International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials

Korea Concrete Institute (한국콘크리트학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Totally Prefabricated Bridge Substructure Designed According to Korea Highway Bridge Design (KHBD) and AASHTO-LRFD

  • Kim, Tae-Hoon (Construction Product Technology Research Institute, Samsung Construction & Trading Corporation)
  • Received : 2012.11.10
  • Accepted : 2013.08.08
  • Published : 2013.12.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the design comparison of totally prefabricated bridge substructure system. Prefabricated bridge substructure systems are a relatively new and versatile alternative in substructure design that can offer numerous benefits. The system can reduce the work load at a construction site and can result in shorter construction periods. The prefabricated bridge substructures are designed by the methods of Korea Highway Bridge Code (KHBD) and load and resistance factor design (AASHTO-LRFD). For the design, the KHBD with DB-24 and DL-24 live loads is used. This study evaluates the design method of KHBD (2005) and AASHTO-LRFD (2007) for totally prefabricated bridge substructure systems. The computer program, reinforced concrete analysis in higher evaluation system technology was used for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures. A bonded tendon element is used based on the finite element method, and can represent the interaction between the tendon and concrete of a prestressed concrete member. A joint element is used in order to predict the inelastic behaviors of segmental joints. This study documents the design comparison of totally prefabricated bridge substructure and presents conclusions and design recommendations based on the analytical findings.

Keywords

References

  1. AASHTO. (2007). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (4th ed.).
  2. Applied Technology Council (ATC 32). (1996). Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges: Provisional recommendations.
  3. Billington, S. L., Barnes, R. W., & Breen, J. E. (2001). Alternative substructure systems for standard highway bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 6(2), 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2001)6:2(87)
  4. Billington, S. L., & Yoon, J. K. (2004). Cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned precast columns with ductile fiberreinforced concrete. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 9(4), 353-363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:4(353)
  5. Cheng, C.-T. (2008). Shaking table tests a self-centering designed bridge substructure. Engineering Structures, 30(12), 3426-3433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.05.017
  6. Chou, C.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2006). Cyclic tests of post-tensioned precast CFT segmental bridge columns with unbonded strands. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35, 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.512
  7. Dawood, H., EIGawady, M., & Hewes, J. (2012). Behavior of segmental precast posttensioned bridge piers under lateral loads. Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 17(5), 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000252
  8. EIGawady, M. A., & Dawood, H. M. (2012). Analysis of segmental piers consisted of concrete filled FRP tubes. Engineering Structures, 38, 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.01.001
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1997). NEHRP guidelines of the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273. Washington, DC: FEMA.
  10. Hewes, J. T. (2002). Seismic design and performance of precast concrete segmental bridge columns. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA.
  11. Hilber, H. M., Hughes, T. J. R., & Taylor, R. L. (1977). Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 5, 282-292.
  12. Hughes, T. J. R. (1987). The finite element method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  13. Kim, T.-H., Kim, Y.-J., Kang, H.-T., & Shin, H. M. (2007). Performance assessment of reinforced concrete bridge columns using a damage index. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34(7), 843-855. https://doi.org/10.1139/l07-003
  14. Kim, T. -H., Kim, Y. -J., & Shin, H. M. (submitted). Performance assessment of precast concrete pier cap system. Computers and Concrete.
  15. Kim, T.-H., Lee, H.-M., Kim, Y.-J., & Shin, H. M. (2010a). Performance assessment of precast concrete segmental bridge columns with a shear resistant connecting structure. Engineering Structures, 32(5), 1292-1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.01.007
  16. Kim, T.-H., Park, J.-G., Kim, Y.-J., & Shin, H. M. (2008). A computational platform for seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete bridge piers with unbonded reinforcing or prestressing bars. Computers and Concrete, 5(2), 135-154. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2008.5.2.135
  17. Kim, T.-H., Park, S.-J., Kim, Y.-J., & Shin, H. M. (2010b). Performance assessment of precast segmental PSC bridge columns with precast concrete footings. Magazine of Concrete Research, 62(11), 773-787. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2010.62.11.773
  18. Maekawa, K., Pimanmas, A., & Okamura, H. (2001). Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete. London, UK:SPONPress.
  19. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 114(8), 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
  20. Ministry of Construction and Transportation. (2005). Korea highway bridge design code.
  21. Murla-Vila, D., Sanchez-Ramirez,A. R., Huerta-Carpizo,C. H.,& Fernandez-Sola, L. R. (2012). In-situ test of a precast pier of an elevated viaduct in Mexico City. In 15th world conference on earthquake and engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, USB.
  22. Ou, Y.-C., Chiewanichakorn, M., Aref, A. J., & Lee, G. C. (2007). Seismic performance of segmental precast unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 133(11), 1636-1647. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1636)
  23. Rouse, J. M. (2004). Behavior of bridge piers with ductile fiber reinforced hinge regions and vertical, unbonded post-tensioning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
  24. Sun, Y. P., & Sakino, K. (2000). A comprehensive stress-strain model for high strength concrete confined by circular transverse reinforcement. In The 6th ASCCS international conference on steel-concrete composite structures, University of Southern California (pp. 1067-1074).
  25. Taylor, R. L. (2000). FEAP-A finite element analysis program, version 7.2 users manual (Vols. 1 and 2). London, UK: Butterworth.
  26. Wang, J.-C., Ou, Y.-C., Chang, K.-C., & Lee, G. C. (2008). Large-scale seismic tests of tall concrete bridge columns with precast segmental construction. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37, 1449-1465. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.824
  27. Xiao, J., Huang, X., & Shen, L. (2012). Seismic behavior of semi-precast column with recycled aggregate concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 35, 988-1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.062
  28. Yamashita, R., & Sanders, D. (2009). Seismic performance of precast unbonded prestressed concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal, 106(6), 821-830.

Cited by

  1. The Hysteresis Performance and Restoring Force Model for Corroded Reinforced Concrete Frame Columns vol.2016, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7615385
  2. Analytical Study of Force–Displacement Behavior and Ductility of Self-centering Segmental Concrete Columns vol.11, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-017-0209-4
  3. Temporary Shear Brace Design Method for Steel Box Girder Viaduct in Transverse Block Construction vol.18, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-018-0063-5
  4. Assessment of ultimate load of drilled shaft socketed in rocks based on pile load tests vol.26, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2021.26.3.215