Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 5045–5072 | Cite as

Seismic collapse assessment of deteriorating RC bridges under multiple hazards during their life-cycle

  • Somayeh Hamed Ranjkesh
  • Payam AsadiEmail author
  • Ali Zeinal Hamadani
Original Research


Bridges serve essential roles in a state economy whose collapse leads to grave consequences with serious economic losses. Seismic loads and corrosive conditions cause their deterioration over time. In this paper, a comprehensive framework is developed using probabilistic fragility analysis and life-cycle assessment for the collapse assessment of deteriorating bridges under multi-hazard conditions including carbonation, corrosion, scour, and seismic loads. The proposed approach takes into account the combined effects of pier scour, corrosion, and carbonation on the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete bridge during its life-cycle for design and retrofit purposes. To achieve this goal, the collapse probability of the bridge due to such hazards is determined for a range of possible hazard intensities. Also, to make an engineering decision regarding different scenarios, the results of the life-cycle assessment are scored. Afterward, based on the cost of each scenario, a cost–benefit analysis is conducted. Finally, the proposed approach is represented using a river-crossing bridge as a case study.


Fragility curves RC bridge Scour Corrosion Carbonation Life-cycle assessment Scoring Cost–benefit analysis 



  1. AASHTO (2013) AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Akiyama M, Frangopol DM, Matsuzaki H (2011) Life-cycle reliability of RC bridge piers under seismic and airborne chloride hazards. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(15):1671–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M (2013) Reliability-based calibration of load and resistance factors for design of RC bridges under multiple extreme events: scour and earthquake. J Bridge Eng 18(5):362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASCE/SEI7-16 (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. USAGoogle Scholar
  5. ASCE41-17 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. USAGoogle Scholar
  6. ATC A (1996) 40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Applied Technology Council, report ATC-40. Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31(1):579–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banerjee S, Shinozuka M (2007) Nonlinear static procedure for seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges. Comput. Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 22(4):293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bazaez R, Dusicka P (2017) Performance assessment of multi-column RC bridge bents seismically retrofitted with buckling-restrained braces. Bull Earthq Eng 16(5):2135–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Billah AH, Muntasir MD (2011) Seismic performance evaluation of multi column bridge bent retrofitted with different alternatives. Doctoral dissertation, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Biondini F, Camnasio E, Palermo A (2014) Lifetime seismic performance of concrete bridges exposed to corrosion. Struct Infrastruct Eng 10(7):880–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bret DJ (2014) Relationship between the collapse fragility and collapse risk in existing buildings in regions of high and moderate seismicity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at BoulderGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckle IG, Friedland I, Mander J, Martin G, Nutt R, Power M (2006) Seismic retrofitting manual for highway structures: part 1—bridges, MCEER-06-SP10, MCEER, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang SY, Li YF, Loh CH (2004) Experimental study of seismic behaviors of as-built and carbon fiber reinforced plastics repaired reinforced concrete bridge columns. J Bridge Eng 9(4):391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choe DE, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T (2008) Probabilistic capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC columns subject to corrosion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(3):383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C (2003) Inelastic deformation ratios for design and evaluation of structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear systems. Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California, Berkeley, UCB/EERC 2003-09Google Scholar
  17. Computers & Structures Inc. (2017) CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS, and SAFETM.
  18. Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cui F, Zhang H, Ghosn M, Xu Y (2018) Seismic fragility analysis of deteriorating RC bridge substructures subject to marine chloride-induced corrosion. Eng Struct 155:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Decò A, Frangopol DM (2013) Life-cycle risk assessment of spatially distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards. Earthq Spectra 29(1):127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Saydam D (2013) Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(10):1451–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duan P, Yan C, Zhou W (2018) Effects of calcined layered double hydroxides on carbonation of concrete containing fly ash. Constr Build Mater 160:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellingwood BR (2005) Risk-informed condition assessment of civil infrastructure: state of practice and research issues. Struct Infrastruct Eng 1(1):7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enright MP, Frangopol DM (1998) Service-life prediction of deteriorating concrete bridges. J Struct Eng 124(3):309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fahmy MF, Wu Z, Wu G (2010) Post-earthquake recoverability of existing RC bridge piers retrofitted with FRP composites. Constr Build Mater 24(6):980–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2012) Evaluating scour at bridges. Hydraulic engineering circular, No. 18 (HEC-18), 4th edn. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Ghosh J, Padgett JE (2010) Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. J Struct Eng 136(12):1497–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghosn M, Moses F, Wang J (2003) Design of highway bridges for extreme events, vol 489. Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  29. Guo X, Chen Z (2016) Life-cycle multihazard framework for assessing flood scour and earthquake effects on bridge failure. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A: Civ Eng 2(2):C4015004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haroun MA, Elsanadedy HM (2005) Fiber-reinforced plastic jackets for ductility enhancement of reinforced concrete bridge columns with poor lap-splice detailing. J Bridge Eng 10:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hung CC, Yau WG (2017) Vulnerability evaluation of scoured bridges under floods. Eng Struct 132:288–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iacobucci RD, Sheikh SA, Bayrak O (2003) Retrofit of square concrete columns with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer for seismic resistance. ACI Struct J 100(6):785–794Google Scholar
  33. Jiang C, Huang QH, Gu XL, Zhang WP (2018) Modeling the effects of fatigue damage on concrete carbonation. Constr Build Mater 191:942–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jin M, Gao S, Jiang L, Chu H, Lu M, Zhi FF (2018) Degradation of concrete with addition of mineral admixture due to free chloride ion penetration under the effect of carbonation. Corros Sci 138:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson PA (1995) Comparison of pier-scour equations using field data. J Hydraul Eng 121(8):626–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson PA (1996) Uncertainty of hydraulic parameters. J Hydraul Eng 122(2):112–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson PA, Dock DA (1998) Probabilistic bridge scour estimates. J Hydraul Eng 124(7):750–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kawashima K, Hosotani M, Yoneda K (2000) Carbon fiber sheet retrofit of reinforced concrete bridge piers. In: Proceedings of international workshop on annual commemoration of Chi-Chi earthquake, vol II—Technical Asp National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering. Taipei, pp 124–35Google Scholar
  39. Kumar R, Gardoni P (2013) Stochastic modeling of deterioration in buildings and civil infrastructure. In: Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 410–434Google Scholar
  40. Kumar R, Gardoni P, Sanchez-Silva M (2009) Effect of cumulative seismic damage and corrosion on the life cycle cost of reinforced concrete bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:887–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kyriakides NC, Chrysostomou CZ, Tantele EA, Votsis RA (2015) Framework for the derivation of analytical fragility curves and life cycle cost analysis for non-seismically designed buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 78:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nielson BG, DesRoches R (2007) Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using a component level approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(6):823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oyguc R, Toros C, Abdelnaby AE (2018) Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced-concrete structures under multiple earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 104:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parghi A, Alam MS (2017) Seismic collapse assessment of non-seismically designed circular RC bridge piers retrofitted with FRP composites. Compos Struct 160:901–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Priestley MN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rao AS, Lepech MD, Kiremidjian AS, Sun X-Y (2017) Simplified structural deterioration model for reinforced concrete bridge piers under cyclic loading. Struct Infrastruct Eng 13(1):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sasmal S, Ramanjaneyulu K, Gopalakrishnan S, Lakshmanan N (2006) Fuzzy logic based condition rating of existing reinforced concrete bridges. J Perform Const Facil 20(3):261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seible F, Priestley MN, Hegemier GA, Innamorato D (1997) Seismic retrofit of RC columns with continuous carbon fiber jackets. J Compos Constr 1(2):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sen R, Mullins G (2007) Application of FRP composites for underwater piles repair. Compos Part B 38:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Streeter VL, Wylie EB (1983) Fluid Mechanics; SI Metric Ed. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  51. Tesfamariam S, Goda K (2015) Seismic performance evaluation framework considering maximum and residual inter-story drift ratios: application to non-code conforming reinforced concrete buildings in Victoria, BC, Canada. Front Built Environ 1:18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tubaldi E, Macorini L, Izzuddin BA, Manes C, Laio F (2017) A framework for probabilistic assessment of clear-water scour around bridge piers. Struct Saf 69:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tubaldi E, Macorini L, Izzuddin BA, Manes C (2018) Three-dimensional mesoscale modelling of multi-span masonry arch bridges subjected to scour. Eng Struct 165:486–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valcuende M, Parra C (2010) Natural carbonation of self-compacting concretes. Constr Build Mater 24(5):848–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang Z, Dueñas-Osorio L, Padgett JE (2014) Influence of scour effects on the seismic response of reinforced concrete bridges. Eng Struct 76:202–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xiao Y, Wu H, Martin G (1999) Prefabricated composite jacketing of RC columns for enhanced shear strength. J Struct Eng 125(3):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zare M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Bard P (1999) Attenuation law for the strong-motions in Iran. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on seismology and earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  58. Zare M, Karimi-Paridari S, Sabzali S (2008) Spectral attenuation of strong motions for near source data in Iran. J Seismol Earthq Eng 10(3): 147–152.
  59. Zhiguo S, Hongnan L, Kaiming B, Bingjun S, Dongsheng W (2017) Rapid repair techniques for severely earthquake-damaged circular bridge piers with flexural failure mode. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16(2):415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhu B, Frangopol DM (2016) Time-variant risk assessment of bridges with partially and fully closed lanes due to traffic loading and scour. J Bridge Eng 21(6):04016021CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyEsfahānIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyEsfahānIran

Personalised recommendations