Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of seismic demands and fragilities of bridge columns using equivalent-linear and nonlinear site response analyses

  • Yewon Park (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University) ;
  • Minsun Kim (Safety Innovation and Disaster Prevention Research Division, Korea Expressway Corporation Research Institute) ;
  • Jong-Su Jeon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University)
  • Received : 2025.08.02
  • Accepted : 2025.09.05
  • Published : 2025.11.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

One-dimensional site response analyses have been widely employed to estimate the amplification of ground motions as the motions propagate from the bedrock to the ground surface. The two primary approaches for site response analysis are equivalent-linear and nonlinear analyses. The former is commonly utilized in practice because of its simplicity and low computational cost, whereas the latter is more complex, but better at capturing realistic soil behaviors under strong ground motions. Thus, the results of equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analyses are expected to diverge under high-intensity ground motions. This study aimed to compare the seismic demands of bridge columns subjected to free-field motion generated using the two site response analyses. To this end, a series of nonlinear dynamic analyses of a bridge system was performed using 319 ground motions obtained from each site response analysis method. Subsequently, the maximum and residual drift ratios of the bridge column were compared, and their fragility curves were developed in terms of the maximum drift ratio. For site classes D and E, the average maximum drift ratios of the bridge column under the ground motions obtained from the equivalent linear analysis were approximately 1.40-1.49 times higher than those from the nonlinear approach. Similarly, the average residual drift ratios obtained using equivalent-linear-based ground motions were approximately 1.53-3.77 times higher than those obtained using nonlinear-based ground motions. Column fragility curves subjected to equivalent-linear-based ground motions showed 7%-12% higher exceedance probabilities compared with the nonlinear-based ground motions.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. RS-2024-00350220).

References

  1. Ali, S.B., Liang, Y., Yan, L., Chen, P., Shu, J. and Guan, P. (2025), "Seismic performance and vulnerability analysis of ECC and HSREC bridge piers with high-strength steel bars", Earthq. Struct., 29(2), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2025.29.2.153.
  2. Arslan, H. and Siyahi, B. (2006), "A comparative study on linear and nonlinear site response analysis", Environ. Geol., 50(8), 1193-1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0291-4.
  3. Aviram, A., Mackie, K.R. and Stojadinovic, B. (2008), "Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California", Technical Reports No. PEER 2008/03; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley, CA, USA.
  4. Baker, J.W., Lin, T., Shahi, S.K. and Jayaram, N. (2011), "New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program", Technical Report No. PEER Report 2011-03; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley, CA, USA.
  5. Bandini, P.A.C., Siqueira, G.H., Padgett, J.E. and Paultre, P. (2022), "Seismic performance assessment of a retrofitted bridge with natural rubber isolators in cold weather environments using fragility surfaces", J. Bridge Eng., 27(6), 04022040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001873.
  6. Belvaux, M., Macau, A., Figueras, S., Goula, X. and Susagna, T. (2015), "Recorded ground motion and estimated soil amplification for the 11 May 2011 Lorca earthquake", Earthq. Spectra, 31(4), 2301-2323. https://doi.org/10.1193/122212EQS354M.
  7. Bhusal, B., Aaqib, M., Paudel, S. and Parajuli, H.R. (2022), "Site specific seismic hazard analysis of monumental site Dharahara, Kathmandu, Nepal", Geomat. Nat. Hazard. Risk, 13(1), 2674-2696. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2022.2130109.
  8. Boore, D.M., Gibbs, J.F. and Rodriguez, M. (2003), "A compendium of P- and S-wave velocities from surface-toborehole logging: Summary and reanalysis of previously published data and analysis of unpublished data", No. 2003-191; US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
  9. Cornell, A.C., Jalayer, F. and Hamburger, R.O. (2002), "Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines", J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 128(4), 526-532. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526).
  10. Darendeli, M.B. (2001), "Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves", Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
  11. Deng, X., Li, Z., Lai, X., Liang, T. and Zhu, Y. (2025), "Fragility analysis of a reinforced concrete frame structure subject to multi-dimensional earthquakes of different-durations", Earthq. Struct., 28(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2025.28.2.161.
  12. Dukes, J., Mangalathu, S., Padgett, J.E. and DesRoches, R. (2018), "Development of a bridge-specific fragility methodology to improve the seismic resilience of bridges", Earthq. Struct., 15(3), 253-261. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.3.253.
  13. Dutta, A. (1999), "On energy-based seismic analysis and design of highway bridges", Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA.
  14. Goulet, C.A., Kishida, T., Ancheta, T.D., Cramer, C.H., Darragh, R.B., Silva, W.J. and Youngs, R.R. (2021), "PEER NGA-East database", Earthq. Spectra, 37(1 Suppl.), 1331-1353. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211015695.
  15. Griffiths, S.C., Cox, B.R. and Rathje, E.M. (2016), "Challenges associated with site response analyses for soft soils subjected to high-intensity input ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 85, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.03.008.
  16. Hashash, Y.M.A., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., Ilhan, O., Xing, G., Numanoglu, O., Groholski, D.R, Philips, C. and Park D. (2020), DEEPSOIL 7 User Manual, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Urbana, IL, USA. http://deepsoil.cee.illinois.edu/
  17. Hwang, H., Lee, C.S. and Ng, K.W. (1990), "Soil effects on earthquake ground motions in the Memphis area", Technical Report No. NCEER 90-0029, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
  18. Kaklamanos, J., Baise, L.G., Thompson, E.M. and Dorfmann, L. (2015), "Comparison of 1D linear, equivalent-linear, and nonlinear site response models at six KiK-net validation sites", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 69, 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.016.
  19. Karapetrou, S.T., Fotopoulou, S.D. and Pitilakis, K.D. (2015), "Seismic vulnerability assessment of high-rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil-structure interaction effects", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 73, 42-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.016.
  20. Kayen, R., Carkin, B., Minasian, D. and Tinsley, J. (2005), "Shear wave velocity of the ground near southern California TRINET sites using the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) method and parallel-arrayed harmonic-wave sources", Report No. 2005-1365; US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
  21. Kim, B., Hashash, Y.M.A., Stewart, J.P., Rathje, E.M., Harmon, J.A., Musgrove, M.I., Campbell, K.W. and Silva, W.J. (2016), "Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses", Earthq. Spectra, 32(3), 1845-1865. https://doi.org/10.1193/051215EQS068M.
  22. Kramer, S.L. (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  23. Li, Z., Deng, X., Lai, X., Li, J. and Zhi, Y. (2025), "Fragility analysis of RC frame structure subject to mainshock-aftershock sequences based on logistic regression", Earthq. Struct., 29(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2025.29.1.067.
  24. Liang, Y., Shu, J.X., Zhao, C.X., Wang, X.D. and Yang, G.Y. (2024), "Seismic fragility analysis of corroded RC pier strengthened by engineered cementitious composites", Earthq. Struct., 26(4), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2024.26.4.269.
  25. Liang, Y., Wei, Y.Y., Tong, M.N. and Cui, Y.K. (2023), "Timedependent seismic risk analysis of high-speed railway bridges considering material durability effects", Earthq. Struct., 24(4), 275-288. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2023.24.4.275.
  26. Mangalathu, S., Hwang, S.H., Choi, E. and Jeon, J.S. (2019), "Rapid seismic damage evaluation of bridge portfolios using machine learning techniques", Eng. Struct., 201, 109785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109785.
  27. Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J.S. and Jiang, J. (2018), "Skew adjustment factors for fragilities of California box-girder bridges subjected to near-fault and far-field ground motions", J. Bridge Eng., 24(1), 04018110. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001338.
  28. Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J.S., Padgett, J.E. and DesRoches, R. (2016), "ANCOVA-based grouping of bridge classes for seismic fragility assessment", Eng. Struct., 123, 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.05.054.
  29. Mangalathu, S., Karthikeyan, K., Feng, D.C. and Jeon, J.S. (2022), "Machine-learning interpretability techniques for seismic performance assessment of infrastructure systems", Eng. Struct., 250, 112883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112883.
  30. Matasović, N. and Vucetic, M. (1993), "Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands", J. Geotech. Eng., 119(11), 1805-1822. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:11(1805).
  31. McKay, M.D., Conover, W.J. and Beckman, R.J. (1979), "A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code", Technometr., 21(2), 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1979.10489755.
  32. McKenna, F. (2011), "OpenSees: A framework for earthquake engineering simulation", Comput. Sci. Eng., 13(4), 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.66.
  33. NEHRP (1994), Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings: Part I—Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
  34. Nielson, B.G. and DesRoches, R. (2007), "Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the Central and Southeastern United States", Earthq. Spectra, 23(3), 615-633. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2756815.
  35. Ozsarac, V. and Monteiro, R. (2022), "Influence of local-site effects on the seismic assessment of a reinforced concrete bridge", Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Earthquake Engineering & Seismology, Bucharest, Romania, September.
  36. Phillips, C. and Hashash, Y.M.A. (2009), "Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 29(9), 1143-1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.01.004.
  37. Ramanathan, K., Jeon, J.S., Zakeri, B., DesRoches, R. and Padgett, J.E. (2015), "Seismic response prediction and modeling considerations for curved and skewed concrete box-girder bridges", Earthq. Struct., 9(6), 1153-1179. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.6.1153.
  38. Ramanathan, K.N. (2012), "Next generation seismic fragility curves for California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design philosophy", Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  39. Rodríguez, J., Khan, S., Riyadh, M.M., Bruton, D. and Alam, M.S. (2022), "Assessment of the seismic behavior of short-tomedium overall length girder bridges under asynchronous ground motions", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 162, 107446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107446.
  40. Shamsabadi, A., Khalili-Tehrani, P., Stewart, J.P. and Taciroglu, E. (2010), "Validated simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments with typical backfills", J. Bridge Eng., 15(3), 302-311. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000058.
  41. Silacheva, N., Kulbayeva, U. and Kravchenko, N. (2014), "Seismic ground motion variations resulting from site conditions", Geodesy Geodyn., 5(2), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1246.2014.02009.
  42. Tan, K., Razak, H.A., Suhatri, M. and Lu, D. (2014), "Fragility curves of a RC frame building subjected to seismic ground motions", J. Civil Eng. Res., 4(3A), 159-163. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.jce.20140402.28.
  43. Thompson, E.M., Kayen, R.E., Carkin, B. and Tanaka, H. (2010), "Surface-wave site characterization at 53 strong-motion recording stations affected by the Parkfield, California, M6.0 earthquake of 28 September 2004", Technical Report No. 2010-1168; US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
  44. Wang, Z. (2008), "A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States", J. Earth Syst. Sci., 117, 749-756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0060-8.
  45. Xu, J.G., Feng, D.C., Mangalathu, S. and Jeon, J.S. (2022), "Datadriven rapid damage evaluation for life-cycle seismic assessment of regional reinforced concrete bridges", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 51(14), 3067-3085. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3699.
  46. Zhang, J., Yang, Z., Yuan, D., Zheng, S. and Hu, Y. (2021), "Seismic response of two site models and their effects on the railway cable-stayed bridge", KSCE J. Civil Eng., 25(12), 4724-4741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1990-9.