The multi-limit state seismic design and evaluation procedure allows structures to satisfy different performance criteria against different levels of seismic excitation. To achieve the simultaneous satisfaction of the multi-level design approach, it is essential to employ accurate analysis procedures which can be consistently applied to various levels of ground motions. In this study, several analytical evaluation procedures are compared via the application of the methods to two bridge structures. In the first application, a bridge considered typical of the inventory in the Central and Eastern United States is analyzed. Inelastic Response History Analysis (IRHA), two Capacity Spectrum Methods (CSMs), two Elastic Response History Analysis (ERHA) approaches with different stiffness approximation, and SDOF simulations are conducted. The second and more complex application, a 59-span irregular bridge crossing the Mississippi River is also analyzed in the elastic and inelastic ranges. Results from IRHA and simplified analysis procedures are compared to assess their applicability and limitations. It is concluded that the approximate methods have limited applicability, which depends on several parameters including intensity of ground motions and characteristics of bridge structures. The importance of inelastic and dynamic analysis in seismic assessment is emphasized, while cases where the simplified procedures yield acceptable response are presented.