Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
In this paper the results of SC Solutions' performance-based evaluation of the as-built Unit 10 frame of the SR5
Lake Washington Ship Canal Bridge are presented. This unit is a three-span frame, located between bridge piers 24
and 27 on the north approach to the bridge and extends approximately 329 ft between expansion joints. A threedimensional model of the Unit 10 frame was developed using the computer program ADINA (ADINA User
Interface Command Reference Manual, Volume 1: ADINA Model Denition, ADINA R&D, Inc., September 1997)
and ADINA's moment-curvature beam element. This paper discusses the method of evaluation of this frame, the
material and member properties used for the `pushover' analysis, properties of the as-built structure, and the results
of capacity analysis of the as-built Unit 10 assembly. Several pushover analyses were performed, consisting of mass
proportional and mode shape lateral load proles. One of the mass proportional lateral load analyses was selected
for presentation in this paper. This load pattern resulted in maximum shear forces in the frame columns. Following
the pushover analysis, a nonlinear dynamic time-history ADINA analysis was conducted to estimate maximum
displacements and to evaluate the performance of the bridge during a simulated earthquake ground motion. # 1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The SR5 Lake Washington Ship Canal Bridge is
considered to be of signicant importance such that its
collapse during a seismic event would be detrimental
to the safety and commerce of the people of Seattle,
Washington [2,3]. Therefore, the Washington State
Department of Transportation commissioned a retrot
design that would result in a predicted minimum level
of performance of `no-collapse' during the seismic
event.
0045-7949/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - X
64
2. Method of evaluation
SC Solutions' evaluation of Unit 10 of the SR5
Lake Washington Ship Canal Bridge is designed to
estimate the performance of the frame by studying
plastic curvature of the columns, the displacements of
the decks and total base shear. The evaluation began
with construction of two-dimensional (2D) bent frame
models, which include nonlinear moment-curvature
representation of all column members. The superstructure, including the box-girder deck and cross-beams
was modeled with linear elastic elements. This assumes
that these components will be retrotted to increase
65
4. Section properties
Each column is evaluated for moment-curvature
based on engineering mechanics principles and material
properties discussed in the previous section. Typical
column section geometry is shown in Fig. 3 for both
as-built and retrot congurations.
Cross-section geometry is described as an assemblage of rectangular sections with reinforcing placed
relative to the concrete rectangles. Each piece is subdivided for the purpose of numerical integration to
determine resisting force and moment for a specied
section axial strain and bending curvature. The as-built
column properties are determined considering that all
of the concrete is unconned. The proposed steeljacket retrot will not signicantly increase the column
stiness or strength at the extremities of the member,
where the plastic hinges form, and will increase the
strength and ductility only based on consideration of
the degree of connement of the enclosed concrete.
This has been demonstrated in full-scale concrete column tests at the University of San Diego [6]. This is
due to lack of composite action between the steel
66
67
68
member are modeled as linear elastic, since the capacity protection retrot strategy includes increasing
the ultimate strength of these components. The bent
cap and deck members were also modeled as linear
elastic. The nite element model is shown in Fig. 6.
This gure shows the outline of the structure as hidden
lines and the nite element elements as blue lines. All
column elements were modeled using the nonlinear
moment-curvature beam element. Soil springs were
also included based on the geotechnical information.
Two types of lateral load patterns for the pushover
analyses were selected. A mass proportional pattern
results in higher shear forces in columns, whereas
modal pattern results in a exural mechanism. Since
the results are voluminous, this paper presents only
sample results from the mass proportional pushover.
The evaluation began with an assessment of the
mode shapes and frequencies of the structure. Since
none of the important modes has an eective modal
mass ratio of more than 75%, a lateral load pattern
proportional to a single mode may not capture the importance of the higher modes. Therefore, a linear elastic response spectrum analysis was performed to
obtain the load prole in terms of combination of all
modes. Lateral load pattern for this pushover analysis
69
was proportional to displacements of the structure derived based on CQC modal and SRSS spatial combinations.
Column element properties were derived consistent
with the methodology discussed in Section 4 for both
bending axes of the sections.
5.1. Unit 10 modal properties
Mode shapes were computed by ADINA based on
the initial stiness of the moment-curvature elements.
Figs. 710 show the rst four mode shapes of the Unit
10 frame as computed by ADINA. Modes 2 and 3 are
transverse modes with the south end and north end of
the frame participating separately in their respective
modes. Mode 1 is a longitudinal mode with both
upper- and lower-deck participation. Mode 4 is a
longitudinal mode with mostly lower deck participation.
Since the behavior of the Unit 10 frame is complex
and not as easily described as the 2D pushovers, the
push force was determined in several ways. The rst
four pushover analyses were performed using mass
proportional loads. The frame and deck reactive mass
was lumped at the two deck levels and the frame was
70
71
72
0.19 g equivalent lateral load. At 0.31 g equivalent lateral load and 1.00 ft resultant upper deck displacement,
the two east columns of Pier 26 exceed curvature capacity at their lower ends. The remaining gures in this
section are samples of the resulting forces and moments
in the system as the unit is pushed. These graphs are
used to determine the demands in the elastic members of
the structure at each point in the pushover history and
to check if there is any shear failure in the columns.
Figs. 1320 present typical elastic and inelastic forces
and moments.
6. Dynamic analysis of Unit 10
In a pushover analysis the response is controlled by
a single `pre-dened deformed shape' or `mode' and its
shape is assumed to remain unchanged throughout the
push. Therefore, eects of higher modes may not be
addressed properly. Establishing the direction of push
in a complex 3D structure so that meaningful results
can be interpreted is not straightforward. In the foregoing pushover analyses, we used response spectrum
analysis technique as well as mass proportional loadings to estimate a most probable collapse mode for the
push and to include the eects of higher modes.
However, when the structure undergoes nonlinear
behavior the mode shapes and frequencies changes and
the direction of the push that was obtained with these
push load proles will not hold in general. Due to the
73
74
76
Fig. 18. Pushover: typical lower cross-beam and bent-cap vertical shear.
Fig. 19. Pushover: typical lower cross-beam and bent-cap longitudinal shear.
77
78
79
7. Conclusions
Unit 10 of SR5 Lake Washington Ship Canal Bridge
was modeled with the as-built properties. Two-dimensional models of bents 24 through 27 and 3D model of
the entire Unit were developed. The results of the
pushover analyses were briey summarized in this
report. It was shown based on Unit 10 pushover analyses that the frame's ultimate displacement capacity is
between 2.0 and 3.0 ft provided column retrots were
implemented to increase curvature ductility. Column
hinge sequence and locations were predicted. Axial
forces, shear forces and bending moments in columns
and decks were summarized. Shear forces, torsional
moments, and bending moments of cross beam and
bent cap were also summarized. These results can be
readily employed in a performance based design
method using Acceleration-Displacement-ResponseSpectrum (ADRS). Performance of the `force controlled action' components and `deformation controlled action' components can be easily evaluated
using these results.
Three-dimensional pushover analysis of structures is
a complex but useful procedure to estimate the capacity of structures. The same complexity in this analysis demands more careful attention in determination of
the target displacement. Once the target displacement
is established, the extend of columns retrots need to
be determined based on the types and locations of failure.
A minimum of one 3D nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis is recommended to validate the target displacement and retrot design.
References
[1] Primary State Highway No. 1, Seattle Freeway, Lake
Washington Ship Canal Bridge, Washington State
Highway Commission, Department of Highways,
Olympia, Washington, 1958, pp. 1013, 1720, 2356.
[2] SR5 Lake Washington Ship Canal Bridge, Seismic
Vulnerability Assessment, Part 1, Seismic Assessment
Prole, Andersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs, 1993.
80