0 Up votes0 Down votes

2 views12 pages123

Aug 31, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

123

© All Rights Reserved

2 views

123

© All Rights Reserved

- A Tale for the Time Being
- Fault Lines
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- The Sea Glass Sisters: Prelude to The Prayer Box
- Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883
- Krakatoa
- The Trembling Hills
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- The Gifted: A New Edition of Terri Blackstock's Classic Tale
- 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed
- Aftershock
- Rogue Wave
- Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine
- Earthquake-Resistant Structures: Design, Build, and Retrofit
- Industrial Power Engineering Handbook
- In My Sister's House: A Novel
- The Hatching: A Novel
- Ghosts of the Tsunami: Death and Life in Japan's Disaster Zone
- Cataclysm

You are on page 1of 12

Transportation Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

soilpile interaction

Monirul Mallick, Prishati Raychowdhury

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Performance of highway bridges during an intense seismic event is an issue of utmost

Received 20 August 2014 importance. Of particular interest is the response of skewed highway bridges, where the

Revised 29 January 2015 skew angle and other related factors make the problem more complex. Although a number

Accepted 13 March 2015

of studies had been carried out to address these issues in the past, most of them have

Available online 20 March 2015

neglected or over-simplied the soilstructure interaction effects, primarily relying upon

the assumption that soilstructure interaction generally leads to a conservative estimation

Keywords:

of seismic demands. The present study focuses on investigating the effect of skew angle on

Skew bridge

Seismic response

seismic response of a bridge-foundation system including nonlinear soilpile interaction

Nonlinear modeling subjected to bi-directional ground motions. It has been observed that the rotational

Soilstructure interaction demand of the bridge deck is greatly affected by the skewness, indicating an increased

vulnerability of skewed bridges due to rotational movement of the deck leading to deck

unseating. It is also observed that the shear and moment demands of the piers increase sig-

nicantly with increasing skew angle, as much as 54% and 37%, respectively. The maximum

bending moment of the pile shaft is also found to increase upto 55%, indicating higher

design requirements for the foundation components of the skew bridges compared to a

similar normal bridge.

2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

inertial loading on the bridge tends to cause bridge

Skewe bridges are increasingly used in the highway rotation about its vertical axis, leading to an excessive

intersections and interchanges mainly to overcome the transverse moment and unseating of the superstructure

space constraint. A bridge can be designated as a skew and pounding to the abutment walls. For example, during

bridge when the centerline of the bridge and the centerline 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the Foothill Boulevard

of the abutment and/or pier cap are non-perpendicular to Undercrossing in California suffered a rotation in the

each other (Fig. 1). The skewed geometry of the bridge horizontal plane resulting in a permanent offset of about

affects the static and dynamic load transfer mechanism 10 cm (4 inch) in the direction of increasing skewness at

of the system, and subsequently may lead to an altered the abutment (Meng and Lui, 2000). Further, during 1994

force and displacement demand. Moreover, the skew Northridge earthquake, the abutments of the Pico-Lyons

bridges are strongly inuenced by the abutments, as the skewed bridge located near Newhall, California, had

center of the mass of the superstructure and the center experienced a movement of about 51 mm (2 inch) in the

transverse direction (Apirakvorapinit et al., 2012).

Corresponding author. A number of research efforts have been made in the last

E-mail addresses: monirul@iitk.ac.in (M. Mallick), prishati@iitk.ac.in few decades to understand the load transfer mechanism of

(P. Raychowdhury).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.03.002

2214-3912/ 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647 37

skewed bridges under static and dynamic loading modeling of the pile foundations at the bent contributed

conditions. Some of these studies have adopted numerical less to the overall bridge response as compared to the abut-

modeling, whereas others relied upon experiments on ments. Huo and Zhang (2008) studied the skewness effect

bridge component models, or eld observations. Followed on live load reactions at the piers of continuous bridges.

is a brief discussion on studies carried out to understand Kalantari and Amjadian (2010) proposed an approximate

the behavior of skewed bridges. hand-method for dynamic analysis of a skew highway

bridge with continuous rigid deck. Apirakvorapinit et al.

Literature review (2012) conducted a series of pushover and dynamic analy-

ses using a nonlinear nite element model of Pico-Lyons

In a pioneering study, Ghobarah and Tso (1973) adopted Bridge showing that at the end girders the percentage

a beam model to take into account the exural and torsional increase in stress due to skewness can be 5060% for skew

modes of the deck of a skew bridge. Bakht (1988) critically angle of 40. In a recent study, Deepu et al. (2014) carried

reviewed the design practice of skew bridges through ana- out a dynamic analysis of a number of 3D nite element

lyzing skewed slab-on-girder bridges and concluded that if models of various bridge congurations incorporating 0,

the effect of skew angle is ignored, the maximum moment 15, 30, 45 and 60 skew angles using SAP 2000 software,

demand will be over-estimated, but the maximum longitu- with an assumption that the bridge piers are xed at their

dinal shear demand may be under-estimated leading to an bases. It was found that the skewed-bridge decks undergo

un-conservative design. Meng and Lui (2000) focused on signicant rotations about the vertical axis during seismic

the superstructure exibility, substructure boundary con- ground events and are permanently displaced from the

ditions, structural skewness and stiffness eccentricity in original location at the end of the shaking.

their model. Menassa et al. (2007) investigated the effect

of the span length, slab width, and skew angle on the Provisions in the design codes

response of a simple-span reinforced concrete bridge using

nite element method. It was observed that the AASHTO In the past, the skewed bridges were analyzed,

LRFD design specications overestimated the maximum designed, and constructed in the same way as straight

longitudinal bending moment, and this overestimation bridges regardless of the magnitude of the skew angle.

increases with increasing skew angle. Shamsabadi and For example, AASHTO (2003) standard specications used

Yan (2008) developed a global three-dimensional nite- to provide distribution factors for the interior girders of

element model for the seismically instrumented Painter simply supported bridges as a function of girder spacing.

Street Overpass incorporating nonlinear foundationsoil It did not specify the consideration of the effect of the skew

interaction. The results of the analyses showed that the angle and bridge continuity. In its more recent version,

38 M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647

Skew angle

20 m 20 m

Springs for abutment-

backll connecon

Pier-pile

7m connecon

Piers node Pile head

length = 1 m

p-y springs

4 x 5 pile pile

group t-z springs

21 m elements Pile

embedded

length

Idealized

= 20 m

pile block

q-z springs

Fig. 2. Schematic of the 3D nite element modeling of the bridge in OpenSees (2008).

Fig. 3. Schematic sketch of the cross section of T-beam deck slab (Deepu et al., 2014).

AASHTO (2007) recommends a reduction factor for the behavior of skew bridges, most of the studies have

bending moments for skewed bridges, however, no magni- neglected or over-simplied the soilstructure interaction

cation factor for the shear is specied. Eurocode (2004) (SSI) issue. However, neglecting SSI may lead to an inaccu-

species that the design methodology of normal bridge rate estimation of the seismic responses, especially for

may be applied for the skew bridges, however, adequately high intensity earthquake motions, as the exibility of

conservative estimations based on capacity principles the foundations may alter the period and damping charac-

must be adopted in order to avoid brittle failure modes. teristics of the bridge-foundation system. Moreover, the

It also species that highly skewed bridges should be material and geometric nonlinearity of the soilfoundation

avoided in high seismicity regions. If that is not possible, interface can inuence the force and displacement demand

adequate modeling of the actual horizontal stiffness of of the overall bridge system. This may have more complex

the bearings must be done, taking into account the concen- effect in case of a skew bridge. This study focuses on 3D

tration of the vertical reactions near the acute angles. nite element modeling of a two-span bridge with varying

Alternatively, an increased accidental eccentricity may be skew angle incorporating nonlinear soilpile interaction. It

used. Indian Standard Code (IS: 1893, Part-3, 2004) recom- is intended to investigate the effect of skew angle on the

mends that the skew bridges with an angle of 30 and bridge-foundation-soil system through static pushover

above with span more than 60 m should be categorized and dynamic time history analysis using bi-directional

under irregular type and detailed dynamic studies should (two horizontal components) ground motions.

be undertaken. However, any specic guideline for design

of these bridges are not provided in the code.

Numerical modeling

Scope of the present study A three-dimensional nite element model of the bridge-

pile-soil system has been developed using the open-source

It is evident from the above discussion that although a software platform OpenSees (OpenSees, 2008). In addition

number of studies have focused on understanding the to the normal bridge model, four skewed models with

M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647 39

Table 1

Details of component modeling.

Deck 3D nonlinear beam-column element Thickness = 250 mm

Concrete compressive strength, fck = 40 MPa

Mass density, q = 2,400 kg/m3

Youngs modulus, E = 3 107 kPa

Poissons ratio, l = 0.2

Longitudinal 3D nonlinear beam-column element Cross-sectional area, A = 0.675 m2

girder Moment of inertia of the girder, I = 0.1266 m4

Young modulus, E = 3 107 kPa

Pier 3D ber-section force-based beam-column element with nonlinear Yield strength of steel, fy = 4.6 105 kPa

ber materials Youngs modulus, Es = 2 108 kPa

Strain hardening ratio, b = 0.01

Piles 3D nonlinear beam-column elements Modulus of elasticity, Ep = 2.5 107 kPa

Cross-sectional area, A = 11.70 m2

Shear modulus, G = 9.6 106 kPa

Torsional moment of inertia, J = 21.78 m4

Pilesoil Nonlinear spring Uniaxial PySimple1, TzSimple1 and QzSimple1 materials;

interface details provided in Table 3

Table 2

Idealized soil parameters for painter street bridge site (Shamsabadi and Yan 2008).

Layer no. Soil type (USCS symbol) Depth (m) Soil properties

c0 (kN/m3) /0 () c (kPa) vs (m/s)

Layer 1 Compacted sandy ll (SP, GP) 1.98 20.44 38 2.39 204

Layer 2 Stiff silt and clay (ML/CL) 9.60 20.12 11 158 305

Layer 3 Medium dense sand (SP) 4.57 8.96 34 0 NA

Layer 4 Dense sand with gravel (SP) 3.65 9.90 36 0 NA

Note: c0 = effective unit weight, /0 = friction angle, c = cohesion, vs = shear wave velocity.

skew angles 15, 30, 45 and 60 are developed. The Bridge piers

superstructure geometry and structural properties are

adopted from Shamsabadi et al. (2007) and Deepu et al. There are two piers of height 7 m from the center line of

(2014), which is very similar to the conguration of the cap beam to the bottom. The piers have circular cross-

Painter Street Bridge in California. The foundation details sections with a diameter of 1.7 m for normal, 15 and 30

are taken from in Shamsabadi and Yan (2008) for the pain- skew models, and 1.8 m and 1.9 m diameters are used for

ter street bridge site. A schematic of the 3D nite element 45 and 60 skewed models, respectively. Variable number

model with different components of the skew bridge is reinforcement bars are used for different skewed models,

shown in Fig. 2. Note that the nodes and elements shown such as 30, 31, 32, 35 and 41 bars for normal, 15, 30,

in Fig. 2 are just an idealization, and does not correspond 45 and 60 skewed models, respectively with 57.33 mm

to the exact number of nodes and elements used in the diameter longitudinal bars and 35.81 mm diameter stir-

study. A detailed description of the superstructure and rups (after Deepu et al., 2014). The cap beam is assumed

substructure congurations, soil properties, modeling and to be of dimension 1 m 2 m and is modeled as a rein-

analysis methodologies are provided herein. forced concrete beam with 40 MPa concrete. The bridge

piers are modeled using ve 3D ber-section force-based

beam column elements with nonlinear ber materials

Bridge deck slab

Idealized strength and stiffness parameters for different soil springs.

crete continuous deck slab, with two equal spans of 20 m

length and 14.18 m width. The deck is rested on 6 rein- Layer P-y spring T-z spring Q-z spring

forced concrete T-beam girders having a cross sectional No. parameters parameters parameters

area of 0.675 m2 (1.5 m 0.45 m). The center to center pult y50 tult z50 tult z50

spacing between any two T-beams is 2.44 m. The cross- (kN) (m) (kN) (m) (kN) (m)

sectional area of T-girder deck slab is 6.9353 m2 and Layer 1 586 0.016 29 0.0009

moments of inertia along different axes are J = 0.3237 m4, Layer 2 1114 0.319 51 0.0091

Layer 3 12,966 0.126 316 0.0120

I33 = 1.4313 m4, I22 = 118.7519 m4. The cross section of

Layer 4 17,926 0.108 391 0.0136 142,634 0.024

the T-beam deck slab is provided in the Fig. 3.

40 M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647

6000 250

Lateral Force (kN/m)

200

4000

150

Layer-1

Layer-1 Layer-2

100

2000 Layer-2 Layer-3

Layer-3 Layer-4

Layer-4 50

0 0

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0 0.04 0.08 0.12

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

Fig. 4. Spring behavior in different layers of the deposit for (a) P-y springs and (b) T-z springs.

vertical direction, while free to move in the horizontal

Normalized Axial Force

0.9 relative motion of the bridge deck exhausts the abutment

gap the bridge deck starts pounding on the abutment

backll. A summary of the component modeling including

0.8

values of the relevant parameters are provided in Table 1.

0.6

100 200 300 400 500 600 diameter of each pile is 30 cm, and the spacing between

Number of Nodes any two piles is equal to three times the diameter of the

pile. The depth of pile is 20 m below ground, whereas the

Fig. 5. Convergence analysis result for axial force response of pier. free head length of each pile is considered as 1 m. Since

the modeling of soilpile interaction of a total number of

40 piles (20 piles under each pier) was becoming too

(OpenSees, 2008). The pier sections are further discretized cumbersome, it has been assumed that the piles and the

into steel and concrete section, where the reinforcing steel adjacent soil moves together to produce a typical block

is represented by a uniaxial bilinear inelastic model with failure, with a block dimension of 3.9 m 3.0 m. This

yield strength fy = 4.6 105 kPa, Youngs modulus, rectangular block is assumed as an equivalent single pile

Es = 2 108 kPa, and a strain hardening ratio, b = 0.01. of diameter 3.86 m for the convenience of the modeling.

The top of the pile cap is restrained by a control node, Elastic beam-column elements are used to model the

which connects the bottom nodes of the pier with rigid link equivalent single pile.

16 16

Shear Force at Pier Base (MN)

12 12

8 8

Skew angle=0o

Skew angle=15o

4 Skew angle=30o 4

Skew angle=45o

Skew angle=60o

0 0

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Deck Displacement (m) Deck Displacement (m)

Fig. 6. Pushover curves for (a) xed base model and (b) SSI model.

M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647 41

(a) (b)

0 0

Skew angle = 0o

-4 Skew angle = 30o -4

Skew angle = 45o

Skew angle = 60o

-8

Depth (m)

-8

Depth (m)

-12 -12

-16 -16

-20 -20

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 0 40 80 120 160

Shear force of pile group (MN) Bending moment of pile group (MN-m)

(c) (d)

0 0

-4 -4

-8

Depth (m)

-8

Depth (m)

-12 -12

-16 -16

-20 -20

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Lateral displacement of pile group (m) Lateral resistance of soil (MN/m)

Fig. 7. Response of the pile and soil from pushover analysis: (a) shear force prole, (b) bending moment prole, (c) lateral displacement prole, and (d)

lateral resistance of soil.

The soilpile interface behavior is modeled using non- dened from PySimple1, TzSimple1, and QzSimple1 uniaxial

linear Winkler foundation (BNWF) approach after materials, respectively from OpenSees. These material

Boulanger et al. (1999), utilizing displacement-based beam models are well-calibrated and widely accepted for design

elements to represent the pile and a series of nonlinear and analysis of pile foundations. The details of these spring

springs to represent the soil (as shown in Fig. 2). The soil elements including their backbone equations, validation

springs are zero-length elements that are assigned differ- and applications can be found in Boulanger et al. (1999)

ent uniaxial materials in the lateral and vertical directions. and Boulanger (2000). The parameters to dene the

The spring nodes are created with three dimensions and backbone curves for each spring is derived based on the

three translational degrees-of-freedom. One set of spring properties of each layer of the deposit, as discussed in

nodes, the xed-nodes, are initially xed in all three the following subsection.

degrees-of-freedom. The other set of nodes, the slave

nodes, are initially xed in only two degrees-of-freedom, Selection of soil properties

and are later given equal degrees-of-freedom with the pile

nodes. The pile nodes are created with three dimensions The soil properties are taken from the painter street

and six degrees-of-freedom (3 translational, 3 rotational). bridge site, California, as reported in Shamsabadi and Yan

The lateral resistance of the soilpile interface is repre- (2008). The deposit consists of four layers with an upper

sented by laterally oriented p-y spring elements, whereas most sandy ll layer overlaid by a stiff silty clay layer

the frictional resistance along the length of the pile and and two layers of dense sandy soil. The details of the soil

the tip resistance at the base of the pile are represented properties are given in Table 2. These soil properties are

by t-z and q-z spring elements, respectively. The con- used to determine the spring backbone parameters for

stitutive behavior of the above-mentioned springs are p-y, t-z and q-z spring materials. The backbone parameters

42 M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647

1 1

Fundamental Mode

Natural Period (sec)

0.8 Second Mode 0.8

Third Mode

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

-15 0 15 30 45 60 75 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75

Skew Angle (deg) Skew Angle (deg)

Fig. 8. Eigenvalue analysis results: (a) xed base model and (b) SSI model.

for the above-mentioned springs for each layer of the Results and discussion

deposit are shown in Table 3. Note that pult, tult and qult

represent the ultimate capacity of p-y, t-z and q-z springs, To understand the behavior of skew bridges including

respectively, whereas y50 and z50 represents the displace- soilpile interaction, a number of analyses have been

ment in lateral and vertical direction, corresponding to carried out, namely, pushover analysis, eigenvalue

the 50% of the load capacity in the respective directions. analysis, and dynamic time history analysis. The following

Fig. 4(a) and (b) illustrate the responses of P-y and T-z subsections discuss the different analyses methods along

springs representing the behavior of the soilpile interface with the obtained results and their implications.

in different layers. Note that these responses correspond to

the non-skewed bridge model. Pushover analysis

Finite element mesh properties analysis is performed according to FEMA-356 (2000)

guidelines. For the pushover analysis, the bridge is stati-

The 3D nite element mesh involves the representation cally analyzed under monotonically increasing lateral

of the essential structural and foundation elements of the loads in the transverse direction until the displacement

bridge (as shown in Fig. 2). A convergence study has been at the deck slab exceeds a certain selected target displace-

carried out to determine the optimum number of nodes ment. The target displacement is intended to represent the

and elements. For the convergence study, the non-skewed maximum possible displacement that is likely to be experi-

xed base model is used and the responses such as axial enced by the bridge during a design earthquake. In this

force, shear force and bending moment at the pier base study, a target deck displacement is set as 15% of the pier

are recorded for increasing number of nodes and elements. height, and applied at the pier-deck connection node with

The convergence study indicates that the responses tend to an increment of 0.1% pier drift ratio.

converge when at least 377 number of nodes are used Fig. 6 presents the pushover curves showing shear force

(Fig. 5). However, to achieve a better convergence, a model at the base of the piers versus the deck displacement for

with 547 nodes is used in the present study. This number different skew angle models considering xed base as well

indicates the nodes for the superstructure for the xed as SSI. It can be observed from Fig. 6 that the shear capacity

base model. However, for the SSI model, an additional of the piers is signicantly inuenced by the skew angle for

274 nodes are used for piles and soilpile interface model- both xed base and SSI cases. The shear capacity of the

ing, making a model of total 821 nodes with 1110 nonlin- piers increases up to 54% from non-skewed to 60 skewed

ear beam-column elements, 94 zero-length elements, 82 model for the xed base case. For the SSI case, this increase

equal DOF constraints and 2 rigid link elements for the glo- is about 60%. However, the absolute value of shear capacity

bal bridge-foundation model. for the SSI case is lower than the respective xed base case,

Table 4

Details of selected ground motions with 10% in 50 years hazard level (adopted from Somerville et al. 1997).

Ground motion Direction Record Earthquake Distance (km) DT (s) PGA (g)

magnitude Mw

El Centro01 Longitudinal (along global X axis) Imperial Valley, 1940, El Centro 6.9 10 0.02 0.46

El Centro02 Lateral (along global Y axis) Imperial Valley, 1940, El Centro 6.9 10 0.02 0.68

Gilroy01 Longitudinal (along global X axis) Loma Prieta, 1989, Gilroy 7 12 0.02 0.67

Gilroy02 Lateral (along global Y axis) Loma Prieta, 1989, Gilroy 7 12 0.02 0.97

M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647 43

(a)

Acceleration (g) 0.8 (b) 1

Acceleration (g)

0 0

El Centro01 Gilroy01

El Centro02 Gilroy02

-0.8 -1

0 10 20 30 40 0 4 8 12 16 20

Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 9. Input acceleration time history: (a) El Centro motions and (b) Gilroy motions.

5 100

(a) (b)

El Centro01

Spectral acceleration (g)

4 El Centro02 80

Gilroy01

Gilroy02

3 60

2 40

1 20

0 0

0.01 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10

Period (s) Period (s)

Fig. 10. A 5% damped elastic response spectra for (a) spectral acceleration and (b) spectral displacement.

In-plane Deck Rotation (deg)

In-plane Deck Rotation (deg)

0.004 0.008

Skew angle = 30 deg Skew angle = 30 deg

Skew angle = 60 deg Skew angle = 60 deg

0.002 0.004

0 0

-0.002 -0.004

-0.004 -0.008

0 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20

Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 11. Rotation time history for (a) El Centro motions and (b) Gilroy motions.

Transverse Deck Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)

36 0.006

In-plane Deck Rotation (deg)

El Centro 01-02

Gilroy 01-02

32

0.004

28

0.002

24

20 0

0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60

Skew Angle (deg) Skew Angle (deg)

Fig. 12. Deck response: (a) peak transverse displacement and (b) peak in-plane rotation.

44 M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647

with a reduction ranging from 1% to 15%. Nonetheless, the second mode period decrease as the skew angle increases.

displacement corresponding to the peak shear does not This reduction is about 56% and 50% in the rst mode and

change much with skew angle, ranging from 0.08 m to 31% and 17% in the second mode, from non-skewed to 60

0.1 m for the xed base models, and from 0.2 m to skewed model, for the xed base and SSI case, respectively.

0.26 m, for the SSI models. This indicates a softer behavior This indicates that the global stiffness increases with

of the SSI models due to increased exibility. Note that the increasing skewness for these two modes. However, for

soil springs yielded prior to yielding of the piers in these the third mode, the period slightly increases beyond 45

cases. skew angle, implying that the transverse stiffness of the

Figs. 7(a) and (b) show the shear force and bending bridge reduces for highly skewed models. Further, it may

moment prole of the pile block along its depth. It can be also be noted that the periods for the SSI cases are always

observed that the peak moment increases only 6% from greater than that of the xed base cases, which is a result of

non-skewed to 30 model, whereas it increases about induced exibility due to soilpile springs. The period

30% for the 45 model and 65% for the 60 model. elongation due to SSI effect is observed to range between

Fig. 7(c) shows the lateral deection prole of the piles 1.86 and 2.12 in the fundamental mode, 1.27 to 1.53 in

for different models, indicating that lateral deection the second mode and 1.04 to 1.12 in the third mode. This

increases signicantly for highly skewed models compared indicates that SSI affects the modal properties of the rst

to non-skewed and slighly skewed models. Fig. 7(d) mode signicantly compared to the higher modes.

demonstrates the reaction of the soil adjacent to the pile.

It may be noticed that the soil reaction for each layer is

distinctly different than the other layer. However, for a Dynamic time history analysis

particular layer, the reactions vary linearly. Moreover, it

may be noted that the reaction of each layer is inuenced Nonlinear time history analysis has been carried out on

by the skewness of the bridge. These observations indicate different bridge models with gravity loads applied rst

that the superstructure skewness may induce higher foun- followed by dynamic earthquake excitation. Since the

dation demands, which is generally not accounted in the skewness of the bridge is the focus of the study, it is impor-

conventional design practice. tant consider the bi-directional effect of the ground

motions. For this purpose, four ground motions are

selected from Somerville et al. (1997). These motions cor-

Eigenvalue analysis responds to Imperial Valley record of 1940 El Centro

Earthquake and Gilroy record of 1989 Loma Prieta

Although the pushover analysis gives a fair estimation Earthquake, California. These ground motions are scaled

of the seismic demands of a system, however, the method by Somerville et al. (1997) to represent a 10% in 50 years

has some inherent limitations, and cannot be solely hazard level with a return period of 475 years for a soil

dependable for seismic response prediction. Therefore, a type D (stiff soil) according to NEHRP (2003) classication

dynamic time history analysis is necessary for more system. The selection is relevant for the chosen bridge site,

accurate estimation of seismic demands. In this study, as the soil prole in the present study consists of a stiff

before conducting the dynamic time history analysis, an silty clay followed by medium dense sand as shown in

eigenvalue analysis is carried out to understand the modal Table 2. The details of the selected ground motions are pro-

properties of the bridge under free vibration. vided in Table 4. Two bi-directional events are considered

Fig. 8(a) and (b) provides the rst three natural periods in this study. In the rst event, the El Centro01 motion is

of the bridge for xed base model and SSI model, respec- applied in the global longitudinal direction, whereas El

tively, for varying skew angles. It can be observed that Centro02 is applied in the global lateral direction.

for both xed base and SSI cases, the fundamental and Similarly, in the second event, Gilroy01 and Gilroy02

(a) (b)

8 16

El Centro 01-02

Gilroy 01-02

Pier Moment (MNm)

14

Pier Shear (MN)

6 12

5 10

4 8

0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60

Skew Angle (deg) Skew Angle (deg)

Fig. 13. Peak responses at pier base: (a) shear force and (b) bending moment.

M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647 45

(a) Pile Moment: El Centro 01-02 (b) Pile Moment: Gilroy 01-02

0 0

-4 -4

-8 -8

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-12 -12

Skew angle = 0o

Skew angle = 15 o

-16 Skew angle = 30 o -16

Skew angle = 45 o

Skew angle = 60 o

-20 -20

0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60

Pile Moment (MN-m) Pile Moment (MN-m)

(c) Pile Shear: El Centro 01-02 (d) Pile Shear: Gilroy 01-02

0 0

-4 -4

-8 -8

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-12 -12

-16 -16

-20 -20

0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 8

Pile Shear (MN) Pile Shear (MN)

Fig. 14. Peak pile response prole along depth: (a) bending moment for El Centro, (b) bending moment for Gilroy, (c) shear force for El Centro, and (d) shear

force for Gilroy.

motions are applied in the global longitudinal and lateral solve the nonlinear residual equation. The system band gen-

direction, respectively. It may be noted that the two eral is used to construct the LinearSOE and Linear Solver

motions of each event corresponds to the mutually per- objects to store and solve the system of equations in the

pendicular horizontal components of a motion recorded analysis. The reverse Cuthill-McKee numberer command

in the mentioned station. The acceleration time history of is used to construct the RCM degree-of-freedom numbering

the input motions are shown in Fig. 9, whereas Fig. 10 pre- objects to provide the mapping between the degrees-of-

sents the 5% damped acceleration and displacement freedom at the nodes and the equation numbers. The RCM

response spectra of the chosen motions. numberer uses the reverse Cuthill-McKee scheme to order

For performing nonlinear dynamic analysis, Newmarks the matrix equations. The transformation method is used

average acceleration integration method has been used. A to construct the constraint handler object. The maximum

5% Rayleigh damping is assumed for the rst and second number of iterations and tolerance used to check the

modes. Newtons line search algorithm has been used to returning failure condition are 100 and 108, respectively.

46 M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647

Moment: El Centro01-02 cial components of the bridge system, the response of the

Normalized pile force (F/F=0)

Moment: Gilroy01-02 proles of the peak shear and peak moment along the

1.4 Shear: Gilroy01-02

depth of embedment of the pile. It can be observed that

the maximum moment occures at about 4.5 m below the

ground for all models, however, the values are different

for different models. There is a clear trend of increasing

1.2

demands in pile moment and shear with increasing skew

angle. For example, peak moment increases from 29 MN-

m to 36 MN-m from non-skewed to 60 skewed model

for the El Centro event, and 34.8 MN-m to 54 MN-m for

1

0 15 30 45 60 the Gilroy motion. Fig. 15 presents the normalized pile

Skew Angle (deg) shear and moment demands for different models as a ratio

of non-skewed model. It can be observed that pile force

Fig. 15. Peak normalized pile responses with skew angle variation. demands increase about 25% for the El Centro motion,

and about 55% for the Gilroy motion from non-skewed to

60 skewed model. These observations indicate that the

foundation components should be designed considering

The following responses of the bridge models are

the effect of skewness, as skewness may induce signicant

emphasized: deck displacement, in-plane deck rotation,

alteration in the force and displacement demands of these

force demands at the pier base, and peak force demands

components.

along the pile length. Figs. 11(a) and (b) show the time his-

tory response of the in-plane deck rotation for 30 and 60

skewed models. It can be observed that the rotational

Conclusions

demand is much higher for the 60 model compared to

the 30 model throughout the time series. At some

This study focuses on 3D nite element modeling of a

instances, the demand in 60 case is more than twice than

bridge-foundation system incorporating nonlinear soil

the 30 case, indicating that rigid body rotation may

pile interaction and evaluating the effect of skew angle

increase signicantly with increasing skew angle. Since

on the seismic response of the bridge-foundation-soil

the seismic design mainly depends on the peak demands,

system. Nonlinear static pushover analysis, followed by

the absolute maximum values of each response parameter

eigenvalue analysis and dynamic time history analysis

are summarized in the subsequent plots for different skew

using bi-directional (two horizontal components) have

angles.

been carried out. The following key observations are made

Figs. 12(a) and (b) show the peak transverse displace-

from the study:

ment and peak in-plane rotation of the deck, respectively.

It may be observed that transverse displacement increases

(1) Shear force capacity of the piers are signicantly

from non-skewed to 15 skewed model, but remains con-

affected by the skewness of the bridge. The effect

stant afterward. On the other hand, in-plane deck rotation

is more prominent for the structures considering

seems to be very sensitive to the skew angle. This response

soilpile interaction compared to the xed base

is negligible for the non-skewed model, and starts increas-

structures.

ing abruptly with increasing skew angle. A peak rotation of

(2) Fundamental and second mode periods of the struc-

0.004 and 0.006 is observed for El Centro and Gilroy

ture decrease with increasing skew angle as much as

motion, respectively. For the bridge considered, a rigid

56% from non-skewed to 60 skewed bridge.

body rotation of 0.004 corresponds to approximately

(3) Rotational demand of the bridge deck is greatly

1.4 mm movement of the deck, whereas 0.006 rotation

affected by the skewness, indicating an increased

corresponds to approximately 2.1 mm movement.

vulnerability of skew bridges due to rotational

The seismic force demand of the bridge piers are also

movement of the deck leading to deck unseating.

affected by the skew angle as shown in Fig. 13(a) and (b).

(4) Shear and moment demands of the piers increase

It can be noticed that the shear force and bending moment

signicantly with increasing skew angle, as much

has an increasing trend with increasing skew angle, indi-

as 54% and 37%, respectively. The maximum bending

cating higher force demand for skewed models. The shear

moment of the pile shaft is also observed to increase

force increases from 4.34 MN in non-skewed bridge to

up to 55%, indicating higher design requirements for

5.45 MN in 60 bridge for the El Centro motion, and 5.1

the foundation components of skew bridges com-

MN to 7.8 MN for the Gilroy motion. Similarly, the bending

pared to a similar normal bridge.

moment increases from 9.4 MN-m to 10.3 MN-m for the El

Centro motion, and 11.2 MN-m to 15.3 MN-m for the

Note that the ndings of this study are limited to the

Gilroy motion. The maximum deviation for pier shear is

parameter space considered herein (i.e., bridge

25% for the El Centro event, and 54% for the Gilroy event,

conguration, soil type, water table, ground motion

whereas the same of pier bending moment is 17% and

parameters, etc.) and require further investigation for the

37% for El Centro and Gilroy motion, respectively.

purpose of generalization.

M. Mallick, P. Raychowdhury / Transportation Geotechnics 3 (2015) 3647 47

References Huo XS, Zhang Q. Effect of skewness on the distribution of live load

reaction at piers of skewed continuous bridges. ASCE J Bridge Eng

2008;13(1):1104.

AASHTO. Standard specications for highway bridges. Washington, D.C;

Indian Standard Code. IS 1893 (Part-3): Criteria for earthquake resistant

2003.

design of structures: bridges and retaining walls. 2004.

AASHTO-LRFD. Bridge design specications. American Association of

Kalantari A, Amjadian M. An approximate method for dynamic analysis of

State Highway and Transportation Ofcials; 2007.

skewed highway bridges with continuous rigid deck. Eng Struct

Apirakvorapinit P, Mohammadi J, Shen J. Analytical investigation of

2010;32(9):285060.

potential seismic damage to a skewed bridge. ASCE Pract Periodical

Menassa C, Mabsout M, Tarhini K, Frederick G. Inuence of skew angle on

Struct Des Constr 2012;17(1):512.

reinforced concrete slab bridges. ASCE J Bridge Eng 2007;12(2):20514.

Bakht B. Analysis of some skew bridges as right bridges. ASCE J Struct Eng

Meng JY, Lui EM. Seismic analysis and assessment of a skew highway

1988;114(10):230722.

bridge. Eng Struct 2000;22(11):143352.

Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soil

NEHRP. Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new

pilestructure interaction experiments and analyses. ASCE J Geotech

buildings. Washington, D.C.: Building Seismic Safety Council; 2003.

Geoenviron Eng 1999;125(9):7509.

OpenSees. OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake Engineering

Boulanger RW. The PySimple1, TzSimple1, and QzSimple1 material

Simulation). Berkeley: Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research

models. Documentation for the OpenSees platform. <http://

Center (PEER), University of California; 2008.

opensees.berkeley.edu>; 2000.

Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M. Nonlinear soilabutmentbridge

Deepu SP, Prajapat K, Ray-Chaudhuri S. Seismic vulnerability of skew

structure interaction for seismic performance-based design. ASCE J

bridges under bi-directional ground motions. Eng Struct

Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(6):70720.

2014;71:15060.

Shamsabadi A, Yan L. Dynamic soilabutmentfoundationstructure

Eurocode. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part-1: general

interaction of an instrumented skewed bridge. In: The 12th

rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European

international conference of international association for computer

Committee for Standardization (CEN); 2004.

methods and advances in geomechanics (IACMAG), 16 October, Goa,

FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of

India; 2008.

buildings. Virginia: American Society of Engineers; 2000.

Somerville P, Smith N, Punyamurthula S, Sun J. Development of ground

Ghobarah AA, Tso WK. Seismic analysis of skewed highway bridges with

motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project.

intermediate supports. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam

<http://www.sacsteel.org/project/>; 1997.

1973;2(3):23548.

- Method Stament PDA TestUploaded byTonni Kurniawan
- Raymond Pile BrochureUploaded bymoyarek
- 174026722 Foundation for TRANSMISSION TowerUploaded byAnonymous uUnSBxqH77
- Settlement+Uploaded byFidel Rodriguez Herreros
- CFA w. Abstract Form - DFI SuperPile2017-FinalUploaded byRoy Jari
- Dyna FadUploaded bythakrarhits
- Wu2016 Article ASimplifiedMethodForTheDetermiUploaded byAbhishek Arun
- 2 Design PierUploaded byRudra Sharma
- Design CDPO OFFICE 53.00 lakhsUploaded byD.V.Srinivasa Rao
- Haber Field 2006Uploaded byjacs127
- Group3._Final_Capstone.diseñoEdificioenSanFrancisco.pdfUploaded byPauloAndresSepulveda
- Lecture22.pdfUploaded bymm
- Written Report.docxUploaded byAlejandroGonzaga
- 04-IJPS 63 JeyarajanUploaded byJoey El Rassi
- PDA OP_027.pdfUploaded byjmario85
- Lecture 5 FoundationsUploaded byThai Rittyvirak
- Week 3 Quiz Students 2016 F(1)Uploaded bythanh293
- Pile FoundationUploaded bychanakya
- chap1Uploaded bySheikh Mizanur Rahman
- IJEETC_51ffe3a927ce1Uploaded byHASSAN SK MD
- Pile Cut OffUploaded byDaniel Silva
- Testing _ Piling ContractorsUploaded byVenkat Palli
- Chapter 2Uploaded byDeepak Saxena
- Fundações-Piled raft- RandolphUploaded bymartinhocandido8448
- t.e ( 2015 Pattern )Uploaded byBapureddy Badgire
- Ghent17 PDFUploaded byHarsh Chopra
- Design _Fish MarketUploaded byD.V.Srinivasa Rao
- Report formet kumariniwas.docxUploaded byshaimenne
- Abu Dhabi Municipality Design Check ListUploaded byShamim Ahsan Zubery
- MasterRC Pile Cap DesignUploaded byAl-Ain Homes

- Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete- Volume 1 (2Nd EdUploaded byNabil Ahmed
- LECTURE_3_8Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- LECTURE_1_1Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- LECTURE_1_4Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- study_bg_462_8_Space_frames.pdfUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- pescara.pdfUploaded byClinton Dame
- LECTURE_3_5Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Unit-8.pdfUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Unit-2.pdfUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Design of Bridge Theory.pdfUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Design of Bridge Theory.pdfUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- study_bg_462_8_Space_frames.pdfUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- PapersUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Mtech ThesisUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Design of Microwave TowerUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- SF Clearwater Jun17 1Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Bridge Design v1.1 EnUploaded byKamal Halawi
- PrintUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Development of a Core Thermo Fluid Analysis Code f 2014 Nuclear EngineeringUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Ktm Tokamak Operation Scenarios Software Inf 2014 Nuclear Engineering and TeUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- 2742002Uploaded byparth daxini
- nov 2017Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- 2742002Uploaded byjalpesh borda
- Ext_09584Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- The Influence of Deterioration Parameters on the Response of Low-Rise Symmetric and Asymmetric RC BuildingsUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Centre of Rigidity in Multistory Asymmetric Diapragm System for General Lateral Static LoadingUploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Sustainability 07 14287Uploaded bysandyyansiku
- Pan 2017Uploaded bychirag mulchandani
- Thompson 2016Uploaded bychirag mulchandani

- WEIDER 8530Uploaded byVincentGagnon
- Tyre BasicsUploaded bymankm21
- 17. Compressor - Reference MaterialUploaded bySrihari Kodimela
- Toshiba E-STUDIO120 150 Parts ListUploaded bykostas_san
- Structural Mechanics 2015 PaperUploaded byAlex
- Direct - Drive Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator Design ForUploaded bySalih Ince
- M19-623-EUploaded byFalgon Islam
- Tecnotion UF Series SpecsheetUploaded byElectromate
- endsemUploaded byAyush53
- Fixed head piles.pdfUploaded byPhani Kanth Vedula
- Mandate - Mechanical Engineering CFDHUploaded byYoga Pratama
- Pump mixerUploaded byPrashant Malve
- 261480699-API-571-Damage-Mechanism-Table.xlsxUploaded byRio_xxx
- TPS 4000 5000Uploaded byMohamedAbdelkader
- TM-5-3810-306-24P Grove 40 Tons Parts ManualUploaded byJoffre Lautaro Benavides Seminario
- Thermodynamics WorksheetUploaded bySusmita Sen
- Code Case 2901Uploaded bybapug98
- priyaUploaded byArun Pandiyan
- Waterjet CuttingUploaded byRomly Mech
- Earthquake DesignUploaded byPeter Jean-jacques
- Welding Consumable and Storage ProcedureUploaded byhasan_676489616
- Trebuchet PhysicsUploaded byLeo Kuts
- Matto de ComprosorUploaded byErick Salas Sanchez
- broschyr-l23_l29_rsUploaded bySergiSerrano
- Carbody Rail Vehicle DynamicsUploaded byPrashantha Raju
- Hc Verma Solutions 2Uploaded byM.ADITYA ANULEKH
- Rothoblaas.hbs .Technical Data Sheets.enUploaded byAndrei Gheorghica
- 2 ScienceUploaded bynageshk23
- Lecture 3Uploaded byMae Lyn Flores
- Experiment Steam TurbineUploaded byAnonymous f2j14F

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.