Effect of Spatial Variability and Propagation of Seismic Ground Motions on the Response of Multiply Supported Structures
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.
KeywordsGround Motion Shear Force Power Spectral Density Symmetric Mode Input Motion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.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.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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 14.Filittov, A.T. Vibrations of Elastic Systems (in Russian). Academy of Ukrainian Sciences, Kiev, USSR 1956.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 19.Hindy, A., and Novak, M. Pipeline response to random ground motion. J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE 106 (1980) 339–360.Google Scholar
- 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