This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SUBJECTED TO SEVERE EARTHQUAKES
by
VOSSI REICHMAN
September 1996
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
ABSTRACT
Current stateofpractice methods used for seismic analysis and design of bridge
structures are based on modified elastic spectral methods. These methods are unable to
address certain critical issues that may be peculiar to bridge structures, namely: cyclic
plastic behavior of structural elements, soilstructure interaction, differential ground
motion, the nonlinear modeling of base isolators and supplemental damping devices. To
address these deficiencies, this research develops two evaluation methods based on (i)
nonlinear time history analysis including the effects of the transient development of dam
age in structural components, and (ii) pushover procedures based on static and dynamic
lateral loading approaches. Using the latter, it is possible to assess the global seismic
capacity of an entire bridge structure which can be used in conjunction with seismic
demand determined from inelastic spectral techniques. Classical pushover analysis uses
lateral loads that are increased in a monotonic fashion until the bridge reaches its failure
limit state, this defines displacement capacity. This approach assumes a firstmode distri
bution of lateral forces and this distribution of forces is apt to miss higher mode effects
which may be important, particularly for long bridges. Therefore, several procedures are
considered to address this issue including: adaptive modal distribution, acceleration
ramps, and acceleration pulses. The latter two, being dynamic procedures, are generally
capable of capturing multimodal and total dynamic effects.
Several new modeling features are addressed in this research by the development of a
3D computational platform (IDARCBRIDGE). First, a new triaxial model is developed
that is capable of accurately developing the behavior of sliding isolators including the
influence of the changing vertical force and velocity on the friction coefficients. Second,
modeling of the connection between the bridge deck and the substructure is advanced.
This includes a macroelement representation of the deck seat with the effect of the spatial
layout of bearings and diaphragms by using features of elastic elements, hinge, spring, end
releases and rigid end block transformations.
Finally, the proposed computational procedures are verified by comparing predictive
results with a combination of closedform analytical solutions, laboratory and field exper
imental results, as well as existing computational software. Several case studies are then
used to explore the utility of the proposed computational framework with a particular
emphasis on capturing observed failure modes.
ii
Acknowledgments
This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of many people
who have contributed in different ways to make this work possible.
I wish to thank my committee members for helping me finish my dissertation by
contributing from their valuable time to edit it. I would like to thank my major advisor,
Prof. A.M. Reinhorn, for introducing me to an exciting field of research, and escorting me
along the way. I have special regards for Prof. M.C. Constantinou. His remarkable dedica
tion to teaching and research introduced me to the field of base isolation and passive con
trol and inspired me in my work. I would like to thank Prof. J.B. Mander for introducing
me to the subject of capacity design, which was an important part of my work. Special
thanks to Prof. M.P. Gaus, for his help and support in hard times, and for providing me
with a "fair deal".
I am sure I could have never been able to perform research at this level without the
encouragement and support from Prof!. Sheinman from the Technion, ISRAEL, and other
Professors at the Technion, who provided me the foundational of body of my professional
knowledge.
It is obvious that without true friends who have offered their support through this
roller coaster experience, success would not have been possible. Dr. Roy F. Lobo and Dr.
Chen Li are such friends. I would like to mention also all the other friends I acquired
through the years in Ketter Hall.
My arrival to V.B. would not have been possible without the initial support and the
on going patience of my superiors at the Israeli Electric Corporation, especially Mr.
iii
Moshe Lasry. Mrs. Efrat Eshcol, Mr. Dan Levi, and Mr. Shlomo Abramovich who have
demonstrated considerable understanding in waiting for me to finish this study.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for encouraging me on this dif
ficult but rewarding path: my parents, Ester and Aharon Reichman, ISRAEL, my brother
Hillel Reichman and his lovely family, and especially my dear wife, Roxana Reichman,
and our three lovely children, Inbal, Ran and Yael.
iv
Dedication
To my loving, understanding and supporting wife,
Dr. Roxana Reichman,
who believed in me and supported me
on the long and hard way,
and to our wonderful three children,
Inbal (12), Ran (9) and Yael (5),
who have put up with two part time parents
and were a constant source of happiness and consolation.
v
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Bridges as Unique Structures .............................................................................................. .4
1.2 The Use of 3D vs. 2D Models ............................................................................................ 7
1.3 Evaluation of Bridges with Protective Systems .................................................................. 8
1.3.1 Models of Isolation Components .......................................................................... 9
1.3.2 Modeling of Damping Devices .......................................................................... 11
1.4 Approaches to Modeling and Solution of Nonlinear Systems ......................................... .14
1.4.1 MacroModeling Approach ................................................................................ 15
1.5 Soil Structure Interaction .................................................................................................. 16
1.6 Damage Evaluation in the Inelastic Response of Structures ............................................ 17
1.7 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete .................................................................................... 20
1.7.1 Modeling of Shear Walls .................................................................................... 22
1.8 Evaluation Methods of Bridges ........................................................................................ 23
1.9 Comparison of Evaluation Procedures for Bridges .............•............................................. 24
1.9.1 Nonlinear Time History with Damage Index ...................................................... 24
1.9.2 Nonlinear Time History ....................................................................................... 26
1.9.3 Linear Time History ............................................................................................ 27
1.9.4 Modal  Response Spectrum Analysis ................................................................. 29
1.9.5 Capacity  Push over analysis I Demand  Spectral.. ........................................... 29
1.10 Summary of Evaluation Procedures ................................................................................... 31
2.0 ANALYTICAL TOOLS FOR EVALUATION OF BRIDGES  STATEOFTHE
ART ........................................................................................................................ 32
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... .32
2.2 Methods of Analysis ......................................................................................................... 32
vi
2.3 Damage Analysis ............................................................................................................. .36
2.4 Research Needs ................................................................................................................. 37
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ANALYTICAL PLATFORM FOR SEISMIC
RELIABILITY EVALUATION ............................................................................ .39
3.1 Bridge Structure and Structural Components  Descriptive Presentations ....................... .40
3.1.1 Components and System Definition ................................................................... .41
3.1.2 Comparison of Buildings and Bridges / Specific Issues ..................................... .43
3.2 Structural Component Modeling ....................................................................................... .43
3.2.1 Basic Stick Element Formulations ...................................................................... 44
3.2.1.1 Rigid arms ........................................................................................ 45
3.2.1.2 End releases ...................................................................................... 50
3.2.1.3 End springs ....................................................................................... 52
3.2.2 Inelastic Hysteretic Beam Columns with Nonlinear Shear and Flexure Behavior
in Beam/Column elements .................................................................................. 55
3.2.2.1 .Bending ............................................................................................ 56
3.2.2.2 Combined Bending and Shear .......................................................... 59
3.2.3 Shear and Bending Wall Panel Model (for modeling Abutment) ....................... 65
3.2.4 Supports and Base Isolation Models ................................................................... 66
3.2.4.1 BoucWen's Model for Seismic Isolators ......................................... 67
3.2.4.2 Triaxial Isolator ................................................................................ 73
3.2.5 Three Dimensional Spring  Connection Element Model ................................... 82
3.2.6 Modeling of Damping in Bridges ........................................................................ 84
3.2.6.1 Global Damping ............................................................................... 84
3.2.6.2 Linear Damping Element ................................................................. 85
3.2.6.3 Nonlinear Damping .......................................................................... 86
3.2.6.4 Damping Devices ............................................................................. 86
3.2.7 Nonlinear, Yielding in Tension, Stiffening in Compression Element ................. 87
vii
3.3 Modeling of Bridge Subsystems ........................................................................................ 89
3.3.1 Modeling of Foundation and Soil System ........................................................... 89
3.3.1.1
3.3.1.2
Elastic Linear Models for Soil Structure Interaction ........................ 90
Frequency Dependant Modeling ...................................................... 90
3.3.2 Abutment Modeling ............................................................................................. 90
3.3.3 Bents modeling .................................................................................................... 91
3.3.4 Deck modeling ..................................................................................................... 92
3.3.5 Expansion Joints and Special Connections ......................................................... 95
3.4 Solution Procedures for Coupled motions ......................................................................... 97
3.5 Evaluation of Bridges via Approximated Methods ......................................................... 103
3.5.1 Methods for Determining Seismic Demand ...................................................... 105
3.5.1.1 Modal (Spectral) Analysis by Seismic Codes ............................... 105
3.5.1.2 Static Equivalent Procedure ........................................................... 108
3.5.2 Time History Analysis ...................................................................................... 109
3.5.2.1 Bridges Under Seismic Excitation Uniform and Differential Excita
tions .................................................................................................... 110
3.5.3 Numerical Solution for Bridge Systems ............................................................ 116
3.5.3.1
3.5.3.2
3.5.3.3
Identification of Special Issues in Solution Procedures ................. 116
Sparse Matrix Formulations of Structures Equations ..................... 117
Conjugate Gradient Iterative Solver (Kincaid et at. 1990) ............. 118
3.6 Methods of Analysis to Evaluate Bridge Capacity .: ........................................................ 123
3.6.1 Direct Section Evaluation .................................................................................. 124
3.6.1.1 Mechanical Properties Modeling .................................................... 125
3.6.1.2 Fiber Analysis ................................................................................. 125
3.6.2 Incremental Monotonic Static Analysis ........................................................... .125
3.6.2.1
3.6.2.2
Arbitrary Force Loading ................................................................. 128
Arbitrary Displacement Input ......................................................... 129
viii
3.6.2.3 Adaptable (Modal) Loading ........................................................... 129
3.6.2.4 Acceleration Ramp Load ................................................................ 130
3.6.2.5 Acceleration Pulse Input ................................................................. 131
3.6.3 Comparing Demand to Capacity ....................................................................... 132
3.6.3.1 Demand/Capacity comparison in Inelastic structures (Damage Index
ing) ..................................................................................................... 132
3.6.3.2 Evaluation of Bridges in ModerateILow Seismicity Zones  Proce
dure ..................................................................................................... 134
3.6.3.3 Evaluation of Bridges in Severe Seismicity Zones ........................ 135
4.0 CASE STUDIES FOR BRIDGE EVALUATIONS ............................................. 140
4.1 Evaluation of Retrofit of Existing Bridges ....................................................................... 140
4.1.1 Case Study #1: Analytical Evaluation of Small Scale Bridge System .............. 140
4.1.2 Case Study #2: East Aurora Bridge  Field Test.. .............................................. 149
4.1.3 Case Study #3: Bridge in Los Angeles  Retrofit Solution ................................ 159
4.1.4 Case Study #4: Bridge over Los Angeles River Retrofit Solution with Base Iso
lation and Restrained Expansion Joints ............................................................. 180
4.1.5 Case Study 5: MiyagawaBridge ....................................................................... 196
4.1.6 Case Study 6: Evaluation of Bridge Capacity Using Different Push  Over Proce
dures and Dynamic Analysis ............................................................................. 206
5.0 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS .......................................... 227
5.1 Further Research Suggestions .......................................................................................... 231
6.0 RFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 233
A. APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 248
A.I IDARClBridge  Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Construction =
Platform for Bridges ............................................................................................ 248
ix
List of Figures
Fig # Title Page #
1.1 Structures Idealization (a) building (b) Bridge 4
3.1. Bridge Assembly and Major Components 40
3.2. Connection Between Deck and Bent Using Rigid Arm and End Springs (a) 46
Physical Description (b) Regular Modeling (c) Modeling with Rigid Arm
and End Springs
3.3. Rigid Body Transformation from Joint P to Joint J 48
3.4. Element End Releases 51
3.5. Elements End Springs 53
3.6. Trilinear Hysteretic Model, a) General Model, b) Slip Definition 57
3.7. Stiffness Calculation of Damaged Elements a)MomentDistribution b)Flexi 58
bility Distribution c)Damaged Zones
3.8. Combined Flexure and Shear Stiffness Derivation 59
3.9. Example Frame, for Illustration of Combined Shear and Flexure Model 63
3.10. Constitutive Relations in Shear and Bending of the Frame's Columns 64
3.11. Influence of Shear on Frame's Capacity 65
3.12. Shear Wall Definition (a) Shear Wall (b) Shear Wall Modeling for Analysis 67
3.13. Elastomeric Isolator. a) side view, b) force displacements relations, c) top 68
view of deformed isolator
3.14. Triaxial Sliding Isolator, a) side view, b) sliding force  displacements rela 74
tion. c) dependancy of coeficient of friction on velocity
3.15. Graph of Theoretical Input Motion of 8 Shaped Test
79
x
3.16. Analytical Loops of Frictional Force and Displacements in 8 Shaped Motion
80
Test
3.17. Recorded Loops of Frictional Force and Displacements in 8Shaped Motion 81
Tests
3.18. Spring Element Representation
82
3.19. Damper Element Representation
85
3.20. Typical Expansion Joint
88
3.21. Force Displacements Relations of Expansion Joint
88
3.22. Typical Arrangement of Bridge Abutment. The Soil Stiffness Modeled By 91
Springs.
3.23. Modeling of Connection Between Deck and Bearings
94
3.24. Typical Expansion Joints in Bridge
95
3.25. Expansion Joint Modeling
96
3.26. Rigid Floor Displacements
99
3.27. Deck Section Modeled by Several Beams
102
3.28. Evaluation of Inelastic Response Using Composite Spectrum 104
3.29. Verification Frame Model
114
3.30. Frame Response to Displacement and Acceleration Input. 115
3.31. Ramp Acceleration Loading 131
3.32. Force Displacements Relations for "Push Over" Analysis 137
4.1 Experiment Set Up of the Bridge on the Shaking Table. 143
4.2 Input Ground Motion (Japanese code, level 2, ground condition I) 143
4.3 Construction of Friction Pendulum System Bearing 144
xi
4.4 Experimental Derivation of The Sliding Bearings Frictional Characteristic 145
(Coefficient of Friction as Function of Velocity)
4.5 Base Isolated Bridge Model 146
4.6 Displacements at the Top of the Pier (point 3 and 4) 147
4.7 Displacements of deck (point 5 and 6) 148
4.8 Top View of the Bridges 151
4.9 Typical Bent 152
4.10 Typical Abutment 153
4.11 Side View of the Bents 154
4.12 Input Force History, Measured During the Test. 155
4.13 Analytical Model of the Bridge, Used for Analysis 156
4.14 Modeling of Bridge Deck Connection to Abutment (a) Modeling with Stiff 157
Elements (b) Modeling with Rigid Body Transformation
4.15 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Steel 158
Bearing at Abutment.
4.16 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Rubber 158
Bearing at Abutment.
4.17 Bridge Top View and Typical Bent Cross Section 164
4.18 Deck and Bent Cross Section 165
4.19 Structural Model of Original Bridge  Before Retrofit 166
4.20 Structural Model of Isolated Bridge 167
4.21 Ground Displacements on Stiff Soil 168
4.22 Ground Displacements on Soft Soils 169
xii
4.23 Relative Defonnations in X Direction, Between Ground a9d Deck Disp., at
170
Piers Centerline for Unifonn Ground Motion
4.24 Relative Defonnations in X Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at
171
Piers Centerline for Variable Ground Motion
4.25
Shear Forces in The Pier's X Direction, for Piers Bl and B5, for Isolated
172
Bridge, at Different Heights Along the Pier
4.26
Shear Forces in X Direction, for Nonisolated Bridge, at Base of piers
173
4.27 Comparison of Shear Forces in X Direction, for Piers B I and B5
174
4.28 Relative Defonnations in Z Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at
175
Piers Centerline for Unifonn Ground Motion
4.29 Relative Defonnations in Z Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at
176
Piers Centerline for Variable Ground Motion
4.30 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction, for Piers B I and B5, for Isolated 177
Bridge, at Different Points Along the Pier
4.31 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction, for Nonisolated Bridge, at Their
178
Base
4.32 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction, for Piers Bland B5
179
4.33 Original Bridge Before and After First Retrofit
185
4.34 Analytical Model of the Bridge
186
4.35 Base Isolated Bridge with and without Expansion Joints 187
4.36 Displaced Shape of (a)Original Bridge, (b) Isolated Bridge 188
4.37 Displaced Shape of Typical Frame in the (a) Original Bridge, (b) Isolated 189
Bridge
xiii
4.38 Comparison of Shear Force in Non Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without 190
Gap
4.39 Comparison of Shear Forces in Original and Retrofitted (Alt.1) Bridge 191
4.40 Comparison of Shear Force in Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without Gap 192
4.41 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without 193
Gap
4.42 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Isolated Bridge, and Not Isolated 194
Bridge
4.43 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Non Isolated Bridge, and Bridge 195
without Gap
4.44 Completed Miyagawa Bridge 199
4.45 Bridge Geometry 200
4.46 Lead Rubber Bearings for Bridge Abutment 201
4.47 Lead Rubber Bearings for Bridge Pier 201
4.48 Cross Section of Piers 202
4.49 Load Displacements Curves 202
4.50 Structural Model of the Bridge 203
4.51 Moment at Bottom of Pier and Foundation 204
4.52 Displacements at Pier Centerline, Under and Above Isolator 205
4.53 SR141I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound)  General Plan and Eleva 208
tion
4.54 SR141I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound)  Typical Deck Section 209
4.55 SR141I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) Pier Sections and Rein 210
forcement.
xiv
4.56 SRI4/I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) Structural Model for
Analysis
211
4.57 Distribution of Shear Forces in Piers 27 for Different Analysis Procedures 217
4.58 Response of the Bridge to Adaptable Proportional to Instantaneous Mode 219
Shape Distributed Load (relative to mass). (a) Displaced Shape at Failure,
(b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 27
4.59 Response of the Bridge to Non Adaptable Uniform Distributed Load (rela 220
tive to mass). (a) Displaced Shape at Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear
History for Piers 27
4.60
4.61
Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading. Acceleration Rate: 0.25m!
sec3 (a) Displaced Shape at Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear
History for Piers 27
Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading. Acceleration Rate: 0.5 m!sec 3
(a) Displaced Shape at Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for
Piers 27
221
222
4.62 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading. Acceleration Rate: 5m!sec3. (a) 223
Displaced Shape at Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers
4.63
4.64
4.65
27
Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0.1 sec. (a) Displaced Shape at
Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 27
Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0.05 sec. (a) Displaced Shape at
Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 27
Response of the Bridge to Dynamic Impulsive Loading. (a) Displaced
Shape at Failure, (b) Northridge Earthquake Record From Santa Monica
City Hall (input motion), (c) Shear History for Piers 27
224
225
226
xv
A.I
A.2
Program General Structure
Processing Routines Arrangements
248
251
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table # Title
Page #
1.1. Evaluation Methods for Bridges
24
1.2.
Comparison of the Different Evaluation Procedures
31
4.1.
Hysteretic Pier Nonlinear Properties
197
4.2.
Geometry and Structural Elastic Properties of the Bridge Elements
207
4.3.
Transversal Moment Curvature Relations and Shear Capacity of Piers
207
4.4.
Comparison of Shear Force Distribution Between the Piers at the Time of
216
Failure of Critical Pier in Shear
4.5.
Moment at Bridge Piers due to Different Pushover Procedures at Shear
218
Failure
4.6.
Comparison of Performances of The SR14115 Bridge Subjected to Different
218
PushOver Procedures
A.l Input Routines Description
248
A.2 Preprocessing Routines
250
A.3 Update Elements Properties
251
A.4 End Conditions Description
252
A.5 Global Matrices Building Description
252
A.6 Load Vector Description
253
A.7 Solution Description
254
A.8 Results Processing Description
254
A.9 Modal Analysis Description
254
xvii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bridges are an important element in modem urban societies and are vital to normal
economic functioning as well as in earthquake hazard events. In the case of an earthquake
event, bridges can pose a significant life hazard if failure should take place and the loss of
bridges may cause severe difficulties in emergency response to the earthquake as well as
great difficulties in subsequent recovery activities. Thus it is important to develop reliable
methods for the analysis and prediction of performance of designs for new bridges and the
evaluation of existing bridges.
The objectives of this dissertation are to evaluate previous developments in the
evaluation procedures of bridges and to develop an improved computer capability to carry
out reliable evaluation of highway bridges.
Specific advances made in this dissertation include the development of new struc
tural element models to analyze situations which were previously difficult to model or
which could not be modeled, the development of structural element models for new tech
nologies such as base isolation and improved methods to model and analyze structures
which have loosely connected elements and the assembly of complex nonlinear structural
elements into a working computer program which provides a capability to model the
dynamic 3D behavior of complex bridge structures and their supporting systems. One of
the unique features of the work is the integration of considerations of design and analysis.
This is accomplished by using two evaluation methods in which each of the methods pro
vides a capability for design which is not well handled by the other. The methods used are
nonlinear dynamic damage analysis combined with a pushover analysis specially devel
oped for bridges.
There were, no doubt, bridges which were destroyed or lost in different parts of the
world as a result of earthquakes over the centuries. Unfortunately, there is not much docu
mentation available for. these occurrences. In addition the design and construction of
bridges has undergone many changes in the past 50 years as a result of new materials and
equipment being available and the large growth in the use of motor vehicles. This is par
ticularly true in the U.S. where the number of motor vehicles has shown large growth and
a large program of construction was launched to accommodate these vehicles in both
urban areas and for crosscountry travel and transportation of goods. Similar expansions
have recently been underway in other countries. Unfortunately, the inclusion of earth
quake loadings in the design of many bridges was not a major design consideration for
most of these bridges. Thus many bridges were built without adequate provision for earth
quake loadings nor was the state of knowledge on earthquake loadings and bridge design
and construction techniques at the level such knowledge is today.
The San Fernando Earthquake (1971) in the Los Angeles area resulted in the loss
of many major freeway bridges and the loss of $6.5M. This event helped to draw attention
to the need to utilize the highest level of analysis and design for bridges which may be
subjected to earthquakes.
A discussion of failures and damage suffered by bridges during earthquakes is
contained in a report by Imbsen and Penzien (1986). Among the failure mechanisms
which were considered to be important are:
1) Tilting of substructure
2) Supports displacements.
2
3) Settlements of abutments.
Examples of these types of failures and resulting damage can be found by examin
ing the Alaska earthquake (1964), in which most of the damage to bridges was caused by
large ground displacements, settlements and loss of the bearing capacity of the main struc
tural systems of the bridges. Dynamic inertia effects were not observed as a primary cause
of the bridge damage. During the period up to 1971 several earthquakes occurred in Japan
and California but these earthquakes caused insignificant amounts of damage to bridges.
For this reason, the design codes for bridges up to that time put very little emphasis on
provisions for dynamic seismic design of bridges, and designs were largely based on
equivalent static forces of a level up to 9% of the dead load of the bridge.
The San Fernando Earthquake (1971) initiated a series of changes in the approach
toward seismic design of bridges which is continuing today. A significant amount of
bridge damage was caused during this earthquake due to dynamic inertia effects, and the
evaluation of the bridges for design started to change to consider these dynamic effects.
This change require the consideration of the ductility of the bridge components which
could be subjected to dynamic inertia effects. Particular emphasis started to be paid to sup
porting elements such as piers and bents.
Since the 1971 San Femando event, a number of extremely destructive earth
quakes have occurred in the vicinity of highly populated cities in California and Japan.
The 1989 LomaPriata, the Northridge (Goltz 1994) and Kobe (Aydinoglu et al. 1995)
earthquakes caused a large amount of damage to bridge structures and highlighted the
3
need to improve analysis techniques for new and existing bridges and the need to retrofit
hazardous existing bridges.
The extensive damage and the surprising levels of ground accelerations (up to 20),
presented the need for more accurate and scientific evaluation and design method of
bridges.
1.1 Bridges as Unique Structures
distance
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 1.1 Structures Idealization (a) building (b) Bridge
The structural behavior of bridges involves a number of special problems which
must be considered carefully to avoid failures of the bridges during earthquake shaking.
Some of the features of bridges which require special considerations are:
a) The bridge may involve parts which are loosely connected.
b) The bridge may have many supports, not all of which are directly connected to
the deck.
4
c) The supports of the bridge may be spaced a long distance apart and are not gen
erally connected to one another. This may result in differences in the dynamic
loading of each pier due to phase differences in the ground motion waves arriv
ing at each pier.
d) The geologic conditions under each pier may have significant variations result
ing in variable ground motion amplification effects.
e) Differing heights of supporting piers or bents result in a variation of the stiffness
of supporting elements.
f) The effects of nonlinear behavior of the bents may result in variation of stiffness
along the bridge.
Thus the behavior of bridges is different from the structural behavior of most of
the other types of structures dealt with in the civil engineering profession and require spe
cial attention in analysis and design. Perhaps the most commonly analyzed class of struc
tures in civil engineering are building structures. Usually a building is an integral
structural unit, which can be characterized as a collection of shear elements, frames and
cantilever beams (Fig. 1.1 (a», all of which are well connected. A gradual variation of
stiffness and mass distribution is reflected in well defined dynamic behavior. When there
are abrupt changes in stiffness, as is the case when the first story of the building is open
without walls (soft first story) this can cause a concentration of dynamic rotations
response at the first story level and has often been observed as a cause of failure of build
ings.
5
In bridge structures (Fig. 1 (b» the dynamic, mass and stiffness properties change
along the height and the length of the bridge. In the vertical direction, the stiffness of the
bridge system is changing from the foundation stiffness to the pier, bent or end wall stiff
ness and then to the deck level which may have a higher level of stiffness. In the horizon
tal direction, the height of the piers (or bents) may vary and therefore their stiffness may
be different. This factor is even more important if nonlinear deformations occur in which
there could be a significant reduction in some of the pier stiffnesses due to plastic behav
ior. The stiffness properties of the bridge system can change during the duration of a
dynamic loading due to relative movement of the bridge sections at the thermal expansion
joints.
The ground motion under a building is generally characterized by using a single
record of ground motion acceleration and displacements. The ground motion effects on a
bridge (Fig. 1.1 (b» can be quite different between the supports of the bridge. This can
occur because of two reasons (Der Kiuereghian 1995):
1) If the bridge supports are located far away from one another, the arrival time of
the incident shear waves differs.
2) Different types of soil amplify differently the bed rock motion, and causes dif
ferent ground motions at different supports.
Both of these phenomena may result in quasistatic and additional dynamic forces
on the bridge system.
6
1.2 The Use of 3D vs. 2D Models
For purposes of analysis it is necessary to construct a mathematical model of the
physical bridge structure. The subsequent analysis is then carried out using the mathemat
ical model. If the mathematical model can adequately represent the true behavior of the
bridge, a satisfactory prediction of the true behavior of the bridge will be obtained. Thus it
is imperative that careful attention be paid to the generation of the mathematical model
and that the model represent both the topological and physical behavior of the materials of
the bridge into the range of dynamic nonlinear behavior. For complex loosely connected
structures the behavior of the structure is always 3dimensional and the model and analy
sis system must be developed to truly represent this behavior.
Seismic demand as well as the seismic capacity evaluation are dependent on the
structural model and must be fully represented. Thus great care must be exercised in the
selection of representative degrees of freedom, stiffness matrix formulation, mass distri
bution and special connectivity rules. In bridge structures the deck and the supports form
longitudinal frames which are frequently represented in two dimensional models. Individ
ual supports, piers or bents are also frequently represented by 2d models to describe the
transverse vibration of the bridge. Analyses are then carried out in the 2D directions for
loadings in these directions. If a loading is not in one of the 2D directions an attempt is
made to represent the resulting response by combinations of 2D analysis. Unfortunately,
even such combinations fail to adequately represent 3D responses which can occur in
structures which appear to be very regular.
Irregular bridges with skewed supports to the deck, with multiple gaps skewed to
the bridge axes, curved deck bridges, etc. cannot be modeled by two dimensional models.
7
Moreover, regular bridges with symmetrical geometrical construction, but with unknown
distribution of strength or soil support conditions should be modeled by 3D models to cap
ture their inelastic influence.
Therefore a 3D representation of the bridge is essential in determining the demand
and also the capacity of the bridge. It should be noted however, that when the bridge is
represented by a 3D model, modal spectral analysis using a reduced number of modes,
requires a somewhat arbitrary and careful selection of contributory modes. The selection
can be based on base shear contributions or on deformation contribution methods of selec
tion of the modes. A discussion of this problem can be found in Clough and Penzien
(1975).
As can easily be seen there are several issues which require complex modeling of
the soil and bridge structures using a 3D approach. The spatial variation of propagating
ground motion, the soil supports (springs), expansion joints and seismic isolation systems
in bridges all are influenced by three dimensional motion and therefore three dimensional
considerations should be used. Two dimensional models can provide only limited infor
mation, which in many cases may be nonconservative in predicting the overall behavior of
the bridge.
1.3 Evaluation of Bridges with Protective Systems
In recent years modern protective systems have been introduced to reduce the vul
nerability of bridges to seismic events. These protective systems include base isolation
devices of different types, damping devices and active control devices.
8
The influence of added protective systems does influence the structural configura
tion of a bridge, such as in the case when a sliding isolation bearing changes from "stick"
to "slip". Initially the substructure and the superstructure act as a single dynamic unit but
when "slip" occurs the bridge behaves as two different dynamic entities. Turkington et. al.
(1989) observed that the equivalent damping of an isolation system is a function of the
type of the earthquake. In an earthquake in which ground shaking continues for a long
period of time the effective damping is higher than in an impulsive earthquake in which
the strong ground shaking is of relatively short duration. Therefore the only way to cap
ture the true behavior of the isolation system and it's effect on the overall response of the
bridge is to use nonlinear dynamic analysis which can take into account timedependent
damping effects.
A discussion of the different kinds of mathematical models used to represent the
behavior of isolation elements used for nonlinear dynamic structural analysis is presented
in section 3.0.
1.3.1 Models ofIsolation Components
The essential features that need to be modeled to capture the behavior of isolation
bearings are:
(i) The appropriate shear stiffness representation in the pre and post yielding
range;
(ii) Representation of the strain dependence of shear stiffness appropriately
(iii) Representation of the loss of shear stiffness.
9
Bilinear or trilinear models can be used to model isolation elements like leadrub
ber bearings and mild steel dampers. Lee(1980) has used the bilinear model for modeling
leadrubber bearings. Many Japanese researchers (Yasaka et al. 1988 and others) have
used the bilinear model for modeling leadrubber bearings, and steel dampers. Fujita et
al.(1989) have used the bilinear model with modifications for modeling high damping
elastomeric bearings. The trilinear model has been used by Miyazaki et al.(1988) for mod
eling lead rubber bearings. The RambergOsgood model (1943) has been used for model
ing high damping elastomeric bearings by Yasaka et al.(1988) and Fujita et al.(1989).1t is
difficult to capture all the essential features by these simple models.
A Coulomb model in which the transition from stick to sliding mode and vice
versa is controlled by stickslip conditions was described by Mostaghel et al. (1988) and
Su et al. (1987). This model has been used for modeling sliding bearings. The viscoplastic
model for sliding bearings proposed by Constantinou et al. (l990b) has been used for
modeling sliding bearings. The Viscoplastic model proposed by Ozdemir (1976) has been
used for modeling steel dampers by Bhatti et al.(1980) and by Fujita et al.(1989) with
modifications for modeling high damping elastomeric bearings and leadrubber bearings.
The viscoplastic or the rate model captures most of the essential features of these bearings.
The differential equation model developed by Wen et al.(l976) collapses to the
visocplasticity model under certain conditions (Constantinou et al. 1990b) had captured
most of the features. Plasticity based yield surface models have been used to model lead
rubber bearings and high damping elastomeric bearings (Tarics et al. 1984).
10
Experimental evidence in tests on steel dampers and high damping bearings
(Yasaka et al. 1988) reveal the importance of biaxial interaction. Japanese researchers
(Wada et al. 1988, Yasaka et al. 1988, Nakamura et al. 1988) have used the multiple shear
spring model to account for biaxial effects in steel dampers, lead rubber bearings and high
damping elastomeric bearings. This model consists of a series of shear springs arranged in
a radial pattern. The plasticity based yield surface model has been used by Tarics et al.
(1984) for modeling lead rubber bearings and Mizukoshi et al. (1989) for modeling lami
nated rubber bearings and hysteretic dampers.
Constantinou et al. (1990b) have used a differential equation model for biaxial
interaction which was proposed by Park et al.(1986), and which is an extension of the
model proposed by Wen(1976) for uniaxial behavior. This model gives accurate modeling
in the elastic and fully plastic zone but not in the transition zone, where the change from
elastic to plastic behavior occurs. To use this model efficiently in an analysis code, the
pseudo force method must be used (Nagarajaiah et al. 1989). This kind of modeling might
cause convergence problems in the presence of additional nonlinear elements. An addi
tionalproblem is that the influence of the vertical load cannot be efficiently incorporated.
1.3.2 Modeling of Damping Devices
An analytical and experimental study on the behavior of different damping devices
was carried out by Li and Reinhorn(1995), which included several models that can be
used for modeling of complex dampers behavior. A summary of these models is presented
below:
• Linear Viscous Dampers
11
The behavior of linear dampers is velocity dependent, in which the damping force F d
is a linear function of the velocity Ii (t) such that
(EQ 1.1)
where C is a constant.
When this linear damper is subjected to a harmonic loading of frequency Q the rela
tionship between force and displacements will follow the rule:
( ~ J 2 + (.!!:..)2 = 1
l CQu
o
U
o
(EQ 1.2)
where U
o
is the maximum displacements in the damper.
The energy dissipated by this device Wd is:
(EQ 1.3)
• Kelvin Model
This model is used to model behavior of an element with both velocity and displace
ment dependency. The force developed in this kind of element is:
Fd (t) = Ku (t) + Cli (t)
and under harmonic loading the force is:
F(ro) = K(ro)u(ro) +iroC(ro)u(ro)
(EQ 1.4)
(EQ 1.5)
12
• Maxwell Model
For an element with a strong frequency dependency such as occurs in fluid viscous
dampers with which incorporate accumulators (Constantinou et al. 1992) a model of
stiffness and damping in "series" can be used.
The force relation of this model are:
(EQ 1.6)
where A = C D/ KD and CD is the damping coefficient at zero frequency and KD is the
value of stiffness at large frequency.
• Wiechert Model
For dampers which experience significant stiffening in low frequencies a combined
MaxwellKelvin model can be used to model damping elements with bituminous fluids.
The force deformation of this element are defined as:
(EQ 1.7)
where Kg is the "glossy" and Ke is the "rubbery" stiffness.
Additional models based on Maxwell and Kelvin models with fractional deriva
tives (Bagley and Torvik 1983, Makris 1991 and Kasai et al. 1993) can be used to define
larger range of behavior of damping elements.
It should be noted that all the models presented are based on properties related to
harmonic loading, this type of modeling might be adequate only if the nature of the earth
13
quake is vibratory. In general for nonlinear analysis, a better quantity to relate the proper
ties of the damper to is the instantaneous velocity. This can be achieved by using nonlinear
stiffness and damping properties ((C(U) and K(u, u)) to represent the behavior of the
element.
More Details of integration of these models in a platform for planner structural
analysis are presented by Valles et aI. (1996)
1.4 Approaches to Modeling and Solution of Nonlinear Systems
In order to analyze a structural system, adequate component modeling is required.
In many cases the behavior of a component is very complicated, and sophisticated, com
plex methods are required to obtain sufficiently accurate results. Those methods might be
adequate for some cases but not for others if the other models are very sensitive to the size
of the increment of force, or displacement. In these latter cases very small time steps are
required to accurately follow the force displacements curves which are coupled with Itera
tive solution. While an iterative solution is not difficult to perform when a single element
is considered, in the presence of several nonlinear elements in a structural system, the con
vergence of the entire system is not guaranteed. While the solution for one element is con
verging, the solution for another element might be diverging. This problem is especially
severe when loading and unloading curves are very different, and the search for the equi
librium point might take strange directions.
In order to overcome the difficulties presented above, the use of iterative proce
dures should be avoided as much as possible. A solution based mostly on components that
contribute directly to the global stiffness and damping matrices is preferred. A contribu
14
tion of pseudo forces to the forcing vector in the governing equations should be avoided as
much as possible. Where necessary, a combination of stiffness damping and pseudo force
should be used.
1.4.1 MacroModeling Approach
Two approaches towards modeling of nonlinear behavior of concrete elements for
structural analysis dominate today: (i) Micromodeling  Concrete elements such as beam
columns and wall, are discretize into small elements, in which the actual material proper
ties are introduced. This type of analysis requires the use of very large number of ele
ments, and cannot be applied on structures of significant size because of computational
capacity limitation. (ii) Macromodeling  significant structural elements such as beams
and columns are modeled using hysteretic rules for an entire element. Using this approach
although the accuracy is compromised somewhat the solution is more feasible and
requires much less computational resources as well as providing better significant engi
neering insight.
Following the limitations presented above, a macro model approach is adopted in
this dissertation. By using this approach, even though the exact modeling of the compo
nents is slightly compromised, the major characteristics contributing to the overall system
behavior are captured. This way, a good understanding and modeling of system behavior
is reached, and if more accurate observation of component behavior is required, a dis
placement or force history can be extracted from the global analysis, and component
micromodel analysis can be performed.
15
1.5 Soil Structure Interaction
The correct evaluation of the dynamic properties (mass, damping, stiffness) of the .
soil foundation system of a structure is of major interest in evaluation of dynamic behavior
of structures (Wolf 1988). A rigorous incorporation of soil structure interaction methods in
the analysis requires that the ground be included as part of the structural model. At the
present time, even with the advanced computational facilities which are available, this is
simply not feasible.
Therefore simplified methods are generally used for the representation of soil
structure interaction. Some of these methods utilize a superposition approach in the fre
quency domain, and utilize nonlinear hysteretic models in the time domain.
The most simplified method to represent soilstructure interaction is to use equiva
lent linear stiffness and damping properties to represent soil properties but to use a fully
nonlinear modeling for the superstructure. The use of this simple approximation which
requires a careful evaluation of the soil conditions and rigorous engineering judgment of
the equivalent linear damping and stiffness of the soil, is the best way to model a system
which is expected to have nonlinear structural behavior at the present time for two rea
sons:
(i)Information on soil properties has a much higher uncertainty then the other com
ponents in the structural system (concrete, steel)
(ii)The capacity to contribute additional accuracy to nonlinear structural analysis
from more rigorous soil modeling is limited and would not improve the accuracy of the
results.
16
1.6 Damage Evaluation in the Inelastic Response of Structures
The design philosophy prevalent over the past 30 years for structures which may
be subjected to infrequent intense lateral loads is based on the ability of structures to
undergo inelastic response with hysteretic energy dissipation and possibly result in perma
nent residual deformations. By allowing relatively large displacements associated with the
nonlinear behavior the total energy input in a structure is reduced due to the dynamic soft
ening of the system. This results in producing smaller force (response) demands on other
elements of the structure. The benefit of the inelastic behavior on the strength require
ments of structural members, may be limited however, by the damage inflicted to the
members in terms of permanent deformations and deterioration of their subsequent load
carrying capacity during other future seismic events. Another result of this large displace
ment may be degradation in the functionality of the structure after the earthquake event.
A survey on the use of damage indexing was done by Valles et al. (1996)
The prediction and evaluation of seismic damage is a probabilistic problem (Park
et al. 1985 Powell and Allahabadi 1988) because the future occurrences of earthquakes,
their location and signature characteristics cannot be exactly determined. Nevertheless, a
deterministic analysis can provide valuable information on structural behavior. The need
for assessment of condition of structures and their performance during earthquakes led to
the development of damage indicators (surveyed by Chung et al. 1987, Manfredi 1993,
Williams and Sexsmith 1994) provide a way to quantify numerically the seismic damage
sustained by individual members, substructures (bents) or complete structural assemblies.
Although such indices incorporate many uncertainties resulting from modeling assump
tions, from incomplete knowledge of actual and current material properties, and from
17
future unknown ground motions, the relative ratio of demands and capacities can provide
reliable information on the envelope of requirements for which a structure should be
designed.
Damage indices were defined as a ratio of demands versus capacities in terms of
either strength, or maximum deformations, or maximum range of deformations, or cumu
lative displacements, or energy dissipation (Williams and Sexsmith 1994, Manfredi 1993,
Powel and Allahabadi 1988, Chung et al. 1987). Numerous indices can characterize the
physical quantities mentioned above at the level of individual members (columns, beams,
walls, etc.), at the level of substructures (bents, abutments), or at the global level.
Some suggested indices characterize damage as a function of the ratio of maxi
mum deformations, rotations, or curvatures in respect to the yielding levels (Banon et al.
1981). More recently, the permanent (unrestored) deformation demand (uu
y
) related to
the ultimate capacity of permanent deformation (uuu
y
) was suggested (Powel and Allaha
badi 1988; Yao et al. 1985): DI = (u  u
y
) 1 (uu  u
y
) . A similar index using the ductil
ity demand (11) versus the ductility capacity (l1
u
)' has been used (Darwin and Nmai 1986;
Mahin and Bertero 1981): DI = (111)/(l1ul)
In the above formulations the capacity of the section, or structure, is assumed con
stant during the seismic event. Other indices, relate implicitly deformation and forces
using energy dissipated through hysteretic action. Mahin and Bertero (1981) suggested
design methods based on the determination of the ductility demand, instead of only hys
teretic energy while maintaining the ultimate capacity constant.
18
Concern for the influence of the hysteretic energy dissipation, in addition to the
deformation changes, produced two component damage models, one which is related to
deformations and other to energy (Banon et al. 1981 and 1982: Park and Ang 1985, and
Bracci et al 1989). The difference in the above models stem from the method used to com
bine the two influences. It should be noted that, while the two components of the damage
models are assumed independent (Park et al. 1985), or statistically independent (Banon et
al. 1981; Bracci et al. 1989), the influence of hysteretic dissipation on the capacity terms is
neglected.
The influence of change in capacity during cumulative permanent deformations
has been formulated using "cumulative damage theory" (Chung et al. 1987; Powel and
Allahabadi 1988; Cosenza and Manfredi 1992). However, the cumulative formulation
requires calibrated indices and does not explicitly correlate the hysteretic energy dissipa
tion with the cumulative deformation influences.
Attempts to determine changes in strength capacity as a result of the past histories
of deformations were made by Wand and Shah (1987) and by Chung et aI. (1987). Chung
et al. introduced the notion of a failure envelope which links both deformation and
strength capacity limits, based on a fatigue model. However, the deterioration rules in the
above mentioned references need to be calibrated from statistical or experimental data,
without a relation to the work done and to the energy dissipated by the structural members.
Attempts to link changes in strength capacities using energy dissipation and
fatigue rules produced additional damage indices (McCabe and Hall 1989; Chang and
19
Mander 1994a). However, the damage indices proposed are limited to strength damage,
with little attention paid to the permanent and residual deformations.
From experimental data and from shaking table studies (Bracci et al. 1995) it can
be observed that there is a strong correlation between the deterioration of strength and
deformation capacity of structural elements. It is also observed that the damage in most
components and structures is correlated to the excessive deformations of elements beyond
the elastic limits, but collapse occurs only when those deformations reach their capacity.
In some cases, repetitive cycles at constant displacements, which dissipate hysteretic
energy, can deteriorate the capacity to the level of the applied loading, leading to total col
lapse (Bracci et al. 1989).
1.7 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete
An important part of the modeling of bridges for nonlinear analysis requires realis
tic modeling of the nonlinear behavior of its concrete components. Both macro and micro
modeling approaches can be used to model concrete behavior through the nonlinear range
up to failure. Because closed form solutions for complex structures are seldom possible, a
finite element approach in which the structure is divided into discrete (finite) elements for
the purpose of analysis is used. Each element can then be modeled and the total model of
the structure generated from the assemblage of individual elements. In some cases the ele
ments consist of discrete members of the structure but more often individual members or
structural components will have to be further broken down into subelements.
20
The plastic behavior of a concrete structural element can be assumed to be concen
trated at discrete locations or node points at the elements ends or spread along it's length.
A survey on the different methods of modeling and the spread of plasticity is given below:
Early work on the inelastic analysis of RIC structures was based on elastoplastic or
nondegrading bilinear systems (Velestos and Newmark 1960). The energy dissipation
capacity of such systems, however, did not produce results which were representative of
reinforced concrete behavior as documented in experimental studies which tested concrete
elements up to the point of failure with cyclic loading. It was noticed that the capacity for
dissipating energy by hysteresis for the bilinear models was lower than that found in
experimental studies or as predicted by newer hysteresis models which incorporate more
complex stressstraintime considerations. This lead to the concept of stiffness degrading.
A more representative model that incorporated stiffness degradation into the elastoplastic
model was developed by Clough and Johnston(1966). Another complex hysteretic model
based on experimental data was developed by Takeda et al.( 1970). The model is com
prised of a trilinear envelope curve designed to dissipate energy once the cracking point of
the concrete was exceeded. Thus even at low cycles of loading, energy dissipation was
incorporated. Celebi and Penzien(1973) showed that sections experiencing severe shear
deformations have marked pinching in their hysteretic loops. Thus energy dissipating
capacity of sections is also influenced by the shear deformations through the pinched hys
teresis loops. The Takeda model cannot capture this behavior. Several researchers thus
introduced modifications to this model to account for pinching of slip effect from shear or
bond slip (Takayanagi and Schnobrich 1977, Emori and Schnobrich 1978, and Saiidi and
Sozen 1979). Takayanagi and Schnobrich(1977) incorporated the effect of axial force
21
along with pinching and strength decay into the Takeda model. Strength deterioration, also
an important parameter in the performance of RC structures to repeated cycles of load
reversals was incorporated in other models by Nakata(1978), Aoyama (1968), and Park et
aI.(1987), Kunnath et aI. (1990).
1.7.1 Modeling of Shear Walls
Wall elements are defined in some finite element formulations as panels with four
nodes defining the corners of the panel. They have large stiffness inplane, and small stiff
ness out of plane. In bridge analysis these types of elements are sometimes used to model
abutment walls, and wall type bridge bents.
One method of modeling walls for in plane loading, using a frame analogy was
developed by MacLeod (1973, 1976,1977). He suggested that the wall properties be spec
ified along the wall vertical centerline in the plane of the wall with nodes at the top and
bottom of this centerline. Rigid body transformations of the degrees of freedom are made
from the wall centerline, to the four comers of the wall. The rotational degrees of freedom
at the corners were eliminated by introducing additional shears thus giving the same
moment as existed at the wall centerline. The connections to the walls were in the form of
stiff coupling beams consisting of only shear and axial forces. This procedure however
resulted in parasitic moments on the overall wall element (Kwan, 1993). He noted that the
end rotation of shear walls does not reflect the influence of shear deformations on walls.
He therefore proposed the use of beam elements with vertical rigid arms (instead of the
conventional beam elements with horizontal rigid arms in the coupling beams). This
method eliminates the errors in beam end rotation and ensures compatibility between ver
tical rotations at the extreme end of the wall fiber and the rotations in the horizontal cou
22
pIing beams. However this procedure cannot model walls connected to outofplane
members. Other procedures for modeling of walls, involved specifying the degrees of
freedom along the wall centerline with transformations of the stiffness from nodes at the
corners to the wall centerline. This procedure has difficulties in modeling interconnected
panels.
1.8 Evaluation Methods of Bridges
The evaluation of the performances of a structure during seismic event is the first
major step in the design and retrofit of the structure. The evaluation procedure is aimed at
determining and comparing the estimated seismic demands placed on the structure to the
estimated capacity of the structure. The performance and the level of safety of the struc
ture is derived from this comparison. The capacity of a structure is defined as the level of
forces and deformations that the structure can sustain without reaching a specified limit
state. The limit state is either the level at which the structure reaches collapse or a level
defined by design standards as the maximum deformations which the structure can sustain
and still provide either an acceptable level of life safety or to remain serviceable.
The demand from a structure can be defined as the forces and deformations that the
structure will be subjected to during a seismic event.
A summary of existing evaluation methods for bridges is presented in Table 1. A
detailed evaluation of each method will be given below. All the methods presented are
based on comparison of seismic loading demands for a bridge as a entire assembly or on
smaller parts of the bridge, to calculated capacities of the entire structure or its parts.
23
TABLE 1.1. Evaluation Methods for Bridges
Evaluation Capacity Evaluation
method No. Demand Evaluation Method Method
I nonlinear time history + damage index (direct evaluation)
2 nonlinear time history (element demands) element (section) nonlin
ear capacity
3 linear time history analysis (element demand) element (section) + reduc
tion factor
4 Total force on the whole bridge response spec "push over analysis"
trum (frequency from elastic structure)
5 Forces in elements calculated from static analysis elements capacity +
using forces from response spectrum reduction factor
1.9 Comparison of Evaluation Procedures for Bridges
1.9.1 Nonlinear Time History with Damage Index
The governing equation of motion is
(EQ 1.8)
Where u
t
is the total deformations (u
g
+ u), c (t) is the time dependent damping
and k (t) is the time dependent stiffness. EQ. 1.8 can be integrated in a step by step man
ner to derive the deformations u
t
• The stiffness of concrete element in general is modeled
using nonlinear rules. The protective systems are modeled using nonlinear rules also such
that the stiffness k (t) and the damping c (t) . are changing in time.
The nonlinear deformations of the concrete elements can be compared with the
capacity using the damage index indicator DI (IDARC 2D Valles et aI. 1996).
24
This procedure captures accurately the dynamic behavior of the all structural sys
tern. It is very comprehensive, and gives very good insight into the dynamic behavior of
the bridge during earthquake.
The non linear behavior of the concrete elements is accurately modeled, and the
influence of the changes in elements properties on the response of the global system is
direct.
Because of the direct interaction in time, between the global and local systems, the
influence of the protective systems such as base isolation, and damping devices on the glo
bal bridge system is direct and no approximations of the influence are required.
The influence of the difference between the ground motion records, at different
supports of the bridge can be directly accounted for.
•
The damage caused to the concrete components is evaluated instantaneously dur
ing the analysis duration, and since the damage index is related to reduced capacity due to
energy dissipated by inelastic deformations, an accurate indication about the actual reli
ability of the element (section) can be achieved.
Although the amount of damage to a single element is derived accurately, it cannot
be related directly to the reliability of the whole bridge system, since the deformations and
forces in the elements are dependent on the change in the nonlinear properties of all the
elements in the system, and to find the actual capacity of the bridge, a series of analysis
should be performed with increasing ground motion intensity, until failure condition in the
bridge is reached. Relating the design level intensity of the ground motion to its ultimate
25
capacity will provide the reliability of the system. Or through direct evaluation of the
return period of the ultimate intensity of the ground motion the reliability of the bridge can
be evaluated.
It is obvious that this kind of procedure in not feasible today, because of the large
number of time consuming nonlinear analyses involved.
This procedure although very fine has few additional limitations:
The response of the global bridge system, is sensitive to the modeling of the non
linear behavior of the components. The analysis can be performed only on limited number
of ground motions, which might not be enough to represent accurately the future earth
quake.
1.9.2 Nonlinear Time History
This procedure is similar in nature to the procedure in the previous section. The
major difference is that the comparison between capacity and demand in the nonlinear ele
ment is not done instantaneously, and the extreme value of plastic displacement demand is
compared with capacity which is not reduced due to the energy dissipated in previous
reversals and therefore the calculated damage level is lower then the actual one, especially
when subjected to vibratory type earthquakes in which the element experiences large
number of plastic cycles. Most of the software packages used for nonlinear analysis of
reinforced concrete (DRAIN2D Kannan and Powell etc.)can be classified under this defi
nition.
26
_ .. _ ... 
1.9.3 Linear Time History
The bridge is modeled as a multiple degrees of freedom system representing the
movement and restrains at important locations. A stiffness matrix and a lumped mass
matrix is used to characterize the bridge properties. The equation of motion under earth
quake loading are represented as.
Ku (t) + Mil (t) + ell (t) = Mrilg (t»
Using the modal transformation
u (t) = Lqi (t) <l>i
i
where <l>i is the i'th mode shape vector
introducing Fig. 1.10 into EQ. 1.9 gives
where
r = <l>TMr and <l>TM<I> = I for mass normalized modes.
(EQ 1.9)
(EQ 1.10)
(EQ 1.11)
(EQ 1.12)
EQ. 1.11 is a differential equation with one unknown q(t). This equation can be
integrated in time, to find q(t) for each mode. Using the solution of q(t) the maximum
forces and displacements can be calculated using EQ. 1.1 0 .
Because the analysis is linear, to consider possible nonlinear behavior of elements,
the maximum deformations are increased, and the maximum forced are decreased by
reduction factors related to the rotational ductility of the elements. It should be noticed
27
that the influence of the inelastic behavior is indirect. Thus there is no direct influence on
the analysis procedure (reduced properties such as elements stiffness are considered to
account for this effect).
Modeling of protective systems, can be approximated, by linearization of their
behavior using equivalent damping and stiffness. It should be noted however that those
properties are not placed in the element's specific location, and are "smeared" allover the
structure, for each mode of vibration.
The influence of expansion joints (gaps), cannot be directly modeled. To compen
sate for this shortcoming, an approximate procedure which includes interpolation between
analysis with open and with closed gap was suggested (Caltrans 1992).
The effect of differential ground motions, cannot be considered using this type of
analysis.
The evaluation of the reliability of a bridge using this method, is subjected to same
limitations, as the previous method. Furthermore the reliability of each element (section),
cannot be derived exactly, and it is unclear, what portion of the ductility is actually used.
As mentioned earlier the common limitation for all the procedures using time his
tory analysis, is the uncertainty in the ability of few ground motions to accurately repre
sent the future motion.
28
1.9.4 Modal  Response Spectrum Analysis.
The modal response spectrum analysis is actually a simplification of the aforemen
tioned, linear time history analysis. The element's maximum forces fmax,i, deformations
umax,i' and total force BSmax,,on the bridge are derived as:
Umax,i = SRSS'!'=l
[max, i = SRSS'!'= 1 [cI>5
r
l a (roj' 1
BSmax,i = SRSS'!'= 1 [r]Sa 1
(EQ 1.13)
(EQ 1.14)
(EQ 1.15)
where Sd and Sa are the displacements and acceleration response spectra usually linked by
the relation, Sa = ro
2
S d' It should be noted that these spectra are obtained by averaging
multiple spectra from a large number of earthquakes. Therefore this analysis is representa
tive to many episodes including the "unknown" future motions.
As compare to the previous procedure, only the maximas of each mode are
obtained, and using conventional SRSS procedure the required values of force and defor
mation are derived. The use of this procedure gives a limited insight into the dynamic
behavior of the bridge.
The calculation of the reliability of the all system, has the same limitations as the
previous procedure.
1.9.5 Capacity  Push over analysis I Demand  Spectral
The limitations presented for both the linear time history analysis, and modal spec
tral analysis, in considering the nonlinear behavior, and deriving the reliability of a bridge
as a system, were the motivation for developing the current method.
29
The method is based on a well known method of plastic analysis, or capacity anal
ysis, which was used for beams, plates, etc.
A short description of the procedure is presented (Priestley et al. 1991): The ele
ments of a concrete frame are assumed to have limited capacity to resist moment. A lateral
load is applied to the frame, until the moment capacity of a critical section is reached. The
section is replaced by a hinge. This procedure continuous until total mechanism is formed.
The maximum deformations are compared to the deformations at first yield. The ratio
between the maximum deformations and deformations at first yield is defined as displace
ment ductility, from which equivalent elastic force capacity can be derived using standard
procedures. This capacity can be compared to elastic force demand derived from response
spectrum curve, using the elastic frequency (or frequencies) of the structure to derive its
reliability. The reliability can be derived directly, by finding the level of earthquake that
this structure can resist, and the probability of occurrence of the earthquake is the reliabil
ity of the frame as a whole.
This method was extended (IDARC2D v:4.0), instead of using failure analysis as
described earlier, an incremental nonlinear static analysis is performed on a structure, with
concrete elements modeled using trilinear hysteretic loop and spread plasticity. Failure cri
teria of either excessive deformations, ultimate curvature or shear capacity is used.
This procedure emphasis the nonlinear behavior of the concrete elements. The
dynamic response is represented using linear response spectrum, which doesn't consider,
the influence of the nonlinear behavior on the demand (shift in period). The influence of
protective systems, can be accounted for, only through response spectrum curves related
30
to different levels of damping. Expansion joints cannot be modeled accurately. The bridge
cannot be analyzed as one unit, and has to be broken into separate frames with assumed
tributary load to each bent frame. The interaction between the frames through the stiffness
of the deck is ignored. There is no possibility to consider the influence of differential
ground motion.
The big advantage of this method is the fact that the reliability of a subsystem can
be derived directly, as compare to the previously presented methods, where only reliability
of elements (sections) was derived directly.
1.10 Summary of Evaluation Procedures
The evaluation procedures presented earlier are compared in a qualitative way in
Table 1.2 below. The procedures numbered from I through 5 are presented in sections
1.9.1 through 1.9.5 respectively
TABLE 1.2. Comparison of the Different Evaluation Procedures
procedure dynamic protective
differential
plastic reliabllity
ground
# response systems
motion
behavior evaluation
I good good good good deficient
2 good good good deficient deficient
3 good deficient deficient weak deficient
4 deficient weak no deficient good
5 weak weak no weak weak
31
2.0 ANALYTICAL TOOLS FQR EVALUATION OF BRIDGES 
STATEOFTHEART
2.1 Introduction
This section describes the stateoftheart of the analytical techniques and compu
tational tools for the seismic analysis and evaluation of bridge structures. First, the various
methods of analysis are outlined pointing out the extent of the applicability for each of
these. This is followed by a description of research needs that highlight the purpose of this
dissertation.
2.2 Methods of Analysis
There are various analytical techniques that can be used to evaluate the seismic
resistance of bridge structures. The following lists most of the methods in approximate
order of complexity:
I) 2D Elastic Analysis. This method is sometimes still used and has its roots in the
early computer programs that were based on frame analysis. The bridge is analyzed in
each of two orthogonal directions. With this approach it is possible to capture various
modes of vibration. The elastic demands on members can also be identified. This approach
lacks the ability to predict force and/or displacement limit states.
2) 2D Plastic Analysis. This approach, although not commonly used in practice
(particularly in North America, but is perhaps more popular in other parts of the world) is
useful in identifying force (strength) capacity, coupled with inelastic spectra displacement
limit states can also be found.
32
3) 3D Elastic Analysis. This method is considered by many practitioners to be the
stateoftheart. Computer programs that are commonly used for such analysis of bridges
(for example, SAP90, GTSTRUDL and SEISAB) are capable of accurately identifying
threedimensional responses providing nonlinear behavior is not expected. Most commer
cial software vendors of these programs are currently exploring ways to extend the pro
grams to incorporate nonlinear analysis.
4) 2D Inelastic Analysis. Computer programs that can perform inelastic time his
tory dynamic analysis of bridge structures have been available for over 20 years (Kanaan
and Powell, 1973). Inelastic 2D analysis programs have generally been developed by the
research community and are sometimes used by practitioners who wish to do advanced
analysis. The use of such programs, however, has been somewhat limited as they have to
compete with 3D linear analysis methods. In the early 1990s, many of the original nonlin
ear time history dynamic computer programs were extended to enable nonlinear static
(pushover) analysis to be performed. Following the Lorna Prieta earthquake of 1989, there
was heightened awareness within the bridge engineering community of the need for more
advanced analysis tools and bridge structures. As a first step, the inelastic time history pro
grams were enhanced to perform a static pushover analysis to assess the strength and
deformation capability of the bridge structures at various pier bents.
5) Capacity Demand Analysis. Capacity demand analysis of bridge structures are
recommended in the recently published FHWA Seismic Retrofitting Manual (Buckle and
Friedland, 1995). The aforementioned methods require a hybrid computational strategy,
which on the one hand evaluates demand (typically using 3D linear programs by modal
analysis), and on the other hand assesses capacity using the equivalent lateral strength
33
pushover methods. For the latter, there are still few commercially available computer pro
grams that are capable of undertaking such nonlinear analysis, therefore the Retrofitting
Manual suggests hand methods of computation for this purpose.
6) 3D Inelastic Analysis. The finite element method of analysis has evolved over
the last 35 years and the present stateoftheart permits the use of inelastic time history
analysis of complex systems. There are several advanced computer codes that are capable
of undertaking such a task such as ANSYS, ADINA and ABAQUS. Most civil engineer
ing offices feel uncomfortable using these programs as the analysis requires considerable
skill and experience in utilizing some of the advanced attributes and capabilities of the
software. Although finite element analysis has its roots in civil engineering, it seems that
the mechanical engineering profession has more readily adopted the method and uses
advanced (but mostly linear) analysis techniques for the routine design of manufactured
products such as cars, engines, airplanes, etc. To use some of these stateoftheart finite
element programs for bridge analysis requires special preparation of the input. The major
impediment in using these programs for earthquake engineering is that the nonlinear fea
tures are somewhat simplistic, particularly for analyzing structural concrete elements as
well as behavior of foundation systems. Sophisticated hysteretic models such as the
Takeda model resident in the original version of DRAIN2D (Kanaan and Powell 1973)
are quite powerful for analyzing reinforced concrete structures. Such a macro element is
not available in commercial finite element programs. In spite of this, advanced models can
be constructed with a fine mesh of finite elements in commercial software that perhaps
could reasonably emulate reinforced concrete behavior under cyclic loading. However, the
overhead necessary for such a micro mechanics based computational modeling strategy is
34   
excessive. Moreover, most civil engineering design offices do not have suitable computer
hardware to run such advanced analysis.
Perhaps the stateofthepractice in civil engineering can be summarized in a
recent paper by Wilson (1994) who outlines the use of substructuring techniques on PC
based computers using the program SADSAP to handle a limited amount of nonlinear
analysis. This program, however, is limited in its nonlinear capabilities and cannot handle
well the highly nonlinear attributes and damage associated with degrading reinforced con
crete elements.
In the research community, several computational platforms have been developed
for inelastic 3D analysis of structural systems. Few of these programs have been devel
oped for bridges, most have been developed for buildings. The program DRAIN3DX
(Prakash et ai., 1992) uses a fiber element formulation to model the nonlinear behavior of
the structural concrete elements. Because of the very complex nature of the modeling, it is
not realistic to use such a program for production design office use as the problems them
selves tend to be ill conditioned, particularly when a large number of nonlinear elements
are present.
One way of overcoming the computational difficulties associated with utilizing
fiber models is instead to use macro models that have bidirectional modeling capabilities.
Such an approach generally leads to improved problem tractability, but the problem
remains of how to calibrate the macro models for bidirectionalloading. An example of
such a program is IDARC 3D (Lobo, 1994). In this program macro models are calibrated
through a combination of moment curvature analysis parameters that are identified from
35
experimental studies. Alternatively, an offline fiber element analysis of a single column
member can be analyzed using an experimentaltype of load history. This is then used to
more accurately calibrate the macro model. Such an approach has been advocated by
Chang and Mander (1994a,b).
Perhaps the only computational platform that has been already dedicated to nonlin
ear 3D analysis of bridge structures is the software NEABS II (Imbsen and Penzien,
1986). Although this program has many desirable attributes for nonlinear 3D analysis, its
utility is limited by the simplistic nature of the hysteretic models that it uses. For example,
structural concrete elements are modeled by a bilinear representation. It is difficult to uti
lize such a simplistic approach for highly irregular bidirectional loading. The program
also suffers from lack of flexibility that is given to the analyst as the program was devel
oped to model conditions being characteristic of Californiatype bridges. For bridges that
do not fall into this pattern of construction, the program is difficult to use. The program
also has some limited capability for handing differential ground motion input.
2.3 Damage Analysis
The concept of damage analysis coupled with nonlinear time history analysis is an
important issue. To date there are no commercially available software packages that com
bine nonlinear time history analysis with damage analysis. It is only the university origi
nated research type software that undertake nonlinear damage analysis. Programs that can
do this either in a somewhat crude or sophisticated way include DRAIN2DX, SARCF
and IDARC2D.
36
2.4 Research Needs
Many features that are desirable for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of bridge sys
'terns already exist in various forms and have been implemented in other areas. There is a
clear need to assemble these features together on to one software platform. For example,
much work has been done over the last few years on the 2 and 3D behavior of seismic
isolation systems with a particular emphasis on building structures. Certain programs that
have resulted from this work (e.g., 3D BASIS Nagarajaiah et al. 1989) have capabilities
that are also desirable in bridge analysis. As mentioned above, the seismic capacity and
demand analysis procedures are presently fragmented and these should be amalgamated
along with damage analysis concepts in such a way that it should be possible to analyze a
bridge that incorporates the primary source of energy dissipation in locations such as
joints and gap hinges in the deck, 3D behavior in column elements and plastification of
these elements in the substructure (the piers), and the nonlinear behavior of the foundation
system including the nonlinear and radiation damping effects of soil structure interaction.
It should be emphasized that present pushover analyses are conducted on a frame
byframe basis and then combined in some way to give the overall effect for the bridge
structure. The problem with this approach is that the combination may not conform to the
dynamic response that could be expected in an extreme earthquake. It is, therefore, desir
able that a 3D computer program be capable of undertaking a pushover analysis of the
bridge both statically and dynamically. In this fashion, some of the uncertainties that per
tain to modal combination for large 3D structures can be eliminated.
37
What distinguishes bridges perhaps more than anything else in comparison to
other structural systems is the spatial layout of the structure that gives a high propensity
for differential ground motion input.
38
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ANALYTICAL PLATFORM FOR
SEISMIC RELIABILITY EVALUATION
The reliability of a bridge for seismic loading is of major concern to ensure proper
operation of road and railway systems following an earthquake. The reliability R or the
probability of the bridge to survive can be defined as
D
R = 1
C
(EQ 3.1)
in which D  the demand is the magnitude of forces or deformations that the bridge will
experience, during an earthquake with certain probability of occurrence during the life
time of the bridge; and the capacity C is the magnitude of forces and deformations in
which the bridge loses serviceability or stability. In this chapter several approaches to
evaluate the seismic performance using the reliability definition for bridge structure are
presented. In the first part of this chapter, the important characteristics of bridges as struc
tural system, and each of its major components is presented, as well as the structural
behavior of the components, under static and especially dynamic loads.
The bridge is modeled as a framed structure, so that matrix analysis using the stiff
ness method can be performed. The structural modeling of each of the structural elements
used in modeling the bridge components, and the way this elements are used to model
each component of the bridge, and subassemblies of the bridge is presented as well as how
mathematicalphysical tool such as rigid body transformations are used to achieve effi
cient modeling of the bridge.
39
In the second part of this chapter different procedures of evaluation capacity and
demand are presented, and the procedures used to evaluate the final reliability of individ
ual elements, and of the whole bridge structural system
3.1 Bridge Structure and Structural Components  Descriptive
Presentations
Bridge is a general word to describe a structure that enables traffic to pass over an
obstacle. Bridges types, vary from very small and simple once, that bridge a small creek,
to very large once, that span over large bodies of water. Altogether all of them.have a com
mon typical characteristics and components that differ in size and complexity. A typical
set of a bridge assembly and it's major components is shown in Fig. 3.2
deck
abutment
backfill
FIGURE 3.2 Bridge Assembly and Major Components
40
3.1.1 Components and System Definition
A bridge has several major components, as shown in Fig. 3.1. The components
are: deck, bents, foundations, abutment, connections systems and joints.
The deck is the surface on which the traffic is moving. The deck is supported by
large bents which provide for both gravity and lateral movement. Several types of struc
tural arrangements of the deck are used: prestressed box girders, monolitically cast beams
and slabs, and concrete or steel slabs supported on steel beams etc.
The bents are the part of the bridge that elevates the road above ground level.
Mostly two types of bents are used: (i) A multiple piers bent with a top beam connecting
them together at their top. (ii) Single walls, which support the deck directly.
The foundations are the system which interface the bridge structure to the support
ing ground soil. The main purpose of the foundation system is to transfer the dead and live
load of the bridge to the ground. This system also transfers the horizontal loads and the
overturning moments resulting from horizontal loads, such as winds and earthquakes. Var
ious types of foundations are used, which are: shallow foundation systems, and deep foun
dations such as caissons and piles. Each provides larger or smaller soilstructure
interaction during seisrnic events.
The abutments are the supports at the two ends of the bridge. They support the ver
tical and lateral forces from the bridge deck as well as the soil behind them. The abutment
is made usually of a central wall and two wing walls, which support horizontally the soil
behind them. The deck is supported vertically on the central wall trough joint (see descrip
tion).
41
In long bridges, the expansion and contraction of the deck above the bents due to
temperature changes might cause unwanted stresses. Therefore expansion joints are intro
duced to various sections of the deck.
The deck sections are supported by bents vertically. To provide horizontal motion
capacity between the deck and the bent and to prevent undesirable forces due to thermal
expansion, bearings are placed between the deck and the bent. Several kinds of bearings
are used for this purpose: elastomeric bearings, teflon steel sliding bearings, steel bearings
etc. Those bearings should also provide rotational capacity, since usually a hinge type of
support is desirable.
In moderate and severe seismic zones, the sections of the bridge are suppose to
move together in the transverse direction. This is achieved by providing shear keys, which
prevent transverse movement but allow longitudinal movement.
Another important issue relevant to severe and moderate seismic zones, is the
problem of possible unseating of structural components from their supports. Restrainers
are used to prevent such instability in modem bridge. The restrainers are steel roads or
cables, anchored in the separate deck sections, which limit the relative maximum displace
ments of the deck sections in the longitudinal direction. More modern solutions use non
linear damping devices with energy or shock absorption characteristics
To reduce the forces in the structure resulting from earthquake, modern protective
systems such as: base isolation systems, damping devices, active control, etc. are also
used. Those devices are placed usually in the expansion joints, between deck sections or
between the deck and the bent.
42
3.1.2 Comparison of Buildings and Bridges I Specific Issues
Bridge structures span over large distances in space, and therefore their founda
tions are spread apart in distinct locations, creating several different interface points
between the soil medium and the structure. The ground motion, the supports stiffness and
damping, might vary greatly from one interface point to another, influencing significantly
the structural dynamic response. In most of the other structures i.e building structures, the
interface occurs usually in small area which can be characterized as one point in space.
Although large buildings are supported on a group of individual foundations, usually those
foundations are connected by tie beams, which form a single type of interface, with single
structural properties and ground motion.
An additional characteristic which is also unique to bridges is the presence of
expansion joints. Expansion joints are provided to prevent appearance of thermal stresses
due to bridge elongation. In affect these joints influence the response of the bridge to lat
eral loads by separating the bridge into several substructures loosely connected to one
another.
3.2 Structural Component Modeling
The entire bridge structure may be viewed as a multibay three dimensional frame
with various members and components.
In the previous section, a general description of structural components of a bridge
was presented. In this section, mathematical representation in form of stiffness, damping
etc. is given to the basic structural elements used to compose this subassemblies and then
43
a description, how these structural elements are actually used to represent the structural
behavior of the subassemblies.
3.2.1 Basic Stick Element Formulations
In three dimensional framed structures analysis, the basic element is the space
frame member (Weaver and Gear 1990), or "stick" element. This element has two general
joints in space, with each joint having translational and rotational degrees of freedom in
all three global directions X, Y, Z all together six Degrees Of Freedom (D.O.F) in each
joint. And for the whole element 12 D.O.F's. The element has it's own coordinate system,
and can be rotated in any direction with regard to the global coordinate system (Weaver
and Gear 1990). The constitutive relations of this element can be described by
(EQ3.2)
where F, M, u and 9 are respectively the three components vectors of forces moments,
translational displacements and rotational displacements. Moreover k represents the stiff
ness matrices relating forces to displacements.
In case of dynamic analysis additional forces related to damping may develop,
which conveniently are described by a simple viscous representation:
(EQ 3.3)
44
where Fc, M
c
' Ii and e are respectively the three components vectors of damping forces,
damping moments, translational velocities and rotational velocities. Moreover c repre
sents the damping matrices relating damping forces to velocities.
The element formulation described by Eq. 3.2 and Eq. 3.3 is the so called Kelvin
model formulation.
For types of analysis which include elements that have nonlinear properties (non
linear time history analysis, incremental nonlinear static analysis, pushover analysis) the
stiffness and damping matrices k and c depend on the nonlinear rules specific to elements
used.
The "stick" elements can be provided with special end conditions, which include
end releases, end springs and rigid arms.
Moreover in the dynamic analyses using macromodels the mass is lumped in con
necting joints such that the individual structural models are massless.
3.2.1.1 Rigid arms
The connections between elements may be very complicated especially in the
interface between the deck surface and the bents. Accurate modeling would require many
elements and joints, to model essentially rigid zones. Using rigid body transformations,
element end springs attached directly to elements, and releases of D.O.F's can provide a
significant simplification in the modeling, reduce unnecessary computations and eliminate
the need to evaluate and handle unnecessary results.
45
deck beams
r 1
>:1.. __
(a)
joints
(b)
element defined between
bearing
theoretica1 joint
rigid
arm
two joints using rigid arms and end springs
spring
rigid
arm
isolator
(c)
FIGURE 3.2. Connection Between Deck and Bent Using Rigid Arm and End Springs (a)
Physical Description (b) Regular Modeling (c) Modeling with Rigid Arm and End Springs
46
A possible connection between the deck and the bent is presented in Fig. 3.2 (a).
To model correctly this connection many elements are required (Fig. 3.2 (b». The deck
is modeled as beam and has only one connection point. The bent however has three con
nection points at the locations of the bearings. By assuming that the deck is rigid for rota
tion around Y axis, and translation in Z direction the corresponding rigid transformation
can be applied to represent the rigid zones. The flexibility of the deck beams for transla
tion in the Z direction, can be modeled by end springs. The use of end springs and rigid
arms enables accurate representation of this area with the use of only three elements and
four nodes (Fig. 3.2 (c».
To accommodate the reduction in number of D.O.F's due to the presence of rigid
zones the rigid arm transformation is developed. The elements stiffness matrix is created
with respect to the actual joints (Fig. 3.2 (a» and then transformed, using rigid body
transformation, to the theoretical joints (Fig. 3.2 (c» which are used to assemble the total
structural stiffness matrix. Following the solution of the displacements in the global sys
tem, the displacements in the actual joints and the element's end forces can be found using
again rigid body transformation.
The transformation of an action Aj at the actual jointj to the theoretical joint (used
for descritization of the structure) p (Fig. 3.3) is developed as follows:
47
y
r
j
x
y
r
j
x
FIGURE 3.3. Rigid Body Transformation from Joint P to Joint J
The action at joints p and j is defined as
(EQ 3.4)
The action at p is represented by the action at j
(EQ 3.5)
In this equation 'pj is a vectorfrom joint p to jointj so that
48
[I j k l
0
Zpj Ypj
P
J
rpjxFj = Zpj Ypj Zpj = cpjF
j
=
Zpj
0 x
pj
FY
(EQ 3.6)
J
F ~ FY F,
Ypj
x. 0
H
J J J
PJ
J
The relations presented in EQ. 3.6 are relating a transformation of a single joint of
the "stick" elements. The relations for the whole element (two joints) are:
A = TA.
p J
where T, is the element transformation matrix:
with /3 being the identity matrix of the size of 3
The displacements vectors at joints p and j are defined as
which can be related by
where
ajxrpj =
D = { up }; D. = { u
j
}
p 0 J 0.
i
ax
p
Xpj
D. =
J
j k
ay a
z
p p
Ypj Zpj
P J
0
= Cpja
j
=
Zpj
Ypj
The relation for the element with two joints is:
',j Y'j
o Xpj
x· 0
PJ
a ~
J
a ~
J
a,
J
(EQ 3.7)
(EQ 3.8)
(EQ 3.9)
(EQ 3.10)
(EQ 3.11)
49
(EQ 3.12)
The force displacement relation of the element at the actual joints (physical) is:
where k
j
is the stiffness matrix of the actual element.
Introducing EQ. 3.12 into EQ. 3.13 gives
and from EQ. 3.7
Premultipling both sides by Twill give
Ap = TkpTTDp
Finally, the stiffness matrix relation is:
3.2.1.2 End releases
(EQ 3.13)
(EQ 3.14)
(EQ 3.15)
(EQ 3.16)
(EQ3.17)
Releases of a stable combination between the "stick" element D.O.F's as presented
in Fig. 3.5 is developed to enable flexibility in modeling complicated connections
between elements. For the sake of modularity, a fixed end element stiffness matrix is gen
erated first and the end releases are applied later to generate the released matrix. The num
ber of releases is limited so that no mechanism is created in any direction (such as in the
case when one side fully released and the other side is hinged).
50
ux
beam end releases
(rotation or translation)
uy / possible released
uz D.O.Fs
rx
~ ~   ~  ~ ~
x
element start
element end
FIGURE 3.4. Element End Releases
The force displacement relations for a single element are
kd = A (EQ 3.18)
The degrees of freedom can be separated into released and non released degrees of
freedom, with the force vector on the released degrees of freedom being zero.
(EQ 3.19)
where subscripts n and r indicates nonreleased and released D.O.F's, respectively.
The stiffness matrix of the element can be related to the nonreleased degrees of
freedom only, when the stiffness of the released degrees offreedom is zero. Thus,
k
*  k _kT k1k
 nn nr rr nr
(EQ3.20)
The final stiffness matrix will have the form
k*e = [ ~ * ~ ]
(EQ 3.21)
51
Which also satisfies the equation: A = k: d .
The use ofEq. 3.21 in the assembly of the global stiffness matrix can be done with
relation only to the nonzero terms in the matrix. It should be reminded, as it is well known
that while building a structural model, all the global D.O.F's, should have nonzero stiff
ness terms on the main diagonal, otherwise the stiffness matrix, might be ill conditioned.
The above formulation significantly simplifies the manipulation of the stick ele
ment stiffness matrix since it allows the combination of releases, rigid zones, and end
springs together, in any combination and order. Another important benefit is the fact that
this formulation can be used for any type of element, including inelastic beam elements,
walls, dampers, base isolators, gaps, etc.
3.2.1.3 End springs
A common way to formulate the stiffness matrix of a beam with end springs is by
using the flexibility method (Weaver and Gear 1990). This method requires different for
mulation for a beam without springs, and for every combination of springs at it's start and
end. To avoid this and achieve a more modular formulation, the stiffness matrix of the
fixed end beam is derived first and the contribution of the end springs is added later.
As shown in Fig. 3.5 four joints are defined for the basic "stick" element and the
two end spring elements. The constitutive relations of the combined system are:
52
kx
ky
kz
possible spring stiffness krx
kry
~ ~ _ 2 _______________ 3 ~
/
element start
end spring element end
FIGURE 3.5. Elements End Springs
[
;2,31 = r:2' 32, 3 :2,31,41 r:2,31
I,J ~ 1,42,3 1,4I,J ~ I,J
x
(EQ 3.22)
Fi,j are the forces and moments at joint i and j and uiJ are the displacements at
joint i and j. The matrix k is assembled in a standard manner by arranging the element
stiffness matrix K
beam
, and the stiffness matrices of the end springs K
s1
' Ks2 into the
related degrees of freedom.
Since joints 2 and 3 are internal joints, there is no external force acting on them,
and therefore Eq. 3.22 can be written as:
= r:2,32,3 :2,3I,J r:2,31
~ 1,42,3 1,4I,J ~ I,J
(EQ 3.23)
After partitioning.
U = k
I
k u
2,3 2,32,3 2,31,4 1,4
(EQ3.24)
53
Introducing Eq. 3.24 into the second part of Eq. 3.23 will yield the final constitu
tive relation for the external joints I and 4
(EQ 3.25)
where the final stiffness matrix is
k  k kT k
1
k
final  1,4 2,31,4 2.32,3 2,31,4
(EQ 3.26)
In the case when only few of the D.O.F's have springs attached, the following con
stitutive relation can be written:
[
k
e
_
e
keIJ [U
J
= [F
J
k. k. 1 U· 0
le l l
(EQ 3.27)
where u
e
are the displacements of the D.O.F's related to the external D.O.F's (similar to
joints 14 in the previous development) and u
i
are displacements related to the internal
D.O.F's (similar to joints 23 in the previous development). Employing simple static con
densation, results in
k" I = k  kT k":I.k.
Jma ee le ll le
(EQ 3.28)
This expression is general, without any limitations, and can be combined both
with rigid arms, and end releases. The stiffness of the end springs can be linear as well as
nonlinear. This operation requires finding the inverse of the matrix (k;J of the size of the
number of end springs.
54
 
3.2.2 Inelastic Hysteretic Beam Columns with Nonlinear Shear and Flexure
Behavior in Beam/Column elements
The force displacement relation for hysteretic beam/column element is
F = ku (EQ 3.29)
Which is similar to the relations of the basic "stick" element. The stiffness matrix
of the basic "stick" element k as well as the stiffness matrix of the hysteretic beam I col
umn element has the form
EA
EA
L
L
12EI
6EI 12EI 6EI
z _z z z
;y
L2
;y
L2
12EI
_6El
y
12Ely
_6El
y
y
L3 L2
;y
L2
GJ GJ
L
L
4Ely 6El
y
2EI
y
L
L2
L
4EI
6El
z
2EI
z
z
k =
L  L2 L
(EQ 3.30)
EA
L
12EI
6EI
z
z
;y  L2
12EI
6El
y
SYM
y
L3 L2
GJ
L
4EI
y
L
4EI
z
L
For the hysteretic beam I column element the variables In Eq. 3.30 E(u) the Young
modulus, and J(u) the moment of inertia ofthe section are considered nonlinear functions
55
of curvature. For an inelastic beam, an equivalent EI(u) is used which is assumed to be a
function of the state of stress and strain in the element.
3.2.2.1 Bending
The stiffness matrix of a nonlinear concrete element in bending is derived using
flexibility fonnulation (the procedure is the same one used by Lobo 1994). A linear distri
bution of flexibility over the length ofthe beam(Fig. 3.7(b» is used. The size of the pen
etration of the damage into the element indicated by xl, x2 at Fig. 3.7(b) and designated
as cracked length in Fig. 3.7(a). The size of the cracked (damaged) length is derived
from linear moment distribution over the element length (Fig. 3.7(a». In the process of
the incremental analysis the damaged zones cannot recover after they were damaged pre
viously, so the maximum value reached during the analysis history is used to define the
instantaneous flexibility distribution. The maximum penetration is monitored in four
zones at the ends of element (Fig. 3.7(c», for each local beam direction (xz, xy). The
elastic flexibility at the center of the elementfiexO is lIEI of the elastic (undamaged) sec
tion of the beam. The flexibility at the ends of the element defined as d<j>1 dM is obtained
from the trilinear hysteretic rule (Fig. 3.6) which includes, stiffness and strength degrada
tion and slip (Park et al. 1987). Currently the behavior of the element in bending in its two
major directions is modeled independently (no interaction).
56
4>nultimate
/
,
MPultimate
MPyield
MP
crack
/
/
/ '
/ /
,
/ ,
/,
/
,
,
N
,
M
,
'n
... M crack
,
Mnyield
Mnultimate
Mnyield*U,S,
(a)
first unloading
with slip
M
unloading
with slip '\ ,..M'Crack *S.F
unloading
slop
Mtarg.,*S.F \.. > ............... yo \. •.•
..... L first unloading
. without slip
(b)
<I> P ultimate
FIGURE 3.6. Trilinear Hysteretic Model, a) General Model, b) Slip Definition
57
cracked length(zone_number(1))
,...:l+,
cracking moment left
cracking moment right
a)
cracked_length(zone_number(2))
x2 xl
b)
up
I 2
3
4
down
c)
FIGURE 3.7. Stiffness Calculation of Damaged Elements a)Moment Distribution b)F1exlbility
Distribution c)Damaged Zones
58
3.2.2.2 Combined Bending and Shear
The general behavior of bridge piers under lateral loading is dominated by bending
and shear. The shear behavior is especially important in piers with aspect ratio, less then
4.0, in which shear failure was observed in recent earthquakes.
To be able to predict the failure mechanism, a combined shear and flexure model is
developed. For the flexure model the moment curvature relation is described by the trilin
ear model, from which the element stiffness is calculated using distributed plasticity (see
section 3.2.2.1) in terms of end forces and displacements. A trilinear shear model is used
also to define the shear force to shear deformations relationship
The final stiffness of the element is derived by combining the flexural and shear
stiffnesses into the element stiffness matrix. First the flexural stiffness matrix is derived
and shear influence is added later for the sake of modularity.
.
J
k22 + klJ
~ __ ~ = L O
J
FIGURE 3.8. Combined Flexure and Shear Stiffness Derivation
The stiffness matrix of joint J of the beam in Fig. 3.8 which is related to flexure
only can be written as
(EQ 3.31)
59
The flexibility matrix due to flexure can be derived by inverting the stiffness
matrix
F = k
I
= 1 [k22 k
lJ
det (k) k k
21 II
(EQ3.32)
where
(EQ3.33)
The influence of shear can be added directly to the term F II such that
(EQ 3.34)
where F II is the flexibility term including the shear deformations, and ks is the shear stiff
ness defined as
k = fL
s GA
(EQ 3.35)
where f is the shape factor, L the length of the beam, G the shear modulus, and A the
effective area. It should be noted that the parameters in this equation if, A, G) can depend
on the stresses and strains (J(u), A(u), G(u), and as a result the shear stiffness klu) is also
nonlinear.
The flexibility matrix for joint j including shear deformations has the form
[
det(k) l
F = 1 k22 + k k12
det (k) s
k21 kll
(EQ 3.36)
Note that when the shear stiffness ks is infinite, (no shear deformations) the origi
nal flextural model is recovered.
60
Inverting the flexibility matrix will give the stiffness matrix which includes shear
deformations contribution.
where
and
that
~
k l l k12 ]
 1 1
k = det (F) det (k) k k + det (k)
21 22 k
s
(EQ 3.37)
(EQ 3.38)
(EQ 3.39)
Using equilibrium the stiffness terms k13 ,. k23 ,. k14 ,. k24 can be derived such
        
k13 = kll ,. k14 = kllL  k21 ,. k32 = k
21
,. k42 = k22 + k12L (EQ3.40)
In the same manner (using equilibrium), the stiffness matrix for the other side of
the beam can be derived. The element stiffness matrix is which includes bending and shear
is defined as:
where
[
kll k12 ]
k k +det(kll)
21 22 k
s
(EQ 3.41)
[
k33 k34 ]
k k det (k22)
43 44 + k
s
61
(EQ 3.42)
In the limit when ks =0 (shear failure):
[: k
22 + k
k41 k42
k =
II
k41 k42
[: k" +
It should be noted that all the elements of k matrix can change in time in nonlinear
structure. If the element reaches yielding in flexure or in shear, the failure mechanism is
controlled by the lowest capacity of the two mechanisms. When the limit state of either of
the two mechanisms is reached, total failure of the element occurs.
As mentioned earlier this formulation was adopted since both the flexure and the
shear stiffness can be highly nonlinear. It is beneficial to derive separately the flextural
stiffness matrix and the shear stiffness for increased modularity in handling and allowing
the separation of two complicated procedures.
In order to illustrate the shear or moment dominant failure mechanism, the simple
frame in Fig. 3.9 is analyzed. First the frame is assumed to have only flexural stiffness.
Then both flexural and shear are considered in two cases: (i) The flextural capacity is
assumed to be smaller than the shear capacity. (ii) The shear capacity is assumed to be
62
F
'" rigid
1= 10m
" .""
FIGURE 3.9. Example Frame, for llIustration of Combined Shear and Flexure Model
smaller than flexural capacity. The constitutive relations of shear and flexture for all the
cases are shown in Fig. 3.10 .
The influence of shear on the capacity of the structure is demonstrated in Fig. 3.11
The first case corresponds to pure bending model. For this case (no shear at
Fig. 3.11 ) yielding in bending can be observed. In the case where shear deformations are
considered but the shear capacity is high, again flextural yielding occurs, with increased
deformations because of the contribution of shear deformations. When the shear capacity
is low, the element is not able to develop it's full flextural capacity and fails in shear. If the
shear model is assumed to be brittle (which is the case in many short RIC bridge piers)
then catastrophic failure may occur.
63
2.00
1.50
z
C
1.00
E
0
:;
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0:20
Curvature (11m]
Moment curvature
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.3
Z
0.2
V
0.2
oS
iii
rn
0.1

0.1
0.0
0:0 0.5 1.0 1':5
0.0
0:0 0.5 1.0 1:5
Shear disp.[m] Shear disp [m]
Low shear capacity High shear capacity
FIGURE 3.10. Constitutive Relations in Shear and Bending of the Frame's Columns
64
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Z
.!!.
iB
0.4
'"
0
~
0
III
0.3
0.2
0.1
Olsp[m)
F1GURE 3.11. Influence of Shear on Frame's Capacity
3.2.3 Shear and Bending Wall Panel Model (for modeling Abutment)
The abutments of a bridge can be modeled by using a four nodded shear wall ele
ments. This element's nonlinear behavior has similar characteristics to the hysteretic beam
described in the previous section which includes flexture and shear. The wall is modeled
by using the a shear/flexure beam. The element has four nodes of which two of them are
coupled to the other two. The shear wall element, shown in Fig. 3.12 (a), can be physically
defined by a flexuralshear beam connected between nodes 2 and 4 Fig. 3.12 (b) with rigid
arm to the center of the wall. The actual properties are related to the theoretical beam
located at the center of the shear wall. The stiffness properties are transformed to the phys
65
ical beam by using rigid arms, as described in section 3.2.1.1 . Joints 1 and 2 are coupled
using the coupling procedure described in section 3.4 to ensure rigid rotation of line 12
such that
U
Lu I
1 2
U
3_U 3
I  2
(EQ3.43)
(EQ 3.44)
(EQ 3.45)
The current formulation of the shear wall is a straight forward extension of the
basic hysteretic beam element into wall element by using existing tools such as rigid arms
and coupled motions without any additional special formulation.
3.2.4 Supports and Base Isolation Models
Base isolation is a strategy to reduce the seismic hazard for a bridge. An isolation
system combines two elements. The first one is, to provide a soft medium between the
bridge and the ground and thus isolate the bridge from the ground. The other element is to
provide energy dissipating capability between the ground and the bridge. The two ele
ments can be used together, in which case the energy dissipating capability is used to
reduce displacements, or as it is the case in Menshin design isolation system, where it is
used to dissipate energy only, and shifting the period of the bridge is not an objective.
Two models are introduced to model the behavior of such devices. The first one is
based on a model developed by Bouc(l971) and enhanced by Wen(1976), which represent
elastic  plastic constitutive relations with smooth transition. The other model, is based on
triaxial interaction to model the behavior of an isolation system which includes the infiu
66
y
U
shear
Uflexure u/t 3
"\ V
I
3
++,1 rigid "\ v
2
•
3
theoreticaJ beam I
¥
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I rigid arm

4
d
x
(a)
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
theoretical beam I
I
beam for
analysis
2
4
rigid arm
(b)
FIGVRE 3.12. Shear Wall Definition (a) Shear Wall (h) Shear Wall Modeling for Analysis
ence of the vertical load on the lateral force, and the dependency of the lateral forces on
velocity.
3.2.4.1 BoueWen's Model for Seismic Isolators
In order to represent the behavior of an isolator element as shown in Fig. 3.13(a),
the smooth bilinear model shown in Fig. 3.13(b) is used.
67
Bouc Wen's equation requires solution of a first order differential equation that can
solved by enhanced Runga Kuta method (Nagarajaiah et al. 1989). In order to obtain a
more accurate and faster solution, and to better understand the model, an analytical solu
tion of the basic differential equation is derived.
F
,
~ Kinitial
F
Kyield
~ ~ ~ Y
.' L __
~
.   ..
F
U
by
..
(a) (b)
F
~
F ~
(c)
FIGURE 3.13. Elastomeric Isolator. a) side view, b) force displacements relations, c) top view of
deformed isolator
The basic equation for an isolator with elastic perfectly plastic behavior is (Nagar
ajaiah et aI. 1989):
F = ZF
y
where Z is defined by the differential equation:
(EQ 3.46)
68
. 0 . 0
Z = A 12111 (ysgn UZ + ~ ) 
U
y
U
y
(EQ 3.47)
Z is a nondimensional parameter which basically represents the "nondimensional reactive
force", and its value assumed to be limited 1 ::; Z::; 1 , U is the total displacement, A ~
and y are nondimensional parameters which control the unloading slope of the hysteretic
loops, U
y
is the displacement at yield.
To obtain strain hardening EQ. 3.46 is modified
(EQ 3.48)
or
(EQ 3.49)
where F is the restoring force, 0: is the ratio of initial elastic stiffness to the post yielding
stiffness, Fy is the yield force.
EQ. 3.47 can be written as
t = g {AIZl
11
((ysgn(UZ) + ~ ) }
y
(EQ3.50)
Rearranging EQ. 3.50 we obtain:
dZ d(U/U) .
 = d y {A 12111 (ysgn (UZ) + ~ ) }
dt t
(EQ 3.51)
and by multiplying both sides by dt yields
69
dZ U
dU = y
A IZl11 (y sgn (UZ) + ~ )
(EQ3.52)
This equation is time independent and can be solved directly. Integrating both
sides:
U=UJ dZ
y AIZl11(y sgn(UZ) + ~ )
(EQ 3.53)
A close form solution is possible only for small number of.., values, .., = 1 or
.., = 2; the one chosen for this model is.., = 2.
New variables a and b are defined as:
A = a
2
(EQ 3.54)
b = Jlysgn (UZ) + ~ I (EQ3.55)
Several different cases should be distinguished in the solution of this equation:
For y > ~ :
y sgn (UZ) + ~ = b
2
sgn (UZ) (EQ3.56)
Introducing EQ. 3.54 . and EQ. 3.56 into the integrand of EQ. 3.53 will give
U=UJ dZ =UJ dZ
Y AIZl2y sgn(UZ) + ~ y a
2
sgn(UZ) b
2
z2
(EQ 3.57)
The solution of EQ. 3.57 can be derived for the following cases:
(A) sgn (UZ) > 0
J
dZ
U = Uy 2 2z2
a b
(EQ 3.58)
70
and after integration
u = u +c
Y2ab abZI
(EQ3.59)
This solution is divided into two cases:
(i) Case when b
2
Z
2
< a
2
1 bZ
U = U atanh+c
Yab a
(EQ3.60)
and
Z = tanh +c
a (Uab )
b U
y
(EQ 3.61)
(ii) Case when b
2
z2 > a
2
the solution is
U bZ
U = .2acoth + c
ab a
(EQ 3.62)
and
Z = coth +c
a (Uab )
b U
y
(EQ 3.63)
(B) sgnUZ<O
U
y
bZ
U = atan+c
ab a
(EQ3.64)
Z = Uab + c)
b U
y
(EQ3.65)
The case y > and b
2
Z
2
> 1 leads to Z larger then 1 which it invalid, so that the
only valid solution for case (B) is for b
2
Z
2
<1.
71
The instantaneous stiffness of the isolator can be derived using the solutions for Z
(EQ. 3.61 . EQ. 3.63 and EQ. 3.65 ). The solution for Z can be used to define directly the
instantaneous stiffness k as a function of deformations by differentiating EQ. 3.49
dF Fy dZ
k =  = a+ (la)F
dU U
y
YdU
(EQ3.66)
The term in EQ. 3.66 is obtained as follows:
(i) case sgn UZ = I and b
2
z
2
< a
2
(
dZ) _ d (a Uab) _ a
2
2Uab
dU  dU btanhU  U
sech
U
1 Y Y Y
(EQ 3.67)
(ii) case sgn UZ = I and b
2
z
2
> a
2
(
dZ) = Uab) = _ a
2
csech
dU 2 dU b U
y
U
y
(EQ3.68)
(iii) case sgn UZ = I
(
dZ) d (a Uab) a
2
2 (Uab)
dU 3 = dU btan U
y
= u
y
sec
U
y
(EQ3.69)
The values of the instantaneous stiffness k are used in the analysis to update the
stiffness of the structure as the analysis progresses.
The parameters required to define this model are: the yield force F yo the yield dis
placements Uyo the ratio between Kinitial' and Kyield a (see Fig. 3.13(b)), and the parame
ters A and 'Y, which control the shape of the unloading branch. In order to limit the
extreme value of Z = ± 1.0 the ratio alb in EQ. 3.61 , EQ. 3.63 and EQ. 3.65 must be
72
equal to 1.0. One of the ways to achieve it, is by fulfilling the conditions A= 1 and
"( + ~ = 1. When ~ = "( the unloading branch of the hysteresis loop is a straight line
with slope (stiffness) equal to the slope of the loading branch (initial stiffness kinitial=F/
u
y
), when ~ is larger than ,,(, the unloading stiffness is higher than Kinitial and the unload
ing curve is convex (as shown in Fig. 3.13(b)). When "( is larger than ~ , the initial
unloading stiffness is smaller then Kinitial and the unloading curve is concave.
3.2.4.2 Triaxial Isolator
Triaxial interaction model was developed to model the behavior of sliding isolators
subjected to triaxial loading. Modeling of sliding isolators with biaxial interaction was
treated previously using pseudo force technique in which equivalent forces are added into
the right hand side of the global equilibrium equation, while there are no stiffness or
damping tenns related to these D.O.F's (Nagarajaiah et al. 1989). Iterative procedures are
required to solve this problem. The pseudo force method is used because it allows to keep
the initial stiffness of the structure, and update only the right hand side of the differential
equation of motion, while using iterations to find equilibrium. It allows the use of linear
solution procedures such as mode superposition to solve nonlinear systems (Bathe et al.
1981). However, there are two significant deficiencies to this procedure: (i) In the presence
of nonlinearities in several locations in the structure, many or all the modes of vibration
will have to be considered to achieve accurate modeling. (Bathe et al. 1981) (ii) When
direct integration method is used, in the presence of large number of nonlinear elements,
the search for eqUilibrium is multidirectional. While convergence in one direction might
73
F
~
I p
I
t
~ I'd' ~ r f
P 51 mgmte ace
I
I
I
I
(a)
Jl
max
Jl
smooth function
bilinear
F
(b)
~ ____ L______________ ~ O
Vlimit
(c)
FIGURE 3.14. Triaxial Sliding Isolator, a) side view, b) sliding force· displacements relation. c)
dependancy of coeficlent of friction on velocity
be reached, divergence might occur in other directions, which result in infinite oscillation
around the equilibrium point.
Another approach for the modeling of hysteretic behavior of isolation systems is
by using first order differential equation to represent the hysteretic behavior of the isola
74
tion systems (Tsopelas et al. 1994). This method is very accurate and gives very good
results for relatively small structural systems, and when no other types of nonlinear ele
ments are present. In the presence of elements with other types of nonlinear rules, the sec
ond order differential equation of motion can be solved using a numerical method
(Newmark 1959). For this kind of procedure a better way is to represent the behavior of
nonlinear elements by their instantaneous stiffness and damping. This type of modeling
provides standard and unified procedure for the different types of nonlinear elements.
The sliding element model developed here has the capability to represent triaxial
behavior of a sliding isolator which includes displacements in the global X and Z direction
and the influence of the variation of vertical force on the sliding force. The friction sliding
isolators have two stages, slip and stick. In the stick stage the element has elastic stiffness,
Kinitia/' After the transition to sliding (slip) stage, at the first sliding (slip) stage, the coeffi
cient of friction is function of velocity (Fig. 3.14 (c). When the velocity exceeds the veloc
ity limit, the coefficient of friction is constant and equal to I1max' The data required for
this model is: P  the initial normal static force on the sliding surface without the contribu
tion of dynamic forces, Kinitiar the sticking stiffness (no sliding), Ksecondary the stiffness of
the recentering spring during the slip mode, VUmit  velocity limit above which the friction
coefficient becomes constant and equal to I1
max
' and, I1
m
in' I1
max
' I1
stat
ic  the minimum,
maximum and static coefficients of friction, as described in Fig. 3.14  (b).
The lateral force in the isolator, F(t), is represented by incremental formulation as
a combination of three components (i) a linear rise; (ii) a viscous component; and (iii) a
"Coulomb" friction component as defined by the following rules:
75
F(t) = F(tIlt) +AF(t) (EQ 3.70)
where
(EQ 3.71)
where A indicates the increment from time t  Ilt to time t, N is the variable normal force
)
to the sliding surface, and i is the sliding direction vector
(EQ 3.72)
The parameters I coefficients in EQ. 3.71 take the following values:
(a) Forj= 1 when IF(t) I
(EQ 3.73)
where kois the initial stiffness and !1b_
away
N (t) is the breakaway friction coefficient.
(b) For j=2, after sliding occurred, when
!1
min
N (t) IF (t) I !1maxN (t) and Iv (t) I V
lirnit
(EQ 3.74)
(EQ3.75)
where the equivalent damping coefficient is:
(EQ3.76)
Note that !1
max
and !1min are the maximum and the minimum friction coefficient
respectively, and UUmit is a constant depending on friction properties which can be
obtained from the inversion of the exponent a in the model by Mokha et al. (1990). This
76
coefficient (in velocity units) can be taken as 24 in.ls. (Tsopelas et al. 1994). It should be
noted that N(t) is time variable, therefore, Ceq is also time variable.
(c) For j = 3 the maximum sliding force achieved ClFtl = llmaxN (t) ) and
Iv (t) I> V
limit
(EQ 3.77)
(EQ 3.78)
It should be noted that coefficient Sj is an indicator for biaxial effects in the sliding
mode. When the isolator's force, IF(t)I, drops below llminN (t) the system is transferred to
the first stage U= 1).
Using the above formulation, the model can be integrated into regular numerical
formulations without loss of generality. The vectorial formulation indicated above for the
directional movement in the plane of the isolator can be conveniently transformed back to
a cartesian formulation for simplicity of usage.
Test results obtained from an experiment performed on teflon sliding bearings,
subjected to biaxial motion, with high and low velocity (Mokha et aI. 1993), were used to
verify the capacity of the analytical model to reproduce experimental results.
The properties of the isolator used for the analysis are:
p= 95.98kN, llmax = 0.13, llmin = 0.04, v
limit
= 1 0 0 ~ .
sec
The input displacements are defined by the function (see Fig. 3.15):
77
u = umaxsincot
x x
u = u
max
sin2rot
y y
The frequency co for the case with high velocity was taken as 2.22 rad/sec, and for
the case of low velocity 0.5 rad/sec.
The analytical modeling was able to predict well (Fig. 3.16) the experimental
results (Fig. 3.17). It should be noted though that the input motion used for the experi
ment did not follow exactly the input motion as described by the functions above because
of the influence of the testing equipment. This caused some discrepancy between the ana
Iytical and experimental results in the behavior in the initial stage (breakaway stage) in
which the actual velocity from the experiment is lower than the velocity obtained theoreti
cally. The general shape of the experimental results is also distorted, because of the influ
ence of the testing equipment.
78
50
30
 10
E
E
........
>
::> 10
30
30 10 10 30 50
Ux(mm)
FIGURE 3.1S. Graph of Theoretical Input Motion of 8 Shaped Test
79
16
12
8
/'
"
./
"
/ I""..
rngl
'l. .,..,
'\
..
...
4
Z
...It:
0

X
/.
""
Ie wvelo ity
" ~ ' \
y
"\
"
A
LL.
4
\.
"
./ /
8
\. I
..........
/
"
/'
"'
./
12
16
50 30 10 10 30 50
Ux [mm]
16
12
h i ~ h elocit
8
"
........
L
,
...
4
Z
:..,....
wn
....
'/
,
...It:
0

>.
LL.
4
;....
.....
8
J
,
1/
12
I'..
,/
16
50 30 10 10 30 50
Uy [mm]
FIGURE 3.16. Analytical Loops of Frictional Force and Displacements in 8 Shaped Motion Test
80
 .05
·4
Test
3
2
,.....
1
VI
Co
:i 0
........
x 1
lL.
2
3
2
4
3
2
,..... 1
VI
Co
:i 0
........
(,05
Test
·
·
V'
~
·
No.
1
 0 ~ 2 5
No. 3 ~
6\
>1
lL.
·
2
~ .
t
3
\.
4
 2 1
,
Ux (m)
0.0,25
•
Ux (inch)
Uy (m)
?5
0.0,..
1
I
w
0 i
Uy (inch)
0.05·
15
10
5
3
0
5
10
. 15
0.0 5
15
l
10
5
•
o
5
10
15
,.....
Z
~
........
x
lL.
FIGURE 3.17. Recorded Loops or Frictional Force and Displacements In S·Sbaped Mollon Tests
81
3.2.5 Three Dimensional Spring. Connection Element Model
An important basic element is the 3D spring, which can have linear or nonlinear
properties in every direction. This element can be viewed as shown in Fig. 3.18 as six
separate spring subelements corresponding to the six global D.O.F's.
y
z
joint 2
ky
+
joint 1
x
kx
+
kz
+ rotational stiffness
lax, kry, krz
FIGURE 3.18. Spring Element Representation
82
The stiffness matrix k of this element has the form:
kx 0
0 0 0 0 k
x
0 0 0 0 0
ky
0 0 0 0 0 k
y
0 0 0 0
k
z
0 0 0 0 0 k
z
0 0 0
krx
0 0 0 0 o kr
x
0 0
kry
0 0 0 0 0 kr
y
0
kr
z
0 0 0 0 0 kr
k=
z
(EQ 3.79)
kx
0 0 0 0 0
ky
0 0 0 0
SYM. k
z
0 0 0
krx
0 0
kry
0
kr
z
The elements of the matrix k can be linear or nonlinear(k (u (t)) ). In the case
when interaction between the springs exists it can be added directly to the elements stiff
ness matrix in the proper locations (EQ. 3.79 is revised and the proper stiffness terms are
replacing the 0 values).
It should be noted that there is certain similarity between the end springs formula
tion presented earlier, and this element. The differences between the two cases are: (i) The
end spring can be connected only to a single element, while the spring element can be con
nected to a joint in which several elements are connected. (ii) for postprocesing purpose,
in the locations where the displacements must be monitored it is easier to use the connec
tion spring element and directly obtain displacements since there is an actual joint at that
location. This is especially important when those springs are connected to the ground,
since the relative displacements between the bridge and the ground are of interest. (iii)
83
when mass or force is connected to the joint between the. "stick" elements and the springs
(mass of the ground), the end spring formulation cannot be used since it assumes that there
are no forces at this location.
3.2.6 Modeling of Damping in Bridges
The previously described structural elements are contributing to the global stiff
ness matrix k. In this section global modeling of structural damping, and modeling of indi
vidual damping elements is described.
3.2.6.1 Global Damping
The global damping matrix is used to describe the inherent damping in the struc
tural system. Since it is difficult to quantify the damping in specific locations, it is consid
ered a property of the structure as a whole. Usually it is defined as a function of the
frequency of the structure. A common way to model damping is by using Rayleigh pro
portional damping (Clough &Penzien 1993)
(EQ3.80)
Where M is the global mass matrix, k is the global stiffness matrix, u and ~ are
determined so that specific damping ratios are obtained for two selected frequencies, say
those of modes 1 and 2 co 1 and co
2
:
1;  uM+ ~ k
1  2Mco
1
1;  uM+ ~ k
2  2Mco
2
(EQ3.81)
In the case of inelastic structure, the values of k and co are changing with time.
Several options are available to update the damping matrix (e.g. Fajfar et. el 1994): 1)
84
Keep the initial damping matrix constant for the whole time of analysis 2) Update the
damping matrix such that C = a.M + ~ k / (t) , where k/ is the tangential instantaneous
stiffness. 3) Update the damping matrix considering both the change of stiffness and the
change of frequency, in time
(EQ 3.82)
In the case were elements with individual damping properties such as viscous
dampers are considered, they contribute to the damping matrix in the same manner as the
individual stiffness elements are contributing to the global stiffness matrix. The individ
ual damping elements has damping matrix of the size l2x12 with 6 D.O.F's at each side of
the element.
3.2.6.2 Linear Damping Element
The basic damping element as mentioned earlier has a l2x12 element damping
matrix. The element represents damping in all degrees of freedom as shown in Fig. 3.19.
joint 2
+
joint 1
~ z
+ rotational damping
crx, cry, crz
FIGURE 3.19. Damper Element Representation
85
And the element damping matrix c has the form
C
x
0 0 0 0 0 c 0
x
0 0 0 0
c
y
0 0 0 0 0 c
y
0 0 0 0
C
z
0 0 0 0 0 c
z
0 0 0
cr
x
0 0 0 0 0 cr
x
0 0
cry 0 0 0 0 0 cr
y
0
cr
z
0 0 0 0 0 cr
z
c = (EQ 3.83)
C
x
0 0 0 0 0
c
y
0 0 0 0
SYM. C
Z
0 0 0
cr
x
0 0
cry 0
cr
z
3.2.6.3 Nonlinear Damping
The behavior of each of the subelements in the damper element can be nonlinear as
well as linear. The c value can vary with time such that c = c (Ii (t) , u (t) ). In this case
the global damping matrix of the all structure needs to be updated in time.
3.2.6.4 Damping Devices
An example of the use of nonlinear damping is certain viscous dampers (Reinhom
et. al. 1995). The force in a fluid damper is a result of flow through orifices leading to a
pressure differential across the piston head. Most of the practical devices are built using
differential shaped orifices in which the pressure differential is depending on a fractional
power of velocity:
(EQ 3.84)
86
_ .. _
where sgn (Ii) indicated the sign of velocity Ii and IX is a power between 0.5 to
2.0. A lower power is used for high velocity shocks.
This model can be linearized instantaneously by differentiating EQ. 3.84
(EQ 3.85)
which gives the equivalent instantaneous damping coefficient
It should be noted that the values of the instantaneous damping in EQ. 3.85 are:
dF dF
e(t) . ~ 00 for IX < 1.0 and e(t) d. ~ 0 for IX;:: 1.0
duu .... o uu .... o
3.2.7 Nonlinear, Yielding in Tension, Stiffening in Compression Element
Fig. 3.20 shows a typical expansion joint detail with a restrainer and a gap in
extension of the size of tgap and gap in compression of the size egap. It may be assumed
that during travel form egap to +tgap no force is transmitted between the deck and the
abutment. When the compression gap closes, the joint exhibits stiffening characteristics
which can be approximated as bilinear stiffening elastic behavior. This is depicted in Fig.
3.21. In tension, the behavior is more complex: (a) the behavior is hysteretic with soften
ing characteristics, as approximately depicted in Fig. 3.21 and (b) the tension gap
increases with each inelastic extension from tgap to tgap' and so on, as depicted in Fig.
3.21.
87
Fig. 3.21 depicts an approximate forcedisplacement relation for an expansion
joint. A one directional element has been developed with these characteristics to represent
the behavior of the tributary section of an expansion joint. The behavior of the whole
expansion joint can be defined by a combination of several elements of this kind.
soft
material
Abutment
Beam
Restrainer
Bearing
FIGURE 3.20. Typical Expansion Joint
F
FIGURE 3.21. Force Displacements Relations of Expansion Joint
88
3.3 Modeling of Bridge Subsystems
In the previous section the mathematical modeling of the basic structural elements
required for performing analysis of a bridge was presented. In the current section the mod
eling of the bridge components described in section 3.1.1 , using the basic structural ele
ments is described.
3.3.1 Modeling of Foundation and Soil System
The foundation system is the medium that connects the bridge to the ground. In
general, the bridge and the ground form a single structural system, and therefore it should
be analyzed as a single unit. Realistic limitations does not allow integral modeling and
analysis. Therefore each one of the systems is modeled and analyzed separately with sub
sequent interaction defined as soil  structure interaction. The methods used to analyze the
behavior of the ground by itself are: finite elements, boundary elements and several other
approximation methods. The use of the finite elements method for analyzing large volume
like the one of the soil, requires descritization of large portion of the soil to avoid creating
refraction of the propagating waves from the artificial boundaries of the model.
The use of boundary elements is much more appropriate for analyzing infinite
diamines, such as the ground medium Benerjee (1994). The boundary elements method
however has also significant drawbacks in approaching the problem: the problem of 3D
structural dynamics cannot be solved, since the required Green function to solve this kind
of problem is not readily available. Furthermore, this method can be viewed as a linear
superposition method, and therefore it cannot be used straightforward for nonlinear analy
sis, as required for inelastic dynamic analysis of bridges
89
3.3.1.1 Elastic Linear Models for Soil Structure Interaction
The simplest models used for analyzing soil structure interaction are the once
using equivalent linear springs and dampers to model surface or embedded foundations.
According to this method the soil behavior is represented by a spring and a dashpot. Their
properties are depending on the size of the foundation interface and the soil properties.
However simple, these model was found to be very suitable to represent the behavior of
the foundation interface as compare to more complicated models (Cofer et al. 1994).
3.3.1.2 Frequency Dependant Modeling
A more advanced method for analyzing soil structure interaction with dynamic
effects, considers the soil medium as a combination of equivalent springs and dampers in
which their main properties are function of frequency. The soil is modeled therefore, as a
combination of spring and damper elements, described earlier. These elements however
can be function of frequency such that k = k ( 0) and c = c ( 0) , where 0) is the instan
taneous frequency of the nonlinear system. If the frequencies of the bridge with changing
stiffness are calculated at each time step of analysis, then the stiffness and the damping
properties of soilfoundation medium can be updated at each time step too. A more effi
cient computation scheme however provides such an adjustments only when substantial
changes occur in the stiffness properties.
3.3.2 Abutment Modeling
The abutment is usually made of three walls as shown in Fig. 3.22, two wing walls
and one central load bearing wall, on which the deck is supported. The soil is supported
90
laterally by all the walls and apply passive pressure on them. A major roll is played by the
abutment in supporting lateral loads which are applied to the bridge during seismic events.
bearing
wall
soil spring
FIGURE 3.22. Typical Arrangement of Bridge Abutment. The Soil Stiffness Modeled By Springs.
The abutment can be modeled in two ways: the first one is more rigorous, in which
the soil is represented by several spring and damper elements, and the walls are modeled
by several "wall" elements. The other way is to lamp the all abutment system into few
springs and dampers, similarly to the way the foundations system is modeled.
3.3.3 Bents modeling
Since the deck of a bridge is more critical and expensive to repair in seismic
design, permanent damage due to seismic loading is allowed only in piers and bents.
91
"".j1..
The bents are the parts of the bridge which ls..the most susceptible to damage dur
ing earthquakes. The bents and piers are designed so that they will experience damage but
will not collapse when subjected to seismic loading. Therefore the behavior of the bent
can be modeled by one or more of elements of the type of hysteretic beam I column. In
short piers and walls, the failure mechanism is dominated by shear mechanism. Therefore
the combined flexture shear model (see flexturalshear model in section 3.2.2.2) should be
used for modeling of these elements. In frame type bents, the top beam is also modeled as
an inelastic concrete element since it is also a part of the energy dissipation mechanism.
3.3.4 Deck modeling
The deck is usually made of multiple beams supporting a plate or of box girders.
The deck can be modeled using very fine finite elements. From past experience however it
appears that this approach is very expansive computationaly, especially for nonlinear anal
ysis. Approximation methods including condensed macromodeling can be suitable for
this task even if some uncertainties are involved in deriving the correct properties. There
fore approximation methods are preferred for modeling of the deck. Two approximation
methods that can be used for this purpose are suggested.
According to the first modeling method the deck is represented by a single beam in
the centroid ofthe deck. Thus the structural properties of the deck are collapsed to it's cen
terline. For this purpose the basic elastic beamcolumn element can be used. Since in
many cases the ratio between the length and width of the deck is smaller than 4, shear
deformations in the horizontal plane should be considered. The deck is usually supported
by bearings at its ends. Since the deck can be assumed to be rigid at its ends around the
vertical axis, the connection between the deck which is modeled as an elastic beam and
92
the bearings can be done using suitable rigid body transformations. Those rigid body
transformations can be performed using the coupled motions method (explained in the
next section). An example of transformation using coupled motions is presented in
Fig. 3.23 ,where the top joints of the bearings Goints I to 4) are coupled to the single joint
at the end of the deck (joint 5) using the coupling equations:
Joints 2 and 3 are coupled to joint 5 in the same way.
The other method of modeling the deck behavior for the case where irregular set
ting of the deck exist is shown as an example of the use of the coupled motions in section
3.4.
93
bearings
deck edge
(a) Deck Section Supported on Bearings
2
joints on the ~ __ ... 3 "\
top of bearings \
c; rx
z
4 deck end
joint
deck modeled by stick elements
(b) Modeling of Deck and Bearings
_y_ kJdzl
.
d
S

1
: ,
,
,1 •  • .=:::::: _C":'"_ .... _ ...:... : . . . :  ~  •        •
d
• a.." 9
54 ,,
' ~ ' " "
:
dx
4
(c) Displaced Joint
FIGURE 3.23. Modeling of Connection Between Deck and Bearings
94
3.3.5 Expansion Joints and Special Connections
bearings
FIGURE 3.24. Typical Expansion Joints in Bridge
A typical expansion joint on a bent is shown in Fig. 3.24. The left deck section is
supported directly by the bent, the right section, is supported by the bent through bearings.
The two sections of the deck can be connected together by restrainers (see Fig. 3.25), that
prevent the right section of the deck from dropping from it's support, while moving in the
longitudinal direction
9S
H
~     ~ r   ~             ~
restrainer
bearing
(a) Expansion Joint Cross Section
F
tension in restrainer
u
compression in a
concrete
(b) Force Displacements Relationships
FIGURE 3.25. Expansion Joint Modeling
96
A possible model of an expansion joint is shown in Fig. 3.25. In principle the joint
should be modeled using several elements. Since the deck edge can be assumed to move
as a rigid body around the vertical axis, all the nodes along the joint can be represented by
two nodes only. The bearings and restrainers, can be transformed from their actualloca
tion to the two nodes at the centerline of the joint using rigid body transformation, by
defining this elements with rigid arms.
3.4 Solution Procedures for Coupled motions
The efficiency of the solution procedures can be substantially improved if degrees
of freedom representing motions / movements of rigid bodies in the structures are coupled
by rigid'links. Such cases are customary in bridges with decks which can be considered
rigid inplane. The rigid links provide large stiffness terms into the structure global stiff
ness matrix as compare to the other more flexible elements of the structure, leading to
severely illconditioned matrices. Moreover, many degrees of freedom can be eliminated
using appropriate geometrical relations. The solution procedure suggested herein is auto
matically processing and reducing the number of active degrees of freedom and the stiff
ness matrices for effective processing. This is done using an optimal scheme as outlined
below (Bathe 1982).
The conditions on the relative motions are specified using the variational formula
tion of the structural system, by introducing Lagrange multipliers, which include the con
strains provided by the coupled motions:
(EQ3.86)
97
Where II is the energy, U is the displacements vector, K is the stiffness matrix, R
is the load vector, and A is. the Lagrange multiplier; c and c' are coefficients of the con
straint equations provided by the rigid links (see example).
Taking the variation of the expression in Eq. 3.86 and equating it to zero leads to:
(EQ3.87)
Since the terms associated with 0 are arbitrary, will get a set of linear equations
KUR = 0 (EQ 3.88)
cU +c' = 0 (EQ3.89)
Introducing EQ. 3.89 into EQ. 3.88 and taking c' as zero the number of equations
that needs to solves will be reduced from the initial number of Degrees Of Freedom
(D.O.F) to reduced number, equal to the original number of D.O.F's minus the number of
coupled equations. The terms in the structure global stiffness matrix will change such that
where Ci is an index on all the D.O.F's coupled to the i'th dof, Cj is an index on all
the D.O.F's coupled to the j'th dof. While the coupled (slaved) D.O.F's are eliminated
from the stiffness matrix. The terms in the global coupled load vector are defined with
respect to the original load vector as:
R
coupled  R  ~ c R
i  i "'' iLL
(EQ 3.91)
L= Ci
98
Example:
rigid deck modeling
A typical case rigid deck is used to explain the procedure of coupling.
The deck section in Fig. 3.26 is rigid in plane. The behavior of this deck section
can be represented by three D.O.F's only, i.e. displacements in two directions and rotation.
The procedure for performing the transformation using coupled motion is presented
below.
(a) Define the constrained conditions (coupling):
J4
Jl
FIGURE 3.26. Rigid Floor Displacements
Since the rotation of the whole deck is identical for the all joints, the coupling
read:
(EQ 3.92)
(EQ 3.93)
99
(EQ 3.94)
The first tenn in each equation is the coupled tenn, and the second is the master
term. For example in Eq. 3.92 the master D.O.F is 3 and the coupled D.O.F is 6. The cou
pled equation related to Eq. 3.92 can be written as:
(EQ 3.95)
from which the coefficient c36 =1, (see Eq. 3.90 Eq. 3.91 ). Rewriting the next two cou
pling equations gives c39 =1 and c3_12 =1
Defining dX
ij
as the distance in the x direction between joint i and j and similarly
dYij as the same distance in the y direction, the additional relations between the coupled
displacements are defined as:
U
4
= U
I
+dY2_I
U
3
Us = U
2
+dx
2
_
I
U
3
U
7
= U
I
+ dY3_I
U
3
U
8
= U
2
+ dX
3
_
1
U
3
U
IO
= U
I
+ dY4_1 U
3
U
ll
= U
2
+dY4_I
U
3
(EQ 3.96)
(EQ 3.97)
(EQ 3.98)
(EQ 3.99)
(EQ 3.100)
(EQ 3.101)
In the same manner by rewriting the equations into the form of Eq. 3.95 , the coef
ficients for the other variables are derived as:
Cl_4 =1, c3_4 =dY2_I, c2_5 =1, c3_5 =dY2_1 etc.
lOO
Flexible Deck modeling
In order to capture the nonlinear (hysteretic) behavior of the deck, it is assumed
that the deck is composed of several parallel hysteretic beams, assuming that the deforma
tions in the vertical and horizontal direction are related through shear interaction.
A deformed section of such a bridge is shown in Fig. 3.27 . Assuming that the deck
cross section remains plan and vertical to the beam axis (Bernoulli assumption) the defor
mations in the horizontal X direction of all the beams (bj)can be coupled to a single beam
bi using the following equations:
Ubi = u
b
j+6 B ..
x x y IJ
(EQ 3.102)
where the index bi indicate that the deformations of the i'th beam are coupled to
the displacements of the j'th beam and Bij is the distance between beam i and beam j.
Assuming that the inplane stiffness of the deck is infinite the following coupling equation
can be written:
Ubi = ubj
z z
(EQ 3.103)
Using the same approach for the vertical direction, the coupling between the
degrees of freedom in the global Y direction is:
Ubi = u
bj
+6 B ..
y y X I)
(EQ3.104)
Where u;i are the deformations in the vertical direction of the i'th beam.
Since the height of the deck is substantial, the distance between the theoretical
beam center line and the actual support should be considered when modeling the connec
tion between the deck and bearings, which are placed on the top beam of a bent. To con
101
sider the offset, the beams can be modeled with offset connections (rigid arms).
Furthermore, in order to consider flexibility in the support connections, beam end springs
can be added.
r
I
z
x
1
•
!.:..................................... b : . ~ __ ~ ~
FIGURE 3.27. Deck Section Modeled by Several Beams
102
3.5 Evaluation of Bridges via Approximated Methods
The evaluation of a bridge implies determining the internal strain resultant in the
bridge elements as well as the relative deformations in the elements and of the entire
bridge in case of load disturbance. In the case of earthquakes when the system responds
inelastically, the internal force distribution influences the deformations and accelerations
implicitly depending on the loading path. It is therefore impossible to determine accu
rately the force (strain resultants) and deformation distribution without a time history anal
ysis for a specific earthquake.
However, results of approximated analyses (Reinhorn et a1.1996, Valles 1996)
show that the maximum response has the tendency to fit more simplified, independently
obtained functions. One representing the envelope of forcedeformations obtained by
monotonic loading and the second by determining the expected maximum response for a
specific or a group of ground motions:
(a) Monotonic structure's capacity will be defined as the above mentioned force
deformation envelope independently determined.
(b) Seismic demand will be defined as the maximum expected response for a
ground motion or a group of ground motions for a structural model similar to
the one describing the structural system for evaluation. This is defined using
the seismic response spectrum.
A plot of the structural capacity, [see Fig. 3.28 (a)] indicating possible loading
paths, can be combined with a composite spectrum (Reinhorn et. al 1996) [see Fig. 3.28
(b)] to define the response at the intersection of the curves [see Fig. 3.28 (c)].
103
F/w
.
•
... elastic
inelastic
(a) capacity
d
Salg
Sd
(b )demand spectrum
elastic response
Salg=F/w
(c) response
FIGURE 3.28. Evaluation of Inelastic Response Using Composite Spectrum
Sd=d
It should be noted that an inelastic system can be defined as independent force
deformation description versus the spectral seismic demand.
The current section attempts to show various techniques to determine the response
by determining the capacity and the seismic demand separately, as well as it explains more
rigorous inelastic analysis to verify this evaluation approach.
It should be noted that a good evaluation can be obtained if the monotonic "capac
ity curve" is determined for increasing inertial forces best simulating those that might
develop in a single large cycle during an earthquake. At the same time the calculation can
be obtained by proper evaluation of equivalent damping influences or actual inelastic
response in the preparation of the demand spectrum.
104
3.5.1 Methods for Determining Seismic Demand
The seismic demand can be defined in terms of the expected forces and deforma
tions which will develop in the structural system due to seismic event. This can be done by
determining the response specific for a single degrees of freedom (s.d.o.f) or using pre
defined code averaged data for such spectra. However, the forcedeformation demands in
m.d.oJ's require farther evaluation as will be outlined below. Several methods currently
used are outlined for sake of completness.
3.5.1.1 Modal (Spectral) Analysis by Seismic Codes
Current seismic codes including AASHTO suggest the use of modal analysis pro
cedure, which transfers the structural problem from the physical space domain to the
domain defined by the eigenvectors of the homogeneous equation of motion. In the fol
lowing a review of the method is presented along with the presentation of efficient compu
tational method to determine the dynamic properties.
The homogeneous dynamic equation of structural system is
mii+ku = 0 (EQ 3.105)
By using the customary transformation u can be transformed to it's eigenvector's
domain such that
u = :E<PPi
(EQ 3.106)
and EQ. 3.105 can be written for each mode i using its eigen vector <Pi as
(EQ 3.107)
The eigenvectors of this equations are derived as the roots of the polynomial
105
(EQ 3.108)
The eigenvectors can be derived iteratively from the equation
(EQ 3.109)
In order to solve this problem efficiently it is suggested to use the Lanczos method.
A matrix X comprised of the m orthonormal vectors (xj>x2,x3 ... xn) is constructed
(Bathe 1982). This matrix satisfies the condition:
(EQ 3.110)
where Tn is a tridiagonal matrix of the size of n. The basic problem (EQ. 3.109 ) can be
rewritten as
(EQ 3.111)
The transformation
$ = X$ (EQ 3.112)
is introduced into EQ. 3.111 and premultiplying by XTwill yield
 1 
T$ =$
n co
2
(EQ 3.113)
The eigenValues of Tn can be found using one of the iterative techniques. The
eigenvalues of Tn are the reciprocal of the eigenValues of the original problem and the
eigenvectors can be derived using EQ. 3.112
106
The big advantage of using this method is that finding the roots of the polynomial
of tridiagonal system which is significantly reduced is much easier than working on much
larger system. This method is using iterations to check convergence.
The model of the structural system of the bridge is assembled from individual
matrices of elements to get the system matrices k, c, m, and the load vector F.
The eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the bridge are calculated using the aforemen
tioned procedure. It is assumed that the bridge can be modeled by a limited number of
modes. The site response spectrum is used to derive the equivalent forces on the bridge
using the expected acceleration profile to derive the distribution of the inertial forces on
the bridge:
(EQ 3.114)
where F
j
is the force at thej D.O.F for mode i, M
j
the mass at thej D.O.F, <Pij is the
ordinate at the j D.O.F of the i'th mode, and rSj the response spectrum value related to the
j eigenvalue (r represents the modal contribution from modal participation factor).
Using this force profile an equivalent static approach can be used to determine the
internal forces in the elements and deformations. The deformations can be also determined
directly from displacements spectra if available. If only few of the mode shapes need to be
considered, the results from the static analysis for the various modes can be combined
together using SRSS rule.
Fi = J
U
5
u
i
= J
ru
5
(EQ 3.115)
(EQ 3.116)
107
where F
j
is the end force in element j F ij is the j element end force due to the response in
the i'th mode. The indices for the displacements u are defined similarly to the once for the
forces.
It should be noted that this method can be used also for inelastic response evalua
tion if proper spectra are used (Reinhorn et al. 1996)
3.5.1.2 Static Equivalent Procedure
The simplest way to evaluate the demand from a bridge, is by representing the
dynamic behavior of the bridge (explained in the previous section) by equivalent static
one. This approach is widely used by the design codes (UBC 94, AASHTO, etc.).
This procedure is based on solving the static equilibrium equations of the bridge in
which the forces f are determined however using simplified empirical formulation to dis
tribute the total force. The distribution of the forces is obtained according to the force fi
relative to mass M
i
, and to the expected total force I.F
j
as defined in design codes:
(EQ 3.117)
solution of the static linear and nonlinear equilibrium equation
The complex system of a bridge can be analyzed also incrementally to determine
it's nonlinear response. The equilibrium equation of the structural system is
ku = f
(EQ 3.118)
The matrix k can be separated into four submatrices related to the free and con
strained D. O.F' s
108
(EQ3.1J9)
In the case where U
c
equals to 0, the problem can be viewed as force input prob
lem. The free deformations ufcan be derived by solving the equation
(EQ3.120)
In the case of nonlinear analysis, this procedure is performed incrementally, and
the instantaneous equilibrium equation is
(EQ 3.121)
where kif is the tangential stiffness matrix, l1u
f
the incremental displacements of the free
D.O.F.'s, and Aft the incremental load.
The reactions on the restrained D.O.F's can be calculated from the equation
(EQ 3.122)
The same procedure can be used to apply displacements input in which case the
equilibrium equation has the form
(EQ 3.123)
3.5.2 Time History Analysis
Time history analysis provides the most accurate information about the response of
bridges to seismic loading. If such loading is well known, structural parameters well
defined and the model is complete. Two procedures can be used to perform time history
analysis (Clough and Penzin 1993) i.e. (i) mode superposition and (ii) direct integration.
109
The mode superposition procedure even though much more efficient numerically can be
used only for linear analysis. Differential support excitation cannot be considered ade
quately by this method. The direct integration procedure is the one that is recommended in
the current approach due to its versatility to handle elastic and inelastic structures.
3.5.2.1 Bridges Under Seismic Excitation ·Uniform and Differential Excitations
Bridges span over large distances, and therefore the ground deformations, acceler
ations and velocities at one support might be significantly different than at other supports,
in magnitude and phase due to several reasons: (i) When the bridge is located over a fault
the excitation on one side of the fault differs significantly from the other side. (ii) Different
soil types amplify differently the magnitude of traveling shear waves, and cause excitation
magnitude difference between different foundations. (iii) The difference in arrival time of
the shear waves to largely distanced footings causes phase difference between the ground
excitations.
All this affects the response of the bridge both by changing the dynamic excitation
of the bridge, and by applying quasistatic relative deformations which result in quasistatic
forces.
The solution procedures for both, uniform support excitation, and differential sup
port excitation are presented in the following two sections.
3.5.2.1.1 Uniform I Rigid Base Motion Analysis
The governing equation for nonlinear time history analysis can be expressed in
incremental form, as:
uo
Mdu + Cdu + Kdu = dF for t
i
::; t::; ti +!:J.t
(EQ 3.124)
in which the nonlinear properties C (u, u) and K (u, u) are assumed constant during the
time step interval. The excitation which is a uniform ground motion, in which the acceler
ation in all the supports is the same:
dF = Mdu
g
where dUg is the uniform ground acceleration increment.
(EQ3.125)
This equation is solved using an implicit scheme based on the Newmark method
(Bathe 1982).
The acceleration at the time t +!!.t is
du  utdt  dt
2
(112  a) u
t
u
t
+
dt
= =d:t
2
:a.:
The velocity at the same time is
.. [ .. dUu
t
dtdt
2
(1I2ex)U
t
]
u
t
+ dt = u
t
+ dt (I  Ii) u
t
+ /) 2
dt ex
and the velocity and acceleration increments are:
du = (1I2ex)U
l
dt]
du u
t
U
I
(112  ex) ..
du = =.:,:.:;, u
(dt) 2ex adt ex I
(EQ3.126)
(EQ 3.127)
(EQ 3.128)
(EQ 3.129)
Introducing EQ. 3.128 and EQ. 3.129 into EQ. 3.124 ,will give the numerical
incremental equation of motion.
111
 
kdu = F
(EQ 3.130)
where
 1 °
k=M +C+K
(dt) 2ex. ex.dt
(EQ3.131)
= + u  + u  + u +    ex. u + u
F FM[,,1 .IJC[(OI)" 0(1 )"O'J
t2ex. t dtex. dt ex.dt 2 ex.
3.5.2.1.2 Differential Ground Motion Analysis
Differential ground motion cannot be applied through acceleration histories. Such
motions can be expressed in terms of displacements and velocity input.
The global equation of motion in matrix form, for the acceleration input is:
(EQ 3.132)
in which m
f
efand k
f
are the superstructure mass, damping and stiffness matrices respec
tively. Those matrices are related only to the free degrees of freedom. The relative dis
placements between the structure and the ground are denoted as u.
The equation can be written explicitly with respect to the total displacements u
t
such that:
CEQ 3.133)
112
where the sub matrices with the c index corresponds to the restrained degrees of freedom
or the degrees of freedom where ground displacements are applied. The first block of
equations in Eq. 3.133 represents the behavior of the superstructure and can be written as:
(EQ 3.134)
where the acceleration, velocity and displacements marked f are the total displacements
of the structure, while the displacements and velocity marked g are those related to the
ground. The solution of these equations is similar to the solution for the uniform ground
motion with the proper adjustments for the forcing vector, i.e. the right hand side of EQ.
3.134.
3.5.2.1.3 Verification procedure
In order to verify the analysis procedure with displacements excitation, a compari
son between deformations resulting from analysis with acceleration input motion and
analysis with displacements input motion is performed. The verification model shown in
Fig. 3.29 is analyzed using displacement input shown in Fig. 3.30 (b) and acceleration
input shown in Fig. 3.30 (a). The displacements results extracted from the base displace
ment analysis are the total displacements ufin Fig. 3.30 (b) which includes the ground dis
placements. The results from the acceleration input analysis are the relative deformations
(u in Fig. 3.30 (a)). To compare the relative displacements u for both cases, the ground dis
placements are subtracted from the total displacements to get the relative displacements
between the base and the structure (Fig. 3.30  b). A comparison of the results is shown in
Fig. 3.30 . It is apparent that the relative displacements are the same. However it should be
noted that the acceleration input does not require any restriction on the initial conditions of
113
\.
the ground motion. However with displacements input the initial conditions should be
properly adjusted so that the first and the second derivative will equal to zero.
it
t+
,
,
,
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I
I
(a) ~
U
g
(b)
FIGURE 3.29. Verification Frame Model
114
(a) displacement input
Input displacement
20 r====',
11O
C
0
!f·10
'6
(b) acceleration input
Input acceleration
I
I
g
1"500
• ·'00c0'n. ,:....,.,,\,0
time (sec] time [sec]
20r___ ___ _,
I'0
w
0
!f·10
is
·20 ir:::__,\,
time [sec]
20r__ ___ ,
I'o f
c
0t\!
;10 I
'6
__ .,\,
time [sec]
20r__ ___ ,
I 10
time [sec]
FIGURE 3.30. Frame Response to Displacement and Acceleration Input.
\
115
3.5.3 Numerical Solution for Bridge Systems
The solution of the system equations
kx =/
(EQ3.135)
is obtained by solving the reduced system:
 
kx = / (EQ 3.136)
 
where k is the reduced stiffness matrix considering the coupled or slaved motions, and /
is the reduced force vector.
3.5.3.1 Identification of Special Issues in Solution Procedures
(1) Usually the stiffness matrix k is a banded matrix, for efficient solution of the
system of equations it is stored as a smaller rectangular matrix, with dimensions dictated
by the bandwidth and the length of the diagonal. This type of storage is not efficient in
many cases. In order to improve this storage, most of the commonly used solution proce
dures perform reordering of elements to achieve smaller band width. This issue might
especially be significant when coupled motions are used, because the band width might
increase in the presence of coupled motions, since the D.O.F's that didn't have interaction
terms initially, will be interacting after the modification related to coupled motions.
The global solution procedure used for solving EQ. 3.136 is usually the Gaus elim
ination or frontal solver. These solvers usually have problems of round off error when the
stuffiness matrix has terms with drastically different values. This might happen when the
structure has stiffness discontinueties, in which soft and stiff elements are present in the
same structural bridge system.
116
In order to reduce the difficulties mentioned above, a sparse matrix storage com
bined with a solution using the Conjugate Gradient Iterative Solver are used. In the fol
lowing sections detailed description of solution procedures is presented.
3.5.3.2 Sparse Matrix Formulations of Structures Equations
Iterative solvers are based on vector matrix multiplication. This can be done very
efficiently by using sparse format storage of the stiffness matrix. The sparse format used
here, is based on a package developed at Yale University (Kincaid et al. 1990).
A symmetric matrix K can be represented by three vectors A, JA and IA. All the
nonzero elements are stored in the vector A. JAG) contains the column number at which
the term AU) is located in the K matrix. The IA vector denotes the elements serial number
on the diagonal, and used to define the number of nonzero elements at each row. JA has
the size of number of nonzero elements, and IA has the size of number of rows + 1.
An example of the use of Yale sparse format is shown below
The matrix K is
and the equivalent vectors are:
11. O. O. 14. 15.
O. 22. O. O. O.
O. O. 33. O. O.
14. O. O. 44. O.
15. O. O. O. 55.
A = [11. 14. 15.22.33.44.45.55.]
JA =[1 4523455]
(EQ 3.137)
117
IA=[1 4 5 6 8 9)
3.5.3.3 Conjugate Gradient Iterative Solver (Kincaid et al. 1990)
An iterative solver was chosen for two major reasons: (i) The accuracy of the solu
tion is not influenced by large differences between the values of the terms in the stiffness
matrix. (ii) The solution from one step can be used as a first guess for the solution at the
next step which is useful in incremental static analysis, and in step by step dynamic analy
sis where there are no significant changes expected in the incremental solution between
two consecutive steps. A detailed description of the method is presented below.
CG is the most popular iterative method for solving large systems of linear equa
tions. It is effective on systems of the form
Ax = b (EQ 3.138)
where A is a known symmetric, positive definite matrix. Iterative methods are suit
able for use with sparse matrices because they usually use matrix vector multiplications
operations.
The basic quadratic form is a scalar, it is quadratic function of a vector
(EQ 3.139)
where A is a matrix, x, b are vectors, and c is a scalar.
For positive definite matrices the surface defined by f(x) has the shape of parabola
for the case where the size of vector x is 2.
The gradient off(x), i.e./(x) is:
(EQ 3.140)
and if A is symmetric
118
f (X) = Axb
(EQ 3.141)
Setting the gradient to be zero will retrieve EQ. 3.138 . If A is positivedefinite and
symmetric, this solution is the minimum off.
Method of Steepest Descent
In this method we start with an initial guess Xo and take a series of steps to values
of x: x j>x2'" until we are close enough to the solution x.
The direction of the step is chosen to be the direction of the gradient to the function
fwhich is also the residual
(EQ 3.142)
where ri is the residual, the residual can be also defined as
(EQ 3.143)
where e i is the error term.
Moving from one point to another in the search for the minimum point will be
done in this manner.
(EQ 3.144)
After finding the direction of the step ri' to find a line search is performed along
the direction of ri' such that a minimize f where
dx. 1 d(x.+ar.)
 0  fT ( ) ' +  fT ( ) , ,
  xi+l da  xi+l da
(EQ 3.145)
Using the last term and EQ. 3.143 and EQ. 3.144 the value of a is derived as
rTr.
a=''
rTAri
The error reduction between consecutive steps is calculated as
(EQ 3.146)
119
(EQ 3.147)
where 0)2 is defined as
(EQ 3.148)
Al ~ 2
and k = r ; ~ = ~
2 ':>1
where Al ' A2 are the eigen vector of matrix A and ~ I ; ~ 2 are the length's of the projec
tion of the error term on the eigenvectors.
It shows that the smaller 0) is, the faster is the convergence. The term k relates to
the ratio of the eigen values and the term ~ relates to the ratio of properties related to the
initial guess. The drawback of steepest descent is that steps are taken in the same direction
several times, and the number of iterations might be large.
The Method of Conjugate Directions
This method is based on the idea of choosing the search directions so they will be
A orthogonal, in this way the search in each direction will be done only once and after
moving n times in each direction, the solution is found.
The length of each search vector is found from
(EQ 3.149)
To get the A orthogonal vectors, the conjugate GramSchmid's process is used, in
this process the vectors d; are calculated
and
;1
d; = uj + L ~ j k d k
k=o
(EQ 3.150)
120
uTAd.
~ _ , J
ij  dTAd.
J J
(EQ 3.151)
The drawback of the method of cojugate directions is that to derive each new vec
tor, all the old vectors should be used and kept, this requires large number of operations
O(n
3
).
To improve the performance of conjugate directions, instead of using arbitrary set
of independent vectors u
j
the set of vectors used is the set of the residuals r
j
, using this
set of vectors simplifies the solution considerably because of the special properties of r
j
,
and the final procedure is
where
and
rTr.
a. = ''
, dTAd.
, ,
~ i + 1 =
and the initial searching vector is
The convergence of CG is function of the condition number of A, k
"'min "'max are the minimum and maximum eigenValue of the matrix A,
(EQ 3.152)
(EQ 3.153)
(EQ 3.154)
(EQ 3.155)
(EQ 3.156)
(EQ 3.157)
(EQ 3.158)
121
and the rate of convergence of CO (or the decrease of the error norm) is
(EQ 3.159)
Preconditioning
In order to decrease the condition number k, a preconditioning technique is used.
The system of equations is premultiplied by a symmetric, positive definite matrix M
1
(EQ3.160)
and the full solution algorithm is
(EQ 3.161)
(EQ 3.162)
r!MI
r
.
ex. = I I
, d!Ad.
, ,
(EQ 3.163)
(EQ 3.164)
(EQ 3.165)
(EQ 3.166)
(EQ 3.167)
A well known preconditioner is the diagonal or Jacobi preconditioner in this case
the matrix M is taken to be the diagonal of matrix A.
122
3.6 Methods of Analysis to Evaluate Bridge Capacity
Capacity is a limit state which can be defined as: (i) The maximum force or defor
mation that a system or subsystem can experience before it reaches collapse. (ii) A system
failure is reached when it cannot play it's designated roll. A failure of a system occurs
when one or few of it's subsystems fails.
Each element in the system by it self can fail in different ways: (i) Section failure,
such as failure in flexure (ii) Zone failure, such as failure in shear. (iii) A failure of mecha
nism combined from flexure and shear.
The reliability of a system can be derived in two basic ways. (I) By first deriving
the reliability of each individual member and then combining them into reliability of the
global system. For example by using "Fault Tree" approach, in which the probabilities of
each component of the system are arranged in a system "Fault Tree". And the critical path
in the tree defines the probable failure path of the system. (2) By using analysis procedure
which provides directly the probability of failure of the whole structure.
Similarly the capacity of the system, can be assessed by deriving first the capacity
of the basic elements directly from the constitutive relations of the individual element and
expending it to the global system, or by assessing the capacity of the whole system
directly.
In the following sections, a brief review of the commonly used techniques to eval
uate ultimate state or capacity of a section are presented, followed by presentation of pro
cedures to evaluate the structural capacity of the whole bridge system, namely by
monotonic pushover or dynamic analysis procedures in which the capacity of the struc
123
"
ture as a whole is derived by applying simple loading to the bridge and detecting condi
tions which are defined as failure.
3.6.1 Direct Section Evaluation
The derivation of the moment curvature relations for a section in flexure is well
known. Two methods are used usually for this purpose: (i) the approximate one based on
stress block and, (ii) the more rigorous one: fiber analysis. Both methods are based on the
following assumptions: plane sections remain plane, so the concrete strain distribution can
be defined just by two variables (e.g., the strain at the top face and the strain at the bottom
face) or by the strain at the centroid, Ecen and the curvature $. The curvature is equal to
the change in slope per unit length along the member, and is also equal to the strain gradi
ent over the depth of the member.
Thus the concrete strain at any level y is given by
(EQ 3.168)
The strain in a reinforcing bar at any level y is equal to the strain in the surrounding
concrete; hence
(EQ 3.169)
The following equilibrium conditions must be also satisfied.
Jf
c
dA
c
+ JfsdAs = N
(EQ 3.170)
Ac As
JfcydAc+ JfsydA
s
= M
(EQ 3.171)
Ac As
124
In which! c,! s are stresses in concrete and steel, Ac. A s are the areas cross sections
of concrete and steel. M, N the global moment and axial force.
3.6.1.1 Mechanical Properties Modeling
The mechanical properties or the moment curvature relations can be evaluated
directly by assuming that the stresses in the concrete are concentrated in a rectangular
block with dimensions related to the parabolic distribution of the stress.
The moment curvature relations are derived by iterating on the eqUilibrium equa
tions, for a given axial force and moment using the stress strain relationships for steel and
concrete.
3.6.1.2 Fiber Analysis
Instead of assuming distribution of the stresses over the height of the section, the
section is divided into number of layers where the concrete and the steel micro mechanics
are used. The integral of the stresses of the layers over the sections height should satisfy
the equilibrium conditions presented earlier. Iterative procedure is used to find the stresses
at the layers, and the related curvature. The ultimate state is defined as a condition where,
no equilibrium can be achieved for increase in moment.
3.6.2 Incremental Monotonic Static Analysis
In this section the concept of evaluation of structural components, or structural
system capacity to sustain forces and deformations before reaching a point of failure is
presented.
125
The capacity of a single element is usually defined as the extreme value on the
constitutive relation curve of the element, when the failure mechanism is expected to be
flexure, the failure happens in a single section. However when shear failure occurs it can
be defined as failure of a region.
The commonly recommended way in the design codes to evaluate the strength
demand of a single element is by reducing the forces derived using elastic analysis for
seismic loading Felastic by a reduction factor R which relates to the assumed capacity of
this element type to dissipate energy by experiencing inelastic deformations.
F _ Felastic
design  R
(EQ3.172)
Using this procedure it is assumed that the inelastic behavior increases the seismic
capacity of the elements. However the inelastic behavior doesn't influence the distribution
of the forces in the bridge due to inelastic behavior which might transfer significantly
larger force to certain elements. In order to give more emphasis to the plastic behavior
(Seismic Retrofit Manual for Highway Bridges  Buckle and Friedland 1995), a mono
tonic incremental static lateral analysis or dynamic analysis with a predefined dynamic
load, defined also as "PushOver" analysis is used to evaluate the capacity of the whole
structural system, or major parts of it such as frame bents. In such a case a single demand
to capacity ratio, which represents the reliability of the whole system can be defined. The
derivation of single system demand to capacity ratio, is desirable for accurate road sys
terns evaluation.
In order to derive the capacity of a structural system: (i) the geometry, (ii) the con
stitutive law ofthe elements and (iii) the loading distribution should be known. Assuming
126
that the geometry can be well defined by geometric modeling and the constitutive law can
be also well defined, the main difficulty is to define an appropriate distribution of the total
force F. The distribution of the total force F between the elements of a bridge should be
representative of the distribution of the forces during the seismic event.
If the spatial force distribution in the bridges is defined as:
f(x, y, z) = FS (x, y, z) (EQ 3.173)
in which F is and intensity function and S (x, y, z) a nondimensional distribution.
The distribution of the mass in building structures can be considered in the vertical direc
tion only, assuming that the floor diaphragms are stiff in there plan. Using this assumption
the distribution of forces in a building can collapse to:
f(x, y, z) = FS (y) (EQ 3.174)
However, in bridges with significant spatial distribution of masses the relations in
EQ. 3.173 may not be simplified as easy. In bridges of significant length where the number
of spans is more then two, the modes of vibration are much more complex and so is the
bridge response to earthquakes. To get better evaluation of the bridge response, several
types of "PushOver analyses" are suggested. Two of them, i.e. the incremental force load
ing and incremental displacements loading, were previously defined in various versions
for analysis of buildings (Valles et. el. 1996). To be able to represent fue accurately the
influence of the changing structural properties of the bridge due to inelastic behavior adap
tive (modal) loading is suggested. The other two options are dynamic versions of the static
"PushOver procedure", in which the expected dynamic loading and the adaptable distri
bution of the load are addressed.
127
Both the previously developed push over procedures (arbitrary force loading) and
the newly developed procedures (displacement quasistatic, modal adaptable and the quasi
dynamic procedures: pulse and ramp) are described hereafter
3.6.2.1 Arbitrary Force Loading
The simplest and most commonly used method for "PushOver analysis" is per
formed by applying incrementally lateral forces to the bridge until failure criteria is
reached. The incremental static analysis with force input presented earlier is used. Several
criteria (Valles et. el 1995) are used as a definition of failure: 1) first component reached
failure, 2) gravity load carrying element reached failure, 3) mechanism is formed, 4) ser
viceability displacement criteria is reached.
As mentioned earlier the distribution of the forces along the bridge is an important
issue and two types of distribution which are similar to the once which are used in build
ings (Valles et. al. 1995) are suggested: 1) uniform load distribution 2) load distribution
equivalent to one or more modes of vibration.
F w«p(u)
 'Y1.:
w
«p(u)
in which «p (w) is spatial function of u(u;x> u
y
u
z
).
(EQ 3.175)
There are several drawbacks in using this procedure: 1) if the modes of vibration
represent the displacement response of the bridge, the acceleration response will be pro
portional to the modes only under harmonic loading,
u (x, y, z) = (j)2u (x, y, z) (EQ 3.176)
In the general case the force distribution is the fourth derivative of displacements:
128
d ( 1 d
2
u)
[(x) = dx2 Eldx2
(EQ 3.177)
In the case of complex modes of vibration of the bridge. The deformation u and the
external force [are distributed as two different function in space. 2) usually it is consid
ered that only few first modes of vibration are enough to represent the actual displacement
response (Clough and Penzien 1993) however it does not apply for acceleration response.
3.6.2.2 Arbitrary Displacement Input
Because of the limitations mentioned in the previous section (the forces in the
bridge cannot be accurately described by the modes of vibration) analysis based on the
previously described incremental displacement input can be performed. The analysis pro
cedure for this case is similar to the one used in the previous section for arbitrary force
input. However instead of applying forces on the bridge, a certain displacements pattern is
applied incrementally. A possible assumption is the first mode of vibration.
3.6.2.3 Adaptable (Modal) Loading
In the previous two sections, the distribution of the load is not a function of the
damage the structure sustain due to inelastic behavior. To provide more compatibility
between the load distribution and the change in the structure stiffness, adaptable modal
loading push over procedure is developed (Reinhorn et al. 1996). This procedure applies
both to the force input and displacement input procedures. In this procedure at each time
increment the mode shapes are calculated using the instantaneous stiffness of the structure
which changes due to plastic behavior, the incremental force at location i along the bridge
/:;.F
i
is defined as:
129
(EQ 3.178)
in which <l>i,j (u) is the ordinate of the j'th mode vector at location "i";, rj (u) is the
modal participation factor for the j'th mode; Ftolal is the total force, or total displacements)
and F11d is the quantity level at location "i" in the previous loading step. With the load
distribution defined in EQ. 3.178 a nonlinear incremental analysis can be performed.
3.6.2.4 Acceleration Ramp Load
In the previous section the basic assumption is that the effect of a random dynamic
loading can be represented by static equivalent loads and the effect of the dynamic behav
ior is achieved by distributing the load proportionally to the mode shapes.
A better approximation for the behavior of the bridge under dynamic loading can
be achieved by sUbjecting the bridge, to predefined dynamic loading, in which the
dynamic characteristics of the bridge response are inherently accounted for.
One type of such analysis is the dynamic loading using a base "Ramp Accelera
tion" history (or Ramp Acceleration Loading) (see Fig. 3.31 )
130
Ground Acceleration
Application rate
Time
FlGURE 3.31. Ramp Acceleration Loading
In this type of pushover procedure the acceleration is increased monotonically in
time as shown in Fig. 3.31 until the "failure" condition is reached. The rate in which the
acceleration is increased influence the results. When the acceleration is increased slowly,
the behavior is similar to applying static loading. Significant dynamic effects appear when
the rate of application is high. A range of application rates should be used, to estimate reli
ably the bridge capacity to resist seismic  dynamic effect.
3.6.2.5 Acceleration Pulse Input
In many of the recent strong earthquakes the major damage to bridges was attrib
uted to a single strong short impulse. This pulse has the effect of one strong "Push" on the
structure. A way of simulating the expected response of a bridge near failure is to apply a
single pulse with high magnitude of acceleration to the structure. The shape of this pulse is
not significant, if it is short enough relative to the structures natural period (Clough and
Penzin 1993).
The basic equation of motion for this system is:
131
mx+kx = mx
g
(EQ 3.179)
Integrating the equation on both sides will give the impulsemomentum relation
ship as
I,
mllV = f [p (t)  kv (t) 1 dt
o
(EQ 3.180)
Since the integral of kv is of the order of r2 and the integral of p(t) is of the order of
t, it can be shown to be approximately
'I
mllV;: fp (t) dt (EQ 3.181)
o
Therefore an initial velocity analysis can be performed.
Since the level of energy that will cause the structure to fail is not known appriori,
an iterative procedure is used. The initial energy required to bring "failure condition" is
estimated for the first iteration, and then increased, until failure is observed.
3.6.3 Comparing Demand to Capacity
In order to evaluate the reliability of the system, the demand and capacity of the
system's components, or of ihe system as"Whole, should be compared. In the following
A
sections. different procedures of evaluation are presented. An overview of those methods
and their advantages and disadvantages was presented in section 1.0
3.6.3.1 Demand/Capacity comparison in Inelastic structures (Damage Indexing)
During nonlinear time history analysis, the component's capacity and demand can
be compared instantaneously, at each time instant during the analysis, since this compari
132
son represents the amount of damage sustained by the element it is defined as "damage
index" (DI) (Reinhorn et. el. (1996»
(EQ 3.182)
where U d (t) is the maximum displacement attained in case of shear or the maximum cur
vature in case of bending, u
y
is the yield displacement, U
u
is the ultimate displacement,
Eh (t) is the hysteretic energy dissipated until time t, and Q
y
is the yielding force
(moment). The numerator
(EQ 3.183)
is the displacement (or curvature) demand while the denominator
(EQ 3.184)
is the displacement capacity. It should be noted that the capacity is reduced as the hyster
etic energy Eh (t) increases during the inelastic excursion (see EQ. 3.184 ). Therefore the
damage index DI is a function of time, and it is not possible to derive it by simply compar
ing the maximum demand to the capacity, following the analysis.
The final damage index DI
f
is the largest value attained during the analysis
DI
f
= max (DI (t» (EQ 3.185)
133
3.6.3.2 Evaluation of Bridges in ModeratelLow Seismicity Zones· Procedure
In order to evaluate bridges with low risk, costly and complex procedures are not
required. Simplified equivalent elastic procedures are enough to provide adequate evalua
tion, especially since other load cases might control the design. The procedures described
hereafter are described in the AASHTO code, and brief summery of them is presented for
sack of completness.
3.6.3.2.1 Static Equivalent
The static equivalent procedure is very simple and easy to implement. The
response of the bridge is assumed to be similar to the response of a single mass, which is
the attributed weight of the deck and the upper part of the bents, on a single spring, in the
transverse direction. In the longitudinal direction the deck is supported by the bents later
iJ
ally, so the response can be approximated by single mass of the deck and upper part of the
A
column, supported on several springs.
In the transverse direction, the bridge can be divided into separate frames, where
each frame represents the bent with the tributary section of the deck. By doing that, the
interaction between the different parts of the deck, is ignored.
The lateral force on the frames is derived, using code formula, considering the
mass the stiffness, and the PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration). This procedure is very sim
pie although not very accurate, and can be used, as any other static loading case. The
resulting element's forces are compared to the nominal strength of the element increased
by ductility factor which represents it's ability to dissipate energy. The deformations of the
134
bridge are compared to design requirements in the code, which represent stability and ser
viceability requirements.
3.6.3.2.2 Modal Spectral Analysis
Modal spectral analysis is a more rigorous procedure than the static one. In this
procedure the dynamic behavior of the structure is considered, and therefore the engineer
using this method should have some knowledge in structural dynamic.
The bridge modeled as framed structure, represented by it's stiffness and mass.
Modal analysis that was presented in the previous sections is performed to derive the
mode shapes, and the modal participation factors.
As it was described earlier using the mode shapes and the response spectrum the
loading for each mode can be derived. The structural analysis performed on the bridge
provides the forces and required for the evaluation.
A
The comparison of the forces demand and capacity, is similar to the one performed
for the previously presented static procedure. The element forces are compared to there
nominal strength, and the displacements are compared to the once in the code.
3.6.3.3 Evaluation of Bridges in Severe Seismicity Zones
In severe seismicity zones, the response of the bridge to earthquake will be usually
the lateral loading case that dominates the design of several components of the bridge.
Usually performing design with the methods presented for the low/moderate seismicity
will result in unnecessary excessive design forces.
135
The appropriate methods to be used in severe seismicity zones are suppose to con
sider more rigorously both the dynamic behavior of the bridge and the resulting design
forces, and the element's nonlinear capacity under cyclic dynamic loading. The methods
presented in the following sections address this issues. The first procedure uses the spec
tral method presented in the previous section to derive the demand. The capacity however
is addressed more rigorously using "push over" techniques. The second procedure, evalu
ates directly and instantaneously both demand and capacity, and "damage index" is used
to get accurate evaluation of reliability.
3.6.3.3.1 Spectral Demand vs. "Push Over" Capacity
Comparing the demand derived from the spectral procedure, and the capacity from
the "push over" procedure, enables direct calculation of the reliability of the bridge. The
required steps for this procedure are presented below.
• The nonlinear force displacement curve (Fig. 3.32) is derived using one of the proce
dures presented earlier. The choice of the procedure should be done according to the
nature of the expected earthquake. For example if an earthquake is characterized by a
single pulse, such as Northridge, which excite many modes, the appropriate procedure
would be "dynamic pulse". While "adaptive modal" procedure is not appropriate, since
only few modes are used to represent the load. On the other end when the expected
earthquake has vibratory nature "adaptive modal" or "ramp loading" would be appro
priate for the same reasons. In the longitudinal direction, there is single displacement
that need to be considered. In the transverse direction however, the displacements
might be different in different locations along the bridge, and equivalent displacements
should be considered for the force displacements curve.
136
The limit state that defines failure, is defined according to the performances expected
from the bridge. If the bridge is expected to remain serviceable following an earth
quake, the service limit state should be used. While if the bridge is not essential the lim
iting state is collapse (Fig. 3.32).
Total force
service limit coUapse limit
state state
I
I F. IF.
I I
I
u.
Equivalent dlsp.
FIGURE 3.32. Force Displacements Relations for ''Push Over" Analysis
• The displacement ductility factor is derived as
u.
11. = "ii"
y
(EQ 3.186)
. • Using the displacements ductility factor 11., the reduction factor Rtis derived using
equivalent displacements approach for long period bridge, (Priestley et al. 1992)
for T> 1.5sec R
f
= 11. (EQ 3.187)
137
and equivalent energy approach for short period structures
. T
forT<1.5sec R
f
= 1+0.67(l1
u
l)1'""<l1
u
o
(EQ 3.188)
Where T is the dominant period, or equivalent period, and To is the period at which
response spectrum has maximum.
• The inelastic capacity of the bridge Fu is converted into elastic capacity Fe' such that
(EQ 3.189)
• The total force demand F demand is derived using the regular modal spectral procedure
described earlier
• The total reliability of the system R can be defined directly as:
R = 1 Fe
Fdemand
(EQ 3.190)
The total reliability of the bridge system is a very important parameter, and can be
cv
used to evaluate the reliability of bridge system as lifeline following an earthquake.
A
Although this procedure compromise the accuracy by using procedure which only
approximate the dynamic response, and the capacity evaluation procedure is not address
ing the issue of capacity reduction due to cyclic loading, the advantages of this procedure
are obvious.
3.6.3.3.2 Time History Analysis with Multiple Earthquakes
In all the previously described procedures the capacity and the demand are derived
separately, both are only approximations of the actual response, and there is no direct
interaction between them.
138
U sing time history analysis provides a much more accurate tool, for the evaluation
of bridge reliability. The dynamic properties of the bridge such as the mass and the stiff
ness, are directly introduced into the analysis procedure, as well as the nonlinear e l e m e n ~
properties which include the variation of force and stiffness as function of displacements,
as well as their ultimate capacities.
Using the directly defined properties and the variation of the properties during the
analysis, the interaction between demand and capacity is naturally included.
The damage to the nonlinear elements is evaluated instantaneously using the pro
cedure described previously, and the final damage to the element is taken as the maximum
of the damage values calculated at every time interval during the duration of the analysis.
Although the analytical procedure by itself is accurate, the earthquake that the
bridge will experience in the future is unknown. Therefore the analysis should be per
formed several times, using set of several earthquakes that can reliably represent the site
specific response spectrum. Those earthquakes might be previous earthquakes scaled to
the design response spectrum level, or artificially generated earthquakes.
The damage index or the reliability derived by the analysis apply only to individ
ual elements or sections of elements. The desirable reliability index however is the one of
0
the system a ~ whole. To achieve this target, engineering judgment should be used as of the
contribution of each element to the reliability of the whole system with the different per
formance criteria. An example of a method to combine the reliability of a single element
into the reliability of a global system is the "fault tree" method (Melchers 1987).
139
4.0 CASE STUDIES FOR BRIDGE EVALUATIONS
4.1 Evaluation of Retrofit of Existing Bridges
4.1.1 Case Study #1: Analytical Evaluation of Small Scale Bridge System
Results of an experimental study performed by Tsopelas et. al. (1994) are used to
verify the capacity of the computational models to evaluate the response of structural sys
terns which include "base isolation systems" placed at arbitrary locations in the structure
(not necessary at the base).
A shaking table test was performed on a simple scaled bridge model (1:4) (a sche
matic of the bridge on the shaking table is shown in Fig. 4.1 ). The bridge consisted of a
deck of 140kN weight, supported by four flexible columns. On top of the columns were
b M . I , , ~ 1\\ ~ ~
four Friction Pendulum System (FPS) bargains (Zayas et. al. 1987). The bridge was sub
jected to ground motion defined by the Japanese seismic design code as "level 2" and
"ground condition I". The simulated motion is shown in (Fig. 4.2).
Fig. 4.3 shows the geometry of the FPS bearings. Each of these bearings carried a
load of 35kN. The frictional characteristics of the bearings were experimentally deter
mined as shown in Fig. 4.4.
The bridge was modeled as a single frame as shown in Fig. 4.5. The deck was
modeled using a very stiff elastic beam element, and the weight of the deck was concen
trated at joints 5 and 6 (deck ends). The isolators were modeled using a continuous kine
matic model, known as Wen's model (see Sect. 3.2.4). It should be noted that the model
used for the bearings is not velocity dependant although the bearings friction characteris
tics are velocity dependent. The dominant coefficient of friction as observed from the hys
140
teretic loops obtained from the shaking table test experimental results was found to be 9%.
This value is related to the behavior of the bearing in low velocity (Fig. 4.4). The
required parameters for this model, Le.: the initial stiffness kinirial, the secondary stiffness,
kyie/d, the yielding force Fy and the post yielding ratio n are derived using the geometrical
properties of the bearing, the friction coefficient of the bearing and the supported weight.
The yielding force is Fy = WIl = 35 x 0.09 = 3;'..J5kN. The other parameters, the yield
ing displacements u
y
was determined from the component testing hysteretic loop as
0.255mm. Using Fy and u
y
the initial stiffness is kinirial = 13059kN/m. The post yield stiff
ness of the isolation system is calculated from the radius of surface R and the weight W:
kyield = (j)2m = = 62.4 kN/m which gives post yield ratio nof 0.006. The
simulated ground motion is applied to the frame in the longitudinal direction. The results
of the analysis are shown in Fig. 4.6 and Fig. 4.7 .
The stiffness of the columns was determined from their tabulated structural prop
erties. Because of flexibility of the shaking table the supports to the bridge cannot be con
sidered fixed. Therefore the degree of fixity was determined from the experimental results,
using the free vibration characteristics of the bridge in very low amplitudes when the bear
ings are not sliding.
One of the parameters required for the analysis procedure is the global structural
equivalent damping. Evaluating this parameter has significant influence on the results
obtained from the analysis. As mentioned in the previous section, the global structural
damping, can be represented as stiffness proportional, mass proportional, or combination
141
1 _.
I
I
of the two (Rayliegh) damping. In order to observe the influence of global structural
damping and types of damping on the analytical solution, several analyses with different
levels of damping were performed. A comparison between the analytical and experimental
results for different levels of damping, is presented in Fig. 4.6 and Fig. 4.7 .
A good agreement is observed between the analytical and experimental displace
ments of the deck (Fig. 4.6) for most types of damping. However In the case where there
is significant amount of stiffness proportional damping a mismatch can be observed in the
maximum peak.
The displacements at the top of the piers (point 3, 4) (Fig. 4.7), are related
directly to the moments and shear forces at the piers. Those displacements are more sensi
tive to the global damping representation. In most cases the analytical results overestimate
the experimental, the best results are achieved with 3.4% mass proportional damping, and
a small contribution from stiffness proportional damping. This happens probably because
the high modes of the piers are damped, and therefore it is more difficult for sliding to
occur
The change in damping representation influence the results because the of the
change in the stiffness matrix when the bearing are softening. Tsopelas et al (1994)
applied damping. terms only to the degrees of freedom which has only linear elements con
nected to then and got very good results.
The presented comparison shows that using careful representation of global damp
ing, the behavior of isolated bridges with flexible piers can be adequately evaluated using
the analytical model.
142
II AISC
r;====....;,, ___ ....,...; WI4.VO
0.!5 ..
~ ~ ~
. .
 
I AISC
1'S ..... /11
I
3 .....
'.0...
I
4.10...
FIGURE 4.1 Bridge Experiment Set Up
.•..
0,4 ..,.___ .___ _ ...... ___ _,
0,2
~
c
' ~
0,0
.£
~
·0,2
~ , 4 L!.._'__ ~ __ ...,.. _____ ..J,
o 10 15
, Time [sec,)
FIGURE 4.llnpul Ground MOllon (Japanese code, levell, ground condition 1)
143
units:mm
'"
...
IUIIsc"
1'.l!'!L....,
'__ IQISIHG "'.,'
"'4" ,,,.,,,.,,
FIGURE 4.3 Construdlon of Frldlon Pendulum System Bearing
144
0.15 r....
C
.."O .... M:=P""O""S=IT='E":":M,...A=TE="R::':'IA..:L"""N,..,..O....,.3,....,
z
Q
t
o
.12 ·
V
IE
IS
~ 0.09

o
fmax0.120, PRESSURE 17.2 MPa (2.5 ksl)
•• •
•
•
•
~ fmax0.062, PRESSURE 275.8 MPa (40 ksl)
w 0.06.!.e......:..;....._.:. ___ ....:....:j
8
~ 0.03 o IDENTIFICATION TEST
uj
• SEISMIC TEST
O.ootI.,·'I___ I__ + __ l
o
100
200 300 400
VELOCITY (mm/sec)
500
600
FIGURE 4.4 Experimental Derivation of The Sliding Bearings Frictional Characteristic
(Coefficient of Friction as Function of Velocity)
145
5
3 ~ Isolator
1
:;::;
Deck,L = 6.0 m
Column, L = l.4m
FIGURE 4.5 Base Isolated Bridge Model
146
Eltpcriment
1.7% mass prop. damp.
Analysis
0.01 0
0.005
]:
i
<>0.005
3.4% mass prop. damp.
0.010 ,r,...:.,...:,.....:..,
0.005
]:
e O.OOO
i
&0.005
1.7% mass
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.000
0.005
+ small stiff prop. damp.
damp, + small stiff prop. damp
0.0
1.7% stif. prop. damp.
0.010 r'":""":":':'::':"::';::'::":"::.:.r.:......,
]:
•
0.005
0.000
i
0.005
__
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.005
Time (sec.)
Time (sec.)
FIGURE 4.6 Displacements at the Top of the Pier (point 3 and 4)
147
 Experiment
1.7% mass pro. damp.  Analysis
0.10 ,,,..,.....;.i.,
g 0.05
! 0.00
is 0.05
1. . .:;.p_ro.:;.p..,.
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0
. "'0'c51;;.0';;101;.0;'d
I5
.
0
0·10
0
."'0'c5.1;;0';;101;.0;';;I15.0
3.4% mass prop. damp.
0.10 ,...::..:..:.:r=::.:.!.;.:::::==r:.,
3.4% mass prop. damp. + small slif. prop. damp.
0.10 ,'';....,..'0';,
g
0.05
0.05
I 0.00
0.00
is 0.05
0.05
0.
1.7% stiff prop damp
0.10
1.7% Riley damping
0.10
g
0.05 0.05
t:
0.00
0.05
0.10 '"..1':'::'' 0.10
M 1M M 1M
Time (sec) Time (sec)
FIGURE 4.7 Displacements of deck (point 5 and 6)
148
4.1.2 Case Study #2: East Aurora Bridge  Field Test
A full scale field test performed by Wendichansky (1996) on the southbound high
way bridge crossing Cazanovia Creek and laboratory component experiments (Mander et.
al (1996) were used to evaluate the capability of the analytical platform to adequately pre
dict the transient dynamic response behavior of bridges with different types of bearings
during the experiment. The bridge is located in East Aurora, New York, on Route 400. It is
a three spans continuous structure, supported on two abutments at its ends, and two piers
in the interior (Fig. 4.8). The south bound bridge deck is supported on seven girders,
which are connected laterally by stringers (Fig. 4.9, Fig. 4.10 and Fig. 4.11 ). For the
original condition of the bridge, the girders were supported on steel bearings. Three of the
supports had expansion bearings, and one pier support provides the longitudinal fixity.
The bridge was retrofitted and the steel bearings were replaced by lead rubber bearings at
the abutments, and laminated rubber isolation bearings at the piers. Several snap back tests
were performed on the bridge with both types of bearings. The bridge was pulled by two
jacks connected to the bridge at points on the deck above the bents and then quick released
to observe its free vibration response. The history of the force applied to bridge measured
by a load cell is presented in Fig. 4.12.
The bridge was analyzed using the analytical platform for both types of bearing
settings. The structural model used for the analysis is presented in Fig. 4.13. The deck
and the bents are modeled as elastic beam with shear deformations modeling capability
because of the low length to width ratio of this elements. The soil at the bent's foundation
level and at the abutments is modeled as elastic foundation element. The participating
mass of the soil is introduced into the corresponding joints.
149
Although each deck section between the bents is modeled as a single beam ele
ment, and the deck and the bent are connected only at one point, there is no loss of accu
racy (see Fig. 4.11 ), since the rigid body motions at this connection are represented by
rigid arms (see section 3.2.1.1). The finite stiffness of the stringers in the lateral direction
can be modeled by using beam end springs (see section 3.2.1.3). The linear properties of
the bridge were taken from Wendichansky (1996).
Both types of bearings were modeled as Wen's model type isolator element (see
section 3.4.2.1). The required properties of the bearings were retrieved form laboratory
experimental results (Mander et. al.1996).
The displacements measured during the experiment for the steel bearings (Fig.
4.15 ) and the elastomeric bearings (Fig. 4.16) were compared to the results from the
analysis. In both cases a very reasonable agreement may be observed.
It should be noted that although the bridge response is primarily governed by first
mode behavior, due to the angle of the applied load and the skew inherent in the bridge, all
modes are excited by the snap test. It is therefore essential to use 3D nonlinear modeling
to capture all of the behavior attributes. A 2D nonlinear program can be used to achieve
reasonable results, in an approximate fashion, but not without great difficulty as demon
strated by Wendichansky (1996)
ISO
H

"
N.'. Lo." " 12150
__ __
I ;' 21213 110'': . I
IfpPMllh ,"I
IZZOO
11"0
'N40
• 2f213
FIGURE 4.81Op VIew or the Bridges
151
'"
N
'"

_ ... _
.. 7391 '
. I
7391
h·
.2210
!
I I
rr""
,).,
'
rr ..,
;
,
rr'..,
on
on
'"
 '"
t
f

686
lIlI'!l
,
"
0
N
on

_ 1753 __
•
FIGURE 4.9 'Jyplc:a\ Bent
152
".
13869
StIffeners 178x 16
2210
16WF'36 at S. Abut.
14C33.9 at N. Abut. 
•
r
I
i i
i i
! I ' ,
i
JoL
Ii
...
.. 11
L
ABUTMENT
4.10 Typical Abutment
153
r: ..
147U
.. ~
l
7;l91 
80475 +
I
I
I
I ,II.
~ ,II.
~ & ~
,
\
,II. JI
JI.
"''L.271.93m
12850

~
lL:" £L.284.21 m
£L.264.S2
"\
I
I I 1520
1220U
J
I
SOUTH IOUND "
NORTH BOUND
FIGURE 4.11 Side VIew orthe Bents
".
154
.".
100.0
~ 50.0
If
0.0
".
50.0 '   "   . . L . .   '    '  " " "   '   ,   ,    ,  ~
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time [Sec.]
FIGURE 4.12 Input Force History, Measured During the ThsL
155
FIGURE 4.13 Analytical Model or the Bridge, Used ror Analysis
1$6
bearing element
soil mass
soil springs
(longltudmal and lateral)
stiff support
(a) Modeling of connection between bridge deck and abutment without rigid body
transformatIOn
deck modeled as
shear and
bearing
rigid arm
soil mass (rotational
soil spring
(longitudinal transverse
and rotational)
stiff support
(b) Modeling of conq,,\,tion between bridge deck and abutment using rigid body
transformatIOn (ngld arms)
FlGURE 4.14 Modeling of Bridge Deck Connection to Abutment (a) Modeling witb Stiff
Elements (b) Modeling witb Rigid Body Transformation
157
E
.§.
~
10
 an$fis
 ex ment
5
~
l'i
0 'Q
]
·5
·10
Time (Sec]
FIGURE 4.15 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Steel
Bearing at Abutment.
~ r      ~     ~     ~      r      r      r     ~     ~
30
20 / experimental
10
·10
0
."'0':1.'::0...... ,2::\.0,........ ;3:\;.0:........ ......,.J4.0
Time (Sec]
FIGURE 4.16 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Rubber
Bearing at Abutment.
158
4.1.3 Case Study #3: Bridge in Los Angeles· Retrofit Solution
A bridge model based on a prototype bridge in Los Angeles was evaluated to dem
onstrate the 3D capacity of the computational model to: (i) evaluate a bridge subjected to
differential ground motion and (ii) to evaluate the efficiency of a retrofit scheme using
base isolation systems.
Using a simplified evaluation technique, the bridge was found to have deficient .
strength capacity to resist seismic loading.
(a) Original bridge Structure and Modeling
The bridge (see Fig. 4.17 ) has seven spans, ranging between 30m to 39m in
length. The deck is supported on eight supports. Five of them (BlB5) are bents of the
type shown in Fig. 4.17 (b). Support Al is a very stiff abutment. Supports A2 and A3
are also very stiff but have some flexibility due to their flexible foundations. Abutment
AI, piers Bl, B2 and support A2 are skewed at 48°,54°,61° and 67° respectively.
The deck's vertical load is supported by concrete arches through ribs (see Fig.
4.17 b, Fig. 4.18 a). The horizontal forces from the deck are transferred through a wall
1.2m thick, at the support centerline (Fig. 4.17 b). The arches are supported by a shear
wall type bent (Fig. 4.17 b). The bents are supported on spread footings.
The bridge is modeled as a space frame system (see Fig. 4.19). The combined
section of the deck, the ribs and the arches is modeled using four equal longitudinal seg
ments of beam type elements in each span. The segments have different section properties,
relating to the arch depth. Since the ratio of length to width of the deck is low (1: 1.4 
159
1 :2.0) shear deformations are considered. The bents are modeled as beam colunms, with
the adequate rigid body transformations, to account for stiff connection between the deck
and the bent. The foundations system is modeled as elastic springs, using information pro
vided by a geothech consulting firm. Support A 1 is considered as fixed support. Supports
A2 and A3 are modeled as stiff elements with flexible foundations, using the given soil
properties.
The soil conditions are varying along the bridge, from very stiff soil under bent B 1
and supports A I, A3 to very soft soil under the other supports.
(b) Retrofit solution and modeling
Because of the low seismic capacity of the bents and foundations, a retrofit solu
tion using PTFE bearings system is considered. According to this solution the bents (B 1
B5) are cut at a level of 2m below the arches spring line. Eight isolators with elastomeric
restoring springs are inserted in the space created by the cut, elevating the deck on the iso
lation system. It is assumed that by isolating the deck, the force transferred to the bents
will be reduced, by transferring some of the horizontal forces to supports AlA3 while
also reducing the seismic demand, by shifting the bridge period and increasing the dissipa
tion of energy at the isolators (damping).
The group of isolators was modeled as single isolator element for bents B3B5.
Several isolation elements were used however to model the isolation system of bents B 1
and B2, to be able to capture the behavior related to the skewed bents. The model of the
original bridge is presented in Fig. 4.19 and the model of the isolated bridge is presented
in Fig. 4.20.
160
(c) Spatial Ground Excitation
Since the soil conditions under the supports vary significantly, so does the ground
motion. The ground motion (Fig. 4.21) under the supports on the soft soil (Bents B2B5
and abutment A2) is amplified and it is much larger then the ground motion (Fig. 4.22)
under the supports (abutments Al,A3, bent Bl) on stiff soil.
(d) Analysis of Bridge
In order to evaluate the seismic demand of the bridge, before and after retrofit, and
the influence of the variable ground motion, four different analysis cases were performed:
original bridge with variable and uniform ground motion and the same for the isolated
bridge.
Bridge Response for Seismic Excitation
(a) Uniform motion
It should be emphasized, that the bridge is extremely stiff in both X (longitudinal)
and Z (transversal) directions. The period of the original bridge is about 0.2 sec (Fig. 4.23
and Fig. 4.28). The period is increased to about 0.4 sec for the isolated case (the bridge is
only isolated at bents BIB5 and at A2 in X direction). The responses in X and Z direc
tions are interacting trough the skew of bents B 1, B2. which leads to similar natural peri
ods in both directions.
In X direction the isolated bridge is vibrating mostly between supports Al and A2
while floating (sliding) over the other supports. In Z direction the bridge is bending like a
beam on three supports A IA3.
161
In X direction there is no significant reduction in shear forces in bents I and 5 due
to isolation solution (Fig. 4.27) for the case of uniform motion. The displacements, how
ever, are significantly larger in the isolated bridge due to change of structural system from
a beam on 8 supports to beam on 2 supports (see Fig. 4.23).
In Z direction, the influence of isolation is more notable especially in the bents
which are straight (not skewed). This translates into reduction of 50% in shear forces in
bent B5 (straight), and a reduction of only 20% in bent BI (skewed) (see Fig. 4.32  uni
form motion).
(b) differential motion
The most significant influence obtained using base isolation for this bridge, can be
observed in the case when differential motion is applied to the bridge. Supports AI, BI
and A3 experience smaller displacements than the other supports, which result in differen
tial motion between the supports. This differential motion introduce large stresses in the
bridge components. The bents of the original bridge subjected to differential motion have
significant deformation (relative movement between their top and bottom) in X direction
(Fig. 4.24), this results in significantly larger shear forces as compared to the "uniform"
ground motion case (Fig. 4.26). The isolated bridge however experiences much smaller
shear forces in X direction (Fig. 4.27) due to the "floating behavior" mentioned earlier.
The deformations of the piers are reduced at the expense of the relative deformations of
the isolators.
The effect of isolation on the bridge response when subjected to differential
motion is very significant in Z direction. While the increase of shear forces between the
162
uniform and differential ground motion for the original bridge is of the order of ten (Fig.
4.31 ) the increase for the isolated case is of the order of 2.5 (Fig. 4.30). And the signifi
cant differences between the shear forces of the isolated and original bridge are shown in
Fig. 4.32.
Remarks on Case Study #3
The case study presented herein demonstrates the ability of the new computer plat
form to model a three dimensional problem, using condensed macro elements, including
triaxial isolation models (see also section 3.2.4), and soil springs (see also section 3.3.1).
The alternative models, i.e. planer models could not capture the influence of skewness of
supports, or general purpose three dimensional models such as ANSYS require extremely
large resourcese to complete one analysis.
The case study presented also the ability to determine influence of differential
ground motion.
The analytical results show that each of the modeling details, i.e. isolators, soils,
skewness, differential motion, has indeed substantial influence on the force and deforma
tion response of the bridge.
163
AI BI B2 A2 B3 B4 85
30 30 30 36
,
39
,
39
,
36
1
"'
"
f
'
J: !L 
/j
'}

isolator
location
(a) Bridge Top View
ribs
arch
bent
... foundation
3.0
6.0
(b) Section AA (bent side view)
FIGURE 4.17 Bridge Top View and Typical Bent Cross Section
A3
,
"'
ci
8
164
rib
/
arch
deck
21m
(a) Section BB (deck cross section)
21.0
inserted
isolator
(b) Section CC (bent cross section)
FIGURE 4.18 Deck and Bent Cross Section
165
".
J
•
•
•
1
,
•
,
!
,
•
FlGURE 4.19 Structural Model or Original Bridge· Before RetroDt .
•
•
166
•
,
!
•
o
,
•
FIGURE 4.20 Structural Model or Isolated Bridge
•
167
x direction
20.0
10.0
0.0
·10.0
·20.0 0
O. 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
z direction
40.0
30.0
..
§ 20.0
~
P.
10.0
'"
.....
0
0.0
.10.0
0 .0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
vertical
10.0
0.0 \."""'"'
·1 0.00.':0'''':5"'0,......."'':1:!0'O::''''1::5'::0'''':::!20 0
. Time Lsec.]· .
FIGURE 4.21 Ground Displacements on Stiff Soil
168
x direction
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
0
.
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
z direction
60.0
50.0
40.0
'8
30.0
()
20.0
''
~
10.0
.....
0.0
Q
10.0
20.0
30.0
0
.
0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
vertical
20.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
0
.
0 5.0
T' 10[0 ]
15.0 20.0
lme sec.
FIGURE 4.22 Ground Displacements on Soft Soils
169
A2 B5
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
~ O . I O 0
2 4 6 8 10
0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10
B2 B4
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
§
..
0.00 0.00
~
l5
0.05 0.05
0.10 ·0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Bl B3
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
·0.10 0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time [Sec]
 isolated
 not isolated
FIGURE 4.23 Relative Deformations in X Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at Piers
Centerline for Uniform Ground Motion
170
I •
A2 B5
0.20 ,r''.,r,,...., 0.20
O.lS O.IS
OW OW
O.OS O.OS
0.00 1_"""''''''''.... 0.00 L..J"'="'"
.().05 0.05
O.W CliO
O.lS O.lS
.(l.20 .(l.20
0.2S 0.2S
.(l.30 OLL2L....L.....J4L,.....J6,.1S.&iW .(l.30 OLL2L....L.....J4L,.....J6'.....JS'....IW
B2 B4
0.20 0.20 ,.,,.,..,...
0.15 0.15
O.W O.W
O.OS O.OS
0.00 0.00 i.J""""''''''''""
O.OS .(l.OS
0.10 .(l.lO
O.lS .(l.IS
0.20 0.20
0.25 0.25
0.30 0!':'2'4!':'6,..J
S
L.J...:'W 0.30
Bl B3
0.20 0.20 '',....,.,,,.,
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
O.OS O.OS
0.00 0.00 1""""""'",
O.OS .(l.OS
0.10 0.10
O.lS .(loiS
0.20 .(l.20
.(l.25 0.2S
.(l.30 OLL
2
L....L.....J
4
C':'6'!S.Li
10
.(l.30
Time [Sec]
 isolated
 not isolated
FIGURE 4_24 Relative Deformations in X Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at Piers
Centerline for Variable Ground Motion
171
BI B5
above isolator
3000
2000
1000 1000
o !11m
1000
2000 2000
under Isolator under isolator
3000 r''',.,r,.., 3000 ,rr',.,,,r,
1000 1000
1000 1000
2000
3000 3000
2 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bottom
3000
2000
1000 1000
o
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 3000
0
!'!2:'!4 '.J
6
L....&.....!S",l10
dme[sec]
 differentia] motion
 urufonn motion
FIGURE 4.25 Shear Forces in The Pier's X Direction, for Piers Bl and B5, for Isolated Bridge, at
Different Heights Along the Pier
172
A2 85
7000 7000
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 3000
4000 4000
5000 5000
6000 6000
7000
4
7000
10
0 2
6
82 84
7000 7000
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
C
2000 2000
~ 1000 1000
~ 0 0
.E
1000 1000
~
2000 2000
3000 3000
4000 4000
5000 5000
6000 6000
7000
0 2 4 6 8
7000
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
81 83
7000 7000
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 3000
4000 4000
5000 5000
6000 6000
7000 7000
6 10
time (sec]
 differential motion
_. uniform motion
FIGURE 4.26 Shear Forces in X Direction, for Nonisolated Bridge, at Base of piers
173
uniform motion
differential motion
B5 B5
4000 4000
3000
3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 3000
4000 4000
'0
5000 5000
g
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
~
.2
~
BI BI
4000 4000
3000
3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0
0
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 3000
4000 4000
5000 5000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
orne [sec]
 isolated
 not isolated
FIGURE 4.27 Comparison of Shear Forces in X Direction, for Piers Bl and BS
174
A2
B5
0.10
I I I
0.10
0.05
f

0.05
0.00
.k
0.00
"I
·0.05 f

·0.05
·0.10 0
I I I I
10 ..().10 0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10
B2
B4
0.10
0.10
0.05 0.05
:§:
Q.
0.00 0.00
.:!l
Q
·0.05 .0.05
.0.10
0 2 4 6 8
10 .0.10 0
2 4 6 8 10
Bl B3
0.10
0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
·0.05 0.05
.0.10
0 2 4 6 8
Time [Sec)
10 .0.10 0
2 4 6 8 10
 isolated
 not isolated
FIGURE 4.28 Relative Deformations in Z Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at Piers
Centerline for Uniform Ground Motion
175
A2
B5
0.10 0.10
0.05
O.OS
0.00
0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10
0 2 4 6 8
10 0.10 0
2 4 6 8 10
B2 B4
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
:§:
~
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0
2 4 6 8
10 0.10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Bl
B3
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10
0 2 4 6 8
Time [Sec]
10 0.10 0
2 4 6 8 10
 isolated
 not isolated
FIGURE 4.29 Relative Deformations in Z Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at Piers
Centerline for Variable Ground Motion
176
bl b6
above isolator above isolator
6000
6000 """'"'',.rr,,.,
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
o ,J
1000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
o
1000
2000 2000
3000 OLI1.JL,..LL_.l.I1 3000 OLL..1
2
'4L.L..1
6
.JL
S
,.J
IO

under isolator uruler isolator
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
o 0
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 3000 L..I..L,__ L,...L,'L,.J
o 2 4 6 8 10
bottom bottom
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
o 0
1000 1000
2000 2000
3000 OLI1L:.L,..LL.l.113OOO0 !,.J2l..JL4,.J6l.I!SL..JIO
timelsec)
 differential motion
.. __. uniform motion
FIGURE 4.30 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction, for Piers Bl and B5, for Isolated Bridge,
at Different Points Along the Pier
177

A2 BS
20000 20000
15000 IS000
10000 10000
SOOO SOOO
0
0
~ , .
SOOO 5000
10000
10000
15000 IS000
20000
0 2 4 6 8
20000
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
B2 B4
20000 20000
IS000 IS000
10000 10000
I
SOOO sooo
8
.E
0 0
~
SOOO SOOO
10000 10000
15000 IS000
20000
0 2 4 6 8
20000
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
B1 B3
20000
20000
IS000 IS000
10000 10000
SOOO SOOO
0 0
SOOO SOOO
10000 10000
IS000 IS000
20000
0 2 4 6 8
20000
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time [sec]
 differentia1 motion
 umfonn motion
FIGURE 4.31 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction, for Nonisolated Bridge, at Their Base
178
uniform motion
differential motion
BS
BS
4000 20000
3000
1S000
2000
10000
1000
0
·1000
·2000
·3000
~
4000
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10
~
.2
~
BI
BI
4000 20000
3000 1S000
2000 10000
1000 sooo
1\'\
0 0
·1000
·SOOO
\ '
·2000
V
·3000
·4000
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec]
 isolated
 Dot isolated
FIGURE 4.32 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction, for Piers Bl and BS
179
4.1.4 Case Study #4: Bridge over Los Angeles River ·Retrofit Solution with Base
Isolation and Restrained Expansion Joints.
A large size bridge modeled from a prototype bridge in Los Angeles with deficient
seismic capacity, is analyzed to demonstrate the capacity of the computational model to
evaluate the efficiency of retrofit of a bridge using base isolation, when the deck has mul·
tiple expansion joints restrained, or unrestrained. The bridge suffered minor damage dur
ing past earthquakes, but using simplified methods, it was found that the seismic capacity
of the bridge is smaller then the predicted demand in future events. The original bridge
was analyzed and a selected retrofit scheme based on introduction of seismic isolation sys
tem similar to case study #3 is evaluated.
Several techniques of retrofit were initially considered. Among them the conven
tional techniques of strengthening the piers with steel jackets. It was found that this tech
nique cannot provide a good retrofit solution to the problem, since this type of retrofit
increases the bearing demand on the foundations due to the additional weight, and
increase the seismic forces to a level of which the foundations will not be able to resist.
For this type of retrofit the foundations will have to be retrofitted also, at large cost, proba
bly prohibitive. On the other hand, retrofit using base isolation, doesn't change the capac
ity, but is expected to reduce the demand, and therefore increase the reliability of the
bridge.
The bridge, shown in Fig. 4.33a is a mUltiple concrete arches bridge with 12
spans of an average opening of 24.0m (between 17.5m and 35.0m) supported by bents of
changing height, of 8.0m to 19.0m. The bridge supports 4 traffic lanes, and has width of
about 20m, and height of O.5m. It is supported by 5 parallel arch girders in each span. The
180
original bridge has thermal expansion joints, 20 rnrn in size, in span B3B4 near bent B3
(shown in Fig. 4.33b), and similar joints near bents B6 and B9. The two abutments are
very rigid, and can be considered as rigid supports. The foundations of the bents, sup
ported by soft soil, are considered as flexible. The passive pressure on the piers below
grade is considered as horizontal flexible support.
For evaluation, the bridge is modeled as a space frame (see Fig. 4.34). In the cur
rent analysis the bridge is assumed to be elastic, and the nonlinear behavior is concen
trated, in the base isolation system and in the expansion joints only. The deck sections are
modeled as a single beam elements. Since the ratio of length to width is small, the shear
deformations of the beam should be considered. The deck elements are connected to the
bents, using rigid body transformations (coupled motions  see section 3.2.1). The expan
sion joints are modeled using several "gap" elements (see section 3.3.5), which are trans
formed from the bridge center line by using rigid body transformations (rigid arms see
section 3.2.1).
Two retrofit schemes are considered for the bridge:
1) The bridge is fully isolated as shown in Fig. 4.35(a) friction (teflon and stain
less steel) devices are inserted in bents 3, 6 and 9 just under the bents crown, and
above ground level in the rest of the bents. At the abutments, a horizontal and vertical
cut is created and the isolation system is inserted between the bridge deck and the
abutment. Springs in the form of elastomeric springs are suggested to be inserted near
the sliding supports (see Fig. 4.35 (c». Those springs are not transferring any vertical
load because they are softer then the isolation system. The natural period of the iso
181
lated bridge was chosen to be T = 2.5 sec. The ratio between the initial vertical force
P initial on the isolator and the restoring spring stiffness kisolated is in this case:
k = 4rt
2P
initiai
isolated r g
(EQ4.1)
The friction coefficient was assumed to change, from 5% at 0 velocity to 10% at veloc
ity of 0.1 mlsec and above. The isolation system is modeled using the triaxial isolation
element (see section 3.2.4).
2) The retrofit according to the second alternative, has a similar arrangement to the
first alternative, except that the connection between the deck and the abutments
remains rigid (not isolated) and can transfer forces without relative m ~ v e m e n t . This
type of solution is considered because of the significant cost involved in isolating the
abutment
The two retrofit schemes are compared to each other and to the original unretrofit
ted bridge, and the importance of various modeling components is evaluated .
.!. Behavior of bridge under seismic loading
Since the deck of the bridge is sloped from the elevation of 8.3 m at the west (left)
abutment to 19.2 m at the east (right) abutment (Fig. 4.33a), the bridge is supported by
columns with changing height. The longer columns are much more flexible then the
shorter columns. Under seismic excitations, in the original bridge, there is transfer of force
";1'
through the deck from the long columns to the short ones. The transverse shape of the
deformed bridge at time 2.0 seconds is shown in Fig. 4.1 (a), shows that bents b7 b8 and
b9 experience the largest displacements while bent b I hardly moves. At the same time the
182
displacements of the retrofitted bridge according to alternative 1 (see Fig. 4.1(b» are
almost uniform along the bridge, showing that the deck is floating over the isolators. As a
consequence the forces of the isolated bridge, at the tall part of the bridge at bents b9 and
b 1 0 are up to three times smaller then the forces in the original bridge, as shown in Fig.
4.39.
The deformations of a typical frame can be observed for the original bridge in Fig.
4.37(a) and for the bridge retrofitted according to alternative I in Fig. 4.37(b). The defor
mations in the original bridge resulting from the bending of the piers, while in the isolated
case, the movement is mostly due to relative displacements in the isolation system and the
piers bending is minimal.
For the retrofit with alternative II, the behavior of the structure is predominantly
similar to the behavior of the isolated bridge retrofitted according to alternative I.
Although the displacements at the two ends are much smaller, as shown in Fig. 4.40.
Therefore the forces in the bents are close to the forces in alternative I of the isolated
bridge, except for the end bents, which transfer some of their force, directly to the abut
ments (Fig. 4.39).
In both retrofit alternatives, there was significant reduction in shear force demand
especially in the long columns, and as a result reduction in bending moments, which
increase significantly the reliability of the bridge.
Remarks on Case Study #4
183
The modeling <!f the bridge included transversely distributed isolators and flexibil
ity of transversely distributed piers with soil springs influence. This modeling could be
achieved alternatively either with large general purpose computer codes i.e ANSYS,
ADINA, etc.) inefficient in carrying the computations, or with much simplified coeds like
(DRAIN 2DX, IDARC2D etc.) but with restrictive assumptions for isolators behavior
and spacial behavior of the overall structure. The solution was obtained in presence of
highly nonlinear expansion joints models (gap. elements) with stiffness changing from
zero to extremely high values. The solutions converged for long time records as shown in
the time histories displayed.
184
... ,
[
'"
.... ,
r
'"
A
+19.2
.
I.!
""
18,0 , ....
"., l ! 1 . ~
'"
19.5 n.'
'" '"
".,
a) Bridge Side View (As Built)
ppJoint
PI'JoInr
811' joint 'tt'
B
B
, ....
18.0
'"
".,
'"
'"
19.5
n.'
'" '"
".,
b) Bridge Side View With Expansion Joint (After first retrofit)
Ifo· ___ :
2om
deck surface "I'D
o.s:L
I j!:m
• •
.j,!' ~
SecBB
Section through joint
T
elastomeric or sliding
bearings
SecCC
Sec AA
Cross Section
FIGURE 4.33 Original Bridge Before and After First Retrofit
.... ,
....
185
.....
"
FIGURE 4.34 Analytical Model of the Bridge
186
A
+19.2
... ,
1
1
lI
I
,
.... ,
...
'"
, , ~
18.0 , , ~ , , ~
'"
'"
19.5 21.0 , , ~
'"
35.0
GGGGG8G8GB8
a) Base Isolated Bridge With Expansion Joints
~ . : ~ . : , ~ <
, ',,'
g g g
Sec AA
+
.,.,
... ,
r .... ,
"'"
'"
, ..
18.0
""
, , ~
'"
, , ~ , , ~
17.0 , , ~
'"
".0
b) Base Isolated Bridge Without Expansion Joints
bridge deck
bridge pier
c) Retrofit Isolation System Detail
FIGURE 4_35 Base Isolated Bridge with and without Expansion Joints
187
· .... .... ·4· ...... J .......... ·
t
'; ....... }, .. · .... t:z .... ...... i= ... 1 ........ t= ..
.,  "" 1 " \ \
,.. , , . .. \  ," 
\1 \ \1
. ,
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 4.36 Displaced Shape or (a)Orlglnal Bridge, (b) Isolated Bridge
188
~   ~       ~           "
I
I
I
I
•
I
(a)
(b)
,
FIGURE 4.37 Displaced Shape or Typical Frame In the (a) Original Bridge, (b) Isolated Bridge
189
 no gap
 not isolated
b2 bll
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200
200
0 0
200 200
400 400
600 600
800 800
1000 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bl·n blO
100 1000
80 800
60 600
40 400
C
20 200
g
0
"
.s
0 0
"
20 200 0
Ii
40 400
60 600
80 800
100 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bloc b9
100 1000
80 800
60 600
40 400
20 200
0 0
20 200
40 400
60 600
80 800
100 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time {sec)
FIGURE 4.38 Comparison of Shear Force in Non Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without Gap
190
 isolated
.... _ not isolated
b2
bll
1000 1000
SOO
SOO
600
600
400 400
200
200
0
0
200
200
400 400
600 600
800 800
1000 1000
0 2 4 6 S 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bl·n
blO
100 1000
SO SOO
60 600
40 400
"
20 200
g
~ 0 0
O!
1
20 200
40 400
60 600
SO soo
100 1000
0 2 4 6 S 10 0 2 4 6 S 10
bloc
b9
100 1000
SO SOO
60 600
40 400
20 200
0 0
20 200
40 400
60 600
SO 800
100 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time [sec)
FIGURE 4.39 Comparison of Shear Forces in Original and Retrofitted (AIt.1) Bridge
191
 isolated
 nogap
b2
bll
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400
400
200 200
0 0
200 200
400
400
600 600
800
800
1000 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bID
blO
100 1000
80 800
60
600
40 400
'0
20 200
g
~ 0 0
oS
~
20 200
•
'Ii
40 400
60 600
80 800
100 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bloc
b9
100 1000
80 800
60 600
40 400
20 200
0
20 200
40 400
60 600
80 800
100 1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (sec)
FIGURE 4.40 Comparison of Shear Force In Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Withont Gap
192
 isolated
b5 blO nogap
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
·0.10 ·0.10
0.15 0
2 4 6 8
10..0,15
0 2 4 6 8 10
b4 b9
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
.0,15
0 2 4 6 8
100,15
0 2 4 6 8 10
b3 b8
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
S
0.00 0.00
~
~ ._ 0.05
0.05
Q
0.10 0.10
·0.15 0
2 4 6 8
0.15
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
b2 b7
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15 0
2 4 6 8
0.15
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bI b6
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15
0 2 4 6 8
10
0
.
15
0
2 4 6 8 10
Time [Sec)
FIGURE 4.41 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without Gap
193
 isolated
b5 blO  Dot isolated
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10
0.10
0.15
0 2 4 6 8
10 0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
b4 b9
0.10 0.\0
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15 0
2 4 6 8
100.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
b3 b8
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
E
0.00 0.00
0.
~
0.05 0.05
is
0.10 0.10
~
0.15
0 2 4 6 8
JO ·0.15 0
2 4 6 8 10
b2 b7
0.\0 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15
0 2 4 6 8
100.15
0 2 4 6 8 10
bI b6
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15
0 2 4 6 8
100.15 0
2 4 6 8 10
Time [Sec]
FIGURE 4.42 Comparison of Deck Displacements In Isolated Bridge, and Not Isolated Bridge
194
nogap
b5 blO  not isolated
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 .0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15 0
2 4 6 8
10 0.15 0
2 4 6 8 10
b4 b9
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15
0 2 4 6 8
10 0.15 0
2 4 6 8 10
b3 b8
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
E
0.00 0.00
0.
0.05 0.05
'"
is
·0.10 0.10
O.IS 0
2 4 6 8
100.15 0
2 4 6 8 10
b2 b7
0.10
,
0.10
0.05 0
"
0.05
0.00
~
_L:I L'
0.00
V
0.05
0
"
0.05
0.10
E
,
0.10
0.15 0
1
,
10 0.15
0 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10
bi b6
0.10 0.10
,
I I I
0.05
~ ::
0.05
0.00 0.00
0.05 ~ : 0.05
0.10 ~ : 0.10
..0.15 0
I 1 1 1
10 0.15 0
2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10
Time [Sec]
FIGURE 4.43 Comparison of Deck Displacements In Non Isolated Bridge, and Bridge without Gap
195
4.1.5 Case Study 5: Miyagawa Bridge
An existing bridge in Japan is used to demonstrate the difference between elastic
and inelastic behavior of base isolated bridges. The bridge was used as a pilot project for
base isolated bridges in Japan. Those bridges are called in Japan Menshin bridges. The
Menshin design is aimed toward increasing the energy dissipation capacity of the bridge
system rather then shifting the period of the bridge.
Bridl:e Description
The Miyagawa bridge is a three span continuous bridge, the total length of the
bridge is 105.5m, the width is lO.5m and it was erected across the Keta river as part of
National Highway No. 326. A view of the bridge is shown in Fig. 4.44 and a geometric
description is given in Fig. 4.45 (Buckle 1992). Lead rubber isolators were used to isolate
the deck from the abutment and piers in the longitudinal direction only; the bearings are
locked in the transverse direction. A geometrical description of the lead rubber bearings is .
shown in Fig. 4.46 for the abutment bearings and in Fig. 4.47 for the pier bearings. The
total weight of the deck is 1320 metric tons
The cross section and reinforcement of the bridge piers is shown in Fig. 4.48. As
shown in Fig. 4.45 the cross section of the pier is changing along it's height and so is the
reinforcement as shown in Fig. 4.48. The force displacement curves used for the bearings
as derived from field test are shown in Fig. 4.49.
The structural model of the bridge used in the analysis is shown in Fig. 4.50. The
supporting pier was modeled by several sections in order to take into account the changing
stiffness and the changing mass along its height. The pier foundations are represented by
196
two infinitely stiff elements (elements 1,2,3 and 4) and the weight of the foundations of
300 tf is applied in between them (joints 5 and 6 in Fig. 4.50). The inelastic pier is split
into several elements (elements 5 to 11 and 6 to 12) for the following two reasons: (i)The
geometric section of the pier and the hysteretic properties are changing over the height of
the pier (ii) It enables the application of the mass of the column in intermediate locations
along the height of the pier. The isolator elements are located above the piers, and above
the abutment. The deck weight is concentrated at the joints between the deck and the piers
and between the deck and the abutment. The deck is assumed to act as an elastic beam.
The inelastic properties of the piers segments shown in Table 4.1 . Those values
were calculated from the section geometry, reinforcement, and the applied axial force.
TABLE 4.1. Hysteretic Pier Nonlinear Properties
member Crack Crack Yield Yield Ultimate Ultimate
section # Moment Curvature Moment Curvature Moment Curvature
(Fig. 4.50)
MeCtm) cI> (11m) My Ctm) cI> (11m) MuCtm) cI> (11m)
5 819.75 0.9389E4 1509.50 0.1I29E2 1632.42 0.3005El
7 859.89 0.8832E4 1568.16 0.II09E2 1687.06 0.3207El
9 886.02 0.8279E4 1126.48 0.1057E2 1217.59 0.3939E1
II 1001.87 0.7714E4 1135.92 0.1029E2 1225.71 0.4402El
The ground was modeled by elastic rotational and translational spring.
Two input ground motions were used for the analysis, as it is required in the Japa
nese design code. According to the Japanese code, it is required that the bridge remains in
the elastic range for a moderate earthquake described as level 1 design earthquake, and
survive a strong earthquake designated as the level 2 design earthquake (see Fig. 4.2)
197
without collapse. The ground conditions of the site is stiff soil which are under the cate
gory of ground condition 1.
Two types of analysis were performed: (i) elastic analysis was performed using the
initial stiffness of the piers as presented in Table 4.1 . (ii) nonlinear analysis were the stiff
ness of the piers changing according to the properties in Table 4.1 .
Since in the current study, the interest is concentrated in analysis of structures sub
jected to severe earthquakes, the presented results are for the level 2 earthquake only. The
anal sis results for th I v
the structure is subjected to large displacements at about 2.0 sec from the beginning of the
excitation, and the base of the pier undergoes large inelastic deformation in which the cur
  ~
vature is about 116 of the ultimate curvature, so that the structure can survive this excita
tion. The displacements of the deck are larger then the design displacements which control
the size of the required gap in the abutment, the relative displacements of the pier from the
analysis where about 230mm compare to 130mm which are the displacements calculated
from the linearized design procedure.
In order to compare inelastic analysis, where the strength of the element is limited
to elastic analysis, where the strength of the element is infinite, both type of analysis were
performed on the isolated bridge. As mentioned earlier, the properties presented earlier
and marked on the bridge model, were used. The results of those analysis are presented in
Fig. 4.51 and Fig. 4.52.
198
The displacements of the isolated deck are hardly influenced, by the limited capac
ity analysis, but the displacements at the top of the bent under the isolator are much
smaller in the elastic case.
The moments at the bottom ofthe pier are kept low in the case of the inelastic anal
ysis while for the case of the elastic analysis they are 50% higher.
 . . ; : ~ ? ~
1 ~ . '
""', '
, "
FIGURE 4.44 Completed Mlyagawa Bridge
199
..................
..
.... ............
.,
,
,
... .,
,
t
,
..
"
•
!
 "
f
,
! .... , .....
.
...
.... r ......
, .
L4l
• Side View

At suppon AI Center of span
•
....
'"
1100

...
AUI\" • •• I. J.,... ... !OD
10
""
'00!l
I _If_
.
C..c.,n ... ,
.... , .. ". "''C ....... I .,..
bI!
•

r.,l, ",
.
""
8
V\
.I
!Vi
: , "
. ".:! .. '

• • ,.oo_tUO UO
Supersaucrure
' .
.
II
!
II
l
,
;:
,
.'
: '""f.. :
. Jll " '
.. ' "'r
....... .:(:.'. '
... . .
...
................. ... .. l
i":r ."..
. Lf1
L _
,
•



too .Il00 toO
e ...... ' J
.towc··l r"'" .""
\!wh.
I
,
1



i h
, ...... .. .... (' ... ,
....... l\
•. __ .1 .....
YI ,. ....... e· .. "
....
.000
.. ·
j
!
I
I
I
'10
."
Bridge Pier
FIGURE 4,45 Bridie Geometry
200
·AI
i'
•
'1$
•
FIGURE 4.46 Lead Rubber Burlngs for BridIe Abutment
IS 41+SUSlII
122
;'1
AA
J: ..... :=J :[,
I,
1000
ISO I,Xl
O
IXIM 20 111.....lii:O::"'o lll
•
• • •
4·
. + ..
• 4 70
10
FIGURE 4.47 Lead Rubber Burlnp for BridIe Pier
201
At Mid·height
2@300
600
At Bottom
3100
10@300=SOOO 20@150=3000
irt ,. H
3989.5 20@150=3000
3100
4833 4000
D22
FIGURE 4.48 Cross Section or Plen
....
""'" 70 • • '! r! ,
~ ~ F  U curve'uled for dellgn
.. 50 ·····f·····r .. ···;·····,····· ····:·····f·· .0; :
..... .0 ·····'·····1··· .. ·;·····,,· .. ··· .... ":...... ..: ... : .....
30 ·····i·····i·····i·····i····· .... !o.. ··i·····
 " I . .
. ~ 20 ·····'·····1·· .. • ..... j..... .. .. .. I .....
.. 10 ••••• i··· •. i· .. ·.i..... . .. } ......... i. ·.·i.·· ..
o O. .::
 • •• I •
10 ..... : .... : .......... .:..... . ... , ..... ; ..... : .... .
 20 ••••• ! ..... t ••• :.. • .0' •••• l .... ~ . : . ..... :. ..... : .... .
•
• I • • •
30
I • t..
..  ...•. !.. . tOO. ··1····· ····7·····;·····:·····!·····
II .0 ··· .. ·i·· ::' ·l·····:····.. ····T·····:·····r·····!·····
o so ·····1· s·····,···· .. ,,····· .... .,. ..... , ..... , .....•.....
H &0 .•.•• , ....... ,.................. • .•.. ;. ............ ; ...•• i .... .
 ...... .. .
:; JYSOI20eo  ~ 30 0 lIO ~ eo 120 ISO
:c Horizontal dhpllcelDent (IDIII) ,
FIGURE 4.49 Load Displacements CU"es
202
.,
...
."
..
t
+13.0
Y
+9.0 .
Y:
+4.0 .
y:
+2.0
Y:
+1.0 .
Y:
+0.0
Y
IS
3
lumped mass
20
M '= co
Y'
13
=
I
y =
y =
14
8
5 6
r ' 8
, .
4
• • • ' ••• J • •• ; •• 6
6
k, = 2.77xlO tmlTad
18
16
w=114t
. .
,..,326l' ....•.. ,
5
kT = 2.21xlO tim
FIGURE 4.50 Structural Model of the Bridge
DECK
. , .
4
203
2000
1000
E
0
6
"
c
j
1000
2000
3000
2000
1000
E
6
"
0
c
~
Q
::;
1000
2000
moment at bottom of foundation
I
~ ~
~
rf"
~
o 5
~ k ~ h \
rr
~
o 5
~
'11
~
it
,
10
Time (Se<;.)
II
f
IJ I tI A
IJV
15
 inelastic
elastl.c
moment at bottom of pier
K ~
V

10
Time (Sec.)
IAt./\
pv
15
FIGURE 4.51 Moment at Bottom of Pier and Foundation
20
20
204
!
I
!
!
"
c
s
is
0.05
0.05
.().l5
·0.25
0.03
om
0.00
·0.01
·0.02
Pier displacement above isolator
I

M
fJ
o 5
V
to
Time (Sec.)
fI
I"
"
15 20
elastic
"'' inerastic
Pier displacements, under isolator
l!. Id , 11'1111 IJ 1/1
f\/\
,
11'1
l' I W
I
M
1"
HI
·0.03 0
5 10
lime (Sec.)
15 20
FIGURE 4.52 Displacements at Pier Centerline, Under and Above Isolator
205
4.1.6 Case Study 6: Evaluation of Bridge Capacity Using Different Push· Over
Procedures and Dynamic Analysis
The concept of using pushover procedures for the entire bridge assembly instead
of using this procedure on each frame separately where the interaction between the frames
is neglected to evaluate the capacity of a bridge was presented in section 3.6.2. In this sec
tion a bridge that was subjected to the Northridge earthquake and experienced collapse
was evaluated using various pushover procedures: (1) uniform incremental static load. (2)
modal adaptable incremental load. (3) acceleration ramp input (4) pulse input. The
response to the various pushover evaluation procedures is compared to the response of
the bridge to measured earthquake record with impulsive nature.
The southbound SR14/15 separation and overhead structure is located in Los
Ang(!lesCounty approximately 24 miles to the northwestof downtownLosAngeles.A
general plan and elevation of the bridge is shown in Fig. 4.53 , a typical cross section of
the box girder deck is shown in Fig. 4.54 and the geometry and reinforcement of the piers
is shown in Fig. 4.55 .
The bridge was modeled using combination of elastic and nonlinear hysteretic
concrete beam column elements. The prestressed deck and the top part of the piers was
modeled as elastic beams. The bottom part of the piers were inelastic behavior is expected
was modeled as concrete hyste,etic beam column element. The piers are supported on
shafts. In order to consider the flexibility of the shafts, the height of the piers is increased
for the analysis the increased height is shown in Table 4.2 . The analytical model of the
bridge is shown in Fig. 4.56 . The heights of the piers and the elastic properties of all the
elements are presented in Table 4.2 . The moment  curvature relations and the shear
206
capacities of the nonlinear elements are presented in Table 4.3 . Since the current analysis
focus on ~ h e behavior of the bridge in the transverse direction, the properties related to the
behavior of the bridge in this direction are presented only. The stiff part at the top of the
piers is modeled using rigid arm transformations.
TABLE 4.2. Geometry and Structural Elastic Properties of the Bridge Elements
Height (for
Moment orinertla
Element analysis) Area gross longitudinal transversal torsional
# m m
2
m
4
m
4
m
4
pier 2 . 13.4 4.2 0.49 4.23 1.74
pier 3 13.7 4.2 0.49 4.23 1.74
pier 4 17.5 4.2 0.49 4.23 1.74
pier 5 18.0 4.2 0.49 4.60 1.74
pier 6 29.2 3.7 0.85 5.20 2.37


pier 1 41.2 4.0 1.35 5.20 3.70
pier 8 30.9 4.0 1.35 5.20 3.70
pier 9 32.6 4.0 1.35 5.20 3.70
pier 10 17.6 4.2 0.49 4.23 3.70
deck nla 8.8 5.85 188.56 16.30
TABLE 4.3. Transversal Moment Curvature Relations and Shear Capacity of Piers
Cracking Yielding Ultimate
Shear
pier moment corvo moment curv. moment curv. capacity
# kN·m radlm kN·m radlm kN·m radlm kN
2 22600 0.21 68740 1.29 75000 3.99 6925
3 23100 0.21 69740 1.31 75000 3.95 7065
4 20435 0.21 54570 1.18 70000 4.65 6345
5 20435 0.21 54570 1.18 70000 4.65 6365
6 26160 0.20 78250 1.39 85000 3.89 7347
7 24900 0.18 64260 1.25 70000 5.34 7041
8 19130 0.15 56360 1.23 70000 5.27 5770
9 22960 0.18 61670 1.27 70000 4.76 6608
10 22660 0.21 57320 1.16 70000 4.46 7885
207
•
/'
1582'.()·
<
Ii
II (I II if»
Pier 3 Pier4
Pier 6 PI.r 7 Pier 9
c
"
Abulmenll
Pier 2
Abutmenlll
ELEVATION
,. 53'..Q· II
T
d
I.
: I
P4
P5 P6
P7
PLAN
P10
AI
All
FIGURE 4,53 SR1411·5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) • General Plan and Elevation
208
•
I
PRESTRESSED BOX GIRDER SECTION
REINPORCED BOX GIRDER SECTION
~
,;
r
~
~
0.305
~
col TYP. ~
Ill'
~
,;
 1.118
  
0
p5
1.118 ..2.,892 2.743 .
0.152
•
TYPICAL !ECTIONS
I
•
I
•
I
I
•
I
0.203
•
TYP.
I
:
I

13.810

•
I

1.372 ~ 1.372 2.743
•
18.154
DIMENSIONS IN 1m)
~
~
,;
~ ]r
~
~
~
CII'
.,

~  
,;
11.118
O. 5
2.743 1.118
0.102
FIGURE 4.54 SR1411·5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) • Typical Deck Section
209
".
."
.. , ..
tt· ,
.
FIGURE 4.55 SR1411.5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) .Pler Sections and Relnrorcement.
210
FIGURE 4.56 SR141I·5 Separation and Overhead (Southhound) ·Structural Model for Analysis
211
Evaluation procedures
The bridge was subjected to several pushover procedures: (1) Modal adaptable:
static force distributed relative to the changing mode shapes due to change in the stiffness
of the elements when experiencing inelastic behavior. (2) Uniform pseudo acceleration:
the static incremental load is distributed relative to the mass (the distribution doesn't
change during the analysis). (3) Ramp loading (0.25 mlsec
3
, 0.5 mlsec
3
, 5.0 mlsec
3
): lin
early increasing acceleration (Fig. 4.60 b, Fig. 4.61 b, Fig. 4.62 b), is applied in differ
ent rates to the bridge until failure is reached. (4)Pulse loading (0.1 sec, 0.05 sec): a short
duration acceleration pulse (Fig. 4.63 b, Fig. 4.64 b) with two different durations is
applied to the bridge and its failure is monitored.
An impulsive ground motion, measured during the Northridge earthquake, at the
Santa Monica City Hall, increased to 150% was also used to analyze the bridge for earth
quake loading.
Results
The limit state of the bridge was defined by two conditions: (i) flexure failure,
where one of the piers, reached its ultimate flexture capacity (see Table 4.3 ). (ii) shear
failure, where one of the piers reached its shear capacity (see Table 4.3 ). The loading his
tory, the shape of the bridge at time of failure, and the history of shear forces in piers 2 to
7 is presented in Fig. 4.58 to Fig. 4.65 for the various analysis cases. The distribution of
the shear forces at failure is presented in Table 4.4 and graphically in Fig. 4.57 . The dis
tribution of moments at failure is presented in Table 4.5 . Indications on the performances
of the bridge subjected to the various loading procedures are presented in Table 4.6 .
212
    ~  
Results evaluation
Significant deformations were observed at the time of failure when the bridge was
analyzed for the first five pushover procedures (modal, uniform, three ramp loading pro
cedures). The failure mechanism for all these procedures was found to be shear domi
nated. However the moments at the time of failure in al these cases were very close to the
ultimate moment capacity. The failure occurred in all cases in short piers located in prox
imity to long piers (pier 3: 13.7m/pier4: 17.5m;pier5: 18m/pier 6, 7: 29m, 41m) due to
transfer of shear forces from the flexible support to the stiffer support (Fig. 4.57 ).
The external inertia forces on the bridge F can be related to its global acceleration
iilO/
al
such that:
F = wiilolal
(EQ4.2)
where w is the weight. The total acceleration can be divided into two parts: the ground
acceleration ii g and the structure relative acceleration to its base ii as
(EQ4.3)
The forces developed in the bridge in the case of modal adaptable analysis are related
directly to relative acceleration ii only. Higher forces are distributed to the softer parts of
the bridge and very low forces are applied to the stiffer parts.
The distribution of the forces in the cases of uniform and ramp loading is related to
the distribution of the ground acceleration ii g' The distribution in all this cases is similar.
However, the force in pier 2 are higher by 30% in the case of steep ramp loading (5.0 mI
213
sec
3
) then the other cases because of significant dynamic amplification for stiff elements.
The total force in the bridge F can be defined as:
F = ku+mii (EQ4.4)
The part of the force that control the failure is ku, therefore higher ground acceler
ation is required in the dynamic cases (Table 4.6 ) then in the static and low acceleration
cases.
The case of pulse loading provides very different behavior then the previous cases,
the failure is dominated by shear at the stiff piers, where most of the shear force is concen
trated (Fig. 4.57 ) which results in failure of pier 2. The maximum deformations are very
low (0.058m, 0.046m) and all the piers have almost the same displacements, because at
this stage only the inertia effect influence the response, while the effect of the piers stiff
ness was not developed yet. Very high ground acceleration is required in a very short
period of time to bring the bridge failure. The moments in the piers are relatively low at
the time of failure.
A very impulsive ground motion was chosen as input to perform nonlinear time
history analysis. This kind of ground motion is characteristic to near fault seismic events.
The ground motion was increased to 150% to be able to bring the bridge to failure during
the first large pulse of the earthquake. The response of the bridge at failure is characterized
by a higher mode (see Fig. 4.65 a). The larger shear forces are concentrated in piers 2 and
3. relatively low maximum deformations (0.07m) are reached at failure. The failure is
reached before the ground acceleration reached its maximum, therefore the ground accel
214
eration at failure (O.35g) is lower than the maximum ground acceleration of the earth
quake.
Conclusion
It is evident that two different types of behavior were observed: The first one is
dominated by first mode response, which is typical to vibratory earthquake. The second is
response to a uniform acceleration loading, which is typical to impulsive earthquake. This
kind of behavior can be represented relatively well by the pulse loading in which the mag
nitude of deformations and the concentration of shear force was close to the one observed
in the pulse pushover procedure. The shape of the bridge at the time of failure however
was different. It should be noted that the only procedure that was able to predict the actual
failure of pier 2 during the northridge earthquake is the pulse pushover procedure.
215
TABLE 4.4. Comparison of Shear Force Distrihution Between the Piers at the TIme of Fallure of
Critical Pier In Shear
pier 2 pier 3 pier 4 pier 5 pier 6 pier 7 Total
kN kN kN kN kN kN kN
Modal adaptable 21.9 2530 3480 6365 3680 1410 17470
;%"ftolll1:::' .•...:
':'.', '.,'<c .
Unifonn pseudo 3720
acceleration
...
, " C" ,'. .'Jc't''''';'':\'':;
Ramp 0.25 mlsec
3
6365
":/",,,"
;'l®ftotal •.
Ramp 0.5 mlsec
3
%bftotal
Ramp 5.0 mlsec
3
%oftotal
Pulse 0.1 sec
%of total
2160
%oftotal
Ground motion 4830 14242
(THA)
%oftotal
Piers Height [mJ 10.5 10.8 14.7 15.2 26.3 38.4
Tributary length 55 57 47 48 54 43 502
for gravity load [mJ
%oftotal .18 19 15
216
40
30 I

20 I

Modal
10

40
r
30

20

Uniform
10

,......., 40

'"
...
30
.9
.....
20
0
~
10
........ 40



I
Ramp 0.25
I:
30
0
I

.....
...
20
..6
.....
10
~
40 .....
I

I

I
Ramp 0.5
"0
~
30

~ 20
.s
10
~
~
40
I

I

I
Ramp 5.0
..c:
'"
30 I

20

Pulse 0.1
10
·
40
I
30
·
20

Pulse 0.05
10

40
30
l
·
20
I
50%
() THA
10
l
·
0
pI.r2 plcr3 P1cr4
FIGURE 4.57 Distribution of Shear Forces in Piers 27 for Different Analysis Procedures
217
TABLE 4.5. Moment at Bridge Piers due to Different Push·over Procedures at Shear FaUure
pier 2 pier 3 pier 4 pier 5 pier 6 pier 7
kN·m kN·m kN·m kN·m kN·m kN·m
Modal adaptabie ·1980 40100 60000 67600 84900 60700
Unifonn load 38400 73100' 59300' 65800' 80900 46500
Ramp 0.25 mlse2
32800 68300 56700' 62400' 78600' 50200
Ramp 0.5 mlsec
3
49700 74400" 61400' 69900"" 81200"" 62200
Ramp 5.0 mlsee
3
53800 74000"" 61700" 69500"" 82200"" 65300'
Pulse 0.1 sec 64600 71100" 43700 45200 27500 51000
Pulse 0.05 53500 48300 32300 32300 15600 39100
THA 43300 63500 38800 3820 ·20000 18000
Yielding moment 68740 69740 54570 54570 78250 '64260
Ultimate moment 75000 75000 70000 70000 85000 70000
• Yielding moment is exceeded."" within 5% of ultimate
TABLE 4.6. Comparison of Performances of The SR141I5 Bridge Subjected to Different Push·
Over Procedures
Critical Maximum
Type of FaUure FaUedPier Acceleration Deformation
G m
Modal adaptable flexure/shear p5 0.21 0.590
Unifonn pseudo aeeel· flexure/shear p3 0.29 0.550
eration
Ramp 0.25 mlsee
2
shear p5 0.34 0.470
Ramp 0.5 mlsee
2
flexure/shear p5 0.38 0.530
Ramp 5.0mlsee
2 flexure/shear p5 0.54 0.610
Pulse 0.1 sec shear p2 1.50 0.058
Pulse 0.05 see shear p2 3.00 0.046
THA shear p3 0.35 0.070
218
I
!
(a)
8000
6000
./
) ~ o
·2000
; ! /
) /'
p7
/
/'
/
I'
~

V ~
V
I

/"
Step number [#]
(c)
Load step [#]
(b)
/pS
L
po
/.,...
..... p4
.,,/ I p3
.... 'p7
....
p2
FIGURE 4.58 Response of the Bridge to Adaptable Proportional to Instantaneous Mode Shape
Distributed Load (relative to mass). (a) Displaced Shape at Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear
History for Piers 27
219
force
liiiiiiiil
".' .... /
p2 p3
(a)
40000
j
Load step 1#1
(b)
2
"
<E
t;;
"
.c
'"
rooo
4000
10 20
Loading step [#]
(c)
30
p4
p7
p
40
FIGURE 4.59 Response of the Bridge to Non Adaptable Uniform Distributed Load (relative to
mass). (a) Displaced Shape at FaUure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 27
220
p6 p7
p4 ".
p3
,
Time [sec]
(b)
(a)
8000 r,.,,,..r,,
p3
p5
"
,£
R
2000 i+T:;,f:::;;o"'3 ..... ""++I
p7
Time [sec.]
(c)
FIGURE 4.60 RespoDSe oftbe Bridge to Ramp Loading. Acceleration Rate: o.lSmlsecl
(8) Displaced Shape at FaDure, (b) Loading HIstory, (c) Shear HIstory for Piers 2·7
221
4r__
p6 p7
p4 }.S/
i' .. ... ,:: ... ... _,_,,,,_','
o 5 10
Time [sec)
(b)
(a)
8000.0
p3
pS
j
V
6000.0
t?'
V
1/""" .....
'/'"
p6
ib
v
k?
./'
.
10 p7
2000.0

0.0
Time
(c)
FIGURE 4.61 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading. Acceleration Rate: 0.5 mfsec 3 (a) Displaced
Shape at Failure, (b) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 27
222
8000
6000
2000
o
0.0
(a)
b
/
VJ"'"
/
//J
V/
VI/
V,.
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Time [sec]
(b)
I'
p3
7ps
V/
, nO
V/
l7
V
p4
/
p6
1/
p7
io"'"
0.5
Time [sec]
(c)
1.0 1.5
FIGURE 4.62 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading. Acceleration Rate: (a) Displaced
Shape at Failure, (h) Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 2·7
223
p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7
" ....
/)
(a)
8000
6000
2000
%.)0
0.05
/
15 .... _ ........ __ ....... __ ..._......,
14
13
12
II
_ 10
N 9
i 8
 7
~ 6
'" 5
4
3
2
I
O ~ ~ ~ ~   ~   ~ ~ ~ ~
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Time [Sec.]
(b)
/
p2
7
_0
/
1/
/
V
v:
"'
p4
n<
~
p7
F'" .......
"
p6
TIme [sec.]
v. IV
(c)
F1GURE 4.63 Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0.1 sec. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure, (b)
Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 2·7
224
T
24
p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7
22
.. 20f.
: 18
"
1:
.s
'"
"
..c
'"
...... ,." .. ". ,
(a)
8000
6000
4000
2000
16
!14
] 12
<10
8
6
4
2
..
Time (Sec.)
(b)
pI
p2
p5
p4
p3
p6
0.00 0.Q2 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
time [sec.]
(c)
FIGURE 4.64 Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0.05 sec. (a) Displaced Shape at FaHure, (b)
Loading History, (c) Shear History for Piers 2·7
225
10000
8000
6000
4000
~
2000
t;J
"
..c
'"
0
2000
4000
6000
\ .. p5
..
(a)
i .'
\,: ... ;' / p7
p6
rfI. Ia.
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
.... "
0.6
0.9
1.2
"
I
!f'
"
~
\j
v
7
[sec.l Time
(c)
time sec.]
(b)
_.
. I!M
I r\ I
II p4
~
,. p7
~
I ! ~
\I1fJI\ p6
\
FIGURE 4.65 Response of the Bridge to Dynamic Impnlsive Loading. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure,
(b) Northridge Earthquake Record From Santa Monica City HaIl (input motion), (c) Shear History
for Piers 27
226
5.0 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
• The current work, laid up the ground work for the analysis of bridges were the nonlin
ear behavior of elements (concrete or steel), and protective systems is considered. Sev
eral types of analysis, such as time history, monotonic pushover and modal were
I
to extract information about the safety of new design or retrofit design of
bridges. Since every one of the analysis methods has strong and weak points, a good
evaluation procedure should be combined of the different analysis types presented. The
time history analysis can be used as indicator to the global behavior of the bridge dur
ing severe earthquake, and approximate procedures such as pushover analysis, and
elastic analysis for preliminary design.
• Several case studies were presented in the current work, which were used to demon
strate the capacities of an analysis program IDAReBRIDGE developed in this work,
and to verify the analytical procedures, used in the program.
The special end connections and the coupled motions were used in almost all the
case studies and proved to provide very efficient tools to model complicated connec
tions between the deck and the substructure. This contribution is especially apparent in
the modeling of the East Aurora bridge in which very simple and efficient modeling of
the connection was used as compare to the very sophisticated modeling used for the
same problem by Wendechansy(l996).
The modeling of base isolation systems placed in arbitrary locations in the bridge
was verified with experimental results. It was observed however, that care should be
taken when using stiffness proportional damping in structural systems which include
base isolation elements.
227
The modeling of the triaxial behavior which includes dependency of the friction
coefficient on velocity of sliding isolator, was modeled by the new triaxial isolator ele
ment and verified with experimental results.
The expansion joint element was developed to model efficiently the behavior of
thermal expansion joints in bridges.
The nonlinear damping concept is introduced and used for the modeling of the tri
axial element. The modeling of this element is verified using biaxial experiment as
mentioned earlier.
The use of displacements / velocity input, which allow direct representation of dif
ferential ground motion was introduced. The use of this method was verified by com
paring the response of a simple structural system subjected both to equivalent
displacement and acceleration input.
All the models mentioned above which include: special connections, different
types of base isolation, expansion joints, differential ground motion and nonlinear
damping were used in analysis of large scale real bridges. Parametric studies were per
formed to evaluate their contribution to the overall response of the bridge.
• A first step in the direction of developing evaluation methods based on time history
nonlinear procedures which include damage indexing combined with pushover analy
sis was made. A bridge in Los Angeles county was subjected to several types of push
over procedures as well as real ground motion exciton. The influence of the type of the
earthquake excitation on the distribution of forces in the bridge was studied using sev
eral pushover procedures and compared to the response of the bridge to actual impul
sive ground motion.
228
 ,
The modal adaptable push over procedure seems to be deficient in modeling the
bridge response. The results from the uniform force (relative to mass distribution) and
the slower ramp loading are similar in nature, and seems to provide reasonable repre
sentation of the response of the bridge to vibratory earthquake. The ramp push over
procedure, with faster application rate introduce dynamic effect to the distribution of
the forces along the bridge. Larger part of the seismic load is transferred to stiffer and
shorter piers. Because the dynamic effect results in additional inertia forces, larger
acceleration is required to bring the bridge to failure than the static and slower proce
dures.
Impulsive pushover procedures as well as impulsive ground motion excite the
bridge in different manner than the procedures related to vibratory earthquakes. Large
transfer of forces to the stiffer and shorter piers can be observed while experiencing
very small deformations.
The actual failure mechanism of the bridge during the Northridge earthquake was
identified when the bridge was subjected to pulse pushover procedure.
• The program provides basic approach based on the idea that the modeling of a struc
tural system should be done as much as possible considering physical models there fore
the nonlinear behavior of elements will be mostly modeled by nonlinear stiffness and
damping properties, and not by defining the nonlinear forces to the forcing vector. This
type of element is the main prototype element in the program IDARCBRIDGE. Other
programs (ANSYS, DRAIN2DX) are using only the stiffness properties and the force
vector to model nonlinear behavior.
229
• A close form solution of the governing differential equation is used to represent the pla
nar behavior of base isolation systems. This solution gives insight and understanding
on how the system works and explain why a threedimensional additional element was
necessary to be developed.
• Several techniques which were developed previously such as: rigid end connections,
flexible connections, and free connection (Weaver and Gear 1990) and coupled motions
(Bathe (1982» were modified to be more versatile such that they can be used each one
separately and altogether to enable easier modeling of complicated bridge connections.
and avoid computational illconditions.
• A new triaxial base isolation element that can be incorporated in a general computer
program was developed. This element allows for a more realistic modeling of sliding
base isolation system and can be easily extended to model other types of isolation sys
tems, such as high damping rubber and lead rubber bearings.
• A modern iterative solver was incorporated in the program to provide faster and more
efficient solution of the equilibrium equations. A solver for large eigenvalue problems
was developed for use in the dynamic and monotonic analysis.
• The procedure developed by Priestley et. al. (1992) for the use of Lateral Strength
Method, was expanded. The original method provides solution to a simple planar
frames. The current work extends the idea to model the whole bridge system as an inte
gral unit. Several patterns of loading were developed to enhance the efficiency of this
method.
230
5.1 Further Research Suggestions
In order to develop further the use of the evaluation procedure, additional verifica
tion studies should be performed. The results of the different analysis procedures should
be compared with experimental results, with measured response of bridges which experi
enced real earthquakes and with analysis results from other programs, which were verified
with experimental results.
The concept of bridge design using the combined evaluation method should be
evaluated by using case studies on existing bridges, and comparing the design with the
existing design procedures used currently in practice.
The current evaluation methodology can be used to develop simplified design pro
cedures, by calibrating the elastic design methods.
Additional parametric studies should be performed to evaluate the influence of
base isolation systems on the behavior of bridge structures, especially the size of the
device and the influence of adding damping devices, with variety of locations in the
bridge.
The influence of gap elements on the seismic behavior of the bridge should be
studied and the gap element should be further verified in the program IDAReBRIDGE.
The efficiency of the analysis program should be evaluated and if possible the
numerical procedures should be upgraded, to accelerate the speed of the analysis, using
currently developing methods such as explicit integration etc.
231
The influence of biaxial interaction for concrete elements and protective systems
elements on bridges need to be studied farther.
A very important issue that should be considered is the influence of the limitations
on input properties of the elements, both linear and nonlinear, on the response of the
bridge system. The procedure of evaluation of this part, should be done using initially,
bridges with a small number of elements. Then extend it to more complex systems, and try
to find out if there are limiting values that can be used for design. The verifications and the
definition of limitations should be developed to add confidence to the use of nonlinear
time history as a primary evaluation tool. Although it is a gloryless large afford, this step
should be taken to depart from the elastic equivalent design procedure to a more rigorous
design method. The tools developed in this work can play ar roll in such an afford.
Additional comparison between the different pushover procedures should be per
formed and the usefulness of this procedure should be evaluated.
Additional structural elements can be incorporated into the program to enlarge the
elements library of the program, and provide more flexibility and accuracy in modeling
bridge structures. The program can be used as a tool, for system identification, and for
evaluation of different active control schemes.
•
232
6.0 RFERENCES
"Bridge retrofit Procedures.", Caltrans Interim Memo to Designers, 204, April 1992.
"Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures.", NSZ 3101:1982, Standards As
sociation of New Zealand, 1982
"Equivalent Static Analysis of Restrainers. " ,Caltrans Bridge Design Aids, 1411 to 1425,
October 1989.
"Manual for Maintenance and Inspection of Bridges.", American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, (1983) (including interim revisions through 1992)
"Restrainers at Hinges and Bearings," Caltrans Memo to Designers 203 November 1989.
"Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines for Highway Bridges", Federal Highway Administration
Report, FHW AlRD83/007, 1983
"Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings", Applied
Technology Council, Report ATC306, Redwood City, June, 1978.
"Standard Specifications,", State of California, Department of Transportation, July 1992.
"Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.", 15th Ed., American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, 1992, Including Interim Specifications for 1993,
1994, and 1995.
Anagnostoupoulos, S.A., Petrovski, J. and Bouwkamp, J. G. (1989), "Emergency Earth
quake Damage and Usability Assessment of Buildings.", Earthquake Spectra, EERI, 5(3),
461476.
Aoyama, H., and Sugano, T., (1968), "A Generalized Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced Con
crete Structures Based on the Tests of Members", Recent researches of structural mechan
ics. Contribution in honor of the 60th Birthday of Professor Y. Tsuboi, UnoShote, Tokyo,
pp. 1530.
Arya, A.S. (1984), "Sliding Concept for Mitigation of Earthquake Disaster of Masonry
Buildings." , 8tyh World Conf. On Earthquake Eng., San Francisco, 5, 951958.
Asher, J.W. et al. (1990), "Seismic Isolation Design of the USC University Hospital." Proc.
of Fourth U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Eng., California, Vol. 3, 529538.
Aydinoglu, M.N, and Erdik, M., (1995), "17 January 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe)
Earthquake Reconnaissance and Assessment Report", Kandilli Observatory and Earth
quake Research Institute, BebekIstanbul, Turkey, 1995
Bagley, R.L. and Torvik, P.J. (1983). "Fractional Calculus  A Different Approach to the
233
Analysis of Viscoelastic Damped Structures", AIAA Jouranl, 21(5), pp. 741748 .
. Banerjee, P. K., (1994), "The boundary element methods in engineering", McGrawHili.
Banon, H., and Vneziano, D. (1982), "Seismic Safety of Reinforced Concrete Members and
Structures." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10, 179193.,
Banon, H., Biggs, J., and Irvine, H. (1981), "Seismic Damage in Reinforced Concrete
Frames.", J.Struct.Eng., ASCE, 107(ST9), 17131728.
Bathe, K J. and Gracewski, S., (1981), "On Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Using Substruc
turing and Mode Superposition", Computers and Structures, Vol. 13, pp. 699707, 1981.
Bathe, K J., (1982), "Finite element procedures in engineering analysis", Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. : PrenticeHall.
Betti, R. and Panariello, G. F.,(1993), "Active Control of Structures Subjected to Spatially
Varying Earthquake Excitation", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
22.415430
Betti, R, AbdelGhaffar, AM. and Niazy, AS., (1993), "Kinematic SoilStructure Interac
tion for LongSpan CableSupported Bridges", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy
namics, Vol. 22, pp. 415430.
Bhatti, M.A., Pister, K S. and Polak, E. (1981). "Optimization of Control Devices in Base
Isolation Systems for Aseismic Design". Structural control: proceedings of the Intemation
aIlUT AM Symposium on Structural Control held at the University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, June 47,1979. pp. 127138
Boardman, P.R, Wood, B.J. and Carr, AJ. (1983). "Union House  A Cross Braced struc
tures with Energy Dissipaters.", Bull. of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Eng., 16(2),8397.
Bouc, R, (1971), "Model Mathematique D'hysteresis", (in French), Acustica v.24, pp. 16
25
Bracci, 1. M., Reinhorn, AM., Mander, J.B., and Kunnath, S. K (1989), "Deterministic
model for seismic damage evaluation of reinforced concrete structures." Rep. No. NCEER
890033, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York, Buffalo, NY.
Bracci, J. M., Reinhorn, A. M. and Mander, 1. B. (1995), "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced
Concrete Frame Structures Designed for Gravity Loads: Performance of Structural Sys
tems" Structural Journal, ACI (in press).
Buckle, KE. and Kelly, J.M. (1985). "Equivalent Linearizations for Practical Hysteretic
Systems." Int. J. NonLinear Mech., 23(4), 238.
234
Buckle, lG., Mayes, RL. and Button, M.R,(1987) "Seismic Design and Retrofit Manual
for Highway Bridges.", Report FHW AIP876, Federal Highway Administration, pp.290
Buckle, I.G. and Mayes, RL (1990). "Seismic Isolation: History, Application, and perfor
mance  A world Overview.", Earthquake Spectra, 6(2),161202.
Buckle, lG.,(1991) "Screening Procedures for the Retrofit of Bridges," Proceedings of the
Third U.S. Conference on Lifelines Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, Monograph No.4,
Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 1991, pp. 156165.
Buckle, lG. editor (1992), "Proceedings from the First U.S.  Japan Workshop on Earth
quake Protective Systems for Bridges", Report No. NCEER920004, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Buckle, lG, (1994), "The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Perfor
mance of Highway Bridges", Report No. NCEER940008, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York
Buckle, lG. (ed) (1994), "The Northridge California Earthquake ofJanuary 17, 1994, Per
formance of Highway Bridges." Technical Report 940008, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 1994.
Buckle, lG., and Freidland, lM.,(1995) "Improved Screening Procedures for the Seismic
Retrofitting of Highway Bridges.", Fourth International Bridge Engineering Conference,
Transportation Research Board, San Francisco, 1995.
Buckle, I. G. and Friedland, 1 M. (editors) (1995), "Seismic Retrofitting Manual for High
way Bridges" McLean, Va.
Building Seismic Safety Council Workshop on Development of an Action Plan; Denver,
November 57, 1986  volume 2, papers on transportation lifelines and special works hop
prese nations. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, 1987, pages 2327.
Built, S.M. (1982). "LeadRubber Dissipaters for the Base Isolation of Bridges Struc
tures.", report No. 289, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Caspe, M.S. and Reinhorn. A.M. (1986), "The Earthquake Barrier, A Solution for Adding
Ductility to Otherwise brittle Buildings." Proc. of ATC17 Seminar on Base Isolation and
Passive Energy Dissipation, Applied Technology Council, Palo Alto, Calif. 331342.
Celebi, M. and Penzien, J., (1973). "Experimental Investigation into the Seismic Behavior
of Critical Region of RIC components as Influenced by Moment and Shear.", Report No.
EERC 734, University of California, Berkeley.
Chalhoub, M.S. and Kelly, J.M. (1990). "Sliders and Tension Controlled Reinforced Elas
tormeric Bearings Combined for Earthquake Isolation.", Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn.,
19(3). 333344.
235
Chang, C.J, and Mohraz, B.,(1990), "Modal Analysis of Nonlinear Systems with Classical
and NonClassical Damping", Computers and Structures, Vol. 36, No.6, pp. 10671080.
Chang, G. A and Mander, J.B.(1994a), "Seismic Energy Based Fatigue damage Analysis
of Bridge Columns, PART I, EVALUATION OF SEISMIC CAPACITY.", Rep. No.
NCEER940013, National Center for Earthquake engineering Research, State University
of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Chang, G. A and Mander, J.B.(1994b), "Seismic Energy Based Fatigue damage Analysis
of Bridge Columns, Part II: Evaluation of Seismic Demand.", Rep. No. NCEER940006,
National Center for Earthquake engineering Research, State University of New York, Buf
falo,NY.
Charleson, AW., Wright, P.D. and Skinner, RI. (1987), "Wallington Central Police Sta
tion Base Isolation of and Essential Facility.", Pacific Conf. on Earthquake Eng., New
Zealand 377388.
Chen, C.C and Robinson, AR, (1993), "Improved Time History Analysis for Structural
Dynamics. I: Treatment of Rapid Variation of Excitation and Material Nonlinearity", Jour
nal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 119, No. 12, pp. 24962513
Cheng, M. (1988). "Convergence and Stability of Step by Step Integration For Model with
Negative Stiffness."Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 16(1),227244.
Chopra, A.K., Clough, D.P., and Clough, RW. (1973). "Earthquake Resistance of Build
ings with a Soft First Story." Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 1(4),347355.
Chung, Y. S., Meyer, C. and Shinozuka, M. (1987), "Seismic Damage Assessment ofRe
inforced Concrete Members." Rep. No. NCEER870022, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Clough, RW., and Johnston, S.B., (1966), "Effect of Stiffness Degradation on Earthquake
Docility Requirements." Proceedings, Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo,
Japan, Oct. 1966, pp.195198.
Clough, R,W. and Penzien, J., (1975),"Dynamics of Structures", McGrewHill, inc.
Clough, RW. and Penzien, J., (1993), "Dynamics of structures", McGrawHill, inc.
Cofer, W.F., MaLean, D.1. and McGuiere, J.W., (1994), "Analytical Modeling of Founda
tions for Seismic Analysis of Bridges", Technical report number W ARD 328.2, Washing
ton State Department of Transportation.
Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. (1991), "Prestressed Concrete Structures." Prantice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NY.
Constantinou, M.e. (1984). "Random Vibration and Optimization of Design of Aseismic
236
Base Isolation Systems," Thesis Presented to the Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, New
York, in partial fulfillment of the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy.
Constantinou, M.C (1987). " Simplified Analysis Procedure for Base Isolated Structures on
Flexible Foundations." Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 15(8),963983.
Constantinou, M.C. and Kneifati, M.C. (1988), " Dynamics of SoilBaseIsolatoresstruc
ture System." J. Struct. Eng., 114(1),2
Constantinou, M.C., Mokha, A. and Reinhom, A.M. (1990a). "Experimental and Analyti
cal Study of a Combined Sliding Disc Bearing and Helical Steel Spring Isolation System."
Report no. NCEER9232, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State Univ. of
New York, Buffalo, New York
Constantinou, M.C., Mokha, A. and Reinhom, A.M. (1990b). "Teflon Bearings in Base
Isolation IT: Modeling." J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 116(2),455474.
Constantinou, M.C. and Papageorgiou, A.S., (1990c), "Stochastic Response of Practical
Sliding Isolation", Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 1.
Constantinou, M. C. and Symans, M. D., (1992), "Experimental and Analytical Investiga
tion of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers" Report
no. NCEER9019, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State Univ. of New York,
Buffalo, New York
Cosenza, E. and Manfredi, G. (1992), "Seismic Analysis of Degrading Models by Means
of Damage Functional Concept.", Monograph on Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of RC build
ings, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler editors, Elsevier Applied Science.
Darbre, G.R. and Wolf, J.P. (1988), "Criterion of Stability and hnplementation Issues of
Hybrid FrequencyTime Domain Procedure for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis." Earth
quake eng. and Struct. Dyn., 16(4),569582.
Darbre, G.R., (1989), "Seismic Analysis of Nonlinear SoilStructure Interaction Systems
With FrequencyDependent Characteristics by Way of the Hybrid FrequencyTimeDo
main Procedure: Implementation and Applications", A report to the Swiss National Science
foundation, Ref. No. 82.598.0.88.
Darwin, D., and Nmai, C. K. (1986), "Energy Dissipation in RC Beams Under Cyclic
Load.",1. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 112(8), 18291846.
Delfosses, G.G. (1986), "Construction and Testing on an Experimental Dwellinghouse on
Rubber Bearings.", 2nd World Conf. on Joints and Bearings, ACISP94, 1,222232.
Den Hartog, J.P.(1931), "Forced Vibration with Combined Coulomb and Viscous Fric
tion." Transactions of ASME, APM539, 107115.
237
Der Kiureghian, A. (1995), " A Coherency Model for Spatially Varying Ground Motion.",
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic, in press.
Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc. (1983). "Seismic Base Isolation Using LeadRubber Bear
ings.", berkeley, Calif.
Elms, D.G., and Martin, G.R., (1979)"Factors Involved in the Seismic Design of Bridge
Abutments.", Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway bridges,
Applied Technology Council, Report No. ATC61, November, 1979.
Emori, K. and Schnobrich, W.C. (1978), "Analysis of RIC FrameWall Structures for
Strong Motion Earthquakes", Civil Engineering Studies, SRS 457, University oflllinois,
Urbana, December 1978.
Fajfar, P. and Vidic Tomaz, (1994), "Consistent Inelastic Design Spectra: Hysteretic and
Input Energy", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 23, 523537.
Fang, H. V., (1991), "Foundation Engineering Handbook" 2nd edition, Van Nostrand Rein
hold.
Fujita, T., Suzuki, S. and Fujita, S. (1989), " Hysteretic Restoring Force Characteristics of
High Damping Rubber Bearings for Seismic Isolation." ASME Pressure Vessels and Pip
ing Conference, PVPVol. 1981, Hawaii, 2328.
Fung, G.G., LeBeau, R.J., Klein, E.E, Belvedere, J., and Goldschmidt, A.F, (1971), "Field
Investigation of Bridge Damage in the San Fernando Earthquake, State of California, Di
vision of Highways, Bridge Department, 1971.
Gear, C.W. (1971), "The Automatic Integration of Ordinary Differential Equations." Nu
merical Mathematics, Communications of ACM, 14(30, 176190.
Ghobarah, A. and Ali, H.M, (1988), "Seismic Performance of Highway Bridges", Journal
of Engineering Structures, Vol. 10, July. 157166.
Gluck, N., Reinhorn, A.M., Gluck, 1. and Levy, R., (1995), "Design of Supplemental
Dampers for Control of Structures", Submitted to ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,
March, 1995.
Goltz, G.D. (1994), "The northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994: General
Reconnaissance Report.", Report No. NCEER940005, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Gulkan, P., and Sozen, M.A., (1974),"Inelastic Responses of Reinforced Concrete Struc
tures to Earthquake Motions.", ACI Journal, Proc. 71(12): 604610, December, 1974.
Hisano, M. et al. (1988), "Study on a Slidingtype Base Isolation System: TriAxial Shak
ing Table Test and its Simulation." Proc. of the Ninth World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Ja
238
pan, V, 741746.
Huffmann, G.K,(1986), "Full Base Isolation for Earthquake Protection by Helical Springs
and Viscose dampers.", Nuclear eng. and Design, 84, 331338.
Ikonomou, AS. (1985), "Alexismon Isolation Engineering for Nuclear Power Plants." Nu
clear Eng. Design, 85, p201
Imbsen, R.A, Nutt, R.V., and Penzien, 1.,(1978), "Seismic Response of Bridges Case
Studies", Report No, UBCIEERC 78/14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Uni
versity of California, Berkeley, June, 1978.
Imbsen, R.A, Lea, 1., Kaliakin, V., Perano, K, Gates, J., and Perano, S.,(1982), "SESI
SABI User Manual, Engineering Computer Corporation, October, 1982
Imbsen, R. A., (1986),"Assesment of the Analytical Techniques Used to Determine The
Seismic Response of Bridges for Design and Retrofitting.", Abatement of seismic hazards
to lifelines: proceedings of the Building Seismic Safety Council Workshop on Develop
ment of an Action Plan; Denver, November 57, 1986  volume 2, papers on transportation
lifelines and special workshop presentations. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washing
ton, 1987, pages 2327.
Imbsen, R. A, Penzin, 1., "Evaluation of Energy Absorption Characteristics of Highway
Bridges Under Seismic Conditions," Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley, Report No.UCBIEERC84/17, Sep. 1986.
Iwasaki, T., Penzien, 1., and Clough, R., (1972) "Literature Survey  Seismic Effects on
Highway Bridges", Report No. 7211, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Universi
ty of California, Berkeley, November, 1972.
Jagdish, KS., Raghuprasad, B.K and Rao, P.V.(1979). "The inelastic Vibration Absorber
Subjected to Earthquake Ground Motion." Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 7(4),317
326.
Jirsa, 1.A,(1979), "Applicability to Bridges of Experimental Seismic Test Results Per
formed on Subassemblies of Buildings.", Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Re
sistance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technology Council, Report No. ATC61,
November, 1979, pp. 547565.
Kan, C.L. and Chopra, A.K.( 1977), "Elastic Earthquake Analysis of Torsionally Coupled
Multistory Building.", Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 5(4), 395412.
Kannan, AM. and Powell, G.H. (1975), "DRAIN2D as General purpose Computer Pro
gram for Dynamic Analysis of Inelastic Plane Structures with Users Guide.", report No.
UCBIEERC 73/22, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Calif.
239
Kasai, K., Munshi, J.A., Lai, M.L. and Maison, B.F., (1993), "Visocoelastic Damper Hys
teretic Model: Theory, Experimental and Application.", Proceedings of Seismic Isolation,
Passive Energy and Active Control, V.2, ATCI71, San Francisco, Ca, pp. 521532.
Kawamata, S.(1988), "Accelerated Liquid Mass Dampers as Tools of Structural Vibration
Contro!." Proc. of Ninth World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Japan, VIII, p. 426.
Kelly, J.M., and Beucke, K.E,(1983). "A Friction Damped Base Isolation System with Fail
Safe Characteristics." Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 11 (1), 3356.
Kelly, J.M., Buckle, I.G. and Tsai, H.C. (1986a), "Earthquake Simulator Testing of a Base
Isolated Bridge Deck." Report no. UCBIEERC85/09, Earthquake Engineering. Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Kelly, J.M. (1986b), "Aseismic Base Isolation: Review and Bibliography." Soil Dyn. and
Earthquake Eng., 5(4), p 202
Kincaid, D.R., Respess, J.R Young, D.M. and Grimes, RG.,(1990), "ITPACK 2C: A For
tran Package for Solving Large Sparse LInear Systems by Adaptive Accelerated Iterative
Methods", (downloaded from netlib)
Kunnath, S.K., Reinhorn, A.M., and Park, YJ., (1990), "Analytical Modeling of Inelastic
Seismic Response of RIC Structures", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116,4,
9961017.
Kunnath, S.K., Reinhorn, A.M. and Lobo, RF. (1992), "IDARC version 3.0: A Program
for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete structures. "Rep. No. NCEER
920022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
York, Buffalo, NY.
Kwan A.K., (1993), "Improved WideColunmFrame Analogy for Shear/Core Wall Anal
ysis", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vo!. 119 No.2 February 1993.
Lam, I. P., Martin, G. R, Imbsen, A.R "Modeling Bridge Foundation for Seismic Design
and Retrofitting" Third Bridge Engineering Conference; Denver, March 1013, 1991.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, volume 2, pp. 113126.
Ledbetter, RH.,(1985) "Improvement of Liquefiable Foundation Conditions Beneath Ex
isting Structures.", Technical Report REMRGT2, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, 1985. .
Lee, D.M. (1980), "Base Isolation for Torsion Reduction in Asymmetric Structures Under
Earthquake Loading." Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 8(3), pp.349359.
Leger, P. and Dussalut, S., (1992), "Seismic Energy Dissipation in MDOF Structures",
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vo!. 118, No.5, pp. 12511269.
240
Li, C. and Reinhorn, AM., (1995)"Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Seismic
Retrofit of Structures with Supplemental Damping: Part II  Friction Devices.", Technical
Report NCEER950009, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
NY.
Liu, W. D., Penzien, J.,"StructureFoundation Interaction Under Dynamic Loads," Earth
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Report No.UCB!
EERC84!18, Nov. 1984.
Liu, W.D., Ricles, J.M., Imbsen, R.A, Priestley, MJ.N., Seible, F., Nobari, F.S. and Yang,
R., (1990), "Response of a Major Freeway Bridge During the Whittier Earthquake", Pro
ceedings for the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, pp.
9971006.
Liu, W. D., Nobari, F. S., and Imbsen, R. A.,"Dynamic Response Prediction for Earthquake
Resistance Design of Bridge Structures", Seismic engineering research and practice: pro
ceedings of the sessions related to seismic engineering at Structures Congress '89, spon
sored by ASCE; San Francisco, May 15, 1989. KircherCharlesA, ed. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, 1989, pages 110.
Liu, W.D., Tseng, W.S., Chang, C.Y., Imbsen, R.A, Lilhanand, K., and Li, F., (1993),
"Seismic Evaluation of BeniciaMartinez Bridge.", Proceedings of the First US Seminar on
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges; Hyatt Regency Hotel, San Francisco, Oc
tober 18, 1993. University of California at Berkeley and the California Department of
Transportation, (Sacramento, 1993).
Lobo, F.L. (1994), "Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures in
Three Dimensions.", Dissertation submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Lukose, K., Gergely, P., and White, R.N., (1982), "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Lapped Splices for Inelastic Cyclic Loading.", ACI Journal, SeptemberOctober, 1982.
MacLeod, LA, and Hosny, H.M., (1977), "Frame Analysis of Shear Wall Cores.", Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, 193(10),20372047.
MacLeod, LA, (1973), "Analysis of Shear Wall Buildings by the Frame Method.", Pro
ceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, 55 (Part 2; Sept.), 593603.
MacLeod, LA.,( 1976), "General Frame Element for Shear Wall Analysis." Proceedings In
stitution of Civil Engineers, 61 (Part 2; Dec), 785790.
Mahin, S., and Bertero, V. (1981), "An Evaluation of Inelastic Seismic Design Spectra.",
J. Struct. Eng., ASeE, 107(9), 17771795.
Makris, N. and Constantinou, M.C., (1991), "FractionalDerivative Maxwell Model for
Viscous Dampers.", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 117(9), pp. 27982724.
241
Makris, N., Badoni, D., Delis, E. and Oazetas, O. (1995), "Prediction of Observed bridge
Response With SoilPileStructure Interaction.", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
Mander, J.B., Kim, lH. and Chen, S.S., (1993), "Some Implications Regarding Different
Bearing types on Seismic Performance of Bridges in the Eastern United States", 10th An
nual International Bridge Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. mC9350.
Mander, J.B., Kim, J.H., Chen, S.S. and Premus, 0.1., (1996), "Response of Steel Bridge
Bearings to Reversed Cyclic Loading. ", Report No. NCEER96xxxx, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Manfredi, O. (1993), "Modeling of Damage in Seismic Analysis of Structures. " Ph.D. Dis
sertation. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Naples, "Federico IT", Italy (in
Italian).
Maroney, B., Romstad, K. and Chajes, M., (1990), "Interpretation of Rio Dell Freeway Re
sponse During six recorded Earthquake Events.", Proceedings of the Fourth U.S. national
conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, ppl0071016.
McCabe, S.L., and Hall, W.1., (1989), "Assessment of Seismic Structural Damage. "J.
Struct. Div, ASCE, 115(9).
MeJchers, R. E., (1987), "Structural Reliability: Analysis and Prediction.", Wiley.
Miyazaki, M. et al. (1988). "Design and its Performance Verification of a Base Isolated
Building Using Lead Rubber Bearings in Japan." Proc. of Ninth World Conf. on Earth
quake Eng. Japan, V, 717722.
Mizukoshi, K. et al. (1989). "Torsional response Behavior of Base Isolated FBR Reactor
Building during Earthquake Excitation." ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., Ha
waii, p 127.
Mostaghel, N. and Khodaverdian, M.(1988). "Seismic Response of Structures Supported
on RFBI System. " Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 16(6), pp. 839854.
Mokha, A. S., (1990), "Experimental And Analytical Study Of Sliding Isolation Systems",
Ph.D dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York.
Mokha, AS., Constantinou, M.C. and Reinhom, A. M., (1993), "Verification Of Friction
Model Of Teflon Bearings Under Triaxial Load.", Journal of structural engineering, vol
ume 119, number 1, pp. 240260.
Nagarajaiah, S., Reinhom, A.M. and Constantinou, M.C., (1989), "Nonlinear Dynamic
Analysis of ThreeDimensional Base Isolated Structures (3DBASIS).", Report No.
NCEER8900l9, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New
York, Buffalo, New York.
242
Nakamura, T. et al. (1988), "Study on Base Isolation for Torsional Response Reduction in
Asymmetric Structures Under Earthquake Motion." Proc. of Ninth World Conf. on Earth
quake Eng., Japan, V, 675680.
Nakata, S., Sproul, T. and Penzien, J., (1978), "Mathematical modeling of Hysteretic Loops
for Reinforced Concrete Columns", Report No. UCBIEERCI78/11, University of Califor
nia, Berkeley. Park, R., and Paulay, T.,(1975), "Reinforced Concrete Structures", A Wiley
Interscience Publication, pp 577579.
Newmark, N. M., (1959), "A Method of Computing for Structural Dynamics" Journal of
the Engineering Mechanics Division, Vol. 85, No. EM 3, pp. 6794, July, 1959
Ozdemir, H. (1976) "Nonlinear Transient Dynamic Aanlysis of Yielding Structures.", The
sis Presented to the Univesity of California, at Brkeley , Calif., in patial fulfilmentof the
requirrnents for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Orangun, e.O., Jirsa, J., and Breen, J.E.,(1975), "The Strength of Anchor Bars: A Revalu
ation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices.", University of Texas at Austin,
research Report 1543F, January, 1975.
Park, R., Priestley, M.J.N., Gill, W.D., and Potangaroa, R.T.,( 1980 "Ductility and Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Spirals or Hoops Under Seismic Loading." Proceed
ings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, Sep
tember 813,1980.
Park, Y.J. and Ang, A HS., (1985), "Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced
Concrete." J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 111(4),740757.
Park, Y.J., (1992), "Equivalent Linearization for Seismic Responses. I: Formulation and
Error Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering mechanics, Vol. 118, No. 11, November,
1992.
Park, Y.J., Wen, Y.K. and Ang., AH.S.,(1986), "Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems
Under Bidirectional Ground Motions." Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 14(4),543557.
Park, Y.J., Reinhorn, AM. and Kunnath, S.K. (1987), "IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis
of Reinforced Concerete Frame  ShearWall Structures.", Report No. NCEER870008,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New
York
Paskova, T. and Meyer, C. (1994), "Damage of Plain and Fiber Reinforced Concrete Under
Lowcycle Fatigue Load." Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Columbia University, New York, NY.
Paulay, T., Zanza, M. and Scarpas, A, (1981), "Lapped Splices in Bridge Piers and in Col
umns of EarthquakeResisting Reinforced Concrete Frames.", Research Report 816, De
partment of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchruch, New Zealand.
243
Penzien, J., (1979) "Seismic Analysis of MultiSpan reinforced Concrete Bridges.", Pro
ceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, Applied Technol
ogy Council, Report No. ATC61, November, 1979, pp. 423432.
Powel, G. H., and Allahabadi, R. (1988), "Seismic Damage Prediction by Deterministic
Methods: Concepts and Procedures." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic,
Vol. 16,719734.
Prakahs, S., (1989), "Analysis and Design of Pile Foundation Under Dynamic Condition",
Bulletin ofIndian Society for Earthquake Engineering Technology, Paper No. 269, Vol. 26,
No.1, March 1989, p. 161.
Prakash, V., Powell, G.H., and Filippou, F.C. (1992). "DRAIN3DX: Base Program User
Guide" Report NO. UCB/SEMM92129 Department of Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Chai, Y.H.,(1992) "Design Guidelines for Assessment
Retrofit and Repair of Bridges for Seismic Performance.", Report No. SSRP92/01, Dept.
applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, University of California, San Diego, 1992,
p.266.
Priestly, M.J.N., and Seible, F., (1991)," Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridges. ", Re
search Report SSRP91103, Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences,
university of California, San Diego, 1991.
Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.R., (1943), "Description of Stress Strain Curve by Three Pa
rameters.", Technical note 902, National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics.
Reinhorn, AM., Kunnath, S.K. and Mander, J.B. (1992), "Seismic Design of Structures for
Damage Control. ", Monograph On Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of RC Buildings, P. Pajfar
and H. Krawindler Editors, Elsevier Applied Science.
Reinhorn, A M. and Kunnath, S.K. (1994), "IDARC: Computer Program for Inelastic
Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures." in Research Accomplishments
19861994: A Selection of Technical Achievements, National Center for Earthquake Engi
neering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY (in press).
Reinhorn, AM., Li, C., Constantinou, M.C., (1995), "Experimental and Analytical Inves
tigation of Seismic Retrofit of Structures with Supplemental Damping: Part 1  Fluid Vis
cous Damping Devices" Report No. NCEER950001, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York Report No. NCEER95
0001, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo,
New York.
Reinhorn, A.M., VallesMattox, R., Lysiak, M (1996), "Simplified Inelastic Response
Evaluation Using Composite Spectra", submitted to Earthquake Spectra.
244
Robinson, A.R and Chen, C.C, (1993), "Improved Time History Analysis for Structural
Dynamics. II: Reduction of Effective Number of Degrees of Freedom.", Journal of Engi
neering Mechanics, Vol. 119, No. 12, pp. 25142530
Ross, G.A., Sed, H.B., and Migilicaccio, R.R., (1973), "Performance of Highway Bridge
Foundations," The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964Engineering.", Committee on the
Alaska Earthquake ofthe Division of Earth sciences, National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1973.
Saiidi, M. and Sozen, M.A., (1979), " Simple and Complex Models for Nonlinear Seismic
Response of RIC Structures", Civil Engineering Studies, SRS 465, University of lllinois,
Urbana, August 1979.
Shames, I.H. and Cozzarelli, F.A., (1992), "Elastic and Inelastic Stress Analysis.", Prantice
Hill Inc., Englewood Cliffs. NJ.
Shewchuk, J.R., (1994), "An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the
Agonizing Pain. ", CMUCS94125, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellom Uni
versity, Pittsburgh, P A.
Sivakuman, B., Gergely, P., and White, R.N., (1983),"Suggestions for the Design of RIC
Lapped Splices for Seismic Loading.", Concrete International: Design and Construction,
February, 1983.
Spyrakos, C. e., (1993), "Boundary Elements Techniques in Geomechanics", Computa
tional Mechanics Publications, Elsevier Applied Science, 1993, ISBN: 1858610249
Su, L., Ahmake, G. and Tadkbakhish, I.G., (1987), "A Comparative Study of Base Isolation
Systems", Report No. MIE150, Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, N.Y.
Takayanagi, T. and Schnobrich, W.e., (1977). " Computed Behavior of Coupled Shear
Walls", Proceedings of 6th WCEE, New Delhi.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M.A. and Nielsen, N.N., (1970), "Reinforced Concrete Response to
Simulated Earthquakes." Proceedings, ASCE, Vol.96, No.Stl2, Dec. 1970, pp. 25572573.
Tarics, A.G., Way, D. and Kelly, J.M., (1984), "The Implementation of Base Isolation for
Foothill Communities Law and Justice Center.", Report to the National Science Founda
tion.
Tsopelas, P., Okamoto, S., Constantinou, M C., Ozaki, D., Fujii, S. (1994), " Nceertaisei
Corporation Research Program On Sliding Seismic Isolation Systems For Bridges: Exper
imental And Analytical Study Of Systems Consisting Of Sliding Bearings, Rubber Restor
ing Force Devices And Fluid Dampers, volume ii.", Report No. NCEER940002, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York
Turkington, D.H., Carr, AJ., Cooke, N. and Moss, P.J, (1989), "Seismic Design of Bridges
245
on LeadRubber Bearings", Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. liS, No. 12.
Uang, C. and Bertero, V.V., (1990), "Evaluation of Seismic Energy in Structures", Earth
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 7790
Valles, R.E., Reinhom, A.M., Madan, A., Barron, R., (1996), "Sesimic Evaluation of a Low
Rise RC Building in the Vicinity of the New Madrid Seismic Zone",Report No. NCEER
96xxxx, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New York, Buf
falo, New York.
Valles, R.E., Reinhom, A.M., Kunnath, S.K., Li, C. Madan, A., (1996), (IDARC 2D Ver
sion 4.0: A Computer Program for the Inelastic Analysis of Buildings,", Report No.
NCEER960010, National Center for Earthquake Engineering, State University of New
York, Buffalo, New York.
Velestos, A.S. and Newmark, N .M., (1960), "Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response
of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions.", Proceedings, 2nd World Conference on Earth
quake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Vol. II, pp. 895912.
Villaverde, R. and Melad, H.M., (1992), "Efficient Mode Superposition Algorithm for
Seismic Analysis of NonLinear Structures.", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy
namics, Vol. pp 849858.
Wada, A. et al. (1988), "Dynamic Analysis of Base Isolated Structure Using various Nu
merical Models." Proc. of Ninth World Conf. on Earthquake eng., Japan, Vii, 403408.
Wang, M.L. and Shah, S.P., (1987), "Reinforced Concrete Hysteretic Model Based on the
Damage Concept.", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 15,9931003.
Weaver, W. and Oere, J.M., (1990), "Matrix analysis of framed structures", Van Nostrand
Co.
Wen, Y.K. (1976), "Method of Random vibration of hysteretic Systems." J. of Eng. Mech.
Div. ASCE, 102(EM2),249263.
Wendichansky, D.A. (1996), "Experimental Investigation of the Dynamic Response of
Two Bridges Before and After Retrofitting with Elastomeric Bearings", Ph.D dissertation,
State University of New York, Buffalo, New York
Williams, M.S., and Sexsmith, R.O., (1994), "Review of Methods of Assessing Seismic
Damage in Concrete Structures.", Technical Report # UBC 9402, Earthquake.Engineering
Research Facility, University of British Columbia.
Wilson, E. L., (1994) "The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures With Limited Num
ber of Nonlinear Elements", Structural Analysis Programs, Inc., Draft, March 14, 1994.
Wolf, John P., (1988), "SoilStructureInteraction Analysis in Time Domain", Englewood
246
Cliffs, N.J.: Prantice Hall, 1988.
Yao. J.T.P.,(1985), "Safety and Reliability of Existing Structures. ", Pitman Advanced Pub
lishing Program.
Yasaka, A. et al. (1988). "Biaxial Hysteretic Model for Base Isolation Devices." Summa
ries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting  Architectural Institute of Japan, 1,395400.
Yasaka, A., Mizukoshi, K., Lizuka, M., Takenaka, Y., Maeda, S. and Fujimoto, N., "Biax
ial Hysteretic Model for Base Isolation Devices", Internal Report, Kajima Institute of Con
struction Technology, Kajima Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
Zayas, V.A., Low, S.S. and Mahin, S.A., (1987), "FPS Earthquake Resisting System Ex
perimental Report.", Report No. 87/01. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer
sity of California, Berkeley.
247
A. APPENDIX A
A. 1 IDARClBridge Inelastic !!amage Analysis of Reinforced
,Construction = Platform for Bridges
The major parts of the program are presented in Fig. A.I. A detailed description of
these parts follows.
L_ID_A_R_C__B_R_ID_G_E_li I Input
I Preprocessing
I Processing
FlGURE A.I Program General Structure
The description of the major functions of the input routines is provided in Table
A.I
TABLE A.I Input Routines Description
Function
initiate
define analy
sis
Routines names
gecanalysis_type
gecanalysis_options
Description
calculate the size of the arrays of: nodes, coordinates,
properties
define if the analysis is 2d or 3d, and what type of anal
ysis to perfonn (dynamic, modal, pushover etc.)
248
TABLE A.1 Input Routines Description
Function
define nodes
and restrains
define ele
ments proper
ties
define ele
ments
define ele
ments end
conditions
loadings
pushover
conditions
dynamic and
modal analy
sis parameters
Routines names
gecnode300rdinates
geCboundary 30nditions
geccoupled_motions
gecelemencproperties
geCbiJ..gap
get_e_b
geCfoundation
geCh_b
geCh_b_s
geUso_sli
geUsolator_1
geClin_damper
gecmember_connectivity
assign_elements_property
assign_elements_types
get_member_boundarY30
nditions
gecmember_springs
geuigid_arms
get.,joinUoad
get.,joinc weight
gecmembecuniformJoad
gecnumber_oUoad_steps
get_usecpushover
get_romp_pushover
gecnumber_oCmodes
geUotal_analysis_duratio
n
gecanalysis_time_step
get_damping coefficients
geCdirection of excitation
gecexcitation_file_name
gecexication..groups
geCpealcground_accelera
tio
geUype_oCexciation
read_number_oCmodes
Description
Read joints coordinates, the boundary conditions of
the joints and the coupled motions
The main routine  gecelemencproperties calls the
other routine to retrieve the required properties of the
elements.
This group of routines defines the elements. Including
the connectivity of the elements to the nodes, the prop
erty number of the element, and its type.
The element matrices are created first assuming they
are fixed at the ends. Releases, end springs, and rigid
arms as described in chapter 3 are applied later for eas
ier modeling
Some of the parameters defining the right hand side of
the equation of equilibrium are defined in this group of
routines. The joint load (for incremental static analy
sis) and the number of steps to which the load is
divided to.
Joint weights are used to define the mass for dynamic
analysis
Those conditions are used to indicate the stopping con
ditions for the adaptable pushover procedures, and the
pseudo dynamic procedures
The parameters required for: modal analysis (number
of modes, displacements velocity (excitation groups).
and some general parameters like global damping and
integration time are read
249
The general description of the routines included in the preprocessing portion is
provided in Table A.2
TABLE A.2 Preprocessing Routines
Function
mapping
routines
mass matrix
beam length
preparation
routines
Routines names
biJl!ap_list
dampers_list
eJoad_list
elements_tol!lobal
finaCorder
numbcoCdampers
slUso_list
pre_coupled
pre_release
pre_spring
Description
Some of the arrays require mapping to other arrays to
prevent the need for unnecessary search and reduce the
number of operations
Since the mass matrix is not changing during the anal
ysis and it is assumed to be lumped, it is defined as a
vector, prior to the analysis
The length of each element is calculated from the node
coordinates, where the rigid zones are subtracted. This
calculation is the base for the calculation of the rota
tion matrix.
These routines are used to prepare arrays required for
the processing phase
The general description of the structure of the processing routines is presented in
Fig. A.2. A detailed description of each one of the blocks in the processing section is pre
sented in the following tables.
250
Processing
update elements
apply end conditions
assemble global matrices
assemble load vector
solve
process results
FIGURE A.2 Processing Routines Arrangements
TABLE A.3 Update Elements Properties
Function Routines names
elements stiffness h_bjorce3alcualtion
(force calculation) rigid_arm_force
elements stiffness create3_b3d_stiffness
(general elements) createjound_stiffness
update_bi'.gap_stiff
update_iso_l_stiff
Description
The first step in updating the elements properties.
The end forces in the element are calculated using
the stiffness from the previous step. and the calcu
lated deformations. Since the forces are calculated
at the theoretical joints. they have to be trans
formed to the actual joints through the rigid zones
Corresponding to the end forces the stiffness in the
nonlinear elements is updated. The stiffness in the
linear elements is created only at the first step and
kept the same for the next steps.
251
TABLE A.3 Update Elements Properties
Function
elements stiffness
(hysteretic beam)
elements damping
element general
Routines names
h_b_stiffness_main
ddnsth
damaged_length
local_stiffness
h_b_add_non_shear
calculate_damage
update_elements_dampin
g
create_elements_damping
update_elements!leneral
update_iso_sli
TABLE A.4 End Conditions Description
Function
apply end condi
tions
coordinates
transformation
Routines names
end springs
releases
stiffnessJigid_arms
local to global
Description
The stiffness of hysteretic beam is updated in sev
eral stages: (1) the flexibility at the beam ends is
calculated from the end moments (ddnsth). (2)
from the moment diagram, the damaged length is
calculated (damaged_length). Using both the flexi
bility and the damaged length, by integrating the
flexibility over the beam length the flexibility
matrix is derived, and inverting it yields the stiff
ness matrix (locaLstiffness). The nonlinear shear
influence is added (h_b_add_non_shear) and the
damage index is calculated.
The nonlinear damping of elements is controlled
by the routine: update3lements_damping. The lin
ear damping element is created.
Element of the type "general" are elements that
contributes to three global matrices: (1) stiffness
matrix (2)damping matrix (3) load vector. An
example of this type of element is the isolator
slider element
Description
The special end conditions (rigid zones, releases,
end springs) are applied on the fixed ends stiffness
matrix of the element.
The stiffness matrix of the elements is transformed
from its local coordinate system to the global one.
TABLE A.S Global Matrices Building Description
Function
assemble stiffness
effective stiffness
Routines names
assemble
accel_ velocity
effective_stiffness
Description
The global stiffness matrix is assembled from the
local once.
Using the acceleration and velocity from the previ
ous time step the effective stiffness matrix is calcu
lated from the mass and stiffness matrices
(Newmark Beta method) only for dynamic analy
sis.
252
TABLE A.S Global Matrices Building Description
Function Routines names
add damping to the effectivcstifCdamp
effective stiffness
matrix
I
coupling conditions coupled
TABLE A.6 Load Vector Description
Function Routines names
load (acceleration) forcinllacceleration
load (dispvelocity) forcinlldisp_velocity
load (dynamic forcinlldynamicjorce
force)
load quasistatic) forcing_quasistatic
load (ramp push ramp_pushover
over)
load (modalpush pushover_modal
over)
load (pushover pushovecuser
user)
elements loads forcinllelementsJoads
effective load effective_load_vector
damping effect forcinlldamping
coupling effect coupledJoad_vector
final load finaUoad_ vector
Description
The effect of stiffness proportional damping and
individual damping elements is added to the global
stiffness matrix.
The coupled motions conditions are applied to the
effective stiffness matrix. As well as the restrains
(global boundary conditions)
Description
Incremental ground acceleration is used to assem
ble the force vector, by mUltiplying the ground
acceleration by the mass
The force vector is created by multiplying the
ground displacements and velocity, by the interac
tion matrix between the superstructure and the
ground
History of dynamic load is directly read.
Static load is applied incrementally
This load case is similar to the incremental acceler
ation loading case. However the acceleration is not
read from a file but increases linearly until limiting
condition is reached
The increase in the total force on the bridge is dis
tributed proportional to the modes of vibration
The load distribution on the bridge is defined by
the user using the joint load input as the guideline
for the force distribution
The contribution of the individual elements force
is added to the global load_ vector
The effective load vector is calculated considering
the acceleration and velocity from the previous
time step. (Newmark Beta method)
The effect of stiffness proportional damping, and
individual elements damping is added to the effec
tive load vector
The effect of the coupling ofD.O.F's is added to
the effective load vector
The degrees of freedom related to coupled degrees
of freedom, and restrained once are eliminated
253
TABLE A.7 Solution Description
Function
solution
Routines names
gecarray _a_size
sparse_fonnat
solution
src2c
TABLE A.S Results Processing Description
Function
displacements
results
force results
Routines names
disp_out
h_bjorce_calculation
ejorce_out
TABLE A.9 Modal Analysis Description
Function
modal analysis
Routines names
modal_main
sparsejonnaLmodal
sparse_mass_modal
lanz
write_mode_shapes
description
The effective (dynamic analysis) stiffness matrix is
transferred to sparse fonnat to use JeG solver.
. First the number of nonzero elements in the stiff
ness matrix is found. The sparse stiffness matrix is
created (vectors: a, II, IJ). The solution driver
(solution) is used to call the solver (src2c)
description
The first routine calculates the displacements of
the couples D.O.F's, so that full solution of all the
D.O.F's will be available. The second routine cal
culates the total displacements of the nodes out of
the incremental once. At required time steps snap
shots of the defonned bridge are printed.
The forces of selected elements are calculated and
printed in each time step. Moreover the maximum
force of larger number of elements is calculated.
description
The routine "modaCmain" is the driver for the
modal analysis, where memory is allocated. The
lanz modal solver requires that the stiffness and
masS matrix will be in a fonn of sparse fonnat.
after the analysis the eigenvalues are written to
the screen, and the mode shapes to a file.
254
I
ABSTRACT
Current stateofpractice methods used for seismic analysis and design of bridge structures are based on modified elastic spectral methods. These methods are unable to address certain critical issues that may be peculiar to bridge structures, namely: cyclic plastic behavior of structural elements, soilstructure interaction, differential ground motion, the nonlinear modeling of base isolators and supplemental damping devices. To address these deficiencies, this research develops two evaluation methods based on (i) nonlinear time history analysis including the effects of the transient development of damage in structural components, and (ii) pushover procedures based on static and dynamic lateral loading approaches. Using the latter, it is possible to assess the global seismic
capacity of an entire bridge structure which can be used in conjunction with seismic demand determined from inelastic spectral techniques. Classical pushover analysis uses
lateral loads that are increased in a monotonic fashion until the bridge reaches its failure limit state, this defines displacement capacity. This approach assumes a firstmode distribution of lateral forces and this distribution of forces is apt to miss higher mode effects which may be important, particularly for long bridges. Therefore, several procedures are considered to address this issue including: adaptive modal distribution, acceleration ramps, and acceleration pulses. The latter two, being dynamic procedures, are generally capable of capturing multimodal and total dynamic effects. Several new modeling features are addressed in this research by the development of a 3D computational platform (IDARCBRIDGE). First, a new triaxial model is developed that is capable of accurately developing the behavior of sliding isolators including the influence of the changing vertical force and velocity on the friction coefficients. Second, modeling of the connection between the bridge deck and the substructure is advanced. This includes a macroelement representation of the deck seat with the effect of the spatial layout of bearings and diaphragms by using features of elastic elements, hinge, spring, end releases and rigid end block transformations. Finally, the proposed computational procedures are verified by comparing predictive results with a combination of closedform analytical solutions, laboratory and field experimental results, as well as existing computational software. Several case studies are then used to explore the utility of the proposed computational framework with a particular emphasis on capturing observed failure modes.
ii
Acknowledgments
This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of many people who have contributed in different ways to make this work possible. I wish to thank my committee members for helping me finish my dissertation by contributing from their valuable time to edit it. I would like to thank my major advisor, Prof. A.M. Reinhorn, for introducing me to an exciting field of research, and escorting me along the way. I have special regards for Prof. M.C. Constantinou. His remarkable dedication to teaching and research introduced me to the field of base isolation and passive control and inspired me in my work. I would like to thank Prof. J.B. Mander for introducing me to the subject of capacity design, which was an important part of my work. Special thanks to Prof. M.P. Gaus, for his help and support in hard times, and for providing me with a "fair deal". I am sure I could have never been able to perform research at this level without the encouragement and support from Prof!. Sheinman from the Technion, ISRAEL, and other Professors at the Technion, who provided me the foundational of body of my professional knowledge. It is obvious that without true friends who have offered their support through this roller coaster experience, success would not have been possible. Dr. Roy F. Lobo and Dr. Chen Li are such friends. I would like to mention also all the other friends I acquired through the years in Ketter Hall. My arrival to V.B. would not have been possible without the initial support and the on going patience of my superiors at the Israeli Electric Corporation, especially Mr.
iii
Moshe Lasry. Mrs. Efrat Eshcol, Mr. Dan Levi, and Mr. Shlomo Abramovich who have demonstrated considerable understanding in waiting for me to finish this study.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for encouraging me on this difficult but rewarding path: my parents, Ester and Aharon Reichman, ISRAEL, my brother Hillel Reichman and his lovely family, and especially my dear wife, Roxana Reichman, and our three lovely children, Inbal, Ran and Yael.
iv
Dedication
To my loving, understanding and supporting wife, Dr. Roxana Reichman, who believed in me and supported me on the long and hard way, and to our wonderful three children, Inbal (12), Ran (9) and Yael (5), who have put up with two part time parents and were a constant source of happiness and consolation.
v
... 24 1.......................................................... 27 Modal ............. 31 2.....................5 Nonlinear Time History with Damage Index .......................................................... ..............STATEOFTHEART .............................Response Spectrum Analysis .............................................5 1......3 Bridges as Unique Structures . 20 1........................... 24 Nonlinear Time History ...............................7.........................................3.................................................. 2D Models ... 15 1................................................................0 INTRODUCTION ...... ................................... 17 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete ........................ 9 Modeling of Damping Devices .........................................................6 1..........................................................32 Methods of Analysis ..............................0 ANALYTICAL TOOLS FOR EVALUATION OF BRIDGES .....................................3 1...............1 2............................... 29 1...........................................................2 1.. 1 1.............. 8 1.....9 Evaluation Methods of Bridges ..............14 1................................4 Models of Isolation Components .. 32 vi ...................Push over analysis I Demand .29 Capacity ...................................................1 1...............................................8 1..........................................................Table of Contents 1..............................................................4 The Use of 3D vs............ 32 2....................4................................. 11 Approaches to Modeling and Solution of Nonlinear Systems ..........10 Summary of Evaluation Procedures .................................9.9........... .2 Introduction ...3....................1 1............................................................................................9.........2 1............7 Soil Structure Interaction ......2 1...............................................................................................................................................Spectral............. ...........................................................................................................................1 1.................................9........ 22 1.......... 16 Damage Evaluation in the Inelastic Response of Structures ..................•........................................................9......................... 26 Linear Time History ................1 MacroModeling Approach ......................................... 7 Evaluation of Bridges with Protective Systems ....4 1.... 23 Comparison of Evaluation Procedures for Bridges ..1 Modeling of Shear Walls ...
..................2 .....2 3....2.... 56 Combined Bending and Shear ..1 3........2................2.........................................................................................3 3...............................................................................................2 3.............................................1 Bridge Structure and Structural Components ... 84 3.....................2......1...............................40 3........2........................ 44 3.............1 3.....................................5 3...................3 2....2....2 3...........2. Yielding in Tension... 86 3.....................................................................................1 3...........2..... Stiffening in Compression Element ..............1........................2..................2 Rigid arms .....2........Connection Element Model ............................2 Components and System Definition ........................................................................2......... 82 Modeling of Damping in Bridges ...4...................1..... 37 3..........2 BoucWen's Model for Seismic Isolators ......... 66 3...........................2.....6....1.............................3 3... 59 3...... 67 Triaxial Isolator ....... 65 Supports and Base Isolation Models ....1.......................36 Research Needs ............. .............. 45 End releases .....39 3..............................1 3..... 86 Damping Devices ...........4...Descriptive Presentations .............6.........1 3............2....................................2...............................................1 Basic Stick Element Formulations ....................................2...............................................6 Three Dimensional Spring .............41 Comparison of Buildings and Bridges / Specific Issues ............2................................................4 Global Damping ...............................................................................43 Structural Component Modeling .........................6........................................................... ................2.............................. 50 End springs ...6... ..................Bending .4 Damage Analysis ............................. 52 Inelastic Hysteretic Beam Columns with Nonlinear Shear and Flexure Behavior in Beam/Column elements ...............0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ANALYTICAL PLATFORM FOR SEISMIC RELIABILITY EVALUATION ...........................2............4 Shear and Bending Wall Panel Model (for modeling Abutment) .......................... . ....................7 Nonlinear......................... ....2.................... 55 3............................ 84 Linear Damping Element ...43 3.........2..........2. 73 3...........3 3........................ 85 Nonlinear Damping ....... 87 vii .........
.......................2 3.......................................6 Methods of Analysis to Evaluate Bridge Capacity ..........................3.................................5................90 Frequency Dependant Modeling ....................................................2........3. 92 Expansion Joints and Special Connections .......................................3....................................1...................2............................ 103 3.....................5........5.... 105 3.... 1990) .1 3..................2.....................5........................5...................... 89 3.........1 Modeling of Foundation and Soil System ...: ............................5.......6..............1 Bridges Under Seismic Excitation Uniform and Differential Excitations .......................2 3..................125 3.........1 3........................5.......................... 97 Evaluation of Bridges via Approximated Methods ..........2 3..... 116 Sparse Matrix Formulations of Structures Equations ........ 110 3........3............. 128 Arbitrary Displacement Input ........3 Numerical Solution for Bridge Systems ............4 3........ 124 3............ 123 3............. 117 Conjugate Gradient Iterative Solver (Kincaid et at..3...........3..........6.........2 3...... 116 3..3.6..............1..................6............................................5...........1 3.......................................3 3......... 125 Incremental Monotonic Static Analysis .....................1 Methods for Determining Seismic Demand ...............................3..................2 3................ 129 viii ................ ............................................3.................................................................3. 108 Time History Analysis .....5 Solution Procedures for Coupled motions .................................. 125 Fiber Analysis ..5 Elastic Linear Models for Soil Structure Interaction .....2 Mechanical Properties Modeling ..6.....................1.....................3........ 90 Abutment Modeling ...........1.......90 Bents modeling ....................3 Modeling of Bridge Subsystems ........1...........................................................................5.............. 118 3......95 3..............1 Direct Section Evaluation .......1.......3 Identification of Special Issues in Solution Procedures ..................................................6.......................................4 3.... 109 3..........2 Arbitrary Force Loading .............2 Modal (Spectral) Analysis by Seismic Codes ................................................1 3........................ 89 3..............91 Deck modeling ...................................1 3.............................................................. 105 Static Equivalent Procedure ........
............................... ...................... 140 4........................1... 132 3............................5 4....................................... 140 4. 134 3..... 132 3..............................................................6......................I = Platform for Bridges ...............Field Test............................4 3....................6 Case Study 5: MiyagawaBridge ............................................................1 Further Research Suggestions .............................. 135 4......1..............................1................ 248 ix ......................... 130 Acceleration Pulse Input ..............2.....................................................3 3......... RFERENCES .........Retrofit Solution ...........1 4........................ 159 Case Study #4: Bridge over Los Angeles River Retrofit Solution with Base Isolation and Restrained Expansion Joints ......................1 Demand/Capacity comparison in Inelastic structures (Damage Indexing) ..................2....... 248 IDARClBridge ...1.......................6.... 196 Case Study 6: Evaluation of Bridge Capacity Using Different Push ..0 A............4 Case Study #1: Analytical Evaluation of Small Scale Bridge System .....Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Construction A..............6.......................1 Evaluation of Retrofit of Existing Bridges ............................0 CASE STUDIES FOR BRIDGE EVALUATIONS ............................................. 149 Case Study #3: Bridge in Los Angeles ...... 129 Acceleration Ramp Load .......231 6........6........... 180 4......................5 3.....6..............................3 Adaptable (Modal) Loading .6.................................Over Procedures and Dynamic Analysis .........3.......... 140 Case Study #2: East Aurora Bridge ..........................................3 4.......... 131 Comparing Demand to Capacity . 233 APPENDIX A ..........................Procedure .........3 Evaluation of Bridges in Severe Seismicity Zones .................3................................................................................0 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS .............6................2 4..1...................206 5....................3............................... 227 5....2 Evaluation of Bridges in ModerateILow Seismicity Zones ...........1..................................................................................................................2..............3..............
3.6.10. c) dependancy of coeficient of friction on velocity 74 3.1. 3.List of Figures Fig # 1.12.3. a) General Model. 3. 3. 3. b) sliding force .5. a) side view. 3.14.2.11.13. Graph of Theoretical Input Motion of 8 Shaped Test 79 x .1 Title Structures Idealization (a) building (b) Bridge Bridge Assembly and Major Components Connection Between Deck and Bent Using Rigid Arm and End Springs (a) Physical Description (b) Regular Modeling (c) Modeling with Rigid Arm and End Springs Page # 4 40 46 3.4. Rigid Body Transformation from Joint P to Joint J Element End Releases Elements End Springs Trilinear Hysteretic Model. b) Slip Definition Stiffness Calculation of Damaged Elements a)MomentDistribution b)Flexibility Distribution c)Damaged Zones 48 51 53 57 58 3. 3.7. b) force displacements relations. for Illustration of Combined Shear and Flexure Model Constitutive Relations in Shear and Bending of the Frame's Columns Influence of Shear on Frame's Capacity Shear Wall Definition (a) Shear Wall (b) Shear Wall Modeling for Analysis Elastomeric Isolator. 3.displacements relation.8.9. 3. c) top view of deformed isolator 59 63 64 65 67 68 3. Triaxial Sliding Isolator. a) side view. 3.15. Combined Flexure and Shear Stiffness Derivation Example Frame. 3.
Spring Element Representation Damper Element Representation Typical Expansion Joint Force Displacements Relations of Expansion Joint Typical Arrangement of Bridge Abutment. 3. 3.17. 3. 3. 3.26. 3.31.25.30. 3. The Soil Stiffness Modeled By Springs.3.3 Modeling of Connection Between Deck and Bearings Typical Expansion Joints in Bridge Expansion Joint Modeling Rigid Floor Displacements Deck Section Modeled by Several Beams Evaluation of Inelastic Response Using Composite Spectrum Verification Frame Model Frame Response to Displacement and Acceleration Input. 82 85 88 88 91 3. Analytical Loops of Frictional Force and Displacements in 8 Shaped Motion Test 80 3. Input Ground Motion (Japanese code.32. 4. 3. ground condition I) Construction of Friction Pendulum System Bearing 94 95 96 99 102 104 114 115 131 137 143 143 144 xi .18. 3. 3. 3.29.1 4. level 2. 3.2 4.27.19.28.21.24.23.22.20. Ramp Acceleration Loading Force Displacements Relations for "Push Over" Analysis Experiment Set Up of the Bridge on the Shaking Table. 3. Recorded Loops of Frictional Force and Displacements in 8Shaped Motion Tests 81 3.16.
Used for Analysis Modeling of Bridge Deck Connection to Abutment (a) Modeling with Stiff Elements (b) Modeling with Rigid Body Transformation 146 147 148 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 4.8 4.17 4. 158 4.6 4.20 4. 158 4.Before Retrofit Structural Model of Isolated Bridge Ground Displacements on Stiff Soil Ground Displacements on Soft Soils 164 165 166 167 168 169 xii .22 Bridge Top View and Typical Bent Cross Section Deck and Bent Cross Section Structural Model of Original Bridge .13 4.10 4.4 Experimental Derivation of The Sliding Bearings Frictional Characteristic (Coefficient of Friction as Function of Velocity) 145 4.12 4.7 4.19 4.9 4. Measured During the Test.16 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Rubber Bearing at Abutment.18 4.4.21 4.15 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Steel Bearing at Abutment.5 4. Analytical Model of the Bridge.14 Base Isolated Bridge Model Displacements at the Top of the Pier (point 3 and 4) Displacements of deck (point 5 and 6) Top View of the Bridges Typical Bent Typical Abutment Side View of the Bents Input Force History.11 4.
for Nonisolated Bridge. at Base of piers Comparison of Shear Forces in X Direction. for Piers Bl and B5.34 4. Between Ground a9d Deck Disp.32 4. at Piers Centerline for Variable Ground Motion 176 4.28 Shear Forces in X Direction.29 Relative Defonnations in Z Direction. for Piers B I and B5. at Piers Centerline for Unifonn Ground Motion 170 4..26 4.25 Shear Forces in The Pier's X Direction.24 Relative Defonnations in X Direction. Between Ground and Deck Disp. for Isolated Bridge.30 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction.4. (b) Isolated Bridge Displaced Shape of Typical Frame in the (a) Original Bridge.37 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction. at Different Heights Along the Pier 172 4. at Their Base 178 4. for Isolated Bridge... Between Ground and Deck Disp. (b) Isolated Bridge 179 185 186 187 188 189 xiii . at Different Points Along the Pier 177 4. Between Ground and Deck Disp.35 4.. at Piers Centerline for Variable Ground Motion 171 4.23 Relative Defonnations in X Direction. at Piers Centerline for Unifonn Ground Motion 173 174 175 4.33 4.27 4.36 4. for Nonisolated Bridge. for Piers Bland B5 Original Bridge Before and After First Retrofit Analytical Model of the Bridge Base Isolated Bridge with and without Expansion Joints Displaced Shape of (a)Original Bridge. for Piers B I and B5 Relative Defonnations in Z Direction.31 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction.
52 4. and Bridge Without Gap 191 192 193 4. and Bridge Without Gap Comparison of Deck Displacements in Isolated Bridge.40 4.51 4. 209 210 xiv .4.53 Completed Miyagawa Bridge Bridge Geometry Lead Rubber Bearings for Bridge Abutment Lead Rubber Bearings for Bridge Pier Cross Section of Piers Load Displacements Curves Structural Model of the Bridge Moment at Bottom of Pier and Foundation Displacements at Pier Centerline.46 4.44 4. and Bridge Without Gap 190 4.47 4. and Not Isolated Bridge 194 4.General Plan and Elevation 199 200 201 201 202 202 203 204 205 208 4.49 4.42 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Isolated Bridge.50 4.55 SR141I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) . and Bridge without Gap 195 4. Under and Above Isolator SR141I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) .39 4.41 Comparison of Shear Forces in Original and Retrofitted (Alt.54 4.Typical Deck Section SR141I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) Pier Sections and Reinforcement.43 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Non Isolated Bridge.1) Bridge Comparison of Shear Force in Isolated Bridge.48 4.38 Comparison of Shear Force in Non Isolated Bridge.45 4.
62 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading.64 Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure. (b) Loading History. Acceleration Rate: 5m!sec3. (b) Northridge Earthquake Record From Santa Monica City Hall (input motion). (a) Displaced Shape at Failure.4. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 4. (b) Loading History.57 4. (b) Loading History. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 4. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 217 219 4.61 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading.25m! sec3 (a) Displaced Shape at Failure.65 Response of the Bridge to Dynamic Impulsive Loading. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 4. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 220 4. (c) Shear 221 History for Piers 27 4.63 Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0. Acceleration Rate: 0.5 m!sec 3 (a) Displaced Shape at Failure. (b) Loading History.56 SRI4/I5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) Structural Model for Analysis 211 4. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 4.05 sec. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 226 225 224 223 222 xv . Acceleration Rate: 0.59 Response of the Bridge to Non Adaptable Uniform Distributed Load (relative to mass). (b) Loading History.1 sec.60 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading. (b) Loading History. (b) Loading History. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure.58 Distribution of Shear Forces in Piers 27 for Different Analysis Procedures Response of the Bridge to Adaptable Proportional to Instantaneous Mode Shape Distributed Load (relative to mass). (a) Displaced Shape at Failure.
A.2 Program General Structure Processing Routines Arrangements 248 251 xvi .I A.
LIST OF TABLES Table # 1.3. 4.8 A.5.7 A.1. 4.1.6 A. 4.5 A.4 A. Title Evaluation Methods for Bridges Comparison of the Different Evaluation Procedures Hysteretic Pier Nonlinear Properties Geometry and Structural Elastic Properties of the Bridge Elements Transversal Moment Curvature Relations and Shear Capacity of Piers Comparison of Shear Force Distribution Between the Piers at the Time of Failure of Critical Pier in Shear Page # 24 31 197 207 207 216 1.3 A. Comparison of Performances of The SR14115 Bridge Subjected to Different PushOver Procedures 218 A.l A.2 A. 4.6.9 Input Routines Description Preprocessing Routines Update Elements Properties End Conditions Description Global Matrices Building Description Load Vector Description Solution Description Results Processing Description Modal Analysis Description 248 250 251 252 252 253 254 254 254 xvii .4.2. 4.2. Moment at Bridge Piers due to Different Pushover Procedures at Shear Failure 218 4.
One of the unique features of the work is the integration of considerations of design and analysis. The objectives of this dissertation are to evaluate previous developments in the evaluation procedures of bridges and to develop an improved computer capability to carry out reliable evaluation of highway bridges. the development of structural element models for new technologies such as base isolation and improved methods to model and analyze structures which have loosely connected elements and the assembly of complex nonlinear structural elements into a working computer program which provides a capability to model the dynamic 3D behavior of complex bridge structures and their supporting systems. bridges can pose a significant life hazard if failure should take place and the loss of bridges may cause severe difficulties in emergency response to the earthquake as well as great difficulties in subsequent recovery activities. . This is accomplished by using two evaluation methods in which each of the methods provides a capability for design which is not well handled by the other. The methods used are nonlinear dynamic damage analysis combined with a pushover analysis specially developed for bridges. Specific advances made in this dissertation include the development of new structural element models to analyze situations which were previously difficult to model or which could not be modeled.1. In the case of an earthquake event.0 INTRODUCTION Bridges are an important element in modem urban societies and are vital to normal economic functioning as well as in earthquake hazard events. Thus it is important to develop reliable methods for the analysis and prediction of performance of designs for new bridges and the evaluation of existing bridges.
Among the failure mechanisms which were considered to be important are: 1) Tilting of substructure 2) Supports displacements. The San Fernando Earthquake (1971) in the Los Angeles area resulted in the loss of many major freeway bridges and the loss of $6. no doubt. This is particularly true in the U. there is not much documentation available for. Thus many bridges were built without adequate provision for earthquake loadings nor was the state of knowledge on earthquake loadings and bridge design and construction techniques at the level such knowledge is today.5M. 2 . This event helped to draw attention to the need to utilize the highest level of analysis and design for bridges which may be subjected to earthquakes. bridges which were destroyed or lost in different parts of the world as a result of earthquakes over the centuries.There were. Unfortunately. these occurrences. In addition the design and construction of bridges has undergone many changes in the past 50 years as a result of new materials and equipment being available and the large growth in the use of motor vehicles. Similar expansions have recently been underway in other countries. the inclusion of earthquake loadings in the design of many bridges was not a major design consideration for most of these bridges.S. Unfortunately. A discussion of failures and damage suffered by bridges during earthquakes is contained in a report by Imbsen and Penzien (1986). where the number of motor vehicles has shown large growth and a large program of construction was launched to accommodate these vehicles in both urban areas and for crosscountry travel and transportation of goods.
The 1989 LomaPriata. the design codes for bridges up to that time put very little emphasis on provisions for dynamic seismic design of bridges. and designs were largely based on equivalent static forces of a level up to 9% of the dead load of the bridge. Since the 1971 San Femando event. the Northridge (Goltz 1994) and Kobe (Aydinoglu et al. A significant amount of bridge damage was caused during this earthquake due to dynamic inertia effects. settlements and loss of the bearing capacity of the main structural systems of the bridges. Examples of these types of failures and resulting damage can be found by examining the Alaska earthquake (1964). Particular emphasis started to be paid to supporting elements such as piers and bents. in which most of the damage to bridges was caused by large ground displacements. During the period up to 1971 several earthquakes occurred in Japan and California but these earthquakes caused insignificant amounts of damage to bridges. 1995) earthquakes caused a large amount of damage to bridge structures and highlighted the 3 . a number of extremely destructive earthquakes have occurred in the vicinity of highly populated cities in California and Japan. Dynamic inertia effects were not observed as a primary cause of the bridge damage.3) Settlements of abutments. and the evaluation of the bridges for design started to change to consider these dynamic effects. This change require the consideration of the ductility of the bridge components which could be subjected to dynamic inertia effects. The San Fernando Earthquake (1971) initiated a series of changes in the approach toward seismic design of bridges which is continuing today. For this reason.
1 Structures Idealization (a) building (b) Bridge The structural behavior of bridges involves a number of special problems which must be considered carefully to avoid failures of the bridges during earthquake shaking.need to improve analysis techniques for new and existing bridges and the need to retrofit hazardous existing bridges.1 Bridges as Unique Structures distance (a) (b) FIGURE 1. presented the need for more accurate and scientific evaluation and design method of bridges. 1. not all of which are directly connected to the deck. The extensive damage and the surprising levels of ground accelerations (up to 20). Some of the features of bridges which require special considerations are: a) The bridge may involve parts which are loosely connected. b) The bridge may have many supports. 4 .
c) The supports of the bridge may be spaced a long distance apart and are not generally connected to one another. A gradual variation of stiffness and mass distribution is reflected in well defined dynamic behavior. 1. e) Differing heights of supporting piers or bents result in a variation of the stiffness of supporting elements. f) The effects of nonlinear behavior of the bents may result in variation of stiffness along the bridge. When there are abrupt changes in stiffness. which can be characterized as a collection of shear elements. as is the case when the first story of the building is open without walls (soft first story) this can cause a concentration of dynamic rotations response at the first story level and has often been observed as a cause of failure of buildings. This may result in differences in the dynamic loading of each pier due to phase differences in the ground motion waves arriving at each pier.1 (a». 5 . frames and cantilever beams (Fig. d) The geologic conditions under each pier may have significant variations resulting in variable ground motion amplification effects. Perhaps the most commonly analyzed class of structures in civil engineering are building structures. Thus the behavior of bridges is different from the structural behavior of most of the other types of structures dealt with in the civil engineering profession and require special attention in analysis and design. all of which are well connected. Usually a building is an integral structural unit.
6 . bent or end wall stiffness and then to the deck level which may have a higher level of stiffness. 1. The ground motion under a building is generally characterized by using a single record of ground motion acceleration and displacements. mass and stiffness properties change along the height and the length of the bridge. This can occur because of two reasons (Der Kiuereghian 1995): 1) If the bridge supports are located far away from one another.1 (b» can be quite different between the supports of the bridge.In bridge structures (Fig. The ground motion effects on a bridge (Fig. This factor is even more important if nonlinear deformations occur in which there could be a significant reduction in some of the pier stiffnesses due to plastic behavior. the height of the piers (or bents) may vary and therefore their stiffness may be different. 1 (b» the dynamic. 2) Different types of soil amplify differently the bed rock motion. the arrival time of the incident shear waves differs. In the horizontal direction. and causes different ground motions at different supports. Both of these phenomena may result in quasistatic and additional dynamic forces on the bridge system. In the vertical direction. the stiffness of the bridge system is changing from the foundation stiffness to the pier. The stiffness properties of the bridge system can change during the duration of a dynamic loading due to relative movement of the bridge sections at the thermal expansion joints.
Thus it is imperative that careful attention be paid to the generation of the mathematical model and that the model represent both the topological and physical behavior of the materials of the bridge into the range of dynamic nonlinear behavior. Analyses are then carried out in the 2D directions for loadings in these directions. 2D Models For purposes of analysis it is necessary to construct a mathematical model of the physical bridge structure.1. In bridge structures the deck and the supports form longitudinal frames which are frequently represented in two dimensional models. cannot be modeled by two dimensional models. even such combinations fail to adequately represent 3D responses which can occur in structures which appear to be very regular. The subsequent analysis is then carried out using the mathematical model. Thus great care must be exercised in the selection of representative degrees of freedom. If the mathematical model can adequately represent the true behavior of the bridge. Individual supports. curved deck bridges. 7 . Irregular bridges with skewed supports to the deck. Unfortunately. Seismic demand as well as the seismic capacity evaluation are dependent on the structural model and must be fully represented. If a loading is not in one of the 2D directions an attempt is made to represent the resulting response by combinations of 2D analysis. piers or bents are also frequently represented by 2d models to describe the transverse vibration of the bridge. a satisfactory prediction of the true behavior of the bridge will be obtained. For complex loosely connected structures the behavior of the structure is always 3dimensional and the model and analysis system must be developed to truly represent this behavior. stiffness matrix formulation. with multiple gaps skewed to the bridge axes. etc.2 The Use of 3D vs. mass distribution and special connectivity rules.
expansion joints and seismic isolation systems in bridges all are influenced by three dimensional motion and therefore three dimensional considerations should be used. but with unknown distribution of strength or soil support conditions should be modeled by 3D models to capture their inelastic influence. 1. The selection can be based on base shear contributions or on deformation contribution methods of selection of the modes. 8 . It should be noted however.Moreover. the soil supports (springs).3 Evaluation of Bridges with Protective Systems In recent years modern protective systems have been introduced to reduce the vulnerability of bridges to seismic events. A discussion of this problem can be found in Clough and Penzien (1975). Therefore a 3D representation of the bridge is essential in determining the demand and also the capacity of the bridge. that when the bridge is represented by a 3D model. requires a somewhat arbitrary and careful selection of contributory modes. These protective systems include base isolation devices of different types. damping devices and active control devices. which in many cases may be nonconservative in predicting the overall behavior of the bridge. modal spectral analysis using a reduced number of modes. The spatial variation of propagating ground motion. As can easily be seen there are several issues which require complex modeling of the soil and bridge structures using a 3D approach. Two dimensional models can provide only limited information. regular bridges with symmetrical geometrical construction.
3. Initially the substructure and the superstructure act as a single dynamic unit but when "slip" occurs the bridge behaves as two different dynamic entities. (ii) Representation of the strain dependence of shear stiffness appropriately (iii) Representation of the loss of shear stiffness.0.1 Models ofIsolation Components The essential features that need to be modeled to capture the behavior of isolation bearings are: (i) The appropriate shear stiffness representation in the pre and post yielding range. (1989) observed that the equivalent damping of an isolation system is a function of the type of the earthquake. In an earthquake in which ground shaking continues for a long period of time the effective damping is higher than in an impulsive earthquake in which the strong ground shaking is of relatively short duration.The influence of added protective systems does influence the structural configuration of a bridge. 1. al. 9 . such as in the case when a sliding isolation bearing changes from "stick" to "slip". Turkington et. A discussion of the different kinds of mathematical models used to represent the behavior of isolation elements used for nonlinear dynamic structural analysis is presented in section 3. Therefore the only way to capture the true behavior of the isolation system and it's effect on the overall response of the bridge is to use nonlinear dynamic analysis which can take into account timedependent damping effects.
and steel dampers.(1988) and Fujita et al.(1989) have used the bilinear model with modifications for modeling high damping elastomeric bearings. 1988 and others) have used the bilinear model for modeling leadrubber bearings. (1987). The RambergOsgood model (1943) has been used for modeling high damping elastomeric bearings by Yasaka et al. 10 . The trilinear model has been used by Miyazaki et al. Plasticity based yield surface models have been used to model leadrubber bearings and high damping elastomeric bearings (Tarics et al.(1989) with modifications for modeling high damping elastomeric bearings and leadrubber bearings. Many Japanese researchers (Yasaka et al. The Viscoplastic model proposed by Ozdemir (1976) has been used for modeling steel dampers by Bhatti et al. Lee(1980) has used the bilinear model for modeling leadrubber bearings.(1989). 1984). The viscoplastic model for sliding bearings proposed by Constantinou et al.1t is difficult to capture all the essential features by these simple models. This model has been used for modeling sliding bearings. (l990b) has been used for modeling sliding bearings.(l976) collapses to the visocplasticity model under certain conditions (Constantinou et al.(1980) and by Fujita et al. The viscoplastic or the rate model captures most of the essential features of these bearings.(1988) for modeling lead rubber bearings. 1990b) had captured most of the features. Fujita et al. (1988) and Su et al. The differential equation model developed by Wen et al.Bilinear or trilinear models can be used to model isolation elements like leadrubber bearings and mild steel dampers. A Coulomb model in which the transition from stick to sliding mode and vice versa is controlled by stickslip conditions was described by Mostaghel et al.
(1989) for modeling laminated rubber bearings and hysteretic dampers. 1988) have used the multiple shear spring model to account for biaxial effects in steel dampers. 1. A summary of these models is presented below: • Linear Viscous Dampers 11 . which included several models that can be used for modeling of complex dampers behavior. Japanese researchers (Wada et al. 1988.(1986). where the change from elastic to plastic behavior occurs. (1990b) have used a differential equation model for biaxial interaction which was proposed by Park et al. and which is an extension of the model proposed by Wen(1976) for uniaxial behavior. 1988) reveal the importance of biaxial interaction. 1988. To use this model efficiently in an analysis code. This model consists of a series of shear springs arranged in a radial pattern.3. This kind of modeling might cause convergence problems in the presence of additional nonlinear elements. Yasaka et al. Nakamura et al. The plasticity based yield surface model has been used by Tarics et al. This model gives accurate modeling in the elastic and fully plastic zone but not in the transition zone. 1989). the pseudo force method must be used (Nagarajaiah et al. lead rubber bearings and high damping elastomeric bearings. Constantinou et al. (1984) for modeling lead rubber bearings and Mizukoshi et al. An additionalproblem is that the influence of the vertical load cannot be efficiently incorporated.Experimental evidence in tests on steel dampers and high damping bearings (Yasaka et al.2 Modeling of Damping Devices An analytical and experimental study on the behavior of different damping devices was carried out by Li and Reinhorn(1995).
!!:. When this linear damper is subjected to a harmonic loading of frequency Q the relationship between force and displacements will follow the rule: (~J2 l CQuo + (.3) • Kelvin Model This model is used to model behavior of an element with both velocity and displacement dependency. The force developed in this kind of element is: Fd (t) = Ku (t) + Cli (t) and under harmonic loading the force is: (EQ 1..2) where Uo is the maximum displacements in the damper.4) F(ro) = K(ro)u(ro) +iroC(ro)u(ro) (EQ 1. The energy dissipated by this device Wd is: (EQ 1.1) where C is a constant. in which the damping force F d is a linear function of the velocity Ii (t) such that (EQ 1.)2 = 1 o U (EQ 1.5) 12 .The behavior of linear dampers is velocity dependent.
1993) can be used to define larger range of behavior of damping elements. Makris 1991 and Kasai et al. this type of modeling might be adequate only if the nature of the earth13 . • Wiechert Model For dampers which experience significant stiffening in low frequencies a combined MaxwellKelvin model can be used to model damping elements with bituminous fluids.6) where A = CD/ KD and CD is the damping coefficient at zero frequency and KD is the value of stiffness at large frequency. Additional models based on Maxwell and Kelvin models with fractional derivatives (Bagley and Torvik 1983. It should be noted that all the models presented are based on properties related to harmonic loading. The force relation of this model are: (EQ 1.• Maxwell Model For an element with a strong frequency dependency such as occurs in fluid viscous dampers with which incorporate accumulators (Constantinou et al. 1992) a model of stiffness and damping in "series" can be used. The force deformation of this element are defined as: (EQ 1.7) where Kg is the "glossy" and Ke is the "rubbery" stiffness.
the convergence of the entire system is not guaranteed. In these latter cases very small time steps are required to accurately follow the force displacements curves which are coupled with Iterative solution. In general for nonlinear analysis. While an iterative solution is not difficult to perform when a single element is considered. and the search for the equilibrium point might take strange directions. (1996) 1. the use of iterative procedures should be avoided as much as possible.4 Approaches to Modeling and Solution of Nonlinear Systems In order to analyze a structural system. u)) to represent the behavior of the element. in the presence of several nonlinear elements in a structural system. a better quantity to relate the properties of the damper to is the instantaneous velocity. complex methods are required to obtain sufficiently accurate results. adequate component modeling is required. or displacement. and sophisticated. More Details of integration of these models in a platform for planner structural analysis are presented by Valles et aI. In order to overcome the difficulties presented above. This problem is especially severe when loading and unloading curves are very different. While the solution for one element is converging. This can be achieved by using nonlinear stiffness and damping properties ((C(U) and K(u. the solution for another element might be diverging. A contribu14 .quake is vibratory. A solution based mostly on components that contribute directly to the global stiffness and damping matrices is preferred. Those methods might be adequate for some cases but not for others if the other models are very sensitive to the size of the increment of force. In many cases the behavior of a component is very complicated.
in which the actual material properties are introduced. (ii) Macromodeling . and component micromodel analysis can be performed.tion of pseudo forces to the forcing vector in the governing equations should be avoided as much as possible.4. 15 . This type of analysis requires the use of very large number of elements. a combination of stiffness damping and pseudo force should be used. and if more accurate observation of component behavior is required. a macro model approach is adopted in this dissertation.Concrete elements such as beam columns and wall.1 MacroModeling Approach Two approaches towards modeling of nonlinear behavior of concrete elements for structural analysis dominate today: (i) Micromodeling . the major characteristics contributing to the overall system behavior are captured. and cannot be applied on structures of significant size because of computational capacity limitation. Following the limitations presented above.significant structural elements such as beams and columns are modeled using hysteretic rules for an entire element. even though the exact modeling of the components is slightly compromised. By using this approach. This way. Where necessary. a displacement or force history can be extracted from the global analysis. 1. a good understanding and modeling of system behavior is reached. Using this approach although the accuracy is compromised somewhat the solution is more feasible and requires much less computational resources as well as providing better significant engineering insight. are discretize into small elements.
is the best way to model a system which is expected to have nonlinear structural behavior at the present time for two reasons: (i)Information on soil properties has a much higher uncertainty then the other components in the structural system (concrete. damping. and utilize nonlinear hysteretic models in the time domain. 16 . Therefore simplified methods are generally used for the representation of soilstructure interaction.5 Soil Structure Interaction The correct evaluation of the dynamic properties (mass. even with the advanced computational facilities which are available. steel) (ii)The capacity to contribute additional accuracy to nonlinear structural analysis from more rigorous soil modeling is limited and would not improve the accuracy of the results. At the present time. stiffness) of the . Some of these methods utilize a superposition approach in the frequency domain. soil foundation system of a structure is of major interest in evaluation of dynamic behavior of structures (Wolf 1988). this is simply not feasible.1. A rigorous incorporation of soil structure interaction methods in the analysis requires that the ground be included as part of the structural model. The most simplified method to represent soilstructure interaction is to use equivalent linear stiffness and damping properties to represent soil properties but to use a fully nonlinear modeling for the superstructure. The use of this simple approximation which requires a careful evaluation of the soil conditions and rigorous engineering judgment of the equivalent linear damping and stiffness of the soil.
A survey on the use of damage indexing was done by Valles et al.1. Manfredi 1993. by the damage inflicted to the members in terms of permanent deformations and deterioration of their subsequent load carrying capacity during other future seismic events. from incomplete knowledge of actual and current material properties. This results in producing smaller force (response) demands on other elements of the structure. may be limited however. (1996) The prediction and evaluation of seismic damage is a probabilistic problem (Park et al. The need for assessment of condition of structures and their performance during earthquakes led to the development of damage indicators (surveyed by Chung et al. a deterministic analysis can provide valuable information on structural behavior. substructures (bents) or complete structural assemblies. Although such indices incorporate many uncertainties resulting from modeling assumptions. The benefit of the inelastic behavior on the strength requirements of structural members. By allowing relatively large displacements associated with the nonlinear behavior the total energy input in a structure is reduced due to the dynamic softening of the system. Williams and Sexsmith 1994) provide a way to quantify numerically the seismic damage sustained by individual members. 1985 Powell and Allahabadi 1988) because the future occurrences of earthquakes. 1987. and from 17 .6 Damage Evaluation in the Inelastic Response of Structures The design philosophy prevalent over the past 30 years for structures which may be subjected to infrequent intense lateral loads is based on the ability of structures to undergo inelastic response with hysteretic energy dissipation and possibly result in permanent residual deformations. Another result of this large displacement may be degradation in the functionality of the structure after the earthquake event. their location and signature characteristics cannot be exactly determined. Nevertheless.
Damage indices were defined as a ratio of demands versus capacities in terms of either strength. or at the global level. relate implicitly deformation and forces using energy dissipated through hysteretic action. A similar index using the ductil ity demand (11) versus the ductility capacity (l1 u )' has been used (Darwin and Nmai 1986. instead of only hysteretic energy while maintaining the ultimate capacity constant. at the level of substructures (bents. the relative ratio of demands and capacities can provide reliable information on the envelope of requirements for which a structure should be designed.future unknown ground motions. or maximum range of deformations.uy) 1 (uu  uy) . is assumed constant during the seismic event. beams. 1987). Mahin and Bertero 1981): DI = (111)/(l1ul) In the above formulations the capacity of the section. etc. 1985): DI = (u . or energy dissipation (Williams and Sexsmith 1994. Some suggested indices characterize damage as a function of the ratio of maximum deformations. Manfredi 1993. or curvatures in respect to the yielding levels (Banon et al. rotations. Yao et al.). 18 . Numerous indices can characterize the physical quantities mentioned above at the level of individual members (columns. Mahin and Bertero (1981) suggested design methods based on the determination of the ductility demand. or structure. walls. the permanent (unrestored) deformation demand (uu y) related to the ultimate capacity of permanent deformation (uuuy) was suggested (Powel and Allahabadi 1988. More recently. 1981). abutments). or maximum deformations. Powel and Allahabadi 1988. Chung et al. or cumulative displacements. Other indices.
Cosenza and Manfredi 1992). based on a fatigue model. 1981. It should be noted that.Concern for the influence of the hysteretic energy dissipation. the influence of hysteretic dissipation on the capacity terms is neglected. produced two component damage models. in addition to the deformation changes. 1985). 1989). Attempts to determine changes in strength capacity as a result of the past histories of deformations were made by Wand and Shah (1987) and by Chung et aI. introduced the notion of a failure envelope which links both deformation and strength capacity limits. 1981 and 1982: Park and Ang 1985. Attempts to link changes in strength capacities using energy dissipation and fatigue rules produced additional damage indices (McCabe and Hall 1989. However. Chung et al. and Bracci et al 1989). the cumulative formulation requires calibrated indices and does not explicitly correlate the hysteretic energy dissipation with the cumulative deformation influences. Chang and 19 . The difference in the above models stem from the method used to combine the two influences. one which is related to deformations and other to energy (Banon et al. (1987). the deterioration rules in the above mentioned references need to be calibrated from statistical or experimental data. The influence of change in capacity during cumulative permanent deformations has been formulated using "cumulative damage theory" (Chung et al. Bracci et al. while the two components of the damage models are assumed independent (Park et al. or statistically independent (Banon et al. 1987. Powel and Allahabadi 1988. without a relation to the work done and to the energy dissipated by the structural members. However.
1989). Each element can then be modeled and the total model of the structure generated from the assemblage of individual elements. In some cases. From experimental data and from shaking table studies (Bracci et al. 1. the damage indices proposed are limited to strength damage. 20 . It is also observed that the damage in most components and structures is correlated to the excessive deformations of elements beyond the elastic limits. Both macro and micro modeling approaches can be used to model concrete behavior through the nonlinear range up to failure. 1995) it can be observed that there is a strong correlation between the deterioration of strength and deformation capacity of structural elements. repetitive cycles at constant displacements. In some cases the elements consist of discrete members of the structure but more often individual members or structural components will have to be further broken down into subelements. but collapse occurs only when those deformations reach their capacity.7 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete An important part of the modeling of bridges for nonlinear analysis requires realis tic modeling of the nonlinear behavior of its concrete components. Because closed form solutions for complex structures are seldom possible. However. which dissipate hysteretic energy. can deteriorate the capacity to the level of the applied loading. leading to total collapse (Bracci et al. a finite element approach in which the structure is divided into discrete (finite) elements for the purpose of analysis is used.Mander 1994a). with little attention paid to the permanent and residual deformations.
A survey on the different methods of modeling and the spread of plasticity is given below: Early work on the inelastic analysis of RIC structures was based on elastoplastic or nondegrading bilinear systems (Velestos and Newmark 1960). Celebi and Penzien(1973) showed that sections experiencing severe shear deformations have marked pinching in their hysteretic loops. Several researchers thus introduced modifications to this model to account for pinching of slip effect from shear or bond slip (Takayanagi and Schnobrich 1977. A more representative model that incorporated stiffness degradation into the elastoplastic model was developed by Clough and Johnston(1966). The model is comprised of a trilinear envelope curve designed to dissipate energy once the cracking point of the concrete was exceeded. did not produce results which were representative of reinforced concrete behavior as documented in experimental studies which tested concrete elements up to the point of failure with cyclic loading. This lead to the concept of stiffness degrading. energy dissipation was incorporated. It was noticed that the capacity for dissipating energy by hysteresis for the bilinear models was lower than that found in experimental studies or as predicted by newer hysteresis models which incorporate more complex stressstraintime considerations. Takayanagi and Schnobrich(1977) incorporated the effect of axial force 21 . Thus even at low cycles of loading. Thus energy dissipating capacity of sections is also influenced by the shear deformations through the pinched hysteresis loops.The plastic behavior of a concrete structural element can be assumed to be concentrated at discrete locations or node points at the elements ends or spread along it's length. and Saiidi and Sozen 1979). Emori and Schnobrich 1978. however. The Takeda model cannot capture this behavior. The energy dissipation capacity of such systems. Another complex hysteretic model based on experimental data was developed by Takeda et al.( 1970).
and wall type bridge bents.1977). 1. Kunnath et aI.(1987). He therefore proposed the use of beam elements with vertical rigid arms (instead of the conventional beam elements with horizontal rigid arms in the coupling beams).along with pinching and strength decay into the Takeda model. The connections to the walls were in the form of stiff coupling beams consisting of only shear and axial forces. He suggested that the wall properties be specified along the wall vertical centerline in the plane of the wall with nodes at the top and bottom of this centerline. This method eliminates the errors in beam end rotation and ensures compatibility between vertical rotations at the extreme end of the wall fiber and the rotations in the horizontal cou22 . This procedure however resulted in parasitic moments on the overall wall element (Kwan. 1976. In bridge analysis these types of elements are sometimes used to model abutment walls. One method of modeling walls for in plane loading. The rotational degrees of freedom at the corners were eliminated by introducing additional shears thus giving the same moment as existed at the wall centerline. 1993). (1990). He noted that the end rotation of shear walls does not reflect the influence of shear deformations on walls. They have large stiffness inplane. Aoyama (1968).7. using a frame analogy was developed by MacLeod (1973. Rigid body transformations of the degrees of freedom are made from the wall centerline. and small stiffness out of plane. and Park et aI. to the four comers of the wall. also an important parameter in the performance of RC structures to repeated cycles of load reversals was incorporated in other models by Nakata(1978).1 Modeling of Shear Walls Wall elements are defined in some finite element formulations as panels with four nodes defining the corners of the panel. Strength deterioration.
A detailed evaluation of each method will be given below. The performance and the level of safety of the structure is derived from this comparison. to calculated capacities of the entire structure or its parts. involved specifying the degrees of freedom along the wall centerline with transformations of the stiffness from nodes at the corners to the wall centerline. 1.8 Evaluation Methods of Bridges The evaluation of the performances of a structure during seismic event is the first major step in the design and retrofit of the structure. All the methods presented are based on comparison of seismic loading demands for a bridge as a entire assembly or on smaller parts of the bridge. This procedure has difficulties in modeling interconnected panels. Other procedures for modeling of walls. The limit state is either the level at which the structure reaches collapse or a level defined by design standards as the maximum deformations which the structure can sustain and still provide either an acceptable level of life safety or to remain serviceable. The capacity of a structure is defined as the level of forces and deformations that the structure can sustain without reaching a specified limit state. A summary of existing evaluation methods for bridges is presented in Table 1.pIing beams. However this procedure cannot model walls connected to outofplane members. The evaluation procedure is aimed at determining and comparing the estimated seismic demands placed on the structure to the estimated capacity of the structure. The demand from a structure can be defined as the forces and deformations that the structure will be subjected to during a seismic event. 23 .
are changing in time.TABLE 1. The protective systems are modeled using nonlinear rules also such that the stiffness k (t) and the damping c (t) .1 Nonlinear Time History with Damage Index The governing equation of motion is (EQ 1.1. The nonlinear deformations of the concrete elements can be compared with the capacity using the damage index indicator DI (IDARC 2D Valles et aI.9.9 Comparison of Evaluation Procedures for Bridges 1. Evaluation Methods for Bridges Evaluation method No. 24 . 1996).8 can be integrated in a step by step manner to derive the deformations ut • The stiffness of concrete element in general is modeled using nonlinear rules. c (t) is the time dependent damping and k (t) is the time dependent stiffness.8) Where u t is the total deformations (u g + u). 1. EQ. I Demand Evaluation Method nonlinear time history (element demands) linear time history analysis (element demand) Total force on the whole bridge response spectrum (frequency from elastic structure) Forces in elements calculated from static analysis using forces from response spectrum Capacity Evaluation Method element (section) nonlinear capacity element (section) + reduction factor nonlinear time history + damage index (direct evaluation) 2 3 4 5 "push over analysis" elements capacity + reduction factor 1.
and gives very good insight into the dynamic behavior of the bridge during earthquake. Because of the direct interaction in time. between the global and local systems. and since the damage index is related to reduced capacity due to energy dissipated by inelastic deformations. and to find the actual capacity of the bridge. a series of analysis should be performed with increasing ground motion intensity. at different supports of the bridge can be directly accounted for. and the influence of the changes in elements properties on the response of the global system is direct. the influence of the protective systems such as base isolation. The damage caused to the concrete components is evaluated instantaneously during the analysis duration. The influence of the difference between the ground motion records.This procedure captures accurately the dynamic behavior of the all structural systern. The non linear behavior of the concrete elements is accurately modeled. Relating the design level intensity of the ground motion to its ultimate 25 . and damping devices on the global bridge system is direct and no approximations of the influence are required. an accurate indication about the actual reliability of the element (section) can be achieved. since the deformations and forces in the elements are dependent on the change in the nonlinear properties of all the elements in the system. until failure condition in the bridge is reached. It is very comprehensive. it cannot be related directly to the reliability of the whole bridge system. • Although the amount of damage to a single element is derived accurately.
2 Nonlinear Time History This procedure is similar in nature to the procedure in the previous section. The analysis can be performed only on limited number of ground motions. Most of the software packages used for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete (DRAIN2D Kannan and Powell etc. The major difference is that the comparison between capacity and demand in the nonlinear element is not done instantaneously. It is obvious that this kind of procedure in not feasible today. This procedure although very fine has few additional limitations: The response of the global bridge system. 1. because of the large number of time consuming nonlinear analyses involved. 26 . especially when subjected to vibratory type earthquakes in which the element experiences large number of plastic cycles.)can be classified under this definition. which might not be enough to represent accurately the future earthquake.capacity will provide the reliability of the system. and the extreme value of plastic displacement demand is compared with capacity which is not reduced due to the energy dissipated in previous reversals and therefore the calculated damage level is lower then the actual one. is sensitive to the modeling of the nonlinear behavior of the components. Or through direct evaluation of the return period of the ultimate intensity of the ground motion the reliability of the bridge can be evaluated.9.
 1. 1. It should be noticed 27 . Using the solution of q(t) the maximum forces and displacements can be calculated using EQ. A stiffness matrix and a lumped mass matrix is used to characterize the bridge properties.. to consider possible nonlinear behavior of elements. Ku (t) + Mil (t) + ell (t) = Mrilg (t» (EQ 1. This equation can be integrated in time. EQ.. 1. 1. and the maximum forced are decreased by reduction factors related to the rotational ductility of the elements. . Because the analysis is linear.10) where <l>i is the i'th mode shape vector introducing Fig.10 into EQ.11 is a differential equation with one unknown q(t). The equation of motion under earthquake loading are represented as. the maximum deformations are increased. to find q(t) for each mode._ .12) r = <l>TMr and <l>TM<I> = I for mass normalized modes.3 Linear Time History The bridge is modeled as a multiple degrees of freedom system representing the movement and restrains at important locations.9) Using the modal transformation u (t) = Lqi (t) <l>i i (EQ 1. .1 0 .9 gives (EQ 1.9. 1.11) where (EQ 1. _ ..
As mentioned earlier the common limitation for all the procedures using time history analysis. and it is unclear. Thus there is no direct influence on the analysis procedure (reduced properties such as elements stiffness are considered to account for this effect). is subjected to same limitations. The evaluation of the reliability of a bridge using this method. The influence of expansion joints (gaps). an approximate procedure which includes interpolation between analysis with open and with closed gap was suggested (Caltrans 1992).that the influence of the inelastic behavior is indirect. To compensate for this shortcoming. is the uncertainty in the ability of few ground motions to accurately represent the future motion. Furthermore the reliability of each element (section). cannot be directly modeled. and are "smeared" allover the structure. what portion of the ductility is actually used. 28 . The effect of differential ground motions. as the previous method. It should be noted however that those properties are not placed in the element's specific location. can be approximated. for each mode of vibration. cannot be considered using this type of analysis. cannot be derived exactly. Modeling of protective systems. by linearization of their behavior using equivalent damping and stiffness.
29 .i = SRSS'!'=l [cI>5rjSd(roj'~)1 [max. has the same limitations as the previous procedure.14) (EQ 1.i = SRSS'!'= 1 [r]Sa (roj'~) 1 where Sd and Sa are the displacements and acceleration response spectra usually linked by the relation. i = SRSS'!'= 1 (EQ 1. in considering the nonlinear behavior.Response Spectrum Analysis.i. The modal response spectrum analysis is actually a simplification of the aforementioned.5 Capacity . The calculation of the reliability of the all system. 1.15) [cI>5 r l a (roj' ~) 1 BSmax. As compare to the previous procedure.Spectral The limitations presented for both the linear time history analysis. linear time history analysis. The element's maximum forces fmax. and deriving the reliability of a bridge as a system. deformations umax. Therefore this analysis is representative to many episodes including the "unknown" future motions. were the motivation for developing the current method.13) (EQ 1. The use of this procedure gives a limited insight into the dynamic behavior of the bridge..i' and total force BSmax.on the bridge are derived as: Umax.9. only the maximas of each mode are obtained. and using conventional SRSS procedure the required values of force and deformation are derived.4 Modal . and modal spectral analysis. Sa = ro2Sd' It should be noted that these spectra are obtained by averaging multiple spectra from a large number of earthquakes.Push over analysis I Demand .9.1.
which was used for beams. A lateral load is applied to the frame. etc. The maximum deformations are compared to the deformations at first yield. 1991): The elements of a concrete frame are assumed to have limited capacity to resist moment. This procedure emphasis the nonlinear behavior of the concrete elements. which doesn't consider. The reliability can be derived directly. Failure criteria of either excessive deformations. can be accounted for. The influence of protective systems. This procedure continuous until total mechanism is formed. until the moment capacity of a critical section is reached.0). and the probability of occurrence of the earthquake is the reliability of the frame as a whole. from which equivalent elastic force capacity can be derived using standard procedures. with concrete elements modeled using trilinear hysteretic loop and spread plasticity. an incremental nonlinear static analysis is performed on a structure. using the elastic frequency (or frequencies) of the structure to derive its reliability. The section is replaced by a hinge. plates.The method is based on a well known method of plastic analysis. the influence of the nonlinear behavior on the demand (shift in period). The ratio between the maximum deformations and deformations at first yield is defined as displacement ductility. only through response spectrum curves related 30 . instead of using failure analysis as described earlier. ultimate curvature or shear capacity is used. or capacity analysis. The dynamic response is represented using linear response spectrum. A short description of the procedure is presented (Priestley et al. This capacity can be compared to elastic force demand derived from response spectrum curve. by finding the level of earthquake that this structure can resist. This method was extended (IDARC2D v:4.
10 Summary of Evaluation Procedures The evaluation procedures presented earlier are compared in a qualitative way in Table 1. as compare to the previously presented methods. 1.2. The big advantage of this method is the fact that the reliability of a subsystem can be derived directly. Comparison of the Different Evaluation Procedures procedure dynamic response protective systems differential ground motion plastic behavior reliabllity evaluation # I good good good deficient weak good good deficient weak weak good good deficient no no good deficient weak deficient weak deficient deficient deficient good weak 2 3 4 5 31 .1 through 1. where only reliability of elements (sections) was derived directly. and has to be broken into separate frames with assumed tributary load to each bent frame.to different levels of damping. The procedures numbered from I through 5 are presented in sections 1.2 below. The bridge cannot be analyzed as one unit.5 respectively TABLE 1.9. There is no possibility to consider the influence of differential ground motion.9. The interaction between the frames through the stiffness of the deck is ignored. Expansion joints cannot be modeled accurately.
although not commonly used in practice (particularly in North America. The elastic demands on members can also be identified. The bridge is analyzed in each of two orthogonal directions. 2) 2D Plastic Analysis. This approach lacks the ability to predict force and/or displacement limit states.1 Introduction This section describes the stateoftheart of the analytical techniques and computational tools for the seismic analysis and evaluation of bridge structures. This approach. but is perhaps more popular in other parts of the world) is useful in identifying force (strength) capacity.0 ANALYTICAL TOOLS FQR EVALUATION OF BRIDGES STATEOFTHEART 2. The following lists most of the methods in approximate order of complexity: I) 2D Elastic Analysis.2 Methods of Analysis There are various analytical techniques that can be used to evaluate the seismic resistance of bridge structures. This is followed by a description of research needs that highlight the purpose of this dissertation. 2. 32 . With this approach it is possible to capture various modes of vibration. coupled with inelastic spectra displacement limit states can also be found.2. the various methods of analysis are outlined pointing out the extent of the applicability for each of these. This method is sometimes still used and has its roots in the early computer programs that were based on frame analysis. First.
The aforementioned methods require a hybrid computational strategy. Computer programs that can perform inelastic time history dynamic analysis of bridge structures have been available for over 20 years (Kanaan and Powell. Most commercial software vendors of these programs are currently exploring ways to extend the programs to incorporate nonlinear analysis. Computer programs that are commonly used for such analysis of bridges (for example. The use of such programs. This method is considered by many practitioners to be the stateoftheart. has been somewhat limited as they have to compete with 3D linear analysis methods. GTSTRUDL and SEISAB) are capable of accurately identifying threedimensional responses providing nonlinear behavior is not expected. and on the other hand assesses capacity using the equivalent lateral strength 33 . however. many of the original nonlinear time history dynamic computer programs were extended to enable nonlinear static (pushover) analysis to be performed. In the early 1990s. which on the one hand evaluates demand (typically using 3D linear programs by modal analysis). 1995). SAP90. 4) 2D Inelastic Analysis. As a first step. 5) Capacity Demand Analysis. Inelastic 2D analysis programs have generally been developed by the research community and are sometimes used by practitioners who wish to do advanced analysis.3) 3D Elastic Analysis. Capacity demand analysis of bridge structures are recommended in the recently published FHWA Seismic Retrofitting Manual (Buckle and Friedland. Following the Lorna Prieta earthquake of 1989. 1973). the inelastic time history programs were enhanced to perform a static pushover analysis to assess the strength and deformation capability of the bridge structures at various pier bents. there was heightened awareness within the bridge engineering community of the need for more advanced analysis tools and bridge structures.
To use some of these stateoftheart finite element programs for bridge analysis requires special preparation of the input. There are several advanced computer codes that are capable of undertaking such a task such as ANSYS. there are still few commercially available computer programs that are capable of undertaking such nonlinear analysis. Most civil engineering offices feel uncomfortable using these programs as the analysis requires considerable skill and experience in utilizing some of the advanced attributes and capabilities of the software. advanced models can be constructed with a fine mesh of finite elements in commercial software that perhaps could reasonably emulate reinforced concrete behavior under cyclic loading. the overhead necessary for such a micro mechanics based computational modeling strategy is 34 . engines. 6) 3D Inelastic Analysis. airplanes. The finite element method of analysis has evolved over the last 35 years and the present stateoftheart permits the use of inelastic time history analysis of complex systems. Such a macro element is not available in commercial finite element programs. Although finite element analysis has its roots in civil engineering. etc. particularly for analyzing structural concrete elements as well as behavior of foundation systems. However.pushover methods. ADINA and ABAQUS. In spite of this. For the latter. Sophisticated hysteretic models such as the Takeda model resident in the original version of DRAIN2D (Kanaan and Powell 1973) are quite powerful for analyzing reinforced concrete structures. it seems that the mechanical engineering profession has more readily adopted the method and uses advanced (but mostly linear) analysis techniques for the routine design of manufactured products such as cars. therefore the Retrofitting Manual suggests hand methods of computation for this purpose. The major impediment in using these programs for earthquake engineering is that the nonlinear features are somewhat simplistic.
Moreover. In this program macro models are calibrated through a combination of moment curvature analysis parameters that are identified from 35 . Such an approach generally leads to improved problem tractability.. several computational platforms have been developed for inelastic 3D analysis of structural systems. is limited in its nonlinear capabilities and cannot handle well the highly nonlinear attributes and damage associated with degrading reinforced concrete elements. but the problem remains of how to calibrate the macro models for bidirectionalloading. Few of these programs have been developed for bridges. One way of overcoming the computational difficulties associated with utilizing fiber models is instead to use macro models that have bidirectional modeling capabilities. however. most civil engineering design offices do not have suitable computer hardware to run such advanced analysis.   excessive. 1994). This program. Perhaps the stateofthepractice in civil engineering can be summarized in a recent paper by Wilson (1994) who outlines the use of substructuring techniques on PCbased computers using the program SADSAP to handle a limited amount of nonlinear analysis. The program DRAIN3DX (Prakash et ai. An example of such a program is IDARC 3D (Lobo. it is not realistic to use such a program for production design office use as the problems themselves tend to be ill conditioned. In the research community. most have been developed for buildings. Because of the very complex nature of the modeling. particularly when a large number of nonlinear elements are present. 1992) uses a fiber element formulation to model the nonlinear behavior of the structural concrete elements.
For bridges that do not fall into this pattern of construction. Alternatively.experimental studies. 1986). To date there are no commercially available software packages that combine nonlinear time history analysis with damage analysis. Programs that can do this either in a somewhat crude or sophisticated way include DRAIN2DX. an offline fiber element analysis of a single column member can be analyzed using an experimentaltype of load history. The program also suffers from lack of flexibility that is given to the analyst as the program was developed to model conditions being characteristic of Californiatype bridges. 36 . Although this program has many desirable attributes for nonlinear 3D analysis. For example. It is only the university originated research type software that undertake nonlinear damage analysis. This is then used to more accurately calibrate the macro model. SARCF and IDARC2D. It is difficult to utilize such a simplistic approach for highly irregular bidirectional loading. 2. its utility is limited by the simplistic nature of the hysteretic models that it uses. the program is difficult to use. structural concrete elements are modeled by a bilinear representation. Such an approach has been advocated by Chang and Mander (1994a. The program also has some limited capability for handing differential ground motion input.b).3 Damage Analysis The concept of damage analysis coupled with nonlinear time history analysis is an important issue. Perhaps the only computational platform that has been already dedicated to nonlinear 3D analysis of bridge structures is the software NEABS II (Imbsen and Penzien.
37 .g.4 Research Needs Many features that are desirable for the nonlinear dynamic analysis of bridge sys'terns already exist in various forms and have been implemented in other areas. 1989) have capabilities that are also desirable in bridge analysis..and 3D behavior of seismic isolation systems with a particular emphasis on building structures. Certain programs that have resulted from this work (e. It should be emphasized that present pushover analyses are conducted on a framebyframe basis and then combined in some way to give the overall effect for the bridge structure. There is a clear need to assemble these features together on to one software platform.2. 3D BASIS Nagarajaiah et al. therefore. For example. In this fashion. the seismic capacity and demand analysis procedures are presently fragmented and these should be amalgamated along with damage analysis concepts in such a way that it should be possible to analyze a bridge that incorporates the primary source of energy dissipation in locations such as joints and gap hinges in the deck. 3D behavior in column elements and plastification of these elements in the substructure (the piers). and the nonlinear behavior of the foundation system including the nonlinear and radiation damping effects of soil structure interaction. some of the uncertainties that pertain to modal combination for large 3D structures can be eliminated. It is. As mentioned above. much work has been done over the last few years on the 2. desirable that a 3D computer program be capable of undertaking a pushover analysis of the bridge both statically and dynamically. The problem with this approach is that the combination may not conform to the dynamic response that could be expected in an extreme earthquake.
What distinguishes bridges perhaps more than anything else in comparison to other structural systems is the spatial layout of the structure that gives a high propensity for differential ground motion input. 38 .
3.1) in which D . 39 . and the capacity C is the magnitude of forces and deformations in which the bridge loses serviceability or stability. so that matrix analysis using the stiffness method can be performed.the demand is the magnitude of forces or deformations that the bridge will experience. The reliability R or the probability of the bridge to survive can be defined as D R = 1C (EQ 3. The structural modeling of each of the structural elements used in modeling the bridge components. the important characteristics of bridges as structural system. under static and especially dynamic loads. as well as the structural behavior of the components. and subassemblies of the bridge is presented as well as how mathematicalphysical tool such as rigid body transformations are used to achieve efficient modeling of the bridge. during an earthquake with certain probability of occurrence during the life time of the bridge. and the way this elements are used to model each component of the bridge. In this chapter several approaches to evaluate the seismic performance using the reliability definition for bridge structure are presented.0 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ANALYTICAL PLATFORM FOR SEISMIC RELIABILITY EVALUATION The reliability of a bridge for seismic loading is of major concern to ensure proper operation of road and railway systems following an earthquake. In the first part of this chapter. and each of its major components is presented. The bridge is modeled as a framed structure.
and of the whole bridge structural system 3. to very large once.have a common typical characteristics and components that differ in size and complexity. that bridge a small creek.2 deck abutment backfill FIGURE 3.In the second part of this chapter different procedures of evaluation capacity and demand are presented. that span over large bodies of water. vary from very small and simple once. and the procedures used to evaluate the final reliability of individual elements. Altogether all of them.1 Bridge Structure and Structural Components .2 Bridge Assembly and Major Components 40 . A typical set of a bridge assembly and it's major components is shown in Fig. 3.Descriptive Presentations Bridge is a general word to describe a structure that enables traffic to pass over an obstacle. Bridges types.
connections systems and joints. Several types of structural arrangements of the deck are used: prestressed box girders. They support the vertical and lateral forces from the bridge deck as well as the soil behind them. such as winds and earthquakes.3. The abutment is made usually of a central wall and two wing walls. foundations. Mostly two types of bents are used: (i) A multiple piers bent with a top beam connecting them together at their top. The components are: deck. (ii) Single walls. The deck is supported by large bents which provide for both gravity and lateral movement.1. The deck is supported vertically on the central wall trough joint (see description). which support the deck directly. 3. which support horizontally the soil behind them.1. and concrete or steel slabs supported on steel beams etc. bents. The foundations are the system which interface the bridge structure to the supporting ground soil. The bents are the part of the bridge that elevates the road above ground level. The abutments are the supports at the two ends of the bridge. and deep foundations such as caissons and piles. Various types of foundations are used. monolitically cast beams and slabs. The main purpose of the foundation system is to transfer the dead and live load of the bridge to the ground. which are: shallow foundation systems. This system also transfers the horizontal loads and the overturning moments resulting from horizontal loads. abutment. The deck is the surface on which the traffic is moving. Each provides larger or smaller soilstructure interaction during seisrnic events.1 Components and System Definition A bridge has several major components. as shown in Fig. 41 .
This is achieved by providing shear keys. damping devices. anchored in the separate deck sections. In moderate and severe seismic zones. etc. To provide horizontal motion capacity between the deck and the bent and to prevent undesirable forces due to thermal expansion. Those devices are placed usually in the expansion joints. 42 . Another important issue relevant to severe and moderate seismic zones. Restrainers are used to prevent such instability in modem bridge. Those bearings should also provide rotational capacity. between deck sections or between the deck and the bent. the expansion and contraction of the deck above the bents due to temperature changes might cause unwanted stresses. are also used. The deck sections are supported by bents vertically. which prevent transverse movement but allow longitudinal movement. bearings are placed between the deck and the bent. modern protective systems such as: base isolation systems. the sections of the bridge are suppose to move together in the transverse direction. teflon steel sliding bearings. is the problem of possible unseating of structural components from their supports. which limit the relative maximum displacements of the deck sections in the longitudinal direction.In long bridges. Therefore expansion joints are introduced to various sections of the deck. steel bearings etc. Several kinds of bearings are used for this purpose: elastomeric bearings. The restrainers are steel roads or cables. More modern solutions use nonlinear damping devices with energy or shock absorption characteristics To reduce the forces in the structure resulting from earthquake. active control. since usually a hinge type of support is desirable.
the interface occurs usually in small area which can be characterized as one point in space. usually those foundations are connected by tie beams. and therefore their foundations are spread apart in distinct locations.e building structures. An additional characteristic which is also unique to bridges is the presence of expansion joints. might vary greatly from one interface point to another. which form a single type of interface. is given to the basic structural elements used to compose this subassemblies and then 43 . 3. with single structural properties and ground motion.2 Comparison of Buildings and Bridges I Specific Issues Bridge structures span over large distances in space. a general description of structural components of a bridge was presented. mathematical representation in form of stiffness. In affect these joints influence the response of the bridge to lateral loads by separating the bridge into several substructures loosely connected to one another. In most of the other structures i. In the previous section. The ground motion. Although large buildings are supported on a group of individual foundations.2 Structural Component Modeling The entire bridge structure may be viewed as a multibay three dimensional frame with various members and components. damping etc. In this section. influencing significantly the structural dynamic response. creating several different interface points between the soil medium and the structure.3. Expansion joints are provided to prevent appearance of thermal stresses due to bridge elongation. the supports stiffness and damping.1.
The constitutive relations of this element can be described by (EQ3. translational displacements and rotational displacements. and can be rotated in any direction with regard to the global coordinate system (Weaver and Gear 1990).2. Moreover k represents the stiffness matrices relating forces to displacements. with each joint having translational and rotational degrees of freedom in all three global directions X. how these structural elements are actually used to represent the structural behavior of the subassemblies.2) where F. Y. or "stick" element. M.O. 3. In case of dynamic analysis additional forces related to damping may develop.F's. And for the whole element 12 D. This element has two general joints in space. u and 9 are respectively the three components vectors of forces moments. The element has it's own coordinate system.1 Basic Stick Element Formulations In three dimensional framed structures analysis.O. which conveniently are described by a simple viscous representation: (EQ 3.3) 44 .F) in each joint. Z all together six Degrees Of Freedom (D. the basic element is the space frame member (Weaver and Gear 1990).a description.
damping moments.1. The element formulation described by Eq. 3.3 is the so called Kelvin model formulation. For types of analysis which include elements that have nonlinear properties (nonlinear time history analysis.2 and Eq.where Fc. translational velocities and rotational velocities. Using rigid body transformations. 3.1 Rigid arms The connections between elements may be very complicated especially in the interface between the deck surface and the bents. which include end releases. M c' Ii and e are respectively the three components vectors of damping forces. Moreover c represents the damping matrices relating damping forces to velocities. and releases of D. pushover analysis) the stiffness and damping matrices k and c depend on the nonlinear rules specific to elements used. reduce unnecessary computations and eliminate the need to evaluate and handle unnecessary results.F's can provide a significant simplification in the modeling. 3. 45 . element end springs attached directly to elements.O. incremental nonlinear static analysis.2. end springs and rigid arms. Accurate modeling would require many elements and joints. to model essentially rigid zones. Moreover in the dynamic analyses using macromodels the mass is lumped in connecting joints such that the individual structural models are massless. The "stick" elements can be provided with special end conditions.
Connection Between Deck and Bent Using Rigid Arm and End Springs (a) Physical Description (b) Regular Modeling (c) Modeling with Rigid Arm and End Springs 46 ..~~ (b) rigid arm element defined between two joints using rigid arms and end springs spring isolator rigid arm (c) FIGURE 3.~I deck beams bearing r >:1. 1 __ theoretica1 joint joints (a) foranal~ '.2.
A possible connection between the deck and the bent is presented in Fig.2 (c». The flexibility of the deck beams for translation in the Z direction. 3. To model correctly this connection many elements are required (Fig. By assuming that the deck is rigid for rotation around Y axis.2 (a). To accommodate the reduction in number of D. The bent however has three connection points at the locations of the bearings.2 (c» which are used to assemble the total structural stiffness matrix.2 (a» and then transformed.F's due to the presence of rigid zones the rigid arm transformation is developed.O.3) is developed as follows: 47 . The elements stiffness matrix is created with respect to the actual joints (Fig. 3. The transformation of an action Aj at the actual jointj to the theoretical joint (used for descritization of the structure) p (Fig. 3.2 (b». 3. can be modeled by end springs. and translation in Z direction the corresponding rigid transformation can be applied to represent the rigid zones. The deck is modeled as beam and has only one connection point. 3. The use of end springs and rigid arms enables accurate representation of this area with the use of only three elements and four nodes (Fig. using rigid body transformation. to the theoretical joints (Fig. 3. the displacements in the actual joints and the element's end forces can be found using again rigid body transformation. Following the solution of the displacements in the global system.
Rigid Body Transformation from Joint P to Joint J The action at joints p and j is defined as (EQ 3.y r j x y r j x FIGURE 3.3.5) In this equation 'pj is a vectorfrom joint p to jointj so that 48 .4) The action at p is represented by the action at j (EQ 3.
6) Ypj x.7) where T.8) with /3 being the identity matrix of the size of 3 The displacements vectors at joints p and j are defined as D p ={ 0 up }. J The relation for the element with two joints is: 49 . = J (EQ 3. l 0 Zpj Ypj P J J =cpjFj = Zpj 0 x pj FY (EQ 3.rpjxFj = [I Zpj J j k Ypj Zpj J J F~ FY F.11) Xpj Ypj Zpj x· 0 PJ a.j o Ypj 0 Y'j Xpj a~ J a~ J (EQ 3.9) which can be related by D. is the element transformation matrix: (EQ 3. uj } J (EQ 3. J (EQ 3.6 are relating a transformation of a single joint of the "stick" elements. 3. The relations for the whole element (two joints) are: Ap = TA. D. P J ={ 0. PJ 0 HJ The relations presented in EQ.10) where i ajxrpj j ay p = ax p k az p =Cpjaj = Zpj '.
3.O. 3. a fixed end element stiffness matrix is generated first and the end releases are applied later to generate the released matrix.12) The force displacement relation of the element at the actual joints (physical) is: (EQ 3.7 (EQ 3. the stiffness matrix relation is: (EQ 3.12 into EQ.F's as presented in Fig.17) 3. 50 .14) and from EQ. Introducing EQ. 3.2 End releases Releases of a stable combination between the "stick" element D.(EQ 3.16) (EQ3. The number of releases is limited so that no mechanism is created in any direction (such as in the case when one side fully released and the other side is hinged).1. 3. For the sake of modularity.13) where kj is the stiffness matrix of the actual element.2.5 is developed to enable flexibility in modeling complicated connections between elements.15) Premultipling both sides by Twill give Ap = TkpTTDp Finally.13 gives (EQ 3.
Element End Releases The force displacement relations for a single element are kd = A (EQ 3.20) The final stiffness matrix will have the form k*e = [~*~] (EQ 3.19) where subscripts n and r indicates nonreleased and released D.F's.4. The stiffness matrix of the element can be related to the nonreleased degrees of freedom only.k nn _kT k1knr nr rr (EQ3. with the force vector on the released degrees of freedom being zero.21) 51 . (EQ 3. respectively. k * .O. when the stiffness of the released degrees offreedom is zero.18) The degrees of freedom can be separated into released and non released degrees of freedom.ux beam end releases (rotation or translation) uy / rx uz D. Thus.Fs possible released ~~~~~ element start element end x FIGURE 3.O.
The above formulation significantly simplifies the manipulation of the stick element stiffness matrix since it allows the combination of releases. Another important benefit is the fact that this formulation can be used for any type of element. The constitutive relations of the combined system are: 52 . the stiffness matrix of the fixed end beam is derived first and the contribution of the end springs is added later.2. This method requires different formulation for a beam without springs. etc. otherwise the stiffness matrix. might be ill conditioned. and end springs together. 3. To avoid this and achieve a more modular formulation.F's. 3. and for every combination of springs at it's start and end. in any combination and order. The use ofEq. should have nonzero stiffness terms on the main diagonal. including inelastic beam elements. rigid zones.Which also satisfies the equation: A = k: d . gaps.1. dampers. walls. As shown in Fig.3 End springs A common way to formulate the stiffness matrix of a beam with end springs is by using the flexibility method (Weaver and Gear 1990).O. as it is well known that while building a structural model. It should be reminded.5 four joints are defined for the basic "stick" element and the two end spring elements.21 in the assembly of the global stiffness matrix can be done with relation only to the nonzero terms in the matrix. all the global D. base isolators. 3.
J ~ 1.3 1.J (EQ 3.22 can be written as: = r:2.3 :2. and therefore Eq.J I (EQ 3.32. 3.2.k2.22) Fi.4I.3 (EQ3.J ~ I.31.42.4I. The matrix k is assembled in a standard manner by arranging the element stiffness matrix K beam .J r:2.31 = r:2' 32.j are the forces and moments at joint i and j and uiJ are the displacements at joint i and j. and the stiffness matrices of the end springs K s1 ' Ks2 into the related degrees of freedom. U 2.23) After partitioning.42.31 ~ 1.3I. Elements End Springs [.24) 53 . Since joints 2 and 3 are internal joints.3 1. there is no external force acting on them.41 r:2.possible spring stiffness ~~_2_______________ 3~ element start end spring kx ky kz krx kry / x element end FIGURE 3.4 2.4 u 1.J ~ I.5.32.31.3 = k.31 I. 3:2.
kT k":I.27) where u e are the displacements of the D.kT k.F's related to the external D. Employing simple static condensation.F's (similar to joints 23 in the previous development). The stiffness of the end springs can be linear as well as nonlinear. k.26) In the case when only few of the D.F's have springs attached. 1 U·J le ll [F0 J (EQ 3.25) where the final stiffness matrix is kfinal .O. This operation requires finding the inverse of the matrix (k.24 into the second part of Eq.4 (EQ 3. 3.O.J of the size of the number of end springs. results in k" I = kee .23 will yield the final constitutive relation for the external joints I and 4 (EQ 3. the following constitutive relation can be written: ke_ekeIJ [U = [k.le Jma le ll (EQ 3.28) This expression is general.F's (similar to joints 14 in the previous development) and u i are displacements related to the internal D.31. 54 . without any limitations.k 1.32.4 2.4.O.O.31.1 k 2. and end releases. and can be combined both with rigid arms.Introducing Eq. 3.3 2.k.
y 12EI 6EI L2 z .y SYM z 12EI y L3 GJ 6EI . The stiffness matrix of the basic "stick" element k as well as the stiffness matrix of the hysteretic beam I column element has the form EA L 12EI EA L .L2 z z (EQ 3. and J(u) the moment of inertia ofthe section are considered nonlinear functions 55 .2 Inelastic Hysteretic Beam Columns with Nonlinear Shear and Flexure Behavior in Beam/Column elements The force displacement relation for hysteretic beam/column element is F = ku (EQ 3.2. 3.  3.30 E(u) the Young modulus.y 6Ely L2 12Ely GJ _6Ely L2 L 2EI y L 2EI L z EA L 6El .29) Which is similar to the relations of the basic "stick" element.y z 12EI y L3 GJ 6EI L2 _6Ely L2 L 4Ely L 4EI _z z .L2 6Ely L2 L 4EI L 4EI L y z z For the hysteretic beam I column element the variables In Eq.30) k = L 12EI .
3.7(a». The maximum penetration is monitored in four zones at the ends of element (Fig. 3. 3.of curvature. xy). The size of the cracked (damaged) length is derived from linear moment distribution over the element length (Fig. For an inelastic beam. for each local beam direction (xz. The flexibility at the ends of the element defined as d<j>1 dM is obtained from the trilinear hysteretic rule (Fig. 3.7(b» is used. 3. 3.7(a). In the process of the incremental analysis the damaged zones cannot recover after they were damaged previously. 1987). stiffness and strength degradation and slip (Park et al.7(c». an equivalent EI(u) is used which is assumed to be a function of the state of stress and strain in the element. so the maximum value reached during the analysis history is used to define the instantaneous flexibility distribution.6) which includes. 56 . 3.2. Currently the behavior of the element in bending in its two major directions is modeled independently (no interaction). The size of the penetration of the damage into the element indicated by xl.2. A linear distribution of flexibility over the length ofthe beam(Fig. x2 at Fig. The elastic flexibility at the center of the elementfiexO is lIEI of the elastic (undamaged) section of the beam.7(b) and designated as cracked length in Fig.1 Bending The stiffness matrix of a nonlinear concrete element in bending is derived using flexibility fonnulation (the procedure is the same one used by Lobo 1994).
.. ~ ~. .F \.. .M crack / . Trilinear Hysteretic Model. . ~ ~.F \...*S.. ~ .M'Crack*S. . / Mnyield Mnultimate N Mnyield*U.M MPultimate MPyield MPcrack 4>nultimate unloading slop <I> Pultimate . / / /. . / / 'n . .6. b) Slip Definition 57 .... . >.S. / / ' .. . .. •.• L first unloading without slip _f~=: (b) FIGURE 3. a) General Model. .. ... yo . (a) M first unloading with slip unloading with slip ' \ Mtarg.
. Stiffness Calculation of Damaged Elements a)Moment Distribution b)F1exlbility Distribution c)Damaged Zones 58 . cracked length(zone_number(1)) cracking moment left cracking moment right a) cracked_length(zone_number(2)) x2 xl b) up I 2 4 3 down c) FIGURE 3.:l+....7.
The shear behavior is especially important in piers with aspect ratio.8.1) in terms of end forces and displacements. J .2.2.3.2 Combined Bending and Shear The general behavior of bridge piers under lateral loading is dominated by bending and shear.0. For the flexure model the moment curvature relation is described by the trilinear model. 3. from which the element stiffness is calculated using distributed plasticity (see section 3.2. Combined Flexure and Shear Stiffness Derivation __ k22 +klJ The stiffness matrix of joint J of the beam in Fig.2. less then 4. ~ ~=LO J FIGURE 3.8 which is related to flexure only can be written as (EQ 3. First the flexural stiffness matrix is derived and shear influence is added later for the sake of modularity. To be able to predict the failure mechanism. in which shear failure was observed in recent earthquakes. a combined shear and flexure model is developed. A trilinear shear model is used also to define the shear force to shear deformations relationship The final stiffness of the element is derived by combining the flexural and shear stiffnesses into the element stiffness matrix.31) 59 .
G(u). The flexibility matrix for joint j including shear deformations has the form 1 k22 + det(k) k12 k det (k) s [ k21 kll F= l (EQ 3.32) where (EQ3. and as a result the shear stiffness klu) is also nonlinear. and A the effective area.35) where f is the shape factor.34) where F II is the flexibility term including the shear deformations. (no shear deformations) the original flextural model is recovered. L the length of the beam. 60 . and ks is the shear stiffness defined as k = fL s GA (EQ 3.36) Note that when the shear stiffness ks is infinite.I = 1 [k22 k det (k) k k lJ 21 II (EQ3. G the shear modulus. A(u). G) can depend on the stresses and strains (J(u).The flexibility matrix due to flexure can be derived by inverting the stiffness matrix F = k. It should be noted that the parameters in this equation if.33) The influence of shear can be added directly to the term F II such that (EQ 3. A.
k42 = k22 + k12L (EQ3.Inverting the flexibility matrix will give the stiffness matrix which includes shear deformations contribution. the stiffness matrix for the other side of the beam can be derived.. k24 can be derived such that k13 = kll .41) k33 k34 ] det (k22) k k [ 43 44 + k s where 61 .37) where (EQ 3. k32 = k 21 .  1 1 k = det (F) det (k) k ~ kll 21 k 22 k12 ] + det (k) k s (EQ 3.39) Using equilibrium the stiffness terms k13 . k14 ....40) In the same manner (using equilibrium).. k23 .38) and (EQ 3. k14 = kllL . The element stiffness matrix is which includes bending and shear is defined as: kll k12 ] k k +det(kll) [ 21 22 k s (EQ 3..k21 .
(EQ 3. the simple frame in Fig. 3. First the frame is assumed to have only flexural stiffness. When the limit state of either of the two mechanisms is reached. If the element reaches yielding in flexure or in shear. (ii) The shear capacity is assumed to be 62 . total failure of the element occurs. Then both flexural and shear are considered in two cases: (i) The flextural capacity is assumed to be smaller than the shear capacity. As mentioned earlier this formulation was adopted since both the flexure and the shear stiffness can be highly nonlinear.9 is analyzed. It is beneficial to derive separately the flextural stiffness matrix and the shear stiffness for increased modularity in handling and allowing the separation of two complicated procedures. In order to illustrate the shear or moment dominant failure mechanism. the failure mechanism is controlled by the lowest capacity of the two mechanisms.42) In the limit when ks =0 (shear failure): [: k + d~'(kll)] 22 k [~31 ~3J k41 k42 k = II [~31 ~3J k41 k42 [: k" + d~'i~2)] It should be noted that all the elements of k matrix can change in time in nonlinear structure.
"" FIGURE 3. In the case where shear deformations are considered but the shear capacity is high. for llIustration of Combined Shear and Flexure Model smaller than flexural capacity.11 ) yielding in bending can be observed. The constitutive relations of shear and flexture for all the cases are shown in Fig. The influence of shear on the capacity of the structure is demonstrated in Fig. 63 . When the shear capacity is low. the element is not able to develop it's full flextural capacity and fails in shear.9. If the shear model is assumed to be brittle (which is the case in many short RIC bridge piers) then catastrophic failure may occur. 3. with increased deformations because of the contribution of shear deformations. For this case (no shear at Fig. Example Frame.10 . again flextural yielding occurs.F ' " rigid 1= 10m " . 3.11 The first case corresponds to pure bending model. 3.
1 0..4 0.00 0.4 0.5 1.2 0..00 E 0.00 1.3  0.50 ~ z C ~ :.0 0:0 V 0.2 rn ~ iii 0.0 Shear disp.0 Shear disp [m] 1:5 Low shear capacity High shear capacity FIGURE 3.10.05 0.J.10 0.0 I:~'_~. 0 ~ 1.1 0.0 0:0 0.. Constitutive Relations in Shear and Bending of the Frame's Columns 64 .5 1.15 0:20 Curvature (11m] Moment curvature 0.~_'~:! 0.2..3 Z oS ~ ~ 0.[m] 1':5 0..
11. The wall is modeled by using the a shear/flexure beam.2 0.7 0.3 Shear and Bending Wall Panel Model (for modeling Abutment) The abutments of a bridge can be modeled by using a four nodded shear wall elements.1 Olsp[m) F1GURE 3. 3.0.!!. Z 0 0 0.12 (b) with rigid arm to the center of the wall. The actual properties are related to the theoretical beam located at the center of the shear wall. Influence of Shear on Frame's Capacity 3.4 III 0. The shear wall element.6 . 3. This element's nonlinear behavior has similar characteristics to the hysteretic beam described in the previous section which includes flexture and shear. The element has four nodes of which two of them are coupled to the other two. can be physically defined by a flexuralshear beam connected between nodes 2 and 4 Fig.8 0. shown in Fig. The stiffness properties are transformed to the phys 65 .5 '" iB ~ 0.2.12 (a).3 0.
4 to ensure rigid rotation of line 12 such that Lu U 1. and shifting the period of the bridge is not an objective. Two models are introduced to model the behavior of such devices.45) U I 3_U23  The current formulation of the shear wall is a straight forward extension of the basic hysteretic beam element into wall element by using existing tools such as rigid arms and coupled motions without any additional special formulation.2. The first one is. in which case the energy dissipating capability is used to reduce displacements. as described in section 3. is based on triaxial interaction to model the behavior of an isolation system which includes the infiu 66 .1 . An isolation system combines two elements.44) (EQ 3.2. to provide a soft medium between the bridge and the ground and thus isolate the bridge from the ground.1. The first one is based on a model developed by Bouc(l971) and enhanced by Wen(1976). Joints 1 and 2 are coupled using the coupling procedure described in section 3. which represent elastic . 3. or as it is the case in Menshin design isolation system.4 Supports and Base Isolation Models Base isolation is a strategy to reduce the seismic hazard for a bridge.2 I (EQ3. where it is used to dissipate energy only.43) (EQ 3.ical beam by using rigid arms. The other element is to provide energy dissipating capability between the ground and the bridge. The other model. The two elements can be used together.plastic constitutive relations with smooth transition.
1 rigid u/t " \v2 3 • rhP~""1~I I theoreticaJ beam • I I I I I I I 2 I I I I I I I I rigid arm y ¥  theoretical beam ~:I beam for analysis 3 4 4 ~ d rigid arm (b) x (a) FIGVRE 3." \V I 3U shear Uflexure ++.2. 67 . 3. the smooth bilinear model shown in Fig.13(a). and the dependency of the lateral forces on velocity. 3.4.1 BoueWen's Model for Seismic Isolators In order to represent the behavior of an isolator element as shown in Fig.13(b) is used. Shear Wall Definition (a) Shear Wall (h) Shear Wall Modeling for Analysis ence of the vertical load on the lateral force.12. 3.
.Bouc Wen's equation requires solution of a first order differential equation that can solved by enhanced Runga Kuta method (Nagarajaiah et al. In order to obtain a more accurate and faster solution.. and to better understand the model. Kyield ~ ~ ~Y L . ~ F ~ Kinitial . b) force displacements relations. an analytical solution of the basic differential equation is derived.46) where Z is defined by the differential equation: 68 . (a) by U (b) F ~ F~ (c) FIGURE 3.13. a) side view. F .. . c) top view of deformed isolator The basic equation for an isolator with elastic perfectly plastic behavior is (Nagarajaiah et aI. 1989): F = ZFy (EQ 3. Elastomeric Isolator.' __ F . 1989)..
To obtain strain hardening EQ. and its value assumed to be limited 1 ::.50) Rearranging EQ. 3. Fy is the yield force.47 can be written as t = g y {AIZl ((ysgn(UZ) 11 +~)} (EQ3. +~)} (EQ 3.Z .50 we obtain: dZ  dt = d(U/U) d y {A t 12111 (ysgn (UZ) .51) and by multiplying both sides by dt yields 69 .49) where F is the restoring force. A ~ and y are nondimensional parameters which control the unloading slope of the hysteretic loops. EQ.46 is modified (EQ 3. Z::.12111 (ysgn UZ + ~) 0 U U y y (EQ 3. 3. = A. 1 . Uy is the displacement at yield. 0: is the ratio of initial elastic stiffness to the post yielding stiffness. U is the total displacement. 0 . 3.48) or (EQ 3.47) Z is a nondimensional parameter which basically represents the "nondimensional reactive force".
58) 70 .52) This equation is time independent and can be solved directly... 3. = 2.53) A close form solution is possible only for small number of..57) The solution of EQ.. 3. Integrating both sides: U=UJ y dZ AIZl11(y sgn(UZ) +~) (EQ 3.53 will give U=UJ Y dZ =UJ dZ AIZl2y sgn(UZ) +~ y a 2 sgn(UZ) b2 z2 (EQ 3.57 can be derived for the following cases: (A) sgn (UZ) > 0 dZ U = Uy a 2 b 2z2 J (EQ 3. . 3...56) Introducing EQ. and EQ. = 1 or . the one chosen for this model is. 3..54 . values.54) b = Jlysgn (UZ) + ~I (EQ3..56 into the integrand of EQ. = 2.dU = dZ U A IZl11 (y sgn (UZ) + ~) y (EQ3.55) Several different cases should be distinguished in the solution of this equation: For y>~: y sgn (UZ) + ~ = b2 sgn (UZ) (EQ3. New variables a and b are defined as: A = a2 (EQ 3.
60) Z a = b (Uab c ) tanh .+ c ab a (EQ 3.63) U Uy bZ = atan+c ab a (EQ3.62) and a Z = coth (Uab c ) + b Uy (B) sgnUZ<O (EQ 3. so that the only valid solution for case (B) is for b2Z2<1.2 acoth.and after integration u = u _1_10gla+b~ +c Y2ab abZI This solution is divided into two cases: (EQ3.59) (i) Case when b2Z2 < a 2 1 bZ U = U atanh+c Yab a and (EQ3.64) Z = b Uab + c) ~tan( U y (EQ3. 71 .+ U y (EQ 3.61) (ii) Case when b 2 z2 > a 2 the solution is U bZ U = .65) The case y > ~ and b2Z2>1 leads to Z larger then 1 which it invalid.
69) The values of the instantaneous stiffness k are used in the analysis to update the stiffness of the structure as the analysis progresses.!!.The instantaneous stiffness of the isolator can be derived using the solutions for Z (EQ. The solution for Z can be used to define directly the instantaneous stiffness k as a function of deformations by differentiating EQ. which control the shape of the unloading branch. 3.61 . 3. 3.(~ctanh Uab) = _ a csech ( dU 2 = dU b Uy Uy (iii) case sgn UZ = I (EQ3. 3. EQ.U U 1 Y Y Y (EQ 3.0 the ratio alb in EQ.49 k dF Fy dZ = dU = a+ (la)FU YdU y is obtained as follows: (EQ3.66 (i) case sgn UZ = I and b 2z 2 < a 2 2 dZ) _ d (a Uab) _ a sech2Uab ( dU ..65 ).66) The term :~ in EQ. EQ. 3. and the parameters A ~..67) (ii) case sgn UZ = I and b 2 z2 > a2 2 dZ) . 3. In order to limit the extreme value of Z = ± 1.61 .68) dZ) ( dU 3 d = dU (a Uab) btan U y = 2 a sec2 (Uab) uy U y (EQ3.65 must be 72 .63 and EQ. 3. and 'Y. 3.dU btanhU . The parameters required to define this model are: the yield force Fyo the yield displacements Uyo the ratio between Kinitial' and Kyield a (see Fig.13(b)).63 and EQ. 3.
0.O.2. 3. when ~ is larger than . in the presence of large number of nonlinear elements. 3. When ~ = "( the unloading branch of the hysteresis loop is a straight line with slope (stiffness) equal to the slope of the loading branch (initial stiffness kinitial=F/ u y ). However. When "( is larger than ~. The pseudo force method is used because it allows to keep the initial stiffness of the structure. the unloading stiffness is higher than Kinitial and the unload ing curve is convex (as shown in Fig. While convergence in one direction might 73 .4.2 Triaxial Isolator Triaxial interaction model was developed to model the behavior of sliding isolators subjected to triaxial loading. (Bathe et al. and update only the right hand side of the differential equation of motion. while using iterations to find equilibrium. 1981). is by fulfilling the conditions A= 1 and "( + ~ = 1.. 1989). It allows the use of linear solution procedures such as mode superposition to solve nonlinear systems (Bathe et al. One of the ways to achieve it. Modeling of sliding isolators with biaxial interaction was treated previously using pseudo force technique in which equivalent forces are added into the right hand side of the global equilibrium equation. the initial unloading stiffness is smaller then Kinitial and the unloading curve is concave. the search for eqUilibrium is multidirectional. many or all the modes of vibration will have to be considered to achieve accurate modeling.13(b)). while there are no stiffness or damping tenns related to these D.equal to 1. Iterative procedures are required to solve this problem.F's (Nagarajaiah et al.(. there are two significant deficiencies to this procedure: (i) In the presence of nonlinearities in several locations in the structure. 1981) (ii) When direct integration method is used.
14. divergence might occur in other directions. Another approach for the modeling of hysteretic behavior of isolation systems is by using first order differential equation to represent the hysteretic behavior of the isola 74 .F I I ~ P p ~ ~rf t I I I I (a) F I'd' 51 mgmte ace (b) Jl smooth function Jl max bilinear ~ ____L ______________~O Vlimit (c) FIGURE 3. Triaxial Sliding Isolator. which result in infinite oscillation around the equilibrium point. a) side view. b) sliding force· displacements relation. c) dependancy of coeficlent of friction on velocity be reached.
is represented by incremental formulation as a combination of three components (i) a linear rise. and (iii) a "Coulomb" friction component as defined by the following rules: 75 . the coefficient of friction is constant and equal to I1max' The data required for this model is: P . Ksecondary the stiffness of the recentering spring during the slip mode. maximum and static coefficients of friction. Kinitiar the sticking stiffness (no sliding).14 (c).14 . VUmit . The sliding element model developed here has the capability to represent triaxial behavior of a sliding isolator which includes displacements in the global X and Z direction and the influence of the variation of vertical force on the sliding force. 3.the minimum. For this kind of procedure a better way is to represent the behavior of nonlinear elements by their instantaneous stiffness and damping. This type of modeling provides standard and unified procedure for the different types of nonlinear elements. In the stick stage the element has elastic stiffness.(b). the second order differential equation of motion can be solved using a numerical method (Newmark 1959). The friction sliding isolators have two stages. Kinitia/' After the transition to sliding (slip) stage. 3. slip and stick. 1994). F(t). In the presence of elements with other types of nonlinear rules.the initial normal static force on the sliding surface without the contribution of dynamic forces. The lateral force in the isolator. the coeffi cient of friction is function of velocity (Fig.tion systems (Tsopelas et al. at the first sliding (slip) stage. When the velocity exceeds the velocity limit. and when no other types of nonlinear elements are present. (ii) a viscous component. as described in Fig.velocity limit above which the friction coefficient becomes constant and equal to I1 max ' and. I1 min' I1max ' I1static . This method is very accurate and gives very good results for relatively small structural systems.
74) (EQ3.70) where (EQ 3. 3. when !1min N (t) ~ IF (t) I ~ !1maxN (t) and Iv (t) I~ Vlirnit (EQ 3. N is the variable normal force ) to the sliding surface.71) where A indicates the increment from time t .F(t) ~ = F(tIlt) +AF(t) ~ ~ (EQ 3.76) Note that !1max and !1min are the maximum and the minimum friction coefficient respectively. after sliding occurred.73) where kois the initial stiffness and !1b_ away N (t) is the breakaway friction coefficient.72) The parameters I coefficients in EQ. (b) For j=2. This 76 . (1990).75) where the equivalent damping coefficient is: (EQ3.71 take the following values: (a) Forj= 1 when IF(t) I ~!1b_awayN(t) (EQ 3. and i is the sliding direction vector (EQ 3.Ilt to time t. and UUmit is a constant depending on friction properties which can be obtained from the inversion of the exponent a in the model by Mokha et al.
therefore.04. sec The input displacements are defined by the function (see Fig. 3. were used to verify the capacity of the analytical model to reproduce experimental results. When the isolator's force. 1994). vlimit = 100~. 1993). (Tsopelas et al. (c) For j = 3 the maximum sliding force achieved ClFtl = llmaxN (t) ) and Iv (t) I> V limit (EQ 3.coefficient (in velocity units) can be taken as 24 in.78) It should be noted that coefficient Sj is an indicator for biaxial effects in the sliding mode. IF(t)I. llmin = 0. It should be noted that N(t) is time variable.77) (EQ 3.ls. subjected to biaxial motion. Ceq is also time variable. Test results obtained from an experiment performed on teflon sliding bearings. with high and low velocity (Mokha et aI.13. the model can be integrated into regular numerical formulations without loss of generality. Using the above formulation. The vectorial formulation indicated above for the directional movement in the plane of the isolator can be conveniently transformed back to a cartesian formulation for simplicity of usage. drops below llminN (t) the system is transferred to the first stage U= 1). llmax = 0.15): 77 .98kN. The properties of the isolator used for the analysis are: p= 95.
78 . It should be noted though that the input motion used for the experiment did not follow exactly the input motion as described by the functions above because of the influence of the testing equipment.16) the experimental results (Fig.ux = umaxsincot x max uy = uy sin2rot The frequency co for the case with high velocity was taken as 2. because of the influence of the testing equipment. 3.5 rad/sec. 3. The analytical modeling was able to predict well (Fig. This caused some discrepancy between the anaIytical and experimental results in the behavior in the initial stage (breakaway stage) in which the actual velocity from the experiment is lower than the velocity obtained theoretically. and for the case of low velocity 0. The general shape of the experimental results is also distorted.22 rad/sec.17).
1S.50 30 E 10 E .... Graph of Theoretical Input Motion of 8 Shaped Test 79 .... >::> 10 30 30 10 10 Ux(mm) 30 50 FIGURE 3..
0 4 LL. "" "y \.16.. Analytical Loops of Frictional Force and Displacements in 8 Shaped Motion Test 80 .. 30 10 10 Uy [mm] 30 50 FIGURE 3....... ../ I'... .. >.. rngl 'l./ / 8 12 16 50 I .. J 1/ . /. Ie wvelo ity " ....... . ....~'\ "\ A ..It: 4 ... 8 12 16 50 .'/ wn ..It: ..... Z 4 L" :......... .... Z .../ '\ ". " /' I"".16 12 8 /' /  . "\... . / "30 "'10 10 Ux [mm] 30 50 16 12 8 hi~h elocit .. ../ 0 4 X LL.
. 0 lL..0. 3\. • o 5 10 2~....15 3· Test No... Recorded Loops or Frictional Force and Displacements In S·Sbaped Mollon Tests 81 . 15 Ux (inch) (...0.. 0.0 5 l.....·4 3 2 Ux (m) .. 0 >1 · lL.05 0~25 Uy (m) 4 ?5 0. .. Co VI 1 ................05· 15 • 3 10 5 0 . lL. ~ x 1 5 10 x 2 3 2 1 ...05 Test No.. 1 Co VI V' ~ .. 1 I 10 5 · :i .. 3~ 6\ 2· ..25 0. 4 tw 15 2 1 Uy (inch) 0 i FIGURE 3.17. Z :i . 0..
3. This element can be viewed as shown in Fig.O.3.18. krz y joint 1 x z FIGURE 3. kry. which can have linear or nonlinear properties in every direction. joint 2 ky + kx kz + + rotational stiffness lax.F's.2.5 Three Dimensional Spring. Connection Element Model An important basic element is the 3D spring. Spring Element Representation 82 .18 as six separate spring subelements corresponding to the six global D.
79) 0 0 0 0 0 krz SYM. 3. in the locations where the displacements must be monitored it is easier to use the connection spring element and directly obtain displacements since there is an actual joint at that location.The stiffness matrix k of this element has the form: kx 0 ky 0 0 kz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ky 0 0 0 0 kz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ky krx 0 o 0 0 0 0 kz krx kry 0 k= 0 kry 0 0 0 0 0 krx krz 0 kx 0 krz 0 0 0 0 kry (EQ 3. since the relative displacements between the bridge and the ground are of interest. while the spring element can be connected to a joint in which several elements are connected. The elements of the matrix k can be linear or nonlinear(k (u (t)) ). The differences between the two cases are: (i) The end spring can be connected only to a single element. and this element.79 is revised and the proper stiffness terms are replacing the 0 values). In the case when interaction between the springs exists it can be added directly to the elements stiffness matrix in the proper locations (EQ. This is especially important when those springs are connected to the ground. (ii) for postprocesing purpose. (iii) 83 . It should be noted that there is certain similarity between the end springs formulation presented earlier.
say those of modes 1 and 2 co 1 and co2 : 1. and modeling of individual damping elements is described.when mass or force is connected to the joint between the. k is the global stiffness matrix. 3. "stick" elements and the springs (mass of the ground). . el 1994): 1) 84 . Usually it is defined as a function of the frequency of the structure. the values of k and co are changing with time. . Fajfar et.6 Modeling of Damping in Bridges The previously described structural elements are contributing to the global stiffness matrix k.uM+ ~k 12  2Mco 1 (EQ3. u and ~ are determined so that specific damping ratios are obtained for two selected frequencies. Since it is difficult to quantify the damping in specific locations.g. Several options are available to update the damping matrix (e.1 Global Damping The global damping matrix is used to describe the inherent damping in the structural system. the end spring formulation cannot be used since it assumes that there are no forces at this location. 3.6.81) 1. In this section global modeling of structural damping. A common way to model damping is by using Rayleigh proportional damping (Clough &Penzien 1993) (EQ3.2.80) Where M is the global mass matrix.uM+ ~k 2Mco2 In the case of inelastic structure.2. it is considered a property of the structure as a whole.
2. 3. in time (EQ 3. 3) Update the damping matrix considering both the change of stiffness and the change of frequency. cry. crz joint 1 FIGURE 3. Damper Element Representation 85 .F's at each side of the element. where k/ is the tangential instantaneous stiffness.19. The individual damping elements has damping matrix of the size l2x12 with 6 D.M + ~k/ (t) .82) In the case were elements with individual damping properties such as viscous dampers are considered. they contribute to the damping matrix in the same manner as the individual stiffness elements are contributing to the global stiffness matrix.6.O. The element represents damping in all degrees of freedom as shown in Fig.2 Linear Damping Element The basic damping element as mentioned earlier has a l2x12 element damping matrix.Keep the initial damping matrix constant for the whole time of analysis 2) Update the damping matrix such that C = a.19. joint 2 ~z + + rotational damping crx. 3.
And the element damping matrix c has the form
Cx
0
0 0
Cz
0 0 0
0 0 0
cy
0 cx 0 0 0 0 cy 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
crx 0 0 cry 0
c
0 cz 0 0 0 0 crx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
=
SYM.
crz 0
Cx
0 cry 0 0 0 crz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(EQ 3.83)
cy 0
CZ
crx
cry
crz
3.2.6.3 Nonlinear Damping The behavior of each of the subelements in the damper element can be nonlinear as well as linear. The c value can vary with time such that c
= c (Ii (t) , u (t) ). In this case
the global damping matrix of the all structure needs to be updated in time.
3.2.6.4 Damping Devices An example of the use of nonlinear damping is certain viscous dampers (Reinhom et. al. 1995). The force in a fluid damper is a result of flow through orifices leading to a pressure differential across the piston head. Most of the practical devices are built using differential shaped orifices in which the pressure differential is depending on a fractional power of velocity:
(EQ 3.84)
86
     
 _ .. _ 
where sgn (Ii) indicated the sign of velocity Ii and 2.0. A lower power is used for high velocity shocks.
IX
is a power between 0.5 to
This model can be linearized instantaneously by differentiating EQ. 3.84
(EQ 3.85)
which gives the equivalent instantaneous damping coefficient
It should be noted that the values of the instantaneous damping in EQ. 3.85 are:
dF e(t) .
duu .... o
~
00
for
IX <
dF 1.0 and e(t) d.
uu .... o
~
0 for
IX;::
1.0
3.2.7 Nonlinear, Yielding in Tension, Stiffening in Compression Element Fig. 3.20 shows a typical expansion joint detail with a restrainer and a gap in extension of the size of tgap and gap in compression of the size egap. It may be assumed that during travel form egap to +tgap no force is transmitted between the deck and the abutment. When the compression gap closes, the joint exhibits stiffening characteristics which can be approximated as bilinear stiffening elastic behavior. This is depicted in Fig. 3.21. In tension, the behavior is more complex: (a) the behavior is hysteretic with softening characteristics, as approximately depicted in Fig. 3.21 and (b) the tension gap increases with each inelastic extension from tgap to tgap' and so on, as depicted in Fig. 3.21.
87
Fig. 3.21 depicts an approximate forcedisplacement relation for an expansion joint. A one directional element has been developed with these characteristics to represent the behavior of the tributary section of an expansion joint. The behavior of the whole expansion joint can be defined by a combination of several elements of this kind.
soft material
Beam Restrainer
Abutment
Bearing
FIGURE 3.20. Typical Expansion Joint
F
FIGURE 3.21. Force Displacements Relations of Expansion Joint
88
3.3 Modeling of Bridge Subsystems
In the previous section the mathematical modeling of the basic structural elements
required for performing analysis of a bridge was presented. In the current section the modeling of the bridge components described in section 3.1.1 , using the basic structural elements is described.
3.3.1 Modeling of Foundation and Soil System The foundation system is the medium that connects the bridge to the ground. In general, the bridge and the ground form a single structural system, and therefore it should be analyzed as a single unit. Realistic limitations does not allow integral modeling and analysis. Therefore each one of the systems is modeled and analyzed separately with subsequent interaction defined as soil  structure interaction. The methods used to analyze the behavior of the ground by itself are: finite elements, boundary elements and several other approximation methods. The use of the finite elements method for analyzing large volume like the one of the soil, requires descritization of large portion of the soil to avoid creating refraction of the propagating waves from the artificial boundaries of the model.
The use of boundary elements is much more appropriate for analyzing infinite diamines, such as the ground medium Benerjee (1994). The boundary elements method however has also significant drawbacks in approaching the problem: the problem of 3D structural dynamics cannot be solved, since the required Green function to solve this kind of problem is not readily available. Furthermore, this method can be viewed as a linear superposition method, and therefore it cannot be used straightforward for nonlinear analysis, as required for inelastic dynamic analysis of bridges
89
3.3.1.1 Elastic Linear Models for Soil Structure Interaction The simplest models used for analyzing soil structure interaction are the once using equivalent linear springs and dampers to model surface or embedded foundations. According to this method the soil behavior is represented by a spring and a dashpot. Their properties are depending on the size of the foundation interface and the soil properties. However simple, these model was found to be very suitable to represent the behavior of the foundation interface as compare to more complicated models (Cofer et al. 1994).
3.3.1.2 Frequency Dependant Modeling A more advanced method for analyzing soil structure interaction with dynamic effects, considers the soil medium as a combination of equivalent springs and dampers in which their main properties are function of frequency. The soil is modeled therefore, as a combination of spring and damper elements, described earlier. These elements however can be function of frequency such that k = k ( 0) and c = c ( 0)
,
where
0)
is the instan
taneous frequency of the nonlinear system. If the frequencies of the bridge with changing stiffness are calculated at each time step of analysis, then the stiffness and the damping properties of soilfoundation medium can be updated at each time step too. A more efficient computation scheme however provides such an adjustments only when substantial changes occur in the stiffness properties.
3.3.2 Abutment Modeling The abutment is usually made of three walls as shown in Fig. 3.22, two wing walls and one central load bearing wall, on which the deck is supported. The soil is supported
90
The Soil Stiffness Modeled By Springs. in which the soil is represented by several spring and damper elements.22.3 Bents modeling Since the deck of a bridge is more critical and expensive to repair in seismic design. A major roll is played by the abutment in supporting lateral loads which are applied to the bridge during seismic events. The abutment can be modeled in two ways: the first one is more rigorous. permanent damage due to seismic loading is allowed only in piers and bents. The other way is to lamp the all abutment system into few springs and dampers. similarly to the way the foundations system is modeled. and the walls are modeled by several "wall" elements.laterally by all the walls and apply passive pressure on them. Typical Arrangement of Bridge Abutment.3. soil spring bearing wall FIGURE 3. 91 . 3.
The deck can be modeled using very fine finite elements. the top beam is also modeled as an inelastic concrete element since it is also a part of the energy dissipation mechanism.3.2."". The bents and piers are designed so that they will experience damage but will not collapse when subjected to seismic loading. Thus the structural properties of the deck are collapsed to it's centerline.. Therefore the combined flexture shear model (see flexturalshear model in section 3. Therefore the behavior of the bent can be modeled by one or more of elements of the type of hysteretic beam I column. the failure mechanism is dominated by shear mechanism. 3. Since in many cases the ratio between the length and width of the deck is smaller than 4.2. From past experience however it appears that this approach is very expansive computationaly. Since the deck can be assumed to be rigid at its ends around the vertical axis. For this purpose the basic elastic beamcolumn element can be used. Therefore approximation methods are preferred for modeling of the deck. shear deformations in the horizontal plane should be considered. According to the first modeling method the deck is represented by a single beam in the centroid ofthe deck.. especially for nonlinear analysis. In short piers and walls.The bents are the parts of the bridge which ls. the connection between the deck which is modeled as an elastic beam and 92 . In frame type bents. Two approximation methods that can be used for this purpose are suggested.the most susceptible to damage during earthquakes.j1.2) should be used for modeling of these elements.4 Deck modeling The deck is usually made of multiple beams supporting a plate or of box girders. Approximation methods including condensed macromodeling can be suitable for this task even if some uncertainties are involved in deriving the correct properties. The deck is usually supported by bearings at its ends.
93 .where the top joints of the bearings Goints I to 4) are coupled to the single joint at the end of the deck (joint 5) using the coupling equations: Joints 2 and 3 are coupled to joint 5 in the same way.23 . The other method of modeling the deck behavior for the case where irregular setting of the deck exist is shown as an example of the use of the coupled motions in section 3.4. 3. Those rigid body transformations can be performed using the coupled motions method (explained in the next section).the bearings can be done using suitable rigid body transformations. An example of transformation using coupled motions is presented in Fig.
• a......• .. rx z deck modeled by stick elements (b) Modeling of Deck and Bearings _y_ dS. top of bearings 3 "\ 4 \ deck end joint c..." kJdzl .1...:.23.• d54 ' ~'"" : dx 4 .1 ...•_ .=::::::_C":'"_.9 (c) Displaced Joint FIGURE 3.bearings deck edge (a) Deck Section Supported on Bearings 2 joints on the ~_ _. ....: .:...:~.• .. Modeling of Connection Between Deck and Bearings 94 ...
3. the right section. The two sections of the deck can be connected together by restrainers (see Fig. Typical Expansion Joints in Bridge A typical expansion joint on a bent is shown in Fig.5 Expansion Joints and Special Connections bearings FIGURE 3.24.24. that prevent the right section of the deck from dropping from it's support.3. 3.3. is supported by the bent through bearings.25). while moving in the longitudinal direction 9S . The left deck section is supported directly by the bent.
Expansion Joint Modeling 96 .~~ H restrainer r~~ bearing (a) Expansion Joint Cross Section F tension in restrainer u compression in concrete a (b) Force Displacements Relationships FIGURE 3.25.
4 Solution Procedures for Coupled motions The efficiency of the solution procedures can be substantially improved if degrees of freedom representing motions / movements of rigid bodies in the structures are coupled by rigid'links. Since the deck edge can be assumed to move as a rigid body around the vertical axis. all the nodes along the joint can be represented by two nodes only. by introducing Lagrange multipliers.A possible model of an expansion joint is shown in Fig. The bearings and restrainers. This is done using an optimal scheme as outlined below (Bathe 1982). many degrees of freedom can be eliminated using appropriate geometrical relations.86) 97 . The rigid links provide large stiffness terms into the structure global stiffness matrix as compare to the other more flexible elements of the structure. The conditions on the relative motions are specified using the variational formulation of the structural system. can be transformed from their actuallocation to the two nodes at the centerline of the joint using rigid body transformation. Moreover. 3.25. 3. In principle the joint should be modeled using several elements. leading to severely illconditioned matrices. by defining this elements with rigid arms. The solution procedure suggested herein is automatically processing and reducing the number of active degrees of freedom and the stiffness matrices for effective processing. Such cases are customary in bridges with decks which can be considered rigid inplane. which include the constrains provided by the coupled motions: (EQ3.
O. will get a set of linear equations KUR = 0 (EQ 3.87) Since the terms associated with 0 are arbitrary.88) (EQ3.F's coupled to the j'th dof.O. equal to the original number of D. the Lagrange multiplier. U is the displacements vector. While the coupled (slaved) D. The terms in the global coupled load vector are defined with respect to the original load vector as: Ricoupled  R i "'' iLL L= Ci ~ c R (EQ 3. Cj is an index on all the D. c and c' are coefficients of the constraint equations provided by the rigid links (see example).91) 98 . R is the load vector. K is the stiffness matrix. The terms in the structure global stiffness matrix will change such that where Ci is an index on all the D. and A is.F's coupled to the i'th dof.O.F) to reduced number. Taking the variation of the expression in Eq.F's are eliminated from the stiffness matrix.O.F's minus the number of coupled equations.86 and equating it to zero leads to: (EQ3. 3.89) cU +c' =0 Introducing EQ. 3. 3.88 and taking c' as zero the number of equations that needs to solves will be reduced from the initial number of Degrees Of Freedom (D.O.Where II is the energy.89 into EQ.
26 is rigid in plane. The procedure for performing the transformation using coupled motion is presented below. 3. the coupling read: (EQ 3. The deck section in Fig. Rigid Floor Displacements Since the rotation of the whole deck is identical for the all joints.F's only.26. displacements in two directions and rotation.e.92) (EQ 3. i. (a) Define the constrained conditions (coupling): J4 Jl FIGURE 3.O. The behavior of this deck section can be represented by three D.93) 99 .Example: rigid deck modeling A typical case rigid deck is used to explain the procedure of coupling.
Rewriting the next two coupling equations gives c39 =1 and c3_12 =1 Defining dX ij as the distance in the x direction between joint i and j and similarly dYij as the same distance in the y direction. c2_5 =1. 3.92 the master D. 3. and the second is the master term. the additional relations between the coupled displacements are defined as: U4 = U I + dY 2_I U3 Us = U2 +dx2 _ I U3 U7 = UI + dY 3_I U3 U8 = U2 + dX 3 _ 1U3 UIO (EQ 3.F is 6. 3.92 can be written as: (EQ 3.F is 3 and the coupled D.100) (EQ 3.101) = U I + dY4_1 U3 Ull = U2 +dY4_I U3 In the same manner by rewriting the equations into the form of Eq. The coupled equation related to Eq. the coef ficients for the other variables are derived as: Cl_4 =1.94) The first tenn in each equation is the coupled tenn.90 Eq.99) (EQ 3. c3_4 =dY2_I.O.98) (EQ 3.97) (EQ 3.O. 3. lOO . c3_5 =dY2_1 etc.(EQ 3. For example in Eq. (see Eq. 3.95 .91 ).96) (EQ 3.95) from which the coefficient c36 =1.
which are placed on the top beam of a bent. (EQ 3.Flexible Deck modeling In order to capture the nonlinear (hysteretic) behavior of the deck. the coupling between the degrees of freedom in the global Y direction is: Ubi y bj = u y +6X B I) . it is assumed that the deck is composed of several parallel hysteretic beams. Assuming that the inplane stiffness of the deck is infinite the following coupling equation can be written: Ubi z = ubj z (EQ 3. Since the height of the deck is substantial. Assuming that the deck cross section remains plan and vertical to the beam axis (Bernoulli assumption) the deformations in the horizontal X direction of all the beams (bj)can be coupled to a single beam bi using the following equations: Ubi x b = u x j+6 y B IJ . (EQ3. assuming that the deformations in the vertical and horizontal direction are related through shear interaction. To con101 . the distance between the theoretical beam center line and the actual support should be considered when modeling the connection between the deck and bearings..102) where the index bi indicate that the deformations of the i'th beam are coupled to the displacements of the j'th beam and Bij is the distance between beam i and beam j.27 ..103) Using the same approach for the vertical direction.i are the deformations in the vertical direction of the i'th beam. 3.104) Where u. A deformed section of such a bridge is shown in Fig.
....... rI b:. in order to consider flexibility in the support connections......... the beams can be modeled with offset connections (rigid arms)..... Furthermore..sider the offset..:....... Deck Section Modeled by Several Beams 102 .27... • x z 1 !. beam end springs can be added.......~ __ ~~ FIGURE 3..
results of approximated analyses (Reinhorn et a1. One representing the envelope of forcedeformations obtained by monotonic loading and the second by determining the expected maximum response for a specific or a group of ground motions: (a) Monotonic structure's capacity will be defined as the above mentioned force deformation envelope independently determined. al 1996) [see Fig. 3.1996. Valles 1996) show that the maximum response has the tendency to fit more simplified. It is therefore impossible to determine accurately the force (strain resultants) and deformation distribution without a time history analysis for a specific earthquake. 103 .3. (b) Seismic demand will be defined as the maximum expected response for a ground motion or a group of ground motions for a structural model similar to the one describing the structural system for evaluation. However. This is defined using the seismic response spectrum.28 (b)] to define the response at the intersection of the curves [see Fig.5 Evaluation of Bridges via Approximated Methods The evaluation of a bridge implies determining the internal strain resultant in the bridge elements as well as the relative deformations in the elements and of the entire bridge in case of load disturbance. [see Fig. In the case of earthquakes when the system responds inelastically.28 (c)]. A plot of the structural capacity. independently obtained functions. 3.28 (a)] indicating possible loading paths. the internal force distribution influences the deformations and accelerations implicitly depending on the loading path. can be combined with a composite spectrum (Reinhorn et. 3.
It should be noted that a good evaluation can be obtained if the monotonic "capacity curve" is determined for increasing inertial forces best simulating those that might develop in a single large cycle during an earthquake. elastic Salg Salg=F/w • . The current section attempts to show various techniques to determine the response by determining the capacity and the seismic demand separately.elastic response F/w . Evaluation of Inelastic Response Using Composite Spectrum It should be noted that an inelastic system can be defined as independent force deformation description versus the spectral seismic demand...28. inelastic d (a) capacity Sd (b)demand spectrum Sd=d (c) response FIGURE 3. 104 . At the same time the calculation can be obtained by proper evaluation of equivalent damping influences or actual inelastic response in the preparation of the demand spectrum. as well as it explains more rigorous inelastic analysis to verify this evaluation approach.
105 can be written for each mode i using its eigen vector <Pi as (EQ 3. the forcedeformation demands in m.1.107) The eigenvectors of this equations are derived as the roots of the polynomial 105 .3. which transfers the structural problem from the physical space domain to the domain defined by the eigenvectors of the homogeneous equation of motion. The homogeneous dynamic equation of structural system is mii+ku = 0 (EQ 3.1 Modal (Spectral) Analysis by Seismic Codes Current seismic codes including AASHTO suggest the use of modal analysis procedure. 3.5.1 Methods for Determining Seismic Demand The seismic demand can be defined in terms of the expected forces and deformations which will develop in the structural system due to seismic event.d.106) (EQ 3. Several methods currently used are outlined for sake of completness. In the following a review of the method is presented along with the presentation of efficient computational method to determine the dynamic properties. 3.o. This can be done by determining the response specific for a single degrees of freedom (s.f) or using predefined code averaged data for such spectra.105) By using the customary transformation u can be transformed to it's eigenvector's domain such that u = :E<PPi and EQ.5.oJ's require farther evaluation as will be outlined below.d. However.
109) In order to solve this problem efficiently it is suggested to use the Lanczos method..111 and premultiplying by XTwill yield 1T$ =$ n co 2 (EQ 3. The basic problem (EQ.111) The transformation $ = X$ (EQ 3.. 3.112 106 .(EQ 3.109 ) can be rewritten as (EQ 3. This matrix satisfies the condition: (EQ 3.108) The eigenvectors can be derived iteratively from the equation (EQ 3.x3 . The eigenvalues of Tn are the reciprocal of the eigenValues of the original problem and the eigenvectors can be derived using EQ.112) is introduced into EQ. 3. xn) is constructed (Bathe 1982). A matrix X comprised of the m orthonormal vectors (xj>x2.110) where Tn is a tridiagonal matrix of the size of n.113) The eigenValues of Tn can be found using one of the iterative techniques. 3.
116) 107 . The model of the structural system of the bridge is assembled from individual matrices of elements to get the system matrices k.The big advantage of using this method is that finding the roots of the polynomial of tridiagonal system which is significantly reduced is much easier than working on much larger system. Using this force profile an equivalent static approach can be used to determine the internal forces in the elements and deformations. It is assumed that the bridge can be modeled by a limited number of modes. the results from the static analysis for the various modes can be combined together using SRSS rule. This method is using iterations to check convergence. m. Mj the mass at thej D. c.114) where Fj is the force at thej D. Fi = JU 5 ru ui = J 5 (EQ 3. and rSj the response spectrum value related to the j eigenvalue (r represents the modal contribution from modal participation factor). The site response spectrum is used to derive the equivalent forces on the bridge using the expected acceleration profile to derive the distribution of the inertial forces on the bridge: (EQ 3. If only few of the mode shapes need to be considered. The deformations can be also determined directly from displacements spectra if available. <Pij is the ordinate at the j D.O.F for mode i.O.F of the i'th mode.F. and the load vector F.O.115) (EQ 3. The eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the bridge are calculated using the aforementioned procedure.
). AASHTO. It should be noted that this method can be used also for inelastic response evaluation if proper spectra are used (Reinhorn et al. This approach is widely used by the design codes (UBC 94. The equilibrium equation of the structural system is ku = f (EQ 3. is by representing the dynamic behavior of the bridge (explained in the previous section) by equivalent static one.5.F j as defined in design codes: (EQ 3. The indices for the displacements u are defined similarly to the once for the forces. etc. O.F' s 108 . 1996) 3.where Fj is the end force in element j F ij is the j element end force due to the response in the i'th mode.117) solution of the static linear and nonlinear equilibrium equation The complex system of a bridge can be analyzed also incrementally to determine it's nonlinear response.1.118) The matrix k can be separated into four submatrices related to the free and constrained D. This procedure is based on solving the static equilibrium equations of the bridge in which the forces f are determined however using simplified empirical formulation to distribute the total force. The distribution of the forces is obtained according to the force fi relative to mass M i.2 Static Equivalent Procedure The simplest way to evaluate the demand from a bridge. and to the expected total force I.
's.F's can be calculated from the equation (EQ 3. The reactions on the restrained D. (i) mode superposition and (ii) direct integration. 109 .121) where kif is the tangential stiffness matrix. If such loading is well known. l1u the incremental displacements of the free f D.120) In the case of nonlinear analysis.5. the problem can be viewed as force input problem.O. Two procedures can be used to perform time history analysis (Clough and Penzin 1993) i.122) The same procedure can be used to apply displacements input in which case the equilibrium equation has the form (EQ 3.(EQ3.O. this procedure is performed incrementally.1J9) In the case where Uc equals to 0.e.2 Time History Analysis Time history analysis provides the most accurate information about the response of bridges to seismic loading. and Aft the incremental load. The free deformations ufcan be derived by solving the equation (EQ3. and the instantaneous equilibrium equation is (EQ 3.123) 3.F. structural parameters well defined and the model is complete.
2.1 Uniform I Rigid Base Motion Analysis The governing equation for nonlinear time history analysis can be expressed in incremental form. The solution procedures for both. and therefore the ground deformations. uniform support excitation.2. in magnitude and phase due to several reasons: (i) When the bridge is located over a fault the excitation on one side of the fault differs significantly from the other side.5. 3. and differential support excitation are presented in the following two sections. and cause excitation magnitude difference between different foundations.The mode superposition procedure even though much more efficient numerically can be used only for linear analysis. and by applying quasistatic relative deformations which result in quasistatic forces. Differential support excitation cannot be considered adequately by this method. All this affects the response of the bridge both by changing the dynamic excitation of the bridge. (ii) Different soil types amplify differently the magnitude of traveling shear waves. as: uo . 3.5. The direct integration procedure is the one that is recommended in the current approach due to its versatility to handle elastic and inelastic structures.1. (iii) The difference in arrival time of the shear waves to largely distanced footings causes phase difference between the ground excitations.1 Bridges Under Seismic Excitation ·Uniform and Differential Excitations Bridges span over large distances. accelerations and velocities at one support might be significantly different than at other supports.
. ti +!:J.. [ . The acceleration at the time t +!!. 111 .129) Introducing EQ.will give the numerical incremental equation of motion.Ii) u t + /) 2 dt ex and the velocity and acceleration increments are: (EQ 3. (EQ3. 3.:.125) This equation is solved using an implicit scheme based on the Newmark ~ method (Bathe 1982).124 .127) du = (1/))Ut+~[~~u.: (EQ3. 3.U (112 (dt) 2ex adt ex I (EQ 3. t::.126) The velocity at the same time is .. u) are assumed constant during the time step interval.(1I2ex)U l dt] du ut = =.:. The excitation which is a uniform ground motion..128 and EQ.t is ut + dt du . u I (EQ 3.dt 2 (112 .128) du ex) .129 into EQ.utdt .Mdu + Cdu + Kdu = dF for ti ::..a) ut = =d:t2 :a.:. 3. in which the acceleration in all the supports is the same: dF = Mdug where dUg is the uniform ground acceleration increment.124) in which the nonlinear properties C (u. u) and K (u.t (EQ 3. dUu t dtdt 2 (1I2ex)U t ] u t + dt = ut + dt (I ..
133) 112 .132) in which mf efand kf are the superstructure mass. for the acceleration input is: (EQ 3. The equation can be written explicitly with respect to the total displacements u such that: t CEQ 3. Such motions can be expressed in terms of displacements and velocity input. Those matrices are related only to the free degrees of freedom.ex.dt ° (EQ3. The global equation of motion in matrix form.2 Differential Ground Motion Analysis Differential ground motion cannot be applied through acceleration histories.131) F = FM[.dt 2 .2. ex.1 + u + ut2ex.IJC[(OI)" + ex. dt ex. )"O'J 0(1 u + u + u tdtex. damping and stiffness matrices respectively.5. The relative displacements between the structure and the ground are denoted as u.1.. .kdu = F   (EQ 3.130) where k=M 1 +C+K (dt) 2ex. 3.
3.1. 3. The solution of these equations is similar to the solution for the uniform ground motion with the proper adjustments for the forcing vector. 3.30 . 3. i.30 (a)).e. The first block of equations in Eq. velocity and displacements marked f are the total displacements of the structure.3 Verification procedure In order to verify the analysis procedure with displacements excitation.5. the ground dis placements are subtracted from the total displacements to get the relative displacements between the base and the structure (Fig. 3.134. It is apparent that the relative displacements are the same. 3. A comparison of the results is shown in Fig. The verification model shown in Fig. a comparison between deformations resulting from analysis with acceleration input motion and analysis with displacements input motion is performed. 3.30 (b) which includes the ground displacements. However it should be noted that the acceleration input does not require any restriction on the initial conditions of 113 . To compare the relative displacements u for both cases. 3.2.b). The displacements results extracted from the base displacement analysis are the total displacements ufin Fig. 3. 3.134) where the acceleration.30 (a). The results from the acceleration input analysis are the relative deformations (u in Fig. while the displacements and velocity marked g are those related to the ground.133 represents the behavior of the superstructure and can be written as: (EQ 3.30 .where the sub matrices with the c index corresponds to the restrained degrees of freedom or the degrees of freedom where ground displacements are applied. the right hand side of EQ.29 is analyzed using displacement input shown in Fig.30 (b) and acceleration input shown in Fig.
\.29. Verification Frame Model 114 . I I I I I I (a) ~U I g (b) FIGURE 3. the ground motion. I I I t+ . However with displacements input the initial conditions should be properly adjusted so that the first and the second derivative will equal to zero. it I I I I I . I I I I .
.\.10 I'6 I'o f c ~ 0t\! ·201r.0 time [sec] 20r_ _ _~ro~m~l~d~is~l~ac~e~m~en~t_ _ __._.lL... 20r_ _.30. I 10 ~ time [sec] . Frame Response to Displacement and Acceleration Input..":~_. 115 ..:.\.rr~e~lm~lv~e~d~lso~lla~c~em~en~t_ _ _.rr~el~at~lv~e~d~IISSO~lla~~~m~en~t_ _ _..\ (a) displacement input 20 Input displacement r===='.L. 1"500 time (sec] ·201r..~.. (b) acceleration input 11O ~ !f·10 '6 C ~ 0 I I g Input acceleration ~r~~=~_.lL. time [sec] is 20r_ _...201r._ _. I'0 w0 ~ ~ !f·10 ·20 ir:::__.L.\..\..:":~...b time [sec] FIGURE 3. . • ·'00c0'n.
5. since the D. These solvers usually have problems of round off error when the stuffiness matrix has terms with drastically different values. This type of storage is not efficient in many cases.F's that didn't have interaction terms initially. 116 .1 Identification of Special Issues in Solution Procedures (1) Usually the stiffness matrix k is a banded matrix. This issue might especially be significant when coupled motions are used.   3. This might happen when the structure has stiffness discontinueties. most of the commonly used solution procedures perform reordering of elements to achieve smaller band width.3.3. with dimensions dictated by the bandwidth and the length of the diagonal. will be interacting after the modification related to coupled motions.136) where k is the reduced stiffness matrix considering the coupled or slaved motions. for efficient solution of the system of equations it is stored as a smaller rectangular matrix.136 is usually the Gaus elimination or frontal solver.5. because the band width might increase in the presence of coupled motions. 3. in which soft and stiff elements are present in the same structural bridge system. In order to improve this storage.O. (EQ 3.3 Numerical Solution for Bridge Systems The solution of the system equations kx =/ is obtained by solving the reduced system: (EQ3. and / is the reduced force vector.135) kx = / . The global solution procedure used for solving EQ.
A symmetric matrix K can be represented by three vectors A. 44.] JA =[1 4523455] 117 .22. O. O. 22. 3. O. and the equivalent vectors are: O. In the following sections detailed description of solution procedures is presented. The sparse format used here. O.3. and IA has the size of number of rows + 1.45. O. 15.137) A = [11. O.33. JAG) contains the column number at which the term AU) is located in the K matrix. O. (EQ 3.2 Sparse Matrix Formulations of Structures Equations Iterative solvers are based on vector matrix multiplication. O. The IA vector denotes the elements serial number on the diagonal. 33. a sparse matrix storage com bined with a solution using the Conjugate Gradient Iterative Solver are used. O. JA has the size of number of nonzero elements. O. JA and IA. 15. 14. This can be done very efficiently by using sparse format storage of the stiffness matrix. All the nonzero elements are stored in the vector A.In order to reduce the difficulties mentioned above. O. 55.55. 1990). O. O. O. 14. and used to define the number of nonzero elements at each row. An example of the use of Yale sparse format is shown below The matrix K is 11. 14. O. is based on a package developed at Yale University (Kincaid et al.44. 15.5.
The gradient off(x). i.140) and if A is symmetric 118 .IA=[1 4 5 6 8 9) 3. It is effective on systems of the form Ax = b (EQ 3. A detailed description of the method is presented below. b are vectors. x. and in step by step dynamic analysis where there are no significant changes expected in the incremental solution between two consecutive steps.139) where A is a matrix. For positive definite matrices the surface defined by f(x) has the shape of parabola for the case where the size of vector x is 2.e.138) where A is a known symmetric. CG is the most popular iterative method for solving large systems of linear equations. The basic quadratic form is a scalar.5./(x) is: (EQ 3.3.3 Conjugate Gradient Iterative Solver (Kincaid et al. and c is a scalar. positive definite matrix. it is quadratic function of a vector (EQ 3. 1990) An iterative solver was chosen for two major reasons: (i) The accuracy of the solution is not influenced by large differences between the values of the terms in the stiffness matrix. (ii) The solution from one step can be used as a first guess for the solution at the next step which is useful in incremental static analysis. Iterative methods are suitable for use with sparse matrices because they usually use matrix vector multiplications operations.
142) where ri is the residual.138 .146) The error reduction between consecutive steps is calculated as 119 . 3.0 . Moving from one point to another in the search for the minimum point will be done in this manner.+ar.fT (  xi+l Using the last term and EQ. da xi+l da (EQ 3.144) After finding the direction of the step ri' to find a line search is performed along the direction of ri' such that a minimize f where dx.fT ( +) .144 the value of a is derived as rTr. 3.141) Setting the gradient to be zero will retrieve EQ. If A is positivedefinite and symmetric. (EQ 3.143) where ei is the error term.f (X) = Axb (EQ 3.143 and EQ.) ) . The direction of the step is chosen to be the direction of the gradient to the function fwhich is also the residual (EQ 3. 3. this solution is the minimum off. . Method of Steepest Descent In this method we start with an initial guess Xo and take a series of steps to values of x: x j>x2'" until we are close enough to the solution x. the residual can be also defined as (EQ 3.' .145) . 1 d(x. a='' rTAri (EQ 3.
1 d. in this way the search in each direction will be done only once and after moving n times in each direction. The term k relates to the ratio of the eigen values and the term ~ relates to the ratio of properties related to the initial guess.(EQ 3.150) and 120 . = uj + L k=o ~jkdk (EQ 3. ~2 are the length's of the projection of the error term on the eigenvectors. are calculated .149) To get the A orthogonal vectors.148) and k = Al r . The length of each search vector is found from (EQ 3. the solution is found. and the number of iterations might be large. The Method of Conjugate Directions This method is based on the idea of choosing the search directions so they will be A orthogonal.147) where 0)2 is defined as (EQ 3. the conjugate GramSchmid's process is used. the faster is the convergence. in this process the vectors d. The drawback of steepest descent is that steps are taken in the same direction several times. It shows that the smaller 0) is.~ ~2 = ~ ':>1 2 where Al ' A2 are the eigen vector of matrix A and ~I .
157) The convergence of CG is function of the condition number of A. this requires large number of operations O(n 3).151) The drawback of the method of cojugate directions is that to derive each new vector. .155) (EQ 3.~ _ uTAd. a. instead of using arbitrary set of independent vectors uj the set of vectors used is the set of the residuals rj . . all the old vectors should be used and kept.' . J J ij  (EQ 3. = .156) and the initial searching vector is (EQ 3. dTAd. 121 . J dTAd. rTr.158) "'min "'max are the minimum and maximum eigenValue of the matrix A. (EQ 3. using this set of vectors simplifies the solution considerably because of the special properties of r and the final procedure is (EQ 3. k (EQ 3.' .154) where ~i+ 1 and = (EQ 3.153) (EQ 3.152) j . To improve the performance of conjugate directions. .
positive definite matrix M 1 (EQ3. . . The system of equations is premultiplied by a symmetric.160) and the full solution algorithm is (EQ 3.and the rate of convergence of CO (or the decrease of the error norm) is (EQ 3.167) A well known preconditioner is the diagonal or Jacobi preconditioner in this case the matrix M is taken to be the diagonal of matrix A. I (EQ 3.161) (EQ 3.162) ex.163) (EQ 3. = r!MI r .164) (EQ 3. 122 . I d!Ad.159) Preconditioning In order to decrease the condition number k. a preconditioning technique is used.165) (EQ 3. .166) (EQ 3.
6 Methods of Analysis to Evaluate Bridge Capacity Capacity is a limit state which can be defined as: (i) The maximum force or deformation that a system or subsystem can experience before it reaches collapse. Each element in the system by it self can fail in different ways: (i) Section failure. And the critical path in the tree defines the probable failure path of the system. A failure of a system occurs when one or few of it's subsystems fails. Similarly the capacity of the system.3. a brief review of the commonly used techniques to evaluate ultimate state or capacity of a section are presented. followed by presentation of procedures to evaluate the structural capacity of the whole bridge system. such as failure in shear. (I) By first deriving the reliability of each individual member and then combining them into reliability of the global system. (iii) A failure of mechanism combined from flexure and shear. in which the probabilities of each component of the system are arranged in a system "Fault Tree". (ii) A system failure is reached when it cannot play it's designated roll. In the following sections. or by assessing the capacity of the whole system directly. such as failure in flexure (ii) Zone failure. For example by using "Fault Tree" approach. (2) By using analysis procedure which provides directly the probability of failure of the whole structure. namely by monotonic pushover or dynamic analysis procedures in which the capacity of the struc123 . can be assessed by deriving first the capacity of the basic elements directly from the constitutive relations of the individual element and expending it to the global system. The reliability of a system can be derived in two basic ways.
.170) JfcydAc+ JfsydA s Ac As = M (EQ 3.6.171) 124 . (ii) the more rigorous one: fiber analysis. and is also equal to the strain gradient over the depth of the member. Thus the concrete strain at any level y is given by (EQ 3.g.168) The strain in a reinforcing bar at any level y is equal to the strain in the surrounding concrete.ture as a whole is derived by applying simple loading to the bridge and detecting conditions which are defined as failure. Ecen and the curvature $. hence (EQ 3. the strain at the top face and the strain at the bottom face) or by the strain at the centroid. Both methods are based on the following assumptions: plane sections remain plane. Two methods are used usually for this purpose: (i) the approximate one based on stress block and. so the concrete strain distribution can be defined just by two variables (e. 3.169) The following equilibrium conditions must be also satisfied.1 Direct Section Evaluation The derivation of the moment curvature relations for a section in flexure is well known. The curvature is equal to the change in slope per unit length along the member. JfcdA c + JfsdAs = N Ac As (EQ 3.
6.! s are stresses in concrete and steel. M. A s are the areas cross sections of concrete and steel. or structural system capacity to sustain forces and deformations before reaching a point of failure is presented.2 Incremental Monotonic Static Analysis In this section the concept of evaluation of structural components. for a given axial force and moment using the stress strain relationships for steel and concrete.6.2 Fiber Analysis Instead of assuming distribution of the stresses over the height of the section. 125 . Iterative procedure is used to find the stresses at the layers. no equilibrium can be achieved for increase in moment. The moment curvature relations are derived by iterating on the eqUilibrium equations. and the related curvature.1. 3. 3.1. 3. The integral of the stresses of the layers over the sections height should satisfy the equilibrium conditions presented earlier.1 Mechanical Properties Modeling The mechanical properties or the moment curvature relations can be evaluated directly by assuming that the stresses in the concrete are concentrated in a rectangular block with dimensions related to the parabolic distribution of the stress. The ultimate state is defined as a condition where.In which!c. the section is divided into number of layers where the concrete and the steel micro mechanics are used.6. N the global moment and axial force. Ac.
Assuming 126 . or major parts of it such as frame bents. In order to derive the capacity of a structural system: (i) the geometry. (ii) the constitutive law ofthe elements and (iii) the loading distribution should be known. However when shear failure occurs it can be defined as failure of a region.Buckle and Friedland 1995).The capacity of a single element is usually defined as the extreme value on the constitutive relation curve of the element. In such a case a single demand to capacity ratio. a monotonic incremental static lateral analysis or dynamic analysis with a predefined dynamic load. the failure happens in a single section. defined also as "PushOver" analysis is used to evaluate the capacity of the whole structural system. The commonly recommended way in the design codes to evaluate the strength demand of a single element is by reducing the forces derived using elastic analysis for seismic loading Felastic by a reduction factor R which relates to the assumed capacity of this element type to dissipate energy by experiencing inelastic deformations. In order to give more emphasis to the plastic behavior (Seismic Retrofit Manual for Highway Bridges . The derivation of single system demand to capacity ratio. However the inelastic behavior doesn't influence the distribution of the forces in the bridge due to inelastic behavior which might transfer significantly larger force to certain elements. F _ Felastic design R (EQ3. when the failure mechanism is expected to be flexure.172) Using this procedure it is assumed that the inelastic behavior increases the seismic capacity of the elements. which represents the reliability of the whole system can be defined. is desirable for accurate road systerns evaluation.
If the spatial force distribution in the bridges is defined as: f(x. z) (EQ 3. Using this assumption the distribution of forces in a building can collapse to: f(x.173 may not be simplified as easy. y. z) = FS (x.173) in which F is and intensity function and a nondimensional distribution. y. 1996). the modes of vibration are much more complex and so is the bridge response to earthquakes. In bridges of significant length where the number of spans is more then two. Two of them. the main difficulty is to define an appropriate distribution of the total force F. y. in bridges with significant spatial distribution of masses the relations in EQ. z) = FS (y) (EQ 3.that the geometry can be well defined by geometric modeling and the constitutive law can be also well defined. assuming that the floor diaphragms are stiff in there plan. The other two options are dynamic versions of the static "PushOver procedure".174) However. To be able to represent fue accurately the influence of the changing structural properties of the bridge due to inelastic behavior adaptive (modal) loading is suggested. several types of "PushOver analyses" are suggested. 127 . i. the incremental force loading and incremental displacements loading. The distribution of the mass in building structures can be considered in the vertical direction only. 3. were previously defined in various versions for analysis of buildings (Valles et. y. To get better evaluation of the bridge response. The distribution of the total force F between the elements of a bridge should be representative of the distribution of the forces during the seismic event. z) S(x. el. in which the expected dynamic loading and the adaptable distribution of the load are addressed.e.
6.2. (EQ 3. u (x.Both the previously developed push over procedures (arbitrary force loading) and the newly developed procedures (displacement quasistatic. F w«p(u) . 1995) are suggested: 1) uniform load distribution 2) load distribution equivalent to one or more modes of vibration. al. el 1995) are used as a definition of failure: 1) first component reached failure.1 Arbitrary Force Loading The simplest and most commonly used method for "PushOver analysis" is performed by applying incrementally lateral forces to the bridge until failure criteria is reached. 4) serviceability displacement criteria is reached. y. z) (EQ 3.x> uy uz). modal adaptable and the quasi dynamic procedures: pulse and ramp) are described hereafter 3.'Y1.175) There are several drawbacks in using this procedure: 1) if the modes of vibration represent the displacement response of the bridge. As mentioned earlier the distribution of the forces along the bridge is an important issue and two types of distribution which are similar to the once which are used in buildings (Valles et. 2) gravity load carrying element reached failure. z) = (j)2u (x.: w «p(u) in which «p (w) is spatial function of u(u.176) In the general case the force distribution is the fourth derivative of displacements: 128 . The incremental static analysis with force input presented earlier is used. Several criteria (Valles et. y. the acceleration response will be proportional to the modes only under harmonic loading. 3) mechanism is formed.
3. In this procedure at each time increment the mode shapes are calculated using the instantaneous stiffness of the structure which changes due to plastic behavior.2. To provide more compatibility between the load distribution and the change in the structure stiffness. This procedure applies both to the force input and displacement input procedures.F i is defined as: 129 . the incremental force at location i along the bridge /:.6. the distribution of the load is not a function of the damage the structure sustain due to inelastic behavior. adaptable modal loading push over procedure is developed (Reinhorn et al. 2) usually it is considered that only few first modes of vibration are enough to represent the actual displacement response (Clough and Penzien 1993) however it does not apply for acceleration response. 1996).177) In the case of complex modes of vibration of the bridge.6.2. The deformation u and the external force [are distributed as two different function in space.2 Arbitrary Displacement Input Because of the limitations mentioned in the previous section (the forces in the bridge cannot be accurately described by the modes of vibration) analysis based on the previously described incremental displacement input can be performed.. The analysis procedure for this case is similar to the one used in the previous section for arbitrary force input.d ( 1d [(x) = dx2 Eldx2 2 u) (EQ 3. A possible assumption is the first mode of vibration. However instead of applying forces on the bridge. a certain displacements pattern is applied incrementally. 3.3 Adaptable (Modal) Loading In the previous two sections.
Ftolal is the total force.178) in which <l>i. rj (u) is the modal participation factor for the j'th mode. 3.31 ) 130 . With the load distribution defined in EQ.. One type of such analysis is the dynamic loading using a base "Ramp Acceleration" history (or Ramp Acceleration Loading) (see Fig.(EQ 3.178 a nonlinear incremental analysis can be performed. 3.2. in which the dynamic characteristics of the bridge response are inherently accounted for. to predefined dynamic loading. or total displacements) and F11d is the quantity level at location "i" in the previous loading step.6.j (u) is the ordinate of the j'th mode vector at location "i". 3. A better approximation for the behavior of the bridge under dynamic loading can be achieved by sUbjecting the bridge.4 Acceleration Ramp Load In the previous section the basic assumption is that the effect of a random dynamic loading can be represented by static equivalent loads and the effect of the dynamic behavior is achieved by distributing the load proportionally to the mode shapes.
6. the behavior is similar to applying static loading. The shape of this pulse is not significant.2. 3.dynamic effect. This pulse has the effect of one strong "Push" on the structure.5 Acceleration Pulse Input In many of the recent strong earthquakes the major damage to bridges was attributed to a single strong short impulse. When the acceleration is increased slowly.31 until the "failure" condition is reached.31. A way of simulating the expected response of a bridge near failure is to apply a single pulse with high magnitude of acceleration to the structure. A range of application rates should be used. to estimate reliably the bridge capacity to resist seismic . Significant dynamic effects appear when the rate of application is high.Ground Acceleration Application rate Time FlGURE 3. 3. if it is short enough relative to the structures natural period (Clough and Penzin 1993). The rate in which the acceleration is increased influence the results. The basic equation of motion for this system is: 131 . Ramp Acceleration Loading In this type of pushover procedure the acceleration is increased monotonically in time as shown in Fig.
kv (t) 1dt o I. the demand and capacity of the system's components.3. or of ihe system as"Whole.: 'I fp (t) dt o (EQ 3. (EQ 3. it can be shown to be approximately mllV. the component's capacity and demand can be compared instantaneously. an iterative procedure is used. The initial energy required to bring "failure condition" is estimated for the first iteration.179) Integrating the equation on both sides will give the impulsemomentum relationship as mllV = f [p (t) .180) Since the integral of kv is of the order of r2 and the integral of p(t) is of the order of t. An overview of those methods and their advantages and disadvantages was presented in section 1. different procedures of evaluation are presented. In the following A sections. should be compared. 3. and then increased. at each time instant during the analysis. until failure is observed.3 Comparing Demand to Capacity In order to evaluate the reliability of the system. Since the level of energy that will cause the structure to fail is not known appriori.1 Demand/Capacity comparison in Inelastic structures (Damage Indexing) During nonlinear time history analysis.0 3.6.6.mx+kx = mxg (EQ 3.181) Therefore an initial velocity analysis can be performed. since this compari132 .
U u is the ultimate displacement.son represents the amount of damage sustained by the element it is defined as "damage index" (DI) (Reinhorn et. It should be noted that the capacity is reduced as the hysteretic energy Eh (t) increases during the inelastic excursion (see EQ. (1996» (EQ 3. Therefore the damage index DI is a function of time.184 ). 3. The numerator (EQ 3. The final damage index DI is the largest value attained during the analysis f DI = max (DI (t» f (EQ 3.184) is the displacement capacity. and Qy is the yielding force (moment). and it is not possible to derive it by simply comparing the maximum demand to the capacity. el. y is the yield displacement.185) 133 . following the analysis. Eh (t) is the hysteretic energy dissipated until time t.183) is the displacement (or curvature) demand while the denominator (EQ 3.182) where Ud (t) is the maximum displacement attained in case of shear or the maximum curu vature in case of bending.
the bridge can be divided into separate frames. By doing that. where each frame represents the bent with the tributary section of the deck. This procedure is very simpie although not very accurate. considering the mass the stiffness. The deformations of the 134 . especially since other load cases might control the design. using code formula. the interaction between the different parts of the deck.2. In the transverse direction. in the transverse direction.3. 3. so the response can be approximated by single mass of the deck and upper part of the A column. as any other static loading case. and brief summery of them is presented for sack of completness.6. Simplified equivalent elastic procedures are enough to provide adequate evaluation. costly and complex procedures are not required. and the PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration). supported on several springs.3. The procedures described hereafter are described in the AASHTO code. The resulting element's forces are compared to the nominal strength of the element increased by ductility factor which represents it's ability to dissipate energy. In the longitudinal direction the deck is supported by the bents lateriJ ally. is ignored. on a single spring. The lateral force on the frames is derived. and can be used.3.6. The response of the bridge is assumed to be similar to the response of a single mass.1 Static Equivalent The static equivalent procedure is very simple and easy to implement. which is the attributed weight of the deck and the upper part of the bents.2 Evaluation of Bridges in ModeratelLow Seismicity Zones· Procedure In order to evaluate bridges with low risk.
Usually performing design with the methods presented for the low/moderate seismicity will result in unnecessary excessive design forces. The bridge modeled as framed structure. is similar to the one performed for the previously presented static procedure. and the modal participation factors. 3. A The comparison of the forces demand and capacity.2 Modal Spectral Analysis Modal spectral analysis is a more rigorous procedure than the static one.3. The element forces are compared to there nominal strength. represented by it's stiffness and mass.3.6.2. Modal analysis that was presented in the previous sections is performed to derive the mode shapes.3 Evaluation of Bridges in Severe Seismicity Zones In severe seismicity zones. As it was described earlier using the mode shapes and the response spectrum the loading for each mode can be derived. The structural analysis performed on the bridge provides the forces and deformatio~ required for the evaluation. 3. which represent stability and serviceability requirements. In this procedure the dynamic behavior of the structure is considered. and the displacements are compared to the once in the code.6.bridge are compared to design requirements in the code. the response of the bridge to earthquake will be usually the lateral loading case that dominates the design of several components of the bridge. and therefore the engineer using this method should have some knowledge in structural dynamic. 135 .
The required steps for this procedure are presented below. While "adaptive modal" procedure is not appropriate.6. since only few modes are used to represent the load.3. "Push Over" Capacity Comparing the demand derived from the spectral procedure. The first procedure uses the spectral method presented in the previous section to derive the demand. which excite many modes. For example if an earthquake is characterized by a single pulse. The second procedure. there is single displacement that need to be considered. and the capacity from the "push over" procedure. 3.The appropriate methods to be used in severe seismicity zones are suppose to consider more rigorously both the dynamic behavior of the bridge and the resulting design forces. 3. the appropriate procedure would be "dynamic pulse". In the longitudinal direction.3. and the element's nonlinear capacity under cyclic dynamic loading.1 Spectral Demand vs. 136 . enables direct calculation of the reliability of the bridge. On the other end when the expected earthquake has vibratory nature "adaptive modal" or "ramp loading" would be appropriate for the same reasons. The choice of the procedure should be done according to the nature of the expected earthquake. and equivalent displacements should be considered for the force displacements curve. The methods presented in the following sections address this issues. and "damage index" is used to get accurate evaluation of reliability. In the transverse direction however.32) is derived using one of the procedures presented earlier. such as Northridge. the displacements might be different in different locations along the bridge. The capacity however is addressed more rigorously using "push over" techniques. • The nonlinear force displacement curve (Fig. evaluates directly and instantaneously both demand and capacity.
While if the bridge is not essential the limiting state is collapse (Fig. y (EQ 3.. Force Displacements Relations for ''Push Over" Analysis • The displacement ductility factor is derived as 11. I Equivalent dlsp. I IF. I u. the reduction factor Rtis derived using equivalent displacements approach for long period bridge.32. • Using the displacements ductility factor 11. (Priestley et al. f (EQ 3. 1992) for T> 1.5sec R = 11. If the bridge is expected to remain serviceable following an earthquake.187) 137 . = "ii" u. Total force service limit state coUapse limit state I I F.The limit state that defines failure.32). FIGURE 3.186) . is defined according to the performances expected from the bridge. the service limit state should be used. 3.
67(l1u l)1'""<l1 u .188) Where T is the dominant period.189) • The total force demand F demand is derived using the regular modal spectral procedure described earlier • The total reliability of the system R can be defined directly as: R = 1 Fe Fdemand (EQ 3. and can be used to evaluate the reliability of bridge system asA lifeline following an earthquake. cv 3. and there is no direct interaction between them. • The inelastic capacity of the bridge Fu is converted into elastic capacity Fe' such that (EQ 3. and To is the period at which response spectrum has maximum.2 Time History Analysis with Multiple Earthquakes In all the previously described procedures the capacity and the demand are derived separately. T o (EQ 3. both are only approximations of the actual response. Although this procedure compromise the accuracy by using procedure which only approximate the dynamic response.6. and the capacity evaluation procedure is not addressing the issue of capacity reduction due to cyclic loading.3.3. 138 .and equivalent energy approach for short period structures forT<1.5sec Rf = 1+0.190) The total reliability of the bridge system is a very important parameter. or equivalent period. the advantages of this procedure are obvious.
engineering judgment should be used as of the contribution of each element to the reliability of the whole system with the different performance criteria.U sing time history analysis provides a much more accurate tool. as well as their ultimate capacities. using set of several earthquakes that can reliably represent the site specific response spectrum. or artificially generated earthquakes. 0 139 . Those earthquakes might be previous earthquakes scaled to the design response spectrum level. Therefore the analysis should be performed several times. and the final damage to the element is taken as the maximum of the damage values calculated at every time interval during the duration of the analysis. The dynamic properties of the bridge such as the mass and the stiffness. are directly introduced into the analysis procedure. Using the directly defined properties and the variation of the properties during the analysis. To achieve this target. The desirable reliability index however is the one of the system a~whole. An example of a method to combine the reliability of a single element into the reliability of a global system is the "fault tree" method (Melchers 1987). The damage to the nonlinear elements is evaluated instantaneously using the procedure described previously. the interaction between demand and capacity is naturally included. as well as the nonlinear elemen~ properties which include the variation of force and stiffness as function of displacements. Although the analytical procedure by itself is accurate. the earthquake that the bridge will experience in the future is unknown. The damage index or the reliability derived by the analysis apply only to individual elements or sections of elements. for the evaluation of bridge reliability.
1 Case Study #1: Analytical Evaluation of Small Scale Bridge System Results of an experimental study performed by Tsopelas et.0 CASE STUDIES FOR BRIDGE EVALUATIONS 4. The frictional characteristics of the bearings were experimentally determined as shown in Fig. 4. A shaking table test was performed on a simple scaled bridge model (1:4) (a schematic of the bridge on the shaking table is shown in Fig. supported by four flexible columns.1 Evaluation of Retrofit of Existing Bridges 4. al. and the weight of the deck was concentrated at joints 5 and 6 (deck ends). The simulated motion is shown in (Fig. 3.I. The deck was modeled using a very stiff elastic beam element.~ 1\\ ~~ four Friction Pendulum System (FPS) bargains (Zayas et. Fig.3 shows the geometry of the FPS bearings..2. The dominant coefficient of friction as observed from the hys140 . (1994) are used to verify the capacity of the computational models to evaluate the response of structural systerns which include "base isolation systems" placed at arbitrary locations in the structure (not necessary at the base).4. On top of the columns were bM. 4. The bridge was subjected to ground motion defined by the Japanese seismic design code as "level 2" and "ground condition I". 4. 4. The bridge was modeled as a single frame as shown in Fig.1.2).4. The bridge consisted of a deck of 140kN weight. al. It should be noted that the model used for the bearings is not velocity dependant although the bearings friction characteristics are velocity dependent. known as Wen's model (see Sect. 1987).1 ).5. The isolators were modeled using a continuous kinematic model.4). 4. Each of these bearings carried a load of 35kN.
09 = 3. 4.006. the secondary stiffness. kyie/d.teretic loops obtained from the shaking table test experimental results was found to be 9%. One of the parameters required for the analysis procedure is the global structural equivalent damping. As mentioned in the previous section. The stiffness of the columns was determined from their tabulated structural properties. can be represented as stiffness proportional..4). Using Fy and uy the initial stiffness is kinirial =13059kN/m.6 and Fig.4 kN/m which gives post yield ratio nof 0.: the initial stiffness kinirial.~ = 62. The simulated ground motion is applied to the frame in the longitudinal direction. 4. Evaluating this parameter has significant influence on the results obtained from the analysis. The results of the analysis are shown in Fig. 4. The yielding force is Fy = WIl = 35 x 0. Because of flexibility of the shaking table the supports to the bridge cannot be considered fixed. mass proportional. the friction coefficient of the bearing and the supported weight. using the free vibration characteristics of the bridge in very low amplitudes when the bearings are not sliding. or combination 141 . The required parameters for this model.J5kN.'. Le. The other parameters. the yielding displacements uy was determined from the component testing hysteretic loop as 0.255mm. the global structural damping. Therefore the degree of fixity was determined from the experimental results. This value is related to the behavior of the bearing in low velocity (Fig. The post yield stiff ness of the isolation system is calculated from the radius of surface R and the weight W: kyield = (j)2m = (~)41t2 :. the yielding force Fy and the post yielding ratio n are derived using the geometrical properties of the bearing.7 .
In order to observe the influence of global structural damping and types of damping on the analytical solution. and therefore it is more difficult for sliding to occur The change in damping representation influence the results because the of the change in the stiffness matrix when the bearing are softening. and a small contribution from stiffness proportional damping.7 . of the two (Rayliegh) damping. the behavior of isolated bridges with flexible piers can be adequately evaluated using the analytical model. Tsopelas et al (1994) applied damping.4% mass proportional damping.6) for most types of damping. However In the case where there is significant amount of stiffness proportional damping a mismatch can be observed in the maximum peak. 4. 4. The displacements at the top of the piers (point 3. This happens probably because the high modes of the piers are damped. terms only to the degrees of freedom which has only linear elements connected to then and got very good results.7). In most cases the analytical results overestimate the experimental._. A comparison between the analytical and experimental results for different levels of damping. 4. 4) (Fig. the best results are achieved with 3. The presented comparison shows that using careful representation of global damping. 4. A good agreement is observed between the analytical and experimental displacements of the deck (Fig.6 and Fig.1. is presented in Fig. several analyses with different levels of damping were performed. are related directly to the moments and shear forces at the piers. 142 . Those displacements are more sensitive to the global damping representation.
.../11 I AISC I ...... II AISC WI4..._ _ _. levell..0 ~ ·0..====.._ _ _.•.) 10 15 FIGURE 4....___. 3...  1'S .! ._ .....4 L . Time [sec..r... 4.4 ._ _ _... ... I FIGURE 4. o .. 0._ .2 ~ '~ . .VO ~ ~.£ c 0. ground condition 1) 143 ...J. ~...2 ~..1 Bridge Experiment Set Up 0....llnpul Ground MOllon (Japanese code.0..!5 ..0..._...10.._ _ _ _ _.' _ _~_ _.. '..
FIGURE 4. ' _ _ IQISIHG "'.l!'!L...... IUII....sc"1'..'" units:mm ..3 Construdlon of Frldlon Pendulum System Bearing 144 ....' "'4" ....
.4 Experimental Derivation of The Sliding Bearings Frictional Characteristic (Coefficient of Friction as Function of Velocity) 145 ... PRESSURE 275....... C ...09 V  fmax0.. IS IE t o.06.062.!.....12 · ~ 0........3.120...2 MPa (2.5 ksl) o •• • • • • ~ fmax0..·'I___I _ _+_ _l o 100 200 300 400 500 600 VELOCITY (mm/sec) FIGURE 4....e.03 o • IDENTIFICATION TEST SEISMIC TEST O....:j w 0.A=TE="R::':'IA..:. PRESSURE 17..0.O. .....ootI.:L"""N."O M:=P""O""S=IT='E":":M.8 MPa (40 ...15 Q z r..___ksl) 8 uj ~ 0.:... ._.:.
FIGURE 4.5 Base Isolated Bridge Model 146 .L = 6.::.Deck.0 m 5 3 ~ Isolator Column.4m 1 :. L =l.
damp.005 ]: i e OOOO .'::0''5. damp 0.0 0.010 + small stiff prop.011O~'::'.:.r.}15..:. damp..005 ~ ]: ~ ~O.:.000 ]: ~ i • 0.1O~. Eltpcriment Analysis 1.005 . &0.0.010 r'":""":":':'::':"::'..7% stif..:.~'~~ Time (sec.010 ~~ 0.1O!c.r.'::0.:.005 .0 100.005 0.'. 0.) FIGURE 4..0.''5''.6 Displacements at the Top of the Pier (point 3 and 4) 147 .000 0.7% mass prop..'...005 .010 r_~I~.".005 0..0.0 ..!O'~ 0.005 0.005 0.'::0''7.'..''''7!15...005 0..7~%~~~~d~am~p~i~ng~_ _ 0.'..::'::":"::...) Time (sec. 0..'.0. 1..0100..0100..4% mass prop.01 0 r'"T"'""':"""::"'""T"=~' 1.0..0:. 0.000 3.0..""7!15.0..0"~5.':..L.'~7t. damp.0 .0100'.. damp. prop..ooo i <>0.:.0.'.005 0. damp.0. + small stiff prop.7% mass 0...
.'5.1..00 0.1':'::'' 0.00 0..0''5.'.10 .100..4% mass prop...'.10 .J:. I g is 0.:.. damp.00 0....7% Riley damping g 0.10 r._._da.. 0.05 ! ~ 0.l...:::::==r:....:~.:p_ro_.!15.:~__.1.p.:.s.7 Displacements of deck (point 5 and 6) 148 ...10 ..d.'d..f.4% mass prop.!15....:~~1..05 M ~ Time (sec) 1M 1~ 0.'.1.:...05 0.0.... 1..:r=::. 71"'%_m_as. damp.0'.101.0'.05 0.:.05 0.. damp.05 0.m. 0. damp.0 0. 3. 1.. 0. M ~ Time (sec) 1M 1~ FIGURE 4.0!..0 I5 3.. 1. prop.  Analysis 1..0.p..0.10 ..0..05 0.00 0.. Experiment 0.10 '"...i..:~~.:am~p__.10 g 0.:1O!.".''."'0'c51....0 0·100.0 0·100..~... .. %..0.:.05 0.10 '::"..05 0...00 is 0....::. + small slif.._+_s~m_a1_I_S_til"'f....05 0.:.I15.:'~.7% stiff prop damp 0..7% mass pro.:.101.0..p_ro."'0'c5.05 t: 0.!...0....__~..~.'0'.
and one pier support provides the longitudinal fixity. The deck and the bents are modeled as elastic beam with shear deformations modeling capability because of the low length to width ratio of this elements. The bridge was analyzed using the analytical platform for both types of bearing settings. al (1996) were used to evaluate the capability of the analytical platform to adequately predict the transient dynamic response behavior of bridges with different types of bearings during the experiment.9. For the original condition of the bridge. 4. The bridge was pulled by two jacks connected to the bridge at points on the deck above the bents and then quick released to observe its free vibration response. on Route 400.Field Test A full scale field test performed by Wendichansky (1996) on the southbound highway bridge crossing Cazanovia Creek and laboratory component experiments (Mander et. 4. The soil at the bent's foundation level and at the abutments is modeled as elastic foundation element. 149 .1. the girders were supported on steel bearings. 4. 4.8). and laminated rubber isolation bearings at the piers. supported on two abutments at its ends. 4. The bridge was retrofitted and the steel bearings were replaced by lead rubber bearings at the abutments. The participating mass of the soil is introduced into the corresponding joints. Three of the supports had expansion bearings. It is a three spans continuous structure.2 Case Study #2: East Aurora Bridge .11 ). The history of the force applied to bridge measured by a load cell is presented in Fig. Fig. The bridge is located in East Aurora.10 and Fig.4. 4. and two piers in the interior (Fig. New York.13. The south bound bridge deck is supported on seven girders.12. which are connected laterally by stringers (Fig. The structural model used for the analysis is presented in Fig. Several snap back tests were performed on the bridge with both types of bearings.
It should be noted that although the bridge response is primarily governed by first mode behavior. The finite stiffness of the stringers in the lateral direction can be modeled by using beam end springs (see section 3.1.11 ).16) were compared to the results from the analysis.2.1. there is no loss of accuracy (see Fig. The required properties of the bearings were retrieved form laboratory experimental results (Mander et.3).1). since the rigid body motions at this connection are represented by rigid arms (see section 3.15 ) and the elastomeric bearings (Fig. The linear properties of the bridge were taken from Wendichansky (1996). but not without great difficulty as demonstrated by Wendichansky (1996) ISO . It is therefore essential to use 3D nonlinear modeling to capture all of the behavior attributes. 4.2. al. 4. due to the angle of the applied load and the skew inherent in the bridge.4. 4. all modes are excited by the snap test. in an approximate fashion. In both cases a very reasonable agreement may be observed.1996). and the deck and the bent are connected only at one point.1). A 2D nonlinear program can be used to achieve reasonable results. Both types of bearings were modeled as Wen's model type isolator element (see section 3.2.Although each deck section between the bents is modeled as a single beam element. The displacements measured during the experiment for the steel bearings (Fig.
Lo.' 21213 110'': .H ~::::7/:::: ::~a~::~__~a:3:30~:j~:~::i ~ N." "" I __ 12150 .81Op VIew or the Bridges 151 . I 'N40 IfpPMllh . " I IZZOO 11"0 • 2f213 FIGURE 4.'.
I 7391 . f I lIlI'!l I rr'..).711~ .l._.2210 ~ ! rr"" rr .. '..' ~ on .686 '" '" on . N " _ 1753 __ on 0 • FIGURE 4. . .. rr~ '"  N '" ~'0450r ~L.7391 ' h· . _ f... .. t .9 'Jyplc:a\ Bent 152 .
.9 at N. 14C33. Abut. i L ~ ~ ABUTMENT FI~URE 4.".~ !I 11 Ii '.. .10 Typical Abutment 153 . Abut. 13869 StIffeners 178x 16 2210 16WF'36 at S. ii JoL . ii r • I ~ ..
JI.11 Side VIew orthe Bents ".II.93m &~ I ..l91 80475 I I ~ + . . I ~ "''L.r:. JI .~ I \ .284. ~ "\ lL:" £L.21 m II 1520 £L. 147U l 12850 7.II.271.II.S2 1220U J I SOUTH IOUND " NORTH BOUND FIGURE 4. 154 .264.
L..0 6.12 Input Force History.0 4.0 '".0 8..''"""'. 50.0 If 0.~ 0....".0 Time [Sec.] FIGURE 4.0 2.0 10. 100. Measured During the ThsL 155 .0 ".0 ~ 50.
FIGURE 4.13 Analytical Model or the Bridge. Used ror Analysis 1$6 .
tion between bridge deck and abutment using rigid body transformatIOn (ngld arms) FlGURE 4.14 Modeling of Bridge Deck Connection to Abutment (a) Modeling witb Stiff Elements (b) Modeling witb Rigid Body Transformation 157 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tr:anslational) soil spring (longitudinal transverse and rotational) stiff support (b) Modeling of conq.~~c bearing element soil mass soil springs (longltudmal and lateral) stiff support (a) Modeling of connection between bridge deck and abutment without rigid body transformatIOn deck modeled as shear and ~arn bearing rigid arm soil mass (rotational ~..\.~~~~~.
~r~~~rrr~~ 30 20 / experimental E ........15 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Steel Bearing at Abutment.'::0..10 5 an$fis ex ment ~ 'Q l'i 0 ] ·5 ·10 Time (Sec] FIGURE 4."'0':1. 158 .2::\.3:\....0:..0.............. ~ 10 ·100..J4.0 Time (Sec] FIGURE 4.16 Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Results for Bridge on Rubber Bearing at Abutment..§.....
Supports A2 and A3 are also very stiff but have some flexibility due to their flexible foundations.18 a). Using a simplified evaluation technique.61° and 67° respectively. The bents are supported on spread footings.2m thick. ranging between 30m to 39m in length. (a) Original bridge Structure and Modeling The bridge (see Fig. Since the ratio of length to width of the deck is low (1: 1. The bridge is modeled as a space frame system (see Fig. the bridge was found to have deficient . The deck is supported on eight supports. strength capacity to resist seismic loading.17 b.4.17 b). 4.4  159 . 4. The segments have different section properties. Abutment AI. the ribs and the arches is modeled using four equal longitudinal segments of beam type elements in each span. The arches are supported by a shear wall type bent (Fig. 4. Five of them (BlB5) are bents of the type shown in Fig. 4.17 (b). at the support centerline (Fig. piers Bl. The deck's vertical load is supported by concrete arches through ribs (see Fig. 4. 4. Fig.17 ) has seven spans. B2 and support A2 are skewed at 48°.17 b). Support Al is a very stiff abutment. The horizontal forces from the deck are transferred through a wall 1.3 Case Study #3: Bridge in Los Angeles· Retrofit Solution A bridge model based on a prototype bridge in Los Angeles was evaluated to demonstrate the 3D capacity of the computational model to: (i) evaluate a bridge subjected to differential ground motion and (ii) to evaluate the efficiency of a retrofit scheme using base isolation systems. 4.54°. relating to the arch depth.1. The combined section of the deck.19).
The model of the original bridge is presented in Fig. the force transferred to the bents will be reduced. 160 . by transferring some of the horizontal forces to supports AlA3 while also reducing the seismic demand. According to this solution the bents (B 1B5) are cut at a level of 2m below the arches spring line. by shifting the bridge period and increasing the dissipation of energy at the isolators (damping). The group of isolators was modeled as single isolator element for bents B3B5. The soil conditions are varying along the bridge. The bents are modeled as beam colunms. using the given soil properties. Several isolation elements were used however to model the isolation system of bents B 1 and B2. to account for stiff connection between the deck and the bent. 4. Eight isolators with elastomeric restoring springs are inserted in the space created by the cut. The foundations system is modeled as elastic springs. a retrofit solution using PTFE bearings system is considered. Support A 1 is considered as fixed support. to be able to capture the behavior related to the skewed bents. 4.0) shear deformations are considered. using information provided by a geothech consulting firm. from very stiff soil under bent B 1 and supports A I. A3 to very soft soil under the other supports. Supports A2 and A3 are modeled as stiff elements with flexible foundations.20.1:2. with the adequate rigid body transformations. elevating the deck on the isolation system. (b) Retrofit solution and modeling Because of the low seismic capacity of the bents and foundations.19 and the model of the isolated bridge is presented in Fig. It is assumed that by isolating the deck.
In Z direction the bridge is bending like a beam on three supports A IA3. 4.22) under the supports (abutments Al. In X direction the isolated bridge is vibrating mostly between supports Al and A2 while floating (sliding) over the other supports. B2.2 sec (Fig. Bridge Response for Seismic Excitation (a) Uniform motion It should be emphasized. 4. and the influence of the variable ground motion. so does the ground motion. before and after retrofit. The responses in X and Z directions are interacting trough the skew of bents B 1.23 and Fig. that the bridge is extremely stiff in both X (longitudinal) and Z (transversal) directions. The period of the original bridge is about 0.(c) Spatial Ground Excitation Since the soil conditions under the supports vary significantly. The period is increased to about 0.21) under the supports on the soft soil (Bents B2B5 and abutment A2) is amplified and it is much larger then the ground motion (Fig. (d) Analysis of Bridge In order to evaluate the seismic demand of the bridge.A3. 161 . 4. 4. The ground motion (Fig.4 sec for the isolated case (the bridge is only isolated at bents BIB5 and at A2 in X direction). bent Bl) on stiff soil. which leads to similar natural periods in both directions.28). four different analysis cases were performed: original bridge with variable and uniform ground motion and the same for the isolated bridge.
This differential motion introduce large stresses in the bridge components. In Z direction. The bents of the original bridge subjected to differential motion have significant deformation (relative movement between their top and bottom) in X direction (Fig. The displacements. can be observed in the case when differential motion is applied to the bridge.24). BI and A3 experience smaller displacements than the other supports. The effect of isolation on the bridge response when subjected to differential motion is very significant in Z direction. (b) differential motion The most significant influence obtained using base isolation for this bridge. are significantly larger in the isolated bridge due to change of structural system from a beam on 8 supports to beam on 2 supports (see Fig. 4.26). Supports AI.27) due to the "floating behavior" mentioned earlier.uniform motion).23).32 . While the increase of shear forces between the 162 . and a reduction of only 20% in bent BI (skewed) (see Fig. This translates into reduction of 50% in shear forces in bent B5 (straight). 4. however. The deformations of the piers are reduced at the expense of the relative deformations of the isolators. 4. which result in differential motion between the supports.In X direction there is no significant reduction in shear forces in bents I and 5 due to isolation solution (Fig. the influence of isolation is more notable especially in the bents which are straight (not skewed). The isolated bridge however experiences much smaller shear forces in X direction (Fig.27) for the case of uniform motion. 4. 4. 4. this results in significantly larger shear forces as compared to the "uniform" ground motion case (Fig.
Remarks on Case Study #3 The case study presented herein demonstrates the ability of the new computer platform to model a three dimensional problem.30). soils.1). including triaxial isolation models (see also section 3.2. isolators. The analytical results show that each of the modeling details. The alternative models. differential motion. and soil springs (see also section 3. i. planer models could not capture the influence of skewness of supports. has indeed substantial influence on the force and deformation response of the bridge. 4. 4. 163 . using condensed macro elements. And the significant differences between the shear forces of the isolated and original bridge are shown in Fig. skewness.32.e. i.e. or general purpose three dimensional models such as ANSYS require extremely large resourcese to complete one analysis. The case study presented also the ability to determine influence of differential ground motion.4).uniform and differential ground motion for the original bridge is of the order of ten (Fig.31 ) the increase for the isolated case is of the order of 2. 4.3.5 (Fig.
hoI~'_ bent ...0 6. '} \~ '. B4 39 .0 (b) Section AA (bent side view) FIGURE 4. A3 36 .AI 30 BI B2 A2 B3 30 30 36 . 1 /j ~.foundation 3.17 Bridge Top View and Typical Bent Cross Section 164 .~lo7 ~rJ f "' ~  J: !L  "' ~ ci 8 (a) Bridge Top View ribs arch isolator location '. 85 39 " ..
0 (b) Section CC (bent cross section) FIGURE 4.18 Deck and Bent Cross Section 165 .deck 21m rib / arch (a) Section BB (deck cross section) inserted isolator 21.
166 . . • J • • 1 .".19 Structural Model or Original Bridge· Before RetroDt . • • • FlGURE 4. ! • .
• . ! • o . • • FIGURE 4.20 Structural Model or Isolated Bridge 167 .
0 0.0 § ~ ....0 ·20.':0'''':5"'0.0 ..x direction 20.0 10..0 z direction 40."'':1:!0'O::''''1::5'::0'''':::!20 0 .0 0. 5..0 10.0 10.0 ·10.0 0 O.0 15. 30.."""'"' ·1 0..0 \.0 20.. Time Lsec.]· ..21 Ground Displacements on Stiff Soil 168 . vertical 10.0 20.0 0.00.0 15.0 20.0 . FIGURE 4.0 0.10...0 5.0 10. '" 0 P.
0 20.0 20.0 z direction 60. 00 5.0 20.0 10. 00 5.0 30.0 20.0 50.x direction 40.0 . 00 5.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 10..0 20.0 10.0 '8 '' () ~ ..0 30.0 40.0 . Q vertical 20.0 15.0 30..0 0.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 15.22 Ground Displacements on Soft Soils 169 .0 10.0 T' 10[0 ] lme sec. 15.0 FIGURE 4.0 0.0 10..0 .0 10.0 0.
A2
0.10
0.10
B5
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
~O.IO 0
2
4
6
8
10
0.10
0
2
4
6
8
10
B2
0.10
0.10
0.05 0.05
B4
§
~
l5
.
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.10
0
2
4
6
8
10
·0.10
0
2
4
6
8
10
Bl
0.10
0.10
B3
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.10
0
2
4
6
Time [Sec]
8
10
·0.10
0
2
4
6
8
10
  isolated   not isolated
FIGURE 4.23 Relative Deformations in X Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at Piers Centerline for Uniform Ground Motion
170
I
•
A2
0.20
B5
0.20 O.IS
,r''.,r,,....,
O.lS
OW
O.OS
OW
0.00
.().05
O.W
1_"""''''''''....
O.OS
0.00
0.05
CliO
L..J"'="'"
O.lS .(l.20
0.2S
O.lS .(l.20
0.2S
.(l.30 OLL2L....L.....J4L,.....J6,.1S.&iW .(l.30 OLL2L....L.....J4L,.....J6'.....JS'....IW
B2
0.20
0.15 0.15
B4
0.20 ,.,,.,..,...O.W O.OS 0.00 .(l.OS .(l.lO .(l.IS 0.20
0.25
O.W O.OS 0.00 O.OS 0.10 O.lS 0.20
0.25
i.J""""''''''''""
0.30 0!':'2'4!':'6,..JL.J...:'W 0.30 S
0!'!2'4!'!6'...,S~.'..,JW
Bl
0.20
0.15 0.10 0.15 0.10
B3
0.20 '',....,.,,,.,
O.OS 0.00 O.OS 0.10 O.lS 0.20 .(l.25
O.OS 0.00 .(l.OS 0.10 .(loiS .(l.20
0.2S
1""""""'",
.(l.30 OLLL....L.....JC':'6'!S.Li .(l.30 0~''2L....L.....J4c':'6':'S':'10 4 2 10
Time [Sec]
  isolated   not isolated
FIGURE 4_24 Relative Deformations in X Direction, Between Ground and Deck Disp., at Piers Centerline for Variable Ground Motion
171
BI
above isolator
3000
2000
B5
1000
1000
o !11m
1000 2000
2000
3000
r''',.,r,..,
under Isolator
3000
,rr',.,,,r,
under isolator
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
3000 !'!'~'+'!,L,J 3000 J,,!,.J!'~'!,'!. 2 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
bottom
3000
2000
1000
1000
o
1000
2000
1000
2000
3000
!'J2L....&.....~"+'!8"!JO 3000 0 '!2:'!4'.JL....&.....!S",l10 !6
dme[sec]
  differentia] motion   urufonn motion
FIGURE 4.25 Shear Forces in The Pier's X Direction, for Piers Bl and B5, for Isolated Bridge, at Different Heights Along the Pier
172
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000
4000
A2 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000
85
4000
5000 6000 7000 82 84 7000 6000
5000 6000 7000
0
2
4
6
10
C ~
.E
~
~
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000
4000
5000
4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
5000 6000 7000
0
2
4 81
6
8
10
0
2
4 83
6
8
10
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000
4000
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000
5000 6000 7000
time (sec]
4000 5000
6000 7000 6 10
  differential motion _. uniform motion
FIGURE 4.26 Shear Forces in X Direction, for Nonisolated Bridge, at Base of piers
173
uniform motion
B5 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 '0 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 2
4
differential motion
B5
g
5000
.2
~
6 BI
8
10
5000
0
2
4
6 BI
8
10
~
4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 2
4 6 orne [sec] 8
4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 10 5000 0 2
4
6
8
10

isolated not isolated
FIGURE 4.27 Comparison of Shear Forces in X Direction, for Piers Bl and BS
174
05 0.10 0. 0.05 0.10 0. at Piers Centerline for Uniform Ground Motion 175 .not isolated FIGURE 4..00 ·0.00 ·0.A2 0.05 B4 :§: .10 I I I B5 0.05 .05 f I I I I ·0.0.00 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 ..10 0 2 4 6 8 10 B2 0.00 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Bl 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 .:!l Q Q.10 0 2 Time [Sec) 4 6 8 10 .05 0.05 ·0.05 0.0..isolated .().05 f.00 0.05 .10 0.10 0.10 0.0.28 Relative Deformations in Z Direction.0.05 B3 0.05 .k "I 0.00 ·0..10 0 2 4 6 8 10 . Between Ground and Deck Disp.0.
10 0.OS 0.05 B3 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 B2 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.29 Relative Deformations in Z Direction.05 0.05 :§: ~ 0.10 0.05 0..not isolated FIGURE 4.00 0.10 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.05 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Bl 0.A2 0.10 B5 O.isolated .10 0.05 0..00 0..05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.10 B4 0.05 0.10 0 2 Time [Sec] 4 6 8 10 0. at Piers Centerline for Variable Ground Motion 176 .00 0.05 0. Between Ground and Deck Disp.10 0 2 4 6 8 10 .
.... 5000 4000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 3000 2000 1000 o I~''.....L. 5000 4000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 3000 2000 1000 0 o 1000 2000 1000 2000 3000 OLI1L:...l../\..bl above isolator b6 above isolator 6000 r~~r~~~_~~' 6000 """'"''.l.r~.JIO timelsec) .~ .JL4.r~..J_ 3000 L..differential motion .LL_...I1 3000 OLL. at Different Points Along the Pier 177 .~. __..L..J6l.L.rr... for Isolated Bridge..30 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction.J o 2 4 6 8 10 bottom bottom 6000 6000 '~'""""T.JL..L'L'_L'...LL.1'4L. uniform motion FIGURE 4.L.JL.J2l.J2 6 IO S 6000 r~~~~~~~~~~ 6000 r~~~~r~~~~r~~ 5000 4000 under isolator uruler isolator 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 3000 2000 1000 0 o 1000 2000 1000 2000 3000 L'L'~.J\. for Piers Bl and B5..J 1000 2000 o 1000 2000 3000 OLI1.__L.1..113OOO0 !.I!SL.'L.I.
.. for Nonisolated Bridge. at Their Base 178 .differentia1 motion .31 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction. 10000 15000 20000 0 2 4 B2 20000 IS000 6 8 20000 10 0 2 4 B4 6 8 10 20000 IS000 10000 10000 .umfonn motion FIGURE 4..A2 20000 15000 10000 SOOO 0 SOOO BS 20000 IS000 10000 SOOO 0 5000 10000 IS000 ~.E I8 ~ SOOO 0 SOOO sooo 0 SOOO 10000 15000 20000 0 2 4 B1 20000 IS000 10000 IS000 6 8 20000 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 B3 20000 IS000 10000 SOOO 0 SOOO 10000 SOOO 0 SOOO 10000 IS000 10000 IS000 20000 0 2 4 6 time [sec] 8 20000 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 .
for Piers Bl and BS 179 .uniform motion BS differential motion BS 20000 1S000 10000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 ·1000 ·2000 ·3000 ~ .2 4000 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 ~ 10 ~ BI BI 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 ·1000 ·2000 ·3000 20000 1S000 10000 sooo 0 ·SOOO 1\'\ \ V 4 6 ' ·4000 0 2 4 6 time (sec] 8 2 8 10  isolated Dot isolated FIGURE 4.32 Shear Forces in The Pier's Z Direction.
and increase the seismic forces to a level of which the foundations will not be able to resist. Among them the conventional techniques of strengthening the piers with steel jackets.0m (between 17. The 180 . It is supported by 5 parallel arch girders in each span. For this type of retrofit the foundations will have to be retrofitted also. or unrestrained. The original bridge was analyzed and a selected retrofit scheme based on introduction of seismic isolation system similar to case study #3 is evaluated. A large size bridge modeled from a prototype bridge in Los Angeles with deficient seismic capacity. Several techniques of retrofit were initially considered. and therefore increase the reliability of the bridge. but using simplified methods. of 8. doesn't change the capacity.0m) supported by bents of changing height. 4.33a is a mUltiple concrete arches bridge with 12 spans of an average opening of 24.1.0m to 19. but is expected to reduce the demand.5m and 35. retrofit using base isolation.5m. and height of O. shown in Fig. and has width of about 20m.4 Case Study #4: Bridge over Los Angeles River ·Retrofit Solution with Base Isolation and Restrained Expansion Joints. it was found that the seismic capacity of the bridge is smaller then the predicted demand in future events. when the deck has mul· tiple expansion joints restrained. probably prohibitive. On the other hand. at large cost. The bridge supports 4 traffic lanes.4. The bridge.0m. is analyzed to demonstrate the capacity of the computational model to evaluate the efficiency of retrofit of a bridge using base isolation. The bridge suffered minor damage during past earthquakes. since this type of retrofit increases the bearing demand on the foundations due to the additional weight. It was found that this technique cannot provide a good retrofit solution to the problem.
original bridge has thermal expansion joints, 20 rnrn in size, in span B3B4 near bent B3 (shown in Fig. 4.33b), and similar joints near bents B6 and B9. The two abutments are very rigid, and can be considered as rigid supports. The foundations of the bents, supported by soft soil, are considered as flexible. The passive pressure on the piers below grade is considered as horizontal flexible support.
For evaluation, the bridge is modeled as a space frame (see Fig. 4.34). In the current analysis the bridge is assumed to be elastic, and the nonlinear behavior is concentrated, in the base isolation system and in the expansion joints only. The deck sections are modeled as a single beam elements. Since the ratio of length to width is small, the shear deformations of the beam should be considered. The deck elements are connected to the bents, using rigid body transformations (coupled motions  see section 3.2.1). The expansion joints are modeled using several "gap" elements (see section 3.3.5), which are transformed from the bridge center line by using rigid body transformations (rigid arms see section 3.2.1).
Two retrofit schemes are considered for the bridge:
1) The bridge is fully isolated as shown in Fig. 4.35(a) friction (teflon and stainless steel) devices are inserted in bents 3, 6 and 9 just under the bents crown, and above ground level in the rest of the bents. At the abutments, a horizontal and vertical cut is created and the isolation system is inserted between the bridge deck and the abutment. Springs in the form of elastomeric springs are suggested to be inserted near the sliding supports (see Fig. 4.35 (c». Those springs are not transferring any vertical load because they are softer then the isolation system. The natural period of the iso
181
lated bridge was chosen to be T = 2.5 sec. The ratio between the initial vertical force
P initial on the isolator and the restoring spring stiffness kisolated is in this case:
k isolated
= 4rt 2Pinitiai
r
g
(EQ4.1)
The friction coefficient was assumed to change, from 5% at 0 velocity to 10% at velocity of 0.1 mlsec and above. The isolation system is modeled using the triaxial isolation element (see section 3.2.4).
2) The retrofit according to the second alternative, has a similar arrangement to the first alternative, except that the connection between the deck and the abutments remains rigid (not isolated) and can transfer forces without relative
m~vement.
This
type of solution is considered because of the significant cost involved in isolating the abutment
The two retrofit schemes are compared to each other and to the original unretrofitted bridge, and the importance of various modeling components is evaluated.
.!. Behavior of bridge under seismic loading
Since the deck of the bridge is sloped from the elevation of 8.3 m at the west (left) abutment to 19.2 m at the east (right) abutment (Fig. 4.33a), the bridge is supported by columns with changing height. The longer columns are much more flexible then the shorter columns. Under seismic excitations, in the original bridge, there is transfer of force
";1'
through the deck from the long columns to the short ones. The transverse shape of the deformed bridge at time 2.0 seconds is shown in Fig. 4.1 (a), shows that bents b7 b8 and b9 experience the largest displacements while bent b I hardly moves. At the same time the
182
displacements of the retrofitted bridge according to alternative 1 (see Fig. 4.1(b» are almost uniform along the bridge, showing that the deck is floating over the isolators. As a consequence the forces of the isolated bridge, at the tall part of the bridge at bents b9 and b 10 are up to three times smaller then the forces in the original bridge, as shown in Fig. 4.39.
The deformations of a typical frame can be observed for the original bridge in Fig. 4.37(a) and for the bridge retrofitted according to alternative I in Fig. 4.37(b). The deformations in the original bridge resulting from the bending of the piers, while in the isolated case, the movement is mostly due to relative displacements in the isolation system and the piers bending is minimal.
For the retrofit with alternative II, the behavior of the structure is predominantly similar to the behavior of the isolated bridge retrofitted according to alternative I. Although the displacements at the two ends are much smaller, as shown in Fig. 4.40. Therefore the forces in the bents are close to the forces in alternative I of the isolated bridge, except for the end bents, which transfer some of their force, directly to the abutments (Fig. 4.39).
In both retrofit alternatives, there was significant reduction in shear force demand especially in the long columns, and as a result reduction in bending moments, which increase significantly the reliability of the bridge.
Remarks on Case Study #4
183
The modeling <!f the bridge included transversely distributed isolators and flexibility of transversely distributed piers with soil springs influence. This modeling could be achieved alternatively either with large general purpose computer codes i.e ANSYS, ADINA, etc.) inefficient in carrying the computations, or with much simplified coeds like (DRAIN 2DX, IDARC2D etc.) but with restrictive assumptions for isolators behavior and spacial behavior of the overall structure. The solution was obtained in presence of highly nonlinear expansion joints models (gap. elements) with stiffness changing from zero to extremely high values. The solutions converged for long time records as shown in the time histories displayed.
184
... ,
A
+19.2
[
'"
""
18,0
....,
,....
.
I.!
n.'
".,
l!1.~
'"
19.5
'"
'"
".,
a) Bridge Side View (As Built)
....,
ppJoint
PI'JoInr
811' joint
'tt' B
B
r
'" ,....
18.0
....
'" '"
".,
'"
".,
'"
'"
19.5
n.'
b) Bridge Side View With Expansion Joint (After first retrofit)
Ifo·_ _ _:2om
deck surface "I'D
o.s:L
I j!:m
T
•
.j,!'
•
~
SecBB Section through joint
elastomeric or sliding
Sec AA
Cross Section
bearings
SecCC
FIGURE 4.33 Original Bridge Before and After First Retrofit
185
..34 Analytical Model of the Bridge 186 ... " FIGURE 4..
.0 . .~ 1 I 18. ......~ ..~ ..~ '" .~ GGGGG8G8GB8 a) Base Isolated Bridge With Expansion Joints .. ..:~.. 18..0 g g g Sec AA ...~ '" ".0 '" 35..... + r '" ..~< '. A +19...~ "'" 17....~ . .. '" .0 b) Base Isolated Bridge Without Expansion Joints bridge deck bridge pier c) Retrofit Isolation System Detail FIGURE 4_35 Base Isolated Bridge with and without Expansion Joints 187 .0 . ~....0 "" .. .' '" 19.2 1 '" lI.5 21.:.
.... .. ... t:z.·t1}. . .I ~~. · " \ . \1 \ \1 . .. ~·t. .. ..~==t:::=". ........... . . . ~·..1. (b) Isolated Bridge 188 .. ·4·. ..\ ....36 Displaced Shape or (a)Orlglnal Bridge.J..i=.. (b) FIGURE 4. \ ""'. ·~\.." t= .. (a) ...
~~~" .37 Displaced Shape or Typical Frame In the (a) Original Bridge. (b) Isolated Bridge 189 . I I I I I • (a) (b) FIGURE 4.
  no gap
  not isolated 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200
400
b2 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200
400
bll
600 800 1000 0 2
4 6
600 800 8 10 1000 0 2
4 6
8
10
bl·n
blO 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200
400
100 80 60 40
C
0
g
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
4 6
.s
Ii
0
"
"
600 800 8 10 1000 0 2
4 6
8
10
bloc
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 1000 800 600 400 200 0 200
400
b9
40
60 80 100 0 2
4 6 time {sec)
600 800 8 10 1000 0 2
4 6
8
10
FIGURE 4.38 Comparison of Shear Force in Non Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without Gap
190
  isolated .... _ not isolated
1000 SOO 600 400 200 0
200
b2 1000 SOO 600 400
200
bll
0
200
400 600 800 1000 0 2
4
400 600 800
6
bl·n
S
10
1000
0
2
4 blO
6
8
10
100 SO
1000 SOO 600 400 200 0
200
60
40
g " ~
O!
20 0 20 40
1
400 600
60
SO 100 0 2 4
6
soo
S 10 1000 0 2 4 b9 1000 SOO 600 400
200
6
S
10
bloc
100 SO
60
40 20 0 20 40
0 200 400 600 800 0 2 4
6
60
SO 100 8 10
1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
time [sec)
FIGURE 4.39 Comparison of Shear Forces in Original and Retrofitted (AIt.1) Bridge
191
  isolated   nogap
b2 1000 800
bll
1000 800
600
400
600
400
200 0 200
400
200 0 200 400
600
800 1000 0 2
4 bID
600
800 6 8 10 1000 0 2
4
6 blO
8
10
100 80 60 40 '0
1000 800
600
400
g
~
~
20 0
200 0 200 400
oS
• 'Ii
20
40
60
80 100 0 2
4
600
800 6 8 10 1000 0 2
4
6 b9
8
10
bloc
100 80 1000 800
60
40
600
400
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2
4 time (sec)
200
200 400
600
800 6 8 10 1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
FIGURE 4.40 Comparison of Shear Force In Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Withont Gap
192
isolated nogap
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 ·0.10 0.15 0 2
b5
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05
·0.10
blO
4
6
8
10..0,15
0
2
4
6
8
10
b4
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
0.10
b9
0.05 0.00 0.05
0.10
.0,15
0
2
4
6
8
100,15
0
2
4
6
8
10
b3
0.10 0.05 0.10
0.05
b8
0.00 0.05 0.10
S
Q
~
0.00
~ ._ 0.05
0.10
·0.15 0
2
4
6
8
10
0.15
0
2
4
6
8
10
b2
0.10
0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 2
b7
0.15 0
4
6
8
10
0.15
0
2
4
6
8
10
bI
0.10
0.05
b6
0.10
0.05
0.00 0.05 0.10
0.00 0.05 0.10
0.15
0
2
4
6
8
100. 15 0
Time [Sec) FIGURE 4.41 Comparison of Deck Displacements in Isolated Bridge, and Bridge Without Gap
2
4
6
8
10
193
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0
isolated Dot isolated
b5
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
blO
2
4
6
8
10 0.15 0
2
4
6
8
10
b4
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05
0.10
b9
0.\0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
0.15 0
2
4
6
8
100.15 0
2
4
6
8
10
b3
0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
~
b8
E
0.
~
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 2
4
is
6
8
JO ·0.15 0
2
4
6
8
10
b2
0.\0 0.05 0.00 0.05
0.10
b7
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
0.15
0
2
4
6
8
100.15 0
2
4
6
8
10
bI
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 2
4
b6
0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
6 8
100.15 0
2
4
6
8
Time [Sec]
10
FIGURE 4.42 Comparison of Deck Displacements In Isolated Bridge, and Not Isolated Bridge
194
10 0.10 b7 0.10 ~ .15 0 2 4 6 8 10 b4 0.00 0.05 ~ 0.15 0 I :: 0.15 0 2 0.nogap not isolated 0.05 ·0.15 0 . 0 ~ 0E1 2 4 _L:I V " 8 0.10 1 4 2 1 6 1 8 10 0.10 " 10 0.05 E '" is 0.10 L' .05 0.0.00 0.05 b5 0.10 0.05 0.05 ~ 0. I 0.10 0.05 0.15 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [Sec] FIGURE 4. 6 ..00 : 0.00 0.10 0.15 0 2 4 6 8 10 bi 0.15 0 2 4 6 8 10 b2 0.05 0.00 .10 0.10 0.05 blO 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.10 b6 I I .05 0.05 0.15 0 2 4 b9 0.10 O. and Bridge without Gap 195 .10 4 6 8 10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.IS 0 2 4 6 8 100.05 : 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0. 0.05 0.10 b8 0.00 0.05 0.15 0 2 4 6 8 10 b3 0.05 0. 0.43 Comparison of Deck Displacements In Non Isolated Bridge.10 6 8 10 0.00 0.0.
The total weight of the deck is 1320 metric tons The cross section and reinforcement of the bridge piers is shown in Fig. The bridge was used as a pilot project for base isolated bridges in Japan. 4.46 for the abutment bearings and in Fig. A view of the bridge is shown in Fig. As shown in Fig. 4. 4.1.45 the cross section of the pier is changing along it's height and so is the reinforcement as shown in Fig. Lead rubber isolators were used to isolate the deck from the abutment and piers in the longitudinal direction only. shown in Fig. 326. the total length of the bridge is 105.48.48. The pier foundations are represented by 196 . 4.5 Case Study 5: Miyagawa Bridge An existing bridge in Japan is used to demonstrate the difference between elastic and inelastic behavior of base isolated bridges.5m and it was erected across the Keta river as part of National Highway No. 4. the bearings are locked in the transverse direction. 4. the width is lO. 4.49. Bridl:e Description The Miyagawa bridge is a three span continuous bridge. Those bridges are called in Japan Menshin bridges. The Menshin design is aimed toward increasing the energy dissipation capacity of the bridge system rather then shifting the period of the bridge. 4.47 for the pier bearings. The supporting pier was modeled by several sections in order to take into account the changing stiffness and the changing mass along its height. A geometrical description of the lead rubber bearings is . The structural model of the bridge used in the analysis is shown in Fig.50. 4.44 and a geometric description is given in Fig.45 (Buckle 1992).4. The force displacement curves used for the bearings as derived from field test are shown in Fig.5m.
3939E1 0. The deck weight is concentrated at the joints between the deck and the piers and between the deck and the abutment. and the applied axial force.8279E4 0.1I29E2 0.3 and 4) and the weight of the foundations of 300 tf is applied in between them (joints 5 and 6 in Fig. The inelastic pier is split into several elements (elements 5 to 11 and 6 to 12) for the following two reasons: (i)The geometric section of the pier and the hysteretic properties are changing over the height of the pier (ii) It enables the application of the mass of the column in intermediate locations along the height of the pier. reinforcement.8832E4 0. Those values were calculated from the section geometry.92 cI> (11m) 0.87 cI> (11m) 0.02 1001. TABLE 4.two infinitely stiff elements (elements 1.II09E2 0.1 .50). 4.3207El 0. The deck is assumed to act as an elastic beam.89 886.7714E4 My Ctm) 1509.2. 4. The isolator elements are located above the piers.59 1225.50) 5 7 9 II Crack Moment Crack Curvature Yield Moment Yield Curvature Ultimate Moment Ultimate Curvature MeCtm) 819.06 1217. According to the Japanese code. it is required that the bridge remains in the elastic range for a moderate earthquake described as level 1 design earthquake. as it is required in the Japanese design code.1057E2 0.9389E4 0.1029E2 MuCtm) 1632. 4.3005El 0. Two input ground motions were used for the analysis. and survive a strong earthquake designated as the level 2 design earthquake (see Fig.1. and above the abutment.2) 197 .42 1687.75 859.48 1135. Hysteretic Pier Nonlinear Properties member section # (Fig.50 1568.4402El The ground was modeled by elastic rotational and translational spring. The inelastic properties of the piers segments shown in Table 4.16 1126.71 cI> (11m) 0.
51 and Fig. 198 . so that the structure can survive this excitation.0 sec from the beginning of the excitation. 4. Two types of analysis were performed: (i) elastic analysis was performed using the initial stiffness of the piers as presented in Table 4. were used. both type of analysis were performed on the isolated bridge.1 .without collapse. the properties presented earlier and marked on the bridge model. the interest is concentrated in analysis of structures subjected to severe earthquakes. The results of those analysis are presented in Fig. The anal sis results for th I v the structure is subjected to large displacements at about 2. the relative displacements of the pier from the analysis where about 230mm compare to 130mm which are the displacements calculated from the linearized design procedure. and the base of the pier undergoes large inelastic deformation in which the cur~ vature is about 116 of the ultimate curvature. 4.52. (ii) nonlinear analysis were the stiffness of the piers changing according to the properties in Table 4. where the strength of the element is limited to elastic analysis. As mentioned earlier. The displacements of the deck are larger then the design displacements which control the size of the required gap in the abutment. where the strength of the element is infinite. The ground conditions of the site is stiff soil which are under the category of ground condition 1.1 . In order to compare inelastic analysis. Since in the current study. the presented results are for the level 2 earthquake only.
1" " ' .:~?~ .. by the limited capacity analysis.44 Completed Mlyagawa Bridge 199 .. .The displacements of the isolated deck are hardly influenced.' " FIGURE 4. The moments at the bottom ofthe pier are kept low in the case of the inelastic analysis while for the case of the elastic analysis they are 50% higher. ' ~. but the displacements at the top of the bent under the isolator are much smaller in the elastic case.
II ~\ •. . I...45 Bridie Geometry 200 ." .l .. ...~!..c.......' : '""f. . l\   l .n . __ .bI! '.I !Vi UO  : ..:(:.. ~ ..... " • ! ..... ..."...."" \!wh..' J ... "" I~k~ ' •  I~ ..r . ... ~ ... .. ~  ~ ... ' .' ..... ...oo_tUO ! ~ '10 I I Bridge Pier . "  .....towc··l r"'" ... f . . C. I ... 8 V\ . .. ....~.... · j ! • • .. t ...... " ...."""'..000 ... .~ . I 1i h." I Supersaucrure FIGURE 4.. ......I _If_ '00!l I e.... "...Il00 .".... !OD '" 1100 .... . L4l • Side View  . II . " ~x .... . "... ~~:'~.... .......'.. : Jll "'r' . "''C.. . • 10 AUI\" • •• ~ AI Center of span . ! .....  toO . ...... (' .e· . ~ .. .. • ..................1... J... .. ..: i":r ... . ~ ..... .. ..........:! .. "" . too At suppon ~_IJ. ... ~ .l.. Lf1  L_ ' ...... YI ..~. "'~: .. . ~ r..
~ ~+.·AI i' '1$ • ~ • FIGURE 4.47 Lead Rubber Burlnp for BridIe Pier 201 .+..46 Lead Rubber Burlngs for BridIe Abutment IS 41+SUSlII 122 .lii:O::"'olll • • • .Xl~. ~. .... • 1000 ISO 111.70 4· 10 FIGURE 4... • 4.fA+:143:[..:S30=rIO IXIM 20 I. .. :=J O I.~·.'1 AA J:.
." ....... ~ .. I.. 20 ·····'·····1··. ..... i· ... •I..... ~... . ... ·.•• .H  .·····.... ........... !o.:...·i. .... ···.... • • • • .:..... ..•... . ~ 30 0 lIO :c :....:.. ... : . 3989...... JYSOI20eo Horizontal dhpllcelDent ~ .... ... : ..... . . :..•• i ... ......... 10 ••••• i···•....····· ····:·····f·· ..~ ...U curve'uled for dellgn 50 ·····f·····r .i r t . ":.. ·i·· ::' ·l·····:····. ... ·.· . s·····..0.. I ...•. &0 ..i. I • tOO..... FIGURE 4. .... •····T·····:·····r·····!·····.0 ···.49 Load Displacements CU"es 202 . j.... .... O.····· ....·· •••• l .0' • ..0 ·····'·····1··· ..... ··i····· . : .48 Cross Section or Plen . 20 ••••• !.... !... ""'" . .... ..  ~F ... II o so • t....···· . ··1····· ····7·····. . I • • .. ...• ... :i.............: .. ·.. ....30 .. : . ··· .... t ••• :.At Mid·height 2@300 600 10@300=SOOO At Bottom 3100 20@150=3000 ...... ...•.... . ·····1·..·····.. eo 120 ISO (IDIII) .... .. 10 ........·····:·····!····· ... . o  H ....5 20@150=3000 3100 4833 4000 D22 FIGURE 4. • .... .. ....... .... .. : 70 • • '! r! .........:. } .... 30 ·····i·····i·····i·····i····· " ...•.........
0 Y +2... +1. . • . M '= Y' co y = 1570t~ 8 16 w=114t 5 r ' Y:.77xlO tmlTad 6 5 FIGURE 4.0 6 .0 lumped mass 20 13 DECK Y 14 18 +9. . . . . . . 3 . = 2. ..21xlO tim k. .326l' .0 . = Y:y 1126t~ = 1126t~ I IS y: +4.t +13. 8 4 • • • ' ••• J • •• .0 Y: +0. 4 kT = 2.•• 6 .50 Structural Model of the Bridge 203 .0 . .
) 15 20 FIGURE 4. 1000 ~ o 5  2000 10 Time (Sec..) ./\ pv ::.moment at bottom of foundation 2000 1000 I 6 E 0 ~~ rf" ~ '11 ~ j " c ~ it II f IJ I tI A IJV 1000 2000 ~ o 5 10 .51 Moment at Bottom of Pier and Foundation 204 .c moment at bottom of pier 2000 1000 6 Q E c " ~ 0 ~k rr ~h\ K~ V IAt.. 3000 15 20 Time (Se<.inelastic elastl.
l5 ·0.52 Displacements at Pier Centerline.().inerastic Pier displacements. Id l' ·0.25 o 5 to Time (Sec.03 om ! " ~ ~ sis c 0. W ~ 11'1111 IJ 1/1 ~ ~A ~ ~ . under isolator 0.) 15 20 elastic "''.f\/\ 11'1 1" I I M ·0.01 ~I~ . Under and Above Isolator 205 .02 HI 5 ·0.00 l!.03 0 10 lime (Sec.05 fI I fJ M ~ I ! ! 0.) 15 20 FIGURE 4.05 ~ rJ\~ ~ V ~ I" v~0v " .Pier displacement above isolator 0.
(3) acceleration ramp input (4) pulse input. The bottom part of the piers were inelastic behavior is expected was modeled as concrete hyste.2.1. In this section a bridge that was subjected to the Northridge earthquake and experienced collapse was evaluated using various pushover procedures: (1) uniform incremental static load. The prestressed deck and the top part of the piers was modeled as elastic beams. the height of the piers is increased for the analysis the increased height is shown in Table 4. 4. a typical cross section of the box girder deck is shown in Fig.6 Case Study 6: Evaluation of Bridge Capacity Using Different Push· Over Procedures and Dynamic Analysis The concept of using pushover procedures for the entire bridge assembly instead of using this procedure on each frame separately where the interaction between the frames is neglected to evaluate the capacity of a bridge was presented in section 3. 4. In order to consider the flexibility of the shafts.53 .4. 4. 4. The analytical model of the bridge is shown in Fig.2 . (2) modal adaptable incremental load. The bridge was modeled using combination of elastic and nonlinear hysteretic concrete beam column elements.55 . The response to the various pushover evaluation procedures is compared to the response of the bridge to measured earthquake record with impulsive nature.54 and the geometry and reinforcement of the piers is shown in Fig. The southbound SR14/15 separation and overhead structure is located in Los Ang(!lesCounty approximately 24 miles to the northwestof downtownLosAngeles.6.etic beam column element. The heights of the piers and the elastic properties of all the elements are presented in Table 4.2 .A general plan and elevation of the bridge is shown in Fig. The piers are supported on shafts. The moment .curvature relations and the shear 206 .56 .
21 0.65 3.capacities of the nonlinear elements are presented in Table 4.6 17.34 5.7 4.23 188.18 0.21 0.2.74 1.21 Yielding moment kN·m 68740 69740 54570 54570 78250 64260 56360 61670 57320 curv.49 0.31 1.20 4.65 4.21 0.25 1.56 torsional # pier 2 .74 1.6 nla TABLE 4.27 1.70 3.39 1.8 longitudinal m4 0.2 8.74 1.23 4.37 3.49 5.3 .16 Ultimate moment kN·m 75000 75000 70000 70000 85000 70000 70000 70000 70000 curv.20 5.18 1.0 4.5 18.2 4. Geometry and Structural Elastic Properties of the Bridge Elements Height (for analysis) m 13.49 0. radlm 1.2 30.0 4.18 1. The stiff part at the top of the piers is modeled using rigid arm transformations.70 3.30 41.2 3. radlm 3. the properties related to the behavior of the bridge in this direction are presented only. TABLE 4.76 4. pier 3 pier 4 pier 5 pier 6 pier 1 pier 8 pier 9 pier 10 deck m4 1.95 4.60 5.99 3.2 4.85  Element transversal m4 4.7 17.20 0.2  Moment orinertla Area gross m2 4. Transversal Moment Curvature Relations and Shear Capacity of Piers Cracking pier moment kN·m 22600 23100 20435 20435 26160 24900 19130 22960 22660 corvo radlm 0.35 1.15 0.70 3.49 0.29 1.0 29.9 32.89 5.18 0.35 1.23 4.23 4.35 0.49 0.70 16.2 4.20 5.27 4.0 4.46 Shear capacity # 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 kN 6925 7065 6345 6365 7347 7041 5770 6608 7885 207 .20 5.21 0.74 2.23 1.4 13.3. Since the current analysis focus on ~he behavior of the bridge in the transverse direction.85 1.
.()· < Ii Pier 2 II~ Pier 3 Pier4 II (I II i f » PierS~. 53'.• /' Abulmenll 1582'...Q· II T ~ AI d P4 I..r 7 Pier 9 ELEVATION " c Abutmenlll . P5 P6 PLAN :I P7 ~ P10 All FIGURE 4.53 SR1411·5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) • General Plan and Elevation 208 .(~ P~r8 ~erlO Pier 6 PI.
203 TYP.743 2.743 .1.54 SR1411·5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) • Typical Deck Section 209 . 2.118 ~ • I I • I 0..372 O.. ..372 ~ 1.. Ill' ..743 5 1. 11.118 .118 0 p5 1.810 CII'  .118 0.892 0.2... ~ ~ ]r .305 TYP.152 • I • 2. ~ r~ ~ TYPICAL !ECTIONS I • I • I ~ col ~ ~ . ~ ~ : I 13.154 DIMENSIONS IN 1m) FIGURE 4.PRESTRESSED BOX GIRDER SECTION I • • REINPORCED BOX GIRDER SECTION .102 18. 1. ~ ~ 0.
.. FIGURE 4.J . . tt· . . 210 .:~'!""4!":::'::.Pler Sections and Relnrorcement..55 SR1411."."....5 Separation and Overhead (Southbound) .
56 SR141I·5 Separation and Overhead (Southhound) ·Structural Model for Analysis 211 .FIGURE 4.
(4)Pulse loading (0.05 sec): a short duration acceleration pulse (Fig.25 mlsec3. 4.Evaluation procedures The bridge was subjected to several pushover procedures: (1) Modal adaptable: static force distributed relative to the changing mode shapes due to change in the stiffness of the elements when experiencing inelastic behavior. (ii) shear failure.3 ). An impulsive ground motion. and the history of shear forces in piers 2 to 7 is presented in Fig.60 b.1 sec. Fig. The loading history. measured during the Northridge earthquake. 4. 212 . Fig. 0. is applied in different rates to the bridge until failure is reached. at the Santa Monica City Hall. 4. 4. Indications on the performances of the bridge subjected to the various loading procedures are presented in Table 4. The distribution of moments at failure is presented in Table 4. the shape of the bridge at time of failure. reached its ultimate flexture capacity (see Table 4. 4.62 b).61 b. Results The limit state of the bridge was defined by two conditions: (i) flexure failure. 4. 5.0 mlsec 3): linearly increasing acceleration (Fig.65 for the various analysis cases. where one of the piers reached its shear capacity (see Table 4.4 and graphically in Fig. 0. (2) Uniform pseudo acceleration: the static incremental load is distributed relative to the mass (the distribution doesn't change during the analysis).3 ).64 b) with two different durations is applied to the bridge and its failure is monitored. increased to 150% was also used to analyze the bridge for earthquake loading. where one of the piers. The distribution of the shear forces at failure is presented in Table 4.5 mlsec3.5 .63 b. (3) Ramp loading (0.57 .6 . Fig.58 to Fig. 4. 4.
~  Results evaluation Significant deformations were observed at the time of failure when the bridge was analyzed for the first five pushover procedures (modal. three ramp loading procedures).57 ).3) The forces developed in the bridge in the case of modal adaptable analysis are related directly to relative acceleration ii only. The failure mechanism for all these procedures was found to be shear dominated. However the moments at the time of failure in al these cases were very close to the ultimate moment capacity. However.5m.0 mI 213 . The failure occurred in all cases in short piers located in proximity to long piers (pier 3: 13. 4. uniform. 41m) due to transfer of shear forces from the flexible support to the stiffer support (Fig.7m/pier4: 17. The total acceleration can be divided into two parts: the ground acceleration iig and the structure relative acceleration to its base ii as (EQ4.pier5: 18m/pier 6. Higher forces are distributed to the softer parts of the bridge and very low forces are applied to the stiffer parts.2) where w is the weight. The external inertia forces on the bridge F can be related to its global acceleration iilO/al such that: F = wiilolal (EQ4. The distribution of the forces in the cases of uniform and ramp loading is related to the distribution of the ground acceleration iig' The distribution in all this cases is similar. 7: 29m. the force in pier 2 are higher by 30% in the case of steep ramp loading (5.
sec 3) then the other cases because of significant dynamic amplification for stiff elements. the failure is dominated by shear at the stiff piers.65 a). relatively low maximum deformations (0.57 ) which results in failure of pier 2. The total force in the bridge F can be defined as: F = ku+mii (EQ4. 0. The ground motion was increased to 150% to be able to bring the bridge to failure during the first large pulse of the earthquake. because at this stage only the inertia effect influence the response. The case of pulse loading provides very different behavior then the previous cases. The maximum deformations are very low (0. The moments in the piers are relatively low at the time of failure. therefore higher ground acceleration is required in the dynamic cases (Table 4.07m) are reached at failure. Very high ground acceleration is required in a very short period of time to bring the bridge failure. 4.058m.6 ) then in the static and low acceleration cases.4) The part of the force that control the failure is ku. The failure is reached before the ground acceleration reached its maximum. The larger shear forces are concentrated in piers 2 and 3. while the effect of the piers stiffness was not developed yet. This kind of ground motion is characteristic to near fault seismic events. therefore the ground accel 214 . A very impulsive ground motion was chosen as input to perform nonlinear time history analysis. 4. where most of the shear force is concentrated (Fig. The response of the bridge at failure is characterized by a higher mode (see Fig.046m) and all the piers have almost the same displacements.
This kind of behavior can be represented relatively well by the pulse loading in which the magnitude of deformations and the concentration of shear force was close to the one observed in the pulse pushover procedure. Conclusion It is evident that two different types of behavior were observed: The first one is dominated by first mode response. which is typical to vibratory earthquake.eration at failure (O. The second is response to a uniform acceleration loading. It should be noted that the only procedure that was able to predict the actual failure of pier 2 during the northridge earthquake is the pulse pushover procedure.35g) is lower than the maximum ground acceleration of the earthquake. 215 . which is typical to impulsive earthquake. The shape of the bridge at the time of failure however was different.
..25 mlsec 3 ":/".. Comparison of Shear Force Distrihution Between the Piers at the TIme of Fallure of Critical Pier In Shear pier 2 kN Modal adaptable . .'..' ." 6365 ....'<c:. Unifonn pseudo acceleration ::o/~(.5 55 .%"ftolll1:::' .. . '.'':\'':.'l®ftotal•.4 43 502 216 .1 sec %of total 2160 %oftotal Ground motion (THA) 4830 14242 %oftotal Piers Height [mJ Tributary length for gravity load [mJ %oftotal 10.TABLE 4.: ':'.9 .'Jc't'''''.4.5 mlsec 3 %bftotal Ramp 5.•. Ramp 0. Ramp 0.0 mlsec 3 %oftotal Pulse 0.~.ftotilI.: .3 54 38.8 57 19 14.18 10.'(" pier 3 kN 2530 pier 4 kN 3480 3720 pier 5 kN 6365 pier 6 kN 3680 pier 7 kN 1410 Total kN 17470 21. .i.2 48 26.7 47 15 15.. " C" .
05 40 30 · 50% 20 10 0 () · plcr3 P1cr4 THA FIGURE 4. "0 ~ I: 0 30 20 10 IIII II   Ramp 0.......r2 · Pulse 0.25 . .... 40 ...c: 40 30 20 10 '" I 40 30 20 10 I · Pulse 0..... ~ ... 40 30 20 10  Ramp 0... . '" .0 .40 30 20 10 II 40 30 20 r   Modal ...9 ...6 ..57 Distribution of Shear Forces in Piers 27 for Different Analysis Procedures 217 . 0 ~ 10 I Uniform .....5 40 30 20 10 ..........1 lIlpI.s ~ ~ ~ I  Ramp 5.
1 sec Pulse 0.00 0.5 mlsee2 Ramp 5.046 0.38 0.6.05 THA Yielding moment Ultimate moment ·1980 38400 32800 49700 53800 64600 53500 43300 68740 75000 pier 3 kN·m 40100 73100'6830074400" 74000"" 71100" 48300 63500 pier 4 kN·m pier 5 kN·m 6760065800' 62400' 69900"" 69500"" 45200 32300 3820 54570 70000 pier 6 kN·m 849008090078600' 81200"" 82200"" 27500 15600 ·20000 78250 85000 pier 7 kN·m 60700 46500 50200 62200 65300' 51000 39100 18000 '64260 70000 6000059300' 56700' 61400' 61700" 43700 32300 38800 69740 54570 75000 70000 • Yielding moment is exceeded.550 0.54 1. Comparison of Performances of The SR141I5 Bridge Subjected to Different Push· Over Procedures Type of FaUure FaUedPier Critical Acceleration G Modal adaptable Unifonn pseudo aeeel· eration Ramp 0.21 0.05 see THA flexure/shear flexure/shear shear flexure/shear flexure/shear shear shear shear p5 p3 p5 p5 p5 p2 p2 p3 0.1 sec Pulse 0. Moment at Bridge Piers due to Different Push·over Procedures at Shear FaUure pier 2 kN·m Modal adaptabie Unifonn load Ramp 0.29 0.470 0.070 218 .590 0.610 0.058 0.5.530 0.34 0.35 Maximum Deformation m 0.25 mlse2 Ramp 0.0 mlsee3 Pulse 0.TABLE 4."" within 5% of ultimate TABLE 4.5 mlsec3 Ramp 5.25 mlsee2 Ramp 0.0mlsee2 Pulse 0.50 3.
/" ./ I p3 . (b) Loading History.I ! .. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure.... (c) Shear History for Piers 27 219 . 'p7 p2 ·2000 Step number [#] (c) FIGURE 4... p4 I ./ V~ / I' /' / L /.....  ~ . ) /' !/ p7 Load step [#] (b) (a) 8000 /pS 6000 o )~ V . po .......58 Response of the Bridge to Adaptable Proportional to Instantaneous Mode Shape Distributed Load (relative to mass).
c " ~ 4000 p4 p7 '" " p 10 Loading step [#] 20 30 40 (c) FIGURE 4. / j ~3~ ~~ ~ p2 p3 FI~ (a) Load step 1#1 (b) 8~ ~'rT~T~~' rooo ~+++4~~~~~~~ 2 <E t.. (b) Loading History..' ..force 40000 liiiiiiiil ". (c) Shear History for Piers 27 220 . .59 Response of the Bridge to Non Adaptable Uniform Distributed Load (relative to mass). (a) Displaced Shape at FaUure..
...] (c) FIGURE 4..lSmlsecl (8) Displaced Shape at FaDure.. ~y2.£ ~~r__+~~~~_++_~~ " R 2000 i+T:. (b) Loading HIstory. p3 ..r. (c) Shear HIstory for Piers 2·7 221 .f:::..""++I p7 Time [sec.. p3 p5 rooo~~~44~~~4 ~ .p6 p7 p4 P~....60 RespoDSe oftbe Bridge to Ramp Loading..o"'3. Acceleration Rate: o. Time [sec] (b) (a) 8000 r..<····· ".
o~~~~~ o 5 10 Time [sec) (b) (a) }. Acceleration Rate: 0.0 ~~ V/~ ibv k? ~ .. (b) Loading History.5 mfsec 3 (a) Displaced Shape at Failure..0 2000...''~ .. p6 p4 p7 i' ..4r__~_._..61 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading.../' ~ ~V ~ j ~ t?' V ~ p3 pS ~ p6 1/""".10 p7 Time (c) FIGURE 4. '/'"  ..::_~3~_. ~~. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 222 ..0 6000.S/ 8000......_'. .0 0.
(c) Shear History for Piers 2·7 223 .62 Response of the Bridge to Ramp Loading.0 0.5 VJ"'"V / l7 V / ~1// //J V/ io"'" Time [sec] (c) 1.0 1.o~~~~~~~ 0.0 p4 p6 ~ p7 1.5 1.. (h) Loading History. Acceleration Rate: 5m1se~.0 b ~Z VI/ V. nO 2000 o 0. ~ 0. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure.5 Time [sec] (b) (a) 8000 6000 / V/ I' p3 7ps .5 FIGURE 4.
.. IV %.00 0..)0 " p6 TIme [sec..15 ..... p4 p5 p6 p7 /) i  9 8 7 6 ~ '" 4 5 3 2 (a) O~~~~~~~~~ I 0.._ 14 13 12 II _ 10 N ..... p2 " p3 .20 (b) 8000 6000 2000 / 0.1 sec..63 Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0......] (c) F1GURE 4.05 v: ~ F'" 1/ / V / 7 / p2 _0 "' p4 n< p7 ...._ _. v. (b) Loading History. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure...15 0....] 0.._..05 0...10 Time [Sec.. (c) Shear History for Piers 2·7 224 ._ _..
".04 p6 time [sec.p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 .~~u~ .... (b) Loading History.".64 Response of the Bridge to Pulse Loading 0.08 0."~~..10 FIGURE 4.. 24 22 ... . .~~~.. (a) Displaced Shape at FaHure.00 0. .~. (c) Shear History for Piers 2·7 225 . ~ 16 !14 ] 12 <10 8 6 4 : 18 ~ T 2 (a) 8~~"~. 20f.0 Time (Sec..] (c) 0..c ~ ~ " 1: p2 4000 p5 '" p4 2000 p3 O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0.Q2 0.06 0...s '" " .) (b) 8000 pI 6000 .....05 sec.
.3 ..' " 0. " I !f' I r\ I II p4 " ~ .. 0 2000 ~ \j Ia. . (b) Northridge Earthquake Record From Santa Monica City HaIl (input motion)... . I!M 6000 4000 ~ t. i .l (c) FIGURE 4.' /p7 p6 0...1.2 time sec.: . p5 .9 1.65 Response of the Bridge to Dynamic Impnlsive Loading. (a) \. p7 ~ \I1fJI\ \ I!~ p6 v 4000 6000 7 Time [sec.6 0.6 \ .J 2000 '" .2 0.] (b) 10000 8000 _. (a) Displaced Shape at Failure. (c) Shear History for Piers 27 226 .c " rfI..9 0.
Several types of analysis. monotonic pushover and modal were introduc~ I to extract information about the safety of new design or retrofit design of bridges.5. such as time history. It was observed however. and protective systems is considered.0 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS • The current work. that care should be taken when using stiffness proportional damping in structural systems which include base isolation elements. Since every one of the analysis methods has strong and weak points. used in the program. The modeling of base isolation systems placed in arbitrary locations in the bridge was verified with experimental results. and approximate procedures such as pushover analysis. This contribution is especially apparent in the modeling of the East Aurora bridge in which very simple and efficient modeling of the connection was used as compare to the very sophisticated modeling used for the same problem by Wendechansy(l996). The special end connections and the coupled motions were used in almost all the case studies and proved to provide very efficient tools to model complicated connections between the deck and the substructure. 227 . The time history analysis can be used as indicator to the global behavior of the bridge during severe earthquake. laid up the ground work for the analysis of bridges were the nonlinear behavior of elements (concrete or steel). and elastic analysis for preliminary design. which were used to demonstrate the capacities of an analysis program IDAReBRIDGE developed in this work. and to verify the analytical procedures. a good evaluation procedure should be combined of the different analysis types presented. • Several case studies were presented in the current work.
The use of displacements / velocity input. The nonlinear damping concept is introduced and used for the modeling of the triaxial element. 228 . Parametric studies were performed to evaluate their contribution to the overall response of the bridge. The influence of the type of the earthquake excitation on the distribution of forces in the bridge was studied using several pushover procedures and compared to the response of the bridge to actual impulsive ground motion. was modeled by the new triaxial isolator element and verified with experimental results. The expansion joint element was developed to model efficiently the behavior of thermal expansion joints in bridges. A bridge in Los Angeles county was subjected to several types of pushover procedures as well as real ground motion exciton. which allow direct representation of differential ground motion was introduced. expansion joints. • A first step in the direction of developing evaluation methods based on time history nonlinear procedures which include damage indexing combined with pushover analysis was made. The modeling of this element is verified using biaxial experiment as mentioned earlier. differential ground motion and nonlinear damping were used in analysis of large scale real bridges. different types of base isolation.The modeling of the triaxial behavior which includes dependency of the friction coefficient on velocity of sliding isolator. The use of this method was verified by comparing the response of a simple structural system subjected both to equivalent displacement and acceleration input. All the models mentioned above which include: special connections.
This type of element is the main prototype element in the program IDARCBRIDGE. The modal adaptable push over procedure seems to be deficient in modeling the bridge response. The results from the uniform force (relative to mass distribution) and the slower ramp loading are similar in nature. 229 . • The program provides basic approach based on the idea that the modeling of a structural system should be done as much as possible considering physical models there fore the nonlinear behavior of elements will be mostly modeled by nonlinear stiffness and damping properties. Other programs (ANSYS. The actual failure mechanism of the bridge during the Northridge earthquake was identified when the bridge was subjected to pulse pushover procedure. larger acceleration is required to bring the bridge to failure than the static and slower procedures. DRAIN2DX) are using only the stiffness properties and the force vector to model nonlinear behavior. . with faster application rate introduce dynamic effect to the distribution of the forces along the bridge. Because the dynamic effect results in additional inertia forces. Larger part of the seismic load is transferred to stiffer and shorter piers. Large transfer of forces to the stiffer and shorter piers can be observed while experiencing very small deformations. The ramp push over procedure. Impulsive pushover procedures as well as impulsive ground motion excite the bridge in different manner than the procedures related to vibratory earthquakes. and seems to provide reasonable representation of the response of the bridge to vibratory earthquake. and not by defining the nonlinear forces to the forcing vector.
and free connection (Weaver and Gear 1990) and coupled motions (Bathe (1982» were modified to be more versatile such that they can be used each one separately and altogether to enable easier modeling of complicated bridge connections. This element allows for a more realistic modeling of sliding base isolation system and can be easily extended to model other types of isolation systems. 230 . al. The current work extends the idea to model the whole bridge system as an integral unit. Several patterns of loading were developed to enhance the efficiency of this method. was expanded. • The procedure developed by Priestley et.• A close form solution of the governing differential equation is used to represent the planar behavior of base isolation systems. • A modern iterative solver was incorporated in the program to provide faster and more efficient solution of the equilibrium equations. • A new triaxial base isolation element that can be incorporated in a general computer program was developed. A solver for large eigenvalue problems was developed for use in the dynamic and monotonic analysis. The original method provides solution to a simple planar frames. and avoid computational illconditions. (1992) for the use of Lateral Strength Method. flexible connections. • Several techniques which were developed previously such as: rigid end connections. This solution gives insight and understanding on how the system works and explain why a threedimensional additional element was necessary to be developed. such as high damping rubber and lead rubber bearings.
231 . to accelerate the speed of the analysis.1 Further Research Suggestions In order to develop further the use of the evaluation procedure. and comparing the design with the existing design procedures used currently in practice.5. additional verification studies should be performed. especially the size of the device and the influence of adding damping devices. The influence of gap elements on the seismic behavior of the bridge should be studied and the gap element should be further verified in the program IDAReBRIDGE. using currently developing methods such as explicit integration etc. The efficiency of the analysis program should be evaluated and if possible the numerical procedures should be upgraded. which were verified with experimental results. with variety of locations in the bridge. Additional parametric studies should be performed to evaluate the influence of base isolation systems on the behavior of bridge structures. The concept of bridge design using the combined evaluation method should be evaluated by using case studies on existing bridges. with measured response of bridges which experienced real earthquakes and with analysis results from other programs. The results of the different analysis procedures should be compared with experimental results. The current evaluation methodology can be used to develop simplified design procedures. by calibrating the elastic design methods.
bridges with a small number of elements. The tools developed in this work can play ar roll in such an afford. The program can be used as a tool. this step should be taken to depart from the elastic equivalent design procedure to a more rigorous design method. • 232 . Additional structural elements can be incorporated into the program to enlarge the elements library of the program. on the response of the bridge system. The procedure of evaluation of this part. Although it is a gloryless large afford. should be done using initially. A very important issue that should be considered is the influence of the limitations on input properties of the elements. for system identification. Additional comparison between the different pushover procedures should be performed and the usefulness of this procedure should be evaluated. Then extend it to more complex systems.The influence of biaxial interaction for concrete elements and protective systems elements on bridges need to be studied farther. and try to find out if there are limiting values that can be used for design. The verifications and the definition of limitations should be developed to add confidence to the use of nonlinear time history as a primary evaluation tool. and provide more flexibility and accuracy in modeling bridge structures. both linear and nonlinear. and for evaluation of different active control schemes.
"Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. State of California. 1992. 1995 Bagley. San Francisco.N. 461476.". R. 8tyh World Conf. 1983 "Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings"." Caltrans Memo to Designers 203 November 1989...". Applied Technology Council. and Bouwkamp. and Sugano. (1983). Vol.A. Redwood City. 5(3). (1984). "Standard Specifications. 3. and Erdik. Contribution in honor of the 60th Birthday of Professor Y.W. October 1989.Caltrans Bridge Design Aids. J. "Manual for Maintenance and Inspection of Bridges. Asher. Federal Highway Administration Report. Aydinoglu. BebekIstanbul. June. April 1992. 951958. G. "Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures. (1990). Arya. (1995).. Petrovski. National Conf. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. and 1995. T. 529538. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.A Different Approach to the 233 . J.. (1968). 1994. California. (1983) (including interim revisions through 1992) "Restrainers at Hinges and Bearings." .. Earthquake Spectra. Report ATC306. "Fractional Calculus .6.. "Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines for Highway Bridges". Standards Association of New Zealand. On Earthquake Eng. 5. "17 January 1995 Hyogoken Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake Reconnaissance and Assessment Report".0 RFERENCES "Bridge retrofit Procedures."." Proc. 204. S. ". and Torvik..S. M. Tsuboi. P.". of Fourth U. Including Interim Specifications for 1993. Recent researches of structural mechanics. et al. FHWAlRD83/007.S. EERI. Department of Transportation. (1989).". Anagnostoupoulos. pp. 15th Ed.L. J. "Seismic Isolation Design of the USC University Hospital.". on Earthquake Eng. Caltrans Interim Memo to Designers. 1978. M. Aoyama. Tokyo. H. Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute. 1530. "Sliding Concept for Mitigation of Earthquake Disaster of Masonry Buildings. 1411 to 1425. 1982 "Equivalent Static Analysis of Restrainers. "A Generalized Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures Based on the Tests of Members". July 1992. A. UnoShote. Turkey.J. NSZ 3101:1982. "Emergency Earthquake Damage and Usability Assessment of Buildings.
No. and Polak. pp. Englewood Cliffs. AM. J. K S. (in French).8397. "Kinematic SoilStructure Interaction for LongSpan CableSupported Bridges". (1985). S. (1995). H. "The boundary element methods in engineering". S..(1993). 10.". 238. "Active Control of Structures Subjected to Spatially Varying Earthquake Excitation". "Union House . pp. B. and Kunnath.." Rep. (1981)." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. K J. and Mander." Int. E... 179193. (1982). NCEER890033. J. : PrenticeHall. Buckle. Vol. Ontario. K (1989). Canada. 1. (1981). M. Reinhorn. 16(2). AS. "Seismic Safety of Reinforced Concrete Members and Structures. Buffalo. H.. 1981. . Computers and Structures. Banerjee. ACI (in press).. Betti. J. NY.. Bathe.. Bathe. Bull. "Equivalent Linearizations for Practical Hysteretic Systems. Bracci.".M. "Deterministic model for seismic damage evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. McGrawHili. (1993). R. and Panariello. AJ. 699707. B.24.. (1981). and Irvine.. P. J. State University of New York. Structural control: proceedings of the IntemationaIlUTAM Symposium on Structural Control held at the University of Waterloo. and Carr. Acustica v. 23(4). National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. F.. G.Eng. Vol. AbdelGhaffar. pp. N. 13. pp. J. Bhatti.. June 47. K J. "Seismic Damage in Reinforced Concrete Frames. AIAA Jouranl. Pister.. (1971). (1994). Vol. Biggs. Banon. KE.. and Vneziano. 1625 Bracci.J. M. (1982). and Kelly. "Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed for Gravity Loads: Performance of Structural Systems" Structural Journal. 107(ST9). "Model Mathematique D'hysteresis". NonLinear Mech. R.J. Mander. ASCE. "Finite element procedures in engineering analysis". R. D.. 17131728. 741748 . "On Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Using Substructuring and Mode Superposition". 415430.A Cross Braced structures with Energy Dissipaters. pp. and Niazy..Analysis of Viscoelastic Damped Structures".415430 Betti.Struct. 1. A. 127138 Boardman. Wood..1979. J. 234 . Bouc. M. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.B. "Optimization of Control Devices in Base Isolation Systems for Aseismic Design". Banon. 22. AM. 21(5).A. P. H.R. M. 22. Reinhorn. K. and Gracewski. of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Eng. (1983).
"Seismic Isolation: History. M. "LeadRubber Dissipaters for the Base Isolation of Bridges Structures.. Dept. Mayes. Va. Building Seismic Safety Council Workshop on Development of an Action Plan. (editors) (1995). Buckle." Technical Report 940008. Buckle. lG.S.. (1982). and Mayes. I. M. Report No.161202. New York Buckle. 19(3). University of California. "The Northridge California Earthquake ofJanuary 17. M. Report No. of Civil Eng. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. Buckle. "Sliders and Tension Controlled Reinforced Elastormeric Bearings Combined for Earthquake Isolation. M. Transportation Research Board. lG. lG. pp. (ed) (1994). Applied Technology Council. "The Earthquake Barrier. Washington. A. and performance . 331342. and Button." Proc. lG. "Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges" McLean.A world Overview. 289. "Experimental Investigation into the Seismic Behavior of Critical Region of RIC components as Influenced by Moment and Shear. Celebi. 1994.". 235 . NCEER920004. and Struct. Performance of Highway Bridges. of ATC17 Seminar on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation. A Solution for Adding Ductility to Otherwise brittle Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council.290 Buckle. "The Northridge. 1 M.R. Application. State University of New York..".. Fourth International Bridge Engineering Conference.Japan Workshop on Earthquake Protective Systems for Bridges". G. Chalhoub. ASCE. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. 1991. lM. 6(2).G. Report FHWAIP876. New York.S. pp. State University of New York. NY.. and Freidland. editor (1992).M.(1991) "Screening Procedures for the Retrofit of Bridges. NCEER940008.S.. I. Calif. J. 1994: Performance of Highway Bridges". 333344. 1995.4. Berkeley. and Friedland.(1987) "Seismic Design and Retrofit Manual for Highway Bridges. Palo Alto. 1986 . (1986). and Kelly.". Report No. EERC 734.". Earthquake Eng. Buckle. Conference on Lifelines Earthquake Engineering. November 57. lG. (1990). Buckle. (1973). 1987.M.(1995) "Improved Screening Procedures for the Seismic Retrofitting of Highway Bridges.volume 2. California Earthquake of January 17. (1994). 1994. New Zealand. .S.". Buffalo. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. Federal Highway Administration. and Reinhorn. report No.. J.". University of Auckland. Denver. RL (1990). and Penzien. 156165. lG. Monograph No.Buckle. Buffalo. "Proceedings from the First U." Proceedings of the Third U.M. Dyn. Caspe. Buffalo. Built. pages 2327. San Francisco. Earthquake Spectra. RL. S. papers on transportation lifelines and special works hopprese nations.
G. Buffalo. M. M. (1991).. C.2. J."Earthquake Eng. "Improved Time History Analysis for Structural Dynamics.. (1988). No. (1984). McGrewHill. on Earthquake Eng. NY. (1993). "Effect of Stiffness Degradation on Earthquake Docility Requirements. and Mitchell. No. D. RW. 24962513 Cheng.C and Robinson. pp. C. RI. McGrawHill. "Analytical Modeling of Foundations for Seismic Analysis of Bridges". (1994). "Modal Analysis of Nonlinear Systems with Classical and NonClassical Damping". Meyer. P.. NY.NY. MaLean. "Seismic Damage Assessment ofReinforced Concrete Members. 16(1). G.6. NCEER870022.(1994a).. Buffalo. D. Vol.. J. Dyn.(1994b).P. Part II: Evaluation of Seismic Demand. 119. Technical report number WARD 328. and Clough. No. Chopra. State University of New York. S. Englewood Cliffs.347355.B. Buffalo.B. National Center for Earthquake engineering Research. No. AR. Constantinou."Dynamics of Structures". and Penzien. Wright. and Skinner.227244. and Mohraz.K. No. Japan. Charleson. State University of New York. R.B." Prantice Hall. "Seismic Energy Based Fatigue damage Analysis of Bridge Columns. and Penzien. New Zealand 377388. Dyn. W. 36. J. "Dynamics of structures". EVALUATION OF SEISMIC CAPACITY.Chang. pp." Rep.(1990)." Earthquake Eng. Clough. M. Clough.. Struct. (1987). A and Mander. (1975).. (1993).F." Proceedings. 1(4). and Shinozuka. Clough.".. PART I. A. State University of New York.. and Struct. Rep. Rep. I: Treatment of Rapid Variation of Excitation and Material Nonlinearity".". Clough. National Center for Earthquake engineering Research. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.. Chung.J. J. Tokyo. AW. Washington State Department of Transportation. RW. Computers and Structures.W. pp. Collins. "Convergence and Stability of Step by Step Integration For Model with Negative Stiffness. and McGuiere. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Pacific Conf. M.1. 1966. Cofer. Chen.D. and Johnston. "Seismic Energy Based Fatigue damage Analysis of Bridge Columns.. Chang. C... 10671080.". Oct. D. "Wallington Central Police Station Base Isolation of and Essential Facility. (1987). J. (1966). Vol. inc. A and Mander. 12.. Y. "Prestressed Concrete Structures.195198. RW. S. "Earthquake Resistance of Buildings with a Soft First Story. NY.P. (1973). NCEER940013.e. NCEER940006. Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium.W. B. inc. "Random Vibration and Optimization of Design of Aseismic 236 . Chang.
0.".S. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics.(1931). National Center for Earthquake Engineering. and Papageorgiou.455474. P. C. G. Dyn. G.." Report no. "Seismic Analysis of Nonlinear SoilStructure Interaction Systems With FrequencyDependent Characteristics by Way of the Hybrid FrequencyTimeDomain Procedure: Implementation and Applications". M.".2 Constantinou. K. Krawinkler editors. "Seismic Analysis of Degrading Models by Means of Damage Functional Concept. Dyn.." Earthquake eng.C. NCEER9232. and Nmai. A. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. Buffalo. " Dynamics of SoilBaseIsolatoresstructure System. and Wolf. 18291846. 107115. "Energy Dissipation in RC Beams Under Cyclic Load.. Vol. 1. and Struct. M. NCEER9019. 2nd World Conf.88.G. "Teflon Bearings in Base Isolation IT: Modeling.Base Isolation Systems.M. Darbre. State Univ. Darbre. Fajfar and H.598. APM539. 114(1). (1986). ASCE. ACISP94. State Univ.. A. A report to the Swiss National Science foundation." Thesis Presented to the Rensselear Polytechnic Institute. on Joints and Bearings. (1989). 5. (1988). 1. J. " Simplified Analysis Procedure for Base Isolated Structures on Flexible Foundations. in partial fulfillment of the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy. and Kneifati. and Manfredi.P. ASCE. Constantinou. Constantinou. 112(8)." Transactions of ASME. Eng. "Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid Viscous Dampers" Report no. 15(8). and Reinhom. 116(2). (1986).".R. M. Struct.P. C. Eng. (1992). New York. "Forced Vibration with Combined Coulomb and Viscous Friction.C. No.963983. Elsevier Applied Science.. J." Earthquake Eng...C. New York Constantinou. (1992). M. Mokha. "Experimental and Analytical Study of a Combined Sliding Disc Bearing and Helical Steel Spring Isolation System. G.569582." J. D.. "Stochastic Response of Practical Sliding Isolation". Ref. Monograph on Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of RC buildings.R. "Criterion of Stability and hnplementation Issues of Hybrid FrequencyTime Domain Procedure for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis. of New York.C. of New York. M..C. "Construction and Testing on an Experimental Dwellinghouse on Rubber Bearings. M. 82. Eng.222232. E.C (1987). Struct. (1990c). No. Buffalo. 16(4)." J. and Symans. New York Cosenza. Mokha. (1988). A. 237 . Constantinou. Den Hartog. (1990a). M. D. M. and Struct. Struct. Constantinou.1. and Reinhom. A. G.M. A. (1990b). Delfosses. Darwin..
(1974). R. "Foundation Engineering Handbook" 2nd edition. S. University oflllinois. (1995). A. December 1978. Report No. "Field Investigation of Bridge Damage in the San Fernando Earthquake. and Fujita. V. (1994). P. G..Der Kiureghian. Reinhorn. "Seismic Base Isolation Using LeadRubber Bearings. Proc. "The Automatic Integration of Ordinary Differential Equations.J. State University of New York. "Analysis of RIC FrameWall Structures for Strong Motion Earthquakes". and Levy. Journal of Engineering Structures. Fung.". 157166. 71(12): 604610. Suzuki..". 1. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 1971. H. 23.". ATC61. Hisano. Fang. (1988). A.E. Elms."Inelastic Responses of Reinforced Concrete Structures to Earthquake Motions." ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. (1978). S. November. P.. "The northridge. D." Numerical Mathematics. Bridge Department..C. 1974. 1981. California Earthquake of January 17. Gluck. (1994). March. E. "Consistent Inelastic Design Spectra: Hysteretic and Input Energy". and Martin. (1971). SRS 457. 2328. (1991). "Seismic Performance of Highway Bridges". of the Ninth World Conf.G.A. M. (1989). Ghobarah. Calif. Buffalo. Submitted to ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Gluck. et al.F. " A Coherency Model for Spatially Varying Ground Motion.. (1971).G.. Gear. "Study on a Slidingtype Base Isolation System: TriAxial Shaking Table Test and its Simulation. in press.. " Hysteretic Restoring Force Characteristics of High Damping Rubber Bearings for Seismic Isolation."." Proc.. July. W. Goltz. Division of Highways.M.. and Schnobrich.. Vol. Ja238 . LeBeau. J. Van Nostrand Reinhold. ACI Journal.W. (1979)"Factors Involved in the Seismic Design of Bridge Abutments. Gulkan. and Sozen. Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway bridges. C. Dynamic Isolation Systems. December. New York. Communications of ACM.R. 1995. 1994: General Reconnaissance Report. Report No. Klein. (1988). National Center for Earthquake Engineering. and Goldschmidt. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic. 14(30. A. Inc. N. T. State of California. berkeley. Civil Engineering Studies. G. Fujita. Vol. NCEER940005.M. Urbana. M. 523537. 176190. and Vidic Tomaz. R. Applied Technology Council.. "Design of Supplemental Dampers for Control of Structures". G. Hawaii. 10. A.. Emori. on Earthquake Eng. (1995).. H. 1979. and Ali. PVPVol. Belvedere. K. (1983).".D. Fajfar.
V. "SESISABI User Manual..K. 1.L. Imbsen. 1986. A. Report No. Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Penzin. Abatement of seismic hazards to lifelines: proceedings of the Building Seismic Safety Council Workshop on Development of an Action Plan. 331338. Kan. K. (1975). "Evaluation of Energy Absorption Characteristics of Highway Bridges Under Seismic Conditions. Berkeley.(1982). AM. V. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 7211. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. KS. University of California.."." Earthquake Engineering Research Center.( 1977). "Seismic Response of Bridges. Iwasaki." Nuclear Eng. October. "Elastic Earthquake Analysis of Torsionally Coupled Multistory Building.UCBIEERC84/17. November. 1986 .. 239 . Berkeley. Calif. G. and Clough.". C. 84. Ikonomou. 7(4). Jagdish." Earthquake Eng. "Applicability to Bridges of Experimental Seismic Test Results Performed on Subassemblies of Buildings. Gates..H.. (1985). UCBIEERC 73/22. and Design. Kaliakin. 85. Report No. J. Kannan. "DRAIN2D as General purpose Computer Program for Dynamic Analysis of Inelastic Plane Structures with Users Guide. Denver.A.".volume 2. 1979.pan. B. Imbsen. Nutt. Jirsa. 1978. "The inelastic Vibration Absorber Subjected to Earthquake Ground Motion. University of California.K and Rao.."Assesment of the Analytical Techniques Used to Determine The Seismic Response of Bridges for Design and Retrofitting. 5(4). Washington. (1972) "Literature Survey . Building Seismic Safety Council. R. A. and Perano.. November. Lea. 1. p201 Imbsen.(1979).. Dyn. report No. Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges. Huffmann.317326.(1979). Sep. Report No. T. R. 1.K. R. and Struct.Case Studies". and Penzien. Penzien.. R. 1. 741746. "Full Base Isolation for Earthquake Protection by Helical Springs and Viscose dampers. "Alexismon Isolation Engineering for Nuclear Power Plants. Berkeley. 547565. pages 2327...(1986). UBCIEERC 78/14. Earthquake Engineering Research Center.V. Perano. R. 395412.". ATC61. (1986). S.A. Design. A. P.(1978). November 57. University of California..". 1972. Applied Technology Council. AS. and Powell.. 1.A. papers on transportation lifelines and special workshop presentations. G.Seismic Effects on Highway Bridges". June. Nuclear eng. Raghuprasad.. University of California. Engineering Computer Corporation. Berkeley. 1982 Imbsen. 1987. Dyn. V. Report No. R. pp. and Chopra.
S. Buckle.. Dyn. and Lobo. San Francisco. on Earthquake Eng. Leger. Kelly. Lee. ATCI71. volume 2. Journal of Structural Engineering. S. Ca." Earthquake Eng. State University of New York. NY. Kunnath. Reinhorn. of Ninth World Conf. B. "Improved WideColunmFrame Analogy for Shear/Core Wall Analysis". and Beucke. J. Vo!. U. VIII. UCBIEERC85/09. S.E. (downloaded from netlib) Kunnath. Reinhorn. and Tsai. pp. "Visocoelastic Damper Hysteretic Model: Theory.. Munshi. Kelly. "Aseismic Base Isolation: Review and Bibliography. (1993). J. Ledbetter. 3356.2 February 1993.(1983). (1986a)..349359. "Seismic Energy Dissipation in MDOF Structures". 8(3). I..4. A..(1990).. G. "A Friction Damped Base Isolation System with Fail Safe Characteristics.". NCEER920022. (1993).M. D. and Struct. (1980). Research Center. J. P.. V.. Vicksburg.M. (1992). Japan. Buffalo. RH. Waterways Experiment Station. J. "Accelerated Liquid Mass Dampers as Tools of Structural Vibration Contro!..". K. 12511269.0: A Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete structures. Proceedings of Seismic Isolation. S.R. M. pp.K. 1985. Imbsen." Soil Dyn.5. A.R Young.M. Journal of Structural Engineering. 9961017. No.(1988).. "Earthquake Simulator Testing of a Base Isolated Bridge Deck." Earthquake Eng. Struct.K." Proc. Experimental and Application. pp. 119 No. Lai. Technical Report REMRGT2. D. J.G.. Berkeley.C. Denver. "IDARC version 3. Respess. .. p.M. and Dussalut. "Base Isolation for Torsion Reduction in Asymmetric Structures Under Earthquake Loading. Dyn. Earthquake Engineering.M. and Earthquake Eng.. Transportation Research Board. Calif. D. Army Corps of Engineers. 521532.A. 240 .. 5(4). A. March 1013. No. H.L.2. (1990). 113126. and Maison. Washington. RG.R "Modeling Bridge Foundation for Seismic Design and Retrofitting" Third Bridge Engineering Conference. Lam.. Kwan A. ASCE. Vo!. P. (1992).. Kawamata. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. University of California. 1991. RF.(1985) "Improvement of Liquefiable Foundation Conditions Beneath Existing Structures. "Analytical Modeling of Inelastic Seismic Response of RIC Structures". (1986b). "Rep. 11 (1). Passive Energy and Active Control.Kasai.K. I. "ITPACK 2C: A Fortran Package for Solving Large Sparse LInear Systems by Adaptive Accelerated Iterative Methods". Journal of Structural Engineering. S. pp. 118.. 116.F. and Grimes. p 202 Kincaid. K. Kelly..M. Martin. R." Report no. 426.M. and Park.. YJ.
Chang. NY. 1993. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.). Nov. 9971006. D. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. (1982). Vol.. R. "An Evaluation of Inelastic Seismic Design Spectra.. C. Technical Report NCEER950009. sponsored by ASCE. Berkeley. and Reinhorn.. (Sacramento. University of California at Berkeley and the California Department of Transportation. Penzien.( 1976). Lilhanand.. 107(9)... University of California. "Analysis of Shear Wall Buildings by the Frame Method. R. 17771795.Y. Sept. Priestley. (1977). Seible.M. MacLeod. and Li. F. LA.". D.. 1.. F. (1995)"Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Seismic Retrofit of Structures with Supplemental Damping: Part II . W. 61 (Part 2.. W. LA.C. A. Report No. SeptemberOctober. pages 110. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers.Li. F. (1993). (1991).D.S. 593603.D. K. Lukose. and Imbsen. Ricles. 1989. Buffalo. San Francisco. October 18.". J.". Struct. Lobo. Liu.20372047. Hyatt Regency Hotel. (1973). 1982.". Gergely. State University of New York. Nobari.N..". 27982724. MJ. W." Earthquake Engineering Research Center.. R. R..L. Makris.. ASCE. and Hosny. pp." Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers.. Eng. S."StructureFoundation Interaction Under Dynamic Loads. (1990). H.UCB! EERC84!18. K. ACI Journal. KircherCharlesA. (1981). S. Mahin. MacLeod. pp. Proceedings for the Fourth U. M. "General Frame Element for Shear Wall Analysis. 1984. and White. 193(10). F. 785790. Liu. C. Proceedings of the First US Seminar on Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Steel Bridges. Journal of the Structural Division. AM. R.. (1994). 55 (Part 2. "Frame Analysis of Shear Wall Cores.. New York. J. Seismic engineering research and practice: proceedings of the sessions related to seismic engineering at Structures Congress '89. Buffalo. MacLeod..Friction Devices. and Constantinou..". Dec). "Seismic Evaluation of BeniciaMartinez Bridge. LA..". and Bertero.. "Response of a Major Freeway Bridge During the Whittier Earthquake". ASCE 117(9).".N. F.A. Tseng. and Yang. Liu. American Society of Civil Engineers. J....S. Liu. ed. 1993). Journal of Structural Engineering. N. May 15. P.. 1989. V. Nobari."Dynamic Response Prediction for Earthquake Resistance Design of Bridge Structures".M. ASeE. Imbsen. Dissertation submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Doctor of Philosophy. "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Lapped Splices for Inelastic Cyclic Loading. W. W. 241 .A. San Francisco. "Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures in Three Dimensions.S. Imbsen. "FractionalDerivative Maxwell Model for Viscous Dampers. NY.
717722. E.". "Interpretation of Rio Dell Freeway Response During six recorded Earthquake Events. and Oazetas. 10th Annual International Bridge Conference. D. Mostaghel.H.. NCEER8900l9..Makris.M. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. ASCE. Nagarajaiah. Kim. M. "Some Implications Regarding Different Bearing types on Seismic Performance of Bridges in the Eastern United States". E. 240260. 16(6). New York. pp.. (1996). "J. Department of Civil Engineering.. O. Journal of Structural Engineering. Proceedings of the Fourth U..1..S. V. A. 242 ." ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf. "Verification Of Friction Model Of Teflon Bearings Under Triaxial Load. 839854. Kim. J. Report No. S. ASCE Mander.D. S. J. p 127. "Assessment of Seismic Structural Damage. Delis.. Manfredi. (1993). lH. and Chajes.B. NCEER96xxxx. of Ninth World Conf. mC9350. "Torsional response Behavior of Base Isolated FBR Reactor Building during Earthquake Excitation. Div. (1989). S.. (1993).. "Prediction of Observed bridgeResponse With SoilPileStructure Interaction. State University of New York. J. Mizukoshi. Constantinou. and Khodaverdian. Buffalo. New York. " Earthquake Eng. (1987). W. MeJchers. " Ph. Vol. Miyazaki. ". R. and Premus. Maroney. (1989).. and Chen. and Constantinou. "Seismic Response of Structures Supported on RFBI System. "Design and its Performance Verification of a Base Isolated Building Using Lead Rubber Bearings in Japan. Mander." Proc. New York. national conference on Earthquake Engineering. "Experimental And Analytical Study Of Sliding Isolation Systems". et al..(1988). (1993). Japan. Buffalo. and Hall. M. "Structural Reliability: Analysis and Prediction..S. (1990). University of Naples. "Federico IT".C. Struct. S. Chen. M. B.D dissertation. Badoni. Dissertation. Journal of structural engineering. McCabe. S. Struct. Mokha. (1990). Reinhom.. and Reinhom. M. Mokha. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. "Modeling of Damage in Seismic Analysis of Structures. Pennsylvania. N. number 1. on Earthquake Eng. pp. 115(9). (1988). Ph...". (1995). ppl0071016. M.S. volume 119.". et al.1. AS. (1989). N. O. 0. Report No. Dyn. A.L. State University of New York. 1.. "Response of Steel Bridge Bearings to Reversed Cyclic Loading. K. M.. K. Buffalo. Wiley. Hawaii. State University of New York. Pittsburgh.. Italy (in Italian).". "Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of ThreeDimensional Base Isolated Structures (3DBASIS).". A..C. Romstad.B.
AH. Park. "A Method of Computing for Structural Dynamics" Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. UCBIEERCI78/11. (1976) "Nonlinear Transient Dynamic Aanlysis of Yielding Structures. M. T. Priestley. "Study on Base Isolation for Torsional Response Reduction in Asymmetric Structures Under Earthquake Motion. ASCE Journal of Engineering mechanics.E.1980..".740757. S.(1975). Park.O.. (1981). Turkey. W. Columbia University." J. (1994)..K. University of California. Paulay..". November. T. 675680. J.J.. Eng. NY.( 1980 "Ductility and Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Spirals or Hoops Under Seismic Loading..T. New York. A HS. Department of Civil Engineering. Y. "Damage of Plain and Fiber Reinforced Concrete Under Lowcycle Fatigue Load. and Penzien. T. Buffalo. 14(4). 1959 Ozdemir.543557.N. J. I: Formulation and Error Analysis". 1975. and Ang. Report No. on Earthquake Eng. Wen. ASCE. "Equivalent Linearization for Seismic Responses.". Park.ShearWall Structures. Vol.. e... Sproul.. New York Paskova. (1988). Christchruch. "Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete. et al. R. T. Reinhorn. September 813. Orangun. 1992. January. No. A. July." Proc." Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. (1978). New Zealand. S.. H. Thesis Presented to the Univesity of California. Vol. M.Nakamura.J." Earthquake Eng.J. and Breen. 85. Newmark. J. N. R. T. "Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems Under Bidirectional Ground Motions. research Report 1543F. V. Park. Research Report 816. Berkeley. in patial fulfilmentof the requirrnents for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. NCEER870008. "IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concerete Frame . University of Texas at Austin. State University of New York. at Brkeley . Struct. AM. No. C. (1959).. Y. Calif. and Meyer. Dyn. "Lapped Splices in Bridge Piers and in Columns of EarthquakeResisting Reinforced Concrete Frames.J. Istanbul. 243 . (1992). A Wiley Interscience Publication.. "The Strength of Anchor Bars: A Revaluation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices. Report No. R. "Reinforced Concrete Structures".K.. 118. of Ninth World Conf. and Scarpas. University of Canterbury. Gill. and Ang. Struct.". Park. Park. and Paulay.. 11.. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. Y. pp.J.S.. 6794. Y. M.. Zanza.(1986)... Japan. 111(4). pp 577579.." Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. Y. EM 3. and Potangaroa.D.. Jirsa.. (1985). Nakata. (1987). and Kunnath. "Mathematical modeling of Hysteretic Loops for Reinforced Concrete Columns".(1975).
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. Department of Applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences. Constantinou. R. Monograph On Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of RC Buildings. New York Report No. Lysiak. Pajfar and H. Berkeley. CA.N. (1995). Reinhorn. (1988). W. Report No. 423432. "Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Seismic Retrofit of Structures with Supplemental Damping: Part 1 . NCEER950001. Priestley. R. University of California.. P. (1979) "Seismic Analysis of MultiSpan reinforced Concrete Bridges. (1989). M.. Research Report SSRP91103. National Center for Earthquake Engineering.H. M... Powell. "Analysis and Design of Pile Foundation Under Dynamic Condition". "IDARC: Computer Program for Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures. State University of New York.. National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. V. applied Mechanics and Engineering Sciences. Y..K. (1943). Li. pp.1. New York. "Simplified Inelastic Response Evaluation Using Composite Spectra".. Krawindler Editors.. and Seible. M (1996).. (1992). and Mander. Vol. AM.." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic.". 269.. F. A. 1979.Penzien. NY (in press). and Osgood.. J. Technical note 902. F. UCB/SEMM92129 Department of Civil Engineering.".. 26. university of California. March 1989.Fluid Viscous Damping Devices" Report No.. Applied Technology Council.266. (1991). C. AM. SSRP92/01. Report No. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. and Chai. Dept.B.". VallesMattox.. Ramberg.R. S. November. ". 161. Buffalo. Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges." Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Bridges. "Seismic Damage Prediction by Deterministic Methods: Concepts and Procedures. J. Buffalo. NCEER950001.M. No. Vol.719734. (1994). 16. p.N. and Allahabadi. W. Powel.J. A M. Reinhorn.C.(1992) "Design Guidelines for Assessment Retrofit and Repair of Bridges for Seismic Performance. State University of New York. 244 . Seible. Priestly. "Seismic Design of Structures for Damage Control. Prakash. and Filippou.J. Bulletin ofIndian Society for Earthquake Engineering Technology. San Diego. S. Elsevier Applied Science. State University of New York.H.C. M.. 1991. "Description of Stress Strain Curve by Three Parameters. H. Reinhorn.. ". "DRAIN3DX: Base Program User Guide" Report NO. submitted to Earthquake Spectra. G. Paper No. G. ATC61. 1992. p. Buffalo. Prakahs. F.K. S. and Kunnath. Reinhorn. Kunnath. University of California." in Research Accomplishments 19861994: A Selection of Technical Achievements. San Diego. (1992).
and Schnobrich. CMUCS94125.. National Academy of Sciences.. Vol. February.. Committee on the Alaska Earthquake ofthe Division of Earth sciences. Prantice Hill Inc. No. P. State University of New York. " Simple and Complex Models for Nonlinear Seismic Response of RIC Structures". Way. "Elastic and Inelastic Stress Analysis. pp. J. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. " Computed Behavior of Coupled Shear Walls". (1977). I. P. Potsdam. and Moss. C. Shewchuk. Okamoto. SRS 465. T. NCEER940002. (1992). Saiidi..". and Nielsen. (1970). C.R and Chen.". "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquakes. (1979). 1970. 1973.Stl2..H. Concrete International: Design and Construction. National Center for Earthquake Engineering. and Migilicaccio. S. Englewood Cliffs.A. August 1979. M. (1994). N. Proceedings of 6th WCEE.". Takayanagi. Ahmake.G. J. e. B. National Research Council. L.. H." The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964Engineering. D. Spyrakos. N. Washington. (1987).Y. Computational Mechanics Publications. and Kelly.96. New York Turkington.e. "A Comparative Study of Base Isolation Systems". Sed.. A. Urbana. S. Carnegie Mellom University. "An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain. Gergely. Buffalo. "Seismic Design of Bridges 245 .. MIE150. R. I. 1983. Sivakuman. (1973). G."...J.. ISBN: 1858610249 Su. Shames. Report No.A. "Boundary Elements Techniques in Geomechanics". Ozaki. Tarics. Takeda. 119. Carr.. M. W. "Performance of Highway Bridge Foundations. Dec. No.Robinson... D.B. pp.G. ASCE. T. " Nceertaisei Corporation Research Program On Sliding Seismic Isolation Systems For Bridges: Experimental And Analytical Study Of Systems Consisting Of Sliding Bearings.". Rubber Restoring Force Devices And Fluid Dampers. 12. University of lllinois. ". D. (1994).N... (1993). M C. PA. 25142530 Ross.H. and Cozzarelli.A... Constantinou. and White.R.N.... Tsopelas. F. 25572573. Cooke. and Sozen." Proceedings."... (1984). AJ. R. Pittsburgh. School of Computer Science. (1983). II: Reduction of Effective Number of Degrees of Freedom.A.. N.M. volume ii. Report to the National Science Foundation. A. Sozen. D. Report No. "The Implementation of Base Isolation for Foothill Communities Law and Justice Center.R. Fujii. (1989). and Tadkbakhish. (1993). P. Civil Engineering Studies. Clarkson Univ. G. New Delhi..C. NJ.C. Elsevier Applied Science.. 1993."Suggestions for the Design of RIC Lapped Splices for Seismic Loading. "Improved Time History Analysis for Structural Dynamics. M. Vol.
P. (1988). NCEER960010.D dissertation. Div. Earthquake.. "Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions.". L. Valles. National Center for Earthquake Engineering.. 19... Kunnath. (1994).E.M. Structural Analysis Programs. National Center for Earthquake Engineering.".. "Experimental Investigation of the Dynamic Response of Two Bridges Before and After Retrofitting with Elastomeric Bearings".. 15. Tokyo and Kyoto. Reinhom. Journal of Structural Engineering. Barron. New York. Proceedings. State University of New York. W. (1990)..0: A Computer Program for the Inelastic Analysis of Buildings. ASCE. et al. C.A.S. of Ninth World Conf.249263. J. 102(EM2).M. Li. A. of Eng. S. Wilson. Wolf. E. (1996).. Vol.O. State University of New York. No. "Reinforced Concrete Hysteretic Model Based on the Damage Concept. Madan. Ph. Velestos. Wendichansky. Buffalo. Y. "Method of Random vibration of hysteretic Systems.. 7790 Valles. 1994." Proc. Buffalo. A. Reinhom. Inc.E. (IDARC 2D Version 4.L. (1994) "The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures With Limited Number of Nonlinear Elements". 895912. Report No. and Shah. pp 849858. R. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. State University of New York. on Earthquake eng.". Japan. Villaverde. N... C. University of British Columbia. Vol. Vol. Buffalo. R. R. Mech. "Evaluation of Seismic Energy in Structures". Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.. New York.".S. and Sexsmith.on LeadRubber Bearings". D. "Matrix analysis of framed structures".M.9931003. (1990). (1992). Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. NCEER96xxxx.. Wada. Madan.M. A." J. and Newmark. R..M. A.Report No.V. "Sesimic Evaluation of a Low Rise RC Building in the Vicinity of the New Madrid Seismic Zone". 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. (1976). and Bertero. 403408. Uang. liS. Technical Report # UBC 9402.. Vii. pp. pp.Engineering Research Facility. and Oere. M. (1996). S. "Efficient Mode Superposition Algorithm for Seismic Analysis of NonLinear Structures. and Melad. John P. "SoilStructureInteraction Analysis in Time Domain". Vol.. V. Draft. M. Wen. (1987). (1988).K. March 14. 12. Wang. New York Williams. H. Weaver. II. "Dynamic Analysis of Base Isolated Structure Using various Numerical Models. "Review of Methods of Assessing Seismic Damage in Concrete Structures. R... A. Van Nostrand Co. A. (1960)."..K. (1996). Englewood 246 .
Yasaka. Zayas.. and Fujimoto.J.T. K..A. S. A.Cliffs. N. M. "Biaxial Hysteretic Model for Base Isolation Devices. "FPS Earthquake Resisting System Experimental Report. ". "Safety and Reliability of Existing Structures. 1. Internal Report.P. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 87/01.. University of California. Berkeley.". S. Y. Lizuka..A. Yasaka. Report No. Japan. Low.Architectural Institute of Japan. J. 1988. and Mahin. V.(1985). Maeda. Tokyo. et al. (1988).395400. "Biaxial Hysteretic Model for Base Isolation Devices".. (1987). Kajima Corporation. Takenaka. Mizukoshi.: Prantice Hall. A.. Yao.. N. Kajima Institute of Construction Technology.. S. 247 .S. Pitman Advanced Publishing Program." Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting .
A.I Input Routines Description Function Routines names Description calculate the size of the arrays of: nodes. and what type of analysis to perfonn (dynamic. coordinates. pushover etc. modal.) initiate define analysis 248 .Construction =Platform for Bridges The major parts of the program are presented in Fig.I.I TABLE A.A. APPENDIX A A.I Program General Structure The description of the major functions of the input routines is provided in Table A. properties gecanalysis_type gecanalysis_options define if the analysis is 2d or 3d. A detailed description of these parts follows. 1 IDARClBridge Inelastic !!amage Analysis of Reinforced . L_ID_A_R_C__B_R_ID_G_E_li I I Input Preprocessing Processing I FlGURE A.
The joint load (for incremental static analysis) and the number of steps to which the load is divided to.TABLE A.gap get_e_b geCfoundation geCh_b geCh_b_s geUso_sli geUsolator_1 geClin_damper Description Read joints coordinates.. end springs..1 Input Routines Description Function define nodes and restrains Routines names gecnode300rdinates geCboundary30nditions geccoupled_motions gecelemencproperties geCbiJ.groups geCpealcground_accelera tio geUype_oCexciation read_number_oCmodes conditions dynamic and modal analy Those conditions are used to indicate the stopping conditions for the adaptable pushover procedures. the boundary conditions of the joints and the coupled motions define elements proper ties The main routine . and some general parameters like global damping and integration time are read sis parameters 249 . Releases. and its type.gecelemencproperties calls the other routine to retrieve the required properties of the elements. Including the connectivity of the elements to the nodes.. displacements velocity (excitation groups). the property number of the element.joincweight gecmembecuniformJoad gecnumber_oUoad_steps This group of routines defines the elements. The element matrices are created first assuming they are fixed at the ends. and rigid arms as described in chapter 3 are applied later for easier modeling Some of the parameters defining the right hand side of the equation of equilibrium are defined in this group of routines. define elements gecmember_connectivity assign_elements_property assign_elements_types get_member_boundarY30 nditions gecmember_springs geuigid_arms get..joinUoad get. and the pseudo dynamic procedures The parameters required for: modal analysis (number of modes. Joint weights are used to define the mass for dynamic analysis define elements end conditions loadings pushover get_usecpushover get_romp_pushover gecnumber_oCmodes geUotal_analysis_duratio n gecanalysis_time_step get_damping coefficients geCdirection of excitation gecexcitation_file_name gecexication.
2 TABLE A. This calculation is the base for the calculation of the rotation matrix. 250 .The general description of the routines included in the preprocessing portion is provided in Table A.2. A detailed description of each one of the blocks in the processing section is presented in the following tables. pre_coupled pre_release pre_spring These routines are used to prepare arrays required for the processing phase beam length preparation routines The general description of the structure of the processing routines is presented in Fig. it is defined as a vector. where the rigid zones are subtracted.2 Preprocessing Routines Function Routines names biJl!ap_list dampers_list eJoad_list elements_tol!lobal finaCorder numbcoCdampers slUso_list Description mapping routines Some of the arrays require mapping to other arrays to prevent the need for unnecessary search and reduce the number of operations mass matrix Since the mass matrix is not changing during the analysis and it is assumed to be lumped. A. prior to the analysis The length of each element is calculated from the node coordinates.
2 Processing Routines Arrangements TABLE A.3 Update Elements Properties Function elements stiffness (force calculation) Routines names h_bjorce3alcualtion rigid_arm_force Description The first step in updating the elements properties.Processing update elements apply end conditions assemble global matrices assemble load vector solve process results FIGURE A. The stiffness in the linear elements is created only at the first step and kept the same for the next steps. and the calculated deformations. The end forces in the element are calculated using the stiffness from the previous step.gap_stiff update_iso_l_stiff 251 . elements stiffness (general elements) create3_b3d_stiffness createjound_stiffness update_bi'. Since the forces are calculated at the theoretical joints. they have to be transformed to the actual joints through the rigid zones Corresponding to the end forces the stiffness in the nonlinear elements is updated.
Using the acceleration and velocity from the previous time step the effective stiffness matrix is calculated from the mass and stiffness matrices (Newmark Beta method) only for dynamic analy sis. end springs) are applied on the fixed ends stiffness matrix of the element. The nonlinear damping of elements is controlled by the routine: update3lements_damping.3 Update Elements Properties Function elements stiffness (hysteretic beam) Routines names h_b_stiffness_main ddnsth damaged_length local_stiffness h_b_add_non_shear calculate_damage Description The stiffness of hysteretic beam is updated in several stages: (1) the flexibility at the beam ends is calculated from the end moments (ddnsth). The linear damping element is created. 252 . An example of this type of element is the isolator slider element elements damping update_elements_dampin g create_elements_damping update_elements!leneral update_iso_sli element general TABLE A. Using both the flexibility and the damaged length. the damaged length is calculated (damaged_length). (2) from the moment diagram. and inverting it yields the stiffness matrix (locaLstiffness). tions releases stiffnessJigid_arms local to global coordinates transformation TABLE A.TABLE A. The stiffness matrix of the elements is transformed from its local coordinate system to the global one. Element of the type "general" are elements that contributes to three global matrices: (1) stiffness matrix (2)damping matrix (3) load vector. releases. The nonlinear shear influence is added (h_b_add_non_shear) and the damage index is calculated.4 End Conditions Description Function apply end condiRoutines names end springs Description The special end conditions (rigid zones. by integrating the flexibility over the beam length the flexibility matrix is derived.S Global Matrices Building Description Function assemble stiffness effective stiffness Routines names assemble accel_velocity effective_stiffness Description The global stiffness matrix is assembled from the local once.
However the acceleration is not read from a file but increases linearly until limiting condition is reached The increase in the total force on the bridge is distributed proportional to the modes of vibration The load distribution on the bridge is defined by the user using the joint load input as the guideline for the force distribution The contribution of the individual elements force is added to the global load_vector The effective load vector is calculated considering the acceleration and velocity from the previous time step.O. by the interaction matrix between the superstructure and the ground History of dynamic load is directly read.S Global Matrices Building Description Function add damping to the effective stiffness matrix I coupling conditions Routines names effectivcstifCdamp Description The effect of stiffness proportional damping and individual damping elements is added to the global stiffness matrix. (Newmark Beta method) The effect of stiffness proportional damping. The coupled motions conditions are applied to the effective stiffness matrix. by mUltiplying the ground acceleration by the mass The force vector is created by multiplying the ground displacements and velocity.TABLE A. As well as the restrains (global boundary conditions) coupled TABLE A. and individual elements damping is added to the effective load vector The effect of the coupling ofD. and restrained once are eliminated load (dispvelocity) forcinlldisp_velocity load (dynamic force) load quasistatic) load (ramp pushover) forcinlldynamicjorce forcing_quasistatic ramp_pushover load (modalpushover) load (pushoveruser) elements loads effective load pushover_modal pushovecuser forcinllelementsJoads effective_load_vector damping effect forcinlldamping coupling effect final load coupledJoad_vector finaUoad_vector 253 . Static load is applied incrementally This load case is similar to the incremental acceleration loading case.F's is added to the effective load vector The degrees of freedom related to coupled degrees of freedom.6 Load Vector Description Function load (acceleration) Routines names forcinllacceleration Description Incremental ground acceleration is used to assemble the force vector.
The second routine calculates the total displacements of the nodes out of the incremental once. IJ). The sparse stiffness matrix is created (vectors: a. 254 . where memory is allocated. . The forces of selected elements are calculated and printed in each time step. First the number of nonzero elements in the stiffness matrix is found.O. after the analysis the eigenvalues are written to the screen.9 Modal Analysis Description Function modal analysis Routines names modal_main sparsejonnaLmodal sparse_mass_modal lanz write_mode_shapes description The routine "modaCmain" is the driver for the modal analysis. The solution driver (solution) is used to call the solver (src2c) TABLE A. The lanz modal solver requires that the stiffness and masS matrix will be in a fonn of sparse fonnat. Moreover the maximum force of larger number of elements is calculated.O. At required time steps snap shots of the defonned bridge are printed. force results h_bjorce_calculation ejorce_out TABLE A.S Results Processing Description Function displacements results Routines names disp_coupled_to~lobal disp_out description The first routine calculates the displacements of the couples D.I TABLE A.F's. so that full solution of all the D.7 Solution Description Function solution Routines names gecarray_a_size sparse_fonnat solution src2c description The effective (dynamic analysis) stiffness matrix is transferred to sparse fonnat to use JeG solver. and the mode shapes to a file. II.F's will be available.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.