Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Investigative reports on the 1994 Northridge earthquake in California indicated significant damage experienced by skewed
highway bridges. Specifically, the damage sustained by the Pico-Lyons Bridge near Newhall, California, was noted to have been triggered
by the skewed geometry of the bridge. In an effort to portray the behavior of this bridge analytically, a series of simulation studies was
conducted using nonlinear finite-element analyses. The objective was to demonstrate that certain damage potentials in skewed bridges during
earthquakes can be captured analytically. Dynamic time history and pushover analyses were used to capture the behavior of the superstructure
of the skewed bridge using the Northridge ground motion record as the input seismic force. Results from the simulation studies showed that
potential damage areas, comparable to those reported in the field investigation of the Pico-Lyons Bridge, can be portrayed through analytical
modeling. The study also provided the percentage increase in critical stresses in the superstructure of skewed bridges as the angle of
skew increases compared with a comparable nonskewed bridge. The study showed that cases in which the angle of skew is approximately
40°, the percentage increase in stress due to the skewness effect at the end girders can be as high as 50–60%. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-
5576.0000094. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Skew bridges; Dynamic analysis; Earthquakes; Ground motion; Acceleration; Damage; Energy
dissipation.
Author keywords: Bridges; Skew; Dynamic analysis; Earthquakes; Ground motion; Acceleration; Damage; Energy dissipation.
Fig. 4. Bearing orientations along the girder alignment for (a) skewed and (b) nonskewed bridge at the pier
The simulation analyses were conducted for two bridge exam- girders. This finding is consistent with the field report by
ples. One is a skewed bridge with a 40° skew angle, while the other Astaneh-Asl et al. (1994), in which the bottom flange of the plate
is a straight “nonskewed” bridge (used as a reference). The results girder end was mentioned to have suffered heavy damage. In fact,
from the nonskewed bridge model were used as baseline values for this is the only noticeable structural damage in the bridge after the
comparison so that the significance of the skewness in increasing 1994 Northridge earthquake (Apirakvorapinit 2005).
the critical stresses in the bridge elements can be determined. The dynamic simulation for this case lasted 10 s into the ground
motion record. From the analysis of the skewed model, it was found
that the maximum displacement at the middle of the span in the
Skewed Bridge Model Subjected to Northridge
transverse direction occurred at approximately 5.09 s. The node
Ground Motion Record
at which this displacement occurs is located at the middle of the
For the skewed bridge, the results from this analysis show that seis- bottom flange of a girder near the edge of the skewed bridge.
mic demand on the bottom flange of the exterior plate girder near The relative transverse displacement between this node and a node
the abutments is significantly higher than that of interior plate at the end of the span is 14 mm (0.565 in.), as shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 5. (a) Top plan view of the plate girders and diaphragms at the abutment; (b) details of the end diaphragm—cross section A-A in Fig. 5(c);
(c) details of a typical intermediate diaphragm perpendicular to the alignment; (d) dimensions of bearing stiffeners at the abutment and pier
The stresses around the left corner on the west side of each seismic demands. This can be interpreted as the main reason behind
girder were found to be relatively large since the supports were re- the damage to one of the corner bearings, which was observed after
strained. Conversely, the stresses around the right corner of each the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
girder on the east side, where the supports are released in the lon-
gitudinal direction, were found to be much lower in magnitude.
Most high stresses are more than 40% of yielding stress for the Nonskewed Model Subjected to Northridge Ground
skewed case (see Fig. 9 and Table 2). Motion Record
Fig. 10 summarizes the values of the bearing reactions in the
skewed bridge obtained from the dynamic analysis. These values To provide a baseline for measuring the severity of critical stresses
indicate that the bearings at the corners require significantly higher in the skewed bridge, a comparable nonskewed bridge was also
modeled and subjected to the same input motion as that in the case
of the skewed bridge. The analysis was stopped after 10 s into the
record as it was in the skewed bridge case. The maximum displace-
ment at the middle span was found to be 14 mm (0.558 in.) at 4.3 s
(see Fig. 11). The node at which this displacement occurs is at the
middle span of the girder near the edge of the bridge. This is similar
to the case of the skewed bridge model. The pattern of displacement
response is rather symmetrical for each span and each girder during
the ground motion. This is expected in the nonskewed bridge.
As reported in Table 3, the maximum principal stress can be as
high as 50% of the yield stress. The stresses are rather more evenly
distributed to each girder than was the case in the skewed bridge.
A pushover analysis was also conducted for both the skewed and
the nonskewed bridge models in order to evaluate the effect of the
irregularity on the stress distribution in the skewed bridge. The re-
Table 1. Element Types Used in Model sults are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. The maximum principal
Number of stress obtained from the pushover analysis for the skewed bridge
degrees of freedom Element model is at least 70% of the yield stress at the west-side location
Structural member Element used per element designation and approximately 50% of the yield stress around the east-side lo-
cation of the bridge (see Table 4). On the west side of the skewed
Girder flange and web Shell 24 S4
bridge, the principal stresses in pushover analysis are greater than
Deck Shell 24 S4 in the dynamic analysis by approximately 5–6%. On the east side,
Diaphragm Beam 12 B31 the principal stresses are also 3–8% greater in pushover analysis.
Struts Beam 12 B31 This effect is due to the nature of the inertial force of the skewed
bridge in dynamic analysis. The results of the pushover analysis
for the nonskewed bridge shows that the principal stresses are
nearly identical with those from the dynamic analysis (see
Table 5).
Analysis of Results
Fig. 9. Maximum principal stresses on bottom flange (G1–G2 and G15–G16 for the skewed bridge)
Table 2. Maximum Principal Stress (Dynamic Analysis) as a Percentage of Yield Stress for Skewed Bridge Model
West-side girders G1 G3 G5 G7 G9 G11 G13 G15
Percentage of yield stress 48.07 47.25 60.94 45.59 42.21 53.20 50.69 66.71
East-side girders G2 G4 G6 G8 G10 G12 G14 G16
Percentage of yield stress 41.25 33.03 44.27 26.16 38.11 21.87 31.91 17.88
Fig. 10. Longitudinal bearing reactions at the skewed bridge abutment Fig. 11. Displacement response of nonskewed model to Northridge
due to the Northridge ground motion (Newhall record); locations of ground motion record (relative displacement between the point of
girders are shown in Fig. 6 maximum deflection and end of bridge span)
Table 4. Maximum Principal Stress (Pushover Analysis) as a Percentage of Yield Stress for Skewed Bridge Model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar on 07/31/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Table 5. Maximum Principal Stress (Pushover Analysis) as a Percentage of Yield Stress for Nonskewed Bridge Model
West-side girders G1 G3 G5 G7 G9 G11 G13 G15
Percentage of yield stress 61.98 52.73 72.09 57.36 74.63 58.24 75.75 62.43
East-side girders G2 G4 G6 G8 G10 G12 G14 G16
Percentage of yield stress 57.15 61.73 45.88 45.90 56.73 54.87 56.29 61.59
pronounced as the angle of skewness increases. The larger energy Both the dynamic and the pushover analyses reveal that the
dissipated in the case of the skewed bridge is consistent with more skewness will affect the stress induced at the bridge girder dramati-
frequent incidences of yield and postyield conditions. This is tan- cally. The differences obtained between the two methods of analy-
tamount to more damage areas, as indicated in our analyses and ses are attributed to the level of sophistications used in each model.
reported in field investigations. The detailed dynamic analysis allows for accurate modeling of
Further evaluation of the analysis results indicates that stresses mass and inertia force distribution in the structure. The pushover
at the bottom flanges at girders G1–G16 of the skewed bridge are analysis, on the other hand, is only a nonlinear static analysis with
markedly different from those in the nonskewed bridge. The per- limitations in terms of modeling the mass and inertia forces.
Currently, there is no specific code-recommended guideline
centages of differences in maximum stresses are provided in
on whether to adjust critical stress values for this type of bridge
Table 6. The pushover analysis results were also compared for
configuration compared with nonskewed equivalent bridges. Thus,
the skewed and nonskewed bridges (see Table 7). As in Tables 6 it is imperative that detailed analyses, as described in this paper, be
and 7, stresses in excess of more than 50% of those in nonskewed conducted to accurately estimate the locations and the magnitudes
bridge can be experienced by a skewed bridge in its girders. This is of stresses developed as a result of potential earthquakes for
certainly an important observation and consideration in seismic properly addressing the seismic resistance capabilities of skewed
analysis and design of skewed bridges. bridges.