This paper explores the effects of vertical ground motions (VGMs) on the component fragility of a coupled bridged-soil-foundation (CBSF) system with liquefaction potential, and highlights the unique considerations on the demand and capacity model required for fragility analysis under VGMs. Optimal intensity measures (IMs) that account for VGMs are identified. Moreover, fragility curves that consider capacity change with fluctuating axial force are derived. Results show that the presence of VGMs has a minor effect on the failure probabilities of piles and expansion bearings, while it has a great influence on fixed bearings. Whether VGMs have an impact on column fragilities depends on the design axial load ratio. Finally, more accurate fragility surfaces are derived, which are compared with results of conventional fragility curves. This study highlights the important role that VGMs play in the selection of optimal IMs, and the capacity and fragility representation of certain components of CBSF systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AygünB., Dueñas-OsorioL., PadgettJ. E., and DesRochesR., 2011. Efficient longitudinal seismic fragility assessment of a multispan continuous steel bridge on liquefiable soils, Journal of Bridge Engineering16, 93–107.
2.
AyyubB. M., and LaiK., 1989. Structural reliability assessment using latin hypercube sampling, Proceedings of ICOSSAR '89, the Fifth International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, San Francisco, CA.
BerryM. P., and EberhardM. O., 2005. Practical performance model for bar buckling, Journal of Structural Engineering131, 1060–1070.
5.
BradleyB. A., CubrinovskiM., DakhalR. P., and MacRaeG., 2009. Intensity measures for the seismic response of pile foundations, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29, 1046–1058.
6.
ButtonM. R., CroninC. J., and MayesR. L., 2002. Effect of vertical motions on seismic response of highway bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering128, 1551–1564.
7.
CornellC. A., JalayerF., HamburgerR. O., and FoutchD. A., 2002. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines, Journal of Structural Engineering128, 526–533.
8.
ElgamalA., YanL., YangZ., and ConteJ. P., 2008. Three-dimensional seismic response of Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system, Journal of Structural Engineering134, 1165–1176.
9.
ElnashaiA. S., and PapazoglouA. J., 1997. Procedure and spectra for analysis of RC structures subjected to strong vertical earthquake loads, Journal of Earthquake Engineering1, 121–155.
10.
GiovenaleP., CornellC. A., and EstevaL., 2004. Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics33, 951–979.
11.
KimS. J., HolubC. J., and ElnashaiA., 2011. Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical earthquake motion on RC bridge piers, Journal of Structural Engineering137, 252–260.
12.
KramerS. L., ArduinoP., and ShinH. S., 2008. Using OpenSees for Performance-Based Evaluation of Bridges on Liquefiable Soils, PEER Report 2008/07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
13.
KunnathS. K., AbrahamsonN., ChaiY. H., ErduranE., and YilmazZ., 2008. Development of Guidelines for Incorporation of Vertical Ground Motion Effects in Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, A Technical Report Submitted to the California Department of Transportation under Contract 59A0434, Department of Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering, and Structural Mechanics, University of California, Davis.
14.
KunnathS. K., ErduranE., ChaiY., and YashinskyM., 2008. Effect of near-fault vertical ground motions on seismic response of highway overcrossings, Journal of Bridge Engineering13, 282–290.
15.
KwonO.-S., and ElnashaiA. S., 2010. Fragility analysis of a highway over-crossing bridge with consideration of soil–structure interactions, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering6, 159–178.
16.
LedezmaC., 2007. Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Design Evaluation Procedure for Bridge Foundations Undergoing Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
17.
MackieK., and StojadinovicB., 2001. Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering6, 468–481.
18.
MackieK., and StojadinovicB., 2003. Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Design of Bridges, PEER 2003/16, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Californita, Berkeley.
19.
MackieK., and StojadinovicB., 2006. Seismic vulnerability of typical multiple-span California highway bridges, in Proceedings of the 5th National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways, 18–20 September 2006, San Francisco, CA.
20.
ManderJ. B., and KimD. K., 1996. Response of Steel Bridge Bearings to the Reversed Cyclic Loading, Report No. NCEER 96-0014, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 193 pp.
21.
MazzaF., and VulcanoA., 2012. Effects of near-fault ground motions on the nonlinear dynamic response of base-isolated RC-framed buildings, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41, 211–232.
22.
NielsonB. G., and DesRochesR., 2007a. Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States, Earthquake Spectra23, 615–633.
23.
NielsonB. G., and DesRochesR., 2007b. Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36, 823–839.
24.
PadgettJ. E., NielsonB. G., and DesRochesR., 2008. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics37, 711–725.
25.
PanY., AgrawalA. K., and AllampalliS., 2010. Seismic fragility of multispan simply supported steel highway bridges in New York state, II: Fragility analysis, fragility curves, and fragility surfaces, Journal of Bridge Engineering15, 462–472.
26.
PapazoglouA. J., and ElnashaiA. S., 1996. Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics25, 1109–1137.
27.
SaadeghvaririM. A., and FoutchD. A., 1991. Dynamic behaviour of R/C highway bridges under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal earthquake motions, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics20, 535–549.
28.
ShafieezadehA., RamanathanK., PadgettJ. E., and DesRochesR., 2012. Fractional order intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand modeling applied to highway bridges, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41, 391–409.
29.
VeletzosM., RestrepoJ., and SiebleF., 2006. Seismic Response of Precast Segmental Bridge Superstructures, California Department of Transportation, Report Number SSRP-06/18, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.
30.
WangZ., Dueñas-OsorioL., and PadgettJ. E., 2013. Seismic response of a bridge-soil-foundation system under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal ground motions, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42, 545–564.
31.
ZhangJ., HuoY., BrandenbergS., and KashighandiP., 2008. Effects of structural characterizations on fragility functions of bridges subject to seismic shaking and lateral spreading, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration7, 369–382.
32.
ZhangY., 2006. Probabilistic Structural Seismic Performance Assessment Methodology and Application to an Actual Bridge-Foundation-Ground System, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, San Diego.
