Transverse seismic response of continuous steel-concrete composite bridges exhibiting dual load path

Multi-span steel-concrete composite (SCC) bridges are very sensitive to earthquake loading. Extensive damage may occur not only in the substructures (piers), which are expected to yield, but also in the other components (e.g., deck, abutments) involved in carrying the seismic loads. Current seismic codes allow the design of regular bridges by means of linear elastic analysis based on inelastic design spectra. In bridges with superstructure transverse motion restrained at the abutments, a dual load path behavior is observed. The sequential yielding of the piers can lead to a substantial change in the stiffness distribution. Thus, force distributions and displacement demand can significantly differ from linear elastic analysis predictions. The objectives of this study are assessing the influence of piers-deck stiffness ratio and of soilstructure interaction effects on the seismic behavior of continuous SCC bridges with dual load path, and evaluating the suitability of linear elastic analysis in predicting the actual seismic behavior of these bridges. Parametric analysis results are presented and discussed for a common bridge typology. The response dependence on the parameters is studied by nonlinear multi-record incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). Comparisons are made with linear time history analysis results. The results presented suggest that simplified linear elastic analysis based on inelastic design spectra could produce very inaccurate estimates of the structural behavior of SCC bridges with dual load path.

[1]  Kevin R. Mackie,et al.  Effect of abutment modeling on the seismic response of bridge structures , 2008 .

[2]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Earthquakes, Records, and Nonlinear Responses , 1998 .

[3]  Andrea Dall'Asta,et al.  Non-linear analysis of composite beams of a displacement approach , 2000 .

[4]  Nicos Makris,et al.  Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including soil–structure interaction , 2002 .

[5]  J. Mander,et al.  Theoretical stress strain model for confined concrete , 1988 .

[6]  Kevin R. Mackie,et al.  Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model for California Highway Bridges , 2001 .

[7]  Joel P. Conte,et al.  Two-Dimensional Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of a Bridge-Foundation-Ground System , 2008 .

[8]  M. J. N. Priestley,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF SHEAR FORCES ON BRIDGE ABUTMENTS: SIMPLIFIED METHOD , 2003 .

[9]  Joel P. Conte,et al.  Nonlinear Seismic Response Analysis of Steel–Concrete Composite Frames , 2008 .

[10]  Dimitrios Vamvatsikos,et al.  Incremental dynamic analysis , 2002 .

[11]  Michael H. Scott,et al.  Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for Force-Based Beam¿Column Elements , 2006 .

[12]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Influence of soil–foundation–structure interaction on seismic response of the I-880 viaduct , 2004 .

[13]  Sandro Carbonari,et al.  A model for the 3D kinematic interaction analysis of pile groups in layered soils , 2009 .

[14]  Marcello Ciampoli,et al.  Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on Inelastic Seismic Response of Bridge Piers , 1995 .

[15]  Michel Bruneau,et al.  Seismic Behavior of Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures , 2004 .

[16]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings , 2001 .