Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Correlation Analysis of Ground Motion Duration

Indexes and Nonlinear Seismic Responses of a
Long-span Continuous Rigid-Frame Bridge with
High-Rise Piers

Yan Shi, Jun Li, Hongguo Qin, Zhengwu Zhong, Junwen Wang & Fenjie Zhang

To cite this article: Yan Shi, Jun Li, Hongguo Qin, Zhengwu Zhong, Junwen Wang & Fenjie
Zhang (2022) Correlation Analysis of Ground Motion Duration Indexes and Nonlinear Seismic
Responses of a Long-span Continuous Rigid-Frame Bridge with High-Rise Piers, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 26:13, 7011-7031, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2021.1961927

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1961927

Published online: 04 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 406

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
2022, VOL. 26, NO. 13, 7011–7031
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1961927

Correlation Analysis of Ground Motion Duration Indexes and

Nonlinear Seismic Responses of a Long-span Continuous
Rigid-Frame Bridge with High-Rise Piers
a
Yan Shi , Jun Lia, Hongguo Qina, Zhengwu Zhonga, Junwen Wangb, and Fenjie Zhanga
a
School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou, China; bKey Laboratory of Roads and Railway
Engineering Safety Control of Ministry of Education, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

To investigate the correlations of duration indexes and the nonlinear seismic Received 30 March 2020
responses of long-span continuous rigid-frame bridges with high-rise piers Accepted 29 May 2021
(CRFB-LH), an irregular CRFB-LH was selected as the prototype bridge. KEYWORDS
A construction stage analysis model was simulated in MIDAS/Civil, where Ground motion duration;
the actual construction process was considered and the internal force state continuous rigid-frame
was extracted. After that, a nonlinear dynamic analysis model of the CRFB-LH bridge (CRFB); nonlinear
with the equivalent internal force state was simulated via OpenSees. seismic response; numerical
A bracketed duration and significant duration with a continuous-time inter­ simulation; correlation
val were selected as the duration indexes. Sixty ground motion records with analysis
total duration values ranging from 9.91 s to 300 s were used in the nonlinear
dynamic analysis. The correlation between the two duration indexes and the
nonlinear seismic responses of the CRFB-LH under total-duration ground
motions were analyzed. Finally, the effect of different duration indexes on
the nonlinear seismic responses of the CRFB-LH was discussed under 30
long-duration ground motions intercepted according to Db0.1g, Ds5-75% and
Ds5-95%. The numerical results show that the correlations of Ds with nonlinear
seismic responses are better than those of Db, and the latter heavily depends
on the absolute acceleration threshold. Ds5-95% is preferred for calculating the
total hysteretic energy dissipated (HED) from the CRFB-LH. Additionally,
while the amount of total HED is not determined by the total duration, the
effective time interval of the ground motion duration under different dura­
tion indexes has a significant influence on the total HED.

1. Introduction
Among various indices of earthquake ground motions, the maximum amplitude, frequency content
and duration characteristics have been regarded as the most important indices for earthquake
engineering (Shoji, Tanii, and Kamiyama 2004). The maximum amplitude and frequency content
have been considered in the seismic design method of bridges, but the duration characteristic has not.
Earthquakes and experimental studies show that input energy, seismic responses, hysteretic energy,
and the structure’s cumulative damage depend on the duration effect of ground motion (Barbosa et al.,
2017; Brendon and Bradley 2011; Rahnama and Manuel 1996), and the duration effect influences the
seismic demand parameters, fatigue damage and the collapse capacity of reinforced concrete (RC)
frame structures and bridge columns (Chandramohan, Baker, and Deierlein 2016; Dusicka and Lopez
2016; Han, Sun, and Zhou 2017; Hancock and Bommer 2007; Iervolino, Manfredi, and Cosenza 2006).
Iervolino, Manfredi, and Cosenza (2006) found that duration significantly affects the demand para­
meters such as hysteretic ductility and the equivalent number of cycles. Hancock and Bommer (2007)
analyzed an 8-story RC wall frame building under the action of 30 accelerograms of different durations

CONTACT Yan Shi syky86@163.com No.287, Langongping Road, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, 730050, China
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
7012 Y. SHI ET AL.

and determined that duration did not influence the damage the measure using the peak response, such
as interstory drift, but it was correlated with cumulative damage measures, such as the absorbed
hysteretic energy and fatigue damage. Dusicka and Lopez (2016) evaluated the dynamic performance
of circular RC bridge columns using a shake table test. The results demonstrated that the duration can
affect the imposed damage and the displacement capacity of the bridge column. Han, Sun, and Zhou
(2017) determined that the collapse resistance capacity of an infilled RC frame structure tended to
decrease with an increase in significant duration. Chandramohan, Baker, and Deierlein (2016)
examined the influence of the duration on the collapse capacities of an RC bridge pier and determined
that the collapse capacity is 17% lower when using the long-duration set than when using short-
duration set.
The past occurrence of highly damaging, large earthquakes in Wenchuan, China (Mw 8.0, 2008),
Maule, Chile (Mw 8.8, 2010) and Tohoku, Japan (Mw 9.0, 2011) highlighted the potential of large
magnitude earthquakes to produce long-duration ground motion (Foschaar, Baker, and Deierlein
2012; Kawashima et al. 2009; Tian, Pan, and Ma 2019). Such motions are reminders of the importance
of the effect of long-ground motion duration on structural responses and cumulative damage
compared to short-duration ground motion with the same intensity. Hammad and Moustafa (2019)
investigated the influence of the duration on the structural response of special concentric steel-braced
frames (SCBFs) and showed that a long duration can affect the structural performance of SCBFs,
causing premature failure. Marsh and Gianotti (1995) determined that structures subjected to long-
duration motions accumulate damage as a result of repeated cycles through inelastic response history
analyses of a single degree of freedom system. Ou et al. (2013), investigating the seismic behavior of
flexural-dominated RC columns under long-duration ground motions, found that the degradation of
stiffness was greater and that the column started to show a greater strength degradation when the drift
exceeded 3%. Raghunandan and Liel (2013) studied the effect of the duration on 17 RC building
models using a nonlinear dynamic analysis and determined that collapse risk was higher when these
models were subjected to longer duration ground motions compared to shorter-duration ground
motions with the same ground motion intensity. Mohammed, Sanders, and Buckle (2015) presented
the results of shake table experiments of two identical large-scale RC bridge columns tested under
long- and short-duration motion records, and showed that duration significantly affects the collapse
capacity of the bridge columns. Kabir, Muntasir Billah, and Shahria Alam (2019) investigated the
damage probabilities of bridge components (piers and isolation bearings) and bridge systems under
different types of ground motion and found that both component levels and bridge system damage
probabilities were dominated by long-duration ground motions, rather than near-fault and far-field
ground motions.
The aforementioned studies focused on RC buildings and bridge piers, although a few considered
the duration effects on a long-span continuous rigid-frame bridge with high-rise piers (CRFB-LH).
Compared with other bridge types, CRFB-LHs have considerable advantages in crossing natural
barriers, such as high mountains and deep rivers, due to their excellent performance in terms of
a large vertical stiffness, strong spanning capability and reasonable mechanical performance (Gou et al.
2018; Gu, Huang, and Zhuo 2011; Pan, Fu, and Jiang 2010). The pier heights of the CRFB-LH differ by
tens or even 100 meters or more for adapting to complex topographic and geological conditions, so the
CRFB-LH is a typical irregular bridge with a long natural vibration period. Seismic responses and
cumulative damage to the CRFB-LH under long-duration ground motion differ from those of the
CRFB with mid-rise and low-rise piers. Although the total duration is certain for a given ground
motion record, both the corresponding time interval and the structural seismic responses may differ
for different duration indexes. Additionally, from the previous literature the influences of the actual
construction process, prestress, concrete shrinkage and creep on the internal force state of the
completed bridge have not been considered regarding the numerical simulation analysis of the CRFB-
LH. How to consider the internal force state in dynamic history analysis is also a concerning problem.
For this reason, it is necessary to further study the effects of the duration on nonlinear seismic
responses of the CRFB-LH considering the actual internal force state.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7013

In this manuscript, a construction process analysis model of the CRFB-LH is first simulated in
MIDAS/Civil, where concrete self-weight, bridge deck pavement, box girder prestressing, construction
loads, concrete shrinkage and creep during the bridge construction process are considered. The
internal force state of the CRFB-LH considering the above factors is extracted after the construction
phase analysis. Then, a dynamic analysis model of the CRFB-LH with the same internal force state is
simulated via OpenSees for a nonlinear seismic response analysis, and the equivalence between the two
models is verified by dynamic characteristic analysis. Next, using the definitions of ground motion
duration with a continuous-time interval – namely, bracketed duration and significant duration – the
correlation between the intensity indexes and duration indexes, as well as the correlation between the
intensity indexes, the duration indexes and the nonlinear seismic responses of the CRFB-LH are
discussed. Finally, the effects of different ground motion duration indexes on the nonlinear seismic
responses of the CRFB-LH are analyzed under long-duration ground motion records intercepted
according to Db0.1g, Ds5-75% and Ds5-95%.

2. Ground Motions and Duration Definitions

2.1. Definitions of Ground Motion Duration
The duration, as one of the most important characteristics of ground motion, has a significant
influence on the seismic responses and cumulative damage of bridge structures. In the literature,
more than 30 definitions for the duration have been proposed, and there is no unified or acknowledged
duration index (Bommer and Martinez-Pereira 2000). The following four definitions are generally
accepted in the present study: (a) uniform duration (Du), (b) bracketed duration (Db), (c) significant
duration (Ds) and (d) effective duration (De). It should be noted that uniform duration is not
continuous, and that effective duration is suitable for SDOF systems (Bommer and Martinez-Pereira
1999; Bommer, Stafford, and Alarcón 2009). Thus, the selection of either may not be best for the
seismic analysis of the CRFB-LH. Bracketed duration, which considers the amplitude of ground
motion to measure duration, is defined as the length of the continuous-time interval between the
first and last exceedance of an absolute acceleration threshold a0 (Bommer and Martinez-Pereira 2000;
Bommer, Stafford, and Alarcón 2009; Raghunandan and Liel 2013), as shown in Fig. 1. For example,
the 0.1 g bracketed duration, denoted Db0.1g, is defined as the time interval between the first and last
exceedance of 0.1 g (g denotes the gravitational acceleration) (Raghunandan and Liel 2013). The
significant duration, which measures the duration from the perspective of energy, is defined as the
length of the continuous-time interval over a specific amount of Arias intensity (AI) – this amount is

Figure 1. Definition of bracketed duration.

7014 Y. SHI ET AL.

Figure 2. Definition of significant duration.

usually taken as 5 to 75% or 5 to 95% of the AI over the entire acceleration history of ground motion
(Arias 1970; Bommer and Martinez-Pereira 2000; Trifunac and Brady 1975), as shown in Fig. 2. The
5–95% significance duration, denoted Ds5-95%, is defined by the time interval between 5% and 95% of
the AI (Kabir, Muntasir Billah, and Shahria Alam 2019; Raghunandan and Liel 2013; Trifunac and
Brady 1975). It is worth mentioning that AI is a measure of the energy content of ground motion, and
can be calculated as in Eq. (1) (Kabir, Muntasir Billah, and Shahria Alam 2019)
ð
π Tr 2
AI ¼ a ðtÞdt (1)
2g 0
where a(t) = acceleration history; Tr = total duration of the acceleration history; and g = acceleration
due to gravity.
In structural seismic research and design, the most common definitions of duration are bracketed
duration and significant duration (Bommer and Martinez-Pereira 2000; Brendon and Bradley 2011;
Foschaar, Baker, and Deierlein 2012; Kempton and Stewart 2006; Ou et al. 2013; Raghunandan and
Liel 2013). The former is greatly affected by different acceleration thresholds, and it is not as stable
as the latter. Chandramohan, Baker, and Deierlein (2016) determined that a significant duration is
the most suitable metric to characterize the duration for structural seismic analysis. Several
significant duration indexes have been presented and Ds5-95% was recommended in previous studies
(Hancock and Bommer 2006; Kempton and Stewart 2006; Trifunac and Brady 1975). Although the
total length of the accelerogram may vary depending on the recording device, Ds5-95% quantifies the
length of the strongest part of the ground motion duration that may cause heavy damage to
structures. Ds5-95% is also independent of scaling the record and the ground motion frequency
content.

2.2. Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions

To investigate the influence of different ground motion durations on the nonlinear seismic responses
of the bridge, 60 ground motion records with total duration values ranging from 9.91 s to 300 s were
selected from the PEER strong ground motion database and were matched on the basis of code
response spectrum (Han, Sun, and Zhou 2017). These records from different earthquake events and
different earthquake types have a large duration range, have a magnitude of not less than Mw 7.0, and
the same or similar site conditions and fault distances. The original peak acceleration of ground
motions varies between 0.006 g and 0.229 g. The details of all selected ground motions are listed in
Table 1.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7015

Table 1. Selected ground motions.

No. Earthquake Mw Year Station *Comp. DT(s) Dall(s) PGA(g)
No.1 Manjil Iran 7.37 1990 Tehran-Building 178 0.01 9.91 0.033
&Housing
No.2 Manjil Iran 7.37 1990 Tehran-Building 268 0.01 9.91 0.029
&Housing
No.3 Trinidad 7.2 1980 Rio Dell Overpass-FF 0 0.005 19.68 0.062
No. 4 Trinidad 7.2 1980 Rio Dell Overpass-FF 270 0.005 19.68 0.147
No.5 Trinidad 7.2 1980 Rio Dell Overpass E Ground 270 0.005 22 0.135
No.6 Trinidad 7.2 1980 Rio Dell Overpass W Ground 0 0.005 22 0.151
No.7 Trinidad 7.2 1980 Rio Dell Overpass W Ground 270 0.005 22 0.157
No.8 Taiwan SMART(45) 7.3 1986 SMART1 E02 NS 0.01 33 0.142
No.9 Taiwan SMART(45) 7.3 1986 SMART1 O06 NS 0.01 48.53 0.190
No.10 Cape Mendocino 7.01 1992 Shelter Cove Airport 0 0.02 36 0.229
No.11 Cape Mendocino 7.01 1992 Shelter Cove Airport 90 0.02 36 0.189
No.12 Landers 7.28 1992 Boron Fire Station 90 0.02 40 0.090
No.13 Landers 7.28 1992 Fort Irwin 0 0.02 40 0.114
No.14 Kacaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Eregli 180 0.005 25.56 0.102
No.15 Kacaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Eregli 90 0.005 25.56 0.087
No.16 Kacaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Mecidiyekoy 0 0.005 44 0.053
No.17 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 HWA020 N 0.005 89 0.068
No.18 Kern County 7.36 1952 Pasadena-CIT Athenaeum 270 0.01 77.24 0.053
No.19 Tabas Iran 7.35 1978 Bajestan L1 0.02 38.98 0.091
No.20 Tabas Iran 7.35 1978 Ferdows L1 0.02 40 0.093
No.21 Tabas Iran 7.35 1978 Ferdows T1 0.02 40 0.105
No.22 Tabas Iran 7.35 1978 Kashmar T1 0.02 33 0.036
No.23 Landers 7.28 1992 Amboy 0 0.02 50 0.115
No.24 Landers 7.28 1992 Anaheim-W Ball.Rd 0 0.005 50.38 0.052
No.25 Landers 7.28 1992 Arcadia-Campus Dr 9 0.005 59.05 0.048
No.26 Landers 7.28 1992 Arcadia-Campus Dr 279 0.005 59.05 0.052
No.27 Landers 7.28 1992 Baker Fire Station 50 0.02 50 0.108
No.28 Landers 7.28 1992 Baker Fire Station 140 0.02 50 0.106
No.29 Landers 7.28 1992 Baldwin Park-N Holly 270 0.005 34.26 0.025
No.30 Landers 7.28 1992 Bell Gardens- 310 0.005 48.385 0.045
Jaboneria
No.31 Kern County 7.36 1952 LA-Hollywood 90 0.005 70 0.042
Stor FF
No.32 Tabas Iran 7.35 1978 Sedeh L1 0.02 40 0.027
No.33 Landers 7.28 1992 Chat sworth- 90 0.005 59.315 0.033
Devonshire
No.34 Landers 7.28 1992 Downey-Co 0 0.02 70 0.052
Maint Bldg
No.35 Landers 7.28 1992 Downey-Co 90 0.02 70 0.039
Maint Bldg
No.36 Landers 7.28 1992 Indio-Coachella Canal 90 0.02 60 0.109
No.37 Landers 7.28 1992 LA-Obregon 0 0.02 70 0.043
No.38 Landers 7.28 1992 Inglewood- 0 0.02 70 0.043
Union Oil
No.39 Landers 7.28 1992 Inglewood- 90 0.02 70 0.035
Union Oil
No.40 Kocaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Canakkale 90 0.01 165.58 0.029
No.41 Kocaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Kutahya 180 0.01 185.82 0.050
No.42 Kocaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Manisa 0 0.0078 163 0.012
No.43 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY008 N 0.004 150 0.120
No.44 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY017 N 0.004 150 0.055
No.45 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY017 W 0.004 150 0.052
No.46 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY107 N 0.004 150 0.094
No.47 Kocaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Bornova 90 0.01 122.75 0.011
No.48 Kocaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Tosya 180 0.01 132.51 0.012
No.49 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY012 W 0.004 150 0.053
No.50 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY066 N 0.004 216 0.039
No.51 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY066 W 0.004 200 0.055
No.52 Denali Alaska 7.9 2002 Fairbanks-Easter 90 0.005 300 0.048
Fire Station
(Continued)
7016 Y. SHI ET AL.

Table 1. (Continued).
No. Earthquake Mw Year Station *Comp. DT(s) Dall(s) PGA(g)
No.53 Denali Alaska 7.9 2002 TAPS Pump 13 0.005 165 0.056
Station #09
No.54 Kocaeli Turkey 7.51 1999 Aydin 180 0.01 220.15 0.006
No.55 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.62 1999 CHY116 W 0.004 260 0.064
No.56 Denali Alaska 7.9 2002 Anchorage-K2-03 90 0.005 280 0.009
No.57 Denali Alaska 7.9 2002 Anchorage-New 90 0.005 188 0.021
Fire Station #7
No.58 Denali Alaska 7.9 2002 Anchorage-New 360 0.005 188 0.020
Fire Station #7
No.59 EI Mayor- 7.2 2010 Calipatria Fire Station 90 0.005 266 0.077
Cucapah
No.60 EI Mayor- 7.2 2010 Brunts Corner HNE 0.01 200 0.071
Cucapah
*Comp. refers to the horizontal component of the ground motions.

In the current seismic design and analysis of structures, peak ground acceleration (PGA) is
regarded as the most common ground motion intensity index. PGA was selected in this study as
a single intensity index. After the PGA of 60 selected ground motions was scaled to 0.4 g (g denotes the
gravitational acceleration), cumulative absolute velocity (CAV), Arias intensity (AI), significant dura­
tion indexes (Ds5-95% and Ds5-75%) and bracketed duration indexes with different acceleration thresh­
olds were extracted. The data of the duration and the intensity indexes of all scaled ground motions are
listed in Table 2.
Previous studies have shown that the Arias intensity is capable of measuring the energy of ground
motion, and the input energy of ground motion directly affects the nonlinear responses of the
structures (Arias 1970; Kabir, Muntasir Billah, and Shahria Alam 2019; Ou et al. 2013;
Raghunandan and Liel 2013; Trifunac and Brady 1975). A significant duration based on the Arias
intensity can reflect the hysteretic energy dissipation of the structure. For a given ground motion, the
corresponding significant duration can be determined directly, unlike bracketed duration, which
depends on the absolute acceleration threshold, so significant duration is better suited for the division
between long-duration and short-duration ground motions (Han, Sun, and Zhou 2017; Kabir,
Muntasir Billah, and Shahria Alam 2019). The most common significant duration index is Ds5-95%
for studying duration characteristics. Taking Ds5-95% = 30 s as the threshold value to classify the
ground motions in Table 2, the number of long-duration and short-duration ground motions is 30.
For example, No. 26 is a short-duration ground motion, and No. 60 is a long-duration ground motion.
The corresponding acceleration time history of the scaled ground motions is shown in Fig. 3.

3. Numerical Modeling of the Bridge

3.1. Bridge Information
To study the correlations between the ground motion duration indexes and the nonlinear seismic
responses of the CRFB-LH, an irregular CRFB-LH was adopted for the numerical simulation in this
study. As shown in Fig. 4, the bridge has a length of 620 m and a width of 12 m. The main bridge is
a three-span continuous T-shaped rigid-frame bridge with spans of 120 m, 220 m and 120 m, and the
approach bridge is a four-span simply supported T-girder bridge with a span layout of
40 + 40 + 40 + 40 m. The T-shaped rigid-frame bridge is comprised of nonuniform prestressed
concrete box girders and RC piers. The box girder’s top flange is 12 m wide, its bottom flange is 8 m
wide at the mid-span and supports, and its depth is 3.5 m at the mid-span and 12.5 m at the supports,
as shown in Fig. 4(b~c). The simply supported T-girder bridge of the 5 T-girders per span is comprised
of RC T-girders with an equal cross-section and RC piers. The geometric details of the T-girder’s are
presented in Fig. 4(d). The bridge has 6 piers in total, comprising 2 main piers and 4 approach piers,
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7017

Table 2. The duration and intensity indexes of the scaled ground motions.
Significant durations (Ds) Bracketed durations (Db) Intensity index
Ds5-95% Ds5-75% Db0.05g Db0.1g Db0.15g Db0.2g Db0.25g Db0.3g Db0.35g CAV AI
No. Scaling factor (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (m/s) (m/s)
No.1 12.09 8.46 5.69 9.27 9.14 9.04 8.23 5.70 0.44 0.04 8.88 2.13
No.2 13.69 7.59 5.05 9.55 9.25 8.53 8.21 4.54 4.50 0.26 10.84 2.91
No.3 6.49 12.37 7.57 17.81 16.35 15.16 11.03 9.43 5.96 5.95 16.88 4.17
No.4 2.72 11.19 7.12 16.44 11.70 7.87 3.95 0.13 0.045 0.03 8.80 1.27
No.5 2.97 12.26 8.79 17.60 16.33 12.16 8.07 7.94 7.91 3.46 15.16 3.35
No.6 2.65 10.01 6.35 18.06 15.07 9.18 8.56 5.74 3.04 2.30 12.88 2.72
No.7 2.55 10.83 7.06 17.24 15.84 9.68 9.64 6.36 5.61 0.36 13.84 2.91
No.8 2.81 11.33 6.80 23.74 17.65 10.52 9.52 5.05 5.05 5.02 14.64 2.96
No.9 2.11 15.15 8.18 26.31 18.69 11.01 9.36 5.72 3.36 0.33 20.48 3.96
No.10 1.75 16.08 13.58 20.82 18.30 13.60 12.70 8.62 0.14 0.14 11.20 1.69
No.11 2.12 17.52 14.78 20.28 18.58 17.76 15.60 15.52 3.06 0.38 13.64 2.22
No.12 4.44 14.10 9.64 33.88 16.68 10.78 6.84 5.16 3.14 2.02 17.56 3.35
No.13 3.52 13.48 7.74 28.92 15.24 10.04 9.36 7.44 7.42 1.08 16.00 2.81
No.14 3.94 14.38 4.17 23.03 13.43 4.17 3.41 2.01 0.11 0.08 12.68 2.33
No.15 4.59 18.75 6.36 23.03 20.25 8.44 3.37 2.67 1.22 0.52 15.24 2.90
No.16 7.51 16.47 11.04 23.86 20.71 13.36 6.49 5.51 2.65 2.02 14.12 2.43
No.17 5.87 17.48 9.67 30.63 23.77 15.96 12.84 5.54 2.81 1.37 14.92 3.09
No.18 7.50 29.51 13.48 46.87 32.99 24.68 16.97 13.08 5.39 0.72 33.64 6.44
No.19 4.41 25.90 20.58 36.08 32.00 15.06 14.66 9.08 1.24 0.16 18.80 2.89
No.20 4.30 21.76 16.62 30.78 25.32 23.58 20.00 13.04 0.56 0.56 20.40 3.50
No.21 3.82 24.18 20.48 36.30 26.14 22.48 15.02 11.52 11.52 0.04 19.76 3.12
No.22 11.07 26.20 15.82 30.28 30.16 29.24 27.74 19.54 14.32 13.96 32.72 8.80
No.23 3.48 28.50 17.20 42.74 36.32 35.10 23.56 22.36 21.20 0.02 32.04 6.80
No.24 7.74 27.73 20.72 44.34 30.13 29.24 27.90 17.54 3.87 3.37 30.52 6.18
No.25 8.29 29.94 16.68 44.97 35.81 23.35 18.16 13.24 9.85 8.78 27.88 5.70
No.26 7.67 29.57 21.22 42.61 37.15 28.92 28.46 6.58 6.54 2.55 27.00 5.01
No.27 3.72 25.70 12.26 41.64 24.92 14.00 11.20 8.94 5.36 0.18 21.20 3.30
No.28 3.79 19.72 11.18 40.56 20.38 19.26 14.30 12.54 6.16 0.02 21.80 3.77
No.29 15.92 24.69 18.98 32.41 30.57 27.30 24.95 24.89 13.40 6.51 32.76 8.11
No.30 8.92 23.12 16.96 35.15 26.54 24.40 23.77 17.77 17.62 9.33 29.12 6.26
No.31 9.47 33.54 18.65 60.08 44.46 41.05 30.36 27.85 12.55 3.77 41.72 9.11
No.32 14.90 30.14 22.68 37.42 33.7 32.02 23.56 12.82 0.06 0.06 23.52 3.98
No.33 12.15 39.64 28.79 53.15 46.07 43.67 20.82 14.17 14.13 14.10 36.64 6.94
No.34 7.77 44.30 21.70 62.44 53.08 34.84 18.74 16.36 16.28 7.72 40.20 7.41
No.35 10.13 49.78 28.68 64.60 57.3 50.80 48.10 25.38 17.20 0.06 46.84 9.44
No.36 3.66 37.86 25.08 53.16 42.52 27.74 27.12 2.66 2.62 0.10 28.84 4.40
No.37 9.40 46.02 23.52 64.32 58.28 47.62 28.88 24.34 20.76 6.02 48.56 9.98
No.38 9.38 47.86 23.20 64.00 54.92 31.36 27.00 12.66 12.60 3.50 40.24 7.12
No.39 11.44 50.54 26.20 64.78 62.34 52.16 42.98 23.24 18.16 13.92 52.68 11.29
No.40 13.97 57.62 32.04 91.90 50.19 41.16 20.44 17.17 2.75 0.10 50.16 7.34
No.41 7.99 53.07 27.12 105.73 52.02 40.24 35.37 19.02 9.34 2.08 55.00 9.01
No.42 33.33 60.23 25.96 108.31 43.52 25.86 5.97 5.87 4.087 0.20 44.24 5.88
No.43 3.34 61.28 27.76 71.66 47.24 25.80 13.75 2.05 0.28 0.06 39.96 4.84
No.44 7.25 68.32 40.92 76.41 73.34 63.34 59.66 36.99 35.36 2.37 72.84 12.89
No.45 7.65 59.79 36.26 76.08 65.12 59.15 45.04 44.92 20.67 8.65 62.04 11.16
No.46 4.27 65.23 27.08 70.37 50.45 37.31 31.19 22.34 2.45 0.07 49.32 7.16
No.47 37.21 71.91 50.92 83.52 78.17 77.80 37.34 8.23 6.63 0.12 46.40 7.33
No.48 34.37 75.08 51.71 92.01 78.15 65.10 10.12 4.21 4.13 0.18 48.00 7.12
No.49 7.57 81.84 42.77 77.68 72.52 58.35 55.42 31.16 23.39 6.11 77.72 12.63
No.50 10.17 86.65 43.46 84.60 74.65 63.18 62.97 52.47 27.54 9.71 91.32 15.93
No.51 7.27 73.11 37.17 80.21 68.78 50.76 47.93 6.22 0.21 0.14 58.84 7.33
No.52 8.33 90.57 26.46 111.07 72.19 27.85 24.31 13.56 9.77 8.06 60.96 7.92
No.53 7.18 98.65 42.30 103.88 92.39 89.13 42.58 40.80 27.57 27.35 68.00 9.91
No.54 67.23 135.8 73.98 160.42 148.1 51.53 18.59 11.27 6.43 1.67 95.56 14.61
No.55 6.25 134.3 54.18 76.83 72.42 23.99 19.50 19.44 1.34 1.304 62.48 6.41
No.56 45.40 118.3 57.47 90.05 65.57 61.71 51.26 48.38 48.15 10.27 136.76 11.83
No.57 19.51 105.7 53.44 118.17 104.1 78.34 35.29 22.48 16.24 11.20 84.04 12.24
No.58 19.68 112.3 60.70 117.00 112.9 96.46 65.41 19.18 15.85 0.05 87.68 12.31
No.59 5.21 117.3 52.90 109.40 95.68 56.09 20.50 15.17 9.53 0.705 99.08 8.98
No.60 5.62 122.5 36.48 144.46 38.09 28.23 21.92 20.83 4.20 0.03 55.16 6.30
7018 Y. SHI ET AL.

Figure 3. Acceleration time history of the scaled ground motions: (a) No. 26; (b) No. 60.

which are tagged as Piers 1 ~ 6, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Piers 1 ~ 2 are double thin-wall hollow-core
piers, and Piers 3 ~ 6 are single hollow-core piers. The heights of Piers 1 ~ 6 are 88 m, 85 m, 38 m,
56 m, 56 m and 52 m, respectively. The geometric details of Piers 1 ~ 6 are presented in Fig. 4(e~g).
The continuous box girders of the main bridge were erected using the construction method of
cantilever casting. The construction time of the main bridge was approximately 460 days. During the
construction process, the main girder of each T-shaped rigid frame was divided into 32 pairs of girder
segments. The number of girder segments and their length from the end of the #0 girder segment to
the mid-span were 9 × 2.5 m, 9 × 3 m, 7 × 3.5 m, 7 × 4 m, with a total cantilever length of 102 m. The
length of girder segment #0 at the supports was 14 m. The lengths of the cast-in-place segments at the
side span and closure segments at the side span and mid-span were 9 m and 2 m, respectively. The
cross-sections of both cast-in-place and closure segments were 3.5 m high. In terms of the concrete
types, C50 concrete was used in the construction of the box girders and the T-girders, and C40
concrete was used in Piers 1 ~ 6. A Strand1860 prestressing tendon was adopted for the prestressed
concrete box girders, for which the number was 452. Additionally, three basin rubber bearings (BRB,
KZGPZ1500DX) were set at each top of Abutment 0 and Pier 3, and five sliding plate bearings (SPB,
GJZF350 × 400) were set at each top of Piers 3 ~ 6 and Abutment 7. Expansion joints (E1~ E6) were set
between the main bridge girder and the approach bridge girder and between the girders and the
abutment back wall.

3.2. Analytical Model

Among finite element softwares of structures, MIDAS/Civil is widely used in the simulation and
analysis of the bridge construction process, but it is limited by the lack of constitutive relations of
materials and elements regarding nonlinear seismic response analysis. OpenSees is a widely favored
seismic analysis platform for researchers in the field of earthquake engineering, yet it is difficult to
consider the influence of the construction process on the internal force state of completed bridges due
to the limitation of simulating the construction process of bridges, and the model is not visualized. In
this manuscript, the two models were built based on MIDAS/Civil and OpenSees, respectively.
To obtain the seismic responses of the bridge based on its internal force state, an elastic finite
element model of the CRFB-LH was first simulated, as shown in Fig. 5, based on the MIDAS/Civil
where concrete self-weight, bridge deck pavement, box girder prestressing, construction loads, con­
crete shrinkage and creep during the bridge construction process were considered. According to the
construction requirements, 452 prestressing tendons were input, and the construction process was
divided into 38 stages. The construction stages of the main bridge include cast-in-place of the main
piers, construction of the #0 main beam, symmetrical building of the #1~#32 main beams, cast-in-
place of the side span, closure of the side span and closure of the mid-span. Then, the approach bridge
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7019

Figure 4. Information of the CRFB-LH (unit: centimeters): (a) Span layout; (b) Section B-B; (c) Section A-A & C-C; (d) Section D-D; (e)
Section E-E; (f) Section F-F; and (g) Section G-G, H-H & I–I.

Figure 5. Finite element model simulated via MIDAS/Civil.

7020 Y. SHI ET AL.

was introduced as a whole, and 10-year concrete shrinkage and creep were considered. Among them,
the closure sequence, closure temperature and method were simulated according to the actual
construction requirements, which were not considered in detail. The calculation method of concrete
shrinkage and creep was based on the formula given in the Code for Design of Highway Reinforced
Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Bridges and Culverts (JTG D62-2004). Without considering pile-soil
interactions, the pier bottom was simulated by consolidation. Finally, the internal force state of the
bridge was determined by a construction phase analysis.
For transform the elastic model of the CRFB-LH into a nonlinear dynamic model based on
OpenSees, the model data of nodes, elements, materials, section characteristics, boundary conditions
and structural quality were first extracted from MIDAS/Civil. Then, the above data were processed
according to the command rules and imported into OpenSees. Finally, a dynamic analysis model
considering the internal force state of the CRFB-LH was simulated based on OpenSees, as shown in
Fig. 6(a). In this model, a displacement-based nonlinear beam-column element with fiber sections was
used to simulate the bridge’s nonlinear behavior of the key stress parts (plastic hinge zones), including
the root segments of the main girder (P1~ P4), the top and bottom segments of the main piers
(P5~ P12) and the piers’ bottom segments of the approach bridge (P13~ P16). In the fiber sections,
concrete and reinforcement were simulated using the Concrete01 material and Steel02 material,
respectively. At the same time, the internal forces of the key stress parts of the main girder and
piers obtained from the construction phase analysis in MIDAS/Civil were equivalently added to the
corresponding positions of the dynamic analysis model in OpenSees so that the key stress parts of the
bridge were in an actual internal force state during the dynamic analysis. The non-key stress parts of
the main girder and piers were assumed to be elastic and were modeled uisng elastic beam-column
elements with a moduli of elasticity of 3.45 × 104 MPa and 3.25 × 104 MPa for the girder and piers,
respectively. The bridge bearings, with 3 located at the main bridge girder tip and 5 located at the
approach bridge girder tip, were modeled using a double-line ideal elastic-plastic spring element. The
restoring force model of the bearings is presented in Fig. 6(b), and the mechanical parameters of the
single bearing are summarized in Table 3. The Hertz-damp model was used for the pounding
simulation between adjacent components, including the girders and the abutment back walls (Guo

Figure 6. Dynamic analysis model of the CRFB-LH simulated via OpenSees: (a) 3-D finite element model of the total bridge system; (b)
Restoring force model of BRB and SPB; and (c) Hertz-damp model for pounding simulation.

Table 3. Parameters of the single bearing at each pier.

Sites Bearing types k1(kN·m−1) k2(kN·m−1) xy(m) Fy(kN) Number of bearing
Abut.0 BRB 1.5 × 104 0 0.002 30 3
Pier 3 left 3
Pier 3 right SPB 1.616 × 103 0 0.002 3.232 5
Piers 4 ~ 6 & Abut.7 5
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7021

Table 4. The first 5 orders of natural vibration periods and modes.

Natural vibration periods (s)
No. *TM *TO Mode descriptions
1 4.10 3.91 Vibration of the main bridge along the transverse direction
2 3.40 3.25 Vibration of the whole bridge along the longitudinal direction
3 2.64 2.55 Second-order vibration of the main bridge along the transverse direction
4 2.45 2.47 Vibration of the approach bridge along the longitudinal direction
5 1.83 1.86 Longitudinal relative vibration between the main bridge and the approach bridge
*TM and TO refer to the periods calculated by MIDAS/Civil and OpenSees, respectively.

et al. 2017; Muthukumar and Desroches 2006; Taflanidis 2011). The mechanical properties of the
Hertz-damp model are presented in Fig. 6(c) (Muthukumar and Desroches 2006). The gap element
was adopted to model the bridge’s expansion joints (E1~ E6), and pounding will occur when the
relative displacement along the longitudinal direction of the bridge exceeds the initial gap of 0.05 m. In
addition, a global viscous damping of 5% was considered for the bridge models, and a Rayleigh
stiffness proportional damping was used in this study.
To verify the consistency and validity of finite element models simulated using MIDAS/Civil and
OpenSees, the dynamic characteristics of the two models were analyzed. The first 5 order natural
vibration periods and the mode descriptions are described in Table 4. The maximum error of the
natural vibration period is less than 5%, and this error mainly comes from software differences, which
supports the notion that the model simulated in OpenSees is equivalent to that simulated in MIDAS/
Civil.

4. Correlation between Duration Indexes and Nonlinear Seismic Responses

In this study, a regression analysis was adopted to support the correlation analysis between the
duration indexes and nonlinear seismic responses. Sixty ground motions (PGA = 0.4 g) with different
durations were input along the longitudinal (X) direction of the bridge. The nonlinear dynamic time
history analysis method was then used to calculate the acceleration, velocity and displacement
responses of the CRFB-LH. For example, the seismic responses of CRFB-LH under No. 26 and
No. 60 are shown in Fig. 7. Then, the mean values of the maximum absolute acceleration (MAA),
the maximum absolute velocity (MAV), and the maximum absolute displacement (MAD) of the top of
Pier 2 under 60 ground motions were extracted from the calculated of seismic response data. Noting
that the ground motions were the only input along the longitudinal direction of the bridge and the
main girder was assumed to be elastic, the seismic responses of the top of Pier 2 were equal to those of
any position along the main bridge girder.

4.1. Correlations between the Intensity Indexes, Duration Indexes and Seismic Responses
In ground motion intensity indexes, the cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and Arias intensity (AI)
consider both the peak amplitude and duration characteristics of ground motions. The correlations
between the intensity indexes (CAV, AI) and duration indexes are given in Fig. 8, and the correlation
factors (R2) are listed in Table 5. Correlations between significant duration indexes (Ds5-75%, Ds5-95%)
and CAV are better than AI, and correlations between the bracketed duration (Db) and intensity
indexes (CAV, AI) depend on the absolute acceleration threshold. When the threshold value is less
than 0.3 g, the correlations between Db and intensity indexes (CAV, AI) are better. The closer the
threshold value is to the peak of ground motion, the smaller the correlation factors.
The correlations between the intensity indexes, duration indexes and seismic responses are shown
in Fig. 9, and the correlation factors (R2) are listed in Table 6. It is determined that the correlations
between AI and the maximum absolute seismic responses are better than CAV, the correlations
between Ds5-75% and the maximum absolute seismic responses are better than Ds5-95%, and the
7022 Y. SHI ET AL.

Figure 7. Responses of the CRFB-LH: (a) under No. 26; (b) under No. 60.

Figure 8. Correlations between the intensity indexes and duration indexes: (a) CAV and the duration indexes; (b) AI and the duration
indexes.

Table 5. Correlation factors (R2) between the intensity indexes and duration indexes.

Intensity Significant duration Bracketed duration

index Dall Ds5-75% Ds5-95% Db0.05g Db0.1g Db0.15g Db0.2g Db0.25g Db0.3g Db0.35g
CAV 0.76 0.80 0.81 0.69 0.74 0.65 0.54 0.48 0.75 0.12
AI 0.44 0.61 0.54 0.54 0.70 0.70 0.68 0.6 0.6 0.21

correlations between Db and the maximum absolute seismic responses change considerably with the
selected threshold values. In general, compared with bracketed duration indexes, the correlation
between the significant duration indexes and the maximum absolute seismic responses is better.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7023

Figure 9. The correlation between the intensity indexes, duration indexes and seismic responses: (a) CAV and seismic responses; (b)
AI and seismic responses; (c) Ds5-95% and seismic responses; (d) Ds5-75% and seismic responses; (e) Db0.1g and seismic responses; and (f)
Db0.15g and seismic responses.

4.2. Correlation Analysis between the Duration Indexes and Total HED
The hysteretic energy dissipated (HED) can be determined by calculating the area enveloped by the
hysteresis loops, which can be expressed in various ways, such as bending moment vs. rotation,
horizontal shear vs. lateral relative displacement, or axial forces vs. axial displacements (Raghunandan
and Liel 2013). In this study, the horizontal shear force (V) and lateral relative displacement (δ) of the
plastic hinge zone and bearing were selected to measure the HED of the CRFB-LH under total-
7024 Y. SHI ET AL.

Table 6. The correlation factors (R2) of the intensity indexes, duration indexes and seismic responses.
Intensity index Significant duration Bracketed duration
Responses CAV AI Ds5-75% Ds5-95% Db0.05g Db0.1g Db0.15g Db0.2g Db0.25g Db0.3g Db0.35g
MAA 0.2 0.47 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.2 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.27 0.17
MAV 0.38 0.60 0.37 0.32 0.39 0.44 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.18 0.11
MAD 0.36 0.51 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.26 0.09

Figure 10. The hysteretic curves under short-duration earthquake (No. 26): (a) the plastic hinge zone at the bottom of main pier; (b)
the plastic hinge zone at the top of main pier; and (c) the bearing at the tip of main girder.

duration ground motions. The total HED consists of two parts: one is supported by all bearings on the
main bridge and approach bridge; the other is provided by the plastic hinges, which are located at the
bottom and top of all main bridge piers and the bottom of all approach bridge piers. No. 26 and No. 60
represent the ground motions of short duration and long duration acting on the CRFB-LH, respec­
tively. Hysteretic curves of the bearing at the main bridge girder tip and the plastic hinge zones at the
bottom and top of the main bridge Pier 2–1 under No. 26 and No. 60 are shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.
The longer the duration of ground motion, the greater the energy demand of the bridge. Therefore,
long-duration ground motion may cause more damage to the bridge.
The total HED of the CRFB-LH is the sum of the hysteretic energy dissipated by plastic hinges at
the bottom and top of all piers of the main bridge, plastic hinges at the bottom of all piers of the
approach bridge, and all bearings on the main bridge and approach bridge under the total-duration
ground motion. To investigate the correlations between the duration indexes and the total HED under
30 long-duration ground motions and 30 short-duration ground motions, the total HED of the bridge
as it deformed upon being subjected to each ground motion was calculated, as shown in Table 7.
Overall, the bridge’s HED is significantly greater for a longer duration ground motion than for
a shorter duration ground motion. It is worth noting that not all of the bridge’s HED under long-
duration ground motion is greater than that under short-duration ground motion. This is because the
HED is related to the effective time interval of ground motion, and the effective time interval of long-
duration ground motion is not necessarily longer than that of short-duration ground motion.

Figure 11. The hysteretic curves under long-duration earthquake (No. 60): (a) the plastic hinge zone at the bottom of main pier; (b)
the plastic hinge zone at the top of main pier; and (c) the bearing at the tip of main girder.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7025

Table 7. The HED of the CRFB-LH under total-duration ground motions (kN·m).
No. HED of bearings HED of fiber elements Total HED No. HED of bearings HED of fiber elements Total HED
No.1 1205.26 313.45 1518.71 No.31 8778.47 3982.83 12761.30
No.2 1182.70 498.19 1680.90 No.32 4227.14 466.72 4693.87
No.3 1468.98 336.28 1805.26 No.33 8108.76 4455.37 12564.13
No.4 658.56 77.19 735.75 No.34 11404.18 6968.80 18372.98
No.5 881.99 256.09 1138.09 No.35 11680.65 9475.41 21156.06
No.6 581.57 141.51 723.08 No.36 4612.57 552.59 5165.17
No.7 705.39 173.71 879.10 No.37 12929.39 11886.05 24815.44
No.8 1107.95 258.92 1366.87 No.38 11858.55 6764.26 18622.82
No.9 2340.09 550.07 2890.16 No.39 13985.76 13664.00 27649.75
No.10 26.93 47.53 74.45 No.40 12944.07 4234.76 17178.83
No.11 56.85 59.76 116.61 No.41 11232.82 3163.86 14396.68
No.12 1729.92 388.80 2118.72 No.42 16469.64 3922.23 20391.87
No.13 848.93 162.97 1011.90 No.43 11740.96 1605.82 13346.78
No.14 929.52 206.43 1135.95 No.44 22609.32 29913.18 52522.50
No.15 1919.96 411.45 2331.41 No.45 15398.21 9826.05 25224.26
No.16 1419.72 118.57 1538.28 No.46 13683.67 8171.37 21855.03
No.17 2452.05 281.19 2733.24 No.47 9624.23 2454.93 12079.16
No.18 6095.82 1229.02 7324.84 No.48 13800.29 11958.81 25759.10
No.19 1858.70 159.15 2017.85 No.49 23184.21 21726.92 44911.13
No.20 774.53 177.78 952.31 No.50 26370.37 17835.02 44205.38
No.21 973.36 196.33 1169.69 No.51 17494.08 3130.30 20624.39
No.22 6109.96 3839.38 9949.33 No.52 4274.25 565.24 4839.49
No.23 5480.66 1888.26 7368.92 No.53 14996.77 8112.91 23109.68
No.24 6985.22 4644.48 11629.70 No.54 29186.34 20853.52 50039.86
No.25 6261.96 1837.28 8099.24 No.55 26621.71 14908.44 41530.14
No.26 6931.70 4910.80 11842.50 No.56 22022.84 4337.00 26359.84
No.27 3040.82 305.70 3346.53 No.57 16880.14 2012.40 18892.54
No.28 3435.30 410.86 3846.16 No.58 21144.92 6007.94 27152.86
No.29 7849.95 13665.90 21515.85 No.59 30421.85 34995.70 65417.55
No.30 6065.53 3517.69 9583.22 No.60 19157.19 9540.49 28697.68
AVG 2712.66 1368.83 4081.49 AVG 15561.45 9249.76 24811.21

Figure 12. Correlations between the duration indexes and total HED.

Table 8. Correlation factors (R2) between the duration indexes and total HED.
Significant duration Bracketed duration
R2 Dall Ds5-75% Ds5-95% Db0.05g Db0.1g Db0.15g Db0.2g Db0.25g Db0.3g Db0.35g
Total HED 0.51 0.65 0.65 0.53 0.63 0.45 0.52 0.34 0.24 0.04
7026 Y. SHI ET AL.

Figure 12 and Table 8 indicate that the same correlations exist between significant duration indexes
and the total HED when the AI threshold values of significant duration are 5–95% and 5–75%. The
correlation factors of Db with the total HED first increase and then decrease with an increase in the
acceleration threshold value. When the threshold value is 0.1 g the correlation factor is the largest, and
smaller when the threshold value is closer to the PGA. Therefore, the correlation between the
bracketed duration and total HED is highest when the acceleration threshold value is 0.1 g. The larger
the threshold value is, the worse the correlation becomes. The correlation factors of total HED with
significant duration indexes are larger than those with bracketed duration indexes, which indicate that
the correlations between the total HED and significant duration indexes are better.

5. Effects of Different Duration Indexes on Nonlinear Seismic Responses

5.1. Duration of the Intercepted Ground Motions
Although the total duration (Dall) of a given ground motion is fixed, the time interval will differ if
different duration indexes are adopted. The corresponding seismic responses will also eventually
change. For short-duration ground motions, the time interval intercepted by duration indexes may
decrease, which is not suitable as a ground motion input. A few studies show that long-duration
ground motions cause structures to induce a larger structural response compared to short-duration
ground motions with the same intensity, yet the effect of long-duration ground motions on seismic
responses and the total HED of the CRFB-LH has not reached a consistent conclusion. To study the
effects of different duration indexes on the nonlinear seismic responses of the CRFB-LH under long-
duration ground motions, 30 long-duration records (from No. 30 to No. 60) were selected and scaled
to 0.4 g. Then, the total duration of these records was intercepted according to different duration
indexes (Db0.1g, Ds5-75% and Ds5-95%), and the number of records intercepted by Db0.1g, Ds5-75% and
Ds5-95% was 30, respectively. Durations of the records intercepted using the indexes of Db0.1g, Ds5-75%
and Ds5-95% are given in Fig. 13, with the value of Dall as a comparison. The intercepted acceleration
time history curves of No. 60 are shown in Fig. 14.
Figure 13 shows that the duration of intercepted ground motions according to duration indexes are
significantly different. Among the selected 30 long-duration ground motions, the values of Db0.1g,
Ds5-95% and Ds5-75% are smaller than the values of Dall. Ds5-95% approximates Db0.1g, and Ds5-75% is the
smallest. The maximum values of Dall, Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75% are 300 s, 148.11 s, 135.79 s and 73.98
s, respectively. Ground motion No. 52 has the maximum value of Dall, while ground motion No. 54 has
the largest values of Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75%. Additionally, the Dall, Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75% of the

Figure 13. Durations of the ground motions intercepted using different duration indexes.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7027

Figure 14. The intercepted acceleration time history curves of No. 60 using different duration indexes: (a) using Db0.1g; (b) using
Ds5-75%; and (c) using Ds5-95%.

first 9 records are in the ranges of 40–70 s, 33.7–62.34 s, 30.14–50.54 s and 18.65–28.79 s, with averages
of 64.37 s, 50.3 s, 42.19 s and 24.28 s, respectively. The Dall, Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75% of the remaining
records are in the ranges of 122.75–300 s, 38.09–148.11 s, 53.07–135.79 s and 25.96–73.98 s, with
averages of 190.61 s, 74.08 s, 88.07 s and 42.91 s, respectively. The average value of Dall is 2–5 times that
as Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75%. It is clear that bracketed duration and significant duration of a given
ground motion are kept within a small range, even if the Dall is considerably long; i.e., the effective time
interval having a major contribution to the structural seismic responses is not as long as the Dall. The
ground motions with larger values of Dall may not have largers bracketed duration value or significant
duration values.

5.2. Seismic Responses under the Intercepted Ground Motions

Intercepted ground motions were input along the longitudinal (X) direction of the bridge. The
maximum absolute values of acceleration, velocity, and displacement are plotted in Fig. 15.
Compared to the total duration (Dall), the MAA responses under Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75% are

Figure 15. The MAA, MAV and MAD responses under different duration indexes.

Figure 16. The hysteretic curves of the plastic hinge zone at the bottom of main pier: (a) using Ds5-95%; (b) using Ds5-75%; and (c) using
Db0.1g.
7028 Y. SHI ET AL.

Figure 17. The hysteretic curves of the plastic hinge zone at the top of main pier: (a) using Ds5-95%; (b) using Ds5-75%; and (c) using
Db0.1g.

Figure 18. The hysteretic curves of the bearing at the tip of main bridge girder: (a) using Ds5-95%; (b) using Ds5-75%; and (c) using
Db0.1g.

significantly closer. The MAV responses under Db0.1g and Ds5-95% are all close to the responses under
Dall, as are the MAD responses. Note that using Ds5-75% may underestimate the MAV and MAD
responses during ground motions. It is determined that interception of the duration of ground
motions according to different duration indexes has little influence on the maximum absolute seismic
responses of the CRFB-LH and saves the time of dynamic calculation.
Taking No. 60 as an example, the hysteretic curves of the Pier 2–1 plastic hinge zones and bearings
at the main bridge girder tip are shown in Fig. 16–18. Figure 11 and Fig. 16–18 illustrate that compared
with Ds5-75% and Db0.1g, the hysteresis loops of the pier plastic hinges and bearings under the ground
motion intercepted using Ds5-95% are significantly fuller and closer to the counterpart under the
ground motion with total duration. This means that the total HED of the bridge under the ground
motion intercepted according to Ds5-95% is closest to that under the ground motion with a total
duration.
The total HED of the bridge under the 30 long-duration ground motions intercepted according to
Db0.1g, Ds5-75% and Ds5-95% was calculated. Figure 19 shows that the total HED under Dall and different
duration indexes (Ds5-95%, Db0.1g and Ds5-75%) decreases in turn. The average values of the total HED
using Ds5-95%, Db0.1g and Ds5-75% are 18588 kN·m, 16150 kN·m and 9081.88 kN·m, respectively. The
average value of the total HED using Ds5-95% is closest to the average value of 24811 kN·m using Dall,
followed by Db0.1g, while the ground motion intercepted according to Ds5-75% resulted in a significant
underestimation of the total HED. This means that the cumulative energy dissipation is closely related
to the ground motion duration, and Ds5-95% is better than Ds5-75% for reflecting the impact of
significant duration on the total HED. In addition, Fig. 19 and Table 9 show that the total HED
under long-duration ground motion is not always greater than that under short-duration ground
motion, and vice versa. For example, the total duration value of No. 52 is the largest (Dall = 300 s), yet
the total HED using the Dall and different duration indexes are almost the smallest. This is because the
ground motion with a larger value of Dall may have a smaller value of Db or Ds, and the HED depends
on the effective time interval of ground motion, which is determined by different duration indexes. For
the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the CRFB-LH with a long natural vibration period, it is advisable to
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7029

Figure 19. The total HED using Dall and different duration indexes.

Table 9. Minimum or maximum values of the total HED using Dall and duration indexes.
Indexes Max. & Min. Total HED (kN·m) No. Total duration(s) Definition duration(s)
Dall Max. 65417.55 No.59 266 –
Min. 4693.87 No.32 40 –
Remark 4839.49 No.52 300 –
Db0.1g Max. 43518.13 No.44 150 73.34
Min. 3569.60 No.52 300 72.18
Ds5-95% Max. 55027.80 No.59 266 117.26
Min. 3341.82 No.32 40 30.14
Remark 3719.32 No.52 300 90.56
Ds5-75% Max. 25766.61 No.44 150 40.92
Min. 1908.94 No.52 300 26.45

select long-duration ground motion records to obtain nonlinear seismic responses and cumulative
damage considering the long-duration effects.

6. Conclusions
The significant duration (Ds) and bracketed duration (Db), two duration indexes with a continuous-
time interval, were selected to study correlations between the duration indexes and nonlinear seismic
responses of long-span continuous rigid-frame bridges with high-rise piers (CRFB-LH) under total-
duration ground motion. The effects of ground motion duration intercepted according to different
duration indexes on nonlinear seismic responses of the CRFB-LH were discussed. Finally, correlations
between the different duration indexes and the total HED under different duration indexes were
analyzed. The following conclusions were drawn:

(1) The correlations between the intensity indexes (CAV, AI) and duration indexes (Ds, Db)
indicate that CAV and AI consider both the peak amplitude and duration characteristics of
ground motion. The maximum absolute seismic responses (MAA, MAV and MAD) are not
necessarily related to the ground motion duration, and only have a high correlation with the AI.
The correlations of the total HED with significant duration indexes (Ds5-75%, Ds5-95%) are better
than bracketed duration indexes. Specifically, the correlations of Ds5-95% with the intensity
indexes, the maximum absolute seismic responses and the total HED are approximately equal
to those of Ds5-75%. The correlations of bracketed duration indexes with the intensity indexes,
the maximum absolute seismic responses and the total HED heavily depend on the acceleration
7030 Y. SHI ET AL.

threshold value. The correlation factor is largest when the threshold value is set to 0.1 g, and the
closer the threshold value is to PGA (0.4 g), the smaller the correlation factor is.
(2) Interception of the duration of ground motions according to different duration indexes (Db0.1g,
Ds5-95% and Ds5-75%) has little influence on the maximum absolute seismic responses of the
CRFB-LH and saves the time during the dynamic calculation. Compared to the total duration
(Dall), the MAA responses under Db0.1g, Ds5-95% and Ds5-75% are all significantly close. The MAV
responses under Db0.1g and Ds5-95% are all close to the responses under Dall, as are the MAD
responses. Note that using Ds5-75% may underestimate the MAV and MAD responses during
ground motions.
(3) The effects of ground motions intercepted according to different duration indexes on the total
HED of the CRFB-LH are different. Compared to Db0.1g and Ds5-75%, the total HED under the
ground motions intercepted by Ds5-95% is the closest to that under the total-duration ground
motions. Therefore, Ds5-95% is preferred for calculating the total HED of the CRFB-LH. The
amount of total HED does not depend on the total duration; however, the effective time
interval of the ground motion duration under different duration indexes has a significant
influence on it. In addition, it is advisable to select long-duration ground motion records with
long-duration effects for nonlinear dynamic analysis of the CRFB-LH with a long natural
vibration period.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51908265, 51768042]; the Supported
Program for Hongliu Outstanding Young Talents at LUT [04-061810]; and the Opening Foundation of Key Laboratory
of Roads and Railway Engineering Safety Control of Ministry of Education [STKF201904].

Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China [51768042,51908265]; Opening Foundation of
Key Laboratory of Roads and Railway Engineering Safety Control of Ministry of Education [STKF201904]; Supported
Program for Hongliu Outstanding Young Talents at LUT [04-061810].

ORCID
Yan Shi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4019-0809

References
Arias, A. 1970. A measure of earthquake intensity. In Seismic design for nuclear power plants, ed. R. J. Hansen, 438–483.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barbosa, A. R., F. L. A. Ribeiro, and L. A. C. Neves. 2017. Influence of earthquake ground-motion duration on damage
estimation: Application to steel moment resisting frames. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 46 (1):
27–49. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2769.
Bommer, J. J., and A. Martinez-Pereira. 1999. The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 3 (2): 127–172. doi: 10.1080/13632469909350343.
Bommer, J. J., and A. Martinez-Pereira 2000. Strong-motion parameters: Definition, usefulness and predictability. In
Proc. of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bommer, J. J., P. J. Stafford, and J. E. Alarcón. 2009. Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed,
and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99 (6): 3217–
3233. doi: 10.1785/0120080298.
Brendon, A., and Bradley. 2011. Correlation of significant duration with amplitude and cumulative intensity measures
and its use in ground motion selection. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15 (6): 809–832. doi: 10.1080/
13632469.2011.557140.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7031

Chandramohan, R., J. W. Baker, and G. G. Deierlein. 2016. Quantifying the influence of ground motion duration on
structural collapse capacity using spectrally equivalent records. Earthquake Spectra 32 (2): 927–950. doi: 10.1193/
122813eqs298mr2.
Dusicka, P., and A. Lopez 2016. Impact of cascadia subduction zone earthquake on the seismic evaluation criteria of
bridges: technical report: SPR 770. Department of Transportation, Research Section.
Foschaar, J. C., J. W. Baker, and G. G. Deierlein 2012. Preliminary assessment of ground motion duration effects on
structural collapse. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Gou, H. Y., H. Long, Y. Bao, G. Chen, Q. Pu, and R. Kang. 2018. Stress distributions in girder-arch-pier connections of
long-span continuous rigid frame arch railway bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering 23 (7): 04018039. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001250.
Gu, Y., Y. Huang, and W. Zhuo. 2011. Study on seismic vulnerability of long-span continuous rigid frame bridge with
high piers. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 31 (2): 91–97.
Guo, A. X., Y. Shen, J. L. Bai, and H. Li. 2017. Application of the endurance time method to the seismic analysis and
evaluation of highway bridges considering pounding effects. Engineering Structures 131: 220–230. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2016.11.009.
Hammad, A., and M. A. Moustafa. 2019. Shake table tests of special concentric braced frames under short and
long-duration earthquakes. Engineering Structures 200: 109695. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109695.
Han, J. P., X. Y. Sun, and Y. Zhou. 2017. Duration effect of spectrally matched ground motion records on collapse
resistance capacity evaluation of RC frame structures. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 26 (18):
e1397. doi: 10.1002/tal.1397.
Hancock, J., and J. J. Bommer. 2006. A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on
structural damage. Earthquake Spectra 22 (3): 827–845. doi: 10.1193/1.2220576.
Hancock, J., and J. J. Bommer. 2007. Using spectral matched records to explore the influence of strong-motion duration
on inelastic structural response. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 27 (4): 291–299. doi: 10.1016/j.
soildyn.2006.09.004.
Iervolino, I., G. Manfredi, and E. Cosenza. 2006. Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 35 (1): 21–38. doi: 10.1002/eqe.529.
Kabir, M. R., A. H. M. Muntasir Billah, and M. Shahria Alam. 2019. Seismic fragility assessment of a multi-span RC
bridge in Bangladesh considering near-fault, far-field and long-duration ground motions. Structures 19: 333–348. doi:
10.1016/j.istruc.2019.01.021.
Kawashima, K., Y. Takahashi, H. Ge, Z. Wu, and J. Zhang. 2009. Reconnaissance report on damage of bridges in 2008
Wenchuan, China, earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 13 (7): 965–996. doi: 10.1080/13632460902859169.
Kempton, J. J., and J. P. Stewart. 2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions
considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra 22 (4): 985–1013. doi: 10.1193/1.2358175.
Marsh, M. L., and C. M. Gianotti. 1995. Inelastic structural response to Cascadia subduction zone earthquakes.
Earthquake Spectra 11 (1): 63–89. doi: 10.1193/1.1585803.
Mohammed, M. S., D. Sanders, and I. Buckle 2015. Shake table tests of reinforced concrete bridge columns under
long-duration ground motions. In 6th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, United States.
Muthukumar, S., and R. Desroches. 2006. A Hertz contact model with non-linear damping for pounding simulation.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 35 (7): 811–828. doi: 10.1002/eqe.557.
Ou, Y. C., J. W. Song, P. H. Wang, L. Adidharma, K. C. Chang, and G. C. Lee. 2013. Ground motion duration effects on
hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 140 (3): 04013065. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000856.
Pan, Z., C. C. Fu, and Y. Jiang. 2010. Uncertainty analysis of creep and shrinkage effects in long-span continuous rigid
frame of Sutong Bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering 16 (2): 248–258. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000147.
Raghunandan, M., and A. B. Liel. 2013. Effect of ground motion duration on earthquake-induced structural collapse.
Structural Safety 41: 119–133. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2012.12.002.
Rahnama, M., and L. Manuel 1996. The effect of strong motion duration on seismic demands. In 11th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, No.924, Acapulco, Mexico.
Shoji, Y., K. Tanii, and M. Kamiyama 2004. The duration and amplitude characteristics of earthquake ground motions
with emphasis on local site effects. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No.436, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada.
Taflanidis, A. A. 2011. Optimal probabilistic design of seismic dampers for the protection of isolated bridges against
near-fault seismic excitations. Engineering Structures 33 (12): 3496–508. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.07.012.
Tian, L., H. Y. Pan, and R. S. Ma. 2019. Probabilistic seismic demand model and fragility analysis of transmission tower
subjected to near-field ground motions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 156: 266–275. doi: 10.1016/j.
jcsr.2019.02.011.
Trifunac, M. D., and A. G. Brady. 1975. A study on the duration of strong earthquake of ground motion. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of American 65 (3): 581–626.