KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Engineering Sciences / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3

EFFECTIVENESS OF WAVE PASSAGE EFFECT OF SEISMIC ISOLATED AND NONISOLATED BRIDGES UNDER SPATIALLY VARYING GROUND MOTION

Muhammet Yurdakul(BAYBURT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Şevket Ateş(Karadeniz Technical University)
Sayfa
201–216
Yayın Tarihi
2018-07-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The finite velocity is the most effective at means of the maximum responses of horizontal displacement of bridge deck.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In this study, stochastic analyses of isolated and nonisolated highway bridges under spatially varying ground motion are performed.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The horizontal input is assumed to travel across the bridge from left to right side with finite velocities of 100m/s, 200m/s and 400m/s.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The finite velocity is the most effective at means of the maximum responses of horizontal displacement of bridge deck.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Stochastic Analysis · Seismic Isolation · Sliding Isolation System

Özet

In this study, stochastic analyses of isolated and nonisolated highway bridges under spatially varying ground motion are performed. The bridge is isolated with triple concave friction pendulum (TCFP) bearing. The selected bridge is assumed to be constructed on homogeneous soft soil. Incoherency effects are neglected and wave passage effect is taken into account in the stochastic analyses. The bridge model subjected to spatially varying earthquake ground motions in the horizontal direction. The horizontal input is assumed to travel across the bridge from left to right side with finite velocities of 100m/s, 200m/s and 400m/s. The means of the maximum responses of displacement and internal forces of bridge deck are investigated. The results of these stochastic analyses are also compared with the results of infinite velocity. Analysis results show that using TCFP bearing on Highway Bridge reduces means of maximum values of total axial force, shear force and bending moment of bridge deck by 89%, 86% and 96%, respectively. In generally, low speed is more effective than high speed at the means of the maximum responses of internal forces of bridge deck. The finite velocity is the most effective at means of the maximum responses of horizontal displacement of bridge deck.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Yurdakul, M., Ateş, Ş. (2018). EFFECTIVENESS OF WAVE PASSAGE EFFECT OF SEISMIC ISOLATED AND NONISOLATED BRIDGES UNDER SPATIALLY VARYING GROUND MOTION. Engineering Sciences, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 201–216. https://ajindex.com/articles/1649645

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (30)

  1. Zayas, V.A., Low, S.S., Mahin, S.A., and Bozzo, L., (1989). Feasibility and Performance Studies on Improving The Earthquake Resistance of New Existing Building Using The Friction Pendulum System, In: Report No. UCB/EERC 89-09. Berkeley (CA): Earthquake Engineering and Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California.
  2. Fenz, D.M., (2008). Development, Implementation and Verification of Dynamic Analysis Models for Multi-Spherical Sliding Bearings, Technical Report MCEER-08-0018, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
  3. Barbas, J., Matusewitch, P., and Williams, M., (2011). Comparative of Single Pendulum and Triple Pendulum Seismic Isolation Bearings on The St. Laurent Bridge, Quebec, Canada: 6th New York City Bridge Conference on Modern Techniques in Design, Inspection, Monitoring and Rehabilitation of Bridge Structures, New York City, July 25-26.
  4. Yurdakul, M., Ates, S., and Altunisik, A.C., (2014). Comparison of The Dynamic Responses of Gülburnu Highway Bridge Using Single and Triple Concave Friction Pendulums, Earthquakes and Structures, Volume:7, Issue:4, pp:511-525.
  5. Bucher, C., (2011). Optimal Friction Pendulum Systems for Seismic Isolation: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference On Structural Dynamics, Leuven, Belgium, July 04-06.
  6. Tajammolian, H., Khoshnoudian, F., Talaei, S., and Loghman, V.,(2014). The Effects of Peak Ground Velocity of Near-Field Ground Motions on The Seismic Responses of Base-Isolated Structures Mounted on Friction Bearings, Earthquakes and Structures, Volume:7, Issue:6, pp:1259-1281.
  7. Loghman, V. and Khoshnoudian, F., (2015), Comparison of Seismic Behavior of Long Period SDOF Systems Mounted on Friction Isolators Under Near-Field Earthquakes, Smart Structures and Systems, Volume:16. Issue:4, pp:701-723.
  8. Harichandran, R.S. and Wang, W., (1988). Response of One-And Two-Span Beams To Spatially Varying Seismic Excitation, Report to the National Science Foundation MSU-ENGR-88-002, Michigan (MI): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Michigan State University.
  9. Ates, S., Soyluk, K., Dumanoglu, A.A., and Bayraktar, A., (2009). Earthquake Response of Isolated Cable-Stayed Bridges Under Spatially Varying Ground Motions, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Volume:31, Issue:6, pp:639-662.
  10. Avanoğlu, S.E. and Soyluk, K., (2012). Investıgation of The Effect of Spatially Varying Ground Motion Components on The Dynamic Behaviour of Cable Stayed Bridges Depending on Soil Conditions, Journal of The Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, Volume:27, Issue:4, pp:881-889.
  11. Li, B., Bi, K., Chouw, N., Butterworth, J.W., and Hao, H., (2012). Experimental Investigation of Spatially Varying Effect of Ground Motions on Bridge Pounding, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, volume:41, Issue:14, pp:1959-1976.
  12. Jia, H.Y., Zhang, D.Y., Zheng, S.X., Xie, W.C., and Pandey, M.D., (2013). Local Site Effects on A High-Pier Railway Bridge Under Tridirectional Spatial Excitations: Nonstationary Stochastic Analysis, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume:52, pp:55-69.
  13. Bedon, C. and Morassi, A., (2014). Dynamic Testing and Parameter Identification of A Base-Isolated Bridge, Engineering Structures, Volume:60, pp:85-99.
  14. Bo, Z., Yuanging, W., Zhihua, C., Yongjiu, S., Yang, J., and Yihong, W., (2015). Research on the Random Seismic Response Analysis for Multi-and Large-Span Structures to Multi-Support Excitations, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Volume:14, Issue:3, pp:527-538.
  15. Fallahian, M., Khoshnoudian, F., and Loghman, V., (2015). Torsionally Seismic Behavior of Triple Concave Friction Pendulum Bearing, Advances in Structural Engineering, Volume:18, Issue:12, pp:2151-2166.
  16. Sayed, M.A., Go, S., Cho, S.G., and Kim, D., (2015). Seismic Responses of Base-Isolated Nuclear Power Plant Structures Considering Spatially Varying Ground Motions: Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Volume:54, Issue:1, pp::169-188.
  17. Apaydın, N.M., Bas, S., and Harmandar, E., (2016). Response of The Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge Under Spatially Varying Multi-Point Earthquake Excitations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Volume:84, pp::44-54.
  18. Adanur, S., Altunışık, A.C., Soyluk, K., Bayraktar, A., and Dumanoğlu, A.A., (2016). Multiple-Support Seismic Response of Bosporus Suspension Bridge for Various Random Vibration Methods, Case Studies in Structural Engineering, Volume:5, pp:54-67.
  19. Specification for Buildings to be Built in Seismic Zones, (2007). Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Government of Republic of Turkey, Earthquake Research Department, http://www.deprem.gov.tr, 2007 (in Turkish).
  20. Fadi, F. and Constantinou, M.C., (2009). Evaluation of Simplified Methods of Analysis for Structures With Triple Friction Pendulum Isolators, Earthquake Engineerings and Structural Dynamics, Volume:39, Issue:1, pp:5-22.
  21. Constantinou, M.C., Kalpakidis, I., Filiatrault, A., and Ecker Lay, R.A., (2011). Lrfd-Based Analysis and Design Procedures for Bridge, Fabruary 28, Technical Rapor.
  22. Scheller, J. and Constantinou, M.C., (1999). Response History Analysis of Structures With Seismic Isolation And Energy Dissipation Systems: Verification Examples for SAP2000, Technical Report MCEER-99-0002, Buffalo.
  23. Computers and Structures Inc., (2007). SAP2000: Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Structures, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
  24. American Society of Civil Engineers-ASCE, (2010). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10.
  25. Button, M.R., Der Kiureghian, A., and Wilson, E.L., (1981). STOCAL-User Information Manual, Report No UCB/SEMM-81/2, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  26. Dumanoglu, A.A. and Severn, R.T., (1990). Stochastic Response of Suspension Bridges to Earthquake Forces, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume:19, Issue:1, pp:133-152.
  27. Der Kiureghian, A. and Neuenhofer, A., (1991). A Response Spectrum Method for Multiple-Support Seismic Excitations, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  28. Der Kiureghian, A., (1980). Structural Response to Stationary Excitation, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Volume:106, Issue:6, pp:1195-1213.
  29. Dumanoğlu, A.A. and Soyluk, K., (2002). SVEM, A Stochastic Structural Analysis Program for Spatially Varying Earthquake Motinos, Turkish Earthquake Foundation, TDV/KT 023-76, Istanbul.
  30. Ates, S., Dumanoglu, A.A., and Bayraktar, A., (2005). Stochastic Response of Seismically Isolated Highway Bridges With Friction Pendulum Systems to Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motions: Engineering Structures, Volume:27, Issue:13, pp:1843-1858.