Two-dimensional in-plane seismic response of long-span bridges under oblique P-wave incidence

  • Duguo Wang
  • Peixin ShiEmail author
  • Chenggang Zhao
Original Research


This paper presents a model for analyzing the seismic response of long-span bridges under oblique P-wave incidence. The model considers local topographical effects, soil nonlinearity and soil–structure interaction. Development of the model involves in application of the equivalent linear method to derive two-dimensional nonlinear free field site response, application of the equivalent load method for seismic wave input through viscous-spring artificial boundaries, and formulation of the dynamic response equation for the soil–bridge system. The two-dimensional nonlinear free field site response under oblique wave incidence is verified using a numerical example. The verification shows that the model is reliable and with high accuracy. The model is implemented into commercial software ANSYS for seismic analysis of a long-span bridge. The effects of angle of incidence, soil stiffness, local topography, and soil nonlinearity are explored by performing parametric studies. The parametric studies show that these factors may have significant impacts on structure response during earthquakes and shall be considered during seismic design of long-span bridges.


Site response Soil–structure interaction Bridge Oblique incidence Topography Artificial boundary 



This research was funded by the Science for Earthquake Resilience of China Earthquake Administration (CEA: No. XH18060), the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC: Nos. 51778386, 51478135), Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Project (Grant No. Z181100003918005) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC1500400). The financial support mentioned above is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Abrahamson NA (1989) Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(3):549–580Google Scholar
  2. Achenbach J (1973) Wave propagation in elastic solids. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford RM, Kelly KR, Boore DM (1974) Accuracy of finite difference modeling of the acoustic wave equation. Geophysics 39(6):834–842Google Scholar
  4. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(4):371–400Google Scholar
  5. ANSYS. Inc. (2011) Version ANSYS 14.0 documentation, Canonsburg, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashford SA, Sitar N, Lysmer J, Deng N (1997) Topographic effects on the seismic response of steep slopes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(3):701–709Google Scholar
  7. Assimaki D, Gazetas G (2004) Soil and topographic amplification on canyon banks and the 1999 Athens earthquake. J Earthq Eng 8(01):1–43Google Scholar
  8. Assimaki D, Jeong S (2013) Ground-motion observations at Hotel Montana during the M 7.0 2010 Haiti earthquake: topography or soil amplification? Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(5):2577–2590Google Scholar
  9. Assimaki D, Kausel E, Gazetas G (2005) Soil-dependent topographic effects: a case study from the 1999 Athens earthquake. Earthq Spectra 21(4):929–966Google Scholar
  10. Beresnev IA, Atkinson GM (1998) Stochastic finite-fault modeling of ground motions from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. I. Validation on rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(6):1392–1401Google Scholar
  11. Berrah M, Kausel E (1992) Response spectrum analysis of structures subjected to spatially varying motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21(6):461–470Google Scholar
  12. Boore DM (1972) A note on the effect of simple topography on seismic SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62(1):275–284Google Scholar
  13. Boore DM (1973) The effect of simple topography on seismic waves: implications for the accelerations recorded at Pacoima Dam, San Fernando Valley, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63(5):1603–1609Google Scholar
  14. Chin BH, Aki K (1991) Simultaneous study of the source, path, and site effects on strong ground motion during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake: a preliminary result on pervasive nonlinear site effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(5):1859–1884Google Scholar
  15. Collier CJ, Elnashai AS (2001) A procedure for combining vertical and horizontal seismic action effects. J Earthq Eng 5(4):521–539Google Scholar
  16. Davis LL, West LR (1973) Observed effects of topography on ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63(1):283–298Google Scholar
  17. Deeks AJ, Randolph MF (1994) Axisymmetric time-domain transmitting boundaries. J Eng Mech ASCE 120(1):25–42Google Scholar
  18. Du XL, Zhao M (2010) A local time-domain transmitting boundary for simulating cylindrical elastic wave propagation in infinite media. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(10):937–946Google Scholar
  19. Elgamal A, He L (2004) Vertical earthquake ground motion records: an overview. J Earthq Eng 8(5):663–697Google Scholar
  20. Elnashai AS, Papazoglou AJ (1997) Procedure and spectra for analysis of RC structures subjected, to strong vertical earthquake loads. J Earthq Eng 1(1):121–155Google Scholar
  21. Eshraghi H, Dravinski M (1989) Scattering of plane harmonic SH, SV, P and Rayleigh waves by non-axisymmetric three-dimensional canyons: a wave function expansion approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 18(7):983–998Google Scholar
  22. Ewing WM, Jardetzky WS, Press F (1957) Elastic waves in layered media. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Field EH, Johnson PA, Beresnev IA, Zeng Y (1997) Nonlinear ground-motion amplification by sediments during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Nature 390(6660):599–602Google Scholar
  24. Gao Y, Zhang N, Li D, Liu H, Cai Y, Wu Y (2012) Effects of topographic amplification induced by a U-shaped canyon on seismic waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(4):1748–1763Google Scholar
  25. Gazetas G, Mylonakis G (1998) Seismic soil-structure interaction: new evidence and emerging issues. Geotech Spec Publ 2(75):1119–1174Google Scholar
  26. Graves RW (1996) Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(4):1091–1106Google Scholar
  27. Harichandran RS, Wang W (1990) Response of indeterminate two-span beam to spatially varying seismic excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19(2):173–187Google Scholar
  28. Hartzell SH, Carver DL, King KW (1994) Initial investigation of site and topographic effects at Robinwood Ridge, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(5):1336–1349Google Scholar
  29. He CH, Wang JT, Zhang CH, Jin F (2015) Simulation of broadband seismic ground motions at dam canyons by using a deterministic numerical approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 76:136–144Google Scholar
  30. He CH, Wang JT, Zhang CH (2016) Nonlinear spectral-element method for 3D seismic-wave propagation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(3):1074–1087Google Scholar
  31. Hirai H (1988) Analysis of transient response of SH wave scattering in a half space by the boundary element method. Eng Anal 5(4):189–194Google Scholar
  32. Huang BS (2000) Two-dimensional reconstruction of the surface ground motions of an earthquake: the September 21, 1999, Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 27(18):3025–3028Google Scholar
  33. Huang JQ, Du XL, Jin L, Zhao M (2016) Impact of incident angles of P waves on the dynamic responses of long lined tunnels. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(15):2435–2454Google Scholar
  34. Janod F, Coutant O (2000) Seismic response of three-dimensional topographies using a time-domain boundary element method. Geophys J Int 142(2):603–614Google Scholar
  35. Joyner WB (1977) A FORTRAN program for calculating nonlinear seismic ground response, open file report 77-671, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  36. Joyner WB, Chen ATF (1981) Calculation of nonlinear ground response in earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(5):1315–1336Google Scholar
  37. Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(9):822–832Google Scholar
  38. Kim SJ, Holub CJ, Elnashai AS (2010) Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical earthquake motion on RC bridge piers. J Struct Eng 137(2):252–260Google Scholar
  39. Kiureghian AD, Neuenhofer A (1992) Response spectrum method for multi-support seismic excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21(8):713–740Google Scholar
  40. Kwok AOL, Stewart JP, Hashash YMA (2008) Nonlinear ground-response analysis of Turkey flat shallow stiff-soil site to strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(1):331–343Google Scholar
  41. Lam I, Tsai C, Martin GR (1978) Determination of site dependent spectra using nonlinear analysis. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on microzonation. San Francisco, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  42. Lan H, Zhang Z (2011) Three-dimensional wave-field simulation in heterogeneous transversely isotropic medium with irregular free surface. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(3):1354–1370Google Scholar
  43. Lee MKW, Finn WDL (1975) DESRA-1—program for the dynamic effective stress response analysis of soil deposits including liquefaction evaluation. Soils mechanics series no. 36, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee MKW, Finn WDL (1978) DESRA-2: dynamic effective stress response analysis of soil deposits with energy transmitting boundary including assessment of liquefaction potential. Soils mechanics series no. 38, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  45. Liao ZP (1989) Seismic microzonation-theory and practice. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  46. Liu JB, Lu YD (1998) A direct method for analysis of dynamic soil-structure interaction based on interface idea. Dev Geotech Eng 83(3):261–276Google Scholar
  47. Liu JB, Du YX, Du XL, Wang ZY, Wu J (2006) 3D viscous-spring artificial boundary in time domain. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 5(1):93–102Google Scholar
  48. Liu JB, Gu Y, Li B, Wang Y (2007) An efficient method for the dynamic interaction of open structure-foundation systems. Front Archit Civ Eng China 1(3):340–345Google Scholar
  49. Lupoi A, Franchin P, Pinto PE, Monti G (2005) Seismic design of bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(4–5):327–348Google Scholar
  50. Lysmer J, Drake LA (1971) The propagation of Love waves across nonhorizontally layered structures. Bull Seismol Soc Am 61(5):1233–1251Google Scholar
  51. Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai C, Seed HB (1975) FLUSH-A computer program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems, EERC-75-30, California University, Richmond, Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  52. Mackie KR, Cronin KJ, Nielson BG (2011) Response sensitivity of highway bridges to randomly oriented multi-component earthquake excitation. J Earthq Eng 15(6):850–876Google Scholar
  53. Marfurt KJ (1984) Accuracy of finite-difference and finite-element modeling of the scalar and elastic wave equations. Geophysics 49(5):533–549Google Scholar
  54. Moschonas IF, Kappos AJ (2012) Assessment of concrete bridges subjected to ground motion with an arbitrary angle of incidence: static and dynamic approach. Bull Earthq Eng 11(2):581–605Google Scholar
  55. Moser F, Jacobs LJ, Qu J (1999) Modeling elastic wave propagation in waveguides with the finite element method. NDT&E Int 32(4):225–234Google Scholar
  56. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(03):277–301Google Scholar
  57. Ohtsuki A, Harumi K (1983) Effect of topography and subsurface inhomogeneities on seismic SV waves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 11(4):441–462Google Scholar
  58. O’Rourke MJ, Bloom MC, Dobry R (1982) Apparent propagation velocity of body waves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 10(2):283–294Google Scholar
  59. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2016) PEER ground motion database. Last Accessed 1 June 2017)
  60. Pagliaroli A, Lanzo G, D’Elia B (2011) Numerical evaluation of topographic effects at the Nicastro ridge in Southern Italy. J Earthq Eng 15(3):404–432Google Scholar
  61. Paolucci R (2002) Amplification of earthquake ground motion by steep topographic irregularities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(10):1831–1853Google Scholar
  62. Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS (1996) Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(10):1109–1137Google Scholar
  63. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report no. EERC-72/12, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  64. Sextos AG, Pitilakis KD, Kappos AJ (2003) Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil–structure interaction phenomena. Part 1: methodology and analytical tools. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(4):607–627Google Scholar
  65. Sigaki T, Kiyohara K, Sono Y, Kinosita D, Masao T, Tamura R, Yoshimura C, Ugata T (2000) Estimation of earthquake motion incident angle at rock site, paper no. 0956. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, 30 January–4 February, 2000, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith WD (1975) The application of finite element analysis to body wave propagation problems. Geophys J Int 42(2):747–768Google Scholar
  67. Stewart JP, Seed RB, Fenves GL (1999a) Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings, II: Empirical findings. J Geotech Geoenviron 125(1):38–48Google Scholar
  68. Stewart JP, Fenves GL, Seed RB (1999b) Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I: analytical methods. J Geotech Geoenviron 125(1):26–37Google Scholar
  69. Streeter VL, Wylie EB, Richart FE (1974) Soil motion computations by characteristics method. J Geotech Eng ASCE 100:247–263Google Scholar
  70. Takaaki K, Mejia LH, Seed HB (1981) TLUSH: a computer program for the three-dimension dynamic analysis of earth dams. Report no. EERC-81/14, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  71. Takemiya H, Fujiwara A (1994) SH-wave scattering and propagation analyses at irregular sites by time domain BEM. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(5):1443–1455Google Scholar
  72. Tucker BE, King JL, Hatzfeld D, Nersesov IL (1984) Observations of hard-rock site effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(1):121–136Google Scholar
  73. Virieux J (1984) SH-wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics 49(11):1933–1942Google Scholar
  74. Virieux J (1986) P-SV wave propagation in heterogeneous media: velocity-stress finite-difference method. Geophysics 51(4):889–901Google Scholar
  75. Wang ZH, Zhao CG, Dong L (2009) An approximate spring–dashpot artificial boundary for transient wave analysis of fluid-saturated porous media. Comput Geotech 36(1–2):199–210Google Scholar
  76. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  77. Wong HL, Luco JE (1978) Dynamic response of rectangular foundations to obliquely incident seismic waves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(1):3–16Google Scholar
  78. Zanardo G, Hao H, Modena C (2002) Seismic response of multi-span simply supported bridges to a spatially varying earthquake ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(6):1325–1345Google Scholar
  79. Zarzalejos JM, Aznárez JJ, Padrón LA, Maeso O (2014) Influences of type of wave and angle of incidence on seismic bending moments in pile foundations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(1):41–59Google Scholar
  80. Zerva A (1990) Response of multi-span beams to spatially incoherent seismic ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19(6):819–832Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.China Earthquake Disaster Prevention CenterBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Rail TransportationSoochow UniversitySuzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureGuilin University of TechnologyGuilinChina

Personalised recommendations