Prediction of Mean Responses of RC Bridges Considering the Incident Angle of Ground Motions and Displacement Directions
Source abstract
Abstract
Inelastic dynamic analyses were carried out using 3D and 2D models to predict the mean seismic response of four-span reinforced concrete (RC) bridges considering directionality effects. Two averaging methods, including an advanced method considering displacement direction, were used for the prediction of the mean responses to account for different incident angles of ground motion records. A method was developed to predict the variability of the mean displacement predictions due to variability in the incident angles of the records for different averaging methods. When the concepts of averaging in different directions were used, significantly different predictions were obtained for the directionality effects. The accuracy of the results obtained using 2D and 3D analyses with and without the application of the combination rules for the prediction of the mean seismic demands considering the incident angle of the records was investigated. The predictions from different methods to account for the records incident angles were evaluated probabilistically. Recommendations were made for the use of the combination rules to account for the directivity effects of the records and to predict the actual maximum displacement, referred to as the maximum radial displacement.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Seismic Performance and Analysis · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), 424 Hafez Ave, Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
Department of Civil Engineering & Applied Mech., McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007). Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press.
2. Caltrans, C. (2019). Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), version 2.0.
3. AASHTO (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, AASHTO.
4. Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions10.1002/eqe.4290030407 ↗
5. The critical angle of seismic incidence and the maximum structural response10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199709)26:9<881::AID-EQE674>3.0.CO;2-R ↗
6. A replacement for the 30%, 40%, and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis10.1193/1.1585993 ↗
7. Critical response of structures to multicomponent earthquake excitation10.1002/1096-9845(200012)29:12<1759::AID-EQE984>3.0.CO;2-K ↗
8. Concurrent design forces in structures under three-component orthotropic seismic excitation10.1193/1.1463040 ↗
9. Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.011 ↗
10. Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.008 ↗
11. Orthogonal effects in seismic analysis of skewed bridges10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:1(122) ↗
12. Bisadi, V., and Head, M. (2010, January 12–15). Orthogonal effects in nonlinear analysis of bridges subjected to multicomponent earthquake excitation. Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2010, Orlando, FL, USA.10.1061/41130(369)20 ↗
13. Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: Static and dynamic approach10.1007/s10518-012-9395-2 ↗
14. Evaluation of combination rules for orthogonal seismic demands in nonlinear time history analysis of bridges10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000241 ↗
15. Effectiveness of the 30%-rule at predicting the elastic seismic demand on bridge columns subjected to bi-directional earthquake motions10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.04.009 ↗
16. Combination rule for the prediction of the seismic demand on columns of regular bridges under bidirectional earthquake components10.1139/l11-031 ↗
17. Response sensitivity of highway bridges to randomly oriented multi-component earthquake excitation10.1080/13632469.2010.551706 ↗
18. Effect of ground motion directionality on fragility characteristics of a highway bridge
19. Effect of the angle of seismic incidence on the fragility curves of bridges10.1002/eqe.2197 ↗
20. The directionality effect in the seismic risk assessment of highway networks10.1080/15732479.2012.716069 ↗
21. Multi-angle, multi-damage fragility curves for seismic assessment of bridges10.1002/eqe.2584 ↗
22. Spatial distribution of ductility demand and damage index in 3D RC frame structures considering directionality effects10.1002/tal.1219 ↗
23. Fragility of skewed bridges under orthogonal seismic ground motions10.1080/15732479.2014.936880 ↗
24. The effect of different intensity measures and earthquake directions on the seismic assessment of skewed highway bridges10.1007/s11803-017-0375-z ↗
25. Seismic vulnerability assessment of RC skew bridges subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.07.007 ↗
26. Impact of seismic excitation direction on the fragility analysis of horizontally curved concrete bridges10.1007/s10518-018-0400-2 ↗
27. Performance assessment of bridge-soil-foundation system with irregular configuration considering ground motion directionality effects10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.11.006 ↗
28. Effects of ground motion directionality on seismic behavior of skewed bridges considering SSI10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105820 ↗
29. Seismic fragility analysis of irregular bridges with non-circular tall piers considering ground motion directionality10.1007/s10518-019-00769-z ↗
30. D’Amato, M., Laguardia, R., Di Trocchio, G., Coltellacci, M., and Gigliotti, R. (2020). Seismic Risk Assessment for Masonry Buildings Typologies from L’Aquila 2009 Earthquake Damage Data. J. Earthq. Eng., 1–35.10.1080/13632469.2020.1835750 ↗
31. American Society of Civil Engineers (2017). ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.
32. American Society of Civil Engineers (2017). ASCE/SEI 41-17, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers.
33. Effect of abutment modeling on the seismic response of bridge structures10.1007/s11803-008-1008-3 ↗
34. Effects of column stiffness irregularity on the seismic response of bridges in the longitudinal direction10.1139/cjce-2012-0091 ↗
35. Applicability of pushover methods for the seismic analysis of single-column bent viaducts10.1002/eqe.813 ↗
36. Calvi, G., Elnashai, A., and Pavese, A. (1994, January 8–13). Influence of regularity on the seismic response of RC bridges. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofitting of RC Bridges, Queenstown, New Zealand.
37. Seismic fragility analysis of reinforced concrete continuous span bridges with irregular configuration10.1080/15732471003653017 ↗
38. Nonlinear dynamic v elastic analysis for seismic deformation demands in concrete bridges having deck integral with the piers10.1007/s10518-010-9203-9 ↗
39. Seismic risk assessment of four-span bridges in Montreal designed using the Canadian bridge design code10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000499 ↗
40. Seismic response of bridges subjected to different earthquake types using IDA10.1080/13632469.2012.760500 ↗
41. Canadian Standards Association (2010). CAN/CSA-S6-10. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) and Commentary, Canadian Standards Association.
42. National Research Council of Canada (2010). National Building Code of Canada (NBCC).
43. Berry, M.P., and Eberhard, M.O. (2006). Performance Modeling Strategies for Modern Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, University of California.
44. Hysteresis models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analysis
45. Carr, A. (2009). RUAUMOKO, a Computer Program for Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
46. Tehrani, P., and Mitchell, D. (2012, January 24–28). Seismic performance assessment of bridges in Montreal using incremental dynamic analysis. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
47. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470172858 ↗
48. Seismic performance of circular columns with low longitudinal reinforcement ratios
49. Berry, M., Parrish, M., and Eberhard, M. (2004). PEER Structural Performance Database User’s Manual, University of California.
50. Tehrani, P. (2012). Seismic Behaviour and Analysis of Continuous Reinforced Concrete Bridges. [Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University Libraries].
51. Pinto, A., Verzeletti, G., Magonette, G., Pegon, P., Negro, P., and Guedes, J. (1996, January 23–28). Pseudo-dynamic testing of large-scale R/C bridges in ELSA. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
52. Effects of column and superstructure stiffness on the seismic response of bridges in the transverse direction10.1139/l2012-032 ↗
53. Tehrani, P., and Mitchell, D. (2021). Investigating the Use of Natural and Artificial Records for Prediction of Seismic Response of Regular and Irregular RC Bridges Considering Displacement Directions. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11030906 ↗
54. Representation of bidirectional ground motions for design spectra in building codes10.1193/1.3608001 ↗
55. American Society of Civil Engineers (2010). ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.
56. American Society of Civil Engineers (2005). ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers.
57. Effects of different record selection methods on the seismic response of bridges in South Western Brihish Colombia10.1080/13632469.2014.883556 ↗
58. Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion selection10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215 ↗
59. NIST GCR (2011). GCR 11-917-15: Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses.
60. CSA (2014). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CSA.
61. Seismic performance comparison between direct displacement-based and force-based design of a multi-span continuous reinforced concrete bridge with irregular column heights10.1139/cjce-2012-0278 ↗
62. Probability plotting methods for the analysis for the analysis of data
63. Seismic performance comparison between force-based and performance-based design as per Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) 201410.1139/cjce-2015-0419 ↗