This paper presents a study about the spatial variability effects of ground motion and Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction (SPSI) on the dynamic response of a long bridge. The Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motion (SVEGM) is simulated by SIMQKE-II record generator. Target response spectrum and power spectral density function used in the simulation are determined depending on the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake. To evaluate the effect of SPSI, the soil surrounding the pile foundation is modelled by frequency- independent springs and dashpots in the horizontal and rotational directions. The effect of soil-pile mass is considered by lumped-mass soil-pile model. A new analytical model is proposed to study the effect of both SVEGM and SPSI on dynamic response of long bridges. The study reveals that the effect of both SVEGM and SPSI in the dynamic analysis and design should be considered simultaneously. A comparison between the results, based on the new suggested model and those given for other similar studies shows that the model could be applicable in calculation of dynamic response of long bridges. Considering the effect of soil-pile contributed mass along with the stiffness and damping is result in applying a model similar to a real soil-pile-structure system. It can simulate the real dynamic behavior of substructure more exactly.
Abdel RahimSE, HayashikawaT, DorkaU. Ground motion spatial variability effects on seismic response control of cable- stayed bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 2011;10:37.
2.
AdanurS, AltunisikAC, SoylukK, BayraktarA. Multiple-support seismic response of Bosporus Suspension Bridge for various random vibration method. Case Studies in Structural Engineering. 2016;5:54–67.
3.
ApaydinNM, BasS, HarmandarE. Response of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge under spatially varying multi-point earthquake excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2016;84:44–54.
4.
DavoodiM, JafariMK, SadreddiniA. Effect of Multi-Support Excitation on Seismic Response of Embankment Dams. International Journal of Civil Engineering. 2013;11(1):19–28.
5.
Falamarz-SheikhabadiMR, ZervaA. Analytical seismic assessment of a tall long- span curved reinforced- concrete bridge. Part II: Structural response. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2016;20:1–30.
6.
LiB, ChouwN. Experimental investigation of inelastic response under spatially varying excitations with pounding. Engineering Structures. 2014;79:106–16.
7.
QingshanY, SaiidiMS, HangW, ItaniA. Influence of earthquake ground motion incoherency on multi- support structures. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 2002;1:167–80.
8.
DeziF, CarbonariS, TombariA, LeoniG. Soil structure interaction in the seismic response of an isolated three span motorway overcrossing founded on piles. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2012;41:151–63.
9.
ErhanS, DicleliM. Effect of dynamic soil- bridge interaction modeling assumptions on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2014;66:42–55.
10.
GhotbiAR. Performance- based seismic assessment of skewed bridges with and without considering soil- foundation interaction effects for various site classes. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 2014;13:357–73.
11.
KapposAJ, ManolisGD, MoschonasIF. Seismic assessment and design of R/C bridges with irregular configuration, including SSI effect. Engineering Structures. 2002;24:1337–48.
12.
SaadeghvaziriMA, Yazdani-MotlaghAR, RashidiS. Effects of soil-structure interaction on longitudinal seismic response of MSSS bridges. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2000;20:231–42.
13.
ShirgirV, GhanbariA, ShahrouziM. Natural frequency of single pier bridges considering soil-structure interaction. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2016;20:611–32.
14.
ChouwN, HaoH. Significance of SSI and nonuniform near-fault ground motions in brige response I: Effect on response with conventional expansion joint. Engineering Structures. 2008;30:141–53.
15.
ChouwN, HaoH. Significance of SSI and nonuniform near-fault ground motions in brige response II: Effect on response with modular expansion joint. Engineering Structures. 2008;30:154–62.
16.
SoylukK, SicacikEA. Soil-structure interaction analysis of cable-stayed bridges for spatially varying ground motion components. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2012;35:80–90.
17.
BiK, HaoH, ChouwN. Influence of ground motion spatial variation, site condition and SSI on the required separation distances of bridge structures to avoid seismic pounding. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2011;40:1027–43.
18.
LeeS, FengMQ, KwonS-J, HongS-H. Equivalent modal damping of short-span bridges subjected to strong motion. Journal of Bridge Engineering. 2011;16(2):16–23.
19.
PachecoG. Dynamic lateral response of single piles considering soil inertia contribution. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico, 2007.
20.
NovakM. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 1974;11:574–98.
ChapraSC, CanaleRP. Numerical methods for engineers with programming and software applications, WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1998.
23.
GazetasG. Foundation vibrations, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.
24.
RahmaniA, TaiebatM, FinnWDL, VenturaCE. Evaluation of substructuring method for seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of bridges. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2016;90:112–27.
25.
HoseiniSS, GhanbariA, DavoodiM. Evaluation of long bridges dynamic responses under the effect of spatially varying earthquake ground motion. 2017;13:25–42.
26.
FanK, GazetasG, KaynisA, KauselE, AhmadS. Kinematic Seismic response of single piles and pile groups. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1991;117:1860–79.
27.
MakrisN, BadoniD, DelisE, GazetasG. Prediction of observed bridge response with soil-pile-structure interaction. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1994;120:2992–3011.
28.
DattaTK. Seismic analysis of structures, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clementi Loop, 02-01, Singapore, 2010.
29.
TongaonkarN, JangidR. Seismic response of isolated bridges with soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 2003;23:287–302.
30.
ScottB, ParkR, PriestleyM. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. Journal of American Concrete Institute. 1982;97(1):13–27.
31.
AASHTO, LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA; 2012.
32.
SeedH, IdrissI. Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Technical report EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley; 1970.
33.
SunJ, GolesorkhiR, SeedH. Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for cohesive soils. Technical report EERC 88-15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley; 1988.
34.
EduPro Civil Systems Inc. ProShake, version 1.12. Sammamish,
Washington 〈 http://www.proshake.com 〉; 2003.
35.
VanmarckeEH, FentonGA, ZavoniEH. SIMQKE-II, conditioned earthquake ground motion simulator: user’s manual, version 2.1. National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering (U.S), Princeton University, (https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=SIMQKE2). 1999.
