Performance-Based Seismic Assessment and Design of Long-Span Concrete Deck Arch Bridges
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 28, Issue 11
Abstract
This study explored extending the performance-based seismic design method to three case study arch bridges with geometry and loading conditions representative of the long-span concrete deck arch bridge class. The force-based design method was first utilized to develop preliminary seismic designs of the three bridges and validate the assumption that bridges designed following the force-based design are protected against collapse under rare seismic events. The preliminary designs of the short spandrel columns failed to achieve code-specified performance objectives under longitudinal seismic loads and were thus revised. The three bridges with the revised details were analyzed using nonlinear time history analysis considering three suites of ground motions scaled to the code-specified hazard levels at the site of interest. The three suites of ground motions represented crustal, subcrustal, and subduction earthquakes. Under individual records associated with the subduction earthquakes, the revised designs of two bridges failed to achieve the code-specified performance objectives. Seismic fragility curves were generated for the bridges considering details based on force-based and performance-based design methods. The probabilities of the collapse of bridges designed following the force-based design method were near zero under rare events. The assumption that bridges designed following the force-based design method meet the collapse prevention limit state was thus found to hold true when extended to the special case of long-span concrete deck arch bridges. Such bridges, however, were found to be unlikely to meet low to intermediate levels of damage and performance criteria corresponding to low to moderate levels of seismicity. Despite being designed to achieve code-specified performance objectives, performance-based designed piers were also characterized by some probability of not meeting the damage levels and performance criteria, albeit to a much lesser extent than force-based designed piers. Considering demands associated with individual records with particular emphasis on those representatives of the dominating seismic hazard at the site of interest is thus recommended for performance evaluation of long-span concrete deck arch bridges.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The financial contribution of Spannovation Consulting through the Mitacs Accelerate program was critical to conduct this research and is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Álvarez, J. J., A. C. Aparicio, J. M. Jara, and M. Jara. 2012. “Seismic assessment of a long-span arch bridge considering the variation in axial forces induced by earthquakes.” Eng. Struct. 34: 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.09.013.
Aviram, A., K. R. Mackie, and B. Stojadinović. 2008. Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. Rep. No. PEER-2008/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Billah, A. H. M. M., and M. S. Alam. 2018. “Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of concrete bridge piers reinforced with different types of shape memory alloys.” Eng. Struct. 162: 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.034.
Billah, A. H. M. M., M. S. Alam, and M. A. R. Bhuiyan. 2013. “Fragility analysis of retrofitted multicolumn bridge bent subjected to near-fault and far-field ground motion.” J. Bridge Eng. 18 (10): 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000452.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2014. Canadian highway bridge design code. 11th ed. CSA S6-16. Rexdale, ON: CSA.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2019. Canadian highway bridge design code. 12th ed. CSA S6-19. Rexdale, ON: CSA.
Cornell, C. A., F. Jalayer, R. O. Hamburger, and D. A. Foutch. 2002. “Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng. 128 (4): 526–533. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526).
Elwood, K. J., and M. O. Eberhard. 2009. “Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J. 106 (4): 476–484.
Farahani, E. M., and S. Maalek. 2017. “An investigation of the seismic behavior of a deck-type reinforced concrete arch bridge.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 16 (3): 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-017-0405-x.
Kawashima, K., and A. Mizoguti. 2000. “Seismic response of a reinforced concrete arch bridge.” In Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Kawashima, K., H. Une, and J. Sakai. 2002. “Seismic performance of hollow reinforced concrete arch ribs subjected to cyclic lateral force under varying axial load.” J. Struct. Eng. 48A: 747–757.
Khan, E., T. J. Sullivan, and M. J. Kowalsky. 2014. “Direct Displacement–Based seismic design of reinforced concrete arch bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (1): 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000493.
Liang, X., R. Beck, and S. Sritharan. 2015. Understanding the confined concrete behavior on the response of hollow bridge columns. Rep. No. CA14-2264. Iowa City, IA: Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State Univ.
Mander, J. B., M. J. N. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8): 1804–1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
McCallen, D. B., C. Noble, and M. S. Hoehler. 1999. The seismic response of concrete arch bridges with focus on the Bixby Creek Bridge Carmel, California. Rep. No. UCRL-ID-134419. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Menegotto, M., and P. Pinto. 1973. “Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending.” In Vol. 11 of Proc., Int. Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering Symp. on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, 15–22. Zurich, Switzerland: IABSE.
Murphy, T. P., L. Marsh, S. Bennion, I. G. Buckle, L. Nicolas, D. Anderson, M. Kowalsky, and J. Restrepo. 2020. Proposed AASHTO guidelines for performance-based seismic bridge design. NCHRP Research Rep. No. 949. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Nielson, B. G. 2005. “Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
NRCC (National Research Council of Canada). 2020. National building code of Canada. Ottawa: Associate Committee on the National Building Code, NRCC.
Padgett, J. E., B. G. Nielson, and R. DesRoches. 2008. “Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (5): 711–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.782.
Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: Wiley.
Savor, Z., N. Mujkanovic, and G. Hrelja. 2008. “Design and construction of KRKA river arch bridge.” In Chinese-croatian joint colloquium, 217–228. Fuzhou, China: Long Arch Bridges, Fuzhou Univ.
Scott, M. H., and G. L. Fenves. 2006. “Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based Beam–Column elements.” J. Struct. Eng. 132 (2): 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244).
Seismosoft. 2020. “SeismoStruct: A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures.” Accessed July 20, 2022. https://seismosoft.com.
Tanaka, H., and R. Park. 1990. Effect of lateral confining reinforcement on the ductile behavior of reinforced concrete columns. Rep. No. 90-2. Christchurch, New Zealand: Univ. of Canterbury, Dept. of Civil Engineering.
Tremblay, R., G. M. Atkinson, N. Bouaanani, P. Daneshvar, P. Léger, and S. Koboevic. 2015. “Selection and scaling of ground motion time histories for seismic analysis using NBCC 2015.” In Vol. 99060 of Proc., 11th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 1–16. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering.
Zheng, J., and J. Wang. 2018. “Concrete-filled steel tube arch bridges in China.” Engineering 4 (1): 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2017.12.003.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 28 • Issue 11 • November 2023
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 29, 2022
Accepted: May 19, 2023
Published online: Aug 28, 2023
Published in print: Nov 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Jan 28, 2024
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.