Fragility Analysis of Skewed Single-Frame

Concrete Box-Girder Bridges

Behzad Zakeri1; Jamie E. Padgett, A.M.ASCE2; and Gholamreza Ghodrati Amiri3

Abstract: Damage to skewed bridges in recent earthquakes has reinforced the potential vulnerability of these structures. The effect of skew
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

angle on a bridge’s fragility could vary for different bridge types, ages, or geometric configurations. This paper conducts a probabilistic seismic
assessment of skewed bridge performance, focusing on single-frame concrete box-girder bridge subclasses. The effect of skew angle on bridge
seismic fragility is investigated for bridges with single- or two-column bents, integral or seat-type abutments, and minimal or significant levels of
seismic design. Component and system-level damage states consistent with HAZUS-MH definitions are also explored in this study. The results
reveal that older bridges, which are more likely to experience higher damage states, are particularly susceptible to column damage and are not
sensitive to skew. Similarly, the presence of integral abutments in newer bridges significantly reduces the vulnerability and minimizes the impact
of the skew angle on bridge fragility. For new bridges with seat-type abutments, the bridge skew angle has a significant effect on component and
system fragility for both single- and two-column bent bridges. For these subclasses, HAZUS-MH skew factors are found to reasonably estimate
the shift in median value fragility from their straight counterparts. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000435. © 2014 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Skewed bridges; Concrete box girder; Seat type; Integral; Fragility.

Introduction as the focus of this study. Despite extensive efforts to develop

Worldwide, skewed bridges have repeatedly experienced significant
damage during past earthquakes because of their complex and ir-
regular geometries and their unique dynamic responses, which alter
demands placed on key bridge components, as has been seen in the
1971 San Fernando (Fung et al. 1971), 1994 Northridge (Buckle
1994), 1995 Kobe (Anderson et al. 1996), and 2010 Chile
(Yashinsky 2010) earthquakes. Past earthquakes have revealed that
rotation of the superstructure causes pounding between the deck and
the abutment backwall, which increases the asymmetric passive
pressure on the abutments (Shamsabadi et al. 2006). Furthermore,
the large deck displacements coupled with the lack of sufficient
resistance to transverse movement increase the potential of deck
shifting or unseating while also increasing demands on the sub-
structure components.
According to a recent inventory, concrete box-girder bridges are
the most common bridge type in the state of California (Yang et al.
2009), and more than 50% of these bridges have skew angles greater
than 15
. Such bridge classes have a unique behavior during
earthquake excitations as a result of the superstructure and sub-
structure continuity. Given their predominance in the western
regions of the United States, these bridge classes have been adopted
1 effects of foundations and abutments on the overall bridge seismic
Researcher, Iran Univ. of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 16765-
163, Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail:
b_zakeri@iust.ac.ir
2
Professor, Rice Univ., 6100 Main St., MS-318, Houston, TX 77005.
E-mail: Jamie.Padgett@rice.edu
3
Professor, Iran Univ. of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 16765-163,
Narmak, Tehran 16846, Iran. E-mail: ghodrati@iust.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 16, 2012; approved on
January 9, 2013; published online on January 11, 2013. Discussion period
open until November 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 28, No. 3, June 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-
3828/2014/3-571–582/$25.00.
fragility curves to probabilistically assess seismic vulnerability of
various bridge types and regions in the past decade (Shinozuka et al.
2003; Hwang et al. 2000; Gardoni et al. 2002; Choi et al. 2004;
Mackie and Stojadinovic 2004; Nielson and DesRoches 2007a, b;
Padgett and DesRoches 2008), few studies have focused on the
critical influence of skew. However, platforms for regional risk
assessment of transportation networks, such as HAZUS-MH
(FEMA 2005), MAEViz [Mid-Atlantic Earthquake Center
(MAEC) 2007], or REDARS (Cho et al. 2006), depend upon these
fragility curves for reliable assessment of bridge performance in
regions with significant inventories of skewed bridges. Among the
fragility studies considering skew, Sullivan and Nielson (2010)
explored the influence of skew on nonseismically designed multi-
span simply supported steel girder bridges in the central United
States. They found that a skew angle of less than 15
does not have
a significant effect on the bridge’s fragility, while for skew angles
that are more than 15
, the bridge’s fragilities are sensitive to the
skew angles and the bridge becomes more vulnerable to increasing
skew angles. Pottatheere and Renault (2008) assessed the seismic
vulnerability of skew bridges located in Germany by developing
fragility curves for various skew angles. In their study, analytical
samples were based on two-span, prestressed concrete box-girder
bridges. All samples had two circular columns, and no uncertainties
were assumed for the material properties or bridge geometry. The
response were neglected in their study. Pottatheere and Renault
(2008) concluded that the damage probability is increased by in-
creasing the skew angle and that the columns and bearings are the
most vulnerable bridge components.
This paper analyzes the fragility of a variety of single-frame
concrete box-girder bridges to provide new insight into the in-
fluence of skew on single-frame bridges and uncover the relative
impact of skew on bridges with various design details. The effect of
the skew angle is investigated for subclasses of bridges with single-
or two-column bents, integral or seat-type abutments, and minimal
or significant levels of seismic design (referenced herein as old and

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014 / 571

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582

 new era bridges). For bridges with various skew angles, uncertainty
in ground motion and geometric and material properties are con-
sidered when assessing the fragility of columns, bearings, abut-
ments, shear keys, and deck unseating. System-level fragility curves
are also derived, which conform to the HAZUS-MH damage state
definitions, to identify if and when skew angle modification factors
should be considered to scale typical nonskew bridge fragility curves
in order to account for the effects of skew. Modification factors are
subsequently derived for various subclasses or damage levels and are
compared with factors currently used in nationwide regional risk
assessment packages.
Characteristics and Analytical Modeling of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Skewed Bridges
Subclasses and Design Details of Single-Frame
Concrete Box-Girder Bridges
The bridges considered in this study fall into the general category of
multiple-span concrete box-girder bridges. Specifically, two-span
single-frame bridges are considered because of their prevalence in
California, common feature of skew, and limited fragility in-
vestigation in the literature. In all, two different levels of three cat-
egorical variables are considered as listed in Table 1, yielding a total
of eight skewed bridge subclasses analyzed herein. These subclasses
enable exploration of the influence of skew on the fragility of bridges
with various geometric configurations, design details, and levels of
seismic design. In most of the bridges belonging to this class the
columns and deck are monolithic, hence the consideration of frame
action herein. Bridges with integral and seat-type abutments are
considered, where in the first category the deck and abutments are
monolithic, while in the second expansion joints exist between the
deck and abutments rendering them susceptible to pounding. Based
on typical CALTRANS design and modeling practice (Ramanathan
2012), multicolumn bridges are considered to have a pin connection
between the columns and their foundation bent cap while single-
column bridges enable moment transfer. For this reason, the study
divides bridges into two separate column subclasses, single- and
two-column bent bridges, which have unique boundary conditions.
Past studies on RC bridges, leading to the CALTRANS (2007)
training manual on RC bridge capacity assessment, classify bridges
into three different eras based on the year they were designed—
pre-1971, 1971–1994, and post-1994—in which consideration is
Table 1. Key Design Features Considered Resulting in Eight Subclasses of
Single-Frame Box Girders
Categorical design feature Level 1 Level 2
Abutment type Integral Seat type
Bent Single column Two column
Seismic design Old New
Table 2. Bridge Component Specifications in Two Different Eras
Bridge seismic Column transverse Pile type and
design era reinforcementa diametera
Pre-1971 #4 at 300 mm CIP (0.36 m)
Post-1990 #4 at 100 mm CIDH (0.61 m)
Note: CIDH 5 cast in drilled hole; CIP 5 cast in place.
a
Based on the review of the plans and the CALTRANS (2007) training manual.
b
Brandenberg et al. (2011).
c
Based on the review of the plans (shear key strength is the percentile of the ultimate strength of the piles).
572 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582
given to the design details and vulnerability. This study considers the
lower level of seismic design termed as old, which aligns closely
with pre-1971 details, and new bridges typical of more recent post-
1994 design details. Bridge component specifications in old and new
eras are detailed in Table 2. In all bridge subclasses, the columns are
assumed to have 2.5% of longitudinal reinforcement by area. The
range of axial load on columns can vary from 1% on pier walls to
10% on some single-column bridges. According to Brandenberg
et al. (2011), the mean value of the axial load ratio on columns is
adopted as 6% for single-column bridges and 4% for two-column
bent bridges.
Analytical Models of Typical Skewed Single-Frame
Concrete Box-Girder Bridges
The seismic analysis of the bridge classes was performed using
three-dimensional (3D) analytical finite-element (FE) models in the
OpenSees platform (McKenna et al. 2010). Fig. 1 shows the 3D FE
modeling approach adopted for the bridges. The columns were
modeled with fiber sections assigned to the beam-column elements,
with constitutive models assigned to each fiber for steel and concrete
with various confinements based on the bridge subclass. Because the
deck was assumed to remain elastic during seismic excitations,
linear-elastic beam-column elements were assigned to it. The
abutments were modeled with a multilinear backbone curve using
the model recommended by Shamsabadi et al. (2010) for passive soil
pressure. Multilinear model recommendations by Choi (2002) were
used to approximate this nonlinear passive behavior using the initial
stiffness and ultimate strength from Shamsabadi et al. (2010),
coupled with the intermediate stiffness variation in the backbone
curve. The wing wall effectiveness (CL) and participation coef-
ficients (CW) were assumed as 2=3 and 4=3, respectively. The wing
wall length was assumed as 1=3 of the backwall length (Aviram et al.
2008). The soil strength and the stiffness of the backfill in the
transverse direction were adjusted identically as described in the
longitudinal direction.
Typical multispan continuous box-girder bridges with seat-type
abutment have transverse exterior shear keys at the abutments. In
integral bridges one abutment is located on a bearing pad on top
of the pile cap, a longitudinal shear key is illustrated at a gap from
the outer side of the latter abutment, and two transverse shear keys
are located on each side of the abutment (Fig. 1). According to
the CALTRANS and University of California at San Diego
(CALTRANS-UCSD) field experiments conducted by Megally
et al. (2001), two different multilinear models can be developed for
exterior and interior shear keys. For seat-type bridges, analytical
models for exterior shear keys are developed, while in integral
bridges shear keys are assumed to behave much more similarly to
interior shear keys according to their dimensions and integrity with
the pile caps based on the CALTRANS-UCSD field experiments.
Elastomeric bearings without any restraint dowels are common in
this class of bridges and their behavior is controlled by shear
Bearing thickness Abutment seat Shear key
(mm)b width (mm)a strength (%)c
38 400 25
76 600 75
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Analytical model of integral and seat-type bridges

deformation before sliding. The bearings are modeled to incorporate
elastic perfectly plastic behavior in which the coefficient of friction
between the concrete and neoprene and the shear modulus of the
elastomeric pads are assumed as random variables (Table 3). Details
on bearing models can be found in Nielson (2005). Pounding be-
tween deck and abutments in seat-type abutment bridges is captured
by zero-length elements distributed along the expansion joint normal
to the face of the deck using the bilinear model recommended by
Muthukumar and DesRoches (2006). In order to consider the effects
of the skew angle on the seismic response of bridges, various skew
angles between 0 and 55
are included. Changing the skew angle of
bridges causes various changes in the bridge geometry, such as
changing the contact area and related elements between the backwall
and backfill and also between the deck and backwall, as well as
rotating the bents foundation.
Treatment of Uncertainties and Ground
Motion Characteristics
One of the primary intentions of a fragility analysis is to capture the
uncertainties inherent in seismic performance assessment and
quantify probabilistically the potential for bridge component and
system damage (Padgett and DesRoches 2008). Different sources,
such as bridge modeling, ground motion characteristics, or bridge
geometries may contribute to uncertainties. The geometric uncer-
tainties in the subclasses of bridges were considered by generating
bridge models with various span lengths, column heights, and deck

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014 / 573

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582

 Table 3. Random Variables and Distributions Incorporated in the Bridge Model
Distribution parameter
Modeling parameter Probability distribution 1 2 Unit Reference
Steel yield strength Lognormal l 5 6:13 z 5 0:08 MPa Ellingwood and Hwang
(1985)
Concrete unconfined Normal m 5 33:8 s 5 4:3 MPa Choi (2002)
strength
Elastomeric bearing shear Uniform l 5 0:66 u 5 2:07 MPa AASHTO (1998)
modulus
Coefficient of friction Lognormal l 5 20:92 z 5 0:1 Mander et al. (1996); Dutta
(1999)
Pile translational stiffness Lognormal l 5 1:94 or 2:43 a z 5 0:3 kN=mm=pile T. Shantz and C. Roblee
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pile axial stiffness Lognormal l 5 6:09 or 6:39 a z 5 0:3 kN=mm=pile (personal communication,
2011)
Abutment passive initial Uniform l 5 14:5 u 5 29 kN=mm=m Shamsabadi et al. (2010)
stiffness
Damping Normal m 5 0:045 s 5 4:3 Fang et al. (1999);
Bavirisetty et al. (2000)
Abutment gap Normal m 5 40:2 s 5 19 mm Based upon inventory
review
Mass Uniform l 5 0:9 u 5 1:1 Nielson (2005)
Loading direction Uniform l50 u 5 2p radian
a
Parameters are for old and new bridges, respectively.

widths. In this study, the abutment backwall height was assumed to
be constant in all bridges and a mean value of 3.5 m was defined,
based on the plans reviewed. For the single-column bent bridges, the
deck widths had a range of 8–16 m, whereas for the two-column bent
bridges the range considered was 9–24 m. These estimates were
based on a review of plans and engineering judgment.
A Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) technique (Ayyub and Lai
1989), commonly adopted for variance reduction, was used in this
study to generate the bridge samples. The span length and column
height were considered as dependent variables of the deck width and
were defined based on 10 specified deck widths in each bridge subclass
generated by the LHS technique. The span lengths varied from 16.8 to
60.2 and 14 to 62.7 m, while the column heights varied from 4.1 to 10.8
and 4.2 to 12.6 m in the single- and two-column bent bridges, re-
spectively. For other uncertainties related to bridge modeling such as
variations in material properties, mass, and damping, quasi-Monte
Carlo sampling (Morokoff and Caflisch 1995) was used. Quasi-Monte
Carlo sampling is a technique used to sample random variables
governed by probability density functions and is much more accurate
than other sampling techniques. Quasi-Monte Carlo methods use
quasi-random (also known as low-discrepancy) sequences instead of
random or pseudorandom sequences. In Table 3 all of the considered
modeling parameters and their probability distributions are presented.
The nonlinear time history analysis of the bridges was conducted
using four bins of 20 typical nonnear-fault records identified by
Krawinkler et al. (2003) from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research (PEER) database and one bin of 20 near-fault California
records from the SAC Steel Project (1997) database. These ground
motions have been adopted and described in detail in past probabilistic
seismic response assessment studies (Mackie and Stojadinovic 2001;
Shafieezadeh et al. 2012). The adoption of 100 records reflecting
a range of ground motion realizations exceeds the recommended
minimum number of recorders suggested by Nielson and Mackie
(2009). Each set of orthogonal horizontal components of ground
motions was randomly paired with a bridge sample, producing
a total of 100 nonlinear dynamic analyses for each bridge subclass.
The vertical components of ground motions were not considered in
this study.
Probabilistic Seismic Demand Models and Capacity
Limit States
First, probabilistic seismic demand models (PSDMs) were de-
veloped to characterize the probability density functions for com-
ponent demands as a function of ground motion intensity, selected as
peak ground acceleration (PGA), based on the findings of previous
studies (Padgett et al. 2008). The component responses considered
for fragility analyses are listed in Table 4. For each subclass of
bridges separate probabilistic seismic demand models were con-
structed from the peak component responses of the 100 simulations
for that design era, abutment and bent type, and skew angle of
interest. The form of the demand model follows that proposed by
Cornell et al. (2002) and can be represented in power model
SD ¼ aIMb (1)
where a and b 5 coefficients obtained using regression analysis; and
IM 5 intensity measure. The conditional seismic demands or
PSDM, are modeled using a lognormal distribution as follows:
" #
lnðdÞ 2 lnðSD Þ
P½D $ d j IM ¼ 1 2 F (2)
bDjIM
where F½  5 standard normal cumulative distribution function;
SD 5 median value of the seismic demand [Eq. (1)]; and bDjIM
5 lognormal SD (dispersion) of the demand conditioned on the IM,
which is also estimated from the regression analysis. To calculate the
system-level fragility of a bridge, Nielson and DesRoches (2007a)
proposed the development of a joint PSDM. In this study, damage to
the bridge components was first assessed and then system-level
fragility curves were developed based on the damage states de-
scribed in HAZUS-MH (FEMA 2005) corresponding to slight,
moderate, extensive, and complete damage. Hence, the capacity
limit states relating to the performance of each component in the
bridge were identified by drawing upon previous studies as well as
on the analytical models of bridge components used in the analysis.
Table 5 presents the limit states adopted, in which four levels of

574 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582

 Table 4. Old and New Bridge Component Limit States
DC1 DC2 DC3 DC4
Component Sc bc Sc bc Sc bc Sc bc
Column, old (mF) 1.0 0.25 2.1 0.44 3.2 0.46 4.8 0.25
Column, new (mF) 1.00 0.25 5.11 0.44 7.5 0.46 9.0 0.25
Abut-p (mm) 0:05 3 ymax 0.25 0:1 3 ymax 0.25 0:35 3 ymax 0.46 1:0 3 ymax 0.46
Abut-a (mm) 18.1 0.25 36.3 0.25 108.8 0.46 217.6 0.46
Abut-t (mm) 0:05 3 ymax 0.25 0:1 3 ymax 0.25 0:35 3 ymax 0.46 1:0 3 ymax 0.46
Brg-Long &Trans, old (mm) 37.5 0.25 56.2 0.25 75.0 0.46 93.7 0.46
Brg-Long &Trans, new (mm) 75.0 0.25 112 0.25 150 0.46 265 0.46
Shear key integral, old (mm) 0:95 3 du 0.25 1:0 3 du 0.25 1:5 3 du 0.46 3:0 3 du 0.46
Shear key integral, new (mm) 0:95 3 du 0.25 1:0 3 du 0.25 3:0 3 du 0.46 6:0 3 du 0.46
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shear key seat type, old (mm) 1:0 3 dv 0.25 7:0 3 dv 0.25 14:0 3 dv 0.46 22:0 3 dv 0.46
Shear key seat type, new (mm) 1:0 3 dv 0.25 8:0 3 dv 0.25 17:0 3 dv 0.46 29:0 3 dv 0.46
Unseating, old (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 400 0.46
Unseating. new (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 600 0.46
Note: Abut-a 5 abutment active deformation; Abut-p 5 abutment passive deformation; Abut-t 5 abutment transverse deformation; Brg-Long&Trans
5 elastomeric bearing deformation in the longitudinal and transverse directions; du 5 shear key displacement corresponding to ultimate force in the backbone
curve of the shear key; dv 5 shear key displacement corresponding to yield point in backbone curve of shear key; ymax 5 maximum soil displacement capacity.

Table 5. Descriptions of Component-Level Damage Assigned to Each System Damage State Consistent with HAZUS-MH (FEMA 2005) Qualitative Damage
States
Component-level limit state
Limit state Primary component Secondary component System-level limit state
Slight DC1 DC2 DS1
Moderate DC2 DC3 DS2
Extensive DC3 DC4 DS3
Complete DC4 N/A DS4
Note: DS 5 damage state.

damage are considered for all components, termed DC1–DC4. The
columns were assumed to be controlled by flexural failure and two
different behaviors, strength degrading and ductile, were assumed
for old and new seismic design era bridges, respectively. The
strength-degrading behavior assumed for poorly confined columns
and their related limit states (displacement ductility) were developed
following the recommendations of Hwang et al. (2000) for slight to
extensive damages and the FHWA (1995) recommendations for
complete damage. For ductile columns, the statistical analyses of
Berry and Eberhard (2003) on the PEER (2000) column databases
were used for moderate and complete damage states. Banerjee and
Shinozuka (2008) calibrated analytical models with empirical field
data from large-scale shaking table tests on a two-span bridge at the
University of Nevada (Reno, Nevada). According to their findings,
extensive damage to columns is approximately 65% of complete
damage. The displacement ductilities were converted to curvature
ductility as a common limit state (Nielson and DesRoches 2007a, b;
Padgett and DesRoches 2008) based on the relationships presented
by the FHWA (2006). Unique estimates of column yield curvature
were derived for each bridge sample to estimate the analogous
curvature ductility demand.
Limit states for the active abutment deformations were adopted
based on the approach outlined by Nielson (2005), which relates
approach settlement to active deformation. According to Choi
(2002), in the passive and transverse directions the limit states are
taken as a function of maximum displacement of soil because they
change with increasing abutment width as a result of geometric
sampling or increased skew and soil characteristics. Bearing ca-
pacity limits were assumed to be dictated by shear in all damage
states for the old bridges because the shear limits were found to be
less than the sliding deformation limit. Following Aviram et al.
(2008), 150 and 300% of shear strain were assumed for moderate
(DC2) and complete (DC4) damage states, respectively; following
Padgett (2007), 100 and 200% of shear strain were assigned to slight
(DC1) and extensive (DC3) damage states, respectively. In the new
bridges with newer and thicker bearings characterized by higher
shear deformation strength, the shear deformation dominated the
limit states up to extensive damage while sliding in bearings dictated
the bearing limit states for complete damage, and is defined as half of
the bearing support length. For shear keys, the limit states were
identified based on the mechanical model proposed by Megally et al.
(2001). The shear key limit states were taken as a function of the
displacements corresponding to the first yield of the shear key
backbone curve, which is defined as slight damage in seat-type
bridges. In the integral bridges, the shear key limit states were
defined as a function of the ultimate capacity on the backbone curve
of the shear key, which is defined as the moderate damage state. It
should be noted that these points are variable depending upon
abutment width, number of piles, and strength of material (concrete
and steel) because the shear key design is a function of substructure
capacity. Deck unseating is the only limit state that is defined just in
the complete damage state (DC4) and varies from 400 mm in old
bridges to 600 mm in new bridges based on bridge plans. The
component limit states for both the integral and seat-type bridges can
be found in Table 4.
The probability distributions of the component capacities were
all assumed to follow a lognormal distribution. According to column
test data and regression analyses conducted by Berry and Eberhard
(2003), coefficients of variation equal to 0.46 and 0.25 were sug-
gested for cover spalling and bar buckling in columns, respectively;
therefore, for columns, a dispersion of 0.44 was adopted for DC2,
while 0.25 was used for DC4. The recommendations of Nielson

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014 / 575

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582

 (2005) were adopted for all other components and damage levels. of the abutments are presented separately from other components in
Therefore, the logarithmic SDs of component capacity would be Fig. 3(b) at the slight damage state in new seat-type bridges, and the
bC 5 0:25 and 0:46 for lower and higher damage states, respectively. same trend can be found in other damage states. It can be concluded
Given the lognormal demand and capacity models, fragility from Fig. 2 that for each damage state, while the vulnerability of the
curves for meeting or exceeding each component damage level i abutments in passive action decreases, the shear key, abutment, and
follow the typical closed form, in which the median value of demand, bearing transverse vulnerabilities increase by increasing the skew
SD , was substituted by Eq. (1) prior to rearrangement angle because of larger transverse motions in higher skew angles in
8 9 both single- and two-column bent bridges. Fig. 3(a) shows that
>
< >
= components in two-column bent bridges are more fragile than in
lnðPGAÞ 2 ½lnðSCi Þ 2 lnðaÞ=b
P½DCi j PGA ¼ F q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (3) single-column bent bridges as a result of the boundary conditions
>
: >
;
b2 þ b2 =b
D Ci at the bottom of the columns. Two-column bent bridges are prone
to have higher displacement in both longitudinal and trans-
where a and b 5 parameters of the demand model; SCi 5 median verse directions, which results in higher demand on the components
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

value of the capacity at component damage level i; bCi 5 logarithmic and the potential for deck unseating. However, columns are the
SD for the capacity at level i; bD 5 logarithmic SD of the demand exception because they have higher median values (lower fragility)
from the regression analysis; and PGA 5 IM conditioned exceed- in two-column bent bridges as a result of lower curvature ductility
ance probability. demand of columns in two-column bent bridges in comparison with
The components are divided into two categories, primary and sec- columns in single-column bent bridges. It is obvious from Fig. 3(b)
ondary, based on their contribution to the bridge system damage states. that the effect of the skew angle on abutment fragilities is significant.
The primary components are defined as those that affect the vertical
stability and load-carrying capacity of the bridge. Extensive or complete
damage to these components may lead to closure of the bridge. Column
damage and deck unseating belong to this category, while shear key,
bearing, and abutment are defined as secondary components. To dis-
tinguish between component and system limit states, the four damage
levels for the bridge system adopt the HAZUS-MH terminology (slight,
moderate, extensive, and complete), and corresponding descriptions of
the component-level damage assigned to each system damage state are
presented in Table 5, where DC 1–4 do not correspond directly to the
slight to complete damage states. Instead, primary components con-
tribute to the slight to complete damage states, while secondary com-
ponents contribute to the earlier damage states. The system fragility
curves were derived considering the correlations between components
using the approach adopted in previous studies (Nielson and DesRoches
2007a; Padgett and DesRoches 2008). The system fragility curves for
each system-level damage state (DS) can be calculated as follows:
8  
>
> N  
>
>P [ Eprimary_i DCj j IM for j ¼ 4
>
>
>
> 
i51
> 
  < N  
DSj j IM ¼ P [ Eprimary_i DCj j IM
>
> i51
>
>  
>
>  
>
> M
>
:þP [ Esecondary_m DCjþ1 j IM for j # 3
m51

(4)

where N 5 total number of primary components; M 5 total number

of secondary components; and j 5 ð1, 2, 3, 4Þ correspond to the
slight, moderate, extensive, and complete damage states, respectively.
Here, P½DSj j IM is typically computed as the probability of the union
of events Ei ½DSj j IM, in which each of the ith bridge components
reaches or exceeds the jth damage state.

Insights from Fragility Analysis of Skew

Bridge Classes

To clarify the effect of skew angle on the seismic performance of

bridges, a new two-column bent seat-type bridge was selected as an
example to compare the component fragility curves at 0 and 45

skew angles at the moderate damage state (Fig. 2). Comparisons of
various component fragilities in both old and new single- and two- Fig. 2. Component fragility curves generated for new two-column
column bent bridges with seat-type abutments at the moderate bridges at moderate damage for (a) 0
and (b) 45
skew angles
damage state are also illustrated in Fig. 3(a). Also, the median values

576 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582

 By increasing the skew angle, the bridge deck tends to rotate during
an earthquake, which causes excessive transverse movement and
impact between the deck and backwall. Also, increasing the
transverse displacement causes the abutment transverse median
value of fragility to decrease (become more fragile). The effect of the
skew angle on active deformation is greater than on transverse
deformation because of its high median fragility for lower skew
angles. For low levels of skew, friction between bearings and
abutments causes displacement in the active direction; however, by
increasing the skew angle the rotation of the abutment and deck
results in active displacement. A comparison of the median values
for deck unseating in old single- and two-column bent seat-type
bridges is illustrated in Fig. 4. The results show that the skew angle
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

has a significant effect on deck unseating fragility, particularly in

two-column bent bridges, and bridge unseating vulnerability
increases by increasing the skew angle.
The effect of the skew angle on the system fragility curves in both
single- and two-column bent bridges at the moderate damage state is
illustrated in Fig. 5. Other damage states are not shown because of

Fig. 3. Comparison of the impact of skew on the median values of (a)

other components and (b) abutment fragility in new seat-type abutment
bridges with various column configurations

Fig. 5. System fragility curves generated for various skew angles in

Fig. 4. Comparison of skew impact on deck unseating fragility in old new seat-type bridges for (a) single- and (b) two-column bridges at the
seat-type bridges in single- and two-column bridges moderate damage state

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014 / 577

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582

 trend similarity. The fragility curves indicate that by increasing the
skew angle in a single-column bent bridge, the bridge becomes more
fragile. In two-column bent bridges, the fragility first decreases at
15
and then increases at 30 and 45
. This result is attributed to the
fact that the increase in abutment passive stiffness for low levels of
skew (for example, at 15
) as a result of increased abutment width
has a more significant impact than skew effects on the response. With
higher levels of skew the rotational effects of the deck begin to
overcome the increased stiffness of the boundary conditions and the
bridge system becomes more fragile.
The comparison of the median value for the system fragility of
various old bridges for various skew angles in Fig. 6(a) confirms that
the effect of the skew angle on the seismic vulnerability of old
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bridges is small because of the low ductility capacity in the columns,
which dominates bridge behavior. In bridges with integral abut-
ments, increasing the skew angle may slightly decrease the bridge
fragility because of the higher passive pressure at the abutments. The
effect of skew angle in new bridges is presented in Fig. 6(b) by
comparing the median values of their fragility at the moderate and
Fig. 6. Comparison of the impact of skew on the median values of
system fragility for (a) old and (b) new bridges with various abutment
and column types (Seat 5 seat type; Integ 5 integral; Mod 5 moderate;
Ext 5 extensive)
578 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582
extensive damage states. It is clear that the effect of the skew angle on
new bridges with ductile columns and a wider range of component
capacities is more than on old bridges, particularly in seat-type
abutments. A comparison of the median values of system fragility
between old integral and seat-type abutment bridges shows that the
skew angle has less effect on integral abutment bridge fragility. This
result can be understood by considering the higher fixity between the
bridge super- and substructures, which results in lower rotation and
relative displacement in integral bridges as well as pounding be-
tween the deck and the abutment in seat-type bridges, which is
intensified by the skew angle, forcing the deck and abutment to rotate
and increasing the demands on various components.
The median values of fragility of the components for the two-
column bent new bridge with integral and seat-type abutments are
summarized in Fig. 7 for a 45
skew angle at the moderate damage
state. The same trend in relative vulnerability of components can be
found for other subclasses and damage states. Fig. 7 reveals that in
most of the components the integral bridges are less vulnerable than
the seat-type bridges because of the lower displacement experienced
in seismic excitations in integral bridges. The abutment is the only
exception, which is a function of the dynamic behavior of the system.
Unlike seat-type bridges, integral bridges have a monolithic abut-
ment with no gap between the deck and abutment. As a result, the soil
and abutments engage during the seismic response of an integral
bridge for small displacement, while in the seat-type bridges this
engagement is postponed until the closure of the gap. Therefore, for
a specified bridge displacement, abutments and soil experience
higher deformation in integral bridges and may have increased
vulnerability. This passive abutment vulnerability of integral bridges
is countered by the decrease in vulnerability of other components, as
shown in Fig. 7.
Skew Angle Modification Factors
Median value modification factors have been proposed in the liter-
ature to scale fragility curves to account for skew effects. For ex-
ample, HAZUS-MH proposes an overall skew angle modification
factor that is applied to all bridge types in the HAZUS-MH meth-
odology, including the nonseismic and seismic fragility curves for
Fig. 7. Comparison of relative vulnerability of components in 45

skewed bridges for new integral and seat-type bridges in two-column
bridges
 single-column box-girder bridges presented in HAZUS-MH. It is
noted that more refined subbins of single-frame box-girder bridges
were considered in this study. The zero-skew fragilities derived in
this study for each subclass of bridges were scaled using the
modification factor presented in HAZUS-MH and compared with the
results of a full fragility analysis of the skewed bridges. The base
zero-skew fragility curves were not adopted from HAZUS-MH.
Instead, the results from this study were used to enable a direct
comparison of the modification factor. A comparison of the resulting
median values for various skew angles (0–55
) in the new single-
column bent bridges is illustrated in Fig. 8 for seat-type bridges in
moderate and extensive damage states. The same trend relative to the
comparison of the modification factor can be found for the other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
damage states. Fig. 8 reveals that the application of the HAZUS-MH
skew modification factor in single- and two-column bent seat-type
bridge classes of new design details can predict the skew angle effect
on the fragility quite well. It can be concluded from Fig. 9 that
Fig. 8. Comparison of the median value from the fragility analysis and
from applying the HAZUS-MH skew modification factor to the zero-
skew fragility from the analysis for various skew angles in the new seat-
type (a) single- and (b) two-column bridges at moderate and extensive
damage states
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014 / 579
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582
applying the skew modification factors to the old subclasses of seat-
type concrete single-frame bridges underestimates the median value,
particularly in skew angles greater than 30
. However, it can be seen
from Figs. 10 and 11 that applying these factors are not consistent
with the bridges’ fragility trend for various skew angles in integral
bridges, leading to underestimation of the median value. Therefore,
using the HAZUS-MH skew factor in integral bridges can result in
a conservative prediction of the fragility at various damage states,
particularly as the skew angle increases.
Conclusions
This paper studies the effect of skew angle on the fragility of single-
frame concrete box-girder bridges for various abutment types and
bridge ages, considering single- and two-column bridges. The im-
pact of skew is investigated for columns, abutments, bearings, shear
Fig. 9. Comparison of the median value from the fragility analysis and
from applying the HAZUS-MH skew modification factor to the zero-
skew fragility from the analysis for various skew angles in the old seat-
type (a) single- and (b) two-column bridges at moderate and extensive
damage states
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Comparison of the median value from the fragility analysis and
from applying the HAZUS-MH skew modification factor to the zero-
skew fragility from the analysis for various skew angles in the (a) old and
(b) new single-column integral bridges at slight and moderate damage
states
keys, and deck unseating, in which uncertainty in demand and ca-
pacity are considered. Four levels of component and system-level
damage states are considered based on the HAZUS-MH damage
state descriptions, where it is recognized that some components may
be more important than others in contributing to system-level
damage state assignment.
For all subclasses of bridges with integral abutments, regardless
of design era or column configuration, the results show that the effect
of the skew angle is negligible at the component and system fragility
level as a result of the integral bridge configurations. Additionally, in
seat-type old bridges, the effect of skew is minimal because of the
significant vulnerability of the columns regardless of skew, which
dominates bridge system fragility. The comparison of the compo-
nent fragility in both single- and two-column bent configurations in
old and new seat-type or integral bridges also reveals that compo-
nents in single-column bent bridges are less fragile relative to two-
column bent bridges. The only exception is the column, which is
580 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582
Fig. 11. Comparison of the median value from the fragility analysis and
from applying the HAZUS-MH skew modification factor to the zero-
skew fragility from the analysis for various skew angles in the (a) old and
(b) new two-column integral bridges at slight and moderate damage
states
more fragile in single-column bent bridges because of higher cur-
vature ductility demands.
In new seat-type bridges, the skew angle has a significant effect
on component and system fragility. For the new seat-type bridges, as
the skew angle increases the shift in component vulnerability ren-
ders the system more susceptible to damage, particularly for skews
in excess of 30
. Transverse bearings, shear keys, and transverse
abutments experience higher fragility (lower median PGA) at higher
skew angles as a result of increased bridge transverse displacement.
Abutments in active action also become more vulnerable by in-
creasing the skew angle because of rotation of the deck and pounding
between the deck and abutment. Abutment passive deformation is
not affected by the skew angle because of transverse response
domination in higher skew angles. The skew angle also affects the
column fragility in seat-type bridges because of the higher capacity
in comparison with old bridges, and this effect on columns in
 two-column bent bridges is much more significant than in single-
column bent bridges. Although the skew angle has some effect on
column fragility, columns are less sensitive than other components.
Deck unseating is the other factor considered in the fragility
analysis for the complete damage state, as a common failure mode,
particularly in high-skew older bridges. Old seat-type bridges may
have insufficient seat width as a result of nonseismic design or lower
estimation of seismic force in their seismic design; therefore, these
bridges are susceptible to unseating. This phenomenon is intensified
by increasing the skew angle, and the effect of the skew angle in two-
column bent bridges is more than in single-column bent bridges.
The results of the study reveal that the skew modification factors
are not applicable to a wide range of single-frame concrete box-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
girder bridges because several subclasses are not highly affected
by skew. If applied, a conservative estimate of bridge fragility can be
anticipated. However, the existing skew modification factors pre-
sented in HAZUS-MH do a satisfactory job of reflecting the impact of
skew on the fragility of the subclasses most affected by skew, which
are the new era single-frame bridges with seat-type abutments.
References
AASHTO. (1998). LRFD bridge design specifications, Washington, DC.
Anderson, D. L., Mitchell, D., and Tinawi, R. G. (1996). “Performance of
concrete bridges during the Hyogo-Ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake on
January 17, 1995.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 23(3), 714–726.
Aviram, A., Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinovic, B. (2008). “Guidelines for
nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California.” PEER Rep. 2008/
03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Califor-
nia at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Ayyub, B. M., and Lai, K. L. (1989). “Structural reliability assessment using
Latin hypercube sampling.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Structural Safety and
Reliability (ICOSSAR), Part II, ASCE, New York.
Banerjee, S., and Shinozuka, M. (2008). “Experimental verification of
bridge seismic damage states quantified by calibrating analytical models
with empirical field data.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vib., 7(4), 383–393.
Bavirisetty, R., Vinayagamoorthy, M., and Duan, L. (2000). “Dynamic
analysis” Bridge engineering handbook, W.-F. Chen and L. Duan, eds.,
CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Berry, M. P., and Eberhard, M. O. (2003). “Performance models for flexural
damage in reinforced concrete columns.” PEER Rep. 2003/18, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
Brandenberg, S. J., Zhang, J., Kashighandi, P., Huo, Y., and Zhao, M.
(2011). “Demand fragility surfaces for bridges in liquefied and laterally
spreading ground.” PEER Rep. 2011/01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Univ. of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Buckle, I. G. (1994). “The Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17,
1994: Performance of highway bridges.” Technical Rep. NCEER-94-
0008, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State Univ.
of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
CALTRANS. (2007). “Reinforced concrete bridge capacity assessment training
manual.” Structure Maintenance and Investigations Rep., Sacramento, CA.
Cho, S., Eguchi, R. T., Ghosh, S., and Huyck, C. K. (2006). “REDARS
validation report.” Rep. No. MCEER-06-0007, Multidisciplinary Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
Choi, E. (2002). “Seismic analysis and retrofit of Mid-America bridges.”
Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., and Nielson, B. (2004). “Seismic fragility of
typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.” Eng. Struct., 26(2), 187–199.
Cornell, C. A., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R. O., and Foutch, D. A. (2002).
“Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management
Agency steel moment frame guidelines.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526), 526–533.
Dutta, A. (1999). “On energy based seismic analysis and design of highway
bridges.” Ph.D. thesis, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Ellingwood, B., and Hwang, H. (1985). “Probabilistic descriptions of re-
sistance of safety related structures in nuclear plants.” Nucl. Eng. Des.,
88(2), 169–178.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014 / 581
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582
Fang, J., Li, Q., Jeary, A., and Liu, D. (1999). “Damping of tall buildings: Its
evaluation and probabilistic characteristics.” Struct. Des. Tall Build.,
8(2), 145–153.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1995). “Seismic retrofitting
manual for highway bridges.” FHWA-RD-94-052, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2006). “Seismic retrofitting
manual for highway structures: Part 1—Bridges.” FHWA-HRT-06-032,
Dept. of Transportation, McLean, VA.
FEMA. (2005). HAZUS-MH software, Washington, DC.
Fung, G. G., LeBeau, R. J., Klein, E. E., Belvedere, J., and Goldschmidt,
A. F. (1971). Field investigation of bridge damage in the San Fernando
earthquake, State of California, Division of Highways, Bridge Dept.,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Cal-
ifornia Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., and Mosalam, K. M. (2002). “Probabilistic
capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns
based on experimental observations.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(2002)128:10(1024), 1024–1038.
Hwang, H., Liu, J. B., and Chiu, Y.-H. (2000). “Seismic fragility analysis of
highway bridges.” MAEC RR-4, Center for Earthquake Research and
Information, Univ. of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Krawinkler, H., Medina, R., and Alavi, B. (2003). “Seismic drift and
ductility demands and their dependence on ground motions.” Eng.
Struct., 25(5), 637–653.
Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinovic, B. (2001). “Probabilistic seismic demand
model for California bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-
0702(2001)6:6(468), 468–480.
Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinovic, B. (2004). “Fragility curves for reinforced
concrete highway overpass bridges.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earth-
quake Engineering, International Association for Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo.
Mander, J. B., Kim, D. K., Chen, S. S., and Premus, G. J. (1996). “Response
of steel bridge bearings to the reversed cyclic loading.” Rep. No. NCEER
96-0014, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
Univ. of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
McKenna, F., Scott, M., and Fenves, G. L. (2010). “Nonlinear finite-element
analysis software architecture using object composition.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002, 95–107.
Megally, S. H., Silva, P. F., and Seible, F. (2001). “Seismic response of
sacrificial shear keys in bridge abutments.” Rep. No. SSRP-200l/23,
Dept. of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California at San Diego, San
Diego.
Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAEC). (2007). “MAEViz software.”
Æhttp://http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/software_and_tools/maeviz.htmlæ.
Morokoff, W. J., and Caflisch, R. E. (1995). “Quasi-Monte Carlo in-
tegration.” J. Comput. Phys., 122(2), 218–230.
Muthukumar, S., and DesRoches, R. A. (2006). “Hertz contact model with
non-linear damping for pounding simulation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn., 35(7), 811–828.
Nielson, B. (2005). “Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate
seismic zones.” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2007a). “Analytical seismic fragility
curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States.”
Earthquake Spectra, 23(3), 615–633.
Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2007b). “Seismic fragility methodology
for highway bridges using a component level approach.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(6), 823–839.
Nielson, B. G., and Mackie, K. R. (2009). “Tracking uncertainties from
component level to system level fragility analyses through simulation.”
Proc., 10th Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering
(TCLEE) Int. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability, ASCE, Reston,
VA.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER). (2000). “PEER strong
motion database.” Æhttp://peer.berkeley.edu/smcatæ.
Padgett, J. E. (2007). “Seismic vulnerability assessment of retrofitted bridges
using probabilistic methods.” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology, Atlanta.
Padgett, J. E., and DesRoches, R. (2008). “Methodology for the de-
velopment of analytical fragility curves for retrofitted bridges.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37(8), 1157–1174.
 Padgett, J. E., Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2008). “Selection of
optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of
highway bridge portfolios.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 37(5),
711–725.
Pottatheere, P., and Renault, P. (2008). “Seismic vulnerability assessment of
skew bridges.” Proc., 14th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
International Association for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo.
Ramanathan, N. K. (2012). “Next generation seismic fragility curves for
California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design phi-
losophy.” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
SAC Steel Project. (1997) “Suites of earthquake ground motions for
analysis of steel moment frame structures.” Æhttp://nisee.berkeley.edu/
data/strong_motion/sacsteel/ground_motions.htmlæ (Sep. 22, 2009).
Shafieezadeh, A., Ramanathan, K., Padgett, J. E., and DesRoches, R. (2012).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Guadalajara on 12/15/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
“Fractional order intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand
modeling applied to highway bridges.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
41(3), 391–409.
Shamsabadi, A., Kapuskar, M., and Martin, G. R. (2006). “Nonlinear
seismic soil-abutment-structure interaction analysis of skewed bridges.”
Proc., 5th National Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways: Innovation
582 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2014
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2014, 28(3): 571-582
in Earthquake Engineering for Highway Structures, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Shamsabadi, A., Khalili-Tehrani, P., Stewart, J. P., and Taciroglu, E. (2010).
“Validated simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments
with typical backfills.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-
5592.0000058, 302–311.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Kim, H., Uzawa, T., and Ueda, T. (2003).
“Statistical analysis of fragility curves.” Rep. No. MCEER-03-0002,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(MCEER), Buffalo, NY.
Sullivan, I., and Nielson, B. G. (2010). “Sensitivity analysis of seismic fragility
curves for skewed multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges.” Proc.,
19th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Yang, C.-S., DesRoches, R., and Padgett, J. E. (2009). “Fragility curves for
a typical California box girder bridge.” Proc., Technical Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Yashinsky, M. (2010). “Performance of highway and railway structures
during the February 27, 2010, Maule Chile earthquake.” EERI/PEER/
FHWA Bridge Team Rep., Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.