Dynamic response of precast segmental bridge columns under heavy truck impact

doi:10.1007/s11709-023-0911-z

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2023, Vol. 17

Issue (3) : 327-349 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-023-0911-z

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Dynamic response of precast segmental bridge columns under heavy truck impact

Yuye ZHANG¹, Mingli HU¹, Wei FAN^2,³(

), Daniel DIAS-DA-COSTA⁴

¹. Department of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, China
². Research Institute of Hunan University in Chongqing, Chongqing 401120, China
³. Key Laboratory for Wind and Bridge Engineering of Hunan Province, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
⁴. School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Download: PDF(22493 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Considering the wide application of precast segmental bridge columns (PSBCs) in engineering practice, impact-resistant performance has gained significant attention. However, few studies have focused on PSBCs subjected to high-energy impacts caused by heavy truck collisions. Therefore, the behavior of PSBCs under a heavy truck impact was investigated in this study using high-fidelity finite element (FE) models. The detailed FE modeling methods of the PSBCs and heavy trucks were validated against experimental tests. The validated modeling methods were employed to simulate collisions between PSBCs and heavy trucks. The simulation results demonstrated that the engine and cargo caused two major peak impact forces during collision. Subsequently, the impact force, failure mode, displacement, and internal force of the PSBCs under heavy truck impacts were scrutinized. An extensive study was performed to assess the influence of the section size, truck weight, impact velocity, and number of precast segments on the impact responses. The truck weight was found to have a minor effect on the engine impact force. Damage was found to be localized at the bottom of the three segments, with the top remaining primarily undamaged. This parametric study demonstrated that larger cross-sections may be a preferred option to protect PSBCs against the impact of heavy trucks.

Keywords precast segmental bridge columns heavy truck collision dynamic response

Corresponding Author(s): Wei FAN

Just Accepted Date: 17 January 2023 Online First Date: 21 April 2023 Issue Date: 24 May 2023

Cite this article:

Yuye ZHANG,Mingli HU,Wei FAN, et al. Dynamic response of precast segmental bridge columns under heavy truck impact[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(3): 327-349.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-023-0911-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2023/V17/I3/327

Fig.1 Experimental test and numerical model of PSBCs.

material	material model	parameter	value
concrete	*MAT_CSCM	density	2400 kg/m³
concrete	*MAT_CSCM	$u n c o n f i n e d s t r e n g t h f c ′$	34 MPa
longitudinal reinforcements	*MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC	density	7800 kg/m³
		yield strength	500 MPa
		Young’s modulus	210 GPa
		Poisson’s ratio	0.3
		strain parameter C	40
		strain parameter P	5
stirrups	*MAT_PLASTIC_KINEMATIC	density	7800 kg/m³
		yield strength	300 MPa
		Young’s modulus	210 GPa
		Poisson’s ratio	0.3
		strain parameter C	40
		strain parameter P	5
prestress tendon	*MAT_ELASTIC_PLASTIC_THERMAL	density	7800 kg/m³
		yield strength	1860 MPa
		Young’s modulus	210 GPa
		Poisson’s ratio	0.3
		plastic hardening modulus	1200 MPa
		thermal expansion coefficient	0.0001
impactor	*MAT_ELASTIC	density	7800 kg/m³
		Young’s modulus	210 GPa
		Poisson’s ratio	0.3

Tab.1 Material properties of the numerical model

Tab.2 Contact definitions

Fig.2 Heavy truck model.

Fig.3 Comparison of experimental and simulation results. (a) Impact force–time history; (b) displacement at middle height of the column; (c) damage to the column at different moments.

Fig.4 Impact force?time history.

Fig.5 Comparison of truck deformation.

case	sectional dimensions (mm × mm)	longitudinal reinforcement (mm)	stirrup spacing(mm)	$0.1 f c ′ A c$ (kN)
D600	600 × 600	12D24	D14@160	1200
D800	800 × 800	12D32	D16@160	2100
D1000	1000 × 1000	12D40	D18@160	3200

Tab.3 Cross-section and reinforcement of the PSBCs

Fig.6 Cross-section configuration of the PSBCs: (a) D600; (b) D800; (c) D1000.

Fig.7 Details of the full-scale FE model (reference case of PSBC–D1000).

Fig.8 Truck deformation and PSBC damage at different times: (a) 0.008 s; (b) 0.027 s; (c) 0.150 s; (d) 0.200 s; (e) 0.257 s; (f) 0.500 s.

Fig.9 Energy exchange during the collision.

Fig.10 Impact force and shear forces at the sections.

Fig.11 Impact force distribution along the PSBC height over time.

Fig.12 Displacement of the PSBC at different times.

Fig.13 Displacement of the PSBC at different heights.

Fig.14 Section forces under heavy truck impact: (a) shear force; (b) bending moment.

Fig.15 Internal forces along the PSBC at 1-ms intervals: (a) shear force; (b) bending moment.

Fig.16 Prestress load in tendons under a heavy truck impact.

Tab.4 Parameter study

Fig.17 Impact force?time history curves of PSBCs with different section sizes.

Fig.18 Plastic strain of PSBCs with different section sizes: (a) D600; (b) D800; (c) D1000.

Fig.19 Internal force of PSBCs with different section sizes: (a) shear force in Section 2; (b) bending moment in Section 6.

Fig.20 (a) Impact force?time history curve; (b) impulse corresponding to varied truck weight.

Fig.21 Plastic strain of PSBCs corresponding to varied truck weight: (a) 20 t; (b) 30 t; (c) 40 t.

Fig.22 Displacement of PSBCs corresponding to varied truck weight: (a) column bottom; (b) impact point; (c) column center.

Fig.23 Internal force envelope curves of PSBCs corresponding to varied truck weight: (a) shear force; (b) bending moment.

Fig.24 (a) Impact force?time history curve; (b) system energy under different impact velocities.

Fig.25 Impact force distribution along the PSBC height over time: (a) 80 km/h; (b) 60 km/h; (c) 40 km/h.

Fig.26 Plastic strain of PSBCs under different impact velocities: (a) 80 km/h; (b) 60 km/h; (c) 40 km/h.

Fig.27 Displacement of PSBCs under different impact velocities: (a) column bottom; (b) impact point; (c) column center.

Fig.28 Internal force envelope curves of PSBCs under different impact velocities: (a) shear force; (b) bending moment.

Fig.29 Impact force?time history curves with varied number of segments.

Fig.30 Plastic strain of PSBCs with varied number of segments: (a) 5 segments; (b) 4 segments; (c) 3 segments.

Fig.31 Displacement of PSBCs under different impact velocities: (a) column bottom; (b) impact point; (c) column center.

1	E Ahmadi, M M Kashani. Numerical investigation of nonlinear static and dynamic behaviour of self-centring rocking segmental bridge piers. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 128: 105876 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105876
2	A M A Moussa, M F M Fahmy, Z Wu. Innovative resilient system of precast segmental RC hollow bridge columns. Engineering Structures, 2021, 229: 111555 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111555
3	P Sideris, A J Aref, A Filiatrault. Large-scale seismic testing of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge system. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2014, 140(6): 04014025 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000961
4	Z Wang, J Wang, J Zhu, G Zhao, J Zhang. Energy dissipation and self-centering capacities of posttensioning precast segmental ultra-high performance concrete bridge columns. Structural Concrete, 2020, 21(2): 517–532 https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900024
5	I E Harik, A M Shaaban, H Gesund, G Y S Valli, S T Wang. United States bridge failures, 1951–1988. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 1990, 4(4): 272–277 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1990)4:4(272
6	K Wardhana, F C Hadipriono. Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2003, 17(3): 144–150 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2003)17:3(144
7	B Ji, Z Fu. Analysis of Chinese bridge collapse accident causes in recent years. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2010, 43(S1): 495–498
8	W Sun, W Fan, C Yang, W Peng. Lessons learned from vehicle collision accident of Dongguofenli Bridge: FE modeling and analysis. Engineering Structures, 2021, 244: 112813 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112813
9	S El-Tawil, E Severino, P Fonseca. Vehicle collision with bridge piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2005, 10(3): 345–353 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:3(345
10	AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004
11	Y Zhang, R Pan, D Dias-da-Costa. An energy-based method for assessing the equivalent static force of a vehicle collision with bridge columns. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2022, 18(8): 1107–1119 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2021.1895228
12	L Chen, S El-Tawil, Y Xiao. Reduced models for simulating collisions between trucks and bridge piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2016, 21(6): 04016020 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000810
13	L Chen, S El-Tawil, Y Xiao. Response spectrum-based method for calculating the reaction force of piers subjected to truck collisions. Engineering Structures, 2017, 150: 852–863 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.092
14	W Fan, D Shen, Z Zhang, X Huang, X Shao. A novel UHPFRC-based protective structure for bridge columns against vehicle collisions: Experiment, simulation, and optimization. Engineering Structures, 2020, 207: 110247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110247
15	T V Do, T M Pham, H Hao. Dynamic responses and failure modes of bridge columns under vehicle collision. Engineering Structures, 2018, 156: 243–259 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.053
16	W Fan, X Xu, Z Zhang, X Shao. Performance and sensitivity analysis of UHPFRC-strengthened bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions. Engineering Structures, 2018, 173: 251–268 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.113
17	W Fan, Z Zhong, X Huang, W Sun, W Mao. Multi-platform simulation of reinforced concrete structures under impact loading. Engineering Structures, 2022, 266: 114523 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114523
18	R Cao, S El-Tawil, A K Agrawal, X C Xu, W D Wong. Behavior and design of bridge piers subjected to heavy truck collision. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2019, 24(7): 04019057 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001414
19	L Chen, H Wu, Q Fang, R W Li. Full-scale experimental study of a reinforced concrete bridge pier under truck collision. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2021, 26(8): 05021008 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001749
20	H Dawood, M Elgawady, J Hewes. Factors affecting the seismic behavior of segmental precast bridge columns. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(4): 388–398 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0264-8
21	Z Wang, J Ge, H Wei. Seismic performance of precast hollow bridge piers with different construction details. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2014, 8(4): 399–413 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0273-7
22	Y Zhang, W Fan, Y Zhai, W Yuan. Experimental and numerical investigations on seismic behavior of prefabricated bridge columns with UHPFRC bottom segments. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2019, 24(8): 04019076 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001451
23	Y Zhang, A Tabandeh, Y Ma, P Gardoni. Seismic performance of precast segmental bridge columns repaired with CFRP wraps. Composite Structures, 2020, 243: 112218 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112218
24	M Wu, L Jin, X Du. Dynamic response analysis of bridge precast segment piers under vehicle collision. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2021, 124: 105363 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105363
25	X Zhang, H Hao, C Li. Experimental investigation of the response of precast segmental columns subjected to impact loading. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2016, 95: 105–124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.05.005
26	T V Do, T M Pham, H Hao. Numerical investigation of the behavior of precast concrete segmental columns subjected to vehicle collision. Engineering Structures, 2018, 156: 375–393 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.033
27	T V Do, T M Pham, H Hao. Impact response and capacity of precast concrete segmental versus monolithic bridge columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2019, 24(6): 04019050 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001415
28	802-2014 GA. Road Traffic Management-types of Motor Vehicles. Beijing: The Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China, 2019
29	L Chen, Y Xiao, S El-Tawil. Impact tests of model RC columns by an equivalent truck frame. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(5): 04016002 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001449
30	T V Do, T M Pham, H Hao. Impact force profile and failure classification of reinforced concrete bridge columns against vehicle impact. Engineering Structures, 2019, 183: 443–458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.040
31	R Cao, A K Agrawal, S El-Tawil, X C Xu, W Wong. Heavy truck collision with bridge piers: Computational simulation study. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2019, 24(6): 04019052 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001398
32	Y D Murray. Users Manual for LS-DYNA Concrete Material Model 159. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration, 2007
33	X C Xu, R Cao, S El-Tawil, A K Agrawal, W Wong. Loading definition and design of bridge piers impacted by medium-weight trucks. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2019, 24(6): 04019042 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001397
34	D Shen, W Sun, W Fan, X Huang, Y He. Behavior and analysis of simply supported bridges under vessel side collisions: implications from collapse of the Taiyangbu Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2022, 27(9): 04022076 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001922
35	A K AgrawalS El-TawilR CaoX XuX ChenW Wong. A performance-based approach for loading definition of heavy vehicle impact events. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration, 2018
36	H Jiang, M G Chorzepa. An effective numerical simulation methodology to predict the impact response of pre-stressed concrete members. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2015, 55: 63–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.05.006
37	Y Hao, H Hao, G P Jiang, Y Zhou. Experimental confirmation of some factors influencing dynamic concrete compressive strengths in high-speed impact tests. Cement and Concrete Research, 2013, 52: 63–70 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.05.008
38	L J MalvarJ E Crawford. Dynamic increase factors for steel reinforcing bars. In: 28th DoD Explosives Safety Seminar Proceedings. Orlando, FL: DDESB, 1998
39	LSTC. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual. Livermore: Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 2012
40	N Jones. Structural Impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012
41	T V Do, T M Pham, H Hao. Effects of steel confinement and shear keys on the impact responses of precast concrete segmental columns. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2019, 158: 331–349 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.04.008
42	Y Zhang, R Pan, F Xiao. Numerical research on impact performance of bridge columns with aluminum foam protection devices. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2020, 16(11): 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1177/1550147720974538
43	C R MieleC PlaxicoD StephensS Simunovic. U26: Enhanced Finite Element Analysis Crash Model Of Tractor-trailers (Phase C). Knoxville, TN: National Transportation Research Center, 2010
44	C E ButhM S BrackinW F WilliamsG T Fry. Collision Loads on Bridge Piers: Phase 2. Report of Guidelines for Designing Bridge Piers and Abutments for Vehicle Collisions. 2011
45	G Liu. Behavior of bridge piers during vehicular impacts. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. New York: The City College of New York, 2012
46	X Xu. Performance based approach for loading and design of bridge piers impacted by medium weight trucks. Disser tation for the Doctoral Degree. New York: The City College of New York, 2017

[1]	Wenchang SUN, Nan JIANG, Chuanbo ZHOU, Jinshan SUN, Tingyao WU. Safety assessment for buried drainage box culvert under influence of underground connected aisle blasting: A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 191-204.
[2]	Linlin GU, Wei ZHENG, Wenxuan ZHU, Zhen WANG, Xianzhang LING, Feng ZHANG. Liquefaction-induced damage evaluation of earth embankment and corresponding countermeasure[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(9): 1183-1195.
[3]	Jianling HOU, Weibing XU, Yanjiang CHEN, Kaida ZHANG, Hang SUN, Yan LI. Typical diseases of a long-span concrete-filled steel tubular arch bridge and their effects on vehicle-induced dynamic response[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 867-887.
[4]	Zhijie HUANG, Xiaodan REN, Zuyu CHEN, Daosheng LING. Centrifuge experiment and numerical analysis of an air-backed plate subjected to underwater shock loading[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(6): 1350-1362.
[5]	Tian ZHANG, He XIA, Weiwei GUO. Analysis on running safety of train on the bridge considering sudden change of wind load caused by wind barriers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(4): 558-567.
[6]	Pengfei LIU, Dawei WANG, Frédéric OTTO, Markus OESER. Application of semi-analytical finite element method to analyze the bearing capacity of asphalt pavements under moving loads[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(2): 215-221.
[7]	Mehmet Bar?? Can üLKER. Modeling of dynamic response of poroelastic soil layers under wave loading[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 1-18.
[8]	Linjia BAI, Yunfeng ZHANG. Collapse fragility assessment of steel roof framings with force limiting devices under transient wind loading[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(3): 199-209.
[9]	Xuexing CAO, Yunlong HE, Kun XIONG, . Confining pressure effect on dynamic response of high rockfill dam[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2010, 4(1): 116-126.
[10]	Bo GENG , Hong WANG , Junjie WANG , . Probabilistic model for vessel-bridge collisions in the Three Gorges Reservoir[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(3): 279-285.
[11]	Hanlong LIU, Xuanming DING. Propagation characteristics of transient waves in low-strain integrity testing on cast-in-situ concrete thin-wall pipe piles[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2009, 3(2): 180-186.
[12]	He XIA, Yushu DENG, Yongwei ZOU, Guido DE ROECK, Geert DEGRANDE. Dynamic analysis of rail transit elevated bridge with ladder track[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2009, 3(1): 2-8.
[13]	LI Liang, DU Xiuli, LI Liyun, ZHAO Chenggang. Explicit finite element method for calculation and analysis to the elasto-plastic dynamic response of fluid-saturated porous media[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(4): 436-442.
[14]	GUO Weiwei, XIA He, XU You-lin. Dynamic response of a long span suspension bridge and running safety of a train under wind action[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(1): 71-79.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed