Influence of Seismic Wave Angle of Incidence Over the Response of Long Curved Bridges Considering Soil-Structure Interaction

  • Anastasios G. Sextos
  • Olympia Taskari
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 2)


Scientific research has shown that soil-structure interaction (SSI) should be investigated especially in the case of bridges with great importance or specific soil and structural characteristics. The most efficient way available nowadays to account for this phenomenon is by modeling the performance of soil, structure and foundation as a whole in the time domain. On the other hand, especially for the case of long, curved bridges, the issue of deciding a ‘reasonable’ incoming wavefield angle of incidence has not yet been scrutinized. Along these lines, the scope of this paper is to investigate the influence of the excitation direction of seismic motion in the case of long, curved bridges, using the most refined finite element model practically affordable in terms of computational cost. For this purpose, the long (640 m) and curved (R = 488 m) Krystallopigi Bridge was modeled using the finite element program ANSYS accounting for SSI both at the location of piers and abutments. The parametric study of different ground motion scenarios performed, highlights the complexity of the phenomenon and the difficulty in determining a ‘critical’ angle of excitation for all response quantities and all piers at the same time especially when soil-structure interaction is considered. Moreover, the dispersion of the results obtained indicates that the impact of ignoring that phenomenon and the role played by SSI effects may be significant under certain circumstances.


Bridges Soil-structure interaction Angle of excitation 



The authors would like to thank EGNATIA ODOS for providing the necessary data for the superstructure-foundation-soil system of the Krystallopigi Bridge as well as their colleague Dr. Th. Paraskeva, whose previous modeling approach for the study of the particular bridge was used to validate the 3-Dimensional model presented herein.


  1. ANSYS Inc. (2006a) ANSYS user’s manual, Version 10.0. Canonsburg, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. ANSYS Inc. (2006b) ANSYS programmers guide. Canonsburg, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Athanatopoulou A (2005) Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components. Eng Struct 27(2):301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aziminejad A, Moghadam AS (2006) Behavior of asymmetric structures in near field ground motions. In: 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  5. Belytschko T, Hughes T (1983) Computational methods for transient analysis. Elsevier Science Publishers, BVGoogle Scholar
  6. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2005) Eurocode 8: design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance—part 2: Bridges. prEN1998-2, Final draft, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Gazetas G (1991) Formulas & charts for impedance functions of surface and embedded foundation. J Geotech Eng-ASCE 177(9):1363–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hernandez JJ, Lopez OA (2002) Response to three-component seismic motion of arbitrary direction. Earthq Eng Struct D 31(1):55–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kotsoglou A, Pantazopoulou S (2006) Modeling of embankment flexibility and soil-structure interaction in integral bridges. In: 1st European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  10. Kwon O-S, Elnashai AS (2006) Analytical seismic assessment of highway bridges with soil-structure interaction. In: 4th international conference on earthquake engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  11. Lopez OA, Torres R (1997) The critical angle of seismic incidence and the maximum structural response. Earthq Eng Struct D 26(9):881–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lopez OA, Chopra AK, Hernandez JJ (2000) Critical response of structures to multicomponent earthquake excitation. Earthq Eng Struct D 29(12):1759–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. ASCE J Eng Mech Div Proc ASCE 95(EM4):859–877Google Scholar
  14. MacRae GA, Mattheis J (2000) Three-dimensional steel building response to near-fault motions. J Struct Eng-ASCE 126(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Makris N, Gazetas G (1992) Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. Part II: Lateral and seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct D 21(2):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Public Works (1999) Circular Ε39/99, Guidelines for the seismic analysis of bridges (in Greek)Google Scholar
  17. Moschonas I, Kappos A (2013) Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach. B Earthq Eng 11(2):581–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(3):277–301Google Scholar
  19. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Nikolaou S, Chauncey A (2002) Development of analysis and design procedures for spread footings. MCEER, Technical report 02-0003, USGoogle Scholar
  20. Paraskeva T, Kappos A, Sextos A (2006) Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct D 35(10):1269–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pender MJ (1993) Aseismic pile foundation design analysis. Bull NZ Natl Soc Earthq Eng 26(1):49–160Google Scholar
  22. Penzien J, Watabe M (1975) Characteristics of 3-D earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct D 3:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rigato A-B, Medina R (2007) Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Eng Struct 29(10):2593–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, Kappos A (2003) 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 D 32(4):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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, AugustGoogle Scholar
  26. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, Kirtas E, Fotaki V (2005) A refined computational framework for the assessment of the inelastic response of an irregular building that was damaged during the Lefkada earthquake. In: 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures, Thessaloniki, Greece, AugustGoogle Scholar
  27. Sextos A, Kappos AJ (2008) Seismic response of bridges under asynchronous excitation and comparison with EC8 design rules. B Earthq Eng 7:519–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smeby W, Der Kiureghian A (1985) Modal combination rules for multi-component earthquake excitation. Earthq Eng Struct D 13:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tezcan SS, Alhan C (2001) Parametric analysis of irregular structures under seismic loading according to the new Turkish Earthquake Code. Eng Struct 23(6):600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tso WK, Smith R (1999) Re-evaluation of seismic tensional provisions. Earthq Eng Struct D 28(8):899–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson EL, Button M (1982) Three-dimensional dynamic analysis for multicomponent earthquake spectra. Earthq Eng Struct D 10(3):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Yan L, Elgamal A, Yang Z, Conte JP (2004) Bridge-foundation-ground system: a 3D seismic response model. In: 3rd international conference on earthquake engineering, Nanjing, China, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang Y, Acero G, Conte J, Yan Z, Elgamal A (2004) Seismic reliability assessment of a bridge ground system. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada, AugustGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Bristol Queens BuildingBristolUK

Personalised recommendations