A.

ANALYSIS OF HOLLOW BRIDGE PIER

Bridge Piers are that part of bridge substructure which provides a vertical support to horizontal
spans from foundations. They are provided to perform mainly two functions: to resist the lateral
forces on the bridge and to transfer the superstructure vertical loads to foundations. The main
difference between a column and a pier is in its structural action. Column resists the lateral
forces by flexural action whereas piers resist the lateral forces by shear mechanism. Piers can
be classified according to their structural connectivity to the superstructure and according to
their sectional shapes. Here we have considered a tapered hollow bridge pier for the analysis.
A.1 METHODOLOGY
Hollow Bridge Pier is analysed for three different cases:
i. Bridge Pier without diaphragm
ii. Bridge Pier with uniform diaphragm
iii. Bridge pier with cut diaphragm

Diaphragms are generally provided to reduce the displacements and to increase the lateral
stability of the pier. In order to validate the results of tapered section, two uniform hollow
bridge piers one with maximum diameter and other with minimum diameter as that of tapered
section is modelled and the results are compared in all the three cases.
Three sets of analysis is being performed for all the three different cases, which are:
A.1.1 Free Vibration Analysis – Section is modelled in SAP 2000 and frequency is found out
for the first 12 modes. Natural frequency is also calculated analytically which then is compared
with the SAP results.
Stiffness of a structure (K) is given by,
𝑃
𝐾= … A.1
𝛿
Natural frequency (f) of the structure is given by,
𝜔
𝑓= … A.2
2𝜋

𝑘
and 𝜔= √ … A.3
𝑚

A.1.2 Lateral load analysis – A horizontal load ‘P’ is applied at the free end of the bridge pier
and its deflection is found out from SAP 2000. Similarly deflection is also calculated manually
considering cantilever action with fixed support at the end.
Deflection of a cantilever with a load at the free end,

- 61 -
 𝑃𝐿3
𝛿= …. A.4
3𝐸𝐼

A.1.3 Torsion analysis – A bridge pier is subjected to torsion in its various stages of
construction and service, which makes torsion analysis essential. Deflection is found out after
applying torsion at the free end of the bridge pier.

A.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

The tapered hollow bridge pier was modelled in SAP 2000. Height of the pier was taken as
25m with bottom diameter 5m and top diameter 3m. The thickness of the pier was 0.5m. Thick
shell element was used throughout as the type of element for the analysis. Mesh size taken was
0.25m x 0.25m. Bridge pier was assumed to be fixed at the base and free at the top which makes
a cantilever action for resisting the loads. A 3m diameter and a 5m diameter hollow bridge pier
was also modelled and analysed, and results are then compared with that of the tapered section
and is validated. Fig. A.1 shows the model of tapered hollow bridge pier for the three different
cases considered.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. A.1 Tapered hollow bridge pier (a) without diaphragm; (b) with diaphragm;
(c) with cut diaphragm

- 62 -
A.3 FREE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
After the modelling of section, modal analysis is run and frequency of the section and modal
participation factors are obtained for first 12 modes and is shown in Table A.1 and Table A.2
respectively.
Table A.1 Frequency of bridge piers (FEA Result)
Frequency (Hz)
Case Mode
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Without Diaphragm 2.983 3.109 16.699 17.251 21.291 32.774 40.968 41.978 63.819 69.563 70.751 83.934
3 m dia With Full Diaphragm 2.698 2.698 15.242 15.242 21.369 29.317 37.630 37.630 63.964 64.165 64.165 86.414
With Cut Diaphragm 2.749 2.749 15.514 15.514 21.506 29.811 38.286 38.286 64.369 65.279 65.279 88.598
Without Diaphragm 4.811 4.811 21.713 23.477 23.477 31.851 31.851 32.187 34.676 34.676 43.544 43.544
5 m dia With Full Diaphragm 3.927 3.927 19.459 19.459 19.728 26.413 43.693 43.693 58.904 60.823 65.490 66.833
With Cut Diaphragm 3.967 3.967 19.657 19.657 19.832 26.738 44.156 44.156 59.199 64.660 69.284 69.284
Without Diaphragm 5.315 5.315 22.710 22.710 29.456 36.209 47.284 47.284 49.525 49.525 59.225 59.225
Tapered With Full Diaphragm 4.646 4.646 19.717 19.717 27.810 31.789 42.995 42.995 65.380 69.014 69.014 73.315
With Cut Diaphragm 4.762 4.762 20.124 20.124 28.015 32.632 43.999 43.999 65.272 69.829 69.829 77.845

Table A.2 Modal participating ratios

Mass Mode
Case
ratio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
UX 0.019 0.601 0.006 0.197 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.068 0.000 0.001 0.033 0.000
Without
UY 0.601 0.019 0.196 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.002 0.000 0.034 0.001 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.814 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
UX 0.613 0.002 0.192 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.013 0.000 0.028 0.007 0.000
3 m dia

With Full
UY 0.002 0.613 0.008 0.192 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.057 0.000 0.007 0.028 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.807 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088
UX 0.003 0.619 0.003 0.199 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.032 0.000
With Cut
UY 0.619 0.003 0.199 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.067 0.000 0.032 0.003 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.818 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.090
UX 0.002 0.623 0.000 0.003 0.212 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Without
UY 0.623 0.002 0.000 0.212 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.813 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
UX 0.004 0.630 0.041 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
5 m dia

With Full
UY 0.630 0.004 0.175 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.007 0.005
UX 0.210 0.423 0.036 0.180 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.007
With Cut
UY 0.423 0.210 0.180 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.023
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.817 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.000
UX 0.552 0.004 0.103 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.001 0.000 0.000
Without
UY 0.004 0.552 0.125 0.103 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.089 0.000 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.771 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
UX 0.544 0.009 0.151 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.068 0.000 0.038 0.007 0.000
Tapered

With Full
UY 0.009 0.544 0.083 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.026 0.000 0.007 0.038 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.778 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047
UX 0.545 0.000 0.237 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.022 0.000 0.038 0.007 0.000
With Cut
UY 0.000 0.545 0.004 0.237 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.073 0.000 0.007 0.038 0.000
Diaphragm
UZ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070

Frequency was also calculated analytically and is shown in the Table A.3
Table A.3 Frequency of bridge piers (Analytical Result)
Frequency(Hz)
Case
(mode 1)
3 m dia without diaphragm 2.26
5 m dia without diaphragm 4.01

- 63 -
Observations
Following are the observations from the free vibration analysis study:
i. Analytical results and SAP model results are comparable.
ii. Frequency of 3m diameter bridge pier is higher than that of 5m diameter and hence 3m
diameter bridge pier is more flexible than 5m dia. bridge pier.
iii. Frequency of the tapered bridge pier lies between the 3m and 5m diameter bridge pier
which validate the results.
iv. Frequency of vibration is more dominant in X and Y direction for most of the modes.
Torsional vibration is dominant in mode 6.
A.4 LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS

Fig. A.2 Tapered section with horizontal load at the free end

A horizontal load of 100kN was applied at the free end as shown in Fig A.2 and analysis is
performed and deflection at the free end is obtained and is shown in the Table A.4.

Table A.4 Displacement of bridge piers under concentrated load (FEA Result)
Case Displacement (mm)
Without Diaphragm 3.63
3 m dia With Full Diaphragm 3.61
With Cut Diaphragm 3.61
Without Diaphragm 1.09
5 m dia With Full Diaphragm 0.92
With Cut Diaphragm 0.92
Without Diaphragm 1.15
Tapered With Full Diaphragm 1.15
With Cut Diaphragm 1.15

- 64 -
Deflection at the free end is calculated analytically by considering the bridge pier as a cantilever
with a load of 100kN at the free end and is shown in the Table A.5.

Table A.5 Displacement of bridge piers under concentrated load (Analytical Result)

Case Displacement (mm)

3 m dia without diaphragm 5.96

5 m dia without diaphragm 1.05

Observation
From the study it was observed that the displacement of tapered section lies in between the
displacement of 3m and 5m diameter uniform sections, which validate the result.

A.5 TORSION ANALYSIS

Torsion is applied at the free end as shown in the Fig A.3 below and the analysis is performed.

Fig. A.3 Tapered section with torsion

Results from analysis is as shown in the Table A.6.

- 65 -
 Table A.6 Displacement of bridge piers under torsion

Case Displacement (mm)

Without Diaphragm 0.165
3 m dia With Full Diaphragm 0.161
With Cut Diaphragm 0.159
Without Diaphragm 0.102
5 m dia With Full Diaphragm 0.101
With Cut Diaphragm 0.099
Without Diaphragm 0.081
Tapered With Full Diaphragm 0.079
With Cut Diaphragm 0.076

Observation
From the above study it was observed that the displacement of tapered section under torsion is
less than that of the 3m dia. and 5m dia. bridge piers in all the three cases.

A.6 CONCLUSION
Analysis of tapered hollow bridge pier has been performed. It was observed that the addition
of diaphragms increase the lateral stability and decreases the deflection of the structure. 3m
diameter hollow bridge pier was found to be more flexible than the 5m diameter hollow bridge
pier as it can be understood from their dimensions. Displacement of tapered section in torsion
was very less compared to the uniform piers for all the three different cases. Hence it was
observed that tapered section with diaphragm is more preferable than the uniform sections with
or without diaphragms.

- 66 -