Professional Documents
Culture Documents
x
Free Free
y
Free Free
z
Free Free
Figure 3. Stress-strain relationship of SM490Y steel
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
S
t
r
e
s
s
-
(
N
/
m
m
)
Strain -
355
525
0.18
0.012 0.0018
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
78
1.2 Loading condition
In static pushover analysis, the loading conditions were adjusted by using load controlled
methods with three loading cases. In parametric analysis, impact loads (I), and earthquake effects
(EQ) specified in JSHBwere defined by using dead load (DL) and live load (LL) as follows;
LL i I = (1)
(1) Impact loads (I) :
l
i
+
=
50
20
(2)
Where: LL: Live loads,
l: Span length,
i: Impact coefficient
(2) Earthquake effect (EQ) :
DL k EQ
h
= (3)
0 h z h
k C k = (4)
Where: k
h
: Design horizontal seismic coefficient, k
h
= 0.25 (Class II)
k
h0
: Standard value of design horizontal seismic coefficient,
C
z
: Modified factor for zone, C
z
= 0.85
The design load (inertial force) EQ given by equation (3) is replaced by equivalent
nodal forces and applied to in-plane and out-of-plane directions. The uniform load distributed along
cross section and the full bridge length of the arch, q (q
1
,q
2
) is assumed to be dead and live load
conditions as shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. It is converted to 56 equivalent concentrated loads for each
arch rib and applied to nodal points of the arch bridge model.
Figure 4. Live load (LL) according to JSHB
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
(a)
(b)
Figure5. Uniform load conditions on the cross section of the deck plate and on the bridge length
Loading conditions in this analysis were used load combinations in
JSHB as shown in Table 4. In loading case I, live and impact loads are applied in
under the constant load. In Table 4, a coefficient
at the failure of the bridge was obtained. In loading case II and III, inertial force (
longitudinal and transverse direction until the maximum load capacity as determined by lateral
instability after the dead and live load are applied in both directions.
Table
Loading case
I
II
III
In order to examine the validity and problems of the allowable stress design method, elasto
plastic and large spatial displacement analysis were carried out for the arch bridg
1.2 Input seismic waves
The seismic ground motions were recorded from the Hyogo
EW and NS direction. These two seismic waves, Type II
JSHB data were input in the dynamic response
illustrated in Fig. 6. The waves have applied in
arch bridge model, for Type II-I-2 and Type II
a) Type II-I-1 wave
Fig. 6 Input JSHB seismic wavesLevel II
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
79
Cross section of deck plate
(b) Load on the bridge length
m load conditions on the cross section of the deck plate and on the bridge length
Loading conditions in this analysis were used load combinations in designaccording
. In loading case I, live and impact loads are applied in
, a coefficient is the load factor and the maximum load factor
at the failure of the bridge was obtained. In loading case II and III, inertial force (EQ
tion until the maximum load capacity as determined by lateral
instability after the dead and live load are applied in both directions.
Table 4. Combination of loads
Loading conditions Input direction
1.7 D + ( L + I )
In-
1.13 ( D + L ) + EQ
long
Longitudinal
1.13 ( D + L ) + EQ
transv
Transverse
In order to examine the validity and problems of the allowable stress design method, elasto
plastic and large spatial displacement analysis were carried out for the arch bridge model.
The seismic ground motions were recorded from the Hyogo-Ken Nambu earthquake, JMA in
S direction. These two seismic waves, Type II-I-1 and Type II-I-2 waves provided by the
JSHB data were input in the dynamic response analysis. The input JSHB seismic waves are
illustrated in Fig. 6. The waves have applied in longitudinal direction and transverse directions of the
and Type II-I-1 waves, respectively.
1 wave b) Type II-I-2 wave
Input JSHB seismic wavesLevel II earthquake ground motion (Type II) recorded from Hyogo
Ken Nambu earthquake
6308 (Print), ISSN
m load conditions on the cross section of the deck plate and on the bridge length
designaccording to
. In loading case I, live and impact loads are applied in-plane direction
is the load factor and the maximum load factor
u
EQ) in increased in
tion until the maximum load capacity as determined by lateral
Input direction
-plane
Longitudinal
Transverse
In order to examine the validity and problems of the allowable stress design method, elasto-
e model.
mbu earthquake, JMA in
2 waves provided by the
analysis. The input JSHB seismic waves are
transverse directions of the
wave
otion (Type II) recorded from Hyogo-
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
In order to compare the seismic responses of the arch bridge model, other seismic waves with
much longer period were also used. The
Ocean off the coast earthquake FY2011, in EW and NS direction, which are Type I
3 waves were input in the dynamic response analysis
respectively, and shown in Fig. 7.
1.3 Damping matrix and numerical
The behavior of steel arch bridges under seismic loads
suspension and cable-stayed bridges since the large axial compression due to the effect of its dead
load reduces the stiffness of arch. According to the effect of seismic loads, the stiffness variation
becomes more complicated because the arch bridge can also develop oscillatory forces between
tension and compression. In the linear behaviors, the properties
seismic response do not change during the seismic loads. This criterion clearly demands nonlinear
seismic response because the structural stiffness must undergo changes as the result of significant
damage. Therefore the seismic behavior of steel arch bridges needs to be focused on the precise
analysis predicting the time history responses. For the complicated seismic excitation, 2
was found not to be adequate to obtain accurate results according to the strong coupl
in-plane and out-of-plane motions of the arch ribs and the deck. The 3
of steel arch bridges has been presented recently. It was justified the need to perform due to the
effects of either geometric or material n
a) Type I-I-2 wave
Figure7. Input JSHB seismic wavesLevel II
Northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast earthquake
In the numerical analyses, the Newmark
equations in finite element analysis, where the second order equations of motions were integrated
with respect to time taking into account material and geometrical non
was selected to keep the constant average acceleration. A constant time step of 0.01 sec has set. And
a damping model (Rayleigh type) calibrated to the initial stiffness and mass has used as shown in
Fig. 8. The damping matrix equation is determined by an expression bel
In which:
C = Damping matrix
= Coefficient for mass matrix
M = Mass matrix
= Coefficient for stiffness matrix
K = Stiffness matrix
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
80
In order to compare the seismic responses of the arch bridge model, other seismic waves with
much longer period were also used. The two seismic waves recorded from the Northeastern Pacific
Ocean off the coast earthquake FY2011, in EW and NS direction, which are Type I-
3 waves were input in the dynamic response analysis in longitudinal and transverse directions
umerical analysis
of steel arch bridges under seismic loads is quite different from that of
stayed bridges since the large axial compression due to the effect of its dead
d reduces the stiffness of arch. According to the effect of seismic loads, the stiffness variation
becomes more complicated because the arch bridge can also develop oscillatory forces between
tension and compression. In the linear behaviors, the properties of the deterministic system of
seismic response do not change during the seismic loads. This criterion clearly demands nonlinear
seismic response because the structural stiffness must undergo changes as the result of significant
mic behavior of steel arch bridges needs to be focused on the precise
analysis predicting the time history responses. For the complicated seismic excitation, 2
was found not to be adequate to obtain accurate results according to the strong coupl
plane motions of the arch ribs and the deck. The 3-D nonlinear seismic analysis
of steel arch bridges has been presented recently. It was justified the need to perform due to the
effects of either geometric or material nonlinearity taken into account.
wave b) Type I-I-3
Input JSHB seismic wavesLevel II earthquake ground motion (Type I) recorded from
Northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast earthquake
In the numerical analyses, the Newmark- method was used for solving the differential
equations in finite element analysis, where the second order equations of motions were integrated
with respect to time taking into account material and geometrical non-linearity. The value
o keep the constant average acceleration. A constant time step of 0.01 sec has set. And
a damping model (Rayleigh type) calibrated to the initial stiffness and mass has used as shown in
. The damping matrix equation is determined by an expression below.
= Coefficient for mass matrix
= Coefficient for stiffness matrix
6308 (Print), ISSN
In order to compare the seismic responses of the arch bridge model, other seismic waves with
two seismic waves recorded from the Northeastern Pacific
-I-2 and Type I-I-
in longitudinal and transverse directions
quite different from that of
stayed bridges since the large axial compression due to the effect of its dead
d reduces the stiffness of arch. According to the effect of seismic loads, the stiffness variation
becomes more complicated because the arch bridge can also develop oscillatory forces between
of the deterministic system of
seismic response do not change during the seismic loads. This criterion clearly demands nonlinear
seismic response because the structural stiffness must undergo changes as the result of significant
mic behavior of steel arch bridges needs to be focused on the precise
analysis predicting the time history responses. For the complicated seismic excitation, 2-D analysis
was found not to be adequate to obtain accurate results according to the strong coupling between the
D nonlinear seismic analysis
of steel arch bridges has been presented recently. It was justified the need to perform due to the
wave
otion (Type I) recorded from
ethod was used for solving the differential
equations in finite element analysis, where the second order equations of motions were integrated
linearity. The value = 0.25
o keep the constant average acceleration. A constant time step of 0.01 sec has set. And
a damping model (Rayleigh type) calibrated to the initial stiffness and mass has used as shown in
(5)
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
81
The arbitrary proportional factors and are determined by following equations.
(6)
(7)
The seismic response analysis with ground acceleration input and a constant dead load were
performed using the nonlinear FEM program ABAQUS. The two seismic waves were input in
longitudinal (X-axis) direction and transverse (Z-axis) direction, respectively.
Figure 8. Rayleigh damping model
1.4 Eigenvalue analysis
The eigenvalue analysis was carried out to investigate the effect of arch ribs and stiffened
girders on the natural periods of the arch bridge model. In order to understand the fundamental
dynamic characteristics, Table 5 presents the natural periods and the effective mass ratios of each
predominant mode, from ABAQUS Analysis. The maximum effective mass ratios obtained in X, Y
and Z directions imply the order of the dominant natural period. It can be seen from Table 3 that the
arch bridge model is possible to vibrate sympathetically at the 1
st
mode in longitudinal direction (X-
axis), 2
nd
mode in transverse direction (Z-axis) and 8
th
mode in-plane direction (Y-axis), respectively.
Table 5. Results of eigenvalue analysis
Order of
period
Natural
frequency (Hz)
Natural periods
(sec)
Effective mass ratio (%)
X Y Z
1 1.0341 0.9670 74 0 0
2 1.9767 0.5059 0 0 75
3 2.6452 0.3780 0 0 0
4 2.6452 0.3780 0 0 0
5 3.3823 0.2957 0 0 0
6 3.7199 0.2688 26 0 0
7 4.1054 0.2436 0 0 25
8 4.1988 0.2382 0 100 0
9 5.0428 0.1983 0 0 0
10 5.2847 0.1892 0 0 0
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
Two values of resonant frequencies t
dominant vibration modes. Substitution of dominant resonant frequencies f
h
1
, h
2
were set to be 0.03 (3 %). When the coefficient value (
value for mass matrix () were obtained, the damping matrix C should be eventually calculated by
using equation(5). Three predominant Eigen modes deflecting in the longitudinal direction and one
in the transverse direction of the two bridges are shown in Fig.
a) 1
st
mode
(longitudinal direction)
Figure 9. Vibration shapes to predominant modes
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
1.5 Static pushover analysis
The ultimate behavior and the development
bridge model were carried out using ABAQUS program. The analytical result of the three loading
cases I, II and III were discussed.
(a) Loading case I
Fig. 10 shows the nodal points of the monitorial displacemen
loading case I, Fig. 11a) shows the load factor (
and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was yielded first at the
load factor = 3.95, and this model attained the ultimate state at the load factor
yielded members of the arch bridge model are shown in Fig. 11b). Fig. 11c) shows that the column
of the arch rib yields in the first place, and then followed by the arch rib and
shown in Fig 11d).
Figure10. The nodal points of the monitorial displacement in each loading case
(b) Loading case II
In loading case II, Fig. 12 a) shows the load factor (
the arch crown and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was
yielded first at the load factor = 8.38. The first yield members of the model are shown in Fig.
Fig. 12c) shows that the main arch rib yields in the first place, and then f
members of the arch bridge model as seen as Fig. 12d)
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
82
Two values of resonant frequencies that earned from eigenvalue were selected from two
dominant vibration modes. Substitution of dominant resonant frequencies f
1
, f
2
and the damping ratio
were set to be 0.03 (3 %). When the coefficient value () for mass matrix and the coefficient
) were obtained, the damping matrix C should be eventually calculated by
. Three predominant Eigen modes deflecting in the longitudinal direction and one
in the transverse direction of the two bridges are shown in Fig. 9.
b) 2
nd
mode
(out-of plane direction)
c) 8
th
(in-plane direction)
Vibration shapes to predominant modes
DISCUSSIONS
The ultimate behavior and the development of plastic zone on the cross section of the arch
bridge model were carried out using ABAQUS program. The analytical result of the three loading
Fig. 10 shows the nodal points of the monitorial displacement in each loading case. In
loading case I, Fig. 11a) shows the load factor () versus in-plane displacement (v) at the arch crown
and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was yielded first at the
his model attained the ultimate state at the load factor
u
yielded members of the arch bridge model are shown in Fig. 11b). Fig. 11c) shows that the column
of the arch rib yields in the first place, and then followed by the arch rib and the stiffened girder
The nodal points of the monitorial displacement in each loading case
a) shows the load factor () versus longitudinal displacement (
d the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was
= 8.38. The first yield members of the model are shown in Fig.
c) shows that the main arch rib yields in the first place, and then followed by the other
as seen as Fig. 12d).
6308 (Print), ISSN
hat earned from eigenvalue were selected from two
and the damping ratio
) for mass matrix and the coefficient
) were obtained, the damping matrix C should be eventually calculated by
. Three predominant Eigen modes deflecting in the longitudinal direction and one
th
mode
plane direction)
of plastic zone on the cross section of the arch
bridge model were carried out using ABAQUS program. The analytical result of the three loading
t in each loading case. In
) at the arch crown
and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was yielded first at the
u
= 5.27. The first
yielded members of the arch bridge model are shown in Fig. 11b). Fig. 11c) shows that the column
the stiffened girder as
The nodal points of the monitorial displacement in each loading case
) versus longitudinal displacement (u) at
d the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was
= 8.38. The first yield members of the model are shown in Fig. 12b).
ollowed by the other
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
a) Load factor vs. in-plane displacement curve
c) Load factor vs. axial strain curves
Figure 11.
a) Load factor vs.longitudinal displacement
curve
c) Load factor vs. axial strain curves
Figure 12.
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
83
plane displacement curve b) First yielded members
Load factor vs. axial strain curves d) Spreading of plastic members
Figure 11. Results of loading case I
Load factor vs.longitudinal displacement b) First yielded members
Load factor vs. axial strain curves d) Spreading of plastic members
Figure 12. Results of loading case II
X (u)
Y (v)
Z (w)
X (u)
6308 (Print), ISSN
b) First yielded members
d) Spreading of plastic members
b) First yielded members
d) Spreading of plastic members
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
(c) Loading case III
In loading case III, Fig. 13a) shows the load factor (
the arch crown and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was
yielded first at the load factor = 8.702. The first yield mem
13b). Fig. 13c) shows that the brace which connected the two main arch ribs yields in the first place,
and then followed by the lateral beam, deck brace and arch rib in the arch bridge model as shown in
Fig. 13d).
a) Load factor vs.out of plane displacement curve
c) Load factor vs. axial strain curves
Figure 1
From these three cases, it is found that each l
considering the spreading of the yield members
direction of static pushover loading
and diagonal brace members that connected the two arch ribs
most critical members in all the loading cases.
design and in the dynamic analysis.
1.6 Dynamic responseanalysis
The dynamic analysis of the arch bridge model is conducted in two type of analytical
methods, those are modal dynamic analysis and direct integration analysis. In both analyses, the
seismic waves were input in longitudinal and transverse directions, by ABAQUS program.
the acceleration data obtained from the JSHB, Type II
II-I-1wave for transverse direction,
transversedisplacement has been checked at the arch crown, and th
yielded member has been analyzed. Fig. 1
modal dynamic analysis of ABAQUS.
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
84
In loading case III, Fig. 13a) shows the load factor () versus transverse displacement (
the arch crown and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was
= 8.702. The first yield members of the model are shown in Fig.
13b). Fig. 13c) shows that the brace which connected the two main arch ribs yields in the first place,
and then followed by the lateral beam, deck brace and arch rib in the arch bridge model as shown in
displacement curve b) First yielded members
Load factor vs. axial strain curves d) Spreading of plastic members
Figure 13. Results of loading case III
From these three cases, it is found that each loading will lead lo different responses
considering the spreading of the yield members and it is able to show the critical members by each
static pushover loading. From the results, stiffened girder members, arch rib members
members that connected the two arch ribs under the deck plate
most critical members in all the loading cases. These members should be considered more in the
of the arch bridge model is conducted in two type of analytical
methods, those are modal dynamic analysis and direct integration analysis. In both analyses, the
seismic waves were input in longitudinal and transverse directions, by ABAQUS program.
the acceleration data obtained from the JSHB, Type II-I-2 wave for longitudinal directionand Type
1wave for transverse direction,with the damping ratio (h) = 0.03, the longitudinal
displacement has been checked at the arch crown, and the internal force from the first
yielded member has been analyzed. Fig. 14 shows the displacement response obtained from the
modal dynamic analysis of ABAQUS.
Z (w)
6308 (Print), ISSN
displacement (w) at
the arch crown and the center of the stiffened girder. The segment of the member element was
bers of the model are shown in Fig.
13b). Fig. 13c) shows that the brace which connected the two main arch ribs yields in the first place,
and then followed by the lateral beam, deck brace and arch rib in the arch bridge model as shown in
b) First yielded members
d) Spreading of plastic members
oading will lead lo different responses
and it is able to show the critical members by each
From the results, stiffened girder members, arch rib members
under the deck plate seem to be the
These members should be considered more in the
of the arch bridge model is conducted in two type of analytical
methods, those are modal dynamic analysis and direct integration analysis. In both analyses, the
seismic waves were input in longitudinal and transverse directions, by ABAQUS program. By using
wave for longitudinal directionand Type
) = 0.03, the longitudinal and
e internal force from the first
shows the displacement response obtained from the
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
In the same way, the modal dynamic analysis was carried out
for longitudinal directionand Type I
seconds. The results are shown in Fig. 1
a) Type II-I-2 wave (longitudinal direction)
Figure 14. The displacement time hi
transverse direction in dynamic analysis
a) Type I-I-2 wave (longitudinal direction)
Figure 15. The displacement time history at the arch crown for seismic waves in longitudinal and
transverse direction in dynamic analysis
Northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast earthquake
Maximum and minimum plastic ratios
investigate the strain distribution along
obtained from the maximum and minimum strain value at each point in the cross sec
member. The element numbering of arch rib and the stiffener girder can be seen in Fig 16
clearly the strain behavior of each element in the arch rib and stiffened girder
distributions in the arch rib under
direction, it was found that some element in the arch rib near intersections between arch rib and the
stiffened girder are yield through static analysis
members in the arch rib does not reach yield under dynamic analysis using two waves record from
two strong earthquakes. The same phenomenon also occurs in the stiffened girder elements. The
stiffened girder elements near the intersection reach more than twic
the arch rib elements and the stiffened girder elements in the center of the bridge have the lowest
value of strain distribution.
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
85
he modal dynamic analysis was carried out also for data
itudinal directionand Type I-I-3wave for transverse direction, with the time periods 240
Fig. 15.
(longitudinal direction) b) Type II-I-1 wave (transverse direction)
The displacement time history at the arch crown for seismic waves in longitudinal and
transverse direction in dynamic analysis(from Level II earthquake ground motion Type II
Ken Nambu earthquake)
wave (longitudinal direction) b) Type I-I-3 wave (transverse di
The displacement time history at the arch crown for seismic waves in longitudinal and
dynamic analysis (from Level II Earthquake Ground Motion Type I,
Northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast earthquake)
m and minimum plastic ratios /
y
of strain responses were also observed to
along the arch rib and stiffened girder.The strain records are
obtained from the maximum and minimum strain value at each point in the cross sec
numbering of arch rib and the stiffener girder can be seen in Fig 16
clearly the strain behavior of each element in the arch rib and stiffened girder.
under static push over loading and seismic waves in longitudinal
some element in the arch rib near intersections between arch rib and the
stiffened girder are yield through static analysis, as shown in Fig 17a). In the other hands, all the
in the arch rib does not reach yield under dynamic analysis using two waves record from
The same phenomenon also occurs in the stiffened girder elements. The
stiffened girder elements near the intersection reach more than twice of the strain yield limit. While
elements and the stiffened girder elements in the center of the bridge have the lowest
6308 (Print), ISSN
data Type I-I-2 wave
time periods 240
(transverse direction)
story at the arch crown for seismic waves in longitudinal and
otion Type II, Hyogo-
wave (transverse direction)
The displacement time history at the arch crown for seismic waves in longitudinal and
(from Level II Earthquake Ground Motion Type I,
of strain responses were also observed to
The strain records are
obtained from the maximum and minimum strain value at each point in the cross section of each
numbering of arch rib and the stiffener girder can be seen in Fig 16 to explain
. From the strain
sh over loading and seismic waves in longitudinal
some element in the arch rib near intersections between arch rib and the
. In the other hands, all the
in the arch rib does not reach yield under dynamic analysis using two waves record from
The same phenomenon also occurs in the stiffened girder elements. The
e of the strain yield limit. While
elements and the stiffened girder elements in the center of the bridge have the lowest
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
Figure 16. Element numberi
Figure 17. Maximum and minimum strain ratios
along the arch rib and stiffener girder
of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
86
a) Arch rib elements
b) Stiffened girder elements
Element numbering for arch rib and stiffener girder
a) Longitudinal direction
b) Transverse direction
Maximum and minimum strain ratios /
y
of strain responses
along the arch rib and stiffener girder
6308 (Print), ISSN
of strain responses
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
87
These behavior acts differently in the case of static loading and seismic waves from
transverse direction. In both arch rib and stiffened girder, there is no element reach yield neither
strain obtained from static or dynamic in transverse direction. Based on the result of static pushover
analysis, the yield members were clustered at the braces that connected the two arch ribs, as the most
critical member under loading in transverse direction.It also shown that the elements near the
springing arch rib reach the highest strain value under static pushover analysis.
Comparing these results with the results obtained from static pushover analysis, it can be seen
that the maximum displacement from dynamic analysis reaches much lower value than from static
analysis. The reason for this is because none of the element member reaches yield by dynamic
analysis using two big earthquake waves, while the static pushover analysis was run until it reached
its ultimate strength. The same phenomenon seem to be occur in the dynamic analysis compared to
static analysis in the case of the critical members that shown from the figures.
V. CONCLUSION
The seismic behavior of a half-through steel arch bridge subjected to ground motions in
longitudinal and transverse directions were investigated by static pushover and dynamic response
analysis. The static pushover analysis by load controlled method was carried out and compared. In
dynamic analysis, the two seismic waves according to JSHB seismic waves were simulated and
discussed. The main conclusions of this study are summarized as the following.
1) From the static analysis in in-plane direction loading, it was found that arch ribs and vertical
columns are the first yield member and become the most critical members, then lead to the
yielding of the stiffened girder and lateral bracing beam which connect two arch ribs. This first
yield occurs when the load reach 3.95 times of the design load from the provisions.
2) In static pushover analysis under loading in longitudinal direction, the first yield occurs in the
vertical columns which connect arch rib and stiffened girder and the stiffened girders near the
intersection points when applied load reach 8.38 times of the design load and the displacement at
the arch crown was around 0.13 m. Compare to the result from dynamic analysis under two
strong earthquake in longitudinal direction, the maximum displacement obtained around 0.13 m
also. But none of the main members, arch rib or stiffened girder reaches yield.
3) In static pushover analysis under loading in transverse direction, the first yield occurs in the
diagonal brace members which connect two arch ribs under deck plate when applied load reach
8.7 times of the design load and the displacement at the arch crown was around 0.2 m. Compare
to the result from dynamic analysis under two strong earthquake in longitudinal direction, the
maximum displacement obtained around 0.27 m and none of the main members, arch rib or
stiffened girder reaches yield.
4) The results obtained from both static and dynamic analysis for longitudinal directions indicate
that the plastic members are clustered near the joints of the arch ribs and the stiffened girders, as
the most critical point in the half through arch bridge structures which is caused by the large
deformation at this intersection zones.
5) From the result from static analysis for transverse direction, it was shown the critical members
were at the diagonal brace members which connected the two arch ribs. The behaviors of these
members under dynamic analysis were not discussed further in this study.Under the dynamic
analysis, there is no member yield in the arch rib and stiffened girder as the main structure in the
half-through type arch bridge model.
6) The arch bridge is not judged to damage under both strong earthquake waves from JSHB data
record because the maximum strains in members do not reach the yield strain.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 6308 (Print), ISSN
0976 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 1, January (2014), IAEME
88
REFERENCES
[1] T. Yamao, T. Sho, S. Murakami and T. Mazda, Seismic behavior and evaluation of seismic
performance of half through steel arch bridges subjected to fault displacement, Journal of
Seismic Engineering, 2007, 317-324
[2] F. Chandra, S. Atavit and T. Yamao, Seismic behavior and a performance evaluation of deck-
type steel arch bridges under the strong earthquakes, The 5
th
International Symposium on
Steel Structures, Seoul, Korea, 2009, 388-395.
[3] Y. Zheng, T. Usami and H. Ge, Seismic response predictions of multi-span steel bridges
through pushover analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32, 2003,
12591274
[4] Japan Road Association, Specifications for Highway Bridges,Part V-Seismic Design, Japan,
2002.
[5] T. Usami, H. Oda, Numerical analysis and verification methods for seismic design of steel
structures. Journal ofStructural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering (JSCE), 668(I-54),
2001, 116.
[6] Z. Lu, H. Ge and T. Usami, Applicability of pushover analysis-based seismic performance
evaluation procedure for steel arch bridges,Engineering Structures, 26, 2004, 1957-1977.
[7] A. Ghobarah, Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: State of
development,Engineering Structures, 23, 2001, 878-884.
[8] A. M. Mwafi, A. S. Elnashai, Static pushover versus dynamic collapseanalysis of RC
buildings, Engineering Structures, 23 (5) ,40724.
[9] S. Atavit, Seismic Behaviors and a Performance Evaluation Method of a Deck-Type Steel
Arch Bridge, doctoral diss., Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan, 2007.
[10] Japan Road Association, Specifications for Highway Bridges,Part I - Steel Bridge, Japan,
2002 (In Japanese).
[11] Abaqus 6.11, Abaqus/CAE Users Manual,DassaultSystmesSimulia Corp., Providence, RI,
USA, 2011.
[12] T. Kuwabara, T. Tamakoshi, J. Murakoshi, Y. Kimura, T. Nanazawa and J. Hoshikuma,
Outline of Japanese Design Specifications for Highway Bridges in 2012, The 44thMeeting,
Joint Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects (UJNR), UJNR Gaithersburg, 2013.