Seismic Fragility Assessment of Cable-Stayed Bridge Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis and Uniform Design Method

Vahid Akhoondzade-Noghabi(1), Khosrow Bargi(2*), Hamid Heidary-Torkamani(3)

(1) M.Sc Student in Earthquake Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Univer-sity of Tehran, Tehran., Iran, Islamic Republic of
(2) School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
(3) Ph.D student, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
(*) Corresponding author


DOI's assignment:
the author of the article can submit here a request for assignment of a DOI number to this resource!
Cost of the service: euros 10,00 (for a DOI)

Abstract


The consideration of effective uncertainties is one of the important issues in seismic vulnerability assessment of structures. So in this paper, the combined method of IDA&UD-Based Fragility Assessment is proposed based on the uncertainties present in seismic fragility assessment procedure. We use Uniform Design (UD) method to produce reasonable random capacity models and Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) method to produce probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM). The fragility curve is obtained for components of the structure by applying these models on a cable - stayed bridge and defining the damage states. These curves indicate the probability of a component exceeding a damage state for an intensity measure of an earthquake.  Then, using jointly probabilistic model, the fragility curve for the bridge system can exactly be determined from the components’ fragility curves. Finally, the fragility curves resulted from the proposed method are compared against the curves resulted from the simplified common method used in previous studies. This paper shows that: 1. Ramberg-Osgood relationship is an acceptable estimation of Cable-stayed Bridge’s probabilistic seismic demand model. 2. IDA method, in combination with UD method, can simultaneously consider the uncertainties in demand and capacity of the structure. 3. Compared to other methods, UD method reduces the calculations and has higher accuracy. 4. The proposed method can eliminate the relatively high conservativeness of instructions by conducting a reasonable approach.
Copyright © 2014 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.

Keywords


Seismic Fragility Assessment; Uncertainty; Incremental Dynamic Analysis; Uniform Design Method; Cable – Stayed Bridge

Full Text:

PDF


References


Ren, W. X., and Obata, M. (1999). “Elastic-plastic seismic behavior of long span cable-stayed bridges”. J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702 (1999)4:3(194), pp. 194–203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(1999)4:3(194)

Pang, Y., Wu, X., Shen, G., & Yuan, W. (2013). “Seismic Fragility Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridges Considering Different Sources of Uncertainties”. Journal of Bridge Engineering.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000565

Nazmy, A. S., and Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M. (1990). “Three-dimensional nonlinear static analysis of cable-stayed bridges”. Comp. and Struct., 34(2), pp. 257–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(90)90369-d

Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete”. Jour-nal of the Structural Engineering, 114(ST8), pp. 1804–1826.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)

Kent D C, Park R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined concrete”. Journal of The Structural. Division,ASCE, July, vol. 97, pp. 1969-1990.

Caltrans (2004). Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria version 1.3. California Department of Transportation, Sacra-mento, California.

Aviram, A., Mackie, K. and Stojadinovic, B. (2008). Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California, Techincal Report 2008/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center)PEER), University of California, Berkeley,

John B. Mander and Rajesh P. Dhakal and Naoto Mashiko and Kevin M. Solberg. (2007).“Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges”. Engineering Structures, 29(10), pp. 2662 – 2672.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.12.015

Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., , 31(3), pp. 491–514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141

Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2007). “Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 36(6), pp. 823–839.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.655

R.A. Khan, T.K. Datta, S. Ahmad, (2006). “Seismic risk analysis of modified fan type cable stayed bridges”, Engi-neering Structures, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp. 1275-1285
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.01.002

Wang, B. and Yuan, W. (2009). “Risk- and Performance-Based Seismic Analysis for Long-Span Cable-Stayed Bridges”. TCLEE. Chap.5, pp. 1-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41050(357)6

Li, H. liu, J. and ou, J. (2009). “Investigation of Seismic Damage of Cable-Stayed Bridges with Different Connec-tion configuration”. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 3(3), pp.227-247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s1793431109000524

Fang, K. T., Lin, D. K., Winker, P., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Uniform design: theory and application. Technometrics, 42(3), 237-248.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2000.10486045

Seed, F. K. A., Ahmed, H. H., Raheem, S. E. A., & Shafy, Y. A. (2013). Dynamic Non-Linear Behaviour of Cable Stayed Bridges Under Seismic Loadings. Life Science Journal, 4(10).

Yan D., Chang C.C. (2010). “Vulnerability assessment of single-pylon cable-stayed bridges using plastic limit analysis”. Engineering Structures, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp. 2049–2056.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.03.005

Barnawi, W. and Dyke, S. (2014). ”Seismic Fragility Relationships of a Cable-Stayed Bridge Equipped with Response Modification Systems.” J. Bridge Eng. 19, SPECIAL ISSUE: Recent Advances in Seismic Design, Analysis, and Protection of Highway Bridges.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000468

CSI (2005). SAP2000- “Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three-Dimensional Structures: Basic Analysis Reference Manual”. Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.

Jamie E. Padgett, Kristina Dennemann, Jayadipta Ghosh. (2010). “Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost–benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment”, Structural Safety. Volume 32, Issue 3, May, pp. 165-173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.003

Tesfamariam, S., & Goda, K. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infra-structure Systems. ,Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10950-014-9436-1

Users Manual for the PEER Ground Motion Database Web Application, (2008). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center)PEER),

Seismosoft [2013]. SeismoMatch v2.1 – A computer program for spectrum matching of earthquake records, available from http://www.seismosoft.com.

Ross, S. M. (2009). Introduction to probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. Academic Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-370483-2.00014-x

Ferguson, T. S. (1967). Mathematical statistics: A decision theoretic approach. New York: Academic Press,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bimj.19700120322

Makris, N. and Zhang, J. (2002) “Structural characterization and seismic response analysis of a highway overcrossing equipped with elastomeric bearings and fluid dampers: A case study”, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER 2002/17, University of California.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2004)130:6(830)


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Please send any question about this web site to info@praiseworthyprize.com
Copyright © 2005-2018 Praise Worthy Prize