Abstract
Sensitivity analysis has become an important tool to quantify simulated structural response variability that arises from uncertain model properties and modeling assumptions. Sensitivity with respect to column, superstructure, and abutment modeling parameters was computed for two ordinary standard reinforced concrete bridges considering nonlinear static and dynamic analysis in SAP2000 and OpenSees. The sensitivity computations used finite differences for all model responses as well as a new hybrid approach that uses direct differentiation of the element and structural response and local finite differences for the material response. In addition to model properties, dynamic response sensitivity was obtained by changing the hysteretic unloading/reloading rule for the steel and concrete constitutive models used in the columns. The sensitivity analyses indicate that even though the nominal static and dynamic responses can be matched between two software packages, the responses remain highly sensitive to the hysteretic model assumptions and to variations in material properties.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the California Department of Transportation under contract #65A0559. 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
Al-Aukaily, A., and M. H. Scott. 2018. “Sensitivity analysis for displacement-controlled finite-element analyses.” J. Struct. Eng. 144 (3): 04017222. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001983.
Bolin, R., and L. Stanford. 2006. The Northridge earthquake: Vulnerability and disaster. New York: Routledge.
CSI (Computer & Structures, Inc.). 2017. CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000, ETABS, SAFE, and CSIBridge. Berkeley, CA: Computer & Structures, Inc.
Franchin, P. 2004. “Reliability of uncertain inelastic structures under earthquake excitation.” J. Eng. Mech. 130 (2): 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:2(180).
Fung, G. G., R. J. Lebeau, E. E. Klein, J. Belverder, and A. Goldschmidt. 1971. Field investigation of bridge damage in the San Fernando earthquake. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
Ghotbi, A. R. 2014. “Performance-based seismic assessment of skewed bridges with and without considering soil-foundation interaction effects for various site classes.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 13 (3): 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0248-7.
Haukaas, T., and A. Der Kiureghian. 2007. “Methods and object-oriented software for FE reliability and sensitivity analysis with application to a bridge structure.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 21 (3): 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2007)21:3(151).
Kiran, R., L. Li, and K. Khandelwal. 2017. “Complex perturbation method for sensitivity analysis of nonlinear trusses.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (1): 04016154. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001619.
Kleiber, M., H. Antunez, T. D. Hien, and P. Kowalczyk. 1997. Parameter sensitivity in nonlinear mechanics. Theory and finite element computations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kostic, S. M., and F. C. Filippou. 2012. “Section discretization of fiber beam-column elements for cyclic inelastic response.” J. Struct. Eng. 138 (5): 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000501.
Kunnath, S. K. 2007. Application of the PEER PBEE methodology to the I-880 viaduct. Rep. No. 2006/10. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Lu, J., A. Elgamal, and K. R. Mackie. 2015. Parametric study of ordinary standard bridges using OpenSees and CSiBridge. Rep. No. SSRP14/03. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation, Univ. of California.
Mackie, K., M. Scott, and A. Rodriguez. 2020. Nonlinear time history analysis accuracy with a focus on column plasticity and cyclic degradation. Rep. No. CA21-3166. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Transportation.
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): 04019011. 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. Rep. No. CA17-2755. Sacramento, CAV: California Department of Transportation.
Mackie, K. R., and B. Stojadinović. 2005. Fragility basis for California highway overpass brige seismic decision making. Rep. No. June. 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.
Pan, Y., A. K. Agrawal, M. Ghosn, and S. Alampalli. 2010. “Seismic fragility of multispan simply supported steel highway bridges in New York State. I: Bridge modeling, parametric analysis, and retrofit design.” J. Bridge Eng. 15 (5): 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000085.
Priestley, N. M. J., F. Seible, and G. M. Calvi. 1996. Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rodriguez, A. F. 2020. “Bias and sensitivity of nonlinear models for seismic response of ordinary standard bridges.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida.
Rodriguez, A. F., K. R. Mackie, and M. H. Scott. 2022. “Consistent software-specific nonlinear dynamic response of highway bridges.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 27 (2): 04022003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000682.
Scott, M. H., and T. Haukaas. 2008. “Software framework for parameter updating and finite-element response sensitivity analysis.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 22 (5): 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2008)22:5(281).
Sullivan, I., and B. G. Nielson. 2010. “Sensitivity analysis of seismic fragility curves for skewed multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges.” In Proc., Structures Congress 2010, 226–237. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Zhang, Y., and A. Der Kiureghian. 1993. “Dynamic response sensitivity of inelastic structures.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 108 (1–2): 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(93)90151-M.
Zhao, Q., R. Vasheghani-Farahani, and E. G. Burdette. 2011. “Seismic analysis of integral abutment bridges including soil-structure interaction.” In Proc., Structures Congress 2011, 289–303. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 28 • Issue 7 • July 2023
Copyright
© 2023 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 7, 2022
Accepted: Mar 10, 2023
Published online: Apr 28, 2023
Published in print: Jul 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Sep 28, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
- Analysis (by type)
- Bridge engineering
- Bridges
- Bridges (by material)
- Computer models
- Concrete
- Concrete bridges
- Dynamic models
- Dynamic properties
- Engineering fundamentals
- Engineering materials (by type)
- Material mechanics
- Material properties
- Materials engineering
- Models (by type)
- Reinforced concrete
- Sensitivity analysis
- Structural behavior
- Structural engineering
- Structural models
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.