Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intensity measures for the seismic response assessment of plain concrete arch bridges

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intensity measures (IMs) are used as a link between seismic hazard and seismic demand analysis and therefore have a key role in performance-based earthquake engineering. To the best of our knowledge, no study has been carried out on the determination of suitable IMs to evaluate the seismic demand of plain concrete arch bridges. In the present study, the efficiency, sufficiency, scaling robustness and practicality of 34 potential IMs for evaluating the seismic response of two old railway plain concrete arch bridges in km-23 and km-24 of Tehran–Qom railway are investigated. The considered bridges are simulated using finite-element method and subjected to incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) using 22 far-field earthquake ground motion records. Complete response of the models is obtained through IDA method in terms of engineering demand parameter measured by the maximum displacement of the bridges. The optimal IMs among the considered intensity measures for evaluating seismic demand of the investigated plain concrete arch bridges are recognized using the concepts of efficiency, sufficiency, scaling robustness and practicality. Using the results of the regression analysis, it is concluded that root mean square acceleration is the optimal IM based on efficiency, sufficiency, scaling robustness and practicality for seismic response evaluation of plain concrete arch bridges under far-field ground motions.

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
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfredo H-SA, Wilson H (1975) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. National Bureau of Standards, California SEA

  • Bayraktar A, Türker T, Altunişik AC (2015) Experimental frequencies and damping ratios for historical masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 75:234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin JR (1988) A criterion for determining exceedances of the operating basis earthquake. EPRI Report NP-5930 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto

  • Chen W-F (2007) Plasticity in reinforced concrete. J. Ross Publishing, Plantation

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordova PP, Deierlein GG, Mehanny SS, Cornell CA (2000) Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. In: The second US-Japan workshop on performance-based earthquake engineering methodology for reinforced concrete building structures, pp 187–206

  • Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 128:526–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Porto F, Tecchio G, Zampieri P, Modena C, Prota A (2016) Simplified seismic assessment of railway masonry arch bridges by limit analysis. Struct Infrastruct Eng 12:567–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2015.1031141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M (1990) A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 9:236–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA P695, Washington

  • Franchin P, Pinto PE (2014) Performance-based seismic design of integral abutment bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 12:939–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gencturk B, Mullapudi T, Kilic SA, Erdik M (2012) Capacity assessment of the titus tunnel bridge using analytical and numerical techniques. J Perform Constr Facil 28:349–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Housner G, Jennings PC (1964) Generation of artificial earthquakes. J Eng Mech Div 90:113–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaton M, Aksoy HS, Sayın E, Calayır Y (2017) Nonlinear seismic performance of a 12th century historical masonry bridge under different earthquake levels. Eng Fail Anal 79:408–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23:357–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2005) Fragility basis for california highway overpass bridge seismic decision making. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Marefat MS, Ghahremani-Gargary E, Ataei S (2004) Load test of a plain concrete arch railway bridge of 20-m span. Constr Build Mater 18:661–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marefat MS, Yazdani M, Jafari M (2017) Seismic assessment of small to medium spans plain concrete arch bridges. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1320589

    Google Scholar 

  • Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 3812–3814

  • Nuttli OW (1979) The relation of sustained maximum ground acceleration and velocity to earthquake intensity and magnitude. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett JE, Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37:711–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park Y-J, Ang AH-S, Wen YK (1985) Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Struct Eng 111:740–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PEER Ground Motion Database (2017) http://peer.berkeley.edu/products/strong_ground_motion_db.html. Accessed 01 Feb 2017

  • Pelà L, Aprile A, Benedetti A (2009) Seismic assessment of masonry arch bridges. Eng Struct 31:1777–1788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelà L, Aprile A, Benedetti A (2013) Comparison of seismic assessment procedures for masonry arch bridges. Constr Build Mater 38:381–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pineda-Porras O, Ordaz M (2007) A new seismic intensity parameter to estimate damage in buried pipelines due to seismic wave propagation. J Earthq Eng 11:773–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Program NEHR, Council BSS, Agency USFEM (2001) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaeian S, Der Kiureghian A (2011) Simulation of orthogonal horizontal ground motion components for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41:335–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddell R, Garcia JE (2001) Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1791–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovithis EN, Pitilakis KD (2016) Seismic assessment and retrofitting measures of a historic stone masonry bridge. Earthq Struct 10:645–667. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.3.645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarma S, Yang K (1987) An evaluation of strong motion records and a new parameter A95. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 15:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevim B, Atamturktur S, Altunişik AC, Bayraktar A (2016) Ambient vibration testing and seismic behavior of historical arch bridges under near and far fault ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 14:241–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9810-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakib H, Jahangiri V (2016) Intensity measures for the assessment of the seismic response of buried steel pipelines. Bull Earthq Eng 14:1265–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shome N, Cornell CA (1999) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Tothong P, Luco N (2007) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:581–626

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Thun JL, Roehm LH, Scott GA, Wilson JA (1988) Earthquake ground motions for design and analysis of dams. In: Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II—recent advances in ground-motion evaluation. ASCE, pp 463–481

  • Zampieri P, Tecchio G, da Porto F, Modena C (2015a) Limit analysis of transverse seismic capacity of multi-span masonry arch bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1557–1579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9664-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zampieri P, Zanini MA, Modena C (2015b) Simplified seismic assessment of multi-span masonry arch bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2629–2646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9733-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zampieri P, Zanini MA, Faleschini F (2016) Derivation of analytical seismic fragility functions for common masonry bridge types: methodology and application to real cases. Eng Fail Anal 68:275–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelaschi C, Monteiro R, Pinho R (2017) Critical assessment of intensity measures for seismic response of Italian RC bridge portfolios. J Earthq Eng 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1342293

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

    Vahid Jahangiri

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Arak University, Arak, Iran

    Mahdi Yazdani

  3. Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Sadegh Marefat

Authors
  1. Vahid Jahangiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahdi Yazdani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Sadegh Marefat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Yazdani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jahangiri, V., Yazdani, M. & Marefat, M.S. Intensity measures for the seismic response assessment of plain concrete arch bridges. Bull Earthquake Eng 16, 4225–4248 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0334-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0334-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation