You are on page 1of 6

Seismic Pounding effect in Bridges with High Piers

MENG Qingli1
1. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China earthquake administration, Harbin 150080, China iemqlmeng@126.com
Abstractin this paper, In order to study the seismic pounding of high-pier bridges in the mountainous areas of Chinese Western zone, a fiber element model of a bridge was established, and the GAP cells were intercalated in expansion joints between main bridge and approach bridge in the high-pier bridges, followed by a detailed analysis of its natural vibration characteristics. Furthermore, by analysis and comparison, the seismic pounding response and its effects on the bridge were discussed under different earthquake motion. The analysis results indicate that the seismic pounding effect is related with the natural period of the bridges each part and inputted earthquake motions characteristic, and could be beneficial to one part of the bridge, to some extent. Keywords- Bridge with high piers; seismic pounding; pounding effect

Yin Xia2
2. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China earthquake administration, Harbin 150080, China yin_xia_happy@126.com damages of one No.5 highway bridges piers and expansion joints in 1994 Northridge earthquake, and the girder damage, bearing damage, and girder falling of Miao Zi Ping high-pier bridge partly resulted from seismic poundings in 2008 WenChuan earthquake. A lot of researchers had studied the Seismic pounding in bridges [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6], they think the seismic pounding effects are related with the natural period of the bridges each part and inputted earthquake motions characteristic, and the seismic pounding is the one main reason result into bridges damage. But, the seismic pounding effect in high-pier bridges was studied scarcely ever. In this paper, In order to study the seismic pounding of high-pier bridges in the mountainous areas of Chinese Western zone, a nonlinear model of a high-pier bridge was established in MIDAS/CIVIL infinite element program, Furthermore, by analysis and comparison, the seismic pounding response and its effects on the bridge were discussed under different earthquake motion. II. MODELING

I.

INTRODUCTION

With the landform restriction in Chinese western zone, where there are a lot of mountains, the bridges with high piers are the general type in this zone. With much different natural dynamic characteristic of high-pier bridges each part, seismic poundings is easy to happen in expansion joints, which can lead to local or whole damage, such as girder damage, bearing damage, and girder falling etc. In the past decade years, it is common occurrence that the seismic poundings led to damage of bridges, for instance, the impact destroy between decks and abutments in 1971 Sam Fernando earthquake, the brittle failure of one elevated bridges piers and decks resulted from seismic poundings in 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and pounding

One high-pier bridge is shown in figure 1, which total span is 600m, width is 12m, in which the main bridge is three spans (90m+170m+90m) continuous RC rigid frame bridge, the two approach bridges is three spans (340 m) continuous simple supported girder bridge. Expansion joints were located between main bridge and approach bridge in the high-pier bridges.

Figure 1. one high-pier bridge (unit: m)

978-1-4244-9171-1/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

3455

The computing model was modeling in MIDAS/Civil, shown in figure 2, in which, girders was simulated with girder element; and piers were simulated with fiber cell, bilinear hysteresis loop model is adopted as the constitutive model of steel fiber cell in piers, and the constitutive model of core zone

concrete in pier adopted the hysteresis loop model considering hooping effect; each bearing adopted nonlinear hysteresis loop model; the GAP cells were intercalated in expansion joints between main bridge and approach bridge in the high-pier bridges.

Figure 2. a high-pier bridge mode

III.

NATURAL VIBRATION CHARACTERISTIC

longitudinal and transverse direction is listed in table 1.

The former three natural period of this high-pier bridge in


TABLE 1 THE NATURAL PERIOD OF THIS HIGH-PIER BRIDGE mode 1 2 3 longitudinal direction 2.51 1.85 1.76
UNIT:S

transverse direction 4.08 2.70 1.97

IV.

SEISMIC POUNDING ANALYSIS

4.1 The effect of seismic pounding The pounding (with gap cell in modeling, the stiffness of gap

cell is3.74108 N/m, and the clearance of gap cell is 0.17m) and no pounding (without gap cell in modeling) analysis in this high-pier bridge were carried out under El Centro earthquake motion, the results were shown in table 2, 3 and 4.

TABLE 2 THE PEAK ACCELERATION OF THE MAIN BRIDGES GIRDER (UNIT:m/S2) Location Without pounding With pounding Left end 1.495 2.637 Left pier location 1.348 2.268 Mid-part of midspan 1.392 1.820 Right pier location 1.417 2.135 Right end 1.379 6.748

TABLE 3 THE PEAK ACCELERATION OF APPROACH BRIDGES GIRDER (UNIT:m/S2) Location Without pounding With pounding Left approach girder Right pproach girder Left approach girder Right pproach girder abutment 1.567 1.696 7.077 5.869 The mid-span of the first span 1.533 1.677 6.643 5.600 The short pier location 1.460 1.552 5.633 4.790 The mid-span of the second span 1.541 1.676 4.889 4.027 The high pier location 1.514 1.696 4.989 4.127 The mid-span of the third span 1.520 1.674 5.981 4.526 Crossover pier location 1.549 1.547 3.450 6.817

TABLE 4 THE PEAK ACCELERATION OF THE TOP OF PIERS (UNIT:m/S2) The short pier of Left approach bridge 4.364 4.364 The long pier of Left approach bridge 4.247 4.247 The long pier of right approach bridge 4.324 4.324 The short pier of right approach bridge 4.687 4.687

location Without pounding With pounding

Left Crossover pier 3.125 3.125

Left pier of main bridge 1.632 1.847

Right pier of main bridge 1.385 2.067

right Crossover pier 3.471 3.471

3456

The Peak acceleration of the main bridges girder and approach bridges girder with pounding and without pounding was list in table 2&3, the Peak acceleration of the top of piers with pounding and without pounding were listed in table 4. The contrast by these results indicated, seismic pounding magnified markedly the peak acceleration of main bridges and approach bridges girder, especially on the latter, maybe resulted from the less mass of the latter than that of the former; besides, the tops accelerations of each pier was not affected markedly by seismic pounding, which mainly resulted from

the small energy of short-duration impulse pounding and the isolation effect of bearing in approach bridges. 4.2 Pounding effect under different earthquake motion In the following, this high-pier bridge was computed in longitudinal direction, with gap cell (stiffness is 3.74 108 N/m, and clearance is 0.10m), under three earthquake motions (El Centro-PGA=0.36 g Northridge-PGA=0.36 g and Parkfield-PGA=0.36 g) respectively (shown in figure 3), the results were listed in table 5, 6 and 7.

Accel. (g)

Time (s)

Frequency (Hz)

a)

The time history and frequency spectrum of El Centro

Accel. (g)

Time (s)

Frequency (Hz)

b)

The time history and frequency spectrum of Northridge

Accel. (g)

Time (s)

Frequency (Hz)

c)

The time history and frequency spectrum of Parkfield

Figure 3. The time history and frequency spectrum of three earthquake motions

3457

TABLE 5 THE PEAK VALUE AND TIME OF POUNDING CELL (GAP) UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS earthquake motion Pounding degree First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth First Second Third Fourth First Second Third Fourth Left gap cell Pounding force 106 N 3.71 7.55 7.41 12.70 3.34 6.44 4.08 10.86 6.88 12.32 4.78 time s 6.28 8.90 11.86 14.80 17.62 31.96 40.06 9.70 12.88 15.92 18.76 Right gap cell Pounding force 106 N 3.30 12.59 11.61 11.19 8.35 4.16 5.48 9.21 1.56 3.23 16.95 1.99 13.20 time s 5.04 7.32 10.04 12.88 15.94 19.06 28.02 30.44 38.68 41.30 11.00 14.60 17.48

El Centro

Northridge

Parkfield

TABLE 6 THE MAXIMUM DISTORTION OF POUNDING CELL (GAP) UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS (UNIT:m) earthquake motion El Centro Northridge Parkfield Left gap cell 0.0068 0.0034 0.0066 Right gap cell 0.0067 0.0049 0.0091

TABLE 7 THE LONGITUDINAL DISPLACEMENT OF GIRDERS UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS (UNIT: m) earthquake motion El Centro Northridge Parkfield The mid-span of the second span of left approach bridge 0.2038 0.1516 0.3063 The mid-span of main bridge 0.2804 0.1586 0.2627 The mid-span of the second span of right approach bridge 0.2854 0.1430 0.3507

According to table5 and table 6, some conclusion can be attained: under El Centro earthquake motion, the pounding is more frequent and larger pounding force, but the largest pounding force occurs in the right pounding position under Parkfield wave, the pounding responses is the weakest under Northridge. According to table 7, we can find, the responses of highpier bridge under El Centro, Parkfield, and Northridge wave, the main bridges displacement is the largest under El Centro

wave, and the approach bridges displacement takes second place. The approach bridges displacement is the largest under Parkfield wave. The above conclusions were resulted from the natural period of the bridges each part and inputted earthquake motions characteristic, when the natural period of the bridges each part is close to a earthquake motions predominant period, their responses should be very remarkable, thus, the different responses under different earthquake waves cannot but lead to different pounding effects.

TABLE 8 THE SHEAR AND MOMENT OF PIERS BOTTOM UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS earthquake motions El Centro Northridge Parkfield The short pier of left approach bridge shear moment 106 N 107 Nm 1.377 2.879 1.190 2.608 2.408 4.335 The high pier of right approach bridge shear moment 106 N 107 Nm 1.524 2.657 1.214 2.531 2.587 5.167 Left crossover pier shear 106 N 1.724 1.725 2.259 moment 107 Nm 4.138 5.281 8.514 Right pier of main bridge shear 106 N 26.392 15.667 19.134 moment 107 Nm 109.874 79.779 107.606

TABLE 9 THE PEAK ACCELERATION OF MAIN BRIDGES GIRDER UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTION (UNIT:m/S2) earthquake motion El Centro Northridge Parkfield Left end 5.134 1.705 2.413 Left pier location 1.991 1.702 2.053 Mid-span 1.630 1.407 1.647 Right pier location 1.952 1.698 2.293 Right end 2.846 1.950 4.922

TABLE 10 THE PEAK ACCELERATION OF APPROACH BRIDGES GIRDERS UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTION (UNIT:m/S2) earthquake motion El Centro Northridge loaction Left approach girder Right pproach girder Left approach girder abutment 7.714 8.068 3.996 The midspan of the first span 7.372 7.682 3.728 The short pier location 6.388 6.668 3.148 The midspan of the second span 5.231 5.868 2.680 The high pier location 5.437 5.487 2.819 The mid-span of the third span 4.996 6.469 3.157 Crossover pier location 10.564 7.663 2.481

3458

Parkfield

Right pproach girder Left approach girder Right pproach girder

5.889 8.289 13.387

5.497 7.810 12.663

4.618 6.638 10.697

4.042 5.948 9.575

4.173 6.197 8.438

4.921 7.235 11.147

2.877 5.307 11.700

On the basis of table 8, the shear and moment of main bridges piers bottom is the largest under El Centro wave, which is resulted from the largest displacement under El Centro wave; the shear and moment of approach bridges piers bottom is the largest under Parkfield wave, which is resulted from the largest displacement under Parkfield wave.

In the light of Table9&10, under the three earthquake waves, the peak accelerations of different position of main bridges girder and approach bridges girders are dissimilar, but, the largest peak acceleration are at the pounding positions of girders.

TABLE 11 THE DISTORTION OF SOME BEARINGS UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE MOTION earthquake motion El Centro Northridge Parkfield Left abutment 0.2039 0.1517 0.3067 PEFE Sliding plate bearing (approach bridge) Right abutment Left crossover pier Left crossover pier 0.2859 0.2915 0.3588 0.1434 0.1918 0.2395 0.3513 0.4189 0.4568

UNIT:m

rubber-basin bearing(main bridge) Left crossover pier Left crossover pier 0.3689 0.3433 0.1950 0.2465 0.3624 0.4093

On the basis of table11, as a result of the drastic responses of approach bridges under Parkfield wave, the distortions of bearings in approach bridges are also the largest under

parkfield, for example, the PEFE sliding plate bearings distortion is up to 0.4568m, larger than the width 0.4mm of this bearing, thus, must lead to fall girder
UNIT:m After fifth pounding 0.0139 0.0837 0.1302 0.1105

TABLE 12 THE GIRDER END DISPLACEMENTS OF LEFT EXPANSION JOINTS UNDER EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE MOTION location the girder right end of left approach bridge The girder left end of main bridge Direction Close apart Close apart Before of first pounding 0.2040 0.1539 0.2207 0.2819 Between first pounding and second pounding 0.0561 / / 0.1928 Between second pounding and third pounding 0.0805 0.2026 0.2550 0.2123 Between third pounding and fourth pounding 0.1108 0.1502 0.2110 0.2237

Between fourth pounding and fifth pounding 0.0925 0.1928 0.1637 0.1296 UNIT:m

TABLE 13 THE GIRDER END DISPLACEMENTS OF RIGHT EXPANSION JOINTS UNDER EL CENTRO EARTHQUAKE MOTION Before of first pounding 0.1423 0.1854 0.2806 0.1610 Between first pounding and second pounding 0.0897 / / 0.2230 Between second pounding and third pounding 0.1948 0.2083 0.1908 0.2568 Between third pounding and fourth pounding 0.1859 0.2540 0.2116 0.2126 Between fourth pounding and fifth pounding 0.1396 0.2846 0.2225 0.1668

location the girder left end of left approach bridge The girder right end of main bridge

Direction Close apart Close apart

Between fifth pounding and sixth pounding 0.0848 0.1551 0.1292 0.1319

After sixth pounding 0.0037 0.0492 0.1093 0.0835

In table 12 & 13, the displacement and direction of girders before and after each pounding in pounding position are listed, some conclusions can be attained: the pounding is helpful to mitigate the response of main bridge, and restrict the distortions of main bridges piers, is beneficial to main bridge to some extent. in the contrast, pounding can make approach bridges to move apart from main bridge, increase the distortions of their bearings and some piers, as a result lead to damage, and girder falling. V.
CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the above contrastive analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) seismic pounding magnified markedly the peak acceleration of main bridges and approach bridges girder in

high-pier bridges, and infect the piers of rigid frame main bridge, but, dont affect markedly the piers under bearing in approach bridges. 2) the seismic pounding effect in high-pier bridges is very different under different earthquake waves, which is resulted from natural period of the bridges each part and inputted earthquake motions characteristic, the different responses under different earthquake waves cannot but lead to different pounding effects. 3) The seismic pounding in high-pier bridges can restrict the distortions of main bridges piers, is beneficial to mitigate the response of main bridge to some extent. In the contrast, the seismic pounding in high-pier bridges can make approach bridges to move apart from main bridge, increase the distortions of their bearings and some piers, as a result lead to damage, and girder falling.

3459

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This study is partially supported by Societal Commonweal Fund Project (Grant No. 2006B06) and National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 50808163); the BeiJing laboratory open fund (EESR2008-12) Earthquake Science Associate Fund (Grant No. 106061), Science and technology project of Hei Long Jiang province (Grant No.QC08C74) and postdoctor foundation of Hei Long Jiang province (Grant No. 1609014). The author is grateful for the above supports. REFERENCES
[1] WANG Jun-wen ZHANG Yun-bo LI Jian-zhong FAN Li-chu, SEISMIC WAVE PASSAGE EFFECT'S INFLUENCES ON LONGITUDINAL SEISMIC POUNDING RESPONSE FOR CONTINUOUS GIRDER BRIDGES, ENGINEERING MECHANICS, 2007 24(11). Wang Junqwn, Li Jianzhong, Fan Lichu, Effect of pounding at expansion joints on seismic response of irregular girder bridges. CHINA CIVIL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, 2006, 39(1): 54~59 WANG Jun-wen LI Jian-zhong FAN Li-chu Parametric study of longitudinal seismic pounding response for continuous girder bridges 2005,18(4):42-47 Li Jianzhong Fan Lichu. Longitudinal Seismic Response and Pounding Effects of Girder Bridges with Unconventional Configurations [J]. CHINA CIVIL ENGINEERING JOURNAL 2005, 38(l):84-89 XIE Xu GAO Bo-qing WU Shan-xing KOU Chang-huan. [6]

[7]

[8]

[9] [10]

[2]

[11]

[3]

[12]

[4]

[13]

[5]

[14] Berton S, Strandgaard H, Bolander J E. Effect of non-linear fluid viscous dampers on the size of expansion joints of multi-span prestressed concrete segmental box-girder bridges [A].Proc. Of 13`h World Conference on Earthquake Engineering[C].Canada; Vancouver, B. C 2004. [15] Feng M Q, Kim J M, Shinozuka M, et, al. Viscoelastic dampers at expansion joints for seismic protection of bridges[J] . Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2000, 15 (1):67-74.

[16]

[17]

Earthquake response of bridges bearing on flexible rubber considering pounding of girders. Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering Science).2004,38(6):725-730 Guo Wei, Shen Yinghong, Earthquake response analysis of nonlinear impacts for simply supported viaduct. Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration.2002,22(4):108-113 NIE Li-ying LI Jian-zhong FAN Li-chu. SELECTION OF POUNDING ANALYSIS PARAMETERS AND ITS EFFECTS ON STRUCTURE UNDER EARTHQUAKE. ENGINEERING MECHANICS.2005,22(5):142-146 MENG Qing-li, Xu Sheng-zeng A simplified review on the seismic pounding of adjacent buildings [J] World Earthquake Engineering 2003 Vol.19 No.4 K.M.Praveen.Dynamics of Seismic Pounding Effects in Elevated Bridges.Journal of Engineering Mechanics.1998,124(7):749-802 R.J ankowski,K.Wilde,Y.Fujino.Reduction of Pounding Effects in Elevated Bridges during Earthquakes.Earthquake Eng.Stru.Dyn.2000,29(2):195-212 R.Desroches,S.Muthkumar.Effect of pounding and Restrainers on Seismic Response of Multiple-frame Bridges.Journal of Structural Engineering.2002,128(7):860-869 Zhu P, Abe M, Fujino Y. Evaluation of pounding countermeasures and serviceability of elevated bridges during seismic excitation using 3D modeling[J].Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2004 33(5):591 609. DesRoches R, Delemont M. Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys [J].Engineering Structures, 2002 24(3):325-332. Kim J M, Feng M Q, Shinozuka M. Energy dissipating restrainers for highway bridges[J].Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2000, 19 (1) 65 -69. Ruangrassamee A Kawashima K. Control of nonlinear bridge response with pounding effect by variable dampers[ J].Engineering Structures 2003 25(5):593~606.

3460