Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 9, pp 3897–3918 | Cite as

Influence of non-stationary content of ground-motions on nonlinear dynamic response of RC bridge piers

  • Mohammad M. Kashani
  • Christian Málaga-Chuquitaype
  • Shijia Yang
  • Nicholas A. Alexander
Original Research Paper

Abstract

This paper quantifies the impact of the non-stationary content (time-varying parameters that are not captured by power spectral content alone) of different ground-motion types (near/far field, with/without pulses time-series) on the nonlinear dynamic response of reinforced concrete bridge piers, taking into account the material cyclic degradation. Three groups of ground motions are selected to represent far-field, near-field without pulse and near-field pulse-like ground motions. Three analysis cases are considered corresponding to acceleration series matched to the mean response spectrum of: (1) far field, (2) near-field without pulse and (3) near-field pulse-like ground-motions, respectively. Using the selected ground motions, several nonlinear incremental dynamic analyses of prototype reinforced concrete bridge piers with a range of fundamental periods are conducted. Finally, a comparison between the response of the structures using the material model accounting for both buckling and low-cycle fatigue of reinforcing steel and the more conventional material model that does not account for these effects is made. The results show that the inelastic buckling and low-cycle fatigue have a significant influence on the nonlinear response of the RC bridge piers considered and that pulse effects can increase the mean acceleration response by about 50%.

Keywords

Incremental dynamic analysis Low-cycle fatigue Response spectrum matching Ground-motion duration Nonlinear analysis Inelastic buckling 

References

  1. Alexander NA, Chanerley AA, Crewe AJ, Bhattacharya S (2014) Obtaining spectrum matching time series using a Reweighted Volterra Series Algorithm (RVSA). Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1663–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2013) PEER NGA-West2 database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7–10. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31:579–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauschinger J (1887) Variations in the elastic limit of iron and steel. J Iron Steel Inst 12(1):442–444Google Scholar
  7. Berry M, Eberhard MO (2003) Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry MP, Eberhard MO (2006) Performance modeling strategies for modern reinforced concrete bridge columns. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M (2004) Performance database User’s Manual. PEER, University of California, Berkeley www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1. Accessed 2013
  10. Brown B, Saiidi MS (2011) Investigation of effect of near-fault motions on substandard bridge structures. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 10(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caltrans (2013) Seismic Design Criteria. Caltrans VERSION 1.7Google Scholar
  12. Chandramohan R, Baker JW, Deierlien GG (2015) Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthq Spectra. doi: 10.1193/122813EQS298MR2 Google Scholar
  13. Chang GA, Mander JB (1994) Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge columns: part I—evaluation of seismic capacity. NCEER-94-0006Google Scholar
  14. Chatfield C (2003) The analysis of time series: an introduction, 6th edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London/Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornell CA (1997) “Does duration really matter?” FHWA/NCEER Workshop on the National Representation of Seismic Ground Motion for New and Existing Highway Facilities. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Burlingame, pp 125–133Google Scholar
  16. Dhakal RP, Maekawa K (2002) Reinforcement stability and fracture of cover concrete in reinforced concrete members. J Struct Eng 128(10):1253–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eurocode 8 (2010) “Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures—Part 2: bridges.” BS EN 1998-2:2005 +A1:2009Google Scholar
  18. FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. FEMA (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, Volume 1—methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. UCB/EERC, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  21. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2004) The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:637–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthq Spectra 22(3):827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2007) Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration on inelastic structural response. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2006) Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karsan ID, Jirsa JO (1969) Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J Struct Eng Div ASCE 95(12):2543–2563Google Scholar
  27. Kashani MM (2014) Seismic performance of corroded RC bridge piers: development of a multi-mechanical nonlinear fibre beam-column model. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, BristolGoogle Scholar
  28. Kashani MM, Lowes LN, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA (2014) “Finite element investigation of the influence of corrosion pattern on inelastic buckling and cyclic response of corroded reinforcing bars”. Eng Struct 75:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kashani MM, Lowes LN, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA (2015a) Phenomenological hysteretic model for corroded reinforcing bars including inelastic buckling and low-cycle fatigue degradation. Comput Struct 156:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kashani MM, Barmi AK, Malinova VS (2015b) “Influence of inelastic buckling on low-cycle fatigue degradation of reinforcing bars”. Constr Build Mater 94:644–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kashani MM, Lowes LN, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA (2016) Nonlinear fibre element modelling of RC bridge piers considering inelastic buckling of reinforcement. Eng Struct 116:163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, vol 80. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunnath SK, El-Bahy A, Taylor AW, Stone WC (1997) Cumulative seismic damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers. Technical report NCEERGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehman DE, Moehle JP (2000) Seismic performance of well-confined concrete bridge columns. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Málaga-Chuquitaype C (2015) Estimation of peak displacements in steel structures through dimensional analysis and the efficiency of alternative ground-motion time and length scales. Eng Struct 101:264–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mander JB, Panthaki FD, Kasalanat A (1994) Low-cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel. J Mater Civ Eng 6(4):453–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Menegotto M, Pinto PE (1973) Method of analysis of cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic behavior of elements under normal force and bending. Preliminary report, 13:15–22. IABSE, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  39. Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC (1998) Geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame finite element. J Struct Eng 124(6):704–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKenna F (2013) The open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, PEER, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  41. PEER (2010) Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings. PEER 2010/05. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  42. Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete stress strain curve for concrete. Cem Concr Res 3(5):583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R2013b MTLAB. 1994–2012. “The MathWorks lnc.” www.mathworks.com
  44. Raghunandan M, Liel AB (2013) Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse. Struct Saf 41:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sarieddine M, Lin L (2013) Investigation correlations between strong-motion duration and structural damage. Structures Congress 2013. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers. 2926–2936Google Scholar
  46. Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN (1982) Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. Am Concr Inst J 79(1):13–27Google Scholar
  47. Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF (1996a) Fibre beam–column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part I: formulation. Earthq Eng Struct D 25:711–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF (1996b) Fibre beam–column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part II: applications. Earthq Eng Struct D 25:727–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stewart J, Chiou S, Bray J, Graves R, Somerville P, Abrahamson N (2001) “Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEERS)Google Scholar
  50. Uriz P (2005) Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures. Ph.D. Thesis University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  51. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad M. Kashani
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christian Málaga-Chuquitaype
    • 2
  • Shijia Yang
    • 2
  • Nicholas A. Alexander
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and the EnvironmentUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations