Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Viaduct seismic response under spatial variable ground motion considering site conditions

  • Derbal, Rachid (RISk Assesment & Management Laboratory (RISAM), University of Tlemcen) ;
  • Benmansour, Nassima (RISk Assesment & Management Laboratory (RISAM), University of Tlemcen) ;
  • Djafour, Mustapha (RISk Assesment & Management Laboratory (RISAM), University of Tlemcen) ;
  • Matallah, Mohammed (RISk Assesment & Management Laboratory (RISAM), University of Tlemcen) ;
  • Ivorra, Salvador (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante)
  • Received : 2019.07.03
  • Accepted : 2019.10.24
  • Published : 2019.12.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The evaluation of the seismic hazard for a given site is to estimate the seismic ground motion at the surface. This is the result of the combination of the action of the seismic source, which generates seismic waves, the propagation of these waves between the source and the site, and site local conditions. The aim of this work is to evaluate the sensitivity of dynamic response of extended structures to spatial variable ground motions (SVGM). All factors of spatial variability of ground motion are considered, especially local site effect. In this paper, a method is presented to simulate spatially varying earthquake ground motions. The scheme for generating spatially varying ground motions is established for spatial locations on the ground surface with varying site conditions. In this proposed method, two steps are necessary. Firstly, the base rock motions are assumed to have the same intensity and are modelled with a filtered Tajimi-Kanai power spectral density function. An empirical coherency loss model is used to define spatial variable seismic ground motions at the base rock. In the second step, power spectral density function of ground motion on surface is derived by considering site amplification effect based on the one dimensional seismic wave propagation theory. Several dynamics analysis of a curved viaduct to various cases of spatially varying seismic ground motions are performed. For comparison, responses to uniform ground motion, to spatial ground motions without considering local site effect, to spatial ground motions with considering coherency loss, phase delay and local site effects are also calculated. The results showed that the generated seismic signals are strongly conditioned by the local site effect. In the same sense, the dynamic response of the viaduct is very sensitive of the variation of local geological conditions of the site. The effect of neglecting local site effect in dynamic analysis gives rise to a significant underestimation of the seismic demand of the structure.

Keywords

References

  1. Adanur, S., Altunisik, A.C., Soyluk, K., Bayraktar, A. and Dumanogluc, A.A. (2016), "Multiple-support seismic response of Bosporus Suspension Bridge for various random vibration methods", Case Stud. Struct. Eng., 5, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csse.2016.04.001.
  2. Beneldjouzi, M., Laouami, N. and Slimani, A. (2017), "Numerical and random simulation procedure for preliminary local site characterization and site factor assessing", Earthq. Struct., 13(1), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.1.079.
  3. Benmansour, N. (2013), "Effet de la variabilite spatiale du mouvement sismique sur le comportement dynamique des ponts", These de Doctorat, Universite Abou BekrBelkaid, Tlemcen, Algerie.
  4. Benmansour, N., Djafour, M., Bekkouche, A., Zendagui, D. and Benyacoub, A. (2012), "Seismic response evaluation of bridges under differential ground motion: a comparison with the new Algerian provisions", Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng., 16(7), 863-881. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2012.681951.
  5. Benmansour, N., Djafour, M., Zendagui, D. and Bekkouche, A. (2012), "Non linear dynamic analysis of bridge to spatially variable multiple support excitations", 9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering/ 4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
  6. Bi, K. and Hao, H. (2012), "Modelling and simulation of spatially varying earthquake ground motions at sites with varying conditions", Prob. Eng. Mech., 29, 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2011.09.002.
  7. Bi, K., Hao, H. and Chouw, N. (2010), "Required separation distance between decks and at abutments of a bridge crossing a canyon site to avoid seismic pounding", Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 39, 303-323. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.943.
  8. Bi, K., Hao, H. and Ren, W. (2010), "Response of a frame structure on a canyon site to spatially varying ground motions", Struct. Eng. Mech., 36(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2010.36.1.111.
  9. Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill, New York.
  10. Deodatis, G. (1996), "Non-stationary stochastic vector processes: seismic ground motion applications", Prob. Eng. Mech., 11, 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-8920(96)00007-0.
  11. Der Kiureghian, A. (1996) "A coherency model for spatially varying ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(1), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<99::AID-EQE540>3.0.CO;2-C.
  12. Derbal, R., Benmansour, N. and Djafour, M. (2017), "Influence de l'effet de site sur le comportement dynamique des ponts", 23eme Congres Francais de Mecanique, France, Lille, August-September.
  13. Derbal, R., Benmansour, N. and Djafour, M. (2018), "Impact of spatial variability of earthquake ground motion on seismic response of a railway bridge", Int. J. Comput. Meth., 6(5), 910-920.
  14. Dumanoglu, A.A. and Soyluk, K. (2003), "A stochastic analysis of long span structures subjected to spatially varying ground motions including the site-response effect", Eng. Struct., 25(10), 1301-1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00080-4.
  15. Harichandran, R. and Vanmarcke, E. (1986), "Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time", J. Eng. Mech., ASCE, 112, 154-174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1986)112:2(154).
  16. Jennings, P.C., Housner, G.W. and Tsai, N.C. (1968), "Simulated earthquake motions", Report of Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, EERL-02, California Institute of Technology.
  17. Konakli, K. and Der Kiureghian, A. (2012), "Simulation of spatially varying ground motions including incoherence, wave-passage and differential site-response effects", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(3), 495-513. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1141.
  18. Miao, Y., Yao, E., Ruan, B. and Zhuang, H. (2018), "Seismic response of shield tunnel subjected to spatially varying earthquake", Tunnel. Underg. Space Technol., 77, 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.04.006.
  19. Safak, E. (1995), "Discrete-time analysis of seismic site amplification", J. Eng. Mech., 121(7), 801-809. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1995)121:7(801).
  20. Shiravand, M.R. and Parvanehro, P. (2019), "Spatial variation of seismic ground motion effects on nonlinear responses of cable stayed bridges considering different soil types", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 119, 104-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.002.
  21. Tajimi H. (1960), "A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake", Proceeding of 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 781-796.
  22. Wolf, J.P. (1985), Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  23. Yao, E., Miao, Y., Wang, S. and Long, X. (2018), "Simulation of fully nonstationary spatially variable ground motions on a canyon site", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 115, 198-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.030.
  24. Zerva, A. (2009), "Spatial Variation of Seismic Ground Motions: Modeling and Engineering Applications" CRC Press, Group, Taylor & Francis.
  25. Zhang, D.Y., Liu, W., Xie, W.C. and Pandey, M.D. (2013), "Modeling of spatially correlated, site-reflected, and nonstationary ground motions compatible with response spectrum", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 5, 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.08.002.