Upload
liesel
View
21
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of California, Berkeley Bruce Kutter Professor , University of California, Davis. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with
Foundations Designed to Uplift
Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Bruce KutterProfessor , University of California, Davis
Acknowledgments
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center for funding this work through
the Transportation Research Program
Antonellis GrigoriosGraduate Student Researcher, UC Berkeley
Lu YuanGraduate Student Researcher, UC Berkeley
3 Questions
1. Can foundation rocking be considered as an alternative seismic design method of bridges resulting in reduced: i) post-earthquake damage, ii) required repairs, and iii) loss of function ?
2. What are the ground motion characteristics that can lead to overturn of a pier supported on a rocking foundation?
3. Probabilistic performance-based earthquake evaluation ?
“Fixed” Base Design
flexural plastic hinge
Susceptible to significant post-earthquake damage and permanent lateral deformations that:
• Impair traffic flow
• Necessitate costly and time consuming repairs
Design Using Rocking Shallow FoundationsPier on rocking
shallow foundation“Fixed” base pier
Pier on rocking pile-cap“Fixed” base pier
Design Using Rocking Pile Caps
Design Using Rocking Pile-Caps
Pile-cap with socketsPile-cap simply supported on piles
Mild steel for energy dissipation ?
Rocking Foundations - Nonlinear Behavior
B
Moment, M
Rotation, Θ
Infinitely strong soil
NB 6
M
NElastic soil
NB 2
Θ
Inelastic soil
Nonlinear Behavior Characteristics
Fixed-base orshallow foundation with extensive soil
inelasticity
Rocking pile-cap or shallow foundation
on elastic soil
Shallow foundation with limited soil
inelasticity
Force, F
Displacement, Δ
SDOF Nonlinear Displacement ResponseMean results of 40 near-fault ground motions
0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40R = 2
Sd (i
n)
T (sec)0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40R = 4
T (sec)0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40R = 6
T (sec)
Clough
Flag
NonlinearElastic
0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40R = 2
Sd (i
n)
T (sec)0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40R = 4
T (sec)0 1 2 30
10
20
30
40R = 6
T (sec)
Clough
Flag
NonlinearElastic
Numerical Case Study of a Bridge
An archetype bridge is considered and is designed with:i) fixed base piers ii) with piers supported on rocking foundations
120 ft 150 ft 150 ft 120 ft150 ft
Archetype bridge considered – Tall Overpass
56 ft
Analysis using 40 near-fault ground motions
Computed Response of a Bridge System
120 ft 150 ft 150 ft 120 ft150 ft
Archetype bridge considered – Tall Overpass
56 ft
• 5 Spans • Single column bents• Cast in place box girder
50 ft
6 ft
39 ft
B
D = 6ft• Column axial load ratio N / fc
’Ag = 0.1
• Longitudinal steel ratio ρl = 2%
Designs Using Rocking Foundations
50 ft
6 ft
39 ft
B = 24 ft (4D)
D = 6ft50 ft
6 ft
39 ft
B = 18 ft (3D)
D = 6ft
Soil ultimate stress σu = 0.08 ksi
FSv = Aσu / N = 5.4
Shallow foundation Rocking Pile-Cap
Modeling of BridgeOPENSEES 3-dimensional model
Columns, deck : nonlinear fiber beam element
Abutment , shear keys: nonlinear springs
Soil-foundation : nonlinear Winkler model
Forc
e
Deformation
Bridge Model - Dynamic Characteristics
1st mode, T1 (sec) 2nd mode, T2 (sec)
Fixed - base B = 4D Rocking Pile Cap B=3D
1.10.8
1.91.8
2.11.9
Monotonic Behavior – Individual Pier
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50
5000
10000
15000
20000
Drift Ratio, / H, (%)
Mom
ent,
(kip
s-ft)
Fixed baseB=5D, FSv=8.4
B=4D, FSv=5.4
Pile cap, B=3D
Ground Motions Considered – Response Spectra , 2% Damping
2 4 6 8 100
1
2
3
4
5
Sa
(g)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
1
2
3
4
5
Sa
(g)
2 4 6 8 100
100
200
300
400
T (sec)
Sd
(in)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
25
50
75
T (sec)
Sd
(in)
2 4 6 8 100
1
2
3
4
5
Sa
(g)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
1
2
3
4
5
Sa
(g)
2 4 6 8 100
100
200
300
400
T (sec)
Sd
(in)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
25
50
75
T (sec)
Sd
(in)
Computed Response of BridgeΔ
ΔfΔ: total drift
Δf: drift due to pier bending
z
z: soil settlement at foundation edge
Computed Bridge Response - Total drift, Δ
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
5
10
15
Drif
t Rat
io
/ H
, (%
)
Ground Motion Number0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
5
10
15
Drif
t Rat
io
/ H
, (%
)
Ground Motion Number0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
5
10
15
Drif
t Rat
io
/ H
, (%
)
Ground Motion Number
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
2
4
6
8
Ground Motion Number
Flex
ural
Drif
t Rat
io,
f / H
, (%
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
2
4
6
8
Ground Motion Number
Flex
ural
Drif
t Rat
io,
f / H
, (%
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
2
4
6
8
Ground Motion Number
Flex
ural
Drif
t Rat
io,
f / H
, (%
)
Computed Bridge Response Drift due to pier bending Δf
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400
2
4
6
8
10
Ground Motion Number
Set
tlem
ent Z
, (in
)
Computed Bridge Response
Ground motion characteristics that may lead to overturn ?
Acc
el.
Pulse A
Vel.
Time
Displ
.
Pulse B
Time
Pulse C
Time
Tp
ap
Tp
ap
Acc
eler
atio
nVe
loci
tyD
ispl
acem
ent
Pulse A Pulse B
Time Time
Ground motions with strong pulses (especially low frequency) that result in significant nonlinear displacement demand
Rocking response of rigid block on rigid base to pulse-type excitation
Zhang and Makris (2001)
Near Fault Ground Motions and their representation using Trigonometric Pulses
0 5 10-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1G
roun
d ac
cele
ratio
n,
a g ( g
) Northridge 1994, Rinaldi (FN)
0 10 20 30-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1 Landers 1999, Lucerne Valley (FN)
0 5 10-80
-40
0
40
80
time (sec)
Gro
und
velo
city
v g (
in /
s )
0 10 20 30-80
-40
0
40
80
time ( sec )
Tp = 0.8 sec
ap = 0.7 g
Tp = 5.0 sec
ap = 0.13 g
Conditions that may lead to overturn
50 ft
6 ft
39 ft
B = 18 ft
D = 6ft
Acc
el.
Pulse A
Vel.
TimeDispl
.
Pulse B
Time
Pulse C
Time
Tp
ap
Tp
ap
Acc
eler
atio
nVe
loci
tyD
ispl
acem
ent
Pulse A Pulse B
Time Time
WD = 1350 kips
WF = 300 kips
Minimum ap at different Tp that results in overturn ?
Conditions that may lead to overturn
0 2 4 6 80
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
a p (g)
Tp (sec)
Pulse APulse B
Conditions that may lead to overturn
0 2 4 6 80
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
a p (g)
Tp (sec)
Pulse APulse B
Probabilistic Performance Based Earthquake Evaluation (PBEE)
The PEER methodology and the framework of Mackie et al. (2008) was used for the PBEE comparison of the fixed base and the rocking designs.
• Ground Motion Intensity Measures [Sa ( T1 )]• Engineering Demand Parameters (e.g. Pier Drift )• Damage in Bridge Components• Repair Cost of Bridge System
PBEE Evaluation – Damage Models (Mackie et al. 2008)
0 5 10 150
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Drift Ratio (%)
P[d
m>D
M L
S]
Column
CrackingSpallingBar BucklingFailure
0 4 8 120
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Long. Displacement (in.)
Abutment
Onset of DamageJoint Seal AssemblyBackWallApproach Slab
0 4 8 12 160
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement (in.)
Bearing
YieldFailure
0 120 240 3600
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Shear force (kips)
P[d
m>D
M L
S]
Shear Key
Elastic LimitConcrete Spalling Failure
PBEE Evaluation Foundation Damage Model
0 1 2 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Normalized Edge Settlement z / zyield
P [
dm >
DM
LS
]
Column Foundation
ElasticFirst YieldLimited YieldingExtensive Yielding
PBEE – Median Total Repair Cost
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Sa ( T = 1 sec ), (g)
Tota
l Rep
air C
ost (
mill
ion
of $
)
Fixed Base
B=4D, Fsv=5.4
Pile Cap, B=3D
Fixed Base Bridge
PBEE – Disaggregation of Cost
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.1
0.2
0.3
Sa (T=1sec), (g)
Rep
air C
ost (
mill
ion
of $
)
EDGE COLUMNSMIDDLE COLUMNSBEARINGSSHEAR KEYS
Bridge with Shallow Foundations B=4D
PBEE – Disaggregation of Cost
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.1
0.2
0.3
Sa(T=1sec), (g)
Rep
air C
ost (
mill
ion
of $
)
Disaggregation of Cost - B=4D, Fsv=5.4
EDGE COLUMNS
MIDDLE COLUMNSBEARINGS
SHEAR KEYSEDGE COLUMNS FOUNDATIONS
MIDDLE COLUMNS FOUNDATIONS
END
0 20 40-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04 Northridge, Rinaldi - FN
Bas
e ro
tatio
n ( r
adia
ns )
time ( sec )0 50 100-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04 Landers, Lucerne Valley - FN
time ( sec )
Response of Individual Pier on Rocking Pile Cap
0 5 10 15 20 25 30-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
time ( sec )
base
rota
tion
( rad
ians
)
LCN1.3xLCN
Response of Individual Pier on Rocking Pile Cap