Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Ambient vibration based seismic evaluation of isolated Gülburnu

highway bridge
Ahmet Can Altunis-ik n, Alemdar Bayraktar, Barıs- Sevim, S- evket Ates-
Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper describes ambient vibration based seismic evaluation procedure of an isolated highway
Received 23 December 2010 bridge. The procedure includes finite element modeling, ambient vibration testing, finite element
Received in revised form model updating and time history analysis. Gülburnu Highway Bridge located on the Giresun–Espiye
30 May 2011
state highway is selected as a case study. Three dimensional finite element model of the bridge is
Accepted 31 May 2011
Available online 29 June 2011
created by SAP2000 software to determine the dynamic characteristics analytically. Since input force is
not measured, Operational Modal Analysis is applied to identify dynamic characteristics. Enhanced
Keywords: Frequency Domain Decomposition and Stochastic Subspace Identification methods are used to obtain
Ambient vibration test experimental dynamic characteristics. Analytical and experimental dynamic characteristic are
Finite element model updating
compared with each other and finite element model of the bridge is updated by changing of material
Highway bridge
properties to reduce the differences between the results. Analytical model of the bridge after model
Operational modal analysis
Seismic evaluation updating is analyzed using 1992 Erzincan earthquake record to determine the seismic behavior. EW, NS
Friction pendulum isolators and UP components of the ground motion are applied to the bridge at the longitudinal, transverse and
vertical directions, respectively. It is demonstrated that the ambient vibration measurements are
enough to identify the most significant modes of highway bridges. Maximum differences between the
natural frequencies are reduced averagely from 9% to 2% by model updating. It is seen from the
earthquake analyses that friction pendulum isolators are very effective in reducing the displacements
and internal forces.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction updating in structural dynamics [1]. The main purpose of the

Finite element analyses of important engineering structures
such as highway bridges are performed in the design phase by
experienced engineers to determine the structural behavior.
However, material properties, boundary conditions and section
properties accepted in the analyses can be changed by some
reasons such as workers’ mistakes while construction, different
load cases to be exposed to the structure in the course of time
which is not considered in the design, the difficulty in defining the
exact material properties and the difficulty in matching the
true connection behavior. So, performance of such bridge has to
be controlled with the help of field testing or experimental
measurements.
It is generally known that natural frequencies and mode
shapes obtained from field testing do not coincide with those of
the analytical model. The problem of how to modify the analytical
model from the dynamic measurements is known as the model
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 462 377 40 20; fax: þ 90 462 377 26 06.
E-mail addresses: ahmetcan8284@hotmail.com (A.C. Altunis-ik),
alemdar@ktu.edu.tr (A. Bayraktar), bsevim18@hotmail.com (B. Sevim),
sates@ktu.edu.tr (S- . Ates-).
model updating procedure is to minimize the differences between
the analytically and experimentally determined dynamic char-
acteristics by changing some uncertainty parameters such as
material properties or boundary conditions.
In the literature, there are some studies related to finite
element modeling and experimental measurements of highway
bridges. Bayraktar et al. [2] determined the dynamic character-
istics of Kömürhan Highway Bridge located on Elazığ–Malatya
highway in Turkey using finite element analyses and ambient
vibration tests. Whelan et al. [3] studied on real time wireless
vibration monitoring of a bridge with single span integral abut-
ment using operational modal analysis in service condition.
Liu et al. [4] investigated finite element analyses, field measure-
ments using ambient vibration tests and seismic evaluation of a
three-span highway bridge subjected to a virtual ground motion.
Kwasniewski et al. [5] presented an experimental study for a
preselected typical highway bridge. Static and dynamic field tests
were performed on a two-lane concrete highway bridge. During
the tests, one or two fully loaded trucks crossed over the bridge,
which was instrumented with strain gauges, accelerometers, and
displacement transducers. Feng et al. [6] applied a neural network
based system identification technique to a highway bridge using

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.05.020
 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1497

experimental measurements under ambient vibrations such as model updating. Zhao and DeWolf [8] performed the dynamic
traffic loads. Brownjohn et al. [7] studied on assessment of monitoring of steel girder highway bridge using modal flexibility
highway bridge upgrading by dynamic testing and finite element approach. It can be seen from the literature that there is no
enough studies about finite element analyses, experimental
measurements and seismic evaluation of base isolated and post-
Table 1 tensioned segmental highway bridges constructed with balanced
Classification of some relevant output-only identification algorithms [10]. cantilever method.
The objective of this study is to investigate seismic evaluation of a
Method Characteristics
base isolated and post-tensioned segmental highway bridge
Frequency Peak Picking (PP) Classical SDOF method
constructed with balanced cantilever method using operational
domain Frequency Domain MDOF method; application of SVD modal testing in service condition. Gülburnu Highway Bridge is
Decomposition (FDD) to reduce noise chosen as an application. Three dimensional finite element model
Enhanced Frequency MDOF method; application of SVD of the bridge is created by using SAP2000. Ambient vibration tests are
Domain Decomposition to reduce noise
performed and experimental dynamic characteristics are extracted
(EFDD)
Polimax MDOF method using Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition and Stochastic
Subspace Identification methods. Finite element model of the bridge
Time Random Decrement (RD) Operates on time domain series,
domain leading to a free decay curve is updated by changing of material properties to eliminate the
analysis differences between analytical and experimental dynamic character-
Recussive Techniques Time series modeling using istics. Seismic behavior of the bridge is determined using 1992
(ARMA) recursive algorithms Erzincan earthquake ground motion records after model updating.
Maximum Likelihood Stochastic methods based on the
Methods minimization of a covariance matrix
Stochastic Subspace Stochastic methods based on the
Identification Methods project of state vector on a vector of
(SSI-DATA) past realizations 2. Formulation

Ambient excitation does not lend itself to Frequency Response

Functions (FRFs) or Impulse Response Functions (IRFs) calcula-
Table 2
Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of the EFDD and SSI methods.
tions because the input force is not measured in an ambient
vibration test. Therefore, a modal identification procedure will
Parameters Enhanced Frequency Stochastic Subspace need to base itself on output-only data [9]. There have been
Domain Decomposition Identification (SSI) several modal parameter identification techniques available
(EFDD)
which are developed by improvements in computing capacity
Transform tool FFT FFT and signal processing techniques. These techniques include the
Computation time Very fast Slow Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition (EFDD) method
Analysis domain Frequency Time from the Power Spectral Densities (PSDs), Auto Regressive Moving
Modal parameters Average (ARMA) model based on discrete-time data, natural
Stabilization diagram No Yes excitation technique (NExT), Stochastic Subspace Identification
Natural frequencies Good Very good methods (SSI) and maximum likelihood frequency domain meth-
Mode shapes Good Good
Damping ratios Unreliable Reliable
ods. Classification of some relevant output-only identification
algorithms is given Table 1.

Fig. 1. Some views of Gülburnu Highway Bridge.

Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of balanced cantilever construction.

1498 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

The mathematical background of nearly all these methods is 2.2. Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) method
quite similar, but a few different parts are available in imple-
mentation aspects such as data reduction, type of equation The Stochastic Subspace Identification method shares the
solvers and sequence of matrix operations. In this study, two advantage that stabilization diagrams can be constructed
different methods, which are Enhanced Frequency Domain by identifying parametric models of increasing order. These
Decomposition (EFDD) in the frequency domain and Stochastic diagrams are very valuable in separating the true system poles
Subspace Identification (SSI) in the time domain, are used for from the spurious numerical poles. SSI is an output-only time
modal parameter extraction. domain method that directly works with time data, without the
need to convert them to correlations or spectra. The method is
2.1. Enhanced Frequency Decomposition Domain (EFDD) Method especially suitable for operational modal parameter identification,
but it is difficult procedure to explain in detail in a short way for
EFDD method is an extension to FDD method which is a basic civil engineers. The model of vibration structures can be defined
technique that is easy to use. In this method, modes are simply picked by a set of linear, constant coefficient and second-order differ-
locating the peaks in Singular Value Decomposition plots calculated ential equations [16]:
from the spectral density spectra of the responses. As FDD method is
based on using a single frequency line from the Fast Fourier Trans- MU€ ðtÞ þC2 U_ ðtÞ þ KUðtÞ ¼ FðtÞ ¼ B2 uðtÞ ð2Þ
form analysis, the accuracy of the estimated natural frequency
depends on the FFT resolution and no modal damping is calculated.
However, EFDD gives an improved estimation of both the natural
frequencies and the mode shapes and also includes damping [11].
In EFDD, the single degree of freedom (SDOF) Power Spectral
Density (PSD) function, identified around a peak of resonance, is
taken back to the time domain using the Inverse Discrete Fourier
Transform. The natural frequency is obtained by determining the
number of zero-crossing as a function of time, and the damping
by the logarithmic decrement of the corresponding SDOF normal-
ized auto correlation function [11].
In EFDD method, the relationship between the unknown input
and the measured responses can be expressed as [11,12]
 
Gyy ðoÞ ¼ ½HðoÞn ½Gxx ðoÞ½HðoÞT ð1Þ
where Gxx is the r  r Power Spectral Density (PSD) matrix of the
input, r is the number of inputs, Gyy is the m  m PSD matrix of
the responses, m is the number of responses, HðoÞ is the m  r
Frequency Response Function (FRF) matrix, and n and superscript
T denote complex conjugate and transpose, respectively. Solution
of Eq. (1) is given detail in the literature [13–15]. Fig. 5. Dimensions of box girder cross section (all dimensions are in cm) [21].

Fig. 3. The cross section of the friction pendulum system [21].

Fig. 4. Basic configuration of Gülburnu Highway Bridge [21].

 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1499

where M, C2 , K are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices, F(t)
is the excitation force, and U(t) is the displacement vector
depending on time t. Observe that the force vector F(t) is
factorized into a matrix B2 describing the inputs in space and a
vector u(t). Although Eq. (2) represents quite closely the true
behavior of a vibrating structure, it is not directly used in SSI
methods. So, the equation of dynamic equilibrium (2) will be
converted to a more suitable form: the discrete-time stochastic
state-space model. Solution of Eq. (2) is given detail in the
literature [17–19].
Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of these
methods according to the modal identification of the highway
bridge are given in Table 2.
suspension and viaduct were evaluated from 1998 to 2000 and it
was decided to construct segmental box girder bridge using
balanced cantilever method. Manufacturing of cross-cutting began
in October 2001, but this work was stopped in November 2001
because of the geological features of sea floor. According to the
additional drilling reports, it was started to prepare alternative
projects in January 2002. Finally on 31 December 2004, the project
is revised and it was decided to make a concrete highway bridge
using balanced cantilever method with |200 cm diameter bored
pile. The construction of the bridge was started in November 2005

3. Gülburnu Highway Bridge

Gülburnu Highway Bridge was constructed within the context

of East Black Sea Coast Road Recovery Project between 20 þ362
and 20þ 692 km of Giresun–Espiye, Turkey, state highway.
Historical and natural beauty in the Zefre Port appeared with the
Gülburnu Cove was intended to protect through an esthetic bridge.
Different bridge types such as segmental box girder, cable-stayed, Fig. 9. The view of the location and working principals of the friction isolators.

Fig. 6. Column–foundation–pile system (all dimensions are in cm) [21].

Neopren Ruber Gasket 390 Side Profile

Side Wall Profile Superstructure

390 300 390

1080

Fig. 7. Schematic views of the abutments (all dimensions are in cm) [21].

Fig. 8. Some view of the friction isolator before and after placing.
1500 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

and the bridge was opened to the traffic in May 2009. Some views of 3.1. Bridge deck
Gülburnu Highway Bridge are given in Fig. 1.
Gülburnu Highway Bridge was constructed with balanced The superstructure of this bridge is a continuous single cell
cantilever method using cast-in-place construction technique. box girder constructed with cast-in-place which is the post-
This method is the best and optimum method for the passing of tensioned. The bridge’s deck has a 330 m total span and 30 m
large and long valley with reinforced concrete highway bridges total width. The traffic on the each deck is going on two lines.
using maximum span and minimum columns. The use of this
method is recommended especially where scaffolding is difficult
or impossible to erect as over deep valleys, wide rivers, traffic
yards or in case of expensive foundation conditions. In this
method, firstly, columns and small part of bridge deck are
constructed over substructure using suitable framework. Then,
segments (3–5 m length) are erected on opposite sides of each
column to balance the loads by using a movable form carrier.
After the concreting, prestress tendons are inserted in the Fig. 10. Finite element model of Gülburnu Highway Bridge.
segments and stressed with post-tension. The prestressing ten-
dons are arranged according to the moment diagram of a
cantilever, with a high concentration above the column. Towards Table 4
the mid-span or the abutment the number of tendons gradually Material properties considered in finite element analyses [21].
decreases. Finally, form carrier is moved to the next position and a
Elements Class Modulus of Poisson ratio Density
new cycle starts. This sequence is completed in a week and going
elasticity (N/m2) (dimensionless) (kg/m3)
on until bridge decks meet at midspan. At the midspan, closure
segment is established to complete one span. Fig. 2 schematically Deck C40 3.6E10 0.2 2500
shows the balanced cantilever method, in which segments are Columns C35 3.5E10 0.2 2500
symmetrically added to the columns. Piles C30 3.4E10 0.2 2500
Foundation C30 3.4E10 0.2 2500
Seismic isolation system with Friction Pendulum isolators was
Steela S420 2.1E11 0.3 7850
used in the construction of Gülburnu Highway Bridge. This
system can be an effective tool for the earthquake resistant a
Yield stress ¼1600 MPa, ultimate stress ¼ 1860 MPa.
design of bridges that can be used in both new construction and
retrofit. The Friction Pendulum System is a seismic isolation
bearing, with a mechanism based on its concave geometry and
surface friction properties. The supported structure is adminis-
tered into a pendulum motion as the housing plate simulta-
neously glides on the concave dish and dissipates energy with
friction [20]. Also, main period of the structures increases,
horizontal forces and moments are reduced significantly. The
cross section of friction pendulum system used in the Gülburnu
Highway Bridge is shown in Fig. 3. f1 = 1.086Hz f2 = 1.642Hz
The Gülburnu Highway Bridge is twin prestressed concrete 1st Vertical Mode 1st Torsional Mode
box girder structures. Each of two bridges carries two lanes of
East Black Sea Coast Road. The bridge deck consists of a main span
of 165 m and two side span of 82.5 m each. The total bridge
length is 330 m and width of bridge is 30 m. In the construction of
the bridge, 3800 ton building iron, 738 ton prestress steel and
25,000 m3 concrete were used. Basic configuration of the bridge is
shown in Fig. 4. The structural system of the bridge consists of
deck (superstructure), columns, side supports. f3 = 2.355Hz f4 = 3.102Hz
1st Transverse Mode 2nd Vertical Mode

Table 3
Modeling properties of friction isolators.

Properties Directional properties (kN m)

U1 U2 U3
f6 = 4.524Hz
f5 = 3.318Hz 1st Longitudinal Mode
Properties used for linear analysis cases
2nd Transverse Mode
Effective stiffness 14E7 72,280 72,280
Effective damping 0 0 0
Shear deformation location
Distance from End-J – 0.225 0.225

Properties used for nonlinear analysis cases

Stiffness 14E7 766,060 766,060
Damping coefficient 0 – –
Friction coefficient, slow – 0.03 0.03
Friction coefficient, fast – 0.06 0.06 f7 = 5.012Hz f8 = 5.960Hz
Rate parameter – 35 35 3rd Vertical Mode 2nd Torsional Mode
Radius of sliding surface – 3.962 3.962
Fig. 11. Analytically identified the first eight mode shapes.
 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1501

Deck of the bridge was constructed with balanced cantilever and

prestress box beam method. In the maintenance of current
balance, segments constructed at the same time on the columns
at both the directions come together and added with prestress.
The deck consists of 65 segments. All of the segments are nearly
5 m length. The cross section of the segments is variable along the
bridge length. The maximum depth is 8.25 m on
the columns, but it decreases parabolically 3.50 m at the side
supports and middle of the bridge. The thickness of the bottom slab
changes parabolically from 25 cm in to 140 cm. The top slab thickness
of 25 cm is constant all over the structure. The widths of the web
members are changed from 45 to 60 cm. The design strength of
concrete in the cast-in-place box girder segments is 40 MPa. The deck
of the box girder is entirely prestressed by high strength tendons with
a diameter of 15.7 mm. The ultimate strength of the tendons is
1860 MPa. The number of tendons in the top slab varies from 66 over
the columns to two at the side abutments and middle point of the
bridge. The number of tendons in the bottom slab varies from six to
two along the columns from abutments. Also, there are 34 tendons at
the middle of the bridge and it decreases to two along the columns.
Fig. 5 shows dimensions of box girder cross section.

3.2. Columns and expansion joint

There are four columns, each have 4.50 m height and

9.00  3.75 m2 cross section areas. All columns are footing on
the two raft foundation with bored piles. Twenty-eight bored
piles exist with 200 cm diameter and 25 m average length in each
foundation. Each raft foundation has the dimension of 32  22 m2
and 3 m depth. The design strength of concrete in the foundation
and piles are 35 and 30 MPa, respectively. In the foundation, S420
reinforcement steel is used. The view of the column–foundation–
pile system is shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 13. Dynamic characteristics attained from first test using EFDD and SSI
Two abutments allow only longitudinal movements. Sche- methods: (a) singular values of spectral density matrices, (b) average of auto
matic view of the abutments is shown in Fig. 7. spectral densities, and (c) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model.

Fig. 12. Accelerometers locations on the 2D schematic view of the bridge.

Table 5
Measurement tests setups and accelerometers locations.

Test setup Accelerometers Frequency span (Hz) Total duration (min) Step

Points Directions

Vertical Transverse Longitudinal

1st 1, 4, 6, 8, 16, 19, 21, 23 | | – 0–12.5 30 1

2nd 8, 10, 12, 15, 23, 25, 27, 30 | | – 0–12.5 15 1
3rd 5–11 | | – 0–12.5 30 2
20–26 | | –
4th 8, 23 | | – 0–12.5 15 1
6, 10, 21, 25 | | |
5th 1–15 | | – 0–12.5 30 2
16–30 | | –
1502 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

3.3. Base isolators The first eight mode shapes obtained from analytical solutions
of the bridge is given in Fig. 11. From the modal analysis, a total of
Eight friction pendulum isolators exist on the four columns. eight natural frequencies are attained analytically, which range
According to the project design criteria, earthquake isolation between 0 and 6 Hz. The analytical mode shapes can be classified
system has the ability of movement of 50 cm. This movement is into vertical, transverse, longitudinal and torsional modes.
restricted by octagon inhibitor structure constructed under the
main segments. The isolators are produced in California and some
experimental measurements performed using some special test 5. Ambient vibration tests and experimental dynamic
methods in there to test of movement capacity of isolators. Some characteristics
views of the friction isolator are shown in Fig. 8.
Finite element method can produce a good representation of a
true structure. However, the prediction from this method is not
always accurate. Inaccuracies and errors in a finite element model
4. Finite element analyses and analytical dynamic may arise due to:
characteristics
 inaccurate estimation of material and geometric properties;
Three dimensional finite element model of the bridge is con-  deterioration due to environmental hazards such as wind,
structed using SAP2000 [22] software. Deck, columns and bored piles earthquakes, and higher serviced loads after so many years
are modeled by frame element having three translational DOFs and of use;
three rotational DOFs at each node. Raft foundations are modeled as  poor approximation of boundary conditions and inadequate
shell element. In the finite element model, each of the bridge deck modeling of joints;
consists of 65 frame elements. Each frame represents the each  faulty assumptions in individual element shape functions and
segment. Automatic mesh frame option is considered at the inter- poor quality mesh;
mediate joints. Maximum station spacing is considered as 0.5 in the  nonlinearities, damping mechanisms, and coupling effects that
frame output stations. In the additional output and design stations, are not taken into account in the model.
intersections with other elements and concentrated load locations
including bridge lane loading points is selected. Abutments (expan-
sion joints) are modeled using restricted boundary conditions and
only longitudinal translational freedoms are released. Boundary
conditions at the base of bored piles are defined using very rigid
springs. The values of spring stiffness are assumed as 1E9 N/m at the
longitudinal and transverse directions, 6E9 N/m at the vertical direc-
tion based on the design project [21]. Post-tension cables are modeled
using frame elements constrained to rotation and fixed to end of the
each segments. Post-tension loads are considered as strain. Friction
pendulum isolators are modeled using link elements. The view of the
location and working principles of the friction isolators is shown in
Fig. 9. Each isolator has a 50 cm displacement capacity on the
longitudinal and transverse directions. Modeling properties of the
isolators are given in Table 3. Fig. 10 shows the full three dimensional
view of the finite element model of Gülburnu Highway Bridge.
Material properties used in the analyses are given in Table 4.
Some kinds of load cases are considered in the 3D modal
analyses of the bridge:

 Dead load: Weight of all elements. They are calculated from the
finite element software directly.
 Additional mass: Weight of the asphalt, cobble, pipeline and its
supports, scarecrow. 50.90 kN/m distributed load is added to
each segment.

Table 6
Experimental modal parameters attained from the first test setup.

Frequency EFDD Method Average of SSI Method

Number auto spectral
Frequencies Damping densities Frequencies Damping

1 0.994 2.529 1.000 0.984 2.195

2 1.507 1.615 1.520 1.500 1.109
3 2.238 0.661 2.230 2.240 0.519
4 2.848 0.678 2.840 2.847 1.298
5 3.173 0.758 3.170 3.209 1.855
6 4.320 0.745 4.310 4.304 0.829
7 4.747 0.178 4.770 4.788 1.019 Fig. 14. Dynamic characteristics attained from second test using EFDD and SSI
8 5.615 1.017 5.640 5.602 0.419 methods: (a) singular values of spectral density matrices, (b) average of auto
spectral densities, and (c) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model.
 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1503

Testing is performed to increase the knowledge and under- thought that dynamic characteristics of these parts should be
standing of the behavior of a structure. This is accomplished by determined and compared with each other. Therefore, Giresun
observing the response of a structure to a set of known condi- part of the bridge is measured from the box girder on
tions. Currently, the most popular dynamic testing technique is reciprocal points.
modal testing [17,23]. For the modal testing of structures, there
are two main types of dynamic tests: forced vibration and
ambient vibration tests. In the first method, the structure is
excited by known input forces and correlated input–output
measurements are performed. Impulse hammers, drop weights
and electro-dynamic shakers are the main excitation equipments.
The successes of forced vibration tests are limited for relatively
small structures. In case of large and flexible bridges like highway,
cable-stayed or suspension bridges, it often requires heavy
equipments and involves important resources to provide a con-
trolled excitation at enough high levels, which becomes difficult
and costly. In the forced vibration test, the traffic has to be shut
down. This could be a serious problem for intensively used
bridges. During the past few years, ambient vibration testing
(Operational Modal Testing) proved to be a valuable alternative
according to classic forced vibration testing. Instead of using one
or more artificial excitation devices, in operation modal testing
makes use of the freely available ambient excitation caused by
natural excitation sources on or near the test structure. Also, the
test structure remains in its operating condition during the test.
In the experimental measurements, the responses of Gülburnu
Highway Bridge are measured by using B&K 8340 and B&K 4507
type uni-axial accelerometers. The minimum frequency span and
sensitivity of these accelerometers are 0.1–1000 Hz and 10 v/g for
B&K 8340, 1–25,600 Hz and 1 v/g for B&K 4507, respectively. The
signals are acquired in the B&K 3560 type data acquisition system
and then transferred into the PULSE Lapshop software [24]. For
parameter estimation from the Ambient Vibration Survey data,
the Operational Modal Analysis software is used [25].
The bridge was opened to traffic on May 2009. During the test in
June 2009, normal traffic over the bridge was used as a source of
ambient vibration. All kind of vehicles such as car, van, truck and bus
can pass over the bridge. Cars usually pass over the bridge almost
every minute. But trucks rarely pass. Since input force was not
measured, the use of Operational Modal Analysis to identify modal
parameters was indispensable. Five ambient vibration tests were
carried out in the box girder. Due to the limited availability of
accelerometers and data acquisition equipment, maximum of 16
accelerometers for each test step could be monitored simultaneously.
Among these accelerometers, 4507 type uni-axial was used as
reference accelerometer and its location unchanged throughout the
test. The 8340 types were used as roving accelerometers and were
moved in order to cover all accelerometer locations. Explanation of
the selected measurements points are given below:

 First test setup: Gülburnu Highway Bridge can be divided into

two symmetrical parts as Giresun and Trabzon. So, it is

Table 7
Experimental modal parameters attained from the second test setup.

Frequency EFDD Method Average of SSI Method

number auto spectral
Frequencies Damping densities Frequencies Damping

1 1.013 1.871 1.000 0.991 4.662

2 1.505 1.016 1.510 1.513 0.683
3 2.235 0.701 2.230 2.234 0.612
4 2.868 0.814 2.870 2.851 0.487
5 3.188 0.758 3.130 3.188 0.758 Fig. 15. Dynamic characteristics attained from third test using EFDD and SSI
6 4.325 0.735 4.320 4.308 0.820 methods: (a) singular values of spectral density matrices, (b) average of auto
7 4.774 0.183 4.760 4.835 0.976 spectral densities of the first step, (c) average of auto spectral densities of the
8 5.585 0.535 5.590 5.592 1.063 second step, (d) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model of first step,
and (e) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model of second step.
1504 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

Table 8  Second test setup: In the second test setup, Trabzon part of the
Experimental modal parameters attained from the third test setup. bridge is measured on reciprocal points in the box girder.
Accelerometers are placed at the symmetry point of the first
Frequency EFDD Method Average of SSI Method
number auto spectral
Frequencies Damping densities Frequencies Damping

1 0.994 2.556 1.010 0.997 3.952

2 1.508 0.962 1.510 1.505 0.304
3 2.238 0.636 2.230 2.238 0.548
4 2.860 1.040 2.850 2.850 0.739
5 3.175 0.758 3.100 3.188 0.758
6 4.314 0.647 4.300 4.335 0.407
7 4.793 0.448 4.790 4.848 0.976
8 5.618 0.687 5.630 5.626 1.136

Fig. 16. Dynamic characteristics attained from fourth test using EFDD and SSI
methods: (a) singular values of spectral density matrices, (b) average of auto spectral
densities of the first step, and (c) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model.

Table 9
Experimental modal parameters attained from the fourth test setup.

Frequency EFDD Method Average of SSI Method

number auto spectral
Frequencies Damping densities Frequencies Damping

1 0.993 2.661 1.000 0.995 3.952

2 1.508 0.958 1.520 1.505 0.559
3 2.238 0.741 2.230 2.241 0.604
4 2.853 0.765 2.860 2.874 2.145
5 3.181 0.371 3.170 3.258 0.758 Fig. 17. Dynamic characteristics attained from fifth test using EFDD and SSI
6 4.321 0.558 4.330 4.298 0.962 methods: (a) singular values of spectral density matrices, (b) average of auto
7 4.797 0.448 4.800 4.761 1.547 spectral densities of the first step, (c) average of auto spectral densities of the
8 5.637 0.560 5.640 5.668 2.743 second step, (d) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model of first step,
and (e) stabilization diagram of estimated state space model of second step.
 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1505

setup to compare the dynamic characteristics of Giresun and
Trabzon parts.
 Third test setup: The third test setup is performed in the box
girder and only main span between two columns is measured
using vertical and lateral located accelerometers.
 Fourth test setup: In the fourth test setup, some additional
accelerometers to third setup are placed along the bridge deck
(only main span) to obtain longitudinal modes.
 Fifth test setup: In the fifth measurement, the bridge is
measured from end to end in the box girder.
5.1. The first test setup
Singular values of spectral density matrices, average of auto
spectral densities and stabilization diagram of estimated state
space model of the first test setup attained from vibration signals
using EFDD and SSI methods are shown in Fig. 13. Natural
frequencies and damping ratios obtained from the first test setup
are given in Table 6.
5.2. The second test setup

Accelerometers locations on the 2D schematic view of the
bridge are given in Fig. 12. Table 5 summarizes details of five
group of measurement together with accelerometer locations.
Table 10
Experimental modal parameters attained from the fifth test setup.
Singular values of spectral density matrices, average of auto
spectral densities and stabilization diagram of estimated state
space model of the second test setup attained from vibration
signals using EFDD and SSI methods are shown in Fig. 14. Natural
frequencies and damping ratios obtained from the second test
setup are given in Table 7.

Frequency EFDD Method Average of SSI Method 5.3. The third test setup
number auto spectral
Frequencies Damping densities Frequencies Damping Singular values of spectral density matrices, average of auto
1 0.991 2.377 1.000 0.992 2.512
spectral densities and stabilization diagram of estimated state
2 1.508 1.018 1.520 1.507 0.342 space model of third test setup attained from vibration signals
3 2.235 0.693 2.230 2.226 0.624 using EFDD and SSI methods are shown in Fig. 15. Natural
4 2.854 1.004 2.860 2.832 0.657 frequencies and damping ratios obtained from the third test setup
5 3.142 0.644 3.170 3.175 0.556
are given in Table 8.
6 4.315 0.621 4.310 4.325 0.424
7 4.790 0.453 4.780 4.832 0.857
8 5.599 0.634 5.590 5.612 1.026

5.4. Fourth test setup

Singular values of spectral density matrices, average of auto

spectral densities and stabilization diagram of estimated state
space model of fourth test setup attained from vibration signals
using EFDD and SSI methods are shown in Fig. 16. Natural
frequencies and damping ratios obtained from the fourth test
setup are given in Table 9.

1st Vertical Mode 1st Torsional Mode

5.5. The fifth test setup

Singular values of spectral density matrices, average of auto

spectral densities and stabilization diagram of estimated state
space model of fifth test setup attained from vibration signals
using EFDD and SSI methods are shown in Fig. 17. Natural
frequencies and damping ratios obtained from the fifth test setup
1st Transverse Mode 2nd Vertical Mode are given in Table 10.
The first eight mode shapes obtained from the experimental
measurements of the bridge is given in Fig. 18. When the
experimentally identified mode shapes are compared with each
other, it is seen that there is a good agreement between all results.
So, only one measurement mode shape is given with detail in
Fig. 18.

2nd Transverse Mode 1st Longitudinal Mode Table 11

Changing of material properties for finite element model updating.

Elements Class Modulus of elasticity (N/m2)

Before model updating After model updating

Deck C40 3.6E10 3.4E10

Columns C35 3.5E10 3.3E10
3rd Vertical Mode 2nd Torsional Mode Piles C30 3.4E10 3.2E10
Foundation C30 3.4E10 3.2E10
Fig. 18. Experimentally identified first eight mode shapes.
1506 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

Table 12
Analytical and experimental dynamic characteristics after model updating.

Freq. no Analytical frequencies (Hz) Experimental frequencies (Hz)

Before update After update Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3 Measure 4 Measure 5

1 1.086 0.994 0.994 1.013 0.994 0.993 0.991

2 1.642 1.510 1.507 1.505 1.508 1.508 1.508
3 2.355 2.285 2.238 2.235 2.238 2.238 2.235
4 3.102 2.910 2.848 2.868 2.860 2.853 2.854
5 3.318 3.215 3.173 3.188 3.175 3.181 3.142
6 4.524 4.398 4.320 4.325 4.314 4.321 4.315
7 5.012 4.834 4.747 4.774 4.793 4.797 4.790
8 5.960 5.665 5.615 5.585 5.618 5.637 5.599

6.0 40
Acceleration (m/s2)

Displacement (cm)
Before updating After updating
3.0
0.0 35
-3.0
Max=4.86 m/s2
-6.0 30
0 5 10 15 20 0.0 82.5 165.0 247.5 330.0
Time (s) Distance (m)

6.0
Acceleration (m/s2)

0
Displacement (cm)

3.0
0.0 -20
-3.0
Max=5.05 m/s2
-6.0 -40
0 5 10 15 20 0.0 82.5 165.0 247.5 330.0
Time (s) Distance (m)

6.0 5
Acceleration (m/s2)

Displacement (cm)

3.0
0
0.0
-3.0 -5
Max=2.43 m/s2
-6.0 -10
0 5 10 15 20 0.0 82.5 165.0 247.5 330.0
Time (s) Distance (m)
Fig. 19. Time histories of ground motion accelerations of 1992 Erzincan earth-
Fig. 20. Changing of maximum displacements along the bridge deck: (a) longitudinal
quake: (a) ERZ/EW component, (b) ERZ/NS component, and (c) ERZ/UP component.
displacements, (b) transverse displacements, and (c) vertical displacements.

6. Finite element model updating
When the analytically and experimentally identified dynamic
characteristics of the Gülburnu Highway Bridge are compared
with each other, it is seen that there is a good agreement between
mode shapes but some differences between natural frequencies.
So, finite element model of the bridge is updated by changing of
material properties to eliminate these differences. Changing of
the material properties (modulus of elasticity) for finite element
model updating is given in Table 11.
Comparison of the analytical and experimental dynamic charac-
teristics of the Gülburnu Highway Bridge before and after finite
element model updating is given in Table 12. According to Table 12, it
is seen that maximum differences in the natural frequencies are
reduced averagely from 9% to 2%. Measure 1–5 had a maximum
percentage difference equal to 8.5%, 8.3%, 8.5%, 8.6% and 8.8% before
finite element model updating. But, measure 1–5 had a maximum
percentage difference equal to 2.1%, 2.2%, 1.9%, 2.0% and 2.3% after
finite element model updating. A good agreement is found between
natural frequencies and mode shapes after model updating.
7. Earthquake behavior
Earthquake behavior of Gülburnu Highway Bridge before and
after finite element model updating is performed using 1992
Erzincan earthquake ground motion (Fig. 19). This earthquake has
a magnitude value as 6.9 (M ¼6.9). EW, NS and UP components of
the ground motion are applied to the bridge at the longitudinal,
transverse and vertical directions, respectively. Also, experimen-
tally identified damping ratios for each mode are considered in
the updated analytical finite element model.
 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1507

40 40
Max = 34.61cm Max = 32.21cm

20 20

Displacements (cm)

Displacements (cm)
0 0

-20 -20

Max = 32.18cm Max = 30.40cm

-40 -40
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
40
Max = 8.91cm

20
Displacements (cm)

-20

Max = 7.60cm
-40
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)

Fig. 21. Time histories of the maximum displacements for bridge deck before and after finite element model updating.

Table 13
Maximum displacements occurred on the bridge columns.

Direction Displacements (m)

Before model updating After model updating

Longitudinal 1.55E  3 1.71E  3

Transverse 0.34E  3 0.38E  3
Vertical 0.015E  3 0.017E  3

Fig. 22. Changing of maximum bending moments along the bridge deck.

7.1. Deck response

3E+4
Max = 2.4E4kNm
Distribution of longitudinal, transverse and vertical displace-
ments along the bridge deck before and after finite element model
Bending Moment (kNm)

2E+4 updating is given in Fig. 20. It is seen from Fig. 20 that displace-
ments after model updating are bigger than the other. Long-
itudinal displacements have a constant value along to the bridge
0E+0 deck. But, transverse and vertical displacements have an increas-
ing trend along to middle of the bridge deck.
The maximum longitudinal displacements are occurred as 32
and 34.6 cm, the maximum transverse displacements are
-2E+4
occurred as 29.8 and 32.2 cm, and the maximum vertical dis-
placements are occurred as 7.6 and 8.8 cm before and after
Max = 2.2E4kNm model updating, respectively. The time histories of maximum
-3E+4 displacements before and after model updating are presented in
0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 21.
Time (s)
Distribution of the bending moments along the bridge deck
Fig. 23. Time histories of maximum bending moment for bridge deck before and before and after finite element model updating is given in Fig. 22.
after finite element model updating. It is seen from Fig. 22 that bending moments have an increasing
1508 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510

5
Before updating
After updating
4

Height (m)
3

0
0 1 2
Displacements (mm)

2 2

1 1
Displacements (mm)

Displacements (mm)
0 0

-1 -1

Max = 1.55mm Max = 1.71mm

-2 -2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 24. Changing of longitudinal displacements along the bridge columns (a) and time histories of maximum longitudinal displacements before (b) and after (c) modal
updating: (a) changing of longitudinal displacements, (b) before updating, and (c) after updating.

5 analysis subjected to Erzincan ground motion is presented in

Fig. 23.

4
Column Height (m)

7.2. Column response

3
The maximum displacements before and after model updating
are given in Table 13. It is seen that there is a little displacements
2
on the bridge columns because of using friction isolators.
Maximum displacements are occurred on the longitudinal direc-
1 tion. So, variation and maximum time histories of longitudinal
Before updating displacements are presented in Fig. 24.
After updating When the axial forces and shear forces are examined, it is seen
0 that both values are nearly equal along to the height of the bridge
0 1E+5 2E+5 columns and the values after model updating are a little bigger.
Bending Moment (kNm) Axial forces are obtained as 3943 and 4516 kN along to the height
of the bridge columns before and after model updating, respec-
Fig. 25. Changing of bending moments along to the bridge columns.
tively. Shear forces are obtained as 12,500 and 13,280 kN along to
the height of the bridge columns before and after model updating,
respectively.
Variations of bending moments with height of bridge columns
trend along to the bridge columns and have a decreasing trend before and after model updating are shown in Fig. 25. It can be
along to middle of the bridge deck. easily seen that bending moments have a decreasing trend along
The time histories of maximum bending moments before the bridge columns and the values after model updating are a
and after model updating occurred as 2.2E4 and 2.4E4 kN m, little bigger. Maximum values before and after model updating
respectively, on the bridge deck obtained from earthquake are calculated as 1.56E4 and 1.72E4 kN m, respectively.
 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510 1509

2E+5 2E+5

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

1E+5 1E+5

0E+0 0E+0

-1E+5 -1E+5

Max = 1.56E5kNm Max = 1.72E5kNm

-2E+5 -2E+5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 26. Time histories of maximum bending moment for bridge columns: (a) before model updating and (b) after model updating.

Table 14
Variation of the displacement and internal forces along to the friction isolators.

Friction isolators Displacements (mm) Internal Forces (kNm)

Longitudinal Transverse Vertical Bending moment Axial forces Shear forces

Before update End 314 87 1.6 1.4E3 14,720 6131

Start 3.2 0.4 1.5 4.4E3 14,720 6131
After update End 338 93 1.7 1.5E3 16,080 6638
Start 3.5 0.5 1.6 4.8E3 16,080 6638

The time histories of maximum bending moments on the 8. Conclusions

bridge columns before and after model updating are presented
in Fig. 26. In this paper, dynamic characteristics of isolated Gülburnu
Highway bridge were determined using finite element analyses
and ambient vibration tests. Three dimensional finite element
7.3. Isolator response model of the bridge was constituted by SAP2000 program. Five
different test setups in the box girder were performed under
The variation of the displacements and internal forces such as natural excitations such as traffic loads. Finite element model of
bending moments, shear forces and axial forces along to the the bridge was updated by changing of material properties. The
friction isolators are given in Table 14. It is seen from Table 12 earthquake behavior of the bridge was determined before and
that displacements have an increasing trend, but bending after model updating using Erzincan earthquake ground motion.
moments have a decreasing trend along the isolator. Also, when Comparing the results of this study, the following observations
the axial forces and shear forces are considered, the values are can be made:
equal along the height of the isolator. The displacements and
internal forces after mode updating are bigger than the other.  Initial analytical natural frequencies of Gülburnu Highway Bridge
From the studies, some points are learned about the base isolators were attained at ranges between 0 and 6 Hz for the first eight
and their influence on the overall bridge behavior such as modes. These can be classified into vertical modes in the z
direction, transverse modes in the y direction, longitudinal modes
 Base isolation is an one of the structural elements which in the x direction and torsional modes. The first eight experimental
should substantially decouple a superstructure from its sub- modes were estimated within ranges between 0 and 6 Hz. The
structure resting on a shaking ground. Base isolation is a experimental mode shapes were observed to be in close agree-
technique developed to prevent or minimize internal ment with the analytical mode shapes.
forces to structures during an earthquake by increasing the  The ambient vibration tests were conducted under the envir-
period. onmental excitations in the box girder for accurately extract-
 Base isolation is the most powerful tool of the earthquake ing the dynamic characteristics using EFDD and SSI methods.
engineering pertaining to the passive structural vibration When the first two test setup results are examined, it was seen
control technologies. It is meant to enable a bridge structure that good agreement between the dynamic characteristics
to survive a potentially devastating seismic impact through a such as natural frequency, mode shapes and damping ratios
proper initial design or subsequent modifications. of Giresun and Trabzon parts of the bridge.
 In recent years base isolation has become an increasingly  When comparing the analytical and experimental results, it
applied structural design technique for bridges in highly was seen that there was an approximate 9% difference
seismic areas. Many types of structures have been built using between the natural frequencies predicted by the initial finite
this approach, and many others are in the design phase or element model and obtained through OMA, and analytical
under construction. frequencies are bigger than those of the experimental.
1510 A.C. Altunis- ik et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1496–1510
 To eliminate differences, finite element model of the bridge
was updated by adjusting of material properties. After finite
element model updating, maximum differences between the
natural frequencies was averagely reduced to 2%.
 Good agreement was found between natural frequencies and
mode shapes obtained from updated finite element model of
the bridge and experimental measurements.
 Seismic evaluations of the bridge before and after finite
element model updating were determined using 1992 Erzin-
can earthquake ground motion. EW, NS and UP components of
the ground motion are applied to the bridge at the long-
itudinal, transverse and vertical directions, respectively.
Experimentally identified damping ratios were considered in
the updated finite element analyses. It can be seen from the
analysis results that displacements increase by the height of
bridge columns and along the middle point of the deck.
 The maximum longitudinal displacements are occurred as 32
and 34.6 cm, the maximum transverse displacements are
occurred as 29.8 and 32.2 cm, and the maximum vertical
displacements are occurred as 7.6 and 8.8 cm for bridge deck
before and after model updating, respectively.
 Because of the friction isolators, little displacements are
obtained on the bridge columns. Maximum displacements of
bridge columns are calculated as 1.55 and 1.71 mm on the
longitudinal direction before and after model updating,
respectively.
 Variation of the internal forces such as bending moment, axial
forces and shear forces for bridge deck and columns are given
with detail. Maximum bending moments occurred as 2.2E4
and 2.4E4 kN m for bridge deck before and after model updat-
ing, respectively. When the axial forces and shear forces are
considered, it is seen that the values are nearly equal along the
height of the bridge columns, and the values after model
updating are a little bigger. Also, bending moments have a
decreasing trend along the bridge columns, and the values
after model updating are a little bigger. Maximum bending
moments occurred as 1.56E4 and 1.72E4 kN m for bridge
columns before and after model updating, respectively.
 It can be generally stated that the displacements and internal
forces are acceptable level for isolated highway bridges.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the TUBITAK and Karadeniz
Technical University under Research Grant nos. 106M038 and
2005.112.001.1, respectively. Many thanks to Kaysers- ah Erdem and
Mehmet Öztürk who are chief engineer and construction supervisor
to supply the technical detail, photos and logistical supports during
experimental measurements. Also, many thanks to Nuri C - elebi and
Zeki Harputoğlu for supporting the technical information.
References
[1] Jaishi B, Ren WX. Structural finite element model updating using ambient
vibration test results. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2005;131(4):
617–28.
[2] Bayraktar A, Altunıs- ık AC, Sevim B, Türker T, Domanic- A, Tas- Y. Vibration
characteristics of Kömürhan Highway Bridge constructed with balanced
cantilever method. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE
2009;23(2):90–9.
[3] Whelan MJ, Gangone MV, Janoyan KD, Jha R. Real-time wireless vibration
monitoring for operational modal analysis of an integral abutment highway
bridge. Engineering Structures 2009;31:2224–35.
[4] Liu C, DeWolf JT, Kim JH. Development of a baseline for structural health
monitoring for a curved post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge. Engineer-
ing Structures 2009, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.022.
[5] Kwasniewski L, Wekezer J, Roufa G, Hongyi L, Ducher J, Malachowski J.
Experimental evaluation of dynamic effects for a selected highway bridge.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 2006;20(3):253–60.
[6] Feng MQ, Kim DK, Yi JH, Chen Y. Baseline models for bridge performance
monitoring. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 2004;130(5):562–9.
[7] Brownjohn JMW, Moyo P, Omenzetter P, Yong L. Assessment of highway
bridge upgrading by dynamic testing and finite-element model updating.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE 2003;8(3):162–72.
[8] Zhao J, DeWolf JT. Dynamic monitoring of steel girder highway bridge.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE 2002;7(6):350–6.
[9] Ren WX, Zhao T, Harik IE. Experimental and analytical modal analysis of steel
arch bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2004;130(7):1022–31.
[10] Ramos LF. Damage identification on masonry structures based on vibration
signatures. PhD thesis, University of Minho, Portugal, 2007.
[11] Jacobsen NJ, Andersen P, Brincker R. Using enhanced frequency domain
decomposition as a robust technique to harmonic excitation in Operational
Modal Analysis. In: Proceedings of the ISMA2006: international conference
on noise & vibration engineering, 2006.
[12] Bendat JS, Piersol AG. Random data: analysis and measurement procedures.
USA: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.
[13] Peeters B. System identification and damage detection in civil engineering.
PhD thesis, K.U., Leuven, Belgium, 2000.
[14] Felber AJ.Development of hybrid bridge evaluation system. PhD thesis,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1993.
[15] Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G, Cosenza E, Manfredi G. Implementation of OMA
procedures using labview: theory and application. In: 2nd international
operational modal analysis conference, 2007. p. 1–13.
[16] Peeters B, De Roeck G.. Reference based stochastic subspace identification in
civil engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
identification in engineering systems, 1999. p. 639–48.
[17] Ewins DJ. Modal testing: theory and practice. Letchworth, Hertfordshire,
England, New York: Research Studies Press; 1984.
[18] Juang JN. Applied system identification. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Inc.; 1994.
[19] Yu DJ, Ren WX. EMD-based stochastic subspace identification of structures
from operational vibration measurements. Engineering Structures
2005;27(12):1741–51.
[20] Eröz M, DesRoches R. Bridge seismic response as a function of the friction
pendulum system (FPS) modeling assumptions. Engineering Structures
2008;30:3204–12.
[21] Yüksel Project. Gülburnu Bridge—detailed design, 2007.
[22] SAP2000. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures. Berke-
ley, CA, USA: Computers and Structures Inc.; 1998.
[23] Inman DJ. Engineering vibration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[24] PULSE. Labshop, version 11.2.2., Brüel & Kjaer Sound and Vibration Measure-
ment A/S, 2006.
[25] OMA. Operational modal analysis. Release 4.0, Structural Vibration Solution
A/S, Denmark, 2006.