Seismic Assessment of Muzon-Baritan Bridge using Fragility Curves

.
Seismic Assessment of Muzon-Baritan Bridge using Fragility Curves
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The Philippine lies along the Pacific Ring of Fire, the area in the Pacific Ocean
where seismic and volcanic activity are frequent. Earthquakes are one of the most
destructive natural hazards. According to National Institute of Disaster Management
(n.d.), the impact of the event is most traumatic because it affects large areas, occurs all Commented [e1]: Use author or title of article instead
of a sudden and is unpredictable. It can cause large scale loss of life, property and
infrastructure.
On July 1990, the Philippines was hit by one of the most devastating earthquakes
with a magnitude of 7.8 that hit the northern part of Luzon leaving at least 10 billion Commented [e2]: leaving
damage to properties and structures and more than 1200 people dead. (De la Cruz et al., Commented [e3]: dead
2015). While the 1990 Bohol earthquake with 6.5 magnitude caused 182 collapsed
structures. The Mindoro earthquake is also a remarkable event that took place on Commented [e4]: a remarkable event that took place
November 15, 1994 with the magnitude of 7.1 which wrecked 7,566 homes and made 8
bridges impassable for days (Sun.Star Archives, 2014). The last extreme earthquake that
happened in our country happened on October 15, 2013 in Bohol with a magnitude of 7.2 Commented [e5]: happened on
which caused 185 people died, 39 bridges damaged (see figure 1) and 7.6 billion cost of
damage (Delfin II, 2013). Commented [e6]: Could you cite the specific amount of the
damage?
[Type the company name] 1

.
Figure 1: Example of Damaged Bridge in 2013 Bohol Earthquake

(Source: Jay Directo, AFP/Getty Images)
According to PHIVOLCS Director Solidum (2015), an active fault in the West Valley
is expected to cause a 7.2 magnitude earthquake. The earthquake can occur anywhere Commented [e7]: An active fault in the West Valley is expected
to cause a 7.2 magnitude earthquake.
along the West Valley Fault, including Metro Manila and it may shake the ground even a
hundred kilometers away, this means that it can shake the whole of Metro Manila and its
surrounding provinces (Luces, 2013). With this earthquake, Metro Manila will be affected
and structures are likely to be heavily or partially damaged. As stated by Director Solidum,
poorly designed, and poorly constructed building far from the earthquake fault are still
vulnerable to destruction (Luces, 2013).
While there is no structure that is entirely safe from damage, the most important Commented [e8]: damage, the
preparation measure according to Solidum is to make sure that buildings, houses, and
infrastructures in Metro Manila are earthquake and fire resistant so, the physical integrity

.
of the building should be assessed (Luces, 2013). For a given structures like bridges, it Commented [e9]: so, the physical integrity of the buildings
should be assessed.
is possible to predict the damage response in assessing the structure. While performing Commented [e10]: bridges
a seismic risk analysis of bridge, it is imperative to identify seismic vulnerability associated
with various states of damages by the use of fragility curve. The development of
vulnerability information in the form of fragility curves is a widely practiced approached
when information is to be developed accounting for multitude of uncertain sources
involved, estimation of seismic hazard, structural characteristics, soil structure interaction
and site condition. The development of bridge fragility curve is done with the use of
simulation of bridge seismic response based on structural dynamics (Shinozuka et al.,
2001).
The recent earthquakes show that the existing buildings and bridges have Commented [e11]: have
inadequate strength to resist the earthquake effects. Bridges in Metro Manila not less
than 24 are vulnerable to strong earthquake and need to undergo repairs (Antonio, 2015).
The focus of the study is the Muzon-Baritan Bridge located in Malabon City which has
31.2 m long span. The study provides a seismic assessment of the Muzon-Baritan Bridge
subjected to shear failure.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The bridges built in accordance to structural code are important to minimize
deterioration and casualties during an earthquake. Nowadays, standards from the
structural code are being strictly implemented. However, bridges vary in terms of

.
magnitude. This calls for a need to conduct studies that determine the structural integrity
of bridges and structures.
Even though Muzon-Baritan Bridge has been retrofitted last May 2015, there is still
some uncertainty whether the bridge can withstand the two different design earthquake
ground motions (Level 1 and Level 2 ground motion). There is a Japanese seismic design
standard for highway or railway facilities. The two types of design earthquake ground
motions are considered: an earthquake to secure the serviceability of structures which is
Level 1 ground motion, and an earthquake to secure the safety which is Level 2 ground
motion (Sakai et al., 2008). This research assesses structural performance of a bridge in Commented [e12]: assesses
a certain magnitude of seismic activity that will help to establish a risk reduction when a
seismic hazard takes place and what precautionary action should be done to minimize
casualties and damages. The study solves the current setback and anticipates the
damage on a bridge in a variation of different level of earlier earthquakes magnitude. This
research seeks to answer the following questions:
1. Will the bridge withstand different level of peak ground acceleration?
2. Will the bridge be safe after an earthquake occurs?
3. What is/are the expected response of the bridge after an earthquake?

.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Main Objective
This research aims to assess the Muzon-Baritan Bridge in Malabon City in an
occurrence of large magnitude earthquake by establishing seismic fragility curve.
Specific Objectives
a. To properly and accurately assess the seismic performance of Muzon-Baritan
Bridge under shear failure mode
b. To use an IUA (Interval Uncertainty Analysis) in formulation of mean fragility
curves and compare this to conventional fragility curves
c. To use the SAP2000 Software
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The seismic analysis is a structural analysis that shows the behavior of a structure
to a certain level of earthquake. The findings of this research will redound to the benefit
of the people considering that earthquake is one of the natural hazards of the Philippines.
This study provides pertinent information to the community regarding the response of the
bridge to natural hazards. It will facilitate awareness leading to risk reduction within the
vicinity since bridges play important roles in transportation. This will ensure the security
and safety of the community people who daily use the bridge.
Extensive research investigations and analysis will be conducted on the seismic
behavior of the bridge. This study will result to the vulnerability of this bridge to ground Commented [e13]: Result to

.
motions. The possible failures of the members of the structures will also be measured.
Thus, this study will show the serviceability of the bridge and its structural integrity under
consideration. Seismic assessments is helpful for the national authority to make
retrofitting of bridges, to calibrate seismic codes for designing the seismic resistance of
structure, for disaster planning and also for determining economic losses. Commented [e14]: cite source
For the future researchers, this will be significant because it can be used as a
reference to give a further improvement on the said subject and gives additional
information regarding to the subject matter.
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This research aims to assess the behavior and vulnerability of Muzon-Baritan
Bridge subjected to ground motion. Using fragility curve, the researchers will be applying
both the nonlinear static analysis (Pushover analysis) to estimate seismic structural
deformations and nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time history analysis) to evaluate the
dynamic structural response under loading for the justification of the shear failure of the
bridge. The failure is limited to application of seismic not considering other effects.
The assessment of the performance of the bridge is limited to the use of software
which is SAP2000 for the simulation of the bridge seismic response. The data of the
ground motion is restricted to two seismic activities in Philippines and Japan earthquake.

.
1.6 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
1. Fragility Curve - A statistical tool representing the probability of exceeding a given
damage state as a function of an engineering demand parameter that represents
the ground motion.
2. Ground MotionIt is the movement of the earth's surface from earthquakes or
explosions.
3. MagnitudeRefers to a measure of the amount of energy released during an Commented [e15]: refers to
earthquake.
4. SeismicIt relates to earthquakes or other vibrations of the earth and its crust.
5. Shear Failure - Failure in which movement caused by shearing stresses in a soil
mass is of sufficient magnitude to destroy or seriously endanger a structure.
6. VulnerabilityIt describes the characteristics and circumstances of a community,
system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.

.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents the related literature and studies to fully understand the
research. It gives details to the seismic assessment and structural nonlinear analyses. It
also includes a discussion of Fragility Curves, Interval Uncertainty Analysis, Shear and
the background history of Muzon-Baritan Bridge.
2.1 SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BUILT STRUCTURES
Past research has demonstrated that the loss of one or multiple bridges in a
transportation network can hamper recovery activities and can severely impact the
economy of the region encompassing that network (Shinozuka et al., 2003). Moreover,
population growth in urban cities increases susceptibility to disasters that can be caused Commented [e16]: increases
by future seismic activities. Hence, the earthquake risk mitigation plan is necessary for
every built structures like transportation lifelines. To achieve this, the damage for a certain
built structure requires an accurate, transparent and conceptually sound algorithm for
seismic assessment and not with basic presumptions only.
A seismic vulnerability assessment needs to be made for a particular
characterization of the ground motion, which will represent the seismic demand of the

.
earthquake on a structure (Calvi et al., 2006). Therefore, it is the determination of the
resistance or response of the structure to the set of seismic demand. The seismic
vulnerability assessment can be empirical or analytical method. The group of Calvi also
explains that the empirical method is a function of macro seismic intensities while the
analytical method tends to feature slightly more detailed and transparent vulnerability Commented [e17]: tends
assessment procedures with direct physical meaning.
Seismic Risk Assessment differs from Seismic Vulnerability Assessment. Carreo
et al. (2006) defines risk to be a multidisciplinary evaluation that takes into account not
only the expected physical damage, the number and type of casualties or economic
losses, but also the conditions related to social fragility and lack of resilience conditions,
which favor the second order effects (indirect effects) when a hazard event strikes. Thus,
Seismic Risk Assessment is an integrated and comprehensive approach to guide
decision-making and comes from the result of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment.
The seismic reliability assessment of complex civil engineering structures, such as
highway bridges, involves the computation of failure probabilities in the presence of basic
random variables. (Ghosh, 2013)
2.2 STRUCTURAL NONLINEAR ANALYSES
Some engineering phenomena like seismic activities can only be assessed by Commented [e18]: assessed
structural analysis. Structural analysis is the most common application of finite element

.
method (FEM) which is the numerical computation for complex structures. Mehanny et
al., (2014) explains that seismic analysis is the computation of probabilities of occurrence
per unit time at certain levels of ground shaking which is caused by earthquakes. In a
step to seismic calculation, the annual probability of attaining certain predefined damage
index like maximum rotation at most stressed sections of bridge piers could be computed
for a pre-specified level of ground motion. This can be carried out through performing
static and dynamic analyses until reaching a particular damage index, and then the
seismic fragility curves could be generated. Integration of these seismic fragility curves
with seismic hazard curves for a particular site will result to annual frequency of reaching
or exceeding the limit state for which the fragility curve is generated. This whole procedure
forms the core of a complete probabilistic seismic assessment of structures.
Full nonlinear analysis (the most advanced form of structural analysis) covers the
complete loading process, from the initial stress-free state, through the weakly nonlinear
behavior under service loading, up to the strongly nonlinear behavior leading to collapse.
Interest has been growing since 1970s but it remains a field for selected (few) specialists
due to complexity (knowledge) and costs (time) involved. The possibilities are immense
and several commercial software packages include some form of nonlinear behavior, but
an incorrect use can be very dangerous (Lourenco, n.d.). Nowadays, nonlinear analysis
is used beyond elastic range for safety requirement. Nonlinearities can arise into material
or physical nonlinearity, geometrical nonlinearity and contact nonlinearity. Moreover,
Nonlinear Analysis has two approaches, the static and dynamic approach.

.
According to Causevic and Mitrovic (2010), nonlinear static approach based on
pushover analysis is being imposed as a link and the most economical solution at the
moment. While nonlinear dynamic approach is made by applying time-history records
which, in the long term, represents the correct development path. Yet, due to the
complexity and high standards of the dynamic approach it goes beyond the frames of
practical application and is appropriate only for the research and analysis of structures of
special significance. Also, estimating seismic demands on structures, to predict their
performance level with confidence, requires explicit consideration of the structural
inelastic behavior: to this end, the use of nonlinear static procedures is inevitably going
to be favored over complex nonlinear time-history methods (Casarotti and Pinho, 2007).
2.3 FRAGILITY CURVES
Fragility analysis is a powerful tool for the seismic risk assessment of highway
bridges. Fragility curves are conditional probability statements that give the likelihood that
a structure will meet or exceed a specified level of damage for a given ground motion
intensity measure (Ramanathan et al., 2015). Fragility curves comes from the result of Commented [e19]: period is after the citation.
the nonlinear static and dynamic approach. Conditional probability curves (or simply,
fragility curves) are drawn, where the spectral acceleration is drawn on the horizontal axis
while the probability of occurrence (or simply, the frequency of damage) is drawn on the
vertical axis (Mehanny et al., 2014). Fragility curve is a graph of the intensity of damage
with respect to the probability of exceeding a damage state. According to Kim and

.
Shinozuka (2004), it is assumed that the fragility curves can be expressed in the form of
two-parameter lognormal distribution functions, and the estimation of the two parameters
(median and log standard deviation) is performed with the aid of the maximum likelihood
method. A common log-standard deviation, which forces the fragility curves not to
intersect, can also be estimated. Although this method can be used for any number of
damage states, it is assumed here for the ease of demonstration of analytical procedure
that there are ve states of damage including the state of (almost) no damage. A family
of four (4) fragility curves exists in this case where 5 events indicate the state of (almost)
no, (at least) slight, (at least) moderate, (at least) extensive damage and complete
collapse.
Karim and Yamasaki (2003) conducted a study using both the static and nonlinear
analyses to construct fragility curves under shear failure mode. Also, three bridges in
CAMANAVA are assessed by the alumni of University of the East Caloocan using
nonlinear analysis and fragility curves. These are the Bangkulasi Bridge, Lambingan
Bridge and Tullahan- Ugong Bridge (Baylon, 2015).
The results based on Figure 2.1 for Bangkulasi Bridge is not safe anymore at 1.6g
since the probability of exceedance of complete damage is at 74.26%, and it is a very
high probability of occurrence. At 1.4g, there is an average of 74.88% of the damage
ranks. Slight damage has a probability of 76.17%, moderate damage of 73.33%,
extensive damage of 75.92% and 57.26% chance of complete damage of the pier (Canlas
et al., 2015).

.
Figure 2. 1: Fragility Curves of Bangkulasi Bridge due to Shear Failure

(Source: Canlas et al., 2015)
The retrofitted Lambingan Bridge is designed to withstand seismic acceleration up
to 0.4g. Based on Figure 2.2, there is a probability of exceedance of 57%, 21%, 6%, and
0% for slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, and complete damage
respectively (Estella et al., 2015).

.
Figure 2. 2: Fragility Curves of Lambingan Bridge in Horizontal Ground Motion

(Source: Estella et al., 2015)
The retrofitted Lambingan Bridge is designed to withstand seismic acceleration up
to 0.4g. Based on Figure 2.3, there is a probability of exceedance of 6%, 1%, 0%, and
0% for slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage, and complete damage
respectively (Estella et al., 2015).

.
Figure 2. 3: Fragility Curves of Lambingan Bridge - Vertical Ground Motion

(Source: Estella et al., 2015)
From the Figure 2.4, it can be seen that each damage rank increase from different
peak ground acceleration. There is a low possibility that the bridge will be completely
damage at a peak ground acceleration of 0.7g, it also shows that the curve for completely
damage gradually increase at approximately 0.8g, these data suggests that the piers of
the bridge is sufficiently safe from completely damage since it requires larger earthquake
shaking to cause significant damage (Cruz et al., 2015).

.
Figure 2. 4: Fragility Curve of Tullahan-Ugong Bridge

(Source: Cruz et al., 2015)
2.4 INTERVAL UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
But there are two types of uncertainty limitations that are present in a fragility
analysis: aleatory and epistemic. Nowak and Racokzy (2013) explain that aleatory is the
natural randomness in a process. Epistemic uncertainty is the scientic uncertainty in the
model of the process due to limited data and knowledge. In addition, there is epistemic
uncertainty in parameters that are not random but have only a single correct (but
unknown) value. In line with this, Mehanny et al., (2014) expound that aleatory uncertainty
is inherently random and irreducible by additional knowledge or data. Construction errors
and the variability in material properties are examples of aleatory uncertainty in a fragility
analysis while epistemic uncertainty is reducible with additional knowledge or data.

.
Examples of epistemic uncertainty are the differences in analytical programs and the
assumed loading distribution to determine the critical response.
Once intervals are involved, the existing probability-based reliability analysis
methods are no longer applicable, as the mixed uncertainty makes the problem more
complex. How to perform the reliability analysis for structures with both random
uncertainty and interval uncertainty has become an important issue existing in the eld of
structural reliability. Generally, a two-layer optimization problem will be involved in the
hybrid reliability analysis, in which one layer is for probability reliability analysis in terms
of random variables and the other layer is for interval analysis in terms of interval variables
(Jiang et al., 2012). The seismic response of structures depends on a large number of
aleatory and epistemic uncertainties surrounding the estimation of the structural demand
and capacity particularly when reinforced concrete structures are being assessed. When
bridges are considered, the complexity level increases, given that most of those behave
irregularly in the transverse direction (Monteiro et al., 2015).
A graduate thesis made by Baylon (2015) is a reliability analysis of bridge pier
using Interval Uncertainty Analysis.
2.5 SHEAR FAILURE
Many of the reinforced concrete piers or columns of highway and railway bridges
suffered mainly severe diagonal shear failure in addition to other features of damages.
The recognized reason for such severe collapse was that the piers were designed in such

.
a way that they were provided with insufficient quantities of shear or lateral reinforcement
(Machida and Abdelkareem, 2000). Column shear failure as seen in figure 2.5, and pull-
out of the longitudinal reinforcement was predominant due to the lack of ductility
(Ramanathan et al., 2015).Therefore, these serious scenarios make us realize that
adequate strength and ductility are needed to bridges to resist tough ground shaking.
Experimental investigations have indicated that inelastic shear distortions can be
significant in local areas, such as hinging regions, even when the overall behaviour is
governed by flexure. Moreover, it has been well-documented that a reinforced concrete
member may fail in shear due to interaction with flexure despite the fact that it has been
provided initially with shear capacity greater than the one corresponding to yielding in
flexure (Mergos & Kappos, 2012).
Figure 2. 5: Example of Shear Failure of Wushi Bridge Pier in Taiwan

(Source: www.fhwa.dot.gov)

.
2.6 BRIEF BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE STRUCTURE
Bridges form a critical link in a highway network and are vulnerable to earthquakes.
The 2014 DPWH Atlas reported a total of 339 concrete and steel permanent bridges in
Metro Manila and a total of 7,922 bridges throughout the archipelago of the Philippines.
One of this is the Muzon-Baritan Bridge.
The Muzon-Baritan Bridge is constructed to cover the gap between Karilagan
Street and Javier II Street due to the presence of Dampalit River. It is located in Malabon
City. It is a road bridge that links the Barangay of Muzon and Baritan and one of the
current projects of Department of Public Works and Highways subjected for retrofitting Commented [e20]: projects
because of the damage on the slab. The researchers found very few data about this
bridge and did not find thorough pertinent study for seismic assessment of this bridge in Commented [e21]: did not find
particular. It is for this reason that this paper seeks to address the gap by making reliable
investigations.

.
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
For the completion of this chapter, the researchers are required to have significant
data which include the Structural Plan and Ground Motion data. Specifically, researchers
will need the structural plan of Muzon-Baritan Bridge and the Ground motion data of Commented [e22]: Would need
Philippines and Japan earthquake. Those data will be crucial during the input and process
stage.
3.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1.1. INPUTS
Based From Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework of the research, the Structural
Plan of Muzon-Baritan Bridge obtained from Department of Public Works and Highways
will be used for the seismic assessment analysis.
Meanwhile, the Ground Motion data will be obtained from the previous researcher
of UE Caloocan Alumni S.Y. 2014-2015. These ground motion data will be used for the
seismic simulation assessment of Muzon-Baritan Bridge. These Ground Motion Data are
the earthquake of Bohol, Mindoro, Kobe and Tohoku-Kanto earthquake.
This research only considers shear as the mode of failure of the lifeline structure
during the analysis.

.
3.1.2. PROCESS
Structural data will be modelled and used in the simulation stage, namely the
SAP2000. The latter was used to validate the results of the first software. Two methods
of analysis will be used to develop the Parameters for Damage Index: Nonlinear Static
Analysis (Pushover analysis) and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (time history analysis). It
should be considered that this research will be using Interval Uncertainty Analysis to
calculate and obtain the lower bound, upper bound and mean value of the damage indices
for every ground motion datas peak ground accelerations (PGA) from 0.2g to 2.0g.
Damage indices are taken as frequencies to compute the possibilities of occurrence for
various peak ground acceleration (PGA) values.
3.1.2. OUTPUT
The output of this research will be the plotting of cumulative lognormal probability
versus the peak ground acceleration for every damage levels formulated from the seismic
fragility curves. Having compared to those fragility curves to the conventional curves will
create another plot of the difference of IUAs mean probabilities to that of conventional
probabilities. Seismic fragility curve will be used to predict the probable rank of damage
obtained by the lifeline structure during a seismic anomaly.

.
Bridge Structural Model and Ground

Motion Data
Mode of Failure:
SHEAR
INTERVAL
UNCERTAINTY
ANALYSIS
Parameters for
Damage Index
Non-Linear Dynamic
Non-Linear Static Analysis: Analysis:
Pushover Analysis Time History Analysis
Damage Indices
Interval Uncertainty Analysis of Seismic

Fragility Curves
Plotting of Difference on mean Cumulative Interval

Uncertainty Analysis from Conventional against
Peak Ground Acceleration
= INPUTS = PROCESS = OUTPUT
Figure 3. 1: Conceptual Framework of the Research

(Source: Baylon, 2015)

.
3.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.2.1 PGA NORMALIZATION
The peak ground acceleration is the largest increase in velocity recorded by a
particular station during an earthquake. When there is an earthquake, the forces caused
by the shaking can be measured as a percentage of gravity, or percent g (USGS, 2012).
The 15 ground motion data will be scaled up or down for normalization to maintain
the same pattern of records at the same time. These will be normalized to 10 different
excitations with equal intervals from 0.2g to 2.0g. In this study, the researchers will
multiply the data from the ground motion to the ratio of normalized peak ground
acceleration over the original peak ground acceleration (Requiso, Balili, & Garciano,
2013).

Ground Motion PGANormalized (1)
PGAOriginal
3.2.2 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS (NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS)
Nonlinear static analysis will be used in simulation of the critical bridge pier under
study in order to obtain a pushover curve. The pushover curve will show the relationship
between force and displacement. From the pushover curve, the displacement at yield,
maximum displacement for static and energy at yield will be obtained. This research adopt
the method used by Requiso (2013) for pushover analysis.

.
3.2.3 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS (NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS)
In nonlinear dynamic analysis, also called as time-history analysis, the bridge piers
will be modeled to as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. Nonlinear dynamic
analysis will be used in the process in order to come up with the hysteresis models. From
hysteresis models, maximum displacement for dynamics and hysteretic energy will be
obtained. This research adopt the method used by Requiso (2013) for time history
analysis.
3.2.4 DUCTILITY FACTORS
From the values obtained from nonlinear static and dynamic analysis, ductility
factors can now be computed using the following formulas (Karim and Yamazaki, 2001):
max (static) (2a)

u
y (static)
max (dynamic) (2b)

d
y ( static)
Eh (2c)
h
Ee
Where:
u = ultimate ductility
d = displacement ductility

.
h = hysteretic energy ductility
max (static)= displacement at maximum reaction at the push over curve
max (dynamic)= maximum displacement at the hysteresis model
y = yield displacement from the push-over curve
Eh = hysteretic energy (area under the hysteresis model)
Ee = yield energy (area under the push-over curve but until yield point only)
3.2.5 DAMAGE INDEX CALCULATION
Using the values obtained for ductility factors, damage index values can now be
calculated using the equation below (Park and Ang, 1985):
d h (3)
ID
u
Where:
I D = damage index
= cyclic loading factor (taken as 0.15 for bridges) -source

.
3.2.6 DAMAGE RANK
Using the values obtained for damage indices, the researcher will match these
values to Table 3. Damage rank of each damage index can now be determined (Requiso,
2013).
Table 3: Relationship between the Damage Index and Damage Rank

(Source: Hazus, 2003)
DAMAGE INDEX (ID ) DAMAGE RANK (DR) DEFINITION
0.00 < ID < 0.14 D NO DAMAGE
0.14< ID < 0.40 C SLIGHT DAMAGE
0.40 < ID < 0.60 B MODERATE DAMAGE
0.60 < ID < 1.00 A EXTENSIVE DAMAGE
1.00 < ID AS COMPLETE DAMAGE
3.2.7 INTERVAL ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS
Moore et al., (2009) suggest an extension of real number which is the systems of
closed interval. The researchers will adopt also the convention of denoting intervals and
endpoints by capital letters. To dene the basic arithmetic operations between intervals,

.
the key point in computing with intervals is computing with sets. Thus, the lower bound
and upper bound will be presented for both X and Y.

X X X (4a)
Y Y Y (4b)
3.2.7.1 DEFINE THE GIVEN INTERVALS: X & Y
Intervals X and Y will denote the ductility factor in interval form in correlation of
getting lower and upper boundaries of damage index. For each simulation of normalized
Peak Ground Acceleration, X and Y intervals will vary. Also X and Y will be dependent on
the type of ground motion data and the coefficient of variant to be considered.
3.2.7.2 FUNDAMENTAL INTERVAL OPERATIONS
Arithmetic operations like interval division, addition, subtraction, multiplication
should be implemented while considering a value for the coefficient of variant, to obtain
ductility factors in interval form having the lower and upper boundary.
For example, when we add two intervals, the resulting interval is a set containing
the sums of all pairs of numbers, one from each of the two initial sets. By denition then,
the sum of two intervals X and Y is the set:

.
~ ~
X Y X
X Y
Y X Y X Y (4c)
The difference of two intervals X and Y was the set:
~ ~
X Y X
X Y
Y X Y X Y (4d)
The product of X and Y was given by:
~ ~

X Y X
X Y
Y X Y X Y (4e)
Finally, the quotient X/Y was dened as:
~ ~
X /Y X
X /Y
Y X /Y X /Y (4f)
On condition that 0 Y .
3.2.8 INTERVAL UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
The researchers will be aiming to construct both the conventional fragility curve
and the lower and upper bound fragility curves for each damage rank using the 15 ground
motion data. The bounded area produced by the IUA fragility curve will deal to the
uncertainties of the research. The basis of the concept for interval uncertainty analysis
adopt the research of Baylon (2015) which uses normal distribution function as seen in
figure 3.2 to get the intervals.

.
Figure 3. 2: Normal Distribution Function

To define, a ductility factor in its interval form is equal to its value lessen by the
coefficient of variant multiplied to its value to set the lower boundary and its value added
to the coefficient of variant multiplied to the value to set the upper boundary.
X
~ (5a)
Where:
~
X -Interval
-Lower Bound
- Upper Bound

.
To get the lower and upper bound, the coefficient of variation (COV) will be
approximated to find the optimum value for each damage rank. It should be noted that
the conventional fragility curve would be really bounded by the IUA fragility curve.
(5b)
COV

Thus, it would become:
X 1 COV 1 COV
~ (5c)
The same parameters and equations from the conventional will be used for IUA
only that these parameters would have interval. After computing for the ductility factors
interval, the damage index interval can now be computed.
~
( static) (5d)
~u ~max
y ( static)
~
max (dynamic) (5e)
~d ~
y ( static)
~ (5f)
E
~h ~h
Ee
~ ~ ~ (5g)
ID d ~ h
u

.
3.2.9 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
The different states of damage will develop depending on the peak ground
acceleration. After determining the damage index, the damage ratio can now be
calculated. Damage ratio can be defined as the number of occurrence in each damage
rank divided by the total number of records (Requiso, 2013). Once it is obtained, damage
ratio is plotted with the natural logarithm of PGA ln (PGA) on a lognormal probability paper
to obtain required parameters (Mean and Standard Deviation) using the least squares
method in order to create the fragility curve.
Once the necessary parameters were obtained, the cumulative property index (PR)
can now be calculated using this formula adopted from Karim and Yamazaki (2001).
ln X (6a)
PR

Where:
PR= cumulative property index
= standard normal distribution
X= peak ground acceleration
= mean
= standard deviation
For the cumulative property index interval, it would now become:
~ ~ ln
PR
X~ ~ (6b)

~


.
3.2.10 FRAGILITY ANALYSIS
Fragility analysis will represent the probability of exceeding a damage limit state
for a given structure type subjected to a seismic excitation (Shinozuka et al., 2001).
The corresponding ground motion will be combined that will develop fragility curves
for the bridge piers. The fragility curve can now be established by simply plotting acquired
cumulative probability with the peak ground acceleration (PGA) normalized to different
excitation.
3.2.11 COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL TO IUA FC
The differences of the fragility curves obtained from conventional and IUA will be
plotted and compared. An example of Bounded Fragility Curve is illustrated in figure 3.3.

.
Bounded Fragility Curves, DR="D"

1
0.9
Probability of Exceedance (in %)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
PGA (in g)
D(c) D(L) D(U)
Figure 3.3 Example of Bounded Fragility Curve for a certain Damage Rank

.
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.1. ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLAN
The structural plans (see Figure 4.1-4.4) of Muzon-Baritan Bridge was gained from
DPWH Malabon-Navotas District Engineering Office. Unfortunately, the structural plans
that was gained were not the original plan but the rehabilitation plan of the Muzon-Baritan
Bridge. This was a reinforced concrete bridge located at Malabon City. The researchers
assumed the support which is an important consideration. The structure was modelled in
SAP2000 to check the vulnerability of the design when it is subjected to different types of
design ground motion under shear failure mode.
Figure 4. 1: Section of Pier

(Source: DPWH Malabon-Navotas)

.
Figure 4. 2: Pile Elevation of Pier

Figure 4. 3: Pile Tip for Hard Driving


.
Figure 4. 4: General Bridge Elevation

4.2 GROUND MOTION DATA (NORMALIZATION)
In this study, the researchers used 15 seismic ground motion data coming from
Philippines and Japan earthquake. These was normalized to 10 different excitations with
equal intervals from 0.2g to 2.0g.
Mindoro on November 15, 1994 with Magnitude 7.1 (0.15g)
Bohol on October 15, 2013 with Magnitude 7.2 (0.22g)
Kobe on January 16, 1995 with Magnitude 6.9 (0.82g)
Tohoku-Kanto on March 11, 2011 with Magnitude 9.0 (2.99g)

.
4.3 NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS (PUSHOVER ANALYSIS)
To create the model of the Muzon-Baritan Bridge using SAP2000 software, the
section properties were defined. The researchers used the data coming from the
structural plans as an input to the software. For nonlinear static analysis, the model was
simulated to obtain a pushover curve. From the pushover curve, the displacement at yield,
maximum displacement for static and energy at yield will be obtained. The following were
the step-by-step procedure in conducting the pushover analysis (Requiso, 2012).
1. Create the basic computer model and define the necessary section properties
without the pushover data in the usual manner (see figure 4.5-4.7).
Figure 4.5: Material Property

.
Figure 4.6: Pile Section
Figure 4.7: Joint Restraints

.
After the section properties was defined, the model of the bridge must be drawn to
be used for the static and dynamic analysis (see Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8: 3D Model of Muzon-Baritan Bridge
2. Define properties and acceptance criteria for the pushover hinges (see figure 4.9).

.
Figure 4.9: Hinges
3. Locate the pushover hinges on the model by selecting frame members and
assigning them one or more hinge properties and hinge locations.
4. Apply the distributed dead and live load above the model, then make the dead and
live load case Non-linear. Define the modal and pushover load cases. In
SAP2000, more than one pushover load case can be run in the same analysis.
They can be displacement controlled, that is, pushed to a specified displacement.
Typically, lateral pushovers are displacement controlled. SAP2000 allows the
distribution of lateral force used in the pushover to be parallel with the uniform
acceleration in a specified direction, a specified mode shape, or a user-defined
static load case. The displacement controlled lateral pushover case that was based

.
on a user-defined static lateral load pattern (named PUSHOVER) is defined for
this study (see figure 4.10-4.13). Refer to Appendix 1 for the computation of dead
load and live load.
Figure 4.10: Dead Load Case

.
Figure 4.11: Live Load Case
Figure 4.12: Modal Load Case

.
Figure 4.13: Pushover Load Case
5. Run the basic static analysis. The Dead load, Live Load, Modal Load and Pushover
load must be run (see Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.14: Analysis Process

.
6. Display the pushover curve (see Figure 4.15-4.16)
Figure 4.15: Pushover Curve (X-direction)
Figure 4.16: Pushover Curve (Y-direction)

.
4.4 NONLINEAR DYNAMICS ANALYSIS (TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS)
For the nonlinear dynamic analysis, different ground motion records was used as
an input motion parameter in the assessment of the structural damage with all ground
motion records normalized to different excitations. Bridge piers was modeled to as a
single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. Nonlinear dynamic analysis was used in the
process in order to come up with the hysteresis models. From hysteresis models,
maximum displacement for dynamics and hysteretic energy was obtained. The following
was the step-by-step procedure in conducting the nonlinear dynamic analysis (Time
history analysis) which is patterned with the approach of Requiso (2012) in constructing
the analytic fragility curve.
1. Select the earthquake ground motion records from file to be used.
2. Normalize PGA of the selected records to 10 different excitation levels from 0.2g
up to 2.0g (see Figure 4.17).

.
Figure 4.17: Ground Motion
3. Define the time history load case which is a nonlinear modal function. Select the
name of a previously defined time-history function that specifies the magnitude of
the load as a function of time. The earthquake is applied to the structure in the X
and Y direction respectively as an acceleration time-history (see figure 4.18).

.
Figure 4.18: Time History Load Case
4. Run the non-linear dynamic response analysis using the selected records such as
the dead load, live load, modal and the seismic load.
5. Add the base function X or Y and the said joint (see figure 4.18-4.19).
Figure 4.19: Base Function

.
Figure 4.20: Plot Function
6. Display the Hysteresis model of the earthquake ground motion data (see figure
4.20). Refer to Appendix C for all Hysteresis models.
Figure 4.21: Hysteresis model of Bohol for 0.2g

.
4.5 AREA COMPUTATION
Researchers collected the pushover curve and the hysteresis models. Before
computing the ductility factors, the displacement at yield (y), maximum displacement
(max), and the energy at yield point (Ee) was located and computed from the pushover
curve. These data was tabulated in MS Excel for the computation of ductility factors as
shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Location and Computation for Displacement at yield point, Maximum
displacement and the Energy at yield
(Left: X-direction, Right: Y-direction)
Next, the area of the hysteresis models were computed with the aid of MATLAB
(see figure 4.21).

.
Figure 4.22: Area Computation using MATLAB Software
4.6 DAMAGE RANK
From the values obtained from nonlinear static and dynamic analysis, ductility
factors, damage indices and damage rank were computed and tabulated using the MS
Excel as shown in Table 4.2. Refer to Appendix D for all the MS Excel Computation for
Ductility Factors, Damage Indices and Damage Ranks.
Table 4.2: MS Excel Computation for Ductility Factors, Damage Indices and Damage Ranks.

.
4.7 INTERVAL UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
To determine the lower and upper boundary for the ductility factors, the coefficient
of variation (COV) was done in an iterative process using the MATLAB Software to find
the optimum value for each damage rank and to assure that the conventional fragility
curves was really bounded. The different values for COV was from 5 percent to 20
percent. The researchers found an optimum value of 5 percent for X-direction and 20
percent for Y-direction.
The same parameters and equations from the conventional was used for IUA, only
that these parameters would have an interval. After computing for the interval of ductility
factors, the interval of damage indices were computed. Afterwards, the damage ranks
were determined (see Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: MS Excel Computation for Ductility Factors, Damage Indices and Damage
Ranks for Conventional, Lower Bound and Upper Bound

.
4.8 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
After determining the damage indices and damage ranks, damage ratio was
calculated. Once it is obtained, damage ratio was plotted with the natural logarithm of
PGA ln (PGA) on a lognormal probability paper to obtain required parameters (Mean and
Standard Deviation) using the least squares method (see Figure 4.22). Once the
necessary parameters were obtained, the cumulative property index (PR) was calculated
to form the fragility curves. See Appendix E for the MS Excel of Damage Ratio.
Figure 4.23: Probability of Occurrence
4.9 CONSTRUCTING CONVENTIONAL FRAGILITY CURVES AND IUA FRAGILITY
CURVES
The fragility curve was established by simply plotting acquired cumulative
probability with the peak ground acceleration (PGA) normalized to different excitation.

.
Afterwards, the differences of the fragility curves obtained from conventional and IUA was
plotted and compared.
The following fragility curves were the results in X-direction (see figure 4.23-4.28).
Figure 4.24: Conventional Fragility Curves (X-direction)

.
Figure 4.25: Bounded Fragility Curves for Slight Damage (X-direction)
Figure 4.26: Bounded Fragility Curves for Moderate Damage (X-direction)
Figure 4.27: Bounded Fragility Curves for Extensive Damage (X-direction)

.
Figure 4.28: Bounded Fragility Curves for Complete Damage (X-direction)
Figure 4.29: IUA-Mean Fragility Curves (X-direction)

.
The following fragility curves were the results in Y-direction (see figure 4.29-4.34).
Figure 4.30: Conventional Fragility Curves (Y-direction)
Figure 4.31: Bounded Fragility Curves for Slight Damage (Y-direction)

.
Figure 4.32: Bounded Fragility Curves for Moderate Damage (Y-direction)
Figure 4.33: Bounded Fragility Curves for Extensive Damage (Y-direction)

.
Figure 4.34: Bounded Fragility Curves for Complete Damage (Y-direction)
Figure 4.35: IUA-Mean Fragility Curves (Y-direction)

.
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ANALYSIS
The pushover curves in figure 4.15 and 4.16 which is tabulated in Table 4.1 shows
that Y has a larger capacity to withstand 1987.06 kN base shear force while X can only
withstand 1977.71 kN base shear force. It only means that Y-direction is the major axis
while X-direction is the minor axis.
After counting all the damage rank to compute the damage ratio and property
index, Figure 4.22 shows that the percentage of damage increases gradually as the peak
ground acceleration increases.
Table 5.1 and 5.2 below shows the probability of exceedance for each damage
rank at safety design of 0.4 PGA which is graphed in Figure 5.1 and 5.2.
Table 5.1: The Probability of Exceedance at Safety Design of 0.4g for X-direction
DAMAGE RANK CONVENTIONAL MEAN IUA RANGE

(For X-direction) FRAGILITY FRAGILITY
CURVES CURVES
SLIGHT DAMAGE (C) 26% 28% 18-38.2%

MODERATE DAMAGE (B) 8% 10% 7.5-11.5%
EXTENSIVE DAMAGE (A) 7% 7% 6.4-7.2%
COMPLETE DAMAGE (As) 6% 6% 6.14-6.16%

.
Table 5.2: The Probability of Exceedance at Safety Design of 0.4g for Y-direction
DAMAGE RANK CONVENTIONAL MEAN IUA RANGE

(For Y-direction) FRAGILITY FRAGILITY
CURVES CURVES
SLIGHT DAMAGE (C) 31% 28% 8-47%

MODERATE DAMAGE (B) 8% 16% 6-26%
EXTENSIVE DAMAGE (A) 7% 11% 6-17%
COMPLETE DAMAGE (As) 6% 6% 6.1-6.5%
Figure 5.1: The Probability of Exceedance at Safety Design of 0.4g for X-direction

.
Figure 5.2: The Probability of Exceedance at Safety Design of 0.4g for Y-direction
Conventional fragility curves shows that the Muzon-Baritan Bridge will only have a
6% probability of exceedance for complete damage (As) at safety design of 0.4 PGA in
both X and Y direction. However, it also shows a 26% probability of exceedance for slight
damage (C) at safety design in X-direction and 31% probability of exceedance for slight
damage at safety design in Y-direction.
Bounded Fragility curves for each damage rank for both X and Y shows that the
conventional fragility curves (blue) is in between the upper bound fragility curves (violet)
and the lower bound fragility curves (red). The yellow bar in Figure 5.1 and 5.2 shows
that the conventional is between the upper bound and lower bound. It means that the
Muzon-Baritan Bridge has a minimum and maximum percentage for probability of
exceedance. For complete damage (As) at safety design, X-direction ranges from 6.14%

.
to 6.16% and Y-direction ranges from 6.1% to 6.5%. For slight damage (C) at safety
design, X-direction ranges from 18% to 38.2% and Y-direction ranges from 8% to 47%.
The mean fragility curves of Lower and Upper Bound shows a small difference of
probability of exceedance at safety design in comparison to the conventional fragility
curves for X direction. For slight damage (C) and moderate damage (B), the difference
from mean to conventional is 2% only. For extensive damage (A) and complete damage
(As), the difference from mean to conventional is 0%. The difference of mean and
conventional fragility curves was also compared visually in Figure 5.1.
While for Y direction, the difference from mean to conventional is 3% only for slight
damage (C), 6% for moderate damage (B), 4% for extensive damage (A) and 0% for
complete damage (As). The difference of mean and conventional fragility curves was also
compared visually in Figure 5.2.
Fragility Curves shows that the Muzon-Baritan Bridge is still safe at 0.4g under
shear failure mode. The possible explanation for the results that was attained is because
the structural plans that was obtained is the rehabilitation plans and not the original plans
without also considering the other factors that might affect the overall condition of the
bridge. But, the structure will have a significant damage at 0.8g or more like that of the
Japan earthquakes. If retrofitting will happen in the future, the range for probability of
exceedance for each damage rank can help for the decision making of the most effective
cost management plan.

.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Conclusion
In this research, a new method is developed for seismic assessment which
incorporates interval uncertainty analysis that determines the bounds of reliability of
Muzon Baritan Bridge. In reality, it is impossible that a certain structure will have a No
Damage effect caused by extreme earthquakes. Although, the structure is still safe at
0.4g, the slight to moderate damage is still significant when cost is to be considered.
Particularly, the cost for retrofitting increases as the consideration for the level of damage
increases so that the probability of exceedance would decrease.
No one can predict if large magnitude earthquakes such as Kobe which has a
magnitude of 6.9 (0.82g) and Tohoku-Kanto which has a magnitude of 9 (2.99g) might
occur in the Philippines after many years from now. This research aims to visualize what
would structures such as Muzon-Baritan Bridge would appear if Japan earthquake hit the
country.

.
6.2 Recommendation
The following recommendations are offered for related research as possible ways
to improve this study in the field of seismic assessments of any structure or transportation
lifelines using fragility curves.
a. Use two or more modes of failure and compare the resulting fragility curves to
determine the most appropriate failure necessary for retrofitting.
b. Incorporate the IUA process in SAP2000 Software to obtain both the upper and
lower bound fragility curves without using the iterative process for the
determination of optimum value of the coefficient of variation.
c. Consider using other software which simulates non-linear static and dynamic
analyses to validate the results from SAP2000 software. The researchers were not
recommending the use of SeismoStruct Software due to its complexity.
d. Extend the study in its relation to the social world to determine the value of the new
technology for the government or private sectors.
e. Assess bigger structures so that the impact of the results would be more
substantial and interesting.

Seismic Assessment of Muzon-Baritan Bridge using Fragility Curves

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Assessment of Muzon-Baritan Bridge using Fragility Curves

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.

Seismic Assessment of Muzon-Baritan Bridge using Fragility Curves

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

destructive natural hazards. According to National Institute of Disaster Management

[Type the company name] 1

Figure 1: Example of Damaged Bridge in 2013 Bohol Earthquake

vulnerable to destruction (Luces, 2013).

[Type the company name] 2

a seismic risk analysis of bridge, it is imperative to identify seismic vulnerability associated

vulnerability information in the form of fragility curves is a widely practiced approached

when information is to be developed accounting for multitude of uncertain sources

involved, estimation of seismic hazard, structural characteristics, soil structure interaction

simulation of bridge seismic response based on structural dynamics (Shinozuka et al.,

subjected to shear failure.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The bridges built in accordance to structural code are important to minimize

deterioration and casualties during an earthquake. Nowadays, standards from the

[Type the company name] 3

of bridges and structures.

motions are considered: an earthquake to secure the serviceability of structures which is

damage on a bridge in a variation of different level of earlier earthquakes magnitude. This

research seeks to answer the following questions:

1. Will the bridge withstand different level of peak ground acceleration?

2. Will the bridge be safe after an earthquake occurs?

3. What is/are the expected response of the bridge after an earthquake?

[Type the company name] 4

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This research aims to assess the Muzon-Baritan Bridge in Malabon City in an

occurrence of large magnitude earthquake by establishing seismic fragility curve.

a. To properly and accurately assess the seismic performance of Muzon-Baritan

Bridge under shear failure mode

b. To use an IUA (Interval Uncertainty Analysis) in formulation of mean fragility

curves and compare this to conventional fragility curves

c. To use the SAP2000 Software

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Extensive research investigations and analysis will be conducted on the seismic

[Type the company name] 5

consideration. Seismic assessments is helpful for the national authority to make

information regarding to the subject matter.

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This research aims to assess the behavior and vulnerability of Muzon-Baritan

[Type the company name] 6

1.6 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

1. Fragility Curve - A statistical tool representing the probability of exceeding a given

damage state as a function of an engineering demand parameter that represents

the ground motion.

2. Ground MotionIt is the movement of the earth's surface from earthquakes or

5. Shear Failure - Failure in which movement caused by shearing stresses in a soil

mass is of sufficient magnitude to destroy or seriously endanger a structure.

6. VulnerabilityIt describes the characteristics and circumstances of a community,

system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.

[Type the company name] 7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

the background history of Muzon-Baritan Bridge.

2.1 SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BUILT STRUCTURES

seismic assessment and not with basic presumptions only.

A seismic vulnerability assessment needs to be made for a particular

[Type the company name] 8

earthquake on a structure (Calvi et al., 2006). Therefore, it is the determination of the

assessment procedures with direct physical meaning.

Seismic Risk Assessment differs from Seismic Vulnerability Assessment. Carreo

Seismic Risk Assessment is an integrated and comprehensive approach to guide

decision-making and comes from the result of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment.