Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic reliability of reinforced concrete bridges subject to environmental

deterioration and strengthened with FRCM composites
Mariano Angelo Zanini a, *, Klajdi Toska a, Flora Faleschini a, b, Carlo Pellegrino a
a
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, via Francesco Marzolo 9, Padova, Italy
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova, via Gradenigo 6a, Padova, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ensuring adequate seismic reliability levels for existing infrastructure components is a key issue for owners in
Bridge earthquake-prone countries. In particular, bridges may suffer relevant damage in case of a seismic event, and this
Deterioration issue can be magnified due to deterioration phenomena induced by environmental agents, like CO2 emissions or
FRCM
chlorides. Among the available techniques, seismic retrofitting can be pursued through the use of composite
Seismic retrofit
Seismic reliability
materials. For a proper bridge management policy, infrastructure owners need to know at which time instant
scheduling restoration interventions on bridges, and such issues have to be fixed with a reliability-based metric.
The present study numerically investigates the effectiveness of the use of fabric reinforced cementitious matrix
(FRCM) systems in the seismic retrofitting of an existing multi-span simply supported (MSSS) reinforced concrete
(RC) bridge subject to aging. Fragility curves are first derived on the basis of refined non-linear time-history
analyses performed on the “as built” configuration. Fragilities are further computed for different combinations of
deterioration scenarios and seismic retrofitting schemes with increasing number of FRCM layers. Time-variant
seismic reliability profiles are thus assessed, and reliability gains achievable at different time instants with the
implementation of the FRCM retrofitting scenarios are quantified in order to provide useful information for the
infrastructure owner decision-making.

1. Introduction replacement, which is largely less sustainable from both environmental

Multi-Span Simply Supported (MSSS) Reinforced Concrete (RC)
bridges constitute a relevant portion of roadway infrastructure in Italy
and other European countries. Such infrastructure components are
subject to aging and environmental deterioration mainly due to high
concentrations of CO2 emissions and chlorides action. In addition, the
increase of traffic volumes, and the evolution of building codes pre­
scriptions have highlighted a growing number of them to be no more
able to ensure safety margins required by current codes and guidelines.
Many of these structures are also deficient in terms of lateral load car­
rying capacity, since they were designed - especially in medium seis­
micity areas – without seismic resistance criteria and with insufficient
shear capacity due to lack of transversal reinforcement in vertical ele­
ments. The combination of all these factors may result in sudden failures
in case of earthquake occurrence [1,2], and for such reasons a growing
interest on the implementation of seismic retrofitting actions is
emerging among infrastructure owners. Such intervention represents a
cost-effective alternative with respect to bridge demolition and
and financial point of views. Different seismic strengthening techniques
can be adopted for increasing strength, ductility and stiffness of existing
RC bridges. Among others, from the ‘90s, the use of composite materials
has become a convenient solution for RC elements.
Several researchers experimentally investigated the efficacy of fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) confinement provided by externally bonded
FRP sheets onto concrete surface in the seismic behavior of RC elements,
observing significant strength and ductility gains in the retrofitted
specimens with respect to the reference ones [3–9]. Ye et al. [10] tested
eight square columns with the aim to investigate the ductility
enhancement provided by CFRP (carbon FRP). Experimental results
allowed to calibrate a confinement factor for CFRP and an equivalent
transversal reinforcement index to be used for design purposes. Colomb
et al. [11] investigated the effectiveness of CFRP shear reinforcements
with various fully or partially wrapped solutions in specimens lacking
sufficient transverse steel reinforcement, showing that ductility of the
fully wrapped columns increased. This result was attributed to plastic
hinges shift in the foundation, due to the considerable over-strength of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marianoangelo.zanini@dicea.unipd.it (M.A. Zanini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106224
Received 17 December 2019; Received in revised form 31 March 2020; Accepted 7 May 2020
Available online 18 June 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Zanini et al.
the wrapped zone, while any buckling of compressed rebars was avoi­
ded. The authors suggested also to not oversize the FRP reinforcement
since it may imply column over-strength and node failures. Ozcan et al.
[12,13] studied the influence of using CFRP anchor dowels, resulting in
an improvement of the seismic behavior of rectangular RC columns
wrapped with CFRPs. They proposed also a drift-based design equation
for sizing FRP wraps on shear deficient rectangular columns. Promis
et al. [14] and Promis and Ferrier [15] developed a novel performance
index based on structural damage, aimed at evaluating the efficiency of
external FRP reinforcement as a function of the axial loading, shape of
the strengthened RC column, presence of FRP bars and main mechanical
characteristics of the FRP wraps. Rodrigues et al. [16] performed an
experimental campaign on nine rectangular RC columns strengthened
with CFRP and steel jackets. The aim of the research was to develop a
procedure for calibrating the cyclic behavior in case of biaxial loading,
considering diagonal and diamond horizontal displacement paths.
Ouyang et al. [17] investigated the use of basalt FRPs (BFRPs) as
alternative to classic CFRPs for seismic strengthening of square RC
columns. This choice was linked to basalt low environmental impact and
price, and high mechanical characteristics, which make it a
cost-effective solution and a promising alternative to conventional
CFRPs. Wang et al. [18] analyzed the role of the direction of the hori­
zontal load on the seismic response of ten rectangular RC columns
strengthened with CFRPs. Results highlighted how shear strength in
non-principal directions of both bare and retrofitted specimens can be
predicted starting from the predicted strength in the principal di­
rections, combining them with the ellipse equation.
Other studies were focused on the experimental assessment of the
performance of seismic damaged columns repaired with FRP wraps
[19–21]. He et al. [22] tested three-half scale severely damaged square
RC bridge columns by artificially fracturing and buckling steel rebars.
They investigated the effectiveness of the CFRP strengthening solution
coupled with a specific system designed to anchor longitudinal CFRP
strips to the column footing. Lavorato and Nuti [23] tested a set of bridge
piers in 1:6 scale with pseudo-dynamic tests in order to reproduce po­
tential seismic damage and subsequently repaired the specimens with
CFRPs.
Instead, few numerical studies were conducted on the seismic
response of columns or entire bridges retrofitted with FRPs, in order to
quantify, in probabilistic terms, the beneficial effect of such retrofitting
intervention. Billah and Alam [24] numerically investigated the per­
formance of a three-column bridge bent retrofitted with different tech­
niques, namely CFRP wraps, steel jackets, concrete jackets and ECC
(Engineered Cementitious Composite) jacketing, via the execution of
incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) approach and the subsequent
computation of fragility curves. The best performances were displayed
for the CFRP and ECC solutions. Fakharifar et al. [25] analyzed the
effectiveness of three jacketing solutions on the seismic response of a RC
multi-span continuous bridge, initially damaged by the occurrence of a
mainshock, and then repaired and attacked again by an aftershock
event. IDA approach was used obtaining similar results among the tested
solutions. Parghi and Alam [26] performed a fractional factorial analysis
aimed at investigating the impact of several parameters like material
properties, longitudinal and transversal reinforcement ratios, external
confinement, axial load, shear span-depth ratio on lateral load capacity,
ductility and failure mode of a single column RC bridge pier. Nonlinear
pushover analyses were carried out on piers modelled with fiber-based
approach. More recently, the same authors [27] carried out IDA and
derived fragility curves considering 20 ground motion records, showing
the impact of the abovementioned parameters on the resulting fragility
estimates. Mahboubi and Shiravand [28] numerically analyzed different
continuous-span RC bridge configurations with increasing skew angles
up to 30� and retrofitted with CFRP, via the execution of non-linear
time-history analyses. The aim of the research was to quantify seismic
damage by using displacement-, energy-, and stiffness-based indices,
showing how the effect of CFRP confinement significantly increased for
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
the configurations with taller piers and higher skew angles.
However, in the last decade, the use of fabric reinforced cementitious
matrix (FRCM) systems is become an effective alternative solution to the
use of classic FRPs. FRCM technique allows to overcome FRP drawbacks
mainly associated with the use of epoxy resins, i.e. high costs, poor
performance in case of high temperatures, inability to apply it on wet
surfaces, incompatibility with some types of substrate materials,
through the replacement of organic (epoxy resins) with inorganic
(mortar) matrix [29]. The inorganic matrix is incombustible and capable
to maintain the system mechanical properties even in high tempera­
tures. In addition, unlike FRP systems, FRCM ones do not emit toxic
substances when exposed to high temperatures and are not affected by
UV light [30,31]. When retrofitting with FRCM techniques, eventual
damage that may occur in the retrofitted element clearly manifests itself
in the mortar jacket, making inspection, in case of a seismic event, quick
and easy. On the other hand, inspection of elements retrofitted with FRP
jackets is rather difficult as the internal damage is not always noticeable
onto the FRP surface [29].
Limited studies can be found in literature on the seismic response of
RC elements retrofitted with FRCMs: Bournas et al. [32] tested three
full-scale deficient RC columns strengthened with both CFRP and FRCM
wraps in the plastic hinge regions and subject to cyclic loading, showing
similar results between the specimens retrofitted with the two different
solutions. In Bournas et al. [33], the authors experimentally demon­
strated a better performance in preventing local rebar buckling in
specimens confined with FRCMs than CFRP ones, mainly attributed to
the capacity of FRCM to resist local stresses. Similar results were illus­
trated by Ref. [34,35] on columns subject to cyclic loading and
strengthened in flexure with near surface mounted (NSM) bars coupled
with FRCM wraps for the increase of confinement.
The above context highlights a substantial lack of studies dealing
with the numerical assessment of the effectiveness in the use of FRCM
systems for the seismic retrofitting of existing RC bridges and no refer­
ence can be found dealing with the quantification of the gain in terms of
seismic reliability with respect to the as-built configuration for common
bridge schemes can be found. In order to fill this gap, the present study
describes the results of an extensive numerical analysis carried out to
investigate the effectiveness of seismic retrofitting with FRCM systems
for an Italian existing MSSS RC-bridge. The paper details the workflow
and models that can be generally used to derive time-variant seismic
reliability profiles over the entire service-life for a RC bridge. Such
profiles represent a key information for infrastructure owners for
rationally design and schedule the FRCM strengthening scheme within
the bridge maintenance planning. The work is organized as it follows:
Section 2 briefly recaps main methods and models to be used for the
assessment of seismic reliability of structural systems, as well as dete­
rioration models for aging simulation and analytical models of FRCM
passive confinement action. Section 3 presents the analyzed bridge case-
study, whereas Section 4 shows the results of the numerical analysis,
namely fragility curves derived for different aging scenarios both for the
as-built configuration and those retrofitted with varying FRCM layouts.
Finally, Section 5 illustrates the time-variant seismic reliability profiles
and discusses the results of the following cost-benefit analysis, whereas
Section 6 lists main concluding remarks of this study.
2. Methods & models
The present Section details main methods and models herein adopted
to quantify seismic reliability of structural systems, accounting also for
aging and FRCM seismic retrofitting.
2.1. Seismic reliability analysis
In the context of the Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering
(PBEE) framework [36], the occurrence of main earthquakes at the
construction site is assumed to be a Homogenous Poisson Process (HPP).
M.A. Zanini et al.
Under this hypothesis, and not considering damage accumulation in
structures, the process of events causing the structural failure is also
represented by an HPP, whose unique parameter, the failure rate λf , can
be used for computing the failure probability in any time interval.
Particularly, it depends on the hazard curve λim , representing the seis­
micity on a specific site, and on fragility curve P½fjim�, being the proba­
bilistic structural behavior of a specific structure. The failure rate λf is
thus computed by applying the Total Probability Theorem:
Z interest t due to earthquake occurrences as follows:
λf ¼ P½f jim�⋅jdλim j (1)
im
where jdλim j is the derived from the seismic hazard curve, and P½fjim�
characterizes the seismic fragility of a given structural system. Current
state-of-the-art approaches for the computation of λim are based on the
so-called Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) [37,38], which
associates to each im value, the corresponding annual rate of events
exceeding it at the site where the structure is located. This calculation
involves the three main components that contribute to define the seis­
micity of a specific area, namely the earthquake occurrence model, the
seismogenic model and the ground motion attenuation law. From λim ,
jdλim j is easily obtained as:
dλim
jdλim j ¼ dðimÞ (2)
dðimÞ
representing the mean number of earthquakes per year producing a
shaking of exactly im; the minus sign is required by the negative slope of
the hazard curve. λim is commonly computed via the PSHA integral as:
Z mmax;i Z rmax;i
X
nSZ
λim ¼ νmmin;i P½IM > imjm; r�fMi ðmÞfRi ðrÞ dm dr (3)
i¼1 mmin;i rmin;i
where νmmin;i is the rate of occurrence of earthquakes greater than a
suitable minimum magnitude mmin;i of the ith seismogenic zone (SZ),
fMi ðmÞ is the magnitude distribution for the ith SZ and fRi ðrÞ is the dis­
tribution of the source ith-to-site distance. Finally, P½IM > imjm; r� rep­
resents the probability to exceed im, for a given combination of
magnitude m and distance r, whose distribution parameters are usually
provided by a suitable assumed Ground Motion Prediction Equation
(GMPE).
As regards the fragility curve P½fjim�, it represents the probability to
reach and exceed a given damage state level (failure), conditioned on a
specific ground motion intensity measure IM ¼ im. The calibration of
fragilities is commonly based on results obtained from the execution of a
set of non-linear time-history analyses (NLTHAs). Several theoretical
models and procedures have been proposed in literature for the cali­
bration of P½fjim� parameters; among all the Incremental Dynamic
Analysis [39], the Cloud-Analysis [40], the Multi-Stripes Analysis [41]
and the Incremental Modal Pushover Analysis [42]. The Cloud Analysis
approach has proven to be less onerous in computational terms given
that the resulting fragility curve takes origin from a sample of n ground
motions intensities ½im1 ; im2 ; :::; imn � and the corresponding sample of
structural responses ½edp1 ; edp2 ;:::; edpn �. Compared to the IDA method,
the Cloud Analysis approach is less time consuming, since the investi­
gated structure is subject to a limited set of n unscaled ground motions
records. In this case, the fragility function assumes the following form:
P½f jim� ¼ P½EDP > edpjim� ¼ 1 P½EDP � edpjim� ¼ 1
� �
lnðedpÞ lnðedpÞ
Φ (4)
β
In Eq. (4), edp is the median threshold value of the assumed struc­
tural limit state, and edp represents the median estimate of the demand
that can be computed with a ln-linear regression model, as:
lnðedpÞ ¼ a þ b⋅lnðimÞ (5)
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
and β stands for the standard deviation of the demand conditioned on im
and can be estimated from the regression of the seismic demands as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
ða þ b⋅lnðimi ÞÞ�2
i¼i ½lnðedpi Þ
β¼ (6)
n 2
Once estimated the failure rate λf , based on the HPP assumption it is
possible to quantify the probability of failure for a given time window of
PE;f ¼ 1 e λf ⋅T
(7)
and further derive the seismic reliability index βE;t in accordance to
reliability analysis theory with the following transformation:
�
βE;t ¼ Φ 1 PE;f (8)
2.2. Deterioration modelling
Most of the bridges in Italy, but also across Europe, have already
overcome or are near to exceed their service life. In many cases, these
bridges are located in highly aggressive environments, as in coastal re­
gions or in cold mountainous areas, where airborne chlorides or de-icing
salts are prone to attack the structures. Together, seismic hazard with
aggressive environment make the overall risk even higher. Among the
deterioration processes of RC structures, it is worth noting that
chlorides-induced corrosion is the most important one, both because of
the severity of its effects and the large amount of structures hit by this
phenomenon [43,44].
A lot of effort has been done in the last years by the research com­
munity well describe deterioration phenomena in RC structures, leading
to models as Life-365, CHLODIF, and Duracrete ones [45–47]. The last
one, developed within the European project entitled ‘‘Probabilistic
Performance-Based Durability Design of Concrete Structures’’, gives a
full probabilistic method for the calculation of structural service life. The
fib Bulletin 34 [48] is majorly based on the DuraCrete and DARTS model,
which is a revised version of DuraCrete [47,49,50].
Concerning chlorides-induced corrosion, the triggering of this pro­
cess is generally modelled with a physical process using Fick’s 2nd law
of diffusion [51], which becomes for the 1D case:
δCðx; tÞ δ2 Cðx; tÞ
¼ Dc (9)
δt δx2
where Cðx; tÞ is the chloride ion concentration at a distance x from the
concrete surface after t years and D is the chloride diffusion coefficient.
The solution to Eq. (9), assuming a constant concentration of chlorides
near the surface and diffusion coefficient, can be written as [48]:
� � �
x
Cðx; tÞ ¼ Cs 1 erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (10)
2 Dc t
where Cs is the chloride content at the surface of the concrete and erf is
the Gaussian error function. Then, two successive phases can be easily
distinguished, namely corrosion initiation and corrosion propagation
phases. The initiation phase is the time interval needed for the loss of the
protective passive film around the reinforcement rebars. In this case, the
initiation phase is considered complete when chlorides concentration at
the reinforcement surface reaches a critical value Ccrit . A lot of research
has been done on the determination of Ccrit and different threshold
values have been proposed [52]. In the present work, 0.11% concrete
weight has been assumed. The corrosion initiation time can be estimated
as:
� � �� 2
T¼
x2
erf 1
Cs Ccrit
(11)
4Dc Cs
Once the initiation phase is over, propagation starts. In this phase, it
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

is important to determine the velocity of the corrosion process in order 2.3. FRCM modelling
to estimate the steel cross-section loss in time. Usually, chlorides-
induced corrosion is characterized by pitting corrosion, which is local­ There has been an intensive research aimed at defining a suitable
ized and generally faster than carbonation-induced corrosion, which is prediction model for assessing the response of concrete members
instead generally considered as homogenous on reinforcement surface. confined by composite systems, starting from Spoelstra and Monti [59]
The reinforcement diameter reduction can be estimated as: and Lam and Teng [60] ones for FRP-confined concrete. Particularly, the
former is based on the assumption that, given a certain lateral strain, the
DðtÞ ¼ D0 rcorr ðt Ti Þ (12)
relationship between the incremental axial stress and strain is the same
where D0 is the initial diameter of the steel bar, t is the age of the bridge, as that of a concrete element confined by a constant pressure. Such
Ti is the corrosion initiation time and rcorr is the corrosion rate. The pressure can be evaluated starting from the knowledge of the lateral
reduced section area AðtÞ can then be computed as: strain offered by the composite hoop. In practical terms, both the axial
strength fcc and the axial strain εcc are typically expressed as a function of
8 π the confining pressure exerted by the jacketing system, through some
> nD2o for t � Ti
>
>
>
>
4 coefficients that should be calibrated by case:
>
< 2π D0 � �m
AðtÞ ¼ nDðtÞ for Ti < t � Ti þ (13) fcc fl;e
>
> 4 rcorr ¼ 1 þ k1 (17)
>
> fco fco
>
>
: D0
0 for t � Ti þ � �n
rcorr fl;e
εcc ¼ εc0 þ k2 (18)
Even though the corrosion rate is a time-dependent parameter, it is fco
generally assumed to be constant during the service life of a structure. In Eqs. 17 and 18, the ratio fcc/fc0 defines the axial strength gain, with
Vu and Stewart [53] developed a time-dependent corrosion rate model the axial strength being fcc and fc0 is the unconfined concrete compres­
based on some limited marine exposure data reported by Ref. [54]. The sive strength, εcc is the axial strain associated to fcc, fl,e is the effective
rate of corrosion can be estimated based on the corrosion current in­ lateral confining pressure, calculated as in Eq. (19), and lastly k1, k2, m, n
tensity icorr;0 [μA/cm2] at the beginning of the propagation phase, which are the empirical constants.
is estimated as:
ρf ⋅Ef ⋅ke ⋅εf
� � 1:64 fl;e ¼ (19)
37:8 1 wc 2
icorr;0 ¼ (14) Eq. (19) requires the knowledge of fiber elastic modulus Ef, the axial
x
rigidity of the composite ρfEf, ke is the effectiveness coefficient, generally
where wc is the water to cement ratio of the concrete mix, and x is the provided by single authors, and accounting for the variation of the
concrete cover depth. The time-dependent corrosion intensity is then confinement pressure in square and rectangular cross-section specimens
given by the following equation: respect to circular ones, the design tensile strain in the jacket εf and the
confinement reinforcement ratio ρf, computed as:
icorr ðtÞ ¼ 0:85icorr;0 ðt Ti Þ 0:29
(15)
4nf tf
ρf ¼ (20)
where t is the age of the structure and Ti the initiation time. Given icorr ðtÞ D
[μA/cm2], the intensity corrosion rate rcorr [mm/year] is simply ob­
tained by a conversion factor of 0.232 [53]. Since the time-dependent where nf is the number of layers of FRP, tf is the thickness of each layer
corrosion rate model is based on marine exposure data, in the present and D is the diameter of the specimen in case of circular section column,
work a relatively high constant corrosion rate rcorr of 0.254 is assumed as or the diagonal for rectangular/square sections. Similar models have
by Refs. [55]. The corrosion process affects also the strength of rein­ been provided for FRCM-confined specimens, which are based on the
forcement steel [56]. The residual capacity of corroded bars can be previous work carried out to assess the effectiveness of FRP jacketing
estimated by: systems, as thoroughly reviewed by Fossetti el at [61]. Particularly, the
� � recent CNR-DT-215 Guidelines [62] provides the following confinement
0:5ðA0 AðtÞÞ model for RC sections:
fy ðtÞ ¼ 1 fy;0 (16)
A0 � �2=3
fcc fl;e
¼ 1 þ 2:6 (21)
where A0 is the initial area, AðtÞ is the residual area at the time t and fy;0 fco fco
is the initial yielding strength of the bars.
Realistic corrosion modelling is a complicated task, especially in RC where the effective lateral confining pressure fl,e is calculated according
structures. It strongly depends on local phenomena as well as on con­ to Eq. (21), being the effectiveness coefficient ke equal to 1 for specimens
struction characteristics that can promote the development of deterio­ with circular section continuously wrapped, and computed as follows
ration. Corrosion of reinforcing bars may lead also to concrete spalling for a generic rectangular section:
and loss of bond between concrete and reinforcement. Concrete cracking b’2 þ h’2
and spalling can reduce the corrosion initiation time or increase the kH ¼ 1 (22)
3⋅b⋅h
corrosion velocity. On the other hand, loss of bond strength, especially
for elements with insufficient confinement reinforcement [57], may where b’ and h’ are respectively the effective width and height of the
significantly affect structure performance. However, given the lack of specimen section, estimated as follows:
robust models able to capture this and other secondary effects, and in
order to avoid huge computational efforts linked to the implementation b’ ¼ b 2rc (23)
of stochastic approaches aimed to simulate random fields in order to
capture uncertainties in spatial distribution of deterioration phenomena h’ ¼ h 2rc (24)
[58], it was decided to not include them in the following computations,
with rc standing for the corner radius, that has to be at least equal to 20
take advantage of using a uniform corrosion model.
mm, as prescribed by Ref. [56] in order to avoid stress concentrations at
the section edges able to induce a premature failure of the reinforcement

4
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 1. Bridge case study and FRCM seismic retrofitting protocol considered.

system. The computation of the effective lateral confining pressure fl,e As regards the definition of the cyclic behavior of FRCM confined
requires also the definition of the design tensile strain in the jacket εf, concrete elements under cyclic compressive loading, few studies can be
calculated as follows: found in literature. Colajanni et al. [64] studied the behavior of
� � medium-size concrete columns wrapped with Carbon FRCM under
ε
εf ¼ min kmat ⋅ ηa ⋅ fu ; 0:004 (25) monotonic and cyclic compressive loads. The authors came to the
γm
conclusion that the stress-strain curve of FRCM confined concrete col­
umns under monotonic loading is always the same as the envelope curve
where εfu is the ultimate FRCM strain, γm is the material partial safety
of the cyclic stress-strain curve in the pre-peak branch while in the
factor equal to 1.5, ηa characterizes the environmental exposure class
post-peak range when softening behavior is exhibited, the curve for the
ranging between 0.7 for aggressive environmental conditions to 0.9 for
cyclic load is slightly lower than the monotonic one. The strength
indoor spaces and depending on fibers type, and kmat is a dimensionless
degradation for small strains is negligible. As strain increases, strength
coefficient accounting main material properties of the inorganic matrix:
degradation tends to increase for both specimens with medium and high
� �3=2
4⋅nf ⋅tmat ⋅fc;mat lateral confinement pressure. Failure of FRCM confined columns, for
kmat ¼ 0:217⋅ �1 (26) both monotonic and cyclic loads, is less abrupt compared with that of
D⋅fcd
FRP confined columns due to the slowly progressing fracture of indi­
In Eq. (26), nf is the number of layers of fiber reinforcement, tmat and vidual fiber bundles which is in accordance with earlier studies. Taking
fc,mat are the inorganic matrix thickness and characteristic compressive into account the above considerations from previous research and
strength, D is the diameter of the circular section, or alternatively the considering that relevant progress is yet to be made in this topic, the
diagonal dimension for square/rectangular sections, and fcd is the cy­ robust and well-acknowledged Mander model [65] for the concrete
lindrical design compressive strength of the unconfined concrete material was adopted in this paper to model the cyclic behavior of FRCM
specimen. confined concrete. The backbone monotonic stress-strain curve for the
The ultimate axial compressive strain of confined concrete εccu is model was thus computed in accordance with CNR-DT-215 and
instead computed following the ACI549.4R-13 Guideline for design and ACI549.4R-13 Guidelines [62,63].
construction of externally bonded FRCM systems [63] as:
�
f
� �0:45 �
ε 3. Case study application
εccu ¼ εc 1:5 þ 12Kb l;e’ fe’ (27)
fc εc
In this section, a detailed description of the bridge case study as well
where εc is the compressive strain level in the concrete, ε’c is the as the methodology adopted for the probabilistic characterization of its
seismic behavior via the construction of a set of fragility curves, is
compressive strain of unconfined concrete corresponding to fc’ , with an
provided. The adopted structure is a multi-span simply supported bridge
upper bound limitation to 0.01 prescribed in order to prevent excessive
built in the municipality of Tolmezzo, northeastern Italy. The bridge was
cracking and the resulting loss of concrete integrity, and Kb is an effi­
designed according to the old Italian building code [66], considering an
ciency factor, equal to 1 for circular specimens, and computed for
equivalent static horizontal force of about 10% of its gravitational load.
rectangular sections as follows:
The bridge is composed by two spans of 24 m length each, for a total
� �2
Ae h length of 48 m. In each span, six prestressed reinforced concrete beams
Kb ¼ (28)
Ac b with I-shaped cross section of 1.2 m height support the concrete deck
(12 m wide and 20 cm thick). A pair of neoprene bearings of 3-cm
with thickness, with a squared size of 30-cm side, interposed between the
�� � �� � deck and the pier system sustains each beam. The decks are supported at
b
h ðh 2rc Þ2 þ h
b ðb 2rc Þ2 the mid length of the bridge by a reinforced concrete frame pier with two
Ae 1 ρg square columns of 1 m side each and height of 5.5 m, whereas the
(29)
3Ag
Ac
¼
1 ρg foundational system consists in nine piles for each column. Each RC
column of the frame pier is reinforced with 36 longitudinal steel rebars
where Ag and Ac are respectively the gross and the net cross-sectional of 20 mm diameter uniformly spaced, and with 4-legs stirrups of 10 mm
area of the specimen, Ae is the effectively confined concrete, and ρg diameter, 250 mm spacing and a concrete cover equal to 40 mm. Fig. 1
stands for the ratio of the area of longitudinal steel reinforcement (As) to shows main geometrical features of the case study. As regards materials,
the gross cross-sectional area Ag of the specimen. concrete has a characteristic compressive cubic strength of fck ¼ 25 MPa
(C25/30), with an elastic modulus equal to Ec ¼ 30472 MPa, while a

5
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 2. Adopted bridge FE model strategy.

FeB44k steel type has been assumed for both longitudinal and trans­
versal reinforcing bars, with characteristic tensile strength of fyk ¼ 430
MPa and an elastic modulus equal to Es ¼ 210000 MPa. The bridge was
tested with a set of bi-directional time-history ground shakings in its “as
built” configuration (i.e. at the age of construction) and considering
several combinations of deterioration and seismic retrofitting scenarios.
As regards the seismic retrofitting protocol, integral wrapping of RC
columns with carbon FRCM was considered as suitable solution to
enhance bridge seismic reliability, taking advantage of the additional
confinement effect given by the intervention, as also suggested in other
practical applications (e.g. Ref. [67]). Fig. 1 schematically represents the
considered seismic retrofitting protocol, showing also the strengthening
procedure to be used, as detailed in recent literature research [68–71].
In detail, the application procedure can briefly described with the
following steps:
a) concrete surface damping, to homogeneously hydrate the concrete
support;
b) application of a first layer of mortar onto the surface, with an average
thickness of 3 mm;
c) placement of the first layer of fiber onto the mortar surface, pushed
to better adhere with the matrix;
d) application of a new layer of mortar onto the carbon fiber.
Steps c) and d) have to be repeated n-1 times in order to apply n
layers of FRCM. The retrofitting protocol can be integrated in the Step a)
with other work phases aiming to remove deteriorated portions of
concrete cover, and cleaning and application of protective coatings to

Table 1
Main modelling parameters.
Element type Direction Relevant stiffness/force/displacement values

Neoprene pad ke [kN/mm] kp [kN/mm] Fy [kN]

Longitudinal 4.5 0 183.3
Transversal 4.5 0 183.3
Gap k1 [kN/mm] k2 [kN/mm] Δ1 [mm] Δ2 [mm]
Longitudinal 1102 374.7 25 27.5
Soil k1p [kN/mm] k2p [kN/mm] k3p [kN/mm] Δ1p [mm] Δ2p [mm] Δ3p [mm]
Longitudinal 21.6 10.8 3.2 8 28 80
Abutment piles ke [kN/mm] kp [kN/mm] Δ1 [mm] Δ2 [mm]
Longitudinal 20.4 3.7 7.6 25.4
Transversal 20.4 3.7 7.6 25.4
Foundations ke [kN/mm] ke [kN/mm] kr [kN*mm/rad]
Longitudinal 56 Transversal 56 Rotational 609000000

6
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Table 2
Selected 2-D earthquake records.
Record name Record ID Date Mw PGAx (cm/s2) PGAy (cm/s2)

1.L’Aquila Mainshock IT0792 April 06, 2009 6.3 644 535

2.L’Aquila Mainshock IT0789 April 06, 2009 6.3 395 434
3.South Iceland (aftershock) 006334 June 21, 2000 6.4 411 373
4.L’Aquila Mainshock IT0790 April 06, 2009 6.3 437 479
5.Northern Italy IT0049 June 17, 1976 4.5 71 82
6.Friuli IT0077 September 11, 1976 5.8 229 127
7.Southern Italy IT0231 January 16, 1981 5.2 107 67
8.Umbria-Marche 3rd shock IT0491 October 14, 1997 5.6 43 37
9.Garfagnana IT0157 June 07, 1980 4.6 35 59
10.App. Lucano IT0607 September 09, 1998 5.6 40 33
11. South Iceland (aftershock) 006349 June 21, 2000 6.4 805 729
12. Firuzabad 007162 May 19, 1995 5.2 1000 1010
13. Gazli 000074 May 17, 1976 6.7 707 335
14. Erzincan 000535 March 13, 1992 6.6 478 403
15. South Iceland 006277 June 17, 2000 6.5 278 509
16. Racha (aftershock) 000501 May 03, 1991 5.6 494 348
17. Pyrgos 000558 March 26, 1993 5.4 165 432
18. Kalamata (aftershock) 000419 September 15, 1986 4.9 328 150
19. NE of Banja Luka 005651 August 13, 1981 5.7 355 274
20. Ionian 006131 April 24, 1988 4.8 86 273
21. Kozani (aftershock) 006093 May 19, 1995 5.2 185 262
22. Faial 007329 July 09, 1998 6.1 362 397
23. Oelfus 005030 November 13, 1998 5.1 144 135
24. Mt. Hengill Area 005149 August 24, 1997 4.9 170 100
25. Mouzakaiika 000566 June 13, 1993 5.3 44 145
26. Mouzakaiika 000566 June 13, 1993 5.3 168 174
27. Kremidia (aftershock) 002025 October 25, 1984 5.0 152 187
28. Friuli (aftershock) 000707 September 11, 1976 5.3 73 78
29. Izmit (aftershock) 006440 November 07, 1999 4.9 310 346
30. Strait of Gibraltar 000878 January 04, 1994 4.9 24 60

break off further development of corrosion on the internal
reinforcement.
A preliminary modal analysis was developed to derive main dynamic
features of the bridge. Main vibration modes have periods equal to
0.689 s in longitudinal direction (participating mass equal to 98.15%),
0.644 s in transversal direction (participating mass equal to 95.35%) and
0.533 s with torsional direction around the vertical axis (participating
mass equal to 81.25%).
3.1. Fragility analysis
Seismic fragility analysis was conducted performing a set of non-
linear time history analyses (NLTHAs) on a 3-D finite element (FE)
model of the analyzed two-span simply supported bridge. The 3-D FE
model was implemented in Midas Civil software [72] to properly char­
acterize main structural features needed for the following structural
seismic reliability analysis. As regards RC pier columns, distributed
plasticity fiber-section elements were used, whereas elastic elements
were adopted for modelling both the pier cap beam and the decks,
considering a unique element with equivalent elastic properties. Sig­
nificant efforts were spent in detailing FE model in proximity to the joint
between two spans, at the abutments as well as the foundational system.
A set of rigid links was implemented in order to connect the equivalent
deck beam to each of the six bearing zones, both at the abutment and on
the pier cap. Fig. 2 shows a sketch where more detailed information is
visible on the three main modelling details.
The abutment consisted in a set of series/parallels bi- and tri-linear
links able to capture the resulting non-linear behavior due to the

Fig. 3. Response spectra of the selected seismic records.

7
M.A. Zanini et al.
Fig. 4. Cloud analysis regression (left) and resulting fragility curves (right) for both ductile and shear failure mechanisms – “as built” configuration.
combined abutment-soil interaction, abutment piles contribution, as
well as the impact between deck and abutment (i.e. gap) and the pres­
ence of neoprene pads. In particular, in the longitudinal direction, pas­
sive soil effect (i.e. soil that is pressurized by the abutment) was
modelled with a tri-linear behavior, while the active stiffness was not
accounted in order to represent the separation between soil and abut­
ment: this component was neglected in transversal direction, reasonably
assuming that the abutment piles provided all the stiffness. Potential
pounding between the abutment and deck was accounted with the gap
bilinear link. As regards the neoprene pads, they were modelled as
bilinear links, considering two node link elements in order to combine
both longitudinal and transverse behavior of the bearing. The second
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
modelling detail regards the columns foundational system, modelled as
a set of two linear springs for capturing both longitudinal and trans­
versal stiffness contributions, and coupled with a rotational spring.
Lastly, the third modelling detail was related to the deck-to-pier node
connection, where two neoprene pads are present (one supporting left-
side span beam, one the right-side span beam), coupled in series with
a gap element able to capture potential pounding phenomena between
the two adjacent spans. Table 1 lists in detail all the assumed modelling
parameters.
As regards RC columns, fiber sections were discretized into steel and
concrete fibers (confined and cover concrete) and modelled using the
Mander concrete model [65], while the Menegotto-Pinto steel model
M.A. Zanini et al.
Fig. 5. System fragility curve - “as built” configuration.
[73] was adopted for both longitudinal bars and transversal stirrups. As
regards potential reinforcement buckling phenomena that can affect
corroded RC elements subject to cyclic loads, even if some refined cyclic
models have been recently proposed in literature [44,74], it was herein
assumed to not consider such issue in order avoid a too onerous model
detailing and at the same time allow a comparability of results between
the investigated deterioration and retrofitting scenarios, given that no
literature evidence is still currently available on the effectiveness of
FRCM confinement in avoiding bar bucking phenomena.
A set of 30 natural seismic records was collected from the European
Strong Motion Database [75] selected in order to be consistent with
disaggregation results obtained from PSHA, and further used in the
execution of the NLTHAs. Table 2 lists main information of each record
providing also magnitude, X- and Y- horizontal peak ground accelera­
tion (PGA) values. Fig. 3 shows response spectra of the horizontal
components of the selected seismic records, with the mean response
spectrum compared with the uniform hazard spectrum of the site of
interest, highlighting a good spectral matching. The vertical component
of the ground motions was not considered in the present case study.
3.1.1. Damage state considerations
NLTHAs were subsequently run extracting the maximum 2-D hori­
zontal displacement of the control point, which was set at the top of the
pier columns. To compute fragility curves, damage state thresholds have
to be defined. Generally, in bridge fragility analysis the so-called kine­
matic ductility index μ, as defined by Choi [76], is used. The kinematic
ductility index μ is defined as the ratio between the ultimate horizontal
displacement at the top of the pier Δu , and the horizontal displacement
of the same point corresponding to the steel yielding at the pier-base
cross-section Δy . According to Choi [77], reference kinematic ductility
index threshold values are μdsi ¼ 1, 2, 4, 7, respectively for Damage State
(DS) i ¼ 1, 2, 3 and 4, namely Slight, Moderate, Extensive and Complete
damage. While kinematic ductility index well describes damage states in
standard cases, it lacks in getting the time-variant capacity for deterio­
rated cases and capacity gains when retrofitting scenarios are run. As a
matter of fact, yielding displacement, the unique parameter that defines
kinematic ductility index, is little affected when retrofitting the element
by FRCM confinement, while the ultimate displacement capacity is
conversely highly enhanced. Cheng et al. [78] studied seismic fragilities
for RC bridge columns affected by corrosion considering a time-variant
capacity index. The authors suggested that the ultimate top displace­
ment can be assumed as the sum of the yielding displacement and the
succeeding plastic displacement, as:
μu ¼ μy þ μp (30)
Five different displacement and drift thresholds were then defined to
describe five different damage limit states as:
μDs;i ¼ μy þ ki μp (31)
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
where μds;i is the relative DS threshold and ki is a factor that considers the
admissible plastic displacement in each DS, with ki ¼ 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8 and
1.
The yielding and ultimate displacement capacity values (μy ; ​ μu Þ
were been derived performing a set of pushover analyses at 5� horizontal
inclination steps, in order to characterize the displacement thresholds as
a function of the horizontal inclination of the ground shaking. It should
be noted that the ultimate displacement capacity values were derived
from the capacity curves at a drop of 15% of the peak value in the
pushover curve. As regards the definition of the damage states, the
abovementioned four DSs were herein considered, as commonly done in
scientific literature (e.g. Ref. [76,77]), and deriving their respective
time-variant DS thresholds in accordance with [78].
60 NLTHAs were performed applying the selected 30 ground motions
in X-Y and Y-X directions respectively to account for the intrinsic un­
certainty on the directionality of the ground shaking, thus deriving for
each analysis a maximum horizontal displacement resultant. The DS
displacement threshold, for each deteriorated and retrofitted scenario, is
not constant but an angle-variant value, so each threshold was derived
from the pushover capacity curve carried out in same angle in which the
maximum displacement resultant was recorded. Based on such data, a
kinematic displacement index was considered as relevant engineering
demand parameter and computed for each NLTHA as the ratio between
maximum displacement μ recorded in each analysis and the displace­
ment threshold defined for each damage state μDsi . Hence fragility curves
were derived via the use of the Cloud Analysis method [40], with
reference to the abovementioned damage states, based on the regression
models calibrated on the basis of the cloud of points ln(im) – ln (μ=μDsi )
reported in a bi-logarithmic plane. In addition, for shear failure mech­
anism a single fragility curve, which coincides with the collapse damage
state, was computed. In this case, the ratio of maximum shear at the base
of the column VSd and the shear strength of the element VRd was
considered. Fig. 4 shows respectively results of Cloud Analysis regres­
sion data and the resulting set of four fragility curves for the ductile
failure and the one related to the shear one, with the resulting mean μ
and standard deviation σ values.
Lastly, considering as relevant condition for a structural assessment
the Ultimate Limit State (ULS), Complete DS and shear fragility curves
considered to take into account both ductile and shear failure mecha­
nisms, were condensed in a unique ULS fragility curve via system reli­
ability theory. Fig. 5 shows the resulting system fragility curve.
4. Results
In this section, results obtained from 16 different deterioration and
FRCM retrofitting scenarios listed in Table 3, are illustrated.
4.1. Deterioration scenarios
Based on bridge location, a highly corrosive condition due to de-icing
salts was considered as discussed in Section 2.2 and used for estimating
its effects on reinforcement strength and cross-section losses. In partic­
ular, given the different concrete cover values of the stirrups and lon­
gitudinal bars, the corrosion initiation time was estimated in 13 and 28
years, respectively. Accordingly, four deterioration scenarios were
considered, i.e. 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-years, in addition to the above­
mentioned “as-built” configuration, corresponding to the non-
deteriorated structure (i.e. t ¼ 0 years). NLTHAs were rerun consid­
ering the same 60 ground shaking time histories, damage states and
failure mechanisms (i.e. ductile and fragile) and monitoring the same
engineering demand parameters described in Section 3.1.1. Fig. 6 shows
the yielding and ultimate displacement capacity radial diagram derived
performing a set of pushover analyses at 5� horizontal inclination steps
for each deterioration scenario, and further used for the computation of
the time-variant fragilities.
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Table 3
Deterioration and retrofitting scenarios.

10
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 6. Time-variant radial yielding (a) and ultimate capacity (b) displacement values [in cm] – deterioration scenarios.

Fig. 7 shows the fragility curves obtained for the ductile mechanism.
It can be seen that the structure becomes more fragile while aging. For
the first 30 years, the differences in the fragility are mainly due to the
loss of the confining reinforcement which affects concrete strength and
ultimate strain values. In the 40- and 50-years scenarios, longitudinal
bars are also deteriorated while the stirrups contribution to the concrete
confinement becomes almost negligible, leading to increasing fragilities.
The Slight DS for the first three scenarios remains almost the same, since
it is determined more from the yielding strength of the longitudinal bars
than from concrete strength reduction.
Fig. 8 portraits the time-variant fragilities obtained for the shear
failure mechanism, showing resulting curves that get lower as the bridge
ages and the deterioration goes on. Even though this result may seem
contradictory, it is mainly due to the fact that the analyzed bridge lacks
all the code detailing and limitations that recent building codes provide.
This means that the shear resistance of the pier elements is guaranteed
by the concrete element without considering shear reinforcement. Since
the effects of the deterioration mechanism considered in this paper Fig. 8. Time-variant fragilities for the deteriorated bridge – shear fail­
ure mechanism.

Fig. 7. Time-variant fragilities for the deteriorated bridge – ductile failure mechanism.

11
M.A. Zanini et al.
Fig. 9. Time-variant system fragilities for the deteriorated bridge.
mainly regards reinforcement bars (the effects on concrete itself are
mostly negligible until concrete cover is not spalled), the shear resis­
tance of the piers remains the same during its service life. On the other
hand, the moment yielding point decreases in time. This means that also
the maximum shear acting in the piers decreases in time, hence the ratio
VSd=V , considered in the fragility curves, decreases in time.
Rd
Hence, based on the previous results, Fig. 9 reports the time-variant
ULS system fragilities derived according to system reliability theory for
the considered deterioration scenarios.
Fig. 10. Time-variant radial ultimate displacement capacity [in cm] – retrofit scenarios at 20 (a), 30 (b), 40 (c) and 50 years (d).
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
4.2. Retrofitting scenarios – fragilities
The effectiveness of four retrofitting scenarios, confining the pier
elements using 2, 4, 6 and 8 FRCM layers and applied at different time
instant was investigated in the present study. A carbon fabric FRCM
solution was considered, characterized by a nominal thickness of 0.047
mm, tensile strength of 4700 MPa and elastic modulus of 240 GPa. The
average thickness of the jacket in case of 2-layers solution was about of
8 mm, reaching an overall thickness around 30 mm for the 8-layers
strengthening protocol. The overlapping length of the fiber was set
equal to 30 cm, whereas the corner radius was assumed equal to 50 mm
in order to avoid stress concentrations at the section edges. Four
different retrofitting scenarios were characterized by increasing fiber
reinforcement ratios respectively equal to 0.027%, 0.053%, 0.08% and
0.106%. Such retrofitting strategy was selected also because it is
intended to provide additional confinement in order to balance that
originally provided by steel stirrups and lost due to corrosion phenom­
ena: deterioration scenarios have in fact highlighted how stirrups are
early subject to corrosion if compared to longitudinal reinforcement due
to their lower concrete cover, showing at the end of the considered
service life remaining cross-sections almost negligible, whereas for the
longitudinal bars values almost equal to 75% of the initial area.
The contribution provided by the retrofitting system was assessed by
the scientific models currently embodied in the Italian CNR-DT-215
guidelines [62]. Fig. 10 presents the time-variant radial diagrams of
the ultimate displacement capacity computed for each retrofitting sce­
nario respectively at 20, 30, 40 and 50 years, whereas Figs. 11–14 show
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 11. 20-years old bridge: fragilities for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios – ductile failure mechanism.

the resulting fragility curves for the ductile failure mechanism.
It is clearly shown that the number of layers used in the reinforce­
ment highly affects the fragility of the structure: in particular, the #8
layer scenario is by far the best performing case, especially for extensive
and complete DSs. It can be observed also how significant improvements
can be achieved independently by the time at which the intervention is
made.
As regards shear failure mechanism fragilities, Fig. 15 shows how the
assumed interventions would give a major contribution with respect to
the concrete-only shear resistance, just in the case of retrofitting with #6
and #8 FRCM layers, for the same reasons described in x4.1 when
looking at deterioration scenarios outcomes.
Also in these cases, ULS system fragilities have been derived ac­
cording to system reliability theory and shown in Fig. 16 for the
considered FRCM retrofitting scenarios implemented at different time
instants.

Fig. 12. 30-years old bridge: fragilities for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios – ductile failure mechanism.

13
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 13. 40-years old bridge: fragilities for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios – ductile failure mechanism.

5. Discussion less differences than when comparing varying intervention schemes

While it appears obvious the effect of the number of confining layers
of the columns to reduce the fragilities, the same thing cannot be
immediately stated when looking at the influence of the age at which the
retrofitting is done. Figs. 17–20 compare fragility curves related to the
ductile failure mechanisms for the same retrofitting scenario carried out
at different time instants. It can be noted how the fragility of late ret­
rofitting scenarios are higher than early ones, even though they display
carried out at the same time instant.
Only the #8 layers retrofitting scenario displays a different trend:
there, the intervention at 40 years results almost as fragile as the one at
20–30 years of service life. Such result can be explained because at 40
years the cross-section reduction of the longitudinal is still not so rele­
vant, with few effects on the yielding moment of the pier. However, the
section benefits by greater ductility (Fig. 10) and therefore it presents
greater ultimate displacement capacity. Hence, this particular case

Fig. 14. 50-years old bridge: fragilities for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios – ductile failure mechanism.

14
M.A. Zanini et al.
Fig. 15. Fragilities for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios – shear failure mechanism at 20 (a), 30 (b), 40 (b) and 50 years (d).
seems showing in such a way a sort of balancing between strength loss
and ductility gain.
Analogous considerations can be done looking at the shear failure
mechanism (Fig. 21): it can be noticed that the highest fragilities, almost
for every retrofitting scenario, are those related to the retrofitting sce­
narios carried out at the age of 30 years.
This outcome can be justified by the fact that at this time instant, the
analyzed aging bridge has still almost all its longitudinal bars but the
confinement effect of the stirrups is very reduced. The yielding moment
of the pier at 30 years, and therefore the maximum shear acting on the
pier, is definitely greater than the yielding moment at 40 or 50 years. On
the other hand, shear resistance, calculated as the contribution of steel
reinforcement and fiber reinforcement, results in almost the same values
at 30–50 years, since the contribution of steel reinforcement is almost
null. This makes the shear fragility, for retrofitting scenarios at the age of
30, the highest among than the other considered cases.
5.1. Time-variant seismic reliability profiles
Finally, a seismic reliability analysis was carried out in order to es­
timate the gains in seismic reliability achievable when implementing at
different time instants one of the proposed FRCM retrofitting scenarios.
The seismic hazard curve for the site of interest was derived from the
MPS04 hazard maps [79]. One-year seismic reliability indexes βE;1 were
computed as shown in Section 2.1 for the “as-built” configuration as well
as for each of the investigated deterioration and FRCM retrofitting sce­
narios. Fig. 22 shows the resulting seismic reliability profile during the
service life of the bridge and reliability gains achievable at different time
instants with the implementation of each FRCM retrofitting scenario.
As regards the ductile failure mechanism (Fig. 22a), the time-variant
seismic reliability profile is characterized by a decreasing trend in time,
and with gains almost proportional to the number of layers considered in
the #2, #4 and #6 layers retrofitting scenarios. On the other hand, the
implementation of #8 layer retrofitting protocol results in seismic reli­
ability indexes almost constant with values around 3.35 until 40 years,
whereas a significant reduction of its effectiveness is observed if
implemented at 50 years.
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
Fig. 22b portraits the time-variant seismic reliability profile and
gains linked to the investigated retrofitting scenarios with reference to
the shear failure mode. Conversely to the ductile failure mechanism, it is
worth nothing in this case how such profile shows an overall increasing
trend over time, with an almost constant profile up to 30 years, followed
by a more pronounced increasing linear trend up to 50 years. Such
seemingly unexpected development is a consequence of the corrosion
initiation in longitudinal bars implying a progressive reduction of the
pier bending moment resistance that, as previously stated, in turn results
in a reduction of its maximum allowable shear action. As regards the
effectiveness of the retrofitting protocols with respect to shear failure
mechanism, both #2 and #4 layers retrofitting scenarios seem to have a
negligible influence on seismic reliability index estimated after the
upgrading. On the other hand, both #6 and #8 layer retrofitting pro­
tocol exhibit an initial decreasing trend up to 30 years, mainly attrib­
utable to the loss of transversal steel reinforcement, followed by an
opposite increasing slope with almost proportional gains up to the end of
service life reasonably attributable to the concurrent corrosion initiation
and propagation along the longitudinal rebars.
Based on these failure mechanism outcomes, Fig. 22c illustrates the
time-variant seismic reliability profile and gains linked to the investi­
gated retrofitting scenarios with reference to system reliability. The
reliability profile for the “as built” configuration is characterized as
expected by lower seismic reliability indexes, with a value of 2.92 for the
configuration not affected by deterioration and a monotonically
decreasing profile down to 2.83 at the end of bridge service life. Reli­
ability gains associated to each retrofitting protocol are more hetero­
geneous, as result of the combination of both ductile and shear failure
mechanisms.
Finally, a simplified cost-benefit analysis was carried out in order to
derive some graphical outputs able to support decision making of
infrastructure owners dealing with seismic retrofitting optimal sched­
uling for the specific case-study herein analyzed. Both replacement and
retrofitting costs were analytically estimated considering regional unit
price lists. A unit replacement cost of about 10 300 €/m2 was assumed,
thus resulting for the 576 m2 deck in a total bridge replacement cost of
7480 800 €. Retrofitting costs were computed for each of the investigated
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 16. System fragilities for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios at 20, 30, 40 and 50 years.

Fig. 17. #2 FRCM layers retrofitting scenario: time-variant fragilities – ductile failure mechanism.

protocols, with a relative incidence on the total replacement cost (i.e.
retrofit/replacement cost ratio) of 2.48%, 4.68%, 6.92% and 9.21% for
the #2, #4, #6 and #8 layers retrofitting scenarios, respectively. As
regards the effectiveness of each retrofitting protocol, the benefit was
estimated in terms of percentage variation of the seismic reliability
index with respect to the “as built” scenario, ΔβE;1 . Fig. 23 portraits
dimensionless cost-benefit analysis outcomes for each investigated
configuration, with reference to both ductile (a) and shear (b) failure
mechanisms as well as to system reliability (c). Results show ΔβE;1
almost always positive, showing higher improvements in terms of
structural safety for the retrofitting scenarios characterized by the
highest fiber reinforcement ratios and their earlier implementation.
As regards ductile failure mechanism (Fig. 23a), the distinction be­
tween the considered time instants is more pronounced for the #2, #4
and #6 layers protocols, whereas similar benefits are achieved for the
#8 layers solution up to the 40 years of service life. Results show also

16
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 18. #4 FRCM layers retrofitting scenario: time-variant fragilities – ductile failure mechanism.

Fig. 19. #6 FRCM layers retrofitting scenario: time-variant fragilities – ductile failure mechanism.

how the #2, layers protocol is not sufficient to equalize “as built” seismic
reliability if implemented at 40 years. Fig. 23b highlights an opposite
trend for shear failure mechanism, where the effectiveness of the ret­
rofitting protocols is more pronounced as the bridge ages, with a
maximum value of ΔβE;1 around 15% for the #8 layers solution at 50
years. Results show also how for this failure mode, the effectiveness of
the #2 and #4 layers protocols is negligible, whereas a more signifi­
cantly marked improvement in safety margins can be achieved with the
#6 and #8 layers solutions.
Lastly, Fig. 23c portraits dimensionless cost-benefit analysis results
with reference to system reliability, to be considered as reference case in
the context of a decision-making process. Results show how a slightly
less proportional linear relationship exist between and cost and benefits,
that tends to be more parabolic-like as the bridge ages. A maximum
benefit ΔβE;1 of 10% can in fact achieved with an investment charac­
terized by a retrofit/replacement cost ratio of 9.21% (i.e. #8 layers

17
M.A. Zanini et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224

Fig. 20. #8 FRCM layers retrofitting scenario: time-variant fragilities – ductile failure mechanism.

Fig. 21. #2, #4, #6, #8 FRCM layers retrofitting scenarios: time-variant fragilities – shear failure mechanism.

protocol) if it is implemented at 20 years, whereas decreasing benefits layers at 50 year” option.

can be obtained if such intervention is postponed over time with a
minimum benefit of about 7.5% for the 50 years scheduling. In addition,
the use of dimensionless cost-benefit analysis results allow to make a
comparison of the effectiveness of various retrofitting strategies imple­
mented at different time instants: for sake of example, the solution “#2
layers at 20 years” has almost the same effectiveness of the one “#4
layers at 50 year”, if the latter is anticipated at 20 years (i.e. “#4 layers
at 50 year”) results in slightly lower benefits than those linked to a “#6
6. Conclusions
The present work analyzed the effectiveness of pier confinement
with FRCM as seismic retrofitting strategy for an existing MSSS RC
bridge, with the aim to quantify benefits achievable from the imple­
mentation of a set of retrofitting schemes at different time instants.
Several deterioration scenarios were investigated in order to simulate

18
M.A. Zanini et al.
Fig. 22. Seismic reliability profile during the service life of the bridge and gains related to the implementation of different FRCM retrofitting scenarios: ductile failure
mechanism (a), shear failure mechanism (b) and system reliability (c).
Fig. 23. Dimensionless cost-benefit analysis results for different FRCM retrofitting scenarios: ductile failure mechanism (a), shear failure mechanism (b) and system
reliability (c).
the decay of seismic safety margins due to the development of deterio­
ration phenomena inducing corrosion on steel stirrups and longitudinal
rebars. For each deterioration scenario, four retrofitting schemes con­
sisting in a growing number of FRCM layers were taken into account,
quantifying their associated improvement in terms of seismic reliability.
Analyses were carried out accounting for bidirectional effects of ground
shaking via the characterization of time-variant radial ultimate
displacement capacity diagrams able to account differences in non-
linear behavior of the investigated structure when subjected to ground
shaking with various angles of incidence. Two failure modes (i.e. ductile
and fragile ones) were accounted in the development of time-variant
seismic fragilities and coupled with system reliability theory. In partic­
ular, it was illustrated how shear failure modes can significantly impact
on seismic reliability estimates, thus reducing safety margins and better
capturing a more realistic structural behavior. The time-variant seismic
reliability profile was first derived showing an overall worsening of the
seismic reliability index due to the development of deterioration phe­
nomena, and gains achievable via the implementation of the considered
retrofitting protocols at different time instants were estimated. Lastly, a
cost-benefit analysis was carried out in order to derive dimensionless
cost-benefit diagrams highlighting how they can be used in order to
19
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
estimate the effectiveness of each retrofitting solution when imple­
mented at a certain time instant and thus support the decision-making
process of infrastructure owners, who have to schedule over time
seismic retrofitting interventions and therefore need to know how each
solution can be effective in upgrading structural safety margins against
seismic actions.
The present work has therefore the merit to illustrate the general
approach that has to be pursued in order to derive time-variant reli­
ability profiles and dimensionless cost-benefit charts, and for such
reason it has to be intended to be an exhaustive reference study. On the
other hand, it has to be underlined how results are strictly linked to the
modelling assumptions, deterioration and retrofitting models, time in­
stants and retrofitting protocols investigated, as well as to the specific
case-study for what concerns to the structural type, geometry, materials
and seismicity. Future research will be oriented at filling these gaps,
particularly with the adoption of more refined deterioration models
aimed at capturing bucking phenomena and rebars slippage, as well as
on issues related to the interaction between corroded existing steel
reinforcement and newly applied external fiber reinforcement compos­
ites. Lastly, a wider range of seismic retrofitting interventions, envi­
ronmental scenarios, structural types and sites with different seismic
M.A. Zanini et al.
hazard levels will be investigated.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mariano Angelo Zanini: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Validation. Klajdi Toska: Methodology, Software. Flora
Faleschini: Conceptualization, Validation, Formal analysis. Carlo Pel­
legrino: Supervision.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106224.
References
[1] Han Q, Du X, Liu J, Li Z, Li L, Zhao J. Seismic damage of highway bridges during
the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2009;8(2):263–73.
[2] Ab�e M, Shimamura M. Performance of railway bridges during the 2011 Tohoku
earthquake. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 2014;28(1):13–23.
[3] Camata G, Spacone E, Zarnic R. Experimental and nonlinear finite element studies
of RC beams strengthened with FRP plates. Composites Part B 2007;38(2):277–88.
[4] Al-Sunna R, Pilakoutas K, Hajirasouliha I, Guadagnini M. Deflection behaviour of
FRP reinforced concrete beams and slabs: an experimental investigation.
Composites Part B 2012;43:2125–34.
[5] Ozbakkaloglu T, Lim JC. Axial compressive behavior of FRP-confined concrete:
experimental test database and a new design-oriented model. Composites Part B
2013;55:607–34.
[6] Acciai A, D’Ambrisi A, De Stefano M, Feo L, Focacci F, Nudo R. Experimental
response of FRP reinforced members without transverse reinforcement: failure
modes and design issues. Composites Part B 2016;89:397–407.
[7] De Diego A, Arteaga A, Fernandez J. Strengthening of square columns with
composite materials. Investigation on the FRP jacket ultimate strain. Composites
Part B 2016;162:454–60.
[8] Del Zoppo M, Di Ludovico M, Balsamo A, Prota A, Manfredi G. FRP for seismic
strengthening of shear controlled RC columns: experience from earthquakes and
experimental analysis. Composites Part B 2017;129:47–57.
[9] Chen W, Pham TM, Sichembe H, Chen L, Hao H. Experimental study of flexural
behavior of RC beams strengthened by longitudinal and U-shaped basalt FRP sheet.
Composites Part B 2018;134:114–26.
[10] Ye LP, Zhang K, Zhao SH, Feng P. Experimental study on seismic strengthening of
RC columns with wrapped CFRP sheets. Construct Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):
499–506.
[11] Colomb F, Tobbi H, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete
short columns by CFRP materials. Compos Struct 2008;82(4):475–87.
[12] Ozcan O, Binic B, Ozcebe G. Improving seismic performance of deficient reinforced
concrete columns using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer. Eng Struct 2008;30(6):
1632–46.
[13] Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Seismic strengthening of rectangular reinforced
concrete columns using fiber reinforced polymers. Eng Struct 2010;32:964–73.
[14] Promis G, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Effect of external FRP retrofitting on reinforced
concrete short columns for seismic strengthening. Compos Struct 2009;88(3):
367–79.
[15] Promis G, Ferrier E. Performance indices to assess the efficiency of external FRP
retrofitting of reinforced concrete short columns for seismic strengthening.
Construct Build Mater 2012;26:32–40.
[16] Rodrigues H, Arede A, Furtado A, Rocha P. Seismic behavior of strengthened RC
columns under biaxial loading: an experimental characterization. Construct Build
Mater 2015;95:393–405.
[17] Ouyang LJ, Gao WY, Zhen B, Lu ZD. Seismic retrofit of square reinforced concrete
columns using basalt and carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets: a comparative
study. Compos Struct 2017;162:294–307.
[18] Wang D, Wang Z, Yu T, Li H. Seismic performance of CFRP retrofitted large-scale
rectangular RC columns under lateral loading in different directions. Compos
Struct 2018;192:475–88.
[19] Lehman DE, Gookin SJ, Nacamuli AM, Moehle JP. Repair of earthquake-damaged
bridge columns. ACI Struct J 2001;98(2):233–42.
[20] Cheng CT, Yang JC, Yeh YK, Chen SE. Seismic performance of repaired hollow
bridge piers. Construct Build Mater 2003;17(5):339–51.
[21] Saiidi M, Cheng Z. Effectivenss of composites in earthquake damaged repair of RC
flared columns. J Compos Constr ASCE 2004;8(4):306–14.
[22] He R, Grelle S, Sneed LH, Belarbi A. Rapid repair of a severely damaged RC column
having fractured bars using externally bonded CFRP. Compos Struct 2013;101:
225–42.
[23] Lavorato D, Nuti C. Pseudo-dynamic tests on reinforced concrete bridges repaired
and retrofitted after seismic damage. Eng Struct 2015;94:96–112.
[24] Muntasir Billah AHM, Shahria Alam M. Seismic performance evaluation of multi-
column bridge bents retrofitted with different alternatives using incremental
dynamic analysis. Eng Struct 2014;62–63:105–17.
20
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
[25] Fakharifar M, Chen G, Sneed L, Dalvand A. Seismic performance of post-mainshock
FRP/steel repaired RC bridge columns subjected to aftershocks. Composites Part B
2015;72:183–98.
[26] Parghi A, Shahria Alam M. Seismic behavior of deficient reinforced concrete bridge
piers confined with FRP – a fractional factorial analysis. Eng Struct 2016;126:
531–46.
[27] Parghi A, Shahria Alam M. Seismic collapse assessment of non-seismically designed
circular RC bridge piers retrofitted with FRP composites. Compos Struct 2017;160:
910–6.
[28] Mahboubi S, Shiravand MR. Failure assessment of skew RC bridges with FRP piers
based on damage indices. Eng Fail Anal 2019;99:153–68.
[29] Triantafillou TC, Papanicolaou CG. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
members with textile reinforced mortar (TRM) jackets. Mater Struct 2006;39(1):
93–103.
[30] Bisby LA, Stratford TJ, Smith J, Halpin S. FRP versus Fibre Reinforced
Cementitious Mortar Systems at Elevated Temperature. Structural Faults þ Repair
2010. 201013pp. Edinburgh, Scotland, 15th-17th June.
[31] Bisby LA, Roy RC, Ward M, Stratford TJ. Fibre reinforced cementitious matrix
systems for fire-safe flexural strengthening of concrete: pilot testing at ambient
temperature. In: 4th Int. Conf. Advanced Composites in Construction, Edinburgh,
1st-3rd September; 2010. p. 449–60.
[32] Bournas DA, Lontou PV, Papanicolaou CG, Triantafillou TC. Textile-reinforced
mortar versus fibre-reinforced polymer confinement in reinforced concrete
columns. ACI Struct J 2007;104(6):740.
[33] Bournas DA, Triantafillou TC, Zygouris K, Stavropoulos F. Textile-reinforced
mortar versus FRP jacketing in seismic retrofitting of RC columns with continuous
or lap-spliced deformed bars. J Compos Construct 2009;13(5):360–71.
[34] Bournas DA, Triantafillou TC. Flexural strengthening of RC columns with NSM FRP
or stainless steel. ACI Struct J 2009;106(4):495–505.
[35] Bournas DA, Triantafillou TC. Biaxial bending of reinforced concrete columns
strengthened with externally applied reinforcement in combination with
confinement. ACI Struct J 2013;110(2):193–204.
[36] Cornell CA, Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance
assessment. PEER Cent News 2000;3(2):1–3.
[37] Cornell C. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1968;58(5):
1583–606.
[38] McGuire RK. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing
the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1995;85(5):1275-1284.
[39] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra
2004;20(2):523–53.
[40] Jalayer F, Cornell CA. Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-
linear dynamic assessments. Stanford University, 2003; 2003.
[41] Baker JW. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural
analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31(1):579–99.
[42] Bergami AV, Forte A, Lavorato D, Nuti C. Proposal of a incremental modal
pushover analysis (IMPA). Earthqu Struct 2017;13:539–49.
[43] Nuti C, Briseghella B, Chen A, Lavorato D, Iori T, Vanzi I. Relevant outcomes from
the history of Polcevera Viaduct in Genova, from design to nowadays failure.
J Civil Struct Health Monitor 2020;10:87–107.
[44] Lavorato D, Fiorentino G, Pelle A, Rasulo A, Bergami AV, Briseghella B, Nuti C.
A corrosion model for the interpretation of cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete
sections. Struct Concr 2019;2020:1–15.
[45] Life 365. Service life prediction model for reinforced concrete exposed to chlorides.
2001. Version 1.1.
[46] Oslakovic IS, Bjegovic D, Mikulic D, Krstic V. Development of service life model
CHLODIF þþ. Computation Modeling of Concrete Structures. CRC Press; 2014.
[47] DuraCrete. Probabilistic performance based durability design of concrete
structures: statistical quantification of the variables in the limit state functions. Rep
No.: Bioprocess Eng 2000;vol. 95-1347:62–3.
[48] Fib Bulletin N� 34. Model Code for Service Life Design, ISBN 978-2-88394-074-1.
p. 116.
[49] DARTS. Durable and Reliable Tunnel Structures: Deterioration Modelling,
European Commission, Growths 2000. 2004. Contract G1RD-CT-2000-00467,
Project GrD1-25633.
[50] DARTS. Durable and Reliable Tunnel Structures: Data, European Commission,
Growths 2000, Contract G1RD-CT-2000-00467. 2004. Project GrD1-25633.
[51] Collepardi M, Marcialis A, Turriziani R. Penetration of chloride ions into cement
pastesand concretes. J Am Cer Soc 1972;55:534–5.
[52] Pacheco J, Polder RB. Critical chloride concentrations in reinforced concrete
specimens with ordinary Portland and blast furnace slag cement. Heron 2016;61
(2):99–119.
[53] Vu KAT, Stewart MG. Structural reliability of concrete bridges including improved
chloride-induced corrosion models. Struct Saf 2000;22:313–33.
[54] Liu T, Weyers RW. Modeling the dynamic corrosion process in chloride
contaminated concrete structures. Cement Concr Res 1998;28:365–79.
[55] Enright MP, Frangopol DM. Probabilistic analysis of resistance degradation of
reinforced concrete bridge beams under corrosion. Eng Struct 1998;20:960–71.
[56] Du YG, Clark LA, Chan AHC. Residual capacity of corroded reinforcing bars. Mag
Concr Res 2005;57:135–47.
[57] Fang C, Lundgren K, Chen L, Zhu C. Corrosion influence on bond in reinforced
concrete. Cement Concr Res 2004;34:2159–67.
[58] Most T, Bucher C. Stochastic simulation of cracking in concrete using
multiparameter random fields. Int J Reliab Saf 2006;1(1/2):168–87.
[59] Spoelstra MR, Monti G. FRP-confined concrete model. J Compos Construct 1999;3
(3):143–50.
M.A. Zanini et al.
[60] Lam L, Teng JG. Design-oriented stress–strain model for FRP-confined concrete.
Construct Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):471–89.
[61] Fossetti M, Alotta G, Basone F, Macaluso G. Simplified analytical models for
compressed concrete columns confined by FRP and FRCM system. Mater Struct
2017;50(6):240.
[62] CNR-DT 215/2018. Guidelines for the design, execution and monitoring of static
retrofitting interventions with fabric reinforced cementitious matrix systems. 2019.
p. 85 [Rome, Italy (in Italian)].
[63] American Concrete Institute. ACI 549.4R-13: Guide to design and construction of
externally bonded fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems for repair
and strengthening concrete and masonry structures. American Concrete Institute,
38800 Country Club Drive Farmington Hills; 2013. p. 74. MI 48331.
[64] Colajanni P, Fossetti M, Macaluso G. Effects of confinement level, cross-section
shape and corner radius on the cyclic behavior of CFRCM confined concrete
columns. Construct Build Mater 2014;55:379–89.
[65] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress–strain model for confined
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[66] Ministerial Decree 09/01/1996. Technical standards for design, execution and
testing of ordinary and prestressed reinforced concrete structures, and steel
structures. 1996 [in Italian)].
[67] Buckle IG, Friedland IM, Mander JB, Martin GR, Nutt R, Power M. Seismic
retrofitting manual for highway structures: Part 1-Bridges. Technical Report
MCEER-06-SP10; 2006. p. 659.
[68] Gonzalez-Libreros J, Zanini MA, Faleschini F, Pellegrino C. Confinement of low-
strength concrete with fiber reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) composites.
Compos B Eng 2019;177:107407.
[69] Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Hofer L, Pellegrino C. Experimental behavior of reinforced
concrete columns confined with carbon-FRCM composites. Construct Build Mater
2020;243:118296.
21
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106224
[70] Faleschini F, Gonzalez-Libreros J, Zanini MA, Hofer L, Sneed L, Pellegrino C.
Repair of severely-damaged RC exterior beam-columns joints with FRP and FRCM
composites. Compos Struct 2019;207:352–63.
[71] Faleschini F, Zanini MA, Hofer L, Toska K, De Domenico D, Pellegrino C.
Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with glass fiber reinforced
cementitious matrix jackets. Eng Struct 2020;218:110847.
[72] Midas Civil. Integrated solution system for bridge and Civil engineering. https:
//en.midasuser.com/; 2019.
[73] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced
concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of
elements under combined normal force and bending. Proc IABSE Symp Resist
Ultimate Deformability Struct Acted by Well Defned Repeated Loads, Int Assoc
Bridge Struct Eng, Lisbon, Portugal 1973;13:15–22.
[74] Kashani MM, Crewe AJ, Alexander NA. Nonlinear cyclic response of corrosion-
damaged reinforcing bars with the effect of buckling. Construct Build Mater 2013;
41:388–400.
[75] Luzi L, Puglia R, Russo E, ORFEUS WG5. Engineering Strong Motion Database,
version 1.0. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Observatories &
Research Facilities for European Seismology. 2016. https://doi.org/10.13127/
ESM.
[76] Choi E. Seismic analysis and retrofit of mid-America bridges. Ph.D. thesis. Atlanta:
Georiga Institute of Technology; 2002.
[77] Choi E. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct
2003;26(2):187–99.
[78] Cheng H, Li HN, Yang YB, Wang DS. Seismic fragility analysis of deteriorating RC
bridge columns with time-variant capacity index. Bull Earthq Eng 2019;17(7):
4247–67.
[79] Meletti C, Montaldo V. Seismic hazard estimates for different 50-years exceedance
probabilities: peak ground acceleration values. DPC-INGV Project; 2007. S1-D2 (in
Italian, last access 30/07/2019).