Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Analytical fragility curves for non-skewed highway bridges in Chile

A. Martínez a, M.A. Hube b,⇑, K.M. Rollins c
a
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
b
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and National Research Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, Vicuña Mackenna 4860,
Santiago, Chile
c
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Brigham Young University, 368 CB, Provo, UT 84604, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Recent earthquakes in Chile and worldwide have caused significant economic losses due to the damage
Received 23 October 2015 on the road bridge network. To conduct seismic risk assessment studies and to improve resilience of
Revised 21 March 2017 bridges, seismic vulnerability studies are required. The main objective of this study is to construct fragi-
Accepted 21 March 2017
lity curves of typical non-skewed highway bridges in Chile. The fragility curves are obtained from an
incremental dynamic analysis of a two-dimensional model of the bent cap of a two-span simply sup-
ported underpass. As most bridges are constructed with seismic tie-down bars, their constitutive behav-
Keywords:
ior was obtained experimentally. A total of five seismic bar specimens were tested to characterize their
Bridge
Seismic behavior
cyclic behavior in bridges with and without transverse diaphragms. The incremental dynamic analysis
Fragility was performed with the two horizontal components of seven seismic records obtained from the Mw
Experimental analysis 8.8, 2010 Chile earthquake. Additionally, a parametric study is conducted to assess the seismic behavior
Incremental dynamic analysis of bridges with different configurations of seismic bars, with lateral stoppers, and with varying length of
Damage the transverse seat width. Results from this study reveal that seismic bars have a limited contribution to
Bearings the seismic performance of the studied bridge, especially when lateral stoppers are incorporated.
Additionally, the transverse seat width is found to be critical to reduce the collapse probability of the
superstructure. The provided fragility curves may be used for seismic risk assessment and to evaluate
possible improvements in seismic bridge design codes.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The road infrastructure has been affected by recent earthquakes
in Chile (2010 and 2015), Japan (2011) and New Zealand (2011). In
Chile, approximately 300 bridges were damaged by the moment
magnitude Mw = 8.8 Maule earthquake in 2010, which include 20
bridges with collapsed spans [1]. In the 2015 Chile earthquake,
about 7 bridges suffered minor damaged. Damaged bridges in
2010 earthquake represented less than 3% of the total inventory
of the country [1], but the connectivity was affected and most of
these bridges required repairs. Several authors [1–4] have
described and analyzed the damage in bridges due to this earth-
quake and in general, they all agree in their diagnoses.
The most common failure in typical highway bridges during
2010 Chile earthquake was the connection damage between the
substructure and the superstructure (Fig. 1a), caused by excessive
displacement of the superstructure [1–4]. This type of failure is
the most likely reason for the low incidence of column damage
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mhube@ing.puc.cl (M.A. Hube).
[1]. In skew bridges, unseating of spans was generated due to rota-
tion of the superstructure, possibly caused by the impact between
the abutment and the superstructure. However, tests conducted by
Rollins and Jessee [5] suggest that passive resistance at the
abutment-superstructure interface may be much less for skewed
bridges than for non-skewed bridges. Damage in Chilean bridges
was concentrated in lateral stoppers and prestressed concrete gird-
ers (Fig. 1b and c), and was attributed mainly to changes in bridge
configurations during the last decades. Before the 90s, bridges
were designed with transverse diaphragms, reinforced concrete
lateral stoppers, and seismic tie-downs bars. These seismic bars
are vertical steel rods that connect the slab of the bridge with
the bearing table of the substructure, as can be observed in Las
Mercedes underpass in Fig. 1c. With the arrival of concession dur-
ing the 90s, the design of these three elements was modified or
they were even eliminated in some bridges. The concessions are
private companies that design, built, and maintain highway sys-
tems and are supervised by the Ministry of Public Works.
Fragility curves are an appropriate tool to evaluate the seismic
vulnerability of structures and to estimate the probability of
exceeding a certain damage level for a specific seismic ground

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.041
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
(a) Typical highway bridge (b) Independecia overpass
Fig. 1. Typical highway bridges in Chile and observed damage after the 2010 Maule earthquake.
shaking intensity. Nielson and DesRoches [6] and Pan et al. [7]
developed fragility curves for bridges in the US, and Tavares et al.
[8] and Siqueira et al. [9] for bridges in Canada. Fragility curves
of structures can be estimated from field observations of damage
after an earthquake or by analytical approaches. In the provided
references, the fragility curves were estimated by analytical meth-
ods using nonlinear models of bridges. In this paper, fragility
curves for Chilean bridges are also estimated by an analytical
approach, specifically by conducting an incremental dynamic
analysis.
The main objective of this study is to obtain fragility curves for
typical non-skewed reinforced concrete bridges in Chile (Fig. 1a).
The second objective is to quantify the effect of seismic bars, lateral
stoppers, and length of the transverse seat width in the seismic
behavior of such bridges. To quantify the contribution of seismic
bars to the lateral response of bridges, an experimental program
was conducted as part of this research. From the results of these
tests, a constitutive model is proposed for the lateral response of
seismic bars in bridges with and without transverse diaphragms.
For the lateral stoppers, a nonlinear constitutive relationship based
on a previous experimental program [10] is used.
Previous studies regarding the behavior of Chilean bridges dur-
ing 2010 Maule earthquake called into question the contribution of
seismic bars. Although these bars are designed for vertical forces to
prevent the uplift of the deck [11], to some extent they provide lat-
eral stiffness to the bridge deck when the lateral displacement of
the superstructure is large, as can be observed in Fig. 1c. Yen
et al. [4] doubt that the seismic bars provided vertical restraint
during 2010 Maule earthquake because there was no evidence of
vertical displacements in beams. Yashinsky et al. [12] postulated
that the use of seismic bars had little impact on the seismic perfor-
mance of bridges. However, both hypotheses contradict the study
of Elnashai et al. [2], which concluded that seismic bars con-
tributed to decrease the transverse displacement of the deck. In
order to provide objective information to this discussion, the pro-
posed experimental program of seismic bars seeks to quantify their
contribution in the seismic behavior of bridges.
2. Experimental program of seismic bars
The definition of the seismic bars specimens, test setup, instru-
mentation, and load application protocol are described in this sec-
tion. The tests are aimed at determining the contribution of the
seismic bars in restraining the transverse displacement of the
superstructure of bridges. Two specimens were tested to simulate
the behavior of seismic bars in bridges with diaphragms (WD), and
three specimens to simulate the behavior of bridges without dia-
phragms (WOD). The seismic bar specimens were subjected to cyc-
lic lateral displacement and their characteristics are summarized in
Table 1. In this table hl corresponds to the clear distance of seismic
bars from the bottom of the diaphragm or the slab, to the top of the
531
(c) Las Mercedes underpass
Table 1
Test matrix.
Specimen Loading Direction hl (cm)
WD1, WD2 In both directions 10
WOD1, WOD2 In both directions 72
WOD3 Only in one direction 72
bearing table, as shown in Fig. 2. The contribution of seismic bars
in these two types of bridges are expected to be different, as the
clear distance of seismic bars in bridges WD are smaller than that
in bridges WOD.
2.1. Definition and design of specimens
To define the characteristics of the seismic bar specimens, a sta-
tistical analysis of the geometric characteristics of 13 highway
bridges located in central Chile was conducted [13]. From this anal-
ysis, it was found that two seismic bars are installed between pre-
stressed concrete girders at each side of the spans, and that the
average diameter of these bars is 22 mm. The specified steel for
these bars is A440-280H (fy = 280 MPa), and the average clear dis-
tance (hl in Fig. 2) is 200 mm and 1430 mm in bridges WD and
WOD, respectively. The proposed specimens consist of a region of
the bridge with two seismic bars between a pair of consecutive
girders. Each specimen consists of three main elements: a rein-
forced concrete block at the bottom representing the bent cap or
bearing table of the substructure; a reinforced concrete block on
top representing the reinforced concrete diaphragm or slab,
depending on the case; and two seismic bars connecting the bot-
tom and top reinforced concrete blocks. Fig. 2 shows the tested
regions of the bridges and the constructed specimens for speci-
mens WD and WOD. In each specimen, two rollers were used to
simulate the vertical displacement restraint provided by the elas-
tomeric bearings.
For conducting the seismic bar tests, a 1:2 scale was selected
due to laboratory limitations. Consequently, 16 mm was selected
for the diameter of the seismic bars, and a clear distance (hl in
Fig. 2) of 100 mm was considered for specimens WD, and
720 mm for specimens WOD. The bent caps of the specimens were
2200 mm long, 400 mm high and 300 mm wide; the diaphragms
were 1100 mm long, 740 mm high and 150 mm wide; and the
slabs were 1800 mm long, 150 mm high and 300 mm wide. The
seismic bars were anchored in the bent cap (bottom reinforced
concrete block) with 90-degree hooks and the development length
was enough to allow yielding of the bars [14]. At the top edge of
the seismic bars a 90 mm long thread was manufactured. This
thread was used to bolt the seismic bars to the top diaphragm or
slab using a washer and two nuts, following construction practice.
The diaphragms and slab were constructed with two cylindrical
vertical perforations to allow the seismic bars to pass through
532 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
(a) Bridge WD
(b) Bridge WOD
Fig. 2. Definition of seismic bars specimens.
them. To simulate construction practice and to realize the perfora-
tions, PVC tubes of 60 mm outside diameter and 3 mm thickness
were embedded in the slab and diaphragm. The bent caps of the
specimens were reinforced with four 12 mm diameter longitudinal
bars at the top and bottom, with two intermediate 8 mm longitu-
dinal bars, and with 8 mm stirrups spaced at 80 mm. The dia-
phragms were reinforced with 8 mm diameter bars spaced at
200 mm in two layers. Finally, the slabs were reinforced with four
12 mm longitudinal bars at the top and bottom, and with 8 mm
stirrups spaced at 80 mm.
2.2. Materials
For the seismic bars A440-280H steel (fy = 280 MPa) was speci-
fied, and for the reinforcing bars of reinforced concrete elements,
A630-420H steel (fy = 420 MPa). The concrete was specified with
a characteristic strength of 20 MPa and with a maximum aggregate
size of 20 mm. The properties of steel and concrete were measured
using standard laboratory tests. The mechanical properties of seis-
mic bars are summarized in Table 2 and were obtained from the
tensile tests of three bars. The concrete strength was obtained from
compressive tests of three standard cylindrical concrete samples
Table 2
Average mechanical properties of seismic bars (16 mm diameter).
Parameter Average
Yield strength [MPa] 338.3
Ultimate strength [MPa] 506.9
Yield strain [mm/mm] 0.0016
Hardening strain [mm/mm] 0.0153
Ultimate strain [mm/mm] 0.1233
Modulus of elasticity [GPa] 211.9
tested at an age of 407 days, four days before the first seismic
0
bar test. The average concrete strength was f c ¼ 28:1 MPa.
2.3. Test setup and instrumentation
The test setups of the specimens WD and WOD are shown in
Fig. 3. The bent cap of the specimens was placed on top of concrete
blocks in order to adjust the clear distance hl to 100 mm and
720 mm for specimens WD and WOD, respectively. The lateral
force was applied from the north side by a hydraulic actuator with
a capacity of 610 kN in compression and 340 kN in tension. The
actuator was connected to the diaphragm or slab of the specimens
with four steel rods that were bolted against steel plates installed
on each side of the specimens. The bent cap was anchored to the
laboratory strong floor with two transverse steel beams that were
bolted to the strong floor. The bent cap was also restrained in the
longitudinal direction with steel supports to prevent it from slid-
ing. For the specimen WD, the vertical displacement of the dia-
phragm was restricted with rollers located at the bottom and top
of the diaphragm. The bottom rollers simulate the vertical restraint
provided by the elastomeric bearings, and the top rollers prevent
the uplift of the diaphragm. During an earthquake, the self-
weight of the superstructure is supposed to prevent it from lifting
(for vertical acceleration smaller than 1.0 g as in the case of the
Maule earthquake). The vertical forces developed at the top rollers
were transmitted to the bent cap using a steel reaction beam and
four steel rods. For the specimens WOD, the reinforced concrete
slab was placed on top of two parallel steel beams to provide flex-
ural stiffness and strength to the slab of the specimen, but allowed
the free displacement of the seismic bars between them. These
steel beams may prevent flexural or punching failure of the slab,
however, to the authors’ knowledge, no damage has been observed
 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
(a) Specimens WD
(b) Specimens WOD
Fig. 3. Test setups of seismic bar specimens.
in slabs due to the action of seismic bars in recent earthquakes.
More information of the test setup is available elsewhere [13,15].
The prestress force of the seismic bars is not indicated in the
Chilean seismic design code [11] nor in the construction drawings
of bridges. Before the execution of the tests, the seismic bars were
prestressed with a strain of about 600 mm/m. This value is approx-
imately one third of the yield strain of the bars and was reached by
one worker using human force and a regular wrench. A similar pre-
stress in seismic bars is expected to be applied in real bridges by
constructors in the field.
Each specimen was instrumented with six displacement trans-
ducers, two strain gauges, and the load of the actuator was
recorded with a load cell. One transducer was installed to measure
the longitudinal displacement of the diaphragm or slab; two to
measure the uplift of the diaphragm or slab; two to measure the
transverse displacement of the diaphragm or slab; and one to mea-
sure the eventual longitudinal sliding of the bent cap. The strain
gauges were attached in the middle of the clear distance of the
seismic bars to measure their deformations.
533
2.4. Load application and control
The horizontal load was applied by controlling the displace-
ment of the actuator. The specimens were subjected to horizontal
displacement cycles with increasing amplitude and two cycles at
each amplitude. The amplitude of the cycles for specimens WD
were ±0.01, ±0.025, ±0.05, ±0.075, ±0.1, ±0.15, ±0.2, ±0.5, ±1.0 and
±1.5 hl, and for specimens WOD1 and WOD2 were ±0.01, ±0.025,
±0.05, ±0.075, ±0.1, ±0.15, ±0.2 and ±0.264 hl. In order to fail the
specimen WOD3, it was subjected to two incremental cycles with
only positive displacement. The amplitudes of these two cycles
were +0.382 and +0.444 hl.
3. Test results
3.1. Observed behavior
Before applying the horizontal displacement, the seismic bars
were prestressed, and the average tensile strains of such bars in
534 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542

specimens WD and WOD were 0.64‰ and 0.59‰, respectively. In
all specimens, the initial prestress was totally or partially lost after
a few cycles, before reaching the yield point of the bars. The pre-
stress was probably lost due to local yielding of the threads of
the seismic bars, or due to local yielding induced by bending of
the seismic bars at the contact with the bent cap.
For the specimens WD the seismic bars did not touch the PVC
tubes embedded in the diaphragm during the first load cycles. Con-
tact was first observed at the cycle with displacement amplitude of
0.2 hl (20 mm). This instant is shown in Fig. 4a for specimen WD2.
For cycles with displacement amplitude larger than 0.5 hl (50 mm),
the nuts of the seismic bars lifted when the specimens were pass-
ing through zero displacement, as can be observed for specimen
WD2 in Fig. 4b. This lifting was caused by the plastic deformation
of the seismic bars due to yielding at peak displacement ampli-
tudes. Both specimens WD failed at the beginning of the first cycle
with displacement amplitude of 1.5 hl (150 mm), and were not able
to reach such displacement amplitude. The failure of both speci-
mens WD was caused by the fracture of the seismic bars at the con-
tact with the bent cap. The fracture may have occurred due to
stress concentration and fatigue experienced by the seismic bars.
Additionally, the forces generated by the contact between the seis-
mic bars and the PVC tubes in the diaphragm caused damage to the
PVC and concrete at the bottom of the diaphragm. Crushing of con-
crete was observed and the diameter of the perforations through
which the seismic bars pass increased its size, as observed in Fig. 4c
for specimen WD2.
For the specimens WOD the slabs were mounted on top of steel
beams, and it was not possible to observe the exact moment at
which the seismic bars touched the PVC tubes embedded in the
slabs. The nuts of the bars lifted when the specimens were passing
through zero displacement for the cycles with displacement ampli-

(a) Contact between the seismic bars (b) Lifting of the nuts – WD2 (c) Diaphragm damage – WD2
and the diaphragm – WD2
Fig. 4. Observed behavior of seismic bar specimens.

(a) WD1 (b) WD2

(c) WOD1 (d) WOD2 (e) WOD3

Fig. 5. Experimental load-displacement relationship.
 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542 535

tude larger than 0.2 hl (144 mm) and 0.382 hl (275 mm) for speci-
mens WOD1-WOD2 and WOD3, respectively. For the specimens
WOD1 and WOD2, failure of the seismic bars was not achieved
with the applied displacement cycles. As the displacement ampli-
tude was restricted by the actuator stroke, specimen WOD3 was
loaded only with positive displacement to achieve larger displace-
ments. The failure of specimen WOD3 occurred during the cycle
with displacement amplitude of 0.444 hl (320 mm), before reach-
ing such displacement. For this specimen, the north seismic bar
fractured 15 s before the south bar, and the fracture of the bars
occurred at the thread on top of the slab. The damage observed
on the concrete of the slab of specimens WOD was less than that
on the diaphragms of specimens WD (Fig. 4c). The larger clear dis-
tance of seismic bars in specimens WOD required a larger horizon-
tal displacement than specimen WD to generate equivalent contact
forces between the seismic bars and the slab.
3.2. Load-displacement relationships
The load-displacement relationships of the five specimens are
shown in Fig. 5 and relevant results are summarized in Table 3.
The shown lateral forces correspond to the actuator measured
forces minus friction forces generated in the rollers due to the test
setup. These friction forces were measured in cycles after the frac-
ture of the seismic bars. However, additional friction forces were
identified in specimens WD1 and WD2, as nonzero forces can be
observed in Fig. 5a and b in loading cycles with displacement
amplitude larger than 0.2 hl. An asymmetry is observed in the
load-displacement relationship of specimen WD1 between the
positive and negative load cycles (Fig. 5a). This asymmetry was
probably generated because the seismic bars in WD1 were not per-
fectly centered with respect to the PVC tubes embedded in the
diaphragm.
The fracture of the seismic bars of both specimens WD occurred
during the first cycle with displacement amplitude of 1.5 hl
(150 mm). For specimen WD1 the first seismic bar to fail was the
north bar at a displacement of 0.28 hl (28.3 mm), as shown with
a cross in Fig. 5a. For specimen WD2 the first seismic bar to fail
was the south bar at a displacement of 0.98 hl (98.4 mm). The frac-
ture of the seismic bars of specimen WOD3 occurred during the
first cycle of 0.44 hl (320 mm), and the first seismic bar to fail
was the north bar at 0.39 hl (279.7 mm).
The yield strength (F y ) and yield displacement (dy ), were deter-
mined when yielding was first detected in the seismic bars from
the strain gauges readings. The maximum strength (F max ) and the
corresponding displacement (dmax ) were defined when the maxi-
mum load (positive or negative) was recorded. The ultimate
strength (F u ) and ultimate displacement (du ) were defined when
fracture of one seismic bar was identified. The strength reduction
ratio in successive cycles of equal amplitude (F 2 =F 1 in Table 3)
was obtained as the quotient between the strength of the second
cycle (F 2 ) and the first cycle (F 1 ). This ratio was obtained consider-
ing the average ratio of the last two positive and negative cycles in
specimens WD (±0.5 and ±1.0 hl), and the last three cycles in spec-
imens WOD1 and WOD2 (±0.15, ±0.2 and ±0.26 hl). For specimen
WOD3, the first cycle with amplitude of 0.382 hl was considered
to compute the strength reduction ratio. The unloading tangent
stiffness (K d ), was calculated as the average unloading stiffness of
the same cycles described previously.
4. Load-displacement relationship for seismic bars
4.1. Analytical estimation
An analytical model was constructed to reproduce the experi-
mental results of the seismic bars. Fig. 6a shows a diaphragm or
slab subjected to a lateral displacement d. In this figure, F is the
applied lateral force, hl is the clear distance of the seismic bars,
hnl is the height of the diaphragm or slab, F sb is the sum of the axial
forces in both seismic bars, and d is the elongation of them.
By geometry, the elongation (d) and strain (eA ) of the seismic
bars can be obtained from
 
1
d ¼ hl 1 ð1Þ
cosðhÞ
d
eA ¼ ð2Þ
hl þ hnl
The initial prestress of the seismic bars was not considered in
Eq. (2) because this prestress was lost after a few cycles in the
experimental tests. The analytical strain given by Eq. (2) was found
to be a good estimate of the strains only for the first two cycles. For
cycles of larger amplitude, the analytical strain of the seismic bars
was found to overestimate the experimental strain. For the five
specimens, on average the analytical strain overestimates the
experimental strain by 34% when the maximum displacement
(dmax) is considered. This difference occurs owing to several rea-
sons. First, the seismic bars are not only subjected to axial defor-
mation, as the analytical model suggests. Seismic bars are also
subjected to bending deformation at the top of the bent cap and
at the bottom of the diaphragm or slab. Second, the analytical
model does not take into account the gap between the PVC tubes
and seismic bars, which reduces the elongation of the seismic bars.
Third, the analytical model considers perfect adhesion between the
concrete of the bent cap and the seismic bars. Finally, the localized
concrete crushing may also contribute to the analytical error.
Applying force equilibrium in the free body diagram of Fig. 6a,
the relationship between the lateral force F, and the tensile stress
f sb of the seismic bars can be written as
f sb
F ¼ sinðhÞ f Asb ¼ cf y Asb ð3Þ
fy y
where Asb corresponds to the total area of seismic bars (two bars in
this case) and c results in a dimensionless ratio. For a given lateral
displacement, the stress f sb can be obtained assuming an elastic-
perfectly plastic (EPP) behavior of steel.
The comparison between the experimental and analytical max-
imum strength is summarized in Table 4. For the analytical
strength, a yield stress of 338.3 MPa (Table 2) is considered for

Table 3
Summary of test results.

Specimen dy (mm) dmax (mm) du (mm) dy =hl (-) dmax =hl (-) du =hl (-) F y (kN) F max (kN) F u (kN) F 2 =F 1 (-) K d (kN/m)

WD1 34.3 95.9 28.3 0.34 0.96 0.96 30.5 86.5 2.1 0.70 8470
WD2 60.6 98.7 98.4 0.61 0.99 0.99 41.0 83.0 20.8 0.64 8360
WOD1 3.2 189.2 – 0.00 0.26 – 2.2 32.5 – 0.75 1400
WOD2 163.3 189.7 – 0.23 0.26 – 27.5 32.5 – 0.76 1350
WOD3 150.7 272.4 279.7 0.21 0.38 0.39 33.7 66.4 58.1 0.87 2480
536 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
(a) Analytical model of the test
Fig. 6. Analytical model of the seismic bars and proposed load-displacement relationship.
the seismic bars, and the angle h of Eq. (3) is obtained with the
maximum experimental displacement (dmax in Table 3). The ana-
lytical strength at maximum displacement (F amax ) is a good estimate
of the experimental strength (F exp
max ) for all specimens, except for
specimen WOD3. On average, the analytical strength overestimates
the experimental strength by 9% for the specimens WD1, WD2,
WOD1, and WOD2. For specimen WOD3, the experimental
strength is underestimated by 28%. The difference in specimen
WOD3 is attributed to the strain hardening of the steel, which is
not considered in the analytical model. In this specimen, the max-
imum strength was recorded in the first cycle under monotonic
behavior, where strain hardening is expected to be significant.
4.2. Load-displacement relationship
The load-displacement relationship proposed for seismic bars
(Fig. 6b) is based on the previous analytical model and consists
on a bilinear relationship. This relationship is defined with two
points and an unloading stiffness. These two points are obtained
from the cross section area, the yield stress, and the clear distance
of the seismic bars. The unloading stiffness (K d ) is estimated from
the experimental results as a factor of the second loading stiffness
(K 2 ). The first point (d1 , F 1 ) corresponds to an experimental point,
in which the specimens evidenced a change in the slope of the
load-displacement relationship. At this point, the seismic bar
changes from a predominantly flexural behavior to a tensile behav-
ior. The second point (d2 , F 2 ) corresponds to an approximation of
the maximum displacement (dmax ) and force (F max ) achieved in
the specimens tests. The proposed load-displacement relationship
for seismic bars is defined from equations in Table 5. The c factor,
considered to estimate the force, incorporates the stress ratio
(f sb =f y ) and the value of sinðhÞ of Eq. (3) for each case. Additionally,
for the WOD case, as the strength estimation is inadequate at dis-
placement d1 , the c factor includes a reduction factor of 0.7 for the
estimation of F 1 . A comparison of the proposed model and the
experimental results can be found elsewhere [13].
Table 4
Comparison between analytical and experimental strength of the seismic bar
specimens at displacements of maximum lateral force.
Specimen F exp
max (kN) F amax (kN) F amax =F exp
max
WD1 86.5 94.2 1.09
WD2 83.0 95.6 1.15
WOD1 32.5 34.6 1.06
WOD2 32.5 34.7 1.07
WOD3 66.4 48.1 0.72
(b) Load-displacement relationship
5. Fragility curves of bridges
5.1. Numerical model of bridges
To predict the seismic behavior of bridges in the transverse
direction, and construct fragility curves, a two-dimensional (2D)
model of the central bent of an underpass was constructed with
OpenSees [16]. This model is not able to predict the rotation of
the superstructure that may occur even in non-skewed bridges.
Las Mercedes Bridge was selected as a representative Chilean high-
way bridge. This bridge is located in the VI Region of Libertador
Bernardo O’Higgins, at kilometer 76 of Route 5 (34°040 1900 S,
70°450 4200 W). The bridge is a two-span structure with a continuous
reinforced concrete slab and the length of each span is 27 m. The
angle of skew is only 11° and the superstructure is comprised of
three precast prestressed concrete girders, which are supported
by elastomeric bearings in the two-column bent at the center,
and in the seat-type abutments at both ends. Additionally, the
bridge was structured with four seismic bars at each end of the
spans. Las Mercedes Bridge did not have diaphragms and the trans-
verse displacement of the deck was not limited by lateral stoppers.
Instead, the bridge was provided with concrete lids. A concrete lid
is a vertical element located at the edges of the abutment or bent
cap and it is installed for aesthetical reasons, therefore they pro-
vide negligible lateral strength [17]. The damage observed on Las
Mercedes Bridge after the 2010 earthquake was caused by the lat-
eral displacement of the superstructure which resulted in sliding of
the elastomeric bearings and the failure of concrete lids in the
abutments. However, the lateral displacement increased in the
abutments due to the in-plan rotation of the superstructure. As a
result of excessive rotation of the deck, a residual displacement
of 1.4 m [18] at the west abutment was measured.
The analytical model of the bent of the selected bridge is shown
in Fig. 7. The two nodes at the base were fixed at the foundation
level and three degrees of freedom were considered at the nodes
of the bent cap. For the nodes located at the slab level and at the
top of the elastomeric bearings, only the horizontal degrees of free-
dom were considered. As the bent supports the superstructure of
the two spans, the elements of Fig. 7 that represents the pre-
stressed girders, the seismic bars, and the elastomeric bearings,
are two identical elements arranged in parallel. These three ele-
ments were modeled with two-node link elements acting in the
horizontal direction. The bent and the rigid connectors were mod-
eled with beam-column elements. The rigid connectors were used
to connect the seismic bars with the bent cap, and to simulate the
deck. These rigid elements were modeled with a cross section area
of 1.0 m2, with the modulus of elasticity of concrete, and with a
 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
Table 5
Equations of the load-displacement model for seismic bars.
Seismic bar configuration Displacement
WD d1 ¼ 0:1hl
d2 ¼ hl
WOD d1 ¼ 0:1hl
d2 ¼ 0:35hl

f y corresponds to the real yield stress, 1.2 f ynominal is recommended.
Fig. 7. Analytical 2D model of the bridge bent.
moment of inertia equal to five times the moment of inertia of the
bent cap. The seismic mass of the model considered half of the total
mass of the superstructure of the bridge, and the total mass of the
bent. The considered seismic mass in the model was 282.2 ton.
The diameter of the seismic bars of Las Mercedes Bridge is
22 mm, the steel A440-280H, and the clear distance of the seismic
bars is 1410 mm. Using the model defined in Table 5 for a bridge
WOD, the displacements d1 and d2 are 141 mm and 494 mm,
respectively. The forces F 1 and F 2 are 8.9 kN and 47.3 kN, respec-
tively, and the unloading stiffness is 1,628 kN/m. The elastomeric
bearings are modeled with an elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive
relationship as proposed by Rubilar [19] for Chilean bridges. A
coefficient of friction of 0.33 was used for the bearings, which
depends on the compressive stress of the bearings. The sliding
force of each bearing was 123 kN, and the stiffness of each bearing
was 7,800 kN/m, which was calculated using a rubber height of the
bearing of 25 mm. Similar constitutive relationships for sliding
elastomeric bearings have been used by other researchers [20,21].
The prestressed girders, the slab and the columns of Las Mer-
cedes Bridge were not damaged during the 2010 earthquake, so
these elements were modeled elastically. The lateral stiffness pro-
vided by each girder was obtained from a three-dimensional (3D)
finite elements model of the girder constructed in SAP2000 [22].
The web and the flanges of the girder were modeled with shell ele-
ments, and the top flange of the girder was fixed to consider the
restraint provided by the slab. The lateral stiffness of the girder
(16,200 kN/m) was obtained by applying a transverse concentrated
force in the bottom flange at the location of the bearings, and this
stiffness was assigned to the link elements of the girders in Fig. 7.
The geometrical properties of the bent were obtained from the
structural drawings. The diameter of the columns is 1,000 mm,
the height between the foundation level and the center of the bent
537
Force Unloading stiffness c factor
 
Fi ¼ c f y Asb K d ¼ 20K 2 0:04 for F 1
c¼
0:71 for F 2
 
Fi ¼ c f y Asb K d ¼ 15K 2 0:07 for F 1
c¼
0:37 for F 2
cap is 7,569 mm, and the center to center distance of the columns
is 5,000 mm. The width of the bent cap is 1,600 mm and its height
is 1,140 mm. The modulus of elasticity of the bent components was
21,000 MPA, which was obtained from ACI 318 [14] recommenda-
tions, considering a characteristic concrete strength of 20 MPa. In
the parametric study described in the next section, the effect of
including lateral stoppers at both sides of each girder is assessed.
The constitutive model for these stoppers was proposed by Rubilar
[19] and is shown in Fig. 7. The strength of the stoppers and the gap
between the stoppers and the girders are estimated from the Chi-
lean seismic code [11]. For this study, a nominal strength of 126 kN
is considered for each stopper and a gap of 84 mm. This gap is
equivalent to the bearing height (34 mm) plus 50 mm. The dis-
placement at peak strength is 108 mm and the displacement
where the strength is totally lost is 174 mm.
First, a modal analysis was conducted to obtain the vibration
periods of the structure. The three periods are T1 = 0.67 s,
T2 = 0.16 s, and T3 = 0.12 s. For the nonlinear response analyses,
Rayleigh damping was considered with 2% damping for the first
and third mode.
5.2. Seismic records
The incremental dynamic analyses to construct the fragility
curves were conducted using the two horizontal components of
seven stations that recorded the 2010 Chile earthquake. The verti-
cal ground motion component was not considered in this study
because previous researchers [23] have found that the vertical
component has no considerable effect in the relative displacement
of bridges with sliding isolators. The considered stations are Curicó,
Hualañé, Llolleo, Maipú, Peñalolén, Santiago Centro, and Viña del
Mar Centro. These stations were selected to include seismic
538 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
records with different soil types. The shear-wave velocity of the
sites (VS30 ) of the chosen stations varies between 289 m/s and
541 m/s. To perform the incremental dynamic analysis, the
pseudo-acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure
(T1 = 0.67 s), considering 5% damping, was chosen as the intensity
measure of the ground shaking. For the fundamental period of the
structure, the average pseudo-acceleration (Sm a ) of the unscaled
fourteen seismic records is 0.72 g. Fig. 8 shows the elastic response
spectrum of the fourteen seismic records, where the envelope of
the spectrum are shown with black lines. A large variation of the
spectral ordinate is observed at the fundamental period of the
structure, where the minimum pseudo-acceleration (Smin
a ) is
0.31 g and the maximum pseudo-acceleration (Smax ) is 1.22 g.
a
Fig. 8. Elastic pseudo-acceleration spectrum of the fourteen seismic records
considering 5% damping.
(a) Relative displacement of elastomeric bearing
(c) Load-displacement relationship of seismic bar
Fig. 9. Nonlinear response of the structural model for the Peñalolen EW ground motion scaled to Sa(T1) = 1.0 g.
5.3. Nonlinear response
Fig. 9 shows the results of the nonlinear response history anal-
ysis for the Peñalolén EW ground motion scaled to Sa ðT1 Þ ¼ 1:0 g.
The relative displacement of an elastomeric bearing is presented
in Fig. 9a, where sliding of the bearing is predicted and the maxi-
mum relative displacement is 359 mm at 96 s. The residual dis-
placement predicted for this bearing at the end of the ground
motion is 328 mm. Fig. 9b shows the history of the base shear,
where a maximum base shear of 1,453 kN (51.5% of the seismic
weight) is achieved at 71 s. Finally, the load-displacement relation-
ship of a seismic bar is presented in Fig. 9c, where the proposed
constitutive model with bilinear loading stiffness can be observed.
The sliding of the elastomeric bearings in the analyzed bridge lim-
its the transferred forces between the superstructure and the sub-
structure. In fact, sliding elastomeric bearings can be considered as
a quasi-isolation system [20,21].
5.4. Fragility curves
Fragility curves of the considered bridge in the transverse direc-
tion are obtained from an incremental dynamic analysis. Each
ground motion was scaled from Sa(T1) = 0.0 to 5.0 g, with an incre-
ment of 0.1 g. Fig. 10 shows the results of the incremental dynamic
analysis for the 14 ground motions, where large dispersion is
observed for the maximum relative displacement of the elas-
tomeric bearings (Fig. 10a), and the residual displacement of the
elastomeric bearings (Fig. 10b). Additionally, Fig. 10 shows the
mean response, and the mean plus and minus one standard devia-
(b) Base shear
 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542 539

(a) Maximum relative displacement of elastomeric (b) Residual displacement of elastomeric bearings
bearings

(c) Maximum base shear

Fig. 10. Results of the incremental dynamic analysis of the considered bridge.

tion. For constructing the fragility curves, three damage levels are Smin ¼ 0:31 g and Smax ¼ 1:22 g, the probability that the elas-
a a
defined. Level I is considered when sliding of the elastomeric bear- tomeric bearings slide (damage level I) is 100%. For the same range
ing is predicted. Sliding in the bearings occurs when the maximum of pseudo-acceleration, the probability of exceeding damage level
relative displacement of the elastomeric bearing is larger than II ranges between 6% and 59%. According to a previous statistical
15.8 mm (i.e. sliding strength of 123 kN). Level II corresponds to assessment [17], of 41 underpasses without lateral stoppers that
a residual displacement of the elastomeric bearings larger than where located in a zone of Route 5, 66% were damage and required
50 mm. This value was used by the Ministry of Public Works as a to be repaired, which is larger than the probability of damage level
rule of thumb criterion to repair bridges after the 2010 Maule II predicted in this analysis. Particularly, of the eleven existing
earthquake. Finally, level III corresponds to the collapse of the underpasses along the Rancagua By-Pass, all of which had similar
structure, which is achieved when the maximum relative displace- characteristics to the Las Mercedes Bridge, five bridges were
ment of the elastomeric bearing is larger than 850 mm. This dis- repaired, corresponding to 45.5%. This percentage of damage is
tance corresponds to the transverse seat width, defined here as similar to that predicted by this study, and serves to validate the
the distance between the axis of the external prestressed girder proposed fragility curves for damage level II.
and the free edge of the bent cap (Lo in Fig. 7). Damage in the col-
umns and foundations is not considered in this study as no damage
was observed in these elements during 2010 Maule earthquake.
Additionally, the shear forces transmitted from the bridge deck
to the bent are somehow limited by the strength of the connection
between the superstructure and the substructure.
The fragility curves for the three defined damage levels are pre-
sented in Fig. 11. This Figure shows the probability of exceeding
the defined damage levels, where DLi correspond to the damage
level (i = I, II or III). The markers show the probability of exceeding
each damage level at each ground motion intensity. A lognormal
cumulative distribution was adjusted for each damage level using
MATLAB [24] and the parameters defining the fragility functions
are summarized later.
For the range of pseudo-accelerations at the fundamental per-
iod of the reference bridge for unscaled ground motions, between Fig. 11. Fragility curves for three damage levels (model MB).
540 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
The collapse of the bridge (damage level III) is predicted for sev-
ere ground motions (Fig. 11). In fact, the probability of collapse for
the average pseudo-acceleration of the unscaled ground motions
(Sm
a ¼ 0:72 g) is zero. This result is not consistent with the observa-
tions from the 2010 earthquake, where 7% of underpasses without
lateral stoppers collapsed [17]. This discrepancy would reaffirm
the studies of Buckle et al. [1], Elnashai et al. [2] and Kawashima
et al. [3], who claim that the collapse of some superstructures
occurred because of the rotation of the deck. However, this rotation
is not considered in the proposed 2D model.
6. Parametric study
A parametric study is conducted to quantify the effect of the
seismic bars, the lateral stoppers, and the length of the transverse
seat width on the seismic behavior of bridges in the transverse
direction. Fig. 12 shows the results of the parametric study and
Table 6 summarize the statistical parameters of the lognormal fra-
gility curves.
To study the effect of seismic bars, three different seismic bars
configurations are considered: the reference model described in
the previous section (MB), a model with seismic bars with four
times the area than those of the reference model (MBx4), and a
third model without seismic bars (M). The fragility curves for the
three damage levels, and for the three models are shown in
Fig. 12a. For the range of pseudo-accelerations at the fundamental
period of the reference bridge for unscaled ground motions,
between Smin
a ¼ 0:31 g and Smax
a ¼ 1:22 g, the probability of exceed-
(a) Effect of seismic bars
(c) Effect of transverse seat width
Fig. 12. Fragility curves of the parametric study
ing damage level I and damage level III is 100% and 0%, respec-
tively, for the three seismic bars configurations. A larger
difference between the three configurations is obtained for the
probability of exceeding damage level II. For the same range of
pseudo-accelerations, the probability of exceeding damage level
II ranges between 8–65% for the configuration M, 6–59% for the
configuration MB, and 5–45% for the configuration MBx4. For the
average pseudo-acceleration of the unscaled ground motion
(Sma ¼ 0:72 g), the probability of exceeding damage level II is 38%
for the configuration M, 32% for the configuration MB, and 23%
for the configuration MBx4. For damage level III, Fig. 11a shows
that the collapse vulnerability slightly decreases as the amount
of seismic bars increases. The provided results suggest that the
seismic bar has limited effect on the vulnerability of bridges.
To study the effect of adding lateral stoppers on the seismic
behavior of bridges in the transverse direction, three configura-
tions are considered: the reference model described in the previous
section (MB), a second model with seismic bars and lateral stop-
pers (MBS), and a third model without seismic bars and with lat-
eral stoppers (MS). The fragility curves for the three damage
levels, and for the three models are shown in Fig. 12b. For the range
of pseudo-accelerations at the fundamental period of the reference
bridge for unscaled ground motions (between 0.31 g and 1.22 g),
again the probability of exceeding damage level I and damage level
III is 100% and 0%, respectively, for the three configurations. A lar-
ger difference is obtained for the probability of exceeding damage
level II. For the same range of pseudo-accelerations, the probability
of exceeding damage level II ranges between 6–59% for the config-
uration MB, 2–37% for the configuration MS, and 1–34% for the
(b) Effect of lateral stoppers
 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542
Table 6
Statistical parameters of lognormal fragility curves.
Model Level I
Med r Med
M 0.212 0.101
MB = Lo 0.219 0.086
MBx4 0.225 0.080
MS 0.225 0.080
MBS 0.225 0.080
2/3 Lo – –
1/3 Lo – –
configuration MBS. For the average pseudo-acceleration of the
unscaled ground motions (Sm a ¼ 0:72 g), the probability of exceed-
ing damage level II is 32% for the configuration MB, 17% for the
configuration MS, and 12% for the configuration MBS. It is con-
cluded that the effect of the provided lateral stoppers is more sig-
nificant than that of seismic bars to reduce the probability of
obtaining damage level II. Surprisingly, the fragility curves for
damage level III are not affected by the presence of lateral stoppers.
Because of the long duration of the imposed ground motions, the
energy dissipation capacity of the stoppers may be totally con-
sumed during the first significant cycles, and the effect of the stop-
pers in subsequent cycles is completely lost due to their cero
residual strength. It is expected that this type of stoppers, with lim-
ited energy dissipation capabilities, may have a larger contribution
to prevent collapse for impulsive ground motions or ground
motions with shorter durations.
Finally, to study the effect of the transverse seat width, three
models are considered: the reference model with a seat width
Lo = 850 mm (see Fig. 7), a second model with 2/3Lo (567 mm)
and a third model with 1/3Lo (283 mm). The models with reduced
set widths, 2/3Lo and 1/3Lo, are equivalent to decrease the total
length of the bent cap (9.2 m) by 6% and 12%, respectively. For
the three models, the seismic mass was considered equal, and
the collapse probability of each case was determined from the pre-
dicted maximum relative displacement of the elastomeric bear-
ings, which may cause unseating of the outermost girder. The
fragility curves for damage level III (collapse) are shown in Fig. 12c
for the three bridge configurations. From this figure it is concluded
that the transverse seat width is critical for reducing the collapse
probability. For the maximum pseudo-acceleration of the unscaled
ground motions (Smaxa ¼ 1:22 g), the probability of collapse is 0%, 1%
and 24% for a seat width Lo, 2/3Lo, and 1/3Lo, respectively. Addi-
tionally, to prevent unseating of the girders in the longitudinal
direction, sufficient seat width should be provided in the longitudi-
nal direction of the bridge [25,26].
7. Conclusions
Fragility curves for a representative Chilean non-skewed bridge
are calculated in this paper. The fragility curves consider only
transverse displacement of the superstructure, and the possible
rotation of the superstructure is not accounted for. Therefore, the
proposed curves may be considered as an upper bound for seismic
risk assessment. Nevertheless, the fragility curves of the paramet-
ric study are of great relevance to provide guidelines to improve
current seismic bridge design codes.
From the tests of the seismic bars it is concluded that they have
limited effect on the vertical seismic response of the superstruc-
ture. For cycles where yielding of the seismic bars was exceeded,
permanent inelastic deformation was induced in these bars and
the initial prestress was completely lost. Therefore, the intended
design objective of the Chilean bridge design code to control the
possible vertical displacement of the superstructure is not properly
541
Level II Level III
r Med r
0.897 0.758 4.290 0.391
1.062 0.780 4.501 0.342
1.404 0.888 4.723 0.363
1.599 0.819 4.573 0.379
1.648 0.702 4.568 0.333
– – 3.594 0.454
– – 1.870 0.533
accounted for by these bars. Additionally, from the experimental
program a constitutive relationship is proposed to simulate the lat-
eral restrain provided by the seismic bars.
The developed fragility curves predict that the probability of
exceeding damage level I (sliding of elastomeric bearings) is
100%, for an intensity measure equivalent to the average pseudo-
acceleration of the unscaled ground motions of the 2010 Maule
earthquake (Sm a ¼ 0:72 g). For the same intensity measure, the
probability of repairing the bridge (i.e. damage level II) is 32%. This
probability is slightly less than the percentage of bridges along the
Rancagua By-Pass that where repaired after 2010 earthquake. Col-
lapse is predicted for severe ground motions as significant sliding
of the elastomeric bearings is required to cause unseating of the
girders in the transverse direction. This result is not consistent
with observation from 2010 Maule earthquake, where a small per-
centage of highway bridges collapsed. This inconsistency is attrib-
uted to the rotation of the bridge deck experienced by several
bridges, which is not accounted for in the proposed 2D model. Fur-
ther studies using 3D models, including the passive forces devel-
oped at the abutment-superstructure interface, are required to
simulate this rotational behavior.
From the parametric study it is concluded that the effect of the
seismic bars in the seismic behavior of bridges without transverse
diaphragm is limited. The probability of sliding of elastomeric
bearings (damage level I), and the collapse probability (damage
level III) is not affected by the seismic bars. The probability of
exceeding damage level II slightly decreases as the area of the seis-
mic bars increases. When lateral stoppers are added, the probabil-
ity of damage level II decreases, but the probability of collapse is
not affected because of the limited energy dissipation capacity of
the stopper and the long duration of the considered ground
motions. Finally, it is concluded that the transverse seat width is
the critical parameter that affect the collapse probability of the
considered bridge. When the transverse seat width is reduced from
850 mm to 283 mm, the collapse probability increases from 0% to
24%. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to include a minimum
transverse seat width in the Chilean seismic design code to
improve the seismic vulnerability of bridges.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Chilean Fondo Nacional de
Ciencia y Tecnología, Fondecyt Grant #11121581, and Fondap
Grant #15110017. The actuator, pump, and controller used for
the experimental program were funded by Fondequip Grant
#EQM120198.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.
03.041.
542 A. Martínez et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 530–542

References [14] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318–14); 2014.
[15] Hube MA, Martinez A, Rubilar F. Experimental behavior of elastomeric
[1] Buckle I, Hube M, Chen G, Yen W-H, Arias J. Structural performance of bridges
bearings and seismic bars of simply supported Chilean bridges. 16th World
in the offshore Maule earthquake of 27 February 2010. Earthquake Spectra
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper N 4682, January 9–13, Santiago,
2012;28(S1):S533–52.
Chile; 2017.
[2] Elnashai AS, Gencturk B, Kwon O-S, et al. The Maule (Chile) earthquake of
[16] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake
February 27, 2010: development of hazard, site specific ground motions and
engineering simulation user manual. Pacific earthquake engineering research
back-analysis of structures. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2012;42:229–45.
center. Berkeley: University of California; 2009.
[3] Kawashima K, Unjoh S, Hoshikuma J-I, Kosa K. Damage of bridges due to the
[17] Toro F, Rubilar F, Hube MA, Santa María H, Cabrera T. Statistical analysis of
2010 Maule, Chile, Earthquake. J Earthquake Eng 2011;15:1036–68.
underpasses damaged during 2010 Chile earthquake. In: Seventh National
[4] Yen W-HP, Chen G, Buckle I, Allen T, Alzamora D, Ger J, et al. Post-Earthquake
seismic conference on bridges and highways. Paper B3–1, May 20–22,
Reconnaissance Report on Transportation Infrastructure: Impact of the
Oakland, California, USA; 2013.
February 27, 2010, Offshore Maule Earthquake in Chile. 2011; p. 1–214.
[18] Elnashai AS, Gencturk B, Kwon OS, Al-Qadi IL, Hashash Y, Roesler JR, et al. The
[5] Rollins KM, Jessee S. Passive force-deflection curves for skewed abutments. J
Maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27, 2010: Consequence assessment and
Bridge Eng, ASCE 2013;18(10):1086–94.
case studies. MAE Center Report No. 10–04; 2010.
[6] Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges
[19] Rubilar F, Nonlinear model to predict the sismic behavior of overpasses.
in the central and southeastern United States. Earthquake Spectra 2007;23
Master of Science Thesis. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; 2015 (in
(3):615–33.
spanish).
[7] Pan Y, Agrawal AK, Ghosn M. Seismic fragility of continuous steel highway
[20] Filipov ET, Fahnestock LA, Steelman JS, Hajjar JF, LaFave JM, Foutch DA.
bridges in New York State. J Bridge Eng 2007;12:689–99.
Evaluation of quasi-isolated seismic bridge behavior using nonlinear bearing
[8] Tavares DH, Padgett JE, Paultre P. Fragility curves of typical as-built highway
models. Eng Struct 2013;49:168–81.
bridges in eastern Canada. Eng Struct 2012;40:107–18.
[21] Filipov ET, Revell JR, Fahnestock LA, Lafave JM, Hajjar JF, Foutch DA, et al.
[9] Siqueira GH, Sanda AS, Paultre P, Padgett JE. Fragility curves for isolated
Seismic performance of highway bridges with fusing bearing components for
bridges in eastern Canada using experimental results. Eng Struct
quasi-isolation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1375–94.
2014;74:311–24.
[22] Computers & Structures, Inc. SAP2000 v. 16.0.0. Berkeley, California, USA.
[10] Hube MA, Rubilar F. Capacity evaluation of steel stopers of reinforced concrete
[23] Iemura H, Taghikhany T, Takshashi Y, Jain SK. Effect of variation of normal
Chilean bridges. In: The international symposium for CISMID 25th
force on seismic performance of resilient sliding isolation systems in highway
Anniversary, Paper No. TS-2-2, August 17–18, Lima, Peru; 2012.
bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2005;34:1777–97.
[11] Ministerio de Obras Públicas (MOP). Highway manual, Instructions and design
[24] MathWorks Inc. MATLAB version R2014b.
criteria; 2015 (in Spanish).
[25] Hube MA, Mosalam KM. Experimental and computational evaluation of in-
[12] Yashinsky M, Oviedo R, Ashford S, Fargier-Gabaldon L, Hube M. 2010.
span hinges in reinforced concrete box-girder bridges. J Struct Eng 2011;137
Performance of highway and railway structures during the February 27,
(11):1245–53.
2010 Maule Chile earthquake. EERI/PEER/FHWA Bridge Team Rep., <http://
[26] Hube MA, Mosalam KM. Parametric study and design recommendations for in-
peer.berkeley.edu/events/pdf /2010/bppr4.pdf> (Nov. 10, 2014).
span hinges in reinforced concrete box-girder bridges. J Bridge Eng 2012;17
[13] Martinez A. Effect of the seismic bars in the transverse seismic behavior of
(2):334–42.
reinforced concrete bridges Master of Science Thesis. Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile; 2015 [in spanish].