Erratum for “Evaluating Code Criteria for Regular Seismic Behavior of Continuous Concrete Box Girder Bridges with Unequal Height Piers” by J. E. B. Guirguis and S. S. F. Mehanny

A number of the author’s corrections were not incorporated in the published paper. The following corrections should be made to the original paper:

On p. 489, in the subsection “Modeling Using OpenSees,” the strain values of “3%” and “14%” should be “3‰” and “14‰,” respectively: “According to this, the compressive strength of the confined area is 35 MPa, the strain at reaching the maximum strength of the confined area is 3‰, and the ultimate strain of the confined area is 14‰.”

In the following paragraph, “To overcome convergence problems, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to derive with the most convenient, reliable, and accurate discretization of piers of the case-study bridges. The outcome was to use a number of elements that varied according to its height for each pier” should be replaced with “To overcome convergence problems, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the most convenient, reliable, and accurate discretization of piers of the case-study bridges. The outcome was to use a number of elements that varied for each pier according to its height.”

On p. 492, in List Item 4, the penultimate sentence should read “As an example, if the axial-flexure FOS retrieved for the long pier is 2, $r_{\text{min}}$ is 1.75, and $r_{\text{max}}$ thus pertaining to the shorter pier is 3.5.”

Also on this page, in the first paragraph of the subsection “Proposed Criteria for Pier Failure and Possible Scenarios of Bridge Failure,” the strain values of “3%” and “14%” should be “3‰” and “14‰,” respectively: “According to EN 1992-1-1 (CEN 2004), and in line with Paulay and Priestley (1992), the strain at reaching the maximum strength of the confined concrete area is 3‰ and the ultimate compressive strain of the confined area is estimate to be on the order of 14‰ as stated previously (for detailed values of the strain limits, see Guirguis 2011).”

On p. 494, in the second paragraph of the section “Proposed Criterion for Regular Behavior of a Special Bridge Type,” the sentence “As a final step in the procedure, THIA was performed on the bridge model with the combination of pier reinforcement ratios that caused synchronized failure during the pushover analysis to verify that they equally reached a failure mechanism” should be replaced with “As a final step in the procedure, THIA was performed on the bridge model with the combination of pier reinforcement ratios that caused synchronized failure during the pushover analysis to verify that they equally caused a simultaneous failure mechanism under THIA.”

On p. 496, in the first full sentence of the left column, the values “0.082 and 0.050 m” should be “$0.082 \text{and} 0.050 1\text{/m}$,” as follows: “The curvature demands associated with the recorded deck displacement at synchronized failure of both piers were $0.082 \text{and} 0.050 1\text{/m}$ for the short and long piers, respectively, as shown in Fig. 11.”

On p. 497, in the first paragraph of the subsection “Investigating Code Recommendations for Regularity,” the final sentence should read “However, it may guarantee a somewhat regular response with failure occurring nearly simultaneously in both piers except in the case of a low ratio between pier heights (0.5 and below).”

ASCE regrets these errors.