Development of Fragility Curves for Single-Column RC Italian Bridges Using Nonlinear Static Analysis

Perdomo, Camilo; Monteiro, Ricardo; Sucuoğlu, Halûk

doi:10.1080/13632469.2020.1760153

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clearly, a value of

S S E = 0

represents a perfect match of the approximate alternative with respect to the detailed one; values of

S S E > 0

will generally represent overestimation of the collapse fragility of the system as estimated with the approximate alternative; and values of

S S E < 0

will generally represent underestimation of the collapse fragility as computed with the approximate alternative. SSE values haven proven successful for comparing fragility curve estimations obtained with different structural analysis methods in previous research 38 . SSE results are put together with their corresponding EAL ratio from the comparison of the simplified procedure with respect to FEMA and are shown for in the form of scattergrams in Figure 11 for the two alternatives of ACFC estimation for ‘C’‐type and ‘NC’‐type bridges.…”

Section: Application To a Bridge Portfoliomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Application To a Bridge Portfoliomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The piers are considered fully fixed at the base, thus ignoring the response of the foundation and soil-structure interaction effects. The bridge is located near the city of Ascoli Piceno, in Italy, on a site with local soil conditions characterized by a Vs 30 = 580 m/s according to Di Capua et al 37 The predominant mode period in the transverse direction is estimated as T 1 = 0.43 s via a bilinear, with post-yield hardening, fitting to a first mode proportional capacity curve, which was deemed a more adequate computational procedure for the bridges of the case study, 38 confirming general observations presented in previous research. 39 The estimated first mode period corresponds to approximately 1.3 times that computed using eigen-value analysis with gross section properties.…”

Section: Application To a Single Bridgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of the methods is gauged by direct comparison with EAL estimates computed with the fully probabilistic (FEMA) approach using NRHA demand estimations. In order to account for the level of irregularity and the importance of higher modes in the response, the classification scheme proposed by Perdomo et al 38 is adopted. In this classification scheme, bridges are divided in classical predominant mode configurations (C), which present a classical predominant mode (defined as that in which all lumped mass locations displace in the same direction in the horizontal transverse direction), and non-classical predominant mode configurations (NC), those where a classical predominant mode does not develop.…”

Section: Application To a Bridge Portfoliomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SSE values haven proven successful for comparing fragility curve estimations obtained with different structural analysis methods in previous research. 38 SSE results are put together with their corresponding EAL ratio from the comparison of the simplified procedure with respect to FEMA and are shown for in the form of scattergrams in Figure 11 for the two alternatives of ACFC estimation for 'C'-type and 'NC'-type bridges. Figure 11 shows that, generally, there is a correlation between large SSE values of large EAL ratio values, as would be expected.…”

Section: Application To a Bridge Portfoliomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Extension of displacement‐based simplified procedures to the seismic loss assessment of multi‐span RC bridges

Perdomo

Monteiro

2020

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simplified seismic assessment procedures relying on displacement‐based formulations have recently been implemented for the evaluation of the seismic performance in buildings and bridges. For bridges, displacement‐based assessment procedures have been formulated to predict the displacement response at several performance levels defined based on the expected damage on the structural elements. These displacement profiles have been subsequently used to estimate the performance level achieved under a given seismic hazard intensity and to develop damage fragility curves. For buildings, these concepts have been extended to compute economic losses in agreement with current performance‐based earthquake engineering procedures. In this study, existing displacement‐based formulations for the approximate seismic assessment of single‐column multi‐span continuous RC bridges, with non‐sacrificial shear keys for the pier‐to‐deck connections, are extended for the computation of expected annual losses under transverse direction excitation. Additionally, an iterative response spectrum analysis procedure, which directly considers higher mode effects, is proposed for computing the displacement response, and these results are also used to estimate direct expected annual losses. Results show that both procedures tend to compute higher losses when compared with those obtained with a fully probabilistic loss assessment framework, using demand estimations computed with nonlinear response history analysis. Results also show that the simplified loss assessment procedure is highly sensitive to the definition of the collapse fragility curve.

show abstract

“…Clearly, a value of