BRIDGE PERFORMANCE: Benchmarking the Performance of California Bridges

1
BRIDGE PERFORMANCEBenchmarking the Performance
of California Bridges

• Bozidar Stojadinovic
• Kevin Mackie
• John-Michael Wong
• Ady Aviram
• Vesna Terzic
• University of California, Berkeley

2
PEER Bridge Performance Program

• Focus on
• Monolithic reinforced concrete construction
• New rather than older construction detailing
• Representative of typical
• Over-crossings
• Viaducts
• Interchanges
• Also
• Ground motions and their use in analysis and
  design
• Soil-foundation interaction
• Simulation of complex bridge systems
• Transportation networks

3
Outline

• Performance benchmarking for a baseline testbed
  bridge suite is done
• Using PEER methodology
• From hazard to repair cost
• Practicing engineers can use our work
• Hazard modeling
• Non-linear bridge models
• Fragility curves
• PEER framework
• Rational uses of new technologies are devised and
  evaluated
• HPFRCC in column hinges
• Re-centering of columns
• Non-linear soil-foundation-structure modeling

4
Outline

• Performance benchmarking for a baseline testbed
  bridge suite is done
• Practicing bridge engineers can use our work
• Hazard modeling
• Non-linear bridge models
• Fragility curves
• PEER framework
• Rational uses of new technologies for bridges are
  devised and evaluated

5
PEER Testbed Bridges

• 5-span RC overpasses (Ketchum, 2004)

Type 11
Type 1
6
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Hazard Model
Select and scale ground motions
Demand Model
Damage Model
Decision Model
7
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Do non-linear time-history analyses
Hazard Model
Demand Model
Damage Model
Decision Model
8
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Performance (damage) states
Hazard Model
Demand Model
Damage Model
Decision Model
9
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Deaths Dollars Down-time
Hazard Model
Demand Model
Damage Model
Decision Model
10
PEER Framework for Bridge Evaluation
Outcome Repair cost ratio fragility curves
Demand Model
Sa(T1)1g
11
The Practice of Hazard Modeling

• Next-Generation Attenuation Relations
• http//peer.berkeley.edu/nga

• 175 worldwide earthquakes
• gt10,000 corrected records with detailed
  descriptors
• Estimate ground motion intensity and uncertainty
  of the estimate
• Ground motion scaling rules

12
The Practice of Bridge Modeling
Deck

• Modular OpenSees model

Column
Foundation
Abutment
13
The Practice of Bridge Modeling

• Using SAP 2000

14
The Practice of Damage Evaluation

• PEER Structural Performance Database
• http//nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/index.html

15
The Practice of Decision Support
Performance Groups
Damage States Repair Quantities
Repair Costs
16
A Practical Implementation

• Matlab tool
• Given
• Demand, damage, loss models (with uncertainties)
• Numerous assumptions
• integrate the PEER integral
• Easy visualization of results
• Decision fragility
• Decision hazard

17
Advances Non-linear SFS Models

• Coupled Soil-Foundation-Structure model

Effects of liquefaction and lateral spreading
UCBUW team
18
Advances Enhancing Performance

• Rational use of new technologies
• Re-centering columns
• Tendons
• Isolators
• New high-performance materials
• HPFRCC
• Modular construction
• Precast,
• prestressed elements

19
Advances Regional Traffic Networks
Regional Shake Map
Regional Traffic Network Assessment
Bridge Fragility Curves
20
Conclusion

• Performance benchmarking for a baseline testbed
  bridge suite is done
• Practicing bridge engineers can use our work
• Hazard modeling
• Non-linear bridge models
• Fragility curves
• PEER framework
• Rational uses of new technologies for bridges are
  devised and evaluated
• Attend Bridge breakout sessions to learn more!

21
Thank You!
Demand
Hazard
Loss
For more informationboza_at_ce.berkeley.edukmackie
_at_mail.ucf.edu
Damage
This research was sponsored in part by NSF EERC
program grant EEC-9701568 as PEER Project 209/213