Volume 6, Issue 1 (9-2021)                   NMCE 2021, 6(1): 10-21 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Maghsoudi-Barmi A, Khansefid A, Khaloo A, Ehteshami Moeini M. Seismic Risk Assessment of Optimally Designed Highway Bridge Isolated by Ordinary Unbounded Elastomeric Bearings. NMCE. 2021; 6 (1) :10-21
URL: http://nmce.kntu.ac.ir/article-1-360-en.html
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. , khaloo@sharif.edu
Abstract:   (391 Views)
Recent experimental research has shown that ordinary unbounded steel reinforced elastomeric bearings (SREBs) can be considered as an attractive cost-effective option for the seismic isolation of highway bridges. To further investigate its benefits, the current study is focused on the seismic risk assessment of an optimally designed highway bridge isolated by SREB system. A typical three-span highway bridge located in Tehran Metropolis is considered and designed with the SREBs as isolation system, applying a multi-objective optimization procedure to reduce both the seismic isolation deformation and the base shear, simultaneously. Then, the vulnerability of the bridge is evaluated through an Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) using a suite of 20 ground motion records, and the fragility functions are generated. Next, for the hazard modelling, all active faults around the site of the project are taken into account to simulate the earthquake scenario. Afterwards, probable earthquake scenarios during the design life of the bridge are generated randomly, including the events, as well as their corresponding synthetic stochastic accelerograms. In the last step, the response of the bridge and its losses are calculated under the entire scenarios. Finally, the seismic risk of the bridge is estimated. The results indicate an improved behavior of the bridge, and the capability of isolation system in mitigating the earthquake excitation. Moreover, the results, obtained from the assessed seismic risk, show a significant reduction in the amount of bridge losses.
Full-Text [PDF 1169 kb]   (225 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General

1. [1] A. Mori, P. J. Moss, N. Cooke, and A. J. Carr, The behavior of bearings used for seismic isolation under shear and axial loa, Earthq Spectra, 15 (1999), 199-223. [DOI:10.1193/1.1586038]
2. [2] D. Konstantinidis, M. JAMES, J. M. Kelly, and N. MAKRIS, Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Response of Bridge Bearings, Report 2008/02. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 2008.
3. [3] J. Steelman, L. A. Fahnestock, E. T. Filipov, J. M. LaFave, J. F. Hajjar, and D. A. Fouch, Shear and Friction Response of Nonseismic Laminated Elastomeric Bridge Bearings Subject to Seismic Demands, J Bridge Eng, 18 (2013), 612-623. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000406]
4. [4] G. Wu, K. Wang, G. Lu, and P. Zhang, An Experimental Investigation of Unbonded Laminated Elastomeric Bearings and the Seismic Evaluations of Highway Bridges with Tested Bearing Components, Shock and Vibration, Volume 2018 (2018), 18 pages. [DOI:10.1155/2018/8439321]
5. [5] A. Maghsoudi-Barmi, A. Khaloo, Experimental investigation of life-time performance of unbounded natural rubber bearings as an isolation system in bridges, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Online Published (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1793208 [DOI:10.1080/15732479.2020.1793208.]
6. [6] D. Konstantinidis, J. M. Kelly, Advances in Low-Cost Seismic Isolation with Rubber, Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, 10NCEE, 2014.
7. [7] A. Khaloo, A. Maghsoudi-Barmi, and M. Ehteshami Moeini, Numerical parametric investigation of hysteretic behavior of steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings under large shear deformation, Structures, 26 (2020), 456-470. [DOI:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.029]
8. [8] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017.
9. [9] J. B. Mander, M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park (1988), Theoretical Stress‐Strain Model for Confined Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, 114 (1988). [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)]
10. [10] M. Berry, D. E. Lehman, and L. N. Lowes, Lumped-Plasticity Models for Performance Simulation of Bridge Columns. ACI Structural Journal, No. 3 (2008), 270-279.
11. [11] M.T.A. Chaudhary, M. Abe, and Y. Fujino, Performance evaluation of base-isolated bridge using seismic records. Engineering Structures, 23(2001), 902-910. [DOI:10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00117-6]
12. [12] B. G. Nielson, Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2005.
13. [13] Caltrans, Caltrans Structures Seismic Design References, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, first edition, 1990.
14. [14] Caltrans, Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, first edition, 1999.
15. [15] AASHTO, Design guide specifications for seismic isolation. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2014.
16. [16] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, and S. Bleuler, A tutorial on evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Metaheuristics for Multiobjective Optimization, Economics and Mathematical Systems, 535 (2004). [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-17144-4_1]
17. [17] O. Lavan and R. Levy, Simple iterative use of Lyapunov's solution for the linear optimal seismic design of passive devices in framed structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13 (2009), 650-666. [DOI:10.1080/13632460902837736]
18. [18] A. Khansefid, and A. Bakhshi, Advanced two-step integrated optimization of actively controlled nonlinear structure under mainshock-aftershock sequences, Journal of Vibration and Control, 25 (2019), 748-62. [DOI:10.1177/1077546318795533]
19. [19] A. Khansefid, A. Maghsoudi-Barmi, and A. Bakhshi, Seismic Performance Assessment of Optimally Designed Base Isolation System Under Mainshock-Aftershock Sequences, 8th International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (SEE8), Tehran, Iran, 2019.
20. [20] M. Ehrgott, Multiobjective optimization. AI Magazine, 29(2008), 47-57. [DOI:10.1609/aimag.v29i4.2198]
21. [21] A. Konak, D. W. Coit, and A. E. Smith, Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 91(92006), 992-1007. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.018]
22. [22] N. Quttineh, Models and methods f or costly global optimization and military decision support systems, PhD Dissertation, Linkoping University, Sweden, 2012.
23. [23] Caltrans, Bridge Memo to Designers, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, first edition, 1994.
24. [24] A.H.M.M. Billah, and M. S. Alam, Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11 (2014), 804-832. [DOI:10.1080/15732479.2014.912243]
25. [25] K. Mackie, and B. Stojadinovic, Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision making, (PEER Report 2005/02), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2005.
26. [26] J. E. Padgett, and R. DesRoches, Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 37 (2008), 157-174. [DOI:10.1002/eqe.801]
27. [27] A. R. Bhuiyan, and M. S. Alam, Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous highway bridge fitted with shape memory alloy bar and laminated rubber bearing. Earthquake Spectra, 28 (2012), 1379- 1404. [DOI:10.1193/1.4000089]
28. [28] HAZUS, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology: Earthquake Model HAZUS-MH MR5 Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2020.
29. [29] E. Choi, R. DesRoches, and B. G. Nielson, Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures, 26 (2004), 187-199. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.09.006]
30. [30] J. Zhang, and Y. Huo, Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures, 31 (2009), 1648-1660. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.017]
31. [31] F. Naeim, J. M. Kelly, Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice. NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999. [DOI:10.1002/9780470172742]
32. [32] A. Khansefid, Lifetime risk-based seismic performance assessment of structures equipped with different passive vibration control systems under probable mainshock-aftershock scenarios, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, Under Peer Review, 2020. [DOI:10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.093]
33. [33] L. Danciu, K. Sesetyan, M. Demircioglu, M. Erdik, & D. Giardini, OpenQuake input files of the Seismogenic Source model of the 2014 earthquake model of the Middle East (EMME-Project), 2016. [DOI:10.1007/s10518-017-0096-8]
34. [34] A. Khansefid, & A. Bakhshi, New model for simulating random synthetic stochastic earthquake scenarios, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 1-18, 2019. [DOI:10.1080/13632469.2019.1699207]
35. [35] A. Khansefid, A. Bakhshi, & A. Ansari, Empirical predictive model for generating synthetic non-stationary stochastic accelerogram of the Iranian plateau: including far- and near-field effects as well as mainshock and aftershock categorization. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17:3681-3708, 2019. [DOI:10.1007/s10518-019-00624-1]
36. [36] A. Maghsoudi-Barmi, Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Laminated Elastomeric Bearings Used as Seismic Base-Isolator Considering Long Term Loading Effects, Doctoral dissertation, Sharif University of Technology, 2020.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.