysis
65
This non linear modal time-history
Use modes
Modal Analysis case: analysis can continue by using modes
from case: Modal
from the modal analysis case.
These loads are used for applying

ground accelerations m response-
Load Type: Acceleration
spectrum and time-history analyses
Three directional input data from

East-West
West end free field station during
Load functions North-South
earthquake occurred at 16th June,
Vertical
2004.
The number of output time steps is
8600 in this analysis and the size of
Number of output the time steps is 0.005 m this
time step: 8600 analysis.
Time step data The time span over which the
Out put Time step analysis is carried out is 42.995 sec.
size: 0.005 Responses are calculated at the end
of each 0.005 sec increment.
5.6 OUTPUT TABLES
After the analysis is completed the output tables are obtained from the "Show Table"
option in SAP. Total 15 graphs for three sensor locations were obtained. The results
obtained from modal history analysis from the SAP model are compared with the
recorded data on the bridge deck during the earthquake. These results are discussed
in the next chapter.
66
Chapter Six
RESPONSE OF JAMUNA BRIDGE IN SEISMIC
LOADING
6.1 GENERAL
The objective of the study is to analyze response of the Jamuna bridge model due to
an applied earthquake and compare the model's response with the actual response
recorded at the bridge si~e. The study also attempts to find the applicability of the
model to predict response of the bridge due to earthquake and the need to update the
model so that it can better reflect the measured data from the physical structure being
modelled. Three-dimensional elastic FE model of Jamuna Bridge was constructed
using SAP 2000.
For this analysis three directional earthquake data is used. These earthquake data were
th
recorded on 17 June 2004. The results obtained from modal history analysis are
compared with the recorded data on the bridge deck during the earthquake.
6.2 COMPARISON OF THE RECORDED DATA AND DATA OBTAINED

FROM FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
The results gathered from modal history analysis from the model are compared with
the recorded data on the bridge deck during the earthquake. These comparison leads
to the applicability of the model and the need to update the model to estimate the
actual response of the bridge during earthquake. The location of the sensors and
number of graphs obtained for each location are as follows:
I. For sensor at deck at Pier PI 0:

Three Graphs for acceleration, velocity and displacement along
longitudinal, transverse and vertical direction are obtained.
2. For sensor at mid-span between Pier P9 and Pier PIO:
67
transverse direction are obtained.
3. For sensor at midspan between Pier PI 0 and Pier PII:
transverse direction are obtained.
Total 15 graphs were used to compare the recorded data on the bridge deck with the
data found from the finite element model.
6.3 GRAPHS TO COMPARE THE DATA AT PIER DECK ON PIER 10
From the Figure 6.1 to 6;9 it is seen that, the patterns of time history obtained from
the time history analyses and the recorded data are similar on deck on Pier PI 0 during
an earthquake. However, the acceleration magnitude of the output of numerical
analyses are greater compared to the recorded data. The reason might be that in the
numerical analysis no soil-structure interaction effect was considered.
6.3.1 Acceleration on Pier PI0 along three directions:
From the Figure 6.1 to 6.9 it can be seen that the peak acceleration of the output of
numerical analyses comes later than the recorded data. Peak acceleration obtained in
longitudinal direction is at the time of 11.725 sec in FEM model and at 9.48 sec for
recorded data. Peak at both directions are higher for FEM model with variation. Peak
response of the bridge for actual data is 58% ofFEM response.
The acceleration and velocity graphs (Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.6) it can be observed that
the pattern of the graphs are similar but the magnitude of response is little different.
The magnitude of response in actual recording is lower than that of the FE model. The
reason might be that in the numerical analysis no soil-structure interaction effect was
considered. Another reason for variation is that since the earthquake intensity was
very small, the effect of ambient vibration was large on actual responses. Since
ambient vibration was ignored in the FE model the effect of earthquake excitation
frequency was large in the response of the model.
68
From the FFT graphs it can be seen that the FFT values of the ground accelerations of
the sensor data shows a peak at around 1Hz which is the due to the grounds vibration
and the numerical model does not have this peak. The second peak of both sensor
accelerations and numerical models are almost at the same frequencies. This was
because of not considering the soil-structure interaction in this model.
These graphs are given below with observed variations and their Fast Fourier
Transform.
6.3.1.1 Comparison of Acceleration data of deck at PIO along Longitudinal

direction:
From Figure 6.1 (c) it can be observed that the first peak value shows the predominant
frequency of the structure which is around 2 Hz and the maximum peak value which
is about 7.5 Hz is the predominant frequency of the earthquake. From Figure 6.1 (d)
it can be observed that the first peak value shows the predominant value of the soil
which is approximately I Hz. The second peak value indicates the predominant
frequency of the structure which is about 2 Hz. However in Figure 6.1 (d) the
predominant frequency of the earthquake which is about 7.5 Hz is not clear. Because
the effect of the predominant frequency of earthquake excitation is very low in this
case compared to the ambient vibration.
I Acceleration in Longitudinal direction on deck
, 5
'0
-5 .
-, 0 .
-'5
o 5 '0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.1 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along longitudinal direction.
69
12
8 .
~u
Q>
CIl
Eu 4
.5
c:
0
:;: 0
•••
~
Q>
Q;
u
:i. -4
-8
-, 2
0 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.1 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along longitudinal
direction.
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 6.1 (c): FFT ofFEM data obtained from FEM model
70
0.30
0.25
o
Ql
020
~
o 0.15
c:
Ql
"0
:J 0.10
.'!::
C.
~ 0.05
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 35 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.510.0
Frequency in Hz
Figure 6.1 (d): FFT of sensor data
Table 6.1: Summary of Acceleration data along longitudinal direction on PI 0
FEM Model Actual Response

Actual valuel
Peak value Time to Peak value Time to peak FEMmodel
(cmlsec2) Peak (sec) (cmlsec2) (sec)
13.4162 11.725 7.72692 9.48 0.58
6.3.1.2 Comparison of Acceleration data of deck at PIO along Transverse

direction:
frequency of the structure which is about 2 Hz and the maximum peak value which is
around 7.5 Hz is the predominant frequency of the earthquake. From Figure 6.2 (d) it
71
can be observed that the first peak value shows the predominant value which is
approximately I Hz. The second peak value indicates the predominant frequency of
ambient vibration of the structure which is around 3 Hz. However in Figure 6.2 (d)
the predominant frequency of the earthquake which is about 7.5 Hz which is not clear.
Because the effect of the predominant frequency of earthquake excitation is very low
compared to the ambient vibration. The first peak is not dominant in Figure 6.2 (c)
because the soil-structure interaction is not considered in the FE model.
Acceleration in transverse direction on deck

30
20
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.2 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along transverse direction.
72
6
4 .
-2
~ .................•.••••••••••••.••...................................•.•••.•.•••••••••••••.••...
-6
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.2 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along transverse direction.
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
o 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency in Hz
73
0.40
0.35
0.30
()
<Il
~ 0.25
()
t: 0.20
<Il
"'C 0.15
::::l
:!:
C. 0.10
E
eX:
0.05
0.00
-0.05
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
Table 6.2: Summary of Acceleration data along Transverse direction on PIO
FEMModel Actual Response

Actual value/
Peak value Time to Peak value Time FEM model
(cm/sec2) Peak (sec) (cm/sec2) (sec)
39.1986 11.59 4.60895 9.67 0.12
6.3.1.3 Comparison of Acceleration data of deck at PIO along Vertical

direction:
frequency of the structure which is approximately 2 Hz and the maximum peak value
74
which is about 7.5 Hz is the predominant frequency of the earthquake. From Figure
6.3 (d) it can be observed that the first peak value shows the predominant value of the
soil which is around 1 Hz. The second peak value indicates the predominant
frequency of ambient vibration of the structure which is approximately 3 Hz.
However in Figure 6.3 (d) the predominant frequency of the earthquake which is
about 7.5 Hz which is clear. The first peak is not dominant in Figure 6.3 (c) because
the soil-structure interaction is not considered in the FE model.
Acceleration in vertical direction on deck I

12
10 .
o
-2
-4
-6 .
-8 .
-10
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.3 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along vertical direction.
75
4
3 .
"":rl 2
Ul
1:
u
1
.=
"
.. S! 0
EIII -1
~
.:t. -2
-4
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.3 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along vertical direction.
0.18
0.16 .
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
o 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency in Hz
76
0.12
0.10
o
CIl
0.08
~
o 0.06
t:
CIl
'0
::J 0.04
;!::
a.
~ 0.02
0.00
o 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency in Hz
Table 6.3: Summary of Acceleration data along Vertical direction on PI 0
Actual Response Actual value/

FEM Model
FEMmodel
Peak value Time to Peak value Time Peak value
10.1628 11.59 3.07183 9.5 0.30
6.3.2 Velocity at deck on Pier PIO along three directions:
From the Figure 6.4 (a) to 6.6 (b) to compare velocity along three directions at deck
on Pier PI 0 during an earthquake it can be seen that the patterns of time history
obtained from the modal history analyses and the recorded data are similar, however,
the peak velocity magnitude of the output of numerical analyses are greater compared
to the recorded data. The reason might be that in the numerical analysis no soil-
structure interaction effect was considered.
77
From longitudinal direction curve it can be seen that the peak velocity of the output of
numerical analyses comes later than the recorded data. Peak velocity is at 11.755 sec
in FEM model and at 9.86 sec for recorded data. Peak at both directions are higher for
FEM model with variation. The actual response is 61% of FEM in longitudinal
direction.
From transverse and vertical direction graphs it can be seen t~at the patterns of time
history obtained from the modal history analyses and the recorded data are not similar
rather showing large variation in peak value. For example for transverse direction's
positive peak velocity the value obtained from numerical analysis is 0.968 cm/sec and
from recorded data it is 0.30525 cm/sec. The peak velocity of the numerical analyses
comes later than the recorded data. So along transverse direction the model gives
higher value.
6.3.2.1 Comparison of Velocity data of deck at PI0 along Longitudinal direction
Velocity in Longitudinal direction on deck
0.4 .
0.2 .
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.4 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along longitudinal direction
78
0.4
0.3 .
0.2
(J
Q)
'"
E 0.1
(J
c:
0.0
.?:'
'13
0
-0.1
~
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.4 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along longitudinal direction.
Table 6.4: Summary of Velocity data along longitudinal direction on PI0
FEM Model Actual Response Actual value/

FEM model
(em/sec) Peak (sec) (em/sec) (sec)
0.432 11.755 0.26271 9.86 0.61
79
6.3.2.2 Comparison of Velocity data of deck at PIO along Transverse direction:
Velocity in Transverse direction on deck
1.0
0.8 .
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2 .
-0.4 .
~.6 .
-0.8
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time In sec
Figure 6.5 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along transverse direction
0.4
0.3 .
.,
o
0.2 .
~ 0.1
o
.5
~ 0.0
o
o
~ -0.1
-0.2
.0.3
.0.4
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.5 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along transverse direction.
80
Table 6.5: Summary of Velocity data along transverse direction on PIO
FEMModel Actual Response Actual value/

FEM model
(em) Peak (sec) (em) (sec)
0.968 11.555 0.30525 10.75 0.32
6.3.2.3 Comparison of Velocity data of deck at PIO along Vertical direction:
0.20
I Velocity in Vertical direction on deck I
0.15
0.10
~
~ 005
o
.= 0.00
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.6 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along vertical direction
81
0.10
0.08
0.06
lJ 0.04
ell
III
ElJ
0.02
.!: 0.00
.<:-
'ij
0 -0.02
~
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
a 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.6 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along vertical direction.
Table 6.6: Summary of Velocity data along Vertical direction on PIO

Actual value/
FEM model
(cm) Peak (sec) (cm) (sec)
0.178 11.56 0.09237 9.53 0.52
6.3.3. Displacement at deck on Pier PIO along three directions:
Figures 6.7(a) to 6.10 (b) are used to compare the displacements along three
directions at deck on Pier PIa. These graphs are of similar patterns. The magnitudes
of maximum displacement from numerical analysis are smaller compared to the
recorded data.
From three directional curves it can be seen that the peak displacement of the output
of numerical analyses comes later than the recorded data. Peak at both directions are
82
lower in FEM model. But variation is smaller for transverse direction. And positive
peak displacement of longitudinal direction and negative peak displacement in
transverse direction from FEM model is very small compared to actual response.
Longitudinal direction's actual response is 83% of FEM response and Transverse
direction's actual response is 69% of FEM response. So for longitudinal and
transverse directions displacement response prediction this model cannot be used
without modification. Vertical directions positive actual response is 8 I % and vertical
directions actual negative response is 118% of FEM response. Transverse direction
positive peak value from numerical analysis is 0.04803 cm and from recorded data it
is 0.03 I 09 cm. But the peak displacement of the numerical analyses comes before the
recorded data.
From all graphs of Pier PI 0 it can be summarized that longitudinal directions reaction
with some modification can be predicted using the model. But from transverse and
vertical direction's acceleration and velocity graph extensive variations can be seen.
From this it can said that transverse and vertical directions acceleration and velocity
reaction cannot be predicted using the numerical model and it needs extensive
modification to better reflect the actual response. Displacement graphs show similar
pattern and little variations.
6.3.3.1 Comparison of Displacement data of deck at PI0 along Longitudinal

direction:
Table 6.7: Summary of Displacement data along longitudinal direction on PI 0

Actual value/
FEMmodel
-0.03054 11.595 0.0261 11.16 0.85
83
Displacement in Longitudinal direction on deck
0.01 .
E
u 0.00
.1:
"E
E
CD -0.01 .
u
'"
ii
C/)
C
-0.02
-0.03 ~ .
o 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.7 (a): Displacement obtained from FEM model along longitudinal direction
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
.0.04
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.7 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along longitudinal
direction.
84
6.3.3.2 Comparison of Displacement data of deck at PIO along Transverse
direction:
Displacement in transverse direction on deck

0.06
0.04
E
"
.5
E
~
1l 0,02
'"
a.
CIl
C
0.00
-0,02
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time In sec
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
.0.02
-0.03
-0.04
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.8 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along transverse
direction.
85
Table 6.8: Summary of Displacement data along Transverse direction on PI 0
FEM Model Actual Response Actual val uel

FEM model
0.04823 I 1.595 0.03341 10.59 0.69
6.3.3.3 Comparison of Displacement data of deck at PIO along Vertical direction:
Displacement in vertical direction on deck

0.006
0.004
E
u
-
.5
c:
0.002
~ 0.000
i5.
o'"
-0.002
-0.004
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time In sec
Figure 6.9 (a): Displacement obtained from FEM model along vertical direction
86
0.006
0.004 .
N~
~ 0.002 .
.5
c: 0.000
o
~
'"
~ -0.002 .
:i.
-0.004 .
-0.006
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.9 (b): Displacement obtained from actual response along vertical direction.
Table 6.9: Summary of Displacement data along Vertical direction on PlO
FEM Model Actual Response Actual val uel

FEM model
0.00492 10.07 0.00427 9.6 0.87
6.4 COMPARISON OF DATA OBTAINED FROM FEM MODEL AND

SENSOR AT MIDSPAN DECKAT P9 AND PIO
To compare responses for midspan deck between Pier P9 and Pier PIO along
transverse direction three graphs with FFT are analyzed. From the Figure 6.10 (a) to
6.12 (d) it can be seen that the patterns of time history obtained from the time history
analyses and the recorded data are similar. For acceleration and velocity during an
applied earthquake, however, the magnitudes of the output of numerical analyses are
87
greater compared to the recorded data. The reason might be that in the numerical
analysis no soil-structure interaction effect was considered.
6.4.1 Acceleration of midspan deck between Pier P9 and PI0
From acceleration curve 6.10 (a) it can be seen that the peak acceleration of the output
of numerical analyses comes later than the recorded data. Peak is higher for FEM
model. Peak from FEM model is at 12.725 cm/sec2 and the peak obtained from sensor
is at 7.52 cm/sec2• So the actual response is 58% of FEM response. So for transverse
direction acceleration prediction this model can be used with little modification.
From the FFT graphs it can be seen that the FFT values of the ground accelerations of
the sensor data shows a peak at around IHz and the numerical model does not have
this peak. This may be due to no soil-structure interaction considered. The second
peak of Figure 6. I 0 (c) is 1.93 Hz which shows the predominant frequency of the
structure. And the peak 7.64 Hz shows the predominant frequency of the earthquake.
In Figure 6.10 (d) the predominant peak of the earthquake is not clear because of the
small earthquake.
I Acceleration in transverse direction on midspan of deck

15
10 - .
.5
., 0
o 10 20 30 40
Tim e in sec
Figure 6.10 (a): Acceleration obtained from FEM model along transverse direction on
mid-span of pier 9 and pier 10.
88
12
-4 .
-8 .
-12
o 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 6.10 (b): Acceleration obtained from actual response along transverse
direction.
0.16
0.14
0.12
o
Cl>
~ 0.10
o
.!:
Cl> 0.08
't:l
::l
I
~
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
89
0.20 .... .•... . ...•........................•...............................................•..............
" 0.15 ..... ..•. •...................................................•.....•...................•...••••.....

III
~
"<: 0.10 .•..•....
III
"tl
::>
g-
"" 0.05 ..•...... . .
«
0.00 .............................•....•...............•..••.•.•.....................•...•.•...•..........
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 6.1 0 (d): FFT of sensor data
Table 6.10: Summary of Displacement data along transverse direction at mid-span

between Pier P9 and PI 0

FEM model
12.725 11.565 -7.5191 9.35 0.58
6.4.2. Velocity of midspan deck between Pier P9 and PIO
From the graphs 6.11 (b) of mid-span deck between Pier P9 and PIO it can be seen
that the patterns of time history obtained from the time history analyses and the
recorded data shows similar response. The magnitude of peak velocity of the output of
numerical analyses is 0.394 em/sec and that of actual response is 0.3066 em/sec. So,
actual response is 78% of FEM response. So for transverse direction velocity
prediction of this model can be used with little modification. From transverse
90
direction curve it can be seen that the peak velocity of the output of numerical
analyses comes later than the recorded data.
From the FFT graphs it can be seen that the FFT values of the ground velocity of the
sensor data shows a peak at around 1Hz which is the due to the grounds vibration and
the numerical model does not have this peak. But the first peak of FEM model exists
at 2 Hz which does not exist in ground velocity FFT curve. It shows the predominant
frequency of the structure.
I Velocity in transverse defection at midspan on deck I

0.5
0.4
0.3
~ 0.2
~ 0.1
E
0.0
-gl:-
-0.1
~
-0.2
-0,3
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e In sec
Figure 6.11 (a): Velocity obtained from FEM model along transverse direction on
mid-span of pier 9 and pier 10.
0.4
0.3 .
0
0.2
"
~ 0.1
0
.5
l:- 0.0
.g
a; -0.1
>
-0,2
-0,3
.0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e in sec
Figure 6.11 (b): Velocity obtained from actual response along transverse direction.
91
0.012
0.010
E
<)
.S 0.008
CIl
'0
:>
~
C. 0.006
~
0.004
0.002 .
0.000
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 6.11 (c): FFTofFEM data obtained from FEM model
0.07
0.06
0.05
E
<J 0.04
<::
CIl
'0 0.03
:>
.~
C.
0.02
~
0.01
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.510.0
Frequency in Hz
92
Table 6.11: Summary of Velocity data along transverse direction at Midspan between
Pier P9 and PIO
FEM Model Actual Response Actual value/

FEM model
(cm) Peak (sec) (em) (sec)
0.394 11.755 0.3066 10.75 0.78
6.4.3. Displacement of mid-span deck between Pier P9 and Pto
From the graphs to compare the displacement along transverse directions during an
earthquake at midspan deck between Pier P 9 and P 10 it can be seen that the patterns
of response from the time history analysis shows variations from the recorded data.
The positive peak displacement of the output of numerical analyses is very low
compared to the recorded data.
From transverse direction curve it can be seen that the peak displacement of the
output of numerical analyses comes later than the recorded data. Peak at transverse
direction is higher for FEM model with little variation. Peak displacement from FEM
model is 0.032 cm and from sensor is 0.030 em.
I Displacement in longitudInal direction at midspan on deck
0.01 - .--.- .
5 0.00
E
C
~ -0.01
~
-a•
c .0.02
-0,03
10 20 30 40 50
Tim e In sec
on mid-span of pier 9 and pier 10.
93
0.04
0.03
0.02
E
"
.~ 0.01
1:
~ 0.00
'"
~ -0.01
is
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
o 5 • 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 6.12 (b): Comparison of sensor data with data obtained from FEM model
along transverse direction.
Table 6.12: Summary of Displacement data along longitudinal direction at Midspan

between Pier P9 and PIO

FEM model
-0.03172 11.595 0.0307 12.13 0.97
6.5 SUMMARY
In the longitudinal direction of deck, the acceleration and velocity show similar
pattern but the actual response is lower than the FEM response. And for the
displacement the negative response is almost similar but positive response is quite
different from FEM response.
94
In the transverse direction of deck, the acceleration and velocity shows similar pattern
but variation in magnitude is observed. And for the displacement the positive
response is almost same between FEM and actual response. But in negative direction
it has large variation.
In the vertical direction of deck, the acceleration, velocity and displacement shows
similar pattern in both direction but the values obtained from FEM are little higher
that the actual response. So the value can be used with a reduction factor.
95
Chapter Seven
PREDICTION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE OF JAMUNA
BRIDGE FOR DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKES
7.1 GENERAL
The objective of the study is to analyze response of the Jamuna bridge model due to
different earthquake loads and comparing the model's response with the previous
analysis of earthquake response with the Transfer Function results. The model is used
to predict response of the bridge due to different earthquake previously occurred in
different places. Three-dimensional elastic FE model of Jamuna Bridge was
constructed using SAP 2000.
For this analysis one directional earthquake data is used. These earthquake data are
the EI Centro earthquake, Imperial VaHey, California, USA, 1940; the Kocaeli
earthquake, August 17, 1999; the Mexico City earthquake, September 19, 1995; the
North Ridge earthquake, January 17, 1994. The results obtained from nonlinear time
history analysis are compared with the Transfer Function which was developed in a
previous study (Rahman, 2008).
7.2 TRANSFER RATIO
Transfer Ratio (TR) is the ratio of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge deck to
the FFT of the ground acceleration due to the earthquake. Here, TR is calculated using
the FFT of the displacement recorded at BR-5X (i.e. displacement of the bridge at the
deck at pier PIO in the NS direction) and the FFT of the ground acceleration recorded
th
on 17 June 2004 at the west-end free-field station in the north-south direction.
U
TR =
ug
c+id
=
a +ib
96
=
= .......................................... (7. I )
Where,
u = FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier PIO in the NS
direction; i.e. at BR5X
ii. = FFT of the ground acceleration recorded at the west-end free-field
station in the north-south direction

c = Real value of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the deck at
pier PI 0 in the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X
d = Imaginary value of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the
deck at pier PI 0 in the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X
a = Real value of the FFT of the ground acceleration recorded at the west-
end free-field station in the north-south direction
b = Imaginary value of the FFT of the ground acceleration recorded at the
west-end free-field station in the north-south direction
AI = Absolute value of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the deck
at pier PIO in the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X = ..lc' + d'

8, = Phase angle of the FFT of the displacement of the bridge at the deck at
pier PIO in the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X = tan-' ~
A, = Absolute value of the FFT of the ground acceleration recorded at the
west-end free-field station in the north-south direction = ..la' + b'
8, = Phase angle of the FFT of the ground acceleration recorded at the west-
end free-field station in the north-south direction = tan -, X

T A~, = Absolute value ofTR = ~T~+ Ti
97
S, = SJ -S2 = Phase angle ofTR = tan-' J{R
TR = Real valueofTR= T*cosS,
T, = Imaginary value ofTR = T * sin S,
The displacement recorded at BR-5X (i.e. displacement of the bridge at the deck at
pier PIO in the NS direction) due to the one earthquake, detected on June 17,2004 at'
5:36:53 hrs BST is shown in Figure 7.1 and the corresponding FFT is shown in Figure
7.2. The ground acceleration recorded at the west-end free-field station in the north-
south direction during this earthquake and the corresponding FFT are shown in
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 respectively. The Transfer ratio TR and phase angle theta (S,) are
plotted against the corresponding frequency are shown in figures 7.5 and 7.6.
0.03
0.02
E
u 0.01
.!:
-c:
Cl>
E
0.00
Cl>
u
'"Ul
a. -0.01
is
-0.02
-0.03
0 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 7.1: Displacement of the bridge at BR-5X due the earthquake, June 17,2004.
98
Frequency (Hz)
o 2 4 6 8 10
800
~ 400
'"
~ .4000
.:ii -800
15
10
'""
~
a.
E
«
5
4 6 8 10
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7.2: FFT of the displacement of the bridge due the earthquake, June 17,2004.
50
40
30
N
U 20
-
CI>
en
Eu 10
C
0
C
0
:::: -10
•..'CI>"
c;u -20
u
« -30
-40
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time in sec
Figure 7.3: Ground motion of the earthquake, June 17,2004.
99
Frequency (Hz)
o 10 20 30 40 50
200
o
~ -200
~ -400
en -600
.:i: -800
800
600
~
"0
.~ 400
a.
E
«
200
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7.4: FFT of the ground motion of the earthquake, June 17,2004.
14
12
10
a::
I- 6
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Frequency in Hz
Figure 7.5: TR vs. frequency plot
100
1500
1000
500
'"
Qi
.<: 0
f-
.500
.1000
0 20, 40 60 80 100
Frequency in Hz
Figure 7.6: Theta vs. frequency plot
7.3 APPLICATION OF THE TRANSFER RATIO
The calculated Transfer Ratio is used to observe the response of the Jamuna
Multipurpose Bridge for earthquakes of different magnitude and thereby, predict any
possible damage of the bridge. The TR values obtained are multiplied by the values of
the ground accelerations of different earthquakes to find the probable displacement of
the bridge deck at pier PI 0 in the NS direction. The obtained displacement represents
the response of the bridge due to the applied earthquake force and thus, helps to take
remedial measures in this regard.
We know,
TR
Let,
., =
a, FFT of the ground acceleration of the applied earthquake
Now, to get the desired response of the applied earthquake, the TR value and FFT of
the ground acceleration of the earthquake is multiplied.
101
TR* ii'g =
= (T * G) * ei(9,+9,)
= ................................................. (4.17)
Where,
G = Absolute value of the FFT of the ground acceleration of the

applied earthquake
8g = Phase angle of the FFT of the ground acceleration of the
applied earthquake
R = Absolute value of the FFT of the response of the bridge to the
applied earthquake = ~R~ + R;
Phase angle of the FFT of the response of the bridge to the
applied earthquake = tan -I R~R
= Real value of the response of the bridge to the applied
earthquake = R * cos8R
= Imaginary value of the response of the bridge to the applied
earthquake = R * sin 8 R
When the values of RR and R1 are obtained, Inverse Fast Fourier Transformation
(IFFT) is applied to get the values of the displacement (u') of the bridge at the deck at
pier PIO in the NS direction; i.e. at BR5X due to the applied earthquake. Thus, the
response of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge has been studied through the
displacement found by the IFFT.
102
7.4 COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSE OF BRIDGE OBTAINED FROM FE
MODEL WITH TRANSFER FUNCTION RESULTS
After the analysis is completed the output tables are obtained from SAP. Then graphs
are plotted with the help of origin. The results gathered from nonlinear modal history
analysis from the SAP model are compared with the transfer function results on the
bridge deck during the earthquake.
These comparisons lead to the applicability of the model and the need to update the
model to estimate the actual response of the bridge during earthquake. The response
prediction during different earthquakes gives an idea how the bridge behaves. The
response of the bridge during different earthquake is obtained on deck in the location
of pear 10 (P 10) in transverse direction.
7.5 APPLICATION OF THE EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE, IMPERIAL

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, USA, 1940
The El Centro earthquake data is used to predict the response of Jamuna Multipurpose
Bridge. One directional data of the EI Centro earthquake, which was occurred in
Imperial Valley Irrigation District, California, USA in 1940, is applied in transverse
direction of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge to predict the response of the bridge.
The ground acceleration and the corresponding FFT are shown in Figures 7.7 and 7.8.
400
300
200
""'"
E'" '00
"
.5
c 0
B
~
.100
'"
Q;
8
« .200
.300
0 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 7.7: Ground motion of the EI Centro Earthquake.
103
30000
u 25000
CI>
~
u
20000
.5
CI>
"0
:e
Q.
15000
~
10000
5000
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Frequency In Hz
Figure 7.8: FFT of ground motion of the El Centro Earthquake, Imperial Valley,
California, USA, 1940
The maximum acceleration of the applied earthquake is 340.202 cm/ sec' and from
Figure 7.8 the predominant frequency is found to be 1.46 Hz. The magnitude of the
displacements, velocity and Acceleration of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge at the
deck at pier PIO in the transverse direction i.e. at BR5X is found. The maximum
displacement due to earthquake of this magnitude is estimated from FE analysis to be
7.844 em. From the transfer function plot the maximum displacement by Rahman
(2008) is obtained 20.328 em. The response of FE model is much less than response
of Transfer Function. This was because of the nonlinear behavior of the link which is
included in the FE model. The nonlinear behavior of the bridge is not included in
transfer function analysis. The FE model provides an idea about how much
displacement may be reduced due to nonlinear behavior. In-fact if soil-structure
interaction is considered in the model, the estimated response of the bridge might be
less.
104
10
E 5
u
-'"
.S
E
l:
'"
u . 0
'"
'ii.
Ul
C
.5
.10
o 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 7.9: Predicted displacement ofthe bridge due to the EI Centro Earthquake,
Imperial Valley, California, USA, 1940 using FE model.
25
20
15
E 10
u
-'""
l:
5
E 0
'"
u
'"
'ii.
Ul
.5
C .10
.15
.20
0 10 20 30 40
Time in sec
Figure 7.10: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the El Centro Earthquake,
Imperial Valley, California, USA, 1940 by Transfer Function analysis.
105
The maximum response of acceleration found from FE model is 357.2402 cmlsec2•
The FFT graph is plotted for this acceleration results. The predominant period is
found 1.46 Hz which is similar of the input data.
400
300
N
lil
200
i 0
.5O 100
c:
0
~
~ 0
Q)
OJ
0
-100
.:i.
-200
-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e In sec
Figure 7.11: Acceleration obtained from FE model in deck in transverse direction of

Jamuna Bridge for El Centro Earthquake, 1940.
18
16
0
Cl> 14
III
E0 12
c:
Q)
1J 10
:ec. 8
~
6
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Tim e in sec

direction of Jamuna Bridge for El Centro Earthquake, 1940.
106
The maximum response of velocity found from FE model is 32.906 em/sec. The FFT
graph is plotted for this velocity results. The predominant period is found 0.366 Hz
which is similar of the input data.
40
30
20
:rl
~
10
"
.S
~
'0 0
0
4i
> -10
-20
-30
0 10 20 30 40
Time In sec

Jamuna Bridge for El Centro Earthquake, 1940.
3.0
2.5
E 2.0
"
.S
••::l
"0
1.5
'"
a.
~
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency In Hz
of Jamuna Bridge for El Centro Earthquake, 1940.
107
The displacement found by the nonlinear modal time history analysis is quite good.
The pattern of the response FE model is reasonable. The maximum response of
displacement found from FE model is 7.844 em. The FFT graph in Figure 7.14 is
plotted for this displacement results.
1 .4
1 .2
"
CD 1 .0
~
"
.5 0.8
CD
":E 0.6
a.
~
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 2 3 4 5
Frequency In Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for EI Centro Earthquake, 1940.
7.6 APPLICATION OF THE KOCAELI EARTHQUAKE, AUGUST 17, 1999
The Kocaeli earthquake data is used to predict the response of Jamuna Multipurpose
Bridge. One directional data of the Kocaeli earthquake, which was occurred in August
17, 1999, is applied in transverse direction of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge to
predict the response of the bridge. The ground acceleration and the corresponding
FFT are shown in Figures 7.15 and 7.16.
108
400
300
'0
200
'"
UI
E0
100
£
"
0
0
~
'" .100
~
.200
-300
-400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time In sec
Figure 7.15: Ground motion of the Kocaeli Earthquake, August 17, 1999
12
10
lil
~
0
8
.5
'"
'0
~ 6
a.
~
4
0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency In Hz
Figure 7.16: FFT of ground motion of the EI Centro Earthquake, Imperial Valley,
California, USA, 1940
The maximum acceleration of the applied earthquake is 354.3 em/sec' . The

magnitude of the displacements, velocity and acceleration of the Jamuna
Multipurpose Bridge at the deck at pier PI 0 in the transverse direction i.e. at BR5X is
found. The maximum displacement due to earthquake of this magnitude is estimated
from this study to be 13.605 em. From the transfer function plots the maximum
109
displacement are obtained 23.30496 em. The response of FE model is much less than
response of Transfer Function. This was because of the non linear behavior of the
bridge which is included in the FE model. The nonlinear behavior of the bridge is not
included in transfer function analysis. The response of FE model is much less than
response of Transfer Function. This was because of the non linear behavior of the
bridge which is included in the FE model and not included in transfer function
. analysis. The FE model provides an idea about how much displacement may be
reduced due to non-linear behavior.
,5
, 0
E
u
5
.E
C
~ 0
5~
Ci
0 .5
C
., 0
-, 5
0 10 15 20 25 30
TIm e In sec
August 17, 1999 using non linear time history analysis of FE model.
20
5 "
oS
E 0
E
5~ ., 0
c.
0
C
.20
.30
0 5 10 '5 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tim e In sec
August 17, 1999 by Transfer Function analysis.
110
The maximum response of acceleration found from FE model is 306.0642 cm/sec2•
The FFT graph is plotted for this acceleration results which is shown in Figure 7.20.
The predominant period is found 1.51367 Hz.
300
200
~irl
1:'"u 100
.s
c
0
:;~ 0
]" -100
-200
-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tme in sec
Figure 7. I 9: Acceleration obtained from FE model in deck in transverse direction of

Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli, 1999
20
18
16
~
~ 14
~
0 12
.=
•
"C
10
J 8
,
2
-2
0 2 , 6 8 10
Frequency In Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli Earthquake, 1999.
The maximum response of velocity found from FE model is 53.694 cm/sec. The FFT
graph is plotted for this velocity results. The predominant period is found 0.53711 Hz.
111
60
40
N
U
20
"
E'"U
.5 0
~
'g
-20
~
-40
-60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time In sec

J amuna Bridge for Kocaeli earthquake, 1999.
4.0
3.5
U 3.0
~
"
"5 2.5
.= 2.0
":s
'0
""
15. 1.5
~ 1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency In Hz
of J amuna Bridge for Kocaeli Earthquake, 1999.
The maximum response of displacement found from FE model is 13.605 em. The FFT
graph in Figure 7.23 is plotted for this displacement results.
112
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
E
u
.=
Ol
-C
1.2
1.0
::l
."!::
C. 0.8
~ 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
0 2 3 4 5
Frequency in Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for Kocaeli earthquake, 1999.
7.7 APPLICATION OF THE MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKE
The Mexico City earthquake data is used to predict the response of Jamuna
Multipurpose Bridge in the transverse direction on deck. One directional data of the
Mexico City earthquake, which was occurred in Mexico City, Station 1 in September
19, 1995, is applied in transverse direction of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge to
predict the response of the bridge. The ground acceleration and the corresponding
FFT are shown in Figures 7.24 and 7.25.
113
200
150
NO
CIl
100
~
0
.5 50
c:
0
~ 0
~
CIl
'il -50
:t
-100
-150
-200
0 20 40 60 80 100120140160180200
Time In sec
Figure 7.24: Ground motion of the Mexico City earthquake, Station 1 in September
19, 1995
16
14
u 12
"
~ 10
.5
"
"C 8
"
'"a. 6
~
4
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency In Hz
Figure 7.25: FFT of ground motion of the Mexico City Earthquake, Station 1 in
September 19, 1995
The maximum acceleration of the applied earthquake is 167.918 cm/sec' and the
duration of the earthquake is 180 sec. From Figure 7.26 the predominant frequency is
found to be 0.48828 Hz. The magnitude of the displacements, velocity and
acceleration of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge at the deck at pier PI0 in the
transverse direction i.e. at BR5X is found. The maximum displacement due to
114
earthquake of this magnitude is estimated from this study to be 26.35 em. From the
transfer function plots the maximum displacement are obtained 37.35531 em. The
response of FE model is much less than response of Transfer Function. This was
because of the non linear behavior of the bridge which is included in the FE model.
The nonlinear behavior of the bridge is not included in transfer function analysis.
20
5 , 0
.~
c
"E
B 0
~
~
i5
., 0
.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 , 40 , 60
Tim e In sec
Figure 7.26: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the Mexico City Earthquake
using non linear time history analysis of FE model.
40
30
20
E
u
.S '0
cell 0
E
ell
u -10
ClI
C.
en .20
C
.30
.40
0 10 20 30 40
Time sec
Figure 7.27: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the Mexico City Earthquake
by Transfer Function analysis.
115
The maximum response of acceleration found from FE model is 166.4568 cm/sec2•
200
150
~ 100
~
.S 50
c
0
~ a
J .50
-, 00
-'50
-200
a 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Tim 8 In sec

Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City Earthquake
o
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency In Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City earthquake
graph is plotted for this velocity results. The predominant period is found 0.48828 Hz.
116
60
40
u
~
~ 20
"5
.~ 0
l;-
'il
0
-20
~
-40
-60
-80
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time In sec

Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City earthquake
.5 3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency In Hz
of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City Earthquake
. The maximum response of displacement found from FE model is 6.39775 cm. The
FFT graph in Figure 7.32 is plotted for this displacement results.
117
1.8
, .6
"0
1 .4
i
.EO
1.2
"
'0
1.0
~
1i 0.8
~ 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency in Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for Mexico City earthquake
7.8 APPLICATION OF THE NORTH RIDGE EARTHQUAKE
The North Ridge earthquake data is also used to predict the response of Jamuna
Multipurpose Bridge in the transverse direction on deck. One directional data of the
North Ridge earthquake which was occurred in North Ridge, Santa Monica City Hall
Grounds in January 17, 1994, is used for this purpose. The ground acceleration and
the corresponding FFT have been shown in Figures 7.33 and 7.34.
aoo
600
-~
~ 400
"5
.<: 200
c
0
0
"E
'5" -200
.'t .400
.600
-800
.1000
0 10 20 30 40
Tim e In sec
Figure 7.33: Ground motion of the North Ridge earthquake in January 17, 1994
118
"
10
~
•
"
1"
.E
•
•
" 6
t 4
,
0
0 , 4 6
•
Frequency In Hz
Figure 7.34: FFT of ground motion of the North Ridge earthquake in January 17,
1994
The maximum acceleration of the applied earthquake is 865.965 em/sec' and from
Figure 7.34 the predominant frequency is found to be 0.439453 Hz. The magnitude of
the displacements, velocity and acceleration of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge at the
deck at pier PIO in the transverse direction i.e. at BR5X is found. The maximum
displacement due to earthquake of this magnitude is estimated from this study to be
10.42941 em. From the transfer function plots the maximum displacement are
obtained 19.26792 em. The response of FE model is much less than response of
Transfer Function. This was because of the non linear behavior of the bridge which is
included in the FE model. The nonlinear behavior of the bridge is not included in
transfer function analysis.
, 0
5
E
"
.E
C 0
~
•
"•
<i
(5• -5
-, 0
-1 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Tim e In sec
Figure 7.35: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the North Ridge Earthquake
in January 17, 1994 using non linear time history analysis of FE model.
119
20
15
10
E
u
.5 5
1: 0
"E
"
U -5
"
C.
C"
-10
-15
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time in sec
Figure 7.36: Predicted displacement of the bridge due to the North Ridge in January
17, 1994 by Transfer Function analysis.
The maximum response of acceleration found from FE model is 848.8076 cmlsec2.

600
600
"u 400
""
5
.5
200
c 0
0
~
~ -200
j -400
-600
-800
.1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Tim e In sec

Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge Earthquake
120
7
"'" 5
~
.s 4
'"
"C
~
C. 3
.l
2
o
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency In Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge Earthquake
graph is plotted for this velocity results. The predominant period is found 0.43945 Hz
which is similar of the input data.
50
40
30
II: 20
~ 10
.s
Z.
.g 0
~ -10
-20
-30
-40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Tim e In sec

Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge earthquake
121
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency In Hz
of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge Earthquake
The maximum response of displacement found from FE model is 10.42941 cm. The
FFT graph is plotted for this displacement results.
1.0
0.8
E
0
.!: 0.6
••
"0
:aZ 0.4
~
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Frequency in Hz

direction of Jamuna Bridge for North Ridge earthquake
122
7.9 SUMMARY
The non linear time history analysis of the FE model of Jamuna Bridge for different
earthquakes gives the response of the bridge. The displacements obtained from the FE
model for all considered earthquakes are lower than the previous Transfer Function
analysis. This was because of the non linear behavior of the bridge which is included
. .
in the FE model. The nonlinear behavior of the bridge is not included in transfer
function analysis. The FE model provides an idea about how much displacement may
be reduced due to non-linear behavior. In-fact if soil-structure interaction is
considered in the model, the estimated response of the bridge might be further
reduced.
Table 7.1: Comparison of response in transverse direction on bridge deck for different
earthquakes
Maximum Maximum
response response
Maximum
Duration of the obtained from obtained from
Earthquake acceleration of
earthquake FE model in TR analysis in
name applied earthquake
(sec) transverse transverse
(cm/sec2)
direction on direction on
deck (cm) deck (cm)
El Centro 340.2 40 7.84 20.33
Earthouake
Kocaeli 354.3 27 13.60 23.30
Earthouake
Mexico
City 167.9 180 26.35 37.35
Earthouake
North
Ridge 866.0 60 10.43 19.27
Earthouake
From Table 7.1 it is observed that duration of an earthquake event is very important
for the bridge response. For example the Mexico City Earthquake which is a long
duration earthquake has duration of 180 seconds. This earthquake has the maximum
acceleration of ground vibration is 167.9 cm/sec2. The response for this earthquake on
bridge deck of Jamuna Bridge is 26.35 cm which is larger than the other earthquakes.
On the other hand the North Ridge earthquake has maximum acceleration of 866.0
2
cm/sec but the duration is 60 seconds. The response of this earthquake is 10.43 cm
which is less than the long duration earthquake.
123
Chapter Eight
RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE DUE TO VEHICLE AND
TRAIN MOVEMENT
8.1 GENERAL
The Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is instrumented with accelerometers in order to

monitor overall dynamic behavior. The accelerometers are also used for different
types of vehicular and,train data acquisition by keyboard triggering. Weight and speed
of vehicle as well as speed of train is the major concern for the bridge. An analysis
has been done to observe the behavior of the bridge due to vehicular movement under
different speed and weight limit. Train induces a lot of vibrations in the bridge when it
is in higher speed.
8.2 COLLECTION OF DATA
Ambient data, Traffic data, Train data are recorded by the seismic instrumentation
system. Sensors collect input data (earthquake excitation or noise) and record them.
Data is triggered by giving an impulse in the sensors. This is done by keyboard trigger
using Altus QuickTalk (ATLUS QuickTalk, 1996-2000) & QuickLook (ATLUS
QuickLook, 1994-2000) software and also by Network Management System (NMS).
After collecting data, it is necessary to process this data by software. In this analysis,
Microcal Origin (Origin, 1991-2000) is used to obtain corrected acceleration time
history and Fast Fourier Transform of noise data from various stations.
Time history plots of 13 bridge sensors can be produced simultaneously by the system
installed in the bridge. Various ambient, train, truck and bus data are collected by this
installed system. Data for individual train can be collected by these accelerometers
with the help of GPS. The data of individual vehicle and also in a group are collected
with respect to the GMT time. After collection of these data, the individual data is
separated according to the time of recording. A sample data sheet is presented in
Tables 8.1. All filled in data sheets are provided in Appendix A as Tables A I to A 4.
124
Speed limit of vehicles on the Jamuna Bridge is 40 kmlh which is shown in the plate
in Figure 8.1. From the tables it can be observed that trucks and buses are frequently
exceeding the speed limit. Speed of a vehicle is measured with the help of a speed gun
and weight of a vehicle is measured by the weighing machines installed at both sides
of the bridge. Pictures of weighing buses and trucks are provided in Figures 8.2 and
8.3 and the ~eighing machine is shown in Figure 8.4. Figure 8.5 is a picture of
measuring speed of vehicles using the speed gun.
Table 8.1: Data of vehicle speed and weight (from west to east)
Date of data acquisition-03/05/2007

Location of speed measurement- PIO
Direction- West to East
Traffic Identification Speed Weight
GMT time Comment
category Number (kmIh) (ton)
06:23: 14 Train - 17 - -
Same direction
06:24:45 Truck - 34 19.8
Bus after 4s
Motorcycle
06:27:09 - 45 -
06:29:51 Bus Badal 66 - -
Opposite
06:31:14 Bus Kohinur 53 - direction Bus
after 2s
Opposite
06:32: 19 Bus Hanif 59 - direction Bus
after 15s
Bus same way
06:38: 15 Truck 11-4312 35 17 6:38:26 &
6:38:38
Bus opposite
06:46:42 Truck 0781 43 18.3 dir
06:46:17
0032(Khakeq
06:49:41 Bus
Express)
70 11.4 -
4-wheeler
06:50:29 - 41 - -
Bus
06:53:05 007 I(Jahangir) 54 11.4
Same dir Bus

before 2s,
06:57: 18 Truck 14-1987 46 16.3
opposite dir bus
after 2s
125
Figure 8.1: The plate showing the speed and weight limit for vehicles passing over the
bridge.
I
\
".
Figure 8.2: Loaded truck going towards the Jamuna Bridge in the track of the
weighing machine.
126
Figure 8.3: A bus is going towards the Jamuna Bridge in the track of the weighing
machine.
Figure 8.4: Weighing machine of the Jamuna Bridge near the eastern side.
127
,I
ff
Figure 8.5: Measuring the speed ofa vehicle with the help of the speed Gun.
8.3 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYLIS
Data processing, which includes necessary corrections and filtering, was carried out
using software SMA and Microcal Origin. The data was formatted according to the
USGS format. The acceleration records have three components of the bridge sensors
i.e., X-direction, Y-direction and UD-direction. The data collected from Surma,
Padma and Jamuna K2 stations are filtered with the software SMA (KMl, 1998-
2001). The processed data is used in the software Microcal Origin as ASCII file input.
Analysis is done to plot Fourier Spectrum. Then 15 points FFT-filter smoothing is
done with Microcal Origin. Time history for ambient data, train data, truck data and
bus data are plotted. The Fourier spectra for ambient data, train data, truck data and
bus data are plotted. From the corrected data maximum response of the bridge can be
determined with the help of the Microcal Origin.
128
8.4 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE IN DIFFERENT LOADING
The data were collected from the instrument in raw format. This data were corrected
with the help of the SMA and Microcal Origin. Time histories of earthquake events or
vehicular response values are obtained after corrections. Time history for the
transverse direction on deck (B~5) of a train data recorded on 20 May 2008 is shown
in Figure 8.6. This time domain data are converted to frequency domain data with the
help of Fourier Transform. Following the Caltech format, Fourier spectrum is
evaluated with the software Origin 5.0. The Fourier spectrum of that data is plotted in
Figure 8.7. For this analysis 45 Hz of cut off frequency is used. Only amplitude vs.
frequency is plotted iI1Figure 8.8 where only up to 10Hz frequency was considered.
Then it is smoothen with IS-point Adjacent-Averaging technique. This smoothen
technique is perform to get smooth curves and clear peaks. Fourier spectrum of
amplitude vs. frequency is plotted with this smoothened data. A sample Fourier
spectral amplitude vs. frequency plot of smoothened data of the train vibration is
shown in Figure 8.9. Peaks of lower frequencies of the Fourier Spectrum are
important for a bridge from earthquake consideration. In Figure 8.9 there are peaks
around I Hz and 3 Hz which show the predominant frequencies for the bridge in the
transverse direction.
6 ................
g ,
~ 2
.E
~
0 0
i .2
.,
-6
-8
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Tim e In sec
Figure 8.6: Time history in Transverse direction on deck of the bridge (BR5) for a
train data recorded on 20 May 2004.
129
Frequency (Hz)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
g; -200000
0
"0
-400000
"..:" .6oooo~8
0>
0.08
0.06
<l>
"0
.e
Ci
0,04
..:E
0.02
0.00
0 '0 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8.7: Fourier Spectrum of the acceleration data in transverse direction on deck
of the bridge (BR5) for a train which was recorded on 20 May 2004.
0.040
0.035
NO
<l>
0.030
~
0 0.025
.!:
Q)
"tl 0.020
::J
""C.
0.015
~
0.010
0.005
0.000
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.8: Fourier spectrum of BR5 for a train which was recorded on 20 May 2004.
130
0.025
0.020
NO
Cl>
~
0
0.015
.5
Cl>
"C
:>
:!::
a. 0.010
~
0.005
0.000
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.9: Smoothened Fourier spectrum of BR5 for the train data recorded on 20
May 2008.
Train and truck excite the bridge with comparatively greater load. Due to huge input
energy bridge excites close to its predominant frequency which is described earlier.
Moreover other vehicles like bus, motorcycle, zip etc. have lower energy input
(Figures 8.10 to 8.14). Therefore, peaks are not clear in the Fourier Spectrum. BR I,
BR 5 and BR II are the sensors in transverse direction. These sensors show
predominant frequency of I Hz and 3 Hz in the Figures 8.10, 8.14 and 8.19
respectively for different train, truck and bus data recorded in different times. BR 2,
BR 6 and BR 10 are the sensors in longitudinal direction. These sensors show a
predominant frequency of 2 Hz in Figures 8.11, 8.15 and 8.18 respectively.
131
0.07
-- 03-1)5-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

0.06 -- 03-1)5-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 03-1)5-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
- 03-1)5-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
0.05 -- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
-E
N -- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
In -- 09-08-2007 (Truck 5: 13:32 GMT)
0.04 -- 09-1)8-2007 (Truck 6:41 :40 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
.s -- 09-1)8-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
Ql
U 0.03
~
"'c..
"
E 0.02
«
0.01
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.10: Fourier Spectrum ofBRI X for various traffic loads.
0.04
-- 03-1)5-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-1)5-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 03-1)5-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
0.03 -- 03-05-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 6:41 :40 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 6:31 :35 GMT)
0.02
-- 09-1)8-2007 (Train 8:26:15 GMT)
0.01
0.00
0.1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.11: Fourier Spectrum of BR2Y for various traffic loads.
132
0.04
-- 03-05-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-05-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 03-05-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
0.03 -- 03-05-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
--09-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
-- 09-Q8-2oo7 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
-- 09-Q8-2oo7 (Truck 6:41 :40 GMT)
c: 0.02
-- 09-QB-2oo7 (Truck 6:31 :35 GMT)
Q)
-- 09-06-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
"C
~
a.
E
<l: 0.01
0.00
0.1 1
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.12: Fourier Spectrum of BR3Z for various traffic loads.
0.05
-- 03-05-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-05-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
0.04 -- 03-05-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
-- 03-05-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
--09-06-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 6:41 :40 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 6:31 :35 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
0.01
0.00
0.1 10
Frequency in Hz
133
0.08
- 03-05-2007 {Train 6:22 GMD

- 03-Q5-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-03..{)5..2007 (Truck6:46GMT)
- 03-05-2007 {8us 6:49 GMD
- 09-08-2007 (BU66:13:28 GMT)
0.06 - 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GUT)
-Q9..08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
-09-08-2007 (Truck6:41:40 GMT)
_ 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
- OS-Q8.2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.14: Fourier Spectrum ofBR5X for various traffic loads.
0.05
-- 03-05.2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-05.2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
0.04 -- 03-05-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
-- 03-05.2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
--09-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
N.!!! -- 09-08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
E 003 --09-08-2007 (Truck 6:41:40 GMT)
u
-- 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
.£ -- 09-08-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
G>
u
.e 0.02
i'i
E
<l:
0.01
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.15: Fourier Spectrum ofBR6Y for various traffic loads.
134
0.06
-- 03-1J5-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-1)5-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 03-1)5-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
-- 03.{)5..2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
0.04 -- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Truck 8:41 :40 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Train 6:28: 15 GMT)
0.02
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.16: Fourier Spectrum ofBR7Z for various traffic loads.
0.06
-- 03-05-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

0.05 -- 03-05-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 03-05-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
-- 03-1)5-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
-- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:26 GMT)
0.04 -- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
"'.!!! --09-08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
E -- 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:41:40 GMT)
u
.5 0.03 -- 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:31 :35 GMT)
Q) --09-08-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
-c
~
a. 0.02
E
~
0.01
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
135
0.06
-- 03-05-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-05-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
0.05 -- 03-05-2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
- 03-05-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
- 08-08-2007 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
N 0.04 -- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:2206 GMT)
.!!! -- 08-08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
5 --
-
0~2oo7
08-08-2007
(Truck 6:41:40 GMT)
(Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
c: 0.03 -- 09-08-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
CD
"0
:;)
""~ 0.02
«
0.01
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.18: Fourier Spectrum of BR IOY for various traffic loads.
0.08
-- 03-05-2007 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- 03-05-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 03-05.2007 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
0.06 -- 03-05-2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Bus 6:13:26 GMT)
-- 09-06.2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
-- 09-06-2007 (Truck 6:41 :40 GMT)
-- 09.06-2007 (Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
0.04
-- 09.06-2007 (Train 6:26:15 GMT)
0.02
0.00
0.1 10
Frequency in Hz
Figure 8.19: Fourier Spectrum of BR 11X for various traffic loads.
136
0.35
-- 0~2OO7 (Train 6:22 GMT)

0.30 -- 03-05-2007 (Train 7:23 GMT)
-- 0~2OO7 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
-- 0~2007 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
0.25 -- Q9.08-2oo7 (Bus 6:13:28 GMT)
N -- 09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
.!!! -- 09-08-2007 (Truck 5: 13:32 GMT)
E
U 0.20 -0~08-2oo7 (Truck 6:41:40 GMT)
c: - Q9.08-2OO7(Truck 6:31 :35 GMT)
-- Q9.08-2OO7(Train 6:28: 15 GMT)
CD
"C 0.15
:l
:.:
C.
0.10
~
0.05
0.00
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
0.4
-- ~2oo7 (Train 6:22 GMT)

-- ~2oo7 (Train 7:23 GMT)
- ~2OO7 (Truck 6:46 GMT)
0.3 - ~2oo7 (Bus 6:49 GMT)
- Q9.08-2OO7(Bus 6: 13:28 GMT)
-5
NUl -
--
--
09-08-2007 (Bus 6:22:06 GMT)
09-08-2007 (Truck 5:13:32 GMT)
09-08-2007 (Truck 6:41:40 GMT)
.~ - 09-08-2007 (Truck 6:31:35 GMT)
c: 0.2
o - 09-08-2007 (Train 6:28:15 GMT)
~
CD
~ 0.1
0.0
0.1 1 10
Frequency in Hz
137
The dynamic response of a bridge due to passing a vehicle depends on the weight and
velocity of the vehicle. Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is a busy transport facility. So,
superposition occurs between responses of successive passing vehicles. Moreover,
wind, wave and stream of river water cause ambient vibration, which also have effect
on the response. If a heavy vehicle passes (e.g. train), then other vehicles have
unrecognizable effect on the response of the bridge. For a very small weight vehicle
(e.g. motorcycle) no visible impact on the response of the bridge occurs. Maximum
acceleration of the train data is the smallest for a train without any simultaneous
traffic. Such data were recorded on a hartal day. Lower frequency peaks of the Fourier
Spectrum of the recorded data are important for bridges from seismic point of view.
Lower frequency peaks and corresponding amplitudes can be obtained for BRI from
Table 8.2. Maximum amplitude and frequency for BR2, BR3, BR4, BR5, BR6, BR7,
BR9, BRIO, BRII, BRI2 and BR13 are tabulated in Tables B I to B II of Appendix
B.
Table 8.2: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining from BR-IX
Type of Recognition Weight Speed Amplitude Frequency Remark

traffic (ton) (mph) (cm/s2) (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.024 0.979
(6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.988 0.988
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 1.01 0.007
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 1.13 0.006
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.005 1.164
I (6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 1.08 0.0024
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.009 0.99
(5: 13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.005 1.17
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 1.235 0.0087
I (6:31 :35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.013 0.97
I (6:28:15 GMT)
138
8.5 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE TO DIFFERENT VEHICLE WEIGHT
For the present study traffic data and ambient data were collected at different times. It
is observed that the trucks and buses that passed through the bridge are in the range of
10 tons to 22 tons of weight. It is obvious that as the weight of traffic increases the
acceleration, velocity and d.isplacement of bridge structure also increase. In the
transverse and longitudinal direction of the bridge deck, the acceleration increases
with the increase of weight of vehicle. Figures 8.22 to 8.23 describe the above
findings. The velocity and displacement also increase with increase of weight. Figures
8.24 to 8.27 describe the above findings.
3.5 -,---------- ---,
3.0
N"
Q)
••
~ 2.5
" •
.,
.£:
<::
0
~
2.0
•
• •
•
Q)
Q; •
"" • •
«: 1.5
•• •
1.0 +----.----.----.-----.-----.----,--,--1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Weight in ton
Figure 8.22: Acceleration of bridge deck (BR5) in transverse direction vehicles from
east
In-fact, two weight groups of vehicle can be noticed from the graphs. One group
weighs between 11 to IS tons, which are buses and other group of vehicles weighting
between 19 to 22 tones, which are trucks. From Figure 8.22, it is clearly seen that the
two groups produce different response of the bridge. Buses cause acceleration of 1.3
to 2.1 gals in transverse direction and 0.8 to l.l gals in longitudinal direction. These
vehicles caused velocity of 0.02 to 0.04 cm/sec in transverse direction and .037 to
0.057 cm/sec in longitudinal direction. Displacement in the range of 0.045 mm to
0.076 mm in transverse direction and 0.058 mm to 0.2 mm in longitudinal direction
was observed for the same vehicles. Trucks cause acceleration of 2.0 to 2.8 gals in
139
transverse direction and 1.25 to 1.8 gals in longitudinal direction. These vehicles
caused velocity of 0.055 to 0.10 em/sec in transverse direction and .055 to 0.064
em/sec in longitudinal direction. Displacement in the range of 0.075 mm to 0.094 mm
in transverse direction and 0.17 mm to 0.4 mm in longitudinal direction was observed
for the same vehicles.
From the response between two weight groups less overlapping in acceleration IS
found in the longitudinal direction and less overlapping in velocity is found in the
transverse direction. Thus acceleration data of longitudinal direction and velocity data
of transverse direction may be used for detection of overweight vehicles from the
bridge response.
2.0
1.8
•
N 1.6 -
u
-
Q)
en •
E 1.4
••
-
u
c
c 1.2
0
:;:;
•...
<1l •
1.0- ••
• • ••
Q)
Q)
u
u • •
« 0.8
•
0.6 -
10 12
Weight in ton
Figure 8.23: Acceleration of bridge deck in longitudinal direction (BR6) vehicles

from east
140
0.10 - •
0
0.08 •
Q)
Ul •
E
0
0.06
."'~ • •
'0
0
a;
>
0.04 • •
• ••
0.02
•• •
, , ,
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Weight in ton
Figure 8.24: Velocity of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5) vehicles from east
0.065
••
0.060
•• •
0 0.055 • •
-
Q)
Ul
E
0
•
0.050
.S
~ •
'0
0
a; 0.045 - •
> •
0.040 -
•
•
0.035 , ,
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Weight in ton
Figure 8.25: Velocity of bridge deck in longitudinal direction (BR6) vehicles from
east
141
0.010 -.-------------------------,
0.009
•
•
5 0.008
•
.f: •
C
Q) 0.007
•
E
~
CIl
n. 0.006
•
lJ)
o •
0.005 -
•
0.004 +-~---,--~--__,_
,-~-_.-~--,_ ,-~-,__,_-~-_j
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Weight in ton
Figure 8.26: Displacement of bridge deck in transverse (BR5) direction vehicles from
east
0.040
•
0.035
5 0.030
.s
C 0,025
•
"E •
~
m
0.020 •
C.
c5 0,015 • •
0.010
•
•
0.005 +-~-,_-~_;,-~---,--~-_.-~-._-~_1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Weight in ton
Figure 8.27: Displacement of bridge deck in longitudinal direction (BR6) vehicles

from east
Figures 8.22, 8.24 and 8.26 describe acceleration, velocity and displacement in
transverse direction for vehicles passing from east to west direction. Figures 8.23,
8.25 and 8.27 describe acceleration, velocity and displacement in longitudinal
directions for vehicles coming from east. From the maximum limit of weight and
142
maxImum limit of speed, maxImum limit of vibration data that IS acceleration,
velocity and deformation can be determined.
3.5 ,
:
:
3.0 -_ - ..•-
!
-+ ---.-------+---
, - -.-.. -+
I !
---.-+---------- --
: 2
2.90 em/see
2.5 ----_..-----+.-- _ _ -+ . _.j_._-- •...... _.
• ,
. !.
:
i
:
!
. ..
-_._-~-,_._._._._._.- _._._,----_._-~
._,~,
! !
,.
,, .' !
!
:
--.--------.--r-._ ..._....__..
I : l
i
i , • i
--t.....-.,. Ii- -.-- ~-------_._, -,_._.~,_._._._._._._._.,~._----, .._.-.-. ..._ -t: __..
I
1.5
. ; . .
1.0
i
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Weight in ton
Figure 8.28: Acceleration of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5) vehicles from
east
Figure 8.28 shows the best fitted line which shows the acceleration in different weight
limits. A line parallel to the best fitted line is then plotted. This is the line of
maximum acceleration with respect to different weight in the transverse direction of
bridge on deck (BR5). If the busses and trucks are restricted not to carry over 20 tons,
then for 20 tons the response of bridge in acceleration can be measured from the
parallel line of the best fitted line. From the figure the acceleration is found 2.90
cm/sec2. So if the response of the bridge goes over 2.90 cm/sec2 the vehicle can be
identified.
If the busses and trucks are restricted not to carry over 20 tons, similar exercise can be
carried out for velocity in the transverse direction. If the response of the bridge goes
over 0.105 em/sec the vehicle can be identified.
143
. , , ,
0.10 0,105 crTilsec
, .-- - ---;,-------------'---
,. _.- -- _.+- _.- .,.!II.. ,.... ,..•.•• '.'...
,,
, ,i
"""'-".-' .. ' -r-, -----.,.-..--,.'""
-
0.08 . '-".'-'f"-" _------ --1.. ---- .. -.- .. -.-.- - • - - _-
I . ,
"
OJ
~
, ,'
"
•
E i t
i
o 0.06 ""'J" ,.- ., , 1 ---- ..", -;t --.--- •..... -- -!--.- .
.£
.?:-
, • •
'0 i
o
a;
>
0,04 .-.,.- .•. -.- J
:
__ __ ._ .. _.,;
!
.,.-.,. . -. r--""'".' """1""--- .'_.-.-.-.
i
.
j Ii!
, ! !
j ~. : :
-
: - ... ...•....
..... ;;....•_._-.--_ ..- ..•.~. ,.,
:
..•.•.......•.. ,.
: -.- ..'.-.-.'.-.
- •....,.-...
,", ,"
-
; ""
,
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Weight in ton
Figure 8.29: Velocity of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5) vehicles from east
Similarly in the longitudinal direction, if the response of the bridge goes over 1.75
cm/sec2 in acceleration or 0.071 em/sec in velocity, the vehicle can be identified. The
Acceleration and velocity graph is shown in Figures 8.30 and 8.31 respectively.
2.0
I !
I I I
1.8 .-.-.-.-.-----.-.---~-_.., : - - ~- 't -- - t-.-;. .-.._ ".1."'."'.
1.75 cmJ~ec2,! !! I
1.6
""
~
OJ
E
U
1.4
~::::::::I:::::::~F":::~::t::::::
i ..I:::::::::-~------t-r.---.. !!.- ...-..
.£ , I I
g
c 1.2
--'-T:-~--" '-1'.--------;::::-"r-- --..-- -----:-}:- .. 1
~Q) 1.0 '.'.'.-.'.'.'~'-._.i 1iI! .• Ii!I .•.•••.• _., Ii' .-~- 1'-'."'.'.'.'.'.- ..+.- - _._...... _ _ [ .
Qi
u t .! • . ;
! -._ _.. 1!!
u
<{ 0.8
•
.- , I
-.- -."r-.•. .....•..'.'.'.'.'.'.T.'.'.'.--.'~-"~_.. I
[.- ,•..
! I" I" I' ,
I,.. -.-.- --.,: ; .-.-.-.-.-._.-.-rj i1.- ..•
0.6 ...-
"
, ,;
_.,.' ,--.-
. ., -.- -.-. . , '.,.
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
W eig ht in Ion

from east
144
0.075
0.065 .• -•.•.•.•.•.• ,., •.•. -f •.•.•.• '."w .•.• "._ •. -',' •.•.•.•••••••• _ ••••• '1'_'.'.'.' .,.
f j
u :
. i
-
Q)
(J)
0.060 .•.•--.•
--•.•.• -.-.-"-1- - -.,- 0- •••• _-, -, -1-.' •.•
I i
E .l
, I
:
u .. , -.-.-..---iI --- _ ..--•
c: 0.055 , ,,
'".'0' •• .~._.•. - .•. --.-.--.-.-}.-
->-
'0 0.050
0
i •
!
-'--'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'r._.--._._~-_.-- •.-i--._._._-_._.........
, ;
. .•... __ ."._ .•.•.•
Q) ! i
>
, , j
0.045 ---.-1-- ,._. ---'1'.• -_ t-..__ __ -l -- __ .

! j : j
:. l j
0.040 _.'._---.'.'._.'.-"1--._._._._--'---'._.'1'---.'.'--'.'--'."'f'._._."'.':-'._".'._-!-_._._.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
I , , j
... 'W"O"._ •.•.•••••.• _
,
! •
,
i
'
f
.
i
!
.
0.035
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Weight in ton

from east
8.6 RESPONSE OF THE BRIDGE TO DIFFERENT VEHICLE SPEED
The speed is also another important factor. The range of speed is from 35 kmIh to 85
kmIh. Buses have relatively higher speed than trucks. It can also be observed that as
the speed of vehicles increases the response of the bridge increases. The bus has a
weight range of II to 15 tons where is the truck has a weight range of 19 to 22 tons.
In Figure 8.32 it is observed that the acceleration increases with respect to increase of
speed. A 14.1 ton bus which has a speed of 37 kmIh gives a lower response (1.138
2
cm/sec ). On the other hand, a 12.6 ton bus with a speed of 68 kmIh has higher
response (2.235 cm/sec2). Figure 8.33 shows the same finding for the bridge in
transverse direction for the weight of 19 to 22 tons of truck.
145
3.0 -
• •
Nt>
2.8
114.41 1 14.81
Cl> 2.6
~ 2.4 -
t> •
" 2.2 - • • 112.51
Cl>
Cl @II] 112.61
"0
.;: 2.0 - 114.41. 112.41
.•.
..c
0 1.8 - • 14.51
•
1 •
,.,"
0
l.l!
1.6 - 114.41
•
• B
• 112.81
Cl>
Q;
1.4 [D] ••
0
0
<l: 1.2.
114.1.1 113.31
•
1.0.
, , 0 ,
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed of vehicles in km/h
Figure 8.32: Response of bridge deck in form of acceleration in transverse direction

with respect to speed for vehicles weighing II to 15 tons.
4.0
~
NO
Cl> 3.5 ..........•.. ! .•.•••••• •
]
.= 3.0 ..•...... ~... . -,
-"~ 2.65 em/sec
: 2 : :
"0
~ 2,5 'fi17l!.'
."
"0
I:.!.2J .
1II •
'0 2.0 ,
.......... ...
"
.Q • •
~
~
B .................
H.~ ,
:t
1.5
1.0
.~
35 40 45 50 55
Speed of Vehicles in km/h

with respect to speed for vehicles weighing 19 to 22 tons.
146
The response of bridge deck in transverse direction (BR5) for the vehicles weighing
in the range of 19 to 22 tons is described with respect to speed in Figure 8.33. For this
data a best fitted line is drawn for finding the response of the bridge in different speed
limit. A line parallel to the best fitted line is also drawn for finding the maximum
response of the bridge in acceleration. Now if the ve.hicles are restricted not to pass
over speed limit of 40 km/h, then the response from the plot will be 2.65 cm/sec2• If
the vehicle crosses this acceleration, then the vehicle can be identified as crossing the
speed limit. Here the vehicle weight is in the range of 19 to 22 tons. So this is possible
to find out the maximum response a vehicle weighing 20 tons with a speed 40 km/h
from Figure 8.34. From the figure a line can be drawn parallel to the best fitted line
and through the point of response for vehicle weighing 20 tons. From the figure the
response is found 2.08 cm/sec2• From this value it can be concluded that if the
2
response of the bridge exceeds 2.05 cm/sec then the vehicle may exceed the weight
limit of 20 tons or the speed limit of 40 km/h or the both. Then the vehicle can be
identified.
4.0
~~ 3.5 •
~
u
c 3.0
~
"0
~ 2.5
"0
."
-"
: 2
m 2.08cm/sec
o 2.0
o •
~
~ 1.5
~
•
1.0
35 40 45 50 55
Speed of Vehicles In km/h

(BR5) with respect to speed for vehicles weighing of 20 tons.
147
Figure 8.35 and Figure 8.36 show the acceleration on deck of the bridge in
longitudinal direction. The first figure shows for the bus vibration and second one for
the vibration of truck. It is noticed that two buses weighing 14.4 tons both have
greater responses than the II and 13.8 ton bus in Figure 8.35. So the response of bus
weighing 14.4 tons with a speed of 46 km/h has a little bit higher than the bus
weighing 11 tons with a sp~ed of 56 km/h. So, the weight governs here. For the truck.
the speed is very important cause of vibration on deck of bridge. For trains speed is
the most important factor of bridge vibration because of their heavy load.
In Figure 8.36 a best fitted line is drawn for the response in terms of acceleration on
deck in longitudinal 'direction. Then a parallel line is drawn for the maximum
response. The maximum response is found to be 0.98 cmlsec2• For the vehicle of 20
tons of weight the response is found to be 0.70 cmlsec2• From this value it can be
concluded that if the response of the bridge exceeds 0.70 cmlsec2 in longitudinal
direction then the vehicle may exceed the weight limit of 20 tons or the speed limit of
40 km/h or the both. Then the vehicle can be identified.
1.15
1.10
""••
~
"
.S
GO
1.05
1.00
~
•
• .~
Cl 114.41
'tl
." • ~
-
.c
0
~
oS!
0.95 -
0.90
~
•
•
113.31
E •
e
GO
0.85 • [!TIJ
a; ED
:t" 0.80 -
0.75
40 50 60
, .
70 80 90
Speed of vehicles In km/h
Figure 8.35: response of bridge deck in acceleration in longitudinal direction in

respect of the speed of vehicles in weight of I I to 15 tons.
148
1.8 ...........
ffil.
~~ 1.6 !
~ ! !
.=u 1.4 .......•.•.•
•
; .
•
:g'"
C>
1.2 ............•. ........... :
.0
'0
5 1.0
~ ............. , ,. .... -,
0.8 ;
] ;
0.70 em/sec
: 2:
! ,
0.6 .............
EIILH;i ....~ ... .. .. ..., ...•.........•
-
38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
Speed of vehicle in km/h
Figure 8.36: Response of bridge deck in acceleration in longitudinal direction in

respect of the speed of vehicles in weight of 19 to 22 tons.
3.5
3
o
.g
~ 2.5
•
] 2
15
,
05
2°,
1...
16
L
11
., "
N
Figure 8.37: The response of the bridge in acceleration (cm/sec2) with respect to speed
(km/h) and weight (ton).
149
In Figure 8.37, a 3-dimensional plot of speed, weight and acceleration is shown. It can
be observed clearly that when the weight increases the acceleration increases and
when the speed increases the acceleration also increases in a regular pattern. But some
values give a little bit anomalous results. This is because of the superposition of the
response of other vehicles. The study cannot be done stopping all the vehicles passing
on the bridge and ]Jy collecting data just for only a single vehicle. Another !hing is
that there are two lanes on each side. The vehicles do not pass in the same lane
always. Sometimes they pass in first lane, sometimes in the second lane and
sometimes in the middle of the two lanes.
8.7 COMPARISON AMONG DIFFERENT TRAIN DATA
Response of the bridge for different train data (from 2003 to 2008) is presented in
Table 8.3. Previously trains used to move at higher speed and therefore response of
the bridge was higher. Recently the train is restricted to run in a lower speed. So, the
response of the bridge is lower than the previous response. Thus the train speed is a
very important factor for the bridge vibration. Response of bridge is the lowest for
train without any other traffic. This seems natural because superposition of traffic is
absent.
Comparison of various train data

20
• 03/05107 (with traffIC)
18 X
X 24/10103 ('Nilh traffIC)
X
0- 16 o 03/07AJ4(with traffIC)
m
~
rr
14 -15102106 (without any traffIc)
Ic
12
• 2004 (without any traffIC)
X
- -
g X
~ 10
$
Il
u
8 X X
~
E
~
6 - 9
•
.sx 4
X
- - X -
~ X
::;
2 ••• - • X
-
X
•
o
o
~
2
~ • •• i 6
•
0
• ~ I
0
•
•
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Sensor location
Figure 8.38: Comparison of response of thirteen bridge sensors for different train data.
150
From Figure 8.3, it is obseIVed that for the train with traffic on 24/10/03 when the
speed of the train was higher, the response of the bridge is higher than that of any
present day low speed trains.
Table 8.3: COl1)parison of maximum acceleration at thirteen bridge sensor~ for various
train data.
I II III IV V VI VII
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
acceleration acceleration acceleration acceleration acceleration
Sensor {or Noise for Noise for Noise for Noise for Noise
location data of train data of train data of train data of train data of train
Chancl ID
with on without with traffic with traffic on without
traffic on any traffic on on on any traffic
03/05/07 15/02/06 03/07/04 24110/03 (2003-04)
(em/sec') (em/sec') (em/sec') (em/sec') (em/sec')
BR-IX
2.536 2.966 1.793 5.09 1.555
BR-2Y
Pile Cap at 0.759 1.029 0.732 1.482 0.4733
Pier PIO
BR-3Z
1.274 3.017 1.159 3.637 0.4167
BR-4Z
1.231 2.503 1.235 1.105 0.7812
BR-5X
2.419 4.537 1.548 7.677 1.25
BR-6Y
Deck at 1.052 1.428 0.662 2.526 0.5755
Pier PIO
BR-7Z
1.824 3.941 1.384 8.051 0.5871
BR-SZ
0.901 6.606 1.865 10.52 -
Pile Cap at
BR-9Z
Pier P9 1.207 1.98 1.04 4.355 0.504
BR-IOX
Deck at 0.769 1.444 0.819 3.024 1.212
Pier P9
BR-IIY
2.44 4.907 1.628 11.299 0.5737
BR-12X
Deck at 6.693 11.878 7.117 17.008 1.296
Mid Span
BR-I3X
6.413 11.492 6.36 17.758 -
Y means orientation parallel to the bridge (longitudinal direction)
and three displacement sensors were installed on Module I of the bridge structure.
151
There are thus 16 channels of data. These data are fed to three digital K2 data
recorders labelled Jamuna, Meghna and Surma. Each K2 recorder can support up to
six channels of data. All the sensors were placed in their designated positions and
each of them connected to one particular channel of a recorder. Locations of various
accelerometer and displacement sensor in the Jamuna Bridge at pile, pier and deck are
shown in the previous chapter.
In Figure 8.38, sensor locations of 2, 6, and IO are in the Y- direction which show
lower values. It means the response is lower in the longitudinal direction. Sensor no
12 and I3 are in the transverse direction which shows the maximum values because
they are located in the mid span. Sensors I, 5, 11 are in the X- direction which give
higher response. This means that vibration in the transverse direction is greater.
8.7.1 Comparison between the responses of two oil trains
Weight and speed of trains also are governing factors for bridge response due to
trains. When a train passes over the bridge with empty 25 oil bogies, the response is
lower than the same train passing with full oil bogies. It is observed in Figure 8.39 .
• Train with empty oil

bogies
• Train with full oil bogies
25
20 Acceleration
in cmlsec2
15
10
10 11 12
Sensor number 13
Figure 8.39: Comparison of response of thirteen bridge sensors for two trains carrying
oil bogies.
152
All the sensors of the bridge have greater response when oil bogies are full than when
they are empty. The train with empty bogies has a speed of 17 km/h and the train with
full oil bogies run at speed of 15 !em/h. If their speed remains same then the difference
will be more. Among all the data oil train with full oil gives the highest response for
the bridge.
8.7.2 Comparison between the responses of two broad gauge trains
In Figure 8.40, response of the bridge due to two broad gauge trains is compared. The
first train has an engine and 6 bogies. The speed of the train was 17 km/h. This data
was collected on 20/05/08. On the other hand, second train has an engine and 7
bogies. The speed of the train was 18 km/h. This data is recorded on 21/05/08. From
these two series of data it is observed that, the second data have higher value than the
first one. The response on bridge deck increases about 22% adding of one bogie. The
study indicates the increase in bridge response due to addition of bogies. The 12 and
13 number sensors have always higher value. This is because of the sensors are in the
middle of span, that means they are far from the support. So the vibration is higher in
middle of the span .
• Response of Trains in acceleration 20{05{08
• Response of Trains in c7Jccclcration 21{05{08
25
20
Acceleration
in cm/sec2
15
10
8 9 10 11 12 13
Sensor number
Figure 8.40: Comparison of response of thirteen bridge sensors for two train of broad
gauge.
153
8.8 COMPARISON OF RECENTLY RECORDED TRAIN DATA WITH
PREVIOUS DATA
The train, truck and bus vibration data are collected several times for the analysis to
find ~utthe response. Data recorded in the past show a pattern o( similarity. When the
weight of the bus and truck increases the response also increases. When the speed
increases remaining the weight same the response also increases. For the train when
the speed decreases the response decreases. However among the previously recorded
data and recently recorded data there is difference. For the same type of train previous
response was lower than the recently recorded response. In Table 8.18, it is clearly
observed that the response of the bridge is greater in presently recorded data. The
train data of 03/05/07 was for a Broad Gauge train. And the train data of 20/05/08 is
also for a Broad Gauge Train and it has 6 bogies with an engine. The speed of the two
trains was same (17 km/h). However the response of presently recorded data due to
train movement is larger than the previously recorded data. This may be due to the
recently occurred cracks in the bridge.
Table 8.4: The comparison of acceleration in cm/sec2 due to train movement recorded
on bridge deck in transverse direction.
Sensor BR BR BR BR BR BR BR BR BR BR BR BR BR
No I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
On 2.54 0.76 1.27 1.23 2.42 1.05 1.82 0.90 1.21 0.77 2.44 6.69 6.41
3/5/07
On
3.87 1.51 2.23 2.66 6.58 2.57 13.7
7.71 3.33 3.43 2.37 6.59 16.8
20/5/08
lncreas
52 99 75 116 172 145 324 270 183 208 170 151 114
e in %
154
Chapter Nine
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 GENERAL
The main objective of the present study was to compare the results of a Finite
Element model of the Jamuna Bridge due to an applied earthquake with the actual
data found from the sensors located on the bridge site. The earthquake data were
th
recorded on 17 June 2004. The actual data of the earthquake as recorded at the
Bridge West-End FFS of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is used for obtaining the
response of the bridge model. The actual data were recorded in three directions i.e.,
North- South, East-West and UP-Down. The data of west-end side was given as input
to the bridge model. The response of the bridge model is then compared with the
actually recorded response of the bridge. The study also attempts to find the
applicability of the model to predict the bridge response due to earthquakes and the
need to update the model so that it can better reflect the measured data from the
physical structure being modelled. Prediction of response of the Jamuna Multipurpose
Bridge due to different earthquakes was also an objective. Study of bridge response
due to vehicular and train loading with a focus on their weight and speed has also
been carried out. Time history analysis has been performed to determine the
effectiveness of the model and the prediction of response.
9.2 CONCLUSION
Findings of the study as presented in the previous chapters are summarized bellow:
• It is observed that the peak response in acceleration, velocity and displacement

of the bridge always comes later in the case of FE model than the recorded
data on bridge .
• The peak acceleration at all directions is higher for the FEM model than the
actual recording. The peak acceleration in actual response is 58% of the FEM
response in longitudinal direction, 12% in transverse direction and 30% in
vertical direction.
155
• The peak velocity at all directions is higher for the FEM model than the actual
recording. The peak velocity in actual response is 6 I % of the FEM response in
longitudinal direction, 32% in transverse direction and 52% in vertical
direction.
• The peak displacement at all directions is higher for the FEM model than the
actual recording. The peak displacement in actual response is 85% of the FEM
. response in longitudinal direction, 69% in transverse direction and 60% in
vertical direction .
• Response from the FE model clearly shows the predominant frequency of the
structure and also the predominant frequency of the earthquake but does not
show the predom~nant frequency of the soil. This is because no soil-structure
interaction was considered. On the other hand, the actual response shows the
predominant peak of the soil and that of the structure but does not show for
this particular earthquake because this earthquake is very low intensity
earthquake as compared to the ambient vibration.
• The maximum displacement due to El Centro Earthquake is estimated from this

study to be 7.844 cm. From the Transfer Function plots the maximum
displacement was obtained as 20.328 cm. The response of FE model is much
less than response of Transfer Function. This is because of the nonlinear
behaviour of the bridge which is included in the FE model. The nonlinear
behaviour of the bridge is not included in the Transfer Function analysis. The
FE model provides an idea about how much displacement may be reduced due
to the non-linear behaviour. In-fact if soil-structure interaction is considered in
the model, the estimated response of the bridge might be less .
• The maximum displacement due to Kocaeli Earthquake is estimated from FE
model analysis to be 13.605 cm. From the transfer function plots the
maximum displacement was obtained as 23.30496 cm.
• The maximum displacement due to New Mexico Earthquake is estimated from
this study to be 26.35 cm. From the transfer function plots the maximum
displacement was obtained as 37.3553 I cm.
• The maximum displacement due to North Ridge Earthquake is estimated from

this study to be 10.4294 I cm. From the transfer function plots the maximum
displacement was obtained as 19.26792 cm.
156
• Duration of an earthquake event is very important for the bridge response. For
example the Mexico City Earthquake which is a long duration earthquake has
duration of 180 seconds. This earthquake has the maximum acceleration of
ground vibration of 167.9 cm/sec2• The response for this earthquake on bridge
deck of Jamuna Bridge is 26.35 cm which is larger than the other earthquakes.
On the other hand the North Ridge earthquake has maximum acceleration of
866.0 cm/sec2 but the duration is 60 seconds. The response of this earthquake
is 10.43 cm which is less than the long duration Mexico City Earthquake .
• Train and truck excite the bridge with their comparatively greater load. Due to
huge input energy bridge excites close to its predominant frequency. However
other vehicles like bus, motorcycle, zip etc. has lower energy input. BRI, BR5
and BRII which are in transverse direction show predominant frequency of I
Hz and 3 Hz for different train, truck and bus data recorded in different times.
BR 2, BR 6 and BR 10 are the sensors in longitudinal direction. These sensors
show predominant frequency of2 Hz .
• Two weight groups of vehicle can be noticed. One group weighs between II to
15 tons, which are buses and the other group of vehicles are 19 to 22 tones,
which are trucks .
• Buses cause acceleration of 1.3 to 2.1 gals in transverse direction and 0.8 to 1.1
gals in longitudinal direction. These vehicles caused velocity of 0.02 to 0.04
cm/sec in transverse direction and .037 to 0.057 cm/sec in longitudinal
direction. Displacement in the range of 0.045 mm to 0.076 mm in transverse
direction and 0.058 mm to 0.2 mm in longitudinal direction was observed for
the same vehicles .
• Trucks cause acceleration of 2.0 to 2.8 gals in transverse direction and 1.25 to
1.8 gals in longitudinal direction. These vehicles caused velocity of 0.055 to
0.10 cm/sec in transverse direction and .055 to 0.064 cm/sec in longitudinal
direction. Displacement in the range of 0.075 mm to 0.094 mm in transverse
direction and 0.17 mm to 0.4 mm in longitudinal direction was observed for
the same vehicles .
• From the response between two weight groups less overlapping in acceleration
is found in the longitudinal direction and less overlapping in velocity is found
in the transverse direction. Thus acceleration data of longitudinal direction and
157
velocity data of transverse direction may be used for detection of ovelWeight
vehicles.
• If the busses and trucks are restricted not to carry over 20 tons, then for 20 tons
the response of bridge in acceleration is found 2.90 cm/sec2 and in velocity is
found 0.105 cm/sec. So if the response of the bridge goes over 2.90 cm/sec2 or
in 0.105 em/sec in the transvcrse direction, the vehicle can be identified. On
. the other hand, if the response of the bridge goes over 1.75 cm/sec2 or 0.071
em/sec in the longitudinal direction, the vehicle can be identified.
• Now if the vehicles are restricted not to pass over speed limit of 40 kmIh, then
the response from the plot will be 2.65 cm/see2 in transverse direction. Here
the vehicle weigJ:t is in the range of 19 to 22 tons. And for 20 vehicles
weighing 20 tons have a response of 2.05 cm/sec2. If the response of the
bridge exceeds 2.05 cm/sec2 then the vehicle may exceed the weight limit of
20 tons or the speed limit of 40 km/h or the both. Then the vehicle can be
identi fied.
• The maximum response for vehicle having speed 40 kmlsec is found to be 0.98
cmlsec2• For the vehicle of 20 tons of weight the response is found to be 0.70
2
cm/sec • From this value it can be concluded that if the response of the bridge
exceeds 0.70 cm/sec2 in longitudinal direction then the vehicle may exceed the
weight limit of 20 tons or the speed limit of 40 kmIh or the both.
• Previously trains used to move at higher speed, therefore response of the bridge
was higher. Recently the train is restricted to run in a lower speed. So, the
response of the bridge is lower than the previous response.
• Two broad gauge rails were studied. They both have a speed of 17 kmIh. But
the response of presently recorded data due to train movement is larger than
the previously recorded data. This may be due to the recently occurred cracks
in the bridge.
9.3 FUTURE RECOMMENDATION
.:. In the study only three locations were selected for comparison. Other location can
be selected for comparison study.
158
.:. Earthquake data was used as loads in this study. This earthquake data was
recorded at the free field station and used as uniform input motions at all bridge
supports throughout the model. But the input data needs to be modified for each
support location. This modification can be considered for future study .
•:. The base of the pIer was considered as a fixed support and soil-structure
interaction was not considered. But in reality a complex support system exists
below each pier. Soil-structure interaction should be considered for future study .
•:. Nonlinear behaviour of the material can be used for further study .
•:. Longitudinal prestressing has not been incorporated In this model it can be
incorporated in a future study .
•:. In future study superimposed dead load and moving load for vehicle may be
applied and static analysis can be done for staged construction for this with this
model.
159
REFERENCES
Ahsan, R., AI-Hussaini, T.M., Ansary, M.A. and Rahman, M.M. (2005).
"Identification of dynamic parameters of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge in ambient
transverse vibration". Japan-Bangladesh Joint Seminar on Advances in Bridge Engg.
ALTUS QuickLook for windows Ver.2.89(12/18) 14 dec, 2000 Copyright 1994-2000,

Kinemetrics, Inc. 222, Vista Avenue, Pasadena, California, USA 91107.
ALTUS QuickTalk f~r windows Ver. 2.16 Copyright 1996-2000, Kinemetrics, Inc.
222, Vista Avenue, Pasadena, California, USA 91107
Bolt, B.A. (1987). Site Specific Seismicity Study of Seismic Intensity and Ground
Motion Parameters for Proposed Jamuna Bridge, Bangladesh. Report prepared for
seismic design of Jamuna bridge.
BUET (2005), 'DATA ANALYSIS REPORT- 03, Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge

Seismic Instrumentation Project', modeling of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge and
system identification, report submitted to JMBA.
Choudhury M.T.A., Abe M., Fujino Y. and Yoshia J. (2000), "System Identification
and Performance Evaluation of Two Base-Isolated Bridges using Seismic Data."
Journal of Structural Engineering 2000:126(10):1187-96.
Choudhury M.T.A., Abe M. and Fujino Y. (2002), "Investigation of a Typical

Seismic Response of a Base-Isolated Bridge", Journal of Engineering Structures 24
(2002) 945-953.
FIP Industrial (1995), "Bearings and Seismic Devices for the Jamuna Multipurpose
Bridge", Test report on pin dissipating device, Padova, Italy.
160
G. Thater, P. Chang, D.R. Schelling, and c.c. Fu (1998) "Estimation of bridge static
response and vehicle weights by frequency response analysis." Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineeging. Volume 25(4), Pages 631-639.
Kappos, A.J., Manolis,G.D., Moschonas, 1. F.,(2002) ."Seismic assessment and design

of RIC bridges with irregular c,?nfiguration, including SSI effects."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science. Engineering Structures, Volume 24, Issue 10,
October 2002, Pages 1337-1348
KMI Strong Motion Analyst, Version 2.4, copyright 1998-2001, Kinemetrics, Inc.
222, Vista Avenue, Pasadena, California, USA 91107.
Kunnath.S.K., Gross. J.L.,(1999)"lnelastic response of the cypress viaduct to the

Lorna Prieta earthquake "Engineering Structures Volume 17, Issue 7, August 1995,
Pages 485-493
Lee,D.H.,Choi.E.,Zi. Goangseup (2005). "Evaluation of earthquake deformation and

performance for RC bridge piers "Engineering Structures ,Volume 27, Issue 10,
August 2005, Pages 1451-1464.
Lou.,L and Zerva, A. (2004). "Effects of spatially variable ground motions on the
seismic response of a skewed, multi-span, RC highway bridge." Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering,Volume 25, Issues 7-10, August-October 2005,Pages 729-
740, II th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
(ICSDEE): Part I
Mullen, C.L, and Swann, C.T., (2001) "Seismic response interaction between
subsurface geology and selected facilities at the University of Mississippi."
University of Mississippi and Mississippi Mineral Resources Institute,
http://www.sciencedirect.comlscience. Engineering Geology, Volume 62, Issues 1-3,
October 200 I, Pages 223-250
161
Mullen.C.L., Tuladhar .P. LeBlanc.B., Shrestha.S.,(2007)"3D Seismic Damage
Simulations for an Existing Bridge Substructure Using Nonlinear Fern Calibrated with
Modal NDT' . http://www.sciencedirect.com/science. International Conference on
Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation 2-4 April 200 I, Cape Town,
South Africa
Origin 6.1 v6.1052 (B232), Copyright 1991-2000, OriginLab Corporation, One

Roundhouse Plaza, Northampton, MA 01060, USA
Rahman, A.Z.M.M (2008), "Study of dynamic parameters of the Jamuna

Multipurpose Bridge", M. Sc. Thesis submitted to the Department of Civil
Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology.
Ren, W.X, Zatar, W., Harik, I.E., (2003). "Ambient vibration-based seismic
evaluation of a continuous girder bridge." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
SAP, (2000), SAP User Manual Version SAP 2000 advanced 9.0.4, Structural
analysis program, Copyright 1974-2004 Computers and Structures, Inc.,1995,
university Ave., Berkeley, CA 94704
Shama, A.A., Mander, J.B., Chen, S.S., Aref. A.J (2001), "Ambient vibration and
seismic evaluation of a cantilever truss bridge." Department of Civil Engineering
University of Canterbury, State University of New York.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science
Soneji. B.B.and Jangid,R.S.(2007)" Passive hybrid systems for earthquake protection

of cable-stayed bridge." Engineering Structures, Volume 29, Issue I, January 2007,
Pages 57-70
Tan R.Y. and Huang M.e. (2000), "System identification of a bridge with lead-rubber
bearings", Journal of Computers and Structures 74 (2000) 267-280.
162
Zhihao L, Ge.H., Hoiki.,K., Usami.,T and Aoki T. (2005)" Seismic performance
upgrading of steel arch bridges using brace dampers against longitudinal directional
earthquake motions." Fourth International Conference on Advances in Steel
Structures, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Advances in Steel
Structures \3-15 June 2005, Shanghai, China 2005, Pages 1241-1246
163
APENDIXA
Table A I: Data of vehicle speed and weight (from east to west)
Date of data acouisition-03/05/2007

Direction- East to West
Traffic Identification Speed Weight
GMT time Comment
catel!ory Number (km/h) (ton)
Truck same
07:26:03 Truck 11-0309 46 11.7 direction at
7:25:55
Same
07:22:20 Motorcycle - 33 - direction Bus
after 4s
Bus
07:23:26 Hanif - -
Car
07:23:51 - 94 -
Opposite
07:28:05 Bus Keya 76 15.8 direction Bus
after 2s
Opposite
Shuvon
Bus
Enterprise
- 12.7 direction Bus
after ISs
Bus same
S.1. way
07:28:44 Bus 85 12.8
Enterprise 6:38:26 &
6:38:38
Bus opposite
07:33: 10 Truck 5408 53 19.2 dir
06:46:17
Truck
07:34:08 - 42 - -
Truck
07:34:35 - - -
Truck
07:35:08 7839 40 20.2
Same dir Bus

before 2s,
07:35: 19 Truck 3532 50 19.9
opposite dir
bus after 2s
164
Table A 2: Data of vehicle speed and weight (from west to east)
Date of data acauisition-20/05/2008

Weight of
Traffic Identification Speed rear
GMT time Comment
category Number (kmIh) wheel
(ton)
06:38:04 Truck 4384 15 Sneed very low
Same direction
06:39:36 Truck 0557 21 14.5
Bus after 4s
4 Buses same
06:42:25 Truck 0417 21 14.5
way
Truck'
06:44:04 - 42 - -
Bus
06:49:02 Media 34 5.5
Truck
06:32: 19 145081 34 15.5
Bus
06:49:05 Hanif 31 7.2
06:54:05 Truck 145362 18 9.9
06:58:53 Bus Isha 47 10.9 Bus after 3 sec.
Truck
07:00:52 0075 28 14.7 -
Bus
07:00:47 NP-Elegence 30 7.9
Car
07:03:07 - 66 -
Truck
07:07:43 0500 37 15.3
07:07:38 Bus SR Enterorise 61 7.8
Bus in opposite
07:20:03 Bus kohinur 50 10.4
direction
Bablu
07:21:43 Bus 50 12.9
Enterorise
Bus
07:22:08 Shamoly - 7.7 Train passing
(Broad gauge)
07:27:05 S
Train engine + 6 17
07:27:44 E
bogies
07:32:27 Bus Road chalenge 19 11.5
Stopped in
07:33:03 Bus Shamoly 18 13
front ofPIO
07:44:43 Bus Ovi Enterorise 56 13.20
165
Date of data aCQuisition-20/05/2008

Total
Traffic Identification Speed
GMT time Weight Comment
category Number (km/h)
(ton)
3 buses in a
07:47:05 Truck 0014 36 21 row in opposite
direction
Khaleque
07:50:09 Bus 55 12.6 Jip after bus
0086
07:54:09 Truck 22 II.3
DR Enterprise
07:54:29 Bus 15 15
Bus in opposite
07:37:04 Truck 1268 38 16.7
direction
NP Fatema
07:57:16 Bus 57 13.7 Bus after that
08:01:12 S Train I engine + 26 bogie Moving East to
17
08:02:42 E (Oil Train) + I guard bogie West
1546
08:07:03 Truck 44 19.80
1316
08:06:57 Truck 46 18.4
1361
08:16:21 Truck 46 20.5
Nabil
08:16:41 Bus 71 13.2
0124
08:28:04 Truck 28 20.6
08:29: 11 Bus - 51 15.7
Shamoly
08:30:57 Bus 66 14.9
08:32:24 Bus Hazi 47 19.0
08:30:37 Container 17
08:35: I 1 Truck 0262 39 20.4
08:35:26 Truck 0237 36 18.4
Overtaking
08:36:38 Truck 1296 36 14.9
08:35: I 1 Bus United 40 6.2
Bus before 2
08:38: 12 Truck 0902 57 13.5
sec
08:39:53 Bus Salma 72 15.8
08:41:38 Bus Rupnagar 57 20.6
08:44:07 Bus local 38 -
08:47:32 Truck 0410 42 -
08:47:50 Truck 0144 - -
166
Date of data acauisition-21/05/2008

Total
Traffic Identification Speed
GMT time Weight Comment
category Number (kmIh)
(ton)
2 buses in
06:45:34 Bus Skyline 56 14.6
opposite direction
1425
06:48:40 Truck 37 14.1
Oil
06:50:23 Truck 81 -
3 buses in a row
06:50:46 Bus Naz 54 13.1 in opposite
direction
I bus in opposite
06:51:18 Bus Badal 69 12.6
direction
Train
06:52:17 S (Meter Engine + 13
16
06:53: II Gauge) bogie
Modern
06:54:28 Bus 78 12.5
5335
06:55:44 Truck 36 20.7
Faruque
07:01:12 Bus 52 17.1 A car behind
Hanif
07:04:03 Bus 68 12.8
A truck after 10
07:05:04 Bus Hanif 56 13.4
sec
Sourav
07:07:33 Bus 55 18.8
A bus was
07:10:15 Truck 2799 38 23.9
overtaking
Keya
07:13:58 Bus 68 14.1
Bus in opposite
07: 14:25 Bus Agomony 65 14.0 direction after 2
sec
0100
07:17:11 Truck 45 21.7
Truck in opposite
07: 18:38 Bus Night star 76 14.0
direction
Truck in opposite
07:19:12 Bus AK Exclusive 66 13.3 direction after 2
sec
167
Train
07:21:58S Engine + 7
(Broad 18
07:22:45E Bogie
Gaul!e)
Bus in opposite
07:26:53 Bus AI-Hamra 83 12.2
direction
Haif
07:32:39 Bus 61
Hanif
07:33:40 Bus 81 14.8
Bus in opposite
07:36:40 Bus Kings 69 14.3 direction before 2
sec
Truck in opposite
07:38:29 Truck 2315 53 10.6 direction after 5
sec
Microbus in
07:40:58 Bus Modem 68 12.6
oDDosite direction
6690
07:43.:32 Truck 32 20.1
Train
07:44:15 S Engibe+ 24
(Meter 15
07:45:35 E bogie+ guard
Gaul!e)
6488
07:47:22 Truck 53 20.5
Raganigandha
07:50:09 Bus 40 20.0
Rajdhani
07:52:38 Bus 59 13.8
6753
07:55:06 Truck 28 18.9
Sayapath
07:56:50 Bus 49 14.4
Bus in opposite
07:59:07 Truck 4225 36 17.1 direction after 5
sec
Khaleque
08:04:43 Bus 70 13.3
4859
08:09:52 Truck 34 18.8 Car behind
0424
08: 14:22 Truck 47 22.2
1434
08: 14:48 Truck 38 20.0
DR
08: 14:29 Bus 62 14.4
Enterprise
0229
08:16:15 Truck 26 19.7 Truck behind
1500
08:20:43 Truck 46 14.4
168
APENDIXB
r d e an dfi reQuency 0 b tammg
T a bl e B I M aXlmum A mOJltu .. firom BR -2Y
traffic (ton) (moh) (cm/s2) (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0024 0.99
(6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0014 0.782
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.0028 0.98
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.0032 1.03
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09.08-2007 13.6 63 0.0036 1.07
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.003 1.04
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.0035 1.03
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.005 1.2
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0031 0.988
(6:31:35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0018 0.779
(6:28:15 GMT)
Table B 2: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining from BR-3Z

Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0033 0.98
(6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0011 0.98
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.0011 1.04
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.001 1.18
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.0069 2.11
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.008 2.45
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.0013 1
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.011 2.16
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08.2007 19.1 34 0.008 2.38
(6:31:35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0016 0.97
(6:28:15 GMT)
169
Table B 3: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining fromk BR-4Z

Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0035 0.97
I (6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.001 0.98
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.001 1.06
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.0015 1.58
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 8.38e-4 I.I9
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.008 2.42
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.0016 I
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.001 I 1.22
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0014 1.21
(6:31:35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0018 0.97
(6:28:15 GMT)
Table B 4: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining from BR-5X

traffic (ton) I (moh) (cm/s2) (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.047 0.97
I (6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0132 0.99
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.0131 1.02
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.0116 I.I23
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.0068 1.07
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.0041 1.07
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.0163 0.99
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.0084 I.I2
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0146 1.23
(6:31:35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.024 0.97
(6:28:15 GMT)
170
Table B 5: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining from BR-6Y

traffic I ((on)~ (~ph) (cm/s2) (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 - - - -
(6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0017 0.787
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 -43 0.0034 I
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.028 2.1
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.0046 1.1
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.0038 1.074
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.0042 1.04
I (5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.006 1.2
I (6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0037 1.02
I (6:31 :35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0019 0.777
(6:28:15 GMT)

Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0067 0.98
(6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0018 0.98
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.002 1.03
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.002 1.2
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.008 2.12
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.0011 1.32
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.003 0.96
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.0015 1.22
(6:41 :40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0014 1.13
(6:31 :35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0034 0.97
(6:28: 15 GMT)
171

Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0019 0.98
I (6:22GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 6.4e-4 0.97
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.0017 1.55
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.0013 1.51
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.0016 1.66
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.0022 1.75
(6:22:06 GMn
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 9.8ge-4 1.03
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.0012 1.09
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0013 1.22
(6:31:35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0011 0.96
(6:28:15 GMT)
Table B 8: Maximum Amplitude and free uency obtaining from BR-IOY

traffic (ton) I (moh) (cm/s2) I (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.0039 0.94
( 6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.002 0.79
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.0045 I
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.0083 1.66
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.0064 1.01
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.0043 1.03
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 - - No
(5:13:32 GMT) defined
1st oeak
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.006 1.01
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.0063 1.03
1(6:31:35 GMn
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0026 0.81
I (6:28:15 GMT)
172
Table B 9: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining from BR-IIX
traffic (ton) (mob) (cm/s2) (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.023 0.98
(6:22 GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.006 0.98
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 18.3 43 0.0095 1.11
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 11.4 70 0.0094 1.16
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.0072 1.17
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.0052 1.18
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.0013 1.04
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.01 1.11
(6:41:40 GMn
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.016 1.22
(6:31 :35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.0024 0.75
(6:28:15 GMT)
Table B 10: Maximum Amplitude and freauency obtainin from BR-12X

traffic (ton) (moh) (cm/s2)
I (Hz)
Train 03-05-2007 ( 6:22 - - 0.026 0.97
GMT)
Train 03-05-2007 (7:23 - - 0.02 0.79
GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 (6:46 18.3 43 0.034 1.02
GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 (6:49 11.4 70 0.038 1.0l7
GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 - - No
(6:13:28 GMT) defined
first
peak
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.033 0.98
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.049 1.076
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.047 1.19
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.037 I
(6:31:35 GMT)
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.02 0.807
(6:28:15 GMT)
173
Table B II: Maximum Amplitude and frequency obtaining from BR-13X

Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.025 I
(6:22GMTI
Train 03-05-2007 - - 0.018 0.79
(7:23 GMT)
Truck 03-05-2007 1"8.3 43 0.034 0.95
(6:46 GMT)
Bus 03-05-2007 IIA 70 0.055 1.46
(6:49 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.6 63 0.034 0.95
(6:13:28 GMT)
Bus 09-08-2007 13.9 75 0.029 0.96
(6:22:06 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 22.3 42 0.037 0.98
(5:13:32 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 20.8 37 0.048 1.17
(6:41:40 GMT)
Truck 09-08-2007 19.1 34 0.043 1.02
(6:31:35 GMTI
Train 09-08-2007 - - 0.022 0.78
(6:28:15 GMT)
174

A Study of The Dynamic Behaviour of The Jamuna Multi-Purpose Bridge Under Different Seismic and Vehicular Loading PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Study of The Dynamic Behaviour of The Jamuna Multi-Purpose Bridge Under Different Seismic and Vehicular Loading PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A STUDY OF THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE JAMUNA

MULTI-PURPOSE BRIDGE UNDER DIFFERENT SEISMIC AND

SYED ZILLUR RAHMAN

Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering and technology, Dhaka-lOOO,

in partial fulfillment of the degree of

11111111111111 III 1111111111 1111111

MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)

Dr. Raquib Ahsan Chairman

Dr. Ishtiaque Ahmed Member

Signature of the Candidate

Syed ZilIur Rahman

List of Notations XIX

List of Abbreviations XXI

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 3

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3 BRIDGE PARAMETERS AND SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION

Chapter 4 REVIEW OF THE BRIDGE MODEL

Chapter 5 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF THE BRIDGE

Chapter 6 RESPONSE OF THE JAMUNA BRIDGE IN SEISMIC LOADING

Table 3.1 Salient features of the bridge 19

between P9 and PIO 94

different earthquakes 123

Figure 1.1: Location of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge 2

a Real value of the FFTofthe ground acceleration recorded at the west-emlfree

field station in the north-south direction

u FFTofthe displacement of the bridge at the deck at pier PIO in the NS

"g grollnd acceleration due to external source of excitation

"g FFTofthe grollnd acceleration

w Anglilar freqllency = 2JrV

0, Phase angle of the FFTofthe ground acceleration recorded at the west-endfree-

field station in the north-south direction

0. Phase angle of the FFTofthe ground acceleration of the applied earthqllake

0, Phase angle ofTR

A, Absolute vallie of the FFTofthe grollnd acceleration recorded at the west-end

free-field station in the north-sollth direction.

RI Imaginary value of the response of the bridge to the applied earthquake

R. Real value of the response of the bridge to the applied earthquake

T Absolute value ofTR

T. Real value ofTR

BFT Backward Fourier Transformation

Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge is located in a seismically active region. The location of

Figure 1.1: Location of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge.

Figure 1.2: A view of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge taken from satellite

I. To perform nonlinear Time History analysis with developed finite element

2. To analyze response of the bridge when subjected to different earthquake

3. To determine bridge behaviour under various vehicular loading condition.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

• Time-history analysis is performed.

• Material non-linearity is not considered.

• Soil-structure interaction is ignored.

It is extremely difficult to obtain analytical solutions for many engineering problems.

2.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

In solving partial differential equations, the primary challenge is to create an equation

All real physical structures behave dynamically when subjected to loads or

2.4. MODAL ANALYSIS

Time-history analysis is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamic response of a structure

The dynamic equilibri,!m equations to be solved are given by:

2.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF BRIDGES

Shama et al (200 I) presented in their paper an experimental ambient vibration field

Lee et al (2005) presented a hysteretic shear-axial interaction model. Their model is

Mullen et al (2007) discussed a seismic damage evaluation procedure and multi-level

Rahman, (2008) identified the dynamic parameter of Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge.