Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

THREE DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR SEISMIC SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF A SKEWED BRIDGE CONSIDERING NEAR FAULT EFFECTS Anoosh Shamsabadi1,

Liping Yan2, Geoffrey Martin3

ABSTRACT This paper presents results of three-dimensional nonlinear seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction analyses of a three-span bridge having a skew angle of 25 degrees. The analyses were performed on a nonlinear dynamic finite element (FE) model using the computer program SAP 2000. Four earthquake acceleration records with various amplitudes of velocity pulses were used as input ground motions in the analyses. Each record has two components, which were applied simultaneously to the longitudinal and transverse directions. Results of the analyses indicate that the input motions with strong velocity pulses may cause excessive displacements of the bridge super structure and abutments. Further study is needed to investigate the effects of the strong velocity pulses on the overall response of a skewed bridge and fully understand the dynamic behavior of a skewed bridge. Key Words: Bridge, abutment, embankment, skewness, soil-structure interaction, dynamic analysis, finite element method

INTRODUCTION Traditional bridge design practice evaluates dynamic performance of a skewed bridge using stick models. However, when a bridge has a skew abutment, the longitudinal bridge response is affected by transverse loading due to the coupling nature of the two horizontal directions. Therefore, a minimum of two-component loading must be considered. To illustrate the potential implementation of the analysis, a three dimensional nonlinear finite element model is presented in which the dynamic behavior of the Red Hill Avenue Overcrossing (OC) subjected to four earthquakes with a large velocity pulse is investigated. The bridge site is located in the southern end of the Los Angeles physiographic basin, at the
1

Senior Bridge Engineer, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Caltrans, 1802 30th St. Sacramento, CA 95816, USA, anoosh_shamsabadi@dot.ca.gov 2 Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Arroyo Geotechnical, 2125 East Katella Avenue, Suite 200, Anaheim, CA 92806, USA, LYan@arroyogeotechnical.com 3 Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA, mirza@usc.edu 1 Shamsabadi et al.

San Diego freeway (I-405) adjacent to the John Wayne Airport. The Red Hill Avenue OC is a three-span haunch cast-in-place prestressed reinforced concreted box girder bridge supported on dual-column bents and seat type abutments with a 25 degree skewed angle. The average height of the columns is approximately 12 meters. The bridge is approximately 165 meters long and 22 meters wide with spans measuring 45, 78, and 42 meters. The depth of the deck varies from minimum of 2 meters (at each abutment and at the midpoint of each span) to a maximum of 4 meters (at the bent caps). There is pin connection at the bottom of the flared columns to the pile cap. Longitudinal and the transverse loading of the bridge are resisted by passive resistance of the approach fill. This paper is focused on the nonlinear dynamic soil-abutment-structure interaction of the skewed highway bridge to earthquake loadings with strong velocity pulses.

ABUTMENT SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL The skewed-bridge abutments-foundations and surrounding soils constitute a strongly coupled system. The dynamic behavior of a skewed bridge structure and the abutment-embankment soil has probably the first order influence on dynamic response of the bridge. Even though the bridge structure during a seismic event could remain linear, previous experience indicates that the local nonlinear behavior of the abutment embankment soil can result in significant nonlinear behavior of the bridge structure. Therefore, as part of the seismic design philosophy of bridge structures, a realistic prediction of the abutment-embankment participation should be included in the bridge demand and capacity assessments. In this study, a longitudinal abutment model as shown in Figure 1 was developed. This model consists of (1) a gapping element between the bridge deck and the abutment backfill, (2) a nonlinear spring, and (3) an elastic spring in conjunction with radiation dashpot. The gapping element is to simulate 2.54-cm expansion gap usually seen in typical seat type abutments. The nonlinear spring represents the near-field load-deformation behavior of the abutmentembankment soil and the radiation dashpot represents an energy dissipation mechanism of the far-field ground (elastic half-space). To represent the far-field load-deformation behavior, an additional elastic spring is included in series with the near-field nonlinear spring, but in parallel with the radiation damping dashpot. This arrangement is denoted as series damping to distinguish the near-field behavior from the far-field behavior. The far-field elastic spring is based on the elasto dynamic approach assuming a linearly elastic behavior because of the small strain induced in the far field region that truly represents the elastic half-space. The load-deformation relationships for the nonlinear longitudinal and transverse abutment springs and the extent of the near field failure zone were developed based on a limit equilibrium logarithmic spiral method of slices coupled with characterization of the stress-strain behavior of the abutment backfill (Shamsabadi et al., 2004). This method was validated with an advanced geotechnical engineering computer program PLAXIS using a hardening-soil model and good agreement was found.

Shamsabadi et al.

Figure 1. Abutment Model

In the model, the structural capacity of the backwall was not considered as a resisting element. This is because the backwall is designed to break off at the early stage of a large earthquake. The shear keys participation in the transverse direction is not considered in this paper.

BRIDGE STRUCTURAL MODEL The three dimensional nonlinear finite element model of the bridge structure was developed using the computer program SAP 2000. The bridge deck is modeled as shell elements with applicable structural properties, the columns are modeled as beam elements with cracked sectional properties, and the abutments are modeled as nonlinear spring elements and the radiation dashpot described in the above abutment model. There are pin connection at the bottom of the columns and plastic hinges at the top of the columns. The bridge with pin columnfooting connection is considered because the objective of this study is to examine the impact of the earthquake motions with large velocity pulses in the overall bridge structure response without the complexity of the pile foundation. Figure 2 shows the three-span skewed bridge structural model used in the dynamic analysis.

Shamsabadi et al.

Figure 2. Three-Span Skewed Bridge Structural Model Used in the Dynamic Analysis

INPUT GROUND MOTIONS For performing dynamic analyses with a time history approach, the input motions in the form of acceleration time history are required. The focus of the analyses was placed on the effects of the nonlinear earthquake time history ground motions with strong velocity pulses on the overall response of the skewed bridge. The large velocity pulse in the time history record is generally associated with directivity effects for near field earthquake. Ground motions with large velocity pulses are known to cause more damage to structures than those without pulses. Twocomponent acceleration time histories input motions were applied simultaneously to the longitudinal and transverse directions. Four input motions based on four different earthquake records were used in the analyses. The peak ground accelerations, velocities and displacements of the two components time histories which are applied in the longitudinal and transverse direction of the bridge are listed in Table 1. The components with the largest velocity pulses were applied in the longitudinal directions. Table 1. Information of Input Motions
Earthquake Peak Acceleration (g) Record L T Morgan Hill 1.30 0.71 Kobe 0.69 0.69 Landers 0.72 0.78 Renaldi 0.80 0.46 Note: L = Longitudinal, T = Transverse Peak Velocity (cm/sec) L T 80.50 51.65 86.35 68.35 97.70 31.90 156.70 65.84 Peak Displacement (cm) L T 9.50 12.00 16.75 26.70 70.40 16.45 26.00 17.25

It can be seen in Table 1, the four earthquake records have different peak velocities and represent the smallest to strongest amplitude of velocity pulses corresponding to the Morgan Hill, Kobe, Landers, and Renaldi records, respectively.

Shamsabadi et al.

Figure 3 presents acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories for the longitudinal component of the 1994 Northridge earthquake at the Renaldi station (i.e., Record Renaldi), which demonstrates the strongest velocity pulse among the four input ground motions up to a peak velocity of 156.7 cm/sec.
0.8 0.6 Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 0 160 Velocity (cm/sec) (b) 80 0 -80 -160 0 30 Displacement (cm) 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 (c) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 (a)

Figure 3. Time Histories for Longitudinal Component of Renaldi Input Motion: (a) Acceleration; (b) Velocity; (c) Displacement RESULTS OF ANALYSES AND COMPARISON Using the four input ground motions, dynamic analyses were performed on the FE model of the skewed bridge. Figure 4 presents relative nonlinear displacement time histories of the bridge decks and the left and right abutments in the longitudinal direction for all input ground motions. Figure 5 presents hysteretic response of abutment force-displacement response for all input ground motions.

Shamsabadi et al.

20 Displacement (cm) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 0 20 Displacement (cm) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 0 30 24 18 12 6 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 40 Displacement (cm) 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Time (sec) 18 20 22 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 (b) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 (a)

Bridge Deck Right Abutment Left Abutment

24

26

28

30

Bridge Deck Right Abutment Left Abutment

24

26

28

30

Bridge Deck (c) Right Abutment Left Abutment

Displacement (cm)

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Bridge Deck (d) Right Abutment Left Abutment

24

26

28

30

Figure 4. Nonlinear Displacement Time Histories of Bridge Deck, Left and Right Abutments for Four Input Motions: (a) Morgan Hill; (b) Kobe; (c) Landers; (d) Renaldi

Shamsabadi et al.

300 250 Force (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 -20 300 250 Force (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 -20 300 250 Force (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 -30 300 250 Force (kN) 200 150 100 50 0 -40

(a)

Right Abutment Left Abutment

-15

-10

-5

10

15

20

(b)

Right Abutment Left Abutment

-15

-10

-5

10

15

20

(c) Right Abutment Left Abutment

-24

-18

-12

-6

12

18

24

30

(d)

Right Abutment Left Abutment

-30

-20

-10

0 10 Displacement (cm)

20

30

40

Figure 5. Hysteretic Behavior of Abutment Force-Displacement Response for Four Input Motions: (a) Morgan Hill; (b) Kobe; (c) Landers; (d) Renaldi

Shamsabadi et al.

From Figure 4, we can observe that the peak relative displacements of bridge deck and abutments increase as the peak velocity of input ground motion increases. The bridge deck has negligible permanent residual displacement at end of the ground excitation. However, there is significant permanent residual displacement at the two abutments. The absolute magnitude of the permanent abutment offset appears comparable with the amplitudes of the velocity pulses. For the last input ground motion (i.e., Record Renaldi), which has the large unsymmetric velocity pulse due to near-fault forward rupturing effects, the abutments show almost 34 cm of peak relative displacement response. The significantly unsymmetric loading from the earthquake yielded the abutment embankment failure leading to a significantly large observable permanent residual displacement of the bridge abutments. The amplitudes of permanent abutment offsets differ between the two abutments, reflecting some of the features of the input ground motion record. From Figure 5, we can observe that the ultimate abutment force is almost the same for all input ground motions, which represents the backfill passive capacity. However, the loop of the abutment force-displacement curve and loading and unloading features of the hysteretic response differ from one input ground motion to another, which reflects the influenced of different dynamic characteristics of input ground motions.

CONCLUSIONS Fully nonlinear seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction analyses were performed to investigate the seismic performance of a three-span skewed bridge. Four input ground motions were used in the analyses. These input ground motions have different dynamic characteristics, especially the peak velocity amplitude resulting from the near fault ground motion with a fling (i.e., high velocity pulse). The analysis results demonstrate that the high velocity pulse can generate large displacement response of the bridge deck and abutments and the permanent residual abutment displacements. If the bridge abutment seat width is not adequate, the supper structure will be unseated. The large displacement could exceed the displacement capacity of the bridge-column system and the plastic moment capacity of the columns may be exceeded. The characteristics of the ground motion have significant impacts on the overall dynamic behavior of a skewed bridge. To develop a practical design procedure, future research is needed to investigate the response of skewed bridges with various skew angles using a number of input ground motions with and without high velocity pulses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Bob Morris of Computers and Structures, Inc., Ignatius Po Lam and Hubert Law of Earth Mechanics, Inc., and Chan-Feng Tsai of California State University at Long Beach to this research project.

Shamsabadi et al.

REFERENCE Applied Technology Council (ATC, 1996). Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations. Caltrans (2001). Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.2, July. Shamsabadi, A., Ashour, M., and Norris, G. (2004). Bridge abutment nonlinear forcedisplacement-capacity prediction for seismic design. To be published in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Shamsabadi, A., Yan, L., and Law, H. (2002). Nonlinear abutment-embankment-structure interaction behavior for seismic design of bridges. Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design and Retrofit of Transportation Facilities, Tokyo, Japan, July 9-11. Shamsabadi, A., Yan, L., Martin, G. R., Lam, I. P., Tsai, C.-F., and Law, H. K. (2002). Effects of abutment modeling on seismic response of ordinary standard bridges. Proc. of the 2002 Transportation Research Board Road Builders' Clinic, March. Somerville, P. G., N. F. Smith, R. W. Graves, and N. A. Abrahamson (1995). Representation of near-fault directivity effects in design ground motions for Caltrans Bridges. Proc. of National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways, San Diego, Dec. 10-13, 1995.

Shamsabadi et al.