4.5 Article

Seismic assessment of a cable-stayed arch bridge under three-component orthotropic earthquake excitation

Journal

ADVANCES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 227-242

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1369433220948756

Keywords

cable-stayed arch bridge; seismic vulnerability; seismic analysis; three-component earthquake excitation; time-history analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study showed that cable-stayed arch bridges subjected to both horizontal and vertical components of earthquakes are more vulnerable than those subjected to horizontal ground motion only. Factors such as soil type, epicentral distance, spatial variation of ground motions, and structural dimensions were considered in the analysis.
The occurred damages during the past significant earthquakes have proved that vertical seismic excitation has tremendous effect on bridges. Three-component earthquake excitations are preferred to resemble the earthquakes. In this article, a cable-stayed arch bridge, a new type of bridge with the hybrid system of half-through arch and stay-cables, was analyzed under a set of different earthquake excitations (more than 21 ground motion records). Both vertical and horizontal components of the ground motions were considered to act simultaneously at the bridge supports. By using different three-component earthquake excitations, the dynamic responses of the bridge, including the displacements and accelerations of the main parts of the bridge, were obtained. The effects of various parameters such as soil type, epicentral distance, spatial variation of the ground motions, and dimensional variation of the structure were investigated. The results of the numerical study indicate that the cable-stayed arch bridge subjected to both horizontal and vertical components of earthquakes are more vulnerable than those subjected to horizontal ground motion only.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available