Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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, Washington
ATC [Applied Technology Council] (1996) Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges, Redwood City, California, Report No. ATC-32
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-49
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):166–172
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 Transportation
CEN [Comité Européen de Normalisation] (2005) Eurocode 8: Design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 2: Bridges (prEN1998-2, Final Draft). CEN, Brussels
Computers and Structures Inc (2005) SAP2000: Linear and non linear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional structures, Berkeley, California
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)
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
fib [fédération international du béton](2007) Structural solutions for bridge seismic design and retrofit—a state of the art. fib Bull. 39, May 2007
Hao H (1989) Effects of spatial variation of ground motions on large multiply-supported structures. UBC/EERC-89/06, Berkeley: EERC, University of California
Japan Road Association (2002) Design specifications of highway bridges, Part V. Seismic Design, Tokyo
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (2000) Earthquake resistant design codes in Japan, Tokyo
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. 275
Kawashima K, Sato T (1996) Relative displacement response spectrum and its application. In: 11th World conference on earthquake engineering, Mexico, paper no. 1103
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. 2591
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
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
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
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)
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. 373
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
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
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
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
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
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. 2298
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: 1601
Shinozuka M, Saxena V, Deodatis G (2000) Effect of spatial variation of ground motion on highway structures, MCEER-00-0013. MCEER, NY
Sokol M, Flesch R (2005) Assess soil stiffness properties dyn tests bridges. J Bridge Eng 10(1): 77–86
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sextos, A.G., Kappos, A.J. Evaluation of seismic response of bridges under asynchronous excitation and comparisons with Eurocode 8-2 provisions. Bull Earthquake Eng 7, 519–545 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9090-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9090-5