Methods for Inelastic Analysis of Bridges

  • M. Nuray AydınoğluEmail author
  • Matej Fischinger
  • Tatjana Isaković
  • Andreas J. Kappos
  • Rui Pinho
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 21)


The chapter presents in a uniform way the available inelastic analysis methods for the seismic assessment and design of bridges. Since inelastic response-history analysis has long been used for bridges without substantial changes or developments during the last decade, it is presented in a rather brief and concise manner, leaving aside details of the numerical integration of the equations of motion that can be easily found in structural dynamics textbooks. On the contrary, inelastic static (pushover) methods, which have been the focus of extensive research in the recent years, particularly in the direction of extending them to structures with significant higher mode effects (a typical example being the transverse direction of many bridge types), occupy the largest part of the chapter. The methods described do not encompass all variations of pushover analysis techniques that deal with approximate ways for treating higher mode effects; instead, only those methods that have been specifically applied (after proper tailoring) to bridges have been selected. The different methods are presented not in a strict chronological order, but by classifying them into ‘single-mode’ and ‘multi-mode’ pushover analysis procedures. In the first category the now well-known N2 method is described in sufficient length as a typical representative. Within the ‘multi-mode’ pushover category a distinction is made between procedures involving a series of individual-independent modal pushover analyses (among which the modal pushover analysis technique adapted to the needs of bridges is presented in detail) multi-mode procedures based on adaptive incremental implementation of response spectrum analysis for simultaneous modal pushover analyses (the IRSA method is described in detail), and multi-mode procedures based on single-run pushover analysis with modal-combined adaptive seismic load or displacement patterns (the ‘Adaptive Capacity Spectrum Method’ is presented as the most recent version of this approach) For all major approaches to pushover analysis, an effort is made to describe them in such detail that would permit their implementation by the reader, provided, of course, that he/she has the appropriate analytical tools (cf. Ch. 2) and the expertise to use them. Practical application is also facilitated considerably by the information provided in the next chapter.


Plastic Hinge Pushover Analysis Seismic Demand SDOF System Displacement Demand 
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. Abbasi V, Daudeville L, Kotronis P, Mazars J (2004) Using damage mechanics to model a four story RC framed structure submitted to earthquake loading. In: Li et al (eds) Proc 5th Int Conf Fracture Mech Concrete Struct 2:823–830Google Scholar
  2. Alemdar BN, White DW (2005) Displacement, flexibility, and mixed beam-column finite element formulations for distributed plasticity analysis. J Struct Eng 131(12):1811–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004a) Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. J Earthq Eng 8:497–552Google Scholar
  4. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004b) Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthq Eng 8:643–661Google Scholar
  5. Antoniou S, Rovithakis A, Pinho R (2002) Development and verification of a fully adaptive pushover procedure. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 9–13 September, London, UK, Paper No. 822Google Scholar
  6. ASCE [American Society of Civil Engineers] (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, Washington D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  7. ASCE [American Society of Civil Engineers] (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41, Washington D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  8. ATC [Applied Technology Council] (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC-40 report, vols 1 and 2, ATC, Redwood City, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Aydınoğlu MN (2003) An incremental response spectrum analysis based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 1:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aydınoğlu MN (2004) An improved pushover procedure for engineering practice: incremental response spectrum analysis (IRSA). In: International workshop on performance-based seismic design: concepts and implementation, Bled, Slovenia, PEER Report 2004/05, pp 345–356Google Scholar
  11. Aydınoğlu MN (2005) A code approach for deformation-based seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. In: International workshop on seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings, Joint Research Centre (JRC), ELSA Laboratory, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  12. Aydınoğlu MN, Fahjan Y (2003) A unified formulation of the piecewise exact method for inelastic seismic demand analysis including the P-delta effect. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:871–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aydınoğlu MN, Önem G (2009) Nonlinear performance assessment of bridges with incremental response spectrum analysis (IRSA) procedure. In: Papadrakakis M et al (eds) Computational structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. CRC Press, Leiden, pp 393–400Google Scholar
  14. Aydınoğlu MN, Önem G (2010) Evaluation of analysis procedures for seismic assessment and retrofit design, Chapter 8. In: Earthquake engineering in Europe. Springer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  15. Biggs JM (1964) Structural dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM (1997) Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation for reinforced concrete structures. J Struct Eng 123(1):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Casarotti C, Pinho R (2007) An adaptive capacity spectrum method for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action. Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):377–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CEN [Comité Européen de Normalisation] (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. CEN [Comité Européen de Normalisation] (2005) Eurocode 8: Design provisions of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2: Bridges, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Chopra AK (2001) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  21. Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity-Demand-Diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of structures, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. De Rue GM (1998) Nonlinear static procedure analysis of 3D structures for design applications. Master thesis, University of New York at BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  25. Elnashai AS (2001) Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake applications. Struct Eng Mech 12(1):51–69Google Scholar
  26. Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16(3):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fajfar P (2007) Seismic assessment of structures by a practice oriented method. In: Ibrahimbegovic A, Kozar I (eds) Extreme man-made and natural hazards in dynamics of structures, NATO security through science series, Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1987) Non-linear seismic analysis of RC buildings: implications of a case study. Eur Earthq Eng 1:31–43Google Scholar
  30. Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1988) N2- a method for non-linear seismic analysis of regular buildings. Proc 9th World Conf Earthq Eng Tokyo V:111–116Google Scholar
  31. FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  32. FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures (ATC-55/FEMA 440), Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  33. FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] (2009) Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on seismic response, FEMA P440A, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  34. Filippou FC, Fenves GL (2004) Methods of analysis for earthquake-resistant structures. In: Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (eds) Earthquake engineering – from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Fischinger M, Beg D, Isaković T, Tomazevic M, Zarnic R (2004) Performance based assessment – from general methodologies to specific implementations. In: Proceedings of the International workshop on performance based seismic design, Bled, Slovenia 2004; published in PEER report 2004-05 (UC Berkeley), pp 293–308Google Scholar
  36. Fragiadakis M, Papadrakakis M (2008) Modeling, analysis and reliability of seismically excited structures: computational issues. Int J Comput Method 5(4):483–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Freeman SA (1998) Development and use of capacity spectrum method. In: Proceedings of the 6th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, CD-ROM, EERI, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  38. Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk – a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of the 1st U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Oakland, California, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  39. Freitas JAT, Almeida JPM, Pereira EMBR (1999) Non-conventional formulations for the finite element method. Comput Mech 23:488–501zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goel RK, Chopra AK (2004) Extension of modal pushover analysis to compute member forces. Earthq Spectra 21(1):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hall JF (2006) Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:525–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Han SW, Chopra AK (2006) Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(15):1853–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hellesland J, Scordelis A (1981) Analysis of RC bridge columns under imposed deformations. IABSE Colloquium, Delft, pp 545–559Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Isaković T, Fischinger M (2011) Applicability of pushover methods to the seismic analyses of an RC bridge, experimentally tested on three shake tables. J Earthq Eng 15(2):303–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Isaković T, Lazaro Nino MP, Fischinger M (2008) Applicability of pushover methods for the seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(8):1185–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kappos AJ, Petranis C (2001) Reliability of pushover analysis – based methods for seismic assessment of R/C buildings. In: Corz A, Brebbia CA (eds) Earthquake resistant engineering structures III. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 407–416Google Scholar
  48. Lupoi A, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2007) Further probing of the suitability of push-over analysis for the seismic assessment of bridge structures. In: Proceedings of the ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (COMPDYN), Rethymno, Greece, Paper No. 1045Google Scholar
  49. Mari A, Scordelis A (1984) Nonlinear geometric material and time dependent analysis of three dimensional reinforced and prestressed concrete frames, SESM Report 82-12, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  50. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (2007) Specification for buildings to be built in earthquake zones. Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  51. Ministry of Transportation (2008) Seismic technical specification for coastal and harbour structures, railways and airport construction – Chapter 3. In: Design essentials of railway bridges under earthquake action. Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  52. Miranda E, Akkar SD (2003) Dynamic instability of simple structural systems. J Struct Eng 129:1722–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Neuenhofer A, Filippou FC (1997) Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite-element models. J Struct Eng 123(7):958–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OASP [Earthquake Protection Organization of Greece] (2009) Code for structural interventions (KANEPE), Final draft, Athens. (in Greek)
  55. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ (2008) An improved modal pushover analysis procedure for the seismic assessment of bridges. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering (14WCEE), Beijing, China, Paper No. 14-0236Google Scholar
  56. Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ (2010) Further development of a multimodal pushover analysis procedure for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(2):211–222Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Paret TF, Sasaki KK, Eilbeck DH, Freeman SA (1996) Approximate inelastic procedures to identify failure mechanisms from higher mode effects. In: Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 966Google Scholar
  59. Pegon P (1996) Derivation of consistent proportional viscous damping matrices. JRC Research Report No. I.96.49, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  60. Penelis GrG, Kappos AJ (2005) Inelastic torsion effects in 3D pushover analysis of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures, Thessaloniki, Greece, Paper No. 51Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM (2003) Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete bridges. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACI international conference of seismic bridge design and retrofit for earthquake resistance, December 8–9, 2003, La Jolla, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  63. Priestley MJN, Grant DN (2005) Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. J Earthq Eng 1(9):229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reinhorn AM (1997) Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes, Bled, Slovenia, pp 277–288Google Scholar
  65. Saiidi M, Sozen M (1981) Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. J Struct Div ASCE 107(ST5):937–952Google Scholar
  66. Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF (1998) Multimode pushover procedure (MMP): a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis. In: Proceedings of 6th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  67. Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou FC (1996) Mixed formulation of nonlinear beam finite element. Comput Struct 58(1):71–83zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Takeda T, Sozen M, Nielsen N (1970) Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. J Struct Div ASCE 96(12):2557–2573Google Scholar
  69. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wakabayashi M (1986) Design of earthquake-resistant buildings. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson E (2001) Static and dynamic analysis of structures, Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, California. (excerpts available at URL:

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Nuray Aydınoğlu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matej Fischinger
    • 2
  • Tatjana Isaković
    • 2
  • Andreas J. Kappos
    • 3
  • Rui Pinho
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityÇengelköy – IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil and Geodetic EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Department of Structural MechanicsUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations