Earthquakes and Structures

  • 제16권2호
  • /
  • Pages.185-196
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2092-7614(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2092-7622(eISSN)
테크노프레스 (Techno-Press)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Response modification factors of concrete bridges with different bearing conditions

  • 투고 : 2017.09.22
  • 심사 : 2019.01.13
  • 발행 : 2019.02.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

One of the shortcomings of seismic bridge design codes is the lack of clarity in defining the role of different seismic isolation systems with linear or nonlinear behavior in terms of R-factor. For example, based on AASHTO guide specifications for seismic isolation design, R-factor for all substructure elements of isolated bridges should be half of those expressed in the AASHTO standard specifications for highway bridges (i.e., R=3 for single columns and R=5 for multiple column bent) but not less than 1.50. However, no distinction is made between two commonly used types of seismic isolation devices, i.e., elastomeric rubber bearing (ERB) with linear behavior, and lead rubber bearing (LRB) with nonlinear behavior. In this paper, five existing bridges located in Iran with two types of deck-pier connection including ERB and LRB isolators, and two bridge models with monolithic deck-pier connection are developed and their R-factor values are assessed based on the Uang's method. The average R-factors for the bridges with ERB isolators are calculated as 3.89 and 4.91 in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively, which are not in consonance with the AASHTO guide specifications for seismic isolation design (i.e., R=3/2=1.5 for the longitudinal direction and R=5/2=2.5 for the transverse direction). This is a clear indicator that the code-prescribed R-factors are conservative for typical bridges with ERB isolators. Also for the bridges with LRB isolators, the average computed R-factors equal 1.652 and 2.232 in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively, which are in a good agreement with the code-specified R-factor values. Moreover, in the bridges with monolithic deck-pier connection, the average R-factor in the longitudinal direction is obtained as 2.92 which is close to the specified R-factor in the bridge design codes (i.e., 3), and in the transverse direction is obtained as 2.41 which is about half of the corresponding R-factor value in the specifications (i.e., 5).

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Al-Anany, Y.M., Moustafa, M.A. and Tait, M.J. (2017), "Modeling and evaluation of a seismically isolated bridge using unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric isolators", Earthq. Spectra, 4(1), 145-168.
  2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1996), Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th Edition, Washington, DC, USA.
  3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2014), Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, 4th Edition, Washington, D.C, USA.
  4. Aviram, A., Mackie, K.R. and Stojadinovic, B. (2008), "Guidelines for Nonlinear Analysis of Bridge Structures in California", PEER 2008/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
  5. Caltrans (2010), Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.6, California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
  6. Constantinou, M.C. and Quarshie, J.K. (1998), "Response modification factors for seismically isolated bridges", Rep. MCEER-98-0014, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY.
  7. CSiBridge (2015), 17.3.0, [Computer Software], Computers and Structures, Inc., CA, USA
  8. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (2005), Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 2: Bridges, Eurocode 8, EN 1998-2, Brussels.
  9. Itani, A., Gaspersic, P. and Saiidi, M. (1997), "Response modification factors for seismic design of circular reinforced concrete bridge columns", Struct. J., 94(1), 23-30.
  10. Kappos, A.J., Paraskeva, T.S. and Moschonas, I.F. (2013), "Response modification factors for concrete bridges in Europe", J. Bridge Eng., 18(12), 1328-1335. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000487
  11. Kelly, J.M. (1997), Earthquake-Resistant Design with Rubber, 2nd Edition, Springer, London, U.K.
  12. Losanno, D., Spizzuoco, M. and Serino, G. (2014), "Optimal design of the seismic protection system for isolated bridges", Earthq. Struct., 7(6), 969-999. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.6.969
  13. Memari, A., Harris, H., Hamid, A. and Scanlon, A. (2005), "Ductility evaluation for typical existing R/C bridge columns in the eastern USA", Eng. Struct., 27, 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.09.011
  14. Naeim, F. and Kelly, J.M. (1999), Design of Seismic Isolated Structures; From Theory to Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
  15. Nagarajaiah, S., Reinhorn, A.M. and Constantinou, M.C. (1991), "Nonliner dynamic analysis of 3-D base-isolated structures", J. Struct. Eng., 117(7), 2035-2054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:7(2035)
  16. Olmos, B.A. (2008), "Nonlinear seismic response of Mexican bridges with base isolation accounting for soil structure interaction effects", Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas, U.S.
  17. Olmos, B.A., Jara, J.M. and Roesset, J.M. (2011), "Effects of isolation on the seismic response of bridges designed for two different soil types", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 9(2), 641-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9225-3
  18. Park, Y.J., Ang, A.H.S. and Wen, Y.K. (1986), "Random vibration of hysteretic systems under bi-directional ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14(4), 543-557. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290140405
  19. Saiidi, M., Maragakis, E. and Griffin, G. (1999), "Effect of base isolation on the seismic response of multi-column bridges", Struct. Eng. Mech., 8(4), 411-419. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.1999.8.4.411
  20. Skinner, R.I., Robinson, W.H. and McVerry, G.H. (1993), An Introduction to Seimic Isolation, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England.
  21. Soares, R.W., Lima, S.S. and Santos, H.S.C. (2017), "Reinforced concrete bridge pier ductility analysis for different levels of detailing", IBRACON Struct. Mater. J., 10(5), 1042-1050.
  22. Specification No. 139 (2000), Standard Loads for Bridges, Ministry of Roads and Transportation, Office of the Deputy for Technical Affairs, Tehran, Iran.
  23. Specification No. 463 (2008), Road and Railway Bridges Seismic Resistant Design Code, Ministry of Roads and Transportation, Deputy of Training; Research and Information Technology, Tehran, Iran.
  24. Toopchi-Nezhad, H. (2014), "Horizontal stiffness solutions for unbonded fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings", Struct. Eng. Mech., 49(3), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.49.3.395
  25. Uang, C.M. (1991), "Establishing R (or $R_w$) and $C_d$ factors for building seismic privisions", J. Struct. Eng., 117(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1991)117:1(19)
  26. Wen, Y.K. (1976), "Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems", J. Eng. Mech., 102(2), 249-263.

피인용 문헌

  1. Response modification factor and seismic fragility assessment of skewed multi-span continuous concrete girder bridges vol.20, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.20.4.389