Tarihi betonarme kemer bir demiryolu köprüsünün kırılganlık analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada her biri 35m açıklık geçen 7 kemere sahip toplan 285m açıklık geçen, 34m yüksekliğinde ve 15 ‰ eğimli betonarme kemer köprünün kırılganlık analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. İncelenen köprü 1928 yılında inşa edilmiş ve halen hizmet vermeye devam etmektedir. Köprü Türkiye’nin güneyinde aktif tektonik faaliyetlerin sıklıkla gözlemlendiği bir bölgede yer alması ve ülkenin tarihi demiryolu hattı için büyük öneme sahip olması nedeni ile olasılık bazlı sismik değerlendirmesinin yapılması gereksinimi ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu amaçla, ilk olarak köprünün 3D sonlu elemanlar modeli SAP-2000 programı yardımı ile imalat paftaları kullanılarak oluşturulmuştur. Oluşturulan sonlu elemanlar modeli köprü testinden elde edilen ivme ölçümleri yardımı ile belirlenen mod şekilleri ve frekans değerleri kullanılarak iyileştirilmiştir. Köprüde oluşan sismik taleplerin belirlenmesi için 60 farklı gerçek deprem kaydı kullanılarak zaman tanım alanında analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sismik talep ile sarsıntı şiddeti arasındaki ilişkinin tanımlanabilmesi için olasılık bazlı sismik talep modeli kullanılmıştır. Üç farklı kullanım hızı için köprü açıklığının orta noktasının yatay yer değiştirmeleri hasar parametresi olarak kullanılmıştır. Bunlara bağlı son olarak köprünün kırılganlık eğrileri elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Betonarme kemer köprü,demiryolu köprüsü,kırılganlık analizi,sarsıntı şiddeti,sismik talep parametresi

Fragility analysis of a historical reinforced concrete arch railway bridge

Öz

In this study, fragility analysis of a reinforced concrete arch railway bridge with a total length of 285 m having seven spans of 35 m, a height of 34 m and 15 ‰ slope were performed. The bridge constructed in 1928 still continues to give service. Because the bridge is located in a seismically active region in the southern part of Turkey and on a road, which is critical and important for national railway transportation, it was aimed to perform a probabilistic seismic assessment of the bridge. For this purpose, firstly, 3D finite-element model of the bridge was generated with the software SAP2000 according to the original constructional drawings. Then, the initial FE model was verified using its natural frequencies and mode shapes obtained from in-situ field acceleration measurements. Nonlinear time-history analyses were performed to obtain the seismic demands for 60 different real earthquake records. Probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) was derived to determine relations between engineering demand parameter (EDP) and intensity measure (IM). Lateral displacements of the mid-spans were considered as a damage state for three different service velocities. Finally, fragility curves of the bridge were derived.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reinforced concrete arch bridge,railway bridge,fragility analysis,Intensity measure,engineering demand parameter

Kaynakça

1. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J and Naganuma T.,Statistical analysis of fragility curves,. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(12), 1224–31, (2000).
2. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK and Kim SH., Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(12), 1287-95, (2000).
3. Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia AM., SYNER-G: Typology Definition and Fragility Functions for Physical Elements at Seismic Risk, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering. Springer: Dordrecht, (2014).
4. Mackie K and Stojadinovic B., Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 6(6), 468-81, (2001).
5. Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B., Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones, Engineering Structures 26(2), 187-99, (2004).
6. Nielson BG., Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones, PhD Thesis. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. (2005).
7. Banerjee S and Shinozuka M., Nonlinear static procedure for seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 22(4), 293-305, (2007).
8. Özgür A., Fragility based seismic vulnerability assessment of ordinary highway bridges in Turkey, PhD Thesis. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, (2009).

9. Kumar R and Gardoni P., Effect of seismic degradation on the fragility of reinforced concrete bridges, Engineering Structures, 79, 267-75, (2014).
10. Yılmaz MF and Çağlayan BO., Seismic assessment of a multi-span steel railway bridge in Turkey based on nonlinear time history, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(1), 231-240, (2018).
11. Pela L, Aprile A and Benedetti A., Comparison of seismic assessment procedures for masonry arch bridges, Construction and Building Materials, 38, 381-94, (2013).
12. De Santis S and De Felice G., A fiber beam-based approach for the evaluation of the seismic capacity of masonry arches, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 43, 1661-81, (2014).
13. Pellegrino C, Zanini MA, Zampieri P and Modena C., Contribution of in situ and laboratory investigations for assessing seismic vulnerability of existing bridges, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(9), 1147-62, (2015).
14. Marefat MS, Yazdani M and Jafari M., Seismic assessment of small to medium spans plain concrete arch bridges, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 23(7), 894-915, (2017).
15. SAP2000. Structural analysis program. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California. (2015).
16. EN1990-prANNEX A2, Application for bridges. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, (2001).
17. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş, and Şaroğlu F., Active fault map of Turkey with an explanatory text 1:1,250,000 scale, Special Publication Series 30. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, Turkey, (2013).
18. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Şaroğlu F, Olgun Ş, Elmacı H, and Çan T., Active fault database of Turkey, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(8), 3229-3275, (2018).
19. Mackie KR and Stojadinovic B., Comparison of incremental dynamic, cloud and stripe methods for computing probabilistic seismic demand models, ASCE Structures Congress 2005, (2005).
20. Kwon OS, Elnashai A., The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure, Engineering Structures, 28, 289-303, (2006).
21. Byers WG., Railroad lifeline damage in earthquakes, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, (2004).
22. Kawashima K., Damage of bridges due to the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, 12(4), 319-338, (2012).
23. C. A. Cornell, F. Jalayer, R. O. Hamburger, ve D. A. Foutch,, Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agenccy Steel Moment Frame Guidelines, J. Struct. Eng., 128(4), 526–533, (2002).