Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probability Risk Assessment and Management of Embankment Seismic Damages Based on CPSHA-PSDA

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions A: Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In destructive earthquakes, embankment seismic damages were widely distributed, and researches on embankment seismic hazard, fragility, and probability risk assessment have important significance to improve highway seismic performance and for regional disaster prevention and mitigation capacities. Embankment seismic damages were divided into five grades, and the maximum lateral permanent displacement rate on the top surface εmax was selected as the embankment seismic damage parameter. Taking the Xi’an–Baoji expressway K1125 + 470 embankment as an example, we carried out a seismic hazard assessment based on CPSHA, a fragility assessment based on IDA and PSDA, and a probability risk assessment based on a hazard curve. On the basis of risk acceptability, a risk management method was put forward, which was suitable for the seismic design of new embankments and seismic strengthening of existing embankments, and verified the positive effect of a retaining wall on the embankment seismic performance. The results show that the seismic hazard assessment results of the Xi’an–Baoji expressway were higher than those of the fourth-generation seismic zoning map; when the PGA reached 0.8 g, the exceedance probability of severe damage was as high as 99.995%; the probability risk of severe damage in the next 50 years was 36.46%. However, the probability risk of severe damage of the embankment with the retaining wall was found to be 21.17%, indicating that a retaining wall can significantly reduce the embankment seismic damage risk. The embankment seismic damage risk was divided into high, medium, and low levels: medium risk and low risk were acceptable, and high risk was unacceptable.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alielahi H, Moghadam MR (2017) Fragility curves evaluation for broken-back block quay walls. J Earthq Eng 21(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arabelos DN, Contadakis ME, Vergos G, Spatalas S (2016) Variation of the earth tide-seismicity compliance parameter during the recent seismic activity in Fthiotida, central Greece. Ann Geophys 59(1):S0102

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Ghofrani H, Assatourians K (2015) Impact of induced seismicity on the evaluation of seismic hazard: some preliminary considerations. Seismol Res Lett 86(3):1009–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtiary E, Gardoni P (2016) Probabilistic seismic demand model and fragility estimates for rocking symmetric blocks. Eng Struct 114:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayat M, Daneshjoo F, Nisticò N (2017) The effect of different intensity measures and earthquake directions on the seismic assessment of skewed highway bridges. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16(1):165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berto L, Saetta A, Simioni P (2012) Structural risk assessment of corroding RC structures under seismic excitation. Constr Build Mater 30(5):803–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen K, Gao MT (2015) Controlling seismic collapse risk of general construction projects in China mainland. J Build Struct 36(1):23–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbane C, Hancilar U, Ehrlich D, Groeve TD (2017) Pan-European seismic risk assessment: a proof of concept using the earthquake loss estimation routine. Bull Earthq Eng 15(3):1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui G, Liu W, Ni S, Wang M, Lin G (2014) Study on different seismic intensities and earthquake damage to highway tunnels in Wenchuan area affected by earthquakes. Mod Tunn Technol 51(6):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimova SL, Hirata K (2015) Simplified seismic fragility analysis of structures with two types of friction devices. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(8):1153–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flora A, Lombardi D, Nappa V, Bilotta E (2016) Numerical analyses of the effectiveness of soft barriers into the soil for the mitigation of seismic risk. J Earthq Eng 22:63–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrion M, Mokhtari M, Parsizadeh F, Nadim F (2015) Timescape of the earthquake disasters in Iran: the intricacies of earthquake time and earthquake disaster risk reduction. Geogr Ann 97(1):197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karthik R, Jamie P, Reginald D (2015) Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California. Eng Struct 97:29–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitov IO, Volosov SG, Kishkina SB, Konstantinovskaya NL, Nepeina KS, Nesterkina MA et al (2016) Detection of regional phases of seismic body waves using an array of three-component sensors. Seism Instrum 52(1):19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu JW, Wang ZM, Xie FR, Lv YJ (2013) Seismic hazard assessment for greater North China from historical intensity observations. Eng Geol 164:117–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama Y, Yamazaki F, Mizuno K, Tsuchiya Y, Yogai H (2010) Fragility curves for expressway embankments based on damage datasets after recent earthquakes in Japan. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1158–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melani A, Khare RK, Dhakal RP, Mander JB (2016) Seismic risk assessment of low rise RC frame structure. Structures 5:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meroni F, Zonno G, Azzaro R, D’Amico S, Tuvè T, Oliveira CS et al (2016) The role of the urban system dysfunction in the assessment of seismic risk in the Mt. Etna area (Italy). Bull Earthq Eng 14(7):1979–2008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morbin R, Zanini MA, Pellegrino C, Zhang H, Modena C (2015) A probabilistic strategy for seismic assessment and FRP retrofitting of existing bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 13(8):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poljanšek K, Bono F, Gutiérrez E (2015) Seismic risk assessment of interdependent critical infrastructure systems: the case of European gas and electricity networks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(1):61–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta P, Li B (2016) Seismic fragility assessment of lightly reinforced concrete structural walls. J Earthq Eng 20:809–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Varum H, Rui P (2015) Seismic risk assessment for mainland Portugal. Bull Earthq Eng 13(2):429–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsompanakis Y, Lagaros ND, Psarropoulos PN, Georgopoulos EC (2009) Simulating the seismic response of embankments via artificial neural networks. Adv Eng Softw 40(8):640–651

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang QA, Wu Z, Liu S (2012) Seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges considering multi-dimensional performance limit state. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11(2):185–193

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wu DS, Tesfamariam SF, Stiemer DQ (2012) Seismic fragility assessment of RC frame structure designed according to modern Chinese code for seismic design of buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11:331–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin C (2015) Study on seismic risk assessment of embankment in plain areas. PhD Thesis, Chang’an University, Xi’an (in Chinese)

  • Zhang S, Wu Z, Jiang C (2016) The central China north–south seismic belt: seismicity, ergodicity, and five-year pi forecast in testing. Pure Appl Geophys 173(1):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51608313), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (Grant No. 2015ZRB019JS), and Doctor’s Research Launching Program of Shandong University of Technology (Grant No. 415046).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil and Architecture Engineering, Shandong University of Technology, Zhangdian District, 266 Xincun West Road, Zibo City, 255049, Shandong Province, People’s Republic of China

    Chao Yin & Ying Li

  2. School of Transportation and Vehicle Engineering, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, 255049, People’s Republic of China

    Fei-fei Liu

Authors
  1. Chao Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fei-fei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chao Yin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yin, C., Li, Y. & Liu, Ff. Probability Risk Assessment and Management of Embankment Seismic Damages Based on CPSHA-PSDA. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Sci 43, 1563–1574 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-018-0630-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-018-0630-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation