The Integration of Experimental and Simulation Data in the Study of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Systems Including Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction

The seismic response of reinforced concrete bridges must include consideration of the whole system including soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI). Simulation models validated against the results of experimental tests are required to provide an accurate prediction of the bridge system response. Performance-based engineering necessitates large-scale parameter studies of these simulation models to quantify the demand for varying levels of seismic hazard. The goal of this research is to characterize the SFSI effects for a range of hazard levels by using calibrated models from the experimental tests. Two projects administered by the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) have facilitated the study of this system effect through the collaboration of researchers within the earthquake engineering community. Shaking table tests of both a two-span and a four-span bridge at 1/4-scale were conducted at the University of Nevada, Reno. Nonlinear dynamic analyses of three-dimensional finite element models performed using OpenSees were evaluated based on the experimental test results. For the two-span bridge, the simulation model matches well both the global and local response until the onset of failure. The highly nonlinear pounding at the abutments and complicated test protocol of the four-span bridge produces less agreement in the simulation results. A simulation model for the prototype bridge system incorporates the influence of the abutments, drilled shaft foundations, and site response effects. The cyclic response of the soil at the abutments is calibrated using results from full-scale tests. P-y, t-z, and q-z springs model the inertial interaction between the soil and pile foundations. A total of 1280 site response analyses are computed at four locations along the bridge for two soil profiles using SHAKE to obtain the free-field motions at the location of each soil spring. Large-scale parameter studies of four prototype bridge models with and without the SFSI effect were conducted in parallel on a supercomputer using the multiple-interpreter capability of OpenSees. The response is determined for a suite of 80 ground motions of varying magnitude and distance from the fault. Linear regressions of the simulation results produce demand models that elucidate the effect of SFSI for both the global and local response. The demand models demonstrate that the SFSI effect is significant for the prototype bridge system and should be considered.

[1]  Gregory L. Fenves,et al.  EFFECTS OF LOCAL DEFORMATIONS ON LATERAL RESPONE OF BRIDGE FRAMES , 2004 .

[2]  I Polam,et al.  Modeling of Pile Footings and Drilled Shafts for Seismic Design , 1998 .

[3]  Sami Megally,et al.  Capacity Evaluation of Exterior Sacrificial Shear Keys of Bridge Abutments , 2006 .

[4]  Pedro Arduino,et al.  Estimation of Uncertainty in Geotechnical Properties for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering , 2002 .

[5]  David B. McCallen,et al.  Dynamic Analyses of a Skewed Short-Span, Box-Girder Overpass , 1994 .

[6]  Ahmed Elgamal,et al.  FULL SCALE BRIDGE ABUTMENT PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE TESTS AND CALIBRATED MODELS , 2008 .

[7]  S. Kramer Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering , 1996 .

[8]  David M. Boore,et al.  Comments on Baseline Correction of Digital Strong-Motion Data: Examples from the 1999 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake , 2002 .

[9]  Jamie E. Padgett,et al.  Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Retrofitted Bridges Using Probabilistic Methods , 2007 .

[10]  Susendar Muthukumar,et al.  A Contact Element Approach with Hysteresis Damping for the Analysis and Design of Pounding in Bridges , 2003 .

[11]  M. Saiid Saiidi,et al.  Pre-test Analytical Studies of NEESR-SG 4-Span Bridge Model Using OpenSees , 2007 .

[12]  Richard O. Zerbe,et al.  Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Decisions , 2022 .

[13]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Earthquake spectra and design , 1982 .

[14]  Richard S. Pappa,et al.  Consistent-Mode Indicator for the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm , 1993 .

[15]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Building Vulnerability Studies: Modeling and Evaluation of Tilt-up and Steel Reinforced Concrete Buildings , 2003 .

[16]  Gregory L. Fenves,et al.  Using the OpenSees Interpreter on Parallel Computers , 2008 .

[17]  Nicos Makris,et al.  Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiffnesses of bridge embankments , 2002 .

[18]  Andrew S. Whittaker,et al.  BIDIRECTIONAL MODELLING OF HIGH-DAMPING RUBBER BEARINGS , 2004 .

[19]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[20]  G G Mayerhof,et al.  Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Pile Foundations , 1976 .

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

[22]  G. Mylonakis,et al.  Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction: New Evidence and Emerging Issues , 1998 .

[23]  F. Filippou,et al.  Nonlinear Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Structures , 1994 .

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

[25]  R. Park,et al.  Flexural Members with Confined Concrete , 1971 .

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

[27]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures , 1999 .

[28]  HyungSuk Shin Numerical modeling of a bridge system & its application for performance-based earthquake engineering , 2007 .

[29]  Enrico Spacone,et al.  FIBRE BEAM–COLUMN MODEL FOR NON‐LINEAR ANALYSIS OF R/C FRAMES: PART I. FORMULATION , 1996 .

[30]  R. Medina,et al.  Seismic Demands for Nondeteriorating Frame Structures and Their Dependence on Ground Motions , 2003 .

[31]  B. G. Nielson Analytical Fragility Curves for Highway Bridges in Moderate Seismic Zones , 2005 .

[32]  Ross W. Boulanger,et al.  Inelastic Seismic Response of Extended Pile-Shaft-Supported Bridge Structures , 2004 .

[33]  R. Park,et al.  Stress-Strain Behavior of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain Rates , 1982 .

[34]  Joseph P. Nicoletti,et al.  Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges , 1996 .

[35]  G A Chang,et al.  SEISMIC ENERGY BASED FATIGUE DAMAGE ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE COLUMNS: PART I - EVALUATION OF SEISMIC CAPACITY. TECHNICAL REPORT , 1994 .

[36]  Graeme H. McVerry,et al.  Structural identification in the frequency domain from earthquake records , 1980 .

[37]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology To Performance-Based Engineering , 2020 .

[38]  Ross W. Boulanger,et al.  Static pushover analyses of pile groups in liquefied and laterally spreading ground in centrifuge tests - eScholarship , 2007 .

[39]  Shamim N. Pakzad,et al.  Statistical approach to structural monitoring using scalable wireless sensor networks , 2008 .

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

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

[42]  Filip C. Filippou,et al.  Evaluation of Nonlinear Frame Finite-Element Models , 1997 .

[43]  Nathan Johnson,et al.  Large-scale experimental and analytical seismic studies of a two-span reinforced concrete bridge system , 2006 .

[44]  Dawn E. Lehman,et al.  Lumped-Plasticity Models for Performance Simulation of Bridge Columns , 2008 .

[45]  Robert E. Kayen,et al.  Reinvestigation of Liquefaction and Nonliquefaction Case Histories from the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake , 2009 .

[46]  Charles A. Kircher,et al.  Seismic Performance Objectives for Tall Buildings A Report for the Tall Buildings Initiatve , 2008 .

[47]  H. Seed Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses , 1970 .

[48]  Mceer,et al.  Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges , 2003 .

[49]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of Bridge Abutment Capacity and Stiffness during Earthquakes , 1997 .

[50]  R V Nutt,et al.  IMPROVED SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CALIFORNIA BRIDGES: PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS , 1996 .

[51]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  Retrofitted Bridge Fragility Analysis for Typical Classes of Multispan Bridges , 2009 .

[52]  R. Dobry,et al.  Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response , 1991 .

[53]  Kyle M. Rollins,et al.  Nonlinear Soil-Abutment-Bridge Structure Interaction for Seismic Performance-Based Design , 2007 .

[54]  Pacific Earthquake,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Inertial Soil-Structure Interaction Effects , 1998 .

[55]  Robert B. Nelson Experimental evaluation of performance of conventional bridge systems , 2007 .

[56]  Kevin R. Mackie,et al.  Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Design of Bridges , 2003 .

[57]  K. Mosalam,et al.  Modeling of Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls Considering In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Interaction , 2009 .

[58]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Engineering Statistics , 2004, Technometrics.

[59]  Daniel W. Wilson,et al.  Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Experiments and Analyses , 1999 .

[60]  J Biarez,et al.  BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT OF PILE FOUNDATIONS , 1977 .

[61]  Gregory L Fenves,et al.  BEHAVIOR AND FAILURE ANALYSIS OF A MULTIPLE-FRAME HIGHWAY BRIDGE IN THE 1994 NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE , 1998 .

[62]  A. Sextos,et al.  SIMPLIFIED Py RELATIONSHIPS FOR MODELING EMBANKMENT-ABUTMENT SYSTEMS OF TYPICAL CALIFORNIA BRIDGES , 2008 .