Orthogonal Effects in Seismic Analysis of Skewed Bridges

S. Maleki, M.ASCE1; and V. Bisadi2

Abstract: In seismic analysis of bridges, the designer chooses the direction of the applied earthquake forces arbitrarily. This paper
investigates the effects of seismic force direction on the responses of slab-girder skewed bridges in response spectrum and time history
linear dynamic analyses. The combination rules for orthogonal earthquake effects, such as the 100/ 30, 100/ 40 percentage rules and the
SRSS method are also examined. It is concluded that either the SRSS or the 100/ 40 percentage rule in the skew direction should be used
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the response spectrum analysis of skewed bridges. For time history analysis none of the combination rules provide conservative results.
In this case, the application of paired acceleration time histories in several angular directions is recommended.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2006兲11:1共122兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, skew; Seismic effects; Finite element method; Earthquakes.

Introduction • The 100/ 40 percentage rule adds 100% of the response in

Bridges located in seismic zones must be able to resist seismic
forces coming from any direction. The nature of the three dimen-
sional seismic waves’ propagation is very complex. In the absence
of near source effects, it is valid to assume that ground motions
have one principal 共strong兲 direction, and motions take place in
the perpendicular direction with a lesser magnitude 共Penzien and
Watabe 1975兲. These motions are statistically independent of each
other and act in two perpendicular directions simultaneously. To
satisfy these criteria, bridge design codes, like those of AASHTO
共1998兲, prescribe seismic forces to be applied in two orthogonal
directions. These forces are applied independently and fully in
each of the two perpendicular directions and then the responses
are combined by one of the accepted combination rules. The
choice of orthogonal directions is arbitrary and is left to the
discretion of designer. The commonly used combination rules are
described below:
• The absolute sum method is the absolute value of the
responses due to seismic forces in two orthogonal directions
added together; it is the most conservative combination rule
and is not used very often for the very same reason.
• The square root of the sum of the squares 共SRSS兲 method
yields results that are independent of the chosen reference axes
and, in general, are considered to be conservative 共Wilson and
Habibullah 1995兲; the SRSS of responses in 2 orthogonal
directions is used in the case.
• The 100/ 30 percentage rule adds 100% of the response in
either direction to the 30% of the response in the perpendicular
direction; this method is recommended by many design codes.
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ.,
Tehran, Iran. E-mail: smaleki@sharif.edu
2
Former Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ.,
Tehran, Iran. E-mail: vahidbisadi@yahoo.com
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 30, 2003; approved on March 28, 2005. This
paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1,
January 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2006/1-122–130/$25.00.
either direction to the 40% of the response in the perpendicular
direction; some design codes recommend this procedure.
Other methods not discussed here have also been suggested
but not incorporated in the design codes, including, for example,
the CQC3 method developed by Menun and Der Kiureghian
共1998兲. AASHTO has accepted the 100/ 30 percentage rule for the
response spectrum 共RS兲 dynamic analysis. However, the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program report 共共NCHRP兲
共2001兲 and the Applied Technology Council 共ATC兲 共1996兲 report
are suggesting a revision to this article and are mandating the
more conservative 100/ 40 rule.
The above combination rules are recommended for the RS
dynamic analysis of structures. For time history 共TH兲 analysis,
applying a pair of ground motion time histories simultaneously is
recommended, although some codes permit the application of
single time history in two orthogonal directions with the use of
the SRSS or the 100/ 30 combination rules.
The SRSS rule seems to be the most reasonable combination
rule. It is conservative and independent of input axis orientation.
However, some believe that there is too much conservatism
involved in this method, especially for regular symmetric
structures.
The principal seismic input axis is not defined in AASHTO.
The designer usually assumes the longitudinal axis of the bridge
along the roadway to be the principal earthquake input direction.
Then, the transverse axis of the bridge becomes the second
principal direction. For straight bridges, these axes correspond to
the directions of the translational natural modes of vibration.
Therefore, straight bridges represent a special case from which
the adequacy of combination rules cannot be generalized. On the
other hand, skewed bridges can have vibration modes that are not
in the longitudinal and transverse directions. A more elaborate
discussion of this phenomenon is given in the next section.
It is the objective of this paper to investigate the adequacy of
the SRSS, 100/ 30, and 100/ 40 percentage rules in the RS and TH
analyses of skewed bridges. The effect of input motion angle on
the responses of skewed bridges is also considered.
It is assumed that the bridges are supported elastically on both
abutments. finite element analysis is performed on short-,
medium-, and long-span slab-girder bridges with skews varying
from 0 to 60°.

122 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.


Fig. 1. Typical skewed bridge plan view
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Vibration of Skewed Bridges
A brief discussion on the free vibration of skewed bridges that
are supported elastically at each end is given here. A detailed
discussion is given by Maleki 共2001兲.
A typical skewed bridge plan and elevations are shown in
Figs. 1–3. The center of mass is chosen as the origin and the two
sets of axes are defined at this point. The x, y axes are in the
longitudinal and transverse directions, and n, t axes are normal
and parallel to the abutments. Note that, due to symmetry of
support springs, the center of mass and stiffness coincide, and
hence, translational inertia loads at the center of mass do not
cause any torsional loading.
A two-dimensional finite element model of the bridge and
the three degrees of freedom at the center of mass are shown in
Fig. 4. The springs ke represent the stiffness of each elastomeric
bearing in the x direction. Likewise, the springs kc represent the
total lateral stiffness of the end-diaphragms in the t direction.
Let M and Io represent the total mass and the mass moment
of inertia of the bridge superstructure. These are assumed to be
concentrated at the center of mass.
Assuming zero damping, the equation of motion for the model
bridge in Fig. 4, subjected to ground acceleration in the x and y
directions 共ügx , ügy兲, can be written as follows
冤 冥冦 冧 冤 冥冦 冧 冦 冧
M 0 0 üx Kxx Kxy Kx␪ ux Mügx
0 M 0 üy + Kyx Kyy Ky␪ uy = Mügy 共1兲
0 0 Io ü␪ K␪x K␪y K␪␪ u␪ 0 force applied in the x or y direction at the center of mass will not
In the case of free vibration, the right hand side of the above
equation is set equal to zero.
The stiffness term Kxx⫽summation of all stiffnesses in the
x direction. Likewise, the stiffness term Kyy⫽summation
of all stiffnesses in the y direction. Transforming the local
Fig. 2. Cross-sectional view of a slab-girder bridge over the
abutment
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 123
J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.
Fig. 3. Elastomeric bearing detail
coordinates along n and t axes of the kc springs to the global
x and y coordinates and assembling stiffness terms
Kxx = Ke + Kc sin2 ␣ 共2兲
Kxy = Kc sin ␣ cos ␣ = Kyx 共3兲
Kyy = Kc cos2 ␣ 共4兲
where Kc = 兺kc; Ke = 兺ke; and ␣⫽skew angle. By solving the
eigenvalue problem the two translational periods of vibration are
obtained as
T= 冑 8␲2M
关共Ke + Kc兲 ± 冑共K2e + K2c 兲 − 2KeKc cos 2␣兴
共5兲
It is seen that the periods of vibration are coupled and depend on
the stiffnesses Ke and Kc.
The translational mode shapes of a skewed bridge associated
with periods derived above are in a direction that is skewed
␥ degrees, where
Kxx ␤ + sin2 ␣
tan ␥ = = 共6兲
Kxy sin ␣ cos ␣
in which ␤ = Ke / Kc.
Note that, for ␤ = 0, the second translational mode shape
of a skewed bridge is in the t direction—that is, parallel to the
abutments 共␥ = ␣兲. This happens only when Kc is extremely large
compared to Ke. This is the case for skewed bridges supported on
elastomeric bearings on both sides. For very large ␤ values, as for
a pin-supported bridge, ␥ approaches 90°; the motion will be
along x axis.
The stiffness matrix in Eq. 共1兲 is diagonal for a straight bridge
and all the nondiagonal terms are equal to zero. This means that a
rotate the deck and produces only translations in the same direc-
tion. As a result, a nonskewed bridge will have its fundamental
mode of vibration in the x 共or y兲 direction only. On the contrary,
for an elastically supported skewed bridge, the stiffness matrix is
Fig. 4. Typical finite element bridge analysis model
 Table 1. Bridge Properties Used in the Analyses
Deck
Span Width thickness Girder Shell size Elastomer Ke Cross frame Kc Mass
共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 size 共m兲 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲 共kg兲
10 10 0.19 W30⫻ 99 2⫻2 1,000 162,338 54,450
20 10 0.19 W40⫻ 221 2⫻2 1,000 162,338 130,500
30 10 0.19 W40⫻ 268 2⫻3 1,000 162,338 208,500

coupled and nondiagonal terms exist. This gives rise to motion in analyses are performed on short- to long-span slab-girder bridges.
both x and y directions for the translational modes of vibration. In The spans of 10, 20, and 30 m are chosen as representative spans
the case of a skewed bridge, the stiffness terms Kxy and Kyx, of such bridges and the properties are listed in Table 1. The cross-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

though equal to each other, are not equal to zero. However, due to
symmetry, unless the base motion is torsional, the skewed bridge
does not experience torsional motion either. In other words,
K␪x = Kx␪ = K␪y = Ky␪ = 0. This is always the case as long as the two
lines of support at the ends 共abutments兲 are parallel to each other.
Having only K␪␪, the torsional mode is totally uncoupled from
translational modes of vibration and can be treated independently.
The period of vibration for the torsional mode is
frames lateral stiffness is obtained by assuming angle diagonals
shown in Fig. 2 to be present in each 2 m panel. The top of the
cross frame is connected to a rigid deck.
The finite element analysis model of the skewed bridge
is shown in Fig. 4. The SAP2000 finite element program, by
Computers and Structures, Inc. 共2000兲, is used for the analysis.
The model has two displacement degrees of freedom 共ux , uy兲
and one rotational 共u␪.兲 Since cross frames and lateral load-

冑
resisting elements of the superstructure are supposed to remain
Io elastic under earthquake forces, only linear dynamic analysis
T = 2␲ 共7兲
K␪␪ is performed on the models. This is consistent with AASHTO
Article 4.6.2.8.2.
End cross frames provide an important load path for the
seismically induced loads. Seismic forces at the deck would
Analysis Model
have to pass through the cross frames to arrive at the top of the
In the dynamic analysis of skewed bridges the designer must bearings. Zahrai and Bruneau 共1998兲 have shown that the inter-
choose the earthquake input direction and a response combination mediate cross frames do not affect the seismic performance of
rule as discussed in the previous section. To compare the effects slab-girder bridges significantly. Hence, they are not considered
of these parameters on the response of skewed bridges, a series of in the models.

Fig. 5. Results the of response spectrum analysis for the 20 m span bridge: 共a兲 displacement in the x direction; 共b兲 displacement in the y direction;
共c兲 elastomer force; and 共d兲 cross-frame force

124 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Comparison between the application of paired time histories and the SRSS combination rule for the 10-m span bridge: 共a兲 San Fernando
time history and 共b兲 Northridge time history

The deck slab is modeled with rectangular shell elements.
The girders are modeled with frame elements connected to
shell elements at each joint. They are free to rotate but restrained
vertically at each end. This will capture the contribution of the
girders’ weak axis moment of inertia to the superstructure stiff-
ness for transverse loading. In the longitudinal direction, the ends
of the girders are attached to a spring representing the elastomer’s
lateral stiffness. The modeling of the superstructure is consistent
with the recommendations of Mabsout et al. 共1997兲.
Furthermore, for single-span bridges, the abutment stiffness is
not considered in the analyses. The justification for this assump-
tion is described herein. In the transverse direction, abutments
are, in general, much stiffer than the cross frames. Since the two
are modeled as springs in series, the abutment will not contribute

Fig. 7. Comparison between the application of paired time histories and the SRSS combination rule for the 20-m span bridge: 共a兲 San Fernando
time history and 共b兲 Northridge time history

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 125

J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Comparison between the application of paired time histories and the SRSS combination rule for the 30-m span bridge; 共a兲 San Fernando
time history and 共b兲 Northridge time history

to the overall stiffness and only the effect of cross-frame stiffness
is considered. In the longitudinal direction, the abutment and soil
stiffness is much higher than the elastomer. Being connected
in series again, an equivalent spring will only capture the
effect of the elastomers. The small gap 共about 3 mm兲 between
the retainer and elastomer is usually assumed to be closed by
designers. This is also the assumption by the present authors.
However, Maleki 共2004兲 has investigated the gap effect in seismic
analysis of bridges separately. Furthermore, it is assumed that the
bridge will not impact the abutment backwall in the longitudinal
direction. These parameters only complicate the analysis, but the
conclusions of this paper will remain unaffected. Note that only
single-span bridges are considered in this study and therefore no
piers exist.

Fig. 9. Comparison between the application of the 100/ 30, 100/ 40, and the SRSS combination rules in the x,y and n,t directions for the 10-m
span bridge: 共a兲 San Fernando time history and 共b兲 Northridge time history

126 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the application of the 100/ 30, 100/ 40, and the SRSS combination rules in the x,y and n,t directions for the 20-m
span bridge: 共a兲 San Fernando time history and 共b兲 Northridge time history

Response Spectrum Analysis
The models described above are subjected to the AASHTO’s
design RS with acceleration coefficient A = 0.4 and Soil Type II.
Input directions for the ground acceleration are chosen as x, y, n,
and t axes 共see Fig. 4兲. The x,y axes are representative of
translational vibration modes for straight bridges or skewed
bridges with pinned supports. The n,t axes define the principal
vibration modes for skewed bridges supported on elastomeric
bearings on both sides. Therefore, these axes, if chosen as input
seismic direction, can be critical and produce the maximum
responses for the bridge.
The responses in the x and y directions are combined using
the SRSS, 100/ 30, and 100/ 40 rules. These are denoted as

Fig. 11. Comparison between the application of the 100/ 30, 100/ 40, and the SRSS combination rules in the x,y and n,t directions for the 30-m
span bridge: 共a兲 San Fernando time history and 共b兲 Northridge time history

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 127

J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Responses for the El Centro ground motion applied at various angles: 共a兲 displacement in the x direction; 共b兲 displacement in the y
direction; and 共c兲 cross-frame force

0.3-xy and 0.4-xy on the graphs. The same combination rules
are also applied to the responses in the n and t directions and
denoted by 0.3-nt and 0.4-nt on the graphs. Since the SRSS
combination is independent of the input direction, it is considered
the most accurate method for the RS analysis. The responses
that were calculated include the displacements in the x and y
directions, end cross-frame shear force, elastomeric bearing shear
force and base shear of the structure for all skew angles and
spans. Only partial results are shown here for the sake of brevity.
Fig. 5共a兲 shows the bridge displacement in the x direction for
the 20-m span using the combination rules described. The 10-m
and 30-m spans are not shown and behave similarly. It is seen
that the 100/ 30, 100/ 40, and SRSS rules yield similar x displace-
ments for the response spectrum input in the n,t directions.
However, x displacement for the input in the x,y directions
combined with 100/ 30 and 100/ 40 rules shows a dependency on
the skew angle and can be higher or lower than the SRSS values.
Close agreement is found for the y displacement of the bridge
using all combination rules and for all skew angles, as shown
Fig. 5共b兲.
Figs. 5共c and d兲 shows the elastomeric bearing and the end
cross-frame shear forces. The elastomer forces are proportional to
the x displacement of the bridge and the curve shows similar
variation. The cross-frame forces are reasonably predicted by all
combination rules except for 100/ 30 rule with input in the
x,y directions.
In general, the 100/ 40 percentage rule with the RS input in the
n,t directions has yielded the closest responses to the SRS method
in all cases and can be chosen as the preferred method in the RS
analysis.

Fig. 13. Responses for the San Fernando ground motion applied at various angles: 共a兲 displacement in the x direction; 共b兲 displacement in the y
direction; and 共c兲 cross-frame force

128 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Responses for the Northridge ground motion applied at various angles: 共a兲 displacement in the x direction; 共b兲 displacement in the y
direction; and 共c兲 cross-frame force
Time History Analysis
In this section, the effect of input motion direction on the
response of skewed bridges in time history analysis is investi-
gated. The bridge model shown in Fig. 4 with spans of 10, 20,
and 30 m are considered with skews ranging from 0 to 60°. Paired
time histories for the 1940 El Centro earthquake with peak
ground acceleration of 0.34g, the 1994 Northridge 共Sylmar
County兲 earthquake with peak ground acceleration of 0.84g,
and the 1971 San Fernando 共Pacoima Dam兲 earthquake with
peak ground acceleration of 1.2g are chosen as input motions.
Damping is assumed to be 2% of critical.
Application of the Paired Time Histories
The El Centro, Northridge, and San Fernando histories are
applied in the x,y and n,t directions. In each case, the pair of
histories is also switched in direction and the maximum responses
are noted. These responses are denoted as rគxy and rគnt on the
graphs. The maximum displacement, elastomer force, and cross-
frame force are recorded for each direction. However, the
elastomer force is similar to the x displacement and is not shown
on the graphs. In addition, the SRSS of responses when the
strong component of ground motion is applied in the x,y direction
is obtained. This is achieved by applying a single TH in the x and
y directions and finding the SRSS value of the two responses.
Paired time histories are not used for the SRSS value. The SRSS
value is independent of the input direction and is valid for the
n,t axes as well.
Figs. 6–8 show the responses of bridges with skew angles
ranging from 0 to 60° due to San Fernando and Northridge
ground motions for spans of 10, 20, and 30 m, respectively. The
results due to El Centro are not shown due to size limitation on
the paper. It can be seen that the input directions considered do
not uniquely define the maximum responses. The SRSS method
does not produce the maximum response for all skew angles
either. For example, for a 10-m span bridge with 30° skew under
San Fernando ground motion, the displacement in the x direction
is equal to 92 and 168 mm when the motion is applied in the x,y
and n,t directions, respectively. The SRSS combination of
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 129
J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.
responses for this bridge yields a value of 115 mm for the same
displacement. The same bridge behaves differently under the
Northridge earthquake. The x displacement is equal to 147 and
124 mm for the x,y and n,t input directions and 124 mm for the
SRSS method. This case clearly shows that none of the above
methods can yield the maximum response for a skewed bridge.
Therefore, in general, the x,y and n,t input directions could not
be designated as the critical directions for all skew angles, and the
SRSS method does not yield a conservative response in all cases.
Accuracy of the Combination Rules in TH Analysis
To examine the adequacy of the combination rules, the 100/ 30,
100/ 40, and the SRSS method that are commonly used in the RS
analysis are applied to the TH analysis of bridges. The input
motions are not applied in pairs; rather, the strong component is
applied separately in two orthogonal directions and the combina-
tion rule is applied to responses. This is more conservative than
combining the responses due to a paired component of ground
motion. Figs. 9–11 show the responses due to San Fernando and
Northridge ground motions based on the x,y and n,t input direc-
tions combined with the above rules. It is observed that the SRSS
rule produces a more conservative response in the majority of
cases. However, it was shown previously that the SRSS method
itself is not conservative when a paired TH is applied simulta-
neously to bridges in the x,y- or n,t directions. Hence, the 100/ 30
and 100/ 40 rules cannot be safely recommended for TH analysis
either.
Critical Input Motion Direction in TH Analysis
It was pointed out that the common input motion directions
and combination rules are not always yielding the maximum
responses for skewed bridges. In this section, the input motion
direction is treated as a variable in an attempt to find the
critical direction by examining the responses. The three pairs of
El Centro, Northridge, and San Fernando ground motions are
applied at various angles to the bridge. The angle of input is
varied in 10° increments, starting from the x,y axes and turning
 180°. In all cases, the strong component of the pair is applied at
this angle from the x axis and the weaker component is applied
simultaneously at the same angle measured from the y axis.
Figs. 12–14 show the responses for each ground motion
applied at varying angles to the 20-m span bridge. A sinusoidal
pattern can be seen in the responses for all earthquakes. The
maximum and minimum responses are approximately 90° apart.
For each earthquake there is a certain input angle for which the
responses are maximum. This angle is called the critical angle of
the input motion and it depends on the earthquake record, skew
angle, and the span length of the bridge.
The x,y and n,t directions of input motion are sometimes close
to the critical angle but at other times are closer to the minimum
responses. This indicates that the above directions can be very
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 05/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
unconservative in TH analysis. For example, the displacements
for the 20-m span bridge with skew angle of 60° under the San
Fernando earthquake applied at 0° from the x,y axes are 94 mm
and 164 mm in the x and y directions, respectively 共see Fig. 13兲.
The peak displacement responses are 357 mm and 624 mm in the
same directions with critical input angle of 80°. This is about four
times higher. Therefore, the x,y axes that are commonly used by
engineers in TH analysis can lead to very unconservative results.
Based on the sinusoidal shapes of responses one can recom-
mend input motion angles for TH analysis of 0, 60, and 120° for
skewed bridges. The maximum responses for the three cases can
be used for design. For the bridges considered here, the maximum
error using this method is in the order of 13%.
Conclusions
The translational free vibration modes of skewed bridges that
are supported elastically are very close to the parallel and perpen-
dicular to the abutment directions 共n,t axes, Fig. 4兲. The direction
of input motion for such bridges in RS and TH analyses
were examined. The peak responses were obtained by common
combination rules and compared.
It is concluded that for RS analysis of skewed bridges the
100/ 40 combination of input motion applied in the n,t direction
produces reasonable results. The responses are very close to the
results obtained from the SRSS method that is independent of
the input axes.
130 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006
J. Bridge Eng. 2006.11:122-130.
In TH analysis, of the commonly chosen input axes, such as
x,y and n,t, and combination rules, such as 100/ 30, 100/ 40, and
SRSS, none produce the maximum responses for all skew angles
and span lengths. The critical input angle must be obtained by
trial and error—applying a pair of ground motions in various
orthogonal directions. Based on the three earthquake records con-
sidered in this study, a sinusoidal pattern of response variation
with input angle was observed. It is recommended that in TH
analysis of skewed bridges a pair of ground accelerations with at
least three input angles of 0, 60, and 120° be considered. The
maximum error found in responses was in the order of 13%. This
is deemed practical for design purposes.
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
共AASHTO兲. 共1998兲. LRFD bridge design specification, 2nd Ed.,
AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council 共ATC兲. 共1996兲. Improved seismic design
criteria for California bridges, ATC, Redwood City, Calif.
Computers and Structures, Inc. 共2000兲. “Integrated structural analysis and
design software.” SAP2000, version 7.4, Computers and Structures,
Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Mabsout, M. E., Tarhini, K. M., Frederick, G. R., and Tayar, C. 共1997兲.
“Finite element analysis of steel girder highway bridges.” J. Bridge
Eng., 2共3兲, 83–87.
Maleki, S. 共2001兲. “Free vibration of skewed bridges.” J. Vib. Control,
8共8兲, 935–952.
Maleki, S. 共2004兲. “Effect of side retainers on seismic response of bridges
with elastomeric bearings.” J. Bridge Eng., 9共1兲, 95–100.
Menun, C., and Der Kiureghian, A. 共1998兲. “A replacement for the
30%, 40%, and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis.”
Earthquake Spectra, 14共1兲, 153–163.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 共NCHRP兲. 共2001兲.
Comprehensive specification for the seismic design of bridges,
3rd draft, NCHRP, Washington, D.C.
Penzien, J., and Watabe, M. 共1975兲. “Characteristics of 3-D earthquake
ground motions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3, 365–373.
Wilson, E. L., Habibullah, A. 共1995兲. “A clarification of the orthogonal
effects in a three-dimensional seismic analysis.” Earthquake Spectra,
11共4兲, 659–666.
Zahrai, S. M., and Bruneau, M. 共1998兲. “Impact of diaphragms on
seismic response of straight slab-on-girder bridges.” J. Struct. Eng.,
124共8兲, 938–947.