Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-022-00590-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Reliability‑Based Safety Amelioration of Bridge Corridors Considering

Intersections Under Earthquake Sequence
Kashif Quamar Inqualabi1   · Rajeev Kumar Garg2 · K. Balaji Rao3

Received: 26 September 2021 / Revised: 18 May 2022 / Accepted: 25 May 2022

© Krishtel eMaging Solutions Private Limited 2022

Abstract
Background  Bridges are integral part of the transportation network and are designed in a way that they are resilient against
hazards. Bridges are classified based on the span length, type of material used and structural configuration. A bridge has to
cross some obstacle in a transport corridor such as a river, an intersection, and others.
Method  The proposed framework addresses two aspects of bridge design namely sequential seismichazards and the influ-
ence of intersections on the bridge reliability.
Results  For a bridge corridor comprising of 94 spans, it is observed that for the bridge span which goes into moderate damage
state during mainshock experiences substantial reduction in its reliability against future aftershocks. Also, the bridge span
crossing over intersections having large consequences of failure may demand high reliability in comparison to the condition
where an intersection has minor consequences of failure of the bridge span.
Conclusion  The study highlights the role of intersections in deciding the requirement of safety margins of the bridges towards
a more resilient structural performance and minimising the potential losses under seismic hazard events. Consideration of
the intersection enables the owner to aim explicit levels of reliability based on the requirement of specific sections and judi-
cious use of resources.

Keywords  Bridge corridor · Intersection of bridge · Mainshock-aftershock · Nonlinear · Resilience · Reliability

Introduction transportation networks have been rendered dysfunctional

A transport corridor may intersect with several other trans-
portation corridors. The effects of bridge failures have been
usually treated as an isolated event and assumed to affect
mobility in the same transport network only, even when
the urban transportation systems are often multi-modal
and consists of a system of intersections. In reality, the col-
lapse of a bridge may also have consequences on the other
modes of transportation infrastructure at the presence of
these intersections and may render the crossing roads/rail-
way line partially or fully unserviceable. It is observed that
* Kashif Quamar Inqualabi
inqualabi@gmail.com
1
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR),
Ghaziabad 201002, India
2
Bridge Engineering and Structures Division, CSIR-Central
Road Research Institute, New Delhi 110025, India
3
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre,
Chennai 600113, India
due to the failure of bridges [1]. And at times, the indirect
cost (due to disruption of a transportation network) often
exceeds the direct cost due to the structural failure of the
bridge itself. One such example is the collapse of Inter-
state 210 (Antelope freeway) and Interstate 5 (Golden state
freeway) overpass onto the San Fernando Road during the
1971 San Fernando earthquake (as shown in Fig. 1) which
resulted in disruption of the whole transport network and
several casualties [2].
A study carried out by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation on the consequences of the I-35 bridge col-
lapse (2007) found that the daily cost to users due to forced
rerouting may be as high as $400,000 per day. To offset this
loss, the contractor was offered a cash incentive of $200,000
for each day the replacement bridge was completed ahead
of time. A similar case was observed when the I-10 Bridge
collapsed [3]. It is noteworthy that the indirect cost of
bridge collapse varies depending on the type of bridge and
the type of intersection it spans. A bridge that spans a river
and connects two sides of a city has more serious failure

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Fig. 1  Collapse of Interstate
210 and 5 onto San Fernando
Road (USGS/photo by Kacha-
doorian [2])
implications than a bridge that spans a district or village
road with alternate routes. Thus, to ensure the serviceabil-
ity of bridges and connecting transport corridors, due risk
considerations should be given to the type or class of inter-
sections. While these intersections are a key infrastructure
in a transportation system, researchers have ignored the
consequences of bridge failure on the intersections and its
role in risk profiling of the bridge corridor itself. The post-
hazard flow capacity of bridge transportation networks con-
sidering structural deterioration is studied in [4, 5]. Innova-
tive methodologies are proposed [6–8] to find the optimal
bridge retrofit program using the probable traffic capacity at
a certain damage level. The risk propagation in the surface
transportation systems is studied in [9] by considering inter-
dependency and heterogeneity in the transport model and
concluded that often transportation modes are interdepend-
ent with varying degree of interdependency. These studies
dealing with transportation networks have been limited to
treating the intersections as a means to indicate the opening
or closing of the network for the traffic flow. The Canadian
Highway bridge design standard [10] classifies bridges as
lifeline bridges, emergency route bridges, and other bridges
depending on their social, survival, and strategic value. The
categorization is very limited, and it makes no recommen-
dations concerning the impact of the bridge collapse on the
users, traffic restrictions, or alternate route availability. The
guideline also advises that emergency bridges be operational
after major earthquakes, however it makes no recommenda-
tions for including aftershocks in the design.
The prevailing design guidelines consider the nonlinear
behaviour of structures subjected to a single seismic activ-
ity with characteristic magnitude, referred as “Design Basis
Earthquake” (DBE) [10–13]. The seismic activities may
occur in a sequential manner of foreshocks, mainshock and
aftershocks with different intensities. Past experiences sug-
gest that the probability of a bridge experiencing sequential
occurrence of earthquakes is significant, and it is most prob-
able that a bridge damaged due to mainshock is not repaired
before the occurrence of the subsequent aftershocks. A
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
sequential seismic event may increase the vulnerability of
the bridge leading to furthermore significant damages as the
bridge might already be damaged by the mainshock. The
assumption of the intact condition of the bridge ignores this
fact while assessing the performance of the bridge under the
aftershocks as adopted in seismic loss estimation method-
ologies such as [14, 15]. Therefore, it is crucial to consider
the effect of the mainshock as well as aftershocks while
assessing the seismic performance of structures. The effects
of mainshock-aftershock on the bridge are studied [4] and
concluded that the bridge experiences substantial degrada-
tion when it is damaged and subjected to aftershock. While
the study included the stiffness degradation, the effects of
residual drift was not captured in the bridge fragility.
In a study [16], it is observed that the effects of repeated
earthquakes are negligible in the elastic stage for a moment
resisting frame. Also, the median collapse capacity of the
structure may be reduced by 16% under the effect of repeated
earthquakes [17]. The study observed a small reduction in
collapse capacity due to mainshock-aftershock sequence
which may be attributed to adoption of a uniform prede-
fined lognormal standard deviation value and non-inclusion
of the actual uncertainties. While it is observed in [18] that
the AS sequence can increase the vulnerability of the struc-
ture and its components of RC bridge system subjected to a
mainshock-aftershock (MS-AS) sequence. The study does
not address the problem of presence of mainshock induced
permanent deformation in the structure under plastic state.
Although these studies conclude that even a moderate
level of aftershock could cause higher levels of damages
in a bridge already damaged by a mainshock. These stud-
ies observed the effects of mainshock-aftershock sequence
under limited damage scenario such as a slight damage sce-
nario. Thus, the vulnerability of the bridges under higher
damage state scenarios, moderate and severe damage states
need to be taken into account.
Bridges should be safe, with minimal risk under prevail-
ing hazards, designed and maintained in a way that opti-
mizes the utilisation of economic resources (safety against
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

deflection/rotation limitations, collapse or other performance function so that the desired performance is expected, and
criteria affecting the failure referred as limit states) [18, 19]. the limits or boundaries of these domain functions are
The study of whether the response of the structure is con- called limit states. A simple representation of the limit state
sidered satisfactory or not is termed as structural reliability function g(R, S) in terms of the strength (R) and the stress
assessment. The study of structural reliability is involved response (S) is given by Eq. (1).
with the estimation and prediction of the probability of fail-
ure (exceeding limit state) for the structural system during its
g(R, S) = R − S. (1)
service life. The probability of failure is correlated with the A safe domain then is a region defined by g > 0 and the
reliability indices. Its scope of application includes criteria limit state function is at a plane defined by;
as specified in traditional design codes to modern perfor-
mance requirements, which might be utilised for the design g(R, S) = R − S = 0.
optimization.
Thus separating the failure and the safe region in the
The structural performance is affected by several param-
g(R,S) plane for safe use of the structure.
eters such as geometric details, material properties, load-
The reliability index is defined as the shortest distance
ing conditions, boundary conditions, environmental condi-
from the mean point to the limit state function and a simple
tions and insufficient information on the failure modes of
representation can be as a function of mean value and its
the structure or its components. The uncertainty in these
variance for aleatoric uncertainties associated with these
variables will also influence the response estimate of the
variables.
structural system.
Based on the consideration of uncertainties, the reliabil-
In a traditional way, the uncertainties are accounted by
ity method can be divided into four groups, (a) uncertain
way of decreasing the resistance and increasing the load by
parameters are modelled by one characteristic value, as for
taking into consideration ‘factor of safety’ or “Load factors”.
example in codes based on the partial safety factor concept,
These are ‘deterministic’ approaches since the strength of
(b) the uncertain parameters are modelled by the mean val-
the structure and the applied loads are assumed to take on
ues and the standard deviations, and by the correlation coef-
known values. Further, designers frequently use importance
ficients between the stochastic variables. The stochastic vari-
factors; Ref. [20] recommends a maximum importance fac-
ables are implicitly assumed to be normally distributed. The
tor of 1.5 and Ref. [9] recommends values ranging from 1 to
reliability index method is an example of a level II method,
3 for safer bridges, which is heuristic in nature and is based
(c) the uncertain quantities are modelled by their joint distri-
on the designer’s judgement. Also, use of higher importance
bution functions. The probability of failure is estimated as a
factors may lead to high cost of construction thus, is not
measure of the reliability and (d) the consequences (cost) of
sustainable. Until different contributing factors are explored
failure are also taken into account and the risk is used as a
explicitly, the design process will remain heuristic.
measure of the reliability. In this way, different designs can
Uncertainties are two types depending upon the suf-
be compared on an economic basis.
ficiency of associated information available namely alea-
In simulation techniques, samples of the stochastic vari-
tory and epistemic uncertainties. Aleatory uncertainties
ables are generated and the relative number of samples cor-
are inherent types related to natural variability and can be
responding to failure is used to estimate the probability of
modelled using probability functions. However, epistemic
failure. The simulation techniques are different in the way
uncertainties are subjective having insufficient information
the samples are generated. The FORM makes use of the first
on variables either from lack of data or knowledge of the
and second moments of the random variables. The FORM
model. Some of the examples of epistemic uncertainties
has two approaches, First-Order Second Moment (FOSM)
are uncertain boundary conditions, different approaches in
and Advanced First Order Second Moment (AFOSM) (also
numerical modelling and unexpected failure mode of the
called Hasofer-Lind approach). In FOSM, the information
structural system of its components.
on the distribution of random variables is ignored; however,
Treatment of aleatoric uncertainties is well established
in AFOSM, the distributional information is appropriately
as is the case in the present study and takes the treatment in
used. A study conducted by Ref. [24] observed that when
form of There are simulation techniques (like Monte-Carlo
the structural response is assessed using a finite element
method and adoptive simulation method etc.) and the First
method, the Response Surface Method (RSM) can be used
Order Reliability Method (FORM) and the Second Order
to calculate the Hasofer-Lind reliability index and the cor-
Reliability Method (SORM) for reliability assessment. For
responding performance point. When the limit states are
taking into account epistemic uncertainties, fuzzy set theo-
significantly nonlinear, a first-order approximation can intro-
ries, interval theory, and evidence theory are used [21–23].
duce inaccuracy in the reliability index calculation which
For the safe design of a structure, its performance
can be overcome by the Second Order Reliability Method
response can be compared with some of the domains of

13

(SORM). The SORM uses a second-order representation to
approximate the Nonlinear Limit State function, it is highly
accurate but not as efficient as FORM. A study conducted by
Ref. [25] on the aircraft wings using Finite Element Method,
observed that the difference in reliability index estimation
using the FORM and SORM is around 0.3%. Even though
FORM has shortcomings in terms of assuming the shape
of the failure surface, it has found use in structural reliabil-
ity evaluation due to its balanced approach of accuracy and
computing efficiency, which is used in this study as well.
The design values recommended by the EN 1990 are also
based on the FORM. In engineering problems where the
structural responses are experimentally measured, to effec-
tively quantify the uncertainties and their effect on the
structural parameters are identified treating it as an inverse
problem and assessing the reliability using the FORM or
SORM. While some modelling parameters are treated as
probabilistic containing uncertainties, the response param-
eters are treated as deterministic. Based on the treatment of
uncertainties, inverse problems are categorised into: (a) in
response, (b) modelling uncertainty and (c) modelling and
response uncertainties [21]. A more complex treatment of
reliability approach for assessing the safety region and the
failure region by using junction of failure plane and geomet-
ric bounds of interval variables is given by Refs. [22, 23].
It is now well accepted in the literature that convex models
provide an alternative approach for carrying out reliability
analysis when extensive knowledge about random variables
or functions involved is not available [26–28]. Depending on
the variable or functions involved in the analysis, they can be
expressed in the form of certain sets: (a) bounded uncertain
parameter, (b) envelope bounded uncertain functions and/or
(c) uncertain functions with integral square bound. Convex
modelling provides the performance of a component/system
based on assessments of extremal or delimiting properties
of the system. Number of papers dealing with application
of convex models for uncertainty quantification and/or reli-
ability analysis are available (for instance [21, 27, 28]). A
flexible uncertainty modelling using polygonal convex sets
and clustering polygonal convex sets is proposed in [21].
Within the framework of the modelling paradigm, using
these models not only large uncertainties can be handled but
also dependencies among the variables can be considered.
A study conducted by Ref. [23] addressed a challenging
problem of handling and propagating uncertainty in inverse
problems caused by imprecise structure. The computational
bottleneck posed by the coupling of handling evidence-based
uncertainty propagation and inverse computation is han-
dled by the proposed similar system analysis method. The
methodology proposed consists of two important modules:
namely, (i) identification of extremum intervals by assigning
marginal collocation points according to basic probability
assignment structure of evidence parameters and (ii) inverse
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
uncertainty propagation. Using these two modules, belief
and plausibility are evaluated for identified parameters.
These two modules are coupled and helps in decoupling of
time-consuming multilayers nested inverse procedure. The
brief literature review presents, recent advances made in
the area of uncertainty handling and uncertainty propaga-
tion in structural mechanics. This study utilizes the Reli-
ability Index method for reliability assessment. Probabilistic
methods are used to systematically evaluate uncertainties in
parameters that affect structural performance, and there is a
relation between the reliability index and risk and are given
in the next section.
The present study proposes a methodology that makes use
of lognormal format of reliability assessment for the seismic
assessment of bridge corridors considering the consequences
of bridge failure on the intersections with an aim for the
amelioration of safety. Using the proposed methodology,
influence of intersections can be taken into design consid-
erations and ensure an improved reliability of the bridge
corridors under MS-AS. Thus, minimising the losses under
seismic aftershocks. The methodology may also prove to
be helpful to the decision-makers to communicate the risk
involved with the performance of the bridge corridor in
MS-AS scenarios and in disaster mitigation planning.
Proposed Methodology
A methodology is proposed to assess the seismic reliability
of a bridge corridor subjected to MS-AS and a decision-
making system to determine the safety margin considering
the intersections.
The proposed methodology involves four stages: (1) mod-
elling of bridge (2) seismic hazard (3) bridge assessment
under MS, and MS-AS and (4) decision-making considering
presence of intersections as shown in Fig. 2. The initial stage
deals with the selection of the bridge corridor and catego-
risation of the bridges into representative bridge types and
finite element (FEM) modelling of the bridges, including
the soil-structure interaction (SSI) [29]. The second stage
is seismic hazard assessment of the site, accelerogram
generation to represent the site seismic characteristics by
response spectrum matching. For the MS-AS assessment,
the first step is obtaining the scale of MS accelerograms
which can cause specific levels of damage-states for generat-
ing synthetic MS-AS accelerograms sequences. This scale
is obtained through regression analysis of bridge responses
under MS. The third stage deals with the seismic assessment
of bridges subjected to MS and MS-AS sequences using
IDA. Two damage states of the bridge after the MS event,
namely DS1 and DS2, need further assessment under the
AS. The stage of DS3 represents the collapse of the struc-
ture, it is not explored further.
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
Fig. 2  Proposed seismic mainshock-aftershock reliability assessment methodology
The scale of MS remains constant for a particular state
of damage, and only the scale of AS varies. The MS dam-
aged bridges are assessed under AS (referred to MS-DS1-AS
and MS-DS2-AS as sequences) using these MS-AS accel-
erograms. The MS-DS1-AS refers to a condition where the
bridge is already in slight damage condition (DS1) (due
to MS) at the time of occurrence of AS. The MS-DS2-AS
refers to a condition where the bridge is already in mod-
erate damage condition (DS2) (due to MS) at the time of
occurrence of AS. Uncertainties involved in the materials are
obtained and combined with those due to the ground motion,
obtained through regression analysis of bridge responses.
These uncertainties, along with median values, are used to
derive the fragility curves. FORM is used to estimate the
reliability indices against the probabilities of failure obtained
from the fragility curves [30]. The fourth stage concerns
with the reliability index requirement of the bridges consid-
ering the intersections, which have been described in detail
in the following section.
Effects of Intersections
Three levels of consequences of the failure of the bridge
on the intersections are defined in accordance with the rec-
ommendations of [31], namely minor, moderate and large
consequences. The consequences of the failure are associ-
ated with the classification of intersections as function of
the relevant factors such as the average annual daily traffic
(AADT), the importance of the intersection in the transport
corridor, availability of alternate route, locality, proximity
to important places and connecting areas. The minor conse-
quence refers to when the risk to life is small to negligible,
and the economic consequences are small or insignificant
associated with low AADT and connects the residential
area. The moderate consequence refers when the risk to
life is moderate or economic consequences are consider-
able related to the moderate AADT, moderate importance of
intersection in the transport corridor, connects small centres,
administrative offices and residential areas. The large conse-
quence refers when there is a high risk to life, or economic
consequences are significant associated with high AADT,
the increased importance of the intersections in the trans-
port corridor, connects big marketplaces, malls, theatres,
hospitals, universities and high-rise buildings. The target
reliability indices considering the consequences of bridge
failure on the intersections are adopted [31] based on the
reliability indices (β) for safety against three damage states,
DS1, DS2 and DS3 as given in Table 1. In case the conse-
quences of bridge failures are enormous, the higher value of
the recommended reliability index (as per [32]) is targeted.
It may be noted that for a case of new design, ensuring
the suggested reliability indices will enhance the perfor-
mance of the bridge thus minimising potential losses (PL).
However, for the built bridges (in service), comparing their
available safety margins (the reliability indices) with the rec-
ommended values will help predicting their performance
under future MS-AS events. If the built bridges do not meet
the recommended reliability targets, safety margins are cal-
culated and accordingly retrofitting/rehabilitation measures
are adopted to meet these targets; thus, ensuring minimum
Table 1  Target β considering bridge failure consequences
Bridge failure conse- Damage state ­(DSi) and Reliability index (β)
quence on intersec-
tion Slight (DS1) Moderate (DS2) Severe (DS3)
Minor 0.0 + 0.3 1.5 ± 0.3 3.1 ± 0.3
Moderate 0.5 ± 0.3 1.7 ± 0.3 3.8 ± 0.3
Large 1.0 ± 0.3 2.3 ± 0.3 4.3 ± 0.3
13

losses due to any future seismic activity. Intervention levels
may be defined so that the losses due to the failure of bridges
are avoided by adopting proper retrofitting strategies. These
intervention levels associated with the damage states are the
state before mainshock (MS) or before aftershocks (AS-DS1
and AS-DS2). Necessary steps involved in the numerical
modelling are mentioned below.
Selection of Accelerogram and Generation of MS‑AS
Sequence
The first step in the assessment of the capacity of a structure
under aftershock is the selection of accelerograms which
represents the seismic characteristics of the actual site. Lim-
ited studies have adopted the existing site ground motion
records of an appropriate mainshock-aftershock sequence
[33, 34]. In the absence of real ground motion records of the
site, researchers have used the ground motion records avail-
able with PEER strong-motion database [35] by modifying
the accelerograms to suit the site seismic characteristics.
The modification is made by matching the ground motion
records with the response spectrum given by considered
design guidelines [12, 13, 20]. The matching parameter
may be peak ground acceleration, the maximum velocity,
the maximum displacement, characteristic intensity, velocity
spectrum intensity, Housner intensity sustained maximum
Fig. 3  Mainshock-aftershock
sequence
Spectral acceleration (g)
Fig. 4  Hysteresis model
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
acceleration, sustained maximum velocity, effective design
acceleration, predominant period, and significant duration.
The artificial ground motion sequences are generated by
adding a time gap between the two events, namely, main-
shock and aftershock. The time gap is added in such a way
that the structure comes to rest before the aftershock strikes.
The time gap allows the inclusion of any residual deforma-
tions left after the mainshock as well as accumulation of the
damage scenario. These time gaps are short periods which
do not allow for any kind of inspection or repair/rehabilita-
tion work before the arrival of the aftershocks. The time-gap
allows the aftershock to start from the point where the main-
shock has left the structure which facilitates considerations
of the correct loading path sequence during the numerical
analysis. A pictorial representation of mainshock-aftershock
sequencing is given in Fig. 3. Researchers have adopted var-
ying time-gap from 4 to 100 s [33, 34, 36]. For the present
study, a time gap of four seconds is adopted.
Hysteresis Behaviour
The hysteresis behaviour adopted for the materials under non-
linear analysis is based on the [37] (see Fig. 4). Nonlinear plas-
tic hinges are assigned to the frame elements (piers and piles)
to capture the true behaviour of the structure under cyclic
loading. Two assumptions are made in the study to account
0.3
0.2 Mainshock Time gap Aftershock
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20
Time (second)
(b) Hysteretic loop (b) Backbone curve
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

for the stiffness degradation namely a degradation factors and
the residual displacement. The degradation factor accounts
the stiffness degradation due to residual strain in the plastic
range (B-C, C-D and D-E) the adopted degradation factors are
0.9, 0.7 and 0.4, respectively [38]. The residual displacement
Here, 𝜃eq is the equivalent lognormal standard deviation
obtained from the convolution of deviations of seismic haz-
ard demand ( 𝜃d) and the capacity ( 𝜃c) deviations. Φ is the
standard normal cumulative distribution function. Thus, the
fragility function under MS is given by Eq. (6).

Fx xMS = P X ≤ x|IM = xMS .

is the effective amount of displacement a node experiences ( ) [ ]
after the rebound (elastic) displacement corresponding to the (6)
drift ratio of 0.025. The adopted methodology of modelling
The fragility function for MS-AS sequence can be writ-
and analysis has been validated by comparing the results of
ten as a function of AS (given in Eq. (7)). It is due to the
NLTH analysis using two software namely IDARC2D [39]
MS scale is constant in the MS-AS sequence, and only the
and CSiBridge [40]. It is observed that the methodology using
scale of AS varies.
the software CSiBridge is able to capture the true behaviour of
Fx xMS , xAS = P X ≤ x|IM = xAS .
( ) [ ]
the structure subjected to seismic actuation. Nonlinear hinges (7)
have been pre-assigned in all the elements of the pier and piles.
The definition of the hinge is taken from [37] with P-M2-M3 The mean of the lognormal distribution is equal to the
degree of freedoms. median (µ) of the responses. Based on the Eqs. (6) and (7),
we can define a fragility function to estimate the poten-
Reliability Assessment of Bridges tial expected global damage, d, of a structure exceeding a
predefined damage state, dsi, as a function of a parameter
For the reliability assessment of the structure which is quantifying the intensity of the seismic activity. For each
expected to undergo a nonlinear range of the response under damage state (­ d s), fragility curve is defined by plotting
loading conditions like earthquake excitation, it is advisable to P[d > dsi] vs drift ratio (dr) following the lognormal prob-
use nonlinear time history (NLTH) or IDA. The IDA facilitates ability density function as given by Eq. (8) [42, 43].
plotting of the fragility curves for each desired performance [ ( )]
levels using estimated median response and uncertainties 1 dr
P[dsi|dr] = Φ .ln , (8)
involved in it. The reliability index (𝛽) can be assessed from 𝜃eq dr
dsi
the fragility curves using the approximate relationship as given
in Eq. (2). where dr is the drift ratio (DM), at which the bridge reaches
a particular damage state (dsi) threshold and dr is the median
𝛽 = −Φ−1 pf , (2) drift ratio. For MS, the fragility equation can be summarized
as given in Eq. (9).
where Φ−1 is, the inverse standardised normal distribution,
[ ( )]
and pf is the probability of failure which is obtained from [ ] drMS
1
fragility function. The fragility function is well expressed by P dsi|drMS = Φ .ln , (9)
𝜃eq dr
the lognormal distribution and gives the probability of fail- dsi

ure. Let the response parameter drift ratio (DM) is a discrete where, drMS is the drift ratio experienced by the bridge
random variable which can take any given predefined value during the MS. For the bridge subjected to earthquake
of x. The probability that X takes any given value x can be sequence MS-AS, the Eq. (9) can be modified as shown
expressed by the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of in Eq. (10).
a discrete random variable [41] (see Eq. 3).
[ ( )]
Fx (x) = P[X ≤ x|IM = x]. (3)
[ ]
P dsi|drMS−AS = Φ
1
.ln
drMS−AS
, (10)
𝜃eq dr dsi
For a continuous random variable, the CDF can be
expressed as given in Eqs. (4) and (5). where drMS−AS is the drift ratio essentially consisting of
residual drift left after the MS, and the drift forced by the
P[X ≤ x�IM = x] =
x

�
1 (z−𝜇)2
√ e 2𝜃 2 , (4) AS as shown in Eq. (11).
−∞ 𝜃
eq 2𝜋
drMS−AS = drMS − drreversible + drAS . (11)
( )
P[X ≤ x|IM = x] = Φ
lnx − ln𝜇 Typically, the bridge may suffer some damage during
. (5) the mainshock, which may further aggravate in aftershocks
𝜃eq
[44]. At the lower damage states, where the drift expe-
rienced by the bridge is reversible, the effect of MS is

13

nullified. In the earthquake sequence with large MS, the
MS leaves the bridge with high residual drift and in such
a scenario the bridge may fail under a small earthquake
(AS). Thus, the failure risk of the bridge is increased even
in moderate intensity of the aftershocks due to accumula-
tion of damages till its collapse as compared to the failure
thresholds by limit state.
In this study, the capacities of various bridge components
are assumed to be governed by lognormal distribution. The
lognormal standard deviation represents variability in the
standard of construction and installation of the components
in a bridge, as well as variability in the seismic history that
the bridge may experience before it fails. Aspects like uncer-
tainties associated with the standard of construction include
quality of concrete and steel reinforcement can be combined
to generate fragility functions. Uncertainties due to ground
motion ( 𝜎d ) are estimated from the nonlinear regression
analysis of the responses obtained through the IDA. The
uncertainties due to materials such as steel reinforcement
(σs) and concrete (σc) are obtained based on the experimental
results. The equivalent combined standard deviation ( 𝜎eq ) is
calculated using Eq. (11).
√ (DS2) is characterised by an operational state where dam-
𝜎eq = 𝜎d 2 + 𝜎c 2 + 𝜎s 2 . (11)
In this study, uncertainty due to ground motion and mate-
rials have been considered. To derive fragility function, the
value of 𝜃 is obtained using the relationship as given in
Eq. (12), here, 𝜗 is the variance.
√ (
) reliability level is given in terms of the reliability indices
𝜗 = 𝜎∕𝜇, and𝜃 = ln 1 + 𝜗2 . (12)
The proposed methodology is demonstrated by apply-
ing it on a bridge corridor situated in Delhi as given in the
“Bridge Corridor Under Study”.
Performance Limits
A performance limit state is a level beyond which the bridge
no longer serves the design requirements. The limit states
are defined in terms of the maximum drift ratio [38] as a
function of effective displacement ( Δ ) and length ( l  ) as
given by Eq. (13).
Drif tratio(dr ) = Δ∕l. (13)
Drift ratio is a physically observable quantity that may
be measured in the field with relative ease. It has been used
as a damage measure parameter for seismic evaluation of
bridges by researchers such as [45–48]. Performance-
based seismic design concepts given by PEER [49] con-
siders parameters like cost of replacement, casualty rate
and time of interruption while defining the performance
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
Table 2  Limit States
Limit state Slight (DS1) Moderate (DS2) Severe (DS3)
Drift ratio 0.25% 0.50% 1.50%
Potential loss
Loss level PL1 PL2 PL3
Replacement cost 25% 50% 80%
Casualty rate 0.001 0.01 0.25
Traffic downtime 1 7 160
(day)
levels. Taking the [50] guidelines into consideration, [51]
defined the limit states for bridges are defined based on
effective pier displacement which are shown in Table 2
along with the levels of the potential losses.
The slight damage (DS1) is reversible and corresponds
to a fully operational state of the bridge and immediate
occupancy. The DS1 is a reversible damage condition with
only spalling of cover is observable after the earthquake.
The time during which the bridge is deformed up to the
slight damage condition is short. The moderate damage
ages are controllable and repairable. The damages are local
in nature, yet the bridge experiences excessive vibration
and deformations. The severe damage (DS3) level defines
the condition of the bridge just before the collapse. Also,
the bridge loses structural equilibrium, attains maximum
capacity, and may develop some mechanism. In [12, 31,
32], the primary recommendation concerning a required
associated with specific design working life. The reliabil-
ity index helps in the calibration of the design procedure
to ensure a certain amount of safety. With partial safety
factors taken as reference [12] for the ultimate limit state
design, the resulting structure generally leads to a reli-
ability index of 3.8.
Bridge Corridor Under Study
General
The selected bridge corridor is an urban elevated rail cor-
ridor which connects NSIC-Okhla (pier number 39) to
Botanical Garden (pier number 145) (New Delhi, India).
The bridge corridor is constructed in the vicinity of
Yamuna River; a view of the corridor is shown in Fig. 5.
The corridor is represented by three distinct types of the
bridges based on the parametric variation in the structural
arrangement and the soil strata profile, which are called
bridge-A, bridge-B and bridge-C.
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

Fig. 5  Two of the spans of

elevated metro rail corridor

Corrected N-value is underlain by light brown silty sand to the explored depth
0 10 20 30 40 of 40 m. At the site of the bridge-B, the soil composition is
0 similar, but the water table is at a depth of 3 m. The water
5 table at the bridge-C is at 8.5 m below the ground level.
10 The assessment of liquefaction susceptibility of the soil
15 Soil A strata is carried out using the [12, 52]. The site soil at bridge-
Depth (m)

A and B are found to be susceptible to liquefaction.

20
Soil B
25
30 Soil C Structural Details and Nonlinear Modelling
35 of Bridge Types
40
The bridge corridor consists of 8.44 m wide box girder
Fig. 6  Soil stratigraphy of the site deck with the simply supported condition (shown in Figs. 7
and 8). Among the three representative bridge types, the
bridge-A has two equal spans of 28 m each. The bridge-
Site Details B has two equal spans of 31 m, and the bridge-C has two
unequal spans of 47 m and 32 m. The details of the three
The site soil profiles in terms of SPT-N-value for the three representative bridges are given in Table 3. The piles are
types of soils (A, B and C) are shown in Fig. 6. At the site pinned supported at the bottom. The concrete grade is of
of bridge-A, up to a depth of 0.5 m, there is organic fill soil 60 MPa for the pier as well as the deck, 45 MPa for the pile
underlain by fine grey sand up to the depth of 28 m. This as well as the pile cap; the reinforcement grade is ­fy500. The
2600

2600

00
2600

R1
00

3600

3600

3600
R5

400 400
400
500 500 2000
2000 500 2000
1000

1000
1000

28 m 28 m

CRASH BARRIER
500

500

500

GROUND LEVEL

Fig. 7  General structural arrangement of bridge corridor

13
 Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

6900
6750

75
750 5250 750
75

750
4422 4422 CRASH BARRIER
0
80
282

2.5 % 2.5 %
300

Ø1
130

158
266

6750

6900
5250
511 1302 1302 511
75

400
400 00
2097

10
Ø

345

71 1087 829 767 1688 1688 767 829 1087

(a) Deck section (b) Pier-pile arrangement

Fig. 8  Details of the deck section and pile cap

Table 3  Details of Pier Pile Pile M-φ

representative bridges
Bridge-A
Diameter:1.8 m; Height: 8.5 m Number: 4; Diameter:1 m; Length: 28 m φy: 0.0056
Reinforcement: longitudinal 50#32ϕ Reinforcement: longitudinal 40#20ϕ My: 1603.14
Confining: 25ϕ @90 c/c Confining: 10ϕ@110-50c/c MP:2428.6
Icrack: 0.011
Bridge-B
Diameter: 1.8 m; Heights: 8.28 m (P96), Number: 5; Diameter:1 m; Length: 28 m φy: 0.0056
9.36 m (P97) and 9.36 m (P98) Reinforcement: longitudinal: 40#20ϕ My:1603.1
Reinforcement: longitudinal 52#32ϕ Confining:10ϕ @110-250c/c MP:2428.6
Confining: 25ϕ@90 c/c Icrack: 0.011
Bridge-C
Diameter: 1.85 m; Heights: 10.39 m Number: 4; Diameter:1 m; Length: 33 m φy: 0.0056
(P136), 10.5 m (P137) and 10.72 m (P136), 33 m (P137) and 32 m (P138) My:1603.1
(P138) Reinforcement: longitudinal 40#20ϕ MP:2428.6
Reinforcement: longitudinal 88#30ϕ Confining:10ϕ @110-250c/c Icrack: 0.011
Confining: 25ϕ @90 c/c

standard deviation values of 11.1% [53] for 𝜎c and 10% [54]
for 𝜎s are considered.
The IDA analysis is carried out using the multi-degree
of freedom (MDOF) finite element modelling (FEM) using
the software, CSiBridge. For the modelling of the pier
and the piles, the element size is kept constant as 0.5 m in
length. The shell elements are used for the bridge decks
as well as pile caps, and frame elements for piers and piles
(mesh size of 0.5 m). The deck sections are discretised
with the rectangular mesh of the size of 1.0 m * 3.0 m.
The pier and piles are modelled by fibre element based on
the material and geometrical properties. The hysteresis
behaviour of the materials under nonlinear analysis is as
described in Sect. 2.2.3. Nonlinear hinges are pre-assigned
in all the elements of the pier and piles. The longitudinal
and transverse directions of the loading have been taken
into consideration simultaneously. Figure  9 shows the
modelled representative bridge-B.

13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

1.2
IS1893-2016 Spectra
1
Altadena
0.8
Lacc North

Acc (g)
0.6 El Centro

0.4 Yermo

0.2 New Hall

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)

Fig. 10  Mean response spectrums of matched ground motion records

up to 300 m depth. These earthquake characteristics are

similar to the under-study bridge corridor site.
The selected accelerograms are matched to the target
response spectrum defined by the [20], using the Seismo-
Fig. 9  FEM Model of bridge-B
match software based on the algorithm proposed by Al-
Atik and Abrahamson. The matched response spectrums
are shown in Fig. 10. Using these accelerograms, nearly
Seismic Hazard Scenario at the Bridge Site 100 randomised MS-AS sequences are generated by add-
ing a gap of four seconds between the MS-AS accelero-
The bridge corridor sites are in Delhi, and nearby areas have grams (see Fig. 10).
experienced several strong earthquakes. Historically, there
were strong earthquakes of Magnitude (Mw) 6.5 (1720), 6.8
(1803), 5.5 (1842), 6.7 (1956), 6.0 (1960) and 5.8 (1966) in Intersections on the Bridge Corridor
the Delhi-NCR region. Reference [55] has reported that the
peak ground acceleration (PGA) values with 5% damping in The details of the intersections which lie on the bridge
the area having 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years corridor in the present study are summarised in Table 5.
varies in the range of 0.089–0.255 g. [20] recommends a It shows the pictorial view of the intersections with the
PGA value of 0.24 g. details of connecting areas (such as residential, offices,
Numbers of ground motion records required for an hospitals, shopping centres), type of crossing road/rail-
unbiased estimate of the structural response is three to way line, average annual daily traffic (AADT) and con-
seven as per [56, 57]. In the absence of the site-specific sequences of bridge-span failure. Suitable bridge failure
real-time ground motion data, five accelerograms as consequences have been assigned to these intersections
obtained from PEER strong-motion database (2016) have according to the average annual daily traffic (AADT)
been used and are summarised in Table 4. The selected crossing it and the importance of their respective inter-
accelerograms are recorded from an earthquake caused section in the transportation network. The AADT values
by the lateral strike-slip fault (North-west direction) at are adopted from a report on the mobility in the National
a depth of around 16 km with site soil being alluvium of Capital Region, India [58]. The AADT is forecasted with
an annual increase rate of 7.5% from the base year of 2007
to 2020. The large consequences of bridge failures are
assigned to the intersections of National Highways, rail-
Table 4  Ground motion record details (PEER Strong-motion data- way lines, other roads with high AADT and connecting
base, 2016)
shopping centres, markets or hospitals. The moderate con-
Earthquake name Year Recording station PGA (g) sequences of bridge failures are assigned to intersections
Landers 1992 Yermo Fire Station 0.148 of major district roads, connecting to and residential areas,
Whittier Narrows-01 1987 Altadena—Eaton Canyon 0.394 small shopping centres. A minor bridge failure conse-
Whittier Narrows-01 1987 LA—Century City CC North 0.225 quence has been assigned to intersections of other district
Whittier Narrows-01 1987 Newhall Fire Station 0.300 roads, connecting local shopping centres and residential
Imperial Valley-02 1940 El Centro Array #9 0.324

13
 Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

Table 5  Details of intersections on the bridge corridor

Intersection and connecting area (and crossing bridge type) AADT and Pictorial view of intersection
failure conse-
quence

Intersection 1: (C) 233,388

A major district road at NSIC metro station. It connects Nehru Place, Badarpur, Kalindikunj, Large
Okhla Mandi and Lajpat Nagar

Intersection 2: (C) –
A railway line which connects Okhla railway station to South and West zones of railway with Large
Northern Railway

Intersection 3: (C) 101,357

A National Highway at Modi Mill flyover. This intersection connects Ashram Chowk, Badarpur Large
border, Sukhdev Vihar and Nehru Place

Intersection 4: (C) 80,772

A major district road which connects Jamia Millia Islamia University, Holi Family hospital and Moderate
Escort hospital

Intersection 5: (A) 80,772

A district road which connects Okhla head area Minor

Intersection 6: (A) 80,772

A major district road which connects Kalindikunj and Shaheen Bagh area Moderate

Intersection 7: (C) 134,621

A National Highway which connects Shaheen Bagh-Jasola, Kalindikunj and Noida Large

Intersection 8: (A) 80,772

A National Highway and Yamuna River which connects Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Noida, Madan- Large
pur Khadar and Kalindikunj areas

13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

Table 5  (continued)
Intersection and connecting area (and crossing bridge type) AADT and Pictorial view of intersection
failure conse-
quence
Intersection 9: (B) 80,772
A district road which connects Botanical Garden and Noida Moderate

areas. Availability of alternate route is also considered in Response Under Mainshock

the assignment of the bridge failure consequences.
Results and Discussions
The performance of the bridges is assessed under the MS
that may lead to the damage state to either DS1 or DS2
which is again subjected to aftershock and results in the
states either MS-DS1-AS1 or MS-DS2-AS1 (the collapsed
state of MS-DS3 is not be subjected to AS. Reliability indi-
ces of representative bridges based on the conventional
approach (without consideration of bridge failure conse-
quences on the intersections) are compared with those of
the reliability requirement based on the proposed approach
(considering bridge failure consequences to the intersec-
tions). The results of the assessment are discussed in the
following subsections.
The soils at the sites have been investigated for liquefac-
tion susceptibility, and the prevailing soil conditions are
modelled using soil stiffness springs. The structural assess-
ment is performed using IDA. The IDA involves a series
of Nonlinear Time History analysis performed with scaled
accelerograms. The scales are selected in such a way that
the whole capacity curve (elastic to plastic and till collapse
of the structure) is captured. The result of the assessment is
presented in the form of IDA-curve. For the development of
IDA curve (capacity curves), cubic spline has been used for
interpolating the data obtained from the IDA comprising
of 100 iterations of NLTH using the direct integration as
suggested by Hilber-Hughes-Taylor. The drift ratio is taken
as the damage measure (DM) (on horizontal axis) and the
spectral acceleration as the intensity measure (IM) (on ver-
tical axis) for generating the IDA-curves. The IDA curve
reflects in beginning a steep slope and proportional increase
in DM with the increase in IM in the elastic zone, the next
part shows effects of softening and slope reflects a decreas-
ing trend due to strain hardening effect. After the bridge

Fig. 11  IDA curve of repre- 0.8 0.8 0.7

sentative bridges under MS
(… Altadena, --- Lacc North, 0.7 0.7
0.6
–Elcentro, –…– Yermo, –.– New
Hall) 0.6 0.6
0.5
0.5 0.5
Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.4
Sa (g)

0.4 0.4
0.3
0.3 0.3
0.2
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
0.1
0 0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.02
0 0.01 0.02
Drift Ratio Drift Ratio Drift Ratio

(b) Bridge-A (b) Bridge-B (b) Bridge-C

13
 Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

has attained the ultimate capacity, the slope of IDA-curve
turns steeper and negatively highlighting the collapse. It not
only gives a picture of the capacity of the bridge at differ-
ent levels of the loading, but also shows the distribution
of the capacity with varying levels of loading. Using the
IDA curves, the mean or median capacity along with uncer-
tainties involved with it can be estimated. The IDA curves
obtained for the bridges under the mainshock (MS) events
are shown in Fig. 11. From Fig. 11a, it may be observed that
up to the state of DS1 (drift ratio of 0.0025), the responses
of bridge-A are within the linear range and the other dam-
age states (DS2 and DS3 corresponding to drift ratio 0.005
and 0.015, respectively) fall in the nonlinear range. It is also
observed that uncertainties are lesser for the DS1 than the
DS2 and DS3. Thus, for deriving the fragility functions
actual uncertainties as exhibited in the IDA-curves needs
to be included as assumption of a uniform uncertainty value
may lead to erroneous conclusions. Considering this obser-
vation, the study utilised the actual uncertainties shown by
the IDA-curves.
Response Under Mainshock‑Aftershock
It is observed that the mainshock median curve for the
bridge-A is forced by El Centro accelerogram while the
bridges B and C are forced by Lacc North accelerogram.
The scales (for the median IDA-curve) for three damage
states, DS1, DS2 and DS3 are 1.7, 3.65, 4.5 for the bridge-A,
1.3, 2.45, 6.64 for the bridge-B, and 0.65, 1.55, 3.3 for the
bridge-C. These scales are used for generation of synthetic
MS-AS sequence accelerograms.
The IDA curves of the bridges, slightly damaged
(MS-DS1-AS) (drift ratio experienced by the bridge dur-
ing the MS is 0.0025 or less) and moderately damaged
(MS-DS2-AS) (drift ratio experienced by the bridge dur-
ing the MS is 0.005 to 0.1499) under the AS are shown
in Fig. 12. From the IDA curves of the slightly damaged
bridge-A(MS-DS1-AS), it is observed that the mainshock
does not induce any residual drift as the bridge response
under the MS remains elastic and reversible. The slight
damage does not cause structural degradation to the
bridge. Thus, it continues to perform at its full capacity
during the aftershock. However, degradation in the struc-
tural capacity is observed from the IDA-curves of the
moderately damaged bridge-A (MS-DS2-AS); thus, the
bridge operates at reduced capacity under future AS. Simi-
lar trends are also observed in the capacities of bridges B
and C which are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
From the IDA-curve of the bridge-C, it also observed that
the bridge-C shows larger distribution of the capacity than
the bridges A and B.

Fig. 12  IDA curve of bridge-A 0.8

under AS (… Altadena, --- Lacc 0.6
North, –Elcentro, –…–Yermo, 0.6
–.–·New Hall)
0.4
Sa (g)
Sa (g)

0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Drift Ratio Drift Ratio

(b) MS-DS1-AS (b) MS-DS2-AS

Fig. 13  IDA curve of bridge-B 0.8 0.6

under AS (… Altadena, --- Lacc
0.5
North, –Elcentro, –…– Yermo, 0.6
–.–·New Hall) 0.4
Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.4 0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Drift Ratio Drift Ratio

(a) MS-DS1-AS (b) MS-DS2-AS

13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

Fig. 14  IDA curve of bridge-C 0.6 0.5

under AS (… Altadena, --- Lacc
North, –Elcentro, –…– Yermo, 0.5 0.4
–.– New Hall) 0.4
0.3

Sa (g)

Sa (g)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Drift Ratio Drift Ratio

(a) MS-DS1-AS (b) MS-DS2-AS

Table 6  Statistical parameters of the bridge corridor under MS/MS-DS1-AS/MS-DS2-AS

Damage state (DS) Median (µ) Uncertainty (standard deviation)
σd σs σc σeq θeq

Bridge-A
Slight (DS1) 0.15/0.15/0.001 0.034/0.034/0 0.10 0.111 0.153/0.153/0.149 0.84/0.84/3.16
Moderate (DS2) 0.31/0.31/0.155 0.06/0.061/0 0.10 0.111 0.162/0.161/0.149 0.49/0.49/0.81
Severe (DS3) 0.61/0.61/0.498 0.104/0.104/0.0 0.10 0.111 0.182/0.182/0.178 0.29/0.29/0.35
Bridge-B
Slight (DS1) 0.11/0.11/0.001 0.008/0.002/0 0.100 0.111 0.150/0.15/0.15 1.05/1.05/3.16
Moderate (DS2) 0.21/0.22/0.095 0.019/0.021/0 0.100 0.111 0.151/0.151/0.15 0.64/0.62/1.11
Severe (DS3) 0.63/0.64/0.047 0.050/0.065/0.06 0.100 0.111 0.157/0.163/0.161 0.24/0.25/0.33
Bridge-C
Slight (DS1) 0.08/0.08/0.0001 0.014/0.01/0 0.100 0.111 0.15/0.15/15 1.25/1.25/3.82
Moderate (DS2) 0.14/0.14//0.067 0.030/0.032/0.011 0.100 0.111 0.152/0.153/0.15 0.87/0.84/1.33
Severe (DS3) 0.42/0.40/0.266 0.086/0.082/0.086 0.100 0.111 0.172/0.170/0.172 0.40/0.41/0.59

Uncertainties Involved range, and subsequently, it increases as it reaches the non-

The uncertainties due to ground motion are estimated
from the regression analysis of the IDA curve. The median
responses (µ) and standard deviations due to ground motion
(σd), steel reinforcement (σs) and concrete (σc) are assessed.
The total equivalent uncertainty measure, σeq and the result-
ing lognormal standard deviations (θeq) are summarised
in Table  6 under MS-AS sequences (MS, MS-DS1-AS,
MS-DS2-AS). The uncertainties involved in the materials
are obtained from the manufacturers of the reinforcement
and concrete (given in “Structural Details and Nonlinear
Modelling of Bridge Types”). These uncertainties are com-
bined to find the equivalent lognormal standard deviations
(total uncertainty) using Eq. (8) which are used for deriving
the fragility curves.
From the Table 6, it is observed that for bridge-A sub-
jected to MS, the equivalent total uncertainties ( 𝜃eq)for the
DS1, DS2 and DS3 damage states are estimated to be 0.84,
0.49 and 0.29, respectively. Thus, it is observed that the
dispersion of the response is relatively small in the linear
linear range. It indicates that the probability failure against
DS1 is increases at a much quicker rate (with the increase
in PGA) than the subsequent damage states (DS2 and DS3).
Similar trend is also observed for the other bridges (B and
C). This implies that the slight damage state has a lesser
deviation from the median level than the subsequent higher
damage states. As the DS1 does not impart any permanent
deformation into the bridge, the bridge does behave as intact
bridge. Therefore, the uncertainty parameters for the bridges
under MS-DS1-AS does not show change from the respec-
tive values for the bridges under MS. From Table 6, it is also
observed that the bridge responses subjected to MS-DS2-AS
show large variations as compared to the conditions when
it is subjected to MS or MS-AS-DS1. For bridge-A, the
uncertainties vary from 3.16 to 0.35. This large distribution
in the responses may be attributed to the variation in the
nature and location of the permanent deformations which
was introduced at the MS stage. A high uncertainty value
for the bridges-A (3.16 for DS1) indicates that the there is a
steep increase in probability of failure with the increase in

13
 Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

1 1
1
0.9 0.9
0.9

Probability of Exceedance
0.8

Probability of Exceedance
Probability of Exceedance 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.3 0.3
0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5
1 1.5 2 0
1 1.5 0.5 2
PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA (g)
(a) MS (b) MS-DS1-AS (c) MS-DS2-AS

Fig. 15  Fragility Curve for bridge-A (–DS1, … DS2, --- DS3)

PGA. These statistical parameters are used for estimation of and DS3 under exposure to MS and AS. From these fragil-
reliability indices. ity curves, it is observed that presence of MS caused dam-
ages results in increase of probability of higher damage
Fragility Function and Reliability Assessment states (see Fig. 15a–c). Some permanent (residual) defor-
mations are induced in the bridge even after the rebound of
For estimating the reliability indices, fragility curves have elastic deformation when it is moderately damaged (DS2)
been developed using the median responses and corre- due to mainshock. Thus, if the residual drift is more than
sponding lognormal standard deviations (Table 6) for the the limits associated with DS1, the graph showing the fra-
three conditions of the bridges namely intact bridges sub- gility of the MS-DS2-AS bridges show very high fragility
jected to MS, MS-DS1-AS and MS-DS2-AS. The fragility against DS1 (see Fig. 15c).
curves are cumulative distribution function plotted with The fragility curves for bridges B and C are shown
IM (PGA) on the X-axis and the probability of exceedance in Figs. 16, and 17, respectively. From the Fig. 16, it is
(probability of failure) on the Y-axis. The fragility curves observed that at a PGA of 0.5 g, the bridge-B shows the
derived for bridge-A are shown in Fig. 15 which give the DS3 probability of failure values of 0.32, 0.32 and 0.52 of
probability of failures against the damage states, DS1, DS2 under MS, MS-DS1-AS, and MS-DS2-AS, respectively. At

1 1 1
0.9 0.9 0.9
Probability of Exceedance

Probability of Exceedance
Probability of Exceedance

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA (g)
(a) MS (b) DS1-AS (c) DS2-AS

Fig. 16  Fragility curve of bridge-B (–DS1, … DS2, --- DS3)

13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

1 1 1
0.9 0.9 0.9

Probability of Exceedance

Probability of Exceedance
Probability of Exceedance
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
PGA (g) PGA (g) PGA (g)
(a) MS (b) DS1-AS (c) DS2-AS

Fig. 17  Fragility curve of bridge-C (–DS1, … DS2, --- DS3)

5 5 5
Bridge- A Bridge-B Bridge-C
DS3 DS3 DS3
4 4 4
Reliability index

Reliability index

Reliability index
3 3 3

2 DS2 2 2
DS2 DS2
1 1 1
DS1 DS1
0 0 DS1 0

Seismic action Seismic action Seismic action

Fig. 18  Reliability indices of representative bridges under MS-AS sequence (ignoring the influence of intersections)

the same PGA, (see Fig. 17) the bridge-C show the DS3 three predefined damage states (DS1, DS2 and DS3) under
probability of failure values of 0.61, 0.61 and 0.85 under three seismic events (MS, MS-DS1-AS and MS-DS2-AS).
MS, MS-DS1-AS and MS-DS2-AS, respectively. Thus, it The three horizontal bands on the chart (Brown, Blue and
is observed that the bridge-B shows a more resilient per- Green) shows the recommended demand reliability indices.
formance during the MS as well as MS-AS events than The estimated reliability indices of the bridges are compared
the bridge-C. with the conventionally recommended values of reliability
indices to check its probable performance under seismic
Reliability of Bridge Corridor with Conventional activities. If the reliability index is above the recommended
Approach (Ignoring Influence of Intersections) value (within the respective horizontal band or above), the
performance is observed to be acceptable and no interven-
Based on the first-order reliability method (FORM), reli- tion for strengthening the structure is required. However, if
ability indices are estimated against the probability of fail- the reliability index is lower than the recommended value,
ures under a PGA of 0.24, using Eq. (13). The reliability performance is not acceptable which causes potential losses
requirement of the different bridge types (A, B and C) of thus, intervention (repair/ rehabilitation/replacement) is
the bridge corridor with the conventional approach (ignor- recommended.
ing the influence of intersections) are shown in Fig. 18. The From Fig. 18, it is observed that the bridge-A is suf-
figure shows the available capacities of the bridges against ficiently reliable when it is being subjected to MS and

13

MS-DS1-AS with reliability indices ranging from 0.28,
1.86 to1.90 and 4.27 against damage states DS1, DS2 and
DS3, respectively. Thus, it is observed that the bridge-A in
the corridor have reliability indices well within the prevail-
ing guideline recommended range and performs well under
expected levels of seismic activities. The scenario changes
when the bridge is moderately damaged during the MS and
subjected to AS (MS-DS2-AS condition), the bridge-A is
forced to drift beyond the level-DS2, it experiences some
residual drifts and strength degradation. The reliability (β)
of the bridge-A, against MS-DS2-AS reduces from a value
of 1.86 to 0.32 (bridge-A). Thus, the bridge-A may fail and
may cause a higher potential loss of level-PL2 (see Table 3)
during the future AS (see Figs. 12, 13 and 14). The bridge-
B and C exhibits similar performance under MS and AS
sequences. The bridge-A performs comparatively better than
the bridges B and C during AS, which may be ascribed to
its shorter span and lower pier height. Still, it is likely to
cause potential losses of level-PL2, which means there is a
possibility of the replacement cost of around 50%, a casualty
rate of 0.01 and traffic downtime of around 7 days. Thus, the
probable bridge corridor performance under MS-DS2-AS is
not satisfactory as the reliability indices (β) of bridge cor-
ridor does not meet the criteria laid by Ref. [31] for irrevers-
ible serviceability condition (requirement of the minimum
reliability index of 1.5). Thus, this study highlights that once
the bridge corridor is in MS-DS2 condition, it becomes more
vulnerable and requires proper measures to avoid damages
in subsequent aftershocks. How the consideration of bridge
failure consequences on the intersections affects the reli-
ability demand of the bridges are discussed in the following
section.
Reliability of Bridge Corridor Considering Influence
of Intersections
The reliability requirement of the different bridge types (A,
B and C) of the bridge corridor with the proposed approach
of considering the influence of the intersections, are shown
in Fig.  19. In the Fig.  19, the estimated bridge capaci-
ties (reliability indices) under three seismic events (MS,
MS-DS1-AS and MS-DS2-AS) are shown as bar chart with
the demand (β-DSiDemand) shown as horizontal lines and
probable performance have been evaluated using the defined
limit states (given in Table 2). The reliability requirements
and probable PL for Intersection 1, 2, 3 and 7 (refer Tables 3
and 5) having Bridge-C with Large consequences of failure
of the bridge span are given in Table 7. The demand reli-
ability is influenced by the type of intersections based on the
potential bridge failure consequences to the intersections.
The comparison of the available capacity (reliability) and
demand reflects the probable performance of the structure;
deficiency in the safety margin (β) needs to be augmented.
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
The required additional β (safety margin) is estimated from
the difference between the available reliability index of the
bridge and the demand reliability index considering inter-
sections. Adopting these safety margins will enhance the
performance of the bridges under future MS-AS. The recom-
mended range of reliability indices against different levels of
risk is 3.1–4.3 against DS3 limit state [12, 32] and the same
is mapped with the proposed three levels of the intersec-
tions associated with consequences of failure namely minor
(β = 3.1), moderate (β = 3.8) and large (β = 4.3). For detailed
description of the influence of intersection on the bridges-C,
the evaluation of available bridge reliability and the influ-
ence of intersection is shown in Table 7.
From the Fig. 18, it is observed that the bridge-C have
sufficient reliability when subjected to MS as well as
MS-DS1-AS and only needs intervention when subjected
to MS-DS2-AS when intersections are not taken into con-
sideration. It is also observed that under MS-DS2-AS, the
bridge is so severely damaged that reliability against DS1
and DS2 ceases to zero. From the Table 7 (and Fig. 19 also),
it may be noted that the bridge-C crosses over intersections
1, 2, 3 and 7 which have large consequences of failure of
bridge span. The available reliability indices are compared
with recommended value as given in Table 1. It is observed
that the considering the large consequences of bridge failure
due to presence of these intersections, the bridge-C when
subjected to MS, fails to meet the demand for DS1 and DS2
thus, may result in loss of level, PL2. To avoid these losses,
the safety margins have been estimated as 0.48 against DS1
and 0.87 against DS2 suggesting to enhanced strength to
meet the increased target reliabilities. The seismic load
partial safety factors should be increased by 0.02 and 0.04
correspondingly to obtain the necessary improvement in
reliability indices. The load factors recommended by Cana-
dian highway bridge design guidelines (CAN/CSA-S6-06,
2011) correlating the load factor and the reliability indices.
The required safety margins are further increased when
the bridge spans get moderately damaged during MS. The
enhancement can be in the form of strengthening, repair, or
rehabilitation. The influence of different intersections (along
with intersection 1, 2, 3 and 7) on the bridge corridor reli-
ability is shown in Fig. 19.
Similar trend may be observed for bridge-A over intersec-
tions with large consequences of failures (Fig. 19), it does
not meet the reliability index requirement of the DS1 and
DS2 which may result in damages of level, PL3. It is also
observed that the bridges over intersections with moderate
failure consequence perform well under MS and MS-DS1-
AS but experience a degradation in its capacity once it
reaches MS-DS2-AS condition. The MS caused moderately
damaged bridges which may result in degraded performance
levels of PL2 or PL3. At the same time, the bridge-type
crossing over the intersections with minor consequences of
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies

5 Intersection 1,2,3,7 (C, Large) 5 Intersection 4 (C, Moderate)

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS1 DS2 DS3

Available reliability index

Available reliability index
4 4
β-DS3Demand β-DS3Demand
3 3
β-DS2Demand d
β-DS2Demand

2 2
β-DS1Demand β-DS1Demand
1
1

0
0 MS MS-DS1-AS MS-DS2-AS
MS MS-DS1-AS MS-DS2-AS
Seismic action
Seismic action

5 Intersection 5 (A, Moderate) 5 Intersection 6 (A, Moderate)

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS1 DS2 DS3
Available reliability index

Available reliability index

β-DS3Demand 4
β-DS3Demand
3
β-DS2Demand 3 β-DS2Demand
2
2
1 β-DS1Demand β-DS1Demand
1
0
MS MS-DS1-AS MS-DS2-AS 0
Seismic action MS MS-DS1-AS MS-DS2-AS
Seismic action

5 Intersection 8 (A, Large) 5 Intersection9 (B, Minor)

DS1 DS2 DS3 DS1 DS2 DS3
Available reliability index

Available reliability index

4 4
β-DS3Demand β-DS3Demand
3 3
β-DS2Demand
β-DS2Demand
2 2
β-DS1Demand
1 1 β-DS1Demand

0 0
MS MS-DS1-AS MS-DS2-AS MS MS-DS1-AS MS-DS2-AS
Seismic action Seismic action

Fig. 19  Reliability requirement for enhanced performance of bridges considering bridge failure consequences to intersections (refer Table 5 for
intersection details)

bridge failure has an adequate margin of safety. Moreover, be stated that the consideration of intersections plays a vital
it only needs retrofitting when the bridge type gets mod- role in the designing of enhanced performance yielding
erately damaged during MS (such as MS-DS2-AS). These bridges which is needed to be in design practice.
results show that the intersections influence the reliability For lifeline structures like bridges, often the indirect
requirement of the main bridge and may reduce the available cost resulting from the functional failure may be con-
safety margin depending upon the relative consequences of siderably higher in comparison to the direct costs due to
failure of the bridge span over the intersection. Thus, it may structural failure of bridges. These potentials costs can
be minimised by adopting recommended safety margins

13

Table 7  Reliability requirement for enhanced performance of bridges considering bridge failure consequences to intersections
Available safety with conventional approach
Available capacity of bridge (β) against damage states Probable performance
under three seismic events
Seismic event Damage state
Intersection 1, 2, 3 and 7 (Bridge-C, Large consequences)
MS DS1: 0.52; DS2: 1.44; DS3: 4.27 PL2 (Susceptible to DS2)
MS-DS1-AS DS1:0.52; DS2:1.44; DS3: 4.27 PL2 (Susceptible to DS2)
MS-DS2-AS DS1: 0; DS2: 0; DS3: 1.08 PL3 (Susceptible to DS3)
as discussed above during the design stage itself or at
the strengthening stage for the existing bridges. Adopting
these safety margins (enhancement of reliability) require
financial obligation, still the proposed approach results
in cost savings during the life cycle of the infrastructure.
Strengthening of the Existing Bridge for Enhanced
Reliability
The degree of exposure to reinforcing for enhanced reliabil-
ity as discussed above may be accomplished by strength-
ening the existing bridge or its component for widely
accepted damages associated [59] with the damage states
(see Table 2). In the slight damage state (DS1), typically the
bridge suffers damage in the form of hairline cracks on the
surface of pier which may lead to ingress of moisture to rein-
forcement and small areas of spalling of the reinforcement
covers which expose the reinforcement. In Moderate damage
state (DS2), the hairline cracks get widen and the spalling
of concrete covers get larger which leads to environmental
exposure of the reinforcement. Some amount of permanent
deformation is also observed which is manifested in the form
of bent refinement, with very few failed transverse reinforce-
ments. In Severe damage state (DS3), the bridge experiences
near collapse situation, the bridge pier is observed to get
heavy larger shear cracks with greater permanent deforma-
tions which are manifested in the form of crushing of con-
crete, bulging and bending of longitudinal reinforcement and
open transverse reinforcements.
Conclusions
A reliability-based methodology for the bridge performance
assessment under seismic hazard considering consequences
of the bridge failure in a corridor over the intersections is
proposed. The methodology is demonstrated on a bridge cor-
ridor which is subjected to seismic mainshock-aftershock.
The proposed framework highlights the role of intersections
in deciding the requirement of safety margins (reliability) of
the bridges towards more resilient structural performance
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
Target safety with proposed approach
Required additional β-safety margin (Partial safety factor)
DS1:0.48 (+ 0.02); DS2: 0.87(+ 0.04)
DS1: 0.48 (+ 0.02); DS2: 0.87 (+ 0.04)
DS1: 1(+ 0.04); DS2: 2.31(+ 1.0); DS3: 3.22 (+ 1.3)
under seismic hazard events. Significant conclusions are
given below for various contribution of events.
• The bridges subjected to MS and sequences of MS-DS1-
AS may possess sufficient safety margin but, once the
bridge is moderately damaged during MS, it experiences
a substantial reduction in its reliability (β) when sub-
jected to AS (MS-DS2-AS). Thus, to have a bridge cor-
ridor operable even after large earthquakes, AS needs to
be included in the bridge design.
• For estimation of the enhancement in the safety margins
towards the consequence of failure of bridge span over
the intersecting transport corridor, three consequences
namely large, moderate and minor, are proposed. The
degree of consequence is based on the importance of the
intersecting transport network, life safety, economic loss,
interruption to traffic, cost of rehabilitation.
• The intersections with the crossing of the rivers, National
Highways, Major District Roads and railway tracks have
large consequences of failure which demand enhanced
safety margins (β) thus, may not meet the requirement of
the reliability index. In the present study, the reliability
indices are in the range of 0.52–0.28 against DS1 and
1.44–1.86 against DS2 (bridges C and A). The bridges
may get slight to moderately damaged during a MS
event which may result in potential loss of level-PL2.
The safety margins required against DS1 and DS2 to
avoid any potential loss are 0.48 and 0.87, respectively,
for the bridge-C. For the bridge-A, the safety margins
against DS1 and DS2 are 0.72 and 0.45, respectively. The
required safety margins further increase once the bridges
are in MS-DS2-AS condition.
• The bridge crossing over intersections with moderate
failure consequence may perform well under the MS
and the MS-DS1-AS. The bridges experience a capacity
degradation once the bridges reach MS-DS2-AS state,
which may lead to higher potential losses of level PL2 to
PL3.
• It is observed that the bridge crossing over the intersec-
tions with minor consequences of the failure, may have
an adequate margin of safety. Moreover, it only needs
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
retrofitting when the bridge gets moderately damaged
during the mainshock event (MS-DS2-AS).
It is demonstrated that the intersections along with
sequential seismic activity (MS-AS) reflect a complex
response involving varying degree of potential losses. These
potentials losses can be minimised by adopting appropriate
safety margins by strengthening the existing bridges, while
new bridges may be designed considering the enhanced β as
proposed, thus, avoiding a heuristic type of choice of impor-
tance factor in the designing bridges.
Acknowledgements  Authors gratefully acknowledge the useful advice
given by the reviewers of this manuscript.
17. Ryu H, Luco N, Uma SR, Liel AB (2011) Developing fragilities
Declarations  for mainshock-damaged structures through incremental dynamic
Conflict of Interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Garg RK, Chandra S, Kumar K (2022) Analysis of bridge failures
in India from 1977 to 2017. Struct Infrastruct Eng 18(3):295–312.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15732​479.​2020.​18325​39
2. USGS (1971) San Fernando Earthquake—February 1971. Col-
lapsed overpass at interchange of highways. Photo by Kachadoo-
rian, R. (accessed on 12.4.2021) https://​www.​scien​cebase.​gov/​
catal​og/​item/​51ddc​d8be4​b0f72​b4472​193f
3. Zhu S, Levinson D (2010) Traffic flow and road user impacts of
the collapse of the i35w bridge over the Mississippi River. MN/
RC 2010–21. Minnesota department of transportation research
services section. USA
4. Franchin P, Pinto PE (2009) Allowing traffic on mainshock dam-
aged bridges. J Earthquake Eng 13(5):585–599. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​13632​46080​24213​26
5. Lee YJ, Song J, Gardoni P, Lim HW (2011) Post-hazard flow
capacity of bridge transportation network considering the struc-
tural deterioration of bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 7(7):509–521.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15732​479.​2010.​493338
6. Chang L, Peng F, Ouyang Y, Elnashai AS, Spencer BF (2012)
Bridge seismic retrofit program planning to maximise post-earth-
quake transportation network capacity. J Infrastruct Syst 18(2):75–
88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​IS.​1943-​555X.​00000​82
7. Alessandri S, Giannini R, Paolacci F (2013) Aftershock risk
assessment and the decision to open traffic on bridges. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dynam 2(15):2255–2275. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 002/e​ qe.​
2324
8. Rokneddin K, Ghosh J, Dueñas-Osorio L, Padgett JE (2014) Seis-
mic reliability assessment of aging highway bridge networks with
field instrumentation data and correlated failures, II: application.
Earthq Spectra 30(2):819–843. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1193/​04061​
2EQS1​60M
9. Leventakis G, Sfetsos A, Moustakidis N, Nikitakos N (2013) A
risk assessment framework for interconnected and interdepend-
ent surface transport networks. Organ Technol Manage Construct
5:811–819
10. CAN/CSA-S6-06 (2011) Standards council of Canada. Canadian
highway bridge design code
11. IS 1893 (2016) Bureau of Indian Standard, Criteria for earthquake
resistant design of structures—part 3: bridges and retaining walls.
IS 1893, New Delhi
12. EN1990 part-I (2002) The European Union Per Regulation,
Eurocode—basis of structural design. European Union.
13. FEMA: 356-2000 (2000) American Society of Civil Engineers,
Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. USA
14. Pei S, Lindt JW (2009) Methodology for earthquake-induced loss
estimation: an application to wood frame buildings. Struct Saf
31(1):31–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​strus​afe.​2007.​12.​002
15. FEMA P-58-1 (2000) Applied Technology Council. Seismic per-
formance assessment of buildings. USA
16. Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou G (2013) Investigation of sto-
rey ductility demands of inelastic concrete frames subjected to
repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 44:42–53. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2012.​08.​012
analysis. In: Proceeding of 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper No. 225, New Zealand
18. Yutao P, Wu L (2018) Seismic fragility analysis of multi-
span reinforced concrete bridges using mainshock-aftershock
sequences. Math Prob Eng. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 155/2​ 018/1​ 53730​ 1
19. Sanchez-Silva M, Rackwitz R (2003) Implications of the life qual-
ity index in the seismic design of infrastructure systems. Third
IABMAS workshop on life-cycle cost analysis and design of civil
infrastructures systems.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​40707​(240)​28
20. IRC: 6 (2014) Indian Road Congress, Standard specifications and
code of practice for road bridges: section II, loads and stresses.
India
21. Cao L, Liu J, Meng X, Zhao Y, Yu Z (2021) Inverse uncertainty
quantification for imprecise structure based on evidence theory
and similar system analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim 64:2183–
2198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00158-​021-​02974-4
22. Wang L, Liang J, Liu D, Chen W (2019) A novel reliability-based
topology optimization framework for the concurrent design of
solid and truss-like material structures with unknown-but-
bounded uncertainties. Int J Numer Methods Eng 119:239–260.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​nme.​6048
23. Cao L, Liu J, Xie L, Jiang C, Bi R (2021) Non-probabilistic polyg-
onal convex set model for structural uncertainty quantification.
Appl Math Model 89(1):504–518. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/J.A ​ PM.​
2020.​07.​025
24. Ghosh S, Ghosh S, Chakraborty S (2017) Seismic fragility analy-
sis in the probabilistic performance-based earthquake engineering
framework: an overview. Int J Eng Sci Appl Math. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1007/​s12572-​017-​0200-y
25. El Maani R, Radi B, El Hami A (2017) Vibratory reliability analy-
sis of an aircraft’s wing via fluid-structure interactions. J Aerosp.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​aeros​pace4​030040
26. Ben-Haim Y, Elishakoff I (1990) Convex models of uncertainty
in applied mechanics. Stud Appl Mech 25:1–43
27. Ben-Haim Y (1996) Robust reliability in the mechanical sciences.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin
28. Ahsana PV, Balaji Rao K and Anoop MB (2016) Convex model-
ling of uncertainties for service life design of RC bridge girder
exposed to marine environment. Life Cycle Reliabil Safe Eng
5(1):1–7. http://​www.​sresa.​org.​in/​sresa_​journ​al.​html
29. Garg RK, Kashif Q I, Rao KB (2018) Towards seismic resilient
bridges on an urban mass rapid transport network. In: Proceeding
of Urbanisation Challenges in Emerging Economies. ASCE India
Conference 2017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​97807​84482​032.​065
30. Chen F, Gu X, Shan D, Dong J, Li Q (2018) Seismic fragility
analysis of irregular continuous rigid frame girder bridge. Cogent
Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​916.​2018.​15457​41
13

31. JCSS Part-I (2001) Joint committee on Structural Safety. Proba-
bilistic model code: the basis of design
32. ISO 2394 (1998) International Standards Organisation. General
principles on reliability for structures. ISO 2394, Switzerland
33. Liolios A, Hatzigeorgiou GD (2013) A numerical approach for
estimating the effects of multiple earthquakes to seismic response
of structure strengthened by cable element. J Theor Appl Mech
43(3):21–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2478/​jtam-​2013-​0021
34. Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2013) Structural
pounding between adjacent buildings subjected to strong ground
motions. Part II: the effect of multiple earthquakes. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dyn 42(10):1509–1528. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​
2284
35. PEER Strong-motion database (2016) peer.berkeley.edu/products/
strong_ground_motion_db.html (Accessed 25 Dec 2016).
36. Parekar SD, Datta D (2021) Seismic evaluation of vertically irreg-
ular steel moment-resisting frames under mainshock–aftershock
vibration. J Vibr Eng Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0141-​
0296(01)​00036-0
37. ASCE 41-13 (2013) American Society of Civil Engineers, Pub-
lication anticipated seismic evaluation and upgrade of existing
buildings. USA
38. Huang W, Qian J, and Fu QS (2012) Damage assessment of RC
frame structures under mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences.
In: Proceeding of 15WCEE. Lisbon
39. Reinhorn R, Sivaselvan H, Kunnath SK, Valles RE, Madan A, Li
A, Lobo R, Park YJ (2009) IDARC2D Version 7.0: a program for
the inelastic damage analysis of structures. MCEER. University
at Buffalo. State University of New York. USA.
40. CSi America (2021) CSiBridge. Computers and structures Inc.
USA. https://​www.​csiam​erica.​com/​produ​cts/​csibr​idge
41. Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting
using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1193/​02111​3EQS0​25M
42. Billah AH, Alam MS (2020) Seismic fragility assessment of
multi-span concrete highway bridges in British Columbia con-
sidering soil–structure interaction. Can J Civ Eng 48(1):39–51.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​cjce-​2018-​0667
43. Olteanu I, Vargas YF, Barbat AH, Budescu M, Pujades LG (2011)
Vulnerability and risk evaluation for a reinforced concrete frame.
Bull Polytech Inst Iasi LVII(LXI):9–20
44. Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Chioccarelli E (2014) Closed-form after-
shock reliability of damage-cumulating elastic-perfectly-plastic
systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 43:613–625. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​2363
45. Billah AH, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of multi-
span concrete highway bridges in British Columbia considering
13
Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies
soil–structure interaction. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(6):804–832.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15732​479.​2014.​912243
46. Banerjee S, Shinozuka M (2011) Effect of ground motion direc-
tionality on fragility characteristics of a highway bridge. Adv Civ
Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2011/​536171
47. Gardoni P, Mosalam KM, Der Kiureghian A (2003) Probabilistic
seismic demand models and fragility estimates for RC bridges. J
Earthquake Eng 7:79–106
48. Tavares DH, Padgett JE, Paultre P (2012) Fragility curves of
typical as-built highway bridges in eastern Canada. Eng Struct
40:107–118
49. PEER 2004/05 (2004) Performance-based seismic design concepts
and implementation. In: Fajfer P and Krawinkler H (eds) Interna-
tional Workshop. Bled. Slovenia
50. FEMA-273 (1997) NCEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilita-
tion of buildings. USA
51. Ghobarah A (2001) Performance-based design in earthquake engi-
neering: state of development. Eng Struct 23:878–884
52. IRC: SP 114 (2018) Indian Road Congress. Guidelines for seismic
design of road bridges. India
53. IS 456 (2000) Bureau of Indian Standard. Plain and reinforced
concrete-code of practice. IS 456, New Delhi
54. IS 800 (2007) Bureau of Indian Standard, General construction in
steel-code of practice. IS 800, New Delhi
55. National. Centre for Seismology (2016) A report on seismic haz-
ard microzonation of NCT Delhi on 1:10,000 scales. Report No. 1.
National Centre for Seismology. Ministry of Earth Sciences Gov-
ernment of India. moes.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Delhi_microzo-
nation_report.pdf
56. ASCE 7 (2005) American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum
design loads for buildings and other structures. USA
57. Galy B, Khaled A, Nollet M (2011) Assessment of seismic vulner-
ability of typical Quebec City bridges considering the site-specific
amplification effects. Can J Civ Eng 40(1):1–10. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1139/​cjce-​2011-​0052
58. NCR-2032 (2013) Functional plan on transportation of NCR-
2032. NCR planning board. Ministry of urban development.
Government of India 3
59. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H, Uzawa T and Ueda T (2003)
Statistical analysis of fragility curves, MCEER-03-0002
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.