Evaluation of seismic response of bridges under asynchronous excitation and comparisons with Eurocode 8-2 provisions

  • Anastasios G. Sextos
  • Andreas J. Kappos
Original Research Paper


The paper aims to evaluate the way Eurocode 8 treats the consideration of asynchronous earthquake ground motion during the seismic design of bridges, and to discuss alternative solutions for cases wherein existing provisions do not lead to satisfactory results. The evaluation of EC8-2 new provisions and simplified methods is performed through comparison with a more refined approach whereas an effort is made to quantitatively assess the relative importance of various design and analysis assumptions that have to be made when spatial variability of ground motion is taken into consideration, based on the study of the dynamic response of 27 different bridges. It is concluded that, despite the complexity of the problem, there are specific cases where EC8 provisions can be safely and easily applied in practice, while in other cases ignoring the effect of asynchronous excitation or performing simplified calculations can significantly underestimate the actual seismic demand.


Bridges Seismic design Earthquakes Ground motion Spatial variability 


  1. AASHTO [American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials] (1996) Interim revisions to the AASHTO standard specifications for highway bridges: division I-A. Seismic Design, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. ATC [Applied Technology Council] (1996) Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges, Redwood City, California, Report No. ATC-32Google Scholar
  3. ATC/MCEER [Applied Technology Council and Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research] (2003) Recommended LRFD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges, California, Report No. MCEER/ATC-49Google Scholar
  4. Burdette N, Elnashai AS (2007) The effect of asynchronous earthquake motion on complex bridges. Part 2: Results and implications on Assessment. J Bridge Eng 13(2):166–172Google Scholar
  5. Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board Ad Hoc Committee on Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction (1999) Seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction. Final report prepared for California Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  6. CEN [Comité Européen de Normalisation] (2005) Eurocode 8: Design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 2: Bridges (prEN1998-2, Final Draft). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Computers and Structures Inc (2005) SAP2000: Linear and non linear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional structures, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Deodatis G (1996) Simulation of ergodic multi-variate stochastic processes. J Eng Mech 122(8):778–787. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1996)122:8(778) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Der Kiureghian A, Neuenhofer A (1992) Response spectrum method for multiple support excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21:713–740. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290210805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. fib [fédération international du béton](2007) Structural solutions for bridge seismic design and retrofit—a state of the art. fib Bull. 39, May 2007Google Scholar
  11. Hao H (1989) Effects of spatial variation of ground motions on large multiply-supported structures. UBC/EERC-89/06, Berkeley: EERC, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. Japan Road Association (2002) Design specifications of highway bridges, Part V. Seismic Design, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  13. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (2000) Earthquake resistant design codes in Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  14. Kappos AJ, Moschonas IF, Paraskeva T, Sextos AG (2006) A methodology for derivation of seismic fragility curves for bridges with the aid of advanced analysis tools. In: 13th ECEE, Geneva, paper no. 275Google Scholar
  15. Kawashima K, Sato T (1996) Relative displacement response spectrum and its application. In: 11th World conference on earthquake engineering, Mexico, paper no. 1103Google Scholar
  16. Lekidis V, Karakostas C, Christodoulou K, Karamanos S, Papadimitriou K, Panetsos P (2004) Investigation of dynamic response and model updating of instrumented R/C bridges. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper no. 2591Google Scholar
  17. Lou L, Zerva A (2005) Effects of spatially variable ground motions on the seismic response of a skewed, multi-span, RC highway bridge. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):729–740. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luco JE, Wong HL (1986) Response of a rigid foundation to a spatially random ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 4:891–908. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290140606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lupoi A, Franchin P, Pinto PE, Monti G (2005) Seismic design of bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(4–5):327–348. doi: 10.1002/eqe.444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monti G, Nuti C, Pinto PE (1996) Nonlinear response of bridges under multi-support excitation. J Struct Eng 122(10):1147–1159. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:10(1147) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norman JA, Virden DW, Crewe AJ, Wagg DJ (2006) Physical Modelling of bridges subject to multiple support excitation. In: 8th National conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California, U.S, Paper No. 373Google Scholar
  22. Nuti C, Vanzi I (2005) Influence of earthquake spatial variability on differential soil displacements and SDF system response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(11):1353–1374. doi: 10.1002/eqe.483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paraskeva T, Kappos A, Sextos A (2006) Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1269–1293. doi: 10.1002/eqe.582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinto A, Pegon P, Magonette, Tsionis G (2002) Pseudo-dynamic testing of bridges using non-linear substructuring. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 33(11):1125–1146. doi: 10.1002/eqe.393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, Kappos A (2003a) Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil-structure interaction phenomena. Part 1: Methodology and Analytical tools. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:607–629. doi: 10.1002/eqe.241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sextos A, Kappos A, Pitilakis K (2003b) Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil-structure interaction phenomena. Part 2: Parametric Analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:629–652. doi: 10.1002/eqe.242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sextos A, Kappos A, Mergos P (2004) Effect of soil-structure interaction and spatial variability of ground motion on irregular bridges: the case of the Krystallopigi bridge. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper no. 2298Google Scholar
  28. Sextos A, Kappos A, Kollias V (2006) Computing a ‘reasonable’ spatially variable earthquake input for extended bridge structures. In: 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, paper no: 1601Google Scholar
  29. Shinozuka M, Saxena V, Deodatis G (2000) Effect of spatial variation of ground motion on highway structures, MCEER-00-0013. MCEER, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. Sokol M, Flesch R (2005) Assess soil stiffness properties dyn tests bridges. J Bridge Eng 10(1): 77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zerva A (1990) Response of multi-span beams to spatially incoherent seismic ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19(6):819–832. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290190604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations