144

CHAPTER 8
NONLINEAR DYNAMIC TIME - HISTORY
ANALYSIS - RESULTS AND COMPARISON

8.1

OVERVIEW
The inelastic time-history analysis is the most accurate method to

predict the force and deformation demands at various components of the

structure. The use of the inelastic time history analysis is limited because the
dynamic response is very sensitive to the modeling and ground motion
characteristics. It requires proper modeling of the cyclic load-deformation
characteristics, and careful consideration of the deterioration properties of all
the important components. The computation time, the time required for input
preparation, and interpreting the voluminous output, makes the use of the
inelastic time history analysis difficult for seismic performance evaluation. In
the present study, SAP2000 was used in performing the nonlinear dynamic
time-history analysis on the three-dimensional model of the bridge, with the
El Centro Earthquake ground motion. The classical Newmark integration
method was used ( =0.5, =0.25), with a time step of t=0.01s with a total of
4000 steps (input time: 40s). In line with most previous studies, it was
deemed necessary to compare the results of the modal inelastic pushover
analysis, with those of the nonlinear time-history analysis. Nonlinear
time-history analysis was performed in both longitudinal and transverse
directions of the bridge structure using the El Centro Earthquake, and the
results are compared with the modal pushover analyses results.

145

8.2

NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY AND MODAL PUSHOVER

ANALYSES RESULTS AND COMPARISON

8.2.1

Displacement of the Deck at Each Bent Location in the

Transverse Direction
The displacement of the deck calculated at each bent location, when

the modal pushover analysis and the time-history analysis were carried out in
the transverse direction of the bridge structure, is shown in Figure 8.1. From
the pushover analysis results, it was found that for the fundamental mode, the
center of the mass of the superstructure directly above bent B4 experienced a
maximum deck displacement of 87mm, whereas in the higher mode
(eighth mode), the center of the mass of the superstructure underwent a
maximum displacement of 84mm. As both the fundamental mode and higher
mode experienced more or less the same deck displacement the total
responses of the deck at each bent location, by using the modal combination
rule (SRSS), was found to be of a considerably larger value.
The results of the modal pushover analysis, which accounts for the
two transverse modes (fundamental mode and eighth mode), were not closer
to those of the time-history analysis, due to the estimation of the total
response by using the modal combination rule (SRSS) (Figure 8.1).

146

140

Mode#1

Mode#8

Time-history

SRSS

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
B1

B2

B3

B4
B5
Bent Number

B6

B7

Figure 8.1 Displacement of the deck in the transverse direction

From Figure 8.1, it was observed that the SRSS overestimates the
transverse displacement of the deck of the bridge (120mm), compared to the
more accurate approach of the nonlinear time-history (78.3mm). On the other
hand, from both the results of the independent pushover analysis of mode#1
and mode#8, it was found that the displacement of the deck at all the bent
locations in the higher mode (mode#8) were much closer to the nonlinear
time-history analysis results, indicating the significance of the higher mode.
8.2.2

Bent top Displacement in the Transverse Direction

The bent top displacements determined by the standard pushover

analysis (SPA) for the fundamental mode, modal pushover analyses (mode#1
and mode#8) and the SRSS results, were compared with those from the
nonlinear time history analysis, and are shown in Figure 8.2.

From the

147

pushover analysis results it was found that for the fundamental mode, the
middle bent B4 experienced a maximum displacement of 79.2mm, whereas
in the higher mode (eighth mode), the middle bent underwent a maximum
displacement of 75.9mm. The comparison of the results of mode#1, mode#8,
the SRSS and the time-history analysis are shown in Figure 8.2.

Mode#1

Mode#8

Time-history

SRSS

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

Bent Number

Figure 8.2 Bent top displacement in the transverse direction

From the results of the independent pushover analysis of mode#1
and mode#8, it was found that the bent top displacements observed in both the
fundamental mode and the higher mode (mode#8) overestimate the
displacement observed with the nonlinear time-history analysis. The bent top
displacement calculated using the SRSS overestimates the results compared to
mode#1, mode#8 and the time-history results.

148

8.2.3

Top Drift (%) for Bridge Bents and Decks in the Transverse
Direction
The top drift (%) for each bent has been calculated by dividing the

maximum bent top displacement by the height of the bridge bent, and
multiplied by hundred. Each bent top displacement was found from the
nonlinear static pushover analyses and time history analysis. The comparison
of each bent top drift in the transverse direction obtained, is shown in
Figure 8.3.

1.80

Mode#1

Mode#8

Time-history

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
B1

B2

B3

B4
B5
Bent Number

B6

B7

Figure 8.3 Bent top drift (%)

Similarly, the deck drift (%) at each bent location was calculated,
and is shown in Figure 8.4. It was observed that the maximum deck top drift
was 1.1 times greater than the bent top drift obtained from the pushover
analysis, and 1.4 times greater than that obtained from the time history
analysis.

149

2.00
Mode#1

Mode#8

Time-history

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
B1

B2

B3

B4
B5
Bent Number

B6

B7

Figure 8.4 Deck drift (%)

8.2.4

Drift Capacity and Demand in the Transverse Direction

Drift capacity is defined as the global drift of the bent, which is

obtained from the pushover analysis. The drift demand is defined as the
average maximum bent top drift, when subjected to an earthquake load. The
global drift capacity and demand of the bent in the transverse direction is
shown in Table 8.1. The global drift of the bent was greater than the drift
demand.
Table 8.1 Drift capacity and demand in the transverse direction
Sl. No.

Drift capacity

Drift demand

1.

1.79

1.61

150

8.2.5

Control Node Displacement in the Transverse and Longitudinal

Directions
In the study bridge, the center of the mass of the superstructure was

assumed as the control node. The control node displacements obtained from
the longitudinal and transverse pushover analysis were compared with the
time-history analysis results. The control node displacements of the bridge
structure exhibited by the time-history analysis in the transverse and
longitudinal directions are shown in Figures 8.5 and 8.6. The comparison of
the modal pushover analysis results with the timehistory analysis results in
the transverse and longitudinal directions, are given in Tables 8.2 and 8.3
repectively.

Figure 8.5 Control node displacement in the transverse direction

From Table 8.2, it is found that modal pushover analyses and the
SRSS overestimate the control node displacement, when compared with the
time-history analysis.

151

Table 8.2 Control node displacement in the transverse direction

Sl. No.

1.

Pushover analysis
mode#1
mode#8
(mm)
(mm)
87
84

SRSS
(mm)

Time-history analysis
(mm)

121

78

Figure 8.6 Control node displacement in the longitudinal direction

Table 8.3 Control node displacement in the longitudinal direction

Sl. No.

1.

Pushover analysis

Time-history

(mode#2)

analysis

(mm)

(mm)

22

26

From the longitudinal pushover analysis results, it was observed

that there was an equal deck displacement of 22mm in the longitudinal
direction. The expansion bearing, which is the compression only element has
25.4mm thickness. The expansion bearing which is modeled as gap element

152

will contribute resistance, when the relative displacement between the

adjacent spans is more than the initial gap of 25.4mm. When the gap closes,
pounding occurs and the gap element offers infinite stiffness. The longitudinal
displacements of each span of the bridge structure obtained from pushover
and time-history analyses are given in Table 8.4. From the pushover analysis
results it was found, that the span displacements have not exceeded 25.4mm,
indicating that pounding damage would not occur in the bridge.
Table 8.4 Longitudinal displacement of each span of the bridge

Span
Number

End of the
deck

Pushover
analysis
(mode#2)
(mm)

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

VIII

Time-history
analysis
(mm)

left

7.80

8.5

right

9.80

10.84

left

14.50

16.33

right

16.00

18.2

left

19.20

22.2

right

20.10

23.4

left

21.70

25.6

right

22.00

26

left

22.00

26

right

21.70

25.6

left

20.10

23.4

right

19.20

22.2

left

16.00

18.2

right

14.50

16.33

left

9.80

10.8

right

7.80

8.5

153

From the time history analysis results it was found that spans IV
and V undergo a maximum displacement of 26mm, which was greater than
the thickness of the expansion joint indicating that pounding damage would
occur in the bridge structure. Thus, the pushover analysis had failed to predict
the pounding damage that could occur in the bridge.
8.2.6

Base Shear in the Transverse Direction

Base shear is the shearing force (Vb) developed at the base of a

structure by the tendency of its upper mass to remain at rest, while the base is
translated by ground motion during an earthquake. The base shear obtained
when the bridge is subjected to the El Centro Earthquake in the transverse
direction is shown in Figure 8.7. The comparison of the base shear values
obtained from the fundamental mode (mode#1), the higher mode (mode#8),
SRSS and the nonlinear time-history analysis are given in Table 8.5. The
nonlinear time-history analysis estimated a maximum lateral force value of
29070kN that had occurred due to seismic ground motion at the base of the
structure during the time period of 0.24s. The maximum base shear value
obtained from the time-history analysis was 2.79 times of the base shear value
obtained from the fundamental mode pushover analysis, and 4.91 times that
of the base shear value obtained from the higher mode. Thus, the pushover
analysis results and SRSS underestimated the base shear value in the
transverse direction compared to time-history analysis.

154

Figure 8.7 Base Shear in the transverse direction

Table 8.5 Base Shear in the transverse direction
Pushover Analysis
(mode#1)

(mode#8)

SRSS
(kN)

10417.61

5911.78

11978.14

Sl.No.
1.

8.2.7

Time-history
analysis
(kN)
29070.00

Base Shear in the Longitudinal Direction

The base shear obtained when the bridge is subjected to the El

Centro earthquake in the longitudinal direction is shown in Figure 8.8. Table

8.6 compares the base shear values obtained from the mode (mode#2) which
participated in the vibration of the structure in the longitudinal direction, with
the results of the time-history analysis. Similar to the results obtained in the
transverse direction; in the longitudinal direction also, the pushover analysis
underestimated the base shear value.

155

Figure 8.8 Base shear in the longitudinal direction

Table 8.6 Base shear in the longitudinal direction

Sl.No.
1.

8.2.8

Pushover analysis Time-history analysis

(kN)

(kN)

38619.86

41670.00

Overturning Moment
The comparison of the overturning moment obtained from the

modal pushover analysis and the time-history analysis when performed in the
transverse direction with the MPA procedure (SRSS) is shown in Figure 8.9.
The use of MPA procedure (SRSS) rule results in considerable overestimation
of the column moments. The modal pushover analyses results match very well
with the time-history analysis results in the intermediate bents, while they
overestimate the result at the exterior bents.

156

5000
Mode#1

Mode#8

Time-history

SRSS

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

Bent Number

Figure 8.9 Overturning moment at each bent

8.2.9

Base Shear at Each Bent

The comparison of the base shear values obtained from the modal

pushover and time history analyses, SRSS in the transverse direction is shown
in Figure 8.10. It was observed that, the difference between the base shear
values calculated from the time-history analysis and those from the nonlinear
static analysis, is more near the abutments of the bridge. The base shear
values obtained from the modal pushover analyses were a little greater than
the time-history analysis results in the intermediate bents, while they
overestimated the base shear at the exterior bents. The SRSS rule results in a
considerable overestimation of the columns shear.

157

1800

Mode#1

Mode#8

Time-history

SRSS

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

Bent Number

Figure 8.10 Base shear at each bent

8.2.10

Summary
The nonlinear time-history analysis was performed in both

longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge structure using El Centro

Earthquake record and results are compared with modal pushover analyses
results.
Modal pushover analysis and the SRSS have overestimated the
bent top displacements compared to time-history analysis.
The modal combination rule (SRSS) overestimates the
displacement of each span at all the bent locations in the
transverse direction. The transverse displacement of each span
at all the bent locations in the higher mode (mode#8) was much
closer to the nonlinear time-history analysis results, indicating
the significance of the higher mode.

158

Modal pushover analyses overestimate the control node

displacement in the transverse direction, when compared with
the time-history analysis.
Modal pushover analysis underestimates the control node
displacement in the longitudinal direction, when compared with
the time-history analysis.
The maximum base shear value obtained from the time-history
analysis was compared with the modal pushover analysis and
SRSS rule. It was found that modal pushover analysis results as
well as the SRSS value underestimated the base shear, when
compared with the time-history analysis.
In the intermediate bents, at each bent location the overturning
moment and shear forces calculated were found to match well in
both modal pushover analyses and time-history analysis. At the
exterior bents a larger difference in results was observed.
From the pushover analysis results performed in the
longitudinal direction, it was found that the displacement of the
deck panels have not exceeded the expansion joint thickness,
indicating that pounding damage would not occur in the bridge.
From the time-history analysis results, it was found that spans
IV and V undergo a maximum displacement, greater than the
thickness of the expansion joint indicating that pounding
damage would occur in the bridge structure. Thus, the pushover
analysis had failed to predict the pounding damage that could
occur in the bridge.