Skip to main content
Log in

Seismic response of multi-span continuous irregular bridges using displacement-based and conventional force-based methods

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the recent years, the displacement-based seismic design (DBD) method of structures has been recognized as the alternative design method to the conventional force-based seismic design (FBD) method. The problems inherited in the FBD method are mostly overcome by the DBD method as it better correlates the structural damage with displacement-based quantities. In this study, the seismic response of multi-span bridges with varying number of spans and unequal pier heights was evaluated using the DBD method and compared with the conventional FBD method. Two approaches were employed in the DBD method, such as the traditional direct displacement-based seismic design (DDBD) approach and the proposed approach in this study entitled as alternative-to-direct displacement-based seismic design (ADBD). For seismic evaluation of the bridge structures with the FBD method, acceleration response spectra as suggested in the Bangladesh National Building Code were used; while in the DBD method, displacement response spectra for different damping ratios were developed keeping consistency with the above-mentioned design acceleration spectra. Five bridge models were used in the analysis to compare the seismic response in both the longitudinal and transverse directions taking into account the number of spans and height irregularity in the bridge models. Numerical analysis showed very obvious results that the base shear calculated by both approaches of the DBD method is found to be smaller than the FBD method indicating that an economic member section be attained for meeting the same design objective. More specifically, the ADBD approach provides the design professionals a more conservative design approach in compared with the DDBD approach keeping an economic design approach comparing with the FBD method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van Cao V (2019) Characterization of near-fault effects on potential cumulative damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers. Int J Civ Eng 17:1603–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00428z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Basöz N, Kiremijin AS, King SA, Law KH (1999) Statistical analysis of bridge damage data from the 1994 Norhridge, CA, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 15(1):25–53. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yamazaki F, Motomura H, Hamada T (2000) Damage assessment of expressway networks in Japan based on seismic monitoring. In: Proc., 12th world conf. on earthquake engineering, paper no. 0551, pp 1–8

  4. Bhuiyan AR, Alam MS (2012) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a multi-span continuous highway bridge fitted with shape memory alloy bar and laminated rubber bearing. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1379–1404. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2011) Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. AASHTO, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  6. Canadian Standard Association (2010) Canadian highway bridge design code (CAN/CSA S6-06). Canadian Standard Association, Toranto

    Google Scholar 

  7. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1981) Seismic design guidelines for highway bridges. ATC, CA

    Google Scholar 

  8. CALTRANS (2004) Seismic design criteria. CALTRANS, CA

    Google Scholar 

  9. CALTRANS (2010) Seismic design criteria. CALTRANS, CA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Japan Road Association (JRA) (2002) Specification for highway bridges-part V: seismic design. Japan Road Association (JRA), Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  11. Priestley MJN (1993) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering. Bull N Zeal Soc Earthq Eng 26(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.26.3.329-341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM (2003) Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete bridges Proc. In: 5th International conference on seismic bridge design and retrofit for earthquake resistance, CA, USA

  13. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.807

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ, Powell GH (2008) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. Earthq Spectra. doi 10(1193/1):2932170

    Google Scholar 

  15. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2013) Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. AASHTO, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  16. Applied Technology Council (2003) Seismic design guidelines for highway bridges. Applied Technology Council, CA

    Google Scholar 

  17. Veletsos A, Newmark NM (1960) Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. In: Proc. of 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering, pp 895–912

  18. Shibata A, Sozen MA (1976) Substructure method for seismic design in R/C. ASCE J Struct Eng 102(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA (1995) Displacement-based design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 24(12):1623–1643. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290241206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Calvi GM, Kingsley GR (1995) Displacement-based seismic design of multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 24:1247–1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290240906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dwairi H, Kowalsky M (2006) Implementation of inelastic displacement patterns in direct displacement-based design of continuous bridge structures. Earthq Spectra 22(3):631–662. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2220577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kowalsky MJ (2002) A displacement-based approach for the seismic design of continuous concrete bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 31(3):719–747. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kappos AJ, Gidaris I, Gkatzogias KI (2010) An improved displacement-based design procedure for concrete bridges. In: 3rd conference on seismic retrofitting, Tabriz, Iran

  24. Kappos AJ, Gkatzogias KI, Gidaris IG (2011) An improved displacement-based seismic design methodology for bridges accounting for higher mode effects. In: Thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Corfu, Greece

  25. Suarez V, Kowalsky MJ (2006) Implementation of displacement-based seismic design for highway bridges. In: 5th National seismic conference on bridges and highways, San Francisco, CA, USA Canada

  26. Calvi GM, Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ (2013) Displacement-based seismic design of bridges. Struct Eng Int 23(2):112–121. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686613X13439149157399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reza SM, Alam MS, Tesfamariam S (2014) Seismic performance comparison between direct displacement-based and force-based design of a multi-span continuous reinforced concrete bridge with irregular column heights. Can J Civ Eng 41:440–449. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Billah AHMM, Alam MS (2016) Performance-based seismic design of shape memory alloy-reinforced concrete bridge piers. II: methodology and design example. J Struct Eng 142(12):1943–1954. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sharma A, Tripathi RK, Bhat G (2020) Comparative performance evaluation of RC frame structures using direct displacement-based design method and force-based design method. Asian J Civ Eng 21:381–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00198-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cademartori M, Sullivan TJ, Osmani S (2020) Displacement-based assessment of typical Italian RC bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 18:4299–4329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00861-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Adhikari G, Petrini L, Calvi GM (2010) Application of direct displacement based design to long span bridges. Bull Earthq Eng 8(4):897–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9173-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC-Draft) (2015) Structural design-part 6, Dhaka, Bangladesh

  33. Computer and Structures Inc. (CSiBridge) (2015) CA, USA

  34. Sharifi S, Toopchi-Nezhad H (2018) Seismic response modification factor of RC-frame structures based on limit state design. Int J Civ Eng 16:1185–1200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0276-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to express their heartiest gratitude to Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CUET) for providing supports to conduct this research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. R. Bhuiyan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoque, M.A., Mukhlis, M.R. & Bhuiyan, M.A.R. Seismic response of multi-span continuous irregular bridges using displacement-based and conventional force-based methods. Int J Civ Eng 19, 837–850 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00600-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-021-00600-4

Keywords

Navigation