Seismic Fragility of Multispan Simply Supported Steel Highway Bridges in New York State. II: Fragility Analysis, Fragility Curves, and Fragility Surfaces

Pan, Yuxin; Agrawal, Anil K.; Ghosn, Michel; Alampalli, Sreenivas

doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000055

Cited by 79 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To balance the computational efficiency and accuracy, the basic modeling approach is adopted from Aygun et al [24], but with key additions to capture the effects of VGMs on the bearings, piles foundations and soil-pile interaction modeling. It offers an improvement compared with using lumped springs to replace the SSI effect or just using fixed boundary conditions at the column base (as typically conducted for probabilistic seismic risk analysis of bridges [22,[26][27][28]). This 3D/2D/1D modeling strategy has been verified by the authors through the more complex and computationally intensive 2D soil modeling approach (as in Kramer et al [25]) for different kinds of soil profiles.…”

Section: Modeling Approach Of the Cbsf System To Account For Vgm Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic response of a bridge–soil–foundation system under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal ground motions

Wang

Dueñas‐Osorio

Padgett

2012

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Different levels of model sophistication have recently emerged to support seismic risk assessment of bridges, but mostly at the expense of neglecting the influence of vertical ground motions (VGMs). In this paper, the influence of VGMs on bridge seismic response is presented and the results are compared with the case of horizontal‐only excitations. An advanced finite element model that accounts for VGMs is first developed. Then, to investigate the effect of soil–structure interaction (SSI) including liquefaction potential, the same bridge with soil‐foundation and fixed boundary conditions is also analyzed. Results show that the inclusion of the VGMs has a significant influence on the seismic response, especially for the axial force in columns, normal force of bearings, and the vertical deck bending moments. However, VGMs do not have as much influence on the seismic demand of the pile cap displacements or pile maximum axial forces. Also, the significant fluctuation of the column axial force can reduce its shear and flexural capacity, and a heightened reversal of flexural effects may induce damage in the deck. In addition, relative to the fixed base case, SSI effects tend to reduce response quantities for certain ground motions while increasing demands for others. This phenomenon is explained as a function of the frequency content of the ground motions, the shift in natural vertical periods, and the VGM spectral accelerations at higher modes. Moreover, the mechanisms of liquefaction are isolated relative to SSI effects in nonliquefiable soils, revealing the influence of liquefaction on bridge response under VGMs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Modeling Approach Of the Cbsf System To Account For Vgm Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic response of a bridge–soil–foundation system under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal ground motions

Wang

Dueñas‐Osorio

Padgett

2012

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The fragility curves for this study are analytically generated by performing nonlinear response time history analysis using the OpenSees model described in the previous sections and a procedure that is commonly used (Choi et al 2004;Ellingwood et al 2007;Pan et al 2010). The fragility curves for this study are analytically generated by performing nonlinear response time history analysis using the OpenSees model described in the previous sections and a procedure that is commonly used (Choi et al 2004;Ellingwood et al 2007;Pan et al 2010).…”

Section: Fragility Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Fragility Analysis of the Smithsonian Institute Museum Support Center

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the seismic fragility assessment of the Smithsonian Institute Museum Support Center (MSC), which sustained appreciable damage during the 2011 Virginia Earthquake. A three-dimensional (3D) finite element model (FEM) for the building was created and validated using measured dynamic characteristics determined from field vibration test data. Two suites of bi-directional ground motions at different hazard levels were applied to the FEM to generate fragility curves for structural as well as nonstructural (storage cabinets) damage. The effect of brace yielding strength on structural and nonstructural damage is also investigated to provide recommendations for future retrofit. The fragility curves show that the spectral acceleration to cause structural damage to the building is not high. Due to low seismicity, however, the probability for the structure to be damaged at the design basis earthquake is small. Nevertheless, the probability for non-structural damage is considerable, which is an important issue related to the seismic performance of the building.

show abstract

“…The accurate evaluation of seismic performance of port facilities is one of the crucial issues in the performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. The previous studies show that the nonlinear dynamic analysis acceptably presents the dynamic behaviour of a structure (Kwon & Elnashai, 2010;Nielson & DesRoches, 2007a, 2007b, Padgett & DesRoches, 2008Pan, Agrawal, Ghosn, & Alampalli, 2010a, 2010bZhang, Huo, Brandenberg, & Kashighandi, 2008). Hence, in order to determine the wharf seismic response values, the method is used in this study.…”

Section: Seismic Response Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic vulnerability assessment of pile-supported wharves using fragility curves

Heidary-Torkamani

Bargi

Amirabadi

2013

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the seismic vulnerability of a pile-supported wharf is assessed. Due to common lack of empirical data, the analytical fragility curves are developed using the results of the dynamic analysis of wharf subjected to the different time histories. Fragility curves are developed considering three engineering demand parameters, including displacement ductility factor (m d ), differential settlement between deck and behind land and normalised residual horizontal displacement (NRHD). A sensitivity analysis using both the first-order second-moment method and the tornado diagram analysis is then carried out to evaluate the effects of uncertainties associated with geotechnical parameters in the seismic performance of the wharf. Adopted fragility curves are useful to seismic risk assessment. They can also be used to optimise wharf-retrofit methods. The results of sensitivity analysis demonstrate that uncertainties associated with the permeability of hydraulic placed sand fill contribute most to the variance of both NRHD and m d . While in the case of differential settlement, the friction angle of rock fill contributes most to the variance.

show abstract

Seismic Fragility of Multispan Simply Supported Steel Highway Bridges in New York State. II: Fragility Analysis, Fragility Curves, and Fragility Surfaces

Cited by 79 publications

References 11 publications

Seismic response of a bridge–soil–foundation system under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal ground motions

Seismic response of a bridge–soil–foundation system under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal ground motions

Seismic Fragility Analysis of the Smithsonian Institute Museum Support Center

Seismic vulnerability assessment of pile-supported wharves using fragility curves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About