Investigating the Effect of Pseudo-Static Components on Bridge Structures under Multiple Support Excitations Using Conditional Simulated Records

Document Type: Regular Paper

Authors

Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, P.O. Box 56199-11367, Ardabil, Iran.

10.22075/jrce.2020.20195.1401

Abstract

Long-span bridges, as vital structures, play an important role in economic development. Previous studies revealed that the seismic responses of such structures, under non-uniform excitations, are different from the same result due to uniform excitations. Furthermore, the results of several earthquake-damaged bridges showed that their seismic behavior was different from that predicted under uniform excitation and, in some cases; the responses were more than predicted results. Therefore, the damaged bridges under non-uniform excitations were re-analyzed and the obtained results were in good agreement with the recorded outcomes. Considering current bridge designing codes it is clear that almost all of them ignored it and just the Euro Code 2008 prepared some recommendations. It is found that the main reason for the differences in results from the uniform and non-uniform excitations is the spatial variation of earthquake ground motions. Based on the papers three phenomena were introduced for spatial variability of ground motion: the wave-passage, the incoherence, and also the site-response effects. The responses of structures under non-uniform excitations obtained from the superposition of dynamic and pseudo-static components. This paper investigated the seismic behavior of a long-span structure under non-uniform movements to evaluate the most undesirable conditions. So, different soils and load combinations considered and soil-structure effects included. The effect of wave-passage, incoherence, and site-response on the structure was measured and the results were compared with the uniform excitation. The results indicate that the variation in soil condition significantly affects the seismic responses under non-uniform excitations. Also, it is found that the results from uniform excitations with considering soil-structure interactions are remarkably increased. Moreover, the outcomes of analysis under-considered load cases and soil conditions showed that ignoring the spatially varying ground motions may lead to a non-conservative design.

Keywords

Main Subjects


[1] Leger, P., Ide, I. M. & Paultre, P. (1990). “Multiple-support seismic analysis of large structures”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1153-1158. 10.1016/0045-7949(90)90224-P
[2] Nicholas J. Burdette, Amr S. Elnashai, F.ASCE, Allesio Lupi & Anastasios G. Sextos. (2008). “Effect of Asynchronous Earthquake Motion on Complex Bridges. I: Methodology and Input Motion. Journal of Bridge Engineering”, 13-2. 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:2(158)
[3] Saxena V., Deodatis G. & Shinozuka M. (2000). “Effect of spatial variation of earthquake ground motion on the nonlinear dynamic response of highway bridges. Proc of 12th World Conf on Earthquake Engineering”, Auckland, New Zealand.
[4] Vanmarcke EH, & Fenton GA. (1991). “Conditioned simulation of local fields of earthquake ground motion. Structural Safety”, 10:247–264. 10.1016/0167-4730(91)90018-5
[5] Kameda. H, & Morikawa H.(1992). “An interpolating stochastic process for simulation of conditional random fields”, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics; 7:243–254. 10.1016/0266-8920(92)90028-G
[6] Liao S & Zerva A. (2006). “Physically compliant, conditionally simulated spatially variable seismic ground motions for performance-based design”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 35:891–919. 10.1002/eqe.562
[7] Konakli K. (2011). “Stochastic Dynamic Analysis of Bridges Subjected to Spatially Varying Ground Motions”, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley.
[8] Morris NF. (1974). “Dynamic analysis of cable-stiffened structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering Division ASCE. 100:971-81. https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0022072
[9] Harichandran RS & WangW. (1990). “Response of one- and two- span beams to spatially varying seismic excitation”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 19: 2, 173-187. 10.1002/eqe.4290190203
[10] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi M.R. & Zerva A. (2016). “Effect of numerical soil-foundation-structure modeling on the seismic response of a tall bridge pier via pushover analysis”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 90:52–73. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.020.
[11] Apaydin NM., Bas S. & Harmandar E. (2016). “Response of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge under spatially varying multi-point earthquake excitations”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 84:44-54. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.01.018
[12] Adanur S., Altunisik AC., Soyluk K. & Bayraktar A. (2016). “Multiplesupport seismic response of Bosporus Suspension Bridge for various random vibration method”, Case Studies in Structural Engineering. 5:54-67. 10.1016/j.csse.2016.04.001
dockey=0005745
[13] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi M.R. & Zerva A. ( 2017). “Analytical Seismic Assessment of a Tall Long-Span Curved Reinforced-Concrete Bridge. Part I: Numerical Modelling and Input Excitation”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21:1305–1334. 10.1080/13632469.2016.1211565.
[14] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi M.R. & Zerva A. (2018). “Two uncertainties in simulating spatially varying seismic ground motions: incoherency coefficient and apparent propagation velocity”, Bull Earthquake Eng. 16:4427–4441. 10.1007/s10518-018-0385-x.
[15] Savvas P. Papadopoulos and Anastasios G. Sextos. “Anti-symmetric mode excitation and seismic response of base-isolated bridges under asynchronous input motion” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 113 (2018) 148–161. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.06.004.
[16] Jian Zhong, Jong-Su Jeon and Wei-Xin Ren. (2018) “Risk assessment for a long-span cable-stayed bridge subjected to multiple support excitations. Engineering Structures. 176: 220–230. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.107
[17] Lufeng Zhao, Hong Hao, Kaiming Bi and Xiaozhen Li. (2018 ), “Numerical Study of the Seismic Responses of Precast Segmental Column Bridge under Spatially Varying Ground Motions” J. Bridge Eng. 23(12): 04018096. 10.1061/%28ASCE%29BE.1943-5592.0001319.
[18] Bas S., Apaydin N.M., Harmadar E. and Catbas N., (2018), “Multi-point earthquake response of the Bosphorus Bridge to site-specific ground motions”, Steel and Composite Structures  V. 26, N. 2, pages 197-211. 10.12989/scs.2018.26.2.197.
[19] Jeon J., Shafieezadeh A. and DesRoches R. (2018), “Component fragility assessment of a long, curved multi-frame bridge: Uniform excitation versus spatially correlated ground motions” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, V. 65, N. 5, 2018, pages 633-644. 10.12989/sem.2018.65.5.633.
[20] Yurdakul M. and Ates S. (2018) “Stochastic responses of isolated bridge with triple concave friction pendulum bearing under spatially varying ground motion”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics. V. 65, N. 6, pages 771-784. 10.12989/sem.2018.65.6.771.
[21] Tonyali Z., Ates S. and Adanur S. (2019) “Spatially variable effects on seismic response of the cable-stayed ‎bridges considering local soil site conditions”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics. V. 70, N. 2, pages 143-152. 10.12989/sem.2019.70.2.143.
[22] Shiravand M.R. and P. Parvanehro. (2019), “Spatial variation of seismic ground motion effects on nonlinear responses of cable stayed bridges considering different soil types”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 119: 104–117. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.002.
[23] Payganeh.M.B. and Mortezaei. A. (2020). “Seismic damage assessment of RC buildings subjected to the rotational ground motions records considering soil-structure interaction”, Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering. 8-2, 62-80.  10.22075/jrce.2019.17206.1319
[24] Konakli K. and Der Kiureghian A. (2012). “Simulation of spatially varying ground motions including incoherence, wave‐passage and differential site‐response effects”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 41-3. 495-513. 10.1002/eqe.1141.
[25] Anderson TW. (1971). “The Statistical Analysis of Time Series”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 10.1002/9781118186428
[26] Zerva A & Harada T. ( 1994). “A site-specific model for the spatial incoherence of the seismic ground motions”. Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Chicago, Illinois.
[27] Chatfield C. (2004). “The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction”. CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, Florida.
[28] Abrahamson NA., Schneider JF., & Stepp JC. (1991). “Empirical spatial coherency functions for applications to soil-structure interaction analyses”, Earthquake Spectra. 7, 1–27. 10.1193/1.1585610
[29] Harichandran RS & Vanmarcke EH. (1986). “Stochastic variation of earthquake ground motion in space and time”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Div. 112,154–174. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1986)112:2(154)
[30] Zerva A. & Zervas V. (2002). “Spatial variation of seismic ground motions: An overview”, Application Mechanic, vol 55, no 3.
[31] Novak M. & Hindy A. (1979). “Seismic response of buried pipelines”. 3rd Canadian Conf on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal Canada.
 [32] Der Kiureghian A. & Neuenhofer A. (1992). “Response spectrum method for multiple support seismic excitation”, Earthquake Eng.Struct. Dyn. 21, 713–740. 10.1002/eqe.4290210805
[33] Luco JE. & Wong HL. (1986). “Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 14:891–908. 10.1002/eqe.4290140606
[34] Ketchum M., Chang V. & Shantz T. (2004). “Influence of design ground motion level on highway bridge costs”. 04:6D01. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, USA.
[35] McKenna F. & Fenves GL. (2000). “An object-oriented software design for parallel structural analysis”. In: Proceedings of the advanced technology in structural engineering. Structures Congress 2000, ASCE,Washington,DC.
[36] Taucer F., Spacone E. & Filippou FC. (1991). “A fiber beam–column element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures”. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
[37] Tondini N. & Stojadinovic B. (2012). “Probabilistic seismic demand model for curved reinforced concrete bridges”. Bull Earthquake Eng. 10: 1455-1479. 10.1007/s10518-012-9362-y
[38] Amjadian M. & Agrawal A. K. (2017). “Dynamic characteristics of horizontally curved bridges”. Journal of Vibration and Control. 1–19. 10.1177/1077546317726637
[39] Zhang J. & Makris N. (2002a). “Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiffness of bridge embankments”. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, 31:1933–1966. 10.1002/eqe.196
[40] Zhang J., Makris N. & Delis E. (2004). “Structural characterization of modern highway overcrossings-a case study”. J. Struct Eng ASCE. 130(6):846–860. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:6(846)
[41] Anestis S. V. & Damodaran N. (1975). “Seismic Interaction of Structures on Hysteretic Foundations”. Journal of the Structural Division. 101, 1, 109-129. https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?
[42] Toki K. & Yanabu K. (1988). “Detection of apparent wave velocity in near surface ground with irregular profile by an array observation”. Proceeding of 9th world conf on earthquake engineering, Tokyo.
[43] Wolf John P. (1997). “Spring-Dashpot-Mass Models For Foundation Vibrations”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 931-949. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199709)26:9<931::AID-EQE686>3.0.CO;2-M