NEW STRUCTURE OF PIERS OF RIGID FRAME BRIDGE USING SEISMIC RESPONSE CONTROL DEVICE Hiroaki Okamoto1 Hiroyuki Nagumo2

Satoshi Matsuki3 Abstract A seismic response control method that applies damping devices to piers of rigid frame bridge is proposed. Longer natural period due to the replacement of a pier with four slender concrete columns and damping devices between them results in reduction of response acceleration. In this method, since seismic control devices are incorporated in longitudinal and transverse direction, response control can be expected in both directions. A reduction of construction costs can be expected by application of control devices because it is possible to reduce the amount of concrete and rebar in pier, make foundation scale small and decrease earthquake-proof reinforcement of superstructure. In this paper, the outline of proposed seismic response control structure and results of examination of structural feasibility and seismic safety are reported. Introduction Securing structural safety for strong earthquake is indispensable in the design of the bridge based on the specifications after Kobe Earthquake. One of alternatives for this demand is to mitigate seismic force by applying seismic isolation bearings. However, bearings are not always advantageous in terms of maintenance and the cost. Consequently the continuous rigid frame bridges are often adopted. This paper reports a study on the structure that can absorb earthquake energy with long natural period by making the pier slender and with application of dampers. Proposed Seismic Response Control Bridge Proposed seismic response control bridge (Control Bridge) has plural reinforced concrete columns which are connected with steel truss. Control devices are incorporated so that they can absorb earthquake energy through their relative displacement in vertical direction (Fig.1). The steel dampers (Photograph.1) are used as control devices. They are steel dampers which are superior in durability and reliability. Control devices are installed from the bottom to the top of the pier.
1 2

Group Leader, Civil Engineering Design Division, Kajima Corporation, Tokyo Chief Engineer, Civil Engineering Design Division, Kajima Corporation, Tokyo 3 Senior Engineer, Civil Engineering Design Division, Kajima Corporation, Tokyo

Concrete Column A Pier Steel Damper Steel Truss

(Conventional Bridge)

(Control Bridge)

Fig.1 Concept of Seismic Response Control Bridge

Photo.1 Steel Damper Feature of the Seismic Response Control Bridge Features of Control Bridge are shown below. (1) Absorption of earthquake energy Steel Damper absorbs earthquake energy by virtue of a plastic deformation of steel that has a low yield stress (Table.1). Since this bridge incorporates dampers in both longitudinal and transverse directions, the structure can control seismic force in both directions.

Table.1 Mechanical Property of Steel used for Damper

(2) Decrease of the response acceleration due to change in natural period It is recognized that casualties in earthquake would be more serious when natural period of structure coincides with peak period of the earthquake motion. It is effective to let natural period longer and avoid the coincidence of the period in order to secure seismic safety. Response acceleration during earthquake will be greatly decreased in Control Bridge because pier structure is not rigid. (3) Reduction of an execution cost and simplification of maintenance A reduction of construction costs can be expected by application of control devices because it is possible to reduce the amount of concrete and rebar in pier, make foundation scale small and decrease earthquake-proof reinforcement of superstructure of a concrete. Furthermore, a steel damper is comparatively reasonable material, and can keep its initial mechanical property after six times of huge earthquakes. Thus, restoration cost for casualty in earthquake is reasonable as compared to conventional bridge. Investigation on the feasibility and seismic safety (1) Purpose of the investigation Feasibility and seismic safety of Control Bridge are examined in a series of bridge structural design in this chapter. (2) Method of the investigation Conventional prestressed concrete 3-span continuous rigid frame bridge is investigated in this study. Replacing pier with control bridge structure shown in Fig.1 is examined. In order to confirm feasibility of the control bridge structure, serviceability of the bridge is investigated considering change in structure from erection period to completion and influence of creep and shrinkage, and seismic safety is investigated for big earthquake. In addition, seismic control effect is investigated by comparing results of earthquake response analyses for conventional bridge and Control Bridge. (3) Condition of the investigation (a) Example bridge for investigation Conventional bridge, used as an example bridge of investigation, is shown in Fig.2.

Longitudinal section

Cross section (Girder) Mid-span Pier top

Cross section (Pier)

Fig.2 General View of Example Bridge (b) Analytical model Fig. 3 shows the analytical model. It is a whole bridge model and is the 3-D frame model with mass on each node. As for boundary condition, horizontal roller is applied at the end of the girder and soil spring elements are applied at the bottom of piers.
Girder Pier

1) Conventional Bridge

2) Control Bridge Fig.3 Analytical Model

(c) Material property Table.2 shows the material property. Since compressive stress of concrete in pier of the control bridge is big, high strength concrete is necessary and then high strength rebar is applied for the pier. Table.2 Material Property
Material Concrete Reinforcing Bar Steel Truss Steel Damper Prestressing Cable Member Pier Girder Pier Pier Pier Girder Strength, Type Control Bridge f'ck70N/mm2 f'ck40N/mm2 SD490
STK400=300mmt=16mm

Conventional Bridge f'ck24N/mm2 f'ck40N/mm2 SD345 SWPR7B 12S12.7

TypeL, 3 teeth SWPR7B 12S12.7

(d) Nonlinear property of reinforced concrete Pier members are modeled as nonlinear beam elements because reinforced concrete of pier is expected to be plastic during earthquake in nonlinear dynamic analysis. A skeleton curve of this nonlinear element is modeled as a tri-linear curve which considers crack in concrete, yielding of reinforcing bar. Takeda model is used for hysteresis model and kinematic hardening model is used for hardening. Reinforced concrete section of pier in Control Bridge is shown in Fig.4.
Steel D

Fig.4 Reinforced Concrete Section of Pier (Control Bridge) (e) Modeling of the steel damper Force-deformation in shear of steel damper is modeled by tri-linear skeleton curve. Kinematic hardening model is used for hardening. Elasto-plastic property of steel damper is shown in Fig.5.
K1 K2 K3 Q1 Q2 (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN/mm) (kN) (kN) 176.4 17.6 0.9 114.9 183.6

Fig.5 Elasto-plastic Property of Steel Damper

(f) Input earthquake motion Level2-Type2 earthquake motion shown in Specifications for highway bridges partV; seismic design[2] is used as an input earthquake motion. Time-history of acceleration is shown in Fig.6.
Max-812.02gal (5.53sec) 1000 ACC (gal) 500 0 -500 -1000 0 5 10 15 T ime(sec) 20 25 30

Fig.6 Acceleration Time-history of Input Earthquake Motion (g) Damping Coefficient Equivalent damping coefficient set for each structural element based on Specifications for highway bridges partV; seismic design[2] is shown in table -3. Rayleigh damping coefficient calculated by mode damping is used in dynamic analysis. Table.3 Equivalent Damping Coefficient
Element Superstructure Pier(RC) Damper Rigid Member Steel Pipe Soil Spring Damping Coefficient 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.30

(4) Results of investigation (a) Results of investigation for feasibility 1) Reinforced concrete column It is confirmed that stresses at service load are within allowable stress. Structural safety of reinforced concrete column for flexure and shear is confirmed by checking sectional forces during big earthquake if they are within strength of section. Stresses of concrete and reinforcing bar at service load and allowable stresses are shown in Table.4.

Table.4 Stresses of Concrete and Reinforcing Bar at Service Load

2) Main girder It is verified that stresses of main girder at service load are within allowable stress and structural behavior during big earthquake is within elastic range. Bending stresses of concrete in main girder are shown in Fig.7.
20
Top of section (Conventional Bridge) Bottom of section (Conventional Bridge) Top of section (Control Bridge) Bottom of section (Control Bridge) Allowable stress

15
2

(N/mm Stress

) 10 5 0 0 -5 m 50 100 150 200

250

a) At the Time Service is Started

15 (N/mm2) Stress

10

Top of section (Conventional Bridge) Bottom of section (Conventional Bridge) Top of section (Control Bridge) Bottom of section (Control Bridge) Allowable stress

0 0 -5 m 50 100 150 200 250

b) At the Time Creep Deformations Finished Fig.7 Stresses of Concrete in Main Girder 3) Steel truss The followings are confirmed based on Specifications for highway bridges partII;

steel bridge[1]. a) Structural safety check of the steel pipe member under bending and axial force b) Structural safety check of the steel pipe member under axial and shear force Flexural safety of steel truss at live load is confirmed as shown in Fig.8.

Member Node-I 204 208 205 209 206 210 214 211 215 212 216 213 Node-J 208 205 209 206 210 207 211 215 212 216 213 217

Axial Force (kN) Node-I 262 121 195 32 391 258 262 385 10 182 131 283 Node-J 882 -1,492 2,702 -1,521 1,623 -858 -853 1,523 -2,670 1,570 -1,590 900

Bending Moment (kNm) Node-I -58 32 27 -22 123 -44 -94 78 -46 45 74 4 Node-J -20 15 40 -9 84 -26 -53 48 6 27 48 11

Stress (N/mm2) Node-I -21 21 21 -10 78 -14 -40 54 -24 30 43 12 Node-J 21 -45 116 -58 100 -43 -57 78 -90 69 -30 37

Allowable Stress (N/mm2) 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

Fig.8 Stress Check in Steel Truss 4) Steel damper Structural safety of steel dampers is evaluated by calculating Miners fatigue damage ratio (D). Results of calculation of the ratio for top, middle and bottom steel dampers are shown in Table.5. Safety of dampers are confirmed by assuring 1/D are bigger than 2. Table.5 Fatigue Damage Ratio of Steel Dampers
Steel Damper Top Middle Bottom Fatigue Damage Ratio(D) 0.135 0.355 0.132 1/D 7.43 2.81 7.55

(b) Results of investigation for seismic safety Comparison between conventional bridge and Control Bridge is shown in Table.6. 1) Response acceleration Maximum horizontal response acceleration at mid-span is 975.48gal in conventional bridge and 159.40gal in Control Bridge. Control Bridge shows remarkable decrease in acceleration due to its longer natural period.

Table.6 Comparison of the Result of Analyses

Conventional Bridge

Acc. gal

10

15

20

25

30 (sec)

Acc. gal

Response Acceleration

10 3 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0

Max 159.40 gal (7.2sec

10 3 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0

Max -975.48 gal (5.6sec

Mid-span
Disp. cm Disp. cm

10

15

20

25

30 (sec)

Response Displacement

Mid-span

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30

Max -27.87 cm (7.3sec

10

15

20

25

30 (sec)

30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30

Max -16.77 cm (5.7sec

10

15

20

25

30 (sec)

Moment(kNm MomentkNm

10 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 104 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 5

Moment(kNm MomentkNm

Time-history and hysteretic loop of bending moment in plastic hinge

Max 9 941 kNm (6.3sec)

Max -9 945 kNm (6.3sec)

105 5.0 2.5 0.0 -2.5 -5.0 5 10 5.0 2.5 0.0 -2.5 -5.0

Max -247 544 kNm (8.1sec)

Max -268 948 kNm (5.3sec)

10

15

20

25

30 (sec)

10

15

20

25

30 (sec)

Moment
N

Moment
N 200000

Above
Top of pier

8000

4000

100000

Below
Bottom of pier

-4000

-100000

-8000 0.0028 0.0014 0.0 -0.0014 -0.0028

-200000

0.0016

0.0008

Rotation (rad) Moment

Rotation (rad)

0.0

-0.0008

-0.0016

Moment
N 240000

4000

120000

-4000

-120000

-8000 0.0028 0.0014 0.0 -0.0014 -0.0028

-240000

0.0016

0.0008

Rotation (rad)

Rotation (rad)

0.0

-0.0008

-0.0016

2) Response displacement Maximum horizontal response displacement at mid-span is 16.77cm in conventional bridge and 27.87cm in Control Bridge. Displacement in Control Bridge is greater than conventional bridge, but it is less than displacement that may result in structural failure during earthquake. 3) Response bending moment at plastic hinge Maximum bending moments at top and bottom plastic hinge are 247544kNm, 268948kNm in conventional bridge and 9941kNm, 9945kNm in Control Bridge. Bending moment is greatly decreased in Control Bridge. 4) Response history of plastic hinge Larger plasticity is observed in conventional bridge than Control Bridge. As a result, energy absorption at plastic hinge is larger in conventional bridge. Since high-strength concrete is used in Control Bridge due to compressive stress in concrete at dead load, earthquake energy is absorbed not at plastic hinge but at steel damper. Conclusion In this paper, a seismic response control method that applies steel dampers to piers of rigid frame bridge was proposed. Feasibility and seismic safety of proposed seismic response control bridge structure were confirmed for prestressed concrete continuous rigid frame bridge whose maximum span is 120m and pier height is approximately 20m. Feasibility of proposed seismic response control bridge was verified through a series of bridge structural design procedure. Seismic safety of proposed bridge was examined in dynamic analysis so that damping effect of steel damper can be reflected in results. Remarkable decrease in response acceleration and resulting decrease in sectional force were observed. A reduction of construction costs can be expected by application of this method because it is possible to reduce the amount of concrete and rebar in pier, make foundation scale small and decrease earthquake-proof reinforcement of superstructure. References [1] Japan Road Association: Design Specifications for Highway Bridges partII; Steel Bridge, 2002.3 [2] Japan Road Association: Design Specifications for Highway Bridges partV; Seismic Design, 2002.3