Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
cgomez@correo.azc.uam.mx
Consuelo Gmez Sobern, received
her Civil Engineering Degree from
the BUAP university (Mxico) and
her Master and Doctorate Degree
from the UNAM (Mxico) and
UPC (Spain) universities.
Summary
The Mexican Secretary for Communications and Transports (SCT) periodically applies an
evaluation procedure to define maintenance politics of highway bridges, named SIPUMEX. This is
a very general method which does not consider some important parameters needed to characterize
the seismic behavior in bridges. A modification of the SIPUMEX process is presented in this paper,
considering the addition of new evaluation parameters, based on the results of surveys made with
Mexican experts in this theme, or by eliminating some parameters used in the original methodology
that do not provide information about the bridges seismic vulnerability. The proposed procedure
was applied to a database of 79 highway bridges located next to the Mexican Pacific Coast. The
obtained results were compared with the ones calculated with a procedure available in the literature.
Keywords: Bridge seismic behavior; seismic vulnerability; maintenance procedure; RC bridges;
preliminary evaluations.
1. Introduction
Bridges are essential facilities in the highway systems, thus its correct and continued behavior is an
important aspect, specially after a mayor earthquake. The bridge collapse or its bad performance
could cause vehicular jamming, interruption of diverse economical activities, human lives decease,
or important economic lost. Because of these aspects, the maintenance procedures of bridges are a
topic considered in many researches in the last years.
The necessity of adequate maintenance and rehabilitation procedures was evident after the
Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes. Due to the action of these earthquakes, between
3% and 5% of the affected bridges suffer some degree of damage. In addition, the partial and total
collapse of some structures produce direct and indirect millionaire economic lost [1, 2, 3, and 4].
Some of the failures reported after these earthquakes were due to seismic resistant erroneous
configurations, deficiencies of design codes and structures with reduced capacity. With periodic and
reliable maintenance procedures, these possible failures can be detected before earthquakes and
strategies to reduce damage and economic lost could be defined.
The maintenance or rehabilitation procedures of bridges consider three principal aspects: (1)
preliminary evaluations, (2) detailed evaluations, and (3) definition of the actions to be realized.
The objective of the preliminary evaluation is to detect, between a numerous group of systems, the
structures with important reduction of its capacity. In the detailed or secondary evaluation,
meticulous analyses are realized to define the degradation degree of the elements characterized in
the preliminary evaluation. With the information defined in the above steps, decision tools are
available to propose specific maintenance, rehabilitation or reposition procedures.
There are various preliminary evaluation procedures available in the literature to define the seismic
vulnerability of bridges [5]. In general, these methods are based on the assignation of the seismic
susceptibility of different parameters and in their combination with a predefined model. In this form,
a global vulnerability index is assigned to each bridge in order to classify all the elements and to
detect the structures with important degradation. In this section, only two of these procedures are
described, one available in literature and the other used by the Secretary for Communications and
Transports (SCT) of Mxico.
Table 1 Parameters of the method of Kim
Parameter
Peak ground
acceleration
Design
specifications
Type of
superstructure
Shape of the
superstructure
Internal
hinges
Type of pier
Type of
foundation
Material of
the subsest.
Structural
irregularity
Soil condition
Liquefaction
Seat length
Category
1: PGA <0.1g;
2: 0.1g < PGA
< 0.2g;
3: 0.2g < PGA < 0.3g; 4: PGA > 0.3g
1: after 1981; 2: 1972-1980; 3: 19401971; 4: before 1940
1: cable-stayed, suspension, single span;
2: arc, monolithic girder, trusses;
3: continuous girder, trusses;
4: simple-supported girder and trusses,
multiple spans, elevated structures
1: straight;
2: skewed 20 - 45 or curved 40 - 90;
3: skewed 45 - 60 or curved 90 - 180;
4: > skewed 60 or curved 180
1: none; 2: yes, with cable restrainers or
seat length 12 ;
3: yes, with 6 < seat length < 12;
4: yes, with seat length < 6
1: monolithic multi-pier bent or solid;
2: pinned multi-pier bent;
3: monolithic single pier;
4: pinned single pier
1: single pier shaft; 2: spread footing;
3: piled footing; 4: pile bent
1: steel; 2: ductile concrete; 3: no-ductile
concrete; 4: timber, masonry, other old
materials
1: none; 2: any heights of 2 piers
1.25 times; 3: any adjacent heights of 2
piers more than 1.25 times; 4: any
adjacent pier heights more than 1.5
times
1, 2, 3 o 4 for different soil types
1: LSI* < 5; 2: 5 < LSI < 25;
3: 25 < LSI < 100; 4: LSI > 100
1: good; 2: fair; 3: poor; 4: very poor
W
0.141
0.456
0.114
0.437
0.089
0.029
0.024
0.034
0.278
0.188
0.932
0.512
*LSI = Youd and Perkins factor that characterize the effect of liquefaction
[6]
N d = 8 + 0.02 L + 0.08 L p
N d = 12 + 0.03 L + 0.12 L p
S p = Nd
PGA / 0.19
PGA 0.19 g
PGA > 0.19 g
(1)
(2)
The parameter Superstructure form is evaluated in the Kim method using the skewed, s, and
curvature, cur, angles. The variables are defined as is described in Equation 3, where i and p
are the initial and final skewed angles of the bridge, and CR is the curvature radio.
s = i f
(3)
cur = Lp / CR
Starting from the parameters of Table 1, Kim method proposes the two vulnerability index of
Equation 4. For these indexes, C = 3.84 is a constant defined for statistical calibrations of reports
of damaged bridges
(4)
12
IVK 1 = Yi Wi + C
i =1
IVK 2 = Y1 *
12
Y Wi
i =1 i
IVK1 Damage
IVK2
Damage degree
0
1
Without damage
Minor damage
< 1.5
1.5<IV<2.5
Minor damage
2
3
Moderate damage
Severe Damage
Collapse
Moderate damage
> 2.5
Mayor damage
Qualitative qualification
New or recent repaired bridge. Without problems
Bridge in well condition. Do not require attention
Bridge with minor problems, undefined period of
attention
Important damage, necessary reparation in a period of
3 to 5 years
Important damage, necessary rehabilitation in a period
of 1 to 2 years
Extreme damage or possible total collapse,
immediately rehabilitation
2. Modified procedure
However
the
SIPUMEX
methodology has the objective to
W
prevent degradation of the general
Year of construction
1: >1993; 2: 1985-1993; 3: 1977condition of bridges for normal
1985;
0.1154
operation, the procedure does not
4: 1959-1977; 5: 1959 <
evaluate the specific vulnerability of
Substructure
1: none;
seismic or hydraulic phenomenon.
irregularity
3: piers height 1.5 a 2 times;
Precise evaluations like these ones
5: piers height 5 times
0.1154
would produce more reliability
Superstructure
1: skewed: < 10;
estimations for better classification
irregularity
2: skewed: 10 < 30;
and regulation of rehabilitation and
3: skewed: 30 < 45;
maintenance programs. For these
5: skewed: > 45
0.1154
reasons, the method used by the SCT
Foundation
1: rock; 3: clay; 5: granular
0.1154
is modified to only evaluate the
Bridge importance
1: D road ; 2: C road;
seismic vulnerability of highway
3: B road ; 5: A road
0.0962
bridges of Mexico.
Seismic hazard
1: A zone; 2: B zone;
4: C zone; 5: D zone
0.1346
Initially, the parameters used by
Hinge
1: number of spans < 1;
SIPUMEX procedure, without direct
2: number of spans between 2 - 3; 0.0192
influence on bridges seismic
3: number of spans between 4 -5;
behavior, were eliminated; like
5: number of spans > 5
parapet,
embankments,
bridge
Type of abutments
1: with concrete wing wall;
surface, hydraulic capacity, etc. The
2: with concrete masonry wall;
former parameter is very important to
3: piles with concrete head;
characterize hydrological problems,
4: piles with masonry head;
but it does not have influence in the
5: no monolithic masonry or
estimation
of
the
seismic
footing over embankment
0.0384
vulnerability.
As
a
second
step,
new
Type of piers
1: solid concrete pier;
parameters
were
proposed,
starting
2: solid masonry pier;
from enquires to expert engineers in
3: single hammer column;
bridge behavior, from practice,
4: single column; 5: others
0.0769
academic
and
governmental
Types of bearings
1: slip bearing; 2: neoprene
institutions. In general, the experts
bearing;
0.0769
recommend a procedure with few
4: steel bearing; 5: steel plate
parameters and aspects of easy
Type of
1: unique span; 2: monolithic
superstructures
girders;
evaluation, to not produce a large and
3: continuous girder; 4: simply0.0769
difficult process.
supported girders; 5: multi-spans
The new parameters to be evaluated
Conservation state
1: maintenance action < 5 years;
include aged of the structure,
3: maintenance action > 5 years;
foundation type, bridge importance,
5: without maintenance
0.0577
conservation condition and seismic
hazard. For these parameters, the experts also indicate the seismic susceptibility categories and
Table 4 Parameters of the modified method
Parameter
Category
weights. For example, for the parameter antiquity, the experts select such as susceptibility category
the year of construction, the design code, or another parameter with a better description of the
bridge deterioration by its aged. The fragility values of the categories were limited between cero to
five, conform to the SIPUMEX format. Different criteria of experts were unified to define a unique
group of weights, using the solution of an equation of multiple variables.
The final procedure considers 12 parameters, with their categories and associated importance
weight, as they are shown in Table 4. In the assignation of the categories of some parameters, the
following aspects were applied:
o The Bridge importance parameter was evaluated by means of the type of road defined by
the SCT, considering A for highway, B for basic roads, C for secondary roads, and D for
communitarian roads.
o The categories of the Seismic hazard parameter are defined accord the four seismic hazard
zone of Mexico
o In the Type of pier parameter, the category others, with fragility of five, is assigned to
bridges were no data information is available. To one-span bridges, a fragility category of
cero is considered.
o If the necessary information for a parameter is not available, the greater fragility category
was assigned
o For all the parameters when some visual damage degree is observed in the visual inspection,
one or two additional fragility values are considered. For example, if there is a pier
evaluated with a fragility category of one and it shows concrete crushing or exposition of the
reinforced steel, a fragility category of two or three is assigned.
With the parameters, categories and weighs defined in Table 4, the fragility index of the modified
method is defined by
12
IVMG = Yi *Wi
(5)
i =1
where Yi is the category assigned to parameter i and Wi is its weight. The vulnerability index of
Equation 5 is grouping in five qualitative parameters, conform the SIPUMEX format. Vulnerability
indexes of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are considered for non vulnerable, slight vulnerable, moderate
vulnerable, vulnerable and very vulnerable, respectively.
Frecuency
100.0%
50
80.0%
40
60.0%
30
40.0%
20
20.0%
10
0
0.0%
1940
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Class
Frecuency
100.0%
40
80.0%
30
60.0%
20
40.0%
10
20.0%
0.0%
10.0
50.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
> 400
Class
Frecuency
100.0%
25
80.0%
20
60.0%
15
40.0%
10
20.0%
5
0
0.0%
1
14
Class
(d) Type
of pier
100.0%
Frecuency
40
80.0%
30
60.0%
20
40.0%
10
20.0%
0.0%
10
20
30
32
33
91
Class
4. Final commentaries
Table 5 Bridge classification. Kim method
Type of damage Frequency
Colima Michoacn
All
Without damage
Minor damage
Moderate damage
Severe damage
Collapse
9
10
32
28
0
6
4
13
13
0
3
6
19
15
0
3
33
0
0
0
4
38
1
0
0
7
71
1
0
0
The modification of the SIPUMEX method is based on including important parameters to estimate
the seismic vulnerability, such as seismic hazard, and to eliminate parameters that do not describe
the fragility of the structures during a seismic action. The new parameters included in the method
were defined by means of experts enquires. With this information a preliminary procedure to define
the seismic fragility of bridges is proposed.
With a database of 79 bridges, located in a Mexican seismic hazard zone, two simplify methods of
evaluation of the seismic fragility were applied. The methods considered are the proposed one, the
modified SIPUMEX method, and the Kim procedure (methodology available in the literature). The
results show that important discrepancies with these two methods are obtained in the bridge seismic
susceptibility classification. This is due to the fact that each method considers different parameters
and weights assigned to the parameters. Keeping in mind the limited reports of damaged bridges in
Mexico in last earthquakes, the results obtained with the SIPUMEX modified method are
considered more consistent. However, it is known that these methods do not have physical rigorous
analyses.
In the application of preliminary methods for the evaluation of the bridges seismic vulnerability, it
is important to consider simplified procedures, with easy evaluations, reliable and invariable results.
The Kim and modified SIPUMEX methods are based on subjective estimations and different results
could be obtained, as it is presented in this paper. So, it is important to consider some modifications
of this type of methods without change its simple application. Actually, for some parameters of the
modified SIPUMEX procedure, elastic evaluations were realized to define the importance of the
parameters categories in the structure seismic behavior. The importance of each category of each
parameter is defined analyzing the statistical variation of maximum displacement of the bridge
elements. With these analyses, is considered that the same modified SIPUMEX methodology could
be applied; only changing the category and weight values. So a simple procedure, based on the
physics of the problem will be formalized.
5. References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
MOHELE, J. P., Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994: reconnaissance report Volume 1
Highway bridges and traffic management, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, supplement c, 1996,
pp: 557-566.
HOUSNER, G. W. and THEIR Jr. c. c., The continuing challenge: report of the performance
of state bridges in the Northridge earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1995, pp:
607-636.
NAKAJIMA, H., Seismic performance and repair of mayor steel bridges on the Hanshing
Expressway, Japan, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2024,
1996, Mxico.
PINTO, A. V., The Kobe earthquake (January 17, 1995). Damage on RC bridges. Technical
report: Semi-rigid behavior of Civil Engineering Structural Conections COST C1, ISSN
1018-5593, 1999.
GMEZ SOBERN, C., Riesgo ssmico de puentes de hormign armado de seccin cajn y
vanos mltiples, PhD Thesis, Escuela de Caminos, Canales y Puertos de Barcelona,
Universidad Politcnica de Catalua, 2002.
REN, S. and. GAUS, M. P., GIS tools for regional bridge seismic risk assessment,
Technical report GIS-2 Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 1996.
DGCC, General Direction of Highways Conservation of the Secretary of Communications
and Transports of Mxico, Web page http://dgcc.sct.gob.mx., 2006.
GMEZ SOBERN, C., BARRERA BAUTISTA L. A. and MIRANDA CID D.,
Metodologa de estimacin preliminar de la vulnerabilidad de puentes basada en
procedimientos de la Secretara de Comunicaciones y Transportes. Aplicacin a puentes
carreteros del Pacfico, XV Congreso Nacional de Ingeniera Estructural, Paper No. 139,
2006, Puerto Vallarta, Mxico (in Spanish).
HALDAR, A. and MAHADEVAN, S., Probability, reliability and statistical methods in
engineering design, John Wiley and sons, 2002.