Effect of Spatial Variability and Propagation of Seismic Ground Motions on the Response of Multiply Supported Structures

  • A. Zerva
Conference paper

Abstract

The response of lifelines, modeled as two- and three-span continuous symmetric beams of various lengths, subjected to partially and fully correlated seismic ground motions is examined. The partial correlation of the input motions consists of a term that characterizes the loss of coherence and a term that represents the apparent propagation (phase difference). The analysis suggests that the propagation effects may be neglected when the motions at the site exhibit loss of coherence; however, when the motions are coherent, phase differences may produce higher or lower response than the one induced by fully correlated motions, depending on whether the dominant modes are antisymmetric or symmetric at the location along the beam and for the response quantity (bending moment or shear force) under consideration.

Keywords

Coherence Schiff Body Wave Fist 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hall, W.J., and Newmark, N.M. Seismic design of bridges-an overview of research needs. Proc. Workshop on Earthq. Resistance of Highway Bridges, Palo-Alto, California (1979) 164–181.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogdanoff, J.L, Goldberg, J.E., and Schiff, A.J. The effect of ground transmission time on the response of long structures. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 55 (1965) 627–640.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, N.E., and Galletly, R.D. The comparison of the response of a highway bridge to uniform ground shock and moving ground excitation. The Shock and Vibration Bull. 42 (1972) 75–85Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masri, S.F. Response of beams to propagating boundary excitation. Earthq. Eng. and Struc. Dyn. 4 (1976) 497–509.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abdel-Ghaffar, A.M., and Rubin, L.I. Suspension bridge response to multiple-support excitations. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 108 (1982) 419–435.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilson, J. C., and Jennings, P. C. Spatial variation of ground motion determined from accelerograms recorded on a highway bridge. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 75 (1985) 1515–1533.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zerva, A. Stochastic differential ground motion and structural response. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zerva, A., Ang, A. H-S., and Wen, Y.K. Lifeline response to spatially variable ground motions. Earthq. Eng. and Struc. Dyn. 16 (1988) 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harichandran, R. S., and Wang, W. Response of simple beam to spatially varying earthquake excitation. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 114 (1988) 1526–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zerva, A. Effect of spatial variation of ground motions on bridges. Proc. 5th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Methods (1988) 253–256.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harichandran, R.S., and Wang, W. Response of indeterminate two-span beam to spatially varying seismic excitation. Earthq. Eng. and Struc. Dyn. 19 (1990) 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zerva, A. Response of multi-span beams to spatially incoherent seismic ground motions. Earthq. Eng. and Struc. Dyn. 19 (1990) 819–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, Y.K., Zhang, R., and Yong, Y. Multiply supported pipeline under seismic wave excitations. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 116 (1990) 1094–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Filittov, A.T. Vibrations of Elastic Systems (in Russian). Academy of Ukrainian Sciences, Kiev, USSR 1956.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robinson, A.R. personal communication; CE 474-Dynamics of Framed Structures. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harichandran, R.S., and Vanmarcke, E.H. Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 114 (1986) 154–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shinozuka, M., and Deodatis, G. Stochastic wave models for seismic ground motion. Proc. of ICOSSAR 1989, San Francisco, CA (1989) 335–342.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clough, R.W., and Penzien,J. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, New York 1975.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hindy, A., and Novak, M. Pipeline response to random ground motion. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 106 (1980) 339–360.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luco, E., and Wong, H.L. Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion. Earthq. Eng. and Struc. Dyn. 14 (1986) 891–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luco, E., and Mita, A. Response of circular foundation to spatially random ground motion. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 113 (1987) 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moses, F., Ghosn, M., and Gobieski, J. Weigh-in-motion applied to bridge evaluation. Case Western Reserve University Report No. FHWA/OH-85/12, Cleveland, Ohio 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Zerva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Architectural EngineeringDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations