11(2014) 075 - 091!

Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule
Abstract The application of equal displacement rule simplifies the evaluation of lateral displacement demand forSDOF system. For complex multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structures such as continuous bridge systems, however, it requires more investigations. In this paper, a comprehensive parametric study of the ratio of maximum inelastic displacement to maximum elastic displacement for typical continuous bridges is performedto advance the application of equal displacement rule to MDOF systems. Particurlarly for the bridges with long periods, this adapted methodlogy is further simplified. It is concluded that equal displacement rule of MDOF is applicable to continuous bridges when the periods of the main modes are no less than the limiting period, which usually serves as an indication to the level of inelastic deformation for a bridge subjected to an earthquake. Key words Equal displacement rule, limiting period, continuous bridges, simplified seismic analysis, displacement demand

Bia o Wei b,* Ye Xia Weia n Liu
a

a

c

School of Civil Engrg., Central South University, Changsha, China b Dept. of Civil & Environ. Engrg., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA c Dept. of Strut. Engrg., Univ. of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA Received in 21 Nov 2012 In revised form 08 May 2013

* Author email: xiaye.cee@rutgers.edu

1 INTRODUCTION
The performance-based seismic design philosophy has been sufficiently developed to design a structure system to withstand a pre-defined level of damage under a pre-defined level of earthquake intensity. Displacement-based seismic design is an efficient and accurate method to achieve the performance-based seismic design philosophy, and it has been proposed and developed in recent years (Kowalsky, 2002; Jameel, Islam, Hussain, et al., 2013). In this methodology, the displacement demand of the designed structure should be close to the target displacement, which reflects the predefined level of damage of earthquake intensity. Therefore, to obtain the displacement demand of structure is an important step. Although analytical methods are widely utilized to calculate the displacement demand of structure, the analysis processes of currently available methods are relatively complex (Chopra and Goel, 2002; Wei, 2011; Akhaveissy, 2012). Hence, it is desired to develop a simplified method herein to obtain the displacement demand to facilitate displacement-based seismic design.

2011). 2006). Efforts are dedicated since 1960s to propsing and studying a displacement correction factor C . Hence. The application of equal displacement rule simplifies the evaluation of lateral displacement demand of many continuous bridges subjected to earthquakes and provides the basis for their simplified displacement-based seismic design. which is equal to the ratio of the maximum inelastic displacement to maximum elastic displacement for SDOF systems subjected to seismic excitation (Veletsos and Newmark. resulting in the simplified calculation process of displacement-based seismic design. Newmark and Hall. Therefore. 1969. For elastoplastic SDOF structure. it is necessary to study whether the equal displacement rule is still applicable to the MDOF systems. Miranda. which generally satisfies equal displacement rule. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule Equal displacement rule is considered to be an efficient and accurate mechanism to estimate the displacement demand for elastoplastic SDOF systems (Clough and Penzien. are aimed at investigating SDOF or equivalent SDOF systems.091 . the elastic displacement demand can represent the true elastoplastic displacement demand. In addition. There are many expressions available for the displacement correction factor.76 Y. In essence. the elastoplastic displacement demand of NTHA is often found to be close to the elastic displacement demand of RSA during traditional seismic design of some continuous bridges. Xia et al. and the equation of displacement correction factor C from Miranda (2000) is validated to have better precision by some researchers and is given by C = [1 + ( 1 ! 1) " exp( !12T µ !0. however. 2 EQUAL DISPLACEMENT RULE OF SDOF In effort to extend equal displacement rule from SDOF to MDOF system. 1960. Bayat and Abdollahzadeh. the inelastic displacement demand obtained by Nonlinear Time History Analysis (NTHA) is very close to the elastic displacement demand obtained by Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA). equal displacement rule has been further developed and more factors are taken into consideration. 2000).This finding is definedas to equal displacement rule. the previous researches. In recent years. and ii) the limiting period Tl . two key parameters affecting equal displacement rule of SDOF system are introduced accordingly: i) the displacement correction factor C . maximum inelastic displacement could be approximately obtained by multiplying its elastic counterpart by the factor C . 1989. 2003). Despite of the inconsistent expressions in different literatures. There is little reported study focusing on the lateral deformation of continuous bridges. C is approximately equal to 1 for when the target SDOF has a long fundamental period. particularly for irregular bridges with significant higher modes (Isakovic and Fischinger. The objective of this paper is to quantify the application conditions of the equal displacement rule in MDOF bridge systems through a comprehensive parametric study on the ratio of maximum inelastic to elastic displacement in transverse direction for typical continuous bridges. 2003. Riddell et al. Therefore. Traditional equal displacement rule is considered applicable to SDOF structures when the according fundamental period is not less than a defined value (Clough and Penzien.8 )]!1 µ (1) Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 .

(2). the structural damage level is related to µ .1.091 . and it is highly dependent on different levels of structure ductility demand.5 3 2.5 1 0. and equal displacement rule will be more rigorous if C is less than 1.05. the traditional equal displacement rule could be treated as a special case of Eq.. equal displacement rule is satisfied. the severe damage state. however. and the correlation between T and µ is shown in Fig. When C is equal to 1. 1.05. As opposed to the traditional equal displacement rule (Clough and Penzien. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 77 where T is the period of SDOF. As observed from Fig. the moderate damage state. the value of Tl will be too large and the corresponding equal displacement rule will not applicable to any structures. µ is its displacement ductility demand. Tl increases as µ increases.5 2 1.05.0. 2013). it is the rigorous equal displacement rule. where values (from low to high) approximately indicate the slight damage state.5 0 0 1 2 Period(s) 3 4 Displacement Displacement Displacement Displacement ductility ductility ductility ductility 1. If C is equal to 1.5 3 6 9 Figure 1 C C related to different period and displacement ductility of SDOF Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . factor C is approaching to 1 as period T elongates irrespective of displacement ductility. Therefore. Note that the limiting period Tl that divides the region where the equal displacement rule is not applicable from the region where this approximation is applicable depends on the level of ductility.and 9.4529ln µ + 0. Xia et al. which will be thoroughly presented in the following section. the limiting period Tl herein is not a constant value. the equation of the limiting period Tl is determined by Tl = 0. 4 3.0respectively.Y. 3.0323 (2) When the period T of SDOF is not less than Tl . 6. Figure 1 provides the development of C in terms of T for different µ scenarios.2. In this study. equal displacement rule is approximately considered appropriate. 2003). In general. Note that the error of 5% is nornally acceptable for seismic design.0. and the collapse state respectivelyfor reinforced concrete piers of continuous bridges (Xia et al. Through curve-fitting process. Note that equal displacement rule is based on C is equal to 1.5.

8 0.6 0. Figure 3 provides a 4 ! 40m continuous bridge configuration with girder and column section properties listed in Table 1.. ! e is the elastic displacement of pier obtained by elastic analysis method. response spectrum analysis (RSA). The displacement ductility demand µ e of pier is given by µe = !e !y (3) In Eq. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule Limiting period(s) 0.091 . The arrangement of bearings. In addition. therefore. as for bridges with piers of different heights.78 Y.4 0. i.5 2 2. Note that. while ! y is the yield displacement of pier assumed as one cantilever column.5 3 3. ! y obtained by assuming each pier as one cantilever column may be not the true yield displacement. prevents abutments with poor ductility from severe earthquake damage. Multi-bearings are laterally set on the top of each column and abutment.e.2 0 1 1. and thus to extrapolate equal displacement rule of SDOF to MDOF.5 Displacement ductility 4 Figure 2 Limiting period of equal displacement rule of SDOF 3 EQUAL DISPLACEMENT RULE OF CONTINUOUS BRIDGES The objective of this section is to present the results of a comprehensive statistical study of the ratio of maximum inelastic displacement to maximum elastic displacement for typical continuous bridges subjected to earthquakes in the transverse direction.(3).1 Typical continuous bridge structures The continuous bridges are widely used in highway and railway [16-17]. 3. Xia et al. µe is called nominal displacement ductility demand. Bearings on columns and abutments are all laterally guided except for one laterally fixed on the side column. which is widely adopted in practical bridge design. ! e may be not the true displacement (approximately true displacement when the structure satisfies equal displacement rule). Therefore. the moment exists at the top of pier due to the inconsistent deformation of piers and the restriction of girder. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 .

25 Moment of 4 inertial (m ) 40 0. One representative ground motion out of seven is shown in Fig. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 79 0 0# 1 1# 2 2# 3 3# 4 4# 0 . 1989).. seven artificial motions are generated by Simqke procedure as for ground motion input of NTHA to obtain the inelastic displacement of structures (Fahjan and Ozdemir. Xia et al. 5.4 (Yang et al. It can be used for RSA to obtain the elastic displacement of structures.66% 3.2 Earthquake excitation Earthquake load adopts elastic response spectrum for soil profile III in Chinese criteria (JTJ 00489 as shown in Fig.091 ..722 Concrete type C50 C30 Longitudinal reinforcement steel and area ratio — HRB335.. Based on the elastic response spectrum. Other motions are not presented due to the similarity to Fig.Y. 0.422 Polar moment 4 of inertia (m ) 14 0. and the average results of NTHA are regarded as the benchmark for comparison with RSA. Figure 4 Elastic response spectrum for soil profile I.5..4#:number of piers and abutments Figure 3 Typical continuous bridges Table 1 Section properties of girder and piers Components Girder Column Area 2 (m ) 7 2. III. IV Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . II. 2008). 4 :node number of girders 0# .

40. 0.3 and Table 1 respectively.(2).5 ! 1. the new models of Table 2 obtained by changing only one parameter are reasonable to include many practical bridges. 80.0m. Tl can be obtained by substituting the maximum nominal displacement ductility demand µem of piers into Eq. 80.5. II. 40.3 Analyzing procedure As for continuous bridges. Xia et al. 14. that the displacement obtained from NTHA is very close to that of RSA when the minimum period Tmin of main modes is no less than the foregoing Tl .0 ! 2.80 Y.5m. 28 20. 1.1g) of soil type III 3. 15m. some parameters are subjected to change to consider more combinations as shown in Table 2. 1.091 . piers and ground motion Member type Girder Pier Variables 4 Lateral moment of inertia (m ) 4 Polar moment of inertia (m ) 2 Section area (m ) Single span length (m) 2 Section area (m ) Area ratio of longitudinal reinforcement Height distribution of piers Parameter values 20. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 10 a (m / s 2 ) t ( s) 20 30 40 Figure 5 Ground motion time history (PGA=1. Three cases of continuous bridges with various piers height combinations are identified as the baseline configuration. 15m and 20m synchronously I. Table 2 Changing parameters of girder. 160 1. Heights of piers of these cases are chosen as 5m-10m-5m.8%. 160 7. where shapes and section properties of girders and piers are shown in Fig. 28.4) Ground motion Soil type Based on table 2. while pier1# equals to pier 3# and varies as 5m.5 ! 2. and some other cases belong to regular bridge configuration Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 .0 ! 1. 10. The following sections is targeting to validate this phenomenon.0m and 2. III and IV (See Fig. Based on the three cases.6% pier2# varies as 5. 7.5m 0.4%. 2. As the three cases are the simplified model of the real bridges. The phenomenon. a majority of cases are identified as irregular bridges which are mainly controlled by at least two main modes.2% and 1. 10m-5m-10m and 5m-5m-5m respectively. is often found in traditional design. 10m. 14. and can be used for numerical simulation. 56 3. and the combination rule is that one parameter is changed by keeping the others the same.

Tmin is substituted into Eq. which is the minimum period of the main modes for one bridge. the associated C curves in Fig. (2) NTHA was also conducted in Opensees analyzing program. Regardless of irregular bridges or regular bridges.(2) of Tl obtained by Eq. otherwise the corresponding results of RSA will not be reasonable. the peak ground acceleration (PGA) need to be adjusted accordingly to ensure the target µem as of being 1. (b).091 . and is expressed by green line as shown in Fig. the limiting period Tl of equal displacement rule is obtained by substituting µem into Eq. the displacement correction factor C is calculated through dividing the displacement of NTHA by the displacement of RSA. and is summarized in scatter plots as shown in Fig.(2).3. which verifies that Eq. there are five black dots of C according to one Tmin . As for each µem .4 Numerical results For each bridge model. (2) For the same µem . the dispersion of the black dots of C relative to the curve of Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . the dispersion of the black dots of C relative to the curve of C increases. 3. is defined to be Tmin .6 according to one Tmin .6. In case of symmetry.0 and 6. Characteristics of the irregular continuous bridges regarding the maximum nominal displacement ductility demand µem .6. and (c) is able to capture the distribution features of the black dots of C .6. two black dots of C will be covered by the corresponding symmetrical dots.(1) to obtain the displacement correction factor C . in which the piers are simulated by fiber element. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 81 which is governed soley by the fundamental mode. and the pier’s initially elastic stiffness adopts the equivalent stiffness. 6 (a). for the same Tmin . Xia et al. As for each scenario. The green line of Tl helps to examine what the dispersion of the black dots of C is relative to 1.3. the sum of main modes participation mass factors of each model should be not less than 90% when dynamic analysis is performed. Since each bridge has five girder nodes as shown in Fig. the minimum period Tmin of main modes and the limiting period Tl can be observed and summarized from Fig.(1) of C is meaningful and useful. and Eq. despite of the dispersion of the black dots of C . the sum of whose participation mass factors is just beyond 90%. Furthermore. the green line of Tl divides the black dots of C into two groups. and only three black dots of C can be seen in Fig.0 when Tmin ! Tl . the displacement correction factor C .0. As for each µem . As for each µem and girder node of bridge cases shown in Fig.6 as follows: (1) For each µem . In addition. two different analysis methods are implemented as follows: (1) RSA was performed by using Opensees software (Mazzoni et al. which is used to judge if it can capture the distribution features of black dots of C . the minimum period of the main modes. as Tmin decreases. 3.Y.(1) is reasonable. including the left group wherein Tmin is less than Tl . 2007) with the piers simulated by elastic element. and the curve of C is expressed by red line as shown in Fig. where the concrete is simulated by material Concrete02 and the steel is simulated by material Steel02.5. and the right group in which Tmin is larger than Tl .

most of the black dots of C lie between 0. and the influence of other factors is relatively small and can be neglected. Therefore. Xia et al. (3) For each µem .091 .5 (b).2 when Tmin is not less than the associated Tl . µem =1.8 and 1. µem =3. as µem increases.0 (c). The abovementioned characteristics show that equal displacement rule is still applicable to the MDOF continuous bridges in the transverse direction when Tmin is not less than Tl . the distribution of the black dots of C mainly depends on Tmin and µem . and is defined as equal displacement rule of MDOF.82 Y. (a). µem =6.0 Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . and the number of the black dots of C beyond the range increases as µem increases. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule C increases.

the calculation precision of equal displacement rule of MDOF will be better.0. the results of these theoretical methods can envelop the possible displacement response of the structure. 4. when one structure enters into some level of ductility. as for the long period bridges. the calculation errors of equal displacement rule of MDOF are not highly sensitive. The yield displacement of pier is given by Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . the shortest pier’s displacement ductility capacity µ! is usually the largest.1 Exact formulation of the displacement capacity of piers and the limiting period In terms of the general continuous bridges.(2) decreases. and moreover. If µem is substituted by the displacement ductility capacity µ! of piers. Fig. In fact.Y. and the changing trend is gradual. As for the piers of general continuous bridges. To this extent. Finally. equal displacement rule can be applied to any allowable level of damage of the bridge. including RSA. the derived Tl corresponds to the maximum value related to the maximum allowable level of damage of one bridge. Xia et al. As the height of the shortest pier of one bridge increases. the subtle change of the experimental model will produce obviously different displacement. Therefore. the displacement correction factor C of each bridge is closer to 1.091 . its displacement ductility capacity µ! and the associated Tl in Eq. it is some arbitrary to select Tmin ! Tl as the application condition of equal displacement rule of MDOF. as for the seismic design of the structure. However. and other methods. any analytical methods won’t be able to accurately predict the real elastoplastic displacement. if Tmin is more larger than Tl . this section will simplify the application of equal displacement rule of MDOF. contrarily will be worse. Furthermore. this section will discuss the maximum allowable damage level. ITHA. it is unnecessary to pay excessive attention to the calculation precision of the theoretical methods. Therefore. If Tmin ! Tl . for all of the continuous bridges with Tmin ! Tl . 4 EQUAL DISPLACEMENT RULE OF BRIDGES WITH LONG PERIODS Section three has extended equal displacement rule of SDOF to MDOF. equal displacement rule can be applied to any allowable level of damage of the bridge provided that Tmin ! Tl . and identify the maximum envelop Tl1 of the limiting period Tl . As for all bridges with Tmin ! Tl . Therefore. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 83 Figure 6 Distribution map of displacement correction factor c As equal displacement rule of MDOF is based on the analyses. especially when the structure’s ductility demand is relatively high. the calculation precisions of equal displacement rule of MDOF are different. and thereby it controls the determination of Tl . Tmin of the bridge increases accordingly. Previous section shows that the limiting period Tl is only related to the maximum nominal displacement ductility demand µem of piers. .5 shows that as the minimum period Tmin of main modes increases and the displacement ductility demand µem decreases.

f cc ' is the confined compressive strength of concrete. 2008) H p = 0.091 . f yh is the yield stress of stirrup. Xia et al. b1 and b2 are shape factors. H p . and !u is the ultimate curvature capacity of pier’s section evaluated by (Kowalsky.044 f y d s (9) (10) Hp = 2 Dmin 3 Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . 1997) "u = D(b1 + b2# ) !c (7) in which ! is the axial compression ratio of pier’s section. The displacement capacity ! u is expressed as (Tang et al. ! s is the ratio of volume of stirrup to the core volume of concrete. which are equal to 0. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 1 " y = !y H 2 (4) 3 in which H is the height of pier.213 for circular section and 1.162 and 0.4! s f yh" su f cc ' (8) ' where ! su is the ultimate tensile strain of stirrup with a typical value of 0. ! c is the ultimate compression strain of concrete shown as (Tang et al.829 for rectangular sectionrespectively. K is the safety factor of ductility. 2008) " c = 0. the shape factor a is 2. 2008) : 1 "u = !y H 2 + (!u # !y ) H p ( H # 0. ! y is the yield curvature of pier’s section and it can be calculated by (Tang et al. in Eq. is the least value of the two equations followed by (Tang et al.1094 and 0.09.5H p ) / K 3 (6) where H p is the equivalent analytical plastic hinge length.022 f y d s ! 0.84 Y. and 0. ! y is the yield strain of longitudinal reinforcement. 1997) "y = a! y D (5) where D is the section height in the calculated direction of pier.957 for rectangular section.665 for circular section. Kowalsky. 2008 .08H + 0. (6).004 + ' 1.

08 + )(0. and is applicable to the bridges with dumpy piers.(9) is generally applicable to any continuous bridges.(2) Tl = 0.5 p ) 1 "y K !y H H !y H 2 3 (11) Since Eq. 2008).01 (Tang et al. the parameters in Eq. and Tl1 provides the boundary of Tl .(11) makes µ# = 1 + 0. Substituting Eq. Xia et al.(12) represents the displacement ductility capacity of pier in which H p is controlled by H .011 f y d s !c 3 ( $ 1)(0.091 .(5).Y. 4. all the general continuous bridges under the condition that Tmin ! Tl1 satisfy equal displacement rule. stirrup usually uses R235 with the ratio ! s between 0.(12).96 $ ) K a! y (b1 + b2" ) H H (12) substituting Eq.5H p ) / K H H "u 3 y 3 ! µ" = = = 1 + ( u # 1) p (1 # 0.(5).2 Analyzing procedure In order to ensure the largest possible value of Tl . (7) and (10) into Eq. C35 and C40. (7) and (9) into Eq. Combing those equations. and concrete type usually adopts C30. thus the results of ! c are shown in Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 .0323 (14) Eq. Therefore. (13) and (14) need to be analyzed and chosen such that Tl could be achieved as large as possible.004 and 0.022 f y d s 0. and is applicable to the bridges with slender piers. Eq.(14) represents the limiting period of equal displacement rule when the piers are subjected to the damage level of maximum allowable inelastic deformation.(8). To be conservative. d s is the bar diameter of longitudinal reinforcement.4529ln µ! + 0. it is adviced to choose the parameters in Eqs. substituting Eq. Dmin is the least cross sectional dimension of pier.(11) µ# = 1 + !c 3 2D D ( $ 1) min (1 $ min ) K a! y (b1 + b2" ) 3H 3H (13) Eq. the displacement ductility capacity µ! of pier can be expressed by 1 ! H 2 + (!u # !y ) H p ( H # 0. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 85 where f y is the yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement.(12) or (13) into Eq.(12-14) as follows: (1) In Eq.(13) represents the displacement ductility capacity of pier in which H p is governed by Dmin .

and is obtained when ! and H are the least.8. ! c can conservatively adopt 0.1 in analysis. the color lines are all located above the black curve. which depends on the value of H and H / Dmin .(12) and (14).016m and 0.015 in structural designs. As to obtain large value of Tl . (4) in particular. Tl increases as ! decreases.091 . Note that the foregoing dividing point of H / Dmin is based on d s = 0. (3) The longitudinal reinforcement usually uses HRB335 with d s between 0. in spite of d s . Figure 7 The ultimate compression strain ! c influenced by concrete strength and the ratio ! s For a typical bridge structure. (2) Based on Eqs.8. and will be further discussed in the following text. and Tl may be controlled by H or H / Dmin .028m temporarily in analysis. the maximum value of Tl adopts 0. and Tl is governed by H / Dmin .0. However.0 . Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . d s adopts 0. In Fig.0 < H / Dmin < 8. for H / Dmin ! 8. K is set to 2. and Tl is controlled by H . as H and H / Dmin increase. and the color lines represent the relations between Tl and H / Dmin indicated in Eqs. From Fig.5m to 30mand H / Dmin is between 2. some observations are concluded as follows: (1) Tl decreases.5 and 10. the color lines are all below the black curve. 8.84s for the rectangular section of pier. considering two different pier cross section.86 Y. Xia et al. and will be different for other d s . Based on Eqs. Tl increases as ! c increases.0 according to Chinese criteria (Tang et al. the color lines and the black curve are crossed. for 4.(13-14).0 .038m. and 0. when ! = 0. and ! can conservatively adopt 0.74s for the circular section of pier. where H ranges from 2. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule Fig. namely cicular and retangular.1 and H = 2. 2008).028m .5m . the maximum value of Tl is always controlled by H . the black curve represents the relations between Tl and H as appeared in Eqs.7.(12-14). In this figure. (2) When H / Dmin ! 4.(12-14). the developing trend of limiting period Tl in terms of pier height is depicted in Fig.

and between Tl and H / Dmin 4. Note that the foregoing Tl1 is based on K = 2. when ! and H are all small.8s not only envelops the maximum value of Tl of all of the bridges with circular section piers.9. when ! = 0. Note that the µem rela- ted to Tl1 = 0.89 times the maximum envelope of Tl of the bridges with rectangular section piers. Tl will attain the maximum value.8s .(2) is 5.0 is also drawn in Fig.1 and H = 2. equal displace- ment rule can be applied to any allowable level of damage of the bridge.05s.02m . the area ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and d s are usually small.Therefore. Xia et al. and the maximum envelop Tl1 can adopt 1. and then different Tl1 are obtained. K can adopt different values.8s is relatively reliable. Tl1 = 0.9.9.3 Numerical results The previous discussion shows that for the general continuous bridges. Therefore. but also is 0. Therefore. as for different criteria. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 87 (a) Circular section (b) Rectangular section Figure 8 The relations between Tl and H . and Tl1 = 0. based on design experience and model test. In spite of different values of Tl1 according to different criteria.45. For example. indicating that the maximum value of Tl will be amplified as d s increases.0 according to Chinese criteria (Tang et al. if Tmin ! Tl1. As for the well designed bridge. Tl1 = 0. Its relationship is shown in Fig. From Fig. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . In routine designs. 2008). the maximum allowable level of damage generally adopts µem = 3 ~ 6 .Y.091 .5m .8s in Eq. and will be subjected to changes as d s varies. the maximum envelop Tl1 of the limiting period Tl can conservatively adopt the value of Tl when the rectangular section adopts d s = 0. the relation between the maximum value of Tl and d s associated with K = 1. Furthermore.

It confirms that bridges with long periods inherently satisfy equal displacement rule. According to Fig. Furthermore. continuous bridges)through a comprehensive parametric study of the ratio of maximum inelastic displacement to maximum elastic displacement for a typical continuous bridge. The complete analysis procedure is documented in flow chart.g.2 Circular section.04 Bar diameters of longitudinal reinforcement(m) Figure 9 The relation between Tl and d s 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS In this paper. equal displacement rule can be applied to any allowable level of damage of the bridge.8 0. which is subjected to earthquake excitation in the transverse direction.03 0. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule µem = 5. 1.K=1 Rectangular section. mainly tailored towardsthe short periods bridges.10.4 0.K=1 0 0.025 0.K=2 Rectangular section. the application condition of equal displacement rule is further simplified based on the fact that the displacement ductility capacity µ! of piers and the corresponding limiting period Tl are the only governing parameters. the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The limiting period predominately depends on the maximum nominal displacement ductility demand of piers.6 0.45 is a relatively large value.88 Y.035 0. as shown in Fig. (2)Provided that the periods of bridge main modes are beyond the limiting period and the sumation of each mass participation factor is not less than 90%.02 0.8s is very conservative and reliable.10. it provides a special insight to the bridges in the shortperiod range. the equal displacement rule criteria ( Tmin ! Tl ) . can be used for all continuous bridges in principles from previous analysis. the limiting period increases. Herein the appli- Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . equal displacement rule can be applied for the bridge within the specified inelastic deformation level. Xia et al. Therefore. As the maximum nominal displacement ductility demand increases. the application of equal displacement rule is advanced into MDOF systems (e.K=2 Circular section.2 Limiting periods(s) 1 0. and these bridges may potentially meet with equal displacement rule. (3) As for the bridge with long period. and the corresponding Tl1 = 0.091 ..015 0. When the bridge structure becomes more flexible such that Tmin is above the upper bound of the limiting period Tl1 .

which is equal to 1. one still could utilize the proposed procedure as described in Fig. and it should be redesigned or revised. and the expression and application of equal displacement rule are fairly simple to follow.10 is more all-round and useful than the traditional equal displacement rule.05. Furthermore. Thus.(2) could be possibly larger than Tl1 . the bridge is not qualified to resist seismic load.091 . / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 89 cation condition of equal displacement rule can be treated as the traditional equal displacement rule.(2) of Tl can also beupdated based on C . and can be implemented to assess the seismic performance of continuous bridge with either long period or short period. 1. To ensure the applicability of the rule under this particular circumstance. Tl is calculated by the basic equation Eq.Y. equal displacement rule is applicable to the bridge within the inelastic deformation level of Figure 10 Procedure of equal displacement rule Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . is Yes Equal displacement rule is applicable to any allowable damage level of the bridge participation mass modes are as follows: Response spectrum analysis: is obtained by substituting the maximum nominal displacement ductility equation of piers into the If . Al- though the thorough investigation of this scenario is out of scope of this paper.02. where the maximum nominal displacement ductility demand ductility capacity µ! and Tl controlled by µem µem of the pier is larger than the displacement in Eq. The inelastic displacement obtained by RSA may be not true. Definition of the minimum period If Dynamic analysis: Periods of lateral vibration factors and of related No of main modes: . as to change the calculation precision of equal displacement rule. but the corresponding displacement ductility demand will be larger than the displacement ductility capacity due to Tl > Tl 1 . As a result. equal displacement rule is applicable to any bridge with Tmin ! Tl1 . Therefore.(2). 1. Xia et al. Tl1 is usually adjusted to achieve the largest posible value via selecting appropriate parameters of piers in the previous analysis. In order to maitain the calculation precision of equal displacement rule. Note that a special case Tl > Tmin ! Tl 1 may exist under the strong motion shaking. the extended equal displacement rule shown in Fig.07 or other equivalent valuesdepending on the acceptant level of calculation precision To sum up. the basic equation Eq. a lot of continuous bridges with relatively short periods will not meet the condition Tmin ! Tl1 . and the short-period bridge can use equal displacement rule if Tmin ! Tl . 10 to determine the applicability of the equal displacement rule.

Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. Fan. The above support is greatly appreciated. Calif. Non-linear FEM analysis of seismic induced pounding between neighbouring multi-storey structures. California. J.. (2011). Beijing: China Communications Press. N. K. (2002).. Interaction response of train loads moving over a two-span continuous beam.. Earthquake Engineering and Structure Dynamics 31(3):719-747.. Direct displacement-based design: a seismic design methodology and its application to concrete bridges. M.. References Akhaveissy. Scaling of earthquake accelerograms for non-linear dynamic analysis to match the earthquake design spectra.091 . Z. J. Cruz. J. McKenna. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research. (1989). Journal of Structural Engineering 126(10): 1150-1159. R. R. A. Newmark. X. Yau. H. Kowalsky. Newmark. Higher modes in simplified inelastic seismic analysis of single column bent viaducts. On the effect of the near field records on the steel braced frames equipped with energy dissipating devices. Chopra. Li. T. Hussain. R. W. (2013). et al. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . (2007).. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31(3):561–582.. et al. (2011).. Kowalsky. J. (2003). Jameel. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures. Hidalgo.. Goel. Finite element nonlinear analysis of high-rise unreinforced masonry building. M. Resonance characteristics of two-span continuous beam under moving high speed trains. B. J. (2010).. X. PhD thesis. Fahjan. Penzien. W. Y. J. M. J. Chang. Beijing. (2000). C. R. 13(1): 1350002. M. G. Riddell. (2002). 2011M500983 .... Y. (1969). San Diego. Wei. Abdollahzadeh. 2012QNZT047. R. (1960). Tao. Islam.. J. Earthquake Engineering and Structure Dynamics 35(1):95-114. Mazzoni. A. Specifications of Earthquake Resistant Design for Highway Engineering. A displacement-based approach for the seismic design of continuous concrete bridges. (2012). Wang. Miranda. M. M. et al.. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 8(4):429-443. S. et al. W. Ozdemir. Response modification factors for earthquake resistant design of short period structures. Inc. Z. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 10(5):921-939. C. Bayat. Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. J. L. A. Veletsos.. A. OpenSees Command Language Manual. (2006). L. Wei. Chile 2: 37-50. M. Q. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics. 7(2):185-199.90 Y. Beijing: China Communications Press.. Hall. F. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. New York: Mc Graw-hill. Isakovic. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 9(5):547-567. Santiago. China. Y. et al. H.. S. Dynamics of structures. Clough.. Q. B. (2008). Tang. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.. and freedom explore program of central south university under grant No... P. (1989). Wang.postdoctoral science foundation of central south university . M. D. Xia et al. University of California. E. Earthquake Spectra 5(3): 571-590. G. Fischinger. N. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Shi. F.. K. C. Japan 2: 895-912.. M. Inelastic displacement ratio for structures on firm sites. E.. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule Acknowledgements This research is jointly supported by the China postdoctoral science foundation under grant No. Yang. C. Scott.. (2013). Study of the applicability of modal pushover analysis on irregular continuous bridges.Structural Engineering International 21(2):233-237. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. S. Wei. San Diego. (1997). (2008).

Journal of Vibroengineering.091 . D. Y.Y.. Xia et al. / Lateral vibration analysis of continuous bridges utilizing equal displacement rule 91 Xia. Su. ! Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures 11(2014) 075 . Y. (2013). Ma.. Strain mode based damage assessment for plate like structures. 15(1): 37-45. H.