This document discusses displacement time history analysis and summarizes key points about its background and application. Displacement time history analysis involves applying acceleration, force, moment, or displacement data over small time increments to analyze how a structure responds dynamically over time to seismic loading. It provides a more realistic analysis compared to traditional response spectrum analysis but is more computationally intensive. The document reviews the basics of the method and its use in the MIDAS software package to model soil-structure interaction and compare results to response spectrum analysis.
This document discusses displacement time history analysis and summarizes key points about its background and application. Displacement time history analysis involves applying acceleration, force, moment, or displacement data over small time increments to analyze how a structure responds dynamically over time to seismic loading. It provides a more realistic analysis compared to traditional response spectrum analysis but is more computationally intensive. The document reviews the basics of the method and its use in the MIDAS software package to model soil-structure interaction and compare results to response spectrum analysis.
This document discusses displacement time history analysis and summarizes key points about its background and application. Displacement time history analysis involves applying acceleration, force, moment, or displacement data over small time increments to analyze how a structure responds dynamically over time to seismic loading. It provides a more realistic analysis compared to traditional response spectrum analysis but is more computationally intensive. The document reviews the basics of the method and its use in the MIDAS software package to model soil-structure interaction and compare results to response spectrum analysis.
This document discusses displacement time history analysis and summarizes key points about its background and application. Displacement time history analysis involves applying acceleration, force, moment, or displacement data over small time increments to analyze how a structure responds dynamically over time to seismic loading. It provides a more realistic analysis compared to traditional response spectrum analysis but is more computationally intensive. The document reviews the basics of the method and its use in the MIDAS software package to model soil-structure interaction and compare results to response spectrum analysis.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Summary Introduction History of Seismic Design in the US Response Spectrum Analysis Background Time History Analysis Background Basic Theory Applicability Advantages Time History Analysis Input Input Software Application of TH Analysis in MIDAS RS Analysis in MIDAS TH Analysis in MIDAS RS vs. TH Comparison Conclusion
A Little About Myself
Based out of New York City Involved in bridge design, analysis and inspection for 6 years. Design: Cable stayed, arch, steel plate girder, prestressed deck bulb tee. Inspection: Concrete box, suspension bridge, steel truss, steel plate girder.
History
1925 Earthquake in Santa Barbara, CA engineers add seismic provisions to building codes. 1950s Similar provisions begin to be added to bridge design codes. 1971 San Fernando, CA earthquake prompts FHWA to begin a research program to establish criteria used for seismic design. 1973 Caltrans develops new criteria
San Fernando, CA earthquake
History (contd)
1975 AASHTO adopts Caltrans criteria 1979 FHWA completes research program. 1983 AASHTO adopts FHWA guidelines to create the Guide Specification for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. 1986 Provisions for seismic design included in AASHTO Standard Specifications -13th Ed. 1989 Loma Prieta, CA Earthquake
Cypress Viaduct, Oakland, CA.
History (contd)
1989 Loma Prieta, CA earthquake causes engineers to focus more closely on seismic design of bridges. 1992 The AASHTO Guide Specification becomes a national standard. 1994 Northridge, CA earthquake, there become more of a push for seismic retrofitting and changes to the design codes for new construction.
Hwy 14 overpass, San Fernando Valley, Northridge, CA Earthquake
History (contd)
1995 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual is released 2001 FHWA Seismic Retrofitting Manual introduced 2007 AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges created, transition from a forced based to displacement based (ie Pushover Analysis).
AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges
Response Spectrum Analysis - Background
Linear-dynamic statistical analysis method Used in AASHTO Division 1A and current AASHTO LRFD Specification First introduced in 1932 by Maurice Anthony Biot at Caltech, based on theories of acoustics developed by Rayleigh. Started to be used extensively starting in the 1970s
Response Spectrum Analysis Background (contd)
Eigenvalue analysis to determine mass and stiffness distributions Structure may be analyzed as a Single Degree of Freedom system in each primary bridge axis or using a Multiple Degree of Freedom system Small to moderate earthquakes should be resisted within the elastic range without causing significant damage to structural components
Response Spectrum Analysis SDOF Basic Principle
K m F = mg Variables: k column stiffness m lumped mass F elastic seismic design force g maximum design acceleration T structure period
Provides a quick and easy way to verify seismic analysis model results (period of structure)
T Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD
Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD
Basic premise is force based Flowchart provides guidance for seismic design Applicable to the uniform load method and multimode spectral method (most typical) Must determine: Spectral Acceleration Coefficients Site Factors Ground Acceleration Coefficients Seismic Performance Zone These factors help to construct your response spectrum
AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications
Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD
Response Spectrum created from AASHTO LRFD is adequate for most ordinary bridges. Based on 1000-yr return period Site specific response spectrum is generated in some cases (sometimes vertical spectrum also) will be used. Simple span bridges are exempt
Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD
Response Spectrum is constructed using AASHTO site maps and tables Must determine the bridge importance category Must determine the modification factors based on operational category (ie critical, essential, other) R Factor Modification factors are applicable to substructures and connections to ensure plastic hinging desired.
Response Spectrum Analysis AASHTO LRFD
Member forces and displacements computed by: Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) Should be used for closely spaced modes Combining Seismic Force Effects to account for directional uncertainty: Longitudinal Force = 1.0X + 0.3Y Transverse Force = 0.3X + 1.0Y
State-by-State Seismic Design Specifications
Seismic design criteria may vary state by state Especially prevalent in high seismic zones (California, Washington, etc) Meant to provide further guidance, specific to location, beyond what is offered in AASHTO LRFD and Division 1A In many cases, includes displacement based approach, rather than force based
Analysis of a structure, applying data over increment time steps as a function of: Acceleration Force Moment, or Displacement
The closer the spacing of time steps, the more accurate the solution will be.
Time History Analysis- Background
Cooper River Bridge, Charleston, SC
Eigenvalues generated for the structure based on response to time history. Considered to be more realistic compared to response spectrum analysis Most useful for very long or very tall structures (flexible structures)
Time History Analysis- Background
Kanchanaphisek Bridge, Bangkok, Thailand
Time History Analysis Drawbacks: Very time consuming Generates (and requires) large quantities of data. May not always reduce seismic forces in structure. Depends on: Soil properties Structure type Available data
Time History Analysis- Drawbacks
Soil springs and time history functions are generated by geotechnical engineer. Data can be generated using: 1D Analysis - ProShake 2D or 3D Analysis MIDAS GTS (2D), FLUSH (2D) Typical Analysis - Use Free Field method for soil interaction. Continuum Analysis involves modeling both soil structure and the structure (foundation) together.
Time History Analysis- Geotechnical
Response spectrum is defined at the rock level, rather than at the ground level as in response spectrum analysis method. Forcing functions are defined at different levels, varying with depth and soil properties. Soil springs are defined along the length of the foundation and correspond to forcing function (either force or displacement, depending on geotechnical analysis)
Time History Analysis- Geotechnical
Bedrock
Time Histories
Ground Level
Soil Spring
Drilled Shaft
How Time History Data is Created: 1. Response Spectrum at rock level needs to be created. 2. Find accelerations at rock level from: AASHTO/IBC/ASCE/USGS or Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Analysis 3. Pick existing acceleration time histories that match the target response spectrum for the project location (ie El Centro).
Time History Analysis- Geotechnical
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Elevated Rail Project Approx. 1 mi total length Composite Plate Girder Superstructure Hammerhead Piers 7-ft columns supported on 8-ft drilled shafts Average 120-ft long spans
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Select a single pier as an example:
Pier 51
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
From static analysis (or hand calculation, find dead load reactions at top of pier Dead load can either be converted into lumped mass or use Loads to Mass function in MIDAS
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Add dead load to top of single pier
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Defining Soil Springs: Copy offset shaft nodes by arbitrary distance in both X and Y directions. In this example dx,dy = 5.0 ft. Offset distance should be more than expected movement, but not unnecessarily long. Removed fully fixed support from bottom of drilled shaft. Make all of the offset notes boundary condition fully fixed
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Defining Soil Springs: Set general link properties (soil spring stiffness) Depending on geotechnical analysis and soil properties, spring properties may be the same or different in each direction.
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Defining Soil Springs: Set general link properties (soil spring stiffness) Depending on geotechnical analysis and soil properties, spring properties may be the same or different in each direction.
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Defining Soil Springs: Set general link properties (soil spring stiffness) Depending on geotechnical analysis and soil properties, spring properties may be the same or different in each direction.
General Link (soil spring)
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Response Spectrum Analysis: Define Response Spectrum Horizontal Function
Displacement Time History Analysis: Define TH Load Cases
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Defining TH Forcing Functions:
Each Correspond To:
Depth
Case
Axis
For Displacement
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Displacement Time History Analysis: Specify Unit Displacement at fixed end of each soil spring.
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Displacement Time History Analysis:
Define Each Varying Static Load Each Load Must Correspond with Each Function
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Time History Analysis Results:
Max Mz: 4517 ft-k
Max My: 5086 ft-k
Running Time History Analysis in MIDAS
Time History Analysis vs. Response Spectrum Analysis Summary:
Response Spectrum Time History Percentage Decrease My (ft-k) Mz (ft-k) My (ft-k) Mz (ft-k) My Mz 11646 7796 5086 4517 44% 58% In this case, appreciable decrease in drilled shaft bending moments Not always typical, depends on: Structure Type Structure Height & Length (Negligible benefit for most ordinary bridges Soil Properties Other factors
Conclusion
Time History Analysis vs. Response Spectrum Analysis Summary:
Pros: In some cases, possible reduction in steel reinforcement and possibly concrete (would require revising analysis) Could valuable in the changing environment of more frequent design-built and P3 projects. Can amount to a considerable cost savings for by reducing substructure quantities. Cons: Not applicable or insignificant for most bridge projects. Response Spectrum Analysis is adequate for most projects. Time consuming and requires significant computing power to handle the data.