Consistent Software-Specific Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Highway Bridges
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 27, Issue 2
Abstract
Compared to linear analysis approaches, nonlinear analysis of bridge models under large seismic demands has enabled more realistic prediction of global and local responses. However, the sensitivity to modeling assumptions, element and material formulations, software-dependent implementations, and parameter selection may lead to variable results between nonlinear analysis software packages. While previous work has led to a better understanding of how to model nonlinear static response of bridge components and systems, seismic loads and the corresponding material hysteresis introduce additional sources of variability in the nonlinear response. Two ordinary standard bridges in California were analyzed using simplified steel and concrete constitutive models in concentrated plasticity elements for the columns and nonlinear gap-link springs for the abutments. The models were implemented in SAP2000 and OpenSees and calibrated to achieve common material, section, and element-level nonlinear static responses. Subsequently, the models were extended to seismic excitation with common unloading-reloading rules for the material models as well as common definitions for damping and mass. Analysis results showed consistent drift, base shear, and moment-curvature response histories between the software packages. However, the nonlinear seismic response sensitivity for alternative column hinge formulations and abutment models should be investigated in future studies.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Jupyter Notebooks for the OSB1 and OSB2 models in OpenSees are available for download from http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/∼mhscott. Some or all data and SAP2000 inputs for all bridge models that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the California Department of Transportation under contract #65A0679. The views and findings reported here are those of the authors alone. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This study does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
References
Aviram, A., K. Mackie, and B. Stojadinovic. 2008. Guidelines of nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Bolin, R., and L. Stanford. 2006. The Northridge earthquake: Vulnerability and disaster. London: Routledge.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Seismic design criteria version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: Caltrans.
CSI (Computer & Structures, Inc.). 2017. CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETAPS, SAFE, and CSIBridge. Berkeley, CA: CSI.
Ding, L., H. Hao, Y. Xia, and A. J. Deeks. 2012. “Evaluation of bridge load carrying capacity using updated finite element model and nonlinear analysis.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (10): 1739–1750. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.10.1739.
EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute). 1989. Loma Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. San Francisco: EERI.
Fenves, G. L., and M. Ellery. 1998. Behavior and failure analysis of a multiple-frame highway bridge in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Fung, G., R. Lebeau, E. Klein, J. Belverder, and A. Goldschmidt. 1971. Field investigation of bridge damage in the San Fernando earthquake. Sacramento, CA: California DOT.
Hajishemi, A., S. Pezeshk, and T. Huff. 2017. “Comparison of nonlinear static procedures and modeling assumptions for the seismic design of ordinary bridges.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 22 (2): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000309.
Hilber, H. M., T. J. R. Hughes, and R. Taylor. 1977. “Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 5 (Jul): 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290050306.
Jeremić, B., S. Kunnath, and F. Xiong. 2004. “Influence of soil-foundation-structure interaction on seismic response of the I-880 viaduct.” Eng. Struct. 26 (3): 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2003.10.011.
Kappos, A. J., and E. Dimitrakopoulos. 2005. “Analysis and assessment of a seismically isolated bridge.” WIT Trans. Built Environ. 81 (11): 625–635.
Kaviani, P., F. Zareian, and E. Taciroglu. 2012. “Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete bridges with skew-angled seat-type abutments.” Eng. Struct. 45 (Dec): 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.013.
Kawashima, K., S. Unjoh, J. I. Hoshikuma, and K. Kosa. 2011. “Damage of bridges due to the 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake.” J. Earthquake Eng. 15 (7): 1036–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2011.575531.
Khan, M. A. 2015. Accelerated bridge construction, best practices and techniques. Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kidarsa, A., M. H. Scott, and C. C. Higgins. 2008. “Analysis of moving loads using force-based finite elements.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 44 (4): 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2007.11.013.
Kunnath, S. K. 2007. Application of the PEER PBEE methodology to the I-880 viaduct. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Kwon, O. S., and A. S. Elnashai. 2008. “Seismic analysis of Meloland road overcrossing using multiplatform simulation software including SSI.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4): 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(651).
Lu, J., A. Elgamal, and K. R. Mackie. 2015. Parametric study of ordinary standard bridges using OpenSees and CSiBridge. Berkeley, CA: California DOT, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Mackie, K. R., and M. H. Scott. 2019. “Implementation of nonlinear elements for seismic response analysis of bridges.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 24 (3): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000420.
Mackie, K. R., M. H. Scott, K. Johnsohn, M. Al-Ramahee, and M. Steijlen. 2017. Nonlinear time history analysis of ordinary standard bridges. Sacramento, CA: California DOT.
Mackie, K. R., J. M. Wong, and B. Stojadinovic. 2008. Integrated probabilistic performance-based evaluation of benchmark reinforced concrete bridges. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Mander, J., M. Priestley, and R. Park. 1988. “Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 114 (8): 1804–1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
McKenna, F., M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves. 2010. “Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 24 (1): 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002.
Mitoulis, S. A. 2012. “Seismic design of bridges with the participation of seat-type abutments.” Eng. Struct. 44 (Nov): 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.033.
Nielson, B. G., and R. DesRoches. 2007. “Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States.” Earthquake Spectra 23 (3): 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2756815.
NIST. 1996. The January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake. Performance of structures, lifelines, and fire protection systems. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
Okasha, N. M., D. M. Frangopol, and A. D. Orcesi. 2012. “Automated finite element updating using strain data for the lifetime reliability assessment of bridges.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 99 (Mar): 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.007.
Omrani, R., B. Mobasher, S. Sheikhakbari, F. Zareian, and E. Taciroglu. 2017. “Variability in the predicted seismic performance of a typical seat-type California bridge due to epistemic uncertainties in its abutment backfill and shear-key models.” Eng. Struct. 148 (Oct): 718–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.018.
Özşahin, E., and G. Pekcan. 2020. “Inelastic seismic response of box-girder bridges due to torsional ground motions.” Eng. Struct. 218 (Sep): 110831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110831.
Pinto, P. E., and P. Franchin. 2010. “Open issues in the seismic design and assessment of bridges.” Earthquake engineering in Europe. Vol. 17 of Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, 311–330. Rome: Springer.
Priestley, N. M. J., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: Wiley.
Rodriguez, A. F. 2020. “Bias and sensitivity of nonlinear models for seismic response of ordinary standard bridges.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida.
Salgado, R. A., and S. Guner. 2018. “A comparative study on nonlinear models for performance-based earthquake engineering.” Eng. Struct. 172 (Oct): 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.034.
Xie, Y., Q. Zheng, C.-S. W. Yang, W. Zhang, R. DesRoches, J. E. Padgett, and E. Taciroglu. 2019. “Probabilistic models of abutment backfills for regional seismic assessment of highway bridges in California.” Eng. Struct. 180 (Feb): 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.058.
Zhang, Y., G. Acero, J. Conte, Z. Yang, and A. Elgamal. 2004. “Seismic reliability assessment of a bridge ground system.” In Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 2978. Tokyo: International Association of Earthquake Engineering.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 27 • Issue 2 • May 2022
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Aug 7, 2021
Accepted: Dec 3, 2021
Published online: Jan 28, 2022
Published in print: May 1, 2022
Discussion open until: Jun 28, 2022
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Alireza Garakaninezhad, Saeed Amiri, Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, Effects of Ground Motion Incident Angle on Inelastic Seismic Demands of Skewed Bridges Subjected to Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 10.1061/PPSCFX.SCENG-1218, 28, 2, (2023).
- Andres F. Rodriguez, Kevin R. Mackie, Michael H. Scott, Nonlinear Response Sensitivity Analysis of Typical Highway Bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, 10.1061/JBENF2.BEENG-6109, 28, 7, (2023).