Please wait a minute...
购物车 申请加入邮件组 English
高级检索 图表检索
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

热点文章  |  下载排行  |  浏览排行
在线投稿 免费RSS订阅
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2020, Vol. 14 Issue (1): 169-184   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0590-y
  本期目录
Pretest analysis of shake table response of a two-span steel girder bridge incorporating accelerated bridge construction connections
Elmira SHOUSHTARI(), M. Saiid SAIIDI, Ahmad ITANI, Mohamed A. MOUSTAFA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno NV 89557, USA
 全文: PDF(3833 KB)   HTML
Abstract：

This paper presents pretest analysis of a shake table test model of a 0.35-scale, two-span, steel plate girder bridge. The objective of pretest analysis was to obtain an insight on the seismic response of the bridge model during the shake table tests. The bridge included seat type abutments, full-depth precast deck panels, and a two-column bent in which columns were pinned to the footing and integral with superstructure. Six accelerated bridge construction connections were incorporated in the bridge model. An analytical model was developed in OpenSees and was subjected to ten input bi-directional earthquake motions including near-fault and far-field records. The overall seismic response of the bridge was satisfactory for all the earthquake records at 100%, 150%, and 200% design level. All connections and capacity-protected components remained elastic, and the average ductility capacity surpassed the ductility demand even at 200% design level. Using experimental fragility curves developed for RC bridge columns, it was predicted that there was a probability of 45% that columns would undergo the imminent failure in the last run and a probability of 30% for their failure.
Key words： shake table test    accelerated bridge construction    steel girder bridge    OpenSEES    UHPC    simple for dead continuous for live
收稿日期: 2018-08-08      出版日期: 2020-02-21
Corresponding Author(s): Elmira SHOUSHTARI   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2020, 14(1): 169-184.
Elmira SHOUSHTARI, M. Saiid SAIIDI, Ahmad ITANI, Mohamed A. MOUSTAFA. Pretest analysis of shake table response of a two-span steel girder bridge incorporating accelerated bridge construction connections. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 169-184.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-019-0590-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2020/V14/I1/169
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
item value
scale factor 0.35
span length 10.6 m
width of the bridge 3.4 m
number of girders in each span 4
column diameter 406 mm
column height 2.1 m
axial load index (dead load) 5.7%
column longitudinal bar 12#5 (diameter= 16 mm)
column longitudinal steel ratio 1.83%
column transverse steel #3 (diameter= 9.5 mm) @ 63 mm
column transverse steel ratio 1.25%
rebar hinge longitudinal bar 6#5 (diameter= 16 mm)
rebar hinge longitudinal steel ratio 2.40%
rebar hinge transverse steel #3 (diameter= 9.5 mm) @ 38 mm
Tab.1  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Fig.10  
Fig.11  
rec# NGA# event name PGA magnitude scale factor
N1 RSN4116-H1 Parkfield-02_CA 1.31 6.0 0.65
RSN4116-H2 0.58
N2 RSN1084-H1 Northrdige-01 0.62 6.7 0.50
RSN1084-H2 0.93
N3 RSN1120-H1 Kobe Japan 0.62 6.9 0.66
RSN1120-H2 0.98
N4 RSN1503-H1 Chi-Chi Taiwan (China) 0.79 7.6 0.74
RSN1503-H2 0.58
N5 RSN1602-H1 Duzce Turkey 0.75 7.1 0.79
RSN1602-H2 0.82
F1 RSN338-H1 Coalinga-01 0.26 6.4 1.67
RSN338-H2 0.28
F2 RSN778-H1 Loma Prieta 0.27 6.9 1.24
RSN778-H2 0.28
F3 RSN995-H1 Northridge-01 0.23 6.7 1.59
RSN995-H2 0.36
F4 RSN1116-H1 Kobe_ Japan 0.23 6.9 1.46
RSN1116-H2 0.23
F5 RSN1203-H1 Chi-Chi Taiwan (China) 0.27 7.6 1.05
RSN1203-H2 0.20
Tab.2  
Fig.12  
design level motion maximum drift ratio residual drift ratio
longitudinal transverse longitudinal transverse
100% N1 3.5% 3.2% 0.0% 0.2%
N2 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%
N3 1.4% 2.1% 0.0% 0.1%
N4 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0%
N5 2.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.2%
F1 1.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%
F2 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.1%
F3 1.2% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0%
F4 1.1% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0%
F5 1.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0%
maximun (N) 3.0% 3.2% 0.3% 0.2%
maximun (F) 1.5% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1%
average (N&F) 1.5% 1.4% 0.1% 0.1%
150% N1 (failure) 4.1% 4.4% N/A N/A
N2 2.1% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0%
N3 (failure) 3.9% 4.7% N/A N/A
N4 2.0% 1.9% 0.3% 0.1%
N5 2.3% 1.4% 0.3% 0.2%
F1 2.2% 3.8% 0.3% 0.3%
F2 1.9% 3.1% 0.3% 0.8%
F3 1.6% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0%
F4 1.7% 1.9% 0.2% 0.1%
F5 2.3% 1.5% 0.2% 0.1%
maximun (N) 4.1% 4.7% 0.3% 0.2%
maximun (F) 2.3% 3.8% 0.3% 0.8%
average (N&F) 2.4% 2.6% 0.2% 0.2%
200% N1 (failure) 4.8% 4.8% N/A N/A
N2 3.8% 3.6% 0.3% 1.0%*
N3 (failure) 3.6% 3.5% N/A N/A
N4 4.2% 4.6% 0.9% 0.6%
N5 2.3% 2.9% 1.2%* 0.6%
F1 (failure) 2.8% 5.3% N/A N/A
F2 1.9% 4.3% 0.8% 0.9%
F3 2.8% 2.2% 0.2% 0.1%
F4 2.0% 2.5% 0.5% 0.2%
F5 3.0% 2.1% 0.5% 0.3%
maximun (N) 4.8% 4.6% 1.2% 1.0%
maximun (F) 3.0% 5.3% 0.8% 0.9%
average (N&F) 3.1% 3.6% 0.6% 0.5%
Tab.3  
demand type maximun demand capacity C/D ratio
cap beam shear (kN) 414 676 1.6
cap beam positive moment (kN·m) 225 366 1.6
cap beam negative moment (kN·m) 373 366 1.0
shear in a cluster of stud (kN) 67 165 2.5
superstructure positive moment (kN·m) 507 2684 5.3
superstructure negative moment (kN·m) 217 2556 11.7
Tab.4  
Fig.13  
Fig.14  
run # test type factor PGA (longitudinal) PGA (transverse) DE
WN1-L white noise-longitudinal
WN1-T white noise-transverse
1 EQ record 0.18 0.278g 0.187g 30%
WN2-L white noise-longitudinal
WN2-T white noise-transverse
2 EQ record 0.39 0.602g 0.406g 65%
WN3-L white noise-longitudinal
WN3-T white noise-transverse
3 EQ record 0.60 0.926g 0.624g 100%
WN4-L white noise-longitudinal
WN4-T white noise-transverse
4 EQ record 1.50 1.158g 0.780g 125%
WN5-L white noise-longitudinal
WN5-T white noise-transverse
5 EQ record 0.90 1.389g 0.936g 150%
WN6-L white noise-longitudinal
WN6-T white noise-transverse
6 EQ record 1.05 1.621g 1.092g 175%
WN7-L white noise-longitudinal
WN7-T white noise-transverse
7 EQ record 1.20 1.852g 1.248g 200%
Tab.5  
Fig.15  
Fig.16  
Fig.17  
damage state apparent damage
DS-1 flexural cracks
DS-2 minor spalling and possible shear cracks
DS-3 extensive cracks and spalling
DS-4 visible lateral and/or longitudinal reinforcing bar
DS-5 compressive failure of the concrete core edge (imminent failure)
Tab.6  
run
no.		 maximum resultant displacement, mm ductility demand maximum resultant drift ratio probability of occurrence for each damage state
DS-1 DS-2 DS-3 DS-4 DS-5 failure
1 4 – 0.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2 13 – 0.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3 38 2.5 1.8% 60% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
4 66 4.3 3.1% 90% 60% 10% 0% 0% 0%
5 114 7.5 5.4% 100% 100% 90% 50% 25% 3%
6 147 9.7 6.9% 100% 100% 95% 70% 40% 20%
7 157 10.3 7.4% 100% 100% 100% 75% 45% 30%
Tab.7  
Fig.18  
1 E E Matsumoto, M C Waggoner, G Sumen, M E Kreger. Development of a Precast Bent Cap System. FHWA Report No. FHWA/TX-0-1748-2. 2001
2 J I Restrepo, M J Tobolski, E E Matsumoto. Development of a Precast Bent Cap System for Seismic Regions. NCHRP Report 681. 2011
3 M Tazarv, M Saiidi. Next Generation of Bridge Columns for Accelerated Bridge Construction in High Seismic Zones. Report No. CCEER-14-06. 2014
4 S Motaref, M Saiidi, D Sanders. Seismic Response of Precast Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Joints. Report No. CCEER-11-01. 2011
5 A Mehrsoroush, M Saiidi. Cyclic response of precast bridge piers with novel column-base pipe pins and pocket cap beam connections. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2016, 21(4): 04015080
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000833
6 M Mehraein, M Saiidi. Seismic Performance of Bridge Column-Pile-Shaft Pin Connections for Application in Accelerated Bridge Construction. Report No. CCEER-16-01. 2016
7 A Mehrsoroush, M Saiidi, K. Ryan Development of Earthquake-Resistant Precast Pier Systems for Accelerated Bridge Construction in Nevada. Report No. 555-14-803. 2017
8 A Mohebbi, M Saiidi, A Itani. Development and Seismic Evaluation of Pier Systems w/Pocket Connections, CFRP Tendons, and ECC/UHPC Columns. Report No. CCEER-17-02, 2017
9 M L Marsh, J F Stanton, M O Eberhard, O Haraldsson, B. KhaleghiA Precast Bridge Bent System for Seismic Regions. Technical Report DTFH61-09. 2010
10 A Sadeghnejad, R Taghinezhadbilondy, A Azizinamini. Seismic performance of a new connection detail in an SDCL steel bridge system. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2019, 24(10): 04019094
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001460
11 S S Badie, M K. Tadros Full-Depth Precast Concrete Bridge Deck Panel Systems. Report 584 by National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2008
12 G Shrestha, A Itani, M Saiidi. Seismic Performance of Precast Full-Depth Decks in Accelerated Bridge Construction. Report No. CCEER-17-05. 2017
13 B Graybeal. Behavior of Field-Cast Ultra-High Performance Concrete Bridge Deck Connections under Cyclic and Static Structural Loading. Report No. FHWA-HRT-11–023. 2010
14 B Graybeal. Design and Construction of Field-Cast UHPC Connections. Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA-HRT-14-084. 2014
15 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2014
16 Caltrans. Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). Version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation, 2013
17 M Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M Saiidi. Analytical Study of NEESR-SG 4-Span Bridge Model Using OpenSees. Report No. CCEER-07-03. 2007
18 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2012
19 United States Geological Survey (USGS). U.S. Seismic Design Maps. Reston, Virginia, , 2016
20 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2009
21 M S Saiidi, Z Y Cheng, D Sanders. Experimental study of two-way reinforced concrete column hinges under seismic loads. ACI Structural Journal, 2009, 106(3): 340-348
22 R Taghinezhadbilondy, A Yakel, A Azizinamini. Extending Use of Simple for Dead Load and Continuous for Live Load (SDCL) Steel Bridge System to Seismic Areas. Miami, FL: Florida International University, 2016
23 CSiBridge. V19.2.2. CSI Computer & Structures Inc. Integrated 3-D Bridge Analysis, Design, and Rating. Berkeley, CA: Computer & Structures, Inc., 2016
24 F McKenna, G Fenves, M Scott. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2000
25 E Amirihormozaki, G Pekcan, A Itani. Analytical modeling of horizontally curved steel girder highway bridges for seismic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 19(2): 220–248
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.962667
26 E C Hambly. Bridge Deck Behaviour. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press, 1990
27 L P Carden, A Itani, I G Buckle. Seismic Load Path in Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures. Report No. CCEER-05-03. 2005
28 J B Mander, M J Priestley, R Park. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
29 B Alavi, H Krawinkler. Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland, 2000
30 Japan Road Association. Design Specifications for Highway Bridges, Part Seismic Design (English edition), Tokyo, 2000
31 J Benjumea, M Saiidi, A Itani. Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies of a Two-Span Bridge System with Precast Concrete Elements and ABC Connections. Report No. CCEER-19-02. 2019
32 A Vosooghi, M S Saiidi. Experimental fragility curves for seismic response of reinforced concrete bridge columns. ACI Structural Journal, 2012, 109(6): 825–834
33 E Shoushtari, M Saiidi, A Itani, M. Moustafa Design, construction, and shake table testing of a steel girder bridge system with ABC connections. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2018, 24(9): 04019088
34 E Shoushtari. Shake table studies of a steel girder bridge system with ABC connections. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Reno: University of Nevada-Reno, 2019, 129–167
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed