Jimenez Montoya

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

Jimenez Montoya

© All Rights Reserved

- CIE619-Lecture16-ElementsSeismicDesign2
- treyi
- ETABS Building Design Manual
- Recent Enhancements _ SAP2000
- JCE_66_2014_8_1_1073_EN
- Non-Linear Pushover Analysis of Flatslab Building by Using SAP2000
- Confined Masonry Buildings.pdf
- r6.pdf
- Be Hairy
- Seismic performance of a 3D full-scale high-ductile steel–concrete part2
- DBDsoft User Manual
- Project 2 Structure 10-31-17
- EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN.pdf
- Amplification of Accidental Torsion When Using Dynamic Analysis as Per ASCE-7-05 - Computers and Structures_ ETABS - Eng-Tips
- Volume 2
- 8.Effect of masonry infills on seismic performance of a 3-storey rc frame with non-seismic detailing
- 13 4000 Seimic Design Mexico Ordaz
- Seismic Design to EC8 - L3
- 2000 IBC Handbook Seismic & Wind
- ProjectPOCTI Numerical Models

You are on page 1of 13

net/publication/260247995

Viaduct in Spain. The Archidona Viaduct

CITATIONS READS

0 248

2 authors:

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Stanford University

11 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 166 PUBLICATIONS 4,549 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of Damping Ratios Inferred from the Seismic Response of Buildings View project

Earthquake-induced Collapse Risk Assessment of Steel Moment Resisting Frames View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Gordo Monso on 19 February 2014.

Performance-Based Seismic Assessment of a Recently Built

High-Speed Rail Viaduct in Spain. The Archidona Viaduct

Carlos Gordo-Monso1, Eduardo Miranda2

ABSTRACT

development and expansion in Southern Europe. In particular, Spain has nearly 1,800 miles

(2,880 km) HSRL, with a significant portion of these in regions of moderate seismic hazard. The

Archidona Viaduct, a recently erected composite steel-concrete viaduct in the new Cordoba-

Granada HSRL, is a 1.97 miles (3,150 m) long viaduct built without intermediate expansion

joints and is located in a site with an expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.14·g for a

return period of 500 yr. The viaduct has 62 framed piers (bents) which laterally restrain

transverse displacement but allow for longitudinal displacement through spherical sliding

bearings. The longitudinal displacement is restrained at a single stiff pier, located roughly in the

middle of the viaduct. This paper presents the results of a series of static and dynamic analyses of

a typical 66 ft (20 m) high framed pier and its corresponding foundation, conducted in order to

assess its seismic performance. In particular, to asses the seismic collapse capacity, and to

identify different characteristic features on the seismic behavior of the Archidona Viaduct at

increasing levels of seismic intensity. A special emphasis is placed on the estimation of train

derailment due to seismically induced rail deformations.

INTRODUCTION

The Archidona Viaduct is located in the High-Speed Rail Line connecting the southern Spain

cities of Cordoba and Granada. The viaduct is conceived in the purpose of crossing a 1.97 miles

(3,150 m) long valley meeting certainly special conditions (Millanes-Mato et al. 2011):

The viaduct is located in a moderately hazardous seismic site (500 year PGA=0.14·g).

The mean pier height is approximately 66 ft (20 m).

The request of the track owner to avoid, as much as possible, the use of rail expansion joint

devices to limit the associated maintenance costs, but complying with the maximum

displacement limits allowed by current state-of-the-art rail expansion devices 47¼ in

(1200mm) (Hess, 2009).

The solution of several simply supported spans, which in general is suitable for great length

and low height viaducts, was discarded due to the longitudinal flexibility of the substructure (set

of piers and pile foundation), which yielded excessive track displacements under the train

braking and service-level earthquake ground motions. Moreover, this solution was overly

penalized regarding the design earthquake situation. Given that it was not advisable to place rail

expansion joint devices within the deck, only two of them were placed at the abutments, and the

deck’s fixed point was placed roughly in the viaduct center, allowing a total maximum dilation

1 Graduate Student, Stanford University and Design Engineer, IDEAM, Velazquez 41, 1-A, 28005 Madrid, Spain

2 Assoc. Prof., Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Room 281, Stanford, CA 94305

1

length around 1 mile (1,600 m) (Figure 1 and Figure 4). A prestressed concrete deck solution for

this dilation length would have yielded longitudinal displacements, due to thermal and

hygrometric actions, larger than those allowed by current state-of-the-art rail expansion joint

devices. Therefore, a composite steel-concrete deck solution was chosen in order to mitigate the

effects of shrinkage and creep.

The span length distribution of the viaduct is 114ft+30x164ft+114ft (35m+30x50m+35m).

The 164 ft (50 m) standard span length was chosen on the basis of the pier height, and in order to

achieve both weight and dimensions suitable for erection by crane rising (Figure 2). The retained

solution for the deck consists of a constant depth composite steel-concrete cross section, formed

up by two steel welded I-beams 9 ft 8 in (2.95 m) deep, and an upper reinforced concrete slab

15¾ in (0.40 m) thick linking both steel beams, which are 19 ft 8 in (6 m) apart. A bottom

reinforced concrete slab acts as a compression member whithin the hogging zone (double

composite action), and closing the torsion circuit within the sagging zone.

Given that the central pier is considered as the only fixed point in the longitudinal direction

of the viaduct, it was designed as a triangular shape frame, in order to provide a stiff truss

mechanism to limit displacements due to braking forces (Figure 4). On the other hand, the other

(typical) piers are designed to allow for the longitudinal movement of the deck through the use of

spherical sliding bearings with a top flat PTFE surface, and to restrain transverse displacement

through a central shear key. The shear key is built of concrete on the pier side, and as a steel

protrusion of the diaphragm on the deck side, sandwiching twin PTFE sliding devices.

High-Speed Rail Lines (HSRL) structures differ from highway bridges in the sense that they

must meet different often more strict service conditions, in addition to structural requirements, to

ensure the safety of rail traffic. Aspects that in highway bridges can be considered as

serviceability conditions, like vertical or transverse deformability, are of the utmost importance

in HSRL viaducts, given that the safety of the traffic depends largely on the track geometry

(Nasarre, 2009). It is so much so, that an horizontal misalignment as small as ¾ in (20 mm) can

force a reduction of the train’s speed at the damaged section of the track, and a misalignment of

3 in (80 mm) can drive to the closure of the track for alignment repair (Pitilakis et al., 2011).

Figure 1. General view of the Archidona Viaduct. Figure 2. Deck assembly and crane erection.

2

Figure 3. View of a typical pier (transv. fixed) Figure 4. View of the central pier (longit. fixed point)

Although various studies have dealt with the expected performances, and the associated

economic losses, of newer and older building structures under different earthquake intensities,

much less work has been devoted to the expected seismic performance of bridge structures,

especially in the low intensity range and for elements different than structural members. For

instance, the European specifications (EN-1998-2) state that the performance of a bridge

subjected to a low level intensity earthquake (high probability of occurence) “may cause only

minor damage to secondary components and to those parts of the bridge intended to contribute

to energy dissipation. All other parts of the bridge should remain undamaged”, leaving

unanswered the question of what the expected performace should be for the non-structural

elements like the track, in the case of a HSRL viaduct. The Spanish specifications for earthquake

design of bridges (NCSP-07) state that “the frequent seismic action shall only cause minor

damage to the bridge, and it will not be neither necessary to repair it immediately, nor to reduce

the traffic after such an earthquake”. Given that most of the previous work on the subject of post

earthquake traffic capacity is related with the structural capacity of bridge piers after a seismic

event (Terzic and Stojadinovic, 2010), there are not many references to which the engineers can

refer to evaluate the relative importance of the frequent earthquake respective to the overall

design.

In this regard, the objective of the study presented in this paper is to analyze the seismic

behavior of a bridge designed according to the current European standards (EN-1998-1 and EN-

1998-2), with the purpose of understanding how different design assumptions influence the

expected performance of both the viaduct as a structure, and of the track which is a critical

components for the functionality of the structure. In order to do so, the transverse behavior of a

typical pier of the Archidona viaduct has been analyzed under seismic excitations of different

intensities, following the PEER Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering methodology

(Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004). Different mechanical characteristics of the set pier-foundation

were studied. In particular, the following modeling assumptions that were analyzed are

summarized in this work:

Model 2: Analysis of the transverse behavior under the assumption of cracked stiffness,

considered as a function of the Moment-Curvature diagram of the pier cross section

(Priestley et al., 1996), and considering the foundation as infinitely stiff.

3

Model 4: Analysis of the transverse behavior under the previous cracked condition, taking

into account the decrease in stiffness due to the rocking behavior of the deep foundation.

Model 6: Analysis of the transverse behavior under the assumption of cracked stiffness,

considering the stiffness reduction due to both the strain penetration effect and shear cracking

(Fardis, 2003).

Model 8: Analysis of the transverse behavior under the previous cracked condition, taking

into account the decrease in stiffness due to the rocking behavior of the deep foundation.

For the previously stated modeling assumptions, several Damage Measures (DM) related to

different Engineering Demand Parameters (EDP) have been considered:

Structural Damage Measures as DMs1:Yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement on the

tension side. DSs2: Cover concrete spalling on the compression side. DSs3: Buckling of the

longitudinal reinforcement on the compression side. These structural DM have been related

to the maximum Column Drift Ratio as EDP, taking the perspective of several authors

(Kunnath et al., 2006), (Mackie, 2003), (Mander, 2007).

Collapse Damage Measures as DMc: The pier is assumed to collapse when the column drift

ratio exceeds the value of IDR=10%, value for which the monotonic pushover analysis

yields a zero base-shear value.

Track Damage Measures as DMt1: Lateral track displacement corresponding to an

immediate action on the railway traffic to ensure runnig safety (i.e. speed reduction until

track repair). DMt2: Lateral track displacement corresponding to the closure of the track to

ensure running traffic (Moderate track repair). DMt3: Lateral track displacement

corresponding to the closure of the track (Extensive track repair). These track DM have been

related to the Residual Column Drift Ratio, as a measure of the track misalignment/offset

after an earthquake (Pitilakis et al., 2011).

Safety Run Damage State as DSdr: Motion of the deck during an earthquake driving to the

derailment of the train. This DM has been related to the Spectral Index as EDP (Luo, 2005),

(Luo and Miyamoto, 2007).

For the modelling of the bent structure the characteristic properties of the involved

materials were considered, namely f’c=5 ksi (35MPa) for concrete members and fy=75 ksi

(500MPa) for the steel reinforcement. The Mander model (Mander, 1988) was used to represent

the concrete behavior both at the confined core and at the unconfined cover (Figure 6), and a

bilinear stress-strain class C relationship (EN-1992-1) with an ultimate-to-yield stress ratio

fu/fy=1.15 has been used for the B500C reinforcement steel. The moment-curvature diagram of

the top and bottom cross-sections of the columns has been evaluated at increasing axial load

ratios (Figure 5) to obtain the cracked stiffness. It has been found that, due to the large steel ratio

in the cross section, the cracked stiffness does not show a big dependance on the axial force, and

an average value of Ieff=0.8·Ig (cracked inertia as a fraction of the gross inertia) has been

considered adequate for the N/Ac·fc’=0.1 ratio expected to act in the most loaded column.

The bent was modeled in OpenSees (OpenSees, 2004) as an elastic structure with

concentrated plastic hinges at the base and top cross-sections. A strength and stiffness

deterioration behavior (Ibarra et al, 2005) was considered for the concentrated hinges (Figure 8).

It is known that the stiffness derived from the M- relationship at the section level is not enough

4

Moment-Curvature Diagram for Base Cross-Section Stress-Strain Concrete Behavior (Mander, 1988)

50000 -45

45000 -40

40000 -35

35000

-30

Moment M [m.kN]

30000

-25

25000 0.00

0.05 -20

20000 0.10

0.15 -15

15000

0.20

-10

10000 0.25

0.30

CORE

5000 -5 COVER

0.40

0 0

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.000

-0.001

-0.002

-0.003

-0.004

-0.005

-0.006

-0.007

-0.008

-0.009

-0.010

Curvature [m-1] Strain

Figure 5. Moment-Curvature diagrams for axial load Figure 6. Concrete behavior at core and cover fibers

ratios ranging from N/Ac·fc’=0.1 to 0.4 (Mander, 1988)

to assess the total stiffness of the flexural members at high levels of load (Hasselton and

Deierlein, 2007). The strain penetration (or bar slippage), and shear cracking mechanisms reduce

the stiffness of the flexural member, and hence change the structural behavior of the bent. The

stiffness expression proposed by Fardis (Fardis, 2009) was used to assess a cracked stiffness

Ieff=0.3·Ig. Two alternative assumptions were considered to account for stiffness variability by

considering cracked stiffness as 80% and as 30% of the gross stiffness. Monotonic pushover

analyses (Figure 7) were performed to assess the relative importance of the aforementioned

parameters.

Another source of flexibility that was considered was the reduction in lateral and

rotational stiffness at the base of the structure due to soil-structure interaction. As recognized by

several authors (Kunnath et al., 2006), the behavior of the foundation can play a significant role

in the assessment of the seismic performance of the viaduct. In this regard, two scenarios were

analyzed: one with an infinitely stiff foundation, and another with a flexible foundation whose

Shear History

0.7

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.5

Shear Coefficient, V/W [g]

Shear Coefficient V/W [g]

0.2

0.4 0.1

0

0.3 MODEL 1 - Ieff=0.8·Ig // No P-Delta // Stiff Foundation

MODEL 2 - Ieff=0.8·Ig // Yes P-Delta // Stiff Foundation −0.1

MODEL 3 - Ieff=0.8·Ig // No P-Delta // Flex Foundation

MODEL 4 - Ieff=0.8·Ig // Yes P-Delta // Flex Foundation −0.2

0.2

MODEL 5 - Ieff=0.3·Ig // No P-Delta // Stiff Foundation

MODEL 6 - Ieff=0.3·Ig // Yes P-Delta // Stiff Foundation

−0.3

−0.4

MODEL 8 - Ieff=0.3·Ig // Yes P-Delta // Flex Foundation

MODEL 0 - Ieff=1·Ig // No P-Delta // Stiff Foundation −0.5

0

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

0.050

0.055

0.060

0.065

0.070

0.075

0.080

Drift Ratio, δ/H

Column Drift Ratio /L

Figure 7. Monotonic pushover curves for different Figure 8. Cyclic pushover for model 2 behavior

behavior models (Ieff=0.8·Ig, Stiff foundation)

5

Pile Axial Load - Vertical Displacement

25000

20000

15000

Q TIP

Q SHAFT

STIFF PIER

FLEXIBLE PIER

10000 AVERAGE

5000

0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Vertical Displacement [m]

Figure 9. Fundamental modes for both the stiff Figure 10. Equivalent pile axial stiffness, considering

foundation and flexible foundation models. skin strength, tip strength, and concrete deformability.

equivalent parameters were derived from geotechnical data of the project (PoLam et al., 1998),

(Mosher and Dawkins, 2000). The foundation is formed by 4 piles 5 ft (1.5 m) wide in diameter,

tip supported on a firm but soft marl bedrock, characteristic of the Andalusian region, near 100 ft

(30 m) deep below grade. The rock is therefore relatively stiff, but the piles are long enough to

provide some degree of extra flexibility at the pile cap level. Furthermore, the clay soil between

grade and bedrock allows for some shear-like lateral pile displacement. The periods of vibration

in the transverse direction of the 4 models are summarized in TABLE I.

The spectral acceleration at the characteristic period of each model was used as the Intensity

Measure (IM) for characterizing the earthquake ground motion intensity.. The evaluation of the

seismic hazard at the viaduct site has been performed according to the approximate hazard

estimation provided by the Spanish Seismic Code (NCSP-07) (Figure 11), which has been

corroborated by regional probabilistic hazard assessments (Benito et al., 2010).

Force and deformation demands in the structure were computed at increasing levels of

earthquake intensity by using Incremental Dynamic Analyses (IDA) (Vamvatsikos and Cornell,

2002), using ground motion scaled to match spectral acceleration at the different characteristic

Model # Assumed Behavior Characteristic Period T

2 Ieff=0.8·Ig | Stiff Foundation 0.72 s

4 Ieff=0.8·Ig | Flexible Foundation 0.97 s

6 Ieff=0.3·Ig | Stiff Foundation 1.14 s

8 Ieff=0.3·Ig | Flexible Foundation 1.31 s

6

Earthquake Hazard NCSP-07 PEER Ground Motion Scaled Spectra

1 10

T= 0.716 s

T= 0.965 s

Annual Frequency of Exceedence

T= 1.139 s

T= 1.313 s 1

0.1

0.01 0.1

0.001 0.01

0.0001 0.001

0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1 10

Intensity Measure (IM) - Spectral Acceleration Sa [g] Period T [s]

Figure 11. Earthquake Hazard at different fundamental Figure 12. Ground motion set scaled to 1·g at T=0.72s.

oscillation periods Median in blue, ±1· in green.

periods for each different structural model (stiffness at the yielding of the first hinge) as

illustrated in Figure 12. The set of ground motions was selected from the PEER ground motion

database by using their online tool for ground motion selection (PEER, 2012). Sixty different

ground motions were selected to match the design spectrum of the Spanish Seismic Code

(NCSP-07).

As previously stated, the intended damage estimation is both for structural components

and for some key nonstructural components critical to the functionality of the viaduct, namely

the rail. For assessing structural damage, the EDP considered was the maximum column drift

ratio, whereas for rail damage the EDP considered was the residual column drift ratio. This

double approach is intended to measure the relative importance of both structural and

nonstructural elements in the seismic assessment of the viaduct. Structural damage measure

(DM) considered were those corresponding to the damage states of yielding in the longitudinal

reinforcement (DMs1), compression concrete spalling (DMs2), and buckling of the longitudinal

compression reinforcement (DMs3), by using fragility functions for bridge piers developed by

Berry and Eberhard (Berry and Eberhard, 2003). The DMs considered for the rail were those

corresponding to the damage states of train speed reduction (DMt1), track closure due to track

misalignment (DMt2), and extensive track repair (DMt3), computed through the probabilistic

model proposed by Pitilakis (Pitilakis et al, 2011). Median Column Drift Ratio (CDR0.5), Median

Residual Drift Ratio (RDR0.5), and corresponding dispersion data for each DM fragility curve are

provided in TABLE II.

Structure Damage Measures (DMs) Track Damage Measures (DMt)

Ln=0.30 Ln=0.7

-3

DMs1: Yielding CDR0.5=4.99·10 DMt1: Speed Reduction RDR0.5=1.43·10-3

DMs2: Spalling CDR0.5=2.87·10-2 Ln=0.40 DMt2: Track Closure RDR0.5=5.74·10-3 Ln=0.7

DMs3: Buckling CDR0.5=5.9·10-2 Ln=0.26 DMt3: Extensive Repair RDR0.5=1.42·10-2 Ln=0.7

7

Figure 13. Spectral Index flow diagram for assessing derailment (Adapted from Luo and Miyamoto, 2007)

the methodology proposed by the Japanese Railway Administration (RTRI, 2007a). The

Engineering Demand Parameter (EDP) considered for this assessment was the Spectral Index

(Luo and Miyamoto, 2007). This index measures the vehicle likelihood of derailment (by both

rocking and rolling derailment mechanisms) when subjected to transverse earthquake loading. It

is computed as the integral of the velocity response spectrum of the vehicle motion (considered

as a SDOF structure) between T1=0.1s and T2=2.5s, excited by a motion equal to the acceleration

recorded or computed on top of the bridge (Figure 13).

The Spectral Index corresponding to derailment has been chosen as a sharp limit of SI=4100

mm (161.4 in), which corresponds to the limit proposed for a Shinkansen vehicle type for this

range of bridge oscillation periods (RTRI, 2007a). Although the dynamic characteristics of

European trains are not equal to these of the Japanese lines, and due to the lack of data regarding

this issue, this assumption can be seen as a first approach for the probabilistic analysis of

derailment.

Response history analyses were carried out using a Newmark time integration algorithm

(=0.25, =0.5) assuming a constant acceleration between record sampling points. The

convergence at each time step was achieved through a Newton-Raphson scheme, and a 5%

Rayleigh damping pattern at 1st and 2nd modes of vibration was considered.

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

The seismic performance of the viaduct was evaluated by means of fragility curves relating

the ground motion intensity (spectral acceleration at the characteristic period of each model) to

the previously introduced damage measures (Collapse, derailment, structural DMs and track

DMs). In what follows, we will interpretate the obtained fragility curves of each behavior model,

in the light of the assumptions made for each of them.

8

Drift Ratio Maxima Derailment Spectral Index

0.1 9000

0.09 8000

0.08

7000

0.07

6000

Drift Ratio, δ/H

0.06

5000

0.05

4000

0.04

3000

0.03

2000

0.02

0.01 1000

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Intensity Measure Sa [g] Intensity Measure Sa [g]

Figure 14. Incremental Dynamic Analysis with Figure 15. Incremental Dynamic Analysis with Spectral

Maximum Drift Ratio as EDP. Index as EDP.

From the collapse fragility function (Figure 16), we can observe how for a given ground

motion intensity, models on flexible foundation have a higher probability of collapse, and for a

given foundation model, the probability of collapse under a given ground motion intensity

increases as the period of vibration increases, since they undergo larger lateral deformations.

However it should be noted that the probability of exceedance of a given spectral acceleration is

not the same for all model and this probability in general decreases as the period of vibration

increases.

For the derailment fragility function (Figure 17), we can observe how flexible structures

exhibit considerably more risk of derailment than the stiffer structures. This is an intuitive result:

given that the Spectral Index is related to the structure maximum pseudo-velocity, and therefore,

a softer structural response that produces larger displacements and larger velocities increases

dramatically the risk of derailment.

1 1

MODEL 2 // Ieff=0.8·Ig // Stiff Foundation

0.9 0.9

Derailment Probability P( Derailment | IM )

Collapse Probability P( Collapse | IM )

0.8 MODEL 6 // Ieff=0.3·Ig // Stiff Foundation 0.8

MODEL 8 // Ieff=0.3·Ig // Flex Foundation

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

MODEL 4 - Ieff=0.8·Ig // Flex Foundation

0.1 0.1 MODEL 6 - Ieff=0.3·Ig // Stiff Foundation

MODEL 8 - Ieff=0.3·Ig // Flex Foundation

0 0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Intensity Measure IM - Sa [g] Intensity Measure IM Sa [g]

Figure 16. Collapse fragility curves for different Figure 17. Derailment fragility curves for different

behavior models behavior models

9

Fragility Curves. Model 2 Fragility Curves. Model 8

1.0 1.0

DS=Structure, Yielding

0.9 DS=Structure, Spalling 0.9

DS=Structure, Buckling

0.8 DS=Track, Immediate Action 0.8

DS=Track, Closing

0.7 DS=Track, Repair 0.7

CDF ( DS | NC, IM )

CDF ( DS | NC, IM )

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

DS=Structure, Spalling

0.2 0.2 DS=Structure, Buckling

DS=Track, Immediate Action

0.1 0.1 DS=Track, Closing

DS=Track, Repair

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Intensity Measure IM, Sa [g] Intensity Measure IM, Sa [g]

Figure 18. Structure and track fragility curves for Figure 19. Structure and track fragility curves for

model 2 (Ieff=0.8·Ig, Stiff foundation). model 8 (Ieff=0.3·Ig, Flexible foundation).

Regarding the fragility curves for the damage measures at the structure level and track

level for different behavior models (Figure 18 and Figure 19), we can observe how, for the same

intensity level, a softer response increases the risk associated to the track DMs. Given that the

structure accommodates larger transient displacements by means of foundation rocking, the

residual drift ratio larger than in the stiffer structure, yielding a larger track misalignment/offset

at the end of the earthquake.

CONCLUSIONS

a region of moderate seismic hazard in the south of Spain has been performed. The performance

assessment methodology developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

(PEER) has been extended to consider the performance of nonstructural components that are

critical to the functionality of the HSRL.

The seismic response of a typical bent was carefully analyzed by conducting Incremental

Dynamic Analyses in which the structure is subjected to ground motions scaled to increasing

ground motion intensities. Record-to-record variability is explicitly considered in the analyses by

using a relatively large number of ground motions (sixty) and computing the probability

distribution of various response parameters at each level of ground motion intensity. Modeling

uncertainty was considered by developing various detailed finite element models with different

assumptions in both the piers and the foundation. Fragility functions were then used to estimate

the probability of reaching different damage states for the structure and for the rail tracks.

In this paper, results have been summarized for four structural models resulting from

combination of a flexible bent and a stiffer bent model on rigid and flexible foundations. All four

models were found to have negligible probability of collapse for ground motions likely to occur

at this site of moderate seismicity. Nevertheless, larger intensity levels were considered to study

the relative performance of the various models. It is concluded that models that incorporate a

flexible foundation experience larger lateral displacements relative to the ground that models on

a rigid foundation and therefore lead to larger probabilities of collapse. Similarly, for a given

10

ground motion intensity and foundation model, the flexible bent models experience larger

displacement demands than stiffer bent models leading to larger probability of collapse.

Damage measures for the rails indicate that probability of misalignments/offsets are

significantly larger than probabilities of experiencing concrete cover spalling or buckling of

longitudinal reinforcement, indicating that lateral deformations large enough to requirement rail

repairs or realignment are smaller than those that would lead to significant structural damage. In

particular, the probability of experiencing residual deformations increases significantly once

ground motion intensities leading to yielding of the structure are reached.

The approach used here for the evaluation of this viaduct provides a rational framework that

explicitly considers uncertainties in the ground motion intensity, the structural response, the

damage as well as the consequences of the damage on the functionality of the high-speed rail.

REFERENCES

Aviram, A. Mackie, K. R. Stojadinovic, B. (2008) “Guidelines for Nonlinear Analysis of Bridge Structures in

California”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report; UCB/PEER 2008/03.

Benito, M. B. Navarro, M. Vidal, F. Gaspar-Escribano, J. Garcia-Rodriguez, M. J. Martinez-Solares, J. M. (2010)

“A new seismic Hazard assessment in the region of Andalusia (Southern Spain)”. Bulletin of Earthquake

Engineering, Vol. 8, pp. 739-766.

Berry, M. Eberhard, M. (2003) “Performance Models for Flexural Damage in Reinforced Concrete Columns”.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report; UCB/PEER 2003/18.

EN-1991-2 (2003). “Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges”. European Committee for

Standardization, Brussels.

EN-1992-1 (2004). “Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: Traffic General rules and rules for

buildings”. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

EN-1998-1 (2004). “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic

actions and rules for buildings”. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

EN-1998-2 (2005). “Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2: Bridges”. European

Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

Fardis, M. N. Biskinis, D. (2003) “Deformation Capacity of RC Members, as Controlled by Flexure or Shear”.

Proceedings of the Otani Symposium; pp. 511-530.

Fardis, M. N. (2009) “Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of Concrete Buildings - Based on EN-Eurocode

8”. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Hasselton, C. Deierlein, G. (2007) “Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment

Frame Buildings”. John A. Blume Engineering Center Report; No. 156.

Hess, J. (2009) “Rail Expansion Joints - The Underestimated Track Work Material?”. Track-Bridge Interaction on

High Speed Railways. pp. 149-164. Taylor & Francis, London.

Ibarra, L. F. Medina, R. A. Krawinkler, H. (2005) “Hysteretic Models that Incorporate Strength and Stiffness

Deterioration”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics; Vol. 34, pp. 1489-1511.

Jeremic, B. Kunnath, S. Xiong, F. (2004) “Influence of soil–foundation–structure interaction on seismic response of

the I-880 viaduct”. Engineering Structures; Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 391-402.

Krawinkler, H. Miranda, E. (2004) “Chapter 9 – Performance Based earthquake Engineering”. Earthquake

Engineering, Bozorgnia, Y. Bertero, V. V. Eds. CRC Press.

Kunnath, S. K. Larson, L. Miranda, E. (2006) “Modelling considerations in probabilistic performance-based seismic

evaluation: case study of the I-880 viaduct”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics; Vol. 35, pp.57-75.

Kunnath, S. K. (2007) “Application of the PEER PBEE Methodology to the I-880 Viaduct”. Pacific Earthquake

Engineering Research Center Report; UCB/PEER 2006/10.

Luo, X. (2005) “Study on methodology for running safety assessment of trains in seismic design of railway

structures”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 79-91.

Luo, X. Miyamoto, T. (2007) “Method for Running Safety Assessment of Railway Vehicles against Structural

Vibration Displacement during Earthquakes”. Quarterly Report of RTRI; Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 129-135.

11

Mackie, K. R. Stojadinovic, B. (2004) “Fragility Curves for Reingforced Concrete Highway Overpass Bridges”.

Proceedings of the 13 th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; No. 1553, pp. 1-14.

Mander, John B, Priestley, Michael J. N. Park, R. (1988) “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete”.

Journal of Structural Engineering; Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1826.

Mander, J. B. Dhakal, R. P. Mashiko, N. Solberg, K. (2007) “Incremental Dynamic Analysis applied to Seismic

Financial Risk Assessment of Bridges”. Engineering Structures; Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 2662-2672.

Millanes-Mato, F. Matute-Rubio, L. Ortega-Cornejo, M. Martinez-Agromayor, D. Bordo-Bujalance, E. (2011)

“Development of Steel and Composite solutions for viaducts on Spanish High-Speed Railway Lines” (in

Spanish). Hormigon y Acero; Vol. 62, No. 259, pp. 7-27.

Millanes-Mato, F. Bordo-Bujalance, E. Martin-Suarez, J. Mansilla-Dominguez, J. L. (2011) “The Archidona

Viaduct (HSRL Cordoba-Granada). A 3,150 m long steel-concrete composite deck without intermediate

expansion joints” (in Spanish). Comunicaciones al V Congreso de ACHE; pp. 1-11.

Mosher, R. L. Dawkins, W. P. (2000) “Theoretical Manual for Pile Foundations”. US Army Corps of Engineers.

Engineer Research and Development Center.

Nasarre, J. (2009) “Serviceability limit states in relation to the track in railway bridges”. Bridges for High Speed

Railways. pp. 211-220. Taylor & Francis, London.

NCSP-07 “Spanish Earthquake Resistant Code: Bridges” (in Spanish). Ministerio de Fomento, Madrid.

Nishimura, A. (2004) Damage Analysis and Seismic Design of Railway Structures for Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe)

Earthquake. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 184-194.

OpenSees. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. 2004, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.

PEER Ground Motion Database. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/.

Pitilakis, K. Argyroudis, S. Kaynia, A. M. Johansson, J. (2011) “Fragility Functions for Railway System Elements”.

Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis for Buildings, Lifeline Networks and Infrastructures Safety

Gain, D 3.8, Syner-G Report; May 31, 2011.

PoLam, I. Kapushar, M. Chaudhuri, D. (1998) “Modeling of Pile Footings and Drilled shafts for Seismic Design”.

Technical Report MCEER-98-0018. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo.

Priestley, M. J. N. Seible, F. Calvi, G. M. (1996) “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges”. John Wiley & Sons,

New York, NY.

Railway Technical Research Institute, ed (2007a) “Design Standards for railway Structures and Commentary

(Displacement Limits)”. Railway Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Tokyo.

Railway Technical Research Institute. ed (2007b) “Design Standards for railway Structures and Commentary

(Seismic Design)”. Railway Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Tokyo.

Sugano, S. ed. (2007) “Seismic Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures”. American Concrete Institute and Japan

Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, MI.

Terzic, V. Stojadinovic, B. (2010) “Post-Earthquake Traffic Capacity of Modern Bridges in California”. Pacific

Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report; UCB/PEER 2010/103.

Vamvatsikos, D. Cornell, C. A. (2002) “Incremental Dynamic Analysis”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural

Dynamics; Vol. 31, pp. 491-514.

Yoshikawa, H. Ohtaki, T. Hattori, H. Maeda, Y. Noguchi, A. Okada, H. (2007) “Seismic risk assessment and

expected damage evaluation of railway viaduct”. Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering.

Taylor & Francis Group, London.

12

- CIE619-Lecture16-ElementsSeismicDesign2Uploaded bybobmarley20161934
- treyiUploaded byKiran Koraddi
- ETABS Building Design ManualUploaded byAntuan Kouros
- Recent Enhancements _ SAP2000Uploaded byNazim KASSAB
- JCE_66_2014_8_1_1073_ENUploaded byDave Thompson
- Non-Linear Pushover Analysis of Flatslab Building by Using SAP2000Uploaded byrashidking
- Confined Masonry Buildings.pdfUploaded bykissistvan
- r6.pdfUploaded byUsman Afzal
- Be HairyUploaded byBehairy Ahmed
- Seismic performance of a 3D full-scale high-ductile steel–concrete part2Uploaded byZsolt Nagy
- DBDsoft User ManualUploaded bypouyamh
- Project 2 Structure 10-31-17Uploaded byMaria Higgins
- EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN.pdfUploaded bygavisita123
- Amplification of Accidental Torsion When Using Dynamic Analysis as Per ASCE-7-05 - Computers and Structures_ ETABS - Eng-TipsUploaded byAnonymous xcFcOgMi
- Volume 2Uploaded byCharleneKronstedt
- 8.Effect of masonry infills on seismic performance of a 3-storey rc frame with non-seismic detailingUploaded byapi-3869476
- 13 4000 Seimic Design Mexico OrdazUploaded bythoren
- Seismic Design to EC8 - L3Uploaded byChamil Mahagamage
- 2000 IBC Handbook Seismic & WindUploaded bycristinelb
- ProjectPOCTI Numerical ModelsUploaded byAlex Cristea
- kareem's cvUploaded byKareem Abdelaziz
- Vulnerability of Buildings to Seismic Hazards is More Drastic in Developing Countries With High SeismicityUploaded byRamana Reddy
- Shear Wall Design 143Uploaded byclarkgagui
- Release Note Gen2012(v3 1)Uploaded bymohammed_fathelbab
- ML11231A205. Indice Capitulo 3Uploaded bydavid david david
- 10.5923.c.jce.201402.33Uploaded bySaurabh Pednekar
- 1-s2.0-S1877705811012781-mainUploaded byAdwin Tri Sujiono Putra
- Otc 23025Uploaded byRasheed Yusuf
- K25Uploaded byprotal7351
- manpower_SCHEDULE[1].xlsxUploaded byFritz Natividad

- Metal Kompozitni MostoviUploaded byEdin Mahmutović
- cwrUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- MK4 POT Bearing BrochureUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- 10.1680_istbu.1996.28156Uploaded byRamón Iribarren
- Basic of Structural DesignUploaded bySimonas Janulaitis
- Footbridge VibrationUploaded byandrea
- Track BridgeInteractionProblemsinHighSpeedBridgeDesignUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- CTT Pot Bearings(2)Uploaded byJames Clayton
- Bridge Design w ECs RAOUL 20121002-IspraUploaded byshakirhamid6687
- JRC Report Existing Structures - JRC izvješće o postojećim građevinama i pravilima za njihUploaded byapgrad
- 2015 JBEVehicle InducedLateralVibrationofRailwayBridges AnAnalytical SolutionApproachUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- Sagging in Pier CapUploaded byChiranjaya Hulangamuwa
- NLTH-11Uploaded bymgdario
- Guide for Dynamic Report Generator_endsfsdfsdfsdfsdfUploaded bymtech structures
- B2B TutorialUploaded byArnel Kirk
- Varese06_JAC1.pdfUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- H-S-Steel-Bridges.pdfUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- 4776-63-02.pdfUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- 0129.pdfUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- Eurocode 4Uploaded byleodegarioporral
- Structural-Detailing-For-Architecture-Building-and-Civil-Engineering.pdfUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- 0720A_Calculationcomposite_Eurocode3_4Uploaded byMagno Alexandru
- 31504077-Eurocode-3-1-5-2007-ENUploaded bymahmoodseraji
- Effects of Influence Generating Points for Moving LoadUploaded byRamón Iribarren
- CTT Elastomeric BearingsUploaded byjajaytt
- Czech MIDAS Techtalk Rail Structure Interaction AnalysisUploaded byMohd Faizal
- Bruno Thürlimann Auth. a Case for Partial PrestressingUploaded bySony Jsd

- Bradley Eye Wash Manual S19224Uploaded byjack
- March_2013_1363612149_829fa_71Uploaded byLijo lal
- LE-TRA - Config Guide for Shipment & Shipment Cost Document - PUploaded byedixonruiz
- Method_Statement_Bored_Pile.docUploaded byShuvro Chakravorty
- weweqeUploaded bySaravanan Reddy
- Rac AssignmntUploaded bylukesh singh
- qh331hs_techspec_rev2Uploaded byFlorin Hangan
- Section 01 Introduction to the (1)Uploaded bypaul
- 2008 Later Touring,TT418[1]Uploaded byInvestor Protection
- Relay Testing & Calibration 2015-16Uploaded bySasiKumar Sivathangavelu
- Combi-WR4Uploaded byMA Totalforklift
- 01 LiftEquip General-catalogue EnUploaded byMustafa Temel
- YME04-REN-Z-FD-0009 Yme New Development Generic Basis of Design_01Uploaded byLionel
- Battery Charging Current & Battery Charging Time FormulaUploaded byMARSHAL
- Repair and Rehabilitation of Structures - Lecture Notes, Study Materials and Important questions answersUploaded byBrainKart Com
- RT9173Uploaded byduplakave30
- February 2009 IssueUploaded byKathleen Lappe
- Introduction of Tilt-Up Construction and Details of ConnectionUploaded byJustin Corbett
- Lean Tpm o Seis SigmaUploaded byJorge Ortiz
- Improving the Performance of PEM Fuel Cell by Varying the Number of Flow ChannelsUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- 8488690 Offshore Technical Safety FAQUploaded byMugesh
- WCB Factory Supply Crossed Roller BearingUploaded byWCB BEARING
- Certificado Poliuretano DOW - 13 Mayo 2017Uploaded byIrene Carrillo
- 2010 Chevrolet Camaro OwnersUploaded byerjenkins1
- Erection & Installation ProcedureUploaded byForos Isc
- KANYA PVS Product News - Summer 2010Uploaded byjames2271
- Fibre Optic Automatic Fusion SplicerUploaded byFrancis Gnanaraj
- Alan Heap-improving Site Productivity Intheconstruction Industry - IloUploaded byAfris Ramadhan
- Fundamentals of Cad CamUploaded byKrista Jackson
- 010_e1_glazingsealUploaded bynicommercials