Effect of R, µ and T on the Fragility Curves for Two Spans Reinforced Concrete Highway Bridges


Fragility curves are useful tools for evaluating the probability of structural damage due to earthquakes as a function of ground motion indices. The force reduction factor (R) is one of the seismic design parameters that determine the nonlinear performance of building structures during strong earthquakes. R factor itself is mostly a function of displacement ductility (µ), natural period of a structure, and soil conditions. A statistical method (Path Analysis) is proposed for the first time to determine the effect of R, µ and T on the column fragility curve parameters of typical box girder, two spans reinforced concrete highway bridge class. An analytical approach was adopted to develop the fragility curves based on numerical simulation. The R, µ and fundamental period T have been used to characterize different bridge configurations. The total, direct, and indirect effects of the variables as having significant effect on fragility curve parameters were identified.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alwin, D.F., and Hauser, R.M., 1975. The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American sociological review, pp. 37-47.

  • Baker, J. W., and Allin Cornell, C., 2005. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(10), pp. 1193-1217.

  • Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238.

  • Berry, M., Parrish, M., and Eberhard, M., 2004. PEER Structural Performance Database, User’s Manual (Version 1.0). University of California, Berkeley.

  • Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, pp. 136-136.

  • Celik, OC., and Ellingwood, BR., 2010. Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames–Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Structural Safety, 32, pp. 1-12

  • Choi, E., DesRoches, R., and Nielson, B., 2004. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures, 26, pp. 187-199.

  • Cornell, CA. and Krawinkler, H., 2000. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER center news, 3, pp. 1-3.

  • DesRoches, R., Padgett, J., Ramanathan, K. and Dukes, J. 2012. Feasibility studies for improving Caltrans bridge fragility relationships No. CA12-1775.

  • Jeong, S-H., and Elnashai, AS., 2007. Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental response quantities. Engineering Structures, 29, pp. 1238-1251.

  • Kennedy, R. P., and Ravindra, M. K., 1984. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 79(1), pp. 47-68.

  • Kircher, C. A., Whitman, R. V. and Holmes, W. T., 2006. HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methods. Natural Hazards Review, 7(2), pp. 45-59.

  • Land, K. C. 1969. Principles of path analysis. Sociological methodology, 1: 3-37.

  • Luco N., and Cornell, CA., 2007. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 23, pp. 357-392.

  • Mackie, K., and Stojadinovic, B., 2004. Improving probabilistic seismic demand models through refined intensity measures. In: Proc. 13th World Conf. Earthquake Eng. Int. Assoc. for Earthquake Eng. Japan, August 2004.

  • Mackie, KR., and Stojadinovic, B., 2005. Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision making. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Kadysiewski, S. and Mosalam, K.M., 2009. Modeling of unreinforced masonry infill walls considering in-plane and outof-plane interaction (Vol. 70). Berkeley, California, USA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

  • McKay, MD., Beckman, RJ. and Conover, WJ., 2000. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics, 42, pp. 55-61.

  • Megally, S., Veletzos, MJ., Burnell, K., Restrepo, JI. and Seible, F., 2009. Seismic performance of precast concrete segmental bridges: Summary of experimental research on segment-to-segment joints. PCI journal, 54(2).

  • Nielson, B. G., 2005. Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. PhD Thesis., Georgia Institute of Technology,

  • Padgett, JE., Nielson, BG. and DesRoches, R. 2008. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37, pp. 711-725.

  • Pedhazur, E. J., and Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. 1991. Exploratory factor analysis. Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach, pp. 590-630.

  • Priestley, MN, Seible, F., and Calvi, GM., 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Ramanathan, K., DesRoches, R., and Padgett, J., 2010. Analytical fragility curves for multispan continuous steel girder bridges in moderate seismic zones. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 173-182.

  • Ramanathan, K., Padgett, JE., and DesRoches, R., 2015. Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California. Engineering Structures, 97, pp. 29-46.

  • Scharge, L., 1981. Anchoring of bearings by friction, joint sealing and bearing systems for concrete structures. In: World congress on joints and bearings (Vol. 1).

  • Shamsabadi, A., Yan, L. 2008. Closed-form force-displacement backbone curves for bridge abutment-backfill systems. In: Geotechnical Earthquake. Engineering and Soil Dynamics, IV: pp. 1-10.

  • Shome, N., 1999. Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of nonlinear structures. Stanford University.

  • Singhal, A., and Kiremidjian, A. S., 1996. Method for probabilistic evaluation of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(12), pp. 1459-1467.

  • Straub, D., and Der Kiureghian, A., 2008. Improved seismic fragility modeling from empirical data. Structural safety, 30(4): pp. 320-336.

  • Wright, S., 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of agricultural research, 20(7), pp. 557-585.


Journal + Issues