Significance of SSI and non-uniform near-fault ground motions in bridge response II: Effect on response with modular expansion joint

Abstract This is the second part of the study of soil–structure interaction (SSI) and ground motion spatial variation effects on bridge pounding responses. The first part [Chouw N, Hao H. Significance of SSI and non-uniform near-fault ground motions in bridge response I: Effect on response with conventional girder gap. J Eng Struct. [in press]] concentrated on studying the responses of bridges with a traditional expansion joint between adjacent girders. The main objective of this second paper is to investigate the influence of spatial variation of ground motions and SSI on the minimum total gap that a modular expansion joint system (MEJS) between two bridge frames must have to prevent any pounding between the adjoined girders. This minimum total gap is critical in a MEJS design because it ensures intact expansion joint and adjacent girders. Additional investigations of pounding response with a large total gap of a MEJS are performed to study the characteristics of pounding responses when collision does occur e.g. due to unintended underestimation of the ground excitation magnitude, which may be different from the pounding responses between bridge girders with a small gap of a conventional expansion joint. The spatially varying ground excitations are simulated stochastically based on an empirical near-source response spectrum and an empirical coherency loss function. The investigation reveals that neglecting spatial variation of ground motions and SSI can significantly underestimate the total gap of a MEJS required to avoid pounding between the adjacent bridge girders. The results also show that pounding between girders with a large gap of a MEJS in general causes stronger impact forces. Compared with the results reported in the first part of this study, using a MEJS with a large gap is likely to completely preclude bridge girder pounding, and consequently to prevent local damage at the girder ends. However, a large girder movement results in large bending moment in bridge piers, which compensates the advantages of using MEJS in bridges to resist earthquake loading.

[1]  Nawawi Chouw,et al.  INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF KOBE EARTHQUAKE ON A THREE-DIMENTIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE SYSTEM , 2003 .

[2]  Robert J. Dexter,et al.  PERFORMANCE TESTING FOR MODULAR BRIDGE JOINT SYSTEMS , 2002 .

[3]  C. W Roeder,et al.  Fatigue and dynamic load measurements on modular expansion joints , 1998 .

[4]  Joseph Penzien,et al.  Evaluation of building separation distance required to prevent pounding during strong earthquakes , 1997 .

[5]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  EFFECT OF POUNDING AND RESTRAINERS ON SEISMIC RESPONSE OF MULTIPLE-FRAME BRIDGES , 2002 .

[6]  Krzysztof Wilde,et al.  Reduction of pounding effects in elevated bridges during earthquakes , 2000 .

[7]  Nawawi Chouw,et al.  Influence of soil-structure interaction on pounding response of adjacent buildings due to near-source earthquakes , 2002 .

[8]  Nawawi Chouw,et al.  Study of SSI and non-uniform ground motion effect on pounding between bridge girders , 2005 .

[9]  Jay Shen,et al.  ESTIMATION OF RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT OF TWO ADJACENT ASYMMETRIC STRUCTURES , 2001 .

[10]  Nawawi Chouw,et al.  Influence of SSI and frequency content of non-uniform ground motions on bridge girder poundings , 2004 .

[11]  Masanobu Shinozuka,et al.  Effects of seismically induced pounding at expansion joints of concrete bridges , 2003 .

[12]  John Douglas,et al.  Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions , 2003 .

[13]  前田 潤滋.  Low Speed Aerodynamics Laboratory National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canda K1A 0R6 , 1990 .

[14]  Robert J. Dexter,et al.  Design, Specification, Installation, and Maintenance of Modular Bridge Expansion Joint Systems , 2001 .

[15]  Ping Zhu,et al.  Modelling three‐dimensional non‐linear seismic performance of elevated bridges with emphasis on pounding of girders , 2002 .

[16]  H. Hao,et al.  Seismic response of multi‐span simply supported bridges to a spatially varying earthquake ground motion , 2002 .

[17]  Jay Shen,et al.  Pounding Response of Adjacent Buildings Subjected to Spatial Earthquake Ground Excitations , 2000 .

[18]  Hong Hao,et al.  Spatial ground motion effect on relative displacement of adjacent building structures , 1999 .

[19]  Kazuhiko Kasai,et al.  Inelastic Vibration Phase Theory for Seismic Pounding Mitigation , 1996 .

[20]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  Highway Bridges and Traffic Management , 1995 .

[21]  Hong Hao,et al.  A parametric study of the required seating length for bridge decks during earthquake , 1998 .

[22]  S. Anagnostopoulos.  Pounding of buildings in series during earthquakes , 1988 .

[23]  J. Penzien,et al.  Multiple-station ground motion processing and simulation based on smart-1 array data , 1989 .

[24]  Roberto Crocetti,et al.  FATIGUE PERFORMANCE OF MODULAR BRIDGE EXPANSION JOINTS , 2003 .

[25]  Anat Ruangrassamee,et al.  Control of nonlinear bridge response with pounding effect by variable dampers , 2003 .

[26]  H. Hao.  Torsional response of building structures to spatial random ground excitations , 1997 .

[27]  Nawawi Chouw,et al.  Estimation of required seating length of bridge girders under non-uniform ground excitation and different ground conditions , 2005 .

[28]  Ping Zhu,et al.  Evaluation of pounding countermeasures and serviceability of elevated bridges during seismic excitation using 3D modeling , 2004 .

[29]  Praveen K. Malhotra,et al.  Dynamics of Seismic Pounding at Expansion Joints of Concrete Bridges , 1998 .

[30]  Hong Hao,et al.  Estimation of required separations between adjacent structures under spatial ground motions , 1998 .