Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

PDF interpolation technique for seismic fragility analysis of bridges

Jin-Hak Yi a,∗ , Sang-Hoon Kim b , Shigeru Kushiyama c
a Coastal Engineering Research Department, Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute (KORDI), Ansan, Gyeonggi 426-744, Republic of Korea
b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
c Department of Architectural Engineering, Hokkai Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan

Received 19 January 2004; received in revised form 7 August 2006; accepted 7 August 2006
Available online 9 October 2006

Abstract

This study presents a probability density function (PDF) interpolation technique for the evaluation of seismic fragility curves as a function
of the return period. Seismic fragility curves have been developed in terms of various seismic intensities, such as the peak ground acceleration
(PGA), peak ground velocity and pseudovelocity spectrum. However, of these seismic intensity measures, the return period of design earthquakes
is more useful, as seismic hazard curves are generally represented with the return period of design earthquakes; seismic design codes also require
consideration of the return period of the design earthquake spectrum for a specific site. Therefore, this paper focuses on the evaluation of seismic
fragility curves as a function of the return period. Seismic fragility curves based on the return period are compared with those based on the PGA
as an example bridge. The seismic fragility curves developed in this study make more intuitive sense for the design, retrofit and performance
evaluation of bridges.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Probability density function; Seismic fragility analysis; Return period; Seismic damage

1. Introduction of the seismic performance of civil infrastructures, such as

Performance-based seismic design methodologies have
been improved for the design of new bridges and the
retrofit of existing ones. There are two generally accepted
recent performance-based design concepts: (1) the multilevel
performance design concept introduced from SEAOC’s Vision
2000 projects [1] and BSSC’s NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings [2], and (2) the probabilistic
concept for treating seismic events as random due to the
uncertainties of earthquake events. Based on the above-
mentioned recent trends, the seismic fragility analysis, which
evaluates damage exceeding the probability of a given
structure’s response to varying intensities of seismic excitation,
is most popular for the evaluation of the seismic performance
of civil infrastructures.
Seismic fragility analysis was originally conducted to
evaluate the seismic safety of nuclear power plants, which has
recently been accepted as a reliable method for the evaluation
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 31 400 7811; fax: +82 31 408 5823.
E-mail address: yijh@kordi.re.kr (J.-H. Yi).
bridges and buildings. In the early seismic fragility analysis, the
seismic fragility curves were usually represented as functions
of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) [3]. Hirata et al. [4,
5] tried to express the seismic fragility as a function of
the peak ground velocity (PGV) as well as of the spectral
pseudovelocity for base-isolated reactor structures. Dimova and
Hirata [6] investigated several seismic intensity parameters,
including PGA, PGV and the pseudovelocity spectrum (PVS)
for a seismic fragility analysis of building structures. They
demonstrated that the mean value of the PVS provided the
best estimate of response for a given seismic intensity in a
least-square sense. More recently, seismic fragility analyses
were carried out for evaluation of the performance of network
systems, including a transportation system [7–10]. Even though
the PGA value has been most widely used as a measure of
the magnitude of earthquakes in the seismic fragility analyses
of bridges, the return period of a design earthquake, of the
seismic intensity measures, including PGA and PGV, can
also be very useful because seismic hazard curves or maps
are generally represented using the return periods of design
earthquakes; seismic design codes also require consideration of

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.019
 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322 1313

the return period of an earthquake for a specific site. In this where, xi = 1 or 0, depending on whether the bridge sustains
study, seismic fragility curves are developed as a function of the jth damage state under ground motion, with PGA = ai ,
the return period by utilizing the probability density function and N is the number of sample input ground motions. Two
(PDF) interpolation technique. A similar approach can be found parameters c j and ζ j (or ζcommon for F jII ) in Eqs. (1) and
in Wen and Wu’s study [11]. They interpolated the median (2), respectively, are computed by maximizing the likelihood
values of the structural responses to the seismic events of many function, as follows:
samples for comparing their proposed method with the results
of the conventional method. This study can be considered as ∂ ln L Ij ∂ ln L Ij
an extended version of one part of their research. In addition, = = 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , Nstate (4a)
∂c j ∂ζ j
a conventional seismic fragility analysis, based on PGA index
and maximum likelihood estimation, is also briefly introduced. ∂ ln L IIj ∂ ln L IIj
= = 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , Nstate . (4b)
Finally, the results of the seismic fragility curves based on the ∂c j ∂ζcommon
return period are compared with those based on PGA using the
same example bridge.
3. PDF interpolation technique for seismic fragility analysis
2. Seismic fragility analysis

2.1. Revisit to seismic fragility analysis in terms of peak ground 3.1. Seismic hazard curve
acceleration
Seismic fragility curves can be evaluated by calculating
Shinozuka et al. expressed the seismic fragility curves using the probability of exceeding predetermined performance limit
two-parameter lognormal distribution functions, and estimated states for several return periods, if the PDF of the maximum
the two parameters (median and log-standard deviation) with response of a given structure is known under the ground
the aid of the maximum likelihood estimation method [12]. A
motions with an arbitrary return period. However, it is
brief description is introduced, as follows:
impractical to obtain the PDF of maximum structural responses
The fragility curve for the jth damage state, F jI (a), takes the
under an earthquake with an arbitrary return period. One
following form
solution can be achieved by interpolating the characteristics
ln(a/c j ) of the PDF of maximum structural responses at existing
 
F jI (a; c j , ζ j ) = Φ (1) probability levels (e.g. 50, 10 and 2% in 50 years), and a reliable
ζj
basis function is essential to interpolate the PDFs. For this
where a is a PGA value of the ground motion, Φ(·) the standard purpose, the mathematical form of a seismic hazard curve is
normal distribution function, and c j and ζ j the median and utilized as a basic function for interpolating the characteristics
log-standard deviation values of the fragility curve for jth of PDFs of maximum structural responses, because earthquake
damage state, respectively. Even though the fragility curves related parameters, such as seismic damages, are reasonably
can be expressed as Eq. (1), the fragility curves for different represented by a seismic hazard curve. In addition, the seismic
damage states can be observed to intersect due to the different
hazard curve can be obtained by estimating two parameters
log-standard deviations. In such a case, the damage exceeding
from a few sampling points at the available return periods. A
probability for more severely damage states are estimated as
similar idea for obtaining the structural responses with respect
being higher than for less severe damage. To avoid such an
to the return periods can be found in the study of Wen and
intersection, Kim and Shinozuka [13] proposed a common log-
Wu [11]. They interpolated the probability of exceedance of the
standard deviation, using all sample data for every damage
column drift ratio in a 50 year period, and obtained the column
states, for the maximum likelihood estimation. In this study, the
drift demand at various return periods.
following seismic fragility curves, with a common log-standard
deviation (noted as F jII (a)), are also investigated. In this study, the following two assumptions were considered
to establish the seismic fragility curves based on return period:
ln(a/c j )
 
(1) structural responses under the earthquake ground motions
F j (a; c j , ζcommon ) = Φ
II
,
ζcommon at the same exceedance probability level follow a lognormal
j = 1, 2, . . . , Nstate (2) distribution (see Eq. (6)); and (2) the characteristics of the PDF
of seismic responses follow the seismic hazard curve proposed
where ζcommon denotes the common log-standard deviation. The by Cornell [14] as:
likelihood function for the jth damage state, L Ij and L IIj , can
then be introduced as: P E 1 = P[θmax > θ] = H (θ ) = K 0 θ −K 1 (5)
N h
Y ixi h i1−xi where P E 1 is an annual exceedance probability, θmax the
L Ij = F jI (ai ) · 1 − F jI (ai ) for F jI (a) (3a)
maximum structural response, and K 0 and K 1 are the two
i=1
parameters representing the seismic hazard curve. Graphically,
N h ixi h i1−xi
Y K 0 and K 1 are given as the intercept and slope of a regression
L IIj = F jII (ai ) · 1 − F jII (ai ) for F jII (a) (3b)
line of the logarithmic plot of a seismic hazard curve.
i=1
1314 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322

3.2. Seismic fragility curve

When the maximum structural responses are distributed
following a lognormal distribution function, the PDF of the
maximum structural responses, θmax , is expressed as:
"  #
1 ln θ − λ 2

1
pθmax (θ) = √ exp − (6)
2π ηθ 2 η Fig. 1. Elevation of sample bridge.

where λ and η are log-mean and log-standard deviation values,

respectively, for the PDF of θmax . In order to determine the
PDF at an arbitrary exceeding probability level, two seismic
hazard curves for median (θmedian ) and deviated values (defined
as θdeviated ≡ eλ−η ) have to be drawn. From Eq. (5), the above
two seismic hazard curves are expressed as follows:
θ
P E 1median = K o,median θ −K 1,median (7)
θ
P E 1deviated = K 0,deviated θ −K 1,deviated (8)
where K 0,median and K 1,median are two constants of a seismic
hazard curve for the median value (θmedian ), and K 0,deviated
and K 1,deviated are those for the deviated value (θdeviated ). The
median and deviated values can be obtained as follows: Fig. 2. Nonlinearity in bridge model.
θmedian = eλ (9)
superstructure consists of a longitudinally reinforced concrete
θdeviated = eλ−η . (10) deck slab, and is supported by two pairs of columns. Each
After the two constants (K 0 and K 1 ) have been obtained pair has three columns with a circular cross-section diameter
using linear regression of the logarithmic plot of Eqs. (7) and of 0.8 m.
(8), the log-mean value, λi and log-standard deviation, ηi at The bridge is modelled to experience nonlinear behaviour at
θ the columns as a form of plastic hinge. A column is modelled
an arbitrary return period, Ti (Ti = 1/P E 1,i , P E 1,imedian =
θ as an elastic zone, with a pair of plastic zones at each column
P E 1,ideviated = P E 1,i ), can be calculated as follows:
end, considering double bending behaviour. Each plastic zone
1

P E 1,i
 is then modeled to consist of a nonlinear rotational spring and a
λi = − log (11) rigid element, as depicted in Fig. 2. The plastic hinge formed
K 1,median K 0,median
  in the bridge column is assumed to have bilinear hysteretic
1 P E 1,i characteristics.
ηi = λi + log . (12)
K 1,deviated K 0,deviated The column ductility program, developed by the authors
The PDF for the maximum structural responses under an based on the work by Priestley et al. [15], is used to
earthquake with an annual exceedance probability, P E 1,i (or obtain the moment–curvature relationship of the plastic
return period Ti ), can be expressed by a lognormal distribution hinges for the columns. From the moment–curvature curve,
function, as follows: the moment–rotation relationship is calculated using the
"  # plastic hinge length (which is calculated from the sectional
1 ln θ − λi 2

1 analysis [15]). The critical parameter used to describe the
pθmax ,i (θ ) = √ exp − . (13)
2π ηi θ 2 ηi nonlinear structural response in this study is the rotational
ductility demand at the plastic hinges. The ductility demand is
Finally, the seismic fragility curves at an arbitrary return defined as θ/θ y , where θ is the rotation of a bridge column in
period, Ti , are evaluated by calculating the probability of its plastic hinge and θ y the corresponding rotation at the yield
exceeding the predefined performance limit state (θ j ’s), as point.
follows:
Z θj
4.2. Response analysis of bridge
F j (Ti ) = P[θmax > θ j | T = Ti ] = 1 − pθmax ,i (θ )dθ.
−∞
(14) The SAP2000/Nonlinear finite element computer code [16]
is utilized for extensive two-dimensional response analyses of
4. Example study the bridge for sixty (60) Los Angeles earthquake time histories.
The earthquake data were developed for the FEMA SAC
4.1. Description of a sample bridge (SEAOC-ATC-CUREe) project, as listed in Table 1 [17]. These
Fig. 1 shows a sample bridge for an example analysis. This acceleration time histories were derived from historical records
bridge has an overall length of 34.0 m, with three spans. The and physical simulations, with some linear adjustments, and
 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322 1315

Table 1
FEMA-SAC LA earthquakes

SAC name Record Earthquake magnitude Scale factor PGA (cm/s2 ) Probability of exceedance
LA01 Imperial Valley, 1940, El Centro 6.9 2.01 452.03
LA02 Imperial Valley, 1940, El Centro 6.9 2.01 662.88
LA03 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array #05 6.5 1.01 386.04
LA04 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array #05 6.5 1.01 478.65
LA05 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array #06 6.5 0.84 295.69
LA06 Imperial Valley, 1979, Array #06 6.5 0.84 230.08
LA07 Landers, 1992, Barstow 7.3 3.2 412.98
LA08 Landers, 1992, Barstow 7.3 3.2 417.49
LA09 Landers, 1992, Yermo 7.3 2.17 509.70
LA10 Landers, 1992, Yermo 7.3 2.17 353.35 10% in 50 years
LA11 Loma Prieta, 1989, Gilroy 7 1.79 652.49
LA12 Loma Prieta, 1989, Gilroy 7 1.79 950.93
LA13 Northridge, 1994, Newhall 6.7 1.03 664.93
LA14 Northridge, 1994, Newhall 6.7 1.03 644.49
LA15 Northridge, 1994, Rinaldi RS 6.7 0.79 523.30
LA16 Northridge, 1994, Rinaldi RS 6.7 0.79 568.58
LA17 Northridge, 1994, Sylmar 6.7 0.99 558.43
LA18 Northridge, 1994, Sylmar 6.7 0.99 801.44
LA19 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 2.97 999.43
LA20 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 2.97 967.61

LA21 1995 Kobe 6.9 1.15 1258.00

LA22 1995 Kobe 6.9 1.15 902.75
LA23 1989 Loma Prieta 7 0.82 409.95
LA24 1989 Loma Prieta 7 0.82 463.76
LA25 1994 Northridge 6.7 1.29 851.62
LA26 1994 Northridge 6.7 1.29 925.29
LA27 1994 Northridge 6.7 1.61 908.70
LA28 1994 Northridge 6.7 1.61 1304.10
LA29 1974 Tabas 7.4 1.08 793.45
LA30 1974 Tabas 7.4 1.08 972.58 2% in 50 years
LA31 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 1.43 1271.20
LA32 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 1.43 1163.50
LA33 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 0.97 767.26
LA34 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 0.97 667.59
LA35 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 1.1 973.16
LA36 Elysian Park (simulated) 7.1 1.1 1079.30
LA37 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 0.9 697.84
LA38 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 0.9 761.31
LA39 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 0.88 490.58
LA40 Palos Verdes (simulated) 7.1 0.88 613.28

LA41 Coyote Lake, 1979 5.7 2.28 578.34

LA42 Coyote Lake, 1979 5.7 2.28 326.81
LA43 Imperial Valley, 1979 6.5 0.4 140.67
LA44 Imperial Valley, 1979 6.5 0.4 109.45
LA45 Kern, 1952 7.7 2.92 141.49
LA46 Kern, 1952 7.7 2.92 156.02
LA47 Landers, 1992 7.3 2.63 331.22
LA48 Landers, 1992 7.3 2.63 301.74
LA49 Morgan Hill, 1984 6.2 2.35 312.41
LA50 Morgan Hill, 1984 6.2 2.35 535.88 50% in 50 years
LA51 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 5W 6.1 1.81 765.65
LA52 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 5W 6.1 1.81 619.36
LA53 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 8W 6.1 2.92 680.01
LA54 Parkfield, 1966, Cholame 8W 6.1 2.92 775.05
LA55 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 2.75 507.58
LA56 North Palm Springs, 1986 6 2.75 371.66
LA57 San Fernando, 1971 6.5 1.3 248.14
LA58 San Fernando, 1971 6.5 1.3 226.54
LA59 Whittier, 1987 6 3.62 753.70
LA60 Whittier, 1987 6 3.62 469.07
1316 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322

(a) Example of 50 in 50 Set (LA56).

Fig. 4. Moment–rotation curve for plastic hinge of column 1.

Table 2
Description of damaged states

Damage state Description Drift limits

(b) Example of 10 in 50 Set (LA17). Almost no damage First yield 0.005

Slight damage Cracking and spalling 0.007
Moderate damage Loss of anchorage 0.015
Extensive damage Incipient column collapse 0.025
Complete damage Column collapse 0.050

Table 3
Peak rotational ductility demand of columns of a sample bridge

Damage state Column 1 Column 2

(c) Example of 2 in 50 Set (LA22). Almost no 1.0000 1.0000

Slight 1.3263 1.3263
Moderate 2.6315 2.6316
Fig. 3. Acceleration time histories generated for Los Angeles area.

consist of three groups (each consisting of 20 time histories)
with probabilities of exceedance of 50%, 10% and 2% in
50 years at the Los Angeles site. These sets of ground motions
are referred to as 50 in 50 Set, 10 in 50 Set, and 2 in 50 Set.
It should be noted that these three sets should only be used
as a set, and not individually or as small subsets, in order
to correctly represent the probability levels specified, which
means that the median spectral acceleration of the set might
reasonably match the target value at any particular period, and
the spectral acceleration for an individual record might be quite
different from the expected target spectral acceleration. Typical
ground acceleration time histories for each group are plotted
on the same scale in Fig. 3 for comparison of the intensities of
the acceleration. Typical ground acceleration data are selected
taking into consideration the average PGA values for each data
set. The average PGA values were measured as 0.426, 0.588
and 0.881g for the 50 in 50 Set, 10 in 50 Set and 2 in 50 Set.
The nonlinear response characteristics associated with the
bridge, based on a moment–curvature curve analysis, are
incorporated taking into consideration the axial loads and
confinement effects. The moment–rotation relationship is
obtained using the plastic hinge length (L p = 0.58 m), and is
modelled using a bilinear rotational spring element without any
stiffness degradation; its parameters are established according
to the equations in Priestley et al. [15]. The moment–rotation
curves were obtained, as shown in Fig. 4, and typical nonlinear
responses at the column bottom end of column 1 are plotted in
Fig. 5.
4.3. Damage states
While the seismic damage states can be classified in several
ways, Dutta’s recommendation is now being widely used as an
indication of reasonable damage states [18–20] as the guideline
was conducted using real-scaled bridge column tests. A set
of five different damage states was introduced, as shown in
Table 2, which provides a description of the five damage states
and the corresponding drift limits for a tested column. In this
study, the drift limit was transformed to the rotational ductility
demand of the plastic hinge at the columns, as the structural
analysis programme used in this study utilized the nonlinear
rotational spring element; therefore, it is easier to read the
rotational displacements than the drift [15]. A similar approach
can be found in the other paper by Choi et al. [20], where
the curvature ductility demand was used instead of drift limits.
Table 3 shows the rotational ductility demand limits for the
sample bridge used in this study. It is noticeable that two
peak rotational ductility demands for two columns are virtually
identical because the values were directly obtained from the
sectional analyses of the same sections of the two columns.
Small discrepancies occurred due to the difference in the axial
forces on the sections.
 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322
(a) Example of 50 in 50 Set (under LA56).
(b) Example of 10 in 50 Set (under LA17).
(c) Example of 2 in 50 Set (under LA22).
Fig. 5. Responses at column 1.
Fig. 6. Responses at column end of column 1.
4.4. Seismic fragility curve by PDF interpolation technique
Fig. 6 shows the results of nonlinear time history analyses in
terms of the ductility factors for the sample bridge employing
the three data sets.
The annual exceedance probability, P E 1 , corresponding to
50 for 50 Set, 10 for 50 Set and 2 for 50 Set were calculated to
be 0.0138, 0.0021, and 0.0004, respectively, using the following
equation:
P E 1 = 1 − (1 − P E 50 )1/50 .
1317
The corresponding return periods were easily obtained, as
72, 475 and 2475 years, by taking the reciprocals of the annual
exceedance probabilities, as follows:
1
T = . (16)
P E1
Table 4 lists the two parameters for the lognormal
distributions (λ and η), and the median and deviated values
(eλ and eλ−η ) for the three prespecified return periods. Table 5
lists the constants for two seismic hazard curves obtained by
interpolating the characteristics (i.e. the median value θmedian
and the deviated value θdeviated in Eqs. (7) and (8)) for the PDF
of maximum structural responses for the three different return
periods, those being, 72, 475 and 2475 years. Fig. 7 shows
the seismic hazard curves obtained for maximum structural
responses (rotational ductility factors) for columns 1 and 2,
where the circle and square marks depict the median and
deviated values obtained at the sampling points, respectively.
From Tables 4 and 5, the probabilistic characteristics are
observed to be quite different for columns 1 and 2, even though
the ductility demands and sectional properties are almost the
same, as shown in Table 3. This is due to the difference
(15) in the column lengths. As shown in Fig. 1, the length of
1318 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322

Table 4
Log-mean and log-standard deviation for three data sets

Return period Column 1 Column 2

λ η eλ eλ−η λ η eλ eλ−η
72 −0.2914 0.6616 0.7472 0.3856 −0.1893 0.6675 0.8275 0.4245
475 0.4123 0.5593 1.5103 0.8633 0.5312 0.5604 1.7010 0.9712
2475 1.2514 0.7019 3.4952 1.7324 1.3596 0.6924 3.8946 1.9488

Table 5
Constants for seismic hazard curves for columns 1 and 2
Column 1 Column 2
K 0,median K 1,median K 0,deviated K 1,deviated K 0,median K 1,median K 0,deviated K 1,deviated
0.0064 2.2771 0.0015 2.3481 0.0082 2.2712 0.0019 2.3140

(a) For column 1.

(b) For column 2.

Fig. 7. Seismic hazard curves for the example bridge.

 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322 1319

Table 6
Probability characteristics obtained from seismic hazard curves

Return period Column 1 Column 2

eλ eλ−η λ η eλ eλ−η λ η
100 0.8240 0.4427 −0.1936 0.6212 0.9180 0.4899 −0.0856 0.6280
1000 2.2650 1.1803 0.8176 0.6518 2.5300 1.3251 0.9282 0.6468
10000 6.2264 3.1467 1.8288 0.6824 6.9730 3.5842 1.9421 0.6655

Fig. 9. Seismic fragility curves utilized by PDF interpolation technique.

Fig. 8. Probability density function for earthquakes with 1000 year return
period. 5. Discussion

column 1 is shorter than that of column 2, which makes the
applied moments at the two sections different. This difference
is transferred to the probabilistic characteristic values.
The PDF of the maximum structural responses (ductility
factors) under earthquakes with an arbitrary return period can
be obtained using the seismic hazard curves, as shown in
Fig. 7, which makes it possible to evaluate the seismic fragility
curves from the calculation, using Eq. (14), of the exceedance
probability of pre-defined damage states. Table 6 lists the
probability characteristics obtained from the seismic hazard
curve with return periods of 100, 1000 and 10 000 years.
The median values of the structural responses under the
earthquakes with return periods of 100, 1000, and 10 000 years
were calculated to be 0.8240, 2.2650 and 6.2264, respectively.
This implies, for example, that half of the maximum responses
under the earthquakes with a 1,000 year return period might
have a ductility factor over 2.2650. Fig. 8 shows the PDF of the
maximum structural response under earthquakes with a 1,000
year return period and predefined damage state.
Fig. 9 shows the seismic fragility curves represented by the
return periods. From the result shown in Fig. 9, the probability
of exceeding the damage states for an earthquake with an
arbitrary return period can be obtained easily. The probability of
exceeding a complete damage state, for example, is almost 40%
under earthquakes with a 10 000 year return period; whether
the structure should be upgraded to resist the earthquakes for
a specific probability of a damage state can also be easily
determined. Furthermore, if the fragility curves are periodically
updated, based on real measurements, the structures can be
more reliably maintained [21].
Seismic fragility curves for the same sample bridge are
evaluated using the maximum likelihood estimation in terms
of a PGA index. Fig. 10(a) and (b) show the analytical seismic
fragility curves obtained using Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively.
From Fig. 10(a), the fragility curves for almost no and
slight damages are observed to intersect around 0.22g, and
the damage exceeding probabilities for slight damage were
evaluated to be slightly larger than those for almost no damage;
in the range of 0–0.22g, due to the different log-standard
deviation. In Fig. 10(b), the intersection of two fragility curves
have been removed by adopting the common log-standard
deviation. However, it can also be observed that the overall
shapes are severely altered.
The damage exceedance probabilities of the 50 in 50 set, 10
in 50 set and 2 in 50 set for the five damage states are compared
with those obtained by a previous approach. Since the two
indices are different (i.e. return period and PGA indices), the
equivalent measure should be considered in their comparison.
In this respect, the equivalent damage exceedance probabilities
are calculated from the fragility curves indexed, using PGA
values, for several return periods. We recall that the damage
exceedance probability function can be expressed as follows:
ln(a/c j )
 
F j (a; c j , ζ j ) = Φ
I
(17a)
ζj

ln(a/c j )

F jII (a; c j , ζ j ) = Φ . (17b)
ζcommon
The first equivalent probability of exceeding the jth damage
state ( F̃ jI,1 and F̃ jII,1 ) can be evaluated by reading the fragility
1320 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322

(a) F jI (a). (b) F jII (a).

Fig. 10. Fragility curves for the same sample bridge evaluated by Shinozuka et al.
PN
value at the averaged PGA value ( i=1 ai /N ) for each data set those from the previous approaches, as well as the sample
using the following equation: means. In this Figure, F̃ jI,1 ( F̃ jII,1 ), F̃ jI,2 ( F̃ jII,2 ) and F̃ j3 are
referred to as ‘Previous 1’, ‘Previous 2’ and ‘Sample’. From
F̃ jI,1 (a1 , a2 , . . . , a N ; c j , ζ j )
these results, those from the present approach are closer to
   N    the sample means than those from the previous approaches.
1 P
 ln N ai cj  The damage probabilities are observed to be over estimated in
i=1
= Φ (18a) the case of the previous results for the 50 in 50 set, and the
 
ζj

  damage probabilities are over- and under-estimated in the case
of the 10 in 50 set. Also, no considerable discrepancies were
F̃ jII,1 (a1 , a2 , . . . , a N ; c j , ζcommon ) found between the results from the present study and those
   N    from the previous methods, especially for the case with the
1 P common log-standard deviation (Fig. 11(b)). The common log-
 ln N ai cj 
standard deviation derived for preventing intersection between
i=1
= Φ . (18b)
 
 ζcommon  the fragility curves with different damage states may have
contributed to this discrepancy. This shortcoming is shown
in Fig. 6, for the ductility factors of the sample bridge for
The second equivalent probability of exceeding the jth the 60 Los Angeles earthquakes, and Fig. 10 for the seismic
damage state ( F̃ jI,2 and F̃ jII,2 ) can also be obtained by averaging fragility curves. For the complete damage state, only one
the fragility values under each ground motion in a data set, as case is over the damage state limit, which can make the
follows: maximum likelihood estimation difficult and unreliable. From
N   ln(a /c )  Fig. 6, the damage probabilities are observed to be under-
1 i j
F̃ jI,2 (a1 , a2 , . . . , a N ; c j , ζ j ) =
X
Φ estimated in the case of almost no and slight damage states by
N ζ j
i=1 incorporating the common log-standard deviations, while the
 (19)
N ln(ai /c j ) damage probabilities are over estimated in the case of severe
 
II,2 1 X
F̃ j (a1 , a2 , . . . , a N ; c j , ζcommon ) = Φ . and complete damage states. This observation may explain
N i=1 ζcommon
why there are more discrepancies between the sample means
In Eqs. (18) and (19), a1 , a2 , . . . , a N are the PGA values for and the damage probabilities with the previous approaches.
a certain earthquake group having the same return period, for The proposed method can be concluded to give unbiased
example, 20 data in the 50 in 50 set. The sample means are information about the damage exceeding probabilities, whereas
used as the third equivalent damage exceeding probability, as the previous approaches can over- or under-estimate the damage
follows: exceeding probabilities.
N
1 X 6. Conclusions
F̃ j3 (a1 , a2 , . . . , a N ) = xi j (20)
N i=1
The probability density function (PDF) interpolation
where xi j = 1 if the jth damage state occurs in a bridge technique is proposed for the evaluation of seismic fragility
subjected to a PGA value a = ai , or xi j = 0 in all other cases. curves as a function of the return period. The seismic hazard
For example, if the structures experience almost no damage curves for maximum structural responses are determined from
for all individual earthquakes in the 10 in 50 set, the obtained the structural responses under FEMA SAC earthquake ground
equivalent damage exceedance probability will be 1.0. motions at a Los Angeles site.
Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the results of the estimated The following two assumptions were employed: (1)
damage exceeding probabilities from the present study with the maximum structural responses follow the lognormal
 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322
(a) With individual logstandard deviation.
Fig. 11. Comparisons between the results from present study and previous study.
distribution; and (2) the PDF can be interpolated from the
form of seismic hazard curve proposed by Cornell. Under these
assumptions, the log-mean, λ, and log-standard deviation, η,
are easily obtained from two seismic hazard curves. Using
the seismic hazard curves, the seismic fragility curves, as a
function of return period, are then evaluated from the numerical
integration of PDF at each exceeding probability level. Seismic
fragility curves have been successfully constructed for a sample
bridge, utilizing the proposed method, where the damage
exceeding probability for a certain return period can be very
easily read. The results obtained using the present method
are compared with those obtained by the conventional method
represented by PGA, it was found that the results indexed on
PGA and the maximum likelihood estimation generally over-
or under-estimated the seismic fragilities.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out with financial support from the
Smart Infra-Structure Technology Centre (SISTeC), which was
1321
(b) With common logstandard deviation.
established at the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology (KAIST) under sponsorship from the Ministry of
Science and Technology (MOST) and the Korean Foundation
of Science and Technology (KOSEF).
References
[1] SEAOC. Vision 2000 — A frame work for performance based design,
volumes I, II, III. Technical report. Sacramento (California): Structural
Engineers Association of California, Vision 2000 Committee; 1995.
[2] BSSC. NEHRP Guidelines for the seismic regulation of existing buildings
and other structures. Technical report. USA: FEMA 273. Building Seismic
Safety Council; 1997.
[3] Kennedy RP, Ravindra MK. Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant
risk studies. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1984;79:47–68.
[4] Hirata K, Kobayashi Y, Kameda H, Shiojiri H. Fragility of seismically
isolated FBR structure. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1991;128:
227–36.
[5] Hirata K, Ootori Y, Somaki T. Seismic fragility analysis for base-isolated
structure. Journal of Structural and Constructive Engineering 1993;452:
11–9. Architectural Institute of Japan.
1322 J.-H. Yi et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1312–1322
[6] Dimova SL, Hirata K. Simplified seismic fragility analysis of structures
with two types of friction devices. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2000;29:1153–75.
[7] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ. Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve
development. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 1995;126(12):
1287–95.
[8] Dong X, Shinozuka M. Performance analysis and visualization of electric
power systems. In: Proceedings of the SPIE’s 10 international symposium
on smart systems and NDE for infrastructures. 2003.
[9] Zhou Y, Murachi Y, Kim SH, Shinozuka M. Seismic risk assessment
of retrofitted transportation systems. In: Proceeding of the 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering. 2004. Paper no. 1128.
[10] Shinozuka M, Zhou YW, Banerjee S. Recent studies in fragility
information on highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the 3rd US-PRC
workshop on seismic behavior and design of special highway bridges.
2004.
[11] Wen YK, Wu CL. Uniform hazard ground motions for Mid-America
cities. Earthquake Spectra 2001;17(2):359–84.
[12] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H, Uzawa T, Ueda T. Statistical analysis of
fragility curves. Technical report. Buffalo (NY): MCEER, State Univ. of
New York; 2000.
[13] Kim SH, Shinozuka M. Development of fragility curves of bridges
retrofitted by column jacketing. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics
2004;19(1–2):105–12.
[14] Cornell CA. Calculating building seismic performance reliability: a basis
for multi-level design norms. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference
on earthquake engineering. 1996.
[15] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calbi GM. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 270–73.
[16] Computer and structures, Inc. SAP2000/Non-linear users manual version
8. Berkeley (CA, USA); 2002.
[17] FEMA-SAC. Develop suites of time histories project task: 5.4.1. Draft
report of joint venture steel project phase 2. 1997.
[18] Dutta A, Mander JB. Seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges.
In: Proceedings of the center-to-center project workshop on earthquake
engineering in transportation systems. 1999.
[19] Dutta A. On energy based seismic analysis and design of highway bridges.
Ph.D. dissertation. Buffalo (NY): Department of Civil, Structural and
Environmental Engineering, State University of New York; 1999.
[20] Choi ES, DesRoches R, Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in
moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures 2004;26(2):187–99.
[21] Yi JH, Kim SH. Probabilistic seismic safety assessment of bridges
utilizing measured response data. Journal of Korea Society of Civil
Engineers 2004;24(5A):1093–102.