Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 May 2013
Revised 11 August 2014
Accepted 12 August 2014
Available online 1 September 2014
Keywords:
Structural pounding
Shock absorbers
Restrainers
Shape memory alloy
Spatially varying ground motions
a b s t r a c t
Pounding and unseating damages to bridge decks have been observed in almost all the previous major
earthquakes. Recent studies have highlighted that adjusting the fundamental periods of adjacent structural elements close to each other, the only method suggested by the codes to mitigate pounding and
unseating damage, is not sufcient to prevent such damages owing to the relative displacement induced
by spatially varying ground motions. As pounding and unseating damage could lead to signicant loss of
economy and life owing to inability to quickly access the damaged area immediately after an earthquake,
it is important to protect lifeline bridge structures. Past earthquakes have revealed that the commonly
used steel cable restrainers have limited effectiveness. Additionally, only limited research has focused
on mitigating pounding forces on the bridge joints that lead to localized damages and disruptions of
the serviceability of the bridge after strong shakings. This study presents an extensive investigation on
the effectiveness of combining rubber bumpers as a shock absorbing device along with Shape Memory
Alloy (SMA) or steel cable restrainers to mitigate pounding and unseating damages on multiple-span
bridges subjected to spatially varying ground motions. The responses of bridge structures with different
restraining devices acting alone and in combination with rubber bumpers subjected spatially varying
ground motions are compared and discussed. The result indicates that the SMA restrainers combined
with rubber bumpers could lead to better performance in terms of reduction of joint opening and
mitigation of large pounding forces.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Seismic pounding between girders and/or between girder and
abutment in multi-span bridges has been commonly observed in
almost all major earthquakes. For example, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, signicant pounding damage was observed at
the expansion hinges and abutments of standing portions of the
connectors at the Interstate Freeway 5 and State road 14 interchange, which was located approximately 12 km north-east of
the epicentre [1]. Reconnaissance reports from the 1995 HyogoKen Nanbu earthquake in Japan identied pounding as a major
cause of fracture of bearing supports and potential contributor to
the collapse of several bridge decks [2]. The 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan revealed hammering at the expansion joints in
some bridges resulting in damages to shear keys, bearings and
anchor bolts [3]. Failure of girder ends and bearing damage due
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 411 727896.
E-mail address: bipinsh01@gmail.com (B. Shrestha).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.020
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
196
Cross sectional
area (m2)
Moment of
inertia (m4)
Youngs modulus
(MPa)
Girders
Columns
6.936
4.670
4.787
1.735
27,790
27,790
Ko
GA
hr
where A is the area of the elastomeric bearing, G is the shear modulus of the elastomer and hr is the thickness of the elastomeric pad.
In this study G = 1.38 MPa is assumed for the elastomers, the area
and thickness of the bearings are assumed as 0.12 m2 and
37.5 mm respectively, which gives an initial stiffness of ko = 4.41
kN/mm. The frictional coefcient for concrete bridges takes into
account the interface between the elastomeric rubber and the concrete surface. Some experimental tests have shown that the coefcient of friction for an elastomeric bearing is a function of the
normal stress on the bearing, rm (MPa), and is given by [43].
l 0:05
0:4
rm
197
recommendation from Caltrans [44,45]. The Caltrans recommendation of effective stiffness of 7 kN/mm/pile is used in this study with
an ultimate strength of 119 kN/pile [42]. The behaviour of the pile,
however, is not linear up to the ultimate strength. The initial stiffness degrades with soil surface yielding. Trilinear symmetrical
models implemented by Choi [42], which act in both active and passive loading of the abutments, are used to represent the pile stiffness. The piles become plastic at a deformation of 25.4 mm. It is
also assumed that the rst yielding occurs at 30% of the ultimate
deformation. This corresponds to a yielding force equal to 70% of
the ultimate force. 24 piles are placed in each abutment. Fig. 2(a)
presents the loaddeformation curve for abutment piles. Elastic
plastic spring with initial stiffness, Kai, of 28.7 kN/mm/m is used
to represent passive soil behaviour at abutment [45]. Abutment
stiffness can be calculated as [43]:
h
1:7
h
Ae 239
1:7
K abut K ai w
Pbw
3
4
Ki c
AE
L
198
Fig. 1. Bridge models used for the study: (a) model 1 with single intermediate hinge, (b) model 2 with two intermediate hinges, (c) nite element model of the bridge model
2, (d) section of the bridge, (e) pier cross section and (f) bre discretization of the pier.
199
Fig. 2. (a) Analytical modelling of Abutment piles and (b) analytical model of soil embankment.
Model 1
0.84 [Frame 1]
[Bridge 1H]
Model 2
0.75 [Frame 2]
[Bridge 2H]
Period ratio
[Ti/Tj]
0.92 [Frame 2]
0.91
0.72
taken based upon the sensitivity analysis, resulting in value of constant c nearly equal to 20 and 14 for bridge model 1 and 2 respectively. To mitigate the large pounding forces rubber bumpers are
proposed to be placed at the in-span hinges to act as shock absorbers as shown in Fig. 3(a). Fig. 3(a) also presents typical restrainer
layout with anchoring details, details of the restrainer design is presented in the following section. In this study the constitutive model
of the strain hardening rubber bumpers as shown in Fig. 3(b), are
adopted from Kawashima and Shoji [32]. The constitutive model
is based on the uni-axial compressive load testing of the rubber
bumpers. 10 rubber bumpers of 250 mm 150 mm section and
50 mm thick are used between the decks. The initial stiffness of
the rubber bumper (Kb1) is taken to be 12.5 kN/mm. A multi-linear
strain hardening model is used in the study with second stiffness
branch (Kb2) of 12 times of the rst stiffness branch and third stiffness branch (Kb3) of 24 times of the rst stiffness branch followed
by a nal spring with stiffness Ki, representing the impact stiffness
after the full deformation of the bumpers. Similar modelling
approach with multi-linear strain hardening model was used in
some previous studies [33,46]. The gap separating two frames and
frame and abutments are taken as 100 mm. Previous researches
concluded that energy dissipation in the shock absorbing device is
not signicant [32,34]. The energy dissipation of both the impact
element and the rubber bumper is thus neglected in this study.
It is common in engineering practice to simulate spatially varying ground motions that are compatible with the specic design
response spectra. Many stochastic ground motion simulation
methods have been proposed by different researchers. For example, Hao et al. [47] and Deodatis [48] simulated the spatially varying ground motions in two steps: rst the spatially varying ground
motion time histories are generated using an arbitrary power spectral density function, and then adjusted through iterations to
match the target response spectrum. Usually a few iterations are
needed to achieve a reasonable good match. More recently, Bi
and Hao [49] further developed this method by simulating the spatially varying ground motions which are compatible with the
ground motion power spectral densities that are related to the target design response spectra instead of arbitrary power spectral
density functions. Compared with the methods suggested by Hao
et al. [47] and Deodatis [48], less or even no iterations are needed
in the latter approach [49], the latter method is thus computationally more efcient. The method proposed by Bi and Hao [49] is
adopted in the present study to simulate the spatially varying
ground motion time histories that are compatible with the design
spectra specied in the New Zealand Earthquake Loading Code
[50].
The spatial variation properties between ground motions
recorded at two locations j and k on ground surface is modelled
by an empirical coherency loss function [51]
Fig. 3. (a) Schematic illustration of expansion joint with bumper and restrainers; (b) stress strain relationship of impact element including the rubber bumper.
200
elasticity is 69,000 MPa, these are the typical values for the
restrainers used by Caltrans. For the selection of the stiffness of
the restrainers the design method suggested by DesRoches and
Fenves [17] is used in this study. The method has advantage of considering the out-of-phase vibration behaviour of adjacent frames
as well as the inelastic behaviour. However, the design method
does not consider the out-of-phase vibrations caused by spatially
varying ground motion, but only those owing to different vibration
characteristics of the adjacent spans. The restrainers stiffness is
calculated for the soft soil sites ground motions described in
Section 3. Table 3 presents the restrainer stiffness calculated for
various ductility values, l, for bridge 1 and 2 based on the analysis
of two single degree of freedom systems. In this study, the initial
stiffness of the restrainers of 30 kN/mm and strain hardening of
5% are assumed for both the bridges without losing the generality.
This represents slight conservative value of stiffness of restrainers
as during the strong earthquake high value of ductility could be
achieved. However, this conservatism is justied considering the
spatially varying ground motion used in this study. The initial slack
of the cables is assumed to be 15 mm as specied in typical
Caltrans bridges.
Superelastic SMA has an ability to recover its original shape
upon unloading. This property derives from the fact that SMA
can transform from one phase to the other (austenite to martensite
or vice versa) by applying or removing mechanical loading. The
superelasticity phenomena provide SMAs with high re-centring
capacity, which is demonstrated in Fig. 7(a) by the large elastic
strain range (typically 68%). Additionally, hysteretic ductility of
superelastic SMA limits the force transformed to the adjacent
structure. Superelastic SMAs are also characterized by a sharp
increase in stiffness once the elastic strain limit is exceeded. In this
study, superelastic SMA restraining devices which are composed of
the bundled or twisted SMA wires in the form of the cables are
modelled using the uni-axial model for super-elastic SMA
programmed by Fugazza [52] and that follows the constitutive
relationship proposed by Auricchio and Sacco [53]. This model is
capable of reproducing both super elasticity and damping properties of SMA. The parameters used to dene the complete stress
strain relationship of SMA are listed in Table 4. The initial slack
of the SMA cables are also assumed to be 15 mm. To compare
201
Fig. 5. Comparison of the response spectra of the simulated ground motions and the target design spectra (shallow soil).
Fig. 6. Comparison between coherency loss of simulated ground motions and model coherency loss function.
Table 3
Stiffness of designed restrainers for Bridge Model 1 and 2.
Bridge model
Model 1
Model 2
l=1
l=2
l=4
34.41
58.08
8.67
25.97
3.00
13.32
202
Fig. 7. (a) Constitutive modelling of SMA based restrainers; (b) forcedisplacement relationship of steel cable restrainers and SMA based restrainers.
Table 4
Constitutive material properties for NiTi based SMA.
Parameters
Value
410
470
170
140
1%
7%
Fig. 8. Joint opening at intermediate hinge of bridge model 1 without, with steel
and SMA restrainers to three sets of simulated ground motions for soft soil
condition: (a) set 1, (b) set 2 and (c) set 3.
203
Fig. 9. Comparison of the response of steel and SMA restrainers in bridge model 1 to three sets of spatial ground motions for soft soil condition: (a) set 1, (b) set 2 and (c) set 3.
Fig. 10. Response of pier 1 of bridge model 1 without and with restrainers to three sets of simulated spatially varying ground motions for soft soil: (a) set 1, (b) set 2 and
(c) set 3.
Fig. 11. Response of pier 3 of bridge model 1 without and with restrainers to three sets of simulated spatially varying ground motions for soft soil: (a) set 1, (b) set 2 and
(c) set 3.
204
Fig. 12. Comparison of (a) pounding force; and (b) joint acceleration of bride model 1 for three sets of spatially varying ground motions.
Fig. 13. Comparison of relative joint opening displacement of bridge model 2 at: (a) joint 1; (b) joint 2 to spatial ground motion for soft soil condition.
restrainers only and SMA restrainers together with rubber bumpers from 4 to 10 s of the analysis subjected to set 3 of the spatially
varying ground motions. As shown, the rubber bumpers reduce the
pounding force but lead to more number of poundings due to
reduction of the gap width. The rubber bumpers also elongate
the pounding duration. Fig. 16 shows the acceleration responses
Fig. 14. Pounding forces on bridge model 1 with and without rubber bumper for three sets of spatially varying simulated motions for soft soil site: (a) set 1, (b) set 2 and
(c) set 3.
205
Fig. 16. Pounding force with and without rubber bumpers for model 1 subjected to the three sets of spatially varying motions: (a) set 1, (b) set 2 and (c) set 3.
206
Fig. 17. (a) Comparison of the maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the maximum relative joint opening with and without rubber
bumpers for model 1.
Fig. 18. (a) Comparison of the maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the maximum joint opening with and without rubber bumpers
for joint 1 of model 2.
Fig. 19. (a) Comparison of the maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the maximum joint opening with and without rubber bumpers
for joint 2 of model 2.
Fig. 20. (a) Comparison of the mean maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the mean maximum joint opening with and without
rubber bumpers for model 1.
are large as in case of soft soil condition. Therefore there is not a denitive pattern on the rubber bumper inuence on the relative joint
opening responses on the bridges with multiple intermediate joints.
The results presented in Figs. 2022 indicate that the combination of
SMA based restrainers with rubber bumper will lead to a superior
performance in terms of pounding mitigation and reduction of
207
Fig. 21. (a) Comparison of the mean maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the mean maximum joint opening with and without
rubber bumpers for joint 1 in model 2.
Fig. 22. (a) Comparison of the mean maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the mean maximum joint opening with and without
rubber bumpers for joint 2 in model 2.
relative joint opening for both bridge models in all types of site conditions considered in this study.
8. Parametric studies
A comprehensive parametric study is conducted to identify the
various parameters affecting the performance of the rubber bumpers in mitigating pounding forces. This study focuses particularly
on the rubber bumpers as the studies on the rubber bumpers are
relatively rare. The parametric study is conducted on the bridge
model 1 subjected to spatially varying ground motions simulated
for soft soil conditions. The objective of this study is to nd out
the most inuencing design factor that could affect the performance of the rubber bumpers.
8.1. Effects of the gap size
Pounding impacts between the adjacent frames are dependent
upon the size of the gap provided. In this study the effects of gap
sizes on the pounding of the bridge structures with the considered
mitigation devices are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of
including rubber bumpers at the mid-span expansion joint of the
bridge model with different gap sizes. In the numerical simulations, the expansion joint gap size is increased from 10 cm at an
interval of 5 cm to the width until the pounding is completely
excluded. The rubber bumper with thickness of 50 mm is used in
all the simulations.
Fig. 23(a) and (b) presents the comparisons of the peak pounding forces and relative joint opening displacement with respect to
different gap sizes. As shown, with the increase of the gap size
between the adjacent decks the effectiveness of the rubber bumper
in mitigating pounding forces reduces because the pounding force
reduces with the gap size. However, the inclusion of rubber bumpers reduces the pounding forces at all gap sizes until pounding is
completely precluded. It should be noted that inclusion of bumpers
reduces the gap size, which may lead to occurrence of pounding
208
Fig. 23. (a) Comparison of the maximum pounding force with and without rubber bumpers; (b) comparison of the maximum joint opening displacement with and without
rubber bumpers of model 1 for various gap sizes from GM1 set of motion on soft soil site.
Fig. 24. (a) Comparison of the mean maximum pounding force; (b) comparison of the mean maximum joint opening for varying number of rubber bumpers in bridge model 1.
Fig. 25. (a) Comparison of the mean maximum pounding force; (b) comparison of the mean maximum joint opening for varying thickness of rubber bumper for model 1.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the partial nancial support from
Australian Research Council (ARC) linkage project LP110200906
for carrying out this research.
References
[1] Hall FJ, editor. Northridge earthquake January 17 1994, EERI-preliminary
reconnaissance report. EERI-94-01, Oakland, CA; 1994.
[2] Comartin CD, Greene M, Tubbesing SK, editors. The Hyogo-ken Nanbu
earthquake January 17, 1995, EERI. Preliminary reconnaissance report. EERI95-04, Oakland, CA; 1995.
[3] Uzarski J, Arnold C. Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake of September 21, 1999
reconnaissance report. Publication no. 01-02. EERI, Oakland, CA; 2001.
[4] Jain SK, Lettis WR, Murty CVR, Barder JP. Bhuj, India, earthquake of January 26,
2001 reconnaissance report, publication no. 02-01. EERI, Oakland, CA; 2002.
[5] Kawashima K, Takahashi Y, Hanbin G, Wu Z, Zhang J. Reconnaissance report on
damages of bridges in 2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake. J Earthquake Eng
2009;13(7):96596.
[6] Kawashima K, Unjoh S, Hoshikuma J, Kosa K. Damages of bridges due to the
2010 Maule, Chile, Earthquake. J Earthquake Eng 2011;15(7):103668.
[7] Chouw N, Hao H. Pounding damage to buildings and bridges in the 22 February
2011 Christchurch earthquake. Int J Protect Struct 2012;3(2):12340.
[8] Huo Y, Zhang J. Effects of pounding and skewness on seismic responses of
typical multispan highway bridges using the fragility function method. J Bridge
Eng 2013;18(6):499515.
[9] Ruagrassamee A, Kawashima K. Relative displacement response spectra with
pounding effect. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2001;30(10):151138.
[10] Kim SH, Shinozuka M. Effects of seismically induced pounding at expansion
joints of concrete bridge. J Eng Mech 2003;129(11):1225334.
[11] Malhotra PK. Dynamics of seismic pounding at expansion joints of concrete
bridge. J Eng Mech 1998;124(7):794802.
209
[12] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrot of bridges. New
York: Wiley; 1996.
[13] Andrawes B, DesRoches R. Comparison between shape memory alloy seismic
restrainer and other bridge retrot devices. J Bridge Eng 2007;12(6):7009.
[14] Saiidi M, Margakis E, Adbel-Ghaffar S, OConner D. Response of bridges hinge
restrainer during earthquakes-eld performance, analysis and design. Report
CCEER 93/06. Reno: Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
University of Nevada; 1993.
[15] Saiidi M, Maragakis E, Feng S. Parameters in bridge restrainer design for
seismic retrot. J Struct Eng 1996;122(1):618.
[16] Trochalakis P, Eberhard MO, Stanton JF. Design of seismic restrainers for inspan hinges. J Struct Eng 1997;123(4):46978.
[17] DesRoches R, Fenves GL. Design of Seismic Cable Hinge restrainers for bridges.
J Struct Eng 2000;126(4):5009.
[18] DesRoches R, Thomas P, Roberto TL, Lam T. Full scale tests on seismic cable
restrainer retrot for simply supported bridges. J Bridge Eng 2003;8(4):1917.
[19] Selna LG, Malvar LJ, Zelinski RJ. Bridge retrot testing: hinge cable restrainer. J
Struct Eng 1989;155(4):92034.
[20] DesRoches R, Delemont M. Seismic retrot of simply supported bridges using
shape memory alloys. Eng Struct 2002;24(3):32532.
[21] Andrawes B, DesRoches R. Unseating prevention for multiple frames bridges
using super elastic devices. Smart Mater Struct 2005;14(3):607.
[22] Padgett JE, DesRoches R, Ehlinger R. Experimental response modication of a
four span bridge retrot with shape memory alloys. Struct Contr Health Monit
2010;17(6):694708.
[23] Guo A, Qingjie Z, Li H. Experimental study of a highway bridge with shape
memory alloy restrainer focusing on the mitigation of unseating and
pounding. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib 2012;11(2):195204.
[24] Chouw N, Hao H. Signicance of SSI and non-uniform near-fault ground
motions in bridge response I: effect on response with conventional expansion
joint. Eng Struct 2008;30(1):14153.
[25] Chouw N, Hao H. Seismic design of bridge structures with allowance for large
relative girder movements to avoid pounding. Bull N Z Soc Earthquake Eng
2009;42(2):75.
[26] Li B, Bi K, Chouw N, Butterworth JW, Hao H. Experimental investigation of
spatially varying effect of ground motions on bridge pounding. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dynam 2012;41(14):195976.
[27] Li B, Bi K, Chouw N, Butterworth JW, Hao H. Effect of abutment excitation on
bridge pounding. Eng Struct 2013;54:5768.
[28] Chouw N, Hao H. Study of SSI and non-uniform ground motion effects on
pounding between bridge girders. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2005;23(7):
71728.
[29] Bi K, Hao H. Numerical simulation of pounding damage to bridge structures
under spatially varying ground motions. Eng Struct 2013;46:6276.
[30] Bi K, Hao H, Chouw N. 3D FEM analysis of pounding response of bridge
structures at a canyon sit to spatially varying ground motions. Adv Struct Eng
2013;16(4):63152.
[31] Jankowski R. Pounding force response spectrum under earthquake excitation.
Eng Struct 2006;28(8):114961.
[32] Kawashima K, Shoji G. Effect of restrainers to mitigate pounding between
adjacent decks to a strong ground motion. In: 12th World conference on
earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand; 2000 [paper no. 1435].
[33] Abdel Raheem SE. Pounding mitigation and unseating prevention at expansion
joints of isolated multi-span bridges. Eng Struct 2009;31(10):234556.
[34] Polycarpou PC, Komodromos P. Numerical investigation of potential
mitigation measures for poundings of seismically isolated buildings.
Earthquake Struct 2011;2(1):124.
[35] Japan Road Association. Specications for highway bridges Part V seismic
design, 5th ed.; 2004 [in Japanese].
[36] Zhu P, Abe M, Fujino Y. Evaluation of pounding countermeasures and
serviceability of elevated bridges during seismic excitation using 3D
modelling. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2004;33(5):591609.
[37] Feng MQ, Kim JM, Shinozuka M, Purusinghe R. Viscoelastic dampers at
expansion joints for seismic protection of bridges. J Bridge Eng 2000;5(1):
6774.
[38] Kim JM, Feng MQ, Shinozuka M. Energy dissipating restrainers for highway
bridges. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2000;19(1):659.
[39] Seismosoft Inc. Seismo-struct user manual for version 6; 2012.
[40] Mander JB, Nigel Priestley MJ, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain model for
conned concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114(8):180426.
[41] Martnez-Rueda J Enrique, Elnashai AS. Conned concrete model under cyclic
load. Mater Struct 1997;30(3):13947.
[42] Choi E. Seismic analysis and retrot of mid-America bridges. PhD thesis. USA:
Georgia Institute of Technology; 2002.
[43] Scharge I. Anchoring of bearings by friction. In: Joint sealing and bearing
system for concrete structures, world congress on joints and bearings, 1,
Niagara Falls, NY, USA; 1981.
[44] Caltrans. Seismic design criteria. Design manual-rst edition. Sacramento, CA:
California Dept. of Transportation; 1990.
[45] Caltrans. Seismic design criteria. Design manual-version 1.6. Sacramento, CA:
California Dept. of Transportation; 2010.
[46] Abdel Raheem SE, Hayashikawa T. Effect of expansion joint modelling on the
seismic response of bridges. In: 15th World conference on earthquake
engineering, Portugal; 2012 [paper no. 3232].
210
[47] Hao H, Oliveira CS, Penzien J. Multiple-station ground motion processing and
simulation based on SMART-1 array data. Nucl Eng Des 1989;111:293310.
[48] Deodatis G. Non-stationary stochastic vector processes: seismic ground
motion applications. Probab Eng Mech 1996;11(3):14967.
[49] Bi K, Hao H. Modelling and simulation of spatially varying earthquake ground
motions at sites with varying conditions. Probab Eng Mech 2012;29:92104.
[50] Standards New Zealand. Structural design actions, Part 5, Earthquake actions
in New Zealand (NZS1170.5-2004); 2004.