Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

A stochastic analysis of long span structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions including the site-response effect
A.A. Dumanogluid 1, K. Soyluk
Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey Received 5 November 2002; received in revised form 2 April 2003; accepted 2 April 2003

Abstract In this paper, a comprehensive investigation of the stochastic response of a cable-stayed bridge subjected to spatially varying ground motions is performed based on a recently proposed model. The spatial variability of ground motions is considered with incoherence, wave-passage and site-response effects. The importance of the site-response effect, which arises from the difference in the local soil conditions at different support points of the structure, is investigated particularly. Mean of maximum and variance response values obtained from the spatially varying ground motions are compared with those of the specialised cases of the ground motion model. It is pointed out that each component of the spatially varying ground motion model has important effects on the dynamic behaviour of the structure. Therefore, to be more realistic in calculating the bridge responses, the variability of the ground motions should be incorporated in the analysis of long span structures. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Spatially varying ground motion; Incoherence effect; Wave-passage effect; Site-response effect; Cable-stayed bridge

1. Introduction The recent successful application of cable-stayed systems was realised with the introduction of high strength steel, the use of orthotropic decks, the development of improved welding techniques and the progress in structural analysis. However, there still remains many uncertainties that make the design of these bridges a challenging eld for researchers. The cable-stayed bridge model is a compromise solution that lls the gap between the girder type and suspension type bridges. It has been well established that cable-stayed bridges are more economical for center spans varying between 150 and 600 m and recent technical developments have allowed them to reach 890 m center span length as the Tatara Bridge [1]. Because cable-stayed bridges have become rst choice bridges for construction in seismic zones with
Corresponding author: Present address: Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, 06570 Maltepe, Ankara, Turkey Tel.: +90-312-2317400/2239; fax: +90-312-2319223. E-mail address: ksoyluk@gazi.edu.tr (K. Soyluk). 1 Present address: Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Ankara, Turkey

high risks, the requirements of detailed dynamic analyses has become an essential part of the design procedure. Several methods have been previously employed in the analysis of these bridges. Linear and non-linear deterministic earthquake response analyses of cable-stayed bridges subjected to uniform as well as multiple-support excitations are performed by various researchers [212]. Morris [2] computed the linear and non-linear dynamic responses of two cable-stayed bridges due to the loads acting on the nodes. He concluded that linear and nonlinear responses do not differ greatly for moderately long span bridges. Fleming and Egeseli [3] investigated the dynamic behaviour of a cable-stayed bridge subjected to seismic, wind and simulated trafc loads. It was observed that a linear dynamic analysis starting from the dead load deformed state would give results within normally required design accuracy. Nazmy and Abdel Ghaffar [47] performed linear and non-linear earthquake response analysis of cable-stayed bridges subjected to multiple support as well as uniform seismic excitations. In these studies, it was indicated that the difference between linear and non-linear dynamic analyses would be within the practical acceptable limits for moderately long span bridges and the multiple-support seismic exci-

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00080-4

1302

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

tations should be considered in the earthquake-response analysis of such long and complex structures. However, it was also implied that for the recent and future trends of longer center spans ( 600 m), non-linear dynamic analysis would be necessary for computing the response of cable-stayed bridges subjected to strong ground shaking. Betti et al. [8] studied the dynamic soilstructure interaction effects on the response of cable-supported bridges subjected to multiple-support seismic excitation and outlined the importance of multiple-support seismic excitation and soilstructure interaction effects. Schemmann [9] and Schemmann and Smith [10] investigated how the complexities associated with cable-stayed bridges affect the effectiveness of active control schemes. A linear dynamic analysis was performed following a non-linear static analysis for a moderately long span bridge based on the previous publications. Garevski et al. [11] and Soyluk and Dumanoglu [12] carried out dynamic analyses of cable-stayed bridges for delayed support excitations and concluded that any seismic analysis of even moderately long cable-stayed bridges requires the consideration of the speed of ground motion. As the dynamic responses of extended structures, such as pipelines, bridges and dams will be signicantly effected by the spatial variation of seismic ground motions, the earthquake-response analysis of long span bridges subjected to spatially varying ground motions are of particular interest in recent years. Simplied bridge models like continuous beams, viaducts and reinforced concrete bridges to spatially varying ground motions are investigated by Harichandran and Wang [13], Zerva [14], Perotti [15] and Zembaty [16] and the signicance of spatially varying ground motions was observed. Hyun et al. [17] developed a new method for non-stationary response analysis of suspension bridges. Numerical results indicated that correlation effects at different support points have signicant effects on suspension bridges. Harichandran et al. [18] performed stationary and transient response analysis of suspension and deck arch bridges to spatially varying earthquake motions and underlined the importance of the effect of spatial variation of earthquake ground motions on the response of long structures. Simplied bridge models and a suspension bridge model subjected to spatially varying earthquake motions were investigated based on a newly developed multiple-support response spectrum method [1921]. This method accounts for the effects of wave-passage and incoherence of the support motions and the effect of spatially varying site response. It was concluded that the new response spectrum method offers a simple and viable alternative for seismic analysis of multiply supported structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions. Allam and Datta [22] analysed cable-stayed bridges subjected to correlated ground motions dened with the incoherence effect and conducted an extensive parametric study to investigate the

behaviour of the considered bridge. Zanardo et al. [23] carried out a parametrical study of the pounding phenomenon associated with the seismic response of multi-span simply supported bridges with base isolation devices and highlighted that multi-support analysis gives results markedly different from the uniform dynamic analysis. Recently, Dumanoglu and Soyluk [24] performed stochastic analysis of a cable-stayed bridge subjected to spatially varying seismic excitation and observed that spatially varying ground motion case overestimates the responses compared to those of the uniform ground motion case. The objective of this paper is to determine the relative importance of the ground motion variability effects on the dynamic behaviour of an actual cable-stayed bridge which has not been analysed comprehensively for spatially varying ground motions including the wave-passage, incoherence and site-response effects together. For this purpose detailed investigation of the incoherence, wavepassage and site-response effects are conducted, separately. However, the site-response effect has drawn special attention. Relative contribution of pseudo-static, dynamic and covariance components to the total response are also presented. 1.1. Spatially varying ground motion model Due to the complex nature of the earth crust, earthquake motions will not be the same at distances of the dimensions of long structures, such as pipelines, bridges and dams. It is obvious that because of travelling with nite velocity, coherency loss due to reections and refractions and the difference of local soil conditions at the supports, earthquake motions will be subjected to signicant variations at the support points of the structure. This variation will cause internal forces because of the pseudo-static displacements which normally do not produce internal forces for uniform ground motions. Therefore, when analysing large structures, the spatial variability of the earthquake motions should be considered and total displacements have to be used in expressing the governing equations of motion. The variations in the ground motion are caused mainly from the following sources: the wave-passage effect results from the difference in the arrival times of waves at support points; the incoherence effect results from reections and refractions of seismic waves through the soil during their propagation; and the site-response effect results from the differences in local soil conditions at the support points. These effects are characterised by the coherency function, which is the normalised cross-power spectral density of the motions at two stations. The siteresponse effect can also be signicant for short span bridges or viaducts differently from the other two sources which are effective for long distances. Spatial variability of the ground motion is character-

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

1303

ised with the coherency function in frequency domain. The coherency function for the accelerations vgl and vgm at the support points l and m is written as [21] Svg vg (w) glm(w)
l m

Svg vg (w)Svg
l l

vg

(w)
m

(1)

representing the ltration through soil layers. For the soil frequency response function a model which idealises the soil layer as a single degree of freedom oscillator of frequency wl and damping ratio xl is used as shown below [21] Hl(w) w2 2ixlwlw l w2 w2 2ixlwlw l (7)

where Svg vg (w), Svg

l
l

v m gm

(w) and Svg vg (w) indicate the

l
m

auto-power spectral densities of the accelerations and their cross-power spectral density, respectively. This function is dimensionless and complex valued. For the coherency function, the following model proposed by Der Kiureghian [21] is used glm(w) glm(w)iglm(w)wglm(w)s
i w

The power spectral density function of the ground acceleration (vgl) characterising the earthquake process is assumed to be of the following form modied by Clough and Penzien [26]. Svg vg (w)
l
l

So Hl(w) 2 Hf(w) 2

(8)

(2)
s

where Hl(w) 2 Hf(w) 2 w4 4x2w2w2 l l l (w w2)2 4x2w2w2 l l

2 l

glm(w) exp[i(qlm(w)

qlm(w) )]

where glm(w)i characterises the real valued incoherence effect, glm(w)w indicates the complex valued wave-passage effect and glm(w)s denes the complex valued siteresponse effect. For the incoherence effect, resulting from reections and refractions of waves through the soil during their propagation, the extensively used model proposed by Harichandran and Vanmarcke [25] is considered. This model is based on the analysis of recordings made by the SMART-1 seismograph array in Lotung, Taiwan and dened as
2dlm 2dlm A+aA) 1 2

(9) (10)

w4 (w
2 f

w)

2 2

4x2w2w2 f f

glm(w)i q(w)

Ae aq(w) (1 k 1

(1 A)e

q(w)

(1 A+aA)

(3) (4)

w 2f0

where dlm is the distance between support points l and m. A, a, k, f0 and b are model parameters and in this study the values obtained by Harichandran et al. [18] are used (A = 0.636, a = 0.0186, k = 31200, f 0 = 1.51 Hz and b = 2.95). The wave-passage effect resulting from the difference in the arrival times of waves at support points is dened as [14] qlm(w)w wdL lm vapp (5)

are the frequency response functions of the rst and second lters representing dynamic characteristics of the layers of soil medium above the rock bed. S0 is the amplitude of the white-noise bedrock acceleration, wl and xl are the resonant frequency and damping ratio of the rst lter, and wf and xf are those of the second lter. In this study, rm, medium and soft soil types are used at the support points of the example bridge and the lter parameters for these soil types proposed by Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer [19] are utilised as presented in Table 1. S0 is obtained for each soil type by equating the variance of the ground acceleration (Eq. (8)) to the variance of eastwest component of Erzincan earthquake acceleration in 1992. The calculated values of the intensity parameter for each soil type are: S 0(firm) = 0.00177 m2 / s3 S 0(medium) = 0.00263 m2 / s3, S 0(soft) = 0.00369 m2 / s3. Acceleration power spectral density function for each soil type is presented in Fig. 1. 1.2. Random vibration theory for spatially varying ground motion The variance of the ith dynamic response in the case of spatially varying ground motion can be written as [13]

where vapp is the apparent wave velocity and dL is the lm projection of dlm on the ground surface along the direction of propagation of seismic waves. The apparent wave velocity employed in this study is vapp = 600 m / s. The site-response effect due to the differences in the local soil conditions is obtained as [21] qlm(w)s tan
1

Table 1 Power spectral density parameters for model soil types Soil Type Firm Medium Soft wl (rad/s) 15.0 10.0 5.0 xl 0.6 0.4 0.2 wf (rad/s) 1.5 1.0 0.5 xf 0.6 0.6 0.6

Im[Hl(w)Hm( w)] Re[Hl(w)Hm( w)]

(6)

where Hl(w) is the local soil frequency response function

1304

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

s2i z

s2d zi

s2qs zi

2Cov(zqs, zd) i i

(15)

These integrations are performed numerically by using the IMSL subroutine QAGI [27]. 1.3. Mean of maximum value Depending on the peak response and standard deviation (sz) of z(t) the mean of maximum value m, in the stochastic analysis can be expressed as [19] m
Fig. 1. Power spectral density function of acceleration for different soil types.
n n r r

psz

(16)

where p is the peak factor, which is a function of the time of the motion and the mean zero crossing rate. 1.4. Cable-stayed bridge model

s2d zi
j 1k 1l 1m

yijyik
1

lj

mk

(11)

Hj( w)Hk(w)Svg vg (w)dw

l m

where y is the eigenvectors, is the modal participation factor, Svg vg (w) is the cross spectral density function of
l m

accelerations between supports l and m, H(w) is the frequency response function, n is the number of free degrees-of-freedom and r is the number of restrained degrees-of-freedom. Frequency response function is dened as Hk(w) 1 w
2 k

2ixkwkw

(12)

where wk is the modal circular frequency and xk is the modal damping ratio. The variance of the ith pseudo-static response can be written as
r r

s2iqs(w) z
l 1m 1

AilAim

1 S (w)dw w4 vglvgm

(13)

where Ail and Aim are equal to static displacements for unit displacements assigned to each support points. The covariance between the ith pseudo-static and dynamic response components may be expressed as Cov(zqs,zd) i i
n r r

Re yijAil

Sziqszd(w)dw i (14)

mj

1l

1m

1 H (w)Svg vg (w)dw w2 j l m The variance of the ith total response component is expressed in the following form [18]

In this study, the Jindo Bridge built in South Korea is chosen as a numerical example. Jindo bridge has three spans; the main span of 344 m and two side spans of 70 m. The stays are arranged in a fan conguration and converged at the top of the A-frame towers. The stiffening girder and the towers of the Jindo bridge were made from steel. A 2% damping coefcient is adopted for the response calculations. Only this one mathematical model is considered as the purpose of this investigation is to compare the results of specialised cases of the spatially varying ground motion rather than to study the effect of bridge geometry. The geology of the site where the bridge is constructed consists of a mixed assemblage of volcanic and pyroclastic and tuffaceous rocks. There are also faults on the mainland side, some of which were inlled with clay gouge [28]. To investigate the stochastic response of the Jindo bridge, two dimensional mathematical model is used for calculations. It has been shown that a two-dimensional analysis of the cable-stayed bridge provides natural frequencies and mode shapes which are in close agreement with those obtained by the three-dimensional analysis [11]. Therefore a two-dimensional analysis is carried out in the vertical direction plane of the Jindo Bridge in order to achieve the stochastic response to spatially varying earthquake forces. The fact that this 2-D model has a relatively small number of degrees of freedom makes it more attractive by saving on computer time. Obviously, if actual design values for the responses are desired 3-D model should be taken into account. The chosen nite element model is represented by 420 degrees of freedom. The stiffening girder and towers are represented by 139 beam elements. Although non-linear analysis of cable-stayed bridges reects a more realistic behaviour of the bridge, linear dynamic analysis was found to be economical and justied for moderately long span bridges without losing the accuracy to a great extent [27]. Since the cable-stayed

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

1305

bridge model under study has a center span of 344 m, a linear dynamic analysis should be sufcient. The cable stays are modelled with 28 truss elements and the nonlinearity of the inclined cable stays is considered with an equivalent modulus of elasticity. Since the primary objective of this study is to perform a parametrical study associated with the spatial variability of ground motions and its effects on the response of cable-stayed bridges, the soilstructure interaction is not considered. Although the soilstructure interaction is important for long span bridges [8], the non-consideration of the soilstructure interaction in this study is caused by the avoidance to model absorbing boundaries in the dynamic analysis. 1.5. Numerical computations Stochastic analysis of the Jindo bridge is performed for spatially varying ground motions by taking into account the incoherence, wave-passage and site-response effects. For this purpose three different soil condition sets are considered for the bridge supports: 1. While the supports at the island site are assumed to be founded on medium soil, the mainland support points are assumed to be founded on soft soil type (MMSS). Each letter in this expression corresponds to a support and the soil condition at that support point (Fig. 2). 2. The island abutment is assumed to be founded on rm soil and the island pier is assumed to be founded on medium site. The supports situated at the mainland site are assumed to be founded on soft soil conditions (FMSS). 3. All the supports are assumed to be founded on soils with medium stiffness (MMMM). This case corre-

sponds to the homogeneous soil type and is used here for comparison purposes. The bridge model subjected to spatially varying ground motions in the vertical direction is presented in Fig. 2. The vertical input is assumed to travel across the bridge from Jindo Island site to the mainland site with nite velocity of 600 m/s. The spectral density function applied to each support point as a ground motion is different for each soil type. The following specialised ground motion models are included in this study. 1. Uniform ground motion model (no time delay and no loss of coherency between support excitations and homogeneous soil conditionglm(w)iglm(w)wglm(w)s = 1. 2. Incoherence effect (no time delay between support excitations and homogeneous soil condition glm(w)wglm(w)s = 1. 3. Wave-passage effect (no loss of coherency between the support excitations and homogeneous soil conditionglm(w)iglm(w)s = 1. 4. Site-response effect (no time delay and no loss of coherency between the support excitationsglm(w)iglm(w)w = 1. 5. General excitation case which includes the three spatial variability effects, namely the incoherence, wavepassage and site-response effects. 1.6. Variances of response components As pointed out previously variance of total response has three components: namely the pseudo-static component, the dynamic component and the covariance component between the pseudo-static and dynamic components. Contribution of each component to the total responses of the bridge is investigated in this section. The relative contribution of these three components to the total vertical displacement response along the bridge deck are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 for general and uni-

Fig. 2. Bridge system subjected to spatially varying ground motions for different soil condition sets.

Fig. 3. Normalised displacement variances of the deck (general excitation).

1306

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

Fig. 4. Normalised displacement variances of the deck (uniform ground motion).

Fig. 5. Normalised displacement variances of the island tower (general excitation).

form ground motion cases, respectively. The normalisation is performed by dividing the variance values by the maximum total response. As the soil condition set where the bridge supports are constructed is dened as MMSS for the general excitation case, it is dened as MMMM for the uniform ground motion model. It is interesting to note that while the maximum pseudo-static displacement occurs close to the support points at the mainland side, maximum dynamic displacement component occurs at the middle of the deck for the general excitation case. However, these gures clearly indicate that the pseudo-static and dynamic components have signicant contributions to the total response. Since the maximum pseudo-static displacement occurs close to the rigid parts of the bridge (support points) and the maximum dynamic displacement occurs at the exible parts of the bridge (midspan), maximum total displacement takes place between these points. At the bridge deck where maximum total displacement takes place it can be observed that the dynamic component contributes 29%, the pseudo-static component contributes 68%, and the covariance component contributes 3% for the general excitation case. For uniform ground motion model acting in the vertical direction, the pseudo-static displacement component is constant because of the rigid body motion as presented in Fig. 4. The contribution of the covariance component to the total displacement response can be omitted for both excitation cases. Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the relative contribution of the response components to the tower horizontal displacement responses at island and mainland sites under the general excitation case. As the total displacements are dominated by dynamic component, pseudo-static component has also signicant contribution at the island tower. Examining the components of the total horizontal displacement response at the island tower top point reveals that the dynamic component contributes 59%, the pseudo-static component contributes 36% and the

Fig. 6. Normalised displacement variances of the mainland tower (general excitation).

covariance component contributes 5%. The variation obtained for displacements at the mainland tower is different from those of the island tower displacements. Although the dynamic component has a signicant contribution, the mainland horizontal displacements are mostly dominated by pseudo-static component. This is because the mainland supports are founded on soft soil type and therefore the pseudo-static component is amplied at the mainland tower. As the pseudo-static component contributes 77% at the tower top point, the dynamic component contributes 24% and the covariance component contributes 1%. The covariance component has negligible contribution to both tower displacement responses. The normalised deck bending moment response components for the general excitation case is presented in Fig. 7. As the total bending moments are dominated by the dynamic component, the pseudo-static component also has a signicant contribution at the center span. At the bridge deck where maximum bending moment takes place, the contributions of dynamic, pseudo-static and covariance components are 66%, 34% and 0%, respectively. Because of the rigid body motion in the case of

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

1307

Fig. 7. Normalised excitation).

moment

variances of

the

deck

(general

Fig. 9. Mean of maximum vertical dynamic deck displacements (general excitation).

uniform ground motion model, the total moments will be dominated completely by the dynamic component. 1.7. Mean of maximum response components Mean of maximum values of pseudo-static, dynamic and total responses are carried out for the previously dened soil condition sets in the case of general excitation which includes the three important effects of ground motion spatial variability. Mean of maximum values of vertical pseudo-static deck displacements calculated for different soil condition sets dened as MMMM, MMSS and FMSS are compared in Fig. 8. Pseudo-static displacements are nearly constant along the bridge for the homogeneous medium (MMMM) soil condition case. Maximum pseudo-static displacements obtained for MMSS and FMSS soil condition sets which include the site-response effect, occur close to the support points at the mainland side. Fig. 9 illustrates that maximum dynamic displacements occur at the exible part (midspan) of the bridge. From this gure it is apparent that the dynamic displacements obtained for the MMMM homogeneous medium soil condition case give the smallest values. Although the dynamic displacements

obtained for MMSS and FMSS soil condition sets are close to each other, the FMSS soil condition case gives slightly larger displacement values. Total vertical displacements are compared in Fig. 10. Here also the displacements obtained for MMMM soil condition case are smaller than those of the MMSS and FMSS soil condition sets. Maximum total displacement take place between the middle of the deck and the supports at the mainland side with the contribution of pseudo-static and dynamic components. The total displacements at the middle of the deck obtained from the general excitation case overestimates the response by 50% and 63% for MMSS and FMSS soil conditions, respectively when compared to the response due to the MMMM soil condition case. The similar variation is also observed for the deck bending moments (Fig. 11). 1.8. Relative contribution of the spatial variability effects To emphasise the relative importance of the spatial variability effects of the earthquake ground motion, mean of maximum response components are carried out for each of the incoherence, wave-passage and siteresponse effects which are previously dened as special-

Fig. 8. Mean of maximum vertical pseudo-static deck displacements (general excitation).

Fig. 10. Mean of maximum vertical total deck displacements (general excitation).

1308

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

Fig. 11. Mean of maximum total deck bending moments (general excitation). Fig. 13. Mean of maximum vertical dynamic deck displacements.

ised ground motion models. For the uniform ground motion model as well as for the incoherence and wavepassage effects the soil conditions where the bridge supports are constructed are dened as homogeneous medium soil type, abbreviated as MMMM. In order to investigate the site-response component of the ground motion spatial variability effect, previously dened MMSS and FMSS soil condition sets are considered. Mean of maximum vertical pseudo-static deck displacements are presented in Fig. 12 for the specialised ground motion models. As the displacements obtained from uniform ground motion model, incoherence and wave-passage effects are very close to each other, the responses obtained from the site-response effect are much larger especially at the mainland site. The dynamic displacements obtained for the specied ground motion models are compared in Fig. 13. It is obvious from this gure that the side span displacements are close to each other and the uniform ground motion model induces the smallest displacements at the center span. While the displacements obtained from the incoherence and wave-passage effects are in close agreement with each other, the siteresponse effect amplies the responses at the center span. Fig. 14 illustrates that the variation obtained for the island tower total axial forces is similar to those of the center span dynamic displacements.

Fig. 14.

Mean of maximum total axial forces of the island tower.

2. Conclusions This study outlines a comprehensive investigation of the stochastic response of a cable-stayed bridge subjected to spatially varying ground motions. The spatial variability of the ground motion is considered with the incoherence, wave-passage and site-response effects. The site-response effect is investigated in detail by situating the supports of the bridge on distinctly different soil sites. The analysis is applied to an existing cablestayed bridge model, the Jindo Bridge, which is already investigated analytically and experimentally. Mean of maximum and variance values of responses are obtained and compared with each other for specialised ground motion models. Although, the results obtained from this study demonstrate the use of spatially varying ground motions on cable-stayed bridges, the results by no means should represent denite or nal conclusions of this complicated dynamic problem. So, the conclusions drawn from this study can be written as: 1. The response values carried out for spatially varying ground motion model which includes the three important effects of ground motion spatial variability (general excitation), are dominated by pseudo-static

Fig. 12. Mean of maximum vertical pseudo-static deck displacements.

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

1309

2.

3.

4.

5.

and dynamic components. The covariance component has negligible contribution. The responses obtained from the general excitation case which includes the site-response effect induces large response values compared to those of the homogeneous soil conditions. Also the more difference between the soil conditions, the more response values take place. The response values obtained from the spatially varying ground motions are generally larger due to the more common assumptions of identical or delayed excitations. As the spatially varying ground motion excites different modes than uniform ground motion, the dynamic response of the bridge will be different. Although the spatial variability effects; namely the incoherence, the wave-passage and the site-response effects have important effects on the dynamic behaviour of the bridge, the inuence of the site-response effect should be incorporated with care. Because of the complex nature of the problem it is difcult to make general conclusions based on this study of a single cable-stayed bridge model. However, as different cable-stayed bridge models show typically similar structural dynamics, this study mainly implies that long span bridges like cable-stayed bridges are sensitive to spatial variability of ground motion, and in the stochastic analysis of such type of engineering structures the incoherence, wave-passage and site-response effects should be considered. Existing study on the Jindo Bridge [9] indicates that the results obtained for the example bridge model are applicable to other cable-stayed bridges, as they exhibit some of the same structural dynamics. It was followed that, although the response of other cablestayed bridges to different earthquakes may vary, the majority of the results presented in that study should still hold true because the Jindo Bridge characterises the qualities of a typical cable-stayed bridge model. This may well be true for the results obtained from this study which is also performed on the Jindo Bridge. However, the verication of the obtained results on additional cable-stayed bridge models should also be conducted.

References
[1] Ito M, Endo T. The Tatara Bridge-worlds longest cable-stayed span. In: Structures Congress XII. 1994. p. 67782. [2] Morris NF. Dynamic analysis of cable-stiffened structures. Journal of Structural Engineering Division ASCE 1974;100:97181. [3] Fleming JF, Egeseli EA. Dynamic behaviour of a cable-stayed bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1980;8:116. [4] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Seismic response analysis of cable stayed bridges subjected to uniform and multiple-support excitations. In: Report No. 87-SM-1. Princeton (NJ): Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University, 1987.

[5] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Non-linear earthquake-response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: theory. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:4562. [6] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Non-linear earthquake-response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:6376. [7] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Effects of ground motion spatial variability on the response of cable-stayed bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992;21:120. [8] Betti R, Abdel-Ghaffar AM, Niazy AS. Kinematic soil-structure interaction for long-span cable-supported bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:41530. [9] Schemmann A.G. Modeling and active control of cable-stayed bridges subject to multiple-support excitation. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, California, 1997. [10] Schemmann AG, Smith HA. Vibration control of cable-stayed bridges, part 1: modeling issues. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998;27(8):81124. [11] Garevski M, Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT. Dynamic characteristics and seismic behaviour of Jindo bridge, South Korea. Structural Engineering Review 1988;1:1419. [12] Soyluk K, Dumanoglu AA. Comparison of asynchronous and stochastic dynamic response of a cable-stayed bridge. Engineering Structures 2000;22:43545. [13] Harichandran RS, Wang W. Response of one- and two-span beams to spatially varying seismic excitation. In: Report to the National Science Foundation MSU-ENGR-88-002. Michigan (MI): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Michigan State University, 1988. [14] Zerva A. Effect of spatial variability and propagation of seismic ground motions on the response of multiply supported structures. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 1991;6:21221. [15] Perotti F. Structural response to nonstationary multiple-support random excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:51327. [16] Zembaty Z, Rutenberg A. On the sensitivity of bridge seismic response with local soil amplication. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998;27(10):10959. [17] Hyun CH, Yun CB, Lee DG. Nonstationary response analysis of suspension bridges for multiple support excitations. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 1992;7:2735. [18] Harichandran RS, Hawwari A, Sweiden BN. Response of longspan bridges to spatially varying ground motion. Journal of Structural Engineering 1996;122(5):47684. [19] Der Kiureghian A, Neuenhofer A. A response spectrum method for multiple-support seismic excitations. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-91/08. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, 1991. [20] Nakamura Y, Der Kiureghian A, Liu D. Multiple-support response spectrum analysis of the Golden Gate bridge. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-93/05. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, 1993. [21] Der Kiureghian A, Keshishian P, Hakobian A. Multiple support response spectrum analysis of bridges including the site-response effect and MSRS code. In: Report No. UCB/EERC-97/02. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, 1997. [22] Allam SM, Datta TK. Seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges under multi-component random ground motion. Engineering Structures 1999;22:6274. [23] Zanardo G, Hao H, Modena C. Seismic response of multi-span simply supported bridges to a spatially varying earthquake ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002;31:132545.

1310

A.A. Dumanogluid, K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 13011310

[24] Dumanoglu AA, Soyluk K. Response of a cable-stayed bridge to spatially varying seismic excitation. In: EURODYN2002, Munich. 5th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, vol. 2. 2002. p. 105964. [25] Harichandran RS, Vanmarcke EH. Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1986;112(2):15474.

[26] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures., 2nd ed. Singapore: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1993. [27] Piessens R et al. QUADPACK-A subroutine package for automatic integration. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1983. [28] Tappin RGR, Clark PJ. Jindo and Dolsan bridges: design. Proceedings of the lnstitution of Civil Engineers 1985;78:1281300.