Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Simplified seismic analysis of a class of regular steel bridges

Murat Dicleli
Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625, USA

Received 6 November 2001; received in revised form 1 May 2002; accepted 29 May 2002

Abstract

AASHTOs (American Association State Highway and Transportation Officials) simplified method of analysis for multiple-span
regular bridges requires modeling and analysis of the structures and it is not less time-consuming than performing a computer-
aided response spectrum analysis. Furthermore, for single-span bridges, AASHTO specifications do not require a seismic analysis.
The connections between the superstructure and substructure are designed for a minimum load calculated as the product of site
coefficient, the acceleration coefficient and the tributary permanent load. This may result in underestimation of seismically induced
forces in connections. To overcome such problems, analytical equations are derived to calculate the fundamental period and seis-
mically induced forces and displacements in the structural components of a class of regular steel bridges. The equations are derived
considering the effect of deck width, number and length of spans, bearing types and their stiffness, on the dynamic behavior of
bridges. The results from multi-mode response spectrum analysis and those obtained from the derived equations have shown good
agreement. Thus, these equations may be used in lieu of AASHTOs simplified analysis method for the seismic analysis of regular
steel bridges. It was also observed that AASHTOs simplified analysis method for single-span bridges underestimates the seismically
induced forces in fixed bearings. 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Seismic; Bridge; Analysis; Design; Steel; Sliding; Pot; Bearing

1. Introduction
AASHTO (American Association State Highway and
Transportation Officials) [1] bridge design specifications
recommend a method known as the uniform load method
for simplified seismic analysis of regular multiple-span
bridges. In the specifications, regular bridges are defined
as those with less than seven spans and with no unusual
changes in weight, stiffness and geometry along the
bridge. The uniform load method is an equivalent static
method of analysis that uses a uniform lateral load to
approximate the effect of seismic loads. According to
this method, first, a uniformly distributed horizontal load
with an arbitrary intensity, P0, is applied on the bridge.
The bridge is then analyzed to calculate the maximum
static displacement, Vs,MAX, in the direction of the load.
Next, the lateral stiffness, K, of the bridge is obtained
using the following equation:
Tel.: +1-309-677-3671; fax: +1-309-677-2867.
E-mail address: mdicleli@bradley.edu (M. Dicleli).
P0L
K , (1)
Vs,MAX
where L is the total length of the bridge. The fundamen-
tal period, T, of the bridge is then calculated as:
gK,
W
T 2p (2)
where W is the weight of the bridge and g is the gravi-
tational acceleration. Using the calculated period, the
seismic response coefficient, Cs, is obtained from the
design spectrum. The equivalent uniform static seismic
loading, Pe, is then calculated as:
CsW
Pe . (3)
L
Finally, this load is applied on the bridge to calculate
the seismically induced forces and displacements in
structural components. Obviously, the above procedure
requires modeling and analysis of the structure and it is
not less time-consuming than performing a computer-
aided multi-mode response spectrum analysis.
Furthermore, for single-span regular bridges,

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 3 - 4
1410 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422

AASHTO specifications do not require a seismic analy-

sis. The connections between the superstructure and sub-
structure are designed for a minimum load calculated as
the product of site coefficient, the acceleration coef-
ficient and the tributary permanent load. This does not
account for seismically induced forces in the bearings
that may be produced by the in-plane rotational resist-
ance of the longitudinally fixed bearing group at the end
supports. Therefore, the bearing forces may be underesti-
mated.
To address the above problems, equations are derived
to calculate the fundamental period and seismically
induced forces and displacements in various components
of common types of regular steel bridges. In the deri-
vation of these equations, the stiffness of the deck, bear-
ings and columns and the number of spans are taken into
consideration. Since soilstructure interaction is gener-
ally neglected in the analysis of simple bridges, it is not
considered in the formulation of the equations. These
equations may be used in lieu of the AASHTOs simpli- Fig. 1. Typical two-span continuous steel bridge.
fied seismic analysis procedure or for rapid seismic vul-
nerability assessment of a class of regular steel bridges.
deck as well as the lateral stiffness of the columns. Full
composite action between the slab and the girders is
2. Description of bridges assumed in the calculation of deck stiffness. The stiff-
ness of the deck in both orthogonal directions is calcu-
Single-span and continuous steel bridges are com- lated based on a uniformly distributed seismic load act-
monly used in the transportation network in North Amer- ing along the bridge deck. The lateral stiffness of the
ica. The majority of these bridges have a slab-on-girder columns is calculated assuming cantilever behavior,
deck. For the formulation of the analytical equations, the since fixed and pin connections are provided at the upper
dynamic behavior of five single-span and five two-span and lower ends of the columns, respectively.
slab-on-girder continuous bridges is studied. The span The bridges are assumed to have sliding or pot bear-
lengths of these bridges range between 20 and 60 m with ings. Pot bearings are generally used in medium-span
increments of 10 m. Two separate deck widths of 8 m modern steel bridges [2,3]. Sliding bearings were com-
and 12 m are considered to study the effect of deck width monly used in the past in short-span steel bridges [3].
on the dynamic behavior. In addition, four- and five-span Both types of bearing are normally fixed in the trans-
continuous bridges with 20 m long spans are studied to verse direction to prevent the lateral movement of the
investigate the effect of number of spans on the dynamic bridge due to wind-induced forces. In the longitudinal
behavior. A typical two-span continuous steel bridge is direction, they are generally fixed at one end of the
illustrated in Fig. 1. The continuous bridges considered bridge only as shown in Fig. 1.
in this study are assumed to have steel columns placed Elastomeric bearings are one of the most common
under each steel girder. The column tops are rigidly con- types of bearings used in short- to medium-span modern
nected to the girders to form a moment-resisting steel steel bridges. However, they are not considered in this
frame. A simple connection providing free support study since the seismic behavior of bridges with elasto-
rotation is assumed at the base of the columns. The col- meric bearings is quite different from those with sliding
umns are oriented to provide strong axis bending in the or pot bearings due to the considerably smaller lateral
bridge longitudinal direction. The height of the steel col- stiffness of elastomeric bearings.
umns is assumed to be 6 m, as typically found in most
highway bridges. For all of the bridges studied, the
bridge deck is assumed to have a 200 mm thick 3. Modeling for analysis
reinforced concrete slab built composite with steel gir-
ders spaced at 2 m. The slab is assumed to have a 1 m 3.1. Superstructure
overhang on both sides of the deck. The pavement is
assumed to be 80 mm thick. The properties of the The linear elastic model of a two-span continuous
bridges are listed in Table 1. Table 2 lists the in-plane bridge is illustrated in Fig. 2. The superstructure is mod-
transverse- and longitudinal-direction stiffness of the eled as a three-dimensional beam element. Full com-
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422 1411

Table 1
Properties of the bridges

Span (m) Simply supported bridges Two-span continuous bridges

Girder sizes Mass (ton) Girder sizes Column sizes Mass (ton)

8 m wide 12 m wide 8 m wide 12 m wide

20 WWF800184 126 190 WWF900192 W31074 259 389

30 WWF1000262 202 303 WWF1000262 W31079 406 609
40 WWF1200333 286 428 WWF1200380 W31097 578 867
50 WWF1400405 367 550 WWF1600496 W31097 769 1154
60 WWF1600496 465 697 WWF1800659 W310118 1001 1502

Table 2
Stiffness properties of the deck and column bent for the two-span continuous bridges

Span Width Deck Column bent Stiffness ratio

(m) (m)

AD (m2) ID (m4) KDT (kN/m) KDL (kN/m) IcT (m4) IcL (m4) KcT KcL KDT/KcT KDL/KcL
(kN/m) (kN/m)

20 8 0.2758 1.4386 345,264 2,758,000 23.4106 165106 260 1833 1328 1504
12 0.4137 4.9157 1,179,768 4,137,000 23.4106 165106 390 2750 3025 1504
30 8 0.3114 1.6172 115,000 2,076,000 39.9106 177106 444 1967 259 1056
12 0.4671 5.5396 393,927 3,114,000 39.9106 177106 666 2950 591 1056
40 8 0.3714 1.9186 57,558 1,857,000 72.9106 222106 810 2467 71 752
12 0.5571 6.5905 197,715 2,785,500 72.9106 222106 1215 3700 163 752
50 8 0.4302 2.2140 34,007 1,720,800 72.9106 222106 810 2467 42 698
12 0.6453 7.6228 117,086 2,581,200 72.9106 222106 1215 3700 96 698
60 8 0.5134 2.6311 23,388 1,711,334 90.2106 275106 1002 3056 23 560
12 0.7701 9.0780 80,693 2,567,000 90.2106 275106 1503 4583 54 560

AD, cross-section area of composite deck calculated using properties of steel; ID, moment of inertia of composite deck for bending in transverse
direction calculated using properties of steel; KDT, transverse direction stiffness of deck; KDL, longitudinal direction stiffness of deck; IcT, moment
of inertia of a single steel column for bending in the transverse direction of the bridge; IcL, moment of inertia of a single steel column for bending
in the longitudinal direction of the bridge; KcT, transverse direction stiffness of column bent (four and six columns, respectively, for 8 and 12 m
wide bridges); KcL, longitudinal direction stiffness of column bent (four and six columns, respectively, for 8 and 12 m wide bridges).

posite action between the slab and steel girders is

Fig. 2. Structural model for multi-mode response spectrum analysis.
assumed in the model [46]. The strong diaphragms pro-
vided between the girders are assumed to help achieve
this full composite action for bending of the bridge deck
in the transverse direction. Each span is divided into 10
segments and the superstructure mass is lumped at each
nodal point connecting the segments.
The in-plane translational stiffness of the deck is rela-
tively much higher than that of the columns as observed
from the ratios of deck to column-bent stiffness tabulated
in Table 2. Accordingly, at the column-bent locations,
the bridge deck is modeled as a transverse rigid bar of
length equal to the deck width as shown in Fig. 2. This
transverse rigid bar simulates the interaction between the
torsional rotation of the bridge deck and the axial defor-
mation of the columns, as well as the interaction between
the in-plane rotation of the deck and lateral displace-
ments of the columns. The transverse rigid bar is elev-
ated to the level of the center of gravity of the bridge
1412 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422
deck using a set of vertical rigid elements attached to it.
This is done to define accurately the vertical location of
the mass of the bridge deck. The rigid vertical elements
are then connected to the columns.
3.2. Stiffness of pot and sliding bearings
When a bridge is subjected to seismic forces in the
transverse direction, both ends of the bridge at the abut-
ments will rotate about an axis perpendicular to the plane
of the deck. Due to these in-plane rotations, longitudinal
displacements proportional to the distance from the
bridge decks centerline will be produced at the bearing
locations as illustrated in Fig. 3. If the bearings are fixed
in the longitudinal direction, they will create a resistance
to these displacements and to the in-plane rotation of the
bridge deck. The degree of this rotational resistance is
a function of the translational stiffness of the bearings.
Consequently, bearings with different translational stiff-
ness may result in different end fixity conditions that
may affect the response significantly.
The pot and sliding bearings are considered as fairly
rigid. Accordingly, their translational stiffness is con-
trolled primarily by the elongation of the anchor bolts
connecting the bearings to the abutments. To calculate
the translational stiffness of the bearing, a unit horizontal
displacement is imposed at the bearing top. The imposed
displacement is assumed to force the bearing to rotate
about the tip of its base plate as shown in Fig. 4. The
elongation, ai of each anchor bolt, i, due to this unit
displacement is calculated as follows:
dai
ai
, (4)
hb
where dai is the distance of the ith anchor bolt from the
tip of the base plate and hb is the height of the bearing.
Assuming that slippage of the anchor bolts is not critical
Fig. 3. Bearing forces and longitudinal displacements at fixed sup-
port.
Fig. 4. Bearing displacement under horizontal load.
as they are embedded well into the concrete and a hook
is generally provided at their ends, the axial force in each
bolt is calculated as:
daiEAa
Pai , (5)
hbla
where E is the modulus of elasticity of steel and Aa and
la are respectively the cross-section area and the length
of the anchor bolt. From static equilibrium, the total
moment of the bolt axial forces about the tip of the bot-
tom plate must counterbalance that of the horizontal
force producing a unit displacement at the top of the
bearing. This horizontal force is the translational stiff-
ness, kb, of the bearing and is obtained from static
moment equilibrium as:
n
EAa a 2
kb 2 d , (6)
hbla i 1 ai
where na is the number of anchor bolts.
To obtain the rotational stiffness of the fixed bearing
group, a unit in-plane rotation is imposed at the end sup-
port as shown in Fig. 3. The bridge deck is assumed to
have infinite in-plane rigidity in the longitudinal direc-
tion due to its relatively large axial stiffness. For that
reason, the displacement of each bearing, i, due to the
imposed unit support rotation becomes equal to its dis-
tance, lbi, from the centerline of the bridge deck. The
bearing forces in the longitudinal direction are obtained
by multiplying the bearing displacements by their trans-
lational stiffness. The moment of these forces about the
centerline of the bridge deck is the rotational stiffness,
Kbq, of the bearing group and is expressed as follows:
nb
Kbq kbl2bi. (7)
i1
The translational stiffness of fixed pot or sliding bear-
ings at the abutments is relatively large. Therefore, it is
conservatively neglected in the structure model by
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422 1413

assuming rigid support conditions in the direction of fix-

ity. However, the magnitude of the seismically induced
lateral forces in the bearings largely depends on the in-
plane rotational stiffness of the bearing group [7]. Thus,
this effect is included in the model by attaching a
rotational spring to the end of the bridge where fixed
bearings are present. The stiffness of this rotational
spring is calculated assuming an average bearing trans-
lational stiffness of 800,000 kN/m for the range of spans
considered [7].

4. Dynamic behavior of bridges

Eigenvalue analyses of the aforementioned bridges are

conducted in both orthogonal directions to study their Fig. 5. Mode shapes and proposed shape function for transverse-
direction response.
dynamic behavior. The observations are summarized in
the following subsections. The formulation of the equa-
tions for simplified analysis of a class of regular steel
bridges is based on these observations.

4.1. Mode shape and modal participation

The percentage of modal mass participations in the

transverse direction is calculated for the first three
vibration modes of the bridges considered in this study.
The results have demonstrated that, for the first vibration
mode, the percentage of modal mass participation ranges
between 87.66% and 88.24% of the structure total mass
for single-span bridges and between 87.08% and 87.72%
for two-span continuous bridges. For the same bridges,
the percentages of modal mass participation for the
second and third vibration modes are on average 0.15%
and 9.00%, respectively. In the longitudinal direction,
the percentage of modal mass participation averages to
85%, 9% and 3%, respectively, for the first, second and
third vibration modes of all the bridges studied. These
results have demonstrated that the first mode has much
larger percentage of modal mass participation than do
other modes and therefore it governs the dynamic
behavior of the bridges for all the cases considered.
Consequently, considering the effect of the first mode of
vibration alone in the seismic design of regular steel
bridges may be adequate.
The transverse- and longitudinal-direction fundamen-
tal mode shapes for various bridges are plotted in Figs.
5 and 6. Fig. 5 displays the fundamental mode shape of
five bridges with rotational restraint at the fixed end sup-
port as well as that of a bridge with no rotational restraint
at the end supports to illustrate the effect of support con-
dition on the mode shape. Two-span continuous bridges
are also included in both Figs. 5 and 6 to demonstrate
the effect of the steel columns on the fundamental mode
shape. Both figures reveal that the fundamental mode
shape is nearly identical for all the bridges considered.
Fig. 6. Mode shapes and proposed shape function for longitudinal-
direction response.
4.2. Effect of steel columns
To investigate the effect of the steel columns on the
dynamic behavior of continuous bridges, the same con-
tinuous bridges are analyzed by removing the columns
from the structure model. Analysis results have revealed
that when the columns are removed, the transverse-
direction fundamental periods of the bridges increased,
on average, by only 0.8%. Variations in the same order
are also observed in the percentage of modal mass par-
ticipation. For example, the fundamental period of an 80
m long two-span continuous bridge increased from 0.467
s to 0.471 s when the columns are removed. For the same
bridge, the percentage of modal participation, which was
87.20%, became 87.19%. For all the cases studied, the
mode shapes remained nearly identical. In the longitudi-
nal direction, the fundamental period, the percentage of
modal mass participation and the mode shape remained
nearly identical.
1414 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422

Sensitivity analyses are also conducted to study the

effect of column stiffness on the dynamic behavior of
bridges. The 12 m wide, two-span continuous bridge
with 30 m span length is considered for the sensitivity
analyses. The deck width and span length are selected
to represent the most common range of bridge dimen-
sions. The dynamic analyses of the bridge are conducted
for various column stiffnesses using column stiffness
modification factors ranging between 0 and 100. The
analyses results for the fundamental period of vibration
and percentage of mass participation are tabulated in
Table 3. It is observed that the variation in the percent-
age of mass participation as a function of column stiff-
ness is negligible. However, when the column stiffness
is amplified by a factor of 100, the fundamental period
of the bridge is reduced by 12% in the transverse and
Fig. 7. Effect of column stiffness on the mode shape.
3.5% in the longitudinal direction. The variation in the
fundamental period of the bridge is not substantial in
spite of the significant change in the column stiffness. a two-lane, 30 m long single-span bridge with a bearing-
This is due to the much larger in-plane stiffness of the group rotational stiffness of 16,000,000 kN m/rad at one
bridge deck relative to the original lateral stiffness of the of the supports, the fundamental period and percentage
steel columns as observed from Table 2. The transverse- of mass participation were calculated as 0.082 s and
direction fundamental mode shapes of the same continu- 88.03%, respectively. For the same bridge, when the
ous bridge are also plotted for the range of column stiff- bearing-group rotational stiffness was reduced to zero,
nesses considered in the analyses. The results are illus- the fundamental period and the percentage of mass par-
trated in Fig. 7. The figure reveals that the fundamental ticipation increased to 0.090 s and 88.59%, respectively.
mode shape of the bridge remained nearly identical for Therefore, the effect of bearing stiffness must be
all the cases. Thus, within the practical range of column included in the analyses of steel bridges for a more
stiffness variation, the effect of the steel columns on the accurate prediction of the fundamental period and seis-
fundamental mode shape may be neglected for the types mically induced bearing forces.
of steel bridges considered in this study.
4.4. Effect of deck width
4.3. Effect of bearing stiffness
In the transverse direction, the effect of the deck width
The rotational stiffness of the bearing group at the end on the fundamental mode shape is negligible as seen in
support is found to affect the transverse-direction funda- Fig. 5. However, the deck width affects the translational
mental period of the bridges. However, the effect on the stiffness and consequently the fundamental period of the
mode shape (Fig. 5) and percentage of modal mass par- bridge. For example, the transverse-direction fundamen-
ticipation of the structure is negligible. For example, for tal period of a 60 m long two-span bridge with a 8 m

Table 3
Effect of column stiffness on dynamic response

Column stiffness Transverse Longitudinal

modification factor

KDT/KcT Period (s) Percentage of mass KDL/KcL Period (s) Percentage of mass
participation participation

0 N/A 0.2302 87.59 N/A 0.0792 84.97

1 591 0.2299 87.59 528 0.0791 84.97
25 23.64 0.2222 87.67 21.12 0.0784 84.87
50 11.82 0.2150 87.75 10.56 0.0777 84.76
100 5.91 0.2026 87.90 5.28 0.0763 84.56

KDT, transverse direction stiffness of deck; KcT, transverse direction stiffness of column bent (four and six columns, respectively, for 8 and 12 m
wide bridges); KDL, longitudinal direction stiffness of deck; KcL, longitudinal direction stiffness of column bent (four and six columns, respectively,
for 8 and 12 m wide bridges).
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422
wide deck is calculated as 0.286 s. For the same bridge,
the fundamental period is reduced to 0.196 s when the
deck width is increased to 12 m. In the longitudinal
direction, the fundamental period of the same bridge is
calculated as 0.079 s irrespective of the deck width. The
ratio of the mass to the axial stiffness of the bridges
considered in this study is constant regardless of the
deck width. Therefore, in the longitudinal direction, the
deck width does not influence the fundamental period of
the bridge.
5. Formulation of the simplified seismic analysis
procedure
The eigenvalue analyses of the bridges in both orthog-
onal directions have demonstrated that the fundamental
mode of vibration is the dominant mode of vibration.
Based on this observation, the dynamic behavior of reg-
ular steel bridges is formulated considering only the fun-
damental mode of vibration. First, a shape function is
assumed to represent the fundamental vibration mode of
the bridges. The same shape function is used for both
simply supported and continuous bridges as the steel col-
umns were observed to have only a negligible effect on
the dynamic behavior of continuous bridges. Analytical
expressions for the generalized mass and stiffness of the
bridges are obtained using the assumed shape function
and properties of the bridges. The fundamental period
of vibration of the bridges is then formulated using the
analytical expressions for generalized mass and stiffness.
This period may be used to obtain the seismic shear
coefficient from the AASHTO design spectrum. The
shape function, fundamental period, seismic shear coef-
ficient and the properties of the bridge are used collec-
tively to derive equations to calculate the seismically
induced displacements and forces in bridge components.
The above procedure is repeated for each orthogonal
direction.
The equations derived in the subsequent sections are
not restricted to the geometric properties of the bridges
considered in this study. They are developed to comprise
regular steel bridges with different number of spans,
deck width, span length, column height, column end fix-
ity conditions and orientation, as well as bearing stiff-
ness and fixity conditions.
6. Formulation of transverse direction response
6.1. Generalized mass and stiffness
It is customary to represent the fundamental mode
shape of the structure by the following shape function
[8]:
1415
px
(x) sin , (8)
L
where x is measured from the fixed end support. The
proposed shape function and the fundamental mode
shape of various single- and multiple-span bridges are
plotted in Fig. 5. It is observed that the proposed shape
function can closely represent the fundamental mode
shape.
The generalized mass, m, and stiffness, k, of the
bridge are expressed as[8]:
m
m ((x))2dx (9)
L
0
and
L
d2(x) 2
k EID dx KcT2(xc) (10)
dx2
0
d(0) 2
Kbq .
dx
In the above equations, m is the total mass of the bridge
superstructure, E and ID are respectively the elastic
modulus and moment of inertia of the bridge deck for
bending in the transverse direction, KcT is the transverse-
direction stiffness of the column bents located at dis-
tances xc from the abutment support and Kbq is the
rotational stiffness of the fixed-bearing group at the abut-
ment support (at x 0).
For bridges where the end supports are free to rotate,
the derivative of the assumed shape function at x 0 is
directly proportional to the in-plane support rotation pro-
duced by seismic forces. If the in-plane rotation at the
end support is restrained by fixing the bearings in the
longitudinal direction, then the derivative of the shape
function needs to be modified by a correction factor to
maintain the same proportionality with the actual support
rotation produced by seismic forces. For fixed bearing
conditions, the actual in-plane support rotation, qs, can
be calculated by subtracting the rotation, qM, produced
by the in-plane support moment from the unrestrained
support rotation, qs0. Thus, the actual rotation at the sup-
port is expressed as:
qs qs0qM. (11)
The in-plane support moment is equal to the product of
the actual support rotation, qs, and the rotational stiff-
ness, Kbq, of the bearing group. The rotation, qM, is
obtained by dividing the in-plane support moment by the
rotational stiffness of the bridge deck as follows:
qsKbq
qM . (12)
(3EID / L) Kbq
1416 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422

Substituting the above equation in Eq. (11) and simplify-

ing, the actual support rotation is expressed as:

qs qs0 1 1
(3EID / LKbq) 2
. (13)

In the above equation, the term in large parentheses is

the correction factor for adjusting the support rotation
obtained from the derivative of the assumed shape func-
tion. Substituting the shape function and the correction
factor in Eq. (10) and performing the integration, the
generalized stiffness is expressed as:

ncs
p4EID pxi 2
k
KcTi sin (14)
2L3 i1
L

Kbq 1
1 2 2
p
(3EID / LKbq) 2 L2
, Fig. 8. Comparison of fundamental periods.

where ncb is the number of column bents. Similarly, sub-

where is the earthquake excitation factor and g is the
stituting the shape function in Eq. (9), the generalized
mass is obtained as: gravitational acceleration. Note that the product of the
seismic response coefficient, Cs, and g is equal to the
m spectral acceleration. The earthquake excitation factor is
m . (15) defined as follows:
2

L
6.2. Fundamental period m
(x)dx. (19)
L
0
The fundamental period of the bridge is expressed as:
The assumed shape function is substituted into the above
m
T 2p k
. (16) equation and ( is calculated as:
2m
Substituting Eqs. (14) and (15) into the above equation . (20)
p
and simplifying, the fundamental period for continuous
bridges is obtained as follows: Eqs. (15) and (20) are substituted in Eq. (18) to obtain
the total seismic force as:

T
p2EID L2

n
cs

2 KcTi sin
pxi
2mL2
2
Kbq 1
1

.
2
(17) F
8
p2
mCs g. (21)
2L p i1 L (3EID / LKbq) 2

For single-span bridges, the terms related to the columns 6.4. Superstructure lateral displacement and in-plane
are neglected in the above equation when calculating the rotation
fundamental period.
For the bridges considered in this study, the ratio of The assumed shape function is normalized such that
the fundamental periods obtained from computer analy- the maximum transverse displacement is equal to unity.
ses to those obtained from the above equation is plotted To obtain the actual deformation along the bridge, the
in Fig. 8 as a function of span length. As seen in the shape function must be multiplied by the actual
figure, the ratio is very close to 1.0 for all span ranges. maximum displacement, ms, expressed as [8]:
T2
6.3. Total seismic force ms C g. (22)
4p2m s

The total seismic force, F, acting on the bridge is An analytical expression for the maximum displacement
expressed as [8]: is first obtained by substituting Eqs. (15) and (20) in the
above equation. This displacement is then multiplied by
2 the shape function to obtain the actual transverse defor-
F C g, (18)
m s mation along the bridge as:
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422 1417

T2Cs g px base. For columns with moment-resisting connection at

u sin .
p3 L
The analytical expression for the decks in-plane
rotation, q, is then obtained by taking the derivative of
the above displacement function with respect to x:
T2Cs g px
q cos .
p 2L L
The in-plane rotation, qs0, at an unrestrained end support
(x 0 or L) is then obtained as:
T2Cs g
qs0 . (25)
p 2L
6.5. Shear and moment in columns
To obtain the seismically induced shear force, VT, in
the columns, first the distance, xc, of the column bent
from the end support is substituted in Eq. (23) to calcu-
late the top displacement of the columns. This displace-
ment is then multiplied by the transverse stiffness, kcT,
of the column to obtain the shear force as follows:
(23) both ends, hi 0.5hc, and for those columns with pin
connection at the base or at the top, hi 0 or hi hc,
respectively. In the above equations, the second-order
effects may be neglected by setting PD 0.
For the continuous bridges considered in this study,
the ratios of the first-order column top moments obtained
(24) from computer analyses to those obtained from Eq. (27)
are plotted in Fig. 9 as a function of span length. As
shown in the figure, the ratios are very close to 1.0 for
all span ranges.
6.6. Bearing forces
Bearing forces at the fixed support are composed of
two components as shown in Fig. 3. The first component
is produced by the reaction force at the support and is
oriented in the transverse direction (fbT). The other
component is produced by the in-plane support moment
and is oriented in the longitudinal direction (fbLT). At
the expansion support, however, the bearing forces are
composed of only one component (fbT), which is pro-
duced by the reaction force at the support and is oriented

VT
T2Cs g
p 3
sin
pxc
L
kcT. (26)
in the transverse direction as shown in Fig. 3. The sup-
port reactions are first calculated by conservatively ign-
oring the steel columns contribution to the seismic
To obtain the seismically induced first-order moments resistance. The transverse component of the bearing
at the column ends, the shear force is simply multiplied force, fbT, is then obtained by dividing the support reac-
by the distance of the column end to the point of inflec- tion by the number of bearings, nb, as follows;

tion. To obtain the second-order moments, the variation
1 F Ms
of lateral column displacement is assumed as linear fbT , (29)
along the height of the column. Based on this assump- nb 2 L
tion, the net displacement between the column end and where Ms is the in-plane support moment at the fixed
the inflection point is calculated using the column top end. The second term in parentheses assumes the nega-
displacement. Next, the calculated displacement is multi- tive sign when calculating the forces in the expansion
plied by the axial dead load acting on the column to bearings at the other end of the bridge. The in-plane sup-
obtain the second-order moment. Note that the additional port moment is calculated by substituting Eq. (25) in Eq.
deformation of the structure produced by second-order
effects is negligibly small due to the high in-plane stiff-
ness of the deck. Finally, the total moments at the col-
umn ends are calculated by summing up the first- and
second-order moments. The equations below are derived
based on the above procedure:

MTt
T2Cs g
p 3
sin
pxc
L kcT (hchi) (27)

PD
(hchi)
hc
MTb
T2Cs g
p 3 sin
L
pxc
kcT hi PD
hi
hc, (28)

where MTt and MTb are the total moments at the top and
bottom ends of the column, PD is the column axial force
due to permanent loads, hc is the column height and hi Fig. 9. Comparison of seismically induced first-order column
is the distance of the point of inflection to the column moments.
1418 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422

(13) and multiplying the result by the rotational stiffness 7. Formulation of longitudinal direction response
of the bearing group:

In the longitudinal direction, since the bearings are
T2Cs g 1
Ms 1 K . (30) fixed at one end of the bridge, the steel columns do not
2
pL (3EID / LKbq) 2 bq have a significant effect on the deformation of the struc-
Substituting the above equation and Eq. (21) into Eq. ture due to their negligibly small lateral stiffness relative
(29), the transverse component of the bearing force is to the axial stiffness of the deck. Therefore the stiffness
expressed as: of the columns is neglected in the derivation of the equa-

tions.
Csg T2Kbq
fbT 4m 1 (31)
p 2n b L2 7.1. Generalized mass and stiffness

1
(3EID / LKbq) 2 . For regular steel bridges where the longitudinal move-
To obtain the longitudinal component of the bearing
force, fbLT, at the fixed support, first the bearing longi-
tudinal displacement is obtained by multiplying the in
plane support rotation by the distance, lb, of the bearing
from the centerline of the bridge deck. Then, this dis-
placement is multiplied by the bearing stiffness to obtain
the longitudinal component of the bearing force as fol-
lows:
ment is restricted at one end by fixed bearings, it is cus-
tomary to represent the fundamental mode shape by the
following function [8]:
px
(x) sin . (34)
2L
The proposed shape function and the fundamental
mode shape of various single- and multiple-span bridges
are plotted in Fig. 6. It is observed that the proposed

fbLT
T2Cs g
2
pL
1 1
lk .
(3EID / LKbq) 2 b bL (32)
shape function is identical to the fundamental mode
shape of the bridges studied. Substituting this shape
function in Eq. (9) and integrating, the generalized mass
The resultant bearing force due to seismic excitation of the system is obtained as half the total mass of the
in the transverse direction is the vectorial summation of structure.
the two orthogonal components as expressed below: The generalized axial stiffness of a system is defined
FbT f2
bT f2bLT. (33)
by the following equation [8]:

The ratios of the seismically induced bearing forces d(x) 2

k

EAD dx, (35)
obtained from computer analyses to those obtained from dx
Eq. (33) are plotted in Fig. 10 as a function of span 0

length. As shown in the figure, the ratios are very close where AD is the area of deck cross-section. Substituting
to 1.0 for all span ranges. the assumed shape function in the above equation, the
generalized stiffness is obtained as:
p2EAD
k . (36)
8L

7.2. Fundamental period

Substituting the generalized mass and stiffness of the

bridge in Eq. (16), the fundamental period is calcu-
lated as:

EA
16mL
T . (37)
D

For the simply supported bridges considered in this

study, the ratio of the longitudinal direction fundamental
periods obtained from computer analyses to those
obtained from Eq. (37) is plotted in Fig. 8 as a function
Fig. 10. Comparison of seismically induced forces in outermost bear- of span length. As seen in the figure, the ratio is 1.0 for
ings. all span ranges.
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422 1419

7.3. Bearing forces resistance to seismic forces in the longitudinal direction.

It was found that the analytical expression for the total
seismic force in the longitudinal direction is identical to
that obtained for the transverse direction. Neglecting the
contribution of the columns, the total seismic force will
be resisted by the fixed bearings at one end of the bridge.
Accordingly, the bearing force, FbL, is obtained by divid-
ing the total seismic force by the number of bearings
as follows:
8
FbL m Cs g. (38)
n bp 2
The ratios of the seismically induced bearing forces
obtained from computer analyses to those obtained from
Eq. (38) are plotted in Fig. 10 as a function of span
length. As shown in the figure, the ratios are very close
to 1.0 for all span ranges.
7.4. Shear and moment in columns
For bridges with fixed bearings at one end, the seis-
mically induced forces in columns are negligible. This
results from high axial stiffness of the superstructure
inhibiting large longitudinal displacements at the col-
umn locations.
Thus, such bridges can be modeled as a single-degree-
of-freedom system. The effective stiffness of such a sys-
tem is equal to the sum of the stiffness of all of the
columns and the effective mass is equal to the total mass
of the bridge. The fundamental period of the bridge in
the longitudinal direction is then calculated as:
m
T 2p , (39)
nc
kcLi
i1
where nc is the total number of columns and kcLi is the
stiffness of column, i, in the longitudinal direction of
the bridge.
8.2. Superstructure displacement
The seismic force acting on the structure is the product
of the structure mass, seismic response coefficient and
the gravitational acceleration. The displacement of the
bridge in the longitudinal direction is obtained by divid-
ing the seismic force by the sum of the columns stiff-
ness as follows:
mCs g
u . (40)
nc

kcLi
8. Longitudinally unrestrained end support i1

conditions
8.3. Shear and moment in columns
Analytical expressions have been developed for the
simplified analysis of regular steel bridges with fixed The superstructure displacement is multiplied by the
bearings at one end and expansion bearing at the other. stiffness of the column to obtain the shear force as fol-
For longer bridges, expansion bearings may be provided lows:
at both ends of the bridge [5]. In this case, the preceding
kcL
equations derived for longitudinal direction seismic VL mCs g. (41)

nc
analysis of regular steel bridges cannot be used. How-
ever, those derived for the transverse direction may still kcLi
i1
be used if the rotational stiffness, Kbq, of the bearing
group is substituted as zero in the equations, as the The moments, MLt and MLb, respectively, at the top
expansion bearings do not create any rotational resist- and bottom ends of the columns including the second-
ance at the supports. order effects are obtained following a similar procedure
In the following subsections, equations are derived for described for the transverse direction response:

the longitudinal direction simplified seismic analysis of
regular steel bridges with expansion bearings at both mCs g (hchi)
MLt kcL (hchi) PD (42)

ends. It is noteworthy that these equations can only be nc hc
used if the bridge deck does not collide with the abut- kcLi
ment back-wall as a result of excessive longitudinal i1
movement.
and
8.1. Fundamental period
MLb
mCs g

hi
kcLhi PD . (43)

nc hc
For bridges with expansion bearings at both ends, the kcLi
columns are the only components that provide lateral i1
1420 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422

The second-order effects may be neglected by setting the bearings are assumed at both abutments. The steel col-
dead load equal to zero in the above equations. umns are assumed to be 6 m high and are oriented to
develop strong axis bending in the longitudinal direction.
Both ends of the columns are assumed to have moment-
9. Case studies resisting connections. The bridges are assumed to be
located in seismic performance zone 2 with an acceler-
A single-span bridge and a three-span continuous ation coefficient of 0.18. Soil profile type II with a corre-
bridge are considered to illustrate the preceding simpli- sponding site coefficient of 1.2 per AASHTO specifi-
fied analysis method and to compare the analysis results cations is assumed for the bridge site. The analysis
with those obtained from a multi-mode response spec- results are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively,
trum analysis (MMRSA) and AASHTOs simplified for the transverse and longitudinal directions.
analysis for regular bridges. The specifics of these For the continuous bridge example, the proposed
bridges are summarized in Table 4. For both bridges, pot equations resulted in slightly smaller fundamental per-
bearings are assumed to present underneath each girder iods than those obtained from the MMRSA method. The
at the abutments. The bearings are anchored to the abut- difference in the calculated fundamental periods is only
ment by two 32 mm diameter, 600 mm long anchor bolts 4.3% in the transverse and 2.4% in the longitudinal
placed alongside in the transverse direction. The distance direction. Conversely, AASHTOs simplified analysis
of the bolts from the tip of the base plate is 157.5 mm method produced larger fundamental periods than those
and the height of the bearing is 153 mm. For the single obtained from the MMRSA method. The difference in
span bridge, fixed bearings are assumed at one of the the calculated fundamental periods is 12.4% in the trans-
abutments and for the continuous bridge, expansion verse and 0.3% in the longitudinal direction. The larger
difference between periods in the transverse direction
Table 4
may be attributed to the uniformly distributed seismic
Properties of example bridges load assumption in AASHTOs simplified analysis
method.
Properties Continuous bridge Single-span bridge The seismically induced column and bearing forces
obtained from the proposed equations and MMRSA
Superstructure method are nearly identical in the transverse direction.
Span length (m) 25, 35, 25 40 Nevertheless, AASHTOs simplified analysis method
Width (m) 16 8
Girder sections 6WWF1200333 4WWF1200333
produced bearing forces 24% larger than those obtained
Girder spacing (m) 3.0 2.0 from MMRSA method. This difference, again, may be
Slab thickness (mm) 190 200 attributed to the uniformly distributed seismic load
Asphalt thickness (mm) 70 80 assumption in AASHTOs simplified analysis method.
Mass (ton) 1068 286 The column forces obtained from both AASHTOs sim-
AD (m2) 0.592 0.347
ID (m4) 13.90 1.797
plified analysis and MMRSA methods are identical. In
the longitudinal direction, the seismically induced bear-
Bearings ing forces are zero since the longitudinal movement of
kbL (kN/m) N/A 554,000 the structure is not restrained at the abutments. Both the
Kbq (kNm/rad) N/A 11,080,000 proposed equations and AASHTOs simplified analysis
Columns
method produced column forces slightly smaller (3.8%)
Section W31079 N/A than those obtained from MMRSA method.
Height (m) 6 N/A For the single-span bridge example, the fundamental
kcT (kN/m) 444 N/A periods and bearing forces obtained from the proposed
kcL (kN/m) 1968 N/A equations and the MMRSA method are nearly identical
hi (m) 3 N/A
in both directions. However, the bearing forces obtained
Column bents from AASHTOs simplified analysis method are much
KcT (kN/m) 2664 N/A smaller than those obtained from the other two methods,
KcL (kN/m) 11808 N/A as illustrated in Tables 5 and 6. The difference in the
AD: Cross-section area of composite deck calculated using properties bearing forces is more evident at the fixed support. In
of steel; ID: Moment of inertia of composite deck for bending in trans- the transverse direction, the AASHTO simplified analy-
verse direction calculated using properties of steel; kbL: Longitudinal sis procedure underestimates the bearing forces by 44%
direction stiffness of bearing; Kbq: Rotational stiffness of bearing at the fixed and by 36% at the expansion supports of the
group; kcT: Transverse direction stiffness of a single column; kcL: bridge. In the longitudinal direction, the bearing forces
Longitudinal direction stiffness of a single column; hi: Distance of the
point of inflection to the column base; KcT: Transverse direction stiff- are underestimated by 42% at the fixed support of the
ness of column bent; KcL: Longitudinal direction stiffness of column bridge.
bent. AASHTO specifications do not require seismic analy-
 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422 1421

Table 5
Analysis results in the transverse direction

List of results Continuous bridge Single-span bridge

Proposed MMRSAa AASHTO Proposed MMRSAa AASHTO

T (s) 0.308 0.322 0.362 0.132 0.138

Csm 0.375 N/A

Bearings
Fixed end:
fbT (kN)b 318 313 388 138 136 76
fbLT (kN)b 0 0 0 251 265 N/A
FbT (kN)b 318 313 388 287 298 76
Expansion end:
FbT (kN)b 318 313 388 118 116 76

Columns
VT (kN) 4.8 5.2 5.2 N/A N/A N/A
MTt (kN m)c 14.4 15.4 15.4 N/A N/A N/A
MTb (kN m)c 14.4 15.4 15.4 N/A N/A N/A

T: Perios of vibration; Csm: Seismic response coefficient; fbT: Transverse component of the bearing force due to seismic excitation in the transverse
direction; fbl: Longitudinal component of the bearing force due to seismic excitation in the trasvverse direction; FbT: Resultant bearing force due
to seismic excitation in the transverse direction; VT: Column shear force due to transverse direction seismic excitation; MTt: Moment at columns
top due to transverse direction seismic excitation; MTb: Moment at columns bottom due to transverse direction seismic excitation.
a
Multi-mode response spectrum analysis.
b
Outermost bearings.
c
First-order moments.

Table 6
Analysis results in the longitudinal direction

List of results Continuous bridge Single-span bridge

Proposed MMRSAa AASHTO Proposed MMRSAa AASHTO

T (s) 1.336 1.369 1.373 0.051 0.051 N/A

Csm 0.178 N/A 0.175 0.375 N/A N/A

Bearings
FbL (kN) 0 0 0 256 257 152

Columns
VL (kN) 186 193 184 N/A N/A N/A
MTt (kN m)b 558 579 552 N/A N/A N/A
MLb (kN m)b 558 579 552 N/A N/A N/A

T: period of vibration; Csm: Seismic response coefficient; FbL: Resultant bearing force due to seismic excitation in the longitudinal direction; VL:
Colum shear force due to longitudinal direction seismic excitation; MTt: Moment at columns top due to longitudinal direction seismic excitation;
MLb: Moment at columns bottom due to longitudinal direction seismic excitation.
a
Multi mode response spectrum analysis.
b
First-order moments.

sis of single-span bridges. The bearing forces were sim-
ply calculated as the product of site coefficient, the
acceleration coefficient and the tributary permanent load.
As a result, the effects of the spectral acceleration and
the additional force in the fixed bearings produced by
the in-plane support moment were neglected in the cal-
culations. This resulted in such a large difference
between the bearing forces obtained from AASHTOs
simplified analysis method and other two methods. The
above results indicate that AASHTOs simplified analy-
sis method for single-span bridges may underestimate
the seismically induced bearing forces by as much as
44%.
1422 M. Dicleli / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14091422
10. Conclusions
Analytical equations are derived to calculate the fun-
damental period and seismically induced forces and dis-
placements in the structural components of a class of
regular steel bridges. The equations are derived con-
sidering the effect of deck width, number and length of
spans, bearing types and their stiffness on the dynamic
behavior of bridges. The results from multi-mode
response spectrum analysis and those obtained from the
derived equations have shown good agreement. Thus,
these equations may be used in lieu of the AASHTOs
simplified procedure for the seismic analysis of regular
steel bridges.
Comparison of AASHTOs simplified analysis results
with those obtained from MMRSA has revealed that the
assumption of uniformly distributed seismic force may
result in some errors in the calculation of fundamental
period and bearing forces. It was also observed that
AASHTOs simplified procedure for single-span bridges
may underestimate the seismically induced forces in
bearings.
References
[1] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. Washington (DC):
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 1998.
[2] Barker RM, Puckett JA. Design of highway bridges. New York:
John Wiley, 1997.
[3] Demetrios ET. Bridge engineering: design, rehabilitation and
maintenance of modern highway bridges. New York: McGraw
Hill, 1995.
[4] Dicleli M. A rational design approach for prestressed-concrete
girder integral bridges. Eng. Struct. 2000;22(3):23045.
[5] Dicleli M. Seismic design of a lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic
isolation. ASCE J. Bridge Eng. 2002;7(2):94103.
[6] Douglas MB. Experimental dynamic response investigations of
existing highway bridges. In: Proceedings of a Workshop on Earth-
quake Resistance of Highway Bridges. Palo Alto (CA): Applied
Technology Council; 1979. p. 497523.
[7] Dicleli M, Bruneau M. Seismic performance of single span simply
supported and continuous slab-on-girder steel highway bridges.
ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 1995;121(10):1497506.
[8] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures., 2nd ed. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1993.