THE P-DELTA AND SOILSTRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON BRIDGE PIERS.

by Toun L Wu B.S., Southern Illinois University, 2008

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree

Department of Civil Engineering in the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale August 2010

UMI Number: 1482679

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 1482679 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

THESIS APPROVAL THE P-DELTA AND SOILSTRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON BRIDGE PIERS.

By Toun Loin Wu

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science in the field of Civil Engineering

Approved by: Dr. J. Kent Hsiao, Chair Dr. Aslam Kassimali Dr. Sanjeev Kumar

Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale May 10, 2010

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF TOUN LOIN WU, for the Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering, presented on the 10th of May, 2010, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. TITLE: THE P-DELTA AND SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON BRIDGE PIERS. MAJOR PROFESSOR: DR. J. Kent Hsiao

The purpose of this study is to investigate the P-Delta effect on bridge piers with consideration of soil-structure interaction effect. The traditional P-Delta effect was calculated assuming the base of the structure is fully fixed. However, all structures in real life are supported by soil, and soil is deformable. Therefore, under wind or earthquake loads, the additional lateral deflection of a bridge pier caused by the deformation of the soil, which supports the pier, should be considered. The traditional method regarding the computation of the deflection of a pier caused by wind or earthquake loads does not take soil-structure interaction effects into account. In this study finite element analysis method will be used to investigate the additional overturning moment introduced by the soilstructure interaction effect.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kent Hsiao, for his guidance and support throughout my undergraduate and graduate career. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Kumar and Dr. Kassimali for their support. I am grateful to all the faculty and staff in the Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering who taught me everything I need to know and helped me to become a good engineer. I wish to thank my colleagues and friends who have helped me in my undergraduate and graduate career here at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Finally, I would like to thank my family for the love and support they have given me at every step of the way!

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... vi

CHAPTERS CHAPTER 1 Introduction .................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 Finite Element Methods ................................................. 4 Section 2.1 Soil Pressure Bulb Verification ................................ 4 Section 2.2 Immediate settlements Verification ......................... 5 CHAPTER 3 P-Delta Effect Verification ............................................ 11 CHAPTER 4 Finite Element Model Development ............................. 17 Section 4.1 Introduction ............................................................. 17 Section 4.2 Dimensions ............................................................. 17 Section 4.3 Material Properties .................................................. 19 Section 4.4 Loads ...................................................................... 20 Section 4.5 Boundary Conditions ............................................... 21 Section 4.6 Finite Element Models for the Pier .......................... 21 Section 4.7 Results .................................................................... 26 CHAPTER 5 Discussions.................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 6 Conclusion ................................................................... 38 iii

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 39 VITA ............................................................................................................. 41

iv

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE

Table 2.1 Finite Element Model 2B Dimensions ............................................... 6 Table 4.3.1 Materials Properties for Finite Element Models .......................... 20 Table 4.4.1 Applied Loads for Finite Element Models .................................... 21 Table 4.7.1 Maximum Lateral Displacements at Each step for Model D ....... 27 Table 5.1 Comparison of Maximum Lateral Displacements .......................... 35

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE

Figure 2.1 SYY Stresses of Model 2A ............................................................. 8 Figure 2.2 Three Dimension View of Finite Element Model 2B......................... 9 Figure 2.3 Maximum Y-Displacement of Model 2B......................................... 10 Figure 3.1 Three Dimensional View of Model 3A & B3B ................................ 14 Figure 3.2 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 3A ................................ 15 Figure 3.3 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 3B ................................ 16 Figure 4.1 Section View of Design Example No.6 Bridge Pier Details ........... 18 Figure 4.2 Footing Dimensions used for Finite Element Models..................... 19 Figure 4.6.1 Finite Element Model for Piers ................................................... 22 Figure 4.6.2 Three Dimensional View of Finite Element Model 4A ................ 23 Figure 4.6.3 Three Dimensional View of Finite Element Model 4B ................. 24 Figure 4.6.4 Side View of Finite Element Model 4C ....................................... 25 Figure 4.6.5 Three Dimensional View of Finite Element Model of 4C............. 26 Figure 4.7.1 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4A ............................. 28 Figure 4.7.2 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4B ............................. 29 Figure 4.7.3 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4C ............................. 30 Figure 4.7.4 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4C at the Footing ...... 31 Figure 4.7.5 Model C: Time vs. Maximum Lateral Displacement.................... 32 Figure 4.7.6 Model C: Maximum Lateral Displacements vs. Loads ................ 33 Figure 4.7.7 Deformed Geometry of Model C ................................................ 34

vi

1 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The P-Delta effect occurs when a structure, acted upon by a lateral load, becomes laterally displaced, and the applied vertical loads become eccentric, with respect to the bases (Lindeburg & Baradar, (2000)). This results in additional forces, moments and increased lateral displacements. The P-Delta effect tends to reduce the overall stiffness and strength of a building and could result in the collapse of the structure. Therefore it is important to study the effects. This effect can occur on any structure, especially tall structures or structures subject to large lateral loads. Highway bridges are one type of structure in which the P-Delta effect may have significant impact, due to heavy traffic loads, wind or earthquakes. There are a number of methods can be used to calculate P-Delta effect. Four different analytical methods were commonly used to calculate the P-Delta effects (Dobson 2002). The pseudo load method, pseudo displacement method, the two cycle iterative method, and non-linear static analysis. The first three methods do not take stress stiffening into account for the P-delta effect calculations. The non-linear static analysis method is a method carried out in an incremental step by step analysis with total applied loads divided into a number of load steps. The non-linear static analysis allows for all sorts of non-linear

2 conditions to be accounted for simultaneously, including stress stiffening. Therefore non-linear static analysis was used in this study. In practice, P-delta effect can be calculated by using hand calculations with the assumption that the column is fully fixed at the base. Earlier studies (Poston 1986, Main 2004, and Ger & Yen 2004) also used the same approach by assuming the columns to be fully fixed at the base when studying the lateral displacements of bridges and bridge piers. In bridge design, engineers also use the same procedure for the calculation the P-Delta effect. In reality, bridge piers are connected to a footing while the footing is supported by soil. In fact, concrete footing and soil are both deformable materials. When the materials start to deform, the overall displacement of the structure will also increase. Therefore the traditional equation used to calculate this displacement could be insufficient. The results of this study would also determine whether the soil-structure interaction effect needs to be considered in P-Delta effect calculations. The traditional method for calculate P-Delta effect can only be used when the moment of inertia of the structural element is a constant. In cases where the moment of inertia of a structural element is not a constant, the traditional equation would require excessive time to calculate. Due to this excessive time requirement, a finite element program was used in this study to construct an analysis. Finite element modeling has been proven to be an accurate modeling of bridge structures according to Huang & Zhu 2008 recent study on Finite element model updating of Bridge structures based on sensitivity Analysis and optimization Algorithm. In their study the authors used field data to compare the

3 results obtained from finite element model. The finite element model has been proven to model bridge structure accurately. Within Huang & Zhus study there were some assumptions made in establishing the models, such as neglecting the dynamic interaction of soil-structure, not considering P-Delta effects and nonlinear material behavior. In this study, the main focus was to take into account the different key factors that other studies (Poston 1986, Main 2004, Ger & Yen 2004, and Huang & Zhu 2008) had neglected, such as soil-structure interaction, P-Delta effect and non-linear material behavior. Therefore, three models were constructed to investigate the actual displacement due to P-delta and soil-structure interaction effects. The first model was subjected to lateral load only while the second model takes into account the P-Delta effect. The last model takes into account both P-Delta and soil-structure interaction effects. Non-linear analysis was used to analyze all three models. In addition, two simple models were created throughout this study to ensure the finite element program could be used to calculate the P-Delta and soil structure interaction effect accurately. Two mathematical equations were used to verify the results obtained from the simple models.

4 CHAPTER 2

FINITE ELEMENT METHODS

2.1 Soil Pressure Verification

All structures are supported by some sort of soil or rock, therefore soil has a significant influence on the performance of a structure. This study focuses on how soil affects the lateral displacement of bridge piers due to lateral and vertical loads. In order to study the soil-structure interaction effect soil behavior must be understood. In this study, finite element program NISA (1999) has been used to study the soil-structure interaction. The stress distributions for soil under dead and live loads have been well studied for years, so charts have been developed describing how stress is distributed at different depths of soil. Therefore, a finite element model (referred as Model 2A as shown in Figure 2.1) was created to study the stress distributions in different depth of the soil. The model uses the same configurations (width and depth of soil profile) as the soil pressure bulb (Day 1999); each element on Figure 2.1 represents one half B (where B is the width of the footing). The soil layers were taken three times of width of footing from

each side and six time of footing width toward bottom of soil. A unit load of 1 kip was applied to the top of the soil at the middle of the soil model. Since the main purpose for this model was to verify whether the finite element program is

5 capable of analysis the soil correctly for the finial models, therefore in this model same material properties for the soil will be used. A very stiff clay soil was selected for this model. The typical values of Youngs Modulus were ranged from 1000 to 2000 kip per square foot. The modulus of elasticity of 1500 kip per square foot (average of highest and lowest values) was selected for the soil. The 1500 kips per square foot was converted to 10.4 ksi. The modulus of elasticity of 10.4 ksi and the possion ratio of 0.4 was used for this model. After the model was complete, linear analysis was performed to determine the stress on the model. The stresses from the finite element model shown in Figure 2.1, was very close to the stresses shown in soil pressure bulb presented by Day (1999).

2.2 Immediate Settlement Verification

This verification consists of taking the vertical displacement from the finite element model and comparing it to the hand calculation. In order to do so, a simple computer model (referred to as Model 2B as shown figure 2.2) was created. The model contains a simple footing supported by a very stiff clay soil which is strong enough to support the vertical loads (this same type of soil will be use for the finial model). The model was constructed according to the dimension shown on Table 2.1.

6 Table 2.1 Finite Element Model 2B Dimensions Dimensions Footing Soil 80" 560" 80" 560" 32" 480" 3150 Ksi 10.4 Ksi 0.2 0.4

Length ( L) Width (B) Depth (H) Modulus of elasticity (Es) Possion ratio (v)

Material properties, load and boundary conditions were also applied to the model. The footing was subjected to 4 kips per square foot of loading on top of the footing. The boundary conditions for this model were as following: no movements were allowed in the Y-direction at the bottom of the soil base. For each material used in this model, the modulus of elasticity and the possion ratio are shown in Table 2.1. A complete graphic representation of the model is shown in Figure 2.2. A static analysis was performed to obtain the displacement in the Y-direction. The displacement was taken from each node between the footing and the soil layer in the model as shown in Figure 2.3. All the displacement obtained from the each node were added up and divided into the number of node being added to get the average displacements. The average displacement was calculated to be 0.153 inches. This displacement was compared to the results obtained using the immediate settlement equation (Das 2007). The equation used to determine the immediate settlement follows.

Where: B = width of the foundation qo = contract pressure Es = modulus of elasticity of soil = poissons ratio of the soil av = a factor for rectangle footing base on values of L/B. (Das 2007)

The displacement obtained by using immediate settlement equation was 0.161 inches as shown above. The displacements obtain from the finite element program and the immediate settlement equation were similar and within a reasonable range.

Width of each element: 0.5 B Length of each element: 0.5 B P = 1Kips

Fixed at the Bottom

Figure 2.1 SYY Stresses of Model 2A.

Vertical Load: 4 Kips per Square Feet 80x80 Footing

560 Inches

480 Inches

560 Inches

Fixed

Fixed

Fixed

Figure 2.2 Three Dimension View of Finite Element Model 2B.

10

80 x 80 Footing Vertical Displacement

Fixed Throughout Bottom

Figure 2.3 Maximum Y-Displacement of Model 2B.

11 CHAPTER 3

P-DELTA EFFECT VERIFICATION

Two finite element models (3A and 3B) were created for the study of PDelta effect. Both models were constructed in such a way that both configurations were the same as shown in Figure 3.1(excluding the type of analysis performed on each model). The only different that between the two models was the applied loads. The first model (referred to as Model 3A and shown in Figure 3.2) didnt take into account for the P-Delta effect. The second model (referred to as Model 3B shown in Figure 3.3) took the P-Delta effect into account for the calculation of overall lateral displacement. A linear static analysis was performed on Model 3A. A Non-linear static analysis was performed on Model 3B. The overall dimensions of the models were shown in Figure 3.1. Material properties such as Modulus of elasticity and possion ratio were assigned to each model. The modulus of elasticity assigned to the model was 3640 ksi whereas the possion ratio is 0.2 for concrete. Two different loading conditions were applied to the models; vertical and lateral. For Model 3A a 2 kips lateral load was applied at the left side to the top. The second model also subjected to the same vertical force as the first. However, the lateral force applied on Model B was different than the first model. For the second model a total 2 kips lateral force

12 was divided evenly into 10 steps and applied as incremental loads on the top of the model. In addition, a vertical load of 20 kips was applied at the midpoint of the top surface. After the models were constructed, a static linear analysis was performed on Model 3A and the results were shown in Figure 3.2. For Model 3B as shown in Figure 3.3, a nonlinear analysis was performed by included a stress-stain curve for material properties and divided the load into 10 steps applied as incrementally. The maximum displacement of 1.04 inches was obtained from Model 3A (Figure 3.2) and 1.12 inches for the Model 3B as shown in Figure 3.3. In order to verify the results obtained from the finite element analysis, the deflection equation (Lindeburg & Baradar 2001) for was used. The equations used to calculate the lateral displacement without the P-delta effect were the following:

Where: H = lateral force L = height of the structure

13 E = modulus of elasticity of material I = moment of Inertia of structural element The equation was used to calculate the lateral displacement with P-Delta effect was shown as following (ACI, 2008):

Where: Q = modification factor P = vertical force 1 = lateral displacement without P-Delta effect The displacement calculated by using the deflection equations matched the results obtained from the finite element analysis.

14

2 Kips Incremental Loads 20 Kips Vertical Load

14 Feet

Fixed Width of Model: 10 Inches Length of Model: 10 inches Figure 3.1 Three Dimensional Views of Model 3A & 3B.

15

Maximum Lateral Displacement

14 Feet

Fixed

Figure 3.2 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 3A.

16

Maximum Lateral Displacement With P-delta Effect

Fixed

Figure 3.3 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 3B.

17 CHAPTER 4

FINTE ELEMENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Introduction

In order to investigate the P-delta and soil-structure interaction effects on the bridge pier a total of four models were constructed. In these models, all the key factors were taken into account i.e., dimensions, material properties, loads, and boundary conditions. All the keys factors were taken base on real life applications. At the end, varies models would allow compare and check the final results.

4.2 Dimensions

The dimensions of the bridge superstructure were obtained from the design example (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1996). The detailed dimensions for the pier were shown in Figure 4.1 (note the thickness of the pier did not show here). The thickness of the pier is taken as 3 feet. In addition, the height of the pier for all three models was modified to 50 feet. The focus of this study is to show how soil-structure interaction affected respect to the bridge pier. In addition, for this study the footing was redesigned

18 in according to the needs of the study. The footing was redesigned in a way according to the load that used in this study. Therefore no uplift pressure would occur in this case. The final dimensions of the footing selected are as follows: length as 22 feet, width as 20 feet, and the thickness as 32 inches. The footing dimensions are shown in Figure 4.2. The finial model in this study involved a soil profile. The dimensions of the soil profile were based on the recommendation from the soil pressure bulb study in chapter 2 and the pressure bulb beneath the strip footing and square footing from Day (1999). Therefore, the width and depth of the soil profile were decided as follows: 3 times the width of the footing on each side of the footing and 6 times the width of the footing in the vertical direction.

Figure 4.1 Section View of Design Example No 6, Bridge Pier Details. (ASSHTO 1997)

19

Figure 4.2 Footing Dimensions used for Finite Element Models.

4.3 Material Properties

Apart from the dimensions, other factors (such as material properties) are also essential when analyzing the models. Material properties were assigned to each model accordingly. In this study, an fc equal to 4000 psi concrete was used for the bridge pier and 3000 psi for the footing. One of the objectives of this research is to study soil-structure interaction. In order to meet this objective, a soil that is strong enough to support the load without failure was chosen. A very stiff soil was determined to be appropriate for this study. The shear strength of the soil was choosing to be 4 kip per square foot. The allowable bearing capacity

20 was calculated to be 9108 kips based on the soil properties and the applied loads in this study. Before using this soil in the study, the assumption was made that the soil condition was over consolidated and undrained. The material properties (Modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio) are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.3.1 Materials Properties for Finite Element Models. Materials Properties Pier Footing Soil Modulus of elasticity (ksi) 3640 3150 10.4 Poisson's ratio 0.2 0.2 0.4

4.4 Loads

Three different loading scenarios were applied to the models. Each model was subjected to a lateral and vertical load. Wind loads were used as lateral load in this study. Live and dead loads were use as vertical load. The wind load serves as a lateral load applied to the side of the pier. The lateral load was determined using the ASSHTO (Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition) as reference and was calculated to be 50 kips. In addition to lateral load, live and dead loads were also calculated according to the ASSHTO guidelines. The total vertical load was calculated to be 1137 kips. In order to investigate the P-Delta effect, the 50 kips lateral load was divided into 10 load steps (in 5 kips increment) and applied to the models. Table 4.2 shows the applied loads for the models.

21 Table 4.4.1 Applied Loads for Finite Element Models. Applied Loads 50 Kips Incremental Horizontal load Yes Yes Yes

Models Model 4A (No P-Delta Effect) Model 4B (with P-Delta Effect) Model 4C (with Soil Profile) (with P-Delta Effect)

1137 Kips Vertical Load No Yes Yes

4.5 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions were the last input parameters before the analysis take place. All three different models were restrained at the bottom base on model configurations. For Model 4A and Model 4B, since both models were consider the pier only therefore restrains were applied the bottom of the pier. For model 4C, restrain are applied throughout the bottom soil profile.

4.6 Finite Element Models for the Pier

Dimensions, material properties, loads and boundary conditions were determined. A total of three models were constructed using the finite element program NISA/DISPLAY IV (1999). NISA was used to analyze the models. In the process of model analysis, the program took all the input data such as

22 dimensions, material properties, loads and boundary conditions into account. The three different models referred to as Model 4A, Model 4B, Model and Model 4C are shown in Figures 4.6.2 through 4.6.5.

38 Feet

50 Feet

Width of the Pier: 3 Feet

Length of the Pier: 5.5 Feet

Figure 4.6.1 Finite Element Model for the Pier.

23

50 Kip Incremental Loads

Fixed

Figure 4.6.2 Three Dimensional View of Finite Element Model 4A.

24

50 Kips incremental Lateral Loads 1137 Kips Vertical Loads

Fixed

Figure 4.6.3 Three Dimensional View of Finite element Model 4B.

25

50 Kips incremental Lateral Load

1137 Kips Vertical Loads

53.5 Feet

22x 20 Footing

120 Feet

Fixed at bottom 144 Feet

Figure 4.6.4 Side View of Finite Element Model 4C.

26

1137 Kips Vertical Loads 50 kips incremental Lateral Loads

140 Feet

Figure 4.6.5 Three Dimensional View of Finite Element Model 4C.

4.7 RESULTS

Three models with a variety of parameters were constructed for analysis in this study. All the results were obtained and reviewed for further discussion. The focus of this study was to investigate how P-Delta and soilstructure interaction effects could affect lateral displacement. The maximum

27 displacements were taken from each model to determine whether the effects were significant. The results were obtained from the finite element analyses for all three different models and are shown from Figure 4.7.1 to Figure 4.7.3. The displacement of Model 4A was due to a lateral load only. For Model 4B, displacement was caused by P-Delta effect. Model 4C was due to both P-Delta and soil-structure interaction effects with a soil profile and normal footing. Since applied lateral loads for Model 4C was divided into 10 load steps, therefore the maximum lateral displacement were also obtained in each steps. Table 4.7.1, Figure 4.7.4 and Figure 4.7.5 were created base on the results obtained from Model 4C.

Table 4.7.1 Maximum Lateral Displacement at Each Step for Model C. Pseudo Time (second) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maximum Lateral Displacement (inches) 0.1835 0.3696 0.5586 0.7503 0.945 1.143 1.343 1.547 1.754 1.965
Applied Lateral Loads (Kips) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

28

Maximum Lateral Displacement

Fixed Figure 4.7.1 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4A.

29

Maximum Lateral Displacement

Fixed

Figure 4.7.2 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4B.

30

Footing

Maximum Lateral Displacement

Soils

Fixed at the Bottom Soil Profile

Figure 4.7.3 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4C.

31

Footing

Soil The Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4C : at the Right Side of the Footing.

Figure 4.7.4 Maximum Lateral Displacement of Model 4C at the Footing.

32

Time vs. Maximum Lateral Displacements

2.5

Maximium Lateral Display (inches)

1.5

0.5

0 0 2 4 6 Time (Second) 8 10 12

Figure 4.7.5 Model C: Time vs. Maximum Lateral Displacements.

33

Maximum Lateral Displacement vs. Loads

60 50 40 30 20

Applied Loads (kisp)

10
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Maximum Lateral Displacements (inches)

Figure 4.7.6 Model C: Maximum Lateral Displacement vs. Loads.

34

Original Shape of the Pier

Deformed Shape of the Pier Notes: Deformations were modified to 5 times larger.

Figure 4.7.7 Deformed Geometry of Model 4C.

35 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

All results obtained from the previous chapter are discussed in this chapter. The results of this study show whether or not the P-Delta effect and the soil-structure effect are significant. The maximum lateral displacements obtained from finite element program for each models were shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Comparison of Maximum Lateral Displacements. Maximum LateralDisplacement 1.27 Inches 1.35 Inches 1.97 Inches Percent Different Over Model 4A 0% 6% 55%

Models Model 4A Model 4B Model 4C

Applied Forces Lateral Force only Lateral and Vertical Force Lateral and Vertical Force

Soil Under Footing None (Pier base fixed) None (Pier base fixed) Yes

Table 5.1 presents the maximum lateral displacement obtained from the finite element program for all three different pier Models. The maximum Lateral displacement (X-displacement) for the model 4A (due to lateral force) was 1.27 inches, without considering P-Delta effect and soil-structure interaction. Model 4B took the P-Delta effect into account and the maximum lateral displacement was calculated as 1.35 inches which is increased 6% over Model 4A. The

36 method used for calculation of P-Delta effect on Model 4B was typical method used by most engineers as well. The displacements obtain by only consider the pier may be sufficient for the many designs. However, it is more important to study exact displacement of the entire bridge pier. Therefore any factors that could affect the displacement should be taken into consideration. Model C was constructed while taking both soil-structure interaction and the P-delta effects into account. The maximum lateral displacement of 1.97 inches was obtained at the top of the pier which is a 55% increase over Model 4A. It is evidence that the maximum lateral displacement of Model 4C was due to three factors: the displacement at footing, rotation of footing, and P-Delta effects. To identify the displacement due to each individual factor, two of the displacements must distinguish. In this case the lateral displacement due to the displacement at footing and P-delta effect were obtained from the finite element program. Since the overall lateral displacement is 1.97 inches by subtracting the 1.35 inches which cause by the P-delta effect, then the displacement cause by two other factors can be calculated. The 0.62 inches is displacement due to displacement of footing and rotation of the pier. The lateral displacement of 0.01 inches as the displacement of footing due the 50 kips horizontal load inches at the bottom right of footing as shown on Figure 4.7.4. Therefore the 0.61 inches was determined that due to rotation of footing. The lateral displacement was relatively small. In order for the model to experience the P-delta effect, the applied 50 kips lateral load was divided into 10 load steps and in a 5 kips incremental to the

37 structure. Therefore as the results, the maximum lateral displacement in each steps were also obtained. Figure 4.7.5 and Figure 4.7.6 were generated to investigate the change of the displacements at different time and different applied loads. Both figures show the maximum lateral displacements increase in a way that close to linear fashion as time and load increased.

38 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Three Finite element models were presented for the non-linear analysis of bridge piers subjected to different loadings. Two of models were taken into account for soil structure interaction effect. In additional, four simple finite element models were created and two mathematical equations (maximum deflection equation and immediate settlement equation) were used for verifications to finite element program used in this study. The results show a significant increase of lateral displacement when soil structure interaction was taken into account in this case. P-Delta effect determined was not as significant as soil-structure interaction in this study. However, soil-structure interaction effect was confirmed it has significant impact on the overall lateral displacement of the bridge pier. The maximum lateral displacement was concluded that due to lateral load on the bridge pier and the influent between the footing and soils. This study suggested that the lateral displacement due to soil-structure interaction effect should be taken into consideration in the bridge design procedure. Overall, the maximum lateral displacements can be predictable based on the results of this study.

39 REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway officials. (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. (17th Edition). Washington, D.C: American Association of State Highway Officials. American Concrete Institutes. (2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institutes. Das.B. (2007). Principles of Foundation Engineering. (6th edition). Toronto, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited. Day, R. (1999). Geotechnical and foundation engineering: design and Construction. NY: McGraw-Hill Dobson, R. (2002). An overview of P-Delta Analysis. CSC Software and Solutions for structural Engineers. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.cscworld.com Dobson, R. & Kenny, A. (2002) A brief overview of 2nd order (or P-Delta) Analysis. CSC Software and Solutions for structural Engineers. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.cscworld.com Ger, J., & Yen. P. (2004). Nonlinear Static Analysis of Bridge Bents by Finite Segment Method. Structures Congress and Exposition. 351-359. Huang, M. S., & Zhu, H. P. (2008). Finite Element Model Updating of Bridge Structure Based on Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization Algorithm. Journal of Natural Sciences. 13(1). 87-92. Lindeburg, M., & Bardar, M., (2001). Seismic Design of Building Structures: a professionals introduction to earthquake forces and design detail. (8th edition). Belmont, CA: Professional Publications, Inc. Main. J. (2004). Seismic Analysis of a Suspension Bridge Model. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.ce.jhu.edu/jmain NISA/DISPLAY IV [Computer Software]. (1999). Troy, MI: Engineering Mechanics Research Corporation.

40 Poston, R. W. (1986). Nonlinear Analysis of Concrete Bridge Piers. Journal of Structural engineering, 112 (9), 2041-2056 Retrieved from http://ascelibrary.aip.org U.S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (1996). Seismic design of bridge, design example no. 6: three-span continuous CIP concrete bridge.

41 VITA Graduate School Southern Illinois University Toun Loin. Wu 2627 S Princeton Ave, Chicago, IL 60616 Canwu1@gmail.com Date of Birth: March 4, 1985

Southern Illinois University Carbondale Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, December 2008

Special Honors and Awards: Deans List

Thesis Title: THE P-DELTA AND SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS ON BRIDGE PIERS.

Major Professor: Dr. J. Kent Hsiao