62

CHAPTER 5

MODELING OF THE BRIDGE

5.1 MODELING

SAP2000, a nonlinear software package was used for modeling and

analysing the study bridge. The following list provides details about the
element type used for modeling the components of the bridge structure in
SAP2000.

a) Superstructure - Spine element

b) Bent cap beams - Inelastic Beam-Column element

c) Bent Columns - Inelastic Beam-Column element

d) Elastomeric bearing - Link element

e) Expansion joint - Gap element

5.1.1 Superstructure

In this study, the structural component model (SCM) was used to

resemble the geometry of the bridge prototype. Since the in-plane and flexural
stiffness of the bridge superstructure were large compared to the lateral
stiffness of the supporting bents, a rigid-body dynamic system for the
superstructure was assumed. The super-structure was represented by a single
line of multiple three-dimensional frame elements (i.e., a spine-type
configuration), which passes through the centroid of the superstructure and
remains elastic for lateral loadings.
 63

The eight equal simply supported spans of the bridge were

separated by a gap, equal to the width of the expansion joint provided
between the abutments and decks, and the multi-column bents and decks.
Each span was discretized into four elements. This discretization was made at
cross beam locations. The effective stiffness property of the longitudinal
members evaluated from the experimental investigation was considered, and
is given in Equation 5.1.

EI = 0.8EIg (5.1)
eff

where, Ieff = Effective moment of inertia

Ig = Gross moment of inertia

EIeff = Effective flexural stiffness

EIg = Gross flexural stiffness

A transverse rigid bar of length equal to the deck width was

connected to the tip of the spine element of each span, where the columns
were located and where the abutment was located (Murat and Bruneau 1995).
The rigid bar was oriented in the transverse direction. Thus, the rigid bar was
used to model the interaction between the translation of the columns in the
transverse and longitudinal directions and the translation as well as the
rotation of the deck (column location) about the vertical axis. One end of the
bearing elements was connected to this rigid bar at the column locations and
the other end of the bearing elements was connected to the bridge columns.
To measure the relative longitudinal displacement between the adjacent decks
at the expansion joint, another rigid bar was connected to the tip of the spine
element at the adjacent spans (column location).
 64

5.1.2 Multi-column Bent

The bridge consists of seven multi-column bents, and every bent

was modeled as a plane frame (Figure 5.1). The bent cap beams were
modeled as beam-column elements, and the effective flexural stiffness was
taken as EIeff = 0.5EIg. The lumped plastic approach was used in this study to
model the nonlinear behaviour of the column. In the lumped plastic model,
the effective sectional properties were used to reflect the concrete cracking
and reinforcement yielding. The bases of the columns were assumed to be
fixed, as the foundations were deep (well foundation), resting on hard strata.

A A

Section A-A

Inelastic Beam-Column element Rigid zone

Inelastic Beam-Column element Confined concrete
10mm @ 150mm c/c 10# - 28mm
Un-confined concrete

Figure 5.1 Modeling of a multi-column bent

The effective moment of inertia of the column was calculated,

based on the cracked section using the moment-curvature (M- ) curve
(Figure 5.2). The moment – curvature values are shown in Table 5.1.
 65

The effective stiffness was calculated from the Equation (5.2)

at the first theoretical yield of reinforcement. The effective moment of inertia
was found to be 0.55Ig.

Effective stiffness, EI eff My y

(5.2)
where, My and y represent the yield moment and curvature.

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15

Curvature, rad/m

Figure 5.2 Moment-curvature curve

Table 5.1 Moment – curvature values

Sl. No. Moment (kNm) Curvature (rad/m)

Yield Ultimate Yield Ultimate
1. 786.04 1029.78 0.0075 0.0810

The flexural hinges on the frame elements were assigned with

default properties prescribed in SAP2000 described in FEMA-356 (2000).
The multi-columns in all the bridge bents fall under the category of long
column. As long columns are vulnerable to axial-flexure failure, PMM hinges
 66

(P - Axial, M - M2 moment, and M - M3 moment) were assigned to the ends

of the columns. Bent cap beams were assigned with Moment (M3) hinges at
the ends. The default hinge properties are section dependent and based on the
nonlinear modeling parameter as given in Table 9-6 of the ATC-40 (1996)
document. The hinge properties were assigned through the definition of the
moment-rotation relation, the interaction surface, and acceptance criteria.
From the moment-rotation relation, the yield rotation was automatically
determined, based on the defined material properties and the post-yielding
stiffness (5% of the elastic stiffness). The acceptance criteria were
deformations that were normalized by the yield deformation for Immediate
Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP) performance
levels. For the PMM hinge, the acceptance criterion is the plastic rotation
normalized by the yield rotation, which was calculated based on the section
properties.

The force-deformation behaviour of the hinge is shown in

Figure 3.1. A, B, C, D, E are the points defining the moment-rotation
relationship. Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse
Prevention (CP) are the performance levels of the hinges at different steps of
the pushover analysis. The values which were assigned at the respective
points are shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Hinge values of the columns (assigned)

Sl.No Points M/My y

1. A 0.00 0.000
2. B 1.00 0.000
3. IO 1.02 0.003
4. LS 1.08 0.012
5. CP 1.10 0.015
6. C 1.10 0.015
7. D 0.20 0.015
8. E 0.20 0.025
 67

5.1.3 Elastomeric Bearing

The horizontal sliding behaviour of the interface between the

bearing and the girder or cap beam was modeled, using the linear spring
element or link element, as shown in Figure 5.3. A link element is composed
of lateral, vertical and rotational stiffness components (Muthukumar 2003,
Akogul and Celik 2008). Translational or effective stiffness is used to
consider the nonlinear behaviour of elastomeric bearing. Shear modulus
values for elastomers in bridge bearings range between 0.8 MPa and 1.20
MPa (IRC83-(part III)-1987) depending on their hardness. The effective shear
modulus of pads was taken as 0.9 MPa. The bridge is longitudinally free up to
the maximum elastomer flexibility. The initial stiffness of the spring was
calculated from the geometric properties of the pad using the Equations (5.3,
5.4 and 5.5).

GA
Translational stiffness, KH (5.3)
h
e

Vertical stiffness, EA (5.4)

KV
h
e
Rotational stiffness, EI (5.5)
K
h
e
where, G - Rigidity Modulus, E - Young’s Modulus, A - Cross sectional area
of the bearing pad, h e - Height of the bearing pad and I - Moment of Inertia.
The properties of the elastomeric bearing pad are shown in Table 5.3.

Elastomeric KV = Vertical KH = Horizontal K = Rotational Link

bearing stiffness stiffness stiffness element

Figure 5.3 Modeling of the elastomeric bearing pad

 68

Table 5.3 Properties of the elastomeric bearing pad

Sl.No. Properties Value

1. Elastomer Size
Length 0.320m
Width 0.500m
Height 0.0335m
2
2. Gross plan area 0.16m
-6 4
3. Moment of inertia 1.0025 x10 m
4. Shape factor 1.62
2
5. Elastic modulus 616050.39 kN/m
2
6. Effective Shear modulus 900 kN/m

5.1.4 Expansion Joint

In the study bridge, the shear key or doweled bearings, which

prevent transverse displacement, were not provided, allowing translational
movement which depends on the elastomer flexibility. The expansion joints
between the adjacent deck slabs, the abutment and the deck slab were
modeled using gap elements (Muthukumar 2003). The mathematical
modeling of the expansion joint as the gap element is shown in Figure 5.4.
The gap element is a compression only element, such that it will contribute
resistance when the relative displacement between the adjacent spans is more
than the initial gap of 25.40mm. When the gap closes, pounding occurs, and
the gap element offers infinite stiffness.
 69

Edge of deck

Gap element

Mathematical modeling of
expansion joint (Detail A) as
gap element

Figure 5.4 Modeling of the expansion joint

The effective stiffness, Keff was calculated using the Equation 5.6.

Effective stiffness, K kh m (5.6)

eff

where, kh - Impact stiffness parameter with the typical value of 25,000 kin-3/2

m - Maximum penetration of deck (25.4mm).

5.1.5 Abutment

Bridge abutments are only effective in compression, and the

analytical response of bridges is significantly affected by the modeling
characteristics of the abutment stiffness and capacity. Due to the large soil
mass that interacts with the abutment and the abutment geometry, which
exhibits higher stiffness values than other bridge bents, the abutment is
assumed to have a perfectly plastic behaviour after reaching its ultimate
 70

strength. These reasons result in more seismic forces to be attracted to the

abutment. The resistance offered by the abutment to the inertial force is based
on its structural capacity and soil resistance.

In this study, the support provided by the abutment was assumed as

fixed against vertical translation and the stiffness properties of the
translational spring in the longitudinal and transverse directions are given in
Equations (5.7) and (5.8). The seat type abutment is shown in Figure 5.5.

kT

kL

All dimensions are in mm

Figure 5.5 Seat type abutment with longitudinal and transverse stiffness

where, w- width of the abutment back wall, b – width of wing wall,

h – height of wing wall.

Longitudinally, the soil behind the back wall was assumed to have
a stiffness (kL), which is related to the area of the back wall and transversely,
the stiffness was considered 2/3 effective per length of the inside wing wall
(assuming the wing wall is designed to take the load), and the outside wing
wall is only 1/3 effective per wing wall length for a resultant stiffness, kT.
 71

The modeling of the bridge is shown in Figure 5.6. The stiffness properties of
the abutment in transverse and longitudinal directions are shown in Table 5.4.

kL 47000 wh kN / m (5.7)

kT 102000b kN / m (5.8)

Table 5.4 Stiffness properties of the abutment

Sl.
Longitudinal stiffness , kL (kN/m) Transverse stiffness, kT (kN/m)
No.
1. 703120 377400

DETAIL A

Z
Y X

Figure 5.6 (Continued)

 72

Bent column (Inelastic beam-column element)

Bent cap beam (Inelastic beam-column element)
Edge of the deck (Rigid end)
Superstructure (Spine element)
Rigid link
Elastomeric bearing (Link element)
Expansion joint (Gap element)

DETAIL A

Figure 5.6 Modeling of the bridge using SAP2000