Response Sensitivity of Highway Bridges to Randomly Oriented Multi-Component Earthquake Excitation

Mackie, Kevin R.; Cronin, Kyle J.; Nielson, Bryant G.

doi:10.1080/13632469.2010.551706

Cited by 44 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also notable that in absolute terms, the dispersion is overall high for all the damage modes and the components assessed ranging from 0.51 to 0.82. It is recalled that such a high value of β D|IM is also confirmed in other studies [18], and it can be inherently attributed to the ground motion variability to statistical errors and to the rotation of the input vector itself. It should be noted, however, that for all components examined, the dispersion values are not significantly dependent on the excitation vector.…”

Section: Dispersion Values Of the Probabilistic Seismic Demand Modelssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…The impact of the excitation orientation was again demonstrated; however, it was found dependent on the type of excitation (uni‐directional or bi‐directional) and the sample size of the ground motions considered. Along the same lines, Mackie et al demonstrated that under an adequately large ensemble of motions that are applied bi‐directionally, the angle of incidence does not significantly affect the performance of the bridge, at least in terms of individual component fragility and for the configurations studied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multi‐angle, multi‐damage fragility curves for seismic assessment of bridges

Taskari

Sextos

2015

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The scope of this study is to investigate the effect of the direction of seismic excitation on the fragility of an already constructed, 99‐m‐long, three‐span highway overpass. First, the investigation is performed at a component level, quantifying the sensitivity of local damage modes of individual bridge components (namely, piers, bearings, abutments, and footings) to the direction of earthquake excitation. The global vulnerability at the system level is then assessed for a given angle of incidence of the earthquake ground motion to provide a single‐angle, multi‐damage probabilistic estimate of the bridge overall performance. A multi‐angle, multi‐damage, vulnerability assessment methodology is then followed, assuming uniform distribution for the angle of incidence of seismic waves with respect to the bridge axis. The above three levels of investigation highlight that the directivity of ground motion excitation may have a significant impact on the fragility of the individual bridge components, which shall not be a priori neglected. Most importantly, depending on the assumptions made for the component to the system level transition, this local sensitivity is often suppressed. It may be therefore necessary, based on the ultimate purpose of the vulnerability or the life cycle analysis, to obtain a comprehensive insight on the multiple damage potential of all individual structural and foundation components under multi‐angle excitation, to quantify the statistical correlation among the distinct damage modes and to identify the components that are both most critical and sensitive to the direction of ground motion and carefully define their limit states which control the predicted bridge fragility. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Dispersion Values Of the Probabilistic Seismic Demand Modelssupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Multi‐angle, multi‐damage fragility curves for seismic assessment of bridges

Taskari

Sextos

2015

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taskari et al (2008) studied the response of a curved bridge using a deterministic approach, showing that the orientation of the bidirectional earthquake excitation affects bridge response, to a degree depending on the characteristics of ground motion and the considered response quantity. Mackie et al (2011) recently found that the median lognormal response of straight bridges to a significantly large ensemble of ground motions (a total of 160 records were used) remains practically invariable with the angle of incidence of the dual-component seismic action. The use of such a large number of records is not feasible for practical applications and according to current codes (CEN 2004;2005) the minimum required number for using the mean response (rather than the most critical one) is seven.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of such a large number of records is not feasible for practical applications and according to current codes (CEN 2004;2005) the minimum required number for using the mean response (rather than the most critical one) is seven. In addition, the selected ground motion set in the study by Mackie et al (2011) is characterised by a uniform distribution of the orientation of the major horizontal earthquake component; hence, the rotation of the major horizontal component is not addressed in investigating the effect of the excitation orientation on bridge response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

Moschonas

Kappos

2012

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To combine the two horizontal components, Newmark [6] and Rosenblueth and Contreras [7] suggested to be 40 % and 30 %, respectively. Many other studies can be found in the literature [8][9][10]; however, most of them were limited to elastic analysis applied to single degree of freedom (SDOF) systems or to simplified plane concrete frames with a few stories connected by rigid diaphragms. They did not consider the inelastic behavior of the structural elements existing in actual 3D structural systems and the appropriate energy dissipation mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination rules for steel buildings under seismic loading: MDOF vs SDOF systems

Reyes‐Salazar¹,

Tizoc²,

Bojórquez³

et al. 2017

Vib. proced.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Some factors influencing the accuracy of the 30 % and SRSS rules commonly used to combine the effects of individual seismic components, are studied. For MDOF systems and earthquake loading the rules underestimate the axial load, but reasonably overestimate the shears. The rules are not always inaccurate in the estimation of the response for correlated components and totally uncorrelated (principal) components are not always related to an accurate estimation. The rules are not always associated to an inaccurate estimation for large values of the correlation of the individual effects ( ), and small values of ρ are not always associated to principal components and to an accurate estimation. Only for uncorrelated harmonic excitations and elastic behavior of SDOF systems, the individual effects are not correlated, and the rules properly estimate the combined response. It seems like that the rules were developed by using SDOF systems. Thus, the accuracy of the rules varies with the response parameter, the location of the structural element, the model of the structural system and the level of deformation. All these factors should be considered while estimating the combined response according to the rules.

show abstract

Response Sensitivity of Highway Bridges to Randomly Oriented Multi-Component Earthquake Excitation

Cited by 44 publications

References 28 publications

Multi‐angle, multi‐damage fragility curves for seismic assessment of bridges

Multi‐angle, multi‐damage fragility curves for seismic assessment of bridges

Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach

Combination rules for steel buildings under seismic loading: MDOF vs SDOF systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About