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

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%.

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

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

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):1663–1673

    Article  Google 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, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7–10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baker JW (2007) Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(5):1486–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31:579–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bauschinger J (1887) Variations in the elastic limit of iron and steel. J Iron Steel Inst 12(1):442–444

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berry M, Eberhard MO (2003) Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  8. Berry MP, Eberhard MO (2006) Performance modeling strategies for modern reinforced concrete bridge columns. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Berkeley

    Google 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):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caltrans (2013) Seismic Design Criteria. Caltrans VERSION 1.7

  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-94-0006

  14. Chatfield C (2003) The analysis of time series: an introduction, 6th edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London/Boca Raton

    Google 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 125–133

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dhakal RP, Maekawa K (2002) Reinforcement stability and fracture of cover concrete in reinforced concrete members. J Struct Eng 128(10):1253–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eurocode 8 (2010) “Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures—Part 2: bridges.” BS EN 1998-2:2005 +A1:2009

  18. FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

  19. FEMA (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings, Volume 1—methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google 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, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hancock J, Bommer JJ (2004) The effective number of cycles of earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:637–664

    Article  Google 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):827–845

    Article  Google 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 27:291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2006) Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Karsan ID, Jirsa JO (1969) Behavior of concrete under compressive loading. J Struct Eng Div ASCE 95(12):2543–2563

    Google 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, Bristol

  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 75:113–125

    Article  Google 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 156:58–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kashani MM, Barmi AK, Malinova VS (2015b) “Influence of inelastic buckling on low-cycle fatigue degradation of reinforcing bars”. Constr Build Mater 94:644–655

    Article  Google 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 116:163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, vol 80. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kunnath SK, El-Bahy A, Taylor AW, Stone WC (1997) Cumulative seismic damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers. Technical report NCEER

  34. Lehman DE, Moehle JP (2000) Seismic performance of well-confined concrete bridge columns. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, Berkeley

    Google 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 101:264–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mander JB, Panthaki FD, Kasalanat A (1994) Low-cycle fatigue behavior of reinforcing steel. J Mater Civ Eng 6(4):453–468

    Article  Google 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, Zurich

  39. Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC (1998) Geometrically nonlinear flexibility-based frame finite element. J Struct Eng 124(6):704–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McKenna F (2013) The open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, PEER, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  41. PEER (2010) Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings. PEER 2010/05. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  42. Popovics S (1973) A numerical approach to the complete stress strain curve for concrete. Cem Concr Res 3(5):583–599

    Article  Google 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 41:119–133

    Article  Google 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. 2926–2936

  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):13–27

  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 25:711–725

    Article  Google 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 25:727–742

    Article  Google 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)

  50. Uriz P (2005) Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures. Ph.D. Thesis University of California, Berkeley

  51. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad M. Kashani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kashani, M.M., Málaga-Chuquitaype, C., Yang, S. et al. Influence of non-stationary content of ground-motions on nonlinear dynamic response of RC bridge piers. Bull Earthquake Eng 15, 3897–3918 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0116-8

Download citation

Keywords

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