Advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 1603–1618 | Cite as

Characterization of Near-Fault Effects on Potential Cumulative Damage of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Piers

  • Vui Van CaoEmail author
Research paper

Abstract

The objective of this study is to characterize the potential damage of near-fault ground motions on reinforced concrete bridge piers, providing information for engineering practice. To achieve this objective, 200 real near-fault pulse-type records and a bridge pier were selected. The same number of real far-fault ground motions was also selected for comparison. Inelastic time history and damage analyses were performed for the pier subjected to the selected near-fault and far-fault ground motions. The obtained results showed that more than 91% near-fault motions caused the pier to collapse while the pier survived under almost all far-fault motions. The responses of the pier under near-fault motions were characterized by one or few large hysteretic cycles. The damage indices of the pier subjected to near-fault ground motions increased rapidly when the pier underwent pulses of near-fault motions, and the pier damage was mainly caused by pulses. Collapse of the pier subjected to near-fault motions occurred at the pulse time. The duration to collapse, which was defined as the duration from light damage to collapse, of the pier under near-fault motions was extremely short (approximately 2.3–2.5 s). These special and negative structural damage characteristics of near-fault ground motions should be considered in designing and mitigating seismic hazards for structures located in near-fault regions.

Keywords

Near-fault earthquake Seismic load Damage characteristic Reinforced concrete Bridge pier 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology under Grant number T-KTXD-2018-44.

References

  1. 1.
    Mavroeidis G, Papageorgiou A (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1099–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertero VV, Mahin SA, Herrera RA (1978) Aseismic design implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquake records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(1):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elnashai A, Sarno LD (2008) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Wiley, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moustafa A, Takewaki I (2012) Characterization of earthquake ground motion of multiple sequences. Earthq Struct 3(5):629–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moustafa A, Takewaki I (2010) Characterization and modeling of near-fault pulse-like strong ground motion via damage-based critical excitation method. Struct Eng Mech 34(6):755–778.  https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2010.34.6.755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings. Earthq Spect 22(2):367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lu L-Y, Lin G-L (2009) Improvement of near-fault seismic isolation using a resettable variable stiffness damper. Eng Struct 31:2097–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hatzigeorgiou GD (2010) Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to multiple near-fault earthquakes. Comput Struct 88:309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park SW, Ghasemi H, Shen J, Somerville PG, Yen WP, Yashinsky M (2004) Simulation of the seismic performance of the Bolu Viaduct subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33:1249–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galal K, Ghobarah A (2006) Effect of near-fault earthquakes on North American nuclear design spectra. Nucl Eng Des 236:1928–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galal K, Naimi M (2008) Effect of soil conditions on the response of reinforced concrete tall structures to near fault earthquakes. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 17:541–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mollaioli F, Bruno S, Decanini LD, Panza GF (2006) Characterization of the dynamic response of structures to damaging pulse-type near-fault ground motions. Meccanica 41:23–46zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krishnan S (2007) Case studies of damage to 19-storey irregular steel moment-frame buildings under near-source ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:861–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2001) Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1769–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manfredi G, Polese M, Cosenza E (2003) Cumulative demand of the earthquake ground motions in the near source. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1853–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghahari SF, Jahankhah H, Ghannad MA (2010) Study on elastic response of structures to near-fault ground motions through record decomposition. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:536–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hatzigeorgiou GD (2010) Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far- fault earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:170–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rupakhety R, Sigurdsson SU, Papageorgiou AS, Sigbjörnsson R (2011) Quantification of ground-motion parameters and response spectra in the near-fault region. Bull Earthq Eng 9(4):893–930.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9255-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garini E, Gazetas G (2013) Damage potential of near-fault records: sliding displacement against conventional “Intensity Measures”. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):455–480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9397-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garini E, Makris N, Gazetas G (2015) Elastic and inelastic systems under near-fault seismic shaking: acceleration records versus optimally-fitted wavelets. Bull Earthq Eng 13(2):459–482.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9631-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eskandari R, Vafaei D (2015) Effects of near-fault records characteristics on seismic performance of eccentrically braced frames. Struct Eng Mech 56(5):855–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dicleli M, Mehta A (2007) Effect of near-fault ground motion and damper characteristics on the seismic performance of chevron braced steel frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:927–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jadhav MB, Jangid RS (2016) Response of base-isolated liquid storage tanks to near-fault motions. Struct Eng Mech 23(6):615–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Choi I-K, Choun Y-S, Ahn S-M, Seo J-M (2008) Probabilistic seismic risk analysis of CANDU containment structure for near-fault earthquakes. Nucl Eng Des 238:1382–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Choi H, Saiidi MS, Somerville P, El-Azazy S (2010) Experimental study of reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to near-fault ground motions. ACI Struct J 107(1):3–12Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsai KC, Hsiao CP, Bruneau M (2000) Overview of building damages in 921 Chi-Chi earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Seismol 2(1):93–108Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cao VV, Ronagh HR, Baji H (2014) Seismic risk assessment of deficient reinforced concrete frames in near-fault regions. Adv Concrete Constr 2(4):261–280.  https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2014.2.4.261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liao W-I, Loh C-H, Wan S (2001) Earthquake responses of RC moment frames subjected to near-fault ground motions. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 10:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dolati A, Taghikhany T, Khanmohammadi M, Rahai A (2015) Scenario-based seismic performance assessment of regular and irregular highway bridges under near-fault ground motions. Earthq Struct 8(3):573–589.  https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.3.573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yüksel E, Sürmeli M (2010) Failure analysis of one-story precast structures for near-fault and far-fault strong ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 8:937–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park Y-J, Ang AH-S (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng 111(4):722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mazza F, Vulcano A (2010) Nonlinear dynamic response of r.c. framed structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1331–1350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9180-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Computers and Structures Inc (2017) SAP2000 version 19.2.0Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cao VV, Ronagh H, Ashraf M, Baji H (2014) A new damage index for reinforced concrete structures. Earthq Struct 6(6):581–609.  https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.6.6.581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    PEER PEER ground motion database. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/site. Accessed 2018
  37. 37.
    Pantelides C, Gergely J (2002) Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer seismic retrofit of RC bridge bent: design and in situ validation. J Compos Constr 6(1):52–60.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0268(2002)6:1(52) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pantelides C, Reaveley L, Duffin J, Ward J, Delahunty C (2003) In-situ tests of three bents at South Temple bridge on Interstate 15—Final report (trans: Division UDoTR). Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pantelides C, Gergely J, Marriott N, Reavely L (2000) Seismic rehabilitation of concrete bridges: verification using in situ tests at South Temple bridge on Interstate 15 (trans: Division UDoTR). Vol Final Report. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ACI (2008) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318 M-08) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. J Struct Div 96:2557–2573Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sheikh SA, Khoury SS (1993) Confined concrete columns with stubs. ACI Struct J 90(4):414–431Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Park R, Priestley MJN, Gill WD (1982) Ductility of square-confined concrete columns. J Struct Div 108:929–950Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Paulay T, Priestley MJN (eds) (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Priestley MJN (2000) Performance based seismic design. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    AASHTO (2012) AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, p 20001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanics of Materials and Structures, Faculty of Civil EngineeringHo Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT), Vietnam National UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations