Advertisement

Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 719–739 | Cite as

Responses of the odd couple Carquinez, CA, suspension bridge during the Mw6.0 south Napa earthquake of August 24, 2014

  • Mehmet ÇelebiEmail author
  • S. Farid Ghahari
  • Ertugrul Taciroglu
Original Paper
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The behavior of the suspension bridge in Carquinez, CA, during the Mw6.0 24 August 2014 South Napa, CA earthquake is studied. Utilizing data from an extensive array of accelerometers that recorded the earthquake-excited motions, dynamic characteristics such as modes, corresponding frequencies and damping are identified and compared with previous studies that used ambient data of the deck only plus mathematical models. Data are systematically analyzed for vertical, transverse and torsional motions of the deck, and transverse, longitudinal and torsional motions of the towers. The transverse and vertical fundamental mode frequencies of the deck are the same (0.17 Hz) due to coupling. Higher frequencies for transverse and vertical coupled modes are also the same at 0.46 Hz and 0.98 Hz. Tower translational frequencies are 0.39 Hz in the transverse direction and 0.46 Hz in the longitudinal direction, and are also coupled with those of the deck. Coupling of torsional modes of the tower and deck is also identified. A beating effect is observed, particularly for torsional motions.

Keywords

Suspension bridge Earthquake response Instrumentation Acceleration Coupled modes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) of California Geological Survey (CGS) instrumentation and successful set of data from this important structure in collaboration with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The authors thank the informational support they received from Anthony Shakal, Hamid Haddadi and Mo Huang (all CSMIP) and from Pat Hipley (Caltrans). Critical internal USGS reviews by Roger Borcherdt, Chris Stephens and Brad Aagaard are appreciated.

References

  1. 1.
    Shakal A, Haddadi H, Huang M, Stephens C (2014) Highlights of strong-motion data from the M6.0 south Napa earthquake of August 24, 2014. In: Strong motion instrumentation program, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Çelebi M, Ghahari SF, Taciroglu E (2015) Unusual downhole and surface free-field records near the Carquinez strait bridges during the 24 August 2014 Mw 6.0 South Napa, California, Earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 86(4):1128–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conte JP, He X, Moaveni B, Masri SF, Caffrey JP, Wahbeh M, Tasbihgoo F, Whang DH, Elgamal A (2008) Dynamic testing of Alfred Zampa memorial bridge. J Struct Eng 134:1006–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    He X, Moaveni B, Conte JP, Elgamal A, Masri SF (2009) “System Identification of Alfred Zampa Memorial Bridge Using Dynamic Field Test Data. J Struct Eng 135:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nayeri RD, Tasbihgoo F, Wahbeh M, Caffrey JP, Masri SF, Conte JP, Elgamal A (2009) Study of time-domain techniques for modal parameter identification of a long suspension bridge with dense sensor arrays. J Eng Mech 135:669–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betti R, Hong AL (2008) Identification of the baseline modal parameters of the Carquinez suspension bridge using ambient vibration data. In: SMIP08 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, pp 63–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hong AL, Ubertini F, Betti R (2010) Wind analysis of a suspension bridge: identification and finite-element model simulation. J Struct Eng 137:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nayeri MRD (2007) Analytical and experimental studies in system identification and modeling for structural control and health monitoring. University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun M, Makki Alamdari M, Kalhori H (2017) Automated operational modal analysis of a cable-stayed bridge. J Bridge Eng 22:05017012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magalhães F, Cunha A, Caetano E (2012) Vibration based structural health monitoring of an arch bridge: From automated OMA to damage detection. Mech Syst Signal Process 28:212–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cross EJ, Koo KY, Brownjohn JMW, Worden K (2013) Long-term monitoring and data analysis of the Tamar Bridge. Mech Syst Signal Process 35(1–2):16–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gentile C, Saisi A (2015) Continuous dynamic monitoring of a centenary iron bridge for structural modification assessment. Front Struct Civ Eng 9:26–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abdel-Ghaffar AM, Scanlan RH (1985) Ambient vibration studies of golden gate bridge: I. Suspended structure. J Eng Mech 111(4):463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aabdel-Ghaffar AM, Scanlan RH (1985) Ambient vibration studies of golden gate bridge: II. Pier-tower structure. J Eng Mech 101(4):483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vincent GS (1962) Golden Gate bridge vibration studies. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 127(2):667–701Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vincent GS, Labse M (1962) Correlation of predicted and observed suspension bridge behavior. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 127(2):646–666Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Çelebi M (2012) Golden Gate Bridge response: a study with low-amplitude data from three earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 28(2):487–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siringoringo DM, Fujino Y, Namikawa K (2013) Seismic response analyses of the yokohama bay cable-stayed bridge in the 2011 great east Japan earthquake. J Bridg Eng 19:A4014006Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siringoringo DM, Fujino Y (2006) Observed dynamic performance of the Yokohama-Bay Bridge from system identification using seismic records. Struct Control Health Monit 13:226–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurata M, Kim J, Zhang Y, Lynch JP, van der Linden GW, Jacob V, Thometz E, Hipley P, Sheng L-H (2011) Long-term assessment of an autonomous wireless structural health monitoring system at the new Carquinez Suspension Bridge. In: Nondestructive characterization for composite materials, aerospace engineering, civil infrastructure, and homeland security 2011Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurata M, Kim J, Lynch JP, van der Linden GW, Sedarat H, Thometz E, Hipley P, Sheng L-H (2013) Internet-enabled wireless structural monitoring systems: development and permanent deployment at the New Carquinez suspension bridge. J Struct Eng 139:1688–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bendat JS, Piersol AG (1980) Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Auger F, Flandrin P (1995) Improving the readability of time-frequency and time-scale representations by the reassignment method. IEEE Trans Signal Process 43:1068–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    François A, Flandrin P, Gonçalvès P, Lemoine O (1996) Time-frequency toolbox for use with matlab—reference guide, pp 1995–1996Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    MATLAB (2000) Commercial integrating technical computing program. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA. https://www.mathworks.com/
  26. 26.
    Lus H, Betti R, Longman RW (1999) Identification of linear structural systems using earthquake-induced vibration data. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(11):1449–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghahari SF, Abazarsa F, Ghannad MA, Taciroglu E (2013) Response-only modal identification of structures using strong motion data. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(8):1221–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abazarsa F, Nateghi F, Ghahari SF, Taciroglu E (2016) Extended blind modal identification technique for nonstationary excitations and its verification and validation. J Eng Mech 142(2):04015078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghahari SF, Abazarsa F, Taciroglu E (2017) Blind modal identification of non-classically damped structures under non-stationary excitations. Struct Control Health Monit 24(6):e1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghahari SF, Abazarsa F, Ghannad MA, Celebi M, Taciroglu E (2014) Blind modal identification of structures from spatially sparse seismic response signals. Struct Control Health Monit 21(5):649–674Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Overschee P, De Moor B, Van Overschee P, De Moor B (1996) Subspace identification for linear system: theory—implementation—applications. In: Proceeding of the International Conference on IEEE engineering in medicine and biology societyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boroschek RL, Mahin SA, Zeris CA. Seismic response and analytical modeling of three instrumented buildings. In: Proceedings of fourth US national conference on earthquake engineering, 1990, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boroschek RL, Mahin SA (1991) Investigation of the seismic response of a lightly-damped torsionally-coupled building. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Çelebi M (2004) Responses of a 14-story (Anchorage, Alaska) building to far-distance (Mw = 7.9) Denali Fault (2002) and near distance earthquakes in 2002. Earthq Spectra 20:693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Çelebi M (2006) Recorded earthquake responses from the integrated seismic monitoring network of the Atwood Building, Anchorage, Alaska. Earthq Spectra 22(4):847–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    James GH, Carne TG, Lauffer JP et al (1995) The natural excitation technique (NExT) for modal parameter extraction from operating structures. Modal Anal Int J Anal Exp Modal Anal 10(4):260Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet Çelebi
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. Farid Ghahari
    • 2
  • Ertugrul Taciroglu
    • 2
  1. 1.Earthquake Science Center, USGS (MS977)Menlo ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations