Ground Motion Duration Effects on Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 140, Issue 3
Abstract
This study examined seismic behavior under long-duration ground motion in flexural-dominated reinforced concrete bridge columns designed per modern seismic design codes. Two column specimens with identical design parameters were tested. The first column (named CLC) was tested using a long-duration loading protocol developed to represent the number of response cycles expected under long-duration ground motions. The second column (named COC) was tested using a baseline loading protocol with one cycle for each drift loading to obtain baseline behavior for comparison with the behavior of the CLC column. Test results showed that the CLC column had a similar peak strength but a lower ductility capacity compared with the COC column. When drift was 3% or less, the columns showed a similar hysteretic envelop response. However, degradation of stiffness was greater in the CLC column. When drift exceeded 3%, the CLC column started to show greater strength degradation. The relationship between the damage index and damage condition was established. Experimental observations of hysteretic behavior in the two columns revealed that strength degradation is related to maximum displacement and energy dissipation. Stiffness degradation is related to energy dissipation,whereas pinching is related to maximum displacement. The experimental results were used to construct a hysteretic model, which was calibrated with experimental data obtained for the columns under one set of hysteretic parameters. The proposed hysteretic model was used to carry out constant- and constant-ductility analyses. The constant- analysis results showed that ductility demand is not necessarily higher during long-duration ground motions than during short-duration ground motions. Ductility demand obtained by the proposed model is generally higher than that obtained by the modified Clough model. The difference between the two models increases as the duration of ground motion and factor increase and as the period decreases. Constant-ductility plots show that the difference in the ductility factor between the two models is generally within 10% under short-duration ground motions. Under the long-duration ground motions, the ductility factor obtained by the proposed model is up to 20% higher than that in the modified Clough model.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the financial support from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States (research contract number DTFH61-C--00012 to the University at Buffalo), from the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States (research grant number CMMI 1138585 to the University at Buffalo), and from the National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) of Taiwan. Professor Yu-Chi Sung and Dr. Kuang-Yen Liu are commended for their valuable discussions.
References
Arias, A. (1970). “A measure of earthquake intensity.” Seismic design for nuclear power plants, R. Hansen, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 438–483.
ASTM. (1985). “Standard practices for cycle counting in fatigue analysis.” E1049-85, Conshohocken, PA.
Baber, T. T., and Noori, M. N. (1985). “Random vibration of degrading, pinching systems.” J. Eng. Mech., 1010–1026.
Bojórquez, E., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2006). “Influence of ground motion duration on degrading SDOF systems.” Proc., First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 1–9.
California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans). (2003). “Bridge design specification.” Sacramento, CA.
Chung, S. T., and Loh, C. H. (2002). “Identification and verification of seismic demand from different hysteretic models.” J. Earthquake Eng., 6(3), 331–355.
Dhakal, R. P., and Maekawa, K. (2002). “Path-dependent cyclic stress–strain relationship of reinforcing bar including buckling.” Eng. Struct., 24(11), 1383–1396.
Foliente, G. C. (1993). “Stochastic dynamic response of wood structural systems.” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Hancock, J., et al. (2006). “An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets.” J. Earthquake Eng., 10(1), 67–89.
Hancock, J., and Bommer, J. J. (2007). “Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 27(4), 291–299.
Hung, H. H., Wang, P. H., Yin, Y. L., Wang, J. C., and Chang, K. C. (2012). “Large-scale cyclic loading test on a multi-spiral stirrup bridge pier constructed by automated method.” Proc., 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–10.
Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., and Cosenza, E. (2006). “Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 35(1), 21–38.
Kunnath, S. K., El-Bahy, A., Taylor, A. W., and Stone, W. C. (1997). “Cumulative seismic damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers.”, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
Mahin, S. A., and Lin, J. (1984). “Construction of inelastic response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom systems: Computer program and applications.” Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 1804–1826.
Ministry of Transportation, and Communications (MOTC). (2009). “Seismic bridge design specifications.” Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Montejo, L. A., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2008). “Estimation of frequency-dependent strong motion duration via wavelets and its influence on nonlinear seismic response.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 23(4), 253–264.
Oyarzo-Vera, C., and Chouw, N. (2008). “Effect of earthquake duration and sequences of ground motions on structural responses.” Proc., 10th Int. Symp. on Structural Engineering for Young Experts, Hunan University, Changsha, China.
Park, Y.-J., Ang, A. H. S., and Wen, Y. K. (1985). “Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings.” J. Struct. Eng., 740–757.
Sivaselvan, M. V., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2000). “Hysteretic model for deteriorating inelastic structures.” J. Eng. Mech., 633–640.
Thyagarajan, R. S., and Iwan, W. D. (1990). “Performance characteristics of a widely used hysteretic model in structural dynamics.” Proc. of the Fourth U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), El Cerrito, CA, 177–186.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 140 • Issue 3 • March 2014
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 31, 2012
Accepted: Apr 23, 2013
Published online: Apr 25, 2013
Published in print: Mar 1, 2014
Discussion open until: Apr 1, 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.