Seismic Response Analysis of Rocking Piers with Different Mass Ratios

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jcte.202506107

Author(s)

Meng Jingyao

Affiliation(s)

State Key Laboratory of Bridge Safety and Resilience, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing,

Abstract

The rocking pier relaxes the constraints between the pier and the superstructure and foundation, and connects the pier and adjacent components as a whole through unbonded prestressed tendons. The rocking pier will continue to lift and close under the action of earthquake, and the rocking behavior occurs. The ratio of the mass of the superstructure to the pier usually affects the seismic response of the pier. In order to explore the influence of this factor, this paper deeply studies the seismic response of the rocking pier under different mass ratios. The research results show that the lower mass ratio will lead to the smaller inertial force at the top of the pier, so the dynamic response of the rocking pier is smaller, and the increase of the mass ratio has a limited impact on the dynamic response of the pier. At the same time, under different mass ratios, the displacement response of the damped pier may be greater than that of the undamped pier, because the damping will hinder the reset of the pier to a certain extent, resulting in an increase in the dynamic response of the pier.

Keywords

Rocking Pier; Mass Ratio; Seismic Action; Displacement Response; Viscous Damping

References

[1] Binici B. Design of FRPs in circular bridge column retrofits for ductility enhancement [J]. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(3): 766-776. [2] Cheon J H, Lee J H, Kim T H, et al. Inelastic behaviour and ductility capacity of circular hollow reinforced concrete bridge columns under earthquake [J]. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2012, 64(10): 919-930. [3] Beck J L, Skinner R I. The seismic response of a reinforced concrete bridge column designed to step [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1973, 2(4): 343-358. [4] Zahn F A, Park R, Priestley M J N. Design of reinforced concrete bridge columns for strength and ductility [J]. Research Report, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1986, 86(7). [5] Priestley M J N, Park R. Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under seismic loading [J]. Aci Structural Journal, 1987, 84(1): 61-76. [6] Mamaghani I H P. Seismic Design and Ductility Evaluation of Thin-Walled Steel Bridge Columns of Box Sections [J]. Transportation Research Record, 2008, (2050): 137-142. [7] F. L C. Discussion on Bridge Damage in Wenchuan Earthquake and Seismic Ductility Design [J]. Journal of Highway and Transportation Research and Development, 2009, 26(4). [8] Bruneau M, Chang S E, Eguchi R T, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities [J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(4): 733-752. [9] Lv Xilin, Quan Liumeng, Jiang Huanjun. Research Trend of Earthquake Resilient Structures Seenfrom 16WCEE [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2017, 37(3): 1-9. [10] Du Xiuli, Zhou Yulong, Han Qiang, et al. State-of-the-art on rocking piers [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2018, 38 (05): 1-11. [11] Han Qiang, Jia Zhenlei, Zhou Yulong, et al. Review of Seismic Resilient Bridge Structure: Rocking Bridiges [J]. Chinese Journal of Highways, 2021, 34 (02): 118-133. [12] Mander J B, Cheng C-T. Seismic resistance of bridge columns based on damage avoidance design [M]. Seismic resistance of bridge columns based on damage avoidance design. 1997: 109. [13] Cheng C T. Shaking Tab. tests of a self-centering designed bridge substructure [J]. Engineering Structures, 2008, 30(12): 3426-3433. [14] Han Q, Jia Z L, Xu K, et al. Hysteretic behavior investigation of self-centering double-column rocking columns for seismic resilience [J]. Engineering Structures, 2019, 188: 218-232. [15] Guo T, Cao Z L, Xu Z K, et al. Cyclic Load Tests on Self-Centering Concrete Column with External Dissipators and Enhanced Durability [J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(1). [16] Antonellis G, Panagiotou M. Seismic Response of Bridges with Rocking Foundations Compared to Fixed-Base Bridges at a Near-Fault Site [J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2014, 19(5). [17] Demir A, Caglar N, Ozturk H, et al. Nonlinear finite element study on the improvement of shear capacity in reinforced concrete T-Section beams by an alternative diagonal shear reinforcement [J]. Engineering Structures, 2016, 120: 158-165. [18] Zhu H Q, Stephens M T, Roeder C W, et al. Inelastic response prediction of CFST columns and connections subjected to lateral loading [J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2017, 132: 130-140. [19] Yang D X, Guo G Q, Liu Y H, et al. Dimensional response analysis of bilinear SDOF systems under near-fault ground motions with intrinsic length scale [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 116: 397-408. [20] Alonso-Rodríguez A, Miranda E. Assessment of building behavior under near-fault pulse-like ground motions through simplified models [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 79: 47-58. [21] Dabaghi M, Der Kiureghian A. Stochastic model for simulation of near‐fault ground motions [J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(6): 963-984. [22] Moustafa A, Takewaki I. Deterministic and probabilistic representation of near-field pulse-like ground motion [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 30(5): 412-422.