Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probabilistic residual capacity assessment of mainshock-damaged multi-span simply supported concrete girder bridges subjected to aftershocks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since post-mainshock events following a major earthquake are likely to occur, it is imperative to have an understanding of the functionality status of mainshock-damaged bridges to make more informed decisions. This paper examines the post-earthquake operability of a typical highway bridge class in reference to the time-varying nature of aftershock hazard by using the residual collapse capacity of the mainshock-damaged bridge. A procedure for estimating the probabilistic system-wide residual capacities to withstand aftershocks resulting from the residual capacities of vulnerable major bridge components across damage states is discussed. Based on varying earthquake scenarios, the probability of transiting to all post-mainshock and post-aftershock damage states are calculated for intact and mainshock-damaged bridges, respectively. It is observed that as the level of mainshock-sustained damage increases, the probability of experiencing more damage due to aftershocks decreases. Using the probability distribution of the intact collapse capacity or residual collapse capacity across post-mainshock damage states in combination with the mainshock and aftershock hazard curves, respectively, the annual probability of collapse for the location of interest is obtained. Having determined the intact and residual collapse capacities, as well as the site-specific mainshock and aftershock hazards, the tagging condition of the damaged bridge in the aftermath of an earthquake due to the possible future aftershocks, is evaluated by computing the equivalent constant collapse rate. The required time for imposing traffic restrictions on the mainshock-damaged bridge due to the life-safety threats in the aftershock environment is specified for various earthquake scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/memphis/.

References

  • AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications (2012) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Washington, DC

  • AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2017) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 8th Edn. Washington, D.C

  • Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F (2013) Aftershock risk assessment and the decision to open traffic on bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(15):2255–2275

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM (2015) Ground-motion prediction equation for small-to-moderate events at short hypocentral distances, with application to induced-seismicity hazards. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(2A):981–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Society Am 85(1):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0850010017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):2181–2205

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2011) Modifications to existing ground-motion prediction equations in light of new data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(3):1121–1135

    Google Scholar 

  • Baghaei R, Feng MQ, Torbol M (2011, April) Residual capacity estimation of bridges using structural health monitoring data. In: Nondestructive characterization for composite materials, Aerospace Engineering, Civil Infrastructure, and Homeland Security 2011, vol 7983, p 79833I. International Society for Optics and Photonics

  • Bavirisetty R, Vinayagamoorthy M, Duan L (2003) Dynamic analysis. In: Bridge engineering: seismic design.

  • Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Menun C, Motahari M (2004, August) Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada

  • Buckle IG, Friedland I, Mander J, Martin G, Nutt R, Power M (2006) Seismic retrofitting manual for highway structures. Part 1, Bridges (No. FHWA-HRT-06-032). Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

  • Caltrans SDC (2010) Caltrans seismic design criteria version 1.6. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang GA, Mander JB (1994). Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge columns: part 1–evaluation of seismic capacity. NCEER Technical Report No. NCEER-94, 6

  • Choi E (2002) Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B (2004) Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct 26(2):187–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2015) Risk and resilience assessment of bridges under mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties. Eng Struct 83:198–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta A (1999) On energy-based seismic analysis and design of highway bridges. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel JE (2009) Analysis of aftershock and foreshock activity in stable continental regions: Implications for aftershock forecasting and the hazard of strong earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 80(6):1062–1068

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimian H, Jalayer F, Asprone D, Lombardi AM, Marzocchi W, Prota A, Manfredi G (2014) A performance-based framework for adaptive seismic aftershock risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(14):2179–2197

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingwood B, Hwang H (1985) Probabilistic descriptions of resistance of safety-related structures in nuclear plants. Nuclear Eng Des 88(2):169–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingwood BR, Wen YK (2005) Risk-benefit-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid-America. Prog Struct Mater Eng 7(2):56–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Franchin P, Pinto PE (2009) Allowing traffic over mainshock-damaged bridges. J Earthq Eng 13(5):585–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Gidaris I, Padgett JE, Misra S (2020) Probabilistic fragility and resilience assessment and sensitivity analysis of bridges incorporating aftershock effects. Sustain Resil Infrastruct. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2019.1708174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross JL, Phan LT (2000) Implications for earthquake risk reduction in the United States From the Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999

  • Gupta A, Baker JW, Ellsworth WL (2017) Assessing ground-motion amplitudes and attenuation for small-to-moderate induced and tectonic earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 88(5):1379–1389

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines EM, Baise LG, Swift SS (2011) Ground-motion suite selection for eastern North America. J Struct Eng 137(3):358–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough SE, Martin S (2002) Magnitude estimates of two large aftershocks of the 16 December 1811 New Madrid earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(8):3259–3268

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H (2017) Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to aftershocks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(3):369–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeon JS, DesRoches R, Lowes LN, Brilakis I (2015) Framework of aftershock fragility assessment–case studies: older California reinforced concrete building frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dy 44(15):2617–2636

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanmohammadi M, Kharrazi H (2018) Residual capacity of mainshock-damaged precast-bonded prestressed segmental bridge deck under vertical earthquake ground motions. J Bridge Eng 23(5):04018016

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunnath SK (2007) Application of the PEER performance-based methodology to the I-880 viaduct. PEER report 2006/10. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, Berkeley

  • Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (2004, August) Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, vol 2405

  • Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO, Hooper JD, Kimball JK, Kircher CA (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States

  • Mackie KR, Stojadinović B (2005) Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision making. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie KR, Wong JM, Stojadinović B (2008) Integrated probabilistic performance-based evaluation of benchmark reinforced concrete bridges. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2002, July) Relation between probabilistic seismic demand analysis and incremental dynamic analysis. In: 7th US National conference on earthquake engineering, pp 21–25

  • Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2004, August) Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 1–16

  • Mallett WJ, Carter NT, Folger P (2016) Earthquake risk and US highway infrastructure: frequently asked questions. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mander JB, Kim DK, Chen SS, Premus GJ (1996) Response of steel bridge bearings to reversed cyclic loading (No. NCEER-96-0014)

  • Mangalathu S, Shokrabadi M, Burton H (2019) Aftershock seismic vulnerability and time-dependent risk assessment of bridges. PEER Report. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  • MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2014a. The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA

  • McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2006) OpenSees: open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. http://opensees.berkeley.edu

  • Menegotto M, Pinto PE (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: Proceedings of IABSE symposium on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated loads (pp. 15–22).

  • Nazari N, Lindt JWVD, Li Y (2014) Effect of aftershock intensity on seismic collapse fragilities. Int J Reliab Saf 8(2–4):174–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson BG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2007a) Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(6):823–839

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2007b) Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States. Earthq Spectra 23(3):615–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2007c) Seismic performance assessment of simply supported and continuous multispan concrete girder highway bridges. J Bridge Eng 12(5):611–620. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:5(611)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson E, Re DD, Wang Z (2008) The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: risk management lessons and implications. Risk Management Solutions Inc, Newark, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Proske D, AG AP (2017, September) Comparison of bridge collapse frequencies with failure probabilities. In: Proceedings on 15th international probabilistic workshop, pp 15–23

  • Ramanathan KN (2012) Next generation seismic fragility curves for California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design philosophy. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan K, Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2015) Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California. Eng Struct 97:29–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Reasenberg PA, Jones LM (1989) Earthquake hazard after a mainshock in California. Science 243(4895):1173–1176

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu H, Luco N, Uma SR, Liel AB (2011, April) Developing fragilities for mainshock-damaged structures through incremental dynamic analysis. In: Ninth Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Shafieezadeh A, Ramanathan K, Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2012) Fractional order intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand modeling applied to highway bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(3):391–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahjouei A, Pezeshk S (2016) Alternative hybrid empirical ground-motion model for central and eastern North America using hybrid simulations and NGA-West2 models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(2):734–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamsabadi A, Yan L (2008) Closed-form force-displacement backbone curves for bridge abutment-backfill systems. In: Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV, pp 1–10

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005) Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(13):1573–1600

    Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Fragiadakis M (2010) Incremental dynamic analysis for estimating seismic performance sensitivity and uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):141–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidale J, Atkinson G, Green R, Hetland E, Ludwig LG, Mazzotti S, Nishenko S, Sykes L (2011) Independent expert panel on New Madrid Seismic Zone earthquake hazards. NMSZ Expert Panel Report to NEPEC

  • Waugh JD (2009) Nonlinear analysis of T-shaped concrete walls subjected to multi-directional displacements. Iowa State University, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen YK, Wu CL (2001) Uniform hazard ground motions for mid-America cities. Earthq Spectra 17(2):359–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright T, DesRoches R, Padgett JE (2011) Bridge seismic retrofitting practices in the central and southeastern United States. J Bridge Eng 16(1):82–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2005) Stochastic characterization and decision bases under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering. PEER Report 2005/13, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California, Berkeley

  • Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009a) A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(1):45–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009b) Equivalent constant rates for post-quake seismic decision making. Struct Saf 31(5):443–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Huo Y (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Eng Struct 31(8):1648–1660

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

    Parshan Sedaghati, Mohsen Gerami & Hosein Naderpour

Authors
  1. Parshan Sedaghati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohsen Gerami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hosein Naderpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Gerami.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors confirm that there is no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sedaghati, P., Gerami, M. & Naderpour, H. Probabilistic residual capacity assessment of mainshock-damaged multi-span simply supported concrete girder bridges subjected to aftershocks. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 6267–6305 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01339-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01339-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation