Computational studies on the seismic response of the State Route 99 bridge in Seattle with SMA/ECC plastic hinges
- 36 Downloads
This paper reports a computational study on the seismic response of a three-span highway bridge system incorporating conventional and novel substructure details for improved seismic performance. The bridge has three continuous spans supported by two single-column piers and integral abutments founded on drilled shafts. It will be the first full-scale highway bridge to use superelastic shape memory alloy bars (SMA) and engineered cementitious composite (ECC) to mitigate column plastic hinge damage and minimize residual displacements after a strong earthquake. A three-dimensional computational model capturing the nonlinear constitutive response of the novel materials and the effects of dynamic soil-structure interaction was developed to assess the seismic response of the bridge in finite-element software OpenSees. Two versions of the same bridge were analyzed and compared, one with conventional cast-in-place reinforced concrete columns, and the other with top plastic hinges incorporating Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) SMA reinforcing bars and ECC. The novel SMA/ECC plastic hinges were found to substantially reduce damage and post-earthquake residual displacements in the bridge substructure, but led to larger maximum drifts relative to the bridge with conventional reinforced concrete plastic hinges. The analysis results suggested that the novel plastic hinges could lead to improved post-earthquake serviceability of bridges after intense earthquakes.
Keywordsseismic design analytical simulation near-fault earthquakes shape memory alloy engineered cementitious composite self-centering
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This research was funded by the Washington Department of Transportation (WashDOT) contract number GCB1341 through a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program on Innovative Bridge Research and Deployment (IBRD). However, the material and opinions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of WashDOT or FHWA. Invaluable comments from Dr. Bijan Khaleghi and Mr. Jed Bingle of WashDOT were received. Additional funding was provided by Federal Highway Administration under Contract No. DTFH61-07-C-00031. The support of Dr. Philip Yen of FHWA is appreciated. The first author acknowledges the support provided by Shanghai Municipal Education Commission and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Research Grant No. 51408360 during his stay at University of Nevada, Reno. The third author acknowledges Freese and Nichols, Inc. for providing partial sponsorship for his work in this article.
- 2.Cruz Noguez C A. Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies of a Four-Span Bridge System with Innovative Materials. Dissertation for PhD degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2010Google Scholar
- 4.Varela S. Resilient Earthquake-resistant Bridges Designed for Disassembly. Dissertation for PhD degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2016Google Scholar
- 9.Wang H. A Study of RC Columns with Shape-memory-alloy and Engineered Cementitious Composites. Dissertation for PhD degree. University of Nevada, Reno, 2004Google Scholar
- 10.Saiidi M, Wang H. An exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 2006, 103(3): 436–443Google Scholar
- 11.Saiidi M, O’Brien M, Sadrossadat-Zadeh M. Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 2009, 106(1): 69–77Google Scholar
- 12.Varela S, Saiidi M. Dynamic performance of novel bridge columns with superelastic CuAlMn shape memory alloy and ECC. International Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2014, 2(3): 29–58Google Scholar
- 14.Varela S, Saiidi M. Experimental study on seismically resilient twospan bridge models designed for disassembly. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017. 1309724Google Scholar
- 15.Tazarv M, Saiidi M. Analytical studies of the seismic performance of a full scale SMA reinforced bridge column. International Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2013, 1: 37–50Google Scholar
- 17.Billah A M, Alam M S. Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete bridge piers. I: Development of performance-based damage states. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(12): 04016140Google Scholar
- 18.Billah A M, Alam M S. Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete bridge piers. II: Methodology and design example. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142 (12): 04016141Google Scholar
- 20.Nakashoji B, Saiidi M. Seismic Performance of Square Nickeltitanium Reinforced ECC Columns with Headed Couplers. Dissertation for Master’s degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2014Google Scholar
- 21.American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (7th Edition with 2016 and 2016 interim revisions), Washington, DC, 2014Google Scholar
- 22.McKenna F, Fenves G, Scott M. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000Google Scholar
- 23.Chadwell C. XTRACT: A Tool for Axial Force- Ultimate Curvature Interactions. Version 3.0.9, Single User, Educational, TRC, 2011Google Scholar
- 25.American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (2st Edition), Washington, DC, 2011Google Scholar
- 26.Mohebbi A. Seismic Response of a Highway Bridge with Structural Fuses for Seismic Protection of Piers. Dissertation for Master’s degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2013Google Scholar
- 27.Caltrans. Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), version 1.6. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 2010Google Scholar
- 28.Wehbe N, Saiidi M, Sanders D. Seismic performance of rectangular bridge columns with moderate confinement. ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96(2): 248–258Google Scholar