Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diverse modeling techniques, parameters, and assumptions for nonlinear dynamic analysis of typical concrete bridges with different pier-to-deck connections: which to use and why

  • Morkos, B.N. (Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, The British University in Egypt) ;
  • Farag, M.M.N. (Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University) ;
  • Salem, S. (Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, The British University in Egypt) ;
  • Mehanny, S.S.F. (Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University) ;
  • Bakhoum, M.M. (Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University)
  • Received : 2021.05.13
  • Accepted : 2022.02.15
  • Published : 2022.03.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Key questions to researchers interested in nonlinear analysis of skeletal structures are whether the distributed plasticity approach - albeit computationally demanding - is more reliable than the concentrated plasticity to adequately capture the extent and severity of the inelastic response, and whether force-based formulation is more efficient than displacement-based formulation without compromising accuracy. The present research focusing on performance-based seismic response of mid-span concrete bridges provides a pilot holistic investigation opting for some hands-on answers. OpenSees software is considered adopting different modeling techniques, viz. distributed plasticity (through either displacement-based or force-based elements) and concentrated plasticity via beam-with-hinges elements. The pros and cons of each are discussed based on nonlinear pushover analysis results, and fragility curves generated for various performance levels relying on incremental dynamic analyses under real earthquake records. Among prime conclusions, distributed plasticity modeling albeit inherently not relying on prior knowledge of plastic hinge length still somewhat depends on such information to ensure accurate results. For instance, displacement-based and force-based approaches secure optimal accuracy when dividing, for the former, the member into sub-elements, and satisfying, for the latter, a distance between any two consecutive integration points, close to the expected plastic hinge length. On the other hand, using beam-with-hinges elements is computationally more efficient relative to the distributed plasticity, yet with acceptable accuracy provided the user has prior reasonable estimate of the anticipated plastic hinge length. Furthermore, when intrusive performance levels (viz. life safety or collapse) are of concern, concentrated plasticity via beam-with-hinges ensures conservative predicted capacity of investigated bridge systems.

Keywords

References

  1. Ansari, M., Daneshjoo, F., Safiey, A., Hamzehkolaei, N.S. and Sorkhou M. (2019), "Fiber element-based nonlinear analysis of concrete bridge piers with consideration of permanent displacement", Struct. Eng. Mech., 69(3), 243-255, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.69.3.243.
  2. Bakhoum, M.M. and Athanasious, S. (2001), "Study of the dynamic and equivalent static analysis methods for seismic design of bridges: ranges of applicability, effect of modeling assumptions, and support conditions", Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Application of Artificial Intelligence to Civil and Structural Engineering Computing, Stirling, Scotland, September.
  3. Barbato, M. and Conte, J.P. (2005), "Finite element response sensitivity analysis: a comparison between force-based and displacement-based frame element models", Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 194(12-16), 1479-1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.04.011.
  4. Chenouda, M. and Ayoub, A. (2009), "Probabilistic collapse analysis of degrading multi degree of freedom structures under earthquake excitation", Eng. Struct., 31(12), 2909-2921, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.07.018.
  5. Correia, A.A., Almeida, J.P. and Pinho, R. (2008), "Force-based versus displacement-based formulations in the cyclic nonlinear analysis of RC frames", Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October.
  6. Dukes, J., Mangalathu, S., Padgett, J.E. and DesRoches, R. (2018), "Development of a bridge-specific fragility methodology to improve the seismic resilience of bridges", Earthq. Struct., 15(3), 253-261, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.3.253.
  7. EN 1992-1-1 (2004), Eurocode 2 (EC2): Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
  8. EN 1992-2 (2005), Eurocode 2 (EC2): Design of concrete structures. Part 2: Concrete bridges - design and detailing rules, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
  9. EN 1998-1 (2004), Eurocode 8 (EC8): Design of structures for earthquake resistance. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
  10. EN 1998-2 (2005), Eurocode 8 (EC8): Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Bridges, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.
  11. Fakhry M.F., El Sayed M.M. and Mehanny, S.S.F. (2019), "Response of skew bridges with permutations of geometric parameters and bearings articulation", Earthq. Struct., 17(5), 477-487, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2019.17.5.477.
  12. Farag, M.M.N., Mehanny, S.S.F., Kohrangi, M., Vamvatsikos, D. and Bakhoum, M.M. (2019), "Precast beam bridges with a buffer-gap-elastomeric bearings system: Uncertainty in design parameters and randomness in ground records", ASCE J. Bridge Eng., 24(5), ttps://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001396.
  13. Farag, M.M.N. (2013), Inelastic Seismic Response of Bridges with a Buffer-Gap-Elastomeric Bearing System, Master Theis, Cairo University, Egypt.
  14. Farag, M., Mehanny, S.S. and Bakhoum, M.M. (2015), "Establishing optimal gap size for precast beam bridges with a buffer-gap-elastomeric bearings system", Earthq. Struct., 9(1), 195-219. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.195.
  15. Gharakhanloo, A., Kaynia, A. and Tsionis, G. (2015), "Distributed and concentrated inelasticity beam-column elements: application to reinforced concrete frames and verification", Proceedings of the 5th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Crete Island, Greece, May.
  16. Kang, Y.J. (1977), Nonlinear Geometric, Material and Time Dependent Analysis of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Frames, Ph.D. Dissertation, Division of Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics, University of California, Berkeley.
  17. Kun, C., Yang, Z. and Chouw, N. (2018), "Seismic response of skewed bridges including pounding effects", Earthq. Struct., 14(5), 467-476, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.14.5.467.
  18. Li, S., Zhai, C.H. and Xie, L.L. (2012), "Evaluation of displacement-based, force-based and plastic hinge elements for structural non-linear static analysis", Adv. Struct. Eng., 15(3), 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.15.3.477.
  19. Liu, Y., Paolacci, F. and Lu, D.G. (2017), "Seismic fragility of a typical bridge using extrapolated experimental damage limit states", Earthq. Struct., 13(6), 599-611, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.6.599.
  20. Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A. (1998), "Effects of random connection fractures on the demands and reliability for a three-story pre-Northridge (SMRP) structure", Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland, U.S.A., May.
  21. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M.H. and Fenves, G.L. (2006), Opensees Command Language Manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, U.S.A., 264.
  22. Morkos, B. (2021), "Study effect of FEM modeling techniques and parameters on non-linear dynamic analysis of mid-span concrete bridges", M.Sc. Dissertation, Cairo University, Egypt.
  23. Muntasir Billah, A.H.M. and Shahria Alam, M. (2015), "Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: A state-of-the-art review", Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 11(6), 804-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.912243.
  24. OpenSees V3.2.1 (Computer software), Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
  25. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/
  26. Papadopoulos, V. and Fragiadakis, M. (2015), "Plastic hinge and plastic zone seismic analysis of frames", Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_137.
  27. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, NJ, U.S.A.
  28. Ramanathan, K., Jeon, J.S., Zakeri, B., DesRoches, R. and Padgett, J.E. (2015), "Seismic response prediction and modeling considerations for curved and skewed concrete box-girder bridges", Earthq. Struct., 9(6), 1153-1179, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.6.1153.
  29. Razzaghi, M.S., Safarkhanlou, M., Mosleh, A. and Hosseini, P. (2018), "Fragility assessment of RC bridges using numerical analysis and artificial neural networks", Earthq. Struct., 15(4), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.4.431.
  30. Spacone, E., Filippou, F.C. and Taucer, F. (1996), "Fibre beam- column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: Part I. Formulation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(7), 711-725, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199607)25:7<711::AID-EQE576>3.0.CO;2-9.
  31. Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002), "Incremental dynamic analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 31(3), 491-514, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2014.912243.
  32. Wu, R.Y. and Pantelides, C.P. (2018), "Concentrated and distributed plasticity models for seismic repair of damaged RC bridge columns", ASCE J. Compos. Constr., 22(5), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000879.