Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (1) : 149-164     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-018-0482-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Computational studies on the seismic response of the State Route 99 bridge in Seattle with SMA/ECC plastic hinges
Jiping GE1,2(), M. Saiid SAIIDI2, Sebastian VARELA3
1. School of Urban Construction and Safety Engineering, Shanghai Institute of Technology, Shanghai 201418, China
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA
3. Structural Engineering Group, Freese and Nichols Inc., Fort Worth, TX 76109, USA
Download: PDF(3285 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

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.

Keywords seismic design      analytical simulation      near-fault earthquakes      shape memory alloy      engineered cementitious composite      self-centering     
Corresponding Authors: Jiping GE   
Online First Date: 21 May 2018    Issue Date: 04 January 2019
 Cite this article:   
Jiping GE,M. Saiid SAIIDI,Sebastian VARELA. Computational studies on the seismic response of the State Route 99 bridge in Seattle with SMA/ECC plastic hinges[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(1): 149-164.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-018-0482-6
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2019/V13/I1/149
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Jiping GE
M. Saiid SAIIDI
Sebastian VARELA
Fig.1  SR99 bridge elevation
Fig.2  Details of SR99 bridge substructure: (a) Pier elevation; (b) SMA/ECC plastic hinge cross section at the top of the column; (c) Typical CIP cross-section for the rest of the column
Fig.3  Global view of the bridge model
Fig.4  Fiber section of the columns
Material Property Units Value
"Concrete02" Properties used for Unconfined ECC Compressive strength, fcc ksi [MPa] ?4.25 [30.51]
Strain at peak stress, ?cc % ?0.48
Tensile strength, fcu ksi [MPa] ?0.85 [?5.86]
Ultimate strain, ?cu % ?2.4
"Concrete02" Properties used for Confined ECC Compressive strength, fcc ksi [MPa] ?6.65 [?45.85]
Strain at peak stress, ?cc % ?0.5
Crushing strength, fcu ksi [MPa] ?2.73 [?18.82]
Ultimate strain, ?cu % ?2.0
Tensile strength, fct ksi [MPa] 0.058 [0.4]
Tension softening stiffness, Ets ksi [MPa] 4.5 [31.03]
"ReinforcingSteel" Properties for Mild Steel Bars Yield strength, fy ksi [MPa] 70 [482.6]
Tensile strength, fu ksi [MPa] 100 [689.5]
Young’s modulus, Es ksi [MPa] 29,000 [200,000]
Tangent at initial strain hardening, Esh ksi [MPa] 696 [4897.8]
Strain corresponding to initial strain hardening, ? sh % 1.2
Rupture strain, ?ult % 11
"SelfCentering" Properties for SMA Reinforcement Austenite modulus, k1 ksi [MPa] 5,000 [34,474]
Post yield modulus, k2 ksi [MPa] 300 [2,068]
Austenite yield strength, f y ksi [MPa] 60 [414]
Ratio of forward to reverse transformation stress, b / 0.45
Super-elastic plateau strain, ?r % 6
Secondary post-yield stiffness ratio, α / 0.34
Rupture strain, ?u % 10
Tab.1  Material properties for SMA and RC columns
Fig.5  Comparison among response and target design spectra: (a) design ground motions, and (b) strong ground motions
Motion level Motion Station Peak ground acceleration (g) Peak ground velocity (in/s) [cm/s] Joyner-Boore Distance,(mi) [km]
Design Tabas Tabas, FN 0.325 16.28 [41.4] 1.24 (2)
Chi Chi TCU052 0.387 24.34 [61.8] 0.43 (0.7)
Pacioma Dam Downstream, FN 0.375 20.74 [52.7] 4.35 (7)
Strong Rinaldi Receiving Station, 228 FN 0.825 34.45 [87.5] 4.66 (7.5)
Kobe Takatori, FN 0.682 26.0 [66.0] 2.67 (4.3)
Tab.2  Ground motion properties
Fig.6  Comparison of cyclic hysteresis curves for the column models: (a) moment versus drift, and (b) reinforcing stress versus strain at a control fiber
Mode Free (s) Restrained (s)
1 1.21 0.96
2 0.57 0.27
3 0.25 0.17
4 0.17 0.1
Tab.3  Vibration periods for two different shear key configurations
Motion PGA(g) Model No shear keys With shear keys
Peak drift (%) Residual drift (%) Peak drift (%) Residual drift (%)
Tabas 0.325 SMA-ECC 4.89 0.00 2.22 0.00
RC 4.25 0.00 1.90 0.00
Chi Chi 0.387 SMA-ECC 5.45 0.23 2.54 0.10
RC 4.88 0.49 2.31 0.10
Pacoima Dam 0.375 SMA-ECC 5.27 0.00 2.48 0.00
RC 4.67 0.00 2.27 0.00
Rinaldi 0.825 SMA-ECC 6.93 0.32 5.93 0.00
RC 6.63 1.92 5.56 0.00
Kobe 0.682 SMA-ECC 7.53 0.04 7.30 0.13
RC 6.51 0.44 6.85 0.63
Tab.4  Peak and residual drifts for earthquake ground motions along the transverse direction
Fig.7  Calculated moment-drift relationships in transverse seismic response under design earthquakes: (a) Tabas, (b) Chi Chi, (c) Northridge Pacoima Dam, (d) Northridge Rinaldi, (e) Kobe
Fig.8  Stress vs. strain history of rebar at extreme tensile edge: (a) Tabas, (b) Chi Chi, (c) Northridge Pacoima Dam, (d) Northridge Rinaldi, (e) Kobe
Motion PGA (g) Model Max. Strain Max. Stress
Tabas 0.325 RC 0.009 70 ksi (482 MPa)
SMA-ECC 0.013 60 ksi (413 MPa)
Chi Chi 0.387 RC 0.022 76 ksi (524 MPa)
SMA-ECC 0.033 66 ksi (455 MPa)
Pacoima Dam 0.375 RC 0.018 74 ksi (510 MPa)
SMA-ECC 0.027 64 ksi (441 MPa)
Rinaldi 0.825 RC 0.043 87 ksi (599 MPa)
SMA-ECC 0.054 73 ksi (503 MPa)
Kobe 0.682 RC 0.047 89 ksi (613 MPa)
SMA-ECC 0.055 73 ksi (503 MPa)
Tab.5  Stress vs. strain for full design ground motions in the transverse direction
Motion PGA (g) Model Peak drift (%) Residual drift (%)
Tabas 0.325 SMA-ECC 9.99 0.04
RC 10.03 0.09
Chi Chi 0.387 SMA-ECC 10.01 0.62
RC 10.00 2.43
Pacoima Dam 0.375 SMA-ECC 10.01 0.18
RC 9.97 0.72
Rinaldi 0.825 SMA-ECC 9.98 0.01
RC 9.98 0.48
Kobe 0.682 SMA-ECC 10.02 0.18
RC 10.00 1.25
Tab.6  Peak and residual drift for extreme earthquake motions in the transverse direction
Fig.9  Moment-drift hysteresis curves of the column in transverse seismic response under extreme earthquakes: (a) Tabas, (b) Chi Chi, (c)Northridge Pacoima Dam, (d) Northridge Rinaldi, (e) Kobe
Fig.10  Stress vs. strain history of steel and SMA reinforcement control fibers at extreme tensile edge: (a) Tabas, (b) Chi Chi, (c) Northridge Pacoima Dam, (d) Northridge Rinaldi, (e) Kobe
Motion PGA (g) Model Max. Strain Max. Stress
Tabas 0.325 SMA-ECC 0.079 107ksi (737 MPa)
RC 0.075 94 ksi (648 MPa)
Chi Chi 0.387 SMA-ECC 0.079 106 ksi (730 MPa)
RC 0.067 93 ksi (641 MPa)
Pacoima
Dam
0.375 SMA-ECC 0.074 98 ksi (675 MPa)
RC 0.075 93 ksi (641 MPa)
Rinaldi 0.825 SMA-ECC 0.087 120 ksi (827 MPa)
RC 0.078 95 ksi (655 MPa)
Kobe 0.682 SMA-ECC 0.085 116 ksi (799 MPa)
RC 0.075 93 ksi (641 MPa)
Tab.7  Stress vs. strain when extreme ground motions in the transverse direction
Fig.11  Calculated moment-drift hysteresis of Pier 3 for ground motions in the longitudinal direction: (a) Tabas, (b) Chi Chi, (c) Northridge Pacoima Dam, (d) Northridge Rinaldi, (e) Kobe
Fig.12  Drift response histories of the Pier 3 for ground motions in the longitudinal direction: (a) Tabas, (b) Chi Chi, (c) Northridge Pacoima Dam, (d) Northridge Rinaldi, (e) Kobe
Motion PGA (g) Model Peak drift (%) Residual drift (%)
Tabas 0.325 SMA-ECC 1.70 0.11
RC 1.54 0.11
Chi Chi 0.387 SMA-ECC 2.17 0.38
RC 1.87 0.35
Pacoima Dam 0.375 SMA-ECC 2.08 0.33
RC 1.73 0.26
Rinaldi 0.825 SMA-ECC 6.64 0.40
RC 6.22 1.65
Kobe 0.682 SMA-ECC 5.29 0.09
RC 4.47 0.58
Tab.8  Results for full amplitude ground motions in the longitudinal direction
1 KKawashima, G Macrae, JHoshikuma, KNagaya. Residual displacement response spectrum. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1998, 124(5): 523–530
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:5(523)
2 C ACruz Noguez. Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies of a Four-Span Bridge System with Innovative Materials. Dissertation for PhD degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2010
3 SVarela, M Saiidi. A bridge column with superelastic NiTi SMA and replaceable rubber hinge for earthquake damage mitigation. Smart Materials and Structures, 2016, 25(7): 075012
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/25/7/075012
4 SVarela. Resilient Earthquake-resistant Bridges Designed for Disassembly. Dissertation for PhD degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2016
5 V CLi. On engineered cementitious composites (ECC): a review of the material and its applications. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 2003, 1(3): 215–230
https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.1.215
6 C ACruz Noguez, M SSaiidi. Shake-table studies of a four-span bridge model with advanced materials. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012, 138(2): 183–192
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000457
7 C ACruz Noguez, MSaiidi. Performance of advanced materials during earthquake loading tests of a bridge system. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2013, 139(1): 144–154
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000611
8 RDesRoches, M Delemont. Seismic retrofit of simply supported bridges using shape memory alloys. Engineering Structures, 2002, 24(3): 325–332
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00098-0
9 HWang. A Study of RC Columns with Shape-memory-alloy and Engineered Cementitious Composites. Dissertation for PhD degree. University of Nevada, Reno, 2004
10 MSaiidi, H Wang. An exploratory study of seismic response of concrete columns with shape memory alloys reinforcement. ACI Structural Journal, 2006, 103(3): 436–443
11 MSaiidi, M O’Brien, MSadrossadat-Zadeh. Cyclic response of concrete bridge columns using superelastic nitinol and bendable concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 2009, 106(1): 69–77
12 SVarela, M Saiidi. Dynamic performance of novel bridge columns with superelastic CuAlMn shape memory alloy and ECC. International Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2014, 2(3): 29–58
13 SVarela, M Saiidi. Resilient deconstructible columns for accelerated bridge construction in seismically active areas. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2017, 28(13): 1751–1774
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X16679285
14 SVarela, M Saiidi. Experimental study on seismically resilient two-span bridge models designed for disassembly. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2017,
15 MTazarv, M Saiidi. Analytical studies of the seismic performance of a full scale SMA reinforced bridge column. International Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2013, 1: 37–50
16 A MBillah, M S Alam. Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloy. Earthquake Spectra, 2015, 31(3): 1515–1541
https://doi.org/10.1193/112512EQS337M
17 A MBillah, M S Alam. 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): 04016140
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001458
18 A MBillah, M S Alam. Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete bridge piers. II: Methodology and design example. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(12): 04016141
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001623
19 BShrestha, H Hao. Parametric study of seismic performance of super-elastic shape memory alloy-reinforced bridge piers. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2016, 12(9): 1076–1089
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1076856
20 BNakashoji, M Saiidi. Seismic Performance of Square Nickel-titanium Reinforced ECC Columns with Headed Couplers. Dissertation for Master’s degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2014
21 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (7th Edition with 2016 and 2016 interim revisions), Washington, DC, 2014
22 FMcKenna, G Fenves, MScott. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2000
23 CChadwell. XTRACT: A Tool for Axial Force- Ultimate Curvature Interactions. Version 3.0.9, Single User, Educational, TRC, 2011
24 MTazarv, M Saiidi. Reinforcing NiTi superelastic SMA for concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2015, 141(8): 04014197
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001176
25 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (2st Edition), Washington, DC, 2011
26 AMohebbi. Seismic Response of a Highway Bridge with Structural Fuses for Seismic Protection of Piers. Dissertation for Master’s degree. Reno: University of Nevada, 2013
27 Caltrans. Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), version 1.6. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 2010
28 NWehbe, M Saiidi, DSanders. Seismic performance of rectangular bridge columns with moderate confinement. ACI Structural Journal, 1999, 96(2): 248–258
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Said CHOUCHA, Amar BENYAHIA, Mohamed GHRICI, Mohamed Said MANSOUR. Effect of natural pozzolan content on the properties of engineered cementitious composites as repair material[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 261-269.
[2] Navid RAHGOZAR, Nima RAHGOZAR, Abdolreza S. MOGHADAM. Probabilistic safety assessment of self-centering steel braced frame[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(1): 163-182.
[3] Abhilasha MAURYA,Matthew R. EATHERTON. Experimental study of the restoring force mechanism in the self-centering beam (SCB)[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 272-282.
[4] Chung-Che CHOU,Ping-Ting CHUNG,Tsung-Han WU,Alexis Rafael Ovalle BEATO. Validation of a steel dual-core self-centering brace (DC-SCB) for seismic resistance: from brace member to one-story one-bay braced frame tests[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 303-311.
[5] Patricia M. CLAYTON,Daniel M. DOWDEN,Chao-Hsien LI,Jeffrey W. BERMAN,Michel BRUNEAU,Laura N. LOWES,Keh-Chuan TSAI. Self-centering steel plate shear walls for improving seismic resilience[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 283-290.
[6] Roberto T. LEON,Yu GAO. Resiliency of steel and composite structures[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(3): 239-253.
[7] S. HASHEMI,H. AHMADIAN,S. MOHAMMADI. An extended thermo-mechanically coupled algorithm for simulation of superelasticity and shape memory effect in shape memory alloys[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(4): 466-477.
[8] Jun WU,Xuemei LIU. Performance of soft-hard-soft (SHS) cement based composite subjected to blast loading with consideration of interface properties[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(3): 323-340.
[9] Fadzli M. NAZRI, Pang Yew KEN. Seismic performance of moment resisting steel frame subjected to earthquake excitations[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 19-25.
[10] Adeel ZAFAR, Bassem ANDRAWES. Experimental flexural behavior of SMA-FRP reinforced concrete beam[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2013, 7(4): 341-355.
[11] Xiaoqun LUO, Hanbin GE, Tsutomu USAMI. Temperature effects of shape memory alloys (SMAs) in damage control design of steel portal frames[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(4): 348-357.
[12] Yan XU, Shide HU. Seismic design of high-rise towers for cable-stayed bridges under strong earthquakes[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(4): 451-457.
[13] Xiaoqun LUO, Hanbin GE, Tsutomu USAMI, . Parametric study on damage control design of SMA dampers in frame-typed steel piers[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(4): 384-394.
[14] ZHANG Guojun, LIU Jianxin, LU Xilin. Displacement-based seismic design of high-strength concrete frame columns[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2008, 2(1): 93-101.
[15] FAN Lichu. Life cycle and performance based seismic design of major bridges in China[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(3): 261-266.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed