Case Studies and Comparative Evaluation of Methods

  • Tatjana IsakovićEmail author
  • Antonio Arêde
  • Donatello Cardone
  • Pedro Delgado
  • Matej Fischinger
  • Andreas J. Kappos
  • Nelson V. Pouca
  • Rui Pinho
  • Anastasios Sextos
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 21)


The methods presented in chapter 3 are applied here to specific case-studies, involving bridges with different length and configuration. The chapter starts with a critical discussion of the basic parameters that influence the applicability of pushover methods. Then, a number of case-studies are presented in a rather uniform and detailed way; they were selected among those available with a view to including at least one application of each category of methods described in the previous chapter and (wherever feasible) to applying two or more ‘simplified’ methods to the same bridge structure. In addition to a number of pushover analyses, all case-studies include also response-history analysis of the inelastic response of the bridge, which serves as a reference for evaluating the results of the various approximate (static) procedures. In the case studies, in addition to the four pushover methods described in detail in Chapter 3, some other variants of the key approaches are also used and comparatively evaluated, so that at the end a more global picture of practically all analysis and assessment techniques available for bridges is provided. To allow for an even broader view on the issues involved and put the purely analytical methods into the proper perspective, the final section of chapter 4 presents an experimental evaluation of analytical methods, i.e. results from analytical methods (response-history, as well as pushover) are compared with those from the shaking table testing (using three shaking tables) of a 1:4 scale bridge model.


Peak Ground Acceleration Plastic Hinge Seismic Intensity Pushover Analysis Pushover Curve 
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. Antoniou S, Pinho R (2004) Development and verification of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure. J Earthq Eng 8(5):643–661Google Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, vols 1 and 2. Report No. ATC-40, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. FEMA 440 report, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. ASCE/SEI (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings – ASCE standard 41-07. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  5. Aydinoğlu MN (2004) An improved pushover procedure for engineering practice: incremental response spectrum analysis IRSA. In: Proceedings of the international workshop: performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation. Bled, Slovenia, pp 345–356Google Scholar
  6. Aydinoğlu MN, Önem G (2007) Nonlinear performance assessment of bridges with incremental response spectrum analysis (IRSA). In: ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering. Rethymno, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  7. Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1999) The effective duration of earthquake ground motion. J Earthq Eng 3(2):127–172Google Scholar
  8. Caltrans-California Department of Transportation (2006) Seismic design criteria version 1.4. CALTRANS, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardone D, Dolce M, Rivelli M (2008) Evaluation of reduction factors for high-damping design response spectra. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):273–291Google Scholar
  10. Cardone D, Perrone G, Sofia S (2011) A performance-based adaptive methodology for the evaluation of vulnerability and seismic risk of highway bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1463–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (1994) Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures – Part 2: Bridges (prENV 1998-2:1994). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1: 2004). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. CEN (Comité Europeen de Normalization) (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2: Bridges, EN 1998-2:2005. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2002) A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chopra AK, Goel RK, Chintanpakdee C (2004) Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthq Spectra 20(3):757–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Computers and Structures Inc (2003) SAP2000: three dimensional static and dynamic finite element analysis and design of structures. CSI, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  19. Computer and Structures, Inc. (2005) SAP2000 – advanced: static and dynamic analysis finite element analysis of structures. CSI, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  20. Delgado P, Costa A, Delgado R (2002) A simple methodology for seismic safety assessment of bridges. In: Proceedings of the 12th ECEE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Delgado P, Costa A, Pinho R, Delgado R (2004) Different strategies for seismic assessment of bridges – comparative studies. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering 13WCEE, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolce M, Cardone D, Perrone G (2007) Seismic risk assessment of highway bridges. In: Proceedings of 1st US-Italy seismic bridge workshop, 18–20 April 2007, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  23. Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1987) Non-linear seismic analysis of RC buildings: implication of a case study. Eur Earthq Eng 1:31–43Google Scholar
  24. Fajfar P, Gašperšič P, Drobnič D (1997) A simplified nonlinear method for seismic damage analysis of structures. In: Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes: proceedings of the international workshop Bled, Slovenia, pp 183–194Google Scholar
  25. Faria R, Olive J, Cervera M (1998) A strain based plastic viscous damage model for massive concrete structures. Int J Solids Struct 35(14):1533–1558zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Faria R, Vila Pouca N, Delgado R (2001) Numerical models to predict the nonlinear behaviour of bridge piers under severe earthquake loading. Deliverable no. 6, Task 3, Report No. 3/2 (VAB Project), FEUP, PortoGoogle Scholar
  27. Giuffrè A, and Pinto P (1970) “Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazione ciclice di forte intensitá.” Giornale del genio civile, May (in Italian)Google Scholar
  28. Isakovic T, Fischinger M (2006) Higher modes in simplified inelastic seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(10):95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Isakovic T, Fischinger M (2007) Pushover analysis of the two-span reinforced concrete bridge system. Research report, Institute of Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering and Construction IT, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  30. Isaković T, Fischinger M (2008) Pushover analysis of a two-span multicolumn bent RC bridge, experimentally tested on three shake tables. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Isaković T, Fischinger M, Kante P (2003) Bridges: when is single mode seismic analysis adequate? Struct Build 156(SB2):165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Isaković T, Pompeyo Lazaro MN, Fischinger M (2008) Applicability of pushover methods for the seismic analysis of single-column bent viaducts. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 37(8):1185–1202. doi: 10.1002/eqe.813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobsen LS (1930) Steady forced vibrations as influenced by damping. Trans ASME 51:227–253Google Scholar
  35. Johnson NS, Saiidi MS, Sanders DH (2006) Large-scale experimental and analytical seismic studies of a two span concrete bridge system. Report No. CCEER-06-02, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, UNR, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, RenoGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson N, Ranf RT, Saiidi MS, Sanders D, Eberhard M (2008) Seismic testing of a two-span reinforced concrete bridge. J Bridg Eng 13:173–182. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008) 13:2(173) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kappos AJ (1991) Analytical prediction of the collapse earthquake for RC buildings: suggested methodology. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 20(2):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kappos AJ (2002) RCCOLA-90: a microcomputer program for the analysis of the inelastic response of reinforced concrete sections. Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  39. Kappos AJ, Paraskeva TS (2008) Nonlinear static analysis of bridges accounting for higher mode effects. In: Workshop on nonlinear static methods for design/assessment of 3D structures, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  40. Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA (1995) Displacement-based design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(12):1623–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 first US-Italy workshop on seismic design of bridges, Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  42. Maroney BA, Romstad KM, Kutter B (1993) Experimental testing of laterally loaded large scale bridge abutments. Structural engineering in natural hazards mitigation. In: Proceedings of papers presented at the structures congress ’93, vol 2, ASCE, New York, pp 1065–1070Google Scholar
  43. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL et al (2006) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command-language manual, version 1.7.3., PEER, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  44. Ministry of Public Works of Greece (2003) Greek seismic code – EAK 2000 (amended June 2003). Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  45. Moschonas IF, Kappos AJ, Panetsos P, Papadopoulos V, Makarios T, Thanopoulos P (2009) Seismic fragility curves for Greek bridges: methodology and case studies. Bull Earthq Eng 7(2):439–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paraskeva T, Kappos A, Sextos A (2006) Development and evaluation of a modal pushover analysis procedure for seismic assessment of bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(10):1269–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Pinto A, Pegon P, Magonette G, Molina J, Buchet P, Tsionis G (2002) Pseudodynamic tests on a large-scale model of an existing RC bridge using non-linear substructuring and asynchronous motion. EUR 20525 EN, EC, Joint Research Centre, ISISGoogle Scholar
  49. Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. SAC Joint Venture (1997) Develop suites of time histories. Project task: 5.4.1, Draft Report, March 21, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  51. SeismoSoft (2006) SeismoStruct – a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures available online from
  52. Sextos A, Pitilakis K, 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):607–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Takahashi Y (2009) (Accessed September 2009)
  54. UNR (2008) (Accessed September 2008)
  55. Vila Pouca N (2001) Simulação Numérica da Resposta Sísmica de Elementos Laminares em Betão Armado. Dissertation, FEUP ( (in Portuguese)
  56. Vila Pouca N, Faria R, Delgado R (2002) Numerical simulation of the seismic behaviour of Talübergang Warth bridge. In: Proceedings of the 12th ECEE, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatjana Isaković
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonio Arêde
    • 2
  • Donatello Cardone
    • 3
  • Pedro Delgado
    • 4
  • Matej Fischinger
    • 1
  • Andreas J. Kappos
    • 5
  • Nelson V. Pouca
    • 2
  • Rui Pinho
    • 6
  • Anastasios Sextos
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil and Geodetic EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversity of 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 EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  6. 6.Department of Structural MechanicsUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations