BASIC METHODS OF ANALYSIS

FOR BRIDGES

Bhumika B. Mehta
M. E. CIVIL CASAD.
B-2, Kalindi Flats, Opp. Kadwa Patidar Boarding,
C. G. Road, Ahmedabad 380 006
Ph. No. (079) 6561093
bhumi_29@rediffmail.com
bhumika_mehta@indiatimes.com

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

CONTENTS
1.

INTODUCTION

2.

PURPOSE OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

3.

AVAILABILITY AND USEFULNESS OF ANALYSIS TOOLS

4.

3.1

Static elastic analysis

3.2

Dynamic elastic analysis

3.3

Static inelastic analysis

3.4

Dynamic inelastic analysis

SELECTION OF TYPE OF ANALYSIS FOR BRIDGES

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

BASIC M ETHODS OF A NALYSIS FOR B RIDGES

1.

INTRODUCTION
Any structure is analysed with static method or dynamic method. Selection of

an appropriate analysis method depends on a number of factors. These factors are

purpose of analysis, importance of structure, methods available for analysis, type of
bridge or structure and soil conditions.

Ideal purpose of analysis is to obtain an accurate measure of expected

structural response for a given earthquake. To solve this purpose, method used for
analysis is also affect significantly. Also importance of structure plays an important
role. Static elastic analysis is done for all the structures. For ordinary structures static
analysis is sufficient, but for important structures particularly for bridges dynamic
analysis should be carried out. Also structures have irregular configuration and
varying subsurface condition is analysed by dynamic analysis.
2.

PURPOSE OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

Dynamic analysis can be carried out for following purposes.

a)

Dynamic analysis provides an accurate measure of expected structural

response for a given earthquake event or class of earthquakes. If an accurate
structural model can be developed, the calculated global displacements can be
used directly to establish seat widths and separations, and local deformations
and ductility requirements can be used directly to determine required details.
These models must be developed with the understanding that no level of
sophistication in structural modeling can overcome the basic uncertainty in
seismic loading.

b)

The dynamic analysis can be used to provide a nominal measure of expected

responses, which (if falling within certain prescribed bounds) will ensure
adequate behavior of the structure.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

c)

The third purpose of analysis is to ensure that a simple and direct load path is
provided for each frame. In addition to ensuring that each frame is capable of
supporting its own earthquake actions without having to rely excessively on
adjacent frames, a secondary motive for this type of analysis may be to verify a
design based on more complex analysis models.

3.

AVAILABILITY AND USEFULNESS OF ANALYSIS TOOLS

The availability of analysis tools and the availability of professionals skilled in

their use impose limitations on analysis. The following comments are needed to help
designers select the appropriate analysis methods.
3.1

Static elastic analysis

Static analysis can be carried out by hand or using a computer program. The

tools and skills are generally available to the bridge design community. Unfortunately,
static elastic analysis is suitable for only a limited class (but significant number) of
bridges. This class includes short bridges with monolithic abutments.
3.2

Dynamic elastic analysis

Multimode dynamic analysis is generally carried out using a computer

program. Numerous programs are available, and many engineers possess the skills
necessary for their operation and interpretation. Some programs permit input motions
along three orthogonal directions and combine responses according to an appropriate
modal combination rule; others permit only one component of input motion at a time
and require that responses from orthogonal input motions be combined using an
algebraic rule (e.g. 1.0L + 0.3T). Both the response time-history option and the modal
spectral response option are available. The latter is recommended for routine analysis.
Response time-history analysis requires selection of ground motions that envelop the
expected input motions. Because of the extra effort involved, elastic response timehistory analysis should probably only be used in cases where it is important to
consider spatial and temporal variations in ground motion.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

Techniques exist for handling multiple-support inputs (including spatial

variation of input motion) using response-history or response-spectrum analysis. The
techniques

are

not

widely

understood,

and

computer

programs

for

their

implementation are not generally available. If properly carried out, dynamic elastic
analysis can provide important insights into dynamic response of a bridge. Perhaps of
greatest value, a dynamic elastic analysis sheds some light on expected displacement
amplitudes. With these in hand, estimates of design requirements are possible.
However, elastic dynamic analysis does not provide good insight into local
deformation or the distribution of forces, because the effects of nonlinear response on
these quantities are not properly represented by the elastic analysis.
3.3

Static inelastic analysis

Computer programs for static inelastic analysis have been available for many

years. Programs specially suited to analysis of bridge structures have been developed
in recent years, although, at present, they lack the ability to handle lateral and vertical
loads simultaneously. Proper application of these programs requires advanced skills.
When coupled with knowledge of displacement amplitudes obtained from elastic
dynamic analysis, static inelastic analysis can be used to great advantage to establish
local deformation demands and internal force distributions.
3.4

Dynamic inelastic analysis

Developments in recent years have made it possible to carry out dynamic

inelastic analysis on bridges. However, the analysis is not routine. Special skills are
required for selecting ground motions, carrying out the analysis, and interpreting the
results. Special purpose programs have been devised that allow nonlinearities only in
selected elements (e.g. in the superstructure hinges); these are probably the most
straightforward in their use and interpretation. Other programs allow more generally
distributed material nonlinearities as well as geometric nonlinearities. Competent use
of these analysis tools requires a significant level of expertise regarding the inner
workings of the program as well as the material behavior of the bridge components.
Properly used dynamic inelastic analysis has great potential for providing detailed
information on global response displacements, local deformations, and internal forces.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

These may be of particular value in analyzing irregular structures and important

bridges.
4.

SELECTION OF TYPE OF ANALYSIS FOR BRIDGES

a)

One or two-span bridges with monolithic abutments

The superstructure is likely to respond effectively as a rigid body. Furthermore,
lateral stiffness is likely to be controlled by the abutments. A moderately
sophisticated dynamic analysis model will not provide more response insight
than may be obtained by simple static analysis.

b)

Long, straight, non-skewed, continuous bridges with uniform supports

Although static analysis is likely to provide an adequate measure of expected
response, an elastic multi-mode analysis may be preferred for the purpose of
assessing lateral displacements and effects of higher modes. The abutment
stiffness is likely to dominate response for many of these structures; it is
essential to model the abutment stiffness and strength properties correctly if the
objective is to obtain a measure of actual seismic response.

c)

Skewed bridges, curved bridges, and bridges with intermediate hinges

Static methods are not likely to provide realistic measures of expected
response. Response-spectrum analysis of an elastic model including all
significant vibration modes is preferred as a minimum. Tension and
compression modes are recommended.

d)

Long-span bridges and bridges with outriggers or C-bents

Vertical response may be significant for these bridges, and it should be
considered directly in a response-spectrum analysis of an elastic model that
includes all significant vibration modes. The preferred approach is to require
that vertical input be considered for all bridges and to combine responses in
individual modes using an appropriate combination rule. As described later,
vertical input can be included without increasing the analysis effort.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

e)

Bridges with dissimilar supporting elements

For bridges with dissimilar adjacent supporting elements, a response-spectrum
analysis may be useful for gauging global displacement responses. However,
the elastic analysis may lead to incorrect estimates of ductility demands. The
estimates may be improved by requiring that element stiffness values be
properly

based

on

cracked-section

properties rater

than

gross-section

properties, as allowed by current practice. Nonetheless, accurate estimates of

local ductility demands cannot be obtained consistently by this approach. For
structures of this sort, the elastic analysis should be augmented (improved or
better) by a non-linear static analysis that can be carried out by hand or by a
computer program.

f)

Bridges with unbalanced spans

These structures may be prone to global torsional responses that result in
increased flexural deformation demands on some elements. Dynamic analysis
is encouraged for such bridges. Studies on buildings suggest that inelastic
behavior may result in significant amplification of torsional responses in
comparison with quantities obtained by elastic analysis. These findings should
applicable to bridge structures as well.

g)

Long bridges
These structures may be subjected to spatial variations of ground motion along
the length. Traveling waves also affect response of the long bridges. At first
analysis, the assumption of uniform ground motion appears conservative
because it forces the entire bridge to vibrate in phase. Spatially varying ground
motion produces out-of-phase dynamic response, which tends to cancel the
energy. However, for long structures with intermediate expansion joints, the
advantages of out-of-phase dynamic response are commonly lost because outof-phase movement is taken up in the expansion joints, so that the assumption
of uniform ground motion is reasonable. The spatial variation of the support

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com

displacements does produce so called pseudo-static stresses; however, the

stresses do not appear to be significant for bridges with a large number of
relatively short spans. In contrast, a suspension bridge or a cantilever bridge
with only four supports may be sensitive to spatially varying ground motion,
because this motion induces vibration modes, such as rocking of the piers, not
excited by uniform ground motion.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com