12.07.2015 Views

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

distribution was then established for each set <strong>of</strong> simulations using the procedurediscussed in Section 3. In general, the viaduct performed extremely well, with closureprobabilities less than 1% in 50 years for all cases. The objective <strong>of</strong> the study,however, is to examine the consequences <strong>of</strong> model variations. The impact <strong>of</strong>assumptions made during the modeling phase <strong>of</strong> the evaluation is discussed in theremainder <strong>of</strong> this section.4.1 Issues Related to ModelingIn this phase <strong>of</strong> the evaluation, the level <strong>of</strong> model detail is investigated. The medianpeak response <strong>of</strong> a critical bent (defined as the bent experiencing the maximum lateraldrift) using the three-frame model is compared to the same response when a singleframe model <strong>of</strong> the same bent is analyzed. Figure 6 indicates that the variation <strong>of</strong>demand with Intensity Measure (IM) is generally unaffected as is the probability <strong>of</strong>closure. When the hazard curve is integrated into the above distributions, the closureprobability in 50 years for the multiple bent model is 0.95% and 0.46% for the singlebent model. The difference appears to be significant but only because the maximumspectral acceleration for the 2%/50 year hazard is 1.4g which represents the initial tail<strong>of</strong> the distribution. The difference between the two closure probabilities is relativelyinsignificant for larger spectral magnitudes.EDP, Drift (%)43Multiple Bent ModelSingle Bent Model2100 1 2 3 4IM, S a (T), gP(Closure|IM)0.5Multiple Bent Model0.4Single Bent Model0.30.20.100 1 2 3 4IM, S a (T), gFigure 6. EDP-IM relationship and P(DV) for different system models.4.1.1 P-Delta EffectsThe single bent model was evaluated separately for P-delta effects. The difference inpeak response for the model with and without P-delta effects was insignificant, asshown on the left in Figure 7. Axial forces on bridge columns tend to be quite low andmost <strong>of</strong> the maximum drifts were 2% or less. Given this negligible variation, theclosure probabilities <strong>of</strong> the two models were not further investigated.72

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!