See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359770807

Multi-hazard fragility analysis of RC bridges for high seismicity and high

scouring scenarios

Preprint · April 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 248

3 authors:

Roshan Ghimire Piyush Pradhan

Tribhuvan University Tribhuvan University
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dipendra Gautam
Interdisciplinary Research Institute for Sustainability (IRIS)
120 PUBLICATIONS   1,599 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multi-hazard risk assessment of Kathmandu Valley, Nepal View project

Multi-hazard risk assessment along Bhotekoshi River Corridor (Sino-Nepal border region) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dipendra Gautam on 03 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 16 December 2021 Revised: 7 April 2022 Accepted: 13 April 2022 The Journal of Engineering
DOI: 10.1049/tje2.12145

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Multi-hazard fragility analysis of RC bridges for high seismicity

and high scouring scenarios

Roshan Ghimire Piyush Pradhan Dipendra Gautam

Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Abstract

Engineering, Thapathali Campus, Kathmandu,
Nepal
Correspondence
Dipendra Gautam, Department of Civil
Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Thapathali
Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Email: dipendra01@tcioe.edu.np
Both earthquakes and floods occur frequently in the Himalayas. Since bridge structures
are designed considering earthquake forces alone, floods are causing significant damage to
bridges almost every year. Thus, it is obvious that floods and earthquakes are the two most
important natural hazards that could alter the performance of bridges in the Himalayas.
Furthermore, settlement and scouring are commonly observed in many bridges in Nepal
and neighbouring regions. To this end, the conventional earthquake force-based analy-
sis approaches become conservative as the conventional approaches do not account for
multi-hazard impacts and design considerations. To fulfil the gap regarding multi-hazard
vulnerability characterization, this study presents a comparative assessment of single and
multiple natural hazards that are likely to impact Nepali highway bridges. Seismic fragility
functions for representative reinforced concrete (RC) bridges are developed for earth-
quake only and earthquake and scouring scenarios. Parametric variation of likely scouring
depth obtained from the hydrological analysis is used to depict the probabilistic scenario to
obtain fragility functions for various scour levels. The sum of the findings outlines that the
seismic vulnerability of RC bridges increases significantly when scouring precedes seismic
excitation.

1 INTRODUCTION earthquake, 1988 Udaypur (Nepal) earthquake, 1995 Kobe

The functionality of a bridge, especially after a natural hazard
event is crucial to be assured since the loss of functionality
obstructs movements, leading to multi-sectoral losses. Thus,
bridges are considered to be the most important components
of the transport network. Every notable natural hazard affects
bridges, thus, studies related to the vulnerability of bridges are
being performed worldwide considering the most prominent
forces in a particular region. Apart from a single natural hazard,
multiple independent, as well as a cascading hazard, is consid-
ered while depicting the multi-hazard vulnerability of bridges,
which is a more realistic scenario for many regions in the world
as bridges undeniably observe more than one natural hazard
during their service life either in sequence or at the same time.
Earthquake is considered to be one of the most devastating
natural hazards in terms of bridge damage as observed during
many historical earthquakes such as the 1934 Nepal–Bihar
earthquake, 2010 Maule (Chile), 2015 Gorkha (Nepal) earth-
quake and many others [1–5]. Apart from an earthquake, a flood
is a notable force that causes substantial damage to bridge struc-
tures [6, 7]. Thus, over the past few decades, studies focused on
multi-hazard vulnerability analyses have gained momentum [8].
Accordingly, multi-hazard fragility analysis is widely reported
in existing literature considering earthquake, tsunami, flood,
scour, and other forces [9–15]. Mosleh et al. [16] performed
seismic vulnerability of pre-1990 concrete bridge and devel-
oped analytical fragility functions. They performed parametric
analysis considering span length, column height, lap splices,
reinforcement yield strength, and compressive strength for two
fault-thrust systems. Prasad and Banerjee [17] conducted multi-
hazard fragility analysis of bridges and concluded that increase
in scour depth increases seismic vulnerability of bridges. Also,
Banerjee and Prasad [18] conclude that earthquake and flood
scenarios are required to be considered simultaneously to depict

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Engineering published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Institution of Engineering and Technology.

618 of 628 wileyonlinelibrary.com/iet-joe J. Eng. 2022;2022:e12145.

https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12145

GHIMIRE ET AL.
the reliable seismic risk of bridges. Although several researchers
consider multi-hazard scenarios including seismic and flood
forces, consideration of high seismicity and high flood condi-
tions are not widely reported in the existing literature although
such a combination of extreme flood and high seismicity
is common in several regions around the world such as
Nepal.
Nepal lies in seismically highly active region and most of the
major highway bridges are in close proximity to highly active
thrust-fault systems, depicting the possibility of near-field exci-
tation [2, 19]. The riverbeds and river basins comprise mainly
gravel and sand mixed sediment soils, leading to the likely
scenario of scouring, as reported by Adhikari et al. [6]. Scouring
inevitably increases vulnerability to bridges and, at the same
time, seismic excitation will result in detrimental consequences
if an earthquake strikes a bridge that already sustains some
level of scouring. More than 85% of the bridges constructed
across Nepali rivers are reinforced concrete bridges. Although
bridges are designed for a particular wheel load, Nepali bridges
observe forces that exceed the design force during their service
lives. Despite this, the loss of capacity of a bridge is attributed
to poor bridge maintenance practice and the lack of periodic
rehabilitation strategies, except for minor repairs. Bridges
are constructed following the prevalent guidelines; however,
consideration of foundation scouring is often neglected since
soil beside pile or well foundation provides lateral support. If
scoured, lateral stiffness will be compromised, so the scouring
performance of highway bridges cannot be neglected, especially
in a high seismic region where scouring is significant. Scouring
led damage can range from modest erosion to the collapse
of a bridge structure. The Wilson Bridge in Tours (1978), the
St Louis Bridge on Reunion Island (2007), and the Coarraze
railway embankment failure on the Gave de Pau River (2013)
in France are some examples of failure induced by scouring
and erosion [20]. Lin et al. [21] reviewed and analyzed 36 case
histories of bridge failure due to scour and concluded that most
of the scour depths (i.e. up to 41%) ranged from 0.5 to 5 m,
but the maximum scour depth can reach up to 15 m. Local
scour accounted for 64% of bridge failures, followed by channel
migration (14%), and contraction scour (5%). Approximately
70% of bridge failures were lateral and vertical failures. During
the 2019 central Nepal flood, 17 bridges got partially or fully
damaged as reported by news outlets. Adhikari et al. [6] per-
formed a reconnaissance study on the flood performance of
bridges affected by the 2017 flood in central and eastern Nepal
and noted that settlement and scouring were the common
causes of bridge damage. The evidence of scouring together
with the earthquake damage to bridges due to the 1988 and
2015 earthquakes notes that Nepali bridges have a high likeli-
hood of being exposed to multiple independent natural hazards
during their service life and functionality loss can occur due to
the combination of natural hazard events. To this end, this study
performs a probabilistic scenario-based multi-hazard fragility
analysis of a common RC bridge. Single and multiple hazard
scenarios are presented comparatively in terms of fragility
functions.
20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
619 of 628
FIGURE 1 Cross section of the case study bridge superstructure
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Case study bridge
An existing bridge in Nepal was selected as a case study bridge
and structural and geotechnical details were collected from the
Department of Roads (DoR), Government of Nepal. The Ratu
River bridge located in the eastern part of Nepal in Mahottari
district is selected as a case bridge. The same bridge sustained
scouring and settlement as a consequence of the 2017 flood-
ing. Similarly, the bridge was also exposed to the 2015 Gorkha
earthquake with no visible damage. The bridge is an RC T-
beam prestressed girder bridge. The bridge is 225 m long with
six simply supported spans over the pier cap with edge spans
of 38.5 m and intermediate spans of 33 m. The superstruc-
ture comprises three longitudinal prestressed rectangular girders
of 2500–750 mm and five cross girders of size 2200–400 mm
at an equal interval at the end and 2200–300 mm size gird-
ers at the intermediate spans. The deck slab is 200 mm thick
and 11 m wide, monolithically constructed with main and cross
girders using M45 grade concrete. The longitudinal and cross-
sections of the case study bridge are shown in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively.
The bridge superstructure is supported by a pier cap with
a load transfer mechanism through Polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) POT bearing. The PTFE POT-fixed and PTFE POT-
free bearings are assigned alternately over the span. The PTFE
POT-fixed constraints translation and allows rotation while
PTFE POT-free bearing constraints translation in the vertical
and transverse directions while it allows translation in longi-
tudinal direction and rotation in all three degrees of freedom.
The size of the bearing is 0.8–0.6–0.1 m. The bridge consists
of five single circular piers. Pier sections and details are shown
in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The pier system consists of
pier type 1 having a clear height of 3.248 m and pier type 2
having a clear height of 3.548 m, each having 2.6 m diameter
and 68 numbers of longitudinal reinforcement bars of 32 mm
diameter and confining hoops of 12 mm diameter at 100 and
150 mm spacing, respectively. The cap beam is 4.5 m wide and
8.5 m long. The pier and cap beams are constructed with M25

620 of 628
FIGURE 2 Longitudinal section of the case study bridge
FIGURE 3 Longitudinal and transverse cross sections of a pier
grade concrete. The relevant properties used for modelling are
summarized in Table 1.
The foundation system consists of a pile group with 16 piles,
each of 0.8 m diameter and 18 m depth and reinforced with
18–20 mm diameter bars. Foundation concrete is M25 grade.
The abutment is a cantilever type reinforced concrete structure,
which supports the extreme spans and retains the earth.
2.2 Structural modelling
The 3D finite element model of the case study bridge is pre-
pared in CSI Bridge 20.2.0 [22] with the application of soil
20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GHIMIRE ET AL.
spring stiffness to incorporate scouring effects. Pushover analy-
sis is performed to assess the capacity of the bridge pier in the
form of base shear versus pier top displacement. Nonlinear time
history analysis is performed to assess the demand in the form
of displacement time history using recorded accelerograms. The
scour depth at bridge foundations is a typical way to measure the
extent of flood damage to bridges. Scour, which is the erosion
caused by running water, can be expressed either as local con-
traction, or degradation or aggradation scour. According to the
HEC-18 [23], the local scour (Ys ) can be expressed as:
( a )0.65
YS = 2hK1 K2 K3 K4 Fr1 0.43 … (1)
h
 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GHIMIRE ET AL. 621 of 628

for a given flood discharge rate is calculated as [24]:

Q = h ×b×V … (2)

where Q is the discharge rate (m3 /s), and b is the passage width.
The flood velocity (V) is calculated using Equation (3) [24]:

[ ]2 1
1 bh 3
V = S2 … (3)
n b + 2h

where n and S represent Manning’s roughness coefficient and

slope of the stream bed, respectively. For a given flood event, the
annual peak discharge Q is the only known quantity. To calculate
corresponding values of flow velocity V and flow depth h, the
passage width b is assumed to be equal to the total length of the
bridge.
We considered annual peak discharge from ICIMOD report
FIGURE 4 Typical cross section of a pier [25]. For the calculation of scour depth, HEC-18 formula is
used, and the annual peak discharge suggested by Khanal et al.
[25] is considered. In order to cover scour depth for different
TABLE 1 Modelling parameters for steel and concrete return periods as outlined in Table 2, scour depths of no scour
(0 m), 1.5 m, and 3 m are considered in the analysis.
Material Parameter Value Unit
The soil spring stiffness for the distributed spring model is
Steel Mass density 7850 Kg/m3 calculated based on the approach suggested by the Public Works
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 – Research Institute [26]. The moduli of subgrade reaction in the
Tensile stress at the onset of 0.02 - horizontal and vertical directions, (KH ) and (KV ) are calculated
strain hardening (ɛsh ) respectively from uncorrected SPT-N values at different depths.
Ultimate tensile strain (ɛu ) 0.12 – The geotechnical properties used to estimate the subgrade reac-
tions for the bridge site are listed in Table 3.
Ultimate tensile strength (fu ) 545 MPa
The consideration of soil-foundation interaction requires
Yield strength (Fy ) 500 MPa
comprehensive knowledge of the complex behaviour of soil. To
Modulus of elasticity (Es ) 2× 105 MPa make this interaction phenomenon simple, subgrade is replaced
Concrete Ultimate confined 0.005 by a simple soil spring. One of the most common and simple
compression (spalling) models is to use the Winkler’s hypothesis. Winkler’s model rep-
strain
resents the soil medium as a system of identical and mutually
Unconfined concrete 0.002 independent, closely spaced, discrete, and linearly elastic springs
compressive strain at the
and the ratio between contact pressure at any point and the set-
maximum compressive
stress tlement induced at that point is given by the coefficient of sub-
grade reaction.
Poisson’s ratio 0.2
Bridge girders are modelled using linear elastic beam-column
Modulus of elasticity 25,000 (for M25) MPa
elements, as such components are expected to respond within
33,541.02 for (M35)
the elastic range during earthquakes [27]. To model the non-
Unit weight 24 KN∕m3
linear behaviour at bridge pier ends, nonlinear rotational springs
are assigned at the top and the bottom of piers. The foundation
is modelled using an equivalent single pile as a beam-column
element with the equivalent pile diameter. Such piles are con-
where h is the flow depth directly upstream to the bridge pier sidered elastic, and we assume that piles do not undergo failure
(in m), a is the pier width (m), K1 , K2 , K3 , and K4 are the cor- during seismic excitation. Soil-foundation interaction is intro-
rection factors representing pier nose shape, angle of approach duced using non-linear p-y springs at an interval of 0.3 m at the
of flow, bed condition, and particle size of soil, respectively. The nodes along the entire length of the equivalent pile. To account
Froude number Fr1 is defined as V/(gh)0.5 , where V and g are for the loss of lateral support due to scouring, p-y springs are
the mean velocity of the flow directly upstream to the pier (in removed down to the scour depth measured from the top of the
m/s) and acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2 ), respectively. The equivalent pile or ground surface. Linear elastic beam–column
values of K1 , K2 , K3 , and K4 are determined from HEC-18. V is element is used to simulate the superstructure. The piers are
the velocity of flow measured at the pier location where scour modelled with the non-linear element with inelastic fibre sec-
is calculated, and h is the measured flow depth. The flow depth tions. The elastic springs along the longitudinal, transverse, and
 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
622 of 628 GHIMIRE ET AL.

TABLE 2 Estimated peak discharge at Jaleshwor site along Ratu river [25]

Return period (year)

Site Parameters 2 5 10 25 50 100

Jaleshwor (5.4 km from Indo-Nepal Annual peak discharge (m3 /s) 460 618 738 896 1016 1136
Border)
Flow depth (m) 6.20 6.87 7.31 7.82 8.17 8.49
Flow velocity (m/s) 0.33 0.40 0.45 0.51 0.55 0.59
Froude number, Fr1 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07
Scour depth, Ys (m) 1.99 2.19 2.32 2.47 2.58 2.67

TABLE 3 Geotechnical characteristics of subsoil at Ratu river bridge site is restrained in translation and set free in rotation, while at the
Bulk density other extreme end, it is set free in longitudinal translation only
Depth (m) Soil type SPT N-value (Kg/m3 ) and is not constrained in rotation in all three degrees of free-
dom. The degrees of freedom for vertical movement at these
1.5 Sand 40 19
locations are taken as fully constrained. Per the design, PTFE
3 Sand 50 20
pot fixed and PTFE pot free bearings are provided alternatively
4.5 Sand 50 20 throughout the span. These bearings are assigned using the link
6 Sand 50 20 element. The link element for PTFE pot fixed bearing is allowed
7.5 Sand 50 20 in rotation in all three directions while restrained in translation.
9 Sand 50 20 The PTFE Pot free bearing is allowed in rotation in all three
directions and translation in the longitudinal direction whereas
10.5 Sand 50 20
it is restrained in transverse and vertical directions. Bridge piers
12 Sand 50 20
are modelled as single column bents as per the design data. Dur-
13.5 Sand 50 20 ing seismic excitation, the maximum bending moment develops
15 Sand 50 20 at the end of the piers. Hence, plastic hinges are formed at these
16.5 Sand 50 20 ends when the induced moment exceeds the plastic moment of
the section. To incorporate non-linear behaviour of pier, fibre
hinges are assigned at the top and the bottom ends of piers
where hinges are likely to form. Rigid elements are assigned at
vertical directions are used to model the abutments. To model girder-pier connections to ensure full connectivity at the inter-
the flexible substructure, the beam-on nonlinear Winkler foun- sections of monolithic concrete bridges. Material nonlinearity is
dation is used. Conventional lumped plasticity beam models considered using Mander model [29] and Kent and Park model
and 2D finite-element models are used to perform nonlinear [30]. The pile group is replaced by an equivalent pile with bend-
static (pushover) analysis of alternative bridge superstructure ing stiffness EIeq equal to the bending stiffness EIGroup of the
systems. The results clearly indicate that the foundation type, pile group, where E is the modulus of elasticity of the pile mate-
the number of piles and their arrangement, and the adopted rial, Ieq is the moment of inertia for the equivalent pile cross-
design approach affect the distribution of ductility demand. It section and IGroup is the moment of inertia for the entire group.
is confirmed that the control of the foundation stiffness may For lateral sway motion, the bending stiffness of the equivalent
be a useful tool to improve the distribution of ductility demand pile is calculated as recommended by Yin and Konagai [31]:
and hence the overall performance of a bridge during strong
excitations. The superstructure comprises deck slab, longitudi- EIeq = EIGroup = n p EI p … (4)
nal girder, and cross girder. The deck slab is modelled as elastic
shell element. The girders are modelled as linear elastic three- where np is the number of piles in a pile group and Ip is the
dimensional frame elements. Bridge girders are expected to moment of inertia of the cross-section of a single pile. The
respond in the elastic range during earthquakes [27]. Simply sup- diameter of the equivalent pile is obtained to be 1.6 m.
ported superstructures of medium span bridges supported on The inelastic behaviour of pier is incorporated by fibre hinge
flexible elastomeric bearings move closely as a rigid body when distribution. The coupled axial and biaxial-bending behaviour
subject to lateral loads and seismic demand is concentrated in in frame objects are well captured by the fibre hinges. The
piers [28]. These elements are aligned along the centreline of cross section is divided into a series of representative fibres
the bridge deck. At the two extreme ends, bridge girders are and each fibre computes a moment curvature relation in any
supported by the abutments. The girders are connected to abut- bending direction for varying levels of axial load through static
ments, which are represented by linear link elements with fixed or dynamic analysis. The loss of stiffness caused by cracking of
rigidity at the base. At one end of the abutment, the link element the concrete, yielding of reinforcement bars because of flexural
 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GHIMIRE ET AL. 623 of 628

TABLE 4 Recorded strong ground motions considered for time history the exceedance probability of a particular limit state under the
analysis particular value of the intensity measure (IM). The exceedance
Earthquake PGA (g) Station probability is generally expressed as a lognormal probability dis-
tribution, which is widely used to create fragility functions for
Gorkha (2015) 0.1771 Kantipath
various types of structures [4, 34, 35]. The fragility curve can be
Uttarkashi (1991) 0.2415 Uttarkashi
derived using a lognormal cumulative distribution function as
Imperial Valley (1979) 0.3152 USGS 5115 follows:
Kocaeli (1999) 0.3499 DZC 270
( )
Northridge (1994) 0.4434 Beverly Hills-14145 Muhul ⎧ ln SD ⎫
⎪ SC ⎪
Loma Prieta (1989) 0.5699 LGPC Pf = 𝜙 ⎨ √ ⎬… (8)
⎪ 𝛽2 + 𝛽2 ⎪
Kobe (1995) 0.6711 Takatori
⎩ C d⎭

where SC is the median value of the structural capacity defined

yielding or strain hardening is well represented by this fibre
hinge model [32].
The length of a plastic hinge can be estimated as suggested
by Priestley, Seible, and Calvi [33]:
L p = K Lc + L ps ≥ 2L ps …
( )
fu
where K = 0.2 × − 1 ≤ 0.08 …
fy
For the effective height of the pier for plastic hinge directly
adjacent to the footing, the amount of yield penetration into the
joint is computed as:
L ps = 0.22 × fy × d1b …
Here, fy is the yield stress of reinforcing bar equal to 500
N/mm2 and dlb is the diameter of longitudinal bar equal to
32 mm. Lc is the length from critical section to the point of
contraflexure in the member, which is taken as 3.548 m. Conse-
quently, the length of the plastic hinge is computed as 0.705 m.
Based on the soil spring characteristics and considered ele-
ments, a 3D finite element model of the bridge is created as
shown in Figure 5. Non-linear time history analysis following
direct integration approach is carried out to determine the dis-
placement demand. Recorded ground motions for various PGA
values and frequencies are applied as dynamic loading. Seven
recorded ground motions of Gorkha, Uttarkashi, Imperial Val-
ley, Kocaeli, Northridge, Loma Prieta, and Kobe earthquakes
are used to perform nonlinear time history analysis. The direct
integration approach is followed by viscous proportional damp-
ing as mass and stiffness proportional damping as the function
of the first and second modal periods. A summary of considered
time histories is presented in Table 4.
2.3 Fragility analysis
Fragility analysis is one an effective technique to depict vul-
nerability as fragility function correlates demand and capac-
ity to establish a probabilistic characterization of the demands
with respect to certain limit states. Fragility function denotes
for the damage state; βc is the dispersion or lognormal standard
deviation of the structural capacity; Sd is the seismic demand
in terms of a selected ground motion intensity parameter; βd
is the logarithmic standard deviation for the demand; ɸ is the
standard normal distribution function. The structural capacity Sc
(5) against the given limit state is assumed constant, and the struc-
tural demand Sd is to be computed by regression analysis of
the structural
√response data. The logarithmic standard deviation
(6) composite, 𝛽c2 + 𝛽d2 , is known as the dispersion parameter,
which incorporates the aspects of uncertainty and randomness
for both capacity and demand and its value is 0.55 for slight,
moderate damage states and 0.7 for extensive and collapse dam-
age states as suggested by HAZUS [36], when the fragility curve
is expressed in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) as the
IM.
(7) In this study, pier displacement and the ductility ratio are used
to determine the damage states as proposed by Hwang, Liu, and
Chiu [37] since pier is the most critical component of the bridge
structure. The displacement ductility (μd ) depicted by Caltrans
[38] is as follows:
ΔD
𝜇d = … (9)
Δy
where ΔD is the pier top displacement and Δy is the displace-
ment corresponding to the first yield of the reinforcing steel.
The damage states adopted to create fragility functions and their
corresponding descriptions are presented in Table 5.
In Table 5, 𝜇cy1 is the first reinforcement yield displace-
ment ductility ratio; 𝜇cy is the yield displacement ductility ratio;
fcc′
𝜇cy2 is the displacement ductility ratio for 𝜀c = 0.002( − 1);
fc′
and 𝜇cmax is the maximum displacement ductility ratio. The
displacement ductility ratio, 𝜇d for each damage state is
obtained as median value of the ductility limits. This median
displacement ductility is referred to as mean displacement
ductility.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
First, modal analysis of the bridge was carried out along the
transverse direction. The number of modes considered in the
 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
624 of 628 GHIMIRE ET AL.

FIGURE 5 Three-dimensional finite element model of the case study bridge

TABLE 5 Damage state definition using displacement ductility ratio [37]

Damage state Qualitative definition of damage Criteria Remarks

Slight/Minor Minor spalling in column 𝜇cy > 𝜇d > 𝜇cy1 𝜇cy1

Moderate Spalling in column 𝜇c2 > 𝜇d > 𝜇cy 𝜇cy
Extensive Column degradation without collapse 𝜇cmax > 𝜇d > 𝜇cy2 𝜇cy2
Collapse Column collapse 𝜇d > 𝜇cmax 𝜇cmax

analysis is such that the sum of masses of all modes is 90%
of the total seismic weight of the structure. For this, first
25 modes are considered. The fundamental period of vibra-
tion in the transverse direction for no scour, 1.5 m scour,
and 3 m scour are 0.819 s, 1.063 s and 1.287 s, respectively.
The increase in scour depth exposes the foundation depth
to the surface. This results in an increase in the flexibility of
the structure. As a consequence, the fundamental period of
vibration increases. The percentage increase in the fundamen-
tal period of vibration with respect to no scour condition are
29.79% and 57.014% for 1.5 m scour and 3 m scour cases,
respectively.
 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GHIMIRE ET AL. 625 of 628

TABLE 6 Capacity of bridge pier for different damage states for no scour
condition

Damage Displacement Displacement Mean displacement

states (mm) ductility (µc ) ductility

Slight 76.7 1.00 1.080

Moderate 88.9 1.16 1.883
Extensive 199.92 2.61 3.196
Collapse 290.4 3.79 3.786

TABLE 7 Capacity of bridge pier for different damage states for 1.5 m
scour depth

Damage Displacement Displacement Mean displacement

states (mm) ductility (µc ) ductility

Slight 99.78 1 1.067

Moderate 113.2 1.1345 1.752
Extensive 236.5 2.3702 2.965
Collapse 355.2 3.5598 3.560

FIGURE 6 Fibre distribution on the pier cross-section

TABLE 8 Capacity of bridge pier for different damage states for 3 m

scour depth
Non-linear static (pushover analysis) is performed to deter-
mine the capacity of the bridge pier. The non-linear behaviour Damage Displacement Displacement Mean displacement
States (mm) ductility (µc ) ductility
of pier is observed applying fibre PPM hinge at the ends of the
pier with the estimated hinge length. The pier section at the plas- Slight 110.34 1 1.067
tic hinge possesses 68 numbers of reinforcing bar fibres, 161 Moderate 125.2 1.135 1.829
core concrete fibres, and 40 numbers of cover concrete fibres Extensive 278.5 2.524 3.171
defined in a circular path as shown in Figure 6. Performance
Collapse 421.2 3.817 3.817
assessment is done for the transverse direction. Displacement
controlled approach is used to obtain the performance param-
eters. At first, 20 mm target displacement is assumed, and it is
increased up to the ultimate capacity of the pier to set out the arbitrary PGA input. The maximum displacement of the pier
displacement capacity at each predefined damage state. The pro- top is obtained from time history analysis and the yield dis-
cedure of push is followed at the interval of 20 mm until ulti- placement corresponding to the yield strain of the reinforcing
mate capacity is reached. The ultimate capacity of pier is con- bar is estimated. Fragility curves are developed for four damage
firmed at constant base shear with further push step. This push states: Slight, moderate, extensive, and collapse damage states.
step is finalized as performance point in specified push direc- Figure 7 shows the fragility function for no scour condition,
tion to set out displacement capacity at each predefined dam- that is, 0 m scour. Figure 7 depicts 16.23%, 2.30%, 1.01%,
age state. The displacement corresponding to the compressive and 0.51% exceedance probabilities for slight, moderate, exten-
strain of each fibre type is observed. For each assumed case sive and collapse damage states, respectively at 0.2 g. Similarly,
of scouring, that is no scour, 1.5 m scour, and 3 m scour, the 23.48%, 5.21%, 2.13%, and 1.10% are the exceedance probabil-
capacity curve is extracted. The capacity curve highlights that ities for slight, moderate, extensive, and collapse damage states
the base shear has decreased together with the pier top dis- respectively, for 1.5 m scour depth at 0.2 g as shown in Figure 8.
placement with increased scour depth. It is because the struc- The probabilities of exceedance for slight, moderate, extensive,
ture has become more flexible with an increase in the scour and collapse damage states for 3 m scour depth are obtained
depth. Tables 6, 7, and 8 represent mean ductility displacement as 38.67%, 10.25%, 3.74%, and 2.03%, respectively at 0.2 g as
of bridge pier for slight, moderate, extensive, and collapse dam- shown in Figure 9.
age states respectively for no scour, 1.5 m scour, and 3 m scour On the other hand, considering relatively high PGA of 0.8 g,
scenarios. the probabilities of exceedance are 96.22%, 77.81%, 43.87%,
Regression analysis is performed to determine the relation- and 34.60% for slight, moderate, extensive, and collapse dam-
ship between displacement ductility and PGA values. The dis- age states, respectively for no scour condition. For 1.5 m scour
placement ductility values are plotted against peak ground accel- condition, the probabilities of exceedance are found to be
eration on natural logarithmic scale. The obtained relation from 99.19%, 93.37%, 66.65%, and 56.71% for slight, moderate,
regression analysis is used to compute displacement ductility for extensive, and collapse damage states, respectively at 0.8 g. The
 20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
626 of 628 GHIMIRE ET AL.

FIGURE 7 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge with no scour

condition FIGURE 10 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge for slight damage

FIGURE 8 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge with 1.5 m scour

condition

FIGURE 11 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge for moderate

damage

probabilities of exceedance for slight, moderate, extensive, and

collapse damage states for 3 m scour depth and 0.8 g PGA are
obtained as 99.74%, 96.55%, 73.99%, and 64.72%, respectively.
Similarly, comparative fragility functions for each dam-
age state under various scouring conditions are presented
in Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 respectively for slight, mod-
erate, extensive, and collapse damage states. Figures 10–13
depict that non-consideration of scouring condition may
lead to underestimation of fragility for all damage states. It
should be further noted that the variation of probability of
exceedance between no scour to 1.5 m scour is greater than
FIGURE 9 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge with 3 m scour
that between 1.5 m and 3 m scour conditions. This evidence
condition ideally suggests that the effect of scouring is quite severe if not
accounted for.

GHIMIRE ET AL.
FIGURE 12 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge for extensive
damage
FIGURE 13 Fragility function for RC T-girder bridge for collapse
4 CONCLUSIONS
Considering seismic and flood-induced scouring, multi-hazard
fragility functions are derived in this study. Using the real-time
geotechnical properties and parametric scouring scenario,
we created fragility functions for the most dominant bridge
type, RC T-girder, in Nepal where both seismic activities and
scouring scenarios are quite common. Owing to the location of
bridges in likely near field region and considering the severity of
scouring in the rivers flowing from the Himalaya, the response
of the bridge structure in terms of displacement demands at
pier top under seismic excitation is assessed. Fragility functions
developed in this study highlight a greater exceedance proba-
bility for the defined damage states for the given IM value for
higher scour depth. The observation of fundamental period
of vibration is found to be increased with an increased scour
depth. Non-consideration of the scouring scenario is found to
20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
627 of 628
be perilous since scouring up to 3 m is likely to occur within the
service life of the bridge structure, especially in the Himalayan
rivers. This evidence prompts shifting the conventional earth-
quake analysis-based design of structures to multi-hazard
consideration. Non-consideration of scouring clearly shows
conservative depiction of seismic vulnerability for all damage
states. Basically, the difference in the level of vulnerability is
found to be quite significant, especially for higher values of IM.
To this end, it is obvious that the near field shaking would be
devastating even if bridges are constructed considering seismic
forces.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors acknowledge the Department of Roads, Government
of Nepal and Material Test Pvt. Ltd. for providing the detailed
drawings and soil test report.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Dipendra Gautam https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3657-1596
REFERENCES
1. Elnashai, A.S., Gencturk, B., Kwon, O.S., Hashash, Y.M.A., Kim, S.J.,
Jeong, S.H., Dukes, J.: The Maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27,
2010: Development of hazard, site specific ground motions and back-
analysis of structures. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 42, 229–245 (2012).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.06.010
2. Gautam, D.: On seismic vulnerability of highway bridges in Nepal: 1988
Udaypur earthquake (MW6.8) revisited. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 99,
168–171 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.05.014
3. Gautam, D.: Unearthed lessons of 25 april 2015 Gorkha earthquake
(MW7.8): Geotechnical earthquake engineering perspectives. Geomat-
ics Nat. Hazards Risk 8(2), 1358–1382 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/
19475705.2017.1337653
4. Gautam, D., Rupakhety, R., Adhikari, R.: Empirical fragility functions for
nepali highway bridges affected by the 2015 gorkha earthquake. Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 126, 105778 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.
2019.105778
5. [5]Shinozuka, M., Feng, M.Q., Lee, J., Naganuma, T.: Statistical analysis of
fragility curves. J. Eng. Mech. 126, 1224–1231 (2002). https://doi.org/10.
1061/(asce)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)
6. [6]Adhikari, R., Gautam, D., Jha, P., Aryal, B., Ghalan, K., Rupakhety,
R., Dong, Y., Rodrigues, H., Motra, G.: Bridging multi-hazard vul-
nerability and sustainability: Approaches and applications to Nepali
highway bridges. In: Resilient Structures and Infrastructure, pp. 361–
378, Springer, Berlin (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7446-
3_14
7. Gautam, D., Dong, Y.: Multi-hazard vulnerability of structures and lifelines
due to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and 2017 central Nepal flash flood. J.
Build. Eng. 17, 196–201 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.02.
016
8. Farsangi, E.N., Takewaki, I., Yang, T.Y., Astaneh-Asl, A., Gardoni, P.:
Resilient Structures and Infrastructure, Springer, Berlin (2019). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7446-3
9. Argyroudis, S.A., Mitoulis, S.A.: Vulnerability of bridges to individual and
multiple hazards- floods and earthquakes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 210,
107564 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107564

628 of 628
10. Kameshwar, S., and Padgett, J.E.: Multi-hazard risk assessment of highway
bridges subjected to earthquake and hurricane hazards. Eng. Struct. 78,
154–166 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.016
11. Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J.-S., Jiang, J.: Skew adjustment factors for fragilities
of california box-girder bridges subjected to near-fault and far-field ground
motions. J. Bridge Eng. 24(1), 04018109 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)be.1943-5592.0001338
12. Pouraminian, M., Pourbakhshian, S., Farsangi, E.N., Berenji, S., Borujeni,
S.K., Asl, M.M., Hosseini, M.M.: Reliability-based safety evaluation of the
BISTOON historic masonry arch bridge. Civil Environ. Eng. Rep. 30(1),
87–110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/ceer-2020-0008
13. Rezaei, H., Arabestani, S., Akbari, R., Farsangi, E.N.: The effects of
earthquake incidence angle on the seismic fragility of reinforced con-
crete box-girder bridges of unequal pier heights. Struct. Infrastruct.
Eng. 18(2), 278–293 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020
.1842467
14. Somala, S.N., Karthik Reddy, K.S.K., Mangalathu, S.: The effect of rupture
directivity, distance and skew angle on the collapse fragilities of bridges.
Bull. Earthquake Eng. 19, 5843–5869 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-021-01208-8
15. Thapa, S., Shrestha, Y., and Gautam, D.: Seismic fragility analysis of RC
bridges in high seismic regions under horizontal and simultaneous hori-
zontal and vertical excitations. Structures 37, 284–294 (2022). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.01.021
16. Mosleh, A., Razzaghi, MS., Jara, J., Varum, H.: Seismic fragility analysis of
typical Pre-1990 bridges due to near- and far-field ground motions. Int.
J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 8, 1–9 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-016-
0108-y
17. Prasad, G.G., Banerjee, S.: The impact of flood-induced scour on seis-
mic fragility characteristics of bridges. J. Earthquake Eng. 17(6), 803–828
(2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.771593
18. Banerjee, S., Prasad, G.G.: Seismic risk assessment of reinforced concrete
bridges in flood-prone regions. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 9(9), 952–968
(2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.649292
19. Gautam, D., Baruwal, R.: Strong far-field vertical excitation and building
damage: A systematic review and future avenues. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021,
8819064 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8819064
20. Chevalier, C., Durand, E., Charles, I.: Scour and erosion phenomena occur-
ring in waterways - recent advances. In: Scour and Erosion, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL (2014). https://doi.org/10.1201/b17703-5
21. Lin, C., Han, J., Bennett, C., Parsons, R.L.: Case history analysis of bridge
failures due to scour. International Symposium of Climatic Effects on
Pavement and Geotechnical Infrastructure, pp. 204–16 (2014). https://
doi.org/10.1061/9780784413326.021
22. Computers and Structures Inc: CSI Bridge. (2020)
23. Richardson, E.V., Davis, S.R.: ‘Evaluating Scour At Bridges’ Publication
No. FHWA NHI 01-001, Hydraulic Engineering Circulation No - 18, Fed-
eral Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washin-
ton, D.C. Washington, D.C (2001)
View publication stats
20513305, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12145 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [03/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
GHIMIRE ET AL.
24. Gupta, R.S.: Hydrology and Hyrdaulic Systems, 3rd ed., Prientice-Hall, Inc,
New Jersey (2008)
25. Khanal, N., Shrestha, M., Ghimire, M.: Preparing for Flood Disaster: Map-
ping and Assessing Hazard in the Ratu Watershed, Nepal. Edited by Interna-
tional Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and UNESCO. Kath-
mandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and
United Nations Educational Scientifice and Cultural Organization (2007)
26. PWRI: Design Specification of Highway Bridge-Part V: Seismic Design.
(1998)
27. Mander, J.B., Dhakal, RP., Mashiko, N., Solberg, K.M.: Incremen-
tal dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of
bridges. Eng. Struct. 29(10), 2662–2672 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engstruct.2006.12.015
28. Mosleh, A., Jara, J., Razzaghi, M.S., Varum, H.: Probabilistic seismic per-
formance analysis of RC bridges. J. Earthquake Eng. 24(11), 1704–1728
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1477637
29. Mander, J.B, Priestley, M.J., Park, R.: Theoretical stress-strain model for
confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 114(8), 1804–1826 (1988)
30. Kent, D.C., Park, R.: Flexural members with confined concrete. Journal of
the structural division. J. Struct. Div. 97(7), 1969–1990 (1971)
31. Yin, Y., Konagai, K.: A simplified method for expression of dynamic stiff-
ness of large-scaled grouped piles in sway and rocking motions. J. Appl.
Mech. 4, 415–422 (2001)
32. Aviram, A., Mackie, K.R., Stojadinović, B.: Guidelines for nonlinear anal-
ysis of bridge structures in California. Pac. Earthquake Eng. Res. Center
(2008)
33. Priestley, M.J., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M.: Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ (1996)
34. Gautam, D., Adhikari, R., Rupakhety, R.: Seismic fragility of structural and
non-structural elements of Nepali RC buildings. Eng. Struct. 232, 111879
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111879
35. Porter, K., Kennedy, R., Bachman, R.: Creating fragility functions for
performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake Spectra 23(2),
471–489 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2720892
36. Federal Emergency Management Agency: HAZUS Technical Manual.
Washington, D.C. (2003)
37. Hwang, H., Liu, J.B., Chiu, Y.-H.: Seismic fragility analysis of highway
bridges. Mid-America Earthquake Center CD Release 01–06. (2001)
38. Caltrans: Seismic design criteria. (2004)
How to cite this article: Ghimire, R., Pradhan, P.,
Gautam, D.: Multi-hazard fragility analysis of RC bridges
for high seismicity and high scouring scenarios. J. Eng.
2022, 618–628 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12145