KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research (대한토목학회논문집)

Korean Society of Civil Engeneers (대한토목학회)
권호 표지

Applicability of Improved Modal Pushover Analysis in Seismic Performance Assessment of Multi-Span Continuous Bridges

연속 교량 구조물의 지진성능 평가를 위한 개선된 모드별 비탄성 정적 해석방법의 적용성 연구

Kwak, Hyo-Gyoung;Shin, Dong-Kyu
곽효경;신동규

  • Published : 20070700

⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the previous study, a simple but effective analysis procedure, named as an Improved Modal Pushover Analysis (IMPA) was proposed to estimate the seismic capacities of multi-span continuous bridge structures, on the basis of the modal pushover analysis which considers all the dynamic modes of a structure. Differently from other previous studies, IMPA maintains the simplicity of the capacity-demand curve method and also gives a better estimation of the maximum dynamic response of a structure. Nevertheless, its applicability has never been approved for multi-span continuous bridges with large differences in the length of their adjacent piers. This paper, accordingly, concentrates on a parametric study to verify the efficiency and limitation in application of IMPA through a correlation study between various analytical models including the Equivalent Single Degree Of Freedom (ESDOF) and Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) usually used in the seismic design of structures. Based on the obtained numerical results, this paper introduces a practical guidance and/or limitation for using IMPA to predict the seismic response of a bridge effectively.

Keywords

References

  1. 건설교통부(2000) 도로교 설계기준. 한국도로교통협회
  2. 곽효경, 홍성진, 김영상(2006) 다경간 연속 교량 구조물의 지진 응답 평가를 위한 개선된 모드별 비탄성 정적 해석법에 관한 연구, 대한토목학회논문집, 대한토목학회, 제26권 제3A호, pp. 497-512
  3. 송종걸(2004) 역량스펙트럼 방법을 이용한 다자유도 교량의 비탄성 지진응답 평가, 대한토목학회논문집, 대한토목학회, 제24권 제3A호, pp. 541-550
  4. 남영우, 강병두, 전대한, 김재웅(2005) 이중골조에 대한 비선형 약산법들의 응답특성, 한국전산구조공학회 봄 학술발표회 논문집, 한국전산구조공학회
  5. Krawinkler, H. and Seneviratna, G.D.P.X. (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation, Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, pp. 452-464 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8
  6. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismicdemands for buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 561-582 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144
  7. Usanmi, T., Lu, Z., Ge, H., and Kono, T. (2004) Seismic performance evaluation of steel arch bridges against majorearthquakes. Part 1: Dynamic analysis approach, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, pp. 1337-1354 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.407
  8. Usanmi, T., Lu Z., Ge, H., and Kono, T. (2004) Seismic performance evaluation of steel arch bridges against major earthquakes. Part 2: Simplified verification procedure, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, pp. 1355-1372 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.406
  9. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (1999) Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF systems, Pacific Earthquake Research Center, University of California, Report No.PEER-1999/02, Berkeley
  10. Miranda, E. and Bertero, V.V. (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earth quake-resistant design, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, pp. 357-379 https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585778
  11. Nassar, A.A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991) Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 95, Stanford University, CA
  12. Usami, T., Zheng, Y., and Ge, H. (2001) Seismicdesign method for thin-walled steel frame structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 137-144 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:2(137)
  13. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, pp. 903-927 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380
  14. Gupta, A. and Krawinkler, H. (2000) Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 1287-1305 https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9845(200009)29:9<1287::AID-EQE971>3.0.CO;2-B
  15. Elnashai, A.S. (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 51-69 https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2001.12.1.051
  16. Lawson, R.S., Vance, V., and Krawinkler, H. (1994) Nonlinear static pushover analysis-why, when and how?, Prodeedings of the 5th U.S. Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 283-292
  17. Elnashai, A.S. (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 51-69 https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2001.12.1.051
  18. Chopra, A.K. (2001) Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
  19. Nickell, R.E. (1976) Nonlinear dynamics by mode superposition, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 7, pp. 107-129 https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(76)90008-6
  20. Zheng, Y., Usanmi, T., and Ge, H. (2003) Seismic response prediction of multi-span bridges through pushover analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32, pp. 1259-1274 https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.272
  21. Kunde, M.C. and Jangid, R.S. (2006) Effects of pier and deck flexibility on the seismic response of isolated bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE
  22. Applied Technology Council, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Report ATC 40, November, 1996
  23. Applied Technology Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273; and NHERP commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 274. October, 1997