Seismic loss and resilience assessment of single-column rocking bridges

Abstract

This study focuses on structural systems, which are particularly attractive for bridge design. Specifically, it investigates the seismic performance of single-column bridges, which are either conventionally designed, with the column monolithically connected with the ground (i.e. fixed-base), or designed with the column-footing system able to uplift and exhibit planar rocking motion during an earthquake. Although various researchers have studied the examined structures in terms of their seismic fragility, their seismic losses, post-earthquake functionality and resilience have received less attention. This paper redirects our attention to the main benefits of rocking design over the conventional (fixed-base) design in the aftermath of severe seismic hazard scenarios. The analysis reveals the considerably mitigated (short-term and long-term) seismic losses of the rocking structure compared to the pertinent losses of the fixed-base structure. In addition, the results show the remarkable functionality and resilience of the rocking structure after all the examined seismic hazard scenarios. Importantly, this work unveils that the post-earthquake financial benefits of the rocking structure can be further increased when the structure is carefully designed. In particular, even a small modification of its slenderness can lead to a substantial enhancement of its post-earthquake performance. The above findings illustrate the potential of the rocking structural system as an alternative seismic design paradigm for bridges and serve as the basis for a more rational and holistic seismic assessment framework of single-column rocking bridges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

References

  1. Acikgoz S, DeJong MJ (2012) The interaction of elasticity and rocking in flexible structures allowed to uplift. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(15):2177–2194

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acikgoz S, DeJong MJ (2016) Analytical modelling of multi-mass flexible rocking structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(13):2103–2122

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acikgoz S, DeJong MJ (2017) Vibration modes and equivalent models for flexible rocking structures. Bull Earthq Eng 15(10):4427–4452

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acikgoz S, Ma Q, Palermo A, DeJong MJ (2016) Experimental identification of the dynamic characteristics of a flexible rocking structure. J Earthq Eng 20(8):1199–1221

    Google Scholar 

  5. Agalianos A, Psychari A, Vassiliou MF, Stojadinovic B, Anastasopoulos I (2017) Comparative assessment of two rocking isolation techniques for a motorway overpass bridge. Front Built Environ 3:47

    Google Scholar 

  6. Almufti I, Willford M (2013) REDi\(^{{\rm TM}}\) rating system: resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings, version 1.0. Tech. rep., Arup

  7. Antonellis G, Panagiotou M (2014) Seismic response of bridges with rocking foundations compared to fixed-base bridges at a near-fault site. J Bridge Eng 19(5):04014007

    Google Scholar 

  8. ATC (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Technical Report ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA

  9. Babazadeh A, Burgueño R, Silva PF (2015) Use of 3D finite-element models for predicting intermediate damage limit states in RC bridge columns. J Struct Eng 141(10):04015012

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bachmann JA, Vassiliou MF, Stojadinovic B (2017) Dynamics of rocking podium structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(14):2499–2517

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bachmann JA, Strand M, Vassiliou MF, Broccardo M, Stojadinovic B (2018) Is rocking motion predictable? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(2):535–552

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bachmann JA, Vassiliou MF, Stojadinovic B (2019) Rolling and rocking of rigid uplifting structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(14):1556–1574

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baker JW (2015a) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599

    Google Scholar 

  14. Baker JW (2015b) An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. White Paper Version 2.1 2(1), 79

  15. Baker JW, Lin T, Shahi SK, Jayaram N (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the peer transportation research program. Technical Report PEER Report 2011/3, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  16. Basöz NI, Kiremidjian AS, King SA, Law KH (1999) Statistical analysis of bridge damage data from the 1994 Northridge, CA, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 15(1):25–54

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-WEST2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bruneau M, Reinhorn A (2007) Exploring the concept of seismic resilience for acute care facilities. Earthq Spectra 23(1):41–62

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace WA, Von Winterfeldt D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 19(4):733–752

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chang SE, Shinozuka M (2004) Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 20(3):739–755

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chen Y, Larkin T, Chouw N (2017) Experimental assessment of contact forces on a rigid base following footing uplift. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(11):1835–1854

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chopra AK (1995) Dynamics of structures, vol 3. Prentice Hall, Prentice

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chopra AK, Yim SCS (1985) Simplified earthquake analysis of structures with foundation uplift. J Struct Eng 111(4):906–930

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct 32(11):3639–3649

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cimellaro GP, Renschler C, Bruneau M (2015) Introduction to resilience-based design (RBD). In: Cimellaro GP, Nagarajaiah S, Kunnath SK (eds) Computational methods, seismic protection, hybrid testing and resilience in earthquake engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–183

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cui H, Wu G, Zhang J, Xu J (2019) Experimental study on damage-controllable rocking walls with resilient corners. ICE Mag Concr Res 71:1113–1129

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dar A, Konstantinidis D, El-Dakhakhni W (2018) Seismic response of rocking frames with top support eccentricity. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(12):2496–2518

    Google Scholar 

  28. Decò A, Bocchini P, Frangopol DM (2013) A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(10):1469–1487

    Google Scholar 

  29. DeJong MJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2014) Dynamically equivalent rocking structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(10):1543–1563

    Google Scholar 

  30. Di Egidio A, Contento A (2009) Base isolation of slide-rocking non-symmetric rigid blocks under impulsive and seismic excitations. Eng Struct 31(11):2723–2734

    Google Scholar 

  31. Di Sarno L, Magliulo G, D’Angela D, Cosenza E (2019) Experimental assessment of the seismic performance of hospital cabinets using shake table testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(1):103–123

    Google Scholar 

  32. Diamantopoulos S, Fragiadakis M (2019) Seismic response assessment of rocking systems using single degree-of-freedom oscillators. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(7):689–708

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dimitrakopoulos EG, DeJong MJ (2012a) Overturning of retrofitted rocking structures under pulse-type excitations. J Eng Mech 138(8):963–972

    Google Scholar 

  34. Dimitrakopoulos EG, DeJong MJ (2012b) Revisiting the rocking block: closed-form solutions and similarity laws. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 468(2144):2294–2318

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dimitrakopoulos EG, Fung EDW (2016) Closed-form rocking overturning conditions for a family of pulse ground motions. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 472(2196):20160662

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dimitrakopoulos EG, Giouvanidis AI (2015) Seismic response analysis of the planar rocking frame. J Eng Mech 141(7):04015003

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dimitrakopoulos EG, Paraskeva TS (2015) Dimensionless fragility curves for rocking response to near-fault excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(12):2015–2033

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2015) Risk and resilience assessment of bridges under mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties. Eng Struct 83:198–208

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Saydam D (2013) Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(10):1451–1467

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (1997) Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes. Taylor & Francis, Milton Park

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fardis MN (2015) Uplift of deck or footings in bridges with distributed mass subjected to transverse earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(15):2755–2773

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gehl P, Seyedi DM, Douglas J (2013) Vector-valued fragility functions for seismic risk evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):365–384

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ghobarah A (2001) Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of development. Eng Struct 23(8):878–884

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ghosh J, Padgett JE (2011) Probabilistic seismic loss assessment of aging bridges using a component-level cost estimation approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(15):1743–1761

    Google Scholar 

  45. Giouvanidis AI, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2017a) Nonsmooth dynamic analysis of sticking impacts in rocking structures. Bull Earthq Eng 15(5):2273–2304

    Google Scholar 

  46. Giouvanidis AI, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2017b) Seismic performance of rocking frames with flag-shaped hysteretic behavior. J Eng Mech 143(5):04017008

    Google Scholar 

  47. Giouvanidis AI, Dimitrakopoulos EG (2018) Rocking amplification and strong-motion duration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(10):2094–2116

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34(4):185–188

    Google Scholar 

  49. HAZUS-MH: Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake model (technical manual). Technical Report MH MR5, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (2010)

  50. Housner GW (1963) The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 53(2):403–417

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hung HH, Liu KY, Ho TH, Chang KC (2011) An experimental study on the rocking response of bridge piers with spread footing foundations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(7):749–769

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jeon JS, Shafieezadeh A, Lee DH, Choi E, DesRoches R (2015) Damage assessment of older highway bridges subjected to three-dimensional ground motions: characterization of shear-axial force interaction on seismic fragilities. Eng Struct 87:47–57

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kafali C, Grigoriu M (2005) Rehabilitation decision analysis. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on structural safety and reliability, Rotterdam, Netherlands

  54. Kalliontzis D, Schultz AE (2017) Characterizing the in-plane rocking response of masonry walls with unbonded posttensioning. J Struct Eng 143(9):04017110

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kawashima K, MacRae GA, Hoshikuma Ji, Nagaya K (1998) Residual displacement response spectrum. J Struct Eng 124(5):523–530

    Google Scholar 

  56. Konstantinidis D, Makris N (2010) Experimental and analytical studies on the response of 1/4-scale models of freestanding laboratory equipment subjected to strong earthquake shaking. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1457–1477

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lee WK, Billington SL (2011) Performance-based earthquake engineering assessment of a self-centering, post-tensioned concrete bridge system. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(8):887–902

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2004) Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1–16

  59. Mackie K, Stojadinović B (2006) Post-earthquake functionality of highway overpass bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):77–93

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mackie KR, Wong JM, Stojadinović B (2010) Post-earthquake bridge repair cost and repair time estimation methodology. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(3):281–301

    Google Scholar 

  61. Makris N (2014) The role of the rotational inertia on the seismic resistance of free-standing rocking columns and articulated frames. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(5):2226–2239

    Google Scholar 

  62. Makris N, Vassiliou MF (2013) Planar rocking response and stability analysis of an array of free-standing columns capped with a freely supported rigid beam. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(3):431–449

    Google Scholar 

  63. Mander JB (1999) Fragility curve development for assessing the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges. Technical report, University at Buffalo

  64. Mantawy IM, Thonstad T, Sanders DH, Stanton JF, Eberhard MO (2016) Seismic performance of precast, pretensioned, and cast-in-place bridges: shake table test comparison. J Bridge Eng 21(10):04016071

    Google Scholar 

  65. Marriott D, Pampanin S, Palermo A (2009a) Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post-tensioned rocking bridge piers with external replaceable dissipaters. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(3):331–354

    Google Scholar 

  66. Marriott D, Pampanin S, Bull D, Palmero A (2009b) A probabilistic seismic loss assessment of advanced post-tensioned precast bridge systems. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for earthquake engineering annual conference, Wellington, New Zealand

  67. Mashal M, Palermo A (2019) Low-damage seismic design for accelerated bridge construction. J Bridge Eng 24(7):04019066

    Google Scholar 

  68. Meek JW (1975) Effects of foundation tipping on dynamic response. J Struct Div 101(7):1297–1311

    Google Scholar 

  69. Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, paper no. 679, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  70. Muntasir Billah A, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloy. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1515–1541

    Google Scholar 

  71. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, vol 4. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  72. Oliveto G, Calio I, Greco A (2003) Large displacement behaviour of a structural model with foundation uplift under impulsive and earthquake excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(3):369–393

    Google Scholar 

  73. Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2007) Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks. Earthq Spectra 23(1):115–130

    Google Scholar 

  74. Palermo A, Pampanin S (2008) Enhanced seismic performance of hybrid bridge systems: comparison with traditional monolithic solutions. J Earthq Eng 12(8):1267–1295

    Google Scholar 

  75. Panagiotou M, Trono W, Jen G, Kumar P, Ostertag CP (2014) Experimental seismic response of hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete bridge columns with novel longitudinal reinforcement detailing. J Bridge Eng 20(7):04014090

    Google Scholar 

  76. Pecker A (2006) Enhanced seismic design of shallow foundations: example of the Rion Antirion bridge. In: 4th Athenian lecture on geotechnical engineering, Hellenic Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Athens, Greece

  77. Pelekis I, Madabhushi GS, DeJong MJ (2018) Seismic performance of buildings with structural and foundation rocking in centrifuge testing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(12):2390–2409

    Google Scholar 

  78. Prieto F, Lourenço PB, Oliveira C (2004) Impulsive Dirac-delta forces in the rocking motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(7):839–857

    Google Scholar 

  79. Psycharis IN (1991) Effect of base uplift on dynamic response of SDOF structures. J Struct Eng 117(3):733–754

    Google Scholar 

  80. Psycharis IN, Fragiadakis M, Stefanou I (2013) Seismic reliability assessment of classical columns subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(14):2061–2079

    Google Scholar 

  81. Reggiani Manzo N, Vassiliou MF (2019) Displacement-based analysis and design of rocking structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(14):1613–1629

    Google Scholar 

  82. Saad AS, Sanders DH, Buckle IG (2018) Experimental evaluation of bridge column foundation rocking behavior. J Bridge Eng 23(11):04018088

    Google Scholar 

  83. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech 126(12):1224–1231

    Google Scholar 

  84. Stein SM, Young GK, Trent RE, Pearson DR (1999) Prioritizing scour vulnerable bridges using risk. J Infrastruct Syst 5(3):95–101

    Google Scholar 

  85. Thonstad T, Mantawy IM, Stanton JF, Eberhard MO, Sanders DH (2016) Shaking table performance of a new bridge system with pretensioned rocking columns. J Bridge Eng 21(4):04015079

    Google Scholar 

  86. Thonstad T, Kennedy B, Schaefer J, Eberhard M, Stanton J (2017) Cyclic tests of precast pretensioned rocking bridge-column subassemblies. J Struct Eng 143(9):04017094

    Google Scholar 

  87. Trono W, Jen G, Panagiotou M, Schoettler M, Ostertag CP (2014) Seismic response of a damage-resistant recentering posttensioned-HYFRC bridge column. J Bridge Eng 20(7):04014096

    Google Scholar 

  88. Truniger R, Vassiliou MF, Stojadinovic B (2015) An analytical model of a deformable cantilever structure rocking on a rigid surface: experimental validation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(15):2795–2815

    Google Scholar 

  89. USGS (2003) Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002–2031. Technical report 03-214, Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, United States Geological Survey

  90. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Google Scholar 

  91. Vassiliou MF (2017) Seismic response of a wobbling 3D frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(5):1212–1228

    Google Scholar 

  92. Vassiliou MF, Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B (2014) Dynamic response analysis of solitary flexible rocking bodies: modeling and behavior under pulse-like ground excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(10):1463–1481

    Google Scholar 

  93. Vassiliou MF, Truniger R, Stojadinovic B (2015) An analytical model of a deformable cantilever structure rocking on a rigid surface: development and verification. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(15):2775–2794

    Google Scholar 

  94. Vassiliou MF, Burger S, Egger M, Bachmann JA, Broccardo M, Stojadinovic B (2017a) The three-dimensional behavior of inverted pendulum cylindrical structures during earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(14):2261–2280

    Google Scholar 

  95. Vassiliou MF, Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B (2017b) A finite element model for seismic response analysis of deformable rocking frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(3):447–466

    Google Scholar 

  96. Wen YK, Kang Y (2001a) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. I: methodology. J Struct Eng 127(3):330–337

    Google Scholar 

  97. Wen YK, Kang Y (2001b) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: applications. J Struct Eng 127(3):338–346

    Google Scholar 

  98. White S, Palermo A (2016) Quasi-static testing of posttensioned nonemulative column-footing connections for bridge piers. J Bridge Eng 21(6):04016025

    Google Scholar 

  99. Xie Y, Zhang J, DesRoches R, Padgett JE (2019) Seismic fragilities of single-column highway bridges with rocking column-footing. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(7):843–864

    Google Scholar 

  100. Zhang J, Xie Y, Wu G (2019) Seismic responses of bridges with rocking column-foundation: a dimensionless regression analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 48(1):152–170

    Google Scholar 

  101. Zheng Y, Dong Y, Li Y (2018) Resilience and life-cycle performance of smart bridges with shape memory alloy (SMA)-cable-based bearings. Constr Build Mater 158:389–400

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51808476), and the Chinese National Engineering Research Centre (CNERC) for Steel Construction (Hong Kong Branch) at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Project No. P0006216). Their support is gratefully acknowledged. The opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to You Dong.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giouvanidis, A.I., Dong, Y. Seismic loss and resilience assessment of single-column rocking bridges. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 4481–4513 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00865-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rocking
  • Analytical dynamics
  • Fragility
  • Seismic loss
  • Post-earthquake functionality
  • Resilience