DDBD on bridges with foundation flexibility

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ON
BRIDGES WITH FOUNDATION FLEXIBILITY
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Master Degree in
Earthquake Engineering
By
Ricardo Alejandro Zapata Montoya
Supervisor(s): Dr. Lorenza Petrini
December, 2008
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Universit degli Studi di Pavia
The dissertation entitled DDBD on bridges with foundation flexibility, by Ricardo
Alejandro Zapata Montoya, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Dr. Lorenza Petrini

Abstract
ABSTRACT
In this work a displacement-based design procedure for multi-span reinforced concrete bridge
structures when subjected to seismic action in the transverse direction and considering foundation
flexibility is presented. The procedure for multi degree of freedom structures is reviewed and added
the methodology to include the soil-structure interaction effect. The design methodology is then
applied to different possible bridge configurations.
Results in terms of pier ductility demands, displacements, damping, stiffness, forces and pier sections
are presented and discussed.
A major challenge in performance-based engineering is to develop simple, yet accurate, methods to

design new structures considering inelastic behaviour of the structures explicitly, specially at low
performance levels, such as life safety and/ or collapse prevention. Though nonlinear time history
analysis is the most accurate and rigorous procedure, it can only be used to assess the performance of
the structure under design seismic excitation after completion of design (i.e. provided necessary
reinforcement at critical sections) and also impractical for widespread professional use because of its
inherent complexity. Direct displacement based design (DDBD), on the other hand, provides
necessary tool for design of new structures to achieve the necessary performance levels when
subjected to design seismic attack. The performance of DDBD is already verified for a wide range of
structures and found satisfactory.
The aim of this analytical investigation is to assess the performance of the DDBD procedure for
multiple span bridges under transverse seismic excitation and propose the necessary adjustments to
include the soil-structure interaction behaviour to the current procedure.
Keywords: bridges; bridge analysis; direct displacement based design; soil-structure interaction;
foundation; flexible foundation.
i
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my heartiest gratitude to my adviser Dr. Lorenza Petrini for her invaluable
guidance, for her gracious support, and for her technical advice. Working under your supervision has
been an instructive experience for me.
A special mention for my parents, Jaime and Pastora, my brother, Mauricio and my girlfriend Milena
who have always be sustaining and encouraging me in every project of my life.
I express my deep gratitude to my family who supported me to achieve this goal. I deeply appreciate
the sacrifices of my parents who instilled in me the right values in life, provided me the necessary
education, and inspired me to pursue higher studies.
Thanks to all my friends at ROSE School. Special thanks to for all the great times we shared.
I would also like to thank my former employer in Colombia, INTEGRAL S.A., for the wise advises,
and its constant search to making me a better engineer and a better person.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................................vi
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objective ....................................................................................................................................3
2 FUNDAMENTALS OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ........................................4
2.1 DDBD procedure for a single pier .............................................................................................4
2.1.1 Yield displacement...........................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Design (Target) displacement ..........................................................................................6
2.1.3 Equivalent viscous damping ............................................................................................7
2.1.4 Design displacement spectrum.........................................................................................9
2.1.5 Design base shear...........................................................................................................10
2.2 DDBD procedure for transverse response of continuous bridges ............................................11
2.2.1 Determination of inelastic displacement profile ............................................................11
2.2.2 Characterization of the equivalent SDOF ......................................................................13
2.2.3 Determine effective period of the equivalent SDOF system .........................................15
2.2.4 Distribution of lateral inertia loading.............................................................................15
2.2.5 Analysis of structure under design forces ......................................................................15
3 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN INCLUDING SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION EFFECT ....................................................................................................................16
3.1 Displacement based design with Soil Structure Interaction procedure for SDOF...................16
3.1.1 Foundation dimension definition ...................................................................................20
3.1.2 Application of DDBD to equivalent SDOF system .......................................................23
iii
Index
3.1.3 Alternative iterative procedure for Ds > Dc,eq................................................................25

3.2 DDBD with Soil-Structure Interaction procedure for MDOF .................................................26
3.2.1 Estimate the initial inelastic displacement profile .........................................................26
3.2.2 Determine pier yield displacement ................................................................................27
3.2.3 Application of DDBD+SSI procedure for SDOF ..........................................................27
3.2.4 System target displacement............................................................................................27
3.2.5 Effective system mass....................................................................................................27
3.2.6 Fraction of lateral inertia force carried to the abutments (x) .........................................27
3.2.7 System hysteretic damping ............................................................................................27
3.2.8 System Effective period .................................................................................................28
3.2.9 System effective stiffness ..............................................................................................28
3.2.10Base shear force for the equivalent SDOF.....................................................................28
3.2.11Force distribution ...........................................................................................................28
3.2.12Abutment and pier effective stiffness ............................................................................29
3.2.13Updated displacement shape..........................................................................................29
3.2.14Update inertia force carried to the abutments. ...............................................................29
3.2.15Section design ................................................................................................................30
4 APPLICATION TO DIFFERENT BRIDGE CONFIGURATIONS ..............................................31
4.1 Bridge Information and Assumptions ......................................................................................31
4.1.1 Materials ........................................................................................................................31
4.1.2 Abutments ......................................................................................................................31
4.1.3 Bridge Deck ...................................................................................................................32
4.1.4 Piers and Cap Beam .......................................................................................................36
4.2 Seismic Input ...........................................................................................................................36
4.3 Design Results without Soil-Structure Interaction...................................................................36
4.3.1 Series of Regular Bridges ..............................................................................................38
4.3.2 Series of Irregular Bridges .............................................................................................38
4.4 Soil Properties..........................................................................................................................40
4.5 Design Results with Soil-Structure Interaction........................................................................40
4.5.1 Series of Regular Bridges ..............................................................................................41
4.5.2 Series of Irregular Bridges .............................................................................................54
5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................81
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................83
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR ONE BRIDGE..................................................... A1
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: DDBD for structures with fixed base ....................................................................................1
Figure 2.2: EC8 elastic response spectra (acceleration and displacement) for 5% damping...................1
Figure 2.3: Effective period evaluation based on DDBD procedure .......................................................1
Figure 2.4: Uniform Beam simply supported on elastic springs..............................................................1
Figure 3.1: Equivalent SDOF system for a flexible base structure (Wolf, 1985)....................................1
Figure 3.2: Degrading stiffness curve and increment damping curves as function of foundation
rotation. ...........................................................................................................................................1
Figure 3.3: Iterative procedure to determine Dd_fin ...............................................................................1
Figure 3.4: Model of the equivalent elastic system under transverse response .....................................29
Figure 4.1: Bridge Typical Transverse Section ....................................................................................32
Figure 4.2: Series of 4-span and 6-span Regular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m) ......33
Figure 4.3: Series of 4-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m) .......................34
Figure 4.4: Series of 6-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m) .......................35
Figure 4.5: Interaction Diagrams for piers.............................................................................................36
v
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Limit state definitions (Kowalsky, 2000) ...............................................................................6
Table 3.1: Coefficient matrix.................................................................................................................19
Table 4.1: Material Properties for Design..............................................................................................32
Table 4.2: Substitute SDOF parameters without SSI for bridges of Series 1 to 6 .................................37
Table 4.3: Substitute SDOF parameters without SSI for bridges of Series 7 to 12 ...............................38
Table 4.4: Substitute SDOF parameters without SSI for bridges of Series 13 to 18 .............................39
Table 4.5: Substitute SDOF parameters with SSI for bridges of Series 1 to 6 ......................................41
Table 4.6: Design results (H=7.5 m, H=10.0 m) for bridges of Series 1 ...............................................42
Table 4.7: Design results (H=12.5 m, H=15.0 m) for bridges of Series 1 .............................................43
Table 4.8: Design results (H=7.5 m, H=10.0 m) for bridges of Series 2 ...............................................44
Table 4.11: Design results (H=12.5 m, H=15.0 m) for bridges of Series 3 ...........................................47
Table 4.18: Substitute SDOF parameters with SSI for bridges of Series 7 to 12 ..................................54
vi
Index
Table 4.26: Design results (H=12.5 m, H=15.0 m) for bridges of Series 10 .........................................62
Table 4.31: Substitute SDOF parameters with SSI for bridges of Series 13 to 18 ................................67
vii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
Seismic design is currently going through a transitional period. Most of the seismic codes to
date utilize force-based seismic design, or what can also be called strength-based design
procedures. However, it is now widely recognized that force and damage are poorly correlated
and that strength has lesser importance when designing for earthquake loading than for other
actions. These, together with other problems and inconsistencies with force-based design,
[Priestley, 2003], have led to the development of more reliable seismic design methodologies
under the framework of what has been termed Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD).
PBSD represents basically the philosophy of designing a structure to perform within a
predefined level of damage under a predefined level of earthquake intensity.
1.1 Background
It is known that displacements correlate much better with damage than forces do. Hence, if
the design objective is to control the damage under a given level of seismic excitation it is
reasonable to attempt to design the structures using as input the desired displacements to be
sustained under the design seismic intensity.
Contemporary and traditional seismic design approach, termed as force-based design, rely
upon the fundamental period of vibration of the structure to determine the required strength
for the design level seismic action. This use of the fundamental period of vibration is based on
the premise that it may be estimated given the initial structural concept and dimensions of the
structure. Once the fundamental period of vibration is known, the required elastic strength is
obtained from 5% damped elastic acceleration response spectrum. As we know, well designed
structure generally possess ductility, elastic force demand is then reduced by the force
reduction factor or behaviour factor depending upon the ductility demand to estimate the
design strength of the structure. This seismic design methodology is well documented in all
the current seismic design regulations worldwide.
Priestley examined critically the above-mentioned force based seismic design procedure and
concluded that many of the fundamental principles on which the design philosophy is based
on were deeply flawed. Those observations were documented in detail elsewhere [Priestley,
1993 and Priestley, 2003] and some of these are presented below.
The above-mentioned period dependent force based design relies on the initial
stiffness to determine the period and the force distribution between the structural
1
elements. Since the stiffness is proportional to strength of the elements, this cannot be
ascertained until the design process is complete.
Force based design is based on the assumption that the same force-reduction factor
(based mainly on system ductility demand) is appropriate for a given structure type
and material and it is unique for all the individual structural elements. However
ductility demand for individual structural members significantly differs from the
system ductility depending upon geometry of the structure, flexibility of the capacity
protected elements and foundation flexibility amongst others. None of the present
standards consider these influences on the force reduction factors. For bridges with
irregular pier heights, a severe concentration of ductility demands are observed at the
stiffer piers while the more flexible ones remain almost unstressed, the use of a single
behaviour factor for the whole structure cannot always provide adequate safety.
The relationship between elastic and inelastic displacement has doubtful validity.
Different codes suggest different relationship for elastic and inelastic displacement.
The most commonly used Newmarks Equal displacement principle is not valid for
both very short-period and very long-period of structures and is also of doubtful
validity for medium period structures when the hysteretic behaviour of the inelastic
system differ significantly from elasto-plastic.
Because of erroneous initial stiffness and conservative relationship for elastic and
inelastic displacement, the severity of P- effect is always underestimated.
Another discrepancy is apparent in structures that possess more than one seismic load
path, one of which remains elastic while the others respond inelastically at the design
level earthquake. The same behaviour factor is used for both elements, those behave
elastically and those inelastically. This results in under-design of elastic elements.
In FBD approach, structures are designed for seismic forces. This is against the
physical reality showing that it is the deformation that causes a structural member to
lose its lateral load resistance and it is lateral displacements (and not lateral forces)
that cause structures to collapse under their own weight.
Despite the above-mentioned discrepancies, force based seismic design is well established,
because structural engineers are familiar with force based design for other types of loading
such as gravity and wind loads, because static equilibrium for a set of prescribed external
loads represents a robust basis of analysis methods.
One of the more rational and relevant approaches that has been developed over the past 10
years is the Direct Displacement-Based Design, which characterizes the structure to be
designed by a single degree of freedom representation of performance at peak displacement
response. The objective is to design a structure which would achieve, rather than be bounded
by, a given performance limit state under a given seismic intensity [Priestley, 1993 and
Priestley, 2003]. The method utilizes the Substitute Structure approach to model the inelastic
structure as an equivalent elastic Single Degree Of Freedom (SDOF) system.
A detailed assessment of eight recently developed displacement controlled design

philosophies in terms of simplicity, versatility, performance and completeness was done by
[Sullivan, 2003] and concluded that DDBD is simpler to apply, better equipped to address the
2
deficiencies of conventional force based design and developed in a more complete form than
the other displacement controlled design philosophies developed by others.
DDBD is also a period dependent design procedure like traditional force based design but use
secant stiffness to the maximum displacement instead of initial stiffness (secant stiffness to
yield displacement) to calculate the response of the structure. In this design procedure, the
structures are designed to achieve a target displacement under design earthquake level, rather
than achieve a displacement less than a specified displacement (as we do in force based
design). The design procedure determines the strength required at designated plastic hinge
locations to achieve the design objectives in terms of defined displacement objectives. It must
then be combined with capacity design procedures [Priestley et al, 1996] to ensure that plastic
hinges occurs only where intended and that non-ductile modes of inelastic deformation do not
develop.
In the next chapter the basic concepts of the methodology will be presented and its application
to multi-span bridge structures discussed in detail. This procedure was first developed for
single column and then extended to others Multi Degree Of Freedom (MDOF) structures.
1.2 Objective
This report is part of an on-going research at ROSE School and in Reluis Project Linea 41 to
evaluate and improve the application of Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD)
procedure for seismic design of wide category of structures. The present work aim to extend
the results obtained by Priestley and his co-workers, [Alvarez Botero, 2004] and [Ortiz
Restrepo, 2006] in the application of DDBD principles to the design of transverse response of
reinforced concrete bridges with regular and irregular configurations taking into account the
soil-structure interaction.
Indeed, bridges are often required to cross rivers and valleys where foundation conditions are
less than ideal. As a consequence soil-structure interaction effects frequently require special
consideration. Evaluate the soil-structure interaction and analyze in what kind of bridges it is
important to consider it, investigate the effect on the final stiffness, displacements, damping
and design are the main goals of this study.
1
Reluis (Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica) Progetto esecutivo 2005 2008
(Attuazione Accordo di Programma Quadro DPC-Reluis del 15-03-2005) - Linea 4, Sviluppo di
approcci agli spostamenti per il progetto e la valutazione della vulnerabilit.
3
Chapter 2. Fundamentals of Direct Displacement Based Design
2 FUNDAMENTALS OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED

DESIGN
The Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) can be defined as a response spectrum based
approach, which utilizes the substitute structure methodology developed by [Shibata and
Sozen, 1976] to model an inelastic system with equivalent linear elastic properties, such as
equivalent elastic secant stiffness to the maximum response point and a consistent equivalent
viscous damping value. The equivalent viscous damping consists of two components: one due
to the hysteretic energy dissipation and the other due to viscous damping. Since the substitute
structure is elastic, its response is also computed from an elastic response spectrum scaled to
proper equivalent viscous damping. The aim of the design procedure is to obtain the base
shear from a given target displacement and the level of ductility that can be estimated from
the structural and element geometries. The main aspects of DDBD related to multi-span
concrete bridges as developed and verified in the previous two years of the Reluis project by
UR9 will be briefly summarized in this chapter.
Alike gravity and wind loads, bridge piers are also analysed for seismic loadings in two
orthogonal directions, such as along the bridge axis (longitudinal direction) and normal to the
bridge axis (transverse direction). The longitudinal response of straight bridge is relatively
simple as the design and response displacements are same for all the piers. The details of
longitudinal procedure have been already developed in a complete form and described in
detail elsewhere [Priestley et al, 2007]. On the other hand, the transverse response of multi-
span bridges, though in many cases is less critical than longitudinal response, is more
complex. Accordingly the transversal procedure has been deeply investigated during this
project.
2.1 DDBD procedure for a single pier

In this section, salient features of DDBD procedure for a single pier (vertical cantilever)
system are described. This procedure is applicable to the piers of bridges under longitudinal
excitation and bridges with simply supported spans with rotational flexibilities at movement
joints about vertical axis under transverse excitation and also helps to understand the basic
principles of DDBD.
4
Figure 2.1: DDBD for structures with fixed base
2.1.1 Yield displacement

For a single pier system, the yield displacement is required for two reasons. First to define the
target displacement from strain consideration and secondly, to define the displacement
ductility which will be used for equivalent viscous damping calculation. Analytical results
indicate that for reinforced concrete members, the yield curvature is essentially independent
of reinforcement content and axial load level, and is a function of yield strain of
reinforcement and section depth alone [Priestley, 2003]. The following equation gives the
yield curvature for circular and rectangular bridge piers.
y
y = 2.25 (2.1)
D
y
y = 2.10 (2.2)
D
where, y is the yield strain of the reinforcement (= fye/Es), fye is the expected steel strength
(=1.1fy) [Priestley et al, 1996] and D is the depth of the section.
The yield displacement at the centre of mass for a pier is then calculated by the following
equation.
y ( H + Lsp ) 2
y = (2.3)
3
where H is the pier height and Lsp is the strain penetration length calculated as show below.
Lsp = 0.022 f ye dbL (m) (2.4)
5
where fye and dbL are the expected yield strength in MPa and diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcement in mm.
2.1.2 Design (Target) displacement

The design displacement is generally selected depending on the performance limit state
chosen and whether structural or non-structural considerations are more critical. For bridges,
in absence of non-structural components, target displacement is estimated by limiting the
material strain, since damage is strain related for structural elements, and then protected
against undesirable modes of failure such as shear, buckling of longitudinal bars, concrete
crushing due to lack of confinement, low cycle fatigue of reinforcement etc. Damage to non-
structural elements can be generally considered drift-related. In the studied cases, for
simplicity, we defined design displacement limiting the drift.
It is comparatively straightforward to compute the design displacement from strain limits.

Assuming a linear strain variation across the section (which is true if shear deformation is
negligible), a relation can be established for maximum curvature of the section considering
the limit state strains are mc and ms for concrete compression and reinforcement tension
respectively.
mc
mc = (2.5)
c
ms
ms = (2.6)
d c
where c and d are the distance from the extreme compression fibre to the neutral axis and to
the centroid of the tensile reinforcement respectively. The lesser of mc and ms will give the
design maximum curvature m. The quantitative definition of the strain limits corresponding
to different performance limits are yet to be codified. For damage control limit state, the
maximum concrete strain cu is related to the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement and
is defined elsewhere in detail [Mander et al, 1988; EC8, 2004] and the maximum
reinforcement tensile strain su is taken as 60% of the fracture strain. The maximum
permissible strain of the reinforcement can be taken as 7.5% Class C as per EC2 or 6.0%
according to Caltran. [Kowalsky, 2000] suggest a quantitative definition of limit strains
(Table 2.1) for use of circular column with transverse reinforcement of 0.8% to 1.0%, spiral
yield stress of 450 MPa and allowable spiral strain of 0.1, which can be used as a reference.
Table 2.1: Limit state definitions (Kowalsky, 2000)
Limit State Concrete strain limit Steel strain limit
Serviceability 0.004 0.015
Damage control 0.018 0.060
6
The problem in this approach is the calculation of neutral axis depth c. Neutral axis depth for
a column section depends on the axial load and reinforcement ratio. At the beginning of the
design process, reinforcement ratio is unknown though axial load is known (except for multi-
column bent). In this situation, we have to make an assumption about reinforcement ratio to
calculate the maximum curvature. Knowing the maximum curvature, maximum plastic
rotation can be obtained using Eq.(2.7).
p = (m y ) L p (2.7)
where Lp is the plastic hinge length estimated from the following equation.
L p = 0.08H + Lsp (2.8)
where H is the height of the pier and Lsp is the strain penetration length given by Eq. (2.4).
The design displacement can now be estimated using the following equation.
Lp
m = y + p H (2.9)
2
Some standards like AASHTO define the design displacement by restricting the plastic
rotation capacity p at plastic hinge location (i.e. at column base). Once plastic rotation is
known, the design displacement can be computed from Eq. (2.9).
Once the design and yield displacement of the system are known, displacement ductility is
computed from the following equation.
m
= (2.10)
y
2.1.3 Equivalent viscous damping

One of the key parameter to linearize the nonlinear inelastic seismic response of real structure
using substitute structure approach is equivalent viscous damping eq which is considered as a
sum of initial damping in the elastic range el and energy dissipation because of nonlinear
behaviour in the inelastic range hyst [Priestley et al, 2007]. Normally, for concrete structures,
the elastic damping ratio is taken as 0.05, related to critical damping.
eq = el + hyst (2.11)
(a) Elastic damping. It is used in inelastic time-history analysis to represent damping not
captured by the hysteretic model adopted for the analysis. The elastic component of the
equivalent viscous damping represents the energy dissipation because of nonlinearity in the
elastic response; additional damping also results from foundation compliance, foundation
non-linearity and radiation damping, soil-structure interaction, interaction with non-structural
elements, and other similar mechanisms. As it is impractical and difficult to estimate all the
7
energy dissipation mechanism from the structural dimensions, structural member sizes and
structural material damping, damping force is usually considered either in proportion with
stiffness or mass or a combination of both for MDOF system (Rayleigh damping) and in
proportion with square root of the product of mass and stiffness for SDOF system. The
nonlinear inelastic behaviour of the real structure is linearized by a substitute structure defined
by the secant stiffness to the maximum displacement and equivalent viscous damping as a
fraction critical damping. Thus elastic component of the equivalent viscous damping is related
to the secant stiffness. On the other hand, in nonlinear inelastic time history analysis of the
real structure, damping is defined as a proportion of the initial or the current tangent stiffness.
(b) Hysteretic damping. Second component of the equivalent viscous damping represent the
nonlinear hysteresis damping of the system. Initial work on equivalent linearization of
hysteresis damping was done by [Jacobsen, 1930, 1960] based on equating the energy
absorbed by hysteretic steady state harmonic response to a given displacement level to the
equivalent viscous damping of the substitute structure. Since this formulation is related to the
secant stiffness to maximum response, it is compatible with the assumptions of structural
characterisation by stiffness and damping at peak response. Although this linearization of
hysteresis behaviour produce peak displacement under seismic excitation comparable with the
time history analysis for low energy absorption hysteretic behaviour, it is found to be
overestimate the equivalent damping for system with high energy absorption, such as elasto-
plastic or bilinear rules [Chopra, 2001]. [Grant et al, 2005] proposed a ductility and time
period dependent equivalent damping relation that have been calibrated for a wide range of
hysteresis rules to give same peak displacements as the hysteretic response, using inelastic
time history analysis for an ensemble of artificial accelerograms compatible with CALTRAN
displacement spectra, where a, b, c, d are the constants depending upon the hysteretic rules.
1 1
eq ,h = a 1 1 + (2.12)
b (Teq + c)d
Equivalent viscous damping can be evaluated as a function of displacement ductility

according to formula proposed by [Grant et al, 2005] for the case of el proportional to the
tangent stiffness (as derived from the experimental studies of the first year of Reluis project
Linea 4 Unit 9 [Petrini et al., 2008]). In particular for the Takeda Thin degrading-stiffness-
hysteretic rule, which is commonly used to represent ductile reinforced concrete columns
response, the following equation is proposed:
1 1

eq = 0.05 + a 1 b 1+
( T + c )d (2.13)

eq
where =-0.387, a= 0.215, b=0.642, c= 0.824, d= 6.444. The problem of using Eq.(2.13) is
that, at the beginning of design, secant period of the structure is unknown and thus iteration is
required. To avoid this iteration and because it is conservative to use low estimates of
8
damping, and since it will be unusual for regular structures such as frame and wall buildings,
and bridges to have effective periods less than 1.0 seconds, it will generally be adequate, and
conservative to ignore the period-dependency in design, [Priestley, 2007] suggest the
following equation for the same hysteresis rule ignoring the period dependency part of the
hysteresis damping and ductility dependent part of the elastic damping.
1
eq = 0.05 + 0.444 (2.14)

2.1.4 Design displacement spectrum

Design displacement spectrum is required to calculate the secant time period corresponding to
the maximum displacement and equivalent viscous damping. It is observed that converting
code acceleration spectrum Sa(T) into displacement spectrum through simple multiplication
by (T/2)2 often results in unrealistic spectral shape. This is because acceleration spectra are
not as sensitive to digitization error as their displacement counterparts, and it is not therefore
surprising that idealised, perfectly valid acceleration spectra often give rise to unrealistic
displacement spectra, e.g., monotonically increasing at long periods as for the International
Building Code [IBC, 2000]. Recent research [Faccioli et al, 2004; Tolis et al, 1999; Bommer,
1999] defines a physically plausible description of the displacement spectrum in long periods
range (up to 10s) for Eurocode 8 [EC8, 2004] using high quality digital strong motion data
from different region (Taiwan, Japan, Italy, and Greece). Recent EC8 gives displacement
spectrum for a moment magnitude MW = 6.1 which capped the maximum spectral
displacement at time period T = 2.0s. In this report, all the bridges are so flexible that their
system secant time period exceeds this corner period. Thus a higher moment magnitude MW =
6.9 is considered to have a corner period T = 4.0s. All the bridge sites are considered over
deep deposits of dense sand or medium dense sand, gravel or stiff clay with thickness from
several tens to many hundreds of metres which is defined as soil type C in EC8. The peak
ground acceleration (PGA) is considered as 0.5g. The modified form of EC8 spectra for 5%
damping are shown in Figure 2.2.
AccelerationSpectra DisplacementSpectra
1.60 1000
900
1.40
800
1.20
Displacement(mm)
700
Acceleration(%g)
1.00 600
0.80 500
0.60 400
300
0.40
200
0.20
100
0.00 0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Period(sec) Period(sec)
Figure 2.2: EC8 elastic response spectra (acceleration and displacement) for 5% damping
(modified for earthquake magnitude 6.9 MW, PGA = 0.5g and soil type C)
9
Once defined the design displacement and the equivalent viscous damping, the secant time
period corresponding to the maximum displacement is calculated through the elastic
displacement spectrum. In order to calculate displacement spectra for damping ratio other
than 5%, a modification factor for far field earthquake records is given by Eq. (2.15).
0.5
7
= 5 (2.15)
2+
where and 5 are the spectral displacements for damping ratio of % and 5.0% of critical
respectively.
2.1.5 Design base shear

The secant time period Te is then estimated from the design displacement scaled according to
the proper equivalent viscous damping using Eq.(2.15) corresponding to the maximum
displacement calculated by Eq.(2.9) as shown in Figure 2.3. The stiffness of the system
corresponding to that maximum displacement is computed from the following relation,
2
2
K e = me (2.16)
Te
where me represents the effective mass of the structure participating in the fundamental mode
of vibration. Having the effective stiffness, the design lateral force can be readily obtained
using Eq.(2.17)
Vb = K e m (2.17)
Figure 2.3: Effective period evaluation based on DDBD procedure
For a SDOF system the procedure ends here, the design lateral force is the corresponding base
shear of the system, and adequate strength must be then provided. Capacity design procedures
are used to ensure shear strength exceeds maximum possible shear correspondent to flexural
over-strength in the plastic region.
10
2.2 DDBD procedure for transverse response of continuous bridges

For multi degree of freedom (MDOF) structures the initial part of the design process requires
the determination of the characteristics of the equivalent SDOF substitute structure in terms of
equivalent mass, design displacement and damping. When these have been determined, the
design base shear is calculated for the substitute structure. The base shear is then distributed
between the mass elements of the real structure as inertia forces, and the structure is analysed
under these load vector to calculate the design moments at the potential plastic hinge location.
In the subsequent sections, DDBD is discussed systematically for continuous bridges under
transverse excitation.
2.2.1 Determination of inelastic displacement profile

When the design method is applied to a MDOF system, the main issues are the definition of
the substitute structure and the determination of the design displacement. However, the
substitute structure can be easily defined by assuming a displaced shape for the real structure.
This displaced shape is that which corresponds to the inelastic first-mode at the design level
of seismic excitation. Representing the displacement by the inelastic rather than the elastic
first-mode shape is consistent with characterizing the structure by its secant stiffness to
maximum response [Priestley et al, 2007]. During the last years, research efforts have been
focused on the definition of design displaced shapes for different structural systems. The
design displacement of the substitute structure depends also on the limiting displacement of
the critical member, , which in turn depends on the strain or code-drift limit for the
C
performance level under consideration. For bridge structures, the critical member will
normally be the shortest column.
Preliminary sizing of the structural elements are often estimated from non-seismic loadings
such as gravity load, wind load etc. Thus mass distribution, pier sizes and material properties
are known before the seismic design starts. Selecting the response spectrum representative of
local seismic hazard level, we are ready to start the DDBD for transverse seismic excitation.
The first step is to define the target displacement pattern compatible with the bridge geometry
such that the most critical pier, often shortest pier but not always, reaches the limit state
displacement considering that inelastic action is limited to the piers only. This displacement
shape is strongly dependent on the abutment restraint, relative flexibility of the superstructure
and pier columns, distribution of column stiffness across the bridge deck and inelastic action
in bridge columns. A detailed discussion on this can be found in [Kowalsky, 2006].
It is apparent that it will not be possible to define exactly the displacement profile at the
beginning of the design process and hence some iteration is required. [Kowalsky, 2000]
suggests a step-by-step approach to obtain the design displaced shape of a multi-span bridge
utilizing the effective mode shapes in conjunction with the pier and abutment limit
displacement criteria. The objective is to obtain a displaced shape whereby at least one pier or
abutment reaches its desired damaged level, or design displacement of the substitute structure
reaches the corner displacement of the displacement spectrum. The suggested steps are:
11
Evaluate mode shapes, based on the column and abutment secant stiffness values at
maximum response. It is well accepted to assume that the superstructure will respond
elastically and hence elastic properties are used. However, it is suggested that secant
stiffness equal to 10% of the un-cracked section stiffness be assigned to the columns
expected to exceed their yield displacement, while a value of 60% be assigned to the
columns expected to behave elastically. Abutment stiffness for the first iteration can
be 30% of the initial elastic stiffness, if it deform elastically. It is stressed that the
closer the estimates of the starting secant stiffness are to the actual values, the quicker
the procedure will converge.
Evaluate modal participation factors and evaluate likely displaced shape, as a function
of the several modes, especially for irregular bridges, using the classical SSRS or
CQC rules.
Utilizing the limit state displacement of individual members, the target displacement
pattern is obtained. Only one displacement pattern is compatible with the obtained
shape and the limit state displacement criteria: by scaling the displacement pattern to
the target displacements of each bent, the critical displacement pattern is the one
where the strain-based displacement targets are not exceeded.
[Priestly and Calvi, 2003], on the other hand, adopt a more pragmatic approach considering a
parabolic displacement shape between abutments to reduce the computational effort of the
Kowalskys approach. In this work a simplified approach is followed which uses the deck-
only elastic first mode shape as a first approximation of the bridge displacement profile: it can
be approximated as a half sine shape [Alfawakhiri et al., 2000], based on a simply supported
beam model depicted in Figure 2.4.
( x) =
(
sin x
L )+ B
3
(2.18)
1+ 3B
EI
B= (2.19)
K A L3
where EI is the flexural rigidity of the deck, KA is the abutment stiffness in the transverse
direction and L is the overall bridge length. Though this relation is valid for single span
bridge, this can be used as an initial approximation for the first inelastic mode shape for multi-
span bridges, ignoring the individual pier stiffness.
Figure 2.4: Uniform Beam simply supported on elastic springs
12
When the displaced shape is approximated reasonably, then the magnitude of displacement at
the piers and the abutments are estimated such that at least one pier reach its limit state. The
displacement profile is then given by

i = i c (2.20)
c
where i is the assumed displaced shape at ith degree of freedom and c is the design
displacement at the critical mass, c.
2.2.2 Characterization of the equivalent SDOF

Having determined the target-displaced shape, the real bridge is now linearized to an
equivalent SDOF substitute structure by the system target displacement, equivalent viscous
damping and effective mass.
(a) System target displacement. According to the work carried out by [Calvi et al, 1995],
based on the initial work by [Biggs, 1964], the system displacement sys is computed from the
Principle of Conservation of Energy, which states that work done by the substitute structure is
equal to the work done by the real structure resulting in the following expression
n
mi i2
i =1
sys = n
(2.21)
mi i
i =1
where i and mi are the displacement and lumped mass at the ith degree of freedom
respectively. The masses are generally lumped at the pier top.
(b) Effective system mass. The effective mass, Msys, is defined as the mass participating in
the fundamental inelastic mode of vibration. Being consistent with the work equivalence
between the two systems, the effective mass can be obtained using Eq. (2.22).
n
mi i
i =1
M sys = (2.22)
d
(c) Equivalent viscous damping. The equivalent system damping can be obtained from a
combination of the energy dissipated by the different mechanisms activated during the
structure response to seismic excitation.
A weighted average may be computed as given by Eq.(2.23) where Qi is the weighting factor.
Although various approaches are available in the literature [Kowalsky, 2002], the approach
based on equal work principle [Dwairi et al., 2006; Priestley et al. 2007] is followed here.
13

n

Qi
sys = n i (2.23)

Qk
i =1
k =1
Qi = Vi i (2.24)
where Vi is shear force associated with ith member, i is corresponding displacement and n is
the total number of energy dissipating elements. Since shear force distribution is unknown at
this stage of design procedure, some realistic assumptions should be made to estimate that.
The first assumption is: the fraction of total lateral inertia force carried back to the abutments
by superstructure bending is x. The second one is: all the pier columns are pin-connected with
deck in the transverse direction and have geometric cross-section and reinforcement content
so that pier base moments are equal. This assumption allows to consider shear forces in piers
VP,i distributed inversely proportional to the pier heights Hi, assuming all the piers are yielded
and have zero post-yield stiffness, as given by Eq.(2.25). If some piers remain elastic the
proportionality coefficient has to be modified by the displacement ductility demand as given
by Eq.(2.26). For abutments behaving elastically, shear forces VA,i are distributed according to
assumed target displacements i so that stiffness requirement remains the same even with
unequal displacement demands. Inelastic behaviour of abutments is not considered in this
study. A detailed discussion can be found in [Priestley et al., 2007].
1
Yielded pier column: VP,i (2.25)
Hi
,i
Elastic pier column: VP,i (2.26)
Hi
Abutment: VA,i i (2.27)
Combining all the contributions from superstructure damping SS, abutment damping A and
pier damping P,I, the equivalent SDOF system damping is estimated by Eq.(2.28):

( )
x sys A SS + x A A + ( 1 x ) Q P ,i P ,i
sys = piers (2.28)

( )
x sys A + x A + ( 1 x ) Q P ,i
piers
where sys is the equivalent SDOF system displacement calculated according to Eq.(2.21), A
is the average abutment displacement and QP,i is the ith pier weighting factor given by the
relation:
14
1
H P ,i
Q p ,i = P ,i (2.29)
H P ,i
1
piers
Eq.(2.29) is valid only for yielded piers and modified by Eq.(2.26) for piers those remain
elastic during design seismic excitation.
2.2.3 Determine effective period of the equivalent SDOF system

Utilizing the system target displacement sys, level of equivalent viscous damping sys and the
elastic displacement spectrum for the chosen seismic demand, the effective secant period of
the equivalent substitute structure and thus secant stiffness and design base shear are
determined as described in Section 2.1.5
2.2.4 Distribution of lateral inertia loading

This step involves distribution of design base shear as inertia forces to the masses of the
original MDOF structure in accordance with the assumed target displacement profile by using
Eq.(2.30).
mi i
Fi = Vb n
(2.30)
mi i
i =1
2.2.5 Analysis of structure under design forces

[Priestley and Calvi, 2003] proposed an iterative strategy, based on linear elastic static
analysis of the structure under the design force vector, to estimate the strength required at the
potential plastic hinge locations. Iterations are required because at the beginning of design
process, we assume the target displacement pattern and load carried by the elastic bending of
the superstructure. Thus, the design process will end when the assumptions are converged to
the results of the static analysis. Following the principle of substitute structure, the member
stiffness used in the analysis are representative of secant stiffness to their maximum achieved
displacement, and evaluated from the displacement achieved and base shear carried by the
piers as shown in the Eq.(2.31)
( Keff )i = Vi (2.31)
i
15
Chapter 3. Direct Displacement Based Design Including Soil-Interaction Effect
3 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN INCLUDING

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECT
When a structure founded on solid rock is subjected to an earthquake, the extremely high
stiffness of the rock constrains the rock motion to be very close to the free-field motion, on
the other hand, the same structure would respond differently if supported on a soft soil
deposit. First, the inability of the foundation to conform to the deformations of the free-field
motion would cause the motion of the base of the structure to deviate from the free-field
motion. Second, the dynamic response of the structure itself would induce deformation of the
supporting soil. This process, in which the response of the soil influences the motion of the
structure and the response to the structure influences the motion of the soil, is referred to as
soil-structure interaction.
Soil-structure interaction has little effect on the dynamic response of many structures and
foundation systems. In other cases, however, its effects can be significant. Whether the
neglect of its effects is conservative or unconservative depends on the details of the problem
at hand and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Following the approach of Wolf [Wolf, 1985] can be conclude that an important effect of soil-
structure interaction is to reduce the natural frequency of the soil-structure system to a value
lower than that of the structure under fixed-base conditions. Also another important effect of
soil-structure interaction is to increase the effective damping ratio to a value greater than that
of the structure itself.
3.1 Displacement based design with Soil Structure Interaction procedure for SDOF
Although the influence of foundation flexibility on seismic design can be incorporated into
force-based design, it is rarely considered. Foundation flexibility will increase the initial
elastic period, and reduce the ductility capacity corresponding to the strain or drift limit states.
It is comparatively straightforward, however, to incorporate the influence of elastic
foundation compliance into Direct Displacement Based Design. If the limit sate being
considered is strain-limited, then the design displacement will be increased by the elastic
displacement corresponding to foundation compliance (this requires knowledge of the design
base moment and shear force, and hence some iteration may be required). If, however, the
16
limit state is defined by code drift limits, there will be no change in the design displacement,
thus implying reduced permissible structural deformation.
The Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) is taken into account in the Direct Displacement Based
Design procedure through an iterative process developed in strict collaboration with RU11of
Reluis Project Line 4 and described in this chapter.
The structure will be more flexible when the foundation rotation is taken into account, given
larger total displacements but not necessarily larger structure displacements, in this case the
design system ductility demand is reduced by foundation flexibility, and as a consequence,
the effective damping may also be reduced.
The structure is considered with just a rotational degree of freedom at the base and supported
in a soil described by a non linear behaviour. Following the approach developed by [Wolf,
1985], the two degrees of freedom system is replaced by a single degree of freedom (SDOF)
system resting on rigid ground is used, as shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Equivalent SDOF system for a flexible base structure (Wolf, 1985).
The foundation stiffness related to displacement can be expressed as a function of the

rotational stiffness as given by Eq.(3.1), where Kf is the rotational stiffness, KfD the
displacement stiffness and Htot is the distance between the centre of top mass and the centre of
foundation.
Kf
K fD = (3.1)
H tot 2
The equivalent system stiffness Keq and damping eq are expressed like,
K s K fD
K eq = (3.2)
K s + K fD
17
K eq K eq
eq = s + f (3.3)
Ks K fD
where Ks is the structure stiffness, s the structure damping and f the foundation damping.
The displacement amplitude of the equivalent system is equal to Ds; the corresponding shear
force Vb is obtained using Eq.(3.4),
Vb = K s Ds (3.4)
The non-linear soil behaviour is treated with a visco-elastic linear equivalent approach based
on two curves definition: the stiffness degradation curve and increment damping curve as
function of foundation rotation [Paolucci et al., 2007] shown in Figure 3.2. These curves had
been gotten thought interpolation of numerical simulation results of cyclic tests on medium
and dense sand. This curves depend on the initial stiffness K0 and the parameters a, m and ,
which are mainly influenced by the foundation safety factor. We refer to the first and second
year reports produced by UR11 for this Reluis project for a deep description of curve
generation and parameter meaning.
Kf 1
=
K0 1 + a m
( )
f f MIN = f MAX f MIN [1 exp( )]
Figure 3.2: Degrading stiffness curve and increment damping curves as function of foundation rotation.
18
The degrading stiffness curve and the increment damping curves are represented by Eq.(3.5)
and Eq.(3.6), respectively, and the coefficients are tabulated in Table 3.1.
Kf 1
= (3.5)
K0 1 + a m
f f MIN = ( f MAX f MIN ) 1 exp ( ) (3.6)
Table 3.1: Coefficient matrix
FS a m
2 686.259 1.302 39.392
3 386.238 1.107 47.613
5 339.873 0.984 67.790
6 352.129 0.920 90.640
8 398.439 0.891 104.490
9 433.115 0.860 119.201
10 452.440 0.841 130.847
15 653.021 0.788 210.417
20 1219.472 0.829 285.149
25 2461.061 0.893 367.702
30 5192.127 0.963 442.472
35 7923.193 1.033 517.242
40 10654.259 1.103 592.011
45 13385.326 1.172 666.781
50 16116.392 1.242 741.550
55 18847.458 1.312 816.320
60 21578.525 1.382 891.089
65 24309.591 1.452 965.859
70 27040.657 1.522 1040.628
The procedure is applicable to single pier system and later will be developed for a multi
degree of freedom system. As many of the data are unknown at the beginning of the method,
the process becomes iterative. Moreover the data related to the foundation characteristics as
base dimensions, which changes the foundation bearing capacity as the rotation capacity
which subsequently changes the displacement due to foundation rotation.
The procedure to involve the Soil-Structure Interaction on the DDBD method can be divided
in two main parts:
19
Foundation dimension definition. It covers the assignment of the foundation

dimensions (width B, length L and height hf), the evaluation of bearing capacity Nmax
and corresponding static safety factor FS, the calculation of rotational stiffness K0
through [Gazetas, 1991] formula, the calibration of stiffness degradation Kf and
damping variation f curves, the evaluation of limit moment Mlim according to [Nova
and Montrasio, 1991] formulation.
Application of DDBD to equivalent SDOF system. The procedure starts as in the

case without interaction to find the starting conditions of the iterative process. At the
end of each iteration the current foundation rotation is calculated and it is used to enter
in the curve Kf and f to find new values. The iterative process finish when
convergence on the structural displacement is found. Hence, it is verified that the
moment applied to the foundation Mf is less than Mlim. If this condition it is not
satisfied, the procedure returns back to the first part, new (bigger) dimensions are
assigned to the foundation and all the process is repeated.
In the following the procedure is described in details:
3.1.1 Foundation dimension definition

To start the procedure is needed to determine the design displacement as the drift limit
displacement Dd, and to fix the initial value of the foundation dimensions, width B, length L
and height hf.
(a) Check if a solution is feasible. The stability of the pier is evaluated calculating the over-
turning moment for a rigid pier where all the displacement is due to foundation rotation,
Df=Dd, without structural deformation.
There is also needed to evaluate the soil bearing capacity Nmax and corresponding static safety
factor FS under conditions of vertical centred load following Eurocode 7 formulation.
The calculation of the rotational stiffness K0 is performed through [Gazetas, 1991] formula.
The calibration of the stiffness degradation Kf and damping variation f curves are performed
as a function of FS and K0.
The foundation rotation angle is expressed as,
Df
= (3.7)
h
H +
2
The shear force is calculated as follows, where KfD was evaluated in Eq.(3.1),
Vb = K fD D f (3.8)
20
The moment as rigid pier is shown in Eq.(3.9), where H is the total height of the pier from the
base to the centre of the top mass.
hf
M f Rig = Vb H + (3.9)
2
Now a limit moment Mlim needs to be evaluated; according to [Nova and Montrasio, 1991]
formulation which is expressed as,
2 2 2 2
Vb M f N N
+ + 1 =0 (3.10)
N max BN max N max N max
The following parameters are used; coefficient of soil-foundation friction expressed as

Eq.(3.11), is a constitutive adimensional parameter as shown in Eq.(3.12) and =0.95 is a
parameter controlling maximum horizontal load position.
2 h
= tan + 0.72 f (3.11)
3 B
hf
= 0.35 + 0.30 (3.12)
B
The limit shear is evaluated with the following expression, where Ntot is the total axial load
over the foundation.
2
2N
Ntot 1 tot
Vb,lim = N max (3.13)
2 2
1 H + hf / 2
+ B

The limit moment is expressed as Eq. (3.9) but with the limit shear,
hf
M lim = Vlim H + (3.14)
2
If MfRig > Mlim a solution could not exist, but this check has to be realized at the end of the
whole iteration to be sure that a solution is feasible.
(b) Initial values for equivalent SDOF. These values are the same as the ones described in
Chapter 2.1, considering the rigid foundation hypothesis.
Column displacement ductility is then obtained as in Eq.(2.10), repeated here in Eq.(3.15),
21
Dd
= (3.15)
Dy
Following the same steps as in chapter 2.1.5, the equivalent damping is calculated as in
Eq.(2.14), reproduced here in Eq.(3.16),
1
eq = 0.05 + 0.444 (3.16)

The design base shear is calculated as in Eq.(2.17), reproduced here in Eq.(3.17), where Ke
can be computed with Eq.(2.16)
Vb = K e Dd (3.17)
(c) Elastic foundation. The properties for the SDOF system are evaluated again considering
now the foundation deformation under the hypothesis of elastic behaviour.
The moment on the foundation is calculated as in Eq. (3.9) but using the shear force obtained
in Eq. (3.17).
h
M f = Vb H + (3.18)
2
The foundation elastic rotational stiffness is the one at the beginning of the stiffness
degradation curve.
Kf = Kf0 (3.19)
The base rotation can be calculated as the ratio of the moment imposed calculated in Eq.(3.18)
and the foundation rotational stiffness calculated in Eq. (3.19), which should be less than
0.0001.
Mf
= 0.0001 (3.20)
Kf0
The displacement due to the foundation rotation can be expressed as,
h
Df = H + (3.21)
2
and the displacement stiffness as function of the rotational stiffness as given in Eq. (3.22).
Kf
K fD = 2
(3.22)
h
H +
2
22
The foundation period can be obtained as follows, where me is the equivalent mass.
me
T f = 2 (3.23)
K fD
3.1.2 Application of DDBD to equivalent SDOF system

In the direct displacement based design approach, a structure is designed based on its
behaviour at maximum response. Therefore, after general parameters such as column height
and superstructure mass are established, the first step is selection of the target maximum
displacement, after this is established, column yield displacement Dy, is estimated using
simplified relations between section depth and yield curvature.
(a) Lateral displacement due to structural displacement. This displacement is the

subtraction of the design displacement to the displacement due to foundation rotation in
reference to Figure 3.1.
Ds = Dd D f (3.24)
(b) Structural ductility. The structural ductility is calculated as show in Eq.(3.15), but
replacing the target displacement by the structural displacement calculated in the previous
step (a).
(c) Structural damping. The structural damping is calculated as defined in Eq.(3.16), using
the structural ductility from step (b).
(d) Structural stiffness. The structural stiffness is calculated following the approach given
by [Wolf, 1985].
K eq K fD
Ks = (3.25)
K fD K eq
At the first iteration this step is skipped

(e) Equivalent system damping. The equivalent system damping is also calculated following
the approach given by [Wolf, 1985].
K eq K eq
eq = s + f (3.26)
Ks K fD
At the firs iteration eq=s

(f) Spectral displacement. The spectral displacement is calculated for the corner period TC0
and with the equivalent system damping given by Eq.(3.26), scaled respect to the
displacement by the ratio Keq / Ks according to the approach given by Wolf.
23
0.5
0.07 K eq
Dc ,eq = Dc ,5 (3.27)
0.02 + eq Ks

At the firs iteration Keq=Ks

(g) Equivalent system period. The equivalent period is found from the spectral displacement
defined by Eq.(3.27) and calculated in Eq.(3.28) if Ds < Dc,eq (i.e. under the hypothesis that
Teq belongs to the linear part of the spectrum), but if Ds > Dc,eq an iterative procedure will be
needed as show in Figure 3.3 which will be described later in this chapter.
Ds
Teq = TC 0 (3.28)
Dc,eq
(h) Equivalent system stiffness. The equivalent system stiffness is given by,
2
2
K eq = me (3.29)
Teq

(i) Base shear. The base shear calculated as in Eq.(2.17), reproduced here in Eq.(3.30),
Vb = K s Ds (3.30)
(j) Base moment. The base moment is calculated as in Eq.(3.18), using the shear of
Eq.(3.30) .
(k) Base rotation. The base rotation is calculated as
Mf
= (3.31)
Kf0
At the first iteration is calculated as in Eq.(3.20).
(l) Base stiffness and damping. The base stiffness Kf and damping f are read from the
degradation stiffness curve and increment damping curve (Figure 3.2), respectively, in
function of the base rotation calculated in the previous step (k).
(m) Lateral displacement due to base rotation. The displacement due to base rotation Df
calculated as in Eq.(3.21).
(n) Return to first step until convergence on Ds is obtained. The procedure is repeated
again since step (a) of this second part of the procedure until there is convergence for the
structural displacement value Ds.
(o) Check that Mf < Mlim. If the condition is not satisfied, return to step (a) of the first part of
the procedure (section 3.1.2) and restart increasing the dimensions of the foundation.
24
3.1.3 Alternative iterative procedure for Ds > Dc,eq

This iterative procedure is activated when the structural displacement capacity Ds exceed the
spectral displacement demand Dc,eq. The procedure consists in finding a spectral
displacement final value Ds_fin that is compatible with the demand Dc,eq as show in Figure 3.3
and described in the following.
Sd
Dd
Dc , in
Dy
T
Sd
Dd
Dd_fin fin
Dy
T
Figure 3.3: Iterative procedure to determine Dd_fin
(a) First trial value calculation of the final structural displacement. A first approximation
of the structural displacement is made like an average of the structural displacement capacity
Ds and the demanded structural displacement Dc,eq.
Ds + Dc, eq
Ds _ fin = (3.32)
2
(b) Structural ductility. The structural ductility is calculated as show in Eq.(3.15),

reproduced here as Eq.(3.33). In case the ductility is less than 1, then the ductility is taken as 1
due to the fact that the structure remains in the elastic range.
Ds _ fin
= (3.33)
Dy
(c) Structural damping. The structural damping is calculated as show in Eq.(3.16).
(d) Equivalent system stiffness. The equivalent system stiffness is calculated as show in
Eq.(3.25).
25
(e) Equivalent system damping. The equivalent system damping is calculated as show in
Eq.(3.26).
(f) Spectral displacement. The spectral displacement is calculated as show in Eq.(3.27).
(g) Update of the final structural displacement. The final structural displacement is taken as
the new value of the spectral displacement calculated in step f.
Ds _ fin = Dc,eq (3.34)
(h) Convergence over Ds_fin. Return to step (b) until the convergence over Ds_fin is reached.
(i) Definition of the equivalent system period. The new system period is defined as in
Eq.(3.35), which corresponds to the corner period.
Teq = TC 0 (3.35)
The reader is referred to the final Reluis Project Linea 4 report of UR11 for some examples of
application of this procedure to different single pier cases.
3.2 DDBD with Soil-Structure Interaction procedure for MDOF

The procedure involving Soil-Structure Interaction into DDBD method for SDOF, described
in the previous section, is going to be extended to Multi Degree of Freedom systems and
introduced in DDBD method for MDOF. In the following the proposed iterative procedure is
described in detail, referring to Chapter 2.2 for the basis of DDBD for MDOF.
Following the procedure from [Priestley et al., 2007] and complementing with the approach
from [Kowalsky, 2002], the soil-structure interaction is involved in the MDOF methodology
for DDBD on bridges, where the non-linearity soil behaviour is treated with a visco-elastic
linear equivalent approach proposed by [Paolucci et al., 2007].
3.2.1 Estimate the initial inelastic displacement profile

As already deeply described in Section 2.2.1, to estimate the initial displacement profile two
different procedures can be used: the first one consists in calculating the effective mode
shapes, while the second one is based on approximation of the initial displacement profile
with a parabolic shape.
For symmetric bridges with flexible superstructure and restrained abutments the parabolic
shape is a good approximation to the final displacement shape. This option will be used for
the different bridge configurations evaluated in Chapter 4. In this first step of the procedure
the soil-structure interaction is neglected.
26
3.2.2 Determine pier yield displacement

The pier yield displacement can be calculated as in Eq.(2.3), which is the yield displacement
for a cantilever column and will be the assumption for the bridges evaluated in this work. The
procedure is explained in Chapter 2.1.1
3.2.3 Application of DDBD+SSI procedure for SDOF

The DDBD+SSI procedure for SDOF (as described in Section 3.1) is applied at each pier. At
the end of this step, for each pier are defined: structural displacement Ds, foundation
displacement Df, total displacement Dtot (it can be different from the design displacement
obtained evaluating the inelastic displacement profile of the bridge, according to Section 3.2.1
and 3.2.13), structural stiffness Ks, base stiffness Kf, base damping f, pier equivalent damping
eq, pier displacement ductility , foundation dimensions B-L-hf. This procedure was
explained in detail in Chapter 3.1.
3.2.4 System target displacement

In order to obtain a system displacement, work by [Calvi et al.1995] is adopted. In this
approach the system target displacement is defined by the requirement that the work done by
the equivalent SDOF system must be the same as that done by the MDOF system as show in
Eq.(3.36).
sys =
mi 2i
(3.36)
mi i
where i=Dtot for ith pier.
3.2.5 Effective system mass

The system mass should be that which requires work equivalence between the MDOF and
SDOF systems. The system mass is then obtained by Eq.(3.37) where i is the target
displacement for column i (Dtot) and mi is the mass associated with column i. If a structure
responds in predominantly the first mode, then the following equation will be approximately
equal to the first modal mass.
msys =
i mi (3.37)
sys
3.2.6 Fraction of lateral inertia force carried to the abutments (x)

Estimate the fraction x of total lateral inertia force Vsys carried back to the abutments by
superstructure bending. For the first iteration it is used a value of 0.5.
3.2.7 System hysteretic damping

The system hysteretic damping is evaluated as an equivalent SDOF system using Eq.(2.28)
and the procedure is explained in Chapter 2.2.2, assuming HP,i = H+hf/2.
27
3.2.8 System Effective period

The effective period Tsys of the substitute structure is obtained by entering in the sys damped
displacement response spectrum with the target system displacement sys calculated in
Eq.(3.36) and reading across as was shown in Figure 2.3.
3.2.9 System effective stiffness

The effective stiffness at maximum response of the equivalent SDOF system is then obtained
with the following equation,
4 2 msys
k sys = (3.38)
Tsys 2
3.2.10 Base shear force for the equivalent SDOF

Utilizing the effective stiffness from Eq.(3.38) and the target system displacement from
Eq.(3.36), the base shear force for the equivalent SDOF system is then calculated as,
Vsys = K sys sys (3.39)
3.2.11 Force distribution

The shear force Vsys from Eq.(3.39) is distributed to the abutments and bridge piers. As
already mentioned it is assumed that the abutments remain elastic and the piers have the same
longitudinal steel ratio and column diameter.
The force resisted by the abutments is stipulated to be a relation of the relative abutments
displacement and the amount of base shear force carried to the abutments. The abutments will
have the force distribution of Eq.(3.40) and Eq.(3.41) , where x is defined in Section 3.2.6, 1
is the displacement for abutment 1 and N+1 is the displacement for abutment N+1, N is the
number of spans. As the initial displacement assumption is based on the first deck mode
shape, clearly the shear distribution factor, Vab will be equal for both abutments at the initial
stage, but along the iteration process will be changed according to each updated displacement
pattern.
1
Vab1 = x Vsys (3.40)
1 + N +1
N +1
Vab 2 = x Vsys (3.41)
1 + N +1
The base shear forces into piers with >1 or <1 are given by Eq.(3.42):
1 i
H P ,i H P ,i
V P ,i = (1 x) Vsys or VP ,i = (1 x) Vsys (3.42)
1 i
H P ,i H P ,i
piers piers
28
The distribution of the base shear as forces to inertia mass locations is done in the following
way,
mi i
Fi = Vsys (3.43)
mi i
3.2.12 Abutment and pier effective stiffness
Using the member shear forces obtained using Eq.(3.40), (3.41), (3.42) and the previous target
displacement pattern, the secant stiffness of the columns and abutments can be obtained using
Eq.(3.44).
Vi
K eff i = (3.44)
i
3.2.13 Updated displacement shape

Using the lateral forces given by Eq.(3.43), the revised member effective stiffness values
given by Eq.(3.44), a structural analysis model, as shown in Figure 3.4, can be run to get a
revised displacement shape.
3.2.14 Update inertia force carried to the abutments.

The critical displacement is compared with the limit state displacement. If the critical
displacement exceed the design limit, the fraction x of the total inertia force carried back to
the abutments by superstructure bending is too high and has to be reduced. On the contrary if
the critical displacement is less than the design limit, x has to be increased (see [Priestley et al,
2007] for a deep discussion). The value of x and the displacement shape derived from Section
3.2.13 are used as new estimates for Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.6. The procedure iterates until
convergence for x and design profile is achieved. In this work if the value of x is greater than
1, a limit value of 0.8 is used.
Figure 3.4: Model of the equivalent elastic system under transverse response
29
3.2.15 Section design

Once the procedure has reached convergence and the final values of column base shear forces
are obtained, the column base moments are easily calculated. The seismic moments are then
combined with appropriate permanent actions (e.g., moment due to gravity) and the sections
are designed for combined axial load, bi-axial moment and shear. At the end of DDBD
process, the cracked stiffness of the pier columns and moment capacity required at the
location of potential plastic hinge to reach the design displacement are known. From that, the
curvature demand is easily calculated by the following relation.
M design
req = (3.45)
Ec I sec
where, req is the required curvature, Mdesign is the design moment at that section, Ec is the
short-term modulus of elasticity of concrete and Isec is the secant stiffness of the section.
Longitudinal reinforcements are then provided to resist the design moments coupled with
axial load whereas transverse reinforcements are provided to achieve the curvature demand, to
prevent buckling of longitudinal reinforcements and to resist shear force obtained from
capacity design principles.
30
Chapter 4. Application to Different Bridge Configurations
4 APPLICATION TO DIFFERENT BRIDGE

CONFIGURATIONS
The Direct Displacement-Based Design approach for MDOF bridges including the Soil-
Structure Interaction effect, as presented in Section 3.2 was implemented in a Matlab
subroutine and applied to eighteen different series of bridge structures, which are shown in
Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.2 shows the six Regular Bridges (4-span and 6-span) studied in [Alvarez Botero,
2004] dissertation and Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 show twelve different series of Irregular
Bridge structures studied in [Ortiz Restrepo, 2006] dissertation.
Single column bents support the superstructure of the bridges. Pier heights were varied for
each series, making H = 7.5 m; 10.0 m; 12.5 m and 15.0 m, resulting in 72 different bridge
designs. A single design limit state was considered and is represented by an arbitrarily chosen
drift limit of 4%.
4.1 Bridge Information and Assumptions

With the purpose to do comparison with some [Ortiz Restrepo, 2006] dissertation results, the
same material properties and bridge configuration will be used in this work.
4.1.1 Materials
Concrete and reinforcing steel properties used for design purposes are presented in Table 4.1.
4.1.2 Abutments
Abutments are usually designed and detailed for service loads and are checked for seismic
performance. Normally, equivalent linear springs are used in structural models to simulate the
restrains of the superstructure provided by the abutments. The selection of equivalent springs
must reflect the dynamic behaviour of the soil behind the abutment, the structural components
of the abutment and their interaction with the soil. Nonlinear behaviour can be expected as
some of the elements constituting the abutments may be subjected to significant yielding,
[Maroney and Chai, 1994]. However, for all the cases that have been included in this work,
the assumption of abutments responding elastically has been made. Abutment stiffness was
then chosen to be KA = 75000 kN/m and an arbitrary value of 8% damping was associated to
31
their response. A limiting displacement of 100 mm is also specified for the abutments as an
additional design restriction.
Table 4.1: Material Properties for Design
4.1.3 Bridge Deck

Current design practice intends to avoid inelastic action in the bridge deck; therefore it is
considered to respond elastically. The superstructure engages the substructure elements in the
transverse direction with shear keys and inelastic action is intended to concentrate at the
bottom of the piers. Representative dimensions of a two-lane bridge deck are used. A typical
transverse section of the bridges is depicted in Figure 4.1 with its dimensions in mm, the deck
transverse-moment of inertia is Iyy = 44 m4 and its torsional stiffness has been ignored. The
distributed weight of the bridge deck, including asphalt, is taken as Wdeck = 175 kN/m.
Figure 4.1: Bridge Typical Transverse Section
32

(a) Series 1: SSS

(b) Series 2: SMS

(c) Series 3: MSM
(d) Series 4: SSSSS
(e) Series 5: SMLMS
(f) Series 6: LMSML
Figure 4.2: Series of 4-span and 6-span Regular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)
33
Figure 4.3: Series of 4-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)
34
Figure 4.4: Series of 6-span Irregular Bridges (H = 7.5 m, 10.0 m, 12.5m and 15.0 m)
35
4.1.4 Piers and Cap Beam

Single circular-column bents constitute the substructure of the bridges under consideration.
The superstructure is simply supported on cap beams at the top of the piers and under
transverse excitation the columns are engaged by means of shear keys, refer to Figure 4.1. As
repeatedly stated before, the inelastic action is intended to be restricted to carefully-detailed
plastic hinge regions at the bottom of the piers, and it is assumed that sufficient closely spaced
transverse reinforcement is provided to achieve a satisfactory performance.
Pier diameters of 2.0 m to 2.7 m were taken from the final result of [Ortiz Restrepo, 2006], to
be able to compare them with soil-structure interaction results. Pier masses were considered in
all cases, lumping one third of the calculated mass at the top, according to [Priestley, et al.,
1996]. Cap-beam masses were also included, and were calculated based on the assigned
dimensions for each specific case; typical cap-beam dimensions are shown in Figure 4.1, and
depth is taken as D + 0.5 m, where D is the column diameter. Concrete unit weight is assumed
to be Wc = 25 kN/m3.
4.2 Seismic Input

The design seismic input is represented by the 5% damped displacement response spectrum
according to the Eurocode 8 [EC8, 2004], for soil type C, magnitude 6.9, 0.5g PGA, as
explained in section 2.1.4 and show in Figure 2.2.
4.3 Design Results without Soil-Structure Interaction

In this section the results obtained after applying the Direct Displacement-Based Design
procedure to the series of bridges in Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.4, are presented in the shape of
Tables summarizing the parameters of the substitute SDOF structure.
30,000
D = 2.0m - 0.5%
25,000
D = 2.2m - 0.5%
20,000 D = 2.5m - 0.5%

Axial Force (kN)
D = 2.7m - 0.5%
15,000
D = 2.0m - 4.0%
D = 2.2m - 4.0%
10,000
D = 2.5m - 4.0%
5,000 D = 2.7m - 4.0%

Typical Pier
Axial Load - Moment
0 Range of Design Loads
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000
Moment (kN.m)
Figure 4.5: Interaction Diagrams for piers.
36
In the next section the final design displaced shapes, the yielding and limiting displacements
for the piers, the displacement ductility demands, the required ultimate strength and values of
effective stiffness are reported in a series of figures and tables and compared with the results
obtained without SSI. The critical member, for each of the cases, is identified from the design
displacement pattern plots, as the member that reaches the limiting displacement. Pier
diameter was based on the previous results from [Ortiz Restrepo, 2006] dissertation, which
dimensions were chosen to obtain sections that can provide the required strengths with
reinforcement ratios between the limits, 0.5% to 4.0%, recommended by [Priestley et al.
1996], for circular piers. Columns of 2.0 m, 2.2 m, 2.5 m or 2.7 m were specified. Figure 4.5
shows the interaction diagrams obtained for all the used pier diameters using the minimum
and maximum reinforcement ratios. Note that the aim is that all the piers will have
reinforcement ratios between the limits. However, for few cases reinforcement ratios well up
the maximum limit will be obtained and in some others reinforcement ratios below the
minimum limit would be enough to provide the required strength. For these cases the
minimum or maximum steel content criterion was ignored and the required flexural strength,
as coming from the design process, was considered.
Table 4.2: Substitute SDOF parameters without SSI for bridges of Series 1 to 6
Stiffness Abutment
Damping DeltaSys Mass Period Shear VB
H [m] Keff force ratio
sys d [m] Meff [ton] Teff [sec] [kN]
[kN/m] (x)
Series 1
7.50 0.12 0.24 2759 1.58 43876 10483 0.35
10.00 0.10 0.32 2859 1.99 28593 9132 0.55
12.50 0.07 0.40 2893 2.14 24835 9935 0.64
15.00 0.06 0.48 2925 2.42 19681 9454 0.81
Series 2
7.50 0.09 0.36 2776 2.10 24911 8979 0.61
10.00 0.07 0.48 2809 2.49 17849 8537 0.88
12.50 0.07 0.60 2838 3.10 11624 6936 0.80
15.00 0.07 0.72 2864 3.68 8348 5983 0.80
Series 3
7.50 0.10 0.24 2928 1.49 52318 12576 0.35
10.00 0.09 0.32 2966 1.86 34007 10880 0.51
12.50 0.07 0.40 3014 2.10 27092 10818 0.64
15.00 0.07 0.48 3056 2.50 19264 9216 0.86
Series 4
7.50 0.16 0.23 4077 1.73 53756 12506 -0.05
10.00 0.15 0.31 4315 2.25 33630 10539 0.02
12.50 0.13 0.39 4410 2.70 23929 9420 0.09
15.00 0.12 0.47 4488 3.09 18503 8770 0.16
Series 5
7.50 0.14 0.43 4219 3.02 18303 7842 0.07
10.00 0.11 0.57 4314 3.67 12656 7185 0.21
12.50 0.10 0.67 4379 4.00 10804 7216 0.32
15.00 0.08 0.69 4432 4.00 10936 7541 0.40
Series 6
7.50 0.13 0.24 4521 1.64 66176 15935 0.08
10.00 0.12 0.32 4618 2.10 41476 13304 0.15
12.50 0.11 0.40 4774 2.53 29486 11785 0.20
15.00 0.10 0.48 4827 2.97 21609 10315 0.27
37
4.3.1 Series of Regular Bridges

The first six Series are the 4-span and 6-span bridges being Series 1, 2 and 3 those
characterized for having 4-span, and Series 4, 5 and 6 those having 6-span. The parameters of
the substitute SDOF structures for Series 1 to 6. for bridges without soil structure interaction
are presented in Table 4.2. In particular, series from 1 to 3 shows effective periods ranging
from 1.49 sec and 3.68 sec, damping ranging from 6% and 12% and forces taken by the
abutments increasing up to 88%. On the contrary, Series from 4 to 6 show slightly higher
flexibility (effective period varying from 1.64 sec to 4.00 sec), higher damping (ranging from
8% and 16%) and lower forces taken by the abutments (ranging from -5% to 40%).
4.3.2 Series of Irregular Bridges

Series 7, 8 and 9 are characterized for being 4-span irregular bridges with one small lateral
pier. The three series behave very similar as shown by the parameters of the substitute SDOF
structures shown in Errore. L'origine riferimento non stata trovata..
Stiffness Abutment
[kN/m] (x)
Series 7
7.50 0.08 0.37 2830 2.10 25362 9374 0.61
10.00 0.06 0.48 2877 2.44 19030 9166 0.83
12.50 0.06 0.60 2918 3.05 12376 7403 0.80
15.00 0.06 0.72 2904 3.60 8846 6347 0.80
Series 8
7.50 0.08 0.38 2818 2.11 24921 9373 0.63
10.00 0.06 0.48 2864 2.47 18549 8989 0.86
12.50 0.07 0.60 2905 3.07 12175 7283 0.80
15.00 0.06 0.72 2943 3.63 8821 6333 0.80
Series 9
7.50 0.08 0.38 2869 2.11 25320 9723 0.60
10.00 0.06 0.49 2936 2.49 18634 9131 0.84
12.50 0.07 0.60 2934 3.09 12097 7274 0.80
15.00 0.07 0.72 2979 3.70 8578 6194 0.80
Series 10
7.50 0.11 0.24 2811 1.53 47416 11384 0.34
10.00 0.10 0.32 2907 1.93 30907 9884 0.53
12.50 0.08 0.40 2948 2.21 23919 9558 0.68
15.00 0.06 0.48 2988 2.45 19590 9390 0.83
Series 11
7.50 0.12 0.24 2886 1.57 46088 11164 0.37
10.00 0.10 0.32 2949 1.93 31257 10015 0.54
12.50 0.08 0.40 3001 2.25 23469 9374 0.70
15.00 0.07 0.48 3051 2.50 19206 9190 0.85
Series 12
7.50 0.11 0.24 2965 1.51 51637 12494 0.38
10.00 0.09 0.32 3016 1.89 33205 10645 0.55
12.50 0.08 0.40 3066 2.22 24510 9784 0.71
15.00 0.07 0.48 3120 2.50 19663 9394 0.85
38
In particular, they are quite flexible structures (effective periods from 2.10 sec to 3.70 sec)
with low energy dissipation (damping from 6% to 8%). High percent of the force taken by the
abutments is observed, increasing until 80% for the higher piers heights.
Series 10, 11 and 12 are characterized for being irregular bridge with one small central pier.
Also these three series behave very similar. Pier diameters are bigger than in the previous
series, being generally of 2.5 m. In this cases, the effective period is slightly lower (varying
from 1.51 sec to 2.50 sec), while the damping is higher (ranging from 8% and 12%). The
forces taken by the abutments show higher variability, ranging from 34% to 85%.
Stiffness Abutment
[kN/m] (x)
Series 13
7.50 0.12 0.41 4184 2.73 22142 9184 0.08
10.00 0.11 0.50 4411 3.10 18077 8959 0.15
12.50 0.10 0.58 4585 3.49 14886 8594 0.21
15.00 0.09 0.66 4727 3.84 12688 8403 0.28
Series 14
7.50 0.12 0.48 4420 3.21 16947 8133 0.15
10.00 0.11 0.61 4579 3.82 12410 7603 0.28
12.50 0.09 0.68 4694 4.00 11582 7927 0.35
15.00 0.08 0.70 4800 4.00 11843 8268 0.42
Series 15
7.50 0.15 0.34 4170 2.45 27509 9387 -0.07
10.00 0.13 0.42 4356 2.86 20974 8879 -0.01
12.50 0.11 0.51 4492 3.27 16615 8493 0.06
15.00 0.10 0.60 4606 3.66 13588 8187 0.13
Series 16
7.50 0.13 0.29 4178 1.99 41593 12195 -0.08
10.00 0.12 0.38 4397 2.48 28287 10777 -0.01
12.50 0.10 0.47 4549 2.93 20969 9910 0.06
15.00 0.10 0.57 4783 3.45 15882 9051 0.15
Series 17
7.50 0.12 0.28 4003 1.90 43627 12394 0.17
10.00 0.12 0.34 4475 2.22 35928 12194 0.20
12.50 0.11 0.41 4675 2.57 27930 11411 0.24
15.00 0.10 0.48 4782 2.99 21162 10238 0.30
Series 18
7.50 0.14 0.26 4098 1.80 50098 12946 0.08
10.00 0.13 0.33 4421 2.18 36586 11910 0.13
12.50 0.12 0.40 4567 2.59 26810 10748 0.19
15.00 0.11 0.48 4658 2.98 20720 9915 0.25
Series 13 to 18 are 6-span bridges with different degree of irregularities. They are flexible or
stiff structures depending basically on the critical short pier location. When the short piers are
located in the center of the bridge (series 17 and 18), relative stiff structures are obtained
(effective periods from 1.80 sec and 2.99 sec), while when the short piers are located near the
39
abutments (series 13, 14 and 15), flexible structures are achieved (effective periods from 2.45
sec to 4.00 sec). Series 16, having one short pier near the abutment and one I the middle,
shows an intermediate behaviour. Equivalent system damping is generally significant for the
all the series, around 10% to 15%, and local energy dissipation is almost fully concentrated in
the short piers for which high ductility demand are required.
4.4 Soil Properties

The non-linear soil behaviour is treated with a visco-elastic linear equivalent approach based
on two curves definition: the stiffness degradation curve and increment damping curve as
function of foundation rotation [Paolucci et al., 2007]. These curves had been gotten thought
interpolation of numerical simulation results of cyclic tests on medium and dense sand.
It is worthy to notice that results presented in this chapter are related to only one type of soil,
characterised by a friction angle of 32 and a 19.62 kN/m3 density. Moreover, for all the case
studies it has been assumed a shallow foundation with square shape (B = L) and height hf =
B/4. At the beginning of the iterative procedure the assumed initial foundation dimensions
are: B = 6.0 m, L = 6.0 m, hf = 1.5 m for all the piers.
Soil bearing capacity Nmax and corresponding static safety factor FS under conditions of
vertical centred load are evaluated following Eurocode 7 formulation. Hence, the limit soil
bearing capacity qlim from basic soil mechanics results:
qlim = 0.50 B N (4.1)
where

N q = e tan tan 2 + (4.2)
4 2
( )
N = 2 N q 1 tan (4.3)
B
= 1 0.30 (4.4)
L
and the maximum soil load capacity Nmax is calculated as,
N max = qlim B L (4.5)
4.5 Design Results with Soil-Structure Interaction

Results obtained after applying the Direct Displacement-Based Design procedure including
the foundation flexibility effect, to the series of bridges in Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.4, are
presented in this section. As the previous section the parameters of the substitute SDOF
structure are reported in Tables. Moreover the comparison between design with and without
SSI in terms of final design displaced shapes, yielding and limiting displacements for the
piers, displacement ductility demands, required ultimate strength and values of effective
40
stiffness are reported in a series of figures and tables. The critical member, for each of the
cases, is identified from the design displacement pattern plots, as the member that reaches the
limiting displacement. The drift and yield displacement values plotted in the figures,
correspond to the values taken for rigid foundation, but the displacement shape include the
effects of the foundation rotation.
4.5.1 Series of Regular Bridges

Bridges results of Series 1 to 6 are presented in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 to Table 4.17. All
bridge configurations are symmetric with respect to the middle of the bridge; the difference
for each series is the pier height configuration and variation. Deformed shapes in all series are
symmetric parabolic.
Series 1, 2 and 3 present low values of energy dissipation being mostly between 7% to 9%
and abutment force ratio increases for the higher pier heights up to 80%. Series 4, 5 and 6
present higher energy dissipation values ranging mainly from 10% to 15%, and lower
abutment force ratio, reaching a minimum of -18% and maximum of 25%.
Table 4.5: Substitute SDOF parameters with SSI for bridges of Series 1 to 6
Stiffness Abutment
[kN/m] (x)
Series 1
7.50 0.12 0.24 2759 1.58 43717 10445 0.35
10.00 0.10 0.32 2859 1.97 29178 9319 0.54
12.50 0.07 0.40 2893 2.16 24539 9816 0.65
15.00 0.07 0.46 2924 2.41 19932 9118 0.80
Series 2
7.50 0.09 0.36 2775 2.08 25352 9138 0.60
10.00 0.07 0.48 2809 2.48 18033 8625 0.87
12.50 0.07 0.45 2831 2.38 19667 8946 0.78
15.00 0.07 0.39 2834 2.05 26748 10362 0.52
Series 3
7.50 0.10 0.24 2929 1.47 53823 12940 0.34
10.00 0.09 0.32 2970 1.85 34270 10974 0.52
12.50 0.07 0.40 3015 2.09 27242 10882 0.64
15.00 0.07 0.46 3059 2.40 21014 9587 0.81
Series 4
7.50 0.15 0.23 4063 1.70 55591 12922 -0.05
10.00 0.14 0.31 4307 2.20 35121 10999 0.02
12.50 0.12 0.39 4405 2.63 25072 9864 0.08
15.00 0.11 0.45 4469 2.87 21447 9663 0.12
Series 5
7.50 0.13 0.43 4213 2.96 18923 8115 0.06
10.00 0.12 0.50 4286 3.30 15551 7792 0.12
12.50 0.08 0.44 4161 2.50 26215 11541 -0.08
15.00 0.08 0.37 3970 2.04 37780 13897 -0.18
Series 6
7.50 0.12 0.24 4521 1.61 68913 16579 0.08
10.00 0.11 0.32 4629 2.05 43437 13959 0.15
12.50 0.10 0.40 4784 2.45 31406 12571 0.20
15.00 0.10 0.45 4852 2.72 25935 11742 0.25
41
(a) Series 1: For bridges of Series 1 results are presented in Table 4.5, Table 4.6 and Table
4.7. This series is characterized for being structures with effective periods ranging from 1.58
seconds to 2.41 seconds. The equivalent system damping decreases with the height of the
piers from 12% to 7%; energy dissipation is distributed among all piers uniformly and all
piers behave inelastically; foundation damping is concentrated in the lateral piers for middle
height cases (H=10.0 m and H=12.5 m). For this series foundation displacements are low in
comparison with the total displacement (the percent of foundation displacement compared
with total displacement range from 10% for the central pier to 30% for the lateral piers).
Forces taken by the abutments are large when the pier height is increased (34 to 80%). The
critical pier is the middle one. To maintain the displacement shape the lateral piers need a
larger base dimension.
H = 7.5 m
Data Abut. 1 Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3 Abut. 2
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Pier Effective Height [m] 7.50 7.50 7.50
Pier Diameter [m] 2.00 2.00 2.00
Drift Displacement [m] 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.10 1.00
Yield Displacement [m] 0.06 0.06 0.06
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 880 969 880 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Displacement Ductility 3.34 5.03 3.34
Equivalent Viscous Damping 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.08 0.60
Displacement Shape [m] 0.02 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.02
Effective Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 11420 7569 11420 75000
Shear Forces [kN] 1836 2271 2271 2271 1836 0.40
Pier Base Moment [kN.m] 17029 17029 17029
WITH SSI
0.20
Foundation dimension [m] 8.30 6.00 8.30
Structural Damping 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.00
Foundation Damping 0.22 0.09 0.22 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Equivalent Viscous Damping 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 Distance [m]
Structural Displacement [m] 0.15 0.28 0.15
Foundation Displacement [m] 0.05 0.02 0.05 Yield displacement Drift limit
Effective Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 11353 7525 11353 75000 Displacement Shape WITH SSI Displacement Shape WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1836 2258 2258 2258 1836
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1002 913 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2513 1369 1369 1369 2513 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2510 1433 1433 1433 2510
Table 4.6: Design results (H=7.5 m, H=10.0 m) for bridges of Series 1
42
Comparing the results with and without SSI, can be noticed that the presence of the soil
reduces the ductility required to the piers (part of the displacement is given by the foundation
rotation). In particular, increasing pier height increases the influence of the soil displacement
from 25% to 37% for the lateral piers and from 6% to 10% for the central pier. For the first
three cases (H=7.5 m, 10 m and 12.5 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and
without SSI are exactly the same. For H=15 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift
limit because in this case the target displacement results greater than the maximum
displacement of the damped spectrum. In all the cases there are no significant differences
between the pier base moments of the bridges with and without SSI.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1013 924 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3176 1194 1194 1194 3176 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Foundation Displacement [m] 0.09 0.04 0.09 Yield displ. Drift limit
Shear Forces [kN] 3177 1154 1154 1154 3177
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1023 934 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3844 589 589 589 3844 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3657 601 601 601 3657
43
(b) Series 2: For bridges of Series 2 results are presented in Table 4.5, Table 4.8 and Table
4.9. This series is characterized for being flexible structures with effective periods ranging
from 2.05 seconds to 2.48 seconds. The controlling piers are the short ones. The equivalent
system damping is low around 7%. The short piers dissipate more energy in the first two
cases but for the other cases the middle (high) pier has more energy dissipation. The middle
pier has less ductility than the short piers for the first two cases, for the last cases this pier
behaves elastically. Foundation damping is concentrated in the central pier for all cases.
Foundation displacements are low for lateral short pier but it presents an important increment
for the central high pier (about 6 times the shorter one). Comparing the results with and
without SSI, can be noticed that the presence of the soil reduces the ductility required to the
piers (part of the displacement is given by the foundation rotation).
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 880 989 880 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2736 1403 701 1403 2736 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2730 1471 736 1471 2730
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 887 1003 887 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3776 394 197 394 3776 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3772 432 216 432 3772
44
For the last two cases (H= 12.5 m and 15.0 m), increasing pier height increases the influence
of the soil displacement from 43% to 61% for the central pier and decrease from 18% to 6%
for the lateral piers. Meanwhile for the first two cases the foundation displacement keep
constant. For the first two cases (H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges
with and without SSI are exactly the same. For H= 12.5 m and 15.0 m, the structures with SSI
could not reach the drift limit because in this case the target displacement results greater than
the maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. This series presents almost equal
displacement shape and moments for the low high bridge cases when the results without and
with soil structure interaction are compared, but for the high height bridges the displacement
with SSI are less than without, presenting large effective stiffness and then large pier
moments.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 893 1016 893 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3325 115 57 115 3325 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3509 854 219 854 3509
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 900 1029 900 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2849 114 57 114 2849 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2699 2356 251 2356 2699
45
(c) Series 3: For bridges of Series 3 results are presented in Table 4.5, Table 4.10 and Table
4.11. This series is characterized for being structures with effective periods ranging from 1.47
seconds to 2.40 seconds. The short pier controls, and high piers behave elastically except for
the first case. Displacement due to foundation is around 10% to 20% for the cases H=10.0 and
12.5 m, in the low height case (H = 7.5 m) this displacement is almost negligible. But it is the
opposite for the high height case (H = 15.0 m) were foundation displacement is 38% of total
displacement for the lateral (high) piers. Moments in the short pier are almost the same for
first three cases, but for high piers decrease when bridge height increase. Abutment force ratio
increases when bridge height increases varying from 34% to 81%.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 992 934 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2189 2049 4099 2049 2189 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2201 2135 4269 2135 2201
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 955 1002 955 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2787 1232 2842 1232 2787 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2830 1149 3016 1149 2830
46
Series 3 present similar behaviour to series 1, when the results with and without SSI are
compared, can be noticed that the presence of the soil reduces the ductility required to the
piers (part of the displacement is given by the foundation rotation). In particular, increasing
pier height increases the influence of the soil displacement from 0% to 38% for the lateral
piers and from 6% to 10% for the central pier. For the first three cases (H=7.5 m, 10 m and
12.5 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are exactly the same. For
H=15 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit because in this case the target
displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. In all
the cases there are no significant differences between the pier base moments of the bridges
with and without SSI.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 976 1013 976 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3437 811 2323 811 3437 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3491 671 2556 671 3491
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 997 1023 997 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3965 237 813 237 3965 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3866 235 1384 235 3866
47
(d) Series 4: For bridges of Series 4 results are presented in Table 4.5, Table 4.12 and Table
4.13. This series is characterized for being long structures with effective periods ranging from
1.70 seconds to 2.87 seconds. The middle pier controls the displacement shape and the short
bridge (7.50 m) has a large ductility for this pier. For this series the force taken by the
abutment is low, just a maximum of 12%, so the piers are receiving almost all the base shear
force. Also the equivalent system damping is larger compared to the previous cases, almost
double, the structure is dissipating more energy. Design moment keeps almost the same for
all cases. This series is very similar to series 1 for the high energy dissipation in all piers; also
they are in the inelastic range.
H = 7.5 m
Data Abut. 1 Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3 Pier 4 Pier 5 Abut. 2
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Effective Height [m] 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50
Pier Diameter [m] 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20
1.00
Drift Displacement [m] 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.10
Yield Displacement [m] 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 889 978 978 978 889 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Displacement Ductility 1.95 4.43 5.53 4.43 1.95 0.60
Equivalent Viscous Damping 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.08
Displacement Shape [m] 0.00 0.11 0.24 0.30 0.24 0.11 0.00 0.40
Effective Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 25001 10932 8731 10932 25001 75000
Shear Forces [kN] -295 2619 2619 2619 2619 2619 -295
0.20
Pier Base Moment [kN.m] 19645 19645 19645 19645 19645
WITH SSI
Foundation dimension [m] 17.30 7.00 6.00 7.00 17.30 0.00
Displacement Ductility 1.75 3.83 5.09 3.83 1.75 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Structural Damping 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.11 0.20
Foundation Damping 0.22 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.22
Equivalent Viscous Damping 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.08 Distance [m]
Structural Displacement [m] 0.09 0.21 0.28 0.21 0.09
Foundation Displacement [m] 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 Yield displacement Drift limit
Displacement Shape [m] 0.00 0.10 0.24 0.30 0.24 0.10 0.00
Effective Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 26285 11379 9061 11379 26285 75000 Displacement Shape WITH SSI Displacement Shape WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -335 2718 2718 2718 2718 2718 -335
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Drift Displacement [m] 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.10 1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1002 1002 1002 913 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Displacement Ductility 1.92 4 4.86 4 1.92
Equivalent Viscous Damping 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.60
Shear Forces [kN] 130 2056 2056 2056 2056 2056 130 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Foundation dimension [m] 6.40 6.60 6.00 6.60 6.40
Displacement Ductility 1.87 3.49 4.48 3.49 1.87
Foundation Damping 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.04 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Shear Forces [kN] 96 2161 2161 2161 2161 2161 96
48
Series 4 present similar behaviour to series 1 and series 3, between the methodology without
and with soil structure interaction, displacement shapes and moments are the same. Just for
the last case (H=15.0 m) there is a little difference in the displacement shape, due to the fact
that central pier cannot reach the target displacement which is greater than the maximum
displacement of the damped spectrum. Foundation displacement is low in all cases, especially
in the lateral piers where displacement due to foundation is almost null, for the rest a
maximum of 20% is reached.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1013 1013 1013 924 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 429 1713 1713 1713 1713 1713 429 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Foundation Displacement [m] 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.01 Yield displ. Drift limit
Shear Forces [kN] 398 1813 1813 1813 1813 1813 398
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1023 1023 1023 934 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 689 1478 1478 1478 1478 1478 689 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 565 1707 1707 1707 1707 1707 565
49
(e) Series 5: For bridges of Series 5 results are presented in Table 4.5, Table 4.14 and Table
4.15. This series is characterized for being long and flexible structures with effective periods
ranging from 2.04 seconds to 3.30 seconds. The central piers, P2 and P4 next to the middle
one, control the displacement shape and pier ductility is not high and for the last case (H =
15.0 m) became elastic, middle pier, P3, became elastic for high height cases (H=12.5 m and
15.0 m). Force taken by the abutment is not high and even is negative for the last cases and
reaching a 12 % for the first cases. Design moment increase with height of the bridge,
reaching the last two cases double design moment than the first two cases.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 880 979 989 979 880 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 273 1903 1269 952 1269 1903 273 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 239 1992 1328 996 1328 1992 239
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 887 989 1003 989 887 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 753 1481 988 741 988 1481 753 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 485 1780 1186 890 1186 1780 485
50
This series has different behaviour when compared with the previous series, because since
bridge height of H = 10.0 m the influence of soil structure interaction can be appreciated,
starting to reduce displacement shape when bridge height increases, because in the target
displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped spectrum, and
also increasing the pier moments compared to the results without soil structure interaction.
Foundation displacements are low, with exception of the large middle pier; displacement due
to foundation is around 10% of total displacement at first cases but reach a 62% for the last
cases.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 893 999 1016 999 893 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1142 1286 858 643 858 1286 1142
0.20
WITH SSI
Displacement Shape [m] -0.01 0.20 0.45 0.57 0.45 0.20 -0.01
Shear Forces [kN] -465 3474 2316 891 2316 3474 -465
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 900 1009 1029 1009 900 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1496 1187 791 593 791 1187 1496
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1273 4562 3218 881 3218 4562 -1273
51
(f) Series 6: For bridges of Series 5 results are presented in Table 4.5, Table 4.16 and Table
4.17. This series is characterized for being long structures with effective periods ranging from
1.61 seconds to 2.72 seconds. Abutment force ratio is low, range from 8 to 25%, increasing
with bridge height. Central pier control the displacement shape. The extreme lateral piers
behave elastic in all cases. Foundation displacement begins to increase when bridge height
increments, from 10% to 20% of total displacement. Design moment for the central piers (P2,
P3 and P4) are almost equal for all cases, but design moments for the lateral piers (P1 and P5)
get lower with the increment of the bridge height.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1008 992 1008 934 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 630 1830 3147 4721 3147 1830 630 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 652 1862 3300 4951 3300 1862 652
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 955 1023 1002 1023 955 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 970 1162 2583 3874 2583 1162 970 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1024 1166 2737 4106 2737 1166 1024
52
rotation). In particular, increasing pier height increases slightly the influence of the soil
displacement from 10% to 20%. For the first three cases (H=7.5 m, 10 m and 12.5 m) the
displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are exactly the same. For H=15 m,
the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit because in this case the target
displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. With
exception of last case H=15.0 m, there are no significant differences between the pier base
moments of the bridges with and without SSI.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 998 1057 1026 1057 998 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1186 860 2198 3297 2198 860 1186 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1259 836 2394 3591 2394 836 1259
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 1022 1063 1038 1063 1022 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1378 557 1933 2577 1933 557 1378 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1453 534 2330 3107 2330 534 1453
53
4.5.2 Series of Irregular Bridges

Series 7, 8 and 9 are characterized for being irregular bridge with one small lateral pier. The
tree series behave very similar. Even being irregular bridges the deformed shapes are
symmetric parabolic for the low height bridge cases, but are skewed to the side with long
piers for high height bridge cases.
Series 10, 11 and 12 are characterized for being irregular bridge with one small central pier.
The tree series behave very similar. Pier diameters are bigger than in the previous series,
being generally of 2.5 m. The deformed shapes are generally symmetric parabolic with some
cases a lightly skew to the long piers side.
Stiffness Abutment
[kN/m] (x)
Series 7
7.50 0.08 0.37 2830 2.08 25706 9516 0.60
10.00 0.06 0.48 2876 2.46 18715 9030 0.85
12.50 0.07 0.46 2911 2.40 19977 9212 0.78
15.00 0.06 0.33 2762 1.63 41221 13515 0.28
Series 8
7.50 0.08 0.38 2818 2.11 24961 9422 0.63
10.00 0.06 0.48 2864 2.43 19150 9127 0.84
12.50 0.06 0.26 2482 1.24 63558 16317 0.17
15.00 0.06 0.34 2760 1.66 39704 13323 0.30
Series 9
7.50 0.08 0.39 2868 2.12 25083 9666 0.60
10.00 0.08 0.40 2917 2.24 22998 9260 0.64
12.50 0.07 0.35 2792 1.81 33475 11670 0.34
15.00 0.07 0.71 2979 3.83 8001 5665 0.80
Series 10
7.50 0.11 0.24 2811 1.54 46805 11237 0.35
10.00 0.10 0.32 2908 1.92 31091 9948 0.53
12.50 0.08 0.40 2948 2.21 23901 9554 0.68
15.00 0.07 0.46 2989 2.41 20336 9288 0.80
Series 11
7.50 0.12 0.24 2887 1.60 44511 10782 0.38
10.00 0.10 0.32 2949 1.93 31272 10024 0.54
12.50 0.08 0.40 3002 2.25 23422 9359 0.71
15.00 0.07 0.46 3052 2.44 20291 9253 0.81
Series 12
7.50 0.10 0.24 2966 1.48 53195 12890 0.37
10.00 0.09 0.32 3020 1.89 33507 10752 0.55
12.50 0.08 0.40 3069 2.23 24367 9735 0.72
15.00 0.07 0.46 3123 2.40 21332 9716 0.81
54
(a) Series 7: SMM. For bridges of Series 7 results are presented in Table 4.18, Table 4.19
and Table 4.20. The short column is the critical member. This series is characterized for being
flexible structures with effective periods ranging from 1.63 seconds to 2.46 seconds. Energy
dissipation in each case is concentrated in the small pier and the central pier and is low in the
lateral long pier (P3), which behave elastic for all cases except for the lower case (H = 7.50
m) and central pier behave elastic for the last two bridge height cases (H = 12.50 m and 15.00
m). In the same way, higher pier strengths are required for the smaller heights cases, where
higher ductility demands are presented. Force abutment ratio is high in all cases except the
last one, between 60 to 85%.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 889 1002 913 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2538 1839 920 920 3157 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2523 1911 955 955 3172
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 897 1018 929 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3680 768 384 384 3950 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3663 702 351 341 3973
55
Foundation displacements for central long pier is important increasing with bridge height
from 20% and reaching 50% of total displacement and for lateral long pier is important for the
last two cases (H=12.5 m and 15.0 m) ranging from 20% to 30%. For the first two cases
(H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are
exactly the same. For H=15 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit because in
this case the target displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the
damped spectrum. This series presents almost equal moments for the low high bridge cases
(H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) when the results without and with soil structure interaction are
compared, but for the high height bridges the displacement with SSI are less than without SSI,
presenting large effective stiffness and then large pier moments.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 905 1035 945 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3465 191 95 87 3565 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3260 1301 380 342 3929
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
1.00
Drift Displacement [m] 0.10 0.60 1.20 1.20 0.10
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 900 1029 940 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Displacement Ductility 2.67 1.03 0.69 0.60
Equivalent Viscous Damping 0.08 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.08
Displacement Shape [m] 0.08 0.60 0.90 0.60 0.08 0.40
Shear Forces [kN] 2967 180 90 62 3049
0.20
WITH SSI
Foundation dimension [m] 6.00 7.10 6.90 0.00
Displacement Ductility 0.81 0.25 0.26 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Foundation Damping 0.05 0.16 0.11
Displacement Shape [m] -0.01 0.19 0.40 0.32 0.06
Shear Forces [kN] -504 7404 1141 1170 4305
56
(b) Series 8: SML. For bridges of Series 8 results are presented in Table 4.18, Table 4.21
and Table 4.22. As in the previous series, the short column is the critical member and this
series is characterized for being flexible structures with effective periods ranging from 1.66
seconds to 2.43 seconds. This series has low system energy dissipation, which are between 6
to 8%. For the short height bridge cases, the energy dissipation is concentrated in the short
and middle pier, but for the high height bridge cases is concentrated in the middle and high
pier. The deformed shape is parabolic symmetric for the first two cases but for the last two
cases (H=12.5 m and H=15.0 m) present an appreciable skew to the high pier side. Force
abutment ratio is high in all cases (63 to 83%) and higher pier (P3) behave elastic for all
bridge height cases and the central high pier for the last two cases (H=12.5 and 15.0 m).
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 880 989 920 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2405 2021 1011 448 3489 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2376 2080 1040 379 3548
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 887 1003 940 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3605 757 378 120 4129 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3508 946 473 83 4117
57
Foundation displacement becomes important for the high central pier and for lateral long pier
in all cases beginning on 20% and reaching 100% of total displacement. For the first two
cases (H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are
the same. For H=12.5 m and 15.0 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit
because in this case the target displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of
the damped spectrum. This series presents almost equal moments for the low high bridge
cases (H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) when the results without and with soil structure interaction are
compared, but for the high height bridges the displacement with SSI are less than without SSI,
presenting large effective stiffness and then large pier moments.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 893 1016 960 357 0.80Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3389 208 104 26 3556
0.20
WITH SSI
Displacement Ductility 0.44 0.38 0.14 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Shear Forces [kN] -2680 8815 3776 909 5497
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 900 1029 980 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2931 203 102 21 3076
0.20
WITH SSI
Displacement Ductility 0.74 0.25 -0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Effective Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 45796 3353 -187 75000 Displacement Shape WITH SSI Displacement Shape WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1179 8017 1350 -64 5200
Pier Base Moment [kN.m] 120250 40486 -2883
58
(c) Series 9: SLL. For bridges of Series 9 results are presented in Table 4.18, Table 4.23
and Table 4.24. As in the previous series, the short column is the critical member and this
series is characterized for being structures with effective periods ranging from 1.81 seconds to
3.83 seconds. Energy dissipation is concentrated in the short and middle pier, but for the high
height bridge cases is concentrated in the middle and high pier. Higher pier strengths are
required for the smaller heights cases (H=7.5 and H=10.0 m), where higher ductility demands
are presented in the short pier, both long piers behave elastic for all cases. As the height
increase the abutment force ratio also does, ranging from 60% to 80%, meaning that for the
higher heights the elastic path rule the structure behaviour, and explains the low pier strengths
for the higher heights. Lower values of system damping are then obtained for lower heights
cases. The deformed shape for all heights is parabolic skewed to the right.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 889 1027 937 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2211 2486 829 619 3578 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2172 2635 710 537 3611
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 897 1051 962 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3497 1023 263 180 4168 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2096 2832 235 265 3831
59
In particular, increasing pier height increases the influence of the soil displacement from 25%
to almost 100% for the central pier, also lateral high pier P4 present an important foundation
displacement increasing from 18% to 58%. Different than the other series, the first and last
cases (H=7.5 m and 15.0 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are
almost the same. For H=10.0 and 12.5 m, the structures with SSI could not reach the drift
displacement of the damped spectrum. Just in the cases with same displacement (H=7.5 m and
15.0 m) there are no significant differences between the pier base moments of the bridges
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 893 1049 960 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3371 263 48 33 3559
0.20
WITH SSI
Displacement Ductility 1.25 0 0.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Shear Forces [kN] -586 7423 3 258 4571
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 900 1069 980 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2863 247 38 26 3020 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2637 220 18 12 2779
60
(d) Series 10: SSM. For bridges of Series 10 results are presented in Table 4.18, Table 4.25
and Table 4.26. This series is characterized for being stiff structures due to the displacement
limit imposed by the short pier in the middle of the bridge which is the critical member for all
the cases. The high pier behaves elastically in all cases. The effective periods range from 1.54
seconds to 2.41 seconds. High energy dissipation is expected in each case, and is mainly
concentrated in the small piers. The abutment force ratio ranges from 35%, for the shortest
case height, to 80%, for the longer pier height, meaning that the inelastic pier path rule the
structure behaviour. High values of system damping are obtained for all heights cases,
between 11%, for the shortest case height, and 7%, the longer pier height, consequence of the
high contribution of inelastic pier action. The deformed shape for all cases is parabolic but
slightly irregular.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 889 978 913 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1372 2988 2988 1494 2542 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1376 2930 2930 1465 2536
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1002 955 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2200 1910 1910 851 3013 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2162 1970 1970 772 3073
61
The pier required strengths are very similar for all the cases except for last case H=15.0 m
where design moment is half the other cases, but ductility demands decrease with increasing
each case height. Comparing the results with and without SSI, when pier height increases also
does the influence of the soil displacement from 25% to 40% for the lateral piers and keeps
around 10% for the central pier. For the first three cases (H=7.5 m, 10.0 m and 12.5 m) the
displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are exactly the same. For H=15 m,
the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit because in this case the target
displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. In all
the cases there are no significant differences between the pier base moments of the bridges
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1013 976 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2959 1292 1292 457 3558 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2927 1330 1330 354 3614
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1023 997 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3719 694 694 204 4078 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3496 842 842 145 3964
62
(e) Series 11: SSL. For bridges of Series 11 results are presented in Table 4.18, Table 4.27
and Table 4.28. The structures are characterized for being stiff due to the displacement limit
imposed by the short pier in the middle of the bridge which is the critical member for all the
cases. The effective periods range from 1.60 seconds to 2.44 seconds. High energy dissipation
is expected in each case, and is mainly concentrated in the small central pier and some in the
small left pier; the high pier remains elastic for all the cases. The abutment force ratio ranges
from 38%, for the shortest case height, to 81%, for the longer pier height, meaning that the
inelastic pier path rule the structure behaviour. As in series 10, similar high values of system
damping are obtained for all heights cases, consequence of the high contribution of inelastic
pier action. The deformed shape for all the heights is parabolic but slightly irregular.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 903 992 965 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1039 3200 3200 621 3105 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1045 3056 3056 533 3093
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1002 997 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1993 2170 2170 300 3382 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1969 2198 2198 237 3421
63
rotation). Influence of the foundation displacement is important for the short lateral pier
ranging from 31% to 44%, the central short pier present low displacements from 8% to 10%,
meanwhile for the lateral high pier it increments from 10% to 90% with bridge height. For the
first three cases (H=7.5 m, 10 m and 12.5 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and
without SSI are exactly the same. For H=15 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift
displacement of the damped spectrum. There are no significant differences between the pier
base moments of the bridges with and without SSI and pier required strengths are very similar
except for last case, but ductility demands decrease with increasing each case height.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1013 1028 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2800 1319 1319 143 3792 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2772 1343 1343 64 3836
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1023 1059 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3591 652 652 58 4238 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3365 873 873 6 4137
64
(f) Series 12: MSL. For bridges of Series 12 results are presented in Table 4.18, Table 4.29
and Table 4.30. This series behaves very similar to the previous two series. The structures are
characterized for being stiff due to the displacement limit imposed by the short pier in the
middle of the bridge which is the critical member for all the cases. The effective periods range
from 1.48 seconds to 2.40 seconds. High energy dissipation is expected in each case, fully
concentrated in the small central pier, for which high ductility demand is expected; the other
two piers, the lateral ones, remain elastic for all cases. The abutment force ratio ranges from
37%, for the shortest case height, to 81%, for the longer pier height, meaning that the inelastic
pier path rule the structure behaviour. The deformed shape for all the heights is parabolic but
slightly irregular. As happen in the previous cases, high piers behaving elastically present less
moment than the short pier behaving inelastically.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 992 965 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1770 2299 4598 868 2959 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Displacement Ductility 1 5.8 0.52
Shear Forces [kN] 1736 2420 4841 834 3059
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 955 1002 997 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2550 1308 3099 423 3266 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2600 1219 3279 351 3302
65
rotation). Displacement due to foundation is around 5% to 38% for the short lateral pier;
central pier is around 10% and high pier (P3) increase from 15% to 90% with the bridge
height. For the first three cases (H=7.5 m, 10 m and 12.5 m) the displacement shapes of the
bridges with and without SSI are exactly the same. For H=15 m, the structure with SSI could
not reach the drift limit because in this case the target displacement results greater than the
maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. There are no significant differences between
the pier base moments of the bridges with and without SSI; pier required strengths are high
for the first two cases (H = 7.5 m and H = 10.0 m), and decrease for the higher height case.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 976 1013 1028 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3247 679 1972 211 3675 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3295 544 2087 103 3706
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 180.00 1.20
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 997 1023 1059 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3884 288 992 88 4143 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 3811 270 1582 9 4044
66
Series 13 to 18 are 6-span bridges with different degree of irregularities. They are flexible or
stiff structures depending basically of the critical short pier location.
Series 13, 14 and 15 are very flexible structures where the critical short pier is located
laterally. Series 16, 17 and 18 are stiff structures where the critical short pier is located in the
middle.
Stiffness Abutment
[kN/m] (x)
Series 13
7.50 0.11 0.42 4162 2.73 22090 9351 0.09
10.00 0.09 0.40 3821 2.27 29287 11636 0.16
12.50 0.11 0.37 4601 2.31 34071 12449 0.14
15.00 0.10 0.47 4210 2.92 19450 9191 0.19
Series 14
7.50 0.13 0.46 4396 3.11 17986 8262 0.14
10.00 0.11 0.48 4411 3.07 18517 8905 0.13
12.50 0.08 0.38 3901 2.13 33904 12870 0.14
15.00 0.07 0.31 4087 1.64 59929 18721 0.17
Series 15
7.50 0.15 0.34 4172 2.47 26966 9175 -0.07
10.00 0.13 0.41 4305 2.79 21899 8872 -0.05
12.50 0.10 0.32 3845 1.93 40939 13076 -0.21
15.00 0.13 0.45 4433 3.06 18719 8476 -0.05
Series 16
7.50 0.13 0.29 4140 1.98 41644 12162 -0.09
10.00 0.12 0.38 4376 2.51 27453 10443 -0.02
12.50 0.10 0.31 4121 1.88 46019 14182 -0.13
15.00 0.12 0.49 4737 3.28 17377 8561 0.08
Series 17
7.50 0.12 0.29 3975 1.89 43811 12607 0.18
10.00 0.11 0.34 4458 2.19 36598 12533 0.21
12.50 0.11 0.41 4641 2.63 26548 10974 0.26
15.00 0.10 0.39 4501 2.38 31314 12266 0.26
Series 18
7.50 0.14 0.26 4124 1.79 50563 13007 0.08
10.00 0.12 0.33 4432 2.18 36955 12052 0.13
12.50 0.11 0.40 4566 2.54 28010 11268 0.19
15.00 0.10 0.46 4664 2.78 23817 10907 0.24
67
(g) Series 13: SSMLL(1). For bridges of Series 13 results are presented in Table 4.31,
Table 4.32 and Table 4.33. The second pier, P2, is the critical member. 2.5 m diameter piers
are specified for all the cases. This series is characterized for being flexible structures with
effective periods ranging from 2.27 seconds to 2.92 seconds. Equivalent system damping, sys,
is about 11%, reflecting important energy dissipation, which is generally concentrated in P2.
Note that the left abutment, A1, is expected to move in the opposite directions than the piers,
resulting in negative values of resisted shear forces. Higher pier strengths are required for the
higher heights cases, as consequence of the slow increasing in the abutment force ratio with
height, just from 9% to 19%, for high piers decrease the strength required. Piers P4 and P5
behave elastic for all cases and P3 begin to behave elastic for the two higher height cases
(H=12.5 m and H=15.0 m). Note that this means that the inelastic pier path will rule the
structure behaviour. The deformed shape start to lose the parabolic shape, the shape is skewed
to the direction of the longer piers P4 and P5.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 903 992 1023 1055 965 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Displacement Shape [m] -0.02 0.10 0.30 0.49 0.52 0.31 0.03 0.40
Shear Forces [kN] -1221 2723 2723 1361 908 702 1988
0.20
WITH SSI
Displacement Ductility 1.92 5.8 2.42 1 0.66 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Displacement Shape [m] -0.02 0.09 0.30 0.50 0.53 0.32 0.03
Shear Forces [kN] -1390 2799 2799 1399 933 611 2199
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1002 1044 1086 997 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -935 2579 2579 1290 747 435 2263
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1687 1327 4945 2473 492 546 3541
68
This series has different behaviour when compared with the previous series, because since
bridge height of H = 10.0 m the influence of soil structure interaction can be appreciated,
starting to reduce displacement shape when bridge height increases, because in the target
displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped spectrum, and
also increasing the pier moments compared to the results without soil structure interaction.
Just in the case with same displacement (H=7.5 m) there are no significant differences
between the pier base moments of the bridges with and without SSI.
Displacement due to foundation is around 10% for the first cases, except for the central
middle height pier and the high piers next to it (P3 and P4) which begin in 20% but increases
to 93% of total displacement, when bridge height increases.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1013 1065 1117 1028 357 Displacement [m] 0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -585 2383 2383 1191 508 291 2424
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -133 4535 4535 1562 41 91 1819
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1023 1086 1148 1059 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -246 2203 2203 1101 369 209 2563
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1500 1514 4960 741 230 25 3222
69
(h) Series 14: SSMLL(2). For bridges of Series 14 results are presented in Table 4.31,
Table 4.34 and Table 4.35. The pier P2 is the critical members for this series. This series is
characterized for being flexible structures with effective periods ranging from 1.64 seconds to
3.11 seconds, but in this case the period gets lower with the height bridge increment due to
the fact that structure cannot reach the drift target displacement. The behaviour is very similar
to the previous series 13. Abutment force ratio increases from 14% to 17%. Equivalent system
damping, sys, is ranging about 7 to 13%; pier P5 behaves elastic for all the cases, meanwhile
for high height cases H=12.5 m and 15.0 m all piers behave elastic. Note that as in the
previous series, the left abutment, A1, is expected to move in the opposite directions than the
piers, resulting in negative values of resisted shear forces. The deformed shapes, as the
previous series, lose its parabolic shape; the shape is skewed to the direction of the longer
piers P4 and P5.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 903 1008 1023 1039 965 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -420 2445 1630 1222 978 638 1640
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -595 2568 1712 1284 1027 543 1723
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1023 1044 1065 997 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 177 2005 1337 1003 802 365 1914
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1086 3041 2028 1521 838 337 2226
70
rotation). In this series for all cases the influence of soil structure interaction can be
appreciated, starting to reduce displacement shape when bridge height increases, because in
the target displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped
spectrum and also increasing the pier moments compared to the results without soil structure
interaction.
Displacement due to foundation is important for piers P3, P4 and P5 for which it increment
from 16% but increases to 95% of total displacement, when bridge height increases; piers P1
and P2 present low foundation displacement, being around 10%.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1039 1065 1091 1028 357 Displacement [m] 0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 564 1894 1262 947 757 267 2236
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1753 1738 4256 3270 1161 644 3553
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1055 1086 1117 1059 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 911 1805 1204 903 661 208 2576
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -4775 3751 6957 4176 159 530 7923
71
(i) Series 15: SSLMS. For bridges of Series 15 results are presented in Table 4.31, Table
4.36 and Table 4.37. Even if is an irregular 6-span bridge, can be considered as the most
regular of all the 6-span series because just increasing the height of the second pier P2 (or
decreasing its strength) we would have a kind of regular bridge. Pier P2 is the critical member
and 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for all of them. This series is characterized for being
structures with effective periods ranging from 2.47 seconds to 3.06 seconds. The abutment
force ratio always negative ranging from -21% to -5%. This means that the total load taken by
the piers will always be bigger than the design base shear, VB. Significant energy dissipation
is expected because most of the piers have inelastic excursions; only P3, the high pier,
behaves elastic for all cases, and P4 behaves also elastic for the last two cases (H=12.5 m and
H=15.0 m). Note that as in the previous series, the left abutment, A1, is expected to move in
the opposite directions than the piers. Required piers flexural strengths increase as the heights
increase. The deformed shapes are parabolic slightly irregular to the direction of the piers P4
and P5.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 903 992 1055 1023 903 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -830 2617 2617 872 1309 2617 185
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -824 2585 2585 770 1292 2585 182
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 913 1002 1086 1044 913 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -394 2382 2382 612 1191 2382 324
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -640 2590 2590 258 1295 2590 188
72
rotation). Foundation displacement behaviour is similar for all cases, where the short piers
have between 10% and 32% of total displacement, meanwhile the central and taller pier has
an important effect of foundation displacement, starting in 38% and reaching 85% of total
displacement.
For the first two cases (H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and
without SSI are almost the same. For H=12.5 m and 15.0 m, the structure with SSI could not
reach the drift limit because in this case the target displacement results greater than the
maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. Design moments increase when bridge
height increase for the short piers, but moments decrease for the central high pier.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 924 1013 1117 1065 924 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -67 2161 2161 431 1081 2161 565
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -1451 2303 5906 114 1614 5906 -1316
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1023 1148 1086 934 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 264 1963 1963 320 920 1963 794
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -768 2500 2936 119 438 2936 315
73
(j) Series 16: MSLMS. For bridges of Series 16 results are presented in Table 4.31, Table
4.38 and Table 4.39. Pier P2 is the critical member and 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for
the first three heights, but because of displacement limit imposed by the short pier P2, 2.7 m
diameter piers are specified for the last case. The effective periods range from 1.88 seconds to
3.28 seconds. Abutment force ratio is mostly negative ranging from -13% to 8%. This means
that the total load taken by the piers will be bigger than the design base shear, VB. Significant
energy dissipation is expected in the pier P2, and some other in the pier P5; the remaining
piers are expected to behave elastic, P4 has some inelastic behaviour in the first two cases
(H=7.5 m and H=10.0 m). The deformed shapes are parabolic slightly irregular to the
direction of the piers P4 and P5.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 992 1055 1023 903 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Displacement Shape [m] 0.00 0.14 0.30 0.38 0.29 0.11 -0.02 0.40
Shear Forces [kN] 191 1619 4079 1306 2040 4079 -1120
0.20
WITH SSI
Displacement Shape [m] 0.00 0.14 0.30 0.38 0.29 0.10 -0.02
Shear Forces [kN] 184 1627 4237 1047 2118 4237 -1288
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 955 1002 1086 1044 913 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 751 1136 3549 830 1775 3549 -813
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 647 1083 3647 434 1823 3647 -838
74
rotation). Foundation displacement behaviour is similar for all cases, where the lateral piers
have between 10% and 3% of total displacement, meanwhile the central and taller pier has an
important effect of foundation displacement, starting in 20% and reaching 85% of total
displacement.
For the first two cases (H=7.5 m and 10.0 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and
without SSI are exactly the same. For H=12.5 m and 15.0 m, the structure with SSI could not
reach the drift limit because in this case the target displacement results greater than the
maximum displacement of the damped spectrum. Design moments for the first two cases are
very similar, for the last two cases increase as the heights increase for piers P2 and P3, for the
others piers the moment decreases.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 976 1013 1117 1065 924 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 936 831 3147 584 1560 3147 -295
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] -111 703 7272 140 1853 6065 -1739
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 1022 1038 1184 1111 949 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1161 649 2700 452 1237 2700 153
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 811 545 3289 241 548 3289 -161
75
(k) Series 17: LMSSM(1). For bridges of Series 17 results are presented in Table 4.31,
Table 4.40 and Table 4.41. The structures are characterized for being stiff due to the
displacement limit imposed by the short central pier P3 which is the critical member. 2.5 m
diameter piers are specified for all the cases. The effective periods range from 1.89 seconds to
2.63 seconds. Equivalent system damping, sys, is between 10 to 12%, reflecting important
energy dissipation, which is generally concentrated in P3. Note that right abutment A2 is
expected to move in the opposite directions than the piers for the first case height, resulting in
negative values of resisted shear forces. Abutment force ratio is ranging between 18% and
26%.
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 965 1023 992 992 934 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2586 769 1799 3597 3597 502 -455
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2714 704 1842 3684 3684 444 -465
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 997 1044 1002 1002 955 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2356 448 1723 3446 3446 662 113 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2502 384 1789 3578 3578 600 100
76
rotation). In general displacement due to foundation is small around 10% to 20%, with
exception of the last two cases (H=12.5 m and H=15.0 m) in which piers P1 and P2 present a
foundation displacement of 33% to 82% of total displacement. For the first three cases (H=7.5
m, 10 m and 12.5 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and without SSI are exactly
the same. For H=15 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit because in this
case the target displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of the damped
spectrum. With exception of the last case H=15.0 m in all the other cases there are no
significant differences between the pier base moments of the bridges with and without SSI.
Design moments increase when bridge height increase.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 1028 1065 1013 1013 976 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2222 285 1553 3105 3105 584 557 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 2418 186 1121 3151 3151 525 422
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 1059 1086 1023 1023 997 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 2214 194 1116 2712 2712 457 834
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 3260 51 605 4049 4049 282 -30
77
(l) Series 18: LMSSM(2). For bridges of Series 18 results are presented in Table 4.31,
Table 4.42 and Table 4.43. The structures are similar that the ones of series 17. These are
characterized for being stiff due to the displacement limit imposed by the short central pier P3
which is the critical member for all the cases. 2.5 m diameter piers are specified for all the
cases. The effective periods range from 1.79 seconds to 2.78 seconds. Equivalent system
damping, sys, is about 10 to 14% for all the cases, reflecting important energy dissipation,
which is generally concentrated in P3. Abutment force ratio is ranging between 8 to 24% for
all height cases. Design moments increase slowly when bridge height increase. Comparing the
results with and without SSI, can be noticed that the presence of the soil reduces the ductility
required to the piers (part of the displacement is given by the foundation rotation).
H = 7.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 934 1008 992 992 918 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1570 1672 2229 3343 3343 1341 -551
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1537 1684 2246 3368 3368 1288 -484
H = 10.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
1.00
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 955 1023 1002 1002 934 357 0.80
Displacement [m]
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1534 1086 1978 2967 2967 1414 -34
0.20
WITH SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1596 1018 2024 3036 3036 1320 21
78
In general displacement due to foundation is small around 10% to 30%. For the first three
cases (H=7.5 m, 10 m and 12.5 m) the displacement shapes of the bridges with and without
SSI are exactly the same. For H=15 m, the structure with SSI could not reach the drift limit
because in this case the target displacement results greater than the maximum displacement of
the damped spectrum. With exception of the last case H=15.0 m in all the other cases there
are no significant differences between the pier base moments of the bridges with and without
SSI. Design moments increase slightly when bridge height increase.
H = 12.5 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 976 1039 1013 1013 950 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1597 700 1716 2574 2574 1168 420 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Shear Forces [kN] 1729 650 1834 2750 2750 1157 398
H = 15.0 m
Distance [m] 0.00 40.00 90.00 140.00 190.00 240.00 280.00 1.20
Pier Diameter [m] 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Mass in DOF [ton] 357 997 1055 1023 1023 965 357
Displacement [m]
0.80
WITHOUT SSI
Shear Forces [kN] 1692 491 1507 2261 2261 926 777 0.40
WITH SSI
0.20
Displacement Ductility 0.33 1 2.87 2.05 0.52
Shear Forces [kN] 1847 431 1750 2625 2625 906 722
79
In the development of this work there were some issues found that should be deeply
investigated in future studies of this methodology.
The procedure proposed in this work to evaluate the effect of foundation flexibility on multi
degree of freedom bridge structures applies the soil structure interaction methodology to each
pier to find its basic characteristics like base dimension, pier displacement ductility, structural
and foundation displacement, damping and stiffness, as well as equivalent characteristics.
In this way, for each pier can be evaluated if the target drift displacement is reached or if there
are cases limited by the spectrum corner displacement where Dd > Dc. The actual procedure
to evaluated Direct Displacement Based Design in MDOF bridges without soil structure
interaction do not take into account individual pier evaluation and this check is only
performed for the equivalent single degree of freedom structure.
Also regarding this procedure it is believed that the equivalent stiffness found for each pier
should correspond (or be equal) to the equivalent pier stiffness calculated by the DDBD
methodology for MDOF structures expressed as Keff = Vi / i.
These issues were tested in the present SSI methodology but convergence problems were
found so they were not implemented in this work.
80
Chapter 5. Conclusions
5 CONCLUSIONS
A procedure for direct displacement-based design of continuous multi-span bridge systems

including the soil-structure interaction effect was presented. The procedure was applied to a
series of four and six span bridge structures with different pier heights. The displacement-
based procedure has been used to design eighteen different series of bridge configurations.
When total seismic force is resisted by the abutments only, it results in low strength
requirements for the piers. Such a low strength requirement can be supplied with a
reinforcement ratio well below the minimum desirable limit of 0.5%, these are some of those
cases in which the column design could be governed by gravity considerations only. Note
however, that since in some cases inelastic action is still expected to take place at the bottom
of the piers; adequate transverse reinforcement and detailing are required in order to sustain
the expected displacement ductility demands.
It is interesting to note that in the cases where there is a symmetrical parabolic shape, but the
symmetric piers have different height, the soil-structure have an important impact on the
design moments which became larger for the shorter piers, due to the fact that foundation
displacement is low and the total displacement is reached almost totally by the structure
displacement, and like the pier yielded has a high percent of the total base shear, the design
moment are increased.
Soil-structure interaction became important for irregular bridge configuration, presenting an

important effect for the high piers and being more evident when bridge height increases. As a
general pattern for all series, bridge height case H=7.5 m, which is the shorter one, always
behaves exactly when the results with and without soil structure interaction are compared.
For almost all high height cases (H=12.5 m and 15.0 m), the displacement shape dos not reach
the target drift displacement, it can be observed that foundation is controlling the maximum
displacement. This happen when in the pier analysis, Ds (structural displacement) is larger
than Dc (corner displacement for modified displacement spectra) and the iterative procedure
81
Chapter 5. Conclusions
explained in Chapter 3.1.3 has to be applied. Then the total displacement is less than target
displacement.
For the first series the behaviour observed is that short height bridge cases present the same
design moment, but when bridge height increase, usually for cases H=12.5 m and H=15.0 m,
the piers where displacement due to foundation is important present a lesser design moment
than the cases without soil-structure interaction, this is due to the fact that pier equivalent
stiffness is reduced and then less shear force is distributed to the pier, but still keep the same
displacement.
Also for these same cases, piers presenting the previous commented effects, which do not
reach the target displacement present the opposite behaviour for the design moments, which
are larger than the cases without soil-structure interaction, where pier equivalent stiffness is
increased and then the shear force distributed to it.
On series 10, 11 and 12 the results presented considering soil-structure interaction are very
close and similar to result without soil-structure interaction involved; the characteristics of
these bridges are predominant short piers in their configuration and also they are not long
bridges. Series 13 to 16 behave similar in the sense that excepting the first case H=7.50 m, the
other cases are controlled by foundation displacement, in other words, target displacement is
not drift displacement but as explained before is controlled by the modified total
displacement, resulting in larger design moment than cases without soil-structure interaction.
Series 17 and 18 are similar to the first series, for all cases the results are almost the same
compared to the cases without soil-structure interaction.
As a general conclusion, high height cases (H=12.5 m and 15.0 m) the foundation flexibility
began to be an important consideration in the design process and just in some series when
bridge configuration has two or more high piers, the case H=10.0 is affected by foundation
flexibility.
It is also worthy to consider that improvements can be done to the methodology used here, for
which the main idea was to have several bridge configuration results involving the Soil-
Structure Interaction to compare with the procedure without Soil-Structure Interaction but in
which was knew that it is just the beginning and initial attempts to develop an stronger and
verified methodology, for example time history analysis, are required, but to do this is also
needed to review the way to characterize and to model foundation flexibility. Although the
displacement-based design procedure including the soil-structure interaction effect presents
promising results, several areas require further investigation.
The non-linear soil behaviour is treated with a visco-elastic linear equivalent approach and
these curves had been gotten thought tests on medium and dense sand, then results presented
in this work are related to these soil characteristics, other soil types can also be evaluated in
later studies.
82
References
REFERENCES
Alfawakhiri, F., Bruneau, M. [2000] Flexibility of Superstructures and Supports in the Seismic
Analysis of Simple Bridges, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 711-
729.
Alvarez Botero, J. C. [2004] Displacement-based design of continuous concrete bridges under
transverse seismic excitation, Masters Dissertation, European School for Advanced Studies in
Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Biggs, J.M. [1964] Introduction to structural dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Bommer, J.J., Elnashai, A.S. [1999] Displacement spectra for seismic design, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering; Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Calvi, G. M., Kingsley, G. R. [1995] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Multi-Degree of
Freedom Bridge Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 1247-
1266.
CEN [2004] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, Comit Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for earthquake resistance Part 2: Bridges, Comit
Europeen de Normalization, Brussels, Belgium.
Chopra, A.K. [2001] Dynamics of structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering,
Prentice Hall, USA.
Dwairi, H., Kowalsky, M.J. [2006] Implementation of inelastic displacement patterns in direct
displacement-based design of continuous bridge structures, Earthquake Spectra; Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp. 631-662.
Faccioli, E., Paolucci, R., Rey, J., [2004] "Displacement Spectra for Long Periods", Earthquake
Spectra, Vol. 20, pp. 347-376.
Gazetas G. [1991] "Foundation Vibrations," Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, H.Y.
Fang, Ed., Kluwer/Springer, Chapter 15, pp. 553-593.
83
References
Grant, D.N., Blandon, C.A., Priestley, M.J.N. [2005] Modelling inelastic response in direct
displacement-based design, Research Report No. ROSE 2005/03, IUSS, Pavia, Italy.
Kowalsky, M.J. [2000] Deformation limit states for circular reinforced concrete bridge columns ,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE; Vol. 126, No. 8, pp. 869-878.
Kowalsky, M.J. [2002] A displacement-based design approach for the seismic design of continuous
concrete bridges, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; Vol. 31, pp. 719-747.
Kramer Steven L. [1996] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, N.J., U.S.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. [1988] Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete, Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE; Vol. 114, No. 8, pp. 1804-1825.
Maroney, B. H., and Chai, Y.H. [1994] Bridge Abutment Stiffness and Strength Under Earthquake
Loadings, Proceedings, 2nd International Workshop on the Seismic Design of Bridges,
Queenstown, New Zealand.
Nova, R. and Montrasio, L. [1991] Settlements of shallow foundations on sand, Gotechnique 41,
No. 2, pp. 243-256.
Ortiz Restrepo, J. C. [2006] Displacement-based design of continuous concrete bridges under
transverse seismic excitation, Masters Dissertation, European School for Advanced Studies in
Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Paolucci R., di Prisco C., Vecchiotti M., Shirato M., Yilmaz M. [2007] Seismic behaviour of shallow
foundations: large scale experiments vs. numerical modelling and implications for performance
based design. 1st US Italy Seismic Bridge workshop, Eucentre, Pavia, April 18-20.
Priestley, M.J.N. [1993] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering Conflicts Between Design
and Reality, Bulletin NZ National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 328-
341.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G. M. [1996] Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges; John Wiley
& Sons Inc. First edition, New York.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G. M. [1997] Concepts and procedures for direct displacement-based
design. Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Priestley, M.J.N. [2003] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, The Ninth
Mallet Milne Lecture, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. [2003] Direct displacement based seismic design of concrete bridges,
Proceedings of V International Conference of Seismic Bridge Design and Retrofit for Earthquake
Resistance, ACI International Conference, La Jolla, California.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M.J. [2007] Direct Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Petrini L., Maggi C., Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., [2008] Experimental verification of viscous
damping modelling for inelastic time history analyses, Journal of Earthquake Engineering; Vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 125145.
Shibata, A., Sozen, M. [1976] Substitute structure method for seismic design in reinforced concrete.
Journal Structural Engineering; ASCE; Vol. 102, No. 12, pp. 3548-3566.
84
References
Sullivan, T. [2003] The limitations and performances of different displacement based design
methods, Journal of Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 7, Special Issue 1, pp. 201-241.
Tolis, S.V., Faccioli, E. [1999] Displacement design spectra Journal of Earthquake Engineering;
Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 107-125.
Wolf J.P. [1985] Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., U.S.
85
Appendix A
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR ONE BRIDGE
In this section, sample calculation of direct displacement based design including soil structure
interaction for bridge of Series 2, H=7.50 m is presented. Design philosophy is already
discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and the methodology for MDOF systems is discussed in
Chapter 3, in particular Chapter 3.2 involving soil-structure interaction, summary of the
results for different types of bridge configuration are presented in Chapter 4. Details of bridge
showing the major dimensions and pier diameter are presented in Figure A 1 and Table A 1.
Figure A 1: Dimensions detail of Series 2 bridge, H=7.50m
Table A 1: Pier distance and dimensions
x (m) 0 40 90 140 180
Pier height (m) 0 7.50 15.00 7.50 0
Pier diameter (m) 0 2.00 2.00 2.00 0
Effective mass (ton) 356 880 989 880 356
Effective mass is evaluated as explained in Chapter 4.1.3 and Chapter 4.1.4 and is tabulated in
Table A 1.
Step 1: Estimate the initial displacement profile. According to Chapter 3.2.1 a parabolic
shape is assumed for the initial target displacement of the deck members. The parabolic
profile is calculated where abutment displacement a = 0.10 m, the displacement shape as a
function of distance from left abutment (x) is given by,
A1
Appendix A
mi a
i = x ( xn +1 x )
xi +1 ( xn +1 xi +1 )
The displacement shape is calculated at each node point and tabulated in Table A 2; distances
shown in the table are measured from the left abutment (A1).
Table A 2: Deck initial displacement shapes
Distance (m) of the node on the deck from left

abutment (A1)
X (m) 0 40 90 140 180
P1 0.0 0.200 0.289 0.200 0.0
P2 0.0 0.345 0.500 0.345 0.0
P3 0.0 0.200 0.289 0.200 0.0
The obtained shape is now scaled in such a fashion that at least one column reach its design
(target) displacement. To do so, we need to know the displacement capacities as well as yield
displacements of the piers. The target displacement of the piers can be estimated either from
limit strain criteria or from drift limitations. In this study the target displacement is selected
from drift criteria. A drift of 4.0% is assumed for all piers.
Thus target displacement is: m = 0.040 Pier Height
Table A 3: Drift displacement for each pier
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Pier Height (m) 0 7.50 15.00 7.50 0
Pier Drift (m) 0 0.30 0.60 0.30 0
The scaled target displacement profile of the bridge is obtained using Eq.(2.20) and presented
in Figure A 2 and Table A 4.
Table A 4: Target displacement profile (m) of the deck
Distance (m) of the node on the deck from the base

0 40 90 140 180
0.100 0.300 0.389 0.300 0.100
Step 2: Determine Pier Yield displacement. According to Chapter 3.2.2 the yield curvature
for the column section is estimated from Eq.(2.1), yield displacements of the piers are
calculated from Eq.(2.3).
A2
Appendix A
The strain penetration effect at pier base is taken from Eq.(2.4) for 43 mm diameter of
longitudinal reinforcement of yield strength 455 MPa and expected yield strength of
f ye = 1.1 455 MPa = 500 MPa .
Lsp = 0.022 500 MPa 0.043 m = 0.473 m
The yield curvature is calculated as follows, where depth of the pier section under
consideration is 2.0 m and yield strain of reinforcement is taken as:
f ye 500,000
y = = = 0.002502
Es 200 ,000 , 000
y 0.002502
y = 2.25 = 2.25 = 0.00281 m 1
D 2.0 m
Thus yield displacement is,
(H + Lsp ) (H + 0.473 m )
2 2
pier pier
y = y = 0.00281 m-1
3 3
Dd-drift
1
Displacement [m]
Yield
Pier
DispShape
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance [m]
Figure A 2: Initial parabolic shape
Step 3: Determine Pier displacement ductility. According to Chapter 3.2.3 the ductility in
each pier can, therefore, be estimated by Eq.(2.10).
Table A 5: Piers yield displacement and ductility
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Height (m) 0 7.50 15.00 22.50 0
Yield disp. (m) 0 0.059 0.224 0.059 0
Ductility 0 5.08 2.67 5.08 0
A3
Appendix A
Step 4: DDBD with soil-structure interaction procedure for SDOF. The next steps are part
of the methodology to calculate the SDOF properties for a pier with soil structure interaction
effects. The procedure to involve the Soil-Structure Interaction on the DDBD method can be
divided in two main parts:
Step 4.1: Foundation dimension definition. According to Chapter 3.1.1 to start the
procedure is needed to determine the design displacement as the drift limit displacement Dd,
and to fix the initial value of the foundation dimensions, width B, length L and height hf, a
base dimension is chosen, and both foundation sides will have the same dimension (B = L) as
a simplification, the detailed procedure is realized for pier P1 and the results are presented for
all piers, in this case a 6.0 m base, height 1.5 m and soil properties are assumed, the soil
bearing capacity is calculated as follows.
The assumed soil friction angle is: = 32o = 0.558 rad
Soil bearing capacity Nmax and corresponding static safety factor FS under conditions of
vertical centred load are evaluated following Eurocode 7 formulation.
0.558
N q = e tan tan 2 + = e tan 0.558 tan 2 + = 23.17
4 2 4 2
( )
N = 2 N q 1 tan = 2 ( 23.17 1) tan 0.558 = 27.71
B 6.0 m
= 1 0.30 = 1 0.30 = 0.70
L 6.0 m
The limit soil bearing capacity from basic soil mechanics,
qlim = 0.50 B N = 0.50 6.0m 19.62 kN / m3 27.71 0.70 = 1142 kPa
Where the maximum soil load capacity is calculated as,
N max = qlim B L = 1142 kPa 6.0 m 6.0 m = 41109 kN
The total axial load in the piers is:
Ntotal = Nsup + N pier + N found = 10377 kN
The security factor for soil load capacity is calculated as follows, and is considered
satisfactory when its value is equal o larger than 2,
N max 41109 kN
FS = = = 3.96 2
Ntotal 10377 kN
A4
Appendix A
The foundation inertia and stiffness are evaluated as,
L B3 6.0 m ( 6.0 m )
3
I bx = = = 108 m 4
12 12
0.25
G l b
K rx _ sup = I bx 0.75 2.4 + 0.5
(1 ) b l
0.25
80000 3.0 m 3.0 m
K rx _ sup = 1080.75 2.4 + 0.5 = 11103445
(1 0.30) 3.0 m 3.0 m
From the stiffness degradation curve with FS=3.96 the parameters a and m are obtained and
its values are: a=356, m= 1.02; then the foundation rotational stiffness can be evaluated using
Eq.(3.5) ,
K rx _ sup 11103445
K rot = = = 881438
(1 + a ) m
(1 + 356 1.02 )
From the increment damping curve with FS=3.96 the parameter is obtained and its value is
=60.55; then the foundation damping can be evaluated using Eq.(3.6),
min = 0.036 max = 0.37
( )
f = f min + ( f max f min ) 1 e = 0.036 + ( 0.37 0.036 ) 1 e60.55 ( )
Step 4.1.1: Check if a solution is feasible. The stability of the pier is evaluated calculating
the over-turning moment for a rigid pier where, Df=Dd. In Table A 3 the drift displacements
for each pier are calculated and assuming rigid pier, where there is no structural deformation,
only displacement due to foundation rotation, the following calculations are made.
D f = Dd = 0.30 m
Foundation rotation angle from Eq.(3.7) is,
Df 0.30 m
= = = 0.0363 rad
hf 1.50 m
H + 7.50 m +
2 2
The displacement stiffness from Eq.(3.1) is,

Kf 881438 kN / rad
K fD = 2
= 2
= 12950 kN / m
hf 1.50 m
H + 7.50 m +
2 2
A5
Appendix A
Base shear is evaluated with Eq.(3.8) using the foundation displacement that in this case is the
only displacement in the system due to rotation as a rigid body,
Vb = K fD D f = 12950 kN / m 0.30 m = 3885 kN
The moment in the pier calculated from Eq.(3.9) is the following, where H is the total height
of the pier from the base to the centre of the top mass.
hf 1.50 m
M f Rig = Vb H + = 3885 kN 7.50 m + = 32052 kN m
2 2
Now a limit moment needs to be evaluated, according to [Nova and Montrasio, 1991]
formulation the Eqs.(3.11), (3.12), (3.13) and (3.14) are developed. The following parameters
are used; coefficient of soil-foundation friction , is a constitutive adimensional parameter
and =0.95 is a parameter controlling maximum horizontal load position
2 hf 2 1.5 m
= tan + 0.72 = tan 0.558 + 0.72 = 0.57
3 B 3 6.0 m
hf 1.5 m
= 0.35 + 0.30 = 0.35 + 0.30 = 0.425
B 6.0 m
Limit shear is evaluated with the following expression, where Ntot is the total axial load over
the foundation.
2 20.95
N 2 10376 kN
2
Ntot 1 tot
N max
( 10376 kN ) 1
41109 kN
Vb,lim = 2
= 2
= 2139 kN
1 7.50 m + (1.50 m / 2 )
2
1 H + hf / 2
2
+ B +
0.57 0.425 6.0 m
The limit moment is evaluated then as,
hf 1.50 m
M lim = Vlim H + = 2139 kN 7.50 m + = 17647 kN m
2 2
Step 4.1.2: Initial values for equivalent SDOF. Considering rigid foundation, the following
procedure is employed to evaluate the characteristics of SDOF structure which is described in
Chapter 2.1
Displacement ductility is calculated with Eq.(3.15),
Dd 0.30 m
= = = 5.02
y 0.059 m
A6
Appendix A
Then the equivalent damping is evaluated with Eq.(3.16),
5.02 1
eq = 0.05 + 0.444 = 0.163
5.02
The damping reduction factor from Eq.(2.15), which scale the displacement spectra for
damping ratios different than 5%, is the following,
0.5
0.07 0.07
0.5
R = = = 0.618
0.02 + eq 0.02 + 0.163

The corner displacement is scaled according to the previous damping reduction factor,
Dc ,eq = Dc ,5 R = 0.857 m 0.618 = 0.529 m
Now the equivalent period is evaluated from the scaled displacement spectrum,
Dd 0.30 m
Te = TCO = 4sec = 2.26sec
Dc ,eq 0.529 m
And the design base shear is calculated as explained in Chapter 2.1.5, where the effective
mass over the pier is evaluated in 880 ton.
2 2
2 2
K e = me = 880 ton = 6774 kN / m
Te 2.26sec
Vb = K e Dd = 6774 kN / m 0.30 m = 2032 kN
Step 4.1.3: Elastic foundation. The properties for the SDOF system are evaluated again
considering now the foundation deformation under the hypothesis of elastic behaviour.
Foundation elastic rotational stiffness is the one at the beginning of the stiffness degradation
curve, and also the elastic foundation damping can be found at the beginning of the increment
damping curve.
The pier moment with rigid foundation is:
hf 1.5 m
M f = Vb H + = 2032 kN 7.5 m + = 16768 kN m
2 2
From the stiffness degradation curve in the elastic range a foundation rotational stiffness value
of Kf = 11103445 kN.m/rad is gotten and from the increment damping curve for the same
elastic range a damping value of = 0.036 is found.
A7
Appendix A
Now the same procedure as seen before is used here to calculate foundation displacement,
foundation displacement stiffness and base shear values. Firs foundation rotation is evaluated
from Eq.(3.20)
Mf 16768 kN m
= = = 0.0015 rad
Kf0 11103445 kN m / rad
Displacement due to the foundation rotation is,
h 1.50 m
D f = H + = 0.00151 rad 7.50 m + = 0.012 m
2 2
And displacement stiffness as function of rotational stiffness is calculated from Eq.(3.22),
Kf 11103445 kN m / rad
K fD = 2
= 2
= 163136 kN / m
h 1.50 m
H + 7.50 m +
2 2
Vb = K fD D f = 163136 kN / m 0.012 m = 2032 kN
Limit condition; like > 0.0001 rad, then = 0.0001 rad.
h 1.50 m
D f = H + = 0.0001 rad 7.50 m + = 0.000825 m
2 2
From the stiffness degradation curve for = 0.0001 a foundation rotational stiffness value of
Kf = 10806120 kN.m/rad is gotten and from the increment damping curve for the same
rotation angle a damping value of = 0.038 is found. And again foundation displacement
stiffness is evaluated as,
Kf 10806120 kN m / rad
K fD = 2
= 2
= 158767 kN / m
h 1.50 m
H + 7.50 m +
2 2
Now the equivalent period for this SDOF structure is evaluated from Eq.(3.23),
me 880 ton
Te = 2 = 2 = 0.467 sec
Kf 158767 kN / m
Step 4.2: Application of DDBD to equivalent SDOF system. Now is employed the
procedure to evaluate the foundation flexibility as described in Chapter 3.1.2.
A8
Appendix A
Step 4.2.1: Lateral displacement due to structural displacement. The structural

displacement is found as the subtraction of the drift or limit displacement and the foundation
displacement.
Ds = Dd D f = 0.30 m 0.000825 m = 0.299 m
Step 4.2.2: Structural ductility. Now the displacement ductility is found but considering
only the structural displacement component not the whole total displacement.
Ds 0.299 m
= = = 5.01
y 0.059 m
Step 4.2.3: Structural damping. The equivalent structural damping is defined in Eq.(3.16),
1 5.01 1
s = 0.05 + 0.444 = 0.05 + 0.444 = 0.163
5.01
Step 4.2.4: Structural stiffness. The structural stiffness is calculated following the approach
given by [Wolf, 1985] from Eq.(3.25),
K eq K fD 6774 kN / m 158767 kN / m
Ks = = = 7077 kN / m
K fD K eq 158767 kN / m 6774 kN / m
Step 4.2.5: Equivalent system damping. The equivalent system damping is also calculated
following the approach given by [Wolf, 1985] from Eq.(3.26),
K eq K eq 6774 kN / m 6774 kN / m
eq = s + f = 0.163 + 0.038 = 0.157
Ks K fD 7077 kN / m 158767 kN / m
Table A 6: Damping for all piers
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Eq. Damping 0 0.157 0.099 0.157 0
Step 4.2.6: Spectral displacement. The spectral displacement is calculated for the corner
period TC0 and with the equivalent system damping, scaled respect to the displacement by the
ratio Keq / Ks according to the approach given by Wolf, using Eq.(3.27),
0.5
0.07 K eq 0.07
0.5
6774 kN / m
Dc ,eq = Dc ,5 = 0.857 m = 0.514 m

0.02 + eq Ks 0.02 + 0.157 7077 kN / m
A9
Appendix A
Step 4.2.7: Equivalent system period. And the equivalent period is read from displacement
spectra.
Ds 0.299 m
Teq = TC 0 = 4.0sec = 2.26sec
Dc,eq 0.514 m
Step 4.2.8: Equivalent system stiffness. Equivalent system stiffness is evaluated from
Eq.(3.29),
2
2 2
2
K eq = me = 880 ton = 6775 kN / m
Teq 2.26sec

Structural period can be evaluated as,
( 2.26sec ) ( 0.46sec )
2 2
Ts = Te 2 T f 2 = = 2.21sec
Step 4.2.9: Base shear. Base shear force is calculated with Eq.(3.30),
Vb = K s Ds = 7077 kN / m 0.299 m = 2117 kN
Step 4.2.10: Base moment. Then the foundation moment is,
hf 1.5 m
M f = Vb H + = 2117 kN 7.5 m + = 17467 kN m
2 2
Step 4.2.11: Base rotation and damping. The base rotation calculated as in Eq.(3.20), this is
an iterative procedure which will start from Kf0 (hypothesis of rotation on elastic soil) and
moves thought the soil stiffness degradation curve as shown in Figure 3.2. The new rotation
value is evaluated as,
Mf 17467 kN m
= = = 0.00161 rad
Kf 10806120 kN m / rad
From the curves for = 0.00161 rad a foundation rotational stiffness value of Kf = 7573811
kN.m/rad is gotten and then a damping value of = 0.067.
Step 4.2.12: Lateral displacement due to base rotation. The lateral displacement due to
base rotation is calculated from Eq.(3.21),
h 1.50 m
D f = H + = 0.00161 rad 7.50 m + = 0.0133 m
2 2
A10
Appendix A
Step 4.2.13: Return on first step until convergence on Ds is obtained. The procedure is
repeated again until the convergence for the structural displacement value is reached.
tol = Ds Ds old = 0.299 m 0.30 m = 0.000825 m
Step 4.2.14: Check that Mf < Mlim. If the condition is not satisfied, return to the first part of
the procedure and restart increasing the dimensions of the foundation.
Step 5: System target displacement. In order to obtain a system displacement, work by

[Calvi et al., 1995] is adopted. In this approach the system target displacement is defined by
the requirement that the work done by the equivalent SDOF system must be the same as that
done by the MDOF system as show in Eq.(3.36).
sys =
mi 2i 356 0.102 + 880 0.302 + 989 0.3892 + 880 0.302 + 356 0.102
= = 0.32 m
mi i 356 0.10 + 880 0.30 + 989 0.389 + 880 0.30 + 356 0.10
Step 6: Effective system mass. The system mass should be that which requires work
equivalence between the MDOF and SDOF systems. The system mass is then obtained by
Eq.(3.37) where i is the target displacement for column i (Dtot) and mi is the mass associated
with column i.
msys =
i mi = 356 0.10 + 880 0.30 + 989 0.389 + 880 0.30 + 356 0.10 = 3072 ton
sys 0.32
Step 7: Fraction of lateral load carried by the abutments. A value of x = 0.5 is selected as
an initial guess for the fraction of lateral load transmitted to the abutments.
Step 8: Ratio of shear force carried by the piers. The distribution of base shear is
calculated under the assumption that yield moment capacity of all the pier sections at base is
same. Thus the shear force carried by individual piers is inversely proportional to their height,
provided all the piers are yielded under the design earthquake.
1
PVi =
H eff i
If the pier behaves elastic, then base shear is the ratio of the ductility, which is less than 1, to
their height.

PVi =
H eff i
A11
Appendix A
Table A 7: Ratio of shear force carried by the piers
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Pier Height (m) 0 7.50 15.00 7.50 0
Shear force ratio 0 0.133 0.066 0.133 0
Step 9: System hysteretic damping. The system hysteretic damping is evaluated as an

equivalent SDOF system using Eq.(2.28) and the procedure is explained in Chapter 2.2.2.

( )
x sys A SS + x A A + ( 1 x ) Q P ,i P ,i
sys = piers

( )
x sys A + x A + ( 1 x ) Q P ,i
piers
Where A is the mean of abutment displacement,
A = 0.5 ( 1 + N +1 ) = 0.5 ( 1 + 5 ) = 0.5 ( 0.10 m + 0.10 m ) = 0.10 m
( QP ,i P ,i ) = 0.133 0.30 0.157 + 0.066 0.389 0.099 + 0.133 0.30 0.157

piers
( QP ,i ) = 0.133 0.30 + 0.066 0.389 + 0.133 0.30

piers
With an assumed superstructure damping (SS) value of 0.05, the system damping can be
evaluated as,

0.05 ( 0.32 0.10 ) 0.05 + 0.05 0.10 0.08 + (1 0.05) QP ,i P ,i
sys = piers = 0.101

0.05 ( 0.32 0.10 ) + 0.05 0.10 + (1 0.05) QP ,i
piers
Step 10: System effective period. The effective period Tsys of the substitute structure is
obtained by entering the displacement response spectra with the target system displacement
and reading across to the appropriate response curve and down as was shown in Figure 2.1
and Figure 2.3.
The effective period is read from the displacement spectra entering the values calculated in
step 5 and step 9.
Tsys = 1.96 sec
A12
Appendix A
Step 11: System effective stiffness. The effective stiffness at maximum response of the
equivalent SDOF system is then obtained with the following equation,
4 2 msys 4 2 3072 ton

K sys = = = 31549 kN / m
Tsys 2 (1.96 sec )
2
Step 12: Base shear force for the equivalent SDOF. Base shear force for the equivalent
SDOF system is then calculated as,
Vsys = K sys sys = 31549 kN / m 0.32 m = 10109 kN
Step 13: Force distribution. The shear force Vsys from step 12 is distributed to abutments and
bridge piers; it is assumed that the piers will have the same longitudinal steel ratio and column
diameter. The force resisted by the abutments is stipulated to be a relation of the relative
abutments displacement and the amount of base shear force carried by them. The abutments
will have the following force distribution, where x is defined in step 7, 1 is the displacement
for abutment 1 and N+1 is the displacement for abutment N+1, N is the number of spans.
1 0.10 m
Vab1 = x Vsys = 0.05 10109 kN = 2527 kN
1 + N +1 0.10 m + 0.10 m
N +1 0.10 m
Vab 2 = x Vsys = 0.05 10109 kN = 2527 kN
1 + N +1 0.10 m + 0.10 m
The force in the piers is given by,
Vcoli = (1 x ) Vsys PVi
Table A 8: Abutment and pier force distribution
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Force distribution (kN) 2527 2021 1010 2012 2527
The distribution of the base shear as forces to inertia mass locations is done in the following
way,
mi i
Fi = Vsys
mi i
A13
Appendix A
Table A 9: Base shear distributed as forces in mass locations
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Force distribution (kN) 366 2711 3954 2711 366
Step 14: Section design. Once the column shear forces are obtained, the column moments are
easily calculated. The sections are then designed to obtain the required moment capacity at
the design concrete or steel strain or drift limit. Longitudinal reinforcement is then provided
to resist the design moment and transverse reinforcement supplied to resist the target
displacements.
M i = Vci H eff
Table A 10: Design moment in piers
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Design moment (kN-m) 0 15164 15164 15164 0
Step 15: Abutment and pier effective stiffness. Using the member shear forces, and the
previous target displacement pattern, the secant stiffness of the columns and abutments can be
obtained. The abutment stiffness are defined as an input data and the pier stiffness can be
calculated as,
Vi
K eff i =
i
Table A 11: Secant stiffness in all DOF
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Secant stiffness (kN/m) 75000 6739 2596 6739 75000
Step 16: Update displacement shape. Using the lateral forces, the revised member effective
stiffness values and the abutment stiffness previous defined, a structural analysis model can
be run to get a revised displacement shape upd.
Table A 12: Updated displacement shape
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Displacement (m) 0.036 0.270 0.405 0.270 0.036
A14
Appendix A
The update displacement shape is scale again to reach the target displacement of the
controlling pier, in this case it is scaled by 0.90, and then the scaled displacement shape is,
Table A 13: Scaled displacement shape
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Displacement (m) 0.039 0.300 0.449 0.300 0.039
Step 17: Update inertia force carried to the abutments. The critical displacement is
compared with the limit state displacement. If the critical displacement exceed the design
limit, the fraction x of the total inertia force carried by superstructure bending is too high and
has to be reduced. On the contrary if the critical displacement is less than the design limit, x
has to be increased.
Vnew = K eff ,i upd ,i
Table A 14: Updated shear force
Distance (m) 0 40 90 140 180

Shear force (m) 2705 1823 1051 1823 2705
Vnew 1823 kN + 1051 kN + 1823 kN

xnew = 1 = 1 = 0.535
Vsys 10109 kN
This procedure is repeated until convergence on the updated displacement shape is got, the
final displacement shape is shown in Figure A 3.
1
Displacement [m]
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Distance [m]
Figure A 3: Final displacement shape
A15
Appendix A
The following tables present the detailed results for each pier iteration which are gotten using
the Matlab code running the Direct Displacement Base Design methodology considering the
foundation flexibility, which is described in the previous chapters, also is presented here the
detailed results for each iteration with the methodology developed for multi degree of
freedom structures.
DDBD in SDOF with Soil Structure Interaction for Pier 1
Base FS Dy Dd Initial Dc5 Dccsieq Ds Df Dtot theta mu

0 0 0.06 0.3 0.857 0.53 0 0 0.3 0 5.03
6 3.96 0.06 0.3 0.857 0.501 0.277 0.023 0.3 0.00275 4.65
Base csi csif csieq Ts Tf Te Vb Mf e nocc

0 0 0 0.16 0 0 2.265 2032.494 0 0 0
6 0.1609 0.09 0.16 2.216 0.468 2.265 2032.523 16768.312 1.616 2
Mf rigid theta Df
Base Mlim1 Mlim2 Ks Kf Ke Kcr ratio
rotation elastic elastic
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6774 34066 0.2033
6 32052 23272 17647 0.00151 0.01 7328 89675 6774 34067 0.2033

0 0 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.604 0 0 0.451 0 2.01
6 3.47 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.382 0.281 0.17 0.451 0.01077 1.25
6.1 3.63 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.387 0.286 0.165 0.451 0.01048 1.27
6.2 3.8 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.391 0.29 0.161 0.451 0.01024 1.29
6.3 3.97 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.393 0.293 0.158 0.451 0.01005 1.3
6.4 4.15 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.4 0.298 0.153 0.451 0.00972 1.33
6.5 4.33 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.405 0.302 0.149 0.451 0.00946 1.34
6.6 4.51 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.408 0.305 0.146 0.451 0.00929 1.36
6.7 4.7 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.418 0.312 0.139 0.451 0.00884 1.39
6.8 4.9 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.426 0.318 0.133 0.451 0.00845 1.41
6.9 5.09 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.431 0.322 0.129 0.451 0.00819 1.43
7 5.3 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.434 0.325 0.126 0.451 0.008 1.45
7.1 5.5 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.438 0.328 0.123 0.451 0.00779 1.46
7.2 5.71 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.44 0.33 0.121 0.451 0.00767 1.47
7.3 5.93 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.44 0.331 0.12 0.451 0.00761 1.47
7.4 6.15 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.443 0.334 0.117 0.451 0.00744 1.49
7.5 6.37 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.448 0.337 0.114 0.451 0.00724 1.5
7.6 6.6 0.225 0.451 0.857 0.451 0.339 0.112 0.451 0.00709 1.51
A16
Appendix A

0 0 0 0.12 0 0 2.985 1976 0 0 0
6 0.0784 0.18 0.12 2.832 0.943 2.985 1976 31126 2.629 2
6.1 0.0803 0.18 0.12 2.84 0.921 2.985 1976 31126 2.619 2.033
6.2 0.0817 0.19 0.12 2.846 0.9 2.985 1976 31126 2.609 2.067
6.3 0.0828 0.19 0.12 2.853 0.88 2.985 1976 31126 2.598 2.1
6.4 0.0847 0.19 0.12 2.859 0.861 2.985 1976 31126 2.588 2.133
6.5 0.0862 0.19 0.12 2.864 0.843 2.985 1976 31126 2.578 2.167
6.6 0.0871 0.19 0.12 2.869 0.826 2.985 1976 31126 2.567 2.2
6.7 0.0894 0.19 0.12 2.874 0.808 2.985 1976 31126 2.557 2.233
6.8 0.0914 0.19 0.12 2.878 0.792 2.985 1976 31126 2.546 2.267
6.9 0.0927 0.19 0.12 2.883 0.776 2.985 1976 31126 2.536 2.3
7 0.0936 0.19 0.12 2.887 0.761 2.985 1976 31126 2.525 2.333
7.1 0.0946 0.2 0.12 2.89 0.747 2.985 1976 31126 2.514 2.367
7.2 0.0951 0.2 0.12 2.894 0.734 2.985 1976 31126 2.503 2.4
7.3 0.0954 0.2 0.12 2.897 0.721 2.985 1976 31126 2.492 2.433
7.4 0.0962 0.2 0.12 2.9 0.708 2.985 1976 31126 2.481 2.467
7.5 0.0971 0.2 0.12 2.903 0.695 2.985 1976 31126 2.47 2.5
7.6 0.0977 0.2 0.12 2.906 0.683 2.985 1976 31126 2.459 2.533
Mf rigid Theta Df
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4382 8795 0.42
6 34598 25291 21035 0.0028 0.04 7026 11647 4382 8795 0.42
6.1 35261 26278 21742 0.00267 0.04 6911 11975 4382 8795 0.42
6.2 35881 27259 22439 0.00254 0.04 6822 12252 4382 8795 0.42
6.3 36455 28236 23128 0.00242 0.04 6754 12480 4382 8795 0.42
6.4 36984 29208 23809 0.00231 0.04 6635 12908 4382 8796 0.42
6.5 37466 30177 24482 0.0022 0.03 6544 13264 4382 8796 0.42
6.6 37912 31144 25149 0.00211 0.03 6486 13509 4382 8796 0.42
6.7 38472 32109 25810 0.00201 0.03 6341 14188 4382 8796 0.42
6.8 38984 33073 26465 0.00193 0.03 6216 14853 4382 8796 0.42
6.9 39446 34036 27116 0.00184 0.03 6137 15329 4382 8796 0.42
7 39856 35000 27762 0.00177 0.03 6082 15681 4382 8796 0.42
7.1 40214 35964 28405 0.00169 0.03 6021 16103 4382 8796 0.42
7.2 40519 36929 29044 0.00162 0.03 5986 16357 4382 8796 0.42
7.3 40770 37895 29680 0.00156 0.02 5970 16479 4382 8796 0.42
7.4 41080 38864 30314 0.00149 0.02 5921 16866 4382 8796 0.42
7.5 41407 39835 30945 0.00144 0.02 5866 17326 4382 8796 0.42
7.6 41700 40809 31575 0.00138 0.02 5824 17698 4382 8795 0.42
A17
Appendix A

0 0 0.06 0.3 0.857 0.53 0 0 0.3 0 5.03
6 3.96 0.06 0.3 0.857 0.501 0.277 0.023 0.3 0.00275 4.65

0 0 0 0.16 0 0 2.265 2032 0 0 0
6 0.1609 0.09 0.16 2.216 0.468 2.265 2032 16768 1.616 2
Mf rigid theta Df
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6774 34066 0.2033
6 32052 23272 17647 0.00151 0.01 7328 89675 6774 34067 0.2033
DDBD in MDOF bridges with Soil Structure Interaction

Distance [m] 0 40 90 140 180
Pier Effective Height [m] 7.5 15 7.5
Pier Diameter [m] 2 2 2
Plastic Displacement [m] 0.16 0.47 0.16
Strain-based disp. rigid foundation 0.22 0.7 0.22
Mass in DOF [ton] 356.78 880.11 989.32 880.11 356.78
Initial properties of the piers

Damping foundation Piers SSI 0.087 0.07 0.087
Damping equivalent Piers SSI 0.155 0.1 0.155
Foundation Stiffness SSI [kN/m] 89675.758 30114.179 89675.758
Structure Stiffness SSI [kN/m] 7328.604 2656.368 7328.604
Displacement due to foundation SSI [m] 0.02 0.03 0.02
Displacement due to structure SSI [m] 0.28 0.36 0.28
Displacement Piers SSI [m] 0.3 0.39 0.3
Base dimension [m] 6 6 6
Initial Parabolic Shape

Displacement [m] 0.1 0.3 0.39 0.3 0.1
Ductility 4.65 1.59 4.65
Initial Damping 0.08 0.155 0.1 0.155 0.08
A18
Appendix A
Corrected Shapes 1
Displacement [m] 0.04 0.3 0.448 0.3 0.04
Forces in DOF [kN] 366.34 2711.1 3954.51 2711.1 366.34
Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 5711.1 1911.52 5711.1 75000
Shear Forces [kN] 2913.04 1713.33 856.66 1713.33 2913.04
Moment [kN.m] 12849.97 12849.97 12849.97
Ductility 4.65 1.48 4.65
Damping equivalent Piers SSI 0.08 0.155 0.124 0.155 0.08
Base dimension [m] 6 7.6 6
Corrected Shapes 2
Displacement [m] 0.037 0.3 0.451 0.3 0.037
Forces in DOF [kN] 127.19 2351.53 3948.78 2351.53 127.19
Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 4549.55 1513.28 4549.55 75000
Shear Forces [kN] 2747.03 1364.86 682.43 1364.86 2747.03
Moment [kN.m] 10236.48 10236.48 10236.48
Ductility 4.65 1.51 4.65
Damping equivalent Piers SSI 0.08 0.155 0.123 0.155 0.08
Base dimension [m] 6 7.6 6
Corrected Shapes 3
Displacement [m] 0.036 0.3 0.452 0.3 0.036
Forces in DOF [kN] 119.55 2411.76 4075.24 2411.76 119.55
Stiffness [kN/m] 75000 4904.61 1629.21 4904.61 75000
Shear Forces [kN] 2729.7 1471.38 735.69 1471.38 2729.7
Moment [kN.m] 11035.37 11035.37 11035.37
A19
MSc. Dissertation 2008 Direct Displacement Based Design on Bridges with Foundation Flexibility Ricardo Alejandro Zapata Montoya

DDBD on bridges with foundation flexibility

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DDBD on bridges with foundation flexibility

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN ON

BRIDGES WITH FOUNDATION FLEXIBILITY

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

Ricardo Alejandro Zapata Montoya

Supervisor(s): Dr. Lorenza Petrini

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia

Dr. Lorenza Petrini

A major challenge in performance-based engineering is to develop simple, yet accurate, methods to

3.1.3 Alternative iterative procedure for Ds > Dc,eq................................................................25

A detailed assessment of eight recently developed displacement controlled design

2 FUNDAMENTALS OF DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED

2.1 DDBD procedure for a single pier

Figure 2.1: DDBD for structures with fixed base

2.1.1 Yield displacement

Lsp = 0.022 f ye dbL (m) (2.4)

2.1.2 Design (Target) displacement

It is comparatively straightforward to compute the design displacement from strain limits.

Table 2.1: Limit state definitions (Kowalsky, 2000)

Limit State Concrete strain limit Steel strain limit

Serviceability 0.004 0.015

Damage control 0.018 0.060

L p = 0.08H + Lsp (2.8)

2.1.3 Equivalent viscous damping

Equivalent viscous damping can be evaluated as a function of displacement ductility

2.1.4 Design displacement spectrum

2.1.5 Design base shear

Figure 2.3: Effective period evaluation based on DDBD procedure

2.2 DDBD procedure for transverse response of continuous bridges

2.2.1 Determination of inelastic displacement profile

Figure 2.4: Uniform Beam simply supported on elastic springs

2.2.2 Characterization of the equivalent SDOF

Abutment: VA,i i (2.27)

2.2.3 Determine effective period of the equivalent SDOF system

2.2.4 Distribution of lateral inertia loading

2.2.5 Analysis of structure under design forces

3 DIRECT DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN INCLUDING

The foundation stiffness related to displacement can be expressed as a function of the

f f MIN = ( f MAX f MIN ) 1 exp ( ) (3.6)

Table 3.1: Coefficient matrix

Foundation dimension definition. It covers the assignment of the foundation

Application of DDBD to equivalent SDOF system. The procedure starts as in the

In the following the procedure is described in details:

3.1.1 Foundation dimension definition

The foundation rotation angle is expressed as,

The following parameters are used; coefficient of soil-foundation friction expressed as

Column displacement ductility is then obtained as in Eq.(2.10), repeated here in Eq.(3.15),

The displacement due to the foundation rotation can be expressed as,

3.1.2 Application of DDBD to equivalent SDOF system

(a) Lateral displacement due to structural displacement. This displacement is the

At the first iteration this step is skipped

At the firs iteration eq=s

At the firs iteration Keq=Ks

(k) Base rotation. The base rotation is calculated as

3.1.3 Alternative iterative procedure for Ds > Dc,eq

(b) Structural ductility. The structural ductility is calculated as show in Eq.(3.15),

(c) Structural damping. The structural damping is calculated as show in Eq.(3.16).

(f) Spectral displacement. The spectral displacement is calculated as show in Eq.(3.27).

Ds _ fin = Dc,eq (3.34)

3.2 DDBD with Soil-Structure Interaction procedure for MDOF

3.2.1 Estimate the initial inelastic displacement profile

3.2.2 Determine pier yield displacement

3.2.3 Application of DDBD+SSI procedure for SDOF