Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved Bridges

ABSTRACT
KHAN, EASA. Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Continuous Curved Bridges.
(Under the direction of Dr. Mervyn J. Kowalsky and Dr. James M. Nau.)
This dissertation aims to contribute to the development of AASHTO Guide Specifica-

tions for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO Guide Spec.) and Direct Displacement-
Based Design (DDBD) approach for Reinforced Concrete (RC) curved bridges.
AASHTO Guide Spec. provides guidelines for the seismic design of bridges and
is recommended for the entire United States. The design philosophy of this code is
displacement-based in nature and is preferred over the traditional force-based design
method. In order to determine the seismic demand on the curved bridge; AASHTO
Guide Spec. propose that curved bridges may be analyzed as if they are straight, pro-
vided the bridge is regular. This hypothesis is evaluated through a large parametric study
that consists of curved bridges with subtended angles varying from 0 to 180 degrees and
having the total arc length equal to the length of the equivalent straight bridge. Other
parameters considered are the number of spans (four and six) and abutment restraints
(nine different cases), along with several pier height and span length configurations. The
evaluation process includes the seismic design of the equivalent straight bridges using
the DDBD procedure. The resulting designs are then analyzed with Inelastic Time His-
tory Analysis (ITHA) using both straight and curved bridge geometries for 7 spectrum
compatible time histories. It is observed from the comparison of equivalent straight and
curved bridge ITHA results that deviation in the displacement response of the curved
bridges from the equivalent straight bridge increases as the subtended angles become
larger. However, variables such as span length, pier height, and number of spans are
found to be less important for the bridges considered in this study. It is also found that
the type and degree of abutment restraints are critical parameters in controlling the re-
sponse of the bridge and should be incorporated to the AASHTO Guide Spec. to decide
if the curved bridge can be analyzed as an equivalent straight bridge.
In DDBD procedure, the inelastic system is modeled by an equivalent linear system
using effective stiffness and Equivalent Viscous Damping (EVD) at peak response which
is consistent with the concept of performance-based design. Recently, the design approach
is documented in a draft code known as ‘DBD12: A Model Code for the Displacement-
Based Seismic Design of Structures’ for wide range of building systems and bridges.
With an effort to extend the DDBD approach for curved bridges, this part of the disser-
tation investigates the issues related to the DDBD procedure of straight bridges when
implemented for curved bridges. It is observed that, unlike straight bridges, the seismic
response of curved bridges is coupled in both lateral directions. Hence, modifications are
proposed to extend the current DDBD procedure of straight bridges to curved bridges.
The extended DDBD method is evaluated through a parametric study that consists of
6 case study bridges having 4 and 6 spans with different pier heights configurations.
Furthermore, two superstructure geometries—each with subtended angles of 30, 60, and
90 degrees—are considered. Each case study bridge is designed using extended DDBD
method of curved bridges in both longitudinal and transverse directions. For verification
of the design procedure, ITHA is performed by using seven spectrum compatible time
histories, and the results of DDBD are compared with ITHA. The results show that ex-
tended DDBD approach for curved bridges is capable of predicting the seismic response
in both longitudinal and transverse directions (with few exceptions). Furthermore, the
results indicate that superstructure to substructure stiffness and pier stiffness irregular-
ity are important parameters that cause an increase/decrease in the deviation between
target displacements (predicted by DDBD) and average ITHA displacement envelope.
This dissertation also investigates the effect of different parameters on EVD for short
period (effective period less than 1 second) single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems.
EVD is used to idealize the nonlinear system as an equivalent linear system in DDBD.
Past research indicates that ductility, hysteretic model type, and effective period are
the primary factors that affect the EVD for short period SDOF systems. However, it
is investigated by the authors that EVD is also a function of width of the constant
acceleration region of the acceleration response spectrum and is significantly affected
by the post yield stiffness ratio of the hysteretic model. This investigation is conducted
for Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model using large number of ground
motions. New expression for EVD is proposed which includes the effect of width of the
constant acceleration region of design spectrum and post yield stiffness ratio, as well as
effective period and ductility. The proposed damping model is compared to two existing
models. The results indicate that significant improvement is achieved in predicting the
peak displacement using the proposed damping model when compared to existing models.
© Copyright 2015 by Easa Khan
All Rights Reserved

Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Continuous
Curved Bridges
by
Easa Khan
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Civil Engineering
Raleigh, North Carolina
2015
APPROVED BY:
Dr. Mervyn J. Kowalsky Dr. James M. Nau

Co-chair of Advisory Committee Co-chair of Advisory Committee
Dr. Abhinav Gupta Dr. Rudolf Seracino
Dr. Thomas A. Birkland

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family especially to my mother and sister for their
endless love, care, and support.
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Easa Khan was born and raised in Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pak-
istan. After finishing high school, he joined the University of Engineering and Technology
(UET) Peshawar, Pakistan in 2003, where he completed his Bachelor of Science degree
in Civil Engineering in 2007. After graduation, Khan joined the same department as a
lecturer. He also worked as a Design Engineer at the consultancy cell of Department of
Civil Engineering. In 2009, he was awarded faculty development scholarship by Higher
Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan to pursue his Master’s study at Instituto
Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS) Pavia, Italy. He completed his degree in Earth-
quake Engineering with a focus in the development of Direct Displacement-Based Design
approach for reinforced concrete deck arch bridges in 2010.
In 2011, he started his PhD studies in Civil Engineering with concentration in the
Earthquake Structural Engineering at North Carolina State University (NCSU) under
the supervision of Dr. Mervyn J. Kowalsky. His research focused on the seismic analysis
and design of straight and curved bridges. Khan also serves as reviewer of ASCE Journal
of Bridge Engineering. Following his graduation, he intends to pursue a career as a
Structural Engineer in a research-based organization.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my special appreciation and sincere gratitude to my advisors

Professor Dr. Mervyn J. Kowalsky and Professor Dr. James M. Nau for their excellent
advices, encouragement, continuous support and guidance throughout this endorsement.
In addition, I would like to thank my committee members; Dr. Abhinav Gupta, Dr.
Rudolf Seracino, and Dr. Thomas A. Birkland for their time and insightful comments.
I am deeply indebted to Dr. Vernon Matzen, Director of graduate programs at De-
partment of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, for being supportive
to graduate students.
I am thankful for the financial support provided by the Department of Civil, Con-
struction, and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University (NCSU),
the Southern Transportation Center, and the University of Engineering and Technology
(UET) Peshawar, Pakistan.
I would extend my gratitude to my friends and colleagues Chad Goodnight, Gopal
Adhikari, and Yuhao Feng for their time and useful discussions.
Last but not the least; I am extremely grateful to my family, especially my mother.
The support and prayers of my mother have motivated and assisted me to achieve my
dreams. I pray to the Almighty God to bless her with good health and long life.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Scope and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 Part I: Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of Straight
and Curved Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 Part II: Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Curved Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 Part III: Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short Period Re-
inforced Concrete Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Dissertation Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter 2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1 Lessons Learned from Damaged Curved Bridges in Past Earthquakes . . 10
2.2 Code Provisions for Seismic Analysis of Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.1 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007 . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.2 CALTRANS 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.3 EuroCode 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.4 New Zealand Bridge Manual 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.5 AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design 2011 21
2.2.6 DBD12: A Model Code for the Displacement-Based Seismic Design
of Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Straight and Curved Bridge Irregularities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4 Analytical Modeling of Curved Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.5 Relevant Studies on the Development of Direct Displacement Based Seis-
mic Design for Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6 Past Studies on Equivalent Viscous Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.7 Summary of Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Chapter 3 Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of Straight

and Curved Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 Bridge Configurations for Parametric Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Modeling and Analysis Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4 Methodology for Comparison of Straight and Curved Bridges . . . . 45
3.5 Displacement Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
v
3.6 Results of ITHA for Case Study Bridges in Phase 1 under Transverse
Seismic Excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.6.1 Comparison of displacement response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.6.2 Comparison of displacement response with displacement index . . 52
3.6.3 Comparison of abutment shear force demand . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.7 Results of ITHA for Case Study Bridges in Phase 1 under Longitudinal
Seismic Excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.7.1 Comparison of displacement response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.7.2 Comparison of displacement response with displacement index . . 56
3.7.3 Comparison of abutment shear force demand . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.8 Investigation of Critical Case Study Bridge Configurations for Phases 2 to 4 58
3.9 Comparison of DI for Critical Bridge Configurations of All Phases under
Transverse Seismic Excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.10 Comparison of DI for Critical Bridge Configurations of All Phases under
Longitudinal Seismic Excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.11 Effect of Number of Spans on DI under Transverse Seismic Excitation . . 67
3.12 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Chapter 4 Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Con-

crete Curved Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2 Issues Identification for Curved Bridges in DDB- D and Proposed Modifi-
cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2.1 Issue 1: Coupling of the curved bridge response in longitudinal and
transverse directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2.2 Issue 2: Ratio of abutment stiffness in two principle directions . . 74
4.2.3 Issue 3: Estimation of ratio of shear force (x) taken by abutments 75
4.3 Proposed Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Curved Bridges . 75
4.4 Parametric study: Case Study Bridges and Analysis Model . . . . . . . . 83
4.5 Ground Motions and Design Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.6 Application of Proposed DDBD to Curved Brid- ges . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.7 Verification of Design Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.7.1 Comparison of displacement response under longitudinal seismic
excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.7.2 Comparison of shear force under longitudinal seismic excitation . 88
4.7.3 Comparison of displacement response under transverse seismic ex-
citation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.7.4 Comparison of shear force under transverse seismic excitation . . 91
4.7.5 Displacement Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
vi
Chapter 5 Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short Period Rein-
forced Concrete Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.2 Research Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.4 Methodology for Development of Equivalent Viscous Damping Model . . 103
5.5 Investigation of Effect of Design Spectrum Shape on Equivalent Viscous
Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5.5.1 Effect of spectral intensity on equivalent viscous damping . . . . . 107
5.5.2 Effect of width of constant acceleration region on equivalent viscous
damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.6 Estimation of Equivalent Viscous Damping for Large Parametric Study . 111
5.7 Proposed Equivalent Viscous Damping Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5.8 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Damping Models . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.10 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

6.1 Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of Straight and Curved
Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.1.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.1.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.1.3 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.1.4 Future research recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.2 Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved
Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.2.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.2.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short Period Reinforced Concrete
Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.3.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.3.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Appendix A Discretization of Curved Superstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Appendix B Seismic Response of Straight and Curved Case Study Bridges . 143
vii
Appendix C Sample Calculations: DDBD of Four Span Continuous Curved
Bridge under Transverse Seismic Excitation . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Appendix D Results of Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short Period
Reinforced Concrete Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Appendix E Comparison of Numerical and Experimental Cyclic Force Dis-
placement Response of RC Bridge Column . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Limits to irregularity that define required analysis method (AASHTO,
2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2.1 Bridge regularity requirements of AASHTO (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2.2 Analysis method (AASHTO, 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 3.2 Abutment restraint cases for straight and curved bridges . . . . . . . 41
Table 3.3 Pier height configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 3.4 Span length configurations (units are meters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 3.5 Deck gross sectional properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 3.6 Limit on maximum subtended angle of curved bridge in addition to
Table 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 4.1 Equivalent SDOF system properties of the case study bridges . . . . 87
Table 5.1 Ranges of Tsa values for several regions of US (AASHTO, 2009) . . . 115
Table 6.1 Limit on maximum subtended angle of curved bridge in addition to

Table 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Table A.1 Estimation of error for three discretization schemes using an arc span
length of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 90 degrees
for ULL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
for ULL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
for FMLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
for FMLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Table A.5 Summary of error for three discretization schemes using an arc span
length of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 90 and 180
degrees for both ULL and FMLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
ix
Table C.1 Lumped weights (kN) of each deck node up to the bridge centerline . 162
Table C.2 Initial displaced shape (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge centerline . 162
Table C.3 Target displacement profile (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge centerline162
Table C.4 Lateral forces (kN) of each deck node up to the bridge centerline . . . 165
Table C.5 Transverse displacement profile (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge
centerline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Table C.6 Longitudinal displacement profile (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge
centerline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Table C.7 Summary of design iterations for 4 span bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Goals of Performance-Based Seismic Design (SEAOC, 1995) . . . . . 4
Figure 2.1 Structural system of South Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/In-

terstate 5 interchange (Tseng and Penzien, 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 2.2 Structural system of the Separation and Overhead Bridge on Route
14/Interstate 5 interchange (Buckle, 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 2.3 Structural system of North Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/In-
terstate 5 interchange (Buckle, 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 2.4 Schematic diagram of Huilan interchange and ramp bridge piers (Sun
et al., 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 2.5 Damage to the pier and abutment of the ramp bridge (Sun et al., 2011) 15
Figure 2.6 Elevation and plan view of Baihua bridge (Liu, 2009) . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 2.7 Damage of column bents lateral beams/struts of Baihua bridge (Kawashima
et al., 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.8 Displaced shape for regular continuous bridges (DBD12) . . . . . . . 24
Figure 3.1 Typical elevation and sectional view of RC bridge; (a) elevation view
of 4 spans bridge; (b) elevation view of 6 spans bridge; (c) section view
of the bridge bent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 3.2 Plane view of straight and curved bridge with different subtended angles 40
Figure 3.3 Comparison of seven compatible accelerograms spectra with design
spectrum for spectral acceleration (on Left) and spectral displacement
(on Right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 3.4 Phase 1: comparison of the ITHA average results of equivalent straight
and curved 6 span bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 3.5 Phase 1: Displacement index for 6 span straight and curved bridges . 52
Figure 3.6 Phase 1: Shear and normal force demand at abutment for 6 span
straight and curved bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.7 Phase 1: comparison of the ITHA average results of equivalent straight
and curved 6 span bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 3.8 Phase 1: Displacement index for 6 span straight and curved bridges . 56
Figure 3.9 Phase 1: Shear and normal force demand at abutment for 6 span
straight and curved bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 3.10 Phase 1 to 4: comparison of the DI of equivalent straight and curved
6 span bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 3.11 Phase 1 to 4: comparison of the DI of equivalent straight and curved
6 span bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 3.12 Displacement index of pier for 4 and 6 span straight and curved bridges
in phase 1 grouped by number of spans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
xi
Figure 3.13 Displacement index of the abutment for 4 and 6 span straight and
curved bridges in phase 1 grouped by number of spans . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 4.1Curved bridge plan view and detail of analysis model . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 4.2Estimation of abutment shear force ratio (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 4.3DDBD procedure for curved bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 4.4Deformed and undeformed shape of typical 4-span curved bridge under
transverse excitation and equivalent SDOF system . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 4.5 Elevated view of 4- and 6-span curved bridges with various pier height
configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 4.6 Typical section view of the bridge bent along with deck sectional prop-
erties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
spectrum for spectral acceleration (on Left) and spectral displacement
(on Right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 4.8 Comparison of deck longitudinal displacement obtained from DDBD
and ITHA under longitudinal seismic excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 4.9 Comparison of shear force at abutments and piers obtained from
DDBD and ITHA under longitudinal seismic excitation . . . . . . . 90
Figure 4.10 Comparison of deck transverse displacement obtained from DDBD
and ITHA under transverse seismic excitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 4.11 Comparison of shear force at abutments and piers obtained from
DDBD and ITHA under transverse seismic excitation . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 4.12 DI for all case study bridges designed in both longitudinal and trans-
verse directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 5.1 Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model: (a) hysteretic
model parameters; (b) hysteretic area for damping calculation . . . . 102
spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 5.3 Average design spectra of suite of seven compatible accelerograms . . 105
Figure 5.4 Three design spectra with different intensity level: (a) acceleration
response spectra; (b) displacement response spectra . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 5.5 Comparison of the equivalent viscous damping obtained for three de-
sign spectra with different intensities for short periods range of SDOF
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 5.6 Five design spectra with different widths of constant acceleration
region: (a) acceleration response spectra; (b) displacement response
spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 5.7 Comparison of the equivalent viscous damping obtained for five design
spectra with different widths of constant acceleration region for short
periods range of SDOF system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
xii
Figure 5.8 Effect of ground motion, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio 112
Figure 5.9 Equivalent viscous damping grouped by spectral shapes S1, S2, S3,
S4, and S5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 5.10 Proposed damping model fitted with data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 5.11 Comparison of the displacement ratio for three damping models . . . 119
Figure A.1 Plan view: (a) Four span curved bridge deck; (b) undeform (continuous
line) and deform (dash line) shape of the bridge deck under uniform
lateral loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure B.1 Phase 2: comparison of the ITHA average results of equivalent straight
and curved 6 span bridges under transverse seismic excitation . . . . 144
and curved 6 span bridges under longitudinal seismic excitation . . . 147
Figure C.1 Plan and elevation view of 4-span curved bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure C.2 Typical section view of bridge bent along with deck sectional properties161
Figure C.3 Design displacement spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
xiii
Figure C.4 Curved bridge analysis model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Figure C.5 Estimation of abutment shear force ratio (x) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure D.1 Effect of ground motion, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio
for spectral shape S3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure D.2 Effect of ground motion, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio
for spectral shape S4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figure D.3 Equivalent viscous damping grouped by spectral shapes S2, S3, and
S4 for r=0.025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
S4 for r=0.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
S4 for r=0.075 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Figure D.6 Proposed damping model fitted with data for r=0.025 . . . . . . . . 178
Figure D.7 Proposed damping model fitted with data for r=0.05 . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure D.8 Proposed damping model fitted with data for r=0.075 . . . . . . . . 180
Figure E.1 Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model . . . . . . . . 182

Figure E.2 Symmetric three cycles set load history (Goodnight, 2015) . . . . . . 183
Figure E.3 Cyclic force displacement response versus Monotonic force displace-
ment prediction using CUMBIA (Goodnight, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . 183
Figure E.4 Comparison of the cyclic force displacement response obtained for
experimental and numerical data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Horizontally curved bridges continue to occupy a growing share of the United States
bridge market. These bridges are one of the few viable options at highway interchanges
or river crossings where limited site space or pier locations are available. These structures
also offer aesthetic appeal which makes their selection attractive over chorded structures
even in the absence of site restrictions. However, the analysis and design of curved bridges
are more complex when compared with straight and skewed bridges. This complexity
arises because of the bending and torsion coupling affects caused by the plan curvature
of the bridge superstructure which in turn causes interaction between components of the
structural system. These effects are not observed in straight bridges.
Significant damages to curved bridges were observed in past earthquakes such as: San
Fernando 1971, Northridge 1994, and Wenchuan 2008 as described in Chapter 2. These
damages can be attributed to a lack of understanding in analysis, design, and detailing
of such structures to achieve the desired nonlinear response.
Several seismic design codes such as CALTRANS (2013), EuroCode-8 (2005), New
Zealand bridge manual (NZ, 2013), AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic
Bridge Design (AASHTO, 2011), and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO, 2007) recommend different analysis techniques for determining the seismic
demand on bridges. The details of the analysis methods are described in Chapter 2.
CALTRANS (2013) recommends three methods of analysis for ordinary bridges that in-
clude straight bridges as well as horizontally and vertically curved bridges. However, the
1
code proposes the use of actual geometry for determining the global response of curved
bridges EuroCode-8 (2005) mentions four methods of analysis for determining the seismic
demand and capacity of the structure. The simplest analysis method, the ‘fundamental
mode method’, is recommended for bridges whose dynamic behavior can be approxi-
mated with a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model. However, no specific provision is
provided for the analysis of curved bridges. NZ (2013) presents three methods of analy-
sis. The selection of the type of analysis depends on the consideration if the bridge could
be represented as a SDOF oscillator. This manual suggests the use of the equivalent
static force approach for bridges that can be idealized as an SDOF system—this includes
curved bridges with subtended angles of less than 45 degrees. Otherwise, dynamic anal-
ysis (either modal analysis or inelastic time history analysis) is recommended. AASHTO
(2011) suggests four methods of analysis for regular bridges, where regularity is based on
the geometry shown in Table 1.1. Furthermore, as a tradeoff between the accuracy and
geometry simplification on the superstructure curvature, the AASHTO Guide Specifica-
tion allows curved superstructures to be unwrapped, i.e., treated as straight, and then
analyzed using the simplest analysis method defined as an ‘equivalent static analysis’
provided the subtended angle is less than 30 degrees. For subtended angles between 30
and 90 degrees, the bridge can still be analyze as straight, however, with elastic dynamic
or inelastic time history analysis. AASHTO (2007) proposed similar recommendations.
The primary aim of this dissertation is to computationally investigate limits on sub-
tended angles for curved bridges where the bridge superstructure can be unwrapped and
analyzed as straight without loss of accuracy. It is worth mentioning that the AASHTO
Guide Specification has proposed a major shift toward a displacement based method for
the seismic design of bridges, recognizing the importance of displacement over forces in
achieving the goal of performance based design, as subsequently explained.
Table 1.1: Limits to irregularity that define required analysis method (AASHTO, 2011)
Number of spans 2 3 4 5 6
Maximum subtended angle (degrees) of curved bridge 30 30 30 30 30
Maximum span length ratio in adjacent spans 3 2 2 1.5 1.5
Maximum pier stiffness ratio in adjacent spans NA 4 4 3 2
2
Historically, the focus of seismic design codes was life safety by preventing the col-
lapse of structures under the design level earthquake, without considering multiple levels
of structural performance under various intensities of ground shaking. By doing so, the
collapse of structures under the design seismic loading is prevented; however, the func-
tionality/usability of structures is not guaranteed following an earthquake with inten-
sity less than, but comparable to, the design intensity. Furthermore, the performance of
structures—in terms of structural damage and economic loss—is uncertain under differ-
ent intensities of earthquakes. To overcome the aforementioned deficiencies, the idea of
performance based earthquake engineering or performance based seismic design emerged
(SEAOC, 1995), as shown in Fig. 1.1. This figure represents the familiar table which
aims to characterize the relationships between performance and hazards for different
performance objectives of buildings where SP-n and NP-n correspond to the structural
and nonstructural performance levels (increases in ‘n’ mean more damage). In the later
edition (SEAOC, 1999) published by the Structural Engineers Association of California,
performance based earthquake engineering is defined as a set of design tools that allow
the engineer to design a structure to reach a prescribed level of performance, under the
influence of a prescribed earthquake level, within definable levels of reliability. The same
philosophy is applicable to bridges where a truncated form of performance based seismic
design is in practice, in high seismic regions of the US, as reported from a survey by
NCHRP (2013).
It is clear that seismic analysis and design is an essential step in implementing perfor-
mance based design to accurately predict the response of structures for a given seismic
event. However, such a requirement is the primary limitation of forced based design
methods due to their inherent deficiencies such as: (i) the use of initial member stiffness,
assuming that the stiffness of the structural member can be obtained without reference
to its strength, and (ii) the assumption that a unique force-reduction factor is appro-
priate for a given structural type and material. For other shortcomings in force based
design methods, refer to (Priestley (1993); Priestley et al. (2007); Calvi et al. (2013)).
In addition to the associated problems, it is argued that since damage is more closely
related to displacements than forces, seismic design methods should use displacements
as the fundamental design parameter. In this regard, several displacement based design
procedures have been developed (Freeman (1998); Panagiotakos and Fardis (1999); Faj-
far (1999); Xue (2001); Browning (2001)) over the last two decades. However, the Direct
3
Figure 1.1: Goals of Performance-Based Seismic Design (SEAOC, 1995)
Displacement Based Design (DDBD) method developed by Priestley et al. (2007) is well
equipped to address the aforesaid deficiencies. The goal of this seismic design procedure
is to design a structure to achieve a prescribed limit state under a prescribed seismic haz-
ard, a process which is more consistent with the concept of performance based design.
In recent years the DDBD method has matured considerably with extensive research
leading to the publication of a book on the DDBD method (Priestley et al., 2007) and a
model code (DBD12) edited by Sullivan et al. (2012). Both documents outline the design
approach for a range of structural typologies, especially for buildings and bridges. For
bridges, the methodology is developed for several bridge typologies such as ordinary and
long span straight bridges, deck arch bridges, and cable-stayed bridges. The author be-
lieves that the DDBD procedure has not been implemented for curved bridges. Hence the
second objective of this dissertation is to investigate the issues, if any, when the existing
DDBD procedure of the straight bridge (Priestley et al., 2007) is implemented for curved
bridges, and to extend the design method to curved bridges.
The energy dissipating mechanism of a non-linear structural system and/or visco-
elastic system is taken into account in DDBD method using the concept of equivalent
viscous damping. This concept was first proposed by Jacobsen (1930) to approximate
the steady forced vibration response of linear SDOF damped systems. Later, in 1960,
the same author extended the idea to yielding SDOF systems; however, Jacobson’s study
4 1
is based on certain assumptions which are not typically met. For details of the various
assumptions and their impact on equivalent viscous damping, refer to Dwairi et al. 2007.
Several other studies (Jennings (1968); Hadjian (1982); Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964);
Gulkan and Sozen (1974); Kowalsky et al. (1995); Iwan (1980); and Kwan and Billington
(2003)) appear in the literature that propose equivalent damping models considering pa-
rameters such as hysteretic model, ground motion, ductility level, and a range of effective
period. The details of each study are discussed in Chapter 2. The most recent studies
(Priestley et al. (2007); Blandon and Priestley (2005); and Dwairi et al. (2007)) define
equivalent damping as a combination of elastic and hysteretic damping, where Priest-
ley’s model is widely used for structures with effective period greater than 1 second and
that of Blandon’s and Dwairi’s for all period ranges. During the research work related to
the second objective ‘Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete
Curved Bridges’ it was observed that the displacement response of short period bridges,
those with effective period less than 1 second, is significantly overestimated by DDBD
when compared with inelastic time history analysis. This overestimation was expected
to be due to the underestimation of equivalent viscous damping by the existing damping
models, a key step in DDBD method. The DDBD procedure is based on the substitute
structure approach in which the maximum inelastic displacement demand is determined
as the maximum displacement of an equivalent linear elastic system with lower lateral
stiffness and a higher damping coefficient than the real non-linear system. Thus, the third
objective of this dissertation is to investigate the accuracy of existing damping models
for short period SDOF systems and, if required, proposes a new damping model.
1.2 Scope and Objectives

1.2.1 Part I: Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response
of Straight and Curved Bridges
The primary objective of the research presented in this part of the dissertation is to
investigate the hypothesis in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design (2011) that curved bridges may be analyzed as if they are straight, provided
the bridge is regular. The evaluation process includes three irregularities, as defined in
Table 1.1, namely: (1) plan curvature (2) bent stiffness/pier height variation (3) span
5
length variation. For plan curvature variation, curved bridges of varying superstructure
curvature (with subtended angles from 0 to 180 degrees), with the arc length equal to the
length of straight bridge, are considered. For pier height and span length variation, five
pier height and two span length configurations are studied for both 4- and 6-span bridges.
It is the author’s hypothesis that the abutment restraint conditions will likely impact the
seismic response of straight and curved bridges. Therefore, to understand the difference
in the seismic response of equivalent straight and curved bridges, nine abutment restraint
cases are also defined. To achieve the objective of this part of research, a parametric study
divided into 4 phases is conducted:
Phase 1: Only curvature irregularity is considered while keeping the pier heights and
span lengths the same.
Phase 2: Curvature irregularity is combined with different pier height cases while
keeping the same span lengths.
Phase 3: Curvature irregularity is combined with different span length cases while
keeping the pier heights the same.
Phase 4: Curvature irregularity is combined with different pier height and different
span length cases.
The research described in this part aims to accomplish the following:
Determine if a curved bridge may be unwrapped and analyzed as if it

were straight. Specific recommendations will involve limitations on plan curvature
as a function of (i) geometric irregularities (pier heights and span lengths variation)
and (ii) abutment restraint conditions, as required.
1.2.2 Part II: Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Re-

inforced Concrete Curved Bridges
Part I concludes that curved bridges with restrained abutments cannot be unwrapped
and analyzed as if it were straight even for a small subtended angles. In these cases, the
actual geometry of the bridge should be used in the analysis. Furthermore, the choice of
the analysis technique depends upon the seismic design category and bridge irregularity
(as per AASHTO (2011), as presented in Chapter 2). However, the second objective
of this study is to identify the issues, if any, when the existing DDBD method for the
straight bridge (Priestley et al., 2007) is applied to curved bridges, and if required, to
6
propose modifications that are necessary to extend the DDBD method to curved bridges.
A summary of each process to achieve this goal is as follows:
(1) Identification of issues: The existing DDBD method for straight bridges is
applied to both straight and curved bridges and the seismic response of the both bridges
are compared. The following issues are identified: (i) coupling of the curved bridge re-
sponse in longitudinal and transverse directions (ii) ratio of abutment stiffness in two
principle directions (iii) estimation of the ratio of shear force taken by abutments to the
total design shear force.
(2) Extension of Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design Procedure
to curved bridges: The necessary modifications are proposed to extend the DDBD
procedure to curved bridges. The extended design procedure is applied to several regular
and irregular curved bridges to check the convergence of the design procedure for both
longitudinal and transverse directions.
(3) Performance evaluation of the design procedure using inelastic time
history analysis: Inelastic time history analysis is performed using seven spectrum
compatible time histories and the results are compared with those obtained from the
proposed DDBD method. If the results are in close agreement, it can be concluded that
the proposed design method is capable of capturing the seismic response of curved bridges.
The research described in this part aims to accomplish the following:
Determine the limitations of proposed DDBD method for curved bridges.

Specific recommendations will be made to determine the limitations of the proposed
design method for regular and irregular bridge configurations. This will help design
engineers to decide whether the proposed DDBD procedure can be used for the
bridge geometry at hand.
1.2.3 Part III: Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short

Period Reinforced Concrete Bridges
During the execution of the work in Part II ‘Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of
Curved Bridges’ it was observed that the displacement response of short period bridges,
those with effective period less than 1 second, is significantly overestimated by DDBD
when compared to inelastic time history analysis. This overestimation was hypothesized
to be due to the underestimation of equivalent viscous damping by the existing damping
7
models used in the DDBD method. Thus, the third objective of this dissertation is to
investigate additional parameters that can affect the equivalent viscous damping in the
short period range, and, if required, propose a new damping model. This goal is achieved
as follows:
(1) Investigation of parameters affecting equivalent viscous damping for
short period SDOF systems: Past research indicates that ductility, hysteretic model
type, and effective period are the primary factors that affect the equivalent viscous damp-
ing for short period SDOF systems. However, it is the authors’ hypothesis that equivalent
viscous damping also depends upon the shape of the design spectrum as well as post yield
stiffness ratio of the hysteretic model, and will be investigated here.
(2) Estimation of equivalent viscous damping: A parametric study is performed
for the aforementioned variables considering a large set of ground motions. However, only
the Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model (often termed ‘Takeda Thin’
in the literature), will be employed because this research is intended only for bridges
with reinforced concrete columns. Based on numerical results, a new damping model is
proposed.
(3) Comparison of existing and proposed damping models: The two existing
damping models are compared with the proposed damping model for short period SODF
systems. From this comparison the level of improvement can be assessed.
1.3 Dissertation Organization

Chapter 2 presents a comprehensive review of the following: Past earthquake damages
to curved bridges, different code provisions for the seismic analysis and design of regular
and irregular bridges, studies that highlight the effect of bridge irregularity on the seismic
response of straight and curved bridges, analytical modeling of curved bridges that are
used to capture global seismic response, studies that emphasize the development of DDBD
in general and specifically for different types of bridges, and studies that are considered
important for equivalent viscous damping used in DDBD. At the end, the summary of
the literature review is presented.
Chapter 3 undertakes part I ‘Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of
Straight and Curved Bridges’ of the research work and is based on a paper submitted to
the ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering.
8
Chapter 4 deals with part II ‘Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Curved Bridges’ of the research work. This chapter is also written in a paper
format, however, has not been submitted to any journal or conference proceedings.
Chapter 5 deals with part III ‘Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short Period
Reinforced Concrete Bridges’ of the research work and is also based on a paper submitted
to the ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering.
Chapter 6 provides a complete description of research findings including summary,
conclusions, recommendations, and future work.
Finally, five appendices are included: Appendix A and B provide supporting material
for Chapter 3; Appendix C for Chapter 4; Appendix D for Chapter 5; Appendix E
compares the numerical and experimental cyclic force displacement response of reinforced
concrete bridge column.
9
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Overview
This chapter focuses on the most relevant literature covering the topics defined in the
scope of work. A review of past earthquake damage to curved bridges is undertaken to
understand the potential problems in past seismic design codes. Different seismic code
provisions used in the analysis and design of regular and irregular bridges are reviewed
with specific emphasis on curved bridges. Research work which presents the effect of
different bridge irregularities on the seismic response of straight and curved bridges is
highlighted. Different analytical models for capturing the global response of curved and
skewed bridges are reviewed. Furthermore, a review of the current developments in the
Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) approach is presented for bridges and also
for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems, in which the focus is on equivalent viscous
damping. In conclusion, a summary of the literature review is presented to correlate the
past research with the current scope and objective of this research study.
2.1 Lessons Learned from Damaged Curved Bridges

in Past Earthquakes
In the past 40 years numerous highway bridges around the world have suffered extensive
damage due to strong motion earthquakes. This damage was critically investigated by the
researchers to identify the deficiencies in seismic design codes and to improve upon those
10
deficiencies. Some of the common types of damage observed during past earthquakes
are: deck unseating from pier and abutments, flexure-shear and shear failure of the short
column with smaller shear span to depth ratio, expansion joint failure, damage due to
pounding between the two ends of the deck superstructure and between superstructure
and abutment, restrainer failure, shear key and bearing failure, foundation/pile cap fail-
ure, and damage to the deck and girders. Some of these damages are highlighted from
the past earthquakes with reference to curved bridges.
Figure 2.1: Structural system of South Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/Interstate

5 interchange (Tseng and Penzien, 1975)
Tseng and Penzien (1975) investigated damage suffered by the South Connector Over-
crossing located on the Route 14/Interstate 5 interchange during the San Fernando earth-
quake of 9 February 1971 which was a moment magnitude Mw=6.4 event. The structural
system of this bridge consists of a curved continuous reinforced concrete box girder deck
of 9 spans separated by four expansion joints as shown in Fig. 2.1. The bridge is curved
11
with superstructure radius of 667 ft. Two spans (span 3 and 4) and the pier between the
spans (P4) collapsed during the earthquake. It was postulated from field surveys that the
failure was initiated by the large longitudinal deck separations produced at expansion
joint 2 caused by large amplitude structural vibrations during the earthquake. These
separations caused yielding and then failure of the longitudinal restrainer bars which
caused span 4 to fall off its support ledge leading to collapse of the deck segment be-
tween expansion joints no. 1 and 2. Tseng and Penzien (1975) also carried out analytical
investigations and showed that the bridge experienced large amplitude vibration when
subject to severe ground motions.
The Northridge earthquake of Mw=6.7 occurred on a reverse thrust fault below the
northern part of the San Fernando Valley that affected the Route 14/Interstate 5 inter-
change located about 12 km north of the Northridge epicenter and is within the surface
projection of the fault rupture zone. The ground motion records from the earthquake
clearly showed that areas which include the Route 14/Interstate 5 interchange experi-
enced a large velocity pulse associated with the forward directivity of the updip rupture
(Wald and Heaton, 1994). The two curved bridges—the Separation and Overhead Bridge
Figure 2.2: Structural system of the Separation and Overhead Bridge on Route 14/In-
terstate 5 interchange (Buckle, 1994)
and the North Connector Overcrossing Bridge—located at the Route 14/Interstate 5
12
interchange were damaged by the Northridge earthquake. Note that these bridges were
under construction at the time of the San Fernando earthquake and were slightly dam-
aged. The Separation and Overhead is a ten-span continuous, cast in-place, five cell
concrete box girder bridge with a total length of 1582 ft and width of 53 ft as shown in
Fig. 2.2. The bridge consists of five frames with single column piers, connected at four in-
termediate hinges. The two end frames and the central frame have prestressed box girder
superstructures, whereas the second and fourth frames are conventionally reinforced box
girder superstructures. The alignment of the bridge is in a nearly north-south direction.
The bridge is curved with superstructure radius of 2200 ft and subtended angle of about
41 degrees. Bridge spans 1, 2, and 3 collapsed, pier 2 was crushed, and pier 3 was sheared
through the superstructure. Several researchers postulated different failure mechanisms:
(Moehle (1994); Priestley et al. (1994)) postulated from field observations that failure
was initiated due to shear failure of pier 2. The observations of Buckle (1994) showed
that the failure began with brittle shear failure of pier 2, or possibly by unseating of the
span at hinge 4, which caused subsequent collapse of spans 1 to 3. Fenves and Ellery
(1998) carried out an analytical study and concluded that the shear capacity of Pier 2
was reached in the first large longitudinal displacement of the bridge that caused the
crushing of the column under vertical load.
Figure 2.3: Structural system of North Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/Interstate

5 interchange (Buckle, 1994)
13
The North Connector Overcrossing is a ten-span continuous, cast in-place, three cell
concrete box girder bridge with total length of 1532 ft and width of 34 ft, as shown
in Fig. 2.3. The bridge consists of five frames with single column piers, connected at
four intermediate hinges. The bridge is curved with superstructure radius of 550 ft and
subtended angle of about 101 degrees. Bridge spans 1 and 2 collapsed, and pier 2 was
crushed. Note that piers 2, 3, and 4 were not detailed for ductile behavior and had heights
of 21, 73, and 60 ft, respectively. Buckle (1994) postulated from field observations that
the failure either began with brittle shear failure of pier 2 followed by collapse of spans
1 and 2, or possibly by unseating of span 1 at the abutment (seat type abutment) which
caused collapse of span 1 with subsequent collapse of pier 2, followed by collapse of span
2 up to pier 3.
Figure 2.4: Schematic diagram of Huilan interchange and ramp bridge piers (Sun et al.,
2011)
14
Sun et al. (2011) investigated the damage of the Huilan interchange during the
Wenchuan earthquake of 2008. The bridge consists of a viaduct and four horizontally
circular ramp bridges (labeled as Ramp Bridge A, B, C, and D, respectively) with con-
tinuous concrete box girders as shown in Fig. 2.4. The earthquake was of magnitude 8.0
on the Richter scale which caused severe damage to the interchange rendering it unusable,
while slight damage was observed in masonry structures near the interchange. Two types
of pier-girder connections (bearing and rigid connections) were used for the ramp bridges
while the box girder was seated on the abutment through two laminated rubber bearings.
The piers of the ramp bridges were severely damaged as shown in Fig. 2.4 where one or
two short piers of Ramp Bridge A, C, and D were damaged with no damage to Ramp
Bridge B.
Figure 2.5: Damage to the pier and abutment of the ramp bridge (Sun et al., 2011)
Fig. 2.5 (on the left) shows the damaged pier 2 of the Ramp Bridge C; the Ramp
Bridges A and D also suffered the same type of damage. The other piers of the ramp
bridges suffered minor-to-moderate damage, including concrete cover spalling, concrete
cracking, and slippage of the rubber bearings on top of the piers. The damage to the
15
straight viaduct was slight and included damage due to pounding between the viaduct
and bridge ramps, and slippage of some of the rubber bearings on the top of the piers.
Other parts of the viaduct remained intact. No visible cracks were detected in the piers of
the viaduct. Abutment 0 of Ramp Bridge C was damaged, where the box girder became
separated from Abutment 0 and moved up approximately 0.2 m. The damage to the
assembly is shown in Fig. 2.5 (on the right). Sun et al. (2011) also performed analytical
investigations and found that insufficient transverse reinforcement in the piers was the
major contributor to their inadequate shear strength.
Figure 2.6: Elevation and plan view of Baihua bridge (Liu, 2009)
Kawashima et al. (2009) and Liu (2009) conducted field surveys to investigate the
damage to the Baihua Bridge caused by Wenchuan earthquake of 2008. The bridge was
constructed in 2004 and had both straight and curved spans as shown in Fig. 2.6. The
superstructure is supported on two-column bents of varying heights. The tallest bents
have one or two struts to provide transverse restraint to the columns as shown in Fig.
2.7.
During the earthquake, one curved section of the bridge completely collapsed. Liu
(2009) postulated that the rupture-induced large displacement and intensive vibration
was the direct cause of the collapse of the curved spans. The Kawashima et al. (2009)
investigation showed that the failure mechanism was either (1) the unseating of the
girder in the longitudinal direction or (2) the relative transverse displacement of the
16
superstructure from the piers, which caused the subsequent failure of the lateral beams
between the two columns of the bent. The detachment of the lateral beam and column
connection further reduced the lateral capacity of the bent which caused the deck section
to fall off the piers and collapse them. The remainder of the bridge suffered varying degrees
of damage including large relative displacement between piers and superstructure, shear
failure between the strut and columns, damage to side stopper, and formation of plastic
hinges at the base of several piers. The entire bridge was demolished.
Figure 2.7: Damage of column bents lateral beams/struts of Baihua bridge (Kawashima
et al., 2009)
2.2 Code Provisions for Seismic Analysis of Bridges

2.2.1 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2007
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) provide a table to de-
fine the bridge regularity requirements which are then used to determine which analysis
method should be used to evaluate the seismic demand. For example, the straight bridges
that satisfy the regularity requirements of Table 2.1 shall be considered as regular while
those not satisfying the requirements shall be treated as irregular.
17
Table 2.1: Bridge regularity requirements of AASHTO (2007)
For continuous curved bridges, AASHTO (2007) suggests that they may be analyzed
as if they are straight, provided all the following requirements are satisfied: (1) all of the
regularity requirements of Table 2.1 also apply to the continuous curved bridge except
that for two span bridges the maximum span length ratio from span to span must not
exceed 2; (2) the subtended angle in plan is not greater than 90 degrees; (3) the span
length of the equivalent straight bridge is equal to the arc length of the curved bridge.
If these conditions are not satisfied then the curved continuous bridge must be analyzed
using the actual curved geometry. Furthermore, AASHTO (2007) suggests using the
uniform load and single mode method to analyze ordinary regular bridges while single-
mode, multi-mode, and time history analysis techniques are specified as the minimum
requirement for essential and critical bridges.
2.2.2 CALTRANS 2013

CALTRANS (2013) recommends Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA) and Elastic Dynamic
Analysis (EDA) to determine the displacement demand on Ordinary Standard bridges,
while the displacement capacities of a bridge structure or frame are determined using
inelastic static analysis (ISA) also known as ‘Pushover analysis’.
Ordinary bridges must meet the following characteristics:
The span lengths are less than 300 ft.
The bridges are constructed with normal weight concrete girder and column or pier
elements. The superstructure is horizontally curved, vertically curved, or straight.
The bridges are constructed with precast or cast-in-place concrete girder, concrete
slab superstructure on pile extensions, column or pier walls, and structural steel
girders composite with concrete slab superstructure which are supported on rein-
forced concrete substructure elements.
18
The horizontal members are either rigidly connected, pin connected or supported
on conventional bearings.
The bent caps are either dropped or integral.
The bridge columns and pier walls are supported on spread footings, pile caps with
piles or shafts.
The bridges supported on soils which may or may not be susceptible to liquefaction
and/or scour.
The spliced concrete bridge system imitates a cast-in-place continuous structure.
The fundamental period of the bridge system is greater than or equal to 0.7 seconds
in both the longitudinal and transverse directions.
The bridges that do not meet these limitations are beyond the scope of the seismic design
criteria (SDC).
ESA is recommended for the structures or individual frames where the response is
dominated by a translational mode of vibration, such as structures with balanced spans
and uniformly distributed stiffness. If the bridge does not satisfy the requirements for
ESA, it should be analyzed using EDA. ISA is recommended for determining the ca-
pacities of a structure or frame when it reaches the limit of structural stability. ISA is
an incremental linear analysis, which captures the overall nonlinear behavior of the ele-
ments, including soil effects, by pushing them laterally to initiate plastic action. Another
type of analysis called ‘Stand alone or local analysis’ can also be used to determine the
strength or ductility capacity of the individual frame, column or bent; however, each
frame should meet all of the SDC requirements. A more simplified column model can
also be used for the frame or bent if this assumption does not cause significant loss of ac-
curacy in estimating the displacement demand or capacity. However, simplified demand
and capacity models are not permitted if the structure does not meet the stiffness and
period requirements of SDC. For bridges with irregular geometry, such as curved bridges
and skew bridges that exhibit dynamic response characteristics that are not necessarily
obvious and may not be captured in a separate subsystem analysis, global analysis should
be performed when it is necessary to capture the response of the entire bridge system.
19
2.2.3 EuroCode 8
EuroCode-8 (2005) recommends four methods of analysis which are the fundamental
mode method, linear dynamic analysis or response spectrum analysis, and inelastic
time history analysis for determining the seismic demand, and static non-linear anal-
ysis/pushover analysis for determining capacity of the structure.
The simplest analysis method, the ‘fundamental mode method’, is recommended for
the structure whose dynamic behavior can be approximated as SDOF system. This con-
dition is considered to be satisfied in the longitudinal direction of approximately straight
bridges with continuous decks, when seismic forces are carried by piers, and the total
mass of the piers is less than 20% of the mass of the deck. In the transverse direction,
the method may be used for approximately straight bridges with continuous decks, if the
structural system is approximately symmetric about the center of the deck, i.e., when the
theoretical eccentricity e0 between the center of stiffness of the supporting members and
the center of mass of the deck does not exceed 5% of the length of the deck. In the case of
piers carrying simply-supported spans, the fundamental mode method may be employed
if no significant interaction between piers is expected and the total mass of each pier is
less than 20% of the tributary mass of the deck.
Depending upon the characteristics of the bridge, the fundamental mode method may
be applied using three different approaches of modeling which are: rigid deck, flexible
deck, and individual pier modeling. The effect of torsion is also taken into account by
applying a static moment obtained from the lateral load and calculated eccentricity for
the transverse direction of bridge. However, no specific recommendation is given with
regard to bridges curved in plan.
2.2.4 New Zealand Bridge Manual 2013

The New Zealand bridge manual (NZ, 2013) recommends three methods of analysis
which are: (1) equivalent static force analysis, (2) dynamic analysis, and (3) inelastic
time history analysis. The selection of the type of analysis depends upon the analytical
model. Bridges which can be represented as a SDOF oscillator can be analyzed using
equivalent static force analysis. However, for bridges which cannot be represented as a
SDOF oscillator, dynamic analysis is recommended, which could be modal analysis or
in-elastic time history analysis. A list of such a bridge cases are:
20
Bridges where the mass of any pier is greater than 20% of the tributary mass of
the superstructure assumed to contribute to the inertia loading on the pier.
For transverse analysis, the bridge or part of the bridge between expansion joints
that has abrupt changes in distribution of mass, stiffness, or is very unsymmetrical.
Curved bridges with superstructure subtended angle of more than 45 degrees.
Bridges in which the seismic load resistance is provided by structural systems other
than conventional piers and abutments.
Suspension, cable-stayed and arch bridges.
Bridges with piers designed to rock.
Thus, it is clear that the code allows equivalent static analysis for curved bridges, for
which the subtended angle is less than 45 degrees, otherwise dynamic analysis should be
used.
2.2.5 AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge

Design 2011
It is important to note that the AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design (AASHTO, 2011) applies to the design and construction of conventional bridges
that resist the seismic loading. Conventional bridges are considered as bridges which
have slab, beam, box girder, and truss superstructures with single or multi- column bent
substructures resting on shallow or pile footings or shafts.
Three methods of analysis are recommended by AASHTO (2011) to determine the
seismic demand which are (1) equivalent static analysis (ESA) (2) elastic dynamic anal-
ysis (EDA) and (3) inelastic time history analysis (ITHA). The selection of the analysis
procedure depends upon the type of bridge as shown in Table 2.2, where the applicability
of the analysis method is determined from the regularity requirements of the bridge and
seismic design category. Regular bridges are those that have fewer than seven spans with
no abrupt or unusual change in weight, stiffness, or geometry and satisfy the requirements
of Table 2.3. Any bridge which does not satisfy these requirements shall be considered
as irregular.
21
Table 2.2: Analysis method (AASHTO, 2011)
Regular Bridges with 2 Irregular Bridges with 2

Seismic Design Category
through 6 Spans or more Spans
A Not required Not required
B, C, or D Use ESA or EDA Use EDA
Curved bridge regularity requirements are the same as specified in AASHTO (2007),
except for subtended angle in plan, the limit is 30 degree in AASHTO (2011). The curved
bridge may be analyzed as if it were straight, provided all the following requirements are
satisfied: (1) all of the regularity requirements of Table 2.3 also apply to the continuous
curved bridge except that for two span bridges the maximum span length ratio from
span to span must not exceed 2; (2) the subtended angle in plan is not greater than 30
degrees; (3) the span lengths of equivalent straight bridge are equal to the arc length of
the curved bridge. If these conditions are not satisfied then the curved continuous bridge
must be analyze using the actual curved geometry.
2.2.6 DBD12: A Model Code for the Displacement-Based Seis-

mic Design of Structures
The model code (DBD12) is designed to provide guidance as to how the Direct Displace-
ment Based Design procedure could be codified. This document is the revision of the first
draft of model code (DBD09) issued for public inquiry. Currently, this code is prepared
for a wide range of building structures and bridges but does not cover all structures and
materials. For straight bridges, the design procedure is presented for both the longitu-
dinal and transverse direction as described below. Regarding other bridge types such as
RC deck arch and cable stayed bridges, a reference is provided for the guidance on the
22
DDBD of these bridges however not explicitly presented.
Longitudinal response: The design procedure starts with the design displacement
which shall be defined by rational analysis. For the longitudinal direction, it is typically
assumed that the superstructure of the straight bridge is axially rigid which imposes the
same displacement demand along the length of the bridge. Hence the design displacement
is then limited by the critical pier or the deformation of the abutment member.
Transverse response: The design displacement profile shall be either defined by
rational analysis or for regular bridge types as shown in Fig. 2.8 with stiff continuous
deck can be determined using Eq. (2.1).
∆c
∆i = δi ( ) (2.1)
δc
where δi is the inelastic first mode displaced shape obtained from the relevant Eqs.
(2.2 to 2.4) for the bridge cases shown in Fig 2.8 at point i, while δc refers to the
same displaced shape however at point c that refers to the location of critical pier (the
pier which reaches first to the design displacement limit). ∆c is the critical pier design
displacement.
16 4
δi = (x − 2Ld x3i + L3d xi ) (2.2)
5L4d i
δi = 1 (2.3)
8
δi = 1.5 − (x4 − 2Ld x3i + L3d xi ) (2.4)
5L4d i
where Ld is the total length of the bridge between the abutments, xi is the distance of
point i from the left abutment. The decks shall be considered ‘stiff’ if the ratio of their
lateral sectional stiffness EIdeck to the piers stiffness, EIpiers satisfies Eq. (2.5),
48EIdeck Hpier 3
( ) ≥ 0.02 (2.5)
Cp np EIpier Ld
where Hpiers corresponds to the piers height, np is the number of piers, and Cp is a
coefficient to account for pier fixity. For fixed-pined and fixed-fixed pier the coefficient is
taken as 3 and 12 respectively.
The displacement profile indicated in Eqs. (2.2–2.4) and the deck stiffness limits are
approximate expressions aimed to provide reasonable design strength with no iteration on
the displacement profile. For an irregular bridge structure that does not match the con-
23
Case 1: uniform pier configuration Case 2: uniform pier configuration
with pinned abutment with free abutment
Case 3: valley pier configuration Case 4: valley ridge pier

with pinned abutment configuration with free abutment
figuration indicated in Fig. 2.8, it is recommended that non-linear time history analysis
be used to verify the seismic performance and to finalize the design.
Case 1: uniform pier configuration Case 2: uniform pier configuration

with pinned abutment (Eq. 2.2) with free abutment (Eq. 2.3)
Case 3: valley pier configuration Case 4: valley ridge pier configuration

with pinned abutment (Eq. 2.2) with free abutment (Eq. 2.4)
Figure 2.8: Displaced shape for regular continuous bridges (DBD12)
A capacity design principle must be applied to protect the structure from the de-
velopment of unintended inelastic mechanisms. The design moments and shears shall be
amplified to account for possible increases in material strengths in plastic hinge regions
and amplification due to higher mode effects since Direct Displacement Based Seismic
Design accounts for the fundamental mode only. Amplified moment and shear can be
determined through non-linear time history analysis or Effective Modal Superposition
(EMS) methods. The EMS technique consists of combining moments or shears from a
modal analysis based on effective member stiffnesses at maximum displacement response
by SRSS or CQC combination rules. In this procedure the inelastic first mode forces are
combined with the elastic higher mode forces. The first mode response S1,i may be taken
as the design moments or shears resulting from the structural analysis defined follow-
ing the DDBD procedure, amplified for possible enhancement of material strengths by
the value of the over-strength factor (φ0 ). This factor can be estimated from moment-
curvature analysis at the plastic hinges or alternatively a value of 1.25 can be used. As
an example, if the SSRS combination rule is used, the enhanced action SD,i is found from
Eq. (2.6) as:
SD,i = [(φ0 S1,i )2 + S2,i
2 2
+ S3,i 2 1/2
+ .. + Sn,i ] (2.6)
24
2.3 Straight and Curved Bridge Irregularities
Several studies have been carried out on regular and irregular bridge configurations to
investigate (i) the adequacy of different analysis methods and (ii) the effect of higher
modes on the seismic response of straight bridges. Calvi et al. (1994) performed a nu-
merical investigation on a 4-span viaduct (which is referred to as the ‘reference bridge’
by subsequent researchers) with reinforced concrete single-column-bents in regular and
irregular configurations, subjected to transverse seismic excitation. The irregularity con-
sisted of columns in adjacent bents of different heights (the fourth irregularity in Table
2.3). The purpose of their study was to verify the effectiveness of the design method sug-
gested in EuroCode-8 (2005) with particular emphasis on the potentiality of producing
bridge structures with a uniform distribution of ductility demand. Pinto et al. (1996)
and Pinto (1996) tested six scaled models of the reference bridge in regular and irregular
configurations. The testing of the four bridges in the experimental program was intended
to provide data for improvement of analysis and design methods with the goal of achiev-
ing a more homogeneous ductility demand in these bridges. The test results confirmed
that safety against collapse of irregular bridges is quite low compared with the safety of
regular bridges designed with the same procedure. Fischinger and Isakovic (2003) and
Isaković et al. (2003) investigated the parameters that strongly influence the degree of
irregularity of the same reference bridge. They found that the most effective parameters
which influence the behavior of the bridge include: i) the ratio between the stiffness of
the deck and that of the bents (the fourth irregularity in Table 2.3), ii) eccentricity of
mass, iii) the ratio between the torsional and translational stiffness of the bridge, and iv)
the restraints at the abutments. The last three of these are not specifically accounted for
in Table 2.3. They found that higher modes are important for all viaducts with columns
stiffer than the deck and are particularly critical for bridges with short central columns.
For the same reference bridge, Isaković and Fischinger (2006) also investigated the effects
of higher modes on typical multimode pushover-based methods (modal pushover analysis,
modal adaptive non-linear static procedure and incremental response spectrum analysis)
and compared the results to a single mode pushover-based procedure (N2 method) and
inelastic time history analysis. They showed that if the substructure of the viaduct is
flexible in comparison with the superstructure, the influence of higher modes is small
and single mode analysis works well. Conversely, when the substructure is stiffer, such as
the case for a bridge with a short central column, multimode dynamic analysis is neces-
25
sary. Akbari (2008), and Akbari and Maalek (2010) extended the same study of Isaković
and Fischinger (2006) for a wider range of regular and irregular bridge configurations and
for the analysis method specified by the AASHTO Guide Specifications. They concluded
that in cases where the flexibility of the columns of a single-column-bent viaduct was
rather high, the effects of the higher modes diminish and as a consequence, the struc-
ture may be categorized as regular. In such cases, the results obtained from a simplified
analysis method may be considered adequate for practical design purposes. On the other
hand, for the analysis of irregular structures having rather short and stiff columns, the
multi-mode method is to be employed as the minimum requirement for the attainment of
meaningful results. They also confirmed that limiting the pier stiffness ratio in adjacent
spans to 4 is an appropriate value as defined in the AASHTO guide specifications. From
this review it is clear that significant studies have been undertaken to understand the
effect of bridge irregularity and the appropriate analysis method to be used for deter-
mining seismic demand on the structures. However, it is the authors’ understanding that
none of the studies have compared the seismic response of straight and curved bridges
covering the AASHTO code bridge irregularity limits shown in Table 2.3, for a wide of
range of superstructure curvatures in both longitudinal and transverse directions. Some
of the studies that are considered relevant are discussed as follows.
Tseng and Penzien (1975) performed a numerical investigation on the curved Figueroa
Street Undercrossing in Los Angeles as designed by the California Department of Trans-
portation, and a straight version of the bridge. The purpose of the study was to correlate
the predicted seismic response of the bridge with the behavior experienced during the
San Fernando 1971 earthquake. Both the straight and curved bridges were found to have
almost the same period of vibration; however, their corresponding mode shapes differed
significantly, i.e., the coupling between the horizontal and vertical modes which existed
in the curved bridge was not present in the straight bridge. Williams and Godden (1979)
carried out a shake table test of a 1/30th scale model of a curved reinforced concrete
bridge to study the effect of both linear and non-linear dynamic behavior, including slid-
ing and impact at the expansion joint. It was shown that elastic analysis could capture
the low amplitude vibration of the bridge but could not predict the response of the system
when abutment pounding occurred; however, the nonlinear analysis captured the inelastic
response of the system. Richardson and Douglas (1993) conducted a push-back and quick-
release test on a curved concrete box girder bridge to determine its lateral, longitudinal,
26
vertical, and torsional vibration modes which were used to verify the analytical model of
the bridge dynamic response. Wu and Najjar (2007) studied the influence of curvature on
the seismic behavior of two-span continuous bridge models with steel box-girders. Four
bridge models (one straight and three with subtended angles of 20, 30 and 40 degrees of
equal length) were analyzed using 3D finite elements for two types of guided-expansion
bearings at the abutments: Type I with radial restraint and free tangential movement
and Type II with nonlinear elastic spring elements in both directions. It was found that
natural frequencies were not influenced by curvature. Tangential displacement of Type
I models was influenced significantly by curvature, while vertical displacement was not
affected by either curvature or bearing type. Levi et al. (2014) discussed the performance
of the columns during the experiment and presented initial comparisons with results of
numerical analysis. This study was part of large project funded by the Federal Highway
Administration on the seismic resilience of highway systems. Levi et al. (2014) concluded
that the curvature of the bridge directly impacts the torsional loading and rotations at
columns and bearings when shear keys are still intact. Once the shear keys fail, torsional
loading and rotations change as system torsional modes are excited. Along with these
discoveries, reverse bending which can lead to formation of plastic hinges at column tops
should be considered when designing single column bents in curved bridges. Burdette
and Elnashai (2008) investigated the response of complex straight and curved long span
bridges under the effect of asynchronous motion. The results indicated that significant
amplification due to asynchronous excitation occurs, however, this amplification was not
constant or easily predictable, demonstrating the importance of inelastic dynamic analy-
sis using asynchronous motion for assessment and design of this class of structure. Sextos
et al. (2004) studied the potential influence of spatial variability of earthquake ground
motion on a curved 12 span, 638 m long case study bridge. They showed that the struc-
tural performance of the case study bridge under earthquake loading is strongly affected
by (a) the accuracy in modeling the properties of the incoming seismic wave field and
the foundation subsoil and (b) the superstructure curvature. Mwafy et al. (2007) investi-
gated the effects of the simplifying assumptions typically used in design on the dynamic
characteristics and capacity-demand predictions of multi-span complex bridges, using
comparison of ‘as-designed’ and ‘as-built’ simulations, for a nine span curved bridge se-
lected from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) inventory. They observed that
lateral capacity and dynamic behavior of the as-designed bridge is significantly differ-
27
ent from the as-built behavior, and the assumptions made may lead to erroneous and
potentially non conservative response predictions.
Two types of abutments (seat type and rigid diaphragm abutment) are most often
employed in reinforced concrete bridge construction. In the seat type abutment, two
design solutions are possible in the longitudinal direction; (1) an expansion gap at the
abutment between the superstructure and abutment backwall, where the backwall is a
sacrificial element to protect the foundation from inelastic action as suggested by Caltrans
(2013) and AASHTO (2011); (2) a damper between the abutment backwall and the
superstructure. The benefit of the first solution is to reduce initial cost of construction
with low maintenance cost, but repair will be required following an intense earthquake.
The second solution is attractive to dissipate more energy with relatively lower damage,
but with greater initial and maintenance costs. In the transverse direction a shear key is
provided to limit the lateral displacement at the abutment at service loads; however, an
intense earthquake can damage the shear key which would require subsequent repair. In
a diaphragm abutment the portion of the abutment which is effective to engage backfill
soil is considered for calculation of abutment stiffness in the longitudinal direction, while
in the transverse direction a conservative value of the abutment stiffness is calculated
ignoring the wing wall (Caltrans 2013). AASHTO (2011) and Caltrans (2013) provide
guidelines for the design of the abutment to achieve certain performance objectives. The
outcome of these design solutions is the estimation of abutment stiffness at a prescribed
performance level, for details refer to Caltrans (2013) and AASHTO (2011).
2.4 Analytical Modeling of Curved Bridges

A number of researchers have employed various types of frame element models for the
seismic analysis of bridges. Wakefield et al. (1991) employed beam elements to model
the box girder bridge deck, supporting columns, and cap beams of a reinforced concrete
bridge. McCallen and Romstad (1994) simulated the bridge deck and cap beams by a
flexible beam and a series of rigid bars, respectively. Agrawal and Jain (2009) compare
their proposed frame model and finite element model for an S-curved viaduct and con-
cluded that the frame element model can capture the first 10 modes with reasonable
accuracy. Despite the simplicity and ease of application, frame elements can provide rea-
sonably good approximations to response if the major structural characteristics of the
28
actual structure are modeled properly. Sun et al. (2011) used 3D structural model in
SAP2000 developed by Habibullah and Wilson (1996) to ascertain the response of the
Huilan interchange ramp bridge damaged by Wenchuan earthquake 2008. Beam elements
were used to model the bridge piers and girders, and the bearings were modeled as elastic-
perfectly plastic springs. For the piers an elasto-plastic model was adopted by defining
elastic beam-column elements and PMM hinges (a model that defines the yield surface
of the column which includes the interaction of the axial load P and the two principal
axis bending moments M2 and M3) at the location of plastic hinge. It was found that a
nonlinear time history analysis model based on beam elements was capable of capturing
the damage to the piers of the ramp bridges when compared to the observed damage.
Monzon et al. (2013) conducted a computational study on three modeling techniques—
spine beam, grillage (traditional grillage and plate-and-beam), and 3D finite element—for
curved steel plate girder bridges. It was determined that the spine model is able to capture
the global seismic response of the bridge and gives reasonable estimates of the column
forces. However, this model was unable to capture the response of local components such
as bearings and cross-frames. The response of the plate-and-beam model was comparable
to the 3D finite element model. This model may be used to design local components such
as bearings and cross-frames.
2.5 Relevant Studies on the Development of Direct

Displacement Based Seismic Design for Bridges
In recent years the DDBD method has matured considerably with extensive research
leading to the publication of a book on the DDBD method (Priestley et al., 2007) and a
model code (DBD12) edited by (Sullivan et al., 2012). Both outline the design approach
for a range of structural typologies, especially for buildings and bridges. Some of the
studies that highlight the development of DDBD for bridges are provided as follows.
The methodology was initially developed by Kowalsky et al. (1995) for bridge columns
by characterizing each pier as a SDOF system. This approach was extended to a multi-
degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system for straight bridges by Calvi and Kingsley (1995).
Later, Kowalsky (2002), and Dwairi and Kowalsky (2006) developed the effective mode
shape technique to obtain the displacement pattern of irregular bridges, a primary step
in the DDBD procedure. Botero (2004), Restrepo (2006), and Priestley et al. (2007)
29
studied the effect of higher modes on abutment shear and deck moments; the last two
authors proposed the use of effective modal superposition, while the inelastic response
at the plastic hinge was determined from the first inelastic mode. Additionally, Suarez
and Kowalsky (2007) executed DDBD for bridges including soil structure interaction.
Recently (2014), the same authors proposed a stability based model for determining the
upper limit of the target displacement of bridge piers if controlled by P-∆ effects.
The aforementioned studies are limited to straight bridges with short to moderate
spans. With regard to other bridge typologies, Adhikari et al. (2010) extended the DDBD
method to long span straight bridges and proposed a revised effective modal superpo-
sition technique to determine the effect of higher modes on the flexural strength of the
bent, since long span bridges can have first mode modal mass participation as small as
30 percent. Calvi et al. (2010) developed a framework for the seismic design of cable
stayed bridges, and Khan et al. (2013) extended the DDBD approach to reinforced con-
crete (RC) deck arch bridges. The authors believe that the DDBD procedure has not
been implemented for curved bridges; therefore, a part of this dissertation is directed
to understand the seismic behavior of curved bridges and to extend the existing DDBD
method (Priestley et al., 2007) to curved bridges.
2.6 Past Studies on Equivalent Viscous Damping

Over the past several decades it has been agreed upon that inertial forces induced by
ground motion are poorly correlated with damage. To better estimate the inelastic lat-
eral displacement, required for prediction of performance of different structural systems,
displacement based design procedures have been developed. The key step in displace-
ment based design methods is to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demand of
SDOF systems from the maximum displacement demand of linear elastic SDOF systems.
Miranda and Ruiz-Garcı́a (2002) categorized these methods in two groups: 1) Methods
based on the substitute structure approach in which the maximum inelastic displacement
demand is determined as the maximum displacement of an equivalent linear elastic sys-
tem with lower lateral stiffness and a higher damping coefficient than the real non-linear
system 2) Methods where the maximum inelastic displacement is estimated as a product
of the maximum displacement of a linear elastic system, using the same lateral stiffness
and damping coefficients of the elastic system as that of nonlinear system, multiplied by
30
a displacement modification factor. One method in group one is the Direct Displacement-
Based Design (DDBD) approach, outlined in its current form by Priestley et al. (2007).
Several studies have been conducted to verify the performance of this method for a vari-
ety of structural systems where the effective periods are greater than 1 second. However,
it is the author’s hypothesis that the current models to characterize equivalent viscous
damping will overestimate the peak inelastic displacement for short period structural
systems (those with an effective period less than 1 second). This overestimation is due to
the underestimation of equivalent viscous damping which is studied in this dissertation
as a part of continuous development of the DDBD approach.
The concept of equivalent viscous damping was first proposed by Jacobsen (1930)
to approximate the steady forced vibration response of linear SDOF damped systems.
In this method, the stiffness of the equivalent system is set equal to that of the real
system and the damping ratio is estimated by equating the energy dissipated per cycle
of the real damping force to that of the equivalent damping force. Later, Jacobsen (1960)
extended this idea to yielding SDOF systems based on an equivalent damping ratio.
However, Jacobson’s study is based on certain assumptions which are not typically met
such as the assumption that systems are subjected to harmonic excitation of a prescribed
frequency (real ground motions exhibit varied frequency content). Details of the various
assumptions and their impact on equivalent viscous damping are discussed in Dwairi et al.
(2007). Jennings (1968) and Hadjian (1982) found that if the equal energy principle is
employed, different methods of treating the period shift (i.e., consideration of softening
of the system through the use of an equivalent or effective stiffness) leads to different
equivalent viscous damping ratios. Furthermore, for a given period shift, variations in the
hysteretic model considered also yield variations in the equivalent damping ratio. Some
of the studies that are considered important with regard to period shift and hysteretic
models are highlighted below.
Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964) proposed that the period shift be defined by the
equivalent stiffness at maximum displacement and the equivalent viscous damping by
equating the dissipated energy per cycle of the nonlinear system to that of the equivalent
linear system for harmonic excitation. Gulkan and Sozen (1974) obtained the equivalent
damping ratio from physical experiments by equating the input energy of the inelastic
system to the energy of the equivalent linear system. While using the same equivalent
stiffness definition as Rosenblueth, Kowalsky et al. (1995) used secant stiffness at maxi-
31
mum deformation and the Takeda hysteretic model to derive an equation for equivalent
damping ratio using an unloading stiffness factor of 0.5 and post yield to initial stiffness
ratio of 0.05. Miranda and Ruiz-Garcı́a (2002) compared these three methods and found
that for a given ground motion and level of inelastic behavior, the largest response is pre-
dicted by Gulkan and Sozen that uses the smallest value of equivalent damping, followed
by Kowalsky, then by Rosenblueth, which predicts the lowest response with the largest
value of equivalent viscous damping. The work of Iwan (1980) and a more recent study by
Kwan and Billington (2003) were based on statistical investigations where their proposed
empirical equations for the equivalent period and equivalent damping ratio were obtained
by minimizing the root mean square of the error in the maximum displacements from the
actual inelastic and equivalent linear systems. Iwan (1980) considered 12 ground motions
with a period range from 0.2–4 seconds while Kwan and Billington (2003) considered
6 hysteretic models and 20 ground motions in the period range from 0.1–1.5 seconds.
It was reported by Dwairi et al. (2007) that these two methods yield similar estimates
of equivalent damping as that from Gulkan and Sozen (1974) for reinforced concrete
members.
It is important to note that Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964), Gulkan and Sozen
(1974), and Kowalsky et al. (1995) use a period shift based on equivalent stiffness of the
SDOF system, while Iwan (1980), and Kwan and Billington (2003) obtained the period
shift based on minimizing the root mean square of the error. Although it is common to
all methods that the equivalent damping ratio is a function of ductility with modification
for different hysteretic models, none of the studies aim to consider the effect of spectral
shape and post-yield stiffness ratio on response of short period structural systems. It
was observed by Mahin and Bertero (1981) that moderate hardening with a post-yield
stiffness ratio of 0.05 can significantly increase displacement in structural systems with
short to medium period ranges, but has a marginal influence on the displacement response
for long periods.
Blandon and Priestley (2005) proposed equivalent viscous damping as a function of
hysteretic model type, ductility, and effective period (which corresponds to the effective
stiffness at maximum displacement) for SDOF systems. Their study was based on 6 earth-
quake records, 6 different hysteretic models, and periods between 0 to 4 seconds at a step
size of 0.5 seconds. They observed that the variation of individual ground motions was
significant and further study was suggested to minimize the scatter of individual ground
32
motions from proposed average damping values. In 2007, Dwairi et al. proposed a new
equivalent damping model considering 100 real earthquake records (ATC55/FEMA440),
4 different hysteretic rules, and period from 0 to 5 seconds at interval of 0.1 seconds.
This model is also a function of hysteretic model, ductility, and effective period. They
concluded that the proposed damping model is developed based on average nonlinear
time history analysis results and is expected to predict the inelastic displacement reason-
ably good but when applied to individual ground motion there is a possibility of errors
in estimating the inelastic displacement. It is important to note that none of the studies
consider the effect of post yield stiffness ratio on equivalent damping.
2.7 Summary of Literature Review

The summary of the literature review in connection with the scope of this dissertation is
as follows:
It is clear from the review of damage to old and newly constructed curved bridges
(old and new bridges correspond to those constructed before and after San Fernando
1971 earthquake) that in comparison to new bridges, old bridges lacked detailing
which led to the catastrophic failure. However, the analysis techniques utilized are
not considered to be capable of imposing uniform ductility demands on the ductile
members of irregular bridges which is critical for such bridges.
Depending upon the type of bridge, limitations are imposed on the analysis tech-
niques for determining the seismic demand. However, most codes do not cover all
types of bridges such as straight, skewed, curved, arch, and suspension bridges etc.
American codes (AASHTO, 2007; AASHTO, 2011; and Caltrans, 2013) provide a
definition of regular/irregular and ordinary/conventional bridges respectively, pri-
marily based on geometrical properties. Also DBD12 proposes bridge irregularity
based on geometry of the bridge. On the other hand, EuroCode-8 (2005) and NZ
(2013) do not specify geometric limitations but rather mention representation of
the structure as a SDOF system for the application of the simplest analysis proce-
dure. However, it is common to all codes to define simplified procedures for regular
bridges and to recommend elastic dynamic analysis, static non-linear and inelas-
tic time history analysis for complex and irregular bridges. Currently, the analysis
33
procedure embedded in the above mentioned codes except AASHTO (2011) and
DBD12 is force-based in nature, where AASHTO (2011) is shifting toward the dis-
placement based procedure. The analysis procedure used in DBD12 is based on the
Direct Displacement Based Design approach, but there are limited provisions on
the types of bridges. The current research is aimed to extend the DDBD procedure
to curved bridges which will be suggested for the future development of DBD12.
Past work on straight bridges with bent stiffness irregularities has considered the
following: 1) transverse direction response, 2) bridges with only four spans, 3) equal
span lengths, 4) monolithic and hinge connections of the pier to the superstructure,
5) two types of abutment restraints (free and hinge support in the transverse direc-
tion of the bridge), and 6) limited values of superstructure stiffness. While studies
have been conducted on curved bridges, none seem to address the issue of analysis
of curved bridges as if they are straight. The research described in this dissertation
will aim to address the issue of analyzing curved bridges as if they are straight
using additional parameters along with most of those described above.
The review on the analytical modeling of curved bridges indicates that the global
response of these bridges can be obtained utilizing frame elements/spine beam mod-
eling techniques, rather than complex finite element modeling. However, care should
be exercised to model the constraint to the structure accurately so that the ana-
lytical results resemble the real behavior of the structure. The frame element/spine
beam modeling technique is utilized throughout this analytical study.
It is clear that several models of equivalent damping are used in the Direct Dis-
placement Based Seismic Design approach, and that several damping models exist
to approximate the inelastic displacement of short period SDOF systems. How-
ever, these models overestimate the peak inelastic displacement for short period
structural systems (those with an effective period less than 1 second). This over-
estimation is hypothesized to be due to the underestimation of equivalent viscous
damping which is also the aim of this dissertation as a part of continuous develop-
ment of the DDBD approach for curved bridges.
34
Chapter 3
Impact of Irregularities on the

Seismic Response of Straight and
Curved Bridges
Please note that this chapter is a self-contained paper submitted to ASCE Journal of
Bridge Engineering where the word ‘this paper/study’ refers to the chapter itself.
Abstract
This study investigates the hypothesis in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design that curved bridges may be analyzed as if they are straight, pro-
vided the bridge is regular. Considered in the study are curved bridges with subtended
angles from 0 to 180 degrees. In all cases, the total arc length of the curved bridge is equal
to the length of the equivalent straight bridge. Other parameters in this study include
the number of spans (four and six), and abutment restraints (nine different cases) along
with several pier heights and span lengths. The equivalent straight bridges are designed
using the Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) procedure. The resulting designs
are then analyzed with Inelastic Time History Analysis (ITHA) using both straight and
curved bridge geometries. Each bridge was subjected to 7 spectrum compatible time
histories and average results were tabulated.
It is observed that deviation in the response of curved bridges as compared to the re-
sponse of the equivalent straight bridge increases as the subtended angles become larger,
35
however, variables such as span length, pier height, and number of spans were found to
be less important for the bridges considered in this study. In general, the deviation in
the response of curved bridges compared to straight bridges is larger for the transverse
direction than for the longitudinal direction. It was also found that the type and degree
of abutment restraint is a critical parameter in controlling the response of the bridge. It
is concluded that (1) if the bridge is fully restrained in the longitudinal direction, the
curved bridge may not be analyzed as straight even for subtended angles as small as 15
degrees; (2) if the abutment is unrestrained or partially restrained in the longitudinal
direction, the curved bridge may be analyzed as straight for subtended angles of up to 30
degrees. However, this limit may change to a smaller subtended angle if greater abutment
stiffness (for the partially restrained abutment case) is considered from that used in this
study; (3) if abutments are unrestrained in both lateral directions the curved bridge may
be analyze as straight for all subtended angles up to 180 degrees.
Keywords: Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design; Equivalent straight and curved
bridges; Longitudinal and transverse direction; Inelastic time history analysis
3.1 Introduction
Horizontally curved bridges make up a significant portion of the bridge population in
the United States. These bridges are often used to construct large and complex highway
interchanges in densely populated areas to avoid traffic congestion. However, design and
analysis of curved bridges is more complex than straight bridges. In an effort to simplify
the process for engineers, the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design (2011) permit curved bridges to be analyzed as if they are straight when the
subtended angle is small and the bridge is regular. This computational study investigates
the effect of such a simplification on the seismic response of curved bridges.
The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (2011) defines
irregularity based on geometry, namely: (1) Superstructure curvature as measured by the
subtended angle along the entire bridge, (2) Relative lengths of adjacent spans, and (3)
Relative stiffness of adjacent bents. The degree of irregularity in these three categories is
then used to define the level of analysis rigor. For example, Table 3.1 defines the AASHTO
Guide Specification limits for the above irregularities. If a bridge satisfies these limits,
36
the bridge is considered to be regular and AASHTO indicates that it may be designed
and analyzed using the simplest analysis method, an ‘equivalent static analysis’. Any
curved bridge that is designed using equivalent static analysis may be analyzed as if
it were straight, although note from Table 3.1 that 30 degrees represents the limit for
application of the equivalent static analysis approach. In the event that one or more of the
irregularities exceed the limit, then an ‘elastic dynamic analysis’ is required. If P-Delta
effects are significant or if the bridge is base isolated with a high degree of damping, then
‘inelastic time history analysis’ is to be used. When curved bridges are designed using
either of these two more advanced analysis methods, they may be analyzed as straight
as long as the subtended angle is less than 90 degrees.
Several studies have been carried out to understand the effect of bridge irregularities,
most of which focused on relative bent stiffness, as it affects the seismic response of single
column bent straight bridges. The goal of these studies was to investigate the adequacy
of different analysis methods and to determine the effect of higher modes on the seismic
response of straight bridges. For example, Fischinger and Isakovic (2003) and Isaković
et al. (2003) investigated the parameters that strongly influence the degree of irregularity
of a 4-span single column bent bridge. They found that the parameters which influence
the behavior of the bridge include: i) the ratio between the stiffness of the deck and that
of the bents (the fourth irregularity in Table 3.1), ii) eccentricity of mass, iii) the ratio
of the torsional and translational stiffnesses of the bridge, and iv) the restraints at the
abutments. Note that the last three of these parameters are not specifically accounted
for in Table 3.1. Fischinger and Isakovic found that higher modes are important for
all bridges with columns stiffer than the deck and are particularly critical for bridges
with short central columns. In such cases, the use of multimode dynamic analysis is
recommended over single mode analysis. Akbari (2008), and Akbari and Maalek (2010)
37
studied a wide range of regular and irregular bridge configurations of the same 4-span
bridge to determine the accuracy of the analysis method specified by the AASHTO
Guide Specifications in predicting the seismic response in the transverse direction. They
concluded that in cases where the flexibility of the columns of a single-column-bent
bridge was relatively high, the effects of the higher modes diminish and as a consequence,
the structure may be categorized as regular. In such cases, the results obtained from a
simplified analysis method may be considered adequate for practical design purposes.
On the other hand, for the analysis of irregular structures having rather short and stiff
columns, the multi-mode method is to be employed as the minimum requirement for the
attainment of meaningful results.
It is the authors’ hypothesis that in addition to the bridge irregularity parameters
defined in AASHTO guide specifications Table 3.1, abutment restraint conditions can be a
factor that may cause significant deviation of the straight bridge response from that of the
curved bridge. For example, the restrained abutment can develop arching action for the
curved bridge that does not exist in straight bridges. Therefore, several abutment restraint
conditions are incorporated into the study as will be discussed later. It is important to
note that two types of abutments (seat and rigid diaphragm) are most often employed in
reinforced concrete bridge construction. In the seat type abutment, two design solutions
are possible in the longitudinal direction: (i) an expansion gap at the abutment between
the superstructure and abutment backwall where the backwall is designed as a sacrificial
element to protect the foundation from inelastic action (for details, refer to Caltrans
(2013) and AASHTO (2011)), and (ii) a damper between the abutment backwall and the
superstructure. The benefit of the first solution is to reduce initial cost of construction
with low maintenance cost, but repair will be required following an intense earthquake.
The second solution is attractive to dissipate more energy with relatively lower damage,
but with greater initial and maintenance costs. In the transverse direction a shear key is
provided to limit the lateral displacement at the abutment at service loads; however, an
intense earthquake can damage the shear key which would require subsequent repair. In
a diaphragm abutment the portion of the abutment which is effective to engage backfill
soil is considered for calculation of abutment stiffness in the longitudinal direction, while
in the transverse direction a conservative value of the abutment stiffness is calculated
ignoring the wing wall (Caltrans 2013). AASHTO (2011) and Caltrans (2013) provide
guidelines for the design of the abutment to achieve certain performance objectives. The
38
outcome of these design solutions is the estimation of abutment stiffness at a prescribed
performance level.
While a number of researchers (Tseng and Penzien (1975), Williams and Godden
(1979), Richardson and Douglas (1993), Levi et al. (2014), Monzon et al. (2013)) have
considered irregular straight and curved bridges, providing useful insight into specifics of
their design, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has been no comprehensive study
to verify the limits currently proposed in the AASHTO Guide Specifications. The goal
of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of each of the AASHTO irregularities,
and in addition, include the effect of abutment restraint.
3.2 Bridge Configurations for Parametric Study

The parametric study consists of four and six span reinforced concrete bridges with single
column bents. As shown in Fig. 3.1, the bridges have equal span lengths and equal pier
heights. Typical elevation and section views of these bridges are also shown in Fig. 3.1.
All of the piers have the same circular cross section with diameter of 2.5 m. Twelve curved
AL S1 S2 S3 S4 AR 11 m
Y
Z 6m
H H H
4.5 m 2m
X P1 P2 P3 3m
Global axes
(a) Elevation view of 4 span bridge Shear key
tbf =thickness of
AL S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 AR bottom flange= 0.25m
Y All other thicknesses =
Z
H H H H H 0.3 m
X P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
Deck axes
(c) Typical Section view of
(b) Elevation view of 6 span bridge the bridge bent
Figure 3.1: Typical elevation and sectional view of RC bridge; (a) elevation view of 4
spans bridge; (b) elevation view of 6 spans bridge; (c) section view of the bridge bent
bridge configurations with subtended angles from 0 to 180 degrees, with increments of 15
degrees, are considered. The arc length of these curved bridges is kept equal to that of the
equivalent straight bridge as proposed by the AASHTO Guide Specifications (2011), for
39
the comparison of straight and curved bridge responses. The plan view of the superstruc-
ture centerline is shown in Fig. 3.2, where the equivalent straight bridge is represented by
ST, and curved bridges with 12 different subtended angles by CX, where X denotes the
subtended angle, i.e., the curved bridge with subtended angle of 15 degrees is represented
by C15. The local axes for the deck along with global axes for the entire bridge structure
are also shown in Fig. 3.1. Section properties of the elements are defined in the local
axes, and the displacements are reported in the global axes. For the straight bridges the
abutment local axes are the same as the global axes (shown in Fig. 3.1) while for the
curved bridges the abutment local axes make an angle with the global X-axis as shown
in Fig. 3.2.
44 C180
C165
39
C150
34
C135
Z X C120
29
θi C105
24 C90
Abutment local axes C75
19
14 C60
C45
9 C30
4 C15
-1 ST
-72 -52 -32 -12 8 28 48 68
Figure 3.2: Plane view of straight and curved bridge with different subtended angles
As discussed in the introduction, the abutment restraint conditions will likely impact
the seismic response of curved bridges. Therefore, to understand the difference in response
of equivalent straight and curved bridges, nine abutment restraint cases are defined as
shown in Table 3.2. The abutment rotational DOF is unrestrained about the local Y and
Z-axes and is restrained about the local X-axis. Translational DOF are either restrained,
unrestrained, or partially restrained, depending upon the abutment restraint case defined
in Table 3.2.
Five different pier height configurations have been considered by altering the pier
height of the typical four and six span bridges, as shown in Table 3.3. The symbols H,
M, and L shown in Table 3.3 represent the pier heights and are equal to 15, 12, and
9.5 m, respectively. The position of the piers in this table is adjusted so that it gives
40
Table 3.2: Abutment restraint cases for straight and curved bridges
Abutment translational Abutment rotational

Case No. D.O.F (local) D.O.F (local)
X-axis Y-axis Z-axis X-axis Y-axis Z-axis
1 R R R R U U
2 P.R R R R U U
3 R R P.R R U U
4 P.R R P.R R U U
5 U R R R U U
6 R R U R U U
7 U R U R U U
8 U R P.R R U U
9 P.R R U R U U
consecutive bent stiffness ratios less than or equal to 4 for four span bridges, and 2 for
six span bridges. These ratios are within the pier height irregularity limits of AASHTO
(2011) shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.3: Pier height configurations
No. of spans Case No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

1 H H H - -
2 L H L - -
4
3 H L H - -
4 H M L - -
5 H L L - -
1 H H H H H
2 L M H M L
6
3 H M L M H
4 H M H M L
5 H H M L L
Two cases of span length are considered as shown in Table 3.4. In case 1 the ratio
of the consecutive spans is 1.0 for both four and six span bridges, while for case 2 the
maximum ratio of consecutive spans (S2 and S3 for 4 span bridge and S3 and S4 for 6
span bridge) is 2.0 and 1.5 respectively. Thus, both cases of span length variation are
41
within the limits of AASHTO (2011) shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.4: Span length configurations (units are meters)
No. of spans Case No. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

1 36 36 36 36 - -
4
2 48 48 24 24 - -
1 36 36 36 36 36 36
6
2 36 36 36 24 24 24
In order to create several different configurations, a variety of models of the typical

4 and 6 span bridges were generated based on different abutment restraint conditions,
pier height and span length configuration as shown in Tables 3.2 through 3.4. A label is
defined to identify the bridge configurations in the form of ‘BNAPS’ where the letter B
stands for Bridge, N for the number of bridge spans, while A, P, and S correspond to the
case number of abutment restraint, pier height, and span length, respectively.
To understand the effect of bridge curvature on the displacement response, the para-
metric study is divided into four phases encompassing 1599 different bridge configura-
tions.
Phase 1: Only curvature irregularity is considered while keeping the pier heights and
span lengths the same for the 9 abutment restraint cases.
Phase 2: Curvature irregularity is combined with different pier height cases while
keeping the same span lengths.
Phase 3: Curvature irregularity is combined with different span length cases while
keeping the pier heights same.
Phase 4: Curvature irregularity is combined with different pier height and different
span length cases.
3.3 Modeling and Analysis Approach

The superstructures are modeled as linear-elastic beam-column (line) elements with geo-
metric and mechanical properties shown in Table 3.5. Depending upon the restraint case,
linear springs are employed to model the abutment. The spring stiffness is provided in
42
local axes for straight and curved bridges as shown in Fig. 3.1 and 3.2. The superstructure
dead load is calculated from the sectional properties of the superstructure. A superim-
posed load of 20 percent of the superstructure dead load is considered which results in a
total seismic weight of 168 kN/m for the deck section shown in Table 3.5. In addition,
the dead load of the pier is also calculated from sectional properties and one third of
the pier weight is lumped at the superstructure height as suggested by Priestley et al.
(2007). Based on tributary area, these masses are distributed to the nodes of the super-
structure by dividing each span of the superstructure into four elements. For the curved
bridges, four linear elements are used to form the curved superstructure in each span.
This discretization was verified from a parametric study by comparing the displacement
response of four span bridges with equal span lengths of 24, 36, and 48 m, discretized into
four and eight elements for subtended angles of 90 and 180 degrees. It was found that
the maximum error in the displacement response obtained from the two discretization
schemes (4 elements and 8 elements per span) was 1 and 4 percent for subtended angles
of 90 and 180 degrees respectively. For further details, refer to Appendix A.
Table 3.5: Deck gross sectional properties
Second moment of area (m4 ) about local

Cross sectional area (m2 )
X-axis Y-axis Z-axis
5.6 8.7 43.3 3.8
The base of each pier is considered to be rigidly connected to the foundation and
pinned supported to the superstructure as shown in Fig. 3.1(c), by providing a lateral
shear key which prevents the movement of the superstructure in both longitudinal and
transverse directions. Because of the end restraint conditions of the piers, plastic hinges
are expected to form only at the base of the piers. The lumped plasticity model is used to
characterize the inelastic behavior of the piers using the computer program RUAUMOKO
3D developed by Carr (2009). The modified takeda degrading stiffness model (Otani,
1974) is assigned to represent flexural actions in the plastic hinge zones of the piers,
while the other actions and elements are assigned elastic (cracked section) properties since
application of capacity design principles will ensure they do not yield. For further details
on how to determine the flexural strength (nominal moment) and cracked section stiffness
43
(Icr ), required to characterize inelastic behaviour of reinforced concrete piers, from the
design strength obtained from DDBD, refer to Khan et al. (2013). It is important to
note that the modified takeda degrading stiffness model does not consider flexure-torsion
interaction. One can argue that such modelling can underestimate the seismic response
of curved bridges. These bridges may develop high torsional demand in the piers that
potentially reduces flexure strength and deformation capacity, as reported by Tirasit et al.
(2005), Kawashima and Tirasit (2008), Prakash et al. (2010), and Mullapudi and Ayoub
(2012). However, in this study all of the straight and curved bridge configurations have
pinned connections at the tops of the piers (flexural and torsional DOF are released).
Therefore, the piers are not subjected to torsional loading. Furthermore, as a result of
these modelling assumptions, the axial loads developed in piers will not vary from those
arising from gravity. Hence, the modified takeda degrading stiffness model is considered
to be appropriate for the bridges considered in this study.
1.5 Design Spectrum Spectral Displacement (m) 1.2 Design Spectrum

EQ1 to EQ7
Spectral Acceleration (g)
EQ1 to EQ7
1.2
EQ_Avg 0.9
EQ_Avg
0.9
ζ=5% 0.6
0.6
ζ=5%
0.3
0.3
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Figure 3.3: Comparison of seven compatible accelerograms spectra with design spectrum
for spectral acceleration (on Left) and spectral displacement (on Right)
The bridges are assumed to be located at a site characterized by the design accel-
eration and displacement response spectrum shown in Fig. 3.3, which corresponds to
the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO, 2009)
spectrum for soil type B (rock) for a peak ground acceleration of 0.53g. The design dis-
placement spectrum is used with the DDBD procedure to design the equivalent straight
44
bridge. To perform the ITHA analyses, a suite of seven accelerograms was selected from
ATC55/FEMA440 real earthquake records which were previously used by Dwairi et al.
(2007) and Khan et al. (2014a). These accelerograms were made spectrum compatible
with the design spectrum at 5 percent damping using the computer program WAVGEN
developed by Mukherjee and Gupta (2002). The key idea of this iterative procedure is to
modify a recorded accelerogram such that the temporal variations in its frequency content
are retained in the synthesized accelerogram. For comparison purposes, the individual as
well as average spectra of the modified accelerograms, along with the design spectrum
are shown in Fig. 3.3. This figure shows that the average spectra are well matched with
the design spectrum.
The inelastic time history analyses are conducted using an integration time step of
0.005 seconds. Elastic damping is introduced using the tangent stiffness Rayleigh damp-
ing model with a damping ratio of 5 percent specified on the first and third modes of
vibration, consistent with the damping model used in the DDBD procedure and with the
recommendations of Priestley et al. (2007).
3.4 Methodology for Comparison of Straight and

Curved Bridges
The step-by-step procedure for comparison of equivalent straight and curved bridges is
as follows:
Step 1: Choose the geometry of the equivalent straight bridge from the parametric
study, as explained previously.
Step 2: Design the equivalent straight bridge using Direct Displacement Based De-
sign in both longitudinal and transverse directions using two design limit states: (1) Pier
drift/strain limit; (2) abutment displacement limit. Depending upon the bridge configu-
ration, abutment restraint, and relative super- to substructure stiffness, the design may
be controlled by either the design drift of the pier or the abutment displacement limit.
For the abutment, a design displacement of 40 mm and 160 mm is used for transverse
and longitudinal directions, respectively, while a pier drift limit of 3 percent is used for
both transverse and longitudinal directions. While these design criteria are not based
on a specific design code, they are consistent with the requirements of AASHTO guide
specifications. Depending on the column aspect ratios, displacement ductility demands
45
for individual columns range from 1 to 4 in this study. The outcome of the design is the
required strength of each abutment and pier to achieve the design limit state. An iterative
procedure is required to determine these strengths. The force assigned to the abutment is
impacted by the overall bridge geometry and target displaced shape. This force is varied
until one of the columns (or abutments) reaches its design limit state. For example, say
that in the first iteration of the design of a 4 span bridge, it is assumed that 50% of
the force is assigned to the abutments. After the first iteration of the DDBD process, if
the displacement of the critical column exceeds the target value, then more force must
be assigned to the columns and less to the abutments. Conversely, if it is found that
the displacement of the critical column is below the target value, while the abutments
exceed their target value, then more force must be assigned to the abutments. Once the
displaced shape stabilizes, the design is concluded. The resulting abutment force is used
to establish the abutment stiffness and hence its design. More details on this process may
be found in Priestley et al. (2007). For the regular bridges with either free or restrained
abutments, the fundamental mode shape is the translational mode, while for irregular
bridges, the fundamental mode could be longitudinal, transverse or in-plane torsion. Fur-
thermore, the period of the longitudinal mode of the straight bridge is smaller than the
curved bridge, while the period of the transverse and in-plane torsion mode is larger.
This difference in the period increases as the curvature of bridge increases.
Step 3: Perform ITHA of equivalent straight bridge using seven spectrum compatible
accelerograms.
Step 4: Perform ITHA of curved bridges (the model is the same as that used in Step
3 except that the superstructure curvature is modeled).
Step 5: Compare the response of the straight bridge with that of the curved bridges
(the response parameters described are global displacement of the bridge, and shear
demand on the piers and abutments).
3.5 Displacement Index

A Displacement Index (DI) is defined as a means to quantify the deviation of the straight
bridge displacement response from that of the curved bridge. This index is calculated by
dividing the deck global displacement of the straight bridge by that of the curved bridge
at each DOF and then determining the maximum or minimum values as given by Eq.
46
(3.1)
∆ST,i

DI = max| | if |∆ST,i | ≥ |∆Cθ,i |

∆Cθ,i 
for all ∆Cθ,i > 0 (3.1)
∆ST,i
DI = min| | if |∆ST,i | < |∆Cθ,i | 


∆Cθ,i
where ∆ST,i is the global displacement of the deck at the ith DOF for the equivalent
straight bridge and ∆Cθ,i is the global displacement of the deck at the corresponding DOF
for the curved bridge at subtended angle θ. It should be noted that two displacement
indices are calculated: (1) DI for abutments which corresponds to the DOF at the left
and right abutments only; (2) DI for piers which corresponds to all DOF between the left
and rightmost piers. If the values from Eq. (3.1) are close to 1 then the analysis result
of the curved bridge matches that of the straight bridge. Values greater than 1 imply
that the displacement of the equivalent straight bridge is greater than the actual curved
bridge and is therefore conservative. Values less than 1 indicate that the displacements
of the equivalent straight bridge is under-predicted compared to the displacements of the
actual curved bridge. If two values of DI exist where one value is greater than 1 while
other less than 1, the value which has the larger departure from 1 is chosen as the DI.
3.6 Results of ITHA for Case Study Bridges in Phase

1 under Transverse Seismic Excitation
3.6.1 Comparison of displacement response
The results obtained under transverse seismic excitation are shown in Fig. 3.4 for all 6
span bridge configurations with equal span lengths and pier heights, and with 9 abutment
restraint conditions. The heavy solid line in each figure represents the average of the seven
analysis results for the equivalent straight bridge while the remaining lines are the average
of the seven results for the curved bridges with different subtended angles. The same
legends shown in Fig. 3.4(g) are used throughout Fig. 3.4. The lines for subtended angles
of 90 and 180 degrees are represented by dark and light heavy dashed lines, respectively.
From this data, the following observations can be made: (1) For bridges that contain
some degree of restraint at the abutment along the bridge longitudinal direction (local
X-axis, cases B6111, B6211, B6311, B6411, and B6611, and B6911), significant errors
47
are introduced if a curved bridge is analyzed as if it were straight. In many cases, actual
deformations (which represent the displacement profile of the deck in the global Z-axis
relative to the undeformed position) are smaller than those obtained from analysis of a
straight bridge. This is a consequence of the stiffening effect caused by the longitudinal
restraint and superstructure curvature where arch action develops as large normal loads
are generated in the superstructure. If the normal forces are tensile, these must be duly
considered in the design of the abutment. In addition, potential cracking of the bridge
superstructure should be investigated. The arching effect is significant for bridge cases
(B6111, B6311, and B6611) due to the fully restrained abutment, but reduces for cases
(B6211, B6411, and B6911) due to the partially restrained abutment in the longitudinal
direction (local X-axis). This effect also increases as the subtended angle increases since
more arching action takes place. While such findings are conservative for deformations,
the net result is that the bridge would respond, in some cases, essentially elastically
at the columns, while sustaining very large forces at the abutments, as presented in
Fig. 3.6. If the bridges are analyzed as straight, the abutment force demands would
be severely underestimated, resulting in potential failure at those locations. (2) In the
remaining cases (B6511, B6711, and B6811) where there is no abutment longitudinal
restraint (local X-axis), the impact of superstructure curvature due to arching action is
minimal in comparison to the previous 6 cases, although the deviation in the displacement
response of the curved bridges when compared to straight bridge slightly increases as the
subtended angle increases.The bridge case B6711 which has no abutment restraint in both
lateral (longitudinal and transverse) directions has approximately the same displacement
for the straight and curved bridges due to the fact that the effect of arch action is minimal
in comparison to cases B6511 and B6811 where the arch action is significant. Bridges of
4 spans were also designed and analyzed and similar results were obtained which can be
found in Appendix B.
48
Figure 3.4: Phase 1: comparison of the ITHA average results of equivalent straight and
curved 6 span bridges
49
0.5 0.5
Deck Displacement (m)

B6111 B6211
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
(a) Normalized length (b) Normalized length
0.5 0.5

B6311 B6411
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
(c) Normalized length (d) Normalized length
0.5 0.5
B6611
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
B6511
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(e) Normalized length (f) Normalized length
50
0.5 0.5
B6711

0.4 0.4
ST C15 0.3
0.3 C30 C45
C60 C75
0.2 C90 C105 0.2
C120 C135
C150 C165
0.1 C180 0.1
B6811
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(g) Normalized length (h) Normalized length
0.5
B6911
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(i) Normalized length
51
3.6.2 Comparison of displacement response with displacement
index
Results of displacement index calculations for piers and abutments are presented in Fig.
3.5 where the DI is plotted on the logarithmic vertical scale. Three horizontal lines (one
12, 19, 33, 46 11, 21, 30, 51 23, 53, 73, 47

10
C15 C30 C45
C60 C90 C120
C150 C180
DI_PIER
0
B6111 B6211 B6311 B6411 B6511 B6611 B6711 B6811 B6911
(a) Bridge Configuration
10 11 20
C15 C30 C45
C60 C90 C120
C150 C180
DI_ABT
0
B6111 B6211 B6311 B6411 B6511 B6611 B6711 B6811 B6911
(b) Bridge Configuration
Figure 3.5: Phase 1: Displacement index for 6 span straight and curved bridges
solid and two dashed lines) are drawn with ordinates of 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2. The value
of 1.0 means that the response of the straight and curved bridge is the same for that
subtended angle while values of 0.8 and 1.2 represent the lower and upper bound of
acceptable limits respectively. From Fig. 3.5(a), it is evident that significant deviation
from a value of 1.0 occurs for bridge cases B6111, B6311, and B6611 which are fully
restrained in the longitudinal direction at the abutment, followed by bridge cases B6211,
B6411, B6511, B6811, and B6911 which are partially restrained or unrestrained in the
longitudinal direction at the abutment. However, when the abutment is unrestrained in
both lateral directions, the deviation from 1.0 is minimal even for large subtended angles.
52
Note that for bridge configurations B6111, B6311, and B6611 the results are frequently
off-scale as noted by the numbers in the boxes, which are the values from left to right for
that case. Similarly from Fig. 3.5(b), it is clear that the DI for most of the bridge cases
for small subtended angles is within the lower and upper bound limits, but the deviation
from 1.0 increases as the subtended angle becomes larger. Note that for bridge cases
which have full restraint in the transverse direction, the DI is not applicable because the
abutment displacement is zero.
7500
ST C15 C30
Shear_ABT (kN)
C45 C60 C90

5000
C120 C150 C180
2500
0
B6111 B6211 B6311 B6411 B6511 B6611 B6711 B6811 B6911
38679, 45599, 44539 38337, 41616, 37494 42701, 51806, 60364

24000 39293, 27586 35386, 27829 47073, 29623
Normal_ABT (kN)
ST C15
18000 C30 C45
C60 C90
12000 C120 C150
6000 C180
0
B6111 B6211 B6311 B6411 B6511 B6611 B6711 B6811 B6911
Figure 3.6: Phase 1: Shear and normal force demand at abutment for 6 span straight
and curved bridges
3.6.3 Comparison of abutment shear force demand

In Fig. 3.6 the longitudinal and transverse forces at the abutment for 6 span bridges are
shown. Each bar in the figure represents the average value of seven time history analyses.
Fig. 3.6(a) compares the abutment transverse shear force demands (perpendicular to the
direction of flow of traffic, along the local Z-axis) for straight and curved bridges, while
Fig. 3.6(b) gives the normal force (along direction of flow of traffic, local X-axis). It is
53
clear from Fig. 3.6(a) that the transverse shear force demand in the straight bridge is
greater than the curved bridges in all cases except B6111 and B6311. However, as shown
in Fig. 3.6(b), the normal force demand in the straight bridge is zero but is considerable
even for the curved bridge with smaller subtended angles, hence unconservative for all
cases which have translational restraint in the local X-axis (B6111, B6211, B3511, B6411,
B6611, and B6911). Note that for bridge configurations B6111, B6311, and B6611 results
are off-scale for some subtended angles as noted by the numbers in the boxes from top
left to bottom right, from smaller to larger subtended angle. From Fig. 3.5 it is clear that
bridge configurations B6111, B6311, and B6611 where the abutment is restrained in the
longitudinal direction, the displacement demand in curved bridges is significantly smaller
even for small subtended angles in comparison to the straight bridge, while the normal
force demand at the abutment is significantly higher than the straight bridge as shown in
Fig. 3.6(b). Thus, it can be concluded that when the abutment is fully restrained in the
longitudinal direction, the curved bridge may not be analyzed as a straight bridge even
for the very regular bridge configurations of phase 1. Note that these three abutment
cases (1, 3, and 6 of Table 3.2) are not considered in the remainder of this study.
3.7 Results of ITHA for Case Study Bridges in Phase

1 under Longitudinal Seismic Excitation
3.7.1 Comparison of displacement response
In Fig. 3.7 the results obtained under longitudinal seismic excitation are shown for all 6
span bridge configurations with equal span lengths and pier heights, and with 6 abutment
restraint conditions as previously defined. The line types and legends shown in Fig. 3.7
are the same as those in Fig. 3.4(g). From this data, the following observations can be
made: (1) For bridges that contain some degree of restraint at the abutment in either
longitudinal or transverse direction (B6211, B6411, B6511, B6811, and B6911), relatively
large error is introduced in comparison to the bridges that have no abutment restraint in
both lateral directions (B6711). In all cases, the departure of the curved bridge response
from the straight bridge is larger at the abutment while it reduces at the locations of
the piers. In general, the deviation of the curved bridge response from the straight one,
for the same bridge configuration, is larger for the transverse direction (Fig. 3.4) than
54
0.3 0.3

B6211 B6411
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(a) Normalized length (b) Normalized length
0.5 0.5
B6711

0.4 0.4
ST C15
0.3 0.3 C30 C45
C60 C75
0.2 C90 C105
0.2 C120 C135
B6511 C150 C165
0.1 0.1 C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(c) Normalized length (d) Normalized length
0.5 0.5
B6911
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
B6811
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(e) Normalized length (f) Normalized length
Figure 3.7: Phase 1: comparison of the ITHA average results of equivalent straight and
curved 6 span bridges
for the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3.7) of loading. This is likely due to the effect of
bending deformation for both straight and curved bridges during longitudinal excitation
55
being less significant when compared to transverse excitation. Also the deviation in the
displacement response of the straight bridge from the curved bridge increases as the
subtended angle increases.
3.7.2 Comparison of displacement response with displacement

index
Results of displacement index computations for piers and abutments are presented in
Fig. 3.8. As before, three horizontal lines (one solid and two dashed lines) are drawn with
ordinates of 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2. From Fig. 3.8(a), it is evident that in most of the cases the
10
C15 C30 C45 C60
C90 C120 C150 C180
DI_PIER
0
B6211 B6411 B6511 B6711 B6811 B6911
41 20
10
C15 C30 C45 C60
C90 C120 C150 C180
DI_ABT
0
B6211 B6411 B6511 B6711 B6811 B6911
Figure 3.8: Phase 1: Displacement index for 6 span straight and curved bridges
deviation from 1.0 is insignificant, i.e., the deviations are within lower and upper bounds
for all bridge cases and subtended angles except for cases (B6511, B6811, and B6911).
Also as shown in Fig. 3.8(b), the deviation at the abutment for subtended angles up to
60 degrees is within the upper or lower bound for all bridge cases except case (B6711),
where the deviation is within the limits for all subtended angles.
56
3.7.3 Comparison of abutment shear force demand
The normal (along direction of flow of traffic, local X-axis) and shear forces (perpendicular
to the direction of flow of traffic, along local Z-axis) at the abutment for straight and
curved 6 span bridges are shown in Fig. 3.9. Each bar in the figure represents the average
value of seven time history analyses. For clarity only 8 out of the 12 curved bridge cases
are shown along with the straight bridge. It is clear from Fig. 3.9(a) that the shear force
demand in the straight bridge is zero but is considerable for curved bridges, with an
increasing trend as the subtended angle of the curved bridge increases. However, the
maximum shear demand, which corresponds to the largest subtended angle, is less than
the normal force demand in the straight bridge. As shown in Fig. 3.9(b) the normal force
demand is higher for straight bridges than the curved bridges and hence conservative.
4500
ST C15 C30
Shear_ABT (kN)
C45 C60 C90

3000
C120 C150 C180
1500
0
B6211 B6411 B6511 B6711 B6811 B6911
7500
Normal_ABT (kN)
ST C15 C30
5000 C45 C60 C90
C120 C150 C180
2500
0
B6211 B6411 B6511 B6711 B6811 B6911
Figure 3.9: Phase 1: Shear and normal force demand at abutment for 6 span straight
and curved bridges
57
3.8 Investigation of Critical Case Study Bridge Con-
figurations for Phases 2 to 4
The critical case study bridge configurations in each phase are those that give the maxi-
mum deviation between straight and curved bridges.
Phase 2: Four cases with different pier heights having the same span lengths are
analyzed in this phase. It was found that in general, the pier height variations (case 5 of
Table 3.3) produce large deviations of the displacement response of the straight bridge
when compared with curved bridges of different subtended angles for both 4 and 6 span
bridges. Therefore, only the results of case 5 are presented for this phase.
Phase 3: Considered in this phase is the one case with different span lengths and
uniform pier heights.
Phase 4: Four cases with different pier heights and different span lengths are analyzed
in phase 4. It was found that in general pier height configuration (case 5 of Table 3.3)
and span length configurations (case 2 of Table 3.4) result in large deviations of the
displacement response of the straight bridges when compared with curved bridges. Hence,
only the results of these cases are presented in this phase.
Only the displacement index is considered for the critical bridge configurations in-
vestigated in phases 2 through 4, and is compared with the DI of phase 1. For further
details of the bridge configurations and results refer to Appendix B.
3.9 Comparison of DI for Critical Bridge Configu-

rations of All Phases under Transverse Seismic
Excitation
Results shown in Fig. 3.10 represent the DI corresponding to the piers and abutments for
6 span bridge configurations with subtended angles varying from 0 to 180 degrees. For
clarity, the results of curved bridges which correspond to subtended angles of 75, 105,
135, and 165 degrees are omitted. These figures are grouped by phase to see the effect of
pier height and span length irregularity as defined for each abutment case. The bridge
configurations presented for all phases are B6A11, B6A51, B6A12, and B6A52, where
A represents the abutment restraint case. The number of abutment restraint cases is 6,
58
after omitting the cases that have translational restraint in the longitudinal direction
(along local X-axis). Each bridge configuration (B6A11, B6A51, B6A12, and B6A52) is
analyzed for these 6 abutment cases numbered as 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (according to Table
3.2). For example, the first figure in Fig. 3.10 is labeled as B6211, B6251, B6212, and
B6252 which corresponds to the bridge configurations of phase 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively,
for abutment restraint case 2. In each figure, moving from left to right the subtended
angle increases and hence the departure from 1.0. For example, for bridge configuration
B6211, the DI corresponding to subtended angle of 30 degrees (C30) and 90 degrees
(C90) is 0.99 and 1.56 respectively. Also for the same curvature, as the bridge becomes
irregular, the DI deviates more than for the regular bridge configuration. For example,
the DI for regular bridge B6211 with subtended angle of 30 degrees is 0.99, while the DI
for irregular bridges B6251, B6212, and B6252 for the same subtended angle of 30 degrees
is 1.23, 1.03, and 1.10 respectively. From Fig. 3.10 it is clear that when the abutment
is restrained in at least one of the lateral directions (all abutment cases except case 7)
the DI that lies between the lower and upper bounds is for subtended angles of up to
30 degrees. Also, if the bridge is unrestrained in both lateral directions at the abutment
(case 7), the DI is within the upper and lower bound for all subtended angles. It is evident
from this discussion that reducing the stiffness of the abutment reduces the departure
of the DI from 1.0. Hence, the limit on curvature may increase to subtended angles
larger than 30 degrees, if smaller abutment stiffnesses are used for partially restrained
abutments. However, for the unrestrained abutment in both lateral directions, the DI
values are within the lower and upper bounds for all subtended angles and for all regular
bridges, as defined by AASHTO Guide Spec. (2011). Hence, these bridges can be treated
as straight regardless of the bridge curvature.
Note that the DI at the abutment for abutment cases 2 and 5 is zero because the
abutment is restrained in the transverse direction which gives zero displacement for the
straight bridge. The abutment has small transverse displacement for the curved bridges.
59
Figure 3.10: Phase 1 to 4: comparison of the DI of equivalent straight and curved 6 span
bridges
60
10 10
B6211 B6251 B6211 B6251
B6212 B6252 B6212 B6252
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
C15 C30 C45 C60 C90 C120 C150 C180 C15 C30 C45 C60 C90 C120 C150 C180
Abutment case No. 2 Abutment case No. 2
10 10
B6411 B6451 B6411 B6451
B6412 B6452 B6412 B6452
DI_PIER
1
DI_ABT
1
0 0
10 10
B6511 B6551 B6511 B6551
B6512 B6552 B6512 B6552
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
10 10
B6711 B6751 B6711 B6751
B6712 B6752 B6712 B6752
DI_PIER
DI_ABT
1 1
0 0
61
10 10
B6811 B6851 B6811 B6851
B6812 B6852 B6812 B6852
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
14
10 10
B6911 B6951 B6911 B6951
B6912 B6952 B6912 B6952
DI_PIER
DI_ABT
1 1
0 0
62
3.10 Comparison of DI for Critical Bridge Configu-
rations of All Phases under Longitudinal Seis-
mic Excitation
The number of case study bridges and details of the figures are the same as explained
for Fig. 3.10, except that Fig. 3.11 describes the results for the longitudinal direction.
From each part in Fig. 3.11, moving from left to right, the subtended angle increases
and hence the departure from value of 1.0. For example, for bridge configuration B6211,
the DI for the piers which corresponds to subtended angles of 30 and 180 degrees is 0.99
and 1.21 respectively. Also for the same curvature, as the bridge becomes irregular, the
DI deviates more than for regular bridge configurations. For example, the DI for regular
bridge B6211 with subtended angle of 180 degrees is 1.21 while the DI for irregular
bridges B6251, B6212, and B6252 for the same subtended angle of 180 degrees is 1.22,
1.5, and 1.55 respectively. Furthermore, from Fig. 3.11, for all bridge configurations, the
DI for the piers is within the upper and lower bound for curved bridges with subtended
angle of up to 90 degrees for the abutment cases restrained in at least one lateral direction
(abutment case 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9). However, the DI is within the bounds for curved bridges
with subtended angle up to 180 degrees if the abutment is free in both lateral directions
(abutment case 7). The same is true for the DI at the abutment, for subtended angles
up to 60 degrees for bridge configurations which correspond to abutment cases (2, 4, 5,
8, and 9), and up to a subtended angle of 180 degrees for abutment case 7.
63
Figure 3.11: Phase 1 to 4: comparison of the DI of equivalent straight and curved 6 span
bridges
64
41, 38, 37, 40
10 10
B6211 B6251 B6211 B6251
B6212 B6252 B6212 B6252
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
10 10
B6411 B6451 B6411 B6451
B6412 B6452 B6412 B6452
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
20, 28, 29, 39

10 10
B6511 B6551 B6511 B6551
B6512 B6552 B6512 B6552
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
10 10
B6711 B6751 B6711 B6751
B6712 B6752 B6712 B6752
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
65
10 10
B6811 B6851 B6811 B6851
B6812 B6852 B6812 B6852
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
10 10
B6911 B6951 B6911 B6951
B6912 B6952 B6912 B6952
DI_ABT
DI_PIER
1 1
0 0
66
3.11 Effect of Number of Spans on DI under Trans-
verse Seismic Excitation
The Displacement Indices of 4 span bridge configurations in phase 1 (same pier heights
and span lengths) for 6 abutment cases (2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 in Table 3.2) are obtained in
a similar manner to 6 span bridges. The DI of 6 span bridges for these abutment cases,
which were presented earlier in Fig. 3.9, are grouped by the number of spans with 4
span bridges in Fig. 3.12 and Fig. 3.13. For brevity, the DI is only shown for subtended
angles of 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 degrees. These figures allow the comparison of the
effect of number of spans on the DI for piers (Fig. 3.12) and abutments (Fig. 3.13). It
is evident from these figures that in general, the departure of the DI from 1.0 is larger
for 4 span bridges than 6 span bridges for the same subtended angle; however, the effect
is not significant. For further details on the results of 4 span bridges under longitudinal
and transverse excitation, refer to Appendix B. Note that the DI at the abutment for
abutment cases 4 and 5 is not applicable because the displacement at the abutment is
zero for the straight bridges.
10 10 10
B6211 B4211 B6411 B4411 B6511 B4511
1 1 1
DI_PIER
DI_PIER
DI_PIER
0 0 0
C30 C90 C150 C30 C90 C150 C30 C90 C150
Abutment case No. 2 Abutment case No. 4 Abutment case No. 5
10 10 10
B6711 B4711 B6811 B4811 B6911 B4911
1 1 1
DI_PIER
DI_PIER
DI_PIER
0 0 0
C30 C90 C150 C30 C90 C150 C30 C90 C150
Figure 3.12: Displacement index of pier for 4 and 6 span straight and curved bridges in
phase 1 grouped by number of spans
67
10 10 10
B6411 B4411 B6711 B4711 B6811 B4811
1 1 1
DI_ABT
DI_ABT
DI_ABT
0 0 0
C30 C90 C150 C30 C90 C150 C30 C90 C150
10
B6911 B4911
1
DI_ABT
0
C30 C90 C150
Abutment case No. 9
Figure 3.13: Displacement index of the abutment for 4 and 6 span straight and curved
bridges in phase 1 grouped by number of spans
3.12 Conclusions
The goal of the research described in this paper was to investigate the hypothesis made
by the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design that curved
bridges may be analyzed as if they are straight, provided the bridge is regular. For this
purpose, curved bridges with subtended angles varying from 0 to 180 degrees and having
the total arc length equal to the length of the equivalent straight bridge were examined.
Other parameters considered were the number of spans (four and six), and abutment
restraints (nine different cases) along with several pier heights and span lengths. The
equivalent straight bridges were designed using the Direct Displacement Based Design
procedure including these parameters. The resulting designs were then analyzed with
Inelastic Time History Analysis using both straight and curved bridge geometries. Each
bridge was subjected to 7 spectrum compatible time histories and average results were
tabulated. The average results of seven time histories were compared for both straight
and curved bridges for the two response quantities: (1) inelastic displacement profile of
the superstructure in terms of the displacement index; (2) shear forces at the abutments.
The following conclusions were drawn:
68
It was observed that deviation in the response of the curved bridge from the equiv-
alent straight bridge increases as the subtended angles become larger.
It was found that not only consecutive span length and pier height ratio are impor-
tant parameters to define the straight bridge irregularity (as classified by AASHTO
guide specifications) but also their location along the length of the bridge. However,
variations in span length, pier height, and number of spans did not significantly im-
pact the ability of a curved bridge to be analyzed as straight, within the limits of
those variables considered in this study.
In general, the deviation in the response of curved bridges compared to straight

bridges was higher in the transverse direction than in the longitudinal direction.
The type and degree of abutment restraint is a critical parameter in controlling

the response of the bridge. It is concluded that: (i) If the bridge is fully restrained
in the longitudinal direction, the curved bridge may not be analyzed as straight,
even for subtended angles as small as 15 degrees. The displacement demand is
significantly lower and the normal force demand is significantly higher compared to
the straight bridge. (ii) If the abutment is unrestrained/partially restrained in the
longitudinal direction, the curved bridge may be analyzed as straight for subtended
angles of up to 30 degrees. However, this limit may change to a lower value if
abutment stiffnesses greater than those considered in this study are used. (iii) If
the abutment is unrestrained in both lateral directions, the curved bridge may
be analyzed as straight for all subtended angles up to 180 degrees. Hence the
authors believe that abutment restraint conditions should be incorporated in Table
3.1 to decide if a curved bridge can be analyzed as an equivalent straight bridge.
Table 3.6 summarizes the maximum subtended angle for which the curved bridge
may be analyzes as an equivalent straight bridge, for different abutment restraint
conditions.
Lastly, while this research has aimed to address a large range of irregularities, caution
should be used when extrapolating beyond the limits of variables considered. Bridges
have been designed to one seismic intensity level, yet as a consequence of the varying
geometries considered, a wide range of levels of inelastic response were observed in the
study.
69
Table 3.6: Limit on maximum subtended angle of curved bridge in addition to Table 3.1
Limit on maximum
Abutment restraint condition
subtended angle (degrees)
Fully restrained in the direction of flow of traffic 0
Partially restrained in the direction of flow of
30
traffic1
Unrestrained in both directions (parallel and
180
perpendicular to direction of flow of traffic)
1
This limit on subtended angle may change slightly with increase or decrease in abutment stiffness.
70
Chapter 4
Direct Displacement Based Seismic

Design of Reinforced Concrete
Curved Bridges
Please note that this chapter is a self-contained paper formatted for submission to ASCE
Journal of Bridge Engineering where the word ‘this paper/study’ refers to the chapter
itself.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate issues related to the Direct Displacement Based Design
(DDBD) procedure of straight bridges when implemented for bridges with curved geome-
tries. This investigation is then used to extend the DDBD procedure of straight bridges
to curved bridges in both longitudinal and transverse directions. Case study bridges of
three different pier heightsthat account for different levels of pier stiffness irregularities,
each consisting of 4 and 6 spans, are considered with subtended angles of 30, 60, and
90 degrees. Furthermore two superstructure geometries are considered. For each of these
curved bridges, DDBD is carried out in both longitudinal and transverse directions. For
verification of the procedure, Inelastic Time History Analysis (ITHA) is performed using
seven spectrum compatible time histories. When results of DDBD and ITHA are com-
pared, it is concluded that the proposed DDBD procedure for curved bridges is capable
of predicting the seismic response accurately for all bridge cases in both longitudinal
71
and transverse direction with exception for irregular 6-span bridge case designed in the
transverse direction.
Keywords: Direct Displacement Based Design; Curved bridges; Longitudinal and trans-
verse direction; Inelastic time history analysis.
4.1 Introduction
The force-based design method still remains the norm in existing seismic design codes;
however, displacement based seismic design methods are often preferred due to the fol-
lowing reasons: (i) several conceptual deficiencies exist in force based design methods as
investigated by Priestley et al. (1993); (ii) force based design methods have difficulties
that limit their utility in achieving the goal of performance based design (SEAOC, 1995)
due to the fact that forces are poor indicators of damage potential. In this regard, several
displacement based design procedures have been developed (Freeman (1998); Panagio-
takos and Fardis (1999); Fajfar (1999); Xue (2001); Browning (2001)) over the last two
decades. However, the Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) method developed by
Priestley et al. (2007) seems to be promising and well equipped to address the aforesaid
deficiencies. Since the goal of DDBD is to design a structure to achieve a prescribed limit
state under a prescribed seismic hazard, a process which is more consistent with the
concept of performance based design. In recent years the DDBD method has developed
considerably with extensive research leading to the publication of a book on the DDBD
method (Priestley et al., 2007) and a model code (DBD12) edited by Sullivan et al.
(2012). Both outline the design approach for a range of structural typologies, especially
for buildings and bridges.
The methodology was initially developed by Kowalsky et al. (1995) for bridge columns
by characterizing the pier as a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system; this was ex-
tended to a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system for straight bridges by Calvi and
Kingsley (1995). Later, Kowalsky (2002), and Dwairi and Kowalsky (2006) developed the
effective mode shape technique to obtain the displacement pattern of irregular bridges,
a primary step in DDBD procedure. Botero (2004); Restrepo (2006); and Priestley et al.
(2007) studied the effect of higher modes on abutment shear and deck moments where
the last two authors propose the use of effective modal superposition, while the inelastic
response at the plastic hinge is determined from the first inelastic mode. Additionally,
72
Suarez and Kowalsky (2007) executed DDBD for bridges including soil structure interac-
tion. Recently (2014), the same authors proposed a stability based model for determining
the upper limit of the target displacement of bridge piers if controlled by P-∆ effects.
The aforementioned studies are limited to straight bridges with short to moderate
spans. With regard to other bridge typologies, Adhikari et al. (2010) extended the DDBD
method to long span straight bridges and proposed a revised effective modal superposition
technique to determine the effect of higher modes on the flexural strength of the bent,
since long span bridges can have first mode modal mass participation as small as 30
percent. Calvi et al. (2010) developed a framework for the seismic design of cable stayed
bridges, and Khan et al. (2013) extended the DDBD approach to Reinforced Concrete
(RC) deck arch bridges. The authors of this paper believe that the DDBD procedure
has not been implemented for curved bridges; therefore, the aim of this paper is to
understand the seismic behavior of curved bridges and to extend the existing DDBD
method (Priestley et al., 2007) to curved bridges.
This paper discusses the seismic behavior of curved bridges in comparison to straight
bridges, identifies issues, and proposes necessary modifications. The step-by-step DDBD
procedure proposed for curved bridges is presented (including those steps that are es-
sentially the same as in Priestley et al. (2007). The accuracy of the proposed DDBD
procedure is assessed from comparison of results with ITHA for a large number of case
study bridges.
4.2 Issues Identification for Curved Bridges in DDB-

D and Proposed Modifications
4.2.1 Issue 1: Coupling of the curved bridge response in longi-
tudinal and transverse directions
For seismic design of curved bridges, two principle directions (longitudinal and transverse)
are assumed using codified provisions (Caltrans, 2013; AASHTO, 2011). The longitudi-
nal direction is considered to be along the line joining the two abutments (along global
X-axis) and the transverse direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (along
global Z-axis) as shown in Fig. 4.1. The seismic response of a curved bridge in the longi-
tudinal and transverse directions is coupled in contrast to that of the uncoupled response
73
of a straight bridge. This behavior results from the geometric disposition of mass and
stiffness, the offset of a column from the line joining the two abutments, and the arching
effect due to the superstructure curvature. Coupled responses develop even if the curved
bridge is subjected to either longitudinal-only or transverse-only lateral forces. Thus, it
is necessary to provide stiffness to the lateral resisting members (piers and abutments)
in both principle directions, which is not the case for straight bridges. Care is required in
providing stiffness to the piers in both principle directions for static analysis during the
DDBD procedure i.e. the pier effective stiffness properties are provided in the direction
in which the bridge design is carried out, while in other principle direction the cracked
stiffness is used if the displacement ductility in that direction is less than 1; otherwise the
cracked stiffness is reduced to account for higher ductility demand. The effective stiffness
corresponds to the maximum force carried by the pier to the maximum displacement,
while the cracked stiffness corresponds to the yield force and the corresponding yield
displacement. Details about how these values are calculated are given in step 9 of the
proposed design process in the following section.
Centerline of deck Kcr,2 Keff,3

Abutment local Keff,2
Keff,1 Kcr,3
axes
x
Kcr,1
z F2
Z F1 F3
KABT, T
X KABT, R
Global axes
(b) Detail of analysis model
(a) Plan view of curved bridge
Note: Abutment local z-axis is along radial direction while x-axis is along tangential direction.
Similarly, at each point along the deck centerline the local z and x-axis are along radial and
tangential directions, respectively.
Figure 4.1: Curved bridge plan view and detail of analysis model
4.2.2 Issue 2: Ratio of abutment stiffness in two principle di-

rections
Within the DDBD process, the abutment stiffness is determined for the design direction
only (either longitudinal or transverse direction) while in the other principle direction the
74
abutment stiffness is unknown. Therefore, a certain ratio of abutment stiffness (radial to
tangential) can be assumed or calculated from the gravity load case. In this study, the
ratio of radial stiffness (local z-axis) to tangential stiffness (local x-axis) of the abutment
is kept equal to 1 which means that the stiffnesses of abutments in both radial and
tangential directions are equal; however different values can be assumed depending on
the abutment stiffnesses and restraint conditions.
4.2.3 Issue 3: Estimation of ratio of shear force (x) taken by

abutments
In the case of straight bridges analyzed under transverse lateral forces, the ratio of the
shear force resisted by a restrained abutment is due to the shear arising from the deck
superstructure, and the axial force in the deck superstructure is zero. However, for a
curved bridge, shear force as well as axial force exist in deck superstructure which is
resisted at the abutment in two principle directions (local, x and z-axis). Hence, to find
the ratio of shear force resisted at the abutments in the global transverse direction (Z-
axis), the radial (VABT −R ) and tangential (VABT −T ) forces resisted at the abutment are
transformed to the global transverse direction and then divided by the total base shear
force (Vb ). Calculations are shown in Fig. 4.2 for the left abutment.
Forces resisted at left abutment VABT= VABT-R sinθ + VABT-T cosθ

θ =angle subtended by the abutment (local x-axis)
θ
with global X-axis
VABT-T VABT-R Ratio of shear taken by left abutment=xL=VABT/Vb
VABT Similarly for right abutment: xR=VABT/Vb
Total shear ratio=x=xL+xR
Figure 4.2: Estimation of abutment shear force ratio (x)
4.3 Proposed Direct Displacement Based Seismic De-

sign of Curved Bridges
The issues (1 to 3) addressed in the previous section are resolved in the proposed DDBD
method for curved bridges. All the steps of the proposed DDBD method are shown in
75
Design Inputs: Geometry and preliminary section sizes for
non-seismic load combinations, material properties, seismic
masses, performance criteria and design displacement
response spectrum
Step 1: Estimate initial displacement profile of deck using (Eq. 4.1)

and find the design displacement profile for performance limit state
Step 2: Determine the equivalent SDOF system

displacement, Δd, and system mass, msys
Step 3: Estimate pier ductility demands and

equivalent viscous damping
Step 4: Choose the ratio of the forces taken by abutment and

estimate proportion of forces for piers
Step 5: Estimate equivalent system damping using Eq. 4.7
Step 6: Identify required effective period from design

displacement spectrum
Step 7: Determine the required effective stiffness,

Keff, and design base shear, Vb (Eq. 4.9)
Step 8: Distribute the base shear force
Step 9: Analyse the structure under the set of equivalent lateral forces
(Eq. 4.10) using appropriate pier and abutment stiffness in both lateral
directions and obtain displaced profile and distribution of internal forces
NO
Step 10: Check the convergence of
displacement profile and ratio of force
taken by abutments
YES
Step 11: Verify P-∆ effects
Step 12: Undertake capacity design
Figure 4.3: DDBD procedure for curved bridges
76
The issues (1 to 3) addressed in the previous section are resolved in the proposed DDBD
method for curved bridges. All the steps of the proposed DDBD method are shown in Fig. 3. The
design procedure is applicable to both longitudinal and transverse response directions; however,
the step-by-step proposed
Fig. 4.3. The design method
design procedure is explained
is applicable withlongitudinal
to both reference to and
the transverse
transverseresponse
response
of thedirections;
curved bridge shownthe
however, in Fig. 4.
step-by-step proposed design method is explained with reference
to the transverse response of the curved bridge shown in Fig. 4.4.
V1
∆2 ∆3 ∆4 V5 ∆d
∆1 m2 m3
m1 F F3 m4 ∆5 msys
2 F4 m5
F1
V2 V4 Keff
V3
Figure
Fig. 4.4: Deformed
4: Deformed and undeformed
and undeformed shape shape of typical
of typical 4-span4-span curved
curved bridgebridge
underunder trans-
transverse
verse excitation and equivalent SDOF system
excitation and equivalent SDOF system
Step 1: Choosing the inelastic displacement profile of the deck. The inelastic displacement
Step 1: Choosing the inelastic displacement profile of the deck. The inelas-
profile of the bridge is required to convert the MDOF system into an equivalent SDOF system,
tic displacement profile of the bridge is required to convert the MDOF system into an
which depends upon the critical element governing the design limit state. The design limit states
equivalent SDOF system, which depends upon the critical element governing the design
can be curvature, strain or the drift limit of the pier and/or a certain value of abutment
limit state. The design limit states can be curvature, strain or the drift limit of the pier
displacement.
and/or a In this study,
certain valuethe
of pier drift limit
abutment and abutment
displacement. Indisplacement
this study, thein the
pierlongitudinal
drift limit and
and
transverse direction
abutment is employed
displacement in as thelongitudinal
the design limit and
state.transverse direction is employed as the
design limit state.
The initial displacement profile for curved bridges, shown in Fig. 4 under transverse loading,
The initial displacement profile for curved bridges, shown in Fig. 4.4 under transverse
depends upon several parameters such as: (i) axial and torsional stiffness of the superstructure
loading, depends upon several parameters such as: (i) axial and torsional stiffness of
(ii) relative lateral stiffness
the superstructure (ii) of the superstructure
relative and of
lateral stiffness piers
the(iii) the abutmentand
superstructure restraint
piers in
(iii)both
the
lateral directions
abutment (iv) theindistribution
restraint both lateralofdirections
column stiffness
(iv) the along the bridge.
distribution The superstructure
of column stiffness along
properties can be
the bridge. The estimated from the
superstructure section can
properties designed for requirement
be estimated from the of gravity
section loading;
designed for
requirement
however, of gravity
the stiffness loading; however,
of the abutments the stiffness
in both lateral of to
directions theachieve
abutments
designindisplacement
both lateral
directions to achieve design displacement and distribution of lateral stiffness among piers
and distribution of lateral stiffness among piers due to inelastic behavior is unknown. Hence, the
due to inelastic behavior is unknown. Hence, the initial displaced shape of the deck is
initial displaced shape of the deck is either assumed or determined using a set of assumptions.
either assumed or determined using a set of assumptions. For the transverse direction,
Alfawakhiri and Bruneau (2000) suggested a half sine wave for the symmetric span of
simply supported straight bridges while Kowalsky (2002) proposed the effective mode
77
shape technique to estimate the initial displacement profile of irregular straight bridges.
Furthermore, model code (DBD12) proposes a displaced shape based on the geometry of
a straight bridge. In this study, a modified form of the model code expression (Eq. 4.1)
is proposed for regular curved bridges with abutments of finite stiffness
16
δi = ∆ABT + (1 − ∆ABT )(x4 − 2Ld x3 + L3d x) (4.1)
5L4d
where Ld is the total arc length of the bridge, xi is the distance of the ith node from the
left abutment along the centerline of the deck, and ∆ABT is the transverse displacement
(along global Z-axis) at the abutment. The displacement profile (∆i ) is then set by scaling
the assumed displaced shape (δi ) of the deck such that at least one pier or abutment
reaches the design limit state. Additionally, the displacement at the location of the piers
in the other principle direction is required to estimate the pier stiffness properties in that
direction. This will be evident in Step 9.
Step 2: Determining equivalent SDOF system displacement and system
mass. The properties of the equivalent SDOF system, shown in Fig. 4.4, are estimated
using the substitute structure approach of DDBD procedure (see Priestley et al. 2007).
The system design displacement (∆d ) and system effective mass (msys ) are obtained as
Pn Pn
mi ∆2i mi ∆i
∆d = Pi=1
n msys = i=1
(4.2)
i=1 mi ∆i ∆d
where mi and ∆i are the seismic mass and displacement of the deck node i, respec-
tively, and n is the total number of nodes along the bridge deck.
Step 3: Estimating pier ductility demands and equivalent viscous damping.
The deck and abutments are designed to remain elastic during a seismic event with the
pier being the inelastic member. Five percent damping is assigned to both the deck and
abutments while the individual pier damping is determined based on the corresponding
ductility of the piers. The ductility demand of each pier is estimated by dividing the
design displacement of the pier by the pier’s yield displacement. The yield displacement
of a cantilever pier can be obtained using Eq. (4.3), where the nominal yield curvature
(φy ) can be approximated by Eq. (4.4)
φy Hp2
∆y = (Single bending) (4.3)
3
78
2.25εy
φy = (Circular RC member) (4.4)
D
in which hef f is effective height of the pier including plastic hinges, εy is the yield strain
of longitudinal reinforcement, and D is the section depth in the direction of bending. For
other cases of column fixity, refer to Priestley et al. (2007).
To estimate the equivalent viscous damping (ζP,j ) for individual piers, the empirical
relation of Priestley et al. (2007) is used as given by Eq. (4.5). This equation assumes
Takeda thin hysteretic behavior and has been calibrated to match the results of non-linear
time-history analyses (see Priestley et al. 2007 for discussion).

µj − 1
ζp,j = 5 + 44.4 (%) (4.5)
πµj
Step 4: Estimating ratio of shear force carried by abutment and piers.

To gauge the fundamental mode proportions of the base shear, it is assumed that (x)
percent of the base shear is taken by the abutments and the remainder of the shear force
is resisted by the piers. This assumption is required since the value of (x), which is not
known, depends upon several parameters described in Step 1 and is assumed in the first
iteration of the design process. If the dimensions of the piers are the same and equal
flexural reinforcement is provided in all piers, then the shear force carried by the pier is
inversely proportional to the pier height, for piers with ductility greater than 1. For the
elastic column (ductility less than 1), this value is multiplied by pier ductility demand,
as given in Eq. (4.6):
1 µp,j
VP R,j = (Ductile column) VP R,j = (Elastic column) (4.6)
Hp,j Hp,j
For piers with different dimensions and hence different flexural strengths, a factor (αp )
known as the flexural strength ratio (i.e. pier strength normalized by a reference value) is
multiplied with Eq. (4.6). The strength of the piers is a design choice and can initially be
obtained by simplified calculations or by performing moment curvature analysis with trial
reinforcement content and an axial load calculated from the static load at the location
of the pier where plastic deformation is expected.
Step 5: Estimating equivalent system damping. Using the damping values for
individual piers calculated with Eq. (4.5) and with knowledge of the deck displacement
79
components and shear proportions from Eq. (4.6), a system damping value can be found
by weighting individual damping components using the following formula (Priestley et
al. 2007):
x(∆deck − ∆abt )ζss + x∆abt ζabt + (1 − x) rj=1 QP R,j ∆p,j ζp,j

P
ζsys = (4.7a)
x(∆deck − ∆abt ) + x∆abt + (1 − x) rj=1 QP R,j ∆p,j
P
VP R,j
QP R,j = Pr (4.7b)
j=1 VP R,j
where ζss and ζabt are the superstructure and abutment damping, respectively. ∆p,j is
the displacement at the top of each pier, and ∆abt is the average of both abutment
displacements. The subscript j represents the pier number and r is the total number of
piers.
Step 6: Identifying the effective period from the design displacement spec-
trum. In order to obtain the effective period (Tef f ) of the structure, the design displace-
ment spectrum is first scaled to account for the equivalent system damping value (ζsys ).
For this purpose, the EuroCode-8 damping correction factor for the far field is used, as
represented by Eq. (4.8). Then the effective period of the structure is obtained using the
system design displacement (∆d ), the design displacement spectrum scaled (by Eq. 4.8)
and the system equivalent viscous damping value (ζsys ), in accordance with the usual
DDBD procedure. 0.5
0.07
η= (4.8)
0.02 + ζsys
Step 7: Computing the required design base shear. The effective stiffness (Kef f )
as well as the design base shear (Vb ) are then computed using Eq. (4.9).
2
2π
kef f = msys Vb = kef f ∆d (4.9)
Tef f
Step 8: Distributing base shear force. The design base shear is distributed to the
inertial mass locations of the MDOF system using Eq. (4.10). Also, the design base shear
is distributed to the piers in proportion to the shear force ratio (from Step 4) and to the
80
abutment in proportion to the target displacement using Eq. (4.11)
mi ∆i
Fi = Pn Vb (4.10)
i=1 mi ∆i
VP R,j ∆ABT,k
Vp,j = (1 − x) Pr Vb VABT,k = x Vb (4.11)
j=1 VP R,j ∆ABT,1 + ∆ABT,2
where subscript k represents abutment 1 (left) or 2 (right). ∆ABT,1 and ∆ABT,2 are the
transverse displacements along global Z-axis at the nodes corresponding to the left and
right abutment, respectively.
Step 9: Analyzing the structure under the design forces. Linear static analysis
of the structure is then undertaken using a set of equivalent lateral forces obtained in
accordance with Eq. (4.10). The static analysis requires the stiffness properties of the piers
and abutments in both principle directions, as discussed previously in issue 1. For piers,
effective stiffness properties that correspond to the base shear at maximum displacement
is used in the analysis for the design direction. For the other principle direction, the
cracked stiffness of the piers is used, if the displacement in that direction is less than the
yield displacement of the pier; otherwise, the cracked stiffness is reduced to account for
higher ductility. Since the pier used in this study is circular; the pier cracked stiffness in
both principle directions should be the same and is determined using Eq. (4.13) from the
yield force (Eq. 4.12) and from yield displacement (Eq. 4.3).
Vp,j Vp,j
FY,j = (Ductile column) FY,j = (Elastic column)
1 + r∆ (µj − 1) µi
(4.12)
Vp,j FY,j
kef f,j = (Effective stiffness) kcr,j = (Crack stiffness) (4.13)
∆p,j ∆Y,j
in which FY,i is the yield force of the pier and r∆ is the ratio of post yield to cracked
stiffness.
Finally, the effective and cracked moment of inertias of the cantilever pier are deter-
mined using Eq. (4.14) where E is the modulus of elasticity of concrete and Hp is the
height of the pier:
81
3
Kef f,j Hp,j
Ief f,j = (Effective moment of inertia) (4.14a)
3E
3
Kcr,j Hp,j
Icr,j = (Crack moment of inertia) (4.14b)
3E
For a partially restrained abutment in the transverse direction, the abutment stiffness
in the design direction is calculated by dividing the shear force obtained from the design,
by the design displacement at the abutment. This abutment stiffness is provided in the
radial direction (local z-axis) as shown in Fig. 4.1 by KABT,R . As discussed in issue 2,
the abutment stiffness in the tangential direction (KABT,T ) is determined by multiplying
the abutment stiffness ratio (Kr ) with KABT,R .
Structural analysis is undertaken to identify the displacement profiles of the deck as
well as the ratio of the shear taken by the abutment (x). The displacement along the
global Z-axis is compared with the target displacement profile (∆i ) of Step 1. The shear
force ratio (x) is determined using the transformation of abutment shear forces along
radial and tangential directions to the global Z-axis and then dividing by the total base
shear, as shown in Fig. 4.2.
Step 10: Iteration and convergence of the design procedure. At this stage,
checks should be made to see if the design process has converged. At the beginning of the
design process, three important assumptions were made: first, the displacement pattern
of the deck in the design direction; second, the ratio of the shear taken by the abutments;
and third, the displacement of the pier in the principle direction other than the design
direction. By revising these assumptions against the results from Step 9, the design
process can be repeated until the displacement patterns (in both principle directions)
and ratio of shear force obtained from the elastic analysis match the design assumptions.
Step 11: Verifying P-∆ effects. Priestley et al. (2007) recommend Eq. (4.15)
to estimate the stability index (θ∆ ) for determining P-∆ effects; where P is the axial
load, ∆ is the lateral displacement at the point of contraflexure, and M is the pier
base moment due to seismic demand and should govern the column design. Otherwise
the actual design moment estimated from other design consideration should be used
in calculating stability index. If the stability index is greater than 0.1, the pier flexure
capacity should be amplified using Eq. (4.16); however, this value should not exceed 0.33.
82
P∆
θ∆ = (4.15)
M
Md = M + 0.5P ∆ (4.16)
Step 12: Capacity Design. DDBD is based on controlling the response of the
fundamental mode of vibration and does not explicitly evaluate higher modes, since
these are assumed to have little influence on bridge displacements. Higher mode effects
are, however, expected to have a significant impact on the internal forces; and therefore,
they should be evaluated, together with the effect of possible member over-strength, as
part of a rigorous capacity design procedure following the recommendation of Priestley
et al. (2007) or Sullivan et al. (2012).
4.4 Parametric study: Case Study Bridges and Anal-

ysis Model
The case studies consist of 4- and 6-span regular, semi-regular, and irregular curved
bridges having the same span arc length of 48 m and with three different layouts of pier
heights, as shown in Fig. 4.5. For each bridge, three superstructure curvatures with sub-
tended angles of 30, 60, and 90 degrees are included where the subtended angle is the
angle formed by the center of the circular arc joining the two abutments. Two super-
structure geometries/sections are used to incorporate the effect of super to substructure
stiffness. The total number of bridges is, therefore, 36. In Fig. 4.5, the letter B stands for
bridge while L, M, and H represent the pier heights and are equal to 8.5, 11, and 13.5 m,
respectively.
Spine/frame element modeling is used in elastic analysis to achieve the convergence
during DDBD iterations as well as for inelastic time history analysis. This type of mod-
eling is considered appropriate for determining the seismic demand in terms of global
displacement of the deck or shear/moment demand on the deck superstructure and piers.
The deck is modeled as a 3D elastic frame element with section dimensions and prop-
erties shown in Fig. 4.6. The superstructure dead load is calculated from the sectional
properties of the superstructure (represented by D1 and D2 in Fig. 4.6) using a unit
weight of concrete equal to 25 kN/m3 . A superimposed dead and live load equal to 30%
of the superstructure self-weight is also included, resulting in a total seismic weight of
83
incorporate the effect of super to substructure stiffness. The total number of bridges is, therefore,
36. In Fig. 5, the letter B stands for bridge while H, M, and L represent the pier heights and are
equal to 8.5, 11, and 13.5 m, respectively.
Four Span Bridges Six Span Bridges

Regular – BMMM Regular –BMMMMM
Semi-regular –BHML Semi-regular –BHHMML
Y
Irregular – BHLM Z Irregular – BHHLML
X
Global axis
Note: Two superstructure sections and three superstructure curvatures with subtended
angles of 30, 60, and 90 degrees are considered for all 6 bridge configurations.
All bridges have partially restrained abutment in both lateral directions.
Figure 4.5: Elevated view of 4- and 6-span curved bridges with various pier height con-
figurations
211 and 191 kN/m for D1 and D2 respectively. Depending upon the tributary area, the
seismic mass is distributed to the nodes by dividing each span of the superstructure into
four elements. The rotational mass of the deck is also calculated using tributary nodal
mass times d2w /12 where dw is the average width of top and bottom flange of the bridge
deck (for further details refer to Aviram et al. (2008)). Also, the curved span between
the two supports is divided into four straight elements. This discretization gives the same
response as a curved element with a maximum error of 1%. This error corresponds to
the maximum superstructure curvature with subtended angle of 90 degree considered in
this study (for details, refer to Appendix A). Furthermore, 1/3 of the pier self-weight is
lumped at the node connecting the pier top with the superstructure as recommended by
Priestley et al. (2007). Hollow piers with outer and inner diameter of 1.8 and 1.2 m are
used for all bridges. The piers are fixed at the base and idealized as pinned with the deck
superstructure because of a shear key between the deck and pier top, as shown in Fig.
4.6. The shear key prevents movement of the superstructure in both longitudinal and
transverse directions.
RUAUMOKO 3D uses a modified degrading stiffness model to characterize the in-
elastic behavior of the pier (Otani, 1974). This is accomplished by assigning a flexural
84
Deck section properties a+2b
Y
X a
Section (D1): a=7.0 m; b=3.5 m; c=5.5 m; d=2.0 m
2 2 2 c d
AXX=6.5 m ; ASZ= 1.5 m ; ASY= 5.5 m Z b
4 4 4
Deck axis
IXX=11.2 m ; IYY=70.8 m ; IZZ=4.5 m Shear key
Deck (flange and web)
thickness is equal to
Section (D2): a=6.0 m; b=2.5 m; c=4.5 m; d=2.0 m Pier outer diameter of
0.3 m
2 2 2 1.8 m and inner diameter
AXX= 5.9 m ; ASZ= 1.5 m ; ASY= 5.0 m of 1.2 m
4 4 4
IXX=9.6 m ; IYY=44.3 m ; IZZ=4.2 m
Typical section view of the bridge bent
Figure 4.6: Typical section view of the bridge bent along with deck sectional properties
plastic hinge to the expected regions in the piers and assigning the rest of the piers certain
cracked section properties, since the capacity design will insure that the pier does not
yield at these locations. The following parameters are assigned to the hysteretic model:
post-yield stiffness ratio r∆ = 5%, unloading stiffness factor α∆ = 0.5, reloading stiffness
factor β = 0.0, and reloading stiffness power factor of 1.0. This model is considered ap-
propriate for hysteretic behavior of RC bridge columns and is compatible with the design
assumptions. The flexural strength required at the plastic hinge is set by multiplying
the yield force obtained from DDBD (Eq. 4.13) by the pier height (Hp ). The cracked
moment of inertia (Icr ) of the pier is calculated from Eq. (4.14) using cracked section
stiffness (Kcr ) given by Eq. (4.12). Note that the cracked moment of inertia can also be
obtained from moment curvature analysis after the design of the pier is complete. For
further details on modeling of piers in RUAUMOKO using a moment curvature model,
refer to Khan et al. (2013).
4.5 Ground Motions and Design Spectrum

The acceleration and displacement spectrum shown in Fig. 4.7 is used as seismic input
for the design of the case study bridges. This design spectrum corresponds to that in the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO, 2009) for
soil type C (rock) and for a peak ground acceleration of 0.53g. To analyze the case study
bridges using inelastic time history analysis, a suite of seven accelerograms was selected
from (ATC55/FEMA440) real earthquake records which were previously used by Dwairi
et al. (2007) and Khan et al. (2014b). These accelerograms were made spectrum compat-
85
ible with the design spectrum using the software WAVGEN developed by Mukherjee and
Gupta (2002). The individual as well as average spectra of these accelerograms are shown
with the design spectrum in Fig. 4.7, which shows a close match between the average
and design spectrum.
1.6 Design Spectrum 1.5 Design Spectrum
Spectral Displacement (m)

EQ1 to EQ7 EQ1 to EQ7
Spectral Acceleration (g)
1.2
1.2 EQ_Avg EQ_Avg
0.9
0.8
0.6
ζ=5% ζ=5%
0.4
0.3
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Fig. 7 Comparison of seven compatible accelerograms spectra with design spectrum for spectral
acceleration (on Left) and spectral displacement (on Right)
for spectral acceleration (on Left) and spectral displacement (on Right)
Application of proposed DDBD to curved bridges
4.6The Application of Proposed

proposed DDBD procedure is applied to DDBD tobridges
the case study Curved using Brid-
the displacement
spectrum
ges of Fig. 7 as seismic input for both longitudinal and transverse directions for two
performance limit states: (i) pier drift limit of 3 percent (ii) abutment displacement limit of 160
The proposed DDBD procedure is applied to the case study bridges using the displace-
mm in the longitudinal direction and 100 mm in the transverse direction. Table 1 presents a
ment spectrum of Fig. 4.7 as seismic input for both longitudinal and transverse directions
summary of substitute structure parameters obtained from the proposed design method for both
for two performance limit states: (i) pier drift limit of 3 percent (ii) abutment displace-
mentlongitudinal
limit of 160and
mmtransverse directionsdirection
in the longitudinal for six case
andstudy
100 mm bridges with
in the a curvature
transverse of 60 degrees
direction.
Tableand
4.1deck section
presents (D1). The
a summary remaining structure
of substitute thirty case study bridges,
parameters obtainedthatfrom
consist of different
the pro-
posedsubtended angles and
design method fordeck
bothsections, along and
longitudinal withtransverse
these six case study bridges
directions for sixare summarizes
case study later
bridges with
using a curvatureindex.
a displacement of 60 degrees and deck section (D1 ). The remaining thirty case
study bridges, that consist of different subtended angles and deck sections, along with
theseTable 1: Equivalent
six case SDOF
study bridges aresystem properties
summarized of the
later casea study
using bridges index.
displacement
msys Teff Keff VB
Case No. ∆d (m) ρM (%) ξsys (%)
(kgx103) (sec) (kN/mx103) (kNx103)
BMMM 0.180 4170 99.8 6.3 1.01 164 29.4
Longitudinal
BHML 0.178 4170 99.9 6.4 1.00 164 29.2

direction
BHLM 0.179 4170 99.9 6.5 1.01 162 29.0

BMMMMM 0.20 6250 86 99.6 7.2 1.17 181 36.1
BHHMML 0.20 6240 99.5 6.9 1.15 185 37.1
BHHLML 0.198 6240 99.6 7.4 1.17 181 35.7
BMMM 0.26 3700 88.7 7.7 1.56 59.8 15.5
ansver
BHML 0.26 3700 88.6 7.7 1.57 59.5 15.5

se
BHLM 0.20 3640 87.1 7.4 1.19 102 20.5

Table 4.1: Equivalent SDOF system properties of the case study bridges
Case No. ∆d msys ρM ζsys Tef f Kef f (kN VB (kN

(m) (kg×103 ) (%) (%) (sec) /m×103 ) ×103 )
Tran. Direction Long. Direction BMMM 0.180 4170 99.8 6.3 1.01 164 29.4
BHML 0.178 4170 99.9 6.4 1.00 164 29.2
BHLM 0.179 4170 99.9 6.5 1.01 162 29.0
BMMMMM 0.20 6250 99.6 7.2 1.17 181 36.1
BHHMML 0.20 6240 99.5 6.9 1.15 185 37.1
BHHLML 0.198 6240 99.6 7.4 1.17 181 35.7
BMMM 0.26 3700 88.7 7.7 1.56 59.8 15.5
BHML 0.26 3700 88.6 7.7 1.57 59.5 15.5
BHLM 0.20 3640 87.1 7.4 1.19 102 20.5
BMMMMM 0.248 5180 82.6 7.9 1.51 89.9 22.3
BHHMML 0.251 5130 81.8 7.5 1.50 90.5 22.7
BHHLML 0.195 5000 79.9 7.3 1.15 150 29.2
4.7 Verification of Design Procedure

The accuracy of the proposed DDBD procedure is evaluated through inelastic time history
analysis using the model that was discussed previously. In the analyses, large displacement
analysis with an integration time step of 0.005s is used, which is also the step size of the
earthquake records. Elastic damping is introduced using the tangent stiffness Rayleigh
damping model (Type 6 in RUAUMOKO 3D) with a damping ratio of 5 percent specified
on the first and third modes of vibration, consistent with the damping model used in the
DDBD procedure and with the recommendations of Priestley et al. (2007). In the next
section, the results of the DDBD procedure are compared to the inelastic time history
analyses which represent the most accurate method of estimating seismic response of the
structure. Results are presented in terms of the estimated displacement profile of the
bridge deck, in addition to shear demand on piers and abutments, for both longitudinal
and transverse directions.
87
4.7.1 Comparison of displacement response under longitudinal
seismic excitation
In Fig. 4.8, the target displacement profile of the deck is compared with the displacement
envelope obtained from ITHA for seven compatible accelerograms. The thick dashed line
represents the displacement profile obtained from DDBD; the thin solid lines represent
the results of ITHA from seven individual accelerograms; and the thick solid line shows
the average of the seven accelerograms. Fig. 4.8 shows that the target displacement profile
is in close agreement with the average of the seven accelerograms; however, as expected,
some scatter is observed in the individual accelerograms.
4.7.2 Comparison of shear force under longitudinal seismic ex-

citation
Fig. 4.9 shows the shear force demand at the abutments and piers for the six case study
bridges. The terms A1A and A2A denote the axial forces at the left and right abutment,
which run parallel to the direction of traffic flow (along local x-axis). The terms A1S
and A2S denote the shear forces at the left and right abutment which run perpendicular
to the direction of traffic flow (along local z-axis). The shear force at the piers acts
in the longitudinal direction (along global X-axis). Comparisons of shear forces obtained
from DDBD (represented by triangles) and average of ITHA (represented by dark circles)
indicate that the results are in agreement. Because the modal participation factor is more
than 99% (see Table 4.1), the higher mode effect is not significant at the abutments and
piers.
4.7.3 Comparison of displacement response under transverse

seismic excitation
Fig. 4.10 compares the transverse target displacement profile of the deck obtained from
DDBD with the peak displacements recorded from ITHA. The line types and legends are
the same as shown in Fig. 4.8. The first three figures, which represent 4-span bridges,
show close agreement between DDBD and average ITHA results, as compared to the last
three figures which represent 6-span bridges. This result is likely due to the relatively
large effect of higher modes for 6-span bridges, as evidenced by the lower modal mass
88
0.30 0.30
Displacement (m) BMMM BHML
Displacement (m)
0.20 0.20

0.10 0.10 EQ Avg
EQ Avg
DDBD DDBD
0.00 0.00
0 48 96 144 192 0 48 96 144 192
Distance along deck centreline (m) Distance along deck centreline (m)
0.30 0.30
BHLM BMMMMM
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.20 0.20
0.10 EQ1 to EQ7 0.10 EQ1 to EQ7

EQ Avg EQ Avg
DDBD DDBD
0.00 0.00
0 48 96 144 192 0 48 96 144 192 240 288
0.30 0.30
BHHMML BHHLML
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.20 0.20
EQ1 to EQ7
0.10 EQ1 to EQ7 0.10
EQ Avg
EQ Avg DDBD
DDBD
0.00 0.00
0 48 96 144 192 240 288 0 48 96 144 192 240 288
Figure 4.8: Comparison of deck longitudinal displacement obtained from DDBD and
ITHA under longitudinal seismic excitation
participation for the 6-span bridges as compared to that for 4-span bridges. Comparison
of the displacement response for three case study bridges having 6-spans indicates that
as the irregularity of the bridge increases, the scatter between the results of DDBD
and average ITHA also increases i.e. the scatter in displacement for the bridge labeled
89
12000 12000
EQ1 to EQ7
EQ1 to EQ7
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)

9000 EQ Avg 9000 EQ Avg
DDBD
BMMM DDBD BHML
6000 6000
3000 3000
0 0
Location Location
12000 15000
BMMMMM
EQ1 to EQ7
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)

12000
9000
EQ Avg
EQ1 to EQ7
DDBD BHLM 9000
6000 EQ Avg
6000 DDBD
3000
3000
0 0
Location Location
16000 16000
BHHMML BHHLML
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
12000 12000
8000 EQ Avg 8000 EQ Avg
DDBD DDBD
4000 4000
0 0
Location Location
Figure 4.9: Comparison of shear force at abutments and piers obtained from DDBD and
ITHA under longitudinal seismic excitation
90
BMMMMM is lower than the bridge labeled BHHLML. In these cases, it is recommended
to use the effective mode shape technique for the convergence of target displacement
profile in DDBD (for details, refer to Kowalsky, 2002). This approach can reduce the
scatter between the results of DDBD and average ITHA.
4.7.4 Comparison of shear force under transverse seismic exci-

tation
Fig. 4.11 shows the shear force demand at the abutments and piers for the six case study
bridges. The terms A1A and A2A denote the axial forces at the left and right abutment,
which run parallel to the direction traffic flow (along local x-axis). The terms A1S and
A2S denote the shear forces at the left and right abutment which run perpendicular
to the direction of traffic flow (along local z-axis). The shear force at the piers runs
in the transverse direction (along global Z-axis). Comparison of shear forces obtained
from DDBD (represented by triangles) and the average of ITHA (represented by dark
circles) suggests that the results are in agreement, with one exception, i.e., where the
shear force at the abutment (A1S and A2S ) is underestimated by DDBD as compared
to ITHA. However, the shear forces at the abutment can be corrected using effective
modal superposition technique. The effective modal superposition procedure is similar
to traditional modal analysis, except that effective stiffness properties are used for eigen
value analysis and the first mode actions are taken from the DDBD procedure. For further
details, the readers are referred to Priestley et al. (2007), Sullivan et al. (2012), and Khan
(2010).
4.7.5 Displacement Index

A Displacement Index (DI) is defined as a mean to quantify the deviation of target
displacement obtained using DDBD approach from that of average inelastic time history
analysis displacement. This index is calculated by dividing the target displacement at
location of piers by the inelastic time history average displacement at the corresponding
piers location. Three values (minimum, average, and maximum) of the DI are calculated
for each case study bridge. If the DI value is close to 1, then DDBD target displacement
matches with average inelastic time history displacement. Values greater than 1.0 imply
that the target displacement is greater than average inelastic time history displacement
91
0.40 0.40
BMMM BHML
0.30 0.30
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.20 0.20
EQ Avg EQ Avg
0.10 0.10
DDBD DDBD
0.00 0.00
0 48 96 144 192 0 48 96 144 192
0.40 0.40
BHLM BMMMMM
0.30 0.30
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.20 0.20
0.10 EQ1 to EQ7 0.10 EQ1 to EQ7

EQ Avg EQ Avg
DDBD DDBD
0.00 0.00
0 48 96 144 192 0 48 96 144 192 240 288
0.40 BHHMML 0.40
BHHLML
0.30 0.30
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.20 0.20
0.10 EQ1 to EQ7 0.10 EQ1 to EQ7

EQ Avg EQ Avg
DDBD DDBD
0.00 0.00
0 48 96 144 192 240 288 0 48 96 144 192 240 288
Figure 4.10: Comparison of deck transverse displacement obtained from DDBD and
ITHA under transverse seismic excitation
and is therefore conservative. Values less than 1.0 indicate that the target displacement
is under-predicted compared to inelastic time history displacement. Fig. 4.12 summarizes
the results of 72 bridge designs where each figure represents 18 bridges (three cases for
92
9000 12000
Shear Force (kN) EQ1 to EQ7 EQ1 to EQ7
BHML
Shear Force (kN)

EQ Avg 9000 EQ Avg
6000
DDBD BMMM DDBD
6000
3000
3000
0 0
Location Location
15000 18000
BHLM BMMMMM
EQ1 to EQ7 15000
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)

12000
EQ Avg 12000
9000 EQ1 to EQ7
DDBD
9000 EQ Avg
6000 DDBD
6000
3000 3000
0 0
Location Location
20000 24000
BHHMML BHHLML
Shear Force (kN)
Shear Force (kN)
16000
18000
12000 EQ1 to EQ7 EQ1 to EQ7
EQ Avg 12000 EQ Avg
8000 DDBD DDBD
6000
4000
0 0
Location Location
Figure 4.11: Comparison of shear force at abutments and piers obtained from DDBD
and ITHA under transverse seismic excitation
93
each 4-and 6-span bridges with three subtended angles). The difference between these
figures (a to d) is the design direction (either longitudinal or transverse) and the deck
section (either D1 or D2 ) such as in Fig. 12(a) all 18 case study bridges are designed in
longitudinal direction that have deck section D1 . In each figure the DI is on X-axis while
the Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function (ECDF) is on Y-axis.
Figs. 4.12(a) and 4.12(c) show the bridges designed in longitudinal directions for deck
section D1 and D2 , respectively where the minimum and maximum values of DI vary
between 1.0 and 1.08 indicating that the target displacement of the pier is either equal
or slightly greater than average inelastic time history analysis displacement for all bridges,
and hence conservative. Fig. 4.12(b) shows the bridges design in transverse direction for
deck section D1 where it is clear from the minimum values of DI that approximately
50% of the bridges have at least one pier that has DI less than 1. However, three out
of eighteen bridges (ECDF=16%) have DI less than 0.81. These three bridges are 6-
span bridges (BHHLML) with subtended angles of 30, 60, and 90 degrees where the
DI corresponds to the right most piers near abutment. Although DDBD under-predict
the displacement of this pier but as the pier was expected to be elastic from design, this
underestimation may not be critical. For the remaining case study bridges the average and
maximum values of DI lie between 0.97 and 1.10 and the design is consider acceptable.
Same explanations apply to Fig. 4.12(d) that corresponds to bridges having deck section
D2 and are designed in the transverse direction, however, the minimum values of DI
shift more to the left and maximum values to the right in comparison to Fig. 4.12(b).
This indicates that the reduction in the superstructure to substructure stiffness can cause
slight increase in departure of DI from 1. Furthermore, it is noted from these results that
significant departure of DI from 1 is caused by the pier stiffness irregularity than that
found from variation of bridge curvature (subtended angles of 30. 60, and 90 degrees)
indicating that the effect of pier stiffness irregularity is more important than the curvature
irregularity.
4.8 Conclusions
This study investigated the issues in applying the DDBD procedure for straight bridges
to curved bridges. It was found that, unlike straight bridges, the seismic response of
curved bridges is coupled in both lateral directions. Hence, the following modifications
94
1.0 1.0
Min Min
0.8 0.8 Avg
Avg
Max
0.6 Max 0.6
ECDF
ECDF
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4
DI DI
(a) Longitudinal direction: 4-and 6-span (b) Transverse direction: 4-and 6-span
bridges with deck superstructure D1 and bridges with deck superstructure D1 and
subtended angles (30, 60, and 90 degrees) subtended angles (30, 60, and 90 degrees)
1.0 1.0
Min
0.8 Min 0.8
Avg
Avg Max
ECDF
0.6 Max 0.6
ECDF
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4
DI DI
(c) Longitudinal direction: 4-and 6-span (d) Transverse direction: 4-and 6-span
bridges with deck superstructure D2 and bridges with deck superstructure D2 and
subtended angles (30, 60, and 90 degrees) subtended angles (30, 60, and 90 degrees)
Figure 4.12: DI for all case study bridges designed in both longitudinal and transverse
directions
were proposed to extend the current DDBD procedure for straight bridges to curved
bridges: (i) the assumption of lateral force/stiffness distribution at abutments in both
lateral directions; (ii) the consideration of appropriate pier stiffnesses in both lateral
directions required for elastic analysis during the iterations of the DDBD process; (iii)
determination of the ratio of shear force resisted by the abutments. The parametric
95
study consisted of six case study bridges having 4 and 6 spans with different pier height
configurations. In addition, two deck superstructures and three subtended angles (30, 60,
and 90 degrees) were considered for these six case study bridges. All case study bridges
were designed using the extended DDBD method in both longitudinal and transverse
directions. To check the accuracy of the extended DDBD method, inelastic time history
analysis (ITHA) was performed using seven spectrum compatible time histories and the
results of DDBD were compared with ITHA. The following conclusions were drawn:
The extended DDBD procedure is capable of capturing the target displacement

profile of the deck accurately in both longitudinal and transverse directions for all
case study bridges (regular, semi-regular, and irregular bridges as defined in Fig.
4.5) with various degrees of superstructure curvature except for 6-span irregular
bridge case (BHHLML). Relatively large deviation is observed between the target
and average ITHA displacement for this case study bridge designed in the transverse
direction. For such a case, the authors propose the use of effective mode shape
technique to converge on target displacement profile of the deck.
The inelastic action such as flexure strength of the piers at the location of the
plastic hinge is accurately predicted by the DDBD method for both longitudinal
and transverse directions for all bridge cases in both longitudinal and transverse
directions with exception of 6-span irregular bridge that slightly under-predict the
flexural strength of one pier.
The elastic action such as the abutment axial and shear forces match with the
demand obtained from ITHA for longitudinal and transverse directions except the
shear force for the transverse direction. This shows that the higher mode effects
are important for the elastic actions at abutments and should be considered using
effective model superposition technique as part of the capacity design approach.
The moment demand at the deck is underestimated by the DDBD method in the
transverse direction which can also be evaluated using effective model superposition
technique.
It was found from results that with the decrease in superstructure to substructure
stiffness, the deviation between target displacements predicted by DDBD approach
and average ITHA displacement envelope increases. Furthermore, large variation
between the target displacement and ITHA displacement is caused by pier stiffness
96
irregularity than the superstructure curvature. This indicates that pier stiffness
irregularity is more important parameter than the bridge curvature.
97
Chapter 5
Equivalent Viscous Damping Model

for Short Period Reinforced
Concrete Bridges
Please note that this chapter is a self-contained paper submitted to ASCE Journal of
Bridge Engineering where the word ‘this paper/study’ refers to the chapter itself.
Abstract
This paper investigates the effect of spectral shape (intensity and width of the con-
stant acceleration region) and post yield stiffness ratio on equivalent viscous damping
for short period reinforced concrete bridge columns (effective period <1 sec). The Modi-
fied Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model, with parameters appropriate to bridge
columns (often termed ‘Takeda Thin’ in the literature) is used for analysis. Insight re-
garding the importance of these parameters is provided and a new equivalent viscous
damping model is proposed which includes the effect of spectral shape and post yield
stiffness ratio, as well as effective period and ductility. The proposed damping model is
compared to two existing models. The results indicate that significant improvement is
achieved in predicting the peak displacement using the proposed damping model when
compared to existing models.
Keywords: Equivalent viscous damping; Direct Displacement-Based Seismic Design;
Short period SDOF systems.
98
5.1 Background
Over the past several decades it has been agreed upon that inertial forces induced
by ground motion are poorly correlated with damage (Priestley (1993); Priestley et
al. (2007); Calvi et al. (2013)). To better control inelastic lateral displacements, dis-
placement based design procedures have been developed. One such method is the Direct
Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) approach, outlined in its current form by Priest-
ley et al. (2007). The DDBD approach utilizes the concept of equivalent linearization
to predict the response of inelastic systems with equivalent linear properties of effective
stiffness and equivalent viscous damping. Several studies have been conducted to verify
the performance of this method for a variety of structural systems where the effective
periods are greater than 1 sec. However, it is the authors’ hypothesis that the current
models to characterize equivalent viscous damping overestimate the peak inelastic dis-
placement for short period structural systems (those with an effective period less than 1
sec). This overestimation is due to the underestimation of equivalent viscous damping,
which is the focus of this study.
The concept of equivalent viscous damping was first proposed by Jacobsen (1930)
to approximate the steady forced vibration response of linear single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) damped systems. In this method, the stiffness of the equivalent system is set
equal to that of the real system and the damping ratio is estimated by equating the
energy dissipated per cycle of the real damping force to that of the equivalent damping
force. Later, Jacobsen (1960) extended this idea to yielding SDOF systems based on an
equivalent damping ratio. Jacobson’s study was based on several assumptions which are
not typically satisfied under seismic excitation, such as consideration that systems are
subjected to harmonic excitation of a prescribed frequency (real ground motions exhibit
varied frequency content). Details of the various assumptions and their impact on equiv-
alent viscous damping are discussed in Dwairi et al. (2007). Jennings (1968) and Hadjian
(1982) found that if the equal energy principle is employed, different methods of treat-
ing the period shift (i.e., consideration of softening of the system through the use of an
equivalent or effective stiffness) leads to different equivalent viscous damping ratios. Fur-
thermore, for a given period shift, variations in the hysteretic model also yield variations
in the equivalent damping ratio. Some of the studies that are considered important with
regard to period shift and hysteretic models are highlighted below.
Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964) proposed that the period shift be defined by the
99
equivalent stiffness at maximum displacement, and the equivalent viscous damping by
equating the dissipated energy per cycle of the nonlinear system to that of the equivalent
linear system for harmonic excitation. Gulkan and Sozen (1974) obtained the equivalent
damping ratio from physical experiments by equating the input energy of the inelastic
system to the energy of the equivalent linear system. While using the same equivalent stiff-
ness definition as Rosenblueth, Kowalsky et al. (1995) used secant stiffness at maximum
deformation and the Takeda hysteretic model to derive an equation for the equivalent
damping ratio using an unloading stiffness factor of 0.5 and post yield to initial stiffness
ratio of 0.05. Miranda and Ruiz-Garcı́a (2002) compared these three methods and found
that for a given ground motion and level of inelastic behavior, the largest response is pre-
dicted by Gulkan and Sozen that uses the smallest value of equivalent damping, followed
by Kowalsky, then by Rosenblueth, which predicts the lowest response with the largest
value of equivalent viscous damping. The work of Iwan (1980) and a more recent study
by Kwan and Billington (2003) were based on statistical investigations where their pro-
posed empirical equations for the equivalent period and equivalent damping ratio were
obtained by minimizing the root mean square of the error in the maximum displacements
from the actual inelastic and equivalent linear systems. Iwan (1980) considered 12 ground
motions with a period range from 0.2–4 sec. while Kwan and Billington (2003) consid-
ered 6 hysteretic models and 20 ground motions in the period range from 0.1–1.5 sec.
It was reported by Dwairi et al. (2007) that these two methods yield similar estimates
of equivalent damping as that from Gulkan and Sozen (1974) for reinforced concrete
members.
It is important to note that Rosenblueth and Herrera (1964), Gulkan and Sozen
(1974), and Kowalsky et al. (1995) use a period shift based on equivalent stiffness of
the SDOF system, while Iwan (1980), and Kwan and Billington (2003) obtained the
period shift based on minimizing the root mean square of the error in displacement.
Although it is common to all methods that the equivalent damping ratio is a function
of ductility with modification for different hysteretic models, none of the studies aim to
consider the effect of spectral shape and post-yield stiffness ratio on the response of short
period structural systems. It was observed by Mahin and Bertero (1981) that moderate
hardening with a post-yield stiffness ratio of 0.05 can significantly increase displacements
in structural systems with short to medium period ranges, but has a marginal influence
on the displacement response for long periods.
100
Blandon and Priestley (2005) proposed equivalent viscous damping as a function of
hysteretic model type, ductility, and effective period (which corresponds to the effective
stiffness at maximum displacement) for SDOF systems. Their study was based on 6
earthquake records, 6 different hysteretic models, and periods between 0 to 4 sec. in
increments of 0.5 sec. They observed that the variation of individual ground motions was
significant and further study was suggested to minimize the scatter of individual ground
motions from proposed average damping values. In 2007, Dwairi et al. proposed a new
equivalent damping model considering 100 real earthquake records (ATC55/FEMA440),
4 different hysteretic rules, and periods from 0 to 5 sec. at intervals of 0.1 sec. Their
model is also a function of hysteretic characteristics, ductility, and effective period, and
was developed based on average nonlinear time history analysis results. Note that none of
the studies considered the effect of post-yield stiffness ratio or spectral shape on equivalent
viscous damping, both of which are considered in this study.
5.2 Research Objective

The objective of the research described in this paper is to investigate the effect of design
spectrum shape and post-yield stiffness ratio on the equivalent viscous damping of short
period (less than 1 sec.) SDOF bridge systems. For this purpose eight different design
spectra are considered, i.e., five with varying widths of the constant acceleration region
while keeping the same intensities, and three with different intensities while keeping the
same width of the constant acceleration region. In addition, instead of using individual
ground motions, multiple suites of seven ground motions are used. Only the Modified
Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model shown in Fig. 1(a) is employed with a post
yield stiffness ratio (r), and with unloading stiffness factor (α) equal to 0.5 and reloading
stiffness factor (β) equal to 0.0. This hysteretic model is used because it has been shown
to be the most appropriate for bridge columns forming plastic hinges (Priestley et al.,
2007).
5.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping

Equivalent viscous damping equations are often expressed as the sum of two components
as shown in Eq. (5.1).
ζeq = ζel + ζhyst (5.1)
101
where ζel corresponds to the damping in the elastic range and ζhyst corresponds to the
damping due to hysteretic energy dissipation. Damping in the elastic range is used to rep-
resent the damping that is not captured by the hysteretic model adopted for the analysis
such as energy dissipation due to nonlinearity in the elastic response, soil-structure in-
teraction, and interaction with non-structural elements. Traditionally, this term is taken
as 5 percent of critical damping for reinforced concrete structures, while a lower value is
often used for steel structures.
dp
β dp F
F rk0
fy
dp=dm -dy ku=k0(dy/ dm)α A1
k0 d
d
dy dm
ku A2
rk0 -fy
(a) Hysteretic model parameters (b) Hysteretic area for damping calculation
Figure 5.1: Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model: (a) hysteretic model
parameters; (b) hysteretic area for damping calculation
The simplest approach for estimation of hysteretic damping is proposed by Jacobsen

(1960), as given by Eq. (5.2), where A1 is the area of the hysteretic loop and A2 is the
area of the rigid-perfectly plastic rectangle that encloses the loop. Fig. 5.1(b) shows the
graphical representation of the parameters.
2 A1
ζhyst = (5.2)
π A2
Grant et al. (2005) found that the elastic and hysteretic components of damping
should not be added directly since hysteretic damping is tied to the secant stiffness,
while elastic damping is tied to either initial or tangent stiffness. Grant et al. (2005) pro-
posed factors that are applied to the elastic damping before combination with hysteretic
102
damping, depending on hysteretic model type and choice of initial versus tangent stiffness
damping. The model is expressed as Eq. (5.3) where κ is the multiplier on the elastic
damping, µ is the displacement ductility, and λ depends on hysteretic and elastic damp-
ing models. For the ‘Thin Takeda’ model used for bridge columns, λ= -0.378 for tangent
stiffness proportional damping, and 0.340 for initial stiffness proportional damping.
κ = µλ (5.3)
Equivalent viscous damping models proposed by Priestley et al. (2007), Blandon and
Priestley (2005), and Dwairi et al. (2007) are shown for the Takeda thin hysteretic model
in Eqs. (5.4–5.6) respectively. Eq. (5.4) assumes 5 percent tangent stiffness proportional
damping and includes the adjustments proposed by Grant et al. (2005), while Eqs. (5.5)
and (5.6) are more generic and allow the selection of the value and type of elastic damping
model independently of the hysteretic damping.

µ−1
ζeq = 0.05 + 0.444 (for r=0.0) (5.4)
πµ

0.95 1 1
ζeq = κζel + 1 − 0.5 − 0.1rµ 1+ (5.5)
1.3π µ (Tef f + 0.85)4

µ−1
ζeq = κζel + Cst (for r=0.0) (5.6a)
πµ
Cst = 0.5 + 0.4(1 − Tef f ) (for Tef f ≤1) (5.6b)
Cst = 0.5 (for Tef f >1) (5.6c)
where Tef f is the effective period and r is the post yield stiffness ratio of the SDOF
system.
5.4 Methodology for Development of Equivalent Vis-

cous Damping Model
The methodology implemented in this study is similar to the approach outlined by Blan-
don and Priestley (2005), and Dwairi et al. (2007) and is outlined below. The process is
103
applied to several parametric studies, as will be discussed throughout the balance of the
paper.
0.3
ζ=5%

Design Spectrum
0.2 EQ1 to EQ7
EQ Avg
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Effective Period (sec)
Step 1: Generation of average compatible design spectrum. A design spec-

trum and a suite of seven accelerograms are selected. These accelerograms are made
spectrum compatible with the design spectrum at 5 percent damping using the computer
program WAVGEN developed by Mukherjee and Gupta (2002), where the recorded ac-
celerogram is modified such that the temporal variations in its frequency content are
retained in the synthesized accelerogram. Once the seven spectrum compatible records
are obtained, the displacement response spectra for each are calculated using SPECTRA
by Carr (2007) for 20 different values of damping ranging from 5 to 65 percent. The
average values of the design spectrum for these seven compatible accelerograms at the
corresponding 20 values of damping are then obtained, which represent average compat-
ible design spectra. For example, Fig. 5.2 shows the individual as well as the average
design spectra of seven compatible accelerograms along with the design spectrum for 5
percent damping. Some scatter is observed for individual accelerograms; however, the
average design spectra closely match the design spectrum. The average design spectra
for four of the damping values are shown in Fig. 5.3.
Step 2: Determination of design displacement demand. The effective period
and ductility level (µ) are selected and the equivalent viscous damping (ζeq ) is estimated.
For the first iteration the equivalent viscous damping is estimated using the damping
104
Eq. (5.4) proposed by Priestley et al. (2007). The design displacement demand (∆d ) is
obtained by entering the average design spectra with the effective period (Tef f ) to the
point of the estimated equivalent viscous damping value as shown in Fig. 5.3. Linear
interpolation is used to find the damping value if it lies between two damping values of
the average design spectra.
0.3
ζavg=5%

ζavg=9%
ζavg=18%
0.2
ζavg=36%
0.1
∆d
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Effective Period (sec)
Figure 5.3: Average design spectra of suite of seven compatible accelerograms
Step 3: Determination of SDOF system properties. The value of inertial mass

is chosen, which is kept constant for all analysis. The effective stiffness (Kef f ) of the
equivalent system is determined from the mass (m) and effective period using Eq. (5.7).
The required strength (Vb ) that corresponds to the design displacement is determined
using Eq. (5.8), while the yield displacement (∆y ) is obtained with Eq. (5.9).
2
2π
kef f = m (5.7)
Tef f
Vb = kef f ∆d (5.8)
∆y = ∆d µ (5.9)
Step 4: Characterization of SDOF system for nonlinear time history anal-

ysis. The yield strength (Fy ) of the SDOF system is obtained as a function of (Vb ), post
yield stiffness ratio, and ductility using Eq. (5.10) while the cracked section stiffness (Kcr )
is obtained according to Eq. (5.11).
105
Vb
Fy = (5.10)
1 + r(µ − 1)
Fy
Kcr = (5.11)
∆d
The nonlinear time history analysis is performed using the suite of seven compatible
accelerograms which are also used in step 1 for generation of the average design spectrum.
The peak results of each analysis are averaged (ignoring the sign of the response), to
determine the average nonlinear time history displacement (∆N T HA ). The nonlinear time
history analysis is accomplished using the computer program RUAUMOKO 3D (Carr,
2009) using Newmark’s average acceleration integration scheme with β=0.25. The same
integration scheme is used in the program SPECTRA to generate displacement response
spectra from the accelerograms.
Step 5: Convergence criteria. The error between design displacement (∆d ) and
∆N T HA , determined in steps 3 and 4 respectively, is calculated as an absolute difference
between the two. This value is checked against the tolerance level which is taken as
1.5 percent of the design displacement. If the error is less than the tolerance level then
the value of the equivalent damping has converged, otherwise a new value of design
displacement is chosen, which is taken as halfway between the previous and current
values. The computed new design displacement and known effective period (from step
2) are used to determine the new value of equivalent damping. Steps 3 to 5 are repeated
until convergence is achieved. It was found that the number of iterations for convergence
varies from 2 to 15 and increases as the period of the SDOF system reduces and the
ductility increases.
Note that the methodology can be applied to other hysteretic model types by us-
ing appropriate parameters required for that hysteretic model in nonlinear time history
analysis.
5.5 Investigation of Effect of Design Spectrum Shape

on Equivalent Viscous Damping
For short period structures (Tef f less than 1 sec.), it is the authors’ hypothesis that
equivalent damping is a function of the shape of the design spectrum in addition to the
106
parameters investigated by Blandon and Priestley (2005) and Dwairi et al. (2007), i.e.
effective period, ductility and hysteretic model. To evaluate this hypothesis, a parametric
study was undertaken which included 4 ductility levels (1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 6), effective
periods ranging from 0 to 1 sec. with an increment of 0.2 sec., and the Takeda thin
hysteretic model with a post yield stiffness ratio (r) of 0.025. Three different design
spectra are used to determine the effect of spectral intensity and width of the constant
acceleration region for one suite of seven compatible accelerograms.
2.0 0.4
DS1 DS2

DS1
Spectral Aceeleration (g)
DS3 DS2
1.5 0.3 DS3
1.0 Tsa=Tf -Ti 0.2
0.5 0.1
0.0 0
0 Ti 0.5 Tf 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
(a) Acceleration response spectra (b) Displacement response spectra
Figure 5.4: Three design spectra with different intensity level: (a) acceleration response
spectra; (b) displacement response spectra
5.5.1 Effect of spectral intensity on equivalent viscous damping

To evaluate the effect of spectral intensity on damping, three different design acceleration
spectra are generated based on the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic
Bridge Design (2009). These spectra have peak ground accelerations (PGA) of 0.31, 0.53
and 0.64g, labeled as DS1, DS2 and DS3 respectively in Fig. 5.4(a). Each spectrum has
the same width of the constant acceleration region (Tsa ) but different intensity levels.
The width of the constant acceleration region is equal to the difference of the periods
Tf and Ti as shown in Fig. 5.4(a). The corresponding displacement spectra are shown
in Fig. 5.4(b). Analysis is carried out using the methodology explained earlier for the
107
0.4 0.4
(a) Teff =0.2 sec (b) Teff =0.4 sec
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
DS1 DS1
0.1 DS2 0.1 DS2
DS3 DS3
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement Ductility Displacement Ductility
0.4 0.4
(c) Teff =0.6 sec (d) Teff =0.8 sec
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
DS1 DS1
0.1 DS2 0.1 DS2
DS3 DS3
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.4
(e) Teff =1.0 sec
Equivalent Damping
0.3
0.2
DS1
0.1 DS2
DS3
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement Ductility
Figure 5.5: Comparison of the equivalent viscous damping obtained for three design
spectra with different intensities for short periods range of SDOF system
parameters discussed in the previous paragraph for the three design spectra shown in
Fig. 5.4. Results are presented below.
In Fig. 5.5 the equivalent viscous damping needed to equate the design and nonlinear
time history displacement is plotted against ductility for the three design spectra of Fig.
5.4 for five effective periods. The results indicate that the equivalent viscous damping
108
is the same for all three spectral intensity values that correspond to the same ductility
level and effective period as all three points converge to the same point on the curve. For
example, in Fig. 5.5(a) at ductility of 4, all three spectral shapes give damping values of
approximately 31 percent. This trend is the same for all period ranges of Fig. 5.5(a–e).
Thus, it can be concluded that equivalent viscous damping is independent of spectral
intensity level across all short period ranges considered. Furthermore, equivalent viscous
damping increases with increasing ductility and with decreasing effective period.
1.5 0.5
Tsa5 S1 S2
Tsa1
Spectral Aceeleration (g)

0.4 S3 S4
S5
1.0 Tsa2
0.3
Tsa3
0.2
0.5 Tsa4
S1 S2 0.1
S3 S4
S5
0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
(a) Acceleration response spectra (b) Displacement response spectra
Figure 5.6: Five design spectra with different widths of constant acceleration region: (a)
acceleration response spectra; (b) displacement response spectra
5.5.2 Effect of width of constant acceleration region on equiv-

alent viscous damping
To evaluate the effect of the width of the constant acceleration region, five design ac-
celeration spectra are generated based on the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design (2009) considering a constant PGA of 0.53g with varying widths
of the constant acceleration region as shown in Fig. 5.6(a). All five spectra have the same
intensities in the constant spectral acceleration region labeled as Tsa1 , Tsa2 , Tsa3 , Tsa4 , and
Tsa5 for spectral shapes S1 to S5, respectively. The five ranges have been selected to rep-
resent the width of the constant acceleration region that is representative of site classes
A to E as categorized by AASHTO (2009). The corresponding displacement spectra are
109
0.4 0.4
(a) Teff = 0.2 sec (b) Teff = 0.4 sec
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
S2 S2
0.1 S3 0.1 S3
S4 S4
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.4 0.4
(c) Teff = 0.6 sec (d) Teff = 0.8 sec
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
S2 S2
0.1 S3 0.1 S3
S4 S4
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.4
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec
Equivalent Damping
0.3
0.2
0.1 S2
S3
S4
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.7: Comparison of the equivalent viscous damping obtained for five design spec-
tra with different widths of constant acceleration region for short periods range of SDOF
system
shown in Fig. 5.6(b). Analysis is executed using the methodology previously described
using the three design spectra (S2 to S4) shown in Fig. 5.6 while S1 and S5 are included
in a larger study described later in this paper. Results are presented below.
110
Fig. 5.7 shows the equivalent viscous damping needed to equate the design and nonlin-
ear time history displacement against ductility for three design spectra of varying widths
of the constant acceleration, for ranges of different effective periods. The results indicate
that the equivalent viscous damping increases as the width of the constant acceleration
region increases for all effective periods. For example, in Fig. 5.7(a) for a ductility of
4 the damping corresponding to S2, S3, and S4 is 24, 27, and 31 percent respectively.
This trend is generally the same for all period ranges of Fig. 5.7(a–e). Thus, it can be
concluded that equivalent viscous damping is dependent on the width of the constant
acceleration region of the design spectra with equivalent damping increasing as the width
of the constant acceleration region increases.
5.6 Estimation of Equivalent Viscous Damping for

Large Parametric Study
Following the results of the initial parametric study, only the width of the constant
acceleration region is kept as a spectral shape variable in the larger parametric study
described here. The details of each parameter considered are presented below.
Five design spectrum shapes as shown in Fig. 5.6 are used to represent the different
widths of the constant acceleration region.
Takeda thin hysteretic model with unloading (α) and reloading stiffness factor (β)
of 0.5 and 0.0 respectively is employed with different post yield stiffness ratio of
0.0, 0.025, 0.05 and 0.075.
Five ductility levels of 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Effective period from 0 to 1 sec. at step size of 0.2 sec.
49 ground motions are grouped into suites of seven. Each ground motion is made
spectrum compatible with the five design spectral shapes of Fig. 5.6.
The iterative procedure discussed in the methodology section is carried out to determine
the equivalent viscous damping that equates the design displacement with the average
nonlinear time history displacement. To understand the effect of different ground mo-
tions, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio, the results of the parametric study
111
are presented in Fig. 5.8 only for spectral shape S2 (due to space limitations), where
equivalent damping is plotted against ductility for different values of effective periods.
Each line in the plot represents the average value of damping obtained from 49 ground
motions divided into seven suites, i.e., each line in Fig. 5.8 represents the average of seven
data points where the vertical error bar represents one standard deviation associated with
these data points. The error bar is shown above the average line and not below for clarity.
To further elaborate, consider Fig. 5.8(a) with effective period of 0.2 sec. and ductility
0.5 0.5
Teff =0.2 sec (a) r=0.0 Teff =0.2 sec (b) r=0.025
Teff =0.4 sec Teff =0.4 sec
0.4 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 Teff =1.0 sec 0.3
Teff =1.0 sec
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
Teff =0.2 sec (c) r=0.05 Teff =0.2 sec (d) r=0.075
0.4 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping

0.3 Teff =1.0 sec 0.3
Teff =1.0 sec
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.8: Effect of ground motion, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio
of 4. The average damping value of the seven data points is approximately 31 percent
with a standard deviation of about 3 percent. It should be noted that the standard de-
viation reduces as the effective period increases for the same ductility level, i.e., in Fig.
112
5.8(a) for ductility of 6, the standard deviation for effective period of 0.2 and 1 sec. is
4 and 2 percent respectively. Also for the same effective period the standard deviation
increases with increase in ductility. For example, in Fig. 5.8(a), for a ductility of 1.5 and
6, the standard deviation is 2 and 4 percent corresponding to an effective period of 0.2
sec. Furthermore, with increases in post yield stiffness ratio, the average damping value
reduces significantly. For example, at a ductility of 6 and effective period of 0.2 sec. the
damping is 37 and 23 percent for r=0 (Fig. 5.8a) and r=0.075 (Fig. 5.8d), respectively.
Thus, it is clear that the effect of post yield stiffness ratio is significant and should be
incorporated in the damping model for short period SDOF systems. Makris and Kampas
(2013) have also noted that the second slope stiffness of the bilinear system may be used
as the characteristic stiffness for SDOF systems, illustrating the potential importance of
r.
The data is also generated for design spectrum S1, S3, S4, and S5 of Fig. 5.6 for
the same parameters as for S2. To see the effect of design spectrum shape, the results
are presented only for r=0 in Fig. 5.9 due to space limitations. Note that the difference
between Figs. (5.7) and (5.9) is that analysis for Fig. 5.7 is only performed for one suite of
ground motions that contained seven accelerograms while in Fig. 5.9, 49 ground motions
comprising seven suites.
Fig. 5.9 represents average damping corresponding to different ductilities for the five
design spectra shapes, where each figure corresponds to specific effective periods with
r=0. It is clear from Fig. 5.9(a–e) that as the width of the constant acceleration region of
the spectra increases, the equivalent viscous damping increases. For example, for effective
period of 0.2 sec. and ductility of 4, the average damping value for S1 to S5 is 29, 31,
35, 42, and 50 percent, respectively. It is important to note that the effect of the width
of the constant acceleration region is significant because it affects equivalent damping
more than the scatter which arises from individual ground motions. For example, the
difference of damping between S1 and S5 for ductility of 4 and effective period of 0.2 sec.
is 21 percent (50−29), while the standard deviation corresponding to this point for S1
and S5 is 3 and 6 percent, respectively. Thus, to accurately predict damping for short
period SDOF systems, the width of the constant acceleration region will be included in
the proposed damping model.
113
0.7 0.7
(a) Teff = 0.2 sec, r=0.0 (b) Teff = 0.4 sec, r=0.0
0.6 S1 0.6
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S1
0.5 S2 0.5 S2
S3 S3
0.4 S4 0.4
S4
0.3 S5 0.3 S5
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.7 0.7
(c) Teff = 0.6 sec, r=0.0 (d) Teff = 0.8 sec, r=0.0
0.6 0.6
S1
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S1
0.5 S2 0.5 S2
S3 S3
0.4 0.4 S4
S4
0.3 S5 0.3 S5
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.7
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.0
0.6
S1
Equivalent Damping
0.5 S2
S3
0.4 S4
0.3 S5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.9: Equivalent viscous damping grouped by spectral shapes S1, S2, S3, S4, and
S5
114
5.7 Proposed Equivalent Viscous Damping Model
The proposed damping model (Eq. 5.12), which applies for effective periods of less than
1 sec., is obtained by applying the method of least squares to the analysis results. This
model accounts for width of the constant acceleration region and post yield stiffness
ratio through parameters Tsa (see Fig. 5.6) and r respectively, where the existing mod-
els (Blandon and Priestley (2005), and Dwairi et al. (2007)) do not. Additionally, the
displacement ductility (µ) and effective period (Tef f ) are also included in the proposed
model.
A
ζeq = 0.05 + (µ − 1)B (5.12a)
πµ

A = 0.14 + 0.43 1 − Tef f + 1.68T̄sa − 2.5r (5.12b)
B = 1.13 + 0.26T̄sa − 3.22r (5.12c)
T̄sa = Tsa if 0.34 ≤ Tsa ≤ 0.65 (5.12d)
T̄sa = 0.34 − 0.30(0.34 − Tsa ) if Tsa < 0.34 (5.12e)
T̄sa = 0.65 + 0.15(Tsa − 0.65) if Tsa > 0.65 (5.12f)
The model in Eq. 5.12 has been validated for values of Tsa between 0.27 and 0.8 sec.
This range of Tsa covers a large portion of the possible values across the United States as
defined in the AASHTO guide specifications (Table 5.1). This table represents regional
values of Tsa as a function of site classes. Verification of the model beyond these limits
will be discussed in the next section of this paper.
Table 5.1: Ranges of Tsa values for several regions of US (AASHTO, 2009)
Tsa (sec.) ranges for site class

Regions
A&B C D E
West coast 0.31-0.35 0.4-0.46 0.46-0.53 0.82-0.94
Mountain west 0.25-0.27 0.34-0.38 0.39-0.43 0.43-0.68
Central 0.20-0.24 0.31-0.31 0.35-0.36 0.57-0.63
Eastern 0.18-0.21 0.26-0.29 0.31-0.32 0.32-0.60
Alaska 0.24-0.37 0.33-0.48 0.37-0.56 0.39-0.99
In Fig. 5.10, the label S1 avg represents the average damping obtained from the data
115
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.6
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.0
0.5 S1_Avg S2_Avg
S3_Avg S4_Avg
Equivalent Damping
S5_Avg S1_PM
0.4 S2_PM S3_PM
S4_PM S5_PM
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5.10: Proposed damping model fitted with data
and S1 PM represents the corresponding damping estimated from the proposed damping
model for spectral shape S1. The same notation applies for S2 to S5. It is clear from
Fig. 5.10(a–e) that the best fit is obtained for S2; however, a perfect match was not
116
possible for all spectral shapes covering the full range of r factors. Therefore, for the
spectral shapes of S4 and S5, the damping model underestimates damping (S4 PM and
S5 PM) for an effective period of 0.2 sec., and for spectral shape S1 slightly overestimates
damping (S1 PM) at an effective period of 0.4 and 0.6 sec., when compared to the data.
This underestimation of damping can cause overestimation of displacement demand, but
such a variation at the lower period range (from 0 to 0.2 sec.) is preferable to larger
scatter over a wider period range (from 0.2 to 1 sec). Furthermore, such a combination
of low effective period and high ductility is rarely encountered in practice. It should also
be noted that the proposed model is covering a broader range of post yield stiffness ratio
(from 0 to 0.075) and design spectral shapes than other models that are based only on
one value of r and no consideration of spectral shape.
5.8 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Damping

Models
Analyses were conducted to determine the accuracy of the proposed damping model,
represented by Eq. (5.12) with the existing models of Blandon and Priestley (2005) and
Dwairi et al. (2007), given by Eqs. (5.5 and 5.6) respectively. Since Dwairi’s equation is
developed only for r=0, both existing models along with the proposed model are analyzed
for r=0. All 49 ground motions are used for all short period ranges and spectral shapes
S2 and S4. Additionally two spectral shapes (S0, and S6) with the same PGA as S1 to S5
but different Tsa values (Tsa01 =0.18 sec. and Tsa6 =1.0 sec., respectively) are considered.
These values are outside the range used for development of the model, and hence are a
good test of the applicability of the model across all possible Tsa values as defined by
the AASHTO guide specifications. Two ductility levels 3 and 6 which represent medium
and high ductility levels are considered. To conduct this analysis a two-step process is
performed as follows.
Step 1: Estimation of displacement for equivalent linear system (∆d ). The
equivalent viscous damping for Blandon and Priestley’s (2005), Dwairi’s (2007), and the
proposed model is determined for ductility of 3 and 6. Then the effective period and
equivalent damping is entered into the average displacement spectra to determine the
displacement of the equivalent linear system (∆d ) in the same way as shown in Fig. 5.3
of the methodology discussed previously.
117
Step2: Determination of average non-linear time history displacement
(∆N T HA ). Step 3 and 4 of the methodology are carried out to determine (∆N T HA ) as
explained previously. The ratio of displacement for the equivalent linear system (∆d )
and that of average nonlinear time history displacement (∆N T HA ) is calculated for all
three models and the results are presented in Fig. 5.11, in which each bar represents the
average displacement ratio for 49 ground motions. Each error bar represents one standard
deviation from the average value. In Fig. 5.11(a–h) three ratios of displacement obtained
from the three models are shown for spectral shapes S0, S2, S4, and S6. In this figure,
a displacement ratio of one means that the damping model accurately estimates the
damping, while a value less than one means overestimation of damping, and greater than
one means underestimation of damping. In general the proposed model more accurately
predicts damping, and while it is more complex than existing models, the benefit is
sufficient to warrant inclusion in design.
5.9 Conclusions
The effect of different parameters on equivalent damping ratio for short period SDOF
systems was investigated. It was found that the equivalent damping ratio is a function of
the width of the constant acceleration region of the response spectrum and is significantly
affected by the post yield stiffness ratio, in addition to the previously known parameters
including ductility, effective period and ground motion. In previous research, equivalent
viscous damping models were proposed based on average results for a suite of ground
motions considering one value of post yield stiffness ratio. However, it was found from
this study that the post yield stiffness has a significant effect on response, even more than
that obtained from ground motion variation. Therefore, the effect of these parameters
was proposed in a new design expression for equivalent viscous damping for short period
SDOF bridge systems.
An extensive study was conducted based on 49 ground motions and 3 different design
spectral shapes for the ‘Takeda Thin’ hysteretic model with various levels of ductility.
Four levels of post yield stiffness ratios were considered. Five oscillators with effective
period from 0 to 1 sec. were considered with increments of 0.2 sec. New damping relations
were obtained based on an iterative procedure which was a function of ductility, effective
period, post yield stiffness ratio of hysteretic model, and width of constant spectral accel-
118
3 3
Dwairi Blandon Dwairi Blandon
߂d/߂NTHA Proposed Model Proposed Model
߂d/߂NTHA
2 (a) μ=3 & S0 2
(b) μ=6 & S0
1 1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Effective Period (sec) Effective Period (sec)
3 3
Dwairi Blandon
Dwairi Blandon
Proposed Model
Proposed Model
(d) μ=6 & S2
߂d/߂NTHA
߂d/߂NTHA
2 (c) μ=3 & S2 2
1 1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
6 6
Dwairi Blandon Dwairi Blandon
5 Proposed Model
5 Proposed Model
߂d/߂NTHA
߂d/߂NTHA
4 4 (f) μ=6 & S4

(e) μ=3 & S4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
6 6
Dwairi Blandon
Dwairi Blandon
5 Proposed Model 5 Proposed Model
߂d/߂NTHA
߂d/߂NTHA
4 (g) μ=3 & S6 4 (h) μ=6 & S6

3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 5.11: Comparison of the displacement ratio for three damping models
119
eration region of the design spectrum. The proposed damping model was also compared
against two existing models for short period SDOF systems. It was found that existing
models underestimate equivalent damping and overestimate the displacement, while the
proposed model was capable of estimating the equivalent damping more accurately. The
largest errors for the proposed model occur for: (i) The short period range of 0.2 sec.
when both the ductility and width of constant acceleration region are large, and (ii) a
period of 0.4 sec. when ductility is large and the width of constant acceleration region
is low. Furthermore, the standard deviation of equivalent damping is also reduced in
comparison to the other two existing models. These improvements were achieved in the
proposed damping model because of the incorporation of dependency of design spectrum
shape and post yield stiffness ratio, in addition to a tighter tolerance level for conver-
gence. Considerable scatter is observed in the damping ratios obtained for individual
ground motions, and the proposed damping model may be improved further if additional
ground motion parameters are incorporated. Of course, such modifications complicate
the model, and ultimately are difficult to include in design where known ground motion
parameters are few.
It is important to note that the proposed damping model is derived and verified using
the AASHTO design spectral shape. Other spectral shapes could benefit from this model,
although care should be used in doing so. It is the authors’ opinion that this model might
give better results for other design spectra in comparison to damping models that do not
account for spectral shape.
5.10 Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank North Carolina State University for their support during the
conduct of this research. In addition, the comments by the reviewers were most helpful
in improving the quality of the manuscript.
120
Chapter 6
Summary and Conclusions
Overview
This chapter serves the purpose of collecting the conclusive results discussed in the previ-
ous chapters which are divided into three parts, namely: (1) Impact of Irregularities on the
Seismic Response of Straight and Curved Bridges; (2) Direct Displacement Based Seis-
mic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved Bridges; and (3) Equivalent Viscous Damping
Model for Short Period Reinforced Concrete Bridges. Each part of the research is briefly
summarized followed by the conclusions and recommendations. Based on the need, some
recommendations for future research work are also provided.
6.1 Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response

of Straight and Curved Bridges
6.1.1 Summary
The goal of the research described in this part of the dissertation was to investigate
the hypothesis made by the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design that curved bridges may be analyzed as if they are straight, provided the bridge
is regular. For this purpose, curved bridges with subtended angles varying from 0 to 180
degrees and having the total arc length equal to the length of the equivalent straight
bridge were considered. Other parameters considered were the number of spans (four
and six), and abutment restraints (nine different cases) along with several pier heights
121
and span lengths configuration. The equivalent straight bridges were designed using the
Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) procedure including these parameters. The
resulting designs were then analyzed with Inelastic Time History Analysis (ITHA) using
both straight and curved bridge geometries. Each bridge was subjected to 7 spectrum
compatible time histories and average results were tabulated. The average results of
seven time histories were compared for both straight and curved bridges for the two
response quantities: (1) inelastic displacement profile of the superstructure in terms of
the displacement index; (2) shear forces at the abutments.
6.1.2 Conclusions
It was found that deviation in the response of curved bridges compared to the
response of the equivalent straight bridge increases as the subtended angles are
increased. However, variables such as span length, pier height, and number of spans
were found to be less important for the bridges considered in this study.
In general, the deviation in response of curved bridges from straight bridges was
higher for the transverse direction than the longitudinal direction.
The type and degree of abutment restraint were found to be a critical parameter
in controlling the response of the bridge that lead to the following conclusions. (i)
If the bridge is fully restrained in the longitudinal direction, the curved bridge may
not be analyzed as straight, even for smaller subtended angles of 15 degrees. It is
because the displacement demand is significantly lower for the curved bridge than
straight bridge, while the axial force demand is significantly higher than the straight
bridge. (ii) If the abutment is unrestrained/partially restrained in the longitudinal
direction the curved bridge may be analyzed as straight for subtended angles of up
to 30 degrees. However, this limit may change to lower values if higher abutment
stiffness (for partially restrained abutments) is considered from the abutment stiff-
ness considered in this study. (iii) If the abutment is unrestrained in both lateral
directions, the curved bridge may be analyzed as straight for all subtended angles
up to 180 degrees.
122
6.1.3 Recommendations
The authors believe that the abutment restraint conditions should be incorporated in
addition to Table 3.1 to decide if a curved bridge can be analyzed as an equivalent
straight bridge. Table 6.1 summarizes the limits on the maximum subtended angle up
to which the curved bridge can be analyzed as an equivalent straight bridge for different
abutment restraint conditions.
Table 6.1: Limit on maximum subtended angle of curved bridge in addition to Table 3.1
Limit on maximum
Abutment restraint condition
subtended angle (degrees)
Fully restrained in the direction of flow of traffic 0
Partially restrained in the direction of flow of
30
traffic1
Unrestrained in both directions (parallel and
180
perpendicular to direction of flow of traffic)
6.1.4 Future research recommendations

The methodology implemented in this study can be extended to multi-column bent
bridges to evaluate the validity of Table 6.1 for the same parameters explored in this
study such as: abutment restraint conditions, superstructure curvature, variation
in pier stiffnesses and span lengths along the length of the bridge.
This research investigates the seismic response of straight and curved bridges under
the excitation of either longitudinal or transverse direction. The future study can
explore the effect of bi-directional excitation on the limits proposed in Table 6.1.
Unlike a straight bridge, the seismic response of a curved bridge is coupled in both
lateral directions.
1
This limit on subtended angle may change slightly with increase or decrease in abutment stiffness.
123
6.2 Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Re-
inforced Concrete Curved Bridges
6.2.1 Summary
This part of the research was aimed at investigating issues related to the DDBD proce-
dure of straight bridges when implemented for bridges with curved geometries. It was
found that, unlike straight bridge, the seismic response of curved bridges is coupled in
both lateral directions. Hence the following modifications were proposed to extend the
existing DDBD procedure of a straight bridge to curved bridges. (i) The assumption of
lateral force/stiffness distribution at abutments in both lateral directions. (ii) The con-
sideration of appropriate piers stiffness’ in both lateral directions required for the elastic
analysis during the iterations of DDBD process. (iii) Determination of ratio of shear force
taken by the abutments. Case study bridges of three different pier height configurations,
each consisting of 4 and 6 spans, were considered in the parametric study with subtended
angles of 30, 60, and 90 degrees. Furthermore, two superstructure geometries are con-
sidered. Each case study bridge was designed using extended DDBD method of curved
bridges in both longitudinal and transverse directions. For verification of the design pro-
cedure, ITHA was performed by using seven spectrum compatible time histories. The
DDBD and ITHA results were compared.
6.2.2 Conclusions
The extended DDBD procedure is capable of capturing the target displacement
profile of the deck accurately in both longitudinal and transverse directions for all
case study bridges (regular, semi-regular, and irregular bridges as defined in Fig.
4.5) with various degrees of superstructure curvature except for 6-span irregular
bridge case (BHHLML). Relatively large deviation is observed between the target
and average non-linear time history analysis displacement for this case study bridge
designed in the transverse direction. For such a case, the authors propose the use
of effective mode shape technique to converge on target displacement profile of the
deck.
The inelastic action such as flexure strength of the piers at the location of plastic
hinge is accurately predicted by DDBD method for both longitudinal and transverse
124
directions.
The elastic action such as the abutment axial and shear forces match with the
demand obtained from ITHA for longitudinal and transverse direction except the
abutment shear force for the transverse direction. This shows that the higher mode
effects are important for the elastic actions at abutment and should be considered
using effective modal superposition technique as part of capacity design approach.
The moment demand at deck is underestimated by DDBD procedure in the trans-
verse direction only which can also be evaluated using effective modal superposition
technique.
It was found from results that with the decrease in superstructure to substruc-
ture stiffness, the deviation between target displacements predicted by DDBD ap-
proach and average inelastic time history analysis displacement envelope increases.
Furthermore, large variation between the target displacement and inelastic time
history analysis displacement is caused by pier stiffness irregularity than the super-
structure curvature. This indicates that pier stiffness irregularity is more important
parameter than the bridge curvature.
The extended DDBD procedure of curved bridges can be proposed for the future edition
of DBD 12: a model code for the displacement based design of structures.

The future research should aim the following:
The performance of proposed DDBD procedure should be evaluated for a larger

parametric study including: different span lengths, large variation in pier height
configurations than considered in this study, and multi-column bent.
In the DDBD procedure the seismic demand on bridge is determined in the longi-
tudinal and transverse direction separately while the effect of vertical excitation is
ignored. However, for curved bridges, the vertical excitation may cause an increase
in displacement and moment demand when coupled with both lateral direction
125
excitations. Therefore the performance of the DDBD method under bi-directional
excitation should be evaluated along with the impact of vertical excitation.
6.3 Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short

Period Reinforced Concrete Bridges
6.3.1 Summary
This part of the dissertation focused on the effect of different parameters on equivalent
damping ratios for short period single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. It was found
that the equivalent damping ratio is a function of the width of the constant acceleration
region of the response spectrum and is significantly affected by the post yield stiffness
ratio, in addition to the previously investigated parameters including ductility, effective
period and ground motion. In state of art research, equivalent viscous damping models
were proposed based on average results for a suite of ground motions considering one value
of post yield stiffness ratio. However, it was found from this study that the post yield
stiffness has a significant effect on the response, even more than the one obtained from
ground motion variation. Therefore, the effect of these parameters was proposed in a new
design expression for equivalent viscous damping for short period SDOF bridge systems.
Furthermore, the proposed damping model was compared against two existing models
for short period SDOF systems. The parametric study considered in this investigation
consisted of 49 ground motions, 5 different design spectral shapes with varying widths
of constant acceleration region, ‘Takeda Thin’ hysteretic model with various levels of
ductility and post yield stiffness ratios, and five oscillators with effective periods from 0
to 1 sec. with increments of 0.2 sec.
6.3.2 Conclusions
Based on the results, the following conclusions are drawn:
The existing models underestimate equivalent damping and overestimate the dis-
placement significantly, while the proposed model was capable of estimating the
equivalent damping more accurately. The largest errors for the proposed model oc-
cur for: (i) the short period range of 0.2 sec. when both the ductility and width of
126
constant acceleration region are large, and (ii) a period of 0.4 sec. when ductility
is large and the width of constant acceleration region is low.
The deviation of equivalent damping is reduced in comparison to the other two

existing models. These improvements were achieved in the proposed damping model
because of the incorporation of dependency of design spectrum shapes and post
yield stiffness ratios, in addition to a lower tolerance level for convergence.
Considerable scatter is observed in the damping ratios obtained for individual

ground motions, and the proposed damping model may be improved further if
additional ground motion parameters are incorporated. Of course, such modifica-
tions complicate the model, and are ultimately difficult to include in a design where
known ground motion parameters are few.
The equivalent damping model shown in Eq. 6.1 is proposed for short period SDOF
systems (those with effective period ‘Tef f ’ less than 1 sec.) and is based on ‘Takeda Thin’
hysteretic model with various levels of ductility (µ). This model accounts for the width of
the constant acceleration region and post yield stiffness ratio through parameters Tsa and
r respectively, where the existing models Blandon and Priestley (2005), and Dwairi et al.
(2007) do not. This model is recommended for Direct Displacement Based Design of short
period structural systems such as bridges with reinforced concrete columns. The bridges
designed using the proposed damping model are expected to predict the displacement
response more accurately over the existing models.
A
ζeq = 0.05 + (µ − 1)B (6.1a)
πµ

A = 0.14 + 0.43 1 − Tef f + 1.68T̄sa − 2.5r (6.1b)
B = 1.13 + 0.26T̄sa − 3.22r (6.1c)
T̄sa = Tsa if 0.34 ≤ Tsa ≤ 0.65 (6.1d)
T̄sa = 0.34 − 0.30(0.34 − Tsa ) if Tsa < 0.34 (6.1e)
T̄sa = 0.65 + 0.15(Tsa − 0.65) if Tsa > 0.65 (6.1f)
127
The proposed damping model is based on the ‘Takeda Thin’ hysteretic rule (typical
for bridge columns), and applies only for effective periods less than 1 sec. Future
study should extend the proposed model to other hysteretic rules such as Elasto-
plastic, Ring-spring, Bi-linear, and Ramberg-Osgood (Priestley et al. 2007) for the
parameters explored in this research work.
It is clear from this research that ground motion causes considerable scatter in the
damping ratios. Rezaeian et al. (2014) also includes the magnitude and distance
parameters in their proposed damping scaling factor model that is used to adjust
5 percent damped spectral ordinate for damping ratio between 0.5 to 30 percent.
Therefore, the future study should investigate the effect of ground motion through
parameters (magnitude and distance) for the proposed equivalent viscous damping
model.
128
REFERENCES
AASHTO (2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO (2009). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO (2011). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design—2nd
edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Adhikari, G., Petrini, L., and Calvi, G. M. (2010). “Application of direct displacement
based design to long span bridges.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8(4), 897–919.
Agrawal, S. and Jain, A. K. (2009). “Seismic analysis of a S-curved viaduct using stick
and finite element models.” International Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and
Technolology, 5(3), 184–194.
Akbari, R. (2008). “The seismic behavior of irregular bridges with different piers heights
and stiffnesses.” PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran.
Akbari, R. and Maalek, S. (2010). “Adequacy of the seismic analysis methods for single-
column-bent viaducts considering regularity and higher modes effects.” Journal of Vi-
bration and Control, 16(6), 827–852.
Alfawakhiri, F. and Bruneau, M. (2000). “Flexibility of superstructures and supports in

the seismic analysis of simple bridges.” Earthquake engineering and structural dynam-
ics, 29(5), 711–729.
Aviram, A., Mackie, K. R., and Stojadinović, B. (2008). “Guidelines for nonlinear analysis
of bridge structures in California.” Rep. No. UCB/PEER 2008/03, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Blandon, C. A. and Priestley, M. J. N. (2005). “Equivalent viscous damping equations

for direct displacement based design.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(sup2),
257–278.
Botero, A. J. C. (2004). “Displacement-based design of continuous concrete bridges un-

der transverse seismic excitation.” Masters dissertation, European school for advanced
studies in reduction of seismic risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Browning, J. P. (2001). “Proportioning of earthquake-resistant RC building structures.”

Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(2), 145–151.
129
Buckle, I. G. (1994). “The Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994: Perfor-
mance of highway bridges.” Rep. No. NCEER-94-0008, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Burdette, N. J. and Elnashai, A. S. (2008). “Effect of asynchronous earthquake motion

on complex bridges. II: Results and implications on assessment.” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 13(2), 166–172.
CALTRANS (2013). Caltrans seismic design criteria, version 1.7. California Department
of Transportation, California, USA, April, 180 pages.
Calvi, G. M., Elnashai, A. S., and Pavese, A. (1994). “Influence of regularity on the
seismic response of RC bridges.” 2nd International workshop on seismic design and
retrofitting of RC bridges, 8–13.
Calvi, G. M. and Kingsley, G. R. (1995). “Displacement-based seismic design of multi-

degree-of-freedom bridge structures.” Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,
24(9), 1247–1266.
Calvi, G. M., Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2013). “Displacement-based

seismic design of bridges.” Structural Engineering International, 22(2), 112–121.
Calvi, G. M., Sullivan, T. J., and Villani, A. (2010). “Conceptual seismic design of
cable-stayed bridges.” J. Struct. Engrg., 14(8), 1139–1171.
Carr, A. (2007). “Volume 4: RUAUMOKO users manual.” University of Canterbury,

Christchurch, New Zealand, January 2007.
Carr, A. (2009). “Volume 3: RUAUMOKO 3D users manual.” University of Canterbury,

Christchurch, New Zealand.
Dwairi, H. M. and Kowalsky, M. J. (2006). “Implementation of inelastic displacement

patterns in direct displacement-based design of continuous bridge structures.” Earth-
quake Spectra, 22(3), 631–662.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). “Equivalent damping in support
of direct displacement-based design.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 512–
530.
EuroCode-8 (2005). Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 2: Bridges. Ref.
No. EN 1998-2:2005: E, CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
Fajfar, P. (1999). “Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra.” Earth-
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28(9), 979–993.
130
Fenves, G. L. and Ellery, M. (1998). “Behavior and failure analysis of a multiple-frame
highway bridge in the 1994 Northridge earthquake.” Rep. No. PEER 98/08, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center,College of Engineering, University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
Fischinger, M. and Isakovic, T. (2003). “Inelastic seismic analysis of reinforced concrete

viaducts.” Structural Engineering International 2/2003.
Freeman, S. A. (1998). “The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design.”
11th European conference on earthquake engineering, Paris, France.
Goodnight, J. C. (2015). “The effects of load history and design variables on perfor-
mance limit states of circular bridge columns.” Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh NC, USA.
Goodnight, J. C., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2013). “Effect of load history on
performance limit states of circular bridge columns.” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
18(12), 1383–1396.
Grant, D. N., Blandon, C. A., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2005). “Modelling inelastic response
in direct displacement-based design.
Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M. A. (1974). “Inelastic responses of reinforced concrete structure

to earthquake motions.” ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 71, ACI.
Habibullah, A. and Wilson, E. L. (1996). SAP2000 user’s manual, Computers and Struc-
tures, Inc.
Hadjian, A. H. (1982). “A re-evaluation of equivalent linear models for simple yielding

systems.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10(6), 759–767.
Isaković, T. and Fischinger, M. (2006). “Higher modes in simplified inelastic seismic anal-
ysis of single column bent viaducts.” Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,
35(1), 95–114.
Isaković, T., Fischinger, M., and Kante, P. (2003). “Bridges: when is single mode seismic
analysis adequate?.” Proceedings of the ICE-Structures and Buildings, 156(2), 165–173.
Iwan, W. (1980). “Estimating inelastic response spectra from elastic spectra.” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 8(4), 375–388.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1930). “Steady forced vibrations as influenced by damping.” Trans.

ASME, 52(15), 169–181.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1960). “Damping in composite structures.” Proceedings of the 2nd world

conference on earthquake engineering, Vol. 2, 1029–1044.
131
Jennings, P. C. (1968). “Equivalent viscous damping for yielding structures.” Journal of
the Engineering Mechanics Division, 94(1), 103–116.
Kawashima, K., Takahashi, Y., Ge, H., Wu, Z., and Zhang, J. (2009). “Reconnaissance
report on damage of bridges in 2008 Wenchuan, China, earthquake.” Journal of Earth-
quake Engineering, 13(7), 965–996.
Kawashima, K. and Tirasit, P. (2008). “Effect of nonlinear seismic torsion on the per-
formance of skewed bridge piers.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(6), 980–998.
Khan, E. (2010). “Direct displacement based design of a reinforced concrete deck arch
bridge.” Masters Dissertation, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of
Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Khan, E., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2014a). “Equivalent viscous damping model
for short period reinforced concrete bridges.” ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering,
N/A, under review.
Khan, E., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2014b). “Impact of irregularities on the
seismic response of straight and curved bridges.” ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering,
N/A, under review.
Khan, E., Sullivan, T. J., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2013). “Direct displacement–based

seismic design of reinforced concrete arch bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering,
19(1), 44–58.
Kowalsky, M. J. (2002). “A displacement-based approach for the seismic design of contin-

uous concrete bridges.” Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, 31(3), 719–
747.
Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J., and Macrae, G. A. (1995). “Displacement-based de-

sign of RC bridge columns in seismic regions.” Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics, 24(12), 1623–1643.
Kwan, W. P. and Billington, S. L. (2003). “Influence of hysteretic behavior on equivalent

period and damping of structural systems.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(5),
576–585.
Levi, M. J., Sanders, D. H., and Buckle, I. G. (2014). “Seismic response of columns in
curved bridges.” Bridges, 10.
Liu, Z. (2009). “Reconnaissance and preliminary observations of bridge damage in the

great Wenchuan earthquake, China.” Structural Engineering International, 19(3), 277–
282.
132
Mahin, S. A. and Bertero, V. V. (1981). “An evaluation of inelastic seismic design
spectra.” Journal of the Structural Division, 107(9), 1777–1795.
Makris, N. and Kampas, G. (2013). “The engineering merit of the effective period of
bilinear isolation systems.” Earthquakes and Structures, 4(4), 397–428.
McCallen, D. B. and Romstad, K. M. (1994). “Dynamic analyses of a skewed short-span,

box-girder overpass.” Earthquake spectra, 10(4), 729–756.
Miranda, E. and Ruiz-Garcı́a, J. (2002). “Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate

maximum inelastic displacement demands.” Earthquake engineering and structural dy-
namics, 31(3), 539–560.
Moehle, J. P. (1994). “Preliminary report on the seismological and engineering aspects

of the January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-94/01, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley,
California.
Montejo, L. A. and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). “Cumbia—set of codes for the analysis of

reinforced concrete members.” CFL Technical Rep. No. IS-07, 1.
Monzon, E. V., Itani, A. I., and Buckle, I. G. (2013). “Seismic modeling and analysis
of curved steel plate girder bridges.” Rep. No. CCEER-13-5, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, USA.
Mukherjee, S. and Gupta, V. K. (2002). “Wavelet-based generation of spectrum-

compatible time-histories.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9), 799–
804.
Mullapudi, T. R. S. and Ayoub, A. (2012). “Analysis of reinforced concrete columns

subjected to combined axial, flexure, shear, and torsional loads.” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 139(4), 561–573.
Mwafy, A., Elnashai, A., and Yen, W. H. (2007). “Implications of design assumptions
on capacity estimates and demand predictions of multispan curved bridges.” Journal
of Bridge Engineering, 12(6), 710–726.
NCHRP (2013). NCHRP synthesis 440: Performance based-seismic bridge design. By

National Cooperative Research Program.
NZ (2013). New Zealand bridge manual SP/M/022, 3rd edition. New Zealand Trans-
portation Agency.
Otani, S. (1974). “Inelastic analysis of R/C frame structures.” Journal of the Structural
Division, 100(7), 1433–1449.
133
Panagiotakos, T. B. and Fardis, M. N. (1999). “Deformation-controlled earthquake-
resistant design of RC buildings.” Journal of earthquake engineering, 3(4), 495–518.
Pinto, A. V. (1996). Pseudo-dynamic and shaking table tests on RC bridges. Laboratório

Nacional de Engenharia Civil.
Pinto, A. V., Verzeletti, G., Pegon, P., Magonette, G., Negro, P., and Guedes, J. (1996).
Pseudo-dynamic testing of large-scale R/C bridges. Report EUR 16378, Ispra (VA),
Italy.
Prakash, S., Belarbi, A., and You, Y. (2010). “Seismic performance of circular RC columns
subjected to axial force, bending, and torsion with low and moderate shear.” Engineer-
ing Structures, 32(1), 46–59.
Priestley, M. J. N. (1993). “Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering—conflicts be-

tween design and reality.” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, 26(3), 329–341.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Direct displacement-based

seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Uang, C. M. (1994). “The Northridge earthquake
of January 17, 1994: Damage analysis of selected freeway bridges.” Rep. No. SSRP-
94/06, Structural Systems Research Project at the University of California, San Diego,
California.
Restrepo, O. J. C. (2006). “Displacement-based design of continuous concrete bridges un-

der transverse seismic excitation.” Masters Dissertation, European School for Advanced
Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Rezaeian, S., Bozorgnia, Y., Idriss, I. M., Abrahamson, N., Campbell, K., and Silva,
W. (2014). “Damping scaling factors for elastic response spectra for shallow crustal
earthquakes in active tectonic regions: Average horizontal component.” Earthquake
Spectra, 30(2), 939–963.
Richardson, J. A. and Douglas, B. M. (1993). “Results from field testing a curved box
girder bridge using simulated earthquake loads.” Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics, 22(10), 905–922.
Rosenblueth, E. and Herrera, I. (1964). “On a kind of hysteretic damping.” Journal of

Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 90(1), 37–48.
SEAOC (1995). Vision 2000: Conceptual framework for performance based seismic engi-
neering of buildings. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA,
USA.
134
Sextos, A., Kappos, A. J., and Mergos, P. (2004). “Effect of soil-structure interaction and
spatial variability of ground motion on irregular bridges: the case of the krystallopigi
bridge.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Canadian Association
for Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, Canada.
Suarez, V. and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). “Displacement-based seismic design of drilled

shaft bents with soil-structure interaction.” Journal of earthquake engineering, 11(6),
1010–1030.
Sullivan, T. J., Priestley, M. J. N., and Calvi, G. M. (2012). A model code for the
displacement-based seismic design of structures: DBD12. IUSS Press.
Sun, Z., Wang, D., Guo, X., Si, B., and Huo, Y. (2011). “Lessons learned from the
damaged Huilan interchange in the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake.” Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 17(1), 15–24.
Tirasit, P., Kawashima, K., and Watanabe, G. (2005). “An experimental study on the
performance of RC columns subjected to cyclic flexural-torsional loading.” Proc. Sec-
ond International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Center for Urban
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo Japan, number 2, 357–
364.
Tseng, W. S. and Penzien, J. (1975). “Seismic response of long multiple-span highway

bridges.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 4(1), 25–48.
Wakefield, R. R., Nazmy, A. S., and Billington, D. P. (1991). “Analysis of seismic failure
in skew RC bridge.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(3), 972–986.
Wald, D. J. and Heaton, T. H. (1994). “A dislocation model of the 1994 Northridge,

California, earthquake determined from strong ground motions.” Rep. No. 94-278, US
Geological Survey.
Williams, D. and Godden, W. (1979). “Seismic response of long curved bridge structures:
experimental model studies.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 7(2),
107–128.
Wu, H. and Najjar, W. S. (2007). “Parametric seismic analysis of curved steel box-girder
bridges with two continuous spans.” Bridge Structures, 3(3-4), 205–213.
Xue, Q. (2001). “A direct displacement-based seismic design procedure of inelastic struc-

tures.” Engineering Structures, 23(11), 1453–1460.
135
APPENDICES
136
Appendix A
Discretization of Curved
Superstructure
In order to determine number of divisions per span required to idealize the curved bridge
superstructure by straight elements, a parametric study is conducted on a four span
curved bridge superstructure with subtended angles of 90 and 180 degrees without con-
sidering the effect of columns. A typical plan view of a 4 span curved bridge superstructure
is shown in Fig. A.1. Each curved span is divided into 4, 8, and 16 straight elements to
represent the idealized curved beam. To see the effect of different span lengths on number
of divisions, three different structures with span lengths of 24, 36, and 48 m are consid-
ered. Also to determine the effect of lateral loads on number of divisions per span, First
Mode Lateral Loads (FMLL) and Uniform Lateral Loads (ULL) are considered. The
FMLL are obtained from Direct Displacement Based Design of the equivalent straight
bridge, which has the total bridge length equal to the arc length of the curved bridge
superstructure; however, a parabolic or sine-wave distribution can also be assumed. The
ULL are calculated as the average of all lateral loads from the FMLL. To distribute the
lateral loads, each span of the superstructure is divided into four equal spans and the
lateral loads are always applied at these locations. The displacements are measured at the
end of each span represented by ∆1−3 shown in Fig. A.1(b). The displacement responses
of the three discretization schemes are compared, and the lowest number of divisions that
have an error less than 5%, is considered acceptable for idealizing the curved beam as
straight elements. The error between two discretization schemes is defined as:
137
|∆i,N OD − ∆i,2×N OD |
Ei,N OD|2×N OD = (A.1)
|∆i,N OD |
where subscript N OD represents the number of divisions per span and i the point at
which displacement and error are calculated as shown in Fig. A.1.
Centerline of bridge deck

Deck local axes Circles represent the
X end of each span ∆2
Z ∆1 ∆3
Z
S2 S3
Fi
X
S1 S4
Global axes
(b) Plan view of the undeform (continuous
line)and deform (dash line) transverse
(a) Plan view of the curved bridge superstructure
shape of the bridge deck under uniform
Bridge deck material and section properties lateral loads
2 4 4 4 -2
AXX= 5.6 m ; IXX=8.7 m ; IYY=43.3 m ; IZZ=3.8 m ; E=elastic modulus= 30x106 kNm
Note: At each point along the bridge deck centerline the local Z and X-axis is along radial and tangential
direction respectively while the deck local Y-axis is perpendicular to local X and Z-axis.
Figure A.1: Plan view: (a) Four span curved bridge deck; (b) undeform (continuous line)
and deform (dash line) shape of the bridge deck under uniform lateral loading
As an example, consider a 4 span bridge deck with a subtended angle of 90 degrees

having equal arc span lengths of 36 m that is subjected to the lateral loads (along the
global Z-axis) as shown in Table A.1. Since the bridge deck is symmetrical about the
global Z-axis, the lateral loads are shown up to the centerline of the bridge deck. The
bridge superstructure is fixed at both ends. The material and section properties of the
deck are shown in Fig. A.1. Using the lateral loads of Table A.1 and by dividing each
curved span of the deck into 4 straight elements, the elastic analysis of the bridge deck
is performed in SAP2000. The analysis results (in terms of lateral displacement, along
the global Z-axis) are tabulated in Table A.1. Similarly each span of the bridge deck is
divided into 8 and 16 equal straight elements and the analyses are performed using the
same lateral loads. The displacements obtained from these analyses are also shown in
Table A.1. The error is calculated using Eq. (A.1) as follows.
138
The error between four and eight number of divisions, and eight and sixteen number
of divisions at the node (i=1) that corresponds to the distance of 36 m is:
|0.01007 − 0.01004|
E1,N OD|2×N OD = = 0.3% for NOD=4
|0.01007|
|0.01004 − 0.01004|
E1,N OD|2×N OD = = 0.0% for NOD=8
|0.01004|
Similarly, the error for the node (i=2) that corresponds to the distance of 72 m is:
|0.01730 − 0.01737|
E2,N OD|2×N OD = = 0.4% for NOD=4
|0.01730|
|0.01737 − 0.01739|
E2,N OD|2×N OD = = 0.1% for NOD=8
|0.01737|
These values are tabulated in Table A.1. Similarly, the error is determined using the
same arc span length of 36 m and ULL, however, for the curved bridge with a subtended
angle of 180 degrees. The results are presented in Table A.2.
Table A.1: Estimation of error for three discretization schemes using an arc span length
of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 90 degrees for ULL
Distance of the node along centerline of deck

from deck left end (m)
0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72
Lateral load
0 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765
(kN)
∆i,N OD=4 (m) - - - - 0.01007 - - - 0.01730
∆i,N OD=8 (m) - - - - 0.01004 - - - 0.01737
∆i,N OD=16 (m) - - - - 0.01004 - - - 0.01739
Ei,4/8 (%) - - - - 0.3 - - - 0.4
Ei,8/16 (%) - - - - 0.0 - - - 0.1
Using the same procedure, the error is estimated using the curved bridge deck sub-
tended angle of 90 and 180 degrees for an arc span length of 36 m, however, for FMLL
as shown in Table A.3 and A.4 respectively.
139
of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 180 degrees for ULL

0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72
Lateral load
0 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765 1765
(kN)
∆i,N OD=4 (m) - - - - 0.00322 - - - 0.01339
∆i,N OD=8 (m) - - - - 0.00334 - - - 0.01367
∆i,N OD=16 (m) - - - - 0.00336 - - - 0.01374
Ei,4/8 (%) - - - - 3.7 - - - 2.1
Ei,8/16 (%) - - - - 0.6 - - - 0.5
of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 90 degrees for FMLL

0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72
Lateral load
0 448 878 1275 2546 1910 2122 2254 3604
(kN)
∆i,N OD=4 (m) - - - - 0.01079 - - - 0.02553
∆i,N OD=8 (m) - - - - 0.01078 - - - 0.02565
∆i,N OD=16 (m) - - - - 0.01077 - - - 0.02568
Ei,4/8 (%) - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.5
Ei,8/16 (%) - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.1
The results of Table (A.1–A.4) are summarized in Table A.5. Table A.6 and Table
A.7 are also constructed using the same parameters as shown in Table A.5 except for
span lengths of 24 m and 48 m respectively.
It is clear from Table (A.5–A.7) that error E4/8 and E8/16 increases with increase in
span-length of the bridge deck and/or the subtended angle. The maximum error between
4 and 8 number of divisions for subtended angle of 90 and 180 degree and for largest
span length of 48 m is 0.9 and 4.4 percent respectively, while between 8 and 16 number
of divisions is 0.2 and 1.6 percent respectively. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to
use 4 number of divisions for idealizing the curved bridge superstructure using straight
elements.
140
of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 180 degrees for FMLL

0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72
Lateral load
0 448 878 1275 2546 1910 2122 2254 3604
(kN)
∆i,N OD=4 (m) - - - - 0.00373 - - - 0.01939
∆i,N OD=8 (m) - - - - 0.00388 - - - 0.01974
∆i,N OD=16 (m) - - - - 0.00392 - - - 0.01983
Ei,4/8 (%) - - - - 4.0 - - - 1.8
Ei,8/16 (%) - - - - 1.0 - - - 0.5
Table A.5: Summary of error for three discretization schemes using an arc span length
of 36 m and curved bridge deck subtended angle of 90 and 180 degrees for both ULL and
FMLL
Distance of the node along center line of deck

36 72 36 72 36 72 36 72
◦ ◦
90 sub. angle 180 sub. angle
ULL FMLL ULL FMLL
Ei,4/8 (%) 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5 3.7 2.1 4.0 1.8
Ei,8/16 (%) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.5
FMLL

24 48 24 48 24 48 24 48
90◦ sub. angle 180◦ sub. angle
ULL FMLL ULL FMLL
Ei,4/8 (%) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.4
Ei,8/16 (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.2
141
FMLL

48 96 48 96 48 96 48 96
◦ ◦
90 sub. angle 180 sub. angle
ULL FMLL ULL FMLL
Ei,4/8 (%) 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.8 4.3 2.5 4.4 2.1
Ei,8/16 (%) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.5
142
Appendix B
Seismic Response of Straight and

Curved Case Study Bridges
The displacement index of six span case study bridges (phase 1–4) is already presented
in Chapter 3 of this manuscript, however, the displacement response is only presented
for phase 1 of these bridges. Thus, for completion, the displacement response of the re-
maining six span case study bridges (phase2–4) is presented in Fig. (B.1–B.6). Similarly,
for four span bridges, the results are shown for phase 1–4 in Fig. (B.7–B.14).
143
0.5 0.5

B6251 B6451
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
Normalized length Normalized length
0.5 ST C15 C30


C45 C60 C75
C90 C105 C120
0.4 C135 C150 C165
0.5 C180
0.3
0.4
B6751
0.2 0.3
B6551
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 B6951

0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
B6851
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure B.1: Phase 2: comparison of the ITHA average results of equivalent straight and
curved 6 span bridges under transverse seismic excitation
144
0.5 0.5

B6212 B6412
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
0.8 ST C15 C30


C45 C60 C75
C90 C105 C120
0.6 C135 C150 C165
0.5 C180
0.4
0.4
0.3
B6512 0.2 B6712
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
0.8 0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
B6812 B6912
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
145
0.5 0.5

B6252 B6452
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
0.6 ST C15 C30


C45 C60 C75
0.5 C90 C105 C120
C135 C150 C165
0.6
0.4 C180
0.5
0.3 0.4
0.2 0.3 B6752
B6552
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 B6852 0.1 B6952
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
146
0.3 0.3

B6251 B6451
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.3 0.4
B6751

0.3
0.2
0.2 ST C15
C30 C45
C60 C75
0.1 B6551 C90 C105
0.1 C120 C135
C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.3 0.3
B6951
0.2 0.2
0.1 B6851 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
curved 6 span bridges under longitudinal seismic excitation
147
0.3 0.3

B6212 B6412
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.5
B6712

0.4 0.4
ST C15
0.3 0.3 C30 C45
C60 C75
0.2 0.2 C90 C105
B6512 C120 C135
0.1 0.1 C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.5
B6912
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
B6812
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
148
0.3 0.3

B6252 B6452
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.3 0.4
B6752

0.3
0.2
0.2 ST C15
C30 C45
C60 C75
0.1 B6552 C90 C105
0.1 C120 C135
C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.3 0.3
B6952
0.2 0.2
0.1 B6852 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
149
150
0.4 0.4

B4111 B4211
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 0.4
B4311

0.3 0.3 B4411
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3 B4611
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1
B4511
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
151
0.5 0.6

0.4 0.5
B4711 0.4
0.3 ST C15
C30 C45 0.3
0.2 C60 C75
C90 C105 0.2
0.1 C120 C135 B4811
C150 C165 0.1
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
B4911
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized length
152
0.3 0.3

B4251 B4451
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.3

0.3 B4751
0.2
0.2 ST C15
C30 C45
C60 C75
0.1 C90 C105
0.1
B4551 C120 C135
C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.3 0.4
0.3 B4951
0.2
0.2
0.1
B4851 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
153
0.4 0.4

B4212
0.3 0.3 B4412
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.6

0.4 0.5 B4712
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2 ST C15 C30
0.2 C45 C60 C75
0.1 B4512 0.1
C90 C105 C120
C135 C150 C165
0.0 C180
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.6
0.4 0.5 B4912

0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1 B4812 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
154
0.3 0.3

B4452
0.2 B4252 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 ST C15 C30

C45 C60 C75

C90 C105 C120
C135 C150 C165
0.3 C180
0.7
0.2 0.6
0.5 B4752
0.1 0.4
B4552
0.3
0.0 0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5 B4952
0.2 0.4
0.3
0.1 0.2
B4852
0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
155
0.3 0.3

B4211 B4411
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.6

0.4 0.5 B4711
0.4
0.3
ST C15
0.3 C30 C45
0.2 C60 C75
0.2 C90 C105
0.1 B4511 0.1
C120 C135
C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 B4911

0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 B4811 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
156
0.3 0.3

B4251 B4451
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 0.4

B4751
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
ST C15 C30
C45 C60 C75
0.1 0.1 C90 C105 C120
B4551 C135 C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 B4951
0.2 0.2
0.1 B4851 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
157
0.3 0.3

B4212 B4412
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.5

B4712
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
ST C15
C30 C45
0.2 0.2 C60 C75
C90 C105
0.1 B4521 0.1 C120 C135
C150 C165
C180
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 B4912

0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 B4812 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
158
0.3 0.3

B4252 B4452
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 0.4

B4752
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 ST C15

C30 C45
C60 C75
0.1 0.1 C90 C105
B4552 C120 C135
C150 C165
0.0 C180
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 B4952
0.2 0.2
0.1 B4852 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
159
Appendix C
Sample Calculations: DDBD of Four

Span Continuous Curved Bridge
under Transverse Seismic Excitation
The sample calculations of Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) method are pre-
sented for continuous 4 span reinforced concrete (RC) curved bridge shown in Fig. C.1.
The bridge has equal pier heights of 11 m and same arc span lengths of 48 m. The to-
tal arc length of the bridge is 48 × 4=192 m with superstructure subtended angle of 60
degrees. Hollow circular piers with outer and inner diameter of 1.8 m and 1.2 m respec-
tively are considered. The global longitudinal axis (X-axis) of the bridge is along the line
connecting the two abutments while the global transverse direction is perpendicular to
the global X-axis. The local x-axis of the abutment makes an angle (θ) with global X-axis
of the bridge. The local axes are used to provide the section properties of the elements
and the global axes to show the displacements.
Each span of the curved superstructure is divided into four linear elements of equal
lengths connected by nodes. The superstructure dead load is calculated from the sectional
properties of the deck, represented by D1 in Fig. C.2, using a unit weight of concrete
equal to 25 kN/m3 . A superimposed dead and live load equal to 30 percent of the super-
structure self-weight (dead load) is also included, resulting in a total seismic weight of
211 kN/m. One third of the pier self-weight is lumped at the node connecting pier top
with the superstructure, as recommended by Priestley et al. (2007), and is equal to 130
kN. Because the bridge is symmetric, the lumped masses are shown in Table C.1 up to
160
Centerline of deck
Abutment
local axes 48 m 48 m 48 m 48 m
x
z
Z 11 m 11 m 11 m
X
Global axes
(b) Elevation view of curved bridge
(a) Plan view of curved bridge
Figure C.1: Plan and elevation view of 4-span curved bridge
the bridge centerline (location of pier 2).

Two design limit states are used: (i) pier drift limit of 3 percent which corresponds
to target displacement of pier at deck level ∆P IER =0.03×11=0.33 m; and (ii) abutment
displacement (∆ABT ) limit of 100 mm and 160 mm along the global transverse and
longitudinal directions, respectively. The step by step process for the transverse direction
is as follow:
a+2b
Y
X a
Deck section (D1) properties
c d
Z b
Deck axes
a=7.0 m; b=3.5 m; c=5.5m; d=2.0 m Shear key
2 2 2
AXX=6.5 m ; ASZ= 1.5 m ; ASY= 5.5 m Deck (flange and web)
4 4 4
Pier outer diameter of thickness=0.3 m
IXX=11.2 m ; IYY=70.8 m ; IZZ=4.5 m 1.8 m and inner
diameter of 1.2 m
Typical section view of bridge bent
Figure C.2: Typical section view of bridge bent along with deck sectional properties
Step 1: Selection of inelastic displaced shape of the bridge deck. The initial
displaced shape (δi ) of the bridge deck which has finite stiffness at the abutments is
determined using Eq. (4.1) where Ld is the total arc length of the bridge and is equal to
192 m, xi is the distance of the ith node from the left abutment (shown in Table C.2), and
∆ABT is the abutments’ displacement equal to 100 mm. The displaced shape calculated
from Eq. (4.1) is shown in Table C.2.
161
Table C.1: Lumped weights (kN) of each deck node up to the bridge centerline
Distance of the deck node from left abutment (m)

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
1268 2535 2535 2535 2665 2535 2535 2535 2665
Table C.2: Initial displaced shape (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge centerline

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
0.10 0.279 0.449 0.606 0.741 0.852 0.933 0.983 1.0
The target displacement profile (∆i ) is obtained by scaling the initial displaced shape
of Table C.2 such that at least one pier or abutment displacement limit state governs.
The target displacement profile is shown in Table C.3 where the central pier drift limit
governs.
Table C.3: Target displacement profile (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge centerline

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
0.033 0.092 0.148 0.20 0.245 0.281 0.308 0.324 0.33
Step 2: Determination of equivalent SDOF system displacement and sys-

tem mass. Using seismic masses (from Table C.1) and target displacement profile (from
Table C.3); the system displacement (∆sys ) and system mass (msys ) are determined using
Eq. (4.2) as:
∆sys = 0.261m msys = 3565 (kg×103 )
Step 3: Estimation of ductility demands and equivalent viscous damping.

The ductility demand on the bridge deck and abutments is 1, because these elements
are designed to remain elastic during the seismic event. The ductility demand on piers is
estimated by dividing the design displacement of pier by the pier’s yield displacement.
The yield curvature (φy ) of circular pier is determined using Eq. (4.4):
φy = 2.25×0.00225
1.8
=0.0028 m−1
162
where yield strain of steel is 0.00225 m/m and outer diameter of the column is 1.8 m.
The effective height of pier including strain penetration length, for 35 mm diameter
of longitudinal reinforcement with expected yield strength of 450 MPa, is given as:
hef f =11+0.022×495×0.035=11.35 m
The yield displacement of cantilever pier is calculated using Eq. (4.3) as:
2
∆y = 0.00225×11.35
3
= 0.121 m (Same for all piers)
The displacement ductility of piers is determined as:
µ∆,1 =µ∆,3 = 0.245

0.121
= 2.0 (Pier 1 and 3) 0.33
µ∆,2 = 0.121 = 2.7 (Pier 2)
The equivalent viscous damping for deck and abutment is 5 percent while for the piers
is determined using Eq. (4.5):
ζp,1 =ζp,3 =5+44.4( 2.0−1

2.0π
)=12.1% (Pier 1 and 3)
ζp,2 =5+44.4( 2.7−1

2.7π
)=13.9% (Pier 2)
Step 4: Estimation of shear force ratio carried by abutments and piers. To

distribute the fundamental mode proportions of base shear, it is assumed that x (50)
percent of the base shear is taken by the abutments and the rest of shear force is resisted
by piers. Note that the base shear at abutment is along global Z-axis. The shear force is
distributed to the piers in proportion to the pier’s height using Eq. (4.6). The shear ratio
of all piers is the same. It is because all piers have ductility greater than 1 and similar
heights.
1
VP R,1 =VP R,2 =VP R,3 = 11 =0.091
Step 5: Estimation of equivalent system damping. The equivalent system

damping is determined by weighing the individual components that contribute to the
seismic resistance using Eq. (4.7) as follows:
ζsys = 0.5×(0.261−0.033)×5+0.5×0.033×5+(1−0.5)×(2×0.333×0.245×12.1+0.333×0.33×13.9)
0.5×(0.261−0.033)+0.5×0.033+(1−0.5)×(2×0.333×0.245+0.333×0.33)
= 9.0%
0.091
QP R,1 =QP R,2 =QP R,3 = 0.091+0.091+0.091 =0.333
163
Step 6: Computation of effective period from the design displacement spec-
trum. The spectral displacement correction factor for system damping is calculated using
Eq. (4.8) as recommended by EuroCode-8 (2005). This factor is used to reduce the 5 per-
cent design displacement spectrum of Fig. C.3. The system displacement (from step 2)
is entered to intersect the reduced spectrum (for 9% damping) which gives an effective
period of 1.68 seconds for equivalent SDOF system.
0.07
η=( 0.02+0.09 )0.5 =0.8
1.5
Design Spectrum
1.2
ζ=5%
0.9
ζ=9%
0.6
0.3
0.0
0 2 4 6
Period (sec)
Figure C.3: Design displacement spectrum
Step 7: Identification of the required design base shear. Eq. (4.9) is used to
determine the effective stiffness (Kef f ) and base shear strength (Vb ) as follows:
2π 2
kef f =3565( 1.68 ) =50 (103 ×kN/m)
Vb =50 × 0.261=13 (103 ×kN)
Step 8: Distribution of base shear force. The design base shear is distributed to
the inertial mass locations of multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system using Eq. (4.10)
as shown in Table C.4.
The design base shear is distributed to the piers in proportion to the shear force
ratio, and to the abutments in proportion to the target displacement using Eqs. (4.11)
as follows:
164
Table C.4: Lateral forces (kN) of each deck node up to the bridge centerline

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
60 334 538 725 933 1020 1118 1177 1259
0.091
VP,1 =VP,2 =VP,3 =(1 − 0.5) × 3×0.091
× 13=2.2 (103 ×kN)
0.033
VABT,1 =VABT,2 =0.5 × 2×0.033
× 13=3.2 (103 ×kN)
Step 9: Analysis of the structure under the design forces. To perform the
structure analysis, elastic stiffness of the deck and abutment are used. Deck stiffnesses
are calculated from sectional properties (shown in Fig. C.2) and the abutment stiffnesses
using Eq. (4.12). The same equation is used to calculate the secant stiffness of piers.
3.2
kABT,1 =kABT,2 = 0.033 =97 (103 ×kN/m) (For both left and right abutments)
2.2
kef f,1 =kef f,3 = 0.245 =9.0 (103 ×kN/m) (Pier 1 and 3)
2.2
kef f,2 = 0.33 =6.7 (103 ×kN/m) (Pier 2)
The pier effective moment of inertia is determined using Eq. (4.14):

3 ×11 3
Ief f,1 =Ief f,3 = 9.0×10
3×30×106
= 0.133 m4 (Pier 1 and 3)
3 ×11 3
Ief f,2 = 6.7×10
3×30×106
= 0.099 m4 (Pier 2)
The yield force (Fy,i ) is determined from Eq. (4.13) and yield displacement (step 3)
which are used to obtain the crack section stiffness of the piers:
kcr,1 =kcr,3 = 17.1 (103 ×kN/m) (Pier 1 and 3)
kcr,2 = 16.6 (103 ×kN/m) (Pier 2)
The pier crack moment of inertia is determined using Eq. (4.12):
Icr,1 =Icr,3 = 0.254 m4 (Pier 1 and 3)
Icr,2 = 0.246 m4 (Pier 2)
165
Note that 70 percent of the pier gross sectional stiffness is considered as upper bound
on the pier’s crack section stiffness, i.e., if the pier crack section stiffness is greater than
70 percent of gross section stiffness, then 70 percent of gross section stiffness (0.7Ig =0.7×
0.414=0.29 m4 ) is considered as crack stiffness of the pier while the effective stiffness is
calculated using the known ductility and post yield stiffness ratio (r) equal to 5 percent.
In this example, as the crack section stiffnesses of all piers (pier 1 to 3) is less than 0.7Ig ,
the estimated crack stiffness governs.
The effective stiffness properties of piers are used along the global Z-axis in elastic
analysis while calculated crack section stiffnesses are provided along the global X-axis.
The crack section stiffnesses can be reduced further if the ductility of the pier in the
longitudinal direction is greater than 1. As the displacement in longitudinal direction is
unknown in the first iteration, therefore, it is assumed that the ductility of the piers in
longitudinal direction is less than 1 for the first iteration. Hence, pier crack stiffness is
provided in the longitudinal direction during the elastic analysis as shown in Fig. C.4.
For cases where the ductility in the longitudinal direction is greater than 1, the pier crack
stiffness is reduced by dividing the crack stiffness on the ductility.
Kcr,2 Keff,3
Keff,2
Keff,1 Kcr,3
Kcr,1
F2
F1 F3
KABT, 1 Z KABT, 2
KABT, 1 KABT, 2
X
Global axis
Figure C.4: Curved bridge analysis model
The structure is analyzed under the lateral forces (shown in Table C.4) using elastic
analysis, however, for clarity the lateral forces are only shown in Fig. C.4 at piers’ nodes.
The abutment stiffness is provided in local directions (local x and z-axes) by assuming
that the stiffness along global Z-axis is the same as local z-axis and also assuming a certain
ratio of transverse to longitudinal stiffness of the abutment. In this example this ratio is
assumed to be 1.0 which means that the abutment stiffness in both local directions (local
166
x and z-axes) is the same. The transverse and longitudinal displacement profile obtained
from the analysis is shown in Table C.5 and C.6, respectively.
Table C.5: Transverse displacement profile (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge centerline

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
0.050 0.066 0.084 0.102 0.119 0.136 0.149 0.157 0.159
Table C.6: Longitudinal displacement profile (m) of deck nodes up to the bridge center-
line

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
0.054 0.040 0.027 0.17 0.009 0.004 0.001 0.0 0.0
It is clear from Table C.6 that the longitudinal displacement at the location of all
piers is less than yield displacement of the piers. Thus the assumption of pier ductility
equal to 1 is appropriate. The abutment shear force (along local axis) obtained from the
analysis is shown in Fig C.5. These forces are transformed to global Z-axis to obtain VABT
which are used to determine the value of x (ratio of the abutment shear to the total base
shear force). All calculations are shown in Fig. C.5.
Forces resisted at left abutment θ =angle subtended by the abutment (local x-

axis) with the global X-axis=42.2 degrees
θ VABT= 7.26sin42.2+0.092cos42.2=4.92 (103x kN)
0.092 (103x kN) 7.26 (103x kN) Ratio of shear taken by left abutment=xL=4.92/13=0.378
VABT Similarly for right abutment: xR==4.92/13=0.378
Total shear ratio=x=xL+xR=0.3785+0.3785=0.757
Figure C.5: Estimation of abutment shear force ratio (x)
Step 9: Iteration and convergence of the design procedure. The assumption

of target displacement (Table C.3) is compared with the displacement profile obtained
167
from analysis (Table C.5). Also the assumed shear force ratio (x = 0.5) is compared with
the shear ratio obtained from the analysis (step 8) which is 0.757. A tolerance of 1 percent
of the parameter is chosen to check the convergence for both x and target displacement
profile, i.e., tolerance of x is equal to 1 percent of assumed value of x while tolerance of
displacement profile is 1 percent of the assumed displaced shape at critical node (a node
which gives maximum difference between the assumed and analysis value). Tolerance of
x= 0.01×0.5=0.005 while tolerance of displacement profile =0.01×0.33=0.0033.
The error between assumed and calculated values is determined as: error= |assumed
value − calculated value|. Error in x is =|0.5 − 0.757|=0.257 while the maximum error
in target displacement profile is =|0.33 − 0.159|=0.171.
As error is greater than tolerance, next iteration is performed. Now the displacement
profile of Table C.5 is considered as an initial displaced shape for step 1 and the whole
process is repeated up to step 9 such that the convergence is achieved for both x and
target displacement profile as well as piers ductility in the longitudinal direction.
Four iterations are required to achieve the convergence. The summary of these itera-
tions is presented in Table C.7.
Step 10: Verification of P − ∆ effects. The stability index for piers is determined
using Eq. (4.15) as follows:
θ∆,1 =θ∆,2 = 10140×0.22

1547×11
=0.13 (Pier 1 and 3)
θ∆,2 = 10140×0.29
1547×11
=0.17 (Pier 2)
As the displacement index of the piers is between 0.1 and 0.33, the moment at the
pier base is amplified using Eq. (4.16).
Md =1547 × 11(1 + 0.5 × 0.13)=18123 kN (Pier 1 and 3)
Md =1547 × 11(1 + 0.5 × 0.17)=18463 kN (Pier 1)
Thus the pier base moment is amplified by a factor of 1.065 for piers 1 and 3, and by
1.085 for pier 2. The same factors are used to increase the crack section stiffness of the
piers for inelastic time history analysis.
168
Table C.7: Summary of design iterations for 4 span bridge
Item Distance of the deck node from left abutment (m)

0 48 96
Iteration 01 12 24 36 60 72 84
(Left ABT) (P1) (P2)
Initial displacement profile= δi (m) 0.10 0.279 0.449 0.606 0.741 0.852 0.933 0.983 1.0
Target displacement profile=∆i (m) 0.033 0.092 0.148 0.20 0.245 0.281 0.308 0.324 0.33
Equivalent system properties System mass= msys =3565 (kgx103) System displacement=∆d=0.261 m
Displacement ductility of piers=µ∆i 1 – – – 2.0 – – – 2.7
Equivalent damping=ζsys (percent) 5 – – – 12.1 – – – 13.9
Shear force ratio=(Vi/Vb) 0.25 – – – 0.167 – – – 0.167
ζsys=9.0 percent; Eff. period=Teff = 1.68 sec; Eff. stiffness=keff =50 (103xkNm-1)
Equivalent system properties
Base shear=Vb= 13 (103xkN)
Lateral forces distribution=Fi (kN) 60 334 538 725 933 1020 1118 1177 1259
Member shear force=Vi (kN) 3200 – – – 2200 – – – 2200
Effective moment of inertia =Ieff (m4) 97000 – – – 0.133 – – – 0.099
Crack moment of inertia =Icr (m4) 97000 – – – 0.254 – – – 0.246
Iteration 02 x=0.757; error disp.=0.171; tol. disp.=0.003; error load=0.257; tol. load=0.005
0.050 0.066 0.084 0.102 0.119 0.136 0.149 0.157 0.159
Initial displacement profile= δi (m)
(.054) (0.040) (0.027) (0.017) (0.009) (0.004) (0.001) (0.0) (0.0)
169
Table C.7: Continued
ζsys=7.0 percent; Eff. period=Teff = 1.45 sec; Eff. stiffness=keff =71.3 (103xkNm-1)
Base shear=Vb= 17.9 (103x kN)
0.102 0.132 0.163 0.194 0.224 0.251 0.273 0.286 0.290
(.095) (0.070) (0.047) (0.029) (0.015) (0.006) (0.001) (0.0) (0.0)
ζsys=6.7 percent: Eff. period=Teff = 1.29 sec: Eff. stiffness=keff =91.9 (103xkNm-1)
Base shear=Vb= 20.8 (103xkN)
170
Table C.7: Continued
0.10 0.129 0.16 0.192 0.222 0.249 0.271 0.284 0.289
(.095) (0.069) (0.047) (0.029) (0.015) (0.006) (0.001) (0.0) (0.0)
3
Equivalent system properties System mass= msys =3863 (kgx10 ): System displacement=∆d=0.231 m
ζsys=6.7 percent: Eff. period=Teff = 1.32 sec: Eff. stiffness=keff =87.6 (103xkNm-1)
Base shear=Vb= 20.2 (103xkN)
0.10 0.129 0.16 0.192 0.222 0.249 0.271 0.285 0.289
(.095) (0.069) (0.047) (0.029) (0.015) (0.006) (0.001) (0.0) (0.0)
171
Appendix D
Results of Equivalent Viscous

Damping Model for Short Period
Reinforced Concrete Bridges
In Chapter 5 (Fig. 5.8), the equivalent viscous damping versus ductility data is shown for
spectral shape S2; whereas for completion, similar data is presented in Fig. D.1 and Fig.
D.2 for spectral shapes S3 and S4 respectively. In Fig. 5.9, the damping versus ductility
data is shown for all five spectral shapes (S1–S5) for r=0.0. Hence for completion, similar
data is presented in Fig. (D.3–D.5) for r=0.025, 0.05, and 0.075 respectively for spectral
shapes S2–S4. Furthermore, in Fig. 5.10, the fit between the proposed damping model is
compared with the data for r=0.0; whereas for completion, the data is presented in Fig.
(D.6–D.8) for r=0.025, 0.05, and 0.075 respectively for spectral shapes S2–S4.
172
0.5 Teff =0.2 sec 0.5 Teff =0.2 sec
(a) r=0.0 (b) r=0.025
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
Teff =0.2 sec (c) r=0.05 Teff =0.2 sec (d) r=0.075
0.4 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping

0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure D.1: Effect of ground motion, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio for
spectral shape S3
173
0.6 0.5 Teff =0.2 sec
Teff =0.2 sec (a) r=0.0 (b) r=0.025
0.5 0.4 Teff =0.6 sec
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
Teff =0.6 sec
0.4 Teff =0.8 sec Teff =0.8 sec
Teff =1.0 sec 0.3 Teff =1.0 sec
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 Teff =0.2 sec 0.5 Teff =0.2 sec (d) r=0.075
(c) r=0.05
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping

0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure D.2: Effect of ground motion, effective period, and post yield stiffness ratio for
spectral shape S4
174
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2 0.4 S2
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3 S3
S4 S4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
S2 S2
0.4 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3 S3
S4 S4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.025
0.4 S2
Equivalent Damping
S3
S4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure D.3: Equivalent viscous damping grouped by spectral shapes S2, S3, and S4 for
r=0.025
175
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2 0.4 S2
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3 S3
S4 S4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2 0.4 S2
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3 S3
S4 S4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.05
0.4 S2
Equivalent Damping
S3
S4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
r=0.05
176
0.4 0.4
S2 S2
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 S3 0.3 S3
S4 S4
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.4 0.4
S2 S2
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
0.3 S3 0.3 S3
S4 S4
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.4
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.075
S2
Equivalent Damping
0.3 S3
S4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
r=0.075
177
0.5 0.5
S2_Avg
0.4 0.4
Equivalent Damping
S3_Avg
Equivalent Damping
S4_Avg
S2_PM
0.3 0.3 S3_PM
S4_PM
S2_Avg 0.2
0.2 S3_Avg
S4_Avg
0.1 S2_PM 0.1
S3_PM
S4_PM
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2_Avg 0.4 S2_Avg
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3_Avg S3_Avg
S4_Avg S4_Avg
0.3 S2_PM 0.3 S2_PM
S3_PM S3_PM
S4_PM S4_PM
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.025
0.4
Equivalent Damping
S2_Avg
S3_Avg
0.3 S4_Avg
S2_PM
S3_PM
0.2 S4_PM
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure D.6: Proposed damping model fitted with data for r=0.025
178
0.5 0.5
S2_Avg S2_Avg
0.4 S3_Avg 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3_Avg
S4_Avg S4_Avg
S2_PM S2_PM
0.3 S3_PM 0.3 S3_PM
S4_PM S4_PM
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2_Avg 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3_Avg S2_Avg
S4_Avg S3_Avg
0.3 S4_Avg
S2_PM 0.3 S2_PM
S3_PM
S4_PM S3_PM
S4_PM
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.05
0.4
Equivalent Damping
S2_Avg
S3_Avg
0.3 S4_Avg
S2_PM
S3_PM
0.2 S4_PM
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
179
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2_Avg 0.4 S2_Avg
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S3_Avg S3_Avg
S4_Avg S4_Avg
0.3 S2_PM 0.3 S2_PM
S3_PM S3_PM
S4_PM S4_PM
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5 0.5
0.4 S2_Avg 0.4
Equivalent Damping
Equivalent Damping
S2_Avg
S3_Avg S3_Avg
S4_Avg S4_Avg
0.3 S2_PM 0.3 S2_PM
S3_PM S3_PM
S4_PM S4_PM
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.5
(e) Teff = 1.0 sec, r=0.075
0.4
Equivalent Damping
S2_Avg
0.3 S3_Avg
S4_Avg
S2_PM
0.2 S3_PM
S4_PM
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
180
Appendix E
Comparison of Numerical and

Experimental Cyclic Force
Displacement Response of RC
Bridge Column
In order to predict the inelastic response of structural elements subjected to large cyclic
deformation reversals, frame element modeling is often preferred over fiber and finite
element modeling due to its lower computational cost and reasonable accuracy. Frame
element models consist of elastic and inelastic components acting in parallel. The elastic
component is approximated by uniform sectional properties throughout the length of
the member while the inelastic behavior is represented by different hysteretic models.
For RC bridge column, the Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model often
termed ‘Takeda Thin’ in the literature is employed as shown in Fig. E.1. The parameters
required to characterize this model are the yield force (fy ), crack section stiffness (k0 ),
post yield stiffness ratio (r), unloading (α) and reloading factor (β). The objective of this
appendix is to show that the ‘Takeda Thin’ hysteretic model can capture the cyclic force
displacement response of bridge pier by comparing the numerical cyclic force displacement
response with experimental data. The numerical analysis is performed using a computer
package RUAUMOKO 3D (Carr, 2009). The experimental data is obtained from test 9
of several column tests conducted at North Carolina State University as part of a large
research program—impact of load history on the behavior of reinforced concrete bridge
181
columns—for details refer to Goodnight et al. (2013) and Goodnight (2015).
Based on the section and material properties of the column, the moment curvature
analysis is performed in CUMBIA (Montejo and Kowalsky, 2007) to obtain the crack
section stiffness (Icr ) and yield force (nominal moment) of the column as well as the
post yield stiffness ratio (r) which is 0.002748 m4 , 658.33 kNm, and 0.01 respectively.
These properties along with unloading stiffness factor (α=0.5) and reloading stiffness
factor (β=0.0) are used to characterize inelastic behavior of the column in RUAUMOKO
3D. The analysis option IPANAL=8 in RUAUMOKO 3D is used which corresponds to
multi input displacement ground history. This analysis is used to simulate a laboratory
excitation where displacement is applied at particular or several degree-of-freedom of a
structure. The displacement load history used in experiment is considered in the numer-
ical analysis with time step of 0.1 seconds that gives the displacement time history. The
cyclic response obtained from the analysis is compared with the experimental data in
Fig. E.4. The column has diameter of 2 ft (0.61 m) and height 8 ft (2.44 m). The
dp
F β dp
rk0
fy
dp=dm -dy ku=k0(dy/ dm)α
k0
d
dy dm
ku
rk0 -fy
Figure E.1: Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model
reinforcement contains 16 #6 (19 mm) diameter bars and #3 bars (9.5 mm) spiral at 2
in (51 mm) pitch. The test is designed such that the column is in single bending when
subjected to lateral and axial load. The axial load on the column was 220 kips (756.2 kN).
The column is subjected to symmetric three cycles set displacement load history shown
in Fig. E.2. The cyclic force displacement curve obtained from the test under the dis-
placement load history is shown in Fig. E.3 along with the monotonic force displacement
182
Figure E.2: Symmetric three cycles set load history (Goodnight, 2015)
Figure E.3: Cyclic force displacement response versus Monotonic force displacement
prediction using CUMBIA (Goodnight, 2015)
183
curve estimated from CUMBIA.
From Fig. E.4, it is clear that the Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic
model captures the cyclic inelastic response of the RC bridge column with reasonable
accuracy up to ductility of 6. However, at very high ductility (µ ≥8) the strength degra-
dation occurs which cause deviation between experimental and analytical results. This
deviation is due to the reason that strength degradation is ignored in numerical mod-
elling. It is important to note that the bridge piers considered in this study are not
subjected to displacement ductility greater than 6. Therefore, this model can capture the
global response of the bridge structure without considering strength degradation.
400
Numerical analysis data
300
Experimental data
200
Lateral Force (kN)
100
-100
-200
-300
-400
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Diaplacement (mm)
Figure E.4: Comparison of the cyclic force displacement response obtained for experi-
mental and numerical data
184

Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved Bridges

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved Bridges

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ABSTRACT

This dissertation aims to contribute to the development of AASHTO Guide Specifica-

All Rights Reserved

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

Raleigh, North Carolina

Dr. Mervyn J. Kowalsky Dr. James M. Nau

Dr. Abhinav Gupta Dr. Rudolf Seracino

Dr. Thomas A. Birkland

I would like to express my special appreciation and sincere gratitude to my advisors

Chapter 2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 3 Impact of Irregularities on the Seismic Response of Straight

Chapter 4 Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Con-

Chapter 6 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 2.1 Bridge regularity requirements of AASHTO (2007) . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 6.1 Limit on maximum subtended angle of curved bridge in addition to

Figure 1.1 Goals of Performance-Based Seismic Design (SEAOC, 1995) . . . . . 4

Figure 2.1 Structural system of South Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/In-

Figure 4.1Curved bridge plan view and detail of analysis model . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure E.1 Modified Takeda Degrading Stiffness hysteretic model . . . . . . . . 182

1.2 Scope and Objectives

 Determine if a curved bridge may be unwrapped and analyzed as if it

1.2.2 Part II: Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Re-

 Determine the limitations of proposed DDBD method for curved bridges.

1.2.3 Part III: Equivalent Viscous Damping Model for Short

1.3 Dissertation Organization

2.1 Lessons Learned from Damaged Curved Bridges

Figure 2.1: Structural system of South Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/Interstate

and the North Connector Overcrossing Bridge—located at the Route 14/Interstate 5

Figure 2.3: Structural system of North Connector Overcrossing on Route 14/Interstate

2.2 Code Provisions for Seismic Analysis of Bridges

2.2.2 CALTRANS 2013

 The span lengths are less than 300 ft.

 The bent caps are either dropped or integral.

 The spliced concrete bridge system imitates a cast-in-place continuous structure.

2.2.4 New Zealand Bridge Manual 2013

 Curved bridges with superstructure subtended angle of more than 45 degrees.

 Suspension, cable-stayed and arch bridges.

 Bridges with piers designed to rock.

2.2.5 AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge

Regular Bridges with 2 Irregular Bridges with 2

2.2.6 DBD12: A Model Code for the Displacement-Based Seis-

Case 3: valley pier configuration Case 4: valley ridge pier

Case 1: uniform pier configuration Case 2: uniform pier configuration

Case 3: valley pier configuration Case 4: valley ridge pier configuration

Figure 2.8: Displaced shape for regular continuous bridges (DBD12)

2.4 Analytical Modeling of Curved Bridges

2.5 Relevant Studies on the Development of Direct

2.6 Past Studies on Equivalent Viscous Damping

2.7 Summary of Literature Review

Impact of Irregularities on the

3.2 Bridge Configurations for Parametric Study

Abutment translational Abutment rotational

Table 3.3: Pier height configurations

No. of spans Case No. P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Table 3.4: Span length configurations (units are meters)

No. of spans Case No. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

In order to create several different configurations, a variety of models of the typical

3.3 Modeling and Analysis Approach

Table 3.5: Deck gross sectional properties

Second moment of area (m4 ) about local

1.5 Design Spectrum Spectral Displacement (m) 1.2 Design Spectrum

3.4 Methodology for Comparison of Straight and

3.5 Displacement Index

3.6 Results of ITHA for Case Study Bridges in Phase

Determine if a curved bridge may be unwrapped and analyzed as if it

Determine the limitations of proposed DDBD method for curved bridges.

The span lengths are less than 300 ft.

The bent caps are either dropped or integral.

The spliced concrete bridge system imitates a cast-in-place continuous structure.

Curved bridges with superstructure subtended angle of more than 45 degrees.

Suspension, cable-stayed and arch bridges.

Bridges with piers designed to rock.

In general, the deviation in the response of curved bridges compared to straight

The type and degree of abutment restraint is a critical parameter in controlling

The extended DDBD procedure is capable of capturing the target displacement