VALIDATION OF SEISMIC

SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF

MELOLAND ROAD OVERCROSSING

A Project

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Civil Engineering

by

Thomas Albert Mar

SPRING
2013
 © 2013

Thomas Albert Mar

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
 VALIDATION OF SEISMIC

SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF

MELOLAND ROAD OVERCROSSING

A Project

by

Thomas Albert Mar

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Dr. Benjamin Fell

____________________________
Date

iii
Student: Thomas Albert Mar

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format

manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for

the project.

________ __________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________

Dr. Matthew Salveson Date

Department of Civil Engineering

iv
 Abstract

of

VALIDATION OF SEISMIC

SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF

MELOLAND ROAD OVERCROSSING

by

Thomas Albert Mar

The purpose of this project is to investigate the validity of seismic soil-foundation-

structure interaction analysis of a typical California highway bridge structure subjected to

near-fault ground motions.

A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model of Meloland Road

Overcrossing was developed. The model included a combination of elements including

shell elements for the bridge deck. The column and piles were modeled using frame

elements. Abutment-backfill and ground soil were simulated using nonlinear springs.

The complete bridge system was subjected to three-component recorded free-field

earthquake motions. The resulting dynamic response of the bridge model was found to

be in close agreement with motions recorded at various locations on the bridge. This

validates the practical application and methodology of this project and may be used for

evaluating the seismic response of other typical bridges.

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Dr. Benjamin Fell

____________________________
Date

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my upmost gratitude to Dr. Anoosh Shamsabadi for the

many hours he spent sharing his expertise and advising me on this project. I also feel

very grateful toward my committee members: Professor Benjamin Fell and Professor

Matthew Salveson, whose instruction and insight has prepared me for a future in

engineering. And last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their

love and encouragement that has gotten me to where I am today.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ viii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................ ix

Section

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. BRIDGE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... 2

3. SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION AND INPUT GROUND MOTIONS........................ 6

4. IDEALIZED SOIL PROFILES AND PROPERTIES ................................................... 9

5. GLOBAL BRIDGE MODELING ............................................................................. 11

5.1. Soil-Abutment-Structure Interaction ................................................................. 14

5.2. Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction............................................................... 17

5.2.1. Lateral Soil Resistance............................................................................. 18

5.2.2. Axial Soil Resistance ............................................................................... 21

5.2.3. Pile Tip Resistance .................................................................................. 23

6. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS.......................................................................... 25

4. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK............................................................................ 31

Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 32

References ..................................................................................................................... 39

vii
 LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page

1. Input motion characteristics ................................. .………………………………. 6

2. Idealized soil properties .......................................... ……………………………. 10

3. Element material properties ............. ………….…………………………………. 12

4. MRO probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation . ………….…………………. 33

5. Spectral accelerations for T=0.26 sec and scale factors ………….……………. 35

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page

1. Meloland Road Overcrossing panorama .............. .………………………………. 2

2. Elevation and plan view of MRO .............................……………………………. 3

3. MRO bent cross section .....................………….…………………………………. 4

4. Bent pile foundation layout .......................................... …………………………. 5

5. North and south abutment layout ................................. …………………………. 5

6. Locations of 29 strong motion accelerometers on MRO . ………………………. 7

7. Input motion in longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions ..... …………… 8

8. Idealized soil profile for bent piles .............................. …………………………. 9

9. Idealized soil profile for abutment piles .....................…………………………. 10

10. Representation of the soil- foundation-structure interaction system . …………. 11

11. Midas Civil bridge model ...........................................…………………………. 12

12. MRO column cross section and moment-curvature ....…………………………. 13

13. Soil-abutment force-displacement curve ................................ …………………15

14. Distributed springs to model soil-abutment interaction .. ……………………….16

15. Nonlinear springs represent interaction between soil and piles

(Shamsabadi et al. 2010) ......................................................... …………………17

16. P-y curves generated by LPile ....................................…………………………. 18

17. Lateral force-displacement curves at depths x = 0’, 4.7’, 9.4’, 14.1’, 18.8’,

23.5’ ......................................................................................................... …… 20
ix
18. Lateral force-displacement curves at depths x = 28.2’, 32.9’, 37.6’, 42.3’,

47’ ........................................................................................................ ……… 20

19. Vertical force-settlement curves at depths x = 0’, 4.7’, 9.4’, 14.1’, 18.8’,

23.5’ .................................................................................................... ………. 22

20. Vertical force-settlement curves at depths x = 28.2’, 32.9’, 37.6’, 42.3’,

47’ .................................................................................................... ………… 22

21. Tip force-settlement curve ..........................................…………………………. 24

22. Mode shape 1, T = 0.264 sec ......................................…………………………. 25

23. Mode shape 2, T = 0.259 sec ......................................…………………………. 25

24. Mode shape 3, T = 0.195 sec ......................................…………………………. 26

25. Mode shape 4, T = 0.156 sec ......................................…………………………. 26

26. Mode shape 5, T = 0.111 sec ......................................…………………………. 27

27. Mode shape 6, T = 0.103 sec ......................................…………………………. 27

28. Channel 13 displacement response .............................…………………………. 28

29. Channel 19 displacement response .............................…………………………. 28

30. Channel 27 displacement response .............................…………………………. 29

31. Channel 1 displacement response ...............................…………………………. 29

32. Channel 2 displacement response ...............................…………………………. 30

33. Channel 17 displacement response .............................…………………………. 30

34. MRO design Sa versus T ............................................…………………………. 32

35. 1979 Imperial Valley at MRO Sa versus T.................…………………………. 33

x
36. 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake motions in longitudinal, transverse,

and vertical directions .................................................…………………………. 34

37. DBE displacement response at abutment channels .....…………………………. 35

38. MCE displacement response at abutment channels ....…………………………. 36

39. Hysteretic behavior of abutment soil spring ...............…………………………. 36

40. Abutment relative displacement during MCE ............…………………………. 37

41. Column relative displacement response during MCE …………………………. 38

xi
 1

1. Introduction

Modern earthquake records with near-source characteristics, such as those of the

1994 Northridge, California, the 1995 Kobe, Japan, and the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan

earthquakes, have increased the importance of nonlinear seismic analyses employing soil-

foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) on bridge structures. It has been well recognized

from these records that SFSI plays a significant role in the global response of highway

bridges during strong seismic excitation.

This project will investigate the accuracy of a three-dimensional, nonlinear time-

history analysis employing SFSI on a typical California highway bridge structure. The

analysis will use a direct approach in which nonlinear soil foundation properties are

explicitly included in a global finite element model to account for both the geotechnical

and structural responses during a seismic event. Many bridges are supported on deep pile

foundations that penetrate multiple soil layers with varying stiffness and strength

properties. During a strong earthquake, ground motion is expected to produce excitation

along the entire pile length. The effects of depth-varying foundation properties will be

rigorously addressed by including each individual pile (with distributed soil springs along

their lengths) in the global bridge model. Recorded earthquake motions will be applied

to the model and the resulting displacement response will be compared to real earthquake

recordings from the structure to validate this analytical method.

 2

2. Bridge Description

Meloland Road Overcrossing (MRO) was chosen for this investigation due to its

relatively simple design and heavy seismic instrumentation. MRO was constructed in

1971 in Imperial County, California. It is located over Interstate 8 approximately 0.31 mi

from the Imperial Valley fault rupture. The structure is a two-span prestressed reinforced

concrete box-girder bridge supported on single column bent and integral abutments, as

shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Meloland Road Overcrossing panorama

The As Built bridge plans indicate the bridge deck to be 208 ft long and 34 ft

wide with each span measuring 104 ft, as shown in Figure 2. The depth of the deck is 5.5

ft. The height of the 5 ft diameter column is approximately 21 ft and is supported on 25

timber piles with a square concrete cap, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The
 3

monolithic abutment backwalls have a height of the approximately 13 ft. Each abutment

is supported on a single row of 7 timber piles, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 2: Elevation and plan view of MRO

 4

Figure 3: MRO bent cross section

 5

Figure 4: Bent pile foundation layout

Figure 5: North and south abutment layout

 6

3. Seismic Instrumentation and Input Ground Motions

MRO is seismically instrumented with 29 strong-motion accelerometers.

Recorded time-histories from these instruments are available for several earthquakes,

including the 7.2 magnitude 2010 Baja California earthquake. An additional 3

accelerometers are located at a free-field site 30 ft from the bridge column. The location

of the instruments that measure free-field motions (Channels 14, 15 and 24) and structure

accelerations (all other channels) are shown in Figure 6.

Displacements time histories developed from the recorded free-field accelerations

from the 2010 Baja California earthquake were used as the input motions for this project.

Each record lasts approximately 88 seconds. The strongest component of the ground

motion is in the longitudinal (N-S) direction. The acceleration time histories are shown

in Figure 7. Peak ground accelerations, velocities, and displacements of the three input

motions are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Input motion characteristics

Peak Acceleration Peak Velocity Peak Displacement

Bridge Direction
(g) (in/sec) (in)
Longitudinal (N-S) 0.21 7.15 5.22
Transverse (E-W) 0.16 6.72 4.14
Vertical 0.12 2.53 1.39
 104 104
6 17 19

8 13 7 27 3

26.5
18
30 1
4
2

(a) Eleva on View

29 22 21 18 31 28
32

34
25 23 20 16 10
30

12

Figure 6: Locations of 29 strong motion accelerometers on MRO

26 11
9 15 5
14
N 24
(b) Plan View
7
 8

0.25 (a) Longitudinal (Channel 15)

0.2
0.15
Acceleration (g)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (sec)

0.2 (b) Transverse (Channel 24)

0.15
0.1
Acceleration (g)

0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (sec)

0.15 (c) Vertical (Channel 14)

0.1
Acceleration (g)

0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (sec)

Figure 7: Input motion in longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions

 9

4. Idealized Soil Profiles and Properties

A Log of Test Boring sheet provided with the As Built bridge plans shows the

type and strength description of each layer of soil. Idealized soil profiles were developed

for this investigation to simplify calculations. The idealized soil profile at the bent is

shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Idealized soil profile for bent piles

The piles penetrate a combination of sandy and clay soil layers. The water table

is located roughly 9 ft below the ground surface. The soil parameters relevant to this

project, including effective unit weight, friction angle, and cohesion, are summarized in

Table 2.
 10

Table 2: Idealized soil properties

Soil Properties
Layer Soil Type
γ' (pcf) ϕ (deg) c (psf)
1 Sand 120 32 --
2 Sand 57.6 32 --
3 Clay 55.6 -- 1500
4 Sand 57.6 32 --
5 Clay 55.6 -- 1500
Notes: γ' = Effective Unit Weight, ϕ = Friction Angle, c = Cohesion

The pile foundations of the abutments penetrate to approximately the same depth

as those of the bent. Therefore, the soil at the abutments features a very similar profile as

shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Idealized soil profile for abutment piles

 11

5. Global Bridge Modeling

The approach for modeling MRO was to split the complete SFSI system into two

groups connected by a foundation interface. The first group included the superstructure

and column. The second group included the pile foundations and surrounding soil. The

abutment backwalls and pile cap acted as an interface for the two groups. Figure 10

represents how the complete SFSI system was modeled.

Structure

Interface

Soil Springs
Founda on & Soil

Figure 10: Representation of the soil-foundation-structure interaction system

In this direct approach for modeling, all structural components, foundation components

and soil support springs are explicitly included in the bridge model.

Midas Civil was used to build the finite element model of MRO. Figure 11 shows
 12

the complete global model with pile foundations. The bridge deck, abutment backwalls,

and pile cap were modeled using shell elements with applicable structural properties.

Frame elements were used for the column and piles. In addition, the column elements

were modified for cracked sectional properties. The typical material properties used for

this project are listed in Table 3.

Figure 11: Midas Civil bridge model

The cracked moment of inertia for the column was determined from moment-

curvature analysis. This analysis was performed using the software’s section designer.

By indicating the column’s material properties, geometry, and loading, the idealized

moment-curvature was calculated as shown in Figure 12.

Table 3: Element material properties

Material Properties
Material Bridge Components Unit Weight Modulus of Elasticty Yeild Strength
(pcf) (ksi) (ksi)
Deck, Backwalls,
Concrete 150 3645 5
Column, Pile Cap
Timber Piles 50 1500 1.25
 13

MRO Column Moment-Curvature

140000

(Φy , M p)
120000

100000
Moment (kip-in)

80000

Actual
60000
Idealized

40000

20000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Curvature (rad/in)

Figure 12: MRO column cross section and moment-curvature

Plastic Moment, Mp , was calculated to be 114311 kip-in. The idealized yield

curvature, Φy , was calculated to be 0.00009 rad/in. The cracked moment of inertia, Icr,

was then solved for using the following relationship:

The cracked moment of inertia was roughly half of the gross moment of inertia.

Therefore, a section modifier of 0.5 was used for the moment of inertia in each direction

of the column.
 14

5.1. Soil-Abutment-Structure Interaction

The interaction between the bridge deck, abutment wall and embankment soil has

a hyperbolic relationship that has been experimentally observed and verified with finite

element analysis. However, including abutment backfills in a global bridge model would

be laborious and computationally expensive. As such, Shamsabadi, Khalili-Tehrani,

Stewart, and Taciroglu (2010) proposed the use of a simplified relationship between the

lateral load per unit with of abutment backwall, F, and the lateral displacement, y. The

proposed Hyperbolic Force Displacement (HFD) relationship is given by:

( )

where Fult is the maximum abutment force per unit width of backwall developed at

displacement ymax . K50 is the average abutment stiffness at half the maximum abutment

force.

The dynamic soil-abutment-structure interaction in the direction perpendicular to

the abutment wall was modeled using a nonlinear, inelastic spring. The spring represents

the near-field load-deformation behavior at the longitudinal abutment-embankment soil

interface. To develop the backbone curve of the spring, the following simplified HFD

relationship proposed by Shamsabadi et al. (2010) was used:

 15

H is the height of the backwall in feet and y is the lateral displacement in inches.

Given an abutment height of 13 ft and width of 34 ft, the backbone curve for the

nonlinear spring is shown in Figure 13.

Soil-Abutment Interaction
4500

4000

3500
Lateral Force (kip)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (in)

Figure 13: S oil-abutment force-displacement curve

For modeling purposes, the nonlinear spring representing the abutment-soil

interaction was divided into 16 smaller springs in parallel and uniformly applied across

the abutment face as shown in Figure 14. Each spring was also connected to a

completely fixed ground node. It should be noted that these springs only work in

compression and do not provide support in tension.

 16

Figure 14: Distributed springs to model soil-abutment interaction

For skewed bridges a uniformly distributed pattern of springs may not accurately

represent the soil-abutment interaction. However, because MRO is straight, the

abutments are expected to “purely push” into the embankment soil during an earthquake,

therefore making the model sufficient.

 17

5.2. Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction

The interaction between pile foundations and their surrounding soil has three-

dimensional complexity. Nonlinear, inelastic springs along the length of the piles were

used to represent this interaction. Figure 15 shows how support springs are used for

corresponding pile reactions. Three soil reactions were approximated for this project

with the use of support springs: lateral, axial and tip resistance. Due to the geometry of

the bridge structure, significant twisting of the column and foundations was not expected.

Thus, torsional resistance springs were neglected for brevity.

Figure 15: Nonlinear springs represent interaction between soil and pi les (S hamsabadi et al. 2010)

The following three sections discuss the development of the nonlinear springs that model

the soil-foundation-structure interaction of MRO.

 18

5.2.1. Lateral Soil Resistance

Using the computer program Ensoft LPile, lateral pile-soil support curves (called

p-y curves) were generated using the parameters given in Table 2 and depths shown in

Figure 8. LPile utilizes the following equation to develop a backbone curve that

represents the relationship between lateral soil resistance and lateral deflection:

( )

{( )

For the bent piles, p-y curves were calculated at 11 depths at equal increments of

4.7 ft from pile top to the pile tip at 47 ft, shown in Figure 16.

P-y Curves
14000
Soil Resistance, p (lbs/in)

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Lateral Deformation, y (in)
0 ft 4.7 ft 28.2 ft 32.9 ft 37.6 ft 9.4 ft, 14.1 ft, 18.8 ft, 23.5 ft, 42.3 ft, 47 ft

Figure 16: P-y curves generated by LPile

 19

Soil resistance of sand is dependent on the overburden pressure due to the weight

of overlying material. Hence, the p-y curves corresponding to nodal depths in sand layers

increase with depth. Soil resistance of clay, on the other hand, is more heavily

dependent on its cohesions. The p-y curves corresponding to nodes in clay layers are

therefore the same because they are calculated using the same cohesion factor for this

project. This trend will be visible in the subsequent figures.

In order to implement the p-y curves as soil springs for the finite element model,

the data must be converted from resistance-displacement to force-displacement. This is

done by simply multiplying the resistance values by the tributary pile length of each

node. The resulting curve is then mirrored about its axes so that the spring will behave

the same in tension and compression. The resulting force-displacement curves are shown

in Figure 17 and Figure 18.

 20

Lateral Soil-Pile Interaction

200

150

100
Lateral Force, F (kip)

50

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-50

-100

-150

-200
Lateral Deflection, Y (in)
0 ft 4.7 ft 9.4 ft, 14.1 ft, 18.8 ft, 23.5 ft

Figure 17: Lateral force-displacement curves at depths x = 0’, 4.7’, 9.4’, 14.1’, 18.8’, 23.5’

Lateral Soil-Pile Interaction

800

600

400
Lateral Force, F (kip)

200

0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-200

-400

-600

-800
Lateral Deflection, Y (in)
28.2 ft 32.9 ft 37.6 ft 42.3 ft 47 ft

Figure 18: Lateral force-displacement curves at depths x = 28.2’, 32.9’, 37.6’, 42.3’, 47’
 21

5.2.2. Axial Soil Resistance

Axial skin resistance support curves (called t-z curves) were developed using

hyperbolic functions similar to the HFD model. The following function fits the trend

observed in experimental data for cohesionless soil:

And for cohesive soil:

Here, S is the pile settlement ratio and Q is the side load transfer ratio where

( )

The resulting t-z curves using the properties of Table 2 were multiplied by the tributary

surface area of each corresponding node to produce the force-settlement curves shown in

Figure 19 and Figure 20. Theses curves were used for the vertical soil springs in the

finite element model.

 22

Vertical Soil-Pile Interaction

25
20
15
10
Side Force, F (kip)

5
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-10
-15
-20
-25
Settlment, Z (in)
0 ft 4.7 ft 9.4 ft, 14.1 ft, 18.8 ft, 23.5 ft

Figure 19: Vertical force-settlement curves at depths x = 0’, 4.7’, 9.4’, 14.1’, 18.8’, 23.5’

Vertical Soil-Pile Interaction

40

30

20

10
Side Force, F (kip)

0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-10

-20

-30

-40
Settlement, Z (in)

28.2 ft 32.9 ft 37.6 ft 42.3 ft 47 ft

Figure 20: Vertical force-settlement curves at depths x = 28.2’, 32.9’, 37.6’, 42.3’, 47’
 23

5.2.3. Pile Tip Resistance

Finally, a tip resistance curve (called a q-w curve) for the piles was developed.

The q-w curve was also developed using a hyperbolic function developed from empirical

data. Since the pile tip is embedded in a clay soil layer, the following equation was

calibrated for cohesive soils:

S is now the Base Settlement Ratio and Q is the End Bearing ratio where

The End Bearing Factor, N c, of Equation 14 is approximately 9 for cohesive soils

provided the pile has been driven at least 5 times the diameter of the pile into the strata.

Therefore, the Ultimate end bearing for the piles, given the cohesion in Table 2, is 13500

psf. The End Bearing values are multiplied by the area of the tip resulting in the tip

force-settlement curve shown in Figure 21.

 24

Tip Force-Settlement Curve

30

20

10
Tip Force (kip)

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

-10

-20

-30
Settlement (in)

Figure 21: Tip force-settlement curve

Since each pile penetrates to approximately the same depth and same soil, one q-

w curve was adequate for each pile. Furthermore, all of the support springs developed

for the bent piles were also used for the abutment piles at the appropriate depths.

Although the bent piles have a slightly different soil profile, this simplification was

considered acceptable when dealing with idealized soil.

 25

6. Dynamic Analysis Results

The mode shape shown in Figure 22 displays the primary vertical mode. This

mode has a period of 0.264 seconds. Subsequent mode shapes are shown in Figures 23 to

27, with Figure 23 showing the primary transverse mode and Figure 27 showing the

primary longitudinal mode.

Figure 22: Mode shape 1, T = 0.264 sec

Figure 23: Mode shape 2, T = 0.259 sec

 26

Figure 24: Mode shape 3, T = 0.195 sec

Figure 25: Mode shape 4, T = 0.156 sec

 27

Figure 26: Mode shape 5, T = 0.111 sec

Figure 27: Mode shape 6, T = 0.103 sec

The earthquake motions were applied to the completed bridge model. Figures 28

through 33 show comparisons of the calculated displacement responses with the

instrument-recorded responses for major points on the bridge. The results of the model

match the records very well at each location. The small discrepancies are most likely due

to the idealization of the model, but are insignificant to the global response. Further

investigation into the behavior of the bridge model with design basis earthquake and
 28

maximum credible earthquake level input motions can be found in the appendix section.

Channel 13 - Transverse
5
4
3
2
Displacement (in)

1
0
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-1
-2
-3
Recorded CH 13
-4
MIDAS Model
-5
Time (sec)

Figure 28: Channel 13 displacement response

Channel 19 - Vertical
2

1.5

1
Displacement (in)

0.5

0
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-0.5

-1
Recorded CH 19
-1.5
MIDAS Model
-2
Time (sec)

Figure 29: Channel 19 displacement response

 29

Channel 27 - Longitudinal
8

4
Displacement (in)

0
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-2

-4
Recorded CH 27
-6
MIDAS Model
-8
Time (sec)

Figure 30: Channel 27 displacement response

Channel 1 - Vertical
2

1.5

1
Displacement (in)

0.5

0
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-0.5

-1
Recorded CH 1
-1.5
MIDAS Model
-2
Time (sec)

Figure 31: Channel 1 displacement response

 30

Channel 2 - Transverse
5
4
3
2
Displacement (in)

1
0
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-1
-2
-3
Recorded CH 2
-4
MIDAS Model
-5
Time (sec)

Figure 32: Channel 2 displacement response

Channel 17 - Vertical
2

1.5

1
Displacement (in)

0.5

0
-10 10 30 50 70 90
-0.5

-1
Recorded CH 17
-1.5
MIDAS Model
-2
Time (sec)

Figure 33: Channel 17 displacement response

 31

7. Conclusion and Outlook

A global, three-dimensional finite-element structural model of Meloland Road

Overcrossing, which is seismically instrumented, was developed to investigate the

validity of soil-foundation-structure interaction analysis. The displacement response of

the finite element model given an actual earthquake excitation was in very close

agreement with recorded displacements. This remarkable match achieved between the

model and recorded motions is due to the additional steps taken to realistically estimate

passive soil capacities of the abutments and foundation. The results suggest that

employing SFSI is an effective technique in achieving accurate seismic analyses. The

methodology and procedures performed in this project may be applicable to any ordinary

highway bridge structure.

While detailed structural bridge models consisting of complete SFSI systems can

be used in high profile projects where plenty of resources are available, this kind of

bridge model becomes economically impractical for many ordinary bridges where

resources are limited. An alternate SFSI sub-structuring technique, in which foundation

and soil capacities are kinematically condensed into a single support, can reduce

computational requirements and provide reasonably accurate results.

 32

Appendix

The MRO finite element model was exercised with stronger ground motions to

further investigate its behavior. Two additional three-component sets of ground motions

were implemented into the model including a design basis earthquake (DBE) level set

and a maximum credible earthquake (MCE) level set. The acceleration spectra assuming

5% damping are shown in Figure 34.

MRO Spectral Acceleration

5% Damping
2.5

2
Design Spectrum
1.5
Sa (g)

MCE Spectrum
1

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
T (sec)

Figure 34: MRO design S a versus T

The design and MCE spectra were calculated based on the bridge’s location at 32.773°

latitude and -115.448° longitude. The spectra were also calibrated for a Site Class D soil.

Probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation was performed in order to determine

the location’s average hazard. Given the bridge’s location, spectral acceleration period of

0.26 sec, and an average shear wave velocity of 630 ft/sec in the first 100 ft of soil, the
 33

mean magnitude, M, and mean site-to-source, R, for a DBE and MCE are shown in Table

4.

Table 4: MRO probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation

Mean Return Mean Site-

Mean
Event Level Time To-Source
Magnitude
(yrs) (mi)
DBE 475 6.76 1.93
MCE 2475 6.8 1.18

Ground motions were selected from the PEER Ground Motion Database that

closest matched the parameters developed from deaggregation. Probably not

coincidentally, the motions chosen were from MRO during the 1979 Imperial Valley

earthquake. The acceleration spectra of the three-component motions are shown in

Figure 35. The three-component recorded motions are shown in Figure 36.

1979 Imperial Valley-06

EC Meloland Overpass FF
1

0.1
Sa (g)

0.01

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
T (sec)

Fault Normal Fault Parallel Vertical

Figure 35: 1979 Imperial Valley at MRO S a versus T

 34

0.3 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY, EC MELOLAND OVERP FF, 000

0.2

0.1
Acceleration (g)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Time (sec)

0.4 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY, EC MELOLAND OVERP FF, 270

0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g)

0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
Time (sec)

0.3 1979 IMPERIAL VALLEY, EC MELOLAND OVERP FF, UP

0.2
Acceleration (g)

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Time (sec)

Figure 36: 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake motions in longitudinal, transverse, and vertical directions
 35

The maximum spectral acceleration for a period of 0.26 sec is 0.56g. Therefore,

the three-component motions were scaled up to reach DBE and MCE levels. Scale

factors of 2.4 to reach a Sa of 1.35g and 3.6 to reach a Sa of 2.03g were used for DBE

and MCE respectively.

Table 5: S pectral accelerations for T=0.26 sec and scale factors

1979 Imperial
DBE MCE
Valley
Sa (g) 0.56 1.35 2.03
SF -- 2.4 3.6

The scaled recorded motions were implemented into the model. The

displacement response at the abutments for the DBE is shown in Figure 37 and for the

MCE in Figure 38.

40 DBE Time-History Response

30

20
Displacement (in)

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-10
CH 27
-20
CH 19
-30
CH 13
-40
Time (sec)

Figure 37: DBE displacement response at abutment channels

 36

50 MCE Time-History Response

40
30
20
Displacement (in)

10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-10
-20 CH 13
-30
CH 19
-40
CH 27
-50
Time (sec)

Figure 38: MCE displacement response at abutment channels

From Figures 37 and 38, it appears the global system does not undergo significant

inelastic deformations. That is not to say there are none, but they are very minor as

shown in Figure 39.

Abutment Spring Force-Displacement

200
180
160
140
Force (kip)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15
Displacement (in)

Figure 39: Hysteretic behavior of abutment soil spring

 37

To get a better understanding of the bridge response, its relative displacement

during the MCE was plotted, as shown in Figure 40.

2 MRO Relative Displacement

1.5

1
Displacement (in)

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.5
CH 13
-1 CH 19

-1.5 CH 27
Time(sec)

Figure 40: Abutment relative displacement during MCE

It is clear that there is very little relative displacement of the bridge during the

earthquake. Therefore, large inelastic deformations would not be expected. This is a

characteristic of many bridges with integral abutments. With this configuration, the

bridge is essentially fixed to the surrounding soil. Therefore, during a seismic event, the

bridge will move along with the surrounding soil. This is further illustrated by plotting

the relative displacement at the top and bottom of the column during the MCE.
 38

1.5 Column Relative Displacement Response

1
Displacment (in)

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.5

Top
-1
Bottom
-1.5
Time (sec)

Figure 41: Column relative displacement response during MCE

It can be seen in Figure 41 that the bottom of the column basically moves with the

ground. Although the top of the column does have noticeable relative displacement, it is

very small compared to the global system.

 39

References

ASCE (2005). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Standards

ASCE/SEI 7-05. ASCE, Washington D.C.

Caltrans (1968). As-Built Drawings, Meloland Road Overcrossing. California

Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

Caltrans (2010). Seismic Design Criteria (v1.6). California Department of

Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

CSMIP (2013). California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/smip.

Ensoft (2013). LPile: A Program for the Analysis of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under

Lateral Loads (v6.0). Ensoft, Inc. (www.ensoftinc.com)

MIDASoft (2013). Midas Civil: Integrated Solution System for Bridge and Civil

Engineering. MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd. (www.midasuser.com)

PEER (2010). PEER Ground Motion Database (Beta). Pacific Earthquake Engineering

Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

(http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database)

Reese, L., Isenhower, W., Wang, S.T. (2006). Analysis and design of shallow and deep

foundations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Shamsabadi, A., Khalili-Tehrani, P., Stewart, J.P. and Taciroglu, E. (2010). Validated

simulation models for lateral response of bridge abutments with typical backfills.

Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, 15(3), 302-311.

 40

USGS (2008). 2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta). U.S. Geological Survey.

(http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/)