Section Applied and Environmental Geophysics

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGE DURING

CONSTRUCTION BY CANTILEVER METHOD

Lecturer. Dr. Eng. Corina Chiotan1

Assist.Prof., Eng. Dumitru Daniel Morlova1
1
Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest, Romania

ABSTRACT
Romania is an active country from a seismic point of view, every year occurring around
250 earthquakes, many of these of a medium to strong level. This is one of the reasons
why the seismic design of bridges is very important in Romania. The seismic provisions
applied in Romania evolved from P100 - 92 to P100 - 2013, containing major changes
regarding the ground acceleration and corner period, but also regarding the structural
details.
The cantilever method for prestressed concrete bridges has obvious benefits for the wide
and deep valleys found in the hills and this construction method was used for many
years. According to this construction method, a symmetrical state of strains in the
structure is very important. An earthquake occurring during construction may cause
accidents.
This paper presents the main characteristics of earthquakes in Romania and the
modeling of the seismic actions according to design rules in force valid in Romania.
The case study presents the dynamic analysis during construction of a prestressed
concrete bridge done using the cantilever method, considering on one hand the design
spectrum and the accelerograms on the other. Comparative results obtained by the two
methods will be presented.
Keywords: bridge, cantilever method, earthquake, design spectra, accelerograms.

INTRODUCTION
An important progress in the domain of bridge construction followed the cantilever
execution method implementation. This procedure allowed the building of bridges of
more than 200 m spans on continuous beam of frames. The scaffoldings removal allows
this method to be recommended for crossing long and high-depth valleys and
maintaining clearance during the entire execution period.
Structures built by this method are highly sensitive to the actions which occur during
execution, accidental actions and possible earthquakes, because the principle of this
method is based on the symmetry of the structure.
BRIEF PRESENTATION OF ROMANIAN SEISMIC DESIGN NORMS
Because of the seismic events recorded, a national standard for the design of structures
for seismic action was needed. Thus, in 1992 the normative P100 for the design of
structures for seismic action was produced. Next, in 2006 and last time in 2013 this
normative was revised and improved [1].

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017/14 111
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

The application of Eurocode 1998 is based on the characteristics of Romanian

earthquakes, presented in P 100-2013 normative. Next, a brief presentation of the
provisions in the normative P100-1/2013 will be done. The presentation will be focused
on the main theoretical parameters defining the magnitude of the seismic force induced
in the structure.
The basic parameters which are describing a site from the seismic point of view are the
peak ground acceleration ag and the corner period TC. The value of ag shows the level of
the seismic hazard, while TC describes the local ground conditions. These two
parameters were established for the value of the medium interval of recurrence (MRI) of
225 years, in concordance with P100-1/2013 [2]. This value corresponds to a probability
exceeding 20% in 50 years.
The Romanian territory was divided in seismic zones depending on the level of the
seismic hazard. The ag values for the different areas of Romania vary between 0,10g and
0,40g. According to P100-1/2013, the values of the corner period of the elastic response
spectrum, TC vary between 0,7s and 1,6s.
Next, the way of determining the functions of the normalized elastic (β(T)) and design
(Sd(T)) response spectra are presented. The values of the functions defining all
normalized elastic response spectra were established for the value of the 5% fractile of
critical damping (ξ=0.05).
According to [1] the function for the elastic response spectrum (β(T)) is:
(  0  1)
 (T )  1  T for 0  T  TB (1)
TB
 (T )   0 for TB  T  TC (2)
TC
 (T )   0 for TC  T  TD (3)
T
TC TD
 (T )   0 for T  TD (4)
T2
Where:
- β0 is the maximum value of the structure’s dynamic amplification factor of the
horizontal acceleration of the ground on the site, β0 = 2.50;
- T is the vibration period of the structure;
- TB and TC are the limit values of the period domain in which the spectral
acceleration has maximum values and is simplified by a constant value plateau.
- TD represents the limit between the maximum values zone in the relative velocity
spectrum and the maximum values zone in the relative displacement spectrum.
Based on these normalized elastic response spectra, the values of the functions
describing the design response spectra can be determined using the relationships (5) and
(6) according to P100-1/2013.

112
 Section Applied and Environmental Geophysics

 0 
 1 
q
S d (T )  a g  1  T  for 0  T  TB (5)
 TB 
 
 
 (T )
Sd (T )  ag  for T  TB (6)
q
Where:
- q is the behavior factor or a factor for changing the structural response from elastic
to inelastic domain. For bridges q is usually limited to 1.0.
In the case of a non linear time-history analysis, artificial or recorded accelerograms
corresponding to the location should be used [3].
Artificial accelerograms are generated based on the acceleration’s elastic response
spectrum of the location Se(T). The artificial accelerogram’s elastic response spectrum
should be close to the elastic response spectrum of the location’s studied absolute
accelerations. Thus, based on the location’s absolute acceleration elastic response
spectrum, Se(T), a set of artificial accelerograms are generated and must fulfill the
following conditions:
- Generate at least 3 accelerograms;
- The average of the peak values of the generated accelerogram’s accelerations should
be larger than the studied location’s ag value;
- The value of the medium spectrum averaged from the absolute acceleration’s elastic
response spectrum coordinates corresponding to all generated artificial
accelerograms should not be smaller than 90% of the value corresponding to de
location’s elastic response spectrum Se(T), for the domain of periods between 0,2T1
and 2T1, where T1 is the fundamental vibration period of the structure.
In the case of non linear dynamic time-history analysis, at least 7 accelerograms should
be used. The verification of the displacements, deflections, stresses, etc. will be done
based on the average of the corresponding response values. Unless 7 accelerograms are
used for the dynamic action Ed the most unfavorable one should be considered.
CASE STUDY
The case study presents the dynamic analysis during construction of a prestressed
concrete bridge done using the cantilever method, considering on one hand the design
spectrum and the generated accelerograms on the other. Comparative results obtained
by the two methods will be presented.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
The bridge is located on National Road DN56 in Podari, Dolj county, and crosses the
Jiu River. The structure is a frame, having 5 spans: 45.00m + 3x60.00m + 45.00m. The
total length of the bridge is 287.00m.
The bridge’s deck is made of a prestressed concrete cassette which has a width of 5.80m
and a variable height between 2.00m in the middle of the spans and 3.70m in the piles’
zone [4].

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017/14 113
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

The cassette's walls have a width of 35 cm, the thickness of the superior slab is 25 cm
and the thickness of the inferior slab varies between 25 and 45 cm. The width of the
carriageway is 7.80m and the sidewalks are of 1.50m width each (figure 1).

Figure 1. Cross section of the bridge [4] Figure 2. Cross section of the
prefabricated bridge section
The bridge was executed using the cantilever method, starting with the base section
from the superior part of the piles casted in situ, of 9.52 m length. The other segments
have a length of 3.00m and were prefabricated. The superstructure was made of
prestressed C40 / 50 concrete.
The site location’s ag value is 0.20g and the corner period TC is 1,0s.
FINITE ELEMENT MODELS AND PERFORMED ANALYSES
In order to perform the necessary dynamic analyses, a finite element model was built.
Having as target running multiple nonlinear time-history analysis, using as input many
simulated accelerograms, a simple finite element model was selected (figure 3). Beam
elements with variable transversal section were used in order to model the deck. For the
infrastructure a rectangular cross section 5.15m x 1.50m was used. The pier was fully
fixed at its base.

Figure 3. Finite elements model used for the analyses

114
 Section Applied and Environmental Geophysics

The seismic calculation was done using two methods (both of them are in accordance to
the SREN 1998-2-2006 provisions): the response spectrum method (the value of the
design peak ground acceleration ag and of the corner period TC respectively were
established according to the norm P100-1/2013) and the time-history analysis ( based on
7 artificially generated accelerograms, compatible with the design spectrum).
0,3
0,2
Acceleration [g]

0,1
0
-0,1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

-0,2
-0,3
Time [s]

Figure 4. Example of an artificial accelerogram used in the study

In figure 5, the average of the 7 accelerograms (medium response spectrum) and the
design spectrum are represented, the difference between them being maximum 8.78%,
fulfilling the provisions of [3].
0,6

0,5
Acceleration [g]

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
T [s]

Design response spectrum Medium design response spectrum

Figure 5. Compatibility between medium design response spectrum and the design
response spectrum
Being in a transitory design situation, a coefficient for seismic action during
construction was calculated according to SREN 1998-2-2006, based on the following
relations:
tc 3
TRc    60 years (7)
p 0.05

- recurrence interval during construction;

– construction period, 3 years;
p – probability of exceeding the seismic event, 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017/14 115
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

k
 T 
0.3
a gc  60 
  Rc      0.673 (8)
a g ,R  TNCR   225 

- value of the design ground acceleration which corresponds to the recurrence

period
- maximum reference ground acceleration which corresponds to the recurrence
period
TNCR – reference recurrence period, 225 years
k – coefficient which depends on the region seismicity, 0.30
The results obtained from the two dynamic analysis methods, spectral and time-history
are presented. The bending moment and shear force from the base of the pile were
considered, as well as the displacements of the ends of the cantilevers (point 1) and the
displacements of the intersection point between the axis of the pile and the axis of the
deck (point 2).
The maximum values of the results obtained from the two dynamic analysis types are
presented in table 1.
Table 1. Maximum values of the cross section stresses and of the displacements
Time history analysis
Spectral
Max. Med.
analysis Acc. 1 Acc. 2 Acc. 3 Acc. 4 Acc. 5 Acc. 6 Acc. 7
acc. acc.
M [kNm] 16368 15042 18506 17633 16715 17928 15660 18719 18719 16002
T [kN] 3086 3102 3434 2757 2595 3720 2897 3070 3720 2859
Dx-1 [mm] 43 39 48 46 42 42 38 44 48 40
Dz-1 [mm] 161 140 168 158 165 155 145 176 176 148
Dx-2 [mm] 43 39 48 46 42 41. 38 44 48 40
Dz-2 [mm] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The following figures show the variation of the cross section forces from the base of the
pile and the displacements of points 1 and 2 during earthquake, taking into
consideration one of the generated accelerograms.
15000
Bemding moment [kNxm]

10000

5000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-5000

-10000

-15000
Time [s]

Figure 6. Bending moment variation during earthquake for the 1st accelerogram

116
 Section Applied and Environmental Geophysics

3500
3000
2500
2000
Shear force [kN]

1500
1000
500
0
-500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
Time [s]

Figure 7. Shear force variation during earthquake for the 1st accelerogram
150

100
Displacement[mm]

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-50

-100

-150
Time [s]
DZ1 DX1
Figure 8. Displacement of point 1 during earthquake for the 1st accelerogram
40

30
Displacement [mm]

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-10

-20

-30

-40
Time [s]

Figure 9. Horizontal displacement of point 2 during earthquake for the 1st accelerogram

CONCLUSION
The paper compares two types of dynamic analysis of the structures, the spectral
analysis and the time history analysis. The elements for the spectral analysis are
standardized for the entire territory of Romania. The time-history analysis is more
specific to a certain location and allows the designer to test the behavior of the structure
in a wider range of situations. Not having measured accelerograms in all the points of
country, simulated accelerograms may fulfill this goal. For this, the simulated
accelerograms have to match the standardized spectra.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017/14 117
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

The comparison of the two methods was done for a bridge constructed by the cantilever
method in the most unfavorable situation, when the cantilever has the maximum length.
Comparing the two methods, the following elements can be observed:
- Using accelerograms, the maximum values of the stress are higher than using
spectral analysis as follows: 14% for the bending moments, 21 % for the shear force,
12-13% for horizontal displacements and 10% for the vertical displacements.
- The values obtained for the average accelerogram based on the seven
accelerograms, are lower for the time history analysis than for the spectral analysis
as follows: 2% for the bending moment at the base of the pile, 8% for the shear
force and 7-8% for the displacements of the deck
The norms in force recommend using the average stress in the case of time history
analysis with more than seven simulated accelerograms. These are lower than the ones
from the spectral analysis, leading to a more economic design. If it can be done in a
timely manner, the time history analysis is recommended.

REFERENCES
[1] Racanel I.R., Mutu C.S., Influence of seismic code updates on the dynamic response
of existing bridges in Romania, Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience
of Bridges and Bridge Networks, Proceedings of the eighth International Conference on
Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS 2016), Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil,
pp. 2091-2098, 2016;
[2] M.D.R.A.P., P100-1/2013, Seismic design code. Part 1 – Design rules for buildings,
Romania, 2013;
[3] A.S.R.O., SR EN 1998-2. Eurocode 8. Design of Structures for Earthquake
Resistance. Part.2: Bridges, Bucharest, Romania, 2006;

[4] Veleanu P., Dumitrescu T., Structures artworks for roads, Inedit Publishing House,
România, 1998

118
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.