International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 6, Issue 10, Oct 2015, pp. 46-61 Article ID: IJCIET_06_10_005
Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=10
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
IAEME Publication

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD FOR

IMPROVING ACCURACY OF SIMPLIFIED
SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS OF STEEL
RIGID FRAME VIADUCTS
Tatsuo Kakiuchi
JR West Japan Consultants Company (PhD Candidate),
5-4-20 Nishinakajima, Yodogawa-Ku, Osaka, 532-0011, Japan
Akira Kasai
Associate Profesor, Kumamoto University, 2-39-1 Kurokami,
Chuo-Ku, Kumamoto, 860-8555, Japan,
Shohei Okabe
GSST, Kumamoto University, 2-39-1 Kurokami, Chuo-Ku,
Kumamoto, 860-8555, Japan,
ABSTRACT
This study is aimed at verifying the usefulness of the estimation method
which is able to permit several plastic hinges' occurring to the steel rigid
frame viaduct which is higher statically indeterminate. For this purpose, the
analytical model, named whole system model, which applies shell elements
to the place where plastic hinges may form, when the structures are subjected
to severe earthquakes, was constructed. Next, Pushover analysis using the
whole system model was carried out for evaluating seismic performance of
this structure, and simplified seismic response analysis using an equivalent
single-degree-of-freedom system model and skeleton curve which resembles a
bilinear model based on a result of the Pushover analysis was performed. And
then, the results of simplified earthquake response analysis was compared
with the result of dynamic analysis using whole system model. Finally, it was
contrived to apply a trilinear model to skeleton curve on restoring forcehorizontal displacement relationship as a way to improve the predictability of
the response displacement of this structure. This paper also examines how the
accuracy of seismic response analysis using the equivalent single-degree-offreedom system model could be improved.
Key words: Combined static-dynamic numerical method for seismic response,
Plastic hinge, Pushover analysis, Seismic performance evaluation, Steel rigid
frame viaducts

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

46

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

Cite this Article: Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe.
Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic
Response Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts. International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 6(10), 2015, pp. 46-61.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=6&IType=10

1. INTRODUCTION
Steel structures built in Japan have been required to have excellent seismic
performance that can resist the Hyogo Earthquake in 1995, the Tohoku-Pacific Ocean
Earthquake in 2011 or a major earthquake like the Tokai, Tonankai, Nankai
Consolidated Type Earthquake which is predicted to occur in the near future. In the
structures such as these, the steel rigid frame viaducts rigid-connected between
superstructure and piers which is focused on this paper, is one of the structures which
can improve seismic performance. This structure has the following characteristics; 1)
the height of the viaduct part can be lowered, 2) flexible correspondence is easy for
the vertical linear shape of the railroad, 3) support system between box girder and
piers can be omitted, and so on. Recently, a viaduct having these advantages is
adopted in a steel bridge for railway in Japan. The schematic view of the viaduct to
intend for in this study is shown in Fig. 1.
Vertical
Longitudinal
Transverse

Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of bridge system in this study

The bridge type in this study has the longitudinal direction of the bridge and the
out-of-plane direction of the piers in the same orientation. Beams and corners of the
piers of such viaducts are exposed to torsion in addition to bending during an
earthquake due to horizontal inertia. For an investigation of the members subjected to
complex loading, Kasai et al. [1] examined basic data from seismic safety evaluation
on the beams and corners of rigid frame viaduct piers where shear would prevail.
Nakai et al. [2], [3], [4] evaluated both experimentally and analytically seismic
capacity of a box section subjected to torsion and bending simultaneously. However,
these studies were focused on evaluating individual segments.
Conventional seismic performance evaluation is based on the assumption that the
ultimate state of the whole structure is reached when at least the ultimate state of a
single segment. However, this bridge which is a higher statically indeterminate
structure can remain sufficiently safe in terms of seismicity when a single segment

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

47

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

has reached the ultimate state because it does not lead to reduction in the seismic
capacity of the whole structure as long as the member components have adequate
plate thickness and stiffness. Seismic performance of the structure therefore can be
underestimated by the conventional segment-based evaluation. Focusing on this point,
the authors [5] proposed a seismic performance evaluation method using shell
elements. The conventional displacement-based verification method [6] is used for a
conventional equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system structure. Then, the
proposed method [5] is the displacement-based verification method for a higher
statically indeterminate structure. Pushover analysis using the whole system model to
consider local buckling behavior was carried out, and simplified seismic response
analysis using an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system model and skeleton
curve which resembles a bilinear model based on a result of the Pushover analysis
was performed. In this combined static-dynamic numerical method, the most
important characteristic of the proposed method is the use of shell elements for
Pushover analysis which considers local buckling behavior.
It is effective to handle a higher statically indeterminate structure as a whole
system as proposed, not by segment as conventionally done, in seismic performance
evaluation. The proposed method is carried out seismic response analysis using the
equivalent SDOF model to obtain response values. However, the applicability of the
equivalent SDOF model has not yet been well studied. The purpose of this study is to
verify the usefulness of the seismic performance evaluation method developed for a
higher statically indeterminate structure to allow for plastic hinges being set at
multiple locations.

2. DESIGN CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS MODEL

Table 1 shows the design conditions of the bridge. The bridge is a four-span steel
rigid frame viaduct having the pier-superstructure integrated system as shown in Fig.
1. The details are described in reference [5]. Fig. 2 shows the general view of the
analysis model. The segments modeled with shell elements are the base of a viaduct
pier, the beam of a viaduct pier near the rigid connection with the superstructure and a
corner closest to the superstructure. The shell elements for the base and the beam
were input with initial deflection. The initial deflection waveforms were created by
expressing each of general and stiffener local initial deflections as sine waves of the
first mode and overlapping them together. The maximum initial deflection was
determined based on the guidelines for buckling design [7]. As the material
constitutive rule of steel, multilinear strain hardening rule having a yield plateau was
used in the Pushover analysis, and the bilinear skeleton model was used in the seismic
response analysis. A universal finite element analysis software ABAQUS [8] was
used for the analysis.
Table 1 Design conditions
Structural type

Steel rigid frame viaduct

Span length

183.4 m

Spans

39.2 m + 40.0 m + 52.5 m + 51.7 m

Girder width

11.8 m

Girder height

2.8 m

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

48

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

Figure 2 Analysis model

3. COMBINED STATIC-DYNAMIC NUMERICAL METHOD

3.1 Pushover analysis
Pushover analysis and seismic response analysis using the equivalent SDOF model as
shown in Fig. 3 were carried out following the method proposed in reference [5] for
seismic performance evaluation of the bridge. Fig. 4 shows the load-displacement
relationship obtained by the Pushover analysis, where horizontal load H is the sum of
reaction forces at all pier bases, and horizontal displacement is displacement at the
center of gravity of the superstructure. Displacement at the maximum load is used as
ultimate displacement u, with the ultimate state assumed to be reached under the
maximum load. In higher statically indeterminate structures like the bridge, local
buckling should have occurred at many locations when the capacity of the structure
starts to decrease. Evaluation to the maximum load state in this study was an attempt
to ensure adequate safety margin in the design.

Figure 3 Equivalent SDOF model

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

Figure 4 Load-displacement curve

49

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

Figure 5 Hysteresis

Figure 6 Response spectra of earthquake (h=0.05)

Table 2 Parameters of the restoring force characteristic

K [kN/mm]

K [kN/mm]

Hy [kN]

y [mm]

Hu [kN]

u [mm]

706

24.6

7.01104

99.2

8.58104

740

3.2 Seismic response analysis using the equivalent SDOF model

The Restoring force characteristic to be used for the equivalent SDOF model were
obtained from the results of the Pushover analysis using the whole system model [9].
When restoring force characteristics has been made approximately, it decided to meet
the following two conditions certainly. Those are, 1) that both of bilinear approximate
model and whole system model are same about initial horizontal stiffness which
indicates the relationship between restoring force in horizontal direction and the
horizontal displacement, and 2) that the restoring force and the displacement which
indicate the ultimate state in whole system model are also passed certainly in the
bilinear approximate model. The first break point was determined in accordance with
reference [6] so that energy absorption amount would be constant until the ultimate
point. Restoring force characteristic was applied to the hysteresis of the equivalent
SDOF model as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4 shows the load-displacement relationship in the whole system model and
the restoring force characteristic used for the equivalent SDOF model. Table 2 shows
the parameters of the restoring force characteristic, where K = elastic stiffness, K =
elasto-plastic stiffness, Hy = yield horizontal load, y = yield displacement, Hu =
ultimate horizontal load and u = ultimate displacement.

3.3 Time history of response displacement

The analysis used epicentral ground motion specified as Level-2 earthquake in the
Design Standards for Railway Structures and Commentary (Seismic Design) [10].
Analysis was performed also for the El Centro (NS) and Taft (EW) waves. Fig. 6
shows response spectra of earthquakes. The dumping ratio h = 0.05 were used in the
present analysis. Figs. 7 show the seismic motion. Figs. 8 show the time history of
response displacement at the top of the Pier P3 in the equivalent SDOF models.
Table 3 shows maximum response displacement max and its ratio to ultimate
displacement, max/u. According to the seismic response analysis using the equivalent

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

50

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

SDOF model, maximum response displacement max was 270 mm for Level-2
earthquake, 90 mm for the El Centro (NS) wave, and 46 mm for the Taft (EW) wave.

Figure 7 Seismic motion

Figure 8 Time history of response

displacement

Table 3 Maximum response displacement

Level-2 earthquake
El Centro (NS)
Taft (EW)

max [mm]
max /u
Equivalent SDOF model
270
0.365
90
0.115
46
0.062

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

51

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

4. ELASTO-PLASTIC SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS USING

THE SHELL-ELEMENT WHOLE SYSTEM MODEL
4.1 Seismic response analysis using the whole system model
This section describes the results of the seismic response analysis using the whole
system model and compares them with the results of the combined static-dynamic
numerical method described in the previous section. Morishita et al. [11] inspected the
precision of the whole system model using the shell element in a simple steel pier,
according to the seismic response analysis. Figs. 9 show the time history of response
displacement at the top of the Pier P3 in this structure. The response displacement was
determined as relative displacement between the superstructure and the base. Figs. 10
shows the load-displacement history, where load H is the base shear. The results with
the equivalent SDOF model are also shown for comparison. Table 4 shows the values
of maximum response displacement max.

4.2 Comparison of the time history of response displacement

Maximum response displacement max for Level-2 earthquake was 226 mm in the
whole system model and 270 mm in the equivalent SDOF model, being about 19%
larger in the equivalent SDOF model. The response displacement history showed that
the results of the two models fitted well until around 2 seconds and started to differ at
past 2 seconds. The amplitude was found to be larger in the whole system model
during the period from 2 to 6 seconds and then larger in the equivalent SDOF model
during the period from 6 to 10 seconds. Center of the amplitude range in the whole
system model moved significantly in the positive direction in about 4 seconds, while
that in the equivalent SDOF model during the same period showed no significant
movement because of the small amplitude. As a result, center of the amplitude in the
equivalent SDOF model stayed in the negative side, allowing for an interpretation that
maximum response displacement was larger than that in the whole system model.
Residual displacement also showed a tendency of being larger in the equivalent SDOF
model.
Maximum response displacement max for the El Centro (NS) wave was 85 mm in
the whole system model and 90 mm in the equivalent SDOF model, being about 6%
larger in the equivalent SDOF model. The response displacement history showed that
the results of the two models fitted well until around 2 seconds and started to differ at
past 2.5 seconds. Maximum response displacement max for the Taft (EW) wave was
46 mm in the whole system model and 46 mm in the equivalent SDOF model,
showing no differences between the two models. The response displacement history
showed that the results of the two models fitted well until around 5 seconds.
Consequently, the maximum response displacement of the equivalent SDOF
model that the restoring force characteristic was made the bilinear skeleton model is
bigger than the maximum response displacement of the whole system model.
Therefore, the seismic performance of the steel rigid frame viaduct which is higher
statically indeterminate can be judged to compare the ultimate displacement u with
the maximum response displacement max of the equivalent SDOF model that the
restoring force characteristic was made the bilinear skeleton model.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

52

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

Figure 9 Time history of response displacement

Figure 10 Load-displacement history

Table 4 Maximum response displacement

Level-2 earthquake
El Centro (NS)
Taft (EW)

max [mm]
Whole system model
Equivalent SDOF model
226
270 [119%]
85
90 [106%]
46
46 [100%]

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

53

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

4.3 Comparison of the load-displacement history

In Figs. 10, the whole system and equivalent SDOF models were found to show well
fitting results in seismic response analysis until yield displacement. In case of Level-2
earthquake, the loops of different patterns appeared in the load-displacement curves of
the two models from the point where the whole system model yielded. Load was
found to be larger in the equivalent SDOF model, with the center of vibration shifted
away from the origin under plastic deformation. This was likely due to some factor in
the restoring force characteristic used for the equivalent SDOF model. The restoring
force characteristic had been obtained by the bilinear model to skeleton curve on
restoring force-horizontal displacement relationship based on a result of the Pushover
analysis as described in Section 3. However, stiffness reduction after the yield
displacement was slow in the Pushover analysis values. Rough approximation of such
a curve with a bilinear model will result in a significant discrepancy between the
analytical values and approximate values, greatly affecting the seismic response
analysis results.
In case of the El Centro (NS) wave, the difference of the maximum response
displacement max between the both models has occurred a little, because the
maximum response displacement max becomes near yield-displacement. In case of the
Taft (EW) wave, the maximum response displacement max between the both models
is almost similar, because the maximum response displacement is almost half of the
yield-displacement.
Consequently, both models were found to show exhibit different behaviors after
yielding by using the bilinear skeleton model. To improve the accuracy of seismic
response analysis using the equivalent SDOF model, for Level-2 earthquake and the
El Centro (NS), the authors modified the restoring force characteristic into a trilinear
model as described in the following section.

5. EXAMINATION TO IMPROVE ACCURACY OF THE

EQUIVALENT SDOF MODEL
5.1 Skeleton of the equivalent SDOF model modified by the trilinear
skeleton model
In this chapter, case study for improving the accuracy of estimation for maximum
response displacement in the typical location of this structure is discussed. The time
history of response displacement for the whole system and equivalent SDOF models
is compared in the previous section. And the load-displacement relationship is
compared. As the result, there is a possibility that the accuracy of the maximum
response displacement max isn't good because both the behavior isn't fitting well. This
was likely due to the influence of the restoring force characteristic used for the
equivalent SDOF model. The authors modified the restoring force characteristic as
described in this section in an attempt to improve the accuracy of seismic response
analysis. More accurate seismic response analysis would be obtained by using more
accurate approximates of the Pushover analysis results for the restoring force
characteristic.
Accordingly, the flow chart shown in Fig. 11 was developed at first. The outline
of this flow chart is as follows.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

54

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

Start

Structural properties and materials

Pushover analysis
( K, Hu, u )

Redesign of sections

Approximation for hysteresis

(K, Hy, y )
n = 1 Bilinear (Reference [5])

Modified approximation for hysteresis

( K, Hy, y )
n 2 Trilinear (This study)

Dynamic analysis by E-SDOF model

(max )

Requirement of accurate max

Yes

No

Verification of displacement
max u

No

Yes
End

Figure 11 Flowchart for improvement of the equivalent SDOF model

1)

2)
3)
4)

Restoring force-horizontal displacement relationship is expressed by bilinear

model approximately using the Pushover analysis of this structure according to
Kakiuchi et al. [5].
Seismic response analysis is carried out using an equivalent SDOF model and
above relationship.
Restoring force-horizontal displacement relationship is upgraded using trilinear
skeleton model, if accuracy of this numerical result is required.
The second break point in the modified model was set at the point of 1.1max, B
so that a safety margin of 10% was added to maximum response displacement
max, B. Initial stiffness and the second point were fixed in the determination of
restoring force characteristic. The first break point was set so that energy
absorption amount would be constant until the second break point. As in the
model before the modification, the same restoring force characteristic was applied
to the hysteresis.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

55

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

Figs. 12 and Table 5 shows the restoring force characteristic into a trilinear
skeleton model for Level-2 earthquake and the El Centro (NS) wave. And the value of
the 1st brake point and the 2nd brake point is indicated.

80000

80000

H [kN]

100000

H [kN]

100000

60000
Pushover analysis
Bilinear
Ultimate state
Trilinear-1
2nd break point
Trilinear-2
2nd break point

40000
20000

200

400

600

800

60000
Pushover analysis
Bilinear
Ultimate state
Trilinear-1
2nd break point
Trilinear-2
2nd break point

40000
20000

1000

200

400

600

800

1000

[mm]

[mm]

(b) El Centro (NS)

(a) Level-2 earthquake

Figure 12 Trilinear skeleton model

Table 5 Brake points of trilinear skeleton model

[mm]

Bilinear
Trilinear-1
Trilinear-2

H [kN]
[mm]
H [kN]
[mm]
H [kN]

Level-2 earthquake
1st brake
2nd brake
point
point
99.2
7.01104
75.7
300
5.35104
7.68104
74.0
270
5.23104
7.46104

Ultimate
state
740
8.58104
740
8.58104
740
8.58104

EL Centro
1st brake
point
99.2
7.01104
56.2
3.94104
58.3
4.12104

2nd brake
point
100
5.30104
110
55.2104

Ultimate
state
740
8.58104
740
8.58104
740
8.58104

5.2 Modification of the equivalent SDOF model

Figs. 13 show the time history of response displacement in the whole system and
equivalent SDOF models. Figs. 14 show the load-displacement history. Table 6 shows
maximum response displacement max of each model. The values in square brackets in
the table are percentages which are the ratios of maximum response displacement of
the equivalent SDOF model to that of the whole system model. The equivalent SDOF
model with the modified the restoring force characteristic using trilinear skeleton
model was found to exhibit behavior closer to that of the whole system model.
Maximum response displacement max for Level-2 earthquake was improved to an
error rate of 7%, with a good fitting found in the load-displacement history between
the two models. Maximum response displacement max for the El Centro (NS) wave
was also improved to an error rate of 11%, again with a good fitting found in the loaddisplacement history between the two models.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

56

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

Figure 13 Time history of response t

Displacemen

Figure 14 LoadDisplacement history

Table 6 Maximum response displacement

max [mm]
Whole system
model
Level-2
El Centro (NS)

226
85

Equivalent SDOF model

Bilinear
(n=1)
270 [119%]
90 [106%]

Trilinear-1
(n=2)
242 [107%]
96 [113%]

Trilinear-2
(n=3)
243 [108%]
94 [111%]

Moreover, ground motions which the acceleration of the design earthquake

motion is set to 0.75, 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0 times uniformly are prepared, to inspect the
effect of this simple method to an earthquake motion with the size of the various
accelerations. Although some results when these earthquake motions are subjected to
it, are gathered by an appendix specifically, results about the maximum response
displacements are summarized in Table 7. The accuracy of the maximum response
displacement max can obtain by iterating total of 3 times of the once by the bilinear
skeleton model and twice by the trilinear skeleton model.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

57

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

Table 7 Approximation of the restoring force characteristic
Whole system
mode

Equivalent SDOF model

Bilinear
Trilinear-1
(n=1)
(n=2)

(1)

max,W

max,W
/ u

max,B

max,B
/ u

(2)-(1)

[mm]

[mm]

(2)

Trilinear-2
(n=3)

(3)

max,T-1

max,T-2
[mm]

max, T-2
/ u

(3)-(1)

[mm]

max, T-1
/ u

El Centro

85

0.015

90

0.122

0.007

96

0.130

94

0.127

0.012

L20.75

153

0.207

166

0.224

167

0.225

L2

226

0.305

270

0.365

0.060

242

0.327

243

0.328

0.023

L21.5

439

0.593

454

0.614

0.021

403

0.545

407

0.550

-0.043

L21.75

537

0.726

533

0.720

533

0.720

L22.0

674

0.911

674

0.911

674

0.911

u = 740 mm : The ultimate displacement

max,W : The maximum response displacement of whole system model
max, B : The maximum response displacement of E-SDOF model by the bilinear model (n=1)
max, T-1 : The maximum response displacement of E-SDOF model by the trilinear model
(n=2)

max,T-2 : The maximum response displacement of E-SDOF model by the trilinear model (n=3)
Fig. 15 shows the each maximum response displacement max for Level-2
earthquake, 1.5 times of Level-2 earthquake and the El Centro (NS) wave in the case
of each model. In Table 5 and Figs. 12, it was found that the prediction method which
bilinear skeleton model was used as a restoring force-displacement relationship of the
viaduct dealt with this study is very close to seismic response displacement max, W of
this structure using whole system model. Whichever earthquake motions treated by
this study was used, it was found that the maximum response displacement obtained
using the equivalent SDOF model was larger than the case of the whole system
model, when the displacement of this structure predicted using a bilinear model as
restoring force-displacement relationship. The gap of ratio of max/u was within
about 6% of the ultimate displacement between the prediction displacement by
bilinear approximation model and the prediction displacement by the whole system.

Figure 15 Maximum response displacements-maximum earthquake motions relationship

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

58

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

It was found that the accuracy of the response displacement improved in most
cases, when the displacement predicted using a triilinear model as restoring forcedisplacement relationship. In this case, the gap of ratio of max/u was within about
4% of the ultimate displacement between the prediction displacement by trilinear
approximation model and the prediction displacement by the whole system model as
shown in Table 7.
Therefore, the equivalent SDOF model using the restoring force characteristic
approximated by the bilinear skeleton model is an effective method in order to verify
the seismic performance of the higher statically indeterminate structure like this steel
rigid frame viaduct.

6. CONCLUSION
This study is aimed at verifying the usefulness of a seismic performance evaluation
method developed for a higher statically indeterminate structure to allow for plastic
hinges being set at multiple locations. Pushover analysis using the whole system
model was carried out for evaluating seismic performance of this structure, and
simplified seismic response analysis using an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom
system model. The major findings were as follows:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

The flow which applies a result of the Pushover analysis to restoring forcedisplacement relationship was proposed to carry out seismic response analysis using
the equivalent SDOF model for the high-level indeterminate structures.
To improve the precision of the response displacement which predicted restoring
force-displacement relationship by a response prediction model that resembles a
bilinear model more, the method which resembles a trilinear model was developed as
shown in Fig. 11.
It was found that the prediction method which bilinear skeleton model was used as a
restoring force-displacement relationship of the viaduct dealt with this study was very
close to seismic response displacement of this structure using whole system model.
Whichever earthquake motions treated by this study was used, it was found that the
maximum response displacement obtained using the equivalent SDOF model was
larger than the case of the whole system model, when the displacement of this
structure predicted using a bilinear model as restoring force-displacement
relationship. The gap of ratio of max/u was within about 6% of the ultimate
displacement between the prediction displacement by bilinear approximation model
and the prediction displacement by the whole system.

The gap of ratio of max/u was within about 4% of the ultimate displacement
between the prediction displacement by trilinear approximation model and the
prediction displacement by the whole system model.
The equivalent SDOF model using the restoring force characteristic
approximated by the bilinear skeleton model is an effective method in order to
verify the seismic performance of the higher statically indeterminate structure
like this steel rigid frame viaduct.
The equivalent SDOF model using the bilinear skeleton model is an effective
technique for practical design that redesign cross sections iteratively on
verifying cross sectional force of members.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

59

editor@iaeme.com

Tatsuo Kakiuchi, Akira Kasai and Shohei Okabe

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]
[7]

A. Kasai, T. Watanabe, T. Usami, P. Chusilp, Strength and Ductility of

Unstiffened Box Section Members Subjected to Cyclic Shear Loading, Journal of
JSCE, No.703, 2002, 129-140 (in Japanese)
H. Nakai, Y. Murayama, T. Kitada, An Experimental Study on Ultimate Strength
of Thin-Walled Box Beams with Longitudinal Stiffeners Subjected to Bending
and Torsion, Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE, 38A, 1992, 155-165 (in
Japanese).
H. Nakai, T. Kitada, Y. Murayama, Ultimate Strength Analysis with Local
Buckling for Horizontally Curved Box Girder Bridges, Journal of JSCE, No.513,
1995, 53-64 (in Japanese).
H. Nakai, T. Kitada, Y. Murayama, N. Murozuka, An Analytical Study of
Ultimate Strength of Box Girders Subjected to Bending and Torsion, Journal of
Structural Engineering, JSCE, 42A, 1996, 71-82 (in Japanese).
T. Kakiuchi, M. Fujita, A. Kasai, T. USAMI, S. Yajima, T. Nonaka, Seismic
Performance Evaluation of Steel Continuous Bridges with Rigid SuperstructurePier Connections, Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE, 55A, 2009, 564-572
(in Japanese).
T. Usami et al., Guidelines for Seismic and Damage Control Design of Steel
Bridges, Gihodo Shuppan, 2006.
T. Usami et al., Guidelines for Stability Design of Steel Structures, 2nd Edition,
JSCE, Maruzen, 2005.

[8]
[9]

ABAQUS, Inc. ABAQUS Standard Users Manual Ver. 6.8-4, 2008.

[10]

Railway Technical Research Institute, Design Standards for Railway

[11]

[12]

T. Kakiuchi, A. Kasai, K. Miyazaki, T. Yamao, S. Inagaki, A Seismic

Performance Evaluation of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts Integrated Superstructure
and Substructures Considering Local Buckling Behaviors, Proc. of the 6th Intl.
Conference on Thin walled Structures, Romania, 2011, 389-395.
Structures and Commentary (Seismic Design), Maruzen, 1999.
K. MORISHITA, T. USAMI, T. BANNO, A. KASAI, Applicability on Dynamic
Verification Method for Seismic Design of Steel Bridge Piers, Journal of JSCE,
No.710, 2002, 181-190 (in Japanese).
Hamid Afzali and Toshitaka Yamao. Seismic Behavior of Steel Rigid Frame with
Imperfect Brace Members. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 6(1), 2015, pp. 113 - 126.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

60

editor@iaeme.com

Verification of The Method For Improving Accuracy of Simplified Seismic Response

Analysis of Steel Rigid Frame Viaducts

APPENDIX
In this appendix, ground motions which the acceleration of the design earthquake
motion is set to 0.75, 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0 times uniformly are prepared, to inspect the
effect of this simple method to an earthquake motion with the size of the various
accelerations.

100

60000
Pushover analysis
Bilinear
Ultimate state
Trilinear-1
2nd break point
Trilinear-2
2nd break point

40000
20000

200

400

600

800

50000

0
-100

1000

10

Pushover analysis
Bilinear
Ultimate state
Trilinear-1
2nd break point
Trilinear-2
2nd break point

600

800

10

15

-100000

500

100000

80000

50000

40000

-200

Pushover analysis
Bilinear
Ultimate state
Trilinear-1,2
2nd break point

20000

200

400

600

800

H [kN]

60000

[mm]

H [kN]

-500

(b) L21.5

E-SDOF model [Bilinear]

E-SDOF model [Trilinear-1,2]

200

300

[mm]

(b) L21.5

100000

200

Whole system
model
E-SDOF
model [Bilinear]
E-SDOF
model [Trilinear-1]
E-SDOF
model [Trilinear-2]

Time [sec]

(b) L21.5

-600
0

1000

-50000

-400

[mm]

10

15

-100000

E-SDOF
model [Bilinear]
E-SDOF
model [Trilinear-1,2]

-500

(c) L21.75

100000

400

80000

200

500

[mm]

Time [sec]

(c) L21.75

(c) L21.75

E-SDOF model [Bilinear]

E-SDOF model [Trilinear-1,2]

100000

50000

40000
Pushover analysis
Bilinear
Ultimate state
Trilinear-1,2
2nd break point

20000

200

400

600

800

1000

-200

-400

-50000

E-SDOF
model [Bilinear]
E-SDOF
model [Trilinear-1,2]

-600
-800
0

[mm]

10

Time [sec]

(d) L22.0
Figs. A1: Load-displacement
curve

H [kN]

60000

[mm]

H [kN]

-50000

-400

100

50000

-200

-600
0

100000

1000

-100

(a) L20.75

Whole system model

E-SDOF model [Bilinear]
E-SDOF model [Trilinear-1]
E-SDOF model [Trilinear-2]

[mm]

-200

[mm]

H [kN]

60000

[mm]

H [kN]

80000

400

-100000
-300

(a) L20.75

200

200

15

Time [sec]

100000

E-SDOF
model [Bilinear]
E-SDOF
model [Trilinear-1]
E-SDOF
model [Trilinear-2]

-50000

(a) L20.75

20000

-200

[mm]

40000

100000

E-SDOF model [Bilinear]

E-SDOF model [Trilinear-1]
E-SDOF model [Trilinear-2]

H [kN]

80000

[mm]

200

H [kN]

100000

(d) L22.0
Figs. A2: Time history of
response displacement

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

61

15

-100000

-500

500

[mm]

(d) L22.0
Figs. A3: Load-displacement
history

editor@iaeme.com