Seismic fragility and life-cycle loss analyses of high-speed railway bridges supported by segmentally assembled round-end hollow piers

Abstract

The shortcomings of segmentally assembled round-end hollow-section piers (SRHPs), such as weak segment joints and poor energy-dissipation capacity, have limited their application in high-intensity carthquake regions. Therefore, this article particularly focuses on the seismic performance of SRHPs. Three high-speed railway bridges are designed, which are equipped with three different types of round-end hollow-section piers (RHPs): cast-in situ RHP (CRHP), segmentally assembled RHP with energy-dissipation bar (E-SRHP), and segmentally assembled RHP with low-yield point steel connection buckles (L-SRHP). Subsequently, three nonlinear finite element models of the corresponding bridges were established and validated by quasi-static test results. Furthermore, compared to CRHP, the seismic performance of E-SRHP and L-SRHP was evaluated from the perspectives of seismic fragility and life-cycle seismic loss. Research results revealed that the seismic fragility performance of the bridge with L-SRHP is the best among all three bridges, followed by the bridge with E-SRHP. Notably, the life-cycle cost considering seismic loss for E-SRHP is 83% of that for CRHP, whereas L-SRHP is only 65% of that for CRHP. In general, the high-speed railway bridge supported by L-SRHP possesses the best seismic performance and economic benefits among the three bridges, which shows promising application prospects in high-intensity earthquake-prone regions.

Keywords

high-speed railway bridge / life cycle / segmentally assembled round-end hollow-section pier / seismic fragility / seismic isolation / seismic loss

References

[1] ElGawady MA, Dawood HM. Analysis of segmental piers consisted of concrete filled FRP tubes. Eng Struct. 2012;38:142-152.

[2] Yang C, Okumus P, Ren R. A hysteretic model for self-centering precast concrete piers with varying shear-slip between segments. Eng Struct. 2019;188:350-361.

[3] Dawood H, ElGawady M, Hewes J. Behavior of segmental precast posttensioned bridge piers under lateral loads. J Bridge Eng. 2012;17(5):735-746.

[4] Hung HH, Sung YC, Lin KC, Jiang CR, Chang KC. Experimental study and numerical simulation of precast segmental bridge columns with semi-rigid connections. Eng Struct. 2017;136:12-25.

[5] Roh H, Reinhorn AM. Hysteretic behavior of precast segmental bridge piers with superelastic shape memory alloy bars. Eng Struct. 2010;32(10):3394-3403.

[6] Salehi M, Sideris P, Liel AB. Numerical simulation of hybrid sliding-rocking columns subjected to earthquake excitation. J Struct Eng. 2017;143(11):04017149.

[7] Kim TH, Lee HM, Kim YJ, Shin HM. Performance assessment of precast concrete segmental bridge columns with a shear resistant connecting structure. Eng Struct. 2010;32(5):1292-1303.

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

[9] ElGawady M, Booker AJ, Dawood HM. Seismic behavior of posttensioned concrete-filled fiber tubes. J Comp Constr. 2010;14(5):616-628.

[10] Hewes JT. Seismic Design and Performance of Precast Concrete Segmental Bridge Columns. University of California;2002.

[11] Shim CS, Chung CH, Kim HH. Experimental evaluation of seismic performance of precast segmental bridge piers with a circular solid section. Eng Struct. 2008;30(12):3782-3792.

[12] Mehrsoroush A, Saiidi MS. Cyclic response of precast bridge piers with novel column-base pipe pins and pocket cap beam connections. J Bridge Eng. 2016;21(4):04015080.

[13] Billington SL, Yoon JK. Cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned precast columns with ductile fiber-reinforced concrete. J Bridge Eng. 2004;9(4):353-363.

[14] Chou CC, Chen YC. Cyclic tests of post-tensioned precast CFT segmental bridge columns with unbonded strands. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2006;35(2):159-175.

[15] Shim C, Lee S, Park S, Koem C. Experiments on prefabricated segmental bridge piers with continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars. Eng Struct. 2017;132:671-683.

[16] ElGawady MA, Sha’lan A. Seismic behavior of self-centering precast segmental bridge bents. J Bridge Eng. 2011;16(3):328-339.

[17] Yang C, Okumus P. Ultrahigh-performance concrete for posttensioned precast bridge piers for seismic resilience. J Struct Eng. 2017;143(12):04017161.

[18] Sideris P, Aref AJ, Filiatrault A. Large-scale seismic testing of a hybrid sliding-rocking posttensioned segmental bridge system. J Struct Eng. 2014;140(6):1-15.

[19] Cha KR, Seo J, Kim S, Kang YJ, Won D. Cyclic response of a precast composite hollow reinforced concrete column using longitudinal rebars and base plate. Struct Concr. 2018;19(3):758-770.

[20] Ou YC, Chiewanichakorn M, Aref AJ, Lee GC. Seismic performance of segmental precast unbonded posttensioned concrete bridge columns. J Struct Eng. 2007;133(11):1636-1647.

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

[22] Li S, Zhao T, Alam MS, Cheng Z, Wang J. Probabilistic seismic vulnerability and loss assessment of a seismic resistance bridge system with post-tensioning precast segmental ultra-high performance concrete bridge columns. Eng Struct. 2020;225:111321.

[23] Li Z. Experimental and Numerical Analysis Study on Seismic Performance of Segmental Assembled Round End Hollow Piers. MSc Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University;2021.

[24] Spacone E. Flexibility-Based Finite Element Models for the Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Frame Structures. PhD Thesis, University of California;1994.

[25] Zhou L, Alam MS. Seismic reliability-based assessment and design optimization of shape memory alloy bars in concrete bridge piers. Eng. Struct. 2025;322:119226.

[26] Wu W. Seismic Fragility of Reinforced Concrete Bridges With Consideration of Various Sources of Uncertainty. PhD Thesis, Hunan University;2016.

[27] Railway Industry Standards of the People’s Republic of China. TB/T 2331-2013, Pot Bearings for Railway Bridges, 2013.

[28] Yang M, Pan Z, Qiao J, et al. Influence of train braking force on seismic pounding effect of a high-speed railway simply supported bridge. J Vib Shock. 2014;33(15):167-173.

[29] Guo W, Wang Y, Ge C, et al. Seismic failure features of multi-span simply supported girder bridges of high-speed railway under near-fault earthquake. J Vib Shock. 2020;39(17):210-218.

[30] Liang Y, Yan J, Ban Y, et al. Analysis of calculation method for seismic fragility index of multi span continuous rigid frame bridge. J Rly Sci Eng. 2019;16(6):1466-1475.

[31] Zhen Y. Research on Seismic Performance of Coastal Bridges Considered Coupling Effects of Seismic Action and Resistance Deterioration. PhD Thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology;2013.

[32] Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng. 2002;128(4):526-533.

[33] Mackie K, Stojadinovic B. Seismic Demands for Performance-Based Design of Bridges, PEER Report 2003-16. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California;2003.

[34] Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct. 2004;26(2):187-199.

[35] Yan Y, Xia Y, Sun L. Hierarchical and mixed uncertainty quantification for simulation-based structural seismic fragility analysis. Eng Struct. 2024;316:118579.

[36] Yan Y, Huang H, Sun L. Multivariate structural seismic fragility analysis and comparative study based on moment estimation surrogate model and Gaussian copula function. Eng Struct. 2022;262:114324.

[37] Zhou L, Alam MS, Dong Y, Feng R. Seismic resilience assessment of extended pile shaft supported coastal bridges considering scour and uniform corrosion effects. Eng Struct. 2024;304:117643.

[38] Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO. Structural Reliability Methods. Wiley;1996:1-59.

[39] Padgett JE, DesRoches R. Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks. Earthquake Spectra. 2007;23(1):115-130.

[40] Zheng Y, Dong Y. Performance-based assessment of bridges with steel-SMA reinforced piers in a life-cycle context by numerical approach. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2019;17(3):1667-1688.

[41] GB 50111-2006. Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering. China Planning Press;2009.

[42] Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1968;58(5):1583-1606.

[43] Mander JB. Fragility Curve Development for Assessing the Seismic Vulnerability of Highway Bridges. Universtiy at Buffalo, State University of New York;1999.

[44] China State Railway Administration. TZJ 1001-2017 Method of Work Out of Budgetary Estimate of Design of Railroad Capital Works. China Railway Press;2017.

[45] China State Railway Administration. TZJ 3001-2017 Cost Quota of Budgetary Estimate of Design of Railroad Capital Works. China Railway Press;2017.

[46] Jiang M. Research on Interference Cost in the Construction of Railway-Related Project. MSc Thesis, Guangxi University;2019.

[47] China Railway Nanchang Bureau Group Co., Ltd. Management Measures for Local Railway Related Project of Nanchang Bureau Group Co. Ltd;2018. https://max.book118.com/html/2019/1214/5033222132002211.shtm

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

[49] Gencturk B. Life-cycle cost assessment of RC and ECC frames using structural optimization. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 2012;42(1):61-79.

[50] Feng L, Wang L, Fan Y, et al. Research on seismic isolation schemes of high-speed railway continuous girder bridge based on life cycle cost. Eng Sci Technol. 2020;52(05):161-169.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 Tianjlin University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.