University of Nevada, Reno Seismic Response Assessment of Skew Highway Bridges A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering by Brianna Lynn Schroeder Dr. G. Pekcan/Thesis Advisor December, 2006UMI Number: 1440918 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality ilustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscrist and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized ‘copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion UMI UMI Microform 1440918 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, neat of ma Rene ‘We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by BRIANNA LYNN SCHROEDER Entitled Seismic Response Assessment Of Skew Highway Bridges be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE \ ih ean, Ph.D., Advisor Emmanuel Maragakis, Ph.D. , Committee Member ln A frcltimm hn Anderson, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative Marsha H. x Ph. D., Associate Graduate School December, 2006Abstract The overall response behavior of skewed highway bridges under both service and seismic loads is inherently complex. Therefore, there is continuing research into the effects of skew and simplified analysis methods that properly capture these effects. This study examines the seismic response of a three-span continuous concrete box girder bridge modeled with 0, 30, 45, and 60 degree skew angles. To assess the seismic response, finite element (FE) and beam-stick (BS) models are developed using SAP2000, Two abutment support conditions are also considered: with and without shear keys. To study the effects of skew angle, modal, nonlinear static pushover, and linear and nonlinear time history analyses are conducted. Three pushover load profiles are examined. Finally, comparisons are made between FE and BS models, skew angles, abutment support conditions, and time history and pushover analyses,Acknowledgments This research was funded in part by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno as well as the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering or Caltrans. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Gokhan Pekcan, for all his assistance and guidance throughout my research. I would also like to thank all my family and friends who have supported me.iii Table of Contents Abstract... Acknowledgments a . ee ii List of Tables List of Figures... 1. Introduction. 1.1. Backgroun 1.2. Analysis Procedures. 1.3. Objectives and Scop 1.4. Organization of Thesis. Pals] 2. Description of Bridges and Parameters of Study.... 2.1. Introductior 7 2.2. Benchmark Highway Bridge .. 2.3. Parameters of Study. 23.1. Skew Angle. 2.3.2. Abutment Gap.. 23.3. Shear Key.. 2.3.4. Direction of Ground Motion Excitation. 3. Modeling of Bridges and Modal Analyses 3.1. Introduction... 24 3.2. Finite Element (FE) Models 24 3.3. Simplified Beam-Stick (BS) Models.. 28 3.4. Modal Analyses of the Bridges.. 29 3.4.1. Modal Analysis Background... 30 3.4.2. Finite Element (FE) versus Beam-Stick (BS) Models.. 3.4.2.1. Case I (with shear keys)... eee 3.4.2.2. Case II (without shear keys) 3.4.3. Skew Angle... a 3.4.3.1. Case I (with shear keys)... 3.4.3.2. Case II (without shear keys) 3.4.4, Case I versus Case II for Abutment Support 3.4.5. Summary and Discussions... nn 36 37 4. Capacity Assessme 4.1, Introduction... 4.2. Overview of Pushover Analysis and Capacity Spe Pushover Analysis...4.3. Capacity Assessment... 43.1, Beam-Stick versus Finite Element Model: 4.3.1.1. Case I (with shear keys). 4.3.1.2. Case II (without shear keys) 4.3.2. Effect of Pushover Load Profile 43.3. Skew Angl 4.3.3.1. Case I (with shear keys). 4.3.3.2. Case II (without shear keys) 4.3.4. Shear Key. ts 4.4. Summary and Discussions 5. Response to Seis 3.1. Introduction. Earthquake Ground Motions. Time History Analysis Background ... 4, Time History Analysis Results 5.4.1. CaseI 5.4.2. Case Il 5.5. Comparison of Time History and Pushover Results... 5.5.1. Base Shear vs. Displacement. 5.5.1.1. Case I (restrained / with shear keys). 5.5.1.2. Case Il (unrestrained / without shear keys) . 5.6. Summary and Discussions..... ic Excitation Time History Analysis 6. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations. 6.1. Summary... 6.2, Conclusions. 62.1. Modal Analysis 6.2.2. Pushover Analysis. 6.2.3. Time History Analysis . 6.2.4. Time History vs. Pushover Comparison... 6.3. Recommendations for Further Research .. 7, References.Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Table 3-9 Table 3-10 Table 3-11 Table 3-12 Table 3-13 Table 3-14 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 List of Tables Section Properties... Nonlinear Column Axial Hinge Properties Nonlinear Column Moment Hinge Properties... Linear Translational and Rotational Soil Spring Stiffnesses 0 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case I. : 30 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case 45 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case 60 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case z Percent Differences between FE and BS Periods for Case 1.......... 43 0 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case IT 30 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case II 45 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case II 60 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case II Percent Differences between FE and BS Periods for Case Il. Summary of Ground Motion Parameters. Analytical Matrix.Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Figure 3-8 Figure 3-9 Figure 3-10 Figure 3-11 Figure 3-12 Figure 3-13 Figure 3-14 Figure 3-15 Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17 Figure 3-18 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 4-5 Figure 4-6 vi List of Figures Foothill Boulevard Undercrossing (http://nisee.berkeley.edwelibrary/)...13 1-5 Gavin Canyon Undercrossing (Ground View) (http://nisee.berkeley.edwelibrary/).... 1-5 Gavin Canyon Undererossing (Aerial View) (http://nisee berkeley eduelibrary/)... Plan and Elevation Views... 22 Deck Framing Plan .. 2 Bent Elevation... 23 Abutment Elevation: 23 Finite Element (FE) Model Detail 49 Finite Element (FE) Model Detail 49 Nonlinear Column Axial Hinge Properties 50 Nonlinear Column Moment Hinge Properties... 50 Bearing Pad Force-Deformation Properties... 51 FE Model Abutment Support Detail 51 Gap Force-Deformation Properties. 52 Shear Key Force-Deformation Properties.. 52 Beam-Stick (BS) Model Detail 053 BS Model Abutment Support Detail.. 53 0 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case I... 54 30 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case I. 57 45 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case I. 60 60 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case I. 64 0 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case II. 68 30 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case II aa 45 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case II 74 60 Degree Skew Mode Shapes for Case II 78 Graphical Representation of the Capacity-Spectrum Method of Equivalent Linearization (ATC-40, 1996) 98 Schematic Illustrating the Process of the Coefficient Method of Displacement Modification (FEMA 356, 2000).. Uniform Load Application and Column Designation for FE Mode. Uniform Load Application and Column Designation for BS Model.. 0 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case I 30 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case I. 98Figure 4-7 Figure 4-8 Figure 4.9 Figure 4-10 Figure 4-11 Figure 4-12 Figure 4-13 Figure 4-14 Figure 4-15 Figure 4-16 Figure 4-17 Figure 4-18 Figure 4-19 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 5-4 Figure 5-5 Figure 5-6 Figure 5-7 Figure 5-8 Figure 5-9 Figure 5-10 Figure 5-11 Figure 5-12 Figure 5-13 Figure 5-14 Figure 5-15 Figure 5-16 Figure 5-17 Figure 5-18 Figure 5-19 Figure 5-20 Figure 5-21 Figure 5-22 Figure 5-23 Figure 5-24 Figure 5-25 Figure 5-26 vii 45 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case I 60 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case I. 0 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case I 30 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case II 45 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case IL... 60 Degree Skew FE versus BS Pushover Comparison for Case II Pushover Comparison of Various Skew Angles: Case I - Mode 2 (Transverse) .. a Pushover Comparison of Various Skew Angles: Case I - Mode 1+2....109 Pushover Comparison of Various Skew Angles: Case I - Uniform Load .... Pushover Comparison of Various Skew Angles: Case II - Mode 1 (Transverse) .. : Pushover Comparison of Various Skew Angles: Case Il - Mode 1#2...112 Pushover Comparison of Various Skew Angles: Case II - Uniform Load .. Case I and II Pushover Comparisons for Shear Key Effect. EW Component of Kobe Ground Motion. NS Component of Kobe Ground Motior EW Component of Landers Ground Motion NS Component of Landers Ground Motion... EW Component of Sylmar Ground Motio: ‘NS Component of Sylmar Ground Motion EW Component of Rinaldi Ground Motio: NS Component of Rinaldi Ground Motio: Simgke 1 Ground Motion... Simgke 2 Ground Motion Simgke 3 Ground Motion ARS of Unscaled Ground Motions. ARS of Scaled Ground Motions FE Model Abutment Support Detail for Time Column Local Axes .. Axial Foree Response in the Columns for Case Shear Force Response in the Columns for Case I Moment Response about the 2-Axis in the Columns for Case I. Moment Response about the 3-Axis in the Columns for Case I Torsional Response of Columns for Case I.. Transverse Displacement at the Top of the Columns for Case I Reactions at Abutment Restraints for Case I Displacement Ductility Demand, p, for Case I. Axial Force Response in the Columns for Case II ‘Shear Force Response in the Columns for Case II Moment Response about the 2-Axis in the Columns for Case Il... story Analysis...Figure 5-27 Figure 5-28 Figure 5-29 Figure 5-30 Figure 5-31 Figure 5-32 Figure 5-33 Figure 5-34 Figure 5-35 Figure 5-36 Figure 3-37 Figure 5-38 Figure 5-39 Figure 5-40 Figure 5-41 Figure 5-42 Figure 5-43 Figure 5-44 Figure 5-45 Figure 5-46 Figure 5-47 ‘Moment Response about the 3-Axis in the Columns for Case II. Torsional Response of Columns for Case Il.. Transverse Displacement at the Top of the Columns for Case I Bearing Forces at the Abutment for Case II. Displacement Ductility Demand, p, for Case IL... : 0 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for ST Case and Case I... ee ~ sveonel 58 0 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case I... ond 59 30 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for ST Case and Case... 160 30 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case T = 161 45 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for ST Case and Case I... 162 45 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case I 60 Degree Case I. 164 60 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case I 0 Degree ry and Pushover Comparison for Case Il... see — 166 0 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case Uo... 167 30 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for ST Case and Case Il... 168 30 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case II... 169 45 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for ST Case and Case Il. 70 45 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case Il... soo 1 60 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for ST Case and Case Il... AT 60 Degree Skew Time History and Pushover Comparison for SL Case and Case II... oe1. Introduction 1.1. Background Highway bridges are considered to be critical elements of lifeline systems since the requirement on their functionality following a major earthquake is to provide access to hospitals, fire stations, and other important facilities. However, the seismic vulnerability of highway bridges remains an important problem and has received increased attention as a consequence of unprecedented damage observed during several major earthquakes. ‘Nonetheless, since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, engineers have been improving their understanding of seismic performance of bridges in general. With each major earthquake, researchers are given new case studies to help improve the existing design guidelines and analysis procedures. Many advances have been made in developing design codes and guidelines for static and dynamic analyses of regular or straight highway bridges. However, there remains significant uncertainty with regard to the structural system response of skewed highway bridges as it is reflected by the lack of detailed procedures in current guidelines. In fact, as evidence by past seismic events (i.e. 1994 Northridge — Gavin Canyon Undercrossing and 1971 San Femando Foothill Boulevard Undercrossing), skewed highway bridges are particularly vulnerable to severe damage due to seismic loads. Even though a number of studies have been conducted over the last three decades to investigate the response characteristics of skewed highway bridges under static and dynamic loading, researchfindings have not been sufficiently comprehensive to address global system characteristics. Due to the fact that the current seismic design guidelines do not provide explicit procedures, a significantly large number of bridges are at risk with consequential threat to loss of function, life safety, and economy. Many of the existing bridges may be prone to earthquake induced damage and may require substantial retrofit measures to achieve desired seismic performance and post-earthquake serviceability. Researchers and practicing design engineers need to fully understand the overall system response characteristics of skewed highway bridges for the proper detailing of system components. Therefore, itis of interest to quantify the level of ground shaking necessary to cause the occurrence of various limit states such as: (1) onset of damage, (2) life safety, and (3) partial or total collapse. Overall response behavior of skewed highway bridges under both service and seismic loads is inherently complex. Several parameters interact with the skewness of the bridge and lead to this complex response behavior, such as: (1) superstructure flexibility, (2) boundary conditions: support details at abutments and intermediate supports, shear keys, soil-foundation-structure interaction, (3) in-span hinges (if any) and restrainers along with sub and super-structure interactions, (4) width-to-span ratios, and (5) mass and stiffhess eccentricity.Moreover, several seismic response issues are of importance to skew bridges as opposed to straight counterparts. These include: (1) Bearings in skewed bridges are vulnerable to high and uneven distribution of support reactions due to atypical superstructure deformations, (2) The potential unseating behavior in skew bridges is complex because impacts between the superstructure and abutments cause the bridge to translate and rotate, (3) End-diaphragms tend to increase the difference between the bearing reactions and may even produce uplift at heavily skewed abutments, (4) The vertical component of earthquakes activates the deck inertia in the vertical direction, and the deck acts as a flexible plate. Under such conditions, there is a possibility of uplift at supports, and (5) Increasing the skew angle introduces torsional and lateral dynamic mode coupling that leads to in-plane rotation of the superstructure. One of the adverse effects of this coupling is the elevated moments, torsions, axial and shear forces in supporting substructure components. Degree of skew can dramatically affect the dynamic behavior of a bridge. ‘The majority of bridges that failed during earthquakes have had significant skew, including the Foothill Boulevard Undercrossing (San Femando 1971) with a 60 degree skew (Figure 1-1) and the I-5 Gavin Canyon Undererossing (Northridge 1994) with a 66 degree skew (Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3). Several studies have investigated the effects of skew angle on the response of highway bridges (i.e. Maleki, 2002; Bjornsson et al., 1997; Saiidi and Orie,1991; Maragakis, 1984). Saiidi and Orie (1991) noted the skew effects and suggested that simplified models and methods of analysis would result in sufficiently accurate predictions of seismic response for bridges with skew angles less than 15 degrees. On the other hand, Maleki (2002) concluded that slab-on-girder bridges with skew angles up to 30 degrees and spans up to 65 feet have comparable response characteristies to straight bridges, and therefore, simplified modeling techniques such as rigid deck modeling can be used in many instances. Bjomsson et al. (1997) conducted an extensive parametric study of two-span skew bridges modeled with rigid deck assumption. In this study, ‘maximum relative abutment displacement (MRAD) was considered as a critical quantity associated with failures due to unseating. MRAD was found to be influenced strongly by the impact between the deck and the abutments. Critical skew angle as a function of span length and width was introduced to maximize the rotational impulse due to impact and ‘was found to be between 45 and 60 degrees. It was shown that MRAD for all bridge geometries tends to increase linearly for skew angles less than 30 degrees. In general, most of the research studies agree that bridges with relatively high skew angles (greater than 30 degrees) exhibit complex response behavior that may require detailed seismic modeling and analysis. In evaluating and comparing results across various seismic response studies, one must consider the underlying assumptions and idealizations implemented in the analytical treatment of the skew highway bridges. These may pertain to material modeling, inelastic (hysteretic) response characteristics of components, boundary conditions as well as conditions at the boundaries, soil-structure interaction, component geometry (i.e.idealized beam-stick versus full finite element), superstructure (ie. rigid versus flexible), seismic mass (e. distributed versus lumped), ete. For instance, Meng and Lui (2000) suggested that the effects of modeling boundary conditions properly may outweigh the effects of skew angle on the overall dynamic response characteristics of a bridge. In fact, differences in assumptions can create inconsistencies in results as seen in the analysis of the Foothill Boulevard Undercrossing, which sustained severe damage during the San Fernando earthquake, A study conducted by Wakefield et al. (1991) concluded that the failure was controlled by rigid-body motion, which agreed with a previous study conducted by Maragakis (1984). But, a study conducted by Ghobarah and Tso (1974) explained that the failure was induced by flexural and torsional motion. Ghobarah and Tso (1974) assumed the deck was fixed at the abutments, while Wakefield et al, (1991) assumed free translation of the deck at the abutments. In general, there are two main methods used to model bridge decks. The first method is the rigid beam assumption or beam-stick model which simplifies the analysis greatly. The deck is modeled by a single beam-column element with the mass and length of the real deck. The second and more sophisticated method is the flexible deck or finite element model. In this method, the deck is modeled as a built-up plate, and the columns are simple beam-column elements. The rigid deck model is usually sufficient for regular bridges, but a flexible deck model is preferred for irregular bridges, such as skewed or curved bridges and bridges with significant mass and stiffness eccentricity. Neglecting deck flexibility in a rigid deck analysis can underestimate the bridge response in many ways, including the axial forces in the columns and the displacement of the deck.‘Therefore, the use of the rigid deck or stick model for the dynamic analysis of skew bridges with large skew angles is not recommended because the method fails to predict the major response parameters accurately in seismic analysis. By including deck flexibility in an analysis, a more realistic assessment of the structural response is expected to be obtained. 1.2, Analysis Procedures Nonlinear analysis procedures are typically used to establish performance levels and response assessment of highway bridges. The most realistic of the nonlinear procedures is nonlinear time-history analysis. However, this method of analysis requires a complex description of the analyzed system and the response is strongly sensitive to the models and the characteristics of the ground motions used in the analysis. Therefore, simplified nonlinear analysis methods have been developed based on the use of equivalent linear representation of the structural systems. The pushover analysis (hence pushover curve) constitutes an important major step in the simplified [nonlinear] method of analysis. In a practical sense it represents the capacity of the structure to resist seismic inertia forces. ‘The pushover curve is constructed by “pushing” a computational model of the structure by monotonically increasing lateral loads in either force- or displacement-controlled ‘manner. As the magnitude of the load increases, progressive yielding of the model ‘occurs, which is accompanied by a change in the dynamic properties of the structure, Ideally, the pattern of loads (or displacements) should be consistent with the expected distribution of the inertia forces (or deformations) in the yielding structure.Following the major earthquakes in the recent past, it has been widely recognized that changes are needed in the existing seismic design methodology implemented in the codes. Among several methods, the pushover analysis is generally recommended for simple or regular structures while the elastic and/or nonlinear time-history analysis is recommended for relatively complex structures with irregularities leading to mode- coupling and higher mode effects on the overall seismic response. Therefore, the inherent assumption of pushover analysis that the overall seismic response of the structure is controlled by the fundamental mode introduces severe limitations for its application to complex structural systems, such as highway bridges. Thus itis realized to >be more rational to adopt both the pushover analysis and elastic or nonlinear time-history analysis, where the former is used for simple or regular structures and the latter is used for complex structures. Moreover, it should also be recognized that simplified pushover procedures have been predominantly developed and tested for building structural systems and that their implementation for bridge structures may not be as accurate or straightforward, Several pushover methods for the seismic response evaluation of structures have been developed, which can potentially take into account the influence of higher modes. Three methods that are most widely referred are: (1) modal pushover analysis (MPA) (Chopra and Goel, 2002; 2004); (2) modal adaptive non-linear static procedure (MANSP) (Reinhorn, 1997; DeRue, 1998); and(3) incremental response spectral analysis (IRSA) (Aydinoglu, 2004). As an improvement over these methods, adaptive pushover procedures have also been developed and proposed by Bracci et al (1997), Gupta and Kunnath (2000), Elnashai (2001) and Aydinoglu (2003). The applied methods have been mainly developed and tested for buildings. Fewer results are available regarding their use for the analysis of bridges (i.e. Kappas et al; 2004), Moreover, modal analysis procedures in the inelastic domain may not be appropriate for complex structural systems. However, in multimode pushover-based methods, the modal analysis as well as the mode combinations is unavoidable. The non-adaptive methods listed above address this issue using piecewise elastic (spectral) modal analysis with constant structural and dynamic properties between the occurrences of the two successive plastic hinges. Specifically, the MPA method takes into account the influence of higher modes. All of the important modes, identified in the initial elastic state, are used to determine the distribution of forces for the pushover analyses. Each mode is considered separately. Therefore, the number of analyses is equal to the number of the important modes in the elastic range. When all of the analyses are completed, the results are combined using the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) rule. The method assumes that the mode shapes are not changing during the response, whereas, the MANSP takes into account the influence of higher modes as well as the possibility that the deflection line could change significantly during the response. To obtain the capacity diagram, one pushover analysis with variable distribution of forces should be performed. The distribution depends on the variable dynamic properties of the structure. The forces are calculated combining the modal inertial forces (in each nodeforces related to different important modes are combined using SRSS). Each time the new hinge occurs in the structure, the structural system as well as its dynamic properties changes. After each occurrence of a new hinge, a new distribution of the forces for pushover is calculated based on the new dynamic properties of the structure. Finally, the IRSA method also takes into account the influence of all important modes as well as the variable distribution of inertial forces. However, the variable distribution of. modal forces is not shown explicitly, since this displacement controlled method works directly with modal displacements that are compatible with those modal forces. The ‘method takes into account the changes of the dynamic properties of the structure each time a new hinge occurs. Each time a new hinge occurs in the structure, the spectral elastic modal analysis is performed, The slope of the capacity diagram is determined based on the instantaneous frequency of the structure, Monitoring some relevant chosen quantity, the level of load corresponding to the occurrence of the new hinge is determined, The frequency of the new structural system is changed, and a new slope of, the capacity diagram is calculated. Several capacity diagrams, corresponding to each important mode, are constructed separately. During each analysis step the response quantities are combined using the standard modal combination rule (CQC or SRSS). 1.3. Objectives and Scope The main purpose of the present study is to assess the seismic response characteristics of skewed highway bridges. Various parameters and configurations that may interact with10 the skewness of highway bridges are also investigated. Therefore, the principal objectives of this computational study are to investigate: (1) variations in seismic response characteristics of skewed highway bridges, with reference to deformations as well as column axial force, shear force and moments, (2) effect of various modeling assumptions and techniques on this assessment, (3) accuracy of simplified beam-stick models versus more complex models used for modal, pushover, and time history analyses in capturing the response characteristics of highway bridges with various skew angles, and to provide guidelines, (4) accuracy of nonlinear pushover analyses versus nonlinear time history analyses in the assessment of seismic capacity and establishing various performance levels, To achieve these objectives, simplified beam-stick (BS) and finite element (FE) models ofa three-span continuous concrete box girder bridge were developed with four different skew angles, namely 0, 30, 45, and 60 degrees. Models included nonlinearities in the bent columns and abutment details; ie. shear keys, support bearings, and abutment gap (with linear soil stiffness upon gap closure). The analysis types include; (1) modal analysis to establish structural dynamic characteristics and variations, (2) pushover analysis to establish capacities; staging of damage via observations of hinge formation and their variations as well as accuracy in comparison with nonlinear time history analyses,MW (3) linear and nonlinear time history analysis to investigate variations in various response quantities such as deformations, column axial force, shear force and moments, Modal and pushover analyses were performed on each skew and model type, while time history analyses were performed on each skew and the finite element models only. Structural dynamics characteristics were then compared for the beam-stick and finite element models as well as skew and various abutment support details. Accuracy of simplified beam-stick models in establishing pushover capacities was investigated in ‘comparison with those obtained from the corresponding FE models and nonlinear time history analyses. 1.4. Organization of Thesis The first three sections of the thesis lay the ground work for the study, including a brief discussion of previous studies and analytical modeling. Section 1 discusses previous investigations into response characteristics of skew highway bridges and modeling assumptions as well as various pushover analysis procedures. Section 2 describes the configuration and design criteria for the original (30 degree skew) three-span continuous concrete box girder bridge and the various parameters of interest in this study, including skew angle, abutment gap, shear key, direction of ground motion excitation. The first part of Section 3 describes the details of the finite element (FE) and beam-stick (BS) models developed for the study.12 Section 3, 4, and 5 present the results from each type of analysis. Section 3 displays the results from the modal analysis and describes the analysis procedure, The mode shapes and modal characteristics (i.e. periods of vibration and mass participation ratios) are ‘compared for the finite element and beam-stick models. Section 4 provides a discussion of various pushover analysis procedures and presents the results comparing FE and BS models with various skew angles and abutment conditions. Section 5 describes the type of time history analysis used and provides linear and nonlinear results, including column axial and shear forces, moments, and displacements as well as abutment reactions and bearing forces. Also, time history results are plotted on the pushover curves to examine the accuracy of the pushover results of Section 4. Section 6 summarizes the thesis and provides final conclusions from the results. Also, recommendations for further research into parameters of study and analysis procedures are suggested.Figure 1-2 I-5 Gavin Canyon Undercrossing (Ground View) (http://nisee.berkeley.edwelibrary/) 1B14 Figure 1-3 I-5 Gavin Canyon Undercrossing (Aerial (http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/)15 2. Description of Bridges and Parameters of Study 2.1. Introduction In this section, details of the 30-degree skewed highway bridge, used as a benchmark model in the subsequent parametric study for the assessment of seismic response characteristics of skewed highway bridges is presented. This highway bridge is a three- span continuous concrete box girder bridge with integral bent caps and seat-type abutments. In order to study the effects of skew angle, the benchmark model is altered to develop computational models of bridges with 0, 30 (as is), 45 and 60 degree skew. Other parameters of the study relate to the boundary conditions at the abutments (shear- keys, abutment gap) and the direction of earthquake excitation, 2.2. Benchmark Highway Bridge For the purpose of this parametric comparative study, a highway bridge is taken from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Seismic Design of Bridges Series (Design Example No. 4). This bridge has been studied and modeled in the past by several researchers (i.e. Button et.al., 1999; Fu and AlAyed, 2003), The bridge is a continuous three-span reinforced concrete box-girder bridge with an overall length of 320 feet and spans of 100, 120, and 100 feet as shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 (FHWA, 1996). It has a skew angle of 30 degrees, and all of the substructure elements are oriented at a 30 degree angle from a line perpendicular to a straight bridge centerline alignment. The superstructure is a cast-in-place concrete box-girder with two interior webs and has a16 width of 43 feet. The intermediate bents have cross beams integral with the box girder and two 4 foot diameter circular reinforced concrete columns supported on spread footing foundations as shown in Figure 2-3 (FHWA, 1996). Based on these dimensions, the total weight of the bridge is estimated at 4555 kips. The benchmark bridge has a seat-type abutment which allows limited longitudinal movement of the superstructure due to a gap between the deck and abutment back wall (Figure 2-4). In the transverse direction, interior concrete shear keys on the abutment prevent movement (Figure 2-4). The bearing pads are simply used to distribute the vertical forces to the abutments, therefore, this bridge is not considered to be seismically isolated (Figure 2-4). The benchmark bridge was designed to be built in the western United States in a seismic zone with an acceleration coefficient (A) of 0.30g following the 1995 AASHTO guidelines. The subsurface conditions consisted of a 250-foot-deep glacial deposit of dense sand and gravel overlying rock; therefore, soil profile type II was used in the design. The site coefficient (S) for type II soil was 1.2. The importance classification (IC) of this bridge was taken to be II since it is assumed not to be essential for use following an earthquake. The seismic performance category (SPC) was taken as C based on the acceleration coefficient and the importance classification.7 2.3, Parameters of Study As was mentioned earlier, the seismic response of highway bridges as well as its analytical assessment may be governed by several interacting components, parameters, and conditions, which include: (1) Skew angle (2) Boundary conditions: support details at abutments and intermediate supports, shear-keys, soil-foundation-structure interaction, (3) Super-structure flexibility, (4) Stiffness and mass eccentricity, (5) In-span hinges (if any) and restrainers along with sub- and super-structure interactions, (©) Width-to-span ratio, (7) Direction of the strong motion components with respect to the orientation of the bridge bents and abutments, also referred to as attack angle. Although each one of the above may have significant contributions to the variability of response characteristics in highway bridges, the present study focuses on variations in skew angle, abutment gap, shear keys, and direction of earthquake excitation as further discussed in the following. 2.3.1. Skew Angle As was mentioned earlier, the main objective of this study is to investigate the effect of skew angle on the overall seismic response of highway bridges and implications of18 simplified modeling approaches with respect to seismic capacity assessment of skewed bridges. For this purpose, the benchmark highway bridge described in the previous section is altered to develop computational models with 0, 30 (as-is), 45, and 60 degree skew angles. The skew angles are taken into account in the orientation of the bent and the boundary conditions at the abutments and footings. 2.3.2. Abutment Gap ‘The effect of pounding between various components on the overall response characteristics of a bridge structural system has been of interest to many researchers (i.e. Tirasit and Kawashima, 2005; DesRoches and Muthukumar, 2002; Maragakis et al., 1991; Maragakis, 1985; Chen and Penzien, 1975). It is generally agreed that the pounding effects may be more likely and pronounced in skewed highway bridges. This is due to the fact that when a skewed bridge structure is subjected to earthquake excitation in the two orthogonal directions (longitudinal and transverse), inherent dynamic coupling may lead to the rotation of the bridge deck about its vertical axis, hence pounding at the abutment. As a result, displacements and abutment forces may amplify due to pounding and significant damage to structural elements may be observed. Nonetheless, results from various studies have been conflicting. This can be attributed to the complexity of the pounding mechanism; hence, the difficulty of developing a realistic and accurate computational model for the simulation of pounding.19 In this study, although the pounding mechanism is not considered in the computational models, the gap between the abutment wall and the deck is implicitly incorporated. Conditions with gap opening and closing and without gap (fixed-end) are considered, Further details of the modeling of the abutment gap are presented in Section 3. 2.3.3. Shear Key Shear keys are often used when bearing-supported details are adopted, and typically placed between super-structure and abutment to facilitate the transfer of transverse inertia forces during earthquake excitations. Significant damage to the shear keys, hence partial or complete loss of capacity, is expected during moderate to major earthquakes. Accordingly, it is common to design the transverse lateral force-resisting system on the basis of two separate scenarios; (1) displacements constrained at the abutments; a case where the shear keys remain intact, (2) unconstrained displacements corresponding to conditions after shear key failure. In fact, a recent study conducted by Megally et al. (2002) supported the assumption that shear keys do not provide additional transverse support for the superstructure after their failure. However, it must be noted that the response of individual shear keys as part of the complete structural system may be different for various skew angles, and the failure of the individual shear keys may not take place simultaneously. ‘Two types of shear keys can be constructed at abutments, namely interior and exterior. Interior shear keys are constructed within the abutment, and exterior shear keys are20 provided at the sides of the superstructure. Since interior shear keys are used within the width of the superstructure and are not as accessible as exterior shear keys, it is recommended that interior keys be avoided for new construction projects, but the benchmark bridge described above incorporates interior shear keys. In this study, interior shear keys at the two abutments are modeled implicitly for the purpose of modal as well as pushover analyses. The two scenarios mentioned above are adopted for the linear and nonlinear time-history analyses due to the lack of nonlinear hysteretic models available in SAP2000 (2005) to simulate the expected nonlinear force- deformation response of shear keys. Further details of the modeling of the shear keys are presented in Section 3. 2.3.4, Direction of Ground Motion Excitation A total of seven ground motions are used in the linear and nonlinear time-history analyses of the bridges. Four of these ground motions are from historically recorded earthquakes with two horizontal components of ground motion. It is noted that the direction of ground motion excitation with respect to the skew angle, i.e. the attack angle is another important parameter of interest. Depending on the attack angle, varying levels of dynamic coupling and interaction, and seismic response is expected. In order to study this effect, two cases are considered in the time history analyses: (1) the stronger component applied in the transverse direction and the weak component applied in the longitudinal direction, and (2) the strong component applied in the longitudinal direction and the weak component2 applied in the transverse direction. The remaining three ground motions are artificial ground motions generated using SIMQKE-2 (1999) to match a target 5%-damped CALTRANS acceleration response spectra (ARS) of 0.30g. The direction of excitation is not considered with the artificial ground motions.22 onc sour a — bere ure i : 4 i i i i i VATII (Geerine PARAL TO BETSY Figure 2-1 Plan and Elevation Views FRAMING PLAN Figure 2-2 Deck Framing Plan& cewaw cauan @-SEction Figure 2-3 Bent Elevation 7 SECTION Figure 2-4 Abutment Elevations24 3. Modeling of Bridges and Modal Analyses 3.1. Introduction To facilitate a comparative parametric study of the seismic response of skewed highway bridges, a number of detailed three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) as well as beam-stick (BS) models were developed using SAP2000 (2005). In all of the models, the superstructure was assumed to be linear-elastic, and all of the nonlinearity was assumed to take place in the substructure elements including bents, intemal shear-keys, bearings, and abutment gap (gap opening and closing). This chapter first presents the details of the FE and BS computational models. Subsequently, structural dynamic properties of the various bridges are compared and the accuracy of simplified BS models in representing the modal characteristics is discussed in comparison to those obtained from the counterpart FE models. 3.2. jite Element (FE) Models ‘Three dimensional finite element (FE) models of the benchmark bridge with four different skew angles; namely 0, 30 (as is), 45 and 60 degrees, are developed using SAP2000 (2005). In each of these models, a finite element mesh was used to model the deck, soffit, girders, and diaphragms (Figure 3-1). The integral bent caps, end diaphragms at the abutments as well as the interior diaphragms at the middle of each span were modeled explicitly as part of the superstructure. The nodes making up each diaphragm were constrained so that the joints move together as a planar diaphragm that is25 rigid against membrane deformations. Each diaphragm and bent is aligned along the skew angle being modeled. The bent columns and footings were modeled using 3D beam-column elements. The properties of these elements are summarized in Table 3-1. For the pushover and nonlinear time-history analyses, nonlinearity is assumed to take place at the localized plastic hinge locations at the top and bottom of the column sections (Figure 3-2). The behavior of nonlinear (uncoupled) axial and moment hinges is characterized by the axial force-displacement and moment-rotation relationships, respectively. These relationships were developed using Response-2000 (Bentz and Collins, 2000) as shown in Figure 3-3, and Figure 3-4 and summarized in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3. A 1000 kip axial load induced by the dead load was assumed and considered in the determination of moment rotation properties. A plastic hinge length of 10% of the column length (20 feet) was also assumed. The footing-soil interaction was modeled using linear translational and rotational springs (Table 3-4) at the base of all of the footings. The internal shear-keys, bearings, and gap at the abutments were modeled using nonlinear link elements, In the FE models, four bearings are represented, one at the bottom of each girder. The assumed properties of the bearings are based on Figure 3-5 and determined using *A Equation 3-1 Equation 3-226 ‘The bearing was designed based on a shear modulus of elasticity (G) of 150 psi, and bearing dimensions of 5 in height and 256 in? of area that supports the bridge. The initial stifffness (K,) is calculated to be 7.68 kip/in, and the yield force (F;) is 38.4 kips, It is assumed that the yielding occurs when the lateral deformation of the bearing pad equals its height (i.e. 100% strain); therefore, the yield deformation (D,) is equal to 5 in. The post-yield stiffness is zero since bearings are assumed to follow an elastic-perfectly plastic hysteresis. The bearings were modeled using the Plastic (Wen) link element in SAP2000. The bearing properties were assigned in the longitudinal direction of the bridge and in the transverse direction along the skew angle (Figure 3-6). ‘The gap at the abutments is modeled using the gap link element in SAP2000. The gap link element provides zero stiffitess when the gap is open, but when the superstructure comes in contact with the abutment and the gap closes, the stiffness of the abutment and the soil behind itis activated. Four gap link elements were used in the longitudinal direction. A gap of 6 in and a stiffness of 2150 kip/in were used in the FE model (Figure 3-7). The initial abutment stiffness was calculated based on Priestley et. al, (1996) and is given by Equation 3-3, where B is the effective abutment width taken as the width of the bridge (43 ft). oot es Equation 3-3 The capacities of the internal shear keys were determined based on the experimental and analytical study reported by Megally et al. (2002). The capacity is the smaller of the27 cracking strength of the concrete at the interface (Equation 3-4) or the peak capacity of the shear key (Equation 3-5 and Equation 3-6): ¥, =11.3* JF (psi) Equation 3-4 ¥, <800* 4.(psi) for p< 0.60% Equation 3-5 Vem =0.2*A,* f-(psi) for p> 0.60% Equation 3-6 Using a concrete strength ( f,) of 4000 psi and an area of conerete (4,) of 2772 in’, Equation 3-4 controls with a capacity of 715 kips. After the shear key fails, the capacity reaches zero at a maximum displacement of 4.5 inches. The shear key was modeled by the multi-linear plastic link element in SAP2000. Three shear keys are represented, one in the middle of each cell (Figure 3-6). ‘The shear key link elements are aligned in the transverse direction along the skew angle. The assumed force-deformation behavior of a shear-key as implemented in the computational models is shown in Figure 3-8. Also shown in the figure is the ideal force-deformation behavior that captures the conditions before and after the failure of the shear key during strong earthquake excitations. Unfortunately, it is not possible to implement the complete ideal nonlinear force- deformation hysteresis in the available versions of SAP2000. Therefore, the shear key effect has been considered only in modal and pushover analyses (i.e. monotonic loading) in this study.28 3.3. Simplified Beam-Stick (BS) Models In the 3D beam-stick (BS) models, the superstructure was modeled with a single line of beam-column elements having the equivalent properties of the box-girder (Table 3-1). The integral bent caps and columns were modeled with individual elements. The bents were oriented at the skew angle being modeled. The bent caps were assigned relatively high moments-of-inertia to aid in the force distribution into the columns. The columns and footings were modeled with the same beam-column elements used in the 3D FE model. Also, the same nonlinear hinge properties were assigned to the top and bottom of, the columns (Table 3-2 and Table 3-3), and the same soil springs assigned to the base of the footings (Table 3-4). In order to make the BS models comparable to the FE models, lumped masses were assigned at the abutments, mid-spans, and bent caps to account for the additional weight of the diaphragms (Figure 3-9). ‘The abutments are modeled by collapsing the bearing, shear key, and gap nonlinear link elements from the FE model into individual single nonlinear link elements respectively in the BS model. The bearings are assigned an initial stiffness (k.) of 30.8 kips/in and a yield force (F,) of 153.6 kips. The stiffness of the gap element upon closure is 8600 kips/in while the gap remains 6 inches. The total shear key capacity is 2145 kips for the three shear keys in parallel, and reduces gradually to zero at 4.5 inches after failure. The nonlinear link elements are aligned in the same direction as in the FE models; the29 longitudinal links are aligned parallel to the centerline of the bridge while the transverse links are aligned along the skew angle (Figure 3-10). 3.4, Modal Analyses of the Bridges Modal analyses were conducted for each skew and for two abutment support conditions (Case I and Case Il) in order to determine the vibration modes of the finite element (FE) and beam-stick (BS) models discussed previously in this section. It is noted that structural dynamic characteristics of bridges are expected to be captured more accurately by the FE models. Nonetheless, based on the comparisons between the FE and BS models, conclusions can be drawn with respect to the level of accuracy of approximations ue to simplified BS models in general. Moreover, studies that investigated effect of skew angle on the modal characteristics of highway bridges with various support conditions are limited. Therefore, several comparisons are presented based on the modal analyses: (1) the accuracy of the BS model versus the more complex FE model in capturing modal characteristics, (2) the change in modal characteristics for various skew angles, and (3) the difference in modal characteristics between two combinations of abutment support conditions; namely, Case I and Case Il. The first support condition at the abutments, which is called Case I, consists of bearings in the longitudinal and transverse (along skew) directions, shear keys in the transverse direction, and gap elements in longitudinal direction. The second support condition,30 which is called Case II, consists also of bearings in the longitudinal and transverse directions and gap elements in the longitudinal direction, but without the shear keys. This second combination is necessary since it is not possible to model the ideal force- deformation hysteresis for the shear key in SAP2000 for nonlinear time history analyses as discussed earlier in this section. Nonetheless, between Case I and Case II, two extreme conditions are considered; for small excitation levels where shear keys remain intact (Case I) and higher level excitations that may lead to failure of the shear keys (Case I). The Case II combination will be important in the time history analyses conducted in Section 5; although, it will still be considered in the pushover analyses of Section 4 for comparison purposes. 3.4.1. Modal Analysis Background Eigenvector analyses (CSI, 2005; Chopra, 2001) were used to determine the undamped free-vibration mode shapes and frequencies of each model. An eigenvector analysis involves the solution of the generalized eigenvalue problem: [K-Q?M]o=0 Equation 3-7 where K is the stiffness matrix, Mis the diagonal mass matrix, Q? is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues (spectral matrix), and is the matrix of corresponding eigenvectors (modal matrix). The eigenvalue corresponds to the square of the circular frequency () for each mode. The cyclic frequency (f) and period (7) of each mode are related to w by: tae Equation 3-831 rei Equation 3-9 f The eigenvector corresponds to the natural mode shape of vibration. For the purpose of comparison in this study, period (7), mode shape ((), and mass participation ratios (rm ‘yy. and rp) Will be considered. The mass participation ratios for each mode provide a description of the mode and the importance of the response in the global X, Y, and Z directions for each mode. They are expressed as percentages. The mass participation ratios for Mode n in the global X, Y, and Z directions are given by: 2 re oe Equation 3-10 Equation 3-11 Equation 3-12 where Dy, Typ, Por are the participation factors and Mz Myy M, are the total unrestrained ‘masses acting in the X, Y, and Z directions. The participation factors for Mode n in the global X, Y, and Z directions are given by: I, =o), Equation 3-13 gim, Equation 3-14 =Q,m, Equation 3-15 where g, is the mode shape and m,, m,, and m, are unit acceleration loads. The mode shapes (9,) are normalized with respect to the mass matrix such that: 9! Mo, =1 Equation 3-1632 3.4.2. Finite Element (FE) versus Beam-Stick (BS) Models 3.4.2.1. Case | (with shear keys) For comparison purposes, the first twelve modes are considered, and within those twelve, only modes with 2% or greater mass participation ratios are displayed. For Case I of the abutment support conditions, the periods and mass participation ratios are summarized in Table 3-5 through Table 3-8 and mode shapes are shown in Figure 3-11 through Figure 3-14 for 0, 30, 45, and 60 degree skews. ‘The first five modes compare well between the FE and BS models. The periods of vibration, mass participation ratios, and mode shapes are all similar with the exception of the 60 degree skew model which will be discussed later in this section. The mode shapes predicted by the FE and BS models agree spatially. ‘The mass participation ratios were used to describe the mode shapes. The first significant longitudinal, transverse, vertical, and coupled modes all occurred as the same mode number in the FE and BS models (Table 3-5 to Table 3-7). The only discrepancies between the BS and FE models are the torsional modes which occur when there is a significant mass participation ratio about the X-axis (RX). For the BS models, the torsional modes are coupled with translational modes while the torsional modes for the FE models occur as individual modes. Also, the mass participation ratios for the FE torsional modes are significantly larger than those of the BS torsional modes, It is noted that pure torsional modes occur in the BS models at higher modes with low frequencies (i.e. between modes 15 and 30).33 Table 3-9 summarizes the percent differences between the FE and BS models for the predicted vibration periods. The vibration periods are compared for modes with the same description (i.e. transverse, longitudinal, vertical, and coupled). The principal longitudinal, transverse, vertical, and coupled vibration periods compare well for each skew with the largest percent difference being 13% for the first coupled mode of the 60 degree skew, but most are under 6%, For the higher modes, the FE and BS models did not compare as well. The FE captured smaller mass participation ratios, the percent differences between periods reached a maximum of 33% (Table 3-9), and the mode shapes began to deviate. For instance in the 0 degree skew, mode 12 of the FE model has the same mode shape as mode 10 of the BS model (Figure 3-11), in the 30 degree skew, mode 11 of the FE model agrees with mode 9 of the BS model (Figure 3-12), and in the 45 degree skew, mode 11 of the FE model is similar to mode 10 of the BS model (Figure 3-13). 3.4.2.2. Case Il (without shear keys) Table 3-10 through Table 3-13 summarize the periods and mass participation ratios, and Figure 3-15 to Figure 3-18 show the mode shapes for the 0, 30, 45, and 60 degree skews. ‘The first six mode shapes compare well between the FE and BS models for the 0 and 30 degree skews (Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16). With the 45 and 60 degree skews, the modes deviated at mode 3 and mode 4. In the 45 degree skew, mode 3 (FE) had the same shape as mode 4 (BS) (Figure 3-17). As seen in Table 3-14, the percent differences between the periods of the FE and BS models for the principal longitudinal, transverse,34 vertical, and coupled modes still compare well with a maximum difference of 11% if 60 degree skew is neglected and 23% if 60 degree skew is considered. If the higher modes are considered, there is a maximum percent difference of 35%. ‘The mass participation ratios are not as close as in Case 1, but they are still comparable in trend. The principal longitudinal, transverse, vertical, and coupled modes occurred at the same mode for 0, 30, and 45 degree skews. The torsional modes for the FE and BS models followed the same pattern as in Case I. 3.4.3. Skew Angle 3.4.3.1. Case | (with shear keys) As expected, introducing even small skew angles into a bridge’s geometry changes the response behavior. By comparing various increasing skew angles, the amount of change in response behavior can be determined. In Case I, the periods of the fundamental mode increase with skew angle as seen in Table 3-5 through Table 3-8 which may be attributed to the distribution of masses. Also as skew increases, the mass participation ratios tend to spread out over more of the higher modes indicating higher mode effects on the overall seismic response of the bridges. When a skew angle is introduced, coupling of the longitudinal and transverse modes becomes noticeable which results in modes 1 and 2 being coupled modes for the 30, 45, and 60 degree skews. For the 0 degree skew, mode 1 is the longitudinal mode only and mode 2 is the transverse mode only with the exception of the BS model which has coupling due to the torsional component (Table 3-5). As the skew increases, the mass participation of mode 1 in the X-direction (longitudinal)35 decreases while the mass participation in the Y-direction (transverse) increases. A similar observation is made for mode 2 except the mass participation is decrea: ing in the Y-direction and increasing in the X-direction. For 0, 30, and 45 degree skews the results follow a similar pattern, but 60 degree skew varies from this pattem in several ways. For instance, the principal vertical mode occurs at the fifth mode in the smaller skews, but moves to the sixth mode for the 60 degree skew FE model and splits between the fifth and sixth modes of the BS model (Table 3-8). Also, the mass participation factors become very large in the higher modes. In particular, mode 11 (FE) has a 35.4% mass participation in the X-direction, and mode 9 (BS) has a 33.6% mass participation in the X-direction (Table 3-8). Unlike for the other skews, the 60 degree skew clearly has first coupled translational mode as dominant in the transverse direction. Thirdly, the first coupled mode becomes more dominant in the transverse direction rather than the longitudinal direction like the 30 and 45 degree skews. The second coupled mode becomes more dominant in the longitudinal direction which also differs from the 30 and 45 degree skews, Lastly, the mode shapes began to deviate after mode 5 for the 0, 30, and 45 degree skews, but the mode shapes in the 60 degree skew deviate after mode 3 as, seen in Figure 3-14, 3.4.3.2. Case Il (without shear keys) The periods of the fundamental mode increase with skew angle (Table 3-10 to Table 3-13), but the increase varies more than in Case J. In the 45 and 60 degree skews, mass participation ratios are present in more of the higher modes. In all of the skews, a36 transverse mode is present in mode 3 or 4. As the skew increases, this transverse mode moves from mode 3 to mode 4 (Table 3-10 to Table 3-13). When skew is introduced, modes 1 and 2 become coupled modes as in Case I, but the FE model for the 60 degree results in a transverse mode | and longitudinal mode 2 (Table 3-13). The mass participation ratios do not follow a discemable patter as in Case I. 3.4.4. Case | versus Case Il for Abutment Supports Case I and II are expected to give very different modal results due to the different nature of the support conditions at the abutments. For instance, the fundamental mode for 0 degree skew in Case I is the longitudinal mode since the shear key provides significant resistance in the transverse direction (Table 3-5). In Case II, the shear key is removed, and the fundamental mode changes to the transverse mode (Table 3-10). Also in Case I, there are more significant modes in the first twelve modes than in Case II. The mass is captured in different ways for each case. In Case I, the longitudinal and transverse mass participation ratios for mode 1 and 2 began to switch places as the skew increased. For Case Il, the transverse mass participation ratio dominated the first mode for all skews while the longitudinal mass participation ratio dominated the second mode. Also, the principal vertical mode occurred at mode 5 in Case I and mode 6 in Case II. The principal torsional mode of the FE model occurred at mode 7 for both cases with the exception of the 60 degree skew.37 3.4.5. Summary and Discussions ‘Modal analyses between FE and BS models are comparable, and the BS model is successful in capturing the modal coupling due to the skew and the significant modes needed for further analysis. Although, a designer should consider using a more complex FE model when dealing with very large skews such as 60 degrees in order to capture the higher mode effects. Finally, BS models are not as successful at capturing the torsional modes as the FE models. ‘The modal analyses conducted show that increasing skew has a significant effect on the modal characteristics of this bridge. A skewed bridge, whether 30 or 60 degrees, results in coupled modes which leads to coupling of the translational and rotational responses. The fundamental periods of vibration always increase with skew angle. The analyses also show that large skews (60 degrees and greater) may result in sporadic mass participation distribution which would require the consideration of higher mode effects.‘Area (ft?) Table 3-1 Section Properties 38 a7 Ix- Torsion (ft) 400000 iy (rt) 7100000 ta (fe) 700000 Density (lb/ft) | Displacement (ft) | Force (kip) 0 0 Table 3-2_ Nonlinear Column Axial Hin e Properties 0.14182 Rotation (rad) 0.20762 0.00204 “0.00204 0.00398 0.00329 0.01135 0.00529 0.03561 Table 3-4 Linear Translational and Rotational Soil S) U2 (kipitt) -0.02009 pring Stiffnesses 103000 7103000 US (kip/ft) R2 (kip-ftlrad) ‘94400 7420000 7420000, R3 (kip-ftirad) 47500000,Finite Element Model Period (sec) Table 3-5 0 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case I 39 Beam-Stick Model % Mass. Participation Description 0.51160 x 9072 Longitudinal Mode Period (sec) 0.49439 % Mass Participation Longitudinal Mode 0.35269 Transverse Mode 0.34848 Coupled Transtational & Torsional Mode 0.21720 Vertical Mode 0.20568 Vertical Mode 0.13869 Torsional Mode 0.10254 0.10908 0.08293 Vertical Mode 0.10100 Torsional Mode Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode 0.08699 Vertical Mode 0.07137 0.08662 1] <]>|m}-<[><]2]rs<[oe]ro] Joe] x] es] <]nq]r]-<]><| I 05] <]><]n]-< Transverse Mode 0.05833 nu <{e/rs]<|>e{ 22] rs] | {rs} <]>] 2] <] rs <]Finite Element Model 0.53015 Participation 40 Beam-Stick Model Period (sec) 78.42 13.00 Coupled Translational Mode % Mass Participation > 0.51875 Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode Coupled Transiational Mode Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode 0.20962 Vertical Mode 0.20622 Vertical Mode 0.14250 Torsional Mode 0.10273 0.11269 Vertical Mode Vertical Mode x Y. Zz RX x Y. Zz RX x Y. Zi x Y. Zz RX x Y. Zz x Torsional Mode Coupled Transiational & Torsional Mode 0.08828 Coupled Translational Mode 0.07661 0.08514 n]<|x|n]<]x]z]n]-| Vertical Mode 0.05838 1] -<]><]ru} || 32]rs]<] era] <] >] 22]rs]<] >|] <]<| 2] s]<] > 2] rn] -<Finite Element Model Table 3-7_45 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case I 41 Beam-Stick Model Period | % Mass (sec) _| Participation Description Period (sec) % Mass Participation 56.91 33.56 0.55159 Coupled Transiational Mode 0.55768 Description Coupled Transtational & Torsional Mode 0.37281 Coupled Translational Mode 0.33148 Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode 0.26383 Vertical Mode 0.28053 0.20908 Torsional Mode Vertical Mode 0.20713 0.18729 Torsional Mode 0.10306 0.12505 Vertical Mode 0.08568 ~|><|rs|<| ><] 32] ms] <| >|] <]><] 22] ra |<] ><] ms] <] ><] 22] <] >] 2210] <|> 0.12387 + Torsional Mode 0.08425 Vertical Mode 0.09914 0.08408 Coupled 0.09263 Coupled Translational ‘Mode 0.07688 n]<|>|ns]<]xlz]n]<]oxfa rs] ~<|><}rs] |<] 32]rs] |e 2] rs] -< ||] <]><| 22] ra]<] ers] <] | 2] <1] my] <]><] 2] 1 <]<1 2] m]<]><42 Table 3-8 60 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case I Finite Element Model Beam-Stick Model % Mass Participation Description % Mass Participation Description 28.22 66.70 Coupled Translational Mode 28.80 61.05 0 10.10 Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode Coupled Translational Mode 27.48 17.82 Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode 0.21805 Vertical 0.25550 0.22210 0.16927 Torsional Mode 0.21040 elo|olRlolololo|¥lo| 0.16563 Vertical Mode 0.2076 0.14324 Torsional Mode 0.10401, 0.11930 Vertical Mode 0.10216 0.11781 Torsional Mode 0.09775 Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode 0.11594 elo} sole jertical Mode 0.08628 Vertical Mode 0.10427 * Coupled ‘Translational Mode 0.07596 0.08260 1] <|><|ru}<] {os} <| <2 os] -<|><] rs] <]><| 2] <> nn] 32 ra] <] fn] <] |] <] >] 22] <><] 22]ns] fe lofololo| 0.05839 nfe<|><]ru| <|><] 4] <|>e] 2] <] >| na] |] 2] ns] | chr <] | 2] |<] rn Table 3-9 Percent Differences between FE and BS Periods for Case I Longitudinal le Mode Desc. Coupled 1) 30 Skew 2.18% Mode Desc. Coupled i) 12.6% 4B Trans /Coup. (22) Coupled (2,2) 3.82% Coupled (22) 7.30% Vertical (5,5) Vertical (5,5) 1.62% Vertical (4,5) 4.16% Vertical (11,8) Vertical (88) 26.0% Vertical (5) Vertical (6.6) 25.4% Trans iCoup. (12,10) Coupled (11,9) 11.7% Coupled (14,40) Vertical (10,10) 25.6% Vertical (12,12) 31.4% Coupled (11,9) * The numbers refer to the corresponding FE and BS mode numbers (FE,BS). | 6.25%Table 3-10 0 Dey gree Skew Modal Properties for Case II Finite Element Model Period (sec) % Mass Participation Description Period (sec) % Mass Participation 0 0.52155 86.80 0 0 Transverse Mode 0.52279 x Description Coupled ‘Transiational & Torsional Mode 0.51160 Longitudinal Mode 0.49439 Longitudinal Mode 0.26907 Transverse Mode 0.26071, Transverse Mode 0.21720 Vertical Mode 0.20568 Vertical Mode 0.13866 Torsional Mode 0.10602 0.10059 Torsional Mode 0.07137 x Y. Zz RX x Y. Zz x M4 Zz x Y. Zi x v4 Zz RX oe Y Zz x Y. Z RX x Ly Zz Vertical Mode 0.05833 1] <|<] 3] rs] <] |r] <|>| 2m] <] ><] ns] <] ra] <] fms] <] >] 22m] <Finite Element Model Period (sec) % Mass Participation Table 3-11_30 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case II 45 Description Participation 0.53971 22.33 53.73 Coupled Translational Mode 0.88072 12.99 74.75 0 14.80 Translational & Torsional Mode 0.52960 Coupled Translational Mode 77.75 12.75 2.01 Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode 0.27336 Transverse Mode 0.26555 413 ‘Transverse Mode 0.20962 Vertical Mode 0.20621 Vertical Mode 0.14246 Torsional Mode 0.10766 0.11150 Torsional Mode 0.11148 Vertical Mode 0.07715 sls} af] fa 9b] | ns] <] ><} 2s] |] 22] rs <]><| na] fra] <] ><] 32] ra] <] ><] 2] ms] <]46 (sec) _| Participation | Description 6.57 82.79 Coupled t Translational | 0.58647 Mode Translational & Torsional Mode 0.61751 i Coupled Translational & Torsional Mode Coupled Translational Mode 0.54310 Eg 0.27850 Transverse Mode Vertical Mode Transverse 0.27263 | Mode 2|2/2}8|olo]o,0, fo Vertical Mode Vertical 0.20171 hess 0.20711 Torsional 0.18714 Mode x Y. Zz R x Y. Zz R x Y, Zz x Y. Zz x Y. Zz x Y. Zz Vertical 0.12900 Neda ololololojolololo Torsional Mode 0.08425 Vertical ‘Mode 0.07689 Vertical 0.08889 cas | -<]><|ra|-] 32 ra <| >| ns < || 3] rs] <] nl msl <] |<] ><] ]<] 32] ] <] ><] 22] 5] <] > 2 2 nu]<|><]—v]-<|><] 2] ru] -<]><] ru] <| ><] 22 IS |elololeloleTable 3-13_60 Degree Skew Modal Properties for Case II Finite Element Mod 47 Beam-Stick Model % Mass Participation Description (sec) _| Participation 0.63797 0 77.87 Transverse Mode Period | %Ma8S | Description 9.74 ‘Coupled 78.84 | Translational 0 | & Torsional 13.07 bation 0.66014 0.48822 Longitudinal Mode 82.18 | Coupled 9.47_| Translational oO & Torsional 758 Mode 0.49104 0.31463 Transverse ‘Mode 0 2.50 Transverse 0.28571 mee 0.20410 Vertical Mode Vertical 0.25058 eas 0.16927 Torsional Mode Transverse ‘Mode Vertical Mode Vertical 0.20888 Mode 0.14301 Torsional Mode 0.11599 0.11781 Torsional Mode 0.08628 0.11672 Vertical Mode 0.07597 0.07631 1] <|><]ra}<] 32] elou]<] >| 32] rs] <]><] 2h ra] |||] | 32] ro] <]><] rs] <] fn] <] 2s] <] ><] 22]n5] [><