Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Received 17 November 2006; received in revised form 24 January 2007; accepted 25 February 2007
Available online 16 April 2007
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an analytical study on the seismic response of three Multi-Span-Simply-Supported (MSSS) bridges in New
Jersey. The main goal is to determine the capacity/demand ratio for various components in order to evaluate the seismic vulnerability and to
develop retrofit strategies. Another important objective is to investigate the effect of those response characteristics that are unique to this class
of bridges on their seismic performance. Furthermore, the effect of modeling approach and appropriateness of pushover analysis using existing
demand curve are also addressed considering the stiffening-interaction between the bridge and the abutments. The investigation includes detailed
nonlinear time history analyses of three actual bridges as representatives of typical 2, 3, and 4 span bridges, which are common in New Jersey
and the Eastern United States in general. Both 2-D and 3-D models were employed in order to evaluate the effect of modeling. Several parameters
prove to have an important effect on the seismic response of MSSS bridges, such as soilstructure interaction, impact between adjacent spans,
steel bearings, and plasticity at pier columns. Therefore, the seismic response of MSSS bridges is evaluated in light of a comprehensive parametric
study based on these factors and quantified through capacity/demand (C/D) ratios for critical elements. Furthermore, the research needs related
to the seismic evaluation, retrofit, and design of MSSS bridges are also discussed.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bridges; Seismic; Retrofit; Multi-span; Capacity; Demand
1. Introduction
A commonly used type of bridge in the Eastern United
States, including New Jersey, is the Multi-Span-SimplySupported (MSSS) system. In an MSSS bridge each span is
simply supported with separation gaps between the adjacent
spans and between the end spans and the abutments. The
gap size is normally in the range of 2576 mm (13 in.).
Framing consists of slab-on-girder deck supported on pier
bents (normally multi-columns) and seat-type abutment. Bridge
columns in New Jersey are normally circular or square in cross
section. The lateral reinforcement is different for circular and
square columns. Generally, abutments are seat-type supported
on footings although some are supported on piles. Steel
bearings (fixed and expansion) are normally used as a means of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 973 596 5813; fax: +1 973 596 5790.
55
56
Fig. 1. Plan and longitudinal elevation of a typical MSSS bridge (Bridge #1).
57
Fig. 3. A typical 2-D model (Bridge #1 Concentrated forces are gravity loads).
58
59
Vs
(kN)
Mn
(kN m)
cu
u (rad/m)
p (rad)
#3 @ 305 mm
Circular hoop
4221235
169
3516
0.005
0.022
0.0150.017
#10
(16)
#5 @ 89 mm
Spiral
276800
1164
2120
0.024
0.177
0.126
#11
(920)
#4 @ 57 mm
Spiral
324942
929
15562610
0.024
0.157
0.0980.124
Bridge
f c0
(MPa)
fy
(MPa)
D
(m)
Longitudinal
rebar
Transverse
steel
20.7
413.7
1.22
#9
(20)
27.6
413.7
0.91
20.7
275.8
1.07
Since there are more than one column type for each bridge, some values are shown as a range accounting for such variation. However, for concrete shear contribution
the range corresponds to curvature ductility factors of 2 and 4 per FHWA.
60
(a) Step-1.
(b) Step-2.
(c) Step-3.
61
Fig. 8. Comparison of the bearings shear response time histories for models
with impact and without impact between decks (PGA 0.18g, Parkfield EQ,
Bridge #1, 2-D model).
62
Fig. 9. Shear time histories for Bridge #1, pier #2 different bearing frictional
coefficients under Parkfield earthquake (2-D model, G-soil = 4 ksi, PGA =
0.18g).
Table 2
Comparison of fundamental periods (Bridge #1, G S = 27.6 MPa)
Model
Longitudinal (s)
Pier #1
Pier #2
Transverse (s)
3-D
2-D (Longitudinal)
1.10
1.40
0.52
N/A
1.67
2.26
Fig. 10. Time histories of resultant shear force at the right pier in Bridge #1
(3-D model, PGA = 0.18g, Parkfield record, and G S = 27.6 MPa).
63
Table 3
The minimum C/D ratios for Bridge #1 under PGA of 0.18g (3-D model)
G S (MPa)
2.76
27.6
276
Deck sliding
C/D ratios in bridge longitudinal direction
(1.3, 1.3)
Case: EL, elastic bearing
1.1
Case: PF, elastic bearing
(2.5, 1.3)
Case: PF, elastic bearing
(1.4, 1.4)
Case: EL, elastic bearing
1.6
Case: PF, = 0.6
1.8
Case: PF, = 0.2
In the above table failure is determined by C/D ratios less than one for either one direction or the resultant of two directions. PF = Parkfield Record, EL = El
Centro Record.
Table 4
The minimum C/D ratios for Bridge #1 under PGA of 0.4g (3-D model)
G S (MPa)
2.76
27.6
276
Deck sliding
C/D ratios in bridge longitudinal direction
1.0 Marginal
Case: EL, = 0.2
1.3
Case: EL, = 0.2 & 0.6
In the above table failure is determined by C/D ratios less than one for either one direction or the resultant of two directions. PF = Parkfield Record, EL = El Centro
Record.
64
Table 5
The minimum C/D ratios for Bridge #3 under PGA of 0.4g (3-D model)
G S (MPa)
Deck sliding
C/D ratios in bridge longitudinal
direction
2.76
(1.7, 2.0)
Case: EL, elastic bearing
(1.1, 1.4) Failure
Case: EL, = 0.6
(0.83, 1.0) Failure
Case: EL, = 0.2
(5, 5)
Case: EL, = 0.2
(10, 10) for most cases
1.3
Case: EL, = 0.2
27.6
(0.9,1.0) Failure
Case: EL, elastic bearing
(1.0, 1.1) Failure
Case: EL, = 0.6
(0.9, 0.9) Failure
Case: EL, = 0.2
(5, 10)
Case: EL, elastic bearing
(10, 10) for most cases
1.6
Case: PF, elastic bearing
276
(1.4, 1.7)
Case: PF, elastic bearing
(2.0, 1.7)
Case: EL, = 0.6
(1.4, 1.3) Failure
Case: PF, = 0.2
(24.7, 10)
Case: PF, = 0.2
Demand is very small for all cases
2.9
Case: EL, = 0.2
In the above table failure is determined by C/D ratios less than one for either one direction or the resultant of two directions. PF = Parkfield Record, EL = El
Centro Record.
65
Fig. 11. Pushover analysis of Bridge #1 (2-D model) with different SSI
conditions using AASHTO RS.
66
The results and conclusions are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
Fig. 12. Typical fixed steel bearing at an abutment (note seat cracking at the
edge and corrosion of its reinforcements).