See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238179031

Seismic Fragility of Continuous Steel Highway Bridges in New York State

Article  in  Journal of Bridge Engineering · November 2007

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:6(689)

CITATIONS READS

51 375

3 authors, including:

Anil Agrawal Michel Ghosn

City College of New York City College of New York
129 PUBLICATIONS   2,524 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   921 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post-Hazard Engineering Assessment of Highway Structures View project

Electromagnetic Eddy Current Friction Damper View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michel Ghosn on 21 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Seismic Fragility of Continuous Steel Highway Bridges
in New York State
Y. Pan1; A. K. Agrawal, M.ASCE2; and M. Ghosn3

Abstract: This paper presents the results of an analytical seismic fragility analysis of a typical steel highway bridge in New York State.
The structural type and topological layout of this multispan I-girder bridge have been identified to be most typical of continuous bridges
in New York State. The structural details of the bridge are designed as per New York State bridge design guidelines. Uncertainties
associated with the estimation of material strength, bridge mass, friction coefficient of expansion bearings, and expansion-joint gap size
are considered. To account for the uncertainties related to the bridge structural properties and earthquake characteristics, ten statistical
bridge samples are established using the Latin Hypercube sampling and restricted pairing approach, and 100 ground motions are simulated
numerically. The uncertainties of capacity and demand are estimated simultaneously by using the ratios of demands to capacities at
different limit states to construct seismic fragility curves as a function of peak ground acceleration and fragility surfaces as a function of
moment magnitude and epicentral distance for individual components using nonlinear and multivariate regressions. It has been observed
that nonlinear and multivariate regressions show better fit to bridge response data than linear regression conventionally used. To account
for seismic risk from multiple failure modes, second-order reliability yields narrower bounds than the commonly used first-order reliabil-
ity method. The fragility curves and surfaces obtained from this analysis demonstrate that bridges in New York State have reasonably low
likelihood of collapse during expected earthquakes.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2007兲12:6共689兲
CE Database subject headings: Earthquakes; Bridge, Steel; Bridges, highway; Uncertainty principles; Seismic effects; Risk
management; New York.

Introduction
Fragility analysis provides a means to assess the seismic vulner-
ability of bridges through a conditional probability that a structure
or structural component will meet or exceed a certain damage
level for a given ground motion intensity. Fragility curves are
derived either by empirical 共observed兲 data from past earthquakes
or by analytical methods. Empirical fragility curves have been
developed by statistical analysis of postearthquake inspection data
from several recent earthquakes, e.g., Loma Prieta, CA 共1989兲,
Northridge CA 共1994兲, and Kobe, Japan 共1995兲 共Basoz and
Kiremidjian 1998; Shinozuka et al. 2000b; Yamazaki et al. 1999兲.
Analytical fragility curves are developed through nonlinear dy-
namic analysis or quasistatic analysis when actual bridge damage
and ground motion data are not available 共Shinozuka et al.
2000a兲. Hwang et al. 共2001兲, Choi 共2002兲, Choi et al. 共2004兲 have
1 nonlinear time history analyses of three-dimensional finite-
Structural Engineer, Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP, 129 West 27th
St., New York, NY, 10001; formerly, Graduate Student, The City College
of the City Univ. of New York, New York, NY 10031.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The City College of the City
Univ. of New York, New York, NY 10031 共corresponding author兲.
E-mail: Agrawal@ccny.cuny.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The City College of the City
Univ. of New York, New York, NY 10031. E-mail: ghosn@ccny.cuny.edu
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2008. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on November 21, 2005; approved on May 4, 2006. This paper
is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 6, November
1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2007/6-689–699/$25.00.
generated analytical fragility curves for bridges in the central and
southeastern America.
In this paper, we present fragility curves for highway bridges
in New York State and northeastern United States. Although
earthquakes in New York State are infrequent, they pose a signifi-
cant hazard because of the risk of extensive damage to the exist-
ing aging bridge network. For example, an earthquake near
Massena Center in New York, on September 5, 1944, had a mag-
nitude of 6.0 共VIII兲 共Mitronovas and Nottis 1993兲. A repeat oc-
currence of a same magnitude earthquake may cause tremendous
damage to existing bridge network in the region. Existing fragility
curves that have been developed for other regions of the country
cannot be directly applied to New York State and northeastern
United States because of differences in ground motion character-
istics, typical bridge types, and construction practices.
Fragility curves for typical multispan continuous steel high-
way bridges in New York State have been developed through
element 共FE兲 model of a bridge. The FE model incorporates non-
linear stiffness modeling of columns, bearings, and abutments for
input in the longitudinal direction. Although the development of
analytical fragility curves has been addressed by several research-
ers 共Choi et al. 2004; Shinozuka et al. 2000a,b兲, we make several
significant new contributions to the analytical fragility procedure,
in addition to the development of fragility curves and fragility
surfaces for New York State.
1. Parametric analysis: Previous studies considered uncertain-
ties only in material properties and gap size between deck
spans. In this paper, we carry out detailed parametric study
for the sensitivity of fragility to superstructure weight, con-
crete compressive strength, reinforcement yield strength,

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 / 689

Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 abutment wall–soil stiffness, friction coefficient of expansion
bearings and expansion-joint gap size and observe that un-
certainties associated with friction coefficient of expansion
bearings and superstructure weight have significant effects
on bridge ductility in addition to material strength and gap
size.
2. Analysis of uncertainties: Previous studies 共Karim and
Yamazaki 2001; Deodatis and Saxena 2000; Choi et al. 2004;
Hwang et al. 2001兲 assumed a set of constant values as ca-
pacity criteria and adopted the empirical value suggested in
HAZUS for the dispersion of seismic capacity and demand
关NIBS 共1999兲兴. These values are different in 1997 and 1999
versions of HAZUS and are not related to bridge types and
damage states. Actually, the capacity varies with structural
parameters, and the correctness of assumed dispersion will
largely influence fragility results. To overcome this limita-
tion, estimates of the dispersion in the ratios of demands to
capacities at different limit states are directly obtained based
on the results of a regression fit of the data obtained from the
nonlinear analysis.
3. Regression analysis: Linear regression on bridge response
quantities has been used in previous studies on fragility
analysis. In this paper, we observe that quadratic regression
provides a better fit on the bridge response data as compared
to the commonly used linear regression fit. Further, multi-
variate regressions of the fragility show further improvement
in the predictive model and provide fragility surfaces as a
function of earthquake magnitude and epicentral distance.
4. Bridge fragility: Fragilities of individual components are
combined to develop fragility curves for the complete bridge
system using multiple failure modes theory. Second-order re-
liability bounds are shown to provide narrower bounds on
fragility than first-order reliability bounds used in previous
studies.
Bridge Characteristics and Modeling
It has been observed from the 2003 Bridges Inventory data pro-
vided by the New York State Deptartment of Transportation that
58.2% of the highway bridges in New York State are multibeam
or girder 共slab-girder兲 types. Steel multispan simply supported
bridges constitute 70%, and steel multispan continuous bridges
account for 27% of all multispan slab-girder bridges. The fragility
analysis for steel multispan simply supported bridges is addressed
in a separate study 共Pan 共2006兲兲. Continuous steel bridges typi-
cally have 2 or 3 span with maximum span lengths between 30
and 40 m. A hypothetical typical continuous steel plate girder
bridge shown in Fig. 1 has been selected on the basis of typical
design details for each component obtained from the review of
bridge design drawings. The superstructure of the bridge consists
of 240 mm thick continuous cast-in-place composite concrete
deck supported on six steel plate I-girders. The girders are sup-
ported on two reinforced concrete three-column bents. The end
bearings are seated on the abutments with U-shaped wing walls.
A three-dimensional finite-element model of the bridge using
SAP2000 共9.1.1.V, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley,
Calif.兲 is shown in Fig. 2. The deck and steel girders are com-
bined together and modeled as one line of elastic beam elements,
as it presents effective stiffness and mass distribution characteris-
tics of the bridge. The bridge superstructure itself is expected to
remain essentially elastic during typical earthquake ground mo-
tions for New York State. Nonlinear behavior has been considered
690 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 1. Configuration of a typical multispan continuous steel girder
bridge in New York: 共a兲 elevation; 共b兲 transverse cross section; and
共c兲 bearings
for the connection between superstructure and supporting column/
abutment bents, and the substructure. In the bridge model in Fig.
2, movement of the bridge in transverse direction is restrained by
steel expansion bearings or steel fixed bearings, although expan-
sion bearings accommodate longitudinal movement. Because of
restraint in transverse direction by bearings and in-plane rigidity
of the deck, seismic inertial forces are evenly transferred from
superstructure to the supports points on substructure bents.
Hence, transverse seismic behavior can be accurately modeled by
using spine model in Fig. 2.
Steel bearings in the bridge in Fig. 2 are modeled using mul-
tilinear plastic link elements. The bottom segments of the col-
umns where plastic hinges are likely to occur are modeled using
bilinear plastic elements. The abutments are modeled using beam
elements supported on springs. The expansion joints at abutment
are modeled with gap element. The bases of the column bents are
assumed to be fixed for a continuous spread footing on rock. Due
to the symmetry, seismic analysis can be performed indepen-
dently in the two horizontal directions. The dominance of the
longitudinal motion during multi-axis earthquake is apparent for
this bridge type from the restraints provided by the bearings/ the
abutments, and the column boundary conditions, which is fixed–
free in longitudinal direction and fixed–fixed in the transverse
direction. This observation has also been verified through simpli-
fied analytical modeling and detailed simulation results. Hence,
longitudinal motion of the bridge is most critical direction causing
damage to bridge components. A brief description on nonlinear
modeling of column elements, abutment springs, gap elements
and bearings is presented in the following.
Columns
For longitudinal motion, each column acts as a vertical cantilever
beam. Plastic hinges can only form at the bottom of the columns
for this type of bridge, as pinned joints with bearings 共both fixed
and expansion兲 can accommodate rotations between the cap beam
and the girders. The nominal moment–curvature diagram for each
column section is determined using the BIAX program 共Wallace
and Ibrahim 1996兲. Elastic-perfectly plastic idealization for the
moment–curvature relationship is assumed, as shown in Fig. 3.
The equivalent yield curvature ␾y is found by extrapolating the
line joining the origin and the point corresponding to the first
yield of a reinforcing bar, up to the nominal moment capacity M n,
 Fig. 2. Three-dimensional finite-element model of the bridge using SAP2000
which corresponds to a compressive strain ␧c = 0.005 in the ex-
treme concrete fiber. The curvature ␾y is computed from
Mn
␾y = ␾⬘
My y
where M y and ␾⬘y = moment and curvature at first yielding of a
vertical reinforcing bar. Assuming a constant curvature over the
length of the plastic hinge 共L p兲, the angle of rotation can be cal-
culated as ␪ = ␾L p, where L p is calculated by 共Priestley et al.
1992兲
L p = 0.08L + 0.022f ydbl 艌 0.044f ydbl 关f y 共MPa兲兴
In Eq. 共2兲, L = length from the point of contraflexture to the sec-
tion with maximum moment and dbl = diameter of a longitudinal
reinforcing bar. The moment–rotation relationship is used as input
in SAP2000 to describe the nonlinear behavior of the bilinear
plastic link elements at the base of columns. The column is as-
sumed to behave in a linear elastic manner outside the plastic
hinge length.
Fig. 3. Moment–curvature diagram of piers
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 / 691
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Abutments
For the bridge in this study, seat-type cantilever abutments with
U-shaped wing walls are supported on 18 cast-in-place concrete
共1兲 driven piles. The back wall is 3 m high and as wide as the deck.
Abutments are modeled as beam elements supported on springs
with spring stiffness coefficients derived on the basis of empirical
relationships. The wall–soil resistance model assumes that pres-
sure on the wall increases as the wall moves toward the backfill
and decreases as the wall moves away from the backfill 共Clough
and Duncan 1991兲. CALTRANS uses a passive abutment wall–
soil stiffness of 115.0 kN/ mm/ m 共200 kips/ in./ foot兲 for “aver-
共2兲 age abutment backfill conditions” 共CALTRANS 1989兲. The
passive earth pressure reaches its maximum value when the soil
reaches its ultimate strength of 7.7 ksf 共47.88 kN/m2兲 after suffi-
ciently large movements of the walls, and it remains constant for
further wall movements. At-rest and minimum active pressures
are small enough to be negligible. Hence, only the stiffness of the
piles under an abutment is considered when an abutment is mov-
ing away from the backfill during longitudinal motions. When
abutment wall is pushing against the backfill, both back wall–soil
stiffness and pile stiffness contribute to the total stiffness until
the soil capacity is exceeded, at which point the pile stiffness
alone controls the force–deformation behavior. Pile strength
and stiffness are related to the properties of piles and the interac-
tion of the piles with the surrounding soils. Using recommenda-
tions by CALTRANS 共ATC 1996兲, the nominal stiffness of 12 in.
共30.48 cm兲 driven concrete piles is assumed to be 20 kips/ in./ pile
共3.5⫻ 103 kN/ m / pile兲 for a maximum displacement limit of
25.4 mm. The overall abutment stiffness in the longitudinal direc-
tion is obtained by the superposition of effects wall and pile, as
shown in Fig. 4.
Gap Elements
The nominal gap between ends of the deck and the abutments is
76.2 mm 共3 in.兲. The gap element of SAP2000 is utilized to
account for the possibility of pounding when the longitudinal
 Fig. 4. Load–response for abutment in longitudinal direction
deformations close either of the two gaps. The SAP2000 gap
element is set as a “compression-only” connection such that the
element does not apply any resistance before the closure of the
gap. When the gap between the deck and abutment closes, pound-
ing occurs. The infinite stiffness of gap element can be assumed at
the contact location 共Priestley et al. 1996兲. After the gap closes,
the abutment is assumed to be rigidly connected to bridge decks
in axial direction and begins to contribute in resisting the longi-
tudinal displacements.
Bearings
Although steel bearings are no longer used in new bridges, the
bridge superstructure of most existing bridges in New York State
are supported by steel bearings. There are two types of steel bear-
ings: fixed bearings and expansion bearings. Fixed bearings only
allow the rotation of the superstructure relative to the substruc-
ture. Expansion bearings allow both rotations and large relative
translational movements. The bridge analyzed in this paper has
three kinds of steel bearings, as shown in Fig. 2.
Low type expansion sliding bearing consists of a pinned joint
to accommodate rotation and a sliding element to accommodate
longitudinal movement, while restraining transverses movements.
Mander et al. 共1996兲 have shown through experiments that low
type sliding resistance conforms to Coulomb friction behavior
with zero inelastic stiffness 共␮ = 0.2 and ke = 123 kN/ mm兲.
High type expansion rocker bearing consists of a pinned joint
at the sole plate–rocker interface to accommodate rotations and a
rocker to accommodate longitudinal movements. The experimen-
tal hysteresis loop is found to be approximately rectangular with
combined friction resulting from the rocking resistance at the
rocker–masonry plate interface and the hinge friction at the plate–
rocker interface being approximately 4% of the normal reaction
force, and ke = 14 kN/ mm 共Mander et al. 1996兲. Increase in resis-
tance due to accumulated rusty debris on the rocking surface is
included in the model by assuming an inelastic stiffness with
k p = 0.018ke.
High type fixed bearing consists of a pinned joint to accom-
modate rotations while the bearing is rigidly attached to a ma-
sonry plate. The limited flexibility during longitudinal loading can
be attributed to shear deformation of the rubber pad as well as the
bedding material between the masonry plate and concrete pedes-
tal. The initial stiffness of a high type fixed bearing mounted on
a reinforced concrete pedestal is found to be equal to
k1 = 179 kN/ mm. Based on experimental data, Mander et al.
692 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis of bridge parameters for PGA= 1.0 g
共1996兲 have recommended the use of one bilinear truss and two
link elements in parallel to model bearing behavior. The bearings
models are incorporated in SAP2000 by a trilinear force–
displacement relationship shown in Fig. 2 with k2 = 0.5k1,
k3 = 0.04k1, u1 = 0.4 mm, and u2 = 0.87 mm for the displacement
range smaller than 20 mm.
Parametric Analysis
An extensive parametric analysis has been carried out to evaluate
the sensitivity of the seismic response to variations in superstruc-
ture mass, gap size, concrete compressive strength, reinforcing
bar yield stress, friction coefficient of expansion bearing, and
abutment wall–soil stiffness. Actual values of these parameters
are difficult to estimate and they may vary significantly with re-
spect to their nominal values. A synthetic accelerogram with 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years is scaled to 1.0 g peak
ground acceleration 共PGA兲 for the parametric analysis. This ac-
celerogram is one of a set of accelerograms being recommended
by the New York City Department of Transportation to be adopted
uniformly for the seismic design of bridges in New York City
region. The curvature ductility 共␾ / ␾y兲 of the most critical column
is used to show the effects of variations in each of the parameters
listed earlier.
The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 5,
where the parameter and the ductility are normalized with respect
to the nominal parameter values and corresponding nominal duc-
tility values. The slope of the curves in Fig. 5 shows the sensitiv-
ity of variations in parameters. The following is observed from
Fig. 5.
1. Increasing superstructure mass leads to larger curvature duc-
tility. However, an increase in inertial forces because of a
larger bridge mass may be offset to some extent by the re-
sulting longer structural period, which induces smaller accel-
eration response.
2. Gap size has a significant effect on column ductility during
strong earthquakes. Pier ductility decreases sharply because
of resistance from abutments when the gap size decreases.
3. Pier ductility ratio decreases when the concrete compressive
strength and the steel yielding stress are increased due to the
induced relative change in curvature capacity and seismic
response. The bridge response is significantly less sensitive
to the concrete compressive strength as compared to steel
yield strength.
4. The abutment wall–soil stiffness is not a sensitive parameter
for this type of bridge for PGA up to 1.0 g.
5. Friction coefficient of expansion bearing is a significant pa-
rameter. Neglecting the effect of friction resistance is not a
suitable simplification. The second column bent may be sub-
ject to larger share of seismic forces in superstructure be-
cause of larger friction coefficient of the high type rocker
bearing.
Based on previous observations, it is observed that bridge re-
sponse is sensitive to uncertainties associated with friction coef-
ficient of bearings, reinforcement yield strength, superstructure
weight, gap size and concrete compressive strength 共in the order
of decreasing importance兲. Hence, uncertainties associated with
these parameters must be considered in developing the fragility
curves.
Bridge Structure Uncertainties
Latin Hypercube sampling 共LHS兲 approach is used 共Wyss and
Jorgensen 1998兲 to account for uncertainties in parameters
discussed earlier. In this approach, probability distributions are
assumed for each parameter, and the probability density function
of each random variable is divided into a histogram with equal
probability intervals graded linearly corresponding to cumulative
distributions varying from 5 to 95%.
Bridge Weight
The bridge has a monolithic deck of 240 mm total concrete thick-
ness, including an integral wearing surface. The total nominal
distributed weight for the superstructure 共slab, girders, and wear-
ing surface兲 is equal to 110.20 N / mm. Estimation of the actual
weight of the structure is associated with large degrees of uncer-
tainty due to variations in material densities, member sizes, and
overlay thickness. Following the work of Nowak 共1993兲, we as-
sume that the superstructure weight is normally distributed with a
bias ␭ = 1.05, and a coefficient of variation 共COV兲 = 0.10. Hence,
the total superstructure weight in LHS samples varies from
96.7 to 134.7 N / mm.
Yielding Strength of Reinforcing Steel
As column diameter is a deterministic parameter, uncertainties
associated with column capacity and stiffness are mainly due to
uncertainties in the material strength. According to Priestley et al.
共1996兲, yielding strength of Grade 40 reinforcing steel, which was
used widely for bridges built before the 1980s in New York State,
may vary from 276 up to 406 MPa. In this paper, the yield
strength of Grade 40 reinforcement is considered as a lognormal
random variable with a mean value of 336 MPa and COV of
0.117. Hence, yielding strength of reinforcing steel varies from
275.6 to 405.1 MPa for cumulative probability distributions be-
tween 5 and 95%.
Concrete Compressive Strength
Concrete compressive strength of 20.7 MPa 共3.0 ksi兲 is the stan-
dard design strength for bridges built in New York State during
1970s and 1980s. According to MacGregor 共1992兲, 3.0 ksi
concrete can be assumed to have strength that follows a normal
probability distribution with mean value 27.2 MPa and a standard
deviation of 4.24 MPa 共COV= 0.16兲. It is noted that these tests
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 / 693
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
represent the 28-day strength. As the concrete ages, the strength
increases with time. This factor has not been considered in the
analysis.
Gap Size
Considerable variations in temperature conditions will cause large
deviations in gap size from its nominal value. The average annual
mean temperature in New York State ranges from 40° F 共4.44° C兲
in the Adirondacks to 55° F 共12.78° C兲 in the New York City area.
Actual temperature varies from −5 to 90° F 共−20.56 to 32.22° C兲.
Hence, the temperature variation ⌬T, that is the difference be-
tween temperature during a seismic event and the one during
construction, can be modeled as a random variable in the range
from −95 to 95° F 共−70.56 to 35° C兲. For the purpose of estimat-
ing the gap size when a seismic event occurs, the temperature
variations ⌬T are considered to follow normal distribution, with
mean ␮ = 0 and standard deviation ␴ = 58 to obtain ⌬T samples in
the temperature range from −95.4 to 95.4° F 共−70.78 to 35.22° C兲
corresponding to 5–95% cumulative probability.
The gap between the deck and each abutment is assumed to be
76.2 mm 共3 in.兲 for as-built conditions. The change of gap size is
␣⌬TL. Coefficients of thermal expansion ␣ for steel and concrete
are in the range of 共6.1– 6.7兲 ⫻ 10−6 / ° F 共1.1– 1.2兲 ⫻ 10−5 / ° C兲
and 共4.1– 7.3兲 ⫻ 10−6 / ° F 共7.4– 13兲 ⫻ 10−6 / ° C兲, respectively. For
a composite deck, the coefficient of thermal expansion ␣ of the
composite superstructure can be calculated as
␣c⌬TL + FL/共EcAc兲
␣= 共3兲
⌬TL
where F = force transmitted between the concrete deck and steel
beams to ensure compatibility of the displacements. By taking the
mean values of coefficients ␣ for steel and concrete respectively,
L = 66 m for the right span and L = 30 m for the left span, the
coefficient of thermal expansion ␣ of the composite superstruc-
ture is calculated to be 6.0⫻ 10−6 / ° F 共1.082⫻ 10−5 / ° C兲.
Friction Coefficient of Expansion Bearings
The coefficient of friction is assumed to follow a uniform distri-
bution in the range of 0.16–0.3 for low type sliding bearing, and
in the range of 0.032–0.06 for high type rocker bearings to ac-
count for the uncertainty in the degree of corrosion.
Histograms simulating the frequency distributions of each of
the random variables mentioned earlier are assembled for the pur-
pose of creating a set of bridge samples for analysis. To limit the
bridge sample size, each of the random variables must be paired
to form a total of ten bridge samples. Instead of pairing the vari-
ables randomly, LHS restricted pairing concept is used so that the
correlation matrix is as close as possible to the actual correlation
matrix. As five random variables are assumed uncorrelated, the
following ten representative bridge samples have been obtained
by LHS concept using a trial and error approach to make corre-
lation matrix close to an identity matrix
f y: 共1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10兲
f ⬘c : 共2 7 10 8 1 4 9 3 5 6兲
W: 共9 4 3 5 7 2 10 1 6 8兲
⌬T: 共9 2 10 1 4 5 3 6 8 7兲
Fig. 6. Flow chart for ground motion generation for fragility analysis
␮ b: 共5 1 7 9 8 6 4 3 10 2兲
Each column of the matrix in Eq. 共4兲 represents one bridge
sample. For example, the first sample will be associated with 1st,
2nd, 9th, 9th, and 5th bin of histograms for f y, f ⬘c , W, ⌬T, and ␮b,
respectively.
Simulation of Ground Motions
To perform the fragility analysis, various levels of ground mo-
tions have to be considered to evaluate the probability that the
bridge will be subject to certain damage states within a given
return period. These ground motion records must be representa-
tive of the seismic characteristics of the site. There are only two
existing representative suites of rock motions with return periods
of 500 and 2500 years that are applicable for the New York City
region 共Weidlinger Associates 1998兲. Because of the scarcity of
actual earthquake data, artificial earthquake records must be gen-
erated using the method of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
共PSHA兲. Fig. 6 presents a flow chart describing the process used
for ground motion generation. The interactive deaggregation pro-
grams of the U.S. Geological Survey 共USGS兲 are used to perform
PSHA and deaggregation 共http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/general/
seismicity/usគeast.html兲. The dominant events, defined by
magnitude–epicentral distance pairs, can then be identified from
their level of contribution. Following the recommendations of
Harmsen et al. 共1999兲, a set of events is selected by choosing the
共M w , R兲 pairs, which either have the largest hazard contribution or
would produce target hazard levels. Then, synthetic ground
motions PGA larger than 0.1 g are simulated through the SGMS
program 共Halldorsson and Papageorgiou 2004兲 by defining the
magnitude 共M w兲, Epicentral distance R, and soil class. A suite of
one hundred ground motions at varying hazard levels are gener-
ated for fragility analysis. General properties of these records are:
共1兲 moment magnitude range: 5.5–7.5; 共2兲 hypocentral distance
range: 10– 120 km; and 共3兲 soil categories: NEHRP B-C bound-
ary 共V100 = 760 m / s兲.
Fragility Analysis
The procedure for fragility analysis is described in the flow chart
in Fig. 7. Each of the 10 bridge samples generated previously is
matched with 10 earthquake samples to generate 100 earthquake-
bridge samples for nonlinear time history analysis.
694 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
共4兲
Fig. 7. Steps in development of analytical fragility curves/surfaces
Damage States
The vulnerabilities during earthquakes include damage to the
critical components of columns and bearings. It has been ob-
served from numerical simulation results that the maximum shear
force in the columns is always far below their shear capacity.
Hence, column fails when the flexural ductility capacity is
reached during an earthquake ground motion. The typical inelas-
tic behavior of concrete bridge piers is shown in Fig. 3 where
critical points are associated with the curvatures ␾⬘y , ␾y, ␾d, ␾u.
These critical points are related to the types of damage. ␾⬘y indi-
cates the initiation of yielding. The bifurcation point at ␾y is
associated with the formation of plastic hinge in the column. The
strength degradation occurs at ␾d, when the maximum moment is
reached. Crushing of concrete occurs at ultimate curvature ␾u
when the strain in the concrete is equal to ␧cu, which accounts for
the effect of confinement 共Mander et al. 1988兲
1.4␳s f yh␧su
␧cu = 0.004 + 共5兲
f ⬘cc
where ␳s = volumetric ratio of the confining steel; ␧su = strain at the
maximum tensile stress of the transverse steel, which is com-
monly taken as 0.15 for Grade 40 reinforcement, and 0.12 for
Grade 60 reinforcement; and f ⬘cc = compressive strength of the
confined concrete. The critical curvatures can be obtained using
the program BIAX. Fig. 8 shows the values of ␾⬘y , ␾y, ␾d, ␾u
obtained for the columns of these ten bridge samples. The capac-
ity difference among samples is due to the variation in material
strength and dead loads.
Potential damage to fixed high type bearing can be associated
with bond failure of the high strength anchor bolts and rocking of
the bearing on the bedding material, which would start when the
displacement exceeds 20 mm 共Mander et al. 1996兲. This displace-
ment threshold is significantly above the values observed in the
100 dynamic analyses performed. Hence, this mode of failure is
ignored in the fragility analysis. For expansion bearings, instabil-
ity may cause the superstructure to move a considerable distance
and fall off the bridge seat in the worst case. High type rocker
bearings would overturn about the edge of the bottom of the
rocker 共by rolling off the rocker on the masonry plate兲, when the
Fig. 8. Pier curvature capacities at four damage states for ten
samples

deformation exceeds 153 mm. Instability of low expansion bear-

ings occurs when the translation of the sliding plate over the
bronze plate is larger than half the width of the masonry plate
共i.e., 102 mm兲. In summary, the following damage states are used
in the fragility analysis:
1. Four different levels of damages to columns correspond to
four curvatures ␾⬘y , ␾y, ␾d, and ␾u;
2. Instability occurs in high type rocker bearings when dis-
placement exceeds 153 mm;
3. Instability occurs in low type sliding bearings when displace-
ment exceeds 102 mm; and
4. Either instability of expansion bearing or collapse of column
would lead to the failure of the whole bridge system.

Fragility Curves Fig. 9. Regression analysis of ln 共demand/capacity兲 versus ln共PGA兲:

The nonlinear time history analysis of the 10 sample bridges is
carried out using 100 simulated earthquake records. Each bridge
was analyzed for 10 different records selected to cover a wide
range of PGAs. Hence, a total of 100 analysis cases have been
performed. In each case, the maximum column curvature and the
maximum bearing displacements are divided by the correspond-
ing capacities, and are plotted on a log–log scale, as shown in Fig.
9. A regression analysis is then performed to establish a relation-
ship between the expected damage and the PGA of seismic
records. The uncertainties of capacity and demand are considered
simultaneously by linear and nonlinear 共quadratic兲 regression
analysis based on the ratios of demands to capacities at different
limit states. Regression results show better fit on the bridge
response data by quadratic regression than by linear regression
because of larger values of the coefficient of determination r2 in
case of quadratic regression.
From the properties of regression, ln共Sd / Sc兲 is assumed to fol-
low a normal distribution about the regression curve 共linear or
quadratic兲 for all values of analyzed PGA, where Sd and Sc are
structural demand and capacity, respectively. This is consistent
with previous studies by Hwang et al. 共2001兲, Choi et al. 共2004兲,
and Shinozuka et al. 共2000a兲. By regression analysis, the mean
value of ln共Sd / Sc兲 is expressed as a function of PGA. The stan-
dard deviation for regression line is 冑Sr / 共n − 2兲, where Sr = sum of
squares of the residuals with respect to the regression line. Then,
the fragility for a specific damage-state can be computed as
共a兲 pier curvature ␾⬘y ; 共b兲 pier curvature ␾y; 共c兲 pier curvature ␾d;
共d兲 pier curvature ␾u; 共e兲 high type rocker bearing displacement
limit= 153 mm; and 共f兲 low type sliding bearing displacement
limit= 102 mm
␭ is expressed as Eq. 共7兲, with coefficients a, b, and c determined
by the least-square method
␭ = a共ln共PGA兲兲2 + b ln共PGA兲 + c 共7兲
␴ = 冑Sr/共n − 2兲 共8兲
Fig. 10 shows fragility curves for the columns and bearings. It is
observed from Fig. 10 that the median PGA 共with 50% fragility兲
is 0.60, 0.66, 1.07, and 1.48 g for the column damage states of
first yielding of longitudinal reinforcement, formation of the plas-
tic hinge, beginning of strength degradation and concrete crush-
ing, respectively. The median PGA for bearing instability is
around 1.24 g for both high type rocker bearing and low type
sliding bearing. The fragility curves for these two types of bearing
almost overlap in Fig. 10, although their regression equations and
standard deviations are quite different in Fig. 9.
As pier collapse and/or loss of bearing supports will lead to the
collapse of the bridge structural system, their fragility curves
should be combined to obtain the system fragility curve. For this

Pf = P 冋 册
Sd
Sc
艌1 =1−␾
␴
冉
ln共1兲 − ␭
=␾
␭
␴
冊 冉冊 共6兲
type of multiple failure modes, different failure modes are corre-
lated. The first-order upper and lower bound estimates of the
probability of failure ignore the correlation between these failure
where ␭ and ␴ = mean value and standard deviation of ln共Sd / Sc兲 modes and can be expressed as 共Cornell 1967; Kottegoda and
obtained from regression analysis. By using quadratic regression, Rosso 1997兲

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 / 695

Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
 Fig. 11. Fragility curves for system reliability due to multiple failure
modes

p共Fi 艚 F j兲 = p 冉 Sdi
Sci
艌 1,
Sdj
Scj
冊 冉冉 冊
艌 1 = p ln
Sdi
Sci
艌 0,

ln冉 冊 冊
Sdj
Scj
艌0 共12兲

Correlation coefficients used in joint density function are defined

Fig. 10. Fragility curves of individual components versus PGA
m m
max关Pi兴 艋 Psys 艋 1 −
i=1
兿
i=1
关1 − Pi兴
The combined fragility curve for combined damage states of piers
and bearings is shown in Fig. 11 with the upper and lower bounds
producing a median PGA being between 1.15 and 1.24 g. A nar-
rower gap between the lower and upper bounds is obtained using
the second order bounds 共Melchers 1999兲. The lower bound for
three limit states becomes
p− = p共F1兲 + 关p共F2兲 − p共F2 艚 F1兲兴+ + 关p共F3兲 − p共F3 艚 F1兲
− p共F3 艚 F2兲兴+
In Eq. 共10兲, 关 兴+ ⬅ max共 , 0兲, where Fi denotes the event “failure
of the structure due to failure in the ith mode,” and 共Fi 艚 F j兲 is the
event that failure occurs in both ith and jth modes. Similarly,
second order upper bound is expressed as
as
COV共Xi,X j兲 E关共Xi − ␮i兲共X j − ␮ j兲兴
␳= = 共13兲
␴ i␴ j ␴ i␴ j
where Xi = ln共Sdi / Sci兲; X j = ln共Sdj / Scj兲; and ␮i and ␮ j being mean
values expressed by the regression equations of Xi and X j as a
function of PGA. In Eq. 共13兲, ␴i and ␴ j are the standard devia-
tions of Xi and X j. The analysis results show that the joint prob-
ability between instability of the bearings and column collapse is
much less than the joint probability between failures in the two
kinds of bearings. This observation implies that second-order
bounds in Eqs. 共10兲 and 共11兲 are quite close and a single estimate
for the second order fragility can be approximately obtained as
共9兲 p ⬇ p共F1兲 + p共F2兲 + p共F3兲 − 关p共F2 艚 F1兲兴+ 共14兲
where F1 and F2 are two kinds of expansion bearings failure
events, and F3 is the column collapse failure event. Fig. 11 shows
the second order bound with system failure occurring at a median
PGA of 1.19 g.
Fragility Surfaces
Data on earthquake moment magnitude and epicentral distance
are more readily available and more representative characteristics
than PGA. Hence, the relationship between seismic fragility of
共10兲 highway bridges and 共M w , R兲 pair for an earthquake at a site
would be more meaningful. As 100 pairs of 共M w , R兲 are selected
from USGS database to simulate 100 earthquake time histories, a
multivariate regression analysis is used to develop relationships
between ln共Sd / Sc兲 and 共ln M w , ln R兲 pairs to obtain a relationship
of the form

p+ = p共F1兲 + p共F2兲 + p共F3兲 − 关p共F2 艚 F1兲兴+ E共ln共Sd/Sc兲兲 = a + b ln共M w兲 + c ln共R兲 共15兲

− 关p共F3 艚 F1兲,p共F3 艚 F2兲兴+ 共11兲 where ln共Sd / Sc兲 is still assumed to have normal distribution about
the mean value. The three-dimensional plots in Fig. 12 show the
The joint bivariate normal density function 共Ang and Tang 1975兲 variability and regression fit. The standard deviation for regres-
is integrated doubly for the joint probability as sion plane is 冑Sr / 共n − 3兲. Comparing Fig. 9 with Fig. 12, it is

696 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007

Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 12. Regression analysis of ln共demand/capacity兲 versus ln共M w兲
and ln共R兲 共km兲: 共a兲 pier curvature ␾⬘y ; 共b兲 pier curvature ␾y; 共d兲 pier
curvature ␾d; 共e兲 pier curvature ␾u; 共e兲 high type rocker bearing
displacement limit= 153 mm; and 共f兲 low type sliding bearing
displacement limit= 102 mm
Fig. 13. Fragility surfaces of bridge piers at different damage states:
共a兲 pier curvature ␾⬘y ; 共b兲 pier curvature ␾y; 共c兲 pier curvature ␾d; and
共d兲 pier curvature ␾u
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 / 697
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 14. Contour map of bridge piers for probability of exceeding ␾y
observed that the r2 values are larger for the multivariate regres-
sion in M w and R than those obtained for the linear and quadratic
regressions as functions of PGA. The fragility for specific
damage-state can be computed using Eq. 共6兲 by expressing ␭, the
mean value of ln共Sd / Sc兲, in the form of Eq. 共15兲. Figs. 13共a–d兲
show fragility surfaces of bridge piers for damage states related to
exceeding the curvatures ␾⬘y , ␾y, ␾d, ␾u. It is observed that the
fragility increases with decreasing R and increasing M w. Within a
practical scope of M w 艋 7.5 and R 艌 10 for this region, the maxi-
mum fragility for exceeding curvatures ␾⬘y and ␾y could reach
100%, while the maximum fragilities for exceeding curvatures ␾d
and ␾u are only 88 and 9%, respectively. The scope of M w and R
that would lead to a certain failure probability can be determined
from the contour plots. For example, it is observed from Fig. 14
that there are three contour curves for the 10, 50, and 90% prob-
ability of exceeding the curvature ␾y. The hatched area in Fig. 14
gives the range of earthquake magnitudes and epicentral distances
that may cause the formation of plastic hinges in piers with more
than 50% probability. Alternatively, given an earthquake with
known magnitude, the fragility can be determined by cutting a
section through the fragility surface to obtain a fragility curve for
different distances to the epicenter. For example, the curves in
Fig. 15共a兲 is obtained by cutting sections in fragility surface of
Fig. 13共b兲 at M w = 7.4, 7.0, 6.6, and 6.2. Fig. 15共a兲 shows that the
probability of forming a plastic hinge in a pier decreases sharply
with increasing distance and bridges farther than 50 km from epi-
center are quite safe. This distance is relatively shorter than that
Fig. 15. Cut sections for fragility surface for probability of exceeding
␾y
 Fig. 16. Fragility surfaces for instability of expansion bearings
observed for sites in the western United States. This happens
because the high frequency contents in earthquakes in northeast-
ern United States die off with distance more rapidly than low
frequency contents observed in earthquake records from western
United States. Contour plots can also be used to determine dam-
age probabilities for different earthquake magnitudes at a particu-
lar site as shown in Fig. 15共b兲. The complete system damage
could either be due to bearing instability or/and column collapse.
Figs. 16共a and b兲 show fragility surfaces for bearings with a maxi-
mum probability of 58 and 68% for high type rocker and low type
sliding bearings, respectively. Similarly, the combined fragility
surface for the system collapse can be obtained using the second-
order bounds, as shown in Fig. 17.
Conclusions
This paper presents an improved approach for developing analyti-
cal fragility curves for a typical multi-span continuous steel high-
way bridge. Analytical fragility curves developed in this paper are
likely to be used extensively by state Departments of Transporta-
tions and other transportation agencies in the northeastern United
States region. Besides this, the proposed approach has the follow-
ing significant other advantages over existing approaches:
1. The proposed approach uses uncertainties associated with
friction coefficient of bearing and superstructure weight in
addition to other factors, e.g., reinforcement yield strength,
Fig. 17. Fragility surface for bridge collapse
698 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007
Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
concrete compressive strength and gap size. These two im-
portant factors have not been considered in previous studies.
2. Linear, quadratic, and multivariate regressions are conducted
on the ratio of seismic demand to capacity ln共Sd / Sc兲 to ac-
count for the uncertainties in these variables simultaneously.
In previous studies, uncertainty in demand was considered
through regression while the uncertainty in capacity was as-
sumed based on engineering judgment.
3. Comparisons of results of three types of regressions show
that the multivariate regression provides the best fit in terms
of the coefficients of determination. For fragility versus PGA
curves, quadratic regression is significantly superior to linear
regression. Using linear regression for strong earthquakes
共⬎0.6 g for New York State兲 is not reasonable because of
nonlinear trend of ln共Sd / Sc兲 for large PGAs.
4. Failure modes of individual components, i.e., instability of
bearings, and pier collapse, are combined to obtain first and
second order bounds on the fragility of system failure. The
median PGAs are 0.60, 0.66, 1.07, and 1.19 g for the limit
states corresponding to first yielding of longitudinal rein-
forcement, formation of the plastic hinge, start of strength
degradation in bridge columns and bridge collapse.
5. Fragility surfaces as functions of M w and R have been devel-
oped. Using contour maps of a fragility surface, values of
earthquake magnitudes and epicentral distances can be deter-
mined for each probability of exceedance. For example, it is
observed from fragility surface that the maximum fragility
could reach 100%, 100%, 88% and 88% for the four damage
states of bridge for M w 艋 7.5 and R 艌 10 km in northeastern
United States.
Further work on seismic fragility of typical multispan simply
supported steel highway bridge in northeastern United States will
be presented in future publications.
Acknowledgments
This research presented in this paper has been supported through
NSF Grant No. CMS 0099895 and U.S. Department of Transpor-
tation through Region II University Transportation Research
Consortium. Any opinion expressed in this paper are those of the
writers and do not reflect the opinions of sponsoring agencies.
Discussions and comments by Dr. Sreenivas Alampalli, Director,
Bridge Program and Evaluation Service Bureau, New York State
Department of Transportation, and Dr. Mohammed Ettouney,
Principal, Weidlinger Associates, New York, during the course of
this research are sincerely acknowledged.
References
Ang, A. H., and Tang, W. H. 共1975兲. Probability concepts in engineering
planning and design, Vol. 1, Wiley, New York.
Applied Technology Council 共ATC兲. 共1996兲. “Improved seismic design
criteria for California bridges: Provisional recommendations.” ATC-
32, Redwood City, Calif.
Basoz, N., and Kiremidjian, A. 共1998兲. “Evaluation of bridge damage
data from the Loma Prieta and Northridge, CA earthquakes.” Rep. No.
MCEER-98-0004, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research, Buffalo, N.Y.
California Department of Transportation 共CALTRANS兲. 共1989兲. Bridge
design specifications manual, Sacramento, Calif.
Choi, E. 共2002兲. “Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges.”
Dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., and Nielson, B. 共2004兲. “Seismic fragility of
typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.” Eng. Struct., 26共2兲, 187–
199.
Clough, C. W., and Duncan, J. M. 共1991兲. Foundation engineering hand-
book, 2nd Ed., H. Y. Fang, ed., Chapman and Hall, New York, 223–
235.
Cornell, C. A. 共1967兲. “Bounds on the reliability of structural system.” J.
Struct. Div., 93共1兲, 171–200.
Deodatis, G., and Saxena, V. 共2000兲. “Effect of spatial variability of
ground motion on bridge fragility curves.” 8th Specialty Conf. on
Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability 共CD-ROM兲,
ASCE, Reston, Va.
Halldorsson, B., and Papageorgiou, A. S. 共2004兲. “Papageorgiou region
specific ground motion simulations using the specific barrier model.”
User’s manual of SGMS, Engineering Seismology Laboratory, State
Univ. of New York, Buffalo, 具http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/EngSeisLab/
Publications/SGMSv5/SGMSv5-User-Manual-Draft.pdf典.
Harmsen, S., Perkins, D., and Frankel, A. 共1999兲. “Deaggregation of
probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States.”
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 89共1兲, 1–13.
Hwang, H., Liu, J., and Chiu, Y. 共2001兲. “Seismic fragility analysis of
highway bridges.” Technical Rep., Center for Earthquake Research
and Information, Univ. of Memphis, Memphis, Tem.
Karim, K. R., and Yamazaki, F. 共2000兲. “Comparison of empirical and
analytical fragility curves for RC bridge piers in Japan.” 8th Specialty
Conf. on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability
共CD-ROM兲, ASCE, Reston, Va.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007 / 699
View publication stats Downloaded 26 May 2009 to 144.3.101.112. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Kottegoda, N. T., and Rosso, R. 共1997兲. Statistics, probability, and reli-
ability for civil and environmental engineers, McGraw–Hill, New
York.
MacGregor, J. G. 共1992兲. Reinforced concrete design, 2nd Ed, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Mander, J. B., Kim, D. K., Chen, S. S., and Premus, G. J. 共1996兲. “Re-
sponse of steel bridge bearings to the reversed cyclic loading.” Tech-
nical Rep. No. NCEER 96-0014, NCEER, Buffalo, N.Y.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. 共1988兲. “Observed stress–
strain behavior of confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 114共8兲, 1827–
1849.
Melchers, R. E. 共1999兲. Structural reliability analysis and prediction, 2nd
Ed., Wiley, New York.
Mitronovas, W., and Nottis, G. N. 共1993兲. “A historical look at earth-
quakes in the northeast.” Proc., “Earthquakes in the Northeast-Are
We ignoring the Hazard?” Workshop on Earthquake Science and
Safety for Educators, Technical Rep. No. NCEER-93-0005, Buffalo,
N.Y.
National Institute of Building Sciences 共NIBS兲 and Federal Emergency
Management Agency. 共1999兲. “Technical manual.” HAZUS99-SR2,
Washington, D.C.
Nowak, A. S. 共1993兲. “Calibration of LRFD bridge design code.”
NCHRP Project No. 12-33, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Pan, Y. 共2006兲. “Seismic fragility and risk management of highway
bridges in New York state.” Ph.D. dissertation, City Univ. of New
York, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. 共1996兲. Seismic design
and retrofitting of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Chai, Y. H. 共1992兲. Design guidelines
for assessment retrofit and repair of bridges for seismic performance,
Rep. No. SSPP-92/-1, Dept. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering
Sciences, Univ. of California, San Diego.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Kim, H., and Kim, S. 共2000a兲. “Nonlinear
static procedure for fragility curve development.” J. Eng. Mech.,
126共12兲, 1287–1295.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Lee, J., and Naganuma, T. 共2000b兲. “Statis-
tical analysis of fragility curves.” J. Eng. Mech., 126共12兲, 1224–
1231.
Wallace, J. W., and Ibrahim, Y. A. 共1996兲. “Strength analysis of rein-
forced concrete sections program.” User’s manual for BIAX, Univ. of
California at Berkeley, Calif.
Weidlinger Associates. 共1998兲. “New York City seismic hazard study and
its engineering applications.” Final Rep., New York.
Wyss, G. D., and Jorgensen, K. H. 共1998兲. A user’s guide to LHS: Sand-
ia’s Latin hypercube sampling software, Risk Assessment and Systems
Modeling Dept., Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M.
Yamazaki, F., Hamada, T., Motoyama, H., and Yamauchi, H. 共1999兲.
“Earthquake damage assessment of expressway bridges in Japan.”
Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability, ASCE Proc.,
5th U.S. Conf. on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, 361–370.