Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Cámara Casado, Alfredo; Astiz Suárez, Miguel Angel (2012)
Publisher: E.T.S.I. Caminos, Canales y Puertos (UPM)
Languages: Spanish; Castilian
Types: Article
Subjects: TG, Ingeniería Civil y de la Construcción

Classified by OpenAIRE into

arxiv: Physics::Geophysics
Cable-stayed bridges represent nowadays key points in transport networks and their seismic behavior needs to be fully understood, even beyond the elastic range of materials. Both nonlinear dynamic (NL-RHA) and static (pushover) procedures are currently available to face this challenge, each with intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, and their applicability in the study of the nonlinear seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridges is discussed here. The seismic response of a large number of finite element models with different span lengths, tower shapes and class of foundation soil is obtained with different procedures and compared. Several features of the original Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) are modified in light of cable-stayed bridge characteristics, furthermore, an extension of MPA and a new coupled pushover analysis (CNSP) are suggested to estimate the complex inelastic response of such outstanding structures subjected to multi-axial strong ground motions.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] German National Annex - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, 2011. Ref.No: DIN EN 1998-1/NA.
    • [2] ATC-40: Seismic evaluation and retro t of concrete buildings, 1996. California Seismic Safety Comission.
    • [3] FEMA-273: NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington DC, 1997.
    • [4] H. Krawinkler, G. Seneviratna, Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures 20 (1998) 452{464.
    • [5] FEMA-356: Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington DC, 2000.
    • [6] FEMA-440: Improvements of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Washington DC, 2005.
    • [8] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 2: Bridges, 2005. Ref.No: EN 1998-2:2005.
    • [9] Z. Lu, H. Ge, T. Usami, Applicability of pushover analysis-based seismic performance evaluation procedure for steel arch bridges, Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1957{1977.
    • [10] G. Gosh, Y. Singh, S. Thakkar, Performance-based seismic design of a continuous bridge, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 177{182.
    • [11] A. Chopra, R. Goel, A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 31 (2002) 561{582.
    • [12] A. Chopra, R. Goel, C. Chintanapakdee, Evaluation of a modi ed mpa procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands, Earthquake Spectra 20 (2004) 757{778.
    • [13] B. Ferracuti, R. Pinho, M. Savoia, R. Francia, Veri cation of displacement-based adaptive pushover through multi-ground motion incremental dynamic analysis, Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 1789{ 1799.
    • [14] B. Gupta, S. Kunnath, Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra 16(2) (2000) 367{ 391.
    • [15] S. Antoniou, R. Pinho, Development and veri cation of a displacementbased adaptive pushover procedure, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(5) (2004) 643{661.
    • [16] V. Papanikolaou, A. Elnashai, J. Pareja, Limits of applicability of conventional and adaptive pushover analysis for seismic response assessment, Technical Report, Mid - America Earthquake Center, 2005.
    • [17] A. Abdel-Gha ar, Cable - stayed bridges under seismic action, in: Cable - stayed Bridges; Recent Developments and their Future, Elsevier Science Ltd., Yokohama (Japan), 1991, pp. 171{192.
    • [18] J. Lin, K. Tsai, Seismic analysis of two-way asymmetric building systems under bi-directional seismic ground motions, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 37 (2008) 305{328.
    • [19] W. Huang, P. Gould, 3-d pushover analysis of a collapsed reinforced concrete chimney, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 879{887.
    • [20] N. Shattarat, M. Symans, D. McLean, W. Cofer, Evaluation of nonlinear static analysis methods and software tools for seismic analysis of highway bridges, Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 1335 { 1345.
    • [21] T. Paraskeva, A. Kappos, A. Sextos, Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges, Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics 35 (2006) 1269{1293.
    • [22] J. Simo, T. Hughes, Computational inelasticity, Springer, Stanford (USA), 1998.
    • [23] A. Chopra, Dynamics of structures, theory and applications to earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall, University of California, Berkeley, 2007. Third edition.
    • [24] F. Legeron, P. Paultre, J. Mazars, Damage mechanics modelling of nonlinear seismic behavior of concrete structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (2005) 946{955.
    • [25] J. Bommer, C. Ruggeri, The speci cation of acceleration time-histories in seismic design codes, European Earthquake Engineering 16 (2002) 3{17.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article