Investigation of DSSI Effects on the Dynamic Response of an Overpass Bridge through the Use of Mobile Shakers and Numerical Simulations
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 27, Issue 5
Abstract
A fixed base is generally assumed in various dynamic response analyses and the design of bridges. However, soil–foundation flexibility and energy absorption and radiation by the soil system can alter the response of bridges to dynamic loads. This interaction between the structure, foundation, and soil, which in some cases may even change the dynamic load transmitted through the ground, is, in general, referred to as dynamic soil–structure interaction (DSSI). DSSI can either have detrimental or beneficial effects on a bridge response, particularly forces and displacements. These effects depend on several factors such as the rigidity ratio (ratio of the stiffness of the structure to the same of the soil–foundation system), slenderness ratio (height of the structure to the base width ratio), the foundation type, and the mass of the structure relative to the mass of the engaged soil–foundation system. In this paper, the dynamic characteristics of an actual bridge are inferred via an experimental study and numerical simulations. The research concentrated on the evaluation of the significance of DSSI effects under operational live load levels. The bridge was shaken using T-Rex, a large-amplitude mobile shaker from the National Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI) facilities. Two finite-element models were created to assess the DSSI effects on the dynamic response of the bridge. One model included elements that incorporate the DSSI effects, while the other had fixed-base boundary conditions. The response from the DSSI FEM model matched the field results better than that from the fixed-base model, in terms of the peak response amplitudes and identified natural frequencies and modes. In addition, the model incorporating the DSSI effects led to a reduction in stress levels in various bridge components, compared with that of the fixed-base model. The results of this study are applicable to bridges with similar features and site conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1650170. Large mobile shakers from NHERI@UTexas, a shared-use equipment facility supported by the US National Science Foundation Grant CMMI-1520808 under the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI) program, were used in this research. We gratefully acknowledge this support. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
References
Anastasopoulos, I., R. Kourkoulis, F. Gelagoti, and E. Papadopoulos. 2012. “Rocking response of SDOF systems on shallow improved sand: An experimental study.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 40: 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.006.
Anastasopoulos, I., L. Sakellariadis, and A. Agalianos. 2015. “Seismic analysis of motorway bridges accounting for key structural components and nonlinear soil–structure interaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 78: 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.06.016.
Antonellis, G., and M. Panagiotou. 2014. “Seismic response of bridges with rocking foundations compared to fixed-base bridges at a near-fault site.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (5): 04014007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000570.
Bao, Y., G. Ye, B. Ye, and F. Zhang. 2012. “Seismic evaluation of soil–foundation–superstructure system considering geometry and material nonlinearities of both soils and structures.” Soils Found. 52 (2): 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2012.02.005.
Brownjohn, J. M. W., M. Bocciolone, A. Curami, M. Falco, and A. Zasso. 1994. “Humber bridge full-scale measurement campaigns 1990–1991.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 52: 185–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(94)90047-7.
Carbonari, S., M. Morici, F. Dezi, and G. Leoni. 2018. “A lumped parameter model for time-domain inertial soil–structure interaction analysis of structures on pile foundations.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 47 (11): 2147–2171. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3060.
Chaudhary, M. T. A. 2017. “Seismic response of bridges supported on shallow rock foundations considering SSI and pier column inelasticity.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21 (1): 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0352-5.
Chaudhary, M. T. A., M. Abé, and Y. Fujino. 2001. “Identification of soil–structure interaction effect in base-isolated bridges from earthquake records.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 21 (8): 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00042-2.
Deng, L., B. L. Kutter, and S. K. Kunnath. 2012. “Centrifuge modeling of bridge systems designed for rocking foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (3): 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000605.
Doménech, A., M. D. Martínez-Rodrigo, A. Romero, and P. Galvín. 2016. “On the basic phenomenon of soil–structure interaction on the free vibration response of beams: Application to railway bridges.” Eng. Struct. 125: 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.052.
Erhan, S., and M. Dicleli. 2014. “Effect of dynamic soil–bridge interaction modeling assumptions on the calculated seismic response of integral bridges.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 66: 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.033.
Farrag, S., N. Gucunski, B. Cox, F. Menq, F. Moon, and J. DeVitis. 2019. “Assessing the significance of dynamic soil–structure interaction by using large-amplitude mobile shakers.” In Proc., Geo-Congress 2019: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 139–150. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Farrag, S., N. Gucunski, F. Moon, J. DeVitis, B. Cox, and F. Menq. 2018. “Inferring dynamic characteristics of a bridge through numerical simulation and low-magnitude shaking as a global NDE method.” In Paper Presented at the NDE/NDT for Highways and Bridges: SMT 2018, 121–130. New Brunswick, NJ: American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT).
Gazetas, G. 1991. “Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations.” J. Geotech. Eng. 117 (9): 1363–1381. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:9(1363).
Güllü, H., and H. S. Jaf. 2016. “Full 3D nonlinear time history analysis of dynamic soil–structure interaction for a historical masonry arch bridge.” Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (21): 1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6230-0.
Güllü, H., and M. Karabekmez. 2017. “Effect of near-fault and far-fault earthquakes on a historical masonry mosque through 3D dynamic soil–structure interaction.” Eng. Struct. 152: 465–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.09.031.
Güllü, H., and F. Özel. 2020. “Microtremor measurements and 3D dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis for a historical masonry arch bridge under the effects of near- and far-fault earthquakes.” Environ. Earth Sci. 79 (13): 338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-020-09086-0.
Hassani, N., M. Bararnia, and G. Ghodrati Amiri. 2018. “Effect of soil–structure interaction on inelastic displacement ratios of degrading structures.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 104: 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.10.004.
Jian, Z., and M. Nicos. 2002. “Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including soil–structure interaction.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31 (11): 1967–1991. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.197.
Karatzetzou, A., and D. Pitilakis. 2018. “Reduction factors to evaluate acceleration demand of soil–foundation–structure systems.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 109: 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.03.017.
Li, J., J. Yan, T. Peng, and L. Han. 2015. “Shake table studies of seismic structural systems of a Taizhou Changjiang highway bridge model.” J. Bridge Eng. 20 (3): 04014065. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000650.
Lu, J., A. Elgamal, L. Yan, K. H. Law, and J. P. Conte. 2011. “Large-scale numerical modeling in geotechnical earthquake engineering.” Int. J. Geomech. 11 (6): 490–503. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000042.
Luo, C., X. Yang, C. Zhan, X. Jin, and Z. Ding. 2016. “Nonlinear 3D finite element analysis of soil–pile–structure interaction system subjected to horizontal earthquake excitation.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 84: 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.02.005.
Mallick, M., and P. Raychowdhury. 2015. “Seismic analysis of highway skew bridges with nonlinear soil–pile interaction.” Transp. Geotech. 3: 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2015.03.002.
Manos, G. C., K. D. Pitilakis, A. G. Sextos, V. Kourtides, V. Soulis, and J. Thauampteh. 2015. “Field experiments for monitoring the dynamic soil–structure–foundation response of a bridge-pier model structure at a test site.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (1): D4014012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001154.
Martínez-De la Concha, A., H. Cifuentes, and F. Medina. 2018. “A finite element methodology to study soil–structure interaction in high-speed railway bridges.” J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 13 (3): 031010. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4038819.
Martínez-Rodrigo, M. D., P. Galvín, A. Doménech, and A. Romero. 2018. “Effect of soil properties on the dynamic response of simply-supported bridges under railway traffic through coupled boundary element-finite element analyses.” Eng. Struct. 170: 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.089.
Menq, F.-Y., K. H. Stokoe, K. I. Park, B. Rosenblad, and B. R. Cox. 2008. “Performance of mobile hydraulic shakers at NEES@UTexas for earthquake studies.” In Paper Presented at the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China: International Association for Earthquake Engineering Chinese Association of Earthquake Engineering.
Moon, F. L., and A. E. Aktan. 2006. “Impacts of epistemic (bias) uncertainty on structural identification of constructed (civil) systems.” Shock Vib. Dig. 38 (5): 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0583102406068068.
Nguyen, Q. V., B. Fatahi, and A. S. Hokmabadi. 2017. “Influence of size and load-bearing mechanism of piles on seismic performance of buildings considering soil–pile–structure interaction.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (7): 04017010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000869.
Nikolaos, L., S. Anastasios, and K. Oh-Sung. 2017. “Influence of frequency-dependent soil–structure interaction on the fragility of R/C bridges.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46 (1): 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2778.
Pais, A., and E. Kausel. 1988. “Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 7 (4): 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(88)80005-8.
Sáez, E., F. Lopez-Caballero, and A. Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi. 2011. “Effect of the inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability assessment.” Struct. Saf. 33 (1): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.05.004.
Santisi d’Avila, M. P., and F. Lopez-Caballero. 2018. “Analysis of nonlinear soil–structure interaction effects: 3D frame structure and 1-directional propagation of a 3-component seismic wave.” Comput. Struct. 207: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.02.002.
Sextos, A., P. Faraonis, V. Zabel, F. Wuttke, T. Arndt, and P. Panetsos. 2016. “Soil–bridge system stiffness identification through field and laboratory measurements.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (10): 04016062. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000917.
Sextos, A., and G. Manolis. 2017. Dynamic response of infrastructure to environmentally induced loads. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Stokoe, K., B. Cox, P. Clayton, and F. Menq. 2017. “NHERI@UTexas experimental facility: Large-scale mobile shakers for natural-hazards field studies.” In Paper Presented at the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chile: Chilean Association on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (ACHISINA).
Tongaonkar, N. P., and R. S. Jangid. 2003. “Seismic response of isolated bridges with soil–structure interaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 23 (4): 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(03)00020-4.
Wang, Z., L. Dueñas-Osorio, and J. E. Padgett. 2014. “Influence of soil–structure interaction and liquefaction on the isolation efficiency of a typical multispan continuous steel girder bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (8): A4014001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000526.
Yang, J., and X. R. Yan. 2009. “Site response to multi-directional earthquake loading: A practical procedure.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 29 (4): 710–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.07.008.
Yarnold, M. T., and F. L. Moon. 2015. “Temperature-based structural health monitoring baseline for long-span bridges.” Eng. Struct. 86: 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.12.042.
Ülker-Kaustell, M., R. Karoumi, and C. Pacoste. 2010. “Simplified analysis of the dynamic soil–structure interaction of a portal frame railway bridge.” Eng. Struct. 32 (11): 3692–3698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.013.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 27 • Issue 5 • May 2022
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 13, 2020
Accepted: Jan 6, 2022
Published online: Mar 11, 2022
Published in print: May 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Aug 11, 2022
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.
Cited by
- Maria Paola Santisi d’Avila, Luca Lenti, Stefania Gobbi, Reine Fares, Reduced T-shaped soil domain for nonlinear dynamic soil-bridge interaction analysis, Advances in Bridge Engineering, 10.1186/s43251-022-00057-y, 3, 1, (2022).