Advertisement

Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 443–464 | Cite as

Structural performance of Nissibi cable-stayed bridge during the main and aftershocks of Adıyaman-Samsat earthquake on March 2, 2017

  • Alemdar BayraktarEmail author
  • Ashraf Ashour
  • Halil Karadeniz
  • Altok Kurşun
  • Arif Erdiş
Original Paper
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

The structural performances of long span cable-stayed bridges having different elements such as pylons, stayed cables and decks are very sensitive to earthquake ground motions due to their highly statically indeterminacy. Therefore, responses of pylon, cable and deck components of long span cable-stayed bridges should be continuously monitored to prevent structural damages. The present study aims to investigate the responses of pylons, stayed cables and deck components of Nissibi cable-stayed bridge during the main (Mw = 5.5) and aftershocks (Mw = 3.5-4.4) of Adıyaman-Samsat (Turkey) earthquake on March 2, 2017. Firstly, the properties of structural and fixed monitoring systems of Nissibi bridge are introduced, and active faults and earthquake zoning maps of Adıyaman, acceleration records and shake map of main and aftershocks of the earthquake are presented. Then, responses of the pylon, deck and cable elements during the main and aftershocks are obtained using the data taken from the fixed bridge monitoring system. The forces in cables and accelerations in the two pylons and deck are evaluated and compared with each other.

Keywords

Cable-stayed bridge Adıyaman-Samsat earthquake (March 2, 2017) Main and aftershock effects Bridge monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express sincere thanks to General Directorate of Highways, the 9th Regional Directorate of Highways, GÜLSAN Inc. and EMAY Inc. for their contributions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest

References

  1. AFAD. (2017). Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster & Emergency Management Authority. http://kyhdata.deprem.gov.tr/2K/kyhdata_v4.php. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  2. Bayraktar, A., Ashour, A., Kurşun, A., & Erdiş, A. (2018). Monitored structural behavior of a long span cable-stayed bridge under environmental effects. Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, 4(4), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayraktar, A., Türker, T., Tadla, J., Kurşun, A., & Erdiş, A. (2017). Static and dynamic field load testing of the long span Nissibi cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 94, 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, G., Yan, D., Wang, W., Zheng, M., Ge, L., & Liu, F. (2007). Assessment of the bill emerson memorial cable-stayed bridge based on seismic instrumentation data. RI05-023 Final Report, University Transportation Center at the University of Missouri-Rolla, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Dong, J., Yan, X., & Li, S. (2018). Cable force monitoring and prediction for cable group of long-span cable-supported bridges. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 8(4), 597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feng, M. Q., Fukuda, Y., Chen, Y., Soyoz, S., Lee, S. (2008). Long-term structural performance monitoring of bridges phase II: Development of baseline model and methodology for health monitoring and damage assessment. Final Report, State of California Department of Transportation, USA.Google Scholar
  7. İmamoğlu, M. Ş., Bedirhanoğlu, İ., Öncü, M. E., Şimşek, Z. (2017). 02 March 2017 Adiyaman Samsat earthquake pre-evaluation report. Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey.Google Scholar
  8. Li, H., & Ou, J. (2016). The state of the art in structural health monitoring of cable-stayed bridges. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 6(1), 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li, Y., Song, R., & Van De Lindt, J. W. (2014). Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequences. Journal of Structural Engineering, 140(12), 04014095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loh, C.-H., & Lee, Z.-K. (1997). Seismic monitoring of a bridge: Assessing dynamic characteristics from both weak and strong ground excitations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26(2), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mao, J.-X., Wang, H., Feng, D.-M., Tao, T.-Y., & Zheng, W.-Z. (2018). Investigation of dynamic properties of long-span cable-stayed bridges based on one-year monitoring data under normal operating condition. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 25(5), e2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NBP. (2012). Nissibi bridge project, Gülsan, Yüksel Proje and Wiecon Company, İstanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  13. NBR. (2015), Nissibi bridge reports. Gülsan Company, İstanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  14. Ruiz-García, J. (2012). Mainshock-aftershock ground motion features and their influence in building’s seismic response. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 16(5), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruiz-García, J., & Aguilar, J. D. (2017). Influence of modeling assumptions and aftershock hazard level in the seismic response of post-mainshock steel framed buildings. Engineering Structures, 140, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siringoringo, D. M., Fujino, Y., & Namikawa, K. (2014). Seismic response analyses of the Yokohama bay cable-stayed bridge in the 2011 great east Japan earthquake. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 19(8), A4014006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Song, R., Li, Y., & Van De Lindt, J. W. (2014). Impact of earthquake ground motion characteristics on collapse risk of post-mainshock buildings considering aftershocks. Engineering Structures, 81, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Song, R., Li, Y., & Van de Lindt, J. W. (2016). Loss estimation of steel buildings to earthquake mainshock–aftershock sequences. Structural Safety, 61, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Svensson, H. (2012). Cable-stayed bridges. New Jersey: Ernst and Sohn Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. VCE. (2012). Bridge monitoring system, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  21. Web-1. (2017). http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/448. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  22. Web-2. (2017). http://www.mta.gov.tr/eng/maps/active-fault-1250000. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
  23. Web-4. (2017). http://www.deprem.gov.tr/en/depremdokumanlari/1507. Accessed 5 Oct 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emeritus ProfessorAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.University of BradfordBradfordUK
  3. 3.İstanbul Esenyurt UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.GÜLSAN Inc.IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations