Seismic Design of a Light Rail Transit Bridge with Fault Rupture Crossing

Transcription

1 Seismic Design of a Light Rail Transit Bridge with Fault Rupture Crossing

2 Presentation Outline 1. Project Overview 2. Site-Wide Fault Mapping 3. Field Exploration at Three Bridge Sites 4. Design Fault Rupture Displacements 5. Faulting Through Foundations 6. Bridge Design for Fault Rupture

3 Project Overview 11 miles of new light rail in S. California 9 stations 7 bridges >4 miles of elevated viaduct Several miles of retaining walls $2.1B total cost 4 kilometers of the alignment affected by surface fault rupture hazard

4 Regional Faulting Project Alignment

5 Desk Top Study Vintage Stereoscopic Aerial Photo Interpretation Station Interpretations by Scott Rugg and Tom Rockwell (Kleinfelder 2013)

6 Detailed Field Exploration Programs at Three Bridge Sites Bridge Site LEGEND Project Alignment Bridge Site Interpreted Fault Locations: Kleinfelder (2013) Alquist-Priolo (CDMG 1991) City of San Diego (2008) Bridge Site

7 Field Exploration and Fault Mapping at LRT Overhead Bridge Site Plan View Proposed LRT Overhead Bridge Primary Active Fault SCALE (FEET) Secondary Active Faults

8 Geologic Mapping of Cut Surface Secondary Active Faults

9 Design Fault Displacements Deterministic and Probabilistic Analyses 4 ft = 1.2 m selected for design Logic tree used in PFDHA Hazard curve with deterministic values overlain

10 Fault Rupture Design Scenario Proposed Rail Bridge Proposed LRT Overhead Bridge 1.2 ft 1.2 ft 4 ft

11 Fault Rupture Design Scenario Bent 2

12 Foundation Design Strategy Unusual situation of faulting through foundations Avoid primary fault where possible Large Diameter CIDH Piles or mat-footings Modeling to evaluate foundation behavior and displacements Desirable foundation behavior Undesirable behavior

13 Modeling of Soil-Fault Foundation System

14 Modeling of Soil-Fault Foundation System Concrete Cracking Pile Model Rebar Stresses

15 Soil Model Calibration and Validation Centrifuge test data from Loli et al. (2009) Constitutive model approach of Anastasopoulos et al. (2007) Model simulation results

16 Modeling of Soil-Fault Foundation System Shorter more rigid pile moves same as ground Longer more slender pile moves more than ground Horz. Disp. (feet)

17 Abutment Modeling Results Horz. Disp. (feet)

18 Pile Performance Pile Deflection (ft) Shear (kips) , ,000 0 Moment (kip-ft) -40, ,000 Depth BGS (ft)

19 Fault Rupture Design Displacements

20 Performance Objectives: Bridge Design 1. Performance Level (No collapse) Higher Level Project-Specified Ground Motion (Caltrans Design Spectrum) 2. Service Level (Minimally serviceable to unserviceable after event) Lower Level Project-Specified Ground Motion

21 Bridge Design Bridge Demand: Peak Seismic Response of the Bridge uu oooo = uu oooo + uu oooo Peak Quasi-Static Demand Peak Dynamic Demand

22 Bridge Alternatives Bridge Design Deformed Shape of a Continuous Bridge Due to Surface Fault Rupture (Integral Bent Cap)

23 Bridge Alternatives Bridge Design Deformed Shape of a Continuous Bridge Due to Surface Fault Rupture (Dropped Bent Cap)

24 Bridge Alternatives Bridge Design Deformed Shape of a Simply Supported Bridge Due to Surface Fault Rupture

25 Gap allows compression Bridge Design Shear Pin Fuse Simple spans with pre-cast girders Widened seats Articulation Compression: gap at Abut + Pin Fuse at B2

26 Abutment Design Shear Key 5 ft compression vault

27 Details at Bent 2

28 Conclusions Surface fault rupture hazard assessment and mitigation requires multi-discipline approach Translation of hazard into design scenarios requires engineering insight and judgment Foundations intersected by faults can be designed for ductile behavior and to perform satisfactorily despite severe fault load demands Bridge can be designed for no-collapse using articulation and ductility, but severe damage should be expected.

29 THANK YOU