Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Surrogate-based fragility analysis and probabilistic optimisation of

cable-stayed bridges subject to seismic loads
Andrea Franchini *, Wendel Sebastian, Dina D’Ayala
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK

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

Keywords: The lack of computationally efficient, probabilistic performance-based design strategies for cable-stayed bridges
Cable-stayed bridge hinders their optimal design in seismic regions. Thus, this paper proposes the implementation of parameterised
Seismic performance-based design fragility functions (PFFs) for the surrogate-based sensitivity analysis and performance-based optimisation of
Parameterised fragility
these structures. In particular, PFFs are exploited to define computationally efficient decision variables and four
Optimisation
Earthquake engineering
optimisation strategies that aim to optimise the probability of seismic damage and the direct losses related to the
seismic repair cost. To illustrate this overall strategy, a 542 m three-span cable-stayed bridge is considered. The
ability to predict dynamic behaviour is improved by using the measured dynamic response of the reference cable-
stayed bridge to inform the numerical model’s architecture. Then, key design variables of tower and cable cross-
sections are selected for optimisation. The sensitivity analysis shows conflicting demands placed upon design
variables by different decision variables (e.g. damage probability and the sum of construction and repair costs,
CRC) and the crucial importance of accounting for design variables interaction when making choices on design
updating. Therefore, numerical optimisation emerges as the most efficient tool to deal with these issues. With
respect to the reference structure, the proposed single-objective optimisation strategies reduced the system-level
damage probability by 3.5 times, and yielded an 88% reduction of repair cost, and a 40% decrease of CRC. A
Pareto-front of optimal design variables was also calculated to simultaneously optimise system damage proba­
bility and CRC.

1. Introduction
Due to their light weight and low inherent damping, cable-stayed
bridges are vulnerable to earthquakes [1] and significant damages to
the deck-to-tower connections, abutments, and concrete towers have
been identified after past seismic events [2–5]. Furthermore, bridges
usually represent vital links in the transport infrastructure network
[6,7], whose disruption in seismic events might lead to substantial
economic losses and delay the recovery of whole regions. Therefore,
even localized component failures may not be acceptable.
Optimisation techniques significantly aid the achievement of eco­
nomic and seismically efficient structures. However, optimising cable-
stayed bridges is complex because of the many design variables and
design constraints that should be considered, often nonlinear and con­
flicting [8]. Considerations aimed at optimising the tower geometry to
avoid excessive damage deriving from the transverse deck-tower in­
teractions were given in [9]. Moreover, several researchers imple­
mented deterministic approaches to optimize geometry, cross-sectional
variables, cables forces and control devices for cable-stayed bridges
subject to earthquakes [10–13]. Nonetheless, analyses and decisions
made in the design phase are significantly affected by uncertainties, and
therefore appropriate performances of an infrastructure system may be
only guaranteed in a probabilistic sense [14]. Thus, in order for de­
signers and stakeholders to gain confidence that the structure will
perform as expected when an extreme event occurs, the probabilistic
Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering developed by the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center [15–18] (PEER-PBEE herein­
after) is, at present, the most reliable approach.
Despite the better performances that can be achieved through PEER-
PBEE, deterministic design approaches and performance criteria are still
the most used for designing cable-stayed bridges [19]. This is mainly due
to the extensive computational effort required for seismic fragility
assessment, which grows with the number of design variables. Conse­
quently, few studies have implemented probabilistic approaches for the
seismic optimisation of these structures, mainly focusing their analysis
on a limited number of design variables, such as those of mitigation

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: andrea.franchini.19@ucl.ac.uk (A. Franchini), w.sebastian@ucl.ac.uk (W. Sebastian), d.dayala@ucl.ac.uk (D. D’Ayala).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113949
Received 19 August 2021; Received in revised form 20 December 2021; Accepted 24 January 2022
Available online 12 February 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Franchini et al.
devices. Wu et al. [20] argued that deterministic analysis methods, such
as the Response Spectrum Analysis, cannot account for uncertainties due
to record-to-record variability. Thus, they implemented system-level
fragility functions to design the stiffness of cable restrainers for a me­
dium span cable-stayed bridge. Zhong et al. [21] investigated the
optimal design variables of fluid viscous dampers to retrofit cable-stayed
bridges. This study used system-level fragility functions obtained using
the cloud approach and a joint probabilistic seismic demand model to
derive structural performance indicators. Wen et al. [22] optimized the
parameters of viscous dampers and metallic dampers at the deck-to-
pylon connection of a cable-stayed bridge by implementing a genetic
algorithm that aimed to minimize the repair cost ratio (RCR). The
concept of RCR was initially proposed by Xie and Jian [23] as a system-
level probabilistic performance index to quantify the damaging poten­
tial of a selected bridge design. Zhong et al. [24] used Gaussian process
surrogate models to perform global sensitivity analysis and risk-based
optimisation of fluid viscous dampers in cable-stayed bridges. The au­
thors achieved a 72% reduction of system-level seismic risk and
observed that component level objectives are generally conflicting,
preventing their simultaneous optimisation. Conflicting damage prob­
ability levels in different bridge components were also found by Wei
et al. [25]. After using fragility functions to compare typical cable-
stayed bridge structural systems (rigid, longitudinally constrained and
floating), these authors observed that optimizing multiple bridge design
variables through fragility analysis would require an excessive compu­
tational effort. The need for further development in procedures for the
optimisation of cable-stayed bridges considering seismic actions and
resilience was also highlighted by [8].
Machine Learning (ML) techniques might be implemented to over­
come the limitations posed by the high computational cost for devel­
oping fragility functions. In particular, ML has been used to develop
seismic demand models conditioned on multiple predictors and to
obtain multidimensional fragility models for portfolios of highway
bridges [26–34]. Such models are called parametrized fragility functions
(PFFs). Beyond the use for regional risk assessment, Dukes et al. [35]
proposed their implementation in the bridge design process to quickly
investigate the effect of design variables on seismic performance. The
methodology extension to multi-hazard fragility assessment was also
studied [36,37]. Gehl and D’Ayala [6,38] implemented Bayesian Net­
works to derive system-level fragility surfaces for multi-span simply-
supported bridges subject to earthquakes, ground failures and floods.
Analytical fragility assessment has at its core the use of a numerical
method, such as Finite Element modelling (FEM), to predict the seismic
response of cable-stayed bridges. Now, in order to maximise any FEM’s
ability to capture the static and dynamic behaviours of bridges which are
complex due to their geometry (e.g. cable-stayed) or their materials (e.g.
composites), tuning of the FEM architecture (types/layouts of elements,
etc.) is often informed by comparisons with data from tests on real
bridges [39,40]. This approach will be adopted in the present paper.
The reviewed approaches using the PEER-PBEE design for cable-
stayed bridges optimised a limited number of design variables, mainly
focusing on vibration control devices. Moreover, to the authors’
knowledge, using PFFs for the seismic fragility analysis and the
surrogate-based probabilistic optimisation of cable-stayed bridges
cannot be found in the literature. Therefore, the main objectives of this
paper consist of:
• Exploiting PFFs for design space exploration and for developing
probabilistic performance-based seismic optimisation strategies for
cable-stayed bridges.
• Proving the applicability and the advantages of the proposed stra­
tegies through the calculation of ’optimal combinations’ of key
design variables for a real cable-stayed bridge, which was previously
designed according to capacity design principles.
• Using data from tests on the real cable-stayed bridge to inform tuning
of the architecture of a FE model, which is then used for dynamic
2
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
behaviour prediction in the present study. This test data verification
reduced the uncertainty in predictive capability, giving confidence
that the obtained results are reliable and that the proposed design
strategy is applicable to new structures.
The remaining part of the manuscript is organized as follows: Section
2 details the proposed methodology for the PEER-PBEE design of cable-
stayed bridges; Section 3 describes a case-study cable-stayed bridge and
its updating process; design space exploration and surrogate-based
performance optimisation are then performed in Section 4; finally,
conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2. Parameterised fragility functions for PEER-PBEE design and
optimisation
2.1. Proposed methodology
The procedure for PEER-PBEE assessment (referred to as forward
PBEE analysis [41]) consists in the following independent logical steps:
1) Hazard analysis; 2) Demand analysis through time history simula­
tions; 3) Damage analysis to obtain fragility functions; 4) Decision var­
iable (DV) calculation; 5) Risk-informed decision making. The DVs
should be relevant to the stakeholder and might represent direct or in­
direct economic losses, fatalities, downtime, or similar.
Using the PEER-PBEE methodology for new design entails the
inversion of the above process, leading to the inverse PBEE analysis
[41]. In this respect, inverting the methodology requires the designer to
update the design and perform the assessment iteratively. Two ap­
proaches are possible for design updating: trial-and-error and numerical
optimisation. Based on experience and sensitivity analysis, trial-and-
error does not guarantee to find an optimal solution. On the other
hand, numerical optimisation involves a significant computational effort
because of the objective function’s evaluations it requires at each iter­
ation step, which results in the need to repeat the forward analysis many
times, changing design variables and recording DV. Most of the
computational effort is required by demand analysis and damage anal­
ysis, which aim to obtain structural fragility functions. A seismic
fragility function FR = P[D > CLSi |IM] provides the conditional proba­
bility that the seismic demand (D) on a structural member or system
exceeds its capacity (C) for the considered limit state (LSi) and for a
given level of earthquake intensity measure (IM) [42,43].
On the other hand, Parameterised Fragility Functions (PFFs) are
conditioned on both the IM and the n design variables Xi of the cable-
stayed bridge (collected in the vector X ∈ Rn ).
FR = P[D > CLSi |IM, X] = PF(IM, X) (1)
Therefore, both the intensity measure and the design variables can be
included as predictors in the fragility model. Generally speaking, cable-
stayed bridge design variables can be divided into several categories:
variables defining bridge geometry; variables defining structural mem­
bers cross-sectional dimensions and reinforcement; variables defining
vibration control device properties. Nevertheless, the distinction be­
tween fixed parameters and design variables is project-specific, as it
might depend on site constraints, stakeholder preferences and budget,
urbanistic and architectural requirements, etc. Therefore, this paper
addresses the optimisation of structural members cross-sections without
loss of generality for the proposed procedure. In particular, the selected
design variables consist of towers cross-sectional dimensions, rein­
forcement ratios and cables cross-sectional area, which are all critical to
seismic performance. Further details are provided in Section 3.1.
PFFs provide closed-form equations for the damage probability.
Therefore, their main advantage as a tool for structural optimisation
consists in the possibility of computing probabilistic DVs without per­
forming additional FE analyses. Consequently, PFFs allow decoupling
the fragility assessment from the optimisation cycle. This fact aids the
computational efficiency of the function evaluation phase in numerical
A. Franchini et al.
optimisation algorithms, for which the DVs represent objective func­
tions. On the other hand, the PEER-PBEE optimisation described in
Section 2.1 requires the computation of fragility functions through FE
analysis at each iteration of the searching algorithm. Such an approach
is too computationally demanding for cable-stayed bridges.
Fig. 1 provides an overview of the proposed methodology. The
procedure starts with the generation of PFFs (detailed in Section 2.2)
and exploits them to aid the investigation of design alternatives (PBEE
use I, Section 2.4) and to define probabilistic optimisation strategies
(PBEE use II, Section 2.5). Both proposed uses serve to determine the
decision variables, which provide the framework for decision making.
As stated above, probabilistic DVs defined through PFFs are efficient to
compute. The optimisation cycle (bottom left part of Fig. 1) exploits DVs
computational efficiency for rapid numerical differentiation of the per­
formance function over the design space. This operation serves the
determination of gradients that identify the direction of minimum for
the successive iterative step.
It should be noted that a cable-stayed bridge is subject to several load
scenarios during its service life, including self-weight, traffic, wind, and
earthquake. This paper addresses the self-weight and earthquake load
condition, assuming that it is dominant with respect to the others.
2.2. Generation of parameterised fragility functions
To generate PFFs, this paper follows the procedure outlined by Dukes
et al. [35], which consists of Steps 1 to 4 depicted in Fig. 1. This figure
also highlights the “Demand analysis” and the “Damage analysis” phases
to ease the comparison with the conventional PEER-PBEE framework
described in Section 2.1.
The “Demand analysis” phase (Steps 1 to 3 in Fig. 1) generates sur­
rogate models (also called metamodels) for bridge components peak
responses. Consider a peak response y = f(x), which is a function of the
vector of predictors x = [IM, X] ∈ ℝn+1 . Usually, the relationship f is
Fig. 1. Overview of the proposed probabilistic performance-based seismic optimisation methodology for cable-stayed bridges.
3
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
unknown, and the FE analysis provides only y. Metamodeling, therefore,
consists in using statistical techniques to build a computationally effi­
cient approximation ̂ y (with ̂y = m(x) + ε) of the relationship between y
and x (i.e., y ≈ ̂y = m(x) + ε) [44]. ε represents the total error ac­
counting for approximation (goodness-of-fit) and measurement
(random) errors. Afterwards, surrogate models are implemented to
generate survival-failure vectors for bridge components by performing
Monte Carlo simulations (MCSs), and PFFs are eventually obtained
through logistic regression (Step 4). With reference to Fig. 1, critical
aspects of the four steps are summarized below.
2.2.1. Step 1 – Experimental design
The objective of experimental design is to build a design matrix
containing realisations of the predictors on which to apply regression
techniques to obtain the surrogate metamodels. Each row of the design
matrix, an experimental design realisation, can be obtained by sampling
realisations of selected bridge parameters and randomly pairing them to
the IM of an earthquake belonging to the considered ground motion set.
Experimental design starts with the identification of a set of n design
variables X = [X1 , X2 , ⋯, Xn ] which are statistically significant for the
seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. A typical step to identify sig­
nificant parameters is screening [45], which would require running
nonlinear time history analysis to record peak responses variability
induced by the change of design variables. However, considering the
large number of parameters involved in the design of cable-stayed
bridges, such a procedure becomes computationally expensive even at
its preliminary stage. A further issue regards the effect of ground motion
randomness on the screening process: it is not guaranteed that the sig­
nificant parameters for different peak responses remain the same when
subject to ground motions with different properties. On the other hand,
correctly accounting for ground motion randomness in the screening
phase would require a number of time history analyses similar to that
required to generate metamodels.
A. Franchini et al.
As an alternative, the selection of design variables can be based on
the expertise of the analyst/designer. A preliminary analysis of the
statistical significance of all the selected design variables can then be
performed after time history analyses are completed and before building
metamodels. This second approach is adopted in this paper. First, a set of
na accelerograms is selected to account for the randomness of ground
motion. Then, na design variable realisations are sampled through Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) [46]. Eventually, each realisation is
randomly paired to two ground motions from the set, resulting in a
design matrix of 2na rows and n + 1 columns. When using LHS, the
minimum number of experiments for optimally spaced design points is
usually two times the number of design parameters [27], requiring
na ≥ 2n. Further considerations on sample size are provided in Section
4.3.
2.2.2. Step 2 – Nonlinear FE time history analysis
After determining the design matrix, a nonlinear FE model of the
bridge is built for each line of the design matrix, and two accelerograms
are successively applied at the fixed nodes. Nonlinear time-history an­
alyses are then performed, recording the peak responses (engineering
demand parameters, EDPs) of sensitive bridge components. In partic­
ular, this study considers the following EDPs: tower section curvatures
ductility, tower drift ratio, longitudinal displacement of bearings and
cables’ axial force ratio (AFR, defined as the ratio of the axial force
capacity to demand).
2.2.3. Step 3 - Surrogate models choice and fitting
This step aims at obtaining response surface surrogate models of each
EDP. The polynomial Response Surface (RS) method [47] represents a
natural extension to multiple dimensions of linear, one-dimensional
probabilistic seismic response models in traditional fragility analysis,
which usually condition the logarithmic value of EDPs on the logarithm
of IM. Therefore, in this study, RSs are used to predict ln(̂
y ) conditioned
on the vector of predictors x = [ln(IM), X]. Four different RS metamodels
(M1, M2, M3 and M4, see Eq. (2)) are considered: they differ by the
maximum polynomials order and interaction terms considered. Inter­
action effects on peak response might be relevant for redundant struc­
tures such as cable-stayed bridges. In Eq. (2), k = n+1. At this stage, a
significance test is implemented to identify significant predictors before
building advanced metamodels. The p-values of first-order linear
regression are adopted to test the null hypothesis that a predictor is not
significant in determining peak responses. In particular, the null hy­
pothesis is rejected if the p-value associated with one of the predictors is
less than 0.05. A forward removal process is then iteratively imple­
mented, removing one non-significant predictor at a time until all the
predictors are significant.
∑
k
M1 : ln(̂y ) = β0 + β i xi
i=1
∑
k ∑
k ∑
k Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge that several different (and
M2 : ln(̂y ) = β0 + β i xi + βij xi xj
i=1 i=1 j=1,i<j
(2)
∑
k ∑
k
M3 : ln(̂y ) = β0 + β i xi + βii x2i
i=1 i=1
∑
k ∑
k ∑
k ∑
k
M4 : ln(̂y ) = β0 + β i xi + βii x2i + βij xi xj
i=1 i=1 i=1 j=1,i<j
This paper addresses the optimisation of components cross-sectional
properties, which are generally characterised in terms of uncorrelated
variables: choosing a value for one variable does not constrain the range
of possible values another variable can assume, as long as performance
requirements are satisfied. On the other hand, material properties are
usually correlated, which might result in overestimating bridge fragility
[48]. From the perspective of PEER-PBEE design, overestimating
fragility leads to a conservative design. Nevertheless, to achieve more
4
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
accurate results and avoid structural members oversizing, alternative
techniques should be considered in future studies that include correlated
parameters as design variables.
2.2.4. Step 4 – Logistic regression
Limit States (LS) should be defined to quantify damage occurrence in
the structure. LS capacities are a quantitative measure of the capacity C
of bridge components to withstand the demands D placed upon them by
the earthquake [42]. These capacities are probabilistic variables with
associated uncertainty. In the spirit of PBEE, C can be thought of as a
level at which the bridge loses some measure of functionality. According
to the analyst’s interest, the functionality ranges from serviceability to
collapse [49]. Typically four limit states (LS) are considered [50]: slight
(LS1), moderate (LS2), extensive (LS3), and complete damage (LS4).
Component capacities can be assumed to be lognormally distributed
[51].
In order to build PFFs, peak response metamodels and limit state
capacity models are used to perform MCSs and generate binary survival-
failure vectors [30] of Nsim components. In this study, Nsim is determined
through sensitivity analysis on the stability of fragility functions’ me­
dians. These vectors contain realisations of a Bernoulli random variable,
whose distribution’s expected value can be estimated through Logistic
Regression. A detailed description of the procedure to perform logistic
regression and obtain PFFs can be found in [27,35]. The following
expression is eventually obtained:
eα0 +αIM ∙ ln(IM) + α∙X
FRLSi,k (IM, X) = (3)
1 + eα0 +αIM ∙ ln(IM) + α∙X
where α = [α1 , α2 , ⋯, αn ] and αi (i = 0, IM, 1, 2, ....n) are the logistic
regression coefficients, and k might refer to the k-th component or k =
sys for system-level fragility. Different perspectives on the meaning (and
corresponding mathematical representation) of system damage have
been described by Dueñas-Osorio and Padgett [52]. This study assumes
that the system enters a specific damage state if any of its components
exceeds its corresponding limit state capacity, commonly referred to as
the “series system” assumption. Cable-stayed bridges actually behave as
mixed series–parallel systems, resulting in enhanced robustness. In this
respect, the series system assumption is conservative and was imple­
mented by several researchers (e.g. [53,54]). Bridge components are
classified as primary or secondary according to their contribution to the
structural system damage level: it is assumed that secondary compo­
nents only contribute to the slight and moderate damage states. System-
level binary survival-failure vectors are calculated using Monte Carlo
simulations, and logistic regression is applied to obtain system-level
PFFs.
Because this study’s overall goal is to show how surrogate modelling
and parameterised fragility can aid the PEER-PBEE design of cable-
stayed bridges, seismic parameterised fragility functions are generated
following a procedure widely used in the literature for bridges [27,35].
possibly more efficient) choices could have been made. In this respect,
future research should investigate alternative statistical learning tech­
niques that might result in enhanced computational efficiency and
accuracy.
2.3. Decision variables definition
The general form of an optimisation problem [55] envisages two sets
of functions: an objective function and a set of constraint functions. The
latter consist of equations and inequalities that the design variables, or
some functions of the variables, must satisfy. Within the domain of
definition of the design variables, usually Rn , the set of points that satisfy
all the constraints forms the feasible region to which the solution of the
optimisation problem belongs.
One of the main barriers to cable-stayed bridge optimisation is the
extensive running time to calculate the objective function (DVs in PEER-
A. Franchini et al.
PBEE) at every step of the selected solution algorithm. Therefore,
recalling that PFFs provide a closed-form equation for the probability of
exceeding a selected damage state, the surrogate-based design optimi­
sation methodology proposed in this paper exploits PFFs to determine
DVs as functions of the design variables X. Because it does not require to
perform FE simulations at each iteration, such an approach dramatically
aids computational efficiency and represents a point of novelty in this
paper. In that respect, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, surrogate-
based probabilistic seismic performance optimisation strategies for
cable-stayed bridges have not yet been proposed.
It is also acknowledged that, beyond being adopted as objective
functions, some DVs might represent desirable constraint functions for
the studied problem. Considering the computational burdens of the
conventional PEER-PBEE, this option is made possible by using PFFs. In
particular, this paper implements DVs related to seismic damage to treat
the uncertainties affecting constraint conditions, yielding an additional
point of novelty.
2.3.1. Average median peak ground velocity (AMPGV)
Previous works on performance-based analysis and optimisation of
bridges [21,24,25,56] considered the IM’s median value of each damage
state’s fragility curve as a separate performance indicator of system-
level performance. The median IM (named IM) represents the earth­
quake intensity with a 50% probability of causing the structure to enter
the relevant damage state and is therefore regarded as an appropriate
indicator of damage probability. As discussed further in Section 4.1, this
study adopts the peak ground velocity (PGV) as IM. To account for the
four system-level damage states with one single function, the first DV is
defined as the average value of the median PGVs for the four defined
damage states (AMPGV(X)).
2.3.2. Construction materials cost (C0)
A second decision variable is the construction materials cost for the
cable-stayed bridge, which can be computed as follows:
C0 (X) = Cdeck + Cbearings + C(X) (4)
The details of the deck are not considered for optimisation. Thus, its
cost is assumed to be independent of the selected design variables. The
cost of the bearings is roughly assumed as 10% of the cost of a leg in the
pylon: previous researchers [22,23] argued that the replacement cost of
bearings (accounting for direct and indirect losses) is about 15–25% of
the total bridge construction cost, whereas pylons account for 70%.
Therefore, the assumption made in this study is a reasonable estimation
of bearings’ construction cost. Furthermore, the cost of the foundations
is neglected. C(X) is the portion of bridge cost which directly depends on
design variables, and can be estimated by summing the products of
materials quantities and unit costs. The unit costs were taken as 3.5 and
7.5 €/kg for towers and cables, respectively [10]. As for the reinforce­
ment, 1.1 €/kg was considered a figure representative of current market
values.
2.3.3. Repair cost (RC)
The repair cost (RC), also considered in this study as a decision
variable, quantifies the material repair cost in case of earthquake
occurrence. The RC calculation follows the procedure outlined in [23]
for the definition of repair cost ratio, which was applied to optimise
vibration control devices in cable-stayed bridges by [22]. The following
equation is derived for the k-th component:
( )
∑ 4
RCk (X, PGV) = pi,k (X, PGV)∙di,k Ck (X) (5)
i=1
where di,k is the damage ratio of the k-th component at the i-th
damage state; Ck is the replacement cost of the k-th component, which is
assumed to equal the construction material cost for the considered
component; pi,k is the damage probability for each damage state that can
5
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
be estimated from component-level PFFs. Eventually, the total repair
cost RC(X, PGV) is computed as the sum of the contributions of each
component.
Because the RC depends on the PGV, in previous studies, Repair Cost
Ratio (RCR) surfaces were obtained as a function of peak responses;
then, optimal design variables were identified at different IM levels by
means of additional time history analyses [22]; alternatively, peak re­
sponses were set as the objective function, and then RCR was used to
assess the validity of the achieved solutions [23]. However, to achieve
an overall optimal value of design variables and directly implement RC
as the objective function, the dependency of RC on the intensity measure
should be removed. To this end, in the current study, the distribution of
RC|PGV is calculated by randomly sampling realisations of PGV at the
construction site and computing the corresponding RC. This procedure is
computationally efficient thanks to the closed-form equation of PFFs,
which can be quickly implemented to compute the damage probabilities
in Eq. (5). After obtaining the RC distribution, its 95th percentile
(defined as RC95 (X)) is proposed in this study as an objective function.
The probability density function of PGV at the construction site is
assumed as lognormal distributed and, consequently, also the distribu­
tion of RC results lognormal. Parameters of the PGV lognormal distri­
bution can be obtained through seismic hazard analysis at the
construction site.
2.3.4. Construction and repair cost (CRC)
This study defines the Construction and Repair Cost, CRC(X), as the
linear combination of C0 (X) and RC95 (X), which were defined above.
This DV allows a designer to balance the initial capital investment and
the cost the asset owner should bear in case of earthquake-induced
damage. In Sections 2.4 and 2.5, the decision variables described
above are implemented for design space exploration and to develop
optimisation strategies.
2.4. PBEE use I: Design space exploration
The closed-form expression of the DVs defined in Section 2.3 can be
used for design space exploration, providing insightful information
about the effects of single and pairwise design variables change on the
overall performance of the structure.
Consider a generic decision variable DV(X), a function of the design
variables X. Let X0 be the initial design configuration and Xk a new
design configuration with the same components as X 0 except for the k-th
one, which is a 10% perturbation of X0,k . In this study, ΔDV k (Xk ) is
defined as the percentual variation of the decision variable resulting
from perturbation of the k-th design variable. The analysis of ΔDV k
identifies which parameters are more influential in determining the
value of the selected performance measure and whether their variation
affects the bridge’s seismic performance. A similar approach is imple­
mented in [35] to investigate the effect of design parameters on fragility
estimation.
A cable-stayed bridge is a complex, hyperstatic system in which
many components interact to determine the overall structural response.
In turn, this results in the importance of understanding the combined
effect of design variables on system-level response. To that end, this
study builds matrices of contour plots [45] that present the variation of
PGV LSi (easily computable from PFFs) as a function of two design vari­
ables while keeping the others set to their average value. As discussed in
Section 2.3, previous studies recognized the median PGV of system-level
fragility functions as an efficient indicator of bridge performance
[21,24,25,56].
2.5. PBEE use II: Surrogate-based design optimisation
Four optimisation strategies are considered based on the computa­
tionally efficient DVs defined in Section 2.3 (Table 1). The DVs are used
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Table 1
Optimisation strategies.
Definition Objective Problem formulation
⎧
Strategy #1 Maximise the average of the median PGVs (AMPGV) of the bridge system ⎪ C0 (X* ) ≤ C0,ref
⎪
⎨
max AMPGV(X), subject to LB ≤ X* ≤ UB
*
⎪
⎪
⎩ PGV LS1 (X ) ≥ PGVsite
σcr (X* )/σ(X* ) ≥ 3
⎧
Strategy #2 Minimise the Repair Cost ⎪ C0 (X* ) ≤ C0,ref
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ LB ≤ X* ≤ UB
min RC95 (X), subject to PGVLS1 (X* ) ≥ PGVsite
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ AMPGV(X* ) ≥ AMPGVref
⎩
σcr (X* )/σ(X* ) ≥ 3
⎧
Strategy #3 Minimise the Construction and Repair Cost ⎪ LB ≤ X* ≤ UB
⎪
⎨
PGVLS1 (X* ) ≥ PGVsite
min CRC(X), subject to *
⎪ AMPGV(X ) ≥ AMPGVref
⎪
⎩
[ ] σcr (X* )/σ(X* ) ≥ 3
Strategy #4 (multi- Maximise the average of median PGVs and simultaneously minimise the Construction and − AMPGV(X)
min ,
objective) Repair Cost. CRC(X)
⎧
⎨ LB ≤ X* ≤ UB
subject to PGVLS1 (X* ) ≥ PGVsite
⎩
σcr (X* )/σ(X* ) ≥ 3

to define either or both the objective function and the boundary con­
ditions of the problem. The solution vector of design variables is labelled
X* .
The objective of the first optimisation strategy (Strategy #1) is to
maximize AMPGV(X). Intuitively, a higher value of AMPGV is associated
with a structure with a lower probability of damage when subject to an
earthquake. The advantage of implementing AMPGV consists in gaining
an overall description of system-level performance. However, using the
average of the medians as a DV might lead to a stiff and ductile bridge
(which could enter LS1 for a low value of EDP and then reach LS4 for a
substantial value of EDP) having the same AMPGV as another optimal
solution which entails more bunched-up fragility functions, with high
flexibility and low ductility. Although extensive ductility might be
beneficial in terms of ultimate behaviour, triggering of non-linearity for
low values of EDPs might be undesirable for serviceability damage
states. The selected DVs for optimisation intrinsically account for such
effects. Additionally, if specific performance goals are desirable,
consistent constraint conditions can be set. To avoid excessive capital
investment in the attempt of increasing system safety, a constraint
equation is used to require that the initial cost C0 (X) of the optimized
structure does not exceed the cost of the reference structure. Details on
the reference structure are provided in Section 3. In an actual design
situation, C0 might be substituted by a threshold agreed with the asset
owner or by the estimated cost of preliminary design.
Strategy #2 and #3 target the cost of the structure. Specifically, they
aim at minimizing RC95 and CRC, respectively. The AMPGV was previ­
ously defined as an overall measure of system-level performance. To
guarantee that the mentioned costs are minimized while maintaining an
acceptable damage probability, PFFs are applied to define nonlinear
boundary conditions. More in detail, the minimum acceptable value of
AMPGV(X* ) is limited to be no less than the value computed for the
reference bridge AMPGV ref . In Strategy #2, C0 is also considered as a
constraint.
In the framework of this study, the AMPGV(X) and the CRC(X) prove
to be conflicting objectives. Therefore, Strategy #4 is developed as a
multi-objective optimisation problem. In the presence of trade-offs be­
tween conflicting objectives, usually, no solution exists which minimizes
all of them simultaneously. Accordingly, solving a multi-objective
optimisation problem involves finding a set of Pareto optimal solutions
that entail different trade-offs between objective functions. In particular,
a solution is defined as ’Pareto optimal’ if one objective cannot be
improved without degrading at least one other objective decision vari­
able [57]. The set of Pareto optimal solutions is called the Pareto front. A
Pareto front is calculated, which optimises the trade-off between
AMPGV(X) and the CRC(X). After the Pareto front is found, the decision-
maker is required to select an optimal solution based on his/her sub­
jective criteria of preference.
Additional boundary conditions are set for all the proposed strate­
gies. First, each optimisation strategy is such that it searches the solution
within selected lower and upper bounds, i.e. LB ≤ X ≤ UB. Details on
the boundaries selected in this study are provided for the selected case
study in Section 4.6. A second consideration regards the control of
buckling failure, which might result from the reduction of the towers’
cross-sectional area to minimise cost-related DVs. In this respect,
constraint equations are set to guarantee an adequate safety margin
against instability. The buckling load σcr is computed according to
Eulerian buckling theory and a safety factor γ cr = σcr /σ ≥ 3 is required
for each optimised configuration X* . In terms of damage control per­
formance, it was argued in Section 2.5 that controlling AMPGV might
result in high probabilities of exceeding low damage states, which might
be undesirable in the occurrence of low-intensity earthquakes. There­
fore, it was chosen to constrain PGV LS1 to be no less than the median
PGV at the construction site, PGV site . A different choice could be made
according to the desired performance objective.
In the remainder of the paper, the proposed methodology is applied
to a case study bridge.
3. Case study bridge
3.1. Bridge description and finite element model
The Quincy Bayview Bridge [58], located in Illinois, USA, is chosen
as a case study to demonstrate the proposed procedure. As shown in
Fig. 2a, the structure consists of a 274 m main span and two 134 m
symmetric side spans. Two H-shaped reinforced concrete towers of 71 m
height from the waterline support 56 stay cables arranged on two planes
and in a semi-fan configuration. Cables represented in Fig. 2a with the
same line type have the same cross-sectional area.
Each tower (Fig. 2b) is formed by two concrete legs, a lower strut
(Sec D-D) supporting the deck and an upper strut (Sec C-C) connecting
the legs at the top. The legs present two sections along their length
(section A-A, section B-B), with the section change occurring at the deck-
to-tower connection. Details on the cross sections can be found in
Fig. 2c-f. In the real structure, the section change takes place 2.5 m
above the deck, but this does not significantly affect the dynamic
behaviour, as shown in Section 3.2. An additional simplification in this
study, also not relevant in terms of dynamic behaviour, consists in the
assumption that the thickness of the walls in section B-B is the same
along the two horizontal dimensions. The deck (Fig. 2g) is formed by a
steel–concrete composite section, with two main girders at the sides and

6
A. Franchini et al.
West
(a)
Section A-A
Z’
Y’
4-4
(c)
Section B-B
3-3
2-2 Z’
Y’
1-1
(b) (d)
Fig. 2. Quincy Bayview Bridge: (a) longitudinal view; (b) tower section; (c-f) main cross sections; (g) composite deck. Dimensions in metres [m].
five internal stringers in the longitudinal direction.
As discussed in Section 2.1, and without loss of generality for the
applicability of the proposed PEER-PBEE framework, this paper ad­
dresses the optimisation of towers cross-sectional dimensions (X1 to X7),
reinforcement ratios (X8 to X11) and cables cross-sectional area (X12 to
X15). Consistently, the selected design variables Xi are defined in
Table 2. The “Reference” column lists design variables values in the
reference structure [58]. Since details on reinforcement were not pro­
vided, commonly selected values are assumed. For the experimental
design process, DVs were assigned a uniform distribution with upper and
lower bounds defined in the relevant columns of Table 2. The choice of a
uniform distribution reflects that any combination of code-compliant
DVs is accepted as long as it ensures a satisfactory structural
performance.
A ± 30% variation from the reference value was allowed for the gross
dimensions of the tower leg cross-sections (X1, X2), gross dimensions of
the tower struts (X4, X5) and the cables’ cross-sectional area (X12 to
X15). Such a range of variation is in good agreement with the boundaries
allowed in previous studies on the cross-sectional optimisation of cable-
stayed bridges (e.g. [11,59]) and with proportions observed in con­
structed bridges [60]. The thickness-to-short side ratio in the hollow
sections of tower legs (X3) is allowed to vary in the range 0.25–0.4: the
same lower bound was adopted by Santos et al. [59] and yields a min­
imum wall thickness of 0.40 m, in line with the values computed by
Camara [60] for anchorage zones and with optimal pylon dimensions
suggested by Hassan et al. [61]. Meanwhile, the upper bound of 0.4
guarantees that the hollow section remains such in each design variable
realisation. Because of the lack of data on typical struts thickness in
concrete cable-stayed bridges, the same bounds as tower legs sections
were considered for thickness-to-short side ratio in struts (X6, X7). The
flexural reinforcement ratio varies between 1.5% and 4%, a range that
respects the requirements of Eurocode 2 [62] and reflects common
7
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
East
5.21
Traffic barrier
0.23
2.21
1.93
0.48
Girder Stringer
0.46 13.26 0.46
(g)
Section C-C Section D-D
Z’ Z’
Y’ Y’
(e) (f)
reinforcement choices as highlighted by [19]. For the shear reinforce­
ment volumetric ratio, a range of 0.5%-1.5% was considered.
A 3D Finite Element (FE) model of the bridge (Fig. 3) was developed
in the OpenSees platform [63], which allows performing detailed time
history analysis considering materials and geometric nonlinearities.
Moreover, OpenSees easily allows the parametrisation of bridge design
variables for optimisation. In [58], the finite element model was built
using linear elastic elements, and nonlinear static and dynamic features
were neglected. Such an approach provided modal characteristics which
were close to those observed from the ambient vibration test on the real
structure [64], and therefore, the authors considered the elastic
assumption acceptable. However, a significant nonlinear behaviour of
cable-stayed bridge materials is expected in strong earthquakes [1],
requiring nonlinear analysis. Moreover, several studies highlighted that
the dynamic analysis of cable-stayed bridges should assume the
deformed geometric configuration obtained through nonlinear static
analysis under dead loads [65,66]. The authors of this paper also
observed a better representation of modal properties when considering
the nonlinear behaviour induced by cables sagging. For these reasons,
the present study explicitly considers geometric and materials
nonlinearities.
As depicted in Fig. 3a, the part of the leg from the pile caps to the
upper strut is modelled using distributed plasticity fibre elements based
on the force formulation, while the remaining parts are assumed to
remain elastic. The same assumption about linear behaviour was drawn
for the upper and the lower strut beams (sections C-C and D-D in Fig. 2).
The choice of distributed plasticity elements aims at capturing the ef­
fects of axial force-moment interaction and material nonlinearity under
all load conditions. Moreover, such elements intrinsically account for
ductility reduction induced by high compression force and high rein­
forcement ratios. Fibre section details are provided in Fig. 3b, while
Fig. 4 depicts materials constitutive laws. Both the core and the cover
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Table 2 calibrated to match the measured modal behaviour to the closest extent.
Bridge design variables definition, reference design values and variability range Further details are provided in Section 3.2.
for optimisation. Boundary conditions are chosen according to the description and
Design variables Values design drawings provided in [58]. Since the piers are founded on
Notation Description Units Reference Lower Upper
densely piled foundations driven to the bedrock, soil-structure interac­
bound bound tion effects are neglected, and the tower bases are fixed. At the eastern
and western ends of the deck, the vertical and transversal displacements
X1 Section A-A and B-B m 4.42 3.094 5.746
gross dimension: Y’ side of the girders are fixed, while longitudinal displacement and rotations
X2 Section A-A and B-B m 2.13 1.491 2.769 around all three axes are free.
gross dimension: Z’ side Despite the presence of sliding bearings at the two towers, for dy­
X3 Section B-B thickness-to- – 0.3521 0.25 0.4 namic analysis, Wilson and Gravelle [58] suggested fixing the deck at
short side ratio
X4 Section C-C and D-D m 3.05 2.135 3.965
both towers and all points of connection in terms of translational degrees
dimension: Y’ side of freedom. However, the constrain conditions under quasistatic thermal
X5 Section C-C, D-D m 4.11 2.877 5.343 and wind loads in the real structure are different, as the deck longitu­
dimension: side Z’ side dinal translational degree of freedom at the east tower is released.
X6 Section C-C thickness-to- 0.2 0.25 0.4
–
Because of the good matching with the ambient vibration test [64], but
short side ratio
X7 Section D-D thickness- – 0.1705 0.25 0.4 also recognizing the possible, significant contribution of bearings to the
to-short side ratio bridge system vulnerability, as highlighted by previous studies [20], the
X8 Longitudinal steel % 2.75 1.5 4 modelling approach shown in Fig. 3c for the deck-to-tower connection is
reinforcement ratio of adopted in this study. The two main deck girders are vertically sup­
Section A-A
X9 Longitudinal steel % 2.75 1.5 4
ported at the lower strut beams by means of rigid links representing the
reinforcement ratio of sliding bearings, whose longitudinal behaviour (X direction) is modelled
Section B-B through elastic-perfectly plastic springs (Fig. 4d). The transversal
X10 Volumetric ratio of % 1 0.5 1.5 displacement (Z direction) at the strut level and at the deck slab level is
transverse steel
constrained to the tower nodes, as it is also the longitudinal displace­
reinforcement of Section
A-A ment at the deck-to-tower connection level. These boundary conditions,
X11 Volumetric ratio of % 1 0.5 1.5 selected after comparing the available choices, are validated in Section
transverse steel 3.2 throughout the comparison with ambient vibration tests.
reinforcement of Section
B-B
X12 Cables’ area – type 1 cm2 89.7 62.79 116.61
3.2. FE model updating and validation
X13 Cables’ area – type 2 cm2 67.7 47.39 88.01
X14 Cables’ area – type 3 cm2 53.7 37.59 69.81 FE modelling provides an approximate representation of the (espe­
X15 Cables’ area – type 4 cm2 34.8 24.36 45.24 cially material and geometrically nonlinear) dynamic behaviour of
complex structures such as cable-stayed bridges, so it is important to
concrete are modelled with the Concrete01 material (Fig. 4a), which tune the model’s architecture using data from tests on the real bridge.
implements a Kent-Scott-Park model and allows to take into account the Moreover, since modal analysis is performed after (material and
confinement effect. Reinforcement bars are represented through the geometrically) nonlinear gravity analysis, the dynamic behaviour of this
bilinear constitutive law with linear strain-hardening shown in Fig. 4b model might differ from the elastic behaviour studied in [58]. Therefore,
(Steel01 material in OpenSees). model updating was conducted to validate the assumptions on boundary
The apparent axial stiffness of cables is greatly influenced by sagging, conditions and calibrate uncertain parameters. For the considered
which depends on their state of tension: if cable tension increases, sag­ bridge, results of ambient vibration measurements were provided by
ging reduces, and the apparent axial stiffness increases consequently [64]. From a quantitative point of view, two favoured tools for
[67]. A possible approach to model this behaviour consists in consid­ comparing modal properties are the percentual frequency error and the
ering equivalent, straight, tension-only truss elements with an equiva­ Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC) [69].
lent elastic modulus that accounts for the mentioned nonlinear effects The weighted sum of these two quantities can be used to build an
[68]. According to this approach, the apparent stiffness of a sagging objective function for model updating [70]. On these bases, an optimi­
cable can be expressed as [67]: sation problem was built in this study to update the model parameters
listed in Table 4 and match the dynamic behaviour of the real structure
AEeq =
AE
[ s,cab ] (6) to the closest extent. The optimisation problem was solved through the
(ρL)2 A∙Es,cab ‘fmincon’ function in MATLAB [71], which performed modal analysis
1+ 12T 3 through the OpenSees software [63] at each function evaluation step.
Complete information regarding natural frequency and modal shapes
where A is the area of the cable cross-section; Es,cab and ρ are the was provided only for the first 15 modes [64]. Therefore, model
elastic modulus and the mass density of the cable material; T is the updating and validation were performed for them. They include vertical
tensile force in the cable, which is calculated for dead loads through an (flexural) modes, denoted as ’Vi’, and transverse-torsional modes,
iterative procedure and also provides the value for the prestress σprestress denoted as ’TTi’. Here, i represents the mode number. Firstly, a pa­
in the cable’s constitutive law. The trilinear constitutive law presented rameters sensitivity study was performed by investigating the effect of a
in Fig. 4c [21] is assigned to each cable element. With reference to Fig. 4, 10% variation of each updating parameter on bridge eigenvalues,
the properties implemented to define the constitutive laws of materials revealing that all the selected parameters significantly affect at least one
are collated in Table 3. of the provided experimental modes (Fig. 5a). It can also be observed
The deck is expected to remain in the elastic range when subject to that parameters might oppositely affect different modes, increasing or
earthquake; therefore, as shown in Fig. 3a, it is modelled through a decreasing the eigenvalues.
central spine of 3D elastic beam-column elements [58]. Rigid links Fig. 5b presents the frequency error in the initial model, updated
connect the spine to cables anchors and support lumped masses to model, and model built in [58]. The updated model presents a frequency
correctly account for the torsional inertia induced by girders, stringers error that is consistently within an acceptable range, with a maximum
and traffic barriers. The deck’s stiffness is assigned to the spine and error of 10.7% for V3. MAC comparison is presented in Fig. 5c for this

8
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Lumped Elastic beam-column

Rigid link
mass element

Sec B-B
Tension-only
truss element

Rigid link

Sec A-A
Deck spine
Shell
elements
Nonlinear beam-column
Y element with fibre section
X Fixed
Z
(a)
Section A-A Section B-B Equal disp.
Steel X, Z
bar
tBB Rigid link
Z’ Z’ Beam element
Y’ Cover Y’ Deck node
X1

concrete Y Tower node

Z
X1

Equal disp.
Core
concrete Z Y, Z;
X bearing
X2 X2
spring X

(b) (c)
Fig. 3. Finite element model: (a) FE frame model; (b) fibre section modelling of Section A-A and B-B; (c) deck-to-tower connection modelling. XYZ absolute reference
system. X’Y’Z’ relative reference system.

[-]

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 4. Material constitutive laws: (a) confined and unconfined concrete; (b) steel reinforcement bars; (c) cables; (d) sliding bearing (X direction).

study’s initial and update model only, as [58] did not provide this
measure. All modes in the updated model have a MAC number of at least
0.6. This value was regarded as acceptable, considering the available
information. The negligible effect of assuming the same thickness in
both directions for the hollow section B-B is also validated by consid­
ering the frequency error and MAC numbers as shown in Fig. 5b-c.
Finally, to evaluate the effect of the chosen boundary conditions and
stiffness distribution on the dynamic behaviour of the structure, Fig. 6
compares the obtained modal shapes for the first three vertical modes
(V1, V2, V3) and the first three torsional modes (TT1, TT2, TT3). For
each mode, the upper diagram presents the normalized vertical
displacement of the two external nodes of the deck, while the bottom
box refers to the transversal displacement of the central node. A satis­
factory agreement between experimental and analytical modal shapes
can be observed, providing further confidence that the model re­
produces the real structure’s behaviour well.

9
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Table 3
Nonlinear material properties.
Definition Notation Value Units

Cover concrete compressive strength f’c 30.00 MPa

Cover concrete strain at the compressive strength εc0 0.002 –
Cover concrete ultimate stress fcu 0.00 MPa
Cover concrete ultimate strain εcu 0.004 –
Confinement factor K 1 + ρs,h fyh /f’c –
Confined concrete compressive strength f’c,C K∙f’c MPa
Confined concrete strain at the compressive strength εc0,C Kεc0 –
Confined concrete ultimate stress fcu,C 0.2f’c,C MPa
Confined concrete ultimate strain εcu,C 0.004 + 0.9ρs,h fyh /300 –
Longitudinal reinforcement yielding stress fys 414 MPa
Longitudinal reinforcement elastic modulus Es 200 000 MPa
Longitudinal reinforcement strain hardening ratio shr 0.0018 –
Hoops yielding stress fyh 420 MPa
Cable steel yielding stress fy,cab 1600 MPa

Table 4
Model updating parameters.
Definition Notation Units Initial value LB factor UB factor Updated value

Elastic modulus of concrete Econc kN/m2 3.08E+07 0.8 1.2 2.67E+07

Shear modulus of concrete Gconc kN/m2 1.23E+07 0.8 1.2 1.15E+07
Elastic modulus of deck spine Espine kN/m2 2.07E+08 0.9 1.1 2.13E+08
Density of steel ρsteel kg/m3 7849.8 0.9 1.1 7452.5
Density of concrete ρcon kg/m3 2403.0 0.9 1.1 2390.2
Area of deck spine Aspine m2 0.8344 0.8 1.2 0.9671
Flexural inertia of deck spine - horizontal axis Iz,spine m4 0.3409 0.7 1.3 0.3659
Flexural inertia of deck spine - vertical axis Iy,spine m4 19.76 0.7 1.3 16.32
Torsional inertial of deck spine Jspine m4 0.0261 0.7 1.3 0.0311
Elastic modulus of cables material Ecab kN/m2 2.00E+08 0.85 1.1 1.76E+08

4. Bridge optimisation using metamodels and PFFs
4.1. Input ground motions
This study considers the ground-motion suite developed by Baker
et al. [72] to account for earthquakes’ randomness and develop para­
meterised fragility functions. The suite includes 160 ground motion
records selected to create a “structure- and site-independent” suite.
Therefore, the presented results have general validity.
A more accurate and site-specific accelerograms selection should be
performed when implementing this procedure for actual structural
design; however, this lies beyond the scope of this work. PGV is selected
as the intensity measure because several studies have shown a better
correlation between this intensity measure and peak responses of cable-
stayed bridges (see, for instance, [73;74]).
4.2. Engineering demand parameters and damage states
To generate the design matrix, 160 realisations of the 15 design
variables are sampled through LHS and randomly paired with two
ground motions from the selected set. Therefore, 320 experimental
design rows are obtained. Nonlinear time-history analyses for each
design row are performed, recording the vulnerable components’ peak
responses (EDPs) indicators. These include: the maximum longitudinal
(Z) and transversal (X) curvature ductility μ of the towers T1 and T2 at
the four sensitive locations identified in Fig. 2b as 1–1, 2–2, 3–3, 4–4; the
drift ratio of the towers; the longitudinal displacement of the four sliding
bearings; the axial force ratio (AFR) in the 56 cables. Since the structure
is symmetric with respect to its centre, the response of symmetric
components is expected to be the same. In a probabilistic sense, this can
be translated into peak responses of symmetric components having the
same distribution. Therefore, for the sake of safety for design and in line
with the standard approach of designing for the worst possible scenario,
for each group of symmetric components, the EDP distribution with the
highest average value is selected and considered representative of the
group. In this way, 24 peak responses datasets are obtained, and the four
surrogate metamodels described in Section 2.2.3 are developed for each
of them.
Limit states thresholds for the selected EDPs are assumed to be
lognormal distributed with median seismic capacity Sc and coefficients
of variation CV shown in Table 5. These values are chosen following
previous literature on the fragility analysis of cable-stayed bridges
[53,54].
The tower’s cross sections damage is quantified in terms of curvature
ductility. The yielding curvature is obtained for each design row through
moment–curvature analysis of a fibre section; then, curvature ductility is
calculated by dividing the peak curvature response by the yielding
curvature. An additional demand parameter for the towers is the drift
ratio, defined as the modulus of the peak displacement at the top of the
tower divided by the tower height.
Regarding sliding bearings, the slight damage state relates to the
upper pad reaching the design displacement of 100 mm, while the
moderate damage state involves bearing unseating. For system-level
fragility, bearings are considered as secondary components, as dis­
cussed in Section 2.2.4, and therefore their EDPs only contribute to LS1
and LS2. The damage in the cables is quantified in terms of the Axial
Force Ratio (AFR), that is, the ratio between the peak tensile force in the
considered cable (over the time history) and the yielding tensile force.
The CVs of different damage states are assumed as 0.35 for all compo­
nents but cables, for which a value of 0.11 is considered [54]. The lower

10
A. Franchini et al.
Fig. 5. Finite element model updating: (a) sensitivity of eigenvalues to a 10% variation of updating parameters; (b) frequency error; (c) MAC number.
covariance value for cables reflects the reduced uncertainties in pre­
dicting steel and tension-only component response with respect to
concrete and concrete members.
4.3. Peak response metamodels
The Response Surface methodology is applied in this section to
generate metamodels of the recorded peak responses. Confidence that
the sampled design space reflects the feature of geometrical design
variables not being correlated is gained by analysing correlation co­
efficients. The results of such check are omitted for the sake of brevity
but can be found in the Supplementary Material.
The significance test described in Section 2.2.3 is implemented to
identify predictors which are not significant and can therefore be
removed before building higher-order metamodels. Such a process
resulted in eliminating the predictors X7 and X10. These parameters
correspond to the thickness of the lower strut (section D-D) and the
transverse reinforcement of section A-A (see Fig. 2), respectively. After
two removal steps, all the predictors are significant for at least one peak
response, and they are therefore kept to build more refined metamodels.
Fig. 8 compares the Adjusted R2 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
statistics for the generated meatamodels. They differ in terms of the
polynomial degree (first or second-order) and for the presence of
interaction terms with first-order predictors. The metamodel with the
highest Adjusted R2 is selected and adopted to sample peak responses at
11
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
the next step for each peak response. It can be observed that, in most
cases, the metamodel M4 (second-order polynomial with interaction
terms) provides the highest Adjusted R2 and is also associated with the
lowest values of RMSE.
The obtained values of goodness-of-fit measures are in line with
previous literature (e.g. [27]) and were regarded as appropriate for the
aim of this study. Meanwhile, using more advanced metamodels such as
Gaussian Process Regression [75] might provide a more accurate pre­
diction of cable-stayed bridge peak responses and should therefore be
considered for future research.
The lack of correlation between design variables in the design space
and the obtained values of goodness-of-fit measures confirm that the
generated sample size is appropriate for this study. However, in the
absence of these conditions, further sensitivity analyses on sample size
should be performed to get accurate simulation results.
4.4. Parameterised fragility functions
To generate PFFs, Nsim = 106 realisations of design variables are
sampled from their uniform distribution and paired to a PGV realisation.
The selected number of realisations derives from a sensitivity study
aimed at identifying the number of MCS that make the fragility functions
medians converge to a stable value. The PGV is also sampled from a
uniform distribution within the range PGV ∈ [0.01,2.5]m/s. Monte Carlo
simulation is then performed to build survival-failure vectors for bridge
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

1 1

0 Model-Deck side 1 0
Model-Deck side 2 Model-Deck side 1
-1 Test-Deck side 1 -1 Model-Deck side 2
Test-Deck side 2 Test-Deck side 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 Test-Deck
500 side 2

1 1
Model-Deck center Model-Deck center
Test-Deck center Test-Deck center

0 0

-1 -1
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

( a) (b)

1 1

0 0

-1 Model-Deck side 1 -1
Model-Deck side 1
Model-Deck side 2 Model-Deck side 2
0 100 200 300 400 Test-Deck
500 side 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 side 1
Test-Deck
Test-Deck side 2 Test-Deck side 2

1 1
Model-Deck center Model-Deck center
Test-Deck center Test-Deck center

0 0

-1 -1
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500

( c) (d)

-1 Model-Deck side 1
Model-Deck side 2
Test-Deck side 1
0 100 200 300 400 500
Test-Deck side 2

1
Model-Deck center
Test-Deck center

-1
0 100 200 300 400 500

(e) (f)
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and FEM modes. (a-c) first three vertical (V) modes; (d-f) first three transverse-torsional (TT) modes.

components: metamodels are applied to calculate Nsim realisations of
seismic EDPs, which are compared to realisations of limit state capac­
ities sampled from their lognormal distributions.
Vulnerable components are identified in Fig. 9a, whereas Fig. 9b
shows the sampled demands (D) and capacities (C) distributions. This
figure aids the identification of the most vulnerable components. With
respect to longitudinal curvature ductility demand, the most vulnerable
location in the towers is section 1–1 at the base (Z-11), whereas high
transversal curvatures demands are observed at sections 3–3 and 4–4 (Y-
33, Y-44). The tower drift is limited to lower damage states. Due to the

12
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Table 5
Definition of limit state capacity for different bridge components.
Component Demand parameter Limit states thresholds

LS1-Slight LS2-Moderate LS3-Extensive LS4-Collapse

Sc CV Sc CV Sc CV Sc CV

Tower Cross section curvature ductility 1 0.35 2 0.35 4 0.35 7 0.35

Tower Drift Ratio [%] 0.7 0.35 1.5 0.35 2.5 0.35 5 0.35
Bearing Long. displacement [mm] 100 0.35 600 0.35 – – – –
Cable Axial force ratio (AFR) 0.4 0.11 0.6 0.11 0.85 0.11 1 0.11

101
0.3

100 Ground motion suite

0.25 Median PGV

0.2
10-1

0.15
10-2
0.1
-3
10
0.05

10-4 0
10-2 10-1 100 101 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Ground motion suite details: (a) Response spectra; (b) PGV distribution.

1 1
M1
M2
M3
M4
0.5 0.5
M1
M2
M3
M4
0 0
Curv Y-11
Curv Z-11
Curv Z-22
Curv Z-33
Curv Z-44
Curv Y-22
Curv Y-33
Curv Y-44

Cab 1-28-29-56
Cab 2-27-30-55
Cab 3-26-31-54
Cab 4-25-32-53
Cab 5-24-33-52
Cab 6-23-34-51
Cab 7-22-35-50
Cab 8-21-36-49
Cab 9-20-37-48
Bearing
Drift

Cab 10-19-38-47
Cab 11-18-39-46
Cab 12-17-40-45
Cab 13-16-41-44
Cab 14-15-42-43

Curv Y-11
Curv Y-22
Curv Y-33
Curv Y-44
Drift
Curv Z-11
Curv Z-22
Curv Z-33
Curv Z-44

Bearing
Cab 1-28-29-56
Cab 2-27-30-55
Cab 3-26-31-54
Cab 4-25-32-53
Cab 5-24-33-52
Cab 6-23-34-51
Cab 7-22-35-50
Cab 8-21-36-49
Cab 9-20-37-48
Cab 10-19-38-47
Cab 11-18-39-46
Cab 12-17-40-45
Cab 13-16-41-44
Cab 14-15-42-43

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Goodness-of-fit measures (Adjusted R2 and RMSE) for the 24 peak responses.

peculiar deck-to-tower connection of this bridge that prevents the
relative displacement of the deck with respect to tower legs at some
distance above the lower strut, the bearings do not represent vulnerable
components in this specific case. Indeed, Fig. 9b shows that the bearings
are likely only to enter the slight damage state. On the other hand, such a
design choice places higher demand on the tower legs where the deck
displacement is constrained.
Looking at the plots for cables’ AFR in Fig. 9b, it is clear that cables
(1, 28, 29, 56) exhibit a low probability of entering even the slight
damage state. On the contrary, cables (5, 24, 33, 52), (6,23,34,51), (9,
20, 37, 48) and (10, 19, 38, 47) are more vulnerable, although they also
show a low probability of entering higher damage states. The cross-
sectional area of all these cables corresponds to the design variable
X15. The reason why cables might easily enter the slight damage state in
case of an earthquake is that they are prestressed to a level close to the
correspondent limit state threshold.
By comparing each realisation of capacity and demand, a survival-
failure vector is built for each component and each damage state, and
logistic regression is applied to estimate the coefficients of the corre­
sponding fragility curve. Furthermore, based on the series assumption
for system-level fragility, a system-level survival-failure vector is also
built, and logistic regression is applied to estimate the relevant fragility
functions. Regression coefficients can be found in the Supplementary
Material.
Conventional components’ fragility functions, conditioned on the IM
only and typically used for assessment, can be obtained by setting all the

13
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Fig. 9. Vulnerable components in the bridge: (a) identification; (b) sampled distributions of demands (D) and capacity (C) for peak responses and different limit
states (LS). AFR=Axial Force Ratio. For curvature ductility, Z=longitudinal, Y=transversal.

bridge design variables to their reference value and calculating the
probability of failure at increasing levels of PGV. The resulting curves
are plotted in Fig. 10. Section 1-1 is identified as the most vulnerable
location for longitudinal curvature, whereas the same consideration for
section 3–3 and 4–4 is relevant for the transversal curvature. As ex­
pected from the peak responses’ distributions in Fig. 9b, the bearings
exhibit a low probability of damage; drift-induced damage to the towers
is also characterised by a low probability over the IM domain. Similar
behaviour is observed for cables at moderate, extensive and collapse
damage states. On the other hand, these components reveal to enter the
slight damage state easily; as discussed above, this is due to the prestress
level.
Fig. 11 presents system-level fragility functions for the Quincy Bay­
view bridge. The high probability of the system entering the slight

14
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

1 1
Curv Z-11 - LS1 Curv Z-33 - LS1 Curv Y-11 - LS1 Curv Y-33 - LS1
Curv Z-11 - LS2 Curv Z-33 - LS2 Curv Y-11 - LS2 Curv Y-33 - LS2
Curv Z-11 - LS3 Curv Z-33 - LS3 Curv Y-11 - LS3 Curv Y-33 - LS3
0.8 0.8 Curv Y-11 - LS4 Curv Y-33 - LS4
Curv Z-11 - LS4 Curv Z-33 - LS4
Curv Z-22 - LS1 Curv Z-44 - LS1 Curv Y-22 - LS1 Curv Y-44 - LS1
Curv Z-22 - LS2 Curv Z-44 - LS2 Curv Y-22 - LS2 Curv Y-44 - LS2
Curv Y-22 - LS3 Curv Y-44 - LS3
0.6 Curv Z-22 - LS3 Curv Z-44 - LS3 0.6 Curv Y-22 - LS4 Curv Y-44 - LS4
Curv Z-22 - LS4 Curv Z-44 - LS4

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(a) (b)
1 1
Drift - LS1 Bearing - LS1
Drift - LS2 Bearing - LS2 Cab 1-28-29-56 - LS1 Cab 8-21-36-49 - LS1
Drift - LS3 Bearing - LS3 Cab 2-27-30-55 - LS1 Cab 9-20-37-48 - LS1
0.8 Drift - LS4 Bearing - LS4 0.8 Cab 3-26-31-54 - LS1 Cab 10-19-38-47 - LS1
Cab 4-25-32-53 - LS1 Cab 11-18-39-46 - LS1
Cab 5-24-33-52 - LS1 Cab 12-17-40-45 - LS1
Cab 6-23-34-51 - LS1 Cab 13-16-41-44 - LS1
0.6 0.6 Cab 7-22-35-50 - LS1 Cab 14-15-42-43 - LS1

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(c)
1 1
Cab 1-28-29-56 - LS2
Cab 2-27-30-55 - LS2
Cab 3-26-31-54 - LS2
0.8 Cab 4-25-32-53 - LS2
Cab 5-24-33-52 - LS2
Cab 6-23-34-51 - LS2
Cab 7-22-35-50 - LS2
0.6
0.4
0.2
Cab 8-21-36-49 - LS2
Cab 9-20-37-48 - LS2
Cab 10-19-38-47 - LS2
Cab 11-18-39-46 - LS2
Cab 12-17-40-45 - LS2
Cab 13-16-41-44 - LS2
Cab 14-15-42-43 - LS2
(d)
Cab 1-28-29-56 - LS3
Cab 1-28-29-56 - LS4
Cab 2-27-30-55 - LS3
0.8 Cab 2-27-30-55 - LS4
Cab 3-26-31-54 - LS3
Cab 3-26-31-54 - LS4
Cab 4-25-32-53 - LS3
0.6
Cab 4-25-32-53 - LS4
Cab 5-24-33-52 - LS3
Cab 5-24-33-52 - LS4
0.4 Cab 6-23-34-51 - LS3
Cab 6-23-34-51 - LS4
Cab 7-22-35-50 - LS3
Cab 7-22-35-50 - LS4
0.2
Cab 8-21-36-49 - LS3
Cab 8-21-36-49 - LS4
Cab 9-20-37-48 - LS3
Cab 9-20-37-48 - LS4
Cab 10-19-38-47 - LS3
Cab 10-19-38-47 - LS4
Cab 11-18-39-46 - LS3
Cab 11-18-39-46 - LS4
Cab 12-17-40-45 - LS3
Cab 12-17-40-45 - LS4
Cab 13-16-41-44 - LS3
Cab 13-16-41-44 - LS4
Cab 14-15-42-43 - LS3
Cab 14-15-42-43 - LS4

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

(e) (f)
Fig. 10. Fragility functions for reference Quincy Bayview Bridge components: (a) longitudinal curvature ductility; (b) transversal curvature ductility; (c) tower drift
and bearing displacement; (d) cables at slight damage state; (e) cables at moderate damage state; (f) cables at extensive and collapse damage state.

damage state is due to the combined effect of a high probability of
damage in terms of both curvature ductility (section 1–1, section 3–3)
and cables AFR. In this respect, the optimisation strategies proposed in
Section 2.5 allow a designer to control the probability of a system
entering selected damage states.
4.5. Design space exploration
4.5.1. Effect of single design variable variation on damage probability
Following the procedure outlined in Section 2.4, this section in­
vestigates the effect of a 10% variation of each significant design vari­
able Xi on the DVs. Xi are varied one at a time while keeping the others at
their reference value, and the percentage variation of the considered DV
is calculated.

15
A. Franchini et al.
1 their cross-section (design variable X12) makes the structure stiffer and
0.8
LS1 - Slight
LS2 - Moderate
0.6 LS3 - Extensive
LS4 - Collapse
0.4
0.2
0 particularly that of the upper strut (section C-C), controls the coupling
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fig. 11. System-level fragility functions for Quincy Bayview Bridge (refer­
ence case).
Table 6
Damage ratios for the calculation of the repair cost distribution [22].
Component Damage state
DS1 - Slight DS2 - Moderate DS3 - Extensive DS4 - Collapse
Bearing 0.04 0.10 0.50 1.00
Pylon 0.03 0.08 0.25 1.00
Cable 0.03 0.08 0.25 1.00
The damage ratios implemented to calculate the probability distri­
bution of the repair cost RC are provided in Table 6 [22]. To calculate
such distribution, the probability density of the PGV at the construction
site is required. Without loss of generality, the PGVs of the selected
accelerograms suite are assumed to represent the occurrence of earth­
quakes at the construction site. A lognormal distribution is fitted to these
values and used to sample 1000 realisations of PGV. The probability
distribution of RC is then obtained by calculating its value for each PGV
realisation. Eventually, its 95th percentile RC95 is obtained.
Results of the sensitivity study are reported in Fig. 12a-b. Fig. 12c
provides the layout of the investigated design variables. Each bar rep­
resents the effect of the variation of the design variable listed on the
vertical axis on the left: blue bars refer to 10% decreased design vari­
ables, while red bars to 10% increased variables.
Concerning Fig. 12a, the probability of the structure exceeding a
damage state decreases if the PGV moves rightwards, whereas the
opposite happens for a leftwards variation. The yielding curvature of a
RC cross-section is inversely proportional to its size perpendicular to the
neutral axis. Accordingly, reducing the depth of sections A-A and B-B
(design variables X1, X2) reduces the stiffness of the towers and hence
increases the value of PGV for slight damage state, and, given its sig­
nificant contribution to system-level fragility (see Fig. 10a), the proba­
bility of the system entering the same damage state.
The other components with significant contribution to the first
system-level damage state are the cables. Fig. 10d shows that the most
vulnerable cables are the symmetric groups including cables (5,6,9,10).
The cross-sectional area of all these cables corresponds to the design
variable X15, whose variation has the most significant influence on LS1.
In particular, increasing the area of these cables reduces their AFR,
making it more difficult to enter the slight damage state. Fig. 10e-f also
reveals that cables contribution to higher damage states reduces; how­
ever, Fig. 12a shows that they remain among the most critical compo­
nents. This fact can be explained by considering that cable-stayed
bridges are highly redundant structures in which each cable affects the
distribution of forces within the other components.
Backstay cables are more critical for higher limit states. Increasing
16
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
constrains the top displacement of the tower, attracting more force in
this component. Consequently, reducing their size also reduces the
damage probability at tower sections. An increase in the struts’ depth
(design variable X4) improves system-level performance at all damage
states because of the higher stiffness it yields to the towers in the
transversal direction. At lower damage states, such an effect is the
opposite with respect to the design variables X1 and X2 because the
struts sections C-C and D-D are required to remain in the elastic regime.
It is also interesting to investigate the effect of the struts’ thickness
(design variable X6), which determines their torsional stiffness. This
parameter shows the highest effect on the AMPGV, which increases (less
vulnerable structure) if X6 reduces. The struts’ torsional stiffness,
between the two legs and their dynamic flexural properties, affecting the
vibrational periods of the overall structure. More in detail, a greater
thickness makes the tower stiffer and the flexural vibration period
smaller, with corresponding greater amplification of the seismic input
and therefore greater demands at the critical sections of the legs.
An overall look at Fig. 12a reveals that increasing the value of certain
design variables might have opposite effects on system-level fragility at
the different damage states. For instance, regarding the cross-sectional
dimensions of the towers (design variables X1, X2), an increase in
their size increases the likelihood of exceeding the slight and moderate
limit state (LS1, LS2), whose thresholds are close (see Table 5): this
higher vulnerability for low damage states is due to the above consid­
erations on the yielding curvature. However, such an increase makes the
towers (and the overall structure) stiffer, reducing the seismic demand
placed upon other components at the higher limit states. Therefore, the
probability of the system entering higher damage states reduces.
The above considerations confirm the complex response of highly
redundant structures such as cable-stayed bridges; indeed, changing the
properties of a member can affect the whole structural performance.
Furthermore, the process through which this occurs is not easily gen­
eralisable and depends on the considered performance measure. Thus,
the outcomes presented in Fig. 12a are powerful tools to aid the de­
signer’s understanding of the role that different design variables play in
reducing the probability of the bridge system exceeding a limit state.
Fig. 12b depicts the effect of single-parameters variation on different
decision variables which refer to the cost. As expected, the construction
material cost C0 decreases with any design variable doing the same; the
highest contribution relates to concrete sections dimensions.
Conversely, cables exhibit a negligible contribution. When RC95 is
considered, it can be observed that the design variables X1, X2, X3, X6,
X12, X14, X15 have an effect consistent with what was observed for the
initial cost C0: their reduction also reduces the repair cost. However, it is
interesting to observe that the increment of the parameters X4, X5, X8
and X13, albeit increasing C0, reduces the repair cost. This effect relates
to those parameters reducing the damage probability for the bridge
structure and competes with the requirements to control the initial
material cost. Such observation reveals the necessity to solve a trade-off
in controlling C0 and RC. Alternatively, the construction and repair
costs, CRC, can be considered in a single optimisation function. C0
dominates this DV because of its higher value with respect to the repair
cost (as shown in Section 4.6 below).
On the other hand, the competing demands between C0 and RC95 for
some design variables make them less influential for the CRC, as can be
observed for the cross-sectional dimensions of section C-C (X4 and X5).
It is also relevant to note that, despite the negligible contribution cables’
cross-section provide to the initial material cost of this structure, they
appear among the most contributing parameters for RC95. Fig. 12b also
highlights competing demands placed on design variables by AMPGV
and CRC. In particular, it is possible to observe that changing some of the
design variables to maximize AMPGV would also increase the value of
CRC, as shown by design variables from X1, X3, X4 and X5.
Overall, Fig. 12 highlights the conflicting contribution of the selected
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

X15
X14
X13
X12
X11
X9
X8
X6
X5
X4
X3
X2
X1
Xi decreased by 10%
Xi increased by 10%

-50 0 50 -50 0 50 -50 0 50 -50 0 50 -10 0 10

(a)

X15
X14
X13
X12
X11
X9
X8
X6
X5
X4
X3
X2
X1
Xi decreased by 10%
Xi increased by 10%

-5 0 5 -20 0 20 -5 0 5

(b) (c )
Fig. 12. Effect of single design variable variation on performance measures: (a) on the median PGV (PGV) of the bridge at different damage states and on the average
median PGV (AMPGV); (b) on cost metrics: construction material cost C0, 95th percentile of repair cost distribution RC95, and Construction and Repair Cost CRC; (c)
identification of design variables.

design variables in determining different system-level performance
measures, in the sense that increasing the value of a design variable
might positively affect a performance objective while worsening others.
In other words, design variables reveal a conflicting influence when
their variation positively affects one or more DVs while deteriorating
other DVs. Consistently, design optimisation represents the most effec­
tive way to find a combination of design variables that achieves the
desired performances while satisfying short- and long-term economic
constraints.
4.5.2. Pairwise effect of design variables
To further investigate the conflicting or conflating effects of design
variables on the system performance, tile plots (see Section 2.4) are
produced for pair of variables. In particular, the change in median peak
ground velocity for system-level slight and extensive damage states
(PGV LS1 ,PGV LS3 ) is studied. The results are reported in Fig. 13. Each tile
represents the variation of PGV LSi versus the two statistically significant
design variables listed on the vertical and horizontal overall axes. All
plots are set to the same PGV scale. Vertical and horizontal gradients
mean poor interaction between the variables, positive slope shows in­
verse interaction, and negative slope shows direct interaction.
Among the wide range of information that might be obtained from
these plots, the following overall observations are drawn:
• In line with Fig. 12, cables parameters are the most affecting pa­
rameters for the slight damage state; in particular, the interaction
with the shorter cables (cross-sectional area X15) is the most
influencing.
• At higher damage states (LS3 observed in Fig. 13b), the contribution
of other design variables becomes significant, and the tile contour
lines variation is more dynamic than at lower damage states. The
shorter cables (X15) and backstays (X12) exhibit impactful interac­
tion with the other design variables; the thickness of the upper strut
beam (X6) and section A-A longitudinal reinforcement (X8) also
stand out. A unique ’best’ choice for each of these parameters (i.e.
maximizing or minimizing them) cannot be identified and depends
on the choice taken for all the other parameters.
• Conflicting trends with respect to the single-design variable sensi­
tivity study (Fig. 12) can be identified, highlighting that the design
updating process must also consider parameters interaction. For
example, Fig. 12a suggests that, to increase PGV LS3 , X6 (struts
thickness) should be decreased and X8 (section A-A’s longitudinal
reinforcement) increased. The opposite requirement can be identi­
fied from the X6-X8 tile in Fig. 13b. This effect can be explained by
observing that an increase in the flexural reinforcement X8 balances
the effect of the increase of strut’s thickness X6, causing higher
flexural demand on the critical tower sections, by increasing the
ultimate bending moment capacity of the same sections and

17
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

[m/s]
X2 45 0.15

X3
40
X4

X15 [cm2]
0.1

X5 35

X6 0.05
30

X8
25
X9 40 45 50 55 60 65
0

X14 [cm2]
X11

X12
X13
X14
X15
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X8 X9 X11 X12 X13 X14
(a)

[m/s]
45 2.8

X2 2.6

2.4
40
X3 2.2
X15 [cm2]

2
X4 35
1.8

X5 1.6
30
1.4
X6
1.2
25
X8 1
40 45 50 55 60 65

X9 X14 [cm2]

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X8 X9 X11 X12 X13 X14

Fig. 13. Median peak ground velocity PGV landscape for: (a) system-level slight damage state (LS1); (b) system-level extensive damage state (LS3).

therefore reducing the likelihood of these sections exceeding higher
damage states.
The pairwise effect analysis reveals that the competing demand
placed on design variables also depends on variables interaction.
Therefore, numerical optimisation is advised to identify the optimal
combination of design variables that also account for interaction effects.
Further support to this statement is lent by the observation that
seismic input in complex structures as cable-stayed bridges leads to
nonconvex or even nonconnected behaviour. In this respect, the varia­
tion of the selected design variables might cause a shift from a structure
with higher curvature ductility demand placed on tower sections to
another structure with higher stress in cables. For instance, Fig. 14
(obtained for a PGV = 1.0 m/s) shows a nonconvex response surface of
the curvature demand at section 1–1 and the AFR for cables (6, 23, 34,
51) with respect to section B-B depth and thickness (X1, X3). Different
combinations of these variables lead to different structural behaviours,
in which either curvature ductility or cable stresses govern structural
failure. As proved in the next section, numerical optimisation can indi­
rectly identify the ideal structural behaviour for the chosen design
objectives.
4.6. Surrogate-based optimisation
The design space exploration performed in Section 4.5 revealed
competing demands placed upon the same design variable by different
decision variables and the crucial role that design variables interaction
plays in determining them. Thus, the optimisation strategies

18
A. Franchini et al. Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949

Fig. 14. Peak response surfaces.
summarized in Table 1 are applied in this section to compute optimal
design variable combinations. Case study-specific constraint conditions
are described before presenting the optimisation results.
The constraint LB ≤ X ≤ UB for the space of design variables listed
in Table 2, which was adopted for experimental design, are held for
optimisation. In terms of damage control performances, Fig. 11 shows
that the bridge system presents a high probability of entering the slight
damage state even for low levels of PGV (PGV LS1 = 0.03m/s). The
analysis of Fig. 9b and Fig. 10d, as well as the sensitivity study of Section
4.5, revealed that such low value is mainly due to cables prestressing
level. As discussed in Section 2.5, it was chosen to constrain PGV LS1 to be
no less than 0.25 m/s, value which approximates the median PGV at the
construction site (see Fig. 7b). When the AMPGV is not the object of
optimisation, its value is constrained to be no less than the AMPGV of the
performance of the bridge designed using the reference values in Table 2
(AMPGV ref = 2.29m/s). A similar consideration was made for C0 : in
Strategy #1 and #2, its value is constrained not to exceed the con­
struction material cost of the reference structure C0,ref = 39€M. Finally,
the most critical locations for buckling check are sections 3–3 and 4–4 in
Fig. 2b, for which appropriate boundary conditions were set.
The formulated problems are solved through the optimisation
toolbox of the MATLAB software [71] as constrained nonlinear multi­
variable problems. More in detail, the function ‘fmincon’, which im­
plements a sequential quadratic programming method, is used for
single-objective strategies (#1 to #3). ‘paretosearch’ is instead imple­
mented to solve the multi-objective optimisation problem (Strategy #4)
and obtain the Pareto front through pattern search.
Table 7 and Fig. 15a summarize the optimal values X* of the design
variables for each single-objective optimisation strategy. Results are

Table 7
Ratios between optimal design values and Quincy (reference) values.
Design Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X8 X9 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15

Case Optimal value Xi*/Reference value Xireference

Upper bound 1.30 1.30 1.14 1.30 1.30 2.00 1.45 1.45 1.50 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
Lower bound 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.70 0.70 1.25 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
Quincy, reference 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Strategy #1 0.70 0.70 1.14 1.30 1.30 1.25 1.45 0.55 1.50 0.70 1.30 1.30 0.70
Strategy #2 0.70 0.70 0.71 1.30 1.23 1.25 1.45 1.45 1.44 0.70 1.23 0.88 0.84
Strategy #3 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.70 0.70 1.25 1.45 0.94 1.50 0.70 1.24 1.25 1.00

2 10 40
C_0 [M €]

8 30
6
20
1.5 4
2 10
0 0
Ref. #1 #2 #3 Ref. #1 #2 #3
1

3
40
RC_95 [M €]

CRC [M €]

0.5 2 30
Upper and Lower Bound Strategy #2
Quincy (reference) Strategy #3 20
1
0 Strategy #1 10
0 0
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X8
X9
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15

Ref. #1 #2 #3 Ref. #1 #2 #3 Ref.

(a) ( b)
Fig. 15. Single-objective optimisation results: (a) optimal design variables; (b) optimal value of decision variables.

Table 8
Single-objective optimisation results. Values in brackets represent the percentual variation of the decision variable with respect to the reference structure.
Case Objective Decision Variables

PGVLS1 [m/s] AMPGV [m/s] C0 [€ M] RC95 [€ M] CRC [€ M]

Quincy (reference) – 0.03 2.29 38.88 2.51 41.39

Strategy #1 Maximise AMPGV 0.25 10.28 (+348.15%) 32.27 (-17.00%) 0.64 (-74.56%) 32.91 (-20.49%)
Strategy #2 Minimise Repair Cost RC95 0.25 6.79 (+195.92%) 29.42 (-24.34%) 0.31 (-87.81%) 29.72 (-28.19%)
Strategy #3 Minimise Construction and Repair cost CRC 0.25 2.29 (-0.00%) 23.97 (-38.35%) 0.78 (-68.83%) 24.75 (-40.20%)

19
A. Franchini et al.
2 Feasible region
1.5
1
0.5
Upper and Lower Bound
Quincy (reference)
Pareto optimal solutions
0
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X8
X9
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15
( a)
Fig. 16. Results of Strategy #4 for multi-objective optimisation: (a) Pareto optimal solution design variables; (c) Pareto front and comparison with single-objective
optimisation strategies.
presented as ratios of the reference values. The obtained DVs are instead
listed in Table 8, with the difference from the reference case tabulated in
percentage. The DVs are also plotted in Fig. 15b.
From Fig. 15a, it can be observed that the three strategies led to the
lowest values of the external dimensions of the tower leg cross-sections
(design variables X1, X2). This can be explained considering that their
reduction decreases cost-related DVs (Fig. 12b) while increasing PGV LS1
and having limited contribution to AMPGV (Fig. 12a). In addition,
Strategy #1 and #2 increased the strusts’ gross section dimensions (X4,
X5) to control the considered damage probabilities better. Conversely,
X4 and X5 were reduced in Strategy #3, which is consistent with their
observed effect from Fig. 12b. More variability can be observed in
optimal cables’ cross-sections (design variables X12 to X15).
Strategy #1 achieved the highest system-level safety, increasing
AMPGV by 3.5 times with respect to the reference structure; meanwhile,
the approach entailed the highest construction material cost and highest
construction and repair cost among the optimised configurations.
Strategy #2 reduced the direct economic losses in case of an earthquake
(RC95 ) by 87.81% while containing the initial investment within the set
budget. Finally, Strategy #3 decreased CRC by 40.20%.
Fig. 12 revealed competing demands placed on design variables by
AMGV and CRC. Therefore, a multi-objective optimisation with pattern
search was implemented (Strategy #4) to identify optimal design vari­
able configurations and the Pareto front depicted in Fig. 16. Linear
interpolation between optimal points is assumed. The same figure also
reports the performance metrics points resulting from single-objective
optimisation strategies.
Comparing Fig. 15a and Fig. 16a, it emerges that all the strategies
minimize the gross section dimensions of the tower leg (X1, X2) and the
area of backstay cables (X12). Such a combination minimises the cost
while reducing damage probability at the tower section (see discussion
in Section 4.5.1). Still regarding cables, the sensitivity study of Section
4.5 revealed that the cross-sectional areas X12 and X15 are critical for
system-level performance and that their simultaneous reduction vastly
increase higher damage states’ medians (Fig. 13). Consistently, all
optimal solutions reduced the cross-sections of these two cables to
maximise AMPGV. However, Pareto optimal solutions exhibit a higher
variability for the other variables, uncovering solutions that couldn’t be
found through single-objective optimisation strategies.
In Fig. 16b, single-objective optimisation results from Strategy #1
and #3 lay at the extremes of the Pareto front and were used as initial
points. On the other hand, the results of Strategy #2, whose purpose was
to minimize the 95th percentile of repair cost distribution, lay close to
the front and falls within the feasible region. Thus, Fig. 16b shows that
20
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
34
Pareto Front (Strategy #4)
32 Strategy #1
Strategy #2
Strategy #3
CRC [M €]
30
28
26
24
2 4 6 8 10
(b)
using the minimization of repair cost (Strategy #3), albeit not yielding a
dominant solution in terms of CRC and AMPGV, gives a good trade-off
between safety and cost.
Overall, the multi-objective approach provides a broader set of
optimal parameters configurations, among which a decision-maker
might select the one which suits most based on subjective criteria.
A general look at the results of Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 proves that nu­
merical optimisation algorithms represent an effective way to deal with
competing demands placed upon cable-stayed bridges’ design variables
by different performance metrics when considering seismic design. In
addition, surrogate metamodeling and PFFs aided computational effi­
ciency, making the proposed approach valuable for optimising these
structures.
5. Conclusions
This paper proposed a computationally efficient methodology for the
probabilistic optimisation of cable-stayed bridges in earthquake-prone
regions. In particular, it demonstrated how surrogate models and par­
ameterised fragility functions can be implemented in the PEER-PBEE
framework for design space exploration and optimisation. The ach­
ieved results yield the following conclusions:
• Parameterised fragility functions represent a computationally effi­
cient tool to define probabilistic decision variables that can be used
for design space exploration and optimisation of cable-stayed
bridges. Four optimisation strategies were proposed to minimize
damage probability, construction cost and seismic damage-induced
repair cost.
• As a case study, a 542 m three-span cable-stayed bridge was
considered, and its modelling parameters were updated to match
values of dynamic properties measured by an experimental
campaign. This enabled improvement of the FE model’s architecture,
thereby enhancing confidence that the FE predictions forming the
core of the fragility study are reliable and that the proposed strate­
gies can be applied to design new structures.
• Surrogate-based sensitivity analysis revealed conflicting demands
placed on geometrical design variables (towers’ cross-section, rein­
forcement, cables’ area) by different DVs and the crucial importance
of accounting for design variables interaction when making choices
on design updating.
A. Franchini et al.
• Numerical optimisation strategies are recommended to better deal
with conflicting demands and variables interaction. Through single-
objective optimisation (Strategy #1 to #3), a 348% increment of the
AMPGV, an 88% reduction of repair cost, and a 40% decrease of CRC
were achieved. On the other hand, Strategy #4 was used to obtain a
set of Pareto optimal design variable combinations that simulta­
neously optimize AMPGV and CRC. The minimization of repair cost
yields a good trade-off between safety and cost DVs.
This study addressed the self-weight and earthquake load case,
which was assumed to dominate other load cases. Meanwhile, the
complete design of cable-stayed bridges should also consider additional
constraint conditions to control components serviceability and guar­
antee safety for other loads. Thus, the proposed procedure sets the basis
for further and more accurate developments in the framework of multi-
hazard design.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the Maurice Franses Memorial Trust and
that of UCL’s Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engi­
neering are greatly acknowledged. The support of UCL high-
performance computing power is also appreciated.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113949.
References
[1] Camara A. Seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges: A review. Medcrave Online
Journal of Civil Engineering 2018;4(3):161–9.
[2] Filiatrault A, Tinawi R, Massicotte B. Damage to cable-stayed bridge during 1988
Saguenay earthquake. I: Pseudostatic analysis. J Struct Eng 1993;119(5):1432–49.
[3] Chang K-C, et al. Lessons learned from the damaged Chi-Lu cable-stayed bridge.
J Bridge Eng 2004;9(4):343–52.
[4] Siringoringo DM, Fujino Y. Observed dynamic performance of the Yokohama-Bay
Bridge from system identification using seismic records. Structural Control and
Health Monitoring: The Official Journal of the International Association for
Structural Control and Monitoring and of the European Association for the Control
of Structures 2006;13(1):226–44.
[5] Bruneau M, Wilson JC, Tremblay R. Performance of steel bridges during the 1995
Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe, Japan) earthquake. Can J Civ Eng 1996;23(3):678–713.
[6] Gehl P, D’Ayala D. Development of Bayesian Networks for the multi-hazard
fragility assessment of bridge systems. Struct Saf 2016;60:37–46.
[7] Gehl P, D’Ayala D. System loss assessment of bridge networks accounting for multi-
hazard interactions. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2018;14(10):1355–71.
[8] Martins AMB, Simões LMC, Negrão JHJO. Optimization of cable-stayed bridges: A
literature survey. Adv Eng Softw 2020;149:102829.
[9] Camara A, Efthymiou E. Deck–tower interaction in the transverse seismic response
of cable-stayed bridges and optimum configurations. Eng Struct 2016;124:
494–506.
[10] Ferreira F, Simões L. Synthesis of three dimensional controlled cable-stayed bridges
subject to seismic loading. Comput Struct 2020;226:106137.
[11] Ferreira FLS, Simoes LMC. Optimum design of a controlled cable stayed bridge
subject to earthquakes. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2011;44(4):517–28.
[12] Simões LMC, Negrão JHJO. Optimization of cable-stayed bridges subjected to
earthquakes with non-linear behaviour. Eng Optim 1999;31(4):457–78.
[13] Martins AMB, Simões LMC, Negrão JHJO. Optimization of concrete cable-stayed
bridges under seismic action. Comput Struct 2019;222:36–47.
[14] Ang A-S. Life-cycle considerations in risk-informed decisions for design of civil
infrastructures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2011;7(1–2):3–9.
[15] SEAOC, Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. 1995:
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento (CA).
[16] Mackie, K. and B. Stojadinovic. Fragility curves for reinforced concrete highway
overpass bridges. in 13th World conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver BC,
Canada.
21
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
[17] Moehle, J. and G.G. Deierlein. A framework methodology for performance-based
earthquake engineering. in 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
2004. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[18] Günay S, Mosalam KM. PEER performance-based earthquake engineering
methodology, revisited. J Earthquake Eng 2013;17(6):829–58.
[19] Shama A, Jones M. Seismic Performance-Based Design of Cable-Supported Bridges:
State of Practice in the United States. J Bridge Eng 2020;25(12):04020101.
[20] Wu W, Li L, Shao X. Seismic assessment of medium-span concrete cable-stayed
bridges using the component and system fragility functions. J Bridge Eng 2016;21
(6):04016027.
[21] Zhong J, et al. System-based probabilistic optimization of fluid viscous dampers
equipped in cable-stayed bridges. Adv Struct Eng 2018;21(12):1815–25.
[22] Wen J, et al. Performance-based seismic design and optimization of damper
devices for cable-stayed bridge. Eng Struct 2021;237:112043.
[23] Xie Y, Zhang J. Optimal design of seismic protective devices for highway bridges
using performance-based methodology and multiobjective genetic optimization.
J Bridge Eng 2017;22(3):04016129.
[24] Zhong J, et al. Risk-informed sensitivity analysis and optimization of seismic
mitigation strategy using Gaussian process surrogate model. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 2020;138:106284.
[25] Wei B, et al. System-based probabilistic evaluation of longitudinal seismic control
for a cable-stayed bridge with three super-tall towers. Eng Struct 2021;229:
111586.
[26] Seo J, Linzell DG. Horizontally curved steel bridge seismic vulnerability
assessment. Eng Struct 2012;34:21–32.
[27] Ghosh J, Padgett JE, Dueñas-Osorio L. Surrogate modeling and failure surface
visualization for efficient seismic vulnerability assessment of highway bridges.
Probab Eng Mech 2013;34:189–99.
[28] Dukes, J.D., Application of bridge specific fragility analysis in the seismic design process
of bridges in California. 2013, (Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology).
[29] Ghosh J, et al. Seismic reliability assessment of aging highway bridge networks
with field instrumentation data and correlated failures, I: Methodology.
Earthquake Spectra 2014;30(2):795–817.
[30] Rokneddin K, et al. Seismic reliability assessment of aging highway bridge
networks with field instrumentation data and correlated failures, II: Application.
Earthquake Spectra 2014;30(2):819–43.
[31] Mangalathu S, Heo G, Jeon J-S. Artificial neural network based multi-dimensional
fragility development of skewed concrete bridge classes. Eng Struct 2018;162:
166–76.
[32] Mangalathu S, Jeon JS, DesRoches R. Critical uncertainty parameters influencing
seismic performance of bridges using Lasso regression. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2018;47(3):784–801.
[33] Mangalathu S, Jeon JS. Stripe-based fragility analysis of multispan concrete bridge
classes using machine learning techniques. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2019;48
(11):1238–55.
[34] Jeon J-S, et al. Parameterized seismic fragility curves for curved multi-frame
concrete box-girder bridges using Bayesian parameter estimation. J Earthquake
Eng 2019;23(6):954–79.
[35] Dukes J, et al. Development of a bridge-specific fragility methodology to improve
the seismic resilience of bridges. Earthquakes and Structures 2018;15(3):253–61.
[36] Kameshwar S, Padgett JE. Multi-hazard risk assessment of highway bridges
subjected to earthquake and hurricane hazards. Eng Struct 2014;78:154–66.
[37] Kameshwar S, Padgett JE. Effect of vehicle bridge interaction on seismic response
and fragility of bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2018;47(3):697–713.
[38] Gehl, P. and D. D’Ayala. Integrated multi-hazard framework for the fragility
analysis of roadway bridges. in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP12). 2015.
Vancouver, Canada.
[39] Kildashti K, et al. Drive-by-bridge inspection for damage identification in a cable-
stayed bridge: Numerical investigations. Eng Struct 2020;223:110891.
[40] Sebastian WM, Johnson M. Interpretation of sensor data from in situ tests on a
transversely bonded fibre-reinforced polymer road bridge. Structural Health
Monitoring 2019;18(4):1074–91.
[41] Li Y, Conte JP, Gill PE. Probabilistic performance-based optimum seismic design
framework: illustration and validation. Computer Modeling in Engineering &
Sciences 2019;120(3):517–43.
[42] Padgett JE, DesRoches R. Methodology for the development of analytical fragility
curves for retrofitted bridges. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2008;37(8):1157–74.
[43] D’Ayala, D., et al., Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of low/mid-rise
Buildings—Methodology. Vulnerability Global Component project. 2014, GEM
Technical Report.
[44] Simpson TW, et al. Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and
recommendations. Engineering with Computers 2001;17(2):129–50.
[45] Forrester, A., A. Sobester, and A. Keane, Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a
practical guide. 2008: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[46] McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting
values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code.
Technometrics 2000;42(1):55–61.
[47] Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J Roy
Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol) 1951;13(1):1–38.
[48] Li H, et al. Seismic fragility assessment framework for highway bridges based on an
improved uniform design-response surface model methodology. Bull Earthq Eng
2020;18(5):2329–53.
[49] Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges using
a component level approach. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36(6):823–39.
A. Franchini et al.
[50] Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT. HAZUS earthquake loss estimation
methods. Nat Hazard Rev 2006;7(2):45–59.
[51] Cornell CA, et al. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management
agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 2002;128(4):526–33.
[52] Dueñas-Osorio L, Padgett JE. Seismic reliability assessment of bridges with user-
defined system failure events. J Eng Mech 2011;137(10):680–90.
[53] Pang Y, et al. Seismic fragility analysis of cable-stayed bridges considering different
sources of uncertainties. J Bridge Eng 2014;19(4):04013015.
[54] Li C, et al. Seismic fragility analyses of sea-crossing cable-stayed bridges subjected
to multi-support ground motions on offshore sites. Eng Struct 2018;165:441–56.
[55] Nocedal, J. and S. Wright, Numerical optimization. 2006: Springer Science &
Business Media.
[56] Pang Y, He W, Zhong J. Risk-based design and optimization of shape memory alloy
restrained sliding bearings for highway bridges under near-fault ground motions.
Eng Struct 2021;241:112421.
[57] Awad, M. and R. Khanna, Efficient learning machines: theories, concepts, and
applications for engineers and system designers. 2015: Springer nature.
[58] Wilson JC, Gravelle W. Modelling of a cable-stayed bridge for dynamic analysis.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20(8):707–21.
[59] Santos CAN, et al. Structural optimization of two-girder composite cable-stayed
bridges under dead and live loads. Can J Civ Eng 2020;47(8):939–53.
[60] Casado, A.C., Seismic behaviour of cable-stayed bridges: design, analysis and seismic
devices. 2011, (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid).
[61] Hassan MM, El Damatty AA, Nassef AO. Database for the optimum design of semi-
fan composite cable-stayed bridges based on genetic algorithms. Struct Infrastruct
Eng 2015;11(8):1054–68.
[62] CEN, EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. 2005: Comité Européen de Normalisation (Brussels).
p. 230.
22
Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113949
[63] Mazzoni S, et al. OpenSees Command Language Manual. 2006.
[64] Wilson JC, Liu T. Ambient vibration measurements on a cable-stayed bridge.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20(8):723–47.
[65] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Non-linear earthquake-response analysis of long-
span cable-stayed bridges: Theory. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1990;19(1):45–62.
[66] Abdel-Ghaffar AM, Nazmy AS. 3-D nonlinear seismic behavior of cable-stayed
bridges. J Struct Eng 1991;117(11):3456–76.
[67] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Three-dimensional nonlinear static analysis of
cable-stayed bridges. Comput Struct 1990;34(2):257–71.
[68] Ernst, J.H., Der E-Modul von Seilen unter berucksichtigung des Durchhanges. Der
bauingenieur, 1965. 40(2): p. 52-55.
[69] Pastor M, Binda M, Harčarik T. Modal assurance criterion. Procedia Eng 2012;48:
543–8.
[70] Simoen E, De Roeck G, Lombaert G. Dealing with uncertainty in model updating
for damage assessment: A review. Mech Syst Sig Process 2015;56:123–49.
[71] The Mathworks, I., MATLAB version 9.5.0.1298439 (R2018b) Update 7. 2018:
Natick, Massachusetts.
[72] Baker, J.W., et al., New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the
PEER transportation research program, in PEER report 3. 2011, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
[73] Zhong J, et al. Optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models
of cable-stayed bridges subjected to pulse-like ground motions. J Bridge Eng 2019;
24(2):04018118.
[74] Guo J, et al. Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand models of
a cable-stayed bridge based on generalized linear regression models. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Eng 2020;131:106024.
[75] Williams, C.K. and C.E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine learning. Vol. 2.
2006: MIT press Cambridge, MA.