Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Bridge Engineering 156
June 2003 Issue BE2
Pages 91^97
Paper 13042
Received 04/09/2002
Accepted 11/06/2003
Keywords:
Aly S. Nazmy
bridges/mathematical modelling/
Associate Professor, Department
seismic engineering
of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, UAE University,
United Arab Emirates
Seismic response analysis of long-span steel arch bridges
A. S. Nazmy
The non-linear seismic behaviour of tied, half-tied, and
deck-type long-span steel arch bridges is investigated
using two- and three-dimensional analytical models. A
non-linear time-history analysis, which includes all poss-
ible sources of geometric non-linearity, was performed
on all models studied. The seismic response of the two-
dimensional and three-dimensional models of each bridge
type was compared, and the effect of the vertical compo-
nent of ground excitation was evaluated. Furthermore,
the response to synchronous and non-synchronous ground
excitation was computed and compared for each bridge
type. The study emphasises the importance of performing
three-dimensional analysis for all arch bridge types in
capturing the effect of coupling among vertical, lateral,
and torsional motions. It concludes that the vertical
component of ground motion has limited effect on the
bridge response, especially for the half-tied and deck-type
steel arch bridges, and that non-synchronous ground exci-
tation could increase the member forces considerably,
except for tied arch bridges.
1. INTRODUCTION
The most popular bridge types used nowadays in new
construction to cover long spans, without having to use
intermediate supports, are suspension and cable-stayed bridges.
However, arch bridges are still being built today where site
conditions and alignment of approach spans render the arch
choice more economical than the other two types. Contempor-
ary steel arch bridges are built with arch ribs, as opposed to
arch trusses, and span up to 600 m. Three forms, or types, of
steel arch bridge are in use today
(a) the deck-type arch bridge, where the deck level is above the
arch crown
(b) the tied arch bridge (with bowstring girder), typically used
when soil conditions at the bridge site cannot support the
horizontal forces from the arch at its ends
(c) the half-tied arch bridge, where the deck level lies between
the arch base and the arch crown.
The behaviour of long-span steel arch bridges under seismic
loads is quite different from that of suspension and cable-
stayed bridges, which are mainly tension structures whose
stiffness increases by increasing the loads. Arches, by contrast,
are primarily compression structures, and the large axial
compression developed in the arch ribs of a long-span arch
Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
bridge under the effect of its dead load reduces the arch
stiffness in supporting any subsequent gravitational loads.
However, under the effect of seismic excitation, the arch ribs
could develop forces fluctuating between tension and com-
pression, and the variation in arch stiffness becomes very
complicated. Therefore the seismic behaviour of steel arch
bridges needs careful investigation, and a realistic analysis
procedure needs to be followed for accurately predicting the
response of these special structures to earthquakes.
Although several studies have been reported on the seismic
response and/or seismic retrofit of reinforced concrete and
stone arch bridges,1–4 few have been conducted to evaluate the
seismic response of steel arch bridges. Wen5 studied the non-
linear elastic seismic response of steel deck-type arch bridges,
and Nonaka and Ali6 used the fibre model technique to
investigate the seismic response of a real half-tied steel arch
bridge. Nakagawa et al.7 focused their non-linear time history
analysis of arch bridges on determination of the plastic regions
generated in the bridge during strong earthquakes. However, all
three studies were applied to simple two-dimensional (2D)
models, which could not capture the three-dimensionality and
modal coupling in the arch behaviour. Few investigators have
considered the three-dimensional (3D) behaviour of steel arch
bridges during earthquakes: they have either utilised a linear
time-history analysis technique8,9 or applied a uniform seismic
excitation10 as opposed to multiple-support excitation. Wen11
developed design aids for estimating seismic effects on deck-
type arch bridges using 2D models and linear seismic-response
analysis that follows a non-linear dead-load analysis of the
model. Nazmy12 demonstrated the need to perform both non-
linear dead-load analysis and non-linear seismic-response
analysis for long-span steel arch bridges of all forms in order to
obtain realistic results. He also showed, by examining the
natural modes of free vibration of 3D models of arch bridges,
that a 2D model is not adequate owing to the strong coupling
between the in-plane and out-of-plane motions of the arch ribs
and the deck.
In this study, all three types of long-span steel arch bridge—the
deck-type, tied and half-tied arch bridge—are investigated. The
difference between the seismic behaviour of the 2D and 3D
models of each bridge type is quantified by comparing the non-
linear response of both models to seismic loads, and the need
for 3D analysis is further emphasised. Also, the effect of the
vertical component of ground excitation is evaluated by
Nazmy 91
 computing the seismic response of each of the 3D models, with
and without the vertical component of ground motion, and
then comparing the results. Finally, the effect of non-
synchronous ground excitation on the seismic response is
evaluated and quantified for all three types of arch bridge.
Three sources of geometric non-linearity are considered in the
analysis
(a) change of the overall bridge geometry due to large
displacements
(b) axial force and bending moment interaction in the arch
ribs
(c) coupled out-of-plane deformation, which involves twisting
and out-of-plane bending of both the arch ribs and the
deck.
2. COMPUTER MODELS AND NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS
PROCEDURE
Two- and three-dimensional finite-element computer models of
the three basic types of steel arch bridge were developed based
on information gathered from the New York and New Jersey
Departments of Transportation for real bridges in the USA. It
should be emphasised, however, that the models considered in
the present study are not intended to depict any existing steel
arch bridge, but rather to use realistic values for the dimensions
and sectional properties of the models used. For all models the
bridge girder and the two-hinged parabolic arch ribs are made
of steel, with high-strength wires used for the suspension cables
in the tied and half-tied arch bridges. Fig. 1 shows the 3D deck-
type arch bridge model used in this study, along with its 2D
counterpart, and Figs 2 and 3 show the same for the half-tied
and tied (with bowstring girder) arch bridges respectively. Each
model is taken to be symmetric, except for the support
conditions at the girder ends, where hinged supports are
assumed at the left end whereas roller supports are assumed at
the right end. All models have eight equal-length panels, with a
total girder length and arch span of 440 m each. In the 3D
models lateral bracing is provided at the deck level as well as
between the arch ribs. In both the half-tied and the tied arches,
the deck girders are rigidly connected to the arch ribs at their
intersections, and the arch rib bracing ceases at a pair of portal
frames as it approaches the deck level to provide the clearance
required for highway traffic. In the deck-type arch bridge
model, diagonal bracing at the arch crown is provided to help
transfer the longitudinal force between the deck and the arch
ribs, as seen in Fig. 1, whereas lateral bracing between the deck

M3
J2
J4 M3 J2 J4
7. 5 m
M1 M1 J1
J1 M2 75 m
y M2 y J3
J3 x
x
z
8 @ 55 m = 440 m

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. The deck-type arch bridge: (a) 3D model; (b) 2D model

M1 J1 M1 J1 M2
M2
J3 J3
75 m
M3 M3 J2 J4
y J2 y
x J4 x
z 8 @ 55 m = 440 m

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. The half-tied arch bridge: (a) 3D model; (b) 2D model

M1 J1 M1 J1 M2
M2 J3
J3 75 m

M3 M3 y J2 J4
y J2 x
x J4 8 @ 55 m = 440 m
z

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. The tied arch bridge: (a) 3D model; (b) 2D model

92 Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges Nazmy

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 and the arch ribs, also at the crown, provides a lateral force
transfer mechanism. The roadway width and the distance
between the arch ribs, in the 3D models, are kept constant in all
three bridge types to a value of 20 m to accommodate four
lanes of traffic in addition to sidewalks and shoulders. Frame
elements are used to model the bridge girders and arch ribs,
and truss elements are used to model all bracing members and
the vertical members connecting the arch ribs to the deck
girders. Figs 1–3 also show some selected joints and members
in each model where the seismic response is computed and
compared for different cases, as will be seen later.
As mentioned earlier, Nazmy12 has demonstrated the need to
perform both non-linear dead-load analysis and non-linear
seismic-response analysis for long-span arch bridges of all
forms in order to obtain realistic results. Therefore the present
study used only the non-linear seismic-response analysis
procedure, which follows a non-linear dead-load analysis of the
bridge.
The non-linear computer analysis used in the present investi-
gation to simulate the seismic response time-history of all arch
bridge models was based on the well-known Wilson-y
method.13 A cost-effective computational procedure was also
utilised to reduce the size of the matrices by transforming the
analysis from the real displacement coordinate space into the
modal coordinate space using the normal mode shapes of the
bridge as a set of orthogonal bases. Furthermore, in the
iterative procedure the modified Newton–Raphson technique
was used to achieve equilibrium efficiently at the end of each
time step. The formulation and computer programs developed
by Nazmy and Abdel-Ghaffar14 for the non-linear seismic
analysis of cable-stayed bridges were modified to accommodate
the special features of arch bridges, and were then used in the
present study.
3. GROUND MOTION USED IN THE COMPUTER
SIMULATION
Arch bridges are generally constructed at mountainous sites,
where seismic waves typically travel with high speeds. There-
fore it is reasonable to assume uniform ground motion when
designing the seismic input for arch bridges, and indeed most
of the cases investigated in the present study are based on this
assumption of uniform excitation. However, some bridges could
occasionally be constructed on non-rock soils, where spatial
variability of ground motion could occur. Therefore one case of
non-synchronous (or multiple-support) ground excitation was
investigated in this study, for each bridge type, using existing
strong motion records from the 1979 El Centro earthquake in
California. These records were chosen because their accelera-
tions are rich in high-frequency components, and because they
provide clear input ground motion owing to the large
magnitude of the earthquake (magnitude 6·6 on the Richter
scale). For the 3D models three orthogonal components of
earthquake input motion were applied simultaneously at the
bridge supports, whereas for the 2D models only the long-
itudinal and vertical components were applied. The components
of seismic records from two adjacent recording stations during
the 1979 El Centro earthquake were used for the multiple-
support excitation case. For the case of synchronous (or
uniform) excitation, components of the stronger set of records
were chosen for input at both ends of the bridge.
4. COMPARISON BETWEEN RESPONSES OF 2D AND
3D MODELS
Table 1 lists in column 3 the absolute maximum values of some
selected displacements and member forces in the 3D deck-type
arch bridge computer model when subjected to uniform ground
excitation. The three orthogonal components (longitudinal,
vertical and lateral, or x, y and z respectively) of the ground
motion input were applied at each end of the bridge simul-
taneously. The selected response displacements are the vertical
and lateral displacements at joints J1 and J3 (the arch crown
and its quarter point respectively) in addition to the lateral
displacement at joint J4 (the girder quarter point), as shown in
Fig. 1. The selected member forces are the axial force and the z-
bending moment in member M1 at joint J1 (the arch crown)
and in member M2 at joint J3 (the arch quarter point), in
addition to the z-bending moment in member M3 at joint J2
(the girder mid-span). These responses were carefully selected
to represent the critical locations on the bridge. Note that the
listed values did not occur at the same time; they are the

Response quantity{ 2D model 3D model

(1)
Uniform excitation Uniform excitation Uniform excitation Non-uniform excitation
(x and y input) (x, y and z input) (no vertical input) (x, y and z input)
(2) (3) (4) (5)

J1, y-displacement 4˝7 23˝7 23˝3 30˝9

J3, y-displacement 12˝3 21˝1 21˝4 41˝0
J1, z-displacement ^ 139˝0 139˝2 126˝5
J3, z-displacement ^ 88˝8 88˝9 80˝7
J4, z-displacement ^ 143˝6 143˝7 132˝8
M1 at J1, axial force 11˝0 20˝6 18˝6 36˝3
M2 at J3, axial force 10˝7 11˝3 10˝2 27˝4
M1 at J1, z-bending 4˝1 12˝9 13˝2 29˝8
M2 at J3, z-bending 8˝5 23˝4 23˝0 60˝5
M3 at J2, z-bending 1˝4 4˝2 4˝3 10˝5

* Displacements are in cm, axial forces in MN, and bending moments in MN-m.
{ Displacements are vibrational, whereas member forces are total (vibrational plus quasi-static).

Table 1. Non-linear seismic response of deck-type arch bridge models*

Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges Nazmy 93

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 absolute maximum values obtained from the time history of
each response parameter. Furthermore, the response displace-
ments are the dynamic (or vibrational) values, whereas member
forces are the total (vibrational plus quasi-static) values.
However, for this uniform excitation case the vibrational and
the total member forces are identical, as the quasi-static
response is just a rigid body motion that does not induce any
member forces. Column 2 in Table 1 lists the corresponding
values for the 2D deck-type arch bridge model under the effect
of uniform ground excitation.
By examining the response values in these two columns, it is
clear that the vertical seismic response of the 3D model is much
greater than the corresponding response of the 2D model,
especially at joint J1 (the arch crown) and joint J2 (the girder
mid-span). For example, the y-displacement at joint J1 for the
3D model is almost five times its value in the 2D model, and
the axial force at joint J1 of member M1 has almost doubled in
the 3D model, whereas the z-bending moment at the same joint
on the arch rib has more than tripled. Furthermore, the z-
bending moment at joint J2 of member M3 (the girder mid-
span) has tripled in the 3D model. This may be explained by the
strong coupling between lateral and torsional motions in both
the arch ribs and the bridge girders within several modes of
vibration of this bridge type, as seen in Figs 4(a) and (b). In the
3D model the lateral ground motion excites the lateral modes,
which are coupled with torsional motion in the arch ribs and
bridge girders. This causes additional vertical displacement

Elevation Elevation

Plan view Plan view

(a) (b)

Elevation Elevation

Plan view Plan view

(c) (d)

Elevation Elevation

Plan view Plan view

(e) (f)

Fig. 4. Some coupled lateral/ torsional modes of free vibration of the computer models: (a) mode 1, 3D deck-type arch bridge;
(b) mode 7, 3D deck-type arch bridge; (c) mode 1, 3D half-tied arch bridge; (d) mode 7, 3D half-tied arch bridge; (e) mode 5,
3D tied arch bridge; (f) mode 8, 3D tied arch bridge

94 Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges Nazmy

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 (out-of-phase vertical movement) of the two arch ribs, as well
as the two bridge girders, beyond what is typically caused by
the vertical ground excitation alone. This additional vertical
movement is higher at the arch crown and girder mid-span as
compared with the quarter points, as shown in Fig. 4. This
results in a considerable increase in the vertical displacement
and the z-bending moment at the arch crown and the girder
mid-span, as mentioned above, with less effect at the quarter
points (such as joint J3). Note also that the response of the 2D
model does not include the effect of the lateral, or the z-,
component of ground excitation. However, owing to the strong
non-linear behaviour of arch bridges under seismic loads, it is
not possible to compute the in-plane and out-of-plane
responses separately and then combine them. This indicates the
need for a true 3D non-linear analysis of these bridges.
Table 2 shows a similar comparison between the seismic
response of the 2D and 3D models of the half-tied arch bridge
type under the effect of uniform ground excitation, as depicted
in columns 2 and 3 of the table. For this bridge type also, it can
be seen that all listed response parameters have much larger
values in the 3D model than in the 2D model. This may be
explained by the same mechanism mentioned above for the
deck-type arch bridge, where the coupling between lateral and
torsional motions within several modes of free vibration, as
seen in Fig. 4, has contributed greatly to these results.
The comparison shown in Table 3 (columns 2 and 3) between
the response of 2D and 3D tied arch bridge models to uniform
excitation further emphasises the general trend in arch bridge
behaviour under seismic loads. Once again, all response
quantities have increased when 3D modelling was used, and the
very strong coupling between the lateral and torsional motions
within several modes of free vibration, as observed in Fig. 4,
explains this increase.
It is obvious, as demonstrated above, that any 2D seismic-
response analysis of an arch bridge cannot give reliable
response values as it does not capture the out-of-plane motion,
which is coupled with very strong torsional motion in the arch
ribs and bridge girders. The above-described quantitative
Response quantity{ 2D model
(1)
Uniform excitation Uniform excitation
(x and y input) (x, y and z input)
(2) (3)
J1, y-displacement 6˝0 27˝8
J3, y-displacement 11˝3 21˝4
J1, z-displacement ^ 167˝3
J3, z-displacement ^ 131˝5
J4, z-displacement ^ 111˝5
M1 at J1, axial force 9˝9 20˝0
M2 at J3, axial force 10˝8 19˝4
M1 at J1, z-bending 24˝6 31˝6
M2 at J3, z-bending 24˝9 28˝2
M3 at J2, z-bending 9˝0 11˝0
* Displacements are in cm, axial forces in MN, and bending moments in MN-m.
{ Displacements are vibrational, whereas member forces are total (vibrational plus quasi-static).
Table 2. Non-linear seismic response of half-tied arch bridge models*
Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
comparison between the 2D and 3D model responses justifies
the need for a true 3D non-linear analysis of all arch bridge
types.
5. EFFECT OF VERTICAL GROUND MOTION
Although the effect of the vertical component of ground
motion has always been neglected in the seismic analysis of
short- and medium-span bridges, this trend started to change
after observations from the 17 January 1994 Northridge
earthquake in California, in which the importance of that effect
was highlighted. However, in the seismic analysis of long-span
cable-supported bridges this effect is usually considerable,
owing to the large distance between the supporting towers and
the flexible nature of the bridge deck, being supported by
cables. On the other hand, there has been no complete study
until now on how the vertical component of ground motion
may affect the seismic response of long-span steel arch bridges.
Therefore, in this part of the investigation, a comparison was
made for the response displacements and member forces
described earlier, between their values when the bridge was
excited with all three orthogonal components of the ground
motion, and their values when the bridge was excited without
the vertical component. The seismic input was still representing
uniform ground motion, and all three arch bridge types were
evaluated using the 3D models
By examining the response values in columns 3 and 4 of
Table 1, one may notice that, for the deck-type arch bridge
model, the effect of including the vertical component of ground
motion is very small, and reaches at most 10% for a couple of
response parameters (the axial forces in the arch ribs). A similar
observation can be made for the half-tied arch bridge model by
comparing the values in columns 3 and 4 in Table 2, with the
exception of the z-bending moment at the arch crown, where
the vertical input increased the response by almost 25%.
However, the effect is more pronounced in tied arch bridges, as
can be seen in columns 3 and 4 of Table 3, where the increase
in seismic response caused by the vertical input could be as
large as 50% (the z-bending moment at the arch quarter point).
These results indicate that the effect of the vertical component
of ground motion is small and can be neglected in the
3D model
Uniform excitation Non-uniform excitation
(no vertical input) (x, y and z input)
(4) (5)
27˝5 24˝8
22˝7 42˝8
168˝0 156˝4
131˝8 125˝4
111˝5 105˝7
19˝2 30˝6
18˝5 29˝4
24˝8 57˝1
30˝8 85˝3
8˝6 20˝2
Nazmy 95
 Response quantity{ 2D model 3D model
(1)
Uniform excitation Uniform excitation Uniform excitation Non-uniform excitation
(x and y input) (x, y and z input) (no vertical input) (x, y and z input)
(2) (3) (4) (5)

J1, y-displacement 5˝5 30˝1 30˝8 28˝8

J3, y-displacement 19˝1 35˝3 29˝7 32˝4
J1, z-displacement ^ 233˝7 233˝8 214˝8
J3, z-displacement ^ 198˝5 199˝2 175˝7
J4, z-displacement ^ 141˝6 142˝2 116˝1
M1 at J1, axial force 10˝9 17˝4 18˝4 17˝8
M2 at J3, axial force 10˝3 29˝1 31˝3 26˝6
M1 at J1, z-bending 23˝5 39˝3 30˝3 18˝9
M2 at J3, z-bending 21˝1 27˝4 18˝1 25˝4
M3 at J2, z-bending 8˝5 13˝5 10˝3 6˝3

* Displacements are in cm, axial forces in MN, and bending moments in MN-m.
{ Displacements are vibrational, whereas member forces are total (vibrational plus quasi-static).

Table 3. Non-linear seismic response of tied arch bridge models*

preliminary analysis and design of both deck-type and half-tied 7. CONCLUSIONS

arch bridges, but should be considered, even in the preliminary
design, for tied arch bridges.
6. EFFECT OF NON-SYNCHRONOUS GROUND
EXCITATION
In this part of the study a comparison is made, for all three
types of arch bridge, between the response of the 3D model to
uniform and multiple-support excitations using non-linear
seismic analysis. For the response displacements the compar-
ison is made between the vibrational values, whereas for the
member forces the comparison is made between the total
(vibrational + quasi-static) values. Notice that the quasi-static
member forces are zero for the uniform input case, but non-
zero for the non-uniform input case.
Columns 3 and 5 in Table 1 list the absolute maximum values
of the selected response parameters for the cases of uniform
and non-uniform support excitations for the deck-type arch
bridge model, whereas the same columns in Table 2 list the
values for the half-tied arch bridge model. A comparison
between the two cases clearly indicates the very strong effect of
the multiple-support excitation on increasing the response
parameters, especially the member forces, which more or less
doubled in several locations. This observation is true for both
deck-type and half-tied arch bridges. This large increase in
member forces may be explained by the fact that multiple-
support excitation generates non-zero quasi-static forces, in
addition to exciting more modes of vibration due to the out-of-
phase motion at the supports, which increases also the
vibrational forces. However, by examining the response values
in columns 3 and 5 of Table 3, we see that the non-uniform
ground excitation in fact reduced almost all seismic response
parameters in the tied arch bridge model. Note that a major
difference between this bridge type and the previous two is that
the arch support at the right end of the tied arch is a roller,
meaning that no longitudinal ground motion at that end is felt
by the bridge, regardless of whether the input is uniform or
non-uniform. In fact this difference largely contributed to the
difference in seismic behaviour between this bridge type and
the other two arch bridge types.
(a ) The seismic response of all types of steel arch bridge
generally increased considerably when 3D models were
used, compared with the response when 2D models were
used. The increase is due primarily to the strong coupling
observed between the lateral and torsional motions in both
the arch ribs and the bridge girders. This justifies the need
to perform 3D seismic-response analysis on arch bridges to
get realistic results.
(b) Long-span steel arch bridges are highly non-linear struc-
tures under both dead loads and seismic loads, and the
concept of applying each of the ground motion compo-
nents separately and then combining their effect should
not be used. All three orthogonal components of ground
motion should be applied simultaneously at all supporting
points of the bridge, and non-linear seismic-response
analysis should be performed.
( c ) The effect of the vertical component of ground motion on
the seismic response of long-span steel arch bridges is
generally small, and can be neglected in the preliminary
analysis and design of both deck-type and half-tied arch
bridges. However, for tied (with bowstring girder) arch
bridges, this effect is considerable and should be consid-
ered even in the preliminary design.
(d) For arch bridges built in areas where spatial variability of
ground motion is expected over the bridge span length,
multiple-support excitation must be used in the analysis
instead of uniform excitation. The non-uniform excitation
considerably increases the seismic response of the deck-
type and half-tied arch bridges, especially their member
forces, but it reduces the response of the tied arch bridge
type.
REFERENCES
1. HORINOUCHI S., SAKATA T. and UNO K. Analysis of fixed
reinforced concrete (RC) arch bridge with small section
members under earthquakes. Proceedings of the 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, 1996,
Paper No. 1305 (CD-ROM).
2. MIZUTORI K., OTSUKA H. and HAMAZAKI D. Elasto-plastic
earthquake response of a half-through type reinforced

96 Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges Nazmy

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 concrete arch bridge with elasto-plastic shear springs (in
Japanese). Proceedings of the 10th Earthquake Engineering
Symposium, Tokyo, 1998, 2, 2341–2346.
3. VALLUVAN R. et al. Innovative retrofit techniques for
seismic retrofit of concrete arch bridges of earlier
vintage. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 2000, Paper No. 2562
(CD-ROM).
4. MA M. Y., PAN A. D., LUAN M. and GEBARA J. M. Seismic
analysis of stone arch bridges using discontinuous defor-
mation analysis. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, 1996, Paper No.
1551 (CD-ROM).
5. WEN R. K. Seismic behavior and design of arch bridges.
Proceedings of the 4th US National Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, El Cerrito, 1990, 1, 1027–1036.
6. NONAKA T. and ALI A. Dynamic response of half-through
steel arch bridge using fiber model. Journal of Bridge
Engineering, ASCE, 2001, 6, No. 6, 482–488.
7. NAKAGAWA K. et al. Seismic design of arch bridges during
strong earthquake. Proceedings of the 12th World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 2000, Paper
No. 1926 (CD-ROM).
8. DUSSEAU R. A. and WEN R. K. Seismic responses of deck-
type arch bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 1989, 18, 701–715.
9. TORKAMANI M. and LEE H. Dynamic behavior of steel deck
tension-tied arch bridges to seismic excitation. Journal of
Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 2002, 7, No. 1, 57–67.
10. LEE C.-M. Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Steel Arch Bridges.
PhD dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, 1990.
11. WEN R. K. Seismic response of and design aids for arch
bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1993, 119, No.
11, 2969–2985.
12. NAZMY A. S. Earthquake-response characteristics of long-
span arch bridges. Proceedings of the 11th World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, 1996, Paper
No. 1309 (on CD-ROM).
13. CHOPRA A. K. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applica-
tions to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
1995, pp. 579–581.
14. NAZMY A. S. and ABDEL-GHAFFAR A. M. Non-linear earth-
quake-response analysis of long-span cable-stayed
bridges: theory. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 1990, 19, 45–62.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 December 2003: email: daniela.wong@ice.org.uk;
fax: +44 (0)20 7799 1325; or post to Daniela Wong, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1^7 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.

Bridge Engineering 156 Issue BE2 Seismic response of arch bridges Nazmy 97

Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF EXETER] on [23/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.