Influence of Seismic Wave Angle of Incidence Over the Response of Long Curved Bridges Considering Soil-Structure Interaction

Sextos, Anastasios; Taskari, Olympia

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56136-3_1

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variability of modelling parameters was considered by means of Latin Hypercube sampling (LHS) technique 46 based on the probability distribution of random variables shown in Table 2. Figure 4 shows the first six mode shapes and vibration periods of the prototype bridge, which are approximately consistent with the results presented by Sextos and Taskari 5 . It can be seen that the first modal shape is dominated by the tangent mode, while the 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th modes are mainly associated with the radial modes.…”

Section: Bridge Description and Numerical Modelsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Figure 4 shows the first six mode shapes and vibration periods of the prototype bridge, which are approximately consistent with the results presented by Sextos and Taskari. 5 It can be seen that the first modal shape is dominated by the tangent mode, while the 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th modes are mainly associated with the radial modes. Nonlinear time-history analyses were implemented to capture the response of the curved bridge.…”

Section: Numerical Modelling and Uncertainty Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Previous studies have revealed that the seismic incidence angle can trigger critical structural response mainly due to the large number of higher modes that affect the dynamic behavior of curved bridges. 5,6 For such bridges, related research 7 confirmed that not only specific directions of excitation can lead to higher seismic demand compared to the standard application of a pair of ground motions along the longitudinal and transversal axes, but a significant variation up to 80% can be observed in terms of response quantities for different seismic excitation directions. To reduce the detrimental effect of ground motion directionality on structures, researchers have made intensive efforts to directly determine the critical incidence angle of structures using response spectrum analysis (RSA), 8,9 linear response-history analysis (LRHA), 10 nonlinear static (i.e., pushover) analysis, 11 nonlinear response-history analysis (NRHA), 12 lateral force analysis 13 and spectral matching techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…However, it is evident that seismic excitation orientation is highly variable and not predictable in practical cases. Previous studies have revealed that the seismic incidence angle can trigger critical structural response mainly due to the large number of higher modes that affect the dynamic behavior of curved bridges 5,6 . For such bridges, related research 7 confirmed that not only specific directions of excitation can lead to higher seismic demand compared to the standard application of a pair of ground motions along the longitudinal and transversal axes, but a significant variation up to 80% can be observed in terms of response quantities for different seismic excitation directions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To reduce the detrimental effect of ground motion directionality on structures, researchers have made intensive efforts to directly determine the critical incidence angle of structures using response spectrum analysis (RSA), 8,9 linear response-history analysis (LRHA), 10 nonlinear static (i.e., pushover) analysis, 11 nonlinear response-history analysis (NRHA), 12 lateral force analysis 13 and spectral matching techniques. 14 Although the aforementioned methods are able to identify the critical seismic excitation angle, their results also showed that different response quantities are maximized at different critical angles; even for the same response quantity, the critical direction varies with different ground motion records 5,10 or considering the soil-structure interaction (SSI). 6 This problem is particularly pronounced for the case of curved bridges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Probabilistic loss assessment of curved bridges considering the effect of ground motion directionality

Feng

Yuan

Sextos

2021

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to assess, in a probabilistic manner, the effect of seismic excitation direction on the performance of a 638 m‐long, 12 span prestressed concrete bridge with significant curvature in plan on the basis of overall monetary repair loss. By means of a large number of nonlinear dynamic analyses, the optimum intensity measure (IM) was selected from a pool of twenty candidates considering the impact of seismic excitation direction. Next, the variability of bridge loss with respect to the seismic incidence angle under different groups of earthquake intensities was obtained. Finally, the applicability of combination rules for the seismic performance of curved bridges was evaluated based on the multidirectional loss assessment results. Meanwhile, the effects of seismic excitation direction and earthquake intensity on the evaluation of combination rules were also revealed. Results indicate that velocity‐related or/and structural‐dependent IMs are more appropriate for the probabilistic seismic demand analysis of curved bridges. It is also notable that the total bridge loss gradually turns out to be independent of the seismic excitation direction as the seismic intensity increases and the damage develops throughout the structure. Additionally, the widely used 100/30 and 100/40 rules may lead to an unconservative estimation for the loss of the curved bridge. The above findings highlight the necessity of addressing the issue of ground motion directionality in a rigorous probabilistic manner and pave the way for further research on qualifying the influences of geometric configuration, material parameters, soil type and the consequent soil‐structure interaction effect.

show abstract

Section: Bridge Description and Numerical Modelsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Numerical Modelling and Uncertainty Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 92%