The Seismically Induced Failure Sequence of Multip

The seismically induced failure sequence of multiple
components of high-speed railway bridges under

different earthquake intensities
Biao Wei1, Chaobin Li2, Peng Wang3, Lizhong Jiang4, Teng Wang5
1, 2, 4School
of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410075, China
1, 2, 4National
Engineering Laboratory for High Speed Railway Construction, Changsha, 410004, China
3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay 999077, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China

5Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington
Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

3Corresponding author
E-mail: 1weibiao@csu.edu.cn, 2lichaobin@csu.edu.cn, 3pwangal@connect.ust.hk, 4lzhjiang@csu.edu.cn,

5wang.teng19@imperial.ac.uk
Received 3 January 2020; received in revised form 23 May 2020; accepted 1 June 2020
DOI https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2020.21280
Copyright © 2020 Biao Wei, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract. Though seismic vulnerability analysis of highway bridges is mature, there is little
corresponding research on high-speed railway (HSR) bridges. The seismic vulnerability analysis
of HSR bridges is very different to and more difficult than for highway bridges because the
multiple components of the track structure are very complex. To fill this research gap, the authors
establish a finite element (FE) model of an HSR bridge with the China railway track system II
(CRTS II), which includes sliding layers, cement asphalt (CA) layers and fasteners, base plates,
track plates and rails. Analytical results show that seismic responses of multiple bridge
components have a linear correlation. Thus, the overall track-bridge system can be assumed to
operate like a serial system. Here, the seismic response and vulnerability of various bridge
components are first analyzed using the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) method. Afterwards,
the failure sequence is found by comparing the seismic vulnerability of critical bridge components.
Finally, the seismic vulnerability of the overall track-bridge system is evaluated according to the
upper and lower first-bounds. Results illustrate that the system vulnerability of HSR bridges,
which is very different to that of highway bridges, is mainly determined by the sliding layers and
fixed bearings. In particular, the serious damage of a sliding layer is caused by the uncoordinated
deformation of beam ends, and fixed bearings may break down when they are exposed to strong
earthquakes. The overall track-bridge system is prone to severe seismic damage when peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is larger than 0.2 g.
Keywords: high-speed railway bridge, CRTS II slab, IDA method, seismic vulnerability, failure
sequence, first-order bounds.
1. Introduction
High-speed railway (HSR) bridges are playing an increasingly important role in modern
society [1]. However, in earthquake prone countries, such as Japan, Nepal, India, Philippines,
Pakistan, Mexico and Turkey, such bridges are vulnerable to seismic damage [2, 3]. Such damage
threatens property and human life, and involves significant investment in repair. Similarly, in
mountainous areas of Western China, bridges are exposed to frequent and strong earthquakes,
with potential seismic damage posing a great challenge to the development of the region. In order
to evaluate bridges’ seismic risk and reduce seismically induced economic loss, it is imperative to
find an efficient seismic risk assessment method for HSR bridges.
Recently, seismic fragility analysis has become an efficient tool to estimate bridges’ probable
damage in terms of four distinct damage levels: slight damage, moderate damage, extensive
ISSN PRINT 1392-8716, ISSN ONLINE 2538-8460, KAUNAS, LITHUANIA 1629

THE SEISMICALLY INDUCED FAILURE SEQUENCE OF MULTIPLE COMPONENTS OF HIGH-SPEED RAILWAY BRIDGES UNDER DIFFERENT EARTHQUAKE
INTENSITIES. BIAO WEI, CHAOBIN LI, PENG WANG, LIZHONG JIANG, TENG WANG
damage and collapse damage [4]. Compared with the empirical fragility analysis approach using
past recorded seismic damage data [5, 6], the analytical approach is more practical and efficient,
especially in places lacking seismic damage data [7-11]. On the basis of numerical simulation,
analytical fragility analysis can predict the probability of future seismic damage of a great number
of bridges in a short time [12-14] and estimate the seismic risk of special bridges lacking reference
data [15, 16]. This analysis approach is also better at analyzing the effect of interference-free
influence factors (e.g., skew angles, structure parameters and seismic sources [17-19]) on the
seismic vulnerability of bridges.
Fig. 1. Different bridge types: a) highway bridges; b) HSR bridges
The seismic vulnerability of highway bridges has been extensively studied by previous
scholars. Nielson and Desroches [20] investigated the typical effects of major components (e.g.,
columns, bearings and abutments) on the seismic vulnerability of a particular highway bridge
system. Zhang [21] further utilized the highest damage state of bridge components to represent
the damage degree of the whole bridge system. Meanwhile, Park [22] defined the seismic damage
of a whole reinforced concrete (RC) structure as a linear combination of each element’s maximum
deformation and repeated cyclic loadings. Later, Jara [19] used Park’s investigation in the seismic
vulnerability analysis of a Mexican highway bridge. This research proved that critical bridge
components may have a dramatic impact on the seismic vulnerability of the whole highway bridge
system. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, little research has been done to reveal the
seismic vulnerability of HSR track-bridge systems. Wei et al. [23, 24] did examine the seismic
vulnerability of HSR bridges. However, their work focused on the impact of the external
environment (e.g., vertical ground motions and different earthquake intensity measures) on the
bridge, and did not consider the damage mechanism of the bridge itself. The seismic vulnerability
analysis of HSR bridges is very different to and more difficult than that of highway bridges
because the track structure of HSR bridges is very complex, as shown in Fig. 1, so damage of
multiple track structure components (sliding layers, base plates, cement asphalt layers, track
plates, fasteners and rails) must be taken into account.
To fill the research gap, taking a typical HSR continuous girder bridge as an example, this
study investigates the correlation of diverse component responses, develops seismic fragility
curves for bridge components and systems, and uncovers the failure mechanism of the overall
track-bridge system. First, a finite element (FE) model considering the track-bridge interaction is
built on the Open System for Earthquake Engineering and Simulation (OpenSEES) platform.
Afterwards, a total of 20 ground motion records are selected and scaled from the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) database (http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat) as
earthquake inputs. Then seismic responses of multiple bridge components are calculated using the
1630 JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. NOVEMBER 2020, VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7

incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) method [25]. Next, seismic fragility curves of multiple bridge
components are developed on the basis of probabilistic seismic demand models (PSDMs) and
compared in order to analyze their failure sequence. Finally, the track-bridge model is assumed to
be a serial system, and its fragility is estimated according to the upper and lower first-order bounds.
2. High-speed railway bridge
2.1. Description of HSR railway bridges
2.1.1. Overall track-bridge system
In Fig. 2, a typical HSR bridge is illustrated, with a (48+80+48) m three-span continuous girder
bridge and six 32 m simply supported girder bridges. The overall bridge system contains several
major components: the superstructure (e.g., the track structure and a 12 m-wide concrete deck),
spherical steel bearings and the substructure (four reinforced concrete (RC) piers and relevant RC
piles).
Fig. 2. Configuration of an HSR bridge
2.1.2. Track structure
The China railway track system II (CRTS II) widely used in the Chinese HSR system possesses
several strong advantages, such as high stability, less maintenance and prolonged service life.
However, it is extremely vulnerable to seismic damage. In severe cases, large track deformation
may pose a serious threat to train safety.
The CRTS II slab ballastless track, as shown in Fig. 3, is made up of sliding layers, cement
asphalt (CA) layers, rails, base plates, track plates, fasteners and other components, such as
support rail beds, shear bars, lateral blocks and shear teeth. The sliding layer is a very thin
interlayer between the track structure and deck that ensures the slight movement of the base plates
along the continuous deck. Likewise, the CA layer is also an interlayer to connect the track plates
to the base plates. Shear teeth with relatively high stiffness are set at the beam ends to strengthen
the connection between the base plates and deck, while a series of shear bars are utilized to
strengthen the connection between the track plates and base plates. Lateral blocks are placed on
the girder at frequent and equal intervals to restrict the transverse movement of the track structure.
It should be noted that even though adjacent girders separate at girder gaps, the track structure on
the girder is continuous along the longitudinal direction.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the track structure at the middle span and beam ends
2.1.3. Bearings
Bearings, which act as a major bridge component between the girders and piers, are prone to
seismic damage. Bearings can protect piers from serious seismic damage when they remain intact.
However, the load path of the bridge system will change after a bearing has completely collapsed,
and this phenomenon may lead to worse seismic damage. As shown in Fig. 4, friction-based steel
bearings are divided into expansion bearings and fixed bearings. The expansion bearing has a very
small friction coefficient and it can freely slide along the longitudinal or transverse directions. In
contrast, the fixed bearing has a very strong constraint, and it can not move unless it breaks down
under a strong earthquake.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of bearings
2.1.4. Piers and piles
Piers and piles can support the weight of girders. In Fig. 2, the piers are nearly equal in height
(13 m for #1, #2 and #3 pier and 12 m for #4 pier). The cross section of the #1 and #4 side piers
is a rectangle of 7.6 × 3.4 m, while the cross section of the #2 unfixed pier and #3 fixed pier is a
rectangle of 8.6 × 4.2 m. Piles under the side piers (i.e., #1 and #4) are made of circular cross
sections of 1.25 m in diameter, and piles under the middle piers (i.e., #2 and #3) are made of a
circular cross section of 1.5 m in diameter.
2.2. Finite element model
As shown in Fig. 5, a 3D FE model on the OpenSEES platform is established herein to analyze

the seismic behavior of HSR bridges. The girder, base plates, track plates and rails are modeled
with linearly elastic beam elements [23,24], while the sliding layers, CA layers and fasteners are
simulated with zero-length non-linear connecting elements [26,27]. The sliding layers are all
0.65 m apart according to the actual size of the standard slab track, as are the CA layers and
fasteners. Expansion and fixed bearings are simulated with zero-length non-linear connecting
elements. To simulate the longitudinal boundary condition of a central continuous girder bridge,
three 32 m simply supported girder bridges are modeled on each side of the continuous girder
bridge.
Each pier and pile is definitely modeled with non-linear fiber elements, including diverse
fiber-defined cross sections: cover concrete, core concrete and steel bars. The fiber-defined cross
section of each pier and pile is 40 rows × 100 columns and 13 rings × 30 wedges, respectively.
With regard to the stress-strain relationship of materials of piers and piles, typical concrete
material models and steel bar models are adopted according to prior research [28, 29].
Compared with previous investigations, this track-bridge FE model has an advantage to
simulate the non-linear seismic behavior of every potentially damaged bridge component. Thus,
this model is able to compare the seismic vulnerability of each major bridge component and find
the weakest region of the track-bridge system. As this study focuses on the seismically induced
failure sequence of HSR bridge components, we just focus on simulating major bridge
components for the track-bridge system, but the train-track-bridge interaction is temporarily
ignored.
Fig. 5. An FE model for the HSR track-bridge system
3. Calculation methods
3.1. General process
The general process of this study is shown in Fig. 6. Regarding a given intensity measure (𝐼𝑀)
of an earthquake, the bridge is likely to be damaged when the structural demand (𝐷) exceeds its
capacity (𝐶). The conditioned damage probability can be defined as:
𝑃 = 𝑃 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≥ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦|𝐼𝑀 . (1)
If both the demand and capacity of the bridge components obey a lognormal distribution, the
above equation can be transformed to [11]:
ln 𝑆 /𝑆
𝑃 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≥ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦|𝐼𝑀 = Φ ⎛ ⎞, (2)
𝛽 +𝛽 |
⎝ ⎠
where 𝑆 and 𝑆 refer to median values of the component demand and capacity, respectively;

𝛽 | and 𝛽 represent the logarithmic standard values of the component demand and capacity,
respectively; and 𝛷 ∙ is the standard normal distribution function.
Fig. 6. Overview of the research program
3.2. Earthquake input
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the characteristic period of the earthquake spectrum is 0.25 s at the bridge
site. The damping ratio of the track-bridge system is assumed to be 0.05 and the dynamic
amplification factor is adopted as 2.25 for the earthquake spectrum. Since there is no historical
seismic record at the bridge site, 20 ground motions are selected from the PEER database and
scaled to match the above-mentioned target earthquake spectrum.
To get a more accurate prediction of seismic responses, it is essential to choose a proper
seismic IM for the IDA. As recommended by Vamvatsikos and Cornell [30], both peak ground
acceleration (PGA) and spectra acceleration (Sa) are the most common seismic IM choices. To be
consistent with previous research works [23, 24], Sa is chosen as the optimum seismic IM in this
study to reduce the dispersion of the IDA results.
For the average earthquake spectrum in Fig. 7, Sa is defined as the PGA value at the starting
point [30], which is respectively adjusted to be 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 g to get five different
seismic IM levels. Meanwhile, other points on the average spectrum in Fig. 7 are scaled with the
same scale factors. Accordingly, the acceleration values of the corresponding 20 accelerograms
in Fig. 7 are also scaled with the same scale factors. These scaled acceleration values are used as
ground motion inputs. Both longitudinal and transverse ground motions are respectively
considered for the HSR track-bridge system. Thus, 200 seismic cases are calculated for the
non-linear time history analysis using the IDA method.
3.3. Probabilistic seismic demand model
The potential seismic responses of bridge components can be estimated through a probabilistic
seismic demand model (PSDM). A PSDM efficiently indicates the correlation between the
potential engineering demand parameters (EDPs) and a given seismic IM. Generally, the median
value of EDPs is assumed to follow a two-parameter lognormal probability distribution [31]:
𝑆 = 𝑎𝐼𝑀 𝑜𝑟 ln 𝑆 = ln 𝑎 + 𝑏ln 𝐼𝑀 , (3)
where 𝑆 is the median value of the EDPs, and 𝑎 and 𝑏 are constant regression coefficients.
Ramanathan et al. [32] further valued the dispersion of EDPs for the conditioned seismic IM:
∑ (ln(𝑆 − ln(𝑎𝐼𝑀 ))
𝛽 | = (4)
𝑛−2
Fig. 7. Selected ground motion records
3.4. Component limit state
The potential seismic damage of bridge components can be defined by four qualitative limit
states: intact to slight damage, slight damage to moderate damage, moderate damage to extensive
damage and extensive damage to collapse [4]. Previous studies have demonstrated that most
common parameters, such as component strain and displacement, are able to define component
limit states [33-35]. For the HSR track-bridge system in this study, the relative displacement in
meters is used to define the component limit states of sliding layers, CA layers, fasteners and
bearings [21], while the material strain is utilized to define the component limit states of cover
concrete, core concrete and steel bars of piers and piles [36]. The limit states of potential component
damage are summarized in Table 1, where 𝜀 and 𝜀 denote the ultimate strain of the core
concrete and steel bars, respectively.
3.5. First-order bounds
A bridge system may contain many bridge components. Thus, it is very difficult to find a
particular limit state for the seismic damage of the overall bridge system. For HSR bridges in
particular, the great number of track structure components dramatically increases the
computational complexity.
Past researchers have usually avoided this problem and represented the seismic vulnerability
of the overall bridge system with the seismic vulnerability of one particular bridge component.
This traditional approach may lead to a misrepresentation of the seismic vulnerability of a bridge

system because all independent but interrelated bridge components perform an indispensable role
independently.
Table 1. Limit state of potential component damage

Slight to Moderate to Extensive to
Bridge component Measurement Intact to slight
moderate extensive collapse
Sliding layer Deform. (m) 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Shear tooth Deform. (m) 0.00012 0.00018 0.0005 0.001
Lateral block Deform. (m) 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
CA layer Deform. (m) 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Shear bar Deform. (m) 0.000075 0.000113 0.000338 0.000675
Fastener Deform. (m) 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Expansion bearing Deform. (m) 0.1 0.13 0.16 0.2
Fixed bearing Deform. (m) 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Cover concrete Strain 0.0006 0.002 0.0035 0.006
Core concrete Strain 0.0035 0.004 𝜀 1.5𝜀
Steel bar Strain 0.01 0.015 0.5𝜀 0.09
Briefly, the HSR bridge in this study is assumed to operate like a serial system. Thus, the
seismic vulnerability of the overall track-bridge system can be evaluated by the upper and lower
first-order bounds [20, 21]:
𝑚𝑎𝑥[𝑃 ] ≤ 𝑃 ≤1− [1 − 𝑃 ], (5)
where 𝑃 and 𝑃 denote the seismic vulnerability of a bridge component and system,
respectively.
With regard to the lower bound probability, all bridge components are assumed to work
together, and the destruction of any component will cause seismic damage to the overall
track-bridge system. Thus, the system fragility is underestimated in this case. In contrast, the upper
bound probability overestimates the system fragility. In this case, there is no correlation between
the component responses. Therefore, the track-bridge system will remain intact only when all
bridge components are free of seismic damage.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Seismic responses
Fig. 8 shows the seismic responses of multiple bridge components under a longitudinal
earthquake. Almost all sliding layers are seismically damaged under this earthquake, with the
maximum longitudinal deformations of most sliding layers exceeding their slight damage limit
state (0.5 mm). In particular, when the PGA is larger than 0.4 g, a large number of the sliding
layers will be completely damaged as their maximum longitudinal deformations are beyond 2 mm.
Due to the restriction of the shear teeth near the #6 fixed bearing, its surrounding sliding layers
have less seismic damage. However, as longitudinal deformations of the sliding layers near the
shear teeth are very small and the base plates move together with the girder, the seismic inertia
force in this region will directly transfer to the above CA layers. This is the reason why the CA
layers near the shear teeth have the largest maximum longitudinal deformation. It is also observed
that the CA layers at the beam ends have a larger maximum longitudinal deformation than the CA
layers at other positions, because the girder gap leads to a greater longitudinal uncoordinated
deformation. This phenomenon is consistent with the larger maximum longitudinal deformation
of sliding layers at the beam ends. Regarding the maximum longitudinal deformation of the
fasteners, all are below the slight damage limit state (2 mm). Thus, all fasteners will remain intact

when they are exposed to earthquakes.

Sliding layer's max. long. deform. (mm)
8 0.7
CA layer's max. long. deform. (mm)

PGA=0.05g #349
#151 #226 PGA=0.05g
PGA=0.1g 0.6 PGA=0.1g #424
6 PGA=0.2g
#189 PGA=0.2g
PGA=0.4g 0.5
PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.8g
0.4
PGA=0.8g
4 #287 #424
#151
#386 0.3
#349 0.2
2
#189 #226 #287 #386
0.1
0 0.0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Longitudinal coordinates (m) (b) Longitudinal coordinates (m)
0.6 25
Fastener's max. long. deform. (mm)
#151 PGA=0.05g #424 Bearing's max. long. deform. (cm)

0.5 PGA=0.1g
20
PGA=0.2g
0.4 PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.05g
PGA=0.8g 15
PGA=0.1g
0.3 #349 PGA=0.2g
10 PGA=0.4g
#386
0.2 #287 PGA=0.8g
#189 #226
5
0.1
0.0 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(c) Longitudinal coordinates (m) (d) Bearing number
Cover concrete's max. long. strain (με)
1.0 3.0
PGA=0.05g PGA=0.05g
PGA=0.1g 2.5 PGA=0.1g
0.8 PGA=0.2g PGA=0.2g
PGA=0.4g PGA=0.4g
2.0
0.6 PGA=0.8g PGA=0.8g
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
(e) Pier number (f) Pier number
Fig. 8. Seismic responses for multiple bridge components under a longitudinal earthquake:
a) sliding layers; b) CA layers; c) fasteners; d) bearings; e) piers; f) piles
As shown in Fig. 8(d), any two adjacent bearings (e.g., #1 and #2 bearings) on the top of the
same pier have an equal maximum longitudinal deformation. When the PGA is smaller than 0.2
g, the longitudinal relative displacement of the #6 fixed bearing is strongly limited due to its very
high stiffness. Thus, all bearings, as well as the whole girder, have just a very small longitudinal
relative displacement. As the PGA gradually increases, the maximum longitudinal deformation of
the #6 fixed bearing will dramatically increase to its collapse damage limit state (8 mm) and result
in a great longitudinal relative displacement of the girder. This phenomenon further indicates the
reason why track structures (namely, sliding layers, CA layers and fasteners) demonstrate a
suddenly increasing longitudinal maximum deformation when the PGA is larger than 0.2 g.
As the cover concrete, core concrete and steel bar at the same position have the same strain,
only the maximum longitudinal strain of the cover concrete of piers and piles are demonstrated in
Figs. 8(e) and 8(f). The cover concrete is prone to being slightly damaged during the longitudinal
earthquake, while the core concrete and steel bars will be free from seismic damage [23, 24]. Since
the #3 fixed pier is subjected to a great seismic inertia force transferred from the #6 fixed bearing,
the cover concrete at the #3 fixed pier bottom shows a much larger maximum longitudinal strain
than the cover concrete at other positions. In addition, the cover concrete on the #12 pile top under
the #3 fixed pier also demonstrates the largest maximum longitudinal deformation.
Sliding layer's max. trans. deform. (mm)
12 0.25
CA layer's max. trans. deform. (mm)

#151 PGA=0.05g #151 PGA=0.05g
10 PGA=0.1g PGA=0.1g
PGA=0.2g #424 0.20 PGA=0.2g #424
8 PGA=0.4g PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.8g 0.15 PGA=0.8g
#349 #386
#189 #287
6 #226
0.10
4
#189 #226 #287 #349 #386 0.05

2
0 0.00
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) Longitudinal coordinates (m) (b) Longitudinal coordinates (m)
Fastener's max. trans. deform. (mm)
0.10 25
Bearing's max. long. deform. (cm)
0.09
PGA=0.05g
PGA=0.1g
0.08 PGA=0.2g 20
#287
0.07 PGA=0.4g
#189 #226 PGA=0.8g PGA=0.05g
0.06 15
#151 #349 #424 PGA=0.1g
0.05 PGA=0.2g
0.04 10 PGA=0.4g
0.03 #386 PGA=0.8g
0.02 5
0.01
0.00 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(c) Longitudinal coordinates (m) (d) Bearing number
0.4 1.2
PGA=0.05g PGA=0.05g
PGA=0.1g 1.0 PGA=0.1g
0.3
PGA=0.2g PGA=0.2g
PGA=0.4g PGA=0.4g
0.8
PGA=0.8g PGA=0.8g
0.2 0.6
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
(e) Pier number (f) Pier number
Fig. 9. Seismic responses for multiple bridge components under a transverse earthquake:
a) sliding layers; b) CA layers; c) fasteners; d) bearings; e) piers; f) piles
The seismic responses of multiple bridge components under a transverse earthquake are
explicated in Fig. 9. Compared with the seismic behavior of the track structure in Fig. 8, most

sliding layers, CA layers and fasteners show a much smaller maximum deformation. Only a few
sliding layers at the beam ends will be completely damaged when the PGA is larger than 0.2 g.
As illustrated in Fig. 9(d), the maximum longitudinal deformation of the bearings (e.g., #1 and
#7 bearings) are symmetric with respect to the transverse axis at the midpoint of the continuous
beam. Furthermore, due to the synergetic constraint of the #2, #4, #6 and #8 bearings in the
transverse direction, every bearing is assumed to undertake an approximately equal seismic inertia
force and shows a roughly equal maximum transverse deformation. When the PGA is larger than
0.2 g, the #2, #4, #6 and #8 bearings will totally break down and result in a sharply increasing
relative displacement of the girder in the transverse direction. No significant maximum transverse
strain of the cover concrete is found in Figs. 9(e) and 9(f), i.e., piers and piles are very likely to
remain intact under a transverse earthquake.
4.2. Correlation between critical bridge components
On the basis of the IDA in Section 4.1, the EDPs (e.g., bearing deformation) of multiple bridge
components are estimated through PSDMs. PSDMs of the most vulnerable critical bridge
components are listed in Table 2. The dispersion coefficient 𝑅 in Table 2 is mostly larger than
0.8. This means that the estimated EDPs have an approximately linear correlation with the
different seismic IM levels (i.e., PGA or Sa defined in Section 3.2).
Table 2. PSDMs for critical track-bridge system components

Bridge component PSDM (longitudinal) 𝑅 PSDM (transverse) 𝑅
#151 sliding layer ln(𝑑) = 0.50(PGA) − 4.98 0.88 ln(𝑑) = 1.09(PGA) − 4.29 0.94
#151 CA layer ln(𝑑) = 0.80(PGA) − 7.81 0.90 ln(𝑑) = 0.71(PGA) − 10.27 0.92
#151 fastener ln(𝑑) = 0.68(PGA) − 7.56 0.90 ln(𝑑) = 0.90(PGA) − 10.06 0.91
#1 expansion bearing ln(𝑑) = 1.35(PGA) − 1.61 0.91 ln(𝑑) = 1.93(PGA) − 1.28 0.95
#6 fixed bearing ln(𝑑) = 1.93(PGA) − 2.76 0.78 ln(𝑑) = 2.18(PGA) − 1.68 0.88
#1 pier bottom ln(𝑑) = 0.40(PGA) − 8.40 0.69 ln(𝑑) = 0.45(PGA) − 8.46 0.91
#3 pier bottom ln(𝑑) = 0.68(PGA) − 7.14 0.90 ln(𝑑) = 0.30(PGA) − 8.39 0.94
#12 pile top (#1 pier) ln(𝑑) = 0.40(PGA) − 6.64 0.76 ln(𝑑) = 0.23(PGA) − 7.25 0.81
#12 pile top (#3 pier) ln(𝑑) = 0.31(PGA) − 6.52 0.87 ln(𝑑) = 0.62(PGA) − 7.19 0.88
Table 3. Correlation between longitudinal seismic responses of critical bridge components

𝑅 ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝜀 ) ln(𝜀 ) ln(𝜀 ) ln(𝜀 )
ln(𝑑 ) 1 0.872 0.803 0.861 0.834 0.694 0.929 0.771 0.889
ln(𝑑 ) 0.872 1 0.944 0.897 0.837 0.848 0.906 0.920 0.857
ln(𝑑 ) 0.803 0.944 1 0.914 0.764 0.755 0.854 0.872 0.814
ln(𝑑 ) 0.861 0.897 0.914 1 0.848 0.638 0.925 0.774 0.874
ln(𝑑 ) 0.834 0.837 0.764 0.848 1 0.731 0.912 0.781 0.857
ln(𝜀 ) 0.694 0.848 0.755 0.638 0.731 1 0.709 0.901 0.642
ln(𝜀 ) 0.929 0.906 0.854 0.925 0.912 0.709 1 0.780 0.945
ln(𝜀 ) 0.771 0.920 0.872 0.774 0.781 0.901 0.780 1 0.734
ln(𝜀 ) 0.889 0.857 0.814 0.874 0.857 0.642 0.945 0.734 1
Note: 𝑑 , 𝑑 , 𝑑 , 𝑑 and 𝑑 denote the maximum deformation of the #151 sliding layer, #151 CA
layer, #151 fastener, #1 expansion bearing and #6 fixed bearing, respectively; ln(𝜀 ) and ln(𝜀 )
denote the maximum strain of the cover concrete at the #1 unfixed pier and #3 fixed pier bottom,
respectively; ln(𝜀 ) and ln(𝜀 ) denote the maximum strain of the cover concrete on the #12 pile top
at the#1 unfixed pier and #3 fixed pier bottom, respectively
The correlation between the EDPs of the critical bridge components is also listed in Table 3
and 4, showing a nearly linear correlation between most EDPs. In particular, all 𝑅 s of the
correlation between the EDPs of track structure components (namely, #151 sliding layer, CA layer

and fastener) are larger than 0.8, while some 𝑅 s of the correlation between the EDPs of the track
structure, bearings, piers and piles are smaller than 0.8. For example, the 𝑅 of the correlation
between ln(𝑑 ) and ln(𝑑 ) in Table 3 is 0.764. This is because (i) the #151 fastener is far away
from the #6 fixed bearing and (ii) the #151 fastener is very vulnerable under a strong earthquake,
while the #6 fixed bearing usually remains intact. The 𝑅 of the correlation between ln(𝜀 ) and
ln(𝜀 ) in Table 3 is 0.642. This is because (i) the cover concrete at the #1 unfixed pier bottom
is not directly linked with the cover concrete on the #12 pile top at the #3 fixed pier bottom and
(ii) the seismic inertial force at the bottom of the pier is shared by a group of pile foundations.
Table 4. Correlation between transverse seismic responses of critical bridge components

𝑅 ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝑑 ) ln(𝜀 ) ln(𝜀 ) ln(𝜀 ) ln(𝜀 )
ln(𝑑 ) 1 0.951 0.941 0.949 0.863 0.854 0.908 0.750 0.850
ln(𝑑 ) 0.951 1 0.924 0.929 0.812 0.841 0.903 0.699 0.869
ln(𝑑 ) 0.941 0.924 1 0.870 0.774 0.797 0.854 0.694 0.785
ln(𝑑 ) 0.949 0.929 0.870 1 0.939 0.908 0.931 0.814 0.912
ln(𝑑 ) 0.863 0.812 0.774 0.939 1 0.880 0.885 0.819 0.850
ln(𝜀 ) 0.854 0.841 0.797 0.908 0.880 1 0.953 0.893 0.884
ln(𝜀 ) 0.908 0.903 0.854 0.931 0.885 0.953 1 0.856 0.891
ln(𝜀 ) 0.750 0.699 0.694 0.814 0.819 0.893 0.856 1 0.723
ln(𝜀 ) 0.850 0.869 0.785 0.912 0.850 0.884 0.891 0.723 1
Note: 𝑑 , 𝑑 , 𝑑 , 𝑑 and 𝑑 denote the maximum deformation of the #151 sliding layer, #151 CA
layer, #151 fastener, #1 expansion bearing and #6 fixed bearing, respectively; ln(𝜀 ) and ln(𝜀 )
denote the maximum strain of the cover concrete at the #1 unfixed pier and #3 fixed pier bottom,
respectively; ln(𝜀 ) and ln(𝜀 ) denote the maximum strain of the cover concrete on the #12 pile top
at the#1 unfixed pier and #3 fixed pier bottom, respectively
4.3. Seismic vulnerability of critical bridge components
The sliding layers, CA layers and fasteners that demonstrate the largest or smallest seismic
responses at the middle span and beam ends in Section 4.1 are selected as the representatives to
uncover the seismic damage rules of the track structure, while the bearings and cover concrete at
the pier bottoms and on the pile tops described in Section 4.1 are chosen for comparative analysis.
It can be seen in Fig. 10(a) that the #226 sliding layer on the top of the #2 unfixed pier is
extremely vulnerable under a longitudinal earthquake, while the #349 sliding layer on the top of
the #3 fixed pier is likely to remain intact. Besides this, the #424 CA layer at the right beam end
from Fig. 10(b) is most vulnerable among all the CA layers. Meanwhile, it is almost impossible
for the fastener to be seismically damaged due to its very small maximum longitudinal
deformation.
As described in Fig. 8(d), the #1 and #2 bearings indicate the same seismic responses. Thus,
their seismic fragility curves are the same, as are those of the 3# and 4# bearings, the 5# and 6#
bearings, and the 7# and 8# bearings. Fig. 10(c) illustrates that the #6 fixed bearing is much more
vulnerable than other bearings. In Fig. 10(d), the cover concrete at the #3 fixed pier bottom is
prone to slight seismic damage, while other cover concrete remains intact under the longitudinal
earthquake. In Fig. 10(e), the cover concrete on the top of the #12 pile under the #3 fixed pier has
the largest exceedance probability.
Fig. 11 depicts the seismic fragility curves of only the sliding layers and bearings because other
critical bridge components such as the CA layers, fasteners, piers and piles remain intact under a
transverse earthquake. It is shown that the #151 sliding layer at the left beam end and the #8
bearing are most vulnerable.

1.0 1.0
Probability of silight damage

0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 #151 0.6 #151
0.5 #189 0.5 #189
#226 #226
0.4 0.4
#287 #287
0.3 0.3 #349
#349
0.2 #386 0.2 #386
0.1 #424 0.1 #424
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(a) PGA (g) (b) PGA (g)
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9 #1

#2
0.8 0.8
#3
0.7 0.7 #4
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 #2 0.3
#4
0.2 0.2
#6
0.1 #8 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(c) PGA (g) (d) PGA (g)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 #1
#2
0.2
#3
0.1 #4
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(e) PGA (g)
Fig. 10. Seismic fragility curves for critical bridge components under a longitudinal earthquake:
a) sliding layers; b) CA layers; c) bearings; d) piers; e) piles
4.4. Comparison of critical bridge components
In Section 4.2, the seismic vulnerabilities of all critical bridge components are shown to be
highly correlated. Thus, the seismically induced failure mechanism of the whole track-bridge
system is mainly determined by the failure sequence of these critical bridge components. In
Section 4.3, the most vulnerable critical bridge components are further selected as representatives.
Here, the failure sequence of the critical bridge components under a longitudinal earthquake is
determined by comparing the components’ seismic fragility curves shown in Fig. 12.
Case I: Slight damage. When the PGA ≤ 0.2 g, the #226 sliding layer on the top of the #2
unfixed pier has the largest seismic vulnerability, followed by the #424 CA layer at the right beam
end, the cover concrete on the top of the #12 pile under the #3 fixed pier and the #6 fixed bearing.
When the PGA > 0.2 g, the #226 sliding layer and the #424 CA layer are usually slightly damaged.
Also, the #6 fixed bearing and cover concrete on the top of the #12 pile under the #3 fixed pier are
extremely vulnerable to slight damage, while the cover concrete at the #3 fixed pier bottom has a
much lower seismic vulnerability.
Case II: Moderate damage. Moderate damage firstly appears on the #226 sliding layer on the
top of the #2 unfixed pier. As the PGA gradually increases, the #424 CA layer at the right beam
end and the #6 fixed bearing will also suffer from moderate seismic damage. The cover concrete
on the top of the #12 pile under the #3 fixed pier is less likely to sustain moderate damage.
Case III: Above extensive damage. The #226 sliding layer on the top of the #2 unfixed pier is
prone to very serious damage. The #6 fixed bearing remains intact when the PGA is smaller than
0.2 g, while it may be seriously damaged when the PGA is larger than 0.2 g. Certainly, the #424
CA layer at the right beam end is also likely to present severe damage under a strong earthquake.
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9

0.8
#151 0.8
#189 #5
0.7 #226 0.7 #6
0.6 #287 0.6 #7
#349 #8
0.5 0.5
#386
0.4 0.4
#424
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fig. 11. Seismic fragility curves for critical bridge components
under a transverse earthquake: a) sliding layers; b) bearings
#226 sliding layer #424 CA layer #151 fastener

#6 fixed bearing #3 fixed pier #12 pile at #3 pier
1.0 1.0
Probability of moderate damage
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1.0 1.0
Probability of extensive damage
Probability of collapse damage
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fig. 12. Comparison of seismic fragility curves of critical bridge components under a longitudinal
earthquake: a) slight damage; b) moderate damage; c) extensive damage; d) collapse damage
Fig. 13 shows the failure sequence of critical bridge components when they are exposed to a
transverse earthquake.

Case I: Slight damage. When the PGA ≤ 0.05 g, the cover concrete on the top of the #1 pile
under the #1 side pier presents a relatively larger seismic vulnerability. When the PGA > 0.05 g,
the slight seismic damage probabilities of the #151 sliding layer at the left beam end and the #8
bearing rapidly increase to 100%, while the seismic fragility curve of the cover concrete on the
top of the #1 pile under the #1 side pier increases at a very slow speed.
Case II: Above moderate damage. Both the #151 sliding layer and the #8 bearing are prone to
severe damage, while other components are rarely damaged under the transverse earthquake.
#151 sliding layer #151 CA layer #151 fastener

#8 expansion bearing #3 fixed pier #1 pile at #1 pier
1.0 1.0
Probability of moderate damage

0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1.0 1.0
Probability of extensive damage
Probability of collapse damage
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fig. 13. Comparison of seismic fragility curves of critical bridge components under a transverse earthquake:
a) slight damage; b) moderate damage; c) extensive damage; d) collapse damage
4.5. Seismic vulnerability of track-bridge system
Fig. 14 evaluates the seismic vulnerability of the overall track-bridge system using the upper
and lower first-order bounds. Evaluation results indicate that the system fragility curves gradually
increase with the PGA. When the PGA is larger than 0.2 g, the overall track-bridge system may
suffer from serious seismic damage (the probability of collapse is larger than 80 %). Additionally,
it is illustrated in Fig. 14 that the lower bound is very close to the upper bound, because the seismic
responses of critical bridge components show a linear correlation with each other, as described in
Section 4.2. In particular, the lower bound of the collapse damage fragility curve is mainly
determined by sliding layers and fixed bearings. For example, as shown in Fig. 14(a), when the
PGA is smaller than 0.52 g, the system vulnerability under a longitudinal earthquake is determined
by the #226 sliding layer, because that sliding layer is more vulnerable to complete damage than
other components. When the PGA exceeds 0.52 g, the #6 fixed bearing shows a larger seismic
vulnerability than the #226 sliding layer. This phenomenon is consistent with the result in
Fig. 12(d).
1.0 1.0
Exceedance probability 0.9 0.9
Exceedance probability
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
SD-LB SD-LB
0.6 0.6 MD-LB
MD-LB
0.5 ED-LB 0.5 ED-LB
0.4 CD-LB 0.4 CD-LB
SD-UB SD-UB
0.3 0.3
MD-UB MD-UB
0.2 ED-UB 0.2 ED-UB
0.1 CD-UB 0.1 CD-UB
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Fig. 14. Seismic fragility curves of the overall track-bridge system: a) under a longitudinal earthquake;
b) under a transverse earthquake (SD: slight damage; MD: moderate damage;
ED: extensive damage; CD: collapse damage; LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound)
4.6. Future work of experimental validation
The shaking table test is commonly used for the experimental validation of the FE model. There
are three multi-function shaking tables in the National Engineering Laboratory for Construction
Technology of High-Speed Railways. The 4 × 6 m shaking table can bear a maximum load of 45 tons
and a maximum acceleration of 1.0 g. We plan to carry out a shaking table test of a 1:7 scale railway
bridge in the future. The same ground motions will be input to the shaking table control system and
the seismic responses of bearings and piers will be recorded. If the experimental result is identical to
the numerical result, the correctness of the FE model will be reasonably validated.
5. Conclusions
To evaluate the seismically induced failure mechanism of HSR bridges, a typical track-bridge
system is thoroughly analyzed in this study. By comparing the seismic responses and seismic
vulnerabilities of critical bridge components, a few conclusions can be made as follows:
1) Estimated EDPs of diverse critical bridge components are linearly correlated with each
other. This means that the whole track-bridge system can be seen as a serial system, i.e., the
seismic damage of one particular bridge component is likely to result in the seismic damage of
another.
2) Sliding layers are most vulnerable to seismic damage. CA layers at the beam ends are prone
to severe damage under a longitudinal earthquake, while no CA layers are likely to be seismically
damaged under a transverse earthquake due to the transverse boundary restriction of lateral blocks.
Fasteners always remain intact when they are exposed to earthquakes.
3) The seismic damage of bearings is mainly determined by the damage status of fixed
bearings. When the PGA is smaller than 0.2 g, all bearings have only a very small maximum
deformation due to the strong constraint of the fixed bearings. When the PGA is larger than 0.2 g,
the fixed bearings will be completely damaged and the whole girder will subsequently present a
suddenly increasing relative displacement.
4) The cover concrete, core concrete and steel bars of the same piers and piles have the same
strain but different damage states. The cover concrete is very likely to suffer from slight damage
under earthquakes, while the core concrete and steel bar remain intact.
5) Assuming the overall track-bridge as a serial system, its seismic vulnerability can be
estimated by the upper and lower first-order bounds. Calculation results show that the overall
track-bridge system is prone to severe seismic damage when the PGA is larger than 0.2 g. In
particular, the system vulnerability is mainly determined by the sliding layers and fixed bearings,
which have the largest seismic vulnerability among all bridge components.

Acknowledgements
This research is jointly funded by the Science and Technology Project of Sichuan Province
(Grant No. 2019YFG0048), the National Natural Science Foundations of China (Grant
No. 51778635 and 51778630), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (Grant
No. 2019JJ40386), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central
South University (Grant No. 2019zzts608). The above support is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] He X. H., Wu T., Zou Y. F., Chen Y. F., Guo H., Yu Z. W. Recent developments of high-speed railway
bridges in China. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 13, Issue 12, 2017, p. 1584-1595.
[2] Liu H., Wang P., Wei X. K., Xiao J. L., Chen R. Longitudinal seismic response of continuously
welded track on railway arch bridges. Applied Science, Vol. 8, Issue 5, 2018, p. 775.
[3] Mohseni I., Lashkariani H., Kang J., Kang T. Dynamic response evaluation of long-span reinforced
arch bridges subjected to near- and far-field ground motions. Applied Science, Vol. 8, Issue 8, 2018,
p. 1243.
[4] Choi E., Desroches R., Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.
Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, Issue 2, 2004, p. 187-199.
[5] Basoz N. I., Kiremidjian A. S., King S. A., Law K. H. Statistical analysis of bridge damage data
from the 1994 Northridge, CA, Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, Issue 1, 1999, p. 25-54.
[6] Yamazaki F., Motomura H., Hamada T. Damage assessment of expressway networks in Japan based
on seismic monitoring. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE),
2000.
[7] Shinozuka M., Feng M. Q., Kim H. K., Kim S. H. Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve
development. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 126, Issue 12, 2000, p. 1287-1295.
[8] Mackie K., Stojadinovic B. Fragility curves for reinforced concrete highway overpass bridges. In
Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (WCEE), Vancouver, Canada,
2004.
[9] Mander J. B., Basoz N. Seismic fragility curves theory for highway bridges. Proceedings of 5th US
Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Reston, VA, 1999, p. 31-40.
[10] Karim K. R., Yamazaki F. Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of highway bridge
piers based on numerical simulation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 30,
Issue 12, 2001, p. 1839-1856.
[11] Padgett, J. E., Desroches R. Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for
retrofitted bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 37, Issue 8, 2008,
p. 1157-1174.
[12] Park J., Towashiraporn P. Rapid seismic damage assessment of railway bridges using the
response-surface statistical model. Structural Safety, Vol. 47, Issue 2, 2014, p. 1-12.
[13] Seo J., Linzell D. G. Horizontally curved steel bridge seismic vulnerability assessment. Engineering
Structure, Vol. 34, 2012, p. 21-32.
[14] Tehrani P., Mitchell D. Seismic risk assessment of four-span bridges in Montreal designed using the
Canadian bridge design code. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 19, Issue 8, 2014,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000499.
[15] Bhuiyan M. A. R., Alam M. S. Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous highway
bridge fitted with shape memory alloy bars and laminated rubber bearings. Earthquake Spectra,
Vol. 28, Issue 4, 2012, p. 1379-1404.
[16] Alam M. S., Bhuiyan M. A. R., Billah A. H. M. M. Seismic fragility assessment of SMA-bar
restrained multi-span continuous highway bridge isolated by different laminated rubber bearings in
medium to strong seismic risk zones. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, Issue 6, 2012,
p. 1885-1909.
[17] Zakeri B., Padgett J. E., Amiri G. G. Fragility analysis of skewed single-frame concrete box-girder
bridges. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 2014, p. 571-582.
[18] Karim K. R., Yamazaki F. A simplified method of constructing fragility curves for highway bridges.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32, Issue 10, 2003, p. 1603-1626.
[19] Jara J. M., Madrigal E., Jara M., Olmos B. A. Seismic source effects on the vulnerability of an
irregular isolated bridge. Engineering Structures, Vol. 56, Issue 6, 2013, p. 105-115.

[20] Nielson B. G., Desroches R. Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component
level approach. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 36, Issue 6, 2006, p. 823-839.
[21] Zhang J., Huo Y. L. Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway
bridges using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures, Vol. 31, Issue 8, 2009,
p. 1648-1660.
[22] Park Y. J., Ang A. G. S., Wen Y. K. Seismic damage analysis and damage-limiting design of R.C.
buildings. Structural Research Series No. 516, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A., 1988.
[23] Wei B., Zuo C. J., He X. H., Jiang L. Z., Wang T. Effects of vertical ground motions on seismic
vulnerabilities of a continuous track-bridge system of high-speed railway. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 115, 2018, p. 281-290.
[24] Wei B., Li C. B., He X. H. The applicability of different earthquake intensity measures to the seismic
vulnerability of a high-speed railway continuous bridge. International Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 17, 2019, p. 981-997.
[25] Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C. A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 31, Issue 3, 2002, p. 491-514.
[26] Yu D. S. Seismic Vulnerability Analysis for Prestressed Concrete Continuous Girder Bridge in High-
Speed Railway. Master Thesis, Central South University, China, 2015, (in Chinese).
[27] Zhang J., Wu D. J., Li Q. Loading-history-based track–bridge interaction analysis with experimental
fastener resistance. Engineering Structures, Vol. 83, 2015, p. 62-73.
[28] Mander J. B., Priestley M. J. N., Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, Issue 8, 1988, p. 1804-1826.
[29] Priestley M. J. N., Kowalsky M. Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete buildings.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 33, Issue 4, 2000,
p. 421-444.
[30] Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C. A. Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multi degree-of-
freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation.
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, Issue 4, 2005, p. 589-599.
[31] Cornell C. A., Jalayer F., Hamburger R. O., Foutch D. A. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal
emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 128, Issue 4, 2002, p. 526-533.
[32] Ramanathan K., Desroches R., Padgett J. E. Analytical fragility curves for multispan continuous
steel girder bridges in moderate seismic zones. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2202, 2010, p. 173-182.
[33] Xia Y., Wang P., Sun L. M. Neutral axis-based health monitoring and condition assessment techniques
for concrete box girder bridges. International Journal of Structure Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 19,
Issue 1, 2019, p. 1940015.
[34] Hwang H., Jernigan J. B., Lin Y. W. Evaluation of seismic damage to Memphis bridges and highway
systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 5, Issue 4, 2000, p. 322-330.
[35] Park Y. J., Ang A. H. S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, Issue 4, 1985, p. 722-739.
[36] Kowalsky M. J. A displacement-based approach for the seismic design of continuous concrete bridges.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, 2002, p. 719-747.
Biao Wei received the B.S. degree in civil engineering from Southeast University, China,
in 2004, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in bridge and tunnel engineering from Tongji
University, China, in 2007 and 2010, respectively. He is a Professor in School of Civil
Engineering, Central South University, China. His research interests include bridge design,
seismic design and structural dynamics. Now, he is studying mechanics, electromagnetic,
and their applications to civil engineering. In this paper presented the research concept and
compiled the relevant computer programs.

Chao-bin Li is currently a postgraduate student of Central South University, Changsha,

China. His current research interests include structural dynamics, earthquake engineering
and bridge engineering. In this paper looked for reference materials and organized the data.
Peng Wang received his B.S. and M.S. degree in civil engineering from Central South
University, Changsha, China, in 2015 and 2018. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in civil
engineering of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, SAR, PR China. His
current research interests include structural dynamics, earthquake engineering, seismic
fragility analysis, macroscopic and microscopic analysis of sea sand seawater concrete and
glass fiber reinforcement polymer. In this paper established the finite element model and
wrote the manuscript.
Li-zhong Jiang received the B.S. degree in mechanical manufacturing engineering from
Xiangtan University, China, in 1994, the M.S. degree in solid mechanics from Hunan
University, China, in 1996, and the Ph.D. degree in dynamics, vibration and control from
Shanghai Jiaotong University, China, in 1999, respectively. He is a Professor in School of
Civil Engineering, Central South University, China. His research interests include
composite structure and seismic of engineering structures. In this paper was responsible
for hosting the research project and proposing some valuable suggestions for the paper.
Teng Wang received B.S. degree in civil engineering from Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin, China, in 2018. He is currently a postgraduate student of Imperial College London,
London, UK. His current research interests include soil mechanics and structural
dynamics. In this paper looked for reference materials and organized the data.

The Seismically Induced Failure Sequence of Multip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Seismically Induced Failure Sequence of Multip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Seismically Induced Failure Sequence of Multip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The seismically induced failure sequence of multiple

components of high-speed railway bridges under

Clear Water Bay 999077, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China

Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

E-mail: 1weibiao@csu.edu.cn, 2lichaobin@csu.edu.cn, 3pwangal@connect.ust.hk, 4lzhjiang@csu.edu.cn,

ISSN PRINT 1392-8716, ISSN ONLINE 2538-8460, KAUNAS, LITHUANIA 1629

Fig. 1. Different bridge types: a) highway bridges; b) HSR bridges

1630 JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. NOVEMBER 2020, VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7

2. High-speed railway bridge

2.1. Description of HSR railway bridges

2.1.1. Overall track-bridge system

Fig. 2. Configuration of an HSR bridge

2.1.2. Track structure

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of bearings

2.1.4. Piers and piles

2.2. Finite element model

As shown in Fig. 5, a 3D FE model on the OpenSEES platform is established herein to analyze

Fig. 5. An FE model for the HSR track-bridge system

3.1. General process

𝑃 = 𝑃 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 ≥ 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦|𝐼𝑀 . (1)

ISSN PRINT 1392-8716, ISSN ONLINE 2538-8460, KAUNAS, LITHUANIA 1633

Fig. 6. Overview of the research program

3.2. Earthquake input

3.3. Probabilistic seismic demand model

value of EDPs is assumed to follow a two-parameter lognormal probability distribution [31]:

𝑆 = 𝑎𝐼𝑀 𝑜𝑟 ln 𝑆 = ln 𝑎 + 𝑏ln 𝐼𝑀 , (3)

Fig. 7. Selected ground motion records

3.4. Component limit state

3.5. First-order bounds

ISSN PRINT 1392-8716, ISSN ONLINE 2538-8460, KAUNAS, LITHUANIA 1635

Table 1. Limit state of potential component damage

𝑚𝑎𝑥[𝑃 ] ≤ 𝑃 ≤1− [1 − 𝑃 ], (5)

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Seismic responses

1636 JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. NOVEMBER 2020, VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7

when they are exposed to earthquakes.

CA layer's max. long. deform. (mm)

#151 PGA=0.05g #424 Bearing's max. long. deform. (cm)

Cover concrete's max. long. strain (με)

CA layer's max. trans. deform. (mm)

#189 #226 #287 #349 #386 0.05

1638 JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. NOVEMBER 2020, VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7

4.2. Correlation between critical bridge components

Table 2. PSDMs for critical track-bridge system components

Table 3. Correlation between longitudinal seismic responses of critical bridge components

ISSN PRINT 1392-8716, ISSN ONLINE 2538-8460, KAUNAS, LITHUANIA 1639

Table 4. Correlation between transverse seismic responses of critical bridge components

4.3. Seismic vulnerability of critical bridge components

1640 JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. NOVEMBER 2020, VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7

Probability of silight damage

Probability of silight damage

4.4. Comparison of critical bridge components

Probability of silight damage

#226 sliding layer #424 CA layer #151 fastener

Probability of collapse damage

1642 JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING. NOVEMBER 2020, VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7

#151 sliding layer #151 CA layer #151 fastener

Probability of moderate damage

Probability of collapse damage