9 EMPTY LINES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PAPER

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

Marin Franetovi, Darko Metrovi, Zlatko avor

Summary
The Obod Bridge, a reinforced concrete bridge constructed on scaffolding about fifty years ago, is located on state road between Dubrovnik and its airport in a highly seismic active area. The bridge deck is a reinforced concrete voided slab with the longest span of 27 m. It is supported by V-shaped pier bents and concrete hinge bearings at abutments. The bridge was designed and constructed according to 1960s design codes with no seismic actions taken into the account. According to the current Croatian seismological chart, the peak ground acceleration at the bridge location is 0.3g. For this reason the bridge was assessed for seismic actions utilizing both the linear response spectrum analysis and the nonlinear static pushover method and results were evaluated following the demands defined by current European seismic design codes. Keywords: Seismic assessment, reinforced concrete beam bridge, nonlinear static pushover analysis

Introduction

The Obod Bridge (Fig. 1) is located on Croatian National road D8 between Dubrovnik and its airport, in a small village of Obod. It is aesthetically pleasing and structurally very interesting bridge due to its slenderness and static system. The bridge was constructed in 1963. It was designed according to 1960s design codes with no seismic actions taken into the account. Location of the bridge is highly seismic active area with peak ground acceleration of 0.3 g, according to the current Croatian seismological chart. For this reason the bridge was checked to seismic actions. The purpose of carrying out a seismic assessment analysis of an existing bridge is to determine the level of risk associated with loss of serviceability, severe damage, or collapse. With this risk quantified, rational decisions can be made as to whether the bridge should be retrofitted or replaced, or to accept the risk and leave the bridge in the existing state.
1

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

Fig. 1 The Obod Bridge

There are generally two stages to a seismic assessment. The first involves a general screening and prioritization study to determine which bridges are most likely to pose the greatest risk. The second stage involves a detailed structural analysis of the bridges identified as having high risk in the prioritization phase in relation to site seismicity and soil conditions [1]. In this paper the focus was at the second stage of a seismic assessment of the Obod Bridge.

Bridge Essentials

Road alignment at the bridge lies in horizontal curve (radius 300 m) in ground plan and the vertical alignment is concave shaped curve (radius 5000 m), which together define quite complex road axis geometry (Fig. 2). The width of the two way lane is 7.0m with sidewalks of 0.5m and total width of the superstructure of 8.4 m. Road cross fall at bridge amounts 3.1 %. The bridge deck is supported by V-shaped pier bents and concrete hinge bearings at abutments which altogether form a hinged strut frame bridge with spans of 19+4+27+4+19=75 m. At the location of the bridge the foundation soil is limestone rock with relatively good characteristics for supporting a bridge. The bridge deck is a reinforced concrete voided slab 1.1 m deep with 8 voids (80/80cm) in cross section. Longitudinal webs are 14 cm thick, top slab is 20 cm deep and bottom slab has a variable depth 10 cm at mid-span and 30 cm at pier bent. Cross beams in spans are 20 cm thick, at abutments 30 cm and at piers 50 cm thick. The distance between cross beams in end spans amounts 4.75 m and in middle span 5.40 m. Cross section shaped like this one has a great torsional stiffness [2]. V-shaped reinforced concrete pier bents are consisted of 4 piers supported with a single foundation (Fig. 3). Each pier has a constant depth of 50 cm and variable width along its height 1 m at the bottom and 2 m at the top of the pier. In longitudinal direction connection between piers and deck, and between piers and foundation is considered as hinged. In transverse direction two piers, 2 m wide at their tops, and deck cross beam form quite rigid frame. In that way piers bear the vertical and longitudinal horizontal loads through axial force transfer in them, but also bear transverse horizontal loads through the bending of the aforementioned rigid frame. Abutment walls, covered with cut stones, are 2 m thick and support the deck with concrete hinged bearings, called Pendl bearings. Built in steel finger type expansion joint devices have displacement capability of +/- 7 cm.
2

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

R=5000 m

U1

S1

S2

S3

S4

U2

U2

R=300 m

S3

S4

U1

S1

S2

2%
3,1 %

2%
2%

3,1 %

2%

Fig. 2 Elevation, plan view and cross section of the bridge deck in span and over the piers

Piers and deck were constructed monolithically on wooden scaffolding. After the scaffolding removal the fascia was constructed and railings were put in place carefully to achieve correct visual appearance of the bridge due to its complex road geometry. The bridge was designed according to the 1960s design codes PTP 1, 3 and 5 [3] and the grade of used materials is shown in Table 1. In the main design the static analysis was performed by the of classical elasticity theory taking into the account bridge dead loads, live traffic loads, shrinkage and temperature effects and wind loads [2]. According to the current Croatian seismological chart peak ground acceleration at the location of the bridge is 0.3 g. For this reason the authors of this paper thought that the bridge seismic assessment in light of current European seismic design codes could give some indicative results.
Tab. 1 Classification of materials in main design and in assessment analysis Materials Deck Piers Abutments Concrete M-300 M-300 M-220 Main design Reinforcement St 37 St 37 St 37 Concrete C 20/25 C 20/25 Assessment analysis Reinforcement S 220 B S 220 B Foundations M-220 St 37 3

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

S1

S2

2%
3,1 %

2%

Fig. 3 Bridge pier bent elevation and cross section

Selected Method for Seismic Assessment

In this paper seismic assessment was done partly according to the guidelines given in the work [4]. Method used for seismic assessment of Obod Bridge was static non-linear pushover analysis defined in European code for seismic deign of bridges EN 1998-2 [5]. Pushover analysis is a static non-linear analysis of the structure under constant vertical (gravity) loads and monotonically increased horizontal loads, representing the effect of a horizontal seismic component. Second order effects are accounted for. The horizontal loads are increased until a target displacement is reached at a reference point [5]. The method is applied to the entire bridge structure. European code EN 1998-2 [5] defines that non-linear static analysis should be carried out in two horizontal directions: the longitudinal direction x defined by the centers of the two end-sections of the deck and in transverse direction y, which should be assumed to be orthogonal to the longitudinal direction. Nodes in the center of mass of the bridge deck are selected as reference points. For longitudinal direction x that node is located at the bridge end. For the transverse direction y that node is located in the middle of the center span (Fig. 4). A static non-linear analysis is carried out, until the target displacements of the reference point is reached. If target displacement is reached under horizontal load whose intensity is higher than the design seismic load we classify bridge as satisfactory. If target displacement is not reached within allowable horizontal load intensity we identify the most critical element of the bridge structure.

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

reference point for x direction

reference point for y direction

0.05*h 0.10*h

0.40*h

0.30*h

0.10*h 0.05*h

Fig. 4 Discretization of numerical model of the bridge

Numerical Model for Seismic Assessment

Materials used in the numerical model are shown in the Table 1. They are classified according to the Eurocode for concrete structures EN 1992 [6]. Materials characteristics for chosen grades match up pretty well with those defined in the main design of the bridge. Cracked condition of concrete cross sections in non-linear static pushover analysis was taken into the account by reduction of the concrete stiffness [1]. All cross sections of the bridge were defined with their actual as built reinforcement. In this assessment analysis stability and bearing issues of foundations and abutments were omitted due to their robustness and quite good ground conditions at location of the bridge. Therefore the numerical model of the Obod Bridge is consisted of beam elements which represent the bridge deck, piers and concrete hinged bearings at abutments. As the bridge is founded on a sound rock support points of numerical model are defined as fixed. The extremities of the column constitute the locations for potential plastic hinges, which may be assumed to extend for one twentieth to one tenth of the member length, depending on the boundary conditions [1]. For this reason each pier has been subdivided into six elements, of length equal to 5%, 10%, 30%, 40%, 10% and 5% of the its length [7](Fig. 4). Each span of the deck has been discretized into four elements, of length equal to 10%, 40%, 40% and 10% of the span. The linear elastic behavior of the element does not strictly call for this fine subdivision, but it has been nonetheless preferred, for sake of accuracy, to refine the mesh near the connections to columns, where the change of stiffness and properties of the mesh are important [7]. The connection of the column tops to the

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

bridge deck was assumed as absolutely stiff. Piers and abutment concrete bearings have hinges at their ends, based on the original bridge design [2]. According to the EN 1998-2 [5] the target displacement of the reference point dT,x in the longitudinal direction of the bridge x is obtained from equivalent linear multimodal spectrum analysis due to combination of seismic actions Ex+0,3Ey, assuming that the behavior factor of the bridge is q=1.0. For this bridge target displacement in x direction is dT,x=76 mm. Target displacement of the reference point in the y direction is obtained in the same way as mentioned before, the only difference is that it results from combination of seismic actions Ey+0,3Ex. For this bridge target displacement in y direction is dT,y=35 mm. According to EN 1998-2 [5] the horizontal load increment Fi,j assumed acting on the mass Mi in the direction investigated, at each loading step j, should be taken as equal to: Fi,j = j g Mi i (1) where the j is the horizontal force increment, normalized to the weight g Mi, applied in step j, and i is a shape factor defining the load distribution along the structure. For the seismic assessment of this bridge two types of horizontal load distributions were investigated for each direction. First one, constant horizontal load along the deck (i =1 for the deck) and the second one, horizontal load proportional to the dominant mode shape with the largest participation factor in the considered direction. Figure 5 shows two types of considered horizontal load distributions in y direction of the bridge. The bridge is subjected to constant vertical gravity loads by self-weight and additional dead loads from bridge equipment.
213.8 213.8 213.8 213. 8 213 .8 213 .8 22.7 213.8
92 .3
92 .3

4.15 44.9 87.6 121.8 156.0 177.4 15.9 18.2

92.3
.3

92

92.3 19.9

19.9

22.7 19.9

198.8 211.6

18.2

213 .8 213. 8
92 .3
11.3

11.3

5.74

92.3
11.3

211.6

213 .8 213 .8 213.8 213.8 213 .8 213.8

11.3

198.8 177.4 156.0 121.8 87.6 44.9 4.15 13.5 18.2

4.13

92

.3

22.7 22.7 22.7 19.9

4.13

15.9

19.9 19.9

0.300

0.30 0

0.990

4.13

1.25 1.25 0.30 0 0.30 0

0.0500

0.0500

Fig. 5 Constant horizontal load distribution along the deck and horizontal load proportional to the dominant (2nd) mode shape in y direction

Results of Pushover Analysis

One of the main objectives of the static non-linear pushover analysis is the assessment of the force-displacement curve of the structure (capacity curve) and of the deformation demands of the plastic hinges up to the target displacement. Figure 6 left shows two capacity curves attained from pushover analysis of the bridge in the longitudinal x direction for two types of horizontal load distributions. Both capacity curves give quite same bearing capacity of the bridge in the longitudinal direction, and the

0.990

4.13

6.52

11.3

213 .8
11.3 4.13

1.25

6.52

1.25

0.0500

0.0500

5.74

6.52

6.52

11.3

0.990

0.990

5.74

5.74

11.3 4.13

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

Fig. 6 Capacity curves of the bridge in the longitudinal x direction (left) and transverse y direction (right) for two types of horizontal load distribution

target displacement dT,x=76 mm is reached at quite equal level of horizontal load. For both types of horizontal load distribution the target displacement is reached at level of horizontal seismic force smaller than largest seismic design load in longitudinal direction Sd,x (T1=0.983sec) = 0.305g. Figure 6 right shows two capacity curves attained from pushover analysis of the bridge in the transverse y direction for two types of horizontal load distributions. Capacity curve derived from constant horizontal load along the deck gives smaller bearing capacity of the bridge in the transverse direction than one derived from loading proportional to the dominant (2nd) mode shape. Also, the target displacement dT,y=35 mm is reached at lower level of horizontal load and it can be stated that constant horizontal load along the deck is more conservative type of load distribution. For both types of horizontal load distribution the target displacement is reached at level of horizontal seismic force smaller than largest seismic design load in transverse direction Sd,y (T2=0.361sec) = 0.706g.

Conclusions

Based on results of seismic assessment procedure, the following may be concluded: For longitudinal direction x of the bridge we cannot deem this bridge as satisfactory for current Eurocode [8] defined seismic loadings. Already from linear multimodal spectrum analysis we perceive that the target displacement dT,x=76 mm for longitudinal direction of the bridge is greater than displacement that is allowed by expansion joint device (+/- 70 mm). Every displacement greater than 70 mm would result in bridge deck pounding into the abutment wall, with probability of both being damaged, and crushing of expansion joint device. Also we see from the static non-linear pushover analysis that the target displacements have not been reached within seismic design loads for neither type of horizontal load distribution. If in future any retrofit measure would be applied onto this bridge, the limitation of longitudinal displacements with aseismic devices, seismic dampers or shock transmitors, would be appropriate foremost to be done.

Franetovi, Metovi & avor: SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF OBOD BRIDGE IN CROATIA

For current Eurocode [8] defined seismic loadings in transverse direction y we also cannot classify this bridge as satisfactory because target displacement isnt reached within seismic design loads for both types of horizontal load distribution. As a matter a fact, we see from the static non-linear pushover analysis that for constant horizontal load along the deck bridge loses its bearing capacity for intensity of seismic load smaller than largest seismic design load in transverse direction Sd,y (T2=0.361sec) = 0.706g. Shear failure occurs in bridge piers at sections just outside the plastic hinge region and also the concrete hinged Pendl bearings at abutments cant bear imposed shear forces. The bridge deck is quite robust in comparison with the columns and hence can be deemed adequate. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Priestly, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. avor, K. 1963. Obod Bridge Main design (Glavni projekt mosta Obod). Zagreb: Ienjerski projektni biro. Furundi B. 1969. A collection of technical regulations in civil engineering (Zbirka tehnikih propisa u graevinarstvu). Beograd: Graevinska knjiga. Mandi, A. 2008. Limit states of existing bridges, ph.D. disertation (Granina stanja postojeih mostova, disertacija). Zagreb: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering. CEN- European Committee for Standardization. 2005. EN 1998-2: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2: Bridges. Bruxelles: CEN. CEN- European Committee for Standardization. 2004. EN 1992-1-1: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. Bruxelles: CEN. Pinho, R. 2007. Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures Subjected to Seismic Action. In Pecker, A. (ed). Advanced earthquake engineering analysis. Udine: Springer. CEN- European Committee for Standardization. 2004. EN 1998-1: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Bruxelles: CEN.

Marin Franetovi (Assistant, M. Eng. C.E.) Darko Metrovi (Professor, Ph. D.C.E.) Zlatko avor (Assistant Professor, Ph. D.C.E.)
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb Structural department Kaieva 26 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia + 385 (0)1 4639 467 + 385(0)1 4828 052 mfranetovic@grad.hr www.grad.unizg.hr

URL