Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revising seismic behaviour factors for reinforced concrete bridge design in the longitudinal direction using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms

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

Abstract

Seismic behaviour factors represent the ratio between the strength of a structure, assuming it always maintains an elastic behaviour, and the strength demand with plastic behaviour and consequent loss of stiffness, at the seismic target displacement. This value is closely related to ductility and to energy dissipation due to hysteretic behaviour. The use of behaviour factors allows to design structures with elastic models, without having to explicitly account for material non-linearity while taking advantage of ductility. However, the definition of these values is not easy, and is dependent on several factors. In bridges, these factors can be, among others, regularity of the bridge in terms of pier height, concrete and steel quality, size of elements and amount of steel reinforcement, pier confinement, etc. These factors influence ductility demand and available ductility in different ways and through multi-objective optimization (MOO), the infrastructure solutions that maximize the use of the available ductility under a given earthquake action and for a given bridge superstructure, pier height scheme and ductility class according to Eurocode 8—part 2, can be obtained. Those optimized solutions, which are obtained through the minimization of steel and concrete in the piers as concurrent objectives, are associated with the maximum behaviour factors that can be used in the design of a given bridge and can be compared with the values recommended by EC8—part 2. Without loss of generality, the methodology is applied to a set of case-studies composed of RC bridges with four 30-m spans and circular piers, analysed in the longitudinal direction and without accounting for abutment effects. With the results from the MOO, the behaviour factors associated to solutions with different ductility levels and pier irregularity schemes are calculated and equations are derived, relating the obtained behaviour factors with a pier irregularity measure and ductility level. The results also show the importance of the choice of stiffness used in the design process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alam MI, Baburaj K, Prasun J (2019) Optimal design of thin-walled open cross-section column for maximum buckling load. Thin-Walled Struct 141:423–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano H, Dante T, Roberto G (2018) Optimum criss crossing cables in multi-span cable-stayed bridges using genetic algorithms. KSCE J Civil Eng 23:719–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azizi M, Ejlali RG, Ghasemi SAM, Talatahari S (2019) Upgraded whale optimization algorithm for fuzzy logic based vibration control of nonlinear steel structure. Eng Struct 192:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybordiani M, Kazemzadeh Azad S (2019) Optimum design of steel braced frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. Struct Multidiscip Optim 60:1123–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi G, Priestley MJN, Kowalsky M (2013) Displacement-based seismic design of bridges. Struct Eng Int 23:112–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho V., Nuno H, Mário L, Oliveira CS (2019) Optimizing earthquake design of reinforced concrete bridge infrastructures based on evolutionary computation techniques. Struct Multidiscip Optim

  • CEN (2005a) EN 1998-2: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 2: bridges. CEN–European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels

  • CEN (2005b) EN1998-1: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance–Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN–European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels

  • Chow CK, Shiu YY (2012) A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm that diversifies population by its density. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 16(2):149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curadelli O, Amani M (2014) Integrated structure-passive control design of linear structures under seismic excitations. Eng Struct 81:256–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb Kalyanmoy (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Esfandiari MJ, Urgessa GS, Sheikholarefin S, Manshadi SHD (2018) Optimization of reinforced concrete frames subjected to historical time-history loadings using DMPSO algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58:2119–2134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fajfar Peter (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16–3:573–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fardis M, et al. (2005) Designers’ guide to EN 1998-1 and 1998-5. Eurocode 8: design provisions for earthquake resistant structures. Designers’ Guide to Eurocodes

  • Fragiadakis Michalis, Papadrakakis Manolis (2008) Performance-based optimum seismic design of reinforced concrete structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(6):825–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geem ZW, Joong HK, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg David E (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha M-H, Vu Q-A, Truong V-H (2018) Optimum design of stay cables of steel cable-stayed bridges using nonlinear inelastic analysis and genetic algorithm. Structures 16:288–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ (1999) Evaluation of behaviour factors on the basis of ductility and overstrength studies. Eng Struct 21:823–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Saiidi MS, Aydinoglu MN, Isakovic T (2012) Seismic design and assessment of bridges, inelastic methods of analysis and case studies. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Paraskeva TS, Moschonas IF (2013) Response modification factors for concrete bridges in Europe. J Br Eng 18(12):1328–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolias B, Fardis MN, Pecker A, Gulvanessian H (2012) Designers’ guide to Eurocode 8: design of bridges for earthquake resistance. Designers’ Guide to Eurocodes

  • Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2007) Robust seismic design optimization of steel structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim 33:457–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagaros Nikos D, Tsompanakis Yiannis (2007) Intelligent computational paradigms in earthquake engineering. Idea Group Inc, Hershey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liu M, Burns SA, Wen YK (2003) Optimal seismic design of steel frame buildings based on life cycle cost considerations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(9):1313–1332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez CA, Curadelli O, Compagnoni ME (2014) Optimal placement of nonlinear hysteretic dampers on planar structures under seismic excitation. Eng Struct 65:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna Frank, Fenves Gregory (1999) OpenSEES - open system for earthquake engineering simulation. The Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Mergos PE (2017) Optimum seismic design of reinforced concrete frames according to Eurocode 8 and fib Model Code 2010. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(7):1181–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pipa M (1993) Ductility of reinforced concrete elements under cyclic actions. Influence of reinforcement mechanical characteristics, PhD thesis. Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Lisbon

  • Plevris V, Mitropoulou CC, Lagaros ND (2012) Structural seismic design optimization and earthquake engineering: formulations and applications. IGI Global, Hershey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Priestley MJN (2003) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revisited. IUSS Press, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ, Powell GH (2008) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. Earthq Spectra 24(2):555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas Hugo A, Foley Christopher, Pezeshk Shahram (2011) Risk-based seismic design for optimal structural and nonstructural system performance. Earthq Spectra 27(3):857–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsompanakis Y, Papadrakakis M (2004) Large-scale reliability-based structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26(6):429–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang JQ, Li S, Dezfuli FH, Alam MS (2019) Sensitivity analysis and multi-criteria optimization of SMA cable restrainers for longitudinal seismic protection of isolated simply supported highway bridges. Eng Struct 189:509–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Qingfu, Li Hui (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 11(6):712–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižmond J, Dolšek M (2016) Evaluation of factors influencing the earthquake-resistant design of reinforced concrete frames according to Eurocode 8. Struct Infrastruct Eng 12(10):1323–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge CERIS/DECivil from IST for all the support.

Funding

Vítor T. Camacho has a Grant [Grant Number PD/BD/127802/2016] from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), Av. Rovisco Pais No 1, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Vítor T. Camacho, Mário Lopes & Carlos S. Oliveira

Authors
  1. Vítor T. Camacho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mário Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos S. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vítor T. Camacho.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camacho, V.T., Lopes, M. & Oliveira, C.S. Revising seismic behaviour factors for reinforced concrete bridge design in the longitudinal direction using multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 925–951 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00739-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00739-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation