Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Comparison of random vibration methods for multi-support

seismic excitation analysis of long-span bridges
K. Soyluk

Department of Civil Engineering, Gazi University, Maltepe, Ankara 06570, Turkey

Received 22 December 2003; received in revised form 27 May 2004; accepted 28 May 2004

Abstract

In this paper, the spatial variability eects of ground motions on the dynamic behaviour of long-span bridges are investigated
by a random vibration based spectral analysis approach and two response spectrum methods. The spatial variability of ground
motions between the support points is taken into account with the coherency function, which arises from three sources: incoher-
ence, wave-passage and site-response eects. Random vibration analyses are performed on two deck-type arch bridges and a
cable-stayed bridge model. Power spectral density function and response spectrum values used in random vibration analyses are
determined depending on the recordings of September 20, 1999, ChiChi, Taiwan earthquake. The results strongly imply that the
ltered white noise ground motion model can be accepted as a rather convenient model to represent actual earthquake ground
motions. It can be also observed that the structural responses for each random vibration analysis depend largely on the intensity
and frequency contents of power spectral density functions.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Random vibration analysis; Spatially varying ground motion; Spectral analysis; Multiple support response spectrum method; Deck
arch bridge; Cable-stayed bridge

1. Introduction Deterministic analyses of long-span bridges for

One of the engineering challenges of long-span
bridges is the determination of their dynamic behav-
iour under the eect of dierential earthquake ground
motions. Since an earthquake excitation consists of the
superposition of a large number of waves with dierent
characteristics, the dierent positions along a long-span
bridge generally are subject to dierent motions. In cal-
culating the dynamic response, the assumption of uni-
form ground motion at the supports of these extended
structures cannot be considered valid. Dierential
ground motions may induce responses, commonly
known as pseudo-static component, which is absent in
structures uniformly excited at their base. The non-
synchronous ground motion can induce a response
very dierent from that calculated considering the same
ground motion at each support.


Tel.: +90-312-2317400/2231; fax: +90-312-2308434.
E-mail address: ksoyluk@gazi.edu.tr (K. Soyluk).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.016
multi-support and travelling seismic wave eects are
carried out by various researchers [13]. These studies
outline the requirement of the consideration of multi-
support and travelling seismic wave eects for the
dynamic response analysis of long-span bridges. One of
the leading random vibration analyses of long-span
bridges to multi-support excitation is performed by
Abdel-Ghaar and Rubin [4]. This study also under-
lines the importance of the multi-support excitation.
The eect of spatially varying ground motions on the
random vibration response of bridges has been studied
generally by spectral analysis approach in the last
decade. For long multi-support structures, the spatially
varying ground motion becomes a multi-support exci-
tation. Zerva [5] evaluated the responses of continuous
two- and three-span beams to spatially varying ground
motions and examined the validity of the commonly
used assumption of equal support motion. Hao [6] ana-
lysed the in-plane stochastic responses of incompress-
ible circular arches to spatially correlated multiple
1574 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
excitations. Harichandran et al. [7] studied the Golden
Gate suspension bridge and two deck arch bridges to a
general spatially varying earthquake ground motion
which neglects the site-response eect. It was concluded
that the use of identical excitations is in general unac-
ceptable for those long-span bridges. Zembaty [8] pre-
sented a numerical sensitivity study of the local site
eects on a four-span bridge response. An analysis of a
bridge response with supports founded on dierent
soils was carried out. Allam and Datta [9] presented a
frequency domain spectral analysis for the seismic
analysis of cable-stayed bridges for the multi-compo-
nent stationary random ground motion. The ground
motion was represented by its power spectral density
function and a spatial correlation function. Zanardo
et al. [10] carried out a parametrical study of the
pounding phenomenon associated with the seismic
response of multi-span simply supported bridges and
highlighted that multi-support analysis gives results
markedly dierent from the uniform dynamic analysis.
Dumanoglu and Soyluk [11] investigated the stochastic
response of a cable-stayed bridge subjected to spatially
varying ground motions based on a recently developed
model. The importance of site-response eect was
investigated particularly. These studies performed by
random vibration based spectral analysis method gen-
erally underline the signicance of the spatial varia-
bility of ground motions between support points.
The response spectrum method has proven to be an
accurate and practical method for seismic analysis.
Most seismic codes specify the earthquake motion in
terms of the response spectrum and not the power
spectral density. Literature on the application of the
random vibration based response spectrum analysis for
seismic analysis of lifeline structures is meagre. In
recent years, Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer [12]
developed a response spectrum method for the seismic
analysis of linear multi-degree-of-freedom, multiply-
supported structures subjected to spatially varying
ground motions. The rule provides the response of a
linear system subjected to incoherent support excita-
tions directly in terms of the conventional response
spectra at the support degrees of freedom and a coher-
ency function describing the spatial variability of the
ground motion. Nakamura et al. [13] applied this
response spectrum method on the Golden Gate bridge
for spatially varying ground motions. It was found that
the new response spectrum method oers a simple and
viable alternative for seismic analysis of multiply-sup-
ported structures. Der Kiureghian et al. [14] performed
a comprehensive investigation of the multiple support
response spectrum method for seismic analysis of three
to ve-span bridge structures. Special attention was
given to the eect of site response arising from vari-
ation in the soil conditions at dierent supports of the
structure. Allam and Datta [15] presented a response
spectrum method for the seismic analysis of cable-
stayed bridges subjected to correlated stationary ran-
dom ground motion. The method was based on the
relationship between the power spectral density func-
tion and the response spectrum of the input ground
motion, and the fundamentals of the random vibration
theory. Although the analysis takes into account the
partial correlation of ground motions between the sup-
ports, the nite propagation eect of the ground
motion and the site-response eect was ignored.
Dynamic properties of long-span bridges should also
be experimentally tested. This verication can be
accomplished by the instrumentation of existing
bridges, full-scale testing of prototype bridges and lab-
oratory model testing. The literature about the experi-
mental testing of long-span bridges is very limited.
However, in a study performed by Garevski et al. [16],
a small-scale dynamic model with articial mass simu-
lation of the Jindo Bridge (JB) was designed and built.
Sinusoidal and random signal tests by using a shaking
table were used to determine the dynamic character-
istics of the model. A comparison of the test results
with those obtained from the mathematical model of
the prototype was made to verify the mathematical
model verication. Good agreement between experi-
mental and analytical results was obtained. Since the
main idea of this study is to perform a numerical study
related to the spatial variability of ground motions and
its eects on the response of arch and cable-stayed
bridge models, the verication of the dynamic proper-
ties of these bridges are not considered.
The objective of this study is to compare the random
vibration responses of deck-type arch bridges and
cable-stayed bridges to spatially varying ground
motions including the wave-passage, incoherence and
site-response eects. In this study, three dierent ran-
dom vibration methods are utilised to determine the
dynamic behaviour of these long-span bridges. As one
of these methods is the spectral analysis approach of
random vibration theory based on the power spectral
density specication of the ground motion, the other
two methods are random vibration based response
spectrum methods. Although the spectral analysis of
cable-stayed bridges subjected to spatially varying
ground motions is studied by Dumanoglu and Soyluk
[11], it has not been found any publication that
includes the random vibration based response spectrum
analysis of cable-stayed bridges subjected to spatially
varying ground motions including the wave-passage,
incoherence and site-response eects. As a new contri-
bution to the literature the random vibration based
spectral and response spectrum analyses of deck-type
arch bridges subjected to spatially varying ground
motions including all the spatial variability eects are
also studied in this paper. Another objective of this
study is to verify the ltered white noise (FWN)
 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
ground motion model widely used in the literature,
before conducting extensive random vibration investi-
gation of the bridges. This verication is performed by
comparing the structural responses for the FWN
ground motion model and actual ground motions.
2. Spectral analysis approach
Since the formulation of the random vibration
theory for spatially varying ground motion is given
previously by many researchers [719], in this study
only the required nal equations will be considered.
Spectral analysis approach is based on principles of
stationary random vibration theory and provides an
approximate estimate of the mean of the absolute
maximum response of the structure in terms of the
power spectral density function of ground motion and
a coherency function. Any response quantity can be
decomposed into dynamic and pseudo-static compo-
nents, i.e., z zd zs when there is a dierential exci-
tation at the supports. The total mean-square responses
can be obtained from
r2z r2zd r2zs 2Covzs ;zd
where r2zd and r2zs are the dynamic and pseudo-static
variances, respectively, and Covzs ;zd is the covariance
between the dynamic and pseudo-static responses zd
and zs [17]. The mean of the absolute maximum
response can be obtained depending on the peak
response and standard deviation (rz) of z(t).
3. Response spectrum method
The multiple support response spectrum method was
developed by Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer [12]
based on fundamental principles of stationary random
vibration theory. This rule provides the response of a
linear system subjected to incoherent support excita-
tions directly in terms of the conventional response
spectra and a coherency function. The combination
  5
rule for the mean of absolute peak response is given in
the form [12]
" where S0 is the amplitude of the white-noise bedrock
X
m Xm
E maxjztj ak al quk ul uk;max ul;max
k1 l1
X
m X
m X
n of the second lter. In this study, rm, medium and
2 ak blj quk slj uk;max Dl wj ;fj
k1 l1 j1
#1=2
m X
X m X
n X
n sponding to these soil conditions are obtained from
bki blj qski slj Dk wi ;fi Dl wj ;fj
k1 l1 i1 j1
where, ak and bki are the eective inuence coecients
and eective modal participation factors, respectively,
uk,max denotes the mean peak ground displacement at
1575
support degree of freedom k, Dk(wi, fi) denotes the dis-
placement response spectrum ordinate at support
degree of freedom k for the frequency and mode of i,
and quk ul , quk slj , qski slj are cross-correlation coecients
between the support motions and the modes of the
structure.
4. Seismic excitation for random vibration analyses
Both in the spectral analysis approach and response
spectrum method the mean of maximum responses
depend on the cross-power spectral density function of
ground acceleration
Guk ul w ckl wGuk uk w Gul ul w1=2 3
where ckl(w) is the coherency function describing the
variability of the ground acceleration processes for sup-
port degrees of freedom k and l as a function of fre-
quency w. Recently, Der Kiureghian [18] proposed a
general composite model of spatial seismic coherency
function in the following form:
1
ckl w ckl wi expihkl ww hkl ws  4
i w s
where ckl w , ckl w and ckl w characterise the inco-
herence, the wave-passage and the site-response eects,
respectively. For the incoherence eect, the extensively
used model proposed by Harichandran and Vanmarcke
[19] is considered.
For the spectral analysis approach, the power spec-
tral density function of the ground acceleration char-
acterising the earthquake process is assumed to be of
the form of FWN ground motion model modied by
Clough and Penzien [20]
w4g 4f2g w2g w2
Guk uk w S0  2
w2g w2 4f2g w2g w2
w4
2
w2f w2 4f2f w2f w2
acceleration, wg and fg are the resonant frequency and
damping ratio of the rst lter, and wf and ff are those
soft soil types are used at the support points of the
considered bridges and the lter parameters corre-
2 Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer [12].
Der Kiureghian and Neuenhofer [12] derived the fol-
lowing relation between the power spectral density of
the acceleration and the displacement response spec-
trum associated with each support motion for the
1576 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
multiple support response spectrum method

 bridge. While the total bridge span reaches 371 m, the
wp2 2fw 4 Dk w;f 2
Guk uk w p 6
w wpf p ps ps w0
In this expression, p and wf are parameters selected by
adjusting the power spectral density for low fre-
quencies, s is the duration of strong motion phase of
the motion, f is a reference damping ratio, and ps(w)0 is
the peak factor of white noise. In this study, the fol-
lowing parameters proposed by Der Kiureghian and
Neuenhofer [12] are used: p 3 and wf 0:705 rad=s.
5. Description of the bridge models
5.1. Deck arch bridge models
In this study, two deck-type arch bridge models are
chosen: The Cold Spring Canyon Bridge (CSCB) in
California and the New River Gorge Bridge (NRGB)
in WV.
The NRGB is a four lane, box truss, steel deck arch
bridge. Both the deck and the arch are essentially box
trusses consisting of four box girder chords connected
by lateral and vertical truss members. The NRGB has
a north approach span of 175 m, a south approach of
193 m and a main span of 554 m. While the total
bridge span reaches 924 m, the total length of the arch
span is 518 m. The approach span deck segments are
isolated from the main span deck segments by expan-
sion joints at the ends of the main span. At these
points, the bottom chords of the approach span deck
are pinned to the top of the bents while the bottom
chords of the main span deck are attached to the bents
by rollers. The two dimensional model of the NRGB is
shown in Fig. 1. The equivalent beam elements of
the deck and the arch are numbered from 1 to 14.
The two truss elements representing the cables which
transfer longitudinal loads from the deck to the arch
are labelled 1 and 2. The deck axial force and moment
releases resulting from the expansion joints at the ends
of the main span are also shown.
Fig. 1. Two-dimensional mathematical model of New River Gorge Bridge.
The CSCB is a two-lane solid-ribbed steel deck arch
total length of the arch span is 213 m. The deck is div-
ided into three continuous segments by hinged tower
connections at the ends of the main span. The two
dimensional model of the CSCB is shown in Fig. 2.
The equivalent beam elements of the deck and the arch
are numbered from 1 to 11. The two truss elements
representing the cables which transfer longitudinal
loads from the deck to the arch are labelled 1 and 2.
The deck moment releases resulting from the hinge
connections at the towers are also shown in the gure.
In both bridge models the approach spans are repre-
sented by translation and rotation springs. In order to
reduce the number of degrees of freedom in the bridge
analyses, the full three-dimensional model of each
bridge was reduced to a two dimensional bridge model
for input motions in the longitudinal direction. Further
reductions in the number of degrees of freedom were
made by assuming that the arch and the deck at each
panel point would have the same vertical translations.
While NRGB is modelled with 81 degrees of freedom,
the CSCB is modelled with 66 degrees of freedom. The
two-dimensional modelling technique used in this study
proved to be a very eective modelling method. The
modal analysis responses presented in Ref. [21] were
generally within 10% of the results based on full three-
dimensional modelling analysis. In this study a modal
damping ratio of 5% is used for both bridges.
5.2. Cable-stayed bridge model
In this study, the JB built in South Korea is chosen
as a cable-stayed bridge model. JB 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 converge
at the top of the A-frame towers. The stiening girder
and the towers of the JB were made from steel [22].
A 2% of damping coecient is adopted for the
response calculations. To investigate the random
vibration response of the JB, two-dimensional math-
ematical model is used for calculations (Fig. 3). It has
been shown that a two-dimensional analysis of the
 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583 1577

Fig. 2. Two-dimensional mathematical model of Cold Spring Canyon Bridge.

Fig. 3. Two-dimensional mathematical model of Jindo Bridge.

cable-stayed bridge provides natural frequencies and

mode shapes which are in close agreement with those
obtained by three-dimensional analysis [2]. The chosen
nite element model is represented by 420 degrees of
freedom. As the stiening girder and towers are repre-
sented by 139 beam elements, the cable stays are mod-
elled with 28 truss elements.

6. Numerical results

6.1. Verication of FWN ground motion model

In the rst part of this study the widely used ground

motion model, the FWN dened by the Eq. (5) is veri-
ed. For this purpose the recordings of 20 September
1999, ChiChi, Taiwan earthquake, namely the
ILA027E, HWA033N and TAP051W components
recorded at rm, medium and soft soil conditions,
respectively, are used. Acceleration power spectral den-
sity functions for these earthquake ground motion
components are given in Fig. 4. The spectral density
functions for the FWN ground motion model are
also given in these gures for each soil type. As indi-
cated, the lter parameters corresponding for each soil
condition are obtained from Der Kiureghian and
Neuenhofer [12]. To provide a fair comparison, the
amplitude of white-noise bedrock acceleration S0 is
obtained for each soil type by equating the variance of
the ground acceleration (Eq. (5)) to the variance of the
components of the ChiChi earthquake acceleration
recorded at rm, medium and soft soil conditions. The
calculated intensity parameter values for each soil
type are, S0 firm 4:85
10 5 m2 =s3 , S 0 medium Fig. 4. Power spectral density functions at (a) soft soil; (b) medium
1:28
10 4 m2 =s3 , S0 soft 9:33
10 5 m2 =s3 . As soil; (c) rm soil.
1578 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
can be observed in Fig. 4, the acceleration spectral den-
sity functions obtained for the ChiChi earthquake
ground motion and the FWN model coincide with each
other.
For each component of the ChiChi earthquake
recorded at rm, medium and soft soil conditions,
spectral analysis of the cable-stayed bridge model is
performed for uniform ground motion case with STO-
CAL [23] computer program. The same bridge model is
also analysed for the ltered white noise ground
motion model based on the calculated intensity para-
meters. The vertical displacements of the cable-stayed
bridge model calculated for each soil type are com-
Fig. 5. Vertical deck displacements of JB for (a) soft soil; (b)
medium soil; (c) rm soil.
pared in Fig. 5 for both cases. It is obvious from these
gures that the results obtained for the actual ground
accelerations are very close to those of the FWN
ground motion model response values. The dierence
of order up to 10% between these results outlines that
the FWN ground motion model can be used as ground
motion model with an acceptable accuracy. After the
verication of the FWN ground motion, this model
will be used throughout the study as ground motion
for spectral analysis.
6.2. Random vibration analyses
In the second part of this study, deck-type arch
bridge models and a cable-stayed bridge model sub-
jected to spatially varying ground motions will be stud-
ied for dierent random vibration methods. In this part
of this study, the goal is to establish the random
vibration method that will generate the highest struc-
tural response. The random vibration methods con-
sidered in this study are as follows:
1. Spectral analysis approach of random vibration
theory which considers the FWN ground motion
model as an earthquake ground motion model
(Fig. 4).
2. Response spectrum method based on the relation-
ship between the power spectral density function
and the response spectrum of the input ground
motion. The response spectrum displacement is
derived from the power spectral density function of
ground acceleration by using Eq. (6). This response
spectrum method uses the displacement response
spectrum shown in Fig. 6 based on the components
of the ChiChi earthquake and the power spectral
density function of FWN of rm, medium and soft
soil types. This method will be named as PSDF
based response spectrum method throughout the
study.
Fig. 6. Displacement response spectra obtained from Eq. (6) for dif-
ferent soil conditions for ps w0 3:2497.
 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583 1579

propagates from the Jindo Island site to the mainland

site for the considered cable-stayed bridge with an nite
wave velocity of 500 m/s. The considered earthquake
ground motions lasting up to 70.0 s are applied to the
bridges in the longitudinal directions, either in power
spectral density shape or in response spectrum form.

6.2.1. Arch bridge responses

For the NRGB it is assumed that the south supports
are founded on medium soil and the north supports are
founded on soft soil conditions. The mean of absolute
maximum vertical displacements of NRGB along the
deck are compared in Fig. 8 for the considered random
vibration methods. This gure shows that the
maximum vertical displacement occurs at the middle of
the bridge deck for the spectral analysis and PSDF
based response spectrum methods. Meanwhile for the
response spectrum method, maximum displacement
occurs close to the north supports. While the displace-
ments calculated by the PSDF based response spec-
trum are the smallest, the response spectrum method
yields the largest displacements. The spectral analysis
method induces 12% larger displacements at the middle
of the deck than those of the PSDF based response
spectrum method and 10% smaller displacement than
those of the response spectrum method. However,
because the maximum displacement obtained by the
spectral analysis method is at the middle of the bridge
and the response spectrum method causes maximum
displacement close to the north supports, the maximum
dierence between these methods is within 65%.
The mean of absolute maximum bending moments
at the deck members are compared in Fig. 9. This
gure indicates that the bending moments from the

Fig. 7. Displacement response spectra (f 0:02) of ChiChi earth-

quake recorded at the soil conditions of (a) soft soil; (b) medium soil;
(c) rm soil.

3. Multiple support response spectrum method based

on the response spectrum specication of the input
motion. This method will be called as response spec-
trum method in this study. This model uses the dis-
placement response spectrum curves of the three
components of the ChiChi earthquake as ground
motions (Fig. 7).

In this study, it is assumed that while the ground

motion is propagating across the deck arch bridges Fig. 8. Mean of absolute maximum vertical deck displacements of
from the south supports to the north supports, it NRGB.
1580 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
Fig. 9. Mean of absolute maximum deck bending moments of
NRGB.
spectral analysis and PSDF based response spectrum
methods are quite close to each other, namely of order
up to 10%, and are much smaller than the bending
moments from the response spectrum method. The
maximum dierence between the spectral analysis
approach and the response spectrum method is 110%.
This trend shows itself again in the comparison of
bending moments of arch members (Fig. 10). The dis-
crepancy between the spectral analysis approach and
the response spectrum method is most probably caused
by the dierence of the variances of ground accelera-
tions described by Eq. (5) for spectral analysis
Fig. 10. Mean of absolute maximum arch bending moments of
NRGB.
approach and by Eq. (6) for multiple support response
spectrum method. Although the same earthquake
ground motion is used for both methods, the power
spectral density functions of ground accelerations char-
acterising the ground motions are dierent in character.
For the CSCB it is assumed that the south supports
of the approaching span are founded on rm soil, the
south support of the main span is founded on medium
soil, and the north supports are founded on soft soil
conditions. The calculated mean of absolute maximum
vertical displacements of CSCB along the deck are
compared in Fig. 11. Although this gure indicates that
the harmony between spectral analysis and PSDF
based response spectrum is rather close to the variation
obtained for the NRGB, the response spectrum
method yields somehow dierent variation than those
of the NRGB. In this case, the response spectrum
method causes even smaller responses than those of the
other two analyses. At the middle of the deck, spectral
analysis results 12% and 20% larger response values
than those of the PSDF based response spectrum
method and spectrum analysis, respectively.
Mean of absolute maximum bending moments at the
arch members are compared in Fig. 12. This gure also
shows the agreement between the spectral analysis and
PSDF based response spectrum methods. Although
these two methods are dierent in character, the agree-
ment of the results is caused by equal power spectral
density functions for both methods. The response spec-
trum method causes much larger bending moments
than those of the former two methods. As the
maximum dierence between the spectral analysis and
PSDF based response spectrum method is 15%, the
Fig. 11. Mean of absolute maximum vertical deck displacements of
CSCB.
 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
Fig. 12. Mean of absolute maximum arch bending moments of
CSCB.
dierence between the spectral analysis and response
spectrum method is 125%. So, the most evident dier-
ence in the responses of both bridges is the response of
bending moments.
6.2.2. Cable-stayed bridge responses
For the JB, it is assumed that the island abutment is
founded on rm soil, the island pier is founded on
medium soil and the supports at the mainland site are
founded on soft soil conditions. The mean of absolute
maximum vertical deck displacements are compared in
Fig. 13. Mean of absolute maximum vertical deck displacements
of JB.
1581
Fig. 13. This gure reveals that the displacement values
calculated by spectral analysis are slightly larger than
the displacements from the PSDF based response spec-
trum method, of the order of 7% at the middle of the
deck where the displacements are the largest. The
closeness of the results of both methods can be attrib-
uted to the fact that the PSDF based response spec-
trum method depends heavily on the power spectral
density function of the FWN ground motion model.
The displacements obtained from the response spec-
trum method are generally much larger than those of
the other two methods especially at the main span, of
the order of 84% at the middle of the deck. It should
be also outlined that such a comparison is not entirely
fair, because structural responses can show important
variations for ground motions even with similar
response spectrum. The mean of absolute maximum
longitudinal displacements of the tower located at the
Jindo Island, are also compared for the random
vibration methods (Fig. 14). This gure also outlines
the fact that the spectral analysis and PSDF based
response spectrum methods give close response values
and the response spectrum method induces much larger
responses. While the spectral analysis method causes
10% larger displacement value at the top of the tower
compared to those of the PSDF based response spec-
trum method, the response spectrum method induces
65% larger displacement value than those of the spec-
tral analysis method. This trend observed for the deck
and tower displacements shows itself again in the
comparison of deck bending moments (Fig. 15).
These results indicate that for the arch deck-type and
cable-stayed bridge models the worst case of random
Fig. 14. Mean of absolute maximum longitudinal tower displace-
ments of JB.
1582 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
Fig. 15. Mean of absolute maximum deck bending moments of JB.
vibration analyses is the multiple support response
spectrum method which results in higher responses
depending on the intensity and frequency contents of
the power spectral density function, especially for
member forces.
7. Conclusions
The rst part of this study involves the verication of
the most widely recognised ground motion model,
namely the FWN ground motion model. This part is
followed by a comparative analysis which is performed
by a frequency domain spectral analysis approach, a
power spectral density function based response spec-
trum method and a multiple support response spectrum
method on deck-type arch bridges and a cable-stayed
bridge model subjected to spatially varying ground
motions. The spatial variability of ground motions
between the support points is taken into account with
the incoherence, wave-passage and site-response eects.
As earthquake ground motions, three dierent compo-
nents of the ChiChi earthquake recorded at rm,
medium and soft soil conditions, are employed in this
study.
When compared with the actual earthquake ground
motions, it can be observed that the results obtained
for the ltered white noise ground motion model are
quite satisfactory. Therefore, from this stand point this
model can be accepted as a rather convenient model
for actual ground motions.
The responses obtained from the frequency domain
spectral analysis are in close agreement with results
obtained from the response spectrum method based on
the relationship between the power spectral density
function of the FWN ground motion model and the
response spectrum of the earthquake ground motion.
Although these two methods are dierent in character,
the agreement of the results can attributed to the fact
that the power spectral density functions for both
methods are equal.
The multiple support response spectrum method esti-
mates based on the response spectrum specication of
the earthquake motion show trends which are consist-
ent with the trends observed in the other two random
vibration methods. However, there are signicant dif-
ferences between the results. The discrepancy between
the spectral analysis approach and multiple support
response spectrum method is mostly caused by the dif-
ference of the variances of ground accelerations
described by Eq. (5) for spectral analysis approach and
by Eq. (6) for multiple support response spectrum
method. So, even for the same ground motion dierent
random vibration methods may cause very dierent
results depending on the intensity and frequency con-
tents of the power spectral density functions.
References
[1] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaar AM. Seismic response analysis of
cable stayed bridges subjected to uniform and multiple-support
excitations. Report no. 87-SM-1. Princeton (NJ): Department of
Civil Engineering, Princeton University; 1987.
[2] Garevski M, Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT. Dynamic character-
istics and seismic behaviour of Jindo bridge, South Korea. Struc-
tural Engineering Review 1988;1:1419.
[3] Dusseau RA, Wen RK. Seismic response of deck type arch
bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1989;18:70115.
[4] Abdel-Ghaar AM, Rubin LI. Vertical seismic behaviour of sus-
pension bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1989;11:119.
[5] Zerva A. Eect of spatial variability and propagation of seismic
ground motions on the response of multiply supported struc-
tures. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 1991;6:21221.
[6] Hao H. Arch responses to correlated multiple excitations. Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;22:389404.
[7] Harichandran RS, Hawwari A, Sweiden BN. Response of long-
span bridges to spatially varying ground motion. Journal of
Structural Engineering 1996;122(5):47684.
[8] Zembaty Z, Rutenberg A. On the sensitivity of bridge seismic
response with local soil amplication. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1998;27(10):10959.
[9] Allam SM, Datta TK. Seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges
under multi-component random ground motion. Engineering
Structures 1999;22:6274.
[10] 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 Dynam-
ics 2002;31:132545.
[11] Dumanoglu AA, Soyluk K. A stochastic analysis of long span
structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions includ-
ing the site-response eect. Engineering Structures 2003;25:
130110.
[12] Der Kiureghian A, Neuenhofer A. A response spectrum method
for multiple-support seismic excitations. Report no. UCB/
 K. Soyluk / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 15731583
EERC-91/08. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, College of Engineering, University of California; 1991.
[13] Nakamura Y, Der Kiureghian A, Liu D. Multiple-support
response spectrum analysis of the Golden Gate bridge. Report
No. UCB/EERC-93/05. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research Center, College of Engineering, University of
California; 1993.
[14] Der Kiureghian A, Keshishian P, Hakobian A. Multiple support
response spectrum analysis of bridges including the site-response
eect and MSRS code. Report No. UCB/EERC-97/02. Berkeley
(CA): Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, University of California; 1997.
[15] Allam SM, Datta TK. Analysis of cable-stayed bridges under
multi-component random ground motion by response spectrum
method. Engineering Structures 2000;22:136777.
[16] Garevski MA, Brownjohn JMW, Blakeborough A, Severn RT.
Resonance-search tests on a small-scale model of a cable-stayed
bridge. Engineering Structures 1991;13:59-66.
[17] Harichandran RS, Wang W. Response of one- and two-span
beams to spatially varying seismic excitation. Report to the
1583
National Science Foundation MSU-ENGR-88-002. Michigan
(MI): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
College of Engineering, Michigan State University; 1988.
[18] Der Kiureghian A. A coherency model for spatially varying
ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1996;25:99111.
[19] Harichandran RS, Vanmarcke EH. Stochastic variation of earth-
quake ground motion in space and time. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 1986;112(2):15474.
[20] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures, 2nd ed.
Singapore: McGraw Hill, Inc; 1993.
[21] Dusseau RA. Unequal seismic support motions of steel deck
arch bridges. PhD thesis, Michigan State University, Michigan;
1985.
[22] Tappin RGR, Clark PJ. Jindo and Dolsan bridges: design. Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1985;78:1281300.
[23] Button MR, Der Kiureghian A, Wilson EL. STOCAL-User infor-
mation manual. Report No. UCB/SEMM-81/2, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University
of California; 1981.