applied

sciences
Article
Dynamic Response Evaluation of Long-Span
Reinforced Arch Bridges Subjected to Near- and
Far-Field Ground Motions
Iman Mohseni 1 , Hamidreza Alinejad Lashkariani 2 , Junsuk Kang 1, * and Thomas H.-K. Kang 2
1 Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural Systems Engineering, Seoul National University,
Seoul 08826, Korea; iman.mohseni@snu.ac.kr
2 Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea;
hamidreza.alinejad@snu.ac.kr (H.A.L.); tkang@snu.ac.kr (T.H.-K.K.)
* Correspondence: junkang@snu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-880-2227




Received: 10 June 2018; Accepted: 20 July 2018; Published: 27 July 2018


Abstract: This study assessed the structural performance of reinforced concrete (RC) arch bridges
under strong ground motion. A detailed three-dimensional finite element model of a 400 m RC
arch bridge with composite superstructure and double RC piers was developed and its behavior
when subjected to strong earthquakes examined. Two sets of ground motion records were applied to
simulate pulse-type near- and far-field motions. The inelastic behavior of the concrete elements was
then evaluated via a seismic time history analysis. The concept of Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR)
was utilized to produce an initial estimate of the dynamic performance of the structure, emphasizing
the importance of capacity distribution of force and bending moment within the RC arch and the
springings and piers of the bridge. The results showed that the earthquake loads, broadly categorized
as near- and far-field earthquake loads, changed a number of the bridge’s characteristics and hence
its structural performance.

Keywords: arch bridge; seismic analysis; near- and far-field; ground motion

1. Introduction
Arch bridges are one of the oldest types of man-made structures and are still widely used when
constructing roads in areas with deep ravines. Reinforced concrete (RC) arch bridges are both aesthetic
and economic alternatives to large-span structures and thus perform a useful role in the hierarchy
of major bridges. Over the past three decades, the introduction of high-strength materials and the
development of new erection techniques have led to a significant increase in the number of RC arch
bridges [1–4]. Concrete arch bridges take one of the following forms: tied-arch bridges, deck arch
bridges, and through arch bridges [5]. Among these, the deck arch bridge is the most widely favored
because the arch resists gravity load in compression. The main components of a deck arch bridge are
its arch, piers, and superstructure. The arch can be constructed in a number of different cross-section
configurations using various materials and techniques, including a single or multicell-box, box-ribs,
a solid cross-section, and composite concrete filled by steel tubes [1]. Because of the high torsional
rigidity and vital bending capacity required for most such structures, closed-form cross-sections tend
to be more popular for arch bridges. The bridge piers that connect the superstructure to the arch
consist of either single rectangular wall-shape columns or a pair of rectangular RC piers aligned with
the edges of the deck. The main focus of this study is on the dynamic characteristics of deck arch
bridge with pairs of rectangular RC columns, but the results would also be applicable to bridges with
wall-shaped columns.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243; doi:10.3390/app8081243 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 2 of 19

The seismic behavior of an arch bridge is complex. The structure’s ductile capacity will be
significantly reduced due to the large axial forces acting on the arch components [6,7]. The high
complexity and widely varying load experienced by individual bridge members during a seismic event
make it essential to improve our understanding of the ductility capacity of the structure under normal
circumstances and hence support a realistic estimation of the ductility demand during an earthquake.
There are several reports in the literature that focus on the seismic response of arch bridges and suggest
potential retrofitting techniques to help them withstand seismic events [8–13]. Most of the previous
researchers adopted a displacement-based approach based on incorporating state-of-the-art design
concepts such as performance-based design procedures for steel arch bridges under seismic loads.
Pushover analyses to determine the ultimate state, taking into account the failure criterion proposed
for thin walled steel members, were used to determine the displacement capacities of individual bridge
components. Khan et al. [14] and Franetovic et al. [15] investigated the seismic responses of reinforced
concrete arch bridges under particular ground motions.
A state-of-art review of the vulnerability and structural damage suffered by RC arch bridges
during the bridge life-cycle performed by Chen and Song [16] classified the characteristics and rules
for the various types of distress suffered by such bridges, along with the reasons for their occurrence,
providing a useful reference to guide their design, construction and maintenance. Priestley et al. [17]
developed a new design approach based on direct displacement-based seismic factors for RC arch
bridges, proposing new expressions for the yield drift and deformation capacity of bridge columns,
while Salonga and Gauvreau [18] performed a comparative study on 55 existing arch bridges and
developed empirical trends to describe the properties and geometrical ratios related to important
attributes such as their proportions, stiffness, slenderness, and efficiency. The current seismic design
practices issued by bodies such as AASHTO [19] and the California Department of Transportation [18]
recommend the application of modal response spectrum or equivalent static analyses to design RC
arch bridges categorized as irregular bridges. They, however, do not appear to consider inelastic
mechanisms in bridge components. Although modern transportation networks often utilize RC arch
bridges to overcome geographical obstacles, the dynamic behaviors and structural and geometric
parameters for these kinds of bridges subjected to earthquake events have been poorly understood. It is
important to appreciate that the seismic responses of these structures may also be significantly affected
by the distance of a construction site from a ruptured fault. Bridges may also behave very differently in
far-field and near fault earthquakes and experience different soil-structural interactions [20–23]. As a
result, previous studies of these complex issues have been limited and the seismic behavior of RC arch
bridges tends to be significantly misunderstood by structural engineers. As yet, there are no adequate
seismic design provisions for designing and evaluating the arch bridges under seismic loads.
Due to the general lack of quantitative data concerning the seismic responses of RC arch bridges
under various types of earthquake events, further investigations are urgently needed. To address this
deficiency, this study investigated the seismic responses of RC arch bridges using three-dimensional
finite element modeling and analysis. The model bridge was designed based on the AASHTO [19]
specifications using equivalent static analysis (ESA) and a response spectrum approach (RSA).
The seismic behavior of the bridge was evaluated under two sets of recorded ground motions extracted
from databases of real world near-field and far-field earthquake events, respectively. A nonlinear
time-history analysis using direct-integration was performed and the average values of the responses
calculated to evaluate the demand-capacity ratios of the model bridge.

2. Structure of the Representative Bridge Used in the Case Study

An upper-deck RC arch bridge design was designed for the case study analyses (Figure 1).
A response spectrum analysis (RSA) was performed when designing the bridge components based
on the AASHTO [19] specifications and the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20]. The design spectrum
provided in the AASHTO specification for a peak ground motion of 0.35 g, which is representative of a
strong earthquake intensity level, and a site class of D was selected.
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

The reinforced concrete arch of the bridge consists of a double cell-box cross-section with a
constant outer dimension (b × h) of 10 m × 3 m (Figure 2). The total length of the bridge was taken to
be 400
Appl. Sci. 2018, m, with a reinforced concrete arch length of 212 m and a rise at the crown of 52 m, giving a 3 of 19
8, 1243
rise-to-span ratio of 0.25.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

The reinforced concrete arch of the bridge consists of a double cell-box cross-section with a
constant outer dimension (b × h) of 10 m × 3 m (Figure 2). The total length of the bridge was taken to
be 400 m, with a reinforced concrete arch length of 212 m and a rise at the crown of 52 m, giving a
rise-to-span ratio of 0.25.

Figure 1. Longitudinal view of the model RC arch bridge designed for this study. All measurements
Longitudinal
Figure 1.are in m. view of the model RC arch bridge designed for this study. All measurements
are in m.

The reinforced concrete arch of the bridge consists of a double cell-box cross-section with a
constant outer dimension (b × h) of 10 m × 3 m (Figure 2). The total length of the bridge was taken
to be 400 m, with a reinforced concrete arch length of 212 m and a rise at the crown of 52 m, giving a
Figure 1. Longitudinal view of the model RC arch bridge designed for this study. All measurements
rise-to-span ratio ofm.0.25.
are in

Figure 2. Cross section of the composite deck and RC arch at the P6 position. All measurements are
in cm.

A triple-box cross-section was utilized close to the arch abutments in order to enhance the shear
and bending stiffness of the bridge structure. Vertical RC diagrams were incorporated inside the RC
arch at the point where the columns rest on the arch. Figure 2 shows the transverse section of the
model bridge.
Figure 2.The composite
Cross superstructure,
section of the composite deck which
and RCisarch21 at
m the
wide and 2.10All
P6 position. mmeasurements
high, consistsareof a 25 cm
reinforced
Figure 2. Cross concrete
in cm. sectiondeck-plate supported
of the composite deckbyandtwo RC steel box-shaped
arch at the P6girders
position.placed 4 m apart. Fixedare
All measurements
supports are assumed at the springings of the arch and at the bottom of piers P2, P11 and P13 to
in cm.
representA triple-box cross-section
the foundation over awas utilized
bedrock site.close
Thistoisthe arch abutments
a widely acceptedinapproach
order to enhance
used forthe
theshear
majority
of and
archbending stiffness
bridges; of theofbridge
the effect structure. Vertical
soil-structure interactionsRC diagrams
are alsowere incorporated
generally inside
neglected the RC The
[11–13].
arch at the
A triple-box
composite point
deck where the
cross-section
is supported
was columns rest close
utilized
on longitudinalon the arch.
to
movable
theFigure
arch 2abutments
bearingsshows the at
located transverse
in ordersection of the
to enhance
the abutments and
the shear
at the
and bendingmodel bridge. The
stiffness of composite
the bridgesuperstructure,
structure. which is 21 mRC
Vertical wide and 2.10 m were
diagrams high, consists of a 25 cm inside the
incorporated
stiff short central piers P5–P8 and P12 (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2, two types of movable bearing
RC arch atreinforced
the point concrete deck-plate supported by two steel box-shaped girders placed 4 m apart. Fixed
where the columns rest on the arch. Figure 2 shows the transverse section of
supports are assumed at the springings of the arch and at the bottom of piers P2, P11 and P13 to
the model represent
bridge. the The composite
foundation over asuperstructure,
bedrock site. This iswhich
a widelyisaccepted
21 m wide and
approach 2.10
used formthehigh, consists of a
majority
of arch bridges;
25 cm reinforced concrete the deck-plate
effect of soil-structure
supported interactions
by twoare alsobox-shaped
steel generally neglected [11–13].
girders The 4 m apart.
placed
composite
Fixed supports are deck is supported
assumed at theonspringings
longitudinal of
movable bearings
the arch andlocated
at theatbottom
the abutments
of piersandP2,
at the
P11 and P13
stiff short central piers P5–P8 and P12 (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2, two types of movable bearing
to represent the foundation over a bedrock site. This is a widely accepted approach used for the
majority of arch bridges; the effect of soil-structure interactions are also generally neglected [11–13].
The composite deck is supported on longitudinal movable bearings located at the abutments and at
the stiff short central piers P5–P8 and P12 (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2, two types of movable
bearing are modeled, namely pinned connections and sliding bearings that support the vertical action
only. The bridge deck is highly flexible and may thus experience significant horizontal displacement
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 4 of 19

are modeled, namely pinned connections and sliding bearings that support the vertical action only.
The bridge deck is highly flexible and may thus experience significant horizontal displacement
duringduring
a majora major earthquake
earthquake event.Any
event. Anylarge
large displacement
displacement will
willresult in in
result adverse impacts
adverse on allon
impacts the
all the
fixed bearings; hence, viscous dampers of the type developed by Žderić et al. [24] as shown in Figure
fixed bearings; hence, viscous dampers of the type developed by Žderić et al. [24] as shown in Figure 3,
3, each with a 2000 KN capacity, are included in the model at both ends of the deck in order to reduce
each with a 2000 KN capacity, are included in the model at both ends of the deck in order to reduce the
the seismic response of the bridge. These nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers (NFVD) were modeled
seismic response
hereAppl. theof8,following
Sci. 2018,
using the
x FORbridge. These
PEERpractical
REVIEW nonlinearbetween
relationship Fluid Viscous Dampers
the internal (NFVD)
force acting were
on the modeled
4 ofF(N),
damper, 19 here
using and
the the
following practical relationship between the internal force acting
Velocity, V (in m/s) derived experimentally by Seleemah and Constantinou [25]: on the damper, F(N), and
are modeled, namely pinned connections and sliding bearings that support the vertical action only.
the Velocity, V (in m/s) derived experimentally by nSeleemah and Constantinou [25]:
The bridge deck is highly flexible and may thus sgn
F = CV experience
(V ) significant horizontal displacement(1)
during a major earthquake event. Any large displacement will result in adverse impacts on all the
where C (N(sm−1)n) is the damping constant; F = CVvelocity
n
sgn(exponent,
V) n, defines the type of device and (1)
fixed bearings; hence, viscous dampers of the type developed by Žderić et al. [24] as shown in Figure
introduces the nonlinearity of viscous damper; and sgn is sign or signum
3, each with a 2000 KN capacity, are included in the model at both ends of the function
deck in which
order toisreduce
used for
wheredefining
Cthe
(N(sm the
−1sign
) of
n ) is a
the real number.
damping The mechanical
constant; velocitycharacteristics
exponent, of
n, the damper
defines
seismic response of the bridge. These nonlinear Fluid Viscous Dampers (NFVD) were modeled the [24]
typeused
of in the and
device
present
introduces study
herethe
using are modeled with
the followingofpractical
nonlinearity n
viscous and V values
relationship of
damper; between 0.40
and sgntheand 0.34 (m·s
is internal
−1), respectively. Figure 3 shows
sign orforce
signumactingfunction whichF(N),
on the damper, is used for
a fluid
defining and viscus
thethe
sign damper
Velocity,
of a real ofnumber.
V (in the type
m/s) typically
derived used in bridge
experimentally
The mechanical abutments.
bycharacteristics
Seleemah and Constantinou
of the damper[25]: [24] used in the
A total of 13 double columns, shown in cross-section in Figure 4, were defined to support the
−1
present study are modeled with n and V values F =of
CV0.40
n
(V ) 0.34 (m·s ), respectively. Figure
sgnand (1)3 shows a
composite deck. The transverse distance between the columns is 7.60 m, which matches the girder
fluid viscus damper
where
spacing inCthe
(N(smof−1)the
n) is type typically
the damping
superstructure.
used invelocity
constant; bridgeexponent,
abutments.
n, defines the type of device and
introduces the nonlinearity of viscous damper; and sgn is sign or signum function which is used for
defining the sign of a real number. The mechanical characteristics of the damper [24] used in the
present study are modeled with n and V values of 0.40 and 0.34 (m·s−1), respectively. Figure 3 shows
a fluid viscus damper of the type typically used in bridge abutments.
A total of 13 double columns, shown in cross-section in Figure 4, were defined to support the
composite deck. The transverse distance between the columns is 7.60 m, which matches the girder
spacing in the superstructure.

Figure 3. Typical nonlinear fluid viscous damper [24].

Figure 3. Typical nonlinear fluid viscous damper [24].

A total of 13 double columns, shown in cross-section in Figure 4, were defined to support the
composite deck. The transverse distance between the columns is 7.60 m, which matches the girder
spacing in the superstructure.
Figure 3. Typical nonlinear fluid viscous damper [24].

Figure 4. Cross section of the double piers in the model RC arch bridge. All measurements are in cm.

Figure 4. Cross section of the double piers in the model RC arch bridge. All measurements are in cm.
Figure 4. Cross section of the double piers in the model RC arch bridge. All measurements are in cm.
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 5 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

European concrete classes [26] C45/55 and C35/45, with strengths in compression of 45 MPa
European concrete classes [26] C45/55 and C35/45, with strengths in compression of 45 MPa and
and 35 MPa, respectively, were utilized for the arch and columns. The modulus of elasticity for both
35 MPa, respectively, were utilized for the arch and columns. The modulus of elasticity for both
concrete materials was 3600 GPA. In this study, only unconfined concrete was used for the bridge
concrete materials was 3600 GPA. In this study, only unconfined concrete was used for the bridge
components so as to provide conservative design. It should be mentioned that in the investigation by
components so as to provide conservative design. It should be mentioned that in the investigation by
Salonga and
Salonga and Gauvreau
Gauvreau [16]
[16]the
thebridge
bridgewith
withspan
span length
length of
of 400 m was
400 m wasatatthe
thesecond
secondposition
positioninin their
their
collection of of
collection 5555RCRC
arch bridges
arch bridgessorted
sortedfrom
fromlargest
largestto
to smallest span lengths.
smallest span lengths.Therefore,
Therefore,the
theselected
selected
bridges can be considered as a typical long-span RC arch bridge.
bridges can be considered as a typical long-span RC arch bridge.

3. Modeling thethe
3. Modeling Forces Acting
Forces Actingon
onthe
theRepresentative
Representative Bridge
Bridge
The three-dimensional
The three-dimensionalanalytical
analyticalmodel
model of
of the
the reinforced concrete(RC)
reinforced concrete (RC)arch
archbridge
bridgedescribed
described
above was developed using CsiBridge V20 [27] software. Figure 5 shows the resultingresulting
above was developed using CsiBridge V20 [27] software. Figure 5 shows the three-
dimensional finitefinite
three-dimensional element modelmodel
element of the bridge.
of the Two-node
bridge. frame elements,
Two-node framewith three translational
elements, with three
and three rotational
translational and threedegrees of freedoms
rotational degrees of(DOF) at each
freedoms node,at
(DOF) were
eachapplied to model
node, were the RC
applied to arch
modelandthe
RCpiers
arch of
andthepiers
bridge.
of the bridge.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

where Av,eff is the effective shear area and Av,g is the shear area of the gross cross-section of the frame
elements. The values of Av,g and Jg were calculated automatically by CsiBridge [27] based on the cross
section geometry. In order to develop a realistic model of the superstructure, the deck slab was
modeled as four-node shell elements with six degree of freedom at each node, located at the centroid
of the deck. Frame
Figure elements were applied
Figure 5. Three-dimensional
5. Three-dimensional
FEAto model
model
FEA model the
of the
of the box-shaped
bridge
bridge
constructed
constructed girder
using located
CsiBridge.at the centroid of
using CsiBridge.
the members [26]. The transverse steel plates were modeled as a shell element supported by stiff U-
Based onlocated
shaped profiles the bridgealonggeometry
the edgesdiscussed
and at in specified
the previous section,on
locations thethe
foundations
plates. The of the piers
floor-system
were assumed
Based on thetobridge
determine the level
geometry of base in
discussed fixity
the [20]. The height
previous of the
section, the foundations
piers was defined
of theaccording
piers were
members were connected usingofoffsets and[20].
massless rigid of
links within thedefined
CsiBridge program. to theThe
to the Caltrans
assumed to Seismic
determine Design
the level Criteria
base [18]:
fixityseparate The segments
height atthe
the piers
top andwas bottom of according
each pier with
compressive stress-strain relationship developed by Mander et al. [29] was used for the concrete
a length
Caltrans Dc.g were
Seismic Designused to represent
Criteria the portion
[18]: separate segmentsembedded in the
at the top andsuperstructure
bottom of each or pier
arch,with
defined in
a length
materials.
Dc.gterms
wereof With
the to
used regard
difference to the
representbetween bridge loads,
the bottom
the portion embeddedthe area
flange of the longitudinal
andsuperstructure
in the vertical centroid reinforcements
of thedefined
or arch, cross-section for
in termsofthe
the
of piers
the
and RC arch were
superstructure
difference taken
betweenorthe to
RCbottom be between
arch (Figure 3.5%
flange6),and and
andvertical 4.5%
a rigid centroid of their
offset assigned.gross cross-section areas. The transverse
of the cross-section of the superstructure or
rebars
RC arch were designed
In(Figure
order to asaϕrigid
6),enhance
and 14 participation
the mm at assigned.
offset 100 mm for the
of higher piers additional
modes, and ϕ 18 mm nodesatwere
100 defined
mm foratthe theRC arch.
mid-
heights of P2–P3 and P8–P10. The use of effective cross-section properties is a common practice
recommended by the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20], anticipating the development of early
cracks developing in reinforced concrete piers due to gravity and lateral loads. Therefore, for the
seismic analysis of the RC arch bridges the effective inertia of the piers was decreased to 70% of the
gross section for the entire length of each element. The torsional moment of inertia for piers was
modified according to Equation (2) proposed by the American Concrete Institute’s Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) [28] to take into account the effect of the reduction in
torsional stiffness after cracking:
J eff = 0.20 J g (2)

where Jeff is the effective torsional stiffness of the piers and Jg is the torsional reduction in the gross
cross-section. A modifying factor was also applied to the gross cross-sections of the piers and the arch
to allow for the combined effects of flexural and axial load in predicting the shear capacity of ductile
members. Equation (3) proposed in Section 3.6 of the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20] was then
used to obtain the shear modification factor as follows:
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Pier end locations
Pier end locationsrelative
relativetotothe
thetop topand
andbottom
bottom joints
joints [18].
[18].
Av ,eff = 0.80 Av , g (3)
4. Case Study of a Representative Bridge

4.1. Moment-Curvature Analysis for Piers

Based on the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20], a moment-curvature (M-φ) analysis was
performed for all the ductile concrete members in order to determine the plastic moment capacity of
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 6 of 19

In order to enhance the participation of higher modes, additional nodes were defined at the
mid-heights of P2–P3 and P8–P10. The use of effective cross-section properties is a common practice
recommended by the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20], anticipating the development of early cracks
developing in reinforced concrete piers due to gravity and lateral loads. Therefore, for the seismic
analysis of the RC arch bridges the effective inertia of the piers was decreased to 70% of the gross
section for the entire length of each element. The torsional moment of inertia for piers was modified
according to Equation (2) proposed by the American Concrete Institute’s Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) [28] to take into account the effect of the reduction in torsional stiffness
after cracking:
Je f f = 0.20Jg (2)

where Jeff is the effective torsional stiffness of the piers and Jg is the torsional reduction in the gross
cross-section. A modifying factor was also applied to the gross cross-sections of the piers and the arch
to allow for the combined effects of flexural and axial load in predicting the shear capacity of ductile
members. Equation (3) proposed in Section 3.6 of the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20] was then
used to obtain the shear modification factor as follows:

Av,e f f = 0.80Av,g (3)

where Av,eff is the effective shear area and Av,g is the shear area of the gross cross-section of the frame
elements. The values of Av,g and Jg were calculated automatically by CsiBridge [27] based on the
cross section geometry. In order to develop a realistic model of the superstructure, the deck slab was
modeled as four-node shell elements with six degree of freedom at each node, located at the centroid
of the deck. Frame elements were applied to model the box-shaped girder located at the centroid of the
members [26]. The transverse steel plates were modeled as a shell element supported by stiff U-shaped
profiles located along the edges and at specified locations on the plates. The floor-system members
were connected using offsets and massless rigid links within the CsiBridge program. The compressive
stress-strain relationship developed by Mander et al. [29] was used for the concrete materials. With
regard to the bridge loads, the area of the longitudinal reinforcements for the piers and RC arch were
taken to be between 3.5% and 4.5% of their gross cross-section areas. The transverse rebars were
designed as φ 14 mm at 100 mm for the piers and φ 18 mm at 100 mm for the RC arch.

4. Case Study of a Representative Bridge

4.1. Moment-Curvature Analysis for Piers

Based on the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria [20], a moment-curvature (M-ϕ) analysis was
performed for all the ductile concrete members in order to determine the plastic moment capacity of the
bridge. A complete moment-curvature analysis also indicates the strength reduction beyond the peak
point when the strain-softening characteristics of the concrete are taken into account. The emphM-ϕ
curve was idealized here using an elasto-perfectly plastic model to determine the plastic flexural
capacity of cross section, although a bilinear model capable of accounting for the strain hardening of
steel may be preferable in some cases. Figure 7 shows the moment-curvature (M-ϕ) relationship for a
structure. The value of the yield point (ϕy , My ), the nominal point (ϕY , Mne ), the ultimate capacity (ϕu ,
Mu ), the plastic capacity (ϕu , Mp ) and the curvature ductility (µφ = ϕu /ϕy ) can all be calculated based
on a moment-curvature analysis of the bridge’s piers when subjected to a certain level of dead load on
the piers and their self-weights.
According to ACI 318-14 [30], the dead load corresponds to a column with a P/Pn ratio between
0.50 and 0.35. Here, Pn is the nominal bearing capacity f’c Ag , where Ag denotes the cross section of the
column and f’c is the concrete compressive strength. The SD-Section designer program supported by
the CsiBridge software was then used to conduct the M-φ analysis based on the Caltrans Seismic Design
Criteria [20].
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 7 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Moment-curvature
Moment-curvature relation.
relation.

4.2. Assigning
4.2. Assigning the
the Plastic
Plastic Hinges
Hinges
The nonlinearity
The nonlinearity and andhysteretic
hystereticbehavior
behaviorwas was evaluated
evaluated byby assigning
assigningplastic fiberfiber
plastic hinges to pre-
hinges to
estimated locations
pre-estimated on the
locations on piers and RC
the piers andarch. This fiber
RC arch. Thishinge
fiber option, which automatically
hinge option, which automaticallyadjusts
the bending
adjusts capacity
the bending of piersofin
capacity all directions
piers based based
in all directions on fluctuations
on fluctuationsin theinpier axialaxial
the pier loads, is a
loads,
convenient
is a convenientwayway to model
to model plastic
plastic hinges
hingeswith
withsufficient
sufficientaccuracy
accuracy for for our purposes. The
our purposes. M-φ
The M-ϕ
relationship was
relationship was developed
developed using
using an an assigned
assigned fiber
fiber hinge
hinge that
that permits
permits allall bending
bending directions
directions with
with
various levels
various levels of
of axial
axial force.
force. The
The SD-designer
SD-designer then then calculated
calculated the the interaction
interaction between
between the the axial
axial force
force
and biaxial
and biaxialmoment
moment based
based on on
the the stress-strain
stress-strain relationship
relationship assigned assigned to discretized
to discretized fibers infibers in the
the member
member cross-sections.
cross-sections. The lengthsTheoflengths of thefiber
the plastic plastic fiberwere
hinges hinges were determined
determined based on based on Section
Section 7.6.2 of7.6.2
the
of the Caltrans
Caltrans SeismicSeismic
DesignDesign Criteria
Criteria [18]; these
[18]; these werewere inserted
inserted into into the model
the model as individual
as individual segments
segments at
at pre-determined
pre-determined locations.
locations. The
The length
length ofof
thethe plasticzone
plastic zone(L(L
p )p )
waswas obtained
obtained based
based on
on AASHTO
AASHTO [19]
[19]
as follows:
as follows:
L p = 0.08L + 0.022 f ye dbl ≥ 0.044 f ye dbl (4)
Lp = 0.08 L + 0.022 f ye dbl ≥ 0.044 f ye dbl (4)
where L denotes the length of the pier from the point of maximum moment to the point of moment
where L denotes the length of the pier from the point of maximum moment to the point of moment
contraflexure (m), and fye and dbl are the effective yield strength (MPa) and diameter (mm), respectively,
contraflexure (m), and fye and dbl are the effective yield strength (MPa) and diameter (mm),
of the longitudinal reinforcements. The concrete fibers were placed at the geometric centroids of each
respectively, of the longitudinal reinforcements. The concrete fibers were placed at the geometric
of the concrete areas. As more than one longitudinal reinforcement may be lumped at a single location,
centroids of each of the concrete areas. As more than one longitudinal reinforcement may be lumped
the fibers were also assumed to be located at the centroid of the bar bundle. The recommendations for
at a single location, the fibers were also assumed to be located at the centroid of the bar bundle. The
pier cross section fiber discretization presented by Berry and Eberhard [31] were used to determine the
recommendations for pier cross section fiber discretization presented by Berry and Eberhard [31]
number of fibers required to represent the cross-section configuration with adequate accuracy.
were used to determine the number of fibers required to represent the cross-section configuration
with
5. adequate
Bridge Modal accuracy.
Analysis

5. Bridge
Modal Modal Analysis
analysis is used to determine the undamped free-vibration mode shapes and frequencies
of structures. These natural modes provide an excellent insight into structural behavior and can also
be usedModal analysis
as the is used
basis for to determine the
response-spectrum undamped
analyses (RSA)free-vibration mode
of bridges. Table shapesthe
1 shows andtranslational
frequencies
and rotational modes obtained from an eigenvalue analysis of the model RC arch bridge in thecan
of structures. These natural modes provide an excellent insight into structural behavior and also
current
be used
study. as bolded
The the basis for response-spectrum
values indicate the dominantanalyses
modes(RSA) of bridges.
in each direction.Table
The1 data
shows inthe translational
Table 1 confirm
that the translational mode in the transverse direction is dominant in the first mode, which isthe
and rotational modes obtained from an eigenvalue analysis of the model RC arch bridge in current
associated
study. The bolded values indicate the dominant modes in each direction. The data
with the maximum value of the rotational mode about the longitudinal axis. This means that the first in Table 1 confirm
that the(fundamental)
natural translational mode
modeofinthe the transverse
bridge direction
structure is dominant
is a coupled in the first
mode consisting mode,
of both which is
a transverse
mode and a rotational mode. The rotational mode about the vertical axis is extracted from themeans
associated with the maximum value of the rotational mode about the longitudinal axis. This third
that the first
vibrational natural
mode. The(fundamental)
dominant mode mode of the
shape andbridge
modalstructure
frequenciesis afor
coupled mode consisting
all translational of both
and rotational
a transverse
directions aremode
shownand a rotational
in Figure 8. mode. The rotational mode about the vertical axis is extracted
from the third vibrational mode. The dominant mode shape and modal frequencies for all
translational and rotational directions are shown in Figure 8.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 8 of 19

Table 1. Results of the free-vibration eigenvalue analysis.

(a) Mass Participation Factors

Mode Period Translational Masses (%) Rotational Masses (%)

No. (s) L T V L T V
1 2.34 7.3 × 10−8 6.6 × 10−1 1.0 × 10−7 2.8 × 10−1 6.6 × 10−8 4.4 × 10−4
2 1.66 1.1 × 10−1 2.6 × 10−6 5.6 × 10−6 3.8 × 10−7 8.2 × 10−2 1.8 × 10−7
3 1.20 2.5 × 10−7 2.6 × 10−3 1.6 × 10−9 1.4 × 10−3 2.4 × 10−8 5.0 × 10−1
4 1.08 2.2 × 10−2 3.1 × 10−6 2.1 × 10−2 7.0 × 10−6 1.4 × 10−3 2.1 × 10−6
5 0.80 1.6 × 10−7 1.7 × 10−6 9.4 × 10−5 1.0 × 10−1 1.8 × 10−6 4.9 × 10−5
6 0.71 3.3 × 10−2 5.6 × 10−5 1.9 × 10−3 3.7 × 10−5 3.2 × 10−3 5.7 × 10−6
7 0.64 1.6 × 10−2 1.4 × 10−5 2.6 × 10−3 4.9 × 10−6 4.4 × 10−2 1.7 × 10−6
8 0.63 2.4 × 10−7 6.4 × 10−2 9.6 × 10−7 3.3 × 10−3 4.2 × 10−6 3.5 × 10−4
9 0.59 3.1 × 10−7 1.7 × 10−6 1.0 × 10−8 3.1 × 10−4 1.0 × 10−6 1.0 × 10−3
10 0.55 1.5 × 10−7 6.8 × 10−4 3.4 × 10−5 3.4 × 10−4 6.2 × 10−7 1.5 × 10−2
11 0.52 3.4 × 10−7 1.7 × 10−4 1.2 × 10−5 1.8 × 10−4 6.4 × 10−6 1.1 × 10−3
12 0.52 3.0 × 10−3 3.7 × 10−4 1.9 × 10−4 8.3 × 10−5 3.6 × 10−4 6.1 × 10−3
13 0.51 3.7 × 10−1 1.5 × 10−5 4.7 × 10−3 8.8 × 10−8 2.9 × 10−2 3.0 × 10−5
14 0.50 1.8 × 10−5 1.3 × 10−5 1.9 × 10−4 1.1 × 10−4 6.8 × 10−5 3.0 × 10−4
15 0.48 3.2 × 10−5 1.6 × 10−4 1.6 × 10−3 7.8 × 10−4 6.4 × 10−5 2.6 × 10−5
61 0.31 1.9 × 10−5 4.0 × 10−4 1.8 × 10−1 1.2 × 10−3 7.4 × 10−4 3.1 × 10−7
441 0.13 9.0 × 10−8 7.8 × 10−6 4.1 × 10−6 1.1 × 10−4 8.3 × 10−2 9.2 × 10−9
1850 0.03 2.1 × 10−5 6.7 × 10−8 5.0 × 10−8 2.2 × 10−8 7.6 × 10−5 2.4 × 10−9
(b) Percentage of Modal Mass Participation

Mode Period Translational Masses (%) Rotational Masses (%)

No. (s) L T V L T V
1 2.34 0 0.66 0 0.27 0 0
2 1.66 0.11 0.66 0 0.27 0.08 0
3 1.2 0.11 0.66 0 0.28 0.08 0.5
4 1.08 0.13 0.66 0 0.28 0.09 0.5
5 0.8 0.13 0.66 0 0.38 0.09 0.5
6 0.71 0.17 0.66 0 0.38 0.1 0.5
7 0.64 0.18 0.66 0 0.38 0.14 0.5
8 0.63 0.18 0.73 0 0.39 0.14 0.51
9 0.59 0.18 0.73 0 0.39 0.14 0.51
10 0.55 0.18 0.73 0 0.39 0.14 0.52
11 0.52 0.18 0.73 0 0.39 0.14 0.52
12 0.52 0.18 0.73 0 0.39 0.14 0.53
13 0.51 0.56 0.73 0.01 0.39 0.17 0.53
14 0.5 0.56 0.73 0.01 0.39 0.17 0.53
15 0.48 0.56 0.73 0.01 0.39 0.17 0.53
61 0.31 0.58 0.79 0.32 0.42 0.32 0.66
441 0.13 0.81 0.85 0.67 0.55 0.51 0.76
1850 0.03 0.91 0.93 0.9 0.74 0.88 0.89
L: Longitudinal, T: Transverse, V: Vertical directions.

The number of modes considered in the analysis must be sufficient to achieve at least a 90%
mass participation in the longitudinal and torsional directions of the bridge [19–21]. A minimum
of 1850 modes were therefore considered for the response-spectrum (RSA) and time-history (THA)
analyses in this investigation, as shown in Table 1. However, due to space limitations, only the first
15 modes of vibration plus modes 61 and 441, which had the highest mass participation in the vertical
translation and transversal rotation, respectively, and the last mode, which satisfied the 90% minimum
modal participation, are presented here. To provide a better understanding, the participation of various
modes of vibration resulting from an eigenvalue analysis are drawn in terms of their mass fractions
in Figure 9.
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 9 of 19
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19

(a)(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c)
Figure 8. CsiBridge output for the first three modes of vibration for the model RC arch bridge. (a) 1st
Figure
Figure8. 8.CsiBridge
mode CsiBridge output
output
(Transverse
for
forthe
the first
& symmetric first three modes
three(b)
torsion); modes of vibration
of
2nd mode
vibration forthe
for themodel
(Longitudinal);
modelmode
RC
(c) 3rd RC
arch
arch bridge.
bridge.
(Transverse(a)&(a)
1st1st
mode
mode (Transverse
(Transverse &
anti-symmetric & symmetric
symmetric
vertical torsion);
torsion); (b) 2nd mode (Longitudinal); (c) 3rd mode (Transverse & &
torsion). (b) 2nd mode (Longitudinal); (c) 3rd mode (Transverse
anti-symmetric vertical torsion).
anti-symmetric vertical torsion).

Figure 9. Mass participation vs. mode number.

6. Ground Motion Database Figure9.9. Mass

Mass participation
Figure participationvs.
vs.mode
modenumber.
number.
Both record selection and scaling are equally important processes for successful seismic analyses
6. Ground Motion Database
of theMotion
structures. Apposite selection of the records considering the hazard conditions for a given site
6. Ground Database
helps to increase accuracy by achieving better estimates of the structural actions. Before scaling
Both record selection and scaling are equally important processes for successful seismic analyses
ground
Both motions,
record it is necessary
selection and scaling to define the hazard
are equally conditions
important associated
processes with a given
for successful site either
seismic analyses
of the structures. Apposite selection of the records considering the hazard conditions for a given site
of the through
structures.deterministic
Apposite or selection
probabilisticofsite-specific
the records hazard analysis or
considering alternatively
the using the seismic
hazard conditions for a given
helps to increase accuracy by achieving better estimates of the structural actions. Before scaling
site hazard
helps maps. Theaccuracy
to increase parameters to
byto be considered
achieving in estimates
better identifyingof
thethe
scenario conditions
structural are those
actions. Before that
scaling
ground motions, itinfluence
is necessary define thespectral
hazardshape,
conditions associated with a givenrange
site either
ground motions, it is necessary to define the hazard conditions associated with a given siteofeither
have the most on ground motion which includes the magnitude
through deterministic or probabilistic site-specific hazard analysis or alternatively using the seismic
through
hazarddeterministic or probabilistic
maps. The parameters site-specific
to be considered hazard analysis
in identifying or alternatively
the scenario conditionsusing the seismic
are those that
have the
hazard most
maps. influence
The on ground
parameters motion spectral
to be considered shape, which
in identifying the includes
scenariothe magnitude
conditions arerange
thoseofthat
have the most influence on ground motion spectral shape, which includes the magnitude range
of anticipated significant event, distance range of the site from the causative fault, site-condition
(site-geology generally described by average shear-wave velocity within 30 m), and directivity
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 10 of 19

effect [30]. In this study, the model RC arch bridge was subjected to real world near-field and far-field
ground motions extracted from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) database [31].
Ground motion records from earthquakes in the magnitude (Mw ) range of 6.00 to 7.5 within 10 km
and 100 km of the causative fault plane were selected as near-field and far-field earthquakes,
respectively. Relevant information from the ground motion database, including the station, magnitude,
earthquake components, distance from the fault and peak ground acceleration (PGA) is presented
in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Near field ground motion database.

No. Year Earthquake Mw Mech a Station Dist b PGA (g)

1 1979 Imperial Valley-06 6.53 SS EC County Center FF 7.31 0.35
2 1979 Imperial Valley-06 6.53 SS El Centro Array #7 1.56 0.51
3 1986 N. Palm Springs 6.06 RO North Palm Springs 4.04 0.84
4 1994 Northridge-01 6.9 REV Rinaldi Receiving 6.50 0.62
5 1994 Northridge-01 6.69 REV Sylmar—Converter 5.35 0.52
6 1995 Kobe_Japan 6.90 SS Takarazuka 1.27 0.71
7 1995 Kobe_Japan 6.90 SS Takatori 2.47 0.39
8 1992 Erzican_Turkey 6.69 SS Erzican 4.38 0.57
a Fault mechanism: REV reverse, SS strike-slip, OB oblique, RO reverse-oblique. b Closest distance to fault
rupture (km).

Table 3. Far field ground motion database.

No. Year Earthquake Mw Mech a Station Dist b PGA (g)

1 1978 Tabas 7.35 REV Ferdows 91.40 0.41
2 1952 Kern County 7.36 REV Taft Lincoln School 38.89 0.44
3 1994 Northridge-01 6.69 REV La Puente—Rimgrove 56.59 0.32
4 1994 Northridge-01 6.69 REV Downey—Co Maint 46.74 0.41
5 1999 Kocaeli 7.51 SS Ambarli 69.62 0.45
6 1987 Whittier Narrows 5.99 RO Tarzana—Cedar Hill 41.22 0.61
7 1956 El Alamo 6.80 SS El Centro Array #9 121.3 0.31
8 1994 Northridge-01 6.69 REV Montebello—Bluff Rd. 45.30 0.39
a Fault mechanism: REV reverse, SS strike-slip, OB oblique, RO reverse-oblique. b Closest distance to fault
rupture (km).

The ground motion types selected for this study were from site class D of the AASHTO [19]
specification, with an average shear wave velocity for the top 30 m of soil, Vs30 , in the range of 185
m/s to 365 m/s. The ground motion values were then scaled to have similar recorded amplitudes;
hence, the average value of 5% damped response spectra for the suit of records was not less than the
design response spectrum of the site for period ranging from 0.2T to 1.5T [32], where T is the period
corresponding to the fundamental mode of the bridge. The “matched to response spectrum” option
available in the ETABS V16.2.1 [33] software was utilized to scale the recorded ground motion values.
Figure 10 shows the 5% damped response spectra for the longitudinal and transverse components
of the scaled record; the design spectra recommended by AASHTO [19] and the average response
spectrum are also shown for comparison.
As the data presented in Figure 10 show, the scaling culminates in a geometric mean spectrum
that closely matches the target spectrum over the significant range of the period for the PEER [32]
methodology. The comparison of the AASHTO design spectra and the average longitudinal and
transverse responses of the recorded ground motion thus provide a better understanding of the
relationship between spectral amplitudes and structural period.
Appl. Sci. Sci. 8,
2018,
Appl. 1243
2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
11 of 19

2.5 2.5
Longitudinal Pseudo-acceleration Transverse Pseudo-acceleration
2 2

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Average 1.5
1.5 Average

1 1
AASHTO LRFD
AASHTO LRFD

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)

(a)

2.5
2.5
Longitudinal Pseudo-acceleration
Transverse Pseudo-acceleration
2
2
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Average
1.5
1.5

Average
1 AASHTO LRFD 1

AASHTO LRFD
0.5 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Period (sec) Period (sec)

(b)
Figure 10. Response spectra of the scaled ground motion records. (a) Near-field ground motion; (b)
Figure 10. Response spectra of the scaled ground motion records. (a) Near-field ground motion;
Far-field ground motion.
(b) Far-field ground motion.
As the data presented in Figure 10 show, the scaling culminates in a geometric mean spectrum
that closely
7. Dynamic matches the target spectrum over the significant range of the period for the PEER [32]
Analysis
methodology. The comparison of the AASHTO design spectra and the average longitudinal and
According to AASHTO [19], historical analyses of the nonlinear response should generally be
transverse responses of the recorded ground motion thus provide a better understanding of the
applied for critical/essential
relationship structures
between spectral such
amplitudes andas RC archperiod.
structural bridges. Here, the dynamic analysis was
performed in two steps. In the first step, a nonlinear static analysis was carried out by applying the
7. Dynamic
gravity Analysis
loads progressively, using time increments of 0.1 s. The second step consisted of performing
a nonlinear According to AASHTO [19],(THA)
Time-History Analysis of the
historical bridge
analyses of when subjected
the nonlinear to all should
response scaled generally
ground motion
be
applied
records. Here,for
allcritical/essential
1850 modes needed structures such as
to capture 90%RCofarch
thebridges. Here, the dynamic
mass participation in bothanalysis was
the longitudinal
and transverse directions [19] were taken into account. For the nonlinear direct-integration time history
analysis, both material and geometric (large displacement effects) nonlinearities were considered.
Although a variety of common methods are provided in the CsiBridge software for conducting
direct-integration time history analysis, the Hibler-Hughes-Tylor alpha (HHT) technique [34] was used
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 12 of 19

in this study. In order to enhance the accuracy, the smallest possible time-steps and alpha values close
to zero were applied along with Rayleigh damping, a function of the mass and stiffness of the structure.
Based on the natural period of the bridge extracted from the eigenvalue analysis and imposing a 5%
modal damping ratio, the mass and stiffness proportion coefficients were determined to be 0.151 and
0.0155, respectively.

8. Seismic Performance Evaluation

From an earthquake-engineering viewpoint, determining the critical section of structure and
predicting the location of maximum displacement or stress are the most significant issues.

8.1. Seismic Displacement Demand Estimation

The estimated maximum seismic displacement demand at the deck and arch crown of a model
bridge subjected to the scaled ground motions listed in Tables 2 and 3 are presented in Tables 4
and 5, respectively. For near-field ground motion (Table 4), the maximum vertical and transverse
displacements for the deck and arch crown were from Earthquakes 3 and 4, respectively, while
the largest displacements in the longitudinal direction were obtained under Earthquakes 7 and 1.
For far-field earthquakes (Table 5), the dynamic analysis revealed that bridges subjected to ground
motion from Earthquake 2 exhibited the greatest displacement in the vertical and transverse directions
of the bridge superstructure, while the largest displacement values were obtained in Earthquakes 5, 4
and 8 for the longitudinal, transverse and vertical directions, respectively.

Table 4. Maximum displacement values at deck and arch crown for near-field earthquakes.

Deck (m) Arch Crown (m)

No. Station
L T V L T V
1 EC County 0.080 0.480 0.164 1.110 0.509 0.170
2 El Centro #7 0.096 0.592 0.168 0.084 0.503 0.168
3 North Palm 0.111 0.678 0.247 0.108 0.562 0.192
4 Rinaldi 0.120 0.765 0.180 0.103 0.615 0.174
5 Sylmar 0.123 0.406 0.155 0.077 0.317 0.154
6 Takarazuka 0.103 0.483 0.165 0.105 0.596 0.165
7 Takatori 0.131 0.728 0.158 0.098 0.581 0.163
8 Erzican 0.103 0.732 0.156 0.091 0.590 0.158
9 Average 0.112 0.627 0.177 0.224 0.545 0.165
L: Longitudinal, T: Transverse, V: Vertical directions.

Table 5. Maximum displacement values at deck and arch crown for far-field earthquakes.

Deck (m) Arch Crown (m)

No. Station
L T V L T V
1 Ferdows 0.127 0.451 0.150 0.077 0.353 0.148
2 Taft Lincoln 0.087 0.593 0.168 0.098 0.470 0.171
3 La Puente 0.093 0.316 0.122 0.067 0.240 0.125
4 Downey-Maint 0.087 0.670 0.167 0.092 0.527 0.171
5 Ambarli 0.118 0.470 0.152 0.103 0.373 0.152
6 Tarzana 0.109 0.335 0.122 0.055 0.280 0.112
7 El Centro #9 0.101 0.540 0.162 0.091 0.433 0.162
8 Montebello 0.090 0.542 0.170 0.091 0.423 0.174
9 Average 0.101 0.490 0.151 0.084 0.388 0.151
L: Longitudinal, T: Transverse, V: Vertical directions.
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 13 of 19

Table 5. Maximum displacement values at deck and arch crown for far-field earthquakes.

Deck (m) Arch Crown (m)

No. Station
The average values of the maximum L T
displacement areValso shownL T
in Tables 4Vand 5. Interestingly,
the listed values 1for the Ferdows 0.127
maximum displacement 0.451of the
0.150
deck 0.077 0.353 at0.148
do not occur the same locations.
2 Taft Lincoln 0.087 0.593 0.168 0.098 0.470 0.171
Figure 11 indicates the maximum displacement for the deck and arch crown histories of a bridge
3 Valley-06
subjected to Imperial La Puente 0.093 recorded
ground motion 0.316 0.122 0.067 #7 station.
at the Array 0.240 0.125
A significant relative
4 Downey-Maint 0.087 0.670 0.167 0.092
difference between the deck and arch displacement can be observed in longitudinal 0.527 0.171 direction, while
5 Ambarli 0.118 0.470 0.152 0.103 0.373 0.152
the deck and arch displacement in the other directions show almost identical results for the time
6 Tarzana 0.109 0.335 0.122 0.055 0.280 0.112
history analysis. This indicates that no significant residual deck displacement remains at the end of
7 El Centro #9 0.101 0.540 0.162 0.091 0.433 0.162
the analysis; hence,
8 no damage has occurred
Montebello 0.090 in0.542
either the piers 0.091
0.170 or the arch,
0.423 which
0.174play the greatest
role in supporting9 the internal forces
Average of the
0.101 deck. Although
0.490 0.151 the maximum
0.084 0.388 0.151 displacement of
vertical
the deck and arch is 0.178 m,L:by
Longitudinal, T: Transverse, V: Vertical directions. a residual displacement of
the end of the time-history analysis only
0.061 remains, which is effectively negligible.

0.15 0.8

max Deck = 0.096 0.6 max Deck = 0.59

0.1
max Arch = 0.50
max Arch = 0.084
0.4
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)
0.05
0.2
0
0
-0.05
-0.2
Arch Crown Arch Crown
-0.1 -0.4
deck Deck
-0.15 -0.6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)

0.1

0.05 Arch Crown

Displacement (m)

Deck
0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
max Arch &Deck = 0.168
-0.2
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
(c)
Figure 11. Deck and arch crown displacement histories for Imperial Valley-06 earthquake. (a)
Figure 11. Deck and arch crown displacement histories for Imperial Valley-06 earthquake.
Longitudinal direction; (b) Transverse direction; (c) Vertical direction.
(a) Longitudinal direction; (b) Transverse direction; (c) Vertical direction.
8.2. Distribution of Internal Forces and Bending Moments
8.2. Distribution of Internal Forces and Bending Moments
Figure 12 indicates the distribution of the mean internal forces in the arch of a bridge subjected
to a near-field
Figure earthquake.
12 indicates The shear forces
the distribution and
of the bending
mean moments
internal forin
forces different
the arch directions in the
of a bridge RC
subjected
arch are identified
to a near-field by RFi The
earthquake. and RM i, respectively.
shear forces and The in-plane
bending shear force
moments forand bending
different moment in
directions inthe
the RC
archnormal directionby
are identified to the
RFiaxis
andofRMthei ,arch are denotedThe
respectively. by RF 2 and RM
in-plane 3, respectively,
shear force andwhile RF3 and
bending RM2 in
moment
are, respectively,
the normal directionthe out-of-plane
to the axis of theshear force
arch areand bending
denoted bymoment
RF andinRM the transverse direction
, respectively, whileofRF
the and
2 3 3
RM2 are, respectively, the out-of-plane shear force and bending moment in the transverse direction
of the arch. Figure 12 shows that the maximum axial forces are obtained at the arch’s springings
(arch abutments). The axial forces at the arch crown can be up to 35% lower than those at the springings.
The shear forces in both directions (in-plane and out-of-plane) are distributed approximately uniformly
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

arch.
Appl. Sci. 2018,Figure
8, 1243 12 shows that the maximum axial forces are obtained at the arch’s springings (arch
14 of 19
abutments). The axial forces at the arch crown can be up to 35% lower than those at the springings.
The shear forces in both directions (in-plane and out-of-plane) are distributed approximately
along uniformly
the RC arch.
alongFigure
the RC 12barch.
shows that12b
Figure the shows
variationthatin thevariation
the out-of-plane
in the bending moment,
out-of-plane bendingRM2 ,
is accompanied by a steep gradient near the arch’s springings and a local maximum
moment, RM2, is accompanied by a steep gradient near the arch’s springings and a local maximum at the arch crown
of the at the arch
bridge; crown
the of thebending
in-plane bridge; the in-planeRM
moment, bending moment, RM
3 , is distributed 3, is distributed
along along
the arch and the arch
follows theand
same
trend,follows the same
albeit with trend,
lower albeitThe
values. withsame
lowervariation
values. The in same variationexhibited
the patterns in the patterns exhibited
by the by theand
shear force
bendingshear force and
moment bending moment
distributions distributions
are produced are subjected
in bridges produced to in far-field
bridges subjected
earthquake,to far-field
but due to
earthquake, but due to space limitation
space limitation these are not presented here. these are not presented here.

180 1400

160
1200
140

Bending Moment (MN.m)

1000 Bending Moment (RM2)
120
Force (MN)

Bending Moment (RM3)

100 800

80 Axial Force 600

60 Shear Force (RF2)
400
Shear Force (RF3)
40
200
20

0 0
0 32 64 96 128 160 192 0 32 64 96 128 160 192
Distance from Springings (m) Distance from Springings (m)
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Distribution of the average internal forces in the RC arch due to near-field earthquakes. (a)
Figure 12. Distribution of the average internal forces in the RC arch due to near-field earthquakes. (a)
Axial and shear forces; (b) Bending moments.
Axial and shear forces; (b) Bending moments.
8.3. Demand/Capacity Evaluation
8.3. Demand/Capacity Evaluation
The Demand/Capacity Ratios (DCR) from the response spectrum (RSA), equivalent static
method
The (ESA) and nonlinear
Demand/Capacity Ratiostime history
(DCR) from (NTHA) analyses
the response of the model
spectrum (RSA),bridge subjected
equivalent to near-
static method
(ESA) and
andfar-field
nonlinear ground
time motions are presented
history (NTHA) analysesin Tables
of the6 and
model 7. The results
bridge show that
subjected the longer
to near- piers
and far-field
ground tend to be more
motions are vulnerable
presentedtoinnonlinear
Tables 6interactions
and 7. Thebetween resultsthe axialthat
show forces
theand the biaxial
longer piers bending
tend to be
moment. Maximum
more vulnerable axial-bending
to nonlinear DCRbetween
interactions values of the up to 0.92forces
axial and 0.96
andwere
the found
biaxialfor pier P3 moment.
bending when
the bridge was subjected to the Kobe-Takatori and Northbridge-Downey ground motions,
Maximum axial-bending DCR values of up to 0.92 and 0.96 were found for pier P3 when the bridge
respectively, thus representing both near-field and far-field earthquakes. In addition, the DCR values
was subjected to the Kobe-Takatori and Northbridge-Downey ground motions, respectively, thus
of less than one and the minor differences between the DCR values of the piers obtained from various
representing both near-field and far-field earthquakes. In addition, the DCR values of less than one
analyses (ESA, RSA and NTHA) confirm that sufficient ductility, strength, geometries and
and the minor differences
reinforcement have beenbetween the DCR
provided in thevalues of the
structure piers obtained
designed from various
for this study. It is alsoanalyses
possible (ESA,
to
RSA andconclude
NTHA) that near-field
confirm thatground motion
sufficient tendsstrength,
ductility, to resultgeometries
in higher and DCRreinforcement
values than far-field
have been
earthquakes,
provided with thedesigned
in the structure differenceforbetween the two
this study. It being
is alsoaspossible
much as to 10%. There isthat
conclude a direct relationship
near-field ground
motion between
tends to theresult
PGA and DCR ofDCR
in higher a bridge under
values thannear-field
far-fieldground motion; consequently,
earthquakes, in mostbetween
with the difference cases
the twoan being
earthquake withas
as much a higher PGA also
10%. There is aisdirect
likelyrelationship
to result in larger DCR values.
between the PGA Theand
same
DCRrelationship
of a bridge
does not appear to hold for far-field motions, however. To better
under near-field ground motion; consequently, in most cases an earthquake with a higher understand the DCR distribution
PGA also
forto
is likely RCresult
arch bridges,
in largerFigure
DCR 13 presents
values. Thethesame
DCRrelationship
for pier and arch
doesribsnotofappear
a bridge tosubjected
hold for to the
far-field
Erzican earthquake. This suggests that nonlinear interactions between axial forces, in-plane and out-
motions, however. To better understand the DCR distribution for RC arch bridges, Figure 13 presents
of-plane bending for longer piers are more critical. Here, the maximum DCR values obtained for arch
the DCR for pier and arch ribs of a bridge subjected to the Erzican earthquake. This suggests that
ribs were around 0.350, but these are not shown due to space limitations.
nonlinear interactions between axial forces, in-plane and out-of-plane bending for longer piers are
more critical. Here, the maximum DCR values obtained for arch ribs were around 0.350, but these are
not shown due to space limitations.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 15 of 19

Table 6. Demand/Capacity Ratios for bridges under near-field earthquakes, Equivalent Static (ESA) and Response spectrum (RSA) analyses.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
No.
L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R L R
1 0.77 0.85 0.63 0.69 0.92 0.95 0.70 0.31 0.46 0.18 0.48 0.18 0.81 0.41 0.65 0.70 0.52 0.53 0.61 0.61 0.54 0.57
2 0.79 0.91 0.66 0.68 0.95 0.95 0.73 0.32 0.48 0.17 0.47 0.18 0.83 0.44 0.66 0.73 0.56 0.59 0.72 0.72 0.63 0.64
3 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.71 0.94 0.96 0.79 0.36 0.63 0.18 0.60 0.19 0.85 0.48 0.74 0.80 0.58 0.60 0.73 0.75 0.65 0.68
4 0.94 0.92 0.77 0.80 0.93 0.95 0.78 0.46 0.65 0.24 0.68 0.20 0.80 0.58 0.85 0.83 0.62 0.59 0.80 0.82 0.66 0.62
5 0.70 0.62 0.54 0.48 0.71 0.72 0.59 0.32 0.44 0.17 0.43 0.16 0.66 0.41 0.62 0.58 0.48 0.41 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.42
6 0.88 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.92 0.94 0.89 0.44 0.96 0.22 0.90 0.22 0.99 0.61 0.76 0.71 0.54 0.52 0.64 0.67 0.56 0.56
6* 0.87 0.76 0.64 0.63 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.38 0.85 0.16 0.75 0.17 0.90 0.51 0.69 0.63 0.52 0.50 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.55
7 0.88 0.89 0.72 0.70 0.95 0.96 0.87 0.36 0.74 0.17 0.75 0.17 0.95 0.45 0.74 0.70 0.60 0.61 0.73 0.71 0.64 0.63
8 0.81 0.91 0.71 0.71 0.93 0.91 0.76 0.35 0.56 0.17 0.51 0.18 0.82 0.53 0.76 0.79 0.59 0.65 0.78 0.76 0.67 0.66
Avg. 0.83 0.85 0.68 0.68 0.90 0.91 0.76 0.36 0.61 0.19 0.60 0.18 0.84 0.49 0.72 0.73 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.69 0.60 0.60
ESA 0.71 0.74 0.56 0.57 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.14 0.58 0.09 0.53 0.46 0.57 0.21 0.61 0.60 0.51 0.52 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71
RSA 0.64 0.64 0.51 0.51 0.77 0.76 0.70 0.47 0.80 0.12 0.78 0.13 0.78 0.63 0.51 0.52 0.44 0.44 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52
* Demand/Capacity ratio under horizontal and transverse components.

Table 7. Demand/Capacity Ratios for bridges under far-field earthquakes, Equivalent Static (ESA) and Response spectrum (RSA) analyses.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
No.
L R L R L R L R L R L L R L R L R L R L R L
1 0.72 0.79 0.62 0.64 0.78 0.81 0.62 0.32 0.46 0.19 0.49 0.18 0.73 0.43 0.60 0.63 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.50
1* 0.70 0.76 0.58 0.58 0.79 0.76 0.57 0.31 0.40 0.17 0.43 0.16 0.67 0.40 0.55 0.56 0.42 0.44 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.49
2 0.76 0.79 0.64 0.61 0.93 0.91 0.72 0.33 0.49 0.18 0.52 0.19 0.83 0.44 0.71 0.71 0.56 0.53 0.62 0.61 0.55 0.56
3 0.64 0.58 0.56 0.46 0.59 0.55 0.48 0.30 0.38 0.16 0.37 0.15 0.59 0.40 0.51 0.48 0.40 0.38 0.47 0.42 0.47 0.40
4 0.78 0.78 0.66 0.65 0.91 0.90 0.74 0.32 0.56 0.18 0.50 0.17 0.74 0.43 0.75 0.71 0.55 0.57 0.64 0.63 0.57 0.58
5 0.75 0.72 0.65 0.58 0.76 0.82 0.58 0.31 0.42 0.17 0.42 0.16 0.70 0.41 0.59 0.61 0.49 0.45 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.48
6 0.62 0.65 0.51 0.50 0.58 0.55 0.59 0.38 0.66 0.19 0.66 0.18 0.67 0.45 0.51 0.49 0.42 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.42
7 0.72 0.75 0.58 0.62 0.81 0.84 0.66 0.32 0.45 0.19 0.51 0.18 0.76 0.45 0.60 0.60 0.51 0.49 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.51
8 0.73 0.80 0.61 0.61 0.84 0.86 0.66 0.35 0.49 0.18 0.52 0.18 0.81 0.46 0.63 0.67 0.53 0.51 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.58
Avg. 0.71 0.73 0.60 0.59 0.80 0.80 0.63 0.33 0.49 0.18 0.50 0.18 0.73 0.43 0.61 0.61 0.49 0.47 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.50
ESA 0.71 0.74 0.56 0.57 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.14 0.58 0.09 0.53 0.46 0.57 0.21 0.61 0.60 0.51 0.52 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71
RSA 0.64 0.64 0.51 0.51 0.77 0.76 0.70 0.47 0.80 0.12 0.78 0.13 0.78 0.63 0.51 0.52 0.44 0.44 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52
* Demand/Capacity ratio under horizontal and transverse components.
 The fraction of the input energy dissipated by mechanisms such as modal damping and
hysteretic dissipation is considered a useful indicator of the damage level of a structure [35]. The
percentage of the input energy lost to modal damping and hysteretic energy dissipated is shown in
Figure 13. Here, approximately 53% and 57% of the input energy have been dissipated through modal
damping when the bridge is subjected to near-field and far-field earthquakes, respectively, associated
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 16 of 19
with the Imperial Valley at EC Country Center and Northbridge at La Puente station.

120 120
Hysteretic Energy Modal Damping Hysteretic Energy Modal Damping
100 100

Input energy (%)

Input energy (%)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Earthquake No. Earthquake No.

(a) (b)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Percentage
Percentageofofinput
inputenergy
energydissipated byby
dissipated modal damping
modal andand
damping hysteretic dissipation.
hysteretic (a)
dissipation.
Near-field earthquakes; (b) Far-field earthquakes.
(a) Near-field earthquakes; (b) Far-field earthquakes.

8.4. Effect of Vertical Acceleration

The fraction of the input energy dissipated by mechanisms such as modal damping and hysteretic
Significant
dissipation damage to
is considered structures
a useful due of
indicator tothevertical
damage excitation
level of ahas been reported
structure [35]. Thein previous
percentage
earthquakes
of such aslost
the input energy Northbridge [36]. However,
to modal damping many of energy
and hysteretic the building failures
dissipated were attributed
is shown in Figure 13. to
brittle failure in the reinforced concrete due to direct compressive failure
Here, approximately 53% and 57% of the input energy have been dissipated through modal damping resulting from the large
vertical
when actions
the bridgeexperienced,
is subjected which is widely
to near-field anddisregarded in the seismic
far-field earthquakes, design of associated
respectively, bridges (Kim et the
with al.,
[37]). The effect of the vertical acceleration on the dynamic
Imperial Valley at EC Country Center and Northbridge at La Puente station. responses of a bridge subjected to the
Kobe ground motion at Takarazuka station (PGA = 0.71) and Tabas motion at Ferdows station (PGA
= 0.42),
8.4. representing
Effect near and far-field earthquakes, respectively, was therefore investigated in this
of Vertical Acceleration
study. For better understanding,
Significant damage to structures the time-history
due to vertical analysis was performed
excitation has beenboth with and
reported without
in previous
taking into account
earthquakes such as the vertical component
Northbridge of themany
[36]. However, ground motion.
of the Thefailures
building maximum weredisplacement of the
attributed to brittle
deck and arch crown are presented in Table 8.
failure in the reinforced concrete due to direct compressive failure resulting from the large vertical
Theexperienced,
actions DCR valueswhich for a bridge subjected
is widely to the Kobe
disregarded in theearthquake
seismic designwithout taking (Kim
of bridges into account the
et al., [37]).
vertical
The effectcomponent is alsoacceleration
of the vertical indicated inonTable 8. In this responses
the dynamic case, the highest discrepancies
of a bridge subjectedof toabout
the Kobe8%,
10.2% and 72.2% were obtained for displacements in the longitudinal,
ground motion at Takarazuka station (PGA = 0.71) and Tabas motion at Ferdows station (PGA = 0.42), transverse and vertical
direction. When
representing neartheandvertical
far-fieldcomponent
earthquakes, of ground motion
respectively, waswas taken investigated
therefore into account in there
this was
study.a
significant impact on the DCR values of the bridge, with a maximum discrepancy
For better understanding, the time-history analysis was performed both with and without taking into of 17% being
reached the
account in pier P6, and
vertical the same
component ofpattern
the groundwas motion.
shown in themaximum
The results fordisplacement
far-field earthquake
of the deckground
and
motion (Tables 6 and 7). This
arch crown are presented in Table 8. indicates that the vertical acceleration plays an important role in the
seismic behavior of a bridge and hence it is strongly recommended that
The DCR values for a bridge subjected to the Kobe earthquake without taking into account the all three orthogonal
components
vertical of ground
component motion
is also shouldin
indicated beTable
included
8. Ininthis
seismic
case,analyses anddiscrepancies
the highest design of RC arch bridges.
of about 8%,
10.2% and 72.2% were obtained for displacements in the longitudinal, transverse and vertical direction.
When the vertical component of ground motion was taken into account there was a significant impact
on the DCR values of the bridge, with a maximum discrepancy of 17% being reached in pier P6, and
the same pattern was shown in the results for far-field earthquake ground motion (Tables 6 and 7).
This indicates that the vertical acceleration plays an important role in the seismic behavior of a bridge
and hence it is strongly recommended that all three orthogonal components of ground motion should
be included in seismic analyses and design of RC arch bridges.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 17 of 19

Table 8. Effect of vertical component displacement of the deck and arch crown (DCR).

Three Two
Earthquake Difference
Orthogonal Horizontal
Name (%)
Accelerations Accelerations
L 0.105 0.098 6.70
Arch T 0.596 0.535 10.2
Kobe V 0.165 0.041 75.2
(Takarazuka) L 0.103 0.095 7.76
Deck T 0.483 0.442 8.50
V 0.165 0.045 72.7
L 0.077 0.070 9.10
Arch T 0.353 0.322 8.78
Tabas V 0.148 0.038 74.3
(Ferdows) L 0.127 0.116 8.66
Deck T 0.451 0.418 7.31
V 0.150 0.039 74.00
L: Longitudinal, T: Transverse, V: Vertical directions.

9. Conclusions
The structural performance of a reinforced concrete arch bridge subjected to the action of
earthquake ground motion was investigated in this study. The finite element model used here was
developed based on the design criteria in the AASHTO [19] specifications. An eigenvalue analysis,
together with a series of dynamic time history analyses, was performed to clarify the details of the
seismic behavior of this type of bridge. The concept of Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR) was also
evaluated in order to provide an initial estimate of the seismic performance of RC arch bridges and the
effect of the vertical component of ground motion on the dynamic characteristics of such bridges was
considered. Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The eigenvalue analysis demonstrated that an unexpectedly high number of modes of vibration
contributed to the seismic behavior of the model RC arch bridge. In order to achieve the 90%
modal contribution recommended by the AASHTO [19] specifications, it was necessary to include
1850 modes of vibration.
2. The DCR less than unity indicated that the arch bridge modeled in this study showed no sign of
gross damage under either near- or far-field ground motion, although insignificant hazard levels
for the DCR were reported for two piers. This is likely due to installing fixed bearings at both
ends of the model bridge.
3. A significant relative difference between the deck and arch displacement can be observed in
longitudinal direction, while the deck and arch displacement in the other directions show almost
identical results for the time history analysis. This indicates that no significant residual deck
displacement remains at the end of the analysis; hence, no damage has occurred in either the
piers or the arch, which play the greatest role in supporting the internal forces of the deck.
4. The diagram representing the distribution of axial forces and out-of-plane bending moments
along the main arch shows that for both near- and far-field ground motions, the average of
maximum values calculated from the time history analyses has increased with a rather steep
gradient near the abutment of the RC arch. The distribution of the in-plane shear force is almost
uniform along the RC arch.
5. The average discrepancies, 53%, for displacement in vertical direction and up to 16% in DCR
were observed when considering the vertical component of earthquake in dynamic analysis.
It was concluded that ignoring the effect of the vertical component of ground motion highlighted
the importance of including this effect when modeling the dynamic responses of long-span arch
bridges. Hence, it is strongly recommended that this be taken into account when designing RC
arch bridges.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 18 of 19

Author Contributions: J.K. designed and coordinated the study. I.M. performed theoretical and numerical study
under the supervision of J.K., H.A.L. and T.H.-K.K. checked the results of this study, and all authors have written
and revised the text of this paper. All authors contributed to the authoring of the paper.
Funding: This research was funded by Grants (18CTAP-C132633-02, 18CTAP-C144787-01) of Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) of Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA).
Acknowledgments: The work reported herein was supported by Grants (18CTAP-C132633-02,
18CTAP-C144787-01) funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) of Korea Agency for
Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA). This financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, B.; Ye, L. An overview of long span concrete arch bridges in China. In Proceedings of the
Chinese-Croatian Joint Colloquium, Long Arch Bridges, Brijuni Islands, Croatia, 10–14 July 2008;
Fuzhou University: Fuzhou, China, 2008.
2. Radic, J.; Kindij, A.; Ivankovic, A.M. History of concrete application in development of concrete and hybrid
arch bridges. In Proceedings of the Chinese-Croatian Joint Colloquium, Long Arch Bridges, Brijuni Islands,
Croatia, 10–14 July 2008; Fuzhou University: Fuzhou, China, 2008.
3. Mantzaris, G.; Pnevmatikos, N.; Tsiboukaki, G.; Mantzaris, A. Standardization of bridge structures for spans
up to 100 m. Concr. Plant Int. J. 2010, 3, 164–172.
4. Pnevmatikos, N.; Sentzas, V. Preliminary estimation of response of curved bridges subjected to earthquake
loading. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2010, 6, 1530–1535.
5. Chen, B. Long span arch bridges in China. In Proceedings of the Chinese-Croatian Joint Colloquium,
Long Arch Bridges, Brijuni Islands, Croatia, 10–14 July 2008; Fuzhou University: Fuzhou, China, 2008.
6. Kawashima, K.; Mizoguti, A. Seismic response of a reinforced concrete arch bridge. In Proceedings of the
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January–4 February 2000;
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering: Upper Hutt, New Zealand, 2000.
7. McCallen, D.; Noble, C.; Hoehler, M. The Seismic Response of Concrete Arch Bridges: With Focus on the Bixby
Creek Bridge; Report No.: UCRL-ID-134419; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Springfield, VA, USA,
1999. Available online: https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/236014.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2018).
8. Cetinkaya, O.T.; Nakamura, S.; Takahashi, K. Expansion of a static analysis-based out-of-plane maximum
inelastic seismic response estimation method for steel arch bridges to in-plane response estimation.
Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 2209–2212. [CrossRef]
9. Torkamani, M.; Lee, H.K. Dynamic behavior of steel deck tension-tied arch bridges to seismic excitation.
J. Bridge Eng. 2002, 7, 57–67. [CrossRef]
10. Nazmy, A.S. Seismic response analysis of long-span steel arch bridges. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 2003, 156, 91–97.
[CrossRef]
11. Lu, Z.; Usami, T.; Ge, H. Seismic performance evaluation of steel arch bridges against major earthquakes.
Part 2: Simplified verification procedure. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2004, 33, 1355–1372. [CrossRef]
12. Usami, T.; Lu, Z.; Ge, H.; Kono, T. Seismic performance evaluation of steel arch bridges against major
earthquakes. Part 1: Dynamic analysis approach. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2004, 33, 1337–1354. [CrossRef]
13. Kandemir, E.C.; Mazda, T.; Nurui, H.; Miyamoto, H. Seismic retrofit of an existing steel arch bridge using
viscous damper. In Proceedings of the Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and
Construction, Hong Kong, China, 26–28 January 2011; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
14. Khan, E.; Sullivan, J.T.; Kowalsky, M. Direct displacement–based seismic design of reinforced concrete arch
bridges. J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19, 44–58. [CrossRef]
15. Franetovic, M.; Ivankovic, A.M.; Radic, J. Seismic assessment of existing reinforced-concrete arch bridges.
Građevinar 2014, 8, 691–703. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, K.; Song, J.Y. Survey and analysis of exiting reinforced concrete ribbed arch bridges. Adv. Mater. Res.
2011, 255–260, 1187–1191. [CrossRef]
17. Priestley, M.J.N.; Calvi, G.M.; Kowalsky, M.J. Direct Displacement Based Design of Structures, 2nd ed.;
EUcentre Foundation, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia (IUSS) Press: Pavia, Italy, 2018;
ISBN 978-8861980006.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1243 19 of 19

18. Salonga, J.; Gauvreau, P. Comparative study of the proportions, form, and efficiency of concrete arch bridges.
J. Bridge Eng. 2014, 19. [CrossRef]
19. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide Specifications for
LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd ed.; AASHTO: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
20. California Department of Transportation. Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), V1.7; California Department
of Transportation: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2016.
21. Hatzigeorgiou, G. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault earthquakes. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2010, 30, 170–183. [CrossRef]
22. Alavi, B.; Krawinkler, H. Behavior of moment-resisting frame structures subjected to near-fault ground
motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2004, 33, 687–706. [CrossRef]
23. Baker, J. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq. Spectra 2015,
31, 579–599. [CrossRef]
24. Žderić, Z.; Runjić, A.; Hrelja, G. Design and construction of Cetina arch bridge. In Proceedings of the
Chinese-Croatia Joint Colloquium on Long Arch Bridges, Brijuni Islands, Croatia, 10–14 July 2008; Fuzhou
University: Fuzhou, China, 2008; pp. 285–292.
25. Seleemah, A.A.; Constantinou, M.C. Investigation of Seismic Response of Buildings with Linear and Nonlinear
Fluid Viscous Dampers; Technical Report NCEER-97-0004; State University of New York at Buffalo: Buffalo,
NY, USA, 1997.
26. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures Part 1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings; EN1992-1; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
27. Computer & Structures Inc. (CSI). Integrated 3D Bridge Design Software, v20; CSiBridge Advanced;
CSI: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017.
28. Finke, J.E. Static and Dynamic Characterization of Tied Arch Bridges. Ph.D. Thesis, Missouri University of
Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA, 2016.
29. Mander, J.B.; Priestley, J.N.; Park, R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng.
1988, 114, 1804–1826. [CrossRef]
30. American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete; Commentary on Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14); Reported by ACI Committee 318; American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
31. Berry, M.; Eberhard, M.O. Performance Modeling Strategies for Modern Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns; PEER
Report 2007/07; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA,
USA, 2008.
32. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures; ASCE Standard
ASCE/SEI 7-10; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-7844-1085-1.
33. Computer & Structures Inc. (CSI). Integrated Analysis, Design and Drafting of Building Systems; ETABS, v16.2.1;
CSI: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2016.
34. Hilber, H.M.; Hughes, T.J.; Taylor, R.L. Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in
structural dynamics. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1977, 5, 283–292. [CrossRef]
35. Soong, T.T.; Spencer, J. Supplemental energy dissipation: State-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Eng. Struct.
2002, 24, 243–259. [CrossRef]
36. Papazoglou, A.; Elnashai, A. Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake
ground motion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1996, 25, 1109–1138. [CrossRef]
37. Kim, S.J.; Curtis, J.H.; Elnashai, A. Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical earthquake motion on RC
bridge piers. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 252–260. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).