California RC Bridges 2025 (Chen et al.): Components, EDP-based

Seismic fragility models for the components of California reinforced concrete bridges, conditioned on the response of the component (peak values; the permanent settlement for approaches), from the database of Chen et al. (2025), Earthquake Spectra 41(4), doi:10.1177/87552930251343634, published on DesignSafe as PRJ-5910 (doi:10.17603/ds2-c73m-nj37, version 1, Open Data Commons Attribution License).

The 25 models come from the 24 rows of EDP_Fragility Database.csv, which lists the median component capacities that the database associates with its Sa(1.0 s) curves; the Comments of the joint seal and Era 3 unseating models record where the published curves do not reflect them. Each model is a lognormal fragility function of that response, with the median capacity of the source and a dispersion of 0.35.

Model IDs follow the pattern CRCB.<component>[.<qualifier>].<scope>.<source>. The qualifier appears only for Column models, where CD marks curvature ductility and DR drift ratio. The scope is one of:

  • a design era (E1 pre-1970, E2 1971–1990, E3 post-1991);

  • SingleSpan for single-span bridges;

  • MultiSpan for capacities that the database assigns to all six multi-span studies listed in Chen et al. (2025, Table 3);

  • an approach configuration, Step for a step offset, or Slope10, Slope30, and Slope45 for a slope offset with a 10, 30, or 45 ft slab.

The MultiSpan models do not cover the single-span bridge groups. The source token names the study the capacities come from:

  • M17 for Mangalathu (2017), whose Table 6.13 holds the capacities that the database assigns to all six multi-span studies or to five of them;

  • MCP18 for Mangalathu et al. (2018);

  • MSJ17 for Mangalathu, Soleimani, and Jeon (2017);

  • CPR22 for Cavalcante et al. (2022);

  • SXR22 for Shao et al. (2022).

The demands are directional. They come from a structural analysis of the bridge, except the approach settlements, which come from a settlement analysis of the approach backfill. The EDP definitions follow Mangalathu (2017) Sec. 6.1, except for the column drift models, the two Cavalcante et al. (2022) models, and the approach models, whose Comments name the source of the definition.

These models and the Sa(1.0 s)-based models of the ‘California RC Bridges 2025 (Chen et al.): Components’ and ‘California RC Bridges 2025 (Chen et al.): Systems’ datasets (seismic/transportation_network/component/California RC Bridges 2025 and seismic/transportation_network/portfolio/California RC Bridges 2025) are alternative representations of the same damage; apply only one of them to a given bridge. The Comments of each model give the source of its capacities and every change to the published values: column drift converted from percent to ratio, and the one row that defines only the extensive and complete unseating states, represented here by two models whose slight and moderate states are set equal to extensive.