Advertisement

An Intercontinental Hybrid Simulation Experiment for the Purposes of Seismic Assessment of a Three-Span R/C Bridge

  • Anastasios G. SextosEmail author
  • Olympia Taskari
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 2)

Abstract

This study presents the challenges encountered in preparing and conducting hybrid experiments between E.U., U.S. and Canada in the framework of an FP7-funded European project focusing on the study of seismic soil-structure interaction effects in bridge structures. The test involved partners located on both sides of the Atlantic; each one assigned a numerical or a physical module of the sub-structured bridge. More precisely, the seismic response of a recently built, 99 m long, three-span, reinforced concrete bridge is assessed, after sub-structuring it into five structural components (modules); four of them being numerically analyzed in computers located in the cities of Thessaloniki (Greece), Patras (Greece), Urbana-Champaign. IL (U.S.) and Toronto (Canada) while an elastomeric bearing was physically tested in Patras (Greece). The results of the hybrid experiment, the challenges met during all stages of the campaign, as well as the feasibility, robustness and repetitiveness of the intercontinental hybrid simulation test are presented and critically discussed.

Keywords

Hybrid testing Multi-platform simulation Bridges Earthquake engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work carried out was funded by the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, under the PIRSES-GA-2009-247567-EXCHANGE-SSI grant (Experimental and Computational Hybrid Assessment Network for Ground-Motion Excited Soil-Structure Interaction Systems, http://www.exchange-ssi.net).

References

  1. Elnashai A, Papanikolaou V, Lee D (2002) Zeus NL—a system for inelastic analysis of structures. University of Illinois at Urbana, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  2. FEMA440 (2004) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structuresGoogle Scholar
  3. Filippou F, Constantinides M (2004) FEDEASLab getting started guide and simulation examplesGoogle Scholar
  4. Gunnay S, Schellenberg A (2007) Continuos intercontinental hybrid testingGoogle Scholar
  5. Haussmann G (2007) Evaluation of OpenFresco and SIMCOR for fast hybrid single site simulation. In: CU-NEES-07-02, University of ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  6. Hibbit K, Sorenson N (2006) ABAQUS ver. 6.6. User’s manual. Pawtucket, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Kwon O-S, Elnashai A (2008) Seismic analysis of Meloland road overcrossing using multiplatform simulation software including SSI. J Struct Eng 134(4):651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kwon O-S, Elnashai A, Spencer B, Park K (2007) UI-SIMCOR: a global platform for hybrid distributed simulation. In: 9th Canadian conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  9. Kwon O-S, Nakata N, Elnashai A, Spencer B (2005) A framework for multi-site distributed simulation. J Earthq Eng 9(5):741–753Google Scholar
  10. Mander J, Priestley M, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McKenna F, Fenves G, Scott M (2002) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Ministry of Public Works of Greece (1999) Circular Ε39/99, Guidelines for the seismic analysis of bridges (in Greek)Google Scholar
  13. Ministry of Public Works of Greece, Greek Seismic Code-EAK 2000, Athens, 2000 (amended June 2003) (in Greek)Google Scholar
  14. Molina FJ, Verzeletti G, Magonette G, Buchet P, Renda V, Geradin M, Parducci A, Mezzi M, Pacchiarotti A, Frederici L, Mascelloni S (2002) Pseudodynamic tests on rubber base isolators with numerical substructuring of the superstructure and the strain-rate effect compensation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1563–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palios X, Molina J, Bousias S, Strepelias H, Fardis M (2007) Sub-structured pseudodynamic testing of rate-dependent bridge isolation devices. In: 2nd international conference in advances in experimental structural engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  16. Pan P, Tada M, Nakashima M (2005) Online hybrid test by internet linkage of distributed test-analysis domains. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(11):1407–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saouma V, Kang D-H, Haussmann G (2012) A computational finite-element program for hybrid simulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spencer B, Elnashai A, Park K, Kwon O-S (2006) Hybrid test using UISimCor, Three-site experimentGoogle Scholar
  19. Takahashi Y, Fenves G (2006) Software framework for distributed experimental–computational simulation of structural systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(3):267–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taskari O, Sextos A (2013) Robustness, repeatability and resilience of intercontinental distributed computing for the purposes of seismic assessment of bridges. In: 4th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Kos, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  21. Taucer F, Spacone E, Filippou F (1991) A fiber beam-column element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structuresGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang Q, Wang J-T, Jin F, Chi F-D, Zhang C-H (2011) Real-time dynamic hybrid testing for soil–structure interaction analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(12):1690–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations