MODELING OF THE

HUMBOLDT-BAY BRIDGE
Kareem Sherif,
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo,
UCSD,
Dr. Ahmed Elgamal

202
ABSTRACT

Currently, the Humboldt Bay Bridge is modeled in two dimensions on OpenSees, which
is a non-linear structural analysis program under development from UC Berkeley. The bridge
project is funded by Caltrans and has already undergone one retrofit. However, a second retrofit
is planned for the year 2002. The nonlinear model in OpenSees is based on the existing structure
as built with the soil boundaries modeled as a shear beam. The purpose of the model is to show
the difference in the bridge’s response to earthquake motion before and after the retrofits and to
demonstrate the capabilities of OpenSees. In the meantime, the second phase of the model is
being developed. The modified model will demonstrate the use of a nonlinear interface (Py-
springs) between the piles and the soil to obtain a more realistic behavior of the soil-structure
interaction and to allow for the flow of liquefied soil around the piles. In addition, the soil
boundaries will be modified to exhibit a more realistic overall soil behavior with the first retrofit
implemented to the model.

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of the Humboldt-Bay Bridge project are; to develop a nonlinear model of
the bridge that incorporates soil-pile-structure interaction, add nonlinear interface elements (p-y
springs) between the piles and soil, model retrofit operations, and simulate a seismic response
using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.

Modeling in OpenSees

OpenSees is an analysis software under development from UC Berkeley. Modeling in

OpenSees is solely by writing code defining every and each element of the structure. The
nonlinear capabilities of OpenSees allow for achieving a more accurate model and realistic
structural responses hence, obtaining a better prediction on a structure’s behavior. The source
code is easily amended and developed, which makes it easy for developers to modify the code to
suit different modeling parameters. A visual representation of the bridge model in OpenSees is
shown in figure 1 as a finite element model of the bridge and surrounding soil structure. The
visual representation allows us to understand the soil-structure interaction and relate that
behavior to the results obtained from OpenSees. In the meantime, we are implementing spring
elements in the model between the soil and piles in order to further enhance the modeling of the
soil-structure interaction aspect of the research.

203
 Figure 1: Finite element model of the Humboldt-Bay Bridge
Mesh generated using GID (http://ce.washington.edu/~geotech/opensees/)

Nonlinear p-y springs

A p-y spring element theoretically consists of a system of springs in parallel, a hook, and a gap
element, as shown in figure 2. P-y springs are zero length elements and cannot be represented
physically but they can dramatically modify a models’ behavior. Previously, the soil and pile
elements moved together when subjected to ground motion. However, with the use of the
springs, the relative displacements between the soil structure and each pile can be observed
hence, a more realistic model. P-y springs also allow us to capture the liquefaction phenomenon
that is the flow of liquefied soil around the piles causing differential settlements, which in turn
induce cracks and breaks in the structure above.

Figure 2: A representation of a theoretical p-y spring finite element model

204
The bridge model in OpenSees was subjected to many earthquake motion data as part of a
preliminary run. Among the seismic input motion records was the 1994 Northridge earthquake
record obtained from the Rinaldi receiving station. The Northridge earthquake had
approximately a magnitude 7 on the Richter scale and a relatively low frequency that posed
challenges to the structure as it approached the bridge’s resonant frequency. The absolute
maximum acceleration occurs in the first third of the earthquake’s duration as shown in figure 3.

Ground Motion: Rinaldi Receiving Station-Northridge 1994

11Ground Motion: Rinaldi Receiving Station-Northridge 1994
Acc.
[g] 00

-1
-1
00
Acceleration
Acceleration
(g)
(g) 55 Time (sec)
10
10 15
15
22 Time (sec)
Vel.[m
/sec]
00

Time (sec)
-2
-2
Velocit y (m/sec )
Time (sec)
00
Velocit y (m/sec ) 55 10
10 15
15
11
Displ.
[m]
00

-1-1
00
Dis placement
Dis placement
(m )
(m )
55 Time (sec)
10
10 15
15
Time (sec)

Figure 3: Seismic input ground motion (1994 Northridge earthquake)

The model subjected to the seismic motion shown above incorporates the p-y springs at the
locations of soil-structure (pile) interaction. Therefore, we were able to generate some
preliminary p-y curves that demonstrate the behavior and effect of the springs on the overall
response.

205
Preliminary p-y curves

The displacement history plot (figure 4) demonstrates the intensity of the ground shaking
especially during the first third of the earthquake’s duration. Permanent soil displacement near
the ground surface is evident due to the lack of sufficient self-weight to keep the soil in place.
The p-y spring elements were placed as deep as 20 meters in the soil to capture the effect of the
ground shaking on a relatively large soil profile.

Figure 4: P-y element displacement history

On the other hand, the shear stress vs. normal stress diagram in figure 5 describes the state of
internal stresses in the soil profile along its depth. Evidently, deeper soils are subjected to larger
normal stresses due to the weight of the soil above. Therefore, we realized that the shear stress in
the soil is proportional to its depth on which the normal stresses are also dependent. Figure 5
illustrates the stress vs. depth relationship as described above.

206
 Figure 5: Internal soil stresses
The classical stress vs. strain diagram in figure 6 also supports the observations deduced from the
previous diagrams. It is evident from the plot that deeper soils are under much higher stresses
than those near the surface. In addition, the strains near the surface are larger than they are 20m
deep due to the accumulated soil weight over the deeper soils, which restrain their movement.
Figure 6 illustrates the stress vs. strain and depth relationship.

Figure 6: Stress vs. strain diagram

207
Finally, in figure 7 we illustrate the lateral spreading mechanism due to liquefaction as
concluded from the collected data and diagrams above.

Figure 6: Earthquake-induced soil lateral spreading mechanism

Learning outcomes

The significance of this research to the study of structural risk analysis broadened my
perspectives on structural engineering. Before my advent on this research project, I had very
limited knowledge on geotechnical engineering and structural risk analysis. However, as I
conclude my PEER internship at UCSD, I feel more confident with the newly acquired
knowledge in those areas of research. As a result, pursuing a Master’s degree in Structural
Engineering at UCSD was no longer questionable, as evident from my current graduate status at
UCSD.

208
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• Yuyi Zhang, PhD candidate (UCSD)

• Zhaoui Yang, Post Doc. (UCSD)

• Prof. Ahmed Elgamal (UCSD)

• Prof. Joel P. Conte (UCSD)

• Caltrans: Mr. Patrick Hipley, Mr. Cliff Roblee, Mr. Charles Sikorsky and Mr. Mark
Yashinsky

• Prof. Greg Fenves, Dr. Frank McKenna, Mr. Michael Scott (UC Berkeley)

• Prof. Boris Jeremic (UC Davis)

• Prof. Pedro Arduino (UW)

209
 APPENDIX - A

OpenSees code sample file (analyzing a single pile supported structure)

#file "Csp2-sc49-c.tcl
#
#Csp2 is Wilson's (2000) test with Dr=35% in upper sand layer.
#Analyzing single pile supported structure.
#Santa Cruz motion, amax base of 0.49 g, Event E.
#Property set, "c".
#
#plane strain, column of soil elements, dynamic analysis
#SI units (m, s, KN)
#
#some user defined variables
#
set massDen 2.0 ;# mass density
set grav 9.81 ;# gravity for unit set used
set deltaT 0.01505 ;# time step for analysis
set numSteps 2199 ;# Number of analysis steps
set gamma 0.6 ;# Newmark integration parameter

#############################################################
# BUILD SOIL MODEL

#create the ModelBuilder for building soil Quads

model basic -ndm 2 -ndf 2

set gravY [expr -$grav*($massDen-1.0)] ;# buoyant unit weight

#------------------------------------------------------------
#Loose Sand properties

nDMaterial PressureDependMultiYield 1 2 $massDen 5.72e4 1.283e5 35. 0.1 100.

0.5 \
27.0 0.055 0.4 1.0 \
10 0.015 1.0
nDMaterial FluidSolidPorous 2 2 1 2.2e6

updateMaterialStage -material 1 -stage 0

updateMaterialStage -material 2 -stage 0

#------------------------------------------------------------
#Dense sand properties (Dr=80%)

nDMaterial PressureDependMultiYield 3 2 $massDen 7.2e4 1.615e5 35. 0.1 100.

0.5 \
27.0 0.01 0.4 1.0 \
10 0.015 1.0
nDMaterial FluidSolidPorous 4 2 3 2.2e6

updateMaterialStage -material 3 -stage 0

updateMaterialStage -material 4 -stage 0

210
set eleMat "PlaneStrain"

#------------------------------------------------------------
#define the nodes

set dx 10
set dy1 0.7
set dy2 1.3

for {set i 0} {$i <=13} {incr i 1} {

set yDim [expr -$i*$dy1]
node [expr $i*2+1] 0. $yDim
node [expr $i*2+2] $dx $yDim
}
for {set i 1} {$i <=9} {incr i 1} {
set yDim [expr -9.1-$i*$dy2]
node [expr 27+$i*2] 0. $yDim
node [expr 28+$i*2] $dx $yDim
}

#------------------------------------------------------------
#Apply boundary conditions for fixed base and simple shear deformation

for {set i 1} {$i <=22} {incr i 1} {

equalDOF [expr $i*2] [expr $i*2-1] 1 2
}
fix 45 1 1
fix 46 1 1

#------------------------------------------------------------
#define the soil elements

set matOpt 2
for {set i 1} {$i <=13} {incr i 1} {
#element type id n1 n2 n3 n4 thick material maTag press mDensity
body1 body2
element quad $i [expr $i*2+1] [expr $i*2+2] [expr $i*2] [expr $i*2-1] \
10.0 $eleMat $matOpt 0.0 0 0
$gravY
}
set matOpt 4
for {set i 1} {$i <=9} {incr i 1} {
#element type id n1 n2 n3 n4 thick material maTag press mDensity
body1 body2
element quad [expr $i+13] [expr $i*2+27] [expr $i*2+28] [expr $i*2+26]
[expr $i*2+25] \
10.0 $eleMat $matOpt 0.0 0 0
$gravY
}

#------------------------------------------------------------
#define the p-y materials and elements

for {set i 0} {$i <=13} {incr i 1} {

set yDim [expr -$i*$dy1]
node [expr $i+47] $dx $yDim

211
 fix [expr $i+47] 0 1
}
for {set i 1} {$i <=6} {incr i 1} {
set yDim [expr -9.1-$i*$dy2]
node [expr 60+$i] $dx $yDim
fix [expr 60+$i] 0 1
}

#------------------------------------------------------------
#define the p-y materials
#uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 tag type pult y50 cd dashpot quad1 quad2

uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 5 2 1.2710623276612751

.00024300380303083287 .3 129.7971912937819
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 6 2 18.713744484613603
.001788862347559184 .3 367.1218965712029
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 7 2 54.517980695874016
.005211418965990073 .3 436.58397147576756
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 8 2 107.41270863378121
.010267669855292667 .3 483.1595876631928
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 9 2 177.39792829833524
.01695761501546697 .3 519.1887651751276
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 10 2 264.47363968953607
.025281254446512975 .3 548.9752805973711
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 11 2 368.6398428073836
.03523858814843068 .3 574.5768193308497
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 12 2 489.896537651878
.046829616121220094 .3 597.1518722487573
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 13 2 628.2437242230192 .0635555377856004
.3 617.422973575739
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 14 2 783.6814025208075
.08408935879744357 .3 635.8737774323698
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 15 2 956.2095725452424
.10815169556731391 .3 652.8453096470091
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 16 2 1145.828234296324
.13592398778752726 .3 668.5878184640754
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 17 2 1352.537387774052 .1675792133871439
.3 683.2908416638796
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 18 2 1576.3370329784277
.20328297140967858 .3 697.1016751514574
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 19 2 5801.252867693785
.09179643202113467 .3 1338.564877489825
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 20 2 7291.6920135778055
.12237947420935208 .3 1378.5659773207988
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 21 2 8952.193945555671
.15837568053032608 .3 1415.3600357085802
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 22 2 9910.820815260204
.18389290710129097 .3 1449.489587552206
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 23 2 10811.804525738404
.20953077522592342 .3 1481.3655482638653
uniaxialMaterial PySimple1 24 2 5856.394118108302 .2362604240910255
.3 755.6536267131609

for {set i 1} {$i <= 20} {incr i 1} {

updateMaterialStage -material [expr 4+$i] -stage 0
}

212
#------------------------------------------------------------
#define the zeroLength p-y elements connecting soil to pile

# element zeroLength eleTag node1 node2 -mat matTag -dir dof

for {set i 1} {$i <= 20} {incr i 1} {
set eleTag [expr 22+$i]
set inode [expr 2*$i]
set jnode [expr 46+$i]
set zmat [expr 4+$i]
element zeroLength $eleTag $inode $jnode -mat $zmat -dir 1
}

#------------------------------------------------------------
#place a fixed floating node. For some dum reason, this stops an
# error during the static SOE. Bizarre, and hard to figure out.

node 67 -1 -1
fix 67 1 1

#------------------------------------------------------------
#print out the model so far

#print Csp2.out

#############################################################
# GRAVITY APPLICATION (elastic behavior) FOR SOIL & PY MATERIALS

# create the SOE, ConstraintHandler, Integrator, Algorithm and Numberer

system ProfileSPD
algorithm Linear
constraints Penalty 1.e10 1.e10
integrator LoadControl 1 1 1 1
numberer RCM

#create the Analysis

analysis Static

#recorder Element 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 16 19 21 -file Csp2.str material 1 stress

analyze 2

#------------------------------------------------------------
#switch material stage from elastic (gravity) to plastic

updateMaterialStage -material 1 -stage 1

updateMaterialStage -material 2 -stage 1
updateMaterialStage -material 3 -stage 1
updateMaterialStage -material 4 -stage 1

for {set i 1} {$i <= 20} {incr i 1} {

updateMaterialStage -material [expr 4+$i] -stage 1
}

#############################################################
# BUILD PILE MODEL

213
#create the ModelBuilder for building soil Quads
model basic -ndm 2 -ndf 3

#------------------------------------------------------------
#Add pile nodes and elements
geomTransf Linear 1
set pileA 0.040
set pileE 2.e8
set pileI 2.06e-3

set pileMass [expr 1.9*$pileA*7.8]

node 68 [expr 2*$dx] 3.8 $pileMass 0 0
set pileMass [expr 2.25*$pileA*7.8]
node 69 [expr 2*$dx] 0.0 $pileMass 0 0
element elasticBeamColumn 43 68 69 $pileA $pileE $pileI 1
set pileMass [expr $dy1*$pileA*7.8]
for {set i 1} {$i <=13} {incr i 1} {
node [expr 69+$i] [expr 2*$dx] [expr -$i*$dy1] -mass $pileMass 0 0
element elasticBeamColumn [expr $i+43] [expr $i+68] [expr $i+69] $pileA
$pileE $pileI 1
}
set pileMass [expr $dy2*$pileA*7.8]
for {set i 1} {$i <=6} {incr i 1} {
node [expr 82+$i] [expr 2*$dx] [expr -9.1-$i*$dy2] -mass $pileMass 0 0
element elasticBeamColumn [expr 56+$i] [expr 81+$i] [expr 82+$i] $pileA
$pileE $pileI 1
}
fix 88 0 1 0

#------------------------------------------------------------
#specify the superstructure mass (in Mg)
mass 68 48.9 0.0 0.0

#------------------------------------------------------------
#connect the free-field of the p-y springs to the pile

for {set i 1} {$i <=20} {incr i 1} {

equalDOF [expr $i+46] [expr $i+68] 1
}

#------------------------------------------------------------
#print the model info

#print Csp2.out

#############################################################
# NOW APPLY LOADING SEQUENCE AND ANALYZE (plastic)

#rezero time
setTime 0.0
wipeAnalysis

#------------------------------------------------------------
#Create a LoadPattern with a base acceleration time history

set baseAccel "Path -filePath Csp2-e-base.acc -dt $deltaT -factor $grav"

# tag dir arguments

214
pattern UniformExcitation 1 1 -accel $baseAccel

#------------------------------------------------------------
#create the recorder

set fName "C2sc49cSoil"

recorder Node $fName.disp disp -time -node 2 4 10 16 20 24 26 30 34 38 40 -
dof 1
recorder Node $fName.acc accel -time -node 2 4 10 16 20 24 26 30 34 38 40 -
dof 1
recorder Element 2 4 6 8 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22 -time -file $fName.str
material 1 stress
recorder Element 2 4 6 8 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22 -time -file $fName.eps
material 1 strain
recorder Element 2 4 6 8 10 11 13 14 16 18 20 22 -time -file $fName.pre
material 1 pressure

set fName "C2sc49cPile"

recorder Node $fName.disp disp -time -node 68 69 82 88 -dof 1
recorder Node $fName.acc accel -time -node 68 69 82 88 -dof 1
recorder Element 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 -time -file $fName.force force

set fName "C2sc49cPY"

recorder Element 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 -time -file $fName.force force
recorder Element 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 -time -file $fName.def
deformation

#------------------------------------------------------------
#create the Analysis

constraints Penalty 1.0e10 1.0e10

test NormDispIncr 1.e-4 50 0
numberer RCM
algorithm Newton
system ProfileSPD
integrator Newmark $gamma [expr pow($gamma+0.5, 2)/4] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.
analysis VariableTransient

#------------------------------------------------------------
#analyze

set startT [clock seconds]

analyze $numSteps $deltaT [expr $deltaT/64] $deltaT 3
set endT [clock seconds]
puts "Execution time: [expr $endT-$startT] seconds."

wipe #flush ouput stream

_____________________________________________________________________________

215
 REFERENCES

• Arulmoli, K. et al. (1992), "VELACS: Verification of Liquefaction Analyses by

Centrifuge Studies, Laboratory Testing Program, Soil Data Report," Report, The Earth
Technology Corporation, Project No. 90-0562, Irvine, CA.

• Boulanger, R. W. et al. (1999), "Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction Experiments and

Analyses," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg., ASCE, 125(9), 750-
759.

• Conte, J. P. et al. (2002), “Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of a Bridge Ground System,”

Proc. 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics, Columbia University, N.Y., June 2-5.

• Dobry, R., V. Taboada, and L. Liu (1995), "Centrifuge Modeling of Liquefaction Effects
During Earthquakes," Keynote Lecture, Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. On Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering (IS-Tokyo), Ishihara, K. (Ed.), Balkema, Netherlands, 3, 1291-
1324.

• Elgamal, A., Lai, T., Yang, Z., and He, L. (2001), "Dynamic Soil Properties, Seismic
Downhole Arrays and Applications in Practice," (CD-ROM), State-of-the-art paper,
Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, March 26-31, 2001, S. Prakash, (Ed.).

• Kammerer, A. et al. (2000), "Cyclic Simple Shear Testing of Nevada Sand for PEER
Center Project 2051999," Research Report No. UCB/GT/00-02, Univ. of California at
Berkeley, CA.

• McKenna, F. and G. L. Fenves (2001), "The OpenSees Command Language Manual,

Version 1.2," Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California
at Berkeley. (http://opensees.berkeley.edu/ )

• Prevost, J.H. (1985), "A Simple Plasticity Theory for Frictional Cohesionless Soils," Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 4(1), 9-17.

• Spacone, E., F. C. Filippou, and F. F. Taucer (1996), " Fibre Beam-Column Model for
Non-Linear Analysis of R/C Frames: Part I. Formulation," Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 25 (7), 711-725.

216