SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF PLARIDEL BRIDGE

USING FRAGILITY CURVE

Engr. Michael B. Baylon1

1
Faculty, Civil Engineering Department, Adamson University, Ermita, Manila, Philippines, 1000

Abstract: Seismic assessment started long ago during the Spain colonization in the Philippines, observation of the effects to the
structure after an earthquake by naked eye and documentation of each recorded effects has now evolved to different methods that
analyses the performance of a building using calculations and software. The bridge was modeled using a computer software package.
After the simulations, the researcher obtained set of seismic fragility curves. The research study tackled the Non-linear Static
Analysis or the Pushover Analysis, the Non-linear Dynamic Analysis or the Time History Analysis, the ductility factors and then
gaining the Fragility curves. Developed seismic fragility curves show the performance of the bridges pier at each peak ground
acceleration. The Plaridel Bridge can withstand the earthquakes occurring in the Philippines based from the maiden structural plans.

Key words: seismic fragility curves, pushover curves, time history analysis, hysteresis.

1. INTRODUCTION be replaced with new bridges (Priestley, Seible and

Since the Philippines is an island country that is located
between two major tectonic plate which is the Eurasian
and Pacific plates and near the Pacific ring of fire, it
makes the country as one of the many countries in the
world that is vulnerable to earthquake (Philippine
NDCC, 1990).
Based from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology or also called as PHIVOLCS, the country is
experiencing an average of five earthquakes per day
between 1589 to 1990 that results liquefaction,
landslides and tsunamis (ADB, 1994). The country
experienced numerous major earthquakes that has a
magnitude of 7.3 up to 8.3 in the year 1944 to 1993
(Rantucci, 1994).
For an island country, bridges are naturally built for an
accessible transportation to a different land masses.
Bridges, to be less vulnerable once an earthquake
strikes, require seismic design which is continually
upgrading for modern bridges. Many of constructed
bridges that do not attain the requirements of the new
level of seismic design are needed to be retrofitted. In
addition, bridges can only be retrofitted when it is
socially, economically and technically beneficial; those
that fail to achieve these requirements are supposed to
Calvi, 1996). Being built in the late 1990s The Plaridel
bridge in Pangasinan was chosen as the research focus
of the study as it was suspected to be vulnerable to
damage during an earthquake.
Failure to study the effect of an earthquake to a structure
may cause not only property lost but also lives of many,
due to this matter Seismic assessment is done to prevent
or at least reduce the damage.
Seismic assessment started long ago during the Spain
colonization in the Philippines, observation of the
effects to the structure after an earthquake by naked eye
and documentation of each recorded effects has now
evolved to different methods that analyses the
performance of a building using calculations and
software. With the present technology and knowledge,
assessing a structures response in an earthquake can be
done with less uncertainty. One of the most important
elements in evaluating the Seismic Assessment of a
structure is the so-called fragility curve (Cheng, 2001).
The development of the seismic fragility curve takes
into account the vulnerability of a structure wherein
which for each damage state (slight, moderate, extensive
and complete damage); the percentage probability of
exceeding a particular damage is plotted with the ground
motion intensity (expressed in terms of peak ground
acceleration or PGA) (Karim & Yamazaki, 2001). The
research study will yield results of seismic assessment
of the Plaridel bridge in Carmen, Pangasinan using
fragility curve, that can be used by designers to establish
if there is a need for retrofitting of the bridge to comply
with the required design of the National Building Code
of the Philippines.
2. METHODOLOGY
The researcher aim to construct a seismic fragility curve
of the Plaridel bridge (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) using
Nonlinear Static Analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic Figure 2.3. SAP2000 model of Plaridel Bridge Pier 9.
Analysis. The researcher went to the Department of
Public Works and Highways to obtain the structural
plans of the Plaridel bridge. Using the SAP2000
software, the structure was modelled and subjected to
ground motions (Figure 2.3). The AutoCAD rendering
of Plaridel Bridge can be shown in Figure 2.4.
Thereafter, the structure was analysed using pushover
analysis and time history analysis. Analysis produced
parameter values that was use for the construction of
seismic fragility curves.

Figure 2.4. AutoCAD 3D Model of Plaridel Bridge

deck without the steel truss.
This research referred to the method for constructing
fragility curve and for the nonlinear static analysis by
(Requiso, 2013) and to the method for the nonlinear
dynamic analysis by Karim & Yamazaki (2001).
Figure 2.1. Before the July 1990 Baguio Earthquake The Plaridel bridge was symmetrically designed from
aftermath of Plaridel Bridge. (Source: the length of pier to pier to the reinforcement design of
http://foundation- the pier itself, due to its symmetrically designed
specialists.com/bridge%20retrofitting%20page%202.ht elements the researcher focused on a pier that is
m) assumed to be more susceptible to failure when
subjected to earthquake loads. Pier 9 which has one of
the most exposed length has been chosen and was
modelled in SAP2000 (Figure 2.3).
In creating a model of the Pier 9, the column and the
coping beam must be defined in SAP2000.The
researcher used section designer to design the column
and coping beam. After defining the properties of the
pier, the researcher assigned the properties based on the
specified length of the plan in a modelled frame. This
Figure 2.2. After the retrofitting of Plaridel Bridge. model will be used for the Pushover analysis and Time
(Source: http://foundation- history analysis. After creating the model together with
specialists.com/bridge%20retrofitting%20page%202.ht the loads, the researcher has performed the simulation
m)
for both nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic
analyses.
Figure 2.5. SAP2000 model of the Plaridel Bridge pier
column.
Figure 2.6. SAP2000 model of the Plaridel Bridge
coping beam.
A step by step procedure in conducting the pushover
analysis in SAP2000 software was used by the
researcher based from the procedure of study of Requiso
in 2013. First, the researcher created and defined the
model using SAP2000. Second, the researcher then
defined the properties for the pushover hinges. These
pushover hinges are plastic hinges formed when a
section reaches its moment capacity which the SAP2000
will show the yield and max displacement. Third, after
defining and assigning the hinges, the researcher
defined the load cases for the pushover analysis. The
following were examples from pushover analysis at x
direction. The researcher ran the simulation per
pushover analysis after they defined all the load cases of
the model. The SAP2000 generated the pushover curve,
then the researcher exported the table coming from
SAP2000 to Microsoft Excel to get the exact value of
yield displacement and max displacement. This values
will be used to compute for the ductility factors together
with the results of the time history analysis.
Figure 2.7. Research Methodology
The next procedure was the time history analysis using
the following step by step procedure of Karim and
Yamasaki (2001). First, the researcher defined the time
history functions. The researcher input the ground
motion data that were acquired in terms of 0.2g to 2.0g.
The total number of ground motion data used was 15 for
x direction and 15 for y direction. After importing all the
ground motion data to SAP2000, the researcher defined
the load cases to be used for the nonlinear dynamic
analysis or the time history analysis. This was done for
both x and y direction. It shows the defined load case for
0.2g excitation of Bohol ground motion data at x
direction. Using the previous model from the pushover
analysis but removing all the pushover load cases, the
researcher ran the simulation by subjecting the model to
dead load, live load, and different ground motion data
individually. It shows 1 of 30 ground motion data used
for the analysis. The SAP2000 then generated the
hysteresis model of the structure which was exported to
AutoCAD for the computation of its area and
determination of maximum displacement.
After getting the values needed from both nonlinear
static and nonlinear dynamic analysis, the ductility
factors have been obtained by using equations 1, 2, and Table 2.2 Damage index (DI) and damage rank (DR)
3. To come up with seismic fragility curves, these relationship Source: (Hazus, 2003)
ductility factors are needed (Karim & Yamazaki, 2001). Damage
An example of computed Ductility factors from Bohol Damage index ( ) Definition
rank (DR)
earthquake is shown in Table 2.1. 0.00 < ID 0.14 D No damage
() 0.14 < ID 0.40 C Slight damage
d = (2.1) 0.40 < ID 0.60 B Moderate damage
0.60 < ID 1.00 A Extensive damage
() 1.00 As Complete damage
u = (2.2)

Table 2.3 Damage Rank classified in Bohol Eq.
h = (2.3)

where:
u = ultimate Ductility
d = displacement Ductility
h = hysteretic energy ductility
() = displacement at maximum reaction at
the push over curve (static)
() = maximum displacement at the
hysteresis model (dynamic)
= yield displacement from the push-over curve
(static) Damage ratio was computed by dividing the number of
= hysteretic energy, i.e., area under the hysteresis records to the number of damage rank. The damage ratio
model was plotted with the ln (PGA) on a lognormal
= yield energy, i.e., area under the push-over curve probability paper to obtain the mean and standard
(static) but until yield point only. deviation for the Probability of Exceedance. After
getting the mean and standard deviation, the probability
Table 2.1. Ductility Factors for Bohol Eq. at x direction of exceedance (PR) has been computed. Where is the
standard normal distribution, X is the peak ground
acceleration, is the mean and is the standard
deviation.
ln()
= ( ) (2.5)

Then by plotting the acquired cumulative probability vs
the peak ground acceleration (PGA normalized to
Damage indices was then computed using equation 4 different excitation), the Seismic fragility curve can be
after ductility factor was obtained. This damage index obtained (Karim & Yamazaki, 2001).
were used to determine the damage rank.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
d + h
= (2.4) Results from the Pushover analysis from x and y
u direction are shown Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2
where is the cyclic loading factor taken as 0.15 for respectively.
bridges.
By using Table 2.2, the damage rank (DR) for each
damage index ( ) have been identified (Requiso,
2013).
 Table 3.4 Partial results of pushover curve at y- dir.

The result of the pushover curves shows that y direction

is the stronger axis as it can withstand a shear force of
8934.519KN at 0.148325m displacement while x
direction can only withstand shear force of 5653.095KN
Figure 3.1 Pushover curve x-direction
at 0.156212m displacement.
In Figure 3.5 and 3.6, it shows the relationship of PGA
and percentage of damage. The result showed that as the
PGA increase from 0.2g to 2.0g the percentage of higher
damage state also increases. This is due to the weaken
strength of the pier over time.

Figure 3.2 Pushover curve y-direction

Table 3.3 Partial results of pushover curve at x
direction
Figure 3.5 Probability of Occurrence at x direction

Figure 3.6 Probability of Occurrence at x direction

Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.7are the sets of fragility curves
due to shear failure of the Plaridel bridges pier. From
the obtained fragility curves, it can be observed that as
the peak ground acceleration increases the damage rank
also increases. It also shows how the performance of the
bridges pier at each peak ground acceleration varies, it
requires high peak ground acceleration for the bridge to
show high probability of damage states. At the design
requirement of 0.4g PGA of the NSCP, the bridge has
53.02% probability of exceeding Slight damage rank at
x direction and 52.07% of probability of exceeding
Slight damage rank at y direction which are the highest
probability of exceedance among the damage states at
that point showing how the bridge meets the minimum
requirement design.
Figure 3.7 Seismic Fragility curves in x direction
Figure 3.8 Seismic Fragility curves in y direction
It can also be observed that from earthquakes like
Tohoku-Kanto Earthquake with magnitude 9.0 the
bridge has a high probability of exceedance for
Complete damage state or As which implies that the
bridge would collapse in magnitudes equal to or higher
than of the said earthquake.
4. CONCLUSION
The general objective of this study was to construct
fragility curves that will assess the Plaridel bridges
performance against large magnitude of earthquake. The
researcher has met the objective of the study and have
made conclusions for this study.
Based from the fragility curves due to shear failure, the
results showed how vulnerable the structure is to
damage when an earthquake occur since at the required
design standard of the NSCP of 0.4g peak ground
acceleration the Plaridel bridges pier already showed
probability of complete damage state and at 1.4g to
higher peak ground acceleration the bridges pier is
suspected to collapse already.
Although the 1.4g peak ground acceleration was based
from Japans record, the bridge should still be
considered to be retrofitted especially in these days the
Philippines is expecting the Big One to occur anytime
in the future, who knows how strong this earthquake
could be but it expected to surpass the 1.4g peak ground
acceleration. This study could help all who access the
bridge think if one should proceed to pass the bridge in
case an earthquake occurs or after an earthquake
occurred.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper will not be accomplished without the help of
generous people and institutions alike. Appreciated
efforts and support are all extended to the following
person and institution that contributed in making this
study possible: DPWH for providing structural plans,
PHIVOLCS, Kik-Net, and PEER for the ground motion
data, my thesis advisees (Arciaga, Alexandria Rose R.,
Argana, Jayson Mavrick B., Rioveros, Edmund
Christian L. and Santos, Arish M) for doing the
computer simulations, Adamson University for the
financial support, particularly the Civil Engineering
Department Chair, Dr. Ma. Cecilia M. Marcos, for the
constant motivation in doing research aside from
excellence in instructions, Dr. Lessandro Estelito O.
Garciano of De La Salle University Manila as the
authors research mentor in his graduate studies and
from whom the author indebted to the field of reliability
analysis and fragility analysis.
APPENDICES
Computation of Dead Load and Live Load
Due to the Plaridel Bridges symmetrically designed
elements, the researcher considered the dead load as half
of each span above the Pier 9. The researcher used
AutoCAD to model the slab, railings, girders and
diaphragm shown in Figure 2.4 and used the
AutoCADs command massprop to compute for the
volume which is then multiplied by 24 kN/m3 to
compute for the dead load.
trailer with 1m space was computed to be (50m) /
(4.27m + 9.14m + 1m) = 6.9 rounded off to 7.
Seven (7) trailers were placed between Pier 8, Pier 9 and
Pier 10 and produced a maximum shear force of
1214.175KN at Pier 9 as shown in Figure A.3 and
Figure A.4.

Figure A.1 Computation of equivalent load

9972.961kN
Uniformly Distributed Dead Load =
11.5m
Uniformly Distributed Dead Load = 867.214kN/m
Plaridel Bridges live load was based from AASHTO
HS20-44 that specified a trailer truck as designated load
shown in Figure A.2.

Figure A.3 Autodesk Force effect result

Figure A.2 AASHTO HS20-44 trailer

The units were converted by the researchers into SI.
8 kips = 35.59 kN
32 kips = 142.34 kN
14 ft = 4.27m
30 ft = 9.14 m Figure A.4 Autodesk Force effect result
Since each span of the bridge was symmetrical, any pier
within the bridges span can be considered to produce
the maximum shear force when live load is applied. Pier
9, having one of the most exposed height of pier, was
considered to be the critical pier.
The researcher used Autodesk Force Effect to compute
for the maximum shear force produced by the pier upon
loading based from AASHTO HS-44. The number of
 Table A.1 Autodesk Force effect data tabulation 11.Kobe Takatori January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
12.Kobe Nishi-Akashi January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
13.Kobe Kakogawa January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
14.Kobe KJM January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
15.Kobe HIK January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
Hysteresis
In Figure A.5 to Figure A.14, hysteresis models at 0.2g
to 2.0g of 1995 Kobe earthquake at x direction at Nishi
Akashi station are shown and used in the hysteretic
energy, Eh, needed for the ductility factor computations.

The live load for Pier 9 was computed using the formula
based from AASHTO HS-44:

Total Live Load,LL = Pier Reaction x no.of lanes x

Figure A.5. Hysteresis at PGA=0.2g
impact factor
where:
AASHTO Impact factor= 50/(L+125)0.3
L is in feet, 100 m = 328 ft
AASHTO Impact factor = 50/(164+125)
AASHTO Impact factor = 0.1104 or 11.04%
Total Live Load,LL = (1214.175)(2)(1+0.1104)
Total Live Load, LL = 2696.44kN
Total Uniform Live Load =2696.44kN/11.5m
Total Uniform Live Load = 234.473kN/m

Ground motion data used are limited to the following Figure A.6. Hysteresis at PGA=0.4g
1.Tohoku-Kanto-FKS March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0.
2.Tohoku-Kanto-AIC March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0
3.Tohoku-Kanto-HYG March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0
4.Tohoku-SIT March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0
5.Bohol October 15, 2013 Magnitude 7.2
6.Mindoro Cainta, Rizal November 15, 1994
Magnitude7.1
7.Mindoro Station Quezon City November 15, 1994
Magnitude 7.1
8.Mindoro Station Marikina City November 15, 1994
Magnitude 7.1
9.Kobe Shin-Osaka January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9 Figure A.7. Hysteresis at PGA=0.6g
10.Kobe Takarazuka January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
Figure A.8. Hysteresis at PGA=0.8g
Figure A.12. Hysteresis at PGA=1.6g

Figure A.9. Hysteresis at PGA=1.0g

Figure A.13. Hysteresis at PGA=1.8g

Figure A.10 Hysteresis at PGA=1.2g

Figure A.14. Hysteresis at PGA=2.0g
References
Akkar, S. (2014). Basic Earthquake Engineering: From
Seismology to Analysis and Design. Springer.
Alcaraz, R. P., Cuadra, C. J., & Damian, R. S. (2015).
Seismic assessment of Navotas fish port complex.
Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis; University of the
East - Caloocan.
Algura, D. O., Decal, A., Quilang, J. R., & Romero, E.
J. (2015). Seismic Assessment of Tullahan Bridge
(Malabon-Valenzuela). Caloocan: Undergraduate
Figure A.11. Hysteresis at PGA=1.4g Thesis; University of the East - Caloocan.
Ang, A. H., & Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability Concepts
in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to
Civil and Environmental Engineering Volume 1
(2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bangash, M. (2008). Shock, Impact and Explosion.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Bangash, M. (2011). Earthquake Resistant Buildings.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Bastow, I., Wookey, J., & Helffrich, G. (2013). The
Seismic Analysis Code: A Primer and User's Guide.
Baylon, M. B. (2015). Seismic assessment of
transportation lifeline in Metro Manila. 2nd
CAMANAVA Studies Conference (pp. 1-7).
Caloocan: University of the East - Caloocan.
Baylon, M.B., (2017). Seismic assessment of LRT Line
1 Monumento to 5th Avenue carriageway pier using
fragility curve, International Journal of Real Estate
Studies, 11 (1). pp. 1832-8505.
Baylon, M.B., (2017). Developing fragility curves in
seismic assessment of pier. LAP Lambert Academic
Publishing: Berlin.
Canlas, L., Mallanao, R. N., San Diego, A., & Santiago,
M. A. (2015). Seismic assessment of Bangkulasi
bridge piers. Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis;
University of the East - Caloocan.
Castaldo, P. (2013). Integrated Seismic Design of
Structure and Control Systems. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Cerveny, V. (2005). Seismic Ray Theory.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., & Nielson, B. (2004). Seismic
fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic
zones. Engineering Structures, pp 187-199.
Chopra, A. K. (2012). Dynamic of Structures (Theory
and Applications to Earthquake Engineering).
United States of America: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cruz, F. G., Gueco, F. E., Matammu, D. L., &
Maglanoc, B. S. (2015). Seismic assessment of
Tullahan-Ugong Bridge piers due to shear failure
using fragility curves (Caloocan-Valenzuela)
Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis; University of the
East - Caloocan.
Del Carmen, M. O., Kakilala, M., Santos, K., & Vicedo,
N. (2015). Seismic assessment of Light Rail Transit
Line 1 South Extension. Caloocan: Undergraduate
Thesis; University of the East -Caloocan.
Elnashai, A., & Sarno, L. D. (2008). Fundamentals of
Earthquake Engineering. Wiley.
Erdik, M., & Toksoz, N. (2010). Strong Ground Motion
Seismology
Estella, V. A., Gamit, J. D., Liolio, R. L., & Reyes, J. V.
(2015). Seismic Assessment of Lambingan Bridge.
Gomez, H., Torbol, M., & Feng, M. (2013). Fragility
analysis of highway bridges based on long-term
monitoring data. Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering.
HAZUS-MH. (2013, July 26). Retrieved September 04,
2015, from A Federal Emergency Management
Agency Website: http://www.fema.gov/media-
library-data/20130726- 1716-25045-
6422/hazus_mr4_earthquake_tech_manual.pdf
Karim, K. R., & Yamazaki, F. (2001). Effect of
earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of
highway bridge piers based on numerical
simulation. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics.
Lavan, O., & Stefano, M. D. (2014). Seismic
Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex
Civil Structures. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Mangosing, F. (2013). Death toll from Bohol quake
jumps to 8.5. Bohol: Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Nemati, K. M. (2005). Temporary Structures:
Formworks for Concrete. Tokyo.
Ohnaka, M. (2013). The Physics of Rock Failure and
Earthquakes.
Onajite, E. (2013). Seismic Data Analysis Techniques
in Hydrocarbon Exploration.
PHIVOLCS. (2001). The July 16 Luzon Earthquake: A
Technical Monograph.
Psycharis, I. (2015). Seismic Assessment, Behavior and
Retrofit of Heritage Buildings and Monuments.
Springer International Publishing.
Requiso, D. (2013). Seismic Fragility of
Transportation Lifeline Piers in the Philippines,
under Shear Failure, Undergraduate thesis: De La
Salle University Manila.
Takewaki, I., Moustafa, A., & Fujita, K. (2012).
Improving the Earthquake Resilience of Buildings.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Taranath, B. (2004). Wind and Earthquake Resistant
Buildings: Structural Analysis and Design. CRC
Press.
Yilmaz, A. A., & Wasti, S. T. (2012). Analysis and
Design of Bridges. Springer Science and Business
Media