Rocking philosophy has advantages to maintain a preferable post-earthquake serviceability as an alternative of seismic resistant systems. This article presents an experimental study on the seismic behavior of a rocking bridge with freestanding columns capped with a freely supported deck. A 1/10 scaled, single-span double-column freestanding bridge was constructed and tested on a shaking table. The experimental results showed that the bridge model could undergo large rocking with enough stability under earthquakes and presented excellent post-earthquake resilience after earthquakes with limited damage and negligible residual displacement. The rocking bridge model also exhibited expected isolation efficiency, which increases as the level of excitations becomes more severe. In addition, an analytical model based on multi-block rocking mechanisms was used to calculate the displacement response. Compared with the experimental results, this analytical model well predicts the peak displacement of the rocking bridge model.
ChengCT (2008) Shaking table tests of a self-centering designed bridge substructure. Engineering Structures30(12): 3426–3433.
2.
CormackLG (1987) The design and construction of major bridges on the Mangaweka rail deviation. In: IPENZ annual conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 10–14 May, pp. 1–14. Wellington, New Zealand: Institution of Professional Engineers of New Zealand.
3.
DimitrakopoulosEGParaskevaTS (2015) Dimensionless fragility curves for rocking response to near-fault excitations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics44(12): 2015–2033.
4.
DowdellDHamersleyB (2000) Lions’ gate bridge north approach: seismic retrofit. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas: STESSA 2000, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–24 August, pp. 319–326. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
5.
HanQDuXLiuJ, et al. (2009) Seismic damage of highway bridges during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration8(2): 263–273.
6.
HanQJiaZXuK, et al. (2019) Hysteretic behavior investigation of self-centering double-column rocking piers for seismic resilience. Engineering Structures188: 218–232.
7.
InghamTRodriguezSNadarM, et al. (1995) Seismic retrofit of the golden gate bridge. In: Proceedings of the national seismic conference on bridges and highways: progress in research and practice, San Francisco, CA, 10–13 December 1995. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
8.
JiaHLanXZhengS, et al. (2019) Assessment on required separation length between adjacent bridge segments to avoid pounding. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering120: 398–407.
9.
JonesMHollowayLToanV, et al. (1997) Seismic retrofit of the 1927 Carquinez Bridge by a displacement capacity approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd national seismic conference on bridges and highways: progress in research and practice, Sacramento, CA, 8–11 July. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
10.
JTG/T (2008) Guideline for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. Beijing, China: Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China.
11.
LiXZhangDYanW, et al. (2014) Shake-table test for a typical curved bridge: wave passage and local site effects. Journal of Bridge Engineering20: 04014061.
12.
MakrisNVassiliouMF (2013) Planar rocking response and stability analysis of an array of free-standing columns capped with a freely supported rigid beam. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(3): 431–449.
13.
ManderJChengC (1997) Seismic resistance of bridge piers based on damage avoidance design. Technical Report No. NCEER-97-0014. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo.
14.
MarriottDPampaninSPalermoA (2009) Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge piers with external replaceable dissipaters. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics38(3): 331–354.
15.
MarriottDPampaninSPalermoA (2011) Biaxial testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge piers with external replacable dissipaters. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics40(15): 1723–1741.
16.
MathWorks (1992) MATLAB User’s Guide. Natick, MA: MathWorks, Inc.
17.
PalermoAPampaninSCalviGM (2005) Concept and development of hybrid solutions for seismic resistant bridge systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering9(6): 899–921.
18.
PalermoAPampaninSMarriottD (2007) Design, modeling, and experimental response of seismic resistant bridge piers with posttensioned dissipating connections. Journal of Structural Engineering133: 1648–1661.
19.
PruczZConwayWBSchadeJE, et al. (1997) Seismic retrofit concepts and details for long-span steel bridges. In: Proceedings of the 2nd national seismic conference on bridges and highways: progress in research and practice, Sacramento, CA, 8–11 July. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
20.
SchexnayderCAlarcónLAntilloE, et al. (2014) Observations on bridge performance during the Chilean earthquake of 2010. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management140: B4013001.
21.
SolbergKMashikoNManderJ, et al. (2009) Performance of a damage-protected highway bridge pier subjected to bidirectional earthquake attack. Journal of Structural Engineering135: 469–478.
22.
WangPZhaoMDuX (2019) Simplified formula for earthquake-induced hydrodynamic pressure on round-ended and rectangular cylinders surrounded by water. Journal of Engineering Mechanics145(2): 04018137.
23.
WhiteSPalermoA (2016) Quasi-static testing of posttensioned nonemulative column-footing connections for bridge piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering21: 04016025.
