PSI - Issue 78

Ataklti Gebrehiwet Gebrekidan et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1665–1672

1668

is compatible with the maximum limits, which include isolated and non-isolated bridge alternatives. Finally, Multiple Stripe analysis (MSA) was used as the nonlinear dynamic analysis method.

Figure 2: Nonlinear FE model of the bridge in OpenseesPy (dimensions in meters).

Figure 3: Hazard curves for the low and high hazard assumed locations.

4. Damage states and engineering demand parameters The seismic performance of the bridge components was assessed using four Damage States (DSs) for the local Engineering Demand Parameters (EDPs) of each component. Two damageable components were considered: piers and bearings. The DSs are categorised as follows: slight (DS1), moderate (DS2), extensive (DS3), and complete (DS4). DS thresholds for bearings are defined in terms of peak relative displacement, according to Nielson (2005), while the ones for the seismic isolators are determined by peak shear strain which limits are estimated from recommendations by Zhang and Huo (2009). The dispersion of the threshold values for both bearings and isolators are those given in Ozsarac et al. (2023). The selected EDP for the columns composing the piers is the drift ratio. The four DSs for RC columns are quantitatively defined and associated with material strain limits, as recommended in Perdomo and Monteiro (2020). Nonlinear static analyses of cantilever RC column cross-sections were performed in