Submitted by
Zasiah Tafheem
Student No.0204118
Course: CE400 ( Project and thesis )
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
January,2008
DECLARATION
Declared that except where specified by reference to other works, the studies embodied
in the thesis is the result of investigation carried out by the author under the supervision
of Dr.Khan Mahmud Amanat, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET.
Neither the thesis nor any part thereof has been submitted to or is being submitted
elsewhere for any other purposes.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
List of Symbols x
Acknowledgement xi
Abstract xii
CHAPTER 1. Introduction
1.1General 1
1.2 Scope and Objective 2
1.3 Assumption 3
1.4 Contents 3
ii
2.11 Site Effects 10
2.12 Response Modification Factors 11
2.13 Analysis Procedure According to AASHTO Guideline
2.13.1 Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method 13
2.13.2 Method of Calculation of Seismic Load by Single 17
Mode Spectral Analysis Method
2.14 Response Spectrum Analysis
2.14.1 Spectrum 21
2.14.1.1 Response Spectrum 21
2.14.1.2 Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM) 26
2.14.1.3 Power Spectral Density 26
2.14.2 Analysis Procedure 26
2.14.2.1 Modeling of Structure 26
2.14.2.2 Performing the Modal Solution 27
2.14.2.3 Performing Spectrum Solution 28
2.14.2.4 Expanding the Modes 29
2.14.2.5 Combination of the Modes 29
2.14.3 Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Load 30
2.14.4 Member Forces and Displacement 31
iii
3.4.4 Material Behavior 40
3.5 Finite Element Modeling of Bridge for Space Frame Analysis 40
3.6 Finite Element Model Mesh 41
3.7 Determination of Period of Vibration 42
iv
CHAPTER 5. Conclusion
5.1 General 81
5.2 Summary 82
5.3 Recommendation for Future Investigation 82
REFERENCES 84
APPENDIX
A. ANSYS Script Files 85
B. Data tables used for the analysis 103
v
LIST OF TABLES
vi
Table 4.22 Comparison of axial force (KN) for centre column 78
Table 4.23 Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for outer column 79
Table 4.24 Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for centre column 80
Table B1 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake
motion(AASHTO) 103
Table B2 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion
(AASHTO) 103
Table B3 Displacements and seismic loading intensity for transverse loading 104
Table B4 Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2 105
Table B5 Elastic and modified forces due to dead load 106
Table B6 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion 106
( Response spectrum)
Table B7 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion 107
( Response spectrum)
Table B8 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for outer column 107
Table B9 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for centre column 107
Table B10 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of outer column 108
Table B11 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of centre column 108
Table B12 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for outer column 108
Table B13 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for centre column 108
Table B14 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for outer column 108
Table B15 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for centre column 109
Table B16 Comparison of axial force (KN) for outer column 109
Table B17 Comparison of axial force (KN) for centre column 109
Table B18 Comparison of design moment (KN-m) for outer column 109
Table B19 Comparison of design moment (KN-m) for centre column 109
Table B20 Design forces for case І (AASHTO) 110
Table B21 Design forces for Case ІI (Response spectrum) 110
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
Figure 4.7 Third mode of vibration (T=0.3836 sec) 57
Figure 4.8 Fourth mode of vibration (T= 0.3787 sec) 57
Figure 4.9 Fifth mode of vibration (T= 0.3563 sec) 58
Figure 4.10 Sixth mode of vibration (T= 0.3155 sec) 58
Figure 4.11 Seventh mode of vibration (T= 0.2767sec) 59
Figure 4.12 Eighth mode of vibration (T= 0.2595 sec) 59
Figure 4.13 Ninth mode of vibration (T= 0.2406 sec) 60
Figure 4.14 Tenth mode of vibration (T= 0.2248 sec) 60
Figure 4.15 Eleventh mode of vibration (T= 0.1992 sec) 61
Figure 4.16 Twelfth mode of vibration (T= 0.1894 sec) 61
Figure 4.17 Thirteenth mode of vibration (T= 0.1845sec) 62
Figure 4.18 Fourteenth mode of vibration (T= 0.1772 sec) 62
Figure 4.19 Function graph for UBC 1994 64
Figure 4.20 Comparison of longitudinal shear force for outer column 69
Figure 4.21 Comparison of longitudinal shear force for centre column 70
Figure 4.22 Comparison of longitudinal moment for outer column 71
Figure 4.23 Comparison of longitudinal moment for centre column 72
Figure 4.24 Comparison of transverse shear force for outer column 73
Figure 4.25 Comparison of transverse shear force for centre column 74
Figure 4.26 Comparison of transverse moment for outer column 75
Figure 4.27 Comparison of transverse moment for centre column 76
Figure 4.28 Comparison of axial force for outer column 77
Figure 4.29 Comparison of axial force for centre column 78
Figure 4.30 Comparison of design moment for outer column 79
Figure 4.31 Comparison of design moment for centre column 80
ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
K Stiffness, N/m
M Moment, N-m
Mzz΄ Longitudinal moment, N-m
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thank to Almighty Allah, the benevolent and the kind, for His graciousness, unlimited
kindness and with the blessings of whom the good deeds are fulfilled.
Finally I would like to express a very special indebtedness to my parents, brother and
sister for their undying love, encouragement and moral support throughout my life and
education. I also wish to express my appreciation to all of my teachers because without
their blessings, achieving this goal would have been impossible.
xi
ABSTRACT
Earthquake resistant bridge design must ensure that the bridge piers withstand the lateral
forces generated during earthquake. AASHTO, recommend some semi analytical
procedure to determine the design seismic forces. In context of availability of modern
computational techniques and powerful computers, the AASHTO suggested procedure
may appear somewhat out-dated. Therefore in the next step AASJTO analytical
procedure was compared performing Response Spectrum Analysis.
The entire work is carried out in two steps. In the first step, the design seismic forces are
calculated using comprehensive 3D model of beam and shell element by following the
original AASHTO specification a. In the second step, Response Spectrum Analysis has
been performed. The design forces and moments are obtained by using the AASHTO
guideline. Finally, a comparative study has been performed among two methods
described above.
It is observed that the magnitude of axial forces almost same in different methods, but
the design moment and shear forces vary significantly. Since finite element model is a
better representation of the bridge, the result of the last step may be considered more
reliable than other methods.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Earthquake could be defined as chaotic motion of the earth’s crust,
characterized by time dependent amplitudes and frequencies. From the past
historical records of earthquake occurrence, it is seen that earthquake is one of the
most feared natural disasters which has caused incalculable destruction of properties
and injury and loss of lives to the population. Earthquakes occur due to the
instability of the earth crust and the sudden release of accumulated stress deep inside
the crust. The sudden release of energy during an earthquake may lead to ground
shaking, surface faulting, and ground failures. Stresses are generated in structures
due to the ground shaking and if a structure is incapable of resting these additional
stresses, it will suffer damage. The current philosophy behind earthquake resistant
design of common structures is to ensure that
• Hazards to life be minimized
• Design ground motions have low probability of being exceeded during normal
lifetime of bridge.
• Function of essential bridges is maintained.
• There are no damages (or only slight but repairable nonstructural damage) due to
design earthquakes. Bridges may suffer damage but have low probability of collapse
due to earthquake motion.
• Collapse is prevented during more severe earthquakes, which is achieved by
ensuring ductile, rather than brittle behavior of the structural response. Collapse of
the structure, which does not have adequate seismic resistance, result in human
death and injuries.
The behavior of bridge structures under the influence of seismic load has been a
major point of interest of engineers over a long period of time. Each year more than
800,000 earthquakes are recorded by the World Wide Network of Seismic Stations
(WWNSS) and are analyzed with the aid of computers, at the earthquake data center
in Boulder,Colorado. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake was a major turning point in
Introduction 2
the development of seismic design criteria for bridges. Although significant advances
have been achieved since that time in the design and construction of an earthquake
resistant bridge, numerous gaps still remain in the understanding of the seismic
behavior of bridges.
The damage to bridge structures during an earthquake may be classified into three
categories:
(i) Damage due to inadequate strength of foundation
(ii) Damage due to soil liquefaction
(iii) Damage to columns and bearing support.
Earthquake resistant bridge design must ensure that the bridge piers withstand the
lateral forces generated during earthquake. AASHTO recommends some semi
analytical procedure to determine the design seismic forces. There are also a lot of
analysis procedures developed in different finite element software to determine the
design seismic forces. In this thesis paper two analysis cases are considered.
analysis procedure according to AASHTO guideline
Response Spectrum Analysis
In the AASHTO example procedure, axial deformation in the deck has been
neglected and assumed that the deck behaves as a rigid member. The bridge has been
idealized so that the abutment does not contribute to the longitudinal stiffness. For
the analysis, frame model has been used. All this were done for the purposes of
simplicity. For Response Spectrum Analysis the bridge first modeled and then
analysis using ANSYS.
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS
The bridge structure under study has a constant stiffness and a linear behavior of all
material properties. However, a nonlinear analysis may be carried out (which is more
common for bridges).
1.4 CONTENTS
The entire work is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 is the current chapter which
introduces the work presented in this thesis. Chapter 2 deals with the existing state of
the art report which mentions the works carried out by previous researchers and also
sheds light on the methodology of the analysis. The purpose of Chapter 3 is to discuss
the essential details of modeling using finite element modeling technique. Chapter 4 is
aimed at the seismic load analysis of a Three Span Deck Girder Bridge. The detail
calculation of seismic load and the comparison among the results are described in this
chapter. And finally Chapter 5 draws a conclusion by summarizing the outcome of the
thesis and proposes new direction for further research and development.
CHAPTER 2
SEISMIC DESIGN OF SIMPLE BRIDGES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The basic aim of seismic design in any engineering design is to ensure that the
resistance of the structure is greater than the loads applied to it. This is complicated
in seismic design by the fact that earthquake loads are dynamic and not
deterministic, i.e. they cannot be determined in an explicit manner in the same way
that dead loads, vehicle loads and other environmental loads may be computed. It is
therefore clearly important to be able to analyze a bridge for dynamic loads; the
intent of this chapter is to outline the standards required for the design and
construction of new bridges and to present the procedures for determination of the
magnitude of the design loads. Primary emphasis is given to the design philosophy
and design requirements of the AASHTO Guide Specifications (AASHTO, 1991)
and then describing the procedure for determining design loads using Response
Spectrum analysis.
Dynamic loads are loads that vary with time. Bridges are subjected to several
kinds of dynamic loads ranging from wind and earthquake. Response to these loads
can be markedly different to that under static loads. It is possible that bridges that
Seismic design of simple bridges 5
have repeatedly withstood static loads may collapse under dynamic loading of smaller
magnitude.
The essential difference between static and dynamic loads is the time varying nature
of the dynamic loads. If the frequency content of the applied load is close to the
natural frequency of vibration of the bridge, the structure will amplify the loading
(Clough and Penzien, 1975; Biggs, 1964) and large and potentially destructive forces
will be generated within the bridge. Therefore, problems arise when frequency
matching occurs. This is the basis of all resonance phenomena. Load which is
applied very slowly causes response which is virtually identical to static loading.
On the other hand, cyclic load which is applied very rapidly has negligible effect
on a structure (Biggs, 1964). Amplification of load only occurs when the rate of
application of load is near one of the natural frequencies of one of the modes of
vibration of for the bridge. Different bridges will therefore respond differently to
the same load because their natural frequencies will be different.
Since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the Federal Highway Administration
has funded numerous research projects to improve the seismic design of bridges.
These culminated in a contract to the Applied Technology Council of California
to compile a new set of design guidelines based on the results of this research
published in 1981, the ACT-6 seismic design Guidelines for Highway Bridges were
adopted by AASHTO in 1983 as "Guide Specifications for the Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges". These specifications represent the state-of-the-art in the seismic
design of bridges and are recommended for the design of all new bridges through
out the United States. New Zealand and Japanese engineers have also refined and
updated their seismic design criteria for highway bridges in recent years. As
consequence, the seismic design provisions in New Zealand Ministry of Works
Highway Bridge Design Brief (New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development,
1985) are also amended.
Conceptually, the Caltrans, New Zealand and Japanese Seismic design approaches
all employ a "force design" concept. The Japanese criteria incorporate the highest
levels of design forces and therefore rely less on the ductility of the supporting
columns.
In the AASHTO Guide Specifications, the design loads are expressed as a design
coefficient or design response spectra which represent the expected realistic force
levels for the site. These force levels are derived such that they have a 10% to 20%
chance of being exceeded every 50 years and are a function of the acceleration
coefficient and the site soil condition.
The intensity of the ground shaking to which the structure may be subjected during
its lifetime can be estimated from the recorded earthquake history in the area in
Seismic design of simple bridges 8
which it is situated. Continuing records are used to produce maps showing regions of
relative possible seismic hazards and these can be extended and refined as
knowledge such events is accumulated. When designing a structure to resist seismic
forces, the design loads may be determined from a dynamic analysis of the
structure’s response to time-history base accelerations, based on an actual recorded
local event, or an artificially generated time-history. Such a time consuming rigorous
approach may be simplified by the use of earthquake response spectra, which,
although requiring less computational effort, yield acceptably similar results for peak
responses.
The seismic response of the structure will depend on the dynamic properties of the
structure, the ground motion at the foundation, the mode of soil-structure interaction.
The motion of a very stiff structure will be almost identical to the ground motion, but
that of the flexible structure will be quite different. This will depend on the proximity
of the natural frequencies of the structure to that of the predominant ground motion
frequency, the damping inherent the structure, the foundation behavior, the ductility
of the structure, and the duration of the earthquake.
At present, the best workable tool for describing the ground shaking is a smoothed
elastic seismic response spectrum for single degree-of-freedom systems. Such a
spectrum provides a quantitative description of both the intensity and frequency
content of ground motion. Smoothed elastic response spectra for a 5% damping are
used as a basis tool for the representation of local ground motion.
Seismic design of simple bridges 9
The distance of the earthquake from the proposed site and the geology of the
travel path.
The present recommendations therefore only consider effects of site conditions and
distance the seismic source zone. At such times the potential effects of other
significant parameters can be delineated and quantified, the current
recommendations can be modified to reflect these effects.
A I ІІ
A<0.09 A A
0.09<A<0.19 B B
O.I9<A<0.29 C C
0.29<A D C
SOIL PROFILE TYPE II is a profile with stiff clay or deep cohesionless soil
condition where the soil depth exceeds 200 ft and the soil types overlying the
rocks are stable deposits of sands, gravels or stiff clays.
In the first case the three span deck girder bridge was analyzed using the Single
Mode Spectral Analysis Method as outlined in AASHTO. Details of these methods
are described here.
SOIL PROFILE TYPE III is a profile with soft to medium stiff clays and sands,
characterized by 30 ft or of soft of medium-stiff clays with or without intervening
layers of sands or other cohesionless soils.
In locations where the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the
soil profile type or where the profile does not fit any of the three soil types, the site
coefficient for Soil Profile Type II shall be used.
The site coefficient (S) approximates the effects of the site conditions on the elastic
response coefficient or spectrum and is given in table 2.2
In the first case the three span deck girder bridge was analyzed using the Single
Mode Spectral Analysis Method as outlined in AASHTO. Details of these methods
are described here.
The single mode spectral analysis method is used to calculate the seismic design
forces for bridges that respond predominantly in the first mode of vibration. The
method, although completely rigorous from a structural dynamics point of view,
reduces to a problem of static’s after introduction of inertia forces. The method, as
formulated, can be applied to many types of bridges which have both continuous
and non-continuous superstructures. Boundary conditions at the abutments and piers
can also be modeled to include the effects of foundations flexibility.
Bridges are generally continuous systems consisting of many components which
contribute to the overall resistance capacities of the system. A bridge subjected to a
transverse earthquake ground motion has been considered. The bridge is composed
of several spans restrained transversely at the end abutments and intermediate
piers, as shown in figure 2.1. Typically the bridge deck may have expansion joints at
the piers or within the spans. The expansion joints do not have the capability to
transmit transverse deck moments between adjacent deck sections. The equation of
motion for a continuous system representing this system is conveniently formulated
using energy principles. The principal of virtual displacements may be used to
formulate a generalized parameter model of a continuous system in a manner which
approximates the overall behavior of the system. Assuming transverse motion in a
single mode shape, a single degree-of- freedom "generalized parameter" model may
be formulated. To obtain an approximate solution to this mode shape, a uniform
static loading Po, is applied to the superstructure and the insulting deflection, V(x,
t) , of the structure under seismic excitation as shown in figure 2.2 is then
approximated by the shape function multiplied by a generalized amplitude
function, V(t) as shown by the equation 2.1.
Seismic design of simple bridges 14
V ( x, t ) = VS ( x )V (t ) (2.1)
This function will describe the deformed bridge structure in a manner which is
consisted with the support conditions and intermediate expansions joint hinges in the
deck. It is an admissible function which satisfies the geometric boundary conditions of
the system.
Figure 2.2 Displacement functions describing the transverse position of the bridge
deck
Initially to establish the deflected shape for the generalized parameter model,
apply a uniform loading P 0 to the structure as shown in the figure 2.3. Assume that
the loading is applied gradually so that the kinetic energy of the mass of the
structure is zero. The external work, W B , done by the uniformly applied loading in
deforming the structure is given by the equation (2.2)
Seismic design of simple bridges 15
Pδ ∫ V ( x )dx = Pδα
1 L 1
WE = (2.2)
2 0 2
Where,
L
α = ∫ V (x )dx (2.3)
0
This work will be stored internally in the elastic structure in the form of strain energy
U.
Thus
U = WE (2.4)
After V s (x) is determined using any standard static analysis approach, the integral
equation 2.3, may be evaluated numerically.
If the uniform loading P () is suddenly removed, and the effects of damping are
neglected, the structure will vibrate in the assumed mode shape shown in figure 2.4
at the natural frequency determined by equating the maximum kinetic energy to
maximum strain energy (Rayleigh method), i.e.
ω2 L
ω 2γ
Tmax = ∫ w( x)vs ( x) dx =
2
(2.6)
2g 0
2g
Seismic design of simple bridges 16
Where,
γ = ∫ W (x )V (x )2 dx (2.7)
Figure 2.4 Transverse free vibration of the bridge in assumed mode shape
γ
T = 2π (2.10)
Pgα
The generalized equation of motion for the single degree of freedom system
subjected to a ground accelerator Vg (t) may be written as
− βv g (t )
v ′′(t ) + 2ξϖv ′(t ) + ϖ 2 v(t ) = (2.11)
γ
Where,
L
β = ∫ w( x)v5 ( x)dx (2.12)
0
Seismic design of simple bridges 17
And ξ is the damping ratio to be prescribed. For most structures, a value of 0.05 is
recommended. Using the standard acceleration response spectral value C S , in its
dimensionless form.
S a (ξ , T )
Cs = (2.13)
g
Where S a (ξ ,T) is the pseudo acceleration spectral value. The maximum response of
the system is given by
Where,
C s gβ
v(t )max = (2.15)
ω 2γ
Thus
C s gβ
v( x, t )max = v s (x ) (2.16)
ω 2γ
The static loading Pe(x) which approximates the inertial effects associated with the
displacement v(x, t) max is shown in figure 2. 5 and is given by
βC s
Pe ( x ) = w( x)v s ( x) (2.17)
γ
α = ∫ v s ( x)dx (2.3)
γ = ∫ w( x)v5 ( x) 2 dx (2.7)
Where w(x) is the weight of the dead load of the bridge superstructure and tributary
substructure. The weight should take into account structural elements and other
relevant loads including, but not limited to, pier caps, abutments, column and footing.
γ
T = 2π (2.10)
P0 gα
Seismic design of simple bridges 19
STEP 4: Calculate the equivalent static earthquake loading Pe(x) from this expression
βC S
Pe( x) = w( x)v5 ( x) (2.17)
γ
Figure 2.6 Bridge deck subjected to assumed longitudinal and transverse loading
Where,
C S = the dimensionless elastic seismic response coefficient given by equation(2.18)
1.2 AS
Cs = 2
(2.18)
3
T
Seismic design of simple bridges 20
Where,
A= the acceleration coefficient
S= the dimensionless coefficient for the soil profile characteristics of the site
T= the period of the bridge
The value of C s need not exceed 2.5A. For the soil Profile Type ІІI soils in areas
where A>0.30, C s need not exceed 2.0A.
P e (x) = the intensity of the equivalent static seismic loading applied to represent
the primary mode of vibration (force/unit length)
STEP 5: Apply loading P e (x) to the structure as shown in the figure 2.7 and determine
the resulting member forces and displacements for design
2.14.1 Spectrum
The spectrum is a graph of spectral value versus frequency that captures the
intensity and frequency content of time-history loads. A spectrum analysis is one in
which the results of a modal analysis are used with a known spectrum to calculate
displacements and stresses in the model. It is mainly used in place of a time-history
analysis to determine the response of structures to random or time-dependent
loading conditions such as earthquakes, wind loads, ocean wave loads, jet engine
thrust, rocket motor vibrations, and so on.
• Response Spectrum
• Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM)
• Power Spectral Density (PSD)
From a design viewpoint, only the maximum value of displacement and stress are of
interest. For survival, the structure must withstand the peak value whenever that may
occur. Therefore, only the peak value is to be needed to successfully design a bridge and
this information is made available in the form of response spectra. It is possible to
generate curves which give peak displacements and stresses for any structure subject to a
given earthquake. These curves are called response spectra because they give the
response of a (e.g. maximum displacement and stresses) of a wide spectrum of structures
as defined by their frequency (or period).
Seismic design of simple bridges 22
For three dimensional seismic motion, the typical modal Equation is rewritten as
Pni = −φ nT M i (2.20)
in which i is equal to x, y or z.
Given a specified ground motion u(t)g , damping value and assuming P ni =1.0 it is
possible to solve Equation (2.20) at various values of ω and
(Fig plot a curve
2.8a)
of the maximum peak response y(ω) MAX . For this acceleration input, the curve is by
definition the displacement response spectrum for the earthquake motion. A different
curve will exist for each different value of damping. A plot of ωy(ω) MAX is defined
as the pseudo-velocity spectrum and a plot of ω2y(ω) MAX is defined as the
pseudo-acceleration spectrum. These three curves are normally plotted as one
curve on special log paper. However, these pseudo-values have minimum physical
Seismic design of simple bridges 23
significance and are not an essential part of a response spectrum analysis. The true
values for maximum velocity and acceleration must be calculated from the solution
of Equation (2.20). There is a mathematical relationship, however, between the
pseudo-acceleration spectrum and the total acceleration spectrum. The total
acceleration of the unit mass, single degree-of-freedom system, governed by
Equation (2.20), is given by
Equation (2.20) can be solved for y(t) and substituted into Equation (2.21) which
yields
u(t ) T = −ω 2 y (t ) − 2ξωy (t )
(2.23)
Therefore, for the special case of zero damping, the total acceleration of the system
is equal to ω2y(t). For this reason, the displacement response spectrum curve is
normally not plotted as modal displacement y(ω) MAX vs ω. It is standard to present
the curve in terms of S(ω) vs.
T a periodwhere
in seconds.
2Π
S (ω ) a = ω 2 y (ω ) MAX and T = (2.24a and 2.24b)
ω
Figure 2.8b. Pseudo Acceleration Spectrum, Sa= ω2y(ω) MAX - Percent of Gravity
(a) (b)
The Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM) is a technique used to evaluate the
shock resistance of shipboard equipment. The technique is essentially a response
spectrum analysis in which the spectrum is obtained from a series of empirical
equations and shock design tables provided in the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Report NRL-1396.
Power spectral density (PSD) is a statistical measure defined as the limiting mean-
square value of a random variable. It is used in random vibration analyses in which
the instantaneous magnitudes of the response can be specified only by probability
distribution functions that show the probability of the magnitude taking a particular
value.
The procedure for a single-point response spectrum analysis consists of six main
steps:
The model type and degree of freedom depends on the complexity of the actual
structure and the results desired in the analysis Modeling a bridge for a dynamic
analysis is currently more an art than a science. The overall objective is to produce
a mathematical model that will represent the dynamic characteristics of the
Seismic design of simple bridges 27
structure and produce realistic consistent with the input parameters. The bridge
should be modeled as a three dimensional space frame with joints and nodes
selected to realistically model the stiffness and inertia effects of the structure. Each
joints or nodes should have six degrees of freedom, three translational and three
rotational. The structural mass should be with a minimum of three translational
inertia terms.
The modal solution natural frequencies and mode shapes is needed to calculate the
spectrum solution. Type of modal Analysis :
a. Subspace
b. Block Lanczos
c. Power Dynamics
d. Reduced
e. Unsymmetric
f. Damped
g. QR Damped
But in all of the method the subspace, Block Lanczos, or reduced method are used to
extract the modes. The other methods unsymmetric, damped, and Power Dynamics
are not valid for subsequent spectrum analysis.
Seismic design of simple bridges 28
The excitation direction for a single-point response spectrum was declared for
spectrum analysis and it was global X, Y or Z direction.
The response spectrum to be used in the dynamic analysis shall be any one of the
following:
• Site Specific Design Spectra : A site specific response spectra shall be developed
based on the geologic, tectonic, seismologic, and soil characteristics associated with
the specific site. The spectra shall be developed For a damping ratio of 0.05 unless a
different value is found to be consistent with the expected structural behavior at the
intensity of vibration established for the site.
Seismic design of simple bridges 29
All significant modes must be included in the analysis of response spectrum. The
modes that are considered, at least 90 per cent of the participating mass of the
structure is included in the calculation of response for each principal horizontal
direction. To review mode shapes in the postprocessor, the modes must be expand.
Expanded modes are also required for subsequent spectrum analyses. In the single
Seismic design of simple bridges 30
point response spectrum (SPRS) and Dynamic Design analysis method (DDAM), the
modal expansion can be performed after the spectrum analysis, based on the
significance factor SIGNIF on the MXPAND command. To perform modal
expansion after the spectrum analysis, choose NO for mode expansion (MXPAND).
No expansion is necessary for subsequent mode superposition analyses.
The peak member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears, and base
reactions for each mode shall be combined using established procedures in order to
estimate resultant maximum values of these response parameters. When three
dimensional models are used for analysis, modal interaction effects shall be
considered when combining modal maximum.
LOAD CASE 1
V Z D= 1.0 | V Z L |+0.3| V Z T |
V Y D= 1.0 | V Y L |+0.3| V Y Z |
M Z D= 1.0 | M Z L |+0.3| M T Z |
M Y D= 1.0 | M Y L |+0.3| M Y Z |
LOAD CASE 2
V Z D= 0.3 | V Z L |+1.0| V Z T |
V Y D= 0.3 | V Y L |+1.0| V Y T |
M Z D= 0.3 | M Z L |+1.0| M Z T |
M Y D= 0.3 | M Y L |+1.0| M Y T |
The symbol | | denotes the absolute value or the magnitude of the force or
moment without regard to its sign since a seismic force can act in either direction.
of the individual modal contributions thus provides an upper bound which is generally
conservative and not recommended for design. A satisfactory estimate of a maximum
value of a force or displacement can be obtained by taking the square root of the sum of
the squares (SRSS) of the individual modal response. The SRSS method is generally
applicable to most bridges; however there are some bridges with unusual geometric
features which cause some of the individual modes to have closely spaced periods to
which this method may not be applicable. There are several methods currently available
and new methods are emerging for combining these closely spaced modes.
Seismic design of simple bridges 33
CHAPTER 3
MODELING AND METHODOLOGY FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The development of the finite element method as an analysis tool was essentially
initiated with the advent of electronic digital computer. Using finite element
method on a digital computer it is possible to establish and solve governing
equations of complex systems in a very effective way.
The actual work regarding the finite element modeling of a three span deck girder
bridge has been described in detail in this chapter. Representation of various physical
elements with the FEM (Finite Element Modeling) elements, properties assigned to
them, boundary condition, material behavior, analysis type have also been
discussed. The various obstacles faced during modeling, material behavior used
and details of finite element meshing were also discussed in detail.
Of these we have used the package ANSYS .ANSYS Finite Element analysis
software enables engineers to perform the following the tasks.
Build computer models or CAD models of structures, products,
component and systems.
Apply operating loads and other design performance conditions
Modeling and methodology for numerical analysis 34
The ANSYS has a comprehensive graphical user interface (GUI) that gives user
easy, interactive access to program functions, commands, documentation and
reference material. An intuitive menu system helps users navigate through the
ANSYS program. Users can input data using a mouse, a keyboard, or a combination
of both.
SHELL 63 Elastic Shell : SHELL 63 Elastic Shell is used for the 3D modeling of
the structure. The element has both bending and membrane capabilities. Both in
plane and normal loads are permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at
each node; translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the
nodal x, y, z axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities are included.
A consistent tangent stiffness matrix option is available for use in large deflection
(Finite rotation) analyses.
I n p u t data : The geometry, node locations, co-ordinate system for this element are
shown in figure 3.2. The element is defined by four nodes, four links or a group of
coupled nodes. A summary of the element input is given in TABLE 3.1
Assumptions a n d restrictions: Zero area elements are not allowed. This occurs
most often whenever the elements are not numbered properly. Zero thickness
elements or elements tapering down to a zero thickness at any corner are not
allowed. The applied transverse thermal gradient is assumed to vary linearly
through the thickness and vary bilinearly over the shell surface. The four nodes
defining the elements should lie in an exact flat plane; however, a small out of plan
tolerance is permitted so that the element may have a slightly wrapped shape.
Modeling and methodology for numerical analysis 37
I n p u t data- The geometry, node locations, and coordinate systems for this element
are shown in figure 3.3. The element is defined by two or three nodes, the cross
sectional area, two area moments of inertia (IZZ and IYY) , two thickness (TKY,
and TKZ), an angle of orientation about the element X-axis, the torsional moment of
inertia (IXX), and the material properties. BEAM-4 input summary is given in Table
3.2
Assumptions and restrictions- The beam must not have a zero length or area. The
moment of inertia, however, may be zero if large deflections are not used. The beam
can have any cross sectional shape for which the moment of inertia can be computed.
We have modeled a three span simple deck girder bridge for analysis of seismic load
using three dimensional finite element analyses. To investigate the bridge
displacement under both longitudinal and transverse seismic loading, boundary
condition at the end of the slab was applied. At the two ends of the slab, V y = 0
and V z = 0 were applied at the midpoint of the two ends. For the column fixed
support was provided. Here all the six degrees of freedom were made zero.
Modeling and methodology for numerical analysis 40
For the space frame analysis the bridge was modeled as 3D Frame using the BEAM4
3D Elastic element. When the slab was modeled with the BEAM4 element the
moment of inertia of the cross section of the bridge was used as the input moment of
inertia. For modeling the cross girder in the bent the modulus of elasticity of the
material was used 20×10 3 0 N/m 2 which is much greater than that of concrete. This
was done to provide high rigidity, and stiffness at the bent. The boundary condition at
the two end of the slab was V y =0 and V z =0 and for the column all degrees of
freedom are equal to zero. In the figure 3.4 the frame model of the bridge was given.
Modeling and methodology for numerical analysis 41
FEM is the outlines of the elements used to model the object of interest. To outline
of the mesh should give the appropriate view of the object being modeled. Mesh size
can vary in the analysis of a single structure. Different mesh arrangements generally
give slightly varying solutions. In fact in real life problems mesh is constantly refined
to get a consistent and representative solution.
According to the literature of FEM the finer the mesh in an idealization, the smaller
are the elements and the better the solution. But this has practical constraints
because a very fine mesh requires tremendous computational effort which may
justified as difficult to deliver even by the mainstream desktop computers.
Another point is that, which element having higher order shape functions the
degree of gain in accuracy diminishes after a certain level of fineness in mesh
discretization. In fact there are a few elements which give exact solution even for
only one element discretization such as beam elements: Thus, it is not always
Modeling and methodology for numerical analysis 42
necessary to use a very fine mesh at the expanse of huge computer memory and
computational time.
It is to be noted here that no mesh is usually the ultimate one, giving exact solution.
A refinement of the mesh is within the scope of further studies and may be selected
on the basis of its approximation of the true result.
4 . 1 I N T RODUCTION
In this section the detail seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge,
described and modeled in the previous section has been investigated according to
AASHTO code using 3D frame model and a comprehensive 3D finite element
model of the bridge.
LOAD CASE 2: Seismic forces and moments on each of the principal axes of a member
shall be obtained by adding 100% of the absolute value of the member elastic seismic
forces and moment resulting from the analysis in the second perpendicular (transverse)
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 45
direction to 30% of the absolute value of the corresponding member elastic forces and
moments resulting from the analysis in the first perpendicular direction (longitudinal).
STEP 1 Neglecting axial deformation in the deck and assuming that the deck behaves
as a rigid member, the bridge may be idealized as shown in the figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Structural idealization and application of assumed uniform loading for
longitudinal mode of vibration
Note that the bridge is idealized so that the abutment does not contribute to the
longitudinal stiffness. This was done for the purpose of simplicity and in this case
the resulting forces on the substructure are more conservative. Applying the
assumed uniform loading yields a constant displacement Vs(x) = V s along the
bridge. Assuming that the columns alone resist the longitudinal motion, the
displacement is obtained by using a column stiffness of 12EI/H3 in the longitudinal
direction. Using the column properties, the stiffness for bents 2 and 3 denoted in figure 4.1
as K1 and K2, respectively, are calculated as:
12 EI 3 × 12 × 10 9 × 2.092
K1 = K 2 = 3 = = 176496940.9 N / m
H3 7.62 3
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 46
P0 L 1 × 109.725
Vs = = = 3.11 × 10 −7 m
K 1 + K 2 2 × 176496940.9
W(x)=2645x9.81x18.25=473540.96N/m
Theα, β and γ factors are then calculated by evaluating the integrals in
equations. For this case, both the dead weight per unit length of the superstructure,
W(x), and the displacement, Vs (x) are constant thus simplifying the integration and
yielding:
abut 4
α =∫ V ( s )dx = 3.11 × 10 −7 × 109.725 = 3.41 × 10 −5 m 2
abut1
abut 4
β =∫ W ( x)Vs ( x)dx = WVsL
abut1
=473540.96x 3.11x10–7x109.725
=16.16N–m
abut 4
γ =∫ W ( x)Vs ( x)dx = WVs2 L
abut1
= 473540.96×(3.11×10-7)2×109.725
=5.03×10-6 N-m2
γ 5.03 × 10 −6
T = 2π = 2π = 0.77 sec
PO gα 1 × 9.81 × 3.41 × 10 −5
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 47
STEP 4 The elastic seismic response coefficient Cs is obtained from equation 2.18.
Substituting for A, S, and T yields:
C s =1.2*0.4*1.2/(0.77) 2/3 =0.69
Since the seismic response coefficient does not exceed 2.5A (2.5*0.4= 1.0),so use
Cs = 0.69 ;the intensity of the seismic loading expressed by equation 2.17 is therefore
βCs
Pe( x) = w( x)v5 ( x)
γ
=326468 N/m
=326.468 N/mm
STEP 5 Applying the equivalent static loading as shown in the figure 4.2 and
determine the longitudinal earthquake loading which are tabulated in table 4.1. For
this purpose we used frame model of the bridge and analysis was done by ANSYS.
Figure 4.2 Three span bridge subjected to longitudinal equivalent static seismic
loading
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 48
Table 4.1 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M y´y´ Px´
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
shear) KN moment)KN-m shear) KN moment)KN-m force)KN
abut 4
α =∫ Vs ( x)dx =3.05x3.52807x10-6=1.076x10-5 m2
abut1
abut 4
β =∫ W ( x)Vs( x) dx = 3.05x473540.96x3.52807x10-6=5.096 N-m
abut1
abut 4
γ =∫ W ( x)Vs( x) 2 dx = 3.05x473540.96x4.095x10-13=5.914x10-7 N-m2
abut1
γ 5.914e − 7
T = 2π = 2π = 0.47 sec
P0 gα 1 × 9.81 × 1.076e − 5
STEP 4 The elastic seismic response coefficient, CS is obtained from the equation 2.18
This is not greater than 2.5A, therefore we use Cs=.953 the intensity of seismic
loading is calculated using equation 2.17
βC 5
Pe( x ) = w( x )v5 ( x )
γ
5.096 × .953 × 473540.96 × Vs ( x)
=
5.914e − 7
=3.89e12 V(x) N / m
Using this expression, the load intensity at the span 1/36 points is computed and
tabulated as shown in Table 4.7
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 50
STEP 5: Applying the equivalent static loading as shown in figure 4.4. Yields
themember end forces due to the transverse earthquake loading shown in
table4.3. Themember forces are obtained using ANSYS.
Figure 4.4 Three span bridge subjected to transverse equivalent static seismic
loading
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 51
Table 4.2 Displacements and seismic loading intensity for transverse loading
DISPLACEMENT
SEISMIC LOADING
DISPLACEMENT FROM DUE TO UNIFORM AASHTO SEISMIC
INTENSITY Pe(x) (N/m)
ABUTMENT 1(m) TRANSVERSE LOAD ALONG Z (N)
=3.89x1012xVs(x)
LOADING Vs(x) (m)
Table 4.3 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion
Vy M z΄z΄ V z΄ My y
Member dead load forces are determined by using the shell model of the bridge and
the analysis is done by using ANSYS. Member dead load forces are shown in the
Table 4.4
Table 4.5 Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2
Centre column
Outer column
Vy'(Longitudinal 1.0*1289.396+0.3*247.6
shear) KN =1363.68 634.42
Mz´z´(Longitudinal 1.0*1024.29+0.3*198.416
moment) KN-m =1083.81 505.703
Px΄(Axial ±(1.0*105.27+0.3*903.95
force)KN =± 376.46 ±935.53
1.0*2.584+0.3*1910.73
Vz´ ( Transverse =575.803 1911.51
shear) KN
1.0*1.081 + 0.3*1506.24
My´y´(Transverse =452.953 1506.56
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 54
moment) KN-m
=1607.879 KN-m
M = M Z / Z / + M Y /Y /
2 2
The different mode shapes, frequencies, natural period of vibration, was determined
in this section. For the modal analysis Block Lanczos method was used. The
different mode of vibrations is given here. The time period and frequencies are
given in Table 4.6. Different from modal analysis was showed in fig4.5 to
fig 4.18.
5 2.8069 0.3563
6 3.1696 0.3155
7 3.6142 0.2767
8 3.8531 0.2595
9 4.1557 0.2406
10 4.4485 0.2248
11 5.0191 0.1992
12 5.2799 0.1894
13 5.4191 0.1845
14 5.6421 0.1772
For the analysis of the three span deck girder bridge Uniform Building Code
(UBC) 1994 Response Spectrum Function was used.
Parameter Value
Acceleration Coefficient (A) 0.40
Site Effects 1.20
Importance Classification (IC) I
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 64
Function Graph :
The function graph area displays a graph of the function. Function area displays the
period and spectral acceleration values for the function.
2Π 2Π
2
PSV= SD PSA= SD
T T
Table 4.8 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yy´ Px´
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force) KN
Table 4.9 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yy´ Px´
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force) KN
Mz΄z = 1.0(543.318+2813.51)
=3356.83 KN-m
Px΄ = 1.0(4694.32+ 711.082)
= 5405.402 KN or 3983.24 KN
Vz΄ = 1.0 (275.66+ 259.54)
= 535.2 KN
My΄y΄ = 1.0 (696.955 + 191.572)
= 888.527 KN-m
Thus the modified design moment for column
= 3472.43 KN-m
Member dead load forces are determined by using the shell model of the bridge and
the analysis is done by using ANSYS. Member dead load forces are shown in the
Table 4.9
Outer
215.326 543.318 275.66 696.955 4694.32
Column
The seismic load analysis of a Three Span Deck Girder Bridge has been done by
using single mode spectral analysis according to AASHTO code and response
spectrum analysis using ANSYS. In the first step, the original AASHTO
specifications are followed thoroughly and the design seismic forces arc calculated.
In the next step, a more comprehensive 3D model having beam and shell elements is
used in ANSYS to determine the time period and design forces and moment. Then, the
comprehensive model has been subjected to modal analysis and then response spectrum
analysis was performed. Assuming these two steps of analysis as the CASE1,
CASE2 respectively, the comparison among the results is shown in Table 4.9, 4.10.
The results are also compared in Fig 4.20 to Fig 4.31.
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 2.15×102 1.36×103 1.58×103
4.00E+03 3.72E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
3.50E+03 Response spectrum
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
Longitudinal shear(KN)
2.00E+03
1.58E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 2.22×102 1.33×103 1.55×103
4.00E+03 3.80E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
Response spectrum
3.50E+03
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
Longitudinal shear(KN)
2.00E+03
1.55E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00 Case
3.50E+03 3.32E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
Response spectrum
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
Longitudinal moment(KN-m)
2.00E+03
1.62E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 5.61×102 1.05×103 1.61×103
4.00E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
3.50E+03 3.37E+03
Response spectrum
Longitudinal moment(KN-m)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
1.61E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 2.76×102 5.76×102 8.52×102
Response
2.76×102 2.5×102 5.26×102
Spectrum
9.00E+02 8.52E+02
AASHTO Seismic analysis
8.00E+02 Response spectrum
7.00E+02
Transverse shear(KN)
6.00E+02
5.26E+02
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02
2.00E+02
1.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 0 6.2×102 6.2×102
7.00E+02
6.20E+02 AASHTO Seismic analysis
6.00E+02 Response spectrum
Transverse shear(KN)
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02 2.60E+02
2.00E+02
1.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 6.97×102 4.53×102 1.15×103
1.40E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
1.20E+03 1.15E+03 Response spectrum
Transverse moment(KN-m)
1.00E+03 8.89E+02
8.00E+02
6.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 0 4.75×102 4.75×102
5.00E+02 4.75E+02
AASHTO Seismic analysis
4.50E+02 Response spectrum
4.00E+02
3.50E+02
Transverse moment(KN-m)
3.00E+02
2.50E+02
1.97E+02
2.00E+02
1.50E+02
1.00E+02
5.00E+01
0.00E+00
Case
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 4.69×103 3.76×102 5.07×103
5.50E+03 5.18E+03
AASHTO Seismic 5.07E+03
5.00E+03 analysis
Response spectrum
4.50E+03
4.00E+03
3.50E+03
Axial force(KN)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Response
1.11×104 7.11×102 1.18×104
Spectrum
1.30E+04
1.18E+04 AASHTO Seismic
1.20E+04 1.13E+04
analysis
1.10E+04 Response spectrum
1.00E+04
9.00E+03
Axial force (KN)
8.00E+03
7.00E+03
6.00E+03
5.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
0.00E+00
Case
4.00E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis 3.47E+03
3.50E+03 Response spectrum
Design moment (KN-m)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
1.99E+03
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
4.00E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
3.38E+03
3.50E+03 Response spectrum
Design moment (KN-m)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03 1.68E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
5.1 GENERAL
AASHTO recommends some semi analytical procedure to determine the design
seismic forces. According to AASHTO example procedure, equivalent longitudinal
and transverse earthquake load was calculated and applying this load to a three span
deck girder bridge using a 3D frame model and analyze it for design forces of
column. This is the first analysis cases of this thesis paper. In the second case a
Response Spectrum analysis was performed for the same three span deck girder
bridge and design forces calculated according to AASHTO code. Then the forces of
the two cases according to AASHTO example procedure and Response Spectrum
analysis was compared.
The seismic load analysis, the various mode of vibration, the behavior under both
longitudinal and transverse loading condition, deformed shape, time period, stiffness, the
equivalent static seismic load , and the modified design forces of a three span deck
girder bridge have been investigated in this thesis paper. All the specification and
standards used for this purpose are on the basis of AASHTO code. Finite element
modeling and analysis were done for this purpose. In this section the summary of the
thesis and some recommendation for future investigation are given.
5.2 SUMMARY
The important conclusions derived from the study of the three span deck girder bridge
are summarized below.
When the bridge subjected to seismic loading in both longitudinal and transverse
direction, the total lateral load in N/m applied along the centre of mass of the
superstructure may be expressed as a percentage of the gravity load of the bridge
in N/m. It can be said that the lateral load may be equal to or greater then the
dead load of the bridge.
Summary and Conclusion 82
The longitudinal and transverse time period determined from the AASHTO
suggested
single mode spectral analysis method is quite less than the time period obtained
from the modal analysis.
The modal analysis of the bridge was done and various modes of vibration,
frequency and time period were determined by this analysis. This will help us
to understand the behavior of the bridge under seismic load..
Design axial forces are almost equal for both AASHTO seismic analysis and
Response Spectrum analysis.
In Response Spectrum analysis the longitudinal moment of outer column
and centre column was respectively 141% and 140% of AASHTO seismic
analysis. Thus the longitudinal moment for both cases vary significantly.
In Response Spectrum analysis the longitudinal shear forces of outer column
and centre column was respectively 148% and 150% of AASHTO seismic
analysis.
Transverse moment and shear forces for both AASHTO seismic analysis and
Response Spectrum analysis of each column are almost equal.
The bridge structure is analyzed for dead load and earthquake load. Other loads such
as live loads, buoyancy, stream flow pressure, earth pressure may be included.
Summary and Conclusion 83
(Generally, the inertia effects of live loads are not included in the analysis; however,
the design of bridges having high live to dead load ratios located in metropolitan areas
where traffic congestion is likely to occur should consider the probability of a large live
load being on the bridge during an earthquake.)
The CQC method is used in spectral analysis to combine the modes. However there
are some bridges with unusual geometric features which cause some of the
individual modes to have closely spaced periods to which this method may not be
applicable. SRSS, ABS, GMC methods may also be used.
Longitudinal and transverse vibration has been treated separately in this
study. Simultaneous application of horizontal motions in two directions along
with vertical motion considering bi-axial bending of bridge pier may be studied.
More detailed analysis of deck vibration may be performed.
In this study the linear behavior of the material is assumed. A non linear analysis
may be studied.
REFERENCES
FINISH
/CLEAR
SIGNIF=1.0E-10
G=9810 ! ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY
Z=0.15 ! SEISMIC ZONE COEFFICIENT FOR ZONE 2
R=1 ! RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR FOR MULTIPLE COLUMN
! BENT
NSPAN=3 ! NO. OF SPAN
NBAY =2 ! NO. OF BAY
DIVX=SPAN*3/36
/PREP7
ET,1,BEAM4
ET,2,SHELL63
R,1,CA,CIX,CIY,CD,CD,,,CIZ
R,2,LGA,LGIX,LGIY,LGW,LGD,,,LGIZ
R,3,CGA,CGIX,CGIY,CGW,CGD,,,CGIZ
R,4,SLABT
R,5,LGA,LGIX,LGIY,LGW,LGD,,,LGIZ
R,6,CGA,CGIX,CGIY,CGW,CGD,,,CGIZ
MP,EX,1,YOUNG
MP,PRXY,1,0.2
MP,DENS,1,DENST
K,1,0,0,0
K,2,SPAN,0,0
K,3,2*SPAN,0,0
K,4,3*SPAN,0,0
KSEL,ALL
KGEN,2,ALL,,,,CH
L,2,6
Ansys script file 87
L,3,7
L,5,6
L,6,7
L,7,8
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH,CH
LGEN,NDIV+1,ALL,,,,,GS
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH/2,CH/2
LGEN,3,ALL,,,,,BAY
L,KP(0,CH,0),KP(0,CH,BAY)
L,KP(0,CH,BAY),KP(0,CH,2*BAY)
L,KP(SPAN,CH,0),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY)
L,KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,2*BAY)
L,KP(2*SPAN,CH,0),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY)
L,KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,2*BAY)
L,KP(3*SPAN,CH,0),KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY)
L,KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,2*BAY)
LSEL,ALL
A,KP(0,CH,0),KP(0,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,0)
A,KP(0,CH,BAY),KP(0,CH,2*BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY)
A,KP(SPAN,CH,0),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,0)
A,KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY)
A,KP(2*SPAN,CH,0),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,0)
A,KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY)
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH,CH
LSEL,A,LOC,X,SPAN,SPAN
LSEL,A,LOC,X,2*SPAN,2*SPAN
LESIZE,ALL,,,12,,1
ALLSEL,ALL
TYPE,2
MAT,1
!! MESHING SLAB :-
REAL,4
ASEL,S,LOC,Y,CH,CH
AMESH,ALL
TYPE,1
MAT,1
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,BAY/2,BAY/2
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,3/2*BAY,3/2*BAY
LSEL,U,LOC,X,0,0
LMESH,ALL
REAL,2
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,X,SPAN/2,SPAN/2
LSEL,A,LOC,X,3/2*SPAN,3/2*SPAN
LSEL,A,LOC,X,5/2*SPAN,5/2*SPAN
LSEL,U,LOC,Z,BAY*2,BAY*2
LMESH,ALL
!! MESHING COLUMNS :-
REAL,1
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH/2,CH/2
LMESH,ALL
REAL,5
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,BAY*2,BAY*2
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,CH,CH
LMESH,ALL
REAL,6
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,X,0,0
LMESH,ALL
ALLSEL,ALL
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,0,0
D,ALL,ALL,0
NSEL,NONE
NSEL,S,LOC,X,0,0
NSEL,A,LOC,X,3*SPAN,3*SPAN
NSEL,U,LOC,Z,BAY,BAY
D,ALL,UY,0
NSEL,NONE
NSEL,S,LOC,X,0,0
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,BAY,BAY
NSEL,A,LOC,X,SPAN*3,SPAN*3
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,BAY,BAY
D,ALL,UY,0
D,ALL,UZ,0
ALLSEL,ALL
/SOLU
ACEL,0,G,0
FINISH
/POST1
FINISH
/SOLU
FINISH
/SOLU
FREQ,1/10,1/8,1/7,1/5,1/4,1/3
SV,0.05,0.2288,0.286,0.327,0.4576,0.572,0.7627
FREQ,1/2.5,1/1.8,1/1.6,1/1.4,1/1.2,1/0.915,1/0.00001
SV,0.05,0.915,1.271,1.43,1.635,1.91,2.5,2.5
DMPRAT,0.05
SOLVE
FINISH
Ansys script file 91
/POST1
FINISH
/SOLU
DMPRAT,0.05
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
FINISH
/SOLU
DMPRAT,0.05
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
!!! **** PROCESSING TO GET SUPPORT REACTIONS FOR DIFFERENT LOAD CASE
!COMBINATIONS :-
/POST1
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3
Ansys script file 95
LCFACT,1,1.05 ! FACTORING DL CASE WITH 1.05
LCFACT,3,1.4 ! FACTORING EQX CASE WITH 1.4
LCOPER,ADD,1 ! ADDING LOAD CASE 1 INTO MEMORY
LCOPER,ADD,3 ! ADDING LOAD CASE 3 WITH THE EXISTING DATA OF MEMORY
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4
/ESHAPE,1.0
PLDISP,1
Ansys script file 96
!! IDENTIFICATION OF THE LOAD CASES :-
!LC_1=DL;
!LC_2=EQ_X;
!LC_3=EQ_Y;
!LC_4=EQ_Z;
!LC_11=DL+EQ_X;
!LC_12=DL-EQ_X;
!LC_13=DL+EQ_Y;
!LC_14=DL-EQ_Y;
!LC_15=DL+EQ_Z;
!LC_16=DL-EQ_Z;
!LC_21=1.O5DL+1.4EQ_X;
!LC_22=1.O5DL-1.4EQ_X;
!LC_23=1.O5DL+1.4EQ_Y;
!LC_24=1.O5DL-1.4EQ_Y;
!LC_25=1.O5DL+1.4EQ_Z;
!LC_26=1.O5DL-1.4EQ_Z;
*CFOPEN,LCRESULT,TXT
*DO,LOADCASE,1,4,1
LCA=LOADCASE
*DO,NOM,0,2,1
*GET,RXA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FX
*GET,RYA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FY
*GET,RZA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FZ
*GET,MXA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MX
*GET,MYA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MY
*GET,MZA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCA,BAY*NOM,RXA/1000,RYA/1000,RZA/1000,MXA*1E-6,MYA*1E-6,MZA*1E-6
*ENDDO
Ansys script file 97
*DO,MON,0,2,1
*GET,RXB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FX
*GET,RYB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FY
*GET,RZB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FZ
*GET,MXB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MX
*GET,MYB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MY
*GET,MZB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCA,BAY*MON,RXB/1000,RYB/1000,RZB/1000,MXB*1E-6,MYB*1E-6,MZB*1E-6
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
FINISH
*DO,LDCASE,11,16,1
LC=LDCASE
*DO,NOM,0,2,1
*GET,RXC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FX
*GET,RYC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FY
*GET,RZC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FZ
*GET,MXC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MX
*GET,MYC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MY
*GET,MZC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LC,BAY*NOM,RXC/1000,RYC/1000,RZC/1000,MXC*1E-6,MYC*1E-6,MZC*1E-6
*ENDDO
*DO,MON,0,2,1
*GET,RXD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FX
*GET,RYD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FY
*GET,RZD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FZ
*GET,MXD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MX
*GET,MYD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MY
Ansys script file 98
*GET,MZD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LC,BAY*MON,RXD/1000,RYD/1000,RZD/1000,MXD*1E-6,MYD*1E-6,MZD*1E-6
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
*DO,LODCASE,21,26,1
LCC=LODCASE
*GET,RXE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FX
*GET,RYE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FY
*GET,RZE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FZ
*GET,MXE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MX
*GET,MYE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MY
*GET,MZE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCC,NOM*BAY,RXE/1000,RYE/1000,RZE/1000,MXE*1E-6,MYE*1E-6,MZE*1E-6
*ENDDO
*DO,MON,0,2,1
*GET,RXF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FX
*GET,RYF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FY
*GET,RZF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FZ
*GET,MXF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MX
*GET,MYF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MY
*GET,MZF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCC,MON*BAY,RXF/1000,RYF/1000,RZF/1000,MXF*1E-6,MYF*1E-6,MZF*1E-6
*ENDDO
*ENDDO
Ansys script file 99
*CFCLOS ! CLOSING FILE
/REPLOT
FINISH
/SOLU
ESEL,S,REAL,,5
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRES,UDL
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
*CFOPEN,DISPZOUT,TXT
*DO,NMB,0,36,1
XX=DIVX*NMB
*GET,DSP36,NODE,NODE(XX,CH,0),U,Z
*VWRITE,DSP36/1000,XX/1000
*ENDDO
FINISH
/SOLU
!! **** APPLYING POINT FORCES ALONG_Z FOR AASHTO_Z:- ( OBTAINED FROM HAND
!CALCULATION )
F,NODE(0,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-21967.12
F,NODE(3050,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-225852.622
F,NODE(6100,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-393248.8525
F,NODE(9140,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-553834.86
F,NODE(12190,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-707219.116
F,NODE(15240,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-850281.257
F,NODE(18290,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-981597.543
F,NODE(21340,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1100645.936
Ansys script file 100
F,NODE(24380,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1207438.301
F,NODE(27430,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1302306.843
F,NODE(30480,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1385643.091
F,NODE(33530,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1458265.695
F,NODE(36580,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1520993.307
F,NODE(39620,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1582570.062
F,NODE(42670,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1636055.228
F,NODE(45720,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1677960.642
F,NODE(48770,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1708369.355
F,NODE(51820,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1726747.466
F,NODE(54860,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1732893.277
F,NODE(57910,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1726747.466
F,NODE(60960,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1708369.355
F,NODE(64010,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1677960.642
F,NODE(67060,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1636055.228
F,NODE(70100,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1582570.062
F,NODE(73150,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1520993.307
F,NODE(76200,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1458265.695
F,NODE(79250,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1385643.091
F,NODE(82300,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1302306.843
F,NODE(85340,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1207438.301
F,NODE(88390,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1100645.936
F,NODE(91440,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-981597.543
F,NODE(94490,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-850281.257
F,NODE(97540,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-707219.116
F,NODE(100580,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-553834.86
F,NODE(103630,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-393248.8525
F,NODE(106680,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-225852.622
F,NODE(109725,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-21967.12
SOLVE
FINISH
!! ****** PRINTING DATAS OF REACTION FORCES OF INNER & OUTER COLUMNS FOR
!AASHTO_Z :-
/POST1
*CFOPEN,RACTNZOUT,TXT
*GET,RXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MY
*GET,MZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MZ
*GET,RXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MY
Ansys script file 101
*GET,MZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,RXOO/1000,RYOO/1000,RZOO/1000,MXOO*1E-6,MYOO*1E-6,MZOO*1E-6, RXII/1000,
RYII/1000,RZII/1000,MXII*1E-6,MYII*1E-6,MZII*1E-6
("REACTIONFORCES:RXO :",F12.3," RYO : ",F12.3," RZO : ",F12.3," MXO : ",F12.3," MYO : ",
F12.3, " MZO : ",F12.3," RXI : ",F12.3," RYI : ",F12.3," RZI : ",F12.3," MXI : ",F12.3," MYI : ",F12.3,
" MZI : ",F12.3)
FINISH
/SOLU
ESEL,S,REAL,,6
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRES,UDL
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
!!! ****** APPLYING UNL_X FOR AASHTO_X :- ( OBTAINED FROM HAND CALCULATION)
/SOLU
ESEL,S,REAL,,6
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRES,326.47 ! UNL IN N/MM
FINISH
!! ****** PRINTING DATAS OF REACTION FORCES OF INNER & OUTER COLUMNS FOR
!AASHTO_X :-
/POST1
*CFOPEN,RACTNZOUT,TXT
*GET,RXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MY
*GET,MZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MZ
*GET,RXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MY
Ansys script file 102
*GET,MZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,RXOO/1000,RYOO/1000,RZOO/1000,MXOO*1E-6,MYOO*1E-6,MZOO*1E-6, RXII/1000,
RYII/1000,RZII/1000,MXII*1E-6,MYII*1E-6,MZII*1E-6
("REACTIONFORCES:RXO :",F12.3," RYO : ",F12.3," RZO : ",F12.3," MXO : ",F12.3," MYO : ",
F12.3, " MZO : ",F12.3," RXI : ",F12.3," RYI : ",F12.3," RZI : ",F12.3," MXI : ",F12.3," MYI : ",F12.3,
" MZI : ",F12.3)
FINISH
APPENDIX B
Data Tables used for the Analysis
Table B1: Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion
(AASHTO)
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M y´y´ Px´
(Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
Location
shear) KN moment)KN-m shear) KN moment)KN-m force)KN
Table B2: Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion (AASHTO)
Vy M z΄z΄ V z΄ My y
Table B4: Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2
Load combination Load combination
Centre column
M Z ΄ Z ΄ (Longitudinal
1.0*1045.48+ 0.3*3.072
moment)KN-m
=1046.4 316.72
± (1.0*172.426 + 0.3*13.64)
Px΄(Axial Force) KN
= ±176.52 ± 65.37
Vz´(Transverse shear) 1.0*0+0.3*2066.88
KN =620.064 2066.88
My´y´(Transverse 1.0*0 + 0.3*1581.64
moment)KN-m =474.5 1581.64
Outer column
Mz´z´(Longitudinal 1.0*1024.29+0.3*198.416
moment) KN-m =1083.81 505.703
Px΄(Axial force)KN ±(1.0*105.27+0.3*903.95
=± 376.46 ±935.53
Vz´ ( Transverse 1.0*2.584+0.3*1910.73
shear) KN =575.803 1911.51
Table B6 : Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion( Response
spectrum)
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yy´ Px´
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial force)
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m KN
Table B7 : Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion( Response
spectrum)
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yy´ Px´
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force)
KN