Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Performance based design of steel arch bridges

using practical inelastic nonlinear analysis
Seung-Eock Kim ∗, Se-Hyu Choi, Sang-Soo Ma
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Construction Tech. Research Institute,
Sejong University, 98 Koonja-dong Kwangjin-ku, Seoul, South Korea

Received 20 August 2001; accepted 13 February 2002

Abstract

A performance based design method of three-dimensional steel arch bridges using practical
inelastic nonlinear analysis is presented. In this design method, separate member capacity
checks after analysis are not required, because the stability and strength of the structural system
and its component members can be rigorously treated in analysis. The geometric nonlinearity
is considered by using the stability function for beam-column members and the geometric
stiffness matrix for truss members. The Column Research Council (CRC) tangent modulus is
used to account for gradual yielding due to residual stresses. A parabolic function is used to
represent the transition from elastic to zero stiffness associated with a developing hinge of
beam-column members. The load–displacements predicted by the proposed analysis compare
well with those given by other approaches. A case study has been presented for the steel arch
bridge with 61 m span. The analysis results show that the proposed method is suitable for
adoption in practice.
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Performance based design; Inelastic nonlinear analysis; Geometric nonlinearity; Material non-
linearity; Steel arch bridge

1. Introduction

The steel design methods are Allowable Stress Design (ASD), Plastic Design (PD),
and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). In ASD, the stress computation is

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-3408-3291; fax: +82-2-3408-3332.
E-mail address: sekim@sejong.ac.kr (S.-E. Kim).

0143-974X/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 6
92 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

based on a linear elastic analysis, and the inelastic nonlinear effects are implicitly
accounted for in the member design equations. In PD, a linear plastic-hinge analysis
is used in the structural analysis. Inelastic nonlinearity and gradual yielding effects
are approximated in member design equations. In LRFD, a linear elastic analysis
with amplification factors or a direct nonlinear elastic analysis is used to account
for inelastic nonlinearity, and the ultimate strength of members is implicitly reflected
in the design interaction equations.
However, despite popular use of conventional design methods in the past and
present as a basis for design, the methods have their major limitations. The first of
these is that it does not give an accurate indication of the factor against failure,
because it does not consider the interaction of strength and stability between the
member and structural system in a direct manner. It is well-recognized fact that the
actual failure mode of the structural system often does not have any resemblance
whatsoever to the elastic buckling mode of the structural system. The second and
perhaps the most serious limitation is probably the rationale of the current two-stage
process in design: elastic analysis is used to determine the forces acting on each
member of a structure system, whereas inelastic analysis is used to determine the
strength of each member treated as an isolated member. There is no verification of
the compatibility between the isolated member and the member as part of a structural
system. The individual member strength equations as specified in specifications are
unconcerned with system compatibility. As a result, there is no explicit guarantee
that all members will sustain their design loads under the geometric configuration
imposed by the structural system.
To solve these problems, performance based design should be carried out. Per-
formance based design uses inelastic nonlinear analysis that can sufficiently capture
the limit state strength and stability of a structural system and its individual members,
so that separate member capacity checks encompassed by the specification equations
are not required. It is expected that the use of performance based design method
will simplify the design process considerably. The main difference between perform-
ance based design method and conventional methods is that performance based
design method can predict the structural system strength, whereas others can predict
only member strengths.
Over the past 30 years, research efforts have been devoted to the development
and validation of several inelastic nonlinear analysis methods. Inelastic nonlinear
analyses may be grouped into the second-order plastic-zone and the second-order
plastic-hinge analyses. The second-order plastic-zone solution is known as the ‘exact
solution’, but cannot be used for practical design purposes [4,5]. This is because the
method is too intensive in computation and costly due to its complexity. Second-
order plastic-hinge analyses, practical analyses, for the space frames were developed
by Orbison [11], Ziemian et al. [14], Prakash and Powell [13], Liew and Tang [9],
and Kim et al. [7,8].
Recently, a number of studies of steel arch bridges have been performed by Chat-
terjee and Datta [2], Nazmy [10], and Pi and Trahair [12]. However, these studies
are based on nonlinear elastic analysis to evaluate the effects of various design para-
meters influencing the strength and stability of steel arch bridges. The purpose of
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 93

this paper is to present a performance based design method of steel arch bridges
using a practical inelastic nonlinear analysis.

2. Practical inelastic nonlinear analysis

2.1. Stability functions accounting for second-order effect of beam-column

member

To capture second-order effects, stability functions are used to minimize modeling

and solution time. Generally only one or two elements are needed per a member.
The simplified stability functions reported by Chen and Lui [3] are used here. Con-
sidering the prismatic beam-column element in Fig. 1, the incremental force–dis-
placement relationship of this element may be written as

冦冧 冤 冥冦 冧
S1 S2 0
MA qA
EI S2 S1 0
MB ⫽ qB (1)
L A
P 0 0 e
I

where S1, S2 are the stability functions, MA, MB the incremental end moments, P the
incremental axial force, qA, qB the incremental joint rotations, e the incremental axial
displacement, A, I, L the area, moment of inertia, and length of beam-column element
and E the modulus of elasticity.
The stability functions given by Eq. (1) may be written as

Fig. 1. Beam-column subjected to double-curvature bending.

94 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

π冑rsin(π冑r)⫺π2rcos(π冑r)

冦
if P ⬍ 0
2⫺2cos(π冑r)⫺π冑rsin(π冑r)
S1 ⫽ (2a)
π2rcosh(π冑r)⫺π冑rsinh(π冑r)
if P ⬎ 0
2⫺2cosh(π冑r) ⫹ π冑rsinh(π冑r)

π2r⫺π冑rsin(π冑r)

冦
if P ⬍ 0
2⫺2cos(π冑r)⫺π冑rsin(π冑r)
S2 ⫽ (2b)
π冑rsinh(π冑r)⫺π2r
if P ⬎ 0
2⫺2cosh(π冑r) ⫹ π冑rsin(π冑r)

where r ⫽ P / (π2EI / L2), P is positive in tension.

The force–displacement equation may be extended for the three-dimensional
beam-column element as
 EA 

 
0 0 0 0 0
L
EIy EIy

冦冧 冦 冧
0 S1 S 0 0 0 d
P L 2L
MyA EIy EIy qyA
0 S2 S 0 0 0
MyB L 1L qyB
⫽  (3)
MzA EIz EIz qzA
0 0 0 S3 S 0
MzB L 4L qzB
T EIz EIz f
0 0 0 S4 S 0
L 3L
GJ
0 0 0 0 0
 L 
where P, MyA, MyB, MzA, MzB, and, T are axial force, end moments with respect to
y and z axes and torsion respectively. d, qyA, qyB, qzA, qzB, and, f are the axial
displacement, the joint rotations, and the angle of twist. S1, S2, S3 and S4 are the
stability functions with respect to y- and z-axes, respectively.

2.2. CRC tangent modulus model associated with residual stresses

The CRC tangent modulus concept is used to account for gradual yielding (due
to residual stresses) along the length of axially loaded members between plastic
hinges. From Chen and Lui [3], the CRC Et is written as
Et ⫽ 1.0E for Pⱕ0.5Py (4a)
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 95

P
Et ⫽ 4 E 1⫺
Py 冉 冊
P
Py
for P ⬎ 0.5Py (4b)

2.3. Gradual yielding and force–displacement relationship of beam-column

member

The tangent modulus model is suitable for the member subjected to axial force, but
not adequate for cases of both axial force and bending moment. A gradual stiffness
degradation model for a plastic hinge is required to represent the partial plastification
effects associated with bending. We shall introduce the parabolic function to rep-
resent the transition from elastic to zero stiffness associated with a developing hinge.
The parabolic function h is expressed as:
h ⫽ 1.0 for aⱕ0.5 (5a)
h ⫽ 4a(1⫺a) for a ⬎ 0.5 (5b)
where a is a force-state parameter that measures the magnitude of axial force and
bending moment at the element end. The term a may be expressed by AISC-LRFD
and Orbison, respectively.

2.3.1. AISC-LRFD
Based on the AISC-LRFD bilinear interaction equation [6], the cross-section plas-
tic strength of the beam-column member may be expressed as
P 8 My 8 Mz P 2 My 2 Mz
a⫽ ⫹ ⫹ for ⱖ ⫹ (6a)
Py 9 Myp 9 Mzp Py 9 Myp 9 Mzp
P My Mz P 2 My 2 Mz
a⫽ ⫹ ⫹ for ⬍ ⫹ (6b)
2Py Myp Mzp Py 9 Myp 9 Mzp

2.3.2. Orbison
Orbison’s full plastification surface [11] of cross-section is given by
a ⫽ 1.15p2 ⫹ m2z ⫹ m4y ⫹ 3.67p2m2z ⫹ 3.0p6m2y ⫹ 4.65m4z m2y (7)
where, p ⫽ P / Py, mz ⫽ Mz / Mpz (strong-axis), my ⫽ My / Mpy (weak-axis).
Initial yielding is assumed to occur based on a yield surface that has the same
shape as the full plastification surface and with the force-state parameter denoted as
a0 ⫽ 0.5. If the forces change so the force point moves inside or along the initial
yield surface, the element is assumed to remain fully elastic with no stiffness
reduction. If the force point moves beyond the initial yield surface, the element
stiffness is reduced to account for the effect of plastification at the element end.
When softening plastic hinges are active at both ends of an element, the slope-
deflection equation may be expressed as
96 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

冦冧冤 冥冦 冧
EtA
0 0 0 0 0
P L d
MyA 0 kiiy kijy 0 0 0 qyA
MyB 0 kijy kjjy 0 0 0 qyB
⫽ (8)
MzA 0 0 0 kiiz kijz 0 qzA
MzB 0 0 0 kijz kjjz 0 qzB
T GJ f
0 0 0 0 0
L
where

冉S22
kiiy ⫽ hA S1⫺ (1⫺hB)
S1
EtIy
L 冊 (9a)

EtIy
kijy ⫽ hAhBS2 (9b)
L

冉S22
kjjy ⫽ hB S1⫺ (1⫺hA)
S1
EtIy
L 冊 (9c)

冉S24
kiiz ⫽ hA S3⫺ (1⫺hB)
S3
EtIz
L 冊 (9d)

EtIz
kijz ⫽ hAhBS4 (9e)
L

冉 S24
kjjz ⫽ hB S3⫺ (1⫺hA)
S3
EtIz
L
. 冊 (9f)

The terms hA and hB is a scalar parameter that allows for gradual inelastic stiffness
reduction of the element associated with plastification at end A and B. This term is
equal to 1.0 when the element is elastic, and zero when a plastic hinge is formed.
To account for transverse shear deformation effects in a beam-column element, the
stiffness matrix may be modified as

冦冧冤 冥冦 冧
EtA
0 0 0 0 0
P L d
MyA 0 Ciiy Cijy 0 0 0 qyA
MyB 0 Cijy Cjjy 0 0 0 qyB
⫽ (10)
MzA 0 0 0 Ciiz Cijz 0 qzA
MzB 0 0 0 Cijz Cjjz 0 qzB
T GJ f
0 0 0 0 0
L
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 97

where
kiiykjjy⫺k2ijy ⫹ kiiyAszGL
Ciiy ⫽ (11a)
kiiy ⫹ kjjy ⫹ 2kijy ⫹ AszGL
⫺kiiykjjy ⫹ k2ijy ⫹ kijyAszGL
Cijy ⫽ (11b)
kiiy ⫹ kjjy ⫹ 2kijy ⫹ AszGL
kiiykjjy⫺k2ijy ⫹ kjjyAszGL
Cjjy ⫽ (11c)
kiiy ⫹ kjjy ⫹ 2kijy ⫹ AszGL
kiizkjjz⫺k2ijz ⫹ kiizAsyGL
Ciiz ⫽ (11d)
kiiz ⫹ kjjz ⫹ 2kijz ⫹ AsyGL
⫺kiizkjjz ⫹ k2ijz ⫹ kijzAsyGL
Cijz ⫽ (11e)
kiiz ⫹ kjjz ⫹ 2kijz ⫹ AsyGL
kiizkjjz⫺k2ijz ⫹ kjjzAsyGL
Cjjz ⫽ (11f)
kiiz ⫹ kjjz ⫹ 2kijz ⫹ AsyGL
The force–displacement relationship of a beam-column element from Eq. (10) may
be symbolically written as
{fe} ⫽ [Kef]{de} (12)
in which {fe} and {de} are the element end force and displacement arrays, and
[Kef] is the element tangent stiffness matrix.

2.4. Ultimate strength of truss member

A force-state parameter of truss element b is expressed as

P
b⫽ (13)
Pn
where Pn is the ultimate strength of a truss member, and determined by the
AASHTO-LRFD [1] equations as: For tension
Pn ⫽ FyA (14)
For compression
Pn ⫽ 0.66lFyA for lⱕ2.25 (15a)
0.88FyA
Pn ⫽ for l ⬎ 2.25 (15b)
l
for which l is

l⫽ 冉 冊 L 2Fy
rs π E
(16)
98 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

where Fy, A, and E are yield stress, gross cross-sectional area, and Young’s modulus.
L is unbraced length and rs is radius of gyration about the plane of buckling.
Then the force–displacement relationship of a truss member may be expressed as

冦 冧 冤 冥冦 冧
EtA
P m 0 0 0 0 0 d
L
MyA qyA
0 0 0 0 0 0
MyB qyB
⫽ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (17)
MzA qzA
0 0 0 0 0 0
MzB qzB
0 0 0 0 0 0
T f
0 0 0 0 0 0

where the unit function m is determined as:

m ⫽ 1.0 for bⱕ1.0 (18a)

m ⫽ 0.0 for b ⬎ 1.0 (18b)

Eq. (17) may be symbolically written as

{fe} ⫽ [Ket]{de} (19)

in which {fe} and {de} are the element end force and displacement arrays, and
[Ket] is the element tangent stiffness matrix.

2.5. Element stiffness matrix of beam-column and truss

The end forces and end displacements used in Eqs. (12) and (19) are shown in
Fig. 2(a). The sign convention for the positive directions of element end forces and
end displacements of a member is shown in Fig. 2(b). By comparing the two figures,
we can express the equilibrium and kinematic relationships in symbolic form as

{fn} ⫽ [T]T6×12{fe} (20a)

{de} ⫽ [T]6×12{dL} (20b)

{fn} and {dL} are the end force and displacement vectors of a member expressed as

{fn}T ⫽ {rn1 rn2 rn3 rn4 rn5 rn6 rn7 rn8 rn9 rn10 rn11 rn12} (21a)

{dL}T ⫽ {d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12} (21b)

{fe} and {de} are the end force and displacement vectors in Eqs. (12) and (19).
[T]6 × 12is a transformation matrix written as
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 99

Fig. 2. Element end forces and displacements notation.

 ⫺1 0 0 0 0 

 
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 1
0 0 ⫺ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
L L
1 1
0 0 ⫺ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
L L
[T]6×12 ⫽   (22)

 
1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 ⫺ 0 0 0 0
L L
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺ 0 0 0 1
L L
 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺1 0 0 
Using the transformation matrix by equilibrium and kinematic relations, the force–
displacement relationship of a member may be written as
{fn} ⫽ [Kn]{dL}. (23)
[Kn] is the element stiffness matrix expressed as
[Kn]12×12 ⫽ [T]T6×12[Ke]6×6[T]6×12. (24)
where [Ke] is [Kef] for a beam-column element and [Ket] for a truss element. Eq.
(24) can be subgrouped as

[Kn]12×12 ⫽ 冋 [Kn]1 [Kn]2

[Kn]T2 [Kn]3
册 (25)
100 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

where

冤 冥
a 0 0 0 0 0
0 b 0 0 0 c
0 0 d 0 ⫺e 0
[Kn]1 ⫽ (26a)
0 0 0 f 0 0
0 0 ⫺e 0 g 0
0 c 0 0 0 h

冤 冥
⫺a 0 0 0 0 0
0 ⫺b 0 0 0 c
0 0 ⫺d 0 ⫺e 0
[Kn]2 ⫽ (26b)
0 0 0 ⫺f 0 0
0 0 e 0 i 0
0 ⫺c 0 0 0 j

冤 冥
a 0 0 0 0 0
0 b 0 0 0 ⫺c
0 0 d 0 e 0
[Kn]3 ⫽ (26c)
0 0 0 f 0 0
0 0 e 0 m 0
0 c 0 0 0 n

For beam-column members

EtA Ciiz ⫹ 2Cijz ⫹ Cjjz Ciiz ⫹ Cijz
a⫽ ,b⫽ ,c⫽ (27a–c)
L L2 L
Ciiy ⫹ 2Cijy ⫹ Cjjy Ciiy ⫹ Cijy GJ
d⫽ ,e⫽ ,f⫽ (27d–f)
L2 L L
g ⫽ Ciiy, h ⫽ Ciiz, i ⫽ Cijy, j ⫽ Cijz, m ⫽ Cjjy, n ⫽ Cjjz (27g–n)
For truss members,
EtA
a⫽ ,b⫽c⫽d⫽e⫽f⫽g⫽h⫽i⫽j⫽l⫽m⫽n⫽0 (28a–n)
L
Eq. (25) is used to enforce no sidesway in the member. If the member is permitted
to sway, an additional axial and shear forces will be induced in the member. We
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 101

can relate this additional axial and shear forces due to a member sway to the member
end displacements as

{fs} ⫽ [Ks]{dL}. (29)

where {fs}, {dL}, and [Ks] are end force vector, end displacement vector, and the
element stiffness matrix. They may be written as

{fs}T ⫽ {rs1 rs2 rs3 rs4 rs5 rs6 rs7 rs8 rs9 rs10 rs11 rs12} (30a)

{dL}T ⫽ {d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12} (30b)

[Ks]12×12 ⫽ 冋 [Ks]
⫺[Ks] [Ks]T
⫺[Ks]
册 (30c)

where

冤 冥
0 a ⫺b 0 0 0
a c 0 0 0 0
⫺b 0 c 0 0 0
[Ks] ⫽ (31)
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

For beam-column members

MzA ⫹ MzB MyA ⫹ MyB P

a⫽ ,b⫽ ,c⫽ (32a–c)
L2 L2 L

For truss members,

P
a ⫽ b ⫽ 0, c ⫽ (33a–c)
L

By combining Eqs. (23) and (29), we obtain the general beam-column element
force–displacement relationship as

{fL} ⫽ [K]local{dL} (34)

where

{fL} ⫽ {fn} ⫹ {fs} (35)

[K]local ⫽ [Kn] ⫹ [Ks] (36)

102 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

3. Design principles

3.1. Design format

Performance based design follows the format of LRFD. In AASHTO-LRFD [1],

the factored load effect does not exceed the factored nominal resistance of structure.
Two kinds of factors are used: one is applied to loads, the other to resistances. The
LRFD has the format

h 冘 giQiⱕfRn (37)

where Rn is the nominal resistance of the structural member, Qi the force effect, f
the resistance factor, gi the load factor corresponding to Qi and h a factor relating
to ductility, redundancy, and operational importance.
The main difference between current LRFD method and performance based design
method is that the right side of Eq. (37), (fRn) in the LRFD method is the resistance
or strength of the component of a structural system, but in the performance based
design method, it represents the resistance or the load-carrying capacity of the whole
structural system. In the performance based design method, the load-carrying
capacity is obtained from carrying out inelastic nonlinear analysis until a structural

冘
system reaches its strength limit state such as yielding or buckling. The left side of
Eq. (37), (h giQi) represents the member forces in the LRFD method, but the
applied load on the structural system in the performance based design method.

3.2. Resistance factor

AASHTO-LRFD specifies the resistance factors, f, for the strength limit state shall
be taken as follows: 1.0 for flexure, 0.95 for tension yielding, and 0.9 for com-
pression, respectively. The proposed method uses a system-level resistance which is
different from the AASHTO-LRFD specification using member level resistance fac-
tors. When a structural system collapses by forming plastic mechanism, the resistance
factor of 1.0 is used since the dominant behavior is flexure. When a structural system
collapses by member yielding, the resistance factor of 0.95 is used since the dominant
behavior is tension. When a structural system collapses by member buckling, the
resistance factor of 0.9 is used since the dominant behavior is compression.

3.3. Serviceability limit

The most common parameter affecting the design serviceability of steel bridge is
the deflection. The performance based design follows AASHTO-LRFD specification.
Service live load deflections may be limited to L / 800 where L is the span length of
a steel arch bridge. At service load state, member yielding is not permitted anywhere
in the structure to avoid permanent deformation under service loads.
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 103

Fig. 3. Space frame of six-story.

4. Verification

4.1. Six-story space frame

Fig. 3 shows Orbison’s six-story space frame [11]. The yield strength of all mem-
bers is 250 MPa (36 ksi) and Young’s modulus is 206,850 MPa (30,000 ksi). Uniform
floor pressure of 4.8 kN/m2 (100 psf) is converted into equivalent concentrated loads
on the top of the columns. Wind loads are simulated by point loads of 26.7 kN (6
kips) in the Y-direction at every beam-column joints.
The load–displacement results calculated by the proposed analysis compare well
with those of Liew and Tang’s (considering shear deformations) and Orbison’s
(ignoring shear deformations) results (Tables 1, 2, and Fig. 4). The ultimate load
factors calculated from the proposed analysis are 2.057 and 2.066. These values are

Table 1
Analysis result considering shear deformation

Method Proposed Proposed Liew’s

Plastic strength surface LRFD Orbison Orbison

Ultimate load factor 1.990 2.057 2.062
Displacement at A in the 208 mm 219 mm 250 mm
Y-direction
104 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

Table 2
Analysis result ignoring shear deformation

Method Proposed Proposed Orbison’s

Plastic strength surface LRFD Orbison Orbison

Ultimate load factor 1.997 2.066 2.059
Displacement at A in the 199 mm 208 mm 247 mm
Y-direction

Fig. 4. Comparison of load–displacement of six-story space frame.

nearly equivalent to 2.062 and 2.059 calculated by Liew and Tang and Orbison,
respectively.

4.2. Truss with double braced panel

Fig. 5 shows a two-dimensional truss with double braced panel subjected to a

concentrated load at point A. The stress–strain relationship is assumed to be elastic–
perfectly plastic with a yield stress of 250 MPa (36 kips) and elastic modulus of
200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi). W14 × 82 is used for all members. The load–displace-
ment results from the proposed and the step-by-step analysis are compared in Fig.
6. The proposed and step-by-step method calculates the ultimate loads of 6012 KN
(1351 kips) and 6020 KN (1353 kips), respectively. The difference in the ultimate
loads between two approaches is less than 0.13%.
 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 105

Fig. 5. Truss with double braced panel.

Fig. 6. Load–displacement of truss with double braced panel.

5. Design example

5.1. Configuration of steel arch bridge

Fig. 7 shows a steel arch bridge which is 7.32 m (24 ft) wide and 61.0 m (200
ft) long. The stress–strain relationship was assumed to be elastic–perfectly plastic
with elastic modulus of 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi) and the yield stress of 248 MPa
(36 ksi). The square box section of 24 × 24 × 1 / 2 was used for the arch rib. The
wide flange section of W21 × 101 was used for the tie. The wide flange section of
106 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

Fig. 7. Steel arch bridge.

W8 × 10 was used for the vertical truss members. The wide flange section of
W10 × 22 was used for the lateral braces.

5.2. Load combination

The dead load, live load, and impact load specified in AASHTO-LRFD [1] were
considered as design loads. The concentrated dead loads and live loads of HS-20
were applied on each joint. The load factors of 1.25 for the dead load, 1.75 for the
live load, and 0.30 for the impact load were used. Fig. 8 shows the design load
considering the load factor.

5.3. Result of analysis

The load–displacement curve of the proposed analysis at the mid-span of the tie
is shown in Fig. 9. The steel arch bridge encountered the ultimate state when the
applied load ratio reached 1.20. The system resistance factor of 0.95 was used since
the frame collapsed by tension yielding at the vertical truss member. Since the ulti-

Fig. 8. Load conditions of steel arch bridge.

 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108 107

Fig. 9. Load–displacement of steel arch bridge at midspan.

mate load ratio l resulted in 1.14( ⫽ 1.20 × 0.95) which was greater than 1.0, the
member sizes of the system were adequate. The maximum deflection by the service
load was calculated as 73 mm (2.87 in) at mid-span. The deflection ratio was
L / 835 which satisfied the deflection limit of L / 800.

6. Conclusion

The performance based design method using practical inelastic nonlinear analysis
for three-dimensional steel arch bridges has been developed. The concluding remarks
are as follows:

(1) A practical inelastic nonlinear analysis method for three-dimensional steel arch
bridges has been developed.
(2) The proposed method can practically account for all key factors influencing
behavior of frame members and truss members: gradual yielding associated with
flexure, residual stresses, and geometric nonlinearity.
(3) The proposed analysis is adequate in assessing the strengths when compared
with the other approaches.
(4) The proposed performance based design method overcomes the difficulties due
to incompatibility between the elastic global analysis and the limit state member
design in the conventional LRFD method.
(5) The proposed method does not require tedious separate member capacity checks,
including the calculations of K-factor, and thus it is time-effective.
108 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (2003) 91–108

(6) The proposed method can account for inelastic force redistribution and thus
may allow some reduction of structure weight.

Acknowledgements

This work presented in this paper was supported by funds of National Research
Laboratory Program (2000-N-NL-01-C-162) from Ministry of Science & Technology
in Korea. Authors wish to appreciate the financial support.

References

[1] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification. AASHTO; 1998.

[2] Chatterjee PK, Datta TK. Dynamic analysis of arch bridges under travelling loads. Eint J Solids
Struct 1995;32(11):1585–94.
[3] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1992 [380pp.].
[4] Clarke MJ, Bridge RQ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Benchmarking and verification of second-order
elastic and inelastic frame analysis programs. In: White DW, Chen WF, editors. SSRC TG 29 Work-
shop and Nomograph on Plastic Hinge Bas Methods for Advanced Analysis and Design of Steel
Frames. Bethlehem, PA: SSRC, Lehigh University; 1992.
[5] El-Zanaty M, Murray D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of multistory steel frames. Structural Engin-
eering Report No. 83, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada ;1980.
[6] Kanchanalai T. The design and behavior of beam-columns in unbraced steel frames. AISI Project
No. 189, Report No. 2, Civil Engineering/structures Research Lab., University of Texas, Austin,
Texas; 1977. 300pp.
[7] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional frames using practical advanced
analysis. Eng Struct 2001;23/11:1491–502.
[8] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Practical advanced analysis and design of three-dimensional truss
bridges. J Construct Steel Res 2001;57/8:907–23.
[9] Liew JY, Tang LK. Nonlinear refined plastic hinge analysis of space frame structures. Research
Report No. CE027/98, Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singa-
pore; 1998.
[10] Nazmy AS. Stability and load-carrying capacity of three-dimensional long-span steel arch bridges.
Comput Struct 1997;65(6):857–68.
[11] Orbison JG., Nonlinear static analysis of three-dimensional steel frames. Report No. 82-6, Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; 1982.
[12] Pi Yong-Lin, Trahair NS. Inelastic lateral buckling strength and design of steel arches. Eng Struct
2000;22:993–1005.
[13] Prakash V, Powell GH. DRAIN-3DX: base program user guide, version 1.10. A computer program
distributed by NISEE/computer applications, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Califor-
nia, Berkeley; 1993.
[14] Ziemian RD, McGuire W, Dierlein GG. Inelastic limit states design part II: three-dimensional frame
study. ASCE J Struct Eng 1992;118(9):2550–68.