Elongation of the Fundamental Periods of Highway Bridges during Nonlinear Seismic Response - a Case Study

Yuling Gao and Lan Lin

ABSTRACT This paper presents the results from a preliminary study on the relationship between the increase of the fundamental period (i.e., period elongation) of a three span continuous bridge in Montreal, Canada and the intensity of seismic ground motions. The superstructure of the bridge consists of a reinforced concrete slab and seven prestressed concrete girders; the substructure consists of cap beams and column bents. A set of 15 accelerograms representative of seismic motions in the Montreal region was selected for use in the nonlinear time-history analysis. The bridge was subjected to a series of seismic excitations producing responses that ranged from elastic to significant inelastic responses. The column top displacement time histories were analyzed to determine the first mode periods of the bridge during nonlinear seismic response. The computed periods were statistically analyzed to determine the relationship between the elongation of the fundamental period of the bridge and the intensity level of the seismic excitation.

Yuling Gao, Graduate Research Assistant, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, EV 6.178, Montreal, Canada, H3G 1M8 Lan Lin, Assistant Professor, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, EV 6.245, Montreal, Canada, H3G 1M8

INTRODUCTION It is well known that concrete structures soften during nonlinear seismic response due to increased cracking and deterioration of the concrete at post-yield levels of deformation. One effect of this softening is the elongation of the structural vibration period. While softening is usually accompanied by a loss of strength, which is an undesirable effect, period elongation can be beneficial in reducing the effect of the seismic excitation because spectral accelerations generally decrease with increasing period. Lin et al. (2008) conducted a study on the investigation of the relationship between the extent of period elongation and intensity of strong seismic ground motions on three reinforced concrete frame buildings designed for Vancouver, Canada according to the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NRCC 2005). It was found that the dominant periods of the buildings increase almost linearly with the increase of the excitation, and the period of each building is elongated about 55% larger than the corresponding elastic first mode period for the intensity producing a global displacement ductility of 5. However, no such study has been conducted on bridges. Given this, the objective of this study is to investigate the period elongation of a typical highway bridge located in Montreal, Canada during nonlinear seismic response.

DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE A three-span continuous bridge located in Montreal was selected for the study (see Fig. 1), the bridge was built in 1982. It is necessary to mention that the bridge considered in this study represents a typical highway bridge in Montreal according to its structural configuration (Tavares et al. 2012). The total length of the bridge is 45.5 m, which includes two end spans of 15 m each and a middle span of 15.5 m. The bridge has no skew, and the total deck width is 16.85 m. The superstructure of the bridge consists of a reinforced concrete slab supported by seven 900 C.P.C.I girders. The thickness of the slab is 0.225 m, and the spacing of the girder from center to center is 2.4 m. The substructure consists of two bents. Each bent has three rectangular columns. As seen in Fig. 1, the dimensions of each column are 1000 (in the transverse direction) x 750 mm (in the longitudinal direction). Each column is reinforced with 16 No. 30 bars, which provide the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 1.49%. The transverse reinforcement of the column consists of two sets of No. 15 stirrups at the spacing of 300 mm. The transverse reinforcement ratio is 0.24%. Both the abutments are seat-type abutments with the wing wall length of 5 m. In terms of the foundation, pile foundations are used for the abutments and the strip footings are used for the piers. Expansion bearings are used at abutments and the pier 2, and fixed bearings are used at the pier 1 as illustrated in Fig. 1. All the concrete members have the compressive strength fc' = 30 MPa except that fc' of 35 MPa is used for the girders. The reinforcing steel bars have the yield strength of 400 MPa.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Configuration of the bridge considered in this study: (a) elevation; (b) transverse cross-section; (c) column cross-section.

MODELING OF THE BRIDGE FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS An inelastic model of the bridge was developed for use in the three-dimensional dynamic analysis program SAP2000 (CSI 2010). The advantage of SAP2000 is a number of link elements are available which can be used to model the nonlinearity of the expansion joints (use of gap element), bearings (use of multi-liner element), and isolator. Also, different hysteric models can be used to simulate the behavior of the plastic hinges on columns that might be formed during significant earthquakes. This program has been used by numerous researchers for the investigation of the performance of the bridges under seismic loads. A brief description of the modeling of the main components of the bridge, such as, deck, girders, cap beams, columns, abutments, and bearings are given in the following sections. Superstructure The deck together with the seven C.P.C.I girders was modeled as a spine element in SAP2000 to represent the elastic behavior of the superstructure (Fig. 2). An area element can also be used to model the superstructure, however, a spine element is preferred given the simplicity and convenience of the modeling (Pan et al. 2010; Nielson 2005). Since the properties of the superstructure section including the flexural moment of inertia and the torsional moment of inertia have significant effects on the bridge response, special attentions were given to define these parameters in modeling. In this study, the flexural moment of inertia of the superstructure 2

section was determined based on that of the deck and the girder. A factor of 0.75 was used to reduce the moment of inertia of the deck section, and no reduction factor was applied to the girder sections as recommended by Caltrans (2010). Reduction of the torsional moment of inertia was not considered given the regularity of the bridge according to Caltrans (2010). The nodes between girders and bearings were connected by rigid elements. In total, eight elastic elements were used to model the superstructure.
Rigid element Slab & girder

Column

Cap beam

Figure 2. Three-dimensional model of the bridge.

Columns and cap beams It is expected that the plastic hinges would form on the bottom and/or top of a column during larger earthquake events (Paulay and Priestley 1992). In this study, plastic hinges were assumed on both the bottom and top of the column following the seismic provisions of the New Zealand Code (TNZ 2003). It is necessary to mention that the current edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) (CSA 2006) does not specify the location of the plastic hinge. The plastic hinge length Lp is determined according to CHBDC, i.e., Lp shall be taken as the maximum dimension of the column which is 1 m in this study. For the purpose of modeling the link elements, moment-curvature relationships for the end sections of the column were determined using fibre analyses of the cross sections. The concrete stress-strain relationship included the effect of confinement based on the model proposed by Mander et al. (1988). Nominal values for material strengths (i.e., concrete and reinforcement resistance factors c = s = 1) were used in the fibre analysis. For illustration, Figure 3 shows the moment-curvature relationship for the column from the analysis. The computed moment-curvature relationship was idealised by two linear segments representing the pre- and post-yielding ranges. The column is assumed to behave elastically outside the plastic hinge regions. Cap beams are modeled as elastic beam elements, and the connections between cap beams and bearings; cap beams and columns are modeled using rigid elements as specified in SAP2000.

1.8

1.6
1.4
Moment (10 6 kNmm)

Idealized Calculated

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 Curvature ( 50 10 -6 /mm) 60 70 80 90

Figure 3. Moment-curvature relationship for the column.

Bearings Two types bearings are used on the bridge, i.e., fixed bearing (on pier 1) and expansion bearing (on pier 2). Both are laminated elastomeric bearings, they replaced the old bearings on the bridge when the bridge was retrofitted in the late 1980s. Laminated elastomeric bearings are made of high quality natural rubber (or neoprene) and steel plates. It has been reported that elastomeric bearings can improve the bridge integrity due to their ductile behavior under the cyclic loading (AASHTO 2007). Fixed bearings only allow the rotation while expansion bearings allow both rotation and translational movement. In this study, both fixed bearings and expansion bearings are modeled using multi-linear (bilinear) plastic link element as specified in SAP2000. For illustration, Fig. 4 shows a bilinear curve used for modeling the expansion bearings on pier 2.
Force

K2 =1/3K1

K1

Dy

Du

Deformation

Figure 4. Bilinear behavior of the bearings in longitudinal direction.

The horizontal axis represents the deformation of the bearing in the longitudinal direction of the bridge, and the vertical axis represents the lateral force (i.e., shear force) on the bearing during the seismic excitations. As seen in the figure, the curve consists of two segments in which the first segment represents the elastic behavior of the bearing while the second represents the plastic behavior of the bearing. The initial stiffness (k1) of the expansion bearing is determined using Eq. 1, and it is found to be 281.3 kN/mm.

k1

GA Hr

(1)

Where, G = shear modulus of rubber. In this study, G is taken as 0.81 MPa following the recommendation of Caltrans (2010). A = plan area of the bearing. Hr = total height of the elastomer. The post-yield stiffness (k2) is assumed to be one-third of the initial stiffness, i.e., k2 = (1/3)k1 as suggested by DesRoches et al. (2003). The maximum displacement of the bearing (i.e., Du on the curve) is assumed to be equal to the height of the elastomer, and the yield displacement (Dy on the curve) is assumed to be 10% of the maximum displacement (i.e., Dy = 0.1Du) following DesRoches et al. (2003). Both the axial stiffness and the translational stiffness of the bearing are considered infinite in the modeling. Abutments It has been recognized that the behavior of abutments has significant effects on the seismic response of bridges. Given this, Aviram et al. (2008) conducted a comprehensive study on the investigation of the effects of abutment modeling on the seismic response of bridge structures. Six typical highway bridges were considered in the study. Three abutment models were used in the analysis, and they are referred to as roller abutment, simplified abutment, and spring abutment based on the assumptions about modeling. As the name indicated the roller abutment model considers abutments as rollers, i.e., only the vertical displacement is constrained. This model is easy to develop. The simplified abutment model consists of a rigid element and a set of three springs on each end of the rigid element. The rigid element is used to connect the abutment to the superstructure while the springs are used to model the behavior of the abutment in the longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions, respectively. The spring abutment model is much more complicated than the roller abutment model and the simplified abutment model because the effects of bearing pads and embankment are taken into account in modeling. In order to investigate the effects of the abutment modeling on the response of the bridge considered in this study, preliminary analysis was conducted on the bridge model in which the abutments were modeled using the three approaches proposed by Aviram et al. (2008). It was found that these three modeling methods do not have significant effects on the response of the bridge considered in this study; therefore, a roller model was selected to model abutments due to its simplicity.

SEISMIC EXCITATIONS Since the bridge is located in Montreal, the most suitable records for the time-history analysis would be those recorded in Montreal region. However such records are not available. Given this, an ensemble of ground motion records obtained during strong earthquakes around the world was used in this study. A detailed description of the records is given in Naumoski et al. (1988, 1993). The average peak ground acceleration (A) to peak ground velocity (V) ratio of the records is 2.06, which is referred to as high A/V ratio according to Naumoski et al. (1988, 1993). It is well known that seismic ground motions in eastern Canada are characterized by high frequency content and high A/V ratios (Adams and Halchuk 2003; Naumoski et al. 1988). In general, high A/V ratios are characteristics of seismic motions from small to moderate earthquakes at short distances. Regarding the frequency content, high A/V motions normally have high frequency content. Seismic motions with high frequency content are characterized by predominant frequencies high than appropriately 2 Hz (i.e., periods shorter than 0.5 s). The ensemble consists of 15 pairs of horizontal and vertical records. The records are obtained from ten earthquakes with magnitudes between 5.3 and 6.9, at distances from 4 km to 26 km. Both the magnitude and distance ranges cover the magnitudes and the distances of the earthquakes that have the largest contributions to the short-period hazard for Montreal, as reported in Halchuk et al. (2007). It is necessary to mention that the vertical records are not used in the analysis because the vertical motions normally have small contributions to the structural response. The acceleration response spectra of the selected records along with the mean spectrum of the records are shown in Fig. 5. For the purpose of comparison, the design spectrum for the probability of exceedance of 2% in 100 years for the bridge location is also shown in the figure. The probability of exceedance of 2% in 100 years is the probability level that is considered in the current edition of CHBDC for the seismic design of bridges. It can be seen in the figure that the mean spectrum of the records exceed the design spectrum for periods shorter than approximately 0.5s, and the mean spectrum are well below the design spectrum for periods longer than 0.5s.
1.2

Record Design Mean

Spectral acceleration (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Period (s)

Figure 5. Response spectra (5% damping) of the selected records used in the study.

INVESTIGATION OF THE PERIOD ELONGATION When a structure is subjected to a seismic motion, the response of the structure represents a combination of the contributions of different modes. Therefore, the periods of all the modes contributing to the response are contained in the response time history. When an increase in the modal periods occurs, as is the case during nonlinear response, this increase can be seen in the response time history. In this study, the displacement time histories of the columns were used to determine the period elongation. The bridge was subjected to the selected records scaled to four intensity levels in terms of the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the bridge model, i.e., Sa(T1). The four intensity levels are designated as 0.5Sa(T1), Sa(T1), 2Sa(T1), and 3Sa(T1) in which the excitation level of 0.5Sa(T1) is expected to produce elastic response and that of 3Sa(T1) is expected to produce inelastic response. The highest excitation level considered in the study corresponds to the three times the design level given the uncertainty in estimating the peak ground motions at any location, i.e., excitations are two to three times the design level can easily occur as reported by Heidebrecht (1995). Expressed in terms of spectral acceleration, Sa(T1), the intensity levels range from 0.15 g to 0.90 g.
(a)
15 10
Displacement (mm)

10 s free vibration

5 0 -5 -10

-15 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (s) 30 35 40 45 50

(b)

100 80 60 10 s free vibration

Displacement (mm)

40 20 0
-20 -40 -60 -80 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (s) 30 35 40

45

50

Figure 6. Column top displacement time histories subjected to ground motion scaled to: (a) 0.5Sa(T1) = 0.15 g; (b) 3Sa(T1) = 0.9 g.

As an example, Fig. 6 shows the column top displacement responses of the pier 1 subjected to same motion but scaled to two intensity levels. The response in Fig. 6(a) is for the seismic motion scaled to 0.5Sa(T1) (i.e., 0.15 g) and that in Fig. 6(b) is for the seismic motion scaled to 3Sa(T1) (i.e., 0.90 g). Note that the duration of the excitation motion is 40 s, and the last 10 seconds of the response time histories are free vibrations of the column after the end of the excitation. By comparing the responses shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), it can be seen that the elastic response (Fig. 6(a)) shows shorter period while the inelastic response in Fig. 6(b) shows longer period which can be seen clearly for the excitations after the 10 s mark. A residual displacement resulting from inelastic deformations is also seen at the end of the free vibration in Fig. 6(b). To quantify the elongation of the first mode period, Fourier amplitude spectra were computed considering the duration of the forced vibration of the responses (e.g., the first 40 seconds in Fig. 6). For some of the motions there were difficulties in identifying the elongated first mode period because several vibration periods were present in the Fourier spectra. Given this, the elongation of the first mode period was determined by considering only the free vibration, after the end of the excitation motion. For each excitation motion, 10 seconds free vibration was considered. Figure 7 shows the Fourier amplitude spectra of the responses in Fig. 6. It can be seen in the figure that the period of the response when the record is scaled to 0.5Sa(T1) (Fig. 6(a)) is about 0.84 s; the period of the response when the record is scaled to 3Sa(T1) (Fig. 6(b)) is about 0.95 s.
(a) (a)
25

20

Fourier Amplitude

15

10

0.5

1.5

2.5 Period (s)

3.5

4.5

(b) (b)

90 80

70

Fourier Amplitude

60 50 40

30
20 10 0

0.5

1.5

2.5 Period (s)

3.5

4.5

Figure 7. Fourier amplitude spectra of the responses due to ground motion scaled to: (a) 0.5Sa(T1) = 0.15 g; (b) 3Sa(T1) = 0.9 g.

The first mode periods obtained from the time-history analyses of the bridge model are shown in Fig. 8. The four stripes of results correspond to the four excitation levels used in the analyses. Lines connecting the mean values of the periods at each excitation level are included in the figure to illustrate the general trends of the computed periods. The elastic first mode periods of the frames are also shown in the figure. It can be seen in Fig. 8 that the mean period increases almost linearly with the increase of the excitation. More specifically, the mean period for the excitation level of 0.5Sa(T1) is about 0.82 s which is about 15% larger than the elastic first mode period of the bridge (T1 = 0.74 s),and it is about 1.02 s for the excitation level of 3Sa(T1) which is about 40% larger than T1. The dispersion of the periods also increases with the increase of the excitation. At the excitation level of 0.5Sa(T1), the dispersion expressed by the coefficient of variation (COV) (which represents the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean period, i.e., /) is about 0.27; and at the excitation level of 3Sa(T1), it is about 0.38. An interesting finding in Fig. 8 is that the extrapolation of the period trends to the zero excitation gives a value larger than the elastic period of 0.74 s. This indicates that some of the components in the bridge have already cracked due to gravity loads prior to the application of the any excitation. In general, Fig. 8 shows that the period elongation can be significant for higher excitation levels as a result of the softening of the bridge due to inelastic deformations during the response. It is necessary to mention that the column rotation time histories were also used to investigate the period elongation in this study. The results are similar to those shown in Fig. 8.
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Mean

Period (s)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

Elastic period T1 = 0.74 s

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Sa(0.74 s) (g)

Figure 8. Periods of the bridge for ground motions scaled to four intensity levels of Sa(T 1).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION A three-span continuous bridge in Montreal is used to investigate the period elongation of the fundamental period during nonlinear seismic response. Fifteen records selected from earthquakes around the world are used in the time-history analysis. The selected records are scaled to four excitation levels associated with the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the bridge, i.e., 0.5Sa(T1), 1Sa(T1), 2Sa(T1), and 3Sa(T1). Column top displacement time histories are used to determine the period elongation.

It was found that the mean period elongation is almost linearly proportional to the intensity of the motions. At the lowest intensity level (i.e., 0.5Sa(T1)) considered in this study, the mean period is about 15% larger than the fundamental period of the bridge (i.e., 0.74s); and at the highest intensity level (i.e., 3Sa(T1)), it is about 40% larger than the fundamental period of the bridge. This enables one to determine the period elongation for any excitation level considered. However, more research is needed by considering other types of bridges (e.g., slab and box-girder) and different number of spans in order to get a more general conclusion on the period elongation of bridges during nonlinear seismic response.

REFERENCES AASHTO. (2007). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, SI Units, 4th Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington. Adams, J. and Halchuk, S. (2003). Fourth Generation Seismic Hazard Maps of Canada: Values for Over 650 Canadian Localities Intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada, Open File 4459, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Aviram, A., Mackie, K.R., and Stojadinovic, B. (2008). Effect of Abutment Modeling on the Seismic Response of Bridge Structures, Earthquake Engineering and engineering vibration, 7(4): 395-402. Caltrans. (2010). Seismic Design Criteria. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California. CSA. (2006). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Standards CAN/CSA-S6-88, Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Mississauga, Ontario. CSI. (2000). SAP 2000 integrated software for structural analysis and design. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley, California. DesRoches, R., Leon, R.T. and Dyke, S. (2003). Response Modification of Bridges, MAE Center Report 03-08, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Urbana, Illinois. Halchuk, S., Adams, J., and Anglin, F. (2007). Revised Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for Selected Canadian Cities, Proceedings of the 9th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa, Ontario. Heidebrecht, A.C. (1995). Insights and Challenges Associated with Determining Seismic Design Forces in a Loading Code, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 28: 224-246. Lin, L., Naumoski, N., Foo, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (2008). Elongation of the Fundamental Periods of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings During Nonlinear Seismic Response, Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China. Naumoski, N., Heidebrecht, A.C., and Rutenberg, A.V. (1993). Representative Ensembles of Strong Motion Earthquake Records, EERG Report 93-1, Earthquake Engineering Research Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Naumoski, N., Tso, W. K., and Heidebrecht, A.C. (1988). A Selection of Representative Strong Motion Earthquake Records Having Different A/V Ratios, EERG Report 88-01, Earthquake Engineering Research Group, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Nielson, B.G. (2005). Analytical Fragility Curves for Highway Bridges in Moderate Seismic Zones, Ph.D thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. 10

NRCC. (2010). National Building Code of Canada 2010. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. NRCC. (2005). National Building Code of Canada 2005. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress-strain Model for Confined Concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8): 1804-1849. Pan, Y., Agrawal, A.K., Ghosen, M., and Alampalli, S. (2010). Seismic Fragility of Multispan Simply Supported Steel highway Bridges in New York State. I: Bridge Modeling, Parametric Analysis, and Retrofit Design, ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering, 15(5): 448-461. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Tavares, D.H., Padgett J.E., and Paultre, P. (2012). Fragility Curves of Typical As-built Highway Bridges in Eastern Canada, Engineering structures, 40: 107-118. TNZ. (2003). Bridge Manual, 2nd Edition. Transit New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

11