This section shows the design of the selected bridge configurations that were selected in order to focus on the role of abutments on the seismic vulnerability of the structure. In this regard, the configurations consist of single-span bridge with several geometric characteristics.
2.2. Abutment Model
This section shows the design of the selected bridge configurations selected in order to focus on the role of abutments on the seismic vulnerability of the structure. In this regard, the configurations consist of a single-span bridge with several geometric characteristics. Abutments are built to provide an economical means of resisting bridge inertial seismic loads. As demonstrated by [
27], the traditional theories based on active and passive earth pressures cannot be used during seismic events since the massive bridge structure induces higher than anticipated passive earth pressure conditions. This is mainly true for Ordinary Standard bridge structures in California with short spans and relatively high superstructure stiffness, where the embankment mobilization and inelastic behaviour of the soil material under high shear deformation levels dominate the response of the whole bridge [
28,
29]. In particular, the abutment participating mass has a critical effect on the mode shapes and consequently the dynamic response of the bridge, as shown in [
29]. In addition, the role of soil structure interaction is fundamental to account for the non-linear behaviours that may occur. In this regard, short-span bridges are the most affected by the resistance-induced mechanisms and mass of the abutment.
In order to realistically model those bridges, [
29] suggested using the spring model, since the simplified abutment model may considerably underestimate the transversal displacements and, thus, underestimate the risk of shear key failures. In the present paper, the spring model was applied in order to include realistic three-dimensional nonlinear responses and the participating mass of the corresponding concrete abutment and mobilized embankment soil. The interaction between the soil and the abutments was reproduced with the two springs (embankment non-linear springs,
Figure 2) that were modelled in OpenSees with the uniaxial material EPP [
23], as described below.
The longitudinal response is controlled by elastomeric bearing pads, gap, abutment back wall, abutment piles, and soil backfill material. In particular, prior to impact (or gap closure), the elastomeric bearing pads transmit the seismic forces to the stem wall, piles and backfill soil. After gap closure, the bridge deck transfers the seismic forces to the abutment back walls that mobilize the full passive backfill pressure. In
Figure 2, the longitudinal response of the longitudinal elastomeric bearing pads and the gap closure behaviour are illustrated by L1.
The bearing pads were modelled with nonlinear springs (total 3), that represented the stiffness of the bearings in the longitudinal, transversal and vertical directions. Their number and distribution were based on the number and location of the girders in the box, as specified in
Table 2. The yield and ultimate displacement of the bearings were set as 150% and 300% of the shear strain, respectively. In order to guarantee that shear failure occurred prior to the sliding of the bearing pad, a dynamic coefficient of friction of 0.40 for neoprene on concrete was used. The two zero-length elements at the extreme locations of rigid element 2 model the longitudinal backfill backwall and the pile system response of the abutment The abutment stiffness (
Kabut) and ultimate strength (
Fabut) were obtained from Caltrans [
30,
31], as specified below.
The transverse response was determined by the stiffness of the elastomeric bearing pads and the shear keys; their strength assumed as 30% of the superstructure dead load. In this regard, a hysteretic material was considered by defining a tri-linear response backbone curve with two hardening and one softening stiffness values (more details in [
29]). The transversal behaviour was modelled with distributed zero-length elements along two rigid elements to represent the combined behaviour due to the superstructure rotation about the vertical bridge axis (
Figure 2). It is worth noting that the bearing pads created a series system between the two transverse rigid elements (rigid element 1 and 2). Rigid element 1 was connected to the deck end by a rigid joint.
Figure 2 shows the parallel system of transverse bearing pads and shear keys with T1. In order to compute the transverse stiffness and strength of the backfill, the wing wall and the pile system were defined by considering a series of elements: (1) a rigid one with shear and moment releases, (2) a gap with boundary conditions at each end (that allows only transversal translation), and (3) a zero-length with an elastic-perfectly-plastic (EPP) backbone curve with abutment stiffness (
Kabut) and ultimate strength (
Fabut), obtained from [
31]. The stiffness and strength were distributed equally to the two extreme zero-length elements (T2) of rigid element 2.
The vertical response of the abutment was modelled with: (1) the vertical stiffness of the bearing pads (V1), and (2) the vertical stiffness of the trapezoidal embankment (V2). In order to obtain a lumped value, the critical length was introduced inside the formulation proposed by [
31,
32] to calculate the stiffness per unit length of embankment. The nominal mass of the abutment was assumed proportional to the superstructure dead load (including the structural concrete and the soil mass). The participating mass of the embankment was calculated by considering an average of the embankment lengths obtained from [
31].
In order to consider representative cases where the seismic response of the bridge is dominated by the abutments, the criterion (6.3.1.3-1) from [
30] was considered, and the abutment displacement coefficient,
RA was calculated as:
where
∆D is the longitudinal displacement demand at the abutment and for single-span bridges, which needs to be determined by following point 4.2.1 from [
30]:
- (1)
the tributary weight of the superstructure and the effective abutment longitudinal stiffness were calculated to determine the structure period,
T, using Equation C4.2.1-1 from [
30]:
where
g is the acceleration due to gravity;
- (2)
The spectral acceleration (
Sa), by introducing the period inside the design spectrum that was chosen as the maximum between the selected ones (SCS: PGA: 0612g; PGV: 116.85 cm/s and PGD: 54.19 cm, see
Figure 3); and
- (3)
The longitudinal displacement demand (
∆D), which was determined from Equation 4.2.1-1 from [
30]:
Table 3 shows the calculation of the longitudinal displacement demand at the abutment (
∆D), by assuming the design spectra for the three considered single-span bridges.
∆eff is the effective abutment longitudinal displacement when the passive force reaches Fabut (in).
Fabut (in) was defined by [
30] (6.3.1 2-4) and (6.3.1 2-5), respectively, as:
where:
needs to be taken as for seat abutments,
needs to be taken as for seat abutments, and
is taken as 1 for non-skew bridges.
In addition, following [
30] (C6.3.1.1), bilinear representation of the full nonlinear abutment backbone curve was considered. Therefore, for seat-type abutments,
∆eff corresponds to the sum of the width of the expansion gap at the seat abutment (
Δgap) and abutment displacement at idealized yield (
Δabut), formula 6.3.1.2-2, by [
30]. Δ
abut is calculated as the ratio between the idealized ultimate passive capacity of the backfill behind the abutment backwall (
Fabut) and the abutment longitudinal stiffness (
Kabut).
Table 4 shows the calculation of the effective abutment longitudinal displacement (
∆eff) and the abutment displacement coefficient (RA) for the three considered single-span bridges. It can be observed that RA was less than 2 for all the three configurations, demonstrating that the bridge response was dominated by the abutments.
Overall, it is important to consider that the presented model was created according to the current design procedure [
30], under the assumption that the abutment backwall is intended to break off and mobilize the longitudinal resistance of the approach fill. It is considered that the passive earth resistance is activated behind the abutments, so as to protect the foundation from excessive deformations. This approach generally overestimates the stiffness of the entire system, due to the fact that: (1) it does not depend on the 3D geometry of the abutment, and (2) it neglects the contribution of the abutment foundation stiffness.