Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic vulnerability of RC skew-bridges considering the vertical component of ground motion

  • Published:
International Journal of Dynamics and Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Even after considering speed, safety, construction problems and space constraints, it is not always possible to align bridge piers to being exactly normal to the bridge deck axis. The solution to this is a skew bridge. This study investigated the vulnerability of an RC skew bridge with a skew angle of 45 under seismic loading using fragility curves with and without consideration of the vertical component of ground motion. Non-linear time history analysis was used with a set of ten near-field ground motions. The column ductility displacements determined as the damage index and fragility curves for the slight, moderate, extensive and complete damage state levels were calculated and assessed. A comparison between the fragility curves of bridges with skew angles of 0° and 45° with and without the effect of the vertical component indicated that the probability that demand would exceed the capacity increased at all damage states levels for the skew bridge in both the longitudinal and transverse directions compared to the bridge with no skew angle. By considering the vertical component of the ground motions and for lower damage states (slight and moderate), the vulnerability of the bridge was not increased remarkably. However, for higher damage states (extensive and complete), the vulnerability was increased remarkably by considering the vertical component of the ground motions. In other words, the higher a damage state is, the more difference can be seen between the probability parameter (vulnerability) in skew bridge subjected to ground motions with and without the consideration of the vertical component. Additionally, the seismic behavior of bridges with skew angles of 0°, 15°, 30° and 45° were compared using the average pier displacement and it was shown that there was no linear relationship between an increase in the skew angle and an increase in relative displacement.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study or the raw data used during the current study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author

References

  1. Bayat M, Daneshjoo F, Nisticò N (2017) The effect of different intensity measures and earthquake directions on the seismic assessment of skewed highway bridges. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16(1):165–179

    Google Scholar 

  2. Deepu SP, Prajapat K, Ray-Chaudhuri S (2014) Seismic vulnerability of skew bridges under bi-directional ground motions. Eng Struct 71:150–160

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yang CSW, Werner SD, DesRoches R (2015) Seismic fragility analysis of skewed bridges in the central southeastern United States. Eng Struct 83:116–128

    Google Scholar 

  4. Maragakis EA, Jennings PC (1987) Analytical models for the rigid body motions of skew bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 15(8):923–944

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wakefield RR, Nazmy AS, Billington DP (1991) Analysis of seismic failure in skew RC bridge. J Struct Eng 117(3):972–986

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kawashima K, Watanabe G (2001) Effectiveness of cable-restrainer for mitigating rotation of a skewed bridge subjected to strong ground shaking. Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 675:141–159

    Google Scholar 

  7. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2017) Bridge Design Specifications. 8th edition

  8. Rojahn C, Sharpe RL (1958) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied technology council, California, US

    Google Scholar 

  9. Werner SD, Taylor CE, Moore JE (1997) Loss estimation due to seismic risks to highway systems. Earthq Spectra 13(4):585–604

    Google Scholar 

  10. Veneziano D, Sussman JM, Gupta U, Kunnumkal SM (2002) Earthquake loss under limited transportation capacity: Assessment, sensitivity and remediation. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Seventh US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2002. Boston, USA

  11. Shinozuka M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Abrams DP, Hwang HH, Rose A (1997) Advances in earthquake loss estimation and application to Memphis, Tennessee. Earthq Spectra 13(4):739–758

    Google Scholar 

  12. Muntasir Billah AHM, Shahria Alam M (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(6):804–832

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wakefield D, Ravindra M, Merz K, Hardy G (2003) Seismic probabilistic risk assessment implementation guide, Final Report, US, 1002989

  14. Raghucharan MC, Somala SN, Rodina S (2019) Seismic attenuation model using artificial neural networks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 126:105828

    Google Scholar 

  15. Soares RW, Barroso LR, Al-Fahdawi OA (2020) Response attenuation of cable-stayed bridge subjected to central US earthquakes using neuro-fuzzy and simple adaptive control. Eng Struct 203:109874

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kuok SC, Yuen KV (2020) Broad learning for nonparametric spatial modeling with application to seismic attenuation. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 35(3):203–218

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shirazian S, Ghayamghamian MR, Nouri GR (2011) Developing of fragility curve for two-span simply supported concrete bridge in near-fault area. Paper presented at World Acad Sci Eng Technol. 2011. Turkey, 51, pp 571–575

  18. Siqueira GH, Sanda AS, Paultre P, Padgett JE (2014) Fragility curves for isolated bridges in eastern Canada using experimental results. Eng Struct 74:311–324

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kennedy RP, Cornell CA, Campbell RD, Kaplan S, Perla HF (1980) Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nucl Eng Des 59(2):315–338

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zentner I (2017) A general framework for the estimation of analytical fragility functions based on multivariate probability distributions. Struct Saf 64:54–61

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mander JB, Basöz N (1999) Seismic fragility curve theory for highway bridges. Paper presented at Optimizing post-earthquake lifeline system reliability. 1999. US, pp 31–40

  22. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yamazaki F, Hamada T, Motoyama H, Yamauchi H (1999) Earthquake damage assessment of expressway bridges in Japan. Paper presented at Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability. 1999. US, pp 361–370

  24. Hwang H, Jernigan JB, Lin YW (2000) Evaluation of seismic damage to Memphis bridges and highway systems. J Bridg Eng 5(4):322–330

    Google Scholar 

  25. Basöz N, Mander JB (1999) Enhancement of the highway transportation lifeline module in HAZUS. National Institute of Building Sciences, US

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Kim SH (2000) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech 126(12):1287–1295

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hwang H, Liu JB, Chiu YH (2001) Seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges, Mid-America Earthquake Center CD Release 01–06. Memphis, US

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sullivan I, Nielson BG (2010) Sensitivity analysis of seismic fragility curves for skewed multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges. Paper presented at Structures Congress 2010: 19th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference. 2010. US, pp 226–237

  30. Serdar N, Folić R (2018) Vulnerability and optimal probabilistic seismic demand model for curved and skewed RC bridges. Eng Struct 176:411–425

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nouri G, Ahmadi Z (2012) Influence of skew angle on continuous composite girder bridge. J Bridg Eng 17(4):617–623

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mangalathu S, Jeon JS, Jiang J (2018) Skew adjustment factors for fragilities of California box-girder bridges subjected to near-fault and far-field ground motions. J Bridge Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu X, Guo W, Li J, Zhang H (2020) Seismic study of skew bridge supported on laminated-rubber bearings. Adv Civil Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8899693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hosseinzadeh N (2008) Vertical component effect of earthquake in seismic performance of reinforced concrete bridge piers. Paper presented at proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2008. Beijing, China, pp 06–0050

  35. Soureshjani OK, Massumi A (2019) Effect of near and far-field earthquakes on RC bridge with and without damper. J Earthq Struct 6:533–543. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.17.6.533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Broderick BM, Elnashai AS (1995) Analysis of the failure of Interstate 10 freeway ramp during the Northridge earthquake of 17 January 1994. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 24(2):189–208

    Google Scholar 

  37. Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS (1996) Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 25(10):1109–1137

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yu CP (1996) Effect of vertical earthquake components on bridge responses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, US

  39. Button MR, Cronin CJ, Mayes RL (2002) Effect of vertical motions on seismic response of highway bridges. J Struct Eng 128(12):1551–1564

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kunnath SK, Erduran E, Chai YH, Yashinsky M (2008) Effect of near-fault vertical ground motions on seismic response of highway overcrossings. J Bridg Eng 13(3):282–290

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kim SJ, Holub CJ, Elnashai AS (2011) Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical earthquake motion on RC bridge piers. J Struct Eng 137(2):252–260

    Google Scholar 

  42. Farahmand-Tabar S, Barghian M (2021) Seismic assessment of a cable-stayed arch bridge under three-component orthotropic earthquake excitation. Adv Struct Eng 24(2):227–242

    Google Scholar 

  43. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (1995) Seismic retrofitting manual for highway bridges. Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-052, Virginia, US

  44. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1995) Standard specifications for highway bridges

  45. Computers and Structures, Inc. (1998) SAP2000: integrated finite element analysis and design of structures: basic analysis reference. Berkeley, Calif., USA

  46. Aviram A, Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2008) Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. US

  47. Kim SJ, Elnashai AS (2008) Seismic assessment of RC structures considering vertical ground motion. Mid-America Earthquake Center, US

  48. SAP2000, V (2002) 8, User’s Manuals. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, California

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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, US, PEER Report

  50. Ramanathan K, DesRoches R, Padgett JE (2010) Analytical fragility curves for multispan continuous steel girder bridges in moderate seismic zones. Transp Res Rec 2202(1):173–182

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tesfamariam S, Goda K (2013) Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  52. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533

    Google Scholar 

  53. Yun SY (2000) Performance prediction and evaluation of low ductility steel moment frames for seismic loads. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  54. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2008) Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 37(8):1157–1174

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rahman Bhuiyan MA, Alam MS (2012) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous highway bridge fitted with shape memory alloy bars and laminated rubber bearings. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1379–1404

    Google Scholar 

  57. 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 

  58. Billah AM, Alam MS, Bhuiyan MR (2013) Fragility analysis of retrofitted multicolumn bridge bent subjected to near-fault and far-field ground motion. J Bridg Eng 18(10):992–1004

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bouna HS, Nana Nbendjo BR, Woafo P (2018) On the dynamics of two multi-span continuous beam bridges model coupled by their close environment. Int J Dyn Control 6(1):29–40

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Fema Hazus HM (2003) MR3 Technical Manual: Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model (2003). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tavares DH, Padgett JE, Paultre P (2012) Fragility curves of typical as-built highway bridges in eastern Canada. Eng Struct 40:107–118

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zakeri B, Padgett JE, Amiri GG (2014) Fragility analysis of skewed single-frame concrete box-girder bridges. J Perform Constr Facil 28(3):571–582

    Google Scholar 

  63. Nielson BG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, US

  64. Mangalathu S, Jeon JS, DesRoches R, Padgett J (2016) Application of Bayesian methods to probabilistic seismic demand analyses of concrete box-girder bridges. In Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 pp 1367–1379

  65. PEER-Ground-Motion-Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, US. [online] https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/. Accessed 2011

  66. Douglas J (2006) Strong-motion records selection for structural testing. In: first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC) pp Paper-Number

  67. Bhanu V, Ozcebe AG, Smerzini CA (2008) Study on vertical component of earthquake ground motion and its effects on a bridge. Paper presented at the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering. 2008. pp 1–12. Thessaloniki, Greek

  68. Elnashai AS, Papazoglou AJ (1997) Procedure and spectra for analysis of RC structures subjected to strong vertical earthquake loads. J Earthq Eng 1(01):121–155

    Google Scholar 

  69. Newmark NM, Hall WJ, Mohraz B (1973) A study of vertical and horizontal earthquake spectra, Directorate of Licensing, US Atomic Energy Commission, WASH-1255.

  70. Abrahamson NA, Litehiser JJ (1989) Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(3):549–580

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KU, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthqu Eng Struct Dyn 25(4):371–400

    Google Scholar 

  72. Elgamal A, He L (2004) Vertical earthquake ground motion records: an overview. J Earthq Eng 8(05):663–697

    Google Scholar 

  73. Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW (2008) The vertical-to-horizontal response spectral ratio and tentative procedures for developing simplified V/H and vertical design spectra. J Earthq Eng 8(02):175–207

    Google Scholar 

  74. Naeim F (2007) Dynamics of structures—theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23(2):491–492

    Google Scholar 

  75. Chopra AK (2007) Dynamics of structures. Pearson Education India, Chennai

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was not funded by any funding bodies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, Kharazmi University, No.43, Dr. Mofatteh Ave., Tehran, Iran

    Gholamreza Nouri

  2. Kharazmi University, No.43, Dr. Mofatteh Ave., Tehran, Iran

    Omid Karimzade Soureshjani

Authors
  1. Gholamreza Nouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omid Karimzade Soureshjani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GN: Conceived and designed the analysis, Collected the data, Contributed data or analysis tools, Performed the analysis, Wrote the paper, Other contribution—Methodology, Investigation, Conception, Review; OKS: Contributed data or analysis tools, Wrote the paper, Other contribution—Review, Visualization, Investigation, Assessment.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gholamreza Nouri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nouri, G., Soureshjani, O.K. Seismic vulnerability of RC skew-bridges considering the vertical component of ground motion. Int. J. Dynam. Control 12, 1208–1221 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-023-01279-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40435-023-01279-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation