Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Asce) Be 1943-5592 0000128
(Asce) Be 1943-5592 0000128
Abstract: This paper conducts a detailed review of the seismic hazard, inventory, bridge vulnerability, and bridge retrofit practices in the
Central and Southeastern United States 共CSUS兲. Based on the analysis of the bridge inventory in the CSUS, it was found that over 12,927
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bridges 共12.6%兲 are exposed to 7% probability of exceedance 共PE兲 in 75-year peak ground acceleration 共PGA兲 of greater than 0.20 g, and
nearly 3.5% of bridges in the CSUS have a 7% PE in 75-year PGA of greater than 0.50 g. Since many of the bridges in this region were
not designed with explicit consideration of the seismic hazard, many of them are in need of seismic retrofitting to reduce their seismic
vulnerability. While several of the states in the CSUS have retrofitted some of their bridges, systematic retrofit programs do not currently
exist. The review of retrofit practices in the region indicates that the most common retrofit approaches in the CSUS include the use of
restrainer cables, isolation bearings, column jacketing, shear keys, and seat extenders. The paper presents an overview of the common
approaches and details used for the aforementioned retrofit measures. This paper serves as a useful tool for bridge engineers in the CSUS
as they begin to perform systematic retrofit of vulnerable bridges in the region.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲BE.1943-5592.0000128
CE Database subject headings: Bridges; Earthquakes; Rehabilitation; Seismic effects; Geological faults; United States.
Author keywords: Bridges; Earthquakes; Retrofit; New Madrid Seismic Zone; State of the art.
Table 1. Summary of the CSUS Bridge Inventory Based on the 2008 NBI Data
Percentage Average age
Name Abbreviation Number 共%兲 共year兲
Multispan continuous concrete girder MSC concrete 8,271 8.0 25.75
Multispan continuous steel girder MSC steel 11,935 11.6 37.70
Multispan continuous slab MSC slab 5,019 4.9 37.48
Multispan continuous concrete box girder MSC concrete box 618 0.6 29.95
Multispan simply supported concrete girder MSSS concrete 17,822 17.3 37.06
Multispan simply supported steel girder MSSS steel 6,774 6.6 50.56
Multispan simply supported slab MSSS slab 3,412 3.3 44.33
Multispan simply supported concrete box girder MSSS concrete box 4,580 4.4 30.17
Single-span concrete girder SS concrete 21,454 20.8 34.35
Single-span steel girder SS steel 12,554 12.2 42.76
Other 10,849 10.5 47.87
Total 103,288 100.0 38.29
7 2,877 3,868 1,320 259 2,511 776 581 1,227 4,844 1,587
8 2,474 1,625 670 112 3,964 395 485 1,426 6,391 1,283
9 602 382 98 21 155 32 33 18 315 459
Unrated 12 3 0 2 23 5 3 3 56 17
2007a兲. As seen in Table 1, these bridges comprise a significant and many bridges are naturally deteriorating with age, two con-
percentage of the CSUS highway bridge inventory, totaling ap- clusions arise. As the structures continue to age and further de-
proximately to 43.5%. grade structurally, they may become increasingly vulnerable to
With the information available in the NBI database 共2008兲 for seismic activity. A recent study has illustrated the potential for
the CSUS highway bridges, Microsoft Access was used to query significant increase in seismic vulnerability of typical CSUS
the NBI structural evaluation ratings for bridges within the 10 bridges due to aging and deterioration from corrosion 共Ghosh and
different bridge classes 共summarized in Table 2兲. By aggregating Padgett 2010兲. This study indicates that over a bridge’s service
the various structural evaluation ratings of the bridges into three life, an earthquake having over 30% lower peak ground accelera-
classes—good/great condition 共rating of 7–9兲, fair condition 共rat- tion 共PGA兲 could lead to the same probability of damage. This
ing of 4–6兲, and poor condition 共rating of 1–3兲—a better visual increase in seismic vulnerability coupled with the aging of
representation of the overall structural condition of the various bridges and deterioration of structural condition exhibited in the
bridge classes for the region is obtained. The pie charts in Fig. 2 inventory analysis presented herein indicate a heightened need for
summarize the bridge conditions for the six most common bridge systematic retrofit of CSUS bridges. Additionally, many of the
classes in CSUS based on the aggregated structural evaluation states in the CSUS region that have conducted seismic retrofit
levels 共poor/fair/good兲 formulated in this paper. have indicated that these seismic upgrades are often coupled with
Because the majority of the bridges in the region were de- repair activities. Because bridges in the region continue to ap-
signed without adequate consideration of potential seismic loads, proach the end of their design lives, repair and maintenance over-
MSC Concrete Structural Evaluation MSC Steel Structural Evaluation MSSS Concrete Structural Evaluation
1% 3% 6%
27%
37%
49%
48%
57%
72%
MSSS Steel Structural Evaluation SS Concrete Structural Evaluation SS Steel Structural Evaluation
3%
18% 20%
20%
27%
43%
54%
62%
53%
Fig. 2. Pie charts summarizing the formulated structural evaluations of the six most common bridge classes in the CSUS
PE 7% in 75 years for NEHRP Site Class B/C 共Harmsen, personal Planning Project was launched, with the goal of attaining a level
communication, August 11, 2009; image courtesy of the U.S. Geo- of national readiness in the event of a “catastrophic” earthquake
logical Survey兲 in the CSUS 共FEMA 2008兲. This initiative includes participation
from the federal, state, and local levels and is the largest planning
initiative in U.S. history. Parallel with efforts to increase the na-
hauls will likely be performed in order to lengthen the service tion’s preparedness for an earthquake in the region, design codes
lives of many of the bridges. These periods of maintenance con- for the CSUS have also undergone necessary revisions. The
struction will allow for the logical and congruent integration of “Comprehensive Specification for the Seismic Design of Bridges”
new seismic retrofits into bridge maintenance or rehabilitation project, completed in 2002, was a major milestone in that it pro-
projects. posed design specifications that would provide a more rational
and uniform approach to bridge seismic design throughout the
entire United States 共ATC/MCEER 2002兲. This helped to bring
History of Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges in the inadequate seismic design codes for bridges in the CSUS to a
the CSUS level more comparable to the west coast, whose seismic design
codes were already quite robust. The newest bridge codes in the
Seismic bridge retrofit is the practice of modifying bridges and
CSUS have also adopted the use of a 7% probability of exceed-
bridge components or adding additional elements to reduce their
ance 共PE兲 in 75-year hazard for the life safety performance ob-
overall seismic vulnerability and improve their performance in
jective in new design. The life safety performance objective aims
earthquakes. Retrofits in the CSUS typically aim to decrease force
at providing a low probability of collapse, although the bridge
demands on vulnerable components, reduce deck displacements,
may suffer significant damage and/or disruption to service. Under
strengthen key components of bridges, or any combination of the
this minimum design objective, the bridge might also require par-
three. Seismic bridge retrofits, while extremely common on the
west coast of the United States, have been implemented less fre- tial or complete replacement after an earthquake. The 7% PE in
quently in the CSUS due in large part to the infrequent nature of 75-year uniform hazard map for the region is shown in Fig. 3.
seismic events in the region. Based on the bridge inventory analysis performed, it was found
In the 1950s and 1960s, California witnessed a huge expansion that over 12,927 bridges 共12.6%兲 have 7% PE in 75-year PGA of
of its highway and freeway networks. Because this expansion greater than 0.20 g, and nearly 3.5% of bridges in the CSUS have
took place before modern seismic codes were developed, the a 7% PE in 75-year PGA of greater than 0.50 g. Table 3 summa-
bridges built during this period were particularly susceptible to rizes the 7% PE in 75-year PGAs for the inventory of bridges in
damage during earthquakes. During the 1971 San Fernando earth- the CSUS. Based on the large number of bridges in the region
quake, some freeway overpasses collapsed, leading to the recog- likely to experience significant earthquake loading, many of the
nition that many of California’s bridges, as constructed, were not existing bridges may require seismic retrofit in order to satisfy
sufficiently designed to withstand an appropriate level of ground current minimum design standards for new bridges. Furthermore,
motion. At that time, the California Department of Transportation the 7% in 75-year event is the upper level earthquake considered
implemented a state-wide retrofit program aimed at inspecting in the two level performance based retrofit recommended by the
and identifying the deficient structural components 共Mellon and recent edition of the Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway
Post 1999兲. During the periods of 1971 and 1997, over 3,000 Structures: Part 1—Bridges 关Federal Highway Administration
bridges were retrofitted as part of the state’s retrofit program 共FHWA兲 2006兴. Under the current criteria, most standard bridges
共Yashinsky 1998兲. The comprehensive retrofit program initiated would be retrofit to meet life safety objectives for the upper level
by Caltrans following the 1971 earthquake resulted in signifi- 7% in 75-year event, while some essential bridges would be ret-
cantly fewer losses and bridges damaged in subsequent earth- rofit to provide for limited repairs and near immediate operation
quakes, namely, the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge for emergency vehicles.
earthquakes 共Yashinsky 1998兲. In light of the growing awareness, many states in the region,
Table 3. Summary of PGA 共g兲 with a 7% PE in 75 Years for All Bridges in CSUS
PGA
共g兲 0.0–0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 0.3–0.4 0.4–0.5 0.5–0.6 0.6–0.7 0.7–0.8 0.8–0.9 0.9–1.0 1.0+
Number of bridges 72,601 17,211 5,185 2,704 1,494 956 579 480 413 257 859
Percentage of bridges 共%兲 70.67 16.75 5.05 2.63 1.45 0.93 0.56 0.47 0.40 0.25 0.84
Fig. 5. 共a兲 Elastomeric bearing detail 关adapted from Priestley et al. 共1996兲兴; 共b兲 installed in Indiana 共HW50 Red Skeleton兲; and 共c兲 installed in
Illinois
rubber and steel plates, and often have a lead core to dissipate This problem has been addressed through a number of potential
seismic energy. Fig. 5共a兲 shows an illustration of a typical elasto- retrofitting approaches that fall into two main categories: an in-
meric bearing 共without lead core兲. Elastomeric bearings typically adequate seat length can be increased or the relative movement of
have steel flanges on the top and the bottom to allow a fully fixed bridge spans can be explicitly limited. Seat extenders and catcher
connection to both the super- and substructures. This type of iso- blocks fall into the first category while longitudinal restrainer bars
lation bearing has been used in the construction of bridges and and cables, bumper blocks, and shock transmission units 共STUs兲
buildings for nearly 40 years 共Stanton and Roeder 1992兲. fall into the second. These types of retrofits are relatively simple
Sliding or slider bearings, as the name suggests, allows for and inexpensive, yet have been shown to be very effective mea-
relative motion between the bearing and the bridge. These bear- sures in preventing unseating of bridge spans 共Padgett and Des-
ings support vertical loads, but provide very little resistance to Roches 2008; Padgett 2007; Vlassis et al. 2004兲.
lateral loads. They are typically used in conjunction with elasto-
meric isolators. One of the largest benefits of using a slider bear-
ing is the added damping and energy dissipation due to the Seat Extenders and Catcher Blocks
friction during sliding. Seat extenders can be applied to bents or abutments by adding a
While isolation bearing systems are very successful at altering concrete corbel or attaching structural steel bracket 共Fig. 7兲. They
the natural frequency of a bridge, they also often result in a cor- are attached to the sides of the bent caps and are flushed with the
responding increase in displacements of the bridge deck which top of the bent cap. While seat extenders do not alter the dynamic
must be accounted for. For example, previous analytical studies response of the bridge, they increase the seat length of the span
have illustrated the potential for excessive pounding between the and reduce the vulnerability to unseating of a bridge span in the
superstructure and abutment 共Padgett and DesRoches 2008; Des- event that a bridge span slides off the bent cap. According to
Roches et al. 2004b; Jankowski et al. 1998兲. The increase in dis- Hipley 共1997兲, seat extenders are the least expensive and most
placements in the structure can be addressed by adding a damping basic retrofit to prevent unseating of the spans. Previous detailed
system to the structure, either built into 共lead core in an elasto- analytical studies have shown that seat extenders have one of the
meric bearing兲 or in parallel 共viscous or hysteretic dampers兲 with highest cost-benefit ratios for reducing the seismic vulnerability
the isolators 共Chang et al. 2002兲. of typical bridges in the CSUS when compared to other tradi-
Research has shown that the stiffness of elastomeric bearings tional retrofit measures 共Padgett et al. 2009兲. Fig. 8共a兲 illustrates
is temperature sensitive. The stiffness and energy dissipated per the use of steel bracket seat extenders in Tennessee, while Fig.
cycle increase as temperature decreases 共Ghasemi and Higgins 8共b兲 highlights the use of steel brackets and beams in Missouri to
1999兲. When using this type of bearing in areas of extreme cold, create a seat extender for multiple bridge girders. Practice in the
the increased stiffness of the elastomeric bearing should be con- CSUS tends to utilize seat extenders that provide approximately
sidered in the design. 12 in. 共30.5 cm兲 of additional seat width.
In the CSUS, many bridges have been retrofitted with various Catcher blocks are similar to seat extenders, except that they
forms of isolation. Figs. 5共b and c兲 show the application of elas- are attached to the tops of bents and abutments when there are
tomeric bearings in Indiana and Illinois. They can also be found vulnerable tall bearings or rocker bearings. The blocks are there
in Tennessee, Missouri, and other states in the region. Fig. 6共a兲 to “catch” the girders in the event that the span falls off the
shows a slider bearing 共friction pendulum bearing兲 installed in bearing or the bearings fail. Catcher blocks are often used when
Tennessee, while Fig. 6共b兲 shows a slider bearing used in con- the deck is supported by tall bearings, such as high-type steel
junction with an elastomeric bearing in Illinois. fixed or rocker bearings, or there is insufficient room to anchor
seat extenders 关Fig. 8共c兲兴.
Longitudinal Retrofits
Restrainers
If bridge span seat lengths are insufficient, as they often are on Longitudinal bar and cable restrainers are used to prevent exces-
many CSUS bridges, the relative displacement caused during an sive longitudinal movement of bridge spans. This retrofit uses
earthquake can result in unseating of the spans, which will trigger steel bars or cables attached to adjacent spans and/or to the bridge
the collapse of the bridge. Unseating of spans, observed in past abutment to limit the longitudinal motion of the bridge deck.
earthquake events 共Li et al. 2008; Cooper and Van de Pol 1991兲, Cable restrainers have been used extensively in California and
has also been identified as a common vulnerability of CSUS have been identified as a relatively simple and inexpensive retrofit
bridges 共Nielson and DesRoches 2007b; DesRoches et al. 2004a兲. strategy to minimize the risk of unseating 共Priestley et al. 1996兲.
Fig. 8. 共a兲 Seat extenders installed on an I-40 bridge in Tennessee; 共b兲 a beam seat extender in Missouri; and 共c兲 catcher blocks provided for a
vulnerable bearing in Missouri 共Poplar Street Complex兲
During the 1994 Northridge earthquake as well as the 1989 Loma Indiana oriented such that it provides lateral and longitudinal re-
Prieta earthquake, most cable restrained bridge spans performed straints for the bridge span. Fig. 10共b兲 pictures a restrainer bar
adequately 共Cooper et al. 1994; Housner and Thiel 1995; Moehle joining adjacent spans of a bridge in Missouri.
et al. 1995兲.
Restrainer cables usually consist of galvanized 0.75 in. 共19
Bumper Blocks and STUs
mm兲 diameter steel cables and have lengths between 5 ft 共1.52 m兲
and 10 ft 共3.05 m兲. Depending on the ambient temperature con- Bumper blocks are usually made from structural steel beams and
ditions in the region of installation, the slack provided may be up are attached to the bottoms of the girders on both sides of a bent
to 0.75 in. 共19 mm兲. Several researchers have found that the cap. They protrude above the elevation of the bent cap and restrict
amount of slack provided can significantly alter the response of excessive movement of the bridge span 共toward the support at the
the bridge to seismic activity 共Saiidi et al. 1996; DesRoches and end of the span where the bumper blocks are installed兲. There is
Fenves 2000兲. In the CSUS, restrainer cables are a relatively typically a gap of approximately 2–6 in. 共5.1–15.2 cm兲, allowing
popular retrofit measure though the details vary significantly some motion of the bridge span, but the bumper blocks are in-
across the region. The state of Tennessee alone has retrofitted over tended to stop the longitudinal movement before unseating oc-
200 bridges with restrainer cables 共DesRoches et al. 2004a,b兲. curs. Fig. 11共a兲 illustrates the use of bumper blocks on a Missouri
Some of the various configurations for restrainer cables found bridge as a longitudinal retrofit measure.
throughout the CSUS are shown in Fig. 9. STUs allow for slow motion, such as thermal expansions and
High-strength galvanized ASTM-A 722 bars operate similar to contraction without appreciable resistance. During rapid or sud-
restrainer cables, except that they are stiffer and more ductile than den motions, such as those caused by earthquakes, however,
cables. The goal of the restrainer design is for the restraining STUs are able to provide rigid resistance to movement. STUs
component to remain in the elastic region, so the added ductility applied on a Missouri bridge are illustrated in Fig. 11共b兲.
of bars is not considered a major advantage 关Federal Highway
Administration 共FHWA兲 2006兴. The reduced flexibility also re-
quires that the bars are much longer than cables in order to allow Transverse Retrofits
for the same range of motion of the structure 关Federal Highway
Administration 共FHWA兲 2006兴. For these two reasons, restrainer The main purpose of transverse retrofitting is to prevent excessive
bars have historically been used much less frequently than re- transverse movement of the bridge deck during earthquakes in the
strainer cables, although they have been applied in the CSUS. event of bearing failure. Typical bridges in the CSUS may be
Restrainer bars can be installed in various arrangements, but typi- susceptible to damage caused by excessive motions in the trans-
cally join the superstructure 共girders兲 to the substructure 共col- verse directions, and therefore, transverse retrofits are present
umns, abutments, etc.兲. Fig. 10共a兲 shows a restrainer bar in throughout the region. The two most common types of bridge
retrofits that address an inadequate resistance to transverse exci-
a) b) c)
a) b)
Fig. 9. Restrainer cables 共a兲 in Kentucky connecting two adjacent
girders; 共b兲 in Tennessee 共SR59 over I-40兲 connecting girders to the Fig. 10. 共a兲 Restrainer bars in Indiana resisting longitudinal and lat-
abutment; and 共c兲 in Illinois attached to girders and wrapped around eral displacements; 共b兲 restrainer bars in Missouri 共Poplar Street
bent beam Complex兲 joining adjacent girders at a center span
a) b)
Fig. 13. 共a兲 Bent cap retrofit in Missouri using posttensioned rods;
共b兲 a bent cap retrofit in Illinois using shear reinforcement and con-
Fig. 11. 共a兲 Bumper blocks; 共b兲 STUs in Missouri
finement on the end regions of the bent cap
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a) b) c)
Fig. 12. 共a兲 Shear key provided on a Tennessee bridge 共SR 59 over I-40兲; 共b兲 keeper brackets in Tennessee 共Chambers Chapel Road over I-40兲;
and 共c兲 keeper brackets used with an elastomeric bearing 共Bridge 2 66 Diamond兲 in Indiana
Fig. 14. 共a兲 Bent cap retrofit in Missouri using steel encasement; 共b兲
a bent cap retrofit using reinforced concrete encasement in Tennessee
共Dayview Plantation Road over I-40兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by National Taiwan University on 02/28/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Charleston, S.C.
Chai, Y. H., Priestley, M. J. N., and Seible, F. 共1991兲. “Seismic retrofit of
circular bridge columns for enhanced flexural performance.” ACI
Struct. J., 88共5兲, 572–584.
Summary and Conclusions
Chang, S.-P., Makris, N., Whittaker, A. S., and Thompson, A. C. T.
共2002兲. “Experimental and analytical studies on the performance of
The seismic hazard in the CSUS is characterized by low probabil- hybrid isolation systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31共2兲, 421–
ity, high consequence events, with a potential for widespread 443.
damage in the case of a repeat large event, such as the 1811-12 Chen, W. F., and Duan, L. 共1999兲. Bridge engineering handbook, CRC,
New Madrid earthquakes. Based on the analysis of the bridge Boca Raton, Fla.
inventory in the CSUS, it was found that over 12,927 bridges Cooper, J. D., Friedland, I. M., Buckle, I. G., Nimis, R. B., and Bobb, N.
共12.6%兲 are exposed to 7% PE in 75-year PGA of greater than M. 共1994兲. “Northridge earthquake: Progress made, lessons learned in
seismic-resistant bridge design.” Public Roads, 58共1兲, 26–36.
0.20 g, and nearly 3.5% of bridges in the CSUS have a 7% PE in
Cooper, T. R., and Van de Pol, M. 共1991兲. Bridge damage review. Loma
75-year PGA of greater than 0.50 g. Moreover, over 72.6% of the
Prieta earthquake, ASCE, Los Angeles.
bridges in the region were built prior to 1990, which is typically CUSEC. 共1996兲. Earthquake vulnerability of transportation systems in
the year that seismic standards were implemented in bridge de- the Central United States, Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium,
sign in the CSUS. Since many of the bridges in this region were Memphis.
not designed with explicit consideration of the seismic hazard, DesRoches, R., Choi, E., Leon, R. T., Aschheim, M., and Dyke, S. T.
many of them are in need of seismic retrofitting to reduce their 共2004a兲. “Seismic response of multi-span steel bridges in Mid-
seismic vulnerability. Some structural deficiencies common in the America: Part I: As-built response.” J. Bridge Eng., 9共5兲, 464–472.
CSUS bridges include nonductile columns, insufficient bearing DesRoches, R., Choi, E., Leon, R. T., and Pfeifer, T. 共2004b兲. “Seismic
response of multi-span steel bridges in Mid-America: Part II: Retro-
capacities, small seat widths, and potential deck pounding issues.
fitted.” J. Bridge Eng., 9共5兲, 473–479.
Given the potential risk to highway bridge infrastructure in the DesRoches, R., and Fenves, G. L. 共2000兲. “Design of seismic cable hinge
CSUS and the need for support as states begin to evaluate and restrainers for bridges,” J. Struct. Eng., 126共4兲, 500–509.
engage in seismic retrofit activity, this paper has provided a de- Elnashai, A. S., Cleveland, L. J., Jefferson, T., and Harald, J. 共2008兲.
tailed review of the retrofit practices initiated in the region. Com- “Impact of earthquakes on the Central USA.” Mid-America Earth-
mon retrofits in the region have been identified and include the quake Center Rep. No. 08-02, FEMA, Washington, D.C.
use of seismic isolation bearings, column jacketing, and other Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共2006兲. Seismic retrofitting
measures of column confinement, restraining devices to prevent manual for highway structures: Part 1—Bridges, Publication No.
FHWA-HRT-06-032, Research, Development, and Technology
unseating, and the use of shear keys and keeper brackets to limit
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, Va.
transverse deck movement. This paper serves as a useful tool for Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共2008兲. National Bridge In-
bridge engineers in the CSUS as they begin to perform systematic ventory data, FHWA, Washington, D.C.
retrofit of vulnerable bridges in the region. FEMA. 共2008兲. “New Madrid Seismic Zone catastrophic plan.” Release
No. HQ-08-250, Washington, D.C.
Ghasemi, H., and Higgins, M. S. 共1999兲. “Sizing up seismic bearings.”
Civ. Eng. (N.Y.), 69共7兲, 54–59.
Acknowledgments Ghosh, J., and Padgett, J. E. 共2010兲. “Aging considerations in the devel-
opment of time-dependent seismic fragility curves.” J. Struct. Eng., to
be published.
This study has been partially supported by the Earthquake Engi- Hildenbrand, T. G., Griscom, A., Van Schmus, W. R., and Stuart, W. D.
neering Research Center program of the National Science Foun- 共1996兲. “Quantitative investigations of the Missouri gravity low: A
dation under Award No. EEC-9701785 共Mid-America Earthquake possible expression of a large, Late Precambrian batholith intersecting
Center兲 and the FHWA Pooled Funds Study Grant No. TPF5-155. the New Madrid seismic zone.” J. Geophys. Res., [Solid Earth],
The writers would like to thank all those that assisted in gathering 101共B10兲, 21921–21942.
Hipley, P. 共1997兲. “Bridge retrofit construction techniques.” 2nd National
the data for this paper. In particular, the writers would like to
Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways, Office of Earthquake Engi-
acknowledge the following individuals that provided them with
neering, Sacramento, Calif.
valuable information, access to bridges, and contributed their Housner, G. W., and Thiel, C. C., Jr. 共1995兲. “The continuing challenge:
time: Mr. Ralph Anderson, Mr. Daniel Tobias, Mr. Allen Thomas, Report on the performance of state bridges in the Northridge Earth-
Mr. Mark Capron, Mr. Robert Turner, Mr. Brad Ridgley, and Mr. quake.” Earthquake Spectra, 11共4兲, 607–636.
Ed Wasserman. Hwang, H., Jernigan, J. B., and Lin, Y. W. 共2000兲. “Evaluation of seismic
Mayes, R. L., Choudhury, D., Crooks, R. S., Jones, D. M., and Knight, R. view.” Concr. Int., 14共1兲, 41–46.
P. 共1994兲. Seismic isolation retrofit of existing bridges, ASCE, Reston, Street, R., Woolery, E. W., Wang, Z., and Harris, J. B. 共2001兲. “NEHRP
Va. soil classifications for estimating site-dependent seismic coefficients
Mayes, R. L., Jones, L. R., Kelly, T. E., and Button, M. R. 共1984兲. Base in the Upper Mississippi Embayment.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam),
isolation concepts for seismic bridge retrofit, ASCE, San Francisco. 62共1–3兲, 123–135.
Mellon, D. E., and Post, T. J. 共1999兲. “Caltrans bridge research and ap- Thewalt, C. R., and Stojadinovic, B. 共1995兲. “Outrigger knee joint seis-
plications of new technologies.” U.S.–Italy Workshop on Seismic Pro- mic upgrade design procedure.” Proc., National Seismic Conf. on
tective Systems for Bridges. Bridges and Highways, Federal Highway Administration and Califor-
Moehle, J., et al. 共1995兲. “Highway bridges and traffic management.” nia Dept. of Transportation, San Diego.
Earthquake Spectra, 11共S2兲, 287–372. Vlassis, A. G., Maragakis, E., and Saiidi, M. 共2004兲. “Experimental
Nielson, B. 共2005兲. “Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in evaluation of longitudinal seismic performance of bridge restrainers at
moderate seismic zones.” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technol- in-span hinges.” J. Test. Eval., 32共2兲, 96–105.
ogy, Atlanta. Wendichansky, D. A., Chen, S. S., and Mander, J. B. 共1995兲. “In-situ
Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. 共2007a兲. “Analytical seismic fragility performance of rubber bearing retrofits.” National Seismic Conf. on
curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United Bridges and Highways, Progress in Research and Practice, FHWA,
States.” Earthquake Spectra, 23共3兲, 615–633.
San Diego, Calif.
Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. 共2007b兲. “Seismic performance as-
Wesemann, L., Hamilton, T., Tabaie, S., and Bare, G. 共1996兲. “Cost-of-
sessment of simply supported and continuous multispan concrete
delay studies for freeway closures caused by Northridge earthquake.”
girder highway bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 12共5兲, 611–620.
Transp. Res. Rec., 1559, 67–75.
Padgett, J. E. 共2007兲. “Seismic vulnerability assessment of retrofitted
bridges using probabilistic methods.” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute Yashinsky, M. 共1998兲. “Performance of bridge seismic retrofits during
of Technology, Atlanta. Northridge earthquake.” J. Bridge Eng., 3共1兲, 1–14.
Padgett, J. E., Dennemann, K., and Ghosh, J. 共2009兲. “Risk-based seismic Zatar, W., Harik, I. E., and Choo, C. C. 共2008兲. “Seismic risk assessment
life-cycle cost-benefit analysis 共LCC-B兲 for bridge retrofit assess- of priority bridges along I-24 in Western Kentucky.” Proc., 6th Na-
ment.” Struct. Safety, 32共3兲, 165–173. tional Seismic Conf. on Bridges and Highways: Seismic Technologies
Padgett, J. E., and DesRoches, R. 共2008兲. “Three-dimensional nonlinear for Extreme Loads, MCEER, Charleston, S.C.