Capacity-Based Inelastic Displacement Spectra for Seismic Evaluation and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridges

  • Kuo-Chun ChangEmail author
  • Ping-Hsiung Wang
  • Yu-Chen Ou
Conference paper


Capacity-based inelastic displacement spectra that comprise an inelastic displacement (\( C_{R} \)) spectrum and a corresponding damage state (\( DI \)) spectrum are proposed to aid seismic evaluation and design of reinforced concrete bridges. Nonlinear time history analyses of SDOF systems are conducted using a versatile smooth hysteretic model that accounts for the influences of various column design parameters when subjected to far-field and near-fault ground motions. The computed spectra show that the \( C_{R} \) for far-field ground motions approximately conforms to the equal displacement rule for structural period (\( T_{n} \)) larger than around 0.8 s and that for near-fault ground motions departs from the rule in all spectral regions. Moreover, most of the design scenarios investigated in this research cannot survive the near-fault ground motions when relative strength \( R = \) 5.0. Based on the computed spectra, \( C_{R} \) and \( DI \) formulae are presented as a function of \( T_{n} \), \( R \), and various design parameters for far-field and near-fault ground motions, respectively.


  1. Akkar, S., Yazgan, U., Gulkan, P. (2004). Deformation limits for simple non-degrading systems subjected to near-fault ground motions, Paper No. 2276. In Proceedings 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2011). Guide specification for LRFD seismic bridge design, LRFDSEIS-2, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Baez, J. I., & Miranda, E. (2000). Amplification factors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for the design of structures in the near field, Paper No. 1561. In Proceedings, 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, J. W. (2007). Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5), 1486–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2003). Bridge design specifications. Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  6. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2013). Seismic design criteria (SDC), Version 1.7, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2016). Seismic design specifications for steel bridges, Second Version, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Chopra, A. K., & Chintanapakdee, C. (2001). Comparing response of SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30, 1769–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (1999). Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthquake Spectra, 15(4), 637–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fajfar, P. (1999). Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28, 979–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1997). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (Report FEMA 273). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2004). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (Report FEMA 450). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2005). Improvement of inelastic seismic analysis procedures (Report FEMA 440) Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2006). Seismic retrofitting manual for highway structures: Part 1-bridges, FHWA-HRT-06-032, McLean, VA.Google Scholar
  15. Iervolino, I., & Cornell, C. A. (2008). Prediction of the occurrence of velocity pulses in near-fault ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(5), 2262–2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miranda, E. (1993). Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic design spectra. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 119(5), 1319–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miranda, E. (2000). Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 126(10), 1150–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miranda, E. (2001). Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 127(9), 1005–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ou, Y. C., Song, J., Wang, P. H., Adidharma L., Chang, K. C., & Lee GC. (2014). Ground motion duration effects on hysteretic behavior of reinforcement concrete bridge columns. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 140(3). Scholar
  20. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). (2003). PEER structural performance database.
  21. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). (2013). PEER ground motion database.
  22. Park, Y. J., & Ang, A. H. S. (1985). Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 111(4), 722–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reinhorn, A. M. (1997). Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations. In Krawinkler and Fajfar (Eds.), Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of code (pp. 277–287) Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Ruiz-Garcia, J. (2011). Inelastic displacement ratios for seismic assessment of structures subjected to forward-directivity near-fault ground motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15, 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruiz-Garcia, J., & Miranda, E. (2003). Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32, 1237–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shimazaki, K., & Sozen, M. A. (1984). Seismic drift of reinforced concrete structures (pp. 145–165). Tokyo, Japan: Technical Research Reports of Hazama-Gumi Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. The European Standard (British Standard). (2005). Eurocode 8- Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 2: Bridges, EN 1998-2.Google Scholar
  28. Tothong, P., & Cornel, C. A. (2007). Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures, attenuation relationships, and near-fault effects, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report PEER 2006/11.Google Scholar
  29. Veletsos, A. S., Newmark N. M., & Chelapati, C. V. (1965). Deformation spectra for elastic and elastoplastic systems subjected to ground shock and earthquake motions. In Proceedings, 3rd Word Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II (pp. 663–682). New Zealand.Google Scholar
  30. Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., & Fischinger, M. (1994). Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23, 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang, P. H. (2017). A new smooth hysteretic model and capacity-based displacement spectrum for reinforced concrete bridge columns. Ph.D. Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  32. Wang, P. H., Ou, Y. C., & Chang, K. C. (2017). A new smooth hysteretic model for ductile flexural-dominated reinforced concrete bridge columns. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46, 2237–2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wen, Y. K. (1976). Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE), 102, 249–263.Google Scholar
  34. Whittaker, A., Constantinou, M., & Tsopelas, P. (1998). Displacement estimates for performance-based seismic design. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), 124(8), 905–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.National Center for Research on Earthquake EngineeringTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations