Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 581–605 | Cite as

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

  • Ioannis F. Moschonas
  • Andreas J. Kappos
Original Research Paper

Abstract

A nonlinear static analysis methodology for the derivation of a set of pushover curves for any angle of incidence of the seismic action (multidirectional pushover curves) for bridges is developed, wherein the interaction between axial force and biaxial moments at critical pier sections or biaxial shear forces at the bearings is taken into account. Dynamic pushover curves (base shear vs. peak deck displacement) for arbitrary angle of incidence of the excitation, are derived for both unidirectional (single-component) and bidirectional (dual-component) ground motion. It is found that neglecting the minor horizontal component leads to underestimation of bridge response, especially along the bridge principal directions and that the angle of incidence of bidirectional excitation affects bridge response, but to a lesser extent than in the case of unidirectional excitation. The proposed procedure is then applied to a straight symmetric bridge, its results are checked against those from response-history analysis, and is found to be sufficiently accurate for practical application. Using the derived results it is also found that the design of the selected bridge is safe since for the design bidirectional earthquake the bridge starts to behave inelastically (the first plastic hinge forms), while its failure occurs for about four times the design seismic action.

Keywords

Bridges Seismic response Dynamic analysis Pushover analysis Angle of incidence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambraseys N, Smit P, Berardi D, Rinaldis D, Berge-Thierry C (2000) Dissemination of European strong-motion Data. CD-ROM Collection, European Council, Environment and Climate Research ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  2. CEN Techn. Comm. 250 / SC8 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN1998-1). Comité Européen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. CEN Techn. Comm. 250 / SC8 (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 2: bridges (EN 1998-2). Comité Européen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spectra 24(1): 23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CSI (2009) CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000®, ETABS®, and SAFE®. Computers & Structures Inc., BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Fajfar P, Gašperšič P (1998) A simplified nonlinear method for seismic evaluation of RC bridges. In: CD-ROM proceedings of the 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, May 31-June 4, 1998, Paper no. 23Google Scholar
  7. FEMA-NIBS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—HAZUS-MH MR4: earthquake model technical manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency (under a contract with the National Institute of Building Sciences), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Kappos AJ, Goutzika ED, Stefanidou SP, Sextos AG (2011) Problems in pushover analysis of bridges sensitive to torsion. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, Lagaros ND (eds) Computational methods in earthquake engineering. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 99–122Google Scholar
  9. Kappos AJ, Paraskeva TS (2008) Nonlinear static analysis of bridges accounting for higher mode effects. In: Proceedings of workshop on nonlinear static methods for design/assessment of 3D structures, May 5–6, 2008, Lisbon, pp 123–139Google Scholar
  10. Kappos AJ, Potikas P, Sextos AG (2007) Seismic assessment of an overpass bridge accounting for non-linear material and soil response and varying boundary conditions. In: CD-ROM proceedings of 1st international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN 2007), Rethymno, June 13–16, 2007, Paper no. 1580Google Scholar
  11. Katsanos EI, Sextos AG, Notopoulos T (2011) ISSARS: an integrated system for structural analysis and earthquake record selection. In: CD-ROM proceedings of 3rd international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN 2011), Corfu, Greece, May 25–28, 2011, Paper no. 224Google Scholar
  12. Kubo T, Penzien J (1979) Analysis of three-dimensional strong ground motions along principal axes, San Fernando earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7(3):265–278Google Scholar
  13. López OA, Hernández JJ, Bonilla R, Fernández A (2006) Response spectra for multicomponent structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 22(1): 85–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mackie KR, Cronin KJ, Nielson BG (2011) Response sensitivity of highway bridges to randomly oriented multi-component earthquake excitation. J Earthq Eng 15(6): 850–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23(5): 407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Panagopoulos G, Kappos AJ (2009) Bilinear idealisation of force—deformation diagrams. In: CD-ROM Proceedings of 16th hellenic conference on concrete, Paphos, Oct 21–23, 2009, Paper no. 121105 (in Greek)Google Scholar
  17. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ (2010) Further development of a multimodal pushover analysis procedure for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2): 211–222Google Scholar
  18. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ, Sextos AG (2006) Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(10): 1269–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Penzien J, Watabe M (1974) Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(4): 365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reyes JC, Chopra AK (2011) Three-dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(7): 789–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Song B, Pan JS, Liu Q (2008) Study on critical angle to the seismic response of curved bridges based on pushover method. In: CD-ROM Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, Oct 12–17, 2008, Paper no. 14-0120Google Scholar
  22. Taskari O, Sextos AG, Kappos AJ (2008) 3D finite element modeling of a highway bridge considering the effect of soil and foundation. In: CD-ROM proceedings of 6th GRACM international congress on computational mechanics, Thessaloniki, June 19–21, 2008, Paper no. 1114Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations