Post-earthquake bridge repair cost and repair time estimation methodology

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 281-301

  Mackie, Kevin R ^a   Wong, John Michael ^b   Stojadinović, Božidar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^b Berkeley   (United States)

Author keywords

Damage; Loss modeling; Performance based earthquake engineering; Repair quantity

Indexed keywords

BRIDGE COMPONENTS; CIVIL ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST ACCOUNTING; COSTS; EARTHQUAKES; ENGINEERING GEOLOGY; REPAIR; RETROFITTING;

BRIDGE DESIGN; BRIDGE REPAIRS; BRIDGE STRUCTURES; BRIDGE SYSTEMS; CALIFORNIA; DAMAGE; DAMAGE STATE; DECISION MAKERS; DIRECT COSTS; DISAGGREGATION; DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESS; EARTHQUAKE EVENTS; ECONOMIC COSTS; EXISTING BRIDGE; INDIRECT COSTS; INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS; INTENSITY-DEPENDENT; LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS; LOCAL LINEARIZATION; LOSS MODEL; LOSS MODELING; PERFORMANCE GROUP; POWER-LAW RELATIONSHIP; PROBABILISTIC ESTIMATES; REPAIR COSTS; STRUCTURAL ENGINEER; TIME ESTIMATION; TRANSPORTATION NETWORK;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

BRIDGE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; ESTIMATION METHOD; MODELING; PROBABILITY; REPAIR; SEISMIC DESIGN; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77952995433     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.942     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Zelinski R. Post earthquake investigation team report for the Loma Prieta earthquake. Technical Report, California Department of Transportation, 1994; 200.
2. Yashinsky M. Performance of bridge seismic retrofits during Northridge earthquake. Journal of Bridge Engineering 1998; 3(1):1-14.
3. Yashinsky M, Simek J, Murugesh G, Mualchin L. Highway performance during the 16 October 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2002; 92(4):1621-1632.
4. Kiremidjian AS, Moore JE, Fan YY, Basöz N, Yazali O, Williams M. Pacific earthquake engineering research center highway demonstration project. Technical Report 2006/02, University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2006.
5. Werner SD, Taylor CE, Cho S, Lavoie JP, Eitzel C, Eguchi R, Moore JE. New developments in seismic risk analysis of highway systems. Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, 2004.
6. HAZUS MH. Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, Technical Manual (MR3 edn). National Institute of Building Sciences for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2008.
7. ATC 58. Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, vol. 35% draft, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 2007.
8. Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Seismic performance assessment of simply supported and continuous multispan concrete girder highway bridges. Journal of Bridge Engineering 2007; 12(5):611-620.
9. Padgett J, DesRoches R. Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(1):115-130.
10. Mander JB, Dhakal RP, Mashiko N, Solberg KM. Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges. Engineering Structures 2007; 29:2662-2672.
11. Mackie KR, Stojadinović B. Fragility basis for california highway overpass bridge seismic decision making. Technical Report 2005/02, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2005.
12. Kim SH, Shinozuka M. Development of fragility curves of bridges retrofitted by column jacketing. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 2004; 19(1-2):105-112.
13. Mackie KR, Stojadinović B. Fourway: a graphical tool for performance-based earthquake engineering. Journal of Structural Engineering 2006; 132(8):1274-1283.
14. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 2000; 3(2):1-2.
15. Mackie KR, Stojadinović B. Post-earthquake functionality of highway overpass bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:77-93.
16. Baker JW, Cornell CA. A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(10):1193-1217.
17. Yang TY, Moehle J, Stojadinović B, Der Kiureghian A. An application of the peer performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, 2006.
18. Miranda E, Aslani H. Probabilistic response assessment for building-specific loss estimation. Technical Report 2003/03, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2003.
19. Baker J, Cornell CA. Uncertainty specification and propagation for loss estimation using FOSM methods. Technical Report 2003/07, University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2003.
20. Mackie KR, Wong J-M, Stojadinović B. Method for post-earthquake bridge repair cost estimation. Proceedings of the 5th National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways, San Francisco, CA, 2006.
21. Mackie KR, Wong J-M, Stojadinović B. Comparison of post-earthquake highway bridge repair costs. Proceedings of the ASCE Structures Congress, Long Beach, CA, 2007.
22. Haselton CB, Goulet CA, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP, Taciroglu E. An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete moment-frame building. Technical Report 2007/12, University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2008.
23. Porter KA, Kennedy R, Bachman R. Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(2):471-489.
24. Yang TY, Moehle J, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A. Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. Journal of Structural Engineering 2009; submitted for publication.
25. Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS. Verifying performance-based design objectives using assembly-based vulnerability. Proceedings of the Structural Safety and Reliability: ICOSSAR 2001, Newport Beach, CA, 2001.
26. Alavi B, Krawinkler H. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(6):687-706.
27. Krawinkler H. Van Nuys hotel building: exercising seismic performance assessment. Technical Report, Report No. 2005/11, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2005.
28. Liu M, Burns SA, Wen YK. Multiobjective optimization for performance-based seismic design of steel moment frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(3):289-306.
29. Karim KR, Yamazaki F. Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of highway bridge piers based on numerical simulation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001; 30(12):1839-1856.
30. Gardoni P, Mosalam KM, DerKiureghian A. Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for rc bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 7(Special issue 1):79-106.
31. Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures 2004; 26(2):187-199.
32. Shin HS, Arduino P, Kramer S. Using opensees for performance-based evaluation of bridges on liquefiable soils. Technical Report 2008/07, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2008.
33. Berry MP, Eberhard MO. Performance models for flexural damage in reinforced concrete columns. Technical Report 2003/18, University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2003.
34. Padgett J. Seismic vulnerability assessment of retrofitted bridges using probabilistic methods. Ph.D. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2007.
35. Mackie K, Wong J-M, Stojadinović B. Integrated probabilistic performance-based evaluation of benchmark reinforced concrete bridges. Technical Report 2007/09, University of California Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2008.
36. Ketchum M, Chang V, Shantz T. Influence of design ground motion level on highway bridge costs. Technical Report Lifelines 6D01, University of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 2004.
37. Solberg KM, Dhakal RP, Mander JB, Bradley BA. Computational and rapid expected annual loss estimation methodologies for structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37:81-101.
38. Naus JI. The distribution of the logarithm of the sum of two log-normal variates. Journal of the American Statistical Society 1969; 64(326):655-659.
39. Beaulieu NC, Abu-Dayya AA, McLane PJ. Estimating the distribution of a sum of independent lognormal random variables. IEEE Transactions on Communications 1995; 43(12):2869-2873.
40. Perry C, Grieg ID. Estimating the mean and variance of subjective distributions in pert and decision analysis. Management Science 1975; 21(12):1477-1480.
41. Division of Engineering Services-Cost Estimates Branch. Structure cost index. Technical Report, California Department of Transportation, 2007. Available from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/estimates/quarterlycostindex.xls.
42. Division of Engineering Services-Cost Estimates Branch. Comparative bridge costs, 2006. Technical Report, California Department of Transportation, 2007. Available from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/estimates/ COMP BR COSTS 2006-eng.xls.