See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317284053

Bent Connection Options for Curved and Skewed SMC Bridges in Low-to-
Moderate Seismic Regions

Article  in  Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction · June 2017

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000331

CITATION READS
1 56

2 authors:

Guangyang Hou Suren Chen

Colorado State University Colorado State University
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    93 PUBLICATIONS   1,149 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NIST-funded Center for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning View project

Traffic flow simulation and traffic safety assessment under hazardous conditions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Guangyang Hou on 27 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bent Connection Options for Curved and Skewed SMC
Bridges in Low-to-Moderate Seismic Regions
Guangyang Hou, S.M.ASCE1; and Suren Chen, P.E., M.ASCE2

Abstract: Simple-made-continuous (SMC) multispan concrete bridges are popular in low-to-moderate seismic regions, and sometimes hori-
zontally curved and/or skewed configurations are needed to accommodate complex terrain. Typical SMC multispan bridges can adopt differ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ent connections between the intermediate bent cap and the continuous superstructure (bent connection). Compared to their straight
counterparts, skewed and curved SMC bridges exhibit more complex seismic performance, making the design choice of using bent connec-
tions critical in low-to-moderate seismic regions. Nonlinear time-history seismic analyses using structural analysis and design software are
carried out on 12 bridge models with four geometric configurations (i.e., straight, skewed, curved, and skewed and curved) and three bent con-
nections (i.e., fixed, pinned, and roller). The skewed and curved bridge is found to exhibit a larger overall seismic response than the other
bridges for most bent connections. Different bent connections affect the seismic response of a bridge by modifying the structural load path,
which in turn changes the seismic load transmitted between the superstructure and the substructure. For straight, skewed-only, and curved-
only bridges, pinned or roller bent connections are found to be more seismic-friendly than fixed bent connections in terms of their relatively
smaller overall seismic demands, apart from abutments. For skewed and curved bridges, the situation becomes complex, and a fixed bent con-
nection might be preferred in some instances. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000331. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Seismic; Simple-made continuous; Concrete; Bridge; Curved; Skewed; Bent; Connection.

Introduction 2004). These physical connections are typically idealized with

In low-to-moderate seismic areas, simple-made-continuous (SMC)
multispan concrete bridges are popular because of their benefits to
construction and the lack of a need for expansion joints. An SMC
bridge often starts with a simply supported superstructure, which is
made continuous for live loads when the cast-in-place (CIP) dia-
phragm and bridge deck are built (Mirmiran et al. 2001). The CIP
diaphragm on each intermediate bend serves as an important con-
nection between girders from adjacent spans and between the super-
structure and the pier cap. For SMC bridges, bent connections (i.e.,
connections between the diaphragm and the intermediate bent cap)
can adopt different designs. Such connection options not only are
important for the seismic design of new bridges but also provide
key information to guide the base isolation renovations of existing
bridges (Nielson and DesRoches 2007; Nielson 2005). According
to existing studies (Hastak et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2004), there are
three types of typical bent connections for SMC bridges in current
designs: (1) isolated connections, with continuous girders and dia-
phragm placed on bearing pads without a physical connection to the
substructure; (2) integral continuity with full rigid connection
between the superstructure and pier cap; and (3) a type similar to
Type 1, for which the diaphragm is connected to the pier cap with
limited shear and moment transferred during ground motion, which
is rather complex to model and requires further study (Miller et al.
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523 (corresponding author).
E-mail: suren.chen@colostate.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 17, 2016; approved on
March 13, 2017; published online on June 1, 2017. Discussion period
open until November 1, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
fixed, pinned, or roller supports in seismic computational models of
bridges. Depending on the specific design and construction details,
some physical connections can actually behave somewhere
between two idealized connections. However, assessing the seismic
performance of a bridge under different idealized support condi-
tions is still an important first step, because it can provide the
bounds of the actual performance of the physical connections and
identify the preferred connection option for seismic design or base
isolation (Yin 2004; Maleki 2000; Nielson and DesRoches 2006;
Akogul and Celik 2008; Soleimanloo and Barkhordari 2014).
Complex terrains often require horizontally curved and/or
skewed configurations of bridges. Compared to straight bridge
counterparts, curved and skewed SMC bridges usually exhibit more
critical seismic performance, and the bent connection designs
become more complex. This is particularly true for low-to-moderate
seismic regions, for which comprehensive seismic analysis often is
not required. Existing studies on curved and/or skewed bridges with
different connections have been limited primarily to examining
abutment supports. For example, Mertlich et al. (2007) investigated
the dynamic characteristic of a curved three-span continuous bridge
for three different abutment supports through field tests. Wilson et
al. (2014) compared the seismic performance of skewed and curved
bridges with integral abutments and bearing supports. In one of the
few studies on intermediate pier support, Attarchian et al. (2012)
compared the effect of monolithic and pinned connections at the top
of the intermediate pier on the seismic response of skewed RC box
girder bridges. They found that skewed nature plays a unique role in
seismic performance and that a monolithic connection can reduce
deck displacement but increase the torsion and shear demand at the
pier base as the skew angle increases. For bridges with other geo-
metric configurations, the effects of different bent connections on
seismic performance have rarely been studied. The purpose of this
study is to investigate the seismic performance of curved and
skewed SMC bridges with different bent connection options in low-

© ASCE 04017011-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

 to-moderate seismic regions. To disclose the unique performance of
skewed and curved bridges, the authors conduct a comparative
study of SMC bridges with three other geometrical configurations.
Finite-Element Modeling and Seismic
Time-History Analysis
Bridge Configuration
A straight three-span SMC bridge in Colorado is selected was the
prototype bridge because of its popularity in the region. Its side and
middle span lengths are 22.1 m (72 ft 6 in.) and 29.5 m (96 ft 8 in.),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the basic bridge configuration information of the skewed and curved
three-span bridge and that of three other representative bridges with
various curvature and skew angles. Except for curvature, skew
angles and superelevation, geometric and material parameters
remain the same for the four bridge models on the basis of two con-
siderations: (1) it is rather common in low-to-moderate seismic
regions for moderately curved and/or skewed bridges to have
designs similar to straight bridges when detailed seismic analysis is
not often required, and (2) the adoption of the same designs for
bridges with different geometric conditions can also facilitate the
following comparative study by excluding possible influences from
other factors related to different designs.
The plan and cross-section views of the bridge with a skew angle

respectively. Three bridges with different curvature and skew con-
figurations were derived from the prototype bridge by applying
appropriate modifications (Wilson et al. 2014). Table 1 summarizes
Table 1. Bridge Configurations
of 30° and radius of 914 m (3,000 ft) are shown in Fig. 1. The super-
structure consists of a 0.2-m (8-in.) concrete deck and 1.7-m
(68-in.) deep prestressed concrete I-girders. The substructure is
composed of 1.5-m (5-ft) deep pier caps, 3.7
0.9-m (12
3-ft)
interior piers, and integral abutments.

Bridge Skew Curvature radius Superelevation

Finite-Element Models
name (degrees) [m (ft)] (degrees)
R0S0 0 0 (0) 0
SAP2000 is used as the nonlinear time-history analysis tool, and the
R0S30 30 0 (0) 0 simulation models originally developed by Wilson et al. (2014)
R3000S0 0 914 (3,000) 6 were modified for this study to accommodate different bent connec-
R3000S30 30 914 (3,000) 6 tion types. The SAP2000 models for all the bridges listed in Table 1
are built, and Fig. 2 shows the finite-element model of Bridge

Fig. 1. Dimensions of Bridge R3000S30: (a) plane view; (b) cross-section view (Note: C.L. = centerline)

© ASCE 04017011-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Finite-element model in SAP2000

R3000S30. For each bridge model, frame elements are used to

model the I-girders, pier caps, piers, and abutments, and the deck
slab is modeled using shell elements. The girders and deck are con-
nected by rigid link elements. The columns are fully constrained at
the base without considering pile–soil interactions. To consider the
plastic behavior of the columns, plastic hinges are assigned at the
two ends of the columns. The connections between the integral
abutments and girders are modeled as fixed. The abutments are
assumed to have fixed connections with a surrounding soil and pile
foundation in transverse and rotational directions, and a trilinear,
longitudinal, and compressive-only spring is used to model the stiff-
ness of backing soil behind the abutments.
After the CIP diaphragm and bridge deck are constructed, the
original simply supported girders become continuous for the super-
structure of SMC bridges. The focus of this study is on the bent con-
nection between the continuous girder–diaphragm superstructure
and the bent cap. To examine different bent connection options,
three types of idealized support conditions are studied, including
fixed, pinned, and roller supports. These support conditions are mod- Fig. 3. Idealized intermediate bent connections
eled by different link elements in SAP2000 for each bridge model as
listed in Table 1. The three idealized bent connections between the
superstructure and pier cap are shown schematically plotted in Fig. (Table 1). There are a total of 12 SAP2000 bridge models with dif-
3. A fixed bent connection implies that the bent cap and the continu- ferent combinations of bent connections and geometric configura-
ous superstructure are rigidly connected in all directions. A pinned tions. After the modal analyses have been conducted for all bridge
bent connection allows free relative rotation between the superstruc- models in SAP2000, the corresponding fundamental periods for all
ture and the pier cap about all axes. A roller bent connection further the models are obtained. A response spectrum-based scaling
releases translational constraints in all horizontal directions. method was used to scale the ground motions for each model on the
basis of the particular fundamental modal properties. By matching
the average of the response spectra of the seven earthquake records
Ground Motion Record and Seismic Scaling
to the design response spectrum as specified by AASHTO LRFD
To conduct time-history analyses, seven earthquake records were design specifications (AASHTO 2011) at the fundamental period of
selected from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center the bridge structure (Fig. 5), the scaling factors are computed for
(PEER) strong motion database (PEER 2016) to cover representa- fault-normal directions for each SAP2000 bridge model (Wilson et
tive moment magnitude ranges, soil conditions, and distances to the al. 2014). In the nonlinear time-history analysis of each bridge
fault (Wilson et al. 2014) (Table 2). The acceleration histories of model, the fault-normal component of the ground motion is applied
fault-normal components of the selected earthquakes are shown in in the global longitudinal direction (along the longitudinal axis of
Fig. 4. The response spectra of the acceleration histories in Fig. 4 the superstructure), whereas 40% of the fault-parallel component is
are obtained for a damping ratio of 5% by using the software applied in the global transverse direction (Maleki and Bisadi 2006;
SeismoSignal 5.1.2, and the results are shown in Fig. 5 (Wilson et Bisadi and Head 2011; Wilson et al. 2014).
al. 2014). A stiff soil profile for Denver was selected, and a design
response spectrum was developed using the USGS database and Effects of Geometric Conditions and Bent Connections
AASHTO guide specifications (AASHTO 2011).
For each of three bent connections shown in Fig. 3, four different
Modal Analysis
analytical models with different geometric configurations, such as
straight (R0S0), skewed only (R0S30), curved only (R3000S0), and Ritz vector modal analyses are carried out for the 12 bridge models.
both skewed and curved (R3000S30), were developed in SAP2000 The periods of fundamental modes in the longitudinal and

© ASCE 04017011-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

 Table 2. Earthquake Characteristics
Record number Event Year Station
1 San Fernando 1971 LA–Hollywood Stor FF
2 Imperial Valley 1979 Calipatria Fire Station
3 Superstition Hills 1987 Wildlife Liquefaction Array
4 Irpinia, Italy 1980 Mercato San Severino
5 Loma Prieta 1989 Agnews State Hospital
6 Northridge 1994 LA–Baldwin Hills
7 Kobe, Japan 1995 Kakogawa
Note: MW = moment magnitude.
transverse directions and the modal participating mass ratios
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(MPMR) of these modes in their primary directions are given in
Table 3.
In Table 3, it can be seen that the periods of fundamental longitu-
dinal modes of all four bridges are barely affected by the rotational
and translational releases. For example, the periods of fundamental
longitudinal modes of the skewed and curved bridge (Bridge
R3000S30) with three different bent connections are all approxi-
mately 0.2 s. As shown in Fig. 6, the longitudinal mode shapes of
the three skewed and curved bridge models with different bent con-
nections all involve longitudinal translation in a coupled manner
with contributions from other directions. Because of the different
bent connection types, the three mode shapes also have different
characteristics. For the bridge model with a fixed bent connection,
translational participation in both the longitudinal and transverse
directions is observed in combination with torsional rotation,
whereas the mode shape of the pin-supported model involves
weaker and stronger involvements from the translation and torsion
of the superstructure, respectively. For the bridge model with a
roller bent connection, significant longitudinal participation is
observed, and contributions from other directions are insignificant.
It also can be seen in Table 3 that the periods of fundamental
transverse modes increase, in general, after rotational and transla-
tional releases. The periods of the transverse modes increase a little
for all except for the curved-only bridge model (R3000S0) after the
release of the rotational constraints. The unique performance of the
curved-only bridge likely results from the complex mode coupling
effects. Further release of the translational constraints at the bent
connection causes a significant increase in the periods. After trans-
lational release, a bridge apparently is only transversely constrained
at the abutments and becomes much more flexible in its transverse
direction. From the perspective of bridge configuration, the periods
of the longitudinal modes of all four bridges are rather close for
each of the three cases of bent connection. Although different geo-
metric configurations of bridges do not considerably influence the
periods of transverse modes of bridges with fixed and pinned con-
nections, they do lead to significant variations of vibrational periods
for the roller condition.
The MPMR of the longitudinal mode is larger than that of the
transverse mode for each of the 12 bridge models, indicating that
the longitudinal mode is dominant. Thus, the earthquake records are
scaled at the periods of fundamental longitudinal modes. In general,
when the bent connection of a bridge changes from a pin to a roller,
the MPMR of both the longitudinal and transverse modes vary sig-
nificantly because there is a considerable change in modal partici-
pating mass of the fundamental modes after the loss of translational
constraints at the piers. However, it is also due to the fact that some
coupled modes, including local translational vibration, appear after
translational release, leading to the change of MPMR of the funda-
mental modes.
© ASCE 04017011-4
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011
Mw Significant duration (5–95%, s) Rjb (km) Vs30 (m/s)
6.61 11.9 22.9 464.2
6.53 25.1 23.2 301.8
6.54 29.1 24.0 304.3
6.9 28.4 29.8 513.3
6.93 18.4 24.3 351.6
6.69 17.6 23.5 435.7
6.9 17.6 22.5 457.6
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis Procedures
Nonlinear time-history analyses were carried out for each bridge
model with seven scaled earthquake record pairs by using the direct
integration method. Classical Rayleigh damping is adopted, and the
Rayleigh damping coefficients are determined by setting a damping
ratio of 2% to the fundamental modes in the longitudinal and trans-
verse directions. The average demand caused by the seven scaled
earthquake records is reported in the following. According to the
results of nonlinear time-history analyses, no plastic hinge was
formed in the columns of any bridge model under any set of earth-
quake ground motions, which means that these bridges behave elas-
tically under applied seismic loads. According to Wilson et al.
(2014), both skew and curvature cause greater demand at the inte-
rior front column location. In this paper, moment demand, shear
demand, and drift ratio of the interior front column are selected for
demonstration of the results.
Moment Demand at Pier Base
The results of the moment demand/capacity (D/C) ratio at the base
of the intermediate piers for different bridges and bent connections
are listed in Fig. 7. It can be seen in Fig. 7 that the longitudinal
(about the transverse axis) and transverse (about the longitudinal
axis) moment D/C ratios of all the bridge models with three bent
connections are less than 1. It is found that the skewed and curved
bridge has overall larger base moment D/C ratios than any other
bridge model with different geometric configurations for all three
bent connections. One exception is the transverse moment D/C ratio
when the bent connection is a pin; the skewed-only bridge (R0S30)
has the largest transverse moment D/C ratio, followed by the
skewed and curved bridge as next largest. The other exception is
that the transverse moment D/C ratio of the curved-only bridge
(R3000S0) is a little larger than that of the skewed and curved
bridge when both of them have a roller bent connection.
For the straight bridge, the release of the rotational constraint
can considerably decrease the longitudinal moment D/C ratio from
that of the fixed-connection model. The release of the translational
constraint will further reduce the longitudinal moment D/C ratio.
However, for the transverse moment D/C ratio, the release of the
rotational constraint does not cause much change from that of the
fixed-connection model, which also confirms the rationality of
the assumption of a fixed connection in the transverse direction for
a multicolumn bent, as recommended by Priestley et al. (2007).
As shown in Fig. 7, there is a general trend for both longitudinal
and transverse moment D/C ratios at the pier base for the other three
curved and/or skewed bridges; the longitudinal and transverse
moment D/C ratios of the model with a pinned connection are typi-
cally smaller than those of the ones with fixed connections. The
release of the translational constraint (roller bent connection) will
cause a further decrease in moment D/C ratios at the bottom of the
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Earthquake time histories

pier, primarily because of the reduction in inertial forces from the
superstructure to the pier. However, the transverse moment D/C ra-
tio of Bridge R3000S0 does not follow the same pattern. For Bridge
R3000S0, the transverse moment D/C ratios for the three bent con-
nection models are very close, which indicates that pinned and
roller connections might not always lead to reduced demand in
terms of the transverse moment for the curved-only bridge, as has
often been observed for straight bridges.
It is also found that the curvature will usually cause an increase
in the longitudinal moment D/C ratio, while the skew nature will

© ASCE 04017011-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Earthquake and AASHTO design response spectra (reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 70, Thomas Wilson, Hussam Mahmoud, and
Suren Chen, “Seismic performance of skewed and curved reinforced concrete bridges in mountainous states,” pp. 158–167)

Table 3. Fundamental Modal Properties

Bent connections
Fundamental
Bridge mode Mode property Fixed Pinned Roller
R0S0 Longitudinal Period (s) 0.21 0.20 0.19
MPMR_Ux (%) 90.3 96.9 86.0
Transverse Period (s) 0.13 0.14 0.21
MPMR_Uy (%) 73.1 75.2 53.7
R0S30 Longitudinal Period (s) 0.19 0.19 0.19
MPMR_Ux (%) 80.6 78.0 84.6
Transverse Period (s) 0.11 0.13 0.15
MPMR_Uy (%) 62.2 63.1 50.4
R3000S0 Longitudinal Period (s) 0.21 0.20 0.19
MPMR_Ux (%) 87.4 97.0 77.8
Transverse Period (s) 0.13 0.12 0.20
MPMR_Uy (%) 48.1 49.2 37.5
R3000S30 Longitudinal Period (s) 0.20 0.20 0.20
MPMR_Ux (%) 71.4 47.5 83.5
Transverse Period (s) 0.13 0.14 0.18
MPMR_Uy (%) 54.5 42.9 41.5 Fig. 6. Longitudinal model shapes of a skewed and curved bridge
Note: MPMR_Ux and MPMR_Uy are the modal participating mass ratios (Bridge R3000S30) with different bent connections: (a) fixed; (b)
in translational directions along the x- and y-axes, respectively. pinned; (c) roller

cause an increase in the transverse moment D/C ratio at the base of
the pier. For the roller-connection model, seismic forces cannot be
transmitted from the superstructure to the piers; therefore, signifi-
cant reduction on the base moment of the pier is observed after
translational release.
Shear Forces at Pier Base
It is shown in Fig. 8 that no shear failure occurs at the pier bases of
all the bridge models, because all the shear D/C ratios are less than 1.
The shear D/C ratios at the pier bases generally follow patterns simi-
lar to the moment D/C ratios (Fig. 7). The skewed and curved bridge
has the largest shear D/C ratio, in general, among all the bridges
with different geometric configurations for three bent connections.
Similar to the pattern of results for moments, the two exceptions are
the pin-supported skewed-only bridge and the roller-supported
curved-only bridge. The pin-supported skewed-only bridge has the
largest shear D/C ratio among bridges with pinned connections.
Meanwhile, the roller-supported curved-only bridge has the largest
shear D/C ratio among bridges with roller connections. For each
bridge’s geometric condition, the trends of adopting different bent
connections are also similar to those of the moment D/C ratios, with
one exception; the transverse shear D/C ratios of Bridge R3000S0
for three different bent connections are all almost the same.
Drift Ratio of Pier
It is found that the maximum displacement ductility demands of
columns for all 12 bridge models are 0.17 and 0.59 in the longitudi-
nal and transverse directions, respectively, which also indicates that
the bridge columns perform in the elastic range. In this case, the
drift ratio is used to evaluate the elastic displacement demand of
piers under earthquakes. Among the four geometric configurations,
the skewed and curved bridge has the largest drift ratios for any spe-
cific bent connection. The skewed-only bridge (R0S30) has the low-
est longitudinal drift ratios, and the straight (R0S0) bridge has the
lowest transverse drift ratios.
For the nonskewed bridges, the drift ratios on the top of the bent
pier remain almost unchanged after rotational release (Fig. 9). In
contrast, rotational release causes a slight decrease and a significant
increase in the drift ratios for the skewed-only bridge and skewed
and curved bridge, respectively. Compared to the pinned-connection

© ASCE 04017011-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Moment demand/capacity ratio at pier base: (a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction

model, the translational release at the bent connection causes a
decrease in the longitudinal drift ratio with the same amplitude of
nearly 0.04% for all four bridge models. The transverse drift ratios
of nonskewed bridges remain unchanged after the translational
release. After the translational release, there is a slight increase and a
decrease in transverse drift ratios for the skewed bridge and skewed
and curved bridge, respectively. It is clear that without translational
constraints from the superstructure, the longitudinal displacement
response of the piers decreases significantly, whereas the transverse
displacement response does not experience obvious change. In addi-
tion, the larger transverse drift ratio in skewed bridges is also par-
tially a result of the planar rotation of the superstructure. For skewed
and curved bridges, the increased drift ratio at the pier top for the
pinned-connection model might pose some design issues when it
becomes excessive.
Reaction Force Behind Integral Abutment
Fig. 10 summarizes the results of the reaction force behind the in-
tegral abutments of the bridges with different geometric
configurations and bent connections. Overall, among the four
bridge models with different geometric configurations, the non-
skewed bridges have larger longitudinal reaction force than the
skewed bridges. The straight bridge has the largest longitudinal
reaction force for the models with both fixed and pinned bent con-
nections, and the curved-only bridge has the largest longitudinal
reaction force for models with roller bent connections. However,
in terms of the transverse reaction force, the skewed bridges have
a larger value than the nonskewed bridges. Planar rotation in
skewed bridges causes a significantly larger transverse reaction at
the abutment. The skewed-only bridge has the largest transverse
reaction force for the models with fixed and pinned bent connec-
tions, and the skewed and curved bridge has the largest transverse
reaction force among all the models with roller supports.
After the release of the rotational constraint, the longitudinal
force acting on the abutment from soil springs increases in various
degrees compared to the model with the fixed bent connection.
Further release of the translational constraint causes a further
increase of the longitudinal reaction force in general. The only
exception is that the longitudinal reaction force of the straight

© ASCE 04017011-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Shear demand/capacity ratio at pier base: (a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction

bridge decreases a little after the translational release. Because of
the loss of longitudinal constraint from the girders and bridge deck
after the translational release, most of the longitudinal seismic load
transmitted from the superstructure is shifted from the piers to the
abutments. For this reason, bridges with roller bent connections
have the largest longitudinal reaction force acting on the abutment
among models with different bent connections. It is shown in Fig.
10(b) that the rotational and translational releases affect the trans-
verse reaction force of nonskewed and skewed bridges in different
ways. With the rotational and translational releases of the bent sup-
port, the reaction forces of the nonskewed bridges increase, whereas
those of the skewed bridges decrease. In addition, the translational
release of the bent connection causes more significant change than
does the rotational release.
Seismic-Friendly Bent Connections for SMC Bridges
For SMC bridges with integral abutments, in principle, any of the
three different connections can be selected without causing struc-
tural instability. For straight, skewed-only, and curved-only
bridges, pinned or roller bent connections seem to be more
seismic-friendly than the fixed bent connection in terms of rela-
tively smaller overall seismic demands, except for the horizontal
reaction forces behind the abutments. For bridges with roller bent
connections, excessive displacement of girders could be another
concern, which might lead to the unseating of bridge girders or
pounding between girders or between girders and abutments.
Meanwhile, the seismic load from the superstructure is trans-
ferred mainly to the abutments. However, unlike the piers,
demands on the abutments could be controlled. The excessive
seismic demand on the abutments and excessive displacements of
girders could be reduced with dampers activated by sacrificial
shear keys installed on the abutments (Otsuka and Tanaka 2008;
Rosignoli 2002). For skewed and curved bridges, the situation is
more complex; the pinned and roller bent connections can consid-
erably reduce the moments and shear D/C ratios at the pier base
as they increase the drift ratio at the top of the pier and the longitu-
dinal reaction force behind the abutment at the same time. In addi-
tion to the increased redundancy, the fixed bent connection might
be preferred for skewed and curved bridges as a seismic-friendly
option when the excessive drift ratio becomes a concern, instead
of the pier base moment and shear. Depending on the specific

© ASCE 04017011-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Drift ratio of pier: (a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction

capacity scenario of the bridge, component failure risk might dif-
fer when different bent connections are adopted. As a result, the
seismic-friendly bent connection choice for skewed and curved
bridges is not straightforward and might need to be made on the
basis of the detailed seismic fragility assessments on a bridge-
specific basis.
Summary
This study investigates the seismic performance of SMC curved
and skewed bridges in low-to-moderate seismic regions by conduct-
ing a comparative study of SMC bridges with different bent connec-
tions and geometric configurations. The comparative study is car-
ried out by conducting nonlinear time-history seismic analyses
using SAP2000 on 12 bridge models with four different geometric
configurations (i.e., straight, skewed, curved, and skewed and
curved) and three different bent connections (i.e., fixed, pinned, and
roller). For each bridge model, time-history earthquake records are
scaled appropriately on the basis of the results of modal analysis.
The main findings are as follows:
1. Among typical SMC bridges with four different geometric con-
figurations, skewed and curved bridges typically exhibit the
greatest demand regardless of bent connections, which high-
lights their relatively greater seismic risks and complexity and
their need for more attention than the remaining bridge models.
2. The bent connection type is found to significantly affect the
seismic performance of the skewed and curved SMC bridge
with integral abutments. Compared to the fixed bent connec-
tion, the rotational constraint release (pinned bent connection)
will considerably reduce the moment and shear D/C ratios at
the base of the pier but cause a significant increase in the drift
ratios at the pier top and an increase in the longitudinal reaction
force behind the abutment. The further release of translational
constraint (roller bent connection) will further reduce the base
moment and shear D/C ratios at the pier base, significantly
reducing longitudinal drift ratios and further increasing the lon-
gitudinal reaction force behind the abutment.
3. The results of comparative study suggest that bridges with dif-
ferent geometric configurations exhibit different seismic per-
formance from the skewed and curved bridge. For straight and
curved-only bridges, the rotational release of the bent

© ASCE 04017011-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Reaction force behind the abutment: (a) longitudinal direction; (b) transverse direction

connection will reduce considerably the longitudinal moment
and shear D/C ratios at the column base, remain similar in the
transverse moment, shear D/C ratios, and drift ratios of the
pier, and significantly increase the longitudinal reaction forces
and slightly decrease the transverse reaction forces behind the
abutment. The further release of the translational constraint
will further slightly reduce the moment and shear D/C ratios at
the column bases, significantly reduce the longitudinal drift
ratios, and further increase the reaction forces at the abutments.
For the skewed-only bridge, the rotational release and further
release of translational constraint will considerably reduce the
moment and shear D/C ratios and significantly reduce longitu-
dinal drift ratios. In the meantime, there are considerable
increases and decreases in the longitudinal and transverse reac-
tion forces, respectively.
The release of constraints at the bent connection will affect the
bridge seismic response primarily by modifying the structural load
path, which in turn will change the seismic load transmitted
between the superstructure and the substructure. For straight,
skewed-only, and curved-only bridges, the pinned and roller bent
connections seem to be more seismic-friendly than the fixed bent
connection in terms of their relatively smaller overall seismic
demands, apart from abutments. For skewed and curved bridges,
the situation is more complex, as already summarized. In addition
to the increased redundancy, the fixed bent connection might be pre-
ferred for skewed and curved bridges when the excessive drift ratio,
rather than the pier base moment and shear, is a concern. The opti-
mal bent connection choice for skewed and curved bridges might
need to be made on the basis of detailed fragility assessment on a
bridge-specific basis. Although the results of this study shed light
on similar types of bridges, more studies of similar bridges with dif-
ferent site-specific conditions should be performed to provide more
generalized conclusions.
Acknowledgments
This study was partially supported by the U.S. Department of
Transportation (through the Mountain Plains Consortium). The
content of this paper reflects the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information
presented. The Colorado Department of Transportation provided

© ASCE 04017011-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011

 important information on the prototype bridge for the project.
Thomas Wilson, a former graduate research assistant, helped in
the initial stage of FEM model development.
References
AASHTO. (2011). AASHTO guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge
design, 2nd Ed., Washington, DC.
Akogul, C., and Celik, O. C. (2008). “Effect of elastomeric bearing model-
ing parameters on the seismic design of RC highway bridges with pre-
cast concrete girders.” Proc., 14th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering.
Attarchian, N., Kalantari, A., and Moghadam, A. S. (2012). “Seismic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado State Univ Lbrs on 07/26/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
assessment of monolithic vs. pin column top connections in R/C skewed
bridges.” Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and
Sustainability: Proc., 6th Int. IABMAS Conf., CRC, Boca Raton, FL,
2743–2749.
Bisadi, V., and Head, M. (2011). “Evaluation of combination rules for or-
thogonal seismic demands in nonlinear time history analysis of bridges.”
J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000241, 711–717.
Hastak, M., Mirmiran, A., Miller, R., Shah, R., and Castrodale, R. (2003).
“State of practice for positive moment connections in prestressed con-
crete girders made continuous.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084
-0702(2003)8:5(267), 267–272.
Maleki, S. (2000). “Effect of elastomeric bearings on seismic response of
skewed bridges.” Computational civil and structural engineering, Civil-
Comp Press, Edinburgh, U.K., 177–182.
Maleki, S., and Bisadi, V. (2006). “Orthogonal effects in seismic analysis of
skewed bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:
1(122), 122–130.
Mertlich, T. B., Halling, M. W., and Barr, P. J. (2007). “Dynamic and static
behavior of a curved-girder bridge with varying boundary conditions.”
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:
3(185), 185–192.
Miller, R. A., Castrodale, R., Mirmiran, A., and Hastak, M. (2004).
“Connection of simple-span precast concrete girders for continuity.”
© ASCE 04017011-11
View publication stats Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2017, 22(4): 04017011
NCHRP Rep. 519, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, DC.
Mirmiran, A., Kulkarni, S., Castrodale, R., Miller, R., and Hastak, M.
(2001). “Nonlinear continuity analysis of precast, prestressed concrete
girders with cast-in-place decks and diaphragms.” PCI J., 46(5), 60–80.
Nielson, B. G. (2005). “Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in
moderate seismic zones.” Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta.
Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2006). “Influence of modeling assump-
tions on the seismic response of multi-span simply supported steel girder
bridges in moderate seismic zones.” Eng. Struct., 28(8), 1083–1092.
Nielson, B. G., and DesRoches, R. (2007). “Seismic performance assess-
ment of simply supported and continuous multi-span concrete girder
highway bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:
5(611), 611–620.
Otsuka, H., and Tanaka, H. (2008). “A study on seismic behavior and dis-
placement control of a continuous girder bridge with low friction sliding
bearing support.” Proc., 14th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). (2016). “PEER
strong motion database.” hhttp://ngawest2.berkeley.edui (Dec. 6, 2016).
Priestley, M., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-
based seismic design of structures, IUSS, Pavia, Italy.
Rosignoli, M. (2002). Bridge launching, Thomas Telford, London.
SAP2000 18.11.0 [Computer software]. Computers & Structures, Inc.,
Walnut Creek, CA.
SeismoSignal 5.1.2 [Computer software]. SeismoSoft, Pavia, Italy.
Soleimanloo, H. S., and Barkhordari, M. A. (2014). “Mechanical character-
istics and application of fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings for seis-
mic isolation and retrofitting of bridges.” Trends Appl. Sci. Res., 9(1),
31–42.
Wilson, T., Mahmoud, H., and Chen, S. (2014). “Seismic performance of
skewed and curved reinforced concrete bridges in mountainous states.”
Eng. Struct., 70, 158–167.
Yin, L. (2004). “Continuity of bridges composed of simple-span precast
prestressed concrete girders made continuous.” Doctoral dissertation,
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Newark, NJ.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.