Seismic fragility curves for greek bridges: methodology and case studies

  • Ioannis F. Moschonas
  • Andreas J. Kappos
  • Panagiotis Panetsos
  • Vissarion Papadopoulos
  • Triantafyllos Makarios
  • Pavlos Thanopoulos
Original Research Paper


This study focusses on the estimation of seismic fragility curves for all common bridge types found in modern greek motorways. At first a classification scheme is developed in order to classify the existing bridges into a sufficient number of classes. A total of 11 representative bridge classes resulted, based on the type of piers, deck, and pier-to-deck connection. Then an analytical methodology for deriving fragility curves is proposed and applied to the representative bridge models. This procedure is based on pushover analysis of the entire bridge and definition of damage states in terms of parameters of the bridge pushover curves. The procedure differentiates the way of defining damage according to the seismic energy dissipation mechanism in each bridge, i.e. bridges with yielding piers of the column type and bridges with bearings (with or without seismic links) and non-yielding piers of the wall type. The activation of the abutment-backfill system due to closure of the gap between the deck and the abutments is also taken into account. The derived fragility curves are subjected to a first calibration against empirical curves based on damage data from the US and Japan.


Bridges Vulnerability assessment Fragility curves Bridge classification Pushover analysis Damage states 


  1. Applied Technology Council [ATC] (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Report ATC-13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Rep. No. SSC 96–01: ATC-40, 1, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Athanassiadou C, Karakostas C, Kappos AJ, Lekidis V (2004) Inelastic strength and displacement design spectra based on greek earthquake records. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, CD ROM Proceedings, Paper no. 2519Google Scholar
  4. Basöz NI, Kiremidjian AS, King SA, Law KH (1999) Statistical analysis of bridge damage data from the 1994 Northridge, CA, earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 15(1): 25–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardone D, Perrone G, Dolce M (2007) Seismic risk assessment of highway bridges. In: Proceedings 1st US–Italy seismic bridge workshop. IUSS Press Ltd, Pavia (Italy)Google Scholar
  6. Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B (2004) Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct 26(2): 187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Computers and Structures Inc (2005) SAP2000: linear and non linear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional structures. Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Dutta A, Mander JB (1998) Seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges, INCEDE-MCEER center-to-center. In: Proceedings of the center-to-center workshop on earthquake engineering frontiers in transport systems, Tokyo, Japan, pp 311–325Google Scholar
  9. EQE International (2000) Seismic risk assessment tool: specification document. Prepared for Egnatia Odos A.E. Report no. 460-01-RS-01, Issue 1Google Scholar
  10. Erduran E, Yakut A (2004) Drift based damage functions for reinforced concrete columns. Comput Struct 82(2–3): 121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 28(9): 979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FEMA-NIBS (2004) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake model: HAZUS®MH Technical Manual, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] (1995) Recording and coding guide for the structure inventory and appraisal of the nation’s bridges. Rep. no. FHWA-PD-96-001, Office of Engineering, Bridge Division, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardoni P, Khalid MM, Kiureghian AD (2003) Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for RC bridges. J Earthquake Eng 7(1): 79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hwang H, Jernigan JB, Lin YW (2000) Evaluation of seismic damage to memphis bridges and highway systems. J Bridg Eng ASCE 5(4): 322–330Google Scholar
  16. Kappos AJ, Moschonas IF, Paraskeva T, Sextos AG (2006) A methodology for derivation of fragility curves for bridges with the aid of advanced analysis tools. In: 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper no. 275Google Scholar
  17. Kappos AJ, Potikas P, Sextos AG (2007) Seismic assessment of an overpass bridge accounting for non- linear material and soil response and varying boundary conditions. In: Proceedings of the conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN), Rethymno, Greece, Paper no. 1580Google Scholar
  18. Karakostas CZ, Athanassiadou CJ, Kappos AJ, Lekidis VA (2007) Site-dependent design spectra and strength modification factors, based on records from Greece. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 27(11): 1012–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karim KR, Yamazaki F (2001) Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of highway bridge piers based on numerical simulation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 30(12): 1839–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lupoi A, Franchin P, Pinto PE, Monti G (2005) Seismic design of bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 34(4–5): 327–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackie KR, Stojadinovic B (2007) R-factor parameterized bridge damage fragility curves. J Bridg Eng ASCE 12(4): 500–510Google Scholar
  22. Mander JB, Basöz N (1999) Seismic fragility curve theory for highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the 5th US conference on lifeline earthquake engineering, TCLEE No. 16, ASCE, 1999, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  23. Monti G, Nistico N (2002) Simple probability-based assessment of bridges under scenario earthquakes. J Bridg Eng ASCE 7(2): 104–114Google Scholar
  24. Paraskeva T, Kappos A (2007) Seismic assessment of an over-cross bridge using modal pushover analysis and dynamic time-history analysis. In: Proceedings of the conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN), Rethymno, Greece, Paper no. 1376Google Scholar
  25. Paraskeva T, Kappos A, Sextos A (2006) Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 35(10): 1269–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SETRA [Service d’ Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes] (1998) Typologie IQOA—Valise de formation IQOA Ponts. Ministère de l’ Equipement, des Transports, etc, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, Kappos A (2003) Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil–structure interaction phenomena. Part 1: methodology and analytical tools. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 32(4): 602–627Google Scholar
  28. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim HK, Kim SH (2000) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech ASCE 126(12): 1287–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioannis F. Moschonas
    • 1
  • Andreas J. Kappos
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Panetsos
    • 2
  • Vissarion Papadopoulos
    • 3
  • Triantafyllos Makarios
    • 4
  • Pavlos Thanopoulos
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.EGNATIA ODOS SAThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.School of Civil EngineeringNational Technical UniversityAthensGreece
  4. 4.ITSAKInstitute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake EngineeringThessalonikiGreece
  5. 5.DOMI SAAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations