Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design Concept for Long
Bridges with Tall Piers
Nurjulisman
Various articles fron the Internet
etc
Earthquake Damage to Bridges
Primary damage — caused by earthquake
ground shaking or deformation that was the
primary cause of damage to the bridge, and
may trigger other damage or collapse.
Secondary damage — caused by earthquake
ground shaking or deformation that was the
result of structural failures elsewhere in the
bridge, and was caused by redistribution of
internal actions for which the structure was
not designed.
Effects of Site Conditions
Correlation of Damage with Construction
Era
Effects of Changes in Condition
Effects of Structural Configuration
Unseating at Expansion Joints
Bridges with Short Seats and Simple
Spans
Skewed Bridges
Curved Bridges
Hinge Restrainers
Damage to Superstructures
Damage to Bearings
Damage to Substructures
Columns
Beams
Joints
Abutments
Foundations
Approaches
Nishinomiya‐ko Bridge approach span collapse in the 1995 Hyogo‐Ken Nanbu
earthquake (Kobe Collection, EERC Library, University of California, Berkeley).
Higashi‐Nada Viaduct collapse in the 1995 Hyogo‐Ken Nanbu earthquake.
San fransisco
Most of the severe damage to bridges has
taken one of the following forms
• Unseating of superstructure at in‐span
hinges or simple supports attributable to
inadequate seat lengths or restraint. A
skewed or curved configuration further
exacerbates the vulnerability. In simply
supported bridges, ground failure induces
relative motion between the spans and their
supports.
• Column failure attributable to inadequate
ductility (toughness).
In reinforced‐concrete columns, the
inadequate ductility usually stems from
inadequate confinement reinforcement.
In steel columns, the inadequate ductility
due to local buckling.
• Damage to shear keys at abutments. Because
of their geometry, it is nearly impossible to
make these stiff elements ductile.
• Unique failures in complex structures.
Dynamic Analysis
Single‐Degree‐of‐Freedom System
Multi‐Degree‐of‐Freedom System
Time History Analysis
Response Spectrum Analysis
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, static
push‐over analysis.
Combination Effects
Effects of ground motions in two
orthogonal horizontal directions
should be combined for bridges with
simple geometric configurations. For
bridges with long spans, outrigger
bents, and cantilever spans, or where
effects due to vertical input are
significant, vertical input should be
included in the design along with two
orthogonal horizontal inputs.
Seismic Load Combination
Seismic load case 1: 100% Transverse +
30% Longitudinal + 30% Vertical
Seismic load case 2: 30% Transverse +
100% Longitudinal + 30% Vertical
Seismic load case 3: 30% Transverse +
30% Longitudinal + 100% Vertical
Design Criteria 1
No‐Collapse‐Based Design Approaches
Small to moderate earthquakes should be
resisted within the elastic range with no
significant damage.
Use realistic seismic ground motion
intensities and forces in the design
procedures.
Exposure to shaking from a large
earthquake should not cause collapse of
all or part of bridges; damage that does
occur should be readily detectable and
accessible for inspection and repair.
Design Criteria 2
Performance‐Based Design Approaches
Ensure that all structural components
have sufficient strength and/or ductility to
prevent collapse
Ensure that the structural system and its
individual components have enough
capacity to withstand the deformation
imposed by the design earthquake.
ATC (Applied Technology Council)
Recommendations
Bridges are classified as either “important” or
“ordinary.”
Structural configurations :
Type I, simple (similar to regular bridges)
Type II, complex (similar to irregular bridges).
For important bridges, two‐level design
(safety evaluation and function evaluation)
approaches are recommended. For ordinary
bridges, a single‐level design (safety
evaluation) is recommended.
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
(SDC) minimum seismic design
requirements for Ordinary bridges.
Each span length is less than 300 feet.
Bridges with single superstructures on
either a horizontally curved, vertically
curved, or straight alignment.
Precast or cast‐in‐place concrete girder,
concrete slab superstructure on pile
extensions, column or pier walls, and
structural steel girders composite with
concrete slab superstructure supported by
reinforced concrete substructure elements
SDC minimum requirements
Horizontal members either rigidly
connected, pin connected, or supported
on conventional bearings
Bridges with dropped bent caps or integral
bent caps.
Columns and pier walls supported on
spread footings, pile caps with piles or
shafts
Supported on soils which may or may not
be susceptible to liquefaction and/or
scour
SDC minimum requirements
Spliced precast concrete bridge
system emulating a cast‐in‐place
continuous structure
Fundamental period of the
bridge system is greater than or
equal to 0.7 seconds in the
transverse and longitudinal
directions of the bridge
Bridges not meeting these
requirements or features may
be classified as either
Ordinary Non‐standard, or
Important bridges and require
project‐specific design criteria
which are beyond the scope of
the SDC.
Dynamic Analysis
Single‐Degree‐of‐Freedom System
Multi‐Degree‐of‐Freedom System
Response Spectrum Analysis
Time History Analysis
Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, static
push‐over analysis.
Dynamic Analysis Methods for
Seismic Bridge Design
The single‐mode method
Seismic load is considered as an equivalent
static horizontal force applied to an
individual frame in either the longitudinal
or transverse direction. The equivalent static
force is based on the natural period of a
single degree of freedom (SDOF) and code‐
specified response spectra. Single‐mode
method is best suited for structures with
well‐balanced spans with equally distributed
stiffness.
Dynamic Analysis Methods
for Seismic Bridge Design
Multimode spectral analysis
Assumes that member forces, moments, and
displacements due to seismic load can be
estimated by combining the responses of
individual modes using methods such as the
complete quadratic combination (CQC)
method and the square root of the sum of
the squares (SRSS) method.
Dynamic Analysis Methods for
Seismic Bridge Design
The multiple support response
spectrum (MSRS)
This method provides response spectra and
the peak displacements at individual
support degrees of freedom by accurately
accounting for the spatial variability of
ground motions, including the effects of
incoherence, wave passage, and spatially
varying site response. This method can be
used for multiply supported long
structures.
Dynamic Analysis Methods
for Seismic Bridge Design
The time‐history method
Numerical step‐by‐step integration of
equations of motion. Usually required for
critical/important or geometrically complex
bridges. Inelastic analysis provides a more
realistic measure of structural behavior when
compared with an elastic analysis.
Dynamic Analysis Methods
for Seismic Bridge Design
Pushover Analysis Method
Structure is subjected to gravity
loading and a lateral load pattern
which continuously increases
through elastic and inelastic
behavior until an ultimate
condition is reached.
The SDOF or SDOF‐based equivalent static analysis —
is efficient, convenient, and most frequently used for
ordinary simple bridges.
Elastic dynamic analysis is required for bridges with
complex configurations.
Multisupport response spectrum analysis may be used
in elastic time‐history analysis. An actual nonlinear
dynamic time‐history analysis may be necessary for
some important and complex bridges, but linearized
dynamic analysis (dynamic secant stiffness analysis)
and inelastic static analysis (static push‐over analysis)
are the best possible alternatives for the most bridges.
Earthquake‐resistant construction should be designed
to have a regular configuration so that the behavior is
simple to conceptualize and analyze, and so that
inelastic energy dissipation is promoted in a large
number of readily identified yielding components.
This ideal often is not achievable in bridge
construction because of irregularities imposed by site
conditions and traffic flow requirements. In theory,
any member or joint can be configured to resist the
induced force and deformation demands. However, in
practice, bridges with certain configurations are more
vulnerable to earthquakes than others.
Non SDC bridges
Conceptual seismic design
design principle, ideology and method
summary of earthquake damage
long‐term accumulation of practical
engineering experience
qualitative design for performance of
structure
quantitative design based on seismic
response analysis
Qualitative conceptual design is more
reliable than the quantitative numerical
design. This is due to uncertainties that exist
in seismic response analysis.
1) The uncertainty of constitutive model
2) The uncertainty of physical quantity
values
3) The uncertainty of correlation between
measurable physical quantity and their
constitutive model
4) The uncertainty of assumptions and
applicable conditions
5) The uncertainty of seismic response
analysis model
Bridge collapses are tragic, but also fascinating
as they often lead to major changes in design,
construction and management.
Specific to location, collapses are due to
earthquake and wind speed. Designs must take
these actions into account in combination with
other more common forms of loading .
Earthquakes are random events; history does
not provide enough information to assess
precise seismic hazard everywhere structures
are built, so we learn by experience.
Soil, foundation and structure
interaction (SFSI).
Long bridge structure
Superstructure.
Multiple piers and abutments
Independent and often distinct
foundation systems
Supported on the soil medium
The SFSI problem can be separated into
two subproblems.
Soil–foundation interaction (SFI).
Foundation–structure interaction (FSI).
Typically, non SDC bridges have long
spans.
Steel Box/Plate Girder Bridges ; up to 300
mtrs.
Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges ; 330
mtrs.
Concrete Arch Bridges ; 445 mtrs.
Steel Arch Bridges ; 552 mtrs.
Steel Truss Girder Bridges ; 549 mtrs.
Cable‐Stayed Bridges ; 1104 mtrs.
Suspension Bridges ; 1991 mtrs.
Long Span Bridge with tall pier
Cable Supported Bridge
Cable stayed bridge.
Suspension bridge.
Cable‐Stayed Bridges and Suspension
Bridges ( Cable supported bridges)
To withstand wind load, super‐structure
should be rigid to withstand flapping and
twirling.
Superstructure should be flexible to shake
without significant damage under light and
moderate earthquake.
Conceptual design of cable
supported bridge
Type of the cable supported bridge to
be designed and its suitable location
Determine seismic response feature of
cable supported bridge
Design to avoid collapse
Design to remove seismic vulnerability of
different bridge components
Seismic response feature of cable
supported bridge
Specific seismic response with long
vibration period
Low damping
Complex vibration modes
Sensitive to multi‐support ground motion
Large expansion joints.
Larger deflection due to span, causing larger
P‐delta effect.
Damping ratio of cable stayed bridge is
between 1‐2%, its vibration need long time
to disappear.
Complex vibration mode, each component
has its own vibration period and shape.
Distance between supports is quite long,
this affect the time of receiving seismic
vibration and also soil types could be
different and hence vibrations will not be
the same.
Different seismic ground motion response at
each supports.
Cable supported bridges need large
expansion joints to make rooms for bridge
movements.
Design to Avoid Collapse
Energy Dissipation in Cable
Supported Bridge
fluid viscous dampers
friction damper
metallic yielding dampers
Base Isolation
Improve Ductility
Enhancing the ductility of towers, piers, and
pylons.
Ductility of steel can be increased by
providing lateral stiffening.
Lateral confinement is used to improve
ductility of concrete components.
Redundancy Provisions in Cable
Supported Bridge
Response of the structure during earthquake
cannot be precisely determined and
earthquakes have random nature.
Creating alternate load path, installing
restrainers, shear key, and catch blocks.
These devices are cheap, easy to be designed
and fixed on the intended location.
Strengthening of Cable
Supported Bridge
Superstructure
This method is used for superstructure
components of cable supported bridges. It is
employed for the connections of bridge
elements that carry most loads need to be
designed as a capacity protector of the
element.
Design to Remove Seismic
Vulnerability of Different Bridge
Components
Shaft of the tower may buckle during
earthquakes
Connections and expansion joints may
damage when the movement of bridge
component exceed their capacity
Foundation of the bridge might suffer
because of soil liquefaction.
Seismic vulnerability of
components of cable supported
bridge need to be considered at
conceptual design stage.
Different design and materials
could be considered to choose
the best and suitable option.
Permanent offset of foundations in the Akahshi Kaikyo
Bridge in the1995 Hyogo‐ken Nanbu earthquake (Saeki
et al., 1997)
Thanks