Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No.110, pp. 23-30, Jan-Mar 2024
Seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges.
The case of the Oran region, Algeria
Evaluación de vulnerabilidad sísmica de puentes. El caso de la región de Orán, Argelia
Fatima Zohra Baba-Hamed 1, Farid Rahal Rahal2, Farida Guenanou1
1Civil engineering Department, University of Sciences and Technology of Oran, Mohamed Boudiaf. El Mnaouar, B. P 1505
Bir El Djir. P. C. 31000. Oran, Algeria.
2Architecture Department, University of Sciences and Technology of Oran, Mohamed Boudiaf. El Mnaouar, B. P 1505 Bir
El Djir. P. C. 31000. Oran, Algeria.
CITE THIS ARTICLE AS:
F. Z. Baba-Hamed, F. Rahal
and F. Guenanou. ”Seismic
vulnerability assessment of
bridges. The case of the Oran
region, Algeria”, Revista
Facultad de Ingeniería
Universidad de Antioquia, no.
110, pp. 23-30, Jan-Mar, 2024.
[Online]. Available: https:
//www.doi.org/10.17533/
udea.redin.20221209
ARTICLE INFO:
Received: November 16, 2021
Accepted: November 23, 2022
Available online: November
23, 2022
KEYWORDS:
Seismic risk, bridges,
vulnerability, GIS, earthquake.
Riesgo sísmico, puentes,
vulnerabilidad, SIG, sismo.
ABSTRACT: The recent devastating earthquakes have revealed that bridges are one of
the most vulnerable components of transportation systems. These seismic events
highlighted the need to mitigate the risk resulting from the failure of bridges. This study
aims to consider the seismic risk of an extensive heritage of existing civil engineering
structures proceeding with prioritization. This imposes the need to consider the
design of a geographic information system (GIS) based on the analysis of the different
components of risk: hazard, vulnerability, and risk. The assessment of the seismic
vulnerability of bridges integrates the various structural and non-structural components
of bridges, taking into account their specificities in Algeria. The application of this
approach to the Oran region has resulted in the development of a tool using a database to
process as much geolocated information as possible, thus contributing to more efficient
crisis management, and making it possible to avoid bridge damage and failures that can
result in loss of life and monetary losses. This tool could also be used for the inspection
of bridges as well as the optimal prioritization of preventive and corrective measures
necessary before a major earthquake hits the bridge network in the Oran Region.
RESUMEN: Los devastadores terremotos recientes han revelado que los puentes son uno
de los componentes más vulnerables de los sistemas de transporte. Estos eventos
sísmicos destacaron la necesidad de mitigar el riesgo derivado de la falla de los puentes.
Este estudio tiene como objetivo considerar el riesgo sísmico de un extenso patrimonio
de estructuras de ingeniería civil existentes procediendo a la priorización. Esto impone
la necesidad de considerar el diseño de un sistema de información geográfica (SIG)
basado en el análisis de los diferentes componentes del riesgo: peligro, vulnerabilidad
y riesgo La evaluación de la vulnerabilidad sísmica de los puentes integra los diversos
componentes estructurales y no estructurales de los puentes, teniendo en cuenta sus
especificidades en Argelia. La aplicación de este enfoque a la región de Orán ha dado
como resultado el desarrollo de una herramienta que utiliza una base de datos para
procesar la mayor cantidad posible de información geolocalizada, contribuyendo así a
una gestión de crisis más eficiente y evitando daños en puentes y fallas que pueden
resultar en pérdida de vidas y pérdidas monetarias. Esta herramienta también podría
utilizarse para la inspección de puentes, así como para la priorización óptima de las
medidas preventivas y correctivas necesarias antes de que un gran terremoto golpee la
red de puentes en la región de Orán.
1. Introduction
Bridges are a substantial and vital part of any
transportation infrastructure system. Bridges,
in particular, play an important role in modern
transportation. They represent fundamental nodes of
various road networks and the central mechanisms of
23
* Corresponding author: Fatima Zohra Baba-Hamed
E-mail: fatimazohra.babahamed@univ-usto.dz
ISSN 0120-6230
e-ISSN 2422-2844
DOI: 10.17533/udea.redin.20221209 23

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
urban traffic [1, 2].
The earthquakes that hit the United States (San Fernando
1971, Loma Prieta 1989, Northridge 1994), Japan (Kobe
1995), and other regions around the world (El Asnam
1980, Costa Rica 1990, Kocaeli 1999, Taiwan 1999, Chili
2010) caused very significant damage to bridge structures,
demonstrating their vulnerability to major earthquakes
[3–7]. Because of these earthquakes, a large number
of reinforced concrete and steel bridges were severely
damaged or collapsed.
Among the major damage suffered by bridge structures
during earthquakes, one reports, among other things [8]:
• The damage to bearings,
• The failure of the bents and piers,
• The rupture of the abutments serving as retaining
walls,
• The collapse or subsidence of the embankment
located at the bridge accesses.
Various methods have been adopted to assess the
seismic vulnerability of bridges:
1) Judgment methods based on the bridge response data
obtained from expert opinions [9].
2) Empirical methods based on the damage statistics
from past earthquakes, such as the study of bridge
damage associated with earthquakes in Loma Prieta and
Northridge [10].
Some studies used the earthquakes of Northridge and
Kobe [11, 12], but other studies, only considered the Kobe
earthquake [13, 14].
3) Analytical methods based on the development of the
analytical bridge models. The ground motions with
different levels of intensity are considered for the seismic
simulation of bridge damage by performing numerous
analyzes.
The results of the analysis are used to develop analytical
fragility curves by determining the probability of exceeding
a specified limit state of damage under a given intensity
of ground motion. Various analytical procedures were
followed in the development of fragility curves [15–25],
ranging from the elastic analysis of equivalent systems
with a single degree of freedom to the nonlinear time
history analysis of 3D bridge models.
Several methods for assessing the seismic vulnerability of
bridges have been developed around the world, such as:
• The American ”CALTRAN” [26, 27] method developed
by the California Department of Transportation, and
”NYSDOT” developed by the same New York State
Department in 1995. They use an algorithm for
classifying bridges and viaducts to group structures
according to their structural characteristics.
• The method of the Ministry of Transport of Quebec
”MTQ-95”. It allows calculating a numerical
vulnerability index between 0 and 100 taking into
consideration the seismic hazard.
• The ”SISMOA” method developed by Roads
Department, Roads and Motorways Technical
Study service of France. This method called SISMOA
consists in empirically determining the seismic risk
of a bridge or viaduct [28].
Like countries with high seismicity, Algeria has a
significant heritage of bridges whose operating period
dates back several years. Most of these structures were
built before the advent of earthquake-resistant calculation
and design rules [29].
In addition, Algeria is characterized by a complex
seismotectonic context and moderate seismic activity
associated with the convergence between the African and
Eurasian plates [30]. The region has experienced several
destructive earthquakes in history, including the 1716
earthquakes in Algiers (the epicenter of the intensity, Io X),
1825 in Blida (Io IX), 1790 in Oran (Io XI), 1889 in Mascara
(Io IX) ), recently 1980 in El Asnam (Ms 7.3), 1989 in Tipasa
(Ms 6.0), 1996 in Algiers (Ms 5.7), 1999 in Ain Temouchent
(Ms 5.8), and more recently 2003 in Boumerdes (Ms 6.8)
[31].
In Algeria, few studies on the vulnerability to earthquakes
of bridges have been realized. However, it is clear that in
the eventuality of another major earthquake in Algeria,
the structural integrity of several bridges could not be
ensured, especially since these structures of a certain
age present very similar geometric and mechanical
configurations to those damaged in earthquakes in
California (San Fernando, 1971, San Francisco, 1989, and
Northridge, 1994). However, it must be recognized that
the Californian situation cannot be transposed directly
to northern Algeria, because of differences in geological
conditions and soil motions. Nevertheless, according to
[32], numerous bridges can present deficiencies against
significant seismic solicitations.
This article aims to develop a simple model to assess
the seismic risk of existing bridges in Algeria. Due
to the superior capabilities of spatial data processing,
geographic information systems (GIS) technology is
increasingly being considered for the implementation
of infrastructure planning and management systems,
including bridge management systems. A good seismic
risk assessment of existing bridges is a necessary action
to identify the most critical areas and assess the priorities
for the reinforcement of bridges.
This article describes the use of a model to support
the development of a system for assessing bridges against
seismic risk, based on a geographic information system
(GIS). The vulnerability index method was applied to
assess the seismic risk of bridges in Oran city.
24

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
2. Methodology for assessing
seismic risks and the vulnerability
of bridges in Algeria
2.1 Methodology overview
The proposed Equation (1) conforms to the definition of
seismic risk [33].
IVS = Fhazard ∗ Fsogil ∗ vulnerability (1)
This formulation is inspired by the Canadian method
MTQ2013 and adapted to the contexts and specificities of
bridges in Algeria.
The seismic risk assessment of bridges in this method is
based on the following steps (Figure 1):
1. Definition of the seismic hazard
2. Definition of the soil amplification effects
3. Definition of the global vulnerability of bridges
2.2 Seismic hazard and site effects
Seismic hazard is commonly defined as the probability of
occurrence of a given seismic intensity during a certain
period. A hazard factor is therefore calibrated according to
the relative seismic hazard level. Table 1 gives the values
of the hazard factor.
Three levels of relative seismic hazard are defined:
• Low if PGA ≤ 0.1 g;
• Moderate if 0.1 g < PGA ≤ 0, 4 g
• High if PGA > 0.4g
Table 1 Definition of the hazard factor
PGA Fhazard
≤ 0.1 g 1
0.1 g < PGA ≤ 0, 4 g 1.75 + ((PGA − 0.1)/0.3) ∗ 0.5
> 0.4g 2.5
In general, when designing or evaluating a structure, the
amplification effect is considered by an amplification factor
applied to the design spectral acceleration or the seismic
hazard parameter. The amplification effect of the seismic
wave depending on the category of seismic location, is
taken into account by a soil factor. The Soil factor is
therefore calibrated according to the category of the site.
Table 2 gives the values of the Soil factor.
2.3 Global vulnerability of bridges
Combined vulnerability factors VGeneral , VSuperstructure
and VInfratructure , respectively, represent the vulnerability
related to the general characteristics of the structure, to
Table 2 Definition of the soil factor
Site Category Description FSite
S1 Rock 1
S2 Stiff soil 1.1
S3 Soft soil 1.15
S4 Very soft soil 1.25
the superstructure, and to the infrastructure, as shown by
Equation 2.
Vulnerability = VGeneral ∗
(8 + VSuperstructure + VInfrastructure ) (2)
General vulnerability
The general vulnerability factor depends mainly on the
type of structure to which the coefficient CStruct (type of
structure), the date of construction of the CAge bridge, and
its state of damage CEndom are associated and shown in
Equation 3
VGeneral = Cstruct X
[1 + αAge × CAge + αEndom × CEndom )] (3)
The characteristics of bridges in Algeria are associated
with the distinct periods described below, as shown in
figure 2.
• Before 1980: This period is characterized by the
construction of masonry bridges, steel bridges, and
reinforced concrete bridges without any earthquake
design.
• Between 1980 and 2008: This period is characterized
by the introduction of earthquake-resistant design.
The El-Asnam earthquake of October 10, 1980 is the
main reason for its application. During this interval,
the earthquakes that occurred in Algeria did not
have an important intensity and did not significantly
affect the structures. It was considered that the new
Algerian Seismic Regulations RPA for the seismic
calculation of the structures was satisfactory.
• After 2008: Bridge construction has come in a new
period. The public works sector has been provided
with specific seismic regulations (RPOA) for the
design of engineering structures.
Superstructure vulnerability
The vulnerability factor of the superstructure depends
on the length of support availablen CSupport_length, the
bearing type CBearing , the discontinuities numbers of
CJoint and the beams numbers CBeam and some design
peculiarities. VSuperstructure is given by the following
25

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
Figure 1 Flowchart of the methodology for conducting a seismic scenario
Figure 2 Typical bridges in Algeria
Equation (4).
VSuperstructure =
[αSupport_length × cSupport_length + αBearing × cBearing +
αJoint × cJoint + αBeam × cBeam + αPart × cPart ]
(4)
Infrastructure vulnerability
The vulnerability factor of the infrastructure considers that
the loss of a bent or abutment can lead to taking the bridge
out of service. VInf rastructure is therefore established as
the maximum value between the vulnerability factors of
abutments VAbutement and piers VPiers as given in Equation
(5).
VInfrastructure = Max (VAbutement VPiers ) (5)
The vulnerability factor of the abutments depends on the
abutment type, Cabutment_type, the abutment foundation
type, Cabutment_f oundation and the soil nature below
the abutment, CSoil_abutement. Vabutment is given by the
following Equation (6).
VAbutement = [αabutment_twpe × Cabutment_tape+
αabutment_f oundation × Cabutment_f oundation+
αSoil_abutement × CSoil_abutement]
(6)
The vulnerability factor of the bents depends on
the bent type, CP eir_type, the bent foundation type,
CF ondation_P eir , and the soil nature under the bent,
Csoil_P eir and the vertical irregularity, CIrreg . VP eir
given by the next Equation (7).
VBent =
[αP eir_type × CBent_type + αF ondation_P eir × CF ondation_P eir +
αsoil_P eir × Csoil_P eir + αIrreg × CIrreg ]
(7)
3. Application of the proposed
methodology
3.1 The study area
Oran, Algeria’s second city after the capital Algiers, is
located in the northwest of the country on the shores of
the Mediterranean Sea, as shown in Figure 3. Oran is an
important economic and industrial pole, rich in history and
architecture.
This study takes into account local hazard data immediately
available through the geological map. This is a first-level
microzoning, as shown in Figure 4.
3.2 Seismic hazard and classification soil
Seismic hazard is a function of two factors, the intensity
of ground motion and soil amplification, that represent
the seismicity of a region and the Geotechnical site
characterization of the bridge site, respectively. Hence, the
26

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
Figure 3 Study area identification
Figure 4 Geology-based zonation for the sub-regional area
peak ground acceleration (PGA- rock) for the bridge site (A)
is defined to measure the seismic hazard. It is modified by
the site coefficient (S) to express soil amplification effects.
3.3 Developed database and bridge
information model
To perform the analysis of the seismic vulnerability,
information on the bridge stock is necessary. The data for
each bridge contains the following information: General
information (localization, age, etc.); Seismic Design:
• Number of spans: single vs. multiple span bridges
• Structure type: concrete, steel others
• Pier type: multiple column bents, single column
bents and wall piers
• Abutment type and bearing type
Data on these bridges have been digitized in a database
through the investigation forms. The methodology can
be applied in digital form, as shown in Figure 5. Survey
information is stored in a table database. It is accessed by
programs to calculate load factors for each bridge. Then
we chose the combination of factor index. Finally, we
calculate the vulnerability class.
The objective is to centralize all the bridge information in a
database that allows the management of all the elements
of the infrastructure throughout its entire lifecycle. The
designed application can, like BIM tools, provide a robust
platform for communication and information sharing
Figure 5 Typical structural performance form for the bridges
among all stakeholders [34]. The survey of the inventory
of existing bridges aims to obtain data on the distribution
of bridge types (Figure 6). The results of this survey are:
• Most of the bridges are made of reinforced concrete;
• Most reinforced concrete bridges were built according
to a pre-code without any seismic consideration.
A GIS was used to perform a comprehensive seismic
vulnerability analysis of the bridges. The relational
database containing the bridge inventory is integrated into
the designed GIS.
4. Results and discussions
Figure 7 shows the soil classification map. The interest of
this map appears in the preliminary classification of all the
bridges in the study area, which can be easily performed,
using the site classification system.
The statistical analysis of the results obtained in Figure
8 shows that 77 bridges out of the 120 bridges studied
were built on soft soil (S3). In addition, the results
show that there are two bridges built on S1 sites. Thirty
-nine bridges were built on stiff soil (S2). Three bridges
were built on very soft soil (S4). This is due to the soil
composition of the city of Oran, mainly composed of
unconsolidated deposits, as shown in Figure 2 (recent
alluvial formations). The nature of the soil and the effects
of resulting sites significantly contribute to increasing the
seismic vulnerability of structures. The behavior of the
120 bridges is estimated for two scenarios of earthquakes
characterized by their Mean PGA values [30] in Oran city:
Earthquake for 100 years of the return period (PGA=
0.068g)
Earthquake for 475 years of the return period (PGA=0.138g)
The variation of the IVS index for the different bridges
built on the soft soil is analyzed according to the level of
seismic hazard as shown in Figure 8. The distribution
of IVS indexes also analyzed according to the number of
spans.
27

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
Figure 6 (A) Building materials and (B) seismic design of the bridges in the study area
Figure 7 Bridges inventory and classification of soil in the study
area
Figure 8 The distribution of the index vulnerability of the
bridges for 100 and 475 years return periods
Following the used methodology, in the case of an
earthquake for a 100 years return period (PGA = 0.068g),
100% of the structures have an IV index less than 50. It
varies from 6.76 to 34.99 for the different bridges built.
- The IVS index ranges from 6.76 to 31.67 for single-span
bridges and from 7.17 to 34.88 for multi-span bridges 6.78
to 34.99.
Figure 9 indicates that the seismic vulnerability of the
analyzed bridges varies from low to moderate for a return
period of 100 years.
In the case of an earthquake for a 475 years return
period (PGA=0.138g), 42.97 % of the structures have
an IVS lower than 50. It varies from 13.53 to 69.98 for
the different bridges. IVS index ranges from 13.53 to
63.34 for single-span bridges and from 13.57 to 69.98 for
multiple-span bridges.
Note that all the bridges with an IVS index exceeding 50
were built before 2008.
Figure 10 indicates that 57.02% of the bridges analyzed
have a vulnerability varying from moderate to high for a
return period of 475 years.
5. Conclusion
The estimation of the seismic risk of the existing bridges
in Oran city was the opportunity to design a GIS based on
the analysis of the different components of the risk: the
seismic hazard, the effects of the lithological site, and
the vulnerability of the various structures. This can be
an important element in setting up crisis prevention and
management plans in a more efficient manner, thereby
avoiding errors that are difficult to repair in the future.
The data necessary for the application of the method
are simple and scalable, allowing a rapid estimate of the
seismic risk of bridges, but the result involves a large
uncertainty that is difficult to quantify. The limitation
of the method lies in the fact of considering only the
PGA of the earthquake defined either in a deterministic
or probabilistic manner instead of the full spectrum
of the movement of the ground, whereas the resonance
phenomena observed during the earthquake are at specific
frequencies, depending on the site and the bridges.
Nevertheless, the study presented here gives a first
28

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
Figure 9 Map of seismic vulnerability of bridges for 100 return period
Figure 10 Seismic vulnerability of bridges for a return period of 475 years.
idea of what an earthquake could cause in the city of Oran
for return periods of 100 years and 475 years. The results
revealed that most bridges are built on soft soil, causing
an increase in their vulnerabilities due to the amplification
of the seismic action.
A more thorough analysis would make it possible to
estimate the seismic risk on a large heritage of existing
bridges by a process of prioritization. Knowing that the
decision to reinforce the road itineraries, and therefore the
structures that compose them, in the face of earthquakes,
is usually based on the comparison between the cost
of reinforcement and the losses resulting from an
earthquake.
6. Declaration of competing interest
We declare that we have no significant competing interests,
including financial or non-financial, professional, or
personal interests interfering with the full and objective
presentation of the work described in this manuscript.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the General Directorate
of Scientific Research and Technological Development
(DGRSDT) for the support provided to the development of
scientific research in Algeria.
8. Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
9. Author contributions
Fatima Zohra BABA HAMED built the design, data analysis
and writing of the article. Farid RAHAL built the design and
writing of the article. Farida GUENANOU was responsible
for data collection.
29

F. Z. Baba-Hamedet al., Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia, No. 110, pp. 23-30, 2024
10. Data availability statement
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings
of this study are available within the article [and/or] its
supplementary materials.
References
[1] C. A. Riveros-Jerez, “Structural health monitoring methodology
for simply supported bridges: numerical implementation,” Revista
Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, no. 39, Mar.
2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=
S0120-62302007000100004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
[2] E. Eduardo, “Estudio de las causas del colapso de algunos puentes
en colombia,” Ingeniería y Universidad, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 33–47,
Ene-Jun 2002.
[3] D. L. Anderson, D. Mitchell, and R. G. Tinawi, “Performance of
concrete bridges during the hyogo-ken nanbu (kobe) earthquake on
january 17, 1995,” Canadian journal of civil engineering, vol. 23, no. 3,
Jun. 1996. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1139/l96-884
[4] D. Mitchell, R. Tinawi, and R. G. Sexsmith, “Performance of
bridges in the 1989 loma prieta earthquake–lessons for canadian
designers,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, Aug.
1991. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1139/l91-085
[5] D. Mitchell, S. Huffman, R. Tremblay, M. Saatcioglu, D. Palermo,
and et al., “Damage to bridges due to the 27 february 2010 chile
earthquake,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 40, no. 8,
Jun. 06, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1139/l2012-045
[6] M. Yashinsky, “Performance of bridge seismic retrofits during
northridge earthquake,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 3,
no. 1, Feb. 1998. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1084-0702(1998)3:1(1)
[7] M. N. Priestley, F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi, Seismic design and retrofit
of bridges. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[8] M. J. N. Priestley, F. Seible, and C. M. Uang. (2011, Mar.) The
northridge earthquake of january 17, 1994: Damage analysis of
selected freeway bridges. University of California. San Diego, CA.
[9] A. T. Council. (1983) Seismic retrofitting guidelines for highway
bridges. Applied Technology Council. United States.
[10] A. A. Kiremidjian and N. I. Basöz, “Evaluation of bridge damage data
from recent earthquakes,” Bulletin NCEER, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–7, Apr.
1997.
[11] M. Shinozuka, Y. Murachi, X. Dong, Y. Zhou, and M. J.
Orlikowski, “Effect of seismic retrofit of bridges on transportation
networks,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
vol. 2, Nov. 21, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11803-003-0001-0
[12] A. S. Elnashai, B. Borz, and S. Viachos, “Deformation-based
vulnerability functions for rc bridges,” Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, vol. 17, no. 2, Oct. 01, 2003. [Online]. Available:
https://tinyurl.com/37u94nfy
[13] F. Yamazaki, H. Motomura, and T. Hamada, “Damage assessment of
expressway networks in japan based on seismic monitoring,” in 12th
world conference on earthquake engineering, Japan, 2000. [Online].
Available: https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/0551.pdf
[14] M. Shinozuka, M. Q. Feng, J. Lee, and T. Naganuma, “Statistical
analysis of fragility curves,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol.
126, no. 12, Dec. 2000. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:12(1224)
[15] J. B. Jernigan and H. Hwang, “Development of bridge fragility
curves,” in 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Boston, MA, 2002.
[16] J. B. Mander, A. Dutta, and P. Goel, “Capacity design of bridge
piers and the analysis of overstrength,” Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), Buffalo, NY, Tech. Rep.
MCEER, 98-0003, Jun. 1998.
[17] J. B. Mander and N. Basöz, “Seismic fragility curve theory for
highway bridges,” in Optimizing post-earthquake lifeline system
reliability, W. M. Elliott and P. McDonough, Eds. ASCE, 1999, pp.
31–40.
[18] J. B. Mander and C. T. Cheng, “Replaceable hinge detailing for
bridge columns,” International Concrete Abstracts Portal, vol. 187,
Jan. 06, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.14359/5599
[19] G. Monti and N. Nisticò, “Simple probability-based assessment of
bridges under scenario earthquakes,” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
vol. 7, no. 2, Mar. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0702(2002)7:2(104)
[20] S. Banerjee and M. Shinozuka, “Nonlinear static procedure for
seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges,” Computer AIDED Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, May 2007. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2007.00486.x
[21] H. Hwang, J. B. Liu, and Y. H. Chiu, “Seismic fragility analysis of
highway bridges,” Center for Earthquake Research and Information,
Memphis, TN, Tech. Rep. MAEC RR-4, Jul. 2001.
[22] K. R. Karim and F. Yamazaki, “A simplified method of constructing
fragility curves for highway bridges,” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 10, Aug. 2003. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.291
[23] D. H. Choi, S. G. Gwona, H. Yoo, and H. S. Na, “Nonlinear
static analysis of continuous multi-span suspension bridges,”
International Journal of Steel Structures, vol. 13, Apr. 11, 2013.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-013-1010-0
[24] F. Nateghi and V. L. Shahsavar, “Development of fragility
and reliability curves for seismic evaluation of a major
prestressed concrete bridge,” in 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, 2004. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_1351.pdf
[25] K. Mackie and B. Stojadinovic, “Fragility curves for reinforced
concrete highway overpass bridges,” in 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, 2004. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_1553.pdf
[26] Seismic Vulnerability Manual, New York State, Department of
Transportation, New York, NY, 1995. [Online]. Available: https:
//tinyurl.com/2eucbs5t
[27] B. Maroney and J. Gates, “Seismic risk identification and
prioritization in the caltrans seismic retroft program,” in 4th
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Disaster Preventionfor Lifeline
Systems, Japan, 1992, pp. 55–75.
[28] D. Davi and P. Schmitt, “Sismoa: une méthode d’estimation rapide
de la vulnérabilité des ponts aux séismes,” in Annales du bâtiment et
des travaux publics, Paris, 2003, pp. 19–27.
[29] A. Kibboua, M. Naïli, and D. Benouar, “Méthode d’estimation de la
vulnérabilité sismique des ponts à poutres isostatiques en béton
armé,” in 9ème Colloque National AFPS, Marne-La-Vallée, 2015.
[30] J. A. Peláez, M. Hamdache, and C. L. Casado, “Seismic
hazard in terms of spectral accelerations and uniform hazard
spectra in northern algeria,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol.
163, May 10, 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00024-005-0011-0
[31] F. Z. Baba-Hamed, D. D. Rahal, and F. Rahal, “Seismic risk
assessment of algerian buildings in urban area,” Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, vol. 19, no. 3, Jun. 14, 2013. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2012.744772
[32] A. Kibboua, H. Bechtoula, Y. Mehani, and M. Naili, “Vulnerability
assessment of reinforced concrete bridge structures in algiers
using scenario earthquakes,” Bulletin of earthquake engineering,
vol. 12, Sep. 25, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-013-9523-7
[33] A. Khaled, M. J. Nollet, and A. Lemaire, “Étude de sensibilité des
paramètres pour l’évaluation de la vulnérabilité sismique des ponts
en vue de la calibration de la méthodee,” Ministere des Transport
Du Québec, Québec, Tech. Rep. R628.1, Mar. 2013.
[34] F. Rahal and Z. Hadjou, “Information system for parametric
architecture, dedicated to spaces allocation,” Urbanism. Arhitectură.
Construcţii, vol. 4, pp. 337–346, Sep. 2018.
30