1 / 23

Probabilistic Seismic Performance of Rocking-Foundation and Hinging-Column Bridges

2011 UC Davis GGSS Roundtable April 8, 2011. Probabilistic Seismic Performance of Rocking-Foundation and Hinging-Column Bridges. Lijun Deng Advisors: Prof. Bruce Kutter , Prof. Sashi Kunnath University of California, Davis. Outline. Research motivation

inga
Télécharger la présentation

Probabilistic Seismic Performance of Rocking-Foundation and Hinging-Column Bridges

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2011 UC Davis GGSS Roundtable April 8, 2011 Probabilistic Seismic Performance of Rocking-Foundation and Hinging-Column Bridges Lijun Deng Advisors: Prof. Bruce Kutter, Prof. SashiKunnath University of California, Davis

  2. Outline • Research motivation • Development of computational model • Preliminary simulation results • Conclusions

  3. Research motivation Rocking-foundation system Hinging-column system vs. Plastic hinge Soil plastic hinge Conventional fixed-base foundation

  4. Case histories and experiment studies Hinging column: Kobe 1995 Rocking foundation: Kocaeli 1999 Hinging column: Centrifuge tests Rocking foundation: Centrifuge tests

  5. Outline • Research motivation • Development of computational model • Preliminary simulation results • Conclusions

  6. Computational model configuration

  7. Model parameters • Cy, Cr: base shear coefficients for column & rocking footing • Two yielding mechanisms: • Cr > Cy Hinging column system; • Cy > Cr Rocking foundation system Realistic values for highway bridges

  8. Model parameters • Input ground motions from PEER database Baker et al. (2010) • Concept of Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)

  9. Outline • Research motivation • Development of computational models • Preliminary simulation results • Conclusions

  10. Selected animations • Cy=0.3, Cr=0.4, T=0.5 s (Hinging column) • Cy=0.4, Cr=0.3, T=0.5 s (Rocking foundation) Collapse case On-verge-of-collapse case On-verge-of-collapse case Collapse case

  11. Sa (T) vs. Max Deck Drift curves Sa (T) T

  12. Sa (T) vs. Max Deck Drift curves Rocking-footing system(Cy=0.4, Cr=0.3, T=0.5 s, Hc=10 m) Collapse 0.3 g Nonlinear Elastic Instability limit ~=3 m

  13. Probabilistic Analysis Rocking Footing (Cy=0.4, Cr=0.3, T=0.5 s, Hc=10 m) Note: Equivalent Static Analysis: a linear static pushover method

  14. Probabilistic Performance Comparison • Probabilistic performance of two systems are similar under less-intense motions, but rocking foundation is superior under intense motions.

  15. Sa (T) vs. Residual Deck Rotation • Bridge with rocking foundation have smaller rotation than hinging column  illustrates the recentering benefits

  16. Conclusions • Probabilistic performance of rocking-foundation and hinging-column bridge systems was evaluated using IDA methodology. • Rocking systems with Cr=0.3 produce less residual drift and similar max drift, and have lower probability of collapse in comparison with hinging column systems with Cy=0.3. • 3-m-tall system is easier to topple than 10- m-tall system. • The use of rocking foundation should be encouraged in seismic design of soil-foundation-structure systems.

  17. Acknowledgments • Caltrans (M. DeSalvatore, S. McBride, T. Shantz, and M. Khojasteh, contract 59A0575) • NSF-NEESR Project Soil and Structure Compatible Yielding to Improve System Performance • PEER project Last Hurdles for Rocking Foundations for Bridges • Student assistants: T. Algie (Auckland Univ., NZ), E. Erduran, J. Allmond (UCD), M. Hakhamaneshi (UCD). P E E R

  18. The end

  19. Validate model through centrifuge data Centrifuge model (Cy/Cr=5, T_sys=1 s, FSv=11.0)

  20. Input parameters in IDA model • Cy, Cr: base shear coefficients for column or rocking footing • Two yielding mechanisms: • Cr > Cy Hinging column system; • Cy > Cr  Rocking foundation system (Column hinge strength) (Foundation element stiffness) Equally spaced foundation elements (Column hinge stiffness) Ac/A=0.2, rm=0.2 (Footing length) (Foundation element strength)

  21. Fragility curves for two case studies

  22. Sa (T) vs. Max Deck Drift curves Hinging column (Cy=0.3, Cr=0.4, T=0.5 s, Hc=10 m) Rocking Footing (Cy=0.4, Cr=0.3, T=0.5 s, Hc=10 m) Collapse Collapse 0.3 g 0.3 g Nonlinear Nonlinear Elastic Elastic Instability limit ~=3 m Instability limit ~=3 m

  23. Collapse mechanisms • A hinge is a hinge • Hinges can be engineered at either position • A hinge forms at the edge when rocking occurs • P-delta is in favor for rocking – recentering • Instability limits are related to min{Cy, Cr} P P D D

More Related