Mai Technical Report
Mai Technical Report
Mai Technical Report
A
A
=
x
x
M
W
t
Equation 3.1
where;
W = Weight of the skeletal structure (kN)
M = Mass of the skeletal structure (kg)
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Both static and dynamic analysis results were validated and verified using mathematical solution. The
difference percentages were calculated and the difference value has been set limited to below 5% and
concluded as verified and acceptable.
4.1 Static analysis result and discussion
For static analysis, the result of bending moment, BM (kN-m), shear force, V (kN) and reaction at
supports, R (kN) were summarized, compared between analytical (STAAD pro) and mathematical.
The difference percentage for bending moment, BM and shear force, V and support at reactions, R,
are as shown in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, respectively.
Table 4.1: Percentage difference between analytical and theoretical results for bending moment and
shear force
Beam
Analytical
(STAAD
Pro)
Theoretical
(Manual
Calc.)
Bending
Moment
Percentage
Difference
(%)
Node
Analytical
(STAAD
Pro)
Theoretical
(Manual
Calc.)
Shear
Force
Percentage
Difference
(%)
Moment
(kN-m)
Moment
(kN-m)
Shear
Force
(kN)
Shear
Force
(kN)
3 504.56 504.56 0 3 630.142 630.1415 0
2 504.56 504.56 0 2 577.598 577.598 0
2 -349.676 -349.677 0.003
3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 -504.56 -504.56 0 2 630.142 630.1415 0
2 -504.56 -504.56 0 3 577.598 577.598 0
Table 4.2: Percentage difference between analytical and theoretical results for support reaction
Node
Analytical
(STAAD Pro)
Theoretical
(Manual Calc.)
Percentage
Difference
(%)
Reaction
(kN)
Reaction
(kN)
3 1207.74 1207.74 0
2 1207.74 1207.74 0
1 1207.74 1207.74 0
2 1207.74 1207.74 0
The comparison between analytical (STAAD Pro) and theoretical verification were done for the static
analysis. The validation was made for STAAD pro with the manual calculation. Theoretically, the
value obtained for manual calculation did not show a huge different than the value STAAD Pro had
produced. Discussing Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 summarized that values for bending moment, shear
force and reaction at supports exhibit almost no differences between analytical and theoretical
calculation. Therefore, the manual calculation procedure is correctly performed.
Hereafter, the static analysis of the modified prototype of bridge pier was announced validated
theoretically and the results are acceptable. Then, STAAD Pro is satisfied to be used to prolong the
study of the dynamic analysis.
4.2 Dynamic analysis result and discussion
4.1 Time-displacement and Rayleigh Frequencies
For simple harmonic motion (SHM) to be done in STAAD Pro, acceleration amplitude was needed in
time history fundamental command. The main parameters obtained are the maximum lateral
displacement and the time-displacement curve of the modified prototype bridge pier model (a skeletal
structure). Nonetheless, STAAD Pro has produced other interesting results which can be discussed
further in this chapter. The additional results are the mode shapes of the model, modal frequency,
mass participation Rayleigh frequency, maximum base shear at times and peak ground acceleration
(PGA) extruded from time-acceleration relationships. The modified prototype bridge pier model,
validation and verification is made for the maximum lateral displacement and the Rayleigh frequency
of the model. The best presentation of the validation comparison can be shown through Table 4.1 and
summarized into the percentage differences between the analytical and theoretical dynamic results.
Both analyses shows that with the increment of drift percentage value, the maximum lateral
displacement of the model is also increase. The increment of the lateral displacement is supported by
the increment of the time (starting from 60s to 210s) for the model to be analyzed. Initially at the drift
of only 0.01%, the maximum lateral displacement produced by STAAD Pro is only 0.6195mm and
Microsoft Excel with 0.65mm. When the drift percentage is at 1%, the maximum lateral displacement
from STAAD Pro is 61.9531mm lesser 3.0469mm from Microsoft Excel output at 65.00mm. The
huge increment in lateral displacement occurred from 0.01% to 1% of drift, which is 61.3336mm for
STAAD Pro and 64.35mm for Microsoft Excel. Hence, the average percentage differences between
STAAD Pro and Microsoft Excel shown in Table 4.1 are only 4.705%. Therefore, time-displacement
relationships produced by Microsoft Excel are considered acceptable since the average percentage
difference is less than 5%. The differences occurred in such a way due to both medium capability in
processing dynamic datas into graphical output and result for dynamic analysis.
Additional validations output from STAAD Pro, which was Rayleigh frequency for each and every
maximum lateral displacement obtained. The Rayleigh frequencies obtained from STAAD Pro were
not constantly increasing in value with the increment of time. Rayleigh frequency is depending much
in the lateral displacement value as the weight (W) and mass (m) of the structure are constants. The
result shows that at the lowest maximum lateral displacement of the model which denoted by drift
0.01%, the Rayleigh frequency is the highest among others, which are 19.98345Hz from STAAD Pro
and 19.54939Hz from theoretical calculation. The Rayleigh frequency values keep fluctuated between
drift 0.1% to 0.75% and ended up with the lowest Rayleigh frequency value at drift 1% for 1.99835Hz
from STAAD Pro and 1.954939Hz from theoretical calculation. The drop of Rayleigh frequency from
drift 0.01% to 1% is almost 10%. Percentage difference between analytical (STAAD Pro) and
theoretical results were also presented. The difference made was much lesser than the comparison
done to maximum lateral displacement of the model. For Rayleigh frequency average percentage
difference is only 2.18%, which is far lesser than the set limit of 5% to make the results acceptable.
The theoretical formula used can be said as verified and validated.
Table 4.1: Result comparison and percentage differences between analytical and theoretical analysis
of the model
Drift
(%)
Description
STAAD Pro
Output
Manual
Calculation
Total Time,
T
(s)
Percentage
Differences
(%)
0.01
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
0.6195 0.65
60 4.69
0.10
6.1953 6.5
90 4.69
0.25
15.4852 16.25
120 4.71
0.50
30.964 32.5
150 4.73
0.75
46.450 48.75
180 4.72
1.00
61.9531 65
210 4.69
0.01
R
a
y
l
e
i
g
h
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(
c
y
c
l
e
p
e
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
,
c
p
s
)
19.98345
19.54939
60 2.17
0.10 6.31932
6.182061
90 2.17
0.25 3.99709
3.909878
120 2.18
0.50 2.82666
2.764702
150 2.19
0.75 2.30793
2.257369
180 2.19
1.00 1.99835
1.954939
210 2.17
The time-displacement relationships verified by Microsoft Excel as the requirement of this study for
mathematical comparison are shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Time-Displacement Curve for all 6 Drifts of the Modified Prototype Bridge pier model
(from Microsoft Excel (Spreadsheet))
4.2 Maximum base shear, Mode shape and modal frequencies of the model
Table 4.2: Maximum base shear, mode shape and modal frequencies for dynamic analysis produced
by STAAD Pro
Drift
(%)
Maximum
Base Shear
(kN)
Maximum Base
Shear Time
(s)
Mode 1 Frequency
(Hz)
Mode 2 Frequency
(Hz)
Mass Participation at
Node 1, Mode 1
(%)
0.01 82.59 7.033 6.891 149.444 100
0.10 825.92 7.033
6.891 149.444
100
0.25 2064.40 81.033
6.891 149.444
100
0.50 4127.94 81.029
6.891 149.444
100
0.75 6192.05 22.029
6.891 149.444
100
1.00 8259.24 7.033
6.891 149.444
100
(a) Max. Displacement 0.65mm (b) Max. Displacement 6.5mm
(c) Max. Displacement 6.25mm (d) Max. Displacement 32.50mm
(e) Max. Displacement 48.75mm (f) Max. Displacement 65mm
The increment of drift percentage and time, the maximum base shears are also increase. Though the
time recorded for the maximum base shear (the maximum capacity of the model to withstand the
dynamic motion in particular times based on peak ground acceleration (PGA)) is varies. The first two
drifts percentage which is 0.01% and 0.1%, the maximum base shear value are ten times higher but
the time recorded the same, which is 82.59kN (at 7.033s) and 825.92kN (at 7.033s), respectively. But
starting from the third drift percentage of 0.25% to 1%, the maximum base shear is keep increasing
from 2064.399kN (at 81.029s) to 8259.241kN (at 7.033s).
STAAD Pro mode shape results produces two types of mode shape, which are mode shape 1 (normal
mode shape) and mode shape 2 (torsional mode shape). Figure 4.2 shows the normal mode shape
which the shape reflecting the usual lateral displacement of a model. Figure 4.3 shows the torsional
mode shape which the movement of the model of the bridge pier is like in twisting motion (torsion)
due to the torsional ground motion effect.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
It has been demonstrated and performed that both static and analysis of the multi-column pier of
unskewed bridge using STAAD Pro were verified and satisfactory validated by concept of theories.
The maximum lateral displacements and Rayleigh frequency of the modified prototype bridge pier
model was studied on various percentages of drift and analytical result was validated by manual
calculation. Model analyzed under free vibration without damping system shows that with the
increasing of drift percentage, the maximum lateral displacement is also increase. On the other hand
with the increment of drift percentage (corresponding to increasing of maximum lateral
displacement), the Rayleigh frequency is dropped. The increasing of maximum lateral displacement
and decreasing of Rayleigh frequency were due to the collective time assigned to the model. Overall,
the results and comparisons obtained were acceptable and utilization of STAAD Pro is appropriate.
This study was only done in 2D analysis using STAAD Pro (as STAAD Pro is infamous finite
element analysis software (FEM) compared to ANSYS, CIS, RUAMOKO, SAP2000 and more), yet
has the great potential to prolong the study by performing 3D analysis using similar software and
setting up laboratory experiment. Therefore, result from this study can be made as a comparison and
input data to the laboratory works and search for the best performance of the bridge model under
dynamic loading.
Figure 4.2: Mode shape 1, Frequency
6.891Hz (Normal Mode Shape)
Figure 4.3: Mode shape 2, Frequency
149.444Hz (Torsional Mode Shape)
References
Bridge Structural Elements Diagram. (2001). Retrieved Dec Friday, 2013, from Department of
Transportation MDOT: www.michigan.gov/mdot
Clarke, R. (2003). STAAD Basics, Notes on the Effective Use of STAAD Pro Rel. 3.1.
Gizem Sevgili and Alp Caner, P. (2009). Improved Seismic Response of Multisimple Span Skewed
Bridges Retrofitted with Link Slabs. Journal of Bridge Engineering ASCE, 452-459.
N.Haritos, H. a. (1995). Modal Testing of a Skew Reinforced Concrete Bridge. Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia, 703-708.
N.Munirudrappa, N. K. (2004). Response of Slant Legged Skew Bridge Under Dynamic Loading.
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (p. Paper No:3151). Vancouver, B.C, Canada.
Priestley, M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. California, San Diego, USA: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Wikipedia. (2013, December 16). Peak Ground Acceleration.
X.H.He, X. A. (2012). Skewed Concrete Box Girder static and dynamic testing and analysis .
Elsevier.