Bulletin

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:3647–3671
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01647-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Seismic fragility estimation of cable‑stayed bridges

with various pylon shapes considering soil‑pile interaction
Jigar P. Variyavwala1 · Kaushik M. Gondaliya1 · Atul K. Desai1 ·

Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi2,3
Received: 25 September 2022 / Accepted: 8 February 2023 / Published online: 27 February 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023
Abstract
Cable-stayed bridges (CSB) are widely acknowledged among other bridge types owing to
their attractive appearance and greater flexibility. Numerous research initiatives have been
undertaken for the seismic fragility assessments (SFA) of CSB. Nonetheless, the pylon
shape influence on seismic performance remains an intriguing area of study. The current
research performs the SFA of A-shape, Diamond shape, H-shape, and inverted Y-shape
pylon CSB to evaluate seismic vulnerability under uncertain seismic excitations consider-
ing soil-pile interaction. The SFA illustrates the possible damage of CSB as a function of
strong ground motions and can be used to evaluate the extent of damage probability for a
specific ground motion index. Spectral acceleration has been adopted as the optimal inten-
sity measure. An array of strong ground motions were used to evaluate CSB for the Indian
seismic zone-V with stiff clayey soil. The Finite Element modeling approach has been
employed for the simulation procedures. The pylon drift ratio and the bearing displace-
ment have been used as engineering demand parameters. The fragility curves were devel-
oped using incremental dynamic analysis for four performance levels. The overall system
fragility of CSB has been derived using the Riemannian Manifold Hamiltonian Monte
Carlo-based subset simulation. The analysis results indicate that deck-pier connections, i.e.,
bearings, are the most fragile components, and their placement and mechanical properties
significantly impact system fragility. Boundary limits and system fragility curves demon-
strate that the inverted Y-shape and the Diamond shaped pylon CSB perform well with
minimal collapse probability.
Keywords Seismic fragility assessment · Cable-stayed bridge · Intensity measure ·

Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) · Monte Carlo simulation · Soil-pile interaction ·
Uncertainty
* Kaushik M. Gondaliya
d19am007@amd.svnit.ac.in
* Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi
ehsan.noroozinejad@ubc.ca
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
3648 Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:3647–3671
1 Introduction
Global adoption of CSB has significantly increased over the past two decades because of
its comparatively longer span, faster construction, aesthetically pleasing look, and eco-
nomic effectiveness (Gimsing and Georgakis 2012; Wei et al. 2020). The pylon is the
essential component of CSB (Noghabi and Heidary-Torkamani 2014; Zhang et al. 2021).
A pylon is designed to accommodate cable tension forces, gravity loads, and lateral loads
generated by natural hazards like wind and earthquakes. Pylon shape conceptualization is
a fascinating subject in CSB design. Pylon shapes can be categorized into four groups:
A-shape, Diamond Shape, H-shape, and Inverted Y-shape pylon. The pylon width at the
deck level is regulated by the lower strut on which the deck rests. The pylons are spread
inward above the deck in the A-shape, Diamond-shape, and Inverted Y-shape pylons. Such
a shape formation provides greater lateral rigidity than the H-shaped pylon (Han et al.
2018). Pylon legs govern the foundation size. The pylon legs of the diamond-shaped CSB
have an inward inclination. Hence, the diamond-shaped pylon has a relatively more minor
foundation, which saves construction costs (Patil and Patankar 2017). Such remarks can be
drawn from the shape’s appearance.
CSB is an indispensable structure; hence, its safety and serviceability can not be com-
promised during seismic events. After the Bhuj earthquake, which occurred in 2001
(India), bridge failure statistics reveal that bridges’ seismic evaluation should be consid-
ered. Usually, CSB is designed with the floating system enabled in the longitudinal direc-
tion. Such a system attracts high seismic energy during an earthquake because of its slen-
derness and greater flexibility. Therefore, bearings are placed to counter the seismic energy
dissipators, i.e., dampers. In order to resist lateral loads, the pylon and girder incorpo-
rate fixed transverse restraints.
Consequently, the huge lateral inertial force will be transferred to the pylons. The pylons
should withstand the high seismic force in the transverse direction. The pylon may be dam-
aged if the fortification level is breached while resisting earthquake forces. Damage to the
Chi-lu CSB during the Chi-Chi earthquake proves the fragile behavior of the pylon in the
transverse direction. Hence, the seismic vulnerability of the pylon should be examined for
the same. In addition, bridges should be analyzed with the proper modeling of soil-struc-
ture interactions (Guettafi et al. 2021; Soneji and Jangid 2008; Hoseini et al. 2019; Sun and
Xie 2019). During seismic occurrence proper soil strata modeling will provide appropriate
structural behavior.
The CSB has been subjected to numerous studies looking at its seismic response. The
seismic response of a CSB was studied under uniform and nonuniform conditions (Abdel-
ghaffar and Nazmy 1992; Soneji and Jangid 2010; Mylonakis et al. 2001). The response
spectrum analysis was used to investigate the seismic response of a CSB to multi-com-
ponent random ground motions (Zhang et al. 2021; Mu et al. 2016; Der and Neuenhofer
1992). Fragility curves estimate the structural collapse probability for an area where his-
torical earthquake data is unavailable (Jia et al. 2020; Thapa et al. 2022). Seismic fragility
evaluation is crucial for assessing the seismic behavior of bridge structures (Giresini et al.
2018; Salzano et al. 2022). The use of limited earthquake records cannot guide the design
of an earthquake-resistant CSB. Research carried out by researchers on CSB for fragility
assessment is summarized in Table 1, which highlights the silent features of the study, like
the software used and its adaptivity.
Although the previous studies evaluated H-shaped, A-shaped, Inverted Y-shaped, and
diamond-shaped pylons using dynamic testing and mathematical simulation, only a tiny
13
Table 1 Summary of fragility analysis for the CSB
References Bridge height (m) Shape of Pylon Software used Local/ regional Special modelling features
Research information
Choi et al. (2004) 253.6 m above G.L H shape united below deck OpenSees Local Multi-span CSB with tall piers was analyzed using Latin
Hypercube sampling technique
Zhong et al. (2017) 145 m above G.L H shape SAP2000 Local Long-Span CSB by an Integrated Finite Strip Method
Padgett and DesRoches (2008) 300 m above G.L A shape MSC.Marc Local Time history analysis of a long span CSB by nonlinear
Latin hypercube sampling technique
Li et al. (2017) 181.3 m above G.L Diamond shape Not specified – Cables local vibration
Li et al. (2018) 210 m above G.L Diamond shape FEM Local Numerical solution for the dynamic response of a train-
China bridge interaction system under multi-support seismic
loads
Zhong et al. (2016) 300 m above G.L A shape MSC.Marc Local Under strong earthquakes, a digital twin-based collapse
fragility assessment of a long-span cable-stayed bridge
using Push-Over analysis
Pang and Wu (2018) 103 m above G.L Diamond shape OpenSees Local Seismic Fragility Analysis of CSB based on Uniform
Design method
Yi et al. (2007) 70 m above G.L Stright GiD Local Single pylon CSB equipped with friction bearings under
bi-directional earthquake excitations by 3D numerical
model
Pang et al. (2014) 151 m above G.L A shape united below deck OpenSees Local CSB Subjected to Differential Support Motions analyzed
using Uniform Design method
Guettafi et al. (2021) 131 m above G.L H shape OpenSees Local CSB subjected to multi-support ground motions on off-
shore sites analyzed using Plastic Hinge model
Gong et al. (2020) 328 m above G.L A shape united below deck OpenSees Local Multi pylon CSB with super high piers in Mountainous
Areas was analyzed using multi-time-step FE approach
Ramadan et al. (2015) 81 m above G.L Diamond shape SAP2000 Local Seismic assessment of CSB by Incremental Dynamic
Analysis and Uniform Design Method
Huo et al. (2013) 7 m above G.L Diamond shape SAP2000 Local Seismic risk assessment of CSB with alternative pylon
shapes analyzed using contact element-based linear
spring model
3649
13
amount of attention was paid to the optimal pylon shape under seismic action. In the pre-
sent study, IDA has been performed considering four performance criteria for all four
pylon shapes. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Quincy Bayview CSB along
with the FE model. The FE model of CSB has been developed using Midas Civil 2022
v1.1 structural analysis software. Section 3 focused on the component fragility and sys-
tem fragility methods used in the article. Section 4 introduced the ground motion database,
normalization and scaling of selected GMs, and the performance limit states. Section 5
describes the component and system fragility results. The final section consists of a concise
summary and concludes the seismic performance of distinct pylon shapes in CSB under
the particular intensity earthquake excitation with consideration of SSI. It was discovered
that the Y-shaped pylons were the most suited out of all the other pylon shapes.
2 Case study of CSB
2.1 Prototype bridge
The basic geometry of the Quincy Bayview CSB, located over the Mississippi River in
the United States of America, has been used to assess the seismic performance of vari-
ous pylon shapes. The bridges constructed worldwide between 1985 and 2000, have simi-
lar cross-sections (i.e., the Edong Yangtze River Bridge has a Dimond-shaped pylon, and
the Sutong Yangtze River Bridge has an A-shaped pylon). Hence, the geometry of Quincy
Bayview CSB has been anticipated for parametric study. The bridge has a main span of
274 m and two side spans of 134 m, as shown in Fig. 1. The width of the deck is 12 m.
Steel and concrete were primarily used to construct the bridge. Stress-strain properties of
such a material are presented in Fig. 3b. Table 2 shows the mechanical properties of the
construction material.
14 cables support the main span of the deck, and the side spans are supported by seven
cables. A total of 28 cables are constituted of galvanized steel wires categorized into four
sections based on their area. The cross-sectional area of Cables 1–4 is presented in Table 2.
Cable assignments are presented in Fig. 1. The deck is resting on the lower strut. The deck
is rigidly attached to the lower strut by a lead rubber bearing. The lead rubber bearing has
a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0.1 and a hysteretic loop parameter of 0.5. The deck can move
freely in the longitudinal direction but is restrained in the transverse direction. The height
of the RC pylon is 14 m above the ground, 35 m from deck to upper strut, and 22 m above
the upper strut. The upper strut, the lower strut, and a pile cap join the pylon’s two legs,
separating the pylon into three parts. All pylon shapes have the same cross-sectional area;
the key difference is the angle formulation between such parts, which can be seen in Fig. 2.
Variations in angle will lead to minor changes in the pylon length. The angle formed by the
pylon leg to the foundation is 100°, 82°, 82°, and 105° for the A-shape, Diamond shape,
H-shape, and Inverted Y-shape pylons, respectively. Pylon leg orientation controls the bot-
tom width of pylons. It is 71.14 m, 72.95 m, 72.4 m, and 71.84 m for H shape, A shape,
inverted Y shape, and diamond shape pylons, respectively. The pylon is capped with the
pile foundation; having 6.5 m × 4 m pile cape and a 15 m long piles. Total six number of
1 m diameter piles has been adopted. Stiff clayey soil has been incorporated into the study.
Soil-pile interaction has been taken into account.
13
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:3647–3671 3651
Fig. 1 Elevation of CSB
Table 2 Mechanical properties Material Steel Concrete

of material
Elastic modulus 2 × 108 kN/m2 3 × 107 kN/m2
Unit weight 76.97 kN/m3 23.56 kN/m3
Poison’s ratio 0.3 0.25
Fig. 2 Cross-section layout of the various pylon shape variations considered for the current study
2.2 FE modeling
A three-dimensional FE model of CSB has been developed in Midas Civil 2022 V1.1. Fig-
ure 3 represents the FE modeling of the bridge. In the FE model, the beam element is
used to form the pylon and deck. A girder is conceived with a beam element. The girder is
formed with the longitudinal beam and cross girder beams. Bridge Cross sectional proper-
ties has been presented in Table 3.
All the cables were modeled with an improved catenary cable element having the corre-
sponding modulus of elasticity, Eeq = 1+(wH )2 Ac E ∕12T 3 . The girder and cables are rigidly
E
c c c
13
Fig. 3 a FE modelling of CSB b Material stress-strain property
Table 3 Cross-sectional Bridge component Area (m2) IXX (m4) IYY (m4) J (m4)
properties of bridge component
(Variyavwala and Desai 2021)
Cable-1 0.0089 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cable-2 0.0067 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cable-3 0.0053 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Cable-4 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Girder 0.8268 0.3409 19.7600 0.0270
Pylon (Sect. 3) 17.8800 129.46 16.3900 13.6900
Pylon (Sect. 2) 8.7700 3.5386 15.3110 9.8824
Pylon (Sect. 1) 7.0600 3.4092 14.0250 7.6988
Girder beam 0.0499 0.0031 0.0447 0.1331
lower strut 6.3638 7.3708 13.3700 13.835
Upper strut 7.2464 8.2339 13.9990 14.983
13
joined. The side span girder is also rigidly joined to the abutment. A rigid link is conceptu-
alized as a rigid element that has infinite stiffness. The lead rubber bearing is idealized as a
zero-length element with effective stiffness and damping properties in the longitudinal and
lateral directions. The effective stiffnesses considered are 4698366.01kN∕m ,
3296.02kN∕m , and 3296.02 kN∕m for longitudinal direction, and 12640771.85 kN∕m ,
6886.23kN∕m , and 6886.23 kN∕m for lateral direction. The longitudinal damping stiff-
nesses are 10777.51kN∕m , 153.87kN∕m , and 0.87445 kN∕m , and the lateral damping
stiffnesses are 21613.86 kN∕m , 329.79 kN∕m , and 0.8453 kN∕m in x, y, andz direction
respectively.
The pylon is capped with the pile foundation. The soil-pile interaction is initiated by
continuously dispersed hysteretic springs and parallel viscous dashpots, as presented in
Fig. 3a. The pile cape was modeled as a plate element, while the piles were modeled as
beam elements. A fine mesh is incorporated into the pile cape. The interaction between
the soil and pile is conceptualized as a beam supported by a nonlinear Winkler foundation
(Wang and Brandenberg 2013). This interaction is modeled with translational, rotational,
and coupling spring systems and corresponding viscous damping. The spring constants are
computed using the soil profile and foundation geometry, which includes the embedding
depth of the foundation, soil spring stiffness, and soil damping values; these values are
used the same as recommended by researchers (Wang and Brandenberg 2013; Lysmer and
Richart 1966; Tripathy and Desai 2017). Nonlinear viscous dashpots depict the hysteretic
damping property of the soil.
3 Seismic fragility of CSB
3.1 Component fragility function
The seismic fragility function for the CSB is the conditional failure probability of attaining
and exceeding a particular damage state for a given IM (Mohsenian et al. 2021). There are
numerous ways to obtain component fragility. Several techniques have been incorporated
during the past two decades due to advancements in mathematical statistics, efficient hard-
ware support, and greater processing power. Initially, nonlinear static analysis was used
by researchers to build component fragility curves (Karim and Yamazaki 2003; Shinozuka
et al. 2000; Mohsenian et al. 2020b, 2023). However, most researchers have used nonlinear
dynamic analysis (Wei et al. 2020; Padgett and DesRoches 2008; Huo and Zhang 2013;
Variyavwala and Desai 2021; Shinozuka et al. 2000). Zhang et al. have adopted the cloud
approach. This approach is not very popular because of its higher mathematical independ-
ence (Zhang and Huo 2009). The fragility curve fitting functions established a relationship
between the structural engineering demand parameter (EDP) and the structural capacity
corresponding to a specific damage LS for associated IMs. Linear Regression (LR) is the
most popular method for calculating fragility curves (Arada et al. 2022). LR is a highly
adopted curve fitting technique, which can be seen in Table 4. The structural capacity is
determined using IDA, utilizing increased scaled seismic intensity values that create non-
linear deformation in the structure (Kassem et al. 2022a, 2022b; Mohsenian et al. 2020c).
Ultimately, the structure will collapse. For each ground motion, this process creates a set of
IM values associated with the commencement of collapse. The fraction of records linked
with collapse below the stated point can be used to estimate the likelihood of failure for a
13
Table 4 Fragility analysis type with the post-possessing approaches
3654
Analysis type Post-possessing

Author Static/dynamic Type of GMs Number of Fragility Analysis Type IM EDP Component System Fragility model
13
GMs used Fragility
model
Choi et al. (2004) Dynamic Synthetic 100 Not Specified PGA Pylon curvature ductility log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
and Bearing displace-
ment
Zhong et al. (2017) Dynamic Not specified 100 Displacement Time PGA Pylon curvature ductility log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
History and displacement
Padgett and DesRoches Dynamic Scaled 96 PSDM PGA Bearing displacement log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
(2008)
Li et al. (2017) Dynamic Not specified 80 PSDM Sa Pylon curvature ductility log-normal Not specified
and bearing displace-
ment
Li et al. (2018) Dynamic Scaled 80 PSDM PGA Pylon curvature ductility log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
Zhong et al. (2016) Dynamic Not specified 80 PSDM PGA Section curvature log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
ductility and bearing
displacement
Pang and Wu (2018) Dynamic Scaled 75 PSDM PGA Pylon curvature and log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
bearing displacement
Yi et al. (2007) Dynamic Unscaled 60 Probability Density PGA Pier drift ratio log-normal Not specified
Function
Pang et al. (2014) Dynamic Not specified 56 Cloud Approach Sa Pylon drift, cable axial log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
force and bearing
displacement
Guettafi et al. (2021) Dynamic Scaled 47 Nonlinear Material PGA Bearing displacement log-normal FE simulations
Models
Gong et al. (2020) Dynamic Scaled 32 PSDM PGA Pylon displacement, log-normal Structural Health Moni-
Pylon curvature, and toring
Bearing displacement
Table 4 (continued)
Analysis type Post-possessing
Author Static/dynamic Type of GMs Number of Fragility Analysis Type IM EDP Component System Fragility model
GMs used Fragility
model
Ramadan et al. (2015) Dynamic Scaled 24 Multiple Physical PGA Deck displacement, and log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
Models Cables tension force
Huo and Zhang (2013) Dynamic Scaled 24 Multiple Physical PGA Deck displacement, and log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
Models Cables tension force
Bayat et al. (2017) Dynamic Scaled 20 IDA PGA Drift ratio log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
Zhao et al. (2021) Dynamic Scaled 20 IDA PGA Pylon displacement, log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
Pylon curvature, and
Bearing displacement
Noghabi and Heidary- Dynamic Scaled 15 IDA Sa Pylon displacement, log-normal Monte-Carlo Simulation,
Torkamani (2014) Pylon curvature, Bear- and Uniform Design
ing displacement, and

Cable tension force
Akhoondzade-Noghabi Dynamic Scaled 15 IDA Sa Pylon Displacement and log-normal Monte-Carlo simulation
and Bargi (2016) curvature, Bearing
Displacement, and
cable tension force
Guo et al. (2015) Dynamic Scaled 9 IDA PGA The pylon Curvature log-normal Numerical simulation
ductility
Karim and Yamazaki Dynamic Scaled 5 PSDM PGA Drift ratio log-normal Numerical simulation
(2003)
Barnawi and Dyke Dynamic Scaled 5 Nonlinear Regression PGA Deck displacement log-normal Numerical simulation
(2014) Models
sa Spectral acceleration, IDA Incremental dynamic analysis, PGA Peak ground acceleration, PSDM Probabilistic seismic demand models
3655
13
particular IM at the same level. By collecting logarithms of each ground motion’s IM value
related to the commencement of collapse, the mean and standard deviation of the fragility
function may be computed from this data (Mohsenian et al. 2020a). The lognormal distri-
bution used in this article can be seen in Eqs. (1) and (2).
n
1∑
ln 𝜃̂ = lnIM i (1)
n i=1
√
√ n ( ( ))2
√ 1 ∑ IM i
̂
𝛽=√ ln (2)
n − 1 i=1 𝜃̂
where 𝜃̂ and 𝛽̂ are the mean and standard deviation of the lognormal distribution. The
number of ground motions considered is n, and the collapse IM corresponds with each
ground motion is IM i It is possible to present a lognormal cumulatively distributed fragility
function as,
[ ( )]
1 x
P [C|IM = x] = Φ ln (3)
𝛽 Θ
P [C|IM = x] represents the collapse probability caused by ground motion with IM = x.

Φ[] stands for the standard cumulative distribution function.
3.2 System fragility function
The overall bridge structure is more vulnerable than any specific bridge’s component. The
failure of a structure is not defined by individual component fragility. It is vital to consider
the contribution of different components to the development of system fragility. Research-
ers have so far relied on Monte Carlo-based subset simulation, as seen in Table 4. However,
Monte Carlo-based subset simulation fails to predict extremely curved non-Gaussian mani-
folds (PEER Ground Motion Database 2015). Hence, RMHMC-SS has been introduced to
get system fragility. In an exceedingly arched curve, the RMHMC-SS approach provides
higher accuracy (Chen et al. 2022). The bridge structure is a series of interacting and link-
ing components in standard engineering practice. Thus, the failure probability of a CSB
can be expressed as,
∫ℝn (4)
Pf = 1(q ∈ f )𝜋(q)dq
where q is an n-dimensional vector to quantify the uncertainties, π(q) is the joint probabil-
ity density function (PDF) of q, and 1(⋅) is a binary indicator function for the event q ∈ f.
Term f can be written as,
M
⋂
f = fj (5)
j=1
where, f1 ⊃ f2 ⊃ ⋯ ⊃ fM and fM = f . The failure domain is expressed as an intersection of

a sequence of nested intermediate domains fj . in subset simulation. Where j = 1, 2, …, M.
13
is calculated using Eq. (5) and the probability multiplication rule. Ultimately, failure prob-
ability can be expressed as,
M
∏
Pf = P(q ∈ f ) = P(q ∈ fj |q ∈ fj−1 ) (6)
j=1
Note that f0 = ℝn , P(q ∈ fj |q ∈ fj−1 ). The failure probability estimation P(q ∈ f ) is

|
|
now transformed into estimations of conditional probabilities P(q ∈ fj |q ∈ fj−1 ), j= 1, 2,
|
…, M. The conditional probabilities can be made relatively large, allowing estimation to
|
be done with a small number of random samples.
3.3 Seismic fragility assessment procedure
Seismic fragility curves are classified into three categories based on different data
sources: analytical, empirical, and expert-based fragility curves (Zhang et al. 2020). The
IDA method is used to develop the analytical fragility curves. It is advantageous to use
such an approach because it requires less computational effort than the frequency sta-
tistics analysis method. The analytical steps for this technique are as follows: Create
a numerical model of the proposed CSB. Select the seismically vulnerable component
to evaluate seismic bridge response. Select appropriate ground motion records based
on the bridge soil conditions. The specified ground motions are then scaled to 15 lev-
els with spectral acceleration changes ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 g with 0.1 g increments.
Then normalization is incorporated into specified earthquake time histories. Identify the
component damage indexes that correspond to various damage LSs. Conduct nonlinear
IDA for the CSB above ground motion with different intensities. The fragility fitting
establishes an association between the structural engineering demand parameter (EDP)
and the structural capacity corresponding to a particular damage LSs for corresponding
IMs. Finally, Develop the component fragility curves for the multiple components were
combined into system fragility curves that reflect the entire bridge’s seismic perfor-
mance. The detailed flow chart is shown in Fig. 4 represents the fragility assessment’s
step-by-step procedure.
4 Seismic fragility assessment
4.1 Strong ground motion selection
A large amount of ground motion data is necessary to cover various possible CSB reac-
tions. Selecting the correct number of ground motions should result in more accurate esti-
mates of median capacity. Ground motion intensity uncertainty is frequently illustrated
using a site-specific hazard curve that relates spectral intensity to exceedance frequency.
Most fragility curves, on the other hand, are region-specific. By choosing an adequate
number of ground motions for the SFA, the uncertainty in seismic loads was drastically
reduced. According to FEMA P695 (2009), the ground motion record-set should be ana-
lyzed to determine if they contain a sufficient amount of record-to-record (RTR) variabil-
ity. Ground motion data is scaled to represent a specific intensity level. In the beginning,
13
Fig. 4 Flowchart of the fragility assessment procedure conducted in present study
the data in each set is normalized by their peak ground velocities. Without eradicating
overall RTR variability, this stage seeks to eliminate unjustified variability within forms
due to differences in event size, distance to the source, source type, and site conditions. The
selected ground motion from the PEER-NGA database was normalized using the following
Eqs. (7) and (8).
Median(PGV i )
NGMi = PGV i (7)
NGM1,i = NGMi ∗ i and NGM2,i = NGMi ∗ GM2,i (8)

Numerous studies have been conducted on the selection of ground motions for the SFA
of CSB. As can be seen in Table 4, the selection of a set of ground motions has been in the
range of 5 to 100. Ten to twenty ground motion data are frequently considered to determine
a structure’s seismic demands.
The longitudinal direction is likely the most detrimental to the CSB (Dyke et al. 2003).
Consequently, we concentrate on the bridge’s longitudinal seismic fragility. The verti-
cal component of ground motion has a negligible effect on the seismic performance of
a CSB with medium spans. The transverse deck-pier connections effectively manage the
transverse seismic response on either side. As a result, the key element of CSB should
be unaffected by the transverse component of the ground motion. Consequently, a one-
dimensional longitudinal seismic excitation is used in this study. A total of 25 normal-
ized ground motion records are chosen from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center’s (PEER) NGA-West2 ground motion database (PEER Ground Motion Database
2015). In the context of the CSB’s topographic features, the selected ground motions have
a magnitude of 6.0–8.0. The v30
s
in the range of 100–500 m/s, where vs is the average shear
wave velocity of the top 30 m of soil.
Table 3 summarizes the details of these ground motions. The maximum values of
as-recorded peak ground acceleration ( PGAmax ) , and maximum values of as-recorded
13
peak ground velocity ( PGV max ), are also included in each record. The term maximum
implies that the value of the larger of the two components is presented. PGAmax is
0.16 g on average, with PGA ranging from 0.06 to 0.36 g. With PGV values ranging
from 6.24 to 48.07 cm/s, the average PGV max is 18.52 m/s. The normalization factors
range from 0.29 to 2.73, as seen in Table 5. For the following normalization, PGA
values vary from 0.07 g to 0.19 g, with an average PGAmax of 0.137 g. Table 6 shows
that normalization of the records (by PGV from PEER) has reduced the dispersion in
PGV max to a level consistent with that of PGAmax without appreciably affecting aver-
age values of PGAmax or PGV max for the record set. Figure 5 shows the mean scaled
GM with the maximum target response spectra zone-V. While Fig. 6 illustrates the
scaling of the indiual GM with target response spectra of zone-V at MCE level. The
response spectra of specified ground motions with a damping ratio of 5% are equal to
the bridge’s design seismic response spectrum. Current ground motion selection
strictly uses the properties representing the Zone -V soil properties and intensity of
past earthquakes.
4.2 Optimal intensity measure
The seismic performance prediction in IDA depends on the ground motions’ IMs. The lin-
ear consistency of analysis results can be used to measure the effectiveness of the IM to
grasp the results using a logarithmic frame of reference. PGA and Sa may be suitable IMs
that can correlate EDP approaches. PGA is a single high-frequency measurement incom-
patible with the bridge structures (Pang et al. 2014; Barnawi and Dyke 2014). Therefore,
Sa is used henceforward, which is the geometric mean of the two periods in both longitudi-
nal and transverse directions. The intensity of selected ground vibrations is progressively
increased by 1 g till the bridge collapses during collapse fragility.
4.3 Performance limit states
The structural damage caused by seismic events is quantified using a damage index (DI) in
fragility analysis. The DIs for individual components require specific limit state (LS) val-
ues based on their structural responses. The bridge component’s limit states are described
using LS values. Specimen capacity linked to the level of applied demand can be used to
calculate LS values. Authors have documented different LS values based on damage status
and load-carrying capacity (Zhong et al. 2016; Zhang and Huo 2009; Wei et al. 2021).
DIs were evaluated using curvature ductility, longitudinal displacement, and drift ratios.
While DIs are defined based on the HAZUS-MH MR3, namely slight, moderate, exten-
sive, and collapse. Presently, the DIs of CSB are defined in terms of longitudinal bearing
displacement and the pylon drift ratio. Table 7 contains the definitions of DI criteria and
their accompanying LS values are considered from the available literature (Wei et al. 2020;
Noghabi and Heidary-Torkamani 2014; Zhang et al. 2021).
13
Table 5 Factors summary used for normalizing recorded GMs and standardized GM parameters
ID PGA PGV PGVmax PGAmax Normaliza- Normalized Normalized
tion factor PGVmax PGAmax
H1 H2 H1 H2
1 0.32 0.28 17.06 28.65 28.65 0.32 0.59 16.82 0.19

2 0.16 0.22 36.61 40.94 40.94 0.22 0.34 13.73 0.07
3 0.24 0.35 26.32 33.00 33.00 0.35 0.44 14.53 0.15
4 0.08 0.11 22.24 22.61 22.61 0.11 0.58 13.09 0.06
5 0.36 0.26 48.07 41.79 48.07 0.36 0.29 13.92 0.10
6 0.06 0.08 12.41 09.55 12.41 0.08 1.19 14.80 0.09
7 0.19 0.14 12.76 14.38 14.38 0.19 0.96 13.78 0.18
8 0.14 0.13 11.16 14.53 14.53 0.14 1.02 14.81 0.14
9 0.10 0.06 7.07 08.10 8.10 0.10 1.71 13.89 0.17
10 0.10 0.19 12.23 14.23 14.23 0.19 0.98 14.01 0.18
11 0.13 0.18 13.90 20.01 20.01 0.18 0.78 15.58 0.14
12 0.05 0.10 5.94 13.63 13.63 0.10 1.44 19.66 0.14
13 0.05 0.09 06.75 07.81 07.81 0.09 1.79 13.96 0.16
14 0.16 0.12 18.86 11.28 18.86 0.16 0.89 16.79 0.14
15 0.06 0.07 07.19 05.92 07.19 0.07 1.99 14.31 0.13
16 0.09 0.10 06.40 11.56 11.56 0.10 1.51 17.44 0.15
17 0.06 0.02 06.24 03.62 06.24 0.06 2.73 17.04 0.17
18 0.06 0.11 009.78 09.48 09.78 0.11 1.35 13.18 0.15
19 0.14 0.14 14.61 11.54 14.61 0.14 1.00 14.61 0.14
20 0.09 0.10 13.85 17.72 17.72 0.10 0.83 14.69 0.08
21 0.13 0.15 06.70 13.40 13.40 0.15 1.37 18.36 0.21
22 0.11 0.13 25.61 26.81 26.81 0.13 0.50 13.28 0.06
23 0.27 0.26 40.47 38.36 40.47 0.27 0.33 13.33 0.09
24 0.13 0.15 11.66 11.47 11.66 0.15 1.12 13.09 0.16
25 0.08 0.08 06.36 05.74 06.36 0.08 2.15 13.66 0.18
Table 6 Maximum, Minimum, Parameter value PGA PGV

and Average Values of Peak
Ground Acceleration ( PGAmax Recorded Normalized Recorded Normalized
) and Peak Ground Velocity
( PGV max), respectively, Max 0.36 0.21 48.07 19.66
from the selected GM record
Min 0.06 0.06 6.24 13.09
set (as-recorded and after
normalization) Ratio max/min 5.66 3.30 7.71 1.50
Average 0.16 0.14 18.52 14.89
5 Results and discussion
In order to examine the statistical approach for quickly and accurately estimating the fragil-
ity curve, it is necessary to develop a more straightforward, less costly procedure. The IDA
is the most accurate and robust method for estimating the CSB’s seismic fragility curve.
Even though it has an extended processing time and requires substantial maintenance after
13
Fig. 5 Mean GM of the selected and scaled between (0.2–1.5) T
2.5
1 2 3
4 5 6
Spectral Acceleration (g)
2
7 8 9
10 11 12
1.5 13 14 15
16 17 18
19 20 21
1 22 23 24
25 Target Spectrum
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)
Fig. 6 Twenty-five GM selected and scaled for the seismic Zone-V
Table 7 The performance criteria and damage states incorporated in this research
Description Physical phenom- Cracking and Moderate Degradation Collapse
enon spalling cracking and
spalling
Component DI Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

Tower Displace- Drift ratio θ (Yi θ > 0.007 θ > 0.015 θ > 0.025 θ > 0.050
ment et al. 2007)
Bearing Displacement δ 50 > δ 100 > δ 150 > δ δ > 150
(mm) (Padgett
and DesRoches
2008)
13
gathering large amounts of data, it is a valuable tool. Many scientists are attempting to
improve particular methods of analysis. The evaluation of the CSB structure using various
pylon shapes led to the following inferences:
• Using an Intel i7 2.4 GHz processor, the overall nonlinear dynamic analysis for the
CSB has been studied in the research, which takes about 500 s for each pylon shape of
the CSB. Considering that generating a complete damage curve necessitates estimat-
ing the performance point, the entire duration for a single damage curve of the same
structure is, on average, around 160 s. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that
the dynamic analysis must be performed for each of the scaled recordings (ten scaled
values used), resulting in a total computation time of almost 2,400 s, roughly six times
the computational cost of the nonlinear time history-based method. It is significant to
mention that as the number of seismic intensities in the IDA rises, so does the disparity
in numerical costs.
• The present study incorporates normalizing and scaling the GMs. Intensity is not com-
promised during this process, but the elimination of record-to-record variation in pre-
dicting post-earthquake behavior can be confident. The traditional IDA methods are
checked for the same number of scaled earthquake motions.
• This article focused only on the performance criteria of the superstructure. The sub-
structure has only been considered to anticipate the behavior of the superstructure. The
main span of the CSB is 274 m long. Pylons are attached to the main span at the end.
During an earthquake, seismic waves propagate from one pylon to another, creating a
phase difference that affects the pylon’s response. The current study acquired the maxi-
mum pylon response and did not collect responses from substructures during seismic
excitation. It will be the future research scope.
5.1 Component’s fragility results
IDA can obtain the maximum structural demand for a particular structural member for
each ground motion. Then, after abundant nonlinear IDA, the probable seismic demand
of different components can be developed. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the probable seismic
demand of the critical components. Results were taken at the bearings and the pylon top for
different pylon shapes. EDP and limit-state models can be used to calculate lognormally
distributed component fragility curves for each bridge component. Fragility curves for each
component associated with different LSs are developed as presented in Figs. 9 and 10. Fra-
gility curves have been developed as a function of damage probability for spectral accel-
eration up to 5 g. When the pylon drift ratio is used as an EDP, the H-shaped pylon has a
50 percent damage probability IM values at 1 g, 2.6 g, 3.6 g, and 5 g for slight, moderate,
extensive, and collapse LS, respectively. While diamond, A, and inverted Y-shaped pylons
have a 50 percent damage probability at 1.5 g, 1.5 g, and 2 g for slight LS, 3.6 g, 4 g, and
4 g for moderate LS, and other LSs occur at IM: 5.0 g. The probable failure occurrence is
high at low IM in the H shape pylon. The probable reason for such behavior is the separa-
tion of the pylon at the top.
In contrast, the inverted Y-shaped pylon exhibits damage at the higher IMs. If the sub-
structure is not considered, it may lead to a failure probability at lower IMs. For slight,
moderate, extensive, and collapse LSs with H-shaped, Diamond shaped, A-shaped, and
Inverted Y-shaped pylons, the bearing displacement shows a 50 per cent damage probabil-
ity at IM: 2 g, 1 g, 1 g, and 1 g, respectively. Extensive and complete collapse damage
13
Fig. 7 The linear log-normal fragility function of pylon drift ratio between Sa and DR for engineering
demand parameter (EDP)
states occur at the lower IMs in the A-shape pylon and inverted Y-shape pylon CSB. For
all damage states, graphical orientation reveals that the bearing is the most vulnerable com-
ponent of the bridge structure. The restricted longitudinal movement of the bearing can
prevent structural failure.
5.2 Fragility of the bridge system
The CSB is a complex structure. Its component fragility can not predict overall struc-
tural fragility. The system fragility curve can be derived by combining the component
fragility curves using the reliability theory, as described in Sect. 4.2. Figure 11 shows
the system fragility of various pylon shapes for different LSs. However, this necessi-
tates knowledge of the bridge components’ dependency at various damage stages. The
13
Fig. 8 The linear log-normal fragility function of bearing between Sa and δ for Engineering demand
parameter (EDP)
slight LSs collapse probability of Inverted Y-shape pylon and A-shape pylon is high. In
complete collapsed LSs, diamond-shaped and A-shaped pylons have the highest prob-
ability of collapse. In all LSs, A shape pylon CSB proved to be more fragile. It should
be emphasized that bearing fragilities are the most equivalent to CSB system fragilities.
The prominence of components is inversely proportional to the proximity of compo-
nent fragility curves to system fragility curves. The lower and upper bounds have been
derived as presented in Fig. 12. The lower bound is the highest component fragility,
illustrating the complete structural failure.
In contrast, the upper bound is the combination of component fragility. The graphical
presentation reveals that as the damage index increases, the width of the bound strip also
13
Fig. 9 Observed fractions of collapse as a function of IM and a fragility function estimated using Tradi-
tional IDA (Linear regression) for pylon drift ratio
increases. The bridge components’ relative fragility influences the width of the bound strip.
A wide range of bounds exists if all the bridge components are equally fragile. However,
the bounds are relatively narrow if one component is more fragile than the rest. Bridge
structures can experience severe damage for all pylon shapes in slight and moderate LS.
Moreover, the system fragility of CSB is more than component fragility.
6 Concluding remarks
This research focuses on the seismic fragility assessment of distinct pylon shapes of CSB.
A three-dimensional FE model was developed, and an IDA was conducted using 25 strong
ground motions. A probable seismic demand has been obtained after establishing the
damage state models of the lead rubber bearing and pylon. The expected seismic damage
13
Fig. 10 Observed fractions of collapse as a function of IM and a fragility function estimated using tradi-
tional IDA (Linear regression) for bearing
depends on the analytical approach to determine post-earthquake response and selected

GMs. The primary outcomes are as follows:
• Many studies dedicated to the seismic performance evaluation of CSB have been estab-
lished without considering the sub-structure. The proposed SPI modeling technique can
anticipate soil behavior effectively. The SPI technique, soil properties, and phase differ-
ence between the two pylons of CSB strongly influence the probable seismic damage to
the bridge structure.
• The lognormal distribution proved the most efficient curve fitting technique to fit the
fragility curves. The proposed linear equation reveals the correct fragile behavior of
components in different limit states. Traditional IDA predicts the exact damage prob-
ability of a bridge structure.
13
Fig. 11 Observed system fragility curve of different pylon shapes using RMHMC-SS for different LSs
• The RMHMC-SS method is the most efficient way to generate a highly curved system
fragility curve. The system fragility curve and bound limits are the essence of SFA,
which will aid engineers in creating an earthquake-resistant CSB.
• Concrete pylons and lead rubber bearings are considered potentially sensitive com-
ponents. CSB is more susceptible to longitudinal direction as compared to trans-
verse. The longitudinal response of the CSB is highly influenced by the lead rub-
ber bearings placed between the pylon and the girder. As the load path mechanism
initiates, bearings show a higher failure probability as a susceptible component. It
comes out as the most fragile component. Due to higher ductile capacity, the failure
probability of the pylon is very low; hence no severe damage or destruction has been
observed for the pylon.
• From the seismic performance perspective, the A-shaped and Diamond-shaped pylons
were the most suitable among all pylon shapes due to their lower collapse probability
and narrower bound width.
13
Fig. 12 System Fragility curves with bond limits for different pylon shape CSB
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial assistance the Ministry of Education, Govern-
ment of India, provided.
Funding The authors have not disclosed any funding.
Declarations
Conflict of interest There is no conflict of interest to declare.
References
Abdel-ghaffar AM, Nazmy AS (1992) 3-D nonlinear seismic behavior of cable- stayed bridges. J Struct Eng
117:3456–3476
13
Akhoondzade-Noghabi V, Bargi K (2016) Decision-making of alternative pylon shapes of a benchmark

cable-stayed bridge using seismic risk assessment. Earthq Struct 11:583–607. https://doi.org/10.12989/
eas.2016.11.4.583
Arada AH, Ozturk B, Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Tan CG (2022) Optimization of Sky-Bridge location at cou-
pled high-rise buildings considering seismic vulnerability functions. Struct Eng Mech 82:385–400.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2022.82.3.385
Barnawi WT, Dyke SJ (2014) Seismic fragility relationships of a cable-stayed bridge equipped with
response modification systems. J Bridg Eng 19:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.
0000468
Bayat M, Daneshjoo F, Nisticò N (2017) The effect of different intensity measures and earthquake direc-
tions on the seismic assessment of skewed highway bridges. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 16:165–179. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11803-017-0375-z
Chen W, Wang Z, Broccardo M, Song J (2022) Riemannian Manifold Hamiltonian Monte Carlo based
subset simulation for reliability analysis in non-Gaussian space. Struct Saf 94:102134. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2021.102134
Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B (2004) Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.
Eng Struct 26:187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstr uct.2003.09.006
Der KA, Neuenhofer A (1992) Response spectrum method for multi-support seismic excitations. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 21:713–740. https://doi.org/10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2013.06.0559
Dyke SJ, Caicedo JM, Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Turan G, Hague S (2003) Phase I benchmark control
problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. J Struct Eng 10:137–168. https://doi.org/10.
1002/stc.23
Giresini L, Casapulla C, Denysiuk R, Matos J, Sassu M (2018) Fragility curves for free and restrained rock-
ing masonry façades in one-sided motion. Eng Struct 164:195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2018.03.003
Gimsing NJ, Georgakis CT (2012) Cable supported bridges, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Denmark
Gong W, Zhu Z, Liu Y, Liu R, Tang Y, Jiang L (2020) Running safety assessment of a train traversing a
three-tower cable-stayed bridge under spatially varying ground motion. Railw Eng Sci 28:184–198.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-020-00209-8
Guettafi N, Yahiaoui D, Abbeche K, Bouzid T (2021) Numerical evaluation of soil-pile-structure interac-
tion effects in nonlinear analysis of seismic fragility curves. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40515-021-00161-y
Guo A, Yuan W, Lan C, Guan X, Li H (2015) Time-dependent seismic demand and fragility of dete-
riorating bridges for their residual service life. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2389–2409. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10518-014-9722-x
Han Q, Wen J, Du X, Zhong Z, Hao H (2018) Simplified seismic resistant design of base isolated
single pylon cable-stayed bridge. Bull Earthq Eng 16:5041–5059. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-018-0382-0
Hoseini SS, Ghanbari A, Davoodi M (2019) A new approach in equivalent spring-dashpot method
for seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of long bridges including non-uniform excitations.
Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 6:165–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-019-00076-9
Huo Y, Zhang J (2013) Effects of pounding and skewness on seismic responses of typical multispan
highway bridges using the fragility function method. J Bridg Eng 18:499–515. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000414
Jia HY, Yue WQ, Zheng SX, Gou HY, Zhao CH, You G (2020) Time-dependent pounding probabil-
ity analysis between adjacent decks of bridges under non-stationary stochastic seismic excitations.
Structures 28:2355–2366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.10.028
Karim KR, Yamazaki F (2003) A simplified method of constructing fragility curves for highway bridges.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1603–1626. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.291
Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Farsangi EN, Ozturk B (2022a) Improved vulnerability index methodology to
quantify seismic risk and loss assessment in reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 26:6172–
6207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1911888
Kassem MM, Mohamed Nazri F, Farsangi EN, Ozturk B (2022) Development of a uniform seismic
vulnerability index framework for reinforced concrete building typology. J Build Eng 47:103838.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103838
Li L, Hu S, Wang L (2017) Seismic fragility assessment of a multi-span cable-stayed bridge with tall
piers. Bull Earthq Eng 15:3727–3745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0106-x
Li C, Li H-N, Hao H, Bi K, Chen B (2018) Seismic fragility analyses of sea-crossing cable-stayed
bridges subjected to multi-support ground motions on offshore sites. Eng Struct 165:441–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstr uct.2018.03.066
13
Lysmer JFER, Richart Jr FE (1966) Dynamic response of footings to vertical loading. J Soil Mech Found
Div 92(1):65–91
Mohsenian V, Filizadeh R, Ozdemir Z, Hajirasouliha I (2020a) Seismic performance evaluation of deficient
steel moment-resisting frames retrofitted by vertical link elements. Structures 26:724–736. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.043
Mohsenian V, Hajirasouliha I, Mariani S, Nikkhoo A (2020b) Seismic reliability assessment of RC tunnel-
form structures with geometric irregularities using a combined system approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
139:106356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106356
Mohsenian V, Padashpour S, Hajirasouliha I (2020c) Seismic reliability analysis and estimation of mul-
tilevel response modification factor for steel diagrid structural systems. J Building Eng 29:101168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101168
Mohsenian V, Hajirasouliha I, Filizadeh R (2021) Seismic reliability analysis of steel moment-resisting
frames retrofitted by vertical link elements using combined series–parallel system approach. Bulletin
Earthquake Eng 19(2):831–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01013-9
Mohsenian V, Gharaei-Moghaddam N, Mariani S, Hajirasouliha I (2023) Assessment of the effects of non-
structural components on the seismic reliability of structures via a block diagram method. Structures
47:2050–2065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.12.024
Mu D, Gwon S-G, Choi D (2016) Dynamic responses of a cable-stayed bridge under a high speed train
with random track irregularities and a vertical seismic load. Eng Struct. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13296-016-0104-x
Mylonakis G, Papastamatiou D, Psycharis J (2001) Simplified modeling of bridge response on soft soil
to nonuniform seismic exitation. J Bridg Eng 6:587–597
Noghabi VA, Heidary-Torkamani H (2014) Seismic fragility assessment of cable-stayed bridge using
incremental dynamic analysis and uniform design method. Int J Earthq Eng Hazard Mitig 2:80–88
Padgett JE, DesRoches R (2008) Methodology for the development of analytical fragility curves for ret-
rofitted bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(8):1157–1174
Pang Y, Wu L (2018) Seismic fragility analysis of multispan reinforced concrete bridges using main-
shock-aftershock sequences. Math Probl Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1537301
Pang Y, Wu X, Shen G, Yuan W (2014) Seismic fragility analysis of cable-stayed bridges considering
different sources of uncertainties. J Bridg Eng 19:04013015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-
5592.0000565
Patil SS, Patankar JP (2017) Seismic response of cable stayed bridge with different types of pylons of
various heights. Int J Od Adv Res Dev 2:204–211
PEER Ground Motion Database (2015) PEER (Pacific Earthq Eng Res Center)
Ramadan OMO, Mehanny SSF, Elhowary HA (2015) Seismic vulnerability of box girder continuous
bridges under spatially variable ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1727–1748. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10518-014-9683-0
Salzano P, Casapulla C, Ceroni F, Prota A (2022) Seismic vulnerability and simplified safety assessments of
masonry churches in the Ischia Island (Italy) after the 2017 Earthquake. Int J Archit Herit 16(1):136–
162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2020.1759732
Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H, Kim S (2000) Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve develop-
ment. J Eng Mech 126:1287–1295
Soneji BB, Jangid RS (2008) Influence of soil-structure interaction on the response of seismically iso-
lated cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.
06.005
Soneji BB, Jangid RS (2010) Response of an isolated cable-stayed bridge under bi-directional seismic
actions. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6:347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470701596833
Sun L, Xie W (2019) Experimental assessment of soil–structure interaction effects on a super long-span
cable-stayed-bridge with pile group foundations. Bull Earthq Eng 17:3169–3196. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10518-019-00574-8
Thapa S, Shrestha Y, Gautam D (2022) Seismic fragility analysis of RC bridges in high seismic regions
under horizontal and simultaneous horizontal and vertical excitations. Structures 37:284–294. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.01.021
Tripathy S, Desai AK (2017) Analysis of seismically induced vibrations in turbo machinery foundation for
different soil conditions: case study. J Vibroeng 19:4356–4364. https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2017.
17436
Variyavwala JP, Desai AK (2021) The pylon shape influence on the dynamic response of a cable-stayed
bridge for high-speed rail. Innov Infrastruct Solut 6:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00533-w
13
Wang R, Brandenberg SJ (2013) Beam on nonlinear winkler foundation and modified neutral plane solution
for calculating downdrag settlement. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:1433–1442. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000888
Wei B, Hu Z, He X, Jiang L (2020) Evaluation of optimal ground motion intensity measures and seismic
fragility analysis of a multi-pylon cable-stayed bridge with super-high piers in mountainous areas. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 129:105945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105945
Wei B, Zhuo Y, Hu Z, Li S, He X, Xiao C (2021) Influence of site conditions on structural vulnerability of a
super high three-tower cable-stayed bridge. Structures 34:3882–3893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.
2021.10.018
Yi JH, Kim SH, Kushiyama S (2007) PDF interpolation technique for seismic fragility analysis of bridges.
Eng Struct 29:1312–1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.019
Zhang J, Huo Y (2009) Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway
bridges using the fragility function method. Eng Struct 31:1648–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst
ruct.2009.02.017
Zhang C, Wu C, Wang P (2020) Seismic fragility analysis of bridge group pile foundations considering
fluid-pile-soil interaction. Shock Vib. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8838813
Zhang C, Lu J, Zhou Z, Yan X, Xu L, Lin J (2021) Lateral seismic fragility assessment of cable-stayed
bridge with diamond-shaped concrete pylons. Shock Vib. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2847603
Zhao Y, Hu H, Bai L, Tang M, Chen H, Su D (2021) Fragility analyses of bridge structures using the loga-
rithmic piecewise function-based probabilistic seismic demand model. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su13147814
Zhong J, Pang Y, Jeon JS, Desroches R, Yuan W (2016) Seismic fragility assessment of long-span cable-
stayed bridges in China. Adv Struct Eng 19:1797–1812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216649380
Zhong J, Jeon J-S, Yuan W, DesRoches R (2017) Impact of spatial variability parameters on seismic fra-
gilities of a cable-stayed bridge subjected to differential support motions. J Bridg Eng 22:04017013.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0001046
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
Authors and Affiliations
Jigar P. Variyavwala1 · Kaushik M. Gondaliya1 · Atul K. Desai1 ·

Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi2,3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, S. V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007,
India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, BC,
Canada
3
Faculty of Civil and Surveying Engineering, Graduate University of Advanced Technology,
Kerman, Iran
13

Bulletin

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Bulletin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2023) 21:3647–3671

Seismic fragility estimation of cable‑stayed bridges

Jigar P. Variyavwala1 · Kaushik M. Gondaliya1 · Atul K. Desai1 ·

Keywords Seismic fragility assessment · Cable-stayed bridge · Intensity measure ·

2 Case study of CSB

Fig. 1 Elevation of CSB

Table 2 Mechanical properties Material Steel Concrete

Fig. 3 a FE modelling of CSB b Material stress-strain property

3 Seismic fragility of CSB

3.1 Component fragility function

Analysis type Post-possessing

ing displacement, and

P [C|IM = x] represents the collapse probability caused by ground motion with IM = x.

3.2 System fragility function

where, f1 ⊃ f2 ⊃ ⋯ ⊃ fM and fM = f . The failure domain is expressed as an intersection of

Note that f0 = ℝn , P(q ∈ fj |q ∈ fj−1 ). The failure probability estimation P(q ∈ f ) is

be done with a small number of random samples.

3.3 Seismic fragility assessment procedure

4 Seismic fragility assessment

4.1 Strong ground motion selection

Fig. 4 Flowchart of the fragility assessment procedure conducted in present study

NGM1,i = NGMi ∗ i and NGM2,i = NGMi ∗ GM2,i (8)

4.2 Optimal intensity measure

4.3 Performance limit states

1 0.32 0.28 17.06 28.65 28.65 0.32 0.59 16.82 0.19

Table 6 Maximum, Minimum, Parameter value PGA PGV

5 Results and discussion

Fig. 5 Mean GM of the selected and scaled between (0.2–1.5) T

Fig. 6 Twenty-five GM selected and scaled for the seismic Zone-V

Component DI Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

5.1 Component’s fragility results

5.2 Fragility of the bridge system

depends on the analytical approach to determine post-earthquake response and selected

Funding The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Akhoondzade-Noghabi V, Bargi K (2016) Decision-making of alternative pylon shapes of a benchmark

Authors and Affiliations

Jigar P. Variyavwala1 · Kaushik M. Gondaliya1 · Atul K. Desai1 ·

You might also like

2 Case study of CSB

3 Seismic fragility of CSB

3.1 Component fragility function

3.2 System fragility function

3.3 Seismic fragility assessment procedure

4 Seismic fragility assessment

4.1 Strong ground motion selection

4.2 Optimal intensity measure

4.3 Performance limit states

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Component’s fragility results

5.2 Fragility of the bridge system