Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Establishing optimal gap size for precast beam bridges with a buffer-gap-elastomeric bearings system

  • Farag, Mousa M.N. (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University) ;
  • Mehanny, Sameh S.F. (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University) ;
  • Bakhoum, Mourad M. (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University)
  • Received : 2014.08.19
  • Accepted : 2015.05.06
  • Published : 2015.07.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A partial (hybrid) seismic isolation scheme for precast girder bridges in the form of a "buffer-gap-elastomeric bearings" system has been endorsed in the literature as an efficient seismic design system. However, no guides exist to detail an optimal gap size for different configurations. A numerical study is established herein for different scenarios according to Euro code seismic requirements in order to develop guidelines for the selection of optimal buffer-gap arrangements for various design cases. Various schemes are hence designed for ductile and limited ductility behavior of the bridge piers for different seismic demand levels. Seven real ground records are selected to perform incremental dynamic analysis of the bridges up to failure. Bridges with typical short and high piers are studied; and different values of initial gaps at piers are also investigated varying from a zero gap (i.e., fully locked) condition up to an initial gap at piers that is three quarters the gap left at abutments. Among the main conclusions is that the as-built initial gaps at piers (and especially large gap sizes that are ${\geq}1/2$ as-built gaps at abutments) do not practically reduce the seismic design demand and do not affect the reserve capacity of the bridge against failure for bridges featuring long piers, especially when these bridges are designed a priori for ductile behavior. To the contrary, the "buffer-gap-elastomeric bearings" system is more effective for the bridge schemes with short piers having a large difference between the stiffness of the bearings and that of their supporting (much stiffer) squat piers, particularly for designs with limited ductility. Such effectiveness is even amplified for the case of larger initial as-built gap sizes at piers.

Keywords

References

  1. AASHTO (2002), Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, Washington, DC., USA.
  2. Ayoub, E.F. and Helmy, G. (2000), "Modeling of the elastomeric bearings for the seismic analysis of precast girder bridges", Bridge Engineering Conference, Sharm-ElSheikh, Sinai, Egypt.
  3. Aviram, A., Mackie, K.R. and Stojadinovic, B. (2008), "Effect of abutment modeling on the seismic response of bridge structures", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 7(4), 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-1008-3
  4. Bandyopadhyay, N., Ghoshal, A. and Sengupta, A. (2010), "Relevance of bearings and expansion joints - case studies for indeterminate bridges", IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-II, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
  5. Buckle, I.G., Constantinou, M.C., Dicleli, M. and Ghasemi H. (2006), "Seismic isolation of highway bridges", Special Report MCEER-06-SP07, Buffalo, NY.
  6. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) (1999), "Bridge Memo to Designers(20-1)", Seismic Design Methodology, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
  7. Caltrans (SDC) (2009), Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.5.
  8. Charney, F.A. (2008), "Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 134(4), 581-592. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(581)
  9. DesRoches, R. and Muthukumar, S. (2002), "Effect of pounding and restrainers on seismic response of multi-frame bridges", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 128(7), 860-869. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:7(860)
  10. Dicleli, M. (2002), "Seismic design of lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic isolation", J. Bridge Eng., ASCE, 7(2), 94-103. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2002)7:2(94)
  11. EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2 (2004), Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, ComiteEuropeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
  12. EN 1992-2 Eurocode 2 (2005), Design of Concrete Structures. Part 2: Concrete Bridges - Design and Detailing Rules, ComiteEuropeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
  13. EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8 (2005), Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, ComiteEuropeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
  14. EN 1998-2 Eurocode 8 (2005), Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 2: Bridges, ComiteEuropeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
  15. Farag, M.M.N. (2013), "Inelastic seismic response of bridges with a buffer-gap-elastomeric bearing system", MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University.
  16. Guirguis, J.E.B. and Mehanny, S.S.F. (2013), "Evaluating codes criteria for regular seismic behavior of continuous concrete box girder bridges with unequal height piers", J. Bridge Eng., ASCE, 18(6), 486-498. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000383
  17. Hindi, R. and Dicleli, M. (2006), "Effect of modifying bearing fixities on the seismic response of short- to medium-length bridges with heavy substructures", Earthq. Spectra, 22(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2163367
  18. Ibarra, L.F. and Krawinkler, H. (2005), "Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations", Blume Center Report No. 152, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
  19. Imbsen, R.A. (2006), "Recommended LRFD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges", prepared as part of NCHRP, Project 20-07, Task 193, TRB.
  20. Japan Road Association (JRA) (1997), Manual for seismic design of highway bridges, Tokyo, Japan.
  21. Japan Road Association (JRA) (2002), "Chapter 1 seismic design specifications for highway bridges", International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
  22. Karsan, I.D. and Jirsa, J.O. (1969), "Behavior of concrete under compressive loading", J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 95(ST12), 2543-2563.
  23. Konstantinidis, D., Kelly, J.M. and Makris, N. (2009), "Experimental investigation on the seismic response of bridge bearings", 3rd International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering, San Francisco, CA.
  24. Kunde, M.C. and Jangid, R.S. (2006), "Effects of pier and deck flexibility on the seismic response of isolated bridges", J. Bridge Eng., ASCE, 11(1), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:1(109)
  25. Mackie, K.R. and Stojadinovic, B. (2005), "Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision making", PEER Report 2005/02, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  26. Manos, G.C., Mitoulis, S.A. and Sextos, A.G. (2011), "Preliminary design of seismically isolated R/C highway overpasses - features of relevant software and experimental testing of elastomeric bearings", COMPDYN 2011, III ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Corfu, Greece.
  27. Medina, R. (2002), "Seismic demands for non-deteriorating frame structures and their dependence on ground motions", Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA.
  28. Mehanny, S.S.F. and Ayoub, A.S. (2008), "Variability in inelastic displacement demands: Uncertainty in system parameters versus randomness in ground records", Eng. Struct., 30(4), 1002-1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.06.009
  29. Mehanny, S.S.F. (2009), "A broad-range power-law form scalar-based seismic intensity measure", Eng. Struct., 31(7), 1354-1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.003
  30. Mitoulis, S.A. (2013), "Bridges with fixities and bearings versus isolated sytems", Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island, Greece.
  31. Mitoulis, S.A. and Tegos, I.A. (2010), "Restrain of a seismically isolated bridge by external stoppers", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 8(4), 973-993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9172-z
  32. Monzon, E.V., Wei, C., Buckle, I.G. and Itani, A. (2012), "Seismic response of full and hybrid isolated curved bridges structures", ASCE Congress, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  33. OpenSees 2.0.0 [Computer software], Berkeley, CA, Pacific Earthqakes Engineering Response Center, University of California.
  34. Psycharis, I.N. and Mageirou, G.E. (2003), "Parametric investigation of the inelastic seismic response of bridges with elastomeric bearings combined with stoppers", fib Symposium on Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, Athens, Greece.
  35. Scott, B.D., Park, R. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1982), "Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates", ACI J., 79(1), 13-27.
  36. South Carolina Department of Transporation (SCDOT) (2008), "Seismic design specifications for highway bridges", version 2.0, SCDOT,Columbia, SC.
  37. Stefanidou, S.P. and Kappos, A.J. (2013), "Optimum selection of retrofit measures for R/C bridges using fragility curves", Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island, Greece.
  38. Wang, K., Wei, H. and Li, Q. (2012), "Philosophies on seismic design of highway bridge with small or medium span", Proceedings of 15th WCEE - World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
  39. Yilmaz, T. (2008), "Seismic response of multi-span highway bridges with two-column reinforcement concrete bents including foundation and column flexibility", MSc. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.

Cited by

  1. Do mixed pier-to-deck connections alleviate irregularity of seismic response of bridges with unequal height piers? vol.15, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9958-8
  2. KDamper concept in seismic isolation of bridges with flexible piers vol.153, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.10.044
  3. Precast Beam Bridges with a Buffer-Gap-Elastomeric Bearings System: Uncertainty in Design Parameters and Randomness in Ground Records vol.24, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001396
  4. Response of Skew Bridges with permutations of geometric parameters and bearings articulation vol.17, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.17.5.477
  5. Performance assessment of the KDamper as a seismic Absorption Base vol.27, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2482