Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Analysis of Concrete Bridges: Numerical Modeling

  • Andreas KapposEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_127


Concrete bridges; Modal analysis; Nonlinear analysis; Seismic loading


Bridges are deceptively simple systems, since they are typically single-storey structures wherein the horizontal members (the deck) can often be modeled either as a continuous beam or as a series of simply supported beams. In fact, the continuous beam might be a valid approximation in seismic analysis of bridges if a “spine” model is adopted; in such a model the bridge deck is simulated using 3D beam elements with 6 degrees of freedom (DOFs) at each node, located at the centroid of the cross section. It is worth noting that in gravity load analysis the geometric complexity of the deck is usually represented in the computer model to greater detail, as compared to that used for estimating the seismic response. On the other hand, bridges present peculiarities that are not commonly encountered (or are far less important) in buildings, such as the modeling of bearings, shear keys, and expansion...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) (2010) LRFD bridge design specifications, 5th edn. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 341 (2014) Seismic analysis and design of concrete bridge systems (ACI341.2R-14). American Concrete Institute, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings – ASCE standard 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC (Applied Technology Council, USA) (1996) Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges: provisional recommendations. ATC report no ATC-32. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  5. Aviram A, Mackie KR, Stojadinović B (2008) Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. PEER report 2008-03. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Bozorgzadeh A, Megally S, Restrepo JI, Ashford SA (2006) Capacity evaluation of exterior sacrificial shear keys of bridge abutments. J Bridg Eng ASCE 11(5):555–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) (2013) Seismic design criteria version 1.7. Caltrans Division of Engineering Services, Sacramento, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  8. CEN (2005a) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 2: bridges (EN 1998-2). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. CEN (2005b) Structural bearings – part 3: elastomeric bearings (EN 1337-3). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN1998-1-1). CEN, Brussels; Corrigenda: July 2009 and Jan 2011Google Scholar
  11. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Computers & Structures Inc. (CSI) (2011) SAP2000 – version 15.0.1: linear and non linear static and dynamic analysis and design of three-dimensional structures. Computers & Structures Inc. (CSI), BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fardis MN (1991) Member-type models for the non-linear seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures. In: Donea J, Jones PM (eds) Experimental and numerical methods in earthquake engineering. CEC, JRC, IspraGoogle Scholar
  15. FEMA (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273. FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration, USA) (2006) Seismic retrofitting manual for highway bridges part 1 – bridges (FHWA- HRT-06-032). Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLeanGoogle Scholar
  17. Hwang JS (2002) Seismic design of structures with viscous dampers. In: International training program for seismic design of building structures. NCREE, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  18. Kappos AJ, Sextos AG (2001) Effect of foundation type and compliance on the lateral load response of R/C bridges. J Bridg Eng ASCE 6(2):120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kappos AJ, Sextos AG (2009) Seismic assessment of bridges accounting for nonlinear material and soil response, and varying boundary conditions. In: Coupled site and soil-structure interaction effects with application to seismic risk mitigation, NATO science for peace and security, series-C. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kappos AJ, Manolis GD, Moschonas IF (2002) Seismic assessment and design of R/C bridges with irregular configuration, including SSI effects. Eng Struct 24(10):1337–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kappos AJ, Saiidi M, Aydinoglu N, Isakovic T (2012) Seismic design and assessment of bridges: inelastic methods of analysis and case studies. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kappos AJ, Gkatzogias KI, Gidaris I (2013a) Extension of direct displacement-based design methodology for bridges to account for higher mode effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(4):581–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kappos AJ, Paraskeva TS, Moschonas IF (2013b) Response modification factors for concrete bridges in Europe. J Bridg Eng ASCE 18(12):1328–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kappos AJ, Papadopoulos I, Tokatlidis A (2014) Design of a seismically isolated railway viaduct over axios river in Northern Greece. In: Railways 2014: the second international conference on railway technology, Ajaccio, Corsica, 8–11 Apr, Civil-Comp Press, paper no 80Google Scholar
  25. Katsaras CP, Panagiotakos TB, Kolias B (2009) Effect of torsional stiffness of prestressed concrete box girders and uplift of abutment bearings on seismic performance of bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 7:363–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mergos PE, Kappos AJ (2012) A gradual spread inelasticity model for R/C beam-columns, accounting for flexure, shear and anchorage slip. Eng Struct 44:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ntotsios E, Karakostas C, Lekidis V, Panetsos P, Nikolaou I, Papadimitriou C, Salonikios T (2009) Structural identification of Egnatia Odos bridges based on ambient and earthquake induced vibrations. Bull Earthq Eng 7(2):485–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papanikolaou VK, Kappos AJ (2009) Numerical study of confinement effectiveness in solid and hollow reinforced concrete bridge piers: Methodology. Comput Struct 87(21–22):1427–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ (2010) Further development of a multimodal pushover analysis procedure for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):211–222Google Scholar
  30. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ, Sextos AG (2006) Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(10):1269–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vayas I, Iliopoulos A (2014) Numerical modeling guidelines for seismic analysis of steel and composite bridges. In: Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang J, Makris N (2002) Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiffnesses of bridge embankments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(11):1933–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringCity University LondonLondonUK