Gokhan Pekcan
Address: Reno, Nevada, United States
less
Related Authors
Ebrahim AmiriHormozaki
Kleinfelder
Shriya Bothra
IIT Bombay
Duan Nguyen
Konkuk University
A.Rahman Bhuiyan
Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology (CUET)
Ertugrul Taciroglu
University of California, Los Angeles
Shahria Alam
University of British Columbia
József Simon
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Francesco Cavalieri
European Centre for Training & Research in Earthquake Engineering
Uploads
Papers by Gokhan Pekcan
evaluation of typical details commonly used in the US. Both seismically and nonseismically
designed bridges are considered where the primary differences are in
column confinement, type of bearings and abutment support length. Columns and
bearings were found to be the most seismically vulnerable components for both
categories. Central angle was identified as an important factor that increases the
demand on various components, particularly columns. Furthermore, larger angles
lead to increased deformations at the supports which adversely affect the seismic
vulnerability. Consistent with the fragility curves that account for the central
angle explicitly, a second set of system fragility curves were introduced for cases
when central angle is not specified such as the case in the National Bridge
Inventory. Comparison of fragility parameters to those suggested by HAZUS-MH
highlighted the need for revisions to account for current design practices and
central angle.
evaluation of typical details commonly used in the US. Both seismically and nonseismically
designed bridges are considered where the primary differences are in
column confinement, type of bearings and abutment support length. Columns and
bearings were found to be the most seismically vulnerable components for both
categories. Central angle was identified as an important factor that increases the
demand on various components, particularly columns. Furthermore, larger angles
lead to increased deformations at the supports which adversely affect the seismic
vulnerability. Consistent with the fragility curves that account for the central
angle explicitly, a second set of system fragility curves were introduced for cases
when central angle is not specified such as the case in the National Bridge
Inventory. Comparison of fragility parameters to those suggested by HAZUS-MH
highlighted the need for revisions to account for current design practices and
central angle.