1. Seismic Simulation and Design of Bridge Columns Under Combined Actions and Implication on System Response University of Nevada, Reno Dr. David H. Sanders Juan Arias-Acosta Jan. 23 - 2009

2. Bidirectional Mass Platform (Old idea)

4. Bidirectional Mass Platform (New idea)

5. Bidirectional Mass Platform (Without PD)

6. Bidirectional Mass Platform (PD system)

7. Bidirectional Mass Platform (With PD)

8. Circular Columns (Design Parameters) Height (in)72 Diameter (in)16 P (k)80 Cover (in)0.75 SpiralW5.0 Pitch (in)1.5  l (%) 2.0  s (%) 0.92 f'c (ksi)5.5 Ec (ksi)4227 fyl (ksi)65 fys (ksi)60 Es (ksi)29000 yy 0.00032 My (k-in)1837 uu 0.00473 Mu (k-in)2136  6.56 Vu (k)29.67 Tcr (k-in)353 Tu (k-in)781

9. Circular Columns Details (Single Curvature)

10. Circular Columns Construction

11. Interlocking Columns Details

12. Interlocking Columns Construction

13. Interlocking Spiral Columns (Design Parameters) Height (in)72 X Diam (in)12 Y Diam (in)17.5 P (k)80 Cover (in)0.5 SpiralW2.9 Pitch (in)1  l (%) 1.97  s (%) 1.05 f'c (ksi)5.5 Ec (ksi)4227 fyl (ksi)65 fys (ksi)60 Es (ksi)29000 Dir XDir Y yy 0.00040.0003 My (k-in)14022026 uu 0.007420.00431 Mu (k-in)15642235  7.36 Vu (k)2231

14. Analytical Model (OpenSees) Point Mass Rigid link Beam with Hinges Frame Element. Rigid links Corotational Truss Ele. Rigid links Elastic Beams Additional mass Frame Element. Zerolength Element.

15. Analytic model (OpenSees) Mass=80 kips Axial load with unbonded tendon aprox. 80 Kips Torsional stiffness 0.2JG Biaxial motions El Centro: 0.33, 0.66, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 Sylmar: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 Kobe: 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8 Mendocino (Petrolia): 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 Northridge (Sepulveda): 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 Model 1: Mass frame, without axial load, without PD. Model 2: Mass frame, with unbonded tendon, with PD.

16. Mass Distribution (Plan view) Case 1 17 k Case 2 19.83 k 8.5 k19.83 k Case 3 19.83 k 8.5 k 19.83 k Case 4 19.83 k 8.5 k Case 5 19.83 k 8.5 k 19.83 k

17. Analysis Results (circular column) EarthquakeLoadTop Displ. (in)Base Shear. (in)Base Moments. (k-in)T/MxT/My CaseXYCompXY MxMyT Mendocino13.167.798.4019.79 34.302803.941979.2853.14 0.020.03 Petrolia x1.427.53 8.1319.51 34.082795.97 489.86 0.18 37.67 8.3220.07 34.372791.712005.56598.19 0.210.30 43.117.728.3219.70 34.192796.711967.59494.12 0.180.25 53.207.638.2719.95 34.272788.591997.50600.26 0.220.30 Northridge17.902.558.3029.44 36.092088.702946.9343.87 0.020.01 Sepulveda x1.427.912.538.3029.51 36.252106.562953.20488.79 0.230.17 32.55 8.3429.51 36.382132.982953.75494.74 0.230.17 47.902.548.3029.49 36.212102.022951.53422.49 0.200.14 57.932.528.3229.50 36.392126.792952.52455.94 0.210.15

18. Analysis (Mendocino-Case1)

19. Test Schedule Project Name:Seismic Simulation and Design of Bridge Columns Under Combined Actions and Implication on System Response Principal Investigator:Dr. David Sanders Assistant Researcher:Juan Arias CIRCULAR COLUMNS TEST C1FromTo 1. Install Mass Rig on table 2/16/20092/20/2009 2. Install Column on table 2/23/2009 2/25/2009 3. Initial Instrumentation 2/25/2009 2/27/2009 4. Attach mass to the Mass Rig 3/2/2009 3/3/2009 5. Final Instrumentation 3/4/2009 3/5/2009 6. Check the entire system 3/6/2009 7. Pre-test 3/9/2009 3/10/2009 8. Test Week 3/10/2009 3/13/2009 9. Post Test- Disassembly 3/16/2009 3/18/2009 10. Data analysis 3/18/2009