Title: Seismic performance of improved pile-to-wharf deck connections
Date: Summer, 2013
Volume: 58
Issue: 3
Page number: 62-80
Author(s): Dawn E. Lehman, Charles Roeder, Stuart J. Stringer, Amanda Jellin
https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.06012013.62.80
Click here to access the full journal article
Abstract
Pile-supported marginal wharves are critical components of the nation’s infrastructure. Pile-wharf connections have sustained damage in earthquakes. Current connection design uses headed dowel bars anchored in grouted ducts in vertical piles and cast integrally with the deck. Typically, the pile is embedded 3 in. (76 mm) into the deck. Although prior research found these dowel connections to have adequate resistance, they sustained damage and strength deterioration in both pile and deck even at moderate deformations. The necessary postearthquake repair is difficult and economically disruptive. Research was conducted to develop a new pile-wharf connection less vulnerable to seismic damage. Several structural concepts were evaluated, including intentionally debonding the dowel bars, employing a bearing pad between the head of the pile and the deck, and adding a flexible joint around
the embedded portion of the pile. A prototype connection was developed and studied experimentally to investigate the effect of axial load, bearing-pad material, and bearing-pad configuration. The proposed connection reduces damage and strength deterioration relative to current connections, delaying pile and deck spalling well beyond the expected seismic deformation demand level. The experimental observations and measures were used to develop performance-based design expressions and a design procedure for this new connection
References
1. Port of Seattle. 2009. “Foreign Waterborne Trade Report.” Seattle, WA: Port of Seattle.
2. Chang, S. E. 2000. “Disasters and Transport Systems: Loss, Recovery and Competition at the Port of Kobe after the 1995 Earthquake.” Journal of Transport Geography 8 (1): 53–65.
3. Roeder, C. W., R. Graff, J. Soderstrom, and J-H Yoo. 2005. “Seismic Performance of Pile-Wharf Connections.” Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (3):428–437.
4. Joen, P. H., and R. Park. 1990. “Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Prestressed Piles and Pile-Pile Cap Connections.” PCI Journal 35 (6): 42–61.
5. Silva, P., F. Seible, N. Priestley. 1997. Response of Standard CALTRANS Pile-to-Pile Cap Connections Under Simulated Loads. SSRP-97/09. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, Division of Structural Engineering.
6. Silva, P. F. 1998. “Experimental and Analytical Models to Predict the Response of Pile to Pile Cap Connections Under Simulated Seismic Loads.” Doctoraldiss., University of California, San Diego.
7. Sritharan, S., and N. Priestley. 1998. Seismic Testing of a Full-Scale Pile-Deck Connection Utalizing Headed Reinforcement. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego.
8. Graff, R. 2001. “Seismic Evaluation of Prestressed Pile-Wharf Connections.” Masters thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
9. Soderstrom, J. 2001. “Seismic Evaluation of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Pile-Wharf Deck Connections.” Masters thesis, University of Washington,Seattle.
10. Stanton, J. F., W. C. Stone, and G. S. Cheok. 1997. “A Hybrid Reinforced Precast Frame for Seismic Regions.” PCI Journal 42 (4): 20–33.
11. Jellin, A. R. 2008. “Improved Seismic Connections for Pile-Wharf Construction.” Masters thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
12. Stringer, S. J. 2010. Seismic Performance of Improved Damage Resistant Pile to Wharf Deck Connections. Masters thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
13. ASTM Standard A706/A706M-09B. 2009. Standard Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/ A0706_A0706M-09B.
14. Yoo, J-H. 2001. Dynamic Analysis of Pile-to-Wharf Connections. Masters thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
15. Lehman, D. E., C. W. Roeder, and R. E. Larsen. 2005. “Design of Cotton Duck Bridge Bearing Pads.” Journal of Bridge Engineering 10 (5): 555–563.
16. Meadows. 2001. “Specification for CERAMAR Sealtight Flexible Foam Expansion Joint.” Hampshire, IL: W.R. Meadows Co.
17. Applied Technology Council (ATC). 1992. ATC-24 Guidelines for Testing Steel Components. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
18. Lehman, D. E., C. W. Roeder, R. Larsen, and K. Curtin. 2003. Cotton Duck Bearing Pads: Engineering Evaluation and Design Recommendations. Seattle, A: Washington State Department of Transportation.
19. Hawileh, R., A. Rahman, and H. Tabatabai. 2010. “Evaluation of the Low-Cycle Fatigue Life in ASTM A706 and A615 Grade 60 Steel Reinforcing Bars.”ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 22 (1): 65–76.
20. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2008. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 4th ed. Washington DC: AASHTO.