Ganeshprasad 2013

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]
On: 23 November 2014, At: 14:01

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
The Impact of Flood-Induced Scour

on Seismic Fragility Characteristics of
Bridges
a b
Gautham Ganesh Prasad & Swagata Banerjee
a
Ghafari Associates, LLC , Dearborn , Michigan , USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering , The
Pennsylvania State University , University Park , Pennsylvania , USA
Accepted author version posted online: 16 May 2013.Published
online: 18 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Gautham Ganesh Prasad & Swagata Banerjee (2013) The Impact of Flood-Induced
Scour on Seismic Fragility Characteristics of Bridges, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17:6,
803-828, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2013.771593
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.771593
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17:803–828, 2013
Copyright © A. S. Elnashai
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2013.771593
The Impact of Flood-Induced Scour on Seismic

Fragility Characteristics of Bridges
GAUTHAM GANESH PRASAD1 and SWAGATA BANERJEE2

1
Ghafari Associates, LLC, Dearborn, Michigan, USA
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 14:01 23 November 2014
Earthquake in the presence of flood-induced scour is a critical multihazard scenario for bridges
located in seismically-active, flood-prone regions. The present article evaluates seismic performance
of four example reinforced concrete bridges when they are pre-exposed to regional flood hazards.
Nonlinear time history analyses of the example bridges are performed for a suite of ground motion
time histories in the presence and absence of scour expected from different intensity flood events.
Fragility analysis is performed to develop seismic fragility curves of the example bridges for various
scour depths. Results show nonlinear increase in bridge seismic fragility with increase in scour depth.
Keywords Multihazard; Flood Hazard Curve; Bridge Scour; Fragility Curve; Risk Curve
1. Introduction
Present practice of bridge engineering relies on independent hazard models of natural
and manmade hazards. Loss estimation methodologies and risk mitigation techniques for
bridges are developed based on their failure probabilities under individual hazard con-
ditions. However, two extreme events may occur successively within a relatively small
time interval. Also, one extreme event can trigger another [Larsen and Torres-Sanchez,
1992; Harp and Jibson, 1996; Dai et al., 2005]. Under such scenarios, individual haz-
ard models are not appropriate for use in reliable risk evaluation of bridges. There is a
growing recognition of the need for research which will incorporate the combined effect
of possible multihazard scenarios in the analysis and design of bridges [MCEER-AEI,
2007; Alampalli and Ettouney, 2008]. Moreover, the use of multiple hazard models in
bridge performance prediction will facilitate the selection of appropriate disaster mitigation
technique(s).
Among 600,000 bridges in the United States (listed by the National Bridge Inventory
or NBI), nearly 70% are located in moderate to high seismically active regions [USGS,
2006a]. Most of these bridges are also exposed to moderate to high regional flood haz-
ard [USGS, 2006b]. Flood-induced soil erosion, commonly known as scour, causes loss of
lateral support at bridge foundations [Richardson and Davis, 2001], and thus imposes addi-
tional flexibility that may amplify the effect of any other extreme natural hazard on bridge
performance. Some researchers also stated that the increased flexibility due to scour may
even reduce the effect of an extreme natural hazard like earthquake on bridge performance
[Ghosn et al., 2003]. Therefore, among several possible combinations of extreme hazards,
Received 25 June 2012; accepted 26 January 2013.

Address correspondence to Swagata Banerjee, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail: swagata@engr.psu.edu
803
804 G.G. Prasad and S. Banerjee
earthquake in the presence of flood-induced scour is a critical multi-hazard scenario for

bridges located in seismically active, flood-prone regions. Although the joint probability of
occurrence of flood and earthquake within the service life of a bridge is small, past inci-
dents show that the probability of occurrence of one event following the other (even before
the aftermath of the previous event is taken care of) can be reasonably high. For example,
just three weeks after the occurrence of a major flood event in the state of Washington
(caused by the Pacific Northwest storm [Wikipedia, 2011]), an earthquake of magnitude
4.5 hit the region on January 30, 2009 [USGS, 2013]. Such successive occurrences of
extreme events may significantly increase the probability of structural failure compared to
that under independent hazard events.
The importance of considering multihazard scenarios for the evaluation of bridge per-
formance has been recognized in literatures [MCEER-AEI, 2007; Alampalli and Ettouney,
2008]; however, systematic study on this topic is rather scarce. In the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 489, Ghosn et al. [2003] calculated reliabil-
ity indices of bridges subjected to various combinations of extreme events (e.g., earthquake,
wind, scour, and vessel collision). The service life of a bridge was divided into several equal
time intervals T. These intervals were decided based on the duration and occurrence of
independent extreme loads expected within the bridge service life. Probabilities of occur-
rence of possible extreme events in time interval T were calculated and combined to
obtain total load for the duration T. This methodology, however, cannot be applied for
load combinations involving bridge scour, as scour itself does not represent a load rather it
is a consequence of flood hazard. Flood-induced scour amplifies the negative consequences
of other natural hazards on bridges and thus, superposition of independent hazards cannot
provide a reliable estimation of total demand arising from single or multiple hazards in
the presence of scour. Hazard-specific analysis is required for the evaluation of structural
performance under multiple hazards involving flood-induced scour.
The present study provides a framework to evaluate the impact of flood-induced scour
on the seismic performance of bridges. Four example reinforced concrete (RC) bridges
with different span lengths are considered. It is assumed that prior to an earthquake event
these bridges were exposed to the regional flood hazard which caused scour at bridge piers.
Overlapping of seismic and flood hazard maps [USGS, 2006a,b] indicates that California,
Washington and part of Oregon in the Western US and the New Madrid Seismic Zone in
the Eastern US are regions with high seismic and flood hazards. In this study, Sacramento
County in California is chosen as the site for all example bridges. The multihazard perfor-
mance evaluation framework presented here involves (a) estimation of seismic and flood
hazards of the study region, (b) calculation of scour at bridge piers based on bridge geom-
etry, subsurface condition and flood hazard levels, and (c) time history analysis of bridges
in the presence and absence of flood-induced scour. Results from time history analyses
are used to categorize bridge damage in four different damage states namely minor, mod-
erate, major, and collapse. Fragility curves at these damage states are developed to show
the probability of bridge failure under certain intensity of ground motion in the presence
and absence of flood-induced scour. Developed bridge fragility curves are useful in iden-
tifying and isolating the effect of bridge scour on the seismic performance of example
bridges. An example is presented to demonstrate the use of developed fragility curves in
risk evaluation of a bridge under the same multi-hazard scenario.
Note that the potential for liquefaction-induced damage of example bridges during
seismic events is not considered within the scope of the present study. Experience from past
earthquakes shows that unseating of bridge superstructure and failure of bridge foundations
due to liquefaction are among the prevailing seismic failure modes of bridges. Presence
Impact of Scour on Seismic Fragility of Bridges 805
of scour at bridge foundation may further increase occurrence probabilities of such fail-
ure modes. Nevertheless, the focus of this study is to isolate the effect of flood-induced
scour on the seismic performance of bridges in the absence of liquefaction-induced dam-
ages (it is assumed that the soil at example bridge sites is not susceptible to liquefaction).
It is of interest to explore whether the additional structural flexibility induced by scour
affects bridge fragility (performance) under seismic events. While the additional flexibility
induced by scour may alter fundamental time periods of bridges, such a change, does not
necessarily indicate that the bridge seismic performance would deteriorate in the presence
of scour. This is because the additional flexibility may reduce the inertial forces produced
by dynamic vibrations such as earthquakes (as mentioned in NCHRP Report 489: Ghosn
et al., 2003).
2. Seismic and Flood Hazards
2.1. Seismic Hazard

For seismic fragility analysis, a large set of ground motion time histories with a wide
range of hazard level is desirable. Insufficient number of data (i.e., ground motions) will
introduce statistical uncertainty in fragility curves. Relatively low seismic activity has
been observed so far for the Sacramento region compared to other parts of California.
Consequently, enough strong motion data (historic and/or synthetic) is not presently avail-
able for this region. However, for seismic design and analysis, the probability of occurring
strong earthquakes in Sacramento cannot be ignored. Therefore, for fragility analysis of
example bridges, 60 ground motion time histories with exceedance probabilities 2%, 10%,
and 50% in 50 years are considered for the present pilot study. These motions include both
recorded and synthetic motions which were originally generated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for Los Angeles in CA [SAC Steel Project, 2013]. Such a
suite of ground motions is particularly suitable for fragility analysis as it covers a wide
range of seismic hazard. Peak ground accelerations (PGAs) of these motions range from
0.1–1.3 g. Table 1 shows PGA values of these motions for each exceedance probability.
Note that the seismic hazard of Sacramento is different from that of Los Angeles. The
60 ground motions used here are not scaled according to the seismic hazard of Sacramento;
otherwise, no fragility curve at higher damage levels (i.e., moderate to extensive damage
states) could have been produced for the example bridges. Developed fragility curves can
be used to obtain the probability of exceeding of the example bridges at various damage
states under any recorded ground motion at the Sacramento region. It is realized, how-
ever, that the LA motions cannot be used for generating probabilistic load factors including
seismic and flood hazards for the Sacramento region and the results obtained for the exam-
ple bridges may not be directly applicable for any real-life bridge located in the study
region.
TABLE 1 Range of PGA values of ground motions having various hazard levels
Motion intensity Strong Moderate Weak
Probabilities of exceedance 2% in 50 years 10% in 50 years 50% in 50 years
Number of recordings 20 20 20
PGA values 0.42–1.33g 0.23–1.02 g 0.11–0.79 g
2.2. Flood Hazard

Flood hazard of the study region is expressed in the form of a flood hazard curve that pro-
vides probability of exceedance of annual peak discharges in a region. Flood-frequency
analysis [Gupta, 2008] is performed to develop the flood hazard curve for the study
region. Annual peak discharge data recorded for Sacramento County over past 104 years
(1907–2010) are collected from the United State Geological Survey (USGS) National
Water Information System [USGS, 2011] and shown in Fig. 1a. These flood data are ranked
and then plotted in a log-normal probability paper to obtain the flood hazard curve of the
study region (Fig. 1b). The relation between flood hazard level (i.e., annual probability of
exceedance of a flood event) and physical measure of flood characteristics (i.e., peak dis-
charge) is established. Based on HEC-18 [Richardson and Davis, 2001], Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) design guideline mandates that all bridges over water must be able
to withstand the scour associated with 100-year floods (i.e., flood events with 1% annual
probability of exceedance). The same frequency of flood event has also been adopted as
the base-flood by FEMA for floodplain management purposes [FEMA, 2008]. More severe
flood events (e.g., 200- and 500-year floods) are recommended only for regions having
extremely high flood risk. Reviewing historic flood events in the Sacramento region and
following the national standards given by FHWA and FEMA, 100-year flood events are
considered to be the worst flood scenario for the study region.
From the flood hazard curve shown in Fig. 1b, annual peak discharge corresponding
to 100-year flood (annual probability of exceedance = 0.01) is estimated to be equal to
2200 m3 /s. Five other more-frequent flood events with annual exceedance probabilities of
0.90, 0.50, 0.10, 0.05, and 0.02, respectively for 1.1-year, 2-year, 10-year, 20-year, and
50-year flood, are also considered. Corresponding annual peak discharges obtained from
Fig. 1b are equal to 60 m3 /s, 305 m3 /s, 900 m3 /s, 1300 m3 /s, and 1900 m3 /s. Scour that
would result from these flood events are calculated based on the example bridge geometries.
Details of such calculations are discussed later in the article. Thus, the multihazard scenario
for the example bridges is characterized by combining flood-induced scour depths with the
ground motions discussed in the previous section.
10000 10000
Annual peak discharge (m3/s)
Annual peak discharge (m3/s)
1000 1000
100 100
Historic flood data

10 10
Flood hazard curve
(a) (b)
1 1
0.99
0.98
0.95
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.01
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year Probability of exceedance

(Probability of annual discharge being
equal or exceeded)
FIGURE 1 Regional flood hazard for Sacramento County in CA: (a) historic flood data
and (b) flood hazard curve.
3. Description of Example Bridges
3.1. Example Bridges

The example bridges used in this study are adopted from a five-span (two 39.6 m exte-
rior spans and three 53.3 m interior spans) RC bridge model presented by Sultan and
Kawashima [1993]. The bridge was designed following the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) bridge design specifications and was used to compare Caltrans
and Japanese methods of seismic bridge design. Bridge deck is composed of 2.1 m deep
and 12.9 m wide hollow box-girders. Bridge bents are single column bents, each having
identical circular piers of 19.8 m long and 2.4 m diameter. To evaluate the impact of flood-
induced scour on seismic vulnerability of bridges with different overall lengths, the present
study considers four example bridges with 2, 3, 4, and 5 spans similar to the original five
span bridge model (Fig. 2).
3.2. Foundation of Example Bridges

A group of 40, 0.38 m diameter, 18.3 m long piles is used as the foundation below each
pier of example model bridges. The movement of ground due to seismic shaking imposes
lateral load to the pile foundation. For laterally loaded pile groups, Brown et al. [2001]
suggested the use of reduction factors that should be applied to the lateral soil resistance
p vs. lateral pile deflection y curve (p-y curve) for each single pile to obtain a set of p-y
curves for piles acting as a group. Values of these reduction factors (known as p-multipliers)
depend on the location of a pile in the pile group with respect to the point of load applica-
tion. However, successful application of this method will require a detailed pile group-soil
interaction analysis involving realistic soil constitutive models. Such a specific pile-soil
interaction analysis is beyond the scope of the present study. Randolph [2003] outlined
an approach to calculate the stiffness of an axially loaded pile group using an equivalent
pile that will represent the functional behavior of the pile group. Yin and Konagai [2001]
adopted the same approach for laterally loaded pile groups. The pile group is replaced by
an equivalent pile with bending stiffness EIeq equal the bending stiffness EIGroup of the
pile group, where E is modulus of elasticity for the pile material, Ieq is the moment of
inertial for the equivalent pile cross-section, and IGroup is the moment of inertia for the
entire group. Additionally, pile foundation may have sway and/or rocking motions during
seismic excitations. The load-deflection characteristic (p-y curve) and the bending stiffness
of a pile group (EIGroup ) vary under these two types of lateral motion of pile foundation.
Accordingly, the dimension of the equivalent pile will be different for sway and rocking
motions. For sway motion, the bending stiffness of the equivalent pile is calculated as the
summation of stiffness of all piles in the group [Yin and Konagai, 2001]:
EIeq = EIGroup = np EIp , (3.1)
where np is the number of piles in a pile group and Ip is the moment of inertia of the cross
section of a single pile. To calculate EIeq under rocking motion, the relative location of each
individual pile (with respect to the center of gravity of the group) is considered in addition
to the bending stiffness EIp of individual piles. According to Yin and Konagai [2001], EIeq
for a pile group subjected to rocking ground motion can be calculated as
np
2
EIeq = EIGroup = EIp + EAp xpi − x0 , (3.2)
i=1
(a) (b)
(c)
(d)
6.45 m 6.45 m CL
0.53 m 0.53 m
# 14,
total 44
2.1 m
Column # 6 spiral @
2.4m Ø 0.11m
Center Line of Bridge
(e) (f)
FIGURE 2 Schematic of example bridges: (a) 2-span bridge; (b) 3-span bridge; (c) 4-span
bridge; (d) 5-span bridge; (e) girder cross-section; and (f) pier cross-section.
where Ap is the cross-sectional area of a single pile, xpi and x0 are, respectively, the coor-
dinates of pile i and the centroid of the pile group with respect to a fixed origin. Figure 3
shows the layout of a pile group, in which coordinates xpi and x0 are expressed with respect
to the left boundary of the pile group.
The present study uses p-y curve for an equivalent pile which is functionally (with
respect to the bending stiffness under lateral loading) identical to the pile group that it
represents. Using Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2), diameters of equivalent piles deq under sway and
rocking motions are calculated to be equal to 0.97 m and 4.2 m, respectively. These values
of deq indicate that the pile foundation has much higher rotational rigidity against lateral
FIGURE 3 Layout of pile group: xpi and x0 represent the coordinates of pile i and the
centroid of the pile group, respectively.
rocking motion compared to that against lateral sway motion. As identical foundation is
considered for all example bridges, the above calculations of deq remain the same for all
four example bridges. The length of the equivalent pile is considered to be the same as that
of the individual piles.
It is recognized, however, that the calculated values of deq depend on the applicability
of Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2). Also, the value of deq will change according to the geometry and
dimensions of bridge foundation and the type of movement of pile group under lateral load
(i.e., pure sway, pure rocking, and/or mixed sway and rocking). Therefore, to facilitate the
identification of the influence of deq on bridge dynamic characteristics in the presence and
absence of flood-induced scour, three additional values of deq (= 1.2 m, 1.6 m, and 2.4 m)
are considered. Thus, the analysis of each example bridge is performed here considering
five different deq values with an upper bound (deq = 4.2 m) calculated for lateral rocking
motion and a lower bound (deq = 0.97 m) calculated for lateral sway motion.
4. Estimation of Flood-Induced Bridge Scour

The extent of flood impact on bridges is commonly measured in terms of scour depth at
bridge foundation locations. Scouring is not a prominent phenomenon in cohesive soils,
however, for granular soils scouring is very common. Based on the physical description
of subsurface soil profile given in Sultan and Kawashima [1993], bridge site is considered
to have 3 soil layers: a top layer of silty sand down to a depth of 11.5 m, a layer of silt
between 11.5 m and 17 m, and a sand layer below 17 m. At each pier location, top of
the pile cap is assumed to be at the ground surface level (Fig. 2). In reality, pile caps are
embedded at a certain depth below the ground surface. Previous research showed that the
lateral head deflection of a capped pile group is insignificant for any scouring above the
pile cap [Bennett et al., 2009]. Lateral pile head deflection increases exponentially with an
increase in scour depth below the top of the pile cap. Bennett et al. [2009] concluded that
the impact of scour on the behavior of pile group will only be significant for scour depths
extending below the top of pile cap. Following this observation, scour depths considered in
the present study are measured from the top of pile cap.
Scouring at bridge site consists of three components: (a) local scour that occurs
at bridge foundations; (b) contraction scour that occurs when normal stream flow gets
obstructed (and thus contracted) by external objects; and (c) long-term aggradation and
degradation scour which is a long-term effect of continuous flow of water [Richardson and
Davis, 2001]. Among these three components, local scour at bridge pier is considered in
this study to be the expected bridge scour resulting from flood events. Depth of local scour
Ys at bridge piers is calculated using the HEC-18 guideline [Richardson and Davis, 2001].
For four example bridges, calculated values of Ys for 1.1-year, 2-year, 10-year, 20-year,
50-year, and 100-year flood events (with peak discharges 60, 305, 900, 1300, 1900, and
2200 m3 /s, respectively; see Fig. 1b) are given in Table 2. As can be seen from this table,
scour depth resulting from a flood event varies from bridge to bridge. This is because bridge
scour is dependent on bridge geometry and the channel characteristics in addition to the
characteristic of a regional flood event. Hence, the flood occurrence probability (Fig. 1b)
does not represent the probability of occurring scour at bridge foundations. This obser-
vation is important for any future study aiming at developing load factors for bridges
combining seismic and flood hazards. Note that the scour depth calculation discussed
here provides a rapid estimation of scour at bridge piers caused by regional flood events.
For exact calculation of bridge scour, separate hydraulic analysis at each bridge pier is
required.
As Table 2 shows, scour depths calculated for four example bridges for the flood events
considered in this study spread over a wide range from 0.73–4.55 m. To investigate the
relative impact of different combinations of earthquake and flood-induced scour depths
on the performance of all example bridges, it is important to consider the same ground
motions and scour depths for all numerical analyses. Thus, three representative values of
Ys (= 0.6 m, 1.5 m, and 3.0 m) are used for seismic analysis of example bridges under
60 ground motions mentioned earlier in this article. A preliminary parametric study on
TABLE 2 Calculation of scour for example bridges

Flood event 1.1-year 2-year 10-year 20-year 50-year 100-year
Exceedance probability 0.90 0.50 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01
Discharge rates, Q 60 305 900 1300 1900 2200
(m3 /s)
Local scour at bridge
piers Ys (m)
2-span 1.07 2.83 3.69 4.02 4.40 4.55
3-span 0.89 2.51 3.28 3.59 3.94 4.08
4-span 0.79 2.30 3.02 3.31 3.64 3.77
5-span 0.73 2.16 2.84 3.11 3.42 3.55
example bridges with scour depth up to 6m showed that seismic performance of the exam-
ple bridges does not change for pier scour more than 3m (will also be demonstrated later
with obtained result). Thus, scour depths greater than 3m are not considered for further
analysis. Additional analyses are performed for “no scour” condition (i.e., Y s = 0). Results
from these analyses will demonstrate the degradation of seismic performance of example
bridges with increase in pier scour and will identify the critical range of scour depths within
which this degradation is most significant.
5. Bridge Modeling
Finite element analyses (FEAs) of the example bridges are performed under 60 ground
motions in the presence and absence of flood-induced scour. For these analyses
bridge models are developed using SAP2000 Nonlinear [Computer and Structures,
Inc., 2000].
5.1. Bridge Superstructure and Substructure

Bridge girders are modeled using linear elastic beam-column elements as these components
are expected to respond within the elastic range during earthquakes. The beam-column ele-
ments are aligned along the center line of bridge decks. During seismic excitation, the
maximum bending moment generates at pier ends. This often leads to the formation of
plastic hinges at these locations when the generated moment exceeds the plastic moment
capacity of these sections. To model such nonlinear behavior at bridge pier ends, non-
linear rotational springs are introduced in bridge models at the top and bottom of each
pier. According to the design, rigid elements are assigned at pier tops (i.e., at pier-girder
connection). This ensures rigid connectivity at pier-girder connections of monolithic con-
crete bridges. Figure 4 shows the actual and bi-linear moment-rotation envelopes of bridge
piers that are developed through the moment-curvature analysis described in Priestley et al.
[1996]. In the figure, My and Mu represent the yield and ultimate moment carrying capac-
ities of pier cross-section, respectively, and θ y and θ u are corresponding rotations. Kelastic
represents the initial elastic stiffness of the member and α PY is the post yield stiffness
ratio.
50000
(θu, Mu)
40000 (θy, My)
αPYkelastic
Moment (kN-m)
My = 36492.9 kN-m
30000 Mu = 41489.5 kN-m
θy = 0.003729 rad
kelastic θu = 0.03415 rad
20000
kelastic = 9.78 × 106 kN-m
αPY = 0.01675
10000 Computed
Bilinear
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation (rad)
FIGURE 4 Moment-rotation curve (envelope) of bridge piers.

5.2. Bridge Foundation

Equivalent single piles that represent the foundation of example bridges are modeled using
beam-column elements with diameter deq . These piles are considered elastic and assumed
not to have failure during seismic excitation. Calculation for deq for different example
bridges is described earlier in this article. To model the soil-foundation interaction, non-
linear p-y springs at an interval of 0.3 m are assigned to the nodes along the entire length of
the equivalent pile (Fig. 5a). This interval is decided based on the results of an initial para-
metric study, which revealed that the seismic response of example bridges did not alter for
foundation modeled using lateral springs with intervals equal to or less than 0.3 m (i.e., 1 ft).
In the presence of scour, a part of the bridge foundation (or the equivalent pile) loses lateral
support from soil. To model this loss of lateral support, p-y springs are removed down to a
depth Ys measured from the top of the equivalent pile or ground surface (Fig. 5b). The cho-
sen interval between two successive soil springs (= 0.3 m) is a common multiplier of the
scour depths considered in this study. Therefore, 2, 5, and 10 soil springs are removed from
top of the pile to model scour depth of 0.6 m, 1.5 m, and 3.0 m, respectively. As suggested
by Priestley et al. [1996], hinge supports are assigned at the tips of the equivalent piles.
Stiffness of p-y spring at any depth is calculated following the recommendations pro-
vided by the American Petroleum Institute [API, 2000]. The nonlinear lateral soil resistance
vs. lateral pile deflection behavior (represented by p-y curve) in sand is expressed as [API,
2000]:

kH
p = Apu tanh y , (5.1)
Apu
where H is the depth below ground surface where the resistance-deflection behavior is cal-
culated. The factor A accounts for static and cyclic loading condition; A = 0.9 for cyclic
loading. pu is the ultimate soil resistance at a depth H and k is the initial modulus of sub-
grade reaction. pu depends on depth at which resistance-deflection behavior is measured.
API [2000] proposes calculation of pu for shallow and deep conditions and recommends
that the smaller of these two values should be used in Eq. (5.1). For a shallow depth H
below the ground surface, pu is given by:
pu = (C1 H + C2 d) γ H (5.2)
p-y springs
@ 0.3m interval
p-y springs
@ 0.3m interval
(a) (b)
FIGURE 5 Schematic of soil-foundation interaction model: (a) without flood-induced

scour and (b) with flood-induced scour.
800
at 7.3 m depth
Lateral Resistance (KN)

at 11.3 m depth
400
–400
–800
–0.10 –0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Deflection (m)
FIGURE 6 P-y curves developed for the equivalent pile with 0.97 m diameter.
and for deep conditions
pu = (C3 d) γ H, (5.3)
where coefficients C1 , C2 , and C3 are determined according to the friction angle of sand,
d is the average pile diameter measured from pile head down to a depth H, and γ is the
effective unit weight of soil. For silt and silty sand, the above relations (Eqs. 5.1–5.3) are
used as no specification is indicated in API [2000] for other cohesionless soils. For the
coarse-grained subsurface soil profile considered in this study, a marginal variation in soil
properties is obtained among the three soil layers. Thus, an average friction angel equal to
30◦ is assumed for all 3 soil layers. Corresponding values of C1 , C2 , and C3 are determined
from API [2000] to be equal to 1.9, 2.65, and 28, respectively. Figure 6 shows two example
p-y curves developed at depths of 7.3 m and 11.3 m for a 0.97 m diameter equivalent pile.
6. Time History Analyses and Bridge Response

Nonlinear time history analyses of example bridges are performed in the presence and
absence of flood-induced scour (i.e., for Ys = 0, 0.6 m, 1.5 m, and 3.0 m) and for different
values of deq (= 0.97 m, 1.2 m, 1.6 m, 2.4 m, and 4.2 m). For each combination of Ys and
deq , 60 ground motions are considered. Few additional sets of time history analyses for
6.0 m scour at bridge foundations are performed to observe the change in seismic fragility
characteristics of example bridges beyond 3.0 m scour. Fundamental time periods of the
example bridges are observed to increase with increasing scour depth. This is obvious as
the bridges become flexible by partially loosing lateral confinement at foundations due to
scour. The maximum increase in fundamental time period is observed for bridges with
deq = 0.97m and the minimum or insignificant increase is observed when deq = 4.2 m.
Common seismic failure modes of RC bridges include formation of plastic hinges
at bridge piers, failure of bridge foundations and unseating of bridge decks, to name a
few [Roberts, 2005]. Additionally, soil liquefaction during earthquake may trigger bridge
seismic damage in one or more of the above failure modes. The present study does not
consider soil liquefaction at bridge sites and assumes that the formation of plastic hinges
at bridge piers is the governing failure mode of example bridges under seismic events in
the presence and absence of scour. Such assumptions isolate the effect of scour on seismic
performance of example bridges from that caused by soil liquefaction under different scour
conditions.
Time histories of rotation at pier ends (top and bottom) and horizontal deflection at
pier top are recorded for all applied motions. The recorded response is used to calculate dis-
placement ductility µ , a signature that represents seismic performance levels of example
bridges. By definition, displacement ductility µ is the ratio of displacement of the bridge
pier to the yield displacement at the same location [Caltrans, 2006]. Figure 7 shows the time
histories of displacement ductility for the 5-span example bridge with two extreme values
of deq (= 0.97 m and 4.2 m) under one of the ground motions considered in this study. For
pure sway motion (deq = 0.97 m), the bridge exhibits higher displacement ductility with
increasing scour depth (Fig. 7a); however, no such distinction is observed in case of pure
rocking motion (deq = 4.2 m; Fig. 7b). From the moment-rotation curve shown in Fig. 4,
µ corresponding to the ultimate state (i.e., complete collapse) is calculated to be equal
to 5.0 [Priestley et al., 1996]. This value is in accordance with Caltrans recommendation
for target displacement ductility [Caltrans, 2006]. Beyond yielding and before complete
collapse, three intermediate states of bridge damage namely minor (or slight), moderate,
and major (or extensive) damage (definition follows HAZUS 1999 physical descriptions of
bridge seismic damage) are considered. Banerjee and Shinozuka [2008a,b] quantified the
threshold limits of these intermediate bridge damage states in terms of rotational ductility
of bridge piers. This is done by calibrating analytical bridge fragility curves with bridge
12
0m scour
Displacement Ductility
6 0.6m scour
1.5m scour
–6 3.0m scour
6.0m scour
–12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)
(a)
12
0m scour
0.6m scour
Displacement Ductility
6 1.5m scour
3.0m scour
0 6.0m scour
–6
–12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time(sec)
(b)
FIGURE 7 Displacement ductility for 5-span example bridge under one of the ground
motions: (a) for deq = 0.97 m and (b) for deq = 4.2 m (time histories of displacement
ductility for all scour depths overlap with each other).
damage observed from the 1994 Northridge earthquake [Banerjee and Shinozuka, 2008a].
This calibration allowed the quantification of threshold limits (lower bound) for bridge
seismic damage states in accordance with observed bridge damage during past earthquake.
Quantified threshold limits are further verified with damage data of a RC bridge observed
from a nearly full-scale shake table test [Banerjee and Shinozuka, 2008b]. In the present
study, threshold rotational ductility values at different bridge damage states are converted
to threshold displacement ductility values. For minor, moderate, and major damage states,
these values are calculated to be equal to 2.25, 2.90, and 4.60, respectively. The state of
bridge damage under a specific ground motion is decided by comparing the calculated dis-
placement ductility µ with the threshold limits of all damage states (i.e., minor, moderate,
major, and collapse). Thus, bridge damage state under a ground motion can be decided as:
μ < 2.25;
No damage
2.25 ≤ μ < 2.90; Minor damage
2.90 ≤ μ < 4.60; Moderate damage (6.1)
4.60 ≤ μ < 5.0; Major damage
μ ≥ 5.0; Complete collapse.
7. Bridge Fragility Curves

Fragility curves for example bridges are developed using bridge damage states determined
for all ground motions. These monotonically increasing curves represent the probabil-
ity of bridge exceedance in a particular damage state under certain intensity of ground
motions (e.g., PGA). Fragility curves are expressed as two-parameter lognormal distribu-
tions [Banerjee and Shinozuka, 2007]. The distribution parameters, referred to as fragility
parameters, are median value (PGAm ) and log-standard deviation (ζ ). These parameters,
respectively, represent PGA corresponding to 50% probability of exceeding a damage state
and the dispersion of a fragility curve. At a damage state k (= minor, moderate, major, or
collapse), the analytical form of the fragility function is expressed as:

ln PGAj PGAmk
F PGAj , PGAmk , ζk = for j = 1 to 60, (7.1)
ζk
where PGAj represents PGA of a ground motion j (= 1, 2, .., 60). Fragility parameters
PGAmk and ζ k for the damage state k can be estimated using maximum likelihood method.
The likelihood function L is given as:
60
r 1−rj
L= F PGAj , PGAmk , ζk j 1 − F PGAj , PGAmk , ζk , (7.2)
j=1
where rj = 0 or 1 depending on whether or not the bridge sustains the damage state k under
jth ground motion. HAZUS [1999] suggested an uncertainty factor for seismic demand to
be equal to 0.5 based on the studies performed by Pekcan [1998]. Following this, ζ k is taken
here as 0.5 for all example bridges and damage states. This common ζ k for all bridges and
damage states will restrict the intersection of any two fragility curves.
There is a question whether PGA or PGV (peak ground acceleration) or any other
intensity measure such as spectral acceleration (SA), spectral velocity (SV), and spectral
intensity (SI) is a better measure of ground motion intensity for fragility curve develop-
ment. Shinozuka et al. [2003] compared various indices (PGA, PGV, SA, SV, and SI) and
concluded that none is exclusively superior over the other for fragility curve development.
A fragility curve is more useful when it divides the sample population into two distinct
groups (damage and no-damage), ideally in the form of a step function. Such a fragility
curve can only be generated when the log-standard deviation tends to 0 with the step jump
at the median value of the fragility curve. None of the intensity measures mentioned above
can produce fragility curves with log-standard deviation tends to 0. In other words, there is
no additional advantage in expressing structural probability of exceeding a damage state in
terms of a particular intensity measure of seismic ground motions.
Fragility analyses are performed for all example bridges at all combinations of Ys
and deq and fragility curves at minor, moderate, major, and collapse states are developed.
Figure 8 shows fragility curves of the five-span example bridge with deq = 0.97 m at 5 scour
depths (Ys = 0, 0.6 m, 1.5 m, 3.0 m, and 6.0 m) and seismic damage states. These fragility
characteristics can be utilized to determine the probability of failure of example bridges
under any regional earthquake. For an example, if an earthquake with 0.6 g PGA strikes
Sacramento, a bridge with similar structural attributes as of the 5-span example bridge will
have probability of exceedance of 35%, 21%, and 7%, respectively, in minor, moderate, and
major damage states at no scour condition. These probabilities will change to 63%, 36%,
and 12%, respectively, in the presence of 3 m scour at bridge foundations. As can be seen
from this figure, the seismic fragility characteristics of the example bridge at minor, moder-
ate, and major damage states do not change for the increase in scour depth from 3.0–6.0 m.
This increase in scour depth only resulted in a slight decrease in median fragility parameter
of the bridge at the ultimate damage (i.e., collapse) state. Similar result is observed for other
example bridges with the same increase in scour depth. This observation confirms that the
seismic damageability of example bridges does not degrade further for any increase in scour
depth beyond 3.0 m. Henceforth, the present study reported seismic fragility parameters of
example bridges for scour depths from 0–3.0 m.
Fragility curves shown in Fig. 8 represent one of 20 sets of fragility curves that are
developed in the present study for all example bridges with various combinations of Ys
(excluding 6.0 m scour) and deq . The median values of these fragility curves (PGAm ) are
given in Tables 3–7. These median values provide a relative measure of the impact of
various scour depths on the performance of example bridges under seismic loading.
Seismic fragility characteristics of example bridges are compared in terms of the
median fragility parameter (PGAm ) obtained for various combinations of Ys and deq . With
increase in PGAm , fragility curves move towards right (Fig. 8). Therefore, higher values of
PGAm represent stronger fragility curves indicating less seismic vulnerability of bridges.
For an example, seismic fragility curves developed for 5-span example bridge at collapse
state have median PGAs equal to 1.44 g and 1.13 g, respectively, for no scour and 3.0 m
scour (Fig. 8d and Table 3). The fragility curve for no scour condition is stronger than that
for 3.0 m scour because the former requires higher PGA to reach to a certain level of failure
probability. The surface plots presented in Fig. 9 provide a comprehensive visualization of
the variation in seismic fragility characteristics of example bridges with scour depth (Ys )
and diameter of equivalent pile (deq ). Major observations made from Fig. 9 and Tables 3–7
are summarized below.
1. Seismic fragility characteristic (represented by PGAm ) of example bridges degrades

with increase in Ys . However, the rate of degradation of PGAm is not constant. The
Probability of Exceeding a Damage State

1.0 1.0
Minor Damage Moderate Damage
Ys = 0; PGAm = 0.73g Ys = 0; PGAm = 0.90g
0.8 0.8
Ys = 0.6m; PGAm = 0.56g Ys = 0.6m; PGAm = 0.78g
0.6 Ys = 1.5m; PGAm = 0.51g Ys = 1.5m; PGAm = 0.72g
0.6
Ys = 3.0m; PGAm = 0.71g
0.4 0.4 Ys = 6.0m; PGAm = 0.71g
0.2 Ys = 3.0m; PGAm = 0.50g 0.2

Ys = 6.0m; PGAm = 0.50g
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
PGA(g) PGA(g)
(a) (b)

1.0 1.0
Major Damage Collapse
Ys = 0; PGAm = 1.28g Ys = 0; PGAm = 1.44g

0.8 0.8
0.6 Ys = 1.5m; PGAm = 1.13g 0.6 Ys = 1.5m; PGAm = 1.28g

0.4 Ys = 6.0m; PGAm = 1.09g 0.4 Ys = 6.0m; PGAm = 1.03g
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
PGA(g) PGA(g)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 8 Fragility curves for 5-span example bridge with deq = 0.97 m at (a) minor
damage, (b) moderate damage, (c) major damage, and (d) collapse states.
rate of degradation of PGAm is significant for Ys less than 1.0 m when deq values are
less than 1.6 m. For all example bridges with deq = 0.97 m, 21–26% reduction in
PGAm is observed at the state of minor damage when scour depth Ys increases from
0 to 0.6 m. Beyond 1.5 m of scour depth, degradation of bridge seismic performance
gradually becomes insignificant with increase in Ys .
2. For a particular depth of scour, lower PGAm values are always observed for lower
values of deq . For high values of deq (e.g., 4.2 m), seismic fragility characteristics of
example bridges is not sensitive to the change in scour depth up to 3 m (Table 7).
This is because bigger diameter piles contribute higher structural stiffness at foun-
dations. This stiffness is much higher compared to the stiffness contributed by the
foundation soil (i.e., lateral confinement). Moreover, the foundations are extended
to a greater depth. Thus, the loss of lateral confinement up to a depth of 3.0 m scour
(which is the maximum scour depth considered here) doesn’t produce any consid-
erable change in the total structural stiffness of an example bridge with higher deq .
Hence, no significant change is observed in bridge dynamic behavior.
3. Some increase in PGAm values is observed as the number of span of example
bridges increases. A maximum difference of 24% is obtained in PGAm calculated
for 2-span and 5-span example bridges with different values of Ys and deq . Such a
difference can solely be attributed to the variation in the overall length of example
bridges.
Fragility parameters presented in Tables 3–7 may change based on the assumptions
involved in defining seismic failure modes of bridges. For an example, liquefaction at
bridge site may increase foundation and girder displacements leading to an enhanced
probability of bridge failure (at foundations and due to girder unseating) under seismic
Median PGA Median PGA PGAm (g)

Scour depth Ys (m)

Diameter of equivalent pile deq (m)
(a)
Median PGA PGAm (g)
Scour depth Ys (m)

(b)
FIGURE 9 Variation of PGAm with Ys and deq for example bridges: (a) 2-span bridge; (b)
3-span bridge; (c) 4-span bridge; and (d) 5-span bridge (color figure available online).
ground motions. Earthquake-triggered liquefaction can jeopardize bridge functionality;

however, this is true for any seismic event irrespective of the presence (or absence) of flood-
induced scour at bridge foundation. The seismic bridge fragility parameters (in presence
and absence of scour) presented in this article does not consider the additional vulnerability
which can potentially be induced by liquefaction at bridge site; nonetheless, the developed
fragility curves can be used to estimate seismic risk of bridges in the presence (or absence)
of flood induced scour when only structural damage due to seismic loading is considered.
Median PGA PGAm (g)

Scour depth Ys (m)

(c)
Median PGA PGAm (g)
Scour depth Ys (m)

Diameter of equivalent pile deq(m)
(d)
FIGURE 9 (Continued).
An example is presented in the following section to demonstrate the application of bridge

fragility curves in the risk evaluation process.
Bridge fragility curves are also one of the key components for performance simulation
of highway transportation networks under regional hazards. In such a simulation, perfor-
mance of constituent highway bridges under regional scenario events is predicted from pre-
developed fragility curves of those bridges. Based on predicted bridge performance, perfor-
mance of the entire network under the same scenario events can be predicted through the
interrelation and interdependency of different system components [Zhou et al., 2010]. Such
simulation also leads to the evaluation of system risk under similar hazard scenario.
820
TABLE 3 Median fragility parameter (PGAm ) of all example bridges with deq = 0.97 m
2-span bridge 3-span bridge 4-span bridge 5-span bridge

Damage State Ys (m) Ys (m) Ys (m) Ys (m)
0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0
Minor 0.65 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.71 0.53 0.49 0.50 0.73 0.55 0.50 0.51 0.73 0.56 0.51 0.50
Moderate 0.88 0.73 0.68 0.69 0.91 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.90 0.78 0.73 0.72 0.90 0.78 0.72 0.71
Major 1.27 1.13 1.08 1.03 1.28 1.28 1.09 1.09 1.27 1.28 1.13 1.09 1.27 1.28 1.13 1.09
Collapse 1.36 1.28 1.09 1.04 1.43 1.28 1.18 1.08 1.43 1.36 1.18 1.09 1.44 1.34 1.28 1.13

0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0
Minor 0.71 0.56 0.51 0.50 0.73 0.65 0.52 0.50 0.74 0.67 0.56 0.51 0.74 0.71 0.56 0.50
Moderate 0.88 0.78 0.73 0.69 0.93 0.85 0.75 0.73 0.97 0.85 0.78 0.75 0.97 0.90 0.78 0.73
Major 1.28 1.28 1.13 1.09 1.35 1.28 1.28 1.13 1.34 1.27 1.28 1.18 1.34 1.27 1.22 1.18
Collapse 1.43 1.28 1.28 1.09 1.43 1.43 1.28 1.18 1.43 1.43 1.36 1.28 1.44 1.36 1.36 1.28
821
822

0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0
Minor 0.73 0.67 0.61 0.51 0.74 0.73 0.67 0.58 0.77 0.73 0.71 0.67 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.67
Moderate 0.93 0.88 0.82 0.73 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.78 0.97 0.93 0.90 0.85 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.83
Major 1.36 1.28 1.28 1.22 1.43 1.34 1.34 1.28 1.34 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.34 1.34 1.21 1.21
Collapse 1.43 1.36 1.28 1.28 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.36 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.36 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.36

0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0
Minor 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.65 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.71 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.73
Moderate 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.85 0.97 0.93 0.93 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93
Major 1.36 1.36 1.28 1.28 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.35 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.27 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.27
Collapse 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.36 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44
823
824
TABLE 7 Median fragility parameter (PGAm ) of example bridges with deq = 4.20 m

0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0 0 0.6 1.5 3.0
Minor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.74
Moderate 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Major 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34
Collapse 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44
0.4
Annual Probability of Exceedance

No Scour
0.6m Scour
0.3
1.5m Scour
3.0m Scour
0.2
0.1
0
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Restoration Cost (in Dollars)
FIGURE 10 Seismic risk curves of 5-span example bridge (with deq = 0.97 m) in the
presence and absence of flood-induced scour.
8. Seismic Risk Curves and Uncertainties
8.1. Seismic Risk Curves of the Five-Span Example Bridge

Risk curve of a system represents the probability that the system will suffer from a degraded
performance equal to or below a certain level under external loading. This section develops
risk curves of the five-span example bridge. In previous literature [Zhou et al., 2010; Chang
et al., 2000; Werner et al., 2000; Shiraki et al., 2007; Banerjee et al., 2009], impact of bridge
seismic damage on the performance of highway transportation networks is expressed in
terms of total social cost or the traffic delay in the network. Following this, the present
study uses societal loss due to post-event bridge repair or restoration as the performance
degradation index for seismic risk evaluation of the bridge under consideration.
Figure 10 shows seismic risk curves of the 5-span example bridge (with deq = 0.97 m)
for various scour depths. As expected, seismic risk of the example bridge increases with
increase in scour depth at foundation. For example, annual probability of exceeding bridge
seismic restoration cost equal to $500,000 is 0.055 for the example bridge at no scour
condition. This annual probability becomes almost 0.10 in the presence of 3 m scour at
bridge foundations. Note that seismic risk associated with other example bridges will vary
from that calculated for the five-span example bridge because post-event restoration costs
will be different for each of these bridges.
8.2. Uncertainties
It is important to quantify uncertainties in developed fragility curves while using such
curves in the risk evaluation process. Uncertainties may get introduced into the fragility
curves from various modules of fragility analysis (e.g., seismic and flood hazard models,
calculation of scour depth, bridge modeling). Modeling of uncertainty associated with the
ground motion hazard requires an explicit consideration of primary seismic parameters and
various source mechanism parameters. The characterization of epistemic uncertainty of
these key parameters dictates the accuracy of uncertainty quantification of seismic hazard.
For the seismic risk assessment purposes, ground motion attenuation relations are often
used to predict the intensity of regional earthquakes at bridge sites. Hence, it is important
to account for the aleatory uncertainty associated with ground motion attenuation models to
have a confidence on estimated seismic risk. An extensive future study is required to quan-
tify such uncertainties of seismic hazard and to calculate their impacts on bridge seismic
performance in the presence of flood-induced scour.
Ganesh Prasad [2011] performed a sensitivity study to identify major uncertain param-
eters associated with the development of flood hazard curve and the calculation of scour
depth. Scour depths at the 5-span bridge site (due to a 100-year flood event) were evaluated
to quantify the variation in expected scour depth due to the variation in uncertain param-
eters. Analysis identified some of the scour calculation parameters (such as peak flood
discharge) that have highest impact on the calculated scour depth. A maximum variation
of 11% was obtained between scour depths calculated using extreme and mean values of
uncertain parameters. This study also revealed that such a variation of scour depth did not
produce any significant variation in the seismic response of the five-span example bridge.
However, a cumulative consideration of uncertainties from all possible sources may pro-
duce higher variation in bridge fragility characteristics than that predicted considering the
uncertainty in scour depth calculation alone.
9. Conclusions
This article presents a framework that integrates individual seismic and flood hazard mod-
els to investigate seismic fragility characteristics of bridges in the presence of flood-induced
scour. Damageability of four example RC bridges under the multihazard scenario of earth-
quake in the presence of flood-induced scour is quantified through fragility curves. Results
indicate that the seismic damageability of bridges pre-exposed to flood-induced scour at
piers increases nonlinearly with increase in scour depth. It is observed that even a low
intensity (i.e., more frequent) flood event may cause significant degradation of seismic per-
formance of bridges. Therefore, sole consideration of seismic hazard for the performance
evaluation of bridges located in seismically active flood-prone regions may underestimate
the maximum demand from regional multihazard. Specific conclusions made based on the
observed results for the four example bridges are the following.
1. Seismic fragility characteristics of example bridges change in a nonlinear trend with
the change in scour depth. The change in prominent for initial scour condition (i.e.,
at the starting of bridge scour) and gradually reduces as scour depth increases.
2. Scour depth more than 3 m does not produce any further change in the seismic
fragility characteristics of example bridges from that obtained for 3 m scour.
3. Bridges with bigger foundation are observed to perform better under seismic ground
motions. However, the advantages and disadvantages of such foundations for bridge
scour have not been studied in this article.
4. The overall length of the example bridges has some effect on their fragility char-
acteristics. Longer bridges have higher median fragility parameters, which indicate
higher vulnerability of these bridges due to seismic hazard.
Note that the above conclusions may not be applicable if there is a combined effect
of earthquake-induced liquefaction and flood-induced scour. In case liquefaction is a major
issue at bridge site, the effect of scour on seismic bridge performance may change from
that observed in this study. Additionally, bridge seismic performance may vary depend-
ing on bridge type, subsurface conditions and characteristics of natural hazards (i.e., flood
and earthquake). The present study uses assumptions related to structural model of the
example bridges, seismic hazard, and bridge failure mode due to seismic hazard. These
assumptions are made to identify and isolate the potential impact of scour on bridge seismic
performance and to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed multihazard performance
assessment framework for bridges. For real-life application of the proposed framework,
it is important to use region-specific flood and seismic hazard models and precise bridge
damage modes accounting for all potential consequences of flood and earthquake events.
Analyses of real-life bridges are desirable for deriving specific design decisions such as
load combination rule for bridge design involving earthquake and flood hazards and level
of uncertainty associated with bridge performance under similar multihazard conditions.
Acknowledgment
This study was partially supported by the National Science Foundation through Grant No.
CMMI-1131359. Comments and suggestions provided by Dr. Peggy Johnson at various
times during this research are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Alampalli, S. and Ettouney, M. [2008] “Multihazard applications in bridge management,”
Transportation Research Circular, Number E-C128, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
API [2000] Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms,
API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A) American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
Banerjee, S. and Shinozuka, M. [2007] “Nonlinear static procedure for seismic vulnerabil-
ity assessment of bridges,” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering (CACAIE),
Computational Structural Engineering 22(4), 293–305.
Banerjee, S. and Shinozuka, M. [2008a] “Mechanistic quantification of RC bridge damage states
under earthquake through fragility analysis,” Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 23(1), 12–22.
Banerjee, S. and Shinozuka, M. [2008b] “Experimental verification of bridge seismic damage states
quantified by calibrating analytical models with empirical field data,” Journal of Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration 7(4), 383–393.
Banerjee, S., Shinozuka, M., and Sgaravato, M. [2009] “Uncertainty in seismic performance of
highway network estimated using empirical fragility curves of bridges,” International Journal
of Engineering under Uncertainty: Hazard, Assessment, and Mitigation 1(1–2), 1–11.
Bennett, C. R., Lin, C., Parsons, R., and Han, J. [2009] “Evaluation of behavior of a laterally loaded
bridge pile group under scour conditions,” Structures Congress, Texas, pp. 290–299.
Brown, D. A., O’Neill, M. W., Hoit, M., McVay, M., El Naggar, M. H., and Chacrabarty, S.
[2001] “Static and dynamic lateral loading of pile groups,” National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, NCHRP Report 461, Transportation Research Board, National Academy
Press, Washington D.C.
Caltrans [2006] Seismic Design Criteria, V.1.4, California Department of Transportation, Division of
Structures, Sacramento, California.
Chang, E. S., Shinozuka, M., and Moore, J. [2000]. “Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending
risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems,” Earthquake Spectra 16(3), 557–572.
Computer and Structures, Inc. [2000] SAP2000 Nonlinear Users Manual, V. 8, Berkeley, Calfornia.
Dai, F. C., Lee, C. F., Deng, J. H., and Tham, L. G. [2005]. “The 1786 earthquake-triggered landslide
dam and subsequent dam-break flood on the Dadu River, southwestern China,” Geomorphology
65, 205–221.
FEMA [2008] “Flood insurance study for Sutter County, California,” Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study Number 060394V000A.
Ganesh Prasad, G. [2011] “Analysis of bridge performance under the combined effect of earthquake
and flood-induced scour,” M.S. Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania.
Ghosn, M., Moses, F., and Wang, J. [2003] “Highway bridge design for extreme events,” National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 489, Transportation Research Board,
National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Gupta, R. [2008] Hydrology and Hydraulic Systems, Waveland Press, Inc., Illinois
Harp, E. L. and Jibson, R. W. [1996] “Landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge, California,
earthquake,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86(1B), S319–S332.
HAZUS [1999] Earthquake loss estimation methodology, Technical Manual SR2, Federal
Emergency Management Agency through agreements with National Institute of Building Science,
Washington, D.C.
Larsen, M. C. and Torres-Sanchez, A. J. [1992]. “Landslides triggered by hurricane Hugo in eastern
Puerto Rico, September 1989,” Caribbean Journal of Science 28(3–4), 113–125.
MCEER-AEI [2007] Symposium on Emerging Developments in Multi-hazard Engineering, McGraw-
Hill Auditorium, New York, September 18, 2007. <http://mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/AEI/
steering.asp>.
Pekcan, G. [1998] “Design of seismic energy dissipation systems for concrete and steel structures,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Randolph, M. F. [2003] “Science and empiricism in pile foundation design,” Géotechnique 53(10),
847–875.
Richardson, E. V. and Davis, S. M. [2001] “Evaluating scour at bridges,” Publication No. FHWA
NHI 01-001, Hydraulic Engineering Circular (HEC) No.–18, Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Roberts, J. E. [2005]. “Caltrans structural control for bridges in high-seismic zones,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(4–5), 449–470.
SAC Steel Project. [2013] “Suites of Earthquake Ground Motions for Analysis of Steel
Moment Frame Structures.” Retrieved from: http://nisee.berkeley.edu/data/strong_motion/
sacsteel/ground_motions.html. Accessed: May 20, 2013.
Shiraki, N., Shinozuka, M., Moore, J. E., Chang, S. E., Kameda, H., and Tanaka, S. [2007] “System
risk curves: probabilistic performance scenarios for highway networks subject to earthquake
damage,” ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems 13(1), 43–54.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Kim, H., Uzawa, T., and Ueda, T. [2003] “Statistical analysis of
fragility curves,” Report MCEER-03-0002, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Sultan, M. and Kawashima, K. [1993] “Comparison of the seismic design of highway bridges in
California and in Japan,” Recent selected publications of Earthquake Engineering Div., Public
Works Research Institute (PWRI), Japan (Technical Memorandum of PWRI No. 3276).
USGS [2006a] Earthquake Hazards—A National Threat; Retrieved from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/
2006/3016/ 2006-3016.pdf.
USGS [2006b] Flood Hazards—A National Threat; Retrieved from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/
3026/2006-3026.pdf.
USGS [2011] National Water Information System; Retrieved from: http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/
nwis, as visited on February 14, 2011.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [2013] “Magnitude 4.5 – Seattle-Tacoma Urban Area, Washington.”
Retrieved from: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2009/uw01301325/#details.
Accessed: May 20, 2013.
Werner, S. D., Taylor, C. E., Moore, J. E., Walton, J. S., and Cho, S. [2000] “A risk-based method-
ology for assessing the seismic performance of highway systems,”Report MCEER-00-0014,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York,
Buffalo, New York.
Wikipedia [2011] “Chehalis River.” Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chehalis_River_
(Washington). Accessed: February 14, 2011.
Yin, Y. and Konagai, K. [2001] “A simplified method for expression of the dynamic stiffness of
large-scaled grouped piles in sway and rocking motions,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, JSCE 4,
415–422.
Zhou, Y., Banerjee, S., and Shinozuka, M. [2010]. “Socio-economic effect of seismic retrofit
of bridges for highway transportation networks: A pilot study,” Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering 6(1–2), 145–157.

Ganeshprasad 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ganeshprasad 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]

On: 23 November 2014, At: 14:01

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

The Impact of Flood-Induced Scour

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.771593

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The Impact of Flood-Induced Scour on Seismic

GAUTHAM GANESH PRASAD1 and SWAGATA BANERJEE2

Received 25 June 2012; accepted 26 January 2013.

earthquake in the presence of flood-induced scour is a critical multi-hazard scenario for

2. Seismic and Flood Hazards

2.1. Seismic Hazard

2.2. Flood Hazard

Historic flood data

Year Probability of exceedance

3. Description of Example Bridges

3.1. Example Bridges

span bridge model (Fig. 2).

3.2. Foundation of Example Bridges

EIeq = EIGroup = np EIp , (3.1)

4. Estimation of Flood-Induced Bridge Scour

TABLE 2 Calculation of scour for example bridges

5.1. Bridge Superstructure and Substructure

FIGURE 4 Moment-rotation curve (envelope) of bridge piers.

5.2. Bridge Foundation

FIGURE 5 Schematic of soil-foundation interaction model: (a) without flood-induced

Lateral Resistance (KN)

and for deep conditions

6. Time History Analyses and Bridge Response

2.25 ≤ μ < 2.90; Minor damage

2.90 ≤ μ < 4.60; Moderate damage (6.1)

4.60 ≤ μ < 5.0; Major damage

μ ≥ 5.0; Complete collapse.

7. Bridge Fragility Curves

1. Seismic fragility characteristic (represented by PGAm ) of example bridges degrades

Probability of Exceeding a Damage State

Probability of Exceeding a Damage State

0.2 Ys = 3.0m; PGAm = 0.50g 0.2

Probability of Exceeding a Damage State

Ys = 0; PGAm = 1.28g Ys = 0; PGAm = 1.44g

0.6 Ys = 1.5m; PGAm = 1.13g 0.6 Ys = 1.5m; PGAm = 1.28g

Median PGA Median PGA PGAm (g)

Scour depth Ys (m)

Scour depth Ys (m)

ground motions. Earthquake-triggered liquefaction can jeopardize bridge functionality;

Median PGA PGAm (g)

Scour depth Ys (m)

Scour depth Ys (m)

An example is presented in the following section to demonstrate the application of bridge

2-span bridge 3-span bridge 4-span bridge 5-span bridge

2-span bridge 3-span bridge 4-span bridge 5-span bridge

2-span bridge 3-span bridge 4-span bridge 5-span bridge

2-span bridge 3-span bridge 4-span bridge 5-span bridge

2-span bridge 3-span bridge 4-span bridge 5-span bridge

Annual Probability of Exceedance

8. Seismic Risk Curves and Uncertainties

8.1. Seismic Risk Curves of the Five-Span Example Bridge

You might also like