0
Review Article

Review of Wave Loads on Coastal Bridge Decks

[+] Author and Article Information
Masoud Hayatdavoodi

Division of Civil Engineering,
School of Science and Engineering,
University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN, UK
e-mail: masoud@hawaii.edu

R. Cengiz Ertekin

Fellow ASME
Ocean and Resources Engineering Department,
SOEST,
University of Hawaii at Manoa,
2540 Dole Street, Holmes 402,
Honolulu, HI 96822
e-mail: ertekin@hawaii.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 27, 2015; final manuscript received May 19, 2016; published online June 21, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Chin An Tan.

Appl. Mech. Rev 68(3), 030802 (Jun 21, 2016) (16 pages) Paper No: AMR-15-1114; doi: 10.1115/1.4033705 History: Received September 27, 2015; Revised May 19, 2016

Recent natural extreme events, such as Hurricane Ike in the U.S. (2008), Tohoku tsunami in Japan (2011), and Typhoon Haiyan in Southeast Asia (2013), have caused significant damage to the decks of coastal bridges. The failure of the structure occurs when wave-induced loads on the decks of coastal bridges exceed the bridge capacity, resulting in partial removal or a complete collapse of bridge decks. Tsunami, storm waves, and storm surge are known to be the ultimate agents of such failures. An understanding of the failure mechanism and possible solutions require a better knowledge of the destructive loads on the structure. Interaction of surface waves with the bridge deck is a complex problem, involving fluid–structure interaction, wave breaking, and overtopping. Possible submergence of the deck and entrapment of air pockets between girders can increase destructive forces and add to the complexities of the problem. In recent years, remarkable progress has been made on this topic, resulting in some new findings about the failure mechanism and the destructive wave loads. A review of the key studies on wave loads on the coastal bridge decks, including those in the past and very recently, is presented here. Emphasis is given to the pioneering works that have significantly improved our understanding of the problem. Challenges associated with the existing solutions are highlighted, and suggestions for future studies are provided.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

U.S. 90 Bridge from Bay St. Louis to Pass Christian, damaged by Hurricane Katrina (2005). During the event, the maximum storm surge at the site was about 6.6 m. This allowed for waves with significant wave height of about 2.6 m and period of 5.5 s to reach the bridge, see Ref.[6]. (Reprinted with permission from Riggs et al. [7].)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Variation of the uplift force on a horizontal dock as functions of the wave height and wavelength. Solid lines are the mean lines fitted to the measured data points. In this case, the SWL is as high as the top of the deck, B=1.22 m (4.0 ft) is thewidth of the deck. In this experiment, h=0.61 m (2 ft) and tP=0.006 m (0.25 in.), where tP is the deck thickness. (Courtesy of El Ghamry [85].)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A schematic of the wave-induced force time history on the bridge decks, a combination of the impact force and the slowly varying force, working at significantly different frequencies. The peak of these two types of forces usually does not happen at the same time; the impact force occurs slightly before the peak of the slowly varying force. (Replotted from Douglass et al. [89]. Copyright 2007 by World Scientific.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Mean and standard deviation of the maximum (uplift and downward) measured forces versus wave height, both rigid and flexible setups, for regular waves with h=1.89 m, deck clearance =0 m, and T=2.5 s. Error bars in this figure showone standard deviation. (Reprinted with permission from Schumacher et al. [81].)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Maximum storm surge and crest elevation of significantwave height at the location of the U.S. 90 Bridge over Biloxi Bay during Hurricane Katrina (2005), estimated using a SWAN + ADCIRC model. All the submerged spans and those under the crest of the significant wave height were collapsed. (Reprinted with permission from Chen et al. [121]. Copyright 2009 by ASCE.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the surface elevation and dimensionless vertical and horizontal forces of the laboratory measurements and calculations of Euler's equations (using openfoam) of interaction of cnoidal waves with a bridge deck with no girders, located at the SWL (h=0.071 m, H/h≈0.4, and λ=1.9 m. Fx3 and Fx1 in these figures refer to the vertical and horizontal forces, respectively. See the reference for definition of dimensionless forces. (Reprinted with permission from Hayatdavoodi et al. [83]. Copyright 2015 bySpringer.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of cnoidal waves: (a) horizontal force and(b) vertical force calculated by Euler's equations and theGN equations versus laboratory measurements on a submerged bridge deck (H/h=0.26 ,λ/h=26.76 ,hII/h=0.6, and h=0.071m). hII is the submergence depth measured from the SWL to the top of the deck. (Reprinted with permission from Ertekin and Hayatdavoodi [72]. Copyright 2015 by MTS/IEEE.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Laboratory measurements and the GN and LWA calculations of (a) vertical uplift, (b) vertical downward, (c) horizontal positive, and (d) horizontal negative forces of cnoidal waves of different wave heights and wavelengths propagating over a submerged plate (h=0.071 m and hII/h=0.6), where hII is the submergence depth. (Reprinted with permission from Hayatdavoodi et al. [83]. Copyright 2015 by Springer.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Two-dimensional (a) vertical uplift, (b) vertical downward, (c) horizontal positive, and (d) horizontal negative forces of the cnoidal and solitary waves on a submerged deck with no girders (B/h=2.67 and hII/h=0.6). Starting from the left data point, the cnoidal wavelengths are λ/h=12.3, 15, 16.7, 18.5, and 20.2. Bridge deck width is kept constant. (Reprinted with permission from Hayatdavoodi and Ertekin [67]. Copyright 2015 by ASME.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

openfoam computations of gauge pressure (pressure with respect to the atmospheric pressure at sea level) at the initial stage of interaction of a solitary wave (h=0.143 m,a/h=0.407, and B/h=2.1, where a is the wave amplitude) with bridge decks (a) without openings and (b) with air-relief openings. Pressure is given in Pascal. (Reprinted with permission from Hayatdavoodi et al. [82]. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of a number of air pockets (one minus number of girders) on the oscillations of the force due to wave slamming on the bridge deck. (Reprinted with permission from Sheppard and Marin [14]. Copyright 2009 by University of Florida.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of air entrapment on the solitary wave forces on a bridge deck, h=0.143 m, a/h=0.2, and z*/h=0.1, where a and z* are the wave amplitude and elevation from the SWL, respectively. Here, the ARO percentage refers to the percentage area of air-relief openings to the side area between girders; ARO=0% indicates no openings (full air entrapments), and ARO=100% refers to zero air entrapment. (Reprinted with permission from Seiffert et al. [173]. Copyright 2015 by ASCE.)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In