Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Inuence of modeling assumptions on the seismic response of multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges in moderate seismic zones
Bryant G. Nielson, Reginald DesRoches
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0355, United States Received 25 July 2005; received in revised form 6 December 2005; accepted 13 December 2005 Available online 20 March 2006

Abstract Steel girder bridges are one of the most common bridge types in the central and south-eastern United States (CSUS). An understanding of their seismic response and assessment of their seismic risk has become a focus of the earthquake engineering community due to the increased awareness of the seismic hazard in the region. Analytical assessment of this seismic risk requires an evaluation of typical seismic responses and more of an understanding of the modeling parameters that signicantly affect those responses. A seismic evaluation of a typical conguration for a multi-span simply supported steel girder bridge is performed for an approximate hazard level of 2% in 50 years using a nonlinear three-dimensional (3-D) analytical model. The results show signicant vulnerabilities in the reinforced concrete columns and in the steel xed and expansion bearings. Although the longitudinal loading of the bridge results in much larger demands compared with the transverse loading, some components of the bridge may still have appreciable damage under the transverse loading case. An analytical design-of-experiments screening study shows that modeling parameters such as loading direction and damping ratio are the most important in determining seismic response. Fixed bearing stiffness, among others, also signicantly affects the response and should be considered carefully. c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Steel bridges; Bridge bearings; Seismic response; Seismic analysis; Sensitivity; Modeling parameters inventory analysis

1. Introduction During the period from the 1950s through the 1980s, many of the highway bridges built in the central and south-eastern United States (CSUS) were built using a concrete slab-on-steel girder construction. Many of these bridges are still in operation and account for over one third of all bridges in the region today [1]. In general, seismic consideration was not given to the design of these bridges until after 1990 [2]. However, a heightened awareness of the seismic hazard that is present in the region has developed over the last decade and a half, and has raised concern over their seismic vulnerability. This increased concern over the seismic hazard in the CSUS has caused state departments of transportation and researchers to examine the seismic risk to this portfolio of steel bridges more closely. This is particularly applicable to steel bridges that employ the use of steel xed and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 385 0826; fax: +1 404 894 0221.

E-mail addresses: bryant.nielson@ce.gatech.edu (B.G. Nielson), reginald.desroches@ce.gatech.edu (R. DesRoches). 0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.12.014

rocker bearings, as previous research has shown them to be largely decient under seismic loading [3]. Probabilistic vulnerability functions are becoming increasingly popular tools for assessing this risk [4]. To derive these vulnerability functions, particularly for the CSUS, detailed analytical models must be developed. The complexity of such models can range from very simplistic, consisting of only a few degrees-offreedom with linear component modeling, to very detailed, where nonlinear behavior is modeled throughout the various bridge components. The appropriate level of modeling is dependent on the bridge conguration, bridge type, seismic demand and the response that is anticipated. Modeling issues such as two-dimensional (2-D) versus three-dimensional (3-D), transverse versus longitudinal, and linear versus nonlinear often arise. These types of issues can more appropriately be addressed as an understanding of the effect of different modeling assumptions is attained. There have been a number of studies to date that have been tailored to improve our knowledge concerning the modeling and response of steel girder bridges. In one study, Dicleli

1084

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

and Bruneau [5] investigated the response of multi-span simply supported (MSSS) steel girder bridges using linear 3-D analytical models. They explored such issues as loading direction (longitudinal and transverse), bearing stiffness and column behavior using linear elastic response spectra analyses. One signicant conclusion of this study is that the stiffness with which the steel bearings are modeled signicantly affects the bridge response. In another study, they considered the response of both single-span and multiple-span continuous steel girder bridges [6]. Using both elastic linear and nonlinear inelastic dynamic analyses, they determined that damage to the steel bearings was likely. However, they also noted that, as long as stability was not lost, bearing damage is acceptable, since it would act as a fuse and limit the seismic demand placed on the columns. In addition, they concluded that transverse response is dominant for these bridge types. It has been recognized that full nonlinear time history analyses are required if the effects of deck pounding are to be considered. In another study on MSSS steel girder bridges, Rashidi and Ala Saadeghvaziri [7] considered a three-span bridge that was analyzed in the longitudinal direction using a 2-D model. Linear elements were used to model column behavior, the xed bearings followed a bilinear behavior, and gap elements were used to capture deck pounding. They concluded that it is important to consider the effects of pounding between decks to capture the post-yield behavior of the bearings. In a subsequent study, these researchers looked specically at the effect the steel bearings had on the seismic response of highway bridges using 2-D models of the longitudinal and the transverse direction which did not include the effects of pounding. They came to the conclusion that the response of the bridge was highly dependent on the stiffness of the bearings when loaded in the transverse direction, but inconsequential when longitudinal loading is applied [8]. It should be noted that this nding is not consistent with that of Dicleli and Bruneau [5]. The modeling and responses for both simply supported and continuous span bridges were considered using 2-D longitudinal models in work performed by DesRoches et al. [9]. Using full nonlinear time history analyses and highly detailed modeling, they concluded that steel bearings are indeed susceptible to failure as a direct result of deck pounding. The reinforced concrete columns and the abutments also exhibited moderate levels of damage. None of these previous studies used 3-D models of multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges subjected to full nonlinear time history analyses incorporating the effects of pounding, nonlinear behavior in the steel bearings, and nonlinear behavior in the columns simultaneously. The previous studies, among others, have been invaluable in acquiring an understanding pertaining to the response of steel girder bridges. However, there is still a need for a better understanding of issues such as the appropriate modeling dimension (3-D versus 2-D) and the signicance of various modeling parameters on the responses of the various bridge components. In particular, a quantitative measure of the importance of modeling assumptions on the predicted behavior is needed. The rst goal of this study is to understand better the effects of longitudinal versus transverse loading on the

Fig. 1. Empirical CDFs for bridge geometry.

response of typical MSSS steel bridges and make inferences on appropriate modeling dimensions. The second goal is to determine the inuence that various common modeling parameters have on the responses of the different bridge components. This is accomplished by using a detailed nonlinear 3-D model of a three-span MSSS Steel girder bridge and performing a design of experiments screening study on 14 structural parameters. Prior to the presentation of this screening study, a discussion of typical deterministic responses for this bridge type is provided. 2. Characteristics of typical multi-span simply supported steel girder bridges A detailed review of the steel girder bridges in the national bridge inventory (NBI) shows that simply supported multispan bridges account for approximately one third of all steel girder bridges [1]. The other two thirds are equally split between single span and continuous multi-span bridges. Of the MSSS steel girder bridges, over 90% were built prior to 1990, implying a lack of seismic design and also highlighting their relatively small use in current construction. To give an idea of the typical geometric properties of this bridge class, empirical cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) are generated and shown in Fig. 1. Over 90% of the MSSS steel girder bridges fall in the range of 630 m. The 90th percentile value for bridge width and column height are around 15 m and 7 m, respectively. The range for the number of spans is from 2 to 19, with 90% of all bridges being in the range of 2 to 5 spans. The most likely number of spans is 3, which represents 44% of the entire class. Bridge skew is 0 for over 60% of the bridges and is less than 30 for greater than 87%. Typical details for these bridges are determined from several previous studies, one of which examined over 150 detailed sets of bridge plans [10]. These bridges primarily used one of two general classes of steel bearings, namely high-type and lowtype. The high-type bearing class includes a xed (pinned) type and an expansion (rocker) type. The same is typical of the low-type bearings, other than the expansion bearing motion is typically dened as sliding rather than rocking. Other standard details for the bridge substructure are outlined in a study by Hwang et al. [11] on bridges in Memphis, TN as follows:

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

1085

Fig. 2. Conguration of typical MSSS steel girder bridge in CSUS.

Multi-column bents are used where concrete columns are typically 914 mm in diameter with 1% vertical reinforcing and #10 or #13 transverse ties spaced at 305 mm. Lap splices in the vertical reinforcement of columns are placed in possible plastic hinge zones just above the pile cap. No hooks or bends are placed in a vertical column reinforcement that extends into the bent cap. Most bridges are founded on driven pile foundations with no positive connection between the piles and cap. 3. 3-D analytical modeling of multi-span simply supported steel girder bridge Using data collected pertaining to the inventory of MSSS steel girder bridges in the CSUS, a typical bridge conguration with standard details is developed. Fig. 2 shows the geometric layout of the bridge used in this study. The bridge is characterized by three spans which have lengths of 12.2 m, 24.4 m, and 12.2 m for an overall bridge length of 48.8 m. The decks are 15 m wide with a skew of 0 and are constructed of eight steel girders that are supported by two pile bent abutments and two three-column bents. Each abutment conguration utilizes 10 vertical piles at 1.45 m on-center, while the square footing under each column has a symmetric layout of eight vertical piles. Using the nite element analysis package OpenSees [12], a detailed 3-D nonlinear model of the bridge is created, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Nonlinearities are considered explicitly in the abutments, bearings, columns and bent caps. The superstructure, which refers to the composite slab and girder section, is expected to remain linear and is thus modeled using linear elastic beamcolumn elements. The deck section, which is transformed to an equivalent homogeneous steel material, has an elastic modulus of 200 GPa. Table 1 gives the elastic properties for both the end spans and the middle span, where A is the cross-sectional area, Iz is the moment of inertia about the

Table 1 Elastic properties of deck sections Span location End Center A (m2 ) 0.51 0.68 Iz (m4 ) 0.03 0.11 I y (m4 ) 9.78 13.00 Weight (kN/m) 39.00 52.00

horizontal transverse axis, and I y is the moment of inertia about the vertical axis. The pounding between the decks is accounted for by using the contact element approach including the effects of hysteretic energy loss, which is outlined in the work by Muthukumar [13]. The columns are modeled using displacement beamcolumn elements which are discretized into both steel and concrete bers. Each ber has a uniaxial stressstrain relationship representing either conned concrete, unconned concrete, or longitudinal reinforcing steel. The individual ber behaviors integrate to get a loaddeformation relation for the composite reinforced concrete section. This distributed plasticity formulation permits monitoring of the columns nonlinear responses at various integration points along the length of the member, making it appropriate for modeling the reinforced concrete columns. The steel bearings in this study are modeled in a nonlinear manner using translational springs. The behavior of the bearings in both the longitudinal and transverse directions follows the recommendations given by Mander et al. [3] which resulted from their experimental work on steel bearings. A frictional component of each bearing model exists which is a function of the normal force that is applied to them. This results in slightly different models for the end spans and the center span. Fig. 4 shows the hysteretic behavior of the two bearing types (xed and rocker) in both the longitudinal and transverse directions for the center bridge span. These translational springs are connected between the abutment springs and deck nodes at the ends of the bridge. They are also used to connect the bent cap nodes with the deck nodes, as seen in Fig. 3.

1086

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

Fig. 3. Nonlinear analytical model of multi-span simply supported steel girder bridge including nonlinear elements used for abutments, bearings and columns.

(a) Fixed bearinglongitudinal.

(b) Fixed bearingtransverse.

(c) Rocker bearinglongitudinal.

(d) Rocker bearingtransverse.

Fig. 4. Nonlinear analytical models of steel xed and rocker bearings at center span [3].

The initial passive stiffness of abutments due to the soil is modeled with a value of 20.2 kN/mm/m width of wall. This is a mid-range value selected from the range of stiffnesses (11.528.8 kN/mm/m) recommended by Caltrans [14]. Furthermore, Caltrans also recommends that the ultimate soil pressure be assumed to be 0.37 MPa, which Martin and Yan [15] found occurs at a tip displacement of 6%10% of the back-wall height. These recommendations were used to assemble a nonlinear backbone for soil stiffness as shown in Fig. 5. The contribution of the piles was added using a lateral stiffness of 7 kN/mm/pile, as recommended

by Caltrans [14]. The model considers both soil and pile contributions in the passive (compression) direction, but only considers the contribution of the piles when loaded in the active (tension) direction. The model for the transverse behavior uses a conservative approach, in that it neglects the contribution of the wing walls and only considers the stiffness of the piles. The stiffness of the pile foundation is accounted for by using both translational and rotational linear springs at the base of the columns. The spring constants were calculated for the footing and pile conguration shown in Fig. 2. Lateral pile stiffnesses were assumed at 7 kN/mm/pile [14] and the vertical stiffnesses

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

1087

Fig. 5. Nonlinear analytical model of abutment back-ll (passive soil). Fig. 7. Mean response spectrum for ground motion suite.

5. Seismic response The seismic response of this bridge is evaluated using a suite of synthetic ground motions developed as part of ongoing research in the Mid-America Earthquake (MAE) Center. Rix and Fernandez-Leon [16] generated several deterministic ground motions for Memphis, TN that consider the effects of source, path and site. The records were generated for three different magnitudes (5.5, 6.5, 7.5) and four hypocentral distances (10, 20, 50 and 100 km). For the purposes of this study, 10 of these ground motions are selected such that they approximately represent a seismic hazard of 2% in 50 years. A seismic hazard disaggregation of the Memphis area revealed a modal distance and magnitude for this seismic hazard level to be 32.8 and 7.7, respectively [17]. Therefore ve ground motions are selected from the 7.520 km bin and ve are selected from the 7.550 km bin. The range of peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for this suite is from 0.22g to 0.65g. A plot of the acceleration response spectra, including the mean response spectrum for the ground motion suite, is given in Fig. 7. This suite of ground motions is applied to the subject bridge in the principal orthogonal axeslongitudinal and transverse. A few select responses for this bridge subjected to the 0.65g earthquake, which has a magnitude and hypocentral distance of 7.5 and 20 respectively, are discussed below. A plot of the longitudinal displacement response of the three decks under longitudinal loading, as shown in Fig. 8, highlights once again the stiffness difference between the left deck and the rest of the bridge. Displacements for the middle and right most decks peak at around 75.0 mm, while the left most deck has a maximum displacement of approximately 45.0 mm. In the transverse direction under transverse loading, the displacements are relatively equal, with a peak of approximately 40.0 mm. The xed bearings located at the left abutment appears to experience the largest deformation of the three bearing locations. Representative responses of these bearings under both loading conditions are given in Fig. 9, where maximum deformation in the longitudinal direction is around 38.0 mm and 10.0 mm in the transverse direction. Column responses are given in terms of curvature ductilities. As seen in Fig. 10, longitudinal loading results in curvature ductilities of = 2.0, while the transverse loading is approximately = 1.0. The expansion bearings have maximum deformations approaching

Fig. 6. Fundamental modes of bridge. Table 2 Modal bridge properties Number of mode Period (s) 0.29 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.14 Effective modal mass Longitudinal Transverse (%) (%) 84.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 89.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 Vertical (%) 0.0 0.0 31.5 0.0 0.0

First Second Third Fourth Fifth

were assumed to be 175 kN/mm/pile [10]. This results in a translational spring constant of 56 kN/mm and a rotational spring constant of 6.09E5 kN m/rad. 4. Dynamic bridge characteristics The basic modal properties for the bridge are presented in Table 2. It is noted that the fundamental mode is a longitudinal mode with a period of 0.29 s and an effective modal mass of 84.6%. The second mode is transverse with a period of 0.25 s and an effective modal mass of 89.6%. The left most deck in Fig. 2 is tied into the left abutment with a relatively stiff xed bearing. The other end of this span is tied to the left most bent with a fairly exible expansion bearing. This causes there to be somewhat of a disconnect between the left span and the rest of the bridge. This phenomenon is seen through examination of the fundamental mode shape of this bridge, as given in Fig. 6.

1088

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

Fig. 8. Displacement time histories of bridge decks: (a) longitudinal responselongitudinal loading; and (b) transverse responsetransverse loading.

Fig. 10. Curvature ductility demand for columns in left bent: (a) longitudinal loading; and (b) transverse loading.

Fig. 9. Fixed bearing response at left abutment: (a) longitudinal loading and response; and (b) transverse loading and response.

80.0 mm in the longitudinal direction, but less than 5.0 mm in the transverse direction. The abutments for the most part remain linear in both directions through the loading sequence.

A better understanding of the seismic response of this bridge type is obtained by looking at the peak component responses for the entire ground motion suite. Fig. 11(a) shows the mean and mean-plus-one standard deviation for ductility demands in the columns. The columns of the left bent have an average ductility of = 1.4 under longitudinal loading, while the right columns have a slightly lower average of = 1.3. The transverse loading scenario caused ductility demands for both the left and right columns that are less than half those for the longitudinal case, which are approximately = 0.6. Fig. 11(b) shows the mean and mean-plus-one standard deviation for deformations in the active, passive and transverse action of the abutments. The active action of the left abutment is signicantly larger than that of the right abutment. This difference is largely due to the ability of their respective bearings to transfer loads to the abutments. This difference is not seen in the passive action, since this type of response is less dependent on bearing stiffnesses and more a function of pounding. Both abutments average passive deformations around 4.5 mm, which would not likely result in signicant damage, based on research that has shown that slight damage would occur at deformations around 40 mm [18]. Transverse deformations are similar, with mean values around 2.2 mm.

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

1089

(a) Columns.

(b) Abutments.

(c) Fixed bearings.

(d) Expansion bearings. Fig. 11. Mean and mean-plus-one standard deviation of bridge responses to suite of ground motions.

Fixed bearing responses are summarized in Fig. 11(c), which shows the mean and mean-plus-one standard deviations of the deformations. It is clear that the left most bearings have the largest deformations, with a mean of 20.7 mm and a standard deviation of 15.2 mm. The tests on these bearing types by Mander et al. [3] show strength degradation at deformations of approximately 20.0 mm, which implies possible bearing failure. These large deformations are directly related to the fact that they are the primary lateral load resisting components for the left deck. The mean deformation for the rest of the bearings ranges between 1.0 mm and 7.5 mm. Expansion bearing responses, as given in Fig. 11(d), show clearly that longitudinal loading causes a more dramatic degree of deformation than does transverse loading. This can be misleading, in that these rocker bearings are quite exible in the longitudinal direction but quite stiff in the transverse direction. Hence, the deformation capacities in each direction would be starkly different as well. The mean deformations for the expansion bearings tied to the left and right decks are 55.5 mm and 52.3 mm respectively. Based on the work by Ala Saadeghvaziri and Rashidi [8], toppling of these rocker bearings is a concern when longitudinal movement exceeds 0.285R, where R is the radius of the rocking surface. For these bearings, the radii are 330 mm, giving a stability boundary of 94.0 mm which was exceeded for some of the ground motions, thus indicating the potential for toppling of the bearing and potential unseating of the span. The responses in a number of the components show a large degree of variation which is largely seen under longitudinal excitation. The bridge columns, the abutments in passive

action and the bearings located at the abutments all appear to exhibit these signicant variations. This variation is indicative of the highly nonlinear behavior of the components and the need to model them with a reasonable degree of delity. For example, under longitudinal loading the columns in both bridges show that their responses are highly variable, with coefcients of variation as high as 0.67. If the columns were modeled as being linear or even bilinear, it would be difcult to capture this variation. The variations, as seen in the transverse bearings of the MSSS girder bridge, also lend strength to the recommendation of analyzing these bridge types in both principal axes. 6. Modeling parameter signicance screening There are many parameters that go into dening the analytical bridge model developed as part of this study. These parameters may be geometric in nature, such as span length and column height, or they may help dene material or component behavior, such as concrete strength and bearing stiffness. Experience suggests that the values these parameters assume in real life will vary from structure to structure and may also vary over time, which is a prime source of uncertainty in predicting seismic demand on the bridge. Being able to track this uncertainty and understand its impact on expected seismic responses is key to making informed decisions and inferences regarding seismic risk to existing bridges. This uncertainty is often quantied and tracked through the generation of probabilistic seismic demand models (PSDMs) which describe the probability of reaching or exceeding some

1090

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092

Table 3 Geometric bridge samples of MSSS steel girder bridge Bridge no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Spans 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Middle span length (m) 18.30 20.40 15.50 13.70 25.60 7.30 8.80 10.40 Deck width (m) 9.53 9.53 9.53 9.53 20.96 9.53 9.53 15.25 Column height (m) 5.10 3.62 5.95 4.02 3.54 3.90 4.26 6.62

level of demand for a given intensity level of ground motion. Two types of uncertainty are captured in these probabilistic models, namely aleatoric (inherent randomness) and epistemic (lack of knowledge) [19]. The variation that occurs in the bridge modeling parameters is primarily considered to be epistemic in nature, as it is often based on our lack of exact knowledge of material properties, geometry, etc. It is very useful to know which of the common modeling parameters contribute in a signicant way to the overall epistemic uncertainty associated with the seismic demand on this bridge, which can be obtained through an impact screening study of each of the parameters. Eight different geometric congurations, representative of the CSUS bridge inventory for this bridge type, are generated from the inventory data presented in Fig. 1 using a Latin Hypercube sampling technique [20]. These eight congurations, which are given in Table 3, are then implemented in a design of experiments screening method to ascertain the signicance of 14 different modeling parameters. A two-level fractional factorial screening design, considering main effects only, is set up considering the parameters and associated parameter levels as presented in Table 4. The parameter levels expressed in percentages imply that a percentage of the base value, which is assumed to be a median value, is used. The idea behind such a scheme is to select reasonable upper and lower values that each parameter could assume, then create different bridge samples through various permutations on those parameter values. Once these bridge samples are created, they are subjected to seismic loadings, after which a statistical analysis is performed to see which parameters appear to have the greatest impact on the response of the bridge. Eight different responses are monitored from which to test the signicance of each parameter. The responses are the curvature ductility of columns, deformations of xed and expansion bearings in both the transverse and longitudinal directions, the passive and active deformations of the abutments, as well as the transverse deformation of the abutments. Using three different ground motions from Rix and Fernandez-Leon [16] and a screening design provided by a commercial statistical software package [21], the bridge models are analyzed using a full nonlinear time history analysis. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of each of the eight responses was conducted to explore the effect each parameter has on each response. The ANOVA includes a hypothesis test that

tests each parameter for signicance in the model. The results of the hypothesis tests are given in terms of a p-value which can be interpreted using some selected signicance level . The general formulation of the entire ANOVA table, including the calculation of p-values, can be found in most texts on statistical analysis [22], while a more detailed formulation is found in [18]. A signicance cutoff level of = 0.05 is used for this study, which means that any parameter that has a pvalue less than 0.05 is deemed to be signicant and should be treated with care. Table 5 gives a list of the response-parameter combinations and their associated p-values as calculated from ANOVA. It is clearly seen from this table that the various measured responses are sensitive to different parameters. For instance, the curvature ductility value is sensitive to the strength of steel, the friction and stiffness of the xed bearing, the damping ratio, and of course the direction of loading. However, looking at the longitudinal deformation of the expansion bearings, it is sensitive to the rotational stiffness of the foundations, the mass, the damping ratio, and also the loading direction. There are only two parameters, concrete strength and expansion bearing friction, that do not appear to be signicant for at least one or more responses. One can also get a sense of the most important parameters based on the number of responses that a particular parameter signicantly affects. For example, the loading direction is signicant in the values of all eight responses and the damping ratio is signicant for six. Other parameters, such as steel strength and passive stiffness of the abutments, are only signicant in one response measure and therefore may not be as important as loading direction and damping ratio. The parameters are listed in Table 5 in a ranked order on the basis of the number of responses for which they are signicant. It should be noted that the number of parameters that are classied as signicant depends on the level of signicance, , that is chosen. Therefore it can be useful to also take a look at those parameter-response combinations whose p-values are close to the cutoff level. For example, the p-value associated with the hinge gap size and the passive response of the abutment is 0.058. This is quite close to the the 0.05 level and could reasonably be considered signicant. 7. Conclusions This paper presents the results of the seismic evaluation and screening study for a multi-span simply supported steel girder bridge, which is typical to the central and south-eastern United States. A synthetic ground motion suite, developed specically for the Memphis, TN area that approximates a 2% in 50 years hazard level, is used to evaluate the seismic response of this bridge. A number of important conclusions are drawn pertaining to the bridge component responses and the structural modeling parameters that affect them. First, at a hazard level of 2% in 50 years, this bridge type exhibits several vulnerabilities. The xed and expansion steel bearings experience deformations that could lead to their failure through fracture or toppling. A general understanding of this has led to the general discontinued use of this type of bearing in

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092 Table 4 Parameters considered in the screening of MSSS steel girder bridges Parameter no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Description Concrete strength Steel strength Coefcient of friction for expansion bearing Coefcient of friction for xed bearing Initial stiffness of xed bearing Initial stiffness of passive abutment Initial stiffness of active abutment Rotational stiffness of foundations Translational stiffness of foundations Mass Damping ratio Gap between abutments and decks Gap between decks Loading direction (Long or Trans) Abbreviation Conc Str Steel Str Exp Frict Fxd Frict Fxd Stiff Ab-Pas Stf Ab-Act Stf Fnd-Rot Stf Fnd-Hor Stf Mass Damp Ratio Abut Gap Deck Gap Load Dir Lower level 26.4 438.2 50 50 80 50 50 50 50 90 0.02 28 18 L Upper level 40.6 555.3 150 150 120 150 150 150 150 110 0.08 48 33 T

1091

Units MPa MPa % % % % % % % % ratio mm mm

Table 5 The p-values, as calculated in ANOVA for MSSS steel bridge Parameter Load Dir Damp Ratio Fxd Stiff Fxd Frict Ab-Act Stf Mass Fnd-Rot Stf Abut Gap Hinge Gap Fnd-hor Stf Ab-Pas Stf Steel Str Conc Str Exp Frict P-value Ductility 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.948 0.652 0.328 0.664 0.788 0.631 0.720 0.013 0.367 0.729 Fxd-Tran 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.146 0.598 0.045 0.009 0.681 0.890 0.768 0.719 0.769 Fxd-Long 0.000 0.001 0.039 0.568 0.325 0.002 0.105 0.266 0.538 0.219 0.180 0.671 0.319 0.436 Exp-Tran 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.019 0.659 0.302 0.803 0.003 0.000 0.773 0.949 0.602 0.564 0.194 Exp-Long 0.000 0.005 0.142 0.372 0.887 0.010 0.034 0.183 0.894 0.380 0.478 0.828 0.580 0.918 Ab-Pass 0.000 0.000 0.545 0.623 0.048 0.126 0.018 0.308 0.058 0.194 0.015 0.484 0.960 0.648 Ab-Act 0.014 0.349 0.346 0.565 0.000 0.010 0.451 0.392 0.720 0.024 0.906 0.655 0.233 0.066 Ab-Tran 0.000 0.130 0.267 0.492 0.000 0.246 0.565 0.751 0.110 0.483 0.516 0.827 0.560 0.469

Bold faced numbers are less than 0.05 and considered indicative of signicance.

new construction. The columns that are generally decient in transverse steel and seismic detailing have curvature ductility demands that would likely cause cracking and spalling of the concrete and subsequently failure of the lap-splice located at the base of the columns. The abutment demands do not appear to be as signicant as the other components and would likely not experience signicant damage. Subjecting this bridge to seismic loading along each of the two principal axes shows an increased vulnerability under longitudinal loading as compared to transverse loading. For example, curvature ductility demands on the columns in the longitudinal direction are in general more than twice those in the transverse direction. Fixed bearing deformations follow this same general trend, which is largely attributed to the presence of deck pounding under longitudinal loading and its absence otherwise. It is seen in this study that, for MSSS steel girder bridges with little-to-no skew, it may be appropriate to model them using only 2-D longitudinal models when performing deterministic studies. However, when probabilistic approaches are used to assess seismic vulnerability of these bridges, the transverse response can be signicant, particularly in the steel

xed bearings. This type of analysis may warrant 3-D models to fully capture the response contribution of both directions. The seismic response of this bridge type is sensitive to a number of different modeling parameters, among which damping ratio and loading direction appear to be the most important. The screening test also shows that bridge responses such as column ductility demand and bearing deformation are sensitive to the stiffness of the xed bearings. This stiffness can be signicantly different, depending on whether the bearings are high-type as used in this study or low-type. It is therefore recommended that analytical models of steel bearings be developed with care. It is also useful, when generating analytical models of this bridge type, to carefully dene the responses that will be monitored. This will help to outline the generation of the remainder of the model, giving an indication of which parameter values require the most diligence when setting. This study will make important contributions to the earthquake engineering community as they strive to accurately assess the seismic risk of transportation systems in the CSUS. A better understanding of seismic bridge response and modeling issues help researchers to estimate this risk more accurately.

1092

B.G. Nielson, R. DesRoches / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 10831092 of multiple span steel bridges in central and southeastern United States. i: As built. Journal of Bridge Engineering 2004;9(5):46472. Choi E. Seismic analysis and retrot of mid-america bridges. Ph.D. thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2002. Hwang H, Jernigan JB, Lin Y-W. Evaluation of seismic damage to memphis bridges and highway systems. Journal of Bridge Engineering 2000;5(4):32230. McKenna F, Feneves GL. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacic earthquake engineering research center, version 1.6.2. 2005. Muthukumar S. A contact element approach with hysteresis damping for the analysis and design of pounding in bridges. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2003. Caltrans. Caltrans seismic design criteria. 1st ed. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Transportation; 1999. Martin GR, Yan L. Modeling passive earth pressure for bridge abutments. In: Earthquake-induced movements and seismic remediation of existing foundations and abutments (ASCE 1995 Annual National Convention) vol. Geotechnical Special Publication 55. San Diego (CA): ASCE; 1995. Rix GJ, Fernandez-Leon JA. Synthetic ground motions for Memphis, TN, http://www.ce.gatech.edu/research/mae ground motion; 2004 [date accessed: July 2, 2004]. USGS. Earthquake hazards program website, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/; October 2004 [date accessed: August 15, 2005]. Nielson BG. Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Ph.D. Georgia Institute of Technology; 2005. Ellingwood BR, Wen Y-K. Risk-benet-based design decisions for low-probability/high consequence earthquake events in mid-America. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2005;7(2):5670. Ayyub BM, Lai K-L. Structural reliability assessment using latin hypercube sampling. Proceedings of ICOSSAR 89, the 5th international conference on structural safety and reliability, Part II, vol. Part II. San Francisco (CA, USA): ASCE; 1989. p. 117784. SAS, Jmp: Statistical discovery software. cary, nc. 2004. Hayter A. Probability and statistics for engineers and scientists. 2nd ed. Pacic Grove: Duxbury; 2002.

Acknowledgments This study has been supported by the the Earthquake Engineering Research Center program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number EEC-9701785 (Mid-America Earthquake Center). References
[13] [1] FHWA. National bridge inventory data. 2002. [2] Mander JB, Panthaki FD, Chaudhary MT. Evaluation of seismic vulnerability of highway bridges in the eastern united states. In: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in the Central and Eastern US. Monograph (American Society of Civil Engineers. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering), vol. 194. New York (NY, USA): ASCE; 1992. [3] Mander JB, Kim DK, Chen SS, Premus GJ. Response of steel bridge bearings to the reversed cyclic loading. Tech. Rep. NCEER 96-0014. NCEER; 1996. [4] Basoz N, Kiremidjian S. Risk assessment for highway transportation systems. Tech. Rep. NCEER-118. JohnA. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center; November 1996. [5] Dicleli M, Bruneau M. Seismic performance of multi-span simply supported slab-on-girder steel highway bridges. Engineering Structures 1995;17(1):414. [6] Dicleli M, Bruneau M. Seismic performance of single-span simply supported and continuous slab-on-girder steel highway bridges. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995;121(10):1381540. [7] Rashidi S, Ala Saadeghvaziri M. Seismic modeling of multi-span simplysupported bridges using adina. Computers and Structures 1997;64(56): 102539. [8] Ala Saadeghvaziri M, Rashidi S. Effect of steel bearings on seismic response of bridges in eastern united states. In: 6th US national conference on earthquake engineering. EERI; 1998. [9] DesRoches R, Choi E, Leon RT, Dyke SJ, Aschheim M. Seismic response [10] [11]

[12]

[14] [15]

[16]

[17] [18] [19]

[20]

[21] [22]