Implementation of Nonlinear Elements for Seismic Response Analysis of Bridges
Publication: Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 24, Issue 3
Abstract
General purpose finite-element software tools have put nonlinear analysis within an engineer’s reach for the assessment of bridge response to seismic loading. Although these tools can capture strength, ductility, and nonlinear material and geometric effects more accurately than response spectrum or linear methods, the response is extremely sensitive to modeling techniques, even when the same input parameters for bridge geometry and material properties are used in different software packages. The resulting discrepancies in nonlinear response are due to mathematical formulations of the element response, for example, concentrated or distributed plasticity, and software-dependent implementation of the formulations and their constitutive models. To illustrate the effects of modeling choices and the ability of two widely used software packages, CSiBridge and OpenSees, to reproduce analytical solutions, concentrated and distributed plasticity models were applied to cantilever bridge columns with simplified steel and concrete constitutive models. Discrepancies in stiffness and strength owing to the location and length of plastic hinges can be resolved for these simple component models. The modeling strategies were extended to two ordinary standard bridges designed by Caltrans. Although modal analyses show the bridge models have approximately the same distribution of mass and stiffness in the two software packages, only nominally consistent results can be achieved when using more realistic constitutive models for nonlinear static analyses.
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. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions to the modeling by Munaf Al-Ramahee, Karryn Johnsohn, and Michael Steijlen.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14) and commentary. Rep. No. ACI 318-14. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Addessi, D., and V. Ciampi. 2007. “A regularized force-based beam element with a damage-plastic section constitutive law.” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 70 (5): 610–629. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1911.
Alemdar, B. N., and D. W. White. 2005. “Displacement, flexibility, and mixed beam–column finite element formulations for distributed plasticity analysis.” J. Struct. Eng. 131 (12): 1811–1819. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:12(1811).
ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1996. Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges: provisional recommendations. Rep. No. ATC-32. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
Aviram, A., K. R. Mackie, and B. Stojadinović. 2008. Guidelines for nonlinear analysis of bridge structures in California. Rep. No. PEER-2008/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Berry, M. P., and M. O. Eberhard. 2007. Performance modeling strategies for modern reinforced concrete bridge columns. Rep. No. PEER-2007/07. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Caltrans. 2013. Caltrans seismic design criteria. Version 1.7. Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento.
Cornell, C. A., and H. Krawinkler. 2000. “Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment.” PEER Center News 3 (2): 1–2.
CSI (Computers & Structures, Inc.). 2011. CSI analysis reference manual. Berkeley, CA: CSI.
FEMA. 2000. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report No. FEMA-356. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Fenves, G. L., and M. Ellery. 1998. Behavior and failure analysis of a multiple-frame highway bridge in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Rep. No. PEER 98/08. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Giberson, M. F. 1967. “The response of nonlinear multistory structures subjected to earthquake excitation.” Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology. https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/3604/.
Hajihashemi, A., S. Pezeshk, and T. Huff. 2017. “Comparison of nonlinear static procedures and modeling assumptions for seismic design of ordinary bridges.” Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 22 (2): 04016022. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000309.
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. ed. 2007. Application of the PEER PBEE methodology to the I-880 viaduct. Rep. No. PEER 2006/10. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Mackie, K., M. Scott, K. Johnsohn, M. Al-Ramahee, and M. Steijlen. 2017. Nonlinear time history analysis of ordinary standard bridges. Caltrans Final Rep. No. 17-65A0559. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Univ.
Mackie, K., and B. Stojadinovic. 2003. Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. Rep. No. PEER 2003/16. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Mackie, K., and B. Stojadinović. 2005. Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision making. Rep. No. PEER 2005/02. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California Berkeley.
Neuenhofer, A., and F. C. Filippou. 1997. “Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite-element models.” J. Struct. Eng. 123 (7): 958–966. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:7(958).
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.
Omrani, R., B. Mobasher, X. Liang, S. Günay, K. M. Mosalam, F. Zareian, and E. Taciroglu. 2015. Guidelines for nonlinear seismic analysis of ordinary bridges: Version 2.0. Caltrans Final Rep. No. 15-64A0454. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Berkeley.
Paulay, T., and M. J. N. Priestly. 1992. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley.
Scott, M. H., and G. L. Fenves. 2006. “Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam–column elements.” J. Struct. Eng. 132 (2): 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244).
Scott, M. H., and K. L. Ryan. 2013. “Moment-rotation behavior of force-based plastic hinge elements.” Earthquake Spectra 29 (2): 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000136.
Zareian, F., and H. Krawinkler. 2009. Simplified performance-based earthquake engineering. Rep. No. 169. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ., John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction
Volume 24 • Issue 3 • August 2019
Copyright
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 15, 2018
Accepted: Dec 14, 2018
Published online: Apr 24, 2019
Published in print: Aug 1, 2019
Discussion open until: Sep 24, 2019
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.