Soil-Bridge System Stiffness Identification through Field and Laboratory Measurements

Despite the major advances in finite-element (FE) modeling and system identification (SI) of extended infrastructures, soil compliance and damping at the soil-foundation interface are not often accurately accounted for due to the associated computational demand and the inherent uncertainty in defining the dynamic stiffness. This paper aims to scrutinize the effect of soil conditions in the SI process and to investigate the efficiency of advanced FE modeling in representing the superstructure-soil-foundation stiffness. For this purpose, measured, computed, and experimentally identified natural frequencies of a real bridge were used. Field measurements obtained during construction were reproduced both in the laboratory and by refined FE modeling. In addition, to understand the physical problem more thoroughly, three alternative soil conditions were examined: rock, stabilized soil, and Hostun sand. Discrepancies on the order of 3-13% were observed between the identified and the numerically predicted natural frequencies. These discrepancies highlight the importance of reliable estimation of soil properties and compliance with the SI framework for extended bridges under ambient and low-amplitude vibrations. (C) 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.

[1]  Anastasios Sextos,et al.  ICT Applications for New Generation Seismic Design, Construction and Assessment of Bridges , 2014 .

[2]  Yozo Fujino,et al.  Identification of soil–structure interaction effect in base-isolated bridges from earthquake records , 2001 .

[3]  Maria I. Todorovska,et al.  Soil-Structure System Identification of Millikan Library North–South Response during Four Earthquakes (1970–2002): What Caused the Observed Wandering of the System Frequencies? , 2009 .

[4]  Varun,et al.  A simplified model for lateral response of large diameter caisson foundations—Linear elastic formulation , 2009 .

[5]  Palle Andersen,et al.  Comparison of System Identification Methods using Ambient Bridge Test Data , 1999 .

[6]  J. E. Luco,et al.  Tables of impedance functions for square foundations on layered media , 1985 .

[7]  Bart Peeters,et al.  COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MODAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR BRIDGE DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS , 2003 .

[8]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Health monitoring of Metsovo Bridge using ambient vibrations. , 2010 .

[9]  W. D. Liam Finn.  A Study of Piles during Earthquakes: Issues of Design and Analysis , 2005 .

[10]  Guido De Roeck,et al.  REFERENCE-BASED STOCHASTIC SUBSPACE IDENTIFICATION FOR OUTPUT-ONLY MODAL ANALYSIS , 1999 .

[11]  Edwin Reynders,et al.  System Identification Methods for (Operational) Modal Analysis: Review and Comparison , 2012 .

[12]  Geoffrey R. Martin,et al.  Dynamic soil–structure interaction of a single‐span bridge , 1987 .

[13]  Ricardo Dobry,et al.  Vertical Response of Arbitrarily Shaped Embedded Foundations , 1985 .

[14]  B. Peeters,et al.  Stochastic System Identification for Operational Modal Analysis: A Review , 2001 .

[15]  George C. Manos,et al.  Field experiments for monitoring the dynamic soil-structure-foundation response of a bridge-pier model structure at a test site , 2015 .

[16]  George Gazetas,et al.  Development of Winkler model for static and dynamic response of caisson foundations with soil and interface nonlinearities , 2006 .

[17]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  System identification for evaluating soil–structure interaction effects in buildings from strong motion recordings , 1998 .

[18]  Anoosh Shamsabadi,et al.  Comparative Study of Model Predictions and Data from Caltrans/CSMIP Bridge Instrumentation Program: A Case study on the Eureka-Samoa Channel Bridge , 2014 .

[19]  Alessandro De Stefano,et al.  Comparative study of vibration‐based parametric identification techniques for a three‐dimensional frame structure , 2012 .