Conceptual design and control of bridge structures in seismic areas
Download
1 / 56

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND CONTROL OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC AREAS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 262 Views
  • Uploaded on

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND CONTROL OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC AREAS. Dr Radomir FOLIC , Professor Institute for Civil Engineering Faculty of Technical Sciences University of Novi Sad E-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND CONTROL OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC AREAS' - paul


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Conceptual design and control of bridge structures in seismic areas

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND CONTROL OF BRIDGE STRUCTURES IN SEISMIC AREAS

Dr Radomir FOLIC, Professor

Institute for Civil Engineering

Faculty of Technical Sciences University of Novi Sad

E-mail: [email protected]


Introduction
INTRODUCTION SEISMIC AREAS

  • The extensive damage of the recent earthquake have led to a significant damage of B S`s.

  • The cause is often the error of conceptual design, i. e. the choice of the structural and foundation system, spacing of piers and connections between them, deck and abutments, the spacing of joints, etc.

  • This presentation reviews philosophies of seismic design and protection which can be used in the conceptual phase of bridge design (Eurocode 8-part 2 provisions and recommendations used in U.S.A. and Japan).


Traditional design procedure earthquake structure response

Taiwan, September 21,1999 SEISMIC AREAS

Traditional design procedureEarthquake—Structure—Response


Buckling long. bars SEISMIC AREAS

caused by bed

confinement


Introduction1
INTRODUCTION SEISMIC AREAS

  • Beam system is used for small and medium spans, arch and suspension system for large spans.

  • Importance of structure, site conditions and regularity of structure influence on methods of analysis. Based on regularity in plane and elevation structures are classified as regular or non-regular.

  • Based of the need for the B, to maintain emergency communications after the design seismic event, classified: greater than average (I=1.3); average (I=1.0); less than average (I=0.7)- (EC 8-2).


Introduction2
INTRODUCTION SEISMIC AREAS

  • In the most current seismic code aim is to prevent collapse of the structure under the design earthquake. The importance of conceptual analysis in B designing problems cannot be stressed enough.

  • Choice of appropriate earthquake resisting structural system (ERS) must provide in early phase of design.


Design
DESIGN SEISMIC AREAS

Three steps in design of bridge structures (BS) are:

  • Conceptual design,

  • Analysis, &

  • Detailing.

    Three approaches in design of BS are:

  • Force - Based Seismic Design FB SD,

  • Displacement - Based Seismic Design DBD –(N. Priestley), and

  • Performance - Based Seismic Design PB SD.


Design1
DESIGN SEISMIC AREAS

Performance requirements depend on the importance and configuration-regularity of bridges (B′s). We can divided (B′s) on:

normal (B′s) & special bridges: arch bridges, cable-stayed B′s, B′s with extreme geometry, and B′s with distinctly different yielding strengths of piers.

Special B′s designed to behave elastically under the design earthquake or use seismic isolation to achieved elastic response.


Elastic and inelastic response r q
Elastic and inelastic response (R=q) SEISMIC AREAS

Design

Force-reduce


Behaviour of b s in earthquake and basic deisgn philosophies bdph
BEHAVIOUR OF B`s IN EARTHQUAKE and BASIC DEISGN PHILOSOPHIES (BDPh)

  • The BDPh is to prevent B from collapse during severe earthquake with small probability of occurring during service life of the B.

  • The ductility behaviour using elastic calcul. with reduced seismic forces (with behaviour factor q=R) lead to economic solutions.

  • The alternative is use of elastic systems on the isolated base or used devices for dissipation of input seismic energy.

  • In concrete Binelastic damage located in the pier and abutments, and plastic hinges develop simultaneously in as many piers as possible greater energy is dissipated.



Behaviour of bridges in earthquake and basic deisgn philosophies

According EC 8: (BDPh)

in regions of low and moderate seismicity frequently chosen limited ductile behaviour It is needed access for inspection and repair of the pot. plastic hinges and the bearings.

In regions of moderate and high seismicity the ductile behaviour is required.

BEHAVIOUR OF BRIDGES IN EARTHQUAKE AND BASIC DEISGN PHILOSOPHIES


Behaviour of bridges in earthquake and basic deisgn philosophies1
BEHAVIOUR OF BRIDGES IN EARTHQUAKE AND BASIC DEISGN PHILOSOPHIES

The performance-based crit. to provide ductile failure  usually require two level design:

  • to ensure service performance of B for earthquake with small magnitude that can occur several times during service life;

  • is to prevent collapse under severe earthquake with small probability of occ. during service life of bridge.


Development of performance based criteria is obtained through following steps
Development of PHILOSOPHIESperformance-based criteria is obtained through following steps:

  • Establish post-earthquake performance requirements.

  • Determine B specific loads and various combinations.

  • Determine materials and their properties.

  • Determine analysis method for evaluation of demands.

  • Determine detailed procedures for evaluation of capacity.

  • Establish detailed performance acceptance criteria.


Behaviour of bridges in earthquake and basic deisgn philosophies2
BEHAVIOUR OF BRIDGES IN EARTHQUAKE AND BASIC DEISGN PHILOSOPHIES

  • EC 8 seismic resistance (SR) requir. That emergency communications shall be maintained, after the design seismic event (SDE).

  • Non-collapse req. (ultimate limit state): after SDE the bridge shall retain its structural integrity, at some parts considerable damage may occur.

  • Deck shall be protected from plastic hinges and unseating under extreme displacements only minor damage without reduction of the traffic or the need of immediate repair. Capacity design shall be used to provide the hierarchy configuration of plastic hinges in piers.


Conceptual design
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

  • Majority of Codes relates to modeling and analysis elements and structures (E/S). Only rarely they deal with conceptual design (Russian and Swiss).

  • Russian Code beam system are recommended. The arch bridges can be applied only in rock terrains. In the IXth zone MCS scale precast concrete, composite-monolithic and concrete structure bearings is recom.

  • Swiss Code local damage - destruction of bearings or expansion joints tolerated provided that the superstructure is prevented from falling


Conceptual design1
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

  • Bridges should be as straight as possible. Skew angle should be as small as possible.Curved bridges complicate seismic responses.

  • Vibrations along the axis of a skew bridge cause torsional response - large rotation demands on piers heads. In single pier bridges, an eccentricity between the deck and pier axis would also lead to torsional response.

  • Behaviour of continuous B`s is better than other types. Necessary restrainers and sufficient seat width should be provided between adjacent bents at all expansion joints.


Balance mass PHILOSOPHIES

and stiffness

distribution

FRAME STIFFNES


Conceptual design2
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

  • B`s are long period structures - effected by higher modes.

  • Adjacent bents or piers should be design to minimize the differences in fundamental periods, and to avoid drastic changes in stiffness and strength in both longitudinal and transverse directions.

  • Stiffer frame receives greater part of load.

  • The pier causing the most irregular effect due to its stiffness and damaged first (unequal pier heights) in special situation of full isolation applied.


Conceptual design3
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

It is recommended that:

  • Effective stiffness between any two columns within a bent, does not vary by a factor of more than 2.

  • Ratio of the shorter fundamental period to the longer ones for adjacent frames in the longitudinal and transverse directions should be larger than 0.7.

  • Balanced mass and stiffness distribution in a frame results in a good response. Irregularities in geometry increase complex nonlinear response.



Permissible PHILOSOPHIES

Earthquake

Resistance

systems -ATC


Permissible PHILOSOPHIES

Earthquake

-resisting

elements-

ATC


require owner's PHILOSOPHIES

approval - ATC


require owner`s PHILOSOPHIES

approval - ATC




Location of primary plastic hinge, a) conventional design, b) menshin-seismic isolation design, c) bridge on a wall type pier (Japan Code 1996)


MODELING AND ANALISYS b) menshin-seismic isolation design, c) bridge on a wall type pier (Japan Code 1996)


Modeling and analisys without base isolation
MODELING AND ANALISYS- b) menshin-seismic isolation design, c) bridge on a wall type pier (Japan Code 1996)without base isolation


Modeling and analisys with base isolation
MODELING AND ANALISYS- b) menshin-seismic isolation design, c) bridge on a wall type pier (Japan Code 1996)WITH BASE ISOLATION


Protection of bridge structures
PROTECTION OF b) menshin-seismic isolation design, c) bridge on a wall type pier (Japan Code 1996)BRIDGE STRUCTURES

  • Concrete B design to direct inelastic damage into columns, pier walls, and abutments.

  • The superstructure should sufficient over-strength to remain essentially elastic if piers reach plastic M capacity

  • Seismic protection devices-energy dissipation and isolation at approp. location provide good behaviour.


Protection conrol of bridge structures
PROTECTION-CONROL OF b) menshin-seismic isolation design, c) bridge on a wall type pier (Japan Code 1996)BRIDGE STRUCTURES

Spri-ng

Spring



Bas e isolation
BAS disadvantagesE ISOLATION


Friction damper
FRICTION DAMPER disadvantages



Pseudo acceleration spectra peak value of a t
Pseudo-acceleration spectra disadvantagespeak value of A(t)


CONTROL OF STRUCTURES disadvantages


Three-span C. Frame B. disadvantagesS. of MDOF ex. b) Long. Degree of freedom, c) Tran. DOF,d) rotational DOF, e) mode shape I, f) mode shape 2, g) mode shape 3. WITHOUT PROTECTION


Three span bridge with active control system (a); b) B model for analysis; c) SDOF system

controlled by actuator


Controllable sliding bearing for analysis; c) SDOF system


Base isolation active control
Base isolation + Active control for analysis; c) SDOF system


Simple-span bridge with hybrid control system & b) lumped mass system model; c) four-degree- of-freedom system


Multi column structures offer the option of fixed or pinned base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.

Options for

lateral force

resisting

systems


Monolithic connections between deck and abutment are more base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.

commonly used for small bridges, solution b) is more reliable

Than of a). Bearing supports have many configurations c) and d).

For both configurations the bearings may be substituted by isolators.

Options for

abutment-

deck

connection


Mechanisms base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.

of resisting forces at the abutment


For piers the base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.circular section is desirable (L & T demands are similar) provides uniform confinement and restrains the L bars from buckling. In the rectangular sec. the protection of long. bars against buckling must be provided with add. S & tie.


Detailing connections
DETAILING-CONNECTIONS base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.


Comparative provisions for aseismic design
Comparative provisions for aseismic design base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.


Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.

  • The basic philosophy for seismic design of ordinary bridges is that for small to moderate earthquakes the bridges should resist within the elastic range without significant damage, while for large earthquake must prevent collapse.

  • In current design practice the changes are necessary to incorporate improved design procedure, especially Perf. B S D.

  • It is very important to analyse plane layout and layout in elevation of BS in preliminary phase to respect presented recommendations.


References
References base solutions. Displacements at the deck level are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.

  • ATC, Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California bridges: Provisional Recommendations, ATC - 32, Applied Tech. Council, Redwood City, CA, USA, 1996;

  • AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials): Bridge Design Specifications, 1998.

  • Bridge Engineering-Seismic Design (BESD) Ed. W. F. Chen and L.Duan, B. R. 2003.

  • CALTRANS (California Department of Transportation) SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA, VERSION 1.2, (p.121), December, 2001

  • Duan, L., Wai-Fah, C.: Bridges, in Earthquake Engineering Handbook, Ed. W.F. Chen and C. Scawthorn, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2003. pp. 18.1-18.56.

  • Duan, L., Li, F., Seismic Design Philosophies and Performance-Based Design Criteria, (p. 5.1-5.35) in BESD, Ed. W. F. Chen and L. Duan, CRC, B. Raton, 2003

  • Elnashai, A., Seismic Response and Design of Bridges, in Manual of Br.Eng., 2002.

  • EC8/2 – Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 2: Bridges, prENV 1998-2, May 1994, CEN, Brussels.

  • EC8/2 – Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 2: Bridges, prEN 1998-2:200X/ Draft 5 (pr Stage 51) June 2004, CEN, Brussels.

  • Folić R., Lađinović Đ.: Some current methods and tendency in seismic design of concrete bridges. Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Bridges Across the Danube, Novi Sad, Serbia & Montenegro, 24-26 June, 2004, Volume II, 133-144.

  • Pristleey, J.M.N., Seible,F. and Calvi,G.M.: Seizmic Design and Retrofit Bridges, Wiley Interscience, New York, 1995.

  • Regulations for Seismic Design a World List-1996, Supplement IAEE, 2000&2004.

  • Troitsky, M.S.: Conceptual Bridge Design, in Bridge Engineering Handbook, Ed. W.F. Chen and L. Duan CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999. Chap. 1. pp 1.1-1.19

  • UNJOH, S., Seismic Design Practice in Japan, (p. 12.1-12.37) in BESD, Ed. W.F. Chen and L. Duan, CRC, Boca Raton, 2003.


ad