ARTICLE IN PRESS

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

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

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

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results from earthquake performance assessment and retrofit investigations for
Received 12 October 2009 Fatih Sultan Mehmet and Bosporus suspension bridges, with main span lengths of 1090 and 1074 m in
Received in revised form Istanbul. In the first part of the study, sophisticated three-dimensional finite element model of two
21 February 2010
suspension bridges were developed and the results of the free vibration analysis were presented. The
Accepted 28 February 2010
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
Keywords: the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of the bridges. In the second part of the
Suspension bridge study, the seismic performance evaluation of two suspension bridges was undertaken. For performance
3-D non-linear finite element model
assessments, non-linear 3-D finite-element time history analysis of with multi-support scenario
Time history analysis
earthquake excitation was used. Displacements and stresses at critical points of the bridges were
Multi-support earthquake excitation
Seismic performance investigated. Their earthquake performance under the action of scenario earthquake (site-specific
Retrofitting ground motion that would result from the Mw ¼7.5 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 performance assessment and, if needed, retrofitting of bridges in

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.
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], Dumanoğlu 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

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.02.011
 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
Hisarüstü (European Side) and Kavacık (Asian Side). It is a

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 2

Anchorage 2
Bosporus Suspension Bridge Approach Asian Side Steel Box-Girder 255.0 4 33.4 Steel Circular Pier Foundation 6
Viaduct Bridge Concrete
European Steel Box-Girder 231.0 5 33.4 Steel Circular Pier Foundation 8
Side Bridge Concrete
 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/m3) 8.629 8.334 8.004 7.85 14.97
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 199 199 199 199 199
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Table 3 members. No plastic deformation was accepted for structural

Sectional Properties of Bosporus Suspension Bridge. elements.
Moreover, while three-dimensional models of the bridges were
A Iyy Izz
m2 m4 m4 prepared, great care has been given to boundary conditions and
links to coincide with actual values. In both bridges, rocker
Main cable 0.205 3.344e  3 3.344e  3 bearings were modeled as in real structures. Details of rocker
Backstay cable 0.219 3.817e  3 3.817e  3 bearings for both bridges is shown in Fig. 3. Due to the fact that
Hanger 1.963e  3 3.068e  7 3.068e  7
Deck 0.891 1.291 63.61
these bearings have great impact on the mode shapes and orders
Tower 0.6223 1 3.76 of deck, in these kinds of finite element modeling works , it should
0.6346 1.23 3.91 be taken into consideration.
0.6468 1.49 4.06 To be able to define the link of the towers with the main rock,
0.6509 1.59 4.11
soil-structure interaction was investigated. During the construc-
0.6637 1.91 4.26
0.6726 2.14 4.35 tion, foot of towers and main cable anchorages of both suspension
0.6927 2.28 4.62 bridges were directly anchored by reaching the main rock. In the
0.6986 2.43 4.69 research that following results have been found depending on the
characteristics of the foundation soil.
A: Cross-sectional area, Iyy, Izz: Moments of inertia.

Bending moment for base section of tower at static condition

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
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

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

3
Mass per unit volume (ton/m ) 8.30 8.08 8.82 7.85 12.4
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 189.3 189.3 98.1 196.1 196.1
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Table 6 acquired from this study, a view was held about the accuracy of
Sectional Properties of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge. analytical models.
Comparison between analytical studies for Bosporus and Fatih
A Iyy Izz
m2 m4 m4
Sultan Mehmet suspension bridges expressed in Tables 9 and 10.

Main cable 0.36615 0.0107 0.0107 3.4. Simulated earthquake ground motion
Backstay cable 0.39129 0.0122 0.0122
Hanger 5.064 E–03 2.041 E–06 2.041 E–06
Depending on earthquake criteria at that time, both suspen-
Deck 1.25816 1.7318 129.273
Tower 1.4865 0.9929 5.0152 sion bridges were designed according to much lower earthquake
1.441 0.7924 4.2921 loads. But according to results of analysis, it has been observed
1.374 0.5494 3.3472 that both of them performed a better performance than earth-
1.3335 0.43 2.8398 quake loads according to which they were designed. Earthquake
1.2751 0.2901 2.1927
1.2029 0.1847 1.6311
specifications that have been used for the construction of
0.4699 0.5574 3.5925 Bosporus Bridge were prepared upon request of Turkish republic
0.3109 0.3053 2.4191 by Government of Japan International Engineering consultant
association in 1967 [24]. Basic horizontal seismic coefficient 0.10
A: Cross-sectional area, Iyy, Izz: Moments of inertia.
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
studies, likewise Brownjohn et al. [8] and Apaydın [10] did followed by being modified by the Consultant, Freeman Fox and
work for Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge. By comparing the results Botek, 0.10 as a horizontal seismic coefficients and 0.55 as a
obtained from previous researches with results that were vertical earthquake coefficient were accepted [20].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
706 N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

12370 30800
8350 4020

2200 2200
4493
3000

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

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

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

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

Table 7 Table 9
Result of Free vibration analysis for Bosporus Suspension Bridge. 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.

SEE (Level 2): Safety Evaluation Earthquake Ground Motion

associated with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years.
Table 8
Result of Free vibration analysis for Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.
Under exposure to the Functional Evaluation Earthquake
Mode number Mode shape Period Frequency (FEE) ground motion the damage level will be minimal
(essentially elastic performance) and the functionality of the
S Cyc/s
bridge will continue without interruption. This ground motion
Mode-1 1st Lsym 14.3958 0.0694 refers to the high probability earthquakes that can affect the
Mode-2 1st Vasym Long 10.0074 0.0999 structure one or twice during its lifetime. This earthquake is
Mode-3 2st Vasym Long 6.7547 0.1480 generally associated with a 50% probability of exceedance in 50
Mode-4 1st Vsym 6.4089 0.1560
years. Due to specific seismo-tectonic, the FEE earthquake will be
Mode-5 1st Lasym 4.8217 0.2074
Mode-6 2st Lsym 4.5288 0.2208 taken as the site-specific ground motion that would result from
Mode-7 2st Lasym Tw 4.2229 0.2368 the Mw ¼7.5 scenario earthquake on the Main Marmara Fault.
Mode-8 3rd Lsym Tw 3.9802 0.2512 Under exposure to Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) ground
Mode-9 Tsym 3.8131 0.2622 motion only repairable damage is allowed, such that, the damage
Mode-10 3rd Lsym Tw 3.7098 0.2695
can be repaired with a minimum risk of losing functionality
Lsym: Lateral symmetric; Vasym: Vertical asymmetric; Vsym: Vertical symmetric; without endangering and lives. In consideration of regional
T: Torsional; Tw Tower; Long: Longitudinal. earthquake occurrences this level of ground motion will be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
708 N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710

associated with a site-specific probabilistic ground motion No damage due to collision between tower and deck
associated with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years [25]. No damage at expansion joints.
The performance criteria for both suspension bridges under
SEE require that The safety evaluation earthquake ground motion was applied to
the bridges. Three components of SEE ground motion were
No damage to main and hanger cables (within tensile strength) applied in the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions
No slipping of cable clamps simultaneously. This waves are shown in Fig. 7.
Only light damage in towers with no local buckling
No damage at rocker bearings (within their yield point) 3.5. Non-linear time history response analysis for two suspension
bridges
Table 10
Comparison of Analytical studies for Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge.
After preparing the detailed structural models of Bosporus and
Mode number Apaydın Brownjohn et al. Current study Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridges and the preparation of site-specific
ground motion for both bridges, non-linear 3-D finite element
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) time history analysis has been done that is preferred for long span
bridges. Therefore, the seismic performance evaluation of two
1 0.074 0.076 0.0694
2 0.111 0.108 0.0999
suspension bridges is undertaken. Three-dimensional non-linear
3 0.155 0.125 0.1480 time history analyses were performed in longitudinal, transverse
4 0.159 0.145 0.1560 and vertical directions for the bridges
5 0.217 0.159 0.2074 Displacement time histories and stresses at critical points of
6 0.220 0.211 0.2208
the bridges are computed and their earthquake performances
7 0.253 0.232 0.2368
8 0.276 0.243 0.2512 under the action of scenario earthquake are estimated. As
9 0.278 0.250 0.2622 mentioned before, the performance criteria under this earthquake
10 0.288 0.266 0.2695 require: no damage to main and hanger cables, no slipping of
cable clamps, only light damage in towers with no local buckling,

SEE GROUND MOTION- X DIRECTION SEE GROUND MOTION- X DIRECTION

600 400
300
400
200
200 100
0
MG
MG

0
-100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-200 -200
-300
-400
-400
-600 -500
TIME TIME
SEE GROUND MOTION- Y DIRECTION SEE GROUND MOTION- Y DIRECTION
400 400
300 300
200 200
100
100
MG
MG

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

SEE GROUND MOTION- Z DIRECTION SEE GROUND MOTION- Z DIRECTION

300 300

200 200
100 100
0
MG
MG

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

-400 -300
TIME 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 Table 13

both suspension bridges were originally designed for much lower Displacement check of deck of two suspension bridges
earthquake loads, they exhibited satisfactory performance.
Location Direction
Correlation with same kind of finite element analysis is
beneficial because non-linear time history analysis for suspension Transverse Longitudinal Vertical
bridges is a challenging study. In order to check the accuracy of
analysis, the calculated results were compared with retrofitting Displacements of Deck-Bosporus Bridge

projects which previously were made by Turkish state highways. Center of Deck (m) 1.54 – 1.154
Retrofit project results can be obtained from project reports and End of Deck (m) – 1.078 0
basic design documents prepared for the General Directorate of
Displacements of Deck -Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge
State Highways (Turkey) [25].
Calculated stresses at the main span and side spans in the main Center of Deck (m) 2.15 – 0.57
cable of both bridges were controlled with retrofit project values. End of Deck (m) – 0.89 0
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 The existing capacity of expansion joint, which is located at the
suspension bridges and also were investigated. Besides these, point where deck of Bosporus bridge and approach viaducts are
regarding the tower, the tower base bending, shear and normal combined, was obtained from original drawings as 1.070 m.
force values for both bridges were controlled. All these results for However, from non-linear analysis result, 1.078 m displacement
the two bridges are given in Tables 11 and 12. As a result of this was obtained under the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE). It
analysis, it has been observed that two bridges showed a good means that bridge deck will be damaged by colliding to expansion
performance during the possible Istanbul earthquake. joints.
Apart from the stresses in the main cables, backside cables and
towers, displacements were investigated at the critical points of 3.6. Time history analysis with the retrofit action recommended for
the deck of both bridges. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge deck Bosporus Bridge
displacements were normal limit in longitudinal, vertical and
transverse directions but critical displacements were obtained As it was detected that in the longitudinal direction of the
for Bosporus Bridge deck in longitudinal direction (Table 13). Bosporus Bridge, critical displacement was reached and it could
give a damage to expansion joint, a solution which will limit the
Table 11 movement of deck in the longitudinal direction was investigated.
Assessment of seismic performance of Bosporus Bridge. 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
Current study Retrofit project
Results Results [25]
thought that the use of hysteretic dampers will be appropriate.
Although application of damper affects the distribution of internal
Tensile Strength of Main 137000 133674 loads (see Table 11), the main purpose of damper is to reduce the
Cable (kN ) amount of displacements of suspended structures in longitudinal
Tensile Strength of Side span 145000 142687
direction.
Cable ( kN )
Axial Force of Main Cable at 117100 111100 For this purpose, application of hysteretic damper which is
Tower Top Saddle (kN) composed of E-shaped elements that is made of steel has been
Shearing Force of Main Cable at 3591 4513 decided (the hysteretic damper are supplied by an optimized
Tower Top Saddle (kN) E-shaped elements composed by steel).
Base Section of Tower Column- 131448 127578
Axial Force (kN)
The hysteretic damper has following characteristics:
Base Section of Tower Column- 4920 4049
Shearing Force (kN) yielding force: 2000 kN
Base Section of Tower Column- 168653 149604 maximum plastic force: 2300 kN
Bending Moment (kN-m)
elastic displacement before plasticization: 14(77) mm
maximum plastic displacement: 200(7100) mm

Units of hysteretic damper that has these features was put in

Table 12
Assessment of seismic performance of Fatih Sultan Mehmet Bridge.
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
Current study Retrofit project 3-D time history analysis was replicated for Bosporus Bridge. In
results results [25] this way, deck displacement which is 1.078 m in longitudinal
direction was lowered to 0.46 m by putting 4 units of hysteretic
Tensile Strength of Main 183500 203961
Cable (kN ) damper to the both ends of deck (Table 14).
Tensile Strength of Side span 198900 219100
Cable ( kN )
Axial Force of Main Cable at 156400 164967 4. Conclusion
Tower Top Saddle (kN)
Shearing Force of Main Cable at 3866 3867
In this study, the results from earthquake performance
Tower Top Saddle (kN)
Base Section of Tower Column- 167700 184702 assessment and retrofit investigations for Fatih Sultan Mehmet
Axial Force (kN) and Bosporus suspension bridges were given, and hysteretic
Base Section of Tower Column- 3807 3826 damper was used to minimize the displacement in the long-
Shearing Force (kN) itudinal direction of deck that came as critical in Bosporus Bridge.
Base Section of Tower Column- 189208 167609
Bending Moment (kN-m)
For this purpose, 3-dimensional finite element models of both
bridges were prepared in the same study and the results of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
710 N. Memisoglu Apaydın / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 702–710
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) 1.54 – 1.154
End of deck (m) – 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
Boğazic- 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, Dumanoğlu 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 Boğazic- i Suspension
Bridge, Report No: 89-5. Istanbul-Turkey: Department of Earthquake
Engineering Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute,
Boğazic- i University; 1989.
[7] Brownjohn JMW, Dumanoğlu 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, Dumanoğlu 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] Dumanoğlu 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, Boğazic- 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] Dumanoğlu AA, Severn RT. Stochastic response of suspension bridges to
earthquake forces. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1990.
[13] Adanur S, Dumanoğlu AA, Bayraktar A. Asma Köprülerin Lineer Olmayan
Dinamik Davranıs-ının _Incelenmesi, 4. Ulusal Deprem Mühendisleri Konfer-
ansı: 17–19 Eylül-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 Boğazic- i Köprüsü (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.