Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 314318

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Technical Note

Nonlinear dynamic analysis of base isolated cable-stayed bridge under

earthquake excitations
Barbaros Atmaca a,n, Muhammet Yurdakul b, evket Ate a
a
b

Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey

Bayburt University, Department of Civil Engineering, 69000 Turkey

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Available online 16 August 2014

In this paper, it is aimed to determine the earthquake effects on cable-stayed bridge isolated by single
concave friction pendulum bearings (SCFP). In this context, Manavgat cable-stayed bridge is selected as a
numerical application. The selected bridge has 202 m composite deck and 42 m steel tower. 3D nite
element models (FEM) of the base isolated and non-isolated bridge are modeled by using SAP2000.
Three different earthquakes which are 11 December 1999 Dzce, 23 November 2011 Van and 13 March
1992 Erzincan earthquakes are subjected to the 3D FEM models in order to determine the seismic
behavior of the bridges. BOL-090 and BOL-000; ERCIS-EW and ERCIS-NS; ERZ-NS and ERZ-EW
components of ground motions obtained from PEER and AFAD are applied to the bridges at the
longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively. Nonlinear time history analysis is executed to
determine the dynamic responses of the bridge. Comparison of dynamic behavior of isolated and nonisolated bridge with and without the SCFP bearings under three different earthquake motions has been
conducted. The results obtained from analyses of 3D FEM of the bridge are presented by graphics and
tables in detail. It is seen that using of isolation system reduces the destructive effects of earthquakes on
the bridge.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Seismic isolation
Cable-stayed bridges
Finite element model
Single concave friction pendulum (SCFP)
bearing

1. Introduction
Cable-stayed bridges are very important engineering structure
due to the high costs and logistical importance. The failures of the
bridges during earthquakes result in signicant consequences.
Hence, it strengthened against to earthquake is an important issue.
If the fundamental period of structure is lengthened or energy
dissipating of structure is increased, the seismic forces on bridge
may be reduced. Thus, seismic isolation system may be an alternative
approach to protect bridges from damages of severe earthquakes.
Seismic isolation systems have been successfully applied on new and
existing structures. The most comprehensive literature researches about
base isolation and base isolation systems are carried out by Buckle and
Mayes [2], Jangid and Data [6], Kunde and Jangid [7], Lin and Tadjbakhsh
[8], Kelly [9], Tsai et al. [10], Morgan and Mahin [11], Panchal et al. [12],
Khoshnoudian and Rabiei [13].
In the literature, there are some studies related to structural
performance evaluation of base isolated long span highway bridges.
Tsopelas et al. [14] carried out an experimental study on seismically

Corresponding author: Tel.: 90 462 377 43 88; fax: 90 462 377 26 06.
E-mail addresses: atmaca@ktu.edu.tr (B. Atmaca),
myurdakul@bayburt.edu.tr (M. Yurdakul), sates@ktu.edu.tr (. Ate).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.013
0267-7261/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

isolated bridge with friction pendulum bearing and non-isolated

bridge to compare seismic excitation. The seismic responses of the
isolated and non-isolated cable-stayed bridge are compared by Soneji
and Jangid [15]. Numerical investigations have been carried out on
the base isolation effect of the DCFP bearings by Kim and Yun [16].
Tsai et al. [17] conducted experimental and numerical studies for
structures having sliding type isolators. Yurdakul and Ates [18]
studied on a two dimensional-and eight-story of a building with
and without isolation system to investigate of the effectiveness of the
seismic isolation system on the buildings. Soni et al. [20] described a
mathematical model and force-displacement relationships of double
variable frequency pendulum isolator. Behavior of this isolator is
examined by varying its geometry and coefcient of friction of the
sliding surfaces. Ates and Constantinou [19] examined on a curved
bridge isolated with friction pendulum bearings are placed between
the deck and the piers.

2. Manavgat cable-stayed bridge

The bridge is 202 m long and 13.7 m in width, with equal spans
of 101 m; and designed for two lanes of road trafc shown in Fig. 1.
The bridge have approximately 42 m shape steel tower. The
tower has a hollow hexagonal cross-section. The deck of bridge is

B. Atmaca et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 314318

composite and consists of 25 cm thick concrete, 10 cm thick

asphalt and steel proles. For more details about bridge, the
reader is referred to Atmaca and Ates [1].
The schematic form of Manavgat cable-stayed bridge and
location of the SCFP bearings is shown in Fig. 2. Deck of the bridge
is supported with 28 steel cables which is a link to tower. The
distance between the tower and the closest cable to the tower is
19.6 m while the distance between cables is 12 m. Distance
between supports which are on shore and last cable connection
point on the deck is 9.4 m.

3. Numerical computations
Nonlinear time history analyses of the isolated and nonisolated bridges are performed in SAP2000 [3] in order to
determine the dynamic behavior of the bridge. 3D FEM of nonisolated bridge is given in Fig. 3. The only difference between two
bridges is that 10 isolator devices implemented on the supports of
the isolated bridge: Two isolators of which are placed to each
abutments, and the others are placed to between the pylon base

315

and foundation as seen in Fig. 2. Damping ratio is specied as 5%

and the SCFP bearing selected as an isolator device. Effective
radius of curvature, Reff 1.4 m, frictional coefcients, m 0.09,
and displacement capacities, d 0.40 m are taking account of SCFP
properties for numerical analyses.
BOL-000 and BOL-090 components of 11 December 1999
Duzce, ERZ-EW and ERZ-NS components of 13 March 1992
Erzincan obtained from PEER [4], and ERCIS-EW and ERCIS-NS
components of 23 November 2011 Van-Ercis obtained from AFAD
[5] earthquake ground motions are used in dynamic analyses. ERZNS, BOL-090, and ERCIS-EW components are applied to the bridge
at the X directions and ERZ-EW, BOL-000, and ERCIS-NS components are applied to the bridge at Y directions. The acceleration of
gravity is also included in the vertical component by using a ramp
function in the beginning of the time history in order to take into
account the effect of the dead load on the behavior of the of the
SCFP bearings.

4. Numerical results
4.1. Period of the bridge
The rst ve periods of the isolated and the non- isolated
bridges obtained from the modal analyses are given in Table 1.
Periods of the isolated bridge are considerably higher than the
periods of non-isolated bridge. Isolation devices used on bridge
lengthened period of bridge.
4.2. Deck response

Fig. 1. Manavgat cable-stayed bridge.

Maximum vertical displacements of the deck for three earthquakes are given in Fig. 4. Isolators signicantly decrease the
vertical displacement on the deck. Decreasing percentage of

Fig. 2. The schematic form of manavgat cable-stayed bridge.

Fig. 3. Finite element model of manavgat cable-stayed bridge.

316

B. Atmaca et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 314318

vertical displacements for Erzincan, Duzce and Ercis earthquake

ground motions are 79.88%, 86.34%, and 92.1%, respectively.
Maximum deck bending moments obtained from analysis are
given in Fig. 5. As can be seen from the gure isolators signicantly
decrease the deck bending moments. Decreasing percentage of
bending moment for Erzincan, Duzce and Ercis earthquake ground
motions are 86.97%, 92.52%, and 95.7%, respectively.
Similarly maximum deck shear forces obtained from analysis
are given in Fig. 6. Isolators signicantly decrease the shear force
on the bridge deck. Decreasing percentage of shear forces on
Erzincan, Duzce and Ercis earthquakes are 95.7%, 90.48%, and
95.24%, respectively.

Table 1
Periods for the isolated and non-isolated bridge.
Mode

Periods (s)

1
2
3
4
5

ISOLATED

NON-ISOLATED

2.673
2.018
1.712
1.171
0.823

0.825
0.536
0.452
0.435
0.330

Bending Moment (kNm)

Displacement (cm)

40

Erzincan
Isolated
Non-Isolated

20
0
-20
-40
0

10

15

20

25

8000

Erzincan
Isolated
Non-Isolated

4000
0
-4000
-8000
0

10

Time (s)
Bending Moment (kNm)

Displacement (cm)

40

Duzce
Isolated
Non-Isolated

20
0

-20
-40
0

10

20

30

40

50

Isolated
Non-Isolated

0
-4000
-8000
0

10

20

30

Bending Moment (kNm)

20
0
-20
-40
40

50

50

60

70

80

Ercis
Isolated
Non-Isolated

4000
0
-4000
-8000

90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (s)

Fig. 4. Maximum vertical displacements on the deck.

Fig. 5. Maximum bending moments on the deck.

2000

2000

Shear Force (kN)

Erzincan
Isolated
Non-Isolated

1000
0
-1000

Duzce
Isolated
Non-Isolated

1000
0
-1000
-2000

-2000
5

10

15

20

25

10

20

Time (s)

30

Time(s)

2000

Shear Force (kN)

60

8000

Time (s)

Shear Force (kN)

Displacement (cm)

Ercis

30

40

Time (s)

Isolated
Non-Isolated

20

25

Duzce
4000

60

40

10

20

8000

Time (s)

15

Time (s)

Ercis
Isolated
Non-Isolated

1000
0
-1000
-2000
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time(s)
Fig. 6. Maximum deck shear forces.

80

90

40

50

60

80

90

40

Erzincan-X
20

Isolated
Non-Isolated

0
-20
-40

Erzincan-Y
Isolated
Non-Isolated

20
0
-20
-40

10

15

20

25

10

15

20

25

Time(s)

40

40

Duzce-X
20

Isolated
Non-Isolated

0
-20

Displacement (cm)

Displacement (cm)

Time (s)

-40

Duzce-Y
Isolated
Non-Isolated

20
0
-20
-40

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

20

30

Time (s)

40

50

60

Time(s)

40

40

Displacement (cm)

Displacement (cm)

317

40

Displacement (cm)

Displacement (cm)

B. Atmaca et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 314318

Ercis-X
Isolated
Non-Isolated

20
0
-20
-40

Ercis-Y
Isolated
Non-Isolated

20
0
-20
-40

15

30

45

60

75

90

15

30

45

Time (s)

60

75

90

Time(s)

10000

100000

Shear Force (kN)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Fig. 7. Top of the bridge tower displacement on X and Y direction.

Erzincan
50000

Isolated
Non-Isolated

0
-50000

Erzincan
Isolated
Non-Isolated

5000
0
-5000
-10000

-100000
0

10

15

20

25

10

15

20

25

Time (s)

Time (s)
Shear Force (kN)

Bending Moment (kNm)

10000
100000

Duzce
Isolated
Non-Isolated

50000
0
-50000

Duzce
Isolated
Non-Isolated

5000
0
-5000
-10000
0

-100000
0

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

60

30

40

50

60

Time (s)

Time (s)
Shear Force (kN)

Bending Moment (kNm)

10000
100000

Ercis
50000

Isolated
Non-Isolated

0
-50000

Ercis
5000

Isolated
Non-Isolated

0
-5000
-10000
0

-100000
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Time (s)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Time (s)
Fig. 9. Maximum tower shear forces.

Fig. 8. Maximum tower bending moment.

4.3. Tower response

Top of the bridge tower displacements on X and Y direction for
three earthquakes are given in Fig. 7. It is seen in gures that X
direction displacement of tower for non-isolated and isolated
bridge are approximately similar but chancing of the displacement
frequency is high on non-isolated bridge; on the other hand, Y
direction displacement of tower for non-isolated and isolated

bridge is different from each other in terms of value and frequency

of displacement.
Maximum tower bending moments obtained from analysis are
given in Fig. 8. Isolators signicantly decrease the deck bending moments. Decreasing percentage of bending moments for
Erzincan, Duzce and Ercis earthquake ground motions are
60.22%, 88.91%, and 86.52%, respectively.
Maximum tower shear forces obtained from analysis are given
in Fig. 9. Isolators signicantly decrease the shear force of the

318

B. Atmaca et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 314318

bridge tower. Decreasing percentages of shear force for Erzincan,

Duzce and Ercis earthquake are 48.34%, 87.37%, and 62.93%,
respectively.
5. Conclusion
Seismic isolation of the bridges is generally applied by placing
isolator devices under the deck of the bridges. However in this
study it is preferred to isolate pylon from foundation. Namely
isolators are implemented between the pylon and the foundation.
Finite element model of the isolated and non-isolated bridges are
created with SAP2000. Nonlinear time history analysis is performed in order to investigate effectiveness of the seismic isolation
systems on the bridge. The main conclusions of this study can be
summarized as;
Isolation system increased periods of the bridge signicantly.
Increasing of the bridge period provide decreasing of transferred
acceleration so internal reactions of the bridge decrease as well.
Isolators signicantly decreased the vertical displacement,
bending moment and shear force of the bridge deck. Approximate
decreasing percentage of vertical displacements is 86%, bending
moment is 91% and shear force is 93% for Erzincan, Duzce and Ercis
earthquake ground motions, respectively.
Isolators signicantly decrease the bending moment and shear
force of the bridge tower. Approximate decreasing percentage of
bending moment is 78% and shear force is 66% for Erzincan, Duzce
and Ercis earthquake ground motions, respectively.
The results show that usage of the isolation devices offers some
advantages for the internal forces on the deck for the considered
isolated bridge as per the non-isolated bridge. Finally, it should be
noted that isolation system is more effective when the bridges are
subjected to earthquake.
References
[1] Atmaca B, Ates S. Construction stage analysis of three-dimensional cablestayed bridges. Steel Compos Struct 2012;12(5):41326.

[2] Buckle IG, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: history, application, and performance-a
world view. Earthq Spectra 1990;6(2):161201.
[3] Computers and Structures Inc. , SAP2000: Static and dynamic nite element
analysis of structures, Berkeley, CA, USA; 2007.
[4] PEER, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Centre.
[5] AFAD, Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency Earthquake Department, National Strong Motion Observation
Network; 2013.
[6] Jangid RS, Datta TK. Seismic behavior of base-isolated buildings: a-state- ofthe-art-review. Struct Build 1995;110(2):186203.
[7] Kunde MC, Jangid RS. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: a-state-of-the-art
review. Electron J Struct Eng 2003;3:14070.
[8] Lin BC, Tadjbakhsh IG. Effect of vertical motion on friction driven systems.
Earthq Eng Struct D 1986;14:60922.
[9] Kelly JM. The role of damping in seismic isolation. Earthq Eng Struct D 1999;28
(1):320.
[10] Tsai CS, Chiang TC, Chen BJ. Finite element formulations and theoretical study
for variable curvature friction pendulum system. Eng Struct 2003;25:171930.
[11] Morgan TA, Mahin SA. Performance-based design of seismic isolated buildings
considering multiple performance objectives. Smart Struct Syst 2008;4
(5):65566.
[12] Panchal VR, Jangid RS, Soni DP, Mistry BB. Response of the double variable
frequency pendulum isolator under triaxial ground excitations. J Earthq Eng
2010;14:52758.
[13] Khoshnoudian F, Rabiei M. Seismic response of double concave friction
pendulum base-isolated structures considering vertical component of earthquake. Adv Struct Eng 2010;13(1):114.
[14] Tsopelas P, Constantinou MC, Kim YS, Okamoto S. Experimental study of FPS
system in bridge seismic isolation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1996;25(1):6578.
[15] Soneji B, Jangid RS. Effectiveness of seismic isolation for cable-stayed bridges.
Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2006;6(1):7796.
[16] Kim YS, Yun CB. Seismic response characteristics of bridges using double
concave friction pendulum bearings with tri-linear behavior. Eng Struct
2007;29:308293.
[17] Tsai CS, Lin YC, Chen WS, Chiang TC, Chen BJ. Piecewise exact solution for
seismic mitigation analysis of bridges equipped with sliding-type isolators.
Struct Eng Mech 2010;35(2):20515.
[18] Yurdakul M, Ates S. Modeling of triple concave friction pendulum bearings for
seismic isolation of buildings. Struct Eng and Mech 2011;40(3):31534.
[19] Ates S, Constantinou M. Example of application of response spectrum analysis
for seismically isolated curved bridges including soil-foundation effects. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31(4):64861.
[20] Soni DP, Mistry BB, Jangid RS, Panchal VR. Seismic response of double variable
frequency pendulum isolator. Struct Control Health Monit 2011;18(4):45070.