Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 241–259 | Cite as

Ambient vibration testing and seismic behavior of historical arch bridges under near and far fault ground motions

  • Barış Sevim
  • Sez Atamturktur
  • Ahmet Can Altunişik
  • Alemdar Bayraktar
Original Research Paper


This study investigates the effects of near and far fault ground motion on the seismic behavior of historical arch bridges through a combined numerical and experimental evaluation. The approach undertaken begins with finite element modeling of the arch bridge and identification of the most significant vibration modes of the bridge through ambient vibration testing. Uncertain parameters of the finite element model are then revised through systematic comparisons of the measured vibration models to those that are predicted by the model. The revised finite element model is used to predict the time history response for displacements and stresses through which the effect of the finite element model updating on model predictions are evaluated. Furthermore, displacements and stresses obtained considering both near and far fault ground motions are then compared. Results indicate that near fault ground motion imposes higher seismic demand on the arch bridge observed in both higher displacements and stresses.


Ambient vibration testing Finite element model revision Historical arch bridge Near and far fault ground motion Seismic behavior 



This research was supported by the TUBITAK and Karadeniz Technical University under Research Grant Nos. 106M038 and 2005.112.001.1, respectively.


  1. Adanur S, Altunisik AC, Bayraktar A, Akkose M (2012) Comparison of near-fault and far-fault ground motion effects on geometrically nonlinear earthquake behavior of suspension bridges. Nat Hazards 64:593–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANSYS (2014), Swanson Analysis System, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Atamturktur S, Laman J (2012) Finite element model correlation and calibration of historic monuments: review. J Struct Design Tall Spec Build 21(2):96–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atamturktur S, Sevim B (2011) Seismic performance assessment of masonry tile domes through non-linear finite element analysis. J Perform Constr Facil 26(4):410–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atamturktur S, Pavic A, Reynolds P, Boothby T (2009) Full-scale modal testing of vaulted gothic churches: lessons learned. J Exp Tech 33(4):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atamturktur S, Fanning P, Boothby T (2010) Traditional and operational modal testing of masonry vaults. ICE Eng Comput Mech 163(3):213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bathe KJ (1996) Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayraktar A, Altunisik AC, Turker T, Sevim B (2007) The model updating of historical masonry bridges using operational modal analysis method. In: Proceedings of the 1st national conference reinforcement and transfer into the future of historical structures, Ankara, Turkey, 429–440Google Scholar
  9. Bayraktar A, Altunışık AC, Sevim B, Türker T, Domaniç A, Taş Y (2009a) Vibration characteristics of Kömürhan highway bridge constructed with balanced cantilever method. J Perform Constr Facil 23(2):90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bayraktar A, Altunışık AC, Sevim B, Kartal ME, Türker T, Bilici Y (2009b) Comparison of near and far fault ground motion effects on the nonlinear response of dam–reservoir–foundation systems. Nonlinear Dyn 58(4):655–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bendat J, Piersol A (1986) Random data: analysis and measurement procedures, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Bensalem A, Fairfield CA, Sibbald A (1998) Damping effects on the NDT of soil backfilled arch bridges. J Br Inst NDT 40(2):107–116Google Scholar
  13. Brencich A, Sabia D (2008) Experimental identification of a multi-span masonry bridge: the Tanaro Bridge. Constr Build Mater 22(10):2087–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brincker R, Zhang L, Andersen P (2000) Modal identification from ambient responses using frequency domain decomposition. In: 18th international modal analysis conference, San Antonio, TX, vol 4062(2), pp 625–630Google Scholar
  15. Brown A, Saiidi MS (2011) Investigation of effect of near-fault motions on substandard bridge structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 10(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caetano E (2000) Dynamic of cable-stayed bridges: experimental assessment of cable-structure interaction, PhD Thesis. Engineering Faculty of University of Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi H (2007) Effects of near-fault ground motion and fault-rupture on the seismic response of reinforced concrete bridges, PhD Thesis, University of Nevada, RenoGoogle Scholar
  18. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2001) Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1769–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dreger D, Hurtado G, Chopra A, Larsen S (2007) Near-fault seismic ground motions. EERC 2007-033 Report, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. Fanning PJ, Boothby TE (2001) Three-dimensional modelling and full-scale testing of stone arch bridges. Comput Struct 79(29):2645–2662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frunzio G, Monaco M, Gesualdo A (2001) 3D FEM analysis of a roman arch bridge. Hist Constr 591–598Google Scholar
  22. Gentile C (2006) Ambient vibration-based model updating of similar R. C. arch bridges, Conference: 2006 IMAC-XXIV: conference and exposition on structural dynamics, St. Louis, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  23. Jia JF, Ou JP (2008) Seismic analyses of long-span cable-stayed bridges subjected to near-fault pulse-type ground motions. In: 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  24. Li T, Atamturktur S (2014) fidelity and robustness of detailed micromodeling, simplified micromodeling and macromodeling techniques for a masonry dome. J Perform Constr Facil 28(3):480–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ling-Kun CL, Li-Zhong J, Wei G, Wen-Shuo L, Zhi-Ping Z, Ge-Wei C (2004) The seismic response of high-speed railway bridges subjected to near-fault forward directivity ground motions using a vehicle-track-bridge element. Shock Vib. doi: 10.1155/2014/985602 Google Scholar
  26. OMA (2006) Release 4.0. Structural Vibration Solution A/S, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  27. Orozco GL, Ashford SA (2002) Effects of large velocity pulses on reinforced concrete bridge columns, PEER Report 2002/23. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  28. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre) (2014). http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/data
  29. Peeters B (2000) System identification and damage detection in civil engineering, PhD thesis. KU Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  30. Prabhu S, Atamturktur S, Brosnan D, Dorrance R, Messier P (2014) Foundation settlement analysis of fort Sumter National Monument: model development and predictive assessment. Eng Struct 65:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. PULSE (2006) Analyzers and Solutions, Release 11.2., Bruel and Kjaer, sound and vibration measurement A/S, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  32. Ramos JLFS (2007) Damage identification on masonry structures based on vibration signatures, PhD thesis, University of Minho, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  33. Ribeiro D, Calçada R, Delgado R, Brehm M, Zabel V (2012) Finite element model updating of a bowstring-arch railway bridge based on experimental modal parameters. Eng Struct 40:413–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodriguez O (2012) Bridge design for earthquake fault crossings: synthesis of design issues and strategies, California Polytechnic State University, MSc thesis. San Luis ObispoGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarhosis V, Oliveira DV, Lemos JV, Lourenco PB (2014) The effect of skew angle on the mechanical behaviour of masonry arches. Mech Res Commun 61:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sevim B, Bayraktar A, Altunışık AC, Atamtürktür S, Birinci F (2011) Assessment of nonlinear seismic performance of a restored historical arch bridge using ambient vibrations. Nonlinear Dyn 63(4):755–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW, Abrahamson NA (1997) Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismic Res Lett 68:199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Toker S, Unay AI (2004) Mathematical modelling and finite element analysis of masonry arch bridges. J Sci Gazi Univ 17(2):129–139Google Scholar
  39. Ural A (2005) Finite element analysis of historical arch bridge. International Earthquake Symposium, Kocaeli, pp 408–413Google Scholar
  40. WSTC (2007) Dynamic response of bridges to near-fault, forward directivity ground motions, Washington state transportation center (TRAC), Research Report, Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Zordan T, Briseghella B, Liu T (2014) Finite element model updating of a tied-arch bridge using Douglas-Reid method and Rosenbrock optimization algorithm. J Traffic Transp Eng 1(4):280–292Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barış Sevim
    • 1
  • Sez Atamturktur
    • 2
  • Ahmet Can Altunişik
    • 3
  • Alemdar Bayraktar
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringYıldız Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations