0% found this document useful (0 votes)

52 views

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Bridges: A Global Perspective and Critical Review of Past, Present and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Yati Tank

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

52 views

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Bridges: A Global Perspective and Critical Review of Past, Present and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Yati Tank

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 25

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330834540

Performance-based seismic design of bridges: a global perspective and critical

review of past, present and future directions

Article in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering · February 2019

DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269

CITATIONS READS

9 2,580

2 authors:

Qi Zhang M. Shahria Alam

British Columbia Institute of Technology University of British Columbia - Okanagan
15 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS 320 PUBLICATIONS 4,879 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GIS-based multiple hazard risk assessment : a case study for the City of Kelowna View project

Smart Elastomeric Isolators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qi Zhang on 16 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor
& Francis in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Published
research-article paper please see 1
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Performance-based seismic design of bridges: a global perspec-
tive and critical review of past, present and future directions
Qi Zhang 1 2 M. Shahria Alam 1 *
1School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada;
2WSP Group, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

*CONTACT M. Shahria Alam [email protected] School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, 1137 Alumni Ave‐
nue, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

ABSTRACT
The concept of performance-based design (PBD) originated several decades ago and has been evolving since. PBD in its current
form aims at achieving one or more predicted performance levels after pre-defined hazards. This paper reviews the fundamen-
tals, evolutions and the current practices of PBD for bridges. The review starts with damage states proposed by researchers, de-
sign criteria used in different jurisdictions, along with loss estimate methodologies. The code review covers the United States,
Canada, New Zealand, China, Japan and Europe. A case study is performed to compare the various design codes. Among the
reviewed codes, the Canadian Code (CSA S6-14) has the most stringent criteria. Apart from reviewing current practices, challeng-
es are also discussed. Most design codes quantify the damage of columns but are not clear on the damage states of other com-
ponents (e.g. foundations, joints). Bridge damage states are not directly related to residual vertical load capacity after earth-
quakes, which pose difficulty in predicting traffic interruptions. To address this issue, this study suggests a vertical load capacity
factor, which needs to be further investigated in future research. At the end of the review, damage avoidance designs are briefly
discussed, which are expected to further improve seismic resistance of bridges.

Keywords Bridge; performance-based design; seismic analysis; earthquake hazard; design code; damage states; seismic design
criteria

FUNDING
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, 10.13039/501100000038
The work presented here was carried out under the support from WSP Group, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Precast Prestressed Concrete Institute (CPCI).

Introduction
Performance-based design (PBD) was originated in New Zealand in the 1970s (Priestley, 2000) and evolved in the
United States in the 1980s (Hamburger et al., 2004). It has been adopted in a number of bridge design codes around
the world in recent years (CSA, 2014; NZT, 2016). Performance-based design uses quantitative criteria such as rein‐
forcing steel strain, as well as qualitative criteria such as observable damage to connections. It is a design methodolo‐
gy that explicitly demonstrates performance of structures (Gibson, 1982). One of the most important features of per‐
formance-based design is that it directly connects structural performance with the design process and eliminates in‐
trinsic uncertainties (Lehman, Moehle, Mahin, Calderone, & Henry, 2004; Priestley, 2000). The uncertainties of tradi‐
tional seismic design can be caused by unrealistic assumptions such as equal displacement assumption, which is not
valid for structures with very short and long periods. Also, the structural ductility factor is not constant for certain
structures. It is dependent on many aspects such as axial load, lateral confinement, and foundation flexibility, which
are ignored by many design codes when using force-based design approach.
The definition of performance-based design has been evolving in the past decades. In the 1970s, capacity design
principles were considered as performance-based design. This is because capacity design focusses on the strength dis‐
tribution and yielding mechanism within a system, rather than solely the absolute base shear value (Priestley, 2000).
John Hollings has been viewed as the ‘father of ductile design’ for the design concepts published in 1969 (Megget,
2006). In the 1980s, performance-based design was re-defined in the U.S, which included quantified damage states

(Hamburger et al., 2004). The purpose was to provide owners with clear performance descriptions for decision mak‐
ings. The current stage of performance-based design was developed in the 1990s, after 1994 Northridge and 1995
Kobe earthquakes (Ghobarah, 2001). In the two earthquakes, although many structures survived, the economic losses
were much higher than expected. Therefore, engineering communities concurred that seismic design should not only
avoid collapse but also address serviceability. This review paper mainly focusses on the current performance-based
design which is defined as meeting single or multiple performance levels in various hazards.
Performance-based design not only eliminates unrealistic assumptions but also leads to a better risk control and
management. In performance-based design, the demands and capacities are based on probabilistic models (Mackie &
Stojadinović, 2005). Consequently, probabilistic life-cycle cost analyses incorporating multiple hazards and continu‐
ous deterioration becomes possible (Akiyama, Frangopol, Deodatis, Ellingwood, & Frangopol, 2013; Gidaris et al.,
2017; Kameshwar & Padgett, 2014; Kohno & Collins, 2000; Wen, 2001). Performance-based design is expected to
facilitate decision makers and stakeholders to allocate resources based on more realistic data (Marsh & Stringer,
2013).
Figure 1 presents a flowchart of performance-based design process. The design task starts with probabilistic haz‐
ard analysis and design criteria selection. Then, initial structural materials and member sizes are determined. Based
on seismic demands and member resistances, structural damages such as steel yielding, concrete spalling are deter‐
mined. With the structural performance and serviceability predicted, indirect losses caused by traffic delays and such
can be estimated when necessary. The design is considered complete when structural damages and losses are accepta‐
ble.
Figure 1. Performance-based design flowchart.

Numerous efforts have been made through the last several decades to develop performance-based design. ATC-13
(1985) is one of the earliest reports introducing performance-based design. This report presents the methods and data
for loss estimates on building evaluation and repair cost in California area. It is a guideline for estimating death, inju‐
ries, economic losses and repair time. As a follow-up, ATC-36 (Rojahn et al., 1997) provides damage and loss esti‐

mate methodology and data for Salt Lake County, Utah. The successful experience from ATC-13 (1985) in California
was passed to others states and worldwide. A few years later, FEMA-356 (FEMA, 2000) was published to provide
seismic rehabilitation guidelines for buildings. In accordance with FEMA-356 (FEMA, 2000), most of the buildings
that are rehabilitated as per the guideline would meet the performance requirements in design earthquakes. With the
advancement of performance-based design, many refined analysis methods were proposed by researchers, such as the
N2 method (Fajfar, 2000), displacement-based design method (Powell, 2008) and PEER methodology (Günay & Mo‐
salam, 2013) which systematically consider the demand and capacity of a system. The above-mentioned documents
founded the basis of performance-based design in structural engineering. Although some of the documents were
mainly developed for buildings, the methodologies and conclusions are as well applicable to bridges.

Damage limit states

Damage limit state is an important component of performance-based design. Several limit states have been sug‐
gested by several researchers (Billah & Alam, 2016a; Lehman et al., 2004; Mackie, Wong, & Stojadinović, 2008).
Three commonly used limit states are serviceability, damage control and collapse prevention (Ghobarah, 2001; Ko‐
walsky, 2000). Serviceability means no repair is needed. Damage control indicates the damage is repairable. Collapse
prevention implies the damage may not be repairable but collapse has to be avoided (Kowalsky, 2000). Priestley, Sei‐
ble, and Calvi (1996) defined serviceability using concrete crack width and steel strains. It was recommended that
concrete crack should remain small (1 mm) so that remedial action is not required. For serviceability state, rebar ten‐
sile strain should not exceed 0.015 and concrete compressive strain should not exceed 0.004. In respect to repairable
damage, Kowalsky (2000) suggested that concrete strain of 0.018 can be assumed for columns with 1% lateral rein‐
forcement which yields at 450 MPa. For rebar, Kowalsky (2000) suggested a strain limit of 0.06, which is the rupture
strain under cyclic loadings. In addition to preventing reinforcement rupture, it is equally important to prevent buck‐
ling. Calculation methods to determine reinforcement buckling based on seismic displacement was proposed by Feng,
Kowalsky, and Nau (2015).
Although material strains are the most direct indicators of structural damages, they are not easily measurable un‐
less instrumented and hence, cannot be readily obtained or available by field inspectors after earthquakes. Therefore,
researchers have been seeking other parameters to quantify structural damages. Ghobarah (2001) grouped a series of
damage states using transient drifts based on ATC-40 (1996), SEAOC (1995) and FEMA 273 (1996)[AQ2]. The pro‐
posed damage states and drift limits were no damage (drift < 0.2%), repairable damage (drift < 0.5%), irreparable
damage (drift < 1.5%), near collapse (drift < 2.5%) and collapse (drift > 2.5%). Berry and Eberhard (2003) obtained
regression equations linking drifts with longitudinal rebar buckling and concrete cover spalling based on experimen‐
tal results from about 300 rectangular columns and 170 circular columns. The drift ratio at longitudinal reinforcement
buckling is estimated via Equations (1) and (2), while the drift ratio at concrete cover spalling is predicted using
Equation (3). These expressions have been adopted for developing an integrated performance-based evaluation meth‐
odology by Mackie et al. (2008):

Δbb db P L (1)
% = 3.25 1 + keρeff 1− 1+
L D Agfc′ 10D

fys (2)
ρeff = ρs
fc′

Δspall P L (3)
% = 1.6 1 − 1+
L Agfc′ 10D

where ke is 50 for rectangular section and 150 for circular column reinforced with spirals. ρs is the transverse rein‐
forcement volumetric ratio, fys is the yield strength of transverse reinforcement, fc′ is the concrete compressive
strength, db is the longitudinal reinforcement diameter, D is the column diameter, P is the axial load, Ag is the column
gross section area and L is the distance from column base to the point of contraflexure.
A ductility based damage state system was proposed by Hwang, Liu, and Chiu (2001). The proposed damage
states are no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage and complete damage. A research per‐

formed by Reza, Alam, and Tesfamariam (2014) proposed equations that predict the displacement of reinforced con‐
crete columns when cracking, crushing and yielding occurs. Residual drifts based damage prediction models for
shape memory alloy reinforced concrete columns were proposed by Billah and Alam (2016a). The proposed equa‐
tions were able to estimate the drifts corresponding to cracking, yielding, and strength degradation. Based on the ob‐
servation of the study by Sadrossadat-Zadeh, O'Brien, and Saiidi (2007), Billah and Alam (2016b) suggested that a
residual drift within 0.25% would meet the serviceability requirement. A summary of widely used column damage
states and limits are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Damage states and limits.Table Layout

Reference Damage states Limits
Priestley et al. (1996) and Kowalsky (2000) Serviceability Rebar strain < 0.015
Concrete strain < 0.004
Repairable damage Rebar strain < 0.06
Concrete strain < 0.018
Hwang et al. (2001) Slight damage First yield
Moderate damage Global yield
Extensive damage Concrete strain equals to 0.002
Complete damage Maximum displacement capacity
Ghobarah (2001) No damage Drift < 0.2%
Repairable damage Drift < 0.5%
Irreparable damage Drift < 1.5%
Near collapse Drift < 2.5%
Collapse Drift > 2.5%

It is apparent that bridge performance is not only affected by columns but also affected by other components such
as bearings, shear keys, foundations, where extensive damage was also observed in past earthquakes (Han et al.,
2009). In Mackie et al. (2008), it was recommended that only one level of damage state needs to be defined for bear‐
ings, which was bearing failure. This was because cost of mobilisation and installation of bearing was high compared
to the cost of new bearing devices. It may be more economical to replace all bearings at once. However, this may not
be true as for bridges that provide service to busy traffic, it can be costly to replace bearings. Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code (CSA S6-14) requires different performance levels of bearings under different levels of earth‐
quake. Hedayati Dezfuli and Alam (2015) and Zhang and Huo (2009) discussed the damage states of elastomeric
bearing in terms of shear strains. The damage states of slight, moderate, extensive and failure are reached when 100,
150, 200 and 250% of the shear strains are exceeded.
However, the elastomeric bearing movement capacity under seismic event is not defined in current bridge design
codes such as Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA S6-14) and LRFD Specifications (AASHTO, 2014)
[AQ3]. In the two codes, only a 50% shear strain is specified for serviceability load to prevent rollover at the edges
and delamination due to fatigue (AASHTO, 2014). Nonetheless, the static displacement capacity should not be com‐
pared with seismic demands. Most of the design codes do not clearly quantify the damage states for components oth‐
er than columns. In terms of foundations, although foundations are expected to remain essentially elastic, it may be
challenging to achieve this goal in liquefiable soils. Actually, in a number of earthquakes, liquefaction and lateral
spreading were the main cause of bridge damage (Giovinazzi et al., 2011; Wood, Chapman, & Prabhaharan, 2012). It
is urged that more research should be performed in order to properly define the damage states of foundations, bear‐
ings, and joints.
It should be noted that most design guidelines specify damage states of substructures based on flexural damage,
shear damage should always be avoided at all costs. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Mitchell et al., 1995), 1995
Hyogo-ken nanbu earthquake (Kawashima, 2000) and 2008 Wenchuan earthquake (Han et al., 2009; KawashimaTa‐
kahashi, Ge, Wu, & Zhang, 2009), a large number of bridges were damaged because of shear or combined flexural-
shear failure. Ideally, bridge superstructures are capacity-protected. Yet, there were still cases that bridges were se‐

verely damaged due to failure in concrete girders, steel plate girders, and concrete decks (Kawashima, Unjoh, Hoshi‐
kuma, & Kosa, 2011; Schanack, Valdebenito, & Alvial, 2012). The damage states of superstructure are not normally
specified, designers should ensure superstructures remain essentially elastic. In addition, bridges not only carry traffic
but also pipelines and utilities. The pipelines attached to bridges can be extensively damaged if they are not adequate‐
ly flexible (Palermo et al., 2011). In performance-based design, designers should consider many components in addi‐
tion to columns.
After the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California, Caltrans adopted four-level damage state descriptions: col‐
lapse, major damage, moderate damage and minor damage (Basoz & Kiremidjian, 1998). Major damage was defined
by column spalling and rebar buckling over a length of column diameter, as well as severe hinge damage and near
unseating. Moderate damage referred to column spalling or shear cracking or severe abutment and pier damage. Mi‐
nor damage implied that the damage was repairable and had no danger of collapse. In both Loma Prieta and North‐
ridge earthquakes, non-integral bridge, discontinuous spans and single column bent performed poorly. Saini and Saii‐
di (2013) discussed repair methods for bridges suffered various damage. In the study, five levels of damage were de‐
fined: (1) flexural cracks; (2) first spalling and minor shear cracks; (3) extensive shear cracks or spalling; (4) visible
lateral or longitudinal bars; (5) start of core concrete failure and (6) fractured bars. Although these damage states
were not founded on specified numbers, they were extremely helpful during post-earthquake inspections. The pro‐
gression of damage of well confined concrete columns was extensively researched by Lehman et al. (2004).

Design criteria
Almost two decades ago, Ghobarah (2001) urged that there was a need for consensus on the definition of perform‐
ance levels, corresponding to damage states, and design criteria. However, the consensus in bridge community has
not been achieved. Various performance-based design criteria are used by engineers and researchers. Here, a brief
description of design criteria in current design codes and literature is presented and compared. It should be noted that
this is neither a complete list of all seismic codes nor complete code descriptions that cover all seismic design cir‐
cumstances (e.g. specific criteria triggered by liquefaction or unique site conditions). The intent is to compare a few
major design codes that are used in seismic zones for standard highway bridges. In this study, standard highway
bridges are defined as key elements of a transportation system, but are not unique structures that would impede ongo‐
ing economy or security of the region if get damaged.
In Canada, performance-based design was introduced in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code in 2014
(CSA S6-14). For Major Route Bridges (standard highway bridges), the code requires a return period of 475 years for
lower-level design and a return period of 2475 years for upper-level design. At the lower-design level, no yielding is
allowed. At the upper-design level, extensive damage is permitted. However, the steel strain shall not exceed 0.05 and
the core concrete shall not crush.
Following the publication of Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA S6-14), the British Columbia (Cana‐
da) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure published the Supplement (BCMOT, 2016) to the national code
(CSA S6-14). The British Columbia Supplement (BCMOT, 2016) uses the same level of expected services with the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. However, the strain limits for each damage level are revised to reflect local
practices. At the lower-level hazard (475-year return period), concrete compressive strain is limited to 0.006 and steel
strain is limited to 0.01. At the upper-level hazard (2475-year return period), core concrete strain is limited to 80%
ultimate strain and steel strain is limited to 0.05.
In the LRFD Specifications (AASHTO, 2014) and the LRFD Guide Specifications for Seismic Bridge Design
(AASHTO, 2013), only a single level design with 1000-year return period is required. When AASHTO (1981)[AQ4]
first adopted the probabilistic method, the return period of seismic hazard was 500 years. Before changing the return
period from 500 years to 1000 years, the National Cooperative Highway Research Programme (NCHRP, 2002) pro‐
posed two-level design criteria for AASHTO. It was recommended that 100-year return period for lower-level (serv‐
iceability) design and 2500-year return period for upper-level (life safety) design. However, AASHTO rejected this
proposal because the return periods were unjustified and were not consistent with return periods of other hazards
(FHWA-NHI, 2014). It should be noted that although multiple level design is not mandatory in AASHTO (2014),
multiple return periods may be considered depending on owners (FHWA-NHI, 2014).
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) uses both probabilistic and deterministic design spectra.
The design spectrum is the governing case of (1) a probabilistic spectrum with a return period of 975 years; (2) a

deterministic spectrum of any fault near the bridge site with largest median response resulting from the maximum
rupture; (3) a statewide minimum spectrum. As per Caltrans (2013), bridge categories are classified as important and
ordinary bridges. Bridges are defined important if they: (a) provide access to the emergency facility and protect post-
earthquake life safety; (b) cause major economic impact if closed; (c) are critical elements in the local emergency
plan. Ordinary bridges are further divided into standard or non-standard according to their structural regularity. The
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria only apply to ordinary standard bridges. Under the design earthquake load, the
bridge shall not collapse, however, significant damage is permitted, and there may not be access to traffic. When de‐
signing for multiple level earthquakes, Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-1 (Caltrans, 2010) describes three damage
levels. Damage measurements of steel bridges based on strain, displacement ductility and rotation ductility are rec‐
ommended in Caltrans (2016). For minimal damage, the strain limit is the larger of 0.003 and 1.5 times expected
yield strain. For repairable damage, the strain limit is the lesser of 0.008 and two-thirds of strain at the onset of hard‐
ening. For significant damage, the stain limit is the lesser of 0.06 and half of strain corresponding to expected tensile
strength.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) uses two-level design (ODOT, 2016) for all new bridges. For
upper-level hazard, 1000-year seismic loading with the force reduction factor for ‘other’ bridges in AASHTO shall be
used (e.g. R = 3.0 for vertical reinforced concrete pile bents, R = 5.0 for vertical steel pile bents). For lower-level
hazard, Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake loading with the R factor for ‘essential’ bridges shall be used (e.g. R =
2.0 for vertical reinforced concrete pile bents, R = 3.5 for vertical steel pile bents). Additionally, in Seismic Design
Category (SDC) D, ODOT requires material strain within specified limits for both two levels. At 1000-year level,
concrete strain shall not exceed 90% of the ultimate concrete strain (εcu) computed by Mander’s model. Steel strain
shall not exceed Reduced Ultimate Tensile Strain defined in LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO, 2013). The
Reduced Ultimate Tensile Strain varies from 0.04 to 0.09 depending on rebar sizes. At lower-level hazard, the con‐
crete strain limit is 0.005 and steel strain limit is two times the strain hardening. The onset of strain hardening varies
from 0.005 to 0.015.
The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT, 2008) requires two-level designs (462-year and 975-
year return periods) for bridges that are located on the interstate system or along certain roads. Under 462-year seis‐
mic load, the damage shall be limited to minimal damage. Under 975-year seismic load, the damage should be limi‐
ted to repairable damage. SCDOT defines specific displacement limit for different damage levels. For example, under
462-year seismic loading, the displacement limit at interior bent with fixed bearing is 0.075 H inches (H is height in
feet). Under 975-year earthquake event, this limit is 0.3 H inches. Along with the displacement criteria, the SCDOT
also specifies maximum permitted ductility factors. For single-column bridges, the ductility factor at 462-year and
975-year events are 2.0 and 3.0 respectively.
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT, 2015) only requires a two-level design for Critical
Bridges. Critical Bridges are defined as bridges on the critical route without readily accessible detour. These bridges
shall be functional under seismic load with 1000 years return period and life safety should be protected under seismic
load with 2500 years return period. In the case of standard bridges, only a single-level design is required. Standard
bridges may experience repairable damage under seismic load with 1000 years return period. A similar practice is
also adopted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT, 2016).
The Japanese Design Specifications for Highway Bridges uses multi-level seismic design (Kuwabara et al., 2013).
It defines two levels of earthquake ground motions (Level 1 and Level 2). Level 1 earthquakes are highly likely to
happen during the design life of the bridge and the design criterion is to have no damage. Level 2 earthquake is the
event with high intensity and less probability of occurrence. The design targets are to limit the damage of highly im‐
portant bridges and to prevent the collapse of standard important bridges. Level 2 earthquake includes two types of
earthquakes (Type 1 and Type 2). Type 1 earthquake represents large-scale subduction-type earthquakes and Type 2
represents near-field shallow earthquakes. In the Japanese Design Specifications, the seismic hazard is analysed using
deterministic methods, whereas most of the design codes in the U.S.A., Canada, EU and China use probabilistic
methods. Deterministic systems assume that the entire rule is known at any given time in the past and future (Kirch‐
steiger, 1999). Deterministic methods are often used to check the worst scenario earthquakes, which have the largest
magnitude and closest distance (McGuire, 2001). The deterministic method usually considers a single scenario
whereas, the probabilistic method considers multiple scenarios with associated probabilities. Although the probabilis‐

tic method is the dominant seismic risk analysis method, deterministic method plays an important role for high seis‐
mic regions such as Japan, where the largest earthquake might occur every 300 years. The deterministic method al‐
lows the designer to consider more detailed effects from rupture propagation (McGuire, 2001).
In the New Zealand Bridge Manual (NZT, 2016), there are three damage levels. Under minor earthquake loads, no
disruption to traffic is permitted. Under design level earthquake, only emergency traffic needs to be accommodated.
Under major earthquake loads, the bridge needs to be usable by emergency traffic after temporary repair. For bridges
on primary routes, the earthquake design return period is 2500 years. For normal bridges, the earthquake design re‐
turn period is 1000 years. The New Zealand Bridge manual (NZT, 2016) also contains tsunami design requirements
in the seismic design section.
China initiated two-level seismic design in 2008 (China-MOT, 2008). The bridge importance is classified into four
categories from Class A to Class D. Class A bridges have single span lengths greater than 150 m, Class B bridges are
within 150 m length for single spans. Class C and D are the bridges on less important highways with shorter spans. In
the Chinese bridge design code, Class B bridges are designed for 75 to 100-year return period without damage at the
lower hazard level. At the upper hazard level, Class B bridges are designed for 1000 to 2000-year return period with‐
out collapse.
In Eurocode (CEN, 2005), a 475-year return period is used for upper-level design which aims at life safety. For
lower-level hazard, it is suggested that 95-year return period is used (JRC-Ispra, 2012). In addition to design codes,
many research reports also proposed various design criteria. Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures (FHWA,
2006)[AQ5] recommended 100-year return period for lower-level design and 1000-year return period for upper-level
design. ACI-341 (2014) suggested 50-year return period for lower-level design and 2500-year return period for up‐
per-level design. It can be seen that the design criteria in different codes and guidelines are not consistent. Even when
the damage states are named using the same term (e.g. minimal damage), the specific definition can be different (dif‐
ferent strain limits). A summary of design criteria from different codes is presented in Table 2. The performance re‐
quirements are expressed in terms of damages. In general, minimal and limited damage means that the interruption to
traffic is for a short period of time. Repairable and extensive damage means that traffic interruption is expected. Life
safety means no traffic may travel on the bridge and replacement may be needed.

Table 2. Performance-based design criteria for standard highway bridges.Table Layout

Reference Hazard Performance require‐
ments
LRFD Specifications (2014) 1000-year seismic load Life safety
Eurocode (2005) 475-year seismic load Life safety
95-year seismic load Limited damage
Chinese Guidelines (2008) 1000 to 2000-year seismic load Life safety
75 to 100-year seismic load No damage
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code 2475-year seismic load Extensive damage
(2014) 475-year seismic load Minimal damage
Japanese Design Specifications for High‐ Large-scale subduction-type earthquakes (de‐ Life safety
way Bridges (2012) terministic)
Major near-field shallow earthquakes (deter‐ Life safety
ministic)
Frequent earthquake (deterministic) No damage
California DOT (2013) Probabilistic spectrum with a return period of Life safety
975 years
Deterministic spectrum of any fault near the
bridge site
Statewide minimum spectrum

Reference Hazard Performance require‐

ments
Oregon DOT (2016) 1000-year seismic load Life safety
Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake seis‐ Limited damage
mic load
South Carolina DOT (2008) 975-year seismic load Life safety
462-year seismic load Repairable damage
New York DOT (2015), Washington DOT 1000-year seismic load Life safety
(2016)

Loss estimate
In the past, seismic designs were focussed on collapse prevention while neglecting the fact that significant repair
cost and time may be needed although life safety is protected (Ghobarah, 2001). Under performance-based design
framework, not only life safety is to be considered but also the repair cost and time are taken into account, and to be
minimised. A framework that systematically considers overall design issues was developed by Moehle and Deierlein
(2004). The framework not only addresses seismic demands and damages but also tracks social demand and losses.
An overall probabilistic model (Mackie & Stojadinović, 2005) for earthquake demand is integrated from several
sub-models that incorporate different levels of probabilities (Equation (4)). Using the proposed methodology, deci‐
sion-makers will be able to distribute resources based on social demands with the help of more realistic models
(Marsh, 2013)[AQ6]:

P D > dv IM = im = ∫ ∫ ∫G DV DM dv dm · dGDM EDP dm edp · dGEDP IM edp im · dG_IM im

(4)

dm edp im

where P is the total probability of a structure exceeding limit states, DM is the damage measure, EDP is the engi‐
neering demand parameter, IM is the seismic intensity measure, DV is the decision variables. In this model, intensity
measure (IM) is directly related to engineering demand (ED). The damages are categorised into two levels; structural
level and transportation level. The structural level damage triggers the losses from bridge repair cost. This damage
can be described as residual displacement, residual strain and maximum strains of bridge components. The transpor‐
tation level damage indicates the bridge serviceability, which results in the indirect losses. The damage to transporta‐
tion level can be described as traffic carrying capacity and lane closures. In many circumstances, the indirect losses
are greater than the direct losses.
In performance-based design, fragility curves are frequently used to present the probabilities of exceeding criteria
at various hazard levels (Mackie & Stojadinović, 2005). Numerous researchers have used fragility curves to describe
the seismic behaviour of structures (Billah, Alam, & Bhuiyan, 2013; Billah & Alam, 2015; Choi, DesRoches, & Niel‐
son, 2004; Hedayati Dezfuli & Alam, 2016; Hwang et al., 2001; Kim & Feng, 2003; Padgett & DesRoches, 2009;
Shinozuka, Feng, Kim, & Kim, 2000; Shinozuka, Feng, Lee, & Naganuma, 2000). Details of seismic fragility assess‐
ment of highway bridges can be found in Billah and Alam (2015). The first generation of fragility curves was mostly
based on empirical studies, especially based on the damages in 1994 Northridge and 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earth‐
quakes (Gardoni, Der Kiureghian, & Mosalam, 2002; Mackie & Stojadinović, 2005). The second generation of fragil‐
ity analysis was largely based on analytical studies. Analytical studies provide more insight into both existing bridges
and new designs that have not experienced any earthquakes (Billah & Alam, 2014). Extensive research has been per‐
formed to relate engineering demand parameters with damage measures (Lu, Mackie, & Elgamal, 2011; Mackie &
Stojadinovic, 2004).
A computer programme BridgePBEE based on the performance-based design methodology was developed to per‐
form nonlinear structural analysis as well as loss estimate (Lu et al., 2011). The losses are presented in terms of repair
time and cost. Furthermore, earthquake loss models of regional areas were proposed by several researchers (FEMA,
1997; Lu, Han, Hori, Xiong, & Xu, 2014; Moore, Kiremidjian, & Chiu, 2002). However, it is not straightforward to
conclude the loss based on currently used damage measurement such as material strains. After earthquakes, the indi‐

rect losses to the transportation system largely depend on the live load capacity of the bridge (i.e. the number of lanes
that can be open to traffic). Therefore, an additional parameter in the loss analysis model will be needed, which is
residual live load capacity factor. The concept of live load capacity factor can be found in bridge evaluation sections
of some codes, such as Canadian Highway Design Bridge Code (CSA, 2014). This article suggests a modified loss
estimate model as follows:

P D > dv IM = im = ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫∣G DV LF dv dlf ∣ · ∣ G

LF DM
dlf dm ∣ · ∣ dGDM EDP dm edp ∣ · ∣ dGEDP IM ed
lf dm edp im

where LF is live load capacity factor. All other terms remain the same definitions as in Equation (4). In general,
the live load capacity factor can be calculated using:

Resistance−Dead load − Otℎer load (6)

LF = Live load

Limited research work (Mackie & Stojadinovic, 2004; Shinozuka, Zhou, Banerjee, & Murachi, 2006; Terzic &
Stojadinovic, 2010, 2015; Warn & Unal, 2014) has investigated the relationship between seismic damages and residu‐
al capacity after earthquakes. Maeda, Nakano, and Lee (2004) attempted using residual displacement to predict col‐
umn damage after earthquakes. Yet, the dispersions of the prediction model were large. Elwood and Moehle (2005)
investigated the axial capacity of columns after shear damage. It was reported that for columns with low axial load
and high transverse reinforcement ratio, shear damaged columns can maintain axial loads beyond a drift of 2%. Terz‐
ic and Stojadinovic (2010) investigated the column axial capacity after earthquake damages through both experimen‐
tal and numerical studies. It was concluded that specimens loaded up to displacement ductility level of 4.5 lost about
20% axial load capacity. It was also concluded that bridges designed to Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Caltrans,
2013) would not experience significant axial capacity loss under the design earthquake. However, this conclusion was
limited to columns without residual displacement. Warn and Unal (2014) developed a method to predict residual axial
load capacity based on uncrushed concrete and rebar resistance. This approach was validated using the experimental
study by Terzic and Stojadinovic (2010). Currently, there is limited guidance on quantitatively connecting axial resid‐
ual capacity to damages such as strain and drift. Much research effort is needed in order to better implement the loss
estimate model in practice.
With the application of performance-based design, the cost associated with the seismic event can be better incor‐
porated into life cycle cost analysis. Life cycle cost is defined as the present value of total cost of construction to the
end of the service life (Chang & Shinozuka, 1996). A framework for life-cycle cost analysis with natural hazard was
proposed by Chang and Shinozuka (1996). The life cycle cost model of hazard events is expressed in Equations (7)–
(9):

T K (7)
CD = ∑ ∑ G x, dk, t · rkCI x · z t
t = 1k = 1

where, CD is the discounted expected cost of earthquake damage, x is the vector of design parameters, dk is the
damage state, t is time in year, rk is damage rate, CI x is the initial cost of construction and z t is the discount
factor. G is a performance index that can be described by Equations (8) and (9)

wℎen t > 0

G x, dk, t = Pr dk + 1 > d > dk x, t = G x, dk, t − 1 · 1 + wn x, t – wm m x, t – ws s X, t (8)

wℎen t = 0

G x, dk, 0 = Pr dk + 1 > d > dk x, t = 0 = ∫ Pr d

ℎ
k+1 > d > dk x, ℎ · Pr ℎ
(9)

where d is damage level, wn is the natural rate of deterioration, wm is the change in deterioration rate due to main‐
tenance, ws is the change in deterioration rate due to seismic retrofit and h is the hazard parameter.
The incorporation of performance-based design may change the life-cycle maintenance of bridge structures that
are subjected to seismic hazards. For example, Figure 2 illustrates the impact that could be brought in by seismic
events on maintenance. Three bridge condition curves are plotted in Figure 2. Curve 1 represents bridge condition
when seismic risk is not considered. The corresponding target maintenance time is in Year C. Curve 2 represents po‐
tential bridge condition after a moderate earthquake. At the time of Year A, a moderate earthquake can cause dam‐
ages that interrupt serviceability. Thus, a retrofit is needed before Year A if the bridge has to remain in service after
moderate earthquakes. Curve 3 represents the potential bridge condition when a major earthquake happens. In Year
B, a major earthquake can bring the bridge performance down to collapse prevention level. Therefore, a retrofit be‐
fore Year B is necessary to prevent collapse.
Figure 2. Bridge maintenance considering seismic hazards.

Evaluation of damage limit states

As various design criteria are used in different design codes, it is not straightforward to determine whether these
criteria are consistent with each other. In this section, a typical bridge column is analysed using pushover analysis
considering the design criteria from Canadian and U.S. codes. The pushover analysis was performed using SeismoS‐
truct (SeismoSoft, 2017). The concrete column model was verified based on an experimental study by Petrini, Maggi,
Priestley, and Calvi (2008). The specimen is a single cantilever RC column subjected to lateral loads at the top. The
clear height of the column is 156 cm and the diameter is 45 cm. The details of reinforcement can be found in Petrini
et al. (2008). The comparison between the backbone curve from the experimental study and the predicted response
from SeismoStruct (SeismoSoft, 2017) is shown in Figure 3. A similar numerical model was also developed by
Priestley, Calvi, Petrini, and Maggi (2007). The simulation and the experimental results match well in the negative
quadrant. But in the positive quadrant, the numerical results are lower than experimental result. It was explained that
this may be caused by the eccentricity of reinforcement cage in the test or higher flexural strength in the initial load‐
ing direction (Priestley et al., 2007).
Figure 3. Finite element analysis (SeismoStruct software) versus experimental results.

For the comparison of different design code criteria, a six-meter high reinforced concrete column is modelled. The
column is fixed at the base and unrestrained at the top. A constant axial load is applied at the top of the column to
simulate superstructure dead load. An incremental displacement load is applied at the top of the column in the lateral
direction. The parameters of the column are shown in Table 3. The pushover results are shown in Figure 4. Various
code limits are marked on the pushover curve for comparison. The code limits are based on ductility and material
strains, which can be translated to specific displacement. It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive comparison
of design code but rather a general comparison of conservatism. There are many other variables in the design codes
affecting design outcomes that cannot be covered in this study, such as the resistance factors for capacity calculation.
However, Figure 4 provides important information regarding damage states and gives the readers an idea of how
these limits are compared to each other. When plotting the criteria from CSA (2014) and BCMOT (2016), the materi‐
al strains limits were used. For Caltrans (2013), SCDOT (2008), ODOT (2016) and AASHTO (2014), the limits de‐
fined by ductility factors were used.
Figure 4. Damage states from various codes – a case study for comparative assessment.

Table 3. Column parameters.Table Layout

Concrete strength, MPa 35
Column height, m 6
Column diameter, m 1

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor
& Francis in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. Published
paper please see
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Concrete strength, MPa 35
Longitudinal rebar diameter, mm 25
No. of longitudinal rebar 24
Rebar yielding strength, MPa 400
Plastic hinge length, m 0.722
Transverse rebar spacing, mm 75
Axial load, kN 1374

In Figure 4 (Label 1), it is clear that the first yielding limit defined by CSA (2014) is very conservative in compar‐
ison with other codes at 475 years return period. This observation is similar to the findings from a previous study
(Zhang, Alam, Khan, & Jiang, 2016). Label 2 represents the damage states at 1000 years return period defined by
AASHTO (2014) based on ductility. The same damage state is used by SCDOT (2008) and ODOT (2016) but for a
lower return period, which is 500 years. Label 3 is the damage state defined by BCMOT (2016) at 475 years return
period. At 475 to 500 years return period, the design criteria from BCMOT (2016), SCDOT (2008) and ODOT
(2016) are generally consistent (label 2 and 3), where the damage state is slightly beyond elastic limit. The structure
is still in essentially elastic state and no strength reduction is observed. Label 4 and label 6 represent the concrete
damage limit at 475 years return period in CSA (2014) and BCMOT (2016). In this case study, these two strain val‐
ues do not govern the lower level design. Label 5 represents the damage limit at 1000 years return period required by
SCDOT (2008) and ODOT (2016). Label 7 represents the damage limit at 975 years return period required by Cal‐
trans (2013). In this case, Caltrans (2013) is less conservative than the other two DOTs. Label 8 and Label 9 mark the
concrete damage stated defined by BCMOT (2016) and CSA (2014) at 2475 years return period. These two values
are related to the concrete core crushing strain. Label 10 defines the steel strain at 2475 years return period by
BCMOT (2016) and CSA (2014). A comparison of these codes in terms of column drift ratio is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Code comparison in terms of column drift ratio limits.Table Layout

Sequence Code Drift (%) Criteria
1 CHBDC, Rebar, 475 years 0.50 εs ≤ yielding
2 ODOT & SCDOT, Ductility, 500 years 1.42 R = 2
2 LRFD Specifications, Ductility, 1000 years 1.42 R = 2
3 BC MOT, Rebar, 475 years 1.60 εs ≤ 0.01
4 CHBDC, Concrete, 475 years 1.87 εc ≤ 0.004
5 ODOT & SCDOT, Ductility, 1000 years 2.13 R = 3
6 BC MOT, Concrete, 475 years 2.63 εc ≤ 0.006
7 Caltrans, Ductility, 975 years 2.83 R = 4
8 BC MOT, Concrete, 2475 years 3.35 εc ≤ 80% εcu
9 CHBDC, Concrete, 2475 years 4.07 εc ≤ εcu
10 CHBDC & BC MOT, Rebar, 2475 years 5.74 εs ≤ 0.05
εs is steel strain, εc is concrete compressive strain and εcu is ultimate confined concrete strain.

As discussed earlier, it is critical that columns have adequate axial load capacity to carry traffic in order to provide
serviceability after earthquakes. An example investigation of the residual axial load capacity of earthquake damaged
columns is performed using the column presented in Table 3. In the analysis, the column is first pushed to a specific
displacement and re-centered. Then a vertical displacement is applied to the top of the column to calculate the axial
load resistance. The assumption is that after earthquakes the columns do not have residual displacement or are re-
centered manually before traffic is allowed to resume. The process of the analysis is presented in Figure 5. In Figure
5(a), the column is being axially and laterally loaded. After the lateral displacement achieves the specified level, the
column is being pushed back (Figure 5(b)). When the column is pushed back to original position (Figure 5(c)), axial
load is applied until compression failure.

Figure 5. (a) Applying dead load and lateral displacement. (b) Maintaining dead load and re-centering of column. (c) Applying
vertical displacement until column fails.

Figure 6 presents the column axial compression resistance before and after earthquake damages. Before applying
any lateral load, the column resistance is 38,255 kN. After applying a lateral displacement corresponding to less or
equal to 2 times ductility, the resistance is only reduced slightly to 37,600 kN. However, if the displacement ductility
is equal to or greater than 3, the resistance is reduced to 30,000 kN, and the column failure becomes more brittle.
From this single column case study, it can be seen that using a ductility factor of 2 is adequate for serviceability state
of design. A ductility factor of 3 or beyond may only be used for life safety level design since significant stiffness,
resistance and ductility reduction is expected. This observation matches with the code requirements mentioned earli‐
er.
Figure 6. Column compressive resistances.

Damage avoidance design

In the past earthquakes, bridges overall did perform well. In the 1989 Loma Prieta and the 1994 Northridge earth‐
quakes, it was reported that less than 5% of bridges were damaged (Basoz & Kiremidjian, 1998). In 2010 Chile
Earthquake, the majority of the bridges experienced minor damage, less than 1% of bridges were closed to traffic

(Schanack et al., 2012). In the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, old bridges composed of integral abutments performed
well. No State Highway bridges were closed due to structural damage. However, it was found that the City precast
concrete bridges built after the 1960s had large residual deformation. It is apparent that there is a limit of seismic
performance for traditional ductile design of structures within reasonable cost. Traditional ductile design aims to dis‐
sipate earthquake energy through the formulation of plastic hinges. Although performance-based design can better
control damages of ductile structures, it does not fundamentally change the structural behaviours. To significantly re‐
duce earthquake damages in high seismic zones, novel structures using damage avoidance design concept were pro‐
posed by researchers (Skinner & McVerry, 1975; Tyler, 1978; Mander & Cheng, 1997). When conducting perform‐
ance-based design, designers do not have to rely on prescriptive procedures contained in design codes (such as using
force reduction factors), therefore, damage avoidance design could be an ideal option for novel structures that are not
traditionally ductile structure.
A widely accepted damage avoidance design solution is using base isolations. The first concept of base isolation
dates back to one century ago (Buckle & Mayes, 1990). Frequently used isolation bearings include lead-rubber bear‐
ing, friction-pendulum bearing and the Eradiquake isolator (Buckle, Constantinou, Diceli, & Ghasemi, 2006; Chen &
Duan, 2014). Isolation bearings were initially used for bridge retrofits, but have also been used in numerous new
structures. Isolation bearings separate the superstructure vibrations from substructures, thus reduces the force de‐
mands to substructures. This is typically achieved by increasing the fundamental periods of vibration. The compo‐
nents of isolation systems allow lateral movement under design earthquake, provide adequate stiffness under service‐
ability loads and have satisfactory energy dissipating capacity. Base isolation has been proven as an effective means
to reduce earthquake forces. The reduction can be as much as a factor of ten or even more (Skinner, Bycroft, &
Mcverry, 1976). Extensive tests have been conducted in the past several decades (Robinson, 1982; Tyler & Robinson,
1984; Mokha, Constantinou, & Reinhorn, 1990; Constantinou et al., 1993; Tsopelas, Constantinou, Kim, & Okamoto,
1996a; Tsopelas, Constantinou, Okamoto, Fujii, & Ozaki, 1996b; Chung, Yun, Kim, & Seo, 1999; Tsai, Wu, Chang,
& Lee, 2007; Masroor & Mosqueda, 2012). Strong earthquakes have proved that base isolations are effective means
of seismic protections (Hijikata, Takahashi, Aoyagi, & Mashimo, 2012; Kasai et al., 2013). For isolation of bridges,
Guide specifications for seismic isolation design (AASHTO, 2014) can be referred as one of the main design specifi‐
cations.
Post-tensioned rocking column is a novel structural system that has been researched extensively in recent years.
Mander and Cheng (1997) proposed post-tensioned rocking column to seismically isolate the structures. The column
was precast and was connected to footing and pier cap using tendons. No continuous reinforcement was used at the
connection joints. Under design earthquake loads, the column would rock and release force demands to adjacent
members. The two ends of the column were protected with steel plates to avoid rocking impact damages. Similar
experimental and analytical studies were followed by a number of researchers (Hewes & Priestley, 2002; Yamashita
& Sanders, 2009; Dawood, Elgawady, & Hewes, 2012; Sideris, Aref, & Filiatrault, 2014; Vassiliou & Makris, 2015;
Zhang & Alam, 2016; Rahmzadeh et al., 2018). However, rocking structures have flag-shaped hysteretic behaviour
(Chou & Hsu, 2008) which may show large displacement demand and prolonged oscillations causing low-cycle fati‐
gue effects (ACI-374, 2014).
Supplemental damping devices or energy dissipating bars were proposed by researchers to increase damping of
rocking structures (Pekcan, Mander, & Chen, 1995; Sakai & Mahin, 2004; Hieber, Wacker, Eberhard, & Stanton,
2005; Palermo, Pampanin, & Calvi, 2005; Cohagen, Pang, Stanton, & Eberhard, 2008; Marriott, Pampanin, & Paler‐
mo, 2009; Metelli, Beschi, & Riva, 2011; Motaref, Saiidi, & Sanders, 2011; Thonstad, Mantawy, Stanton, Eberhard,
& Sanders 2016; Rahmzadeh et al., 2018). The supplemental components are designed to yield at design earthquakes,
such that the columns are capacity protected. Energy dissipating bars are normally unbonded at the joints for a certain
length to avoid strain concentration caused by large joint opening. Design code provisions of rocking structure in
bridges are not as complete as that in buildings (Kurama et al., 2018). For building structures, damage avoidance
design at joints was researched extensively (Li, Mander, & Dhakal, 2008; Mander et al., 2009) and is incorporated in
codes. ACI-374 (2014) defines acceptance criteria for non-conventional moment frames. Following ACI-374 (2014)
requirements, ACI-550.3 (2013) contains design procedure for special frames with beams post-tensioned to concrete
columns. In the meantime, rocking wall structures have also been investigated and widely used (Kurama et al., 1999;
Holden, Restrepo, & Mander, 2003; Kurama & Shen, 2004; Perez, Sause, & Pessiki, 2007; Marriott, Pampanin, Bull,

& Palermo, 2008; Devereux, Holden, Buchanan, & Pampanin, 2011). The design requirements of rocking wall can be
found in ITG-5.1 (2008) and ITG-5.2 (2009).
There are many other types of damage avoidance design using novel structural systems, smart materials or combi‐
nations of both. Buckling Restrained Braces (BRB) have been extensively used in retrofits and new constructions.
BRBs are typically structural steels attached to bent to resist seismic demand and dissipate energy through hysteretic
behaviour (El-Bahey & Bruneau, 2011). Numerous studies have been performed (Kim & Choi, 2004; Tremblay, Bol‐
duc, Neville, & Devall, 2006; Christopoulos, Tremblay, Kim, & Lacerte, 2008; Di Sarno & Manfredi, 2012; Haque &
Alam, 2017) and it was demonstrated that BRBs are an effective approach to keep main structural members essential‐
ly elastic. In terms of novel materials, researchers and practicing engineers have used shape memory alloy (SMA) for
its superelasticity property (Alam, Youssef, & Nehdi, 2007), as well as replacement materials for concrete such as
ductile fibre-reinforced concrete (Billington & Yoon, 2004), ultrahigh-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (Habel,
Denarié, & Brühwiler, 2006), engineered cementitious composites (Lee, 2007) and so on. These novel materials were
typically used in the plastic hinge regions or other critical joint regions that experience high seismic damage.

Conclusions
Performance-based design is a promising and sophisticated design methodology that can be applied to both tradi‐
tional ductile design and innovative damage avoidance design. Significant achievements have been made with efforts
from pioneers in the past several decades. Many design codes have adopted performance-based design as a major
design methodology. The paper presents the core elements of performance-based design including damage limit
states and performance targets, and appropriate loss estimates.
When comparing the performance-based design criteria among different codes based on the case study, the Cana‐
dian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA, 2014) is the most stringent code as it does not allow steel yielding for
major route bridges under 475-year earthquake loads. For 475 to 500 years return period, the design criteria from
BCMOT (2016), SCDOT (2008) and ODOT (2016) are generally consistent. However, it should be noted that the
conclusions may not be generalised just based on the case study. Among the reviewed codes, seismic hazards based
on probabilistic method are used by most of the jurisdictions. However, Japan and some US DOTs also use determin‐
istic methods.
Damage states of bridge columns are well defined in codes and can be easily checked by designers. The software
currently available in the market can adequately predict the nonlinear response of structures. Performance-based de‐
sign is diversified by using different criteria based on ductility, transient/residual drift and material strain. However,
the damage states of other structural and non-structural components are not well defined in most of the codes. It is
agreed that columns are critical elements for life safety protection. But consideration of repair cost and repair time for
many other components such as bearings, expansion joints, road barriers etc. cannot be ignored. To properly estimate
the repair cost and repair time, a large amount of research data has to be made available. This would need more coop‐
eration between researchers and engineers. This review also emphasises the importance of incorporating perform‐
ance-based design into life-cycle thinking, which has been proposed by a number of researchers. With this improve‐
ment in life-cycle analysis, more realistic prediction and risk management can be achieved in seismic zones.
The review suggests that limited information on the residual axial load capacity of earthquake damaged columns is
provided in the codes, although initial concepts have been developed in previous research. Based on the case study,
the column axial load capacity decreases significantly when the maximum lateral displacement is equal or greater
than three times yielding displacement. However, the case study cannot cover various situations systematically; fur‐
ther investigation in the relation between column damage and axial load capacity is needed, especially with founda‐
tions incorporating soil-structure interactions and damaged columns with residual deformations. More research is
needed to connect residual axial resistance with seismic damage, so that loss estimate can be calculated more realisti‐
cally.
Last but not the least, performance-based design is not limited to ductile structures, it applies to damage avoidance
structures as well. Performance-based design facilitates the communications between designers and owners, so that
final performance targets can be achieved without necessarily following prescriptive procedures of code defined for
traditional structures. It opens the door to innovative structures that can perform better than codified structures.

Disclosure statement[AQ7]

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Acknowledgments
The financial support provided by NSERC and CPCI are gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to
thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. The first author also appreciates the support and guid‐
ance he received from Dr. Jianping Jiang, Mr. Saqib Khan, Mr. Keith Holmes and many other colleagues at WSP
Group Vancouver office. Opinions expressed in this paper are the authors’ and are not those of supporting organisa‐
tions.

References
China-MOT. (2008). Chinese guidelines for seismic design of highway bridges. Beijing: Ministry of Transport.
FHWA-NHI. (2014). LRFD seismic analysis and design of bridges reference manual (Publication No. FHWA-
NHI-15-004). Washington, DC: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
ACI-374. (2014). Acceptance criteria for moment frames based on structural testing and commentary. Farmington
Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
AASHTO. (2013). AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. Washington, DC: American Asso‐
ciation of State Highway Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014a). Guide specifications for seismic isolation design. Washington, DC: American Association of
State Highway Transportation Officials.
AASHTO. (2014b). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: American Association of State
Highway Transportation Officials.
Alam, M., Youssef, M., & Nehdi, M. (2007). Utilizing shape memory alloys to enhance the performance and safety
of civil infrastructure: A review. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 34 (9), 1075–1086. doi:10.1139/l07-038
ACI-341. (2014). Analysis and design of seismic-resistant concrete bridge systems. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute.
ACI-550.3. (2013). Design specification for unbonded post-tensioned precast concrete special moment frames satis‐
fying ACI 374.1. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D., Deodatis, G., Ellingwood, B., & Frangopol, D. (2013). Life-cycle design of bridges un‐
der multiple hazards: Earthquake, tsunami, and continuous deterioration. Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-Cycle Per‐
formance of Structures and Infrastructure, 3–16.[AQ8]
ATC-13. (1985). Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Coun‐
cil.
ATC-40. (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete buildings. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technol‐
ogy Council.
Basoz, N., & Kiremidjian, A. S. (1998). Evaluation of bridge damage data from the Loma Prieta and Northridge,
California earthquakes (Report No. MCEER-98–0004). Redwood City, CA: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research.
BCMOT. (2016). British Columbia Supplement to CHBDC S6-14. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Transporta‐
tion and Infrastructure.
Berry, M., & Eberhard, M. (2003). Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns (Report
No. 2003/18). Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California Berkeley.
Caltrans. (2013). Caltrans seismic design criteria. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
Billah, A. M., & Alam, M. S. (2014). Seismic fragility assessment of concrete bridge pier reinforced with superelastic
shape memory alloy. Earthquake Spectra, 31(3), 1515–1541. doi:10.1193/112512EQS337M

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Billah, A. M., & Alam, M. S. (2015). Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: A state-of-the-art review.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(6), 804–832.
Billah, A. M., & Alam, M. S. (2016a). Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete
bridge piers. I: Development of performance-based damage states. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(12),
04016140. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001458
Billah, A. M., & Alam, M. S. (2016b). Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy–reinforced concrete
bridge piers. II: Methodology and design example. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(12), 04016141.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001623
Billah, A. M., Alam, M. S., & Bhuiyan, M. R. (2013). Fragility analysis of retrofitted multicolumn bridge bent sub‐
jected to near-fault and far-field ground motion. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18(10), 992–1004. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000452
Billington, S. L., & Yoon, J. (2004). Cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned precast columns with ductile fiber-
reinforced concrete. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 9(4), 353–363. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2004)9:4(353)
Buckle, I. G., Constantinou, M. C., Diceli, M., & Ghasemi, H. (2006). Seismic isolation of highway bridges (Report
No. MCEER-06-SP07). New York, NY: University of Buffalo.
Buckle, I. G., & Mayes, R. L. (1990). Seismic isolation: History, application, and performance—A world view.
Earthquake Spectra, 6(2), 161–201. doi:10.1193/1.1585564
Caltrans. (2016). Caltrans seismic design specifications for steel bridges. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Transportation.
Caltrans. (2010). Memo to designers 20-1 seismic design methodology. Sacramento, CA: California Department of
Transportation.
Dawood, H., Elgawady, M., & Hewes, J. (2012). Behavior of segmental precast posttensioned bridge piers under lat‐
eral loads. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 17(5), 735–746. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000252
CEN. (2005). Eurocode 8–design of Structures for earthquake resistance. Brussels: European Committee for Normal‐
ization.
Chang, S. E., & Shinozuka, M. (1996). Life-cycle cost analysis with natural hazard risk. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, 2(3), 118–126. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1996)2:3(118)
Chen, W.-F., & Duan, L. (2014). Bridge engineering handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., & Nielson, B. (2004). Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Engi‐
neering Structures, 26(2), 187–199. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.09.006
Chou, C. C., & Hsu, C. P. (2008). Hysteretic model development and seismic response of unbonded post‐tensioned
precast cft segmental bridge columns. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 37(6), 919–934. doi:10.1002/
eqe.796
Christopoulos, C., Tremblay, R., Kim, H.-J., & Lacerte, M. (2008). Self-centering energy dissipative bracing system
for the seismic resistance of structures: Development and validation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(1), 96–
107. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:1(96)
Chung, W.-J., Yun, C.-B., Kim, N.-S., & Seo, J.-W. (1999). Shaking table and pseudodynamic tests for the evaluation
of the seismic performance of base-isolated structures. Engineering Structures, 21(4), 365–379. doi:10.1016/
S0141-0296(97)00211-3
Cohagen, L. S., Pang, J. B., Stanton, J. F., & Eberhard, M. O. (2008). A precast concrete bridge bent designed to re-
center after an earthquake Seattle, WA: TransNow.
Constantinou, M., Symans, M., Tsopelas, P., & Taylor, D. (1993). Fluid viscous dampers in applications of seismic
energy dissipation and seismic isolation. Proceedings ATC, 17(1), 581–592.
CSA. (2014). Canadian highway bridge design code. Mississauga: Canadian Standards Association.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Devereux, C., Holden, T., Buchanan, A., & Pampanin, S. (2011). NMIT arts & media building-damage mitigation
using post-tensioned timber walls. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engi‐
neering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand.
Di Sarno, L., & Manfredi, G. (2012). Experimental tests on full‐scale rc unretrofitted frame and retrofitted with buck‐
ling‐restrained braces. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(2), 315–333. doi:10.1002/eqe.1131
El-Bahey, S., & Bruneau, M. (2011). Buckling restrained braces as structural fuses for the seismic retrofit of rein‐
forced concrete bridge bents. Engineering Structures, 33(3), 1052–1061. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.027
Elwood, K. J., & Moehle, J. P. (2005). Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Structural Journal,
102(4), 578.
Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 16(3),
573–592. doi:10.1193/1.1586128
Gardoni, P., Der Kiureghian, A., & Mosalam, K. M. (2002). Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for
reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(10), 1024–
1038. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:10(1024)
Giovinazzi, S., Wilson, T., Davis, C., Bristow, D., Gallagher, M., Schofield, A., Villemure, M., Eidinger, J., & Tang,
A. (2011). Lifelines performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, New
Zealand: Highlights of resilience. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4), 402–417.
Han, Q., Du, X., Liu, J., Li, Z., Li, L., & Zhao, J. (2009). Seismic damage of highway bridges during the 2008 wen‐
chuan earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(2), 263–273. doi:10.1007/
s11803-009-8162-0
Habel, K., Denarié, E., & Brühwiler, E. (2006). Structural response of elements combining ultrahigh-performance fi‐
ber-reinforced concretes and reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 132 (11), 1793–1800.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:11(1793)

FEMA. (1997). HAZUS technical manual. Washington DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA. (2000). Commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington, DC: FEMA-356, Federal Emer‐
gency Management Agency.
Feng, Y., Kowalsky, M. J., & Nau, J. M. (2015). Effect of seismic load history on deformation limit states for longitu‐
dinal bar buckling in RC circular columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 141(8), 04014187. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001153
Ghobarah, A. (2001). Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: State of development. Engineering Struc‐
tures, 23(8), 878–884. doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00036-0
Gibson, E. (1982). Working with the performance approach in building. Rotterdam: CIB Report Publication.
Gidaris, I., Padgett, J. E., Barbosa, A. R., Chen, S., Cox, D., Webb, B., & Cerato, A. (2017). Multiple-hazard fragility
and restoration models of highway bridges for regional risk and resilience assessment in the United States: State-of-
the-art review. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143(3), 04016188. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001672
Günay, S., & Mosalam, K. M. (2013). PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17(6), 829–858. doi:10.1080/13632469.2013.787377
Hamburger, R., Rojahn, C., Moehle, J., Bachman, R., Comartin, C., & Whittaker, A. (2004). The ATC-58 project:
development of next-generation performance-based earthquake engineering design criteria for buildings. Paper pre‐
sented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Haque, A. R., & Alam, M. S. (2017). Hysteretic behaviour of a piston based self-centering (PBSC) bracing system
made of superelastic SMA bars–A feasibility study. Structures, 12, 102–114. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2017.08.004

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Hedayati Dezfuli, F., & Alam, M. S. (2015). Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous steel-girder
bridge isolated by SMA wire-based natural rubber bearings (sma-nrb). Paper presented at the Structures Congress,
Portland, Oregon.
Hedayati Dezfuli, F., & Alam, M. S. (2016). Effect of different steel‐reinforced elastomeric isolators on the seismic
fragility of a highway bridge. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 24(2), e1866. doi:10.1002/stc.1866
Hwang, H., Liu, J. B., & Chiu, Y.-H. (2001). Seismic fragility analysis of highway bridges. Mid-America Earthquake
Center report: project MAEC RR-4. Urbana: MACE
Hewes, J. T., & Priestley, M. N. (2002). Seismic design and performance of precast concrete segmental bridge col‐
umns (Report No. SSRP 2001/25). La Jolla, CA: University of California San Diego.
Hieber, D. G., Wacker, J. M., Eberhard, M. O., & Stanton, J. F. (2005). Precast concrete pier systems for rapid con‐
struction of bridges in seismic regions (Report No. WA-RD 611.1). Seattle, WA: Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Hijikata, K., Takahashi, M., Aoyagi, T., & Mashimo, M. (2012). Behavior of a base-isolated building at Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant during the Great East Japan Earthquake. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Inter‐
national Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo, Japan.
Holden, T., Restrepo, J., & Mander, J. B. (2003). Seismic performance of precast reinforced and prestressed concrete
walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(3), 286–296. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:3(286)
ITG-5.1. (2008). Acceptance criteria for special unbonded post-tensioned precast structural walls based on valida‐
tion testing. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
ITG-5.2. (2009). Requirements for design of a special unbonded post-tensioned precast shear wall satisfying ACI
ITG-5.1 and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
JRC-Ispra. (2012). Seminar bridge design with Eurocodes. JRC Ispra Seminar, Ispra, Italy.
Kameshwar, S., & Padgett, J. (2014). Towards risk-based, multi-hazard-resistant design of bridges. Boston, MA:
Structures Congress.
Kim, S.-H., & Feng, M. Q. (2003). Fragility analysis of bridges under ground motion with spatial variation. Interna‐
tional Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 38(5), 705–721. doi:10.1016/S0020-7462(01)00128-7
Kasai, K., Mita, A., Kitamura, H., Matsuda, K., Morgan, T. A., & Taylor, A. W. (2013). Performance of seismic pro‐
tection technologies during the 2011 tohoku-oki earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 29(s1), S265–S293.
doi:10.1193/1.4000131
Kawashima, K. (2000). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 33(3), 265–285.
Kawashima, K., Takahashi, Y., Ge, H., Wu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2009). Reconnaissance report on damage of bridges in
2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13(7), 965–996.
doi:10.1080/13632460902859169
Kawashima, K., Unjoh, S., Hoshikuma, J.-I., & Kosa, K. (2011). Damage of bridges due to the 2010 maule, chile,
earthquake. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(7), 1036–1068. doi:10.1080/13632469.2011.575531
Kim, J., & Choi, H. (2004). Behavior and design of structures with buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Struc‐
tures, 26(6), 693–706. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.09.010
Kirchsteiger, C. (1999). On the use of probabilistic and deterministic methods in risk analysis. Journal of Loss Pre‐
vention in the Process Industries, 12(5), 399–419. doi:10.1016/S0950-4230(99)00012-1
Kohno, M., & Collins, K. R. (2000). Merging life cycle cost analysis and performance-based design. Paper presented
at the 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Terzic, V., & Stojadinovic, B. (2010). Post-earthquake traffic capacity of modern bridges in California (Report No.
CA/PEER/2010-103). Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Kowalsky, M. J. (2000). Deformation limit states for circular reinforced concrete bridge columns. Journal of Struc‐
tural Engineering, 126(8), 869–878. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:8(869)
Kurama, Y., Sause, R., Pessiki, S., & Lu, L.-W. (1999). Lateral load behavior and seismic design of unbonded post-
tensioned precast concrete walls. ACI Structural Journal, 96(4), 622–632.
Kurama, Y. C., & Shen, Q. (2004). Posttensioned hybrid coupled walls under lateral loads. Journal of Structural En‐
gineering, 130(2), 297–309. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:2(297)
Kurama, Y. C., Sritharan, S., Fleischman, R. B., Restrepo, J. I., Henry, R. S., Cleland, N. M., Ghosh, S., & Bonelli, P.
(2018). Seismic-resistant precast concrete structures: State of the art. Journal of Structural Engineering, 144(4),
03118001. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001972
Kuwabara, T., Tamakoshi, T., Murakoshi, J., Kimura, Y., Nanazawa, T., & Hoshikuma, J-I. (2013). Outline of Japa‐
nese design specifications for highway bridges in 2012. Papre presented at the 44th Meeting, Joint Panel on Wind and
Seismic Effects (UJNR), UJNR Gaithersburg.
Lee, W. K. (2007). Simulation and performance-based earthquake engineering assessment of self-centering post-ten‐
sioned concrete bridge systems (PhD Thesis). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Lehman, D., Moehle, J., Mahin, S., Calderone, A., & Henry, L. (2004). Experimental evaluation of the seismic per‐
formance of reinforced concrete bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130(6), 869–879. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:6(869)
Li, L., Mander, J. B., & Dhakal, R. P. (2008). Bidirectional cyclic loading experiment on a 3D beam–column joint
designed for damage avoidance. Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(11), 1733–1742. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:11(1733)
Lu, X., Han, B., Hori, M., Xiong, C., & Xu, Z. (2014). A coarse-grained parallel approach for seismic damage simu‐
lations of urban areas based on refined models and GPU/CPU cooperative computing. Advances in Engineering Soft‐
ware, 70, 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.01.010
Lu, J., Mackie, K. R., & Elgamal, A. (2011). BridgePBEE: OpenSees 3D pushover and earthquake analysis of single-
column 2-span bridges (Beta 1.0) [Computer software]. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center.
Mackie, K. R., & Stojadinovic, B. (2004). Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges.
Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mackie, K. R., & Stojadinović, B. (2005). Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision
making (Report No. 2005/02). Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re‐
search Center.
Mackie, K. R., Wong, J. M., & Stojadinović, B. (2008). Integrated probabilistic performance-based evaluation of
benchmark reinforced concrete bridges (Report No. 2007/09). Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, Pa‐
cific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Maeda, M., Nakano, Y., & Lee, K. S. (2004). Post-earthquake damage evaluation for R/C buildings based on residual
seismic capacity. Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Mander, J. B., & Cheng, C.-T. (1997). Seismic resistance of bridge piers based on damage avoidance design (Report
No. NCEER-97-0014). New York, NY: The State University of New York.
Mander, T. J., Rodgers, G. W., Chase, J. G., Mander, J. B., Macrae, G. A., & Dhakal, R. P. (2009). Damage avoidance
design steel beam-column moment connection using high-force-to-volume dissipators. Journal of Structural Engi‐
neering, 135(11), 1390–1397. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000065
Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., Bull, D., & Palermo, A. (2008). Dynamic testing of precast, post-tensioned rocking wall
systems with alternative dissipating solutions. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
41(2), 90–103.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Marriott, D., Pampanin, S., & Palermo, A. (2009). Quasi-static and pseudo-dynamic testing of unbonded post‐ten‐
sioned rocking bridge piers with external replaceable dissipaters. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
38(3), 331–354. doi:10.1002/eqe.857
Marsh, M. L., & Stringer, S. J. (2013). Performance-based seismic bridge design (Vol. 440). Washington, DC: Trans‐
portation Research Board.
Masroor, A., & Mosqueda, G. (2012). Experimental simulation of base-isolated buildings pounding against moat wall
and effects on superstructure response. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(14), 2093–2109.
doi:10.1002/eqe.2177
McGuire, R. K. (2001). Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 21(5), 377–384. doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00019-7
Megget, L. M. (2006). From brittle to ductile: 75 years of seismic design in New Zealand. Bulletin of the New Zea‐
land Society for Earthquake Engineering, 39(3), 158–169.
Metelli, G., Beschi, C., & Riva, P. (2011). Cyclic behaviour of a column to foundation joint for concrete precast
structures. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 15(9), 1297–1318. doi:10.3166/
ejece.15.1297-1318
Mitchell, D., Bruneau, M., Saatcioglu, M., Williams, M., Anderson, D., & Sexsmith, R. (1995). Performance of
bridges in the 1994 northridge earthquake. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(2), 415–427. doi:10.1139/
l95-050
Moehle, J., & Deierlein, G. G. (2004). A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering.
Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mokha, A., Constantinou, M., & Reinhorn, A. (1990). Teflon bearings in base isolation. I: Testing. Journal of Struc‐
tural Engineering, 116(2), 438–454. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1990)116:2(438)
Moore, J., Kiremidjian, A., & Chiu, S. (2002). Seismic risk model for a designated highway system: Oakland/San
Francisco Bay area (PEER Report No. 2002/02). Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Motaref, S., Saiidi, M. S., & Sanders, D. H. (2011). Seismic response of precast bridge columns with energy dissipat‐
ing joints (Report No. CA12-1999). Reno, NV: University of Nevada, Reno.
NCHRP. (2002). Comprehensive specification for the seismic design of bridges. Redwood City, CA: National Acade‐
my Press.
NYSDOT. (2015). New York State Department of Transportation LRFD bridge design specifications. New York, NY:
State Department of Transportation.
NZT. (2016). New Zealand bridge manual. Wellington: Transit New Zealand.
ODOT. (2016). Bridge design and drafting manual. Salem, OR: Department of Transportation.
Padgett, J. E., & DesRoches, R. (2009). Retrofitted bridge fragility analysis for typical classes of multispan bridges.
Earthquake Spectra, 25(1), 117–141. doi:10.1193/1.3049405
Petrini, L., Maggi, C., Priestley, M. N., & Calvi, G. M. (2008). Experimental verification of viscous damping model‐
ing for inelastic time history analyzes. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(sup1), 125–145.
doi:10.1080/13632460801925822
Palermo, A., Pampanin, S., & Calvi, G. M. (2005). Concept and development of hybrid solutions for seismic resistant
bridge systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6), 899–921. doi:10.1080/13632460509350571
Palermo, A., Wotherspoon, L., Wood, J., Chapman, H., Scott, A., Hogan, L., Kivell, A., Camnasio, E., Yashinsky, M.,
& Bruneau, M. (2011). Lessons learnt from 2011 Christchurch earthquakes: Analysis and assessment of bridges. Bul‐
letin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 44(4), 319–333.
Pekcan, G., Mander, J. B., & Chen, S. S. (1995). The seismic response of a 1:3 scale model RC structure with elasto‐
meric spring dampers. Earthquake Spectra, 11(2), 249–267. doi:10.1193/1.1585814

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Perez, F. J., Sause, R., & Pessiki, S. (2007). Analytical and experimental lateral load behavior of unbonded postten‐
sioned precast concrete walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(11), 1531–1540. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:11(1531)
Powell, G. H. (2008). Displacement-based seismic design of structures. Earthquake Spectra, 24(2), 555–557.
doi:10.1193/1.2932170
Priestley, M. N. (2000). Performance based seismic design. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engi‐
neering, 33(3), 325–346.
Priestley, M. N., Calvi, M., Petrini, L., & Maggi, C. (2007). Effects of damping modelling on results of time-history
analysis of RC bridges. Paper presented at the 1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop, Pavia, Italia.
Priestley, M. N., Seible, F., & Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Rahmzadeh, A., Alam, M. S., & Tremblay, R. (2018). Analytical prediction and finite element simulation of the later‐
al response of rocking steel bridge piers with energy dissipating steel bars. Journal of Structural Engineering,
144(11), 04018210. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002216
Reza, S. M., Alam, M. S., & Tesfamariam, S. (2014). Lateral load resistance of bridge piers under flexure and shear
using factorial analysis. Engineering Structures, 59, 821–835. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.12.009
Robinson, W. H. (1982). Lead-rubber hysteretic bearings suitable for protecting structures during earthquakes. Earth‐
quake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 10(4), 593–604. doi:10.1002/eqe.4290100408
Rojahn, C., King, S. A., Scholl, R. E., Kiremidjian, A. S., Reaveley, L. D., & Wilson, R. R. (1997). Earthquake dam‐
age and loss estimation methodology and data for Salt Lake County, Utah (ATC-36). Earthquake Spectra, 13(4),
623–642. doi:10.1193/1.1585972
Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M., O'Brien, M., & Saiidi, M. S. (2007). A study of concrete bridge columns using innovative
materials subjected to cyclic loading (Report No. TRB-NCHRP-116). Reno, NV: University of Nevada.
Saini, A., & Saiidi, S. (2013). Post-earthquake bridge damage mitigation–post-earthquake damage repair of various
reinforced concrete bridge components. Paper presented at the European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sideris, P., Aref, A. J., & Filiatrault, A. (2014). Quasi-static cyclic testing of a large-scale hybrid sliding-rocking seg‐
mental column with slip-dominant joints. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 19(10), 04014036. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000605
Schanack, F., Valdebenito, G., & Alvial, J. (2012). Seismic damage to bridges during the 27 February 2010 magni‐
tude 8.8 chile earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 28(1), 301–315. doi:10.1193/1.3672424
Sakai, J., & Mahin, S. A. (2004). Mitigation of residual displacements of circular reinforced concrete bridge co‐
lumnsed. Paper presented at the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
SCDOT. (2008). The South Carolina Department of Transportation seismic design specifications for highway bridges
(Specifications). Columbia, SC: Department of Transportation.
SEAOC. (1995). Vision 2000: Performance based seismic engineering of buildings (Vols. I and II), Conceptual
framework. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers Association of California.
SeismoSoft. (2017). SeismoStruct (version 2017) [Computer software]. Italy: SeismoSoft.[AQ9]
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Kim, H.-K., & Kim, S.-H. (2000). Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve devel‐
opment. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(12), 1287–1295. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1287)
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Lee, J., & Naganuma, T. (2000). Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Journal of Engi‐
neering Mechanics, 126(12), 1224–1231. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Shinozuka, M., Zhou, Y., Banerjee, S., & Murachi, Y. (2006). Cost-effectiveness of seismic bridge retrofit. Paper pre‐
sented at the 3rd International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, Porto, Portugal.
Skinner, R., Bycroft, G., & Mcverry, G. (1976). A practical system for isolating nuclear power plants from earth‐
quake attack. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 36(2), 287–297. doi:10.1016/0029-5493(76)90013-3
Skinner, R., & Mcverry, G. (1975). Base isolation for increased earthquake resistance of buildings. Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 8(2), 93–101.
Terzic, V., & Stojadinovic, B. (2015). Evaluation of post-earthquake axial load capacity of circular bridge columns.
ACI Structural Journal, 112(1), 23.
Thonstad, T., Mantawy, I. M., Stanton, J. F., Eberhard, M. O., & Sanders, D. H. (2016). Shaking table performance of
a new bridge system with pretensioned rocking columns. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21(4), 04015079.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000867
Tremblay, R., Bolduc, P., Neville, R., & Devall, R. (2006). Seismic testing and performance of buckling-restrained
bracing systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(2), 183–198. doi:10.1139/l05-103
Tsai, M.-H., Wu, S.-Y., Chang, K.-C., & Lee, G. C. (2007). Shaking table tests of a scaled bridge model with rolling-
type seismic isolation bearings. Engineering Structures, 29(5), 694–702. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.05.025
Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M., Kim, Y., & Okamoto, S. (1996a). Experimental study of fps system in bridge seismic
isolation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 25(1), 65–78. doi: 10.1002/(SI‐
CI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<65::AID-EQE536>3.0.CO;2-A
Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M., Okamoto, S., Fujii, S., & Ozaki, D. (1996). Experimental study of bridge seismic slid‐
ing isolation systems. Engineering Structures, 18(4), 301–310. doi:10.1016/0141-0296(95)00147-6
Tyler, R. (1978). Tapered steel energy dissipators for earthquake resistant structures. Bulletin of the New Zealand Na‐
tional Society for Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 282–294.
Tyler, R., & Robinson, W. (1984). High-strain tests on lead-rubber bearings for earthquake loadings. Earthquake En‐
gineering, 17(2), 90–105.
Vassiliou, M. F., & Makris, N. (2015). Dynamics of the vertically restrained rocking column. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 141(12), 04015049. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000953
Warn, G., & Unal, M. (2014). Estimating the residual axial load capacity of flexure-dominated reinforced concrete
bridge columns (PSU-2013-03). State College, PA: Mid-Atlantic Universities Transportation Center.
Wood, J., Chapman, H., & Prabhaharan, P. (2012). Performance of highway structures during the darfield and christ‐
church earthquakes of 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011. New Zealand: NZ Transport Agency.[AQ10]
Wen, Y. (2001). Minimum lifecycle cost design under multiple hazards. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
73(3), 223–231. doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00047-3
WSDOT. (2016). Bridge Design Manual LRFD. Washington: Washington State Department of Transportation.
Yamashita, R., & Sanders, D. H. (2009). Seismic performance of precast unbonded prestressed concrete columns.
ACI Structural Journal, 106(06), 821–830.
Zhang, Q., & Alam, M. S. (2016). Evaluating the seismic behavior of segmental unbounded posttensioned concrete
bridge piers using factorial analysis. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21(4), 04015073. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000851
Zhang, Q., Alam, M. S., Khan, S., & Jiang, J. (2016). Seismic performance comparison between force-based and per‐
formance-based design as per Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) 2014. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 43(8), 741–748. doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0419
Zhang, J., & Huo, Y. (2009). Evaluating effectiveness and optimum design of isolation devices for highway bridges
using the fragility function method. Engineering Structures, 31(8), 1648–1660. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.02.017

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering. Published paper please see
Author Queries
https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269
Query: AQ1: Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are structured
correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your names
will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

1 Qi Zhang
2 M. Shahria Alam

Response: Resolved
Query: AQ2: The reference “FEMA 273 (1996)” is cited in the text but is not listed in the reference list. Please either
delete the in-text citation or provide full reference details following journal style.
Response: Delete "273" in the text. In the reference list, add: FEMA. (1996). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic reha-
bilitation ofbuildings. WashingtonDC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Query: AQ3: There are two different references have same author name with same year in references list. Please
differentiate the citation “AASHTO, 2014” throughout the text.
Response: AASHTO 2014a and 2014b are identified in the text. Please swap AASHTO a and b in the reference list.
Query: AQ4: The reference “AASHTO (1981)” is cited in the text but is not listed in the reference list. Please either
delete the in-text citation or provide full reference details following journal style.
Response: Replace the reference by "AASHTO (1983)". In the reference list, add AASHTO. (1983). AASHTO LRFD
bridge design specifications. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.
Query: AQ5: The reference “(FHWA, 2006)” is cited in the text but is not listed in the reference list. Please either
delete the in-text citation or provide full reference details following journal style.
Response: Add the reference in the list:FHWA. (2006). Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part 1
– Bridges. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
Query: AQ6: The reference “Marsh, 2013” is cited in the text but is not listed in the reference list. Please either
delete the in-text citation or provide full reference details following journal style.
Response: Revise to (Marsh & Stringer, 2013). (Marsh & Stringer, 2013) is listed in the reference list.
Query: AQ7: A disclosure statement reporting no conflict of interest has been inserted. Please correct if this is inac-
curate.
Response: Resolved
Query: AQ8: Please provide missing volume number for the “Akiyama et al. 2013” references list entry.
Response: The reference is modified to a proceeding format:Akiyama, M., Frangopol, D., Deodatis, G., Ellingwood,
B., &Frangopol, D. (2013). Safety, Reliability, Risk and Life-Cycle Performance of Structures and Infrastructures: Life-
cycle design of bridges under multiplehazards: Earthquake, tsunami, and continuous deterioration. New York: CRC
Press
Query: AQ9: Please provide missing publisher city for the “SeismoSoft (2017)” references list entry.
Response: The city is: Pavia
Query: AQ10: Please provide missing publisher city for the “Wood, Chapman, & Prabhaharan (2012)” references list
entry.
Response: The city is: Wellington

Comments
C1 Author: 2014a; :
C2 Author: 2014a; :

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 0 (2017), © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
10.1080/15732479.2018.1558269

View publication stats

2 BNZSEE1591 Piras+et+al Modeling+of+rocking+bridge+piers
No ratings yet
2 BNZSEE1591 Piras+et+al Modeling+of+rocking+bridge+piers
17 pages
Construction Process
No ratings yet
Construction Process
3 pages
Bridge Engineering Classifications, Design Loading... - (Chapter Eight Truss Bridges)
No ratings yet
Bridge Engineering Classifications, Design Loading... - (Chapter Eight Truss Bridges)
18 pages
Get Steel Concrete Composite Bridges Designing With Eurocodes 2nd Edition Collings Free All Chapters
100% (5)
Get Steel Concrete Composite Bridges Designing With Eurocodes 2nd Edition Collings Free All Chapters
84 pages
Download ebooks file Structural Engineer s Pocket Book Second Edition Fiona Cobb all chapters
No ratings yet
Download ebooks file Structural Engineer s Pocket Book Second Edition Fiona Cobb all chapters
71 pages
1-s2.0-S2352012424013067-main
No ratings yet
1-s2.0-S2352012424013067-main
10 pages
038 02-659-02 WB References-Iraq
No ratings yet
038 02-659-02 WB References-Iraq
13 pages
Advanced Design of Concrete Structures
100% (1)
Advanced Design of Concrete Structures
21 pages
5 Bocchini2013
No ratings yet
5 Bocchini2013
14 pages
CE6701-Structural Dynamics and Earthquake PDF
No ratings yet
CE6701-Structural Dynamics and Earthquake PDF
11 pages
Paper 1 PDF
No ratings yet
Paper 1 PDF
11 pages
Structural Design-Achieving Excellence
No ratings yet
Structural Design-Achieving Excellence
51 pages
Stripe-Based Fragility Analysis of Multispan Concrete Bridge Classes Using Machine Learning Techniques
No ratings yet
Stripe-Based Fragility Analysis of Multispan Concrete Bridge Classes Using Machine Learning Techniques
19 pages
Standard Bridge Beams PDF
No ratings yet
Standard Bridge Beams PDF
67 pages
Visvesvaraya Technological University Belagavi, Karnataka-590018
No ratings yet
Visvesvaraya Technological University Belagavi, Karnataka-590018
22 pages
Probabilistic Seismic Performance Analysis of RC Bridges
No ratings yet
Probabilistic Seismic Performance Analysis of RC Bridges
26 pages
SRIA TN42-2 Welding of Reinforcement
No ratings yet
SRIA TN42-2 Welding of Reinforcement
2 pages
Development of AS1170.4 2007 PDF
No ratings yet
Development of AS1170.4 2007 PDF
12 pages
Machine Learning For Bridge Damage Modelling:: Towards Flood Resilience of Transportation Networks
No ratings yet
Machine Learning For Bridge Damage Modelling:: Towards Flood Resilience of Transportation Networks
18 pages
Conceptual Structural Design Methods of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Rev 2
No ratings yet
Conceptual Structural Design Methods of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Rev 2
16 pages
Construction scheduling principles and practices 2nd ed Edition Jay S Newitt download
100% (1)
Construction scheduling principles and practices 2nd ed Edition Jay S Newitt download
57 pages
TCC61 Basement Wall
No ratings yet
TCC61 Basement Wall
3 pages
Bridge Deck Analysis 2nd Edition Eugene J O'Brien All Chapters Instant Download
100% (15)
Bridge Deck Analysis 2nd Edition Eugene J O'Brien All Chapters Instant Download
50 pages
(Ebook) Advanced Concrete Technology, 2nd Edition by Zongjin Li ISBN 9781119806257, 1119806259 - Read the ebook now with the complete version and no limits
100% (2)
(Ebook) Advanced Concrete Technology, 2nd Edition by Zongjin Li ISBN 9781119806257, 1119806259 - Read the ebook now with the complete version and no limits
82 pages
Highway Planning in Hill Areas
No ratings yet
Highway Planning in Hill Areas
11 pages
26-Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Bridge Deck Maintenance Under Traffic Loading
No ratings yet
26-Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Bridge Deck Maintenance Under Traffic Loading
36 pages
2258-6003 210514 192200
No ratings yet
2258-6003 210514 192200
220 pages
153 The New Bridge Over The Guaíba River - A 100,000 Meters Squared Precast Solution
No ratings yet
153 The New Bridge Over The Guaíba River - A 100,000 Meters Squared Precast Solution
13 pages
Fragility Functions For Highway RC Bridge Under Various Flood Scenarios - 1-s2.0-S014102962200373X-main
No ratings yet
Fragility Functions For Highway RC Bridge Under Various Flood Scenarios - 1-s2.0-S014102962200373X-main
13 pages
2011 Bridge Sarkady
No ratings yet
2011 Bridge Sarkady
17 pages
JAPAN Training
No ratings yet
JAPAN Training
72 pages
Chapter 1-3 PDF
No ratings yet
Chapter 1-3 PDF
27 pages
Earthquake Design of Rectangular Underground
No ratings yet
Earthquake Design of Rectangular Underground
8 pages
NCCI: Design Model For Simple Column Bases-Axially Loaded I Section Columns
No ratings yet
NCCI: Design Model For Simple Column Bases-Axially Loaded I Section Columns
17 pages
Bridges Seismic
No ratings yet
Bridges Seismic
98 pages
Engineering Students Understand The Elastic Neutral Axis But What About The Plastic Neutral Axis
No ratings yet
Engineering Students Understand The Elastic Neutral Axis But What About The Plastic Neutral Axis
9 pages
David Childs B.Sc.,C.Eng.,MICE: Made By: DAC Date: 23/7/09 Job No.: 001 Checked by
No ratings yet
David Childs B.Sc.,C.Eng.,MICE: Made By: DAC Date: 23/7/09 Job No.: 001 Checked by
19 pages
yilmaz-et-al-2015-performance-of-two-real-life-california-bridges-under-regional-natural-hazards
No ratings yet
yilmaz-et-al-2015-performance-of-two-real-life-california-bridges-under-regional-natural-hazards
15 pages
Water 15 00129
No ratings yet
Water 15 00129
29 pages
Work Method
No ratings yet
Work Method
148 pages
Experimental Testing of Pile-to-Cap Connections For Embedded Pipe Piles
No ratings yet
Experimental Testing of Pile-to-Cap Connections For Embedded Pipe Piles
9 pages
1129 2f PDF
No ratings yet
1129 2f PDF
76 pages
Badal and Sinha (2020) - A Framework To Incorporate Probabilistic Performance in Force Based Seismic Design of RC Buildings As Per Indian Standards
No ratings yet
Badal and Sinha (2020) - A Framework To Incorporate Probabilistic Performance in Force Based Seismic Design of RC Buildings As Per Indian Standards
29 pages
Behaviour of Concrete Structures in Fire
No ratings yet
Behaviour of Concrete Structures in Fire
17 pages
General Notes Standard Precast Concrete Box Culvert: Sheet
No ratings yet
General Notes Standard Precast Concrete Box Culvert: Sheet
30 pages
Seismic Design Procedure For Metal Building Systems
No ratings yet
Seismic Design Procedure For Metal Building Systems
255 pages
Singh PDF
No ratings yet
Singh PDF
10 pages
Design and Construction of Hams Way Footbridge Worcester
No ratings yet
Design and Construction of Hams Way Footbridge Worcester
8 pages
On Stress Ribbon Bridge
No ratings yet
On Stress Ribbon Bridge
32 pages
BD44
No ratings yet
BD44
42 pages
By, Akshata A Mulgund
No ratings yet
By, Akshata A Mulgund
153 pages
Composite Bridges
No ratings yet
Composite Bridges
16 pages
How To Approach The Assessment of An Existing Building
No ratings yet
How To Approach The Assessment of An Existing Building
4 pages
Structural Engineering Documents
From Everand
Structural Engineering Documents
Jorge de Brito
No ratings yet
A Catalogue of Details on Pre-Contract Schedules: Surgical Eye Centre of Excellence - Kath
From Everand
A Catalogue of Details on Pre-Contract Schedules: Surgical Eye Centre of Excellence - Kath
Edward Ayebeng Botchway
No ratings yet
Spanning The Turbulent Waters: Pacific Coast Bridges
From Everand
Spanning The Turbulent Waters: Pacific Coast Bridges
Marques Vickers
No ratings yet
Time-dependent Behaviour and Design of Composite Steel-concrete Structures
From Everand
Time-dependent Behaviour and Design of Composite Steel-concrete Structures
Massimiliano Bocciarelli
No ratings yet
Draft Paper
No ratings yet
Draft Paper
25 pages
Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering State of Development
No ratings yet
Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering State of Development
7 pages
Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering: State of Development
No ratings yet
Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Engineering: State of Development
8 pages
O' Level Geography O.G. 2017
No ratings yet
O' Level Geography O.G. 2017
207 pages
Archaeology1 8bP11 1P2
No ratings yet
Archaeology1 8bP11 1P2
56 pages
Geology For Civil Engineers
No ratings yet
Geology For Civil Engineers
36 pages
Package C2-Geotechnical Review Report-Issued - To OPUS
No ratings yet
Package C2-Geotechnical Review Report-Issued - To OPUS
25 pages
Andesite: Type of Rock: Igneous Rock Description
No ratings yet
Andesite: Type of Rock: Igneous Rock Description
2 pages
Open Pit Mining: Mine Planning & Design: Focus On Surface Mining Technology: Lecture 2
100% (1)
Open Pit Mining: Mine Planning & Design: Focus On Surface Mining Technology: Lecture 2
34 pages
Measuring Strain in Rocks
No ratings yet
Measuring Strain in Rocks
2 pages
Nile Floods and Political Disorder in Early Egypt
100% (3)
Nile Floods and Political Disorder in Early Egypt
23 pages
weeks 1-4 revision questions ed bjf
No ratings yet
weeks 1-4 revision questions ed bjf
12 pages
Design Considerations For Interlocking Concrete Pavements: Applicable To Standard, Textured & Heavy Duty Unit Pavers
No ratings yet
Design Considerations For Interlocking Concrete Pavements: Applicable To Standard, Textured & Heavy Duty Unit Pavers
31 pages
Q2 Quiz1 W1 Eals
100% (1)
Q2 Quiz1 W1 Eals
16 pages
ANA Physci S2017 Ans Key
No ratings yet
ANA Physci S2017 Ans Key
17 pages
Hydro PVT Manual Less Ch5
No ratings yet
Hydro PVT Manual Less Ch5
163 pages
Physical Geography of Andhra Pradesh
No ratings yet
Physical Geography of Andhra Pradesh
33 pages
Unconformity: Structural Geology and Geological Mapping
No ratings yet
Unconformity: Structural Geology and Geological Mapping
17 pages
Overview of Drilling Operation
100% (3)
Overview of Drilling Operation
106 pages
Class 10 Ncert
No ratings yet
Class 10 Ncert
12 pages
TN CMTSE_Unit Test 1_ Question Paper EM
No ratings yet
TN CMTSE_Unit Test 1_ Question Paper EM
5 pages
Propagation of Seismic Disturbances
No ratings yet
Propagation of Seismic Disturbances
4 pages
Summative Test in Math
No ratings yet
Summative Test in Math
198 pages
Best Snowfall Destinations in India
No ratings yet
Best Snowfall Destinations in India
3 pages
Earthquakes and Electrical Equipment
No ratings yet
Earthquakes and Electrical Equipment
28 pages
Grade 10 Geography 3rd Term Test Paper 2019 English Medium – North Western Province
No ratings yet
Grade 10 Geography 3rd Term Test Paper 2019 English Medium – North Western Province
12 pages
Jovanovic, Borislav - Earliest Copper Mining
No ratings yet
Jovanovic, Borislav - Earliest Copper Mining
13 pages
Is.7327.2003 Surface Plate
No ratings yet
Is.7327.2003 Surface Plate
18 pages
The Following Text Is For Question 1-4
No ratings yet
The Following Text Is For Question 1-4
11 pages
Venus Astronomical Object Experiment, Ariny Amos (Astronomer)
No ratings yet
Venus Astronomical Object Experiment, Ariny Amos (Astronomer)
1,256 pages
Satyam Report
No ratings yet
Satyam Report
13 pages
(Ebook) Brain Matters: Translating Research Into Classroom Practic, Second Edition by Pat Wolfe ISBN 9781416610670, 1416610677 pdf download
100% (1)
(Ebook) Brain Matters: Translating Research Into Classroom Practic, Second Edition by Pat Wolfe ISBN 9781416610670, 1416610677 pdf download
47 pages
Analysis of Pile Foundations For Liquefaction
No ratings yet
Analysis of Pile Foundations For Liquefaction
8 pages

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Bridges: A Global Perspective and Critical Review of Past, Present and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Bridges: A Global Perspective and Critical Review of Past, Present and Future Directions

Uploaded by

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Performance-based seismic design of bridges: a global perspective and critical

Article in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering · February 2019

Qi Zhang M. Shahria Alam

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Smart Elastomeric Isolators View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Damage limit states

Table 1. Damage states and limits.Table Layout

Table 2. Performance-based design criteria for standard highway bridges.Table Layout

Reference Hazard Performance require‐

P D > dv IM = im = ∫ ∫ ∫G DV DM dv dm · dGDM EDP dm edp · dGEDP IM edp im · dG_IM im

P D > dv IM = im = ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫∣G DV LF dv dlf ∣ · ∣ G

Resistance−Dead load − Otℎer load (6)

G x, dk, t = Pr dk + 1 > d > dk x, t = G x, dk, t − 1 · 1 + wn x, t – wm m x, t – ws s X, t (8)

G x, dk, 0 = Pr dk + 1 > d > dk x, t = 0 = ∫ Pr d

Evaluation of damage limit states

Table 3. Column parameters.Table Layout

Table 4. Code comparison in terms of column drift ratio limits.Table Layout

Damage avoidance design

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

View publication stats

You might also like