EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

Published online 19 June 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.582

Extension of modal pushover analysis to

seismic assessment of bridges
T. S. Paraskeva1; , A. J. Kappos1; ; ; and A. G. Sextos2;
1 Laboratory

of Concrete and Masonry Structures; Department of Civil Engineering;

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; Greece
2 Department of Civil Engineering; Division of Structures; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; Greece

SUMMARY
Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis has become a popular tool during the last decade for the seismic
assessment of buildings. Nevertheless, its main advantage of lower computational cost compared to nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis (THA) is counter-balanced by its inherent restriction to structures
wherein the fundamental mode dominates the response. Extension of the pushover approach to consider
higher modes e
ects has attracted attention, but such work has hitherto focused mainly on buildings,
while corresponding work on bridges has been very limited. Hence, the aim of this study is to adapt the
modal pushover analysis procedure for the assessment of bridges, and investigate its applicability in the
case of an existing, long and curved, bridge, designed according to current seismic codes; this bridge
is assessed using three nonlinear static analysis methods, as well as THA. Comparative evaluation of
the calculated response of the bridge illustrates the applicability and potential of the modal pushover
method for bridges, and quanties its relative accuracy compared to that obtained through other inelastic
methods. Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

bridges; seismic design; modal pushover

INTRODUCTION
Although elastic analysis provides a useful estimate of the expected dynamic response of a
bridge, as a rule it cannot predict the failure mechanisms or the redistribution of forces that
follow plastic hinge development during strong ground shaking. Nonlinear static (pushover)
Correspondence

to: A. J. Kappos, Laboratory of Concrete and Masonry Structures, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
E-mail: ajkap@civil.auth.gr
Graduate Student.
Professor.
Lecturer.
Contract=grant sponsor: General Secretariat of Research and Technology (GGET)

Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 26 September 2005

Revised 10 March 2006
Accepted 14 March 2006

1270

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

analysis on the other hand, is a widely used analytical tool for the evaluation of the structural
behaviour in the inelastic range and the identication of the locations of structural weaknesses
as well as of failure mechanisms [1, 2]. Nevertheless, the method is limited by the assumption that the response of the structure is controlled by its fundamental mode. In particular,
the structure is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces with an invariant spatial
distribution until a predetermined target displacement is reached at a monitoring point. As a
result, both the invariant (fundamental mode based) force distributions and the target displacement, do not account for higher mode contribution, which can a
ect both, particularly in the
inelastic range, thus limiting the application of the approach to cases where the fundamental
mode is dominant.
Extension of the standard pushover analysis (SPA) to consider higher modes e
ects has
attracted attention, the e
ort being to match as closely as possible the results of nonlinear
time-history analysis (NL-THA). In an early e
ort [3], the multi-mode pushover procedure was
used to identify the e
ects of higher modes in pushover analysis of buildings by appropriately
extending the capacity spectrum method (CSM), which directly compares building capacity to
earthquake demand; separate pushover curves were derived for each mode, without an attempt
to combine modal responses. A series of adaptive multi-mode pushover analysis methods
followed References [46], involving redenition of the loading pattern, which is determined
by modal combination rules (e.g. SRSS of modal loads), at each stage of the response during
which the dynamic characteristics of the structure change (usually at each step when a new
plastic hinge forms).
While in the aforementioned adaptive methods modal superposition is carried out at the
level of loading, in the modal pushover analysis (MPA) proposed by Chopra and Goel [7],
subsequently improved by the same authors [8, 9], pushover analyses are carried out separately
for each signicant mode, and the contributions from individual modes to calculated response
quantities (displacements, drifts, etc.) are combined using an appropriate combination rule
(SRSS or CQC). Although the rule of superposition of modal responses does not apply in
the inelastic range of the response (modes are not uncoupled anymore), Goel and Chopra [8]
have shown that the error, taking the results of inelastic THA as the benchmark, is typically
smaller than in the case that superposition is carried out at the level of loading (with xed
loading pattern), as recommended in the FEMA356 Guidelines [10]; these guidelines adopt
the nonlinear static procedure (NSP), i.e. pushover analysis, carried out with two di
erent
loading patterns, one based on rst mode loading (triangular distribution) and one with
modal distribution (SRSS combination of elastic modal loads).
In another recent development, Aydinoglu [11] has proposed the so-called incremental
response spectrum analysis (IRSA), wherein each time a new hinge forms in a structure,
elastic modal spectrum analysis is performed, taking into account the changes in the dynamic
properties of the structure.
So far, most of the work performed in the direction of extending the applicability of
pushover analysis to structures with more complex dynamic characteristics focused on buildings. Bridges, on the other hand, are structures wherein higher modes usually play a more
critical role than in buildings; hence developing a modal pushover procedure for such structures is even more of a challenge than in the case of buildings. From the previously
mentioned studies attempting to account for higher modes in pushover analysis, only that of
Aydinoglu [11], which focuses mainly on buildings, includes an application to a bridge structure; the IRSA procedure is used, taking one or eight modes into account, without detailed
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

1271

discussion of the resulting di
erences. At the same time as Aydinoglu [11], two more studies
involving higher mode e
ects in pushover analysis of bridges appeared [12, 13]; the study by
Kappos et al. [12] applies a multi-modal pushover procedure generally similar to that of
Chopra and Goel [7] to an actual curved bridge (studied in more detail herein) considering its
rst three transverse modes, and compares the resulting displacements with those of singlemode pushover and of THA for spectrum-compatible records. In the studies by Fischinger
et al. [13] and Isakovic and Fischinger [14] slightly di
erent versions of these three methods,
as well as IRSA, are used for the analysis of hypothetical irregular, torsionally sensitive bridges
(an interesting, albeit extreme, case, appropriate for testing the limitations of the method),
and results are compared. Very recently Pinho et al. [15] applied a number of existing
pushover procedures (standard and adaptive), as well as a new version of adaptive pushover
(called displacement-based adaptive pushover) to a number of idealized bridges (regular and
irregular), and compared with results from incremental inelastic dynamic analysis. The need
for further work is pointed out in all these few studies on bridges.
In view of the previous considerations, the present study rst attempts to extend the MPA
procedure [79], which was found to provide good results for buildings and (unlike the
adaptive procedure) can be implemented using standard software tools, to the case of bridges.
It then proceeds to quantify the relative accuracy of three inelastic analysis methods, i.e. SPA
(with single-mode or multi-mode load patterns), MPA, and NL-THA, by focusing on the
realistic case of a long and curved-in-plan, actual bridge, analysed with the aid of a threedimensional model. This structure was deemed to be the most appropriate one (for reasons
explained in more detail in a later section) for testing the pushover methods, among a number
of actual bridges in Greece that were studied by the authors, as part of an ongoing research
project (see Acknowledgements).
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MPA TO BRIDGES
According to the MPA procedure [79], standard pushover analysis is performed for each
mode independently, wherein the elastic modal forces are applied as invariant seismic load
patterns. Modal pushover curves are then plotted and can be converted to capacity diagrams
using modal conversion parameters [3, 16]. Response quantities are separately estimated for
each individual mode, and then superimposed using an appropriate modal combination rule.
The basic steps of the method have been presented by Chopra and Goel [7], but a set of
additional assumptions and decisions regarding alternative procedures that can be used are
needed in order to apply the method in the case of bridges; a key issue is the selection of an
appropriate point for monitoring the displacement demand (and also for drawing the pushover
curve for each mode). Other issues include the way a pushover curve is bilinearized before
being transformed into a capacity curve, the use of the capacity spectrum for dening the
earthquake demand for each mode and then combining modal responses, and the number of
modes that should be considered in the case of bridges. For the sake of completeness (and
the benet of the reader) all steps of the procedure (including those that are the same as in
the Chopra and Goel method) are summarized in the following.
Step 1: Compute the natural periods, Tn and modes
n , for linearly elastic vibration of
the structure. It is noted that in the case of bridges, the number of modes that have to be
considered is signicantly higher than in the case of buildings; in fact, in order to capture all
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1272

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

Vbn

Sa

Demand
diagram

Idealized
curve
1

Vbny

ankn

Actual
curve

2
2

kn
1

1
urny

an

urn

Sdn

Sd

Figure 1. Idealized pushover curve of the nth mode of the MDOF system, and corresponding
capacity curve for the nth mode of the equivalent inelastic SDOF system.

modes whose masses contribute to at least 90% of the total mass of a complex bridge structure
(a criterion commonly used in seismic codes) one might need up to a few hundred modes; this
issue is further discussed under Step 7. In reinforced concrete bridges, the elastic periods
should correspond to the e
ective sti
ness of the members, which for piers that respond
close to their yield point or beyond it, could be taken as the secant sti
ness at yield of the
critical section, with a possible correction for tension sti
ening, for instance as suggested in
Eurocode 8 [17].
Step 2: Carry out separate pushover analyses for force distribution, sn = m
n , where m is
the mass matrix of the structure, for each signicant mode of the bridge, and construct the
base shear vs displacement of the monitoring point (Vbn urn ) pushover curve for each mode.
The selection of an appropriate monitoring point for bridges (in buildings it is typically the
roof) is further discussed in the following (Step 5). Gravity loads are applied before each
MPA, and P- e
ects are included, if signicant (e.g. bridges with tall piers). It is noted
that the value of the lateral deck displacement due to gravity loads, urg , is negligible for a
bridge with nearly symmetrically distributed gravity loading.
Step 3: A critical issue in MPA is the way that response quantities individually calculated
for each mode are superimposed, in the sense that modal contributions should correspond to the
same earthquake intensity. Most of the currently available procedures [10, 16, 17] developed
for SPA require that the pushover curve be idealized as a bilinear curve (Figure 1left),
so that a yield point and ductility factor can be dened and then be used to appropriately
reduce the elastic response spectra representing the seismic action considered for assessment.
This idealization can be done in a number of ways, some more involved than others; it is
suggested to do this once (as opposed, for instance, to the ATC [16] procedure) using the
full pushover curve (i.e. analysis up to failure of the structure, dened by a drop in peak
strength of about 20%) and the equal energy absorption rule (equal areas under the actual
and the bilinear curve). It is noted that the remaining steps of the MPA procedure can be
applied even if a di
erent method for producing a bilinear curve is used.
Step 4: Several procedures are available [7, 10, 16, 17] for dening the earthquake displacement demand associated with each of the pushover curves derived in Step 3. In this
study the CSM [3, 16] is used for dening the displacement demand for a given earthquake
intensity, hence Step 4 consists in converting the idealized Vbn urn pushover curve of the
multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system (calculated in Step 3) to a capacity diagram, as
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

1273

shown in Figure 1 (right). The base shear forces and the corresponding displacements in each
pushover curve are converted to spectral accelerations (Sa ) and spectral displacements (Sd ),
respectively, of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system, using the relationships
[7, 16]:
Vbn
(1)
Sa =
Mn
urn
(2)
n
rn
wherein
rn is the value of
n at the reference (or monitoring) point, Mn = Ln n is the
e
ective modal mass, Ln =
Tn m1 , n = Ln =Mn , and Mn =
Tn m
n is the generalized mass, for
the nth natural mode. For inelastic behaviour, the procedure used in the present study for
estimating the displacement demand at the monitoring point is based on the use of inelastic
spectra; this is equally simple, more consistent, and more accurate than the ATC [16] procedure based on reducing the elastic spectra with ductility-dependent damping factors, as shown
in a number of studies [18, 19]. Several options are available for deriving inelastic spectra by
dividing the elastic spectra with the reduction factor R (ratio of the elastic force demand to
yield strength). In this paper, the formula proposed by Miranda and Bertero [20], was used
1
+ 11
(3a)
R =

where , is a function of the ductility factor , period T , and soil conditions at the site, and
is given by



2 
1
3
3
1
exp

ln T
(3b)
=1 +
10T T
2T
2
5
Sd =

for rock sites, while similar expressions apply for other soil conditions. It is recalled that
in the CSM the relevant intersection point (of the demand and the capacity diagrams) is the
one for which the ductility factor calculated from the capacity diagram matches the ductility
value associated with the intersecting demand curve (inelastic spectrum). In many bridges, the
predominant modes correspond to long fundamental natural periods, and for those the equal
displacement rule applies, hence there is no need for iterating to arrive at inelastic spectra
consistent with the ductility demand; however, in general some iteration is required, at least
for higher modes. An alternative, computationally more demanding, procedure was used (for
buildings) by Chopra and Goel [7], wherein for each SDOF system with known period Tn
and damping ratio n , the displacement demand was calculated from an NL-THA for the
given motion; as a simpler alternative, they recommended using inelastic spectra (as detailed
in Reference [18]).
Step 5: Since the displacement demand calculated in Step 4 (for each mode) refers to SDOF
systems with periods equal to those of the corresponding modes, the next step is to correlate
these displacements to those of the actual bridge. Hence, Step 5 consists in converting the
displacement demand of the nth mode inelastic SDOF system to the peak displacement of
the monitoring point, urm of the bridge, using Equation (2). The selection of this point is a
critical issue for MPA of bridges and is discussed in the following.
Natural choices for the monitoring point in a bridge are the deck mass centre [17], or
the top of the nearest to it pier, if the displacement of the two is practically the same,
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1274

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

i.e. for monolithic or hinged pier-to-deck connections, but not for sliding or exible connections (e.g. through pot bearings or elastomeric bearings). By analogy to building structures
[18], it can also be selected as the point of the deck that corresponds to the location (xn ) along
the longitudinal axis of the bridge of an equivalent SDOF system, dened by the location of
the resultant of the modal load pattern of Step 2, which can be calculated from the properties
of the MDOF system using the following relationship:
N
j=1 xj mj
jn

(4)
xn = N
j=1 mj
jn
in which, xj is the distance of the jth mass from a (selected) point of the MDOF system (in
a bridge, the left abutment is a natural choice), and
jn is the value of
n at the jth mass;
xn is essentially independent of the way the mode is normalized. It is noted that whereas
in buildings locating the SDOF system to a height above the ground dened by (4) ensures
that the overturning moment at its base is the same as that resulting in the MDOF structure
from the application of the modal load pattern of Step 2, in bridges it simply ensures that the
moment at the abutments resulting from applying the base shear at a distance xn is the same
as that resulting from the modal loads applied on the actual (MDOF) bridge, which is a less
important condition than that regarding the overturning moment in buildings.
Another proposal [13, 14] for the monitoring point of the bridge is at the point of the
deck where the (current) displacement is maximum, while in the present study the top of
the pier that exhibits the most critical plastic rotation (again, for identical pier and deck
displacements), which does not have to be the same for all individual analyses (i.e. for all
modes) was also used. An initial analysis of the structure for each mode is required in the
latter case, to dene the most critical location that will be used for constructing the relevant pushover curve (Figure 1); even this extra e
ort is not always enough when multiple
earthquake intensities are considered, since the location of the critical point might change
as the bridge enters the inelastic range and the relative contribution of each mode possibly
changes. On the other hand, if the current maximum displacement point (of the deck) is
selected, appropriate software should be used, or post-processing of the results is necessary,
which in the case of large-scale 3D structures (such as the bridge studied in the next section) involves rather substantial e
ort. As will be made clear from the case study presented
later, the selection of the monitoring point a
ects the shape of the pushover curve (as also
noted in an earlier study by the writers [21]), as well as the second branch of the capacity
curve; however it does not a
ect the initial branch of the capacity curve, whose slope is
equal to !n2 (i.e. the square of the circular frequency of the considered mode) if the initial
slope of the corresponding pushover curve reects the elastic (e
ective) sti
ness properties of
the bridge.
Step 6: The response quantities of interest (displacements, plastic hinge rotations, forces in
the piers) are evaluated by extracting from the database of the individual pushover analyses
the values of the desired responses rn , due to the combined e
ects of gravity and lateral loads
for the analysis step at which the displacement at the reference point is equal to urn (see
Equation (2)).
Step 7: Steps 36 are repeated for as many modes as required for sucient accuracy.
Judging the required number of modes is far from straightforward in the case of bridges. As
mentioned in Step 1, capturing all modes whose masses add up to 90% of the total mass of a
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

1275

long and=or complex bridge structure might need considering up to a few hundred modes (as
an example, modal spectral analysis of the 1036 m long, 8-span, Arachthos bridge, currently
under construction in Heperus, Greece, involved consideration of 450 modes, to capture 90%
of the total mass in all directions, including the vertical one). On the other hand, work carried
out within the present study (partly reported herein) has shown that there is little merit in
adding modes whose participation factor is very low (say less than 1%), and less rigid rules
than the 90% one (calibrated only for buildings) could be adopted.
Step 8: The total value for any desired response quantity (and each level of earthquake
intensity considered) can be determined by combining the peak modal responses, rno using
an appropriate modal combination rule, e.g. the SRSS combination rule, or the CQC rule.
This simple procedure was used for both displacements and plastic hinge rotations in the
present study, which were the main quantities used for assessing the bridges analysed (whose
response to service gravity loading was, of course, elastic).
If member (e.g. pier) forces have to be determined accurately (in an inelastic procedure
this is equivalent to determining the percentage by which yield strength of the members is
exceeded), a more involved procedure of combining modal responses should be used. Such
a procedure was suggested by Goel and Chopra [8] for buildings, consisting essentially in
correcting the bending moments at member ends (whenever yield values were exceeded) on
the basis of the relevant momentrotation diagram and the value of the calculated plastic
hinge rotation. This procedure, which blends well with the capabilities of currently available
software, has also been used in the case study presented in the next section.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE INELASTIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

IN THE CASE OF AN EXISTING BRIDGE
Description of studied bridge
To investigate the accuracy, eciency, and also the practicality, of the proposed procedure it
was deemed appropriate to apply it on an actual bridge structure, whose length, curvature in
plan, and complex support conditions resulted in an increased contribution of higher modes.
The selected Krystallopigi Bridge is a 12-span structure of 638 m total length (Figure 2) that
crosses a valley in northern Greece, and is characterized by a large curvature in plan (radius
equal to 488 m). The deck consists of a 13 m wide prestressed concrete box girder section (see
insert in Figure 2left). Piers are rectangular hollow reinforced concrete members, a typical
choice in modern European motorway bridges. As is common in valley-crossing viaducts, the
pier height varies along the length. In particular, the structure is supported on 11 piers of
heights between 11 and 27 m. The support of the deck on the piers follows a rather complex,
albeit not uncommon in modern bridges in seismic areas like Greece, pattern wherein for the
outer piers 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 (see Figure 2) a bearing-type pier-to-deck connection is
adopted, allowing movement in the longitudinal (tangential, due to the curved conguration)
direction, but restricting movement in the transverse (radial) direction, while the inner (taller)
piers 48 are monolithically connected to the deck. This complex articulation scheme assures a
rather favourable seismic response (without excessive concentration of demand in the squater
piers), while it also permits avoiding completely expansion joints in the deck (except, of
course, at the abutments). It is also noted that for practical reasons (i.e. anchorage of the
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1276

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

Figure 2. Layout of the bridge conguration and nite element modelling.

prestressing cables) the initial 0:50 0:20 m pier section is widened to 0:70 0:20 m at the
pier top. The piers are supported on pile groups of length and conguration that di
er between
supports due to the change of the soil prole along the bridge axis.
The Greek Seismic Code (EAK2000) design spectrum [22] for Zone II (PGA of 0:24g) was
the basis for seismic design; it corresponded to soil conditions category B of the Code, which
can be deemed equivalent to subsoil class B of older drafts of Eurocode 8-2. Moreover, an
importance factor equal to 1.30 was adopted (as prescribed for bridges of high importance),
hence the bridge was nally designed for a spectrum scaled to a PGA of 0:31g. A behaviour
(or force reduction) factor of 3.0 was adopted for design, i.e. the bridge was designed as a
ductile structure (plastic hinges expected to form in the piers).
The bridge was assessed using inelastic standard and modal pushover analysis (the
demand spectrum for both pushover analyses was the design one, or multiples of it), pushover
analysis for an SRSS combination of modal loads (one of the methods recommended by
ASCE-FEMA 356 [10]), as well as NL-THA, for articial records closely matching the
demand spectrum. Analyses were carried out using the SAP2000 program [23]; additional
verication of results was made with extra analyses using the general purpose FE program
ANSYS [24]. The reference nite element model involved 220 nonprismatic 3D beam elements, while appropriate nonlinear links and plastic hinges were utilized for time-history and
static inelastic analyses, respectively. For the piers connected to the deck through bearings,
the movement along the longitudinal axis, as well as the rotation around both the longitudinal
and transverse axis was unrestrained. On the contrary, the presence of shear keys (Figure 2)
resulted in the restraint of transverse (radial) displacements, as well as displacement along,
and rotation about, the vertical axis. For the pushover analyses, the inelastic behaviour was
simulated through software built-in plastic hinges, whereas for the case of THA, a compatible
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1277

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

lumped plasticity model (i.e. nonlinear links) was used. Elastic parts of the piers were modelled with cracked sti
ness properties allowing for moderate tension sti
ening, as per the
Eurocode 8 [17] recommendations.
In the analyses presented in the following, the focus is on the transverse response of the
bridge, as it is well known (e.g. Reference [13]) that this is the response most a
ected
by higher modes; additional analyses in the longitudinal direction are also briey presented.
Soilstructure interaction (SSI) was accounted for in previous studies by the writers, through
the use of an appropriate foundation (pile group) sti
ness matrix [25]. Due to the relatively
sti
soil formations underneath the studied bridge, SSI was found [21] to little a
ect the
response (no more than 15%), hence it was considered that the relative evaluation of the three
types of nonlinear analysis is not a
ected by SSI e
ects, which were subsequently ignored
herein.
SPA
A fundamental mode-based (standard) pushover analysis was rst performed, to serve as
the reference (i.e. the least involved procedure) for assessing the inelastic response of the
bridge studied. It is worth noting that unlike the case of buildings, wherein the pushover
curve is generally dened in terms of base shear vs top displacement (in the direction under
consideration), in bridges the shape of the pushover curve depends on the location of the
monitoring point (particularly when piers are of unequal height, as in the bridge studied). The
displacement of the monitoring point is used not only as a parameter of the capacity curve,
but also to establish the seismic demand along the structure at the estimated peak displacement
(Step 5). In the case of Krystallopigi Bridge, the monitoring point was initially selected as the
deck displacement at the location of the middle pier 6 of the bridge (monolithically connected
to the deck), which practically coincided with the centre of mass of the structure (which is
the recommended location in Eurocode 8).
A typical pushover curve calculated by applying the modal load pattern of the rst mode in
the transverse direction of the bridge is shown in Figure 3 (referring to the deck displacement

0.45
0.40

Transverse direction

0.35

Longitudinal direction
Plastic hinge development

V/W

0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.040

0.045

Figure 3. Base shear vs deck displacement at central pier location, and sequence of plastic hinge
formation in both directions of the bridge.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1278

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

at the location of pier 6); a similar curve was also derived for the longitudinal direction.
As discussed in more detail elsewhere [21], the overall performance of the bridge was very
satisfactory, since neither local nor global failure was predicted, even under seismic actions
that far exceed the design level. The sequence of plastic hinge formation (along with the
normalized force (V=W )displacement (=H ) curves), was also derived for both the longitudinal and transverse direction of the bridge. It is noted (Figure 3) that plastic hinge formation is
much closer to being simultaneous in the longitudinal direction in which the bridge behaves
much more like an SDOF system, than in the transverse one, wherein hinging is also a
ected
by higher modes and takes places at distinctly di
erent stages of the response, something
which is also manifested by the much steeper slope of the yielding branch of the bilinear
curve (strain-hardening) in this direction.
In addition to the rst mode loading pattern, wherein the force at each node is proportional
to the modal displacement and the corresponding nodal concentrated mass (and acts in the
direction of the modal displacement), for comparison purposes, the alternative pattern of
uniform loading was also used in SPA; according to this pattern, the force acting at each
node is proportional to the nodal mass in the direction of the control displacement. This
pattern is usually required by codes for pushover analysis of buildings [10], mainly as a
(rough) means of identifying critical combinations of shear and exure (V=M ).
Results indicated that the adoption of a particular loading model for the SPA plays indeed
an important role with respect to the inelastic response of the bridge. In particular, when the
uniform loading pattern was applied, the overall strength of the system appeared to be higher
(i.e. yielding occurred at a higher level of base shear); this trend was found to be clearer
in the transverse direction. The more pronounced e
ect in the transverse direction should be
attributed to the fact that due the shape of the rst transverse mode, the largest displacement
corresponds to the middle pier (P6) location, hence the modal force is higher at that particular
pier compared to the rest, whereas in the uniform pattern, forces at all piers are about the
same (since masses are similar). As a result, for the same displacement demand, higher
forces are developed in the latter case. It is interesting to note that a similar overestimation
of strength is found in pushover analysis of buildings, but in that case the key reason is
the distribution of the lateral loading along the height of the structure (which results in
higher overturning moment at the base in the case of modal loading). The above observation
is an indication that consideration of higher modes in the MPA procedure could possibly
highlight aspects of the inelastic response of the bridge that would be otherwise hidden
in SPA.
In terms of the overall assessment obtained through the reference approach (SPA) presented
herein, it can be also concluded that the available displacement ductility was found to be high
in both principal directions (i.e. 6.1 in the longitudinal and 4.6 in the transverse direction)
due to the signicant available curvature ductility at the critical locations of potential plastic
hinging; these local ductilities resulted from the application of provisions that are related
to the prevention of longitudinal bar buckling and the capacity design against shear of the
middle piers. Moreover, a signicant overstrength of the bridge was found due not only to
the partial safety factors applied during design, but also to the use of a minimum amount
of reinforcement even when the strength demand is less (code minimum requirements), and
to force redistribution after yielding. It has to be noted that the observed overstrength was
higher in the transverse direction, since the longitudinal direction was the critical one for the
design of pier reinforcement.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

1279

MPA
The dynamic characteristics required within the context of the MPA approach, were determined
using standard eigenvalue analysis. Figure 4 illustrates the rst four transverse mode shapes
of the bridge (note that the lowest mode is a longitudinal one, with T = 1:46 s), together
with the corresponding participation factors and mass ratios, as well as the locations (from
Equation (4)) of the equivalent SDOF system for each mode. It is seen that the modal mass
participation factors of higher transverse modes are much lower than that of the fundamental
transverse mode. Moreover, even the lowest antisymmetric mode (with T = 0:73 s), has a
modal mass participation factor equal to less than 0.1% in the transverse direction, and is
therefore ignored in the results presented subsequently; this mode is the one with the highest
participation factor (15%) in torsion (rotation of the deck around a vertical axis passing from
its mass centre). Both of the previous characteristics should be attributed to the curvature in
plan of the bridge, and the restraint of the transverse movement at the abutments. Consideration
of the four modes of Figure 4 assures that more than 90% of the total mass in the transverse
direction is considered.
Applying the modal load pattern of the nth mode in the transverse direction of the bridge,
the corresponding pushover curve, involving the deck displacement at the central pier location,
as well as the position of the corresponding equivalent SDOF system (Equation (4)), was
constructed and then idealized as a bilinear curve. The way the bilinearization of the curve
is made is important, since it a
ects the e
ective period of the bridge in each mode. If the
rst branch of the bilinear curve is drawn based on the part of the actual pushover curve
that corresponds to elastic response of the bridge, the e
ective period remains the same
as that of the pertinent elastic mode; in this case the resulting capacity curve is the same
regardless of the selection of monitoring point. If the bilinearization is carried out using equal
energy absorption or similar concepts, without specically intending to dene the rst branch

Figure 4. Force distribution, sn = m
n , location of the equivalent SDOF systems, and modal parameters
for the main transverse modes of the bridge.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1280

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

35.0
30.0

2
S a (m/s )

25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.00

0.05

0.10

EAK2000
mode3 (b)

0.15

0.20

mode1 (a),(b)
mode4 (a)

0.25
S d (m)

0.30
mode2 (a),(b)
mode4 (b)

0.35

0.40

0.45

mode3 (a)

Figure 5. Capacity curves derived with respect to the deck displacement: (a) at the location of the deck
mass centre; and (b) at the location of the resultant of the modal forces, for the four transverse modes
(the elastic spectrum of the design earthquake is also shown).

on the basis of the linear elastic part of the response, the e
ective period of the corresponding mode will be longer than the elastic one, and the resulting capacity curve will depend
(to a certain extent) on the selection of monitoring point, as will be made clear in the
following.
The bilinearized pushover curves for the four transverse modes were converted to the
capacity curves shown in Figure 5, using the procedure described earlier in Step 4; curves
were drawn both with respect to the mass centre of the deck and the location of the resultant
of the modal forces. It is noted that these curves are not necessarily representative of the
actual response of all structural members of the bridge. For instance, the capacity curve
corresponding to modes 3 and 4 is purely linear, hence conveying the impression that the
bridge does not enter the inelastic range when subjected to the third or fourth mode load
pattern, even for very high accelerations. In reality, it is only the central pier that responds
elastically in those cases, whereas the edge piers do enter the inelastic range; this is clearly
due to the form of the load pattern of these two higher modes (see lower row of Figure 4),
which is obviously not critical for the central pier. It is worth pointing out here that unrealistic
shapes of pushover curves for higher modes have also been noted in the case of buildings;
as discussed in a recent paper by Goel and Chopra [26], even reversal in a higher-mode
pushover curve might occur after formation of a plastic mechanism, if the resultant force
above the bottom of the mechanism is in the direction that moves the roof in a direction
opposite to that prior to formation of the mechanism. It is important, though, that despite the
rather misleading form of the aforementioned curves for some higher modes, correct local
quantities like plastic hinge rotations can be extracted from the pushover analysis results, so
long as the displacement demand is the correct one.
To explore other possibilities that might produce more representative pictures of the overall
behaviour of the bridge, alternative pushover and capacity curves were derived with respect
to the deck displacement at the location of: (a) the most critical pier (in terms of maximum
plastic rotation) for each individual modal load pattern; (b) the maximum deck displacement,
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1281

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

35.0
30.0

Sa (m/s 2)

25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.25

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

S d (m)
EAK2000

mode1 (a),(b)

mode2 (a)

mode3 (a)

mode3 (b)

mode4 (a),(b)

mode2 (b)

Figure 6. Capacity curves derived with respect to the deck displacement: (a) at the location of the
most critical pier for each mode; and (b) at the location of the current maximum displacement.

which generally changes during the analysis procedure. It is clear that to identify the critical
pier in each case (in order to construct the pushover curve with respect to its location), a
preliminary pushover analysis of the structure is required. After carrying out such analyses,
it was decided to draw the capacity curve of the rst transverse mode in terms of the deck
displacement at the central pier location, that of the second mode in terms of the deck
displacement at pier 10 location, that of the third mode in terms of the deck displacement
at pier 3 location, and that of the fourth mode in terms of the deck displacement at pier
2 location (Figure 6). On the other hand, the second option based on the current point of
max displacement could not be implemented with currently available software [23, 24], and an
ad hoc post-processor had to be written, to handle the large volume of results produced by
the 3D pushover analysis of this long and curved bridge.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned increase in computational e
ort, the capacity curves
produced using the alternative procedures are clearly more representative of the actual
behaviour of the bridge, since they indicate (correctly) that at some stage of the response
and for an earthquake intensity that is higher (in most cases much higher) than the design
one, one or more piers of the structure yield. While it is clear that yielding of the structure
will initiate from its response to the fundamental mode (the corresponding capacity curve has
the lowest ordinate), one cannot predict a priori which the second most critical mode will
be; for instance, in the studied bridge, the capacity curves of Figure 6 indicate that yielding
due to higher mode e
ects will initiate due to third mode response (at the outer piers). From
the practical application point of view, two remarks are in order: (a) With regard to the fundamental transverse mode, the pushover analysis can be carried out as suggested by current
codes such as the Eurocode 8-2 [17], i.e. drawing the pushover curve with respect to the displacement at the mass centre of the deck. (b) The capacity curves for higher modes drawn on
the basis of the most critical pier and those drawn on the basis of the current point of
maximum deck displacement are generally very close to each other (Figure 6), and for
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1282

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

mode1
mode 1

0.20

mode2
mode 2
0.15

mode3
mode 3
mode4
mode 4

ur(m)

0.10

MPA
MPA
0.05

0.00

012345678910111

-0.05

(a)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

A2

mode1
mode 1

0.0025

mode2
mode 2
mode3
mode 3

0.0020

mode4
mode 4
MPA
MPA

0.0015

0.0010

0.0005

0.0000

(b)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

Figure 7. Response to the design earthquake (transverse direction): (a) deck displacements at pier
locations; and (b) plastic rotation at the base of the piers.

practical purposes either one can be used (especially considering the other uncertainties involved in the procedure). In this case, the choice will depend on whether the analyst will
prefer to carry out two analyses (the rst one for identifying the most critical pier), or develop
a post-processor for storing the values of base shear and maximum displacement (which,
for transverse response of curved bridges should be the radial, rather than the global Y
displacement) at each step of the analysis.
Another important aspect of the MPA procedure is the estimation of the displacement
demand with the aid of the CSM, according to Step 4 of the methodology presented
earlier. Depending on the reference point selected for drawing the pushover curve for each
mode, Equation (2) will give a di
erent value of urn , whereas the spectral displacement Sd is
independent of the selection of monitoring point if the elastic branch of the pushover curve
corresponds to the elastic period of the pertinent mode of the bridge, as discussed
earlier.
The peak modal responses rno , each determined by a pushover analysis, are then combined
using an appropriate modal combination rule, to obtain an estimate of the peak value, ro , of
the total response. Figures 7(a) , 8(a) and 9(a), illustrate the radial (i.e. perpendicular to the
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1283

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

0.25

mode 1
mode 2

0.20

mode33
mode
mode 4

0.15

MPA

ur (m)

0.10
0.05
0.00
012345678910111

-0.05
-0.10

(a)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

A2

0.0045

mode1
mode 1

0.0040

mode2
mode 2

0.0035

mode33
mode

0.0030

mode44
mode

0.0025

MPA
MPA

0.0020
0.0015
0.0010
0.0005
0.0000

(b)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

Figure 8. Response to 1.5 times the design earthquake (transverse direction): (a) deck displacements at
pier locations; and (b) plastic rotation at the base of the piers.

tangent to the deck axis) displacements of the deck at the location of each pier for the four
signicant modal patterns along the transverse direction, as well as the total displacements
as derived by applying the SRSS combination rule to the quantities corresponding to the
displacement demand calculated for each mode using the CSM. To investigate the e
ect of the
level of inelasticity on the calculated response, di
erent levels of excitation were considered,
i.e. the design earthquake was multiplied by a factor of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0; Figures 7(b), 8(b)
and 9(b), present the respective plastic rotations, developed at the basis of the piers for each
excitation level, and their SRSS combinations (MPA).
From the displacement distributions shown in Figures 7(a), 8(a) and 9(a), it is noted that
the contribution of the rst transverse mode to the overall response is signicant for the case
of the design earthquake, but it is reduced as the excitation level increases, since higher modes
are participating more actively, particularly towards the ends of the bridge. Consequently, the
di
erence between the displacement prole calculated from SPA and that from MPA becomes
more substantial as the induced level of inelasticity increases. For the design earthquake level,
plastic hinges primarily form at the base of the central piers due to the dominant participation
of the rst mode (Figure 7(b)), while additional plastic hinges form at P3, P9 and P10 for the
case of 1.5 times the design earthquake (Figure 8(b)) and P3, P4, P9 and P10 for the case
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1284

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

mod
e 1
mode
1
mod
e 2
mode
2
mod
e 3
mode
3
mod
e 4
mode
4
MPA
MPA

0.30
0.25
0.20

ur (m)

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

-0.05
-0.10
-0.15

(a)

-0.20

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

A2

mode1
mode

1
2
mode 3
mode3
mode4
mode 4
MPA

0.007

mode2
mode
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001

(b)

0.000

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

Figure 9. Response to twice the design earthquake (transverse direction): (a) deck displacements at pier
locations; and (b) plastic rotation at the base of the piers.

of twice the design earthquake (Figure 9(b)). This is a strong indication that the necessity of
implementing the MPA is closely related to the magnitude of earthquake forces, as well as
to the characteristics of the structure itself.
NL-THA
In line with most previous similar studies, it was deemed necessary to compare results of
the standard and modal inelastic pushover approaches with those from NL-THA, the latter
considered to be the most rigorous procedure to compute seismic demand. To this e
ect, a set
of NL-THAs was performed using ve articial records compatible with the EAK2000 elastic
spectrum and generated with the use of the computer code ASING [27]. The Newmark  = 1=2,
 = 1=4 integration method was used, with time step t = 0:002 s and a total of 10 000 steps
(20 s of input). A uniform damping value of 3.5% was assumed for all modes of vibration;
as discussed in Reference [21], this is a value lying between that typically used for reinforced
concrete structures (5%) and that for prestressed concrete structures (2%).
It has to be noted that plastic hinging in the piers had to be modelled slightly di
erently
in the NL-THA and the pushover analysis, due to limitations of the software used [23]. In
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1285

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

particular, nonlinear rotational spring elements were used in the FE models used in NL-THA,
while the built-in beam hinge feature of SAP2000 was implemented in the models set up
for pushover analysis. In both cases, though, the same momentrotation (M ) relationship
was used (i.e. bilinear with 26% hardening, depending on the calculated ultimate moment),
with input parameters dened from bre analysis performed for each particular pier section,
utilising the computer program RCCOLA-90 [28].
Evaluation of di
erent procedures
When assessing the feasibility of MPA, it has to be noted that the procedure is based on two
principal approximations: (a) coupling among modal coordinates associated with the modes
of the corresponding linear system, arising from the yielding of the system, is essentially
neglected, and (b) the estimate of the total response is obtained by combining the peak
modal responses using a statistical combination rule.
In order to investigate the potential implications of each of these approximations, the
bridge was rst analysed elastically, using the SPA, MPA and the THA procedure, assuming
elastic response in all cases. The peak deck displacements (radial direction) at pier locations
calculated from each analysis are shown in Figure 10; note that in this and all subsequent
gures, the displacement demand is estimated independently in static and dynamic (timehistory) inelastic analysis (unlike some previous studies wherein comparisons of displacement
proles are made assuming the same maximum displacement in both cases). It is observed that,
consistently with the mode shapes depicted in Figure 4, the main di
erence between displacements calculated from THA and those from the two static methods is towards the abutments
of the bridge, with di
erences diminishing in the area of the central piers (an area dominated
by the rst mode). MPA which accounts for the other three transverse modes is much closer
to THA at the end areas of the bridge, but some di
erences persist, possibly indicating a bias
in the MPA procedure due to the estimation of the total response by using the modal combination rule (SRSS); as pointed out by Fischinger et al. [13], other rules that dully account for

0.16

SPA

0.14

MPA

0.12

THA

ur (m)

0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

A2

Figure 10. Deck displacements at pier locations calculated from SPA,

MPA and THA, for elastic behaviour.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1286

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

the sign of the response quantities (not only their magnitude) might be more appropriate in
this case.
The displacements determined by the SPA and MPA procedures were compared to those
from NL-THA for increasing levels of earthquake excitation, as shown in Figures 11(a),
12(a) and 13(a). It is noted that the deck displacements shown in the gures as the NLTHA case are the average of the maximum displacements recorded in the structure during the
ve THAs.
From Figure 11(a) it is observed that MPA predicts very well (i.e. matches closely the
values from the NL-THA approach) the maximum transverse displacement of the bridge
(150 mm, compared to the 156 mm predicted by NL-THA). On the other hand, both pushover
analysis procedures underestimate the displacements of piers P3, P4, P8, P9 and P10 compared
to the more rened NL-THA approach. This can be primarily attributed to the fact that during
NL-THA, plastic hinges additional to those predicted from MPA develop at the base of these
piers (Figure 11(c)), leading to relatively larger pier top displacements, and to a lesser extent
to the fact that relatively higher values of plastic rotations were derived through NL-THA at
the locations where plastic hinges develop, as seen in Figure 11(b). In any case, it is noted
that plastic rotation demands for the design earthquake are very modest for all piers (between
0.001 and 0.002 rad), another indication of the sound seismic design of the bridge, and piers
wherein no plastic hinges formed, were found in MPA to be very close to yielding; this will
become clearer for higher earthquake intensities, as discussed in the following.
As the level of excitation increases and higher mode contributions become more signicant
(without substantially altering the shape of the modes), the displacement prole derived by
the MPA method tends to match that obtained by the NL-THA, whereas SPAs predictions
become less accurate as the level of inelasticity increases. Especially, for twice the design
earthquake intensity case presented in Figure 13, consideration of the higher modes with the
proposed MPA scheme, signicantly improves the accuracy of the predicted displacements,
although its predictions are rather poor (but still better than those from SPA) in the areas
close to the piers 5 and 8. Another signicant advantage of the MPA method is that it is
able to capture the plastic hinge development at P2, P3, P4, P9 and P10, something the SPA
failed to do, hence, the overall degree of agreement between MPA and NL-THA is deemed
quite satisfactory. SPAs e
ectiveness is similar to that of the MPA method only in the case
of the design earthquake where both methods capture well the inelastic behaviour of the
central piers.
Although in seismic assessment of structures the emphasis is mainly on displacement and
deformation quantities, the magnitude of forces developed in critical members (like the piers in
bridges) is also of some interest. Figures 11(d), 12(d) and 13(d) show the maximum moments
at the base of the piers, calculated as described in Step 8 of the proposed procedure. It is
clear that SPA strongly underpredicts moments (and corresponding shear forces) in the outer
piers of the bridge, whereas moments predicted from MPA are much closer to those resulting
from THA. Not surprisingly, the di
erences between MPA and NL-THA become smaller
when higher intensities are considered, and all piers yield (Figure 13(d)), hence their bending
moment is controlled by their exural capacity. Since, as discussed previously, SPA failed
to identify hinge formation in all outer piers, it is only natural that corresponding moment
predictions are also very poor, particularly in P1, P2 and P11. It is worth pointing out that in
the strongly curved-in-plan bridge analysed herein, the shape of the rst mode (Figure 4) is
characterized by very small transverse amplitudes towards the edges, which are also due to
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1287

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

0.20

SPA
SPA

0.18

MPA
MPA

0.16

NL-THA
NL-THA

0.14

ur (m)

0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00

(a)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

0.0025

A2

SPA
SPA
MPA
MPA

0.0020

NL-THA
NL-THA
0.0015

0.0010

0.0005

0.0000

(b)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

SPA

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

MPA

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

NL-THA

A1

P1

Mb (kNm)

(c)

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

250000

SPA
MPA

200000

NL-THA

150000

100000

50000

(d)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

Figure 11. Response to the design earthquake calculated from SPA, MPA and NL-THA: (a) deck
displacements at pier locations; (b) plastic rotation at the base of the piers; (c) plastic hinge pattern;
and (d) bending moment at the base of the piers.

Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1288

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

0.25

SPA
SPA
MPA
MPA

0.20

NL-THA
NL-THA

ur (m)

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

(a)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

0.0045

P11

A2

SPA
SPA

0.0040

MPA
MPA

0.0035

NL-THA

0.0030

0.0025
0.0020
0.0015
0.0010
0.0005

(b)

0.0000

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

SPA

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

MPA

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

NL-THA

(c)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

SPA
MPA
NL-THA

300000
250000

Mb (kNm)

200000
150000
100000
50000

(d)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

Figure 12. Response to 1.5 times the design earthquake calculated from SPA, MPA and NL-THA:
(a) deck displacements at pier locations; (b) plastic rotation at the base of the piers; (c) plastic
hinge pattern; and (d) bending moment at the base of the piers.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1289

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

0.30

SPA
SPA
MPA
MPA
NL-THA
NL-THA

0.25

ur (m)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

(a)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

A2

0.007

SPA
SPA

0.006

MPA

0.005

NL-THA

0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000

(b)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

SPA
A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11 A2

MPA
A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

NL-THA

(c)

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

300000

SPA
SPA
MPA
MPA
NL-THA

250000

Mb (kNm)

200000
150000
100000
50000

(d)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

Figure 13. Response to twice the design earthquake calculated from SPA, MPA and NL-THA: (a) deck
displacements at pier location; (b) plastic rotation at the base of the piers; (c) plastic hinge pattern;
and (d) bending moment at the base of the piers.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1290

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

0.25

MPA(CQC)
MPA
(CQC)
MPA(SRSS)
MPA
(SRSS)
NL-THA
NL-THA
SPA
SRSS(fno)
SRSS
(fno)

ur (m)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

A1

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

A2

Figure 14. Response to 1.5 times the design earthquake calculated from SPA, SRSS of modal
loads (fno ), MPA (CQC or SRSS rule) and NL-THA: deck displacements at pier locations.

the articulation scheme adopted by the designers of the bridge (free sliding in the tangential
direction in piers 13 and 911); as a result of the curvature and the articulation scheme,
radial displacements, and hence modal loads, are very small in these areas. In straight bridges
analysed by the writers (not reported herein due to space limitations) predictions by SPA of
plastic rotations and moments in edge piers were generally better, but again results from MPA
were closer to those from THA.
As a further comparison, pushover analysis using an alternative pattern of loading was
also conducted; according to this pattern, which is denoted as SRSS(fno ) and is one of the
recommended procedures in FEMA 356 [10], the force acting at each node is computed by
combining the modal loads from an appropriate number of modes (the rst four transverse
modes here), using the SRSS rule. From Figure 14, it is seen that when the SRSS(fno ) is
applied, only a minor improvement of the results obtained through SPA is achieved. It is
also noticeable that in this case, the results lie in-between those derived from the MPA and
SPA procedures, generally being closer to the latter. Also shown in the same gure is another
comparison performed for the cases that the MPA method is applied, assuming the standard
(SRSS) or complete quadratic (CQC) combination rules. It is observed that the application of
the CQC rule instead of the commonly used SRSS one, hardly a
ects the calculated response.
A nal remark regarding the feasibility of matching the results of the two methods (pushover
and time-history) is that in NL-THA all structural modes (transverse, longitudinal, and
vertical) are automatically included for the evaluation of the nonlinear response, whereas
only four transverse modes were used in the MPA method, and just a single mode in the
standard pushover analysis. This observation should be especially relevant in the case of
curved bridges, like the one considered here, wherein transverse displacements are also
a
ected by longitudinal response.
CONCLUSIONS
An existing methodology for MPA was extended here to the case of bridges, and its feasibility
and accuracy were evaluated by applying it to an actual long and curved-in-plan bridge,
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

1291

designed to modern seismic practice. The key issue in this extension was the proper denition of the monitoring point for estimating the earthquake displacement demand in pushover
analysis, while additional issues addressed included the way the pushover curve is bilinearized
before being transformed into a capacity curve, the use of the capacity spectrum for dening
the earthquake demand for each mode, and the number of modes that should be considered
in the case of bridges.
By applying inelastic SPA and MPA, as well NL-THA, to the aforementioned bridge, which
is strongly curved and with complex articulation, but properly designed according to modern
codes, it was concluded that:
All three methods yielded similar values of maximum inelastic deck displacement, how-

ever the variation of displacement along the bridge was rather di
erent. The SPA method
predicted well the displacements only in the central, rst mode dominated, area of the
bridge. On the contrary, MPA provided a signicantly improved estimate with respect to
the maximum displacement pattern, reasonably matching the results of the more rened
NL-THA analysis, even for increasing levels of earthquake loading that trigger increased
contribution of higher modes.
The MPA also provided a good estimate of the plastic hinge distribution (similar or
even identical to that indicated by the NL-THA) for earthquake intensities exceeding
the design one. SPA failed to identify plastic hinging in the outer piers of the bridge
(even for twice the design earthquake intensity), and it strongly underpredicted bending
moments in these piers.
Previous studies have indicated that SPA generally works reasonably well when applied
to bridges of regular conguration (as opposed to irregular ones, mainly those a
ected
by torsion). The present study revealed that a single mode-based load pattern should not
be used in bridges with strong curvature in plan, even when they qualify as regular
(i.e. dominated by symmetric modes), especially when combined with articulation
schemes that lead to very low modal amplitudes (and hence to very low modal loads)
towards the edges of the bridge.
Carrying out pushover analysis based on a load pattern resulting from statistical combination of modal loads, improves slightly the results; however, they generally remain
closer to those of SPA than MPA (which, in turn is closer to NL-THA results). It is
interesting to note that such observations were also made in previous studies involving
pushover analysis of bridges.
On the basis of the results obtained for the studied bridge, MPA seems to be a promising
approach that yields more accurate results compared to the standard pushover, without requiring the higher modelling e
ort and computational cost, as well as the other
complications involved in NL-THA (like the selection and scaling of natural records, or
the generation of synthetic ones), or of other proposals (which have, of course, their
own merits) involving multiple eigenvalue analyses of the structure to dene improved
loading patterns in the inelastic range.
More work is clearly required, to further investigate the e
ectiveness of MPA by applying it to bridge structures with di
erent conguration, degree of irregularity, and dynamic
characteristics (in terms of higher mode signicance, in particular bridges with important anti-symmetric modes), since MPA is expected to be even more valuable for the
assessment of the actual inelastic response of bridges with signicant higher modes.

Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

1292

T. S. PARASKEVA, A. J. KAPPOS AND A. G. SEXTOS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been performed within the framework of the research project ASProGe: Seismic
Protection of Bridges, funded by the General Secretariat of Research and Technology (GGET)
of Greece.
REFERENCES
1. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and Cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation.
Engineering Structures 1998; 20(46):452464.
2. Isakovic T, Fischinger M, Kante P. Bridges: when is single mode seismic analysis adequate? Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil EngineersStructures and Buildings 2003; 156(2):165173.
3. Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF. Multimode pushover procedure (MMP)a method to identify the e
ects
of higher modes in a pushover analysis. Proceedings of the 6th US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Seattle, 1998; Paper No. 271.
4. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrot evaluation for reinforced concrete
structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997; 123(1):310.
5. Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures.
Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(2):367392.
6. Antoniou S, Rovithakis A, Pinho R. Development and verication of a fully adaptive pushover procedure.
Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, U.K., 2002;
Paper No. 822.
7. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):561582.
8. Goel R, Chopra AK. Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces. Earthquake Spectra
2004; 21(1):125139.
9. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan
buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(8):903927.
10. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings, FEMA 356. Washington, DC, November 2000 (FEMA 356).
11. Aydinoglu MN. An improved pushover procedure for engineering practice: incremental response spectrum
analysis (IRSA). International Workshop on PBSD, Bled, Slovenia, 2004 (published in PEER Report 2004-5
(UC Berkeley)).
12. Kappos A, Paraskeva T, Sextos A. Seismic assessment of a major bridge using modal pushover analysis and
dynamic time-history analysis. Advances in Computational and Experimental Engineering and Science 2004;
673680.
13. Fischinger M, Beg D, Isakovic T, Tomazevic M, Zarnic R. Performance based assessmentfrom general
methodologies to specic implementations. International Workshop on PBSD, Bled, Slovenia 2004; 293308
(published in PEER Report 2004-05 (UC Berkeley)).
14. Isakovic T, Fischinger M. Higher modes in simplied inelastic seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(1):95114.
15. Pinho R, Antoniou S, Casarotti C, Lopez M. A displacement-based adaptive pushover for assessment of
buildings and bridges. NATO International Workshop on Advances in Earthquake Engineering for Urban
Risk Reduction, Istanbul, Turkey, 2005.
16. Applied Technology Council (ATC). Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings. ATC-40: Redwood
City, CA, 1996.
17. CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation). Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistancePart 2:
Bridges. EN 1998-2: 2004, Brussels, May, 2004.
18. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (2nd edn). PrenticeHall: Englewood Cli
s, NJ, 2001.
19. Kappos AJ, Petranis C. Reliability of pushover analysis-based methods for seismic assessment of R=C buildings.
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures III 2001; 407416.
20. Miranda E, Bertero V. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake resistant design. Earthquake
Spectra 1994; 10(2):357379.
21. Mergos P, Sextos A, Kappos A. Seismic assessment of a major bridge using pushover analysis. International
Conference on Computational and Experimental Engineering and Sciences, Corfu, Greece, 2003 (CD-ROM
Vol., Paper No. 333).
22. Ministry of Public Works of Greece. Greek Seismic CodeEAK 2000, Athens, 2000 (amended June 2003)
(in Greek).
23. Computers and Structures Inc. SAP2000: Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis and
Design of Structures. Computers and Structures Inc.: Berkeley, CA, 1999.
Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

1293

24. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS ver. 8.1 Users Manual. ANSYS Inc.: Houston, TX, 2002.
25. Kappos A, Sextos A. E
ect of foundation type and compliance on the lateral load response of R=C bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering (ASCE) 2001; 6:120130.
26. Goel R, Chopra AK. Role of higher-mode pushover analyses in seismic analysis of buildings. Earthquake
Spectra 2005: 21(4):10271041.
27. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, Kappos A. Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of
ground motion, site e
ects and soilstructure interaction phenomena. Part 1: Methodology and analytical tools.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2003: 32(4):607627.
28. Kappos AJ. RCCOLA-90: A Microcomputer Program for the Analysis of the Inelastic Response of Reinforced
Concrete Sections. Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, 1993.

Copyright ? 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:12691293