Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Halcrow, a CH2M Hill Company, 1101 Channelside Drive, Tampa, FL 33602, United States;
E-mail: Chris.Braden@ch2m.com
b
Halcrow, a CH2M Hill Company, Elms House, 43 Brook Green, London, W6 7EF, United Kingdom
E-mail: Billy.Ahluwalia@ch2m.com
c
Halcrow, a CH2M Hill Company1101 Channelside Drive, Tampa, FL 33602, United States;
E-mail: Christian.Ray@ch2m.com
- Corresponding Author
1. Introduction
The design of a multi-span bridge in a seismically active
region, such as Trinidad and Tobago, requires a refined
analysis to determine the required substructure capacity.
In most cases, this analysis utilises a response spectrum in
conjunction with a three-dimensional finite element model
in order to determine the behaviour and loading
requirements of a structure. This document serves as
guidance and example for the procedures necessary to
perform a response spectrum analysis.
The sample structure described in this document
consists of dual three-span prestressed girder bridges.
According to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications Table 4.7.4.3.1 (2012) (see Figure 1), the
multi-span nature of the structure coupled with the seismic
zone classification requires multi-modal analysis to
determine the seismic behaviour. The finite element
software package MIDAS was utilised to perform a
response spectrum analysis.
1. Analysis Methods
The AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications (2012) allow
for the use of three different analysis methods, each with
13
Single-Span
Bridges
1
2
3
4
No seismic
analysis
required
Other Bridges
regular
irregular
*
*
SM/UL
SM
SM/UL
MM
SM/UL
MM
Multispan Bridges
Essential Bridges
regular
irregular
*
*
SM/UL
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
Critical Bridges
regular
irregular
*
*
MM
MM
MM
TH
TH
TH
Seismic Zone
1
2
3
4
14
Value
3
4
5
90 90 90
6
90
1.5
1.5
Number of Spans
2
Maximum subtended angle for a
90
curved bridge
Maximum span length ratio from span
3
2
to span
Maximum bent/pier stiffness ratio from
4
span to span, excluding abutments
Source: AASHTO LRFD (2012), Table 4.7.4.3.1-2
Ss = 0.50
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
2.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
Ss = 0.75
Ss = 1.00
Ss > 1.25
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.9
Site-specific Analysis
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
3. Structural System
The example bridge consists of dual three-span
prestressed girder bridges with each span measuring 30m.
Each of the two superstructure units consists of nine (9)
AASHTO Type IV girders. The girders are placed on
reinforced elastomeric bearings and will be made
continuous for live load via concrete diaphragms at each
of the piers. The concrete diaphragm serves as a rigid link
between the girders in adjacent spans.
Since all of the dead load has been applied to the
girders in a simply supported configuration, the only
gravity load that will be carried by the continuous system
is the live load. The superstructure will remain isolated
from the substructure by means of a semi-integral
connection, illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.
15
16
5. Structural Model
In this example, the superstructures of the dual bridge
system connect via the abutment caps, the full structural
system was modelled as depicted in Figure 6. The
superstructure was modelled using AASHTO Type IV
girders with a composite concrete deck in an attempt to
consider the weight and stiffness of the superstructure as
accurately as possible (see Figure 7). End diaphragms
were similarly modelled so that the section behaves
realistically as the force from the soil spring is applied.
Because of the semi-integral connection between the
superstructure and substructure, it is important to model
the location and stiffness of the bearings. The
superstructure/substructure interface is the primary
mechanism to transmit the motion of the superstructure to
the supports. The analytical beam element is located at the
centroid of the composite beam member.
17
To model the soil-structure interaction, soil forcedisplacement was generated by the geotechnical engineer.
The P-y curves describe the non-linearity of the soil
response to movement; therefore, the stiffness of the soil
directly depends on the displacement. An example of P-y
curve is depicted in Figure 9.
For this example, an iterative approach is used until
the stiffness and relative deflection of the soil springs
converge. The pile members were founded on an ideal
roller only restrained against vertical translation. This
boundary condition will allow the pile tip to move
laterally against the soil springs, while restricting the
vertical motion of the pile. The boundary condition of
these nodes, however, will not influence the response of
the system since very little displacement occurs at the pile
due to the increasing soil stiffness with depth. This site is
subject to soil liquefaction during a seismic event and
therefore the model needs to consider the resulting
conditions, therefore, two models were generated and the
soil spring stiffnesses were determined utilising P-y
curves generated for each condition.
18