ارزیابی لرزه‌ای سه نسل از پل‌های شهر اصفهان با استفاده از منحنی‌های شکنندگی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه آزاد خمینی شهر، دانشکده مکانیک و عمران

2 استادیار، دانشکده مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، خمینی شهر، ایران

چکیده

پل‌های بزرگراهی بخش عمده‌ای از شبکه حمل و نقل را به خود اختصاص داده و بخش قابل توجهی از اقتصاد ملی یک کشور را تشکیل می‌دهند. علی رغم وجود مطالعات متعدد در خصوص بررسی لرزه‌ای و شکنندگی آن­ها، تحقیقات بسیار اندکی به ‌صورت جامع به همه ابعاد آن­ها پرداخته‌اند. در این راستا، هدف این مطالعه در نظر گرفتن جزئیات منحصر به فرد دوره طراحی این پل‌ها در شهر اصفهان می‌باشد. بدین منظور پل‌های 50 سال گذشته شهر اصفهان از طریق منحنی‌های شکنندگی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. در نظر گرفتن عدم قطعیت­‌ها و تحولات در بارگذاری از مهم­ترین بررسی­‌های صورت گرفته از طریق روش تحلیل غیرخطی تاریخچه ­زمانی در این پژوهش می­‌باشد. زلزله‌­های 1971 سان­ فرناندو و 1989 لوما­پریتا تحولات اساسی در فلسفه طراحی پل‌­ها ایجاد نمودند. بنابراین بررسی سه پل مورد مطالعه که در سه دوره قبل از زلزله سان فرناندو، بعد از آن و بعد از زلزله لوماپریتا طراحی و ساخته شده­اند صورت گرفته است. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد که با توجه به پیشرفت­‌های چشم‌گیر در آیین نامه­‌های مختلف لرزه‌­ای، احتمال خرابی پل‌­ها در دوره­‌های مختلف، تحت تاثیر شدت­‌های مختلف زلزله محتمل است. همچنین بر اساس نتایج این پژوهش، شکست ستون به‌ عنوان تنها معیار گسیختگی پل نمی‌باشد و مشارکت مؤلفه‌های مختلف یک پل در ارزیابی لرزه‌ای احتمالاتی آن پل منجر به شکنندگی بیشتر خواهد شد. بنابراین به منظور ارزیابی لرزه‌ای احتمالاتی صحیح، علاوه بر ستون، مشارکت تمام اعضای پل باید لحاظ گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Seismic Assessment of Three Generations of Isfahan Bridges Using Fragility Curves

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saeed Pourebrahim Abadi 1
  • seyed behzad talaeetaba 2
1 Department of Mechanical, Civil and Architecture Engineering, Khomeinishar Azad University
2 Department of Mechanical, Civil and Architecture Engineering, Khomeinishar Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Highway Bridges are a major part of the transportation network and an important part of a country's national economy. Despite numerous studies on their seismicity and fragility, very little research has comprehensively addressed all of their dimensions. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to consider the unique details of the design period of these bridges in Isfahan City. To do so, the bridges of the last 50 years in Isfahan were examined through fragility curves. Considering uncertainties and changes in loading in this study is one of the most important surveys conducted through the non-linear history-time analysis method. The 1971 San Fernando and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes revolutionized the philosophy of bridge design. Therefore, the study of the three bridges that were designed and built in the three periods before the San Fernando earthquake, after that and after the Loma Prieta earthquake has been done. The results of this study showed that due to the significant improvements in different seismic codes, the possibility of damage to bridges at different times, under the influence of different earthquake intensities is likely. Also, according to the results of this study, column failure is not the sole criterion of bridge failure and the involvement of different components of a bridge in the probabilistic seismic evaluation of that bridge will lead to greater fragility. Therefore, in order to evaluate the probabilistic seismicity properly, in addition to the column, the involvement of all bridge members must be considered.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Highway Bridge
  • Earthquake
  • Fragility Curves
  • seismic assessment
  • Isfahan
[1] C.A. Cornell, F. Jalayer, R.O. Hamburger, D.A. Foutch, Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (2002) 526–533.
[2]K. Mackie, B. Stojadinović, Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges, J. Bridg. Eng. 6 (2001) 468–481.
[3]  M. Dolce, A. Kappos, G. Zuccaro, A.W. Coburn, Report of the EAEE Working Group 3: Vulnerability and risk analysis, in: Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. Earthq. Eng., 1994: pp. 3049–3077.
[4] S. Banerjee, M. Shinozuka, Mechanistic quantification of RC bridge damage states under earthquake through fragility analysis, Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 23 (2008) 12–22.
[5] G.C. Marano, R. Greco, E. Morrone, Analytical evaluation of essential facilities fragility curves by using a stochastic approach, Eng. Struct. 33 (2011) 191–201.
[6] J.E. Padgett, R. DesRoches, Retrofitted bridge fragility analysis for typical classes of multispan bridges, Earthq. Spectra. 25 (2009) 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3049405.
[7] K. Ramanathan, J.E. Padgett, R. DesRoches, Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California, Eng. Struct. 97 (2015) 29–46.
[8] B.G. Nielson, Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones, (2005).
[9] S.P. Stefanidou, A.J. Kappos, Methodology for the development of bridge-specific fragility curves, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46 (2017) 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2774.
[10] Y.J. Kim, L.B. Queiroz, Big Data for condition evaluation of constructed bridges, Eng. Struct. 141 (2017) 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.028.
[11] U. Yazgan, Empirical seismic fragility assessment with explicit modeling of spatial ground motion variability, Eng. Struct. 100 (2015) 479–489.
[12] J.B. Mander, Fragility curve development for assessing the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges, Res. Prog. 89 (1999).
[13] S.M. Lee, T.J. Kim, S.L. Kang, Development of fragility curves for bridges in Korea, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 11 (2007) 165–174.
[14] T. Wright, R. Desroches, M. Asce, J.E. Padgett, A.M. Asce, Bridge Seismic Retrofitting Practices in the Central and Southeastern United States, (2011) 82–92.
[15] J. Ghosh, P. Sood, Consideration of time-evolving capacity distributions and improved degradation models for seismic fragility assessment of aging highway bridges, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 154 (2016) 197–218.
[16] L. Duan, F. Li, SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES AND PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA. IN: BRIDGE ENGINEERING: SEISMIC DESIGN, (2003).
[17] M. Yashinsky, M.J. Karshenas, Fundamentals of seismic protection for bridges, National Information Centre of Earthquake Engineering, 2003.
[18]  J.E. Padgett, Seismic vulnerability assessment of retrofitted bridges using probabilistic methods, (2007).
[19] S.H. Megally, P.F. Silva, F. Seible, Seismic response of sacrificial shear keys in bridge abutments: Structural systems research report SSRP-2001/23, (2001).
[20]  S.D. Werner, C.B. Crouse, L. Katafygiotis, J.L. Beck, Model identification and seismic analysis of meloland road overcrossing, Rep. to Calif. Dep. Transp. (1993).
[21] A.K. Agrawal, M. Amjadian, Seismic component devices, in: Innov. Bridg. Des. Handb. Constr. Rehabil. Maint., Elsevier Inc., 2015: pp. 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800058-8.00020-7.
[22] K.N. Ramanathan, Next generation seismic fragility curves for california bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design philosophy, (2012). https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/44883.
[23]  M. Yashinsky, Northridge Earthquake, Lifeline Performance and Post-Earthquake Response: Bridges and Roadways, TCLEE Monogr. No. 8 (1995).
[24] AASHTO, HIGHWAY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES, 6th ed., American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2012.
[25] E. Choi, Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges, (2002).
[26] A. Shamsabadi, L. Yan, Closed-form force-displacement backbone curves for bridge abutment-backfill systems, in: Geotech. Earthq. Eng. Soil Dyn. IV, 2008: pp. 1–10.
[27] S. Caltrans, Seismic design criteria version 1.6, Off. Struct. Des. (2013).
[28] ATC, Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges: Provisional recommendations, ATC-32. (1996).
[29] R.E. Melchers, A.T. Beck, Structural reliability analysis and prediction, John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
[30] B.R. Ellingwood, Y. Wen, Risk‐benefit‐based design decisions for low‐probability/high consequence earthquake events in Mid‐America, Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 7 (2005) 56–70.
[31]  A. Dutta, On energy based seismic analysis and design of highway bridges, (1999).
[32] J.B. Mander, D.K. Kim, S.S. Chen, G.J. Premus, Response of steel bridge bearings to reversed cyclic loading, 1996.
[33]  J.Q. Fang, Q.S. Li, A.P. Jeary, D.K. Liu, Damping of tall buildings: its evaluation and probabilistic characteristics, Struct. Des. Tall Build. 8 (1999) 145–153.
[34]  M. Rahimi Shahid, F. Kargaran, N. Rahimi, Using remote sensing data and GIS tools for preparation seismic zones map of Isfahan, Iran, RS GIS Nat. Resour. 6 (2016) 47-58. in Persian.
[35] J.W. Baker, T. Lin, S.K. Shahi, New Ground Motion Selection Procedures and, 2011. https://peer.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/baker_et_al_2011_peer_gm_report.pdf.
[36]  P.B. Tekie, B.R. Ellingwood, Seismic fragility assessment of concrete gravity dams, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32 (2003) 2221–2240.
[37] J.E. Padgett, B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches, Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 37 (2008) 711–725.
[38] F.I. of B. Sciences, HAZUS‐MH MR1, Multi‐hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model, (2003).
[39] M. Berry, M. Parrish, M. Eberhard, PEER Structural Performance Database, User’s Manual (Version 1.0), Univ. California, Berkeley. (2004).
[40] K.R. Karim, F. Yamazaki, Effect of isolation on fragility curves of highway bridges based on simplified approach, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27 (2007) 414–426.