Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: 1573-2479 (Print) 1744-8980 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a

state-of-the-art review

A.H.M. Muntasir Billah & M. Shahria Alam

To cite this article: A.H.M. Muntasir Billah & M. Shahria Alam (2015) Seismic fragility assessment
of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11:6,
804-832, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2014.912243

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.912243

Published online: 19 May 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 974

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015
Vol. 11, No. 6, 804–832, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.912243

Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review

A.H.M. Muntasir Billah1 and M. Shahria Alam*
School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1137 Alumni Avenue, Kelowna BC V1V 1V7, Canada
(Received 22 November 2013; final version received 7 February 2014; accepted 10 February 2014; published online 19 May 2014)

Safety and serviceability of highway bridges, during and after an earthquake, is a prerequisite to ensure continuous transport
facilities, emergency and evacuation routes. Recently, fragility curves have emerged as important decision support tools to
identify the potential seismic risk and consequences during and after an earthquake. There has been a substantial increase in
interest among researchers in the topic of seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges as evidenced by the growing
number of published literature. Advanced computational techniques and available resources have led to the development of
different methodologies for fragility assessment. This study presents a review of the different methodologies developed for
seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges along with their features, limitations and applications. This study presents a
review of available methodologies and identifies opportunities for future development. This study mainly focuses on the key
features of different methods and applications rather than penetrating down to a critique of the associated analysis procedure
or mathematical framework. It synthesises the existing information on fragility analysis, presents it in concise and useful
tables, and explains different applications for different purposes, which would motivate decision-makers and stake holders
to extend the application of fragility curves for more informed decision-making.
Keywords: bridges; seismic fragility; decision-making; ground motion; intensity measures

List of symbols S u: Soil undrained shear strength

F: Friction angle
PGA: Peak ground acceleration p-y spring: Capacity of P-Y spring
PGV: Peak ground velocity W: Weight of superstructure
S a: Spectral acceleration DT: Change in temperature
ASI: Acceleration spectrum intensity Ys: Scour depth
I s: Arias intensity Ls: Span length
I v: Velocity intensity H: Column height
FR1: Frequency ratio 1 u: Skewness
FR2: Frequency ratio 2 Kr: Foundation rotational stiffness
Td: Strong motion duration Ku: Foundation rotational stiffness
arms: RMS acceleration Ka: Abutment stiffness
EPD: Effective peak displacement D/Ds: Column to superstructure dimension ratio
EPA: Effective peak acceleration L/H: Span to column height ratio
EPV: Effective peak velocity Ksoil: Soil stiffness
Sd: Spectral quantities r: reinforcement ratio
R: Epicentral distance Pr: Axial load ratio
M: Moment magnitude T: Time period
fc 0 : Concrete strength d a: Thickness of liquefiable soil (abutment)
fy: Steel yield strength db: Thickness of liquefiable soil (bent)
fsu: Steel ultimate strength a: Angle of ground motion incidence
mB: Bearing friction coefficient
Ki: Bearing initial stiffness
G b: Shear modulus of bearing
1. Introduction
j: Damping
G: Gap Highway bridges constitute a significant portion of the
S g: Soil shear modulus national economy of a country and serve as a foundation
for infrastructure development. They play an important

*Corresponding author. Email: shahria.alam@ubc.ca

q 2014 Taylor & Francis
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
role to build a smooth and fast communication system in
between cities and across country. Earthquake-induced
damages in recent years have exposed bridges as one of the
most susceptible components of the transportation system.
Failure of bridges during an earthquake (for example
severe damages or collapse during 1994 Northridge, 1995
Kobe earthquake and 2011 Christchurch earthquake) can
severely disrupt continuous transport facilities, emergency
and evacuation routes. To mitigate potential economic
losses and loss of lives during a seismic event,
performance evaluation of existing bridges and strength-
ening of the critical components are crucial for the
stakeholders. Development of fragility curves provides a
probabilistic assessment of the seismic risk to highway
bridges which is critical in pre-earthquake planning and
post-earthquake response of transportation systems.
A vast majority of the highway bridges around the
world were not designed according to any seismic design
criteria and thus do not meet the seismic detailing
requirement imposed by current guidelines (CALTRANS,
2013; CHBDC, 2010; Eurocode, 2005). These factors lead
to the reconsideration of three important issues such as
(i) the likely seismic performance of those non-seismically
designed bridges, (ii) potential economic losses and
(iii) selection of risk mitigation and performance improve-
ment techniques, i.e. retrofitting or rehabilitation. The
ramification and diversity in bridge design and construction
practices all over the world do not allow adopting a single
methodology that can be applicable for the seismic
vulnerability assessment of highway bridges. Uncertainties
arising from myriad of bridge components, material
characteristics and regional seismicity along with the need
for better predicting the seismic performance of bridges have
resulted in the development of different vulnerability
assessment methodologies for highway bridges. Although
these different methodologies were targeted for specific
purposes and adopted particular mathematical framework,
the overall objective was to assess the seismic vulnerability
of highway bridges to ensure the safety and security of bridge
infrastructure and its management against seismic loading.
The objective of this study is to provide a comprehen-
sive review of the existing methodology and identify
current trends in the seismic fragility assessment of
highway bridges. Based on the existing literature this study
illustrates, in a systematic manner, a summary of different
fragility assessment methodologies for highway bridges,
features, and limitations and a critical review of the state-
of-the-art currently existing application of fragility
assessment methods. This study also provides general
information about the different aspects of fragility
assessment and how different researchers have developed
this tool as a means of better informed decision-making.
This review begins by briefly summarising the
background behind fragility curve and the methodology
in general. The next section describes the different
805
methods developed so far for generating fragility curves
and their features. The following section provides an
overview of the different intensity measures (IMs) and
demand parameters commonly used in the fragility
assessment of highway bridges. In the next part of the
review, the literature is summarised in terms of how
researchers all around the world have used this tool for
fragility assessment of highway bridges pertaining to a
specific region. This review concludes by attempting to
summarise the progress that has been made with regard to
various critical issues of vulnerability of highway bridges
such as retrofitting, seismic isolation, soil – structure
interaction (SSI), liquefaction, skewness and so on. This
is a comprehensive but not necessarily an exhaustive
study. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such
study has been conducted so far that summarises the state-
of-the-art fragility assessment of highway bridges.
2. Seismic fragility analysis
The inception of lifeline earthquake engineering in the
early 1970s has influenced numerous researchers (ATC,
1985, 1991; King et al., 1997; Shinozuka et al., 1997;
Veneziano, Sussman, Gupta, & Kunnumkal, 2002;
Werner, Taylor, & Moore, 1997) to develop and propose
a wide variety of seismic risk assessment methodologies
for highway transportation systems. With the advancement
of the performance-based earthquake engineering, the site-
specific deterministic design criteria are transitioning
towards fragility curves as a means of describing the
performance at different levels of seismic input intensity
(Mackie & Stojadinovic, 2005). Fragility curves describe
the conditional probability, i.e. the likelihood of a structure
being damaged beyond a specific damage level for a given
ground motion intensity. Therefore, current seismic
performance assessment methodologies are tending towards
fragility curves as a means of describing the fragility of
structures, such as highway bridges, under uncertain input.
The fragility or conditional probability can be expressed as:
Fragility ¼ P½LSjIM ¼ y: ð1Þ
where LS is the limit state or damage state (DS) of the
structure or structural component, IM is the ground motion
IM, and y is the realised condition of the ground motion IM.
The development of fragility curves for seismic risk
assessment can be traced back to 1975 when Whitman
et al. (1975) formalised the seismic risk assessment
procedure. Subsequently, the Applied Technology Council
(ATC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) contributed significantly towards the develop-
ment of fragility functions and vulnerability assessment
procedures. The concept of continuous fragility function
was first put forward by ATC 25 report (ATC, 1991) by
introducing continuous damage functions. Using a
806 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

70
Journal
60
Dissertation Conference
17%

No. of Publications
50 Dissertation
Journal
40 Conference
51%
32%

30

20

10

0 7

3
99

99

00

00

00

00

00

01
–1

–1

–2

–2

–2

–2

–2

–2
97

98

00

02

04

06

08

10
19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20
Figure 1. Statistics of publications on seismic fragility analysis of bridges since 1990.

regression analysis of the different damage probability improved redundancy of a highway network (Mackie &
matrices, the damage functions or the fragility curves were Stojadinovic, 2005). Figure 2 illustrates different appli-
generated. cations of fragility curves for bridges.
Later in 1997, FEMA introduced a risk assessment
software package, Hazard United States (HAZUS, 1997),
which is based on the geographical information system 3. Methods for fragility curve development
(GIS), by involving a panel of experts. Over the year
Over the last two decades, fragility curves have
HAZUS has undergone significant development and the
transitioned from empirical to analytical methods.
most recent version HAZUS-MH 2.1 (HAZUS, 2012) is
Different methods and approaches have been developed
capable of assessing potential risk and losses from
by different researchers for developing fragility curves
earthquakes, floods and hurricanes. Over the last two
such as judgemental, field observations, advance analysis
decades, fragility curve has emerged as an efficient tool for
using analytical models as well as hybrid methods.
critical decision-making for structure and infrastructure
Different researchers have developed and employed
safety. Figure 1 shows the statistics of research
different methodologies for assessing the seismic fragility
publications related to the seismic fragility assessment of
of bridges, a brief outline of which is given in the
bridges in the last few decades. A number of relevant
following sections. Figure 3 shows the methodology that is
publications were obtained from different refereed
commonly used in generating different types of fragility
journals (Appendix A). This figure shows an increasing
curves and Table 1 shows the comparative assessment of
trend of publications which indicates the growing interest
different methodologies. A brief summary of different
of research in this field. A total of 350 documents
studies on seismic fragility assessment of bridges is
including journal papers, conference proceedings and
provided in Table 2. This table shows the features of
dissertations have been published since 1990 where
different studies such as the demand parameters, IMs,
journal publications constitute a significant portion (51%).
uncertain parameters, methodology and different com-
A large increase in the number of publications took
ponents considered in different studies.
place in 2006 – 2007 when the number of publications
increased by almost 400% from the period of 2004– 2005.
During the period of 2010 – 2011 the number of
publications was 102 and in 2012– 2013 it is 90 where 3.1 Expert-based/judgmental fragility curves
more are expected to come out in the coming months. This One of the oldest and simplest methods of deriving
increasing growth of publication confirms that there is a fragility functions is expert-based or judgemental fragility
widespread interest among the research community and curves. In this method, an expert panel with expertise in
industry to investigate the seismic fragility of existing the field of earthquake engineering were questioned
bridges all over the world. Fragility curves can be used for concerning the various components of a typical highway
decision-making in both the pre-and post-earthquake bridge and were asked to make estimates of the probable
disaster managements, to make informed decisions on the damage distribution when subjected to earthquakes of
allocation of resources for retrofit, design and the different intensities (Rossetto & Elnashai, 2003). A survey
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Seismic fragility of highway bridges
Assessment of Emergency /
potential disaster response
consequences and planning
risk
Bridge Repair and
damage- replacement
functionality cost estimation
relation ship
Loss of bridge Direct
functionality economic loss
Informed decision making
Increased safety of highway
Figure 2. Various applications of seismic fragility curves.
was conducted among the specialists using a set of
questionnaires. Based on the expert opinion, probability
distribution functions were updated to represent a
particular damage level at various levels of ground motion
intensity.
Since the experts provide their opinion of exceeding
each DS, it is possible to develop fragility curves for
each DS over a wide range of ground motion intensity.
One of the practical examples of the judgemental fragility
curve is reported in the ATC-13 (ATC, 1985) report.
This report documented the damage matrices and
associated risk of typical California infrastructure based
on opinion from a panel of 42 experts. However, only 4 of the
42 experts were experienced with highway bridges and their
seismic performance. Based on their responses, a damage
probability matrix based on Modified-Mercalli Intensity
value was developed and included in the ATC-13 report.
Figure 4 depicts a typical survey technique that can
used to obtain expert opinion. From the figure it can be
observed that based on their expertise and observation
from previous earthquake, the experts will select the
options. Based on the response from the expert panel a
damage matrix comprising IM and damage scenario can be
developed. Using the damage matrix and a suitable
distribution function, fragility curves can be generated.
Since the expert opinion is the only source of developing
this type of fragility curves, this method largely depends
on the questionnaire used, experience of the panel and the
number of experts consulted (Nielson, 2005). Very often
these judgements are biased and involve a number of
uncertainties which are not quantified explicitly in the
vulnerability functions. Moreover, these are often devel-
807
Emergency route Risk
selection mitigation
effort
Retrofit Retrofit
selection prioritization
and
bridges
oped for certain structural types, typical configurations,
detailing and materials. All these factors render the
reliability of judgmental fragility curves questionable.
3.2 Empirical fragility curves
Empirical fragility curves are developed using damage
distributions from the post-earthquake field observations or
reconnaissance reports. Using the large amount of
reconnaissance data from the 1994 Northridge and 1995
Kobe earthquakes, Basöz and Kiremidjian (1997) and
Yamazaki Hamada, Motoyama, and Yamauchi (1999),
respectively, developed the concept of empirical fragility
curves. Based on the post-earthquake damage data and
observations, several other researchers (Der Kiureghian,
2002; Elnashai, Borzi, & Vlachos, 2004; Shinozuka, Feng,
Kim, & Kim, 2000; Shinozuka, Feng, Kim, Uzawa, & Ueda,
2001) developed empirical fragility curves using different
approaches. Using a damage frequency matrix developed
from Northridge earthquake damage data, Basoz and
Kiremidjian (1997) performed a logistic regression analysis
to develop empirical fragility curves. Using the damage data
from Kobe earthquake, Shinozuka et al. (2001) applied the
Maximum Likelihood Method to estimate the parameters of
a lognormal probability distribution describing the fragility
curves, while Der Kiureghian (2002) adopted a Bayesian
approach in order to develop fragility curves.
Although empirical fragility curves represent a more
realistic picture, they lack generality and are usually
associated with a large degree of uncertainty. Incon-
sistency of different DS definitions and discrepancy in
observation between different inspection teams add up the
808 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

Methodology for Fragility Curve Development

Expert based Experimental Analytical Hybrid Empirical

Selection of Selection of Ground Bridge inventory Functional and physical Selection of

expert panel Motion Suite and classification definition of different bridge type
of bridge damage states

Preparation of Real Synthetic Obtain actual

estionnaire Identification of Identification of bridge damage
material appropriate EDP data
Collecting real Generating properties and
ground motion synthetic structural
Survey and from different ground
Compilation of configuration Classify
sources motion (variables) Capacity Determination
results of Bridge Components according to
observed damage
Scaling of ground
Formation of motion Nonlinear analytical
damage modeling of Determination of
Formation of
probability matrix Selection of representative component damage
damage matrix
appropriate IM bridges states

Selection of Selection of
damage Shake table Nonlinear time Hybrid Simulation/ appropriate
distribution experiment of history/ Incremental combination of distribution
Experimental

function bridge or bridge dynamic analysis statistical data and function

Hybrid
components NLTHA results
Analytical

Calculation of
component demand
Relationship Combination of mean
between Development of IM from hybrid test and
observed component PSDM dispersion from
damage and IM literature
Development of
component fragility
curve

Development of system/bridge fragility curve

Figure 3. Methodology for developing seismic fragility curves.

uncertainty in the developed curves and significantly
reduce the usefulness and reliability of the empirical
vulnerability curves. Yamazaki et al. (2000) and
Shinozuka et al. (2001) developed empirical fragility
curves using damage data from 1995 Kobe earthquake.
Although they used the damage data from the same
earthquake for the Hanshin Expressway, their fragility
curves were significantly different from each other as
illustrated in Figure 5.
Table 3 presents the comparison of the two parameters,
median, l, and lognormal standard deviation, j, used for
deriving the fragility curves. These differences in the
fragility curves can be attributed to the number of
damaged bridges considered, their structural configur-
ations and definition of DSs. These errors are difficult to
avoid using damage statistics and lead to a large data
scatter even in cases where a single event and limited
survey area are considered (Rossetto & Elnashai, 2003).
All these limitations restrict the application of empirical
fragility curves.
3.3 Experimental fragility curves
Development of bridge fragility curves using experimental
results is not common. Since large-scale experiments
involving entire bridge models or full-scale components
are expensive, bridge fragility analysis utilising the
observed response from shaking table tests has been very
limited. Although experimental results provide a basis for
defining various damage measures for analytical fragility
curves, their application is still very limited.
Based on experimental results from shake table and
cyclic load tests on bridge piers, Vosooghi and Saiidi
(2012) developed experimental fragility curves. They
developed a probabilistic relationship between experimen-
tal damage data and seismic response parameters in the
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Table 1. Comparison of different methods for development of fragility curves.
Method Advantages
Expert-based/judgmental Simple method.
All factors can be incorporated.
Empirical Represent a realistic picture.
Shows the actual vulnerability.
Experimental Provides actual damage condition.
Analytical Increased reliability.
Consideration of all types of uncertainty.
Less biased.
Hybrid Combination of experimental and analytical
observation.
Involves damage data from
post-earthquake survey.
Reduced computational effort.
form of fragility curves. Banerjee and Chi (2013)
developed fragility curves for bridges using damage data
obtained from shake table test of a near-full scale bridge.
However, a lack of adequate data points at all DSs and a
weak correlation between geometry and structural proper-
ties limit the application of the experimental fragility
curves.
3.4 Analytical fragility curves
In the absence of adequate damage data, fragility functions
can be developed using a variety of analytical methods
such as elastic spectral analysis (Hwang, Jernigan, & Lin,
2000), probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) using
a Bayesian approach (Gardoni, Der Kiureghian, &
Mosalam, 2002; Gardoni, Mosalam, & Der Kiureghian,
2003), nonlinear static analysis (Mander & Basoz, 1999;
Moschonas et al., 2009; Shinozuka et al., 2000) or linear/
nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA) (Bhuiyan &
Alam, 2012; Choi, DesRoches, & Nielson, 2004; Kwon &
Elnashai, 2010; Nielson & DesRoches, 2007a, 2007b; Pan,
Agrawal, Ghosn, & Alampalli, 2010a; Ramanathan,
DesRoches, & Padgett, 2012; Tavares, Padgett, & Paultre,
2012) and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) (Alam
et al., 2012; Billah, Alam, & Bhuiyan, 2013; Mackie &
Stojadinovic 2005; Zhang & Huo 2009). The following
sections provide a brief overview of the different
analytical approaches used for generating fragility curves.
3.4.1 Elastic spectral analysis
One of the simplest and least time consuming method for
generating bridge fragility curve is the elastic spectral
809
Disadvantages
Extremely subjective.
Depends on panel expertise.
Often biased and lack of reliability.
Lack of adequate data.
Region and structure-specific.
Discrepancy in damage observation.
Lack of adequate data.
Subjective definition of DSs.
Weak correlation between geometry and
structural properties.
Computational cost.
Time consuming.
Selection of analysis technique.
Definition of DSs.
Selection of probability distribution function.
Requirement of multiple data sources.
Extrapolation of damage data.
Large dispersion in the demand model.
analysis (Hwang et al., 2000; Yu et al., 1991). Because of
its simplicity, this method is often adopted in checking the
performance during design of critical components such as
bridge pier. In this method the capacity/demand ratios of
different components are determined to evaluate their
seismic damage potential. Hwang et al. (2000) and
Jernigan and Hwang (2002) adopted this method for
generating fragility curves for Memphis bridges. The
capacities of different bridge components are determined
using linear elastic models considering effective stiffness
properties. The component demands are calculated using
elastic spectral analysis.
Once the demand and capacity for each component are
determined, the capacity/demand ratios of different
components are calculated and correlated to particular
DSs for various levels of IMs. Thus, a bridge damage
frequency matrix is generated which is used for
developing fragility curves. Although this technique is
the simplest, it has several limitations. This method is
suitable for bridges which are expected to perform in the
linear elastic range. If the bridge is subjected to severe
nonlinearity, this method fails to accurately predict the
demand which in turn makes the reliability of derived
fragility function questionable.
3.4.2 Nonlinear static analysis
The limitations of elastic spectral analysis can be
overcome using nonlinear static analysis which provides
the benefit of considering nonlinearity in the compu-
tational model as well as requires less time. Several
researchers (Banerjee & Shinozuka, 2007; Dutta &
Mander, 1998; Mander, 1999; Mander & Basoz, 1999;
Shinozuka et al., 2000) have adopted this method for
Table 2. Summary of seismic fragility assessment studies of bridges.
810

Authors Component Demand Parameter Intensity measure Uncertain parameters Method

0
Agrawal, A.K., Ghosn, M., Column, bearing Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fc , fy, W, DT, mB Analytical
Alampalli, S. and Pan, Y. (2012) displacement
Akbari, R. (2012) Column Curvature, drift, displacement PGA –a Analytical
ductility
Alam, M.S., Bhuiyan, A.R., and Column, bearing Displacement ductility, shear PGA –a Analytical
Billah, A.H.M.M. (2012) strain
AmiriHormozaki, E., Pekcan G., Column, bearing, Curvature ductility, bearing PGA, Sa fc 0 , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, u, Analytical
and Itani, A. (2013) abutment deformation, abutment Ka
deformation
Alipour, A., Shafei, B., and Column Displacement ductility PGA Ys Analytical
Shinozuka, M. (2013)
Avsar, O., Yakut, A. and Column, cap beam, Column and cap beam curvature, PGA, PGV, ASI Ls, H, u Analytical
Caner, A. (2011). deck shear in both principal axes, and
deck displacement
Aygün, B., Dueñas-Osorio, L., Column, abutment, Column curvature, bearing PGA fc 0 , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, Sg, Analytical
Padgett, J.E. and DesRoches, R. bearing, pile, deck deformation, abutment Su, F, p-y spring
(2011). displacement, deck unseating,
pile cap displacement
Banarjee, S. and Prasad, G.G. Column Displacement ductility PGA Ys, Flood return period Analytical
(2013)
Banerjee, S. and Chi, C. (2013). Column Rotational ductility PGA –a Experimental
and Analytical
Banerjee S. and Shinozuka M. Column Drift ratio, displacement ductility PGA –a Analytical
(2007). demand
Banerjee S. and Shinozuka, M. Column Rotational ductility PGA a Analytical
(2011).
Berry, M. P., and Column Cover spalling, bar buckling Pr, r, fc0 , fy, L/D Experimental
Eberhard, M. O. (2003).
Billah, A.H.M.M., Alam, M.S. Column Displacement ductility PGA –a Analytical
and Bhuiyan, A.R. (2013).
A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

Billah, A.H.M.M. and Column, bearing, wing Displacement ductility, bearing PGA fc 0 , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, u, Analytical
Alam, M.S. (2013) wall, back wall deformation, wing wall and back Kr, Ku, Ka
wall displacement,
Billah, A.H.M.M. and Column Displacement ductility, residual PGA –a Analytical
Alam, M.S. (2014) drift, maximum drift
Billah, A.H.M.M. and Column Residual drift PGA Analytical
Alam, M.S. (2012).
Bhuiyan, A.R. and Alam, M.S. Column, bearing Displacement ductility, shear PGA –a Analytical
(2012). strain
Brandenberg, S.J., Zhang, J., Column, bearing, pile Curvature ductility, shear strain, PGA Crust thickness, crust Analytical
Kashighandi, P., Huo, Y. and cap, abutment pile curvature ductility, abutment strength, Axial tip
Zhao, M. (2011). displacement and rotation. capacity, Liquefied
sand thickness, p-y
spring
(continued)
Table 2. (Continued).

Authors Component Demand Parameter Intensity measure Uncertain parameters Method

0
Choe, D., Gardoni, P., Column Deformation and shear force Sa Ls, L/H, D/Ds, fc , fy, Analytical
Rosowsky, D. and Haukaas, T. demand Ksoil, r
(2009).
Choi, E., DesRoches, R. and Column, fixed bearing, Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fc 0 , fy, G Analytical
Nielson, B.G. (2004). expansion bearing, displacement, Dowel
Dowel displacement
Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M. and Column Displacement ductility PGA fc 0 , fy, cover depth, Analytical
Saydam, D. (2013) diffusion coefficient,
chloride concentration
Elnashai, A., Borzi, B. and Column Displacement ductility PGA fc 0 , fy, Analytical
Vlachos, S. (2004)
Frankie (2013) Column Cracking, yielding, peak load, PGA Hybrid
loss of load capacity
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A. Column Drift ratio –a fc 0 , fy, fsu, r, Pr Experimental
and Mosalam, K.M. (2002) and statistical
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A. Column Column deformation Sa fc 0 , fy, r, Ksoil, D/Ds, Analytical and
and Mosalam, K.M. (2003) L/H Bayesian method
Gardoni, P and Rosowsky, D. Column Column deformation Sa fc 0 , fy, r, Ksoil, D/Ds, Bayesian Updating
(2011). L/H
Ghosh, J. and Padgett, J.E. Column, bearing, Curvature ductility, bearing PGA Cover depth, diffusion Analytical
(2010). abutment displacement, abutment coefficient, chloride
displacement concentration, rate of
corrosion
Huo, Y. and Zhang, J. (2013) Column Section curvature PGA u, T, G Analytical
Huang, Q., Gardoni, P. and Column Column deformation PGV fc 0 , fy, u, L, H, r, W, Analytical
Hurlebaus, S. (2010). Ksoil, D/Ds, Ka
Jara, J. M., Galvn, A., Jara, M. Column, isolation Curvature ductility, bearing PGA –a Analytical
and Olmos, B. (2013) bearing displacement
Karim K.R. and Yamazaki F. Column Park-Ang damage index PGA, PGV, SI –a Analytical
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

(2003)
Kwon, O.S. and Elnashai, A.S. Bearing, bent, Bent deformation, abutment PGA fc 0 , fy, Sg, Su, Ksoil Analytical
(2010) abutment deformation, bearing
deformation
Mackie, K., and Stojadinovic, B. Column Peak steel strain, peak concrete Is, Iv, FR1, FR2, Td, fc 0 , fy, u, L, H, r, W, Analytical
(2005). strain, peak column curvature, arms, EPD, EPV, EPA, Ksoil, D/Ds
curvature ductility, displacement Sd, R, M
ductility, drift ratio, residual
deformation index, plastic
rotation, hysteretic energy,
normalised hysteretic energy
Moschonas, I.F., Kappos, A.J., Column Column displacement PGA –a Analytical
Panetsos, P., Papadopoulos, V.,
Makarios, T. and Thanopoulos,
P. (2009)
(continued)
811
Table 2. (Continued).
812

Authors Component Demand Parameter Intensity measure Uncertain parameters Method

0
Nielson, B.G. and DesRoches, R. Column, bearing, Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fc , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, u, Analytical
(2007a, 2007b) abutment displacement, abutment Kr, Ku, Ka, Loading
displacement direction
Padgett, J.E., Ghosh, J. and Column, expansion Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fy, mB, KI, j, G, Sg, Su, Analytical
Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2013) bearing, fixed bearing, deformation, abutment F, p-y spring, da, db
abutment piles deformation, pile deformation
Padgett, J.E. and DesRoches, R. Column, bearing, Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fc 0 , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, u, Analytical
(2008, 2009) abutment, shear key, deformation, abutment Kr, Ku, Ka, loading
restrainer deformation direction, restrainer
cable length and slack.
Pan, Y., Agrawal, A. Column, bearing, Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fc0 , fy, W, DT, mB Analytical
K., Ghosn, M. and Alampalli, S. abutment deformation, abutment
(2010a, 2010b) deformation
Ramanathan, K., DesRoches, R. Column, expansion Curvature ductility, bearing PGA fc0 , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, u, Analytical
and Padgett, J.E. (2012) bearing, fixed bearing, deformation, abutment Kr, Ku, Ka, a, Gb,
abutment deformation loading direction,
Dowel bar strength
Shinozuka et al. 2001 Column Displacement ductility PGA fc 0 , fy Analytical,
Empirical
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Column Displacement ductility PGA –a Analytical
Kim, H.-K., Kim, S.-H. (2000)
Sung, Y.C. and Su, C.K. (2011) Column Displacement PGA –a Analytical
Tavares, D.H., Padgett, J.E. and Column, bearing, wing Displacement ductility, bearing PGA fc 0 , fy, mB, Ki, j, G, u, Analytical
Paultre, P. (2012) wall, back wall, deformation, wing wall and back Kr, Ku, Ka
abutment footing wall displacement, abutment
deformation
Torbol, M. and Shinozuka, M. Column Rotational ductility PGA a Analytical
(2012a, 2012b)
Vosooghi, A. and Saiidi, M.S. Column Maximum drift, residual drift, –a L/H, D, r, Scale factor Experimental
(2012) frequency ratio, inelasticity
A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

index, maximum steel strain

Yamazaki, F., Motomura, H. and Bridge Observed damage PGA, PGV –a Empirical
Hamada, T. (2000)
Zhang, J. and Huo, Y. (2009) Column, Isolation Curvature ductility, bearing PGA –a Analytical
Bearing shear strain
Zhong, J., Gardoni, P and Column Deformation and shear Sa Model uncertainty, Analytical
Rosowsky, D. (2012). deformation cover depth, diffusion
coefficient, chloride
concentration, age
factor, environment
factor, test method
factor, curing factor
a
No IM or uncertain parameters was considered.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Figure 4. Typical survey technique for developing expert-based fragility curve.
generating fragility curves for bridges. In this method, the
capacity is calculated using nonlinear static pushover
analysis and demand is estimated from a scaled down
response spectrum. Placing the capacity and demand
spectra in the same plot, the maximum response of the
structure under the specified seismic ground motion is
determined by locating the intersection of the two curves
(in deterministic analysis).
Whenever, uncertainty in capacity and demand is
considered, it is represented by plotting the distributions
over the capacity and demand curves. Using the
intersection of capacity and demand distribution (Figure 6),
probability of failure can be estimated for a particular
intensity level. Using increasing level of IM and various
DSs, fragility curves for the bridges can be generated.
Apart from its advantages, this method has few limitations.
This method was developed based on the recommen-
dations from ATC 40 (ATC, 1996) which was developed
for buildings. Moreover, this method lacks in defining the
bridge structure types and estimation of effective
hysteretic damping, which plays a crucial role in seismic
performance evaluation.
1 among researchers of how many ground motions should be
Minor-S
Moderate-S
0.8 Major-S
Minor-Y
Probability
0.6 Moderate-Y
Major-Y
0.4
0.2
0 performed for each ground motion-bridge sample. The
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
PGA (g)
Figure 5. Comparison of empirical fragility curves developed
by Shinozuka et al. (2001) [S] and Yamazaki et al. (2000) [Y]
using damage data from Kobe earthquake.
813
3.4.3 Nonlinear time history analysis
In spite of being one of the most computationally
expensive methods, NLTHA is the most reliable method
for generating fragility curves (Shinozuka et al., 2000).
This method has been used by many researchers (Billah &
Alam, 2013; Choi et al., 2004; Karim & Yamazaki 2003;
Kwon & Elnashai 2010; Nielson & DesRoches, 2007a,
2007b; Padgett, 2007; Pan et al., 2010a; Ramanathan et al.,
2012; Tavares et al., 2012) for generating fragility curves
which have been proven to provide a reliable estimate of
the seismic vulnerability of bridges. This method allows
the consideration of geometric nonlinearity and material
inelasticity to predict the large displacement behaviour
and the collapse load of bridges accurately under dynamic
loading. Although the actual application of the analyses
may vary, all applications follow the basic approach
outlined in Figure 7.
The reliability and accuracy of fragility curves derived
in this method largely depend on the ground motion suits
used for dynamic analyses. As a first step, it is necessary to
select a suitable bin of ground motions that closely
represents the seismicity of the bridge location and
captures the associated uncertainties (e.g. epicentral
distance, magnitude). However, there is still a debate
selected for generating reliable fragility curves. Once the
ground motions are selected, sample bridge geometries are
created considering variability in geometric, structural and
material properties. Using suitable probability distri-
butions for different random variables, statistically
significant yet nominally identical 3D/2D analytical
bridge models are developed.
In the sequence, these bridge models are randomly
paired with different ground motions and NLTHA is
0.8 1 maximum component demands that are considered critical
for bridge vulnerability are recorded from each sample.
Using the peak component response and appropriate IM, a
PSDM can be generated using regression analysis or
maximum likelihood method. The capacity limit states of
814 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam
Table 3. Comparison of empirical fragility curve parameters.
Median
Damage rank Yamazaki et al. (2000)
Minor 0.59
Moderate 0.66
Major 0.81
different components can be defined based on expert
opinion, experimental investigation or analytical
approach. Convolving the capacity model with PSDM,
fragility curves for the bridges can be developed for
different DSs. This method also suffers from several
drawbacks such as the priori assumption about the
probabilistic distribution of seismic demand and required
number of ground motions which make it computationally
expensive.
3.4.4 Incremental dynamic analysis
In order to reduce the requirement of a large number of
ground motions for fragility assessment using NLTHA,
researchers have come up with the idea of using IDA. IDA
is a special type of NLTHA where ground motions are
incrementally scaled and a series of analyses is performed
at different intensity levels. Intensity levels are selected to
cover the entire range of structural response, from elastic
behaviour through yielding to dynamic instability (or until
a limit state ‘failure’ occurs). This technique was
developed by Luco and Cornell (1998) and has been
described in detail in Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2002) and
Yun, Hamburger, Cornell, and Foutch (2012). Several
researchers (Billah et al., 2013; Bhuiyan & Alam, 2012;
Mackie & Stojadinovic, 2005; Zhang & Huo, 2009) have
preferred this technique over NLTHA for generating
fragility curves. However, this incremental scaling of a
large set of ground motions may lead to instances wherein
Demand Spectrum
Spectral Acceleration
Capacity Spectrum
Spectral Displacement
Figure 6. Probabilistic representation of capacity and demand
spectra (Mander & Basoz, 1999).
Log-normal SD
Shinozuka et al. (2001) Yamazaki et al. (2000) Shinozuka et al. (2001)
0.47 0.53 0.59
0.69 0.52 0.45
0.80 0.51 0.43
the computational demand is several times higher than
NLTHA. Although this method demands significant
computational effort, no prior assumptions are required
in terms of probabilistic distribution of seismic demand for
the derivation of fragility functions (Zhang & Huo, 2009).
This method is similar to the NLTHA approach;
however, peak component responses need to be calculated
at each scaling factor. Using results from IDA, fragility
curves can be generated either by deriving the occurrence
ratio at each DS at each ground motion level or by
estimating the probability density function of the IM for
ground motions in which the DS thresholds are exceeded
(Bhuiyan & Alam, 2012). Typically this method is mostly
used for collapse fragility assessment of structures. Like
other methods, this method has few drawbacks. Selection
of ground motions, number of required ground motions,
scaling of ground motions, all these can lead to the over or
under estimation of the vulnerability of the structures
(Baker, 2013).
3.4.5 Fragility assessment using Bayesian approach
Several researchers (Der Kiureghian, 2002; Gardoni et al.,
2002, 2003; Koutsourelakis, 2010; Singhal & Kiremidjian,
1996) have adopted Bayesian technique for developing
reliable fragility curves by the convolution of demand and
capacity models. Using Park and Ang (1985) damage
index, Singhal and Kiremidjian (1996) developed fragility
curves using Bayesian analysis of observed damage data
for subclasses of structural systems. While Der Kiureghian
(2002) used the maximum likelihood method in conjunc-
tion with the Bayesian approach, Koutsourelakis (2010)
used Markov Chain –Monte Carlo techniques along with
the Bayesian approach to develop multi-dimensional
fragility surfaces as a function of multiple ground motion
characteristics.
Using a Bayesian approach, Gardoni et al. (2002)
updated traditional deterministic predictions of capacity
and demand models and introduced reliability for
generating fragility curves for reinforced concrete (RC)
bridges. This study developed fragility curves for typical
one and two column bent RC highway bridges in
California. In the sequence, Zhong, Gardoni, Rosowsky,
and Haukaas (2008) developed PSDM using Bayesian
approach for RC bridges with two column bents

Ground Motion
Suite
1
P [Moderate I PGA]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5
PGA (g)
Develop Fragility Curves
Figure 7. Schematic representation of the NLTHA procedure used to develop fragility curves.
considering uncertainty and models errors. Using a
Bayesian updating approach based on the virtual
experiment demand data, Huang, Gardoni, and Hurlebaus
(2010) proposed a new PSDM approach for generating
fragility curves for single column RC bridge bent. In this
study, different types of uncertainties, model errors,
variation in soil and ground motion characteristics were
considered. Bayesian updating technique allows the
formulation of confidence bounds which express the
epistemic uncertainty around the median fragility curves.
This is one of the fundamental advantages of Bayesian
technique.
3.5 Hybrid fragility curves
Different methods of generating fragility curves have their
advantages and disadvantages. In order to compensate for
the drawbacks of other methods such as the inadequate
damage data from real earthquakes, subjectivity of
judgemental data and uncertainties and modelling
deficiencies associated with analytical procedures,
researchers have come up with the idea of hybrid fragility
curves. The hybrid approach attempts to reduce the
computational effort of analytical modelling and compen-
sates for the subjective bias of the expert judgment method
(Kappos, Panagopoulos, Panagiotopoulos, & Penelis,
2006).
Penelis, Sarigiannis, Stavrakakis, and Stylianidis
(1989) first employed the hybrid method of developing
fragility curves by combining inelastic dynamic analysis
and the database of the Thessaloniki earthquake of 1978.
Subsequently, Kappos, Stylianidis, and Pitilakis (1998),
Kappos et al. (2006) and Kappos and Panagopoulos (2010)
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 815
FEM Models of Estimate Component
Representative Bridges Responses
Define
ln (DI)
component
limit states
1 1.5 2 ln (IM)
Develop PSDM
developed and employed the hybrid fragility curves for
vulnerability assessment of RC and unreinforced masonry
buildings in Greece. This method incorporates available
damage data that resemble the area and structural typology
under consideration and combine with analytical damage
statistics obtained using nonlinear analysis of typical
structures (Kappos et al., 2006).
Hybrid methods also incorporate results from large-
scale experimental tests that can reasonably mimic real
structural response. More recently, Network for Earth-
quake Engineering Simulation developed a hybrid method
for fragility curve generation based on hybrid simulation
results along with the calibrated analytical response (Lin,
Li, Elnashai, & Spencer, 2012). They developed an
analytical model of 2D frame in ZEUS-NL and tested a
small scale column in a hybrid testing facility. Using the
mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) from the hybrid
tests and dispersions from the references, they developed
hybrid fragility curves assuming lognormal distribution.
Although hybrid fragility curves provide another
option for developing reliable fragility curves, it suffers
from few drawbacks such as extrapolation of damage data
and relationship between earthquake intensity and level of
structural damage (Kappos, 1997). Moreover, this method
involves large aleatory and epistemic uncertainty which
results in significant dispersion in the probabilistic model.
Although this method of generating fragility curves has
received much attention from the researchers, applications
are still limited for buildings. Recently, Frankie (2013) has
developed hybrid fragility curves for a curved four span
bridge using hybrid simulation and NLTHA. Limit states
for the bridge pier were developed using experimental
results obtained from the pier response under combined
816 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam
axial, flexural, shear and torsional loading. Combining these
experimental results with analytical structural response,
fragility curves for different DSs were developed.
4. IM and demand parameter for fragility analysis
Fragility curves express the probability of the seismic
demand placed on the structure exceeding a predefined
performance state under a chosen IM representative of the
seismic loading. Selection of an appropriate IM is an
important step in developing fragility relationship.
Selection of an appropriate IM for fragility assessment
has been a topic of debate among researchers for a long
time. In ATC-13 (ATC, 1985), Modified Mercalli Scale
was used as the IM whereas FEMA P695 (FEMA, 2009)
preferred spectral acceleration at the first-mode period,
Sa(T1) (or simply Sa) as the IM.
Luco and Cornell (2007) suggested three criteria for
selecting an appropriate IM, i.e. efficiency, sufficiency and
hazard computability. One of the most commonly used IM
is the Sa at the first-mode period, Sa(T1) (or simply Sa).
Several alternatives of IM include PGA, peak ground
velocity (PGV), Arias intensity (AI)and so on, as proposed
and developed by numerous researchers for instance,
Giovenale et al. (2003) and Mackie and Stojadinovic
(2007). In an attempt to identify an optimal IM, Mackie
and Stojadinovic (2005) investigated the use of 65 IMs
classified into three classes. An optimal IM was defined as
being practical, effective, efficient, sufficient and robust.
Their study suggested that Sa and spectral displacement
(Sd) at the fundamental period are the ideal IMs as they
were found to reduce uncertainty in the demand models.
On the other hand, the PGA was identified as the
optimum IM by Padgett and DesRoches (2008) to describe
the severity of the earthquake ground motion. They
recommended PGA as the efficient, practical and most
sufficient IM for seismic hazard computation. Since, a
large PGA always does not indicate severe structural
damage, other IMs such as PGV (Avsar, Yakut, & Caner,
2011), peak ground displacement, time duration of strong
motion (Td), spectrum intensity (SI) and spectral
characteristics can also be considered.
Several researchers (Baker & Cornell, 2005; Bazzurro
& Cornell, 2002; Shome & Cornell, 1999) have proposed
different vector-valued IMs for the PSDM. Shafieezadeh
et al. (2012) proposed a fractional order IM for PSDM of
highway bridges. The proposed fractional order IM
considered a single degree of freedom system with
fractional damping and fractional response and combined
the peak ground response and Sa at 0.2 and 1.0 s,
respectively. They concluded that the proposed fractional
order IM showed superior performance over the traditional
IMs. However, this IM, at present, is inappropriate for risk
analysis due to lack of regional hazard curves for such
fractional order IMs.
The probability of entering a particular DS under a
ground motion IM is expressed through fragility curves.
DSs for bridges should reflect a certain functional level
and each DS should indicate a particular level of bridge
performance. Different forms of engineering demand
parameters (EDPs) are used to measure the DS of the
bridge components. Park and Ang (1985) developed a
damage index based on energy dissipation capacity and
ductility demand of the structure, while Hwang et al.
(2000) used the capacity/demand ratio of the bridge
columns as EDP to develop fragility curves. HAZUS
(1997) defined four DSs which are widely used in the
seismic vulnerability assessment of engineering structures,
namely slight, moderate, extensive and collapse damages.
Based on the drift limits of bridge pier, Dutta and Mander
(1998) recommended five different DSs. Mackie and
Stojadinovic (2005) classified the EDPs as local (material
strain), intermediate (maximum moment) and global (drift
ratio) demand parameter.
Various researchers have used different demand
parameters for fragility assessment of highway bridges,
for instance, column curvature ductility (Nielson &
DesRoches, 2007a; Padgett & DesRoches, 2008),
displacement ductility (Bhuiyan & Alam, 2012; Billah
et al., 2013; Zhang & Huo, 2009), drift ratio (Shinozuka,
Kim, Kushiyama, & Yi, 2002; Tavares et al., 2012),
residual drift (Billah & Alam, 2014, 2012; Lee &
Billington, 2011; Mackie & Stojadinovic, 2001), shear
strain in isolation bearing (Bhuiyan & Alam, 2012; Zhang
& Huo, 2009), bearing displacement (Billah & Alam,
2013; Ramanathan et al., 2012; Zhang & Huo, 2009),
abutment deformation (Billah & Alam, 2013; Padgett &
DesRoches, 2008; Ramanathan et al., 2012; Tavares et al.,
2012) and so on. Table 4 presents a summary of different
demand parameters and the threshold values used by
different researchers for fragility assessment of different
components of bridges.
5. Regional fragility analysis
Different researchers in different parts of the world have
developed fragility curves of highway bridges for a
particular region. Since the seismic hazard, construction
practices, bridge type, etc., vary from region to region,
researchers have focused on developing regional fragility
curves. There are a number of different regional
fragility assessments that have been conducted so far in
different parts of the world, a synopsis of which is
provided in Table 5. Extensive studies on seismic fragility
assessment of highway bridges in different parts of USA
have been conducted by different researchers. Using the
National Bridge Inventory, Pan et al. (2010a) and Pan,
Agrawal, Ghosn, and Alampalli (2010b) conducted an
extensive parametric study to evaluate the seismic
response parameters for different bridge components of
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 817

Table 4. Summary of threshold values of different demand parameters.

Threshold value
Component Demand parameter Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse Reference
Column Curvature ductility 1.29 2.1 3.52 5.24 Nielson (2005)
1 1.58 3.22 4.18 Ramanathan et al. (2012)
1 5.11 7.5 9 Ramanathan et al. (2012)
4.89 9.15 12.46 13.08 Ramanathan, DesRoches, and Padgett (2010a)
1.44 2.7 6.92 4.18 Ramanathan et al. (2010a)
1 2 4 7 Choi et al. (2004)
1 2.73 4.54 6.5 Jara et al. (2013)
Displacement ductility 1 1.2 1.76 4.76 Alam et al. (2012) and
Hwang et al. (2000)
1 2 4 7 Alipour et al. (2013)
2.25 2.9 4.6 5 Banerjee and Prasad (2013)
1 1.22 1.78 4.8 Billah and Alam (2014)
Drift 5 7 11 30 Tavares et al. (2012)
0.7 1.5 2.5 5 Akbari (2012)
1.45 2.6 4.3 6.9 Li et al. (2012)
0.7 1.5 2.5 5 Kim and Shinozuka (2004)
Rotational ductility 3.14 3.14 – 5.9 5.9– 9.42 .9.42 Banerjee and Chi (2013)
1.58 3.33 6.24 9.16 Banerjee and Shinozuka (2011)
Residual drift (%) 0.25 0.25– 0.75 0.75 – 1 .1 Billah and Alam (2014)
Elastomeric Shear strain (%) 100 150 200 250 Alam et al. (2012), Zhang and
bearing Huo (2009) and Hwang, Liu, and Chiu (2001)
Drift ratio 0.007 0.015 0.025 0.05 Yi et al. (2007)
Displacement (mm) 0 50 100 150 Choi et al. (2004)
28.9 104.2 136.1 186.6 Ramanathan et al. (2010a) and
Nielson (2005)
30 100 150 255 Ramanathan et al. (2012)
30 60 150 300 Tavares et al. (2012)
Fixed bearing Displacement (mm) 6 20 40 186.6 Ramanathan et al. (2010a) and
Nielson (2005)
6 20 40 255 Ramanathan et al. (2012)
Abutment Displacement (mm) 7 15 30 60 Tavares et al. (2012) and
Billah and Alam (2013)
9.8 37.9 77.2 N/A Ramanathan et al. (2010a) and
Nielson (2005)
Pile foundation Displacement (mm) 28 42 86 115 Aygun et al. (2011)

multi-span simply supported steel highway bridges in New
York State.
Choi et al. (2004) and Nielson and DesRoches (2007a,
2007b) and Padgett and DesRoches (2008) developed
fragility curves for as-built and retrofitted bridges in central
and southern United States (CSUS). Ramanathan et al.
(2010a) and Ramanathan et al. (2012) developed fragility
curves for seismically and non-seismically designed bridges
in CSUS. While in western US typically for California,
Mackie and Stojadinovic (2005) developed fragility curves
for highway overpass bridges and Ramanathan (2012)
developed fragility curves for typical California bridge
classes along with their evolution over three significant
design eras. In Canada, Tavares et al. (2012) and Billah and
Alam (2013) developed seismic fragility curves for highway
bridges in eastern and western Canada, respectively.
Significant amount of research work has also been carried
out in several earthquake-prone countries such as, Japan
(Akiyama, Frangopol, & Matsuzaki, 2011; Akiyama,
Frangopol, & Mizuno, 2013; Karim & Yamazaki, 2007;
Tanaka, Kameda, Nojima, & Ohnishi, 2000), Italy
(Cardone, Perrone, & Dolce, 2007; Felice, Giannini, &
Rasulo, 2004), Turkey (Avsar et al., 2011), Greece
(Moschonas et al., 2009) and Taiwan (Liao & Loh, 2004;
Sung, Hsu, Hung, & Chang, 2013).
Different regions have different design guidelines,
bridge types, construction method, seismicity and soil
conditions. Again different researchers considered differ-
ent structural systems and adopted different modelling
and analysis techniques for developing fragility curves.
So it is very difficult to compare the fragility curves
developed for different regions. However, in this study a
comparison of fragility curves developed for different
regions particularly for a specific type of bridge (multi-
span continuous (MSC) concrete) was conducted.
A comparison of the fragility curves at extensive DSs for
MSC concrete bridges is shown in Figure 8. It is beyond
the scope of this study to compare and comment on the
Table 5. Summary of regional fragility analysis of highway bridges.
Region Author
Eastern US: New York Pan et al. (2010a, 2010b)
CSUS Choi et al. (2004)
Nielson and DesRoches
(2007a, 2007b
Padgett and DesRoches
(2008)
Ramanathan et al. (2010a)
and Ramanathan et al. (2012)
Western US: California Mackie and Stojadinovic
(2005)
Zhang and Huo (2009)
Ramanathan (2012)
Dukes et al. (2013)
Eastern Canada Tavares et al. (2012)
Lau et al. (2012)
Western Canada Billah and Alam (2013)
Japan Yamazaki et al. (2000)
Tanaka et al. (2000)
Bridge type
MSSS-SG
MSSS-SG, MSC-SG,MSSS-PSC,
MSC-PSC
MSC concrete, MSC slab, MSC steel,
MSSS concrete, MSSS slab, MSSS
concrete. Box, MSSS steel, SS concrete,
SS steel
MSC concrete, MSC slab, MSC steel,
MSSS concrete, MSSS slab, MSSS
concrete. box, MSSS steel, SS concrete,
SS steel
MSC concrete, MSC steel, MSSS
concrete, MSSS steel
Concrete highway overpass bridges
MSC concrete box girder
MSC Concrete box girder, MSC slab,
MSC concrete girder
MSC concrete box girder
MSC slab, MSC steel, MSC concrete,
MSSS concrete, MSSS steel
MSC-PSC
MSC concrete girder
Expressway bridges
Hanshin expressway
818
Features
Identification of vulnerable components and effect of different retrofit measures
Identified MSSS and MSC steel girder bridges as the most vulnerable ones
Using a component-level approach this study identified the steel girder bridges
as the most vulnerable ones followed by concrete girder bridges and single span
bridges of all types
Impact of different retrofit measures on bridge component vulnerability as well
as the bridge as a system. This study developed framework for the use of the
fragility curves in retrofit selection including performance-based retrofit and
cost-benefit analyses
Investigated the influence of seismic detailing on the seismic vulnerability of
four typical bridge classes in CSUS. Compared their fragility curves with
HAZUS fragility curves and developed confidence bounds to characterise the
uncertainty associated with the median fragility curve
Developed demand, damage and decision fragility curves. These curves were so
developed that they were conditioned on an arbitrary IM that can be varied to
best suit the structure and site of interest
Investigated the efficacy and optimal design parameters of isolation devices
using a performance-based evaluation approach based on PSDA and IDA
Developed fragility curves for typical California bridge classes along with their
evolution over three significant design eras. This study developed different DSs
for different bridge components in alignment with CALTRANS design and
operational guidelines
Proposed a new methodology to incorporate fragility analysis in the design of
new bridges and suggested the use of the fragility curves as a design check which
will enable the design engineer to determine if performance criteria have been
met, and also provide information on potential uncertainty of the performance of
the design
Developed component and system fragility curves for five different bridge
A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam
classes in eastern Canada and concluded that the concrete girder bridges have
relatively high vulnerability as compared with steel girder bridges
Proposed a methodology for developing fragility curves for bridges assuming
that bridges having the same structural configuration and designed and
constructed at the same period will have similar vulnerability during a
seismic event
Considering SSI along with all types of uncertainties, this study developed
fragility curves for MSC concrete girder bridges which represent a significant
portion of highway bridges in British Columbia
Developed fragility curves based on actual damage data
Utilising the actual damage data from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake,
this study developed the damage database with GIS. With this database, the
fragility curves were developed assuming normal distributions and were
evaluated in comparing with the probability damage matrix of ATC-13
 Karim and Yamazaki (2007)
Akiyama et al. (2013a)
Italy De Felice and Giannini
(2010)
Cardone et al. (2007)
Turkey Avsar et al. (2011)
Greece Moschonas et al. (2009)
Algeria Kibboua et al. (2011)
Korea Lee et al. (2007)
Taiwan Liao and Loh (2004)
Sung et al. (2013)
Note: MSSS, multi-span simply supported; MSC, multi-span continuous; SG, steel girder; PSC, prestressed concrete girder; MSMC, multi span, multi-column; MSSC, multi span single column.
MSC concrete
Tohuku-Shinkansen Viaduct
MSSS concrete, MSC concrete
Existing highway bridges in Italy
MSMC, MSSC
Greek motorway bridges
Typical Algerian RC bridge piers
Expressway bridges in Korea
16 types of highway bridges
Existing highway bridges in Taiwan
Developed a simplified approach to generate fragility curves of isolated bridges
and illustrated the contribution of isolators on reducing damage probability of
bridge columns. They found that the damage probability of isolated systems
tends to be higher for a higher level of pier height than that of non-isolated
systems
Developed limit states for as-built and retrofitted viaducts, investigated the
effectiveness of the seismic retrofit against the strong ground motions and
compared fragility curves for as-built and retrofitted viaducts
Assesses the seismic reliability of three Italian highway bridges using effective
fragility analysis methodology
Proposed a numerical procedure for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability
and seismic risk of highway bridges that combines elements from the direct
displacement-based design method and the capacity spectrum method. The
proposed method provided the possibility to consider possible modifications of
strength and ductility due to decay of materials and/or seismic retrofit
interventions
Developed fragility curves for bridges constructed after 1990 and clustered them
into four different groups based on their structural attributes. They identified
bridges with larger skew angles and single column bent as the most vulnerable
ones
Defined different DSs for the bridge components based on energy dissipation
mechanism and proposed a new method for generating fragility curves using
nonlinear pushover analysis. They reported that the bridges were more
vulnerable in the longitudinal direction and the derived fragility curves are
heavily influenced by the demand spectra used
They found that cross-sectional geometry and longitudinal reinforcement
significantly affects the vulnerability of bridge piers. They concluded that
bridges supported on wall piers have lower probability of damage than the others
Based on the capacity demand ratio of different bridge components, they defined
three DSs for the Korean bridges. Using logistic curve equations, they developed
relationship between PGA and vulnerability
Defined five different DSs based on the ductility and displacement demand.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Although they carried out an extensive study they did not provide any conclusive
remarks regarding the most vulnerable types of bridges
Proposed a rapid vulnerability assessment method for assessing the seismic
vulnerability of existing bridges in Taiwan. The proposed system is capable of
estimating and visually demonstrating different damage levels that bridges have
encountered due to a specific seismic event and figure out the corresponding
economic loss due to the damage of bridges
819
820 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

1 retrofitted with five different alternatives along with

Taiwan different types of uncertainties, fragility curves were
Greece generated. Using three-dimensional nonlinear analysis,
0.8
P [Extensive I PGA]

CSUS
Eastern Canada
0.6 Western Canada
0.4
0.2
0 retrofitted multi-span continuous steel bridges in New
0 0.2
Figure 8. Comparison of empirical fragility curves for MSC
concrete bridges for different regions.
vulnerability of the same types of bridges located in
different parts of the world.
6. Condition-specific fragility assessment
6.1 Fragility analysis for retrofitted bridge
Most of the studies regarding development of bridge
fragility curves are focused on as-built bridges. Fragility
curves can also be used as an assessment tool for retrofitted
bridges and selecting an optimal retrofit strategy from a
group of available retrofit measures. Shinozuka et al. (2002)
developed fragility curves for typical southern California
bridge piers retrofitted with steel jacket. Using nonlinear
dynamic analysis, fragility curves were developed as a
function of PGA. They compared the vulnerability of as-
built and retrofitted bridges. They proposed an ‘enhance-
ment curve’ which can be applied over empirical fragility
curve to develop a retrofitted bridge fragility curve.
Padgett and DesRoches (2008) developed an analytical
methodology for developing fragility curves of retrofitted
bridges. They evaluated the impact of retrofitting one
component on the response of other key components of the
bridge. Considering a typical bridge class in CSUS
Padgett and DesRoches (2009) developed fragility curves
for four common classes of multi-span bridges in CSUS
and five retrofit methods. They concluded that the
effectiveness of the retrofit measure in reducing system
vulnerability is a function of bridge type and DS under
consideration.
Agrawal et al. (2012) developed fragility curves for
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
York. Effectiveness of various retrofit measures, such as
PGA (g)
elastomeric bearing, lead rubber bearing, carbon fibre
jacketing and viscous damper, in reducing the vulner-
ability of bridges was evaluated and compared with the
performance of as-built bridges. They concluded that a
combination of elastomeric bearing and viscous damper
provides an optimal retrofit effect for typical multi-span
continuous steel bridges in New York. Billah et al. (2013)
developed analytical fragility curves for retrofitted multi-
column bridge bent under near-fault and far-field ground
motion. They evaluated the effectiveness of different
retrofitting techniques (e.g. steel jacket, concrete jacket,
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) jacket,
Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC) jacket) and
compared their vulnerability under near-fault and far-field
ground motions. They concluded that both ECC and CFRP
jackets were effective in reducing the vulnerability under
near-fault and far-field ground motions.
Based on the performance of different bridge
components using fragility analysis, Stefanidou and
Kappos (2013) proposed a methodology for selecting an
optimal retrofit strategy for bridges. The main aspect of
this methodology is the development of correlation
between component limit state threshold values and global
limit states. Figure 9a shows fragility curves for as-built
and retrofitted bridges and Figure 9b shows the
comparative effectiveness of different retrofitting tech-
niques in reducing the seismic vulnerability.

(a) 1 (b) 1

0.8 0.8
P[ModerateIPGA]

P[ModerateIPGA]

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 Concrete

ECC
0.2 As Built 0.2 CFRP
Retrofitted Steel
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA (g) PGA (g)

Figure 9. (a) Fragility curves for as-built and retrofitted bridges, (b) Fragility curves for retrofitted bridge bent using different retrofitting
techniques (Billah et al. 2013).
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
6.2 Fragility analysis considering ageing effect
Ageing and deterioration significantly affect the seismic
performance of bridges. The detrimental effect of ageing
and deterioration on the seismic vulnerability of highway
bridges has been overlooked by the engineering commu-
nity for a long time. Although there have been a number of
studies focusing on the ageing and deterioration of bridges,
very few studies have incorporated these effects on the
fragility curve generation (Choe, Gardoni, Rosowsky, &
Haukaas, 2009; Gardoni & Rosowsky, 2011; Ghosh &
Padgett, 2012; Zhong, Gardoni, & Rosowsky, 2012). The
impact of ageing and deterioration on bridge fragility is
heavily influenced by the exposure condition: whether
marine exposure, atmospheric exposure or de-icing salt
exposure, etc. (Ghosh & Padgett, 2012).
Several researchers have investigated the effect of
deterioration on seismic fragility considering different
exposure conditions. Choe et al. (2009) investigated the
potential reduction in capacity and increase in fragility due
to ageing and deterioration of a typical single-bent bridge
in California considering a marine splash zone. They
extended the existing PSDM for pristine bridges with a
probabilistic model for time-dependent chloride-induced
corrosion to include the effect of ageing on seismic
fragility assessment. This study highlighted the signifi-
cance of considering the effects of ageing on seismic
fragility and identifying the crucial material and corrosion
parameters that most significantly affect the bridge
reliability. Simon, Bracci and Gardoni (2010) developed
fragility curves for deteriorated concrete bridges, located
in a marine splash zone, designed according to current
guidelines to investigate the chloride exposure level and
extent of corrosion on the vulnerability of bridges. They
showed that spalling of cover concrete and reduction in
reinforcement area affect the seismic vulnerability of
bridges. Sung and Su (2011) developed time-dependent
fragility curves for deteriorated RC bridges. Using
pushover analysis they investigated the decayed capacity
of deteriorated bridges and developed fragility curves
with respect to some representative damage levels. Using
the time-dependent fragility curve, they developed an
S-surface diagram to illustrate the relationship between
cost, IM and service time. Ghosh and Padgett (2010)
investigated the effect of multi-component deterioration
on the seismic vulnerability of ageing bridges.
Figure 10a illustrates the effect of ageing on the
seismic fragility of bridges. Considering the variations in
structural properties, ground motion and corrosion
parameters, they developed time-dependent fragility
curves for a multi-span continuous steel girder bridge.
The analyses showed that most of the components
(columns, fixed bearing, expansion bearing) experience
increased vulnerability due to ageing while there is a
decrease in the vulnerability of few components (abutment
821
longitudinal and transverse response). They concluded that
an ageing bridge might experience a shift of 32% in the
median value of complete damage fragility near the end of
its service life.
Ghosh and Padgett (2012) explored the effect of
different exposure conditions, such as de-icing salt
exposure and splash zone and atmospheric zone exposure
in marine environment, on the vulnerability of typical
multi-span concrete bridges in CSUS. They concluded that
consideration of different exposure conditions led to a
significant variation in the vulnerability of ageing bridges.
Recently, Dong, Frangopol, and Saydam (2013) have
developed time-variant fragility curves for seismically
vulnerable bridges considering multiple hazard scenarios.
They considered the effects of flood-induced scour and
effects of corrosion on reinforcement bars and concrete
cover spalling in generating the fragility curves. Choine,
O’Connor, and Padgett (2013) investigated the effect of
chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcement, caused
by the application of de-icing salts, on the seismic
vulnerability of a three-span integral concrete bridge. This
study found that corrosion and ageing significantly affect
the seismic vulnerability of bridge piers, while vulner-
ability of other components is less sensitive to ageing and
deterioration.
6.3 Fragility analysis considering SSI and liquefaction
Lack of homogeneity in the underlying soil can result in
wide variety of strength parameters which can signifi-
cantly affect the seismic response of bridges (Brandenbarg
et al., 2011). Due to their complex structural configuration
compared to buildings, bridges experience more severe
SSI effects during earthquakes (Chaudhary et al., 2001).
Several researchers (Boulanger, Curras, Kutter, Wilson, &
Abghari, 1999; Elgamal et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2008)
have investigated the effect of SSI modelling techniques
and liquefaction on seismic response of bridge com-
ponents. Kashighandi, Brandenberg, Zhang, Huo, and
Zhao (2008) investigated the seismic fragility of older-
vintage California bridges to liquefaction and lateral
spreading.
Kwon and Elnashai (2010) developed fragility curves
for a highway overcrossing bridge in the USA considering
SSI, using four different modelling techniques to represent
the behaviour of abutment and foundation. They
concluded that the selection of efficient SSI modelling
technique significantly affects the reliability of vulner-
ability assessment. Aygun et al. (2011) developed a
computationally efficient coupled bridge-soil-foundation
analyses and fragility curves for typical multi-span
continuous steel bridges typical of the central and eastern
US considering earthquake-induced soil liquefaction.
They reported that the vulnerability of columns depends
on the type of soil overlying the liquefiable sands, while
822 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

Pristine
25 Years Extensive (Isolated)
50 Years Extensive (Un-isolated)
75 Years Coulmn w/o liquefaction Collapse (Un-isolated)
100 Years Column w/liquefaction Collapse (Isolated)
(a)
1 (b) 1 (c) 1
P [ModerateI PGA]

P [CllapseI PGA]
0.8 0.8 0.8

P[DamageIPGA]
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA (g)

0m
Straight 0 deg
0.6m
30 deg Curve 15 deg 1.5m
60 deg Curve 30 deg 3m
90 deg Curve 45 deg 6m
(d)
1 (e) (f)
1 1
P[CollapseISa1]

P[CollapseI PGA]

0.8 0.8 0.8

P[CollapseIPGA]
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sa1(g) PGA (g) PGA (g)

Figure 10. Effect of (a) ageing (Ghosh & Padgett, 2010), (b) soil liquefaction (Aygun et al., 2011), (c) isolation (Zhang & Huo, 2009),
(d) horizontal curve (AmiriHormozaki et al., 2013), (e) skew angle (Sullivan & Nielson, 2010) and (f) scour depth (Prasad & Banarjee,
2013) on fragility curves.

the fragility of rocker bearings, piles, embankment soil and coefficients of friction significantly affect the seismic
the probability of unseating increases with liquefaction. fragility of bridges. Ni, Petrini, and Paolucci (2013)
Figure 10b shows the effect of considering liquefaction on proposed a direct displacement-based assessment
the vulnerability of bridge columns. The figure illustrates approach for fragility assessment of multi-span continuous
the fact that liquefaction significantly increases the seismic concrete bridges considering nonlinear dynamic SSI
vulnerability. effects. The proposed method was found to be fast and
Brandenbarg et al. (2011) developed demand fragility reliable which can be used for screening of large sample of
surfaces for bridges in liquefied and laterally spreading bridges.
ground. Using a beam on a nonlinear Winkler foundation
approach, the SSI effects at the bridge abutment
components were modelled while the soil – structure 6.4 Fragility analysis of isolated bridges
elements included p-y springs for lateral interaction, t-z Seismic isolation of highway bridges has been proven to
springs for axial interaction and q-z springs for pile tip be an efficient technique to reduce the seismic hazards for
bearing. They concluded that consideration of liquefaction designing new bridges or improving the performance of
and lateral spreading significantly affects the fragility existing bridges. Several researchers have investigated the
function. effect of isolation on the seismic vulnerability of existing
Padgett et al. (2013) investigated the sensitivity of bridges. Karim and Yamazaki (2007) developed a
seismic fragility of different bridge components for simplified approach to generate fragility curves of isolated
variation in structural and liquefiable soil modelling bridges. Using 30 nonlinear models of isolated bridges
parameters. They concluded that the undrained shear using different structural parameters, this study illustrated
strength of soil, structural damping ratio, soil shear the contribution of isolators on reducing damage
modulus, gap between deck and abutment, ultimate probability of bridge columns. They found that the
capacity of soil and fixed and expansion bearing damage probability of isolated systems tends to be higher
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
for a higher level of pier height than that of non-isolated
systems.
Using a performance-based evaluation approach, Zhang
and Huo (2009) investigated the effectiveness and optimum
design parameters of isolation devices using fragility
analysis. Using PSDA and IDA they developed fragility
functions for isolated bridges and determined the optimum
combinations of mechanical parameters of isolation devices
as a function of structural properties and DSs. Figure 10c
shows the effect of isolation on the seismic fragility of
bridges. From this figure it is evident that isolation
significantly reduces the bridge vulnerability.
Alam et al. (2012) investigated the seismic vulner-
ability of a three-span continuous highway bridge,
restrained by shape memory alloy (SMA) bars and
isolated with laminated rubber bearings. They concluded
that the failure probability of the bridge system is
dominated by the bridge piers over the isolation bearings,
and inclusion of SMA restrainers in the bridge system
exhibits high probability of failure, especially when the
system is isolated with lead rubber bearings. Using
capacity/demand approach, Jara, Galvn, Jara, and Olmos
(2013) proposed a methodology for generating fragility
curves for isolated irregular bridges. They proposed a
simplified approach to obtain fragility curves based on
nonlinear static analyses.
6.5. Fragility analysis of irregular, curved and skewed
bridges
Bridges with unequal column height are often found in
highway bridges crossing a basin or valley and behave in
an undesirable way during a seismic event. In an irregular
bridge with different column heights, the deformation
demands in individual piers are usually different while the
shortest pier being subjected to maximum demand
(Tehrani & Mitchell, 2012). Considering 18 different
bridge configurations based on the column height, Akbari
(2012) generated fragility curves for irregular bridges.
He concluded that at high-intensity earthquake, the short
piers of the irregular bridge experience extensive damage
while the long piers remain elastic.
Horizontally curved steel bridges have become very
popular and more than one-third of steel bridges
constructed in the USA are curved (Davidson, Abdalla,
& Madhavan, 2002). Since the seismic response of
horizontally curved bridges is different from that of the
straight bridges, several researchers have investigated the
seismic fragility of horizontally curved steel girder bridges
(AmiriHormozaki, Pekcan, & Itani, 2013; Seo & Linzell,
2012; Mohseni & Norton, 2011). AmiriHormozaki et al.
(2013) identified torsion index as a significant parameter
for fragility assessment of curved steel girder bridges. That
study showed that the vulnerability of curved bridges is
under-predicted by the HAZUS fragility curves as
823
compared with the analytically derived fragility curves.
Figure 10d shows the effect of curvature on the fragility of
bridges. By observing this figure it is evident that
horizontal curvature significantly affects the vulnerability
of bridges.
Skewed bridges are often encountered in the design of
highway bridges and mostly found in multi-level
interchanges which show a complicated dynamic beha-
viour as compared with straight bridges (Samaan et al.,
2007). Several researchers (Huo & Zhang, 2013;
Moschonas & Kappos, 2011; Pottatheere & Renault,
2008; Sullivan & Nielson, 2010; Zakeri et al., 2013) have
investigated the impact of skewness on seismic vulner-
ability of highway bridges. The effect of skewness on the
seismic vulnerability of bridges is depicted in Figure 10e.
Pottatheere and Renault (2008) reported that for a
skewed RC bridge, elastomeric bearing and columns are
the most vulnerable components, and for the same
intensity, the damage probability increases with increased
skew angle. Huo and Zhang (2013) reported that the
influence of pounding can be devastating in skewed
bridges while at large skew angle (608) this affect is
reduced. They suggested not to incorporate pounding and
skewness simultaneously in the design of highway bridges
since pounding can increase the deck rotation and the
seismic demand on bridge piers of skewed bridges, thus
influencing the bridge response.
6.6. Fragility analysis considering effect of scouring
Seismic performance of highway bridges can be
significantly affected due to the combined effect of
earthquake and scouring (Ghosn, Moses, & Wang, 2003).
There is a growing concern among researchers and the
scientific community to evaluate the performance of
bridges under the combination of two or more extreme
events (Alampalli & Ettouney, 2008). Scouring around
bridge foundation and abutment can result in significant
reduction in load-carrying capacity and increase the
flexibility of the bridge (Alipour & Shafei, 2012), thus
affecting the seismic vulnerability of bridges. Wang, Song,
and Li (2012) developed fragility surfaces for two
highway bridges considering the combined effect of
earthquake and scour. They concluded that although
bridges with pile foundation are capacity protected,
increasing scour depth can significantly affect the seismic
vulnerability of bridges.
Alipour and Shafei (2012) developed fragility curves
for RC bridges based on the joint probabilities of scouring
and earthquake. Using Monte Carlo simulation they
estimated various scour depths. Using NLTHA, they
investigated the structural response, ductility demand and
estimated various bridge fragility parameters for a range of
scour depths. The developed fragility curves indicated that
the load-bearing capacity significantly decreases with
824 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam
increasing scour depth. More recently, Prasad and
Banerjee (2013) and Banerjee and Prasad (2013)
investigated the impact of flood-induced scour on the
seismic fragility of RC bridges. Their results demonstrated
that scour depth over 3 m does not increase the
vulnerability of bridges.
Figure 10f depicts the effect of scour depth on the
fragility of bridges. From this figure it is evident that
increasing scour depth increases the vulnerability of
bridges. Alipour, Shafei, and Shinozuka (2013) developed
a multi-hazard reliability-based framework to evaluate the
structural response of RC bridges under the combined
effects of pier scour and earthquake events. Considering
different sources of uncertainties in scouring and seismic
hazard, they developed fragility curves to estimate the
failure probability under the combined effect of scouring
and earthquake. They suggested that more analytical and
experimental works need to be conducted to investigate
the combined effect of scouring and earthquake and
develop design guidelines to improve bridge response.
7. Effect of ground motion on fragility analysis
Selection of ground motion plays an important role in
generating fragility curves for highway bridges. The effect
of ground motion suites, directionality, angle of incidence
and spatial variation on fragility assessment has been
investigated by several researchers (Banerjee & Shino-
zuka, 2011; Elhowary, Ramadan, & Mehanny, 2013; Kim
& Feng, 2003; Nielson & Pang, 2011; Ramanathan,
Wright, DesRoches, & Padgett, 2010b; Torbol &
Shinozuka, 2012a). Kim and Feng (2003) concluded that
ground motions with spatial variation induce increased
fragility for long span bridges. They suggested incorpor-
ating the effect of ground motion spatial variation for the
seismic design of long span bridges. The seismic fragility
of a nine-span continuous box girder bridge under spatially
variable ground motion was investigated by Elhowary
et al. (2013). They concluded that the bridge response in
the transverse direction is more sensitive to the spatial
variability of ground motion. Their result illustrated that
bridges in soft soils are more vulnerable to spatially
variable ground motions.
Banerjee and Shinozuka (2011) investigated the effect
of ground motion directionality on the fragility character-
istics of highway bridges. Their results showed that ground
motion directionality plays an important role in estimating
the fragility characteristics. Considering seismic incidence
angle as an important parameter, Torbol and Shinozuka
(2012a, 2012b) developed fragility curves for highway
bridges. They illustrated that the vulnerability of a
highway bridge may be underestimated if the angle of
seismic incidence is not considered. They concluded that
this effect gets aggravated in case of skewed and curved
bridges.
Nielson and Pang (2011) investigated the effect of
ground motion suite size on fragility of highway bridges.
They suggested using a suite of 80 or more ground motions
in order to keep variation in median and dispersion
estimates reasonable. They concluded that less number of
ground motions can be used if a more selective procedure
is adopted to assemble the ground motion suite. The effect
of fault distance on fragility estimate was investigated by
Billah et al. (2013). Using suites of near-fault and far-filed
ground motion, they investigated the seismic fragility of
retrofitted bridge bents. Their study showed that, near-fault
ground motion imposes high ductility demand, thereby
increasing the vulnerability of bridge bents.
8. Possible future development
Although there exist a wide variety of methodologies for
fragility curve development, still there is scope for
significant improvement in the fragility curve develop-
ment methodology. Key features of the different studies
described above are summarised in Table 6 in order to
illustrate the gradual development of the fragility curve
methodology. The table reveals that, despite advances in
analytical models and risk-assessment methods, there still
remains scope to improve the existing fragility curve
development methodology. An improved hybrid model for
fragility curve development is proposed in this study
which involves empirical, experimental and analytical
methods. A flow chart showing the proposed methodology
is illustrated in Figure 11. This method is more suited for
regional fragility assessment.
Using post-earthquake reconnaissance data empirical
fragility curves are developed which lack generality and
are usually associated with a large degree of uncertainty.
Moreover, the observed damages are structure-specific and
cannot be extended to other similar bridges having
different geometry and material properties. This limitation
can be overcome by combining empirical DSs with
experimental observation. From the observed damage, a
damage matrix can be developed which will relate the
different component damage with IM. An interesting
technique can be the use of hybrid simulation using the
appropriately calibrated model of the damaged bridges.
This procedure will enable the updating of the DSs of
different bridge components and improving the accuracy
in defining the limit states with data available from
experiments and simulations.
Moreover, if the hybrid simulation facility is not
available, experimental results available in the literature
that resemble the configuration of different components of
bridges can be used to develop the limit states. One of the
major elements in developing fragility relationship is the
development of demand and capacity models. Using
experimental results an accurate demand and capacity
Table 6. Key features of modern bridge fragility curve development efforts.

Author Bridge type Ground motion Method Component/system Feature

Mander 1998 Different Spectrum CSM System Introduction of new generation bridge
fragility curve
Yamazaki et al. 2000 Expressway in Japan Kobe Empirical System Empirical fragility curve
Shinozuka et al. 2000 4-span straight bridge Synthetic NLTHA þ CSM Component Comparison of NLTHA and CSM
Hwang et al. 2001 4-span straight bridge Synthetic NLTHA Component DS definition
Karim and Yamazaki, 2003 4-span straight bridge Strong motion NLTHA and SPO Component Simplified
Gardoni et al. 2003 Multi-span straight bridge N/A Bayesian System Probabilistic capacity and
Updating þ SPO demand model
Mackie and Stojadinovic, 2003 Multi-span straight bridge Strong motion IDA System Optimal PSDM
Nielson, 2005 SSC/MSSS/MSSC/MSCC/MSCS/SSS Synthetic NLTHA Component þ system Component-level approach
Padgett, 2007 SSC/MSSS/MSSC/MSCC/MSCS/SSS Synthetic NLTHA Component þ system Retrofitted and as built bridges
Kwon and Elnashai, 2010 Multi-Span steel girder bridge Synthetic þ NLTHA Component þ System SSI modelling technique
strong motion
Aygun et al. 2011 Multi-Span continuous steel bridge Synthetic NLTHA Component þ system Soil liquefaction
Ramanathan et al. 2012 MSSC þ MSSS þ MSCC þ MSCS Synthetic NLTHA Component þ system Seismic and non-seismic detailing
Vosooghi and Saiidi, 2012 Bridge pier Shake table Experimental Component Probabilistic performance-based design
Billah et al. 2013 Multi-column bent Strong motion IDA Component Near-fault and far-field motion
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Banarjee and Prasad, 2013 5-span straight concrete bridge Synthetic NLTHA Component Flood-induced scour
Amirhormozaki et al. 2013 Horizontally curved steel girder bridge Strong motion NLTHA Component þ system Curved girder bridge
Note: CSM, capacity spectrum method; NLTHA, nonlinear time history analysis; IDA, incremental dynamic analysis; SPO, static pushover; SSS, single span steel; SSC, single span concrete; MSSS, multi
span simply supported steel girder; MSSC, multi span simply supported concrete girder; MSCC, multi span continuous concrete girder; MSCS, multi span continuous steel girder.
825
826 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

Hybrid Fragility Curves

Empirical Method Experimental Method Analytical Method

Hybrid Dynamic analysis

Develop Estimate Simulation/Damage of appropriately
damage damage at data from calibrated model
statistics different experimental
intensities investigation
Estimation of
different
Develop component
damage- demand
intensity matrix

Modification factor
Statistical to allow for
quantification material and
of demand and geometric
capacity uncertainty

Bayesian
updating of
capacity and
demand model

Development of
fragility curves

Figure 11. Proposed methodology for developing hybrid fragility curves.

models can be developed. Using statistical quantification
the uncertainty associated with the demand and capacity
models can be estimated. A Bayesian updating technique
can be employed to take into account the changes in
material and geometric properties.
Once the demand and capacity models are established,
using calibrated analytical models, the response of the full
bridge can be evaluated using dynamic time history analysis
over a wide range of ground motion. In addition,
development of some modification factors will allow
considering the changes in material and geometric proper-
ties. These appropriately calibrated modification factors can
be used to generate the fragility functions for a typical class
of bridges in the whole inventory. These modification factors
can be generated using different statistical learning
techniques available in the literature. Although this section
provides a brief description of possible future development
of a novel fragility curve development technique, further
study along with detailed examples is required to check the
adequacy of the proposed method.
9. Conclusions
This paper has presented a detailed review of the state-of-
the-art methodologies for the development of fragility
curves of highway bridges. This study provides an insight
into the current practice and applications relating to the
seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges. Because
of its versatile application, fragility curve has evolved as
an integral part of seismic risk assessment methodology.
It allows the decision-makers and stake holders in risk
mitigation and management by translating the seismic
demand into a probabilistic performance matrix. Since its
inception, fragility curves have evolved from simplest to
complex approaches. This study summarised the evolution
of different mechanical approaches developed for fragility
curve generation and their applications in different parts of
the world along with their features and limitations. This
study also presented the fragility curve methodologies for
different bridge components and the effect of considering
different scenarios, such as retrofitting, isolation, and SSI,
on the bridge fragility curves.
Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges
involves a large amount of complexity and uncertainty.
It is likely that no such methodology is available to fully
and accurately consider all these complexity and
uncertainties. Each methodology has its own advantages
and disadvantages. Individual methodologies were devel-
oped based on different assumptions which emphasise on
certain aspect of the problem and minimise or even ignore
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
others. Fragility curves generated following any particular
method should be interpreted very carefully and should not
be considered as definitive. Although fragility analysis has
emerged as a promising tool for seismic performance
assessment of highway bridges, as of today it has not been
included in any design codes or guidelines as a method for
determining the seismic performance of bridges at
different hazard levels. More research in this area needs
to be conducted in developing methodologies for fragility
analysis which can be incorporated in the seismic design
of highway bridges.
Funding
The financial contributions of Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and S-Frame Software
Inc. through Collaborative Research & Development (CRD)
Grant were critical to conduct this study and are gratefully
acknowledged.
Note
1. Email: muntasir.billah@ubc.ca
References
Agrawal, A.K., Ghosn, M., Alampalli, S., & Pan, Y. (2012).
Seismic fragility of retrofitted multi-span continuous steel
bridges in New York. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering,
17, 562– 575.
Akbari, R. (2012). Seismic fragility analysis of reinforced
concrete continuous span bridges with irregular configur-
ation. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 8, 873–889.
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Matsuzaki, H. (2011). Life-
cycle reliability of RC bridge piers under seismic and
airborne chloride hazards. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 40, 1671– 1687.
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D.M., & Mizuno, K. (2013).
Performance analysis of Tohoku-Shinkansen viaducts
affected by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering. doi:10.1080/15732479.
2013.806559
Alam, M.S., Bhuiyan, A.R., & Billah, A.H.M.M. (2012). Seismic
fragility assessment of SMA-bar restrained multi-span
continuous highway bridge isolated with laminated rubber
bearing in medium to strong seismic risk zones. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 10, 1885– 1909.
Alampalli, S., & Ettouney, M. (2008). Multihazard applications
in bridge management, Transportation Research Circular.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, Number
E-C128.
Alipour, A., & Shafei, B. (2012). Performance assessment of
highway bridges under earthquake and scour effects.
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Alipour, A., Shafei, B., & Shinozuka, M. (2013). Reliability-
based calibration of load factors for LRF Design of
reinforced concrete bridges under multiple extreme events:
Scour and earthquake. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering,
18, 362– 371.
AmiriHormozaki, E., Pekcan, G., & Itani, A. (2013). Analytical
fragility curves for horizontally curved steel girder highway
827
bridges (Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Rep. No. CCEER-13-03). Reno, USA: University of Nevada.
ATC (1985). Earthquake damage evaluation data for California
(Report No. ATC-13). Redwood City, CA: Applied
Technology Council.
ATC (1991). Seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of
lifelines in the Coterminous United States (Report No. ATC-
25). Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
ATC (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
buildings (Report No. ATC-40). Redwood City, CA: Applied
Technology Council.
Avsar, O., Yakut, A., & Caner, A. (2011). Analytical fragility
curves for ordinary highway bridges in Turkey. Earthquake
Spectra, 27, 971– 996.
Aygün, B., Dueñas-Osorio, L., Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R.
(2011). Efficient longitudinal seismic fragility assessment of
a multi-span continuous steel bridge on liquefiable soils.
ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16, 93 – 107.
Baker, J.W. (2013). Trade-offs in ground motion selection
techniques for collapse assessment of structures. Vienna
Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD, 2013), Vienna,
Austria.
Baker, J.W., & Cornell, C.A. (2005). A vector-valued ground
motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration
and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 34, 1193– 1217.
Banerjee, S., & Chi, C. (2013). State-dependent fragility curves
of bridges based on vibration measurements. Probabilistic
Engineering Mechanics, 33, 116– 125.
Banerjee, S., & Prasad, G.G. (2013). Seismic risk assessment of
reinforced concrete bridges in flood-prone regions. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 952– 968.
Banerjee, S., & Shinozuka, M. (2007). Nonlinear static procedure
for seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges. Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 22, 293– 305.
Banerjee, S., & Shinozuka, M. (2011). Effect of ground motion
directionality on fragility characteristics of a highway bridge.
Advances in Civil Engineering, Article ID 536171, 12
pp. doi:10.1155/2011/536171.
Basoz, N., & Kiremidjian, A.S. (1997). Evaluation of bridge
damage data from the Loma Prieta and Northridge
CA earthquakes (Report No. MCEER-98-0004). Buffalo,
NY: MCEER, University at Buffalo, The State University of
New York.
Bazzurro, P., & Cornell, A.C. (2002). Vector-values probabilistic
seismic hazard analysis (VP-SHA). Proceedings of the 7th
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Boston, MA.
Berry, M.P., & Eberhard, M.O. (2003). Performance models for
flexural damage inreinforced concrete columns (Report No.
2003/18). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California.
Bhuiyan, A.R., & Alam, M.S. (2012). Seismic vulnerability
assessment of a multi-span continuous highway bridge fitted
with shape memory alloy bar and laminated rubber bearing.
Earthquake Spectra, 28, 1379– 1404.
Billah, A.H.M.M., Alam, M.S., & Bhuiyan, A.R. (2013).
Fragility analysis of retrofitted multi-column bridge bent
subjected to near fault and far field ground motion. ASCE
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18, 992– 1004.
Billah, A.H.M.M., & Alam, M.S. (2012). Seismic fragility
assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with shape
memory alloy considering residual displacement, Proceed-
ings of SPIE Conference on Active and Passive Smart
828 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam
Structures and Integrated Systems VI, 11 – 15 March 2012,
San Diego, California, USA, pp. 83411F:1-13.
Billah, A.H.M.M., & Alam, M.S. (2013). Seismic vulnerability
assessment of a typical multi-span continuous concrete
highway bridge in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Manuscript ID: CJCE-2013-0049R2.
Billah, A.H.M.M., & Alam, M.S. (2014). Seismic fragility
assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with super-
elastic shape memory alloy. Earthquake Spectra, doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1193/112512EQS337M.
Boulanger, R.W., Curras, C.J., Kutter, L., Wilson, D.W., &
Abghari, A. (1999). Seismic soil– pile structure interaction
experiments and analyses. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geo-environmental Engineering, 125, 750–759.
Brandenberg, S.J., Zhang, J., Kashighandi, P., Huo, Y., & Zhao,
M. (2011). Demand fragility surfaces for bridges in liquefied
and laterally spreading ground (PEER Report 2011/01).
Berkeley, CA: PEER Center, University of California.
CALTRANS (2013). Seismic design criteria, Version 1.7.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
Cardone, D., Perrone, G., & Dolce, M. (2007). A numerical
procedure for the assessment of highway bridges in seismic
area. In M. Papadrakakis, D.C. Charmpis, N.D. Lagaros, &
Y. Tsompanakis (Eds.), Proceedings of ECCOMAS Thematic
Conference on Computational Methods in Structural
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN,
2007), Rethymno, Crete, Greece, 13– 16 June 2007.
Chaudhary, M., Abe, M., & Fujino, Y. (2001). Identification of
soil – structure interaction effect in based isolated bridges
from earthquake records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 21, 713– 725.
CHBDC (2010). CAN/CSA-S6-10. Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code (CHBDC) and commentary. Mississauga, ON:
Canadian Standards Association (CSA).
Choe, D., Gardoni, P., Rosowsky, D., & Haukaas, T. (2009).
Seismic fragility estimates for reinforced concrete bridges
subject to corrosion. Structural Safety, 31, 275– 283.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., & Nielson, B.G. (2004). Seismic
fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.
Engineering Structures, 26, 187– 199.
Choine, M.N., O’Connor, A., & Padgett, J.E. (2013). A seismic
reliability assessment of reinforced concrete integral bridges
subject to corrosion. Key Engineering Materials, 569–570,
366– 373.
Davidson, J.S., Abdalla, R.S., & Madhavan, M. (2002). Design
and construction of modern curved bridges (Report No.
FHWA/CA/OR). University Transportation Center for
Alabama. The University of Alabama, USA.
De Felice, G., & Giannini, R. (2010). An efficient approach for
seismic fragility assessment with application to old
reinforced concrete bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engin-
eering, 14, 231 –251.
Der Kiureghian, A. (2002). Bayesian methods for seismic
fragility assessment of lifeline components. In A.D.
Kiureghian (Ed.), Acceptable risk processes: Lifelines and
natural hazards, Monograph No. 21. Reston, VA: Technical
Council for Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE.
Dong, Y., Frangopol, D.M., & Saydam, D. (2013). Time-variant
sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges
subjected to multiple hazards. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 42, 1451– 1467.
Dukes, J., Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2013). Updating the
seismic design process of bridges using bridge specific
fragility analysis, Proceedings of 7th National Seismic
Conference on Bridges and Highways, May 20 – 22, 2013,
Oakland, CA, 12 pp.
Dutta, A., & Mander, J.B. (1998). Seismic fragility analysis of
highway bridges (pp. 311– 325). Tokyo, Japan: INCEDE-
MCEER Center-to-Center Workshop on Earthquake Engin-
eering Frontiers in Transportation Systems.
Elgamal, A., Yan, L., Yang, Z., & Conte, J.P. (2008). Three-
dimensional seismic response of Humboldt bay bridge-
foundation-ground system. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, 134, 1165– 1176.
Elhowary, H.A., Ramadan, O., & Mehanny, S.S.F. (2013). Effect
of spatially variable ground motions on the seismic fragility
of box girder continuous bridges. In M. Papadrakakis, N.D.
Lagaros, & V. Plevris (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th ECCOMAS
Thematic Conference on Computational Methods
in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
(COMPDYN 2013) (pp. 12 – 14). Greece June 2013, 17 pp.
Kos Island.
Elnashai, A., Borzi, B., & Vlachos, S. (2004). Deformation-based
vulnerability functions for RC bridges. Structural Engineer-
ing and Mechanics, 17, 215– 244.
Eurocode (2005). CEN-8. Design of structures for earthquake
resistance, Part 2: Bridges, EN 1998-2-2005, Comite
Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, Belgium.
Felice, G., Giannini, R., & Rasulo, A. (2004). A probabilistic
approach for seismic assessment of R.C. structures:
application to highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the 13th
world conference on earthquake engineering, 2004; Van-
couver, Canada, Paper no: 2601, 10 pp.
FEMA P695, Federal Emergency Management Agency (ATC-
63) (2009). Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council
(ATC).
Frankie, T. (2013). Impact of complex system behaviour on
seismic assessment of RC bridges, PhD Dissertation.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois.
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., & Mosalam, K.M. (2002).
Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for
reinforced concrete columns based on experimental obser-
vations. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128,
1024– 1038.
Gardoni, P., Mosalam, K.M., & Der Kiureghian, A. (2003).
Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates
for RC bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 7,
79 – 106.
Gardoni, P., & Rosowsky, D. (2011). Seismic fragility increment
functions for deteriorating reinforced concrete bridges.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 7, 869– 879.
Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2010). Aging consideration in the
development of time-dependent seismic fragility curve.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 136, 1497– 1511.
Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2012). Impact of multiple component
deterioration and exposure conditions on seismic vulner-
ability of concrete bridges. Earthquakes and Structures,
3, 649– 673.
Ghosn, M., Moses, F., & Wang, J. (2003). Highway bridge design
for extreme events, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, NCHRP Report 489, Transportation Research
Board. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Giovenale, P., Ciampoli, M., & Jalayer, F. (2003). Comparison of
ground motion intensity measures using the incremental
dynamic analysis. In A. Der Kiureghian, S. Madanat, &
J. Pestana (Eds.), Proceedings of Applications of Statistics
and Probability in Civil Engineering (pp. 1483 –1491).
Rotterdam: Millpress.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
HAZUS (1997). Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
HAZUS-MH 2.1 (2012). Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Meth-
odology: Earthquake Model HAZUS-MH 2.1 Technical
Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
Huang, Q., Gardoni, P., & Hurlebaus, S. (2010). Probabilistic
seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced
concrete highway bridges with one single-column bent.
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 136, 1340– 1353.
Huo, Y., & Zhang, J. (2013). Effects of pounding and skewness
on seismic responses of typical multi-span highway bridges
using the fragility function method. ASCE Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 18, 499– 515.
Hwang, H., Jernigan, J.B., & Lin, Y.W. (2000). Evaluation of
seismic damage to Memphis bridges and highway systems.
ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 5, 322– 330.
Hwang, H., Liu, J.B., & Chiu, Y.H. (2001). Seismic fragility
analysis of highway bridges. Mid-America Earthquake
Center report: project MAEC RR-4. Urbana: MACE.
Jara, J.M., Galvn, A., Jara, M., & Olmos, B. (2013). Procedure
for determining the seismic vulnerability of an irregular
isolated bridge. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
9, 516– 528.
Jernigan, J.B., & Hwang, H. (2002). Development of bridge
fragility curves. In Proceedings of 7th US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Boston: EERI.
Kappos, A.J. (1997). Discussion of paper: Damage scenarios
simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones.
Earthquake Spectra, 13, 549– 551.
Kappos, A.J., & Panagopoulos, G. (2010). Fragility curves for
reinforced concrete buildings in Greece. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 6, 39 – 53.
Kappos, A.J., Panagopoulos, G., Panagiotopoulos, C., & Penelis,
G. (2006). A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment
of R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering, 4, 391– 413.
Kappos, A.J., Stylianidis, K.C., & Pitilakis, K. (1998).
Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid
method of vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazards, 17,
177– 192.
Karim, K.R., & Yamazaki, F. (2007). Effect of isolation on
fragility curves of highway bridges based on simplified
approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 7,
414– 426.
Karim, K.R., & Yamazaki, F. (2003). A simplified method of
constructing fragility curves for highway bridges. Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32,
1603– 1626.
Kashighandi, P., Brandenberg, S.J., Zhang, J., Huo, Y., & Zhao,
M. (2008). Fragility of old-vintage continuous California
bridges to liquefaction and lateral spreading. Proceedings of
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October
2008, Beijing, China, 8 pp..
Kibboua, A., Naili, M., Benouar, D., & Kehila, F. (2011).
Analytical fragility curves for typical Algerian reinforced
concrete bridge piers. Structural Engineering and Mech-
anics, 39, 411– 425.
Kim, S.H., & Feng, M.Q. (2003). Fragility analysis of bridges
under ground motion with spatial variation. International
Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 38, 705–721.
Kim, S.-H., & Shinozuka, M. (2004). Development of fragility
curves of bridges retrofitted by column jacketing. Probabil-
istic Engineering Mechanics, 19, 105– 112.
829
King, S.A., Kiremidjian, A.S., Basoz, N., Law, K., Vucetic, M.,
Doroudian, M., Olson, R.A., Eidinger, J.M., Goettel, K.A., &
Horner, G. (1997). Methodologies for evaluating the socio-
economic consequences of large earthquakes. Earthquake
Spectra, 13, 565– 584.
Koutsourelakis, P.S. (2010). Assessing structural vulnerability
against earthquakes using multi-dimensional fragility sur-
faces: A Bayesian framework. Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, 25, 49 – 60.
Kwon, O.S., & Elnashai, A.S. (2010). Fragility analysis of a
highway over-crossing bridge with consideration of soil –
structure interactions. Structure and Infrastructure Engin-
eering, 6, 159– 178.
Lau, D.T., Waller, C.L., Vishnukanthan, K., & Sivathayalan,
S. (2012). Fragility relationship for probabilistic perform-
ance based seismic risk assessment of bridge inventories.
In Proceedings of 3rd International Structural Specialty
Conference, CSCE-2012. Alberta, Canada: Edmonton, 10 pp.
Lee, W.K., & Billington, S.K. (2011). Performance-based
earthquake engineering assessment of a self-centering,
post-tensioned concrete bridge system. Earthquake Engin-
eering and Structural Dynamics, 40, 887– 902.
Lee, S.M., Kim, T.J., & Kang, S.L. (2007). Development of
fragility curves for bridges in Korea. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 11, 165– 174.
Li, J., Spencer, B.F., & Elnashai, A.S. (2012). Bayesian updating
of fragility functions using hybrid simulation. ASCE Journal
of Structural Engineering, 139, 1160– 1171.
Liao, W., & Loh, C.H. (2004). Preliminary study on the fragility
curves for highway bridges in Taiwan. Journal of the Chinese
Institute of Engineers, 27, 367– 375.
Lin Lin, S., Li, J., Elnashai, A.S., & Spencer, B.F. Jr. (2012).
NEES integrated seismic risk assessment framework
(NISRAF). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
42, 219– 228.
Luco, N., & Cornell, C.A. (1998). Effects of random
connection fractures on the demands and reliability for a
three-story pre-Northridge (SMRP) structure. In Proceed-
ings of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Oakland, California: Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
Luco, N., & Cornell, A.C. (2007). Structure-specific scalar
intensity measures for near source and ordinary earthquake
ground motions. Earthquake Spectra, 23, 357– 392.
Mackie, K., & Stojadinovic, B. (2001). Probabilistic seismic
demand model for California highway bridges. ASCE
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 6, 468– 480.
Mackie, K., & Stojadinovic, B. (2005). Fragility basis for
california highway overpass bridge seismic decision making,
(PEER Report 2005/02). Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Mackie, K.R., & Stojadinovic, B. (2007). Performance-based
seismic bridge design for damage and loss limits States.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36,
1953– 1971.
Mander, J.B. (1999). Fragility curve development for assessing
the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges. Technical
Report, MCEER Highway Project/FHWA.
Mander, J.B., & Basöz, N. (1999). Seismic fragility curves theory
for highway bridges. In Proceedings of the 5th US Conference
on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (pp. 31–40): ASCE.
Mohseni, M., & Norton, T.R. (2011). Seismic damage
assessment of curved bridges using fragility analysis,
Proceedings of the ICASP-11, Zurich, Switzerland, August,
1-4.
830 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam
Moschonas, I.F., & Kappos, A.J. (2011). Generalized fragility
curves for bearing-supported Skew bridges, for arbitrary
angle of incidence of the Seismic action. In M. Papadrakakis,
M. Fragiadakis, & V. Plevris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd
ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational
Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineer-
ing (COMPDYN, 2011). Corfu, Greece, 25 – 28 May 2011, 23
pp.
Moschonas, I.F., Kappos, A.J., Panetsos, P., Papadopoulos, V.,
Makarios, T., & Thanopoulos, P. (2009). Seismic fragility
curves for Greek bridges: Methodology and case studies.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7, 439– 468.
Ni, P., Petrini, L., & Paolucci, R. (2013). Direct displacement-
based assessment with nonlinear soil – structure interaction
for multi-span reinforced concrete bridges. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering. doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.
802813.
Nielson, B.G. (2005). Analytical fragility curves for highway
bridges in moderate seismic zones. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Nielson, B.G., & DesRoches, R. (2007a). Seismic fragility curves
for typical highway bridge classes in the Central and South-
eastern United States. Earthquake Spectra, 23, 615– 633.
Nielson, B.G., & DesRoches, R. (2007b). Seismic fragility
methodology for highway bridges using a component level
approach. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 36, 823– 839.
Nielson, B.G., & Pang, W. (2011). Effect of ground motion suite
size on uncertainty estimation in seismic bridge fragility
modeling. Proceedings of Structures Congress, 2011, 23 –34.
Padgett, J.E. (2007). Seismic vulnerability assessment of
retrofitted bridges using probabilistic methods, Ph.D.
Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2009). Retrofitted bridge
fragility analysis for typical classes of multispan bridges.
Earthquake Spectra, 25, 117– 141.
Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2008). Methodology for the
development of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted
bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
37, 157– 174.
Padgett, J.E., Ghosh, J., & Dueñas-Osorio, L. (2013). Effects of
liquefiable soil and bridge modelling parameters on the
seismic reliability of critical structural components. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering, 9, 59 –77.
Pan, Y., Agrawal, A.K., Ghosn, M., & Alampalli, S. (2010a).
Seismic fragility of multi-span simply supported steel
highway bridges in New York State. I: Bridge modeling,
parametric analysis, and retrofit design. ASCE Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 15, 448– 461.
Pan, Y., Agrawal, A.K., Ghosn, M., & Alampalli, S. (2010b).
Seismic fragility of multi-span simply supported steel
highway bridges in New York State. I: Fragility analysis,
fragility curves, and fragility surfaces. ASCE Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 15, 462– 472.
Park, Y.J., & Ang, A.H.S. (1985). Mechanistic seismic damage
model for reinforced concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering, 111, 722– 739.
Penelis, G.G., Sarigiannis, D., Stavrakakis, E., & Stylianidis, K.
C. (1989). A statistical evaluation of damage to buildings in
the Thessaloniki. Greece, earthquake of June, 20, 1978,
Proceedings of 9th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, August 1989, Tokyo- Kyoto, Maruzen, Japan,
VII, 187– 192.
Pottatheere, P., & Renault, P. (2008). Seismic vulnerability
assessment of skew bridges, Proceedings of 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 2008,
Beijing, China, 12 pp.
Prasad, G.G., & Banerjee, S. (2013). The Impact of Flood-
Induced Scour on Seismic Fragility Characteristics of
Bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17, 803– 828.
Ramanathan, K. (2012). Next generation seismic fragility curves
for California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic
design philosophy, Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Ramanathan, K., DesRoches, R., & Padgett, J.E. (2012).
A comparison of pre- and post-seismic design considerations
in moderate seismic zones through the fragility assessment
of multi-span bridge classes. Engineering Structures, 45,
559– 573.
Ramanathan, K., DesRoches, R., & Padgett, J.E. (2010a).
Analytical fragility curves for multispan continuous steel
girder bridges in moderate seismic zones. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2202, 173– 182.
Ramanathan, K., Wright, T., DesRoches, R., & Padgett, J.E.
(2010b). Effect of ground motion suites on the seismic
fragility of a three-span continuous steel girder bridge,
Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Rossetto, T., & Elnashai, A.S. (2003). Derivation of vulnerability
functions for European type RC structures based on
observational data. Engineering Structures, 25, 1241– 1263.
Samaan, M., Kennedy, J.B., & Sennah, K.M. (2007). Dynamic
analysis of curved continuous multiple-box girder bridges.
ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 12, 184– 193.
Seo, J., & Linzell, D.G. (2012). Horizontally curved steel bridge
seismic vulnerability assessment. Engineering Structures,
34, 21 – 32.
Shafieezadeh, A., Ramanathan, K., Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches,
R. (2012). Fractional order intensity measures for probabil-
istic seismic demand modeling applied to highway bridges.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41,
391– 409.
Shinozuka, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R.T., Abrams, D.P., Hwang,
H., & Rose, A. (1997). Advances in earthquake loss
estimation and application to Memphis, Tennessee. Earth-
quake Spectra, 13, 739– 758.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Kim, H.-K., & Kim, S.-H. (2000).
Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development.
ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126, 1287– 1296.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Kim, H., Uzawa, T., & Ueda, T.
(2001). Statistical analysis of fragility curves, (Report No.
MCEER-03-0002). MCEER, University at Buffalo. Buffalo,
NY: The State University of New York.
Shinozuka, M., Kim, S.H., Kushiyama, S., & Yi, J.H. (2002).
Fragility curves of concrete bridges retrofitted by column
jacketing. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration, 1, 195– 205.
Shome, N., & Cornell, A.C. (1999). Probabilistic seismic
demand analysis of nonlinear structures. reliability of
marine structures (Program Report No. RMS-35). Stanford
University, CA: Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering.
Simon, J., Bracci, J., & Gardoni, P. (2010). Seismic response and
fragility of deteriorated reinforced concrete bridges. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 136, 1273– 1281.
Singhal, A., & Kiremidjian, A.S. (1996). Bayesian updating of
fragilities with application to RC frames. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 124, 922– 929.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Stefanidou, S.P., & Kappos, A.J. (2013). Optimum selection
of retrofit measures for R/C Bridges using fragility curves.
In M. Papadrakakis, V. Papadopoulos, & V. Plevris (Eds.),
Proceedings of 3rd ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering (COMPDYN2011). Greece: Kos Island
12 – 14 June 2013, 18 pp.
Sullivan, I., & Nielson, B.G. (2010). Sensitivity analysis of
seismic fragility curves for skewed multi-span simply
supported steel girder bridges. Proceedings of 19th Analysis
& Computation Specialty Conference, Structures Congress
2010, 226– 237.
Sung, Y.C., Hsu, C.C., Hung, H.H., & Chang, Y.J. (2013).
Seismic risk assessment system of existing bridges in
Taiwan. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9,
903– 917.
Sung, Y.C., & Su, C.K. (2011). Time-dependent seismic fragility
curves on optimal retrofitting of neutralised reinforced
concrete bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
7, 797– 805.
Tanaka, S., Kameda, H., Nojima, N., & Ohnishi, S. (2000).
Evaluation of seismic fragility for highway transportation
systems. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 6 pp.
Tavares, D.H., Padgett, J.E., & Paultre, P. (2012). Fragility
curves of typical as-built highway bridges in eastern Canada.
Engineering Structures, 40, 107– 118.
Tehrani, P., & Mitchell, D. (2012). Effects of column and
superstructure stiffness on the seismic response of bridges in
the transverse direction. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 39, 1 – 13.
Torbol, M., & Shinozuka, M. (2012a). Effect of the angle of
seismic incidence on the fragility curves of bridges.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41,
2111– 2124.
Torbol, M., & Shinozuka, M. (2012b). The directionality effect in
the seismic risk assessment of highway networks. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering. doi:10.1080/15732479.
2012.716069.
Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, A.C. (2002). Incremental dynamic
analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
31, 491– 514.
Veneziano, D., Sussman, J.M., Gupta, U., & Kunnumkal, S.M.
(2002). Earthquake loss under limited transportation
capacity: assessment, sensitivity and remediation. In
Proceedings of 7th US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Boston, Mass: EERI.
Vosooghi, A., & Saiidi, M.S. (2012). Experimental fragility
curves for seismic response of reinforced concrete bridge
columns. ACI Structural Journal, 109, 825– 834.
831
Wang, Z., Song, W., & Li, T. (2012). Combined fragility surface
analysis of earthquake and scour hazards for bridge,
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 10 pp.
Werner, S.D., Taylor, C., & Moore, J. (1997). Loss estimation
due to seismic risks to highway systems. Earthquake Spectra,
13, 585– 604.
Whitman, R.V., Biggs, J.M., Brennan, J.E., Cornell, A.C., de
Neufville, R.L., & Vanmarcke, E.H. (1975). Seismic design
decision analysis. ASCE Journal of Structural Division, 101,
1067– 1084.
Yamazaki, F., Hamada, T., Motoyama, H., & Yamauchi, H.
(1999). Earthquake damage assessment of expressway
bridges in Japan. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering Monograph, 16, 361– 370.
Yamazaki, F., Motomura, H., & Hamada, T. (2000). Damage
assessment of expressway networks in japan based on
seismic monitoring, Proceedings of 12th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper
no: 0551, 8 pp.
Yi, J-H., Kim, S-H., & Kushiyama, S. (2007). PDF interpolation
technique for seismic fragility analysis of bridges. Engin-
eering Structures, 29, 1312 –1322.
Yu, O., Allen, D.L., & Drnevich, V.P. (1991). Seismic
vulnerability assessment of bridges on earthquake priority
routes in Western Kentucky. Proceedings of 3rd US National
Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Los
Angeles, CA.
Yun, S., Hamburger, R.O., Cornell, C.A., & Foutch, D.A. (2012).
Seismic performance evaluation for steel moment frames.
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 128, 534– 545.
Zakeri, B., Padgett, J., & Amiri, G. (2013). Fragility assessment
for seismically retrofitted skewed reinforced concrete box
girder bridges. ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000502.
Zhang, Y., Conte, J.P., Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., Bielak, J., &
Acero, G. (2008). Two-dimensional nonlinear earthquake
response analysis of a bridge-foundation-ground system.
Earthquake Spectra, 24, 343– 386.
Zhang, J., & Huo, Y. (2009). Evaluating effectiveness and
optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges
using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures,
31, 1648– 1660.
Zhong, J., Gardoni, P., Rosowsky, D., & Haukaas, T. (2008).
Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility
estimates for reinforced concrete bridges with two-column
bents. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 134,
495– 504.
Zhong, J., Gardoni, P, & Rosowsky, D. (2012). Seismic fragility
estimates for corroding reinforced concrete bridges. Struc-
ture and Infrastructure Engineering, 8, 55 – 69.
832 A.H.M. Muntasir Billah and M. Shahria Alam

Appendix-A .
The following journals were searched for relevant articles

Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Maintenance, Manage-
ment, Life-Cycle Design and Performance
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Spectra
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
Journal of Earthquake Engineering
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
Engineering Structures
Structural Safety
Advances in Civil Engineering
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Reliability Engineering and System Safety
Transportation Research Record
Structural Engineering and Mechanics
Natural Hazards
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
Journal of Performance of Constructed. Facility
Key Engineering Materials