مهندسی سازه و ساخت

مهندسی سازه و ساخت

تحلیل شکنندگی لرزه‌ای پلهای بتنی متداول بزرگراهی غیریکپارچه در مناطق لرزه‌خیز ایران

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 پژوهشگاه بین‌المللی مهندسی زلزله و زلزله‌شناسی، تهران، ایران
2 پژوهشگاه بین المللی زلزله شناسی و مهندسی زلزله، تهران ایران
چکیده
تعیین ریسک خرابی لرزه‌ای پل‌های بزرگراهی ابزاری کارآمد برای تصمیم‌گیری نظام‌مند مدیریت شهری به منظور کاهش خطرات لرزه‌ای به شمار می‌آید که به تعیین منحنی‌های شکنندگی وابسته است. در این مقاله، تحلیل شکنندگی 6 دسته پل غیریکپارچه متعارف بتنی در ایران در 4 سطح عملکردی ارائه می‌شود ( صرفاً در راستای عرضی). پلها بر اساس سه دوره‌ی طراحی در دو حالت عرشه پیوسته و مجزا دسته‌بندی گردیده است. تحلیل یادشده با شبیه‌سازی سه بعدی به دو روش دینامیکی فزاینده و نیز استاتیکی غیرخطی انجام شده است. در تحلیل دینامیکی فزاینده، با وجود نموها نسبتاً محدود مقدار میانه‌ی شکنندگی با درون‌یابی پاسخ‌ها با دقت تعیین می‌گردد و منحنی شکنندگی سیستم و اجزا با شیوه‌ای سرراست از هم متمایز می‌شود. با اتکا به نتایج تحلیل دینامیکی، دقت تحلیل استاتیکی قابل قبول است. سه پارامتر کلیدی شامل چرخش اتصال ستون به سرستون، چرخش خمیری پای ستون در ستون‌های پایه میانی و جابجایی عرضی فونداسیون کوله در تحلیل شکنندگی تعیین‌کننده است و با دقت مدل رفتاری و حدود ظرفیت آنها تعیین شده‌اند. ظرفیت چرخش پلاستیک مفصل ستون‌ها با اتکا بر حدود دقیق‌تر کرنش فولاد و بتن، متاثر از نیروی محوری و وصله پوششی آرماتور طولی به‌دست آمده و منحنی رفتاری سه‌خطی نیرو-جابجایی عرضی فونداسیون کوله در مدلی مجزا استخراج گردیده است. با توجه به سنت اجرایی مرسوم در ایران، کلید برشی به عنوان مهار عرضی غیرفداشونده است. در سه دسته‌ با عرشه‌ی مجزا، شمع‌های فونداسیون کوله از حدود الاستیک فراتر نمی‌رود اما در مقایسه با عرشه‌ی پیوسته شکننده‌تر هستند. ریسک لرزه‌ای در سطح عملکردی خرابی کامل در دسته با عرشه پیوسته با دوره‌ی طراحی منطبق بر نشریه 463، کمترین و در دسته‌ی عرشه‌ی مجزا با دوره‌ی طراحی منطبق بر نشریه‌ی 235، بیشترین میزان را دارد که با فرض شتاب طیفی در 0.01 ثانیه برابر با 0.424شتاب ثقل به ترتیب 73 و 19 درصد است.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Seismic Fragility Analysis for Typical Non-Integral Concrete Bridges in Seismic Zones of Iran

نویسندگان English

Iman Salehi 1
Akbar Vasseghi 2
1 Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IEES), Tehran, Iran
2 International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES),, Tehran Iran
چکیده English

Determining the seismic failure risk of highway bridges is an effective tool for systematic urban management decision-making to mitigate seismic hazards, which relies on the development of fragility curves. This paper presents the fragility analysis of six categories of conventional non-integral concrete bridges in Iran (exclusively in the transverse direction). The bridges are classified based on three design eras, with either continuous or discontinuous decks. The analysis was performed using three-dimensional simulations via two methods: incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) and nonlinear static analysis (NLA). In the IDA, the median fragility value is accurately determined through interpolation of responses, and the fragility curves of the system and components are separated in a straightforward manner. Based on the results of the dynamic analysis, the accuracy of the static analysis is deemed acceptable. Key parameters affecting transverse behavior include bending hinges at the middle pier, joint connections between columns and capitals, and lateral displacements of foundation piles at seat abutments. The limits of damage for these parameters have been identified at four performance levels The plastic rotation capacity of column hinges was derived using more precise strain limits of steel and concrete, influenced by axial force and the lap splice of longitudinal reinforcement. Additionally, a trilinear force-displacement behavior curve for the transverse displacement of the abutment foundation was extracted in a separate model. .Notably, shear keys are non- sacrificial. In the three categories with discontinuous decks, the abutment foundation piles do not exceed elastic limits but are more fragile compared to those with continuous decks. The seismic risk at the complete failure performance level is lowest for the continuous deck category designed per Publication 463 and highest for the discontinuous deck category designed per Publication 235. Assuming a spectral acceleration at 0.01 seconds equal to 0.423g, these risks are 73% and 19%, respectively.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Seismic Fragility
Non-integral Bridge
Iran
incremental dynamic analysis
nonlinear static analysis
abutment
shear key
seismic failure risk
[1] Billah, A.H.M.M. and Alam, M.S., (2014). Seismic fragility assessment of Highway Bridge: a state-of-the-art review, Structural and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(6), pp. 804-832. DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2014.912243.
[2] Thakkar, K., Rana, A. and Goya, H., (2023). Fragility analysis of bridge structures: a global perspective & critical review of past & present trends, Advances in Bridge Engineering, 4:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43251-023-00089.
 [3]ASCE/SEI, (2022). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-22). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
[4] National Institute of Building, (2015). HAZUS: Earthquake loss estimation methodology. Technical manual. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[5] Crowley, H., Colombi, M., Silva, V., Monteiro, R., Ozcebe, S., Fardis, M., Tsionis, G. and Askouni, P., (2011). SYNERG: Deliverable D3.6 - Fragility functions for roadway bridges. Pavia: University of Pavia.), pp. 471–489.
[6] Nielson, B.G., (2005). Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Ph.D. dissertation. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1853/7542.
[7] Tavares, D.H., Padgett, J.E. and Paultre, P., (2012). Fragility curves of typical as-built highway bridges in eastern Canada, Engineering Structures, 40, pp. 107–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.019.
[8] Cardone, D., Perrone, G. and Sofis, S., (2011). A performance-based adaptive methodology for the seismic evaluation of multi-span simply supported deck bridges, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 9, pp. 1463–1498. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-011-9260-8.
[9] Shirazian, S., Ghayamghamian, M.R. and Nouri, G.R., (2011). Developing of fragility curve of two-span simply supported concrete bridge in near-fault area, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 51, pp. 572-576.
[10] Mosleh, A., Razzaghi, M., Jara, J. and Varum, H., (2016). Development of fragility curves for RC bridges subjected to reverse and strike-slip seismic sources, Earthquakes and Structures, 11(3), pp. 517-553. Available at: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/108695.
 [11] Taghizadeh, A., (2021). Development of seismic fragility functions for integral concrete bridges in Iran. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tehran: International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Structural Engineering Research Center [In Persian].
[12] Ministry of Roads and Transportation (2007). Identical Drawing of Bridges and Road Bridge Superstructures with a Span of 10 to 25 Meters, NO. 294. Tehran: Deputy of Training; Research and Information Technology. Available at: www.rahiran.ir [In Persian]
[13] Shirvani Harandi, V., Mansouri, B. and Amini Hosseini, K. (2024), New fragility curves for evaluation of the vulnerability of bridges to earthquakes in Iran, Structural Engineering International, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1-15, doi:10.1080/10168664.2024.2318323.
[14] Moschonas, I.F., Kappos, A.J., Panetsos, P., Papadopoulos, V., Makarios, T. and Thanopoulos, P., (2009). Seismic fragility curves for Greek bridges: methodology and case studies, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7(2), pp. 439-468. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-008-9077-2.
[15] Stefanidou, S. P. and Kappos, A. J. (2017). Methodology for the development of bridge-specific fragility curves. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 46, 73–93
[16] Cornell, A.C., Jayaler, F., Hamburger, R.O. and Foutch, A.D., (2002). Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines, Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(4), pp. 526-533.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526).
[17] Ramanathan, K., DesRoches, R. and Padgett, J.E., (2012). A comparison of pre- and post-seismic design considerations in moderate seismic zones through the fragility assessment of multi-span bridge classes, Engineering Structures, 45, pp. 559–573. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.004.
[18] Avsar, O., Yakut, A. and Caner, A., (2011). Analytical fragility curves for ordinary highway bridges in Turkey, Earthquake Spectra, 27(4), pp. 971-996. DOI: 10.1193/1.3651349.
[19] Cavalcante G.H.F., Pereira E.M.V., Rodrigues I.D., Vieira Júnior L.C.M., Padgett J.E. and Siqueira G.H., (2022). Seismic fragility assessment of typical bridges in northeastern Brazil, Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct. 19 . https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-7825706.
[20] Porter, K., Kennedy, R. and Bachman, R., (2007). Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering, Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), pp. 471–489.
[21] Ministry of Roads and Transportation (1995). Code of Practice for the Earthquake Resistant Design of Road and Railroad Bridges, NO: 235. Tehran: Deputy of Training; Research and Information Technology. Available at: www.rahiran.ir [In Persian]
[22] Ministry of Roads and Transportation (2008). Road and Railway Bridges Seismic Resistant Design Code, NO: 463. Tehran: Deputy of Training; Research and Information Technology. Available at: www.rahiran.ir [In Persian]
[23] CALTRANS, (2019). Seismic design criteria, Version 2.0. California: California Department of Transportation.
[24] NCHRP, (2020). Research Report 949: Proposed AASHTO guidelines for performance-based seismic bridge design. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/25913. ISBN: 978-0-309-48177-9.
[25] Goodnight, J.C., Kowalsky, M.J. and Nau, J.M., (2017). Modified plastic-hinge method for circular RC bridge columnsJournal of Structural Engineering, 142(11). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001570.
[26] Hwang, H., Liu, J.B. and Chiu, Y-H, (2001). Seismic Fragility Analysis of Highway Bridges. Technical Report No. MAEC RR-4. Center for Earthquake Research and Information, the University of Memphis.
[27] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), (2011). Guide specification for LRFD seismic bridge design. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
[28] Taghinia, A., Vasseghi, A., Khanmohammadi, M. et al, (2022),  Development of Seismic Fragility Functions for Typical Iranian Multi-Span RC Bridges with Deficient Cap Beam–Column Joints. Int J Civ Eng 20, 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00661-5
[29] Bahrani MK, Vasseghi A, Nooralizadeh A, Zargaran M (2017) Experimental and analytical study on the proposed retrofit method for concrete bent in ordinary highway bridges in Iran. J Bridg Eng 22(6):05017004
 [30] Dowell, R.K., Seible, F.S. and Wilson, E.L., (1998). Pivot hysteretic model for reinforced concrete members, ACI Structural Journal, 95, pp. 607–617.
[31] Megally, S.H., Silva, P.F. and Seible, F., (2001). Seismic response of sacrificial shear keys in bridge abutments. Structural Systems Research Report SSRP-2001/23. La Jolla, CA: Department of Structural Engineering, University of California San Diego.
[32] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), (2014). LRFD Bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
[33] PCI Industry Handbook Committee, (2010). PCI design handbook: precast and prestressed concrete. MNL120, 7th ed. Chicago, IL: Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
[34] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), (2010). Guide specification for seismic isolation design. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
[35] European Committee for Standardization (CEN), (2005). Structural bearing - Part 3: Elastomeric bearings. EN 1337-3:2005. Brussels: CEN.
[36] Xiang, N. and Li, J., (2017). Experimental and numerical study on seismic sliding mechanism of laminated-rubber bearings, Engineering Structures, 141, pp. 141-159. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.032.
[37] Kozak, D.L., Fahnestock, L.A. and LaFave, J.M., (2022). Seismic behavior assessment for design of integral abutment bridges in Illinois. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 21, 573–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-022-2104-5
[38] Pahlavan, H., Zakeri, B., Amiri, G.G. and Shaianfar, M. (2016), “Probabilistic vulnerability assessment of horizontally curved multiframe RC box-girder highway bridges”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(3), 04015038
[39] American Petroleum Institute, (2014). Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms – working stress design. API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP2-WSD), 22nd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute.
[40] California Building Code, (2010). Chapter 31F [For SLC], marine oil terminals, also known as Marine Oil Terminal Engineering Standards (MOTEMS). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Housing and Community Development.
 [41] Baker, J.W., Ling, T., Shahi, S.K. and Jayaram, N., (2011). New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. PEER Report 2011/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
[42] Todorov, B. and Billah A.H.MM., (2021). Seismic fragility and damage assessment of reinforced concrete bridge pier under long-duration, near-fault, and far-field ground motions. Structures 31:671–685. . doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.019.

  • تاریخ دریافت 18 اسفند 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 17 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 14 خرداد 1404