Probabilistic Seismic Resilience Analysis For Bridges: Conference Paper
Probabilistic Seismic Resilience Analysis For Bridges: Conference Paper
net/publication/334587900
CITATIONS READS
0 56
5 authors, including:
Fabrizio Paolacci
Università Degli Studi Roma Tre
156 PUBLICATIONS 988 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
SPECIAL ISSUE - Frontiers in built environment journal (Seismic Engineering): Vulnerability Assessment Methods for Storage Tanks in Oil and Gas Industries under
Natech Events View project
Soft Design and Soft Computing for Engineering Structures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Da-Gang Lu on 20 July 2019.
ABSTRACT: This paper developed a probabilistic approach to estimate the seismic resilience of the short-
medium span bridges shocked by near-fault pulse-like ground motions. The seismic resilience demand of
bridges is quantified. A two-span steel-concrete composite bridge is taken as a case study, whose finite element
model is established by OpenSees. The double-side pulse-like ground motion records and non-pulse ground
motions records are selected from 5 earthquakes based on the PEER NGA strong ground motion database. The
spectral acceleration (Sa) is chosen as the intensity measure (IM), while the displacement of the middle pier is
selected as the engineering demand parameters (EDP). A series of nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis of
the case-study and regression analysis are aimed at simplifying the model of the engineering demand. Then,
several techniques are available to calculate fragility curves for this type of bridge. Finally, the resilience anal-
ysis based on numerical approach is conducted with the aim to evaluate the capability of this type bridges to
reduce the damage induced by earthquakes and minimize subsequent losses with an effective recovery. The
results show that this type bridges are good of seismic resilience and the near-fault earthquakes have significant
effect on that performance.
D IM
Q t dt
t0
R (5)
in which mD is the median of the demand parameter, th
D IM is the dispersion of the demand about its median where R is the resilience index, t0 is the time of occur-
conditioned on IM, and is the standard normal rence of the extreme event, th is the investigated time
cumulative distribution function. Additionally, mD horizon, and Q t is the time-variant functionality of
can be assumed linear in the log-log space, whereas the structure or system. Based on the total probability
the conditional dispersion is constant (Cornell et al., theorem, the expected functionality of the structure at
2000). Thus, the probabilistic demand model (PSDM) each time instant t after an earthquake can be esti-
can be expressed as: mated. If a collection of events with a limited range
of IMs is of interest, the following equation can be
mD aIM b (2) used to compute the expected functionality Q t
(Karamlou et al., 2015):
in which, a and b are regression parameters, which nIM nDS
could be assessed by regression analysis.
Q t P IM i P( DS j IM i )Q j t (6)
i j
in which Q j t is the functionality recovery func- the refined model, the nonlinearities of material are con-
tion of the structure at time t with an initial damage sidered. The shear force connections models between steel
level j. In the case of highway bridges, functionality girders and concrete slab, also between crossbeam and
is usually presented in the form of the percentage of composite beam, are built. The plane models for each
traffic-carrying capacity in normal conditions (ATC- girder 2.65m wide at transverse direction are firstly built
and then the 3D model is achieved by adding transverse
13, 1985). Pj DS j IM i is the conditional prob-
connections to the plane models of girders. In this 3D
ability of being in the damage state j given the event model, steel girder and concrete slab were modeled using
scenario with IM equal to i, could be computed by nonlinear beam elements with fiber sections. The rein-
fragility analysis. Finally, Pi IM i is the proba- forced concrete pier was also modeled by beam elements.
bility of occurrence of extreme events generating in- Vertical shear studs connecting the steel girders to slab as
tensity i, computed by a standard probabilistic seis- well as the shear studs within the CCB are modeled using
mic hazard analysis performed on the region where nonlinear links with elastic-plastic behavior. For materials,
the bridge is located (FEMA445, 2006). the concrete01 type was selected as the mechanical model
of concrete in slab according to Kent and Park model
where the tensile strength of concrete is neglected. Mean-
3 A CASE STUDY while, the steel01 type, an elastic-perfectly plastic model,
has been selected as the mechanical model of steel in gird-
3.1 Finite element model ers.
The short-to-medium span steel-concrete compo-
site bridges have been used more and more world-
wide, owing to their several advantages. (Liu et al.,
2015). The case study is illustrated by a typical 2-span
overpasses, currently under investigation within the
European Project SEQBRI (www.seqbri.it). The
straight bridge is 40.0 m long and consists of two
spans of 20.0 m (Figure1). The total width of the road
cross-section is 10.6 m, with carriageway 6.5 m wide
and 2 sidewalks 2.05m wide. This is a typical over-
pass cross-section with 2 traffic lanes. Four main
girders HE600B made of S460 steel girders are de-
signed, with center distance of 2.65 m. The thickness
Figure2. 3-D FE model
of the concrete slab is equal to 25cm. The steel gird-
ers are fixed to reinforced concrete crossbeams at
The joint of composite girder, concrete crossbeam and
abutments. By this diaphragm, the deck is simply sup-
pier is difficult to reproduce. The refined crossbeam model
ported on normal (low-damping) damping rubber
is built to simulate the complicated mechanical behavior.
bearings. At the intermediate pier, the steel girders are
The vertical head plates welded on the steel girders and
fixed to a reinforced concrete crossbeam 0.9 m wide
directly in contact with the transverse concrete beam are
monolithically connected to the pier. The wall type
modeled by rigid links. Links standing for shear headed
pier is 7.0 m height, 0.6 m thick and 7.0 m wide. It is
studs within the joint are connected to these rigid links ac-
assumed that the foundation soil is categorized as
cording to concrete crossbeam configuration. In order to
type B according to EN1998 and the SSI effect is ne-
reproduce the constraint in compression due to the pres-
glected.
ence of the concrete crossbeam, four compression gap el-
40.00 ements have been modeled both at left and right sides of
20.00 20.00
the CCB joints, as shown in Figure 3. The compression
gaps of the numerical model link the vertical end-plate to
the axis of CCB beam at mid-support, both in the left and
in the right side of the joint. The two levels of pretension
bars in the bottom area of the CCB have been modeled by
10.60
2.05 3.25 3.25 2.05 two elastic truss elements.
10
8
6
4 (a) fragility curves for slight damage
2
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Ep
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
(d) fragility curves for complete damage
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
Figure4. Comparison of fragility curves of piers with the given t(Days)
IMs on longitude
Figure5. Functionality recovery profiles from ATC-13
The Figure 4 shows that the exceeding probability
of damage for bridge under NF pulse-like ground mo- The probabilities of exceeding the damage states
tions are much larger than those under FF ground mo- at each level of IM, computed by means of the system
tions as the demand analysis results. The probabilities fragilities (Fig. 4), have been used to calculate the
of different damage statements, while the inputted corresponding limit state probabilities of occurrence.
ground motions are with obvious velocity pulse, are A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis has been per-
about 30% larger. In the considered range of IMs, the formed on the site of the location of the bridge based
max probability of bars yielding of bridge constructed on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) haz-
in NF region is about 90% while the probability is ard curves (USGS, 2015). The probabilities of occur-
about 60% with the bridge in FF region. At the ex- rence of each investigated IM have been assessed
treme statement, the probability of bars fracture of from hazard curves assuming a life of 100 years for
bridge is about 30% under the NF pulse-like ground the bridge. Eventually, the expected functionality of
motions. However, the probability of bars fracture the bridge has been computed using Equation (6).
with the bridge shocking by FF ground motions is Figures 6 (a-d) illustrate the expected functionality re-
only about 5% at the same extreme statement. covery profile of the bridge. Two profiles presented
in the figures account for the different damage caused
3.5 Probabilistic resilience analysis by near-fault and far-field earthquakes. And the ex-
pected functionality recovery of bridge is showed in
The system fragility curves computed in the previous figure 6 (e). Considering two assumptions that the to-
section have been used to calculate the resilience of
tal recovery time is a constant and the initial damage
SCC bridges following the methodology presented in
Section 2.3. For this analysis, the geographic location for different statements are same with being 0, the re-
sults show that the functionality paths obtained are so
different. It can be easily seen that the damage caused 1.0
quakes.
The resilience of bridge can be determined using 0.4
Near-fault
equation (5), and the resilience indexes of bridge are Far-field
shown in table 2. It can be found that the resilience of 0.2
0.8 0.6
Q(t) for slight damage
Q(t)
0.6 0.4
Near-fault
Far-field
0.4 0.2
Near-fault
Far-field
0.2 0.0
0.1 1 10 100
t(Days)
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 (e) Expected functionality recovery of bridge
t(Days)
Figure6. Expected functionality recovery of bridge at different
(a) Expected functionality recovery for slight damage damage levels
1.0
4 CONCLUSIONS
Q(t) for moderate damage
0.8
0.8
ence Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91315301,
51378162, 51178150), the Research Fund from Ministry
0.6
of Science and Technology of China (2013BAJ08B01),
and the Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory for
0.4 Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering (SLDRCE12-
Near-fault MB-04) are gratefully appreciated. The Present work is
Far-field
0.2
also supported by the funds of the European Project SE-
QBRI: “Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering
Analysis Of Short-Medium Span Steel-Concrete Compo-
0.0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 site Bridges”, Grant N° RFSR-CT-2012-00032. Any opin-
t(Days)
REFERENCES
DecòA, Bocchini P, Frangopol D M. 2013. A probabilistic ap-
proach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(10):
1469-1487.
Shome N. 1999. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of non-
linear structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.
Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO. Foutch DA. 2000. Prob-
abilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency manage-
ment.
Karamlou A, Bocchini P. 2015. Computation of bridge seismic
fragility by large‐scale simulation for probabilistic resilience
analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics.
Baker, J.W. 2007. Quantitative classification of near-fault
ground motions with wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seis-
mological Society of America, 97(5): 1486-1501.
Zhai, C., Chang, Z., Li, S., Chen, Z.Q., Xie, L. 2013. Quantita-
tive Identification of Near-Fault Pulse-Like Ground Mo-
tions Based on Energy. Bulletin of the Seismological Soci-
ety of America, 103(5): 2591-2603.
Osaki, Y. 2008. Spectral Analysis in Earthquake Engineering,
Beijing: Seismological Press.
Paolacci, F. & Giannini. R. 2014. Toward a performance-based
earthquake engineering analysis of short-medium span steel-
concrete composite bridges. Second European Conference
on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Istanbul.
Lu D, Yu X, Jia M, et al. 2014. Seismic risk assessment for a
reinforced concrete frame designed according to Chinese
codes[J]. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(10):
1295-1310.
Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD,
Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace AW, von
Winterfeldt D. 2003. A framework to quantitatively assess
and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earth-
quake Spectra, 19(4):733–752.
Rojahn, C., & Sharpe, R. L. 1985. Earthquake damage evalua-
tion data for California. Applied technology council.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2006. Next-
generation performance-based seismic design guidelines.
Technical Report FEMA-445, Washington, D.C.
Liu Y, Lu D G, Paolacci F. 2015. Multivariate Probabilistic Seis-
mic Demand Analysis of Steel-concrete Composite Bridges
under Near-fault Pulse-like Ground Motions. Multi-span
Large Beidges, Porto.
Berry, M.P. & Eberhard, M. 2003. Performance Models for
Flexural Damage in Reinforced Concrete Columns. PEER
Report, 2003/18.
USGS. U.S. Geological Hazard Science Center. 2015. Unite
States Geological Service, (Available from: http:// earth-
quake.usgs.gov/) [accessed on October.2015].