Seismic Fragility Analysis of Multi-span Continuous Girder-rigid Frame Bridges

NAVIGATE

Table of Contents

STATISTICS

Viewed1681

Downloads870

Seismic Fragility Analysis of Multi-span Continuous Girder-rigid Frame Bridges

[HTML] PDF下载 (870)

[1]LIANG Yan,ZHANG Zhuohang,BAN Yayun,et al.Seismic Fragility Analysis of Multi-span Continuous Girder-rigid Frame Bridges[J].Journal of Zhengzhou University (Engineering Science),2023,44(01):96-102.[doi:10.13705/j.issn.1671-6833.2022.04.003]

Copy

Journal of Zhengzhou University (Engineering Science)[ISSN 1671-6833/CN 41-1339/T] Volume: 44 Number of periods: 2023 01 Page number: 96-102 Column: Public date: 2022-12-06

Title:: Seismic Fragility Analysis of Multi-span Continuous Girder-rigid Frame Bridges

Author(s):: LIANG Yan; ZHANG Zhuohang; BAN Yayun; WANG Yan; School of Civil Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China

Keywords:: bridge engineering; seismic performance; fragility; pier; durability

CLC:: U442. 5

DOI:: 10.13705/j.issn.1671-6833.2022.04.003

Abstract:: In order to study the seismic fragility of multi-span continuous girder-rigid frame bridges, based on OpenSEES platform, a non-linear seismic response analysis model of the actual bridge was established. Through incremental dynamic analysis, fragility curves of bridge components such as piers, supports, and abutments were established. Time-varying seismic fragility of piers of key anti-seismic components of bridges in the whole life cycle was analyzed. The failure probability of bridge structure system was estimated by boundary method, and system fragility of bridges was studied as an example. The analysis results showed that in the same damage state, 1# and 4# piers were more likely to be damaged, followed by 5# piers, and 2# and 3# piers had the least probability, as to the pier height, material strength and restraint of pier crest all affected its fragility. The bearing at abutment was more likely to cause damage than the bearing at pier; the slope of the fragility curves of the two abutments was larger, and there was no significant difference in their probability of the same damage. The probability of slight, medium and serious damage of pier increased significantly after endurance damage in the whole life cycle, moderate damage state beyond the probability increased by 3.1%, 11.3%, 20.9%, 29.1%, 34.1%, respectively, and severe damage state increased by 3.9%, 13.5%, 25.1%, 33.4%, 35.4%, respectively. Bridge systems were more fragile than individual components, and using the fragility of a single component to evaluate the fragility of the bridge could overestimate the seismic performance of the bridge.

References:: [1] 中华人民共和国交通运输部. 公路桥梁抗震性能评价细则:JTG / T 2231-02—2021[ S] . 北京:人民交通出版社,2021.
Ministry of Transport of the People′s Republic of China. Guidelines for aseismic performance evaluation of highway bridges: JTG / T 2231 - 02—2021 [ S ] . Beijing: China Communications Press, 2021.
[2] 梁岩, 闫士昌, 赵博洋, 等. 近断层高速铁路刚构桥地震易损性分析[ J] . 郑州大学学报( 工学版) , 2022, 43(4) : 80-85, 91.
LIANG Y, YAN S C, ZHAO B Y, et al. Seismic fragility analysis of rigid frame bridge near-fault high-speed railway[ J ] . Journal of Zhengzhou university ( engineering science) , 2022, 43(4) : 80-85, 91.
[3] 户东阳. 渝昆高铁典型连续梁桥地震易损性分析[ J] . 铁道科学与工程学报,2021,18(2) :297-305.
HU D Y. Seismic vulnerability analysis of typical continuous girder bridges of Chongqing-Kunming high-speed railway[ J] . Journal of railway science and engineering, 2021, 18(2) : 297-305.
[4] 王君. 基于 IDA 的高速铁路连续梁桥地震易损性研究 [D] . 兰州:兰州交通大学,2017.
WANG J. Seismic fragility study on the continuous beam bridge over high-speed railway based on IDA method [D] . Lanzhou: Lanzhou Jiatong University, 2017.
[5] 陈伟,王冠,杜彦良,等. 高速铁路连续梁桥近断层地震易损性分析 [ J] . 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2020, 41 (2) :212-218.
CHEN W, WANG G, DU Y L, et al. Vulnerability analysis of the continuous high-speed railway bridge under near-fault earthquake[ J] . Journal of Harbin engineering university, 2020, 41(2) : 212-218.
[6] BASOEZ N, KIREMIDJIAN A S. Evaluation of bridge damage data from the Loma Prieta and Northridge, California 211 earthquakes [R] . New York: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1998: 1-163.
[7] 梁岩,闫佳磊,班亚云,等. 多跨连续刚构桥梁地震易损性损伤指标计算方法 [ J] . 铁道科学与工程学报, 2019,16(6) :1466-1475.
LIANG Y, YAN J L, BAN Y Y, et al. Analysis of calculation method for seismic fragility index of multi span continuous rigid frame bridge[ J] . Journal of railway science and engineering, 2019, 16(6) : 1466-1475.
[8] 夏玉领. 耐久性损伤钢筋混凝土柱节点反复荷载试验研究[D] . 长沙:中南大学,2014.
XIA Y L. Experimental study under cyclic loading on durably damaged reinforced concrete column joint [ D ] . Changsha: Central South University, 2014.
[9] 张菊辉. 基于数值模拟的规则梁桥墩柱的地震易损性分析[D] . 上海:同济大学,2006.
ZHANG J H. Study on seismic vulnerability analysis of normal beam bridge piers based on numerical simulation [D] . Shanghai: Tongji University, 2006.
[10] 班亚云. 考虑近海耐久性损伤的混凝土梁桥时变地震易损性分析[D] . 郑州:郑州大学,2018.
BAN Y Y. Analysis of time-varying seismic vulnerability of concrete bridges with durability damage in coastal waters[D] . Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University, 2018.
[11] CORNELL C A,JALAYER F,HAMBURGER R O,et al. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines[ J] . Journal of structural engineering, 2002,128(4) :526-533.
[12] MACKIE K R, STOJADINOVI C ’ B. R-factor parame-terized bridge damage fragility curves[ J] . Journal of bridge engineering,2007,12(4) :500-510.
[13] 中国工程建筑标准化协会. 混凝土结构耐久性评定标准: CECS 220—2007 [ S ] . 北京: 中国计划出版社,2007.
China Association for Engineering Construction Standardization. Standard for durability assessment of concrete structures: CECS 220—2007[S]. Beijing, 2007.
[14] CORNELL C A. Bounds on the reliability of structural systems[ J] . Journal of the structural division, 1967, 93 (1) :171-200. [15] DITLEVSEN O, MADSEN H O. Structural reliability methods [M] . New York: Wiley, 1996:1-59.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2022-12-07