Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete highway bridges with one single-column bent

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

Volumn 136, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1340-1353

  Huang, Qindan ^a   Gardoni, Paolo ^a   Hurlebaus, Stefan ^a  

^a Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Bridges, concrete; Bridges, highway; Deformation; Experimentation; Probability; Reinforced concrete; Seismic analysis; Shear failures

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; BRIDGES, CONCRETE; BRIDGES, HIGHWAY; EXPERIMENTATION; SEISMIC ANALYSIS; SHEAR FAILURE;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CONCRETE BRIDGES; CONCRETE BUILDINGS; DEFORMATION; EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS; HIGHWAY BRIDGES; PROBABILITY; PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION; REINFORCED CONCRETE; SEISMIC DESIGN; SEISMOLOGY; SOILS;

FINITE ELEMENT METHOD;

AMPLIFICATION; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; BRIDGE; DEFORMATION; EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; GROUND MOTION; MODEL; MOTORWAY; PROBABILITY; REINFORCED CONCRETE; SEISMIC DESIGN; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

EID: 77956813945     PISSN: 07339399     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000186     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Standard specifications for highway bridges 1992, AASHTO, 15th Ed., Washington, D.C.
2. Abramhamson N.A. Silva W.J. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismol. Res. Lett. 1997, 68(1):94-127. SRLEEG, 0895-0695, and.
3. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1974, 19(6):716-723. IETAA9, 0018-9286, 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
4. Akkar S. Metin A. Assessment of improved nonlinear static procedures in FEMA-440. J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 133(9):1237-1246. JSENDH, 0733-9445, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1237), and.
5. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. 1996, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Rep. No.ATC-40, Redwood City, Calif.
6. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. 2005, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Rep. No.FEMA-440, Redwood City, Calif.
7. Baker J.W. Cornell C.A. Vector-valued measures for pulse-like near-fault ground motions. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30(4):1048-1057. ENSTDF, 0141-0296, 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.009, and.
8. Box G.E. P. Cox D.R. An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1964, 26:211-246. JSTBAJ, 0035-9246, and.
9. Box G.E. P. Tiao G.C. Bayesian inference in statistical analysis 1992, and Wiley, New York.
10. Bray J.D. Rodriguez-Marek A. Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 2004, 24:815-828. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.05.001, 0267-7261, and.
11. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of building. 1997, Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), Rep. No.FEMA-273(Guidelines), Washington, D.C.
12. Seismic design criteria 1.4 2000, Caltrans, California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, Calif.
13. Choe D. Gardoni P. Rosowsky D. Closed-form fragility estimates parameter sensitivity and Bayesian updating for RC Columns. J. Eng. Mech. 2007, 133(7):833-843. JENMDT, 0733-9399, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:7(833), and.
14. Cook R.D. Weisberg S. Graphics for assessing the adequacy of regression models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1997, 92:490-499. JSTNAL, 0003-1291, 10.2307/2965698, and.
15. Cornell C.A. Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. 2010, and PEER Center News, 〈〉 (Jan. 19, ).
16. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1. 2001, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), European Standard prEN 1998-1, Brussels.
17. Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 2000, 16(3):573-592. EASPEF, 8755-2930, 10.1193/1.1586128.
18. Gardoni P. Der Kiureghian A. Mosalam K.M. Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. J. Eng. Mech. 2002, 128(10):1024-1038. JENMDT, 0733-9399, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:10(1024), and.
19. Gardoni P. Mosalam K.M. Der Kiureghian A. Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for RC bridges. J. Earthquake Eng. 2003, 7(1):79-106. 1363-2469, 10.1142/S1363246903001024, and.
20. Goel R.K. Evaluation of current nonlinear static procedures using strong motion records. Structures Congress 2007 2007, ASCE, Reston, Va.
21. Goel R.K. Chopra A.K. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra 2004, 20(1):225-254. EASPEF, 8755-2930, 10.1193/1.1646390, and.
22. Heintz A.J. Miranda E. Overview of FEMA 440 recommendations and improvement of modeling of nonlinear degrading response. Structures Congress 2007 2007, and ASCE, Reston, Va.
23. Huang Q. Adaptive reliability analysis of reinforced concrete bridges using nondestructive testing. 2010, Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Tex.
24. Hurvich C.M. Tsai C. Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 1989, 76(2):297-307. BIOKAX, 0006-3444, 10.1093/biomet/76.2.297, and.
25. JMP Introductory Guide, Release 7. 2007, JMP, Statistical Discovery Software, (Dec. 2, 2007).
26. Kalkan E. Kunnath S. Adaptive modal combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. J. Struct. Eng. 2006, 132(11):1721-1731. JSENDH, 0733-9445, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:11(1721), and.
27. Krawinkler H. Medina R. Alavi B. Seismic drift and ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25:637-653. ENSTDF, 0141-0296, 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00174-8, and.
28. Krawinkler H. Nassar A.A. Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacity. Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings 1992, P. Fajfar, H. Krawinkler, Elsevier Applied Science, New York.
29. Kunnath S. Kalkan E. Evaluation of seismic deformation demands using nonlinear procedures in multistory steel and concrete moment frames. ISET J. Earthquake Technol. 2004, 41(1):159-182. 0972-0405, and.
30. Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis, SMRF connection fractures, and near-source effects. 2002, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
31. Mackie K. Stojadinović B. Bridge abutment model sensitivity for probabilistic seismic demand evaluation. Proc., 3rd National Seismic Conf. and Workshop on Bridges and Highways 2002, and MCEER Publications, Buffalo, N.Y.
32. Mackie K. Stojadinović B. Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. 2003, and PEER Rep. No.2003/16, Pacific Engineering Earthquake Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
33. Maroney B. Kutter B. Romstad K. Chai Y.H. Vanderbilt E. Interpretation of large scale bridge abutment test results. Proc., 3rd Annual Seismic Research Workshop 1994, and California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, Calif.
34. McKay M.D. Conover W.J. Beckman R.J. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 1979, 21(2):239-245. TCMTA2, 0040-1706, 10.2307/1268522, and.
35. McKenna F. Fenves G.L. An object-oriented software design for parallel structural analysis. Proc., Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering, Structures Congress 2000 2000, and ASCE, Reston, Va.
36. Moehle J. Deierlein G.G. A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering 2004, and Vancouver, Canada.
37. Mosteller F. Tukey J.W. Data analysis and regression 1977, and Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
38. 2008, PEER Strong Motion Database, 〈〉 (Sept. 16, ).
39. Ramamoorthy S.K. Gardoni P. Bracci J.M. Probabilistic demand models and fragility curves for reinforced concrete frames. J. Struct. Eng. 2006, 132(10):1563-1572. JSENDH, 0733-9445, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:10(1563), and.
40. Rao C.R. Toutenburg H. Linear models, least squares and alternatives 1997, and Springer, New York.
41. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Stat. 1978, 6(2):461-464. ASTSC7, 0090-5364, 10.1214/aos/1176344136.
42. Sheather S.J. modern approach to regression with 2008, Springer, New York.
43. Shome N. Cornell C.A. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. 1999, and Reliability of Marine Structures Rep. No.RMS-35, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.
44. Simpson T.W. Lin D.K. J. Chen W. Sampling strategies for computer experiments: Design and analysis. Int. J. Reliab. Appl. 2001, 2(3):209-240. 1598-0073, and.
45. Trifunac M.D. Brady A.G. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1975, 65(3):581-626. BSSAAP, 0037-1106, and.
46. Vamvatsikos D. Cornell C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31(3):491-514. IJEEBG, 0098-8847, 10.1002/eqe.141, and.
47. Vamvatsikos D. Cornell C.A. Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of MDOF systems through incremental dynamic analysis of an SDOF approximation. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131(4):589-599. JSENDH, 0733-9445, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:4(589), and.
48. Wilson J.C. Tan B.S. Bridge abutments: Formulation of simple model for earthquake response analysis. J. Eng. Mech. 1990, 116(8):1828-1837. JENMDT, 0733-9399, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1990)116:8(1828), and.
49. Zhang J. Makris N. Seismic response analysis of highway overcrossings including soil-structure interaction. 2001, and PEER Rep. No.2001/02, Pacific Engineering Earthquake Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
50. Zhong J. Gardoni P. Rosowsky D. Haukaas T. Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete bridges with two-column bents. J. Eng. Mech. 2008, 134(6):495-504. JENMDT, 0733-9399, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:6(495), and.