Hybrid simulation of a multi‐span RC viaduct with plain bars and sliding bearings

This paper deals with the seismic response assessment of an old reinforced concrete viaduct and the effectiveness of friction‐based retrofitting systems. Emphasis was laid on an old bridge, not properly designed to resist seismic action, consisting of 12 portal piers that support a 13‐span bay deck for each independent roadway. On the basis of an OpenSEES finite element frame pier model, calibrated in a previous experimental campaign with cyclic displacement on three 1:4 scale frame piers, a more complex experimental activity using hybrid simulation has been devised. The aim of the simulation was twofold: (i) to increase knowledge of non‐linear behavior of reinforced concrete frame piers with plain steel rebars and detailing dating from the late 1950s; and (ii) to study the effectiveness of sliding bearings for seismic response mitigation. Hence, to explore the performance of the as built bridge layout and also of the viaduct retrofitted with friction‐based devices, at both serviceability and ultimate limit state conditions, hybrid simulation tests were carried out. In particular, two frame piers were experimentally controlled with eight‐actuator channels in the as built case while two frame piers and eight sliding bearings were controlled with 18‐actuator channels in the isolated case. The remaining frame piers were part of numerical substructures and were updated offline to accurately track damage evolution. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Noemi Bonessio,et al.  Friction Model for Sliding Bearings under Seismic Excitation , 2013 .

[2]  Rosario Ceravolo,et al.  Assessment of the seismic behaviour of a retrofitted old R.C. highway bridge through PsD testing , 2015 .

[3]  Shih-Po Chang,et al.  Effect of viscous, viscoplastic and friction damping on the response of seismic isolated structures , 2000 .

[4]  Giuseppe Abbiati Dynamic substructuring of complex hybrid systems based on time-integration, model reduction and model identification techniques , 2014 .

[5]  A. Prota,et al.  Lateral Response Evaluation of Old Type Reinforced Concrete Columns with Smooth Bars , 2014 .

[6]  Chia-Ming Chang,et al.  A phased approach to enable hybrid simulation of complex structures , 2014, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration.

[7]  Andrew S. Whittaker,et al.  Experimental and analytical studies on the performance of hybrid isolation systems , 2002 .

[8]  S. Shokat,et al.  電界応答性キトサン-ポリ(N,N-ジメチルアクリルアミド)セミIPNゲル膜およびそれらの誘電,熱および膨潤キャラクタリゼーション , 2013 .

[9]  R. Guyan Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices , 1965 .

[10]  Oreste S. Bursi,et al.  Convergence analysis of a parallel interfield method for heterogeneous simulations with dynamic substructuring , 2008 .

[11]  E. Bentz Sectional analysis of reinforced concrete members , 2000 .

[12]  D. Rixen,et al.  General Framework for Dynamic Substructuring: History, Review and Classification of Techniques , 2008 .

[13]  Ian G. Buckle,et al.  Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1 - Bridges , 2006 .

[14]  Yoshito Itoh,et al.  Pseudodynamic Testing of Scaled Models , 1997 .

[15]  Renato Giannini,et al.  An experimental and numerical investigation on the cyclic response of a portal frame pier belonging to an old reinforced concrete viaduct , 2012 .

[16]  Gilberto Mosqueda,et al.  Implementation of online model updating in hybrid simulation , 2014 .

[17]  Mohammad S. Marefat,et al.  Cyclic Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced by Plain Bars , 2009 .

[18]  L. Di Sarno,et al.  Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response , 2013 .

[19]  Naser Mostaghel,et al.  Analytical Description of Pinching, Degrading Hysteretic Systems , 1999 .

[20]  M. Fardis,et al.  Designer's guide to EN 1998-1 and en 1998-5 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance; general rules, seismic actions, design rules for buildings, foundations and retaining structures/ M.Fardis[et al.] , 2005 .

[21]  Gaetano Della Corte,et al.  Approximate Method for Transverse Response Analysis of Partially Isolated Bridges , 2013 .

[22]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  INTEGRATION METHOD CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING EXPERIMENTAL ERROR GROWTH IN SUBSTRUCTURE PSEUDO DYNAMIC TEST , 1993 .

[23]  Andreas J. Kappos,et al.  Seismic Design and Assessment of Bridges: Inelastic Methods of Analysis and Case Studies , 2012 .

[24]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Performance evaluation of a real‐time pseudodynamic test system , 2006 .

[25]  Humberto Varum,et al.  Cyclic behavior of a two-span RC beam built with plain reinforcing bars , 2011 .

[26]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  An online optimization method for bridge dynamic hybrid simulations , 2012, Simul. Model. Pract. Theory.

[27]  P. Pegon Continuous PsD Testing With Substructuring , 2008 .

[28]  Renato Giannini,et al.  Aftershock risk assessment and the decision to Open traffic on bridges. , 2013 .

[29]  Georges Magonette Development and application of large–scale continuous pseudo–dynamic testing techniques , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[30]  Viswanath Kammula,et al.  Model updating method for substructure pseudo‐dynamic hybrid simulation , 2013 .

[31]  Sung Jig Kim,et al.  Real-time hybrid simulation of a complex bridge model with MR dampers using the convolution integral method , 2013 .

[32]  Rosario Ceravolo,et al.  Identification of the hysteretic behaviour of a partial‐strength steel–concrete moment‐resisting frame structure subject to pseudodynamic tests , 2012 .