Dissertation2007 OrtizRestrepo

Istituto Universitario Università degli
di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF CONTINUOUS CONCRETE

BRIDGES UNDER TRANSVERSE SEISMIC EXCITATION
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
JUAN CAMILO ORTIZ RESTREPO
Supervisor: Prof. M.J.N. PRIESTLEY
June, 2006
The dissertation entitled “Displacement-Based Design of Continuous Concrete Bridges Under
Transverse Seismic Excitation”, by Juan Camilo Ortiz Restrepo, has been approved in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
M.J.N. PRIESTLEY …… … ……_
G.M. CALVI_____………… … ……
Abstract
ABSTRACT
In this work a displacement-based design procedure for multi-span reinforced concrete bridge
structures when subjected to seismic action in the transverse direction is presented. The procedure,
initially proposed by Priestley [Priestley, 1993], is reviewed and some improvements are
implemented. The design methodology is then applied to different possible bridge configurations. The
accuracy of the method in terms of reaching the target displacements under the design earthquake
level is then assessed using inelastic time-history analysis. Discussion of the appropriate level of
damping to be considered in the inelastic time-history analysis of this type of structures is provided
based in a recent a recent work developed at the ROSE School on equivalent damping for
displacement-based design applications [Grant et al., 2004].
Dynamic amplification of the deck transverse moments is investigated and compared with analytical
results using different variations of the modal superposition approach. What has been called the
“Effective Modal Superposition,” is then proposed as an efficient method to account for higher mode
effects on the deck transverse moment distributions.
A comparison of the direct displacement-based design and the force-based design, also assessed with
time history analysis, is carried out for the different bridges configurations. Results in terms of pier
ductility demands, displacements, deck moments and longitudinal steel reinforcement ratios are
presented and discussed.
Finally, some analyses of a Rail Bridge configuration with lower deck transversal stiffness are
presented to provide an idea of the scope and applicability of the design procedure under different
conditions to those assumed for the initial designs.
Keywords: bridges; performed-based seismic design; higher modes
i
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to mainly thank Professor Nigel Priestley for his wise advice during the development of
this work. Also thanks to Professor G.M.Calvi, director of the ROSE School, and Lorenza Petrini and
Tim Sullivan, who were always available to help me and answer my questions. A exceptional thanks
to Juan Camilo Alvarez who was all the time helping me to save time and make this work more
proficient.
Thanks to all my friends at ROSE School. I would principally like to thank Ana Beatriz, Juan Esteban,
Juan Pablo, Carlos and Natalia, Jason and Nasha, Joao and Ana, Alex, Luca and Randolph for all the
great times we shared.
I would also like to thank my former employer in Colombia, Luis Gonzalo Mejía, for his wise advises,
his example of life and his constant search to making me a better engineer and mainly a better person.
This work and this Masters are entirely dedicated to my wife, Paulina, for her great love, support and
company during this time in Italy. A special mention for my parents, Luis Javier and Gloria, and my
brother, Alejandro, who have always be sustaining and encouraging me in every project of my life.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................x
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 WHY DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN?...........................................................................1
1.2 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................2
2. FUNDAMENTALS OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ........................................4
3. DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF MULTI-SPAN BRIDGES..............................................9
3.1 REGULAR AND IRREGULAR BRIDGES CONFIGURATIONS .........................................9
3.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................10
3.2.1 Design Displaced Shape ................................................................................................11
3.2.2 The Equivalent SDOF System .......................................................................................13
3.2.2.1 System Design Displacement.................................................................................. 13
3.2.2.2 Equivalent System Damping ................................................................................... 13
3.2.2.3 Pier Yield Displacement.......................................................................................... 16
3.2.2.4 Forces taken by Piers and Abutments .....................................................................17
3.2.2.5 Effective System Mass: ........................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Equivalent SDOF Design...............................................................................................18
3.2.4 Required Columns Strength ...........................................................................................19
3.2.5 Additional notes .............................................................................................................21
3.3 APPLICATION TO DIFFERENT BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS.......................................23
3.3.1 Bridge Information and Assumptions ............................................................................23
iii
Index
3.3.1.1 Materials:................................................................................................................. 23
3.3.1.2 Abutments: .............................................................................................................. 23
3.3.1.3 Bridge Deck: ........................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1.4 Piers and Cap Beam: ............................................................................................... 28
3.3.2 Seismic Input .................................................................................................................28
3.3.3 Design Results ...............................................................................................................29
3.3.3.1 Series of Regular Bridges........................................................................................ 30
3.3.3.2 Series 7: SMM......................................................................................................... 38
3.3.3.3 Series 8: SML.......................................................................................................... 40
3.3.3.4 Series 9: SLL ........................................................................................................... 40
3.3.3.5 Series 10: SSM ........................................................................................................ 44
3.3.3.6 Series 11: SSL ......................................................................................................... 44
3.3.3.7 Series 12: MSL........................................................................................................ 44
3.3.3.8 Series 13: SSMLL(1)............................................................................................... 49
3.3.3.9 Series 14: SSMLL(2)............................................................................................... 50
3.3.3.10 Series 15: SSLMS ................................................................................................... 51
3.3.3.11 Series 16: MSLMS .................................................................................................. 51
3.3.3.12 Series 17: LMSSM(1) ............................................................................................. 52
3.3.3.13 Series 18: LMSSM(2) ............................................................................................. 52
4. PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT USING TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS ....................................59
4.1 MODELING ISSUES..............................................................................................................59
4.1.1 Hysteretic Rule...............................................................................................................60
4.1.2 Damping.........................................................................................................................61
4.2 SPECTRUM-COMPATIBLE TIME HISTORIES .................................................................62
4.3 DESIGN VERSUS TIME-HISTORY RESULTS ...................................................................64
4.3.1 Target Displacements and Deck Transverse Moments ..................................................65
4.3.1.1 Series of Regular Bridges........................................................................................ 65
4.3.1.2 Series 7: SMM......................................................................................................... 72
4.3.1.3 Series 8: SML.......................................................................................................... 72
4.3.1.4 Series 9: SLL ........................................................................................................... 72
4.3.1.5 Series 10: SSM ........................................................................................................ 77
4.3.1.6 Series 11: SSL ......................................................................................................... 77
4.3.1.7 Series 12: MSL........................................................................................................ 77
4.3.1.8 Series 13: SSMLL(1)............................................................................................... 83
4.3.1.9 Series 14: SSMLL(2)............................................................................................... 83
4.3.1.10 Series 15: SSLMS ................................................................................................... 86
iv
Index
4.3.1.11 Series 16: MSLMS .................................................................................................. 87

4.3.1.12 Series 17: LMSSM(1) ............................................................................................. 90
4.3.1.13 Series 18: LMSSM(2) ............................................................................................. 90
4.3.2 Dynamic Amplification of Deck Transverse Moments .................................................93
5. COMPARISON OF DDBD WITH THE FORCE BASED DESIGN METHOD.........................106
5.1 FORCE BASED DESIGN .....................................................................................................106
5.2 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR FORCE BASED DESIGNED BRIDGES ...................108
5.2.1 Hysteretic rule..............................................................................................................108
5.2.2 Damping.......................................................................................................................108
5.2.3 Spectrum-Compatible time histories............................................................................109
5.3 RESULTS COMPARISON FOR REGULAR BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS...................109
5.3.1 Series 1 and 2 ...............................................................................................................109
5.3.2 Series 3.........................................................................................................................109
5.3.3 Series 4.........................................................................................................................113
5.3.4 Series 5.........................................................................................................................113
5.3.5 Series 6.........................................................................................................................113
5.4 RESULTS COMPARISON FOR IRREGULAR BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS...............117
5.4.1 Series 7, 8 and 9 ...........................................................................................................117
5.4.2 Series 10, 11 and 12 .....................................................................................................117
5.4.3 Series 13, 14, 15 and 16 ...............................................................................................124
5.4.4 Series 17 and 18 ...........................................................................................................124
6. RAIL BRIDGE ..............................................................................................................................131
6.1 PREVIOUS STUDY..............................................................................................................131
6.2 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF A RAIL BRIDGE................................132
6.2.1 4-span Rail Bridges......................................................................................................133
6.3 COMPARISON OF DDBD AND FBD - PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT USING TIME-
HISTORY ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................141
7. CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................149
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................152
v
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2. 1- Effective Stiffness ...................................................................................................4
Figure 2. 2 – Design Displacement Spectra................................................................................6
Figure 3. 1- Regular and Irregular Bridges...............................................................................10
Figure 3. 2 - Possible transverse displacement shapes for continuous bridges ........................12
Figure 3. 3 – Uniform beam simply supported on elastic springs ............................................13
Figure 3. 4 – Equivalent damping for deferent Takeda Thin degrading-stiffness models .......16
Figure 3. 5 – Caltrans displacement ARS curves. Soil C, M = 8.0±0.25 and 0.7g PGA, for
different levels of damping ...............................................................................................19
Figure 3. 6 – Model of the equivalent elastic system under transverse response .....................20
Figure 3. 7 – Flowchart for Direct Displacement-Based Design of MDOF-bridges................22
Figure 3. 8 – Bridge Typical Transverse Section .....................................................................24
Figure 3. 9 – Series of 4-span and 6-span Regular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and
15.0 m) ..............................................................................................................................25
Figure 3. 10 – Series of 4-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m).....26
Figure 3. 11 – Series of 6-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)....27
Figure 3. 12 – Extended Caltrans displacement ARS curve for soil profile C, M = 8.0±0.25
and 0.7g PGA....................................................................................................................28
Figure 3. 13 – Interaction Diagrams for piers...........................................................................29
Figure 3. 14 – Design results for bridges of Series 1................................................................32
vi
Index

Figure 3. 20 – Design results for bridges of Series 7: SMM. ...................................................41
Figure 3. 21 – Design results for bridges of Series 8: SML. ....................................................42
Figure 3. 22 – Design results for bridges of Series 9: SLL.......................................................43
Figure 3. 23 – Design results for bridges of Series 10: SSM....................................................46
Figure 3. 24 – Design results for bridges of Series 11: SSL.....................................................47
Figure 3. 25 – Design results for bridges of Series 12: MSL. ..................................................48
Figure 3. 26 – Design results for bridges of Series 12, H=7.5m, with strength redistribution. 49
Figure 3. 27 – Design results for bridges of Series 13: SSMLL(1). .........................................53
Figure 3. 28 – Design results for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2).. ........................................54
Figure 3. 29 – Design results for bridges of Series 15: SSLMS. ..............................................55
Figure 3. 30 – Design results for bridges of Series 16: MSLMS..............................................56
Figure 3. 31 – Design results for bridges of Series 17: LMSSM (1). .......................................57
Figure 3. 32 – Design results for bridges of Series 18: LMSSM (2).. ......................................58
Figure 4. 1 – Typical simplified plan model of bridge used in time-history analysis. .............59
Figure 4. 2 – Takeda degrading stiffness model. ......................................................................60
Figure 4. 3 – Artificial time histories and associated set of spectra for different damping
levels. ................................................................................................................................63
Figure 4. 4 – Artificial time histories and associated set of spectra for different damping
levels. ................................................................................................................................64
Figure 4. 5 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 1...............................................................66
Figure 4. 10 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 6.............................................................71
Figure 4. 11 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 7: SMM. ................................................73
Figure 4. 12 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 8: SML. .................................................74
Figure 4. 13 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 9: SLL. ..................................................75
Figure 4. 14 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 8: SML. ..........................76
Figure 4. 15 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 10: SSM. ...............................................78
Figure 4. 16 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 11: SSL..................................................79
Figure 4. 17 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 12: MSL. ...............................................80
vii
Index
Figure 4. 18 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 12: MSL. ........................81
Figure 4. 19 – Design Vs THA, Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridge of Series 12: SML,
H=7.5 m, with strength redistribution...............................................................................82
Figure 4. 20 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 13: SSMLL(1).......................................84
Figure 4. 21 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2).......................................85
Figure 4. 22 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2)................86
Figure 4. 23 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 15: SSLMS............................................88
Figure 4. 24 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 16: MSLMS. .........................................89
Figure 4. 25 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 17: LMSSM(1)......................................91
Figure 4. 26 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 18: LMSSM(2)......................................92
Figure 4. 27 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 18 LMSSM(2)................93
Figure 4. 28 – Deck Moments for Series 4. ..............................................................................96
Figure 4. 31 – Deck Moments for Series 13: SSMLL(1). ........................................................99
Figure 4. 32 – Deck Moments for Series 14: SSMLL(2). ......................................................100
Figure 4. 33 – Deck Moments for Series 15: SSLMS. ...........................................................101
Figure 4. 34 – Deck Moments for Series 16: MSLMS. ..........................................................102
Figure 4. 35 – Deck Moments for Series 17: LMSSM(1). .....................................................103
Figure 4. 36 – Deck Moments for Series 18: LMSSM(2). .....................................................104
Figure 5. 1 – Typical simplified plan model of bridge used in Force Based Design Analysis.
.........................................................................................................................................106
Figure 5. 2 –Acceleration Spectrum for Soil Type C (M = 8.0+-0.25). .................................107
Figure 5. 3 – Typical simplified plan model of bridge used in time-history analysis. ...........108
Figure 5. 4 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 1.........................110
Figure 5. 10 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 7: SMM. ..........118
Figure 5. 11 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 8: SML. ...........119
Figure 5. 12 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 9: SLL. ............120
viii
Index
Figure 5. 13 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 10: SSM. .........121
Figure 5. 14 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 11: SSL............122
Figure 5. 15 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 12: MSL. .........123
Figure 5. 16 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 13: SSMLL(1).125
Figure 5. 17 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2).126
Figure 5. 18 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 15: SSLMS......127
Figure 5. 19 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 16: MSLMS. ...128
Figure 5. 20 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 17: LMSSM(1).
.........................................................................................................................................129
.........................................................................................................................................130
Figure 6. 1 –Typical transverse section of Rail Bridge. .........................................................132
Figure 6. 2 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 2. ......................................................134
Figure 6. 3 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 8: SML. ............................................135
Figure 6. 4 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 12: MSL. ..........................................136
Figure 6. 5 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 5. ......................................................138
Figure 6. 6 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 14: SSMLL2. ...................................139
Figure 6. 7 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 18: LMSSM2. ..................................140
Figure 6. 8 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 2. ...............142
Figure 6. 9 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 8: SML......143
Figure 6. 10 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 12: MSL. .144
Figure 6. 11 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 5. .............146
Figure 6. 12 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 14: SSMLL2.
.........................................................................................................................................147
Figure 6. 13 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 18:
LMSSM2.........................................................................................................................148
ix
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3.1 - Material Properties for Design. ..............................................................................23
Table 3.2 Substitute SDOF parameters for bridges of Series 1 to 6. .......................................31
Table 3.3 Substitute SDOF parameters for bridges of Series 7 to 12. .....................................39
Table 3.4 Substitute SDOF parameters for bridge of Series 12, H=7.5m, with strength
redistribution. ....................................................................................................................49
Table 3.5 Substitute SDOF parameters for bridges of Series 13 to 18. ....................................50
Table 6.1 Substitute SDOF parameters for 4-span Rail Bridges. ..........................................133
Table 6.2 Substitute SDOF parameters for 6-span Rail Bridges. ..........................................137
x
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
Seismic design is currently going through a transitional period. Most of the seismic codes to
date utilize force-based seismic design, or what can also be called strength-based design
procedures. However, it is now widely recognized that force and damage are poorly
correlated and that strength has lesser importance when designing for earthquake loading than
for other actions. These, together with other problems and inconsistencies with force-based
design, [Priestley, 2003], have led to the development of more reliable seismic design
methodologies under the framework of what has been termed Performance-Based Seismic
Design (PBSD). PBSD represents basically the philosophy of designing a structure to perform
within a predefined level of damage under a predefined level of earthquake intensity.
1.1 WHY DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN?
It is known that displacements correlate much better with damage than forces do. Hence, if
the design objective is to control the damage under a given level of seismic excitation it is
reasonable to attempt to design the structures using as input the desired displacements to be
sustained under the design seismic intensity.
One of the more rational and relevant approaches that has been developed over the past 10
years is the Direct Displacement-Based Design, which characterizes the structure to be
designed by a single degree of freedom representation of performance at peak displacement
response. The objective is to design a structure which would achieve, rather than be bounded
by, a given performance limit state under a given seismic intensity [Priestley, 1993 and
Priestley, 2003]. The method utilizes the Substitute Structure approach developed by Gulkan
and Sozen [Gulkan and Sozen, 1974] to model the inelastic structure as an equivalent elastic
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. The concepts of the methodology will be presented
first in this work and its application to multi-span bridge structures discussed in detail
subsequently.
1
1.2 SCOPE
The objectives of this project are to introduce possible improvements to the direct
displacement-based design procedure for the design of multi-span bridges for regular and
irregular bridges configurations, initially proposed by Priestley [Priestley, 1993 and Priestley,
2003] and subsequently studied by Alvarez Botero [Alvarez Botero, 2004]; and to assess the
accuracy of the method in terms of reaching the target displacements under the design
earthquake level. The latter is done by carrying out inelastic time-history analyses for a series
of bridge structures designed using the direct displacement-based design methodology.
Additionally, the issue of dynamic amplification of deck transverse moments is investigated

and an effective method to consider this phenomenon for bridges designed using direct
displacement-based design is proposed.
A comparison between the direct-displacement based design, DDBD, and the force-based
design, FBD, is done.
Finally, a parametric study of a Rail Bridge with a low deck transversal stiffness also form
part of the investigation and is aimed to assess the applicability of the procedure under diverse
design constrains.
Chapter 2 provides the basic concepts behind the direct displacement-based design procedure
and its general application.
Chapter 3 deals with the application of the method to the specific case of multi-span
reinforced concrete bridges with continuous deck, and flexible lateral supports at abutments.
Important issues regarding the consideration of the sources of energy dissipation and the
calculation of the system damping are discussed. An iterative design procedure is introduced.
Design results for 72 different bridges are presented and discussed.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the assessment of the method in terms of reaching the target
displacements when the designs are subjected to spectrum-compatible acceleration time
histories. Description of the models used is made and a brief discussion on the seismic input
for the inelastic time-history analysis is presented. Higher-mode effects on deck transverse
moments are investigated.
Chapter 5 presents the comparison of the method with the current generally used code force-
based design method in terms of reaching the target displacements when the designs are
subjected to spectrum-compatible acceleration time histories. Description of the force-base
design models is made and a short discussion on the seismic input for the inelastic time-
history analysis is presented. Deck transverse moments are also investigated. Final design
results for both methods, DDBD and FBD, are presented in terms of pier diameter, design
moments and longitudinal reinforcement ratios.
Chapter 6 deals with the application of the method using a Rail Bridge with low deck
transversal stiffness. The DDBD methodology is applied to 36 different bridges and then
2
assessed with inelastic time-history analysis. Finally results for direct displacement-based
design, DDBD, and force-based design, FBD, are presented.
Finally, some conclusions are presented in Chapter 7.
3
Chapter 2 – Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design
2. FUNDAMENTALS OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED

DESIGN
Direct Displacement-Based Design is an approach in which, contrary to current Force-Based
Design practice, forces are obtained for a desired performance level and based on inelastic
response of the system. The objective is to design a structure which would achieve, rather
than be bounded by, a given performance limit state under a given seismic intensity [Priestley,
2003]. The procedure is based in the Substitute Structure approach developed by Gulkan and
Sozen [Gulkan and Sozen, 1974], which models the inelastic structure as an equivalent elastic
single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. The SDOF is represented by an effective stiffness
(See Figure 2.1), mass and damping. The aim of the design procedure is to obtain the base
shear from a given target displacement and the level of ductility that can be estimated from
the structural and element geometries.
Figure 2. 1- Effective Stiffness
Since the substitute structure is elastic, its response to a particular ground motion, and hence
the response of the actual structure, can be determined form the elastic response spectrum for
the appropriate level of damping. For a SDOF system the design displacement, ∆d, for the
performance level under consideration, can be based either on material strain limits or code-
specific drift limits. The yield displacement, ∆y, can be estimated from simplified relations
for the yield curvature, ϕy, [Priestley, 2003] and the displacement ductility calculated as:
4
∆d
µ∆ = (2.1)
∆y
Equivalent viscous damping can then be estimated as the sum of elastic and hysteretic
damping, using some relations depending of the displacement ductility, µ, and structure
period Teff.
ξ eff = ξ e + ξ hyst (2.2)
The hysteretic component, ξhyst, can be computed using the equation (2.3) [Grant et al, 2005]
which is depends of the equivalent period, Teq.
⎛ ⎞
⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
ξ hyst = a ⎜1 − b ⎟ ⎜1 + ⎟ (2.3)
µ ⎜ (T + c) ⎟
d
⎝ ⎠
⎝ eq ⎠
Where a, b, c and d are constants values that depend of the hysteretic model assumed, and µ is
the displacement ductility. For the Takeda Thin degrading-stiffness-hysteretic rule, which is
commonly used to represent ductile reinforced concrete columns response, these values are a
= 0.215, b = 0.642, c = 0.824, d = 6.444 [Grant et. al., 2005]
The elastic component, ξel, is assumed to be 5% of the critical damping but some correction
factor must be applied for the assumption of initial-stiffness or tangent-stiffness damping (See
deeper discussion in Grant et al, 2004). The correction factor for the elastic component can
then be computed using eq. (2.4).
κ = µφ (2.4)
Where µ is the displacement ductility and φ depend on the hysteretic rule used and the elastic
damping assumption. For the Takeda Thin degrading-stiffness-hysteretic rule, using tangent-
stiffness elastic damping, φ is equal to -0.378.
As equation (2.3) is period dependent, an iterative procedure should be implemented to obtain

the hysteretic damping (See Grant et. al., 2005 for detailed process). Alternatively, as the
period dependency of equation (2.3) is generally insignificant for periods greater than 1.0
seconds using the Takeda Thin Model [Grant et al, 2005], and as will be unusual for normal
bridges to have effective periods less than 1.0 seconds, it will generally be conservative to
ignore the period dependency in design, and the simplified equation (2.5) can be used instead
of equation (2.2).
⎛ µ −1 ⎞
ξeff = 0.05 + 0.444 ⎜ ⎟ (2.5)
⎝ µπ ⎠
Once the design displacement has been defined and the corresponding damping estimated
from the expected ductility demand, the effective period at maximum response, Teff, can be
5
read directly from the displacement spectrum, reduced for the corresponding level of
damping, as shown in Figure 2.2. The effective stiffness, Keff, of the equivalent SDOF can
then be determined from the period equation of a SDOF oscillator:
4π 2 M eff
K eff = (2.6)
Teff2
Where Meff represent the effective mass of the structure participating in the fundamental
mode of vibration. Having the effective stiffness, the design lateral force can be readily
obtained using Equation (2.7).
VB = K eff ∆ d (2.7)
Figure 2. 2 – Design Displacement Spectra
For a SDOF system the procedure ends here, the design lateral force is the corresponding base
shear of the system, and adequate strength must be then provided. Capacity design procedures
are used to ensure shear strength exceeds maximum possible shear correspondent to flexural
over-strength in the plastic region. However, for a MDOF system, the next step in the design
process is the distribution of the design lateral force, VB, throughout the structure and a
subsequent structural analysis under the distributed seismic forces.
When the design method is applied to a MDOF system, the main issues are the definition of
the Substitute Structure and the determination of the design displacement. However, the
substitute structure can be easily defined by assuming a displaced shape for the real structure.
This displaced shape is that which corresponds to the inelastic first-mode at the design level
of seismic excitation. Representing the displacement by the inelastic rather than the elastic
first-mode shape is consistent with characterizing the structure by its secant stiffness to
maximum response [Priestley et al, 2006]. During the last years, research efforts have been
6
focused on the definition of design displaced shapes for different structural systems. The
design displacement of the substitute structure depends also on the limiting displacement of
the critical member, ∆C, which in turn depends on the strain or code-drift limit for the
performance level under consideration. For bridge structures, the critical member will
normally be the shortest column.
Having defined the displacement of the critical member and the design displacement shape
the displacements of the individual masses can be obtained using Equation (2.8).
⎛∆ ⎞
∆i = φi ⎜ c ⎟ (2.8)
⎝ φc ⎠
Where φ is the design displaced shape, i.e. the fundamental inelastic mode shape. Having now
the actual design displacement pattern, the system design displacement is computed using
Equation (2.9), which is based on the requirement that the work done by the equivalent SDOF
system is equivalent to the work done by the MDOF force system, [Calvi, et al., 1995].
∆d =
∑(m ∆ ) i
2
i
(2.9)
∑(m ∆ ) i i
To fully define the equivalent SDOF system an effective mass needs to be computed. The
effective mass, Meff, is defined as the mass participating in the fundamental inelastic mode of
vibration. Being consistent with the work equivalence between the two systems, the effective
mass can be obtained using Equation (2.10).
∑ (m ∆ ) = ∑ (m ∆ )
2
M eff = i i i i
(2.10)
∆ d ∑ (m ∆ ) i
2
i
The equivalent SDOF system is now fully defined. Using Equations (2.6) and (2.7) the total
design lateral force is obtained. This shear force must be distributed as design forces to the
various discretized masses of the structure, in order that the design moments for potential
plastic hinges can be established. Assuming essentially sinusoidal response at peak response,
the base shear should be distributed in proportion to mass and displacement at the discretized
mass locations. Thus the design force at mass i is given by Equation (2.11), [Priestley et al,
2006].
Fi = VB
( mi ∆i ) (2.11)
∑ ( mi ∆i )
The subsequent analysis under the distributed seismic forces is straightforward; however,
careful consideration of member stiffnesses to be used in the analysis is required. In order to
be compatible with the substitute structure concept, member stiffnesses should be
representative of effective secant stiffnesses (See Figure 2.1) at the design displacement
response.
7
Particulars of the Direct Displacement-Based Design approach and its application to several
structural systems can be found in [Priestley et al, 2006]. In the next chapter of this work
application of the methodology to continuous RC bridges is presented in more detail.
8
Chapter 3 – Displacement Based Design of Multi-Span Bridges
3. DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF MULTI-SPAN

BRIDGES
Direct Displacement-Based Design is an approach in which, contrary to current Force-Based
Design practice, forces are obtained for a desired performance level and based on inelastic
response of the system. The objective is to design a structure which would achieve, rather
than be bounded by, a given performance limit state under a given seismic intensity [Priestley,
2003]. The procedure is based in the Substitute Structure approach developed by Gulkan and
Sozen [Gulkan and Sozen, 1974], which models the inelastic structure as an equivalent elastic
single degree of freedom (SDOF) system. The SDOF is represented by an effective stiffness
(See Figure 2.1), mass and damping. The aim of the design procedure is to obtain the base
shear from a given target displacement and the level of ductility that can be estimated from
the structural and element geometries.
3.1 REGULAR AND IRREGULAR BRIDGES CONFIGURATIONS
As previous studies were done in bridges with regular configurations [Alvarez Botero, 2004],
in this dissertation a Regular Bridge will be defined as a bridge in which the structure center
of mass, CM, coincides with the structure center of strength, CV. In this case the translational
modes of vibration rule the seismic response and the rotational ones are not excited and
consequently do not participate in the seismic response of the structure.
An Irregular Bridges will be defined as a bridge in which the structure center of mass, CM,
do not coincides with the structure center of strength, CV. In this case the seismic response is
a combination of the translational and rotational modes of vibration.
9
Figure 3. 1- Regular and Irregular Bridges.
Certainly, as the method is based in the shape of the first inelastic mode shape, its efficiency
will depend of the similarities between the fundamental elastic and inelastic mode shapes for
both, Regular Bridge and Irregular Bridge. In the cases in which the first fundamental elastic
and inelastic mode shapes are very different, care must be taken. Previous research [Alvarez
Botero, 2004] has shown that depending of the seismic level considered, the parabolic
inelastic mode shape can or can not be developed, and the bridge maximum displacements,
and consequently its behaviour, can be still dominated by the response in the elastic range.
3.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE
The displacement-based design of multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures is based on the

concepts presented in Chapter 2. However, some specific issues must be considered carefully
during the process. The design displacement shape is a function of the relative stiffness
between columns, abutments and the deck. Resistance to transverse seismic excitation is
mainly provided by bending of the bridge piers, which are designed to respond inelastically;
and, if the abutments provide some restraint to transverse displacements, superstructure
bending will also develop. In normal seismic design practice the bridge deck is required to
remain elastic under the design level earthquake. As a consequence the seismic inertia forces
10
developed in the deck are taken by two different load paths, one portion is transmitted to the
piers foundations by column inelastic bending and the remainder transmitted to the abutments
by superstructure elastic bending. The portion of load carried by each of the two different load
paths is unknown at the start of the design process and depends strongly on the relative
effective-column and deck stiffnesses as well as on the degree of lateral restrain provided by
the abutments. Since column stiffnesses are also unknown at the start of the design process,
an iterative procedure is required.
The design procedure presented here considers the discretization of the deck mass as lumped
masses at the top of the piers and at the abutments. A portion of the column masses and the
cap beam masses can also be lumped at the top, following the recommendations given in
[Priestley, et al., 1996].
The Direct Displacement-Based Design procedure for multi-degree-of-freedom bridge

structures can be summarized in the following basic steps:
1. Determination of the design displaced shape.
2. Characterization and evaluation of the equivalent SDOF system.
3. Application of the displacement-based design approach to the SDOF system.
4. Determination of column required strengths and design.
3.2.1 Design Displaced Shape
A bridge structure composed by several columns connected to a superstructure of defined

flexibility will deform in a manner that is influenced by variations in strength, stiffness and
mass distribution. The transverse displaced shape will depend strongly on the relative column
stiffness, and more considerably, on the degree of lateral restrain provided at the abutments.
Figure 3.2 depicts two different bridge configurations and the possible transverse displaced
shapes indicated for the different abutment conditions.
11
(a) Uniform Height Piers (b) Irregular Height Piers
Figure 3. 2 - Possible transverse displacement shapes for continuous bridges
Some flexibility will normally be considered at the abutments; hence the actual displaced
shape will be in between the fully restrained and free profiles. Since the displaced shape
depends on the relative effective stiffness of the piers, which are unknown at start of the
design, some iteration may be required to determine the relative displacements between the
abutments and the critical pier.
Generally a parabolic displaced shape between abutments and piers can be initially assumed
for design purposes. In this work, as in the Alvarez Botero study [Alvarez Botero, 2004], the
deck-only elastic first-mode shape has been used as a first approximation to the bridge
displacement profile. Deck first-mode deformed shape can be obtained either by solving the
eigen-problem for the deck or by using an approximate first mode shape function as the one
shown in Equation (3.1) based on a half-sine wave loading shape [Alfawakhiri et al., 2000].
φ1 ( x ) =
(
sin π x
L )+π B
3
(3.1)
1+ π 3B
Where:
EI
B= (3.2)
K A L3
In Equation (3.2), E is the deck elastic modulus, I is the deck transverse moment of inertia, KA
is the elastic abutment stiffness, and L is the total bridge length.
12
Figure 3. 3 – Uniform beam simply supported on elastic springs
Evaluation of the limiting displacements for each of the piers is also required in order to
determine the target displacement pattern. The limiting displacements for the piers are
function of the performance level under consideration. The final displacement pattern is likely
to consist of only one or two of the piers reaching the limiting displacement. However,
determination of the limiting displacements for all them is required in order to identify the
critical column. Normally the shortest column governs the selection of the displacement
pattern. For the purposes of this work, pier limiting displacements are based on a specified
drift limit rather than on material strain limits, which can also be used.
Once the critical member has been identified, the displaced shape is scaled in such a way that
the critical member reaches its limiting displacement using Equation (2.8). It is important to
bear in mind that the critical member can change if the assumed displaced shape is not close
enough to the actual fundamental inelastic mode of vibration for the given seismic intensity.
3.2.2 The Equivalent SDOF System
The required properties to characterize the MDOF system as an equivalent SDOF system are:
the system design displacement, ∆sys, the system equivalent damping, ξsys, and the system
effective mass, Meff.
3.2.2.1 System Design Displacement
Having the target displacement pattern the system design displacement is readily obtained
using Equation (2.9).
3.2.2.2 Equivalent System Damping
The equivalent system damping can be obtained from a combination of the energy dissipated
by the different mechanisms activated during the structure response to seismic excitation.
Some approaches, [Kowalsky, 2002], suggest to make a weighted average of the damping
13
based on the work done by the members at each degree of freedom. Another way that has
been used to weight the member damping is based on the proportion of load taken by each of
the piers and the abutments, as expressed in Equation (3.3), which gives a reasonable estimate
of the actual system damping in a preliminary design.
ξ sys = ∑
(Viξi )
(3.3)
∑Vi
However, the previous forms of calculating the system damping do not consider the
contribution of the energy dissipated through elastic deck bending; besides, if high
proportions of the load are transmitted to the abutments, their contribution to the system
damping is over estimated. Energy dissipation at the abutments is activated if they displace,
however, it is localized and should not have a large influence on the overall system damping,
especially for relatively large bridges.
Given the above reasons, it is suggested to calculate the system damping using Equation (3.4),
which explicitly considers the contribution from the elastic deck beam-action, the abutment
displacements and inelastic pier behaviour.
⎡⎣(VA1 − FA1 ) + (VA2 − FA 2 ) ⎤⎦ ⋅ ξ Deck + ( FA1 + FA2 ) ⋅ ξ A + ∑ Viξi

ξ sys = piers
(3.4)
∑V n
i
Where FA1 and FA2 are the seismic forces applied to the degrees of freedom associated to the
abutments, and are calculated using Equation (3.5) and (3.6); VA1 and VA2 represents the
proportion of the lateral force that is taken by each abutment, while Vi represent the shear
force at the degree of freedom i.
mA1∆ A1
FA1 = VB (3.5)
∑ ( mi ∆i )
n
mA 2 ∆ A 2
FA 2 = VB (3.6)
∑ ( mi ∆i )
n
Where VB is the total lateral design force, obtained using Equation (2.7), mA1 and mA2 are the
masses associated to each abutment degree of freedom and ∆A1 and ∆A2 are the displacement of
each abutment.
The equivalent viscous damping for the individual column members, ξi, is obtained from the
relationship between displacement ductility and damping, developed for the Modified Takeda
hysteretic rule using the Equation (2.2) [Grant et al., 2005] which is reproduced forward in
the Equation (3.7) when the period dependency is considered. As was said previously, this
generates an iterative process. For a detailed process see Grant et al., 2005.
14
⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
⎟ ⎜1 + ⎟
φ 1 1
ξi = ξe + ξ hyst = µ ∆i ξ el + a ⎜1 − b (3.7)
⎜ µ∆ ⎟ ⎜⎜
( ) ⎟⎟
d
⎝ ⎠⎝ Teqi + c
i
⎠
Where the values of a, b, c, d and φ were previously defined in Chapter 2.
ξi can also be obtained with in the simplified Equation (2.5) reproduced forward as Equation
(3.8) [Priestley et al., 2006], when the structure actual period is greater than 1.0 second.
⎛ µ ∆i − 1 ⎞
ξi = 0.05 + 0.444 ⎜ ⎟ (3.8)
⎜ µ∆ π ⎟
⎝ i ⎠
Values of column displacement ductility, µ∆, are obtained by dividing the displacements from
the target displacement pattern by the respective yield displacements.
At this point it important to note that in previous work developed by Alvarez Botero [Alvarez
Botero, 2004], Equation (3.9) proposed by Kowalsky [Kowalsky, 2002] was used to compute
the equivalent viscous damping.
1 − ⎡(1 − r ) µ∆ ⎦⎤ − r µ∆
ξi = 0.05 + ⎣
i i
(3.9)
π
Where r is the ratio of post-elastic stiffness to the elastic stiffness, normally between 0.03 and
0.05 for concrete members. A value of r = 0.03 was used in the work done by Alvarez Botero,
and will be used herein when defining the Time History Analysis post-yielding parameters.
In Figure 3.4 the Equations (3.7), (3.8) and (3.9) are plotted. It can be seen that using
Equation (3.9) results in greater equivalent damping values than using Equations (3.7) and
(3.8) for equivalent periods greater than 0.5 seconds. Therefore in the results of the present
work, generally when any configuration bridge studied in Alvarez Botero dissertation is
analyzed, for a given ductility displacement, lesser equivalent damping values will be
obtained resulting at the end of the process in bigger values of base shear, VB, and
corresponding flexural strengths in piers.
15
0.30
Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 0.25 s

0.25

ξ eq - Equivalent Damping
0.20
0.15 Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 2.0 s

0.10

0.05
Eq. (3.8) - Priestley Simplified
Eq. (3.9) - Alvarez Botero, 2004

0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
µ - Displacement Ductility
Figure 3. 4 – Equivalent damping for deferent Takeda Thin degrading-stiffness models
3.2.2.3 Pier Yield Displacement
The yield displacement, ∆y, for a cantilever pier is given by Equation (3.10), where φy is the
yield curvature and He is the effective pier height, that considers yield penetration, [Priestley
et al., 1996], and can be estimated using Equation (3.11).
H e2
∆ y = φy (3.10)
3
H e = H + Lsp (3.11)
In Equation (3.11) Lsp is the strain penetration length and is given by Equation (3.12), where fy
is the longitudinal bar yield stress and dbl is the longitudinal reinforcement bar diameter.
Lsp = 0.022 f y d bl (3.12)
The yield curvature for circular columns, φy, can be estimated using Equation (3.13),
[Priestley, 2003], where εy is the longitudinal bar yield strain, and D is the column diameter.
2.25ε y
φy = (3.13)
D
16
3.2.2.4 Forces taken by Piers and Abutments
Note that at this stage of the design, the forces taken by each pier and by the abutments are
unknown. However, the actual values of the forces are not required and only the relative
proportion is needed in order to weight the damping contributions. An initial assumption of
the proportion of the total seismic force carried by superstructure bending, SS, and transmitted
to the abutments, has to be made, and the remaining distributed among the piers.
Seismic Force Carried by Pier Bending
Since the relative strength of the piers is a design choice, a practical alternative would be to
provide the same longitudinal steel ratio and column diameter and hence the same flexural
strength to all the piers. This selection introduces a convenient simplification for the
calculation of the column design forces. By doing so, it is found that, if all piers achieve a
displacement ductility of at least one, the lateral force resisted by a column is approximately
inversely proportional to the pier height, H.
1
F∝ (3.14)
H
That is, if FC(%) is the proportion of the total seismic force carried by pier bending, the
proportion resisted by a column is given by Equation (3.15), where SDF is the shear
distribution factor and is calculated using Equation (3.16).
Vi ( % ) = SDFi ⋅ FC ( % ) (3.15)
1
Hi
SDFi = (3.16)
∑ 1
Hi
For the case in which some of the piers remain elastic, i.e. have a displacement ductility
demand less than one, the secant stiffness at maximum response is the secant stiffness at yield
displacement, that is, the cracked stiffness, and Equation (3.16) must be modified. In such a
case, the pier force is proportional to the fraction of the yield displacement over the column
height for the elastic columns, as shown in Equation (3.17).
µ∆
F∝ (3.17)
H
Where µ∆ < 1.
17
Seismic Force Carried by the Abutments
For Regular Bridges, in which the torsional modes do not participate in the seismic response,
each abutment will take half of the seismic force carried by superstructure bending, SS. In the
case of Irregular Bridges, the seismic force taken by each abutment can be computed using
Equations (3.14) and (3.15) based in the displacements of each abutment. As the initial
displacement assumption is based in the first deck mode shape, clearly the shear distribution
factor, SDF will be equal for both abutments at the initial stage, but along the iteration process
will be changed according to each updated displacement pattern.
∆ A1
SDFA1 = SS (3.18)
∆ A1 + ∆ A 2
∆ A2
SDFA 2 = SS (3.19)
∆ A1 + ∆ A 2
3.2.2.5 Effective System Mass:
The effective system mass Meff is defined as the mass participating in the fundamental
inelastic mode of vibration under the design earthquake level, and can be obtained using
Equation (2.10), which is rewritten below as Equation (3.20).
M eff =
∑(m ∆ )i i
(3.20)
∆d
3.2.3 Equivalent SDOF Design
Having characterized the equivalent SDOF system the effective period of the Substitute
Structure is obtained by entering the displacement spectrum, for the appropriate level of
damping, with the system design displacement (See Figure 3.5). The elastic displacement
spectrum for the required level of damping can be obtained from the 5% damping spectrum
for normal accelerograms measured at least 10 km from the fault rupture, using Equation
(3.21), from EC8, where ∆T,5 is the response displacement for 5% damping. Figure 3.5 shows
a displacement response spectra set from the Caltrans, Seismic Design Criteria, soil profile C,
magnitude 8.0±0.25, 0.7g PGA [Caltrans, 2001] reduced for different levels of damping using
Equation (3.21).
0.5
⎛ 10 ⎞
∆T ,ξ = ∆T ,5 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (3.21)
⎝ 5+ξ ⎠
18
1.1
5%
Spectral Displacement [m]
1.0
0.9
0.8 10%
0.7 15%
20%
0.6
30%
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period [s]
Figure 3. 5 – Caltrans displacement ARS curves. Soil C, M = 8.0±0.25 and 0.7g PGA, for different levels of
damping
The effective stiffness at maximum response is then obtained using Equation (3.22), and the
SDOF base shear force using Equation (3.23).
4π 2 M eff
K eff = (3.22)
Teff2
VB = K eff ∆ d (3.23)
3.2.4 Required Columns Strength
The total lateral seismic force must be now distributed to the discretized masses by means of
Equation (2.11), rewritten below as Equation (3.24), and analysis carried out.
Fi = VB
( mi ∆i ) (3.24)
∑ ( mi ∆i )
In order to be compatible with the Substitute Structure concept, member stiffness should be
representative of effective secant stiffness, and can be evaluated from the target displacements
pattern and the shear forces carried by each pier as:
Vi
K si = (3.25)
∆i
19
The shear forces at each degree of freedom can be obtained using Equation (3.26), where SDF
refers to the shear distribution factors from Equation (3.16), (3.18) and (3.19).
Vi = SDFi ⋅ Vi (3.26)
An elastic analysis of the equivalent elastic system must now be carried out under the vector
of distributed seismic forces Fi, and using the member effective stiffnesses, Ksi, from Equation
(3.25). Refer to Figure 3.6, which shows the simplified model that requires to be analyzed for
the case of a four span bridge.
Figure 3. 6 – Model of the equivalent elastic system under transverse response
From the equivalent elastic analysis a revised displaced shape of the bridge is obtained as well
as a revised proportion of load carried by superstructure bending. Iteration may be required if
the revised displaced shape is not close enough to the initial assumption. Using the updated
displaced shape and percentage of load carried by superstructure bending, SS, obtained
summing the reactions at the abutments and then dividing it by the base shear force, VB, the
process is repeated until convergence of the displacements pattern is reached. Convergence is
normally obtained with little iteration, and the final flexural strength to be provided to the
individual columns is calculated from the final values of the vector of shear forces carried by
each pier, Vi.
20
3.2.5 Additional notes
The iterative procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.7; it can be easily implemented in Matlab,
Math-Cad, Excel or any other programming software. Note that the convergence criterion is
based on the displacement pattern; therefore a good initial assumption will reduce the required
number of iterations.
Application of the procedure using hand calculations is also likely to be done. Good initial
approximations to the displaced shape can be achieved using the simply supported beam
model depicted in Figure 3.3, and Equation (3.1).
The method requires initial assumptions for the displaced shape and the proportion of load
carried by superstructure bending. As pointed out before, a parabolic shape can generally be
assumed. Initial displaced shape can be based on the deck first-mode displaced shape and an
initial approximation to the proportion of load carried by superstructure bending, SS, can be
obtained by applying the vector of displacements to the beam model shown in Figure 3.3.
21
Figure 3. 7 – Flowchart for Direct Displacement-Based Design of MDOF-bridges.
22
3.3 APPLICATION TO DIFFERENT BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS
The Direct Displacement-Based Design approach, as presented in Section 3.2 and

summarized in Figure 3.7 was implemented in a Matlab subroutine and applied to eighteen
different series of bridge structures, which are shown in Figures 3.9 to 3.11.
Figure 3.9 shows the six Regular Bridges (4-span and 6-span) studied in Alvarez Botero
dissertation [Alvarez Botero, 2004], which are re-computed herein with the new damping
equation (3.7) [Grant et al., 2005]. Figures 3.10 and 3.11 shows twelve different series of
Irregular Bridge structures studied in the present dissertation.
Single column bents support the superstructure of the bridges. Pier heights were varied for
each series, making H = {7.5 m; 10.0 m; 12.5 m and 15.0 m}, resulting in 72 different bridge
designs. A single design limit state was considered and is represented by an arbitrarily chosen
drift limit of 4%.
3.3.1 Bridge Information and Assumptions
3.3.1.1 Materials:
Concrete and reinforcing steel properties used for design purposes are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 - Material Properties for Design.
3.3.1.2 Abutments:
Abutments are usually designed and detailed for service loads and are checked for seismic
performance. Normally, equivalent linear springs are used in structural models to simulate the
restrains of the superstructure provided by the abutments. The selection of equivalent springs
must reflect the dynamic behaviour of the soil behind the abutment, the structural components
of the abutment and their interaction with the soil. Substantial nonlinear behaviour can be
23
expected as some of the elements constituting the abutments may be subjected to significant
yielding, [Maroney and Chai, 1994]. However, for all the cases that have been included in this
work, the assumption of abutments responding elastically has been made. Nonlinear
characterization of the abutments can be obtained from a pushover analysis and the results
incorporated to the design procedure without significant difficulties. Abutment stiffness was
then chosen to be KA = 75000 kN/m and an arbitrary value of 8% damping was associated to
their response. A limiting displacement of 100 mm is also specified for the abutments as an
additional design restriction.
3.3.1.3 Bridge Deck:
Current design practice intends to avoid inelastic action in the bridge deck; therefore it is
considered to respond elastically. The superstructure engages the substructure elements in the
transverse direction with shear keys and inelastic action is intended to concentrate at the
bottom of the piers. Representative dimensions of a two-lane bridge deck are used. A typical
transverse section of the bridges is depicted in Figure 3.8, the deck transverse-moment of
inertia is Iyy = 44 m4 and its torsional stiffness has been ignored. The distributed weight of the
bridge deck, including asphalt, is taken as Wdeck = 175 kN/m.
Figure 3. 8 – Bridge Typical Transverse Section
24
Figure 3. 9 – Series of 4-span and 6-span Regular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)
25
Figure 3. 10 – Series of 4-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)
26
Figure 3. 11 – Series of 6-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)
27
3.3.1.4 Piers and Cap Beam:
Single circular-column bents constitute the substructure of the bridges under consideration.
The superstructure is simply supported on cap beams at the top of the piers and under
transverse excitation the columns are engaged by means of shear keys, refer to Figure 3.8. As
repeatedly stated before, the inelastic action is intended to be restricted to carefully-detailed
plastic hinge regions at the bottom of the piers, and it is assumed that sufficient closely spaced
transverse reinforcement is provided to achieve a satisfactory performance.
Pier diameters of 2.0 m to 2.7 m were initially assumed based on typical bridge dimensions,
and adjusted, if required, based on the design results. Pier masses were consider in all cases,
lumping one third of the calculated mass at the top, according to Priestley, et al., 1996. Cap-
beam masses were also included, and were calculated based on the assigned dimensions for
each specific case; typical cap-beam dimensions are shown in Figure 3.8, and depth is taken
as D + 0.5 m, where D is the column diameter. Concrete unit weight is assumed to be
Wc = 25 kN/m3.
3.3.2 Seismic Input

The design seismic input is represented by the 5% damped displacement response spectrum,
ARS curve, from the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria for soil profile C, magnitude 8.0±0.25,
0.7g PGA [Caltrans, 2001], reduced for the appropriate level of damping, according to
Equation (3.21).
The Caltrans displacement spectra have been cut off at a period of 4 seconds, however, since
the effective period (period at maximum response) can be, for some of the cases, above 4
seconds, the design spectrum has been extended up to 5 seconds as shown in Figure 3.12.
1.2
5%
Spectral Displacement [m]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period [s]
Figure 3. 12 – Extended Caltrans displacement ARS curve for soil profile C, M = 8.0±0.25 and 0.7g PGA.
28
3.3.3 Design Results

Results obtained after applying the Direct Displacement-Based Design procedure, to the
series of bridges in Figures 3.9 to 3.11, are presented in this section. They are reported in a
series of figures and tables, showing the final design displaced shapes, the yielding and
limiting displacements for the piers, the displacement ductility demands, the required ultimate
strength and values of effective stiffness and the parameters of the substitute SDOF structure.
The critical member, for each of the cases, is identified from the design displacement pattern
plots, as the member that reaches the limiting displacement.
Pier diameter was initially estimated based on common bridge dimensions and modified,
according to preliminary design results, to obtain sections that can provide the required
strengths with reinforcement ratios between the limits, 0.5% to 4.0%, recommended in
Priestley, et al., 1996, for circular piers. Columns of 2.0 m, 2.2 m, 2.5 m or 2.7 m were
specified. Figure 3.13 shows the interaction diagrams obtained for all the used pier diameters
using the minimum and maximum reinforcement ratios. Note that the aim is that all the piers
will have reinforcement ratios between the limits. However, for few cases reinforcement
ratios well up the maximum limit will be obtained and in some others reinforcement ratios
below the minimum limit would be enough to provide the required strength. For these cases
the minimum or maximum steel content criterion was ignored and the required flexural
strength, as coming from the design process, used in the time-history analyses.
Figure 3. 13 – Interaction Diagrams for piers.
29
3.3.3.1 Series of Regular Bridges
As was previously said, the first six Series are the 4-span and 6-span bridges studied by
Alvarez Botero in his dissertation [Alvarez Botero, 2004]. Here are being re-named as Series
1, 2 and 3 those characterized for have 4-span, and Series 4, 5 and 6 those having 6-span.
The main difference in the SDOF results, shown in Table 3.2, compared with the previous
ones [Alvarez Botero, 2004], is the reductions of the equivalent system damping, ξsys, due to
the application of the new damping equation (3.7). This leads to an increased SDOF base
shear demand, VB, and consequently, in the MDOF system, leads to an increment in the piers
strength to achieve the target displacement requirements of the direct displacement-based
design method.
Bridges results of Series 1 to 6 are presented in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.14 to 3.19.
30
Table 3.2 Substitute SDOF parameters for bridges of Series 1 to 6.
H ξsys ∆d Meff Teff Keff VB SS

[m] [%] [m] [ton] [s] [kN/m] [kN] [%]
Series 1
7.5 14.5 0.24 2704 1.06 95267 22550 13.9
10.0 13.3 0.32 2823 1.37 59756 18990 24.7
12.5 11.4 0.40 2864 1.63 42670 17003 35.9
15.0 9.8 0.48 2900 1.87 32730 15681 47.7
Series 2
7.5 13.0 0.37 2727 1.57 43517 16048 30.2
10.0 10.2 0.48 2777 1.92 29753 14402 49.2
12.5 7.9 0.60 2815 2.23 22434 13475 68.4
15.0 5.9 0.72 2848 2.52 17708 12710 89.0
Series 3
7.5 11.5 0.24 2953 1.01 114819 27761 19.5
10.0 9.7 0.32 2978 1.23 78302 25148 25.5
12.5 9.1 0.40 3021 1.51 52191 20941 36.7
15.0 8.4 0.48 3062 1.78 38042 18282 48.3
Series 4
7.5 11.9 0.23 3085 0.99 124482 29101 -16.9
10.0 11.1 0.31 3535 1.23 92614 28454 -16.3
12.5 12.4 0.39 4109 1.62 61924 23877 -7.2
15.0 12.1 0.47 4307 1.97 43882 20495 -2.0
Series 5
7.5 14.2 0.45 3937 1.99 39353 17523 -12.7
10.0 14.0 0.58 4196 2.72 22379 12870 0.8
12.5 11.8 0.71 4316 3.41 14626 10411 14.8
15.0 9.7 0.85 4396 4.07 10464 8900 30.1
Series 6
7.5 12.7 0.24 4467 1.04 163251 39649 2.5
10.0 11.7 0.33 4647 1.34 102338 33350 7.4
12.5 11.1 0.41 4805 1.64 70497 28559 10.8
15.0 10.9 0.48 4858 1.96 49889 24046 15.0
31
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 7.50 7.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 875 965 875 357 0.6

µD - 3.57 5.59 3.57 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.35 17.29 15.35 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1571 6470 6471 6470 1571 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 48526 48529 48526 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 33737 21564 33737 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 10.00 10.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 908 997 908 357 0.6
µD - 3.53 5.39 3.53 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.29 17.15 15.29 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2349 4767 4768 4767 2349 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 47672 47679 47672 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 18156 11910 18156 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 12.50 12.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 918 1007 918 357 0.6
µD - 2.91 4.38 2.91 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.22 16.31 14.22 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3054 3633 3633 3633 3054 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 45413 45414 45413 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 10954 7264 10954 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 15.00 15.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 1018 928 357 0.6
µD - 2.46 3.69 2.46 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 13.20 15.51 13.20 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3745 2732 2732 2732 3745 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 40976 40977 40976 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 6820 4550 6820 75000
Displacement Pattern Limit Limit Yield
Figure 3. 14 – Design results for bridges of Series 1.
32
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 15.00 7.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 875 985 875 357 0.6

µD - 5.59 2.29 5.59 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 17.29 12.70 17.29 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2421 4482 2241 4482 2421 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 33612 33611 33612 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 14942 4823 14942 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 20.00 10.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 882 998 882 357 0.6
µD - 4.31 1.70 4.31 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 16.23 10.44 16.23 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3541 2929 1465 2929 3541 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 29290 29290 29290 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 7320 2414 7320 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 12.50 25.00 12.50 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 889 1011 889 357 0.6
µD - 3.51 1.36 3.51 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.25 8.38 15.25 8.00 0.2

0.0
V [kN] 4611 1702 851 1702 4611
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 21278 21279 21278 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 3403 1135 3403 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 15.00 30.00 15.00 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 895 1025 895 357 0.6
µD - 2.95 1.13 2.95 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.32 6.44 14.32 8.00 0.2

0.0
V [kN] 5657 557 279 557 5657
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 8361 8361 8361 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 930 312 930 75000
33
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 7.50 15.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 986 928 357 0.6

µD - 1.30 6.99 1.30 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 7.94 18.05 7.94 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2699 5589 11178 5589 2699 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 83839 83832 83839 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 26450 37271 26450 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 20.00 10.00 20.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 949 997 949 357 0.6
µD - 0.97 5.39 0.97 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 17.15 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3209 4621 9481 4621 3209 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 92416 94811 92416 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 16648 23713 16648 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 12.50 25.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 970 1007 970 357 0.6
µD - 0.78 4.38 0.78 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 16.31 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3842 2913 7427 2913 3842 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 72830 92840 72830 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 8415 14857 8415 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 15.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 991 1018 991 357 0.6
µD - 0.65 3.69 0.65 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 15.51 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 4413 1869 5717 1869 4413 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 56060 85755 56060 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4524 9531 4524 75000
34
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 884 973 973 973 884 357 0.4
µD - 0.73 4.10 6.15 4.10 0.73 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 16.01 17.63 16.01 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -2460 5575 7624 7625 7624 5575 -2460 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 41813 57180 57185 57180 41813 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 156289 38074 25411 38074 156289 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 - 1.0

0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 908 997 997 997 908 357 0.4
µD - 1.04 3.85 5.39 3.85 1.04 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.44 15.71 17.15 15.71 5.44 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] -2312 6614 6617 6618 6617 6614 -2312 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 66138 66170 66175 66170 66138 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 85920 23152 16538 23152 85920 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 918 1007 1007 1007 918 357
0.4
µD - 1.42 3.44 4.38 3.44 1.42 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 8.82 15.16 16.31 15.16 8.82 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -856 5118 5118 5118 5118 5118 -856 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 63969 63975 63976 63975 63969 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 31535 13030 10235 13030 31535 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 928 1018 1018 1018 928 357
0.4
µD - 1.37 2.99 3.69 2.99 1.37 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 8.46 14.39 15.51 14.39 8.46 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -204 4181 4181 4181 4181 4181 -204 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 62711 62712 62712 62712 62711 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 18770 8599 6968 8599 18770 75000
35
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m]
Displacements [m]
- 7.50 11.25 15.00 11.25 7.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 875 975 985 975 875 357 0.4
µD - 3.39 3.87 2.84 3.87 3.39 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 15.07 15.73 14.09 15.73 15.07 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -1116 5153 3436 2577 3436 5153 -1116
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 38650 38652 38653 38652 38650 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 28340 7634 4465 7634 28340 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 10.00 15.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 882 985 998 985 882 357 0.6
µD - 3.05 2.95 2.06 2.95 3.05 - 0.4

0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 14.49 14.32 11.96 14.32 14.49 8.00
0.0
V [kN] 49 3332 2221 1666 2221 3332 49 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 33317 33317 33317 33317 33317 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 11787 3702 2269 3702 11787 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 18.75 25.00 18.75 12.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 889 995 1011 995 889 357 0.6
µD - 2.61 2.39 1.63 2.39 2.61 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 13.57 13.00 10.09 13.00 13.57 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 769 2315 1543 1158 1543 2315 769 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 28938 28939 28939 28939 28938 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 6219 2058 1284 2058 6219 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 22.50 30.00 22.50 15.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 895 1005 1025 1005 895 357 0.6
µD - 2.25 2.01 1.36 2.01 2.25 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 12.60 11.75 8.36 11.75 12.60 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1343 1622 1081 811 1081 1622 1343 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 24329 24330 24331 24330 24329 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 3539 1201 756 1201 3539 75000
36
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 15.00 11.25 7.50 11.25 15.00 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 1002 986 1002 928 357 0.6
µD - 0.85 2.83 6.99 2.83 0.85 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 14.07 18.05 14.07 5.00 8.00 0.2

0.0
V [kN] 492 5148 8105 12157 8105 5148 492 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 77224 91183 91180 91183 77224 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 37409 30719 40526 30719 37409 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 20.00 15.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 949 1018 997 1018 949 357 0.6
µD - 0.70 2.19 5.39 2.19 0.70 - 0.4

0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 12.40 17.15 12.40 5.00 8.00
0.0
V [kN] 1237 3565 6783 10174 6783 3565 1237 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 71306 101749 101740 101749 71306 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 17861 19049 25441 19049 17861 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 18.75 12.50 18.75 25.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 992 1050 1020 1050 992 357 0.6
µD - 0.61 1.90 4.73 1.90 0.61 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 11.34 16.63 11.34 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1544 2631 5772 8657 5772 2631 1544 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 65781 108216 108206 108216 65781 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 10596 13056 17321 13056 10596 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 20.00 15.00 20.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 1016 1056 1032 1056 1016 357 0.6
µD - 0.50 1.99 3.99 1.99 0.50 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 11.69 15.88 11.69 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1807 1707 5104 6806 5104 1707 1807 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 51208 102089 102089 102089 51208 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 5816 9733 11346 9733 5816 75000
37
Irregular Bridges
Series 7, 8 and 9 are characterized for being irregular bridge with one small lateral pier. The
tree series behave very similar. They are very flexible structures with long effective periods.
Pier diameters are the smallest ones used in the present work, either 2.0 m or 2.2 m. The
deformed shapes are symmetric parabolic. High superstructure, SS, participation is observed,
increasing until 90% for the higher piers heights. Energy dissipation is significant for the
shortest pier heights, around 12%, but decreases for the higher heights cases, being about 6%.
Local energy dissipation is concentrated in the small column for which high ductilities
demand are required.
Series 10, 11 and 12 are characterized for being irregular bridge with one small central pier.
The tree series behave very similar. They are very stiff structures with short effective periods.
Pier diameters are bigger than in the previous series, being generally of 2.5 m. The deformed
shapes are generally symmetric parabolic. The superstructure, SS, participation is not as huge
as was observed in the previous series, being just between 20% and 50%. Energy dissipation
is significant for the all the pier heights, around 10% to 12%. Local energy dissipation is
almost fully concentrated in the central small column for which high ductilities demand are
required.
Series 13 to 18 are 6-span bridges with different degree of irregularities. They are flexible or
stiff structures depending basically of the critical short pier location. When the short pier is
located in the center of the bridge, very stiff structures are obtained, and when are located
near the abutments, flexible structures instead are achieved. Pier diameters are generally of
2.5 m, and in some few cases are of 2.7 m. In this series the inelastic pier action is the ruling
seismic load path and the superstructure, SS, participation vary depending of the bridge
configuration from negative values (-20% in series 15), were the seismic load taken by all
piers is bigger than the structure base shear, VB, until inter-medium values (30% in series 14).
Equivalent system damping is generally significant for the all the series, around 10% to 12%,
and local energy dissipation is almost fully concentrated in the short piers for which high
ductilities demand are required.
3.3.3.2 Series 7: SMM
For bridges of Series 7 results are presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.20. The short column is
the critical member for all the cases. This series is characterized for being flexible structures
with effective periods ranging from 1.64 seconds to 2.51 seconds. Energy dissipation in each
case is concentrated in the small pier and is low in the longer piers, which behave practically
elastic for the higher height case (H = 15.0 m). In the same way, higher pier strengths are
required for the smaller heights cases, where higher ductilities demands are presented. As the
height increase the superstructure, SS, participation also does, ranging from 34.8% to 87.8%.
Note that this means that for the higher heights the elastic path will rule the structure
behaviour, and explains the low pier strengths for the higher heights. The deformed shape for
38
the smaller heights are parabolic but slightly irregular, instead for the higher heights seems to
behave symmetric, due to the ruling behaviour of the SS load path.

[m] [%] [m] [ton] [s] [kN/m] [kN] [%]
Series 7: SMM
7.5 11.7 0.40 2787 1.64 40711 16249 34.8
10.0 9.2 0.51 2846 1.94 29944 15115 50.1
12.5 7.3 0.61 2895 2.22 23220 14248 66.8
15.0 5.7 0.72 2888 2.51 18069 13059 87.8
Series 8: SML
7.5 10.9 0.42 2773 1.67 39157 16271 37.5
10.0 9.0 0.52 2836 1.97 28715 14892 53.8
12.5 7.3 0.62 2885 2.25 22454 13968 70.4
15.0 5.8 0.73 2928 2.53 18018 13069 88.7
Series 9: SLL
7.5 10.4 0.43 2813 1.69 38715 16495 34.9
10.0 8.8 0.53 2898 2.01 28404 15055 51.6
12.5 7.3 0.63 2908 2.30 21697 13704 70.2
15.0 5.9 0.73 2962 2.58 17629 12895 89.0
Series 10: SSM
7.5 12.4 0.25 2656 1.06 92828 23384 16.9
10.0 11.7 0.32 2859 1.32 64532 20811 25.2
12.5 10.4 0.40 2921 1.58 46060 18475 35.8
15.0 9.2 0.48 2969 1.84 34724 16681 47.5
Series 11: SSL
7.5 11.7 0.27 2609 1.10 85035 22878 19.5
10.0 12.0 0.33 2868 1.37 60321 19958 28.8
12.5 10.8 0.41 2966 1.62 44663 18092 38.6
15.0 9.5 0.48 3032 1.86 34530 16643 49.2
Series 12: MSL
7.5 10.9 0.26 2914 1.03 107875 27478 22.9
10.0 10.3 0.33 3029 1.28 72595 23772 30.9
12.5 9.6 0.40 3086 1.55 50740 20500 40.5
15.0 8.7 0.48 3134 1.81 37750 18181 51.0
39
3.3.3.3 Series 8: SML
For bridges of Series 8 results are presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.21. As in the previous
series, the short column is the critical member for all the cases and this series is characterized
for being flexible structures with effective periods ranging from 1.67 seconds to 2.53 seconds.
Energy dissipation in each case is mainly concentrated in the small pier, is low in the middle
pier and does not exist in the longer pier, which behave elastic. In the same way, higher pier
strengths are required for the smaller heights cases, where higher ductilities demands are
presented. As the height increase the superstructure, SS, participation also does, ranging from
37.5% to 88.7%, this means that for the higher heights the elastic path will rule the structure
behaviour, and explains the low pier strengths for the higher heights. Lower values of system
damping are then obtained for higher heights cases; a consequence of a smaller contribution
from the hysteretic energy dissipation component. The deformed shape for all heights is
parabolic symmetric, being the shortest height the only shape slightly irregular.
3.3.3.4 Series 9: SLL
For bridges of Series 9 results are presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.22. As was previously
said, the first tree series behave very similar, so as in the previous series, the short column is
the critical member for all the cases and this series is also characterized for being flexible
structures with effective periods ranging from 1.69 seconds to 2.58 seconds. Energy
dissipation in each case is fully concentrated in the small pier, and almost do not exist in the
two longer piers, which behave elastic. Higher pier strengths are required for the smaller
heights cases (H = 7.5 m and H = 10.0 m), where higher ductilities demands are presented in
the short pier. As the height increase the superstructure, SS, participation also does, ranging
from 34.9% to 89.0%, meaning that for the higher heights the elastic path rule the structure
behaviour, and explains the low pier strengths for the higher heights. Lower values of system
damping are then obtained for higher heights cases; a consequence of a smaller contribution
from the hysteretic energy dissipation component. The deformed shape for all heights is
parabolic symmetric, being the shortest height the only shape slightly irregular.
Note that for the last case (H =15 m) of series 7, 8 and 9 almost 90% of the total seismic force
is resisted by the abutments only, resulting in low strength requirements for the piers. Such a
low strength requirement can be supplied with a reinforcement ratio well below the minimum
desirable limit of 0.5%, [Priestley et al., 1996]; hence, this are some of those cases in which
the column design could be governed by gravity considerations only. Note however, that
since in some cases inelastic action is still expected to take place at the bottom of the piers;
adequate transverse reinforcement and detailing are required in order to sustain the expected
displacement ductility demands. Since the purpose of this work is to verify the design
procedure in terms of reaching the target displacements, the required strength that came out
from the direct displacement-based design will be the base when conducting the inelastic
time-history analyses, ignoring the minimum reinforcement ratio limit.
40
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 15.00 15.00 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 884 997 908 357 0.6
µD - 6.15 2.71 1.92 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 17.63 13.80 11.41 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1787 5299 2649 2649 3866 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 39741 39739 39738 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 17659 5299 7474 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 20.00 20.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 892 1013 924 357 0.6
µD - 4.74 1.95 1.35 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 16.64 11.54 8.31 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3087 3771 1885 1885 4483 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 37712 37708 37706 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 9431 2987 4315 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 25.00 25.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 900 1029 940 357 0.6
µD - 3.86 1.53 1.04 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.72 9.49 5.52 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 4317 2368 1184 1184 5197 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 29600 29600 29601 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4734 1545 2260 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 30.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 895 1025 935 357 0.6
µD - 2.95 1.14 0.77 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.32 6.54 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 5525 842 421 326 5944 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 12628 12628 9772 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 1404 467 533 75000
Figure 3. 20 – Design results for bridges of Series 7: SMM.
41
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 15.00 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 875 985 915 357 0.6
µD - 5.59 2.55 0.85 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 17.29 13.42 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1468 5698 2849 1622 4636 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 42732 42735 36500 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 18989 5499 4233 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 20.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 882 998 935 357 0.6
µD - 4.31 1.82 0.59 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 16.23 10.98 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2814 4057 2028 793 5199 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 40567 40564 23799 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 10142 3133 1712 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 25.00 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 889 1011 955 357 0.6
µD - 3.51 1.41 0.44 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.25 8.72 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 4139 2508 1254 369 5701 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 31347 31348 13841 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 5013 1613 681 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 30.00 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 895 1025 975 357 0.6
µD - 2.95 1.15 0.35 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.32 6.59 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 5450 911 456 107 6144 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 13672 13672 4805 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 1520 504 173 75000
Figure 3. 21 – Design results for bridges of Series 8: SML.
42
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 22.50 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 884 1021 932 357 0.6

µD - 6.15 1.30 0.96 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 17.63 7.94 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1161 6497 2166 2073 4598 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 48729 48732 46646 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 21656 4081 5310 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 30.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 892 1046 956 357 0.6
µD - 4.74 0.92 0.66 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 16.64 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2522 4779 1464 1048 5242 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 47793 43926 31442 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 11948 2218 2218 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 37.50 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 889 1045 955 357 0.6
µD - 3.51 0.64 0.45 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.25 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3898 3000 641 447 5714 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 37502 24043 16769 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 6004 815 815 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 45.00 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 895 1065 975 357 0.6
µD - 2.95 0.52 0.35 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.32 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 5343 1099 189 129 6133 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 16485 8521 5817 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 1833 208 208 75000
Figure 3. 22 – Design results for bridges of Series 9: SLL.
43
3.3.3.5 Series 10: SSM
For bridges of Series 10 results are presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.23. This series is
characterized for being stiff structures due to the displacement limit imposed by the short pier
in the middle of the bridge which is the critical member for all the cases. The effective periods
range from 1.06 seconds to 1.84 seconds. High energy dissipation is expected in each case,
and is mainly concentrated in the small central pier and some in the small left pier. The pier
required strengths are very similar for all the cases, but ductility demands decrease with
increasing each case height. The superstructure, SS, participation ranges from 16.9%, for the
shortest case height, to 47.5%, for the longer pier height, meaning that the inelastic pier path
rule the structure behaviour. High values of system damping are obtained for all heights cases,
between 12.4%, for the shortest case height, and 9.2%, the longer pier height, consequence of
the high contribution of inelastic pier action. The deformed shape for the smaller heights are
parabolic but slightly irregular, instead for the higher heights seems to behave symmetric, due
to the increasing participation of the SS load path.
3.3.3.6 Series 11: SSL
For bridges of Series 11 results are presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.24. This series
behaves very similar to series 10. The structures are characterized for being stiff due to the
displacement limit imposed by the short pier in the middle of the bridge which is the critical
member for all the cases. The effective periods range from 1.10 seconds to 1.86 seconds. High
energy dissipation is expected in each case, and is mainly concentrated in the small central
pier and some in the small left pier; the long pier remains elastic for all the cases. Pier
required strengths are very similar for all the cases, but ductility demands decrease with
increasing each case height. The superstructure, SS, participation ranges from 19.5%, for the
rule the structure behaviour. As in series 10, similar high values of system damping are
obtained for all heights cases, consequence of the high contribution of inelastic pier action.
The deformed shape for all the heights is parabolic but slightly irregular, being more skew for
the shortest case heights.
3.3.3.7 Series 12: MSL
For bridges of Series 12 results are presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.25. This series
behaves very similar to series the previous two series. The structures are characterized for
being stiff due to the displacement limit imposed by the short pier in the middle of the bridge
which is the critical member for all the cases. The effective periods range from 1.03 seconds
to 1.81 seconds. High energy dissipation is expected in each case, fully concentrated in the
small central pier, for which high ductility demand is expected; the other two piers, middle
and long, remain elastic for all the cases. Pier required strengths are very high for the first two
44
cases (H = 7.5 m and H = 10.0 m), and decrease slightly for the higher height cases; The same
happen with the ductility demands which are very high for the first two cases but decrease for
the higher height cases. The superstructure, SS, participation ranges from 22.9%, for the
rule the structure behaviour. As in series 10 and 11, similar high values of system damping
are obtained for all heights cases, consequence of the high contribution of inelastic pier
action. The deformed shape for all the heights is parabolic but slightly irregular, being more
skew for the shortest case heights.
As has been demonstrated in previous research [Alvarez Botero, 2004], the maximum
displacements for bridges configurations with short central pier and longer exterior ones, can
be highly influenced by the elastic behaviour previous to the inelastic one, due to the
differences in the shape of the first fundamental elastic and inelastic mode shape. This means
that the direct displacement based design method, based in the effective structure properties at
maximum response, can miss some intermediate stages of the response in very stiff structures,
without catch the actual maximum displacement pattern.
As the inelastic action is fully concentrated in the short central pier, and the bridge irregularity
makes the deformed shape to skew through the more flexible side, some redistribution of
stiffness, and hence of strength, could give a more efficient design and a best estimate of
displacements when compared with time history analysis results. In order to give more lights
to this one additional analysis for the series 12, H=7.5 m, is done. The idea is to try to create a
parabolic symmetric deformation pattern. First, in order to prevent a high influence of the
elastic behaviour (as discussed in the previous paragraph) the central pier strength is
decreased to 75% of the external piers; second, to “center” the deformed shape, the strength of
the middle pier (left pier) must also be decreased. The idea is to obtain similar displacement in
the two exterior piers. From the information in the Figure 3.25 is observed that the
displacement ductilities, µ∆, of the long and middle piers are 0.77 and 0.99 respectively. To
obtain the proportion of required strength carried by each exterior pier and fulfill deformed
condition (equal displacements), the pier is necessary then to equal the obtained shear
participation factor:
µ∆
Vyi ∝ (3.27)
Hi
0.99 0.77 Vy 0.77 2 H

In this way, VyP1 ∝ and VyP 3 ∝ , and equating P1 = ⋅ = 0.52 ≈ 0.5 .
2H 3H VyP 3 3H 0.99
In this form, in a new design process we allocate in the shear participation factors, the
proportions obtained previously, i.e., 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 to the middle, short and long height
piers. Results of the analysis are shown in table 3.4 and Figure 3.26
It is important to realize that even if the main idea of the direct displacement based design
method for continuous concrete bridges, is to allocate the same amount of reinforcement to all
the piers to simplify the design, sometimes for irregular bridges, being torsionally sensitive or
45
with the center of stiffnesses (strength) well different to center of masses, is convenient to do
some redistribution of strength in order to obtain a more regular deformation pattern that will
reflect a better agreement, not only in the displacement but also in the internal forces, when
compared to the time-history analysis.
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 7.50 15.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 884 973 908 357
0.4
µD - 2.72 6.15 1.44 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 13.84 17.63 8.92 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -752 7769 7770 3885 4711 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 58271 58277 58280 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 58472 25900 14640 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 10.00 20.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 908 997 949 357 0.6
µD - 3.07 5.39 1.08 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.53 17.15 5.90 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1059 6224 6224 3112 4191 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 62240 62243 62245 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 27346 15561 10128 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 12.50 25.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 918 1007 970 357 0.6
µD - 2.67 4.38 0.83 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 13.71 16.31 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2081 4907 4907 2048 4533 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 61334 61341 51189 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 16125 9813 5558 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 15.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 1018 991 357 0.6
µD - 2.33 3.69 0.68 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 12.83 15.51 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2984 3739 3739 1274 4948 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 56078 56084 38212 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 9873 6229 2957 75000
Figure 3. 23 – Design results for bridges of Series 10: SSM.
46
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 7.50 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 897 986 960 357
0.4
µD - 2.48 6.99 0.84 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 13.24 18.05 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -1759 8077 8079 2263 6218 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 60575 60592 50925 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 75967 26926 7503 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 10.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 908 997 991 357 0.6
µD - 2.76 5.39 0.54 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 13.93 17.15 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 250 6518 6519 1168 5504 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 65184 65185 35037 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 31760 16296 3438 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 12.50 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 918 1007 1022 357 0.6
µD - 2.53 4.38 0.40 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 13.37 16.31 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 1529 5212 5212 692 5447 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 65147 65151 25958 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 18052 10423 1769 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 15.00 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 1018 1053 357 0.6
µD - 2.26 3.69 0.32 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 12.63 15.51 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2609 4017 4018 425 5578 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 60257 60266 19104 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 10920 6694 950 75000
Figure 3. 24 – Design results for bridges of Series 11: SSL.
47
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 7.50 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 986 960 357 0.6
µD - 0.99 6.99 0.77 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 18.05 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 716 5989 12079 3119 5575 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 89829 90590 70187 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 37164 40262 11219 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 20.00 10.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 949 997 991 357 0.6
µD - 0.87 5.39 0.51 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 17.15 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2187 4463 10207 1747 5168 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 89254 102070 52421 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 17915 25517 5383 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 12.50 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 970 1007 1022 357 0.6
µD - 0.74 4.38 0.38 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 16.31 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3226 3023 8127 1039 5081 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 75565 101591 38963 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 9209 16259 2760 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 15.00 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 991 1018 1053 357 0.6
µD - 0.64 3.69 0.31 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 15.51 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 4023 1994 6278 644 5239 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 59818 94168 28987 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4968 10466 1486 75000
Figure 3. 25 – Design results for bridges of Series 12: MSL.
48
Table 3.4 Substitute SDOF parameters for bridge of Series 12, H=7.5m, with strength redistribution.

[m] [%] [m] [ton] [s] [kN/m] [kN] [%]
Series MSL: with strength redistribution
7.5 11.8 0.25 3091 1.03 114778 28326 24.1
VyP2 = 0.75VyP3
VyP1 = 0.50VyP3 VyP3
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 7.50 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 943 996 979 357 0.6
µD - 1.42 7.55 0.71 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 8.81 18.28 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 2978 4348 13047 4100 3853 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 65222 97852 92247 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 20338 43488 17450 75000
Figure 3. 26 – Design results for bridges of Series 12, H=7.5m, with strength redistribution.
3.3.3.8 Series 13: SSMLL(1)
For bridges of Series 13 results are presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.27. The second pier,
P2, is the critical member for all the cases. 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for all the cases.
This series is characterized for being flexible structures with effective periods ranging from
2.26 seconds to 3.23 seconds. Equivalent system damping, ξsys, is about 10% for all the cases,
reflecting an important energy dissipation, which is generally concentrated in P2; is low in the
central pier P3; and even more lower in the longer piers (P4 and P5) which behave practically
elastic for the two higher height case (H = 12.5 m and H = 15.0 m). Note that the left
abutment, A1, is expected to move in the opposite directions than the piers, resulting in
negative values of resisted shear forces. Higher pier strengths are required for the higher
heights cases, as consequence of the slow increasing superstructure, SS, participation with
height, just from 3.9% to 16.2%. Note that this means that the inelastic pier path will rule the
structure behaviour, and explains the smaller pier strengths for the lower heights. The
deformed shapes are parabolic but skewed to the direction of the longer piers P4 and P5; for
the higher heights seems to tend to behave more symmetric.
49

[m] [%] [m] [ton] [s] [kN/m] [kN] [%]
Series 13: SSMLL(1)
7.5 10.2 0.56 3726 2.26 28918 16180 3.9
10.0 9.6 0.64 4090 2.60 23855 15161 5.8
12.5 9.3 0.70 4351 2.89 20548 14271 10.8
15.0 8.9 0.76 4563 3.23 17235 13036 16.2
Series 14: SSMLL(2)
7.5 9.4 0.5 3753 2.13 32772 17881 -0.3
10.0 10.9 0.7 4376 2.86 21123 13764 8.5
12.5 10.7 0.8 4636 3.71 13280 10337 24.9
15.0 9.1 0.9 4766 4.29 10234 9192 37.0
Series 15: SSLMS
7.5 12.6 0.47 3724 2.02 35953 16984 -14.8
10.0 12.3 0.52 4046 2.22 32382 16771 -11.6
12.5 11.6 0.58 4267 2.50 26893 15582 -8.4
15.0 10.7 0.65 4443 2.83 21838 14222 -3.7
Series 16: MSLMS
7.5 9.9 0.34 3461 1.30 80455 27090 -18.4
10.0 9.0 0.40 3822 1.50 67028 26760 -14.1
12.5 8.5 0.47 4156 1.76 52683 24984 -11.8
15.0 8.9 0.57 4482 2.18 37358 21215 -7.5
Series 17: LMSSM(1)
7.5 9.6 0.42 2872 1.62 43035 18120 18.6
10.0 10.7 0.45 3539 1.80 43106 19294 18.6
12.5 10.7 0.48 4096 1.95 42309 20496 19.6
15.0 10.4 0.53 4495 2.14 38726 20579 21.1
Series 18: LMSSM(2)
7.5 10.9 0.36 2896 1.45 54531 19732 15.9
10.0 11.8 0.40 3725 1.64 54874 21743 10.5
12.5 11.2 0.44 4187 1.80 50767 22427 11.1
15.0 10.8 0.50 4478 2.04 42432 21293 13.9
For bridges of Series 14 results are presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.28. The piers P2 and
P3 are the critical members for this series. 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for all the cases.
This series is characterized for being flexible structures with effective periods ranging from
2.13 seconds to 4.29 seconds. The geometry is very similar to the previous series 13, but
when the height increase the structure become even more flexible and superstructure, SS,
participation also increase, from -0.3% to 37.0%. Equivalent system damping, ξsys, is also
about 10% for all the cases, which is generally concentrated in the tree central piers P2, P3
50
and P4; but also important in the pier P1 for the higher heights; the pier P5 behave practically
elastic for all the cases. Note that as in the previous series, the left abutment, A1, is expected
to move in the opposite directions than the piers, but just in the two lower heights cases,
resulting in negative values of resisted shear forces. Similar pier strengths are required for all
the cases. The deformed shapes, as the previous series, are parabolic but skewed to the
direction of the longer piers P4 and P5; for the higher heights seems to tend to behave more
symmetric.
3.3.3.10 Series 15: SSLMS
For bridges of Series 15 results are presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.29. Even if is an
irregular 6-span bridge, can be considered as the most regular of all the 6-sapn series because
just increasing the height of the second pier P2 (or decreasing its strength) we would have a
kind of regular bridge. Pier P2 is the critical member for all the cases and 2.5 m diameter
piers are specified for all of them. This series is characterized for being stiff structures with
effective periods ranging from 2.02 seconds to 2.83 seconds. The SS participation always
negative ranging from -14.8% to -3.7%. This means that the total load taken by the piers will
always be bigger than the design base shear, VB. Significant energy dissipation is expected
because most of the piers have inelastic excursions. Note that as in the previous series, the left
abutment, A1, is expected to move in the opposite directions than the piers. This characteristic
become more important as the heights are smaller, i.e., the structure is stiffer. Required pier
flexural strengths increase as the heights increase. The deformed shapes are parabolic slightly
irregular to the direction of the piers P4 and P5; for the higher heights seems to tend to
behave more symmetric.
3.3.3.11 Series 16: MSLMS
For bridges of Series 16 results are presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.30. Clearly pier P2 is
the critical member for all the cases. 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for the first two
heights, but as this series is characterized for being very stiff structures due to the
displacement limit imposed by the short pier P2, 2.7 m diameter piers are specified for the
two higher heights. The effective periods range from 1.30 seconds to 2.18 seconds. The SS
participation always negative ranging from -18.4% to -7.5%. This means that the total load
taken by the piers will always be bigger than the design base shear, VB. Significant energy
dissipation is expected in the pier P2, and some other in the pier P4.; the remain piers are
expected to behave elastic. Required pier strengths increase as the heights increase being
really high for the last two cases. The deformed shapes are parabolic slightly irregular to the
direction of the piers P4 and P5. Seems that if some strength is redistributed, reducing the one
of P2, a more efficient design and a better displacement pattern could be obtained.
51
3.3.3.12 Series 17: LMSSM(1)
For bridges of Series 17 results are presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.31. The structures are
characterized for being stiff due to the displacement limit imposed by the short central pier P3
which is the critical member for all the cases, but not the one that displace more. 2.5 m
diameter piers are specified for all the cases. The effective periods range from 1.62 seconds to
2.14 seconds. Equivalent system damping, ξsys, is about 10% for all the cases, reflecting
important energy dissipation, which is generally concentrated in P3. Note that the pier P5 and
the right abutment A2 are expected to move in the opposite directions than the piers for the
first case height, resulting in negative values of resisted shear forces. This makes the
maximum displacements of the left side of the bridge to be very small, probably being
underestimated when compared with time-history analysis. Lower pier strengths are required
for the higher heights cases, as consequence of practically the same superstructure, SS,
participation in all heights, about 20.0%.
3.3.3.13 Series 18: LMSSM(2)
For bridges of Series 18 results are presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.32. The structures are
slightly different that the ones of series 17. Those are characterized for being stiff due to the
displacement limit imposed by the short central pier P3 which is the critical member for all
the cases, but not the one that displace more. 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for all the
cases. The effective periods range from 1.45 seconds to 2.04 seconds. Equivalent system
damping, ξsys, is about 10% for all the cases, reflecting important energy dissipation, which is
generally concentrated in P3. Like in the previous case, the pier P5 and the right abutment A2
are expected to move in the opposite directions than the piers for the first case height,
resulting in negative values of resisted shear forces. In general the maximum displacements of
the left side of the bridge are very small, probably being underestimated when compared with
time-history analysis. Similar pier strengths are required for all the heights, and
superstructure, SS, participation is about 15.0% for all heights cases.
52
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 7.50 15.00 22.50 22.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 897 986 1018 1049 960 357 0.4
µD - 0.71 6.30 3.69 1.99 1.24 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 17.71 15.51 11.69 7.48 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -2951 3831 5408 2704 1803 1803 3582
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 28731 40556 40555 40557 40560 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 126020 19992 4508 2526 4038 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 Displacements [m] 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 30.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 908 997 1038 1080 991 357 0.4
µD - 1.34 5.39 2.56 1.27 0.77 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 8.21 17.15 13.45 7.68 5.00 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] -2728 4620 4622 2311 1541 1187 3608 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 46200 46221 46226 46227 35620 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 46578 11553 3169 1920 2437 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 12.50 25.00 37.50 37.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 918 1007 1059 1111 1022 357
0.4
µD - 1.43 4.38 1.86 0.88 0.53 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 8.89 16.31 11.17 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -2123 4287 4288 2144 1261 753 3662 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 53587 53601 53606 47274 28238 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 26227 8575 2610 1455 1455 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 15.00 30.00 45.00 45.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 928 1018 1080 1143 1053 357
0.4
µD - 1.40 3.69 1.44 0.66 0.39 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 8.69 15.51 8.97 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -1508 3836 3836 1918 842 494 3618 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 57536 57537 57535 37879 22219 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 16815 6393 2101 908 908 75000
Figure 3. 27 – Design results for bridges of Series 13: SSMLL(1).
53
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 11.25 15.00 18.75 22.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 897 1002 1018 1033 960 357 0.4
µD - 0.74 3.08 3.69 2.75 1.18 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 14.56 15.51 13.90 6.95 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -3324 5039 4524 3393 2715 2262 3271 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 37796 50894 50895 50897 50901 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 158132 15767 5656 3931 5322 75000
H = 10.0 m
H[m] - 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 908 1018 1038 1059 991 357 0.4
µD - 2.73 3.33 2.81 1.78 0.71 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 13.85 14.99 14.02 10.82 5.00 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] -1598 4491 2994 2246 1797 1069 2766 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 44907 44916 44922 44924 32074 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 22145 5530 2807 2283 2369 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 18.75 25.00 31.25 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 918 1033 1059 1085 1022 357 0.6
µD - 3.04 2.99 2.21 1.30 0.50 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.48 14.38 12.46 7.94 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 0 2842 1894 1421 1137 474 2569 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 35521 35521 35521 35521 17778 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 8193 2526 1456 1276 965 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 22.50 30.00 37.50 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 357 928 1049 1080 1111 1053 357 0.6
µD - 2.69 2.51 1.79 1.02 0.39 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 13.77 13.32 10.84 5.30 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 725 2147 1431 1073 859 278 2680 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 32198 32198 32198 32198 12513 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4902 1590 951 853 508 75000
Figure 3. 28 – Design results for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2)..
54
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 7.50 22.50 15.00 7.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 897 986 1049 1018 897 357 0.4
µD - 1.14 6.99 1.58 3.49 6.75 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 6.50 18.05 9.78 15.23 17.94 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -3028 5089 5088 1696 2544 5088 506 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 38166 38163 38162 38161 38160 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 104232 16961 2994 4484 17553 75000
H = 10.0 m
H[m] - 10.00 10.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 908 997 1080 1038 908 357 0.4
µD - 1.59 5.39 1.02 2.13 4.05 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 9.83 17.15 5.24 12.19 15.95 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] -2262 4882 4882 1627 2441 4882 318 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 48825 48818 48816 48816 48816 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 41423 12205 2523 4028 16237 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 12.50 37.50 25.00 12.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 918 1007 1111 1059 918 357
0.4
µD - 1.61 4.38 0.75 1.49 2.82 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 9.97 16.31 5.00 9.26 14.05 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -1592 4508 4508 1120 2254 4508 275 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 56352 56351 42011 56350 56351 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 24514 9016 1530 3425 14007 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 15.00 45.00 30.00 15.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 928 1018 1143 1080 928 357
0.4
µD - 1.53 3.69 0.59 1.15 2.19 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 9.51 15.51 5.00 6.58 12.39 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -958 3990 3990 779 1995 3990 435 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 59855 59854 35040 59853 59854 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 16034 6651 944 2756 11224 75000
Figure 3. 29 – Design results for bridges of Series 15: SSLMS.
55
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 15.00 7.50 22.50 15.00 7.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 928 986 1049 1018 897 357 0.4
µD - 0.68 6.99 1.23 1.80 0.82 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 18.05 7.32 10.90 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -863 3651 10727 3576 5363 8769 -4133 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 54758 80455 80455 80450 65765 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 33004 35755 8128 18337 249898 75000
H = 10.0 m
H[m] - 20.00 10.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 949 997 1080 1038 908 357 0.4
µD - 0.64 5.39 0.82 1.20 0.82 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 17.15 5.00 7.08 5.00 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] 70 3364 10494 2881 5247 8558 -3853 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 67284 104935 86430 104932 85577 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 18417 26233 5534 15365 141320 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 12.50 37.50 25.00 12.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 992 1020 1142 1081 931 357
0.4
µD - 0.60 4.73 0.67 1.00 0.89 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 16.63 5.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 693 2891 9558 2150 4775 8552 -3637 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 72278 119481 80611 119384 106903 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 11693 19115 3504 11693 90459 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 15.00 45.00 30.00 15.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 1016 1032 1178 1105 943 357
0.4
µD - 0.52 3.99 0.56 0.91 1.20 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 15.88 5.00 5.00 7.09 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 1050 2038 7852 1470 3589 7848 -2630 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 61139 117774 66153 107661 117725 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 6707 13083 2006 6707 43496 75000
Figure 3. 30 – Design results for bridges of Series 16: MSLMS.
56
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 22.50 15.00 7.50 7.50 15.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 960 1018 986 986 928 357 0.4
µD - 1.08 3.18 6.99 0.89 -0.25 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.94 14.72 18.05 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] 4881 1892 2838 5676 5065 -721 -1511 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 42568 42568 42569 37989 -10812 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4871 5500 18919 132229 17464 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 30.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 991 1038 997 997 949 357 0.4
µD - 0.66 2.05 5.39 1.82 0.04 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 11.93 17.15 10.98 5.00 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] 4864 1268 2865 5729 5728 112 -1271 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 38046 57291 57290 57285 2236 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 3022 4898 14322 42447 10055 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 37.50 25.00 12.50 12.50 25.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 1022 1059 1007 1007 970 357
0.4
µD - 0.45 1.46 4.38 2.16 0.18 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 9.07 16.31 12.30 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 4733 904 3007 6014 6013 545 -720 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 33899 75175 75171 75161 13623 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 2041 4665 12027 24378 6812 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 45.00 30.00 15.00 15.00 30.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 1053 1080 1018 1018 991 357
0.4
µD - 0.32 1.10 3.69 2.25 0.25 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 6.14 15.51 12.57 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 4416 642 2973 5946 5946 730 -75 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 28903 89198 89197 89196 21890 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 1407 4273 9911 16294 4704 75000
Figure 3. 31 – Design results for bridges of Series 17: LMSSM (1).
57
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 15.00 11.25 7.50 7.50 11.25 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 928 1002 986 986 913 357 0.4
µD - 2.07 4.83 6.14 0.86 -0.30 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 11.97 16.72 17.62 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] 4187 2941 3921 5881 5040 -1181 -1059 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 44121 44115 44107 37798 -13291 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 8761 8713 22325 137025 42110 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 20.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 949 1018 997 997 928 357 0.4
µD - 1.23 3.22 5.39 2.30 0.21 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 7.31 14.80 17.15 12.73 5.00 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] 3427 2940 3920 5880 5878 842 -1145 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 58802 58799 58796 58785 12623 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 8423 7490 14699 34473 24121 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 18.75 12.50 12.50 18.75 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 357 970 1033 1007 1007 944 357
0.4
µD - 0.83 2.30 4.38 2.50 0.41 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 12.73 16.31 13.29 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 3189 2463 3965 5947 5946 1622 -707 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 61577 74349 74343 74331 30414 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 6737 6880 11895 20856 15791 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 22.50 15.00 15.00 22.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 357 991 1049 1018 1018 960 357
0.4
µD - 0.61 1.76 3.69 2.47 0.49 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 10.73 15.51 13.21 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 3080 1702 3707 5560 5560 1808 -123 -0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 51050 83401 83400 83399 40674 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4399 5862 9267 13862 10329 75000
Figure 3. 32 – Design results for bridges of Series 18: LMSSM (2)..
58
Chapter 4 – Performance Assessments using Time-History Analysis
4. PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT USING TIME-HISTORY

ANALYSIS
All the bridges designed using Direct Displacement-Based Design were subjected to inelastic
time-history analysis to verify the accuracy of the method in terms of reaching the target
displacements.
Time-history analyses were carried out using the software RUAUMOKO, [Carr, 2002], in
which the non-linear behaviour can be modeled using force-displacement hysteretic rules.
4.1 MODELING ISSUES

A simplified plan model of the structure, as depicted in Figure 4.1, was constructed for each
of the bridges. The bridge deck was modelled by means of elastic frame elements. Piers were
characterized by inelastic springs, while the abutments by linear elastic springs and dashpots
that represented the additional elastic energy dissipation associated to them.
Figure 4. 1 – Typical simplified plan model of bridge used in time-history analysis.
Calculation of the dashpot viscous coefficient, CA1 and CA2, for each abutment was done
according to Equation (4.1).
C Ai = 2ξ K A ⋅ M Ai (4.1)
59
Where KA and MAi represent the stiffness and the mass each abutment degree of freedom, and
ξ is the percentage of critical damping associated to the abutments.
4.1.1 Hysteretic Rule

Pier springs were characterized by the Modified Takeda degrading stiffness model, [Otani,
1974], shown in Figure 4.2, which is considered to appropriately represent concrete hysteretic
behaviour and is compatible with the design assumptions. Model parameters of post-yield
stiffness r = 3%, unloading stiffness factor α = 0.5, reloading stiffness factor β = 0.0, and
reloading stiffness power factor of 1.0 were assigned to the pier-springs hysteretic model.
Further information about the Modified Takeda hysteretic rule and definition of the
parameters can be found in the Ruaumoko User’s Manual, [Carr, 2002].
Figure 4. 2 – Takeda degrading stiffness model.
As the spring force obtained by the direct displacement-based design is the ultimate force, Fu,
to obtain the actual spring yielding force, Fy, the ultimate force, Fu, should be reduced taking
into account the post-yield stiffness, r, assumed. For a SDOF system this is direct, once are
obtained the ultimate displacement, ∆u, and the yield displacement, ∆y, the displacement
ductility, µ∆, is computed and the equation (4.2) can be applied:
Fu
Fy = (4.2)
1 + µ∆ ⋅ r
In the case of MDOF system, due to the parabolic deformed shape, the ultimate displacement,
∆u, of each pier can be different. In that case each pier will have different displacement
ductility, µ∆i. In order to be compatible with the equal piers strength choice assumed in the
design process, where all the piers should have the same nominal flexural strength, Mn, a
single value of system displacement ductility should be computed to obtain a consistent value
of the spring yielding force for each pier, Fyi. In this study the chosen option has been to
compute the spring yielding forces, Fyi, based in the maximum absolute ductility of all the
piers as is shown in equation (4.3). Alternatively, the spring yielding forces, Fyi, could be
computed making a weighted average of the different pier ductilities, µ∆i.
60
Fui
Fyi = (4.3)
1 + max ( µ∆i ) ⋅ r
Finally, for each pier the initial elastic stiffness, Ki, can also be calculated from its required
shear strength, Fy, and the estimated yield displacement, ∆y.
4.1.2 Damping
Energy dissipation in the form of elastic damping is commonly idealized in linear elastic
dynamic analysis as viscous or velocity proportional for convenience of solution. Once
significant yielding takes place in the elements that are designed to behave inelastically,
hysteretic damping becomes the major source of energy dissipation. Hysteretic damping is
best accounted for directly by the hysteretic load-deformation relation used to model inelastic
behaviour.
For the specific case of the bridge structures under study, different sources of energy
dissipation must be considered: viscous damping is associated to the elastic behaviour of
concrete members, hysteretic energy dissipation is linked to inelastic pier behaviour, and
energy dissipation associated to the abutments behaviour must also be considered.
Energy dissipation associated to inelastic pier behaviour is implicitly accounted for when
defining the Modified Takeda hysteretic load-deformation relation for each of the columns.
The contribution to energy dissipation due to elastic behaviour is considered by means of a
viscous Rayleigh damping model, and the additional damping at the abutments is represented
by localized dashpot elements.
The tangent stiffness Rayleigh damping model, used to represent the energy dissipation
associated to elastic behaviour, makes use of the mass and the current stiffness matrices to
obtain the damping matrix:
[ C ] = α ⋅ [ M ] + β ⋅ [ KT ] (4.4)
The coefficients α and β are computed to give the required level of viscous damping at two
different frequencies. Typically, damping is specified for the fundamental mode and one of
the higher modes that contributes significantly to the structural response.
Normally 5% of the critical damping is associated to the fundamental elastic structural mode.
However, recent research results, [Grant et al., 2005], have shown that this is inconsistent
with the assumption of 5% related to the effective stiffness at maximum displacement in the
displacement based design approach, and moreover the use of this value is inconsistent with
the real behaviour of the concrete members modeled with the Modified Takeda hysteretic
rule. Results suggest that this 5% value may overestimate the actual structural energy
dissipation associated to elastic behaviour and that a correction factor needs to be applied.
61
Initial analyses indicate that this correction factor is ductility dependant, and that a relation of
the form presented in Equation (4.5) would be more appropriate when deformations beyond
the elastic limits are expected to occur.
5%
ξE = (4.5)
µ∆
However, for the bridge cases, two different load paths are activated under transverse seismic
excitation; one of them being elastic deck bending and the other inelastic pier action. Since no
inelastic behaviour is associated to the former, the viscous damping value linked to it is not
expected to be affected by the displacement ductility demands, as it is expected for the piers.
Note also, that if piers are expected to remain elastic, reduction to the viscous damping would
not be required. It is then proposed to obtain the percentage of critical damping associated to
the first mode by making a weighted average, as expressed in Equation (4.6). Remember that
if piers are expected to remain elastic, the 5% viscous damping value should be used in the
equation without reduction for ductility.
⎛ 5% ⎞⎟
(VA1 + VA2 ) ⋅ 5% + ∑ ⎜ Vi ⋅
piers ⎜
⎝ ( µ∆ )i ⎟⎠
ξE = (4.6)
∑V
n
i
Where VA1 and VA2 represent the lateral force that is taken by the abutments and Vi the load
taken at the degree of freedom i, being these values obtained from the design.
4.2 SPECTRUM-COMPATIBLE TIME HISTORIES
Each of the structures was subjected to five different artificial acceleration time histories, to
match the 5% damped design displacement spectrum shown in Figure 3.12. Exactly the same
ground motions utilized by Alvarez Botero were used [Alvarez Botero, 2004]. A certain
amount of scatter in the time histories and the corresponding response spectra is expected.
Since the design procedure is based on the substitute SDOF structure and its properties, such
as equivalent system damping, it is also important to get a good match between the
displacement spectra for higher damping values and the correspondent reduced design
spectra. Figure 4.3 shows the generated artificial records and their associated displacement
spectra for different damping levels.
62
Figure 4. 3 – Artificial time histories and associated set of spectra for different damping levels.
63
It is now widely accepted that the use of artificial records for non-linear analysis can be
problematic, since they generally have an excessive number of cycles of strong motion,
[Bommer and Acevedo, 2003]. However, since the purpose of the inelastic THA is to validate
design results from a procedure that uses the design displacement spectrum as input, the
spectrum-compatible characteristic of the time histories becomes essential. Since the
influence of an excessive number of cycles of strong motion is to reduce the influence of
damping in displacement-reduction, the use of spectrum-compatible records can be expected
to be conservative.
The average response displacement spectra for different damping levels are compared in
Figure 4.4 with the design displacement spectra, reduced for the corresponding levels of
damping according to Equation (3.21). Note that, in general, good agreement is observed for
the damping levels shown. However, smaller displacements, coming from the THA’s, could
be expected for periods between 1.0 and 2.5 seconds and damping levels greater than 10%,
while larger displacements can be expected for periods larger than 3.0 seconds.
Figure 4. 4 – Artificial time histories and associated set of spectra for different damping levels.
4.3 DESIGN VERSUS TIME-HISTORY RESULTS
Results from the time-history analyses for each of the eighteen series are presented in this
section. They are found from Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.27. Graphical comparison is made
between displacements and deck moments envelopes from each of the five THA, as well as
the average envelope, and the target displacements and design moments envelopes.
64
Generally the participation of more than the 90% of the total seismic mass is obtained for the
4-span bridges studied including only two modes of vibration. For the 6-span cases, influence
of high mode effects on deck bending moments is assessed, and possible ways to account for
them revised.
4.3.1 Target Displacements and Deck Transverse Moments
The objective of Direct Displacement-Based Design is to have control of the displaced shape
of the structure, and therefore of the distribution of the damage.
The performance of the design methodology is assessed in terms of its capacity to predict the
displacement pattern under the design level of excitation by means of inelastic time-history
analysis.
Deck transverse-moment envelopes are also compared against the distribution of moments
obtained from the design. The influence of higher modes in the distribution of transverse
moments along the deck is evident for the 6-span bridge cases and is discussed at the end of
this chapter.
4.3.1.1 Series of Regular Bridges
For the 4-span Regular Bridges of Series 1 to 3 results are presented in Figure 4.5 to 4.7, and
for the 6-span Regular Bridges of Series 4 to 6 results are presented in Figure 4.8 to 4.10.
In general the results obtained for those bridge series are very similar to those obtained in
Alvarez Botero dissertation. The influence of the new damping equations which tends to
reduce the system damping and, at the end of the process, to increase the piers strengths
seems to be compensated with the fact that for the THA the pier strength used are being
reduced from the ultimate force, Fu, to the yielding force, Fy. For detailed information see
sections 3.2.2.2 and section 4.1.1.
65
Displacements Deck Moments

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Position [m] Position [m]
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average EQ1 to EQ5
Figure 4. 5 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 1.
66

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
67

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
68

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
69

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
70

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
71
4.3.1.2 Series 7: SMM
For bridges of Series 7 results are presented in Figure 4.11. The target displacement pattern
matches very well all the THA results.
Between 76% and 81% of the total mass participates in the first inelastic mode of this series,
and the influence from higher modes is clearly minor. However, first-mode dominated
response is evident from the time-history analyses results for all cases. Deck moment
envelopes match very well the design moment distributions.
4.3.1.3 Series 8: SML
For bridges of Series 8 results are presented in Figure 4.12. As in series 7, the target
displacement pattern matches very well all the analysis results.
Concerning the deck moments, good agreement was obtained between the THA results and
the design. Between 79% and 81% of the total mass participates in the first inelastic mode of
this series, and the influence from higher modes is clearly minor.
4.3.1.4 Series 9: SLL
For bridges of Series 9 results are presented in Figure 4.13. As in the previous series, the
target displacement pattern matches very well all the analysis results.
Regarding the deck moments, good agreement was obtained between the THA results and the
design. Between 73% and 81% of the total mass participates in the first inelastic mode of this
series. The influence from higher modes is minor.
72

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 4. 11 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 7: SMM.
73

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 4. 12 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 8: SML.
74

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 4. 13 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 9: SLL.
75
It is observed that the result of series 7, 8 and 9 are in general similar. To see the transition
from the elastic to the inelastic range, the bridges of series 8: SML, have been chosen as
representative of these series to show its elastic and inelastic (effective) modal results (Figure
4.14). It can be seen that the mass participation of the first mode increase from the elastic to
the inelastic properties, but this increment is more reflected in the short piers heights
configurations. Generally about 80% of the total mass participates in the first inelastic mode
of this series, and the influence from higher modes is clearly minor. Also is important to note
that even if its configuration is irregular, the influence of torsional modes can be neglected,
and the translational modes govern its displacements.
H=7.5 H=10.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
MODE T Mass MODE T Mass
Elastic Shapes
0.5 Elastic Shapes 0.5

[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.21 0.69 -0.1 1 1.54 0.76 -0.1
2 0.58 0.02 6 2 0.67 0.02 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.45 0.27 3 0.47 0.21
4 0.34 0.01 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
5 0.28 0.00 Position [m]
5 0.28 0.01 Position [m]
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.67 0.79 -0.1 1 1.97 0.80 -0.1
2 0.72 0.00 2 0.75 0.00

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.47 0.19 3 0.48 0.18
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
5 0.28 0.01 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.29 0.01 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
H=12.5 H=15.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
Elastic Shapes
Elastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.93 0.80 -0.1 1 2.40 0.81 -0.1
2 0.74 0.00 6 2 0.78 0.00 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.48 0.19 3 0.48 0.17
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
5 0.29 0.01 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes
MODE T Mass 0.5 MODE T Mass 0.5

[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 2.25 0.81 -0.1 1 2.53 0.81 -0.1
2 0.77 0.00 2 0.79 0.00

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.48 0.18 3 0.48 0.17
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure 4. 14 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 8: SML.
76
4.3.1.5 Series 10: SSM
For bridges of Series 10 results are presented in Figure 4.15. Target displacement patterns for
this bridges exhibit a greater degree of conservatism than those of series 7 to 9. However the
displaced shapes are, in general, in good agreement with the design shapes.
Differences between design and time-history displacement values for the critical members are
between 7% and 25%. The biggest difference is obtained for the case in which H = 7.5 m. It
can be seen that between 76% and 80% of the total mass participates in the first inelastic
mode of this series, and the influence from higher modes is in general minor. However, this
influence can be seen in the THA results of the case in which H = 7.5 m, for which it is found
that left abutment A1 displace more than expected and the displacement of the pier P2 is
smaller than expected.
Design moment envelopes are found to be in good agreement with THA envelopes. However,
considering that displacements from the THA are some below the design patterns, higher
moments could be expected if displacements matched.
4.3.1.6 Series 11: SSL
these bridges fit a little better than the previous series, but still exhibit some degree of
conservatism. However the displaced shapes are, in general, in good agreement with the
design shapes.
Between 73% and 82% of the total mass participates in the first inelastic mode of this series,
and the influence from higher modes is minor. Design moment envelopes are found to be in
good agreement with THA envelopes.
4.3.1.7 Series 12: MSL
this bridges exhibit a greater degree of conservatism than those of series 11 and 12. However
the displaced shapes are, in general, in good agreement with the design shapes.
Differences between design and time-history displacement values for the critical members are
between 15% and 33%. The biggest difference is obtained for the case in which H = 7.5 m.
For this particular case the elastic fundamental (most significant) mode results to be the
second mode, in which 77% of the total seismic mass participates. However, the elastic
fundamental mode shape significantly differs from the assumed design inelastic mode shape,
as shown in Figure 4.18. This difference is also reflected in the THA results for which it is
found that the left abutment A1 displace more than expected and the displacements of the
central piers P2 and P3 are much smaller than expected.
77

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 4. 15 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 10: SSM.
78

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 4. 16 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 11: SSL.
79

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 4. 17 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 12: MSL.
80
For the higher heights cases of series 12: MSL, it can be seen that between 77% and 81% of
the total mass participates in the first inelastic mode of this series, and the influence from
higher modes is in general minor.
Design moment envelopes are found to be in good agreement with THA envelopes. However,
It is observed that the results of series 10 to 12 are in general similar. Generally for the case of
H = 7.5m some design and time-history displacement differences are found. To see the
transition from the elastic to the inelastic range, the bridges of series 12: MSL, have been
chosen as representative of these series to show its elastic and inelastic (effective) modal
results (Figure 4.18). It is important to note in this irregular configuration, the influence of
torsional modes in the elastic range is important, but when inelasticity takes place the
translational modes become dominant and consequently the displacements response.
H=7.5 H=10.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
Elastic Shapes
Elastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 0.71 0.17 -0.1 1 0.79 0.62 -0.1
2 0.60 0.77 6 2 0.72 0.32 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.39 0.00 3 0.43 0.03
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
5 0.26 0.06 Position [m]
5 0.28 0.03 Position [m]
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.03 0.81 -0.1 1 1.28 0.83 -0.1
2 0.68 0.03 2 0.74 0.01

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.46 0.15 3 0.47 0.15
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
5 0.28 0.01 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
H=12.5 H=15.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
Elastic Shapes
Elastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 0.99 0.88 -0.1 1 1.25 0.87 -0.1
2 0.78 0.01 6 2 0.81 0.00 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.46 0.08 3 0.47 0.11
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
5 0.28 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes

[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.55 0.83 -0.1 1 1.81 0.83 -0.1
2 0.78 0.00 2 0.81 0.00

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.48 0.15 3 0.48 0.15
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00 -1.1
5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.29 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure 4. 18 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 12: MSL.
81
In order to study the behaviour of the case in which H = 7.5 m with some strength
redistribution as was done in section 3.3.3.7, Figure 4.19 shows the results of design Vs THA
and the comparison of the elastic and inelastic modal properties. It can be seen that the
displacements are in a better agreement with the THA results than those obtained with equal
pier strength (See Figure 4.17), being the best improvement the decreasing of displacement in
the left abutment A1.
Concerning the deck moments, the THA envelope is found to be in much better agreement
with THA envelope than those obtained with equal pier strength (See Figure 4.17), however,
Regarding the modal properties, still the elastic fundamental mode shape significantly differs
from the assumed design inelastic mode shape, but the inelastic modes are mainly
translational with practically no contribution of the torsional modes. This demonstrates that in
some cases where the bridge is highly irregular, some redistribution of strength can improve
its predicted behaviour basically decreasing the higher modes influence in the response.
VyP2 = 0.75VyP3
VyP1 = 0.50VyP3 VyP3

5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
H=7.5
ELASTIC 1.0 INELASTIC 1.0

Elastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 0.70 0.05 -0.1 1 1.03 0.85 -0.1
2 0.60 0.87 6 2 0.71 0.00
-0.6
3 0.38 0.00 3 0.46 0.13 -0.6
4 0.35 0.00 -1.1 4 0.35 0.00
-1.1
5 0.25 0.07 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 5 0.28 0.02
Position [m] 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Position [m]
Figure 4. 19 – Design Vs THA, Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridge of Series 12: SML, H=7.5 m,
with strength redistribution.
82
For bridges of Series 13 results are presented in Figure 4.20. For this series of longer bridges
the design displacements seems to be somewhat conservative with respect to the results from
the inelastic THA for the shortest height cases (H = 7.5 m and H = 10.0 m). The greatest
differences in displacements occur at the pier P1. Displacements of the critical member P2
are, in general, in excellent agreement.
The mass participating in the inelastic fundamental mode is between 67% and 76% for all
cases. Influence of higher mode effects in this series of bridges is evident from the deck
transverse-moment envelopes.
As expected higher modes have much more influence in these longer bridges than in the
previous shorter cases. Note that the effect of the higher modes on the deck moments is
important all along the bridge. It seems clear that third mode is kicking in, increasing
moments at the extremes and centre of the structure. It is important to note that maximum
moments occur always in the pier P4, where good agreement is obtained with THA results.
For bridges of Series 14 results are presented in Figure 4.21. It is observed that very good
agreement is obtained for the design of the bridge when H = 10.0 m and some conservatism is
observed in the bridge when H = 7.5 m. However slight un-conservatism is evident for the
other two designs of this series. Despite the displacement differences, it is noted that the
design displaced shape is in very good agreement with the average displaced shape from the
time-history analyses.
Note that the effect of the higher modes on the deck moments, in this series, is important at all
along the bridge, but mainly at the centre of the bridge where highest values are obtained. It
clearly seems that third mode is increasing moments at the extremes and centre of the
structure.
Is important to note that even if the configuration of the series 13 and 14 is irregular, the
influence of torsional modes in the inelastic range can be neglected, and the translational
modes govern its displacements.
Results of elastic and inelastic mode properties for series 14 are shown in Figure 4.22. These
results are representative of irregular bridges with no torsional modes participating in its
response. Series 13, 15 and 16 presents similar characteristics.
83

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 20 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 13: SSMLL(1).
84

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 21 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2).
85
H=7.5 H=10.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
Elastic Shapes
Elastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.50 0.61 -0.1 1 2.12 0.69 -0.1
2 0.85 0.04 6 2 1.09 0.04 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.56 0.20 3 0.67 0.20
4 0.45 0.09 -1.1 4 0.50 0.01 -1.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
5 0.39 0.04 Position [m]
5 0.40 0.05 Position [m]
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 2.13 0.67 -0.1 1 2.86 0.76 -0.1
2 1.01 0.01 2 1.33 0.01

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.59 0.17 3 0.74 0.16
4 0.45 0.09 -1.1
4 0.52 0.00 -1.1
5 0.40 0.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 5 0.40 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
H=12.5 H=15.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
Elastic Shapes
Elastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 2.86 0.75 -0.1 1 0.00 0.78 -0.1
2 1.32 0.02 6 2 1.46 0.01 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.75 0.16 3 0.78 0.14
4 0.52 0.00 -1.1 4 0.53 0.00 -1.1
5 0.40 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 5 0.41 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes

[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 3.71 0.79 -0.1 1 4.29 0.80 -0.1
2 1.51 0.00 2 1.58 0.00

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.79 0.14 3 0.80 0.13
4 0.53 0.00 -1.1 4 0.53 0.00 -1.1
5 0.40 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 5 0.41 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Figure 4. 22 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2).
4.3.1.10 Series 15: SSLMS
For bridges of Series 15 results are presented in Figure 4.23 For this series the design
displacements seems to be somewhat conservative with respect to the results from the
inelastic THA for the shortest height cases (H = 7.5 m and H = 10.0 m). Again, as in series
13, the greatest differences in displacements occur at the pier P1. Displacements of the critical
member P2 are, in general, in good agreement.
86
Note that the effect of the higher modes on the deck moments is important all along the
bridge, but mainly at the centre of the bridge where highest values are obtained. It seems that
third mode which participates in the inelastic range between 23% and 17% is increasing
moments at the extremes and centre of the structure. It is important to note that maximum
moments occur always in the highest pier P3.
4.3.1.11 Series 16: MSLMS
For bridges of Series 16 results are presented in Figure 4.24 For this series the design
displacements seems to be somewhat conservative with respect to the results from the
inelastic THA for the higher height cases (H = 12.5 m and H = 15.0 m). The behaviour of this
bridges series is very similar to those of series 15, but it is seen clearly some higher mode
influence in the displacements of the left abutment A1 and in the short pier P2.
cases and the influence of higher mode effects in this series of bridges is again evident from
the deck transverse-moment envelopes. Note that as the irregularity of the bridge increase,
also does the first inelastic mode mass participation, and consequently the influence of higher
modes increase. However, the deformed shapes of the design are still in good agreement with
the THS results, which shows that the displacements are ruled by the first inelastic mode
shape.
Note that the effect of the higher modes on the deck moments is important all along the
bridge, but mainly at the centre of the bridge where highest values are obtained. At least 2
higher modes (third and fourth) are increasing moments at the extremes and centre of the
structure. Note that maximum deck moments occur always in the top of the highest pier P3.
87

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 23 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 15: SSLMS.
88

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 24 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 16: MSLMS.
89
4.3.1.12 Series 17: LMSSM(1)
For bridges of Series 17 results are presented in Figure 4.25. For this series the design
displacements seems to be somewhat conservative in the left flexible side of the bridge and
very un-conservative in the right stiff side of the bridge with respect to the results from the
inelastic THA for the tree smallest height cases. Clearly there is some higher mode influence
in the displacements of the piers P4 and P5.
cases. Note that the second mode is torsional and is highly excited in the elastic range,
between 43% and 35 % of the total mass participates in the response. In the other hand, in the
inelastic range second mode participation decreases until almost disappear, giving more
relevance to the third translational mode (See Figure 4.26).
Note that the effect of the higher modes on the deck moments seems not to be so important in
this case as in the previous cases. Even if the deck moments shapes do not necessarily
coincide, the maximum deck moments are computed in the design are close to those of the
THA results.
4.3.1.13 Series 18: LMSSM(2)
For bridges of Series 18 results are presented in Figure 4.26. Similar results of series 17 are
obtained for this series. The design displacements seem to be very un-conservative in the right
stiff side of the bridge with respect to the results from the inelastic THA for the tree smallest
height cases. Clearly there is some higher mode influence in the displacements of the piers P4
and P5.
cases. Note that the second mode is torsional and is highly excited in the elastic range,
between 45% and 28 % of the total mass participates in the response. In the other hand, in the
inelastic range second mode participation decreases until almost disappear, giving more
relevance to the third translational mode.
As in the previous series, the effect of the higher modes on the deck moments seems not to be
so important and the maximum deck moment computed in the design is close to those of the
THA results.
Results of elastic and inelastic mode properties for series 18 are shown in Figure 4.27. These
results are representative of irregular bridges with high influence of torsional modes in the
response. Series 17 presents similar characteristics.
90

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 25 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 17: LMSSM(1).
91

H = 7.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5
x 10
1.2 4
1
Displacement [m]
3
Moment [kN*m]
0.8
0.6 2
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 26 – Design Vs THA for bridges of Series 18: LMSSM(2).
92
H=7.5 H=10.0
1.0 1.0
ELASTIC ELASTIC
Elastic Shapes
Elastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 0.90 0.41 -0.1 1 1.09 0.44 -0.1
2 0.64 0.45 6 2 0.78 0.48 6

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.55 0.03 3 0.63 0.00
4 0.45 0.04 -1.1 4 0.49 0.01 -1.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
5 0.37 0.06 Position [m]
5 0.38 0.06 Position [m]
1.0 1.0
INELASTIC INELASTIC
Inelastic Shapes
Inelastic Shapes
0.5 0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%]
1 1.45 0.52 -0.1 1 1.64 0.66 -0.1
2 0.73 0.03 2 1.02 0.12

-0.6 -0.6
3 0.64 0.38 3 0.71 0.16
4 0.47 0.03 -1.1
4 0.50 0.00 -1.1
5 0.38 0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 5 0.39 0.05 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
H=12.5 H=15.0
1.0 1.0
Elastic Shapes
ELASTIC ELASTIC
MODE T Mass MODE T Mass 0.5
Elastic Shapes
0.5
[sec] [%] [sec] [%] -0.1
1 1.26 0.51 -0.1 1 0.00 0.60 6
-0.6
2 0.92 0.40 6 2 1.08 0.28
3 0.68 0.03
-0.6
3 0.72 0.06 -1.1
4 0.50 0.00 -1.1 4 0.51 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
5 0.39 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 5 0.39 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inelastic Shapes
INELASTIC
1.0
INELASTIC 1.0
0.5
Inelastic Shapes
MODE T Mass 0.5 MODE T Mass

[sec] [%] [sec] [%] -0.1
1 1.80 0.74 -0.1 1 2.04 0.78
-0.6
2 1.17 0.06 2 1.29 0.03
3 0.74 0.14
-0.6
3 0.76 0.13 -1.1
4 0.51 0.00 -1.1 4 0.52 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
5 0.40 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 5 0.40 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 4. 27 – Elastic and Inelastic properties for bridges of Series 18 LMSSM(2).
4.3.2 Dynamic Amplification of Deck Transverse Moments
From results presented and discussed in the previous section it was found that, even if the
displacements of the bridge structures are mainly influenced by first mode response, the
distribution of moments along the bridge deck is significantly affected by higher modes.
The influence of high modes is, as expected, more significant in the case of the longer bridge
structures. In the case of the Regular Bridges which are symmetric structures, anti-symmetric
modes of vibration can not be excited, and generally the first and third modes are required to
have more than 90% of the total mass participating in the response of the considered bridges.
For Irregular Bridges, generally with the first and third modes of vibration more than 90% of
the total mass participating is obtained. However, as the bridges are more stiff, i.e., shorter
93
pier heights or have a short central pier which make them torsionally sensitive, the mass
participation of higher anti-symmetric modes increase, and in some cases more modes are
required to obtain more than 90% of the total mass participating in the response.
A simple way to take into account the influence of high modes on the deck moments is
required. Investigation of this issue was carried out by considering different approaches based
on normal modal superposition procedures. Only the 6-span series of bridges were
considered.
Four approaches based on using the normal modal superposition procedure of determining the
response of individual modes and then combine them using the square root of the sum of the
squares (SRSS) are considered.
1. Elastic Modal Superposition (EMS no R).
2. Elastic Modal Superposition with R (EMS with R).
3. Effective Modal Superposition (EffMS).
4. Modified Modal Superposition (MMS).
For the first two approaches, mode shapes and periods were calculated using the elastic,
cracked pier stiffnesses Ki. For the first approach (EMS no R) the results were obtained
without reduction factor; for the second one (EMS with R), the forces were reduced by an
effective ductility factor, R, computed using Equation (4.7).
(VA1 + VA2 ) ⋅1 + ∑ Vi ⋅ µ∆i

µ∆eq = R = piers
(4.7)
∑V
n
i
In Equation (4.5) VAi is the lateral force taken by each of the abutments, and Vi is the lateral
force taken by the member at the degree of freedom i. The force reduction factor, calculated
as above, represents a weighted average of the values of ductility of each of piers and the
deck, which is assumed to remain elastic.
The third approach (EffMS) considers effective pier stiffnesses, Keff, as calculated in the
design process, effective periods, and no reduction factor applied to the forces.
The elastic pier stiffness was calculated based on the required pier strength, from the design,
and the approximated yield displacement computed using Equation (3.10). The effective pier
stiffness was calculated based on the required pier strength and the ultimate displacement,
both obtained from the design.
Mass participation factors can be calculated as per Equation (4.8).
94
(∑φ m ) ⋅ 1
2
im i
pm = (4.8)
∑φ m ∑ m
2
im i i
Where φim is the mode shape vector of the mode m, and mi is the lumped mass at the degree of
freedom i. With the participation factors and the modal periods, the modal base shear for each
of the modes can be obtained as:
VBm = Sam ⋅ g ( pm ∑ mi ) (4.9)
Where Sam is the acceleration coefficient corresponding to mode m, which is then reduced by
the equivalent ductility, or the so called reduction factor R, in the second adopted approach.
The modal base shear is then distributed as seismic forces to the degrees of freedom of the
system, using Equation (4.10), and the deck moments under these forces obtained.
Combination of the modal deck moments is then performed by means of the SRSS.
φim mi
Fim = VBm (4.10)
∑ φim mi
The fourth approach (MMS) combines the distribution of moments obtained from the
displacement based design results, which are based on the first inelastic mode, and the
moment distributions from the higher modes computed with elastic properties without any
force reduction factor, as shown in Equation (4.11). This is analogous to what has been called
Modified Modal Superposition, in [Priestley, 2003] for cantilever walls.
M i = M 12i + M 22Ei + M 32Ei + ... (4.11)
Where Mi is the moment at the degree of freedom i, M1i is the moment at the degree of
freedom i from the ductile first mode response (from the displacement-based design), and
M2Ei and M3Ei etc. are the elastic modal moments at degree of freedom i for modes 2, 3 etc.
For all the series considered the first five elastic and inelastic modes were included in the
response. Remember that in the case of Regular Bridges only the symmetric modes participate
in the response. In the cases of Irregular Bridges the first five modes have more or less mass
participation depending strongly of the relations of superstructure stiffness, piers stiffnesses
and Abutments constrains, also the shapes of those modes vary depending of those
characteristics. In the special cases of bridges with short central pier and bigger external piers,
for the smallest heights, the first elastic and inelastic mode shape can differ significantly.
Results from the four modal combination approaches are presented from Figure 4.28 to Figure
4.37 for the 6-span bridges series.
95
Elastic Modal Superposition witha and w/o R Effective and Modified Modal Superposition
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Design THA Average EMS with R EMS no R EffMS MMS
Figure 4. 28 – Deck Moments for Series 4.
96
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
97
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
98
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 31 – Deck Moments for Series 13: SSMLL(1).
99
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 32 – Deck Moments for Series 14: SSMLL(2).
100
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 33 – Deck Moments for Series 15: SSLMS.
101
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 34 – Deck Moments for Series 16: MSLMS.
102
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 35 – Deck Moments for Series 17: LMSSM(1).
103
H = 7.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 10.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H =12.5 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
H = 15.0 m
5 5
x 10 x 10
4 4
3 3
Moment [kN*m]
Moment [kN*m]
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 4. 36 – Deck Moments for Series 18: LMSSM(2).
104
From the results in the figures above, it can be clearly seen that moments obtained using the
elastic modal superposition with no force reduction factor (EMS no R) sometimes good
results are obtained, but generally conservative or un-conservative moment distributions
estimates are obtained. It is then noted that this approach does not seem to produce
consistently good results.
On the other hand, when the elastic modal superposition with force reduction factor (EMS
with R) is used, the results are always well below the actual moment distributions. This
indicates that the use of an effective force reduction factor is not appropriate. The reason for
this can be related to the fact that once significant yielding has developed in the piers, the
mode shapes are more deck-dominated and since the deck remains elastic, the force reduction
factor is not consistent with the actual behaviour of the system.
When looking at the results obtained when using effective modal superposition (EffMS), it is
observed that in general for Regular Bridges conservative estimates of the deck moment
distributions are made. In the case of Irregular Bridges a better agreement is obtained. The
shapes of the plots are, in general, in very good agreement with the average time-history
analysis results.
Results from the modal combination using the Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) show
good agreement between the THA average results and the combined moments for series 4 and
5. On the other hand, results obtained for the cases of series 6 are poor. Since the distribution
of moments along the deck is linked to the displaced shape of the superstructure, it will be
highly influenced by the elastic shape of the fundamental mode of the system until significant
yielding had taken place and the inelastic mode shapes develop. It is then feasible that the
maximum moments of the deck occur under displaced shapes dominated by the elastic shape
of the elastic fundamental mode. And this seams to happen for the bridges of this series.
In the cases of Irregular Bridges using the Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) for series
13 to 18 generally the results are good, but sometimes show some degree of conservatism or
un-conservatism. These differences are due to the discrepancy between the elastic and
inelastic shapes of the fundamental modes of vibration for these bridges.
It seems then that Modified Modal Superposition (MMS) approach is suitable to estimate the
amplified deck transverse moments when the elastic and inelastic shapes of the fundamental
mode of vibration are similar. Again, careful treatment has to be given to systems in which
this does not happen.
I general, it seems then that more consistent results are obtained when using effective-
stiffness modal superposition (EffMS). This approach, although conservative, captures very
well the shape of the envelope of moments.
105
Chapter 5 – Comparison of DDBD with the force based design method
5. COMPARISON OF DDBD WITH THE FORCE BASED

DESIGN METHOD
Until this chapter it has been satisfactory studied the displacement based design method. Now
the aim is to compare the method with the code based method, i.e., with Force Based Design
given the different Regular and Irregular Bridges configurations shown in Figures 3.9 to 3.11.
As was done with Direct Displacement-Based Design, all the bridges designed using Force
Based Design were subjected to inelastic time-history analysis to verify the accuracy of the
method in terms of reaching the target displacements and the predicted deck moments.
Time-history analyses were carried out using the software RUAUMOKO, [Carr, 2002], in
which the non-linear behaviour can be modeled using force-displacement hysteretic rules.
In order to compare the two methods in terms of flexural strength, the pier diameter used in
each bridge configuration deigned with Direct Displacement-Based Design was chosen to be
used with Force Based Design.
5.1 FORCE BASED DESIGN

Once selected the design pier diameter, a structural model is constructed. A simplified plan
model of the structure, as depicted in Figure 5.1, was constructed for each of the bridges.
Figure 5. 1 – Typical simplified plan model of bridge used in Force Based Design Analysis.
106
The pier moment of inertia, Ipier, was estimated with the equation (5.1):
I pier = I gross ⋅ RInertia (5.1)
Where Igross is the pier moment of inertia computed by the gross section properties, and RInertia,
is the inertia reduction factor. In the present work a constant RInertia = 0.5 was used. Once
obtained the pier moment of inertia the linear elastic springs, Ki, of each pier can be obtained.
With the defined element stiffnesses and lumped masses, the bridge stiffness and mass
matrices are computed and a dynamic analysis is performed.
The design seismic input is represented by the 5% damped acceleration response spectrum,
ARS curve, from the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria for soil profile C, magnitude 8.0±0.25,
0.7g PGA [Caltrans, 2001]. This is the same spectrum that was used with Direct
Displacement-Based Design in terms of spectral displacements.
2.0
1.8
1.6
Spectral Acceleration [g]
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period [s]
Figure 5. 2 –Acceleration Spectrum for Soil Type C (M = 8.0+-0.25).
The dynamic analysis results are combined using modal superposition with the SRSS method.
The pier yielding strengths are then obtained by dividing the elastic pier forces by a reduction
factor, R, which for bridge varies depending of the used code. In the present study a value of
R = 3.5 has been chosen for all the bridge configurations. The nominal flexural pier strength,
Mn, is then obtained multiplying each pier yielding strength, Fyi, by its corresponding pier
height, Hi, and finally the required longitudinal reinforcement obtained. In the case of the
deck moments, no reduction factor is used to be “consequent” with the elastic deck
assumption.
For detailed information of the Force Based Design Method refer to…
107
5.2 TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR FORCE BASED DESIGNED BRIDGES
A simplified plan model of the structure, as depicted in Figure 5.3, was constructed for each
of the bridges. The bridge deck was modelled by means of elastic frame elements. Piers were
characterized by inelastic springs, while the abutments by linear elastic springs and dashpots
that represented the additional elastic energy dissipation associated to them.
Figure 5. 3 – Typical simplified plan model of bridge used in time-history analysis.
Calculations of each pier stiffnesses, Ki, for time history analysis were made based in the pier
yield strength, Fyi, and the yield displacement, ∆yi:
Fyi
Ki = (5.2)
∆ yi
The yield displacement was computed analogous to Direct Displacement-Based Design. Refer
to equations (3.10) to (3.13) for detailed information.
Calculation of the dashpot viscous coefficient, CA1 and CA2, were also made analogous to the
Direct Displacement-Based Design. Refer to equation (4.1) for detailed information.
5.2.1 Hysteretic rule

With respect to the hysteretic rule, the Modified Takeda degrading stiffness model, [Otani,
1974], was used in the same way that was applied with the Direct Displacement-Based
Design. Refer to section 4.1.1 for detailed information.
5.2.2 Damping
Regarding the damping used in the time history analysis, The Rayleigh damping model was
used. 5% of the critical damping was associated to all the bridges configurations.
108
5.2.3 Spectrum-Compatible time histories

Each of the structures was subjected to the five different artificial acceleration time histories
used in the Direct Displacement-Based Design. The five grounds motions can be seeing in the
Figure 4.3
5.3 RESULTS COMPARISON FOR REGULAR BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS
Results from the Direct Displacement-Based Design and Force Based Design, and the
corresponding average results of the five time histories analysis are shown in this section for
each of the six Regular Bridges, Series 1 to 6. They are found from Figure 5.4 to Figure 5.9.
Graphical comparison is made between displacements and deck moments envelopes as well
as pier design diameters, nominal flexural strength and longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
In the 6-span bridges series is also plotted the Effective Modal Superposition (EffMS) used to
compute the deck moments envelope with DDBD.
5.3.1 Series 1 and 2

Results of this 4-span series are shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. These bridges are characterized
for being regular structures with similar first elastic and inelastic shapes. It can be clearly seen
that the required pier flexural strengths are always greater for DDBD than for FBD, and
consequently the reinforcement ratios.
In general both methods describe very well the displacement pattern, which is highly dictated
by the first mode. The deck moments in FBD are also well predicted, but some scatter is
shown for series 3 (See Figure 5.5).
5.3.2 Series 3
Results of this 4-span series are shown in Figures 5.6. These bridges are characterized for
being regular structures with different first elastic and inelastic shapes for the case of H=7.5m.
It can be clearly seen that the required pier flexural strengths for DDBD are always greater
than for FBD, and consequently the reinforcement ratios.
In general FBD has troubles describing the displacement pattern for the two smallest pier
height and the results are poor. The deck moments computed with FBD are very bad
predicted.
109
5
DDBD DDBD Displacement x 10 DDBD Deck Moments
0.4 2
Displacement [m]
MN ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.2 1
P1 2.0 41555 3.39
P2 2.0 41558 3.39
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.0 41555 3.39 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD FBD Displacement x 10 FBD Deck Moments
0.4 2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.2 1
P1 2.0 25278 1.83
P2 2.0 37742 2.97
0 0
P3 2.0 25278 1.83 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.4 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.2
P1 2.5 41039 1.51 1
P2 2.5 41046 1.51

H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
P3 2.5 41039 1.51 Position [m] Position [m]
5
FBD Displacement x 10 FBD Deck Moments
FBD 0.4 3
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.2
1
P1 2.5 34860 1.16
P2 2.5 52044 1.92 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
MN
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 40137 1.46 0.2 1
P2 2.5 40138 1.46

H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 0.6 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.2 1
P1 2.5 35001 1.17
P2 2.5 52197 1.93 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 36890 1.28 0.2 1
P2 2.5 36890 1.28

H = 15.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 0.6 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.2 1
P1 2.5 32960 1.05
P2 2.5 49067 1.81 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 4 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 1.
110
5
DDBD Displacement DDBD Deck Moments
DDBD Displacement [m]
0.6 4
x 10
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.0 28784 2.15 0.2
P2 2.0 28783 2.15

H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.0 28784 2.15 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.0 32044 2.40 0.2
P2 2.0 15860 0.75

0 0
P3 2.0 32044 2.40 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD Displacement x 10 DDBD Deck Moments
DDBD 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2

P1 2.0 25936 1.91 0.2
P2 2.0 25937 1.91
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.0 31086 2.32 0.2
P2 2.0 13072 0.50 0 0

0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1 4
x 10
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.0 19254 1.13
P2 2.0 19254 1.13
H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.0 26211 1.94

P2 2.0 10377 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD x 10
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 4
[m] [kN*m] [%]

0.5 2
P1 2.0 7681 0.50
P2 2.0 7681 0.50 0 0
H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2

P1 2.0 21560 1.39
P2 2.0 8310 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
111
5
0.6 2
Displacement [m]
MN ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 69307 2.83 0.2
P2 2.5 69302 2.83

H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.5 69307 2.83 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 20872 0.50 0.2
P2 2.5 58683 2.24
0 0
P3 2.5 20872 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 1
P1 2.5 81618 3.76 0.2
P2 2.5 81620 3.76
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 1
P1 2.5 16559 0.50 0.2

P2 2.5 72159 2.99 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
1 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
MN
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
P1 2.5 82052 3.78 1
P2 2.5 82054 3.78

H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.5 13675 0.50
P2 2.5 69418 2.83 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5
P1 2.5 77202 3.48 1
P2 2.5 77204 3.48

H = 15.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.5 11173 0.50
P2 2.5 60568 2.34 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
112
5.3.3 Series 4
being stiff regular structures. For both DDBD and FBD there are some troubles predicting the
displacements pattern in the first two cases (H = 7.5 m and H = 10.0 m), but the deck moment
envelopes are clearly better for DDBD. It is observed than DDBD gives in general consistent
results in the deck moments envelopes when compared with THA results, in the other hand it
does not happened with FBD where results are often too conservative and sometimes too un-
conservative.
height and the results are poor. The deck moments computed with FBD are very bad
predicted.
5.3.4 Series 5
being flexible regular structures. In general both methods describe very well the displacement
pattern, which is highly dictated by the first mode. The deck moments in FBD for the smallest
pier height (H=7.5m) are overestimated, but in the other cases are in general well predicted.
5.3.5 Series 6
Results of this 6-span series are shown in Figures 5.9.
These bridges are characterized for being stiff regular structures with different first elastic and
inelastic shapes for the cases of H=7.5 m and H= 10.0 m.
In general both methods have problems describing the displacement pattern for the two
smallest pier height and the results are poor. However, concerning DDBD method, it has been
proved in the present work (section 4.3.1.7) and in Alvarez Botero dissertation [Alvarez
Botero, 2004] that some redistribution of strength in this kind of stiff bridge configurations
improves significantly the results. In the case of FBD as the piers stiffnesses are dictated by
the gross section properties times some effective reduction factor, the displacement envelope
will always be predict in the first elastic mode shape, which is very different to the final
displacement based in the first inelastic mode shape. In the other hand in FBD the piers
strength is chosen depending of the reduction factor chosen, which vary from one country to
other, and there is not choice to select the strength relation between piers.
Concerning the deck moments, it is noted that the DDBD results are in good agreement, less
in the first height case. In general FBD results are bad predicted and far away from THA
results.
113
5
0.4 2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.2 48258 2.85 0.2 1
P2 2.2 48273 2.85

P3 2.2 48277 2.86
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.2 48273 2.85 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 0.4 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.2 1
P1 2.2 22718 0.98
P2 2.2 35767 1.90
P3 2.2 45061 2.61 0 0
P4 2.2 35767 1.90 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
0.4 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 56936 2.15 0.2
1
P2 2.5 56964 2.15
P3 2.5 56968 2.15
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 56964 2.15 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 0.4 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.2
P1 2.5 27895 0.78 1
P2 2.5 45723 1.69
P3 2.5 56814 2.14 0 0
P4 2.5 45723 1.69 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2

P1 2.5 56538 2.13
0.2 1
P2 2.5 56542 2.13
P3 2.5 56543 2.13
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 56542 2.13 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 0.6 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 27527 0.76 0.2 1
P2 2.5 47776 1.76
P3 2.5 58057 2.21 0 0
P4 2.5 47776 1.76 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 0.6
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4

2
P1 2.5 56457 2.13
0.2 1
P2 2.5 56458 2.13
P3 2.5 56458 2.13
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 56458 2.13 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
0.6
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.5 25698 0.66 1
0.2
P2 2.5 45829 1.69
P3 2.5 55049 2.05 0 0
P4 2.5 45829 1.69 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Design THA Average EffMS
114
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 0.6
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
2
P1 2.0 34633 2.63
0.2 1
P2 2.0 34635 2.63
P3 2.0 34636 2.63
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.0 34635 2.63 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
0.6
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.0 25207 1.82 1
0.2
P2 2.0 29566 2.21
P3 2.0 24208 1.70 0 0
P4 2.0 29566 2.21 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6
P1 2.0 30528 2.28 0.4 2
P2 2.0 30528 2.28 0.2

P3 2.0 30528 2.28
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.0 30528 2.28 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.4
P1 2.0 24774 1.77
P2 2.0 25754 1.88 0.2
P3 2.0 19188 1.12 0 0
P4 2.0 25754 1.88 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

P1 2.0 26837 2.01 2
0.5
P2 2.0 26838 2.01
P3 2.0 26838 2.01
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.0 26838 2.01 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.0 22727 1.5 0.5
P2 2.0 21637 1.4
P3 2.0 15343 0.7 0 0
P4 2.0 21637 1.4 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
1
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.0 22787 1.5 2
0.5
P2 2.0 22789 1.5
P3 2.0 22789 1.5
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.0 22789 1.5 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.0 19630 1.2 0.5
P2 2.0 17758 1.0
P3 2.0 12269 0.5 0 0
P4 2.0 17758 1.0 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
115
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.5 75382 3.30
0.2 1
P2 2.5 75378 3.30
P3 2.5 75375 3.30
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 75378 3.30 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 0.6 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 29964 0.89 0.2 1
P2 2.5 38635 1.38
P3 2.5 34928 1.17 0 0
P4 2.5 38635 1.38 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 87605 4.12 0.4
1
P2 2.5 87593 4.12 0.2
P3 2.5 87585 4.12
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 87593 4.12 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.5 21024 0.50 1
P2 2.5 40146 1.46 0.2
P3 2.5 64205 2.53 0 0
P4 2.5 40146 1.46 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2

P1 2.7 94777 3.40 0.5
1
P2 2.7 94763 3.39
P3 2.7 94754 3.39
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.7 94763 3.39 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
P1 2.7 19453 0.50 1
P2 2.7 42467 1.14
P3 2.7 79448 2.71 0 0
P4 2.7 42467 1.14 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

P1 2.7 91179 3.23 1
0.5
P2 2.7 91181 3.23
P3 2.7 91181 3.23
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.7 91181 3.23 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.7 13891 0.50 0.5
P2 2.7 43762 1.20
P3 2.7 75939 2.57 0 0
P4 2.7 43762 1.20 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
116
5.4 RESULTS COMPARISON FOR IRREGULAR BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS
Results from the Direct Displacement-Based Design and Force Based Design, and the
corresponding average results of the five time histories analysis are shown in this section for
each of the twelve Irregular Bridges, Series 7 to 18. They are found from Figure 5.10 to
Figure 5.21. Graphical comparison is made between displacements and deck moments
envelopes as well as pier design diameters, nominal flexural strength and longitudinal
reinforcement ratio.
In the 6-span bridges series is also plotted the Effective Modal Superposition (EffMS) used to
compute the deck moments envelope with DDBD.
5.4.1 Series 7, 8 and 9

Results of this 4-span series are shown in Figures 5.10 to 5.12. These bridges are
characterized for being slightly irregular flexible structures with similar first elastic and
inelastic shapes. Generally small pier diameters are used (2.0 m and 2.2 m) with lor
longitudinal reinforcement ratios. Generally, the required pier flexural strengths for DDBD
are always greater than for FBD. This does not happened in the shorter pier, where FBD
flexural strength sometimes is equal or even bigger the required by DDBD.
DDBD displacements and deck moments gives very good results when compared with THA
results. In the other side, FBD does not describe very well the displacement pattern and deck
moments for the shortest height cases, but in the other cases give good results.
5.4.2 Series 10, 11 and 12

Results of this 4-span series are shown in Figures 5.3 to 5.15. These bridges are characterized
for being irregular stiff structures. It can be clearly seen that the required pier flexural
strengths for DDBD are always greater than for FBD, and consequently the reinforcement
ratios.
height and the results are rather poor. It is observed than DDBD gives in general consistent
results in the deck moments envelopes when compared with THA results, in the other hand it
does not happened with FBD where results are often too conservative and sometimes too un-
conservative.
117
5
0.6 4
x 10
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.2 33550 1.77 0.2
P2 2.2 33549 1.77

H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.2 33548 1.77 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.2 31710 1.66 0.2
P2 2.2 25724 1.23

0 0
P3 2.2 23954 1.08 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6 4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4

2
P1 2.2 33016 1.74 0.2
P2 2.2 33013 1.74
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
MN 4
Pier D 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4

2
P1 2.2 35967 1.92 0.2
P2 2.2 20248 0.78 0 0

0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.2 26531 1.30

P2 2.2 26531 1.30 0
H = 12.5 m
0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.2 34233 1.81

P2 2.2 16010 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2

P1 2.0 11600 0.50
P2 2.0 11600 0.50 0 0
H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
4
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.0 22508 1.49
P2 2.0 9198 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 10 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 7: SMM.
118
5
DDBD 4
x 10
0.8
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.0 36594 2.85 0.2
P2 2.0 36596 2.85
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.0 36597 2.85 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
4
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.4
P1 2.0 29809 2.23
0.2
P2 2.0 21358 1.36
0 0
P3 2.0 8929 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 4
[m] [kN*m] [%]

0.5 2
P1 2.0 35923 2.77
P2 2.0 35920 2.77
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD
Displacement [m]
1
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
MN 4
Pier D
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.0 31321 2.34
P2 2.0 16051 0.77 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.0 28364 2.12
P2 2.0 28365 2.12 0
H = 12.5 m
0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.0 27480 2.06
P2 2.0 12144 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD
Displacement [m]
ρl 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

2
P1 2.0 12559 0.50 0.5
P2 2.0 12559 0.50 0 0

H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
4
Pier D MN ρl
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.0 22702 1.52
P2 2.0 9355 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 11 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 8: SML.
119
5
DDBD 4
x 10
0.8
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.2 41138 2.30 0.2
P2 2.2 41141 2.30
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.2 41142 2.30 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
4
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.4
P1 2.2 36183 1.93
0.2
P2 2.2 13962 0.50
0 0
P3 2.2 13178 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 4
[m] [kN*m] [%]

0.5 2
P1 2.2 41842 2.36
P2 2.2 41840 2.36
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD
Displacement [m]
1
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
MN 4
Pier D
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.2 39312 2.15
P2 2.2 10218 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.0 33933 2.55
P2 2.0 33931 2.55 0
H = 12.5 m
0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.0 28602 2.14
P2 2.0 5641 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD
Displacement [m]
ρl 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

2
P1 2.0 15143 0.68 0.5
P2 2.0 15143 0.68 0 0

H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
4
Pier D MN ρl
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.0 23314 1.59
P2 2.0 4283 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 12 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 9: SLL.
120
5
0.6 3
Displacement [m]
MN ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.2 49194 2.93 0.2 1
P2 2.2 49199 2.93

H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.2 49202 2.93 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.2 23014 1.01 0.2 1
P2 2.2 38317 2.08
0 0
P3 2.2 17082 0.53 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.5 53580 1.98 0.2
P2 2.5 53583 1.98
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.5 25142 0.63 0.2

P2 2.5 51738 1.91 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
1 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
MN
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.5 54209 2.01
P2 2.5 54215 2.01
H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 2
P1 2.5 28161 0.79

P2 2.5 57789 2.20 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5
P1 2.5 50486 1.87 1
P2 2.5 50491 1.87

H = 15.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.5 30115 0.90
P2 2.5 53780 1.99 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 13 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 10: SSM.
121
5
DDBD 3
x 10
0.8
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.5 50075 1.85 1
0.2
P2 2.5 50090 1.85
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.5 50094 1.85 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.4
P1 2.5 31340 0.96 1
0.2
P2 2.5 37754 1.33
0 0
P3 2.5 11799 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 4
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.5 56115 2.11
P2 2.5 56116 2.11
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
2
P1 2.5 25876 0.67

P2 2.5 52852 1.95 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.5 57578 2.18
P2 2.5 57582 2.18 0
H = 12.5 m
0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.5 27341 0.75
P2 2.5 58449 2.23 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 3
Displacement [m]
ρl 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
1
P1 2.5 54248 2.01 0.5
P2 2.5 54256 2.01 0 0

H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
1
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5 1
P1 2.5 29559 0.87
P2 2.5 54462 2.02 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 14 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 11: SSL.
122
5
3
0.8
Displacement [m]
MN ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.5 74883 3.25 1
0.2
P2 2.5 74888 3.25
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.5 74890 3.25 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.4
P1 2.5 26783 0.72 1
0.2
P2 2.5 48078 1.77
0 0
P3 2.5 8645 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
4
Displacement [m]
MN ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.5
P1 2.5 87865 4.14
P2 2.5 87869 4.14
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
2
P1 2.5 13640 0.50

P2 2.5 72456 3.01 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
1.5 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
MN
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
1 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 89787 4.25 0.5 1
P2 2.5 89788 4.25

H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1.5 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5 1
P1 2.5 13146 0.50
P2 2.5 70923 2.92 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 84780 3.95 0.5 1
P2 2.5 84778 3.95

H = 15.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
1
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5 1
P1 2.5 11088 0.50
P2 2.5 61963 2.41 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Design THA Average
Figure 5. 15 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 12: MSL.
123
5.4.3 Series 13, 14, 15 and 16

Results of this 6-span series are shown in Figures 5.16 to 5.19. These bridges are
characterized for being slightly irregular flexible structures with similar first elastic and
inelastic shapes.
DDBD displacements and deck moments gives in general good results when compared with
THA results. In the other side, FBD does not describe very well the displacement pattern and
deck moments for the shortest height cases. In general, FBD and THA deck moments
envelopes are rather different, and normally the maximum deck moment from the envelope
generally overestimates the maximum THA results.
5.4.4 Series 17 and 18

Results of this 6-span series are shown in Figures 5.20 and 5.21. These bridges are
characterized for being irregular stiff structures. It can be clearly seen that the required pier
flexural strengths for DDBD are always greater than for FBD, and consequently the
reinforcement ratios.
In general, as was said in chapter 4, the DDBD displacements are underestimated for the
shortest pier height in the flexible side of the bridge, but when compared with FBD results
seem to be in better agreement with its THA results.
FBD has troubles describing the displacement pattern for the two smallest pier height and the
results are rather poor. In general, FBD and THA deck moments envelopes are rather
different, and normally the maximum deck moment from the envelope generally highly
overestimates the maximum THA results.
124
5
4
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6
P1 2.5 34128 1.12 0.4 2
P2 2.5 34107 1.12 0.2

P3 2.5 34105 1.12
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 34107 1.12 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
0.4
P1 2.5 27842 0.78
P2 2.5 28169 0.79 0.2
P3 2.5 35577 1.20 0 0
P4 2.5 28964 0.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 39773 1.44 2
0.5
P2 2.5 39791 1.44
P3 2.5 39795 1.44
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 39796 1.44 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 35203 1.18 0.5
P2 2.5 40046 1.46
P3 2.5 30624 0.93 0 0
P4 2.5 20904 0.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1.5 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.5 47361 1.75 2
0.5
P2 2.5 47374 1.75
P3 2.5 47378 1.75
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 47380 1.75 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 26093 0.68 0.5
P2 2.5 41264 1.52
P3 2.5 26322 0.70 0 0
P4 2.5 15742 0.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

1 2
P1 2.5 51799 1.91
P2 2.5 51799 1.91 0.5
P3 2.5 51797 1.91
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 51796 1.91 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 2
P1 2.5 20635 0.50
0.5
P2 2.5 43143 1.59
P3 2.5 22500 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 12226 0.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 5. 16 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 13: SSMLL(1).
125
5
3
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6 2
P1 2.5 45837 1.69 0.4
1
P2 2.5 45819 1.69 0.2
P3 2.5 45819 1.69
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 45822 1.69 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.4
P1 2.5 25812 0.67 1
P2 2.5 27285 0.75 0.2
P3 2.5 40029 1.46 0 0
P4 2.5 40382 1.48 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 40826 1.50 2
0.5
P2 2.5 40835 1.50
P3 2.5 40839 1.50
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 40842 1.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 27815 0.78 0.5
P2 2.5 31259 0.96
P3 2.5 37638 1.32 0 0
P4 2.5 30889 0.94 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1.5 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.5 32552 1.03 2
0.5
P2 2.5 32552 1.03
P3 2.5 32552 1.03
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 32552 1.03 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 27520 0.76 0.5
P2 2.5 32043 1.00
P3 2.5 32624 1.03 0 0
P4 2.5 23709 0.56 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

1 2
P1 2.5 29790 0.88
P2 2.5 29790 0.88 0.5
P3 2.5 29790 0.88
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 29790 0.88 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 2
P1 2.5 27458 0.76
0.5
P2 2.5 30375 0.91
P3 2.5 27223 0.74 0 0
P4 2.5 18215 0.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 5. 17 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 14: SSMLL(2).
126
5
3
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6 2
P1 2.5 31550 0.98 0.4
1
P2 2.5 31548 0.98 0.2
P3 2.5 31547 0.98
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 31547 0.98 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.4
P1 2.5 35580 1.20 1
P2 2.5 36951 1.28 0.2
P3 2.5 17688 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 36174 1.24 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 42032 1.55 2
0.5
P2 2.5 42026 1.55
P3 2.5 42025 1.55
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 42024 1.55 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 34258 1.13 0.5
P2 2.5 45184 1.67
P3 2.5 13996 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 30107 0.90 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1.5 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.5 49805 1.84 2
0.5
P2 2.5 49804 1.84
P3 2.5 49804 1.84
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 49804 1.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 24583 0.60 0.5
P2 2.5 48392 1.79
P3 2.5 11596 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 25348 0.64 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

1 2
P1 2.5 53886 1.99
P2 2.5 53885 1.99 0.5
P3 2.5 53884 1.99
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 53885 1.99 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 2
P1 2.5 21277 0.50
0.5
P2 2.5 48996 1.81
P3 2.5 9850 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 21381 0.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 5. 18 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 15: SSLMS.
127
5
3
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6 2
P1 2.5 66508 2.67 0.4
1
P2 2.5 66510 2.67 0.2
P3 2.5 66510 2.67
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 66506 2.67 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.4
P1 2.5 26254 0.69 1
P2 2.5 45890 1.69 0.2
P3 2.5 16334 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 33256 1.07 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 90337 4.29 2
0.5
P2 2.5 90336 4.29
P3 2.5 90335 4.29
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 90333 4.29 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 14129 0.50 0.5
P2 2.5 56279 2.12
P3 2.5 13956 0.50 0 0
P4 2.5 30369 0.91 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1.5 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.7 104629 3.84 2
0.5
P2 2.7 104627 3.84
P3 2.7 104626 3.84
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.7 104621 3.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.7 11654 0.50 0.5
P2 2.7 63540 1.89
P3 2.7 14516 0.50 0 0
P4 2.7 31659 0.68 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

1 2
P1 2.7 105192 3.86
P2 2.7 105191 3.86 0.5
P3 2.7 105188 3.86
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.7 105178 3.86 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 2
P1 2.7 8532 0.50
0.5
P2 2.7 64128 1.91
P3 2.7 12609 0.50 0 0
P4 2.7 27019 0.50 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 5. 19 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for bridges of Series 16: MSLMS.
128
5
3
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6 2
P1 2.5 35190 1.18 0.4
1
P2 2.5 35190 1.18 0.2
P3 2.5 35190 1.18
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 35190 1.18 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.4
P1 2.5 18168 0.50 1
P2 2.5 35375 1.19 0.2
P3 2.5 30791 0.93 0 0
P4 2.5 37574 1.32 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 49320 1.82 2
0.5
P2 2.5 49320 1.82
P3 2.5 49319 1.82
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 49315 1.82 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 11880 0.50 0.5
P2 2.5 27578 0.76
P3 2.5 39329 1.42 0 0
P4 2.5 53297 1.97 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1.5 4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.5 66442 2.66 2
0.5
P2 2.5 66441 2.66
P3 2.5 66438 2.66
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 66429 2.66 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5 4
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 8981 0.50 0.5
P2 2.5 23329 0.54
P3 2.5 49606 1.83 0 0
P4 2.5 51038 1.89 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
4
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

1 2
P1 2.5 80303 3.68
P2 2.5 80303 3.68 0.5
P3 2.5 80302 3.68
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 80301 3.68 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 4
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 2
P1 2.5 7279 0.50
0.5
P2 2.5 20762 0.50
P3 2.5 53561 1.98 0 0
P4 2.5 38821 1.39 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
129
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 2
P1 2.5 37260 1.30
0.2 1
P2 2.5 37255 1.30
P3 2.5 37248 1.30
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 37235 1.30 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 0.6 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 29767 0.88 0.2 1
P2 2.5 41469 1.53
P3 2.5 23980 0.57 0 0
P4 2.5 32808 1.05 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2
P1 2.5 50621 1.87 0.4
1
P2 2.5 50619 1.87 0.2
P3 2.5 50616 1.87
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 50606 1.87 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.5 22440 0.50 1
P2 2.5 39985 1.45 0.2
P3 2.5 36847 1.28 0 0
P4 2.5 51544 1.91 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2

P1 2.5 65713 2.62 0.5
1
P2 2.5 65711 2.62
P3 2.5 65706 2.62
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 65695 2.62 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
P1 2.5 18068 0.50 1
P2 2.5 36850 1.28
P3 2.5 47617 1.76 0 0
P4 2.5 46522 1.72 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 2

P1 2.5 75085 3.27 0.5
1
P2 2.5 75084 3.27
P3 2.5 75083 3.27
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 75082 3.27 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 14747 0.50 0.5
1
P2 2.5 33743 1.10
P3 2.5 52365 1.94 0 0
P4 2.5 36164 1.24 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
130
Chapter 6 – Rail Bridge
6. RAIL BRIDGE
The main purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the direct displacement-based design method
with other bridge types as a Rail Bridge. Initially, some discussion is made concerning a
previous parametric study, and then 6 bridge types are chosen and analyzed with direct
displacement-based design with the new characteristics, and finally compared with the force-
based design method.
6.1 PREVIOUS STUDY
In the work done by Alvarez Botero [Alvarez Botero, 2004], several parametric analyses were
carried concerning the influence of reinforcement steel ratio and the deck.
Concerning the reinforcement steel ratio, for a given structure configuration, comparing a
design with small diameter columns with maximum reinforcement ratios with one with big
diameter columns with minimum reinforcement ratios, is found that the differences can be
neglected, and the design is satisfactory from the point of view of reaching the target
displacement.
In the case of the deck stiffness, is clear that this parameter affect significantly the structure
design. In the cases of bridges with flexible configurations general good agreement was
obtained when varying this parameter, but in the case of bridges with rigid configurations, as
for example the ones that have a central short pier, the results of the method when the
superstructure stiffness is reduced shown a drastic change. As in the parametric analyses of
Alvarez Botero a very low value of deck stiffness was assumed (Ideck = 5 m4), in the present
work is studied a more real case, a one lane Rail Bridge with a deck moment of inertia of 10.4
m4.
131
6.2 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF A RAIL BRIDGE
Following The methodology proposed in Chapter 3, a typical Rail Bridge has been chosen to
asses the direct-displacement based design method in a bridge with low transversal deck
stiffness. A typical transverse section of a Rail Bridge is depicted in Figure 6.1, the deck
transverse-moment of inertia is Iyy = 10.4 m4 and its torsional stiffness has been ignored. The
distributed weight of the bridge deck, is taken as Wdeck = 210 kN/m. All the other additional
parameters required for the analysis, as the materials, abutments characteristics and seismic
input, have been taken equal to those of the bridge studied in Section 3.3.
6 representative bridge configurations have been chosen, the 4-span bridges series 2, 8 and 12
and the 6-span bridges series 5, 14 and 18. Every bridge series can be considered as regular,
slightly irregular and highly irregular respectively for each number of span configurations.
Figure 6. 1 –Typical transverse section of Rail Bridge.
132
6.2.1 4-span Rail Bridges
Design results for the 4-span Rail Bridges configurations are shown in Table 6.1 and Figures
6.2 to 6.4.
Comparing the SDOF parameters to those of the bridge studied in the previous chapters, it is
clearly seen that this typology of Rail Bridges present a more flexible configurations. Due to
the small deck transversal stiffnesses, the percentage of load taken by the superstructure, SS,
has decreased, which increase the seismic force dissipation mechanism trough the inelastic
piers load path. In the other hand, due to the more flexible bridge configurations, the base
shears, VB, are smaller than the base shears of the bridges studied in the previous chapters.
The equivalent system damping values, ξsys, are also higher for this Rail Bridges typologies
than for the previously studied, then higher inelastic piers action is expected.
Table 6.1 Substitute SDOF parameters for 4-span Rail Bridges.

[m] [%] [m] [ton] [s] [kN/m] [kN] [%]
Series 2
7.5 16.6 0.43 2956 2.02 28488 12152 0.0
10.0 14.4 0.54 3060 2.50 19334 10359 8.7
12.5 12.3 0.65 3127 3.02 13525 8783 19.1
15.0 10.4 0.77 3176 3.57 9825 7525 31.7
Series 8: SML
7.5 10.7 0.53 2735 2.17 22920 12211 6.8
10.0 11.3 0.65 3107 2.91 14496 9447 20.4
12.5 10.2 0.75 3200 3.43 10709 8023 31.8
15.0 8.9 0.85 3260 3.86 8632 7305 41.7
Series 12: MSL
7.5 11.9 0.35 2718 1.43 52122 18113 17.6
10.0 11.4 0.40 3137 1.62 47458 18814 18.1
12.5 11.2 0.45 3404 1.85 39136 17761 20.8
15.0 10.8 0.52 3565 2.11 31520 16348 23.9
133
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 15.00 7.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1036 1163 1036 428 0.6
µD - 5.59 2.71 5.59 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 17.29 13.80 17.29 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 3 4858 2429 4858 3 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 36438 36438 36438 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 16195 4420 16195 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 20.00 10.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1043 1176 1043 428 0.6
µD - 4.31 1.91 4.31 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 16.23 11.38 16.23 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 449 3785 1892 3785 449 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 37849 37849 37849 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 9462 2780 9462 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 12.50 25.00 12.50 - 1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1049 1190 1049 428 0.6
µD - 3.51 1.48 3.51 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.25 9.20 15.25 8.00 0.2

0.0
V [kN] 839 2842 1421 2842 839
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 35523 35523 35523 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 5684 1739 5684 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 15.00 30.00 15.00 - 1.0

D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1056 1203 1056 428 0.6
µD - 2.95 1.21 2.95 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.32 7.20 14.32 8.00 0.2

0.0
V [kN] 1193 2055 1028 2055 1193
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 30830 30829 30830 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 3427 1074 3427 75000
Figure 6. 2 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 2.
134
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 7.50 15.00 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1036 1163 1076 428
0.4
µD - 2.80 2.95 1.24 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 14.01 14.32 7.45 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -1873 6206 3105 2070 2704 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 46543 46570 46576 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 41263 5173 3716 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 10.00 20.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1043 1176 1096 428
0.4
µD - 4.14 2.25 0.78 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 16.05 12.58 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -300 4273 2136 1106 2232 -0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 42728 42726 33181 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 11123 2671 1803 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 25.00 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1049 1190 1116 428 0.6
µD - 3.51 1.68 0.55 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 15.25 10.33 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 304 3251 1625 598 2245 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 40634 40633 22414 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 6501 1754 883 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 30.00 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.00 2.00 2.00 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1056 1203 1136 428 0.6
µD - 2.95 1.33 0.42 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 14.32 8.15 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 738 2594 1297 365 2311 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 38904 38903 16441 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 4324 1236 491 75000
Figure 6. 3 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 8: SML.
135
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 7.50 22.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1089 1165 1120 428
0.4
µD - 0.48 6.99 1.22 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 18.05 7.29 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -565 2289 9481 3161 3747 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 34339 71111 71112 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 29172 31603 7204 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 20.00 10.00 30.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1128 1186 1176 428
0.4
µD - 0.62 5.82 0.82 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 17.43 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -161 3007 9738 2669 3561 -0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 60139 97382 80069 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 18459 24345 5547 75000
H =12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 12.50 37.50 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1152 1198 1213 428 0.6
µD - 0.63 4.73 0.57 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 16.63 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 370 2960 9343 1769 3319 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 74004 116786 66335 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 11430 18686 3425 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 15.00 45.00 -
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.70 2.70 2.70 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1176 1211 1249 428 0.6
µD - 0.60 3.99 0.42 - 0.4
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 15.88 5.00 8.00 0.2
V [kN] 846 2601 8633 1210 3057 0.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
M [kN*m] - 78044 129489 54472 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 7376 14388 2206 75000
Figure 6. 4 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 12: MSL.
136
Design results for the 6-span Rail Bridges configurations are shown in Table 6.2 and Figures
6.5 to 6.7.
As in the case of the 4-span bridges, when comparing the SDOF parameters of the Rail
Bridges with those of the bridge studied in the previous chapters, it is clearly seen that this
typology present more flexible configurations. Due to the small deck transversal stiffnesses,
the percentage of load taken by the superstructure, SS, is generally very low, being in some
cases negative, which finally trend to increase the seismic force dissipation mechanism trough
the inelastic piers load path. In the other hand, due to the more flexible bridge configurations,
the base shears, VB, are smaller than the base shears of the bridges studied in the previous
chapters. The equivalent system damping values, ξsys, are also higher for this Rail Bridges
typologies than for the previously studied, then higher inelastic piers action is expected.
Table 6.2 Substitute SDOF parameters for 6-span Rail Bridges.

[m] [%] [m] [ton] [s] [kN/m] [kN] [%]
Series 5
7.5 11.2 0.46 3294 1.87 37383 17052 -17.7
10.0 9.1 0.61 3647 2.39 25195 15301 -25.2
12.5 11.3 0.76 4630 3.68 13529 10254 -19.3
15.0 11.3 0.88 4964 4.76 8666 7633 -10.8
Series 14: SSLMM2
7.5 9.9 0.59 3302 2.38 22970 13529 13.8
10.0 8.1 0.77 3845 3.19 14949 11542 12.1
12.5 8.2 0.94 4508 4.39 9230 8674 3.6
15.0 7.3 1.06 4869 5.18 7150 7541 2.3
Series 18: LMSSM2
7.5 9.6 0.45 2444 1.75 31586 14265 20.3
10.0 11.9 0.51 2953 2.16 24937 12759 16.8
12.5 10.7 0.61 3271 2.57 19511 11871 13.6
15.0 9.4 0.71 3613 3.00 15870 11241 12.0
137
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 11.25 15.00 11.25 7.50 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1044 1163 1176 1163 1044 428 0.4
µD - 0.34 3.17 3.25 3.17 0.34 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 14.71 14.85 14.71 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -1510 2724 5318 3989 5318 2724 -1510
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 20428 59824 59838 59824 20428 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 163521 15865 6647 15865 163521 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 10.00 15.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1052 1176 1192 1176 1052 428 0.4
µD - 0.68 2.68 2.47 2.68 0.68 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 13.73 13.22 13.73 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -1926 4077 3999 3000 3999 4077 -1926 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 40769 59982 59998 59982 40769 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 71067 8084 3748 8084 71067 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 12.50 18.75 25.00 18.75 12.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1060 1188 1208 1188 1060 428
0.4
µD - 2.00 2.60 1.99 2.60 2.00 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 11.72 13.55 11.71 13.55 11.72 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -987 3190 2127 1595 2127 3190 -987 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 39872 39880 39883 39880 39872 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 12322 2863 1595 2863 12322 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 15.00 22.50 30.00 22.50 15.00 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1069 1200 1224 1200 1069 428
0.4
µD - 2.08 2.21 1.59 2.21 2.08 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 12.03 12.45 9.84 12.45 12.03 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -411 2206 1471 1103 1471 2206 -411 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 33087 33089 33089 33089 33087 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 5735 1634 967 1634 5735 75000
Figure 6. 5 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 5.
138
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.4
1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 7.50 11.25 15.00 18.75 22.50 -
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 408 1012 1129 1145 1161 1074 408 0.6
0.4
µD - -0.15 0.40 2.38 2.99 1.52 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 5.00 12.96 14.38 9.45 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] 104 -1324 2322 4324 3460 2884 1757 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - -9929 26122 64854 64877 64891 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 201511 61928 11205 4613 5282 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.4
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 - 1.2
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1068 1196 1217 1238 1151 428 0.6
0.4
µD - -0.13 0.88 2.29 2.27 1.05 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 5.00 12.71 12.64 5.64 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] -362 -767 3529 2994 2395 1996 1755 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - -7669 52931 59872 59884 59892 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 80641 24565 4590 2395 2994 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.4
H[m] - 12.50 18.75 25.00 31.25 37.50 - 1.2
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1078 1212 1238 1264 1183 428 0.6
µD - 0.48 1.73 2.27 1.77 0.76 - 0.4
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 10.58 12.64 10.76 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -1292 1732 2429 1821 1457 921 1606 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 21651 45539 45534 45532 34534 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 31925 5585 1822 1202 1237 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.4
H[m] - 15.00 22.50 30.00 37.50 45.00 - 1.2
Displacements [m]
1.0
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8
Mass[ton] 428 1089 1227 1259 1290 1214 428 0.6
µD - 0.86 1.75 1.90 1.37 0.57 - 0.4

0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 10.67 11.33 8.43 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] -1414 2415 1880 1410 1128 534 1587 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 36226 42310 42307 42306 24028 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 17357 2993 1175 841 667 75000
Figure 6. 6 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 14: SSMLL2.
139
H = 7.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 15.00 11.25 7.50 7.50 11.25 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1089 1180 1165 1165 1073 428 0.4
µD - 2.99 4.83 0.81 -0.33 0.03 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 14.39 16.72 5.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
-0.2
V [kN] 2846 3424 4565 5530 -2292 145 46 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 51358 51358 41479 -17189 1627 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 7046 10145 159541 159541 49029 75000
H = 10.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
Displacements [m]
H[m] - 20.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 - 1.0
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1110 1196 1175 1175 1089 428 0.4
µD - 1.80 3.69 2.75 -0.05 -0.14 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 10.91 15.51 13.89 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0

-0.2
V [kN] 2234 2617 3490 5234 -239 -485 -92 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 52346 52345 52342 -2394 -7280 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 5097 5816 25666 70495 21474 75000
H = 12.5 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 25.00 18.75 12.50 12.50 18.75 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 - 0.8

0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1131 1212 1186 1186 1105 428
0.4
µD - 1.28 2.99 3.27 0.28 -0.17 -
0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 7.77 14.38 14.88 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 1974 2195 2926 4389 1235 -494 -355 -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 54872 54868 54860 15440 -9266 -
Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 3885 3902 11769 38464 11654 75000
H = 15.0 m
A1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 A2 1.2
H[m] - 30.00 22.50 15.00 15.00 22.50 - 1.0
Displacements [m]
0.8
D[m] - 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 -
0.6
Mass[ton] 428 1151 1227 1196 1196 1120 428
0.4
µD - 1.00 2.51 3.31 0.61 -0.10 - 0.2
ξ [%] 8.00 5.00 13.32 14.95 5.00 5.00 8.00 0.0
V [kN] 1904 1827 2437 3655 2222 -252 -553 -0.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
M [kN*m] - 54796 54839 54826 33333 -5678 - Position [m]
Keff [kN/m] 75000 2892 2708 6795 22494 6791 75000
Figure 6. 7 – Design results for Rail Bridges of Series 18: LMSSM2.
140
6.3 COMPARISON OF DDBD AND FBD - PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT USING

TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS
For all the DDBD Rail Bridges a time history analysis, THA, is performed with the same
characteristics exposed in Chapter 4. In the same way, each of the Rail bridges is designed
with FBD, using the characteristics presented in Chapter 5.
DDBD and FBD results for the 4-span Rail Bridges configurations are shown in and Figures
6.8 to 6.10. It is clearly seen that in general good agreement is obtained between the
displacements predicted with direct displacement-based design, DDBD, and the time history
analysis average, THA. However, when the degree of irregularity of the bridge increase and
the piers heights decrease to the smallest values (say H=7.5 m), some problems in the
prediction with DDBD are obtained. It is believed that those problems are the result of try to
predict the bridge deformed shape with the first inelastic mode shape and, in the case of very
stiff Irregular Bridges configurations, the maximum deformed shape can be highly influenced
by the behaviour under the elastic conditions.
Regarding the DDBD deck moments, it is clearly seen that the influence of higher mode
effects is very representative for this kind of bridges with low transversal moment of inertia.
When comparing with the bridges studied in the preceding chapters, it is seen that the
previous 4-span bridges generally did not require any modal superposition method to asses
the deck moments envelopes. Instead, for those Rail Bridges configurations, clearly the first
mode response is not enough to obtain good approximation and then the Effective Modal
Superposition, EffMS, is used successfully to obtain the Deck Moment envelope, which will
be better as the DDBD displacement shape is closer to the THA envelope.
Concerning the Rail Bridge designed with force-based design, FBD, can be said that their
performing, in terms of displacements, when are evaluated with THA are in general in good
agreement for regular configurations, but have many differences (conservative and un-
conservative) when irregular configurations and stiffer structures are studied, which makes
the method very random when predicting displacements. Regarding the deck moments, in
general are well predicted for the regular configurations, in the other side, are highly over
predicted when the bridge configurations gets more irregular, giving sometimes values around
two times the THA maximum deck moment.
Regarding the pier required flexural strength, in these Rail Bridge configurations the
longitudinal reinforcement rations computed with DDBD are evidently bigger than those
computed with FBD. These differences are bigger than those computed for the bridges
analyses in the previous chapters, indicating that the longitudinal reinforcement ratios
differences computed with DDBD and FBD, when the deck is more flexible, tend to be
greater.
141
5
0.6 3
x 10
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.0 31204 2.33 0.2 1
P2 2.0 31204 2.33

H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.0 31204 2.33 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
0.6 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.4 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.0 30203 2.26 0.2 1
P2 2.0 22045 1.44

0 0
P3 2.0 30203 2.26 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 3
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
1
P1 2.0 33516 2.51 0.2
P2 2.0 33516 2.51
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN 0.6
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
1
P1 2.0 30820 2.30 0.2
P2 2.0 17333 0.91 0 0

0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1 3
x 10
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
P1 2.0 32143 2.40 1
P2 2.0 32142 2.40

H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.0 29089 2.18
P2 2.0 13859 0.54 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 2
x 10
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.5
P1 2.0 28320 2.12
P2 2.0 28319 2.12 0 0
H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.0 25570 1.86

P2 2.0 11176 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 6. 8 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 2.
142
5
DDBD 2
x 10
0.8
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 1
P1 2.0 42754 3.55 0.2
P2 2.0 42779 3.56
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.0 42785 3.56 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
2
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.4
P1 2.0 27995 2.10
0.2
P2 2.0 26587 1.99
0 0
P3 2.0 13405 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 2
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.5
P1 2.0 38009 3.00
P2 2.0 38007 3.00
H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.0 25897 1.90

P2 2.0 20797 1.30 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 1.5 2
Displacement [m]
ρl
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.5
P1 2.0 36768 2.87
P2 2.0 36767 2.87 0
H = 12.5 m
0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1.5 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.5
P1 2.0 25885 1.90
P2 2.0 16090 0.78 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
DDBD 2
Displacement [m]
ρl 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 1
P1 2.0 35737 2.75 0.5
P2 2.0 35736 2.75 0 0

H = 15.0 m
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180

5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.5
P1 2.0 24191 1.70
P2 2.0 12665 0.50 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 6. 9 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 8: SML.
143
5
2
0.8
ρl
Displacement [m]
MN
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 1
P1 2.5 58764 2.25 0.2
P2 2.5 58785 2.25
H = 7.5 m
0 0
P3 2.5 58786 2.25 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
2
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.4
P1 2.5 43033 1.58
0.2
P2 2.5 41016 1.51
0 0
P3 2.5 14311 0.50 0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
Displacement [m]
MN ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5
P1 2.7 82907 2.86 1
P2 2.7 82911 2.86

H = 10.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
ρl 1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5
1
P1 2.7 41319 1.09
P2 2.7 52331 1.56 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
1.5 3
ρl
Displacement [m]
MN
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D
1 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.7 102261 3.73 0.5 1
P2 2.7 102268 3.73

H = 12.5 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 1.5 3
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1 2
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5 1
P1 2.7 30116 0.62
P2 2.7 56764 1.69 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
3
ρl
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN
2
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.7 115634 4.32 0.5 1
P2 2.7 115653 4.32

H = 15.0 m
0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
5
FBD 3
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 2
1
[m] [kN*m] [%]
0.5 1
P1 2.7 13391 0.50
P2 2.7 70300 2.22 0 0
0 40 90 140 180 0 40 90 140 180
Figure 6. 10 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 12: MSL.
144
DDBD and FBD results for the 6-span Rail Bridges configurations are shown in and Figures
6.11 to 6.13.
It is seen in general that good agreement is obtained between the displacements computed
with DDBD and the THA results. Nevertheless, as in the case of 4-sapn Rail Bridges, when
the degree of irregularity of the bridge increase and the piers heights decrease to the smallest
values, the results of DDBD are not accurate. As was said, it is believed that those problems
are the result of trying to predict the bridge deformed shape with the first inelastic mode shape
when for stiff irregular structures the deformed shape can be highly influenced by a
combination of the behaviour under the elastic and inelastic conditions.
On the subject of the DDBD deck moments, it is clearly seen that the influence of higher
mode effects is as representative as was for the bridges analyzed in the previous chapters. The
Effective Modal Superposition, EffMS, is then used with susses to obtain the Deck Moment
envelope, which is better as the DDBD displacement shape get close to the THA envelope.
Regarding the Rail Bridge designed with FBD it is seen that their displacements when are
evaluated with THA are in general in good agreement for regular configurations, but have
many differences (conservative and un-conservative) when irregular configurations and stiffer
structures are studie as was the case of the 4-span bridges. In the case of deck moments, again
in general are well predicted for regular configurations, in the other side, are highly over
predicted when the bridge configurations become more irregular.
Regarding the pier required flexural strength; the longitudinal reinforcement rations computed
with DDBD are clearly bigger than those computed with FBD. As in the case of 4-sapn
bridges, these differences are bigger than those computed for the bridges analyses in the
previous chapters, indicating that the longitudinal reinforcement ratios differences computed
with DDBD and FBD, when the deck is more flexible, are likely to be greater.
145
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 0.6
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.2 54473 3.62 1
P2 2.2 54510 3.63 0.2

P3 2.2 54523 3.63
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.2 54510 3.63 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
0.6
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
1
P1 2.2 28263 1.44
0.2
P2 2.2 34674 1.84
P3 2.2 38498 2.09 0 0
P4 2.2 34674 1.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl 1
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.2 55466 3.72 0.5 1
P2 2.2 55522 3.72

P3 2.2 55536 3.73
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.2 55522 3.72 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1
2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.5
P1 2.2 27950 1.41
P2 2.2 32684 1.72
P3 2.2 30795 1.61 0 0
P4 2.2 32684 1.72 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
1
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.2 36984 1.98 1
0.5
P2 2.2 36992 1.98
P3 2.2 36994 1.98
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.2 36992 1.98 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.2 26604 1.3 0.5
P2 2.2 28986 1.5
P3 2.2 24770 1.2 0 0
P4 2.2 28986 1.5 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
1.5
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.2 31033 1.6 1
P2 2.2 31034 1.6 0.5
P3 2.2 31034 1.6

H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.2 31034 1.6 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5
2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.2 23936 1.1 0.5
P2 2.2 24985 1.2
P3 2.2 19881 0.8 0 0
P4 2.2 24985 1.2 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 6. 11 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 5.
146
5
2
ρl 0.8
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.6
P1 2.5 59532 2.29 0.4 1
P2 2.5 59491 2.28 0.2

P3 2.5 59520 2.29
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 59541 2.29 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
0.8
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
0.4
P1 2.5 23612 0.55
P2 2.5 30723 0.93 0.2
P3 2.5 33102 1.06 0 0
P4 2.5 46221 1.70 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 56056 2.10 1
0.5
P2 2.5 56009 2.10
P3 2.5 56024 2.10
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 56035 2.10 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 32243 1.01 0.5
P2 2.5 30257 0.91
P3 2.5 34296 1.13 0 0
P4 2.5 38138 1.35 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1.5 2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1

P1 2.5 42653 1.57 1
0.5
P2 2.5 42640 1.57
P3 2.5 42636 1.57
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 42634 1.57 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1.5 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 1
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 28615 0.82 0.5
P2 2.5 26665 0.71
P3 2.5 31664 0.98 0 0
P4 2.5 29653 0.87 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1.5
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

1 1
P1 2.5 40034 1.46
P2 2.5 40030 1.46 0.5
P3 2.5 40027 1.46
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 40026 1.46 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1.5
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1 1
P1 2.5 26470 0.70
0.5
P2 2.5 24003 0.57
P3 2.5 27716 0.77 0 0
P4 2.5 23114 0.52 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 6. 12 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 14: SSMLL2.
147
5
0.6 2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4
P1 2.5 44855 1.65 1
0.2
P2 2.5 44855 1.65
P3 2.5 44860 1.65
0 0
H = 7.5 m
P4 2.5 44859 1.65 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 0.6 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.4
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 43702 1.61 0.2
P2 2.5 42615 1.57
P3 2.5 28370 0.81 0 0
P4 2.5 29936 0.89 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%]
P1 2.5 47126 1.74 0.4 1
P2 2.5 47125 1.74 0.2

P3 2.5 47122 1.74
H = 10.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 47168 1.74 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl 0.6
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.4 1
P1 2.5 32673 1.04
P2 2.5 45493 1.68 0.2
P3 2.5 33166 1.07 0 0
P4 2.5 43252 1.59 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
1 2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

P1 2.5 49973 1.85 0.5 1
P2 2.5 49969 1.85

P3 2.5 49961 1.85
H = 12.5 m
0 0
P4 2.5 49939 1.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 1 2
Displacement [m]
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 0.5 1
P1 2.5 24600 0.60
P2 2.5 40730 1.50
P3 2.5 29483 0.86 0 0
P4 2.5 49818 1.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
2
ρl
Displacement [m]
Pier D MN 1
Moment [kN*m]
[m] [kN*m] [%]

P1 2.5 49891 1.84 1
0.5
P2 2.5 49885 1.84
P3 2.5 49873 1.84
H = 15.0 m
0 0
P4 2.5 49845 1.84 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
5
FBD 2
Displacement [m]
1
Moment [kN*m]
Pier D MN ρl
[m] [kN*m] [%] 1
P1 2.5 18918 0.50 0.5
P2 2.5 35792 1.22
P3 2.5 33080 1.06 0 0
P4 2.5 54232 2.01 0 40 90 140 190 240 280 0 40 90 140 190 240 280
Figure 6. 13 – Comparison of DDBD, FBD and THA for Rail Bridges of Series 18: LMSSM2.
148
Chapter 7 – Conclusions
7. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, a displacement-based design procedure for the transversal seismic design of
continuous multi-span reinforced concrete bridges, first proposed by Priestley, has been
presented. The method is an iterative procedure which, based on initial assumptions of the
bridge displacement pattern and the proportion of the total lateral force carried by the
superstructure trough the abutments, aims to design a bridge that will reach the design limit
state of deflection.
The displacement-based procedure has been used to design eighteen different series of bridge
configurations, and the resulting designs subjected to five different artificial acceleration time
histories to assess the accuracy of the method in terms of reaching the target design
objectives, represented by target displacements. Some modifications to the initial procedure
[Priestley, 2003] and a subsequent study [Alvarez Botero, 2004] have also been introduced.
The method utilizes the Substitute Structure approach, [Gulkan and Sozen, 1974], to model
the inelastic structure as an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system. The equivalent
SDOF is characterized by the secant stiffness, Keff, at maximum displacement and an
equivalent viscous damping, ξsys, appropriate for the level of hysteretic energy absorption
associated with the inelastic response.
A deep discussion to compute the system equivalent viscous damping is presented. Some
discussion is provided for considering the contribution of the energy dissipated through elastic
deck bending and, modified equations for the hysteretic energy dissipation are presented and
compared to the previously used. An expression which explicitly considers the energy
dissipation contribution from the elastic deck beam action, abutments displacement and
inelastic pier behaviour is then introduced to calculate the system damping.
The iterative design procedure was found to be efficient and easy to implement. Very few
iterations are required, even if initial assumptions are poor. However, some suggestions are
made to provide the method with good initial estimates of the inelastic displaced shape and
the proportion of load taken by the abutments. The procedure is then very easy to implement
in any programming software.
Satisfactory results were in general obtained from the assessment of the procedure using
inelastic time-history analyses. In the case of Regular Bridges configurations, studied
149
previously by Alvarez Botero [Alvarez Botero, 2004] and re-designed in the present work
with the modified damping equations [Grant et al., 2005], a better agreement between the
design displacement patterns and the average THA displacement envelopes are observed for
the majority of designs, which shows an important improvement in the DDBD method. Good
results are also obtained for the Irregular Bridge configurations which show that the
implementation of the DDBD method to more complex structures is fully feasible.
Nevertheless, there are still some problems associated to the displacement pattern of very stiff
bridge configurations, like those with very short central pier (or piers) and taller exterior piers
(torsionally sensitive); in those types of bridges generally the first elastic and inelastic mode
shapes significantly differs, and the parabolic shape do not necessary reflects the maximum
displacements at each station, some of them being obtained during the elastic response. To
revise this problem, it has been demonstrated that some redistributions of strength, hence
stiffness, can actually improve the performance of the bridge. Anyway, it is important to
realize that in spite of the relatively simple structural system, the response of highly irregular
bridges can be very complex and a deep understanding of all its components should be known
to obtain an acceptable performance.
The influence of higher modes on the deck transverse moments was found to be important for
the 6-span bridges, for the value of transverse deck moment of inertia assumed for the
designs. Nevertheless, when some Rail Bridge where studied with a lower value of transverse
deck moment of inertia, clearly the higher modes effects on the deck transverse moments
were found to be also important for the 4-span bridges.
Different approaches, all based on the normal modal superposition procedure, were tested to
try to capture the dynamic amplification of the deck transverse moments. It was found that an
analogous form of what has been termed the Modified Modal Superposition, MMS, [Priestley,
2003], initially used for cantilever walls, satisfactorily represents the amplification
phenomena for the Regular Bridges configurations. In the case of Irregular Bridges the
effective modal superposition, EffMS, based in the inelastic modes shapes of the bridge, i.e.
effective properties, gives better results. When the MMS is applied to Irregular Bridges
generally conservative results are obtained. It is believed that as in the Regular Bridges
configurations the asymmetric modes are not exited, and consequently do not participate in
the response, the MMS works very well, but in the case of Irregular Bridges as in the SRSS
modal superposition the sign is lost, when including the contribution of asymmetric modes,
the deck moments can became bigger than the actuals.
Given the same bridges configurations, comparison of direct displacement-based design,

DDBD, and force-based design, FBD, is performed. A 50% of the gross piers moment of
inertia was assumed as well as a reduction factor R = 3.5 for all the cases. FBD were assessed
with THA and result compared with those previously obtained with DDBD.
In general FBD provides good agreement between the design displacement patterns and the
average THA displacement envelopes for the Regular Bridges configurations. In the case of
Irregular Bridge configurations generally the results are poor, and really bad for the stiffer
structures. In the case of deck moments envelopes, the elastic modal combination used
150
without reduction factor (SRSS), generally gives very different envelopes that those computed
with THA; nevertheless, generally the maximum design deck moment is greater than the
maximum THA deck moment envelope, which dictate a conservative deck design.
An important problem observed with FBD is the highly variable piers displacement ductility
demand, being in some cases more than twice the assumed in the design (R=3.5). This matter
is really important because plastic hinges can be detailed for a lower actual ductility demand,
which can generate diverse failure modes than those assumed, as for example shear failure.
Regarding the pier required flexural strength, the longitudinal reinforcement rations computed
with DDBD are generally bigger than those computed with FBD. These differences tend to
increase when the deck transversal stiffness gets smaller. These differences have much to do
with the equal pier strength choice preferred to simplify the DDBD. With the adequate
knowledge, if it is wanted to carry out a more efficient design, once the results are obtained,
strength redistribution can be performed and some lower longitudinal reinforcement ration
can be obtained for some piers. Nevertheless, this is not generally the case, and the choice of
having the same longitudinal reinforcement for all the piers usually simplify the bridge
construction which can be even more useful for the project.
Finally, it is believed than more investigation is required on the topic, especially for the cases
in which the fundamental elastic and inelastic mode shapes differ. Even though all the bridges
in this work considered flexible lateral support at the abutments, the procedure can be
successfully applied for fixed abutments condition. Application of the method to free
abutments condition was not considered and can be also investigated. Moreover consideration
of nonlinear inelastic behavior of the abutments could also be implemented in the design
procedure.
151
References
REFERENCES
Alfawakhiri, F., Bruneau, M. [2000] “Flexibility of Superstructures and Supports in the Seismic
Analysis of Simple Bridges,” Earthquake Enginieering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 711-
729.
Alvarez Botero, J.C [2004] “Displacement-based design of continuous concrete bridges under
transverse seismic exitation,” Master’s thesis, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction
of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), Pavia, Italy.
Bommer, J. J., Acevedo. A. B. [2004] “The Use of Real Earthquake Accelerograms as Input to
Dynamic Analysis,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 8 (Special Issue 1).
Caltrans [2001] CaltransSeismic Design Criteria. Verison 1.2, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, California, CA, December 2001.
Calvi, G. M., Kingsley, G. R. [1995] “Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Multi-Degree of
Freedom Bridge Structures,” Earthquake Enginieering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp.
1247-1266.
Carr, A. [2002] RUAUMOKO Users Manual. University of Canterbury, Chirstchurch, New Zealand,
May 2002.
Carr, A., [2002] SIMQKE Users Manual. University of Canterbury, Chirstchurch, New Zealand, May
2002.
Grant, D.N., Blandon, C.A., Priestley, M.J.N. [2005] “Modelling inelastic response in direct
displacement-based design,” Research Report No. ROSE 2005/03, IUSS, Pavia, Italy.
Gulkan, P., Sozen, M. [1974] “Inelastic Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Earthquake
Motions,” ACI Journal, Vol. 71, pp 604-610.
Isakovic, T., Fischinger, M. [2005] “Higher modes in simplified inelastic seismic analysis of single
column bent viaducts,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2006, 35:95-114.
Kowalsky, M. J. [2002] “A Displacement-Based Design approach for the Seismic Design of
Continuous Concrete Bridges,” Earthquake Enginieering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp.
719-747.
Maroney, B. H., and Chai, Y.H. [1994] “Bridge Abutment Stiffness and Strength Under Earthquake
Loadings,” Proceedings, 2nd International Workshop on the Seismic Design of Bridges,
Queenstown, New Zealand.
152
References
Otani, C. [1974] “SAKE, A Computer Program for Inelastic Response of R/C Frames to Earthquakes,”
Report UILU-Eng-74-2029, Civil Engineering Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Priestley, M.J.N. [1993] “Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering – Conflicts Between Design
and Reality,” Bulletin NZ National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26., No. 3, Sept 1993,
pp. 328-341.
Priestley, M.J.N. [2003] “Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited,” The Ninth
Mallet Milne Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. [2006] Direct Displacement Based Design of
Structures. Book in preparation, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
153

Dissertation2007 OrtizRestrepo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation2007 OrtizRestrepo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Istituto Universitario Università degli

di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF CONTINUOUS CONCRETE

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

JUAN CAMILO ORTIZ RESTREPO

Supervisor: Prof. M.J.N. PRIESTLEY

M.J.N. PRIESTLEY …… … ……_

Keywords: bridges; performed-based seismic design; higher modes

4.3.1.11 Series 16: MSLMS .................................................................................................. 87

Figure 3. 19 – Design results for bridges of Series 6................................................................37

1.1 WHY DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN?

Additionally, the issue of dynamic amplification of deck transverse moments is investigated

Finally, some conclusions are presented in Chapter 7.

2. FUNDAMENTALS OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED

Figure 2. 1- Effective Stiffness

ξ eff = ξ e + ξ hyst (2.2)

As equation (2.3) is period dependent, an iterative procedure should be implemented to obtain

Figure 2. 2 – Design Displacement Spectra

3. DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN OF MULTI-SPAN

3.1 REGULAR AND IRREGULAR BRIDGES CONFIGURATIONS

Figure 3. 1- Regular and Irregular Bridges.

3.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE

The displacement-based design of multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures is based on the

The Direct Displacement-Based Design procedure for multi-degree-of-freedom bridge

1. Determination of the design displaced shape.

2. Characterization and evaluation of the equivalent SDOF system.

3. Application of the displacement-based design approach to the SDOF system.

4. Determination of column required strengths and design.

3.2.1 Design Displaced Shape

A bridge structure composed by several columns connected to a superstructure of defined

(a) Uniform Height Piers (b) Irregular Height Piers

Figure 3. 2 - Possible transverse displacement shapes for continuous bridges

Figure 3. 3 – Uniform beam simply supported on elastic springs

3.2.2 The Equivalent SDOF System

3.2.2.1 System Design Displacement

3.2.2.2 Equivalent System Damping

⎡⎣(VA1 − FA1 ) + (VA2 − FA 2 ) ⎤⎦ ⋅ ξ Deck + ( FA1 + FA2 ) ⋅ ξ A + ∑ Viξi

Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 0.50 s

Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 1.0 s

Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 1.5 s

0.15 Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 2.0 s

Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 3.0 s

Eq. (3.7) - Grant et al - Teq = 5.0 s

Eq. (3.9) - Alvarez Botero, 2004

Figure 3. 4 – Equivalent damping for deferent Takeda Thin degrading-stiffness models

3.2.2.3 Pier Yield Displacement

Lsp = 0.022 f y d bl (3.12)

3.2.2.4 Forces taken by Piers and Abutments

Seismic Force Carried by Pier Bending

Seismic Force Carried by the Abutments

3.2.2.5 Effective System Mass:

3.2.3 Equivalent SDOF Design

3.2.4 Required Columns Strength

Figure 3. 6 – Model of the equivalent elastic system under transverse response

3.2.5 Additional notes

Figure 3. 7 – Flowchart for Direct Displacement-Based Design of MDOF-bridges.

3.3 APPLICATION TO DIFFERENT BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS

The Direct Displacement-Based Design approach, as presented in Section 3.2 and

3.3.1 Bridge Information and Assumptions

Table 3.1 - Material Properties for Design.

3.3.1.3 Bridge Deck: