 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Response of Aswan cablestayed bridge to spatial nonsynchronous seismic excitations
Journal of Engineering and Applied Science volume 69, Article number: 70 (2022)
Abstract
Cablestayed bridges are important infrastructure facilities serving the world today. Therefore, their safety against earthquake ground motions is crucial. However, due to their long spans, the affecting seismic excitations might be spatially nonsynchronous. This paper presents a study of the effect of nonsynchronous seismic excitations on Aswan cablestayed bridge located at southern Egypt. Nonlinear time history analysis was conducted on a threedimensional finite element model of the bridge. The spatial variability was represented in terms of the wave passage effect which was simulated via different delay times between the arrivals of the ground motion to bridge supports. Results indicated that spatial variability of earthquake ground motion has, in general, a favorable effect on most bridge response parameters. This is attributed to the flexibility of the overall bridge provided by the flexibility of the bridge structural system and/or by existence of seismic isolation.
Introduction
Cablestayed bridges are aesthetically appealing infrastructures that became popular over the past few decades. They are characterized by increased stiffness and timely efficient construction methods [1,2,3,4]. Many researchers aimed to study their behavior under Identical Support Excitation (ISE). For example, Clemente et al. [5] utilized a finite element model, based on the experimental static and seismic behavior of Indiano cablestayed bridge to evaluate the seismic load effect on the bridge. Hao et al. [6] studied the dynamic behavior of a typical cablestayed bridge under lateral earthquake excitations. Elkady et al. [7] introduced a hybrid analytical–experimental technique to simulate the earthquake excitations on a cablestayed bridge. The failure of one of the support anchorage plates of an existing steel cablestayed bridge located at high seismic zone was studied by Javanmardi et al. [8]. Camara and Astiz [9] investigated the retrofit solutions of cablestayed bridges with supplemental damping devices connecting the deck and the tower in the transverse direction. Zhang et al. [10] simulated steel truss cablestayed bridge under different seismic accelerations in the case of a highspeed train traversing the bridge during earthquake. Liu et al. [11] dissipated the earthquake energy by using viscous dampers in Hangzhou Bay cablestayed bridge. Camara and Astiz [12] compared the static pushover procedures and nonlinear dynamic response history analysis to study the nonlinear seismic behavior of cablestayed bridges. El Ouni et al. studded the numerical and experimental dynamic analysis and control as well as health monitoring of cablestayed bridges [13].
These studies on cablestayed bridges assumed that all the support motions are identical which is somehow unrealistic in these structures [14]. Typical cablestayed bridges are generally characterized by their long spans. Due to such long spans, the seismic behavior of these structures is affected by the spatial variability in the ground motions [15]. Such variability occurs due to wave passage effect, incoherence effect and local soil effect [16]. Ignoring these effects would significantly overestimate or underestimate the seismic behavior of these bridges [17].
The effects of spatially changing ground motions on structures can be represented by MultiSupport Excitation (MSE) [18,19,20,21,22,23], multisupport response spectrum [24], and multisupport random vibration [25,26,27]. However, the nonlinearity of longspan structures would not be modeled in the response spectrum and random vibration techniques. Therefore, the MSE becomes a good alternative to model seismic responses under spatially varying earthquake excitations. Unfortunately, the recordings at nearby bridge sites to the earthquake ground motions are rare. To overcome this, researchers utilized theoretical techniques to simulate spatially varying seismic motions. For example, Somerville et al. [28], Vanmarcke and Fenton [29], Bi and Hao [30], Liao and Zerva [31], and Konakli and Kiureghian [32] studied spatially varying earthquake excitation based on the coherency function coupled with theoretical target power spectral density functions. Saxena et al. [33] considered the three causes of seismic variability to estimate the bridge structure response through nonlinear time history analysis. They characterized the “wave passage effect” in terms of wave propagation apparent velocity, the “incoherence effect” by a coherence function, and the “local soil effect” by response spectra at different locations. Deodatis [34] generated the earthquake time histories acting at the bridge supports utilizing a variation of the spectral representation method. Sextos et al. [35] used the recorded spatially variable earthquake ground motions during two seismic events to model the response of Evripos bridge. The nonsynchronous excitation of the bridge excited higher modes of vibration and suppressed the oscillation of its fundamental mode. Fontara et al. [36] studied the site effects, spatial variability of seismic motion, and soilstructure interaction on the inelastic response of bridge structures. Both synchronous and nonsynchronous seismic effects on the bridge were determined. It was concluded that the positive or the negative effect of the spatially variable seismic motion depends on the interplay of all the key parameters of bridge. Recently, Ramadan et al. [37] investigated the effect of soil types, level of loss in coherency, and the difference in the arrival time of the seismic motions. Zhong et al. [38] utilized a set of 100 ground motions to conduct MSE analysis for the effect of spatial variability parameters on the fragility curves of cablestayed bridges.
Some studies investigated the response of seismically isolated cablestayed bridges [39, 40]. Other studies focused on the behavior of seismically isolated cablestayed bridges under MSE. For instance, Patel et al. [41] studied the seismic response of cablestayed bridge isolated with Triple Friction Pendulum System (TFPS) under MSE. Base shear and acceleration were decreased whereas displacement was increased due to MSE. Masrilayanti et al. [42] found a significant discrepancy between the seismic analysis of an 800m long cablestayed bridge upon application of ISE and MSE. The ISE caused lower responses if the ground motion magnitudes were similar to the small magnitude of the multisupport excitation. Similarly, Alexander et al. [18] found that the ISE analysis of structural mode coupling was not conservative compared to MSE analysis in cablestayed bridges
One of the important cablestayed bridges in Egypt is the Aswan cablestayed bridge located at the south of the country. This bridge, while considered a very important infrastructure, received very little research work. AbdelZaher et al. [40] conducted ambient vibration tests on the bridge to estimate its modal parameters. The test was performed using a 300kN truck traffic load and used eleven positions to monitor the bridge response. AbouRayan [43] studied its static and dynamic characteristics utilizing finiteelement method. The results revealed existence of strong coupling in all orthogonal directions within most vibration modes.
Up to the author’s knowledge, no studies were performed to investigate the effect of seismic variability on the behavior of Aswan cablestayed bridge. Thus, the current research represents an effort to get an insight into the effect of nonsynchronous seismic excitations on the behavior of such important infrastructural facility. For this, five different earthquake records were utilized and based on the general types of soils located in Egypt, and the spatial variability was represented in terms of the wave passage effect. Therefore, different delay times between the arrivals of the ground motions to the bridge supports were considered. Nonlinear time history analysis was conducted on a threedimensional finite element model of the bridge taking the geometric and material nonlinearities into consideration. Key response parameters were investigated. These include base shear at the bridge supports, pylon displacements, pylon shear forces, deck displacements, cable forces, and base isolator response.
Methods
Description of Aswan cablestayed bridge
Located on the Nile River near Aswan city in Egypt, the Aswan cablestayed bridge was built in 2002. The main bridge consists of a concrete deck, oneplane of cables and two towers (see Fig. 1). Figure 2 shows a general layout of the bridge along with typical crosssections at selected locations.
The bridge deck has a central main span of 250 m and two side spans of 125 m each with an overall length of 500 m [43]. It consists of prestressed concrete segments with trapezoidal box shape having two inclined 42cmthick webs. The boxgirder has a height and width of 3.3 and 24.3 m, respectively. Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarize the material properties, properties of cables and general description of the bridge. Special arrangements were designed to prevent local buckling due to the large width of the boxgirder and the force transmission from the cables to the deck. For example, the top slab was stiffened using two longitudinal girders at the middle part of the boxgirder. Moreover, it was transversally prestressed via 4F15S tendons. Furthermore, the bottom slab was longitudinally stiffened by two rigid beams at the intersections with the two inclined webs and transversely stiffened by a cross beam having a 30cm depth. The hollow box main girder was designed to insure considerable torsional rigidity such that to keep the deformations due to eccentric live load on the bridge deck within allowable limits.
The bridge contains one vertical plane with 56 cables at its central longitudinal axis. The bridge cables are composed of 73 to 109 H15 strands incased in HDPE tubes. Each strand has diameter of 15.7 mm and contains 7 wires. The breaking load per strand is 265 kN. Strands are galvanized, waxed, and individually HDPE sheathed. The cables are anchored to the deck every twodeck segments (i.e., at 7.812 m spacing). The cables are attached to the tower in a semifan shape through a vertical height of 30 m.
The prestressing forces in the cables plays a crucial role in maintaining the allowable displacement and distribution of bending moments along the bridge deck [44, 45]. In Aswan bridge, five phases of tensioning the stay cables were implemented. These included three phases during the balanced cantilever construction. The fourth phase followed the placing of the superimposed dead loads and the final phase was carried out after 18 months of operation to reduce the effect of creep.
Looped posttensioning tendons transfer of the stay forces to the towers. The bridge has two hollow boxshaped towers (pylons). Each tower consists of a transversally prestressed concrete hollowbox section and is fixed to the deck. Figure 2b shows a crosssection of the towers. The tower is 55 m high from the deck level. The main part of the bridge has six piers (axis 5 to 10 in Fig. 2a). The piers on axis 5, 6, 9, and 10 have reinforced concrete box sections. The main pier shaft located on axis 7 and 8 consists of a massive reinforced concrete block with pyramidal shape with dimension of 24×25 m at bottom. It is supported on a raft over 88 piles 1.1m diameter each, see Fig. 3. It is worth mentioning that the ground conditions at the east bank comprise medium dense sand overlying dense uniform sand. The geology at the west bank is more variable however, consisting of subsurface sand overlying silty sandstone. At deeper levels, a hard layer of shale with fragments of sandstone is encountered.
The bridge is seismically isolated just under the girder level. At the main piers on axis 7 and 8, two lines of isolators are placed on top of each pier. Each line has eight isolators to support the bridge deck. The size of the isolator is 1000×1000×160 mm. Two PTFE, 600×600×60 mm bearings are placed on piers 5, 6, 9, and 10 to allow for the longitudinal motions and to control the horizontal ones. For additional details on the bridge refer to [46, 47].
Equation of motion of bridge subjected to multiple seismic excitations
The general dynamic equation of motion of a bridge subjected to seismic excitation can be written as
where \(\boldsymbol{U},\dot{\boldsymbol{U}},\ddot{\boldsymbol{and}\ \boldsymbol{U}}\) are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response vectors, respectively; K, C, and M are the stiffness, damping, and mass matrices of the structure, respectively. \(\ddot{{\boldsymbol{x}}_{\boldsymbol{a}}}\) and Γ are the longitudinal ground acceleration and a vector which contains ones and zeros to relate the ground acceleration to the various degrees of freedom of the bridge. For the case of multisupport excitation however, the model can be modified to include the degrees of freedom of the supports. Hence, the dynamic equilibrium equation for all the degrees of freedom of the bridge is presented in the following partitioned form.
where U^{t} and U_{g} are the absolute displacement vector of the superstructure and the ground displacement vector enforced at the supports, respectively; M_{g}, C_{g,} and K_{g} are the mass, damping, and elasticcoupling matrices expressing the forces developed in the active degrees of freedom by the motion of the supports. M_{gg}, C_{gg}, and K_{gg} are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the supports, respectively.
Finite element model of the bridge
A threedimensional finiteelement model of the bridge was constructed using SAP2000 software [48] (see Fig. 4). The model includes four types of elements. These are frame, shell, cable, and link elements. Frame elements were used to model the towers of the bridge. Four node shell elements were used to model the bridge deck and the main pyramidic piers. Each node of the shell or the frame elements has six degrees of freedom. These are translations in X, Y, and Z directions and rotations about these directions.
The material nonlinearity of cables was taken into account by modeling them to carry tension only. Therefore, if subjected to compression, their stiffness will be taken equal to zero (see Fig. 5). The cables’ geometric nonlinearity was considered using the modified models of elasticity method suggested by Ernst [49] using the following equation:
where E_{mod} is the modified modulus of elasticity of cables_{,}E_{ori} is the original cable modulus of elasticity, W is the weight per unit length of the cable, L is the horizontal projected length of the cable, (EA)_{ori} is the cable original axial stiffness, and T_{0} is the tension force in the cable.
Due to the lack of information about the specific details and composition of the elastomeric bearings, they were designed as leadrubber bearings with the general behavior shown in Fig. 5 [50]. Moreover, the design was checked to match the general behavior of fullscale experimental tests [51]. The main properties of the designed bearings in the horizontal direction are K_{u}=157 kN/mm, K_{eff} = 24.3 kN/mm, K_{d} =15.7 kN/mm, and F_{y} =863 kN. In the vertical direction, however, the bearings were assumed to be rigid. The bearings were modeled utilizing the nonlinear dissipative Wen model link elements in order to represent the dynamic behavior of the isolators under seismic action. These link elements were located between the top of the piers and the bottom of the deck. Due to the large size of the raft under the pier in addition to the large number of piles underneath, the bridge was assumed to be fixed at the foundation level (see Fig. 3).
Modeling of multisupport excitation
MultiSupport Excitation occurs due to the phenomenon of spatial variation of earthquake ground motion. It can be attributed to three mechanisms as following [33, 52]:

1)
“Wave passage effect” which occurs due to difference in arrival times of seismic waves at different supports. The apparent wave propagation velocity mainly controls this effect.

2)
“Incoherence effect” which means loss of coherence of the seismic waves. It results from multiple reflection and refraction of the seismic waves during their propagation through highly inhomogeneous soil medium.

3)
“Local soil effect” where the amplitude and the frequency content of the seismic wave changes according to local soil conditions.
In the current study, the spatial variability was represented in terms of the wave passage effect which was simulated via different delay times between the arrival of the ground motion to the left supports and their arrival to the right ones. Based on the general types of soils located in Egypt, this delay time was estimated to range between 0 and 3 s for the specific length of Aswan cablestayed bridge. Therefore, different delay times of 0, 1, 2, and 3 s were considered in the current analysis.
Five earthquakes were utilized in the current study. They were selected to represent a variety of earthquakes that might occur in Egypt. The main data of the utilized earthquakes are listed in Table 4. Moreover, the displacement and acceleration time histories of these earthquakes are shown in Fig. 6. Furthermore, the acceleration and displacement response spectra for these earthquakes are plotted in Fig. 7.
Results and discussion
The vibration properties of the bridge are summarized in Table 5. The participating mass ratios in different directions along with the description of each mode are given in the table. Moreover, the shapes of these modes are illustrated in Fig. 8.
The bridge was analyzed under different earthquakes acting in its longitudinal direction. Different wave propagation delay times between the excitations at the supports were considered to represent spatial nonsynchronous seismic excitations. The delay times considered include zero delay representing the case of synchronous excitations and 1, 2, and 3s delay representing different velocities of the seismic excitation (i.e., different soil conditions). The effect of such delay on key response parameters of the bridge was evaluated. These key response parameters include the total base shear of the bridge, the shear forces acting on the towers, longitudinal top displacement of the towers, forces in selected cables, vertical deflection at mid span of the bridge, and force displacement hysteric behavior of the seismic isolators. Table 6 summarizes the maximum results of these key responses obtained from different analyzed cases. The table also summarizes the average results obtained due to different earthquakes.
Figure 9 shows the variation of the base shear overweight for different delay times under different earthquakes. The figure also shows the average values of the base shear overweight. It is observed that the highest base shear occurs under Imperial Valley earthquake and the lowest one occurs under Bam earthquake. Moreover, while the average base shear overweight ratio was 4.98% in case of synchronous excitations, it reached 3.83%, 3.91%, and 3.37% for delay times of 1, 2, and 3 s, respectively. Generally speaking, increasing the delay time causes a moderate reduction in the base shear response. This favorable behavior can be attributed to the fact that when the earthquake hits all support simultaneously the peak seismic inertia forces affects the whole bridge leading to high values of base shear. On the other hand, when there is delay between the arrivals of the seismic excitation, the peak effect becomes nonsynchronous causing a moderate reduction of the base shear response. Moreover, existence of seismic isolators accommodates the different displacements at the bridge supports due to nonsynchronous excitations. This observation is compatible with Tzanetos et al. [53] who stated that “seismic isolation of long span bridges generally reduces or eliminates the effects of nonsynchronous input motion”. This might not be the case if the bridge is rigidly attached to its supporting system. In the latter case, nonsynchronous excitations may cause an increase of the forces acting on the bridge.
The maximum shear forces acting at the bottom section of the left and the right towers are shown in Fig. 10, and the corresponding average values for both towers are shown in Fig. 11. The highest shear forces occur under Imperial Valley earthquake, and the lowest ones occur under Bam earthquake. Moreover, the shear forces in both towers exhibit general reduction for different delay times with no specific trend. It is worth mentioning that, from a design point of view, the maximum shear force under Imperial Valley earthquake reaches 3349 kN which is far less than the elastic capacity of the tower.
Figure 12 shows the towers top longitudinal displacement under different earthquakes, and Fig. 13 shows the average response for all used earthquakes. Again, the Imperial Valley earthquake causes the highest displacements and Bam earthquake gives the lowest ones. Also, the general trend of the tower displacement is to decrease with the increase of the delay time. Reductions in the displacements ranges between 30 and 45% in case of nonsynchronous excitations compared to synchronous excitations. A sample of the displacement time history at the top of the left tower is shown in Fig. 14. Obviously, the maximum displacements occur for the no delay case.
Figure 15 shows the variation of resulting cable forces for three selected cables (refer to Fig. 4), and Fig. 16 shows the average values of forces in these cables for different earthquakes. Moreover, Fig. 17 shows the time history of force resulting in cable No. 1 at the righthand side of the bridge for different delay times. It can be observed that the maximum response in all cables under all earthquakes occurs in the synchronous excitations, and the general trend of the cable forces is to decrease with the delay time with some fluctuations.
Figure 18 shows the maximum deflection at mid span of the bridge. The figure also shows the average values under different excitations. It is obvious that the deflections generally decrease with the increase in the delay time with no specific trend.
Figure 19 shows the lateral force displacement loops for a selected base isolator located at the left pier and the corresponding one located at the right pier. For synchronous excitation, the behavior of the two isolators is nearly identical. However, for nonsynchronous excitation, the behavior of the two isolators is quite different. Enlarged force displacement loops may take place at the left isolators or at the right ones depending on the earthquake excitation delay time. In all cases, considerable energy is favorably dissipated in the isolators.
Results presented in Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and in Table 6 suggest that when the effect of the time delay of ground motions is considered, the supports of such long span bridge will motion in different phases, which consequently result in the cancellation of inertia forces, and hence, the reduction of the overall bridge response. Such results are in agreement with the results in the studies carried out by Sextos et al. [35], Mylonakis et al. [54], and Zang et al. [55]. This is attributed to the flexibility of the bridge structural system and/or existence of seismic isolation in these studies. On the other hand, the current results are in contradiction with the results of Leger et al. [56] and Bayrak [57]. The main reason might be attributed to the rigid attachment of the relatively stiff columns to the girder in these studies. Consequently, it can be concluded that the flexibility of the overall bridge (provided by the flexibility of the bridge structural system itself and/or by existence of seismic isolation) might have a favorable effect in case of nonsynchronous earthquake ground motion excitations.
Conclusions
From the results of the current study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1.
Spatial variability of earthquake ground motion has, in general, a favorable effect on most of the studied bridge response parameters. For example, while the average base shear over weight ratio was 4.98% in case of synchronous excitations, it reached 3.83%, 3.91%, and 3.37% for delay times of 1, 2, and 3 s, respectively. Moreover, the general trend of the tower displacement was to decrease with the increase of the delay time. Reductions in the displacements ranged between 30 and 45% in case of nonsynchronous excitations compared to synchronous excitations.

2.
This favorable behavior can be attributed to the fact that when the earthquake hits all supports simultaneously, the peak seismic inertia forces affect the whole bridge leading to high response values. On the other hand, when the effect of the time delay of ground motions is considered, the supports of such long span bridge will motion in different phases, resulting in the cancellation of inertia forces and hence, the reduction of the overall bridge responses.

3.
The existence of seismic isolators accommodates the different displacements at the bridge supports due to nonsynchronous excitations. This might not be the case if the bridge is rigidly attached to its supporting system. In the latter case, nonsynchronous excitations may cause an increase of the forces acting on the bridge.

4.
The flexibility of the overall bridge (provided by the flexibility of the bridge structural system and/or by existence of seismic isolation) might have a favorable effect in case of nonsynchronous earthquake ground motion excitations.

5.
It should be mentioned that the above conclusions are limited to this specific bridge and similar ones. But they cannot be generalized to bridges having other configurations. It might be stated that the effect of nonsynchronous earthquake excitations on the response of abridge is complex and depends on the soil condition, the characteristics of the earthquake excitations, and the specific structural system of the bridge.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
 ISE:

Identical support excitation
 MSE:

Multisupport excitation
 TFPS:

Triple Friction Pendulum System
 PGA:

Peak ground acceleration
 PGV:

Peak ground velocity
References
Ali HEM, AbdelGhaffar AM (1995) Seismic Passive Control of CableStayed Bridges. Shock and Vibration 2:918721. https://doi.org/10.3233/SAV19952401
Abdel Raheem S, Hayashikawa T (2003) Parametric study on steel tower seismic response of cablestayed bridges under great earthquake ground motion. Struct Eng Earthq Eng 20:25–41
Talebinejad I, Fischer C, Ansari F (2011) Numerical evaluation of vibrationbased methods for damage assessment of cablestayed bridges. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 26(3):239–251
Cucuzza R, Costi C, Rosso MM, Domaneschi M, Marano GC, Masera D (2022) Optimal strengthening by steel truss arches in prestressed girder bridges. Bridg Eng 1478–4637
Clemente P, Bongiovanni G, Buffarini G, Saitta F (2019) Structural health status assessment of a cablestayed bridge by means of experimental vibration analysis. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 9(5):655–669
Hao Q, Jufeng S, Pingming H (2017) Study on dynamic characteristics and seismic response of the extradosed cablestayed bridge with single pylon and single cable plane. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 7(5):589–599
Elkady AZ, Seleemah MA, Ansari F (2018) Structural response of a cablestayed bridge subjected to lateral seismic excitations. J Civ Struct Heal Monit 8(3):417–430
Javanmardi A, Ibrahim Z, Ghaedi K, Khatibi H (2017) Seismic response characteristics of a base isolated cablestayed bridge under moderate and strong ground motions. Arch Civil Mech Eng 17:419–432
Camara A, Astiz MA (2014) Analysis and control of cablestayed bridges subject to seismic action. Struct Eng Int 24(1):27–36
Zhang N, Xia H, De Roeck G (2010) Dynamic analysis of a trainbridge system under multisupport seismic excitations. J Mech Sci Technol 24(11):2181–2188
Liu W, Xu X, Wang R, Wang Z, Wu X (2006) Vibration reduction design of the Hangzhou Bay cablestayed bridges. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 24:339–354. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2006.24.3.339
Camara A, Astiz MA (2012) Pushover analysis for the seismic response prediction of cablestayed bridges under multidirectional excitation. Eng Struct 41:444–455
El Ouni MH, Ben KN, Preumont A (2012) Numerical and experimental dynamic analysis and control of a cable stayed bridge under parametric excitation. Eng Struct 45:244–256
Zanardo G, Hao H, Modena C (2002) Seismic response of multispan simply supported bridges to a spatially varying earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(6):1325–1345
Lin JH, Zhang YH, Li QS, Williams FW (2004) Seismic spatial effects for longspan bridges, using the pseudo excitation method. Eng Struct 26(9):1207–1216
Bi K, Hao H, Chouw N (2011) Influence of ground motion spatial variation, site condition and SSI on the required separation distances of bridge structures to avoid seismic pounding. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(9):1027–1043
Mehanny SSF, Ramadan OMO, El Howary HA (2014) Assessment of bridge vulnerability due to seismic excitations considering wave passage effects. Eng Struct 70:197–207
Alexander NA (2008) Multisupport excitation of single span bridges, using real seismic ground motion recorded at the SMART1 array. Comput Struct 86(1):88–103
Shehata EAR, Toshiro H (2007) Seismic protection of cable‑stayed bridges under multiple‑support excitations, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, June Volume: 4
Tonyali Z, Ates S, Adanur S (2019) Spatially variable effects on seismic response of the cablestayed bridges considering local soil site conditions. Struct Eng Mech 70(2):143–152
Ates S, Atmaca B, Yildirim E, Demiroz NA (2013) Effects of soilstructure interaction on construction stage analysis of highway bridges. Computers and Concrete 12:169–186. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2013.12.2.169
Ateş Ş, Tonyali Z, Soyluk K, Samberou AMS (2018) Effectiveness of Soil–Structure Interaction and Dynamic Characteristics on CableStayed Bridges Subjected to Multiple Support Excitation. International Journal of Steel Structures 18:554–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s132960180069z
Cucuzza R, Rosso MM, Aloisio A, Melchiorre J, Giudice ML, Marano GC (2022) Size and shape optimization of a guyed mast structure under wind, ice and seismic loading. Appl Sci 12(10):4875–4832
Kiureghian AD, Neuenhofer A (1992) Response spectrum method for multisupport seismic excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21(8):713–740
Heredia Zavoni E, Vanmarcke Erik H (1994) Seismic random vibration analysis of multisupport structural systems. J Eng Mech 120(5):1107–1128
Dumanogluid AA, Soyluk K (2003) A stochastic analysis of long span structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions including the siteresponse effect. Eng Struct 25(10):1301–1310
Hao H (1998) A parametric study of the required seating length for bridge decks during earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27(1):91–103
Somerville PG, McLaren JP, Sen MK, Helmberger DV (1991) The influence of site conditions on the spatial incoherence of ground motions. Struct Saf 10(1):1–13
Vanmarcke EH, Fenton GA (1991) Conditioned simulation of local fields of earthquake ground motion. Struct Saf 10(1):247–264
Bi K, Hao H (2012) Modelling and simulation of spatially varying earthquake ground motions at sites with varying conditions. Probabilistic Eng Mech 29:92–104
Liao S, Zerva A (2006) Physically compliant, conditionally simulated spatially variable seismic ground motions for performancebased design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(7):891–919
Konakli K, Der Kiureghian A (2012) Simulation of spatially varying ground motions including incoherence, wavepassage and differential siteresponse effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(3):495–513
Saxena V, Deodatis G, Shinozuka M (2000) Effect of spatial variation of earthquake ground motion on the nonlinear dynamic response of highway bridges. In: Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland, New Zealand Earthquake engineering in practice. Social and economic issues, Auckland, New Zeland, 30 January  4 February 2000.
Deodatis G (1996) Nonstationary stochastic vector processes: seismic ground motion applications. Probabilistic Eng Mech 11(3):149–167
Sextos A, Karakostas C, Lekidis V, Papadopoulos S (2015) Multiple support seismic excitation of the Evripos bridge based on freefield and onstructure recordings. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(11):1510–1523
Fontara IKM, Titirla MD, Wuttke F, Athanatopoulou AM, Manolis GD, Sextos AG (2015) Multiple support excitation of a bridge based on bem analysis of the subsoilstructureinteraction phenomenon. In: 5th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Crete Island, Greece
Ramadan OMO, Mehanny SSF, Elhowary HA (2015) Seismic vulnerability of box girder continuous bridges under spatially variable ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 13(6):1727–1748
Zhong J, Jeon JS, Yuan W, DesRoches R (2017) Impact of spatial variability parameters on seismic fragilities of a cablestayed bridge subjected to differential support motions. J Bridg Eng 22(6):04017013
Atmaca B, Yurdakul M, Ateş S (2014) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of base isolated cablestayed bridge under earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:314–318
Abdel Zaher A, Rabei M, ElAttar A, Kunieda M, Nakamura H (2006) Ambient vibration test of Aswan cable stayed bridge. J Appl Mech 9:85–93
Patel V ka., Panchal VR, Soni DP (2017) Effect of multisupport excitation on seismic behavior of TFPSisolated cable stayed bridge. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development
Masrilayanti, Riza A, Ruddy K, Zakpar S (2019) Behaviour of cablestayed bridge’s girder to multisupport excitation. In: MATEC Web of Conferences, vol 276, p 01037
AbouRayan A (2014) Dynamic assessment of cablestayed bridges in Egypt. Int J Civil Eng 3:67–74
Atmaca B (2021) Determination of proper posttensioning cable force of cablestayed footbridge with TLBO algorithm. Steel Compos Struct 40(6):805–816
Atmaca B, Dede T, Grzywinski M (2020) Optimization of cables size and prestressing force for a single pylon cablestayed bridge with Jaya algorithm. Steel Compos Struct 34(6):853–862
Labib S, Bakhoum M (2000) Aswan Bridge Over The Nile. Proceedings of the bridge engineering conference. Sharm ElSheik, Egypt, pp 601–608
General Authority for Roads, Bridges and Land Transport (GARBLT) Arab Republic of Egypt (2015) The Project for Improvement of the Bridge Management Capacity: project completion report. Japan International Cooperation Agency, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., and Chodai Co.
SAP2000 Documentation (2012) Release 15.1.0. Computers and Structures, Inc., USA.
Ernst H (1965) Der EModul von Seilen unter Beriicksiehtigung. Der Buuingenieur 40(2):52–55
Constantinou MC, Soong TT, Dargush GF (1998) Passive energy dissipation systems for structural design and retrofit. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Kalpakidis Y, Fenz DM, Warn GP (2007) Performance of Seismic Isolation Hardware under Service and Seismic Loading. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research MCEER
Harichandran RS (1988) Local spatial variation of earthquake ground motion. In: Von Thun JL (ed) Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II  Recent Advances in GroundMotion Evaluation. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 203–217
Tzanetos N, Elnashai AS, Hamdan FH, Antoniou S (2000) Inelastic dynamic response of RC bridges subjected to spatial nonsynchronous earthquake motion. Adv Struct Eng 3(3):191–214
Mylonakis G, Papastamatiou D, Psycharis J, Mahmoud K (2001) Simplified Modeling of Bridge Response on Soft Soil to Nonuniform Seismic Excitation. Journal of Bridge Engineering 6:587–597. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)10840702(2001)6:6(587)
Zhang T, Chen QJ, Chen ZH, Yang YS (2012) The Nonuniform Random Seismic Response Analysis of Longspan Bridge Structure Based on Pseudoexcitation Method. In: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal
Leger P, Ide M, Paultre P (1990) Multiplesupport seismic analysis of large structures. Comput Struct 36(6):1153–1158
Bayrak O (1996) Effect of multiple seismic input on the response of long multispan bridge. In: 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE)
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MS analyzed the bridge, contributed to the preparation of the figures, and interpreted the results. MH, MA, EH, and MG collected the data, participated in the analysis, and contributed to the preparation of the figures. AS interpreted the results and contributed to writing the manuscript. AE was a major contributor in analyzing the data and writing the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Seleemah, M.A., Helam, M.S., Abualenein, M.A. et al. Response of Aswan cablestayed bridge to spatial nonsynchronous seismic excitations. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69, 70 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147022001241
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147022001241