Seismic Response and Fragility of Rectangular RC Hollow Tall Piers Under Near-Fault Ground Motions Considering Flexure–Shear Interaction
Rectangular reinforced concrete (RC) hollow bridge piers may exhibit significant shear participation after flexural cracking and yielding, whereas their seismic responses are commonly evaluated using flexure-dominated numerical models. This study investigates the effects of axial–flexure–shear interactions on the cyclic response and seismic fragility of rectangular RC hollow bridge piers. Cyclic loading tests on seven one-eighth-scale specimens were analyzed to characterize the effects of the shear-span ratio and reinforcement configuration. The experimental results were then used to assess a conventional flexure model and an axial–flexure–shear interaction model, denoted as AFSI–MBTEM. Full-scale piers with heights of 16, 24, and 32 m were subsequently analyzed under cyclic loading and representative near-fault ground motions. Finally, 7200 nonlinear time-history analyses were conducted using 80 records divided into non-pulse and short-, medium-, and long-period pulse-like groups, while seismic fragility curves were developed using displacement ductility as the demand parameter. The tests indicated flexure-dominated but distinctly shear-sensitive behavior, particularly for specimens with low shear-span ratios. Compared with the flexure model, AFSI–MBTEM reproduced pinching, post-peak deterioration, and hysteretic energy more accurately, reducing the mean absolute error in hysteretic energy from 23.57% to 13.29%. For the full-scale piers, model differences generally decreased as the pier height and shear-span ratio increased together, although the effects on large-deformation stability and seismic response remained configuration- and ground-motion-dependent. AFSI–MBTEM predicted higher fragility in 46 of the 48 height–motion–damage-state comparisons. At the upper analyzed intensity of PGA = 1.5 g, it also produced higher DS4 exceedance probabilities in the examined critical cases. Within the investigated section configurations, axial-load ratios, and coupled height–shear-span cases, the results indicate that neglecting axial–flexure–shear interactions may lead to nonconservative fragility estimates, particularly for configurations with greater shear participation.