Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling considerations in seismic assessment of RC bridges using state-of-practice structural analysis software tools

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The increasing awareness of the general society toward the seismic safety of structures has led to more restrictive performance requirements hence, many times, to the need of using new and more accurate methods of analysis of structures. Among these, nonlinear static procedures are becoming, evermore, the preferred choice of the majority of design codes, as an alternative to complete nonlinear time-history analysis for seismic design and assessment of structures. The many available software tools should therefore be evaluated and well understood, in order to be easily and soundly employed by the practitioners. The study presented herein intends to contribute to this need by providing further insight with respect to the use of commonly employed structural analysis software tools in nonlinear analysis of bridge structures. A comparison between different nonlinear modeling assumptions is presented, together with the comparison with real experimental results. Furthermore, alternative adaptive pushover procedures are proposed and applied to a case study bridge, based on a generic plastic hinge model. The adopted structural analysis program proved to be accurate, yielding reliable estimates, both in terms of local plastic hinge behavior and global structural behavior.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Miranda E, Bertero V V. Evaluation of strength reduction factors. Earthquake Spectra, 1994, 10(2): 357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. CEB. Seismic design of RC structures for controlled inelastic response. Bulletin no. 236, Comité Euro-International du Béton, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kappos A J. Evaluation of behaviour factors on the basis of ductility and overstrength studies. Engineering Structures, 1999, 21(9): 823–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mwafy AM, Elnashai A S. Calibration of force reduction factors for RC buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 6(2): 239–273

    Google Scholar 

  5. Maheri M R, Akbari R. Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel Xbraced and knee braced RC buildings. Engineering Structures, 2003, 25(12): 1505–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costa A, Romão X, Oliveira C S. A methodology for the probabilistic assessment of behaviour factors. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2010, 8(1): 47–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paret T, Searer G, Freeman S. ASCE 31 and 41: Apocalypse Now. Structures Congress, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  8. Araújo M, Castro J. Critical review of codes for seismic safety assessment of existing steel buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2016 (in Press)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson N, Saiidi M, Sanders D. Nonlinear earthquake response modelling of a large-scale two-span concrete bridge. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2009, 14(6): 460–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Inel M, Ozmen H B. Effects of plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Engineering Structures, 2006, 28(11): 1494–1502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Habibullah A, Pyle S. Practical three dimensional nonlinear static pushover analysis. Structures Magazine, winter, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  12. Varum H, Sousa R, Delgado W, Fernandes C, Costa A, Jara J M, Jara M, Álvarez J J. Comparative structural response of two steel bridges constructed 100 years apart. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2011, 7(11): 843–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Araújo M, Delgado R. Seismic safety assessment of curved bridges using pushover analysis. Papadrakakis M, Papadopoulos V, Plevris V, eds. 3rd ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN 2011), Corfu, Greece, 25–28 May, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  14. Araújo M, Marques M, Delgado R. Multidirectional pushover analysis for seismic assessment of irregular-in-plan bridges. Engineering Structures, 2014, 79: 375–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodrigues H, Varum H, Arêde A, Costa A. Comparative efficiency analysis of different nonlinear modelling strategies to simulate the biaxial response of RC columns. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2012, 11(4): 553–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Casarotti C, Monteiro R, Pinho R. Verification of spectral reduction factors for seismic assessment of bridges. Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 42: 111–121

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pinho R, Monteiro R, Casarotti C, Delgado R. Assessment of continuous span bridges through nonlinear static procedures. Earthquake Spectra, 2009, 25(1): 143–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kohrangi M, Bento R, Lopes M. Seismic performance of irregular bridges–comparison of different nonlinear static procedures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2015, 11(12): 1642–1650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Monteiro R, Delgado R, Pinho R. Probabilistic seismic assessment of RC bridges: Part I–uncertainty models. Structures, 2016a, 5: 258–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Monteiro R, Delgado R, Pinho R. Probabilistic seismic assessment of RC bridges: Part II–nonlinear demand prediction. Structures, 2016, 5: 274–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. CSI. CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000. ETABS and SAFE, Computer and Structures, Inc, California, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pinho R, Casarotti C, Antoniou S. A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques for assessment of bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2007, 36(10): 1347–1362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kunnath S. Identification of modal combination for nonlinear static analysis of building structures. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2004, 19(4): 264–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna G. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures, 1998, 20(4-6): 452–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Elnashai A S. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2001, 12(1): 51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Paret T, Sasaki K, Eilbeck D, Freeman S. Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Acapulco, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chopra A, Goel R. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 561–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bracci J, Kunnath S, Reinhorn A. Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1997, 123(1): 3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Requena M, Ayala A G. Evaluation of a simplified method for the determination of the nonlinear seismic response of RC frames. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  30. Paraskeva T S, Kappos A J, Sextos A G. Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2006, 35(10): 1269–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Antoniou S, Pinho R. Development and verification of a displacement- based adaptive pushover procedure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2004, 8(5): 643–661

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pinho R, Marques M, Monteiro R, Casarotti C, Delgado R. Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures in the assessment of building frames. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(4): 1459–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Monteiro R, Marques M, Adhikari G, Casarotti C, Pinho R. Spectral reduction factors evaluation for seismic assessment of frame buildings. Engineering Structures, 2014, 77: 129–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Casarotti C, Pinho R. An Adaptive Capacity Spectrum Method for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2007, 5(3): 377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zelaschi C, De Angelis G, Giardi F, Forcellini D, Monteiro R. Performance based earthquake engineering approach applied to bridges in a road network. Papadrakakis M, Papadopoulos V, Plevris V, eds. 5th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN 2015), Crete Island, Greece, 25–27 May, 2015

    Google Scholar 

  36. Taucer F, Spacone E, Filippou F. A fiber beam-column element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Report UCB/EER-91/17, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, California, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  37. CEN. EN 1998–2: 2005 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance–Part 2: Bridges. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  38. ATC. ATC-40 Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Volume 1, Applied Technology Council, California, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  39. ASCE. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41–13). American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, 2014

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. CALTRANS. Caltrans Seismic design criteria. Version 1. 6, California Department of Transportation, California, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  41. Aviram A, Mackie K, Stojadinović B. Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California, PEER Report 2008/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, California, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bae S, Bayrak O. Plastic hinge length of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Structural Journal, 2008, 290–300

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dowell R K, Seible F, Wilson E. Pivot hysteresis model for reinforced concrete members. ACI Structural Journal, 1998, 607–617

    Google Scholar 

  44. Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Mander J B, Priestley M J N, Park M. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1988, 114(8): 1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, Costa A. Experimental evaluation of rectangular reinforced concrete column behaviour under biaxial cyclic loading. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42(2): 239–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rodrigues H, Arêde A, Varum H, Costa A. Damage evolution in reinforced concrete columns subjected to biaxial loading. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 11(5): 1517–1540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. CEN. EN 1998–1: 2004 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance–Part 1: General rules, seismic action and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  49. Monteiro R, Ribeiro R, Marques M, Delgado R, Costa A G. Pushover Analysis of RC Bridges Using Fibre Models or Plastic Hinges. In: Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China October12–17, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  50. Monteiro R. Sampling based numerical seismic assessment of continuous span RC bridges. Engineering Structures, 2016, 118: 407–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chaboche J L. A review of some plasticity and viscoelastic constitutive theories. International Journal of Plasticity, 2008, 24 (10): 1642–1693

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Ibarra L F, Medina R A, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2005, 34(12): 1489–1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Orakcal K, Wallave JW, Conte J P. Flexural modelling of reinforced concrete walls–model attributes. ACI Structural Journal, 2004, 688–698

    Google Scholar 

  54. Billah A M, Alam M S. Seismic performance of concrete columns reinforced with hybrid shape memory alloy (SMA) and fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 28(1): 730–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Guedes J M. Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete bridges. Modelling, numerical analysis and experimental assessment. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. University of Porto, Porto, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  56. Araújo M, Macedo L, Marques M, Castro J M. Code-based record selection methods for seismic performance assessment of buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016, 45(1): 129–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Paraskeva T, Kappos A. Further development of a multimodal pushover analysis procedure for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2010, 39: 211–222

    Google Scholar 

  58. Isaković T, Lazaro M, Fishinger M. Extension of pushover methods for the seismic analysis of single-column bent viaducts. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008, 37(8): 1185–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Araújo M, Delgado R. Application of adaptive pushover methods of analysis to SAP2000. In: Proceedings of the Congress in Numerical Methods in Engineering, Coimbra, 2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Foundation of Science and Technology (FCT) of Portugal under Grant number PTDC/ECM-EST/3062/2012 “Earthquake loss assessment of the Portuguese building stock”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Ricardo Monteiro

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Ricardo Monteiro, Miguel Araújo, Raimundo Delgado & Mário Marques

Authors
  1. Ricardo Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel Araújo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raimundo Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mário Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Monteiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monteiro, R., Araújo, M., Delgado, R. et al. Modeling considerations in seismic assessment of RC bridges using state-of-practice structural analysis software tools. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 12, 109–124 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0389-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0389-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation