PERFORMANCE STUDY FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE

BRIDGE PIERS CONSIDERING SEISMIC CAPACITY

AND DEMAND

Presented by: Sasithorn THAMMARAK (st109957)

16th May 2011
 Introduction

• It is obvious that earthquake phenomenon is possible

to happen in Thailand.
• Evaluation of existing buildings and bridges is needed.
• Capacity spectrum method(CSM) is considered.
BTS, Bangkok
BTS, Bangkok
Nimitz Freeway, San Francisco
 Develop structural model Select 5% damping ground
motion spectrum

Modify structural model for

flexible base (soil effect)
Capacity
Spectrum
Select static load vector Method
(CSM)
Generate global force-deformation Modify spectrum according to
curve (push-over curve) soil-structural interactive (FA, FV)

Convert force-deformation curve to Convert the spectrum to

equivalent SDOF model (ADRS format) ADRS format

Determine equation for effective damping

Determine equation for effective period

Select solution procedure (A,B or C)

and calculate performance point
 Performance Point
2.5CA

2.5SRACA
Spectral Acceleration (g)

CV /T
ap, dp

ay, dy api, dpi

SRVCV /T

Spectral Displacement
 Assumptions
• Uniform multiple
spans simply
supported on uniform
pier columns.
• Each bent is stand-
alone model, only
transverse responses
are investigated.
• Effects of soil are
considered in terms of
demand spectra.
APPLICATION I SINGLE COLUMN BENT
 Model of single column bents
Six columns with similar material properties but are
different in cross section.

No buckling

Solid section Hollow section

9 meters Area = 4.5 m2

15 meters ρs = 1.7%
25 meters Ties = 4x4 DB16
 Material Property
- Concrete : ACI318-08
Compressive strength 35 Mpa
Ec 4700

- Reinforcement ; TIS24-2548
Reinforcing steel grade SD30 SD40 SD50
Minimum tensile strength (MPa) 480 560 620
Minimum yield strength (MPa) 295 390 490
Elongation (%) 17 15 13

Confinement
Main Rebar
Structural Modeling
 Application I Result
3000000

Energy
µΔ (KN-m)
9m

4.31 1337
Base Shear (KN)

2000000

3.91 1053
15m
3.81 1956
1000000 3.19 1564
25m
3.54 2867

3.00 2246
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Roof Deflection (mm)

 PGA vs. Roof Displacement
Sung et al. (2006)
ATC-40 (1996) + Japan Road Association (2001) +
Building Technology Standards (Taiwan) (1997)
Performance of a particular structure under a particular
earthquake and site can be directly obtained.
Linear relation while nonlinear analysis is applied?
Higher PGA?

PGA-displacement relationship
 Rock site response spectrum

Response Spectra (ADRS format) : Soil Type B

(Rock)
2.00
1.80 Case 0.1 g

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.60 Case 0.2 g
1.40 Case 0.3 g
1.20 Case 0.4 g
1.00 Case 0.5 g
0.80 Case 0.6 g
0.60 Case 0.7 g
0.40 T1
0.20 T2
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
CALTRANS, 2006 Spectral Displacement (mm)

ATC-40, SAP2000

Original acceleration spectrum Converted demand spectra

(ADRS)
 PGA vs. Roof displacement
0.7
9m 15m 25m

0.6

0.5
PGA (g)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Roof Deflection (mm)

For the single column bent, almost linear shape

Hollow piers are stiffer = better performance
 Part I concluding remarks

• Hollow piers provide better ductility and absorb

more energy.
• The shapes of PGA vs. roof displacement curves are
almost linear, though the analysis is based on the
nonlinear analysis.
APPLICATION II
DOUBLE-DECK BRIDGE PIER
Double-deck Bridges in Bangkok
Pushover load patterns

Mwafy and Elnashai (2000)

 Pushover load patterns
• Structures with irregular geometry, higher mode effects may
be critical on some structural components than the
fundamental mode.

• Other load patterns (e.g. uniform) rather than 1st mode

pattern (i.e. triangle) should be employed.
 PGA vs. Roof Displacement
Sung et al. (2006)
Performance of a particular structure under a particular
earthquake and site can be directly obtained.
Linear relation while nonlinear analysis is applied.
Irregular structure?
Does soil affect the result?

PGA-displacement relationship
 Case studies

S_1 S_2
1K : 1K 1K : 4K
Uniform Stiffness Non-Uniform Stiffness
Structure Structure
f’c = 35 MPa
fy = 490 MPa
fyh = 390 MPa
Double-deck cross sections

Section 3x1.25 m2
ρs = 1.27%
ρh = 0.75%

Section 3x2 m2
ρs = 1.26%
ρh = 0.71%
 Loads

Triangular load pattern Uniform load pattern

 Soil Condition

• Rock Soil

• Soft Soil
Model of double-deck bridge pier
 Pushover curves

20000000

18000000

16000000

14000000
Base Shear (K N)

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Roof Deflection (mm)

 Regular Pier
PGA vs. 0.7

0.6
Rock site
Roof displacement 0.5

PGA (g)
0.4
Soft soil site
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Roof Displacement (mm)

Irregular Pier
0.7
Rock site
0.6

PGA(g)(g) 0.5

0.4
PGA

0.3
Soft soil site
0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Roof Displacement (mm)

 Regular Pier
PGA vs. 0.7

0.6 Rock site

Base Shear 0.5

(g)
PGA (g)
0.4

PGA
0.3

0.2

0.1
Soft soil site
0
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000

Base Shear (KN)

Irregular Pier
0.7

0.6
Rock site
(g)
PGA (g) 0.5

0.4
PGA

0.3

0.2

0.1
Soft soil site
0
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000

Base
BaseShear
Shear(KN)
(KN)
 Irregular Structure

Base Shear

ATC-40 procedure un-conservative

Irregular Structure

Higher mode effect

Not considered by ATC-40

Further analysis for higher

mode is important
 Member forces
Fr

Mt1
Vt
F1 Mt2

Mb1
Vb
Mb2

Applied loads Shear Diagram Moment Diagram

 Uniform Structure

Vtop -14%
Vbottom 3% KN

Mtop1 -13%
Uniform Load
Mtop2 -16% Triangular Load

Mbottom1 4%
Mbottom2 2%
KN-m
0 20000 40000 60000 80000

Triangular pattern governed the responses of the regular

structures. Therefore ATC-40 is adequate.
 Non-Uniform Structure

Vtop -20%
Vbottom 17% KN

Mtop1 -19%
Uniform Load
Mtop2 -21% Triangular Load

Mbottom1 18%

Mbottom2 17%
KN-m
0 20000 40000 60000 80000

For irregular structures, the responses should be computed

from the more conservative results
Thesis Conclusion and Recommendations

• Hollow pier provides better performance in terms of

stiffness and ductility.

• The ATC-40 structural evaluation method is

appropriate for considering maximum displacement,
but it is not adequate for estimating forces or base
shear response for the irregular structural geometry.
• Higher mode effect is important for analyzing base
shear.
Thank You