Seismic Analysis of A Three Span Deck Girder Bridge, Zasiah Tafheem

Seismic Analysis of a
Three Span Deck Girder Bridge
Submitted by
Zasiah Tafheem
Student No.0204118
Course: CE400 ( Project and thesis )
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
Department of Civil Engineering
BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
January,2008
DECLARATION
Declared that except where specified by reference to other works, the studies embodied
in the thesis is the result of investigation carried out by the author under the supervision
of Dr.Khan Mahmud Amanat, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET.
Neither the thesis nor any part thereof has been submitted to or is being submitted
elsewhere for any other purposes.
Signature of the student
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
List of Symbols x
Acknowledgement xi
Abstract xii
CHAPTER 1. Introduction
1.1General 1
1.2 Scope and Objective 2
1.3 Assumption 3
1.4 Contents 3
CHAPTER 2. Seismic Analysis of Simple Bridges

2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Basic Dynamics 4
2.3 Basis for Seismic Design 5
2.4 Current Bridge Design Criteria 6
2.5 Earthquake Loading for Design 6
2.6 Zoning Map and Acceleration Co-efficient 7
2.7 Design Earthquake Ground Motion 7
2.8 Influence of Soil Condition on Ground motion 9
2.9 Importance Classification 9
2.10 Seismic Performance Categories 10
ii
2.11 Site Effects 10
2.12 Response Modification Factors 11
2.13 Analysis Procedure According to AASHTO Guideline
2.13.1 Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method 13
2.13.2 Method of Calculation of Seismic Load by Single 17
Mode Spectral Analysis Method
2.14 Response Spectrum Analysis
2.14.1 Spectrum 21
2.14.1.1 Response Spectrum 21
2.14.1.2 Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM) 26
2.14.1.3 Power Spectral Density 26
2.14.2 Analysis Procedure 26
2.14.2.1 Modeling of Structure 26
2.14.2.2 Performing the Modal Solution 27
2.14.2.3 Performing Spectrum Solution 28
2.14.2.4 Expanding the Modes 29
2.14.2.5 Combination of the Modes 29
2.14.3 Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Load 30
2.14.4 Member Forces and Displacement 31
CHAPTER 3. Modeling and Methodology for Numerical Analysis

3.1 Introduction 33
3.2 The Finite Element Package 33
3.3 The Bridge under Study 34
3.4 Finite Element Modeling of Bridge 36
3.4.1 Modeling of the slab 36
3.4.2 Modeling of Girder and Column 38
3.4.3 Boundary Condition 39
iii
3.4.4 Material Behavior 40
3.5 Finite Element Modeling of Bridge for Space Frame Analysis 40
3.6 Finite Element Model Mesh 41
3.7 Determination of Period of Vibration 42
CHAPTER 4. Seismic Load Analysis of a three span deck girder bridge

4.1 Introduction 43
4.2 Basic Data 43
4.2.1 Acceleration Coefficient 43
4.2.2 Importance Classification 43
4.2.3 Seismic Performance Categories 43
4.2.4 Site Effects 43
4.2.5 Response Modification Factor 44
4.2.6 Analysis According to AASHTO Code 44
4.2.7 Determination of Elastic Forces and Displacement 44
4.2.8 Combination of Orthogonal Forces 44
4.3 Hand Calculation of Single Mode Spectral Analysis According to
AASHTO Guideline 45
4.3.1 Longitudinal Earthquake Loading 45
4.3.2 Transverse Earthquake Loading 48
4.3.3 Elastic and Modified Forces due to Dead Load 52
4.3.4 Modified Design Forces 54
4.4 Single Response Spectrum Analysis 55
4.4.1 Performing the Modal Analysis 55
4.4.2 Response Spectrum Function 63
4.4.3 Elastic and Modified Forces 65
4.4.4 Modified Design Forces 66
4.4.5 Elastic and Modified Forces due to Dead Load 67
4.5 Comparison Among the Results 67
iv
CHAPTER 5. Conclusion
5.1 General 81
5.2 Summary 82
5.3 Recommendation for Future Investigation 82
REFERENCES 84
APPENDIX
A. ANSYS Script Files 85
B. Data tables used for the analysis 103
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Seismic performance category (SPC) 10

Table 2.2 Site Coefficient (S) 11
Table 2.3 Response modification factor (R) 12
Table 3.1 Shell63 input summary 37
Table 3.2 Beam4 input summary 38
Table 3.3 Various material properties 40
Table 4.1 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion 48
Table 4.2 Displacements and seismic loading intensity for transverse loading 51
Table 4.3 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion 52
Table 4.4 Elastic and modified forces due to dead load 52
Table 4.5 Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2 53
Table 4.6 The frequency and time period of mode of vibration 55
Table 4.7 Parameter of 1994 UBC 63
Table 4.8 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion 65
Table 4.9 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion 65
Table 4.10 Elastic and modified forces due to dead load 67
Table 4.11 Design forces for case І (AASHTO) 68
Table 4.12 Design forces for Case ІI (Response spectrum) 68
Table 4.13 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for outer column 69
Table 4.14 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for centre column 70
Table 4.15 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of outer column 71
Table 4.16 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) for centre column 72
Table 4.17 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for outer column 73
Table 4.18 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for centre column 74
Table 4.19 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for outer column 75
Table 4.20 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for centre column 76
Table 4.21 Comparison of axial force (KN) for outer column 77
vi
Table 4.22 Comparison of axial force (KN) for centre column 78
Table 4.23 Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for outer column 79
Table 4.24 Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for centre column 80
Table B1 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake
motion(AASHTO) 103
Table B2 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion
(AASHTO) 103
Table B3 Displacements and seismic loading intensity for transverse loading 104
Table B4 Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2 105
Table B5 Elastic and modified forces due to dead load 106
Table B6 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion 106
( Response spectrum)
Table B7 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion 107
( Response spectrum)
Table B8 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for outer column 107
Table B9 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for centre column 107
Table B10 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of outer column 108
Table B11 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of centre column 108
Table B12 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for outer column 108
Table B13 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for centre column 108
Table B14 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for outer column 108
Table B15 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for centre column 109
Table B16 Comparison of axial force (KN) for outer column 109
Table B17 Comparison of axial force (KN) for centre column 109
Table B18 Comparison of design moment (KN-m) for outer column 109
Table B19 Comparison of design moment (KN-m) for centre column 109
Table B20 Design forces for case І (AASHTO) 110
Table B21 Design forces for Case ІI (Response spectrum) 110
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Plan view of a bridge subjected to a transverse earthquake motion 14

Figure 2.2 Displacement functions describing the transverse position of the 14
bridge deck
Figure 2.3 Deflected shape due to uniform static loading 15
Figure 2.4 Transverse free vibration of the bridge in assumed mode shape 16
Figure 2.5 Characteristic static loading applied to the bridge system 18
Figure 2.6 Bridge deck subjected to assumed longitudinal and transverse 19
loading
Figure 2.7 Bridge deck subjected to equivalent transverse and longitudinal 20
Figure 2.8a Relative Displacement Spectrum y(ω) MAX – Inches 24
Figure 2.8b Pseudo Acceleration Spectrum, Sa= ω y(ω) MAX - Percent of
2
24
Gravity
Figure 2.9 Single-Point and Multi-Point Response Spectra 25
Figure 2.10 Normalized Response Spectra for 5% Damping Ratio 29
Figure 3.1 Dimensions of example bridge 35
Figure 3.2 SHELL63 Elastic Elements 36
Figure 3.3 BEAM4 3D Elastic Elements 39
Figure 3.4 Model of a three span deck girder bridge 41
Figure 4.1 Structural idealization and application of assumed uniform 45
loading for longitudinal mode of vibration
Figure 4.2 Three span bridge subjected to longitudinal equivalent static 47
seismic loading
Figure 4.3 Three span bridge subjected to uniform transverse loading 48
Figure 4.4 Three span bridge subjected to transverse equivalent static 50
seismic loading
Figure 4.5 First mode of vibration (T=0.8501 sec) 56
Figure 4.6 Second mode of vibration (T=0.4599 sec) 56
viii
Figure 4.7 Third mode of vibration (T=0.3836 sec) 57
Figure 4.8 Fourth mode of vibration (T= 0.3787 sec) 57
Figure 4.9 Fifth mode of vibration (T= 0.3563 sec) 58
Figure 4.10 Sixth mode of vibration (T= 0.3155 sec) 58
Figure 4.11 Seventh mode of vibration (T= 0.2767sec) 59
Figure 4.12 Eighth mode of vibration (T= 0.2595 sec) 59
Figure 4.13 Ninth mode of vibration (T= 0.2406 sec) 60
Figure 4.14 Tenth mode of vibration (T= 0.2248 sec) 60
Figure 4.15 Eleventh mode of vibration (T= 0.1992 sec) 61
Figure 4.16 Twelfth mode of vibration (T= 0.1894 sec) 61
Figure 4.17 Thirteenth mode of vibration (T= 0.1845sec) 62
Figure 4.18 Fourteenth mode of vibration (T= 0.1772 sec) 62
Figure 4.19 Function graph for UBC 1994 64
Figure 4.20 Comparison of longitudinal shear force for outer column 69
Figure 4.21 Comparison of longitudinal shear force for centre column 70
Figure 4.22 Comparison of longitudinal moment for outer column 71
Figure 4.23 Comparison of longitudinal moment for centre column 72
Figure 4.24 Comparison of transverse shear force for outer column 73
Figure 4.25 Comparison of transverse shear force for centre column 74
Figure 4.26 Comparison of transverse moment for outer column 75
Figure 4.27 Comparison of transverse moment for centre column 76
Figure 4.28 Comparison of axial force for outer column 77
Figure 4.29 Comparison of axial force for centre column 78
Figure 4.30 Comparison of design moment for outer column 79
Figure 4.31 Comparison of design moment for centre column 80
ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
CS Elastic seismic response coefficient

E Modulus of elasticity of concrete, N/m2
g Gravitational acceleration, m/sec2
H Height of column, m
I Moment of inertia, m4
K Stiffness, N/m
M Moment, N-m
Mzz΄ Longitudinal moment, N-m
M YY ' Transverse moment, N-m

Px' Axial force, N
Pe(x) Intensity of equivalent static seismic loading, N/m
PO Assumed uniform loading, N/m
R Response modification factor
T Time period, sec
VS Displacement,
Vz' Transverse shear force, N
Vy' Longitudinal shear force, N
WE External work
W(x) Dead load per unit length, N/m
α Coefficient used to calculate time period
β Coefficient used to calculate time period
γ Coefficient used to calculate time period
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thank to Almighty Allah, the benevolent and the kind, for His graciousness, unlimited
kindness and with the blessings of whom the good deeds are fulfilled.
I would like to express my deepest sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr.Khan Mahmud

Amanat, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET for giving me a unique
opportunity to work on such an important topic. His continuous guidance, generous help,
invaluable suggestion and affectionate encouragement are greatly acknowledged. His
keen interest on the topic and enthusiastic support on my effort was a source of
inspiration to carry out the study. I consider myself very fortunate to work under his
supervision.
Finally I would like to express a very special indebtedness to my parents, brother and
sister for their undying love, encouragement and moral support throughout my life and
education. I also wish to express my appreciation to all of my teachers because without
their blessings, achieving this goal would have been impossible.
xi
ABSTRACT
Earthquake resistant bridge design must ensure that the bridge piers withstand the lateral
forces generated during earthquake. AASHTO, recommend some semi analytical
procedure to determine the design seismic forces. In context of availability of modern
computational techniques and powerful computers, the AASHTO suggested procedure
may appear somewhat out-dated. Therefore in the next step AASJTO analytical
procedure was compared performing Response Spectrum Analysis.
The entire work is carried out in two steps. In the first step, the design seismic forces are
calculated using comprehensive 3D model of beam and shell element by following the
original AASHTO specification a. In the second step, Response Spectrum Analysis has
been performed. The design forces and moments are obtained by using the AASHTO
guideline. Finally, a comparative study has been performed among two methods
described above.
It is observed that the magnitude of axial forces almost same in different methods, but
the design moment and shear forces vary significantly. Since finite element model is a
better representation of the bridge, the result of the last step may be considered more
reliable than other methods.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Earthquake could be defined as chaotic motion of the earth’s crust,
characterized by time dependent amplitudes and frequencies. From the past
historical records of earthquake occurrence, it is seen that earthquake is one of the
most feared natural disasters which has caused incalculable destruction of properties
and injury and loss of lives to the population. Earthquakes occur due to the
instability of the earth crust and the sudden release of accumulated stress deep inside
the crust. The sudden release of energy during an earthquake may lead to ground
shaking, surface faulting, and ground failures. Stresses are generated in structures
due to the ground shaking and if a structure is incapable of resting these additional
stresses, it will suffer damage. The current philosophy behind earthquake resistant
design of common structures is to ensure that
• Hazards to life be minimized
• Design ground motions have low probability of being exceeded during normal
lifetime of bridge.
• Function of essential bridges is maintained.
• There are no damages (or only slight but repairable nonstructural damage) due to
design earthquakes. Bridges may suffer damage but have low probability of collapse
due to earthquake motion.
• Collapse is prevented during more severe earthquakes, which is achieved by
ensuring ductile, rather than brittle behavior of the structural response. Collapse of
the structure, which does not have adequate seismic resistance, result in human
death and injuries.
The behavior of bridge structures under the influence of seismic load has been a
major point of interest of engineers over a long period of time. Each year more than
800,000 earthquakes are recorded by the World Wide Network of Seismic Stations
(WWNSS) and are analyzed with the aid of computers, at the earthquake data center
in Boulder,Colorado. The 1971 San Fernando earthquake was a major turning point in
Introduction 2
the development of seismic design criteria for bridges. Although significant advances
have been achieved since that time in the design and construction of an earthquake
resistant bridge, numerous gaps still remain in the understanding of the seismic
behavior of bridges.
The damage to bridge structures during an earthquake may be classified into three
categories:
(i) Damage due to inadequate strength of foundation
(ii) Damage due to soil liquefaction
(iii) Damage to columns and bearing support.
Earthquake resistant bridge design must ensure that the bridge piers withstand the
lateral forces generated during earthquake. AASHTO recommends some semi
analytical procedure to determine the design seismic forces. There are also a lot of
analysis procedures developed in different finite element software to determine the
design seismic forces. In this thesis paper two analysis cases are considered.
 analysis procedure according to AASHTO guideline
 Response Spectrum Analysis
In the AASHTO example procedure, axial deformation in the deck has been
neglected and assumed that the deck behaves as a rigid member. The bridge has been
idealized so that the abutment does not contribute to the longitudinal stiffness. For
the analysis, frame model has been used. All this were done for the purposes of
simplicity. For Response Spectrum Analysis the bridge first modeled and then
analysis using ANSYS.
1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE

The behavior of bridge structure under the influence of seismic load has been a major
point of interest for engineers over a long period of time. The objectives of the present
research are
 To conduct a thorough literature survey on available information and methods
of seismic load analysis of bridge.
Introduction 3
 To analyze the longitudinal and transverse earthquake motion of the bridge

and to determine the equivalent static seismic load as well as the design forces
of columns and abutment following the single mode spectral analysis method
of AASHTO code and Response Spectrum Analysis.
 To determine the natural period of vibrations of the comprehensive 3D model
using modal analysis technique.
 To determine the design forces and moments following the AASHTO code
and Response Spectrum Analysis using a comprehensive 3D finite element
model using beam and shell element.
 To make a comparative study of the design forces and moments found from
the two cases.
 It is expected that the findings of this study will lead to the better
understanding of the behavior of bridge under seismic loading. For simplicity
of the analysis, linear material behavior, fixed support condition will be
assumed in this study.
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS
The bridge structure under study has a constant stiffness and a linear behavior of all
material properties. However, a nonlinear analysis may be carried out (which is more
common for bridges).
1.4 CONTENTS
The entire work is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 is the current chapter which
introduces the work presented in this thesis. Chapter 2 deals with the existing state of
the art report which mentions the works carried out by previous researchers and also
sheds light on the methodology of the analysis. The purpose of Chapter 3 is to discuss
the essential details of modeling using finite element modeling technique. Chapter 4 is
aimed at the seismic load analysis of a Three Span Deck Girder Bridge. The detail
calculation of seismic load and the comparison among the results are described in this
chapter. And finally Chapter 5 draws a conclusion by summarizing the outcome of the
thesis and proposes new direction for further research and development.
CHAPTER 2
SEISMIC DESIGN OF SIMPLE BRIDGES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The basic aim of seismic design in any engineering design is to ensure that the
resistance of the structure is greater than the loads applied to it. This is complicated
in seismic design by the fact that earthquake loads are dynamic and not
deterministic, i.e. they cannot be determined in an explicit manner in the same way
that dead loads, vehicle loads and other environmental loads may be computed. It is
therefore clearly important to be able to analyze a bridge for dynamic loads; the
intent of this chapter is to outline the standards required for the design and
construction of new bridges and to present the procedures for determination of the
magnitude of the design loads. Primary emphasis is given to the design philosophy
and design requirements of the AASHTO Guide Specifications (AASHTO, 1991)
and then describing the procedure for determining design loads using Response
Spectrum analysis.
2.2 BASIC DYNAMICS

An action has a dynamic character if it has a rapid time variation, causing inertia
forces in structures with important intensities as compared with those of the static
action. The intensity and direction of dynamic loads, are time-dependent. Two
different concepts can be used in the definition of the dynamic loads: the
deterministic concept and the nondeterministic or random one. A dynamic load has a
deterministic character in the case in which its time variation is completely known at
each time instant. On the contrary, a dynamic load is nondeterministic if some
parameters of it or its complete time-history have been statistically defined.
Dynamic loads are loads that vary with time. Bridges are subjected to several
kinds of dynamic loads ranging from wind and earthquake. Response to these loads
can be markedly different to that under static loads. It is possible that bridges that
Seismic design of simple bridges 5
have repeatedly withstood static loads may collapse under dynamic loading of smaller
magnitude.
The essential difference between static and dynamic loads is the time varying nature
of the dynamic loads. If the frequency content of the applied load is close to the
natural frequency of vibration of the bridge, the structure will amplify the loading
(Clough and Penzien, 1975; Biggs, 1964) and large and potentially destructive forces
will be generated within the bridge. Therefore, problems arise when frequency
matching occurs. This is the basis of all resonance phenomena. Load which is
applied very slowly causes response which is virtually identical to static loading.
On the other hand, cyclic load which is applied very rapidly has negligible effect
on a structure (Biggs, 1964). Amplification of load only occurs when the rate of
application of load is near one of the natural frequencies of one of the modes of
vibration of for the bridge. Different bridges will therefore respond differently to
the same load because their natural frequencies will be different.
2.3 BASIS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN

For permanent loads (dead loads) or frequently occurring loads (live loads)
engineering design is based on elastic principles so that the capacity of the structures is
sufficient to resist all loads with a specified margin of safety. The magnitude of
earthquake loads is such that this principle will be unrealistic for most bridges. A
commonly accepted seismic design philosophy for bridges is as follows:
 For low to moderate earthquakes, which may be expected to occur several
times throughout the life of the bridge, the structure is designed to resist these
loads with only minor damage.
 For severe earthquakes which may occur once in the lifetime of the bridge, so
as to prevent collapse and preserve public safety. Where possible, damages that
do occur should be readily detectable and accessible for inspection and, if
feasible, repair.
2.4 CURRENT BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA
Since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the Federal Highway Administration
has funded numerous research projects to improve the seismic design of bridges.
These culminated in a contract to the Applied Technology Council of California
to compile a new set of design guidelines based on the results of this research
published in 1981, the ACT-6 seismic design Guidelines for Highway Bridges were
adopted by AASHTO in 1983 as "Guide Specifications for the Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges". These specifications represent the state-of-the-art in the seismic
design of bridges and are recommended for the design of all new bridges through
out the United States. New Zealand and Japanese engineers have also refined and
updated their seismic design criteria for highway bridges in recent years. As
consequence, the seismic design provisions in New Zealand Ministry of Works
Highway Bridge Design Brief (New Zealand Ministry of Works and Development,
1985) are also amended.
Conceptually, the Caltrans, New Zealand and Japanese Seismic design approaches
all employ a "force design" concept. The Japanese criteria incorporate the highest
levels of design forces and therefore rely less on the ductility of the supporting
columns.
2.5 EARTHQUAKE LOADING FOR DESIGN

In the development of design loads, it must be emphasized the specification of
earthquake ground shaking can not be achieved solely by following a set of
scientific principles, for the following reasons. First, the causes of earthquake are
still not well understood and the experts do not fully agree as to how the available
knowledge should be interpreted to specify the ground motion for use in design.
Second, to achieve a workable bridge design provisions, it is important to simplify
the complex matter of earthquake occurrence and ground motions. Finally, any
specification of a design ground shaking involves balancing the risk of that motion
occurring against the cost to society to of requiring that the structures be designed to
withstand that motion. Hence, judgment, engineering knowledge and political

wisdom are as necessary as scientific knowledge.
In the AASHTO Guide Specifications, the design loads are expressed as a design
coefficient or design response spectra which represent the expected realistic force
levels for the site. These force levels are derived such that they have a 10% to 20%
chance of being exceeded every 50 years and are a function of the acceleration
coefficient and the site soil condition.
2.6 ZONING MAP AND ACCELERATION CO-EFFICIENT

The first step in the determination of the design loads is the use of seismic zoning
map to determine the zone in which the bridge site is located. This defines the level
of seismic risk to which the bridge will be exposed.
2.7 DESIGN EARTHQAKE GROUND MOTION
The ground shaking which occurs in an earthquake may be described as a series of

virtually multi-directional random acceleration pulse. The ground movements will
generally produce simultaneous translation along and rocking about the two
horizontal orthogonal axes, as well as displacement along and torsion about the
vertical axis of the structure. An accelerogram recorded during the occurrence of an
earthquake shows an irregularly timed sequence of both positive and negative peaks
of acceleration having varying amplitudes. The response of a structure to such
acceleration-time histories may be determined from an elastic analysis, unless the
inertial forces are sufficiently large to cause inelastic deformations or localized
failures.
The intensity of the ground shaking to which the structure may be subjected during
its lifetime can be estimated from the recorded earthquake history in the area in
which it is situated. Continuing records are used to produce maps showing regions of
relative possible seismic hazards and these can be extended and refined as
knowledge such events is accumulated. When designing a structure to resist seismic
forces, the design loads may be determined from a dynamic analysis of the
structure’s response to time-history base accelerations, based on an actual recorded
local event, or an artificially generated time-history. Such a time consuming rigorous
approach may be simplified by the use of earthquake response spectra, which,
although requiring less computational effort, yield acceptably similar results for peak
responses.
The seismic response of the structure will depend on the dynamic properties of the
structure, the ground motion at the foundation, the mode of soil-structure interaction.
The motion of a very stiff structure will be almost identical to the ground motion, but
that of the flexible structure will be quite different. This will depend on the proximity
of the natural frequencies of the structure to that of the predominant ground motion
frequency, the damping inherent the structure, the foundation behavior, the ductility
of the structure, and the duration of the earthquake.
The determination of appropriate seismic design loads, although complex in reality

has been significantly simplified for code application. To state the concept rather
than proving a definition, the design ground motion for a location is the ground
motion that the engineer should consider when designing a structure to provide a
satisfactory degree of protection for life safety and to prevent collapse.
At present, the best workable tool for describing the ground shaking is a smoothed
elastic seismic response spectrum for single degree-of-freedom systems. Such a
spectrum provides a quantitative description of both the intensity and frequency
content of ground motion. Smoothed elastic response spectra for a 5% damping are
used as a basis tool for the representation of local ground motion.
2.8 INFLUENCE OF SOIL CONDITION ON GROUND MOTION

At the present there is a high degree of agreement that the characteristics of ground
shaking and the corresponding spectra are influenced by:
 The characteristics of the soil deposits underlying the proposed area.
 The magnitude of the earthquake producing the ground motions.
 The source mechanism of the earthquake producing the ground motions.
 The distance of the earthquake from the proposed site and the geology of the
travel path.
While it is conceptually desirable to include the specific considerations of all of the

four factors listed above it is not possible to do so at the present time because of lack
of adequate data. Sufficient information is available to characterize in a general way
the effects of specific soil conditions on effective peak acceleration and spectral
shapes. The effects of the other factors are so little understood at this time that they
are often not considered in spectral studies.
The present recommendations therefore only consider effects of site conditions and
distance the seismic source zone. At such times the potential effects of other
significant parameters can be delineated and quantified, the current
recommendations can be modified to reflect these effects.
2.9 IMPORTANCE CLASSIFICATION

An Importance classification (IC) shall be assigned for all bridges with an
acceleration
co-efficient greater than 0.29 for the purpose of determining the Seismic
Performance
Category (SPC) as follows:
1. Essential bridges IC=I
2. Other bridges IC= II
Bridges shall be classified on the basis of social / survival and security /

defense requirements.
2.10 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES

Each bridge shall be assigned to one of four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC).
A through D, based on the Acceleration Coefficient (A) and the Importance
Classification (IC), as shown in Table 2.1. Minimum analysis and design requirements
arc governed by the SPC.
Table 2.1 Seismic performance category (SPC)

Acceleration coefficient Importance Classification(IC)
A I ІІ
A<0.09 A A
0.09<A<0.19 B B
O.I9<A<0.29 C C
0.29<A D C
2.11 SITE EFFECTS

The effects of site conditions on bridge response shall be determined from a site
coefficient (S) based on soil profile types defined as follows:
SOIL PROFILE TYPE I is a profile with either

 Rock of any characteristic, either shale like or crystalline in nature (such
material may be characterized by a shear wave velocity greater than 2,500
ft/sec or by other appropriate means of classification); or
 Stiff soil conditions where .the soil depth is less than 200 ft and the soil
types overlying rocks are stable deposits of sand, gravels, or stiff clays.
SOIL PROFILE TYPE II is a profile with stiff clay or deep cohesionless soil
condition where the soil depth exceeds 200 ft and the soil types overlying the
rocks are stable deposits of sands, gravels or stiff clays.
In the first case the three span deck girder bridge was analyzed using the Single
Mode Spectral Analysis Method as outlined in AASHTO. Details of these methods
are described here.
SOIL PROFILE TYPE III is a profile with soft to medium stiff clays and sands,
characterized by 30 ft or of soft of medium-stiff clays with or without intervening
layers of sands or other cohesionless soils.
In locations where the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the
soil profile type or where the profile does not fit any of the three soil types, the site
coefficient for Soil Profile Type II shall be used.
The site coefficient (S) approximates the effects of the site conditions on the elastic
response coefficient or spectrum and is given in table 2.2
Table 2.2 Site coefficient (S)
Soil profile type

S I II III
1.0 1.2 1.5
2.12 RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS

Seismic design forces for individual members and connections of bridges classified as
SPC B, C and D are determined by dividing the elastic forces by the appropriate Response
Modification Factor (R). The response modification factor for the various components is
given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Response modification factor (R)

SUBSTRUCTURE R CONNECTIONS R
Wall Type Pier 2 Superstructure to 0.8

Abutments
Reinforced Concrete Expansion joints
Pile Bents within a Span of 0.8
a. Vertical Piles 3 the Superstructure
Only b. One or 2
Single Columns Columns, Piers or
3 Pile Bents to Cap 1.0
Beam or
superstructure
Steel or Composite Columns or piers

Steel and Concrete to foundations 1.0
Pile Bents
a. Vertical Piles 5
Only 3
b. One or more
Batter Piles
Multi Column Bent 5
2.13 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO AASHTO GUIDELINE

The determination of appropriate seismic design loads, although complex in reality,
has been significantly simplified for code application. The AASHTO Seismic Guide
Specification suggests for three procedures for analysis.
a. Elastic seismic response coefficient and spectrum.
b. Single mode spectral analysis method.
c. Multi mode spectral analysis method.
In the first case the three span deck girder bridge was analyzed using the Single
Mode Spectral Analysis Method as outlined in AASHTO. Details of these methods
are described here.
2.13.1 Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method
The single mode spectral analysis method is used to calculate the seismic design
forces for bridges that respond predominantly in the first mode of vibration. The
method, although completely rigorous from a structural dynamics point of view,
reduces to a problem of static’s after introduction of inertia forces. The method, as
formulated, can be applied to many types of bridges which have both continuous
and non-continuous superstructures. Boundary conditions at the abutments and piers
can also be modeled to include the effects of foundations flexibility.
Bridges are generally continuous systems consisting of many components which
contribute to the overall resistance capacities of the system. A bridge subjected to a
transverse earthquake ground motion has been considered. The bridge is composed
of several spans restrained transversely at the end abutments and intermediate
piers, as shown in figure 2.1. Typically the bridge deck may have expansion joints at
the piers or within the spans. The expansion joints do not have the capability to
transmit transverse deck moments between adjacent deck sections. The equation of
motion for a continuous system representing this system is conveniently formulated
using energy principles. The principal of virtual displacements may be used to
formulate a generalized parameter model of a continuous system in a manner which
approximates the overall behavior of the system. Assuming transverse motion in a
single mode shape, a single degree-of- freedom "generalized parameter" model may
be formulated. To obtain an approximate solution to this mode shape, a uniform
static loading Po, is applied to the superstructure and the insulting deflection, V(x,
t) , of the structure under seismic excitation as shown in figure 2.2 is then
approximated by the shape function multiplied by a generalized amplitude
function, V(t) as shown by the equation 2.1.
V ( x, t ) = VS ( x )V (t ) (2.1)
This function will describe the deformed bridge structure in a manner which is
consisted with the support conditions and intermediate expansions joint hinges in the
deck. It is an admissible function which satisfies the geometric boundary conditions of
the system.
Figure 2.1 Plan view of a bridge subjected to a transverse earthquake motion
Figure 2.2 Displacement functions describing the transverse position of the bridge
deck
Initially to establish the deflected shape for the generalized parameter model,
apply a uniform loading P 0 to the structure as shown in the figure 2.3. Assume that
the loading is applied gradually so that the kinetic energy of the mass of the
structure is zero. The external work, W B , done by the uniformly applied loading in
deforming the structure is given by the equation (2.2)
Pδ ∫ V ( x )dx = Pδα
1 L 1
WE = (2.2)
2 0 2
Where,
L
α = ∫ V (x )dx (2.3)
0
This work will be stored internally in the elastic structure in the form of strain energy
U.
Figure 2.3 Deflected shape due to uniform static loading
Thus
U = WE (2.4)
After V s (x) is determined using any standard static analysis approach, the integral
equation 2.3, may be evaluated numerically.
If the uniform loading P () is suddenly removed, and the effects of damping are
neglected, the structure will vibrate in the assumed mode shape shown in figure 2.4
at the natural frequency determined by equating the maximum kinetic energy to
maximum strain energy (Rayleigh method), i.e.
T max = U max (2.5)
The maximum kinetic energy of the system is given by
ω2 L
ω 2γ
Tmax = ∫ w( x)vs ( x) dx =
2
(2.6)
2g 0
2g
Where,
γ = ∫ W (x )V (x )2 dx (2.7)
And ω is the frequency of the vibrating system and y is evaluated

numerically. The maximum strain energy stored in the system is
U max = W E (2.8)
Figure 2.4 Transverse free vibration of the bridge in assumed mode shape
Using equation 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8 becomes

ω 2γ
P0α = (2.9)
g
2π
Introducing ω = into equation 2.9 and solving for the period T, yields
T
γ
T = 2π (2.10)
Pgα
The generalized equation of motion for the single degree of freedom system
subjected to a ground accelerator Vg (t) may be written as
− βv g (t )
v ′′(t ) + 2ξϖv ′(t ) + ϖ 2 v(t ) = (2.11)
γ
Where,
L
β = ∫ w( x)v5 ( x)dx (2.12)
0
And ξ is the damping ratio to be prescribed. For most structures, a value of 0.05 is
recommended. Using the standard acceleration response spectral value C S , in its
dimensionless form.
S a (ξ , T )
Cs = (2.13)
g
Where S a (ξ ,T) is the pseudo acceleration spectral value. The maximum response of
the system is given by
v(x,t) max = v(t) max v S (x) (2.14)
Where,
C s gβ
v(t )max = (2.15)
ω 2γ
Thus
C s gβ
v( x, t )max = v s (x ) (2.16)
ω 2γ
The static loading Pe(x) which approximates the inertial effects associated with the
displacement v(x, t) max is shown in figure 2. 5 and is given by
βC s
Pe ( x ) = w( x)v s ( x) (2.17)
γ
2.13.2 Method of Calculation of Seismic Load by Single Mode Spectral

Analysis Method
Current knowledge of earthquake ground motions indicates that structure will be
subjected to simultaneous ground motion in three orthogonal directions. For many
bridges the effect of the vertical component of motion may not be important and
a detailed analysis in vertical direction is not required. To account for the two
horizontal components of motions, an analysis is required in two orthogonal
directions, generally the longitudinal and transverse directions of bridge. The
single mode spectral analysis method described in the following steps may be
used for transverse and longitudinal earthquake motions.
Figure 2.5 Characteristic static loading applied to the bridge system
STEP 1: At first it is necessary to calculate the static displacements V s (x) due to an

assumed uniform loading Po as shown in the figure 2.6 .The uniform loading Po
is applied over the length of the bridge.; it has units of force/unit length and is
arbitrarily set equal to 1 . The static displacement V(x) has unit of length.
STEP 2: Calculate the factor α ,β ,γ from the expressions
α = ∫ v s ( x)dx (2.3)
β = ∫ w(x )v5 (x )dx (2.12)
γ = ∫ w( x)v5 ( x) 2 dx (2.7)
Where w(x) is the weight of the dead load of the bridge superstructure and tributary
substructure. The weight should take into account structural elements and other
relevant loads including, but not limited to, pier caps, abutments, column and footing.
STEP 3: Calculate the period of the bridge using the expression
γ
T = 2π (2.10)
P0 gα
where, g= acceleration due to gravity(length/time2)
STEP 4: Calculate the equivalent static earthquake loading Pe(x) from this expression
βC S
Pe( x) = w( x)v5 ( x) (2.17)
γ
(a) Plan transverse loading
(b) Elevation longitudinal loading
Figure 2.6 Bridge deck subjected to assumed longitudinal and transverse loading
Where,
C S = the dimensionless elastic seismic response coefficient given by equation(2.18)
1.2 AS
Cs = 2
(2.18)
3
T
Where,
A= the acceleration coefficient
S= the dimensionless coefficient for the soil profile characteristics of the site
T= the period of the bridge
The value of C s need not exceed 2.5A. For the soil Profile Type ІІI soils in areas
where A>0.30, C s need not exceed 2.0A.
P e (x) = the intensity of the equivalent static seismic loading applied to represent
the primary mode of vibration (force/unit length)
STEP 5: Apply loading P e (x) to the structure as shown in the figure 2.7 and determine
the resulting member forces and displacements for design
(a) Plan transverse loading
(b) Elevation longitudinal loading
Figure2.7 Bridge deck subjected to equivalent transverse and longitudinal

loading
2.14 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
2.14.1 Spectrum
The spectrum is a graph of spectral value versus frequency that captures the
intensity and frequency content of time-history loads. A spectrum analysis is one in
which the results of a modal analysis are used with a known spectrum to calculate
displacements and stresses in the model. It is mainly used in place of a time-history
analysis to determine the response of structures to random or time-dependent
loading conditions such as earthquakes, wind loads, ocean wave loads, jet engine
thrust, rocket motor vibrations, and so on.
Three types of spectra are available for a spectrum analysis:
• Response Spectrum
• Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM)
• Power Spectral Density (PSD)
2.14.1.1 Response Spectrum

A response spectrum represents the response of single-DOF systems to a time-
history loading function. It is a graph of response versus frequency, where the
response might be displacement, velocity, acceleration, or force.
From a design viewpoint, only the maximum value of displacement and stress are of
interest. For survival, the structure must withstand the peak value whenever that may
occur. Therefore, only the peak value is to be needed to successfully design a bridge and
this information is made available in the form of response spectra. It is possible to
generate curves which give peak displacements and stresses for any structure subject to a
given earthquake. These curves are called response spectra because they give the
response of a (e.g. maximum displacement and stresses) of a wide spectrum of structures
as defined by their frequency (or period).
For three dimensional seismic motion, the typical modal Equation is rewritten as
y(t ) n + 2ζ ω n y (t ) n + ω n2 y (t ) n = p nx u(t ) gx + p ny u(t ) gy + p nz u(t ) gz

n
(2.19)
where the three Mode Participation Factors are defined by
Pni = −φ nT M i (2.20)
in which i is equal to x, y or z.
Two major problems must be solved in order to obtain an approximate response

spectrum solution to this equation. First, for each direction of ground motion
maximum peak forces and displacements must be estimated. Second, after the
response for the three orthogonal directions is solved it is necessary to estimate the
maximum response due to the three components of earthquake motion acting at the
same time. This section will address the modal combination problem due to one
component of motion only. The separate problem of combining the results from
motion in three orthogonal directions will be discussed later in this chapter.
For input in one direction only, Equation (2.18) is written as
y(t ) n + 2ζ nω n y (t ) n + ω n2 y (t ) = Pni u(t ) g

(2.21)
Given a specified ground motion u(t)g , damping value and assuming P ni =1.0 it is
possible to solve Equation (2.20) at various values of ω  and
(Fig plot a curve
2.8a)
of the maximum peak response y(ω) MAX . For this acceleration input, the curve is by
definition the displacement response spectrum for the earthquake motion. A different
curve will exist for each different value of damping. A plot of ωy(ω) MAX is defined
as the pseudo-velocity spectrum and a plot of ω2y(ω) MAX is defined as the
pseudo-acceleration spectrum. These three curves are normally plotted as one
curve on special log paper. However, these pseudo-values have minimum physical
significance and are not an essential part of a response spectrum analysis. The true
values for maximum velocity and acceleration must be calculated from the solution
of Equation (2.20). There is a mathematical relationship, however, between the
pseudo-acceleration spectrum and the total acceleration spectrum. The total
acceleration of the unit mass, single degree-of-freedom system, governed by
Equation (2.20), is given by
u(t ) T = y(t ) + u(t ) g

(2.22)
Equation (2.20) can be solved for y(t) and substituted into Equation (2.21) which
yields
u(t ) T = −ω 2 y (t ) − 2ξωy (t )
(2.23)
Therefore, for the special case of zero damping, the total acceleration of the system
is equal to ω2y(t). For this reason, the displacement response spectrum curve is
normally not plotted as modal displacement y(ω) MAX vs ω. It is standard to present
the curve in terms of S(ω) vs.
T a periodwhere
in seconds.
2Π
S (ω ) a = ω 2 y (ω ) MAX and T = (2.24a and 2.24b)
ω
The pseudo-acceleration spectrum, S(ω ) a , curve(Fig 2.8b) has the units of

acceleration vs. period which has some physical significance for zero damping only.
It is apparent that all response spectrum curves represent the properties of the
earthquake at a specific site and are not a function of the properties of the structural
system. After an estimation is made of the linear viscous damping properties of the
structure, a specific response spectrum curve is selected.
Figure 2.8a Relative Displacement Spectrum y(ω) MAX – Inches

Figure 2.8b. Pseudo Acceleration Spectrum, Sa= ω2y(ω) MAX - Percent of Gravity
Two types of response spectrum analysis are possible:
 single-point response spectrum

 multi-point response spectrum.
Single-point Response Spectrum (SPRS) :
In a single-point response spectrum (SPRS) analysis, one response spectrum curve

was specified at a set of points in the model, such as at all supports, as shown in
Response Spectra Fig 2.1 (a).
(a) (b)
Figure 2.9 Single-Point and Multi-Point Response Spectra
Multi-Point Response Spectrum (MPRS) :
In a multi-point response spectrum (MPRS) analysis, you specify different spectrum

curves at different sets of points, as shown in Response Spectra Fig 2.9 (b).
2.14.1.2 Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM)
The Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM) is a technique used to evaluate the
shock resistance of shipboard equipment. The technique is essentially a response
spectrum analysis in which the spectrum is obtained from a series of empirical
equations and shock design tables provided in the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Report NRL-1396.
2.14.1.3 Power Spectral Density
Power spectral density (PSD) is a statistical measure defined as the limiting mean-
square value of a random variable. It is used in random vibration analyses in which
the instantaneous magnitudes of the response can be specified only by probability
distribution functions that show the probability of the magnitude taking a particular
value.
A PSD spectrum is a statistical measure of the response of a structure to random

dynamic loading conditions. It is a graph of the PSD value versus frequency, where
the PSD may be a displacement PSD, velocity PSD, acceleration PSD, or force PSD.
Mathematically, the area under a PSD-versus-frequency curve is equal to the
variance (square of the standard deviation of the response).
2.14.2 Analysis Procedure
The procedure for a single-point response spectrum analysis consists of six main
steps:
2.14.2.1 Modeling of Structure
The model type and degree of freedom depends on the complexity of the actual
structure and the results desired in the analysis Modeling a bridge for a dynamic
analysis is currently more an art than a science. The overall objective is to produce
a mathematical model that will represent the dynamic characteristics of the
structure and produce realistic consistent with the input parameters. The bridge
should be modeled as a three dimensional space frame with joints and nodes
selected to realistically model the stiffness and inertia effects of the structure. Each
joints or nodes should have six degrees of freedom, three translational and three
rotational. The structural mass should be with a minimum of three translational
inertia terms.
Points to Remember for modeling :
 Only linear behavior is valid in a spectrum analysis. Nonlinear elements, if

any, are treated as linear.
 Both Young's modulus (or stiffness in some form) and density (or mass in
some form) must be defined. Material properties can be linear, isotropic or
orthotropic, and constant or temperature-dependent. Nonlinear properties, if
any, are ignored.
2.14.2.2 Performing the Modal Solution
The modal solution natural frequencies and mode shapes is needed to calculate the
spectrum solution. Type of modal Analysis :
a. Subspace
b. Block Lanczos
c. Power Dynamics
d. Reduced
e. Unsymmetric
f. Damped
g. QR Damped
But in all of the method the subspace, Block Lanczos, or reduced method are used to
extract the modes. The other methods unsymmetric, damped, and Power Dynamics
are not valid for subsequent spectrum analysis.
Important notes for modal analysis :
 The number of modes extracted should be enough to characterize the

structure's response in the frequency range of interest.
 If material-dependent damping is to be included in the spectrum analysis, it
must be specified in the modal analysis.
 Be sure to constrain those DOF where a base excitation spectrum was
applied.
2.14.2.3 Performing Spectrum Solution
Steps in Spectrum Solution :
a. Selecting Type of Response Spectrum

 Single-point Response Spectrum (SPRS)
 Multi-point Response Spectrum (MPRS)
b. Declare Excitation Direction
The excitation direction for a single-point response spectrum was declared for
spectrum analysis and it was global X, Y or Z direction.
c. Defining Spectral Value Versus Frequency Curve
The response spectrum to be used in the dynamic analysis shall be any one of the
following:
• Site Specific Design Spectra : A site specific response spectra shall be developed
based on the geologic, tectonic, seismologic, and soil characteristics associated with
the specific site. The spectra shall be developed For a damping ratio of 0.05 unless a
different value is found to be consistent with the expected structural behavior at the
intensity of vibration established for the site.
• Normalized Response Spectra : In absence of a site-specific response spectrum,

the normalized response spectra given in Fig 2.9 shall be used in the dynamic
analysis procedure.
Sa: Spectral acceleration
g: Acceleration due to gravity
Z: Seismic zone coefficient.
Figure 2.10 Normalized Response Spectra for 5% Damping Ratio
2.14.2.4 Expanding the Modes
All significant modes must be included in the analysis of response spectrum. The
modes that are considered, at least 90 per cent of the participating mass of the
structure is included in the calculation of response for each principal horizontal
direction. To review mode shapes in the postprocessor, the modes must be expand.
Expanded modes are also required for subsequent spectrum analyses. In the single
point response spectrum (SPRS) and Dynamic Design analysis method (DDAM), the
modal expansion can be performed after the spectrum analysis, based on the
significance factor SIGNIF on the MXPAND command. To perform modal
expansion after the spectrum analysis, choose NO for mode expansion (MXPAND).
No expansion is necessary for subsequent mode superposition analyses.
2.14.2.5 Combination of the Modes
The peak member forces, displacements, storey forces, storey shears, and base
reactions for each mode shall be combined using established procedures in order to
estimate resultant maximum values of these response parameters. When three
dimensional models are used for analysis, modal interaction effects shall be
considered when combining modal maximum.
Different mode combination methods for the single-point response spectrum

analysis:
 Square Root of Sum of Squares (SRSS)

 Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC)
 Double Sum (DSUM)
 Grouping (GRP)
 Naval Research Laboratory Sum (NRLSUM)
2.14.3 Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Load

The method of combining forces for each of the load cases is given below. The two
principal transverse axes of a column, abutment, pier, etc. may be designated as the
Z and Y axes. The shear (V), moment (M), and axial (P) forces resulting form an
analysis of the bridge subjected to loads in the transverse direction are designated as
V Z T, V Y T, M Z T, M Y T, and PT respectively. The corresponding forces resulting
from an analysis of loads in the longitudinal direction are designated by V Z L V Y L,
M Z L, M Y L, and P L , respectively. The design shear (V Z D, V Y D), moment (M Z D,

M Y D)and axial (PD) forces for the Z and Y axes of the member for the two load
cases are as follows:
LOAD CASE 1
V Z D= 1.0 | V Z L |+0.3| V Z T |
V Y D= 1.0 | V Y L |+0.3| V Y Z |
M Z D= 1.0 | M Z L |+0.3| M T Z |
M Y D= 1.0 | M Y L |+0.3| M Y Z |
PD= 1.0 | PL |+0.3| PT |
LOAD CASE 2
V Z D= 0.3 | V Z L |+1.0| V Z T |
V Y D= 0.3 | V Y L |+1.0| V Y T |
M Z D= 0.3 | M Z L |+1.0| M Z T |
M Y D= 0.3 | M Y L |+1.0| M Y T |
PD= 0.3 | PL |+1.0| PT |
The symbol | | denotes the absolute value or the magnitude of the force or
moment without regard to its sign since a seismic force can act in either direction.
2.14.4 Member Forces and Displacement

The member forces and displacement of an elastic structure are obtained by the
superposition of the respective quantities of the individual modes of vibrations.
Generally, the maximum values for each mode do not occur simultaneously and thus
the maximum value of each mode can not be directly superimposed to obtain the
maximum force or displacement of a member. The direct superposition (absolute sum)
of the individual modal contributions thus provides an upper bound which is generally
conservative and not recommended for design. A satisfactory estimate of a maximum
value of a force or displacement can be obtained by taking the square root of the sum of
the squares (SRSS) of the individual modal response. The SRSS method is generally
applicable to most bridges; however there are some bridges with unusual geometric
features which cause some of the individual modes to have closely spaced periods to
which this method may not be applicable. There are several methods currently available
and new methods are emerging for combining these closely spaced modes.
CHAPTER 3
MODELING AND METHODOLOGY FOR NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The development of the finite element method as an analysis tool was essentially
initiated with the advent of electronic digital computer. Using finite element
method on a digital computer it is possible to establish and solve governing
equations of complex systems in a very effective way.
The actual work regarding the finite element modeling of a three span deck girder
bridge has been described in detail in this chapter. Representation of various physical
elements with the FEM (Finite Element Modeling) elements, properties assigned to
them, boundary condition, material behavior, analysis type have also been
discussed. The various obstacles faced during modeling, material behavior used
and details of finite element meshing were also discussed in detail.
3.2 THE FINITE ELEMENT PACKAGE

A number of Finite Element analysis computer packages are available in the market.
They vary in degree of complexity and versatility. The names of such packages are
• ANSYS • ETABS • SAP • NASTRAN

• ABAQUS • DIANA • COSMOS • ALGOR
• PATRAN • SDRC/I-DEAS • ANSR • Micro Feap
• STARDYN • EASE • MARC • FEMSKI
• AD1NA
Of these we have used the package ANSYS .ANSYS Finite Element analysis
software enables engineers to perform the following the tasks.
 Build computer models or CAD models of structures, products,
component and systems.
 Apply operating loads and other design performance conditions
Modeling and methodology for numerical analysis 34
 Study the physical responses, such as stress levels, temperature

distributions, or the impact of electromagnetic fields.
 Optimize a design early in the development process to reduce production costs.
 Do prototype testing in environments where it otherwise would be
undesirable or impossible (for example, biomedical applications)
The ANSYS has a comprehensive graphical user interface (GUI) that gives user
easy, interactive access to program functions, commands, documentation and
reference material. An intuitive menu system helps users navigate through the
ANSYS program. Users can input data using a mouse, a keyboard, or a combination
of both.
3.3 THE BRIDGE UNDER STUDY

The bridge selected for the example is a three span continuous deck girder bridge
with dimension in figure 3.1. Coordinate system chosen for the overall structure
and the columns are also shown in the figure. The coordinate axes for the
individual superstructure members have directions corresponding to the overall
structure coordinatesystem. The modulus of elasticity of Concrete is assumed to be
2×104 N/mm2. The total span length of the bridge is 109.728m; the slab thickness is
0.2 m, the slab width 23.7744m. The height of the circular column is 7.62m and
diameter is 1.2192m. The cross section of the longitudinal girder is 0.6096m ×
2.4384m, and the cross girder is 0.9l44m×2.4384m. The girder is spaced 3.048 m
apart.
3.4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF BRIDGE

For seismic load analysis, we have modeled a three span deck girder bridge. For
the modeling of slab, column and girder we have used separate elements. For slab
SHELL63 Elastic Shell and for the column and girder BEAM4 3-D Elastic Beam
has been used.
3.4.1 Modeling of the Slab
Since the whole modeling was confined to three dimensional analyses the element
used here is 3D in nature. For representing the concrete slab of the bridge, we used
SHELL63 Elastic Shell. Here we discuss in details about the element
SHELL 63 Elastic Shell : SHELL 63 Elastic Shell is used for the 3D modeling of
the structure. The element has both bending and membrane capabilities. Both in
plane and normal loads are permitted. The element has six degrees of freedom at
each node; translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the
nodal x, y, z axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities are included.
A consistent tangent stiffness matrix option is available for use in large deflection
(Finite rotation) analyses.
I n p u t data : The geometry, node locations, co-ordinate system for this element are
shown in figure 3.2. The element is defined by four nodes, four links or a group of
coupled nodes. A summary of the element input is given in TABLE 3.1
Assumptions a n d restrictions: Zero area elements are not allowed. This occurs
most often whenever the elements are not numbered properly. Zero thickness
elements or elements tapering down to a zero thickness at any corner are not
allowed. The applied transverse thermal gradient is assumed to vary linearly
through the thickness and vary bilinearly over the shell surface. The four nodes
defining the elements should lie in an exact flat plane; however, a small out of plan
tolerance is permitted so that the element may have a slightly wrapped shape.
Figure 3.2 SHELL63 Elastic Elements
Table 3.1 SHELL63 I n p u t Summary

Element name SHELL63
Nodes I,J,K,L
Degrees of Freedom UX, UY, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ
Real Constants TK(I),TK(J),TK(K),TK(L),
Material Properties EX,EY,ALPX,ALPY,PXY or NUXY,
DENS,GXY,DAMP
Surface Loads Pressures:
face 1(I-J-K-L) (bottom , in + Z direction),
face 2 (I-J-K-L) (top , in -Z direction), face 3(J-
I),
Body Loads Temperature:
T1,T2,T3,T4,T5, T6,T7,T8
Special Features Stress stiffening, Large deflection, Birth and death
3.4.2 Modeling of the Girder and Column

For the modeling of the girder and column BEAM4 3D Elastic Beam has been used ,
the details of which has been described below.
BEAM4 3-D Elastic Beam- BEAM4 is a uniaxial element with tension,

compression, torsion, and bending capabilities. The element has six degrees of
freedoms at each node; translations in the nodal x, y, and z, directions and rotations
about the nodal x, y, and z axes. Stress stiffening and large deflection capabilities are
included.
I n p u t data- The geometry, node locations, and coordinate systems for this element
are shown in figure 3.3. The element is defined by two or three nodes, the cross
sectional area, two area moments of inertia (IZZ and IYY) , two thickness (TKY,
and TKZ), an angle of orientation about the element X-axis, the torsional moment of
inertia (IXX), and the material properties. BEAM-4 input summary is given in Table
3.2
Assumptions and restrictions- The beam must not have a zero length or area. The
moment of inertia, however, may be zero if large deflections are not used. The beam
can have any cross sectional shape for which the moment of inertia can be computed.
Table 3.2 BEAM4 input Summary

Element Name BEAM4
Nodes I,J,K, (K orientation node is optional)
Degrees of freedom UX, UY, UZ, ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ
Real constants AREA, IZZ, IYY, IXX, TKY, TKJ, THETA,
ISTRN, IXX
Material Properties EX, ALPX, DENS, GXY, DAMP
Body loads Temperatures :
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8
Special features Stress stiffening, Large deflection, Birth and death.
Figure 3.3 BEAM4 3D Elastic Elements
3.4.3 Boundary Condition
We have modeled a three span simple deck girder bridge for analysis of seismic load
using three dimensional finite element analyses. To investigate the bridge
displacement under both longitudinal and transverse seismic loading, boundary
condition at the end of the slab was applied. At the two ends of the slab, V y = 0
and V z = 0 were applied at the midpoint of the two ends. For the column fixed
support was provided. Here all the six degrees of freedom were made zero.
3.4.4 Material Behavior

All the material properties of concrete used in this analysis has been taken within
the elastic range. The following material properties were used in our modeling
Table 3.3 Various material properties

Material Element Type Properties Value
Modulus of elasticity 20×l09 N/m2
Concrete SHELL63, BEAM4 Poisson’s ratio 0.2
Density 2645 N/m3
Damping ratio 5%
3.5 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF BRIDGE FOR SPACE FRAME

ANALYSIS:
For the space frame analysis the bridge was modeled as 3D Frame using the BEAM4
3D Elastic element. When the slab was modeled with the BEAM4 element the
moment of inertia of the cross section of the bridge was used as the input moment of
inertia. For modeling the cross girder in the bent the modulus of elasticity of the
material was used 20×10 3 0 N/m 2 which is much greater than that of concrete. This
was done to provide high rigidity, and stiffness at the bent. The boundary condition at
the two end of the slab was V y =0 and V z =0 and for the column all degrees of
freedom are equal to zero. In the figure 3.4 the frame model of the bridge was given.
Figure 3.4 Model of a three span deck girder bridge
3.6 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL MESH
FEM is the outlines of the elements used to model the object of interest. To outline
of the mesh should give the appropriate view of the object being modeled. Mesh size
can vary in the analysis of a single structure. Different mesh arrangements generally
give slightly varying solutions. In fact in real life problems mesh is constantly refined
to get a consistent and representative solution.
According to the literature of FEM the finer the mesh in an idealization, the smaller
are the elements and the better the solution. But this has practical constraints
because a very fine mesh requires tremendous computational effort which may
justified as difficult to deliver even by the mainstream desktop computers.
Another point is that, which element having higher order shape functions the
degree of gain in accuracy diminishes after a certain level of fineness in mesh
discretization. In fact there are a few elements which give exact solution even for
only one element discretization such as beam elements: Thus, it is not always
necessary to use a very fine mesh at the expanse of huge computer memory and
computational time.
It is to be noted here that no mesh is usually the ultimate one, giving exact solution.
A refinement of the mesh is within the scope of further studies and may be selected
on the basis of its approximation of the true result.
3.7 DETERMINATION OF PERIOD OF VIBRATION

The modal analysis should be performed w i t h a suitable space frame linear
dynamic analysis computer programs. In our study we use ANSYS for the
analysis. The three dimensional SHELL model o f t h e bridge was used for the
analysis. For the dynamic analysis it is necessary to give material density
instead of u ni t weight.
CHAPTER 4
SEISMIC LOAD ANALYSIS OF A THREE SPAN DECK GIRDER BRIDGE
4 . 1 I N T RODUCTION
In this section the detail seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge,
described and modeled in the previous section has been investigated according to
AASHTO code using 3D frame model and a comprehensive 3D finite element
model of the bridge.
4.2 BASIC DATA
4.2.1 Acceleration Coefficient

The bridge is assumed to be located in a high seismic zone. So for this bridge the
Acceleration Coefficient (A) equal to 0.40.
4.2.2 Importance Classification

We assume for the purposes of this example that this bridge is essential in terms
of Social/ Survival and Security /Defense requirements and are therefore assigned
an Importance Classification (IC) of І.
4.2.3 Seismic Performance Category

For A>0.29 and an ІC equal to I, the Seismic Performance Category (SPC) is D as
shown in Table 2.1.
4.2.4 Site Effects

A Soil Profile Type II is assumed for the site which yields a Soil Profile Coefficient
(S) of 1.2 as obtained from table 2.2.
Seismic load analysis of a three span deck girder bridge 44
4.2.5 Response Modification Factor

Substructure- The multiple column bent has a Response Modification Factor R of 5 for
both orthogonal axes of the columns as shown in table 2.3.
Connections- From table 2.3 the R Factor for the superstructure to abutment
connection is 0.80. An R Factor of 1.0 for the connection at the column to bent cap
and at the column to foundation is also given.
4.2.6 Analysis According To AASHTO Code

For t he analysis of the bridge we use AASHTO Code. The structure geometry
related stiffness variations falls within the range defined for a regular bridge. For a
regular bridge with three spans classified as SPC D. Single Mode Spectral Analysis
Method and Multimode Spectral Analysis Method are used for analysis purpose.
4.2.7 Determination of Elastic Forces and Displacements

Earthquake motion shall be directed along the longitudinal and the transverse axes
of bridge. These are the global X and Z axes respectively shown in figure 3.1. For
this straight bridge with no skewed columns, piers or abutments, it is recommended
that the local Y axis of the column or pier coincide with the longitudinal axis of the
bridge.
4.2.8 Combination of Orthogonal Seismic Forces

LOAD CASE 1: Seismic forces and moments on each of the principal axes of a member
shall be obtained by adding 100% of the absolute value of the member elastic seismic
forces and moment resulting from the analysis in one of the perpendicular (longitudinal)
directions to 30% of the absolute value of the corresponding member elastic forces and
moments resulting from the analysis in the second perpendicular direction (transverse).
LOAD CASE 2: Seismic forces and moments on each of the principal axes of a member
shall be obtained by adding 100% of the absolute value of the member elastic seismic
forces and moment resulting from the analysis in the second perpendicular (transverse)
direction to 30% of the absolute value of the corresponding member elastic forces and
moments resulting from the analysis in the first perpendicular direction (longitudinal).
4.3 HAND CALCULATION OF SINGLE MODE SPECTRAL ANALYSIS

ACCORDING TO AASHTO GUIDELINE
4.3.1 Longitudinal earthquake motion
STEP 1 Neglecting axial deformation in the deck and assuming that the deck behaves
as a rigid member, the bridge may be idealized as shown in the figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Structural idealization and application of assumed uniform loading for
longitudinal mode of vibration
Note that the bridge is idealized so that the abutment does not contribute to the
longitudinal stiffness. This was done for the purpose of simplicity and in this case
the resulting forces on the substructure are more conservative. Applying the
assumed uniform loading yields a constant displacement Vs(x) = V s along the
bridge. Assuming that the columns alone resist the longitudinal motion, the
displacement is obtained by using a column stiffness of 12EI/H3 in the longitudinal
direction. Using the column properties, the stiffness for bents 2 and 3 denoted in figure 4.1
as K1 and K2, respectively, are calculated as:
12 EI 3 × 12 × 10 9 × 2.092
K1 = K 2 = 3 = = 176496940.9 N / m
H3 7.62 3
Which yields a displacement of
P0 L 1 × 109.725
Vs = = = 3.11 × 10 −7 m
K 1 + K 2 2 × 176496940.9
STEP 2 Assuming a weight density of the superstructure of 2645 Kg/m3, yields a

dead weight per unit length of superstructure of
W(x)=2645x9.81x18.25=473540.96N/m
Theα, β and γ factors are then calculated by evaluating the integrals in
equations. For this case, both the dead weight per unit length of the superstructure,
W(x), and the displacement, Vs (x) are constant thus simplifying the integration and
yielding:
abut 4
α =∫ V ( s )dx = 3.11 × 10 −7 × 109.725 = 3.41 × 10 −5 m 2
abut1
abut 4
β =∫ W ( x)Vs ( x)dx = WVsL
abut1
=473540.96x 3.11x10–7x109.725
=16.16N–m
abut 4
γ =∫ W ( x)Vs ( x)dx = WVs2 L
abut1
= 473540.96×(3.11×10-7)2×109.725
=5.03×10-6 N-m2
STEP 3 Calculate the time period T from equation 2.10
γ 5.03 × 10 −6
T = 2π = 2π = 0.77 sec
PO gα 1 × 9.81 × 3.41 × 10 −5
STEP 4 The elastic seismic response coefficient Cs is obtained from equation 2.18.
Substituting for A, S, and T yields:
C s =1.2*0.4*1.2/(0.77) 2/3 =0.69
Since the seismic response coefficient does not exceed 2.5A (2.5*0.4= 1.0),so use
Cs = 0.69 ;the intensity of the seismic loading expressed by equation 2.17 is therefore
βCs
Pe( x) = w( x)v5 ( x)
γ
16.16 * 0.69 ∗ 473540.96 * 3.11 * 10 −7

=
5.03 * 10 −6
=326468 N/m
=326.468 N/mm
STEP 5 Applying the equivalent static loading as shown in the figure 4.2 and
determine the longitudinal earthquake loading which are tabulated in table 4.1. For
this purpose we used frame model of the bridge and analysis was done by ANSYS.
Figure 4.2 Three span bridge subjected to longitudinal equivalent static seismic
loading
Table 4.1 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yý´ Px´
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
shear) KN moment)KN-m shear) KN moment)KN-m force)KN
Centre 1328.965 5227.404 0 0 172.426

Column (1045.48)
Outer 1289.396 5121426 2.584 5.404 105.27

Column (1024.2) (1.081)
4.3.2 Transverse earthquake motion

STEP 1 Applying an assumed uniform transverse loading of 1N/m to the shell
model of the bridge as shown in the figure 4.3 the resulting transverse
displacements , Vs(x) are tabulated at the span 1/36 points and shown in the Table
4.2.For the analysis ANSYS is used.
Figure 4.3 Three span bridge subjected to uniform transverse loading

STEP 2 Calculate α , β, and γ factors by evaluating the integrals numerically equations

2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 respectively.
abut 4
α =∫ Vs ( x)dx =3.05x3.52807x10-6=1.076x10-5 m2
abut1
abut 4
β =∫ W ( x)Vs( x) dx = 3.05x473540.96x3.52807x10-6=5.096 N-m
abut1
abut 4
γ =∫ W ( x)Vs( x) 2 dx = 3.05x473540.96x4.095x10-13=5.914x10-7 N-m2
abut1
STEP 3 Calculate the time period T using the equation 2.10
γ 5.914e − 7
T = 2π = 2π = 0.47 sec
P0 gα 1 × 9.81 × 1.076e − 5
STEP 4 The elastic seismic response coefficient, CS is obtained from the equation 2.18
1.2 AS 1.2 × 0.4 × 1.2

Cs = 2
= 2
= 0.953
3 3
T (0.47)
This is not greater than 2.5A, therefore we use Cs=.953 the intensity of seismic
loading is calculated using equation 2.17
βC 5
Pe( x ) = w( x )v5 ( x )
γ
5.096 × .953 × 473540.96 × Vs ( x)
=
5.914e − 7
=3.89e12 V(x) N / m
Using this expression, the load intensity at the span 1/36 points is computed and
tabulated as shown in Table 4.7
STEP 5: Applying the equivalent static loading as shown in figure 4.4. Yields
themember end forces due to the transverse earthquake loading shown in
table4.3. Themember forces are obtained using ANSYS.
Figure 4.4 Three span bridge subjected to transverse equivalent static seismic
loading
Table 4.2 Displacements and seismic loading intensity for transverse loading
DISPLACEMENT
SEISMIC LOADING
DISPLACEMENT FROM DUE TO UNIFORM AASHTO SEISMIC
INTENSITY Pe(x) (N/m)
ABUTMENT 1(m) TRANSVERSE LOAD ALONG Z (N)
=3.89x1012xVs(x)
LOADING Vs(x) (m)
ABUTMENT-1(0) -3.703E-09 -14404.67 -43934.2435

3.05 -1.9036E-08 -74050.04 -225852.622
6.1 -3.3145E-08 -128934.05 -393248.8525
9.14 -4.668E-08 -181585.2 -553834.86
12.19 -5.9608E-08 -231875.12 -707219.116
15.24 -7.1666E-08 -278780.74 -850281.257
18.29 -8.2734E-08 -321835.26 -981597.543
21.34 -9.2768E-08 -360867.52 -1100645.936
24.38 -1.01769E-07 -395881.41 -1207438.301
27.43 -1.09765E-07 -426985.85 -1302306.843
30.48 -1.16789E-07 -454309.21 -1385643.091
33.53 -1.2291E-07 -478119.9 -1458265.695
BENT-1(36.58) -1.28197E-07 -498686.33 -1520993.307
39.62 -1.33387E-07 -518875.43 -1582570.062
42.67 -1.37895E-07 -536411.55 -1636055.228
45.72 -1.41427E-07 -550151.03 -1677960.642
48.77 -1.4399E-07 -560121.1 -1708369.355
51.82 -1.45539E-07 -566146.71 -1726747.466
54.86 -1.46057E-07 -568161.73 -1732893.277
57.91 -1.45539E-07 -566146.71 -1726747.466
60.96 -1.4399E-07 -560121.1 -1708369.355
64.01 -1.41427E-07 -550151.03 -1677960.642
67.06 -1.37895E-07 -536411.55 -1636055.228
70.1 -1.33387E-07 -518875.43 -1582570.062
BENT-2(73.15) -1.28197E-07 -498686.33 -1520993.307
76.2 -1.2291E-07 -478119.9 -1458265.695
79.25 -1.16789E-07 -454309.21 -1385643.091
82.3 -1.09765E-07 -426985.85 -1302306.843
85.34 -1.01769E-07 -395881.41 -1207438.301
88.39 -9.2768E-08 -360867.52 -1100645.936
91.44 -8.2734E-08 -321835.26 -981597.543
94.49 -7.1666E-08 -278780.74 -850281.257
97.54 -5.9608E-08 -231875.12 -707219.116
100.58 -4.668E-08 -181585.2 -553834.86
103.63 -3.3145E-08 -128934.05 -393248.8525
106.68 -1.9036E-08 -74050.04 -225852.622
ABUTMENT(109.725) -3.703E-09 -14404.67 -43934.2435
Table 4.3 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion
Vy  M z΄z΄ V z΄ My y 
Location (Longitudnal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial

shear) KN moment)Kn- shear)KN moment)Kn-m force)KN
Centre 3.89 15.36 2066.88 7908.18 13.64

column (3.072) (1581.64)
Outer 247.6 992.08 1910.73 7531.2 903.95

column (198.416) (1506.24)
4.3.3 Elastic and Modified Forces due to Dead Load
Member dead load forces are determined by using the shell model of the bridge and
the analysis is done by using ANSYS. Member dead load forces are shown in the
Table 4.4
Table 4.4 Elastic and modified forces due to dead load

V y´
R Mzz´ Vz΄ M yy´
R R Px´
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force)KN
Centre 222.172 561.479 0 0 11110.4

Column
Outer 215.326 543.318 275.66 696.955 4694.32

Column
Table 4.5 Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2
Load combination Load combination
Component 1.0longitudinal+0.3Transverse 1.0transverse+0.3longitudinal
Centre column
V y´ (Longitudinal 1.0*1328.965 + 0.3*3.89

shear) =1330.132 402.58
KN
1.0*1045.48+ 0.3*3.072
M Z΄Z΄ (Longitudin
=1046.4 316.72
al moment)KN-m
± (1.0*172.426 + 0.3*13.64)
Px΄(Axial Force) KN = ±176.52 ± 65.37
1.0*0+0.3*2066.88
Vz´(Transverse =620.064 2066.88
shear) KN 1.0*0 + 0.3*1581.64
Myý´(Transverse =474.5 1581.64
moment)KN-m
Outer column
Vy'(Longitudinal 1.0*1289.396+0.3*247.6
shear) KN =1363.68 634.42
Mz´z´(Longitudinal 1.0*1024.29+0.3*198.416
moment) KN-m =1083.81 505.703
Px΄(Axial ±(1.0*105.27+0.3*903.95
force)KN =± 376.46 ±935.53
1.0*2.584+0.3*1910.73
Vz´ ( Transverse =575.803 1911.51
shear) KN
1.0*1.081 + 0.3*1506.24
Myý´(Transverse =452.953 1506.56
moment) KN-m
4.3.4 Modified Design Forces (AASHTO)

Centre column – for this column Load case 1 controls
Vy΄= 1.0(D+EQM)
= 1.0(222.172 + 1330.132) =1552.304 KN
Mzz΄ = 1.0(561.479 + 1046.4)
=1607.879 KN-m
Px΄ = 1.0 (11110.4 + 176.52)

= 11286.92 KN or 10933.88 KN
Vz.΄ = 1.0 (0 + 620.064)
= 620.064 KN
Myy =1.0 (0 + 474.5) = 474.5 KN-m
M = M Z / Z / + M Y /Y /
2 2
= 1607.879 2 + 474.5 2 = 1676.43 KN-m
Outer c ol um n - for this column Load case 1 controls

Vy΄ = 1.0(D + EQM)

=1.0(215.326 + 1363.68) = 1579.006 KN
Mzz΄ =1.0(543.318+ 1083.81)
= 1627.128 KN-m
Px’ = 1.0(4694.32 + 376.46)
= 5070.78 KN or 4317.86 KN
Vz ΄ = 1.0 (275.66+ 575.803)
= 851.463 KN
Myy΄ = 1.0 (696.955 + 452.953)
=1149.91 KN-m
M = Mz ' z ' 2 + My ' y ' 2
= 1627.128 2 + 1149.912 = 1992.45 KN-m
4.4 SINGLE MODE RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
4.4.1 Performing the Modal Analysis
The different mode shapes, frequencies, natural period of vibration, was determined
in this section. For the modal analysis Block Lanczos method was used. The
different mode of vibrations is given here. The time period and frequencies are
given in Table 4.6. Different from modal analysis was showed in fig4.5 to
fig 4.18.
Table 4.6 The frequency and time period of mode of vibration
Mode of vibration Time/ Frequency Time Period (sec)

1 1.1763 0.8501
2 2.1743 0.4599
3 2.6066 0.3836
4 2.6405 0.3787
5 2.8069 0.3563
6 3.1696 0.3155
7 3.6142 0.2767
8 3.8531 0.2595
9 4.1557 0.2406
10 4.4485 0.2248
11 5.0191 0.1992
12 5.2799 0.1894
13 5.4191 0.1845
14 5.6421 0.1772
Figure 4.5 First mode of vibration (T=0.8501 sec)

Figure 4.6 Second mode of vibration (T=0.4599 sec )
Figure 4.7 Third mode of vibration (T=0.3836 sec)

Figure 4.8 Fourth mode of vibration (T= 0.3787 sec )
Figure 4.9 Fifth mode of vibration (T= 0.3563 sec )

Figure 4.10 Sixth mode of vibration (T= 0.3155 sec)
Figure 4.11 Seventh mode of vibration (T= 0.2767sec)

Figure 4.12 Eighth mode of vibration (T= 0.2595 sec)
Figure 4.13 Ninth mode of vibration (T= 0.2406 sec)

Figure 4.14 Tenth mode of vibration (T= 0.2248 sec)
Figure 4.15 Eleventh mode of vibration (T= 0.1992 sec)

Figure 4.16 Twelfth mode of vibration (T= 0.1894 sec)
Figure 4.17 Thirteenth mode of vibration (T= 0.1845sec)

Figure 4.18 Fourteenth mode of vibration (T= 0.1772 sec)
4.4.2 Response Spectrum Function
A response spectrum function is simply a list of period versus spectral acceleration

values. A response spectrum represents the response of single-DOF systems to a
time-history loading function. It is a graph of response versus frequency, where the
response might be displacement, velocity, acceleration, or force.
For the analysis of the three span deck girder bridge Uniform Building Code
(UBC) 1994 Response Spectrum Function was used.
Table4.7 Parameter of 1994 UBC
Parameter Value
Acceleration Coefficient (A) 0.40
Site Effects 1.20
Importance Classification (IC) I
Response Modification Factor 5
Function Graph :
The function graph area displays a graph of the function. Function area displays the
period and spectral acceleration values for the function.
Fig:4.19 Function graph for UBC 1994
 Abscissa: This is the horizontal axis of the response spectrum. It

can either be frequency, f, or period, T, where f = 1/ T.
 Ordinate: The vertical axis of the response spectrum. It can be
SD (spectral displacement), SV (spectral velocity), PSV (pseudo-
spectral velocity), SA (spectral acceleration) or PSA (pseudo-
spectral acceleration). SD, SV and SA for a given period
(frequency) are calculated as the displacement, velocity and
acceleration, respectively, of a single degree of freedom system
subjected to the output time history acceleration at the highlighted

joint (on the Define tab) in the specified vector direction (on the
Define tab). PSV and PSA are defined by the following equations:
2Π  2Π 
2
PSV= SD PSA=   SD
T  T 
4.4.3 Elastic and Modified Forces

After performing the modal analysis the response spectrum analysis was done in
ANSYS. The elastic and modified forces then tabulated in table 4.7 & 4.8
Table 4.8 Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yy´ Px´
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force) KN
Centre 3575.16 14067.553 0 0 711.082

Column (2813.51)
Outer 3468.17 13781.37 15.058 37.818 395.313

Column (2756.27) (7.564)
Table 4.9 Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force) KN
Centre 0 0 865.144 3281.959 0

Column (656.39)
Outer 95.5 390.57 781.921 3066.79 315.03

Column (78.114) (613.36)
4.4.4 Modified Design Forces ( Response spectrum )

Centre column – for this column Load case 1 controls
Vy΄ = 1.0(DL+EQM)
= 1(222.172+3575.16)
= 3797.332 KN
Mz΄z΄ = 1(561.479+2813.51) = 3374.989 KN-m

Px΄ = 1.0 (11110.4+ 711.082)
= 11821.48 KN or 10399.32 KN
Vz.΄ = 1.0 (0 + 259.54)
= 259.54 KN
My΄y΄ =1.0 (0 + 196.92) = 196.92 KN-m
Thus the modified design moment for column
M = Mz ' z ' 2 + My ' y ' 2
= (3374.989) 2 + (196.92) 2 = 3380.73 KN-m
Outer c ol um n - for this column Load case 1 controls

Vy΄ = 1.0(D + EQM)
=1.0(215.326+ 3575.16)
= 3790.486 K N
Mz΄z = 1.0(543.318+2813.51)
=3356.83 KN-m
Px΄ = 1.0(4694.32+ 711.082)
= 5405.402 KN or 3983.24 KN
Vz΄ = 1.0 (275.66+ 259.54)
= 535.2 KN
My΄y΄ = 1.0 (696.955 + 191.572)
= 888.527 KN-m
Thus the modified design moment for column
M = Mz ' z ' 2 + My ' y ' 2 = 3356.83 2 + 888.527 2
= 3472.43 KN-m
4.4.5 Elastic and Modified Forces due to Dead Load
Member dead load forces are determined by using the shell model of the bridge and
the analysis is done by using ANSYS. Member dead load forces are shown in the
Table 4.9
Table 4.10 Elastic and modified forces due to dead load

Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial force)KN
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m
Centre 222.172 561.479 0 0 11110.4

Column
Outer
215.326 543.318 275.66 696.955 4694.32
Column
4.5 COMPARISON AMONG THE RESULT

The seismic load analysis of a Three Span Deck Girder Bridge has been done by
using single mode spectral analysis according to AASHTO code and response
spectrum analysis using ANSYS. In the first step, the original AASHTO
specifications are followed thoroughly and the design seismic forces arc calculated.
In the next step, a more comprehensive 3D model having beam and shell elements is
used in ANSYS to determine the time period and design forces and moment. Then, the
comprehensive model has been subjected to modal analysis and then response spectrum
analysis was performed. Assuming these two steps of analysis as the CASE1,
CASE2 respectively, the comparison among the results is shown in Table 4.9, 4.10.
The results are also compared in Fig 4.20 to Fig 4.31.
Table 4.11 Design forces for case І (AASHTO)
Component Outer column Centre column
Longitudinal shear Vy΄ (KN) 1579.006 1552.304
Longitudinal moment Mz΄z΄

1627.128 1607.879
(KN-m)
Transverse shear Vz΄ (KN) 851.463 620.064
Transverse moment My΄y΄

1149.91 474.5
(KN-m)
Axial force Px΄ (KN) 5070.78 or 4317.86 11286.92 or 10933.88
Design Moment (KN-m) 1992.45 1676.43
Table 4.12 Design forces for Case ІI (Response spectrum)

Longitudinal shear Vy΄(KN) 3790.486 3797.332

3356.83 3374.989
(KN-m)

888.527 196.92
(KN-m)

Table 4.13 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for outer column
Method Dead Load Dynamic Value Total Shear
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 2.15×102 1.36×103 1.58×103
Response Spectrum 2.15×102 3.5×103 3.72×103
4.00E+03 3.72E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis
3.50E+03 Response spectrum
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
Longitudinal shear(KN)
2.00E+03
1.58E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig4.20: Comparison of longitudinal shear force for outer column

Table 4.14 Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for centre column
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 2.22×102 1.33×103 1.55×103
4.00E+03 3.80E+03
Response spectrum
3.50E+03
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
Longitudinal shear(KN)
2.00E+03
1.55E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00 Case
Fig 4.21: Comparison of longitudinal shear force for centre column

Table 4.15 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of outer column
Method Dead Load Dynamic Value Total Moment
AASHTO Seismic Analysis

5.43×102 1.08×103 1.62×103
3.50E+03 3.32E+03
Response spectrum
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
Longitudinal moment(KN-m)
2.00E+03
1.62E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig4.22: Comparison of longitudinal moment for outer column

Table 4.16 Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) for centre column
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 5.61×102 1.05×103 1.61×103
4.00E+03
3.50E+03 3.37E+03
Response spectrum
Longitudinal moment(KN-m)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
1.61E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig 4.23: Comparison of longitudinal moment for centre column

Table 4.17 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for outer column
Method Dead Load Dynamic Value Total shear
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 2.76×102 5.76×102 8.52×102
Response
2.76×102 2.5×102 5.26×102
Spectrum
9.00E+02 8.52E+02
7.00E+02
Transverse shear(KN)
6.00E+02
5.26E+02
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02
2.00E+02
1.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig 4.24: Comparison of transverse shear force for outer column

Table 4.18 Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for centre column
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 0 6.2×102 6.2×102
Response Spectrum 0 2.6×102 2.6×102
7.00E+02
6.20E+02 AASHTO Seismic analysis
Transverse shear(KN)
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02 2.60E+02
2.00E+02
1.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig 4.25:Comparison of transverse shear force for centre column

Table 4.19 Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for outer column
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 6.97×102 4.53×102 1.15×103
1.40E+03
1.20E+03 1.15E+03 Response spectrum
Transverse moment(KN-m)
1.00E+03 8.89E+02
8.00E+02
6.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig 4.26: Comparison of total transverse moment for outer column

Table 4.20 Comparison of transverse moment (Kn-m) for centre column
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 0 4.75×102 4.75×102
Response Spectrum 0 1.97×102 1.97×102
5.00E+02 4.75E+02
4.00E+02
3.50E+02
Transverse moment(KN-m)
3.00E+02
2.50E+02
1.97E+02
2.00E+02
1.50E+02
1.00E+02
5.00E+01
0.00E+00
Case
Fig 4.27: Comparison of transverse moment for centre column

Table 4.21 Comparison of axial force (KN) for outer column
Method Dead Load Dynamic Value Total Force
AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 4.69×103 3.76×102 5.07×103
5.50E+03 5.18E+03
AASHTO Seismic 5.07E+03
5.00E+03 analysis
Response spectrum
4.50E+03
4.00E+03
3.50E+03
Axial force(KN)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig 4.28: Comparison of total axial force for outer column

Table 4.22 Comparison of axial force (KN) for centre column

AASHTO Seismic
Analysis 1.11×104 1.76×102 1.13×104
Response
1.11×104 7.11×102 1.18×104
Spectrum
1.30E+04
1.18E+04 AASHTO Seismic
1.20E+04 1.13E+04
analysis
1.00E+04
9.00E+03
Axial force (KN)
8.00E+03
7.00E+03
6.00E+03
5.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
0.00E+00
Case
Fig4.29: Comparison of total axial force for centre column

Table 4.23 Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for outer column
Method Total Moment

1.99×103
Response Spectrum 3.47×103
4.00E+03
AASHTO Seismic analysis 3.47E+03
Design moment (KN-m)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
1.99E+03
2.00E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig4.30: Comparison of design moment for outer column

Table 4.24 Comparison of design moment (KN-m) for centre column
Method Total Moment

1.68×103
Response Spectrum 3.38×103
4.00E+03
3.38E+03
Design moment (KN-m)
3.00E+03
2.50E+03
2.00E+03 1.68E+03
1.50E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+02
0.00E+00
Case
Fig4.31: Comparison of design moment for centre column

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 GENERAL
AASHTO recommends some semi analytical procedure to determine the design
seismic forces. According to AASHTO example procedure, equivalent longitudinal
and transverse earthquake load was calculated and applying this load to a three span
deck girder bridge using a 3D frame model and analyze it for design forces of
column. This is the first analysis cases of this thesis paper. In the second case a
Response Spectrum analysis was performed for the same three span deck girder
bridge and design forces calculated according to AASHTO code. Then the forces of
the two cases according to AASHTO example procedure and Response Spectrum
analysis was compared.
The seismic load analysis, the various mode of vibration, the behavior under both
longitudinal and transverse loading condition, deformed shape, time period, stiffness, the
equivalent static seismic load , and the modified design forces of a three span deck
girder bridge have been investigated in this thesis paper. All the specification and
standards used for this purpose are on the basis of AASHTO code. Finite element
modeling and analysis were done for this purpose. In this section the summary of the
thesis and some recommendation for future investigation are given.
5.2 SUMMARY
The important conclusions derived from the study of the three span deck girder bridge
are summarized below.
 When the bridge subjected to seismic loading in both longitudinal and transverse
direction, the total lateral load in N/m applied along the centre of mass of the
superstructure may be expressed as a percentage of the gravity load of the bridge
in N/m. It can be said that the lateral load may be equal to or greater then the
dead load of the bridge.
Summary and Conclusion 82
 The longitudinal and transverse time period determined from the AASHTO
suggested
single mode spectral analysis method is quite less than the time period obtained
from the modal analysis.
 The modal analysis of the bridge was done and various modes of vibration,
frequency and time period were determined by this analysis. This will help us
to understand the behavior of the bridge under seismic load..
 Design axial forces are almost equal for both AASHTO seismic analysis and
Response Spectrum analysis.
 In Response Spectrum analysis the longitudinal moment of outer column
and centre column was respectively 141% and 140% of AASHTO seismic
analysis. Thus the longitudinal moment for both cases vary significantly.
 In Response Spectrum analysis the longitudinal shear forces of outer column
and centre column was respectively 148% and 150% of AASHTO seismic
analysis.
 Transverse moment and shear forces for both AASHTO seismic analysis and
Response Spectrum analysis of each column are almost equal.
5.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE INVESTIGATION

 In this study the Response Spectrum Analysis was done for the analysis of bridge.
Further analysis, such as Dynamic Design Analysis Method (DDAM), Power
Spectral Density, Explicit Dynamic Analysis, Transient Dynamic Analysis (time-
history analysis) may be carried out.
 In this study for Response Spectrum Analysis the Single-point Response

Spectrum (SPRS) was performed. Further analysis, such as, Multi-point
Response Spectrum (MPRS) for Response Spectrum Analysis may be carried
out.
 The bridge structure is analyzed for dead load and earthquake load. Other loads such
as live loads, buoyancy, stream flow pressure, earth pressure may be included.
Summary and Conclusion 83
(Generally, the inertia effects of live loads are not included in the analysis; however,
the design of bridges having high live to dead load ratios located in metropolitan areas
where traffic congestion is likely to occur should consider the probability of a large live
load being on the bridge during an earthquake.)
 The CQC method is used in spectral analysis to combine the modes. However there
are some bridges with unusual geometric features which cause some of the
individual modes to have closely spaced periods to which this method may not be
applicable. SRSS, ABS, GMC methods may also be used.
 Longitudinal and transverse vibration has been treated separately in this
study. Simultaneous application of horizontal motions in two directions along
with vertical motion considering bi-axial bending of bridge pier may be studied.
 More detailed analysis of deck vibration may be performed.
 In this study the linear behavior of the material is assumed. A non linear analysis
may be studied.
 Seismic response of curved continuous isolated bridges may be evaluated

 The effect of soil structure interaction, which is ignored in this study, may
be considered.
References 84
REFERENCES
 AASHTO (1991), "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges", American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
15thEdition, 1989 and Interim Specifications 1990, 1991.
 Ahmed Syed Ishtiaq, Seismic Response Analysis of Isolated and non-Isolated

bridges. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, 1998
 ANSYS Element Reference
 BNBC, Bangladesh National Building Code (1993), Chapter 2, Loads,

Earthquake Loads
 J. Penzien and M. Watabe, "Characteristics of 3-D Earthquake Ground

Motions,"Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 3,
pp. 365-373, 1975.
 UBC, Uniform Building Code 1994 ,Chapter 16

APPENDIX A
ANSYS SCRIPT FILE
FINISH
/CLEAR
! INPUT DATA IN SI UNIT (N,mm,ton)
YOUNG=20000 ! MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF CONCRETE

DENST=2.4E-9 ! DENSITY (TON/mm**3)
SIGNIF=1.0E-10
G=9810 ! ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY
Z=0.15 ! SEISMIC ZONE COEFFICIENT FOR ZONE 2
R=1 ! RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR FOR MULTIPLE COLUMN
! BENT
NSPAN=3 ! NO. OF SPAN
NBAY =2 ! NO. OF BAY
SLABT=200 ! SLAB THICKNESS

SLABW=23774.4 ! SLAB WIDTH
SPAN=36576
BAY=11887.2 ! COLUMN TO COLUMN DISTANCE ALONG SLAB WIDTH
DIVBAY=BAY/12 ! LENGTH OF PER DIVISION OF BAY
GS=2971.8 ! SPACING OF LONGITUDINAL GIRDERS
NDIV=SLABW/GS ! NO. OF DIVISIONS ALONG SLAB WIDTH
DIVX=SPAN*3/36
UDL=1/1000 ! IN N/MM (1N/M)
CD=1219.2 ! COLUMN'S DIA

CH=7620 ! COLUMN'S HEIGHT
CA=3.142*(CD)**2/4 ! COLUMN'S AREA
CIX=3.142*(CD)**4/64 ! COLUMN'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT X AXIS
CIY=3.142*(CD)**4/64 ! COLUMN'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT Y AXIS
CIZ=CIX+CIY ! COLUMN'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT Z AXIS
LGW=609.6 ! LONGITUDINAL GIRDER'S WIDTH

LGD=2438.4 ! LONGITUDINAL GIRDER'S DEPTH
LGA=LGW*LGD ! LONGITUDINAL GIRDER'S AREA
LGIX=LGW*(LGD)**3/12 ! LONGITUDINAL GIRDER'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT X AXIS
LGIY=LGD*(LGW)**3/12 ! LONGITUDINAL GIRDER'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT Y AXIS
LGIZ=LGIX+LGIY ! LONGITUDINAL GIRDER'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT Z AXIS
Ansys script file 86
CGW=914.4 ! CROSS GIRDER'S WIDTH
CGD=2438.4 ! CROSS GIRDER'S DEPTH
CGA=CGW*CGD ! CROSS GIRDER'S AREA
CGIX=CGW*(CGD)**3/12 ! CROSS GIRDER'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT X AXIS
CGIY=CGD*(CGW)**3/12 ! CROSS GIRDER'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT Y AXIS
CGIZ=CGIX+CGIY ! CROSS GIRDER'S MOMENT OF INERTIA ABOUT Z AXIS
/PREP7
ET,1,BEAM4
ET,2,SHELL63
! REAL CONSTANT FOR COLUMNS
R,1,CA,CIX,CIY,CD,CD,,,CIZ
! REAL CONSTANT FOR LONGITUDINAL GIRDERS
R,2,LGA,LGIX,LGIY,LGW,LGD,,,LGIZ
! REAL CONSTANT FOR CROSS GIRDERS
R,3,CGA,CGIX,CGIY,CGW,CGD,,,CGIZ
! REAL CONSTANT FOR SLAB
R,4,SLABT
! REAL CONSTANT FOR UDL_Z
R,5,LGA,LGIX,LGIY,LGW,LGD,,,LGIZ
! REAL CONSTANT FOR UDL_X
R,6,CGA,CGIX,CGIY,CGW,CGD,,,CGIZ
! DEFINING MATERIAL PROPERTIES :-
MP,EX,1,YOUNG
MP,PRXY,1,0.2
MP,DENS,1,DENST
! STARTING THE MODELLING:-
K,1,0,0,0
K,2,SPAN,0,0
K,3,2*SPAN,0,0
K,4,3*SPAN,0,0
KSEL,ALL
KGEN,2,ALL,,,,CH
L,2,6
L,3,7
L,5,6
L,6,7
L,7,8
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH,CH
LGEN,NDIV+1,ALL,,,,,GS
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH/2,CH/2
LGEN,3,ALL,,,,,BAY
L,KP(0,CH,0),KP(0,CH,BAY)
L,KP(0,CH,BAY),KP(0,CH,2*BAY)
L,KP(SPAN,CH,0),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY)
L,KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,2*BAY)
L,KP(2*SPAN,CH,0),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY)
L,KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,2*BAY)
L,KP(3*SPAN,CH,0),KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY)
L,KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,2*BAY)
LSEL,ALL
A,KP(0,CH,0),KP(0,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,0)
A,KP(0,CH,BAY),KP(0,CH,2*BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY)
A,KP(SPAN,CH,0),KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,0)
A,KP(SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY)
A,KP(2*SPAN,CH,0),KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,0)
A,KP(2*SPAN,CH,BAY),KP(2*SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,2*BAY),KP(3*SPAN,CH,BAY)
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH,CH
LSEL,A,LOC,X,SPAN,SPAN
LSEL,A,LOC,X,2*SPAN,2*SPAN
LESIZE,ALL,,,12,,1
ALLSEL,ALL
TYPE,2
MAT,1
!! MESHING SLAB :-
REAL,4
ASEL,S,LOC,Y,CH,CH
AMESH,ALL
TYPE,1
MAT,1
!! MESHING CROSS GIRDERS :-

REAL,3
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,BAY/2,BAY/2
LSEL,A,LOC,Z,3/2*BAY,3/2*BAY
LSEL,U,LOC,X,0,0
LMESH,ALL
!! MESHING LONGITUDINAL GIRDERS :-
REAL,2
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,X,SPAN/2,SPAN/2
LSEL,A,LOC,X,3/2*SPAN,3/2*SPAN
LSEL,A,LOC,X,5/2*SPAN,5/2*SPAN
LSEL,U,LOC,Z,BAY*2,BAY*2
LMESH,ALL
!! MESHING COLUMNS :-
REAL,1
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Y,CH/2,CH/2
LMESH,ALL
!! MESHING OF L_GIRDER AT Z=BAY*2 FOR UDL_Z :
REAL,5
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,Z,BAY*2,BAY*2
LSEL,R,LOC,Y,CH,CH
LMESH,ALL
!! MESHING OF C_GIRDER AT X=0 FOR UDL_X :
REAL,6
LSEL,NONE
LSEL,S,LOC,X,0,0
LMESH,ALL
ALLSEL,ALL
NUMMRG,NODE ! MERGING COINCIDENT NODES

!! **** APPLYING SUPPORTS :-
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,0,0
D,ALL,ALL,0
NSEL,NONE
NSEL,S,LOC,X,0,0
NSEL,A,LOC,X,3*SPAN,3*SPAN
NSEL,U,LOC,Z,BAY,BAY
D,ALL,UY,0
NSEL,NONE
NSEL,S,LOC,X,0,0
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,BAY,BAY
NSEL,A,LOC,X,SPAN*3,SPAN*3
NSEL,R,LOC,Z,BAY,BAY
D,ALL,UY,0
D,ALL,UZ,0
ALLSEL,ALL
!! **** CONSIDERING GRAVITY LOAD :-
/SOLU
ACEL,0,G,0
LSWRITE,1 ! SAVING THE LOADING & SUPPORT DATA AS LOAD STEP-1

LSSOLVE,1,1,1 ! SOLVING LOAD STEP-1
FINISH
/POST1
!! NOW WE HAVE TO DEFINE LOAD STEP_1(DL) AS LOAD CASE_1
LCZERO !! THIS COMMAND CLEANS ANY ANSYS LOAD CASE RESULTS

! FROM ANSYS MEMORY
LCDEF,1,1,1 ! DEFINING LOAD STEP-1 AS LOAD CASE-1
LCOPER,ADD,1 ! ADD RESULTS OF LOAD CASE-1 INTO MEMORY ( MULTIPLIER : 1 )
LCWRITE,1 ! WRITING LOAD CASE-1 DATA 0N TO FILE
FINISH
!! **** MODAL ANALYSIS :-
/SOLU
ACEL,0,0,0 ! REMOVING GRAVITY

ANTYPE,2 ! PERFORM A MODAL ANALYSIS
MODOPT,LANB,14 ! MODAL ANALYSIS OPTIONS,BLOCK LANCZOS,NO OF MODES
! **** NO OF MODE EXPAND IN MODAL ANALYSIS :-
EXPASS,ON ! SPECIFIES AN EXPANSION PASS
MXPAND,,,,YES,SIGNIF !! NO OF MODES TO EXPAND ,CALCULATE ELEMENT

! RESULTS & REACTION FORCES, AS WELL AS THE NODAL
! DEGREE OF FREEDOM SOLUTION
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
!! **** RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF EQ_X :-
/SOLU
ANTYPE,8 ! PERFORM A SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
SPOPT,SPRS,,YES !!SPECTRUM OPTIONS,SINGLE POINT EXCITATION RESONSE

! SPECTRUM, INCLUDE STRESS RESPONSES IN THE
! CALCULATIONS
SVTYPE,2,G*Z/R !!TYPE OF SINGLE-POINT RESPONSE SPECTRUM,SEISMIC

!ACCELERATION, RESPONSE SPECTRUM LOADING,SCALE
! FACTOR APPLIED TO SPECTRUM VALUES
SED,1,0,0 !! EXCITATION DIRECTION FOR A SINGLE-POINT RESPONSE

! SPECTRUM (X,Y,Z) : X
! RESPONSE SPECTRUM FUNCTION :-
FREQ,1/10,1/8,1/7,1/5,1/4,1/3
SV,0.05,0.2288,0.286,0.327,0.4576,0.572,0.7627
FREQ,1/2.5,1/1.8,1/1.6,1/1.4,1/1.2,1/0.915,1/0.00001
SV,0.05,0.915,1.271,1.43,1.635,1.91,2.5,2.5
DMPRAT,0.05
CQC,SIGNIF,DISP !! SPECIFIES THE COMPLETE QUADRATIC MODE

! COMBINATION METHOD,DISPLACEMENT
! SOLUTION(DEFAULT).DISPLACEMENT,STRESS
! FORCE,ETC.ARE AVAILABLE
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
/INPUT,,MCOM ! SHOWING RESULTS OF SPECTRUM VALUES OF EQ_X
LCWRITE,2 ! WRITING LOAD CASE-2 DATA OF EQ_X 0N TO FILE
FINISH
!!! **** RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF EQ_Y :-
/SOLU
SPOPT,SPRS,,YES !!SPECTRUM OPTIONS,SINGLE POINT EXCITATION

! RESONSE SPECTRUM, INCLUDE STRESS RESPONSES
! IN THE CALCULATIONS
SVTYPE,2,G*Z/R !!TYPE OF SINGLE-POINT RESPONSE ,SEISMIC
! ACCELERATION, RESPONSE SPECTRUM LOADING,
! SCALE FACTOR APPLIED TO SPECTRUM VALUES
SED,0,1,0 !! EXCITATION DIRECTION FOR A SINGLE- POINT
! RESPONSE SPECTRUM (X,Y,Z) : Y
DMPRAT,0.05
CQC,SIGNIF, DISP !! SPECIFIES THE COMPLETE QUADRATIC MODE

! COMBINATION METHOD,DISPLACEMENT
! SOLUTION(DEFAULT).DISPLACEMENT,STRESS
! FORCE,ETC.ARE AVAILABLE
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
/INPUT,,MCOM ! SHOWING RESULTS OF SPECTRUM VALUES OF EQ_Y
LCWRITE,3 ! WRITING LOAD CASE-3 DATA OF EQ_Y 0N TO FILE
FINISH
!!! **** RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF EQ_Z :-
/SOLU

SPOPT,SPRS,,YES !!SPECTRUM OPTIONS,SINGLE POINT EXCITATION RESONSE
!SPECTRUM, INCLUDE STRESS RESPONSES IN THE CALCULATIONS
SVTYPE,2,G*Z/R !!TYPE OF SINGLE-POINT RESPONSE SPECTRUM,SEISMIC

!ACCELERATION, RESPONSE SPECTRUM LOADING,SCALE FACTOR
! APPLIED TO SPECTRUM VALUES
SED,0,0,1 !! EXCITATION DIRECTION FOR A SINGLE-POINT RESPONSE SPECTRUM
! (X,Y,Z) : Z
DMPRAT,0.05
CQC,SIGNIF,DISP !! SPECIFIES THE COMPLETE QUADRATIC MODE COMBINATION

! METHOD, DISPLACEMENT SOLUTION(DEFAULT).DISPLACEMENT,
! STRESS,FORCE,ETC.ARE AVAILABLE
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
/INPUT,,MCOM ! SHOWING RESULTS OF SPECTRUM VALUES OF EQ_Z
LCWRITE,4 ! WRITING LOAD CASE-4 DATA OF EQ_Z 0N TO FILE

FINISH
!!! **** PROCESSING TO GET SUPPORT REACTIONS FOR DIFFERENT LOAD CASE
!COMBINATIONS :-
/POST1
!! NOW COMBINING LOADCASES :-
! **** LC_1:DL, LC_2:EQX, LC_3:EQY, LC_4:EQZ
! **** FORMATION OF SERVICE LOADS : -
! **** COMBINATION : DL+EQX FOR LC_11 :-
LCZERO ! CLEARING ANSYS MEMORY
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2
LCFACT,1,1 ! FACTORING DL CASE WITH 1

LCFACT,2,1 ! FACTORING EQX CASE WITH 1
LCOPER,ADD,1 ! ADDING LOAD CASE 1 INTO MEMORY
LCOPER,ADD,2 ! ADDING LOAD CASE 2 WITH THE EXISTING DATA OF MEMORY
LCWRITE,11 ! WRITING MEMORY RESULTS AS LOAD CASE 11
! **** COMBINATION : DL-EQX FOR LC_12 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2

LCFACT,2,-1 ! FACTORING EQX CASE WITH -1
! **** COMBINATION : DL+EQY FOR LC_13 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3

LCFACT,3,1 ! FACTORING EQY CASE WITH 1
! **** COMBINATION : DL-EQY FOR LC_14 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3

LCFACT,3,-1 ! FACTORING EQY CASE WITH -1
! **** COMBINATION : DL+EQZ FOR LC_15 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4

LCFACT,4,1 ! FACTORING EQZ CASE WITH 1
! **** COMBINATION : DL-EQZ FOR LC_16 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4

LCFACT,4,-1 ! FACTORING EQZ CASE WITH -1
!! **** FORMATION OF FACTORED LOADS : -
! **** COMBINATION : 1.05DL+1.4EQX FOR LC_21 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2
LCFACT,1,1.05 ! FACTORING DL CASE WITH 1.05

LCFACT,2,1.4 ! FACTORING EQX CASE WITH 1.4
! **** COMBINATION : 1.05DL-1.4EQX FOR LC_22 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,2

LCFACT,2,-1.4 ! FACTORING EQX CASE WITH -1.4
! **** COMBINATION : 1.05DL+1.4EQY FOR LC_23 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3
! **** COMBINATION : 1.05DL-1.4EQY FOR LC_24 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,3

! **** COMBINATION : 1.05DL+1.4EQZ FOR LC_25 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4

! **** COMBINATION : 1.05DL-1.4EQZ FOR LC_26 :-
LCFILE,1
LCFILE,4

/ESHAPE,1.0
PLDISP,1
!! IDENTIFICATION OF THE LOAD CASES :-
!LC_1=DL;
!LC_2=EQ_X;
!LC_3=EQ_Y;
!LC_4=EQ_Z;
!LC_11=DL+EQ_X;
!LC_12=DL-EQ_X;
!LC_13=DL+EQ_Y;
!LC_14=DL-EQ_Y;
!LC_15=DL+EQ_Z;
!LC_16=DL-EQ_Z;
!LC_21=1.O5DL+1.4EQ_X;
!LC_22=1.O5DL-1.4EQ_X;
!LC_23=1.O5DL+1.4EQ_Y;
!LC_24=1.O5DL-1.4EQ_Y;
!LC_25=1.O5DL+1.4EQ_Z;
!LC_26=1.O5DL-1.4EQ_Z;
!! PRINTING DATAS OF REACTION FORCES OF LEFT & RIGHT SUPPORTS :-
*CFOPEN,LCRESULT,TXT
!! **** RESULTS FOR BASIC LOADS [1 TO 4] :-
*DO,LOADCASE,1,4,1
LCA=LOADCASE
LCFILE,LOADCASE ! TELLING ANSYS TO READ LOAD CASE 1 TO 4 DATA STORED IN FILE

LCASE,LOADCASE !! READING LOAD CASE DATA FROM FILE DISCARDING PREVIOUS
! DATA IN MEMORY
!! REACTION FORCES IN KN & MOMENTS IN KN-M : -
*DO,NOM,0,2,1
*GET,RXA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FX
*GET,RYA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FY
*GET,RZA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FZ
*GET,MXA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MX
*GET,MYA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MY
*GET,MZA,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCA,BAY*NOM,RXA/1000,RYA/1000,RZA/1000,MXA*1E-6,MYA*1E-6,MZA*1E-6
(" REACTION FORCES OF LEFT SUPPORT IN LC : ",F10.3," AT Z =",F7.1," RX: ",F12.3,"

RY: ",F12.3," RZ: ",F12.3," MX : ",F12.3," MY: ",F12.3," MZ: ",F12.3)
*ENDDO
*DO,MON,0,2,1
*GET,RXB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FX
*GET,RYB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FY
*GET,RZB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FZ
*GET,MXB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MX
*GET,MYB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MY
*GET,MZB,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCA,BAY*MON,RXB/1000,RYB/1000,RZB/1000,MXB*1E-6,MYB*1E-6,MZB*1E-6
(" REACTION FORCES OF RIGHT SUPPORT IN LC : ",F10.3," AT Z =",F7.1," RX: ",F12.3,"

*ENDDO
*ENDDO
FINISH
!! *** RESULTS FOR SERVICE LOADS [11 TO 16] :-
*DO,LDCASE,11,16,1
LC=LDCASE
LCFILE,LDCASE ! TELLING ANSYS TO READ LOAD CASE 11 TO 16 DATA STORED IN FILE

LCASE,LDCASE ! READING LOAD CASE DATA FROM FILE DISCARDING PREVIOUS
DATA IN MEMORY
*DO,NOM,0,2,1
*GET,RXC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FX
*GET,RYC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FY
*GET,RZC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FZ
*GET,MXC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MX
*GET,MYC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MY
*GET,MZC,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LC,BAY*NOM,RXC/1000,RYC/1000,RZC/1000,MXC*1E-6,MYC*1E-6,MZC*1E-6

*ENDDO
*DO,MON,0,2,1
*GET,RXD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FX
*GET,RYD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FY
*GET,RZD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FZ
*GET,MXD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MX
*GET,MYD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MY
*GET,MZD,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LC,BAY*MON,RXD/1000,RYD/1000,RZD/1000,MXD*1E-6,MYD*1E-6,MZD*1E-6

*ENDDO
*ENDDO
!! *** RESULTS FOR FACTORED LOADS [21 TO 26] :-
*DO,LODCASE,21,26,1
LCC=LODCASE
LCFILE,LODCASE ! TELLING ANSYS TO READ LOAD CASE 21 TO 26 DATA STORED IN FILE

LCASE,LODCASE !! READING LOAD CASE DATA FROM FILE DISCARDING PREVIOUS
! DATA IN MEMORY
*DO,NOM,0,2,1
*GET,RXE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FX
*GET,RYE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FY
*GET,RZE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,FZ
*GET,MXE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MX
*GET,MYE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MY
*GET,MZE,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY*NOM),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCC,NOM*BAY,RXE/1000,RYE/1000,RZE/1000,MXE*1E-6,MYE*1E-6,MZE*1E-6

*ENDDO
*DO,MON,0,2,1
*GET,RXF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FX
*GET,RYF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FY
*GET,RZF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,FZ
*GET,MXF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MX
*GET,MYF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MY
*GET,MZF,NODE,NODE(2*SPAN,0,BAY*MON),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,LCC,MON*BAY,RXF/1000,RYF/1000,RZF/1000,MXF*1E-6,MYF*1E-6,MZF*1E-6

*ENDDO
*ENDDO
*CFCLOS ! CLOSING FILE
/REPLOT
FINISH
!!! ***** PERFORMING EQUIVALENT STATIC LOAD METHOD :-
/SOLU
!!! ***** APPLYING UDL_Z FOR AASHTO_Z:-
ESEL,S,REAL,,5
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRES,UDL
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
!!! **** PROCESSING TO GET DISPLACEMENT ALONG Z DIRECTION FOR AASHTO_Z:-
*CFOPEN,DISPZOUT,TXT
*DO,NMB,0,36,1
XX=DIVX*NMB
*GET,DSP36,NODE,NODE(XX,CH,0),U,Z
*VWRITE,DSP36/1000,XX/1000
("DISPLACEMENT ALONG Z DIRECTION : ",F18.12," AT POINT X = ",F8.2 )
*ENDDO
FINISH
/SOLU
!! **** APPLYING POINT FORCES ALONG_Z FOR AASHTO_Z:- ( OBTAINED FROM HAND
!CALCULATION )
F,NODE(0,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-21967.12
F,NODE(3050,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-225852.622
F,NODE(6100,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-393248.8525
F,NODE(9140,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-553834.86
F,NODE(12190,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-707219.116
F,NODE(15240,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-850281.257
F,NODE(18290,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-981597.543
F,NODE(21340,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1100645.936
F,NODE(24380,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1207438.301
F,NODE(27430,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1302306.843
F,NODE(30480,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1385643.091
F,NODE(33530,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1458265.695
F,NODE(36580,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1520993.307
F,NODE(39620,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1582570.062
F,NODE(42670,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1636055.228
F,NODE(45720,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1677960.642
F,NODE(48770,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1708369.355
F,NODE(51820,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1726747.466
F,NODE(54860,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1732893.277
F,NODE(57910,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1726747.466
F,NODE(60960,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1708369.355
F,NODE(64010,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1677960.642
F,NODE(67060,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1636055.228
F,NODE(70100,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1582570.062
F,NODE(73150,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1520993.307
F,NODE(76200,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1458265.695
F,NODE(79250,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1385643.091
F,NODE(82300,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1302306.843
F,NODE(85340,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1207438.301
F,NODE(88390,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-1100645.936
F,NODE(91440,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-981597.543
F,NODE(94490,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-850281.257
F,NODE(97540,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-707219.116
F,NODE(100580,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-553834.86
F,NODE(103630,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-393248.8525
F,NODE(106680,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-225852.622
F,NODE(109725,CH,BAY*2),FZ,-21967.12
SOLVE
FINISH
!! ****** PRINTING DATAS OF REACTION FORCES OF INNER & OUTER COLUMNS FOR
!AASHTO_Z :-
/POST1
*CFOPEN,RACTNZOUT,TXT
*GET,RXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MY
*GET,MZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MZ
*GET,RXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MY
*GET,MZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,RXOO/1000,RYOO/1000,RZOO/1000,MXOO*1E-6,MYOO*1E-6,MZOO*1E-6, RXII/1000,
RYII/1000,RZII/1000,MXII*1E-6,MYII*1E-6,MZII*1E-6
("REACTIONFORCES:RXO :",F12.3," RYO : ",F12.3," RZO : ",F12.3," MXO : ",F12.3," MYO : ",
F12.3, " MZO : ",F12.3," RXI : ",F12.3," RYI : ",F12.3," RZI : ",F12.3," MXI : ",F12.3," MYI : ",F12.3,
" MZI : ",F12.3)
FINISH
!!! ******* APPLYING UDL_X FOR AASHTO_X :-
/SOLU
ESEL,S,REAL,,6
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRES,UDL
ALLSEL,ALL
SOLVE
FINISH
!!! ****** APPLYING UNL_X FOR AASHTO_X :- ( OBTAINED FROM HAND CALCULATION)
/SOLU
ESEL,S,REAL,,6
SFBEAM,ALL,1,PRES,326.47 ! UNL IN N/MM
FINISH
!! ****** PRINTING DATAS OF REACTION FORCES OF INNER & OUTER COLUMNS FOR
!AASHTO_X :-
/POST1
*CFOPEN,RACTNZOUT,TXT
*GET,RXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MY
*GET,MZOO,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,2*BAY),RF,MZ
*GET,RXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FX
*GET,RYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FY
*GET,RZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,FZ
*GET,MXII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MX
*GET,MYII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MY
*GET,MZII,NODE,NODE(SPAN,0,BAY),RF,MZ
*VWRITE,RXOO/1000,RYOO/1000,RZOO/1000,MXOO*1E-6,MYOO*1E-6,MZOO*1E-6, RXII/1000,
RYII/1000,RZII/1000,MXII*1E-6,MYII*1E-6,MZII*1E-6
("REACTIONFORCES:RXO :",F12.3," RYO : ",F12.3," RZO : ",F12.3," MXO : ",F12.3," MYO : ",
F12.3, " MZO : ",F12.3," RXI : ",F12.3," RYI : ",F12.3," RZI : ",F12.3," MXI : ",F12.3," MYI : ",F12.3,
" MZI : ",F12.3)
FINISH
APPENDIX B
Data Tables used for the Analysis
Table B1: Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion
(AASHTO)
V y´ Mzz´ Vz΄ M yý´ Px´
(Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial
Location
shear) KN moment)KN-m shear) KN moment)KN-m force)KN
Centre 1328.965 5227.404 0 0 172.426

Column (1045.48)
Outer 1289.396 5121426 2.584 5.404 105.27

Column (1024.2) (1.081)
Table B2: Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion (AASHTO)
Vy  M z΄z΄ V z΄ My y 
Location (Longitudnal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial 

shear) KN moment)Kn-m shear)KN moment)Kn-m force)KN
Centre 3.89 15.36 2066.88 7908.18 13.64

column (3.072) (1581.64)
Outer 247.6 992.08 1910.73 7531.2 903.95

column (198.416) (1506.24)
Data tables used for the analysis 104
Table B3 : Displacements and seismic loading intensity for transverse loading

DISPLACEMENT
SEISMIC LOADING
DISPLACEMENT FROM DUE TO UNIFORM AASHTO SEISMIC
INTENSITY Pe(x) (N/m)
ABUTMENT 1(m) TRANSVERSE LOAD ALONG Z (N)
=3.89x1012xVs(x)
LOADING Vs(x) (m)
ABUTMENT-1(0) -3.703E-09 -14404.67 -43934.2435

3.05 -1.9036E-08 -74050.04 -225852.622
6.1 -3.3145E-08 -128934.05 -393248.8525
9.14 -4.668E-08 -181585.2 -553834.86
12.19 -5.9608E-08 -231875.12 -707219.116
15.24 -7.1666E-08 -278780.74 -850281.257
18.29 -8.2734E-08 -321835.26 -981597.543
21.34 -9.2768E-08 -360867.52 -1100645.936
24.38 -1.01769E-07 -395881.41 -1207438.301
27.43 -1.09765E-07 -426985.85 -1302306.843
30.48 -1.16789E-07 -454309.21 -1385643.091
33.53 -1.2291E-07 -478119.9 -1458265.695
BENT-1(36.58) -1.28197E-07 -498686.33 -1520993.307
39.62 -1.33387E-07 -518875.43 -1582570.062
42.67 -1.37895E-07 -536411.55 -1636055.228
45.72 -1.41427E-07 -550151.03 -1677960.642
48.77 -1.4399E-07 -560121.1 -1708369.355
51.82 -1.45539E-07 -566146.71 -1726747.466
54.86 -1.46057E-07 -568161.73 -1732893.277
57.91 -1.45539E-07 -566146.71 -1726747.466
60.96 -1.4399E-07 -560121.1 -1708369.355
64.01 -1.41427E-07 -550151.03 -1677960.642
67.06 -1.37895E-07 -536411.55 -1636055.228
70.1 -1.33387E-07 -518875.43 -1582570.062
BENT-2(73.15) -1.28197E-07 -498686.33 -1520993.307
76.2 -1.2291E-07 -478119.9 -1458265.695
79.25 -1.16789E-07 -454309.21 -1385643.091
82.3 -1.09765E-07 -426985.85 -1302306.843
85.34 -1.01769E-07 -395881.41 -1207438.301
88.39 -9.2768E-08 -360867.52 -1100645.936
91.44 -8.2734E-08 -321835.26 -981597.543
94.49 -7.1666E-08 -278780.74 -850281.257
97.54 -5.9608E-08 -231875.12 -707219.116
100.58 -4.668E-08 -181585.2 -553834.86
103.63 -3.3145E-08 -128934.05 -393248.8525
106.68 -1.9036E-08 -74050.04 -225852.622
ABUTMENT(109.725) -3.703E-09 -14404.67 -43934.2435
Table B4: Maximum seismic forces and moments for load cases 1 and 2
Load combination Load combination
Component 1.0longitudinal+0.3Transverse 1.0transverse+0.3longitudinal
Centre column
V y´ (Longitudinal shear) 1.0*1328.965 + 0.3*3.89

KN =1330.132 402.58
M Z ΄ Z ΄ (Longitudinal
1.0*1045.48+ 0.3*3.072
moment)KN-m
=1046.4 316.72
± (1.0*172.426 + 0.3*13.64)
Px΄(Axial Force) KN
= ±176.52 ± 65.37
Vz´(Transverse shear) 1.0*0+0.3*2066.88
KN =620.064 2066.88
Myý´(Transverse 1.0*0 + 0.3*1581.64
moment)KN-m =474.5 1581.64
Outer column
Vy'(Longitudinal shear) 1.0*1289.396+0.3*247.6

KN =1363.68 634.42
Mz´z´(Longitudinal 1.0*1024.29+0.3*198.416
moment) KN-m =1083.81 505.703
Px΄(Axial force)KN ±(1.0*105.27+0.3*903.95
=± 376.46 ±935.53
Vz´ ( Transverse 1.0*2.584+0.3*1910.73
shear) KN =575.803 1911.51
Myý´(Transverse moment) 1.0*1.081 + 0.3*1506.24

KN-m =452.953 1506.56
Table B5 : Elastic and modified forces due to dead load

shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force)KN
Centre 222.172 561.479 0 0 11110.4

Column
Outer 215.326 543.318 275.66 696.955 4694.32

Column
Table B6 : Elastic and modified forces due to longitudinal earthquake motion( Response
spectrum)
Location (Longitudinal (Longitudinal (Transverse (Transverse (Axial force)
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m KN
Centre 3575.16 14067.553 0 0 711.082

Column (2813.51)
Outer 3468.17 13781.37 15.058 37.818 395.313

Column (2756.27) (7.564)
Table B7 : Elastic and modified forces due to transverse earthquake motion( Response
spectrum)
shear) KN moment)Kn-m Shear) KN moment)Kn-m force)
KN
Centre 0 0 865.144 3281.959 0

Column (656.39)
Outer 95.5 390.57 781.921 3066.79 315.03

Column (78.114) (613.36)
Table B8 : Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for outer column

AASHTO Seismic Analysis 2.15×2 1.36×3 1.58×3

Response Spectrum 2.15×2 3.5×3 3.72×3
Table B9 : Comparison of longitudinal shear (KN) for centre column


Table B10 : Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) of outer column

Table B11 : Comparison of longitudinal moment (Kn-m) for centre column


Table B12 : Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for outer column


Table B13 : Comparison of transverse shear (KN) for centre column

AASHTO Seismic Analysis 0 6.2×2 6.2×2
Response Spectrum 0 2.6×2 2.6×2
Table B14 : Comparison of transverse moment (KN-m) for outer column


Table B15 : Comparison of transverse moment (Kn-m) for centre column

AASHTO Seismic Analysis 0 4.75×2 4.75×2

Response Spectrum 0 1.97×2 1.97×2
Table B16 : Comparison of axial force (KN) for outer column

AASHTO Seismic Analysis 4.69×103 3.76×2 5.07×3
Response Spectrum 4.69×103 4.9×2 5.18×3
Table B17 : Comparison of axial force (KN) for centre column

AASHTO Seismic Analysis 1.11×104 1.76×2 1.13×4

Response Spectrum 1.11×104 7.11×2 1.18×4
Table B18 : Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for outer column

Method Total Moment
AASHTO Seismic Analysis 1.99×3

Response Spectrum 3.47×3
Table B19 : Comparison of design Moment (KN-m) for centre column

Method Total Moment
AASHTO Seismic Analysis 1.68×3
Response Spectrum 3.38×3
Table B20: Design forces for case І (AASHTO)
Longitudinal shear Vy΄ (KN) 1579.006 1552.304

1627.128 1607.879
(KN-m)

1149.91 474.5
(KN-m)
Table B21: Design forces for Case ІI (Response spectrum)
Longitudinal shear Vy΄(KN) 3790.486 3797.332

3356.83 3374.989
(KN-m)

888.527 196.92
(KN-m)

Seismic Analysis of A Three Span Deck Girder Bridge, Zasiah Tafheem

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Seismic Analysis of A Three Span Deck Girder Bridge, Zasiah Tafheem

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Seismic Analysis of a

Three Span Deck Girder Bridge

Department of Civil Engineering

Signature of the student

CHAPTER 2. Seismic Analysis of Simple Bridges

CHAPTER 3. Modeling and Methodology for Numerical Analysis

CHAPTER 4. Seismic Load Analysis of a three span deck girder bridge

Table 2.1 Seismic performance category (SPC) 10

Figure 2.1 Plan view of a bridge subjected to a transverse earthquake motion 14

CS Elastic seismic response coefficient

M YY ' Transverse moment, N-m

I would like to express my deepest sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr.Khan Mahmud

1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE

 To analyze the longitudinal and transverse earthquake motion of the bridge

2.2 BASIC DYNAMICS

2.3 BASIS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN

2.4 CURRENT BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA

2.5 EARTHQUAKE LOADING FOR DESIGN

withstand that motion. Hence, judgment, engineering knowledge and political

2.6 ZONING MAP AND ACCELERATION CO-EFFICIENT

2.7 DESIGN EARTHQAKE GROUND MOTION

The ground shaking which occurs in an earthquake may be described as a series of

The determination of appropriate seismic design loads, although complex in reality

2.8 INFLUENCE OF SOIL CONDITION ON GROUND MOTION

 The characteristics of the soil deposits underlying the proposed area.

 The magnitude of the earthquake producing the ground motions.

 The source mechanism of the earthquake producing the ground motions.

While it is conceptually desirable to include the specific considerations of all of the

2.9 IMPORTANCE CLASSIFICATION

Bridges shall be classified on the basis of social / survival and security /

2.10 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES

Table 2.1 Seismic performance category (SPC)

2.11 SITE EFFECTS

SOIL PROFILE TYPE I is a profile with either

Table 2.2 Site coefficient (S)

Soil profile type

2.12 RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS

Table 2.3 Response modification factor (R)

Wall Type Pier 2 Superstructure to 0.8

Steel or Composite Columns or piers

Multi Column Bent 5

2.13 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ACCORDING TO AASHTO GUIDELINE

2.13.1 Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method

Figure 2.1 Plan view of a bridge subjected to a transverse earthquake motion

Figure 2.3 Deflected shape due to uniform static loading

T max = U max (2.5)

The maximum kinetic energy of the system is given by

And ω is the frequency of the vibrating system and y is evaluated

Using equation 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8 becomes

v(x,t) max = v(t) max v S (x) (2.14)

2.13.2 Method of Calculation of Seismic Load by Single Mode Spectral

Figure 2.5 Characteristic static loading applied to the bridge system

STEP 1: At first it is necessary to calculate the static displacements V s (x) due to an

STEP 2: Calculate the factor α ,β ,γ from the expressions

β = ∫ w(x )v5 (x )dx (2.12)

STEP 3: Calculate the period of the bridge using the expression

where, g= acceleration due to gravity(length/time2)

(a) Plan transverse loading

(b) Elevation longitudinal loading

(a) Plan transverse loading

(b) Elevation longitudinal loading

Figure2.7 Bridge deck subjected to equivalent transverse and longitudinal

2.14 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS