Reproduction of Cable-Stayed Bridge Seismic Responses

Involving Tower–Girder Pounding and Damage Process

Estimation for Large Earthquakes
Tomoaki Takeda1; Tsukasa Mizutani2; Tomonori Nagayama, M.ASCE3; and Yozo Fujino, M.ASCE4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Tower–girder transverse pounding was observed on the Yokohama Bay Bridge wind tongue during the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake. Damage to the wind tongue due to pounding can potentially lead to damage of other members. However, pounding was not taken
into consideration in the design, and the process of how the damage occurs after the wind tongue damage has not been clarified. Therefore, a
way to model the damage process involving tower–girder transverse pounding is needed. In this study, a frame model of the Yokohama Bay
Bridge was constructed to reproduce the observed damage that occurred as a result of the pounding. A multiscale model was then constructed
by combining the global frame model with a local finite-element model consisting of a shell and solid elements. The model was validated
through comparison with actual measurements. Dynamic analysis of the multiscale model clarified the deformation of the wind tongue during
large earthquakes and the resulting damage to the bridge. The model demonstrated that ductile damage can occur at the base of the wind tongue
during a Level 2 earthquake and that the tower link can then drop off due to its large displacement after the wind tongue damage. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001336. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction However, in the dynamic analysis performed for the retrofit

Long-span bridges are often essential for logistics in ordinary times
and more so for evacuation routes and emergency vehicle traffic in
a disaster. If these bridges are damaged by a disaster and the traffic
function is lost, enormous economic and social losses are inevitable.
After the Kobe earthquake, the seismic safety standards of bridges
were revised in Japan, and the seismic risk to bridges generally
decreased. Nonetheless, seismic damage caused by unexpected
events can still take place.
At the Yokohama Bay Bridge, pounding between the wind
tongue and the wind shoe, which constrains the transverse displace-
ment of the girder, was observed for the first time during the 2011
Great East Japan Earthquake (Siringoringo et al. 2014). Fig. 1
presents the wind tongue, wind shoe, and tower link. An unexpected
bolt fracture occurred at the tower link due to the large transverse
displacement of the main girder although the wind tongue was not
damaged. If the wind tongue had been damaged, the tower link
might have dropped off due to the large transverse displacement of
the girder.
1
Researcher, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Tokyo, 7-3-1,
Hongo, Bunkyoku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan (corresponding author).
Email: takeda@bridge.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
2 Yokohama Bay Bridge that could reproduce seismic responses
Project Lecturer, Institute of Industrial Science, Univ. of Tokyo.
4-6-1, Komaba, Meguroku, Tokyo 153-8505, Japan. Email: mizu-t@
iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
3 local FE models. Using the multiscale model, the local damage
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ.of Tokyo, 7-3-1,
Hongo, Bunkyoku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan. Email: nagayama@bridge.t.u
-tokyo.ac.jp
4
Specially Appointed Professor, Institute of Advanced Science,
Yokohama National Univ., 79-5, Tokiwadai, Hodogaya, Yokohama 240-
8501, Japan. Email: fujino@ynu.ac.jp
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 16, 2018; approved
on July 17, 2018; published online on November 27, 2018. Discussion pe-
riod open until April 27, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
design for a Level 2 earthquake, which was believed would occur
with large intensity during the service time of the bridge (Japan
Road Association 2012), it was assumed that the wind tongue and
the wind shoe would be in continuous contact with each other.
Therefore, the pounding force was not taken into consideration.
Takamoto et al. (2014) estimated the pounding force of the wind
tongue using the simple beam model. However, the damage
caused by the pounding of the wind tongue was investigated only
by static analysis (Komori et al. 2005b). Thus, the details of the
wind tongue damage due to the pounding and the consequent
damage occurring to the tower link were not clarified. In addition,
the mechanism of the bolt fracture that occurred at the tower link
during the 2011 earthquake was not foreseen.
Detailed finite-element (FE) models are widely used to estimate
local damage and deformation due to pounding (Al-Thairy and
Wang 2014; Bi and Hao 2013; Chen et al. 2015). However, model-
ing a whole long-span bridge needs an enormous numbers of degrees
of freedom; in addition, the associated calculation cost would be
prohibitive.
Therefore, a multiscale model combining local FE models
with a global frame model (Li et al. 2009) was employed in this
study to clarify the wind tongue damage due to the pounding and
the resultant damage to the tower link. A frame model of the
was first constructed. Then, a multiscale model was constructed
by replacing the components sensitive to pounding with detailed
mechanism of the tower link bolt was clarified. In order to appro-
priately estimate the pounding force of the wind tongue during
large earthquakes, a dynamic analysis of the frame model in a
Level 2 earthquake was conducted. Then, a dynamic analysis,
based on the dynamic analysis of the frame model, was conducted
with the multiscale model to evaluate the effects of an earthquake
similar to that which caused the wind tongue damage. Finally, a
mechanism for the damage due to pounding during a large earth-
quake was proposed.

© ASCE 04018112-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 To Honmoku To Oguro

Transverse direcon
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cross beam
Wind tongue

Wind shoe
Tower link
Rotate around
longitudinal axis
and transverse axis

Fig. 1. Wind tongue, wind shoe, and tower link.

T1(x,y) T2(x,y)
To Honmoku To Oguro
200m 460m 200m T1(x,y) T2(x,y)
Yokohama Yokohama
T3(x,y) T4(x,y) Harbor Harbor
S5(x,y,z) S7(x,y,z) T3L(x,y) T3R(x,y) T4L(x,y) T4R(x,y)
S1(x,y,z) S3(x,y,z) S4(y,z) S6(y,z) S9(x,y,z)

B3(x,y) T5(x,y) T6(x,y) S8(y,z) B4(y,z)

S2(y,z)
T7(x,y) T8(x,y)
S䠏(䡔,y,z) S7(䡔,y,z)
K2(x,y,z) K8(x,y,z)
K6(x,y,z)
K1(x,y,z) K4(x,y,z) K7(x,y,z)
P1 K3(x,y,z) K5(x,y,z) P4 T5(x,y) T6(x,y)
P2 P3 G1(x,y,z) T7L(x,y) T7R(x,y) T8L(x,y) T8R(x,y)

K4(x,y,z) K6(x,y,z)
Yokohama
Harbor
S1(x,y,z) S3(x,y,z) S5L(x,y,z) S6L(y,z) S7(x,y,z) S8L(y,z) S9(x,y,z) K3(x,y,z)
S2(y,z) S4(y,z) K5(x,y,z)
P2 P3
S8R(y,z)
S5R(x,y,z) S6R(y,z)

Fig. 2. Locations of the sensors on the Yokohama Bay Bridge.

Target Bridge and Observed Response Great East Japan Earthquake, bolts were found to be fractured due to
the large transverse displacement of the tower link.
Yokohama Bay Bridge, which opened in 1989, is a three-span con- Although the latest technologies were used at the time of construc-
tinuous cable-stayed bridge with a center span of 460 m, a side span tion, the design of this bridge, which was constructed before the 1995
of 200 m, and a total length of 860 m. The main girder is a double- Kobe earthquake, did not consider Level 2 earthquakes. After the
deck truss structure, and the upper chord members have a box sec- 1995 Kobe earthquake, a seismic retrofit was carried out based on
tion in which the upper flanges are integrated with the steel deck. Six dynamic analysis using the frame model and static analysis using a
lanes of the Yokohama Highway Gulf line run on the upper layer, detailed shell model. Uplift prevention cables, displacement limiters,
and National Route No. 357 runs on the lower layer; the national and step prevention structures were installed as a result of this retrofit.
route has two lanes under this tentative configuration. The main tow- The bridge has a monitoring system with 85 servo type acceler-
ers are H-shaped rigid frame structures with a height of 172 m and a ometers at 36 locations. Thirty-channel accelerometers were in-
width of 29.25 m. The lower lateral beam of each main tower has a stalled along the girder, 28-channel accelerometers on towers and
convex wind tongue. The transverse displacement is constrained by piers, and 27-channels accelerometers on the ground and foundation
wind shoes that are installed on the main girder crossbeam. The structure. The sampling frequency of measurement was 100 Hz.
girder hangs from the towers by tower links. This type of link con- Fig. 2 provides the sensor layout.
nection plays a seismic-isolation function by moving like a pendu- Table 1 presents the list of earthquake responses observed at
lum in the longitudinal and transverse directions. After the 2011 the Yokohama Bay Bridge during the 2011 Great East Japan

© ASCE 04018112-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 Table 1. Observed seismic records

Earthquake Time Mw Intensity Data length (s) Maximum acceleration (gal)

Main shock 2011/3/11, 14:47 9.0 5- 600 83.32
Aftershock 1 2011/3/11, 15:16 7.7 4 400 35.27
Aftershock 2 2011/3/11, 15:27 7.5 3 200 6.06
Aftershock 3 2011/3/11, 16:29 6.5 2 60 3.84
Aftershock 4 2011/3/11, 17:20 6.1 3 150 7.16
Aftershock 5 2011/3/12, 04:00 6.7 3 120 3.11
Aftershock 6 2011/3/13, 10:27 6.4 3 120 3.82
Aftershock 7 2011/3/14, 10:03 6.2 4 60 5.31
Aftershock 8 2011/3/15, 22:32 6.4 4 120 16.65
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Aftershock 9 2011/3/16, 12:52 6.1 5 120 5.62

Note: Mw = moment magnitude scale.

1 base of the piers and at the base of the main towers were used as
10
input signals, and acceleration responses observed at other locations
as output signals.
0
Fig. 4 gives the frequency change of the first transverse mode
Acceleration[m/ s2]

10
-1
10
-2 Main shock
10
aftershock1
aftershock2 䡚㻥
Retrofit design wave
-3
10 - 1
0 1
10 10 10
Period[s]
Fig. 3. Response spectra of the observed responses and the retrofit
design wave.
Earthquake main shock and aftershocks. Ten earthquakes including
the main shock and nine aftershocks were observed. Fig. 3 gives the
acceleration response spectra of the seismic motions that were
observed at the engineering foundation surface (G1) and the
response spectra of the input ground motion for the retrofit design.
As presented in Fig. 3, the amplitude levels of Aftershocks 2–9
were smaller than that of the main shock and Aftershock 1. Besides,
the response spectrum of the main shock was smaller than the input
wave used for the retrofit design. This result indicates that the earth-
quake responses observed during the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake did not cause serious damage to the bridge.
On the other hand, circular contact scratches were observed after
the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. In addition, periodic spikes
were observed during the main shock and aftershocks (Siringoringo
et al. 2014). These observations indicate that pounding in the trans-
verse direction occurred at the wind tongue. As for the longitudinal
direction, pounding was not observed and the isolation system of
the link bearing is considered to have functioned appropriately
(Siringoringo et al. 2014). To investigate the effect of pounding, the
observed response was divided using a 50-s short-time moving win-
dow with 50% overlap, and a system identification method was
applied to investigate the frequency change in the time domain. For
the system identification method, the System Realization using
Information Matrix (SRIM) was used (Juang 1997; Siringoringo
and Fujino 2006, 2008). Vibration characteristics such as natural
frequencies and mode shapes were obtained. Although the pound-
ing occurred, the global responses had large periodic components;
therefore, an equivalent linear system was assumed and the system
identification was applied. Acceleration responses observed at the
during the main shock. In the initial stage, the boundary condition
of the girder at the wind tongue was considered as free in the trans-
verse direction before wind tongue contact of the wind shoe. Once
these parts contacted each other due to the pounding, the girder
motion was constrained; the frequency then decreased to 0.27 Hz in
the last stage because the response became smaller and pounding
stopped. Similar pounding responses have been observed on other
bridges (Ganev et al. 1998; Smyth et al. 2003). However, the pound-
ing response of this bridge was not reproduced by numerical simu-
lation in the design model that was used for the retrofit design. To
reproduce the frequency change, pounding must be considered.
Modeling of Pounding Force in the Global
Frame Model
In order to reproduce the response that occurred in the 2011 Great
East Japan Earthquake, a frame model of the Yokohama Bay Bridge
was constructed based on the model that was used for the retrofit
design. The constructed frame model is presented in Fig. 5. Truss
members were modeled by beam elements, and cables were mod-
eled by truss elements that resist only tension. The initial axial force
of each member, which contributes to the geometric stiffness matrix,
was introduced based on the gravity force. The lower road floor was
modeled based on the tentative configuration of the two-lane road.
The corners of the piers and the main towers were modeled as rigid
connections. The piers and the horizontal beam of the towers were
modeled by linear beam elements, and the other parts of main towers
were modeled by nonlinear beam elements. The nonlinearity was
expressed in terms of trilinear M- f relationship. The base of the
tower and piers were modeled as SR springs to represent the defor-
mation of the base structure. The mass of the step prevention struc-
ture and the displacement limiter were taken into account. The uplift
prevention cables were modeled by the truss elements based on the
design drawings. In order to reproduce the pounding between the
wind shoe and the wind tongue, a pounding spring was introduced.
Modeling of Pounding Force
The pounding between the wind tongue and the wind shoe was eval-
uated by introducing the nonlinear pounding spring. The pounding
was modeled phenomenologically by considering following phenom-
ena. In the case of small earthquakes, the pounding was expressed by
a linear pounding spring; however, in large earthquakes, not only does

© ASCE 04018112-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 0.36
0.34

Frequency[Hz]
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time[s]
Observed Design model Frame model Multi- scale model

Fig. 4. Comparison of the frequency change between the observed data and analysis results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7650 DOF
1279 nodes
2253elements

z
y x

Fig. 5. The constructed frame model and the pounding model.

pounding occur, but there is also hysteretic behavior of the wind

tongue. In order to consider these phenomena, pushover analysis Pushover analysis Pushover analysis
using the shell model of the wind tongue, which was constructed (Cyclic loading) (One direcon loading)
based on the design drawings, was conducted. Based on this analysis,
the skeleton curve of the pounding spring was defined. The number of
yield points and the displacement of each yield point of the skeleton Define the hysteresis rule
Define the skeleton curve
curve were defined based on the wind tongue spring element used in with unloading
the design model (Yamamoto et al. 2010b). The procedure for model-
ing pounding is presented in Fig. 6. Fig. 7(a) provides the comparison
of the defined skeleton curve with the pushover analysis results. The
Introduce the gap to
hysteretic behavior of the wind tongue was defined, and it is presented
in Fig. 7(b). consider the pounding
The hysteresis of the pounding spring is expressed by the follow-
ing equations.
Before the material goes into the plastic range Define the hysteresis rule
8 of pounding spring
>
> 0 ðx0 < x < xþ0 Þ
< Fig. 6. Procedure for modeling pounding.
F ¼ k1 ðx  xþ0 Þ ðx >¼ xþ0 Þ (1)
>
>
:
k1 ðx  x0 Þ ðx <¼ x0 Þ

where F = restoring force of the pounding spring; x = displacement where Fþi and F–i = force of ith yield point; ki = ith stiffness; and
of the pounding spring; xþ 0 and x–0 = gap of the wind tongue in the xþi = displacement of ith yield point. Because a hexa-linear model
positive and negative directions, respectively; and k1 = initial stiff- is employed, i = 1, 2,…5. Fþi, F–i, xþi, x–i are initially set as
ness of the wind tongue.
Fþi ¼ Fi (4)
xþ0 ¼ ug
Fi ¼ Fi (5)
x0  ug (2)

xþi ¼ xi (6)
where ug = gap of the wind tongue. After the material goes into the
plastic range
xi ¼ xi (7)
(
Fþi þ kiþ1 ðx  xþi Þ ðxi < x < xiþ1 Þ
F¼ (3) where Fi and xi = yielding point defined from the skeleton curve pre-
Fi þ kiþ1 ðx  xi Þ ðxðiþ1Þ < x < xi Þ sented in Fig. 7(a).

© ASCE 04018112-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Force–displacement relationship of the pounding spring.

(
In addition, the unloading stiffness was the same as the initial xi ðxmin > xi Þ
stiffness k1, and the yielding points were updated by following xi ¼ (18)
xunloading ðxmin  xi Þ
equations.
Consider the unloading process after the force takes positive
peak value, Funloading at xunloading, xþ0, and x–0 were updated as xþi ¼ xi þ 2xi (19)
follows:
Funloading where xmin = minimum displacement; and Fmin = minimum force.
xþ0 ¼ xunloading  (8) The Interactive Simulator and Analyzer for Structures (ISAS)—
k1
which was developed by the authors (Takeda 2017) using
x0 ¼ xþ0  2ug (9) MATLAB® (version R2013b)—was used for the analysis of the
frame model.
The updated displacements of ith yield point, xþi and x–i, were
further updated as Reproduction of the Pounding Response by the Frame
( Model
xþi ðxmax < xþi Þ
xþi ¼ (10) To check the validity of the model, an eigenvalue analysis was con-
xunloading ðxmax  xþi Þ
ducted; obtained natural frequencies and mode shapes were com-
pared with the vibration characteristics identified from measure-
xi ¼ xþi  2xi (11) ment data. Table 2 gives the comparison of the natural frequencies
identified from each earthquake. From this table, the natural fre-
where xmax = maximum displacement. The updated force of ith quencies of the sway mode, the first transverse mode, and the sec-
yield point, Fþi, and F–i, were updated as ond vertical mode obtained from eigenvalue analysis of the frame
( model were in the variation range of the identified frequencies. In
Fþi ðFmax < Fi Þ
Fþi ¼ (12) order to investigate the accuracy of the mode shape, the Modal
Funloading ðFmax  Fi Þ Assurance Criterion (MAC) was calculated using the following
equation (Allemang and Brown 1982):
Fi ¼ Fþi  2Fi (13) j f Tobserve f model j
MAC ¼   (20)
f Tobserve f observe ð f model f model Þ
where Fmax = maximum force. Consider then the unloading process
after the force takes a negative peak value, Funloading.
where f observe and f model = modal vector identified from the
Funloading observed data and the modal vector identified from the eigenvalue
x0 ¼ xunloading  (14)
k1 analysis, respectively.
Table 3 gives the MAC of each identified mode. From this table,
it can be seen that the MAC of the first mode is around 0.9 and that
xþ0 ¼ x0 þ 2ug (15)
the mode shape of constructed frame model is in good agreement
with the mode shape identified from the observed data.
( Then, dynamic analysis using the main shock ground motion
Fi ðFmin > Fi Þ
Fi ¼ (16) was conducted to check the reproducibility of the observed
Funloading ðFmin  Fi Þ responses. Triaxial accelerations as observed at K2, K4, and K6
(Fig. 2) were used as input waves. The input wave at Pier P4 was
Fþi ¼ Fi þ 2Fi (17) not directly available because the accelerometer at K8 was not

© ASCE 04018112-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 Table 2. Comparison of the natural frequencies identified from each 0.05
earthquake response

First First Second 0.04

Earthquake Sway transverse vertical vertical

Damping
Main shock 0.142 0.323 0.313 0.493 0.03
Aftershock 1 — 0.323 0.335 0.488
Aftershock 2 — 0.261 0.342 0.532 0.02
Aftershock 3 — 0.266 0.342 —
Aftershock 4 — 0.283 0.343 0.533
0.01
Aftershock 5 — 0.265 0.349 0.419
Aftershock 6 — 0.288 0.347 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Aftershock 7 — 0.272 0.350 — 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Aftershock 8 — 0.288 0.344 0.532
Aftershock 9 — 0.282 0.351 0.421 Frequency[Hz]
Average (Aftershock 2–9) 0.142 0.275 0.346 0.487 Observed Rayleigh damping
Frame model 0.146 0.271 0.309 0.425
Multiscale model 0.147 0.265 0.310 0.431 Fig. 8. Comparison of the observed frequency-damping relationship
with Rayleigh damping.

Table 3. MAC of each identified mode 2–9. Fig. 8 provides the comparison of the observed frequency-
damping relationship with Rayleigh damping. Rayleigh damping pa-
First First Second
rameters of the foundations were set to large values to reduce the high
Earthquake Sway transverse vertical vertical
frequency component that corresponds to the base mode. The whole
Main shock 0.809 0.975 0.815 0.960 time history response was divided using the short moving time win-
(0.870) (0.968) (0.815) (0.960) dow of 50 s; frequency changes were identified by applying the
Aftershock 1 — 0.974 0.763 0.916 SRIM on each response. The results were reasonably consistent with
(0.966) (0.763) (0.915) the estimates reported by Siringoringo et al. (2014). The overlap ratio
Aftershock 2 — 0.998 0.968 0.527 of the time window was 50%.
(0.998) (0.968) (0.528) Fig. 4 provides the comparison of the frequency change in the
Aftershock 3 — 0.996 0.745 0.706 time domain during the main shock. The design model, which does
(0.995) (0.745) (0.705) not take into consideration the pounding phenomena, did not repro-
Aftershock 4 — 0.990 0.987 0.807 duce the observed frequency change. On the other hand, the result
(0.989) (0.987) (0.807) of the constructed frame model was in good agreement with the
Aftershock 5 — 0.989 0.943 0.879 observed frequency change. The constructed frame model did
(0.992) (0.943) (0.879) reproduce the observed pounding responses.
Aftershock 6 — 0.994 0.966 — The reproducibility of the time history response was also investi-
(0.991) (0.966) — gated by comparing the observed response and the analysis
Aftershock 7 — 0.996 0.948 — response. Figs. 9(a and b) give the transverse acceleration time his-
(0.996) (0.948) — tory and Fig. 9 (c) gives the Fourier spectra of the transverse accel-
Aftershock 8 — 0.966 0.725 0.739 eration at the center of the span (S5). Analysis results roughly repro-
(0.963) (0.725) (0.739) duced the observed response and maximum value and the time of
Aftershock 9 — 0.969 0.891 0.878 the maximum value. Moreover, the first mode amplitude of the
(0.970) (0.891) (0.878) Fourier spectrum was in good agreement with the observed results.
Average (Aftershock 2–9) 809 0.987 0.896 0.756 Fig. 9(d) gives the transverse acceleration at the wind tongue
(0.870) (0.987) (0.897) (0.756) (T5), and Fig. 9(e) presents a zoom view of Fig. 9(d) from 145 to
Note: First value is the MAC of the frame model; value in parentheses is 155 s. The timing of the peak values (i.e., the timing of the pound-
the MAC of the multiscale model. ings) and the maximum peak value were reproduced well. The dis-
crepancy in the timing of the maximum peak value was considered
to be due to high frequency components. As a result, it can be con-
working. Horizontal acceleration and vertical acceleration is cluded that the constructed frame model can reproduce the observed
affected by the surrounding soil and stiffness of the basement, pounding response. In addition, Fig. 9(f) provides the comparison
respectively. Therefore, the horizontal acceleration at K6—the of the acceleration Root Mean Square (RMS) between the observed
functioning measurement point just beneath the pile cap closest to data and analysis results at the center of the girder. The design model
K8—was used as a substitute for the horizontal acceleration at underestimated the acceleration RMS during the large earthquakes
K8. The vertical acceleration at K2 was used as a substitute for with pounding. On the other hand, the estimation accuracy of the
the vertical acceleration at K8 because Piers P1 and P4 were simi- constructed model that can take into consideration the pounding is
lar and the vertical ground motions around the piers were consid- higher than that of the design model. From these results, by consider-
ered similar. ing the pounding, it can be seen that the constructed frame model can
Elemental Rayleigh damping was applied for the dynamic analy- reproduce not only the small earthquake response with the same ac-
sis. Rayleigh damping parameters of the elements excluding the foun- curacy as the design model but also the pounding response with a
dations were defined by the least-squares method based on the higher accuracy than the design model. To estimate the response
frequency-damping relationship that was identified from Aftershocks under large earthquakes, the pounding must be considered.

© ASCE 04018112-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 Construction of the Multiscale Model detailed local model of the tower was constructed with shell ele-
ments based on a three-dimensional FE model, which was used in
In order to construct the multiscale model, detailed local models of an earlier study for the evaluation of seismic performance of the
the tower, crossbeam, and wind shoe were first constructed. The metal tower (Yamamoto et al. 2010a). The number of elements in

0.1

Acceleration[m/ s2]
Acceleration[m/ s ]

Fourier amplitude
2

2 2

0 0 0.05

-2 -2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 200 400 600 130 140 150 160 170 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time[s] Time[s] Frequency[Hz]

Observed MAX=2.99 Analysis MAX=2.30 Observed Analysis

(a) (b) (c)

4 4
Acceleration[m/ s ]
Design model
Acceleration[m/ s ]

2
2

2
Analysis RMS[m/ s ]
2 2 0.6 Constructed model

0 0
0.4
-2 -2

-4 -4 0.2
0 200 400 600 145 150 155
Time[s] Time[s]
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Observed MAX=2.28 Analysis MAX=3.01 2
Observed RMS[m/ s ]
(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 9. Comparison of the transverse acceleration response and the observed data and analysis: (a) acceleration at S5; (b) zoom view of a; (c) Fourier
spectra at S5; (d) acceleration at T5; (e) zoom view of d; and (f) RMS of each earthquake at the center of the girder.

MPC beam

Gap
5mm

Contact
surface
Crossbeam MPC beam
Wind tongue
Wind shoe
Hanging member
MPC beam
Crossbeam
MPC beam

Lower floor frame

(Longitudinal direcon)
Cross frame

Fig. 10. Constructed multiscale model. MPC = multipoint constraint.

© ASCE 04018112-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 the tower was about 190,000. The horizontal members and columns
are usually connected rigidly because many members contribute in
a complex manner. However, these parts were modeled with shell
elements based on the design drawing in order to ascertain the dam-
age to the columns and horizontal members. A bilinear model was
employed to evaluated the stress–strain relationship of the steel.
The detailed model of the crossbeam and the wind shoe was con-
structed based on the design drawing. The crossbeam was modeled
with quadrangle shell elements, and the wind shoe was modeled
with tetrahedral elements. A tie constraint was applied to the bound-
ary of the crossbeam and wind shoe.
The frame model and detailed local models were then combined
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The natural frequencies of the horizontal modes of the multiscale
model were in the range of observed variability. In addition, the natu-
ral frequencies were the same as the eigenvalue analysis results for
the frame model. The MAC value of the mode shapes of the multi-
scale model are presented in Table 3. The MAC value of the first
modes of the multiscale model was around 0.9; mode shapes of the
multiscale model were in good agreement with the mode shape identi-
fied from the observed data. Moreover, the MAC values of the multi-
scale model were almost the same as those of the frame model. Thus,
the constructed multiscale model is considered to have practically the
same global vibration characteristics as that of the frame model.
Dynamic analysis was then conducted to validate the dynamic

by multipoint constraint multipoint constraint (MPC) equations,
which are widely used in constructing multiscale models (Shim
et al. 2002; Li et al. 2007).
The locations of the multipoint constraints were the boundaries
of the beam elements and shell elements at the towers, link brackets,
and crossbeams. To consider the pounding, the contact surface is
defined as between the wind tongue and wind shoe. The constructed
multiscale model is presented in Fig. 10. FE analysis software,
ABAQUS (version 6.14) was used for the multiscale model analysis.
In order to clarify the validity of the multiscale model, an eigen-
value analysis was conducted, and the obtained natural frequencies
were compared with the measured data. The comparison of the nat-
ural frequencies between the eigenvalue analysis results and all
observed natural frequencies is presented in Table 2.
responses of the multiscale model. The first 500-s part of the main
shock was used as the input wave in order to compare the increasing
and decreasing of the frequency due to pounding. Multipoint input
was applied as in the dynamic analysis of the frame model.
In order to examine whether the frequency change during the
main shock is reproduced, the natural frequencies were identified
with SRIM using the moving window to the acceleration response
of multiscale model. The frequency change is presented in Fig. 4
with the green line. The increasing and decreasing of the frequency
due to pounding is reproduced similar to as seen for the frame
model analysis.
Fig. 11(a) provides the transverse acceleration response at the
center of the girder. The multiscale model reproduces the observed
response in the same manner as the frame model. Moreover, the

4
Acceleration[m/ s ]
2

Fourier amplitude

0.1
2
0
0.05
-2
-4 0
100 110 120 130 140 150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time[s] Frequency[Hz]
Observed Multi- scale model Frame model Observed Multi- scale model Frame model
(a) (b)

0.04
Acceleration[m/ s2]

Fourier amplitude

2 0.03
0 0.02
0.01
-2
0
100 110 120 130 140 150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time[s] Frequency[Hz]
Observed Multi- scale model Frame model Observed Multi- scale model Frame model
(c) (d)

0.02
Acceleration[m/ s ]
2

Fourier amplitude

5 0.015
0 0.01

-5 0.005
0
100 110 120 130 140 150 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time[s] Frequency[Hz]
Observed Multi- scale model Frame model Observed Multi- scale model Frame model
(e) (f)

Fig. 11. Comparison of the transverse acceleration response at S5 during the main shock: (a) time history at S5; (b) Fourier spectra at S5;
(c) time history at S3; Fourier spectra at S3; (e) time history at T5; and (f) Fourier spectra at T5.

© ASCE 04018112-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 Connected to tower
Outer Rotaon limit
Link Main Body
bearing 3.1㼻
Bearing outer ring
Bearing inner ring
Inner
Pin
bearing

Link Main
Body
Pin
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Aer Inial posion

Connected to girder rotaon

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Structures of the tower link: (a) members of the tower link; and (b) rotation of the tower link and rotation limit.

Fourier amplitudes in Fig. 11(b) reveal that the first mode, which is
the most dominant component, was in agreement with the observed
response. In addition, as presented in Figs. 11(c–f), the responses
were also reproduced at the pounding location. The constructed
multiscale model can, therefore, reproduce the global response with
an accuracy similar to that of the frame model.

Investigation of Local Mechanical Damage Using the Fracture

cture locaon
loca
Multiscale Model
of bolts
Peeling of paint
Local Structural Component of the Tower Link
In addition to the reproduction of the global response, the actual
bolt fracture that occurred during the Great East Japan Earthquake
was reproduced. The tower link consists of a link body, outer bear-
ing, inner bearing, and pin. Fig. 12(a) presents the structure of the
tower link. The upper side was connected to the main tower by the
tower link bracket, and the lower side was connected to the main
girder by the link plate. The link connection moves like pendulum
and functions as an isolation system. The bearing part of the tower Body Link plate
link moves as presented in Fig. 12(b). As seen in the figure, the
outer bearing and the inner bearing interfere with each other when
the rotation angle of the tower link is 3.1° or more and further defor-
mation is not allowed (Komori et al. 2005b). Fig. 13. The fracture of bolts and peeling of paint observed in the field
During the field survey after the 2011 Great East Japan survey.
Earthquake, the paint on the L-plate on the link plate side was found
to have peeled and some parts of the bolt connecting the L-plate with
Table 4 gives the maximum displacement and rotation angle of
the tower link were found to have fractured (Fig. 13). Therefore, in
each tower link in transverse direction. The rotation angle of the
order to investigate whether the fracture occurred due to an exceed- tower link was about half of 3.1°; the bolts of the tower link broke
ance of the rotatable limit of the tower link, the rotation angle of the before the rotation limit was reached. The fracture mechanism of
tower link was calculated based on the maximum transverse displace- the bolts thus cannot be clarified in terms of the rotation angle limit
ment of the tower link obtained from the multiscale model dynamic of the tower link. Therefore, a more detailed model is needed to
analysis. The rotation angle was calculated by following equation: clarify the response of each member of the tower link.
 
u
u ¼ sin 1 (21) Detailed Model of the Tower Link
L
Because the fracture mechanism of the bolts cannot be clarified by
where u = rotation angle of the tower link; u = transverse displace- comparing only the rotation angle of the tower link and the rotatable
ment of the tower link; and L = length of the tower link. limit, a detailed model of the tower link was constructed. The

© ASCE 04018112-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 mechanism of bolt fracture was investigated by pushover analysis.
Detailed models of the link body, outer bearings, inner bearings, pins,
and link brackets were constructed using solid elements. The detailed
model of the tower link was presented in Fig. 14(a). In order to clarify
the contact state between the bolts and other members, the bolts were
integrated with the L-plate. One L-plate was attached to the link plate,
and another was combined with the link main body by a tie constraint.
Figs. 14(b and c) provide the model of the L-plate and bolts.
The scratches observed in the field survey indicate that the bolts
of the tower link were damaged due to a large transverse
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
displacement that could cause contact between the bolts and the L-
plate. Therefore, boundary conditions focusing only on the trans-
verse direction were applied. In particular, the boundary condition
was applied as presented in Fig. 14(b). In addition, the interface
between the inner bearing and outer bearing was defined as the con-
tact surface, and the other interfaces were constrained so as to move
together in order to constrain the rotation around the transverse
axis.
Pushover Analysis Using the Detailed Tower Link Model
To clarify the fracture mechanism of the bolts of the tower link, push-

Table 4. Maximum transverse displacement and rotation angle of the over analysis was conducted using the detailed tower link model.
tower link
Because the influence of the contact between the bolt and the link
Location Maximum displacement (m) Rotation angle (°) member on the global response of tower link was considered to be
much smaller than the influence of the contact between the wind
P2 port side 0.0563 1.61
tongue and the wind shoe, the maximum transverse displacement of
P2 sea side 0.0563 1.61
the tower link obtained from the global dynamic analysis was used as
P3 port side 0.0503 1.44
the forced displacement of the pushover analysis. The forced displace-
P3 sea side 0.0504 1.44
ment was uniformly applied to the lower pin of the tower link.

Fix
Bolt
L-plate
A

Outer bearing
Link
bracket

Pin (b)

L-plate
Pin Inner bearing
Structure of link bearing
B
Body
Link plate

(a)

(c)

Fig. 14. Detailed model of the tower link: (a) overall view; (b) side view; and (c) cross-section of A in b.

+1.059e+09
+9.704e+08
+8.821e+08
+7.939e+08 L-plate
+7.057e+08 Contact locaon
+6.175e+08
+5.293e+08 Bolt
+4.411e+08 of analysis
+3.529e+08
+2.646e+08
+1.764e+08
+8.821e+07
+0.000e+00

Translaon
Rotaon

Body Link plate

Fracture locaon in field survey

(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Contact condition obtained from the pushover analysis: (a) contact condition of the bolt and the L-plate; and (b) contact location between the
bolt and the L-plate.

© ASCE 04018112-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 The deformation and stress distribution of the tower link near the
bolts obtained from the pushover analysis is presented in Fig. 15(a).
The L-plate on the lower link plate was in contact with the bolts on
the link body due to the translational displacement of the tower link
plate and rotation of the tower link body. The position of the bolts in
contact with the L-plate as presented in Fig. 15(b) exhibit high con-
sistency with the observed scratch in Fig. 13. Because the direction
of contact was a shear direction of the bolts, the contact force acted
on the bolts as shear force. Therefore, the possibility of the bolt frac-
ture was investigated by comparing the contact force in the shear
direction of the bolt with the shear capacity. The maximum shear
load of M10 bolt of SUS304 was used as the shear capacity of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
F ¼ s s As (23)
where s t = tensile strength of the bolt; s s = shear strength of the
bolt; and As = effective cross-sectional area of the bolt. The effec-
tive cross-sectional area of M10 bolt = 58.58 mm2.
Table 5 provides the comparison between the contact force in
the shear direction of the bolts and the shear capacity of the bolts. It
can be seen that the contact force exceeded the shear capacity of the
bolts. Thus, the contact between the L-plate of the tower link plate
and the bolts on the L-plate on the link body is considered to be the
cause of the bolt fracture.

bolts. The shear capacity of the bolts is expressed in the following

equation with tensile strength (JSSC 2000): Pounding Force Estimation under Large Earthquakes
st
s s ¼ pffiffiffi (22) Assuming large earthquakes will occur in the future, Level 2
3 earthquakes were input and ground motions that could damage
the wind tongue were estimated. The model employed Level 2
The shear strength of the bolt F is expressed by the following design earthquakes for Ground Type III, as defined by the Japan
equation: Road Association (2012). Level 2 input waves, as used for the
retrofit design of the Yokohama Bay Bridge (WAVE3 and
Table 5. Comparison of the contact force and the shear capacity of the WAVE6), and the Sagami Trough earthquake, which was created
bolts by the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion, were
Location Contact force (kN) Shear capacity (kN) employed. The Level 2 design earthquakes were adjusted in am-
plitude so that the acceleration response spectrum with 5%
A 49.1 17.4
damping ratio matched the standard acceleration response spec-
B 43.7 17.4
trum of the Japan Road Association (2012). As for the input

16
14 I- III- I
I- III- II
Acceleration[m/ s2]

12 I- III- III
10 WAVE3
WAVE6
8 Sagami Trough
II- III- I
6 II- III- II
4 II- III- III
Design spectrum (Type1)
2 Design spectrum (Type2)
0 -1 0 1
10 10 10
Period[s]

Fig. 16. Response spectrum of the Level 2 input waves.

Table 6. Comparison of maximum pounding force between the multiscale model and the frame model for each earthquake

Maximum pounding force Maximum pounding force (average)

(MN) (MN)
Changing ratio
Type Wave Frame model (A) Multiscale model (B) [(B – A)/A] (%) Frame model Multiscale model
Type 1 I-III-I 131.4 139.2 5.91 134.2 144.1
I-III-II 139.8 153.6 9.81 — —
I-III-III 131.4 139.5 6.15 — —
WAVE3 57.3 — — 64.1 —
WAVE6 85.1 — — — —
Sagami Trough 50.1 — — — —
Type 2 II-III-I 122.8 116.0 −5.59 110.2 108.6
II-III-II 101.5 97.4 −3.58 — —
II-III-III 106.4 111.9 5.15 — —
Capacity — — — — 79.9 —
Note: MN = mega newton.

© ASCE 04018112-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 (a) (b)

1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Displacement[m]
0.5

- 0.5

-1
0 50 100 150 200
Time[s]
Without damage progress With damage progress
(c)

Fig. 17. Ductile damage of the wind tongue: (a) distribution of the ductile damage variable; (b) distribution of stiffness reduction ratio after damage;
and (c) comparison of displacement of the wind tongue in the damage progress with that in the case of progress without damage.

waves used for the retrofit design, they were based on the epicen-
ter model of the Kanto earthquake that occurred in 1923. The
plate boundary earthquake motion was set so that the seismic
wave propagation after the destruction of asperity would head to-
ward the bridge location. The size of the asperity and its position
that would produce large seismic wave components of the natural
periods of the bridge dominant modes were employed (Komori
et al. 2005a). Fig. 16 provides the acceleration response spectra
of Level 2 input waves.
Based on the regional correction coefficient, Type 1 earth-
quakes, which are plate boundary earthquake, and Type 2 earth-
quakes, which are inland earthquakes, were amplified 1.2 times and
1.0 times, respectively (Japan Road Association 2012). The input
direction of the Sagami Trough was three directions. The input
direction of the other waves was the transverse direction, which was
the most severe direction for the pounding effect.
Although the degrees of freedom of the multiscale model were
much lower than for models consisting only of shell or solid ele-
ments, the dynamic analysis using the multiscale model was time
consuming. To reduce the calculation time, the pounding force dur-
ing the Level 2 earthquake was first estimated using the frame
model. Then, the detailed deformation and damage conditions of Fig. 18. Tower–tower link integrated model: (a) overview; and
the wind tongue were estimated by inputting into the multiscale (b) zoom view of the tower link.
model the earthquakes that could cause the damage to the wind
tongue. In this analysis, the same wave was used as input to each
foundation. In order to estimate the deformation and damage to the wind
Table 6 provides the comparison of the maximum pounding tongue, dynamic analysis was conducted by inputting Level 2 seis-
force estimated by the frame model analysis for each earthquake mic motion into a multiscale model. Level 2–design earthquakes
and the capacity of the wind tongue. The average value of the I-III-I to I-III-III and II-III-I to II-III-III, which can cause the dam-
maximum pounding force in WAVE3, WAVE6, and the Sagami age to the wind tongue according to frame model analysis, were
Trough did not exceed the capacity of the wind tongue. On the used as the input wave. WAVE3, WAVE6, and the Sagami Trough
other hand, the average value of the maximum pounding force of were not used as the input wave of the multiscale model analysis
Level 2 earthquakes as defined in the specification for highway because the average maximum pounding force did not exceed the
bridges exceeded the capacity of the wind tongue. Therefore, it capacity of the wind tongue according to the frame model analysis.
can be said that the damage to the wind tongue can occur in Level In this analysis, the progress of the damage to the wind tongue was
2–design earthquakes. not considered.

© ASCE 04018112-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 Table 6 gives the estimated maximum pounding force and the
average value of the maximum pounding force for each input wave
obtained from the multiscale model analysis. The pounding force
exceeded the capacity of the wind tongue in the multiscale model
analysis as well as in the frame model analysis. The difference in
the maximum pounding force between the frame model and the
multiscale model is about 4–10%. Therefore, the maximum pound-
ing force can be estimated by the frame model with an accuracy
similar to that of the multiscale model, and the constructed frame
model has an sufficient accuracy to judge the damage to the wind
tongue.
The ductile damage variable was then investigated. The ductile
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
variable reached 1. Fig. 17(a) gives the distribution of state variable
of ductile fracture criterion of the wind tongue in the case of the
input wave I-III-II. The state variable exceeded 1 at the base of the
wind tongue. In this analysis, ductile damage occurred in the cases
of input waves I-III-I, I-III-II, I-III-III, and II-III-III. Therefore, duc-
tile fracture can occur at the wind tongue during Level 2–design
earthquakes.
In order to estimate the response after damage to the wind
tongue, dynamic analysis considering the progress of the damage to
the wind tongue was conducted. In this analysis, wave I-III-II,
which caused the largest pounding force, was used as the input
wave. The damage progress was expressed by reducing the stiffness

fracture was judged by the state variable of ductile fracture crite- of the elements. In this analysis, when the ductile damage variable
rion. The ductile fracture occurred when the ductile damage reached 1, the stiffness of the element was reduced to 1% of the

Fig. 19. Stress distribution of the tower link: (a) overall view of Case 1; (b) cross-section view of Case 1; (c) upper bearing of Case 1; (d) lower bear-
ing of Case 1; (e) overall view of Case 2; (f) cross-section view of Case 2; (g) upper bearing of Case 2; and (h) lower bearing of Case 2.

© ASCE 04018112-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 initial stiffness. Fig. 17(b) gives the deformation/stiffness reduction
ratio distribution of the wind tongue after damage. From this figure,
it can be seen that the stiffness reduction ratio was around 1 at the
base of the wind tongue. In addition, the deformation of the wind
tongue—defined as the transverse displacement of the wind tongue
top relative to the wind tongue base—was investigated. Fig. 17(c)
provides the comparison of the displacement of the wind tongue in
the damage progress with that in the case of progress without dam-
age. The maximum displacement of the wind tongue increased by
about three times because of the damage progress of the wind
tongue. This increasing transverse displacement can lead to the
drop off of the tower link.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Damage Progress of the Tower Link in Level 2
Earthquakes
In the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, some bolts of the tower
link were fractured. Further damage may occur during future Level
2 earthquakes. The damage that can occur in large earthquakes in
the future was investigated by static analysis using a detailed model
of the tower link based on the results of dynamic analysis, taking
into consideration the damage progress of the wind tongue.
The maximum transverse displacement of the tower link
obtained from the dynamic analysis considering the damage pro-
gress was about 69 cm, which exceeded the gap between the tower
link and the tower. Therefore, pounding between the tower link and
the tower could occur after the damage to the wind tongue.
In order to clarify the pounding force and the possibility of drop
off of the tower link after the damage to the wind tongue, a pushover
analysis was conducted. The pounding force between the tower and
tower link acts as a moment around the base of the tower. In order
to consider the actual boundary condition of the tower, the inte-
grated model was combined with the tower part of the multiscale
model and the detailed tower link model was constructed. Fig. 18
presents the tower–tower link integrated model.
In this model, the thrust ring and the cap of the pin were modeled
to estimate the drop-off process of the tower link. The horizontal
plane of the girder was assumed to remain horizontal so that all ver-
tical displacement of the lower surface of the link plate would be
uniform in this analysis. The following constraint equation was
applied:
uiz  ujz ¼ 0 (24)
where uiz = vertical displacement of the representative node on the
lower surface of the link; and ujz = vertical displacement of another
node on the lower surface of the tower link plate.
For the first step, gravity force was applied to the whole model.
Then, the maximum transverse displacement of the tower link
obtained from the dynamic analysis taking into consideration the
damage progress of the wind tongue was input as a forced dis-
placement. The input direction of the forced displacement was to-
ward the main tower (Case 1) and away from the tower (Case 2).
Figs. 19(a and b) provide the stress distribution of the tower link
obtained from the static analysis of Case 1. In this analysis, the
rotation of the tower link reached the limit of rotation, and the in-
terference between the inner bearing and the outer bearing
occurred. The tower link slid while the link was in contact with
the link bracket and while the rotation angle was fixed. The con-
tact force between the tower and the tower link was about
8.6 MN. Fig. 20 provides the plastic strain distribution on the
main tower at the maximum displacement. The part of the dia-
phragm and longitudinal rib inside the tower near the contact part
© ASCE 04018112-14
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112
was yielded by the local stress which is caused by the contact
force between the tower and tower link. However, the maximum
plastic strain that occurred in the tower was less than the breaking
strain. No significant damage, such as buckling, was observed in
the tower.
On the other hand, as presented in Figs. 19(c and d), the tower
link bracket was deformed so as to be out of plane and the upper pin
came out from the link bracket on the side opposite the forced dis-
placement. In order to evaluate the sliding of the pin, the distance
between the tip of the pin and the edge of the link bracket was
defined as the remaining distance. Fig. 21(a) gives the relationship
between the forced displacement and remaining distance. It can be
seen that the remaining distance decreased due to the increase of the
forced displacement. The reduction of the remaining distance
decreased when the displacement of the tower link was about 55 cm
because the tower and the tower link were then in contact and
because of the constraint force. Eventually, the remaining distance
was decreased to 11 cm, or about one-third the initial remaining
distance.
Figs. 19(e and f) give the stress distribution of the whole tower
link part and bearing of Case 2. In this analysis, calculation was ter-
minated when the amount of forced displacement reached 86% of
the initial remaining distance. Then, analysis was restarted from the
end and the remaining displacement was quasi-statically input to
investigate the possibility of drop off for the tower link. Fig. 21(b)
gives the relationship between the forced displacement and the
remaining distance. From this figure, it can be seen that the remain-
ing distance took a negative value before the forced displacement
reached the maximum displacement. The negative value of the
remaining distance means that the pin had come completely out of
the bracket. Therefore, the tower link may drop off during Level 2
earthquakes.
Although pounding occurs with the tower and the tower link af-
ter the damage to the wind tongue, the pounding force does not
cause significant damage to the main tower. On the other hand, the
upper pin of the tower link slides and the remaining distance of the
upper pin of the tower link decreases to one-third of the initial
amount when the tower link moves closer to the tower. Then, the
Fig. 20. Plastic strain of the tower due to contact with the tower link.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Remaining distance[m]

Remaining distance[m]
0.5 0.3

0.4 0.2

0.3 0.1
0
0.2
- 0.1
0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Displacement[m]
Displacement[m] Static Quasi- static Remaining distance=0[m]
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 21. Relationship between the remaining distance and the displacement of the tower link: (a) Case 1; and (b) Case 2.

upper pin of the tower link comes completely out of the link bracket vehicle frontal impact.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 102 (Nov): 190–203.
when the tower link moves away from the main tower, and there is a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.07.005.
possibility of the tower link dropping off after the damage to the Bi, K., and H. Hao. 2013. “Numerical simulation of pounding damage
wind tongue during Level 2 earthquakes. to bridge structures under spatially varying ground motions.” Eng.
Struct. 46 (Jan): 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07
.012.
Conclusion Chen, L., Y. Xiao, G. Xiao, C. Liu, and A. K. Agrawal. 2015. “Test and
numerical simulation of truck collision with anti-ram bollards.” Int.
J. Impact Eng. 75 (Jan): 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng
A global frame model that took into consideration the pounding
.2014.07.011.
and the hysteretic behavior of the wind tongue was constructed Ganev, T., F. Yamazaki, H. Ishizaki, and M. Kitazawa. 1998. “Response
for this study. A multiscale model was then constructed by com- analysis of the Higashi-Kobe Bridge and surrounding soil in the 1995
bining the global frame model with detailed local shell and solid Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27 (6):
models. Numerical simulation using the observed earthquakes 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199806)27:6<557::
and Level 2 earthquakes provided the following findings: AID-EQE742>3.0.CO;2-Z.
• The vibration characteristics and the dynamic response of the Japan Road Association. 2012. Specifications for highway bridges part 5
constructed frame model and multiscale model based on the seismic design. [In Japanese.] Tokyo: Japan Road Association.
drawings are in good agreement with the measurement results. Japanese Society of Steel Construction (JSSC). 2000. Stainless steel con-
• The frequency change that occurred during the 2011 Great struction materials and building standards law. [In Japanese.] Tokyo:
East Japan Earthquake and that could not be reproduced by Japanese Society of Steel Construction. http://www.jssc.or.jp/ssba
/generalize/generalize.html.
the design model was reproduced after taking the pounding
Juang, J. N. 1997. “System realization using information matrix.” J.
into consideration. Guidance, Control Dyn. 20 (3): 492–500. https://doi.org/10.2514/2
• The mechanism of the bolt fracture of the tower link that
.4068.
occurred during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake was Komori, K., H. Kikkawa, N. Odagiri, T. Kinoshita, T. Mizoguchi, Y.
revealed using the detailed tower link model analysis, which Fujino, and M. Yabe. 2005a. “Basic principles and design ground
was based on the dynamic analysis results of the multiscale motions in seismic retrofit design of large cable-supported bridges
model. on the Tokyo Metropolitan Expressway.” [In Japanese.] Doboku
• The dynamic analysis using the multiscale model revealed that Gakkai Ronbunshu 2005 (794): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej
the pounding force exceeded the capacity of the wind tongue .2005.794_1.
and the ductile damage occurred at the base of the wind tongue Komori, K., H. Kikkawa, N. Odagiri, T. Kinoshita, T. Mizoguchi, Y.
in the case of Level 2–design earthquakes. Fujino, and M. Yabe. 2005b. “Study on the seismic retrofit of large
• As a result of the static analysis using the tower–tower link cable-supported bridges on the Tokyo Metropolitan Expressway.” [In
Japanese.] Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 2005 (801): 1–20. https://doi.org
integrated model, the drop off of the tower link was deter-
/10.2208/jscej.2005.801_1.
mined to have occurred after the damage to the wind tongue in Li, Z. X., T. Q. Zhou, T. H. T. Chan, and Y. Yu. 2007. “Multi-scale numeri-
the case of the design earthquake I-III-II. cal analysis on dynamic response and local damage in long span
bridges.” J. Eng. Struct. 29 (7): 1507–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2006.08.004.
Acknowledgments Li, Z. X., T. Q. Zhou, T. H. T. Chan, and Y. Yu. 2009. “Concurrent multi-
scale modeling of civil infrastructures for analysis on structural dete-
The authors wish to thank Mr. Namikawa (Tokyo Metropolitan rioration—Part I: Modeling methodology and strategy.” Finite Elem.
Expressway) and Dr. Yabe (CHODAI). This work was supported Anal. Des. 45 (11): 782–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2009.06
by JSPS KAKENHI Grant JP16J09550. .013.
Shim, K. W., D. J. Monaghan, and C. G. Armstrong. 2002. “Mixed dimen-
sional coupling in finite element stress analysis.” J. Eng. Comput. 18
References (3): 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003660200021.
Siringoringo, D. M., and Y. Fujino. 2006. “Observed dynamic performance
Allemang, R. J., and D. L. Brown, 1982. “A correlation coefficient for of the Yokohama-Bay Bridge from system identification using seismic
modal vector analysis.” In Proc., 1st Int. Modal Analysis Conf., 110– records.” J. Struct. Control and Health Monit. 13 (1): 226–244. https://
116. Gijón, Spain: International Operational Modal Analysis doi.org/10.1002/stc.135.
Conference. Siringoringo, D. M., and Y. Fujino. 2008. “System identification applied to
Al-Thairy, H., and Y. C. Wang. 2014. “Simplified FE vehicle model for long-span cable-supported bridges using seismic records.” Earthquake
assessing the vulnerability of axially compressed steel columns against Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (3): 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.758.

© ASCE 04018112-15 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112

 Siringoringo, D. M., Y. Fujino, and K. Namikawa. 2014. “Seismic response
analyses of the Yokohama Bay cable-stayed bridge in the 2011 Great
East Japan Earthquake.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (8): 1–17. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000508.
Smyth, A. W., J.-S. Pei, and S. F. Masri. 2003. “System identification of the
Vincent Thomas suspension bridge using earthquake records.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32 (3): 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.226.
Takamoto, G., T. Mizutani, Y. Fujino, and D. Siringoringo. 2014.
“Modeling of pounding behavior of the Yokohama-Bay Bridge dur-
ing the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.” [In Japanese.] J. Struct.
Eng. 60A: 242–248. https://doi.org/10.11532/structcivil.60A.242.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TULANE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 12/15/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Takeda, T. 2017. “Reproduction of long-span bridge seismic responses
involving tower-girder pounding and damage process estimation
for large earthquakes.” [In Japanese.] Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Tokyo.
Yamamoto, Y., H. Hanno, Y. Fujino, and M. Yabe. 2010a. “Performance
check for steel superstructure in the seismic design of Yokohama Bay
Bridge.” [In Japanese.] J. Jpn. Soc. Civil Eng. A 66 (1): 13–30. https://
doi.org/10.2208/jsceja.66.13.
Yamamoto, Y., H. Hanno, Y. Fujino, and M. Yabe. 2010b. “Verification of
nonlinear seismic response values used for the seismic retrofit design of
Yokohama Bay Bridge.” [In Japanese.] J. Jpn. Soc. Civil Eng. A 66 (1):
31–36. https://doi.org/10.2208/jsceja.66.31.

© ASCE 04018112-16 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(2): 04018112