4.6 Article

Methodology for the development of bridge-specific fragility curves

Journal

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 73-93

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2774

Keywords

bridges; fragility curves; damage states; uncertainty analysis; nonlinear analysis; loss estimation; road network

Funding

  1. European Union (European Social Fund - ESF)
  2. Greek national funds through the Operational Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new methodology for the development of bridge-specific fragility curves is proposed with a view to improving the reliability of loss assessment in road networks and prioritising retrofit of the bridge stock. The key features of the proposed methodology are the explicit definition of critical limit state thresholds for individual bridge components, with consideration of the effect of varying geometry, material properties, reinforcement and loading patterns on the component capacity; the methodology also includes the quantification of uncertainty in capacity, demand and damage state definition. Advanced analysis methods and tools (nonlinear static analysis and incremental dynamic response history analysis) are used for bridge component capacity and demand estimation, while reduced sampling techniques are used for uncertainty treatment. Whereas uncertainty in both capacity and demand is estimated from nonlinear analysis of detailed inelastic models, in practical application to bridge stocks, the demand is estimated through a standard response spectrum analysis of a simplified elastic model of the bridge. The simplified methodology can be efficiently applied to a large number of bridges (with different characteristics) within a road network, by means of an ad hoc developed software involving the use of a generic (elastic) bridge model, which derives bridge-specific fragility curves. Copyright (c) 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available