Abstract
In performance-based seismic assessment, structural response is characterised using fragility functions based on a seismic intensity measure (IM). IMs are typically related to the characteristics of ground shaking and structural dynamic properties, with the spectral acceleration at the first and dominant mode of vibration, Sa(T1), being a popular choice for buildings. In bridge structures, where no single dominant mode typically exists for bridges with some degree of irregularity, the use of Sa(T1) may be inefficient (i.e. large dispersion) due to multi-modal transverse response. To avoid having to choose a single bridge mode when using Sa(T1) and to appease the needs of bridge portfolio assessment, peak ground acceleration (PGA) can often be the IM used for bridge fragility functions in some countries. This study examines the efficient assessment of simple bridge structures characteristic of the European context by exploring different IMs based on Sa(T), peak ground velocity (PGV) or a recent candidate average spectral acceleration, AvgSa. Several case study bridges are evaluated via multiple stripe analysis with hazard-consistent ground motion records. The results indicate that PGA and PGV are indeed inefficient IMs compared to other IMs of similar complexity, especially at serviceability limit states, for the bridge structures examined. Also, a relatively casual record selection strategy is seen to not be suitable for risk assessment of bridges and can result in notable differences in risk. In contrast, AvgSa, which is an IM based on a simple combination of Sa(T) values across a range of periods, showed very good predictive power and robustness in terms of its risk estimates across all ranges of structural response. This was observed for the structure-specific IMs in addition to the group IMs used for assessing multiple structures with the same ground motion records. This study has thus shown these AvgSa-based IMs to be an appealing choice to consider for further examination in future fragility function and risk model development for bridge structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground-motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M
Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):299–317. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857544
Banerjee S, Shinozuka M (2008) Mechanistic quantification of RC bridge damage states under earthquake through fragility analysis. Probab Eng Mech 23(1):12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2007.08.001
Basöz NI, Kiremidjian AS, King SA, Law KH (1999) Statistical analysis of bridge damage data from the 1994 Northridge, CA. Earthquake Earthq Spectra 15(1):25–54. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586027
Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Statistics and decision for civil engineers
Bianchini M, Diotallevi P, Baker JW (2009) Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations. In: ICOSSAR09: 10th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Osaka, Japan.
Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-Motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434
Borzi B, Ceresa P, Franchin P, Noto F, Calvi GM, Pinto PE (2015) Seismic vulnerability of the Italian roadway bridge stock. Earthq Spectra 31(4):2137–2161. https://doi.org/10.1193/070413EQS190M
Bradley BA (2012b) A ground motion selection algorithm based on the generalized conditional intensity measure approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 40:48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.04.007
Bradley BA (2012a) The seismic demand hazard and importance of the conditioning intensity measure. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 41(11):1417–1437. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2221
Bradley BA (2010) A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 39(2):1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.995
Bradley BA, Burks LS, Baker JW (2015) Ground motion selection for simulation-based seismic hazard and structural reliability assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 44(13):2321–2340. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2588
Cardone D, Perrone G, Sofia S (2011) A performance-based adaptive methodology for the seismic evaluation of multi-span simply supported deck bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1463–1498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9260-8
CEN. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 2: Bridges (EN 1998–2:2005). Brussels, Belgium: 2005.
Cordova P, Deierlein GG, Mehanny S, Cornell CA (2000) Development of a two-parameter seismic intensity measure and probabilistic assessment procedure. In: Proceedings of the 2nd US–Japan Workshop on Performance-based Earth- quake Engineering Methodology for RC Building Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–2
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(4):526–533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
Dávalos H, Miranda E (2019a) Evaluation of the scaling factor bias influence on the probability of collapse using Sa(T1 as the Intensity Measure. Earthq Spectra 35(2):679–702. https://doi.org/10.1193/011018EQS007M
Dávalos H, Miranda E (2019b) Filtered incremental velocity: a novel approach in intensity measures for seismic collapse estimation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 48(12):1384–1405. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3205
Dávalos H, Miranda E (2020) Evaluation of FIV3 as an intensity measure for collapse estimation of moment-resisting frame buildings. J Struct Eng 146(10):04020204. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002781
Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31(2):105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020
Eads L, Miranda E (2013) Seismic collapse risk assessment of buildings: effects of intensity measure selection and computational approach. Blume Report No 184 2013.
Eads L, Miranda E, Krawinkler H, Lignos DG (2013) An efficient method for estimating the collapse risk of structures in seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 42(1):25–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2191
Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos DG (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 44(12):2057–2073. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2575
Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos D (2016) Spectral shape metrics and structural collapse potential. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 45(10):1643–1659. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2739
Elnashai AS, Borzi B, Vlachos S (2004) Deformation-based vulnerability functions for RC bridges. Struct Eng Mech 17(2):215–244. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2004.17.2.215
Gardoni P, Der Kiureghian A, Mosalam KM (2002) Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. J Eng Mech 128(10):1024–1038. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:10(1024)
Gardoni P, Mosalam KM (2003) Kiureghian A der (2003) Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for RC bridges. J Earthq Eng 7(sup001):79–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460309350474
GEM (2019) The OpenQuake engine user instruction manual: 189. https://doi.org/10.13117/GEM.OPENQUAKE.MAN.ENGINE.3.7.1.
HAZUS (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology-earthquake model. Washington, DC, USA
Huang Q, Gardoni P, Hurlebaus S (2010) Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete highway bridges with one single-column bent. J Eng Mech 136(11):1340–1353. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000186
Iervolino I (2017) Assessing uncertainty in estimation of seismic response for PBEE. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(10):1711–1723. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2883
Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, USA
Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2007) A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability analysis of RC frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(13):2059–2079. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.704
Jalayer F, Ebrahimian H, Miano A, Manfredi G, Sezen H (2017) Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(15):2639–2663. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2922
Kazantzi AK, Vamvatsikos D (2015) Intensity measure selection for vulnerability studies of building classes. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 44(15):2677–2694. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2603
Kilanitis I, Sextos A (2019) Integrated seismic risk and resilience assessment of roadway networks in earthquake prone areas. Bull Earthq Eng 17(1):181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0457-y
Kohrangi M, Vamvatsikos D, Bazzurro P (2016a) Implications of intensity measure selection for seismic loss assessment of 3-D Buildings. Earthq Spectra 32(4):2167–2189. https://doi.org/10.1193/112215EQS177M
Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D (2016b) Vector and scalar IMs in structural response estimation: part II-building demand assessment. Earthq Spectra 32(3):1525–1543. https://doi.org/10.1193/053115EQS081M
Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017a) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(10):1667–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2876
Kohrangi M, Vamvatsikos D, Bazzurro P (2017b) Site dependence and record selection schemes for building fragility and regional loss assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(10):1625–1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2873
Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part I: Hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1847–1865. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2301
Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. Part II: Intensity-based assessments and evaluation of alternative target spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1867–1884. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2303
Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2723158
Lupoi G, Franchin P, Lupoi A, Pinto PE (2006) Seismic fragility analysis of structural systems. J Eng Mech 132(4):385–395. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2006)132:4(385)
Mackie KR, Wong JM, Stojadinović B, (2009) Post-earthquake bridge repair cost and repair time estimation methodology. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:281–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.942
Mangalathu S, Jeon JS, Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2017a) Performance-based grouping methods of bridge classes for regional seismic risk assessment: application of ANOVA, ANCOVA, and non-parametric approaches. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2919
Mangalathu S, Soleimani F, Jeon JS (2017b) Bridge classes for regional seismic risk assessment: Improving HAZUS models. Eng Struct 148:755–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.019
McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2010) Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition. J Comput Civ Eng 24(1):95–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002
Mehdizadeh M, Mackie KR, Nielson BG (2017) Scaling bias and record selection for quantifying seismic structural demand. J Struct Eng 143(9):04017117. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001855
Miano A, Jalayer F, De Risi R, Prota A, Manfredi G (2016) Model updating and seismic loss assessment for a portfolio of bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 14(3):699–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9850-y
Millen MDL, Rios S, Quintero J, Viana da Fonseca A (2020) Prediction of time of liquefaction using kinetic and strain energy. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105898
MIT (2020) Linea guida per la classificazione e gestione del rischio, la valutazione della sicurezza, ed il monotoraggio dei ponti esistenti
Monteiro R, Zelaschi C, Silva A, Pinho R (2019) Derivation of fragility functions for seismic assessment of rc bridge portfolios using different intensity measures. J Earthq Eng 23(10):1678–1694. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1387188
Nielson BG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
O’Reilly GJ (2021) Limitations of Sa(T1) as an intensity measure when assessing non-ductile infilled RC frame structures. Bull Earthq Eng 19(6):2389–2417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01071-7
O’Reilly GJ, Monteiro R (2019) On the efficient risk assessment of bridge structures. In: COMPDYN 2019-7th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Crete Island, Greece. https://doi.org/10.7712/120119.6933.18933.
O’Reilly GJ, Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Monteiro R (2018) Intensity measures for the collapse assessment of infilled RC frames. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece.
O’Reilly GJ, Sullivan TJ (2018) Probabilistic seismic assessment and retrofit considerations for Italian RC frame buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 16(3):1447–1485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0257-9
O’Reilly GJ, Abarca A, Monteiro R, Borzi B, Calvi GM (2019) Towards regional safety assessment of bridge infrastructure. In: ICASP13-13th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in Civil Engineering, Seoul, South Korea: 2019. https://doi.org/10.22725/ICASP13.377.
Padgett JE, Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 37(5):711–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782
Perdomo C, Monteiro R, Sucuoğlu H (2020) Development of fragility curves for single-column RC Italian bridges using nonlinear static analysis. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1760153
Pinho R, Monteiro R, Casarotti C, Delgado R (2009) Assessment of continuous span bridges through nonlinear static procedures. Earthq Spectra 25(1):143–159. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3050449
Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. Wiley, New York
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy
Vamvatsikos D (2013) Derivation of new SAC/FEMA performance evaluation solutions with second-order hazard approximation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 42(8):1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2265
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 31(3):491–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2005) Developing efficient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by incorporating elastic spectral shape information. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 34(13):1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.496
Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G et al (2015) The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13(12):3553–3596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper has been developed within the framework of the project “Dipartimenti di Eccellenza”, funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research at IUSS Pavia. It has also received support from the INFRA-NAT project co-funded by European Commission ECHO—Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. Project reference: 78329—INFRA-NAT—UPM-2017-PP-AG. Discussions with Ricardo Monteiro on aspects related to this research and the assistance of Elisa Zuccolo for the hazard analysis implementation in OpenQuake are both gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Reilly, G.J. Seismic intensity measures for risk assessment of bridges. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 3671–3699 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01114-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01114-z