2019
DOI: 10.1108/jedt-01-2018-0008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic damage of gravity abutment in liquefied ground

Abstract: Purpose Abutment damage in liquefied ground is an important form of seismic damage of bridge structure. This paper aims to further research the effect of beam restriction on seismic damage mode of abutment in liquefied ground. Design/methodology/approach Based on the investigation of the seismic damage of Shengli Bridge in Tangshan earthquake, the finite element software dynamic effective stress analysis for ground (UWLC) is used to simulate the seismic damage of Shengli Bridge, and the results were compared… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a result, seismic design aims to increase the structural systems' capacity during ground motion by incorporating various structural combinations such as moment frames (Rahnavard et al, 2018;Naghavi et al, 2019;Rahnavard et al, 2018), shear walls (Rahnavard et al, 2018) and braced frames, although these systems compromise the modularity (Ashcroft et al, 2019). Previous studies also found that the upper sections of the structures are the most crucial as they are affected by both the soil stiffness, probable ground liquefaction characteristics (Wang et al, 2019) and structural motions (Rahnavard et al, 2018;Radkia et al, 2020;Etedali et al, 2020;Lanzi and Luco, 2018;Tsai et al, 2019). So, to predict these damage due to ground motion, various analytical approaches are adopted, such as a simplified single-degree-of-freedom system (Adam et al, 2004;Miranda and Akkar, 2003;Williamson, 2003;Takizawa et al, 1980), use of finite-element analysis to measure the structural response (Williamson, 2003;Takizawa et al, 1980;Bhaurkar and Thakur, 2019) and recently emerged incremental dynamic analysis (Zareian et al, 2010;Medina et al, 2006;Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002;Zareian et al, 2007;Moradipour et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, seismic design aims to increase the structural systems' capacity during ground motion by incorporating various structural combinations such as moment frames (Rahnavard et al, 2018;Naghavi et al, 2019;Rahnavard et al, 2018), shear walls (Rahnavard et al, 2018) and braced frames, although these systems compromise the modularity (Ashcroft et al, 2019). Previous studies also found that the upper sections of the structures are the most crucial as they are affected by both the soil stiffness, probable ground liquefaction characteristics (Wang et al, 2019) and structural motions (Rahnavard et al, 2018;Radkia et al, 2020;Etedali et al, 2020;Lanzi and Luco, 2018;Tsai et al, 2019). So, to predict these damage due to ground motion, various analytical approaches are adopted, such as a simplified single-degree-of-freedom system (Adam et al, 2004;Miranda and Akkar, 2003;Williamson, 2003;Takizawa et al, 1980), use of finite-element analysis to measure the structural response (Williamson, 2003;Takizawa et al, 1980;Bhaurkar and Thakur, 2019) and recently emerged incremental dynamic analysis (Zareian et al, 2010;Medina et al, 2006;Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002;Zareian et al, 2007;Moradipour et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%