Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probabilistic seismic response and uncertainty analysis of continuous bridges under near-fault ground motions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Performance-based seismic design can generate predictable structure damage result with given seismic hazard. However, there are multiple sources of uncertainties in the seismic design process that can affect desired performance predictability. This paper mainly focuses on the effects of near-fault pulse-like ground motions and the uncertainties in bridge modeling on the seismic demands of regular continuous highway bridges. By modeling a regular continuous bridge with OpenSees software, a series of nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis of the bridge at three different site conditions under near-fault pulse-like ground motions are carried out. The relationships between different Intensity Measure (IM) parameters and the Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) are discussed. After selecting the peak ground acceleration as the most correlated IM parameter and the drift ratio of the bridge column as the EDP parameter, a probabilistic seismic demand model is developed for near-fault earthquake ground motions for 3 different site conditions. On this basis, the uncertainty analysis is conducted with the key sources of uncertainty during the finite element modeling. All the results are quantified by the “swing” base on the specific distribution range of each uncertainty parameter both in near-fault and far-fault cases. All the ground motions are selected from PEER database, while the bridge case study is a typical regular highway bridge designed in accordance with the Chinese Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. The results show that PGA is a proper IM parameter for setting up a linear probabilistic seismic demand model; damping ratio, pier diameter and concrete strength are the main uncertainty parameters during bridge modeling, which should be considered both in near-fault and far-fault ground motion cases.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. SEAOC. Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995

  2. Fan L C. Life cycle and performance based seismic design of major bridges in China. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 2007, 1(3): 261–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghobarah A. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: State of development. Engineering Structures, 2001, 23(8): 878–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Deierlein G G, Krawinkler H, Cornell C A. A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Christchurch: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  5. Porter K A. An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. San Francisco: Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability Association, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  6. Moehle J, Deierlein G G. A framework methodology for performance-based engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver B C: Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, 2004: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  7. Porter K A, Beck J L, Shaikhutdinov R V. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra, 2002, 18(4): 719–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vu-Bac N, Silani M, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A unified framework for stochastic predictions of mechanical properties of polymeric nanocomposites. Computational Materials Science, 2015, 96: 520–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Keitel H, Zhao J, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of bulk properties of amorphous polyethylene based on molecular dynamics simulations. Mechanics of Materials, 2014, 68: 70–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pan Y, Agrawal A K, Ghosn M. Seismic fragility of continuous steel highway bridges in New York state. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2007, 12(6): 689–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tubaldi E, Barbato M, Dall’asta A. Influence of model parameter uncertainty on seismic transverse response and vulnerability of steel-concrete composite bridges with dual load path. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2012, 138(3): 363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Padgett J E, DesRoches R. Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2007, 133(12): 1710–1718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang Z, Padgett J E, Dueñas-Osorio L. Toward a uniform risk design philosophy: Quantification of uncertainties for highway bridge portfolios. In: Proceeding of the 7th National Seismic Conference on Bridges & Highways. Oakland: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  15. Somerville P G, Smith N F, Graves R W, Abrahamson N A. Modification of empirical strong ground attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters, 1997, 68(1): 199–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Niazi M, Bozorgnia Y. Behaviour of near-source peak vertical and horizontal ground motions over SMART-1 array, Taiwan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1991, 81(3): 715–732

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chopra A K, Chintanapakdee C. Comparing response of SDOF systems to near-fault and far-fault Earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2001, 30(12): 1769–1789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Porter K A, Beck J L, Shaikhutdinov R V. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra, 2002, 18(4): 719–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ministry of Communications of the People’s Republic of China. Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges (JTG/T B02-01-2008). Beijing: People’s Communications Press, 2008 (in Chinese)

  20. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), User Command Language Manual. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hambly E C. Bridge Deck Behavior. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hamdia K M, Silani M, Zhuang X, He P, Rabczuk T. Stochastic analysis of the fracture toughness of polymeric nanoparticle composites using polynomial chaos expansions. International Journal of Fracture, 2017, 206(2): 215–227

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhang Y, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. Stochastic predictions of interfacial characteristic of polymeric nanocomposites (PNCs). Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2014, 59: 80–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vu-Bac N, Rafiee R, Zhuang X, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Uncertainty quantification for multiscale modelling of polymer nanocomposites with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2015, 68: 446–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nielson B, Desroches R. Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and south-eastern United States. Earthquake Spectra, 2007, 23(3): 615–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu X H. Probabilistic seismic fragility and risk analysis of reinforced concrete frame structures. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2012 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  28. The Ministry of Communications of the People’s Republic of China. General Code for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts, JTG D60. China Beijing: Communications Press, 2004 (in Chinese)

  29. Wu W P. Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete bridges with consideration of various sources of uncertainty. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Changsha: Hunan University, 2016 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Padgett J E, Nielson B G, Desroches R. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008, 37(5): 711–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China. GB 50010-2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 2010 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pang Y T, Wu X, Shen G Y, Yuan WC. Seismic fragility analysis of cable-stayed bridges considering different sources of uncertainties. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2014, 19(4): 04013015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ma H B, Zhuo W D, Yin G, Sun Y, Chen L B. A probabilistic seismic demand model for regular highway bridges. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2016, 847: 307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lv H S, Zhao F X. Site coefficients suitable to China site category. Earth Science, 2007, 29(1): 67–76

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W. NGA project strongmotion database. Earthquake Spectra, 2008, 24(1): 23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chinese Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development. Code for Seismic Design of Urban Bridges, CJJ 166–2011. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 2011 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Morris MD. Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics, 1991, 33(2): 161–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Porter K A, Beck J L, Shaikhutdinov R V. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables. Earthquake Spectra, 2002, 18(4): 719–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Poliba2China Project Funding (Italy Code Number: CUPD96D17000110002), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51878180), and the Transportation Science and Technology Development Project of Fujian Province (No. 201803).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, 350108, China

    Hai-Bin Ma, Wei-Dong Zhuo, Camillo Nuti, Giuseppe Carlo Marano & Bruno Briseghella

  2. Department of Architecture, Roma Tre University, Roma, 00154, Italy

    Davide Lavorato, Camillo Nuti & Gabriele Fiorentino

  3. College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Politecnico di Bari University, Bari, 70126, Italy

    Giuseppe Carlo Marano & Rita Greco

Authors
  1. Hai-Bin Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei-Dong Zhuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Davide Lavorato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Camillo Nuti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gabriele Fiorentino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giuseppe Carlo Marano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rita Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bruno Briseghella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei-Dong Zhuo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, HB., Zhuo, WD., Lavorato, D. et al. Probabilistic seismic response and uncertainty analysis of continuous bridges under near-fault ground motions. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 13, 1510–1519 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0577-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-019-0577-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation