Seismic reliability analysis of bridge structures during and succeeding an earthquake event is of significant importance. The more accurate and robust approach of seismic reliability analysis is based on direct Monte Carlo simulation technique. But it is computationally challenging due to the requirement of large number of nonlinear time history analyses. The response surface method–based metamodeling approach is a viable alternative in such situation. This study explores the advantage of moving least squares method–based adaptive response surface method compared to the usually applied least squares method–based response surface method for improved seismic reliability analysis of multi-span bridge pier. The nonlinear time history analyses of the bridge pier are performed in the OpenSees with fibre sections considering a ground motion bin corresponding to the specified hazard level of the bridge site. The seismic reliability analysis results obtained by the usual least squares method and the proposed moving least squares method–based response surface method are compared with that of obtained by more accurate direct Monte Carlo simulation technique to elucidate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
BooreDM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics160: 635–676.
2.
BucherCMostT (2008) A comparison of approximate response functions in structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics23: 154–163.
3.
BurattiNFerracutiBSavoiaM (2010) Response surface with random factors for seismic fragility of reinforced concrete frames. Structural Safety32(1): 42–51.
4.
Caltrans (2004) Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
5.
ChakrabortySBhattacharjyaSHaldarA (2012) Sensitivity importance-based robust optimization of structures with incomplete probabilistic information. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering90(10): 1261–1277.
6.
CimellaroGPReinhornAMD’AmbrisiAet al. (2011) Fragility analysis and seismic record selection. Journal of Structural Engineering137(3): 379–390.
7.
FangKTLinDKWinkerPet al. (2000) Uniform design: theory and application. Technometrics42(3): 237–248.
8.
FeliceDGGianniniR (2010) An efficient approach for seismic fragility assessment with application to old reinforced concrete bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering14(2): 231–251.
9.
FragiadakisFVamvatsikosDKarlaftisMGet al. (2015) Seismic assessment of structures and lifelines. Journal of Sound and Vibration334: 29–56.
10.
FranchinPLupoiAPintoPEet al. (2003) Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete structures using a response surface approach. Journal of Earthquake Engineering7(Suppl. 1): 45–77.
11.
GardoniPDer KiureghianAMosalamKM (2002) Probabilistic models and fragility estimates for bridge components and systems. PEER report no. 2002/13, June. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
12.
GaspariniDAVanmarckeEH (1976) SIMQKE a Program for Artificial Motion Generation, User’s Manual and Documentation (Publication R76–4). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
GhoshJPadgettJEDueñas-OsorioL (2013) Surrogate modeling and failure surface visualization for efficient seismic vulnerability assessment of highway bridges. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics34: 189–199.
14.
GhoshSChakrabortyS (2017) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and synthetic ground motion generation for seismic risk assessment of structures in the Northeast India. International Journal of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering8(2): 39–59.
15.
GhoshSGhoshSChakrabortyS (2016) Generation of seismic hazard curve and synthetic ground motion for the Northeastern region of India for performance based seismic risk assessment. In: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific symposium on structural reliability and its applications, Shanghai, China, 28–30 May.
16.
GhoshSGhoshSChakrabortyS (2017) Seismic fragility analysis in the probabilistic performance-based earthquake engineering framework: an overview. International Journal of Advances in Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics12: 1–4. DOI: 10.1007/s12572-017-0200-y
17.
GoswamiSGhoshSChakrabortyS (2016) Reliability analysis of structures by iterative improved response surface method. Structural Safety60: 56–66.
18.
Haussler-CombeUKornC (1998) An adaptive approach with the element-free-Galerkin method. Computer Methods and Applied Mechanics in Engineering162: 203–222.
19.
HoseYSilvaPSeibleF (2000) Development of a performance evaluation database for concrete bridge components and systems under simulated seismic loads. Earthquake Spectra16(2): 413–442.
20.
HurtadoJ (2007) Filtered importance sampling with support vector margin: a powerful method for structural reliability analysis. Structural Safety29: 2–15.
21.
HwangHHMHuoJR (1994) Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering13(5): 45–354.
22.
IRC 006:2014 (2014) Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges section: II loads and stresses.
23.
IS 1893:2016 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures.
24.
JiangYLuoJLiaoGet al. (2015) An efficient method for generation of uniform support vector and its application in structural failure function fitting. Structural Safety15: 541–549.
25.
KimCWangSChoiKK (2005) Efficient response surface modeling by using moving least-squares method and sensitivity. AIAA Journal43(1): 2404–2411.
26.
KimSHMariaQF (2003) Fragility analysis of bridges under ground motion with spatial variation. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics38(5): 705–721.
27.
KwonOSElnashaiAS (2006) The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Engineering Structures28(2): 289–303.
28.
LiHWangYLiLet al. (2016) Seismic fragility analysis of bridge by combining the uniform design method and response surface method. International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering106(12): 160–167.
LongXHFanBBYChenB (2015) Seismic fragility analysis of an isolated continuous girder bridge using the response surface method with random factors. Advances in Structural Engineering18(12): 2059–2073.
31.
MaYDengN (2000) Deep foundations. In: ChenWFDuanL (eds) Bridge Engineering Handbook. Boca Raton, pp. 183–233. FL: CRC Press.
32.
McKennaFFenevesGL (2005) Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
33.
MackieKStojadinovićB (2001) Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering6(6): 468–481.
34.
ManderJBPriestleyMJParkR (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering114(8): 1804–1826.
35.
MenegottoMPintoPE (1973) Method for analysis of cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: Proceedings of the IABSE symposium on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well-defined repeated loads, Lisbon.
MöllerORicardoOFRubinsteinMet al. (2009) Seismic structural reliability using different nonlinear dynamic response surface approximations. Structural Safety314: 32–42.
38.
MostTBucherC (2005) A moving least squares weighting function for the element-free Galerkin method which almost fulfils essential boundary condition. Structural Engineering and Mechanics21(3): 315–332.
39.
NielsonBG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
40.
PadgettJENielsonBGDes RochesRD (2008) Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics377: 11–25.
41.
PangYDangXYuanW (2014) An artificial neural network based method for seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges. Advances in Structural Engineering17(3): 413–428.
42.
ParkJTowashirapornP (2014) Rapid seismic damage assessment of railway bridges using the response-surface statistical model. Structural Safety47: 1–12.
43.
PintoPE (2001) Reliability methods in earthquake engineering. Progress in Structural Engineeing and Materials3: 76–85.
44.
JMP10 (2010) Design of Experiments Guide. 8th ed.Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
45.
SahaSKMatsagarVChakrabortyS (2016) Uncertainty quantification and seismic fragility of base-isolated liquid storage tanks using response surface models. Robabilistic Engineering Mechanics43: 20–35.
46.
SaragoniGRHartGC (1974) Simulation of artificial earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics22: 49–68.
47.
ScottBDParkRPriestleyMJN (1982) Stress–strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Journal79(1): 13–27.
48.
SeoJLinzelDG (2013) Use of response surface metamodels to generate system level fragilities for existing curved steel bridges. Engineering Structures52: 642–653.
SuHChenZWenZ (2016) Performance improvement method of support vector machine-based model monitoring dam safety. Structural Control and Health Monitoring23: 252–266.
