Presented by:

Kruti shah
(10-MS-12)
Department of Civil Engineering
Dharmsinh Desai University
Nadiad
Guided by:
Prof. D. G. Panchal
1
Introduction
Objective and Scope of work
Literature review
Time history Analysis methods
Pushover analysis displacement approach
Technical papers
Parametric study of time history analysis of composite bridge
superstructure
Single span bridge
Conclusion
References
2
Large number of bridges were designed and constructed at a time when
bridge codes had no seismic design provisions, or when these provisions
were insufficient according to current standards.

Many of these bridges may suffer severe damage when struck by
earthquakes, as evident by recent moderate earthquakes.

There is need to know whether existing bridges are capable for recent
seismic hazards.

Linearly elastic procedures are efficient within elastic limits.

If the structure responds beyond the elastic limits, Nonlinear (static and
dynamic) procedures can show the performance level of the structures
under any loading level.
3





If both behaves independently , slippage occurs.
The principle force that must be transferred is the horizontal shear at the
interface of the slab and the beam if they are acting as a unit.
Attaching shear connectors to the top flange of the steel beam allows this
transfer of force.
Depending upon the magnitude of the shear force, number of shear
connectors can be placed along the length of beam and the I-shaped
beam gets replaced more or less by a T-shaped beam.
Composite system results advantages especially when heavy loads and
long spans are involved.



4
Time history Analysis of existing bridge superstructure for various
earthquakes
Push-over Analysis of same bridge superstructure
Obtaining seismic capacity of the bridge
5
Study of time history analysis and push-over analysis
Parametric study of time history analysis for vertical motion using
SAP2000
Diff. earthquake history
Diff. sizes of span (S.S & Continuous)
Diff. load combination as per IRC:6-2010
Pushover analysis of bridge superstructure using SAP2000
Case study:
Time history analysis of existing bridge to obtain demand curve for
predefined curve
Push-over analysis of bridge to obtain capacity curve
Obtain capacity of existing bridge from both curves
6
Time history analysis is a step-by-step analysis of the dynamic response of a
structure to a specified loading varying with time.
The most comprehensive method for seismic analysis.
Effect of time is considered.
All types of nonlinearities can be accounted.
Results are realistic and non conservative.







Dynamic Time
history analysis
Elastic Inelastic
Nonlinear Linear
Nonlinear,
Level II
Nonlinear,
Level I
7
Time history plots contain EQ motions in three orthogonal directions (two
horizontal & one vertical).
Important characteristics of earthquake:
Peak ground acceleration
Duration
Frequency

Drawbacks of Time history Analysis:
Method is expensive and time consuming.
Diff. time histories are required.
Resources are usually not available to perform full nonlinear analysis of
large bridges.
Special analysis software and hysteresis models are required for
nonlinear analysis.






8
Equation of motion: Earthquake excitation






Equation of motion for single degree of freedom structure:
Elastic system :

Inelastic System :

Dynamic response for time history can be obtain by two methods:
Modal analysis
Direct integration methods (Numerical methods)

) (t u m ku u c u m
g
= + +
) ( ) , ( t u m u u f u c u m
g s
= + +
9
Purely applicable to linear elastic system.
Not suitable for inelastic system & structure with special dissipation
devices.

Equation of motion for a multi-degree of freedom system in matrix form:




} ]{ )[ ( } ]{ [ } ]{ [ } ]{ [ I m t x u k u c u m
g
= + +
Calculation of Modal matrix []
} ]{ [ } { q u u =
] ][ [ ] [ ] [ u u = m M
T
] ][ [ ] [ ] [ u u = c C
T
] ][ [ ] [ ] [ u u = k K
T
{ } }) ]{ [ ] )[ ( ( ) ( I m t u t p
T
g eff
u =
10
Calculation of displacement
response in normal coordinate
Displacement response in
physical coordinates
Calculation of Effective force factor p
eff
(t)
{ } ) ) ( ( ) (
r g eff
t u t p I =
T
r
T
r
T
r
r
m
I m
} ]{ [ } {
} ]{ [ } {
u u
u
= I
) ( ] [ ] [ ] [ t u K q C q M
g r n
I = + +

=
u =
n
r
r r
t q t u
1
) ( } { )} ( {
Calculation of effective EQ
response forces at each story F
S
(t)
)} ( ]{ [ )} ( { t u k t F
s
=
Calculation of story shear V (t)
Calculation of Maximum Response
)} ( ]{ ][ [ )} ( { t u k S t V =
11
Direct integration methods involves:
Full damping and more types of nonlinearity
Large number of modes
Extremely sensitive to time step size

Central Difference method
Explicit method
Simple for nonlinear system
Based on finite difference approximation of time derivatives of displacement.


Transferring known quantities to the right side,






i i
i i i i i
p ku
t
u u
c
t
u u u
m = +
A

+
A
+
+ +
2 ) (
2
1 1
2
1 1
i i i i i
p u
t
m
k u
t
c
t
m
p u
t
c
t
m
]
) (
2
[ ]
2 ) (
[ ]
2 ) (
[
2
1
2
1
2
=
A

A

A
=
A
+
A
+
k

a b
12
Newmark s method
N. M. Newmark developed time stepping methods based on following eqn.


and define variation of acceleration over a time step and determine the
stability and accuracy characteristic of method.

Implicit method
Special cases
Average acceleration method ( =1/2,=1/4)
Linear acceleration method ( =1/2,=1/6)
1
2 2
1
1 1
] ) ( [ ] ) )( 5 . 0 [( ) (
) ( ] ) 1 [(
+ +
+ +
A + A + A + =
A + A + =
i i i i i
i i i i
u t u t u t u u
u t u t u u


| |

13
Most popular for nonlinear system & superior accuracy
Secant stiffness can be replaced by tangent stiffness.

The equation of motion is given as:

Tangent stiffness and
secant stiffness
i T i i i i S
u k u k f A = A = A ) ( ) ( ) (
sec
i i i i i
p u k u c u m A = A + A + A
14

15
Wilsons Method:
Method developed by E. L. Wilson is a modification of conditionally stable linear
acceleration method.
Accuracy and stability properties depend on .
Matrix eqn. that apply to MDOF systems are,





Hilber-Hughes-Taylor Method:
Its extension of Newmark method (also called method).
Based on finite difference formulas
Fixed = (1-2) , = (1-)
2
depends on numerical damping
Equation of motion is modified as:
i i i i
i i i
u
t
L u
t
u t u
u
t
u t u


A
A
+ A
A
+ A = A
A
A
+ A = A
6
) (
2
) (
) (
2
) (
) (
2 2
2
) 1 ( ) )( 1 ( ) ( ) 1 ( ) ( o o o o o + + = A + + + A + + + A + t tf f t t u Ct u t t C u t t M
S S

16
For all bridges located within near field region except
Culvert and Minor bridges up to 10 m span in all seismic zones.
Bridges in seismic zone II and III, total length not exceeding 60 m and span not
exceeding 15 m.
special investigation should be carried out.

Two separate analysis shall be performed for design forces acting along
two orthogonal horizontal directions.
Two horizontal components of ground motion of equal magnitude.
Vertical component as 2/3 of horizontal component.

Horizontal seismic force due to live load shall :
Not be considered when acting in the direction of the traffic.
Be considered as 20% of live load when acting in the perpendicular direction of
traffic.
The vertical seismic for shall be calculate as 20% of live load (except impact
factor).
17
Studies shall be considered for sites located within 6 miles of an active
surface or shallow fault to quantify near-fault.

At least three response-spectrum-compatible time histories shall be used
for each component of motion in representing the design earthquake
(ground motions having 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years).

The design actions shall be taken as the maximum response calculated for
the three ground motions.

If a minimum of seven time histories are used for each component of
motion, the design actions may be taken as the mean response calculated
for each principal direction.
18
Horizontal Ground motion
Combine response from 100% of one dir. And 30% of another dir.
Applied along different angle to capture the maximum deformation of all
critical components.

Vertical Ground motion
For Ordinary Standard bridges where the site peak rock acceleration is 0.6g or
greater, an equivalent static vertical load shall be applied.

Vertical / horizontal load combination is not required for Ordinary
Standard bridge.
19
An analysis subjected to monotonically increasing lateral loads
representing inertia forces in an earthquake until a target displacement is
exceeded.

Mathematical model directly incorporate the nonlinear load-deformation
characteristics of individual components and elements of the bridge.

Pushover analysis assesses the structural performance by estimating the
force and deformation capacity and seismic demand using a nonlinear
static analysis algorithm.

Better understanding of how the structure will behave when subjected to
earthquake forces and sequences of the failure.

The lateral load generally applied in both positive and negative directions
in combination with gravity load (dead load and a portion of live load) to
study the actual behaviour.
20
Procedure:
Lateral load is increased monotonically maintaining a predefined distribution
pattern as per FEMA 273.
Structure is displaced till the control node reaches target displacement or
structure collapses.
Sequence of cracking, plastic hinging and failure of the structural components is
observed.
The relation between base shear and control node displacement is plotted for all
the pushover analysis.

Pushover analysis is carried twice:
first time till the collapse of the bridge to estimate target displacement.
next time till the target displacement to estimate the seismic demand.

21
Control node
Lateral load patterns (FEMA 273)
Group-I:
Permitted only when 75% of total mass participates in fundamental mode.
Proportional to shape of fundamental mode and story shear distribution.
Used when the period of the fundamental mode exceeds 1.0 second.
Group-II:
Uniform distribution consisting of lateral forces proportional to the total mass at
each level.
Adaptive load distribution that changes as the structure is displaced.
22
Target displacement











Spectral acceleration

Expected maximum displacement
a
eq
d
S
T
S
2
2
4t
=
d t
S C C C C
3 2 1 0
= o
23
1. Definition of the control node:

2. Developing the pushover curve, which includes evaluation of the force
distributions: Different formats of force distributions along the structure are
implemented in this study to represent the earthquake load intensity.

3. Estimation of the displacement demand: The control node is pushed to reach
the demand displacement, which represents the maximum expected
displacement resulting from the earthquake intensity under consideration.

4. Evaluation of the performance level:. For deformation-controlled actions the
deformation demands are compared with the maximum permissible values for the
component. For force-controlled actions the strength capacity is compared with
the force demand.
24
R. Pinho, C. Casarotti and S. Antoniou
An analytical parametric study, conducted on suite of continuous multi-span
bridges, is carried out. They have investigated that different single-run pushover
techniques are able to predict the response of continuous span bridges subjected
to transverse earthquake excitation.

Dr.Cosmin G. Chiorean
He had had investigated the collapse behaviour of a three span priestess
reinforced concrete bridge of 115 meters in total length and developed use of line
elements approach, and is based on the degree of refinement in representing
the plastic yielding effects.

Ima Muljati & Pennung Warnitchai
They have investigated the performance of Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) in
predicting the inelastic seismic response of multi-span concrete bridges. The
performance of MPA in nonlinear range shows a similar tendency with MPA in
linear range.
25
Alireza Rahai, Babak Alipour Gorji and Farzad Hatami
They have performed Seismic Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete Bridges by Using
DCM, CSM and Spectrum Analysis.
They have concluded that the DCM results for the bridge under study are acceptable
and at the same time conservative. The results of pushover analysis show that the
effect of hysteretic behaviour type becomes prominent and the existence of
prestess in skew piers increases the piers base shear capacity.

T.S. Paraskeva, A. J. Kappos& A.G. Sextos
They have investigated the extension of the modal pushover method to bridges and
its applicability in the case of long and curved bridge. MPA seems to be promising
approach that yields more accurate results compared to the standard pushover,
without requiring the high computational cost of the NL-THA.


26
Kaliprasanna Sethy
He has performed seismic evaluation case study for 12m-span existing RC bridge. It
is been analysed using Upper Bound Pushover Analysis and FEMA-356 pushover
analysis. Performance of the bridge, according to FEMA-356 and UBPA, is not
acceptable. Therefore it requires retrofitting.

Chung C. Fu and Hamed AlAyed
A three-span bridge of 97.5 meters (320 ft) in total length was analysed using both
the Nonlinear Static Procedure/Displacement Coefficient Method and nonlinear
time-history. Nine time-histories were implemented to perform the nonlinear time-
history analysis.
Conservative results are obtained from the DCM in the longitudinal direction of the
bridge and reasonable results are obtained in the transverse direction.
27
The study is conducted for-
Different sizes of span (simply supported and continuous)
Different live load combination considering IRC 6:2010 and
Different earthquake time histories.

Bridge responses are observed for following Load combination:
1. DL
2. DL+LL
3. DL+TH
4. DL+LL (20%) +TH

Bridges are designed for combination of dead load and maximum live load
response. Then responses for time history are observed.
Different 15 earthquake time histories considered are as follows:

28
Sr.
No.
Station Name Earthquake Year
PGA (up
dir.)
Closest
fault D. (m)
Hypo
central
D. (m)
1 Altadena, CA - Eaton Canyon Park Sierra Madre 1991 0.15 g 12.5 17.4
2 El Centro, CA - Array Station 6 - 551 Huston
Rd
Imperial Valley 1979 1.64 g 3.5 32.1
3 Corralitos, CA Loma Prieta/Santa Cruz
Mountains
1989 0.44 g 2.8 18.9
4 El Centro, CA - Array Station 9 El Centro 1940 0.35 g 8.3 12.2
5 Hollister, CA - South Street and Pine Drive Loma Prieta/Santa Cruz
Mountains
1989 0.20 g 17.2 51.2
6 LA, CA - Century City Country Club North Northridge 1994 0.12 g 23.7 27.4
7 Lexington Dam Loma Prieta/Santa Cruz
Mountains
1989 0.13 g 3.6 25.9
8 Lucerne Valley Landers 1992 0.14 g 2 40.8
9 Newhall, CA - LA County Fire Station Northridge 1994 0.55 g 10.7 27.7
10 Oakland, CA - Outer Harbour Wharf Loma Prieta/Santa Cruz
Mountains
1989 0.07 g 65.2 65.2
11 Petrolia, CA - General Store Petrolia 1991 0.17 g 8.2 11.7
12 Pomona, CA - 4th & Locust St Upland 1990 0.08 g 11.7
13 Santa Monica, CA- city hall Northridge 1994 0.23 g 27.4 29.4
14 Sylmar, CA - County Hospital Northridge 1994 0.57 g 9.9 24.8
15 Yermo, CA - Fire Station Landers 1992 0.14 g 31 85.7
29
Single span simply supported bridge is analysed for span sizes 18m, 22m,
27m and 30m.
LL combination: one lane of 70R or two lane of class A
30
SAP model
31
32
33
34
35
36

37

38

39

40
For 18m span predominant earthquake histories are: Array 06, Newhall,
Elcentro, Hollister

For 22m span predominant earthquake histories are: Lucerne, Array 06,
Newhall, Corralitos, Elcentro, Sylmar

For 27m span predominant earthquake histories are: Lucerne, Newhall,
Hollister, Sylmar, Elcentro

For 27m span predominant earthquake histories are: Newhall, Lucerne
41
A.K.Chopra, Dynamics of structures Theory and application to earthquake
engineering
Pankaj Agarwal & Manish Shrikhande , Earthquake resistant design of
structures
T.R.Jagadeesh & M.A.Jayaram ,Design of Bridge structures
N.Krishnaraju , Design of bridges
FEMA- 273
FEMA- 356
IRC-6 :2010, Standard specification and code of practice for road Bridges,
Section II
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design
Caltrans Seismic design criteria, Version 1.6, November 2010
Some technical papers
42
43