Life-Cycle Resilience of Aging Bridges under Earthquakes

B Sharanbaswa Vishwanath1; and Swagata Benerjee, A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: A quantitative framework was developed to assess life-cycle resilience of deteriorating reinforced concrete (RC) bridges under
seismic ground motions (GMs). Deterioration of a three-span RC bridge due to chloride-induced corrosion was considered, and three-
dimensional (3D) finite-element (FE) models of the bridge were generated at pristine and four degraded conditions. Nonlinear time history
analyses of bridge models were performed to develop time-variant bridge fragility curves, which were utilized further to estimate post-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

earthquake direct and indirect losses arising from bridge damage and associated downtime. Sigmoidal functions were used to numerically
simulate realistic recovery paths depending on the extent of bridge damage after earthquakes. Finally, bridge resilience was estimated by
integrating the bridge’s seismic vulnerability, losses, and recovery functions. Obtained results revealed a degrading trend of resilience of the
bridge as it aged, signifying the importance of considering a life cycle–oriented framework for estimating time-variant resilience of aging
bridges. At a specific state of degradation, bridge resilience was observed to reduce linearly or nonlinearly with increasing GM intensity or peak
ground acceleration (PGA). Finally, an uncertainty analysis with key uncertain input parameters showed resilience of the pristine bridge at any
specific PGA to vary following a normal distribution. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001491. Ó 2019 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridge; Life-cycle resilience; Vulnerability; Corrosion; Loss; Earthquake.

Introduction
Corrosion is a major factor of bridge aging and degradation with
time. Statistics indicate that about one-sixth of bridges in the United
States are either in poor condition or structurally deficient, and about
40% of bridges have crossed 50 years in their service lives (FHWA
2018). The scenario is not much different in other parts of the world.
As the existing bridge infrastructure continues to age, it becomes
increasingly more susceptible to damage under extreme conditions.
Certainly, corrosion does not always cause failure of aging bridges,
but it contributes to an accumulated risk, particularly when main-
tenance is not done in a timely manner. The worldwide failure in-
ventory of bridges provides abundant examples of collapse of in-
service aging bridges under normal circumstances and due to natural
disasters such as earthquakes and floods. One such example is the
failure of the old Surajbari Bridge in India during the Bhuj Earth-
quake of 2001. The bridge, built in late 1960s, was found to be in
bad condition prior to the earthquake due to significant corrosion of
rebar in an aggressive environment of salt water combined with high
temperatures (Madabhushi and Haigh 2005). The bridge’s deterio-
rated condition accelerated its failure in 2001 during the earthquake.
Extensive research has been performed over the last decade to
investigate the performance of corroded bridges and aging highway
transportation systems under seismic hazard (examples include
Choe et al. 2009; Ghosh and Padgett 2010; Simon et al. 2010;
Alipour et al. 2011; Gardoni and Rosowsky 2011; Zhong et al. 2012;
1
Doctoral Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Tech-
nology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. Email: sharan.baswa@iitb
.ac.in
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India (corresponding au-
thor). Email: swagata@civil.iitbac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 2, 2018; approved
on June 5, 2019; published online on September 6, 2019. Discussion period
open until February 6, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Ó ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
© ASCE 04019106-1
Decò and Frangopol 2013; Ou et al. 2013; Akiyama and Frangopol
2014; Rokneddin et al. 2014; Biondini et al. 2015; Alipour and
Shafei 2016; Ni Choine et al. 2016; Dong and Frangopol 2016;
Kezhiyur et al. 2016; and Thanapol et al. 2016). The overall ob-
servation from all these past studies was that corrosion poses greater
threats to bridges due to higher bridge seismic vulnerability at cor-
roded condition than that at pristine condition. This is an obvious
outcome because corrosion results in reduction of steel area, deg-
radation of bond strength between concrete and steel bars (Lee et al.
2002), and concrete spalling, leading to further exposure of rein-
forcement bars in reinforced concrete (RC) members to the corro-
sive environment (Coronelli and Gambarova 2004). Apart from this
direct threat of corrosion on overall health of bridges, corroded
bridge components take part in contaminating groundwater.
The previously mentioned studies on seismic performance as-
sessment of corroded bridges made meaningful advancements in
this field of research; however, not much knowledge of seismic
resilience of aging bridges is available now. With resilience rec-
ognized as an important indicator of bridge performance that ac-
counts for vulnerability, losses, and postdisaster recovery measures,
research is indeed needed to comprehend the impact of corrosion on
life-cycle resilience of bridges under seismic hazard. Thus far, the
issue has broadly been addressed in Biondini et al. (2015) and Dong
and Frangopol (2016). Considering a representative corroded RC
bridge, Biondini et al. (2015) estimated seismic resilience of the
bridge for its 50-year life span in which the bridge’s time-variant
functionality indicator was expressed in terms of its base shear ca-
pacity and displacement ductility at various time instances. The
process, however, did not calculate any physical loss arising from
bridge damage and inaccessibility owing to seismic events. The
analytical framework proposed by Dong and Frangopol (2016) for
estimating seismic resilience of a corroding RC bridge incorporated
seismic vulnerability (in the form of fragility curves), losses, and
recovery models. The study, however, did not perform any case-
specific fragility analysis and considered fragility curves from
HAZUS-MH MR4 (HAZUS) software developed by FEMA (2003)
for the pristine condition of the bridge. Moreover, the use of a simple
recovery model in that study signifies the need for a robust, ap-
J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106

 propriate, and easy to apply recovery model for life cycle resilience
assessment of aging bridges.
With an objective of developing a quantitative framework for
estimating life-cycle resilience of deteriorating bridges under possi-
ble seismic hazard scenarios, the present study analyzed a three-span
RC bridge with corrosion deterioration over a period of 100 years.
Three major components of this framework—vulnerability, losses,
and recovery—are discussed. Seismic fragility analysis of the bridge
was performed at both pristine and degraded conditions (i.e., at 25,
50, 75, and 100 years of deterioration) to generate a time-variant
vulnerability model of the bridge as it aged. Postearthquake losses
arising from bridge damage and associated downtime were estimated
in terms of direct and indirect losses incorporating probable pre- and
postevent traffic information on the bridge. The recovery model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
constitutes a sigmoidal function that is capable of producing different
recovery patterns according to the extent of bridge damage and
associated idle time for postevent recovery actions. Finally, an un-
certainty analysis was conducted for the as-built bridge to obtain
possible variability of seismic resilience due to uncertain parameters
in the constituent models (i.e., vulnerability, losses, and recovery).
Outcome of this research not only shows the importance of consid-
ering a life cycle–oriented approach for estimating seismic resilience
of aging bridges but also identifies the need for bridge maintenance
and provides a platform for future research aiming at the development
of strategic plans for scheduling bridge maintenance interventions.
Seismic Resilience of Degrading Bridges
The concept of resilience has evolved over the last four decades in
diverse fields of research and has been applied at individual, com-
munity, and organizational levels. For bridges and bridge networks
under single and multiple hazards, a systematic and comprehensive
review of resilience assessment is presented in Banerjee et al.
(2019). Resilience of a bridge under seismic excitations can be
calculated from the normalized area under the functionality curve
between time of occurrence of the seismic event (t0E) and a time
instant, t0E þ TLC, as shown in Fig. 1. Here, TLC is called controlled
time, a time set by stakeholders to recover the functionality of the
bridge, partially or fully, after the event. Previous studies observed
that resilience significantly depends on residual functionality of
bridges after an earthquake event and the process of postevent
functional recovery over time. Mathematically, seismic resilience is
expressed as (Cimellaro et al. 2010)
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of seismic resilience of degrading
bridges.
© ASCE 04019106-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
t0EZþTLC
QðtÞ
R¼ dt ð1Þ
TLC
t0E
where Q(t) ¼ time-dependent functionality, which can be defined
for a time instant t as follows:
QðtÞ ¼ 1  ½LðI; Trec Þ  fHðt  t0E Þ  Hðt  ðt0E þ Trec ÞÞg
 frec ðt; t0E ; Trec Þ ð2Þ
Here L(I,Trec) ¼ loss function; H() ¼ Heaviside step function;
and frec ¼ recovery function that depends on recovery time Trec,
the time required to recover functionality of a damaged bridge for
earthquake event E. A detailed discussion of postevent loss as-
sessment and recovery in a distressed highway network is presented
in Banerjee et al. (2019). It is found that in the majority of cases,
postevent loss estimation requires information on bridge seismic
vulnerability. Therefore, time-variant seismic vulnerability of de-
grading bridges is discussed first in this article, followed by dis-
cussions of loss and recovery functions for seismic resilience as-
sessment of bridges.
Seismic Vulnerability of Degrading Bridges
Chloride-induced corrosion is one of the major sources of deterio-
ration of concrete bridges, mainly from the application of deicing
salt and airborne chlorine in the marine environment (Neville 1995;
Enright and Frangopol 1998). It has two major phases: corrosion
initiation and propagation (Stewart and Rosowsky 1998). For ini-
tiation, the diffusion process of chloride ion penetration in an RC
member can be modeled by Fick’s second law of diffusion and is
empirically expressed as (Stewart and Rosowsky 1998)
vCðx; tÞ v2 Cðx; tÞ
¼D ð3Þ
vt vx2
In this, C(x,t) ¼ the chloride ion concentration up to a depth x from
the surface of a concrete member under corrosion at t years after
construction, and D ¼ the apparent diffusion coefficient of the
concrete medium. Corrosion starts just after the corrosion initiation
time, Ti (when chloride concentration on the surface of reinforce-
ment bars exceeds the critical chloride content, Ccr). Parameters
to calculate Ti depend on exposure condition and location of the
bridge under consideration. The current study considers the bridge
exposure condition from Enright and Frangopol (1998), in which
the effect of corrosion due to deicing salt on flexural strength of
T-beams in a concrete bridge girder was studied. Considering the
uncertain nature of the corrosion initiation process, this previous
study used appropriate probability distributions of input variables
and performed Monte Carlo simulations for Ti. Simulation results
showed Ti to follow a lognormal distribution with mean value of
15.84 years and standard deviation of 8.23 years. Following this
observation, the current study uses the value of Ti equal to 15 years,
considering the same bridge exposure condition and depth of con-
crete cover. Assuming uniform corrosion of bridge piers, Ti is used
to calculate the area reduction of reinforcement bars due to corrosion
degradation as expressed in Eq. (4) (Thoft-Christensen et al. 1996)
8 p
>
> n d2 for 0  t  Ti
< 4 i
AðtÞ ¼ ð4Þ
> 2
: np½di  rcorr ðt  Ti Þ
>
for t > Ti
4
J. Bridge Eng.
 In this, A(t) ¼ area of rebars at time t years after construction; n ¼
total number of reinforcing bars susceptible to corrosion; di ¼ initial
diameter in millimeters of these reinforcement bars; and rcorr ¼ rate
of corrosion. A uniform rate of corrosion over the bridge life cycle is
considered here (Frangopol et al. 1997).
Fragility curves are developed to capture the effect of corrosion
degradation on seismic performance of bridges. These curves pro-
vide probabilistic estimation of bridge seismic damageability. Fol-
lowing the traditional definition, fragility curves are expressed in the
form of two-parameter lognormal distribution functions (Banerjee
and Shinozuka 2007) as follows:
  
ln aj =ck
Pðaj ; ck ; fk Þ ¼ F ð5Þ
fk
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Here P() ¼ probability of exceeding a damage state k; aj ¼ peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of jth ground motion (GM), and ck and
fk ¼ fragility parameters that represent median and log-standard
deviation at kth damage state of the bridge, respectively. The vari-
able k takes values equal to 1–4 based on four bridge damage states,
namely, minor damage, moderate damage, major damage, and col-
lapse, under seismic excitations. The current study developed fra-
gility curves for all four damage states of a bridge under consider-
ation at its nondegraded (i.e., pristine) and degraded conditions.
These curves were compared to measure the variation in bridge
fragility from nondegraded to degraded condition to identify the
enhanced seismic vulnerability of the bridge due to corrosion.
Loss Functions
Along service lives of bridges, economic losses are imminent
due to bridge damage and downtime when a sudden disaster such
X  
TRD

Cop ¼ PE ðDS ¼ kÞ  Cop;car 1 
k
100
where Cop,car and Cop,truck ¼ average costs of operation of cars and trucks, respectively, in dollars per kilometer; Dl ¼ detour length in
kilometers; ADT ¼ average daily traffic; and TRD ¼ average daily truck traffic ratio as a percentage. Cost due to time loss (CTL) of vehicle
users and goods traveling through detours can be given as (Stein et al. 1999)
X  
TRD

  TRD
CTL ¼ PE ðDS ¼ kÞ  CAW Ocar 1  þ CATC Otruck þ Cgoods
k
100
where cost terms CAW, CATC, and Cgoods ¼ average wage in dollars
per hour, average total compensation in dollars per hour, and
monetary value of time taken to transport goods in cargo in dollars
per hour, respectively; Ocar and Otruck ¼ average vehicle occupan-
cies for cars and trucks, respectively; l ¼ length of link in kilo-
meters; S ¼ average speed on detour in kilometers per hour; SD and
S0 ¼ average speeds on the damaged and intact bridge in kilometers
per hour, respectively; and ADE ¼ average daily traffic remaining
on the bridge after the event. Values of these parameters are case
specific; these are discussed subsequently in the discussion of a
bridge scenario.
The cost terms are multiplied with bridge damage probabilities at
various damage states [per Eqs. (6) and (7)], and their summation
represents total indirect cost. This cost term is then divided by
bridge replacement cost in order to obtain the normalized indirect
loss (LI) (i.e., percent value of bridge replacement cost). Finally, the
© ASCE 04019106-3
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
as earthquake strikes. Due to damage, reduced functionality of
bridges not only causes economic liability to the community
for postdisaster repair and rehabilitation but also hinders mobility
in everyday life. Owing to bridge damage, the total expected
loss is defined in the literature in two categories—direct and
indirect.
Direct loss (LD) defines the monetary value associated with
postdisaster repair of damaged bridge components. It can be com-
puted by multiplying the probability of bridge damage at a damage
state (obtainable from fragility curves) with a damage ratio corre-
sponding to that damage state (FEMA 2003; Zhou et al. 2010). The
damage ratio is taken as 0.03, 0.08, 0.25, and 0.67, respectively,
for minor damage, moderate damage, major damage, and collapse
states of a bridge (FEMA 2003). This well-accepted approach
for direct loss assessment has been used in a number of studies
on seismic resilience assessment of bridges (refer to Banerjee
et al., 2019, for further information). Note that LD represents a
percentage of bridge reconstruction cost and hence provides an
immediate idea of losses incurred in comparison with reconstruc-
tion cost.
Besides direct loss, bridge damage results in traffic conges-
tion. Vehicle users need to take detours to complete trips, which
leads to higher operation cost of vehicles. Thus, indirect loss (LI)
involves, for example, traffic delay, business interruption, income
loss, and relocation expense, and its estimation requires pre- and
postevent traffic information on a bridge under consideration.
The current study considers indirect loss in two categories: op-
erating cost of vehicles on detour (Cop) and cost due to vehicle
time loss (CTL) owing to bridge damage (Dong and Frangopol
2015; Zheng et al. 2018). Operating cost of vehicles (Cop) due to
detour is expressed as (Stein et al. 1999; Dong and Frangopol
2015)
TRD

þ Cop;truck  Dl  ADT ð6Þ
100
 
Dl

l l

 ADT þ ADE  ð7Þ
100 S SD S0
loss function L(I,Trec) in Eq. (2) can be computed by adding direct
loss (LD) and indirect loss (LI).
Recovery Functions
The recovery function represents the recovery path for restoring
pre-event functionality of bridges. It is achieved, partially or fully,
by measures such as removing debris, sealing minor cracks, patch-
ing concrete, and repairing or replacing damaged bridge compo-
nents. The literature has considered continuous or discrete functions
to realistically simulate the actual functional recovery of bridges
after earthquakes. While a time-dependent continuous recovery
function presents day-to-day progress of bridge functional recovery
after an earthquake (Venkittaraman and Banerjee 2014; Dong and
Frangopol 2016; Zheng et al. 2018), a discrete function refers to
important phases along bridge recovery paths (Bocchini et al. 2014;
J. Bridge Eng.
 Sharma et al. 2017). In both cases, it can also happen that the re-
covered bridge performs better than the predamaged bridge, par-
ticularly when gradual degradation occurs due to aging, as in the
current study.
Venkittaraman and Banerjee (2014) used standard mathematical
expressions, such as linear, exponential, and trigonometric, as re-
covery functions to bridges, and they observed the linear recovery
function to be the most reasonable among the three when no infor-
mation related to postearthquake restoration techniques for bridges
is available. Based on expert opinion survey data from ATC (1985),
FEMA (2003) developed recovery curves in the form of normal-
distribution functions for bridges at various damage states. Even
though the distributions are associated with high standard deviations
that may eventually lead to high variability in estimated resilience,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the model has been used in past studies on seismic resilience as-
sessment of bridges (Dong and Frangopol 2016; Zheng et al. 2018).
A continuous sinusoidal function, proposed by Decò et al. (2013)
and later used by Dong and Frangopol (2015), was derived based on
six parameters, namely, residual functionality, idle time, recovery
duration, target functionality, and two shape parameters. Uncer-
tainty involved with the recovery process is captured through this
model by assigning probability distributions to model parameters.
Although this model is capable of producing common bridge re-
covery patterns, values of model parameters are location specific and
require calibration for bridges under consideration. Hence, this
model may also lead to high uncertainty in estimated resilience if
required information is not available in a real-life scenario.
In the current study, a sigmoidal function (also called a logistic
function) is considered to represent the recovery path of damaged
bridges. Such a function essentially provides an S-shaped curve
(Fig. 2) and has been used widely in management to project per-
formance growth of manufacturing and service processes (Jónás
2007). Sigmoidal functions are also used as growth models in
various disciplines, such as biology, economics, and demography
(Carrillo and González 2002), and as an activation function in ar-
tificial neural networks (Chen and Cao 2009). The main advantage
of such a function is that it can grow without bounds or be limited to
restrict growth. The same concept is used here to project postevent
recovery of bridges over recovery periods. The function is con-
trolled by two parameters (a and b) that influence its shape and
make it capable of producing different recovery paths depending on
the nature of bridge damage, probable time to mobilize recovery
actions, and time to complete the recovery process. Mathematically,
Fig. 2. General representation of a sigmoidal curve as a postevent
bridge recovery function.
© ASCE 04019106-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
the bridge recovery function frec can be expressed in terms of a
sigmoidal recovery function as
1
frec ðtÞ ¼ ð8Þ
1 þ eaðtbÞ
where t ¼ time instant and a and b ¼ parameters previously men-
tioned. As shown in Fig. 2, the rapidity of a recovery curve is
signified by a, and inflation point b controls the movement of the
curve along the x-axis. The current study evaluates these shape
parameters a and b in terms of recovery time Trec; this facilitates
development of damage state–specific recovery curves and elimi-
nates uncertainty related to the shape of these curves once recovery
paths are decided. An additional advantage of using a sigmoidal
function for the bridge recovery model is the consideration of idle
time in the recovery process as a part of the function. In a realistic
scenario, idle time may depend on the extent of bridge damage. In a
previous study, idle time was assumed to be uniformly distributed
between 1 and 2 months (Decò et al. 2013). The proposed model in
the current study considers idle time equal to one-tenth of Trec such
that only 10% of bridge functional recovery is achieved by then at
any bridge damage state except for minor damage. At minor dam-
age, idle time is ignored and a linear recovery function is consid-
ered, as the extent of bridge damage is minimal at this stage and
recovery is expected to be quick.
For four bridge damage states, parameters a and b are calculated
according to respective values of Trec and realistic recovery curves
are obtained as shown in Fig. 3. Here, the expected value of Trec at a
damage state is taken to be equal to the time at which 84% func-
tional recovery is achieved at the same damage state from HAZUS-
specified restoration curves for highway bridges. In doing so, a full
correspondence is established between mean and three standard
deviation values of Trec at a damage state with HAZUS-specified
time for 100% functional recovery at the same damage state.
Therefore, expected values of Trec equal to 1.2, 5.2, 117, and
340 days were obtained at minor damage, moderate damage, major
damage, and collapse states of bridges, respectively, and used for
deriving recovery curves (Fig. 3). Corresponding standard deviation
values are 0.35, 1.9, 24.2, and 63 days, respectively. These standard
deviations of Trec are used subsequently in this article in analyzing
uncertainty in estimated seismic resilience of bridges.
Time-Variant Seismic Resilience
of a Corroded Bridge
Description and Seismic Response
Analysis of the Bridge
A three-span RC representative bridge, designed in accordance with
AASHTO’s (2014) LRFD bridge design specifications, was se-
lected to evaluate its life-cycle resilience under seismic hazard. The
bridge was assumed to be located in the state of Washington, United
States, in order to obtain location-specific information on seismic
hazard and traffic flow on the bridge. Bridge corrosion due to the
application of deicing salt is an important issue there because the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) needs
to do winter maintenance of roadways and bridges every year
(WSDOT 2017). A recent study by Yilmaz et al. (2018) provided
statistics on geometric attributes of WSDOT bridges. Following that
closely, the three-span bridge considered here was assumed to be
86 m long with a 36-m-long intermediate span and two 25-m-long
end spans (Fig. 4). The bridge has a four-cell prestressed box girder
with a 17  2-m cross-sectional dimension. Both ends of the girder
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 3. Recovery models at different bridge damage states: (a) minor damage; (b) moderate damage; (c) major damage; and (d) collapse.
have seat-type abutments that are supported on elastomeric bear-
ings. Each pier bent consists of two 8-m-long, 1.2-m-diameter piers
connected monolithically with the girder. Bridge foundations at pier
bents have pile groups, each having a pile cap. Each pile group
consists of eight 0.9-m-diameter piles, as shown in Fig. 4.
A 3D finite-element (FE) model of the bridge was developed
using Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (Open-
Sees) software version 2.4.0. The modeling technique from Yilmaz
et al. (2016) was adopted with required changes to capture time-
dependent degradation of the bridge due to corrosion. The bridge
girder was modeled using an elastic beam-column element with
mass concentrated at nodes along the centroid (Fig. 4). This ele-
ment was expected to have linear elastic behavior under earthquake
excitations.
Bridge piers are critical vulnerable components of the bridge.
These elements were modeled to capture nonlinear behavior using a
displacement beam-column element along with fiber sections. Cross
section of a bridge pier and reinforcement detailing are shown in
Fig. 4. OpenSees Concrete07 and Steel02 material models were used
to define properties of concrete and steel reinforcement, respectively.
Foundation piles are designed as capacity-protected elements.
These elements were modeled using elastic beam-column elements
in OpenSees software. A series of p-y and t-z springs were assigned
along the length of each pile to represent nonlinear interactions of
piles with the surrounding soil. While p-y springs are used to rep-
resent soil resistance in two horizontal directions, t-z springs capture
vertical soil resistance (shaft resistance) along the pile length
(Fig. 4). These two springs were modeled with material models
PySimple1 and TzSimple1 from the OpenSees material library and
applied at uniform intervals of 0.4 m along pile lengths. At various
© ASCE 04019106-5
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
(b)
(d)
depths, soil resistance values for p-y and t-z springs were calculated
using the American Petroleum Institute (API 2003) guidelines and
Mosher’s (1984) relation, respectively.
Seat-type abutments at both ends of the bridge girder have two
major components for modeling—abutment response in the longi-
tudinal and transverse directions and response of elastomeric
bearing in all three translational directions. The modeling technique
for bidirectional abutment–soil interaction closely follows that
adopted by Yilmaz et al. (2016). The backwall-backfill interaction
of abutments in the longitudinal direction was modeled with elas-
toplastic gap elements. Stiffness properties of these elements were
calculated following Caltrans (2010) guidelines. A similar element,
except for the gap definition, was utilized to represent abutment
stiffness in the transverse direction. Elastic–perfectly plastic mate-
rial models were also used to capture nonlinear response of abut-
ment bearings in two horizontal translational directions. Corre-
sponding stiffness values were calculated following Nielson (2005).
Bearing response in the vertical direction was modeled with linear
elastic elements, and corresponding stiffness values were calculated
following Warn et al. (2007).
The modeling technique was used to generate five bridge models
at t ¼ 0 (i.e., pristine), 25, 50, 75, and 100 years after construction.
In the degraded models, gradual deterioration of the bridge due to
corrosion was captured by changing the diameter of longitudinal
reinforcements of bridge piers as discussed in Eq. (4). A previous
study on time-dependent fragility assessment of bridges observed
that corrosion of an RC bridge girder has little influence on seismic
vulnerability of the bridge (Ghosh and Padgett 2010). Following
this observation, the current study does not incorporate deterioration
of bridge components other than piers in the FE model. It is un-
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of a bridge and FE modeling of bridge components. (1) ¼ stiffness of abutment back wall with gap property; (2) ¼
bearing stiffness in the longitudinal direction; (3) ¼ abutment wing wall stiffness; (4) ¼ bearing stiffness in the transverse direction; (5) ¼ vertical
bearing stiffness; MN ¼ master node; SN ¼ slave node.

© ASCE 04019106-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106

 derstood, however, that cumulative deterioration of bridge com-
ponents that are apparently noncritical for bridge seismic perfor-
mance assessment may result in localized damage leading to bridge
failure during a strong seismic shaking.
Modal analysis of the bridge at pristine condition (i.e., at t ¼ 0)
revealed that the translational mode of vibration in the longitudinal
direction was the fundamental and governing mode of vibration of
the bridge. Mode shapes with time periods in the first four modes of
the bridge are shown in Fig. S1. With t, modal time periods in-
creased as bridge corrosion progressed. This observation is in ac-
cordance with the literature (Alipour et al. 2011). Mode shapes
remained unchanged with progressing corrosion degradation.
Nonlinear time history (NLTH) analysis of the bridge was per-
formed for 50 GMs obtained from existing sources for the state of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Washington. Among these, 40 GMs were originally generated for
the Seattle region as a part of FEMA=SAC Steel Project (Somerville
et al. 1997). The other 10 GMs were obtained from the Center for
Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD 2018) for the state of
Washington and neighboring regions. A summary of these motions
is given in Table S1. Each motion was composed of two horizontal
orthogonal components, and their PGA values covered a wide
range, which is desirable for fragility analysis. NLTH analyses were
performed by applying both components of a motion simulta-
neously, and these components were interchanged to avoid direc-
tional uncertainty in the analysis result. The bridge was analyzed at
pristine and four degraded conditions to generate seismic fragility
curves at all conditions.
Time-Variant Fragility Curves of the Bridge
Bridge responses at critical components such as piers, abutments,
and bearings were recorded from each time history analysis. Extent
of damage in these critical components under seismic excitation was
measured in terms of curvature ductility of piers (lu) and longitu-
dinal and transverse deformations of abutments (Da,long and Da,trans)
and elastomeric bearings (Db,long and Db,trans). These response
quantities are referred to as engineering demand parameters (EDPs).
Yilmaz et al. (2016) provided details on obtaining the threshold
limits of various EDPs under seismic excitations to define seismic
damage states of critical bridge components. While threshold limits
for lu were obtained following Ramanathan (2012), the same for
Da,long and Da,trans were calculated based on observations from
multiple studies (Shamsabadi et al. 2007; Aviram et al. 2008;
Caltrans 2010). For obtaining threshold limits of Db,long and Db,trans,
engineering judgments were made on the basis of observed values
from Konstantinidis et al. (2008). Table 1 lists these threshold EDP
values, with respective references, as applicable to the bridge con-
sidered in the current study. Obtained maximum values of EDPs
from each time history analysis were compared with respective
Table 1. Threshold limits of different damage states
Component EDP Minor damage Moderate damage
Piers Curvature ductility 1  lu < 4 4  lu < 8
Abutment Longitudinal 50  Da,long < 100 Da,long  100
deformation (mm)
Transverse 50  Da,trans < 150 Da,trans  150
deformation (mm)
Elastomeric Longitudinal 40  Db,long < 86 86  Db,long < 310
bearing deformation (mm)
Transverse 40  Db,trans < 86 86  Db,trans < 310
deformation (mm)
a
Based on engineering judgments and observations from Konstantinidis et al. (2008).
© ASCE 04019106-7
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
threshold values, and damage states of bridge components were
obtained. The process was repeated for all five bridge models at
various degraded and nondegraded conditions and for all seismic
GMs. For all cases, threshold limits of EDPs as given in Table 1
remained unchanged. Having same threshold values of EDPs helps
in observing increasing damage (and hence higher damage states) of
bridge components as the bridge deteriorates and becomes more
seismically vulnerable with the progression of corrosion deteriora-
tion along the bridge life span.
Obtained damage state information of various bridge compo-
nents and corresponding PGA values of GMs are used in Eq. (5) to
generate component-level fragility curves for piers, abutments, and
bearings at pristine and four degraded conditions of the bridge.
These component fragilities were combined to form system-level
fragility curves of the bridge, as shown in Fig. 5. Corresponding
median values are listed in Table 2. A log-standard deviation of 0.5
was used to avoid intersection between fragility curves. As can be
seen in Fig. 5, there was a small increase in bridge-failure proba-
bility in the first 25 years of corrosion, since corrosion initiates in
the bridge after 15 years. Beyond 25 years, bridge seismic vulner-
ability increases rapidly at all damage states. Such an increase in a
bridge’s seismic vulnerability over its lifetime signifies the impor-
tance of estimating bridge seismic resilience in a life-cycle context.
Life-Cycle Seismic Resilience of the Bridge
Resilience of the studied bridge at different phases along its life span
was calculated for various seismic events having PGAs ranging over
0.2–1.0 g. For an earthquake with a known PGA, probabilities of
exceedance at all four damage states of the bridge were obtained
from fragility curves (Fig. 5), and resulting direct and indirect losses
were calculated as discussed in preceding paragraphs. For calcu-
lating indirect loss, expected values of traffic-related parameters and
relevant distributions are summarized in Table 3. Here, average
daily traffic remaining on the damaged bridge after the event (ADE)
is calculated based on the concept presented in Mackie and
Stojadinovic (2006) and Dong and Frangopol (2015) related to the
traffic capacity remaining on bridges after seismic events. The traffic
flow is uninterrupted (i.e., all lanes are open) or at 100% when there
is no damage to the bridge. At minor damage, traffic flow is assumed
to be reduced by 25% (through weight restriction) until the com-
pletion of postevent inspection and removal of debris, if any
(FHWA 2006). In the same way, 50% (one lane open only) and 75%
(emergency access only) restrictions on traffic flow on the bridge are
considered, respectively, for moderate and major damage states of
the bridge. The bridge is completely shut down to traffic when it
experiences collapse. Based on these traffic flow assumptions, ADE
on the bridge at various bridge damage scenarios was estimated.
Note that these assumed values of traffic flow and speed reduction
Major damage Collapse Reference
8  lu < 12 lu  12 Ramanathan (2012)
— — Shamsabadi et al. (2007);
Aviram et al. (2008);
— — Caltrans (2010)
310  Db,long < 533 Db,long  533 a
— — a
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Fragility curves of the aging bridge at different damage states: (a) minor damage; (b) moderate damage; (c) major damage; and (d) collapse.

Table 2. Median fragility parameters (in g) at various damage states and on the damaged bridge enabled us to study the influence of flow
degraded conditions of the bridge reduction on postevent indirect loss and to calculate life-cycle
Years after Minor Moderate Major seismic resilience of the bridge. Accuracy of these values is not
construction damage damage damage Collapse examined here and is beyond the scope of this study.
0 0.29 0.43 1.06 1.51 Direct and indirect losses are combined to generate the loss ratio
25 0.25 0.39 0.90 1.29 L(I,Trec) of the bridge. Fig. 6 shows the variation of loss ratio of the
50 0.20 0.31 0.71 0.95 bridge for a wide range of seismic hazard and for various degraded
75 0.16 0.27 0.54 0.75 conditions of the bridge. Variations may follow nearly linear or
100 0.12 0.22 0.42 0.63 nonlinear patterns, depending on the bridge’s degraded condition.

Table 3. Parameters associated with indirect loss assessment of the bridge

Random variables
Parameter Mean COV Distributiona Deterministic Reference
Operation cost of car (Cop,car) ($=km) 0.4 0.2 LN — AASHTO (2003)
Operation cost of truck (Cop,truck) ($=km) 0.57 0.2 LN — AASHTO (2003)
Average wage per hour (CAW) ($=h) 13.12 0.3 LN — US Dept. of Labor (for WA) (2018)
Average total compensation per hour (CATC) ($=h) 22.21 0.3 LN — US Dept. of Labor (for WA) (2018)
Time value of goods transported in cargo (Cgoods) ($=h) 3.81 0.2 LN — AASHTO (2003)
Average detour speed (S) (km=h) 50 0.2 LN — Dong and Frangopol (2015)
Average speed on damaged link (SD) (km=h) 20 0.2 LN — Assumed
Average speed on intact link (S0) (km=h) 80 0.2 LN — Dong and Frangopol (2015)
ADT — — — 29,000 WSDOT (2016)
Daily truck ratio (TRD) (ADTT=ADT) — — — 11% WSDOT (2016)
Average vehicle occupancy for cars (Ocar) — — — 1.5 AASHTO (2003)
Average vehicle occupancy for trucks (Otruck) — — — 1.05 AASHTO (2003)
Length of detour (Dl) (km) — — — 12.5 Google Maps (2017)
Segment (link) containing damaged bridge (l) (km) — — — 7.5 Google Maps (2017)
Note: COV ¼ coefficient of variation; LN ¼ lognormal; ADTT ¼ average daily truck traffic; ADT ¼ average daily traffic; and WA ¼ Washington.
a
Based on Dong and Frangopol (2015).

© ASCE 04019106-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Variation of loss ratio with PGA. Fig. 7. Time-dependent seismic resilience of the bridge for various
earthquake loadings.

For segments where the trend is nearly linear, increase rate of loss
ratio with PGA is more for higher degraded conditions of the
bridge. This is an obvious outcome. Further, analysis shows that the
loss ratio increases linearly up to an approximate value of 0.6,
beyond which the increase rate of loss ratio with PGA decreases,
making the trend follow a nonlinear pattern. This is primarily be-
cause of the extent of damage the bridge suffers at various PGAs.
The trend follows a linear pattern when the bridge incurs minor to
moderate earthquake damage. The nonlinear pattern prevails when
higher damage states (i.e., major damage and collapse) contribute
more to the loss ratio. Hence, the trend quickly becomes nonlinear
with increasing PGA as bridge deterioration progresses.
To apply a damage-specific recovery function (frec) in Eq. (2), the
first task is to define the probable damage state of the bridge under
earthquakes of varied intensity. This was decided based on the
outcome of a previous study related to the development of state-
dependent fragility curves of bridges based on experimental ob-
Fig. 8. Life-cycle seismic resilience of the bridge.
servations (Banerjee and Chi 2013). The bridge in the current study
was said to have a damage state DSE under earthquake E if it suf-
fered from 30% or higher damage exceedance probability in m (> 0)
number of damage states and DSE was the highest among these. For bridge at PGA ¼ 0.68 g due to corrosion degradation of the bridge
example, the pristine bridge has 74.2%, 44.2%, 2.5%, and 0.4% over 100 years.
probabilities of exceedance in minor damage, moderate damage,
major damage, and collapse states, respectively, under a 0.4 g PGA
earthquake (from Fig. 5). Hence, the pristine bridge was considered Uncertainty Quantification of Resilience
to suffer from moderate damage under this earthquake, and the
recovery model corresponding to the moderate damage state was The discussed framework for life-cycle resilience assessment of
applied for assessing its resilience under that earthquake. A similar bridges may be associated with uncertainty due to uncertainties from
approach was taken in Karamlou and Bocchini (2016) to determine its key modules—vulnerability, loss, and recovery functions. A
bridge seismic damage states from fragility curves. This procedure number of previous studies estimated uncertainty in seismic vul-
for resilience assessment was applied for a number of earthquakes nerability models of bridges due to inherent uncertainties from
(having PGAs ranging over 0.2–1.0 g) and for all degraded condi- structural, geotechnical, and hazard parameters (Nielson 2005;
tions of the bridge. For each case, resilience was computed using Yilmaz et al. 2018; Cui et al. 2018). Uncertainty related to traffic
Eq. (1) and control times up to 170 days for minor, moderate, and parameters was considered by Decò et al. (2013) and Dong and
major damage states and 500 days for the collapse state. Fig. 7 Frangopol (2015) to study the variability in resilience, although
shows obtained resilience values of the bridge at pristine and de- uncertainty in the vulnerability model was not considered there.
graded conditions with varied PGAs. As expected, resilience de- Venkittaraman and Banerjee (2014) showed that uncertainties in
creased with increasing seismic intensity, following the reverse recovery time and control time may have great influence on esti-
pattern of that observed in Fig. 6 for the variation of loss ratio with mated seismic resilience of bridges. Based on these previous ob-
PGA. This trend is quite understandable because the increase in loss servations, the current study estimated uncertainty in bridge resil-
ratio results in a decrease in resilience. Moreover, resilience of the ience due to uncertainties from the bridge vulnerability model, the
bridge (at any particular PGA) degrades as deterioration progresses. indirect loss estimation model, and the recovery model of the bridge
Such degrading trends of resilience over the life cycle of the bridge when one or more model parameters were uncertain. The direct loss
are shown in Fig. 8 for three specific values of PGA. Analysis assessment model may produce uncertain direct losses primarily due
showed a maximum reduction of 38% in seismic resilience of the to uncertainty in the bridge vulnerability model when damage ratios
© ASCE 04019106-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106

 are considered to be deterministic at all damage states. This is why
uncertainty in the direct loss model is not considered separately.
Yilmaz et al. (2018) performed a rigorous uncertainty analysis
for vulnerability assessment of a bridge considering eight uncertain
parameters related to the structure and underlying soil. That study
estimated 90% confidence intervals of seismic fragility curves at all
damage states to represent possible variations of these curves.
Based on these observed variations, coefficients of variation of
fragility curves are calculated to be 9%, 10%, 6%, and 6%, re-
spectively, for minor damage, moderate damage, major damage,
and collapse states. The present study considered these coefficients
of variation of fragility curves from Yilmaz et al. (2018) and used
these along with median fragility parameters of the pristine bridge
(from Table 2) to represent probable variability in fragility char-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
acteristics of the studied bridge at its pristine condition. For un-
certainty quantification in indirect loss, probabilistic characteristics
of associated random parameters are summarized in Table 3. Re-
covery time Trec is also taken to be an uncertain parameter; its mean
values and standard deviations at different damage states are given
previously in this article where the recovery function is discussed.
Previous studies by Decò et al. (2013) and Dong and Frangopol
(2015) considered recovery time Trec to follow a triangular distri-
bution. The current study considered Trec to follow normal distri-
bution because no specific information on its probabilistic nature
was known from a real-life scenario.
Fig. 9. Uncertainty in estimated resilience and its variation with PGA.
(a)
Fig. 10. Resilience of the pristine bridge at 0.8 g PGA and 0.5 g PGA: (a) normal probability papers; and (b) normal probability distributions with
distribution parameters.
© ASCE 04019106-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
Therefore, 10 random parameters were considered in uncertainty
analysis for resilience assessment of the pristine bridge. Among
these, the fragility parameter and recovery time take different values
of mean and standard deviation, depending on the damage state of
the bridge. One hundred random samples for each input random
variable were generated and random combinations across 10 ran-
dom variables were made using the Latin hypercube sampling
technique. For each random combination, resilience of the pristine
bridge was computed following the framework discussed in this
study. Thus, 100 values of resilience were obtained for each selected
value of PGA; their variability is shown in Fig. 9 with a gray band.
This figure also shows mean values of resilience for varied PGAs.
For specific PGA values, resilience was observed to follow a normal
distribution. Fig. 10 shows histograms, normal probability density
functions (PDFs), and normal probability plots of 100 realizations of
resilience obtained for 0.5 g and 0.8 g PGA earthquakes. These
normal probability plots signify that a normal distribution cannot be
rejected to define the probabilistic variation of resilience at the
pristine condition of the bridge. The same observations were made
for other GMs. The mean and standard deviation values of resilience
at 0.5 g PGA were found to be 89.8% and 1.30%, respectively.
These values were 81.03% and 1.46%, respectively, at 0.8 g PGA.
Note that the standard deviation of bridge seismic resilience in-
creases with increasing PGA, while the mean value gradually de-
creases. This outcome indicates that bridge seismic resilience be-
comes more uncertain as intensity of GM increases.
The uncertainty analysis, as discussed here, did not include life
cycle study of the bridge. Nevertheless, the framework is general
and can be used to explore uncertainty in bridge resilience at any
degraded phase along its life span. A similar variation of bridge
resilience, as observed for bridge pristine condition, is expected for
any degraded condition of the bridge.
Conclusions
This research contributes to new knowledge of the impact of
chloride-induced corrosion on life-cycle seismic resilience of RC
bridges. Time-dependent fragility assessment of a three-span aging
RC bridge was performed at both pristine and degraded conditions
of the bridge (i.e., at 25, 50, 75, and 100 years of deterioration)
under earthquakes having varied levels of hazard. Obtained resil-
ience was observed to decrease following a linear (nearly) or non-
linear path as GM intensity (i.e., PGA) increased. A linear decrease
(b)
J. Bridge Eng.
 in resilience with PGA was observed when the bridge was at pris-
tine condition or had slight corrosion degradation. The nonlinear
nature became prevalent as the bridge degraded further with time
and was expected to suffer from higher damage states (such as
major damage and collapse) under earthquakes. For any specific
PGA, reduction of resilience as the bridge aged portrayed the time-
dependent trend of life-cycle resilience of bridges under seismic
shaking. Note that the study did not consider pitting corrosion,
which may result in a faster rate of bridge degradation than that due
to uniform corrosion. Also, the impact of corrosion on bond
strength degradation in RC members and post-rust crack progres-
sion was not studied. Research is under way to explore these effects.
An uncertainty using 10 input random variables from vulnera-
bility, indirect loss, and recovery models of the bridge at its pristine
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
condition resulted in an uncertain band of resilience estimated for
earthquakes with PGAs ranging over 0.2–1.0 g. For any specific
PGA, resilience was observed to vary following a normal distri-
bution. The mean value of the distribution decreased with in-
creasing PGA, while the standard deviation increased. This out-
come indicates higher uncertainty in seismic resilience of the
pristine bridge as intensity of GM increases.
Overall, the research outcome demonstrates the importance of
assessing seismic resilience of aging bridges in a life-cycle context.
Results obtained from this study facilitate future research aimed at
the development of strategic plans for retrofit and maintenance
prioritization in order to keep bridges safe and functional under
distressed conditions.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Industrial Research and Consul-
tancy Centre (IRCC) at IIT Bombay, India, through Grant No.
15IRCCSG023 and by the Science and Engineering Research
Board (SERB) in India through Grant No. ECR=2017=000849.
Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Supplemental Data
Fig. S1 and Table S1 are available online in the ASCE Library
(www.ascelibrary.org).
References
AASHTO. 2003. A manual of user benefit analysis for highways. 2nd ed.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2014. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 7th ed.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Akiyama, M., and D. M. Frangopol. 2014. “Long-term seismic performance
of RC structures in an aggressive environment: Emphasis on bridge
piers.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 10 (7): 865–879. https://doi.org/10.1080
/15732479.2012.761246.
Alipour, A., and B. Shafei. 2016. “Seismic resilience of transportation
networks with deteriorating components.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (8):
C4015015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001399.
Alipour, A., B. Shafei, and M. Shinozuka. 2011. “Performance evaluation
of deteriorating highway bridges located in high seismic areas.” J.
Bridge Eng. 16 (5): 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943
-5592.0000197.
API (American Petroleum Institute). 2003. Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms: Working
stress design. Washington, DC: API.
ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1985. “Earthquake damage evaluation
data for California.” Rep. ATC-13. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
Aviram, A., K. R. Mackie, and B. Stojadinovic. 2008. “Effect of abutment
modeling on the seismic response of bridge structures.” Earthquake Eng.
Eng. Vib. 7 (4): 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-1008-3.
Banerjee, S., and C. Chi. 2013. “State-dependent fragility curves of bridges
based on vibration measurements.” Probab. Eng. Mech. 33: 116–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2013.03.007.
Banerjee, S., and M. Shinozuka. 2007. “Nonlinear static procedure for seismic
vulnerability assessment of bridges.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct.
Eng. 22 (4): 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2007.00486.x.
Banerjee, S., B. S. Vishwanath, and D. K. Devendiran. 2019. “Multihazard
resilience of highway bridges and bridge networks: A review.” Struct.
Infrastruct. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1648526.
Biondini, F., E. Camnasio, and A. Titi. 2015. “Seismic resilience of con-
crete structures under corrosion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (14):
2445–2466. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2591.
Bocchini, P., D. M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, and T. Zinke. 2014.
“Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified
approach.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (2): 04014004. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
Caltrans. 2010. Caltrans seismic design criteria. Version 1.6. Sacramento,
CA: California Dept. of Transportation.
Carrillo, M., and J. M. González. 2002. “A new approach to modelling
sigmoidal curves.” Technol. Forecasting Social Change 69 (3): 233–
241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00150-0.
CESMD (Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data). Accessed October
19, 2018. https://strongmotioncenter.org.
Chen, Z., and F. Cao. 2009. “The approximation operators with sigmoidal
functions.” Comput. Math. Appl. 58 (4): 758–765. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.camwa.2009.05.001.
Choe, D.-E., P. Gardoni, D. Rosowsky, and T. Haukaas. 2009. “Seismic
fragility estimates for reinforced concrete bridges subject to corrosion.”
Struct. Saf. 31 (4): 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.10
.001.
Cimellaro, G. P., A. M. Reinhorn, and M. Bruneau. 2010. “Framework for
analytical quantification of disaster resilience.” Eng. Struct. 32 (11):
3639–3649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.008.
Coronelli, D., and P. Gambarova. 2004. “Structural assessment of corroded
reinforced concrete beams: Modeling guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng.
130 (8): 1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)
130:8(1214).
Cui, F., H. Zhang, M. Ghosn, and Y. Xu. 2018. “Seismic fragility analysis
of deteriorating RC bridge substructures subject to marine chloride-
induced corrosion.” Eng. Struct. 155: 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2017.10.067.
Decò, A., P. Bocchini, and D. M. Frangopol. 2013. “A probabilistic ap-
proach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (10): 1469–1487. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2282.
Decò, A., and D. M. Frangopol. 2013. “Life-cycle risk assessment of spa-
tially distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards.”
Earthquake Spectra 29 (1): 127–153.
Dong, Y., and D. M. Frangopol. 2015. “Risk and resilience assessment of
bridges under mainshock and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties.”
Eng. Struct. 83: 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.050.
Dong, Y., and D. M. Frangopol. 2016. “Probabilistic time-dependent
multihazard life-cycle assessment and resilience of bridges considering
climate change.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 30 (5): 04016034. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000883.
Enright, M. P., and D. M. Frangopol. 1998. “Probabilistic analysis of re-
sistance degradation of reinforced concrete bridge beams under corro-
sion.” Eng. Struct. 20 (11): 960–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141
-0296(97)00190-9.
FEMA. 2003. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake
model: HAZUS-MH MR4 technical manual. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Seismic retrofitting
manual for highway structures. Part 1: Bridges. Publication No.
FHWA-HRT-06-032. McLean, VA: FHWA. Accessed September 25,
2018. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure
/bridge/06032/06032.pdf.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2018. “Bridge condition by
highway system.” Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.fhwa.dot
.gov/bridge/britab.cfm.
04019106-11 J. Bridge Eng.
 Frangopol, D. M., K.-Y. Lin, and A. C. Estes. 1997. “Reliability of re-
inforced concrete girders under corrosion attack.” J. Struct. Eng.
123 (3): 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)
123:3(286).
Gardoni, P., and D. Rosowsky. 2011. “Seismic fragility increment func-
tions for deteriorating reinforced concrete bridges.” Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 7 (11): 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470903071338.
Ghosh, J., and J. E. Padgett. 2010. “Aging considerations in the development
of time-dependent seismic fragility curves.” J. Struct. Eng. 136 (12):
1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000260.
Google Maps. 2017. Accessed December 20, 2017. http://www.google
.com/maps.
Jónás, T. 2007. “Sigmoid functions in reliability based management.”
Periodica Polytech. Social Manage. Sci. 15 (2): 67–72. https://doi.org
/10.3311/pp.so.2007-2.04.
Karamlou, A., and P. Bocchini. 2016. “Sequencing algorithm with multiple-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 09/07/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
input genetic operators: Application to disaster resilience.” Eng. Struct.
117: 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.038.
Kezhiyur, A. J., S. Banerjee, V. Shankar, and P. Basu. 2016. “Age-
dependent seismic resilience of an aging bridge network.” In Proc.,
Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting. Paper No. 16-
0632. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Konstantinidis, D., J. M. Kelly, and N. Makris. 2008. “Experimental in-
vestigation on the seismic response of bridge bearings.” Rep. No. EERC
2008-02. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Lee, H.-S., T. Noguchi, and F. Tomosawa. 2002. “Evaluation of the bond
properties between concrete and reinforcement as a function of the de-
gree of reinforcement corrosion.” Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (8): 1313–1318.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00783-4.
Mackie, K. R., and B. Stojadinovic. 2006. “Post-earthquake functionality of
highway overpass bridges.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (1): 77–
93. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.534.
Madabhushi, S. P. G., and S. K. Haigh, eds. 2005. The Bhuj, India Earth-
quake of 26th January 2001: A field report by EEFIT. London: Earth-
quake Engineering Field Investigation Team, Institution of Structural
Engineers.
Mosher, R. L. 1984. Load-transfer criteria for numerical analysis of axially
loaded piles in sand. Part II: Load pile capacity curves for steel and
concrete piles. Technical Rep. K-84-1. Vicksburg, MS: US Army En-
gineer Waterways Experiment Station, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Neville, A. 1995. “Chloride attack of reinforced concrete: An overview.”
Mater. Struct. 28 (2): 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02473172.
Ni Choine, M., M. Kashani, L. N. Lowes, A. O’Connor, A. J. Crewe, N. A.
Alexander, and J. E. Padgett. 2016. “Nonlinear dynamic analysis and
seismic fragility assessment of a corrosion damaged integral bridge.”
Int. J. Struct. Integ. 7 (2): 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-09
-2014-0045.
Nielson, B. G. 2005. “Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in
moderate seismic zones.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Ou, Y.-C., H.-D. Fan, and N. D. Nguyen. 2013. “Long-term seismic per-
formance of reinforced concrete bridges under steel reinforcement
corrosion due to chloride attack.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (14):
2113–2127. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2316.
Ramanathan, K. N. 2012. “Next generation seismic fragility curves for
California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design phi-
losophy.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Rokneddin, K., J. Ghosh, L. Dueñas-Osorio, and J. E. Padgett. 2014.
“Seismic reliability assessment of aging highway bridge networks with
field instrumentation data and correlated failures. Part II: Application.”
Earthquake Spectra 30 (2): 819–843. https://doi.org/10.1193
/040612EQS160M.
© ASCE 04019106-12
J. Bridge Eng., 2019, 24(11): 04019106
Shamsabadi, A., K. M. Rollins, and M. Kapuskar. 2007. “Nonlinear soil–
abutment–bridge structure interaction for seismic performance-based
design.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (6): 707–720. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:6(707).
Sharma, N., A. Tabandeh, and P. Gardoni. 2017. “Resilience analysis: A
mathematical formulation to model resilience of engineering systems.”
Sustainable Resilient Infrastruct. 3 (2): 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1080
/23789689.2017.1345257.
Simon, J., J. M. Bracci, and P. Gardoni. 2010. “Seismic response and fragility
of deteriorated reinforced concrete bridges.” J. Struct. Eng. 136 (10):
1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000220.
Somerville, P., N. Smith, S. Punyamurthula, and J. Sun. 1997. “Develop-
ment of ground motion time histories for Phase 2 of the FEMA=SAC
Steel Project.” SAC Joint Venture Project Rep. No. SAC=BD-97=04.
Richmond, CA: SAC Steel Project.
Stein, S. M., G. K. Young, R. E. Trent, and D. R. Pearson. 1999. “Priori-
tizing scour vulnerable bridges using risk.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 5 (3):
95–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1999)5:3(95).
Stewart, M. G., and D. V. Rosowsky. 1998. “Structural safety and service-
ability of concrete bridges subject to corrosion.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 4 (4):
146–155. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1998)4:4(146).
Thanapol, Y., M. Akiyama, and D. M. Frangopol. 2016. “Updating the
seismic reliability of existing RC structures in a marine environment by
incorporating the spatial steel corrosion distribution: Application to
bridge piers.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (7): 04016031. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000889.
Thoft-Christensen, P., F. M. Jensen, C. R. Middleton, and A. Blackmore.
1996. “Assessment of the reliability of concrete slab bridges.” Structural
Reliability Theory Paper No. 157, Vol. R9616. Presented at the 7th IFIP
WG7.5 Working Conference on Reliability and Optimization of
Structural Systems. Aalborg, Denmark: Dept. of Building Technology
and Structural Engineering, Aalborg Univ.
US Dept. of Labor. 2018. Accessed October 26, 2018. https://www.dol.gov.
Venkittaraman, A., and S. Banerjee. 2014. “Enhancing resilience of high-
way bridges through seismic retrofit.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
43 (8): 1173–1191. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2392.
Warn, G. P., A. S. Whittaker, and M. C. Constantinou. 2007. “Vertical
stiffness of elastomeric and lead–rubber seismic isolation bearings.” J.
Struct. Eng. 133 (9): 1227–1236. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2007)133:9(1227).
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2016. “2016
annual traffic report.” Accessed October 19, 2018. http://www.wsdot.wa
.gov/mapsdata/travel/pdf/Annual_Traffic_Report_2016.pdf.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2017. “2017–
2018 snow and ice plan.” Accessed October 19, 2018. http://www
.wsdot.com/winter/snowiceplan.htm.
Yilmaz, T., S. Banerjee, and P. A. Johnson. 2016. “Performance of two real-life
California bridges under regional natural hazards.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (3):
04015063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000827.
Yilmaz, T., S. Banerjee, and P. A. Johnson. 2018. “Uncertainty in risk of
highway bridges assessed for integrated seismic and flood hazards.”
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14 (9): 1182–1196. https://doi.org/10.1080
/15732479.2017.1402065.
Zheng, Y., Y. Dong, and Y. Li. 2018. “Resilience and life-cycle perfor-
mance of smart bridges with shape memory alloy (SMA)-cable-based
bearings.” Constr. Build. Mater. 158: 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.031.
Zhong, J., P. Gardoni, and D. Rosowsky. 2012. “Seismic fragility estimates
for corroding reinforced concrete bridges.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.
8 (1): 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470903241881.
Zhou, Y., S. Banerjee, and M. Shinozuka. 2010. “Socio-economic effect of
seismic retrofit of bridges for highway transportation networks: A pilot
study.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 6 (1=2): 145–157. https://doi.org/10
.1080/15732470802663862.
J. Bridge Eng.