Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Probabilistic seismic loss estimation of aging

highway bridges subjected to multiple earthquake
events

Bhaskar Panchireddi & Jayadipta Ghosh

To cite this article: Bhaskar Panchireddi & Jayadipta Ghosh (2021) Probabilistic seismic loss
estimation of aging highway bridges subjected to multiple earthquake events, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering, 17:9, 1155-1174, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2020.1801765

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1801765

Published online: 17 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 220

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsie20
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING
2021, VOL. 17, NO. 9, 1155–1174
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1801765

Probabilistic seismic loss estimation of aging highway bridges

subjected to multiple earthquake events
Bhaskar Panchireddi and Jayadipta Ghosh
Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigates the seismic life-cycle cost of aging highway bridges under chloride exposure Received 1 November 2019
when subjected to multiple main shock earthquake events along the design lifetime of the structure. Revised 6 March 2020
While chloride induced corrosion manifests as a continuous deterioration process, earthquake occur- Accepted 5 April 2020
rences are typically intermittent. Although relatively weak seismic events that induce none-to-minor
KEYWORDS
bridge damage may not instigate immediate intervention and repair, resulting structural cracks may Aging highway bridges;
further accelerate the corrosion process. This study presents a novel Monte Carlo based methodology corrosion deterioration;
that explicitly considers potentially altered deterioration pattern between seismic shocks as well as Monte Carlo simulations;
uncertainty in earthquake occurrences, record-to-record variability, repair decisions and repair proc- multiple earthquakes;
esses for seismic life-cycle cost computations. The proposed framework also eliminates the need for seismic life-cycle cost;
the often improbable assumption in past literature on seismic life-cycle cost assessment that necessi- uncertainty analysis
tates structural rehabilitation to pre-hazard states regardless of the seismic damage level. Case-study
application of the proposed framework is demonstrated on a single column integral bridge located in
the marine splash zone in California, United States. Results from multiple main shock analysis of both
non-deteriorating and aging case-study bridge reveals a significant contribution of cumulative damage
from corrosion deterioration and shock sequences towards seismic loss and life-cycle cost assessment.

1. Introduction As a consequence of increased structural vulnerability

Transportation infrastructure comprising of highway bridges
are critical for multiple services and benefits to the economy
and society of a nation. Typically, a decline in structural
performance of these lifeline systems are expected along
their design lifetime due to natural hazard occurrences or
under the action of various environmental stressors such as
corrosion, erosion, and chemical deterioration (Akiyama,
Frangopol, & Matsuzaki, 2011; Alipour, Shafei, &
Shinozuka, 2011a; Ghosh & Padgett, 2011; Akiyama &
Frangopol, 2014; Shekhar, Ghosh, & Padgett, 2018;
Panchireddi & Ghosh, 2019; Yanweerasak, Pansuk,
Akiyama, & Frangopol, 2018; Cui, Alipour, & Shafei, 2019).
While continued environmental actions and intermittent
natural hazard occurrences (such as earthquakes) are statis-
tically independent, the structural performance of degrading
bridge components during such hazard events are typically
compromised when compared to pristine conditions. For
instance, under continued corrosion deterioration, that
accounts for a primary form of environmental degradation,
researchers over the past decade have underlined the
increase in fragility of aging highway bridges when located
in moderate to high seismic zones (Choe, Gardoni,
Rosowsky, & Haukaas, 2008, 2009; Ghosh & Padgett, 2010;
Zhong, Gardoni, & Rosowsky, 2012; Panchireddi &
Ghosh, 2019).
due to corrosion deterioration, structural damage to aging
highway bridges during earthquake events typically leads to
increased direct losses compared to non-deteriorating struc-
tures in the form of repair and replacement costs, or indir-
ect losses incurred by communities (longer travel time, and
excess fuel consumption, among others) due to the unavail-
ability of bridges. While direct losses are primarily borne by
bridge owners or stakeholders, indirect losses are incurred
by regional communities through longer travel time, excess
fuel consumption, among other secondary effects. This
paper focuses only on direct losses estimation and provides
novel contributions to research through a framework for
realistic seismic life-cycle cost (SLCC) assessment of aging
bridge structures. The present study does not include costs
stemming from initial construction, non-seismic repairs,
maintenance cost, among others, as well as the consequence
of such repairs on the seismic performance of critical bridge
components. Extensive treatise on traditional life-cycle cost
assessment can be found in Hawk (2003) and Gervasio and
da Silva (2013). The proposed framework considers uncer-
tainty in earthquake occurrences along the design life, mul-
tiple repair decisions and rehabilitation strategies, potential
alterations in deterioration rates due to earthquake induced
cracking, and is devoid of assumptions which are typically
resorted to in past literature for lifetime seismic loss assess-
ment. Some of these assumptions are discussed below.

CONTACT Jayadipta Ghosh jghosh@iitb.ac.in Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1156 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
A prevalent, yet unrealistic premise in past literature on
seismic life-cycle cost of non-deteriorating or aging highway
bridges relates to immediate restoration of the damaged
structures to the pre-hazard state to calculate the expected
annual losses due to earthquake damage (Lee, Cho, Lim, &
Park, 2004; Mackie, Wong, & Stojadinovic, 2010; Kumar,
Gardoni, & Sanchez-Silva, 2009; Padgett, Dennemann, &
Ghosh, 2010; Alipour et al., 2011a; Ghosh & Padgett, 2011;
Kameshwar & Padgett, 2017; Yanweerasak et al., 2018;
Shekhar et al., 2018). These losses, after appropriate dis-
counting, when aggregated along the design lifetime help
assess the seismic life-cycle cost. Repairing a bridge struc-
ture to pre-hazard conditions necessitates the assumption of
thorough repair intervention following any extent of earth-
quake-induced damage. This assumption is often improb-
able, especially for bridge structures located in moderate to
high seismic zones that may experience multiple not-so-
severe earthquakes along the design life.
Occasionally, a relatively weaker earthquake that induces
none-to-minor cracks may not warrant a substantial repair
to the pre-hazard state, although the bridge may be ren-
dered marginally weaker to resist future earthquakes
(FEMA, 2012; Cui et al., 2019). The above assumption also
loses fundamentality with respect to seismic life-cycle cost
assessment of aging bridge structures using time-dependent
fragility curves, as often done in past literature (Padgett
et al., 2010). For these structures, following an earthquake
damage, a pre-hazard condition at year t is indicative of a
bridge repaired to its corroded state at year t þ 1, which is
contrary to the actual field conditions. Additionally, corre-
sponding to highway bridges (pristine or aging) with visible
damage following an earthquake that necessitates interven-
tion, multiple repair strategies may exist. The adoption of
one repair strategy over another depends on the discretion
of the engineer, availability of resources and other factors.
Assumption of deterministic repair cost ratios for different
damage states as often done in past literature is therefore
unrealistic and does not reflect the uncertainty in repair
decision, repair process, as well as the associated repair costs
(Basoz & Mander, 1999; Padgett et al., 2010; Alipour et al.,
2011a). While few recent studies have considered the uncer-
tainty in repair process (Ghosh & Padgett, 2011; Kameshwar
& Padgett, 2017; Shekhar et al., 2018), a critical drawback
still exists as elaborated next.
Notwithstanding replacement of a bridge component or
bridge system in entirety following seismic damage, bridge
repair measures are often local in nature. For instance, as
Padgett and DesRoches (2007) report from a survey of
bridge engineers and field practitioners, damage to bridge
piers following earthquake events may instigate repair strat-
egies such as localized patching with concrete to seal cracks,
epoxy grouting, lining with concrete, among others. While
for non-deteriorating bridge columns such repair measures
for earthquake-induced damage may reinstate the structural
capacity to the original pristine (as-built) condition, the
same may not be true for corroding bridge columns when
located near sources of chloride exposure, for instance near
marine environment or regions of deicing salt application.
Repair measures towards localized earthquake-induced crack
regions (typically occurring near plastic hinges) may be
oblivious to the corrosion deterioration already underway
elsewhere within undamaged column sections. Consequently,
following such localized repair actions, the bridge column
may now consist of dissimilar structural sections that
behaves differently than a pristine or a thoroughly corroding
column during a future earthquake.
Additionally, as discussed earlier, for a corroding bridge
column under a minor earthquake that induces relatively
inconsequential visible damage and consequently a no-repair
decision, the deterioration pattern may accelerate due to
further chloride ingress through earthquake-induced minor
crack formations (Scott & Alexander, 2007; Otieno,
Alexander, & Beushausen, 2010). While such effects have
been traditionally ignored in literature, only recently Cui
et al. (2019) have investigated the detrimental effects of
expedited corrosion due to crack formations on the seismic
performance of deteriorating columns under two-shock
sequences. While based on equivalent static analysis to sim-
plify seismic effects, the above study underlines the critical-
ity of considering potential alterations of deterioration
pattern within cracked column sections. From a seismic life-
cycle cost perspective, such practical circumstances stem-
ming from uncertainty in repair process, selection of global
(complete replacement) or local intervention, alteration of
deterioration pattern and subsequent bridge behavior under
future earthquakes need explicit consideration.
Addressing existing drawbacks and augmenting past
research on the consideration of multiple earthquake occur-
rences and aging for lifetime performance prediction
(Kumar & Gardoni, 2012; Faisal, Majid, & Hatzigeorgiou,
2013; Di Sarno, 2013; Ghosh, Padgett, & Sanchez-Silva,
2015; Panchireddi & Ghosh, 2019) this study proposes a
novel framework for seismic life-cycle cost assessment of
aging highway bridges. Key aspects of this framework
include: i) consideration of intermittent earthquake (main
shock events) and continuous aging hazard along the bridge
design life, ii) uncertainty in repair decisions and associated
costs depending on bridge damage level, iii) potential alter-
ation in corrosion deterioration pattern following seismic
damage and crack width geometry, and iv) nonlinear time-
history analysis of finite element models with sequential
model updating to reflect dissimilar section characteristics
along the pier geometry stemming from localized repair,
section replacement, and aging.
The next section of the paper elaborates possible repair
strategies and associated costs based on different damage
levels distinguished as per their physical appearances after
each ongoing main shock earthquake event. The cost
corresponding to each repair strategy is also discussed.
Time-dependent corrosion deterioration modeling and the
alterations of corrosion process due to the presence of
cracks (from earthquake-induced damage) are presented
subsequently. The proposed methodology is then demon-
strated on a representative case-study two-span box-girder
semi-integral bridge located in the marine-splash zone in
California within the United States. The probable losses

corresponding to single and multiple shock scenarios using
a Monte Carlo sampling approach for both non-deteriorat-
ing and aging bridge conditions are outlined. The computed
losses, dependent on the number of seismic main shocks,
are then utilized to compute the seismic life-cycle cost. The
paper ends with key conclusions and recommendations for
future explorations.
2. Damage quantification, classification, and
associated repair decisions
Repair strategies and associated repair costs, that contrib-
ute to lifetime seismic losses of a civil engineering struc-
ture are usually the consequence of in-situ decisions from
visual inspections by bridge engineers. Consequently, past
several decades have witnessed several seismic damage
quantification models to bridge the gap between a quanti-
tative measure of damage (usually obtained from structural
analysis) and corresponding physical descriptions that
instigate a repair decision upon visual inspection. Such
damage models typically depend on the structural response
parameters that may include the measurement of drifts or
displacements or curvatures, among other similar measures
(Park & Ang, 1985; Wang & Shah, 1987; Roufaiel &
Meyer, 1987; Mehanny & Deierlein, 2001; Colombo &
Negro, 2005; Jiang, Chen, & Chen, 2011). This section of
the paper focuses on identifying an adequate damage meas-
ure, classifying different levels of structural damage based
on physical descriptors, and elucidating repair decisions
and probable repair strategies following earthquake-
induced disruptions.
2.1. Damage measurement and correlation with
physical descriptors
For reinforced concrete (RC) columns within buildings or
highway bridge structures that may experience single or
multiple earthquake occurrences along the service life, the
Park and Ang damage index (Park & Ang, 1985) has been
widely adopted for quantitative prediction of structural
damage (Chai, Priestley, & Seible, 1994; Kunnath & Jenne,
1994; Williams & Sexsmith, 1997; Hatzigeorgiou & Liolios,
2010; Huang, Qian, Zhuang, & Fu, 2012; Ghosh, Padgett, &
Sanchez-Silva, 2015; Panchireddi & Ghosh, 2019).
Combining information on the maximum ductility demand
and dissipated hysteretic energy under shock sequences as
demonstrated in Equation 1, the Park and Ang damage
index D is also found to correlate well with physical damage
observations:
Table 1. Physical appearance and corresponding crack width descriptions of various damage levels classified based on different ranges of damage index (D).
Damage level Damage index range (D)
Slight D < 0.1 Localized minor cracking
Minor 0.1  D < 0.25 Light cracking throughout
Moderate 0.25  D < 0.40 Severe cracking; localized spalling
Severe 0.40  D < 1 Crushing of concrete; reinforcement exposed
Collapse D  1.0 Loss of element load resistance
Park et al. (1985)
†
Nakano, Maeda, Kuramoto, and Murakami (2004)
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1157
lm Eh
D¼ þb (1)
lu My h y l u
In the above equation, lm is the maximum ductility demand
caused by an earthquake event (Chai et al., 1994; Ghosh
et al., 2015) or under a sequence of events (Hatzigeorgiou &
Liolios, 2010; Huang et al., 2012; Ghosh et al., 2015;
Panchireddi & Ghosh, 2019), lu is the ultimate ductility
capacity under static monotonic loading, Eh is the total hys-
teretic energy dissipated by the structure, My is the yield
moment capacity, hy is the yield rotation angle and b is a
dimensionless constant usually assumed to be 0.05 for RC
structures. Additionally, following n earthquake events, the
damage index Dn is a strictly increasing quantity with
Dn >Dn1 >:::>D2 >D1 representing the cumulative nature of
seismic damage under shock sequences. Following a certain
number of seismic main shocks, while a Park and Ang dam-
age index estimate near to zero indicates negligible damage
and when more than unity represents collapse, intermediate
ranges and corresponding physical appearance and damage
levels, as typically adopted in literature, are included in
Table 1 (Bruno & Valente, 2002; Hatzigeorgiou & Liolios,
2010; Ghosh et al., 2015; Panchireddi & Ghosh, 2019).
While prognosis on the physical appearance based on
damage index computations from computer simulations
may help bridge engineers to forecast a probable repair
strategy to compute repair costs and associated lifetime seis-
mic losses, such efforts are best restricted for pristine or as-
built structures with no prior history of residual damage.
Earthquake-induced damage to bridge columns invariably
results in cracking of cover concrete and when located near
marine sources and left unrepaired, may lead to accelerated
ingress of chlorides (elaborated later) with potential altera-
tions to the corrosion rates (Scott & Alexander, 2007;
Otieno et al., 2010) in aging highway bridges. Hence, in
addition to the qualitative descriptors on the physical
appearance, information on expected crack width from
seismic damage aids in predicting the altered rate of
deterioration.
This information is adopted from Nakano, Maeda,
Kuramoto, and Murakami (2004) based on a survey for
post-earthquake damage evaluation and rehabilitation of RC
buildings after the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu (Kobe) earth-
quake in Japan that correlates damage levels similar to those
indicated in Park, Ang, and Wen (1985) with crack widths
in RC columns as indicated in Table 1. For seismically
designed ductile bridge columns, as is the focus of this
study, such cracks are typically expected to occur in the
plastic hinge regions towards column ends with progressive
reduction in damage at distances further away from the
Physical appearance Crack width description (wcr)†
Visible narrow cracks (wcr < 0.2 mm)
Visible clear cracks (0.2 < wcr < 1 mm)
Remarkable wide cracks (1.0 < wcr < 2.0 mm)
Remarkable wide cracks (wcr > 2.0 mm)
Structural failure
1158 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
hinge locations along the length of the column. These infer-
ences and assumptions included in Table 1 will be corrobo-
rated further through a case-study section later in the paper.
With damage levels and corresponding physical descriptions
based on visual observations and crack width information
now available, the next section briefly elaborates on deci-
sions regarding repair or restoration of seismically damaged
bridge columns and associated repair strategies.
2.2. Repair decisions and associated restoration
strategies
Seismic damage to highway bridge components instigates
necessary repair actions, wherein the extent or type of
repair depends on a multitude of uncertain factors. Such
factors include the discretion of the field engineers on the
repair method, importance of the bridge, availability of
funds, and post-earthquake availability of resources for res-
toration, among others. Often, a slight to minor damage
following seismic events does not require or instigate a
repair action, particularly when monetary resources are
limited (FEMA, 2012; Cui et al., 2019). Such damages, that
go unrepaired, nevertheless render a bridge more suscep-
tible to the ill-effects of corrosion deterioration and may
lead to further reduction in structural capacity to resist
future earthquakes. Additionally, unlike past assumptions
in seismic life-cycle cost assessment, a chosen repair strat-
egy may not restore a bridge to pre-hazard state in terms
of functionality and structural capacity. Incorporating these
effects, the flowchart outlined in Figure 1 presents the
assumptions on repair decisions based on the level of
damage following the nth seismic event at time tn along the
design life of the bridge.
Structures experiencing different damage levels such as
slight, minor, moderate, severe and collapse after each earth-
quake event are treated separately based on their respective
qualitative and quantitative descriptions. For the structures
experiencing a slight damage level that have no visible
cracks, no repair actions would be needed and hence a “Do
Nothing” strategy is adopted. Also, earthquake events caus-
ing minor damage in structures that result in barely percep-
tible cracks (wcr < 0.2 mm) are assumed to be left
unrepaired. However, predictive models proposed by
Otieno, Beushausen, and Alexander (2016a, 2016b) based on
field investigations and laboratory tests note that the pres-
ence of cracks may result in an increase in the corrosion
rate and hence an expedited corrosion process following
seismic damage. The effect of cracks (due to structural dam-
age from earthquake events) on the corrosion rate is elabo-
rated in the next section of the paper.
Qualitative description of the structures experiencing
moderate damage state highlights that the column undergoes
localized spalling and severe cracking along the length with
remarkable crack widths ranging from 1 mm to 2 mm.
Preliminary analysis through analytical modeling reveals
that such damage is typically concentrated at the plastic
hinge regions (top and bottom) of ductile columns in inte-
gral bridges with successive reduction in damage levels
towards column mid-height. Consequently, the plastic hinge
regions are assumed to undergo restoration to as-built con-
ditions while relatively inconsiderable repairs (such as
patching, grouting, among others) are resorted to along the
mid-height depending on the damage level (Ma & Xiao,
1999; Cho, Kim, Feo, & Hui, 2012). For columns under
severe damage state that experience crushing of concrete
and reinforcement exposure following seismic damage, the
damage index encompasses a wide range (0.4  D < 1.0) that
may introduce substantial uncertainty in repair decision and
subsequent seismic loss estimation. For practicality, this
range is further divided to two sub classes as: i) Class A:
0.4  D < 0.7, and ii) Class B: 0.7  D < 1.0.
While the repair strategies for Class A of the severe dam-
age state is assumed to follow an approach similar to that
for moderate damage, rehabilitation decisions for Class B
with damage range 0.7  D < 1.0 depend on the residual
drift of the structure. According to Mangalathu, Jeon, and
Jiang (2019), residual drift (RD) typically exceeding 1.75% is
indicative of structural failure that needs complete replace-
ment to as-built conditions, while RD less than 1.75% indi-
cates possible structural rehabilitation using conventional
repair techniques (discussed later). Lastly, structures experi-
encing collapse damage level with D  1.0 after an earth-
quake undergoes replacement to as-built condition.
The repair strategies, and the probabilities of adopting
one repair method over another, closely follow the work by
Padgett and DesRoches (2007) and are presented in Table 2.
The information contained within this table stems from a
survey of field practitioners and bridge engineers and have
been used in the past for seismic life-cycle cost assessment
of highway bridge structures (Ghosh & Padgett, 2011;
Kameshwar & Padgett, 2017; Shekhar & Ghosh, 2020). For a
particular damage level, the wide ranging available repair
options and their associated probabilities of implementation
(Table 2) are representative of the uncertainties stemming
from the discretion of the bridge owners or field engineers
and the availability of material or economic resources. The
Monte Carlo simulation based framework for seismic life-
cycle cost assessment presented in this paper explicitly
accounts for such uncertainties, unlike past literature that
relies on damage state dependent repair cost ratios alone
(Basoz & Mander, 1999). It is worthwhile to mention that
sometimes due to lack of resources or other constraints, a
bridge may also be “posted” for repair. While this option
should ideally be included in the list of decision strategies, a
preliminary analysis reveals that a delay in rehabilitation by
a few years negligibly affects the seismic life-cycle costs and
is hence excluded from Table 2.
Although, this study directly adopts the repair strategy
recommendations from Padgett and DesRoches (2007), it is
worthwhile to note that the cost-effective option repair
selections should ideally depend on the residual design life
and life-cycle cost analysis. Future investigations and survey
data will further help refine the adopted cost models for
seismic loss assessment. Until now, this paper has elaborated
on physical appearance based damage levels and the possible
repair strategies along with their cost estimates. The next
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1159

section of the paper demonstrates the impact of aging and the corrosion deterioration process due to the formation of
deterioration process in RC bridge columns. Alterations in cracks after each ongoing earthquake event is also discussed.

Figure 1. Flowchart outlining the assumptions on repair decisions following the nth seismic event at time tn along the design lifetime of the bridge based on the
qualitative and quantitative descriptions of various damage levels.

Table 2. Probability of adopting various repair strategies based on different damage levels along with their unit cost estimates for the bridge
column (Padgett & DesRoches, 2007; Ghosh & Padgett, 2011).
Probability of adopting different repair actions
Severe
Repair strategy Moderate Class A Class B Collapse Cost estimate/unit
Epoxy injection 5% 5% 0% 0% $191/m
Patching with concrete 23% 23% 0% 0% $56/m2
Grouting 0% 0% 0% 0% $143/m3
Concrete lining 9% 9% 0% 0% $93/column
Wrapping 36% 36% 0% 0% $215/m2
Replace column 23% 23% 72% 0% Based on unit cost of steel, concrete,
form work, column dimensions,
and reinforcement ratios
Reinforce and recast 5% 5% 20% 0% Cost of replacing column plus shoring cost
Demolish and replace bridge 0% 0% 8% 100% Cost of bridge construction
1160 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
3. Chloride induced deterioration modeling in
undamaged and cracked concrete
This section of the paper focuses on the chloride induced cor-
rosion process and the expedited deterioration modeling as a
consequence of earthquake induced cracks. Corrosion deteri-
oration stemming from chloride ion sources has become a
major concern for bridge owners and stakeholders as it may
lead to unexpected reduction of useful design life (Liu &
Weyers, 1998; Choe et al., 2009; Zhong et al., 2012; Rao,
Lepech, Kiremidjian, & Sun, 2017). The deterioration process
initiates with the ingress of chloride ions through the concrete
cover that depassivates the reinforcing steel and thereby ini-
tiates corrosion. Following the initiation phase, the propaga-
tion phase primarily leads to a progressive reduction in the
reinforcing steel area, loss of confinement and cover concrete
strength, cracking and spalling of the cover, among other sec-
ondary effects. This situation may further be exacerbated with
the presence of cracks (induced due to earthquake loads) in
concrete. The following subsections briefly explains the initi-
ation and propagation phases and the expedited corrosion
deterioration process due to the presence of concrete cracks.
3.1. Corrosion initiation phase
When located near marine sources, aggressive chemical spe-
cies such as chlorides often ingress into cover concrete
through a diffusion controlled mechanism (Bertolini,
Elsener, Pedeferri, & Polder, 2004). Over time, along the
design life of the bridge, this diffusive process leads to cor-
rosion deterioration in reinforced concrete structures.
Typically the initiation of this deterioration mechanism
occurs when the threshold limit of the diffused chloride ion
concentration around the surface of the steel reinforcement
is met. To determine the corrosion initiation time (Ti), this
study adopts the widely popular Fick’s second law of diffu-
sion. In addition to the diffusion coefficient, investigations
by DuraCrete (2000) augments the basic formulation of Ti
based on Fick’s law with coefficients related to the depth of
the cover concrete, critical and equilibrium chloride concen-
tration surrounding the steel reinforcement, type of cement,
and length of curing, among others.
Equation (2) presents the improved equation based on
calibration to compute Ti as:
( 
2 )ð1n1 d Þ
x2 C C
erf 1
s cr
Ti ¼
4ke kc kt D0 ðt0 Þnd Cs
where, x represents the concrete cover depth, ke is the envir-
onmental factor, kc is the curing parameter, kt is the correc-
tion factor for tests to determine the reference diffusion
coefficient estimated from the compliance tests, D0 at t0 ¼
28 days, nd is the age exponent considering the densification
of cement paste due to hydration chloride, Cs is the equilib-
rium chloride concentration at the concrete surface, Ccr is
the critical chloride concentration and erf is the Gaussian
error function. The probability distributions along with the
uncertainties involved in the above parameters are presented
in DuraCrete (2000) and are reproduced in Table 3.
Following the initiation time, the next subsection elaborates
on the propagation phase of corrosion deterioration in rein-
forcing steel.
3.2. Corrosion propagation phase
Following the initiation phase, corrosion rate during the
propagation phase is critical to determine the extent of deteri-
oration primarily in the form of steel area loss and other
effects including reduction in cover and core concrete
strength. While several researchers have reported a constant
corrosion rate during the propagation phase (Andrade,
Alonso, & Molina, 1993; Stewart & Rosowsky, 1998;
DuraCrete, 2000; Alipour, Shafei, & Shinozuka, 2011b), few
others assume the corrosion rate to be time-dependent
(Enright & Frangopol, 1998; Vu & Stewart, 2000; Choe et al.,
2008). This study adopts the corrosion deterioration model
proposed by DuraCrete (2000) with the parametric equation
as a function of factors such as temperature, relative humidity
and chloride content. These factors have been underlined by
multiple authors to explicitly affect the corrosion rate during
the propagation phase (El Hassan, Bressolette, Chateauneuf,
& El Tawil, 2010; Stewart, Wang, & Nguyen, 2011).
Adoption of this corrosion deterioration model also
maintains consistency with the estimated initiation time pre-
dicted using the model proposed by DuraCrete (2000). The
time-dependent steel area reduction during the propagation
phase of corrosion deterioration is computed as (Alipour
et al., 2011b):
8
> 2p
>
< nDi 4 for t  Ti
AðtÞ ¼ n½D  ðr  tÞ 2 p
> for Ti < t < Ti þ Di =rcorr
>
:
i corr
4
0 for t  Ti þ Di =rcorr
(3)
where, n is the number of reinforcing steel bars with initial
diameter Di, t is the elapsed time in years after initiation of
corrosion and rcorr is the rate of corrosion.
3.3. Secondary effects of corrosion deterioration
In addition to the primary effects of corrosion deterioration
in the form of steel area reduction, this study also models
well-documented secondary effects such as loss of core and
cover concrete strength, and alterations in the mechanical
(2)
properties of reinforcing steel. Reduction in confined core
concrete strength in RC columns predominantly manifests
as a consequence of corrosion deterioration of transverse
ties. The theoretical stress-strain model developed by
Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) and later modified by
Zhang, Cao, and Fu (2016) to include time-dependence as
shown in Equation 4 is adopted in this study.
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
7:94fl ðtÞ fl ðtÞA
fcc0 ðtÞ ¼ fc @1:254 þ 2:254 1 þ 2 (4)
fc fc
In the above equation, fcc0 ðtÞ is the time-dependent compres-
sive strength of the confined core concrete, fc is the
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1161

Table 3. Probabilistic distribution of deterioration parameters corresponding to marine splash environmental condition used to determine corrosion initiation
time adopted from DuraCrete (2000) along with the material properties adopted from Mangalathu et al. (2016).
D0: Reference chloride diffusion coefficient at t0 ¼ 28 days
Condition Distribution Mean (mm2/year) St. Dev. (10-12m2/sec)
w/c ¼ 0.5 Normal 473 43.2
nd : Aging factor
Condition Distribution Mean St. Dev. A† B†
Splash Beta 0.367 0.07 0 1
ke: Environmental correction factor
Condition Distribution Mean St. Dev.
Splash Gamma 0.265 0.16
kc: Curing time correction factor
Condition Distribution Mean St. Dev. A† B†
Curing 7 days Beta 1.49 0.29 1 4
x: Cover thickness
Units Distribution Mean! St. Dev.!
mm Lognormal 38.10 7.62
ACl and eCl: Parameters to compute Cs (Cs ¼ ACl  w/c þ eCl)
Condition Distribution ACl‡ eCl‡
Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.
Splash Normal 7.758 1.360 0 1.105
Ccr: Critical chloride concentration
Condition Distribution w/c ratio Mean St. Dev.
Splash Normal 0.50 0.50 0.10
Cs: Surface chloride concentration
Condition Distribution w/c ratio Mean St. Dev.
Splash Normal 0.50 0.50 0.10
fck: Concrete compressive strength
Units Distribution Mean! St. Dev.!
MPa Lognormal 29.03 3.59
fy: Reinforcing steel strength
Units Distribution Mean St. Dev.
MPa Normal 6.14 0.08
icorr: Corrosion current density (c/wcr is the cover depth/crack width
ratio)
Condition Distribution Mean (lA/cm2) COV
Uncraked concrete Uniform 2.01 0.2
20 < c/wcr < 80 Uniform Estimated using Equation 7 0.2
St. Dev. indicates the Standard Deviation, COV is the coefficient of variation, A† and B† are the shape parameters of the Beta distribution, ACl‡ and eCl‡ are the
regression parameters and error term for calculating the surface chloride concentration Cs, Mean! and St. Dev.! are the mean and standard deviation of the log-
normal distribution.

compressive strength of unconfined concrete, and fl (t) is
the effective lateral confining stress distributed over the sur-
face of the core concrete.
Voluminous rust formation due to corrosion deterior-
ation around the steel reinforcement leads to formation of
micro-cracks in concrete resulting in the reduction of
unconfined cover concrete strength. These alterations are
captured using the model proposed by Vecchio and Collins
(1986) that are later modified by Coronelli and Gambarova
(2004) and are estimated as:
fc
fc ðtÞ ¼
1 þ j½e1 ðtÞ=ec0 
where, fc(t) is the time-dependent unconfined cover concrete
strength, j is the coefficient related to the diameter of the
steel bar, e1 is the transversal strain at time t and ec0 is the
strain at peak stress in the compression mode.
Corrosion deterioration also results in the reduction of
reinforcing steel strength estimated using the experimental
tests performed by Du, Clark, and Chan (2005). The time-
dependent reduction in the reinforcing steel strength as a
function of residual steel area is evaluated as:
fs ðtÞ ¼ ½1:0  0:005Qcorr ðtÞfs0
where, fs(t) is the yield or ultimate strengths of corroded
reinforcing steel bar at time t, fs0 is the yield or ultimate
strengths of pristine reinforcing steel bar, Qcorr(t) is percent-
age area loss of reinforcing steel due to corrosion at time t.
While the above equation is widely adopted for the RC
structures experiencing local pitting corrosion, it is also
assumed to be valid for the structures undergoing uniform
corrosion deterioration as indicated in Alipour et al.
(2011a, 2011b).
Figures 2(a) and (b) present the time-dependent variation
of mean reinforcing steel area and cover concrete strength
(5) along with the 5th and 95th confidence bounds after incor-
porating the associated parameter uncertainties. While the
corrosion initiation time for the case-study highway bridge
columns in marine splash exposure (elaborated later) is esti-
mated to be 10 years, the material properties and corrosion
rate estimates are presented earlier in Table 3. Key observa-
tions reveal that after an exposure period of 100 years, the
mean reinforcing steel area is reduced by 25% while that of
the cover concrete strength drops significantly to approxi-
mately 90% of its pristine value. Following the discussions
on the potential secondary effects of corrosion deterioration,
the next section of the paper discusses on likely alteration of
corrosion rate in the presence of structural cracks due to
(6)
earthquake events.
1162 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
Figure 2. Time-dependent variation of (a) reinforcing steel area, and (b) unconfined cover concrete strength along with the lower and upper bounds of uncertainty
representing 5th and 95th confidence bounds.
3.4. Impact of concrete cracks on the corrosion rate
prediction models
Laboratory tests and field observations by past researchers
indicate that formation of structural cracks lead to an
increase in the corrosion rate but to an extent depending on
the concrete quality, resistivity and external repair works
(Raupach, 1996; Scott & Alexander, 2007; Otieno et al.,
2010). The rate of corrosion initially increases steadily with
the crack width and then saturates after the crack width
reaches a threshold value (Otieno et al., 2016a). Extreme
events such as earthquakes that may induce structural cracks
in RC columns could result in the alteration of corrosion
rate, especially when located in a chloride-laden environ-
ment. Based on the predictive models proposed by Otieno
et al. (2016a, 2016b), for a given concrete type, the crack
width dependent corrosion current density can be computed
as:
0:036ðwccr Þ 0:002ðwccr Þ
icorr ¼ 1:35e þ 2:69e
where, icorr is the corrosion current density in lA/cm2, c is
cover depth of the concrete in mm and wcr is the crack
width in mm.
Note that the above equation is valid for cracked con-
crete alone with c/wcr ratio ranging between 20 and 100. For
an uncracked concrete, the corrosion current density icorr is
estimated using the equation proposed by DuraCrete (2000)
as mentioned earlier. The corrosion current density icorr in
lA/cm2 can be converted to a more convenient form of the
corrosion rate rcorr in mm/year as:
rcorr ¼ 0:0116icorr
The computed rcorr can now be used to estimate the time-
dependent area loss of steel using Equation 3 as elaborated
earlier in Section 3.2. It is worthwhile to note that, while
the above Equations 7 and 8 provide an estimate of the
mean, the corrosion rate is assumed to follow a uniform
distribution with coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.2 as
mentioned in Vu and Stewart (2000).
For an aging highway bridge structure that experiences
a certain damage level after an earthquake event, if left
unrepaired, earthquake induced cracks would alter the cor-
rosion deterioration pattern. As elaborated earlier in
Section 2, bridge columns as a whole or in-parts along the
height that experience minor damage levels and do not
necessitate repair intervention, the crack formations are
likely to alter the corrosion pattern with expedited deteri-
oration rates. Figure 3 demonstrates the future path of
structural degradation following a single seismic shock
while accounting for the accelerated corrosion deterior-
ation. Figure 3(a) exemplifies a scenario wherein the bridge
structure undergoing corrosion deterioration experiences
an earthquake at 30 years of design life that induces a
minor damage level resulting in structural cracks with
crack widths ranging between 0.2 to 1 mm (Table 1). Also,
shown in the figure is the original expected mean path of
corrosion deterioration and the mean altered path due to
increased corrosion rate along with the uncertainties asso-
ciated with the deterioration process. Corresponding to the
(7) mean estimate of altered corrosion rate, formation of
minor cracks along the length of the column following an
earthquake damage has expedited the rate of corrosion by
42% (0.023 mm/year to 0.033 mm/year). Subsequently, at
the end of lifetime of the structure, provided no further
earthquakes occur and there is a lack of periodic bridge
maintenance, the rebar area reduces by 55% considering
the mean expedited rate as compared to 76% when influ-
ence of cracks are disregarded. Influence of alteration of
corrosion rate on other secondary effects such as core and
cover concrete strength, and steel strength characteristics,
among others can be computed accordingly.
Unlike the previous example, Figure 3(b) on the other
(8) hand represents a bridge structure that experiences the col-
lapse damage level at 65 years of design life due to seismic
damage and then subsequently replaced to as-built condi-
tions within a year. This instance does not require consid-
eration of altered corrosion rate since the repair strategy
(complete replacement) alone restores bridge column to
as-built or pristine conditions. After restoration, however,
corrosion deterioration of the reinforcing steel may ensue
following the corrosion initiation of the new rehabili-
tated structure.

Figure 3. Variation of reinforcing steel area with time for the structures experiencing an earthquake event that has induced (a) minor damage level, and (b) col-
lapse damage level. The uncertainty band in Figure 3(a) represents 5th and 95th percentile estimates of the altered mean rebar area.
3.5. Scope of deterioration modeling and seismic life-
cycle cost estimation
Among the various secondary effects, this study explicitly
models the cover concrete strength reduction due to corro-
sion induced micro-crack formation. Although this strategy
may emulate physically observable damage such as cracking
and spalling of cover concrete, non-observable degradation
in the form of delamination is not considered. This limita-
tion primarily stems from a lack of existing analytical mod-
els in literature to simulate this effect. A recent study by
Zhang and Su (2019) mentions the rarity of analytical stud-
ies on cover delamination failure in RC structures and high-
light the need for future work in this area. Consequently,
the authors have left the consideration of delamination in
corroding RC structures for future exploration.
Another key assumption within the present study
includes crack formation within RC columns emanating
from seismic actions alone. While corrosion deterioration
itself can result in cover cracking due to accumulation of
expansive rust products, the alteration of corrosion rate due
to such effects are presently left out in this study. Corrosion
can also lead to reduced bond strength, reduced inelastic
buckling, low-cycle fatigue degradation, among others (Ou,
Tsai, & Chen, 2012; Meda, Mostosi, Rinaldi, & Riva, 2014;
Rao et al., 2017). However, the effect of bond strength in
RC structures with modest tie reinforcements is negligible,
particularly on those which fail under cyclic loading (Fang,
Lundgren, Chen, & Zhu, 2004; Wang & Liu, 2004).
Consequently, this study neglects the effect of loss of bond
strength within deteriorating structures. Additionally,
although previous studies such as Kashani, Alagheband,
Khan, and Davis (2015a) and Kashani, Lowes, Crewe, and
Alexander (2015b) indicate a substantial impact of inelastic
buckling strength and low-cycle fatigue life on RC struc-
tures, these studies underline the need for further experi-
mental investigations and hence these effects are
presently excluded.
Furthermore, the progressive reinforcing steel area loss
during the corrosion propagation phase is assumed to be
reducing uniformly along the length of the column. While
several researchers have adopted this approximation in
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1163
determining seismic vulnerability of aging structures (Val,
Chernin, & Stewart, 2009; Ghosh & Padgett, 2010; Alipour
et al., 2011b), few studies have considered deep intermittent
pit formations or pitting corrosion while modeling the
chloride induced corrosion deterioration (Dizaj,
Madandoust, & Kashani, 2018; Ghosh & Sood, 2016;
Kashani, Crewe, & Alexander, 2013; Shekhar et al., 2018).
Although the framework elaborated in this study could be
modeled using pitting form of corrosion deterioration in
determining the seismic life-cycle cost, these effects are
excluded in this study for simplicity and thereby providing
future opportunities.
Additionally, the seismic life-cycle cost estimation
approach presented in this study focuses solely on the costs
stemming from post-earthquake repair or rehabilitation
works. Other costs and their influence on structural
upgrades or repairs stemming from intermediate routine
maintenance work are not incorporated. Furthermore, indir-
ect costs stemming from increased travel time due to traffic
rerouting, operating costs, cost due to loss of business or
human lives costs, and injury costs, among others are left
for future inclusion with the seismic loss estimation frame-
work. For a comprehensive treatise on indirect costs
incurred due to highway bridge closure, the reader is
referred to Stein, Young, Trent, and Pearson (1999) and
Deco and Frangopol (2013).
4. Seismic loss estimation under multiple
earthquake events: representative case-study
example
This section of the paper presents a representative case-
study example of a highway bridge with deteriorating RC
column that incorporates the probabilistic framework of
repair or replacement decisions along with subsequent cost
estimates to compute probable lifetime seismic losses. The
following subsection first elaborates on the proposed frame-
work and highlights the uncertainties that affect seismic
losses and life-cycle costs. The bridge description along with
details on the finite element modeling is presented next.
Lastly, the proposed methodology is applied on the case-
study bridge to evaluate and compare monetary seismic loss
1164 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
and life-cycle costs for the non-deteriorating and aging
bridge structure.
4.1. Uncertainty considerations in seismic loss and life-
cycle cost assessment
In order to capture various sources of uncertainties, this
study adopts a Monte Carlo simulation based seismic loss
and life-cycle cost assessment framework that relies on con-
ducting sufficient number of trials to arrive at confident loss
estimates. This proposed strategy helps in capturing uncer-
tainties associated with: a) ground motion characteristics
that affect the level of damage, b) time along the design life
or planning horizon for shock occurrence, c) extent of cor-
rosion deterioration affecting the column section and mater-
ial characteristics, and d) repair decisions and the adopted
repair strategies. Additionally, as demonstrated later, the
seismic loss histograms do not conform to standard statis-
tical distributions given the random nature of input varia-
bles. Consequently, Monte Carlo trials emerge as the
method of choice for seismic loss analysis for non-deterio-
rating as well as aging bridge structures.
A schematic representation of this framework is demon-
strated in Figure 4. For a selected number of seismic events
(n), the jth trial of NMC Monte Carlo runs comprises of n seis-
mic sequences applied to the structure (non-deteriorating or
aging) as main shocks at different points in time. Following
each main shock damage, the deteriorating structure may be:
a) left unrepaired (for minor damages) but with potential
acceleration of corrosion, b) partially repaired, especially near
Figure 4. Seismic loss estimation based on various repair strategies adopted after every ongoing earthquake event until n shocks repeated for NMC number of
Monte Carlo trials. cj,i represents the cost of the adopted repair strategy corresponding to jth trial of the ith earthquake event.
the plastic hinge region, and c) completely replaced, and
thereby returning to as-built pristine conditions. Also, the
choice of repair strategy for a particular level of damage after
each shock may vary from one Monte Carlo trial to another as
demonstrated in Figure 4. Consequently, the post-earthquake
structural condition to resist a future earthquake is uncertain
and is captured using the Monte Carlo trials. Following these
trials one can eventually derive the seismic loss distribution
given n earthquake events along the bridge design life.
The following subsections will first elaborate on the finite
element modeling of the case-study bridge structure and
then proceeds to estimate the probabilistic seismic loss
under single shock and multiple shock scenarios for both
the non-deteriorating and corroding structures.
4.2. Finite element modeling of case-study bridge and
seismic loss evaluation
The case-study bridge adopted in this study is assumed to
be located in the state of California, United States wherein
the highway bridges are expected to experience multiple
earthquakes along their design life due to regional seismi-
city. Additionally, proximity to marine sources render these
bridges susceptible to chloride induced corrosion deterior-
ation. The following subsection elaborates on the represen-
tative case-study bridge description along with the finite
element modeling of the non-deteriorating and aging condi-
tions. The methodology to determine probabilistic seismic
losses under single and multiple earthquake events is dem-
onstrated in the later subsections.

Figure 5. General layout of case-study two-span box-girder bridge along with the fiber discretization of reinforced concrete column section for non-deteriorating
and aging bridge conditions.
4.2.1. Description of representative case-study bridge
Based on the review by Ramanathan (2012) on highway
bridge inventory in California, more than 21% of all
bridges are comprised of multi-span continuous concrete
box-girder type. This study adopts a two-span concrete
box-girder bridge as shown in Figure 5 for the representa-
tive case-study example. The bridge is assumed to be con-
structed in pre-1971 seismic design era with span length of
31.78 m, span width of 9.78 m, and a single column bent of
6.63 m height. The adopted measurements of the case-
study bridge structure represent the median bridge dimen-
sions of two-span concrete box-girder bridges in the region
and hence deemed representative of general bridge geome-
tries. This study assumes the structure is in proximity to
marine splash environmental condition with the probabil-
ity distribution of deterioration parameters adopted from
DuraCrete (2000) and reproduced in Table 3. The material
properties, such as concrete compressive strength (fck), and
reinforcing steel yield strength (fy) are adopted form the
in-house database of the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) as reported in Mangalathu, Jeon,
Padgett, and DesRoches (2016). The column cross-section
is square having 1.29 m width with 36 #11 bars (35.81 mm
diameter) that constitute longitudinal steel reinforcement
ratio (q) of 2.25% (Mangalathu et al., 2016). For the time-
history seismic analysis, a suite of 100 earthquake records
of the California region developed by Gupta and
Krawinkler (2000) and Krawinkler, Medina, and Alavi
(2003) are adopted in this study. While the spectral accel-
eration of the ground motion suite at the fundamental
period of the structure ranges from 0.03 g to 1.57 g, the
peak ground accelerations vary between 0.03 g to 1.3 g, and
duration from 28.7 s to 100 s.
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1165
As typical of integral bridge types, this study assumes the
structural response and vulnerability of the case-study bridge
under seismic events to be primarily dominated by the bridge
column. This structural element is modeled using the finite elem-
ent software package OpenSees (McKenna, Fenves, & Scott,
2000) while assuming the superstructure mass lumped at the col-
umn top. The column cross-section is modeled as a fiber-element
with distributed plasticity using RCSection2d module available
within OpenSees. While the inner confined and outer uncon-
fined concrete is modeled using Concrete04 material, the rein-
forcing steel is modeled using uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic
material that is capable of accounting strength and stiffness deg-
radation during load cycles. The analytical challenge associated
with sequential updating of section properties and material char-
acteristics to reflect the effect of corrosion deterioration in
between seismic shocks is addressed by altering the OpenSees
source code and incorporating new material definitions. While
the procedure to modify OpenSees source code is briefly elabo-
rated in Appendix, more details can be found in Panchireddi and
Ghosh (2019).
These material definitions have similar base line properties
as Concrete04 and uniaxialMaterial Hysteretic material, but
with an additional flexibility of time-dependent updating. The
representative case-study bridge is utilized next to demon-
strate the probabilistic framework to compute lifetime seismic
losses towards column repair. These losses are computed for
non-deteriorating as well as for corroding bridge columns to
further highlight the impact of degradation on seismic
life-cycle cost. The next subsections will first highlight the
probabilistic seismic loss computation under a single shock
scenario (for a non-deteriorating and corroding structure),
then under multiple shock scenario, followed by probabilistic
aggregation of losses to compute seismic life-cycle.
1166 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
Figure 6. (a) Single earthquake pulse of PGA ¼ 0.36 g, and (b) moment-curvature relationship depicting the maximum curvature ductility corresponding to bridge
column section (pristine and deteriorated condition at 50 and 100 years).
4.2.2. Seismic losses under single shock scenario
This section demonstrates the estimation of probabilistic
seismic loss for the representative case-study bridge when
experiencing only one earthquake along the design life that
is assumed to be 100 years. Although AASHTO (2017)
recommends a design life period as 75 years for highway
bridge structures, preliminary review of the NBI database
(FHWA, 2018) reveals the existence of several highway
bridges in California that are nearing or even exceed
100 years of service. Consequently, this study adopts
100 years as the design life period of the bridge structure.
While the time t1 of this single shock occurrence is
irrelevant for the non-deteriorating structure, an explicit
accounting is required for the corroding bridge since the
degree of damage depends on the scale of deterioration.
This is demonstrated in Figure 6 for the bridge in pris-
tine condition and under corrosion deterioration at 50 and
100 years of design life when subjected to the same ground
motion time-history with peak ground acceleration (PGA)
of 0.36 g [Figure 6(a)], chosen from the suite of accelero-
grams. Figure 6(b) shows the increase in column curvature
ductility for the deteriorating bridge column (lm) which in
conjunction with the dissipated hysteretic energy (Eh) aids
in the computation of the Park and Ang damage index D1
after the first (and only, in this case) seismic shock using
Equation 1. For this ground motion time-history in particu-
lar, the damage index increases from 0.24 to 0.26 and 0.29
for the 50 year old and 100 year old bridge reflecting an
increase in damage level due to deterioration. In this
example, following the range of damage indices outlined in
Table 1, the physical level of damage has shifted from minor
to moderate for a deteriorating bridge structure under the
same earthquake pulse.
While the extent of deterioration depending on the
design life of the bridge influences the structural damage
index, computation of seismic loss for a pristine (non-dete-
riorating) and aging structure fundamentally follows a simi-
lar procedure. Based on the level of damage the structure is
categorized to either slight, minor, moderate, severe or col-
lapse damage state as elaborated in the flowchart presented
in Figure 1. Subsequently, based on the damage state a
repair strategy is chosen, and the repair cost discounted to
calculate the present day seismic losses corresponding to a
single shock alone. It is worthwhile to note that, while the
first two damage states (slight and minor) do not necessitate
a repair action, multiple repair decisions and corresponding
strategies for column rehabilitation exist for other damage
levels (Table 2) that adds an additional layer of uncertainty
in seismic loss calculations.
For instance, corresponding to the example at hand (say
Trial # j), a damage index of 0.26 for the 50 year old bridge
that falls in the moderate damage level comprises of 5%
chance of being repaired through epoxy injection, 23%
chance of getting patched with concrete, 9% chance of con-
crete lining, 36% chance of wrapping, 23% chance of replac-
ing column, and 5% chance of reinforcing and recasting the
column. The adopted repair strategy of this trial leads to a
seismic loss of cj,1 as represented earlier using Figure 4. On
the other hand, the damage index of 0.24 for the non-dete-
riorating bridge falls in the minor damage level and conse-
quently does not necessitate a repair (cj,1 ¼ 0).
Consequently, the seismic losses from repair corresponding
to pristine and aging bridge column may vary. In instances,
however, when the damage indices for the as-built and
aging bridge fall within the same range, the repair probabil-
ities are identical.
While a preliminary analysis on the Monte Carlo simula-
tion strategy conducted by the authors indicate that the seis-
mic loss computations incorporating the uncertainties tend
to stabilize following 2000 trials, a total of 5000 Monte
Carlo simulations are conducted for completeness. Across
each of the 5000 Monte Carlo trials, deterioration effects are
accounted by randomly sampling the age of the bridge from
uniform distribution with lower and upper bounds at year 0
and year 100, indicative of the beginning and end of design
life respectively. Each bridge sample is then randomly paired
with a ground motion time-history from the suite of accel-
erograms for nonlinear time-history analysis to compute the
damage index and associated seismic loss.
Figure 7(a) displays the histogram of the discounted seis-
mic losses for a deteriorating structure when subjected to a
single shock scenario. As expected, a majority of the ground
motions induces none-to-minor damage and thereby incurs
zero seismic losses. The zoomed-in subplot within Figure
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1167

Figure 7. (a) Histogram of seismic loss of bridge column along with the zoomed-in subplot showing the non-zero seismic losses when subjected to a single shock
for deteriorating condition, (b) comparison of non-zero seismic losses (natural logarithmic scale) of deteriorating bridges with those obtained from non-deteriorat-
ing bridges when subjected to a single shock, and (c) pie-charts representing the probability of adopting a repair decision after the first shock for both the non-
deteriorating and deteriorating bridges.

7(a) depicts the non-zero seismic losses stemming from Nr , 1 Nt , 1

repair and replacements for the deteriorating bridge struc-
ture. Figure 7(b) compares these non-zero losses with those
obtained from the non-deteriorating structure and reveals
interesting trends. As demonstrated in the deterministic
example earlier, since an aging highway bridge sample is
likely to incur a higher damage index (and hence seismic
loss from repair) compared to a non-deteriorating bridge,
the histogram peaks towards the right indicating higher
losses on an average for the deteriorating bridge.
These observations are further evident in the pie-charts
presented in Figure 7(c) that indicate an aging bridge would
require more number of “actions” along the lifetime
amounting to a higher percentage of repair or replacement
cases (25%) compared to the cases for a non-deteriorating
structure (22%). The percentage difference between median
losses of non-zero seismic cost between non-deteriorating
and aging bridge samples is observed to be around 10%.
While the above numbers correspond to a bridge under sin-
gle shock scenario, the percentage differences are likely to
increase under multiple shocks, as demonstrated later.
While the above histograms are derived using the Monte
Carlo simulations, an easy replicability of the loss results
can be attained after computing the probabilities for repair
pr,1 and replacement pt,1 (subscript “1” referring to the sin-
gle shock events) as:
pr, 1 ¼ and pt, 1 ¼ (9)
NMC NMC
In the above equation, Nr,1 and Nt,1 are the corresponding
number of trials among the total samples wherein bridge
needs to be repaired or replaced after the nth shock, NMC is
the total number of Monte Carlo trials (NMC ¼ 5000).
Consequently, the discounted seismic loss can be eval-
uated as:
Cr, 1, j Ct, 1, j
C1, j ¼ t1  pr, 1 þ  pt, 1 (10)
ð1 þ aÞ ð1 þ aÞt1
where, C1,j corresponds to the seismic loss of bridge struc-
ture after the first earthquake event occurring at time t1 for
the jth trial, Cr,1,j and Ct,1,j are the respective costs of jth
repair and replacement action that is sampled from the
probability of adopting different repair actions as indicated
earlier in Table 2, a is the adjusted discounted ratio
(assumed to be 0.03 in this study as mentioned by Beck
et al., 2002). Cr,i,j values can be directly sampled in such a
manner that the selection of any repair action strictly fol-
lows the probability of adopting that particular strategy as
provided in Table 2.
Using this closed form solution, Figure 8(a) and (b) pre-
sent the overlay of empirical cumulative density function
(CDF) of seismic losses obtained through Monte Carlo trials
and the fitted equation (Equation 10) for a single shock
1168 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH

Figure 8. Overlay of empirical cumulative distribution functions for the nonzero seismic losses (natural log scale) obtained through Monte Carlo trials and the fitted
equation [Equation (10)] for a single shock scenario corresponding to (a) non-deteriorating, and (b) deteriorating bridge conditions.

Figure 9. (a) Train of three earthquake pulses (PGA1 ¼ 0.06 g, PGA2 ¼ 0.30 g and PGA3 ¼ 0.27 g) occurring at different points in time during the design life, and
(b) potential alterations of bridge capacity and the discounted cost that may be accrued at the end of useful design life based on intermediate repair decisions.

scenario corresponding to non-deteriorating and deteriorat-
ing bridge conditions respectively. These results highlight
that the seismic losses obtained using the above equations
replicate those from Monte Carlo trials reasonably well and
thereby can be conveniently utilized for seismic loss distri-
bution predictions. Following the single shock scenario, the
next subsection proceeds to estimate the seismic losses in
the case-study bridge structure when subjected to multiple
main shocks along the design life.
4.2.3. Seismic losses under multiple shock scenarios
Following the single shock scenario, this section of the
paper presents the seismic loss assessment for multiple
shock events along the lifetime of the structure. For a
selected number of seismic events (n), multiple main shock
events are applied with sufficient time-gap between shocks
for the transient response of the structure (non-deteriorating
or aging) to dissipate between successive shocks (Figure 4)
during the simulation. This time-gap is representative of the
number of years elapsed between one main shock and the
next, which is particularly important for a deteriorating
bridge structures. Since, this study adopts the conventional
Poisson process to model earthquake occurrences (main
shocks) during the design life period of the bridge structure,
the time-gap between any two consecutive events follow an
exponential distribution. This corroborates with fundamen-
tal probability theory, that for a Poisson process, the time to
the first occurrence of an event follows an exponential dis-
tribution (Melchers, 1987). Additionally, in this study the
number of earthquake shocks along the design life of
100 years are assumed to vary from one to eight, beyond
which the occurrence probabilities of further seismic events
are deemed negligible, as elaborated in the next section for
loss aggregation.
Adopting the Monte Carlo based framework as elabo-
rated earlier using Figure 4, the seismic loss assessment
under multiple shocks is demonstrated for a sample trial of
three-shock sequence [Figure 9(a)] wherein the first shock
with PGA of 0.06 g is assumed to occur at year 7 while the
bridge is still in pristine condition (before corrosion initi-
ation time), the second with PGA 0.30 g at 43 years (on a
deteriorating bridge) and lastly, the third shock with PGA
0.27 g at 84 years. Figure 9(b) demonstrates the potential
alterations of bridge capacity and a sample cost that may be
accrued at the end of useful service life based on intermedi-
ate repair decisions. For instance, the first accelerogram at
year 7 induces a damage index D1 of 0.01 (slight category)
that does not necessitate a repair, but leads to a minor drop
in column capacity.
 STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1169

Figure 10. (a) Histogram of nonzero seismic losses (natural log scale) of deteriorating bridge column when subjected to three shocks, and (b) bar chart represent-
ing the probability of repair and replacement of the deteriorating bridge compared to the “Do Nothing” scenario after each earthquake event.

Table 4. Probabilities of the structure being repaired and replaced after each earthquake event (from one to eight)
for both the non-deteriorating and deteriorating bridge conditions.
Non-deteriorating scenario Deteriorating scenario
Number of Probability of Probability of Probability of Probability of
shocks (n) repair (pr,n) replacement (pt,n) repair (pr,n) replacement (pt,n)
1 11% 11% 10% 15%
2 18% 12% 16% 16%
3 22% 12% 22% 16%
4 32% 13% 27% 16%
5 38% 13% 32% 16%
6 43% 13% 36% 16%
7 48% 13% 39% 16%
8 51% 13% 42% 17%

As the structure continues to deteriorate, it experiences
the second shock at 43 years that induces a damage index
D2 of 0.38 (moderate category) that needs repair. At this
juncture, for the moderate damage level, multiple repair
options are available (Table 2), and the choice of one repair
strategy over another depends on the availability of resour-
ces, and discretion of the engineer, among other factors.
This particular example chooses “Patching with Concrete”
that constitutes a 23% probability of being chosen as a
repair action for this damage level and incurs a cost of $96.
This repair strategy also improves the structural capacity of
the column and when in place, delays the onset of corrosion
deterioration.
The last seismic shock assumed to occur at 84 years indu-
ces a damage index D3 ¼ 0.34 that again leads to a moder-
ate level of damage and necessitates repair. Since this
damage occurs towards the end of bridge design life, the
bridge engineer may opt for a cheaper repair option before
the bridge is decommissioned. This particular example
chooses “Concrete lining” as the repair strategy following
this particular seismic shock that incurs a cost of $93.1.
Subsequently, the discounted losses calculated in present
day dollar values for the above example that considers three
shocks till the end of bridge design life amounts to $38.
While this example demonstrates just one trial scenario in
the seismic loss computation under three shocks, the histo-
gram presented in Figure 10(a) captures the randomness in
seismic shock pairing, earthquake occurrence times, deteri-
oration mechanism, and repair strategy selection.
Compared to the single shock scenario, the median of
this histogram increases by 110% indicating the potential
increase in seismic losses stemming from repair and replace-
ments with the number of earthquake occurrences along the
life of the structure. Additionally, compared to the non-
deteriorating case under three-shock sequences, the mean
losses are found to increase by 8%, further highlighting the
importance of considering corrosion deterioration for seis-
mic loss assessment of aging bridges.
A similar trend as the three-shock scenario presented
here can be observed for higher number of shocks with a
gradual increase in the probability of bridge repair and
replacement compared to the “Do Nothing” scenario as
shown in Figure 10(b). Similar to the single shock scenario,
these probabilities can be used to compute seismic loss sam-
ples for the jth shock for n earthquake sequences in closed
form as:
X
n X
n
Cr, i, j Ct, i, j
Cn, j ¼  pr , i þ  pt , i (11)
i¼1 ð1 þ aÞti i¼1 ð1 þ aÞti
where, Cn,j is the seismic loss of bridge structure after being
exposed to n earthquake events for the jth sample, Cr,i,j and
Ct,i,j are the respective costs of adopted repair strategy and
replacement of the bridge structure after being exposed to
ith earthquake event occurring at time ti for the jth sample,
a is the adjusted discounted ratio, and pr,i and pt,i are the
respective probabilities of the structure being repaired and
1170 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
Figure 11. (a) Hazard curve representing the main shock hazard near Stanford University campus, California, and (b) probability of experiencing n shocks in a ser-
vice lifetime of T ¼ 100 years.
replaced after the ith event irrespective of any repair deci-
sions employed during earlier events.
These probabilities can be determined using the following
equation given as:
Nr, i Nt, i
pr , i ¼ and pt, i ¼
NMC NMC
where, NMC is the total number of Monte Carlo trials, Nr,i
and Nt,i are the corresponding number of trials among the
total samples in which the bridge needs to be repaired or
replaced, respectively after the ith shock. The above proba-
bilities as shown in Equation 12 computed for different
number of shocks are shown in Table 4, and similar to the
single shock scenario, the empirical distribution from the
closed form equation and Monte Carlo trials are found to
match reasonably well. The following subsection of the
paper presents the methodology to estimate seismic life-
cycle cost using the hazard information of bridge location.
4.3. Seismic life-cycle cost (SLCC) analysis
The seismic losses estimated for single and multiple shock
scenarios are now used in conjunction with the regional
seismic hazard information of the bridge site to determine
the seismic life-cycle cost. Assuming that the occurrence of
earthquake events follows Poisson process, Figure 11(a) rep-
resents the main shock hazard curve of the Stanford
University campus region within California. This is particu-
larly chosen as the above region is in close proximity to the
assumed case-study bridge location.
On the other hand, Figure 11(b) utilizes the hazard curve
information to determine the probability of occurrence of n
damaging earthquake events (with intensity greater than
0.1 g) within a design lifetime of 100 years (Panchireddi &
Ghosh, 2019).While the probability of experiencing three
shocks in a lifetime of 100 years is highest, the probability of
experiencing more than eight shocks is negligible.
Consequently, this study is restricted to consideration of
maximum of eight main shock occurrences during the life-
time for seismic loss assessment. Utilizing the NMC seismic
loss samples computed to n shocks in the previous section
(n ranging from one to eight), the seismic life-cycle cost
corresponding to the jth trial for a design life period of T
years can be computed as:
X
m
CSLCC, j ¼ Cn, j  P½n, T  (13)
n¼1
In the above equation, CSLCC,j corresponds to the seismic
(12) life-cycle cost of the structure for the jth simulation, m is
the maximum possible number of shocks the structure could
experience in T years (eight, in this study), Cn,j can be esti-
mated from Equation 11, and P[n,T] is the probability of
structure experiencing n earthquake events in a design life-
time of T years (determined using Figure 11(b) for a design
lifetime of T ¼ 100 years).
Figure 12(a) and (b) depict the histogram representing
the seismic life-cycle cost corresponding to the case-study
bridge column for both the non-deteriorating and aging
conditions respectively. Observations report that the low
cost samples are higher in non-deteriorating bridges than
that of aging bridges. Also, the samples corresponding to
higher costs are slightly dominant in aging bridges. This is
obvious as the deteriorating bridges are vulnerable to earth-
quake loads and demand repair works after an earthquake
event. The mean seismic life-cycle cost of the deteriorating
bridges is about 9.2% greater than that of the non-deterio-
rating bridges. This highlights the significance of consider-
ing corrosion deterioration during the estimation of seismic
life-cycle cost.
Interestingly, the coefficient of variation (COV) around the
seismic life-cycle cost for the non-deteriorating bridge samples
is slightly higher than that of the deteriorating samples. This
primarily stems from the additional uncertainties involved in
the repair costs (non-deteriorating bridges are more likely to
get repaired than being replaced) than that of replacement
cost. While the above considered repair strategies are limited
to a single column among the different components of a
bridge structure, it is underlined that the seismic life-cycle
cost of other bridge components that are affected by corrosion
deterioration would be substantially higher.
It is worth to note that this study estimates the most rep-
resentative seismic life-cycle cost by addressing the limita-
tions of the past studies that consider the structure to be
always restored to its pre-hazard state after the repair or
rehabilitation works. Lastly, the results presented in this sec-
tion underlines the significance of considering joint effects

Figure 12. Histogram of seismic life-cycle cost (SLCC) along with the median and coefficient of variation (COV) values corresponding to the case-study bridge col-
umn for (a) non-deteriorating condition, and (b) deteriorating condition.
of corrosion deterioration and the multiple earthquake
occurrences in estimating seismic life-cycle cost of the
bridge structures.
5. Conclusions
Structural performance of the highway bridges may decline
due to various environmental stressors or multiple natural
hazards during their design lifetime. While corrosion deteri-
oration constitute a primary part of environmental degrad-
ation, natural hazards such as earthquakes are predominant
in regions of moderate to high seismicity. This paper
presents a novel Monte Carlo based methodology in esti-
mating the seismic life-cycle cost that explicitly considers
the alteration in deterioration pattern between seismic
shocks due to earthquake-induced cracks as well as the
uncertainties in repair decisions based on different damage
levels and the repair processes. This study utilizes the Park
and Ang damage index for the determination of damage
level and the corresponding repair or replacement strategies
are outlined based on their respective qualitative and quanti-
tative descriptions. For the structures that demand no repair
works after an earthquake event may however experience
visible minor cracks. Consequently, the alterations in the
corrosion deterioration process due to the formation of
these cracks are also included in the framework.
The proposed framework is demonstrated on a represen-
tative case-study two-span single column box-girder bridge
located in California region. For the structures experiencing
single shock alone, an aging bridge would require more
number of “actions” along the design life amounting to a
higher percentage of repair or replacement cases (25%)
compared to the cases for a non-deteriorating structure
(22%). The percentage difference between median losses of
non-zero seismic cost for the non-deteriorating and aging
bridge samples is around 10%.
Compared to the single shock scenario, for an aging
structure, the median seismic loss after three shocks is
increased by 110% indicating the potential increase in seis-
mic losses stemming from repair and replacements with the
number of earthquake occurrences along the life of the
structure. Additionally, compared to the non-deteriorating
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1171
case under three-shock sequences, the mean losses are found
to increase by 8%, further highlighting the importance of
considering corrosion deterioration for seismic loss assess-
ment of aging bridges. Hence it is recommended to incorp-
orate deterioration effects in the design and analysis of
highway bridges when located in high seismic regions and
are simultaneously exposed to aggressive environmen-
tal conditions.
A gradual increase in the probability of bridge repair and
replacement compared to the “Do Nothing” scenario is
observed for higher number of shocks. These probabilities
in conjunction with the corresponding repair costs aids in
reproducing the seismic cost samples directly using the pro-
posed equation. Lastly, the median seismic life-cycle cost of
the deteriorating bridges is about 9.2% greater than that of
the non-deteriorating bridges. This highlights the signifi-
cance of considering corrosion deterioration during the esti-
mation of seismic life-cycle cost. While the considered
repair strategies in this study are limited to a single column
alone among the different components of a bridge structure,
it is underlined that the seismic life-cycle cost of other
bridge components that are affected by corrosion deterior-
ation would be substantially higher.
Future studies on this topic will investigate the seismic
life-cycle cost considering intermediate maintenance meas-
ures along with the consequence of component maintenance
on seismic performance of the bridge structures. While this
study specifically focused on direct structural losses from
seismic damage, indirect losses experienced by the commun-
ities requires further exploration. In addition to losses stem-
ming from column damage alone, economic consequences
from seismic damage to other critical bridge components
such as bearings, bridge deck, and abutments needs consid-
eration. Apart from the economic losses due to seismic
events, future studies on highway bridges will also investi-
gate other indicators of sustainability such as environmental
and social metrics.
Acknowledgements
The authors would also like to acknowledge the anonymous Reviewer
3 for his/her review comments that has led to incorporation of several
1172 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
practical aspects pertaining to seismic loss estimation of deteriorating
highway bridges.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The authors acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of
India (GoI), and Department of Science and Technology (Grant No.
ECR/2016/001622) for the research work at Indian Institute of
Technology Bombay.
References
AASHTO. (2017). LRFD bridge design specifications (8th ed.).
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Akiyama, M., & Frangopol, D. M. (2014). Long-term seismic perform-
ance of RC structures in an aggressive environment: Emphasis on
bridge piers. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 10(7),
865–879. doi:10.1080/15732479.2012.761246
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D. M., & Matsuzaki, H. (2011). Life-cycle
reliability of RC bridge piers under seismic and airborne chloride
hazards. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(15),
1671–1687.
Alipour, A., Shafei, B., & Shinozuka, M. (2011a). Performance evalu-
ation of deteriorating highway bridges located in high seismic areas.
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 16(5), 597–611. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000197
Alipour, A., Shafei, B., & Shinozuka, M. S. (2011b). Capacity loss
evaluation of reinforced concrete bridges located in extreme chlor-
ide-laden environments. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
9(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/15732479.2010.525243
Andrade, C., Alonso, C., & Molina, F. J. (1993). Cover cracking as a
function of bar corrosion: Part I- Experimental test. Materials and
Structures, 26(8), 453–464. doi:10.1007/BF02472805
Basoz, N., & Mander, J.B. (1999). Enhancement of the highway trans-
portation module in HAZUS. National Institute of Building Sciences,
16(1), 31–40.
Beck, J. L., Porter, K. A., Shaikhutdinov, R. V., Au, S. K., Mizukoshi,
K., Miyamura, M., Ishida, H., Moroi, T., Tsukada, Y., & Masuda,
M. (2002). Impact of seismic risk on lifetime property values. Final
Report, CUREE, Richmond, CA. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2002/er01
Bertolini, L., Elsener, B., Pedeferri, P., & Polder, R.B. (2004). Corrosion of
steel in concrete: Prevention, diagnosis, repair. KgaA, Weinheim: John
Wiley and Sons.
Bruno, S., & Valente, C. (2002). Comparative response analysis of con-
ventional and innovative seismic protection strategies. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(5), 1067–1092.
Chai, Y. H., Priestley, M. N., & Seible, F. (1994). Analytical model for
steel-jacketed RC circular bridge columns. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 120(8), 2358–2376. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1994)120:8(2358)
Cho, C. G., Kim, Y. Y., Feo, L., & Hui, D. (2012). Cyclic responses of
reinforced concrete composite columns strengthened in the plastic
hinge region by HPFRC mortar. Composite Structures, 94(7),
2246–2253. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.01.025
Choe, D.E., Gardoni, P., Rosowsky, D., & Haukaas, T. (2008).
Probabilistic capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC
columns subject to corrosion. Reliability Engineering & System
Safety, 93(3), 383–393. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2006.12.015
Choe, D.E., Gardoni, P., Rosowsky, D., & Haukaas, T. (2009). Seismic
fragility estimates for reinforced concrete bridges subject to corrosion.
Structural Safety, 31(4), 275–283. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.10.001
Colombo, A., & Negro, P. (2005). A damage index of generalised
applicability. Engineering Structures, 27(8), 1164–1174. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2005.02.014
Coronelli, D., & Gambarova, P. (2004). Structural assessment of cor-
roded reinforced concrete beams: Modeling guidelines. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 130(8), 1214–1224. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2004)130:8(1214)
Cui, Z., Alipour, A., & Shafei, B. (2019). Structural performance of
deteriorating reinforced concrete columns under multiple earth-
quake events. Engineering Structures, 191, 460–468. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2019.04.073
Deco, A., & Frangopol, D. M. (2013). Life-cycle risk assessment of spa-
tially distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards.
Earthquake Spectra, 29(1), 127–153. doi:10.1193/1.4000094
Di Sarno, L. (2013). Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic struc-
tural response. Engineering Structures, 56, 673–681. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2013.05.041
Dizaj, E. A., Madandoust, R., & Kashani, M. M. (2018). Probabilistic
seismic vulnerability analysis of corroded reinforced concrete frames
including spatial variability of pitting corrosion. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 114, 97–112. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.07.013
Du, Y.G., Clark, L.A., & Chan, A.H.C. (2005). Residual capacity of cor-
roded reinforcing bars. Magazine of Concrete Research, 57(3),
135–147. doi:10.1680/macr.2005.57.3.135
DuraCrete. (2000). Probabilistic performance based durability design of
concrete structures. The European Union-Brite EuRam III. Project
BE95-1347
El Hassan, J., Bressolette, P., Chateauneuf, A., & El Tawil, K. (2010).
Reliability-based assessment of the effect of climatic conditions on
the corrosion of RC structures subject to chloride ingress.
Engineering Structures, 32(10), 3279–3287. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.
2010.07.001
Enright, M.P., & Frangopol, D.M. (1998). Probabilistic analysis of
resistance degradation of reinforced concrete bridge beams under
corrosion. Engineering Structures, 20(11), 960–971. doi:10.1016/
S0141-0296(97)00190-9
Faisal, A., Majid, T. A., & Hatzigeorgiou, G. D. (2013). Investigation of
story ductility demands of inelastic concrete frames subjected to
repeated earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
44, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.08.012
Fang, C., Lundgren, K., Chen, L., & Zhu, C. (2004). Corrosion influ-
ence on bond in reinforced concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research, 34(11), 2159–2167. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.04.006
FEMA. (2012). HAZUS-MH MR4 technical manual. Washington, DC.
FHWA. (2018). National Bridge Inventory Data. Washington, DC.
Gervasio, H., & da Silva, L. S. (2013). Life-cycle social analysis of
motorway bridges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 9(10),
1019–1039.
Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2010). Aging considerations in the develop-
ment of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 136(12), 1497–1511. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.
1943-541X.0000260
Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J.E. (2011). Probabilistic seismic loss assessment
of aging bridges using a component-level cost estimation approach.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 40(15), 1743–1761.
doi:10.1002/eqe.1114
Ghosh, J., Padgett, J. E., & Sanchez-Silva, M. (2015). Seismic damage
accumulation in highway bridges in earthquake-prone regions.
Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 115–135. doi:10.1193/120812EQS347M
Ghosh, J., & Sood, P. (2016). Consideration of time-evolving capacity
distributions and improved degradation models for seismic fragility
assessment of aging highway bridges. Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, 154, 197–218. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2016.06.001
Gupta, A., & Krawinkler, H. (2000). Behavior of ductile SMRFs at vari-
ous seismic hazard levels. Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(1),
98–107. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:1(98)

Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., & Liolios, A. A. (2010). Nonlinear behaviour of
RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 30(10), 1010–1025. doi:10.1016/j.soil-
dyn.2010.04.013
Hawk, H. (2003). Bridge life-cycle cost analysis. Transportation
Research Board, 483.
Huang, W., Qian, J., Zhuang, B. B., & Fu, Q. S. (2012). Damage assess-
ment of RC frame structures under multi- earthquake sequences. In
Advanced materials research (Vol. 446, pp. 739–744).Trans Tech
Publications.
Jiang, H. J., Chen, L. Z., & Chen, Q. (2011). Seismic damage assess-
ment and performance levels of reinforced concrete members.
Procedia Engineering, 14, 939–945. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.118
Kameshwar, S., & Padgett, J. E. (2017). Characterizing and Predicting
Seismic Repair Costs for Bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
22(11), 04017083. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001129
Kashani, M. M., Alagheband, P., Khan, R., & Davis, S. (2015a). Impact
of corrosion on low-cycle fatigue degradation of reinforcing bars
with the effect of inelastic buckling. International Journal of Fatigue,
77, 174–185. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.03.013
Kashani, M. M., Crewe, A. J., & Alexander, N. A. (2013). Nonlinear
stress–strain behaviour of corrosion- damaged reinforcing bars
including inelastic buckling. Engineering Structures, 48, 417–429.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.09.034
Kashani, M.M., Lowes, L.N., Crewe, A.J., & Alexander, N.A. (2015b).
Phenomenological hysteretic model for corroded reinforcing bars includ-
ing inelastic buckling and low-cycle fatigue degradation. Computers &
Structures, 156, 58–71. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.04.005
Krawinkler, H., Medina, R., & Alavi, B. (2003). Seismic drift and duc-
tility demands and their dependence on ground motions.
Engineering Structures, 25(5), 637–653. doi:10.1016/S0141-
0296(02)00174-8
Kumar, R., & Gardoni, P. (2012). Modeling structural degradation of
RC bridge columns subjected to earthquakes and their fragility esti-
mates. Journal of Structural Engineering, 138(1), 42–51. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000450
Kumar, R., Gardoni, P., & Sanchez-Silva, M. (2009). Effect of cumula-
tive seismic damage and corrosion on the life-cycle cost of rein-
forced concrete bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 38(7), 887–905. doi:10.1002/eqe.873
Kunnath, S. K., & Jenne, C. (1994). Seismic damage assessment of
inelastic RC structures. In 5th US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (Vol. 1, pp. 55–64).
Lee, K. M., Cho, H. N., Lim, J. K., & Park, K. H. (2004). Life-cycle
cost effective optimal seismic design for continuous PSC bridges. In
Life-cycle performance of deteriorating structures: Assessment, design
and management (pp. 247–262). Porto, Portugal. doi:10.1061/
9780784407073.
Liu, T., & Weyers, R. W. (1998). Modeling the dynamic corrosion pro-
cess in chloride contaminated concrete structures. Cement and
Concrete Research, 28(3), 365–379. doi:10.1016/S0008-
8846(98)00259-2
Ma, R., & Xiao, Y. (1999). Seismic retrofit and repair of circular bridge
columns with advanced composite materials. Earthquake Spectra,
15(4), 747–764. doi:10.1193/1.1586070
Mackie, K. R., Wong, J. M., & Stojadinovic, B. (2010). Post-earthquake
bridge repair cost and repair time estimation methodology.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39(3), 281–301.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1988)114:8(1804)
Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J. S., & Jiang, J. (2019). Skew Adjustment Factors
for Fragilities of California Box-Girder Bridges Subjected to near-
Fault and Far-Field Ground Motions. Journal of Bridge Engineering,
24(1), 04018109. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001338
Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J. S., Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2016).
ANCOVA-based grouping of bridge classes for seismic fragility
assessment. Engineering Structures, 123, 379–394. doi:10.1016/j.eng-
struct.2016.05.054
STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING 1173
McKenna, F., Fenves, G., & Scott, M. (2000). Open system for earth-
quake engineering simulation. Berkeley: University of California.
Meda, A., Mostosi, S., Rinaldi, Z., & Riva, P. (2014). Experimental
evaluation of the corrosion influence on the cyclic behaviour of RC
columns. Engineering Structures, 76, 112–123. doi:10.1016/j.eng-
struct.2014.06.043
Mehanny, S. S., & Deierlein, G. G. (2001). Seismic damage and collapse
assessment of composite moment frames. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 127(9), 1045–1053. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2001)127:9(1045)
Melchers, R. E. (1987). Structural reliability analysis and prediction.
Chichester: Wiley.
Nakano, Y., Maeda, M., Kuramoto, H., & Murakami, M. (2004,
August). Guideline for post-earthquake damage evaluation and
rehabilitation of RC buildings in Japan. In 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering (No. 124).
Otieno, M. B., Alexander, M. G., & Beushausen, H. D. (2010).
Corrosion in cracked and uncracked concrete– influence of crack
width, concrete quality and crack reopening. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 62(6), 393–404. doi:10.1680/macr.2010.62.6.393
Otieno, M., Beushausen, H., & Alexander, M. (2016a). Chloride-induced
corrosion of steel in cracked concrete– Part I: Experimental studies
under accelerated and natural marine environments. Cement and
Concrete Research, 79, 373–385. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.08.009
Otieno, M., Beushausen, H., & Alexander, M. (2016b). Chloride-
induced corrosion of steel in cracked concrete— Part II: Corrosion
rate prediction models. Cement and Concrete Research, 79, 386–394.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.08.008
Ou, Y. C., Tsai, L. L., & Chen, H. H. (2012). Cyclic performance of
large-scale corroded reinforced concrete beams. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(4), 593–604.
Padgett, J.E., Dennemann, K., & Ghosh, J. (2010). Risk-based seismic life-
cycle cost-benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge retrofit assessment.
Structural Safety, 32(3), 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.10.003
Padgett, J.E., & DesRoches, R. (2007). Bridge functionality relationships
for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks.
Earthquake Spectra, 23(1), 115–130. doi:10.1193/1.2431209
Panchireddi, B., & Ghosh, J. (2019). Cumulative vulnerability assess-
ment of highway bridges considering corrosion deterioration and
repeated earthquake events. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
17(3), 1603–1638. doi:10.1007/s10518-018-0509-3
Park, Y. J., & Ang, A. H. S. (1985). Mechanistic seismic damage model
for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4),
722–739. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1985)111:4(722)
Park, Y. J., Ang, A. H. S., & Wen, Y. K. (1985). Seismic damage ana-
lysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Structural
Engineering, 111(4), 740–757. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1985)111:4(740)
Ramanathan, K.N. (2012). Next generation seismic fragility curves for
California bridges incorporating the evolution in seismic design phil-
osophy (Ph.D. dissertation). Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Rao, A. S., Lepech, M. D., Kiremidjian, A. S., & Sun, X. Y. (2017).
Simplified structural deterioration model for reinforced concrete
bridge piers under cyclic loading. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 13(1), 55–66. doi:10.1080/15732479.2016.1198402
Raupach, M. (1996). Chloride-induced macrocell corrosion of steel in
concrete—Theoretical background and practical consequences.
Construction and Building Materials, 10(5), 329–338. doi:10.1016/
0950-0618(95)00018-6
Roufaiel, M. S., & Meyer, C. (1987). Reliability of concrete frames
damaged by earthquakes. Journal of Structural Engineering, 113(3),
445–457. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1987)113:3(445)
Scott, A., & Alexander, M. G. (2007). The influence of binder type,
cracking and cover on corrosion rates of steel in chloride-contami-
nated concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, 59(7), 495–505. doi:
10.1680/macr.2007.59.7.495
Shekhar, S., & Ghosh, J. (2020). A metamodeling based seismic life-
cycle cost assessment framework for highway bridge structures.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 195, 106724.
1174 B. PANCHIREDDI AND J. GHOSH
Shekhar, S., Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J. E. (2018). Seismic life-cycle cost
analysis of ageing highway bridges under chloride exposure condi-
tions: Modelling and recommendations. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 14(7), 941–966. doi:10.1080/15732479.2018.1437639
Stein, S. M., Young, G. K., Trent, R. E., & Pearson, D. R. (1999).
Prioritizing scour vulnerable bridges using risk. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, 5(3), 95–101. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-
0342(1999)5:3(95)
Stewart, M. G., & Rosowsky, D. V. (1998). Time-dependent reliability
of deteriorating reinforced concrete bridge decks. Structural Safety,
20(1), 91–109. doi:10.1016/S0167-4730(97)00021-0
Stewart, M. G., Wang, X., & Nguyen, M. N. (2011). Climate change
impact and risks of concrete infrastructure deterioration. Engineering
Structures, 33(4), 1326–1337. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.010
Val, D. V., Chernin, L., & Stewart, M. G. (2009). Experimental and
numerical investigation of corrosion-induced cover cracking in rein-
forced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 135(4),
376–385. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:4(376)
Vecchio, F. J., & Collins, M. P. (1986). The modified compression-field
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI
Journal, 83(2), 219–231.
Vu, K. A. T., & Stewart, M. G. (2000). Structural reliability of concrete
bridges including improved chloride- induced corrosion models.
Structural Safety, 22(4), 313–333. doi:10.1016/S0167-4730(00)00018-7
Wang, X., & Liu, X. (2004). Modeling bond strength of corroded
reinforcement without stirrups. Cement and Concrete Research,
34(8), 1331–1339. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.028
Wang, M. L., & Shah, S. P. (1987). Reinforced concrete hysteresis
model based on the damage concept. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 15(8), 993–1003.
Williams, M. S., & Sexsmith, R. G. (1997). Seismic assessment of con-
crete bridges using inelastic damage analysis. Engineering Structures,
19(3), 208–216. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00104-6
Yanweerasak, T., Pansuk, W., Akiyama, M., & Frangopol, D. M.
(2018). Life-cycle reliability assessment of reinforced concrete
bridges under multiple hazards. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 14(7), 1011–1024. doi:10.1080/15732479.2018.1437640
Figure A1: Flowchart elaborating the addition of new material definitions to the OpenSees source code.
Zhang, G., Cao, X., & Fu, Q. (2016). Experimental study on residual
strength of concrete confined with corroded stirrups. Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, 43(6), 583–590. doi:10.1139/cjce-2016-0138
Zhang, Y., & Su, R. K. L. (2019). Concrete cover delamination model for
non-uniform corrosion of reinforcements. Construction and Building
Materials, 223, 329–340. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.199
Zhong, J., Gardoni, P., & Rosowsky, D. (2012). Seismic fragility estimates
for corroding reinforced concrete bridges. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering, 8(1), 55–69. doi:10.1080/15732470903241881
Appendix. Addition of new material definitions
in OpenSees
Figure A1 provides the flowchart elaborating the procedure of adding
new material definitions to the OpenSees source code. Firstly, two new
materials that are similar in the lines of already existing Concrete04
and HystereticMaterial files with names Concrete04Update and
HystereticUpdate are added to the existing OpenSees (McKenna et al.,
2000) source code. Review on the updatable parameters within
OpenSees source code reveals that the material class containing defined
MovableObject class as the virtual functions in its associated header
file (“MovableObject.h”) would be possibly updated. Any updatable
parameter in OpenSees is defined by a unique parameterID within the
finite element domain.
Importantly, these parameters contain three critical functions namely
setParameter, updateParameter and activateParameter that are identified
as the objectives responsible for setting, updating and activating the par-
ameter. These functions are now defined in the header files and the corre-
sponding definitions are added to the .cpp files of the newly added
materials. An OPS function is now defined in the model builder files for
the user to define material inputs. In the header files of OPS function (i.e,
“OPS.Globals.h”), the defined input functions are added to the new
material files respectively and all the parameters are initialized in the con-
structor. Finally, the new material properties are defined in the software
development files namely material.vcxproj and material.vcxproj.filters.
Incorporating these changes, OpenSees source code should now be suc-
cessfully compiled to a new OpenSees executable.