Advertisement

Studying the Effect of Fundamental Structural Period on the Seismic Fragility Curves of Two-Span Integral Concrete Box Girder Bridges

  • Payam Amirian
  • Abdolrasoul RanjbaranEmail author
Research Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

The main step in deriving fragility curves of structures is to develop their probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM). PSDMs can be expressed as the linear regression of engineering demand parameters and intensity measure suitable pairs in the log-transformed space. However, extracting PSDMs can be costly, computationally challenging, and time-consuming. For these reasons, this study proposes a practical method to estimate the two coefficients of the regression fit line of PSDM based on the fundamental periods of two-span integral concrete box girder bridges. Moreover, the effect of geometrical properties on the fundamental period has been investigated and an equation has been derived for the estimation of the fundamental period. For statistical analyses, 220 bridges are modeled using Latin hyper-cube sampling while 35,200 nonlinear time history analyses are done using OpenSees software to generate PSDMs.

Keywords

ANOVA Box girder bridges Fragility curve Fundamental structural period PSDM 

References

  1. Baker JW, Lin T, Shahi SK, Jayaram N (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report, University of California, Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2013) Caltrans seismic design criteria, version 17. California Department of Transportation, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  3. Celik OC, Ellingwood BR (2010) Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames–Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Struct Saf 32(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi E (2002) Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DesRoches R, Padgett J, Ramanathan K, Dukes J (2012) Feasibility studies for improving Caltrans bridge fragility relationships (No. CA12-1775)Google Scholar
  7. Dukes JD (2013) Application of bridge specific fragility analysis in the seismic design process of bridges in California, PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Dukes J, DesRoches R, Padgett JE (2012) Sensitivity study of design parameters used to develop bridge specific fragility curves. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 720Google Scholar
  9. Jeon JS, Mangalathu S, Lee SY (2019) Seismic fragility curves for California concrete bridges with flared two-column bents. Bull Earthq Eng 17(7):4299–4319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kwon OS, Elnashai AS (2010) Fragility analysis of a highway over-crossing bridge with consideration of soil–structure interactions. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6(1–2):159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mangalathu S, Jeon, JS, DesRoches R, Padgett J (2016) Application of Bayesian methods to probabilistic seismic demand analyses of concrete box-girder bridges. In: Proceedings of conference, on geotechnical and structural engineering, pp 1367–1379Google Scholar
  13. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2006) OpenSees command language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, 264Google Scholar
  14. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2009) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command-language manual—OpenSees version 2.0. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. McKay MD et al (1979) Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Megally SH, Silva PF, Seible F (2001) Seismic response of sacrificial shear keys in bridge abutments. Report no SSRP-2001/23, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  17. Muthukumar S (2003) A contact element approach with hysteresis damping for the analysis and design of pounding in bridges. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  18. Nielson BG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2006) Influence of modeling assumptions on the seismic response of multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct 28(8):1083–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Omrani R, Mobasher B, Sheikhakbari S, Zareian F, Taciroglu E (2017) Variability in the predicted seismic performance of a typical seat-type California bridge due to epistemic uncertainties in its abutment backfill and shear-key models. Eng Struct 148:718–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2007) Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty. J Struct Eng 133(12):1710–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2008) Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(8):1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramanathan KN (2012) Next generation seismic fragility curves for California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design philosophy. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramanathan K, Jeon JS, Zakeri B, DesRoches R, Padgett JE (2015) Seismic response prediction and modeling considerations for curved and skewed concrete box-girder bridges. Earthq Struct 9(6):1153–1179.  https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.6.1153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shamsabadi A, Yan L (2008) Closed-form force-displacement backbone curves for bridge abutment-backfill systems. In: Proceedings of the geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics IV congress. ASCE, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  26. Silva PF, Megally S, Seible F (2009) Seismic performance of sacrificial exterior shear keys in bridge abutments. Earthq Spectra 25(3):643–664.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3155405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soleimani F, Vidakovic B, DesRoches R, Padgett J (2017) Identification of the significant uncertain parameters in the seismic response of irregular bridges. Eng Struct 141:356–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xie Y, Zheng Q, Yang CSW, Zhang W, DesRoches R, Padgett JE, Taciroglu E (2019) Probabilistic models of abutment backfills for regional seismic assessment of highway bridges in California. Eng Struct 180:452–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations