This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]

On: 24 November 2014, At: 01:01

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Seismic fragility increment functions for deteriorating

reinforced concrete bridges
a a
Paolo Gardoni & David Rosowsky
a
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering , Texas A&M University , College Station, TX,
77843-3136, USA
Published online: 01 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Paolo Gardoni & David Rosowsky (2011) Seismic fragility increment functions for deteriorating reinforced
concrete bridges, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance,
7:11, 869-879, DOI: 10.1080/15732470903071338

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732470903071338

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 7, No. 11, November 2011, 869–879

Seismic fragility increment functions for deteriorating reinforced concrete bridges

Paolo Gardoni* and David Rosowsky
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136, USA
(Received 10 December 2008; final version received 25 May 2009; published online 1 September 2009)

Fragility increment functions are developed to estimate the seismic fragility of reinforced concrete (RC) bridges
subject to deterioration due to the onset and progression of corrosion of the reinforcement. For each mode of failure
considered, the fragility at time t of a deteriorating bridge is obtained by multiplying the initial fragility of the
undeteriorated bridge by a corresponding increment function expressed in terms of the environmental conditions,
the original material properties, time, a measure of the seismic demand, and a set of unknown model parameters.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014

The developed increment functions account for the effects on the fragility estimates of the loss of the reinforcement
and of the increasing uncertainty over time. As an application, the developed increment functions are used to
estimate the seismic fragility of an example RC bridge. The proposed fragility increment functions are useful to
estimate the fragility of deteriorating bridges without any extra reliability analysis once the fragility of the
undeteriorated bridge is known. In particular, the proposed fragility increment functions can be used to assess the
time-variant fragility of bridges for applications such as reliability-based design, life-cycle cost analysis, and risk
analysis.
Keywords: bridges; concrete; corrosion; degradation; fragility; seismic

Bloomquist 1993, Dunker and Rabbat 1993, Aktan

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) structures in the USA are
ageing and deteriorating due to harsh environmental
exposure conditions. Throughout their life cycle, RC
structures are affected by corrosion more than by any
other natural phenomenon, including earthquakes and
hurricanes. Even when corrosion does not lead to the
direct failure of a structure, it may weaken it, making it
more vulnerable to earthquakes and other types of
hazards (natural or man-made). A structure originally
designed to meet code specifications may not meet
them once corrosion becomes active.
In particular, bridges are among the structures
most vulnerable to corrosion. De-icing and anti-icing
salts can cause or accelerate corrosion in the deck,
while exposure to marine water is a common cause of
corrosion of both columns and the area underneath the
deck. Approximately 90,000 bridges are considered
structurally deficient due to corrosion of the reinforce-
ment (Yunovich et al. 2006), and annual direct costs to
repair these deficient bridges are estimated to exceed
US$8.3 billion (Koch et al. 2001). The indirect costs to
the user, such as traffic delays and lost productivity,
are estimated to be up to 10 times the direct cost
(Koch et al. 2001). Similar, but more alarming,
estimates are given by other authors (Armaghani and
et al. 1996). The magnitude of the problem has also
been emphasised by the federal government, Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and other agencies,
highlighting the need for the development of new
solutions (Clinton and Gore 1993, Dunker and Rabbat
1993).
An accurate assessment of the reliability of
deteriorating bridges would save the nation several
billion dollars. When needed, bridge owners would
have the time to delay the activation of corrosion by
implementing corrosion protection strategies such as
chloride extraction (Ihekwaba et al. 1996, Marcotte
et al. 1999a,b), protective coatings (Babei and
Hawkins 1988) and cathodic protections (Berkeley
and Pathmanaban 1990).
Few studies have been conducted to assess the
reliability of RC structures over time using time-
dependent deterioration models (Mori and Ellingwood
1993, Enright and Frangopol 1998a,b, Stewart and
Rosowsky 1998, Li and Melchers 2005, Choe et al.
2009). Estimates of the structural reliability are typically
developed using a capacity degradation function in
conducting time-dependent reliability analyses of the
deteriorating structures. However, in these formula-
tions, a reliability analysis has to be performed at each
considered time using the newly calculated capacity.

*Corresponding author. Email: gardoni@tamu.edu

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/15732470903071338
http://www.informaworld.com
 870 P. Gardoni and D. Rosowsky
This paper develops seismic fragility increment
functions, GF,k(t), that directly provide the fragility of
deteriorating bridges without requiring additional
reliability analyses given the fragility of the undeter-
iorated structures. In this study, fragility is defined as
the conditional probability of attaining or exceeding a
specified capacity level given a specified seismic
measure, which is the spectral acceleration, Sa, here.
The GF,k(t) are defined for the deformation, k ¼ d, and
shear, k ¼ v, modes of failure as the ratio between the
fragility of the deteriorating bridge at time t, Fk(t), and
the fragility of the undeteriorated bridge at the time of
construction, Fk(0). The same formulation is also used
to develop a bivariate fragility increment function that
considers both deformation and shear as possible
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014
modes of failure. Using GF,k(t), the fragility of a
deteriorating bridge can be obtained by multiplying the
initial fragility of the undeteriorated bridge by the
corresponding increment function. The proposed
fragility increment functions are expressed as a
function of the environmental conditions, the original
material properties, t and Sa, and a set of unknown
model parameters. The unknown parameters in the
models are estimated by a Bayesian approach. A model
selection process based on the Akaike information
criterion (AIC) (Akaike 1978a,b) and the Bayesian
information criterion (BIC) (Schwarz 1978) is used to
develop accurate and parsimonious models for GF,k(t).
Parameter estimation and model selection are carried
out using a set of fragility data obtained by a
traditional predictive reliability analysis (Gardoni
et al. 2002). Probabilistic capacity and demand models
for corroding RC columns (Choe et al. 2008, 2009) are
used to generate the fragility data.
The developed GF,k(t) is applicable to various
environmental conditions and material properties.
The inputs required to estimate Fk(t) using GF,k(t) are
Fk(0), the environmental conditions, and the original
material properties of the bridge. The proposed GF,k(t)
captures the loss of the reinforcement diameter due to
corrosion, which leads to a mean capacity degradation
and a mean demand increase. Furthermore, GF,k(t)
also accounts for the effects of the increasing un-
certainty over time in the probabilistic models for the
corrosion initiation and the time-dependent corrosion
rate, which is reflected in the capacity and demand
models. In the case of a bridge that has already been
built, additional information is typically available from
a field inspection. This paper also describes how data
from a field inspection at time tinsp can be used to
update the fragility of a bridge at time t 4 tinsp.
As an application, fragility estimates for an
example bridge are obtained using the developed
functions, GF,k(t). For this illustration, a highway
overpass RC bridge is selected with geometry and
material properties that are representative of currently
constructed highway bridges in California (Caltrans
1999). The fragilities estimated using GF,k(t) are in
close agreement with those assessed by carrying out a
traditional reliability analysis. Furthermore, the pro-
posed approach reduces the computational cost by
providing the seismic fragility at any time of interest
without any additional reliability analysis once the
initial fragility is known.
This paper has five sections. First, a general model
for GF,k(t) is developed. Then, the estimation of the
model parameters and the model selection process are
discussed. Next, the results for the developed GF,k(t)
are presented. This is followed by a general discussion
on how the models can be updated using data from
field inspection. Finally, the developed GF,k(t) are used
to estimate the seismic fragility of the example RC
bridge.
2. Formulation of seismic fragility increment functions
The fragility of an RC bridge at t years and a given Sa
is represented as GF,k(t), where k ¼ d indicates the
deformation failure mode and k ¼ v indicates the
shear failure mode. The formulation in Gardoni et al.
(2003) is used to assess the fragility at t ¼ 0 and the
formulation in Choe et al. (2009) is used to assess the
fragility at t 4 0. The fragility increment function for
the kth failure mode is then defined as:
Fk ðtÞ
GF;k ¼ ; k ¼ d; v: ð1Þ
Fk ð0Þ
This section develops a probabilistic model for GF,k
that can be used to estimate Fk(t) given Fk(0). The
model for the fragility increment function for the kth
failure mode is generally expressed as:
GF;k ¼ GF;k ðx0 ; t; Sa ; Hk Þ; k ¼ d; v; ð2Þ
where x0 is a vector of basic variables (i.e. geometry,
material properties at the time of construction and
environmental conditions); Sa is the given demand
level; and Hk are the sets of the unknown para-
meters introduced to fit the proposed models to
fragility data.
In assessing the unknown parameters, Hk, the
model needs to satisfy the homoskedasticity and
normality assumptions. That is, the model standard
deviation needs to be independent of x0, t and Sa, and
the model error needs to have a normal distribution.
A suitable transformation can be used to approxi-
mately satisfy these assumptions. Box and Cox (1964)
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 871

suggested the following parameterised family of where sk represents the standard deviation of the
transformations: model error ske; e is a normal random variable with
zero mean and unit variance; and ĜF,k models Fk(t)/
 l Fk(0), and can be written as the ratio between the
GF;k  l1 2  1
y¼ ; l2 6¼ 0; models for the fragility of the deteriorating and of
l2 ð3Þ the original bridge, Fˆk(t)/Fˆk(0). In Equation (4), the
 
y ¼ log GF;k  l1 ; l2 ¼ 0: unknown parameters Hk are partitioned into a vector
of unknown model parameters hk and the unknown
As a specific case, l2 ¼ 0 specifies the logarithmic standard deviation sk.
transformation, l2 ¼ 1/2 the square-root transforma- Choe et al. (2007a) developed a fragility increment
tion and l2 ¼ 1 the linear transformation. After function for a given shear or deformation demand. The
investigating the possible transformations and the same model form is used here for ĜF,k given Sa.
corresponding diagnostic plots (Rao and Toutenburg Accordingly, ĜF,k is written as:
1997), the transformation in Equation (3) defined by
l1 ¼ 1 and l2 ¼ 0 is selected. G^F;k ðx8
0 ; t; Sa ; hk Þ
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014

Accordingly, the regression model for the fragility > 1; t < tG ;

<" #yk7
increment function is written as:
¼ 1 þ ðsk =Sa Þnk
>
:  n R ðtÞ ; t  tG ;
  1 þ ½sk  Rs;k ðtÞ=Sa k n;k
log GF;k ðx0 ; t; Sa ; Hk Þ  1
  ð5Þ
¼ log G^F;k ðx0 ; t; Sa ; hk Þ  1 þ sk e; k ¼ d; v;
ð4Þ where nk and sk control the shape of Fˆk(0), which is
written as:

1
F^k ð0Þ ¼ : ð6Þ
1 þ ðsk =Sa Þnk

Rs,k captures the loss of the reinforcement diameter

Figure 1. Illustration of the degradation of structural
capacity and the increase of structural demand, and model
uncertainty.
(which leads to a mean capacity degradation and a
mean demand increase as shown by the solid line in
Figure 1), where Ck(t) and Dk(t) refer to respectively
the capacity and demand for the mode k at the t and
the dashed lines delimit the regions within one
standard deviation from the means and the effects of
the increasing uncertainty over time in the fragility
estimates; and Rn,k controls the effects of the increasing
uncertainty only. Figure 2 shows a qualitative illustra-
tion of the effects on the fragility estimates of the mean
capacity degradation and the mean demand increase
and of the uncertainty increase. This paper uses the

Figure 2. Illustration of the effects on the fragility estimates of (a) the mean capacity degradation and the mean demand
increase and of (b) the uncertainty increase.
 872 P. Gardoni and D. Rosowsky

expressions for Rs,k and Rn,k suggested in Choe et al.

(2007a): 3. Parameter estimation
The unknown parameters Hk are estimated using a
 
1  w=c yk2 Bayesian approach and data generated by computing
Rs;k ðtÞ ¼ yk1 ðt  tG Þyk3 ð7Þ predictive fragility estimates at different times t for
d
different material properties and environmental con-
and ditions. In estimating Hk, a model selection process is
conducted to simplify the model proposed in Equation
Rn;k ðtÞ ¼ yk5 tyk6 ; (5) and to construct a parsimonious model (with as few
where w/c is the water-to-cement ratio, d is the parameters as possible) by removing unimportant
concrete cover depth; and tG ¼ y4tˆcorr is the time to terms. This section describes the generation of the
degradation initiation, where tˆcorr is a point estimate of data, the Bayesian approach and the model selection
the corrosion initiation time tcorr. Following Dura- process.
Crete (2000), tcorr, is computed as:
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014

" 3.1. Data used to assess fragility increment functions

   #1n
1

d2c 1 Ccr 2 To generate the regression data needed to estimate

tcorr ¼ erf 1 ; ð8Þ
4ke kt kc D0 ðt0 Þn Cs
where dc is the cover depth of the reinforcement; ke is
an environmental factor; kt is an influence factor for
the test method used to determine the empirical
diffusion coefficient D0; kc is a parameter that accounts
for the influence of curing; t0 is the reference period for
D0; n is the age factor; Cs is the chloride concentration
on the surface; Ccr is the critical chloride concentra-
tion; and erf() is the error function. The probability
distributions for these parameters for various exposure
and material conditions are found in DuraCrete
(2000). The point estimate, T̂corr, is obtained by using
the mean values of all the model parameters in
Equation (8). Figure 3 shows the shape of the proposed
fragility increment function.
The formulation in Equation (4) is also used to
develop the bivariate deformation-shear fragility in-
crement function GF,dv(x0, t, Sa, Hdv) that considers
both deformation and shear as possible modes of
failure.
Hk, fragility estimates are computed for a typical
highway overpass RC bridge. The geometry and
material properties of the bridge are representative of
current construction in California. The bridge was
designed according to the Caltrans Bridge Design
Specification and Seismic Design Criteria (1999). The
bridge has a one-column single-bent with integral pile
shaft foundation that extends the column with the
same cross section into the soil. Figure 4 shows
the configuration of the example bridge where L is
the span length, H is the column height, D is the
column gross diameter, Ds is the thickness of the
superstructure, and Ksoil and Kabt are respectively
the stiffness of the soil and of the abutments. Table 1
lists the design parameters of interest. Additional
details can be found in Gardoni et al. (2003). For
each mode of failure, a vector Gk of 178 data points
is generated by varying the material properties,
environmental conditions and level of the earthquake
intensity, Sa. Table 2 lists the range of the data for
environmental conditions and material properties,
which include different combinations of chloride
exposure conditions, environmental oxygen availabi-
lities, water-to-cement ratios and curing conditions.

Figure 4. Configuration of the example bridge (not to

Figure 3. Shape of ĜF,k(t,Sa). scale).
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 873

Table 1. Variables for the single-bent bridge at t ¼ 0. in Gardoni et al. (2003) are used to estimate the seismic
Value/ demand of undeteriorated RC bridges, and the models
Description Parameter distribution in Choe et al. (2009) are used for the deteriorating RC
bridges. The corresponding shear and deformation
Span length (right and left) L (mm) 18,300 capacities of RC bridge columns are estimated using
Span-to-column height L/H 2.4
ratio the probabilistic models in Gardoni et al. (2002) and
Column-to-superstructure D/Ds 0.75 Choe et al. (2007b) for undeteriorated bridges and in
dimension ratio Choe et al. (2008) for the deteriorating bridges.
Concrete nominal strength f’c (MPa) LN (27.6, 2.76) Following Gardoni et al. (2002), predictive fragility
Reinforcement nominal fy (MPa) LN (448.2, 22.4)
yield strength estimates are computed as:
Initial longitudinal rl0 2.0% Z
reinforcement ratio of
column F~k ðtÞ ¼ Fk ðt; Kk ÞfK ðKk ÞdKk ; ð11Þ
Initial transverse rs0 0.7%
reinforcement ratio of
column where the epistemic uncertainty in the model para-
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014

Soil stiffness based on Ksoil B meters Kk is incorporated in the fragility estimate by

NEHRP groups (NEHRP
1997a, b) computing the expected value of Fk(t, Kk) over the
Additional bridge dead load r N (0.1, 0.025) distribution of Kk. The data for the regression analysis
(as a ratio of the dead are then computed as F~k(t)/F~k(0).
weight) Similar to Equation (9), the fragility of an RC
N() and LN() indicate the normal and the lognormal distributious, bridge in either mode of failure is computed as:
respectively.
" #
[
Fdv ðt; Kdv Þ ¼ P gk ðx0 ; t; Sa ; Kk Þ  0jSa ; ð12Þ
Table 2. Range of the material properties and environ-
k¼d;v
mental conditions.

Environmental Curing where Kdv ¼ (Kd, Kv) and

w/c condition condition Humidity
Z
0.4–0.5 Submerged 1–28 days Constantly saturated,
tidal Constantly humid or F~dv ðtÞ ¼ Fdv ðt; Kdv ÞfK ðKdv ÞdKdv : ð13Þ
splash many humid–dry
cycles
Atmospheric Therefore, data for the deformation-shear fragility
increment function are computed as F~dv(t)/F~dv(0).
The next section discusses the estimation of the
model parameters and the model selection process. For
For given material properties, environmental con- the sake of simplicity of notation, the discussion is
ditions and Sa, the fragility of an RC bridge in mode k focused on the univariate deformation and shear
can be written as: models. However, the same formulation is equally
applicable to assess Hdv.
Fk ðt; Kk Þ ¼ P½gk ðx0 ; t; Sa ; Kk Þ  0jSa ; k ¼ d; v;
ð9Þ
3.2. Bayesian parameter estimation
where the limit state function gk(x0, t, Sa, Kk) is The unknown parameters Hk in the fragility increment
written as: function are estimated using the Bayesian updating
rule (Box and Tiao 1992):
gk ðx0 ; t; Sa ; x; Kk Þ
¼ Ck ðx0 ; t; KCk Þ  Dk ðx0 ; t; Sa ; KDk Þ; k ¼ d; v; fðHk Þ ¼ gLðHk jGk ÞpðHk Þ; ð14Þ
ð10Þ
where p(Hk) is the prior distribution of Hk based on
where Cik(x0, t, KCk) is a probabilistic model for the previous knowledge; L(HkjGk) is the likelihood func-
capacity of an RC bridge column at time t; Dk(x0, t, Sa, tion representing the objective information on Hk in a
KDk) is a probabilistic model for the demand in an RC set of data Gk; g is a normalising factor; and f(Hk)
bridge at time t due to an earthquake with intensity Sa; is the posterior distribution reflecting the updated
and Kk ¼ (KCk, KDk) are the model parameters in the state of knowledge about Hk. The distribution f(Hk)
capacity and demand models. The probabilistic models incorporates the prior information in p(Hk) and
 874 P. Gardoni and D. Rosowsky

the information in the observations captured in
L(HkjGk). The mean vector, MH, and covariance
matrix, RHH, can be obtained once the posterior
distribution of Hk is known. Since no prior informa-
tion is available about Hk, a non-informative prior
distribution is used in this paper.
3.3. Model selection
The objective is to develop fragility increment func-
tions GF,k(x0, t, Sa, Hk) that are accurate, unbiased,
and easily implementable in practice. To facilitate their
use in practice, ĜF,k(x0, t, Sa, hk ) needs to have as few
parameters hk as possible. Also from a statistical
standpoint, a parsimonious model (with as few model
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014
section provides a general discussion on how the
models can be updated using data from field inspec-
tion. In addition, as an illustration of the proposed
fragility increment functions, the final section com-
pares the predictive seismic fragility estimates for an
example RC bridge typical of California’s current
construction with those computed using the proposed
increment functions.
4.1. Deformation failure mode
For the deformation mode of failure, the estimated
parameters for Fˆ(0) are nd ¼ 2.17 and sd ¼ 2.73. The
most parsimonious model selected based on the AIC,
BIC and MAPE is written as:

parameters as possible) avoids (1) the loss of precision

of the estimates of the parameters and of the overall
model due to the inclusion of unimportant terms and
(2) overfitting the data. Akaike (1978a,b) developed an
effective and general criterion, the AIC, for selecting
accurate models that are also parsimonious. The AIC
trades off the accuracy of a model fit with its com-
plexity and can be written as:
h i
AIC ¼ 2 log max LðHjGk Þ þ 2NP ;
H Table 3 lists the posterior statistics of the parameters
where Np is the number of unknown model param-
eters hk .
Similarly, Schwarz (1978) provided a Bayesian
argument for adopting the following BIC:
h i
BIC ¼ 2 log max LðHjGk Þ þ NP logðNS Þ;
H in Figure 2a. Furthermore, the fact that the term
where Ns is the sample size of the regression dataset.
The penalty Np log(Ns) is, in general, stronger than
2Np used in the AIC, and the BIC performs
particularly well for large sample sizes.
This paper uses both AIC and BIC for the model
selection. The selected model has the minimum values
of AIC and BIC. In addition to AIC and BIC, the
mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) is also
computed to have a more intuitive measure of the
accuracy of the models. The MAPE is expressed as:
" MAPE ¼ 3.53%.
 
!#
1 X NS
G^F;k x0i ; ti ; Sa;i ; hk  Gk;i
1 þ ðsd =Sa Þnd
G^F;d ðt; Sa Þ ¼   ; ð18Þ
1 þ f sd  Rs;d ðtÞ =Sa gnd
where
 
1  w=c
Rs;d ðtÞ ¼ ð0:034  0:032yd3 Þ
d
 yd3
^
 t  yd4 Tcorr : ð19Þ
ð15Þ
Hd ¼ (yd3, yd4, sd) of the reduced model. The para-
meter yd1 is found to be strongly correlated with yd3,
therefore, as a further simplification, it is expressed by
its linear regression on yd3 as ^yd1 ¼ 0:034  0:032yd3 .
The positive mean estimates of yd1, yd3 and yd4 indicate
that Fˆd(0) underestimates the fragility at time t;
ð16Þ therefore, Fˆd(t) is shifted to the left of Fˆd(0), as shown
Rn,d(t) is not needed in the reduced model indicates
that the increase in uncertainty over time is negligible
for the deformation mode of failure.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the values of
F~d(t)/F~d(0) and the corresponding values predicted
using the proposed ĜF,d(t, Sa). For a perfect model, the
data should line up along the 1:1 line. It can be seen
that the proposed model is unbiased and accurately
predicts F~d(t)/F~d(0) over the considered range. The
dotted lines indicate the +1 standard deviation
band. The developed ĜF,d(t, Sa) fits the data with

MAPE ¼
NS i¼1 Gk;i Table 3. Posterior statistics of the parameters in GF,d.
 100: ð17Þ Correlation coefficient
Standard
Parameter Mean deviation yd3 yd4 sd
4. Results yd3 0.848 0.025 1 0.04 70.08
This section presents the results of the parameter yd4 0.850 0.009 0.04 1 0.08
sd 0.161 0.008 70.08 0.08 1
estimation and the model selection process. The next
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 875

corresponding values predicted using the proposed

4.2. Shear failure mode ĜF,v(t, Sa). It can be seen that the proposed model is
For the shear mode of failure, the most parsimonious unbiased and accurately predicts F~v(t)/F~v(0) over the
model based on AIC, BIC and MAPE is written as: considered range. For the shear mode of failure,
MAPE ¼ 4.96%.
1 þ ðsv =Sa Þnv
G^F;v ðt; Sa Þ ¼ ; ð20Þ
1 þ ðsv =Sa Þnv Rn;v ðtÞ
4.3. Deformation and shear failure modes
where nv ¼ 0.786, sv ¼ 186 and The reduced fragility increment function for the
deformation-shear fragility is:
Rn;v ðtÞ ¼ yv5 tyv6 : ð21Þ

Table 4 lists the posterior statistics of Hv ¼ (yv6, sv). 1 þ ðsdv =Sa Þndv
G^F;dv ðt; Sa Þ ¼   n ; ð22Þ
The parameter yv5 is found to be strongly correlated 1 þ sdv  Rs;dv ðtÞ =Sa dv
with yv6 and is expressed by its linear regression on yv6
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014

as ^
yv5 ¼ 0:041  0:057yv6 . The positive mean estimates where ndv ¼ 2.12, sdv ¼ 2.65 and
of yv5 and yv6 indicate that the increase in uncertainty  
over time shown in the right chart of Figure 2 has to be 1  w=c  ydv3
Rs; dv ðtÞ ¼ ydv1 t  T^corr : ð23Þ
accounted for when modelling Fv(t). Therefore, Fˆv(0) d
underestimates Fv(t) for small probabilities and over-
estimates Fv(t) for probabilities closer to 1. Further- Table 5 lists the posterior statistics of Hdv ¼ (ydv3, sdv).
more, the fact that the term Rs,v(t) is not needed in the As with the deformation fragility increment function,
reduced model indicates that the increase in the the parameter ydv1 is found to be strongly correlated
fragility due to the loss of the reinforcement diameter with ydv3, and is expressed by its linear regression on
is negligible for the shear mode of failure. ydv3 as ^ydv1 ¼ 0:171  0:269ydv3 . The model form for
Similar to Figure 5, Figure 6 shows a com- the deformation-shear fragility increment function is
parison between the values of F~v(t)/F~v(0) and the

Figure 5. Comparison between the values of F~d(t)/F~d(0) and Figure 6. Comparison between the values of F~v(t)/F~v(0) and
the corresponding values predicted using the proposed the corresponding values predicted using the proposed
ĜF,d(t,Sa). ĜF,v(t,Sa).

Table 4. Posterior statistics of the parameters in GF,v. Table 5. Posterior statistics of the parameters in GF,dv.
Correlation coefficient Correlation coefficient
Standard Standard
Parameter Mean deviation yv6 sv Parameter Mean deviation ydv3 sdv
yv6 0.524 1.00 1 70.58 ydv3 0.409 0.032 1 0.00
sv 0.059 0.006 70.58 1 sdv 0.128 0.007 0.00 1
 876 P. Gardoni and D. Rosowsky
similar to the one for the deformation fragility
increment function. This should be expected because,
consistently with the displacement-based capacity de-
sign approach used by Caltrans, the deformation mode
of failure dominates the bivariate deformation-shear
fragility (Gardoni et al. 2003). Figure 7 shows a
comparison between the values of F~dv(t)/F~dv(0) and the
corresponding values predicted using the proposed
ĜF,dv(t, Sa). It can be seen that the proposed model is
unbiased and accurately predicts F~dv(t)/F~dv(0) over the
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014
Figure 7. Comparison between the values of F~dv(t)/F~dv(0)
and the corresponding values predicted using the proposed
ĜF,dv(t,Sa).
Figure 8. Definition of teq,k.
considered range. For the deformation-shear model,
MAPE ¼ 2.51%.
5. Model updating based on data from field inspections
The developed models are valuable to account for the
deterioration of bridges over time when conducting a
reliability-based design, life-cycle cost analysis, or risk
analysis before the actual construction of a bridge.
However, in the case of a bridge that has already been
built, additional information is typically available from
field inspections. This section describes how data from
a field inspection at time tinsp can be used to update the
fragility estimates at t 4 tinsp.
First, the information from a field inspection can be
used to assess a more accurate value of the natural
period of the bridge, Tinsp, used in computing Sa for a
specific seismic event. Second, field data can be used to
update the predicted deterioration process by adjusting
the expected initiation of the deterioration process and
deterioration rate.
In particular, at the time of inspection, two estimates
of Fk(tinsp, Sa) can be computed: one as Fˆk(tinsp) ¼
ĜF,k(x0,tinsp,Sa) 6 F~k(x0) using the proposed ĜF,k
(x0,tinsp,Sa) to model the deterioration process; and
one, F~k(xinsp), without using ĜF,k(x0,tinsp,Sa), but using
directly the updated values of the geometry and
material properties assessed during the field inspection,
xinsp. The difference between the two estimates is
indicated as DFk(Sa) in Figure 8. By using DFk(Sa), an
equivalent time teq,k can be computed to accelerate or
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
slow down the deterioration process modelled by
ĜF,k(x0,tinsp,Sa) so that the corresponding fragility
estimate matches the one based on xinsp, that is
Fˆk(teq,k) ¼ ĜF,k(x0,teq,k,Sa) 6 F~k(x0)  F~k(xinsp). It is
noted that because the deterioration process might
have different effects on the deformation and shear
modes of failure, in general, teq,d 6¼ teq,v.
In case the accelerated or slower estimated dete-
rioration is believed to be due to an inaccurate estimate
of tcorr, the fragility at a time t following the inspection
can be estimated using teq,k as:
   
F^k ðtÞ ¼ G^F;k x0 ; teq;k þ Dt ; Sa
 F~k ðx0 Þ; t > tinsp ; ð24Þ
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014
where Dt ¼ t7tinsp. In this case, teq,k provides a shift
along the t-axis of ĜF,k to adjust the initiation of the
deterioration process, but there is no change in the
deterioration rate. Alternatively, in case the overall
deterioration process needs to be adjusted (i.e. both
Figure 9. Fragility estimates for the example submerged bridge considering w/c ¼ 0.5, curing time 1 day and many humid-dry
cycles.
877
shifting the time and adjusting the rate), then the
fragility at a time t following the inspection can be
estimated as:
  
^ ^ teq;k
Fk ðtÞ ¼ GF;k x0 ; teq;k þ Dt ; Sa
tinsp
 F~k ðx0 Þ; t > tinsp : ð25Þ
In this case teq,k is used not only to shift ĜF,k along the
t-axis but also to contract or dilate the t-axis to
account for a difference in the deterioration rate.
6. Fragility estimates for an example bridge
As an application, the developed increment functions
are used to estimate the seismic fragility of an example
RC bridge. A highway overpass RC bridge is selected
with geometry and material properties that are
representative of current construction in California
(Caltrans 1999). Figure 4 shows the example of a
single-bent bridge. The design parameters of interest
 878 P. Gardoni and D. Rosowsky
for the considered bridge system are listed in Table 1.
To compute the fragility at time t using ĜF,k(x0,t,
Sa,Hk), the required inputs are Fk(0), the environ-
mental conditions and the original material properties
of the bridge. In this example, to estimate the corrosion
initiation and propagation it is assumed that the bridge
is constructed in a splash zone with a water-to-
cement ratio of the concrete material equal to 0.5, 1
day curing time, and that the zone is subjected to many
humid-dry cycles. These are among the most severe
conditions for corrosion. The predictive fragility
estimate F~k(0) is obtained by a reliability analysis
following Gardoni et al. (2003). The fragility estimates
at time t are obtained as Fˆk(t) ¼ ĜF,k(x0,t,Sa,Hk)6
F~k(0).
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014
Figure 9 shows the fragility estimates for the
example bridge versus Sa for the deformation, shear
and combined deformation-shear failure modes. In
each subplot, the dashed line indicates F~k(0); for
comparison, the dotted line indicates the predictive
fragility F~k(t ¼ 150 year) obtained by a reliability
analysis following Choe et al. (2009), and the solid line
indicates Fˆk(t ¼ 150 year). Overall, the estimates using
the proposed fragility increment functions are close to
the predictive fragility estimates and only marginal
differences can be noticed. In particular, both the
deformation and the most useful deformation-shear
fragility estimates are almost identical for low demand
values, which is the range of interest for civil
engineering applications.
7. Conclusions
Seismic fragility increment functions are developed to
compute the deformation, shear and deformation-
shear fragility estimates of deteriorating RC bridges
without conducting a traditional reliability analysis.
For each mode of failure considered, the fragility at
time t of a deteriorating bridge is obtained by
multiplying the initial fragility of the undeteriorated
bridge by the corresponding increment function. The
only inputs required to determine the fragility incre-
ment functions are the environmental conditions and
the original material properties of a bridge. The
developed increment functions reflect the effects of
capacity degradation, change of seismic demand and
the increase in uncertainty in the deterioration process
over time. The formulation satisfies the mathematical
properties and boundary conditions required by a
fragility function. The proposed increment functions
are assessed using a set of fragility data obtained by
traditional predictive reliability analysis. A model
selection is also conducted using the AIC and BIC,
to construct accurate and parsimonious fragility
increment functions. In addition, an approach is
developed to update the fragility of a bridge using
data from field inspections. As an application, the
developed increment functions are used to estimate the
seismic fragility of an example RC bridge representa-
tive of current construction in California. The pro-
posed fragility increment functions provide a close
match with the fragility estimates computed using
traditional reliability analysis. The proposed fragility
increment functions are a useful tool in applications
such as reliability-based design, life-cycle cost analysis
and risk analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr Do-Eun Choe for helpful
discussions and suggestions and her help in carrying out
some of the analyses presented in this paper.
References
Akaike, H., 1978a. A new look at the Bayes procedure.
Biometrika, 65, 53–59.
Akaike, H., 1978b. A Bayesian analysis of the minimum AIC
procedure. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathe-
matics, 30, 9–14.
Aktan, A.E., Helmicki, A.J., and Hunt, V.J., 1996. Issues
related to intelligent bridge monitoring. In: Proceedings
of Structures Congress XIV, S.K. Ghosh and J. Moham-
madi, eds., ASCE, 750–757.
Armaghani, J.M. and Bloomquist, D.G., 1993. Durability
specification and ratings for concrete. In: R.K. Dhir
and M.R. Jones, eds. Concrete 2000. London: E&FN
Spon.
Babei, K. and Hawkins, N.M., 1988. Evaluation of bridge
deck protective strategies. Concrete International, 10 (12),
56–66.
Berkeley, K.G.C. and Pathmanaban, S., 1990. Cathodic
protection of reinforcement steel in concrete. London:
Butterworths.
Box, G.E.P. and Cox, D.R., 1964. An analysis of transfor-
mations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,
26, 211–246.
Box, G.E.P. and Tiao, G.C., 1992. Bayesian inference in
statistical analysis. New York: Wiley.
California Department of Transport (Caltrans), 1999.
Seismic design criteria, ed. 1.1. Caltrans.
Choe, D., Gardoni, P., and Rosowsky, D., 2007a. Fragility
increment functions for deteriorating reinforced concrete
bridge columns. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics
(under review).
Choe, D., Gardoni, P., and Rosowsky, D., 2007b. Closed-
form fragility estimates, parameter sensitivity and Baye-
sian updating for RC columns. ASCE Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 133 (7), 833–843.
Choe, D., et al., 2008. Probabilistic capacity models and
fragility estimates for corroding reinforced concrete
columns. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93,
383–393.
Choe, D., et al., 2009. Seismic fragility estimates for
reinforced concrete bridges subject to corrosion. Struc-
tural Safety, 31, 275–283.
Clinton, W.J. and Gore, A. Jr, 1993. Technology for
America’s economic growth: a new direction to build
economic growth. Policy Statement, 22 February 1993.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Dunker, K.R. and Rabbat, B.G., 1993. Why America’s
bridges are crumbling. Scientific American, March, 66–72.
DuraCrete, 2000. Statistical quantification of the variables in
the limit state functions. The European Union Brite
EuRam 3 contract BRPR-CT950-132, Project BE951-
347, Report no BE951-347/R7.
Enright, M.P. and Frangopol, D.M., 1998a. Service-life
prediction of deteriorating concrete bridges. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 124 (3), 309–317.
Enright, M.P. and Frangopol, D.M., 1998b. Probabilistic
analysis of resistance degradation of reinforced concrete
bridge beams under corrosion. Engineering Structures, 20
(11), 960–971.
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., and Mosalam, K.M., 2002.
Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for
RC columns based on experimental observations. ASCE
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128 (10), 1024–1038.
Gardoni, P., Mosalam, K.M., and Der Kiureghian, A., 2003.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:01 24 November 2014
Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility esti-
mates for RC bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
7, 79–106.
Ihekwaba, N.M., Hope, B.B., and Hansson, C.M., 1996.
Carbonation and electrochemical chloride extraction
from concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 26 (7),
1095–1107.
Koch, G.H., et al., 2001. Corrosion costs and preventive
strategies in the United States. Federal Highway Admin-
istration, FHWA-RD-01-156.
Li, C.Q. and Melchers, R.E., 2005. Time-dependent risk
assessment of structural deterioration caused by reinfor-
cement corrosion. ACI Structural Journal, 102 (5),
754–762.
879
Marcotte, T.D., Hansson, C.M., and Hope, B.B., 1999a. The
effect of electrochemical chloride extraction treatment on
steel-reinforced mortar, part II – microstructural char-
acterization. Cement and Concrete Research, 29 (10),
1561–1568.
Marcotte, T.D., Hansson, C.M., and Hope, B.B., 1999b. The
effect of electrochemical chloride extraction treatment on
steel-reinforced mortar, part I – electrochemical mea-
surements. Cement and Concrete Research, 29 (10),
1555–1560.
Mori, Y. and Ellingwood, B., 1993. Reliability-based service-
life assessment of aging concrete structures. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 199 (5), 1600–1621.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP), 1997a. FEMA-273, Guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP), 1997b. FEMA-274, Commentary on the
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Rao, C.R. and Toutenburg, H., 1997. Linear models, least
squares and alternatives. New York, NY: Springer.
Schwarz, G., 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model.
Annals of Statistics, 6 (2), 461–464.
Stewart, M.G. and Rosowsky, D.V., 1998. Structural safety
and serviceability of concrete bridges subject to corro-
sion. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 4 (4), 146–155.
Yunovich, M., et al., 2006. Highway bridges. Available from:
http://www.corrosioncost.com/infrastructure/highway/
index.htm4 [Accessed 23 October 2007].