Evaluation of seismic Behavior of Bridges Under Effect of Abutment Modelling

Document Type: Original Article

Author

10.22034/jcema.2019.201428.1002

Abstract

This Bridges are vital part of the transportation network Department of Civil Engineering. Their destruction caused by occurrence of a strong earthquake can cause irreparable damages to the regional economy. One of the effective factors on seismic response of a bridge is abutment and its modelling. In most cases, analysis of seismic behavior and modelling of bridges is done using simplifying assumptions. This simplification may cause major changes in prediction of seismic behavior of bridges. Using simplified, roller and full models for abutment is very important in design and evaluation of seismic behavior of bridges. Backfill is a vital factor in modelling abutments. In this study, abutments were analyzed in three scenarios under records related to three stations of Imperial Valley earthquake (1979) and responses compare in two state with and without backfill. The results showed that minimum response (for deck, pier column and abutment) were related to the first modelling scenario (roller abutment) and maximum response were related to the fifth modelling scenario (simplified abutment as suggested by Shamsabadi for cohesive soil). Modelling of backfill was effective on displacement and rotation of pier column and displacement of deck and moment of abutment. For all records of earthquake, wall pier abutment (sixth scenario) was considerably consistent with modelling based on Caltrans guideline for sandy soil (second scenario). In the height ranging from 5 to 9 meters, the suggested modelling (wall pier abutment) can be used instead of Caltrans method. In this height range, the results (maximum abutment displacement and abutment pressure) vary from 11to 23%.

Keywords


    1. Rollins KM, Cole RT. Cyclic lateral load behavior of a pile cap and backfill. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering. 2006 Sep;132(9):1143-53. [View  at  Google  Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    2. Douglas DJ, Davis EH. The movement of buried footings due to moment and horizontal load and the movement of anchor plates. Geotechnique. 1964 Jun;14(2):115-32. [View  at  Google  Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    3. Wilson JC. Stiffness of non‐skew monolithic bridge abutments for seismic analysis. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics. 1988 Aug;16(6):867-83. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    4. Duncan JM, Mokwa RL. Passive earth pressures: theories and tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2001 Mar;127(3):248-57. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    5. Shamsabadi A, Khalili-Tehrani P, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E. Validated simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments with typical backfills. Journal of Bridge Engineering. 2009 Jul 13; 15(3):302-11. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    6. Aviram A, Mackie KR, Stojadinović B. Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2008. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    7. GAO Y, LIN L. EFFECTS OF MODELLING PARAMETERS ON THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF BRIDGES. Seismic Resistant Structures. 2018 Mar 28:185. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    8. Taherkhani H, Tajdini M, Rezaee Arjroodi A, Zartaj H. Investigation of bridge abutment displacements constructed on piles and geogrid reinforced soil using the finite element method. Scientia Iranica. 2019 Apr 1; 26(2):625-33. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    9. Xie Y, Zheng Q, Yang CS, Zhang W, DesRoches R, Padgett JE, Taciroglu E. Probabilistic models of abutment backfills for regional seismic assessment of highway bridges in California. Engineering Structures. 2019 Feb 1; 180:452-67. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    10. Zampieri P, Simoncello N, Pellegrino C. Seismic capacity of masonry arches with irregular abutments and arch thickness. Construction and Building Materials. 2019 Mar 20; 201:786-806. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    11. Kun C, Chouw N. Estimation of response of skewed bridges considering pounding and supporting soil. Engineering Structures. 2019 Apr 1; 184:469-79. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    12. Zakeri B, Zareian F. Design of bridges with skewed abutments for a target tolerable seismic loss. Engineering structures. 2018 Jun 1; 164:325-34. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    13. Kozak DL, LaFave JM, Fahnestock LA. Seismic modeling of integral abutment bridges in Illinois. Engineering Structures. 2018 Jun 15; 165:170-83. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    14. Nasiri Y, Zarfam P. Estimating the Loading Pattern Factor of Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) for Integrated Bridges Using IDA Responses. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering. 2018 Mar 7; 19(2):163-9. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    15. Zheng Y, McCartney JS, Fox PJ, Shing PB. Acceleration Response of a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutment under Dynamic Loading. Geotechnical Special Publication. 2018 Jan 1;2018(GSP 293):1-9. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    16. Meteș E, Toduți L, Petzek E. INTEGRAL BRIDGES-LENGTH LIMITATION, TRANSITION SLABS, EXAMPLES. ЗБОРНИК РАДОВА 6. МЕЂУНАРОДНЕКОНФЕРЕНЦИЈЕ САВРЕМЕНА ДОСТИГНУЋА У ГРАЂЕВИНАРСТВУ 2018.17. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    17. Haseli B. Effect of Abutment Modeling on Seismic Response of Bridges. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    18. Karantzikis M, Spyrakos CC. Seismic analysis of bridges including soil-abutment interaction. InProceedings of the12th world congress on earthquake engineering. Paper 2000 (No. 2471). [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    19. Kim SJ, Elnashai AS. Seismic assessment of RC structures considering vertical ground motion. Mid-America Earthquake Center CD Release 08-03. 2008. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    20. Kim SJ, Holub CJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical earthquake motion on RC bridge piers. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2010 Aug 25;137(2):252-60. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    21. Imbsen RA. AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. American Association of State Highway & Transport Officials, Subcommittee for seismic effects on bridges. 2007 Mar. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    22. Bozorgnia Y, Niazi M, Campbell KW. Characteristics of free-field vertical ground motion during the Northridge earthquake. Earthquake spectra. 1995 Nov;11(4):515-25. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    23. Bozorgnia Y, Niazi M, Campbell KW. Relationship between vertical and horizontal response spectra for the Northridge earthquake. InMemorias, XI World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1996. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    24. Abeysinghe RS, Gavaise E, Rosignoli M, Tzaveas T. Pushover analysis of inelastic seismic behaviour of Greveniotikos bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering. 2002 Mar;7(2):115-26. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    25. Anon.(2011). “Bridge improvement guideline”. Publication 511. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    26. Mitoulis SA. Seismic design of bridges with the participation of seat-type abutments. Engineering Structures. 2012 Nov 1; 44:222-33. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].

    27. Wilson JC, Tan BS. Bridge abutments: formulation of simple model for earthquake response analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 1990 Aug;116(8):1828-37. [View at Google Scholar]; [View at Publisher].