Reliability Based Seismic Performance Analysis of Retrofitted Concrete Bridge Bent

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/273573779
RELIABILITY BASED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF RETROFITTED

CONCRETE BRIDGE BENT
Thesis · April 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1462.9924
CITATIONS READS
2 2,140
1 author:
Hafizul Alim
Lamar University
8 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Hafizul Alim on 15 March 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 CHAPTER 5 : FRAGILITY OF RETROFITTED CONCRETE BRIDGE BENT 92
5.1 GENERAL 92
Serial No Title Page No 5.2 GROUND MOTION FOR INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 92
1 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 01 5.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF DAMAGE STATE 96
1.1 GENERAL 01 5.4 INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 97
1.2 BEHAVIOR OF BRIDGES UNDER EARTHQAUKES 01 5.5 FRAGILITY CURVE DEVELOPMENTS 97
1.3 PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN 04 5.6 SUMMARY 104
1.4 STUDY BACKGROUND 07 6 CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSION 105
1.5 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 07 6.1 GENERAL 105
1.6 THESIS OUTLINE 07 6.2 CONCLUSION 105
2 CHAPTER 2 : REVIEW OF LITERATURE 09 6.3 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 106
2.1 GENERAL 09
2.2 DAMAGE DUE TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY 09
2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC CODES 17
2.4 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 19
2.4.1 EXPERT OPINION BASED ANALYSIS 20
2.4.2 EMPERICAL METHOD 20
2.4.3 ANALYTICAL METHOD 22
2.5 RETROFIT STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGES 22
2.5.1 CONCRETE JACKETS 23
2.5.2 STEEL JACKETS 23
2.5.3 PRECAST CONCRETE SEGMENT JACKET 26
2.5.4 FRP STRENGTHENING 27
2.5.5 EXTERNAL POST-TENSIONING 29
2.5.6 SMART MATERIALS 29
3 CHAPTER 3 : STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY OF BRIDGE BENT 31
3.1 GENERAL 31
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE AND THE BENT 31
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE BENT 34
3.3.1 PLASTIC HINGE LENGTH AND ULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT OF PIER 34
3.3.2 LATER STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY OF BRIDGE BENT 44
3.4 SAFETY EVALUATION OF THE BENT 59
3.5 SUMMARY 63
4 CHAPTER 4 : SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE BEND 64
4.1 GENERAL 64
4.2 MODELING OF THE BRIDGE BENT 64
4.2.1 PHYSICAL MODEL OF THE BENT 64
4.2.2 ANALYTICAL MODEL OF THE BENT 65
4.3 EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION 67
4.4 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF BENT 69
4.5 ASSESSMENT OF BENT DAMAGE STATE 89
4.6 SUMMARY 90
iv v
Serial No FIGURE Page No 36 Figure 3.16: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 04 49
Figure1: A few damage scenario of a few highway bridges in the recent earthquakes 37 Figure 3.17: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 05-21 50
1 03
(Priestley et al. 1996) 38 Figure 3.18: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 22 51
Figure 2.1: Nishinomiya-ko Bridge approach span collapse in the 1995 Hyogo-Ken 39 Figure 3.19: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 23 52
2 10
Nanbu earthquake.
40 Figure 3.20: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 24 53
Figure 2.2: Flexural failure at the base of bridge pier during 1995 kobe earthquake
3 10 41 Figure 3.21: Ductility Evaluation of Bent 55
(Hanshin expressway).
4 Figure 2.3: Weld failure of column longitudinal reinforcement, 1995 Kobe Earthquake. 11 42 Figure 3.22: Spectral Acceleration 60
Figure 2.4: Failed support columns and collapsed of the Cypress Street Viaduct (Loma 43 Figure 3.23: Spectral Acceleration (percentile and BNBC response spectrum) 61
5 12
Prieta earthquake). 44 Figure 4.1: Geometry of Span of the Flyover 65
6 Figure 2.5: Bridge collapse during the Northridge Earthquake in California. 13 45 Figure 4.2: Analytical Model of Bent 65
7 Figure 2.6: Bond failure of lap splice at column base, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. 13 46 Figure 4.3: Menegotto-Pinto steel model 66
8 Figure 2.7: Shear failure outside plastic hinging region, San Fernando Earthquake. 14 47 Figure 4.4: Fiber Section of Reinforced Pier 66
Figure 2.8: Brittle shear failure of column of the I-5/I605 seperator, 1987 48 Figure 4.5: Beam element for pier modeling 67
9 15
Whittiereartquake Figure 4.6: Fiber Section of Reinforced Pier cap
49 67
10 Figure 2.9: Shear failure within plastic hinge region, 1971 San Fernando earthquake 15
50 Figure 4.7: Time history graph of EQ-1 69
Figure 2.10: Example of column shear failures, 1994 Northridge earthquake. (a)
11 16 51 Figure 4.8: Pier displacement due to EQ-1 70
Freeway atFairfax/Washinton undercrossing; (b) I-118 Mission/Gothic undercrossing
Figure 2.11: Flexure-Shear failure at pier mid-height of Route 43/2 overpass, due to 52 Figure 4.9: Time history graph of EQ-2 70
12 17 Figure 4.10: Pier displacement due to EQ-2
premature termination of longitudinal reinforcement; 1995 Kobe earthquake. 53 71
13 Figure 2.12: Concrete Jacket 23 54 Figure 4.11: Time history graph of EQ-3 71
14 Figure 2.13: Typical steel jacket retrofit details: (a) full height (b) typical section. 24 55 Figure 4.12: Pier displacement due to EQ-3 72
15 Figure 2.14: Effect of confinement on concrete, adapted from Priestley et al. (1996). 25 56 Figure 4.13: Time history graph of EQ-4 72
Figure 2.15: Steel Jacket Retrofit at Expressway in 1989, which was effective during the 57 Figure 4.14: Pier displacement due to EQ-4 73
16 26
1995 Kobe earthquake 58 Figure 4.15: Time history of EQ-5 73
17 Figure 2.16: Precast concrete segment jacket 27 Figure 4.16: Pier displacement due to EQ-5
59 74
18 Figure 2.17: Before retrofit 27 60 Figure 4.17: Time history of EQ-6 74
19 Figure 2.18: After retrofitted 27 61 Figure 4.18: Pier displacement due to EQ-6 75
20 Figure 2.19: FRP strengthening of concrete pier 29 62 Figure 4.19: Time history of EQ-7 75
21 Figure 3.1: 3D View of Bahadarhat Flyover 32 63 Figure 4.20: Pier displacement due to EQ-7 76
22 Figure 3.2: Geometrical Model of Flyover 33 64 Figure 4.21: Time history of EQ-8 76
23 Figure 3.3: Numerical evaluation of flexural and shear component of displacement 35 65 Figure 4.22: Pier displacement due to EQ-8 77
24 Figure 3.4: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 1 36 66 Figure 4.23: Time history of EQ-9 77
25 Figure 3.5: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 2 37 67 Figure 4.24: Pier displacement due to EQ-9 78
28 Figure 3.8 : Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 5-21 40 70 Figure 4.27: Time history of EQ-11 79
32 Figure 3.12: Pushover analysis of the bent 45 74 Figure 4.31: Time history of EQ-13 81
33 Figure 3.13: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 01 46 75 Figure 4.32: Pier displacement due to EQ-13 82
34 Figure 3.14: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 02 47 76 Figure 4.33: Time history of EQ-14 82
35 Figure 3.15: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 03 48 77 Figure 4.34: Pier displacement due to EQ-14 83
vi vii
78 Figure 4.35: Time history of EQ-15 83 Serial No TABLE NAME Page No
79 Figure 4.36: Pier response due to EQ-15 84 Table 1.1: Design Earthquake Ground Motions and Seismic performance of Bridges
1 05
80 Figure 4.37: Time history of EQ-16 84 (JRA 2002)
81 Figure 4.38: Pier response due to EQ-16 85 2 Table 1.2: Relation between Complexity of Seismic Behaviour and Design Method 06
82 Figure 4.39: Time history of EQ-17 85 Table: 2.1: Damage Frequency Matrixes for Multi-Span Bridges
3 21
(Basoz and Kiremidjian, 1997)
83 Figure 4.40: Pier response due to EQ-17 86
4 Table 2.2: Typical Mechanical Properties of FRP Laminates 28
84 Figure 4.41: Time history of EQ-18 86
5 Table 3.1: Geometries properties of the pier 33
6 Table 3.2: Material properties of the pier 34
7 Table 3.3: Plastic hinge length and ultimate displace of bent 44
8 Table 3.4: Lateral Strength of Bent 54
9 Table 3.5: Value of C_e in relation to effective height d of a pier section (JRA, 2002) 57
10 Table 3.6: Value of C_pt in relation to effective height d of a pier section (JRA, 2002) 57
90 Figure 5.1 Spectral acceleration of Earthquake ground motion records. 94
11 Table 3.7: Failure mode: Flexural failure 57
Figure 5.2: Percentiles of spectral acceleration of earthquake ground motion records
91 95 12 Table 3.8: Failure mode: Shear failure of bridge pier 58
5.2 Details of Retrofitted Technique
92 Figure 5.3: Fragility curve development 99 13 Table 3.9: Ductility of the Bent 58
93 Figure 5.4: PSDM of As-build concrete pier 100 14 Table 3.10: Earthquake ground motion 59
94 Figure 5.5: PSDM of FRP Retrofitted concrete pier 100 15 Table 3.11: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.15 62
95 Figure 5.6: PSDM of Concrete Jacketed Retrofitted pier 101 16 Table 3.12: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.28 62
96 Figure 5.7: Fragility of as of concrete pier : Slight Damage 102 17 Table 3.13: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.38 63
97 Figure 5.8: Fragility of concrete pier : Moderate Damage 102 18 Table 4.1: Characteristics of far field ground motion histories. 68
98 Figure 5.9: Fragility of concrete pier : Extensive Damage 103 19 TABLE 4.2: Damage/limit state of bridge components (Hwang et al, 2001) 89
99 Figure 5.10: Fragility of concrete pier : Collapse 103 20 TABLE 4.3: Damage state of bridge pier 90
21 Table 5.1: Characteristics of the earthquake ground motion histories 93
TABLE 5.2: Damage/limit state of bridge components
22 96
(Hwang et al, 2001, Kartik et al 2012, Billah et al, 2012)
23 Table 5.3: PSDM parameter for two type of bridge pier 100
24 Table 5.4: PSDM parameter for two type of Retrofitted bridge pier 101
25 Table 5.5: PSDM parameter for Concrete Jacketed Retrofitted pier 101
viii ix
ABSTRACT
Elevated highways and bridges are very important elements of the infrastructure in modern
societies. The performance of highway bridge systems observed in past earthquakes—including ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the 1995 Great Hanshin
earthquake in Japan, the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, the 2010 Chile earthquake, and
All praise goes to Almighty Allah who has given me the opportunity to do this thesis paper. It is a
the 2010 Haiti earthquake—have demonstrated that bridges are highly susceptible to damages
great pleasure for me to express my sincere appreciation to the Faculty of civil engineering
during earthquake causing a great economic loss. However, due to their importance, loss of department, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology for giving me the opportunity
functionality after a seismic event is not an acceptable performance criterion for the vast to do this report. I want to mention the contribution of all those who have inspired, influenced and
majority of those structures. guided me to complete this report successfully. First of all, I would like to express my heartiest
gratitude to my venerable supervisor Prof. Dr. Md. Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan, Faculty of Civil
To this end, the current research focused on conducting reliability-based seismic performance Engineering Department, Chittagong University of Engineering And Technology for his kind and
analysis of elevated highway and bridge bents which requires strong consideration of sincere guidance, constructive criticism and personal supervision all through my work. I
performance evaluation and verification depending on different levels of design earthquake wish to acknowledge my gratitude to all my respected teachers of the faculty, for their
ground motion according to the importance of them. In doing so, the damage scenarios of suggestions and kind cooperation. Finally, I would like to extend my cordial compliments to
elevated highway/ bridges as observed in the previous earthquakes were critically reviewed and my parents, friends and well-wishers for their inspiration and support throughout this report.
it was found that a large number of reinforced concrete elevated highway and bridges
experienced severe damage/ collapse due to inadequate flexural and shear strength, and
inadequate ductility of piers particularly in the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the Kobe
earthquake in 1995. As a case study, a typical elevated highway being constructed in
Bangladesh (i.e. multi-span simply supported elevated highway) was considered for seismic
performance evaluation and verification. In this regard, the lateral strength, ductility and mode
of failure of piers of the elevated highway were computed using the method of static pushover
analysis. The sectional analysis method was employed to determine the flexural capacity at each
section of pier. The seismic performance of the elevated highway pier was evaluated for a
number of earthquake ground motion records using nonlinear dynamic analysis method. The
peak ground accelerations (PGA) of the earthquake ground motion records considered in the
analysis varied from 0.10g to 0.70g.
The seismic responses of piers of the elevated highway were compared with damage limits
available in literature and it has been found that the piers experience different levels of damage
due to the design earthquake ground motion record being practiced in Bangladesh. Considering
the damage levels of the piers of the elevated highway under the design earthquake a retrofitting
strategy was arbitrarily selected with a view to improve the seismic performance of the piers.
Finally, seismic fragility assessment of an as-built and a retrofitted elevated highway piers was
carried out and it was found that seismic performance of the retrofitted pier can be significantly
improved over the as-built elevated highway pier, under the design earthquake ground motion.
iii
ii
CHAPTER 1 because of high degree of redundancy generally inherent in building structural systems.
INTRODUCTION Typically, bridges have little or no redundancy in the structural systems, and failure of one
structural element or connection between elements is thus more likely to result in collapse. A
1.1 GENERAL
large number of highway bridges have experienced severe damage/collapse due to inadequate
Bridges are ubiquitous in today’s built environment, carrying highways through cities and flexural strength and ductility of the bridge piers in the recent earthquakes. For instance,
countries and serving as the transportation lifeline of modern society. A Bridge is a structure Figure 1(a) shows damage to the base of a column attributable to lap slice bond failure, which
providing passage over obstacle. The required passage may be for a road, a railway, occurred in the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. Inadequate flexural strength may result from
pedestrians, a canal or a pipeline. It generates multifarious benefits for the people and butt welding of longitudinal reinforcement close to the maximum moment locations. Figure
especially, promotes inter-regional trades and reduces traffic congestion and emergency 1(b) shows an example of flexural failure of a pier of the Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe
transit. Apart from quick movement of goods and passenger traffic by road and rail, it also earthquake in 1995. This failure was initiated by failure of a large number of butt welds close
facilitated transmission of electricity and natural gas, and integration of telecommunication to the pier base. Tension shift effects result in peak reinforcement strains being almost
links. Any damage in the bridge tends to halt the transportation system and it harms economy constant for a height above the pier base equal to half of the pier diameter. The failure
devastatingly. The vitality of transportation networks must be ensured and the safety of the depicted in Figure 1(b) was one of large number of piers in the Hanshin Expressway, where
users of transportation infrastructure must be guaranteed. Thus the importance of bridge weld failure contributed to pier failure. Figure 1(c) and 1(d) show failure of flexural plastic
structures cannot be underestimated and bridges must be designed to adequately withstand the hinges in the earthquakes. The low levels of transverse reinforcements were noted in the
force of catastrophic events. piers. In Japan, a number of bridge piers developed flexure-shear failures at pier mid-height
level during the 1982 Urakawa oki earthquake and the 1995 Kobe earthquake, as a
1.2 BEHAVIOR OF BRIDGES UNDER EARTHQAUKES consequence of premature termination of longitudinal reinforcements. Figure 1(e) shows the
flexure-shear failure of bridge piers initiated at bar cutoff locations around the pier mid-height
Bridges are essential components of an overall transportation system as they play important
level in the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Failure of eighteen piers of the collapse section of the
roles in evacuation and emergency routes for rescues, first-aid, firefighting, medical services
Hanshin Expressway in the 1995 Kobe earthquake was also initiated due to premature
and transporting disaster commodities. The performance of highway bridge systems observed
termination of 33% longitudinal reinforcements at 20% pier height (Figure 1(f)) (Preistley et
in past earthquakes—including the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the 1994 Northridge
al. 2996). Shear failures also occurred extensively in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, 1989
earthquake, the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake in Japan, the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in
Loma Prieta earthquake, 1994 Northridge earthquake and 1995 Kobe earthquake (Priestley et
Taiwan, the 2010 Chile earthquake, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake—have demonstrated that
al. 1996).
bridges are highly susceptible to damages during earthquakes (Basöz et al. 1999, Yamazaki et
al. 2000). Extensive damage of highway bridges triggered as a consequence of recent earthquakes has
Bridges give the impression of being rather simple structural systems. Indeed, they have led to significant advances in bridge seismic design. Near-field ground motions developed in
always occupied a special place in the in the affections of structural designers because their the Northridge and Kobe earthquakes are included in the 1996 Japanese and 1999 Caltrans
structural form tends to be a simple expression of their functional requirement. Bridges, design codes (JRA 1996, Caltrans 1999). The conventional seismic coefficient method has
possibly because of their structural simplicity, have not performed well as might be expected been replaced by ductility design method, and linear/nonlinear dynamic response analysis is
under seismic attack. In recent earthquakes in California in 1989, Japan in 1995, etc. modern now used on routine basis in design of bridges with a complex structural response. This has
bridges designed specifically for seismic resistance have collapsed or have been severely led to the development of performance based seismic design of highway bridge pier, which is
damaged when subjected to ground shaking of an intensity that has frequently been less that being incorporated in various seismic codes (JRA 1996, 2002, Caltrans 1999, etc.)
corresponding to current code intensities.
Earthquakes have a habit of identifying structural weakness and concentrating damage at

these locations. With building structures, the consequences may not necessarily be disastrous,
1 2
(b) Flexural failure of a bridge pier in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, (c) Confinement failure at
column top in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, (d) Failure of flexural plastic hinges in
bridge piers captured by connecting wall, Bull Creek Canyon Channel bridge, 1994
Northridge earthquake, (e) Flexural-shear failure at pier midheight of Route 43/2 overpass,
due to premature termination of longitudinal reinforcement in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and
(f) Flexural failure above pier base of piers of the Hanshin Expressway in the 1995 Kobe
earthquake
1.3 PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN
Extensive damage of bridge structures in the recent earthquakes has exposed the deficiencies
(a) (b)
of the pre-1971 design rules specified by JRA (Japan Road Association) and AASHTO
(American Association of State Highways Officials) in designing the bridge structures against
earthquakes. Most of the existing bridges in the USA and Japan were constructed prior to
1970 (Kawashima, 2000). During this time period, insufficient consideration to the seismic
forces was given, and bridge structures designed and constructed during this era have proved
to be fully inadequate in the wake of earthquakes. Maximum 20% of the gravity force was
considered for evaluating the seismic forces of the bridge structures; no other provision was
specified in the AASHTO and JRA Specifications for highway bridges (Chen and Duan,
2000; Kawashima, 2000). A series of revisions to the specifications, especially by AASHTO
and JRA, were accompanied by launching new guidelines/rules for specifying the seismic
forces using the static lateral force method following the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan
and the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in USA. However, some deficiencies in the revised
(c) (d)
specifications were identified following the 1982 Urakawa-oki earthquake and the 1995 Kobe
earthquake in Japan.
In 1990 and 1995, the design specifications were revised again by incorporating the ductility
design method in order to prevent the shear failure of the bridge piers. This method requires
enough strength and ductility to ensure the structures to be capable of riding through an
earthquake without collapse. It is well known that the structural ductility is crucial in
dissipating seismic energy within the structures. An inelastic seismic design philosophy has
been adopted in seismic design of bridge structures that incorporates formation of plastic
hinges in different structural elements. Potentially devastating seismic forces are reduced by
applying the inelastic design philosophy; however, the main flaw of this method is the
necessity for the structure to experience some extent of damage. The origin of damaging
(e) (f)
effects of earthquakes on bridge structures is the unfortunate correlation between the
Fig.1. A few damage scenario of a few highway bridges in the recent earthquakes (Priestley fundamental periods of vibration of major structures and the frequency content of the seismic
et al. 1996) (a) Bond failure of lap slices of bridge pier in the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, input (Mullins, 1984; Priestley et al., 1996).
3 4
Extensive damage of bridges in the previous earthquakes as discussed earlier together with earthquake in 1995 in Japan, it was a question of whether bridges should have higher seismic
research triggered as a consequence of recent earthquakes have led to significant advances in performance than buildings. Aftermath of the Kobe earthquake it is now obvious that bridges
bridge seismic design. The conventional seismic coefficient method is being replaced by should have higher seismic performance than standard buildings, because damaged buildings
ductility design method, and linear/nonlinear dynamic response analysis is being used on cannot be restored if transportation is suspended due to collapse of bridges which have the
routine basis in design of bridges with a complex structural response. New treatment for same seismic performance as buildings.
liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral ground movement was included in Japanese The seismic performance of bridges shall be verified by a proper method in accordance with
Specifications, and verification of the ductility evaluation of reinforced concrete/steel factors such as design earthquake ground motions, structure type and limit states. Seismic
single/frame columns is being conducted by various research organizations. Because of the performance of bridges can be verified by static analysis and dynamic analysis according to
unsatisfactory performance of bridges in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the Japanese Design their dynamic characteristics. For example, for the bridges without complicated seismic
Specifications of Highway Bridges was revised in 1996. The code was further revised in 2002 behavior, the seismic performance can be verified using static methods; however, for the
based on the same main contents but including seismic performance criteria. bridges with complicated seismic behavior, the dynamic methods of analysis can be
employed for seismic performance verification. Table 1.2 summarizes the bridge types and
The performance based seismic design of bridges requires a strong consideration of
design methods applicable to seismic performance verification.
performance evaluation and verification depending on different levels of design earthquake
ground motion according to the importance of the bridge. Moreover, the topographical,
geological and soil condition, and site conditions, etc. should be taken into account in the
seismic design of bridge (JRA 2002). Considering all these aspects, the entire bridge system
capable of fully resisting earthquake forces shall be designed, by increasing ductility and
strength of structural members. Necessary seismic performance shall be secured in the design
of individual structural member of the bridge and the entire bridge system. Table 1.1 shows
the different seismic performance in view of safety, serviceability and reparability for seismic
design of bridge structures (JRA, 2002).
In verifying seismic performance, the limit state of each structural member should be
appropriately determined in accordance with limit states of the bridge. For example, for
seismic performance level 1, limit states of bridges are established so that the mechanical
properties of the bridge are maintained within elastic ranges, for seismic performance level 2,
these limits are established in such way that the structural member, which is allowed to
experience plastic behavior, is allowed to deform plastically within a range of easy functional
recovery, etc. This requires that the strength and ductility describing the capacity states of
bridges should be properly evaluated.
Table 1.1 shows the anticipated function of a bridge after a design earthquake. Important
bridges undergo “limited damage,” in which “damage” does not exceed the stage in which the
restoring force of main structural components initiates deterioration. Prior to the Kobe
5 6
1.4 STUDY BACKGROUND In Chapter 4, Seismic vulnerability of the bridge bents under twenty far field earthquake
In the preceding sections, the seismic behavior, and state-of-the-art principles of seismic ground motions was evaluated.
design of bridge structures have been discussed in a summarized way. From the discussion it
In Chapter 5, Fragility functions are derived based on simulation results from nonlinear time
comes into view that:
history analysis, and then they are combined to evaluate the overall fragility of the bridge
bents. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Model (PSDM) is employed to deprive the analytical
1. In the previous moderate to strong earthquakes, a number of reinforced
curves. In developing the fragility curves displacement ductility of pier is considered as the
concrete piers suffered damage in different modes of failure, such as flexure,
Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP), and the Pick Ground Acceleration (PGA) is utilized
flexure-shear and shear modes of failure, as a consequence of inadequate
as Intensity Measure (IM) for each ground motion record.
flexural strength, premature termination of longitudinal reinforcement and
loss of confinement effect or combination of these effects. Finally, Chapter 6, presented the summary and conclusions attained from this research.
2. A good perceptive of seismic behavior of bridges is necessary towards a rational

design of bridges for design earthquake ground motion.
3. Seismic design of bridges requires a proper selection of earthquake ground motion
and expected seismic performance during and after earthquakes.
1.5 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
Based on the background summarized in Section 1.3, the present research was carried out to
meet the following objectives:
1. To study the damage scenario of bridges as observed in the previous earthquakes

2. To estimate strength and ductility capacity of a typical bridge pier
3. To conduct seismic performance evaluation of a typical bridge pier subjected a series
of earthquake ground motions
1.6 THESIS OUTLINE
This thesis is arranged in six chapters. In the present chapter short preface and objective are
presented. The content of the thesis is organized into the following chapters:
In Chapter 2, a comprehensive literature review of bridge response during earthquake, retrofit

and strengthening techniques of bridge are presented. In this chapter application of various
techniques developed for bridge strengthening and their comparative performance also
presented.
In Chapter 3, Seismic performance of the bridge bent is evaluated. To evaluate capacity of the
bent static pushover analysis and moment curvature analysis were conducted.
7 8
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 GENERAL
Highway bridges constitute a large portion of the national wealth and build up the foundation
for infrastructure development. They perform as the arteries to establish link between cities
and across country to provide a smooth and fast communication system, Bridge are very
vulnerable to damage under major earthquakes (Basoz and Kiremidjian, 1999) such as the
1971 San Fernando Earthquake, the 1994 Northbridge earthquake, the 1995 Great Hanshin
earthquake in japan and the Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, the 2010 Chile earthquake and
2010 Haiti Earthquake, which extensively cause direct and indirect economic impact. In
recent earthquakes in California, USA, Cobe, Japan and central and South-America, modern
bridges specifically for seismic resistance have collapsed or have been severely damaged
when subjected to ground shaking of an intensity that has frequently been less than that
Figure 2.1: Nishinomiya-ko Bridge approach span collapse in the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu
corresponding to current code intensities. earthquake.
Many Existing bridges in Bangladesh may be inadequate in respect to the seismic A 630m segment of the elevated Hanshin Expressway was collapsed in the Kobe earthquake.
performance required by the current codes and guidelines. Many of them were designed The bridge consisted of 18 single circular columns monolithically connected to the deck and
without any earthquake resisting criterion, because they were built prior to earthquake founded on groups of 17 piles. There were 18 spans in total, all of which failed. Both poor
resistance design codes ; Others were designed to resist horizontal actions but without the structural construction and soil condition of the site are responsible for the flexural failure of
principals of the capacity design or are built at a site in an area where the seismic hazard has the expressway (George et al, 2000).
been re-evaluated and increased. In order to upgrade the seismic performace of existing
vulnerable RC structures various rehabitation techniques are available. The major techniques
for structural rehabitation of RC bridge include encasing bents using steel, Fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP) or reinforced concrete (RC) Jackets or by adding new structural elements.
2.2 DAMAGE DUE TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY
Response of a bridge structure during an earthquake is likely to be influenced by proximity of

the bridge to the fault and site conditions. Both of these factors affect the intensity of ground
shaking and ground deformations, as well as the variability of those effects along the length
of the bridge. Many of the sites were subject to liquefaction and lateral spreading, resulting in
permanent substructure deformations and loss of superstructure support such as Nishinomiya-
ko Bridge shown in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2: Flexural failure at the base of bridge pier during 1995 kobe earthquake (Hanshin
expressway).
9 10
Inadequate flexural strength may also result from butt welding of longitudinal reinforcement
close to maximum moment locations. Figure 2.3 shows an example of flexural failure of a
column of the Hanshin expressway in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, caused by failure of a large
number of butt welds at the same location, close to the column base.
Figure 2.4: Failed support columns and collapsed of the Cypress Street Viaduct (Loma Prieta
earthquake).
Severe damage was caused during the Northridge earthquake during 1994 in California.
Northridge earthquake occurred on a hidden fault northwest of downtown Los Angeles very
near to the location of the Fernando earthquake.The significant movements resulted in a shear
during the earthquake resulted in a shear failure of the reinforced concrete wing wall and
shear keys at the abutment with subsequent loss of support of the superstructure and this
followed by failure of the superstructure at the diaphragm over the continuous support,
leaving the flared column standing (Denis et al, 1994) as shown in the figure 2.4.The majority
of the bridge damages were due to shear failure of column or shear and flexural combined
Figure 2.3: Weld failure of column longitudinal reinforcement, 1995 Kobe Earthquake. failure mode (Denis et al, 1994).
During 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,the Cypress Street Viaduct, a double-deck freeway
section made of nonductilereinforced concrete that was suffered severe damage. Roughly half
of the land the Cypress Viaduct was built on was filled marshland, and half was somewhat
more stable alluvium (EERI, 1989). When the earthquake hit, the shaking was amplified on
the former marshland, and soil liquefaction occurred. In an instant, 41 people were crushed to
death in their cars. Cars on the upper deck were tossed around violently, some of them flipped
sideways and some of them were left dangling at the edge of the highway. Figure 2.4
showesfailure of support columns and collapsed of the Cypress Street Viaduct.
11 12
Shear Failure occurred extensively in the 1971 San Fernando (Caltrans, Bridge design
specification, 1993) 1994 Northbridge (EERI, 1995), and 1995 Kobe (Priestley et al, 1995)
earthquakes. Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8, from the San Fernando earthquake, is typical of brittle
shear failure where flexural strength exceeds shear strength. There is no indication that plastic
hinging developed at the member ends. In contrast, the column in Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8,
also from the San Fernando earthquake, has no apparent damage in the mid-region, but shear
failure has clearly formed at the top of the column.
Figure 2.5: Bridge collapse during the Northridge Earthquake in California.
Column longitudinal reinforcement was often lap spliced immediately above the foundation,
with a splice length inadequate to develop the strength of the bars. Lap-splice lengths as short
as 20 bar diameters were commonly provided that this is insufficient to enable the flexural
strength if the column to develop (Chai et al, 1991). Figure 2.6 shows damage to the base of a
column, attributable to lap-splice bond failure, which occurred in the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake.
Figure 2.7: Shear failure outside plastic hinging region, San Fernando Earthquake.
Figure 2.6: Bond failure of lap splice at column base, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.
13 14
Figure 2.8: Brittle shear failure of column of the I-5/I605 seperator, 1987 Whittier
earthquake.
The cause of failure of six of the seven bridge structures that failed in 1994 Northridge Figure 2.10: Example of column shear failures, 1994 Northridge earthquake. (a) Freeway at
Fairfax/Washinton undercrossing; (b) I-118 Mission/Gothic undercrossing
earthquake has been attributed to column shear failures (Priestley et al, 1994). Because of
failure of transverse reinforcement, column shear failure often results in a loss of structural In Japan, a number of bridge columns developed flexural-shear failures at column
integrity of the column, with subsequent failure under gravity loads (Figure 2.9 and 2.10). midheightduring the 1982 Urahawa-ohi and 1995 Kobe (Priestley et al, 1995) earthquakes, as
Examples of the sudden collapse caused by shear failure, special efforts must be taken in new a consequence of premature termination of the column longitudinal reinforcement. An
and retrofit designs to guard against it. example is shown in Figure 2.11, where the flexural-shear failure apparent corresponds to the
bar cutoff location at column mid height. Bar terminations was based on the deign moment
envelop, without accounting for the effects of bars lap spliced at this location. The effects of
rotational inertia increasing the moment at column mid height may also have been significant
in this case. Failure of the 18 columns of the collapse section of the Hanshin expressway in
the 1995 Kobe earthquake was also initiated by premature termination of 33% of the column
longitudinal reinforcement at 20% of the column height. This forced the plastic hinge to from
above the base, where it could not benefit from confinement provided by the strong footing,
which was essential for survival of the columns, since very little confinement reinforcement
was provided. This dramatic failure is shown in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.9: Shear failure within plastic hinge region, 1971 San Fernando earthquake
15 16
Earthquakes of particular significance for their impact on bridge design include Anchorage
(1964), Niigata (1964), Inangahua (1968), San Fernando (1971), Guatemala (1975),
Fruili(1976), Edgecumbe (1987), Loma Prieta (1989), Philippines (1990), Costa Rica (1991),
Hanshin-Awaji (1995). In the last decade (and particularly since the Loma Prieta earthquake
in Northern California) researchers and practitioners has been able to improve state-of-art
substantially and major code revisions have occurred, in such area as design philosophy,
performance criteria, ground motion characterization, geotechnical design (site effects),
inelastic analysis and capacity design procedures for concrete and steel structures. Whereas
much of this activity has been directed towards the design of new bridges, there has also been
significant progress in the evaluation and retrofit of existing structures.
The first seismic provisions for bridges were formulated in 1926 after experiencing the
destructive damage in the 1923 Kanto Earthquake. Since the first stipulations, the seismic
regulations have been reviewed and amended many times. The Design Specifications of Steel
Highway Bridges were first issued in 1939 and were revised in 1956 and 1964.
Figure 2.11: Flexure-Shear failure at pier mid-height of Route 43/2 overpass, due to
premature termination of longitudinal reinforcement; 1995 Kobe earthquake. The seismic design related requirements were extremely limited in those days due to lack of
scientific knowledge to earthquake engineering. Only the seismic lateral force of 20% of the
2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC CODES gravity force was included, and no other seismic design related provisions were presented in
these Specifications. The 20% gravity force was used as a basic design force for long time.
It has been said that the history of seismic design is also the history of damaging earthquakes.
The first comprehensive seismic design provisions were issued in 1971 as the "Guide
It is certainly true that after each major earthquake in which bridge and building structures are
Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges." The 1964 Niigata Earthquake
seriously damaged, the codes-of-practice change. There is a strong correlation throughout the
triggered development of the Guide Specifications. It was described in the Guide
world between the occurrence of major earthquakes and advancement in seismic design. In
Specifications that the lateral force shall be determined depending on zone, importance and
the early 1900’s when seismic effects were either not or poorly considered in design, the 1923
ground condition in the static lateral force method (seismic coefficient method) and structural
Kanto earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.9 occurred in the Tokyo-Yokohama area
response shall be further considered in the modified static lateral force method (modified
(Kawashima, 2000). This earthquake caused large scale damage to buildings and
seismic coefficient method). Evaluation of soil liquefaction was incorporated in view of the
infrastructure, where bridges collapsed due to tilting, overturning, and settlement of the
damage caused by the 1964 Niigata Earthquake. Several independent design methods that had
foundations. Due to this earthquake, the importance of considering seismic effects in design
been developed for substructures were first unified between 1964 and 1971 in the form of
was recognized for the first time (Kawashima, 2011). Each earthquake has tested the
"Guide Specifications of Substructures." Consequently, seismic safety was considerably
knowledge-of-the-day and where it has been found deficient; the lessons learned have led to
upgraded in the bridges.
improvements in the sate-of-the-art. But new discoveries and fresh insight have also come
from the research community which in recent years has been particularly active at generating The 1971 Guide Specifications of Substructures and the 1971 Guide Specifications
insight and understanding and communicating results to the practicing profession. Codes and forSeismic Design was revised in 1980 in the form of “Part IV Substructures” and "Part V
design provisions seem to be under constant revise and particularly so in recent years. Seismic Design" of "Design Specifications of Highway Bridges". The Part V was essentially
the same with the 1971 Guide Specifications for Seismic Design, but an updated evaluation
method for predicting soil liquefaction as well as a practical design method for foundations in
17 18
liquefying sands was included in Part V. The Design Specifications were revised in 1990. REDARS (Werner et al., 2003) which can be conducted on large and small scale regions.
Various major revisions were included in the Part V Seismic Design reflecting the progress of Highway transportation systems play a significant role in the overall impact that a seismic
bridge earthquake engineering. The first was a unification of the static lateral force method event has on a region because it interconnects with the other infrastructure in the region. The
(seismic coefficient method) and the modified static lateral force method (modified seismic various methods for vulnerability assessment that have been proposed in the past describe
coefficient method). This included the revision of the lateral force coefficient. The second below.
was an introduction of check of strength and ductility capacities of reinforced concrete piers.
2.4.1 EXPERT OPINION BASED ANALYSIS
Depending on the failure mechanism, strength and ductility capacities of reinforced concrete
piers were evaluated. This was the first requirement in Japan to check the nonlinear behavior When the Applied Technology Council (ATC) developed the ATC-13 report, there was a
of bridges after yielding of structural members. Although this provision has not been relatively small amount of recorded data available for use in the generation of damage
mandatory, this significantly contributed to the enhancement of the ductility of piers. The probability matrices. The data shortage was present for various types of structures and
third was an introduction of the static frame method to evaluate the lateral force of multi-span facilities including various types of lifeline components. This lack of information necessitated
continuous bridges. This enabled to consider three-dimensional behavior of a bridge in the the use of expert opinion for the generation of these damage matrices. The ATC put together
equivalent static analysis. The fourth was the provisions of design response spectra for a panel of 42 experts whom they could query concerning the various components of a typical
dynamic response analysis. Californian infrastructure (ATC, 1985). Only four of the 42 experts were chosen to provide
information for highway bridges. The questionnaires that were created queried the experts on
In seismic design of structures, it is important to have a clear vision on the seismic
the probability of a bridge being in one of seven damage states for a given Modified-Mercalli
performance. The basic concept of design philosophy and seismic performance criteria is
Intensity (MMI) value. They also asked the experts to rate themselves on their experience in
more or less similar among the codes, i.e., for small-to-moderate earthquakes bridges should
the field using a scale from zero to ten. After the questionnaires were completed and
be resisted within the elastic range of the structural components without significant damage,
analyzed, the results were given back to the experts for a second look. They were permitted to
and bridges exposed to shaking from large earthquakes should not cause collapse (Buckle
consider the overall results and compare them with their initial responses and make any
1996).
modifications they felt were necessary. These results were then compiled and reported as the
damage probability matrices (DPM) for bridges in the ATC-13 report and were subsequently
2.4 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT used in the ATC- 25 report (ATC, 1991).
The seismic vulnerability of a structure can be described as its susceptibility to damage by There are several major concerns with this methodology, one of which is the subjectivity of
ground shaking of a given intensity. The aim of a vulnerability assessment is to obtain the the procedure. There is little, if any, correlation to actual earthquake damage reports and is
probability of a given level of damage to a given building type due to a scenario earthquake. based solely on the experience and number of experts queried. Another concern is that the
Seismic risk describes the potential for damage or losses that a region is prone to experience DPMs were created for only two classes of bridges, major (spans over 500 feet) and
following a seismic event. This is in contrast to seismic hazard, which quantifies the conventional (spans under 500 feet). Thus, a high level of uncertainty is present but not
recurrence rates of different ground motions. Seismic risk can also be defined as the spatially quantified in these results. This uncertainty comes as a consequence of human judgment and
and temporally integrated product of the seismic hazard, the value of assets and the fragility also the coarseness of the bridge classes.
of assets (Jacob, 1992). Basoz and Kiremidjian (1996) present a seismic event time-line
which illustrates the events that take place before and after a seismic event. The first of these 2.4.2 EMPERICAL METHOD
events is to assess the seismic risk, which estimates the potential losses that may occur as a
Following the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes, empirical bridge fragility
result of the remainder of the events on the time-line. The assessment of these potential losses
curves became more common as a direct result of more complete ground motion and bridge
is done through the use of seismic risk assessment tools such as HAZUS (FEMA, 2003) and
damage data. Empirical fragility curves are generated from actual earthquake data. This
19 20
methodology has been presented and demonstrated by several groups of people for the Loma 2.4.3 ANALYTICAL METHOD
Prieta and Northridge earthquakes such as Basoz and Kiremidjian (1997), Der
When actual bridge damage and ground motion data are not available analytical fragility
Kiureghian(2002), Shinozuka et al. (2003) and Elnashai et al. (2004) and by Shinozuka et al.
curves must be used to assess the performance of highway bridges. There have been many
(2000) and Yamazaki et al. (1999) for the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Although there are some
researchers that have developed analytical fragility curves for bridges using a variety of
slight variations in the methods used by the aforementioned groups they are conceptually the
different methodologies. Since damage states are related to structural capacity (C) and the
same. The procedure requires that a post-earthquake assessment be performed where a
ground motion intensity parameter is related to structural demand (D), the fragility or
damage state would be assigned to all the bridges that belong to the bridge class being
probability of failure can then be described as in Equation 1. This specifically gives the
considered. A shake map, that geographically defines the ground motion in terms of some
probability that the seismic demand will exceed the structural capacity.
intensity measure, such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) is used to assign each bridge to a
damage state and a given ground motion intensity in a damage frequency matrix. Table 3-1 is
| | (1)
an example of a damage frequency matrix that was assembled by Basoz and Kiremidjian
(1997) for all multi-span bridges damaged during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. This probability is generally modeled as a lognormal probability distribution. It is chosen
because it has shown to be a good fit in the past and is convenient for manipulation using
Table: 2.1 Damage Frequency Matrixes for Multi-Span Bridges
(Basoz andKiremidjian, 1997). conventional probability theory (Wen et al., 2003). In addition, when the structural capacity
and demand roughly fit a normal or lognormal distribution, using the central limit theorem, it
can be said that the composite performance will be lognormally distributed (Kottegoda and
Rosso, 1997). Thus the fragility curve can be represented by a lognormal cumulative
distribution function which is given in Equation 2 (Melchers, 2001).
⁄
( ) (2)
√
where S c is the median value of the structural capacity defined for the damage state, βc is
the dispersion or lognormal standard deviation of the structural capacity, Sd is the seismic
demand in terms of a chosen ground motion intensity parameter, βd is the logarithmic
standard deviation for the demand and Φ [.] is the standard normal distribution function.
Referring to Equation 2, it can be seen that the structural demand and capacity must be
modeled to generate analytical fragility curves. There are a number of methodologies which
have been used by researchers to accomplish this task. The methodologies they have
employed range from simplistic to fairly rigorous. The following sections introduce some of
Although this method is relatively straight forward it has some drawbacks and limitations. these methodologies.
The first limitation is that it is difficult to get an adequate number bridges belonging to one
bridge class that lie in a particular damage state. When this is the case it is difficult to get 2.5 RETROFIT STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGES
statistically significant results (Shinozuka, 1998). Thus, it is often required to group classes Main purpose of the seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete columns is to increase their shear
together to get enough bridges in a given damage state and hence reduces the usefulness of strength, in particular in the piers with termination of longitudinal reinforcements at the mid
the fragility curves.
21 22
height without enough development length. This enhances the ductility of columns because is provided at the ends of the column to prevent the jacket from bearing on adjacent members.
premature shear failure could be avoided. This serves to avoid undesirable flexural strength enhancement in which larger shears and
moments may be transferred to the footings and cap beams under seismic loading (Priestley et
2.5.1 CONCRETE JACKETS
al., 1996). While the effect is not intended, experimental testing by Chai et al. has revealed
Concrete jacketing has been the method of choice for rehabitation of deficient structures. It is that the steel jacket increases column sti_ness by approximately 10 to 15% for partial height
generally cheaper than other retrofit measures and it is also suitable method for retrofitting (Chai et al., 1991) and 20 to 40% for full height jackets (Priestley et al., 1996). This could
columns in water. If applied with appropriate reinforcement, concrete jacket can enhance the undesirably impact the impact force and performance of bridge components, and is thus a
stiffness, flexural and shear strength as well as the deformation capacity and are effective in critical consideration for analytical assessment of this retrofit.
achieving enhance confinement. Concrete jacket has some disadvantages as compared of FRP
and steel jacket as it increased the size of the structural members. Figure 2.12 illustrates the
concrete jacketing technique.
Figure 2.13: Typical steel jacket retrofit details: (a) full height (b) typical section.
The steel jackets are designed according to the Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway
Figure 2.12: Concrete Jacket
Structures (FHWA, 1995), which considers the increase in compressive strength and ultimate
2.5.2 STEEL JACKETS strain in the concrete due to steel jacket confinement. The steel jackets are modeled by
altering the fiber section for the concrete column. In a fiber model, composite sections are
Concrete columns may be encased in steel jackets to help overcome typical column
created with fibers representing the unique stress-strain relationships for the longitudinal steel
deficiencies. Columns have been found to be particularly vulnerable due to insufficient lap
reinforcement, unconfined concrete, and confined concrete. Thus, the concrete fibers now
splices and inadequate transverse reinforcement, leading to limited ductility capacity and low
have enhanced compressive strength and ultimate strain due to the confinement caused by
shear strength (DesRoches et al., 2000). Steel jacketing has been used as a retrofit measure to
jacketing. This effect is illustrated in Figure 2.13, adapted from Priestley et al. (1996). The
enhance the flexural ductility, shear strength, or performance of lap splices in reinforced
compressive strength of concrete, fꞌcc, is estimated from Chai et al. (1991) following
concrete bridge columns. Extensive proof of concept testing of steel jacketed bridge columns
was performed at the University of California, San Diego in the early 1990s, and Priestley et
( √ ) (3)
al. (1996) cite that several hundred bridges in the US had been retrofit with this technology by
1996. A review of the state-of-practice in the CSUS has revealed that this is the most
Where, is the radial confining stress in the steel jacket at yield given by,
common column retrofit in the CSUS, as well. Figure 2.1 details a typical cross section of a
circular column retrofit by a steel jacket, and the full height configuration which is assumed
(4)
for this study. The steel jackets are typically A36 steel casings and a space of about 50.8 mm
23 24
And is the yield stress of the jacket, Dj is the jacket diameter, and tj is the jacket
thickness. In addition to the above modeling, the elastic modulus of the jacketed column
section is increased such that there is a 20 to 40% increase in stiffness of the column based on
Priestley’s (Priestley et al., 1994a) test results of jacketed columns. In general, while the
analytical model is slightly affected by the use of steel jacketing, the primary impact of the
retrofit is to increase the column ductility capacity.
Figure 2.15: Steel Jacket Retrofit at Expressway in 1989, which was effective during the
1995 Kobe earthquake
Figure 2.14: Effect of confinement on concrete, adapted from Priestley et al. (1996).
2.5.3 PRECAST CONCRETE SEGMENT JACKET
The circular columns are retrofitted by circular steel jackets while rectangular columns are Because steel jacket is vulnerable to corrosion, it is not generally used for retrofit of columns
retrofitted by elliptic or rectangular jackets, the former is more effective. In the case of under water in river, lake and sea. As reinforced concrete jacket are used for retrofit of
circular columns, two half shells of steel plate are rolled to a radius of 12.5 to 25 mm bigger columns in water, however it generally takes longer construction period. Setting a new
than the column radius (Priestley, 1996), and are site welded up the vertical seams. The steel reinforced concrete jacket requires to dry up the top of footing and piers. Therefore a
shall provide a continuous tube around the concrete column with an annular gap. This gap is reinforced concrete jacketing is costly. As a consequence a jacketing method which uses
grouted with cement grout or epoxy resin. A small gap of about 50 mm is provided at the precast concrete segments is now increasingly used for columns in water. There are at least
bottom of piers between steel jacket and the top of the footing. This gap enables jacket to three reasons for the wide acceptance of the precast concrete segment jacketing. First is the
function as a passive confinement and prevents excessive increase in the flexural strength. technical development which enables to set precast concrete segments without drying up a
This jacket primarily increases shear strength and confinement. The increase of thickness of foundation under water. Second is the faster construction than the standard reinforced
column after retrofit is very small. concrete jacketing. Setting of prefabricated concrete segments contributes to significantly
reduce the construction period. Special joints for connection of segments are sometimes used
to further reduce construction period. Third is the cost saving. Because size of the columns is
generally more or less the same at a bridge, fabrication of segments in a factory and setting
them at the site save the cost compared to the reinforced concrete jacketing. In other word, the
precast concrete segment is not competent at the bridges which are supported by irregular
columns with different sections.
25 26
and pre-cured (composite sheets and shapes manufactured off-site). The properties of an FRP
system shall be characterized as a composite, recognizing not just the material properties of
the individual fibers, but also the efficiency of the fiber-resin system and fabric architecture.
Table 1 indicates mechanical properties of the composites (FRP systems) in the direction of
fibers formed by curing of unidirectional fibers having fiber-resin ratio of approximately 1:1
by volume and a thickness of 2.5mm.
Table 2.2: Typical Mechanical Properties of FRP Laminates

Tensile Strength Elastic Modulus Ultimate Elongation
FRP System
(MPa) (GPa) (%)
Aramid + Epoxy
700-1725 48-68 2.0-3.0
High performance
Figure 2.16: Precast concrete segment jacket Carbon + Epoxy

1025-2075 100-145 1.0-1.5
High Strength
E-Glass + Epoxy 525-1400 20-40 1.5-3.0
FRP strengthening is a quick, neat, effective, and aesthetically pleasing technique to

rehabilitate reinforced and pre-stressed concrete structures. Unlike steel plates, FRP systems
possess high strength to self-weight ratio and do not corrode. But, it is imperative to be aware
of the performance characteristics of various FRP systems under different circumstances to
select a durable and suitable system for a particular application. It should be ensured that the
FRP system selected for structural strengthening has undergone durability testing consistent
with the application environment.
Figure 2.17: Before retrofit Figure 2.18: After retrofitted
2.5.4 FRP STRENGTHENING
A Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) typically consists of high tensile continuous fibers
oriented in a desired direction in a specialty resin matrix. These continuous fibers are bonded
to the external surface of the member to be strengthened in the direction of tensile force or as
confining reinforcement normal to its axis. FRP can enhance shear, flexural, compression
capacity and ductility of the deficient member. Aramid, carbon, and glass fibers are the most
common types of fibers used in the majority of commercially available FRPs. FRP systems,
commonly used for structural applications, come in many forms including wet lay-up (fiber
sheets or fabrics saturated at site), pre-preg (pre-impregnated fiber sheets of fabrics off site)
27 28
deformation remains as residual strain upon unloading but can be removed upon heating. This
is called shape memory effect. SMAs also possess super elastic characteristics. After pseudo
yield the deformation can be recovered simply by unloading. This is called super elastic
effect. The high elastic strain capabilities are of the order of 6-8%. The shape memory and
super elastic effect depend on the temperature: In the lower range they show shape memory
effect but in 20 to 300C higher than transformation temperature these materials show super
elastic effect. The transformation temperature is a function of alloy compound. SMAs can act
both as restrainers and dampers. SMAs can dissipate significant amount of energy due to
shape memory effect (Andrawes and Desroches, 2004). One application of SMAs is in the use
of restrainers. These devices are installed between adjoining spans to limit excessive relative
displacements. Traditionally steel restraining cables have been used for this purpose. The
disadvantages of traditional devices are, (i) these have no re-centering capability (ii) the
devices increase ductility demand of structure. Both the drawbacks of traditional devices are
Figure 2.19: FRP strengthening of concrete pier
overcome in restrainers made of SMA alloys.
2.5.5 EXTERNAL POST-TENSIONING
Over the service life of a pre-stressed concrete member, loss in pres-stress may occur due to a
variety of reasons. Post-tensioned bridges can be effectively rehabilitated by external post-
tensioning technique to compensate for loss in pre-stress or increase in wheel loads. In this
technique, pre-stressing tendons or bars are located according to pre-determined profile on the
external surface of the member to be strengthened according to design. Anchor heads are
positioned at the ends of these tendons/ bars to post-tension the member using hydraulic
jacks. Although, this method is quite effective but it requires sufficient strength in the existing
concrete to transfer the stress and exposed tendons & anchorages need to be protected against
corrosion and vandalism. Photo 10 shows external post tensioning for a bridge girder.
2.5.6 SMART MATERIALS
The smart materials have unusual thermo mechanical properties that have been explored for
purpose of earthquake protection and retrofitting measures in structures. These materials also
called intelligent materials have self-repairable and self-diagnosis characteristics. Shape
memory alloys (SMAs) are one kind of materials, which has found application in bridge
structures. The SMA materials differ from ordinary materials in that in the former, heating the
material can change the crystal structure. These materials can have phase transformation
above a transformation temperature range that is specific to various alloys. One such material
is use is Nitinol, which has shape memory effect and super elastic effect. Shape memory
effect permits having pseudo yield and pseudo elastic deformation. The pseudo-elastic
29 30
CHAPTER 3
STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY OF BRIDGE BENT
3.1 GENERAL
Bridges play very important role for evacuation and emergency routes for rescues, first aid,
medical services, fire-fighting and transporting urgent disaster commodities. In view of
importance of Highway Bridge in transportation network, it is the key issue to minimize as much
as possible loss of the bridge functions during earthquakes. In the last few earthquakes, for
instance, the Kobe earthquake in 1995, the Northridge earthquake in 1994, the Chi-Chi
earthquake in 1999, and the Chile and Haiti earthquakes in 2010 have demonstrated that a number
of highway bridges have collapsed or have been severely damaged, even though they were
subjected to earthquake ground shaking of an intensity that has been frequently less than the
current code intensities. Hence it is important to evaluate the strength and the performance of the
bridge. In this chapter, the lateral strengths of pier are assessed. The lateral strengths of the piers
are obtained from bending and the shear capacity. The bending strengths are obtained from
pushover analysis results, while the shear strengths are estimated by using code defined
equations. The capacity required for the current and future probable increase of spectrum
acceleration is analyzed for safety evaluation of the bent. It was found from the analysis that the
analyzed bent would suffer damage condition if seismic intensity exceeds current code practice.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE AND THE BENT

Figure 3.1: 3D View of Bahadarhat Flyover
Chittagong city is surrounded by many primary and secondary road networks. In Chittagong
Metropolitan Master Plan, there is a guideline for improvement of traffic network to reduce the The piers heights blow the pile cap varies from 3.653m to7.29m. A geometric model of the
traffic congestion within the city. A 1331.60 meter long Flyover connecting CDA (Chittagong flyover is presented in figure 3.2. The span length Varies from 35m to 40m. The diameter is 2.5m
Development Authority) Avenue road and Shah Amanat Bridge approach road was construct to for all piers. The height, sectional dimensions, longitudinal reinforcement is presented in tabular
reduce traffic congestion of the junction. Figure 3.1 shows the three dimensional view of the form in Table3.2.
Bahadarhat flyover. The very purpose of Flyover of Bahadarhat junction is to establish a quick
and efficient movement of vehicles over the bridge.
31 32
Table 3.2: Material properties of the pier
Material Name Description of Properties

Compressive strength = 35 MPa
Tensile strength = 3 MPa
Confined Concrete Strain at Peak Stress = 0.0025 ( mm/mm)
Confinement factor = 1.2
Specific weight = 2.4 E-05 N/mm3
Modulus of elasticity = 200000 MPa
Yield strength = 485 MPa
Steel Strain hardening parameter = 0.0075
Fracture/ buckling strain = 0.06
Compressive strength = 35 MPa
Tensile strength = 3 MPa
Unconfined Concrete Strain at Peak Stress = 0.0025 ( mm/mm)
Confinement factor = 1.0
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE BENT
3.3.1 PLASTIC HINGE LENGTH AND ULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT OF PIER
Figure 3.2: Geometrical Model of Flyover To obtain the force-displacement relationship at the top of the bridge pier, the pier is divided into
N slices (50 slices are recommended in the code) along its height. For sectional analysis, it is
Table 3.1: Geometries properties of the pier mainly focused on three sections: 1) section at the top level, 2) section at one-third level from the
bottom of the pier, and 3) section at the base level. This is because the configuration of the
Pier No Pier Height (m) Diameter (m) Long. Reinf.
1 3.653 2.5 72 @ D32 reinforcement at this level is different. Finally, the force displacement relationship at the top of
2 4.917 2.5 72 @ D32 the bridge pier is obtained using the moment-curvature diagrams and shear stress-strain diagram.
3 5.857 2.5 72 @ D32
Figure 3.4 shows the numerical evaluation of the flexural and shear components of displacement.
4 6.557 2.5 72 @ D32
5 to 14 7.29 2.5 72 @ D32 The steps for obtaining the force-displacement relationships are as follows:
21 7.057 2.5 72 @ D32
23 5.417 2.5 72 @ D32 1. The pier is divided into N slices along its height.
24 4.153 2.5 72 @ D32
2. The moment-curvature diagrams for each cross-section is obtained through sectional analysis.
The strengths and ductility of the piers largely depend on the material strengths and stress-strain 3. The horizontal force P is applied at the top of the pier.
relationship. Material strengths are found from the design data are presented in table 3.2.
4. The bending moment diagrams of the pier for the applied force P is drawn.
33 34
5. The curvature from bending moment and moment-curvature diagram is obtained.
6. The displacement δ at the top of the pier is estimated using the following equation.
7.In a similar way, several forces P are applied and the corresponding displacement obtain. 50000
Finally, using these values, the force –displacement relationship at pier top is obtained.
40000
Moment (KNm)
30000
20000
10000
Applied load on column B.M.D Curvature diagram S.F.D S.S.D
Figure 3.3: Numerical evaluation of flexural and shear component of displacement 0

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
In the current study a finite element based program Response-2000 has been used.
Curvature (rad/m)
Evaluation of the adequacy of existing bridge bent to withstand imposed seismic loads requires
assessment and comparison of anticipated demand and available capacities. The Lateral strengths
Figure 3.4: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 1
of the piers in bending are obtained by using the ultimate moment capacities of the pier obtained
from sectional analysis. The Moment curvature relationship shown below: The moment-curvature relationship of the pier 1 is illustrated in the figure 3.5. It is seen from
Figures that the moment is found to increase rapidly with increasing curvatures initially. With a
curvature of 0.005 rad/m the pier comes to its yield state. The yield moment of the pier is, My=
43000 KNm. Curvatures are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in moment after
yielding. The ultimate moment and ultimate curvature are found from the graph are 47500 KNm
and 0.028 rad/m respectively.
35 36
50000 50000
40000
40000
Moment (KNm)
30000
Moment (KNm)
30000
20000
20000
10000
10000
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0
Curvature (rad/m) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Curvature (rad/m)
The moment-curvature relationship of the pier 2 is illustrated in the figure 3.6. It is seen from Figure 3.6: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 3
The moment-curvature relationship of the pier 3 is illustrated in the figure 3.7. It is seen from
37 38
50000 50000
45000
40000
40000
35000
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
30000
30000
25000
20000
15000 20000
10000
5000 10000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0
Curvature (rad/m) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Curvature (rad/m)
Figure 3.8 : Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 5-21
The moment-curvature relationship of the pier 5-21 is illustrated in the figure 3.9. It is seen from
yielding. The ultimate moment and curvature are found from the graph are 44200 KNm and 0.037
rad/m respectively.
39 40
50000 60000
40000 50000
Moment (KNm)
Moment (KNm)
40000
30000
30000
20000
20000
10000
10000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Curvature (rad/m)
Curvature (rad/m)
Figure 3.9 : Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 22

rad/m respectively.
rad/m respectively.
41 42
a minor change in the slope is observed in the initial linear regime. It is due to developing tension
cracks in the cover concrete, and hence reduction of effective cross-sectional area occurs. It is
also seen that the trend of moment-curvature relationships are for the section same but the slopes,
60000
and the characteristic points are found different.
50000 The ultimate displacement of a pier is evaluated from yielding and ultimate curvature and
as (Priestley and Park 1987, Priestley at al. 1996)
40000
Moment (KNm)
= +( − )(h − / 2) (3.1)
30000 In which h =height of the pier and =plastic hinge length,
20000 = 0.2h − 0.1D; (0.1D ≤Lp≤ 0.5D) (3.2)
Table 3.3: Plastic hinge length and ultimate displace of bent

10000
Ultimate Ultimate
Yield
0 Pier Height Plastic hinge
Curvature,
Curvature displacement.
Pier No
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 (m) length, (m) (mm)
(rad/m)
((rad/m)
Curvature (rad/m) 1 3.653 0.4806 0.005 0.028 45.72
2 4.917 0.7334 0.007 0.028 82.08
Figure 3.11: Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 24 3 5.857 0.9214 0.008 0.03 127.39
The moment-curvature relationship of the pier 24 is illustrated in the figure 3.12. It is seen from 4 6.557 1.0614 0.008 0.034 196.30
Figures that the moment is found to increase rapidly with increasing curvatures initially. With a 5 to 21 7.29 1.208 0.009 0.037 269.15
curvature of 0.006 rad/m the pier comes to its yield state. The yield moment of the pier is, My= 22 7.057 1.1614 0.006 0.033 243.08
42000 KNm. Curvatures are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in moment after 23 5.417 0.8334 0.005 0.028 109.85
24 4.153 0.5806 0.006 0.028 58.34
rad/m respectively.
It is seen from above discussion that that the moment is found to increase rapidly before yielding
3.3.2 LATER STRENGTH AND DUCTILITY OF BRIDGE BENT
of the pier with increasing curvatures initially, while the rate of increase becomes insignificant
Evaluation of the adequacy of existing bridge bent to withstand imposed seismic loads requires
after an interval. The reason for changing the relation is that reinforcing steel in the extreme
assessment and comparison of anticipated demand and available capacities. With a view to
tensile layer reaches yield strength. The moment in the stage is termed as yield moment.
achieve the goal, inelastic pushover analyses are carried out for obtaining the force-displacement
Moments are observed to increase further with curvature beyond the yield moment due to the fact
relations. A force displacement relationship is generated by using seismostruct 2012. The
that the reinforcement in layers other than in extreme layers is yet to reach yield strength. Further,
43 44
procedure illustrates in figure 3.13 to evaluated both yield and ultimate displacement and
capacity of the bent. 11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
Force (KN)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.13: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 01
The force-displacement relationship of the pier 1 is illustrated in the figure 3.13. It is seen from
(0,0) δyδu figure that the initially force is found to increase rapidly with increasing displacement. Pier comes
to its yield state when displacement reaches 8mm. The yield force of the pier is, Fy= 8700 KN.
Displacement
Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after yielding, at this
Figure 3.12: Pushover analysis of the bent state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate Force is found from the graph are 9994.867
KN.
The pushover analysis results for the piers are presented in the form of load-displacement
relationships that are presented in Figures below:
45 46
9000
7000
8000
7000 6000
6000
5000
5000
Force (KN)
4000
Force (KN)
4000
3000
3000
2000
1000
2000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 1000
-1000
Displacement (mm) 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 3.14: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 2 Displacement (mm)
figure that the force is found to increase rapidly with increasing displacement initially before
yielding of the pier. Pier comes to its yield state when displacement reaches 18mm. The yield The force-displacement relationship of the pier 2 is illustrated in the figure 3.15. It is seen from
moment of the force is, Fy= 7200 KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little Figure that the force is found to increase rapidly with increasing displacement initially. Pier
increase in force after yielding, at this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate Force comes to its yield state when displacement reaches 20mm. The yield moment of the force is, Fy=
is found from the graph is 8136.065 KN. 6000 KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after
yielding, at this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate Force is found from the
graph are 6328.135 KN.
47 48
5000 5000
4500 4500
4000 4000
3500 3500
3000 3000
Force (KN)
Force (KN)
2500 2500
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Displacement (mm) -500
Displacement (mm)
The force-displacement relationship of the pier 04 is illustrated in the figure 3.16. It is seen from Figure 3.17: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 05-21
Figure that the force is found to increase rapidly with increasing displacement initially. Pier
The force-displacement relationship of the pier 05-21 is illustrated in the figure 3.14. It is seen
comes to its yield state when displacement reaches 8mm. The yield moment of the force is, Fy=
from Figure that the force is found to increase rapidly with increasing displacement initially. Pier
3900 KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after
yielding, at this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate force is found from the
graph are 4358.049 KN. 8500 KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after
yielding, at this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate Force is found from the
graph are 4368.301 KN.
49 50
5000
4500
8000
4000
7000
3500
3000 6000
Force (KN)
2500 5000
Force (KN)
2000
4000
1500
3000
1000
500 2000
0 1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Displacement (mm) 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 3.18: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 22 Displacement (mm)
comes to its yield state when displacement reaches 8mm. The yield force of the force is, Fy= The force-displacement relationship of the pier 2 is illustrated in the figure 3.14. It is seen from
8500 KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after Figure that the force is found to increase rapidly with increasing displacement initially. Pier
yielding, at this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate force is found from the comes to its yield state when displacement reaches 8mm. The yield force of the pier is, Fy= 8500
graph are 5976.935 KN. KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after yielding, at
this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate force is found from the graph are
7945.387 KN.
51 52
Table 3.4: Lateral Strength of Bent
12000
Pier Height, h Lateral strength, Pu
Pier No
(m) (KN)
10000
1 3.653 9994.867
8000 2 4.917 8136.065
3 5.857 6328.135
6000
Force (KN)
4 6.557 4458.049
5 to 21 7.29 4368.301
4000
22 7.057 5976.935
2000 23 5.417 7945.387
24 4.153 9800.867
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-2000 Ductility and lateral strength of the bent is evaluated from both Shear and flexural capacity of the
pier. Failure mode of bent is analyzed according to JRA, 2002. Strength and design displacement
Displacement (mm) ductility factor are determined depending on the failure mode as shown in Figure 3.21. Lateral
strength of the pier is analyzed and presented in the tabulated form in Table 3.3.
8500 KN. Displacement are observed to increase rapidly with little increase in force after
yielding, at this state pier shows inelastic displacement. The ultimate force is found from the
graph are 9800.867 KN and 0.028 rad/m respectively.
Flexural strength of the piers is summarized from the above force-displacement analysis. In table
3.4 the lateral strength are presented. From the table it is evident that shorter piers possess greater
flexural strength. The Pier lowest height has the greatest flexural capacity of 9994.86 KN whereas
the highest pier with 7.29m height pier has only 4368.05 KN as lateral capacity.
53 54
Based on the flexural strength , shear strength Ps and shear strength under static loading ,
Start
failure mode of a pier is decided to be one of the flexural failure, shear failure after flexural
damage and shear failure as,
Compute ultimate { (3.3)

flexural capacity,
{
The lateral capacity Pa and the design displacement ductility factor are given as
Compute Shear capacity,

{ (3.4)
{ (3.5)
YES NO
In which α =safety factor depending on importance of bridges and the type of ground motion (α
Compute Shear capacity, =3.0 and 2.4 for important and ordinary bridges, respectively, under the near field ground
assuming, motions, and α =1.5 and 1.2 for important and ordinary bridges, respectively, under the Far field
ground motions), and =yielding and ultimate displacement of the pier.
Shear strength of concrete can be calculated by following equation (JRA, 2002),
(3.6)
YES NO
Flexural Shear failure (3.7)
Shear
failure failure
After flexural (3.8)
cracks
Where,
= Shear Strength (N)
= Shear Strength resisted by concrete (N)
=Shear Strength borne by hoop tie (N)
End a = Spacing of the stirrup (mm)
The value of and given in Table 3.5,

Figure 3.21: Ductility Evaluation of Bent
55 56
Table 3.8: Failure mode: Shear failure of bridge pier
Table 3.5: Value of in relation to effective height d of a pier section (JRA, 2002)
Pier Failure Failure mode
Pier No (KN)
height (KN) Criteria
Effective Height Below 1000 3000 5000 Above 10000
(m)
(mm)
Shear Failure
1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 1 3.653 9994.86 6699.565
Shear Failure
2 4.917 8136.07 6699.565
Table 3.6: Value of in relation to effective height d of a pier section (JRA, 2002) Shear Failure
23 5.417 7471.17 6489.565
Shear Failure
Tensile Reinforcement 0.2 0.3 0.5 Above 1% 24 4.153 9931.74 6699.565
(%)
0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5

Table 3.8 shows ductility of the bent that has been calculated by using figure 3.19. According to
the steps shows in figure 3.19, bents with shear failure criteria will have allowable ductility 1.
The List of piers with flexural failure mode is summarized as Table 3.7. Piers taller than 6.5 The flexural ductility of the bent are calculated by using equation 3.7.
meter are vulnerable to flexural failure.

Table 3.9: Ductility of the Bent
Table 3.7: Failure mode: Flexural failure
Pier Height Failure Allowable
Pier No Failure mode
(m) Criteria Ductility
Pier No Pier Height (m) (KN) Failure Criteria 1 3.653 Shear Failure 1.0
(KN) Failure mode
3 6.557 6389.565 6289.565 Flexural Failure 2 4.917 Shear Failure 1.0
3 5.857 Flexural Failure 4.67

4 6.557 4358.04 5985.565 Flexural Failure
5 to 21 7.29 4368.301 5985.565 Flexural Failure 4 6.557 Flexural Failure 4.56
22 7.057 4490.45 5985.565 Flexural Failure 5 to 21 7.29 Flexural Failure 4.21
22 7.057 Flexural Failure 4.30
Table 3.8 demonstrates shear failure of the piers. Form the data it is evident that relatively short 23 5.417 Shear Failure 1.0
piers are more susceptible to shear failure rather than flexural failure. 24 4.153 Shear Failure 1.0
57 58
3.4 SAFETY EVALUATION OF THE BENT The response spectrums of the earthquakes listed in Table 3.10 are shown in figure 3.20. Average
response spectrum also shown in the figure. The highest response spectrum acceleration is
For safety evaluation of the bent a suite of 20 far field ground motions are used in this study to
found to be 2.25 g and the average response spectrum has pick value just under 1.0g.
develop response spectrum of this analysis. The characteristics of the earthquake ground motion
records are presented in Table 3.10. All these ground motions have very high PGA ranging from
0.2g to 0.7g. Figure 3.20 shows the acceleration response spectra of the recorded near fault 2.5
EQ1 EQ2
ground motions. Figure 3.21 shows the different percentiles of acceleration response spectra EQ3 EQ4
illustrating that the selected earthquake ground motion records are well describing the medium to EQ5 EQ6
2 EQ7 EQ8
strong intensity earthquake motion histories.
EQ9 EQ10
EQ11 EQ12
Table 3.10: Earthquake ground motion
Spectral Acceleration(g)
EQ13 EQ14
EQ15 EQ16
1.5
EQ17 EQ18
Earthquake PGAmax PGVmax EQ19 EQ20
Name Recording Station Average
No (g) (cm/s.)
Average response
1 spectrum
EQ-1 Northridge Beverly Hills - Mulhol 0.416 58.95
EQ-2 Landers Yermo Fire Station 0.24 51.5
EQ-3 Northridge Canyon Country-WLC 0.4 43.0
EQ-4 Landers Coolwater 0.283 26 0.5
EQ-5 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 0.7 56.4
EQ-6 Loma Prieta Capitola 0.53 35
EQ-7 Hector Mine Hector 0.3 28.6
EQ-8 Loma Prieta Gilroy Array #3 0.56 36 0
EQ-9 Imperial Valley Delta 0.2 26.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
EQ-10 Manjil, Iran Abbar 0.51 43
EQ-11 Imperial Valley El Centro Array #11 0.4 34.4 Period (sec)
EQ-12 Superstition Hills El Centro Imp. Co. 0.36 46.4
EQ-13 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 0.5 37.3
EQ-14 Superstition Hills Poe Road (temp) 0.45 35.8 Figure 3.22: Spectral Acceleration
EQ-15 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 0.2 38.0
EQ-16 Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass 0.385 43.8 Figure 3.21 compares with different percentile of far field earthquake represented in Table 3.10
EQ-17 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 0.3 59.0
EQ-18 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101 0.353 70.65 and BNBC response spectrum with different zone factor. A percentile of spectrum acceleration is
EQ-19 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 0.2 17.7 a measure used in statistics indicating the value below which a given percentage of observations
EQ-20 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 0.474 36.7
in a group of observations fall. The 25th percentile is the value below which 25 percent of the
observations may be found. The 25th percentile is also known as the first quartile, the 50th
percentile as the median or second quartile, and the 75th percentile as the third quartile.
59 60
Table 3.11: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.15
1.6 Lateral
equivalent Force
Response Spectral response Lateral
Pier Allowable Demand Safety
modification Acceleration, acceleration, Capacity,
No Ductility Status
average factor, R (m/s2) ( ) (KN)
25th (KN)
1 1.0 1 3.68 3.68 5625 9994.867 Safe
1.2 75th
2 1.0 1 3.68 3.68 7500 8136.065 Safe
Acceleration Response Spectra(g)
BNBC, Z=.15 3 1.0 2.87 3.68 1.28 3895.556 6328.135 Safe

BNBC, Z=.28(Proposed)
4 4.56 2.85 3.68 1.29 3947.368 4358.049 Safe
BNBC, Z=.36(Proposed)
5 to
4.21 2.72 3.68 1.35 4136.029 4368.301 Safe
0.8 21
22 4.30 2.76 3.68 1.33 4076.087 5976.935 Safe
23 1.0 1 3.68 3.68 7500 7945.387 Safe
24 1.0 1 3.68 3.68 5625 9994.867 Safe
Table 3.10 represents safety status of the piers for zonal factor, Z=0.28. This factor was taken into
0.4
consideration for the future probable change for seismic design for Chittagong. From the Table it
can be seen that all the piers would be in “Not Safe” stage.
Table 3.12: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.28
0 Lateral
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 equivalent Force
Pier Allowable Demand Safety
Period(sec) modification Acceleration, acceleration, Capacity,
No Ductility Status
factor, R (m/s2) ( ) (KN)
(KN)
1 1.0 1 6.867 6.867 10500 9994.867 Not Safe
Figure 3.23: Spectral Acceleration (percentile and BNBC response spectrum) 2 1.0 1 6.867 6.867 14000 8136.065 Not Safe
3 1.0 2.87 6.867 2.377848 7271.705 6328.135 Not Safe
Table 3.9 represents safety status of the piers. The allowable ductility of the piers is found from 4 4.56 2.85 6.867 2.409474 7368.421 4358.049 Not Safe
Table 3.9 and response spectrum of BNBC, Z=0.15g is used. From the Table it can be seen that
5 to
all the piers are in safe status. 4.21 2.72 6.867 2.524632 7720.588 4368.301 Not Safe
21
22 4.30 2.76 6.867 2.488043 7608.696 5976.935 Not Safe
23 1.0 1 6.867 6.867 14000 7945.387 Not Safe
24 1.0 1 6.867 6.867 10500 9994.867 Not Safe
61 62
Table 3.10 represents safety status of the piers for zonal factor, Z=0.36. This factor was taken into CHAPTER 4
consideration for the future probable maximum change for seismic zonal factor in Bangladesh. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE BENT
From the Table it can be seen that all the piers would be in “Not Safe” stage.
4.1 GENERAL
Table 3.13: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.38 In the last few decades, a dramatic increase in the losses caused by natural catastrophes has been
observed worldwide. Reasons for the increased losses are manifold, though these certainly
Lateral include the increase in world population, the development of new “super-cities” , many of which
equivalent Force
Pier Allowable Demand Safety are located in zones of high seismic hazard, and the high vulnerability of modern societies and
modification Acceleration, acceleration, Capacity,
No Ductility Status
factor, R (m/s2) ( ) (KN) technologies. The 1994 Northridge (California, US) earthquake produced the highest ever insured
(KN) earthquake loss and 1995 Kobe (Japan) earthquake was the highest ever absolute earthquake loss
Not (Calvi et al., 2006). Seismic performance estimating in future earthquakes are of fundamental
1 1.0 1 9.3195 9.3195 14250 9994.867
Safe
Not importance for emergency planners and retrofitting of structures. With the occurrence of every
2 1.0 1 9.3195 9.3195 19000 8136.065
Safe major earthquake an increase social awareness of society’s seismic vulnerability is witnessed.
Not
3 1.0 2.87 9.3195 3.227079 9868.743 6328.135 The numerical results have revealed that the seismic responses of the bridge system are
Safe
Not significantly affected by the characteristics of the earthquakes ground motion records (Bhuiyan at
4 4.56 2.85 9.3195 3.27 10000 4358.049
Safe
5 to Not el., 2013). As a result seismic performance has become much research interest to quantify the
4.21 2.72 9.3195 3.426287 10477.94 4368.301
21 Safe potential social and economic losses of communities across the nation. Performance evaluation of
Not
22 4.30 2.76 9.3195 3.37663 10326.09 5976.935 bridge has grown from this surge in research as they are an essential component to the risk
Safe
Not assessment methodology. This is done by estimating the performance of the various highway
23 1.0 1 9.3195 9.3195 19000 7945.387
Safe
bridges in the network as a function of a ground motion intensity parameter. In this study twenty
Not
24 1.0 1 9.3195 9.3195 14250 9994.867
Safe far field ground motions are used to evaluate bridge seismic performance.
3.5 SUMMARY
The aim of this chapter was to evaluate the seismic capacity of a bridge subjected to current and 4.2 MODELING OF THE BRIDGE BENT
proposed future code measures and the spectral acceleration is compared with 20 far field 4.2.1 PHYSICAL MODEL OF THE BENT
earthquakes ranging from 0.2g to 0.728g. From result obtained from the analysis the capacity of
To evaluate the seismic performance of the bridge bent, Bahadarhat flyover considered in this
the bridge was verified. Based on the results that were obtained the following conclusions were
study. A typical 40m span with 7.29m high pier is considered for the study. The bent’s geometric
deduced:
configuration is shown in figure 4.1. Seven girders and a concrete deck are spanning between the
1. The bridge piers below 5.217m are susceptible to shear failure whereas piers more than two bents.
5.217 are more likely to fail by flexure.
2. The lateral capacity of the pier is capable of withstand earthquake described by current
code practice, that is Z=0.15g.
3. The lateral capacity of the pier will not be capable to withstand earthquake for the
spectral acceleration of Z=0.28g and Z= 0.36g.
63 64
Here, fiber modeling approach has been employed to represent the distribution of material
nonlinearity along the length and cross-sectional area of the member. The confinement effect of
the concrete section is considered on the basis of reinforcement detailing. To develop the
analytical model Menegotto-Pinto steel model (Menegotto and Pinto, 1973) with Filippou
(Filippou et al., 1983) isotropic strain hardening property is used for reinforcing steel material.
Figure 4.1: Geometry of Span of the Flyover
4.2.2 ANALYTICAL MODEL OF THE BENT

The analytical model of a bridge bent along with a bridge pier is shown in Figure 4.2. The Figure 4.3: Menegotto-Pinto steel model
analytical model of the bridge bent is approximated as a continuous 2-D finite element frame
using the SeismoStruct nonlinear analysis program (SeismoStruct, 2010). 2-D inelastic beam FRP confined concrete model developed by Ferracuti and Savoia (2005) has been implemented.
elements have been used for modeling the bridge component. This simplification holds true only In this model the confinement effect of the FRP wrapping follows the rules proposed by Spoelstra
when the bridge superstructure is assumed to be rigid in its own plane which shows no significant
structural effects on the seismic performance of the bridge system when subjected to earthquake and Monti (1999).
ground acceleration in longitudinal direction (Ghobarah et at, 1988).
The pier is modeled by using beam column element. Fiber Model is used to generate the section
of the pier. In the current study, the nonlinear Fiber section is used to model the concrete pier.
Figure 4.2: Analytical Model of Bent

Figure 4.4: Fiber Section of Reinforced Pier
65 66
Table 4.1: Characteristics of far field ground motion histories.
EQ Earthquake Recording Epicentral PGAmax PGVmax

M
No Name Station Distance (km) (g) (cm/s.)
Beverly Hills -
1 Northridge 6.7 13.3 0.416 58.95
Mulhol
Yermo Fire
2 Landers 7.3 86 0.24 51.5
Station
Canyon
3 Northridge 6.7 26.5 0.41 42.97
Country-WLC
Figure 4.5: Beam element for pier modeling
4 Landers Coolwater 7.3 82.1 0.283 26
5 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 7.1 41.3 0.728 56.44

The pier and pier cap are modeled by using beam element. Pier cap is considered as solid
concrete element for simplicity. Fiber section is used to model the concrete pier cap. The 6 Loma Prieta Capitola 6.9 9.8 0.53 35
following figure shows the modeling of pier cap.
7 Hector Mine Hector 7.1 26.5 0.266 28.56
Gilroy Array
8 Loma Prieta 6.5 31.4 0.56 36
#3
9 Imperial Valley Delta 7.4 33.7 0.238 26
10 Manjil, Iran Abbar 6.5 40.4 0.51 43

El Centro
11 Imperial Valley 6.5 29.4 0.364 34.44
Array #11
El Centro Imp.
12 Superstition Hills 6.9 35.8 0.36 46.4
Co.
13 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 7.5 8.7 0.51 37.28
Figure 4.6: Fiber Section of Reinforced Pier cap Poe Road
14 Superstition Hills 7.5 11.2 0.45 35.8
(temp)
4.3 EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION
15 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 7.6 46 0.24 38
Twenty Far field ground motions are used in the analysis listed in Table 4.1. The ranges of Rio Dell
16 Cape Mendocino 6.7 22.7 0.385 43.8
Overpass
epicentral distance are between 13km to 98km and the moment magnitude, Mw= 6.5-7.6. The
17 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 7.3 98.2 0.312 59
peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the ground motions ranges from PGA 0.22 to PGA 0.728. In
figure 4.1, Spectral acceleration with 5% damping is shown. 18 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101 6.7 32 0.353 70.65
19 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 7.3 53.7 0.22 17.69
20 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 7.1 77.5 0.474 36.7
67 68
4.4 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF BENT
250
Dynamic analysis is commonly used to predict the nonlinear inelastic response of a structure
200
subjected to earthquake loading. The direct integration of the equations of motions is
150
Displacement (mm)
accomplished using the numerically dissipative α- integration algorithm (Hilber et al., 1977) or a
100
special case of the former, the well-known Newmark scheme (Newmark,1959), with automatic
50
time-step adjustment for optimum accuracy and efficiency. Modeling of seismic action is 0
achieved by introducing acceleration loading curves (accelerograms) at the supports, noting that -50
different curves can be introduced at each support, thus allowing for representation of -100
asynchronous ground excitation. Modeling of seismic action is achieved by introducing -150
acceleration loading curves (accelerograms) at the supports, noting that different curves can be -200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
introduced at each support, thus allowing for representation of asynchronous ground excitation.
Time (Second)
Twenty different time histories earthquake tabulated in Table 4.1 are considered in the subsequent
analysis to evaluate seismic performance. Time history analysis of the bent is conduct with the Figure 4.8: Pier displacement history due to EQ-1
help of seismostruct 2012 software. The pier displacement diagrams are presented in the figures
Figure 4.7 represent acceleration history of Northridge earthquake from station location Beverly
below:
Hills with 13.3 epicentral distance. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.416g and
maximum PGV is 58.95 cm/sec. From the time history analysis it can be seen from the figure 4.8
0.5 that the bent have a maximum displacement of 200mm.
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1 0.15
0 0.1
Acceleration (g)
-0.1 0.05
-0.2 0
-0.3 -0.05
-0.1
-0.4
-0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (Second) -0.2
-0.25
Figure 4.7: Time history graph of EQ-1 -0.3
0 10 20 30 40
Time (Second)
Figure 4.9: Time history graph of EQ-2
69 70
150
80
100
Displacement (mm)
30
Displacement (mm)
50
-20
0
-70
-50
-120
-100
0 5 10 15 20
0 10 20 30 40 Time (Second)
Time (Second)
Figure 4.12: Pier displacement due to EQ-3
Figure 4.12 represent Duzce, Turkey earthquake acceleration history record from Bolu station
Figure 4.9 represent Landers earthquake acceleration history record from Yermo Fire Station
which has 41.3 km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the recorded earthquake is 0.41g
which has 86 km epicentral distance. The maximum PGA of the recorded earthquake is 0.24g and
and maximum PGV is 42.47 cm/sec. From the time history analysis it can be seen from the figure
maximum PGV is 51.5 cm/sec. From the time history analysis it can be seen from the figure 4.10
4.13 that the bent have a maximum displacement of 120 mm.
that the bent have a maximum displacement of 105mm.
0.5 0.3
0.4 0.2
0.3
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.2
0.1 0
0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
-0.4 0 10 20 30 40
0 5 10 15 20 Time (Second)
Time (Second)
Figure 4.11: Time history graph of EQ-3 Figure 4.13: Time history graph of EQ-4
71 72
150
80
60 100
Displacement (mm)
40
Displacement (mm)
50
20
0 0
-20 -50
-40
-60 -100
-80 -150
0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second) Time (Second)
Figure 4.14: Pier displacement due to EQ-4 Figure 4.16: Pier displacement due to EQ-5
Figure 4.14 represent Landers earthquake time history record from Coolwater station which has Figure 4.18 represent Duzce, Turkey earthquake time history record from Bolu station which has
82.1 km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the recorded earthquake is 0.283g and 41.3 km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the recorded earthquake is 0.728g and
maximum PGV is 26 cm/sec. From the time history analysis it can be seen from the figure 4.15 maximum PGV is 56.44 cm/sec. From the time history analysis it can be seen from the figure
that the bent have a maximum displacement of 72 mm. Due to great reduction in velocity it has 4.19 that the bent have a maximum displacement of 140 mm.
lower affect in bent displacement than the same earthquake recorded from Yermo Fire station.
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.2 0.1
0 -0.1
-0.2 -0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.7
Time (Second) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)
Figure 4.15: Time history of EQ-5 Figure 4.17: Time history of EQ-6
73 74
80
170
60
120
40
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
70 20
20 0
-20
-30
-40
-80
-60
-130 -80
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 4.22 represent Hector Mine earthquake from station location Hector from 26.5 km
Figure 4.20 represent Loma Prieta earthquake time history record from Capitola station which has
epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.266g and maximum PGV is 28.56
9.8 km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the recorded earthquake is 0.53g and
cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.23 that the bent have a
maximum PGV is 35 cm/sec. From the time history analysis it can be seen from the figure 4.21
maximum displacement of 75mm.
that the bent have a maximum displacement of 120 mm.
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0
0
-0.2
-0.1
-0.4
-0.2
-0.6
-0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.19: Time history of EQ-7
75 76
120 100
100 80
80 60
Displacement (mm)
60 40
Displacement (mm)
20
40
0
20
-20
0 -40
-20 -60
-40 -80
-60 -100
-80 -120
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 4.26 represent Imperial Valley earthquake from station location Delta from 33.7 epicentral
Figure 4.24 represent Loma Prieta earthquake from station location Gilroy Array #3 from 31.4
distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.238g and maximum PGV is 26 cm/sec.
km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.56g and maximum PGV is 36
From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.27 that the bent have a maximum
displacement of 100mm.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
Acceleration (g)
0.2 0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.1 0
-0.1
0 -0.2
-0.3
-0.1
-0.4
-0.2 -0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.3 Time (Second)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Second) Figure 4.25: Time history of EQ-10
77 78
100
80
80
60
30
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
40
20
-20
0
-20
-70
-40
-60
-120
0 5 10 15 20 25 -80
Time (Second) -100 Time (Second)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.28 represent Manjil, Iran earthquake from station location Abbar from 40.4 epicentral
Figure 4.30 represent Imperial Valley earthquake from station location El Centro Array #11 from
distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.51g and maximum PGV is 43 cm/sec. From
29.4 epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.364g and maximum PGV is
the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.29 that the bent have a maximum
34.44 cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.31 that the bent have a
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0 0
-0.1 -0.1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.3 -0.3
Time (Second) -0.4

-0.4 0 5 10 15 20
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)
79 80
200 140
150 120
100
100 80
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
50 60
40
0 20
-50 0
-20
-100 -40
0 5 10 15 20 -60
Time (Second)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)
Figure 4.32 represent Superstition Hills earthquake from station location El Centro Imp. Co. from Figure 4.32: Pier displacement due to EQ-13
35.8 epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.36g and maximum PGV is Figure 4.34 represent Kobe, Japan earthquake from station location Nishi-Akashi from 8.7 km
46 cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.33 that the bent have a epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.51g and maximum PGV is 37.28
maximum displacement of 150mm. cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.35 that the bent have a
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
0.1
Acceleration (g)
-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.1
-0.3
-0.2
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.3
Time (Second) -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)

81 82
100 80
80 60
60
40
40
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60
-60
-80
-80
-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 -100
Time (Second) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Second)
Figure 4.34: Pier displacement due to EQ-14 Figure 4.36: Pier response due to EQ-15
Figure 4.36 represent Superstition Hills earthquake from station location Poe Road (temp) from Figure 4.38 represent Kobe, Japan earthquake from station location Shin-Osaka from 46 km
11.2 km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.45g and maximum PGV epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.24g and maximum PGV is 38
is 36 cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.37 that the bent have a cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.39 that the bent have a
maximum displacement of 90mm. maximum displacement of 95mm.
0.3
0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0
0
-0.1
-0.1 -0.2
-0.2 -0.3
-0.4
-0.3
0 10 20 30 40 -0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (Second)
Time (Second)
83 84
140 80
120
100 60
80 40
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
60
40 20
20 0
0
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60
-80 -60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 4.38: Pier response due to EQ-16 Figure 4.40: Pier response due to EQ-17
Figure 4.40 represent Cape Mendocino earthquake from station location Rio Dell Overpass from
Figure 4.42 represent Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake from station location Duzce from 98.2 km
22.7 km epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.385g and maximum
epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.312g and maximum PGV is 59
PGV is 44 cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.41 that the bent
have a maximum displacement of 120mm.
0.3 0.8
0.2
0.6
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.4
0
Acceleration (g)
0.2
-0.1
0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.4
Time (Second)
-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)

85 86
80 25
60 20
40 15
10
Displacement (mm)
20
Displacement (mm)
0 5
-20 0
-40 -5
-60 -10
-15
-80
-20
-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 -25
Time (Second) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)
Figure 4.42: Pier response due to EQ-18
Figure 4.44: Pier response due to EQ-19
Figure 4.44 represent Chi-Chi, Taiwan from station location CHY101 from 32km epicentral
Figure 4.46 represent Kocaeli, Turkey from station location Arcelik from 53.7 km epicentral
distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.535g and maximum PGV is 71 cm/sec.
distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.22g and maximum PGV is 17.69 cm/sec.
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0 0
-0.1
-0.1 -0.2
-0.3
-0.2
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.3 Time (Second)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second)

87 88
100 Maximum displacements of the piers are obtained from the time history analysis. Displacement
50 ductility of the bent is calculated by using equation 4.1 and the calculated displacement compared
with Hwang et al. damage state. The results obtained are tabulated are in Table 4.4 shown below:
Displacement (mm)
0
-50
-100 TABLE 4.3: Damage state of bridge pier
-150
Earthquake Earthquake PGAmax Disp. Damage
-200 Recording Station
No Name (g) Ductility State
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Second) EQ-1 Northridge Beverly Hills - Mulhol 0.416 4.7 DS3
EQ-2 Landers Yermo Fire Station 0.24 2.3 DS3
Figure 4.46: Pier response due to EQ-20 EQ-3 Northridge Canyon Country-WLC 0.41 2.8 DS3
EQ-4 Landers Coolwater 0.283 1.7 DS2
Figure 4.48 represent Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake from station location TCU045 from 77.5 km EQ-5 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 0.728 3.3 DS3
EQ-6 Loma Prieta Capitola 0.53 2.6 DS3
epicentral distances. The maximum PGA of the earthquake is 0.474g and maximum PGV is 37
EQ-7 Hector Mine Hector 0.266 1.7 DS2
cm/sec. From the time history analysis can is seen from the figure 4.49 that the bent have a EQ-8 Loma Prieta Gilroy Array #3 0.56 2.3 DS3
maximum displacement of 150mm. EQ-9 Imperial Valley Delta 0.238 2.3 DS3
EQ-10 Manjil, Iran Abbar 0.51 2.6 DS3
EQ-11 Imperial Valley El Centro Array #11 0.364 2.2 DS3
4.5 ASSESSMENT OF BENT DAMAGE STATE
EQ-12 Superstition Hills El Centro Imp. Co. 0.36 3.5 DS3
EQ-13 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 0.51 3.0 DS3
The displacement ductility factor, of the target bridge bent when subjected to the 20 mentioned
EQ-14 Superstition Hills Poe Road (temp) 0.45 2.1 DS3
ground motions are evaluated to verify the seismic performance of the bridge structure. The EQ-15 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 0.24 2.2 DS3
displacement ductility factors are calculated as follows: EQ-16 Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass 0.385 2.8 DS3
EQ-17 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 0.312 1.8 DS3
(4.1) EQ-18 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101 0.353 2.1 DS3
No
EQ-19 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 0.22 0.5
To analyze the damage state of the bridge bent damage state given by the Hwang et al. 2001 is Damage
EQ-20 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 0.474 3.49 DS3
considered as tabulated in Table 4.3.
TABLE 4.2: Damage/limit state of bridge components (Hwang et al, 2001) 4.6 SUMMARY
Damage State Slight Moderate Extensive Damage Based on the results tabulated in the Table 4.4 obtained in this study, the following conclusions
(DS=1) (DS=2) (DS=3) ((DS=3)
were gathered:
Bridge
Moderate Degradation Failure 1. The analyzed bent is vulnerable for most of the simulated earthquakes, for like
Physical Cracking
cracking and without leading to
Component Phenomenon and Spalling Northridge (recoding station: Beverly Hills), Northridge (recoding station: Canyon
spalling collapse collapse
Country-WLC), Duzce (recoding station: Bolu), Superstition Hills (recoding station: El
Bridge Pier Displacement
Centro Imp. Co.) , Chi-Chi, Taiwan (recoding station: TCU045) would cause server
Ductility,
89 90
damage to the bridge bent. The displacement ductility demands for these earthquakes are CHAPTER 5
more than 3.0. FRAGILITY OF RETROFITTED CONCRETE BRIDGE BENT
2. The ground motion of Landers (recoding station: Yermo Fire Station), Loma Prieta
(recoding station: Capitola), Loma Prieta (Gilroy Array #3), Imperial Valley (Delta), 5.1 GENERAL
Manjil (recoding station: Abbar), Imperial Valley (recoding station: El Centro Array An emerging tool in assessing the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges is the use of fragility
#11), Superstition Hills (recoding station: El Centro Imp. Co.), Superstition Hills curves. Fragility curves describe the probability of a structure being damaged beyond a specific
(recoding station: Poe Road (temp)), Kobe (recoding station: Shin-Osaka), Cape damage state for various levels of ground shaking. This, in turn, can be used for prioritizing
Mendocino (recoding station: Rio Dell Overpass), Kocaeli (recoding station: Duzce), retrofit, pre-earthquake planning, and loss estimation tools. This is particularly useful in regions
Chi-Chi (recoding station: TCU045) would possess the bridge bent to degradation of moderate seismicity, where bridge officials are beginning to develop retrofit programs, in
without collapse. addition to conducting pre-earthquake planning. In light of the damage to bridges observed in
3. Due to Landers (recoding station: Yermo Fire Station) ground motion with PGA 0.24g recent earthquakes, there is a significant need to perform adequate assessment of the
the bridge pier undergoes degradation (DS3) whereas a relatively higher PGA Landers vulnerability of bridges and bridge networks prior to future seismic events. Fragility curves can
(recoding station: Coolwater) ground motion cause moderate damage (DS2). This be either empirical or analytical. Empirical fragility curves are usually based on the reported
signifies that not only PGA but other factors such as velocity, energy of the ground bridge damage from past earthquakes. Basoz et al. developed empirical fragility curves for the
motions are important factor for seismic response of the bridge bent. bridge damage resulting from the 1994 Northridge, CA earthquake using logistical regression
4. It was found that ground motion Kocaeli (recoding station: Arcelik) with PGA 0.22g analysis to account for uncertainties in the damage data. Shinozuka et al. used the maximum
possess no harm to the bent. likelihood method to generate the empirical fragility curves from the observations of bridge
damage in the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Billah et al. analyzed retrofitted multicolumn bridge bent
for both near fault and far field earthquakes. Analytical fragility curves are developed through
seismic response data from the analysis of bridges. The fragility analysis generally includes
three major parts: (a) the simulation of ground motions, (b) the simulation of bridges to account
for uncertainty in bridge properties, and (c) the generation of fragility curves from the seismic
response data of the bridges. The seismic response data can be obtained from nonlinear time
history analysis, elastic spectral analysis or nonlinear static analysis. The fragility curves are
developed by performing nonlinear time history analyses for bridge pier. A set of 20 ground
motion records, with varying magnitudes, distances, and peak ground accelerations, is used in
the incremental dynamic analysis. The fragility curves are developed for various damage states
for the pier.
5.2 GROUND MOTION FOR INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
A suite of 20 near fault ground motions are used in this study to develop fragility curves for the
as-built and retrofitted bridge bents. The far field ground motions were adopted for this analysis.
91 92
The characteristics of the earthquake ground motion records are presented in Table 5.1. All these
ground motions have very high PGA ranging from 0.24g to .0728g. 2.5
EQ1 EQ2
EQ3 EQ4
Table 5.1: Characteristics of the earthquake ground motion histories
EQ5 EQ6
2 EQ7 EQ8
EQ9 EQ10
Earthquake PGAmax PGVmax EQ11 EQ12
Name Recording Station
No (g) (cm/s.)
Spectral Acceleration(g)
EQ13 EQ14
EQ15 EQ16
1.5
EQ17 EQ18
EQ-1 Northridge Beverly Hills - Mulhol 0.416 58.95
EQ19 EQ20
EQ-2 Landers Yermo Fire Station 0.24 51.5 Average
EQ-3 Northridge Canyon Country-WLC 0.4 43.0 Average response
EQ-4 Landers Coolwater 0.283 26 1 spectrum
EQ-5 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 0.7 56.4
EQ-6 Loma Prieta Capitola 0.53 35
EQ-7 Hector Mine Hector 0.3 28.6
EQ-8 Loma Prieta Gilroy Array #3 0.56 36 0.5
EQ-9 Imperial Valley Delta 0.2 26.0
EQ-10 Manjil, Iran Abbar 0.51 43
EQ-11 Imperial Valley El Centro Array #11 0.4 34.4
0
EQ-12 Superstition Hills El Centro Imp. Co. 0.36 46.4
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
EQ-13 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 0.5 37.3
Period (sec)
EQ-14 Superstition Hills Poe Road (temp) 0.45 35.8
EQ-15 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 0.2 38.0
EQ-16 Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass 0.385 43.8
Figure 5.1 Spectral acceleration of Earthquake ground motion records.
EQ-17 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 0.3 59.0
EQ-18 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101 0.353 70.65 Figure 5.2 shows different percentile of response spectral acceleration. A percentile is a measure
EQ-19 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 0.2 17.7
used in statistics indicating the value below which a given percentage of observations in a group
EQ-20 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 0.474 36.7
of observations fall. The 25th percentile is the value below which 25 percent of the observations
may be found. The 25th percentile is also known as the first quartile (Q1), the 50th percentile as
Figure 5.1 shows the acceleration response spectra with 5% damping ratio of the recorded far the median or second quartile (Q2), and the 75th percentile as the third quartile (Q3).
field ground motions. Figure 2b shows the different percentiles of acceleration response spectra
with 5% damping ratio illustrating that the selected earthquake ground motion records are well
describing the medium to strong intensity earthquake motion histories.
93 94
perimeter tie and to allow the formation of 135 degree hooks at the ends of the stirrups. The
1.6 jacket was reinforced with 20–25mm vertical deformed bars with the same properties as the
vertical bars of the original column. The compressive strength of jacket concrete was 34 MPa,
and the strain at peak stress was 0.002.
average 5.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF DAMAGE STATE

Acceleration Response Spectra(g)
1.2
25th In the seismic fragility analysis, different forms of EDPs are used to monitor the structural
responses under earthquake ground motion and measure the damage state (DS) of the bridge
75th
components. Damage states for bridges should be defined in such a way that each damage state
0.8 indicates a particular level of bridge functionality. A capacity model is needed to measure the
damage of bridge component based on prescriptive and descriptive damage states in terms of
EDPs (FEMA 2003, Choi et al. 2004, Nielson 2005). Four damage states as defined by HAZUS
(FEMA 2003) are commonly adopted in the seismic vulnerability assessment of engineering
0.4
structures, namely slight, moderate, extensive and collapse damages. Bridge piers are one of the
most critical components, which are often forced to enter into nonlinear range of deformations
under strong earthquakes. In this study, the displacement ductility of the bridge pier is adopted as
damage index (DI). Hwang et al, 2001 recommended four different damage states for bridge pier
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 (Table 5.2) based on ductility limit. But retrofit affects the seismic response and demand of the
bridge pier and the capacity as well. For the retrofitted bridge pier new limit states need to be
Period(sec)
defined. Limit states capacities for all the two retrofitted bridge bent are obtained by transforming
Figure 5.2: Percentiles of spectral acceleration of earthquake ground motion records the ductility limit state proposed by Hwang et al, 2001 shown in table 5.2. The use of ductility
limit for retrofitted RC columns is well documented in literature of Karthik et al, 2012, billah et
5.2 Details of Retrofitted Technique
al., 201
Among four different retrofit techniques, specifically, concrete jacketing, steel jacketing, FRP
TABLE 5.2: Damage/limit state of bridge components (Hwang et al, 2001, Kartik et al
jacketing, and ECC jacketing, two retrofitted technique have been employed in this study. In this 2012, Billah et al, 2012)
study, the CFRP composite jacket retrofitting technique has been implemented from Pantelides Slight Moderate Extensive Damage
Damage State (DS=1) (DS=2) (DS=3) ((DS=3)
and Gergely (2002), which has a tensile strength of 628 MPa, and ultimate axial strain of
Moderate Failure
10mm/m. The material is a carbon-fiber/ epoxy-resin composite with 48,000 fibers per tow Bridge Physical Cracking and Degradation
cracking and leading to
Component Phenomenon Spalling without collapse
unidirectional carbon fibers. The thickness of the FRP jacketing was used to be 3.42 mm. spalling collapse
As Built Displacement
Concrete jacketing is another potential technique for retrofitting the deficient multicolumn bridge Bridge Pier Ductility,
bent. Applying full- or height concrete overlays to the face of an existing column can increase a CFRP Displacement
Retrofitted Pier Ductility,
column’s flexural strength. The new section must be well connected to the older one. Usually, a
RCC Jacketing Displacement
jacket thickness of 150 mm is used. This thickness is required to provide sufficient cover to the Retrofitted Pier Ductility,
95 96
5.4 INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS (Shinozuka et al. 2000). The PSDM establishes a correlation between the engineering demand
parameters (EDP) and the ground intensity measures (IM). In the current study, displacement
In Incremental Dynamic Analysis (Hamburger et al., 2000; Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002), the
ductility demand of retrofitted bridge bent was considered as the EDP, and the peak ground
structure is subjected to a series of non-linear time-history analysis of the increasing intensity
acceleration (PGA) was utilized as intensity measure (IM) of each ground motion record.
(e.g. Peak ground motion acceleration is incrementally scaled from a low elastic response value
up to the attainment of a pre-defined post-yield target limit state. Incremental Dynamic Analysis Two approaches are used to develop the PSDM: the scaling approach (Zhang and Huo 2009) and
(IDA) is a new methodology which can give a clear indication of the relationship between the the cloud approach (Choi et al. 2004; Mackie and Stojadinovic 2004). In the scaling approach, all
seismic capacity and the demand. The analysis was carried out for the as-built and retrofitted the ground motions are scaled to selective intensity levels and an incremental dynamic analysis
concrete bridge bent. The peak values of base shear are then plotted against their top (IDA) is conducted at each level of intensity; however, in the cloud approach, un-scaled
displacement counterparts, for each of the dynamic runs, giving rise to the so-called dynamic earthquake ground motions are used in the nonlinear time-history analysis and then a probabilistic
pushover or IDA envelop curves. seismic demand model is developed based on the nonlinear time history analyses results. In the
current study, the cloud method was utilized in evaluating the seismic fragility functions of the
5.5 FRAGILITY CURVE DEVELOPMENTS
retrofitted bridge bents. In the cloud approach, a regression analysis is carried out to obtain the
Fragility curve allows the evaluation of potential seismic risk assessment of any structure. mean and standard deviation for each limit state by assuming the power law function (Cornell et
Fragility function describes the conditional probability i.e. the likelihood of a structure being al. 2002), which gives a logarithmic correlation between median EDP and selected IM.
damaged beyond a specific damage level for a given ground motion intensity measure. The
fragility or conditional probability can be expressed as, In this study, probabilistic seismic demand models are used to derive the fragility curves. The
ground motions are scaled to selective intensity levels and an incremental dynamic analysis
Fragility= P[LS|IM=y] (5.1) (IDA) is conducted at each level of the intensity. A regression analysis is carried out to obtain the
mean and standard deviation for each limit state by assuming the power law function (Cornell et
Where, LS is the limit state or damage state of the structure or structural component, IM is the
al. 2002) , which gives a logarithmic correlation between median EDP and selected IM:
ground motion intensity measure and y is the realized condition of the ground motion intensity
measure. In order to develop fragility curves different methods and approaches have been EDP= a (IM)b or, ln (EDP) = ln (a) + b Ln (IM) (5.2)
developed. Depending on the available data and resources, fragility functions can be generated
empirically based on post-earthquake surveys and observed damage data from past earthquakes Where, a and b are unknown coefficients which can be estimated from a regression analysis of
(Basoz et al. 1999; Yamazaki et al. 2000). However, limited damage data and subjectivity in the response data collected from the nonlinear time history analysis. In order to create sufficient
defining damage states limit the application of empirical fragility curves (Padgett and DesRoches, data for the cloud approach incremental dynamic analysis is carried out instead of nonlinear time
2008). In absence of adequate damage data, fragility functions can be developed using a variety history analysis. The dispersion of the demand, βEDP| IM, conditional upon the IM can be
of analytical methods such as elastic spectral analyses (Hwang et al. 2000), nonlinear static estimated from equation 5.3.
analyses (Shinozuka et al. 2000) and nonlinear time-history analyses (Hwang et al. 2001; Choi et
∑ ) ))
al. 2004). In order to generate analytical fragility curves, structural demand and capacity needs to √ (5.3)
be modeled. In this study probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) was used to derive the
analytical fragility curves using nonlinear time-history analyses of the retrofitted bridge bents.
With the probability seismic demand models and limit states corresponding to various damage
Although this is the most rigorous method, yet this is the most reliable analytical method
states, it is now possible to generate the fragilities using equation 5.3,
97 98
) ) PSDM of as-built is of bridge pier is shown in Figure 5.4. The parameters of the PSDM are
[ ] (5.4)
tabulated in Table 5.22 under near field earthquake ground motions.
) )
) (5.5)
y = 1.1931x + 1.5002
R² = 0.8011
ln(IMn) is defined as the median value of the intensity measure for the chosen damage state
(slight, moderate, extensive, collapse), a and b are the regression coefficients of the PSDMs and
ln (Ductility)
the dispersion component is presented in Equation 5.6.
√
(5.6)
Where, Sc is the median and βc is the dispersion value for the damage states of the bridge pier.
The dispersion coefficient βc is used as describe by Karthik Ramanathan et al, 2012. The steps of
fragility curve development shown in figure 5.3. -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
ln (PGA)
Figure 5.4: PSDM of As-build concrete pier
Table 5.3: PSDM parameter for two type of bridge pier
Column Ductility
Pier Condition ln (a) b βEDP| IM
As-built 1.50 1.19 0.47
y = 0.9539x + 0.9828
R² = 0.7629
ln (Ductility)
-4 -3 -2
ln (PGA) -1 0
Figure 5.3: Fragility curve development Figure 5.5: PSDM of FRP Retrofitted concrete pier
99 100
Table 5.4: PSDM parameter for two type of Retrofitted bridge pier
1
Column Ductility 0.9
Pier Condition ln (a) b βEDP| IM 0.8
FRP Retrofitted 0.98 0.954 0.43 0.7
Propability of Damage
0.6
0.5
0.4
y = 1.1893x + 1.3599 0.3 FRP
R² = 0.8054
0.2 As-Built
RCC Jacketing
0.1
ln (Ductility)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA(g)
Figure 5.7: Fragility of as of concrete pier: Slight Damage
-5 -4 -3 ln (PGA) -2 -1 0
1
0.9
Figure 5.6: PSDM of Concrete Jacketed Retrofitted pier FRP
0.8
As-Built
0.7
Table 5.5: PSDM parameter for Concrete Jacketed Retrofitted pier
0.6 RCC Jacketing
Column Ductility 0.5
0.4
Pier Condition ln (a) b βEDP| IM
0.3
Concrete Jacketed
1.36 1.19 0.45 0.2
Retrofitted
0.1
0
Plots of the fragility curves for two cases are shown in figure 5.7 to figure 5.10, which illustrated 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
relative vulnerability of the retrofitted bridge bents over a range of far field Earthquake intensities PGA(g)
and damage states. From figures it is evident that the analyzed concrete bent is capable to
withstand moderate magnitude earthquake of PGA 0.2g without major damage.
Figure 5.8: Fragility of concrete pier: Moderate Damage
101 102
5.6 SUMMARY
1
This study investigated the performance of as-built bridge bent and the effectiveness of different
0.9
retrofitting techniques to the existing bent. To investigate the seismic vulnerability the as-build
0.8
FRP and retrofitted bridge bents, a total of 20 earthquakes are utilized to evaluate seismic fragility of
0.7
As-Built the bent. The methodology for assessing the fragility of the retrofitted bridge bent includes the
0.6
use of 2D nonlinear analytical models and time-history analysis and incorporation of the impact
0.5 RCC Jacketing
of different retrofits on fragility estimation. Through the process, the impact of a retrofit on the
0.4
PSDMs and the vulnerability of the bridge bent are evaluated. The fragility curves for bridge
0.3
bents are generated using the cloud approach for 20 far-field earthquake ground motion records.
0.2
Based on the analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:
0.1
0 1. The numerical results in general show that the as-built bridge bents are more susceptible
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA(g) to seismic ground motions as compared with the retrofitted bent.
2. Among the two retrofitted technique used in the analysis concrete jacketing experiences
more seismic vulnerability than FRP retrofitted technique under seismic ground motions.
Figure 5.9: Fragility of concrete pier: Extensive Damage 3. Analyses of the fragility curves reveal the effectiveness of a retrofit technique in
mitigating probable damage due to far field earthquake.
4. The fragility curves as obtained for the bridge bent can be used to estimate the potential
1
FRP losses incurred from earthquakes and it will help post-earthquake rehabilitation decision
0.9 making, and hence selection of suitable retrofits techniques.
0.8 As-Built
0.7 RCC
0.6 Jacketing
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PGA(g)
Figure 5.10: Fragility of concrete pier: Collapse

103 104
CHAPTER 6 displacement pattern which helps to generate fragility curve. The fragility shows
CONCLUSION higher vulnerability to as-built concrete bent compared to retrofitted bents. By means
of retrofitted measures the seismic vulnerability could be greatly reduced.
6.1 GENERAL 6. It can be inferred from the analysis that FRP retrofitted technique performed better
It was stated by Dr. Charles F. Richter that “Only fools, charlatans, and liars predict under seismic event than concrete jacketing technique.
earthquakes” (Per Bak, How Nature Works). The uncertainty of the future earthquake makes
The bridge bent needed to be retrofitted to escape from loss of life and serious injuries due to
it more difficult for the decision makes to assess the vulnerability for seismic activity. The
unacceptable bridge performance during large scale earthquake. Retrofitting with FRP would
major earthquake in future would cause seismic hazard to Flyover of Bahadarhat junction
increase its capacity and the essential bridge function might maintain.
whereas the current code practice spectrum acceleration satisfies the capacity requirement.
The bent shows lack of seismic capacity due to analyzed far field earthquake and leaves the
6.3 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
flyover particularly vulnerable to earthquake. The result indicates that the bent is particularly
The main limitations of the current study are listed below:
vulnerable for earthquakes of more than PGA 0.2g. As awareness of the potential seismic
threat needed to establish bridge retrofit programs and potential retrofit strategies for mitigate Only one type of bridge bent geometry was considered, a total modeling of the bent with
seismic hazard. This study provides a through analytical investigation of seismic performance bearing would be more effective for given earthquake vulnerability assessment ( Bhuiyan et.
of concrete bridge bent that illustrated the flyover would perform well under moderate al., 2010)
earthquake within a PGA of 0.2g. The fragility curve of the analyzed bridge will help the
decision maker to make retrofitting decision for the future earthquake event. Only far 20 field earthquakes were considered for analysis. Future study may be conducted
with near field earthquakes.
6.2 CONCLUSION A further study using various bridges bent models with different sets of geometry/material
A thorough analysis of concrete bridge bent of the fly over is analyzed. Analytical method is properties should be conducted for better understanding the contributions of other parameters
used to evaluate seismic performance of bridge bents to help for retrofitting and maintenance. to the seismic fragility of a retrofitted bridge bent.
This study will lead to an effective solution for analyze concrete bridge bent system and its
retrofitting work.
1. Based on the results obtained from static pushover and dynamic analysis the
following conclusions are drawn:
2. It can infer from code shear strength and ductility evaluation that shorter piers are
more susceptible to shear failure during an earthquake whereas the taller are more
vulnerable to flexural failure.
3. These fragility curves can be used in determining the potential losses resulting from
earthquakes, retrofitting prioritizations, and post-earthquake inspection decisions.
4. The dynamic analysis results shows variation in the results for different ground
motions depends on not only on the PGA but also characteristics of ground motion
records such as velocity, energy, etc.
5. The Incremental dynamic analysis gives the ability to generate different level of
earthquake intensity of a ground motion to evaluate different shaking level and its
105 106
REFERENCES  Cornell, A. C., Jalayer, F., and Hamburger, R. O. (2002). “Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC
Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines.” Journal of
 A. H. M. Muntasir Billah, S.M.ASCE; M. Shahria Alam, M.ASCE; and M. A. Rahman Structural Engineering, 128(4), 526–532.
Bhuiyan, “Fragility Analysis of Retrofitted Multicolumn Bridge Bent”, Subjected to Near-
Fault and Far-Field Ground Motion”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, October, 2013  DesRoches, R., Leon, R. T., Choi, E., and Pfeifer, T. (2000). “Seismic Retrofit of Bridgesin
Mid-America.” 16th US-Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop,
 A H M Muntasir Billah and M Shahria Alam, “Development of fragility curves for retrofitted
multi-column bridge bent subjected to near fault multi-column bridge bent subjected to near  EERI, “Northridge Earthquake Reconnaissance Repost,: Earthquake Spectra, Special
Supplement to Vol. 11, Feb 1995, 116 pp.
fault ground motion”, 15th WCEE, 2012
 Baker J and Cornell A C (2006), “Which Spectral Acceleration Are You Using?”, Earthquake
 Ferracuti B and Savoia M (2005), “Cyclic Behaviour of Frp-wrapped Columns Under Axial
Spectra, Vol. 22, No. 2.
and Flexural Loadings”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fracture, Turin,
Italy.
 Basoz, N. and Kiremidjian, A. S. (1999). “Development of empirical fragility curves for
bridges.” Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Monograph Proceedings of
 Filippou F C, Popov E P and Bertero (1983), “Effects of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic
the 1999 5th U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Optimazing Post-
Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Joints,” Report EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability, Aug 12-Aug 14 1999, (16), 693–702.
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
 Basoz, N. and Mander, J. (1999). “Enhancement of the Highway Transportation Module in
 Hwang, H., Liu, J. B., and Chiu, Y. H. (2001). “Seismic fragility analysis of highway
HAZUS.” Report No. National Institute of Building Sciences.
bridges.” Rep. Project MAEC RR-4, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Urbana, IL.
 Boore, D. M. (1983). “Stochastic Simulation of High-Frequency Ground Motions Basedon
Seismological Models of the Radiated Spectra.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of  I.G. Buckle, 1996 “Overview of seismic design methods for bridges in different countries and
America, 73(6), 1865–1894. future directions”, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
 Bostrom, A., Turaga, R. M. R., and Ponomariov, B. (2006). “Earthquake Mitigation  Jamie E. Padgett,and Reginald DesRoches,” Methodology for the development of analytical
Decisionsand Consequences.” Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 313–327. fragility curves for retrofitted bridges”, Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1157–1174
 Bruneau, M. (1998). “Performance of steel bridges during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe,  Karthik Ramanathan, Reginald DesRoches and Jamie E Padgett (2012), “A Comparison of
Japan) earthquake - a North American perspective.” Engineering Structures,20(12), 1063. Pre-and Postseismic Design Considerations in Moderate Seismic Zones Through the Fragility
Assessment of Multispan Bridge Classes”.
 Caltrans, Bridge Design Specification, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento,
Calif, 1993  Madas P and Elnashai A S (1992), “A New Passive Confinement Model for Transient
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
 Chang, S. E., Shinozuka, M., and Moore, James E., I. (2000). “Probabilistic earthquake Dynamics, Vol. 21, pp. 409-431.
scenarios:Extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems.” Earthquake
Spectra, 16(3), 557.  Mander J B (1999), “Fragility Curve Development for Assessing the Seismic Vulnerability of
Highway Bridges”, Report No. 99-SP01, MCEER.
 Choi, E. (2002). “Seismic Analysis and Retrofit of Mid-America Bridges.” Report no.,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
 Menegotto M and Pinto P E (1973), “Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded R C Plane
Frame Including in Geometryand Non-Elastic Behavior of Elements Under Combined
 Chai, Y.H.,M.J.N. Priestley and F.Seible, “Seismic Retrofit of Circular Bridge Columns for
Enhanced Flexural Performance,” ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 88, September/October 1991, Normal Force and Bending, Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of
PP. 572-584. Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads”, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering, pp. 15-22, Zurich.
 Choi, E., DesRoches, R., and Nielson, B. (2004). “Seismic Fragility of Typical Bridges in
Moderate Seismic Zones.” Engineering Structures, 26(2), 187–199. Cimellaro, G. P. and  Nielson B (2005), “Analytical Fragility Curves for Highway Bridges in Moderate Seismic
Domaneschi, M. (2006). “Reliability of a Cable Stayed Bridge.” 8th U.S. National Conference Zones”, Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.
on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, California.
 Nielson B (2005). “Personal Communication: Analytical Fragility Curves for Highway
Bridges in Moderate Seismic Zones”.
 Per Bak, How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organised Criticality, New York:
Copernicus, 1996.
 Park Y J and Ang A H S (1985), “Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced
Concrete”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 4, pp. 722-39.
 Pinho R, Casarotti C and Antoniou S (2007), “A Comparison of Single-run Push Over

Analysis Technique for Seismic Assessment of Bridges”, Earthquake Engineering Structural.
Dynamics, Vol. 36, pp. 1347-1362.
 Priestley, M.J.N., F.Seible, and G. Macrae, The Kobe Earthquake of January 17, 1995: Initial
Impressions from a Quick Reconnaissance, Structural Systems Research Project, Report
SSRP-95/03, University of California, Sam Diego, February, 1995, 71pp.
 Priestley, M.J.N., F.Seible, and C.M. Uang,”The Northbridge Earthquake of January 17,
1994: Damage Analysis of Selected Bridges, Structural Systems Research Project, Report
SSRP-94/03, University of California, Sam Diego, February, 1994, 260pp.
 Spoelstra M and Monti G (1999), “FRPConfined Concrete Model,” Journal of Composites

for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 3, pp. 143-150.
 Vamvatsikos D and Cornell C A (2002), “Incremental Dynamic Analysis”, Earthquake

Engineering and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 491-514.
 Yankelevsky D Z and Reinhardt H W (1989), “Uniaxial Behaviour of Concrete in Cyclic

Tension,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 166-182.
View publication stats

Reliability Based Seismic Performance Analysis of Retrofitted Concrete Bridge Bent

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reliability Based Seismic Performance Analysis of Retrofitted Concrete Bridge Bent

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

RELIABILITY BASED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF RETROFITTED

Thesis · April 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

corresponding to current code intensities.

Earthquakes have a habit of identifying structural weakness and concentrating damage at

1.3 PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN

2. A good perceptive of seismic behavior of bridges is necessary towards a rational

1.5 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

1. To study the damage scenario of bridges as observed in the previous earthquakes

1.6 THESIS OUTLINE

In Chapter 2, a comprehensive literature review of bridge response during earthquake, retrofit

2.2 DAMAGE DUE TO SEISMIC ACTIVITY

Response of a bridge structure during an earthquake is likely to be influenced by proximity of

Figure 2.5: Bridge collapse during the Northridge Earthquake in California.

Table 2.2: Typical Mechanical Properties of FRP Laminates

Figure 2.16: Precast concrete segment jacket Carbon + Epoxy

FRP strengthening is a quick, neat, effective, and aesthetically pleasing technique to

Figure 2.17: Before retrofit Figure 2.18: After retrofitted

2.5.4 FRP STRENGTHENING

2.5.5 EXTERNAL POST-TENSIONING

2.5.6 SMART MATERIALS

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE HIGHWAY BRIDGE AND THE BENT

Material Name Description of Properties

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGE BENT

3.3.1 PLASTIC HINGE LENGTH AND ULTIMATE DISPLACEMENT OF PIER

Figure 3.3: Numerical evaluation of flexural and shear component of displacement 0

Figure 3.9 : Moment-Curvature Relationship of Pier 22

30000 In which h =height of the pier and =plastic hinge length,

20000 = 0.2h − 0.1D; (0.1D ≤Lp≤ 0.5D) (3.2)

Table 3.3: Plastic hinge length and ultimate displace of bent

Figure 3.13: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 01

Figure 3.14: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 2 Displacement (mm)

2000 23 5.417 7945.387

Figure 3.20: Force-displacement Relationship of Pier 24

Compute ultimate { (3.3)

Compute Shear capacity,

Shear strength of concrete can be calculated by following equation (JRA, 2002),

= Shear Strength (N)

= Shear Strength resisted by concrete (N)

=Shear Strength borne by hoop tie (N)

End a = Spacing of the stirrup (mm)

The value of and given in Table 3.5,

0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5

meter are vulnerable to flexural failure.

3 6.557 6389.565 6289.565 Flexural Failure 2 4.917 Shear Failure 1.0

3 5.857 Flexural Failure 4.67

5 to 21 7.29 4368.301 5985.565 Flexural Failure 4 6.557 Flexural Failure 4.56

22 7.057 4490.45 5985.565 Flexural Failure 5 to 21 7.29 Flexural Failure 4.21

22 7.057 Flexural Failure 4.30

BNBC, Z=.15 3 1.0 2.87 3.68 1.28 3895.556 6328.135 Safe

Table 3.12: Safety Evaluation of piers for, Z=0.28

Figure 4.1: Geometry of Span of the Flyover

4.2.2 ANALYTICAL MODEL OF THE BENT

Figure 4.2: Analytical Model of Bent

EQ Earthquake Recording Epicentral PGAmax PGVmax

5 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 7.1 41.3 0.728 56.44

10 Manjil, Iran Abbar 6.5 40.4 0.51 43

19 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 7.3 53.7 0.22 17.69

20 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 7.1 77.5 0.474 36.7

0.5 that the bent have a maximum displacement of 200mm.

Figure 4.9: Time history graph of EQ-2