Steel and Composite Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Investigation of earthquake angle effect on the seismic performance of steel bridges

  • Altunisik, Ahmet C. (Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University) ;
  • Kalkan, Ebru (Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University)
  • Received : 2016.06.30
  • Accepted : 2016.11.02
  • Published : 2016.11.20
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, it is aimed to evaluate the earthquake angle influence on the seismic performance of steel highway bridges. Upper-deck steel highway bridge, which has arch type load bearing system with a total length of 216 m, has been selected as an application and analyzed using finite element methods. The bridge is subjected to 1992 Erzincan earthquake ground motion components in nineteen directions whose values range between 0 to 90 degrees, with an increment of 5 degrees. The seismic weight is calculated using full dead load plus 30% of live load. The variation of maximum displacements in each directions and internal forces such as axial forces, shear forces and bending moments for bridge arch and deck are attained to determine the earthquake angle influence on the seismic performance. The results show that angle of seismic input motion considerably influences the response of the bridge. It is seen that maximum arch displacements are obtained at X, Y and Z direction for $0^{\circ}$, $65^{\circ}$ and $5^{\circ}$, respectively. The results are changed considerably with the different earthquake angle. The maximum differences are calculated as 57.06%, 114.4% and 55.71% for X, Y and Z directions, respectively. The maximum axial forces, shear forces and bending moments are obtained for bridge arch at $90^{\circ}$, $5^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, respectively. The maximum differences are calculated as 49.12%, 37.37% and 51.50%, respectively. The maximum shear forces and bending moments are obtained for bridge deck at $0^{\circ}$. The maximum differences are calculated as 49.67%, and 49.15%, respectively. It is seen from the study that the variation of earthquake angle effect the structural performance of highway bridges considerably. But, there is not any specific earthquake angle of incidence for each structures or members which increases the value of internal forces of all structural members together. Each member gets its maximum value of in a specific angle of incidence.

Keywords

References

  1. Altunisik, A.C., Bayraktar, A., Sevim, B. and Ozdemir, H. (2011), "Experimental and analytical system identification of Eynel arch type steel highway bridge", J. Construct. Steel Res., 67(12), 1912-1921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.06.008
  2. Athanatopoulou, A.M. (2004), "Critical orientation of three correlated seismic", Eng. Struct., 27(2), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.011
  3. Armouti, N.S. (2002), "Transverse earthquake-induced forces in continuous bridges", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 14(6), 733-738. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2002.14.6.733
  4. Atak, B., Avsar, O. and Yakut, A. (2014), "Directional effect of the strong ground motion on the seismic behavior of skewed bridges", Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, Porto, Portugal, June-July.
  5. Ates, S., Soyluk, K., Dumanoglu, A.A. and Bayraktar, A. (2009), "Earthquake response of isolated cablestayed bridges under spatially varying ground motions", Struct. Eng. Mech., Int. J., 31(6), 639-662. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2009.31.6.639
  6. Bortoli, M.D., Zareian, F. and Shantz, T. (2014), "Significance of ground motion incidence angle in seismic design of bridges", Proceedings of National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.
  7. Chopra, A.K. and Chintanapakdee, C. (2001), "Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and farfault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30(12), 1769-1789. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.92
  8. Cronin, K.J. (2007), "Response sensitivity of highway bridges to random multi-component earthquake excitation", Master Thesis; University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
  9. Eurocode (2004), "EN 1998-1-Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. [Authority: The European Union Per Regulation 305/2011. Directive 98/34/EC. Directive 2004/18/EC]
  10. FEMA, Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000), FEMA368-NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures; Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington. D.C., USA.
  11. Fukumoto, Y. and Takewaki, I. (2015), "Critical earthquake input energy to connected building structures using impulse input", Earthq. Struct., 9(6), 1133-1152. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.6.1133
  12. Gao, X.A., Zhou, X.Y. and Wang, L. (2004), "Multi-component seismic analysis for irregular structures", Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1156, 1-6.
  13. Gonzalez, P. (1992), "Considering earthquake direction on seismic analysis", Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ISNB: 9054100605
  14. Kostinakis, K.G. and Athanatopoulou, A.M. (2015), "Evaluation of scalar structure-specific ground motion intensity measures for seismic response prediction of earthquake resistant 3D buildings", Earthq. Struct., 9(5), 1091-1114. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.5.1091
  15. Hernandez, J.J. and Lopez, O.A. (2002), "Response to three-component seismic motion of arbitrary direction", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.95
  16. Liang, Z. and Lee, G.C. (2003), "Principal axes of m-dof structures Part II: Dynamic loading", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 2(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857537
  17. Lopez, O.A. and Torres, R. (1997), "The critical angle of seismic incidence and the maximum structural response", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(9), 881-894. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199709)26:9<881::AID-EQE674>3.0.CO;2-R
  18. Mohraz, B. and Tiv, M. (1994), "Orientation of earthquake ground motion in computing response of structures", Seismic Engineering, Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp. 195-202.
  19. Newton, B. (2014), "Understanding directionality concepts in seismic analysis", Memo to Designers, 20-17.
  20. Ni, Y., Chen, J., Teng, H. and Jiang, H. (2015), "Influence of earthquake input angle on seismic response of curved girder bridge", J. Traffic Transport. Eng., 2(4), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2015.05.003
  21. PEER (2016), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre. URL: http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/data
  22. Prokon (2007), Prokon Engineering and Consultancy Inc., Ankara, Turkey.
  23. Quadri, S.A. and Madhuri, M.N. (2014), "Investigation of the critical direction of seismic force for the analysis of rcc frames", Int. J. Civil Eng. Technol., 5(6), 10-15.
  24. SAP2000 (2015), Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA, USA.
  25. Sevim, B. (2013), "Assessment of 3D earthquake response of the Arhavi Highway Tunnel considering soilstructure interaction", Comput. Concrete, Int. J., 11(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2013.11.1.051
  26. Song, B., Pan, J.S. and Liu, Q. (2008), "The study on critical angle to the seismic response of curved bridges based on pushover method", Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, China, October.
  27. TERDC, Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code (2007), Specifications for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas; Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Earthquake Research Department, Ankara, Turkey. URL: http://www.deprem.gov.tr
  28. Torbol, M. and Shinozuka, M. (2012), "Effect of the angle of seismic incidence on the fragility curves of bridges", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 41(14), 2111-2124. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2197

Cited by

  1. In-situ test and dynamic response of a double-deck tied-arch bridge vol.27, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.27.2.161
  2. Finite element model calibration of a steel railway bridge via ambient vibration test vol.27, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.27.3.327
  3. Research on static and dynamic behaviors of PC track beam for straddle monorail transit system vol.31, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2019.31.5.437
  4. Seismic analysis of high-rise steel frame building considering irregularities in plan and elevation vol.39, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.39.1.065
  5. Effects of Seismic Incident Directionality on Ground Motion Characteristics and Responses of a Single-Mass Bi-Degree-of-Freedom System vol.21, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219455421501194
  6. Effect of incident directionality on seismic responses and bearing capacity of OLF1000 vol.242, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112542
  7. Cyclic performance of different mitigation strategies proposed for segmental precast bridge piers vol.36, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.020