3

4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1234567890
33
32
31
26
19
14
13
12
11
2

34
37
38 Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

42

43 Performance based design of steel arch bridges

44 using practical inelastic nonlinear analysis
45 Seung-Eock Kim ∗, Se-Hyu Choi, Sang-Soo Ma
46 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University, 98 Koonja-dong Kwangjin-ku,
47 Seoul, South Korea

48 Received 20 August 2001; accepted 13 February 2002

49

50 Abstract

51 A performance based design method of three-dimensional steel arch bridges using practical
52
5 inelastic nonlinear analysis is presented. In this design method, separate member capacity
6
53 checks after analysis are not required, because the stability and strength of the structural system
54 and its component members can be rigorously treated in analysis. The geometric nonlinearity
55 is considered by using the stability function for beam-column members and the geometric
56 stiffness matrix for truss members. The Column Research Council (CRC) tangent modulus is
57 used to account for gradual yielding due to residual stresses. A parabolic function is used to
58 represent the transition from elastic to zero stiffness associated with a developing hinge of
59 beam-column members. The load–displacements predicted by the proposed analysis compare
60 well with those given by other approaches. A case study has been presented for the steel arch
61 bridge with 61 m span. The analysis results show that the proposed method is suitable for
62 adoption in practice.  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

63 Keywords: Performance based design; Inelastic nonlinear analysis; Geometric nonlinearity; Material non-
64 linearity; Steel arch bridge
65

66

67 1. Introduction

68 The steel design methods are Allowable Stress Design (ASD), Plastic Design (PD),
69 and Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). In ASD, the stress computation is

1
27
28
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-2-3408-3291; fax: +82-2-3408-3332.
30
129 E-mail address: sekim@sejong.ac.kr (S.-E. Kim).
2
3 0143-974X/01/$ - see front matter  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
4 PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 9 7 4 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 6
5

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
DTD v4.3.1 / JCSR2109
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 2 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

70 based on a linear elastic analysis, and the inelastic nonlinear effects are implicitly
71 accounted for in the member design equations. In PD, a linear plastic-hinge analysis
72 is used in the structural analysis. Inelastic nonlinearity and gradual yielding effects
73 are approximated in member design equations. In LRFD, a linear elastic analysis
74 with amplification factors or a direct nonlinear elastic analysis is used to account
75 for inelastic nonlinearity, and the ultimate strength of members is implicitly reflected
76 in the design interaction equations.
77 However, despite popular use of conventional design methods in the past and
78 present as a basis for design, the methods have their major limitations. The first of
79 these is that it does not give an accurate indication of the factor against failure,
80 because it does not consider the interaction of strength and stability between the
81 member and structural system in a direct manner. It is well-recognized fact that the
82 actual failure mode of the structural system often does not have any resemblance
83 whatsoever to the elastic buckling mode of the structural system. The second and
84 perhaps the most serious limitation is probably the rationale of the current two-stage
85 process in design: elastic analysis is used to determine the forces acting on each
86 member of a structure system, whereas inelastic analysis is used to determine the
87 strength of each member treated as an isolated member. There is no verification of
88 the compatibility between the isolated member and the member as part of a structural
89 system. The individual member strength equations as specified in specifications are
90 unconcerned with system compatibility. As a result, there is no explicit guarantee
91 that all members will sustain their design loads under the geometric configuration
5
92
6 imposed by the structural system.
93 To solve these problems, performance based design should be carried out. Per-
94 formance based design uses inelastic nonlinear analysis that can sufficiently capture
95 the limit state strength and stability of a structural system and its individual members,
96 so that separate member capacity checks encompassed by the specification equations
97 are not required. It is expected that the use of performance based design method
98 will simplify the design process considerably. The main difference between perform-
99 ance based design method and conventional methods is that performance based
100 design method can predict the structural system strength, whereas others can predict
101 only member strengths.
102 Over the past 30 years, research efforts have been devoted to the development
103 and validation of several inelastic nonlinear analysis methods. Inelastic nonlinear
104 analyses may be grouped into the second-order plastic-zone and the second-order
105 plastic-hinge analyses. The second-order plastic-zone solution is known as the ‘exact
106 solution’, but cannot be used for practical design purposes [4,5]. This is because the
107 method is too intensive in computation and costly due to its complexity. Second-
108 order plastic-hinge analyses, practical analyses, for the space frames were developed
109 by Orbison [11], Ziemian et al. [14], Prakash and Powell [13], Liew and Tang [9],
110 and Kim et al. [7,8].
111 Recently, a number of studies of steel arch bridges have been performed by Chat-
112 terjee and Datta [2], Nazmy [10], and Pi and Trahair [12]. However, these studies
113 are based on nonlinear elastic analysis to evaluate the effects of various design para-
114 meters influencing the strength and stability of steel arch bridges. The purpose of

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 3
3

115 this paper is to present a performance based design method of steel arch bridges
116 using a practical inelastic nonlinear analysis.

117 2. Practical inelastic nonlinear analysis

118 2.1. Stability functions accounting for second-order effect of beam-column

119 member

120 To capture second-order effects, stability functions are used to minimize modeling
121 and solution time. Generally only one or two elements are needed per a member.
122 The simplified stability functions reported by Chen and Lui [3] are used here. Con-
123 sidering the prismatic beam-column element in Fig. 1, the incremental force–dis-
124 placement relationship of this element may be written as

冦冧 冤 冥冦 冧
S1 S2 0
MA qA
EI S2 S1 0
125 MB ⫽ qB (1)
L A
P 0 0 e
I
5
6126

127 where S1, S2 are the stability functions, MA, MB the incremental end moments, P the
128 incremental axial force, qA, qB the incremental joint rotations, e the incremental axial
129 displacement, A, I, L the area, moment of inertia, and length of beam-column element
130 and E the modulus of elasticity.
131 The stability functions given by Eq. (1) may be written as

483
484

485
487
486
489
488 Fig. 1. Beam-column subjected to double-curvature bending.

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 4 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

π冑rsin(π冑r)⫺π2rcos(π冑r)

冦
if P ⬍ 0
2⫺2cos(π冑r)⫺π冑rsin(π冑r)
S1 ⫽ (2a)
π2rcosh(π冑r)⫺π冑rsinh(π冑r)
132

if P ⬎ 0
133
2⫺2cosh(π冑r) ⫹ π冑rsinh(π冑r)

π2r⫺π冑rsin(π冑r)

冦
if P ⬍ 0
2⫺2cos(π冑r)⫺π冑rsin(π冑r)
S2 ⫽ (2b)
π冑rsinh(π冑r)⫺π2r
134

if P ⬎ 0
135
2⫺2cosh(π冑r) ⫹ π冑rsin(π冑r)

136 where r ⫽ P / (π2EI / L2), P is positive in tension.

137 The force–displacement equation may be extended for the three-dimensional
138 beam-column element as
EA
0 0 0 0 0
L

冦冧冤 冥冦 冧
EIy EIy
0 S1 S 0 0 0 d
P L 2L
5
6
MyA EIy EIy qyA
0 S2 S 0 0 0
MyB L 1L qyB
139 ⫽ (3)
MzA EIz EIz qzA
0 0 0 S3 S 0
MzB L 4L qzB
T EIz EIz f
0 0 0 S4 S 0
L 3L
GJ
0 0 0 0 0
140 L
141 where P, MyA, MyB, MzA, MzB, and, T are axial force, end moments with respect to
142 y and z axes and torsion respectively. d, qyA, qyB, qzA, qzB, and, f are the axial
143 displacement, the joint rotations, and the angle of twist. S1, S2, S3 and S4 are the
144 stability functions with respect to y- and z-axes, respectively.

145 2.2. CRC tangent modulus model associated with residual stresses

146 The CRC tangent modulus concept is used to account for gradual yielding (due
147 to residual stresses) along the length of axially loaded members between plastic
148 hinges. From Chen and Lui [3], the CRC Et is written as
149
150 Et ⫽ 1.0E for Pⱕ0.5Py (4a)

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 5

冉 冊
3

P P
151 Et ⫽ 4 E 1⫺ for P ⬎ 0.5Py (4b)
152 Py Py

153 2.3. Gradual yielding and force–displacement relationship of beam-column

154 member

155 The tangent modulus model is suitable for the member subjected to axial force, but
156 not adequate for cases of both axial force and bending moment. A gradual stiffness
157 degradation model for a plastic hinge is required to represent the partial plastification
158 effects associated with bending. We shall introduce the parabolic function to rep-
159 resent the transition from elastic to zero stiffness associated with a developing hinge.
160 The parabolic function h is expressed as:
161
162 h ⫽ 1.0 for aⱕ0.5 (5a)
164
163 h ⫽ 4a(1⫺a) for a ⬎ 0.5 (5b)
165 where a is a force-state parameter that measures the magnitude of axial force and
166 bending moment at the element end. The term a may be expressed by AISC-LRFD
167 and Orbison, respectively.

168
5 2.3.1. AISC-LRFD
6
169 Based on the AISC-LRFD bilinear interaction equation (1977), the cross-section
170 plastic strength of the beam-column member may be expressed as
P 8 My 8 Mz P 2 My 2 Mz
171 a⫽ ⫹ ⫹ for ⱖ ⫹ (6a)
172 Py 9 Myp 9 Mzp Py 9 Myp 9 Mzp
P My Mz P 2 My 2 Mz
173 a⫽ ⫹ ⫹ for ⬍ ⫹ (6b)
174 2Py Myp Mzp Py 9 Myp 9 Mzp

175 2.3.2. Orbison

176 Orbison’s full plastification surface [11] of cross-section is given by
177
178 a ⫽ 1.15p2 ⫹ m2z ⫹ m4y ⫹ 3.67p2m2z ⫹ 3.0p6m2y ⫹ 4.65m4z m2y (7)
179 where, p ⫽ P / Py, mz ⫽ Mz / Mpz (strong-axis), my ⫽ My / Mpy (weak-axis).
180 Initial yielding is assumed to occur based on a yield surface that has the same
181 shape as the full plastification surface and with the force-state parameter denoted as
182 a0 ⫽ 0.5. If the forces change so the force point moves inside or along the initial
183 yield surface, the element is assumed to remain fully elastic with no stiffness
184 reduction. If the force point moves beyond the initial yield surface, the element
185 stiffness is reduced to account for the effect of plastification at the element end.
186 When softening plastic hinges are active at both ends of an element, the slope-
187 deflection equation may be expressed as

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 6 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

冦冧冤 冥冦 冧
EtA
0 0 0 0 0
P L d
MyA 0 kiiy kijy 0 0 0 qyA
MyB 0 kijy kjjy 0 0 0 qyB
188 ⫽ (8)
MzA 0 0 0 kiiz kijz 0 qzA
MzB 0 0 0 kijz kjjz 0 qzB
T GJ f
0 0 0 0 0
189 L
190 where

191
192
kiiy ⫽ hA S1⫺冉 S22
S1
(1⫺hB)
L 冊
EtIy
(9a)

EtIy
193 kijy ⫽ hAhBS2 (9b)
194 L

195
196
冉
S 22
kjjy ⫽ hB S1⫺ (1⫺hA)
S1
EtIy
L 冊 (9c)

197
5
198
6
冉
S 42
kiiz ⫽ hA S3⫺ (1⫺hB)
S3
EtIz
L 冊 (9d)

EtIz
199 kijz ⫽ hAhBS4 (9e)
200 L

201
202
kjjz ⫽ hB S3⫺冉 S42
S3
(1⫺hA)
L 冊
EtIz
. (9f)

203 The terms hA and hB is a scalar parameter that allows for gradual inelastic stiffness
204 reduction of the element associated with plastification at end A and B. This term is
205 equal to 1.0 when the element is elastic, and zero when a plastic hinge is formed.
206 To account for transverse shear deformation effects in a beam-column element, the
207 stiffness matrix may be modified as

冦冧冤 冥冦 冧
EtA
0 0 0 0 0
P L d
MyA 0 Ciiy Cijy 0 0 0 qyA
MyB 0 Cijy Cjjy 0 0 0 qyB
208 ⫽ (10)
MzA 0 0 0 Ciiz Cijz 0 qzA
MzB 0 0 0 Cijz Cjjz 0 qzB
T GJ f
0 0 0 0 0
209 L

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 7
3

210 where
kiiykjjy⫺kijy2 ⫹ kiiyAszGL
211 Ciiy ⫽ (11a)
212 kiiy ⫹ kjjy ⫹ 2kijy ⫹ AszGL
⫺kiiykjjy ⫹ kijy2 ⫹ kijyAszGL
213 Cijy ⫽ (11b)
214 kiiy ⫹ kjjy ⫹ 2kijy ⫹ AszGL
kiiykjjy⫺kijy2 ⫹ kjjyAszGL
215 Cjjy ⫽ (11c)
216 kiiy ⫹ kjjy ⫹ 2kijy ⫹ AszGL
kiizkjjz⫺kijz2 ⫹ kiizAsyGL
217 Ciiz ⫽ (11d)
218 kiiz ⫹ kjjz ⫹ 2kijz ⫹ AsyGL
⫺kiizkjjz ⫹ kijz2 ⫹ kijzAsyGL
219 Cijz ⫽ (11e)
220 kiiz ⫹ kjjz ⫹ 2kijz ⫹ AsyGL
kiizkjjz⫺kijz2 ⫹ kjjzAsyGL
221 Cjjz ⫽ (11f)
222 kiiz ⫹ kjjz ⫹ 2kijz ⫹ AsyGL
223 The force–displacement relationship of a beam-column element from Eq. (10) may
224 be symbolically written as
225
226 {fe} ⫽ [Kef]{de} (12)
5
227
6 in which {fe} and {de} are the element end force and displacement arrays, and
228 [Kef] is the element tangent stiffness matrix.

229 2.4. Ultimate strength of truss member

230 A force-state parameter of truss element b is expressed as

P
231 b⫽ (13)
232 Pn
233 where Pn is the ultimate strength of a truss member, and determined by the
234 AASHTO-LRFD [1] equations as: For tension
235
236 Pn ⫽ FyA (14)
237 For compression
238
239 Pn ⫽ 0.66lFyA for lⱕ2.25 (15a)
0.88FyA
240 Pn ⫽ for l ⬎ 2.25 (15b)
241 l
242 for which l is

243
244
l⫽ 冉 冊L 2Fy
rsπ E
(16)

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 8 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

245 where Fy, A, and E are yield stress, gross cross-sectional area, and Young’s modulus.
246 L is unbraced length and rs is radius of gyration about the plane of buckling.
247 Then the force–displacement relationship of a truss member may be expressed as

冦 冧 冤 冥冦 冧
EtA
P m 0 0 0 0 0 d
L
MyA qyA
0 0 0 0 0 0
MyB qyB
248 ⫽ 0 0 0 0 0 0 (17)
MzA qzA
0 0 0 0 0 0
MzB qzB
0 0 0 0 0 0
T f
249
0 0 0 0 0 0

250 where the unit function m is determined as:

251
252 m ⫽ 1.0 for bⱕ1.0 (18a)

253
254 m ⫽ 0.0 for b ⬎ 1.0 (18b)

255 Eq. (17) may be symbolically written as

257
256
5 {fe} ⫽ [Ket]{de} (19)
6

258 in which {fe} and {de} are the element end force and displacement arrays, and
259 [Ket] is the element tangent stiffness matrix.

260 2.5. Element stiffness matrix of beam-column and truss

261 The end forces and end displacements used in Eqs. (12) and (19) are shown in
262 Fig. 2(a). The sign convention for the positive directions of element end forces and
263 end displacements of a member is shown in Fig. 2(b). By comparing the two figures,
264 we can express the equilibrium and kinematic relationships in symbolic form as

265
266 {fn} ⫽ [T]T6×12{fe} (20a)

267
268 {de} ⫽ [T]6×12{dL} (20b)

269 {fn} and {dL} are the end force and displacement vectors of a member expressed as

270
271 {fn}T ⫽ {rn1 rn2 rn3 rn4 rn5 rn6 rn7 rn8 rn9 rn10 rn11 rn12} (21a)

272
273 {dL}T ⫽ {d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12} (21b)

274 {fe} and {de} are the end force and displacement vectors in Eqs. (12) and (19).
275 [T]6 × 12is a transformation matrix written as

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 9
4391
492

493
495
494
497
496 Fig. 2. Element end forces and displacements notation.

⫺1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

冤 冥
1 1
5
6 0 0 ⫺ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
L L
1 1
0 0 ⫺ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
L L
276 [T]6×12 ⫽ (22)
1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 ⫺ 0 0 0 0
L L
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺ 0 0 0 1
L L
277 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ⫺1 0 0
278 Using the transformation matrix by equilibrium and kinematic relations, the force–
279 displacement relationship of a member may be written as
280
281 {fn} ⫽ [Kn]{dL}. (23)
282 [Kn] is the element stiffness matrix expressed as
283
284 [Kn]12×12 ⫽ [T]T6×12[Ke]6×6[T]6×12. (24)
285 where [Ke] is [Kef] for a beam-column element and [Ket] for a truss element. Eq.
286 (24) can be subgrouped as

287
288
[Kn]12×12 ⫽ 冋 [Kn]1 [Kn]2
[Kn]2T [Kn]3
册 (25)

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 10 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

289 where

冤 冥
a 0 0 0 0 0
0 b 0 0 0 c
0 0 d 0 ⫺e 0
290 [Kn]1 ⫽ (26a)
0 0 0 f 0 0
0 0 ⫺e 0 g 0
0 c 0 0 0 h
291

冤 冥
⫺a 0 0 0 0 0
0 ⫺b 0 0 0 c
0 0 ⫺d 0 ⫺e 0
292 [Kn]2 ⫽ (26b)
0 0 0 ⫺f 0 0
0 0 e 0 i 0
0 ⫺c 0 0 0 j
293

冤 冥
5
a 0 0 0 0 0
6
0 b 0 0 0 ⫺c
0 0 d 0 e 0
294 [Kn]3 ⫽ (26c)
0 0 0 f 0 0
0 0 e 0 m 0
0 c 0 0 0 n
295

296 For beam-column members

EtA Ciiz ⫹ 2Cijz ⫹ Cjjz Ciiz ⫹ Cijz
297 a⫽ b⫽ 2
c⫽ (27a–c)
298 L L L
Ciiy ⫹ 2Cijy ⫹ Cjjy Ciiy ⫹ Cijy GJ
299 d⫽ 2
e⫽ f⫽ (27d–f)
300 L L L
302
301 g ⫽ Ciiy h ⫽ Ciiz i ⫽ Cijy j ⫽ Cijz m ⫽ Cjjy n ⫽ Cjjz (27g–n)
303 For truss members,
EtA
304 a⫽ b⫽c⫽d⫽e⫽f⫽g⫽h⫽i⫽j⫽l⫽m⫽n⫽0 (28a–n)
305 L
306 Eq. (25) is used to enforce no sidesway in the member. If the member is permitted
307 to sway, an additional axial and shear forces will be induced in the member. We

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 11
3

308 can relate this additional axial and shear forces due to a member sway to the member
309 end displacements as

310
311 {fs} ⫽ [Ks]{dL}. (29)

312 where {fs}, {dL}, and [Ks] are end force vector, end displacement vector, and the
313 element stiffness matrix. They may be written as

314
315 {fs}T ⫽ {rs1 rs2 rs3 rs4 rs5 rs6 rs7 rs8 rs9 rs10 rs11 rs12} (30a)

316
317 {dL}T ⫽ {d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12} (30b)

318
319
[Ks]12×12 ⫽ 冋 [Ks]
⫺[Ks]T [Ks]
⫺[Ks]
册 (30c)

320 where

冤 冥
0 a ⫺b 0 0 0
a c 0 0 0 0
⫺b 0 c 0 0 0
321 [Ks] ⫽ (31)
0 0 0 0 0 0
5
6
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
322

323 For beam-column members

MzA ⫹ MzB MyA ⫹ MyB P

324 a⫽ 2
,b⫽ 2
,c⫽ . (32a–c)
325 L L L

326 For truss members,

P
327 a ⫽ b ⫽ 0, c ⫽ . (33a–c)
328 L

329 By combining Eqs. (23) and (29), we obtain the general beam-column element
330 force–displacement relationship as

331
332 {fL} ⫽ [K]local{dL} (34)

333 where

334
335 {fL} ⫽ {fn} ⫹ {fs} (35)

336
337 [K]local ⫽ [Kn] ⫹ [Ks]. (36)

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 12 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

338 3. Design principles

339 3.1. Design format

340 Performance based design follows the format of LRFD. In AASHTO-LRFD [1],
341 the factored load effect does not exceed the factored nominal resistance of structure.
342 Two kinds of factors are used: one is applied to loads, the other to resistances. The
343 LRFD has the format

344
345
h 冘 giQiⱕfRn (37)

346 where Rn is the nominal resistance of the structural member, Qi the force effect, f
347 the resistance factor, gi the load factor corresponding to Qi and h a factor relating
348 to ductility, redundancy, and operational importance.
349 The main difference between current LRFD method and performance based design
350 method is that the right side of Eq. (37), (fRn) in the LRFD method is the resistance
351 or strength of the component of a structural system, but in the performance based
352 design method, it represents the resistance or the load-carrying capacity of the whole
353 structural system. In the performance based design method, the load-carrying
354 capacity is obtained from carrying out inelastic nonlinear analysis until a structural

冘
355 system reaches its strength limit state such as yielding or buckling. The left-hand
5
356
6
side of Eq. (37), (h giQi) represents the member forces in the LRFD method, but
357 the applied load on the structural system in the performance based design method.

358 3.2. Resistance factor

359 AASHTO-LRFD specifies the resistance factors, f, for the strength limit state shall
360 be taken as follows: 1.0 for flexure, 0.95 for tension yielding, and 0.9 for com-
361 pression, respectively. The proposed method uses a system-level resistance which is
362 different from the AASHTO-LRFD specification using member level resistance fac-
363 tors. When a structural system collapses by forming plastic mechanism, the resistance
364 factor of 1.0 is used since the dominant behavior is flexure. When a structural system
365 collapses by member yielding, the resistance factor of 0.95 is used since the dominant
366 behavior is tension. When a structural system collapses by member buckling, the
367 resistance factor of 0.9 is used since the dominant behavior is compression.

368 3.3. Serviceability limit

369 The most common parameter affecting the design serviceability of steel bridge is
370 the deflection. The performance based design follows AASHTO-LRFD specification.
371 Service live load deflections may be limited to L / 800 where L is the span length of
372 a steel arch bridge. At service load state, member yielding is not permitted anywhere
373 in the structure to avoid permanent deformation under service loads.

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 13
4399
500

501
503
502
505
504 Fig. 3. Space frame of six-story.

5
374
6
4. Verification

375 4.1. Six-story space frame

376 Fig. 3 shows Orbison’s six-story space frame [11]. The yield strength of all mem-
377 bers is 250 MPa (36 ksi) and Young’s modulus is 206,850 MPa (30,000 ksi). Uniform
378 floor pressure of 4.8 kN/m2 (100 psf) is converted into equivalent concentrated loads
379 on the top of the columns. Wind loads are simulated by point loads of 26.7 kN (6
380 kips) in the Y-direction at every beam-column joints.
381 The load–displacement results calculated by the proposed analysis compare well
382 with those of Liew and Tang’s (considering shear deformations) and Orbison’s
383 (ignoring shear deformations) results (Tables 1, 2, and Fig. 4). The ultimate load
384 factors calculated from the proposed analysis are 2.057 and 2.066. These values are

555
556 Table 1
558
557
559 Analysis result considering shear deformation
567
563
571
575 Method Proposed Liew’s
583
579
587
592 Plastic strength surface LRFD Orbison Orbison
597 Ultimate load factor 1.990 2.057 2.062
Displacement at A in the 208 mm 219 mm 250 mm
603 Y-direction
608

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 14 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3614
615 Table 2
617
616
618 Analysis result ignoring shear deformation
622
626
630
634 Method Proposed Orbison’s
642
638
646
651 Plastic strength surface LRFD Orbison Orbison
656 Ultimate load factor 1.997 2.066 2.059
Displacement at A in the 199 mm 208 mm 247 mm
662 Y-direction
667

507
508

5
6

509
511
510
513
512 Fig. 4. Comparison of load–displacement of six-story space frame.

385 nearly equivalent to 2.062 and 2.059 calculated by Liew and Tang and Orbison,
386 respectively.

387 4.2. Truss with double braced panel

388 Fig. 5 shows a two-dimensional truss with double braced panel subjected to a
389 concentrated load at point A. The stress–strain relationship is assumed to be elastic–
390 perfectly plastic with a yield stress of 250 MPa (36 kips) and elastic modulus of
391 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi). W14 × 82 is used for all members. The load–displace-
392 ment results from the proposed and the step-by-step analysis are compared in Fig.
393 6. The proposed and step-by-step method calculates the ultimate loads of 6012 KN
394 (1351 kips) and 6020 KN (1353 kips), respectively. The difference in the ultimate
395 loads between two approaches is less than 0.13%.

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 15
5315
516

517
519
518
521
520 Fig. 5. Truss with double braced panel.

523
524

5
6

525
527
526
529
528 Fig. 6. Load–displacement of truss with double braced panel.

396 5. Design example

397 5.1. Configuration of steel arch bridge

398 Fig. 7 shows a steel arch bridge which is 7.32 m (24 ft) wide and 61.0 m (200
399 ft) long. The stress–strain relationship was assumed to be elastic–perfectly plastic
400 with elastic modulus of 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi) and the yield stress of 248 MPa
401 (36 ksi). The square box section of 24 × 24 × 1 / 2 was used for the arch rib. The
402 wide flange section of W21 × 101 was used for the tie. The wide flange section of

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 16 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
5331
532

533
535
534
537
536 Fig. 7. Steel arch bridge.

403 W8 × 10 was used for the vertical truss members. The wide flange section of
404 W10 × 22 was used for the lateral braces.

405
5
5.2. Load combination
6

406 The dead load, live load, and impact load specified in AASHTO-LRFD [1] were
407 considered as design loads. The concentrated dead loads and live loads of HS-20
408 were applied on each joint. The load factors of 1.25 for the dead load, 1.75 for the
409 live load, and 0.30 for the impact load were used. Fig. 8 shows the design load
410 considering the load factor.

411 5.3. Result of analysis

412 The load–displacement curve of the proposed analysis at the mid-span of the tie
413 is shown in Fig. 9. The steel arch bridge encountered the ultimate state when the
414 applied load ratio reached 1.20. The system resistance factor of 0.95 was used since
415 the frame collapsed by tension yielding at the vertical truss member. Since the ulti-
539
540

541
543
542
545
544 Fig. 8. Load conditions of steel arch bridge.

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫 17
5347
548

549
551
550
553
552 Fig. 9. Load–displacement of steel arch bridge at midspan.

416 mate load ratio l resulted in 1.14( ⫽ 1.20 × 0.95) which was greater than 1.0, the
5
417
6 member sizes of the system were adequate. The maximum deflection by the service
418 load was calculated as 73 mm (2.87 in) at mid-span. The deflection ratio was
419 L / 835 which satisfied the deflection limit of L / 800.

420 6. Conclusion

421 The performance based design method using practical inelastic nonlinear analysis
422 for three-dimensional steel arch bridges has been developed. The concluding remarks
423 are as follows:

425
424 (1) A practical inelastic nonlinear analysis method for three-dimensional steel
426 arch bridges has been developed.
428
427 (2) The proposed method can practically account for all key factors influencing
429 behavior of frame members and truss members: gradual yielding associated
430 with flexure, residual stresses, and geometric nonlinearity.
432
431 (3) The proposed analysis is adequate in assessing the strengths when com-
433 pared with the other approaches.
435
434 (4) The proposed performance based design method overcomes the difficulties
436 due to incompatibility between the elastic global analysis and the limit state
437 member design in the conventional LRFD method.
439
438 (5) The proposed method does not require tedious separate member capacity
440 checks, including the calculations of K-factor, and thus it is time-effective.

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P
3
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
221 18 S.-E. Kim et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 앫앫 (2001) 앫앫앫–앫앫앫
3

442
441 (6) The proposed method can account for inelastic force redistribution and
443 thus may allow some reduction of structure weight.

444 7. Uncited reference

445 [6]

446 Acknowledgements

447 This work presented in this paper was supported by funds of National Research
448 Laboratory Program (2000-N-NL-01-C-162) from Ministry of Science & Technology
449 in Korea. Authors wish to appreciate the financial support.

450 References

451 [1] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification. AASHTO; 1998.
452 [2] Chatterjee PK, Datta TK. Dynamic analysis of arch bridges under travelling loads. Eint J Solids
453 Struct 1995;32(11):1585–94.
454 [3] Chen WF, Lui EM. Stability design of steel frames. In: Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1992 [380pp.].
455 [4] Clarke MJ, Bridge RQ, Hancock GJ, Trahair NS. Benchmarking and verification of second-order
5
456
6 elastic and inelastic frame analysis programs. In: White DW, Chen WF, editors. SSRC TG 29 Work-
457 shop and Nomograph on Plastic Hinge Bas Methods for Advanced Analysis and Design of Steel
458 Frames. Bethlehem, PA: SSRC, Lehigh University; 1992.
459 [5] El-Zanaty M, Murray D, Bjorhovde R. Inelastic behavior of multistory steel frames. Structural Engin-
460 eering Report No. 83, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada ;1980.
461 [6] Kanchanalai T. The design and behavior of beam-columns in unbraced steel frames. AISI Project
462 No. 189, Report No. 2, Civil Engineering/structures Research Lab., University of Texas, Austin,
463 Texas; 1977. 300pp.
464 [7] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Direct design of three-dimensional frames using practical advanced
465 analysis. Eng Struct 2001;23/11:1491–502.
466 [8] Kim SE, Park MH, Choi SH. Practical advanced analysis and design of three-dimensional truss
467 bridges. J Construct Steel Res 2001;57/8:907–23.
468 [9] Liew JY, Tang LK. Nonlinear refined plastic hinge analysis of space frame structures. Research
469 Report No. CE027/98, Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singa-
470 pore; 1998.
471 [10] Nazmy AS. Stability and load-carrying capacity of three-dimensional long-span steel arch bridges.
472 Comput Struct 1997;65(6):857–68.
473 [11] Orbison JG., Nonlinear static analysis of three-dimensional steel frames. Report No. 82-6, Depart-
474 ment of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; 1982.
475 [12] Pi Yong-Lin, Trahair NS. Inelastic lateral buckling strength and design of steel arches. Eng Struct
476 2000;22:993–1005.
477 [13] Prakash V, Powell GH. DRAIN-3DX: base program user guide, version 1.10. A computer program
478 distributed by NISEE/computer applications, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Califor-
479 nia, Berkeley; 1993.
480 [14] Ziemian RD, McGuire W, Dierlein GG. Inelastic limit states design part II: three-dimensional frame
481
672
613
554
546
538
530
522
514
506
498
490
482 study. ASCE J Struct Eng 1992;118(9):2550–68.

21 JCSR: j. of constructional steel research - ELSEVIER 13-03-02 08:50:01 Rev 16.03x JCSR$$109P