Three locomotives that overturned (toppled) during strong earthquakes (>6.5M) are used as computer analytical case studies. The locomotives were at rest or traveling very slowly at the time of the earthquakes. Fragility curves are presented relating ground shaking intensity to likelihood of toppling. Supplemental studies determine the influence of various parameters, including track gauge, damping, sway-roll period, and size effect. The shaking intensities necessary for standard gauge (56.5 in) locomotives to topple are much greater than the median intensities of 2475-year earthquakes representative of those in high seismic regions of the western United States. A general conclusion is that standard gauge locomotives at rest are not susceptible to toppling in such earthquakes (≪50% chance). This can be expected to be the case as well for freight and passenger cars having sizes and slenderness similar to the case study locomotives. The study also provides insights about the toppling fragility of other large unanchored objects having similar proportions.
AnooshehpoorAHeatonTHShiBBruneJN (1999) Estimates of the ground accelerations at Point Reyes Station during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America89(4): 845–853.
2.
Association of American Railroads (2014) Minimum Loading Standards for Freight in General Purpose Boxcars. Pueblo, CO: Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
3.
BakerJLinTShahiSJayaramN (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. PEER report 2011/03, March. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
ByersWG (2004) Railroad lifeline damage in earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August, paper 324.
6.
CloughRPenzienJ (1975) Dynamics of Structures (Section 2-6). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2003) HAZUS MR4 Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology. Washington, DC: FEMA.
9.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Technical report FEMA P-695. Washington, DC: FEMA.
10.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2018) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Technical report FEMA P-58-1. Washington, DC: FEMA.
11.
HousnerGW (1963) The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America53(2): 403–417.
12.
JankowskiR (2010) Experimental study on earthquake-induced pounding between structural elements made of different building materials. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics39: 343–354.
KayenRCollinsBAbrahamsonNAshfordSBrandenbergSJCluffLDickensonSJohnsonLTanakaYTokimatsuKKabeyasawaTKawamataYKoumotoHMarubashiNPujolSSteeleCSunJITsaiBYanevPYashinskyMYousokK (2007) Investigation of the M6.6 Niigata-Chuetsu Oki, Japan, earthquake of July 16, 2007. US Geological Survey open file report 2007–1365. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1365/ (accessed 30 April 2020).
15.
MakrisN (2014a) A half-century of rocking isolation. Earthquakes and Structures7(6): 1187–1221.
16.
MakrisN (2014b) The role of the rotational inertia on the seismic resistance of free-standing rocking columns and articulated frames. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2226–2239.
17.
MakrisNKampasG (2016) Size versus slenderness: Two competing parameters in the seismic stability of free standing rocking columns. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(1): 104–122.
18.
MakrisNRoussosY (1998) Rocking response and overturning of equipment under horizontal pulse-type motions. Report PEER-1998/05, October. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
NewmarkNM (1962) A method of computation for structural dynamics, transactions. American Society of Civil Engineers127: 1406–1432.
21.
PenderJMRobertsonTW (eds) (1987) Edgecombe earthquake: Reconnaissance report. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering20(3): 201–249.
22.
PorterK (2011) Fragility of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing equipment considering installation conditions. FEMA P-58/BD-3.9.10. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
23.
SomervillePSmithNPunyamurthulaSSunJ (1997) Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project. Background document report no. SAC/BD-97/04, October. Sacramento, CA: Sac Joint Venture.
24.
SorrentinoLMasianiRDecaniniLD (2006) Overturning of rocking rigid bodies under transient ground motions. Structural Engineering and Mechanics22(3): 293–310.
25.
VassiliouMFTrunigerRStojadinovicB (2015) An analytical model of a deformable cantilever structure rocking on a rigid surface: Development and verification. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics44(15): 2775–2794.
26.
VeeraraghavanSHeatonTHKrishnanS (2015) Lower bounds on ground motion at Point Reyes during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake from train toppling analysis. Seismological Research Letters90(2A): 683–691.
27.
WaldDJQuitorianoVHeatonTHKanamoriH (1999) Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra15(3): 557.
WuHShuXWilsonN (2005) Flange climb derailment criteria and wheel/rail profile management and maintenance guidelines for transit operations. TCRP report 71, vol. 5. Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), National Academy of Science.
30.
YimC-SYChopraAPenzienJ (1980) Rocking response of rigid blocks to earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics8: 565–587.
