EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

19,63-76 (1990)

NON-LINEAR EARTHQUAKE-RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF

LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: APPLICATIONS

ALY S. NAZMY *
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Polytechic University. Brooklyn, Nen York 11201, U . S . A .

AND

AHMED M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR'
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sourhern Calijornia, Los Angeles, California 90089-0242, U S .A .

SUMMARY
The dynamic non-linear behaviour of three-dimensional long-span cable-stayed bridges under seismic loadings is studied.
The cases of multiple-support as well as uniform seismic excitations of these long and flexible structures are considered.
Different sources of non-linearity for such bridges are included in the analysis, as outlined in the companion paper. In this
accompanying analysis a tangent stiffness iterative procedure is utilized to estimate the non-linear seismic response.
Numerical examples are presented in which a comparison between a linear earthquake-response analysis (based on the
utilization of the tangent stiffness matrix of the bridge at the dead-load deformed state which is obtained from the
geometry of the bridge under gravity load conditions) and a non-linear earthquake response analysis using the step-by-
integration procedure is made. In these examples two three-dimensional bridge models representing recent and future
trends in cable-stayed bridge design are utilized. The study sheds some light on the salient features of the seismic analysis
and design of these long contemporary bridges. In addition, parameters affecting the seismic response of these bridges are
discussed: other factors considered are non-linearity, uniformity and spatial variation of ground motion inputs and
structural configuration.

INTRODUCTION
Cable-supported bridges can be classified as classic suspension bridges (efficiently covering the range of
1500 ft (457.5 m) to 7000 ft (2100 m) of centre or effective span) and contemporary cable-stayed bridges
(covering the range of 500 ft (152.5 m) to 2000 ft (610 m); see Figure 1. Cable-stayed bridges, in particular, are
becoming very popular in the US., Japan, Europe, and the third-world countries, so it is essential that pursuit
of economical performance, of design rationality and of the confirmation of safety and durability proceed in
parallel.
It is estimated that the total construction in the world, as of 1989, of both steel and concrete cable-stayed
bridges, is about 90 bridges,' even by counting only those having central (or effective) span lengths of 800 ft
(245 m) or longer. Cable-stayed bridges are now entering a new era, reaching to medium and long span
lengths (with a range of I300 ft (400 m) to 5000 ft (1500 m) of centre span, see Figure 1). In Japan, there are
'
plans for constructing even longer cable-stayed bridges'. of both prestressed concrete and steel.
In the U.S., 8 such bridges have been constructed, 7 bridges are under construction, and about 8 bridges are
in the design and consideration processes. Due to the fact that these long-span and flexible structures lend
themselves to a unique class of vibration problems because of environmental factors (such as wind,
earthquakes, traffic, etc.), it is essential to understand and predict realistically their structural response to these
loadings. Accordingly, it is highly desirable in bridge engineering to develop accurate procedures that can lead

*Assistant Professor.
+Professor.

0098-8847/90/0 10063-1 4$07.00 Received 13 October 1988

0 1990 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 June 1989
64 A. S. NAZMY A N D A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

RANGE OF CENTER SPAN FOR CABLE-SUPPORTED BRIDGES

I

SUSPENSION BRIDGES

~~~ ~ ~~~~

0 200 400 600 800 1000 I200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 246---2600 2800 3ooo 3200
CENTER SPAN IN M

Figure 1. Practical range of centre (or effective) span for cable-stayed bridges; each vertical line represents an existing bridge

to a thorough understanding of the dynamic (in particular, seismic and wind) problems of cable-stayed
bridges. In this paper, the analysis methodologies presented in the companion paper’ are utilized to shed
some light on the salient features of the non-linear seismic response of these structures. The cases of uniform as
well as multiple-support seismic excitations are studied. In the study, two models having centre (or effective)
spans of llOOft (335.5m) and of 2200ft (671 m) are studied; this range covers both present and future
proposed designs. A comparative study is made between the results of the linear and non-linear earthquake-
response analyses for the two three-dimensional bridge models. In the linear analysis, it is assumed that the
bridge motion started at rest in the dead-load deformed position. Therefore, before performing even a linear
dynamic analysis, a non-linear static analysis is performed to compute the tangent stiffness of the bridge in its
dead-load deformed state. The linear or the non-linear dynamics analysis is then performed using this tangent
stiffness. The non-linear static analysis technique has been presented by the authors in References 4,5 and 6.
The rationale behind the often-used non-linear static-linear dynamic analysis is that it is likely that under
full dead load the cables will be taut and any change in cable sag under dynamic loads will be small; therefore
the dynamic-load structural response may be considered linear.’ - lo. However, in this paper, this assumption,
which may be invalid for the case when the centre-span length of the bridge increases and consequently the
cable sag increases, is re-examined by comparing the linear with the non-linear earthquake responses of
different cable-stayed bridge models.

THE TWO BRIDGE MODELS

In this investigation, two three-dimensional (3-D) models were used. The first has a centre-span length of
1 100 ft, and two side spans of 480 ft each. This model represents the present trend in the design of cable-stayed
bridges. The centre and side spans of the second model have double the lengths of the first (i.e. the second
model has a centre span of 2200 ft and side spans of 960 ft). This second model represents a future trend in
cable-stayed bridge design.
Figure 2 shows the general configuration of the tower and cable arrangement, the nodal points and deck
elements of the two 3-D models. For more structural details see Reference 4.
The choice of the structural properties of the elements in these two analytical models was based on
examining several proposed cable-stayed bridges in the eastern region of the United States4, l 1 - l4 as well as
in Japan. * ’.
The choice of the two models used in this study is based on the following practical considerations.
1. The response of a cable-stayed bridge to applied loads is highly dependent on the manner in which the
bridge deck is connected to the towers. If the deck is swinging freely at the towers, the induced seismic
forces will be kept to a minimum, but the bridge may be very flexible under service loading conditions
 LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: APPLICATIONS 65

3-D CABLE - STAYED BRIDGE

3 - D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

ELEVATON

480 It 1100 f t _ - 480 I t

MODEL 1
I-
MODEL 1 - SPAN 1100 FT

953 11 -- -- 2Ma f l - -
c -
960 11
MODEL 2
MODEL 2 - SPAN 2200 FT

43 44 45 46 47 48 72 73 74 75 76
I I I 1 X I !-?I:
19 20 21 22 Z3 24 49 50 51 52 53

PLAN-VIEW

(a) Deck nodal points.

20'
I -l-P I
TOP STRUT

TOWER SHAFT

TOWER LOCAL

TWO HORIZONTAL 6
VERTICAL ELASTIC LINKS
I
MODEL 1 MODEL 2

(b) Tower configuration.

Figure 2. The three-dimensional finite element models

(i.e. dead loads and live loads). On the other hand, a rigid connection between the deck and the towers
will result in reduced movements under service loading conditions but will attract much higher seismic
forces during an earthquake. Therefore, it is extremely important to provide special bearings or devices
at the deck-tower connections to absorb potentially large seismic energy input and reduce the re-
sponse amplitudes. Such an arrangement is essential to control the bridge's natural period of
vibration,', 4 3 ', 11, 12, 5 q which may lead to reduction in the dynamic forces, and consequently the
size of the towers and foundations. Therefore, it is assumed in this study that the girder is connected to
the tower by vertical and horizontal elastic links (see Figure 2). The elastic constants of these links can be
specified to reflect a wide band of practical construction options.
66 A. S. NAZMY A N D A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

2. For the main towers, the A-shape tower is adopted in the mathematical modelling in order to reduce the
burden for dynamic loads to the substructure. The A-shape, which has very high torsional rigidity, has
been chosen as the most desirable for the majority of long-span cable-stayed bridges (both those under
construction and under consideration).
3. The main girders are assumed to be simply supported and not to be fixed at the end piers or abutments.
The use of single fixed support or two fixed supports may cause large sectional seismic forces at the fixed
points
4. The towers are assumed to be rigidly fixed to the piers.

EARTHQUAKE-INPUT MOTIONS
Existing strong motion records can be used to define representative and appropriately correlated multiple-
support seismic inputs. Some of the ground motion records taken from the Imperial Valley (El Centro),
California, earthquake ( M L= 6-6)of October 15, 1979 are employed in this study to define the multiple-input
as well as uniform support motions4' 1 3 * 14. The displacements of this recorded motion have a very strong
component at periods close to three to five seconds (Figure 3). This range of periods is close to the periods of
the fundamental modes of vibration for the two bridge models. In addition, the ground accelerations are rich
in high-frequency components (Figure 4). As was mentioned in the companion paper,3 the instantaneous total

IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE, 15 OCT 1979 ( EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE RECORDS )

DISPLACEMENT TIME HISTORIES

TIME IN SECONDS ' "" '

Figure 3. Displacement time histories of S50" W components of El Centro Arrays 4, 5, 6, 7

 LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: APPLICATIONS 67

IMPERIAL VALLEY EARTHQUAKE, 15 OCT 1979 ( EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE RECORDS )

ACCE LE RAT ION TIM E H ISTORIES

+- - -+ -4 -1

'4 1
~

- I1 ARRAY 5 COMP S50W N

0
W :
a -
d I 00

.
vl

2
0 00

0 1.0"

z I.""

J
W
0
0
a

TIME IN SECONDS '' i'J1 ' TIME IN SECONDS '"I '

Figure 4. Acceleration time histories of S50" W components of El Centro Arrays 4, 5, 6, 7

response can be thought of as an inertial or high-frequency component (due to acceleration excitation) as well
as a kinematic or long-period component (due to pseudo-static displacement excitation).
It should be noted that the El Centro 1979 earthquake records were chosen despite the fact that this
earthquake did not occur in the area where it is planned to construct a cable-stayed bridge. There are, in fact,
no satisfactory records of an earthquake in the areas where these bridges have been constructed or planned;
that is, none of significant intensity of shaking and none recorded at closely spaced sites (as at the distance
between bridge supports). The El Centro 1979 earthquake records, which were recovered from accelerometers
with common time circuit, were colsely spaced and provide clear input ground motions (appropriate for
multiple-supported structures) since the intensity of shaking during this earthquake was great.4* 3 y l 4
Two cases of three-orthogonal-component earthquake input motions were considered in this investigation
[see Figure 5(a)]:
Multiple-support or non-synchronous seismic inputs, for which Arrays 4,5,6 and 7 were chosen for the
input motions a t the left abutment, the left tower base, the right tower base and the right abutment,
re~pectively.~It should be mentioned at this point that although the distance between these arrays is
almost 2 km, i.e. about 6500ft, and while the central span lengths of Models I and I1 under
consideration in this study are 1100 and 2200 ft, respectively, these arrays can still represent a realistic
input case for a site with lower values of the seismic velocities;
uniform seismic inputs using Array No. 6, since this is the strongest array of the four, with its three
orthogonal components acting simultaneously at the four supporting locations of the bridge.
68 A. S. NAZMY AND A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

3-D CABLE -STAYED BRIDGE

SUBJECTED TO GROUND MOTION

MULTIPLE EARTHQUAKE
INPUTS
ARM~s 4.5,6.7

( a ) The two cases of ground mtion inputs 2 - UNIFORM EARTHQUAKE

INPUT
ARRAY X 6

lo 7 CABLE 12

L M E M 55 JOINT 23

(b) LOCATIONS OF CALCULATED RESPONSE QUANTITIES

Figure 5. Cases of ground motion inputs and locations of calculated response

NON-LINEAR RESPONSE OF MODEL I TO UNIFORM EARTHQUAKE INPUT

The non-linear dynamic analysis outlined in the companion paper3 is performed for this model. The first 15
sec (duration of the phase of strong shaking) of the recorded earthquake motion of Array No. 6 of the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake are used for the uniform or synchronous seismic inputs at the two end abutments
and the two tower bases of the 3-D Model I. Figure 5(b) illustrates the locations of the response displacements
and member forces considered in this investigation, while Figure 6 shows a comparison between the linear
and non-linear dynamic analysis results for these response quantities. The comparison is shown for the
vibrational response only for this case of uniform inputs, since the peseuda-static response is represented by a
rigid body motion for this case and there would be no difference between the linear and non-linear pseudo- or
quasi-static responses. By examining Figure 6, it is evident that there is not much difference between the
results of the linear and non-linear dynamic analyses for the 1100 ft centre span model. The second column of
Table I shows the percentage of the difference between the linear and non-linear dynamic analysis results for
the maximum values of computed response quantities for Model I. The values listed in this table are
normalized with respect to the non-linear response quantities. The results of Table I indicate that the
difference between linear and non-linear dynamic analyses is, again, within the practical acceptable limits for
design purposes. It is worth mentioning that this same result was reached by several previous
’
investigators’ - 9 * - who limited their models to that 1100 ft range of centre-span length.
 LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: APPLICATIONS 69

3-D CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE - MODEL 1 - SPAN 1100 FT

UNIFORM EARTHQUAKE INPUT

Y -DISPL OF JOINT 23
I . 0'3
- VIBRATIONAL I)
0.95

0.00 0.20 0.YO 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.90

I
TIME IN SECONDS ' lo'

Y-SHEAR IN MEM 61 AT JOINT 23

I

-1.00 -LINEAR
-1.20
- - - - _ _NONLINEAR -1.13

0.00 0.20 0.90 0.60 0.80 1.00 I.20 1.90

TIME IN SECONDS 1 X 101 1

Figure 6. Comparison between linear and non-linear vibrational response in the 3-D Model I for the uniform seismic input case

Since the non-linear earthquake analysis results for Model I are not substantially different from those of the
linear dynamic analysis, for the uniform seismic input case, it was decided not to perform non-linear
earthquake analysis for the case of multiple-support inputs. This case was not expected to yield significantly
different results from the linear case. Furthermore, performing the analysis for such a seismic multiple-input
case would be computationally intensive.
Since the difference between linear and non-linear dynamic analyses for Model I is small, it is important to
examine the validity of using linear static analysis and to investigate the necessity of performing a non-linear
70 A. S . NAZMY A N D A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

Table I. Difference between linear and non-linear dynamic response quantities (maximum values) of
the 3-D model subjected to uniform earthquake motion

percentage difference between linear and non-linear

analyses
(normalized with respect to non-linear response)
Response quantity Model I-Span 1100 ft Model 2-Span 2200 ft

X-displacement of Joint 10 6.5 16

Z-displacement of Joint 10 <1 34
Y-displacement of Joint 13 <I 50
Y-displacement of Joint 23 54 71
2-displacement of Joint 23 <1 4
Y-displacement of Joint 24 2 67
Z-displacement of Joint 24 <1 1.3
Axial force in Cable 7 <1 20
Axial force in Cable 12 2.6 66
Axial force in Member 55 3.2 12.7
Y-shear in Member 55 at Joint 17 2.5 19
2-shear in Member 55 at Joint 17 <1 5.3
Y-shear in Member 61 at Joint 23 12.5 110
Z-moment in Member 61 at Joint 23 2.5 12.8
Axial force in Member 138 7 18.3
Y-moment in Member 138 at Joint 4 5.8 9
2-moment in Member 138 at Joint 4 <1 1

G0tl0fRLOd
( NL - L ) displacement
Displacement

Figure 7. The three different types of analysis performed for the 3-D model

analysis under dead loads to start the dynamic analysis (with the tangent stiffness at the dead-load deformed
state).
For this investigation, three types of analysis were performed. The first is a linear static analysis followed by
linear earthquake analysis; it is called Linear-Linear (or L-L). The second analysis is a non-linear static
analysis followed by a linear earthquake analysis (based on the utilization of the tangent stiffness matrix of the
bridge in the dead-load deformed state); it is called Non-linear-Linear (or NL-L). The third analysis is a non-
linear static analysis followed by non-linear earthquake analysis; it is called Non-linear-Non-linear (or
NL-NL). Figure 7 shows the qualitative sketch of the three types of analysis.
 LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES APPLICATIONS 71

Figure 8 shows the comparison among the results obtained by the three analysis methods. It is evident, by
examining these figures, that although the difference between the NL-L and the NL-NL analysis results is
very small, these results drifted from the L-L analysis results by a considerable amount for most of the
computed response quantities. Thus, although for the present range of centre spans (up to 1400 ft), linear
dynamic analysis is adequate (as was concluded by Fleming,** Fleming and E g e ~ e l i Fleming ,~ et a/.' and
Morris17' la), non-linear static analysis under dead loads is still essential to start the linear dynamic analysis
from the dead-load deformed state.

3-D CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE - MODEL 1 - SPAN 1100 FT

UNIFORM EARTHQUAKE INPUT
1 6Cf
- - 1 11

3 oc--
VIBRATIONAL
v) 2 Yc-- P,

-(.YO -2 so
000 0.20 0.YO 0.60 0.10 LOO 1.10 I.YO

I x ID' 1

-
3.60

3.00
VIBRATIONAL A J.YK

Y - MOMENT
0.60
IN MEM 138
Y 0.00 AT JOINT 4
-0.60
- . LINEAR -LINEAR
+ -1.20 -.NONLINEAR - LINEAR
'
.........NONLINEAR - NONLINEAR
.2.0
0.00

, 91

N
E 0 6 0

- (I JD

2 000 AXIAL FORCE

E IN CABLE 7
z -0.10

-0.60 - LINEAR -LINEAR

2 -..........
- _ _ _ -NONLINEAR
_ - LINEAR
NONLINEAR - NONLINEAR
B -o'90

0 DO 0 20 0 YO 0 60 0 10 I 00 I 20 I YO

TIME IN SECONDS " lo' '

Figure 8. Comparison between response quantities of the 3-D Model I obtained using three different types of analysis
72 A. S. NAZMY A N D A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

3-0 CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE - MODEL 2 - SPAN 2200 FT

UNIFORM EARTHQUAKE INPUT

Y-DISPL OF JOINT 24

- 2 00.- VIBRATIONAL
-0
I.so--

I.oo--

- 0.50-

0.00--
fn
g -0.50--
0
-1.00--

z -1.50--
n' -2.00--

v,
0 -2.50-
LINEAR
-3.00.- ------ NONLINEAR
3
0.00 0.20 0.110 0.60 0.80 1.00

TIME IN SECONDS
1.20

' lo'
I.Vo
'
Y-SHEAR IN MEM 61 AT JOINT 23
t
ni
3.13

- 3.00-- VIBRAT13NAL
2 110.-
-
0
1.80-
x
- 1.20--

0.60--

v) 0.00

-0.60

LINEAR
-3.00
.3.60
t _ _ _ - -NONLINEAR
-
t
0.00 0.20 0.110 0.60 0.eo 1.00 1.20 1.w
TIME IN SECONDS I x 10' )

Figure 9. Comparison between linear and non-linear vibrational response in the 3-D Model I1 for the uniform seismic input case

NON-LINEAR RESPONSE OF MODEL I1 TO UNIFORM EARTHQUAKE INPUT

The same ground motion, from Array No. 6, used for the uniform input case of Model I, is used again for
Model I1 (with centre-span length of 2200 ft); also the same dynamic analysis is performed using the Wilson4
m e t h ~ d .The
~ . ~results of the response quantities are compared with those obtained by linear dynamic modal
analysis. Figure 9 illustrates this comparison. It is evident from this figure that the non-linear dynamic
behaviour of this long-span bridge model is more pronounced than in the case of Model I. Furthermore, there
is a frequency shift observed in the response time-history; this is due to the fact that the overall stiffness of the
bridge increases by the increase in the dynamic displacements as well as the forces. This result is consistent
with the fact that the non-linearity of this type of structure is of geometric-hardening type, and that it is mainly
due to large deformations and an increase of the centre-span length. Thus, a geometrically non-linear dynamic
analysis necessary for computing the response of long-span cable-stayed bridges subjected to strong ground
shaking. Again, the future trend in designing these structures to have a longer centre or effective span
( 2 2000 ft) makes such non-linear analysis inevitable.
 LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES APPLICATIONS 73

Finally, the third column of Table I shows the percentage of the difference between linear and non-linear
dynamic analysis results for the maximum values of the response quantities for this bridge model.

NON-LINEAR RESPONSE O F MODEL I1 TO MULTIPLE-SUPPORT EXCITATIONS

Since strong non-linearity is observed in the response of Model I1 (with a long span) to uniform earthquake
inputs, it is now essential to examine the non-linear behaviour of the same model under multiple-support
seismic inputs. Records from Arrays No. 4,5,6 and 7 of the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake are used for the
input motion (with three orthogonal components) at the left abutment, left tower-base, right tower-base and
the right abutment, respectively (see Figure 4).In the earthquake analysis, only 15 sec (duration of strong
shaking phase) of the recorded strong motions are used.
Figures 10,ll and 12 show the comparison between linear and non-linear dynamic analysis results. Figures
10 and 11 show the comparison for the vibrational response displacements and member forces and also the

3-D CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE - MODEL 2 - SPAN 2200 FT

MULTIPLE EARTHOUAKE INPUTS

Y -DISPL OF JOINT 24
- 3.00
t VIBRATIONAL
n

-u. 15
I
0.00 0.20 0.w 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.~0

TIME IN SECONDS 'x 10' 1

Y-SHEAR IN MEM 61 AT JOINT 23

1

t
I

- u,Oo VIBRATIONAL

-
0 3.00
N
x
- 2.00--
v,
P

- _ _ _ _NONLINEAR
_
. .-
TIME IN SECONDS i x lo1 I

Figure 10. Comparison between linear and non-linear vibrational response in the 3-D Model I1 for the multiple seismic inputs case
74 A. S. NAZMY A N D A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

3-D CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE - MODEL 2 - SPAN 2200 FT

MULTIPLE EARTHQUAKE INPUTS

AXIAL FORCE
IN CABLE 7

AXIAL FORCE
IN CABLE 12

.,.I0 - - - - - NONLINEAR
am 010 0.0 o m 0.0 I00 I 2 0 I"0
I x 101 I

ient
~

- NONLINEAR n

Y - MOMENT
IN MEM 138
AT JOINT 4

- _ _ _ _VIBRATIONAL
_
, 1, -TOTAL OI

I )I 101
TIME IN SECONDS

Figure 11. Importance of both non-linearity and multiple-support excitations for Model I1 with very long span length

difference between the vibration and total response, while Figure 12 shows the comparison for the
corresponding total response quantities.
It is evident from these figures that there is strong non-linear behaviour for this long-span model.
Furthermore, multiple-support seismic excitations tend to increase considerably the response and thus it can
have a significant effect and should be considered in the earthquake-response analysis of such long and
complex three-dimensional structures; this effect is especially important when the structural redundancy is
high. For statically determinate structures phase differences in support motions would not influence the
nature of the dynamic response of the bridge to an earthquake; for statically indeterminate or redundant
structures a non-inertial or kinematic motion will be induced (due to the non-uniform support motions) and
should be added to the vibration motion of the bridge.
 LONG-SPAN CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES: APPLICATIONS 75

3-D CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE - MODEL 2 - SPAN 2200 FT

MULTIPLE EARTHQUAKE INPUTS

Y-DISPL OF JOINT 23

0.00 0 20 0 YO 0 60 0.80 1.00 1.20 I.VO

TIME IN SECONDS 1 X lo1 1

Y-SHEAR IN MEM 55 AT JOINT 17

- I . 50

1.20

-
cu
0
0.90
Y
- 0.60

0.30

v) 0 . 0 0
B
-0.30

z -0.50
w
g -0.90

B -1.20

-1.50
-1.51

0.00 0.20 0.UO 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 I.YO

TIME IN SECONDS 1 x 10' 1

Figure 12. Comparison between linear and non-linear total response in the 3-D Model I1 for the multiple seismic inputs case

CONCLUDING REMARKS
1. Although for the present range of centre or effective spans (up to 1400 ft), linear dynamic analysis is
adequate (as was concluded by Fleming and Egeseli7), non-linear static analysis under dead loads is still
essential to start the linear dynamic analysis from the dead load deformed state.
2. For the recent and future trends of longer centre or effective spans ( 32000 ft), geometrically non-linear
dynamic analysis is necessary for computing the response of the bridge subjected to strong ground
shaking. Such trends make such non-linear analysis inevitable; this is essential not only for evaluating
the stresses and deformations induced by environmental loads, such as vehicular traffic, wind and
earthquakes, but also for assuring safety during construction. Since the dynamic characteristics of the
structure are similar to those of hardening dynamic systems, the non-linear effects tend to reduce the
response significantly.
76 A. S. NAZMY AND A. M. ABDEL-GHAFFAR

3. Multiple-support seismic excitations can have a significant effect and should be considered in the
earthquake-response analysis of such long and complex, three-dimensional structures; this effect is more
pronounced when the structural redundancy gets higher. Spatially varying input motions resulted in a
much more severe response; stresses induced by the kinematic effect of ground motions augmented those
induced by the inertial effect.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on the Ph.D. dissertation of the first author that was supervised by the second author and
presented to the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering of Princeton University in May, 1987. The
research was supported partially by a grant (No. ECE-8501067) from the National Science Foundation with
Dr S. C. Liu as the Program Director, and partially by the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education via a
Government Mission; this support is greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. H. Tada, ‘Recent trend of cable-stayed bridge construction technology’, Public Works Research Institute, Bridge Division, Tsukuba,
Japan, March 1986; also Proc. 18th UJNR meeting, Panel wind seism. effects, N.B.S., Washington, DC (1986).
2. ‘Seismic design procedure ofcable-stayed bridges: Part I. Dynamic characteristics ofcable-stayed bridges based on field vibration test
results’, Report, Public Works Research Institute (P.W.R.I.), Tsukuba, Japan, 1986 (in Japanese).
3. Aly S. Nazmy and Ahmed M. Abdel-Ghaffar, ‘Nonlinear earthquake-response analysis of long-span cable-stayed bridges: Theory’.
Earthquake eng. sfruct. dyn., 1 9 , 4 5 4 2 (1990).
4. Aly S . Nazmy and Ahmed M. Abdel-Ghaffar, ‘Seismic response analysis of cable-stayed bridges subjected to uniform and multiple-
support excitations’, Report No. 87-SM-I, Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University, 1987.
5. Aly S. Nazmy, ‘Nonlinear earthquake-response analysis of cable-stayed bridges subjected to multiple support excitations’, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Princeton University, 1987.
6. Aly S. Nazmy and Ahmed M. Abdel-Ghaffar, ‘Three-dimensional nonlinear static analysis of cable-stayed bridges’, Comput. struct.
33 (1989).
7. J. F. Fleming and E. A. Egeseli, ‘Dynamic behavior of a cable-stayed bridge’, Earthquake eng. struct. dyn. 8, 1-16 (1980).
8. J. F. Fleming, ‘Linear versus nonlinear behavior of cable-stayed bridges’, Wind seism. effects, Proc. Ilthjoint panel con$ U S - J a p a n
cooperatiue program natural resources 343-360 (1983).
9. J. F. Fleming et al., ‘Static and dynamic analysis of cable-stayed bridges’, Research Report SETEC CE84-018, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 1983.
10. The Task Committee on Cable-Suspended Structures of the Committee on Special Structures of the Committee on Metals of the
Structural Division, ‘Commentary on the tentative recommendations for cable-stayed bridge structures’, J . struct. diu. ASCE 103,
941-959 (1977).
1 1 . M. S. Khalil and L. H. Bush, ‘Vancouver’sSkytrain cable-stayed bridge-Dynamic behavior’, Proc. 4th struct. congr. 1987, Bridge
transmission line struct. ASCE, Orlando, Florida, 357-373 (1987).
12. S. L. Stroh, ‘Dynamic behavior of three US.cable-stayed bridges’, Proc. 4th structures congr. 1987, Bridges transmission line struct.,
ASCE, Orlando, Florida, 373-388 (1987).
13. A. M. Abdel-Ghaffar, R. H. Scanlan and A. S. Nazmy, ‘Earthquake resistant analysis of the Talmadge Memorial Bridge-Savannah
cable-stayed bridge-Steel alternate’, Report prepared for Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc., Tampa, FL, 1985.
14. A. M. Abdel-Ghaffar, R. H. Scanlan and A. S. Nazmy, ‘Earthquake resistant analysis of the Talmadge Memorial Bridge-Savannah
cable-stayed bridge concrete alternate’, Report prepared for DRC Consultants, Inc., 34-36 Union Street, Flushing, NY, 1986.
15. Fujikazu Sakai, ‘Some considerations of long-period waves in earthquake engineering’, Proc. P RC-US-Japan trilateral
symp./workshop engineering multiple natural hazard mitigation Beijing, China E.5.1-E.5.16 (1985).
16. Ahmed M. Abdel-Ghaffar and Aly S. Nazmy, ‘Effects of three-dimensionality and nonlinearity on the dynamic and seismic behavior
of cable-stayed bridges’, Proc. 4th strucf. congr. 1987, Bridge fransmission line struct. ASCE, Orlando, Florida, 389404 (1987).
17. N. F. Morris, ‘Dynamic analysis of cable-stiffened structures’, J . struct. diu. ASCE 100, 971-981 (1974).
18. N. F. Morris, ‘The use of modal superposition in nonlinear dynamics’, Comput. struct. 7, 65-72 (1977).
19. J. F. Fleming, ‘Cable-stayed bridges-Static and dynamic response’, Proc. 1st U X A - J a p a n bridge eng. workshop Tsukuba, Japan
( I 984).