Dynamic Performance Analysis of a Curved Cable-Stayed Bridge Based on the Direct Method and the Sensitivity-Based Iterative Method
Table 4
Comparison of the numerical and experimental frequencies for different modelling choices.
f 2011
O
Δf (%)
+CF
Δf (%)
E
Δf (%)
+ CE
Δf (%)
+CEA
Δf (%)
B1
0.64
0.67
6.2
0.68
6.8
0.71
11.1
0.71
11.7
0.68
7.4
B2
1.00
0.96
−3.1
0.97
−2.4
0.97
−2.4
0.98
−1.7
0.97
−2.2
B3
1.14
1.20
4.9
1.20
5.0
1.25
9.4
1.25
9.5
1.19
4.7
T1
1.39
1.30
−6.2
1.30
−6.2
1.37
−1.3
1.37
−1.2
1.31
−5.8
M1
1.52
1.59
4.7
1.59
4.7
1.74
14.1
1.74
14.4
1.67
9.1
T2
1.60
1.65
2.8
1.65
2.8
1.79
11.7
1.79
11.7
1.74
6.1
B4
1.96
2.17
10.6
2.17
10.7
2.29
16.5
2.29
16.5
2.20
12.0
T3
2.65
2.68
1.4
2.68
1.4
2.99
13.0
2.99
13.0
2.90
7.2
T4
n.a.
3.16
—
3.16
—
3.52
—
3.52
—
3.41
—
T5
4.07
3.78
−7.2
3.78
−7.2
4.13
1.4
4.13
1.4
3.96
−3.4
T6
4.95
4.58
−7.6
4.58
−7.6
5.00
1.0
5.00
1.0
4.80
−3.9
T7
5.33
5.34
0.2
5.34
0.2
5.76
8.1
5.76
8.1
5.54
3.0
T8
5.63
5.70
1.4
5.70
1.4
5.89
4.7
5.89
4.7
5.63
−0.5
T9
5.88
6.11
3.9
6.11
3.9
6.68
13.6
6.68
13.6
6.40
8.1
T10
6.84
6.73
−1.5
6.73
−1.5
7.10
3.9
7.10
3.9
6.81
−1.0
Note: O represents the original model; +CF represents the model considering the cable forces; E represents the model with the slab modelled with solid elements instead of shell elements; +CE represents the model considering the cable forces and with the slab modelled with the solid elements; +CEA is developed from +CE by taking into account the effects of the asphalt layer.
