Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Soil Dynamics

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn Earthquake performance assessment and retrofit

Earthquake performance assessment and retrofit investigations of two suspension bridges in Istanbul

Nurdan Memisoglu Apaydın

General Directorate of State Highways, 17th Division Directorate, Zincirlikuyu 34340, Istanbul, Turkey

article info

Article history:

Received 12 October 2009 Received in revised form 21 February 2010 Accepted 28 February 2010

Keywords:

Suspension bridge 3-D non-linear finite element model Time history analysis Multi-support earthquake excitation Seismic performance Retrofitting

abstract

This paper presents the results from earthquake performance assessment and retrofit investigations for Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Bosporus suspension bridges, with main span lengths of 1090 and 1074 m in Istanbul. In the first part of the study, sophisticated three-dimensional finite element model of two suspension bridges were developed and the results of the free vibration analysis were presented. The models contain detailed structural components of the bridges and geometric non-linearity with cable sagging and stress stiffening, cumber of the deck and set-back of the towers. These components affect the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of the bridges. In the second part of the study, the seismic performance evaluation of two suspension bridges was undertaken. For performance assessments, non-linear 3-D finite-element time history analysis of with multi-support scenario earthquake excitation was used. Displacements and stresses at critical points of the bridges were investigated. Their earthquake performance under the action of scenario earthquake (site-specific ground motion that would result from the Mw ¼ 7.5 scenario earthquake on the Main Marmara Fault) were estimated and comparison with actual design data were also presented. Although both suspension bridges were originally designed for much lower earthquake loads they exhibited satisfactory performance. Finally, suggestions for retrofit need were made and retrofit design with hysteretic dampers for the Bosporus suspension bridge was calculated.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The suspension bridges, Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Bosporus bridges, located on Bosporus straits in Istanbul, a mega city of significant seismic hazard in Turkey. Istanbul has a population of approximately 15 million people, and is located astride the Bosporus, which divides it into European and Asian side. The two main motorways namely O-1 and O-2 connect those two continents with each other and these motorways are the main arteries of the city. Any broken link due to the bridges failure during a destructive earthquake may totally paralyze the whole transportation system in the city. The earthquake magnitude 7.4 occurred at Marmara Region in 1999 caused major human, social and economic loses in Turkey. The epicenter of the 1999 earthquake was located approximately 80 km. Southeast of Istanbul, in general, the highway system performed well [1] . However investigations and research show that a major earthquake may occur with a high probability in Istanbul in the near future [2] . Under these circumstances the

Tel.: +90 533 6267355; fax: +90 212 2130807. E-mail addresses: napaydin@kgm.gov.tr, napaydin@boun.edu.tr.

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

performance assessment and, if needed, retrofitting of bridges in Istanbul is an urgent problem. Due to importance of the suspension bridges, notable theore- tical works and full-scale tests were carried out by Tezcan et al. [3] , Petrovski et al. [4] , Brownjohn et al. [5] , and Erdik et al. [6] to estimate the dynamic characteristics of Bosporus bridge and by Brownjohn et al. [7,8] , Dumano glu˘ et al. [9] , and Apaydın [10] to estimate the dynamic characteristics of Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridge. In this work, earthquake performance of two suspension bridges in Istanbul was calculated and the need to retrofit was investigated. In the first stage, the detailed three-dimensional structural finite element models of Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Bosporus bridges were prepared and the free vibration analysis was made. In both bridges, only main spans were designed as a suspension system. While in Bosporus bridge, side spans are passed with approach viaducts with slender columns, in Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge there is no side span. As being different from finite element models that was carried out in previous conducted studies [5,11–14] , in this work, approach viaducts of Bosporus bridge also were defined in the three-dimensional finite element model. Thus, 3-D non-linear finite element model which is most close to reality and account approaches in retrofitting studies was developed. Therefore, two units of approach viaducts

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

703

with steel-box girder deck in the European and Anatolian sides were added to the 3 dimensional model by calculating geometric and structural properties [15] . The natural frequencies of vibra- tion and the corresponding mode shapes in their dead load and live load configurations were determined for two suspension bridges. In the second part of the work, seismic performance of suspension bridges was investigated by non-linear 3-D time history analysis. Therefore, the bridges were analyzed by using 3-dimensional ground motion and the reactions were found. For this work, scenario earthquake that were prepared as site specific for both bridges was used by taking into account of seismicity of Istanbul [16] . Displacement and tensions in the important structural elements of the bridges were compared with limited values on the project by being calculated under the scenario earthquake excitation. In line with calculations, at the point where expansion joints of the Bosporus bridge deck was found, it was determined that displacement value in the longitudinal direction was critical and it approached to the boundary value. Suggestions for alternatives were made and, thus, strengthening by using hysteretic dampers at the expansion joints of Bosporus suspension bridge was suggested and the calculations related to this were presented in this study.

2.

Description of the suspension bridges

2.1.

Bosporus suspension bridge

Bosporus suspension bridge, commissioned in 1973, joins the European and Asian Continents through Ortakoy and Beylerbeyi districts of Istanbul. It is a gravity-anchored suspension bridge with steel pylons and inclined hangers. The main span is 1074 m (World rank 12th). It consist of one main and two side spans. The cost of the bridge amounted to USD 200 million [17] . General arrangement of the bridge is shown in Fig. 1 . Physical properties such as superstructure and substructure types of Bosporus Suspension Bridge and its approach viaducts were shown in Table 1 . Besides, material and sectional properties calculated from as-built drawings and calculation reports [18,19] for main cable, back stay cable, hangers, deck etc. were presented in Tables 2 and 3 .

2.2. Fatih Sultan Mehmet suspension bridge

Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge, located about 5 km north of the Bosporus Bridge, also spans the Bosporus strait between Hisar ust¨ u¨ (European Side) and Kavacık (Asian Side). It is a

ust¨ u¨ (European Side) and Kavacık (Asian Side). It is a Fig. 1. General Arrangement of

Fig. 1. General Arrangement of Bosporus Suspension Bridge. Main Span: 1074 m; Asian Side Span: 255 m; European Side Span: 231 m; Deck Width: 28 m (33.4 m total); Substructure: 2 Steel Towers (165 m); 2 Anchorages: Spread Foundation; Sag: 93 m+7.1 m; Hanger Geometry: Inclined; Clearance from the sea level: 64 m.

Table 1 Physical Properties of Bosporus Suspension Bridge.

Name

Superstructure

Substructure

Structure type

Span Length

No. of

Bridge Width

Structure type

No. of

(m)

Span

(m)

Span

Bosporus Suspension Bridge

Suspension Bridge 1074.0

1

33.4

Steel Tower Anchorage

2

 

2

Bosporus Suspension Bridge Approach Asian Side Viaduct

Steel Box-Girder

255.0

4

33.4

Steel Circular Pier Foundation Concrete

6

Bridge

European

Steel Box-Girder

231.0

5

33.4

Steel Circular Pier Foundation Concrete

8

Side

Bridge

ARTICLE IN PRESS

704

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

Table 2 Material Properties of Bosporus Suspension Bridge.

 

Main Cable

Backstay

Hanger

Tower-Rocker

Deck

Mass per unit volume (ton/m 3 ) Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Poisson’s ratio

8.629

8.334

8.004

7.85

14.97

199

199

199

199

199

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Table 3 Sectional Properties of Bosporus Suspension Bridge.

 

A

Iyy

Izz

m 2

m 4

m 4

Main cable

0.205

3.344e 3 3.817e 3 3.068e 7

3.344e 3 3.817e 3 3.068e 7

Backstay cable

0.219

Hanger

1.963e 3

Deck

0.891

1.291

63.61

Tower

0.6223

1

3.76

0.6346

1.23

3.91

0.6468

1.49

4.06

0.6509

1.59

4.11

0.6637

1.91

4.26

0.6726

2.14

4.35

0.6927

2.28

4.62

0.6986

2.43

4.69

A: Cross-sectional area, Iyy, Izz: Moments of inertia.

gravity-anchored suspension bridge with no side spans and with steel pylons and double vertical hangers. The main span is 1090 m (World rank 11th). It was completed in 1988 at a cost of USD 130 million [20] . General arrangement of the bridge is shown in Fig. 2 . Physical properties such as superstructure and substructure types of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge were shown in Table 4 . Besides, material and sectional properties calculated from as-built drawings and calculation reports [21,22] for main cable, back stay cable, hangers, deck etc. were presented in Tables 5 and 6 .

3. Earthquake performance and retrofit investigations of two

suspension bridges

3.1. Three-dimensional finite element structural modeling

To be able to make earthquake performance analysis which is reliable and closer to reality, three-dimensional finite element model that is detailed and reflects all the features of the structure is needed. It is the first work, in that, it includes 3-D Finite Element Models of Bosporus and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridges at the same time. Besides this, the model prepared for approach viaducts with steel-box girder of the bridge also did not take place in the same kinds of finite element works that have been done for Bosporus Bridge. Structural and geometric properties of both suspension bridges were found by using the original drawings and calculations and models of the bridges were developed in the way closest to reality. In this study, SAP 2000 v11.08 advanced structural analysis software was used for analyses [23] . Frame elements were used to model towers and suspended structures. Cable elements were used to define main cables, backstay cables and hangers. In accordance with actual behaviors of the two bridges, compression and moment were not accepted for cable elements. Due to the fact that both bridges have been completely made of steel, isotropic steel elements were used as the material proper- ties. Structural damping ratio for steel elements was 0.02 for both bridges. Kinetic energy proportional damping was applied to all

members. No plastic deformation was accepted for structural elements. Moreover, while three-dimensional models of the bridges were prepared, great care has been given to boundary conditions and links to coincide with actual values. In both bridges, rocker bearings were modeled as in real structures. Details of rocker bearings for both bridges is shown in Fig. 3 . Due to the fact that these bearings have great impact on the mode shapes and orders of deck, in these kinds of finite element modeling works , it should be taken into consideration. To be able to define the link of the towers with the main rock, soil-structure interaction was investigated. During the construc- tion, foot of towers and main cable anchorages of both suspension bridges were directly anchored by reaching the main rock. In the research that following results have been found depending on the characteristics of the foundation soil.

Bending moment for base section of tower at static condition without foundation springs: 145 454 kN-m Bending moment for base section of tower at static condition with foundation springs: 147 225 kN-m

These values are very close to each other. More importantly, bending yield moment for base section of tower is 272 978 kN-m on the final complete calculations. When these results were examined, due to the characteristics of foundation soil, it has been seen that soil-structure interaction did not affect the analysis results in the joint of towers with the background and fix connections were used between the towers and bed rock Thus, during the calculations, the speed of processing of the computer was increased. Likewise, soil-structure interaction was not taken into consideration in cable anchorages. Backstay cable connected to the anchorage with pin elements to transfer force in 3 directions. Cross-sections view of 3-D finite element models of the two suspension bridges are given in Fig. 4 .

3.2. Free vibration characteristics of two suspension bridges

Theoretical dynamic characteristics of the two suspension bridges were calculated in longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions and mode shapes and natural periods of free vibration were obtained using 3-D finite elements models. In the analysis, natural periods were obtained for the first 50 vibration mode shapes and first 5 of them for Bosporus and Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridges were shown in Figs. 5 and 6 . By showing the first 10 natural vibration frequencies in the Tables 7 and 8 , information about free vibration characteristics of both bridges were given.

3.3. Comparison of analytical studies for the bridges

As previously mentioned, these suspension bridges are at critical points in terms of transportation. Therefore, at various times, researches have been performed to determine the dynamic characteristics of these bridges. With regard to the Bosporus Bridge, Brownjohn et al. [5] , Erdik et al. [6] ; Beyen et al. [11] and Kosar [14] while doing analytical

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

705

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710 705 Fig. 2. General Arrangement of Fatih Sultan Mehmet

Fig. 2. General Arrangement of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge. Main Span: 1090 m; Deck Width: 28 m (33.4 m total); Substructure: 2 Steel Towers (107 m); 2 Anchorages: Spread Foundation; Sag: 93 m+7.1 m; Hanger Geometry: Vertical Double; Clearance from the sea level: 64 m.

Table 4 Physical Properties of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.

Name

Superstructure

 

Substructure

Structure type

Span length (m)

No. of Span

Bridge width (m)

Structure type

Nos.

Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge

Suspension Bridge

1090.0

1

39.4

Steel Tower

2

 

Anchorage

2

Table 5 Material Properties of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.

 
 

Main cable

Backstay

Hanger

Tower-Rocker

Deck

Mass per unit volume (ton/m 3 ) Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Poisson’s ratio

8.30

8.08

8.82

7.85

 

12.4

189.3

189.3

98.1

196.1

196.1

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Table 6 Sectional Properties of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.

 

A

Iyy

Izz

m 2

m 4

m 4

Main cable

0.36615

0.0107

0.0107

Backstay cable

0.39129

0.0122

0.0122

Hanger

5.064 E–03

2.041 E–06

2.041 E–06

Deck

1.25816

1.7318

129.273

Tower

1.4865

0.9929

5.0152

1.441

0.7924

4.2921

1.374

0.5494

3.3472

1.3335

0.43

2.8398

1.2751

0.2901

2.1927

1.2029

0.1847

1.6311

0.4699

0.5574

3.5925

0.3109

0.3053

2.4191

A: Cross-sectional area, Iyy, Izz: Moments of inertia.

studies, likewise Brownjohn et al. [8] and Apaydın [10] did work for Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge. By comparing the results obtained from previous researches with results that were

acquired from this study, a view was held about the accuracy of analytical models. Comparison between analytical studies for Bosporus and Fatih Sultan Mehmet suspension bridges expressed in Tables 9 and 10 .

3.4. Simulated earthquake ground motion

Depending on earthquake criteria at that time, both suspen- sion bridges were designed according to much lower earthquake loads. But according to results of analysis, it has been observed that both of them performed a better performance than earth- quake loads according to which they were designed. Earthquake specifications that have been used for the construction of Bosporus Bridge were prepared upon request of Turkish republic by Government of Japan International Engineering consultant association in 1967 [24] . Basic horizontal seismic coefficient 0.10 that will be considered during the construction of Bosporus Bridge, basic vertical coefficient were adopted as 0.05. In Fatih sultan Mehmet bridge, design philosophy of Bosporus Bridge were followed by being modified by the Consultant, Freeman Fox and Botek, 0.10 as a horizontal seismic coefficients and 0.55 as a vertical earthquake coefficient were accepted [20] .

706

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710 12370 8350 4020 3000 30800 4493 2200 2200
12370 8350 4020 3000
12370
8350 4020
3000

30800

4493 2200 2200
4493
2200 2200

Fig. 3. Rocker Bearings of Bosporus Bridge (a) and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (b).

of Bosporus Bridge (a) and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (b). Fig. 4. 3-D Finite Element Model

Fig. 4. 3-D Finite Element Model of two suspension bridges (cross-sections).

Element Model of two suspension bridges (cross-sections). Fig. 5. First 5 Mode shapes of Bosporus Suspension

Fig. 5. First 5 Mode shapes of Bosporus Suspension Bridge.

Based on earthquake experiences and specifications that have evolved, earthquake motions of both bridges were upgraded. For this purpose, ground motion that will be experienced by the suspension bridges were simulated on the basis of the definition of the seismic demand associated with the retrofit design performance criteria [16] .

For performance assessment and retrofit design two seismic performance levels have been considered.

FEE (Level 1): Functional Evaluation Earthquake Ground Motion associated with a 50% probability of occurrence in 50 years.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

707

Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710 707 Fig. 6. First 5 mode shapes of Fatih

Fig. 6. First 5 mode shapes of Fatih Sultan Mehmet suspension bridge.

Table 7 Result of Free vibration analysis for Bosporus Suspension Bridge.

Table 9 Comparison of Analytical studies for Bosporus Suspension Bridge.

Mode number

Mode shape

Period

Frequency

Mode

Erdik et al.

Brownjohn

Kos- ar

Current

 

number

et al.

study

 

S

Cyc/s

 

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

Frequency

 

(Hz)

(Hz)

(Hz)

(Hz)

Mode-1

1st Lsym

13.4875

0.0741

   
 

Mode-2

1st Vasym

8.3074

0.1204

1

0.0716

0.073

0.0689

0.0741

Mode-3

1st Vsym

6.3313

0.1580

2

0.144

0.126

0.1251

0.1204

Mode-4

2nd Vsym

4.7673

0.2098

3

0.202

0.165

0.1897

0.1580

Mode-5

3rd Vasym

3.8120

0.2623

4

0.225

0.180

0.2229

0.2098

Mode-6

1st T

3.6952

0.2706

5

0.323

0.218

0.2733

0.2623

Mode-7

1st Tw

3.5458

0.2820

6

0.340

0.225

0.2771

0.2706

Mode-8

2nd Tw

3.3935

0.2947

7

0.365

0.278

0.2939

0.2820

Mode-9

Lsym, Tw

3.3922

0.2948

8

0.385

0.284

0.2939

0.2947

Mode-10

Long Vasym

3.1594

0.3165

9

0.294-

0.2976

0.2948

 

10

0.301

0.3030

0.3165

 

Lsym: Lateral symmetric; Vasym: Vertical asymmetric; Vsym: Vertical symmetric; T: Torsional; Tw Tower; Long: Longitudinal.

 

Table 8 Result of Free vibration analysis for Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.

Mode number

Mode shape

Period

Frequency

 

S

Cyc/s

Mode-1

1st Lsym 1st Vasym Long 2st Vasym Long 1st Vsym 1st Lasym 2st Lsym 2st Lasym Tw 3rd Lsym Tw Tsym 3rd Lsym Tw

14.3958

0.0694

Mode-2

10.0074

0.0999

Mode-3

6.7547

0.1480

Mode-4

6.4089

0.1560

Mode-5

4.8217

0.2074

Mode-6

4.5288

0.2208

Mode-7

4.2229

0.2368

Mode-8

3.9802

0.2512

Mode-9

3.8131

0.2622

Mode-10

3.7098

0.2695

Lsym: Lateral symmetric; Vasym: Vertical asymmetric; Vsym: Vertical symmetric; T: Torsional; Tw Tower; Long: Longitudinal.

SEE (Level 2): Safety Evaluation Earthquake Ground Motion associated with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years.

Under exposure to the Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE) ground motion the damage level will be minimal (essentially elastic performance) and the functionality of the bridge will continue without interruption. This ground motion refers to the high probability earthquakes that can affect the structure one or twice during its lifetime. This earthquake is generally associated with a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Due to specific seismo-tectonic, the FEE earthquake will be taken as the site-specific ground motion that would result from the Mw ¼ 7.5 scenario earthquake on the Main Marmara Fault. Under exposure to Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) ground motion only repairable damage is allowed, such that, the damage can be repaired with a minimum risk of losing functionality without endangering and lives. In consideration of regional earthquake occurrences this level of ground motion will be

MG

MG

MG

ARTICLE IN PRESS

708

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

associated with a site-specific probabilistic ground motion associated with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years [25] . The performance criteria for both suspension bridges under SEE require that

No damage to main and hanger cables (within tensile strength) No slipping of cable clamps Only light damage in towers with no local buckling No damage at rocker bearings (within their yield point)

Table 10 Comparison of Analytical studies for Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.

Mode number

Apaydın

Brownjohn et al.

Current study

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

1

0.074

0.076

0.0694

2

0.111

0.108

0.0999

3

0.155

0.125

0.1480

4

0.159

0.145

0.1560

5

0.217

0.159

0.2074

6

0.220

0.211

0.2208

7

0.253

0.232

0.2368

8

0.276

0.243

0.2512

9

0.278

0.250

0.2622

10

0.288

0.266

0.2695

No damage due to collision between tower and deck No damage at expansion joints.

The safety evaluation earthquake ground motion was applied to the bridges. Three components of SEE ground motion were applied in the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions simultaneously. This waves are shown in Fig. 7 .

3.5. Non-linear time history response analysis for two suspension

bridges

After preparing the detailed structural models of Bosporus and Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridges and the preparation of site-specific ground motion for both bridges, non-linear 3-D finite element time history analysis has been done that is preferred for long span bridges. Therefore, the seismic performance evaluation of two suspension bridges is undertaken. Three-dimensional non-linear time history analyses were performed in longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions for the bridges Displacement time histories and stresses at critical points of the bridges are computed and their earthquake performances under the action of scenario earthquake are estimated. As mentioned before, the performance criteria under this earthquake require: no damage to main and hanger cables, no slipping of cable clamps, only light damage in towers with no local buckling,

clamps, only light damage in towers with no local buckling, SEE GROUND MOTION- X DIRECTION 600

SEE GROUND MOTION- X DIRECTION

600 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -200 -400 -600 MG
600
400
200
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-200
-400
-600
MG

TIME

SEE GROUND MOTION- X DIRECTION 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 2 0 4
SEE GROUND MOTION- X DIRECTION
400
300
200
100
0
-100 0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
-200
-300
-400
-500

TIME

SEE GROUND MOTION- Y DIRECTION

400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -200 -300
400
300
200
100
0
-100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-200
-300
-400
MG

TIME

400

300

200

100

0

-100

-200

-300

SEE GROUND MOTION- Z DIRECTION 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 0 20
SEE GROUND MOTION- Z DIRECTION
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-100
-100
-200
-200
-300
-400
-300
MG

TIME

SEE GROUND MOTION- Y DIRECTION 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1
SEE GROUND MOTION- Y DIRECTION
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0

TIME

SEE GROUND MOTION- Z DIRECTION 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1
SEE GROUND MOTION- Z DIRECTION
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0

TIME

Fig. 7. SEE waves for Bosporus Bridge (a) and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge (b).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

709

no damage at rocker bearings and at expansion joints. Although both suspension bridges were originally designed for much lower earthquake loads, they exhibited satisfactory performance. Correlation with same kind of finite element analysis is beneficial because non-linear time history analysis for suspension bridges is a challenging study. In order to check the accuracy of analysis, the calculated results were compared with retrofitting projects which previously were made by Turkish state highways. Retrofit project results can be obtained from project reports and basic design documents prepared for the General Directorate of State Highways (Turkey) [25] . Calculated stresses at the main span and side spans in the main cable of both bridges were controlled with retrofit project values. Also normal and shear force values, passing from the top of tower of main cable and found at point that is called tower saddle, which is important in terms of structural safety and stability of suspension bridges and also were investigated. Besides these, regarding the tower, the tower base bending, shear and normal force values for both bridges were controlled. All these results for the two bridges are given in Tables 11 and 12 . As a result of this analysis, it has been observed that two bridges showed a good performance during the possible Istanbul earthquake. Apart from the stresses in the main cables, backside cables and towers, displacements were investigated at the critical points of the deck of both bridges. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge deck displacements were normal limit in longitudinal, vertical and transverse directions but critical displacements were obtained for Bosporus Bridge deck in longitudinal direction ( Table 13 ).

Table 11 Assessment of seismic performance of Bosporus Bridge.

 

Current study

Retrofit project

Results

Results [25]

Tensile Strength of Main Cable (kN ) Tensile Strength of Side span Cable ( kN ) Axial Force of Main Cable at Tower Top Saddle (kN) Shearing Force of Main Cable at Tower Top Saddle (kN) Base Section of Tower Column- Axial Force (kN) Base Section of Tower Column- Shearing Force (kN) Base Section of Tower Column- Bending Moment (kN-m)

137000

133674

145000

142687

117100

111100

3591

4513

131448

127578

4920

4049

168653

149604

Table 12 Assessment of seismic performance of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge.

 

Current study

Retrofit project

results

results [25]

Tensile Strength of Main Cable (kN ) Tensile Strength of Side span Cable ( kN ) Axial Force of Main Cable at Tower Top Saddle (kN) Shearing Force of Main Cable at Tower Top Saddle (kN) Base Section of Tower Column- Axial Force (kN) Base Section of Tower Column- Shearing Force (kN) Base Section of Tower Column- Bending Moment (kN-m)

183500

203961

198900

219100

156400

164967

3866

3867

167700

184702

3807

3826

189208

167609

Table 13 Displacement check of deck of two suspension bridges

Location

Direction

Transverse

Longitudinal

Vertical

Displacements of Deck-Bosporus Bridge

 

Center of Deck (m) End of Deck (m)

1.54

1.154

1.078

0

Displacements of Deck -Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge

Center of Deck (m) End of Deck (m)

2.15

0.57

0.89

0

The existing capacity of expansion joint, which is located at the point where deck of Bosporus bridge and approach viaducts are combined, was obtained from original drawings as 1.070 m. However, from non-linear analysis result, 1.078 m displacement was obtained under the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE). It means that bridge deck will be damaged by colliding to expansion joints.

3.6. Time history analysis with the retrofit action recommended for

Bosporus Bridge

As it was detected that in the longitudinal direction of the Bosporus Bridge, critical displacement was reached and it could give a damage to expansion joint, a solution which will limit the movement of deck in the longitudinal direction was investigated. As the displacement in the longitudinal direction came very close to the boundary value and also as it is easy to care for, it has been thought that the use of hysteretic dampers will be appropriate. Although application of damper affects the distribution of internal loads (see Table 11 ), the main purpose of damper is to reduce the amount of displacements of suspended structures in longitudinal direction. For this purpose, application of hysteretic damper which is composed of E-shaped elements that is made of steel has been decided (the hysteretic damper are supplied by an optimized E-shaped elements composed by steel). The hysteretic damper has following characteristics:

yielding force: 2000 kN maximum plastic force: 2300 kN elastic displacement before plasticization: 14( 7 7) mm maximum plastic displacement: 200( 7 100) mm

Units of hysteretic damper that has these features was put in the same way as seen in Fig. 8 , between main deck where the deck ends in the tower region and approach viaducts and non-linear 3-D time history analysis was replicated for Bosporus Bridge. In this way, deck displacement which is 1.078 m in longitudinal direction was lowered to 0.46 m by putting 4 units of hysteretic damper to the both ends of deck ( Table 14 ).

4. Conclusion

In this study, the results from earthquake performance assessment and retrofit investigations for Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Bosporus suspension bridges were given, and hysteretic damper was used to minimize the displacement in the long- itudinal direction of deck that came as critical in Bosporus Bridge. For this purpose, 3-dimensional finite element models of both bridges were prepared in the same study and the results of the

710

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710 Fig. 8. Dampers locations at Bosporus Bridge. Table

Fig. 8. Dampers locations at Bosporus Bridge.

Table 14 Displacement check of deck with hysteretic dampers for Bosporus Bridge.

Location

Direction

Transverse

Longitudinal

Vertical

Center of deck (m) End of deck (m)

1.54

1.154

0.46

0

free vibration analysis were presented. In addition to this, accu- racy of it was checked by comparing to other analytical works. In the second part of the study, the seismic performance evaluation of two suspension bridges was undertaken. For performance assessments, non-linear 3-D finite-element time history analysis of with multi-support scenario earthquake excitation was used. Displacements and stresses at critical points of the bridges were investigated. Earthquake performance of bridges have been identified by using earthquake scenarios that were prepared for Istanbul. Finally; hysteretic dumper solution was presented according to the expected results that were obtained by application of the Istanbul earthquake for the first suspension bridge. This work carries a great importance due to the fact that it includes the free vibration analysis of Bosporus and Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridges and earthquake performance under the action of scenario Istanbul earthquake for the both bridges at the same time and in the same work.

References

[1] Erdik M, Aydionglu N, Uc- kan E, Celep U, Apaydın N. The 1999 Turkey earthquakes: bridge performance and remedial actions. Oakland, CA: Earth- quake Engineering Research Institute; 2003. ISBN-0-943198-05-4. [2] Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan Y, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Siyahi B, et al. Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2003;2(1):1–27. [3] Tezcan S, Ipek M, Petrovski J, Paskalov T. Forced Vibration Survey of Istanbul Bo gazic˘ - i Suspension Bridge. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ECEE, Vol. 2, Istanbul, Turkey; 1975. p. 152. [4] Petrovski J, Paskalov T, Stojkovich A, Jurokovski D. Vibration studies of Istanbul Bogazici suspension bridge, report OIK 74-7. Skopje, Yugoslavia:

Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology, IZIIS; 1974. [5] Brownjohn JMW, Dumano glu˘ AA, Severn RT, Blakeborough A. Ambient vibration survey of the Bosporus suspension bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1989;18:263–83.

[6] Erdik M, Uc- kan E. Ambient vibration survey of the Bo gazic˘ - i Suspension Bridge, Report No: 89-5. Istanbul-Turkey: Department of Earthquake Engineering Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bo gazic˘ - i University; 1989. [7] Brownjohn JMW, Dumano glu˘ AA, Severn RT. Ambient vibration survey of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Second Bosporus) suspension bridge. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992:907–24. 21,10, Oct. [8] Brownjohn JMW, Severn RT, Dumano glu˘ AA. Full-scale dynamic testing of the second Bosporus suspension bridge. In: Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1992. p. 2695–700. [9] Dumano glu˘ AA, Brownjohn JMW. Seismic analysis of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Second Bosphorus) suspension bridge. Earthquake engineering

and Structural dynamics 1992;5:881–906. 21, 10, Oct. [10] Apaydın N. Seismic Analysis of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Bo gazic˘ - i University Istanbul, Turkey; 2002. [11] Beyen E, Uc- kan, Erdik M. Ambient vibration investigation of the Bogazici Suspension Bridge, Istanbul, Turkey. Earthquake Resistant Cons. & Design. Rotherdam: Bakema; 1994. p. 915–922. [12] Dumano glu˘ AA, Severn RT. Stochastic response of suspension bridges to earthquake forces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990.

Lineer Olmayan

Konfer-

[13] Adanur S, Dumano glu˘

AA, Bayraktar A. Asma K opr¨ ulerin¨

_

Dinamik Davranıs- ının Incelenmesi, 4. Ulusal Deprem M uhendisleri¨

ansı: 17–19 Eyl ul-Ankara;¨ 1997.

[14] Kosar U. System Identification of Bogazici Suspension Bridge, M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey;

2003.

[15] Bosporus Bridge Approach Viaducts Drawings, Consulting Engineers. Free- man, Fox and Partners, Westminster, London, SW.1; 1968. [16] General Directorate of Highways Report. Turkey, Specification for Seismic

Reinforcement Structures, Report 2: Design Principle and Earthquake Waves for the project entitled ‘‘Seismic Reinforcement of Large Scale Bridges in Istanbul’’; 2004. [17] Record Book: Istanbul Bo gazic˘ - i K opr¨ us¨ u¨ (Bosporus suspension Bridge). KGM matbaası, General Directorate of Highways, Turkey; 1973. [18] Bosporus Bridge Towers, Suspended Structures, Cables, Anchorage Drawings. Consulting Engineers; Freeman, Fox and Partners, Westminster, London, SW.1; 1968. [19] Bosporus Bridge Calculations. File No:1,2,3,4,5 Freeman, Fox and Partners, Westminster, London, SW.1; 1968. [20] Record Book for Fatih Sultan Mehmet suspension Bridge, IHI, MHI, NKK;

1989.

[21] Second Bosporus Bridge as Constructed Drawings. Consulting Engineers; Freeman, Fox and Partners, Westminster, London, SW.1; 1988. [22] Second Bosporus Bridge Final Complete Calculations. Consulting Engineers; Freeman, Fox and Partners, Westminster, London, SW.1; 1985. [23] SAP. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures. Berkeley, CA, USA: Computers and Structures, Inc.; 2000. [24] Specifications for earthquake-resistant design of the Bosporus bridge. Government of Japan international engineering consultants association;

1967.

[25] Japanese Bridge and Structure Institute JBSI. Project Reports and Basic

Design Documents for the project entitled ‘‘Seismic Reinforcement of large scale bridges in Istanbul’’, prepared for the General Directorate of State Highways (Turkey); 2004.