Seismic resistance of continuous monolithic bridges, considering the tension of post-tensioning reinforcement tendons during support-soil interaction

Ensuring the seismic stability of transport structures is a high-priority task in modern engineering design, especially in the seismically active regions of Central Asia. This paper examines the features of the numerical analysis of the seismic stability of a continuous monolithic highway overpass, considering the prestressing of post-tensioning reinforcement strands and the interaction between the piers and the soil foundation. The object of study is a three-span continuous monolithic reinforced concrete overpass with a 35+ 50 + 35 m span arrangement, located in the city of Jizzakh in a seismic intensity zone of 8 points, over the Tashkent-Samarkand high-speed railway line (Republic of Uzbekistan). The intermediate piers are double-column, 12 m in height; the cross-section of the superstructure slab includes 19 ducts with post-tensioning reinforcement strands. The analyses were performed using two software packages: SHARK (the direct step-by-step dynamic integration method using accelerograms from the actual 1976 Gazli earthquake, with an intensity exceeding 9 points on the MSK-64 scale) and MIDAS Civil (the response spectrum method). The soil foundation was modeled according to the Winkler model using viscoelastic links, the parameters of which were determined from the characteristics of Category III loess-like loams based on their seismic properties (KMK 2.01.03-19). The results of the normal stress calculations in the upper and lower parts of the overpass superstructure are presented. The maximum compressive stress in the upper part of the superstructure was -10.10 MPa (MIDAS Civil) and -3.30 MPa (SHARK); the tensile stress in the lower part was 2.32 and 2.25 MPa, respectively. The identified discrepancy in the results is due to the fundamental difference between the analysis methods: the response spectrum method provides a conservative (overestimated) assessment, whereas direct dynamic integration reproduces a more realistic picture of the stress-strain state. The analyses established that all stress values do not exceed the permissible limits set by SHNK 2.05.03-2022, indicating that the overpass maintains its operational performance during an earthquake with an intensity of more than 9 points on the MSK-64 scale.

1. Priestley M. J. N., Seible F., Calvi G. M. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996. 686 p.

2. Calvi G. M., Pinto P. E. Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic response of bridges and recommendations for code provisions. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridges. Queenstown; 1994. P. 1–32.

3. Kawashima K. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Bulletin of the New ealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 2000;33(3):265–285.

4. Mander J. B., Priestley M. J. N., Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1988;114(8):1804–1826.

5. Pecker A. Advanced Earthquake Engineering Analysis. Vienna: Springer; 2007. 222 p.

6. Gazetas G. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 1983;2(1):2–42.

7. Elnashai A. S., Di Sarno L. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. 337 p.

8. Meng J. Y., Lui E. M. Seismic analysis and assessment of a skew highway bridge. Engineering Structures. 2000;22:1433–1452. DOI 10.1016/S0141-0296(99)00097-8.

9. Maleki S. Deck modeling for seismic analysis of skewed slab-girder bridges. Engineering Structures. 2002;24(10):1315–1326. DOI 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00066-4.

10. Choi E., DesRoches R., Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures. 2004;26(2):187–199. DOI 10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.09.006.

11. Nielson B. G., DesRoches R. Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States. Earthquake Spectra. 2007;23(3):615–633. DOI 10.1193/1.2756815.

12. KMK 2.01.03–19. Construction in seismic regions. Tashkent: State Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Architecture and Construction; 2019. 140 p. (In Russ).

13. Mirzaev I., Anvar Yuvmitov, Malikjon Turdiev and Jakhongir Shomurodov. Influence of the vertical earthquake component on the shear vibration of buildings on sliding foundations. E3S Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences, 2021. Vol. 264. P. 02022.

14. Kosimov E., Mirzaev I., Bekmirzaev D. Comparison of the impacts of harmonic and seismic waves on an underground pipeline during the Gazli earthquake. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing, 2021. Vol. 1030, No. 1. P. 012082.

15. Ambraseys N. N., Smit P., Douglas J. [et al.]. Internet site for European strong-motion data. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata. 2004;45(3):113–129.

16. SHNK 2.05.03–2022. Bridges and pipes. Tashkent: Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Uzbekistan; 2022. 396 p. (In Russ).