Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED
PROCEDURES FOR THE SEISMIC
ASSESSMENT AND PERFORMANCE-
BASED DESIGN OF CONTINUOUS LONG-
SPAN RC BRIDGES
A.G. Ayala1 and M.A. Escamilla2

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an insight into an ongoing investigation on the development and validation of
approximate procedures for the seismic evaluation and design of long-span continuous reinforced
concrete bridges. It is shown that the application of these procedures may lead to erroneous results
when a structural/demand regularity condition, measured by a modal regularity index, appears. To
understand this problem, the main features of a recently proposed evaluation procedure are
critically reviewed showing that the most likely causes are changes in the shapes and or
composition of the vibration modes due to inelastic effects. To solve this problem, a modification
to the procedure previously used by the authors is proposed. The validity of this modification is
illustrated via the seismic evaluation of two bridges with recognized ill regularity conditions. It is
shown that the apparent similarity of the capacity curves of these bridges with those calculated
using nonlinear incremental dynamic analyses does not always guarantee that the performances
calculated with the simplified procedures are correct.

1
Research Professor, Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
2
Research Student, Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
 Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

Application of Simplified Procedures in the Seismic Assessment and

Performance-Based Design of Continuous Long-Span RC Bridges

A.G. Ayala1 and M.A. Escamilla2

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an insight into an ongoing investigation on the development and validation of
approximate procedures for the seismic evaluation and design of long-span continuous reinforced
concrete bridges. It is shown that the application of these procedures may lead to erroneous results
when a structural/demand regularity condition, measured by a modal regularity index, appears. To
understand this problem, the main features of a recently proposed evaluation procedure are critically
reviewed showing that the most likely causes are changes in the shapes and or composition of the
vibration modes due to inelastic effects. To solve this problem, a modification to the procedure
previously used by the authors is proposed. The validity of this modification is illustrated via the
seismic evaluation of two bridges with recognized ill regularity conditions. It is shown that the
apparent similarity of the capacity curves of these bridges with those calculated using nonlinear
incremental dynamic analyses does not always guarantee that the performances calculated with the
simplified procedures are correct.

Introduction

The generality of current seismic design regulations require that structures must be able to
dissipate part of the energy input by a design demand through inelastic behaviour. However, the
simplified analysis procedures accepted in these regulations do not guarantee that the structures
have a seismic performance that approximates that obtained by an otherwise exact and more
complex analysis procedure, especially when there is a significant participation of higher modes
to performance, such as occurs in tall and irregular buildings and in long-span bridges. Despite
this observation most existing seismic codes based on the Force-Based Seismic Design Philosophy
(FBSDP) still accept the use of simplified seismic assessment and design procedures which are
based on the almost unrestrictive use of equal displacement rule [15], which may not be generally
applied to short periods structures and structures located at soft soil sites.

In addition to the problems and limitations attached to the implementation and use of the equal
displacement rule in the seismic assessment and design of structures, several recent studies have
been carried out. These studies have found that factors associated with changes in the mode shapes
in the course of the inelastic response may significantly influence the correctness of the
performance results obtained by the simplified methods of nonlinear seismic analysis, as this
problem alone can generate erroneous results, when compared to those obtained with nonlinear
step-by-step analysis procedures, considered numerically exact for a particular seismic demand.

1
Research Professor, Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
2
Research Student, Institute of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
Due to these limitations in the last decade there have numerous research efforts to validate the
application of seismic assessment and design methodologies, particularly for long-span reinforced
concrete bridges. Current specialized literature on the seismic assessment and design of reinforced
concrete bridges under strong seismic demands does not offer a simplified nonlinear analysis
procedure that ensures that the seismic performances calculated are comparable with those
obtained from an "exact" procedure.

To correct this problem, significant research efforts have been devoted to the development
of new seismic design and evaluation procedures that guarantee that the performances obtained
are approximately the same as those obtained with more refined methods of seismic analysis.
However, despite the advances in the development of these procedures there is still the need for
an explanation as to why these procedures often fail to predict the correct seismic performances of
long-span continuous bridges.

Specialized literature on the use and validation of existing Simplified Nonlinear Analysis
Procedures, SNAPs, for the assessment and seismic design of bridges, often questions the validity
of the results produced. This problem has been generally attributed to regularity conditions related
to the geometry and the response characteristics of these structures. Due to these regularity
conditions and the lack of solutions to eliminate this problem the use of SNAPs is no longer
recommended for evaluating the seismic performance of the long-span bridges.

The regularity conditions of bridge structures have been recently addressed [3] showing
that evaluation results obtained with existing SNAPs may be wrong when the response of the
nonlinear structure involves changes in its modal characteristics when evolving from linear elastic
conditions to conditions associated to different levels of damage induced by earthquake action.
From the analysis of numerous evaluation results obtained with existing procedures, including the
procedure developed [2], [3] proposed a new definition of regularity, termed modal regularity,
characterized by a modal regularity index. Even though this definition helps the understanding and
characterization of regularity and its effect on the results obtained with SNAPs, up till now there
are no suggestions on how to diminish or eliminate the undesirable effects of this condition which
are often characterized by erroneous results.

This paper addresses the questions on why and when existing SNAPs used to calculate the
capacity curve using pushover analyses fail to produce correct results and how this limitation may
be overcome. For this sake, from the comparison of the different definitions of regularity and their
potential to detect this problem, it is shown that the concept of modal regularity is the best option
to help the analyst to understand the seismic behaviour of continuous bridges and how this
behaviour depends on the changes and composition of the modal shapes throughout evolving
damage scenarios during seismic response. To eliminate the wrong effects of modal regularity,
this paper proposes a conceptual modification of the original evaluation procedure proposed by
[2]. To validate and exemplify the use of this modification the seismic evaluation of two bridges,
considered in the literature as structures for which the application of SNAPs leads to erroneous
performance results, is presented. The results obtained with the modified SNAP show that the
wrong effects of modal regularity are eliminated for the cases when there are changes in the modal
composition, i.e., first example presented, and that for the cases where modal composition is
drastically modified throughout seismic response, these effects may not be eliminated, a condition
that occurs in the second example considered where the correction proposed does not work as one
of the modal shapes associated to a damage state is significantly different to the corresponding
elastic modal shape. Finally, it is shown that the application of the Displacement-Based Seismic
Design, DBSD, procedure proposed by [4], guarantees structures with acceptable levels of modal
regularity and which may be seismically evaluated with a valid SNAP.

Equal displacement rule and its impact on the seismic assessment and design of structures

Most seismic assessment and design procedures adopted by existing codes are based on the equal
displacement rule which states that the maximum inelastic displacement of a single degree of
freedom oscillator, SDOF, subjected to a seismic demand is, under certain conditions,
approximately equal to the maximum elastic displacement of the same oscillator under the same
seismic demand (see Fig. 1). This observation was made by [15] when investigating the
relationship between the maximum elasto-plastic response of SDOF oscillators with their
corresponding maximum elastic response.
Relative displacement, u, in

Um=Uo=3.28in
Elastic Response
Um=3.28in

Inelastic Response

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (s)

Figure 1. Comparison between the elastic and inelastic responses of a SDOF oscillator [15].

Due to the impact of the use of the equal displacement rule on the procedures and regulations
commonly used in the practice of the seismic assessment and design of structures, there have been
a number of investigations, e.g., [9] and [16], in which the limitations of this "rule" have been
discussed proposing, when this observation is not strictly applicable, the use of factors to correct
the results obtained. Most of these investigations have been focussed on approximating the elasto-
plastic response of oscillators using the corresponding elastic response, considering different
factors that may significantly affect the response of oscillators such as initial stiffness, damping
ratio, hysteretic behaviour, type of earthquake and site soil conditions. However, despite all the
research done on this issue, there is currently no single clear answer on the frequent inefficacy of
the numerous simplified assessment and design procedures proposed in recent years to correctly
predict the seismic performance of existing structures or guarantee the performance objectives of
a structure under design conditions. The only conclusion that may be derived from these
investigations is that the equal displacement rule provides results with a reasonable approximation
for SDOF oscillators in a range of medium and long periods and that this conclusion may be also
valid for short period structures and on soft ground conditions the corrections proposed are used.
The application of the equal displacement rule and its correction factors has been extrapolated to
most simplified analysis procedures for MDOF structures and adopted by some current design
codes; however, only few regulations and technical documents such as [7] have addressed the
conditions under which these methods may be inaccurate and even wrong results.

Modal regularity

Considering that current literature on the seismic assessment of structures does not show a unique
definition of the concept of structural regularity for all kinds of structures and that the existing
definitions do not consider all the factors that may cause the SNAPs to give erroneous performance
results for irregular structures, this paper proposes a new definition of structural regularity, named
modal regularity, which considers modifications in modal composition or important changes in
modal shapes throughout the elastic and inelastic response of a structure produced by a particular
demand. It is shown that the undesired effects of modal regularity on the results of the seismic
performance of a structure obtained using a SNAP appear when there are changes in modal
composition and/or modal shapes throughout seismic responses involving incursions into the
inelastic range of behaviour.

Modal regularity indices can vary from values close to one, for structures with minor
changes in modal shapes, to values close to zero, when important changes in participation factors
and modal composition occur. In principle, small values of the modal regularity index can occur
in any type of structure. However, this condition is more frequently found in viaduct-type long-
span bridges where changes in modal composition may occur immediately after the yielding of the
first pier. The effects of modal regularity in code designed buildings are only evident when they
experience considerable levels of damage under earthquake action, a situation that rarely occurs
unless the responses of buildings are close to collapse conditions. Application of the SNAPs to
building structures subjected to seismic demands associated to the collapse prevention limit state
is currently under investigation. Although modal regularity is not the only cause that produces
erroneous performances calculated using SNAPs, this characteristic may be the main cause if not
properly considered in the analysis procedure.

Seismic Assessment

Current seismic analysis procedures used to assess structures have been classified in two groups:
“exact” and simplified. The procedure considered as “exact” due to its robustness and rigorous
mathematical basis, is the Nonlinear Response History Analysis, NRHA. This procedure has as
disadvantages the computational effort involved in its practical application and the need for
analysts with expertise in nonlinear structural dynamics. On the other hand, the simplified
procedures, SNAPs, involve in their application relatively less computational effort and expertise
requirements. These procedures, however, lack a rigorous conceptual basis as the calculation of
performance is carried out using the capacity curve of the structure, determined by different
methods that may produce significantly different curves. Recent research efforts have shown that
often when the seismic performance of structures under seismic demands of increasing intensity
is predominantly governed by the first mode as is the case of regular bridges, the application of
SNAPs leads to accurate seismic performances if a reliable approximation of the capacity curve of
the structure is obtained.
 Although recent years have witnessed the development of many SNAPs which may be
used in the seismic assessment of continuous bridges, e.g., [6], the possibility of erroneous results
has caused these structures to remain the most sensitive to seismic evaluations using these
procedures. Furthermore, most, if not all, SNAPs have been developed to assess regular building
structures whose behaviour is governed by the fundamental mode and that rarely show problems
associated to modal regularity. However, this is not always the case in continuous bridges, where
modal regularity conditions may be proved to produce wrong performance approximations, [3].

The limitations of current SNAPs, shown when the results of their application fail to
approximate the seismic performance of continuous bridges, have been attributed to factors such
as inadequate consideration of energy dissipation due to hysteresis and participation in the
response of more than one mode of vibration, and to structural features such as tall piers, highly
irregular mass and stiffness distributions due to unequal superstructure spans and pier heights, and
more recently, as found by [3], to modal regularity. The effects of modal regularity are hardly
noticed in short-to-moderate span bridges and in regular buildings. Unfortunately, this is not
always the case of bridges.

Due to the limitations of the simplified procedures of the preceding paragraphs, some
current seismic codes recommend the use of NRHA or, more recently, the procedure called
Incremental Dynamic Analysis, IDA, [14] to evaluate irregular structures with complex seismic
behaviour. Even though these procedures give more detailed and reliable results than existing
SNAPs, the difficulties found in their application justify the development and use of more practical
alternatives such as the SNAP proposed by [5] which uses a reliable approximation of the capacity
curve involving a correction for energy dissipation due to hysteresis.

Performance-based seismic design

The unexpected performance shown by numerous structures during recent destructive earthquakes
has been partly attributed to the deficiencies of the force-based methods used in their design. These
methods assume the validity of the equal displacement rule ignoring the effects of changes in
modal shapes throughout response. To guarantee that the real performance of the structures is in
accordance with the target assumed for design, the concepts of the Performance Based Seismic
Design philosophy, PBSD, have been emphasized in the development of new seismic design
procedures by taking proper consideration of the accomplishment of the design objectives. The
most frequently used PBSD procedures are those using as performance indices displacements
instead of forces as they have a direct influence on the seismic performance of a structure. Among
these procedures the most widely known are the Direct Displacement-Based Design Method,
DDBD, [11], the Seismic Design Method Based on Direct Deformation, SDMBDD, proposed by
[8] and the Displacement-Based Seismic Design Method, DBSDM, proposed by [4]. These design
methods have been frequently applied to buildings and not so often to bridges, in particular to
viaducts with responses with significant participation of higher modes of vibration.

Proposed seismic assessment procedure

The seismic evaluation procedure proposed in this paper preserves the essence of the original
procedures developed by [12], however, this procedure is modified to eliminate the wrong effects
of modal regularity found in the seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete bridges using SNAPs.
It consists on the construction of the capacity curve of the structure using a sequence of evolutive
modal spectral analyses and seismic demands corresponding to the increments of intensity. For
each damage event the corresponding modal spectral analysis produces an increment in the
performance index (displacement of a characteristic point) associated to the increment of
earthquake intensity. The behaviour curves for each participating mode, also known as modal
capacity curves, are defined including only events with the same modal configuration. The total
response of the structure is obtained by adding the participation of all modes, using a conventional
modal combination rule.

The seismic performance of a bridge is defined using the independent modal behaviour
curves constructed branch by branch, calculating as many performance points as damage states are
generated in the structure until the final intensity of the demand is reached. Each performance
point is defined by a modal spectral analysis considering a structure with the damage
corresponding to each branch. The details of the procedure used to calculate the seismic
performance is described in the following steps:

1. Define the seismic demand. Even though this procedure has been developed considering that
the seismic demand applied to the structure is given by a smooth design spectrum, in this paper,
for validation purposes, this demand is given by a single earthquake record.
2. Define the capacity of the structural elements by calculating their moment- curvature diagrams.
3. Calculate the elastic branch of the capacity curve. This branch is defined by calculating the
characteristic displacement and base shear in the structure corresponding to the intensity of
seismic demand required to produce the first damage.
4. Define the elastic branches of the modal behaviour curves for all modes that contribute to the
performance of the structure from the results of the elastic branch of the capacity curve.
5. Define a new model of the structure considering the damage event corresponding to the
increment of seismic demand used for this new branch of the capacity curve.
6. Extract the corresponding inelastic branches of the modal behaviour curves and check for
changes in the modal composition from the previous to the new damage event.
7. If there are no changes in the modal composition, calculate the performance points along the
inelastic branches of the capacity and corresponding modal behaviour curves for the new
damage event. If there are changes in modal composition apply the correction for modal
regularity by organizing the correspondence of the inelastic branches of the modal behaviour
curves in such a way that the corrected modal behaviour curves for all damage events are
associated with similar modal configurations.
8. Calculate the branches and corresponding performance points for subsequent damage events
by repeating the process from step 5. The procedure ends when a predefined target
displacement is reached or the analysis method fails to give reliable results.

Application examples

The approximate determination of the nonlinear seismic performance of some long-span bridges
can be very complicated, particularly when SNAPs are used. This situation may appear, even in
viaduct-type bridges with a regular geometry and significant transverse stiffness provided mostly
by one pier, whose behaviour is governed by only one mode and bridges with inelastic modal
shapes influenced by two or more elastic modal shapes. To illustrate this issue, continuous bridges
with a low modal regularity index according to [3], are assessed (see Fig. 2).

To demonstrate the influence of modal regularity on the results obtained with SNAPs both
bridges were analysed. The first bridge, referred as V313P, had a regular geometry, the mass and
stiffness centres are the same; nevertheless this bridge has been considered as irregular by some
design codes [1], since its transverse stiffness is provided mainly by its shortest pier. This bridge
is also considered as irregular, in accordance with the concept of modal regularity proposed in this
research, since there is a significant change in modal shapes when the bridge performance occurs
on the non-linear range. The second bridge, V213P, is considered irregular by the codes and by
several authors [3]. In the nomenclature used in the literature to define the characteristics of these
bridges, "V" indicates the type of bridge (V: Viaduct), "P" the type of support at abutments, (P:
hinge), and the numbers, the ratios of pier heights to a basic height of 7m. For all modal analyses
the mass of the bridges was considered concentrated at nodes located along their decks assuming
that the piers weighed 100 kN/m and the decks 200 kN/m.

7m
Mass V213P 14m

21m

50m 50m 50m 50m

7m
Mass V313P
21m

50m 50m 50m 50m

Figure 2. Bridges considered as irregular according to AASHTO (2007)

Seismic assessment results

To validate the seismic assessment procedure by [2] and the correction proposed in this paper, two
bridges with recognized modal regularity problems are considered. The first bridge has a
significant participation of higher modes in its performance and the second bridge, even though it
has a performance significantly influenced by the fundamental mode, experiences important
changes in modal shapes under the seismic demand considered. The seismic demand used in both
examples corresponded to the E-W component of the Takatori Station acceleration record. To
carry out the evolutive modal spectral analyses, the commercial structural analysis program [13],
was used, and for the IDA, the program [10].

Fig. 3 shows a comparison of the elastic and the inelastic modal shapes for the V313P and
V213P bridges. These bridges have been classified as irregular by [3] due to the low values of their
modal regularity indexes. Fig. 3a shows for the V313P bridge a change in the modal composition
from one damage state to another, i.e., the elastic fundamental mode shape is similar to the modal
shape corresponding to the second mode of the damaged model. Fig. 3b shows, for the V213P
bridge, a change in the modal shapes from one damage state to another, however, in this case there
is no correspondence between the elastic and inelastic modal shapes, i.e., the modal shapes are not
maintained, particularly, the shape of the fundamental mode. In this example where the
participation of higher modes is significant in the linear and non-linear ranges of behaviour; Figs.
3a and 3b, clearly illustrate the changes in modal shapes. These changes, as expected, are
associated to low regularity indices which may lead to wrong seismic performances results when
a SNAP is used.
0.8
V313P -Mode 2- Mode 1
0.6
0.7
V313P -Mode 1-

Modal displacement
0.4
0.6 Mode 1 Mode 2 Without damage
0.2
Modal displacemnet

0.5 With damage

0
0.4
-0.2
0.3
-0.4
0.2
-0.6 Mode 2
Without damage
0.1
With damage -0.8
0 0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 Bridge length
Bridge lenght
Bridge length
Bridge lenght 3a)

1 1
V213P -Mode 1- V213P -Mode 2-
0.8 0.8
Mode 1 0.6 Mode 1
Modal displacement

Modal displacement

0.6
0.4
0.4 0.2

0.2 0
-0.2
0 Without damage
Without damage -0.4 With damage
-0.2
Mode 2 with damage -0.6 Mode 2
-0.4 -0.8
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Bridge length 3b) Bridge length

Figure 3. Modal shapes of the V313P and V213P bridges

Figs. 4 and 5 show a comparison of the capacity curves generated using the SNAP and the dynamic
capacity curve obtained with the IDA. Fig. 4 shows a comparison between the capacity curves, for
the viaduct regular in geometry but with modal irregularity, V313P, obtained with the SNAP with
and without the correction proposed, MSP and MS, respectively, and the corresponding dynamic
capacity curve obtained using the IDA. For this example it is shown that the performances obtained
with the SNAP with modifications approximate the performances obtained with the "exact"
method, i.e., the proposed procedure leads to performances close to those considered as "exact".
Figs. 5 shows that for both methods there is no correspondence between base shears and
displacements for equal intensity demands, i.e., the performance points obtained with the
simplified procedure do not coincide with those obtained with the "exact" procedure, when the
correction proposed is not used, MS, even when the correction by energy dissipation by hysteresis
is applied.
 16000 Bridge V313P
i=0.4 Bridge V213P i=0.3
12000
i=0.4 i=0.3
12000 i=0.4

Base shear (kN)

8000

Base shear (kN)

8000

4000 MSP 4000

IDA IDA
MS MS
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 0.01 0.02
Displacements (m) Displacements (m)
4) 5)

Figures 4 and 5. Comparison of the capacity curve of the V313P and V213P bridges obtained
using the SNAP and the IDA

Fig. 6 shows a comparison between the capacity curve, MSP, of the V213P bridge
generated using the SNAP with the correction proposed in this paper and the dynamic capacity
curve. It may be observed that in this case as the modal shapes of this structure change during its
seismic response there is no one-to-one correspondence between base shears and displacements
for equal intensity demands. The performance points obtained with the SNAP are different to those
obtained with the "exact" procedure, even when the correction by dissipation of energy due to
hysteresis is used.

Seismic design results

To verify the efficacy of the DBSDM procedure proposed by [4] on the design of long-span
continuous bridges that have a significant participation of higher modes of vibration without modal
regularity problems, the design of a viaduct-type continuous long-span bridge considered as
irregular by [1] was carried out. The original bridge, used as reference, was designed according to
the [7]. Fig. 6a shows the location of damage proposed for design conditions and the yield moments
of the piers of the bridge designed in accordance with the [7] and with the displacement-based
design procedure proposed by [4]. Fig. 6b shows a comparison of the maximum transverse
displacements of the bridge obtained with the SNAP proposed in this paper and those obtained
with the non-linear step-by-step analysis. As expected, there is an acceptable correspondence
between the results of both methods.

Conclusions

This paper presents the results of a project aimed to investigate the influence of modal regularity
due to changes in modal composition and/or modal shapes on the non-linear performance of long-
span continuous bridges calculated using the SNAP. For the cases where the SNAPs lead to wrong
results due to low modal regularity indexes, this paper suggests a modification to the SNAP
proposed by [2] that provides correct approximate seismic performances only when there are
changes in the modal composition. This procedure, however, does not give correct answers when
the modal shapes are significantly modified.

From the results of the seismic assessment of the performance-based designs of the V213P and
V313P viaducts studied in this investigation considering their undamaged and damaged states and
the seismic evaluation and the displacement-based design of a bridge rated as irregular according
to [1], the following conclusions may be extracted:

1. Changes in the modal composition of structures behaving in the nonlinear range affect the
correctness of the performance results obtained using SNAPs. This effect is particularly noticed
on viaduct-type long-span continuous bridges as their seismic performance generally involves the
contribution of higher modes of vibration.

2. The use of SNAP proposed in this paper for structures with modal regularity problems
produces approximations of seismic performances close to those obtained with a method
considered as "exact". However, in bridges where the shape of the fundamental mode in the
nonlinear range does not correspond to any of the elastic modal shapes, e.g., a shape influenced by
two or more elastic modal shapes, the correction by modal regularity proposed in this research
does not produce correct results.

3. The displacement-based design procedure proposed by [4] can be successfully applied to

the design of continuous bridges. This paper shows that the structures designed using this
procedure will have acceptable modal regularity and therefore may be evaluated with a SNAP
without modification.
0.18
  6a) V213P 6b)
0.16
Transversal displacement (m)

V213P 0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
Plastic hinges
  0.06
   0.04 Displacement simplified procedure
Simplified procedure step-by-step analysis
0.02 displacement step by step analysis
My1 = 11278.0 kN-m My1 = 9414.72 kN-m
My2 = 48054.3 kN-m My2 = 48054.3 kN-m 0
My3 = 10297.4 kN-m My3 = 8728.23 kN-m 0 50 100 150 200
Bridge lenght
Bridge length

Figure 6. Bridges considered as irregular according to AASHTO (2007)

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Institute of Engineering (II-UNAM) for the sponsorship of the
research activities on which this paper was based and the National Council of Science and
Technology (CONACyT) for the graduate scholarship of the second author.

References
1. AASHTO LFRD. Bridge Design Specifications. 4th ed. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials: Washington D.C. 2007.

2. Alba, F., Bento, R. and Ayala, A. G. Seismic performance evaluation of plane frames vertically regular and
irregular. Proceedings of the Fourth European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex
Structures. EAEE: Thessaloniki, Greece 2005.

3. Ayala, A.G. and Escamilla, M. A. Modal irregularity in continuous reinforced concrete bridges, Detection effect
on the simplified seismic performance evaluation and ways of solution. Proceedings of the Sixth European
 Workshop on Irregular and Complex Structures: Haifa, Israel 2011.

4. Ayala, A.G., Castellanos, H. y López, S. A displacement-based seismic design method with damage control for
RC buildings. Earthquakes and Structures. 2012; 3.

5. Ayala, A.G. and Escamilla, M. A. Assessment of the simplified procedures to build the capacity curve used to
define the seismic behavior. International Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Skopje, Republic of
Macedonia: 2013.

6. Aydinoglu M.N. and Önem G. Nonlinear performance assessment of bridges with Incremental Response
Spectrum Analysis (IRSA) procedure. Chapter 25 in Computational Structural Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering. Taylor & Francis Group, London, U.K., 393–400, 2009.

7. CEN, Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 2: Bridges. Committee European of
Standardization, European Pre-standard. ENV1998-2, 1994.

8. Kappos A. J., Gkatzogias K. I. and Gidaris I. G. Extension of direct displacement-based design methodology for
bridges to account for higher mode effects. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013; 42:581–602.

9. Miranda, E. Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands in multistory buildings, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 1999; 125(4), 417-425.

10. Prakash, V., Powell, G.H., and Filippou, F. DRAIN-2DX: Base Program User Guide. SEMM Report 92- 29,
University of California, Berkeley CA. 1992.

11. Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M. and Kowalsky, M. J. Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS
Press. 2007 Pavia, Italy:

12. Requena, M. and Ayala A.G. Evaluation of a simplified method for determination of the nonlinear seismic
response of RC frames. Proceedings of the XII World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2000.

13. CSI, SAP2000: Three dimensional static and dynamic finite element analysis and design of structures. Computers
and Structures Inc.: Berkeley, CA. 2009

14. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2002; 31:3, 491-514.

15. Veletsos, A. y Newmark, N. Effect of inelastic behaviour on the response of simple systems to earthquake
motions. Proceedings of the II World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 1960; Vol 2: 895-912.

16. Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M., 1994. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement.
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 23:507-521