Modelling of Bridges for Inelastic Analysis

  • M. Saiid SaiidiEmail author
  • Antonio Arêde
  • Donatello Cardone
  • Pedro Delgado
  • Mauro Dolce
  • Matej Fischinger
  • Tatjana Isaković
  • Stavroula Pantazopoulou
  • Gokhan Pekcan
  • Rui Pinho
  • Anastasios Sextos
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 21)


The analytical tools necessary for the implementation of inelastic methods for bridges are presented. The chapter starts with available models for the bridge deck and their role in seismic assessment, addressing not only elastic modelling of the deck but also far less explored issues like the verification of deck deformation demands in cases that inelastic behaviour of the deck is unavoidable. Then the topic of modelling bearings and shear keys is presented, which is of paramount importance in the case of bridges, logically followed by the related issue of seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices; modelling of all commonly used isolation and dissipation devices is discussed and practical guidance is provided. The next section is devoted to inelastic modelling of different types of bridge piers, which are the bridge components wherein seismic energy dissipation takes place in non-isolated structures. All types of inelastic models for members, with emphasis on reinforced concrete columns, are presented in a rather detailed way, including both lumped plasticity and distributed plasticity models. Several examples of application of the previously mentioned models to bridges of varying complexity are provided and critically discussed. The last two sections of the chapter deal with modelling of the foundation of bridges and its interaction with the ground. Simple and more sophisticated models for abutments and (surface and deep) foundation members are provided, followed by models for the surrounding ground, with emphasis on the embankments that often play a crucial role in the seismic response of bridges, in particular short ones. Soil-structure interaction modelling of bridges is presented in both its commonly used forms, i.e. linear, as well as nonlinear soil-foundation-bridge interaction analysis in the time domain. These last sections of the chapter also include a brief overview of the characteristics of seismic ground motion which is used as input for the analysis.


Ground Motion Reinforced Concrete Seismic Response Plastic Hinge Bridge Deck 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abdel-Mohti A, Pekcan G (2008) Seismic response of skewed RC box-girder bridges. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib, IEM and MCEER 7(4):415–426Google Scholar
  2. ACI [American Concrete Institute] (2008) ACI 318–08 Building code requirements for structural concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Hussaini TM, Zayas VA, Constantinou MC (1994) Seismic isolation of a multi-story frame structure using spherical sliding isolation systems. Technical Report No. NCEER-94-0007, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  4. Arêde A (1997) Seismic assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures with a new flexibility based element, Ph.D. thesis, FEUP, Porto.
  5. Arêde A, Pinto AV (1996) Reinforced concrete global section modelling: definition of skeleton curves. Special Publication No.I.96.36, ISIS, EC, JRC, Ispra (VA), ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. Arêde A, Vila Pouca N, Monteiro A, Delgado P, Costa A, Delgado R (2009) RC hollow-pier modelling and shear influence on the cyclic numerical response. In: Proceedings of the COMPDYN 2009 – ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, RhodesGoogle Scholar
  7. Ates S, Bayraktar A, Dumanoglu A (2006) The effect of spatially varying earthquake ground motions on the stochastic response of bridges isolated with friction pendulum systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aviram A, Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2008) Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. PEER Report 2008/03, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2007) Effect of lap splices on flexural resistance and cyclic deformation capacity of RC members. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau (Ernst & Sohn, Berlin), 102, 51–59Google Scholar
  10. Bozorgzadeh A, Megally S, Restrepo J, Ashford SA (2006) Capacity evaluation of exterior sacrificial shear keys of bridge abutments. J Bridge Eng 11(5):555–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buckle IG, Constantinou M, Dicleli M, Ghasemi H (2006) Seismic isolation of highway bridges. Special Publication MCEER-06-SP07, Multidisciplinary Centre for Extreme Events Research, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  12. Caltrans [California Department of Transportation] (2006) Caltrans seismic design criteria version 1.4. Engineering Service Centre, Earthquake Engineering Branch, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Casarotti C, Pinho R (2006) Seismic response of continuous span bridges through fibre-based finite element analysis. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 5(1):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CEA (2003) Manuel d’utilisation de Cast3m, Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique, Pasquet PGoogle Scholar
  15. CEB (1996) Costa and Costa model – RC frames under earthquake loading, Comité Euro-International du Béton, Bulletin n°231Google Scholar
  16. Ceresa P, Petrini L, Pinho R (2007) Flexure-shear fibre beam-column elements for modelling frame structures under seismic loading – state of the art. J Earthq Eng 11(SP1):46–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ceresa P, Petrini L, Pinho R, Sousa R (2009) A fibre flexure-shear model for seismic analysis of RC framed structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(5):565–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Computers and Structures, Inc (2007) CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS, and SAFE. Computers and Structures, Inc, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Constantinou, MC, Symans, MD, Tsopelas, P, Taylor, DP (1993) Fluid viscous dampers in applications of seismic energy dissipation and seismic isolation. In: Proceedings of ATC-17-1 seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation, and active control, San Francisco, CA, pp 581–591Google Scholar
  20. Costa AG, Costa AC (1987) Modelo Histerético das Forças-Deslocamentos Adequado à Análise Sísmica de Estruturas (Force-displacement hysteretic model for seismic analysis of structures). LNEC, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  21. Costa C, Pegon P, Arêde A, Castro J (2005) Implementation of the damage model in tension and compression with plasticity in Cast3m Report EUR, ISPC, CEC, JRC, Ispra (VA)Google Scholar
  22. Das BM (1994) Principles of geotechnical engineering, 3rd edn. PWS Kent Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Delgado P, Costa A, Delgado R (2002) A simple methodology for seismic safety assessment of bridges. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd, London, 9–13 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  24. Delgado P, Rocha P, Rodrigues V, Santos M, Arêde A, Vila Pouca N, Costa A, Delgado R (2006) Experimental cyclic tests and retrofit of RC hollow piers. In: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on earthquake engineering (13ECEE), 3–8 September, Paper N. 1205, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Delgado P, Rocha P, Pedrosa J, Arêde A, Vila Pouca N, Santos M, Costa A, Delgado R (2007) Retrofitting of bridge hollow piers with CFRP. In: COMPDYN 2007 – ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, 13–16 June, Paper N. 1492, Rethymnon, Crete, Greece,Google Scholar
  26. Delgado R, Delgado P, Vila Pouca N, Arêde A, Rocha P, Costa A (2009) Shear effects on hollow section piers under seismic actions: experimental and numerical analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 7(2):377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Der Kiureghian A, Keshishian PE (1997) Effects of incoherence, wave passage and spatially varying site conditions on bridge response. In: Proceedings of FHWA/NCEER workshop on the national representation of seismic motion, Report 97–0010, New York, pp 393–407Google Scholar
  28. Derham CJ, Kelly JM, Thomas AG (1985) Nonlinear natural rubber bearings for seismic isolation. Nucl Eng Des 84(3):417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R (2000) Implementation and testing of passive control devices based on shape memory alloys. Earth Eng Struct Dyn 29:945–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dolce M, Cardone D, Croatto F (2005) Frictional behaviour of Steel-PTFE interfaces for seismic isolation. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1):75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dolce M, Cardone D, Marnetto R, Nigro D, Palermo G (2003) A new added damping rubber isolator (ADRI): experimental tests and numerical simulations, Proc. 8th World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures, Yerevan (Armenia), Oct 6–10Google Scholar
  32. Duarte RT, Oliveira CS, Costa AC, Costa AG (1990) A non-linear model for seismic analysis, design and safety assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. In: Koridze A (ed) Earthquake damage evaluation & vulnerability analysis of building structures. OMEGA Scientific, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  33. El-Naggar MH, Novak M (1996) Nonlinear analysis for dynamic lateral pile response. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15(4):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Elnashai AS, McClure DC (1996) Effect of modelling assumptions and input motion characteristics on seismic design parameters of RC ridge piers. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(5):435–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1987) Non-linear seismic analysis of RC buildings: implications of a case study. Eur Earthq Eng 1(1):31–43Google Scholar
  36. Faria R, Oliver J, Cervera M (1998) A strain based plastic viscous damage model for massive concrete structures. Int J Solid Struct 35(14):1533–1558zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Faria R, Vila Pouca N, Delgado R (2002) Seismic behaviour of a RC wall: numerical simulation and experimental validation. J Earthq Eng 6(4):473–498Google Scholar
  38. Faria R, Vila Pouca N, Delgado R (2004) Simulation of the cyclic behaviour of RC rectangular hollow section bridge piers via a detailed numerical model. J Earthq Eng 8(5):725–748Google Scholar
  39. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV (1983) Modelling of RC joints under cyclic excitations. J Struct Eng 109(11):2666–2684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Finn L (2005) A study of piles during earthquakes: issues of design and analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 3:141–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fischinger M, Vidic T, Fajfar P (1992) Non-linear seismic analysis of structural walls using the multiple-vertical-line-element model, non-linear seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete buildings. Elsevier, Bled, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  42. Fischinger M, Isaković T, Kante P (2004) Implementation of a macro model to predict seismic response of RC structural walls. Comput Concrete 1(2):211–226Google Scholar
  43. Fragiadakis M, Pinho R, Antoniou S (2008) Modelling inelastic buckling of reinforcing bars under earthquake loading. In: Papadrakakis M, Charmpis DC, Lagaros ND, Tsompanakis Y (eds) Progress in computational dynamics and earthquake engineering. A.A. Balkema Publishers – Taylor, Francis, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  44. Garstka B, Kratzig WB, Stangenberg F (1993) Damage assessment in cyclically reinforced concrete members. In: Proceedings of the second European conference on structural dynamics – EURODYN’93, 21–23 June, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  45. Gazetas G, Mylonakis G (1998) Seismic soil-structure interaction: new evidence and emerging issues. Geotechnical Special Publication 75, Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil 12 dynamics III, ASCE, 2, 1119–1174Google Scholar
  46. Gazetas G, Mylonakis G (2002) Kinematic pile response to vertical P wave seismic excitation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:860–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Giuffrè A, Pinto PE (1970) Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazione ciclice di forte intensitá Giornale del genio civile 108(5):391–408Google Scholar
  48. Goel RK, Chopra A (1997) Evaluation of bridge abutment capacity and stiffness during earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 13(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Goel R, Chopra A (2008) Role of shear keys is seismic behaviour of bridge crossing fault-rupture zones. J Bridge Eng 13(4):398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. GT STRUDL (2006) GT STRUDL version 29 user’s reference manual, Georgia Tech. Research Corporation, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  51. Guedes J (1997), Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete bridges. Modelling, numerical analysis and experimental assessment. PhD thesis, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  52. Guedes J, Pegon P, Pinto AV (1994) A fibre/Timoshenko beam element in CASTEM 2000, Special Publication Nr. I.94.31 applied mechanics unit, Safety Technology Institute, Commission of the European Communities, Joint Research Centre, Ispra Establishment, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  53. Higashino M, Okamoto S (2006) Response control and seismic isolation of buildings. Taylor, Francis Ltd, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Inel M, Aschheim M (2004) Seismic design of columns of short bridges accounting for embankment flexibility. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(10):1515–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Isaković T, Fischinger M (1998) Engineering modelling for inelastic seismic response of RC bridge columns. Int J Eng Model 11(3/4):67–72Google Scholar
  56. Isaković T, Fischinger M (2006) Higher modes in simplified inelastic seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jiang Y, Saiidi M (1990) 4-Spring element for cyclic response of RC columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 116(4):1018–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kabeyasawa T, Shiohara H, Otani S, Aoyama H (1983) Analysis of the full-scale seven-story reinforced concrete test structure. J Fac Eng Univ Tokyo 37(2):431–478Google Scholar
  59. Kanaan AE, Powell GH (1973) A general purpose computer program for dynamic analysis of planar structures. Report UBC/EERC-73/6, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  60. Kappos AJ (1991) Analytical prediction of the collapse earthquake for RC buildings: suggested methodology. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20(2):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kappos AJ, Sextos AG (2001) Effect of foundation type and compliance on seismic response of 1988 RC bridges. J Bridge Eng, ASCE 6(2):120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kappos A, Potikas P, Sextos A (2007) Seismic assessment of an overpass bridge accounting for nonlinear material and soil response and varying boundary conditions. Computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, COMPDYN 2007, Rethymnon, Greece, CD-ROM volumeGoogle Scholar
  63. Kausel E, Roesset JM (1994) Soil-structure interaction for nuclear containment structures. In: Proceedings ASCE power division specialty conference, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  64. Kavvadas M, Gazetas G (1993) Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 43:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kelly TE (1992) Skellerup industries, lead rubber isolation bearings: experimental properties. Holmes Consulting Group, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  66. Kent DC, Park R (1971, July) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div, ASCE 97(ST7):1969–1990Google Scholar
  67. Kotsoglou A, Pantazopoulou S (2007) Bridge–embankment interaction under transverse ground excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1719–1740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kotsoglou A, Pantazopoulou S (2009) Assessment and modelling of embankment participation in the seismic response of integral abutment bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 7:343–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kwon O-S, Sextos A, Elnashai A (2009) Seismic fragility of a bridge on liquefaction susceptible soil, In: 10th international conference on seismic safety and reliability, 13–17 September, Osaka, JapanGoogle Scholar
  70. Leonhardt F (1981) From past achievements to new challenges for joints and bearings. First world conference on joints and bearings, vol. 1, American Concrete Institute, SP-70, pp 736–755Google Scholar
  71. Lysmer J, Kulemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 95:759–877Google Scholar
  72. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2002) Probabilistic seismic demand model for typical highway overpass bridges. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, UK, CD-ROM volumeGoogle Scholar
  73. Maekawa K, Pimanmas A, Okamura H (2003) Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Makris N, Gazetas G (1992) Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction. Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21(2):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(ST8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Maragakis E, Thornton G, Saiidi M, Siddharthan R (1989) A simple non-linear model for the investigation of the effects of the gap closure at the abutment joints of short bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 18(8):1163–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maroney BH, Chai YH (1994) Seismic design and retrofitting of reinforced concrete bridges. In: Proceedings of 2nd international workshop, Earthquake Commission of New Zealand, QueenstownGoogle Scholar
  78. Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS (1997) Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater Struct 30(197):139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mazzoni S, Mckenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL, Jeremic B (2003) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. (OpenSees) – command language manual. UCB, PEER, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  80. MCEER/ATC (2003) Recommended LFRD guidelines for the seismic design of highway bridges, Part I: Specifications, Part I: Commentary and appendices. MCEER/ATC49. MCEER Report No. MCEER-03SP03, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
  81. Mckenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH, Jeremić B (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation.
  82. Megally SH, Silva PF, Seible, F (2001) Seismic response of sacrificial shear keys in bridge abutments. Report No. SSRP-2001/23, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  83. Menegotto M, Pinto PE (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending, symposium on the resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated loads, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  84. Monti G, Nuti C (1992) Nonlinear cyclic behaviour of reinforcing bars including buckling. J Struct Eng 118(12):3268–3284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(3):277–301Google Scholar
  86. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G (1997) Soil-pile bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: Soft soil, earthquake. Eng Struct Dyn 26:337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mylonakis G, Papastamatiou D, Psycharis J, Mahmoud K (2001) Simplified modelling of bridge response on soft soil to nonuniform seismic excitation, ASCE J Bridge Eng 6(6):587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G (2006a) Footings under seismic loading: analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(9):824–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mylonakis G, Syngros C, Gazetas G, Tazoh T (2006b) The role of soil in the collapse of 18 piers of Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(5):547–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Naeim F, Kelly JM (1999) Design of seismic isolated structures: from theory to practice. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn, AM, Constantinou MC (1991) 3D-Basis: nonlinear dynamic analysis of three-dimensional base isolated structures: Part II, Technical Report NCEER- 91–0005, National Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  92. NAVFAC [Naval Facilities Engineering Command] (1982) DM-7.2, Foundations and earth structures, design manual. Department of the Navy, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  93. Nogami T, Konagai K, Otani J, Chen HL (1992) Nonlinear soil-pile interaction model for dynamic lateral motion. J Geotech Eng ASCE 118(1):106–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Novak M, Mitwally H (1988) Transmitting boundary for axisymmetrical dilation problems. J Eng Mech 114(1):181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ, Sextos AG (2006) Extension of modal pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng, Struct Dyn 35(11):1269–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Park R, Priestley M, Gill W (1982) Ductility of square-confined concrete columns. J Struct Div ASCE 108(4):929–950Google Scholar
  97. Park Y, Wen Y, Ang A (1986) Random vibration of hysteretic systems under bi-directional ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 14:543–557, Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Pender MJ (1993) Aseismic pile foundation design analysis. Bull N Z Natl Soc Earthq Eng 26(1):49–161Google Scholar
  99. Penzien J, Watabe M (1975) Characteristics of 3D earthquake ground motions. Earthq Eng, Struct Dyn 3:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Petroleum Institute (1993) Planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms – working stress design, RP 2A-WSD, USAGoogle Scholar
  101. Pinho R (2000) Shaking table testing of RC walls. ISET J Earthq Technol 37(4):119–142Google Scholar
  102. Pinho R, Casarotti C, Antoniou S (2007) A comparison of single-run pushover analysis techniques for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(10):1347–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Pinto AV, Verzeletti G, Pegon P, Magonette G, Negro P, Guedes J (1996) Pseudo-dynamic testing of large-scale RC bridges, ELSA Lab, Report EUR 16378 ENGoogle Scholar
  104. Pitilakis K, Kirtas E, Sextos A, Bolton M, Madabhushi G, Brennan A (2004) Validation by centrifuge testing of numerical simulations for soil-foundation-structure systems. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Paper No. 2772Google Scholar
  105. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. John Wiley, Sons, Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Renault P, Meskouris K (2004) Coupled boundary element – finite element method in soil-structure interaction analyses, advanced numerical analyses of solids and structures, and beyond. Graz University of Technology, Graz, pp 169–181Google Scholar
  107. Sadrossadat-Zadeh M, Saiidi M (2007) Pre-test analytical studies of NEESR-SG 4-span bridge model using OpenSees. Centre for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, Report No. CCEER-07-3, University of Nevada, Reno, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  108. Saiidi M (1982) Hysteresis models for reinforced concrete. J Struct Div ASCE 108(ST5): 1077–1085Google Scholar
  109. Saiidi M, Ghusn G, Jiang Y (1989) Five-spring element for biaxially bent RC columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 115(2):398–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Saiidi M, Moore R, Itani A (2001) Seismic performance of reinforced concrete bridges with unconventional configurations. ACI Struct J 98(5):717–726Google Scholar
  111. Savidis SA, Bode C, Hirschauer R (2000) Three-dimensional structure-soil-structure interaction under seismic excitations with partial uplift. 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  112. Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN (1982) Stress-strain behaviour of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI J 79(1):13–27Google Scholar
  113. SeismoSoft (2005) SeismoStruct – A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures [on line]. Available from URL: Accessed 30 March 2005
  114. Sextos AG, Kappos AJ (2008) Seismic response of bridges under asynchronous excitation and comparison with EC8 design rules. Bull Earthq Eng 7(2):519–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sextos A, Kappos A, Pitilakis K (2003a) Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil-structure interaction phenomena. Part 2: Parametric analysis. Earthq EngStruct Dyn 32(4):629–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, Kappos A (2003b) 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):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Sextos A, Kappos A, Mergos P (2004) Effect of soil-structure interaction and spatial variability of ground motion on irregular bridges: the case of the Krystallopigi bridge, 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No. 2298, Vancouver, August 2004Google Scholar
  118. Sextos A, Mackie K, Stojadinovic B, Taskari O (2008) Simplified P-y relationships for modelling embankment abutment systems of typical California bridges, 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  119. Sextos A, Taskari O (2009) Single and multi-platform simulation of linear and non-linear bridge-soil systems, chapter in Coupled Site and Soil-Structure Interaction Effects with Application to Seismic Risk Mitigation, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  120. Shamsabadi A (2006) Three-dimensional nonlinear seismic soil-abutment-foundation structure interaction analysis of skewed bridges. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  121. Shamsabadi A, Rollins KM, Kapuskar M (2007) Nonlinear soil–abutment–bridge structure interaction for seismic performance-based design. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 13(6):707–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Shinozuka M, Saxena V, Deodatis G (2000) Effect of spatial variation of earthquake ground motion on highway structures. Technical Report, MCEER-00-0013Google Scholar
  123. Siddharthan R, El-Gamal M, Maragakis E (1997) Stiffnesses of abutments on spread footings with cohesionless backfill. Can Geotech J 34:686–697Google Scholar
  124. Silva PF, Megally S, Seible F (2003) Seismic performance of sacrificial interior shear keys. ACI Struct J 100(2):177–187Google Scholar
  125. Skinner RI, Robinson H, McVerry GH (1993) An introduction to seismic isolation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  126. Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou FC (1992) A beam element for seismic damage analysis, Report EERC 92–07, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  127. Spyrakos C, Ioannidis G (2003) Seismic behaviour of a post-tensioned integral bridge including soil–structure interaction (SSI). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Sullivan T, Pinho R, Pavese A (2004) An introduction to structural testing techniques in earthquake engineering, Educational Report ROSE 2004/01, IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  129. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. J Struct Mech Div ASCE ST12:96Google Scholar
  130. Taucer F, Spacone E, Filippou FC (1991) A fiber beam-column element for seismic response analysis of RC structures, Report EERC 91–17, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  131. Taylor AW, Lin AN, Martin JW (1992) Performance of elastomers in isolation bearings: a literature review. Earthq Spectra 8(2):279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tokimatsu K (1999) Performance of pile foundations in laterally spreading soils. Proc 2nd Int Conf Earthq Geotechnical Eng, Lisbon, Portugal 3:957–964Google Scholar
  133. Vesic A (1961) Beams on elastic foundations. Proc 5th Int Conf Soil Mech Foundation Eng, Paris 1:845–850Google Scholar
  134. Vulcano A, Bertero VV, Caloti V (1989) Analytical modelling of RC structural walls. Proc 9th WCEE, Tokyo-Kyoto, Maruzen 6:41–46Google Scholar
  135. Wang M-L, Shah SP (1987) Reinforced concrete hysteresis model based on the damage concept. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 15:993–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  137. Zayas V, Low S (1990) A simple pendulum technique for achieving seismic isolation. Earthq Spectra 6(2):317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Zhang J, Makris N (2001) Seismic response of highway overcrossings including soil–structure interaction. PEER Report 2001/02, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  139. Zhang J, Makris N (2002) Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiffnesses of bridge embankments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1933–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Saiid Saiidi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonio Arêde
    • 2
  • Donatello Cardone
    • 3
  • Pedro Delgado
    • 4
  • Mauro Dolce
    • 5
  • Matej Fischinger
    • 6
  • Tatjana Isaković
    • 6
  • Stavroula Pantazopoulou
    • 7
  • Gokhan Pekcan
    • 8
  • Rui Pinho
    • 9
  • Anastasios Sextos
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Applied GeologyUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly
  4. 4.Escola Superior de Tecnologia e GestãoInstituto Politécnico de Viana do CasteloViana do CasteloPortugal
  5. 5.Department of Civil ProtectionRomeItaly
  6. 6.Faculty of Civil and Geodetic EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  7. 7.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of CyprusAglantziaCyprus
  8. 8.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  9. 9.Department of Structural MechanicsUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  10. 10.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations