Displacement Time History Analysis

Benjamin Szymanski, P.E.

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Summary
Introduction
History of Seismic Design in the US
Response Spectrum Analysis Background
Time History Analysis Background
Basic Theory
Applicability
Advantages
Time History Analysis Input
Input
Software
Application of TH Analysis in MIDAS
RS Analysis in MIDAS
TH Analysis in MIDAS
RS vs. TH Comparison
Conclusion


A Little About Myself



Based out of New York City
Involved in bridge design,
analysis and inspection for 6
years.
Design: Cable stayed, arch, steel
plate girder, prestressed deck
bulb tee.
Inspection: Concrete box,
suspension bridge, steel truss,
steel plate girder.



History



1925 Earthquake in Santa
Barbara, CA engineers add seismic
provisions to building codes.
1950s Similar provisions begin
to be added to bridge design
codes.
1971 San Fernando, CA
earthquake prompts FHWA to
begin a research program to
establish criteria used for seismic
design.
1973 Caltrans develops new
criteria




San Fernando, CA earthquake





History (contd)



1975 AASHTO adopts Caltrans
criteria
1979 FHWA completes research
program.
1983 AASHTO adopts FHWA
guidelines to create the Guide
Specification for Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges.
1986 Provisions for seismic
design included in AASHTO
Standard Specifications -13th Ed.
1989 Loma Prieta, CA
Earthquake





Cypress Viaduct, Oakland, CA.





History (contd)



1989 Loma Prieta, CA
earthquake causes engineers to
focus more closely on seismic
design of bridges.
1992 The AASHTO Guide
Specification becomes a national
standard.
1994 Northridge, CA
earthquake, there become more
of a push for seismic retrofitting
and changes to the design codes
for new construction.



Hwy 14 overpass, San Fernando Valley,
Northridge, CA Earthquake





History (contd)



1995 AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Manual is released
2001 FHWA Seismic Retrofitting
Manual introduced
2007 AASHTO LRFD Guide
Specifications for Seismic Design
of Highway Bridges created,
transition from a forced based to
displacement based (ie Pushover
Analysis).



AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges




Response Spectrum Analysis - Background



Linear-dynamic statistical analysis
method
Used in AASHTO Division 1A and
current AASHTO LRFD
Specification
First introduced in 1932 by
Maurice Anthony Biot at Caltech,
based on theories of acoustics
developed by Rayleigh.
Started to be used extensively
starting in the 1970s



Response Spectrum Analysis Background (contd)



Eigenvalue analysis to determine
mass and stiffness distributions
Structure may be analyzed as a
Single Degree of Freedom system
in each primary bridge axis or
using a Multiple Degree of
Freedom system
Small to moderate earthquakes
should be resisted within the
elastic range without causing
significant damage to structural
components





Response Spectrum Analysis SDOF Basic Principle








K
m
F = mg
Variables:
k column stiffness
m lumped mass
F elastic seismic design force
g maximum design acceleration
T structure period

Provides a quick and easy way to
verify seismic analysis model
results (period of structure)






T
Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD



Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD



Basic premise is force based
Flowchart provides guidance for
seismic design
Applicable to the uniform load
method and multimode spectral
method (most typical)
Must determine:
Spectral Acceleration Coefficients
Site Factors
Ground Acceleration Coefficients
Seismic Performance Zone
These factors help to construct
your response spectrum





AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications




Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD



Response Spectrum created from AASHTO LRFD is adequate
for most ordinary bridges.
Based on 1000-yr return period
Site specific response spectrum is generated in some cases
(sometimes vertical spectrum also) will be used.
Simple span bridges are exempt





Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD



Response Spectrum is constructed
using AASHTO site maps and
tables
Must determine the bridge
importance category
Must determine the modification
factors based on operational
category (ie critical, essential,
other) R Factor
Modification factors are applicable
to substructures and connections
to ensure plastic hinging desired.







Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD



Member forces and displacements computed by:
Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS)
Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC)
Should be used for closely spaced modes
Combining Seismic Force Effects to account for directional
uncertainty:
Longitudinal Force = 1.0X + 0.3Y
Transverse Force = 0.3X + 1.0Y










State-by-State Seismic Design Specifications



Seismic design criteria may vary
state by state
Especially prevalent in high
seismic zones (California,
Washington, etc)
Meant to provide further
guidance, specific to location,
beyond what is offered in AASHTO
LRFD and Division 1A
In many cases, includes
displacement based approach,
rather than force based








Analysis of a structure, applying
data over increment time steps as
a function of:
Acceleration
Force
Moment, or
Displacement



The closer the spacing of time
steps, the more accurate the
solution will be.








Time History Analysis- Background



Cooper River Bridge, Charleston, SC





Eigenvalues generated for the
structure based on response to
time history.
Considered to be more realistic
compared to response spectrum
analysis
Most useful for very long or very
tall structures (flexible structures)









Time History Analysis- Background



Kanchanaphisek Bridge, Bangkok, Thailand




Time History Analysis Drawbacks:
Very time consuming
Generates (and requires) large
quantities of data.
May not always reduce seismic
forces in structure. Depends on:
Soil properties
Structure type
Available data









Time History Analysis- Drawbacks



Soil springs and time history
functions are generated by
geotechnical engineer.
Data can be generated using:
1D Analysis - ProShake
2D or 3D Analysis MIDAS GTS (2D),
FLUSH (2D)
Typical Analysis - Use Free Field
method for soil interaction.
Continuum Analysis involves
modeling both soil structure and
the structure (foundation)
together.










Time History Analysis- Geotechnical



Response spectrum is defined at
the rock level, rather than at the
ground level as in response
spectrum analysis method.
Forcing functions are defined at
different levels, varying with
depth and soil properties.
Soil springs are defined along the
length of the foundation and
correspond to forcing function
(either force or displacement,
depending on geotechnical
analysis)










Time History Analysis- Geotechnical



Bedrock




Time Histories




Ground
Level




Soil
Spring




Drilled
Shaft




How Time History Data is Created:
1. Response Spectrum at rock level
needs to be created.
2. Find accelerations at rock level
from:
AASHTO/IBC/ASCE/USGS or
Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis
3. Pick existing acceleration time
histories that match the target
response spectrum for the project
location (ie El Centro).











Time History Analysis- Geotechnical

Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Elevated Rail Project
Approx. 1 mi total length
Composite Plate Girder
Superstructure
Hammerhead Piers
7-ft columns supported on 8-ft
drilled shafts
Average 120-ft long spans



Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Select a single pier as an example:



Pier 51




Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

From static analysis (or hand calculation, find dead load reactions at
top of pier
Dead load can either be converted into lumped mass or use Loads to
Mass function in MIDAS



Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Add dead load to top of single pier



Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Defining Soil Springs:
Copy offset shaft nodes by
arbitrary distance in both X and Y
directions.
In this example dx,dy = 5.0 ft.
Offset distance should be more
than expected movement, but
not unnecessarily long.
Removed fully fixed support
from bottom of drilled shaft.
Make all of the offset notes
boundary condition fully fixed










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Defining Soil Springs:
Set general link
properties (soil spring
stiffness)
Depending on
geotechnical analysis
and soil properties,
spring properties may be
the same or different in
each direction.










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Defining Soil Springs:
Set general link
properties (soil spring
stiffness)
Depending on
geotechnical analysis
and soil properties,
spring properties may be
the same or different in
each direction.










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Defining Soil Springs:
Set general link
properties (soil spring
stiffness)
Depending on
geotechnical analysis
and soil properties,
spring properties may be
the same or different in
each direction.










General
Link (soil
spring)




Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Response Spectrum Analysis:
Define Response Spectrum Horizontal Function










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Response Spectrum Analysis:
Define Response Spectrum Load Cases










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Response Spectrum Analysis Results:










Max Mz:
7796 ft-k










Max My:
11646 ft-k










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Displacement Time History Analysis:
Define TH Load Cases










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Defining TH Forcing Functions:










Each
Correspond
To:










Depth




Case




Axis




For Displacement




Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Displacement Time History Analysis:
Specify Unit Displacement at fixed
end of each soil spring.










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Displacement Time History Analysis:










Define Each Varying
Static Load
Each Load Must
Correspond with
Each Function











Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Time History Analysis Results:










Max Mz:
4517 ft-k










Max My:
5086 ft-k










Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS

Time History Analysis vs. Response Spectrum Analysis Summary:







Response Spectrum Time History
Percentage
Decrease
My
(ft-k)
Mz
(ft-k)
My
(ft-k)
Mz
(ft-k)
My Mz
11646 7796 5086 4517 44% 58%
In this case, appreciable decrease in drilled shaft bending moments
Not always typical, depends on:
Structure Type
Structure Height & Length (Negligible benefit for most ordinary bridges
Soil Properties
Other factors










Conclusion

Time History Analysis vs. Response Spectrum Analysis Summary:







Pros:
In some cases, possible reduction in steel reinforcement and
possibly concrete (would require revising analysis)
Could valuable in the changing environment of more frequent
design-built and P3 projects.
Can amount to a considerable cost savings for by reducing
substructure quantities.
Cons:
Not applicable or insignificant for most bridge projects. Response
Spectrum Analysis is adequate for most projects.
Time consuming and requires significant computing power to
handle the data.










Thank you
For questions:
szymanski@pbworld.com