4.6 Article

Nonlinear dynamic behaviour and seismic fragility analysis of irregular multi-span RC bridges

期刊

STRUCTURES
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 1730-1750

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.08.112

关键词

Irregularity; RC bridge; IDA; Fragility analysis; Reinforced concrete; Modal analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the nonlinear dynamic behavior and failure probability of multi-span RC bridges supported on piers of unequal heights. Through the development of a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model and incremental dynamic analyses, the influence of pier height and arrangement on the seismic displacement demand and failure probability of the bridge are studied.
This paper investigates the nonlinear dynamic behaviour and failure probability of multi-span Reinforced Concrete (RC) bridges supported on piers of unequal heights. To this end, a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of RC bridges with substructure irregularity is developed. The model is verified against an available experimental data of a large-scale shake table test results of a benchmark irregular two-span RC bridge. Six hypothetical two-span irregular RC bridges with piers varied in height, and various superstructure mass -distribution conditions (equal and unequal) and a regular bridge layout (as a reference) are considered. Through Incremental Dynamic Analyses (IDAs), the seismic performance of selected bridge layouts is investi-gated at both local and global scales. Finally, the influence of bridge layout on seismic vulnerability of piers of varying heights is analysed. Results show that the unbalanced seismic displacement demand and failure prob-ability of different bents of a multi-span irregular RC bridge significantly depend on the height of piers and their arrangement. Therefore, the typical presumption of shorter piers having a higher failure probability due to their higher seismic force absorption is not always the most possible failure mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据