Structures and Buildings Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.17.00081
A review on the seismic behaviour of Paper 1700081
irregular bridges Received 26/05/2017 Accepted 09/08/2017
Keywords: bridges/dynamics/seismic engineering
Akbari and Maalek

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

A review on the seismic behaviour of

irregular bridges
&
1 Reza Akbari PhD &
2 Shahrokh Maalek PhD
Senior Bridge and Structural Engineer, Road Maintenance and Lecturer, School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Transportation Organization, Tehran, Iran (corresponding author:
rakbari@ut.ac.ir)

1 2

This paper presents an up-to-date state-of-the-art review on the behaviour of irregular bridges under seismic
excitation. Although several characteristics and definitions may be applicable to the regularity of bridge structures,
almost all the published literature referencing the term ‘irregular bridge’ focuses on a specific class of straight
reinforced concrete (RC) bridge with unequal pier heights as the main source of irregularity along the bridge length.
Several successive as well as interrupted research works on the subject have been reported during the last two
decades. Among significant developments under continuous progress in this field, two main advancements can be
recognised: (a) the development of displacement-based design methodology; (b) further understanding of the higher
modes effects, which reflects the adequacy of different analysis methods for irregular bridges. However, a review of
the literature reveals that works being actively conducted on this subject are still inadequate and hence deserve
further attentions in future researches to gaining a better awareness of the seismic performance of irregular bridges,
in order to provide simply applicable and more definitive guidelines for actual design purposes.

Notation Vi yield strength of the ith pier (or of the isolator,

A1, A2, B1 areas bounded by the displacement lines if present)
associated with a bridge (A refers to the bridge v vector of the imposed displacements
under study and B refers to the deck alone bridge βi ith modal participation factor of bridge
or B000) Δei yielding displacement of the ith isolator
Cp value defined according to the fixity of the piers at δij Kronecker delta
the two ends; ranges from 3 for piers built-in at Φi ith normalised eigenvector of the bridge
one end to 12 for piers built-in at both ends ΦAi and Φi
B
ith normalised eigenvector of the bridge (model A)
Ed Young’s modulus of bridge deck and the deck-alone bridge (model B).
Ep modulus of elasticity of pier
Fi vector of distributed seismic forces
Hp pier height 1. Introduction
Id moment of inertia of deck cross-section around By referring to the extreme geometrical configuration of
the vertical axis bridges damaged in past earthquakes, it has been learned that
Ip moment of inertia of pier under seismic excitations greater than those assumed in the
Kd lateral stiffness of bridge deck design, the direction of bridge movement and the nature of the
Ki elastic stiffness of member damage are highly dependent upon the geometry and, in
Kp lateral stiffness of piers general, the regularity of bridges. The regularity issue has been
KSi effective stiffness of piers well treated in building design; however, it is still an area of
KT transverse stiffness of the piers active research in bridge design. In a general sense, it is poss-
kei elastic stiffness of ith isolator ible to classify bridge irregularity in terms of two distinctive
Ld total length of bridge deck sources: (a) in plan and (b) in length (Akbari, 2008; Araujo
M mass matrix of deck et al., 2014). The observations made during past earthquakes
mi mass of member have been sufficient to indicate that even bridges with severe
n number of modes plan and length irregularities, due to geometrical properties
Sdi ith spectral displacement of bridge and general configuration, may survive the design earthquake,

1
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
provided that special care is exercised in the design process.
Therefore, geometry is one of the most important parameters
in the practice of bridge design. Smith (2005) investigated the
real response of some of the bridges that had been damaged in
Northridge due to severe plan irregularities. He concluded that
careful considerations are needed in the case of plan irregular-
ity resulting from skew, taper and/or curvature.
An important cause for irregularity may result from different
stiffnesses of the supporting elements, such as piers along the
length of the bridge. In the case of bridges with severe irregu-
larity along their length, according to the above-mentioned
definition, many studies have been carried out and a large
number of articles and reports have been published. Most of
the previous works have been conducted on a specific class
of multi-span reinforced concrete bridges with regular and irre-
gular configurations and different degrees of irregularity.
Indeed, this type of bridge has had a key role in the develop-
ment of new concepts in the seismic analysis and design of
bridges over the last two decades. A representative of this class
of bridges is known as ‘B213’, which is well known as ‘the
reference bridge’ (Ispra bridge), a highly irregular RC continu-
ous span single-column bent highway viaduct with unequal
pier heights.
The bridge has four equal spans with a total length of 200 m,
and with boxed section as shown in Figure 1. The deck is
14 m wide and rests on the abutments as well as on three inter-
mediate piers of unequal heights (21 m, 7 m and 14 m, as
shown in Figure 1). The piers are of hollow rectangular form
of the same cross-sectional properties. The level of irregularity
200 m (4 × 50 m)
Regular bridge P1
(B232)
P1
Irregular bridge
(B213)
14 m
0·3 m
2m Deck
0·25 m
6·5 m
Figure 1. Details and general configuration of the ‘reference bridge’ (Akbari, 2008)
2
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
of the bridge configuration is considerably influenced by the
position of the stiff or the short pier (Negro and Pinto, 1995).
An important issue to be investigated, which is not always
reliably defined during analysis and design, is the connection
assumed between pier and deck and the position of the deck
mass with respect to the connection. Both simple and mono-
lithic connections have been studied in the past (Figure 2). It is
common to assume a hinge between pier and deck in the
design phase to allow rotation. This assumption neglects the
contribution of the vertical load, which produces a limit
moment (vertical load times the distance between supports)
below which no rotation can take place (see Calvi et al., 1994).
The earliest research studies related to this specific bridge, in
parallel with some other different regular and irregular con-
figurations, have been defined in a series of parallel research
programmes in support of Eurocode 8 (PREC8). A brief
description of the topics of the research programme in support
of Eurocode 8 can be found in a report released by SECED
(2001). As part of the programme, six large-scale (1:2·5) bridge
specimens were constructed and tested at the European
Laboratory for Structural Assessment (Elsa) in 1995 (Negro
and Pinto, 1995). In the view of the authors, it was a historical
time as it represented the starting point for most of the sub-
sequent researches related to the seismic behaviour of irregular
bridges. Up to the present time, quite a large number of
research papers and technical reports have been published
about the seismic response of the above-mentioned reference
bridge, not in a unique irregular or regular configuration, but
in different configurations. Papers published in recent years
P2 P3 14 m
7m
P2 7m
P3
7m
7m
3m
0·4 m
0·3 m Pier section
1·2 m
0·4 m
0·4 m 3·2 m 0·4 m
 Structures and Buildings
Monolithic
connection
Figure 2. Different deck-to-pier connections
reveal the importance of the work, as well as the applicability
of the results.
In order to investigate several different configurations, a
variety of models of the reference bridge may be generated by
altering the heights of the piers. For simplicity, in the past, a
geometric symbol has been defined for each new configuration
in the form of ‘BLMR’ (e.g. B213), as the model identification
label. In this label, the letter B stands for the word ‘bridge’
and the letters L, M and R represent the height module multi-
pliers for each of the three left, middle and right piers, respect-
ively. The pier height module has been taken as 7 m. Hence,
the bridge B213 has a left pier 14 m high, the middle pier 7 m
high and the right pier 21 m high, as shown in Figure 1.
Considering the regularity issue, different configurations with
various combinations of their pier heights may be defined
(e.g. B111, B121, B213, B232 etc.). Each model may be cate-
gorised into one of three types of bridges, namely: regular,
slightly irregular and highly irregular (Akbari and Maalek,
2010). The configuration represented by B213 falls into the
third group.
However, in subsequent research studies conducted, in order to
investigate the seismic behaviour of longer irregular bridges
having more spans, the above-mentioned model identification
label has been extended to bridges with any number of spans.
For instance, the model B112123211 has nine spans with piers
heights of the same concept as the reference bridge.
Although different aspects of the seismic behaviour of irregular
bridges have been investigated in the past, to the best knowl-
edge of the present authors, no documents are available
regarding the most important works and recent advancements
in the subject from a general perspective. This work presents
an updated state-of-the-art review of the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges, mainly those bridges which have the same
source of irregularity as the reference bridge. Therefore, in this
paper, the term ‘irregular bridge’ means that the bridge is irre-
gular in its length according to the definition given earlier.
Among the significant ongoing developments being achieved
in the subject, the majority of the available literature can be
categorised into two main groups: (a) the effect of the higher
modes, which reflects the adequacy of different analysis
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Simple
connection
methods for irregular bridges, and (b) the development of the
displacement-based design methodology for irregular bridges.
A smaller third group also exists in that a few works have been
carried out with the aim of investigating the seismic behaviour
of irregular bridges that have seismic isolation or energy dissi-
pation devices. Following a brief review of the definition of the
so-called irregular bridges, these three areas of interest have
been explained in separate sections. The supporting and key
experimental work conducted has also been reviewed
separately.
The paper can be used by bridge engineers and practitioners,
as well as by young researchers or graduate students who want
to select an up-to-date research subject for their dissertations
from the very wide range of possible topics in the world of
bridge engineering. The results can also be used for code devel-
opment and other research works.
2. Definition of regular/irregular bridges
Several definitions have been used in relation to the regularity
of bridge structures. Although it seems that all of the defi-
nitions follow a similar concept – according to the particular
objectives for which they have been developed – the most
favourable definitions adopted in the literature are listed below.
(a) A bridge is considered as regular if its responses obtained
from different analysis methods do not show significant
differences (e.g. Akbari and Maalek, 2010; Fischinger,
2003; Isakovic and Fischinger, 2000; Isakovic et al.,
2003). Therefore, the response of irregular bridges
obtained from different well-recognised analysis methods
usually show significant differences. However, whereas
simplified analysis methods are adequate for the analysis
of regular bridges, more complex methods of analysis are
needed for irregular ones.
(b) A bridge is considered as regular if its responses may not
be affected by the contribution of higher modes
consisting of components acting in the same direction
(e.g. Akbari and Maalek, 2010; Fischinger and Isakovic,
1999; Isakovic and Fischinger, 2005, 2006; Isakovic et al.,
2003, 2008; Maalek et al., 2009). Therefore, the effects of
higher modes on the response of irregular bridges are
usually considerable. The response of a regular bridge, in
contrast, is mainly controlled by the first mode of
vibration.
3
 Structures and Buildings A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek

(c) A regular bridge is defined as a bridge in which the
centre of mass of the structure coincides with its centre of
stiffness. In this case, the translational modes of vibration
dominate the seismic response and the rotational ones are
not excited and, consequently, do not participate in the
seismic response of the structure. By contrast, in an
irregular bridge the centre of mass does not coincide with
the centre of stiffness, and the seismic response is a
combination of the translational and rotational modes of
vibration (Alvarez Botero, 2004; Restrepo, 2006). These
irregular bridges can be categorised as torsionaly
sensitive, because of the torsional nature of the
fundamental modes. This definition is valid for bridges of
unequal pier heights in which the piers are not positioned
symmetrically with respect to the bridge centre of mass.
(d) A bridge is considered as regular if its modal shapes
(taken from the elastic modal analysis) do not show
significant differences from the corresponding modal
shapes of the associated deck-alone bridge (Calvi et al.,
1994). This definition led to a highly popular regularity
index.
(e) Although the regularity of bridges is not clearly
quantified in the bridge design codes, according to the
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications
(AASHTO, 2007), a bridge is considered to be irregular if
the stiffness ratio of adjacent piers (from span to span)
exceeds the values of 4, 3 and 2 for bridges with the
number of spans less than or equal to four, equal to five,
and equal to or more than six, respectively. Also, a bridge
is categorised as irregular if the ratios of adjacent span
lengths (from span to span) exceed 3 for two-span
bridges, 2 for three- and four-span bridges, and 1·5 for
bridges with five or more spans.
For more clarity, the regularity issue for the reference bridge in
the context of the above-mentioned definitions is explained
below.
bridges, from very simple elastic to very sophisticated inelastic
methods. Some of the well-known analysis methods include:
the uniform load (UL), the single mode (SM), the multi-mode
(MM) and the time history (TH) analysis methods in linear or
non-linear schemes. The effectiveness of the above-mentioned
analysis methods have been studied on selected regular and
irregular configurations of the reference bridge (e.g. Akbari
and Maalek, 2010; Isakovic et al., 2003, 2008). For example,
the results for the B111 and B213 bridge models are shown in
Figure 3 (Akbari and Maalek, 2010). In this figure, the term
QPA refers to the quasi-pushover analysis method. As is
evident from Figure 3, regardless of the analysis methods, in
the case of B111 bridge, the calculated response patterns are
practically the same. Hence, this bridge is categorised as
regular. In contrast, the B213 bridge is categorised as irregular.
This is the main concept of the first definition (a) listed above.
Figure 4 shows the first three modal mass participation ratios
as well as the first three natural periods of vibration in the
transverse direction for the B111 and B213 bridges (Maalek
et al., 2009). Only based on the modal mass participation
ratios, the effects of the higher modes on the response of these
two bridges are evident in this figure. This is the basic concept
behind the second definition (b) listed above for
regular/irregular bridges.
A schematic drawing for the third definition (c) of
regular/irregular bridges is shown in Figure 5. In regular
bridges, the centre of mass (CM) coincides with the centre of
stiffness (CV).
For an explanation of the fourth definition listed above, (d),
the first three mode shapes of the B111 and B213 bridges
(representative of two regular end, irregular bridges) are com-
pared with the corresponding mode shapes of the deck-alone
bridge. This comparison is shown in Figure 6 together with
Figure 4. For the B111 bridge, as a regular bridge, the corre-
sponding mode shapes are similar.

Most of the modern codes for the seismic design of bridges Finally, as an explanation of the last definition (e) for
involve a wide range of methods for the seismic analysis of regular/irregular bridges, Figure 7 shows the pier stiffness

4 6
UL SM MM QPA TH UL SM MM QPA TH
Displacement: cm
Displacement: cm

3 4

2 2

1 0

0 –2
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Station: m Station: m
(a) (b)

Figure 3. Analysis results for (a) B111 and (b) B213 bridges (Akbari and Maalek, 2010)

4
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek

Mode 1 (T = 0·216 s and mass = 75·6%) Mode 1 (T = 0·385 s and mass = 26%)
Mode 2 (T = 0·188 s and mass = 0%) Mode 2 (T = 0·324 s and mass = 55·1%)
Mode 3 (T = 0·157 s and mass = 8%) Mode 3 (T = 0·176 s and mass = 2·7%)

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Station: m Station: m
(a) (b)

Figure 4. The first three transverse mode shapes for the (a) B111 and (b) B213 bridges (Maalek et al., 2009)

Elevation
Regular bridge Irregular bridge

CM CV CM
CV

Plan

Figure 5. Regular (B121) and irregular (B123) bridges (Restrepo, 2006)

Mode 1 (T = 2·530 s and mass = 72·8%) The results show that these conditions may not be essentially
Mode 2 (T = 0·650 s and mass = 0%) valid, in particular for piers with a relative height of 0·5 or
B000
Mode 3 (T = 0·300 s and mass = 9·7%)
less, where a possible combination of flexure and shear failure
mode may occur. In this case, the shorter piers often suffer
brittle shear failure, whereas the longer piers are most likely to
fail due to flexure, creating a combination of different failure
modes experienced by the bridge (Tamanani et al., 2014).
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Station: m
A brief review of the provisions adopted in different codes for
Figure 6. The first three transverse mode shapes of the B000 the seismic analysis of irregular bridges has been reported by
model, the deck-alone bridge, (Maalek et al., 2009) Tehrani and Mitchell (2012, 2013a).

3. Regularity index
ratios from span to span for 18 bridge models investigated in a One of the attempts made by researchers is to characterise and
parametric study by Akbari (2008). A horizontal line with the quantify the level of bridge regularity through a simple cri-
ordinate of 4 on the vertical axis is considered as the boundary terion. Calvi et al. (1994) compared the dominant mode of
of regularity in accordance with the proposed criterion for vibration of a deck-alone bridge with the associated dominant
bridge regularity in the AASHTO specifications (AASHTO, modes of the whole original bridge (the reference bridge as the
2007). On this basis, bridges with labels B131, B213 and B313 case study). They proposed a regularity index (RI) as the first
are seen to be highly irregular models. attempt to provide a measure of the bridge regularity. The
index is computed primarily on the basis of two eigenvector
The main challenge is the imposition of maximum demand analyses as follows
and associated damage to the short piers and non-uniform dis-
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
tribution of ductility demand between the piers. It should be Pn  A B 2

noted here that the Eurocode 8, Part 2 (CEN, 2005) uses i¼1 Φi MΦi
1: RI ¼
‘moment demand-to-moment capacity’ ratios to somewhat n
guarantee simultaneous failure of piers of different heights on
irregular bridges, whereas AASHTO specifications rely on the where, ΦA
i and Φi are, respectively, the ith normalised eigen-
B

relative effective stiffness of the piers, as explained above. vector corresponding to the respective mass matrix of the

5
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek

Left and central pier Central and right pier

28
Max. pier stiffness ratio from span to span

24

20

16 Regularity limit
(AASHTO)
12

0
B111

B112

B113

B121

B122

B123

B131

B132

B133

B212

B213

B222

B223

B232

B233

B313

B333
Bridge label

Figure 7. Maximum pier stiffness ratios from span to span (Akbari, 2008)

entire bridge (referred to as the model A) and the deck alone increase the sensitivity of the above index as follows
(the model B, which represents the viaduct labelled as B000). (Calvi and Pavese, 1997)
M and n are, respectively, the mass matrix of the deck and the
number of modes. From Equation 1, it is apparent that RI
Pn Pn   
ranges from zero to 1·0 as the bridge varies from a configur- i¼1 j¼1 1  δij ΦA B
i MΦi
2: RI1 ¼ 1 
ation with its mode shapes quite different from those of the n
deck-alone system, to a configuration whose first n mode
shapes are identical to those of the deck-alone bridge. where δij is the Kronecker delta, which is equal to 1 if i = j
According to Calvi et al. (1994), a bridge is close to a regular and 0 otherwise.
configuration if its corresponding value of RI is close to 1·0. It
is important to note that in Equation 1 the ith mode of the An improvement of this index would be to consider the higher
deck-alone model is combined with the ith mode of the bridge. modes’ effects and the expected frequency content of the input
The values of the RI factors for six bridge models are pre- excitation. Therefore, further attempts have been made, starting
sented in Table 1. Also, the values of the regularity indices, RI, from the assumption of knowing a desired displacement shape
for 18 bridge models of the reference bridge are summarised in of the bridge. This is the case when a displacement-based
Table 2 (Akbari, 2008). approach is used and a target deformed shape has been
defined. The following equation has been proposed (Calvi and
Through extensive parametric analyses, Calvi et al. (1994) Pavese, 1997)
showed that a threshold limit of this index of 0·5 exists, below
which larger than expected ductility demand may result in qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
some piers. Pn 2
i¼1 ðyi  zi Þ
3: RI2 ¼ 1  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn ffi
2 2
Following this study, a new index was proposed by subtracting i¼1 ðyi Þ þ i¼1 ðzi Þ
the norm of the products of the off-diagonal terms to

Table 1. Regularity index, RI, for six bridge models

Bridge label

Reference B213 B2(1·5)3 B2(2·5)3 B233 B23(2·5) B232

RI value Akbari (2008) 0·630 0·771 0·955 0·980 0·983 1·00

Guedes (1997) 0·618 0·771 0·955 0·966 0·983 0·995

6
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek

Table 2. Regularity index, RI, for 18 bridge models (Akbari, 2008) where the first part is the same as Equation 3, and Vi, kei and
RI value Δei are, respectively, the yield strength of the ith pier (or of the
isolator, if present), the elastic stiffness of the ith isolator and
Bridge label n=1 n=2 n=3 the yielding displacement of the ith isolator.
B111 1 1 1
B112 0·65 0·64 0·74 Isakovic and Fischinger (2000) proposed two regularity indices
B113 0·72 0·66 0·74 on the basis of the comparison of the seismic responses of the
B121 0·95 0·97 0·96 reference bridge in the transverse direction to different simpli-
B122 0·94 0·87 0·83 fied elastic or inelastic analysis methods (see also Isakovic
B123 0·9 0·8 0·78
et al., 2003). The indices are calculated as the relative differ-
B131 0·94 0·97 0·94
B132 0·96 0·88 0·84 ence between the areas bounded by the displacement lines of
B133 0·94 0·85 0·8 the first and second iteration of the elastic SM or the inelastic
B212 0 0 0·48 N2 (nonlinear static pushover analysis) methods. The difference
B213 0·49 0·52 0·63 in the response obtained was defined as the relative difference
B222 1 1 1
of areas bounded by the envelopes of the relevant displacement
B223 0·98 0·7 0·57
B232 0·99 1 1 lines. Akbari and Maalek (2010) extended the latter concept
B233 1 0·99 0·98 on the basis of the relative difference between the areas
B313 0 0 0·45 bounded by the displacement lines extracted from the response
B323 1 1 1 of two bridges (the first one represents a predefined regular
B333 1 1 1
bridge and the second one is the bridge under investigation)
calculated by the simplified elastic UL, SM or MM analysis
methods as indicated in the AASHTO specifications. They
where
also extended this concept on the basis of the relative differ-
ΦTi Mv ence between the areas bounded by the displacement lines
yi ¼ so that
4: ΦTi MΦi extracted from the response of the bridge under investigation
alone to a pair of simplified elastic UL–SM or SM–MM
v ¼ y1 Φ1 þ y2 Φ2 þ y3 Φ3 þ    and zi ¼ βi Sdi
analysis methods.

where βi, Sdi and Φi are, respectively, the ith modal partici- The procedure to calculate these indices is shown schematically
pation factor, the ith spectral displacement and the ith eigen- in Figure 8.
vector of the whole bridge. Also, v is the vector of the imposed
displacements. The symbolic equations for indices as proposed by Isakovic
and Fischinger (2000) are as follows
In this index, the regularity has been quantified on the basis of  SM 
A  ASM 
1  2
the difference between a vector containing the product of modal Index ðelasticÞ ¼
SM
ASM  and
mass and spectral amplification and a vector containing the 2
6:  N2 
coefficients producing the target deformed shape, when applied A  AN2 
to the modes. For linear responses, it is essential to realise that IndexN2 ðinelasticÞ ¼ 2  N2  1
A2
the factor RI2 will assume a value of 1·0 for a perfectly regular
bridge and it would tend to zero for irregular ones.
The symbolic equations for indices as proposed by Akbari
However, as the strengths of the piers have not been considered (2008) are as follows
here and it is possible that some of the piers have penetrated  UL 
A  BUL 
significantly into the non-linear range, the above index may I1 ¼ IndexUL ðA; BÞ ¼ 1  UL  1 and
not work properly. To overcome the problem, a new index has B1
7:  SM 
been proposed to include a measure of the difference between A  BSM 
1  1
the yield strength of the piers and the associated force that I2 ¼ Index ðA; BÞ ¼
SM
BSM 
1
would be reached. The following equation has been developed
(Calvi and Pavese, 1997)

2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
Pn 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm
16 i¼1 ð yi  z i Þ i¼1 ðVi  kei Δei Þ7
5: RI3 ¼ 1  4qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn ffiþ q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pm ffi 5
2 2 2
i¼1 ð y i Þ þ i¼1 ðz i Þ i¼1 V i
2

7
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek

First iteration
Displacements
Loading pattern as forces
from UL, SM, MM, or N2 method
A1

Second iteration ••• denotes UL or SM or MM or N2

Loading pattern from
displacement of the first iteration

A2

Figure 8. Schematic representation of the procedure for the calculation of the new indices

 UL  Table 3. The calculated values of the above indices

A  ASM 
1 
I3 ¼ Index ¼
ULSM
AUL 
1
and Reported by Akbari and Maalek (2010) and
1
8:  SM  Maalek et al. (2009)
A  AMM 
I4 ¼ IndexSMMM ¼ 1  SM 1 Bridge MAC MSF
A1
label I1 I2 I3 I4 (n = 3) (n = 3)

B111 0·03 0 0·13 0 0·97 0·99

In the above equations, A and B are, respectively, the areas
B112 0·05 0·11 0·25 0·25 0·43 0·62
bounded by the displacement lines associated with the bridge B113 0·05 0·08 0·2 0·2 0·38 0·6
under investigation and a predefined regular bridge (i.e. deck- B121 0·03 0·06 0·07 0·01 0·79 0·88
alone bridge or B000 model). B122 0·01 0·03 0·06 0·01 0·56 0·72
B123 0·01 0·03 0·08 0·02 0·48 0·67
B131 0·04 0·07 0·04 0·01 0·77 0·87
Maalek et al. (2009) investigated the applicability of two
B132 0·03 0·05 0·05 0·02 0·51 0·69
modal assurance criteria, which are well recognised in model B133 0·03 0·04 0·04 0·02 0·53 0·69
updating or modal correlation of structural responses, for such B212 0·08 1 1 ∞ 0·19 0·33
irregular bridges. These are the modal assurance criterion B213 0·08 0·2 0·48 0·83 0·22 0·46
(MAC) and the modal scale factor (MSF) with the following B222 0·01 0 0·05 0 0·99 1
B223 0·02 0 0·05 0 0·58 0·58
formulas
B232 0·01 0·02 0·04 0 0·96 0·98
B233 0 0·01 0·04 0 0·89 0·94
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
    T 2 B313 0·09 1 1 ∞ 0·17 0·31
u Pn  AT B 2
u  Φ Φ  = Φ AT ΦA Φ B ΦB B323 0·02 0·01 0·04 0 0·92 0·96
t i¼1 i i i i i i
9: MACðA; B; nÞ ¼ B333 0·01 0 0·03 0 0·99 1
n

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi et al. (1996) can be used as a quantitative measure of bridge

uP  T 2
u n AT A
t i¼1 ΦA i Φi =Φi Φi
B regularity. It is simply defined as the ratio of lateral stiffness of
10: MSFðA; B; nÞ ¼ bridge deck (Kd) to the total lateral stiffness of piers (Kp). For
n
bridges with fixed abutments, this value can be approximately
calculated as follows (Kohrangi et al., 2015)
The results of the values of the above indices are shown in
Table 3.
Kd 384Ed Id X Hp3
11: RSI ¼ P ¼ 
Kp 5L3d Cp Ep Ip
Tehrani and Mitchell (2012, 2013a) reviewed some of the
above-mentioned proposed bridge regularity indices.
in which Ed, Id and Ld are the Young’s modulus, moment of
In relation to this fact that the lower the relative stiffness of inertia of the deck cross-section around the vertical axis and
deck to pier is, the higher would be the irregularity of the the total length of the bridge deck, respectively. Also, Ep, Hp
bridge, the relative stiffness index (RSI) proposed by Priestley and Ip are the modulus of elasticity, moment of inertia and

8
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
pier height, respectively. Cp is a value defined according to the
fixity of the piers at the two ends and ranges from 3 for piers
built-in at one end and 12 for piers built-in at both ends. It is
suggested to consider uncracked section for the deck and
cracked section for the piers through a reduction factor of 0·5
for Ip. Kohrangi et al. (2015) reported the results of this index
for some bridge models of regular and irregular configurations.
It should be noted here that some of the above-mentioned
indices are only able to properly show the regularity level of
bridges in the elastic range, whereas for high-intensity seismic
actions, the regularity of the bridge changes due to the devel-
opment of plastic hinges and the corresponding damage.
4. Experimental studies
As mentioned above, as part of a research programme in
support of Eurocode 8 (PREC8), six large-scale (1:2·5) bridge
specimens (termed the ‘reference bridge’ in this paper) were
constructed and tested at the European Laboratory for
Structural Assessment (Elsa) of the Joint Research Centre
(JRC) at Ispra, Italy in 1995 in a PhD thesis framework by
Miranda Guedes (Guedes, 1997). The programme included a
series of pseudo-dynamic tests on the reference bridge designed
according to Eurocode 8 (Negro and Pinto, 1995). The
pseudo-dynamic method was based on a hybrid formulation
that combined the numerical integration of the equations of
motion of a model of the bridge and the experimental
measurement of the corresponding restoring forces using sub-
structuring techniques where the deck is simulated numerically
and only the piers are physically tested in the laboratory. This
was the first pseudo-dynamic testing campaign performed
using the sub-structuring technique on large-scale structures.
Several technical reports have been published relating to the
results of this research using this technique (see: Guedes and
Pinto, 1996; Negro and Pinto, 1995; Pinto, 1996; Pinto and
Negro, 1996; Pinto et al., 1995, 1996, 2000, 2004). Pegon and
Pinto (2000) presented the concept behind the pseudo-dynamic
testing with the sub-structuring technique and its application
to the experiments carried out on the reference bridge.
Two bridge profiles with the deck supported by three inter-
mediate piers were considered: a regular profile (B232 bridge)
and an irregular profile (B213 bridge) with five alternative
design solutions, with or without isolating/dissipating devices.
These bridges are referred to as B213A (irregular bridge
designed according to Eurocode 8), B213B (similar to B213A,
but with increased reinforcement in the central pier), B213C
(similar to B213A, but with increased reinforcement in the
higher piers and decreased reinforcement in the short pier),
B213A-5Dev (similar to B213A, but with isolating/dissipating
devices on the three piers and abutments) and B213A-1Dev
(similar to B213A, but with an isolating/dissipating device on
the central pier). Numerical tests using a fibre model were also
performed to predict the response of the bridges. In addition, a
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
strut-and-tie formulation coupled with the classic fibre model
was developed (Guedes, 1997).
The results of this testing campaign underlined the versatility
and the potential of the pseudo-dynamic test method. Two
pseudo-dynamic tests were performed on each bridge using
different intensity factors for the same accelerogram. The first
intensity corresponds to the design seismic action. The choice
of the second and higher intensity factors was based on pre-
liminary numerical calculations that pointed out the ultimate
capacity of the weakest solution for the irregular bridge and
the regular bridge.
The main results of the experiments in parallel with the
numerical investigations are listed below.
& The behaviour of the irregular bridges is mainly controlled
by the behaviour of the short and central pier. Almost all
the dissipation of energy comes from this pier, which
presented with high structural damage.
& Comparing the two non-isolated alternative solutions to
the Eurocode 8 conforming irregular bridge B213A, the
solution B213B turned out to be the best of the three.
& The results of the experiment on bridge B232 comply with
the regularity issue as mentioned in Eurocode 8, Part 2
(CEN, 2005). The dissipation of energy takes place in all
piers and a ductile behaviour could be assumed.
& In relation to the asynchronous input motion, the tests
carried out on the bridge B213A indicated that, for this
bridge and for the selected input motion, there was a
decrease of the maximum displacement of the short pier
and an increase of the maximum displacement of the
medium pier.
In a different experimental research study, a pseudo-dynamic
test programme was conducted as part of the assessment of the
capability of Eurocode 8 to provide adequate ductility and
damageability to regular and irregular bridges (De Sortis
et al., 1998). Two bridges (one regular and one irregular con-
figuration with circular single-column piers and other geo-
metrical properties similar to the reference bridge) were
designed according to Eurocode 8, Part 2 (CEN, 2005) and
two companion bridges of the same geometry were also
designed according to the Italian seismic code for comparison.
Pseudo-dynamic tests of the four structures were performed at
a 1:6 scale of the most stressed piers and the remaining com-
ponents were simulated numerically by sub-structuring tech-
niques. The results showed that both of the structures designed
using Eurocode 8 performed satisfactorily. The ones designed
using the Italian code also performed satisfactorily, although
greater damage and degradation were observed (see also De
Sortis and Nuti, 1996).
In another study in support of Eurocode 8, Casirati et al.
(1996) investigated the seismic behaviour of two 1:8 scale
9
 Structures and Buildings
irregular bridge models through shaking table tests. Both syn-
chronous and asynchronous motions were applied. The
models’ dimensions were similar to the reference bridge, but
the piers and the deck cross-sections were slightly different.
A series of tests was also carried out on four piers of a differ-
ent straight RC bridge with unequal pier heights. These four
RC bridge piers were built at a scale of 1:2·5 and tested exper-
imentally. Both tall and short piers were considered, covering
situations where bending or shear was relevant. Furthermore,
the four piers were reinforced according to rather different
design strategies: the first was a 30-year-old bridge designed
without the consideration of seismic actions, and the second
was a bridge satisfying the Eurocode 8 provisions. Simulation
of the cyclic behaviour of the bridge piers was carried out by
way of a detailed numerical model (Faria et al., 2004).
5. Force-based compared with
displacement-based seismic design
5.1 Force-based design
Perhaps the first attempts to characterise and to highlight the
importance of the seismic behaviour of irregular bridges date
back to the years around 1990. Calvi et al. (1994) and Calvi
and Pinto (1996) studied the influence of regularity on the
expected ductility demand and the seismic behaviour of RC
bridges (the reference bridge). The previous approach in
Eurocode 8, Part 2 (CEN, 2005) for bridge design was based
on a single behaviour factor (q) or response modification
factor (R), similar to some current building or bridge design
codes. In this method, known as force-based design (FBD), the
response of bridge structure is reduced by this factor for design
purposes to take into account the non-linear response and the
energy dissipation capacity of the bridge. This approach
assumes that the bridge will respond regularly with predictable
or uniform ductility demand distribution throughout the differ-
ent bridge piers. In FBD, once the design pier cross-section
has been selected, a structural model is constructed. A simpli-
fied plan model of the bridge, as depicted in Figure 9, is
A1
P1
MA1 M1
Eldeck
KA1
K1
Figure 9. Typical simplified plan model of a bridge used in FBD in the transverse direction
10
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
usually used for each of the bridges in FBD. The design pro-
cedure considers the discretisation of the deck mass as lumped
masses at the top of the piers and at the abutments. A portion
of the pier masses can also be lumped at the top.
The main parameters used in the FBD method are the mass,
mi, and elastic stiffness, Ki, of the members, as shown in
Figure 9. It has been shown that unexpected concentrations of
ductility demand may nevertheless result when the bridge con-
figuration is ‘irregular’.
Briefly, in FBD approaches, the performance is difficult to
quantify for a particular earthquake level, as forces are poor
indicators of damage potential, and force-reduction or behav-
iour factors, which are meant to imply damage levels, are
highly variable and often open to disagreement. Many of the
procedures used in bridge design are basically force based, and
may be considered as reasonable design approaches that will
lead to safe structures, but they do not directly address per-
formance criteria at the initial stage of the design (Calvi et al.,
2006).
For example, Figure 10 shows significant differences between
the ductility demand of different piers of the B123 irregular
bridge by way of cyclic response curves for both the base shear
and the base moment. It is clear that severe damage is pre-
dicted for the left pier if the common FBD procedure is used.
Georgakis and MacKenzie (2002) studied the non-linear
seismic response of an irregular 457 m RC box girder bridge
with unequal pier heights. The bridge was originally designed
based on the current FBD methodology (design capacity phil-
osophy), in which bridge strength and ductility capacities are
designed to meet strength and ductility demands. To determine
the appropriateness of this design approach, a non-linear time-
history analysis methodology was used for this study. They
concluded that RC bridges should be designed as regular as
possible. Large differences in pier stiffness, irregular shapes
and inappropriate end conditions can lead to complicated
P2 A2
P3
M2 M3 MA2
K3 KA2
K2
 Structures and Buildings A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek

15 5 3
4
10 Left pier Mid pier 2 Right pier
3
Base shear: MN

Base shear: MN

Base shear: MN
5 2
1
1
0 0 0
–1
–5 –2 –1
–3
–10 –2
–4
–15 –5 –3
–0·3 –0·2 –0·1 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 –0·3 –0·2 –0·1 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 –0·3 –0·2 –0·1 0 0·1 0·2 0·3
Displacement: m Displacement: m Displacement: m

50 50 50
40 40 40
Left pier Mid pier Right pier
Base moment: MN m

Base moment: MN m

Base moment: MN m
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
–10 –10 –10
–20 –20 –20
–30 –30 –30
–40 –40 –40
–50 –50 –50
–0·012 –0·008 –0·004 0 0·004 0·008 0·012 –0·012 –0·008 –0·004 0 0·004 0·008 0·012 –0·012 –0·008 –0·004 0 0·004 0·008 0·012
Rotation: rad Rotation: rad Rotation: rad

Figure 10. Cyclic response curves for both the base shear and the base moment for the B123 bridge (Akbari, 2008, 2013)

seismic responses that cannot be found through traditional FBD procedure. The results demonstrated that satisfying the
linear analyses. Eurocode 8 regularity condition does not necessarily result in
a near-simultaneous failure of unequal piers at the extreme
Salonikios (2005) evaluated the seismic behaviour factor as seismic hazard level. It was concluded that, for the bridges
proposed by Eurocode 8, Part 2 (CEN, 2005) for bridges of under investigation, the regularity criteria in both the pro-
irregular configurations. The behaviour factors of the bridge visions may not guarantee a regular seismic behaviour
models considered were estimated graphically. It was concluded (uniform ductility demand) for the structure (see also Guirguis
that, by proper design, it is possible to provide ductile, flexural and Mehanny, 2013).
response to piers of irregular and monolithic bridges.
Ghodratian et al. (2011) investigated the possible application
Akbari and Maalek (2010) studied the effect of bridge regu- of shape memory alloy in order to produce uniform distri-
larity on the displacement ductility demand of the reference bution of ductility demand in irregular bridges. A model of
bridge in 18 different configurations. They showed that, for the reference bridge (i.e. B213 bridge) was investigated and a
seismic actions of considerable intensity, the displacement pot-bearing equipped with two shape memory alloy restrainer
ductility demands of the shortest or the stiffest piers of highly bars was used to replace the fixed connection at the top of the
irregular bridges (e.g. B213) increase accordingly. In particular, shortest pier. The results showed that these superelastic
these viaducts tend to exhibit a non-uniform distribution of elements significantly reduce the ductility demand on the
damage and it is expected that the stiffest and shortest piers shortest pier of the bridge. The high elastic strains of shape
undergo severe damage and the longer and more flexible piers memory alloy restrainers together with the increase in the
remain mainly elastic. They concluded that the relation damping ratios of the whole bridge can be considered as
between the regularity index, RI, and the ductility demand is primary factors in this result. It was found that, depending on
not clear. Although the ductility demands tend to decrease the reinforcement ratio of the shortest pier, an increase in the
with the increase in the RI (i.e. with increasing the structural length of the shape memory alloy restrainers can improve the
regularity), the ductility demands fluctuate considerably. overall seismic behaviour of the bridge.

Guirguis (2011) investigated the seismic response of a few Grendene et al. (2012) carried out a parametric study to
models of a three-span continuous bridge with two unequal provide criteria for structural regularity of RC multi-span
piers. Static pushover and non-linear inelastic time-history ana- continuous bridges and to assess whether an equivalent
lyses were performed to check the validity of Eurocode 8 and single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system represents a multi-
AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD) pro- degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system correctly. They evaluated
visions for seismic behaviour of ductile bridges designed by the the reliability of the regularity index proposed by Calvi et al.

11
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Structures and Buildings
(1994), and a comparative analysis was carried out. The results
showed that, for stiff decks, which are able to control displace-
ments and deformations of the bridge pier, and for symmetric
distribution of piers, the simplified equivalent system can rep-
resent effectively the global behaviour of the overall bridge. On
the basis of this work, they showed that the participating
modal mass cannot be considered as a reliable parameter to
evaluate the structural regularity and, therefore, is not reliable
for assessing the response of the MDOF system through an
equivalent SDOF system. They concluded that the index intro-
duced by Calvi et al. (1994), which compares the vibration
modes of the deck alone with those of the bridge, better quan-
tifies the structural regularity, regardless of difficulties associ-
ated with the computational efforts in calculating the index.
Tehrani and Mitchell 2012, 2013a, 2013b) carried out para-
metric analyses on a series of bridge configurations in which
the column heights, column diameters, superstructure stiffness
and mass as well as abutment restraint conditions were altered.
The maximum ductility demands obtained using elastic and
inelastic analyses were compared to study the influence of the
degree of irregularity. The effects of column stiffness ratios and
superstructure to substructure stiffness ratios on the maximum
ductility demands and concentration of ductility demands were
investigated. This work was repeated in both the transverse
and the longitudinal directions. The results indicated that the
seismic response and maximum ductility demands are influ-
enced by important parameters such as the total stiffness of
the substructure, the column stiffness ratio and the aspect ratio
of the columns.
Gómez-Soberón et al. (2013, 2014) conducted a parametric
study to determine the influence of different irregular super-
structure and substructure configurations. Linear and non-linear
time-history analyses were used. Based on a regular bridge
model, irregular configurations were investigated by changing
the height of the central pier (substructure irregularity) and the
length of the central span (superstructure irregularity). In
addition, curved bridges were studied to complement the
analysis of the irregular conditions of the superstructure. The
normalised maximum responses of regular and irregular bridge
models were compared. The researchers concluded that such
bridges are more seismically vulnerable when there is major
difference between the heights of adjacent piers. Finally, they
showed that if the height of the central pier is changed, the
bridge will be more vulnerable than in the case where the height
of a pier next to the abutments is altered.
Wei (2014) investigated the seismic behaviour of four-span con-
tinuous bridges with different configurations. In the bridges
used for the study, the heights of the central piers varied from
5 to 100 m, while the heights of the other piers remained the
same. Using non-linear time-history analysis, the internal
forces at individual piers were assessed and the correlation
between the relative stiffness of adjacent piers and the ratio
12
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
between the seismic responses at the bottom of adjacent piers
was studied. Finally, in order to produce a uniform distri-
bution of the seismic behaviour of all the piers, a range for the
relative column stiffness of two adjacent piers was proposed.
Tamanani et al. (2014, 2015) compared the design procedures
adopted by Eurocode 8 and AASHTO-LRFD for the seismic
behaviour of irregular bridges through non-linear pushover
analysis. Different bridge configurations and deck-to-pier con-
nections, which impose different failure modes, were investi-
gated. Finally, different methods to improve the seismic
performance of the bridges were studied. The purpose was to
obtain a uniform failure of all unequal piers regardless of the
different heights and the failure modes experienced. They
showed that the regularity conditions of Eurocode 8 do not
satisfy a regular seismic performance resulting in uniform and
synchronised damage to bridge piers of unequal heights. They
concluded that using a monolithic connection for long piers
significantly increases the flexural strength, allowing better
load distribution with the shorter pier, and therefore a more
regular behaviour for the bridge.
Jara et al. (2015) conducted a parametric study on simply sup-
ported RC bridges of unequal pier heights with several irregu-
lar configurations subjected to strong seismic records. They
determined the expected damage and the demands on the
short piers of the bridges located on soft and rigid soils by
varying the parameters of interest, such as the strength and
stiffness characteristics of the substructure and the dynamical
characteristics of the seismic records. More than 300 non-
linear time-history analyses were conducted. They quantified
the impact of the pier configuration in the global behaviour of
the bridges and the influence of the shortest pier in the
expected damage of the other piers. They concluded that, in
most cases, the piers adjacent to the tallest piers of the bridge
are the elements more affected by the bridge irregularity.
In a more recently published research paper by Ishac and
Mehanny (2017) entitled ‘Do mixed pier-to-deck connections
alleviate irregularity of seismic response of bridges with
unequal height piers?’, several three-span bridge configurations
with unequal pier heights and different pier-to-deck connec-
tions were designed as per Eurocode 8 requirements for irregu-
lar bridges; they were investigated for seismic response
uniformity up to collapse limit state and intrinsic overstrength
as well as material usage efficiency, under inelastic static push-
over and incremental dynamic analysis. Design optimisation in
order to obtain regular response was performed on each bridge
model, based on an enhanced curvature-based uniformity cri-
terion, and the results were compared to the initial design com-
plying with Eurocode requirements. Among different
conclusions of the research, it was concluded that irregular
bridges under investigation complying with Eurocode uniform-
ity index do not necessarily behave in a uniform manner under
seismic loading and the response uniformity was improved
 Structures and Buildings
drastically by altering the steel reinforcement ratios of either
the short or the long pier and/or by changing the types of pier-
to-deck connection.
5.2 Displacement-based design
Displacement-based design (DBD) has been developed with
the objective of direct design of a structure to reach a predeter-
mined displacement level when subjected to an earthquake
consistent with the design level. In direct displacement-based
design (DDBD), design forces are obtained from the inelastic
response of the system for a desired level of performance
(Calvi et al., 2006; Kowalsky, 2002; Kowalsky et al., 1995;
Priestley and Calvi, 1997).
The DDBD procedure for MDOF bridge structures can be
summarised in the following basic steps (Priestley et al., 2007)
(a) determination of the design displaced shape
(b) characterisation and evaluation of the equivalent
SDOF system
(c) application of the DBD approach to the SDOF system
(d ) determination of the pier’s required strengths and design.
Figure 11 shows a simplified model of an equivalent elastic
system under transverse response used in the DBD procedure
for the case of a four-span bridge. In Figure 11, the parameters
Fi and KSi represent the vector of distributed seismic forces and
the effective stiffness of piers, respectively, which can be evalu-
ated through the above-mentioned procedure (see Restrepo,
2006).
Calvi and Kingsley (1994) presented a procedure as an exten-
sion of the simple concept of DBD to complex MDOF bridge
structures. They used the reference bridge in regular and irre-
gular configuration as their case study. Their procedure worked
well for regular bridges and suffered from the same shortcom-
ing as the FBD procedure for irregular bridges with several
predominant modes of vibration rather than the first mode.
A1
P1
F2
F1
FA1
Eldeck
KA1
KS1
Figure 11. Typical simplified plan model of a bridge used in DBD in the transverse direction
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Calvi et al. (2006) presented the background of common FBD
and the development of DBD procedures, followed by a com-
parative study, carried out in order to compare the pushover
design method to simplified FBD and DBD procedures. Pros
and cons of each strategy, as well as possible lines of develop-
ment, were identified.
Alvarez Botero (2004) and Restrepo (2006) investigated poss-
ible improvements to the DDBD for multi-span continuous
concrete bridges by way of comprehensive parametric study of
a series of four- and six-span bridges with different levels of
regularity. Also, the issue of dynamic amplification of deck
transverse movements was investigated and an effective
method to consider this issue for bridges designed through
DDBD was proposed. The effects of deck transverse stiffness
were also investigated. Satisfactory results were obtained from
the assessment of the procedure using inelastic TH analyses,
showing good agreements between the design displacement
patterns and the average TH analysis displacement envelopes
for the majority of bridge models. From the parametric ana-
lyses conducted, it was found that the deck transverse stiffness
strongly influences the presence of higher modes in the
response of the structure. For very flexible or long bridges,
dynamic amplification of deck moments can be very signifi-
cant, whereas for very stiff superstructures it is negligible.
Results of the above-mentioned works, together with compre-
hensive explanations about the problems related to the FBD
and the advantages of the DBD of bridges – with several
examples on application of the method for irregular bridges
with unequal pier heights – were compiled in the valuable
book by Priestley et al. (2007). They presented a brief discus-
sion of conceptual problems with FBD of concrete bridges by
a description of DDBD fundamentals in regular and irregular
bridges (Calvi et al., 2013).
In the framework of a PhD thesis by Suarez Vinicio (Vinicio,
2008), the DDBD procedure was implemented for highway
P2 A2
P3
FA2
F3
KS3 KA2
KS2
13
 Structures and Buildings
bridges of unequal heights with irregular configurations. A
variety of bridge models were investigated, including single-
and multi-column bent piers with different deck-to-pier con-
nections, with continuous as well as in-span hinge decks. The
main objective of this research was to bridge the gap between
existing research on DDBD and its implementation for the
design of conventional highway bridges with different complex-
ities such as limited superstructure displacement capacity, skew
in bents and abutments, displacement patterns, P–Δ effects
and different types of substructures, widening the scope and
applicability of DDBD substantially.
Bardakis and Fardis (2008) proposed and elaborated a DBD
procedure for the seismic design of continuous deck concrete
bridges in different regular and irregular configurations. They
concluded that the method is more cost effective and provided
more rational designs than the conventional FBD approach,
with improvements and no substantial loss in the seismic per-
formance under seismic motions well beyond the design
motion.
Implementation of DDBD using different displacement pat-
terns and solution algorithms for the application of the
DDBD method to a variety of highway bridge configurations
(including irregular bridges) have also been investigated by
Suarez (2008).
In the framework of a PhD thesis by Şadan (2009), a direct
displacement-based assessment (DDBA) procedure for the
assessment of multi-span RC bridges was developed. The pro-
cedure is based on the DDBD previously developed by
Priestley et al. (2007) and idealises the MDOF bridge structure
as an equivalent SDOF system and defines a safety factor in
terms of displacement. The method was also applied to six-
span straight bridges of different regular and irregular con-
figurations. The proposed DDBA procedure assumes that the
bridge failure is due to the attainment of maximum displace-
ment capacity of one of the piers, whereas superstructure and
abutments remain elastic. It was stated that the major problem
in the DDBA procedure is to determine which element of the
bridge will first reach the pre-determined performance limit,
and what will be the corresponding displacement profile of
the bridge. This issue is mainly encountered in the case of
bridge assessment in the transverse direction. Estimation of the
correct displacement profile is crucial for the development
of the procedure because wrong estimation of the profile will
lead to the wrong estimation of the displacement capacity and
the corresponding base shears acting on the bridge piers,
resulting in unreliable structural assessment (see also Şadan
et al., 2013).
Kappos et al. (2013) suggested an improvement in the DDBD
methodology for bridges to account for higher mode effects.
The key idea was not only the proper prediction of a target dis-
placement profile through the effective mode shape method
14
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
(wherein all significant modes are considered), but also the
proper definition of the corresponding peak structural
response. The proposed methodology was then applied to an
actual concrete bridge with unequal pier heights. The results
showed that more works are required to further investigate the
effectiveness of the proposed method by applying it to highly
irregular bridges with higher mode contributions and/or
bridges that are curved in plan. The proposed method is
expected to be more valuable for the proper estimation of the
actual inelastic response and hence for the efficient design of
bridges with significant higher mode contributions. Further
investigations are needed in the case of different abutment
configurations.
Cardone (2014) proposed displacement limits and performance
displacement profiles for the direct displacement-based assess-
ment of existing bridges with application to irregular bridges
with unequal pier heights. Displacement limits were provided
for piers, abutments, joints, bearing devices and shear keys.
Moreover, different approaches for the definition of the per-
formance displacement profiles were examined, including
adaptive pushover analysis, effective modal analysis and
rational analysis of simplified bridge models. Some examples
of application to typical irregular bridge configurations,
differing in pier layout, deck type and pier–deck connections
were considered. As the approach is based on a displacement
adaptive pushover procedure and requires high computational
efforts and long processing times, it is not compatible with
the scrutiny of a large bridge stock. As a result, the approach
can be used for single bridges that feature a complex
structural configuration (e.g. skewed/curved bridges, bridges
with highly irregular pier layout and/or particular pier–deck
connections, etc.).
In the framework of a PhD thesis by Khan (2015), the
dynamic response of straight and curved bridges was investi-
gated parametrically. The first objective of the research was to
investigate the definition of the AASHTO-LRFD bridge
design specifications regarding curved regular/irregular bridges.
Curved bridges with subtended angles ranging from 15° to
180°, having the total arc length equal to the length of the
equivalent straight bridge, were considered (see Figure 12).
Other parameters considered were the pier height/stiffness,
number of spans, span length and abutment restraints. The
second objective of this work was to investigate and to extend
the applicability of the existing DDBD method, initially pro-
posed for straight bridges by Priestley et al. (2007), to curved
bridges (see also Khan et al., 2012). The researchers concluded
that deviation in the response of the curved bridge from the
equivalent straight bridge increases as the subtended angles
become larger and the number of spans reduces. They found
that the abutment restraint condition can be regarded as an
important parameter influencing the bridge response. They pro-
posed additional limits – rather than the AASHTO criteria –
on maximum subtended angle of curved bridges for different
 Structures and Buildings
Z X
θi
C90
Abutment local axes
C60
Figure 12. Plan view of straight and curved bridge models with different subtended angles considered by Khan (2015)
abutment restraint conditions. Finally, they extended the exist-
ing DDBD procedure to accurately capture the target displace-
ment profile of the deck in both the longitudinal and
transverse directions.
5·3 Remarks
The available literature on the application of FBD and DBD
procedures for irregular bridges was reviewed. The FBD
method was primarily noted as an inadequate and/or inaccur-
ate design method for irregular bridges. Regarding the current
Eurocode 8 regularity condition and provisions, it was con-
cluded that the Eurocode 8 regularity criteria may not guaran-
tee a uniform seismic response of the piers in irregular bridges.
Among some important parameters influencing the adequacy
of the FBD method for such bridges, one can refer to the pier-
to-deck connection and the distribution of the stiffness of
bridge piers, which have the key role in this procedure.
Therefore, further research efforts are needed to consider the
effects of the use of different boundary conditions and piers of
variable cross-sectional dimensions or reinforcement arrays in
irregular bridges in order to obtain more uniform distribution
of ductility demand for such bridges. It can be concluded that,
in general, the FBD approach provides good agreement
between the design displacement patterns and the average
time-history analysis displacement envelopes for regular bridge
configurations.
In modern seismic design methods, it is essential that the
design procedure used is capable of controlling structural per-
formance (or damage as an indicator of structural perform-
ance). Such a requirement is the primary limitation of
traditional FBD methods and can be considered as the
primary advantage of the DBD method. It is a fact that most
recent achievements and developments for better understand-
ing of the seismic behaviour of irregular bridges are derived
from the development and/or improvement of the DBD or
DDBD procedures. Further investigations and research works
are needed to extend the method for bridges of various levels
of regularity and boundary conditions.
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
C180
C165
C150
C135
C120
C105
C75
C45
C30
C15
ST
6. The effects of higher modes and methods
of analysis
6.1 Literature review
As one of the main challenges in the seismic analysis of irregu-
lar bridges, extensive research works have been devoted to the
problem of the adequacy of simplified and more complex
elastic/inelastic analysis methods and the effects of higher
modes on the seismic behaviour of irregular bridges (including
the reference bridge). Single and multi-mode pushover analysis
methods, the quasi-pushover analysis method, simplified or
adaptive inelastic or static pushover analysis method, conven-
tional, adaptive or incremental response spectrum analysis
methods, uniform load method, incremental dynamic analysis
method and elastic or inelastic time-history analysis methods
have been applied on different bridge configurations in short
or long bridges and the results have been compared.
For instance, in the framework of a PhD thesis by Isakovic
(1996), a comparison was carried out between the results of
application of a typical single-mode pushover method (the N2
method in Eurocode 8) and two typical multi-mode pushover
methods (the modal pushover analysis and incremental
response spectrum analysis methods) for the analysis of
single-column bent viaducts of irregular configurations (the
same reference bridge) in the transverse direction. Researchers
have extended their studies in this subject to improve the appli-
cability of some of the existing seismic analysis methods for
irregular bridges (see also Fajfar et al., 2000; Fischinger and
Isakovic, 1999, 2002; Isakovic and Fischinger, 2005, 2006;
Isakovic et al., 2003, 2008).
In the framework of a PhD thesis by Casarotti (2004), adaptive
pushover-based methods for the seismic assessment and design
of bridges of irregular configurations were investigated. As a
part of this work, and in order to investigate the effectiveness
of single-run pushover schemes in assessing the seismic behav-
iour of irregular bridges, an analytical parametric study on the
reference bridge (in short and long configurations as shown in
Figure 13) was conducted as a suite of continuous multi-span
15
 Structures and Buildings
Label 222
Regular
Label 232
Label 123
Semi-
regular/
irregular Label 213
Figure 13. Models considered by Casarotti (2004)
bridges (Casarotti et al., 2005; Pinho et al., 2009). The results
indicated that the use of single-run pushover analysis might
still be feasible even for such irregular bridge configurations,
provided that a displacement-based adaptive version of the
method is employed. It is important to note that the inade-
quacy of using conventional single-run pushover analysis to
assess non-regular bridges is already explicitly recognised in
Eurocode 8, where it is stated that such analysis is suitable
only for regular bridges which can be ‘reasonably approxi-
mated by a generalized SDOF system’. The code then provides
additional details on how to identify the cases in which such a
condition is or is not met, and advises the use of non-linear
time-history analysis for the latter scenarios.
As another part of the above PhD thesis, and through para-
metric study, an adaptive capacity spectrum method was pro-
posed for the seismic assessment of irregular bridges of
different configurations and the results were compared with
other non-linear static procedures (Casarotti and Pinho, 2007;
Pinho et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2009). In this study, two bridge cat-
egories (as shown in Figure 13), with regular, irregular and
semi-regular layout, were considered. Also, two types of abut-
ments were used: (a) continuous deck–abutment connections
supported on piles, and (b) deck extremities supported on
linear pot-bearings.
Casarotti and Pinho (2006) used the fibre-based finite-element
modelling approach, implemented in the SeismoSoft computer
program, to simulate the seismic response of continuous
bridges with emphasis on the verification of modelling of the
reference bridge (B213) in comparison with the tests results.
The modelling approach can also be used for further para-
metric analysis of the seismic behaviour of the reference bridge
and other bridge structures with different configurations.
Casarotti et al. (2009) evaluated 11 different spectral reduction
factors, involving diverse combinations of previously proposed
equivalent damping and spectral reduction equations, using a
preliminarily validated non-linear static procedure. This work
was done in order to verify the adequacy of using the existing
SDOF derived relationships in the assessment of MDOF
systems. A wide set of bridges, as shown in Figure 13, covering
16
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Label 2222222
Label 332111
Label 2331312
regular and irregular configurations as well as distinct support
conditions, was used. The accuracy of the results was com-
pared by direct comparison with time-history analyses per-
formed with real ground motion records.
In view of the fact that most current structural seismic analyses
are carried out considering either fibre-based or plastic hinge
structural models, Monteiro et al. (2008) conducted a para-
metric study on different bridge configurations (the reference
bridge as shown in Figure 13) with the purpose of investigating
the accuracy of both forms of modelling. Pushover curves as
well as non-linear static procedure results were compared.
Monteiro et al. (2016a) compared different non-linear model-
ling assumptions together with comparison with the exper-
imental results. Furthermore, alternative adaptive pushover
procedures were applied to the reference bridge (B213), based
on a generic plastic hinge model.
Aydınoğlu (2004) explained the benefits of the incremental
response spectrum analysis procedure and concluded that the
method can be readily applied to plan-symmetric as well as
asymmetric multi-storey buildings and irregular bridges invol-
ving multi-mode response at each piecewise linear step.
Paraskeva et al. (2006) extended the modal pushover analysis
in order to apply it to the seismic assessment of bridges. Its
applicability in the case of an existing, long and curved irregu-
lar bridge was also investigated. Comparative evaluation of the
calculated response of the bridge illustrated the applicability
and potentiality of the modal pushover method for bridges,
and quantified its relative accuracy compared to that obtained
through other inelastic methods (see also Kappos et al., 2005).
Paraskeva and Kappos (2010) verified this method by applying
it to two actual bridges. The first structure was a 638 m long
multi-span bridge, with significant curvature in plan, unequal
pier heights and different types of pier-to-deck connections.
The second structure was a 100 m long three-span bridge,
which, although ostensibly a regular structure, was found to
exhibit a rather unsymmetric response in the transverse direc-
tion, mainly due to torsional irregularity. The bridges were
assessed using response spectrum, ‘standard’ pushover and
 Structures and Buildings
modal pushover analysis, and finally using non-linear response
history analysis for a number of spectrum-compatible motions.
These works were carried out in the framework of a PhD thesis
by Paraskeva (2013).
In the PhD thesis by Akbari (2008), in order to assess the ade-
quacy of different analysis methods as well as the applicability
of the simplified ones specified by the AASHTO specifications
for the seismic analysis of continuous span bridges, a wider
range of regular and irregular configurations of the reference
bridge were studied. As another part of the work, the cyclic
response of these 18 models of the reference bridge in the
longitudinal direction was investigated. Using non-linear fibre-
based analytical models, the cyclic response curves were gener-
ated for the individual piers of each of these 18 bridge models.
Comparison of the cyclic response curves showed that the
most vulnerable bridges are the irregular ones, and a high level
of damage and ductility demand is expected for the short piers
of this class of bridges (Akbari and Maalek, 2010).
Shakeri and Shayanfar (2008) investigated the applicability of
the modal pushover analysis method for the seismic assessment
of the reference bridge (B213 bridge).
The influence of substructure irregularity in the seismic behav-
iour of the reference bridge was studied by Soberón et al.
(2008). In this work, variation between maximum responses in
bridges of regular and irregular configurations against more
than 50 earthquakes was determined. The researchers con-
cluded that, in general, more variations in the pier lengths are
related with greater differences between the responses of
regular and irregular models. But, for some earthquakes, this
tendency is not observed. This is attributed to bridge and
earthquakes dynamic characteristics.
Pinto and Mancini (2009) introduced the secant mode super-
position method consisting of an iterative multi-modal
response spectrum analysis on a structural model with secant
stiffness properties and equivalent viscous damping. The
method was thoroughly implemented on the six ‘typological’
bridges, with regular and irregular configurations, and different
numbers of spans and span lengths.
Perdomo et al. (2017) extended the concept of generalised
force vectors (named generalised pushover analysis (GPA))
through application of the method to RC bridges of irregular
configurations. The results obtained for the case study suggest
that the GPA algorithm is suitable as a non-linear static pro-
cedure for the seismic assessment of bridges, demonstrating a
good agreement with the non-linear time-history analysis
results and superiority with respect to the predictions of
selected traditional non-linear static procedures.
Kappos et al. (2011) investigated problems in pushover analysis
of torsionally sensitive bridges by using as a case study a
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
straight bridge whose fundamental mode is purely torsional
(similar to the response of B212 or B213 bridges). The push-
over curves derived in the longitudinal and transverse direc-
tions confirmed the satisfactory performance of the bridge,
even in the case of motions stronger than the design earth-
quake. The study showed that the corresponding load pattern
based on the fundamental torsional mode is unsymmetric
and the resulting base shear inevitably becomes zero, hence a
‘standard’ pushover curve cannot be drawn. An alternative
pushover curve in terms of the abutment shear plotted against
the maximum deck displacement (that occurs at the abutment)
was found to be a meaningful measure of the overall inelastic
behaviour of the bridge.
Wei (2011) investigated the influence of higher modes in the
pushover analysis of three irregular four-span continuous
bridges. Modal pushover analysis was performed and the
results were compared with the inelastic time-history analysis.
The results showed that, for each important mode consider-
ing different displacement-monitored points, different pushover
curves are obtained. Wei concluded that if reasonable
pushover curves are selected as the capacity spectra, the
modal pushover analysis can lead to results that are compar-
able with the inelastic time-history analysis. Otherwise, the
modal pushover analysis will not work satisfactorily.
In the framework of a PhD thesis by Mohtashami (2013),
seismic demand of integral bridges was evaluated through
a modal and adaptive pushover analysis. Different con-
figurations of a four-equal-span multi-column bent RC
integral bridge with equal and unequal pier heights were used
and the results were compared with the results of inelastic
time-history analyses (see also: Mohtashami and Shooshtari,
2013).
Shakeri et al. (2013) extended the adaptive modal combination
procedure on bridges of irregular configuration and compared
its accuracy with other pushover methods. The results indi-
cated that using an adaptive load pattern improves the results
of the first mode-based pushover analysis. A modified version
of the procedure was also proposed for bridges in which
the adaptive load pattern is used only in the first mode of
analysis.
Ayala and Escamilla (2012a, 2012b) evaluated the influence of
modal regularity of single-column bridges on the seismic per-
formance calculated by simplified analysis procedures and
evaluated the validity of the equal displacement rule when
used in the analysis of MDOF structures with modal regularity
problems. The results showed that the equal displacement
rule does not always lead to results comparable with those
obtained using non-linear analysis, especially when the struc-
tures have a complex seismic behaviour. The results calculated
using a simplified procedure compared with those generated
using non-linear analysis showed that the modal regularity
17
 Structures and Buildings
can often be the main reason why simplified seismic evaluation
procedures may not work and hence, in order to be used
confidently in structures with complex behaviour, some
modifications to the original procedures should be made (see
also Ayala and Escamilla, 2013, 2014; Escamilla and Ayala,
2014).
In two recently published works, Kohrangi et al. (2012,
2015) studied the seismic response of irregular bridges (as
shown in Figure 14) through different non-linear static pro-
cedures. A comparative approach was used to assess the per-
formance of three well-known non-linear static procedures,
namely, the N2 method, modal pushover analysis method and
adaptive capacity spectrum method, by comparing the results
with the non-linear dynamic analysis. A set of bridges
with different levels of irregularity in configurations and
lengths was investigated. Comparison of the results confirmed
an acceptable performance of the multi-modal non-linear
static procedures and highlighted the effectiveness of the
extended version of the N2 method with respect to its
simplicity.
Araujo et al. (2014) assessed the accuracy of the pushover
analysis method in evaluating the seismic behaviour of
irregular-in-plan RC curved bridges. Particular attention was
paid to the definition of the force distribution patterns, the
direction of analysis and the determination of the target dis-
placements, as well as to the modelling of the biaxial
behaviour of the bridge piers. The response of the bridges, esti-
mated using the non-linear static pushover and dynamic
analyses, illustrated the applicability of the pushover analysis
technique as well as the influence of the direction of
excitation, in both local and global response of irregular-in-
plan bridges.
35 35 35
14
7 14 7
21
1·50
1·90
0·20
0·35
1·30
R0·
Pier’s cross-section
Figure 14. Models considered by Kohrangi et al. (2015)
18
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
6·2 Remarks
The main results of the above-mentioned works can be sum-
marised as follows.
& Where the flexibility of bridge piers is rather high, the
effects of the higher modes diminish and the structure may
be categorised as regular. In such cases, the results
obtained from simplified analysis methods may be
considered adequate for practical design purposes.
However, for the analysis of irregular structures having
rather short and stiff piers, the multi-mode method should
be employed as the minimum requirement for the
attainment of reliable results.
& In the simplified procedures, the higher modes or modal
regularity effects are not taken into consideration, which
may lead to erroneous results, even in regular structures.
& In the case of moderately irregular long bridges, which are
common in construction design practice, the modal
pushover analysis method led to satisfactory response
results. This method provided a good estimate of the
maximum inelastic deck displacement for several
earthquake intensities. However, the standard pushover
analysis may not predict well the inelastic deck
displacements of bridges wherever the contribution of the
first mode to the response of the bridge is relatively low.
& For the analysis of bridges where the modes change
significantly, depending on the seismic intensity, the
incremental response spectrum analysis method is more
appropriate in principle, unless a bridge is torsionally
sensitive. In such cases, all simplified methods should be
used with care.
& The adaptive capacity spectrum method is a valid
non-linear static procedure, providing good results
throughout a wide ensemble of bridge configurations and
35 35 35 35 35
7
21
21
12·00
2·20 3·80 2·20 1·90
0·30
50 R0·5
0 Units: m
1·80 1·80
not to scale
Deck cross-section
 Structures and Buildings
Table 4. Recommended types of inelastic analysis (Kappos et al., 2012)
Type of bridge
Response is governed predominantly by one mode, which does not
change considerably.
& Short bridges on moderate to stiff soil, pinned at the abutments,
and not supported by very short columns
The influence of higher modes is limited and their shape does not
change considerably when the seismic intensity is increased.
& Short bridges pinned at the abutments, supported by short side
and long central columns
Considerable influence of higher modes, that do not significantly
change their shape.
& Long bridges (or curved) without very short central columns
Considerable influence of one or a few modes, which significantly
changes the shape.
& Short bridges with roller supports at the abutments
Considerable influence of higher modes, which significantly change
their shape when the seismic intensity is changed.
& Short or long bridges supported by very short central and higher
side columns
intensity levels, when compared to inelastic time-history
analysis results. The method is also largely satisfactory
when compared to current available non-linear static
procedures (N2, capacity spectrum method, modal
pushover analysis).
Finally, in a recently published and valuable textbook by
Kappos et al. (2012), the most important results of the above-
mentioned research works on the seismic design and assess-
ment of bridges, with an emphasis on different methods of
modelling and inelastic methods of analysis, have been
reported. Different case studies, in particular the reference
bridge, have been investigated. The observations on the appli-
cation of appropriate analysis methods for bridges of different
configurations are summarised in Table 4.
7. Seismic isolation
The first comprehensive explanation regarding the design of
base isolation and energy dissipation devices for an irregular
bridge (the reference bridge) can be found in the well-known
book written by Priestley et al. (1996: Chapter 6), as a full
design example for bridge design purposes. Inelastic static as
well as time history responses of the original piers have been
compared with the isolated ones. After that, several research
works were carried out.
As mentioned before, as part of the pseudo-dynamic tests on
the reference bridge, two tests were conducted (B213 bridge
model) in which an isolating/dissipating device on the piers
and abutments or on the central pier was used. The results of
these tests showed that, in the case of alternative solutions with
isolating/dissipating devices, a significant amount of energy
dissipation is shown in the devices. The solution with only the
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Multi-mode methods Non-linear
response
Single-mode history
methods Non-adaptive Adaptive analysis

 
 


central short pier isolated presented a much better global be-
haviour with lower ductility demands in the isolating device in
relation to the previous bridge (Negro and Pinto, 1995).
Calvi and Pavese (1997) presented the conceptual design of iso-
lation systems for bridge structures. A DBD approach was pre-
sented and the preliminary design of an isolation system for
existing bridges was carried out on the basis of ‘bridge regu-
larity’, which allows an estimation of whether the response of
the real structure will be similar to that predicted in the pre-
liminary design phase (see the indices RI2 and RI3 as intro-
duced by Equations 3 and 5). The efficiency of the approach
was shown in designing the isolation system for the reference
bridge with highly irregular configuration (i.e. B213).
Assessment of the seismic performance of a seismically iso-
lated bridge of several complexities and irregularities (includ-
ing unequal pier heights), using full inelastic time-history
analysis, was studied by Dimitrakopoulos and Kappos (2005).
As a result, the displacement profile of the superstructure
follows a rather smooth pattern along its length and increases
almost linearly with the input excitation intensity, whereas dis-
placements at the top of the piers follow a rather jagged
pattern and do not always increase linearly with the earth-
quake intensity.
Tubaldi and Dall’Asta (2011) proposed a new method for pre-
liminary design of partially restrained seismically isolated con-
tinuous bridges, which are a particular class of isolated bridges
whose transverse motion is restrained at the abutments. The
dynamic problem was described in a variational form in order
to obtain a simplified solution based on a pre-fixed transverse
deformed shape of the deck. The objective of the design
19
 Structures and Buildings
procedure was to control the internal actions on the piers by
means of an appropriate configuration of the isolation bear-
ings. Simple formulas for estimating the forces transmitted to
the abutments and the superstructure transverse curvature
demand were proposed, which account for the contribution of
higher modes of vibration. Validation was done for different
regular and irregular bridge configurations in order to assess
the ability of the simplified method to control the force
demand at the piers.
Jara et al. (2013a) investigated isolation parameters for improv-
ing the seismic performance of irregular bridges. A total of
1690 non-linear time-history analyses were carried out in longi-
tudinal and transverse directions of 169 bridge models. The
maximum pier drifts, bending moment and shear force
demands were analysed to identify the best isolation properties
for reducing the concentration of damage in one or two
elements and for improving the structural behaviour of irregu-
lar bridges. The substructure irregularity was considered by
using a five-span or six-span simply supported bridge with
several pier height configurations.
Jara et al. (2013b) evaluated the seismic response of an analyti-
cal model of a 525 m long bridge consisting of RC abutments
and piers supported on cylinders and piles. The total cylinder–
pier subsystem height was in the range of 46–71 m, causing a
strong irregularity in the transverse and longitudinal directions.
The bridge was subjected to an assembly of real strong motion
record of the Pacific Coast in Mexico. The results showed the
importance of the isolator dynamic characteristics to the
expected seismic behaviour of the bridge. Special emphasis was
placed on analysing the effectiveness of the isolation system in
avoiding the concentration of strength and displacement duct-
ility demands on an irregular bridge substructure.
Jara et al. (2013c) evaluated the seismic source effects on the
vulnerability of an irregular isolated bridge. They showed that
the effect of the fault type on the seismic vulnerability of the
bridge was significant.
Jara et al. (2017) investigated the applicability of equivalent
linearisation methods to irregular isolated bridges. A para-
metric study was carried out in bridges with three types of irre-
gularities and combinations of relative height between piers.
They demonstrated the applicability of the equivalent linearisa-
tion methods as functions of the ductility demands and the
irregularity of the bridges. They also discussed the combination
of parameters for which different approaches lead to underesti-
mation or overestimation of demands.
Although few works have been carried out on the seismic
response of seismically isolated irregular bridges, it has been
found that the response of isolated bridges is mainly governed
by the seismic isolation system and the related parameters; that
is, by the fundamental period of the structure in contrast to
20
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
the piers which are more influenced by their own dynamic
characteristics, influenced by higher modes of the bridge.
In the above-mentioned few works, the seismic isolation
devices were assumed to be at the top of all the piers or
selected piers. However, further research studies are needed to
quantify the seismic response of seismically base-isolated
bridges of different geometries and levels of regularity. In
addition, different commonly used base-isolated devices with
various characteristics and arrangements can be investigated in
this regard.
8. Reliability and risk assessment
Crémer et al. (2002) investigated the seismic risk assessment of
the same RC regular and highly irregular bridges tested
pseudo-dynamically (i.e. B232, B213, B213A, B231B and
B213C). The effects of asynchronous input motions on the
analytical fragility curves were considered. No significant
differences were found between the failure probability of highly
irregular models, regardless of the different scenarios for creat-
ing the B213 models. For the regular bridge (B232), the results
showed that the probability of failure is significantly lower
than for the other irregular models. The results are shown in
Figure 15.
Probabilistic seismic demand models for multi-span highway
overpass bridges with irregular configurations (unequal pier
heights) typical for California were developed by Mackie and
Stojadinovic (2002). The influence of multiple bridge spans on
their seismic behaviour, such as the effect of higher mode
response, was investigated. The models can help to illustrate
the effect of variation of span length and span number on
bridge performance and give designers a tool to optimise the
layout of the bridge for the expected level of seismic
performance.
Delgado et al. (2002, 2005) proposed a methodology for the
seismic safety assessment of bridges involving the calculation
1·0
B232
B213A
0·8 B213B
B213C
Failure probability
0·6
0·4
0·2
0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8
Peak ground acceleration: g
Figure 15. Analytical fragility curves for the reference bridge in
regular and irregular configurations (Crémer et al., 2002)
 Structures and Buildings
of the corresponding failure probability. A simplified plane
model of the bridge, as shown in Figure 16, was used. The
evaluation of the seismic vulnerability was carried out through
failure probability quantification involving a non-linear trans-
formation of the seismic action in its structural effects. The
applicability of the proposed methodology was illustrated in
the seismic vulnerability analysis of the reference bridge.
Variation of the regularity index RI, presented by Equation 1,
against the maximum ductility demand and collapse prob-
ability of the reference bridge with different configurations was
determined. The researchers concluded that, in the case of irre-
gular bridges, the general seismic design procedures foreseen in
the structural codes, based on the elastic modal analysis, and
subsequently affected by behaviour factors, could lead to sig-
nificantly less safe solutions, even in moderately irregular
bridges.
Analytical fragility curves in different damage states for 18
different models of the reference bridge were developed by
Akbari (2008, 2012). Comparison of the fragility curves showed
that the most vulnerable bridges are the highly irregular bridges
and high damage probability is expected for the short piers of
this class of bridges. It was found that the fragility curves may
be used for categorisation of regular and irregular bridges.
Muhammad Reza (2012) investigated the seismic performance
of a multi-span RC bridge with unequal pier heights (the refer-
ence bridge with different configurations) through non-linear
static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses. The effects
of concrete and steel properties, amount of longitudinal
reinforcement ratio and confinement of the piers on the limit
states of the bridge piers were studied. Finally, fragility curves
of the bridge models were drawn and qualitative as well as
quantitative observations were reported.
Figure 16. Simplified plane model of bridge used by Delgado
et al. (2002, 2005)
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Tehrani and Mitchell (2014) studied the seismic risk perform-
ance of 15 continuous four-span irregular bridges (bridges of
similar overall configuration to the reference bridge), with
different arrangements of column heights and diameters and
designed using the 2006 Canadian highway bridge design code
provisions using incremental dynamic analysis. They obtained
seismic fragility curves for selected bridge models (Tehrani and
Mitchell, 2012). The results indicated that the probabilities of
exceeding different damage states were reasonably low for the
corresponding seismic hazard in Montreal. The results demon-
strated that the use of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimen-
sional (3D) models for incremental dynamic analysis may
result in different assessments for the single-column bent
bridges studied and therefore care should be taken when treat-
ing the incremental dynamic analysis results.
Regarding the fact that several procedures may be used for the
assessment of the seismic safety of bridges, Monteiro (2011)
investigated linear and non-linear static procedures as well as
non-linear dynamic analysis to compute the failure probability
of existing bridges. Different variables typically considered in a
seismic assessment procedure (geometry, material properties,
earthquake records, intensity level) were statistically character-
ised. Failure probability was obtained through the probabilistic
analysis of a safety indicator, defined as the difference between
capacity and demand. An alternative uncertainty model, given
by the convolution between the capacity and demand distri-
butions, was also applied. The reference bridge in seven con-
figurations (as shown in Figure 13), with different regularity
levels, was considered together with a large set of real earth-
quake records (see also Monteiro, 2016; Monteiro et al., 2015,
2016b, 2016c).
Zelaschi et al. (2016a, 2016b) addressed supporting tools for
improving the seismic assessment of bridges by characterising
the geometrical and material characteristics of typical Italian
RC bridges. They generated a large bridge stock for a specific
bridge typology using the Latin hypercube sampling scheme.
Such bridge stock was assessed with a view to establish simpli-
fied relationships between the fundamental period of vibration
and the geometrical configuration of the bridge. The formulae
developed, defined as a function of two geometrical variables,
can be used to estimate the period of vibration and the seismic
demand (and fragility) of the structure to expedite large-scale
seismic assessment studies.
In recent work, Soleimani et al. (2017) investigated the influ-
ence of various parameters on the resulting probabilistic
seismic demand of irregular bridges. This study concentrated
on concrete bridges, including three geometric irregularity
types: (a) skew angle, (b) a frame with unbalanced stiffness and
(c) unequal column heights. The comprehensive sensitivity of a
broad range of probabilistic modelling parameters on the
seismic response was assessed. The statistical analysis revealed
that the common parameters, including ground motion
21
 Structures and Buildings
intensity, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, column diameter,
number of columns per bent, column height, span length and
concrete compressive strength, significantly influenced the
response of the three irregular bridges under investigation. The
individual influential parameters affecting each class of irregu-
larity were highlighted and discussed.
It can be concluded here that preliminary research works in
probabilistic seismic assessment of irregular bridges have been
carried out, but further investigations and research works are
needed with emphasis on other important parameters influen-
cing the seismic response of these types of bridges. There are
many sources of uncertainty in bridge modelling and analysis,
geometrical and material characteristics, earthquake ground
motion properties, soil condition and so on, which can be con-
sidered as alternative and independent research works to be
followed.
9. Site condition and soil–structure
interaction
In a PhD thesis by Anastasios Sextos (Sextos, 2001), compre-
hensive research was conducted concerning the effects of the
spatial variability of ground motion, site conditions and soil–
structure interaction on the seismic response of bridge struc-
tures, emphasising the response of the reference bridge in
regular and irregular configurations, with four and more spans.
He imposed significant uncertainties by the complexity and
coupling of the above phenomena and performed additional
comparative inelastic analyses for 20 different bridges, includ-
ing irregular configurations considering different boundary
conditions. He concluded that although significant aspects of
the dynamic bridge response have already been clarified, there
is still a clear need for further research, which would contrib-
ute towards more realistic, refined and reliable seismic design
of RC bridges (see: Pitilakis et al., 2002; Sextos et al., 2002,
2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2004).
Sextos and Kappos (2005) evaluated the new Eurocode 8, Part
2 provisions regarding asynchronous excitation of irregular
bridges. They compared the simplified approach proposed by
Eurocode 8 with the results of more refined analyses; the latter
involve multiple support excitation of irregular bridges using
pier-dependent artificial accelerograms that account for the
wave arrival delay, their loss of coherency and the effect of
local site conditions as three main sources of spatial variability
of ground motion. The results indicated that although the new
Eurocode 8 provisions have led to more accurate representation
of earthquake loading, care should be exercised in their appli-
cation due to a number of limitations.
The effect of asynchronous earthquake motion on the seismic
response of complex straight and curved bridges with unequal
pier heights was studied by Burdette et al. (2008), and
Burdette and Elnashai (2008). Two MDOF analytical models
were analysed using 2000 unique synthetic accelerograms, with
22
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
results showing significant response amplification due to asyn-
chronous input motion, demonstrating the importance of con-
sidering asynchronous seismic input in the design of complex
irregular bridges (see also Burdette et al., 2006).
Kappos et al. (2002) assessed the effect of modelling
approaches and the soil–structure interaction effects on the
seismic performance of the reference irregular bridge (i.e. the
B213 bridge). Several finite-element models incorporating shell
and frame elements of different mesh refinement were used
and the results of modal properties were compared with those
of the prototype test results. Following a preliminary design of
the bridge foundation system, a series of time-history analyses
was performed on the overall deck–pier–foundation system
and the results were used in assessing the influence of foun-
dation compliance on the bridge response. They showed that,
for proper soil–structure interaction analysis, appropriate selec-
tion and scaling of accelerograms are essential for design on
the basis of time-history analysis. They further concluded that
the effect of design assumptions regarding pier stiffness can be
more critical than the soil–structure interaction, even for the
case of soft soils. Furthermore, small variations in the pier
stiffness may lead to significant changes in the mode shapes
and possibly to shifting of the predominant modes of vibration
in the case of irregular bridge configurations. Finally, it was
suggested that the type of soil profile has a stronger influence
on the bridge response compared to the choice of a particular
type of foundation system.
10. Dynamic response
Several studies have been carried out on the dynamic behav-
iour of bridges with irregular configurations towards an
improved understanding of the seismic behaviour of such
bridges.
As a general study, Tubaldi and Dall’Asta (2012) analysed the
dynamic behaviour of a particular class of multi-span bridges
whose transverse motion is restrained at the abutments. The
transverse dynamic behaviour of these partially restrained
bridges was described by a model consisting of a two-
dimensional simply supported beam with intermediate visco-
elastic restraints, as pier and bearing system. A minimal set of
characteristic problem parameters that completely describe the
dynamic response was initially identified and an analytical sol-
ution was developed for particular configurations, as indicated
in Figure 17. In this figure, KT refers to the transverse stiffness
of the piers. Finally, exact analytical relationships were derived
between the characteristic parameters and the response quan-
tities of interest. Although these particular configurations were
regular, the method can be extended for different configur-
ations including irregular bridges.
A finite-element model updating procedure for the reference
bridge (i.e. the B213 bridge) in a geometric scale of 1:50 was
formed by Zapico et al. (2003). Four configurations
 Structures and Buildings
L/2 L/2 L/4 L/4 L/4
kT kT /3 kT /3
L/3 L/3 L/3 L
kT /2 kT /2 k
Figure 17. Bridge configurations studied by Tubaldi and
Dall’Asta (2012)
corresponding to different pier stiffness and the inclusion of an
isolation–dissipation device were also considered.
Oller and Barbat (2006) proposed a simplified moment–
curvature damage evaluation model, capable of evaluating the
expected seismic behaviour of RC highway bridges. The evalu-
ation of the damage was based on a non-linear analysis deter-
mining the changes of the mentioned moment of inertia.
The model was validated using experimental results obtained
for the Warth Bridge of Austria (a continuous irregular bridge
with unequal pier heights) and also the finite-element analyses
results reported by Zapico et al. (2003) for the same bridge.
Bassir et al. (2007) described the properties for a small-scale
model of the irregular reference bridge (i.e. B213 bridge) and
simulated its prototype dynamic test results. An analytical
linear model with viscous modelling was proposed to repro-
duce the response of the model to medium-intensity seismic
excitation. The parameters of the model were identified by
minimising the discrepancies between the response predicted
by the model and that obtained through the experiments in
the time domain. A procedure based on a genetic algorithm
with parallel selection was developed for minimising such
discrepancies.
11. Symmetry as opposed to regularity
Prucz and Pourbohloul (1999) reported some important cri-
teria to improve the seismic performance of bridges on the
basis of observations made during past earthquakes. They
noted that regularity and symmetry can be investigated as two
important parameters in the design phase. In brief, similarly to
buildings, the symmetry and regularity properties of bridges
tend to reduce torsional effects. The rotational response of
buildings or bridges has been a main cause of damage during
past earthquakes. They concluded that the following criteria
should be considered.
& Bridges should have a uniform distribution of mass,
strength and stiffness in both longitudinal and transverse
directions.
& Abrupt or unusual changes in weight, strength, stiffness
and geometry along a span, and significant changes in
these parameters from span to span should be avoided.
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
L/4 & The horizontal strength and stiffness of substructural
kT /3 elements (such as piers) should not vary significantly along
the bridge and the positioning of fixed and expansion
bearings should be such that a balanced seismic load
distribution to all piers can be achieved.
& Columns in multi-column bents should be of equal height
and there should not be any abrupt changes in geometry
along the height of piers.
12. Improving the seismic performance of
irregular bridges
In the case of essential use of piers of unequal heights in a
bridge, different measures and techniques have been proposed
that may be used in the preliminary design in order to improve
the seismic performance of an irregular bridge or to mitigate
some of the problems related to bridge irregularities (see
Priestley et al., 1996; Caltrans, 2006, 2011); these are summar-
ised as follows
& use of sufficiently deep foundation sleeves for bridge piers
to produce uniform stiffness or prepare equalised effective
length of bridge piers
& use of seismic isolation or energy dissipation devices (such
as elastomeric or sliding bearings) with proper stiffness to
prepare uniform stiffness distribution and to improve the
damping level
& use of in-span hinges with sacrificial shear keys
& use of oversized pile shafts or pile shafts in lieu of footings
& use of modified end fixities
& redistribution and/or reduction of the superstructure mass
& use of different reinforcement ratios and (or) cross-section
for piers and columns
& adding or relocating columns
& modifying the layout of expansion joints or hinges
& pinning the bridge columns at foundation level in
multi-column bents
& pinning the base of the column adjacent to abutments in
single-column bents
& use of wider sections for taller columns.
13. Conclusion
In this paper, a review of the seismic behaviour of irregular
bridges (i.e. a class of RC straight bridge with unequal pier
heights and different numbers of spans) has been presented on
the basis of the available literature by separating the paper sec-
tions in correspondence with different issues.
The most important results can be noted as follows.
(a) There is an important issue concerning the analysis
procedure to be used in the case of elastic/inelastic
analysis of irregular bridges in the framework of modern
seismic bridge design codes. The inelastic TH analysis is
found to be a reliable procedure for the analysis of
irregular bridges. Although the well-known simplified
23
 Structures and Buildings
inelastic pushover procedure is a popular alternative, it
should be used with care in the case of irregular bridges.
In general, no equivalent single-mode static procedure
(elastic or inelastic) can be justified to be used in the case
of torsionally sensitive or torsionally flexible bridges or
viaducts with individual short and stiff columns.
(b) Although extensive research works have been reported on
the pros and cons of the FBD procedure for bridge
design purposes, the results show that additional attempts
should be made in the design phase to reduce the
phenomenon of non-uniform distribution of demand in
short or stiff piers of irregular bridges. DBD or DDBD
procedures can be used as reliable alternatives to the
traditional FBD methodology. As another alternative,
isolation or energy dissipation devices can also be used at
the top of the short or stiff piers.
(c) Regarding the choice between different analytical bridge
models, a simple lumped plasticity beam-like element is
recommended for practical purposes for irregular bridges.
(d) Special care should be exercised in the seismic analysis of
irregular bridges located on sensitive soils. The use of
simplified soil–structure interaction models is
recommended in such cases. Also, the bridge response is
more sensitive to the soil type than the foundation type.
Finally, although different aspects of the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges have been studied during recent decades, and
valuable results have been found, there is a continued need for
research works to clarify further the related issues in order to
improve the seismic design provisions in relation to the regu-
larity issue in bridge structures.
14. Recommendations for future works
Despite a large number of research works in connection with
the subject matter of this review, it can be appreciated that,
owing to the complexities involved, the research is still at its
preliminary stages of development and significant research
needs remain regarding the seismic behaviour of irregular
bridges, which have not been fully studied until recently. Some
of the main topics associated with these important research
needs can be noted as follows.
& The adequacy of different seismic analysis methods, as
indicated in different seismic design codes or as
investigated previously, for bridges of different irregularity
levels is of some interest to be extended for bridges with
plan irregularity. Skewed or curved bridges in parallel with
piers of equal/unequal heights can also be investigated.
The latter subject is currently under investigation by
the authors.
& No comprehensive investigations on the accuracy and
adequacy of the previously reported regularity indices or
those criteria indicated in different seismic design codes
have been carried out for irregular bridges. This can be
considered as an area of further research need.
24
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
& It would be helpful to define an acceptable level of bridge
irregularity – by way of a simple and common regularity
index – for each of the simplified or more complex analysis
methods.
& In order to obtain more uniform distribution of ductility
demand or to reduce the torsional effects in irregular
bridges, to the best knowledge of the authors, no research
works have been reported on the effects of the use of piers
of different and/or variable cross-sectional dimensions,
together with different reinforcement arrays, on the seismic
behaviour of such bridges.
& Regarding the definition of bridge regularity, there is an
important parameter in the distance between the centre
of mass and centre of stiffness of a bridge superstructure.
This parameter can be minimised in order to obtain more
uniform distribution of ductility demand and to reduce the
torsional effects to such bridges. This point has not yet
been sufficiently dealt with in previously reported
literature.
& The seismic strengthening and retrofitting of existing
irregular bridges to enhance their seismic behaviour is of
some interest and could be studied through various
measures.
& The application of simplified seismic probabilistic
models could be used to develop a more reliable
definition of new regularity indices for regular/irregular
bridges.
& The use of innovative or smart materials in irregular
bridges in order to achieve more uniform distribution of
ductility demand and to improve the overall seismic
response has not been investigated thoroughly.
& One of the main limitations of the previously developed
regularity indices is the complexity and difficulty of
their calculations. Finite-element analysis of a verified
numerical model of the bridge is usually needed for
this purpose. It could be very helpful to develop a
simplified practical formula as new bridge regularity
indices for simple hand calculation, in actual design
practice.
& There are some important questions regarding the relation
between torsionally sensitive and irregular bridges. Indeed
no regularity criteria have been proposed for torsionally
sensitive bridges.
& The effects of higher modes on the seismic behaviour of
torsionally sensitive bridges are also important.
Investigations of the adequacy of different simplified
analysis methods for the seismic analysis of torsionally
sensitive bridges could lead to the discovery of some
important unknown problems in this regard.
& No document is available relating to the modal testing or
structural health monitoring of existing irregular bridges.
This issue can be regarded as an applicable research
subject. The results could also be used in order to obtain a
better understanding of the long-term dynamic behaviour
of irregular bridges.
 Structures and Buildings
REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) (2007) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
4th edn. AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
Akbari R (2008) The Seismic Behavior of Irregular Bridges with
Different Piers Heights and Stiffnesses. PhD thesis, School of Civil
Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Akbari R (2012) Seismic fragility analysis of reinforced concrete
continuous span bridges with irregular. Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering 8(9): 873–889.
Akbari R (2013) Cyclic response of RC continuous span bridges with
irregular configuration in longitudinal direction. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering 9(2): 161–171.
Akbari R and Maalek S (2010) Adequacy of the seismic analysis
methods for single column bent viaducts considering regularity
and higher modes effects. Journal of Vibration and Control 16(6):
827–852.
Alvarez Botero JC (2004) Displacement-Based Design of Continuous
Concrete Bridges Under Transverse Seismic Excitation. MSc thesis,
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic
Risk (ROSE School), Pavia, Italy.
Araujo M, Marques M and Delgado R (2014) Multidirectional pushover
analysis for seismic assessment of irregular-in-plan bridges.
Engineering Structures 79: 375–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2014.08.032.
Ayala AG and Escamilla MA (2012a) Influence of modal regularity in
the evaluation of reinforced concrete structures using simplified
nonlinear methods. Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, paper no. 1618,
CD-ROM.
Ayala G and Escamilla M (2012b) Modal irregularity in continuous
reinforced concrete bridges. Detection, effect on the simplified
seismic performance evaluation and ways of solution. In Seismic
Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures
(Lavan O and de Stefano M (eds)). Springer, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands, vol. 24, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake
Engineering Series, pp 103–118.
Ayala G and Escamilla MA (2013) Simplified seismic assessment
procedures and their application to continuous reinforced concrete
bridges. In Proceedings of Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013 (VEESD
2013), Vienna, Austria (Adam C, Heuer R, Lenhardt W and
Schranz C (eds)). Vienna University of Technology, Viena,
Austria, paper no. 321, CD-ROM.
Ayala AG and Escamilla MA (2014) Application of simplified procedures
for the seismic assessment and performance-based design of
continuous long-span RC bridges. Proceedings of the 10th US
National Conference on Earthquake, Anchorage, Alaska.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, USA.
Aydınoğlu MN (2004) An improved pushover procedure for engineering
practice: incremental response spectrum analysis (IRSA). In
Proceedings of International Workshop on Performance-Based
Seismic Design, Concepts and Implementation, Bled, Slovenia
(Fajfar P and Krawinkler H (eds)). Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Centre, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp 345–356.
Bardakis VG and Fardis MN (2008) Displacement-based seismic design
of concrete bridges. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, paper no. 05-02-0017,
CD-ROM.
Bassir DH, Zapico JL, Gonzalez MP and Alonso R (2007) Identification of
a spatial linear model based on earthquake-induced data and
genetic algorithm with parallel selection. International Journal for
Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization 1(1): 39–48.
BSI (2005) BS EN 1998-2:2005 Eurocode 8. Design of structures for
earthquake resistance. Bridges. BSI, London, UK.
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Burdette NJ and Elnashai AS (2008) Effect of asynchronous earthquake
motion on complex bridges. II: results and implications on
assessment. Journal of Bridge Engineering 13(2): 166–172.
Burdette NJ, Elnashai AS, Lupoi A and Sextos AG (2006) The Effect of
Asynchronous Earthquake Motion on Complex Bridges.
Mid-America Earthquake Center, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, Technical report.
Burdette NJ, Elnashai AS, Lupoi A and Sextos AG (2008) Effect of
asynchronous earthquake motion on complex bridges. I:
methodology and input motion. Journal of Bridge Engineering
13(2): 158–165.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) (2006) Seismic
Design Criteria. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA, USA.
Caltrans (2009) Bridge Memo to Designers 6-1: Column Analysis
Considerations. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA, USA.
Calvi GM and Kingsley GR (1994) Displacement based seismic design
of multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures. Proceedings of
2nd International Workshop on Seismic Design of Bridges,
Queenstown, New Zealand, CD-ROM.
Calvi GM and Pavese A (1997) Conceptual design of isolation systems
for bridge structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(1):
193–218.
Calvi GM and Pinto PE (1996) Assessment of EC8 provisions for
reinforced concrete bridges. Proceedings of 11th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, UK, paper no. 2052.
Calvi GM, Elnashai AS and Pavese A (1994) Influence of regularity on the
seismic response of RC bridges. Proceedings of 2nd International
Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofitting of RC Bridges,
Queenstown, New Zealand, pp. 80–89.
Calvi GM, Casarotti C and Pinho R (2006) A comparative study of
displacement, force and pushover approaches for design of
continuous span bridges. In Advances in Earthquake Engineering
for Urban Risk Reduction (Wasti ST and Ozcebe G (eds)).
Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 379–394.
Calvi GM, Priestley MJN and Kowalsky MJ (2013) Displacement-based
seismic design of bridges. Structural Engineering International
23(2): 112–121.
Cardone D (2014) Displacement limits and performance displacement
profiles in support of direct displacement-based seismic assessment
of bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
43(8): 1239–1263.
Casarotti C (2004) Adaptive Pushover-Based Methods for Seismic
Assessment and Design of Bridge Structures. PhD thesis, European
School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE
School), University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Casarotti C and Pinho R (2006) Seismic response of continuous span
bridges through fiber-based finite element analysis. Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Vibration 5(1): 119–131.
Casarotti C and Pinho R (2007) An adaptive capacity spectrum method
for assessment of bridges subjected to earthquake action. Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering, 5(3): 377–390.
Casarotti C, Pinho R and Calvi GM (2005) Adaptive Pushover Based
Methods for Seismic Assessment and Design of Bridge Structures.
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, ROSE research report no. 2005/06.
Casarotti C, Monteiro R and Pinho R (2009) Verification of spectral
reduction factors for seismic assessment of bridges. Bulletin of the
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 42(2),
pp. 111–121.
Casirati M, Franchioni G and Bousias SN (1996) Seismic tests on three
shaking tables of a 1:8 irregular bridge model in support of
Eurocode 8. Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on
25
 Structures and Buildings
Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, UK, paper no. 2047.
Crémer C, Anamateros G, Monti G and Pinto PE (2002) Seismic risk
assessment of RC bridges: effect of asynchronous input motions.
Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, London, UK. CD-ROM.
De Sortis A and Nuti C (1996) Seismic response by pseudo-dynamic tests
of RC bridges designed to EC8. In Proceedings of 11th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.
Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
De Sortis A, Nuti C and Petrangeli M (1998) Seismic response by
pseudo-dynamic tests of RC bridges designed to Eurocode 8 and
Italian seismic code. Proceedings of 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
pp. 1–16.
Delgado P, Costa A and Delgado R (2002) A simple methodology for
seismic safety assessment of bridges. Proceedings of 12th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Elsevier Science Ltd,
paper no. 731.
Delgado P, Costa A and Delgado R (2005) Seismic safety assessment of
irregular bridges. Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the
Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures,
Thessaloniki, Greece. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece, paper no. 28, CD-ROM.
Dimitrakopoulos EG and Kappos AJ (2005) Assessment of a seismically
isolated bridge using inelastic time-history analysis. Proceedings of
the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular
and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece. Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, paper no. 55, CD-ROM.
Escamilla MA and Ayala AG (2014) Application of simplified non-linear
analysis procedures to structures of complex seismic behavior.
Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 25–29.
Fajfar P, Fischinger M and Isaković T (2000) Method for estimating
seismic behavior of buildings and bridges. Graôevinar 52(11):
663–671.
Faria R, Pouca NV and Delgado R (2004) Simulation of the cyclic
behaviour of r/c rectangular hollow section bridge piers via a
detailed numerical model. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(5):
725–748.
Fischinger M (2003) Inelastic seismic analysis of reinforced concrete
viaducts. Structural Engineering International 13(2): 111–118.
Fischinger M and Isakovic T (1999) Seismic Analysis of Irregular Bridges,
Asymmetric and Irregular Structures: Vol. 1, Irregular Structures.
Istanbul Technical University – Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 127–140.
Fischinger M and Isakovic T (2002) Applicability of the pushover based
procedures for bridges. In Proceedings of 3rd National Seismic
Conference and Workshop on Bridges and Highways: Advances in
Engineering and Technology for the Seismic Safety of Bridges in the
New Millennium (Bruneau M and Nimis R (eds.)).
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA, pp. 335–344.
Georgakis CT and MacKenzie DK (2002) Comparison of seismic design
methods for irregular RC bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings 152(2): 167–173,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2002.152.2.167.
Ghodratian SM, Ghassemieh M and Khanmohammadi M (2011) Uniform
distribution of ductility demand in irregular bridges using shape
memory alloy. International Journal of Civil, Environmental,
Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering 5(11):
606–612.
Gómez-Soberón C, Pérez-Ortiz E and Gómez-Soberón L (2013)
Superstructure irregular effect on seismic bridge behavior.
Proceedings of the 2013 World Congress on Advances in Structural
26
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM13), Jeju, Korea,
pp. 4163–4178.
Gómez-Soberón C, Pérez-Ortiz E, Salas-Mengchúng GSL and Gómez-
Soberón L (2014) Parametric study of highway bridges with
irregular substructures and superstructures. In Bridge Maintenance,
Safety, Management and Life Extension: Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and
Management (IABMAS 2014), Shanghai, China (Chen A,
Frangopol DM and Ruan X (eds)). CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden,
the Netherlands, pp. 2503–2511.
Grendene M, Franchetti P and Modena C (2012) Regularity criteria for
RC and PRC multispan continuous bridges. Journal of Bridge
Engineering 17(4): 671–681.
Guedes M (1997) Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Bridges.
Modeling, Numerical Analysis and Experimental Assessment.
PhD thesis. Civil Engineering Department, University of Porto,
Porto, Portugal.
Guedes J and Pinto A (1996) Numerical Simulation of the ELSA PSD
Tests on R/C Bridges. JRC, Ispra, Italy, Report E: R 16358 EN.
Guirguis JEB (2011) Investigating Design Codes Criteria for Regular
Seismic Behavior of Ductile Bridges Having Unequal Height Piers.
MSc thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo,
Egypt.
Guirguis JEB and Mehanny SSF (2013) Evaluating code criteria for
regular seismic behavior of continuous concrete box girder bridges
with unequal height piers. Journal of Bridge Engineering 18(6):
486–498.
Isakovic T (1996) Development of Methods and Tools for the Seismic
Protection of RC Bridges. PhD thesis, Faculty of Civil and
Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia.
Isakovic T and Fischinger M (2000) Regularity indices for bridge
structures. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, paper no. 1725.
Isakovic T and Fischinger M (2005) Pushover analysis of irregular
bridges. In Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the
Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures,
Thessaloniki, Greece. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece, paper no. 37, CD-ROM.
Isakovic T and Fischinger M (2006) Higher modes in simplified inelastic
seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(1): 95–114.
Isakovic T, Fischinger M and Kante P (2003) Bridges: when is single
mode seismic analysis adequate? Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings 156(2): 165–173,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2003.156.2.165.
Isakovic T, Lazaro MPN and Fischinger M (2008) Applicability of
pushover methods for the seismic analysis of single column bent
viaducts. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
37(8): 1185–1202.
Ishac MG and Mehanny SSF (2017) Do mixed pier-to-deck
connections alleviate irregularity of seismic response of bridges
with unequal height piers? Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering
15(1): 97–121.
Jara HM, Villanueva D, Jara M and Olmos BA (2013a) Isolation
parameters for improving the seismic performance of irregular
bridges. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11(2): 663–686.
Jara JM, Jara M, Hernández H and Olmos BA (2013b) Use of
sliding multirotational devices of an irregular bridge in a zone
of high seismicity. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 17(1):
122–132.
Jara JM, Madrigal E, Jara M and Olmos BA (2013c) Seismic source effects
on the vulnerability of an irregular isolated bridge. Engineering
Structures 56: 105–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.
04.022.
 Structures and Buildings
Jara JM, Reynoso JR, Olmos BA and Jara M (2015) Expected seismic
performance of irregular medium-span simply supported
bridges on soft and hard soils. Engineering Structures 98: 174–185,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.032.
Jara JM, Raya G, Olmos BA and Martinez G (2017) Applicability of
equivalent linearization methods to irregular isolated bridges.
Engineering Structures 141: 495–511, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2017.03.052.
Kappos A, Manolis D and Moschonas IF (2002) Seismic assessment and
design of R/C bridges with irregular configuration, including SSI
effects. Engineering Structures 24(10): 1337–1348.
Kappos AJ, Paraskeva TS and Sextos AG (2005) Modal pushover analysis
as a means for the seismic assessment of bridge structures.
Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic
Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki,
Greece. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece,
paper no. 49, CD-ROM.
Kappos AJ, Goutzika ED, Stefanidou SP and Sextos AG (2011) Problems
in pushover analysis of bridges sensitive to torsion. In
Computational Methods in Earthquake Engineering (Papadrakakis
M, Fragiadakis M and Lagaros ND (eds)). Springer, vol. 21,
pp. 99–122.
Kappos AJ, Saiidi MS, Aydınoglu MN and Isakovic T (2012) Seismic
Design and Assessment of Bridges: Inelastic Methods of Analysis
and Case Studies. Springer, Netherlands.
Kappos AJ, Gkatzogias KI and Gidaris IG (2013) Extension of direct
displacement-based design methodology for bridges to account for
higher mode effects. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 42(4): 581–602.
Khan E (2015) Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Continuous
Curved Bridges. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, USA.
Khan E, Kowalsky MJ and Nau JM (2012) Comparison of the
seismic performance of equivalent straight and curved bridges due
to transverse seismic excitation. Proceedings of 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal,
paper no. 196, CD-ROM.
Kohrangi M, Bento R and Lopes M (2012) Evaluation of nonlinear static
procedures for seismic assessment of irregular bridges. Proceedings
of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal. paper no. 5834, CD-ROM.
Kohrangi M, Bento R and Lopes M (2015) Seismic performance of
irregular bridges – comparison of different nonlinear static
procedures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 11(12):
1632–1650.
Kowalsky MJ (2002) A displacement-based approach for the seismic
design of continuous concrete bridges. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 31(3): 719–747.
Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN and MacRae GA (1995) Displacement-based
design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 24(12): 1623–1643.
Maalek S, Akbari R and Maheri MR (2009) The effect of higher modes
on the regularity of single column-bent highway viaducts. Bridge
Structures 5(1): 29–43.
Mackie K and Stojadinovic B (2002) Probabilistic seismic demand
models for multi-span highway overpass bridges. In Proceedings of
15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference (Smith A (ed.)).
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA, CD-ROM.
Mohtashami E (2013) Seismic Assessment of Integral Bridges by
Multi-Mode Adaptive Pushover Procedure. PhD thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad,
Iran.
Mohtashami E and Shooshtari A (2013) A multimode adaptive pushover
procedure for seismic assessment of integral bridges. Advances in
Civil Engineering 2013: 941905.
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Monteiro R (2011) Probabilistic Seismic Assessment of Bridges.
PhD thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of
Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Monteiro R (2016) Sampling based numerical seismic assessment of
continuous span RC bridges. Engineering Structures 118: 407–420,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.068.
Monteiro R, Ribeiro R, Marques M, Delgado R and Costa A (2008)
Pushover analysis of RC bridges using fiber models or
plastic hinges. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, paper no. 15-02-0146,
CD-ROM.
Monteiro R, Delgado R and Pinho R (2015) Using different uncertainty
models for seismic assessment of RC bridges. Proceedings of
the 5th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational
Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
COMPDYN 2015, Crete, Greece (Papadrakakis M,
Papadopoulos V and Plevris V (eds.)). Institute of Structural
Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University
of Athens, Athens, Greece, pp. 25–27.
Monteiro R, Araújo M, Delgado R and Marques M (2016a) Modeling
considerations in seismic assessment of RC bridges using state-of-
practice structural analysis software tools. Frontiers of Structural
and Civil Engineering.
Monteiro R, Delgado R and Pinho R (2016b) Probabilistic seismic
assessment of RC bridges: part I – uncertainty models. Structures
5: 258–273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.08.002.
Monteiro R, Delgado R and Pinho R (2016c) Probabilistic seismic
assessment of RC bridges: part II – nonlinear demand prediction.
Structures 5: 274–283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.08.001.
Muhammad Reza S (2012) Seismic Performance of Multi-Span RC
Bridge with Irregular Column Heights. MSc thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
Negro P and Pinto AV (1995) Large-scale pseudo-dynamic tests on
highly irregular bridges. Proceedings of the 1st Japan–Italy
Workshop on Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, Tsukuba,
Japan, Technical Memorandum of PWRI N. 3369, pp. 1–20
Oller S and Barbat AH (2006) Moment–curvature damage model for
bridges subjected to seismic loads. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 195(33–36): 4490–4511.
Paraskeva TS (2013) Non-Linear Analysis of the Seismic Response of
Reinforced Concrete Bridges. PhD thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Paraskeva TS and Kappos AJ (2010) Further development of a
multimodal pushover analysis procedure for seismic assessment of
bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39(2):
211–222.
Paraskeva TS, Kappos AJ and Sextos AG (2006) Extension of modal
pushover analysis to seismic assessment of bridges. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 35(11): 1269–1293.
Pegon P and Pinto AV (2000) Pseudo-dynamic testing with
substructuring at the ELSA laboratory. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 29(7): 905–925.
Perdomo C, Monteiro R and Sucuoglu H (2017) Generalized force
vectors for multi-mode pushover analysis of bridges. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-
0179-6.
Pinho R, Casarotti C and Antoniou S (2007a) A comparison of single-run
pushover analysis techniques for seismic assessment of bridges.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 36(10):
1347–1362.
Pinho R, Casarotti C and Monteiro R (2007b) An adaptive capacity
spectrum method and other nonlinear static procedures applied to
the seismic assessment of bridges. Proceedings of the 1st US–Italy
27
 Structures and Buildings
Workshop on Seismic Design and Assessment of Bridges,
Pavia, Italy, paper no. S4-3, pp 1–14
Pinho R, Monteiro R, Casarotti C and Delgado R (2009) Assessment of
continuous span bridges through nonlinear static procedures.
Earthquake Spectra 25(1): 143–159.
Pinto AV (ed.). (1996) Pseudodynamic and Shaking Table Tests on RC
Bridges. LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, ECOES1/PREC8 Concerted
Action Report No. 5 (EC-HCM).
Pinto PE and Mancini G (2009) Seismic assessment and retrofit of
existing bridges. In The State of Earthquake Engineering Research
in Italy: the ReLUIS-DPC 2005-2008 Project (Manfredi G and
Dolce M (eds)). Doppiavoce, Napoli, Italy, pp. 111–140.
Pinto AV and Negro P (1996) Regularity issues for bridges. In
Proceedings of the European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour
of Asymmetric and Setback Structures, Anacapri, Isle of Capri,
Italy (Ramasco R and Rutenberg A (eds)), vol. 386, p. 409,
CD-ROM.
Pinto AV, Verzeletti G, Pegon P et al. (1995) Pseudo-Dynamic Testing of
Large-Scale R/C Bridges. JRC, Ispra, Italy, Report No. 16378 EN.
Pinto AV, Verzeletti G, Magonette G et al. (1996) Pseudo-dynamic
testing of large-scale R/C bridges in ELSA. Proceedings of the
11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco,
Mexico. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, paper no. 2046.
Pinto AV, Pegon P and Costa AC (2000) Pseudo-Dynamic Testing of
Bridges with Asynchronous Input Motions. JRC, Ispra, Italy,
JRC Special Publication.
Pinto AV, Pegon P, Magonette G and Tsionis G (2004) Pseudo-dynamic
testing of bridges using non-linear sub-structuring. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 33(11): 1125–1146.
Pitilakis K, Sextos A and Kappos A (2002) A critical review of the role of
spatial variability of ground motion, site conditions and soil-
structure interaction in Bridge Eng. Proceedings of the 4th Forum
on Implications of Recent Earthquakes on Seismic Risk, Tokyo,
Japan. Tokyo Institute of Technology, Technical Report
TIT/EERG 02-1, pp. 205–217.
Priestley MJN and Calvi GM (1997) Concepts and procedures for direct
displacement-based design and assessment. In Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes (Fajfar P and
Krawinkler H (eds)). CRC Press.
Priestley MJN, Seible F and Calvi GM (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit
of Bridges. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM and Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based
Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Prucz Z and Pourbohloul A (1999) Bridge Configurations and Details
That Improve Seismic Performance. The American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA),
Lanham, Maryland. See http://www.arema.org (accessed
12/09/2017).
Restrepo JCO (2006) Displacement-Based Design Of Continuous
Concrete Bridges Under Transverse Seismic Excitation. MSc thesis,
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic
Risk (ROSE School), Pavia, Italy.
Şadan OB (2009) Direct Displacement-Based Seismic Assessment
Procedure for Multi-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridges. PhD thesis,
Department of Structural EngineeringPolitecnico di Milano,
Milan, Italy.
Şadan OB, Petrini L and Calvi GM (2013) Direct displacement-based
seismic assessment procedure for multi-span reinforced concrete
bridges with single-column piers. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 42(7): 1031–1051.
Salonikios TN (2005) Behavior factor of irregular bridges with short
wall-like piers of equal and unequal height. Proceedings of the 4th
European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and
Complex Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece. Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, paper no. 11, CD-ROM.
28
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
SECED (Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics) (2001)
Implementation in the UK of Earthquake Engineering Research.
SECED, London, UK.
Sextos A (2001) Effect of Spatial Variability Of Ground Motion, Local
Soil Conditions And Soil-Structure Interaction Phenomena On The
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of R/C Bridges. PhD thesis, Aristotle
University Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (in Greek).
Sextos A and Kappos AJ (2005) Evaluation of the new Eurocode 8-part
2 provisions regarding asynchronous excitation of irregular
bridges. Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic
Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki,
Greece. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece,
paper no. 04, CD-ROM.
Sextos A, Kappos AJ and Pitilakis K (2002) Effect of analysis complexity
on the ductility demand of R/C bridge piers. Proceedings of the
12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London,
UK. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, UK, CD-ROM.
Sextos A, Kappos AJ and Pitilakis K (2003a) Seismic response of long
R/C bridges: effect of coupled ground motion variabity and
soil–foundation interaction. Proceedings of the FIB Symposium
on Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, Athens, Greece.
Technical Chamber of Greece, pp. 1/11–11/11,
Sextos A, Pitilakis K and Kappos AJ (2003b) Inelastic dynamic analysis
of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion,
site effects and soil–structure interaction phenomena. Part 1:
methodology and analytical tools. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 32(4): 607–627.
Sextos A, Pitilakis K and Kappos AJ (2003c) Inelastic dynamic analysis of
RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion,
site effects and soil–structure interaction phenomena. Part 2:
Parametric study. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
32(4): 629–652.
Sextos A, Kappos AJ and Mergos P (2004) Effect of soil–structure
interaction and spatial variability of ground motion on irregular
bridges: the case of the Krystallopigi Bridge. Proceedings of the
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC,
Canada. paper no. 2298, CD-ROM.
Shakeri K and Shayanfar M (2008) Modal pushover analysis for the
seismic assessment of bridges. Transportation Research 5(3):
249–257 (in Persian).
Shakeri K, Tarbali K and Mohebbi M (2013) Modified adaptive modal
combination procedure for nonlinear static analysis of bridges.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 17(6): 918–935.
Smith DG (2005) Field assessment of unforeseen earthquake induced
bridge deck movements & probable effects of geometry. Proceedings
of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular
and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece. Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, paper no. 03, CD-ROM.
Soberón C, Alonso JM and Gómez JM (2008) Influence of the
subestructure irregularity in highway bridge seismic behavior.
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China, paper no. 05-02-0146.
Soleimani F, Vidakovic B, DesRoches R and Padgett J (2017)
Identification of the significant uncertain parameters in the seismic
response of irregular bridges. Engineering Structures 141: 356–372,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.017.
Suarez VA (2008) Implementation of Direct Displacement Based
Design for Highway Bridges. PhD thesis, Civil Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC, USA.
Tamanani MM, Gian Y and Ayoub AS (2014) Design of bridges with
unequal pier heights. Proceedings of ASCE’s Structural Congress,
Boston, MA, USA. ASCE, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 677–686.
Tamanani MM, Gian Y and Ayoub AS (2015) Earthquake response of
bridges with unequal pier heights. Proceedings of 2015 Conference
 Structures and Buildings
on Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World,
Cambridge, UK. SECED, London, UK, CD-ROM.
Tehrani P and Mitchell D (2012) Seismic performance assessment of
bridges in Montreal using incremental dynamic analysis. In
Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Lisbon, Portugal, paper no. 3096, CD-ROM.
Tehrani P and Mitchell D (2013a) Effects of column and
superstructure stiffness on the seismic response of bridges in the
transverse direction. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 40(8):
827–839.
Tehrani P and Mitchell D (2013b) Effects of column stiffness
irregularity on the seismic response of bridges in the
longitudinal direction. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
40(8): 815–825.
Tehrani P and Mitchell D (2014) Seismic risk assessment of four-span
bridges in Montreal designed using the Canadian bridge design
code. Journal of Bridge Engineering 19(8): 1–9.
Tubaldi E and Dall’Asta A (2011) A design method for seismically
isolated bridges with abutment restraint. Engineering Structures
33(3): 786–795.
Tubaldi E and Dall’Asta A (2012) Transverse free vibrations of
continuous bridges with abutment restraint. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41(9): 1319–1340.
Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [09/01/18]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
A review on the seismic behaviour of
irregular bridges
Akbari and Maalek
Vinicio AS (2008) Implementation of Direct Displacement Based Design
for Highway Bridges. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, USA.
Wei B (2011) Study of the applicability of modal pushover analysis on
irregular continuous bridges. Structural Engineering International
21(2): 233–237.
Wei SS (2014) Effects of pier stiffness on the seismic response of
continuous bridges with irregular configuration. Applied
Mechanics and Materials 638–640: 1794–1802.
Zapico JL, Gonzalez MP, Friswell MI, Taylor CA and Crewe AJ (2003)
Finite element model updating of a small scale bridge. Journal of
Sound and Vibration 268: 993–1012, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
460X(03)00409-7.
Zelaschi C, Monteiro R and Pinho R (2016a) Parametric characterization
of RC bridges for seismic assessment purposes. Structures 7:
14–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.04.003.
Zelaschi C, Monteiro R and Pinho R (2016b) Simplified period estimation
of Italian RC bridges for large-scale seismic assessment.
Proceedings of ECCOMAS Congress 2016: VII European Congress
on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering,
Crete, Greece (Papadrakakis M, Papadopoulos V, Stefanou G and
Plevris V (eds)). National Technical University of Athens, Athens,
Greece, pp. 5–10.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
29