BRIDGE PERFORMANCE: Benchmarking the Performance of California Bridges
description
Transcript of BRIDGE PERFORMANCE: Benchmarking the Performance of California Bridges
BRIDGE PERFORMANCE:
Benchmarking the Performance of California BridgesBozidar StojadinovicKevin MackieJohn-Michael WongAdy AviramVesna Terzic
University of California, Berkeley
PEER Bridge Performance ProgramFocus on:
Monolithic reinforced concrete construction New rather than older construction detailing
Representative of typical: Over-crossingsViaductsInterchanges
Also…Ground motions and their use in analysis and designSoil-foundation interactionSimulation of complex bridge systemsTransportation networks
OutlinePerformance benchmarking for a baseline testbed bridge suite is donePracticing bridge engineers can use our work: Hazard modeling Non-linear bridge models Fragility curves PEER frameworkRational uses of new technologies for bridges are devised and evaluated
PEER Testbed Bridges5-span RC overpasses (Ketchum, 2004)
Type 1 Type 11
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Inte
nsit
y M
easu
re (
IM)
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Variable (DV)Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Model
Damage Model
Demand Model
Hazard Model
0 . 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Distance (km )
4
5
6
7
8
Magn
itude
0 . 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Distance (km )
4
5
6
7
8
Magn
itude
Select and scale ground motions
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Inte
nsit
y M
easu
re (
IM)
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Variable (DV)Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Model
Damage Model
Demand Model
Hazard Model
CL
Do non-linear time-history
analyses
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Inte
nsit
y M
easu
re (
IM)
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Variable (DV)Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Model
Damage Model
Demand Model
Hazard Model Performance(damage)
states
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Inte
nsit
y M
easu
re (
IM)
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP)
Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Variable (DV)Dam
age
Mea
sure
(D
M)
discrete
continuous
Decision Model
Damage Model
Demand Model
Hazard Model DeathsDollars
Down-time
Outcome: Repair cost ratio
fragility curves
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Demand Model
Sa(T1)=1g
The Practice of Hazard Modeling
175 worldwide earthquakes>10,000 corrected records with detailed descriptorsEstimate ground motion intensity and uncertainty of the estimateGround motion scaling rules
Next-Generation Attenuation Relationshttp://peer.berkeley.edu/nga
1 10 100Horizontal Distance to Fault (km)
10-2
10-1
100
Acc
eler
atio
n (g
)
PGA
Campbell & Bozorgnia (2003)Campbell & Bozorgnia (Prelim NGA)
PARAMETERS: M = 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0 Fault = Strike Slip Dip = 90 Vs30 = 600 (C)
0 . 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Distance (km )
4
5
6
7
8
Magn
itude
0 . 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Distance (km )
4
5
6
7
8
Magn
itude
Old DataNew Data
The Practice of Bridge Modeling
Core
Foundation
Deck
Column
Abutment
Modular OpenSees model
The Practice of Bridge ModelingUsing SAP 2000
NL Option Pushover Analysis
(Static 2D)
45o Pushover (Static 3D)
THA-L,V or T,V components
(Dynamic 2D)
THA-L,T,V components
(Dynamic 3D)Uncoupled Hinge M2,M3
X*
Interaction PMM Hinge
X* X*
Fiber PMM Hinge X* X* X* X*NL-link- Plastic Wen X* X*NL-link- Multi-Linear Plastic
X* X*
Displacement Time History- Longitudinal
-10
-7.5
-5
-2.5
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
t- Time (sec)
D- C
ol to
p di
spla
cem
ent (
in)
OS-NLSAP-WenSAP-FiberSAP-MLP
The Practice of Damage EvaluationPEER Structural Performance Databasehttp://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/index.html
Type 1
Type 11
The Practice of Decision Support
DS1: CrackingInject cracks (200 LF)Repair minor spalls (10 SF)
DS3: Bar BucklingInject cracks (200 LF)Repair minor spalls (236 SF)Steel column casing (50 LF)Bridge bar reinforcement (1562 KG)
DS2: SpallingInject cracks (200 LF)Repair minor spalls (94 SF)
DS4: FailureReplace column (6728 SF)
Column Damage States
$ 13 SFRefinish bridge deckQ13$ 200 CYRemove and replace approach roadwayQ12$ 30 SFRemove and replace approach slabQ11$ 2,000 EAReplace abutment shear keyQ10$ 1,000 LFReplace abutment back wallQ9$ 3,000 EAReplace elastomeric bearingQ8$ 900 LFReplace joint seal assembliesQ7$ 90 LFReplace joint sealsQ6$ 2 KGBridge bar reinforcementQ5$ 2,000 LFSteel column casingQ4$ 100 SFRepair minor spallsQ3$ 80 LFInject cracks with epoxyQ2$ 120 SFReplace columnQ1
Unit Cost
UnitRepair Item DescriptionItem No.
$ 13 SFRefinish bridge deckQ13$ 200 CYRemove and replace approach roadwayQ12$ 30 SFRemove and replace approach slabQ11$ 2,000 EAReplace abutment shear keyQ10$ 1,000 LFReplace abutment back wallQ9$ 3,000 EAReplace elastomeric bearingQ8$ 900 LFReplace joint seal assembliesQ7$ 90 LFReplace joint sealsQ6$ 2 KGBridge bar reinforcementQ5$ 2,000 LFSteel column casingQ4$ 100 SFRepair minor spallsQ3$ 80 LFInject cracks with epoxyQ2$ 120 SFReplace columnQ1
Unit Cost
UnitRepair Item DescriptionItem No.
Damage StatesRepair Quantities
Repair Costs
Performance Groups and EDPsColumns
Tangential drift ratio SRSS
Expansion JointsLong. abutment displacement
BearingsBearing displacement
Back WallsBack wall displacement
Shear KeysShear key force
Approach SlabsVertical abutment settlement
Deck SegmentsDepth of spalling
ColumnsTangential drift ratio SRSS
Performance Groups and EDPsColumns
Tangential drift ratio SRSS
Expansion JointsLong. abutment displacement
BearingsBearing displacement
Back WallsBack wall displacement
Shear KeysShear key force
Approach SlabsVertical abutment settlement
Deck SegmentsDepth of spalling
ColumnsTangential drift ratio SRSS
Performance Groups
Matlab tool:Given:
Demand, damage, loss models (with uncertainties)
Numerous assumptions
integrate the PEER integralEasy visualization of results
Decision fragility Decision hazard
A Practical Implementation
Advances: Non-linear SFS Models
Coupled Soil-Foundation-Structure modelEffects of liquefaction and lateral spreading
UCB+UW team
Advances: Enhancing Performance Rational use of new
technologies:Re-centering columns Tendons Isolators
New high-performance materials: HPFRCC
Modular construction Precast, prestressed elements
0.00.51.01.52.02.5
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04Tensile Strain
Tens
ile S
tres
s (M
Pa)
HPFRCC
Mortar FRC
Advances: Regional Traffic Networks
RegionalShake Map
Bridge Fragility Curves
Regional TrafficNetwork Assessment
ConclusionPerformance benchmarking for a baseline testbed bridge suite is donePracticing bridge engineers can use our work: Hazard modeling Non-linear bridge models Fragility curves PEER framework
Rational uses of new technologies for bridges are devised and evaluated
Attend Bridge breakout sessions to learn more!
Thank You! HazardHazard
DemandDemand
DamageDamage
LossLoss
For more information:[email protected]@mail.ucf.edu
This research was sponsored in part by NSF EERC program grant EEC-9701568 as PEER Project 209/213