5

th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
Analytical Models for Seismic Assessment of Reinforced

Concrete Bridge Pier

Witarto
1
, K.Y. Liu
2
, K.C. Chang
3

1 Research Asisstant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan. E-mail: witartozhuo@ntu.edu.tw
2 Associate Research Fellow, National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taiwan. E-mail:
kyliu@narlabs.org.tw
3 Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan. E-mail: ciekuo@ntu.edu.tw


ABSTRACT
This paper presents general composed analytical models to predict the reinforced concrete (RC) bridge pier
behavior. The analytical models were developed in OpenSees software with the capability to represent the
common hysteresis behavior of RC bridge pier subjected to static cyclic loading including pinching effect and
strength degradation after the onset of failure. Three models were composed in order to accommodate the three
common failures observed in existing RC bridge pier (flexure failure with buckling of longitudinal reinforcement,
flexure shear failure, and pure shear failure). The accuracy of the model was verified by 12 experimental test
data. The results showed that the analytical models could simulate the nonlinear flexural behaviour up to
post-failure behavior with satisfactory result for flexure failure mode and flexure shear failure mode. However,
the analytical model for pure shear failure mode could not capture the hysteretic loop of the test data well enough.
In addition to static analysis, dynamic analysis was also carried out and compared with 3 pseudo-dynamic test
data. The analytical model result showed a good agreement with test result in term of displacement time history.
This paper emphasize on the modelling concept, the elements that were used, and the analytical results.

KEYWORDS: Analytical Model, Bridge Pier, Hysteretic Loops, OpenSees, Reinforced Concrete


1. INTODUCTION

Reinforced concrete (RC) bridge structures are prevalent in Taiwan and around the world. Many of those bridge
structures which designed and constructed without satisfying current seismic design provision are vulnerable to
earthquake. Those bridges were found collapsed during large earthquakes due the insufficiency of the bridge pier
capacity to resist the lateral load. Therefore, it is very important to assess seismic capacities of existing bridge
piers for retrofit purposes.

Seismic assessment of RC bridge piers necessitates adequate analytical models that could predict the behavior of
the structure on the elastic range, inelastic range, and up to post-failure range. The existing analytical models to
predict the behavior of RC member are widely available, for example: the hinge model for pushover analysis, the
hysteretic rules such as the Bouc-Wen model, and the advanced finite element analysis. The pushover analysis
result only provides the backbone information which is not sufficient enough to predict the hysteretic behavior
and the energy involved. Although most of the available hysteretic rules models could approximate the nonlinear
pier column behavior, they require nonphysical damage parameters to be defined. Meanwhile, the finite element
analysis has drawn interest from many researchers due to the advanced simulation and the capability to
overcome the weaknesses of both pushover analysis and hysteretic rules.

Current popular open source finite element software such as OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation) allows users to develop their own materials. Consequently, many models such as
concrete material models, steel material models, member element models, and so on are widely available.
However, the users tend to do trial and error for several models before the analytical model could be found fit
with the test result. And each user might use different model which only applicable to his/ her cases. Therefore,
this research intended to provide composed general analytical models that only require the material and
geometric properties of reinforced concrete bridge piers to accurately predict the load-deflection under static and
dynamic loading.


5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
2. COMPOSED ANALYTICAL MODELS

The composed analytical models were built in OpenSees platform. The focus of the analytical models is on three
common failure modes on RC structure, namely flexure failure, flexure shear failure and pure shear failure.
Since each type of failure mode exhibit different ductility prior to failure, each failure mode would require a
unique analytical model. Therefore, prediction of failure mode on RC member had to be conducted before the
modelling process. To predict the failure mode of the RC bridge pier, the classification of RC column failure as
stated in ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provision could be used. The classification is based on the nominal shear
strength, V
n
, the plastic shear demand on the column, V
p
(i.e., shear demand at flexure strength of plastic hinges),
and the transverse reinforcement detailing.



Figure 2.1 Composed analytical model

The materials and elements used in the analytical models were composed from widely available materials and
elements in OpenSees library. The composed analytical models are relatively complex models with nonlinear
fiber elements to represent the pier columns and springs in series at the ends of columns to simulate bond-slip,
shear strength degradation due to buckling of longitudinal reinforcement (on flexure failure specimens), and
shear strength degradation due to shear failure (on flexure shear and pure shear failure specimens).

2.1. Force-Based Fiber beam Column Element

Pier column elements were modeled using force-based fiber beam-column element. The constitutive stress-strain
relationship of concrete and steel that was assigned into fiber sections could be seen on Fig. 2.2. The concrete
fibers were assigned using constitutive stress-strain relationship proposed by Mander (1988). Concrete04
material model in OpenSees was chosen to represent the Mander model. The ultimate strain of unconfined
concrete was assumed to be 0.004. However, the ultimate strain for the confined concrete was assumed to be
infinite in order to eliminate localization phenomenon.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
x 10
-3
0
20
40
60
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0
20
40
60
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
-800
-400
0
400
800
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)


Figure 2.2 Constitutive stress strain relationship: (a) Unconfined concrete; (b) Confined concrete; (c) Bilinear
steel

The steel fibers were assigned using bilinear constitutive stress-strain relationship. Hysteretic material model
in OpenSees was chosen to represent the bilinear steel model. The post-yielding ratio of the steel should be
adjusted so that there will be no negative stiffness occurs on the beam-column response. This is to make sure that
(a) (b) (c)
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
the unique solution appears when the shear limit state material model is activated. Without a positive slope there
is not a unique solution for an increase in the total displacement (Elwood, 2004). The post-yielding ratio used in
this study varies from 0.5% to 2.5% of E according to the case. Where E is Youngs Modulus of steel (assumed
to be 200,000 MPa).

2.2. Rotational Slip Spring Element

To account for the additional rigid body rotation caused by strain penetration or bond-slip of the longitudinal
reinforcing bars, an elastic rotational slip spring with rotational stiffness recommended by Elwood and Eberhard
(2009) was included in zero-length elements at the end of the column.


8
y
b y y
slip
M
u
d f
K
|
= (2.1)

Where d
b
is the nominal diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement, f
y
is the yield stress of longitudinal
reinforcement, M
y
is the effective yield moment, y is the effective yield curvature, and u is the uniform bond
stress along the embedded length. The uniform bond stress suggested by Elwood and Eberhard is 0.8f
c
. The
yield moment and yield curvature were obtained from cross sectional analysis using XTRACT (Imbsen, 2002).

2.3. Buckling Spring Element

Buckling spring was used to represent the behavior of the reinforced concrete bridge pier after the bar buckling
failure was detected. This spring element was used to model the specimens which experienced flexure failure
only. In this study, the available shear spring with shear limit state developed by Elwood (2003) was used as the
buckling spring model. Several nonphysical parameters on the spring such as: pinchx, pinchy, damage1,
damage2, and beta, were set as constant and applied for all cases.



Figure 2.3 Shear spring in series model using limit state uniaxial material model with shifted shear limit curve

In order to activate the shear spring at the bar buckling failure point, the original shear limit curve, developed by
Elwood (2003), needs to be shifted to the buckling point which proposed by Berry and Eberhard (2005) using
delta function. The buckling limit equation is shown in Eq. 2.2.

( )
_ '
% 3.25 1 1 1
10
bb b
e bb eff
g c
d P L
k
L D D A f

| |
A | | | |
= + + |
| |
|
\ . \ .
\ .
(2.2)

Where
bb
/L is the drift ratio at buckling failure, K
e_bb
=40 for rectangular-reinforced columns and 150 for
spiral-reinforced columns, but it should be taken as 0 for columns in which s/d
b
exceeds 6,
eff
=
s
f
yt
/f
c
,
s
is
volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio, f
yt
is yield stress of the transverse reinforcement, L is distance from the
column base to the point of contra flexure, and D is column depth. After the onset of bar buckling, the shear
strength of the pier was assumed to decrease until the pier lost its shear strength capacity. The collapse
displacement,
c
, is assumed as twice of
bb
. Hence, the degrading slope of the total response,
deg
t
K , can be
estimated as follows


( )
deg
t u u
c bb bb
V V
K = =
A A A
(2.3)

The degrading slope in shear spring response,

deg
K , was simply taken as 50% of
deg
t
K .
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
2.4. Shear Spring Element

Shear spring element was used to represent the behavior of the reinforced concrete bridge pier after the shear
failure was detected. This spring element was used to model the specimens which experienced flexure shear
failure and pure shear failure. In this study, the calibrated shear spring called pinching limit state material
developed by LeBorgne (2012) was used as the shear spring.

For the flexure shear failure specimens, two limit curves were used to activate the shear spring. The rotation
shear curve proposed by LeBorgne (2012) which was represented by Eq. 2.4 and strength limit which was
calculated using Eq. 2.5.


'
0.027 0.033 0.01 0.006
f
g c
P s
d A f
u = > (2.4)

( )
'
'
0.5
1 0.8
/
0.5
v yt c
n g
c g
A f d f
P
V A MPa
s M Vd
f A
| |
|
= + +
|
\ .
(2.5)

Where s is spacing of transversal reinforcement and d is depth of the column, A
v
is area of shear reinforcement
within spacing. The first limit curve to be detected will determine the shear failure limit. Since the rotation shear
curve was based on rotational chord of column on the plastic hinge, the column has to be modeled with 2 fiber
beam-column elements; one to represent the plastic hinge zone and the other one to represent pier column
outside plastic hinge zone as shown in Fig. 2.1 (b) and (c).



Figure 2.4 Shear spring in series model using limit state uniaxial material model with shear limit curve and
strength limit curve

The pure shear failure specimens reached their shear capacity before yielding occurred. Therefore, for the pure
shear failure specimens, only the strength limit curve calculated using Eq. 2.5 was used to activate the shear
spring. The shear spring model developed by LeBorgne (2012) was calibrated from 32 experimental column data
that fail in flexure shear. Since it is already calibrated, users only need to input the column physical properties to
define the spring damage parameters. However, the shear spring calibration was only carried out for cross
sections with rectangular shape. Since this study also includes the circular cross section, the equivalency of cross
section will be adopted from ACI provision. The width of column b and height of column h will be taken as
0.89 of column diameter D, while effective column depth d will be taken as 0.8 of column diameter.


3. ANALYTICAL MODEL VERIFICATION USING STATIC CYCLIC LOADING TEST
DATA

Four flexure failure specimens were selected to verify the accuracy of the analytical model. The hysteretic loop
comparisons between analytical model and experimental result are shown in Fig. 3.1. The hysteretic loops from
the analytical model were generally in good agreement with the experimental test results. The initial stiffness,
maximum force and the nonlinear flexural behaviour including pinching and unloading stiffness were well
predicted. However, quite large difference in terms of the initial stiffness and maximum strength were observed
in Specimen Niu-Dou Bridge P2. This is because the specimen was an old real structure that has gone through
many earthquake loads in the past. Moreover, the cyclic load test was conducted after the pseudodynamic test.
Therefore the stiffness and the strength of the specimen have decreased. The occurrence of the buckling failure,
in most of the case, was also found to be in correct location except for Specimen TANEEB1 which the buckling
failure were predicted too late. When buckling failure was predicted in correct location, the post-failure behavior
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
was also well predicted. In summary, the analytical model for flexure failure used in single pier is considered
accurate.

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen TANEEB1


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model
-6 -3 0 3 6
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Niu Dou Bridge P2


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model

-8 -4 0 4 8
-400
-200
0
200
400
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Henry 415P


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model
-8 -4 0 4 8
-400
-200
0
200
400
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Henry 415S


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model


Figure 3.1 Analytical model results for flexure failure specimens

Another four flexure shear failure specimens were used to verify the accuracy of the flexure shear analytical
model. The hysteretic loop comparisons are shown in Fig. 3.2. In this failure category, satisfactory results in
most of the cases were obtained as well. Prior to shear failure, the hysteretic loops from the analytical model
were match with the experimental test results. The occurrence of the shear failure was also found to be in correct
location. However, the analytical result of Specimen TP2 was not as well as the others. Specimen TP2, designed
identical to Specimen TP1, was tested with 1 cycle of loading while Specimen TP1 was tested with 3 cycles of
loading. Unlike Specimen TP1 which the analytical result match well with experimental test result, the initial
stiffness of Specimen TP2, the occurrence of the shear failure point, and the post failure behavior was not well
captured. The test result of Specimen TP2 was considered unreasonable since the initial stiffness was stiffer than
Specimen TP1 and strength degraded faster after the shear failure detected.

-4 -2 0 2 4
-400
-200
0
200
400
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen BMC3


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model
-6 -3 0 3 6
-400
-200
0
200
400
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen BMC4


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model

-6 -3 0 3 6
-200
-100
0
100
200
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Kawashima Lab TP1


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model
-7 -3.5 0 3.5 7
-200
-100
0
100
200
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Kawashima Lab TP2


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model


Figure 3.2 Analytical model results for flexure shear failure specimens

5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan

Four pure shear failure specimens were used to verify the accuracy of the analytical model. The hysteretic loop
comparisons between analytical model and experimental result are shown in Fig. 3.3. Since the pure shear
behavior was merely controlled by shear spring, the accuracy of the spring could be judged here. In Specimen
R08BM the shear strength limit was detected too early, therefore the predicted backbone would be lower than
the actual backbone. However, the rate of the strength degradation and the backbone stiffness agreed with the
experimental result. In Specimen Umehara CUW, the envelope curve was considered close enough. However,
the unloading and reloading path could not be well predicted. In Specimen Imai No.1and Specimen Mc Daniel
S1-2, the backbone curves were entirely not match. The backbone stiffness was too mild and the strength
degradation was too small as compared to experimental results. The overall results were not as good as analytical
results for flexure failure and flexure shear failure.

-2 -1 0 1 2
-400
-200
0
200
400
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen R08BM


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model
-2 -1 0 1 2
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Umehara CUW


Experiment Result
Opensees Model

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Imai No.1


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-400
-200
0
200
400
Drift (%)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Global Response Specimen Mc Daniel S1-2


ExperimentResult
Opensees Model


Figure 3.3 Analytical model results for pure shear failure specimens


4. ANALYTICAL MODEL VERIFICATION USING PSEUDODYNAMIC LOADING TEST
DATA

An analytical model should be capable of representing the actual behavior of the real structure under both static
load and dynamic load. Since the composed analytical models were proven to be accurate enough to represent
the hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete bridge pier under static load, this section verifies the introduced
analytical model with the pseudodynamic test results. Pseudodynamic tests had been conducted in NCREE
laboratory (Chang et al., 2004) and in the field test on the In-Situ Seismic Performance Test of Niu-Dou Bridge
program (Wang et al., 2011). The pseudodynamic test results from Specimen Niu-Dou Bridge P2, Specimen
Chang B, and Specimen Chang C were chosen to verify the accuracy of the analytical model.

Niu-Dou bridge Specimen P2 was tested with pseudodynamic load using ILA025 code compatible ground
motion. Fig. 4.1 shows the displacement time history result. It was observed that the analytical model adequately
captured the phase angle and the amplitude. The maximum displacement on experimental result was found to be
90 mm at 15.54 second, while the maximum displacement on analytical result was found to be 96.57 mm at
15.56 second. Slightly different result was considered acceptable and the agreement between analysis and
experiment was considered very well.

Specimen Chang B and Chang C were part of experimental study by Chang in 2004 to study the performance of
reinforced concrete bridge pier retrofitted using carbon fiber reinforced plastic. There were three identical
specimens used in this study, Specimen Chang A that was tested with static cyclic loading, Specimen Chang B
that was tested pseudodynamically using TCU075 ground motion with the peak acceleration scaled to 0.8g, and
Specimen Chang C that was tested pseudodynamically using TCU102 ground motion with the peak acceleration
scaled to 0.7g. The lumped mass for Specimen B was specified to be 27,500 kg while the lumped mass for
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
Specimen C was specified to be 68,000 kg. Both specimens were subjected to 680 kN axial load. No viscous
damping was included in the pseudodynamic test for both specimens. In Chang (2004), the information of the
material properties was not comprehensive. The provided properties of each material were the same for all of the
specimens. Fig. 4.2 clearly shows that the time history result from analytical model differed too much from the
experimental test results. The phase angle and the amplitude totally did not fit together. The unmatched result
might come from the incompatibility between material properties used in the model and the real material
properties. However, the analytical result on Specimen Chang C showed a quite match time history result. As
shown in Fig. 4.3, all of phase angles and most of the amplitudes were well captured. The maximum
displacement and minimum displacement prior to failure on experimental result were found to be 55.16 mm at
14.42 second and -60.985 mm at 14.79 second. While the maximum displacement and the minimum
displacements prior to failure on analytical result were found out to be 61.289 mm at 14.405 second and -57.9
mm at 14.77 second. The analytical model also predicted an incredibly large residual displacement due to shear
failure at the end of the test.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-100
-50
0
50
100
Time (Sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Displacement History for Specimen Niu Dou Bridge P2


Experiment Result
Opensees Model


Figure 4.1 Displacement history result for Specimen Niu-Dou Bridge P2


0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Time (Sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Displacement History for Specimen Chang B


Experiment Result
Opensees Model


Figure 4.2 Displacement history result for Specimen Chang B

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Time (Sec)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Displacement History for Specimen Chang C


Experiment Result
Opensees Model


Figure 4.3 Displacement history result for Specimen Chang C
5
th
International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering
November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan

5. CONCLUSION

Comparison with all experimental results showed that the composed analytical model can simulate the hysteretic
behavior of reinforced concrete bridge pier subjected to static cyclic loading well enough. In most of the cases,
the composed model was able to predict the nonlinear degrading behavior with sufficient accuracy. The
prediction of post-failure behaviour was merely sensitive to the prediction of failure point. If the failure point is
predicted in the correct location, then the post-failure behavior will be well predicted. However, the pure shear
failure behavior is still very difficult to predict. The proposed analytical models could trace the displacement
time history of the reinforced concrete bridge pier subjected to earthquake ground motion. Comparison with
pseudodynamic test results showed that as long as the material properties of the test specimen are equivalent
with the analytical model, the displacement history could be predicted well.


REFERENCES

1. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. (2011). Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318M-11) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2007). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
3. Berry, M.P. and Eberhard, M.O. (2005). Practical Performance Model for Bar Buckling. Journal of
Structural Engineering. 131:7, 1060-1070.
4. Berry, M.P., Parrish, M., and Eberhard, M.O. (2004). PEER Structural Performance Database Users
Manual (Version 1.0). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
5. Chang, S.Y., Li, Y.F., and Loh, C.H. (2004). Experimental Study of Seismic Behaviors of As-Built and
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics Repaired Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 9:4, 391-402.
6. Elwood, K.J . (2004). Modelling Failures in Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering. 31:5, 846-859.
7. Elwood, K.J ., and Eberhard, M.O. (2009). Effective Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns. ACI
Structural Journal. 106:4, 476-484.
8. Elwood, K.J ., and Moehle, J .P. (2003). Shake Table Tests and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load
Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames (PEER Report 2003/01). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
9. Elwood, K.J ., and Moehle, J .P. (2005). Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Light
Transverse Reinforcement. Earthquake Spectra. 21:1, 71-89.
10. Elwood, K.J ., and Moehle, J .P. (2005). Axial Capacity Model for Shear-Damaged Columns. ACI Structural
Journal. 102:4, 578-587.
11. Imbsen, C.C. (2002). XTRACT Software, Cross-Section Analysis Program for Structural Engineers. 2.6.2
ed. Imbsen and associates, Inc.
12. LeBorgne, M.R. (2012). Modeling The Post Shear Failure Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
13. Mander, J .B., Priestley, M.J .N., and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering. 114:8, 1804-1849.
14. OpenSees. (2005). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
15. Yavari, S. (2009). Shaking Table Tests on The Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Non-Seismic
Detailing. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
16. Yavari, S., Elwood, K.J ., and Wu, C.L. (2009). Collapse of a Nonductile Concrete Frame: Evaluation of
Analytical Models. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 38:2, 225241.
17. Witarto. (2013). Analytical Models for Seismic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Pier. M.S.
Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
18. Wang, P.H., Lin, P.Y., Cheng, C.C., Tseng H. Z., Wang, C.Y., Chang, C.H., Chen, W., Han, J .Y., Yang,
Y.S., Liao, W.I., Liu, K.Y., Chiou, J .S. (2011). In-Situ Seismic Performance Test at NiuDou Bridge
(NCREE-11-014). National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan.