A Study of Substructure Loading on Seismic Design and Hazard Mitigation
Abstract It was necessary to quote the rules from [Road & Bridge Design Code] and [Road & Bridge seismic Design Code] (quoted “Codes”) for bridge design in our country. Those two codes were consulted with [AASHTO Code] and [Bridge & Road Design Book & Solutions in Japan, 1960] (quoted “Solutions”) for formulation. Our study focused more on comparison of the rules of truck-loading under “Codes” and “Solutions” with the measurements of value M (Moment of Force) and value S (Share of Force) affected to the infrastructure. Then, this study would use the raw data from boring through the judgment of the classification of stratum, as well as use already-known formulation of period function (T) to determine the horizontal seismic force coefficient (value Kh). In the meantime, it quoted the information in those two codes (“Solutions”) together with some examples made by this study to calculate and analyze the database of value Kh in order to compensate the insufficient calculation-data of the value Kh in “Codes”. Because of overloading of vehicle, it would cause breaking joint on the bridge. Therefore, the “Codes” set up rules to deal with those problems. First, it had to increase another 30% of loading when calculated the wheel loading. Second, thickness of bridge floor had to maintain 20 cm. Third, center-to-center of beam had to be 260 cm. On the other hand, the “Solutions” made some major amendments on the design of loading after the Kobe earthquake. This study compared the rule of loading in “Codes” with the rule in “Solutions”. It was found that the application of truck-loading in “Solutions” to calculate the value M and value S of the beam were larger than the application of truck-loading in “Codes” to calculate the value M and value S of the beam. In addition, for the reference of final design, this study also compared the traditional design with the seismic design to substructure. Besides, different experiences on protection of bridge foundation have been raised in this study in comparison with the traditional mechanics. It’s better to consider containing hazard mitigation system with bridge foundation protection together when designing the bridge substructure in the future. It would make the system of bridge hazard mitigation more spaciously and contractively.
|Appears in Collections:||Thesis|