Pushover Seismic Analysis of Bridge Structures

Bernardo Frère
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Arquitectura e Georrecursos,
Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
October 2012

Abstract: This thesis belongs to the field of seismic analysis of bridge structures and intends
to evaluate the use of static non linear analysis, also known as pushover. This work only deals
with pushover analysis in the longitudinal direction of regular bridges. A plastic hinge model
is developed to represent the non-linear behavior of structures and, therefore, obtain the
capacity curve of bridge piers. The elastic stiffness of each pier is obtained thru the mean
values of its material properties. However, the resistant moment is computed using the design
values to limit the moment to its maximum allowed by Eurocode 2. The major methodologies
for non linear static analysis of bridges are then presented. Of those, the Capacity Spectrum
Method and the methodology suggested in EC8-2 are used. Finally, the results obtained with
the above pushover methodologies are compared with those obtained with a non linear
dynamic analysis. Both isolated piers and two pier frames results’ are analyzed. The influence
of the structure’s dynamic period as well as the influence of the structure’s irregularity is
evaluated. To close, the pushover analysis of two bridges is carried in their longitudinal
direction.

Keywords: pushover, displacement, plastic hinge, capacity, static

elastic analysis but accounts for the non-

1. Introduction
linear behavior of the structure and is,
The Eurocode 8-2 proposes several
therefore, considered the most precise.
methods for seismic analysis of bridge
Trying to propose a method that is
structures. However, modal elastic analysis
computationally less challenging but still
using response spectra is the most common
accounts for the structure’s non-linear
in practice of bridge design in Portugal and
behavior, the Eurocode 8-2 presents non-
only in more complex cases a non-linear
linear static analysis, also known as
dynamic analysis is used. This method is
pushover analysis. The objective of this
computationally more challenging than the
dissertation is to present a procedure to
1
perform pushover analysis of regular 2.2 Moment-Curvature
bridges in the longitudinal direction and to Relation
compare its results with those obtained The Moment-Curvature ( )
with a time history analysis. Therefore, the relation is computed using a program
main goal of this work is to assess the non- implemented in MATLAB program
linear static analysis in terms of its explained in [FRERE, 2012] and is then
feasibility and accuracy. simplified into a bilinear diagram, as
shown in Figure 1.
2. Non-Linear Analysis
This section presents the procedure
used to model the non-linearity of
structural behavior. For both concrete and
reinforcement steel, the relation between
stress and strain is non-linear and,
therefore, cross sections also have non-
linear behavior which causes non-linear
behavior of the structure. In this work, a
plastic hinge model was used.
Figure 1: Simplified bilinear diagram

2.1 Material’s Constitutive Law To obtain the bilinear diagram, both

A bilinear stress-strain curve is stress-strain relations with mean values and
used for the steel reinforcement as with design values are used. The cracked
presented in EN 1992-1-1 3.2.7(2). The elastic stiffness of the cross section, , is
steel is considered to belong to the C Class calculated using mean values in order to be
and, therefore, according to EN 1992-1-1, closer to the average elastic behavior of the
has a characteristic strain at maximum cross section. However, as EN 1992-1-1
force . limits the resistant moment, both the

For concrete, the stress-strain maximum moment, , and the

curve presented in EN 1992-1-1 3.1.5(1) maximum curvature, , are determined

was used. This strain-stress relation is the using design values. The yielding point,

one advised for non linear analysis. For ), was determined as

both concrete and steel, both mean and presented in Figure 2: a post yielding

design of material properties are used. This stiffness, , of is considered

topic is explained in 2.2. and so is the fact that cannot be

2
exceeded. Therefore, the yielding moment
(2.3)
determined with mean values for material
properties, , is reduced to a value The length for the plastic hinge is defined
. in EN 1998-2 Annex E.3 and depends on
the characteristic yield stress, , and bar
diameter, :

(2.4)

Figure 2: Procedure do to obtain the yielding point

)

2.3 Moment-Rotation Relation

and Capacity Curve
The plastic hinge model presented
in EN 1998-2 Annex E.3 is used to obtain
the Moment-Rotation ( ) diagram, Figure 3: Plastic hinge model

where is the chord rotation. The model The capacity curve of the pier,
used concentrates in a plastic hinge all the which is the relation between the applied
deformation, both elastic and plastic, of the force, , and the top displacement of the
pier. Using the bilinear curve, the pier, , is obtained directly from the
relation for a pier of length can be diagram dividing the moment by the pier’s
determined with the following equations: length and multiplying the curvature by
that same length.
(2.1)

(2.2) 3. Methodologies for

Where is the plastic rotation at the Pushover Analysis of

pier’s collapse and can be visualized in Bridges
Figure 3. depends of the plastic hinge’s Two MATLAB programs were

length, , and is obtained as follows: developed to perform non-linear static

3
analysis: one according to the methodology same displacement when submitted to an
presented in EN 1998-2 for pushover earthquake. Response spectra are used to
analysis of bridges and another according quantify the seismic action and the target
to the methodology presented in ATC-40 displacement, , can then be
([APPLIED TECNHOLOGY COUNCIL, obtained with:
1996]), the Capacity Spectrum Method
(3.1)
(CSM).
Where is the acceleration obtained
3.1 Bridge Capacity Curve
using a response spectrum, is the mass
Both pushover methodologies used
of the system and is its stiffness. The
require the bridge capacity curve to be
displacement obtained can then be
previously determined. Regular straight
compared with the capacity curve of the
bridges can be considered a one degree of
structure.
freedom system when analyzed in the
longitudinal direction. Therefore, a bridge 3.3 Capacity Spectrum Method
can be analyzed as a frame with a rigid The Capacity Spectrum Method is
beam. To compute its capacity curve for an iterative method to determine the target
the longitudinal direction, it is first displacement and its procedure is presented
necessary to determine the curve of in further detail in [FRERE, 2012]. The
each resisting pier with the procedure target displacement is the displacement
presented in section 2, as presented in that corresponds to the intersection of the

Figure 4. structure’s capacity spectrum and a

reduced response spectrum. The response
spectrum is in the ADRS (Acceleration
Displacement Response Spectrum) format
and is reduced in order to take into
consideration both viscous and hysteretic
damping.
Figure 4: Capacity curve of a two pier frame
4. Pushover Analysis –
3.2 Methodology presented in
Applications
EN 1998-2
Results of non-linear static analysis,
This methodology is based in the
both using the EC8-2 methodology and the
equal displacement hypothesis that both a
Capacity Spectrum Method, are compared
linear and a non-linear system have the

4
with those obtained with a time-history factor applied on each accelerogram and
analysis. The following structures are the results of this analysis is the average of
analyzed: the results obtained with 5 accelerograms.

 Isolated piers with different In each analysis the relative

lengths in order to assess period of difference between the displacement
vibration’s influence; determined with a pushover analysis and
 Two pier frames with different the one obtained with a time-history
periods of vibration and different analysis is determined. Therefore, the
relations between its two piers’ relative is calculated for each
lengths; analysis:
 Real bridge structures based on the (4.2)
model presented in [ARRIAGA E
CUNHA, 2011 ] . 4.2 Analysis of isolated piers
The section properties, both in its Isolated piers with different periods
geometry and reinforcement, are kept the of vibration were studied. Independently of
same in each of the previous analysis. the period of vibration, for the
displacement calculated with both
4.1 Analysis Procedure
pushover methods are the same whereas it
For each analysis the seismic action
is not true for higher values of . Figure 5
is adjusted to obtain a chosen value for the
shows the influence of the period of
force ductility coefficient, , defined as
vibration in both pushover methodologies’
follows:
for . For lower periods,
(4.1) normally under , the
displacement obtained was bigger using
where:
CSM than using EC8-2’s methodology,
is the elastic force due to the whereas the opposite happens for longer
seismic action periods. For longer periods, Figure 5
is the force when the first shows that the target displacement
yielding occurs calculated with the Capacity Spectrum

For pushover analysis the response Method becomes smaller than the one

spectrum is adjusted to obtain the chosen determined with a dynamic analysis,

value for . For non-linear dynamic typically over .

analysis this adjustment is done by a scale

5
 90%
x=3 EC8-2 Figure 7 shows the progress of the
70% relative difference between the
x=3 CSM
50% displacement obtained with pushover
Error

30% methods and those obtained with a

10% dynamic analysis, for different values of .
-10% 0,4 0,8 1,2 1,6 2 2,4 2,8 Conclusions about the influence of the
-30% T [s] period of vibration are the same than for an
Figure 5: value for different periods of vibration. isolated pier: for shorter periods (tipically
Isolated pier.
under ), CSM’s target
4.3 Analysis of two pier frames displacement is greater than the one
Two pier frames such as the one calculated with Eurocode’s procedure; and
presented in Figure 6 are analyzed, the relative for the target
Different values for both and are displacement determined with CSM
chosen in order to study the influence of becomes negative for periods over
the period of vibration and the structure’s . Comparing both pushover
irregularity. methodologies, Eurocode’s procedure is
less approximate and safer for periods over
.

Figure 6: Model for two pier frames

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% β=1,2 EC8-2
50% β=1,5 EC8-2
40%
Error

β=2,0 EC8-2
30%
20% β=1,2 CSM
10%
β=1,5 CSM
0%
-10% 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 β=2,0 CSM
-20%
-30%
-40%
T [s]

Figure 7: Progress of value of with the period of vibration for different values of .

6
 The progress of the value of Figure 7 but presents the results for
is the same for different values of , and shows that the differences of the
however, the effect of the structure’s value of are bigger for than
irregularity depends of the intensity of the for .
seismic action. Figure 8 is similar than
100%
90%
80%
70% β=1,2 EC8-2
60%
50% β=1,5 EC8-2
40%
β=2,0 EC8-2
Erro

30%
20% β=1,2 CSM
10%
0% β=1,5 CSM
-10% 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 β=2,0 CSM
-20%
-30%
-40%
T [s]

Figure 8: Progress of value of with the period of vibration for different values of .

4.4 Analysis of real bridges

Based on the structure presented in Piers
Model 1 Model 2
Figure 9 two bridge models are analyzed.
e 10 20
Piers lengths were altered in order to e 15 25
perform a pushover analysis for two e 20 30
25 35
different periods of vibration: model 1 with
and model 2 with . Table 1: Piers' length for each bridge model

Piers’ lengths are presented in Table 1.

Figure 9: Bridge model used for the analysis

7
 Figures 10 and 11 present the than those obtained with a time-history
results obtained for each of the two analysis; for the displacement
models, it shows the displacement obtained with Eurocode’s methodology is
determined for and and almost the same than the one determined
compare it with every pier’s yielding and with a time history analysis - for
collapse displacement. The results are in and for - whereas the
accordance with the previously presented: displacement calculated with the Capacity
for both displacements Spectrum Method is much lower -
obtained with pushover methods are bigger for and for .

35
Yielding
30 displacement
collapse
25 displacement
Displacement [cm]

x=3 ADNL
20
x=3 EC8-2
15 x=3 CSM

10 x=5 ADNL

5 x=5 EC8-2

0 x=5 CSM
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pier

Figure 10: Displacements. Model 1 ( )

120
110
100 Yielding displacement
90 Collapse displacement
Displacement [cm]

80
x=3 ADNL
70
x=3 EC8-2
60
50 x=3 CSM

40 x=5 ADNL
30 x=5 EC8-2
20 x=5 CSM
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pier

Figure 11: Displacements. Model 2 ( )

8
 4.5 Influence of the post- Method with both and
yielding stiffness with the one obtained with .
For all previous analysis, the post- It shows that the displacements obtained
yielding stiffness of a cross section, , are only slightly, generally under 10%,
was defined as 1% of the elastic affected by the value of .
stiffness, . Therefore, a new parameter, 40%
CSM k=0.05
, is defined as follows: 30%
20% CSM k=0.1

Error
(4.3) 10%
0%
and the influence of choosing bigger
-10% 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
values for to perform a pushover -20% T [s]
analysis is evaluated. Figure 12 shows the
Figure 13: Influence of the value of in determining the
meaning of changing the value while target displacement with CSM

the behavior factor, , defined as , 5. Conclusions

remains the same. 5.1 Influence of the period of
vibration
For shorter periods of vibration,
generally under , the target
displacement obtained with the Capacity
Spectrum Method is bigger than the one
obtained with the methodology proposed
by EC8-2. For longer periods, typically
over , CSM determines smaller
Figure 12: Different values for displacement than those obtained with a

The target displacement obtained time-history analysis and the Eurocode’s

with Eurocode’s methodology is not methodology becomes safer and more

accurate.
affected by the value the parameter
because only the elastic behavior is taken 5.2 Influence of the structure’s
into account. irregularity
Figure 13 presents the relative Structure’s irregularity has more
difference between the displacements influence as seismic action becomes more
obtained using the Capacity Spectrum important. The relative differences

9
between the displacements obtained with References
both pushover methodologies were higher APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
for more irregular structures and the (1996). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
difference increases with the value of the Concrete Buildings, Volume 1. California
force ductility factor, . Seismic Safety Commission

5.3 Influence of the post- EN 1992-1-1 (2004). Eurocode 2: Design

yielding stiffness of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General

Choosing different post-yielding rules and rules for buildings. CEN

stiffness when creating the non-linear EN 1998-2 (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of

model to perform a pushover analysis has
no effect when the target displacement is
determined by the methodology proposed
in EC8-2. However, the displacement
calculated with CSM changes slightly, the
difference is generally under 10%.
structures for earthquake resistance – Part
2: Bridges. CEN.
FRERE, B. (2012). Pushover Seismic
Analysis of Bridge Structures. Master
Thesis, IST

Pushover analysis allows to

determine the ductility demand of the
structure and the sequence of plastic hinge
formation. Therefore it allows better
comprehension of the structure’s behavior
than an elastic analysis. However, its use
might not be of any advantage if the
objective of the analysis is only to
determine the target displacement.
Depending on the period of vibration the
equal displacement hypothesis used in
Eurocode’s methodology might be a good
estimate of the target displacement and,
consequently, there is no need to account
for the structure’s non-linear behavior.

10