More From This User
Hydrologie(elias jamhour)
mini project
Related Docuements
The Redondo Beach Pier
It has been called everything from the ‘Endless Pier’ to the ‘Horseshoe...
From South Bay Digs
www.sciencedirect.com
1. Introduction
A great deal of research effort has been made to improve the design and retrofit methodology for bridge structures in seismic active zones, especially after the 1994 Northridge, 1995 Kobe, and1999 Chi–Chi earthquakes. Lessons[1]learned from the investigation of highway bridgesseriously damaged by these destructive earthquakes are highly valuable to the upgrading of many bridges still in use, as these bridges probably are as seismically deficient as those that alreadyfailed the test of nature.General public would think girders, piers, and foundations receive the most attention in thedesign and construction of a bridge structure. Nonetheless, secondary components such as rubber bearings, hinge restrainers, side stoppers, and expansion joints if not well taken care of are likelyto result in undesirable overall performance of a bridge structure during extreme quake events[2].The rubber bearings commonly used in past decades have been seriously questioned as to their seismic resistance. Expansion-type bearings are vulnerable to un-seating or toppling when deck sliding is excessive. Fix-type bearings may break loose if their hinge-restrainer device is shearedoff by lateral seismic loading. New techniques in the form of an isolator or a damper device areintroduced to replace or enhance conventional bearings[2]and[3].
Previous studies have shown that the gap of joints between decks can have a significant effect onthe response of a bridge[3]and[4]. Using simplified model, it was found when sliding and
pounding occurs, accelerations of bridge decks may increase by a factor of ten, as compared tothat without pounding[3]. The abrupt increase of accelerations can result in severe impact forcesthat damage structural members like the deck or pier.Meanwhile, assessment of seismic vulnerability of common types of bridges based on techniquessuch as fragility analysis is getting more attention. A study on the fragility of a bridge's inventoryshows that the most vulnerable bridge type is the multi-span simply supported concrete bridges[5].This study presents a case analysis involving deck sliding and pounding of a multi-span simplysupported concrete bridge damaged by the 1999 Chi–Chi earthquake. Its reference coordinate is(120°46″E, 24°17″N). A brief description of its damages and related photos can be found in public reports[6].Bridges of the same kind are quite common on highway river-crossings all
www.sciencedirect.com
over Taiwan. Site investigation and survey data for this particular bridge collected following thequake indicated that major structural responses that occurred on that day were the sliding of several deck spans relative to pier cap beams and the pounding between adjoining decks, allalong the traffic direction. One extra pounding occurred between a special recessed pier cap beam and a deck supported on this pier.
2. Bridge characteristics and observed damages
A brief description of the bridge of concern to this study is presented in this section, while moredetails including bearings and gaps of joints are introduced along sections that follow.Constructed in 1984, the bridge has thirteen segments with abutments at two ends.Fig. 1 provides an elevation view covering four segments on the south end. Each span of the bridgesuperstructure (i.e. deck) is made of concrete slab cast onto pre-cast T-girders laterally braced bydiaphragms.Fig. 2illustrates the transverse section view of a typical bent. Along the trafficdirection, T-girders are simply supported on top of a cap beam (i.e. wing beam) cast in one piecewith straight pier column, and embedded into a caisson foundation at the column base. In thetransverse direction, concrete side stoppers are installed to prevent excessive sidewisemovement. As the designer called for, each girder is simply supported with one end on a fix-typerubber bearing having dowel bars (i.e. hinge) and another on an expansion-type rubber bearing(i.e. roller).Full-size image(54K)Fig. 1. Elevation view of four segments at south end; the bridge has 13 segments:13+11@35+13 m.
www.sciencedirect.com
Full-size image(54K)
Fig. 2. Transverse section view of a typical bridge bent (unit: cm).
On 21 September 1999, shortly after midnight, a violent quake struck. What was left on the bridge site a minute later were two spans of massive decks falling off at the south end and other deck spans being displaced under South–North sliding motion.Fig. 3 presents the schematic
view of the damaged bridge. One particular pier appeared to have been pounded at its cap beam,tilted 10° off the straight position, and left crushing marks at the cap beam and flexural cracks atthe column base (inFig. 3 where star marks show). It is worth noticing in Fig. 1andFig. 3that
the top of this pier cap beam is not built flush, in contrast to other piers, but has a specialrecessed back-wall to accommodate girders of different depths from two adjoining deck spans. Nevertheless, T-girders, piers, and caissons, all remained intact as individual members, exceptone single pier severely damaged as mentioned. In terms of kinetics, the decks simply acted asrigid masses, and piers as flexible columns fixed at the base in response to the quake.Full-size image(53K)Fig. 3. Observed damage condition of the bridge: two fallen decks and one severely damaged pier.
of 00
Seismic Effect on Bridges
508 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 10/31/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment