Updated LRFD Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges

NCHRP 20-07/Task 193
Task 6 Report for Updating Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges
Imbsen & Associates, Inc. - A TRC Company
1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. 1 2 2.1
Page No. Review Reference Documents ............................................................ 1-1 Finalize Seismic Hazard Level............................................................. 2-1 Recommended Approach to Addressing Seismic Hazard ...................... 2-1 2.1.1 Background on Seismic Hazard................................................... 2-2
2.2 3 3.1 3.2
Proposed Seismic Hazard for Design of Normal Bridges ....................... 2-2 Expand the Extent of the No Analysis Zone .................................. 3-1 Introduction............................................................................................. 3-1 Proposed Range of Applicability of Analysis .......................................... 3-3 3.3.1 Column Shear Requirement for SPC B ..................................... 3-12 3.3.2 Column Shear Requirement for SPC C ..................................... 3-14
3.4 3.5
Drift Capacity for SPC B and SPC C .................................................... 3-15 Hinge Seat Requirement ...................................................................... 3-18 3.5.1 Minimum Edge Distance............................................................ 3-18 3.5.2 Other Movement ........................................................................ 3-19 3.5.3 Skew Effect................................................................................ 3-20 3.5.4 Relative Hinge Displacement..................................................... 3-21
4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Select the Most Appropriate Design Procedure for Steel ................. 4-1 General................................................................................................... 4-1 Design Examples.................................................................................... 4-2 Load Path and Performance Criteria ...................................................... 4-4 Summary ................................................................................................ 4-8 Recommend Liquefaction Design Procedure .................................... 5-1 Objective ................................................................................................ 5-1 NCHRP 12-49 Liquefaction Design Requirements................................. 5-1 Damage Severity in Past Earthquakes ................................................... 5-3 Proposed Liquefaction Design Requirements ........................................ 5-4 Summary ................................................................................................ 5-6
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Page No.
Figure 2-1: Idealized Load Deflection Curve of a Bridge................................... 2-6 Figure 2-2: Probabilistic to Deterministic Ratio at Selected Sites..................... 2-12 Figure 3-1: Elastic Response Spectra Curves (5% Damping) for Soil Profile Type D (M = 6.5 0.25) (Caltrans SDC) ................................... 3-6 Figure 3-2: Elastic Response Spectra Curve (5% Damping) for Soil Profile Type D (M = 8.0 0.25) (Caltrans SDC) ................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3: Core Flowchart ................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-4: Proposed Drift Capacity for SPC B and C ........................................ 3-18 Figure 3-5: Skew Effect Seat Width Amplification Factor for Various Skew Angles ................................................................................................. 3-20 Figure 3-6: Relative Seismic Displacement vs. Period Ratio ............................. 3-23 Figure 3-7: Proposed Seat Width Compared to NCHRP 12-49 and DIV 1A (H=20ft) ................................................................................................ 3-25 Figure 3-8: Proposed Seat Width Compared to NCHRP 12-49 and DIV 1A (H=30ft) ................................................................................................ 3-25 Figure 4-1: Seismic Load Path and Affected Components .................................. 4-6
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page No.
Table 2-1: Identified Sources of Conservatism ...................................................... 2-4 Table 2-2: Selected Sites for PSHA/DSHA Comparison ........................................ 2-8 Table 2-3: Design Spectral Acceleration based on NCHRP 1997 ......................... 2-9 Table 2-4: Probabilistic Spectral Acceleration for 10% and 5% in 50 Years ..... 2-10 Table 2-5: Spectral Acceleration (Type B & D Soil) for 5% in 50 Years.............. 2-10 Table 2-6: One-Second Spectral Acceleration Comparison to USGS 1996 ...... 2-11 Table 2-7: Probabilistic to Deterministic Comparison of One-Second Acceleration........................................................................................ 2-12 Table 3-1: Proposed Partitions for Seismic Performance Categories A, B, C, and D............................................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 6 .................................... 3-8 Table 3-3: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 7 .................................... 3-8 Table 3-4: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 8 .................................... 3-8 Table 3-5: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration (Division 1A)......................................... 3-8 Table 3-6: Seismic Performance Category for Selected Sites .............................. 3-9 Table 3-7: Column Parameters .............................................................................. 3-17
iv
Table 4-1: Reduction Factors for Steel Superstructure Bracings......................... 4-8 Table 5-1: Damage Severity Description................................................................. 5-3 Table 5-2: Damage Severity Rating vs. Earthquake Magnitude ............................ 5-4
TASK 1 1 REVIEW REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
A review of the pertinent documents and information that were available was conducted and has been included in Tasks 2 thru 5 as needed. The reference material that was selected for inclusion is attached as appendices for each of the individual tasks. Their inclusion as appendices makes this Letter Report somewhat self-contained and additionally, makes it more convenient for our reviewers. A separate section is included in this Letter Report for each of the tasks as described below: Section 2 presents the justification for the 1000-year return period (i.e., 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years) as recommended for the seismic design of highway bridges. Section 3 includes a description of how the no analysis zone is expanded and how this expansion is incorporated into the displacement based approach. Section 4 describes the two alternative approaches available for the design of highway bridges with steel superstructures and concludes with a recommendation to use a force base approach for the proposed specification. Section 5 describes the recommended procedure for liquefaction design to be used for highway bridges. This aspect of the design is influenced by the recommended hazard level and the no analysis zone covered in Tasks 2 and 3
1-1
respectively. The recommendations proposed are made taking into account the outcome of these two tasks for Seismic Performance Category D.
1-2
TASK 2 2 FINALIZE SEISMIC HAZARD LEVEL 2.1 Recommended Approach to Addressing Seismic Hazard
The recommended approach to addressing the seismic hazard is based on the following positions: Recommendations would be Primarily for Design against the Effects Ground Shaking Hazard Selection of a Return Period for Design less than 2500 Years Inclusion of the USGS 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps Effects of Near Field and Fault Rupture to be addressed in a separate later Task. Displacement Based Approach with both Design Spectral Acceleration and corresponding Displacement Spectra provided Hazard Map under the control of AASHTO with each State having the option to Modify or Update their own State Hazard using the most recent Seismological Studies consistent with the Established Risk
2-1
2.1.1
Background on Seismic Hazard
The current State of the Practice in addressing the seismic hazard for the design of bridges in the U.S. has evolved from just conforming to AASHTO Division 1-A requirements to adopting higher standards that take into account the possible effects of larger earthquakes in the Eastern United States and the impacts of major earthquakes that occurred recently in the Western United States, Japan, Taiwan and Turkey. This change in the Seismic Hazard Practice can be best illustrated in looking at the following sources:

NEHRP 1997 Seismic Hazard Practice Caltrans Seismic Hazard Practice NYCDOT and NYSDOT Seismic Hazard Practice NCHRP 12-49 Seismic Hazard Practice SCDOT Seismic Hazard Practice Site Specific Hazard Analyses Conducted for Critical Bridges
Appendix 2A contains background on seismic hazard drawn from the above mentioned sources.
2.2
Proposed Seismic Hazard for Design of Normal Bridges
In reviewing the seismic hazard practice in different regions as described previously, it is apparent that some important aspects of this Practice need to be taken into consideration when developing new Guidelines. These aspects are pivotal in reaching the objective of producing Guidelines that are adoptable by AASHTO.
2-2
These aspects include: 1) Consideration for lower return period for Design based on the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) maps published in 1996 with USGS 2002 Update shall be considered a minimum standard. Modification or increase in the hazard intensity based on Seismological Studies needs to be included as an option for states and agencies seeking a higher degree of hazard identification to a specific region or bridge. 2) The reduction in the design intensity can be implicitly achieved by considering applying a reduction/modifier factor for design spectrum derived from USGS MCE maps. An alternative to this approach would be embarking on developing new maps based on a modified new definition of the MCE for Bridge Design. 3) Consideration of applying a reduction factor on the hazard intensity for existing bridges or bridges located in rural areas. 4) Selection of a lower return period for Design is made such that Collapse Prevention is not compromised when considering historical large earthquakes. This reduction can be achieved by taking advantage of sources of conservatism not explicitly taken into account in current design procedures. These sources of conservatism are becoming obvious based on recent findings from both observations of earthquake damage and experimental data. Some of these sources are shown in Table 2-1.
2-3
Table 2-1: Identified Sources of Conservatism
Source of Conservatism
Computational vs. Experimental Displacement Capacity of Components Effective Damping Dynamic Effect (i.e., strain rate effect) Pushover Techniques Governed by First Plastic Hinge to Reach Ultimate Capacity Out of Phase Displacement at Hinge Seat
Safety Factor
1.3 1.2 to 1.5 1.2 1.2 to 1.5 Addressed in Task 3
The conservatism is directly coupled to the seismic reliability of the structural system under consideration. The current state of the practice favors continuous superstructures for the majority of bridges with an objective of minimizing expansion joints to gain functionality, reduce maintenance, and increase life cycle of the bridge. This selection has a favorable impact on the earthquake redundancy of the bridge system. Considering a single performance level of No Collapse, the seismic redundancy of the bridge system is enhanced with the increase of the number of plastic hinges that must yield and then fail in order to produce the impending collapse of the structure. width exists in the bridge system. This enhanced redundancy translates into a delayed failure (i.e. collapse) provided sufficient seat Therefore two distinctly different aspects of the design process need to be provided: a) An appropriate method to design adequate seat width(s) considering out of phase motions. b) An appropriate method to design the ductile substructure components without undue conservatism.
2-4
These two aspects are embedded with different levels of conservatism that need to be calibrated against the single level of hazard considered in the design process. The first aspect is highly influenced by variation in the periods of the frames on both sides of a joint as well as the damping generated by the ductile behavior of plastic hinges. expansion joint. The second aspect is addressed using a static push-over analysis. As shown in Figure 2-4, the collapse displacement is usually reached when the P- line intersects the load-displacement curve of the structure, because at this point, any increment in displacement produces an increment in the P- effect due to gravity loads that cannot be resisted by the lateral resistant system. It is important to mention for structures with relatively small gravity loads, a much larger reduction in component strength can be tolerated without reaching structural collapse. This is especially relevant to bridge columns carrying axial loads typically ranging from .05 f cAg to .15 f cAg maximum. In essence, the This aspect is addressed in terms of recommendations or limits on periods ratio for frames on both sides of an
continuity of the superstructure and low axial loads in columns make a typical bridge more resilient against collapse in a seismic event.
2-5
Figure 2-1: Idealized Load Deflection Curve of a Bridge Under earthquake ground motions at the supports, the structure or any of its components can fail under a smaller displacement than the displacement
collapse illustrated in Figure 2-1.
This failure is mainly attributed to
nonsymmetric cumulative plastic displacement that is highly depended on the characteristics of the earthquake ground motions. The reliable displacement capacity is typically associated with the displacement corresponding to a limited decrease in strength of 20% to 30% maximum obtained under monotonically increasing deformation. As shown in Figure 2-1, the displacement capacity capacity can only be established given the descending slope following the point of maximum lateral resistance Fmax. Recognizing the
2-6
complexity of determining capacity, the capacity/bridge is used as a conservative and simple measure assuming nominal properties. In summary, the two aspects described above should be considered in the practice to justify a reduction in the design hazard and ensure the development of a simplified methodology that addresses the different sources of conservatism included in the current state of the practice. In order to assess the feasibility of a reduction in hazard from the 2% in 50 years hazard level adopted by NCHRP 12-49, a Probabilistic/Deterministic comparison is conducted on 20 sites. Table 2-2 shows the state, city, dominant source, latitude and longitude of the selected sites. Table 2-3 shows the short period and one-second spectral acceleration for the Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA), the Deterministic Cap taken at 1.5 times the (DSHA) value, the Maximum Considered Earthquake, and the Design Spectral Acceleration SDS and SD1 based on NEHRP 1997 guidelines. Table 2-4 shows the short period and one-second acceleration based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) for 10% and 5% exceedance in 50 years. Table 2-4 includes two additional sites to the 20 sites identified in Table 2-2 and 2-3. Table 2-5 shows the short period and one-second period acceleration including Type D soil effect for the proposed 5% exceedance in 50 years Design Spectrum. Table 2-6 shows a comparison of the one-second acceleration (PSHA) to the USGS 1996. As seen from Table 2-6, California sites show a decrease of the acceleration values while other sites show a marginal change or an increase. Table 2-7 shows the PSHA/DSHA comparison for the one-second acceleration of the PSHA/DSHA ratio at each of the selected sites. These ratios are shown graphically in Figure 2-2.
2-7
Based on this comparison, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. Adopt the 5% in 50 years hazard level for development of a design spectrum. 2. Ensure sufficient conservatism (1.5 safety factor) for minimum seat width requirement. This conservatism is needed to enable to use the reserve capacity of hinging mechanism of the bridge system. This conservatism shall be embedded in the specifications to address unseating vulnerability. It is recommended to embed this safety factor for sites outside of California. 3. Partition Seismic Performance Categories (SPCs) into four categories and proceed with the development of analytical bounds using the 5% in 50 years Hazard level.
Table 2-2: Selected Sites for PSHA/DSHA Comparison

ST CA CA CA CA CITY Daly City San Francisco SFOBB Berkeley FEATURE Zip Code 94015 City Hall Site from Po/Roy Site from Po/Roy DOMINANT SOURCE San Andreas San Andreas Hayward Hayward LATITUDE 37.681240 37.779083 37.750000 37.871667 LONGITUDE -122.479000 -122.417450 -122.250000 -122.271667
2-8
CA CA CA
Benicia Martinez Los Angeles Vincent Thomas
Site from Po/Roy City Hall Site from Po/Roy Location corrected Zip Code 90810 Site from Po/Roy Space Needle Site from Po/Roy State Capital Site from Po/Roy Zip code 47720 Zip code 63129 Zip code 42003 Zip code 38261 City Hall Zip code 38127
Concord Puente Hills blind thrust Palos Verdes
38.000000 34.053700 33.749218
-122.116667 -118.243183 -118.271466
CA CA WA WA UT UT IN MO KY TN TN TN
Long Beach Coronado Bridge Seattle Tacoma North Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Evansville St. Louis Paducah Union City Memphis Memphis
Newport-Inglewood Rose Canyon Seattle fault zone Seattle fault zone Wasatch fault, Salt Lake City section Wasatch fault, Salt Lake City section New Madrid fault zone New Madrid fault zone New Madrid fault zone New Madrid fault zone New Madrid fault zone New Madrid fault zone
33.813890 32.616667 47.621150 47.250000 40.776367 40.750000 38.023280 38.466780 37.034190 36.428110 35.148750 35.225170
-118.217000 -117.116667 -122.348950 -122.366667 -111.887983 -111.883333 -87.617100 -90.319400 -88.603800 -89.059500 -90.054700 -90.008400
Table 2-3: Design Spectral Acceleration based on NCHRP 1997
2-9
CITY Daly City San Francisco SFOBB Berkeley Benicia Martinez Los Angeles Vincent Thomas Long Beach Coronado Bridge Seattle Tacoma North Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Evansville St. Louis Paducah Union City Memphis Memphis
Det Ss, g 1.49 0.88 0.84 1.28 0.96 1.50 1.41 1.28 1.19 1.34 0.47 1.28 1.25 0.27 0.23 0.89 0.86 0.60 0.65
Det S1, g 1.5*Det Ss, g 0.85 2.23 0.44 1.32 0.30 1.26 0.49 1.93 0.31 1.44 0.57 2.24 0.63 2.12 0.51 1.91 0.47 1.78 0.48 2.01 0.18 0.71 0.53 1.92 0.53 1.88 0.09 0.41 0.08 0.34 0.24 1.33 0.23 1.29 0.17 0.91 0.18 0.98
1.5*Det S1, g 1.28 0.67 0.45 0.74 0.47 0.86 0.95 0.77 0.70 0.73 0.28 0.80 0.79 0.13 0.12 0.36 0.35 0.25 0.27
MCE Ss, g MCE S1, g 2.23 1.28 1.50 0.67 1.50 0.60 1.93 0.74 1.50 0.60 2.19 0.74 2.08 0.92 1.81 0.70 1.37 0.54 1.41 0.48 1.20 0.41 1.71 0.69 1.70 0.69 0.67 0.19 0.61 0.17 1.50 0.47 1.50 0.57 1.40 0.38 1.50 0.41
SDs, g 1.49 1.00 1.00 1.28 1.00 1.46 1.38 1.20 0.91 0.94 0.80 1.14 1.13 0.45 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00
SD1, g 0.85 0.44 0.40 0.49 0.40 0.49 0.61 0.47 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.12 0.31 0.38 0.25 0.27
Table 2-4: Probabilistic Spectral Acceleration for 10% and 5% in 50 Years

10%/50 yr Ss, g 1.60 1.15 1.26 1.65 1.24 1.20 1.02 0.96 0.60 0.73 0.68 0.69 0.68 0.25 0.23 0.54 0.53 0.38 0.40 0.31 0.09 10%/50 yr S1, g 0.78 0.53 0.50 0.63 0.43 0.41 0.37 0.35 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.03 5%/50 yr Ss, g 2.15 1.45 1.57 2.19 1.58 1.60 1.47 1.30 0.89 0.99 0.89 1.10 1.09 0.40 0.36 0.97 1.06 0.75 0.80 0.69 0.12 5%/50 yr S1, g 1.12 0.69 0.62 0.83 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.49 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.04
CITY Daly City San Francisco SFOBB Berkeley Benicia Martinez Los Angeles Vincent Thomas Long Beach Coronado Bridge Seattle Tacoma North Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Evansville St. Louis Paducah Union City Memphis Memphis Charleston Phoenix
Table 2-5: Spectral Acceleration (Type B & D Soil) for 5% in 50 Years
2-10
Type B 5%/50 yr Ss, g 2.15 1.45 1.57 2.19 1.58 1.60 1.47 1.30 0.89 0.99 0.89 1.10 1.09 0.40 0.36 0.97 1.06 0.75 0.80 0.69 0.12
Type B 5%/50 yr S1, g 1.12 0.69 0.62 0.83 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.49 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.04
Type D 5%/50 yr S DS , g 2.15 1.45 1.57 2.19 1.58 1.60 1.47 1.30 1.02 1.10 1.01 1.17 1.15 0.60 0.55 1.08 1.15 0.89 0.94 0.86 0.19
Type D 5%, 50 yr S D1 ,g 1.67 1.04 0.93 1.24 0.83 0.81 0.84 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.66 0.26 0.24 0.46 0.50 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.09
Table 2-6: One-Second Spectral Acceleration Comparison to USGS 1996

10%/50yr 5%/50yr 1996 1996 S1,g S1,g 1.08 1.50 0.64 0.83 0.62 0.79 0.65 0.86 0.55 0.69 0.42 0.54 0.41 0.58 0.42 0.60 0.21 0.31 0.22 0.32 0.20 0.28 0.21 0.42 0.21 0.40 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.20 0.09 0.21 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.17 0.03 0.04
10%/50 yr 5%/50 yr S1, g S1, g CITY Daly City 0.78 1.12 San Francisco 0.53 0.69 SFOBB 0.50 0.62 Berkeley 0.63 0.83 Benicia Martinez 0.43 0.55 Los Angeles 0.41 0.54 Vincent Thomas 0.37 0.56 Long Beach 0.35 0.49 Coronado Bridge 0.22 0.34 Seattle 0.24 0.33 Tacoma North 0.23 0.30 Salt Lake City 0.24 0.42 Salt Lake City 0.24 0.42 Evansville 0.07 0.11 St. Louis 0.06 0.10 Paducah 0.11 0.24 Union City 0.12 0.27 Memphis 0.09 0.19 Memphis 0.09 0.20 Charleston 0.06 0.15 Phoenix 0.03 0.04
Ratio 1 1.38 1.22 1.24 1.03 1.27 1.02 1.10 1.20 0.95 0.92 0.88 0.86 0.87 0.92 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.78 1.17 1.11
Ratio 2 1.35 1.20 1.27 1.04 1.25 1.00 1.03 1.23 0.92 0.97 0.93 1.00 0.96 1.08 0.99 0.83 0.79 0.84 0.84 1.11 1.02
2-11
Table 2-7: Probabilistic to Deterministic Comparison of One-Second Acceleration

Det S1, g 0.85 0.44 0.30 0.49 0.31 0.57 0.63 0.51 0.47 0.48 0.18 0.53 0.53 0.09 0.08 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.18 5%/50 yr S1, g 1.12 0.69 0.62 0.83 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.49 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.20
CITY Daly City San Francisco SFOBB Berkeley Benicia Martinez Los Angeles Vincent Thomas Long Beach Coronado Bridge Seattle Tacoma North Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Evansville St. Louis Paducah Union City Memphis Memphis
2.50
Ratio 1.31 1.56 2.07 1.67 1.76 0.94 0.89 0.95 0.72 0.68 1.63 0.79 0.79 1.24 1.28 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.12
5%-50 Yr/Deterministic
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
al y C it y Fr an ci sc o SF O B Be B Be rk ni el ci ey a M ar tin Lo e s An z Vi nc ge en l t T es ho m Lo ng as C or Be on ad ach o Br id ge Ta Se at co tle m a Sa N o lt La rth Sa ke C lt La ity ke C ity Ev an sv ille St .L ou Pa is du ca U h ni on C it y M em ph is M em ph is
Figure 2-2: Probabilistic to Deterministic Ratio at Selected Sites
Sa
2-12
TASK 2 APPENDIX 2A
2A-1
NEHRP 1997 Seismic Hazard Practice

FEMA 274 describes the background of NEHRP 1997 provisions as follows: The NEHRP Recommended Provisions (BSSC, 1997) update process to the 1994 NEHRP Provisions included the formation of a special Seismic Design Procedures Group (SDPG), consisting of earth scientists from the USGS and engineers engaged in the update process. The SDPG was charged with the responsibility of working with the USGS to produce ground motion maps incorporating the latest earth science procedures, and with appropriate design procedures to allow use of these maps in the Recommended Provisions. The SDPG determined that rather than designing for a nationwide uniform hazard - such as a 10%/50 year or 2%/50 year hazard- it made more sense to design for a uniform margin of failure against a somewhat arbitrarily selected maximum earthquake level. This maximum earthquake level was termed a Maximum Considered earthquake (MCE) in recognition of the fact that this was not the most severe earthquake hazard level that could ever affect a site, but it was the most severe level that it was deemed practical to consider for design purposes. The SDPG decided to adopt a 2%/50 year exceedance level definition for the MCE in most regions of the nation, as it was felt that this would capture recurrence of all of the large-magnitude earthquakes that had occurred in historic times. There was concern, however, that the levels of ground shaking derived for this exceedance level were not appropriate in zones near major active faults. There were several reasons for this. First, the predicted ground motions in these regions were much larger than those that had commonly been recorded by near field instrumentation in recent magnitude 6 or 7 California events. Second, it was noted, based on the observed performance of buildings in these earthquakes, that structures designed ot the code had substantial margin against collapse for ground shaking that is much larger than that for which the
2A-2
building had nominally been designed; in the judgment of the SDPG members, this margin represented a factor of at least 1.5. Consequently, it was decided to adopt a definition of the MCE in zones near major active faults that consisted of the smaller of the probabilistically estimated 2%/50 year motion or 150% of the mean ground motion calculated for a deterministic characteristic earthquake on these major active faults, and to design all buildings, regardless of location, to provide for protection of occupant life safety at earthquake ground shaking levels that are 1/1.5 times (2/3) of the MCE ground motion. Following the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, the ratio of the mapped acceleration at one-second period for return periods of 474, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 years is normalized against the mapped acceleration at one-second period for a return period of 474 years. The results of this normalization for California, Pacific, Intermountain, Central US, and Eastern US are found in Table 2-1. The California and Pacific Regions are designated with a deterministic cap based on the description mentioned in the above paragraphs. The normalization is appropriate for sites where the short period mapped acceleration SS is greater than 1.5 g (i.e. higher ground shaking). Table 2-1: Normalized One Second Spectral Acceleration
Return Period Years California 474 1000 1500 2000 2500 Deterministic CAP 1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 Yes Pacific 1 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.0 Yes Region Intermountain 1 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 No Central US 1 2.3 3.5 4.8 6.1 No Eastern US 1 2.2 3.4 4.5 5.7 No
Achieving a national uniform hazard is difficult given the drastic difference from one region to the other as illustrated in the normalization shown in Table
2A-3
2-1. Furthermore, the regional difference in the recurrence of large magnitude earthquakes makes the task of achieving a uniform hazard even more difficult. Therefore, it is important that the selection of the Design Hazard can be implicitly made such that collapse prevention is not compromised when considering historical large earthquakes.
Caltrans Seismic Hazard Practice

California Practice is described by Caltrans Commentary as follows: Caltrans bridge engineering practice has generally embraced deterministic ground motion hazards practice since the 1971 the San Fernando expected earthquake. earthquake. Deterministic considers largest
Deterministic practice considers the largest expected earthquake on any known fault. Caltrans uses the mean event for standard practice, and refers to it as the maximum credible earthquake (MCE). The deterministic method does not take into consideration the recurrence of an MCE. This method assumes that the MCE could occur at any time. Bridge engineering practice, therefore should prudently allow for structures to be able to resist the MCE demands without endangering the traveling public. In recent years, Caltrans has implemented alternative ground motion hazard site evaluations to address special situations. The alternatives were used with consideration for: a) remaining life of a particular structure; b) bridge performance capacity following an earthquake; c) liquefaction potential at an existing bridge site; d) potential hazard at a bridge in anticipation of a future retrofit or replacement; and other similar situations. Caltrans, with the support of an external Seismic Advisory Board and the ATC-32 project team, has developed a set of seismic performance criteria for
2A-4
new bridges.
Following ATC-32, all bridges shall be designed to meet the
seismic performance criteria given in Table 2-2. Definitions of the terms in Table 2-2 are given on the following page. Table 2-2: Seismic Performance Criteria Ground Motion at Site Functional-Evaluation Ground Motion Safety-Evaluation Ground Motion Service Level-Immediate Repairable Damage Service Level-Limited Significant Damage Service Level-Immediate Minimal Damage Service Level-Immediate Repairable Damage Ordinary Bridges Important Bridges
Each bridge shall be classified as either Important or Ordinary, as follows: a) Important Bridge: Any bridge satisfying one or more of the following:
Required to provide secondary life safety Time for restoration of functionality after closure would create a major economic impact
Formally designated by a local emergency plan as critical
b) Ordinary Bridge: Any bridge not classified as an Important Bridge. The Evaluation Levels are defined as follows: a) Safety-Evaluation Ground Motion: This ground motion may be assessed either deterministically or probabilistically. The deterministic assessment corresponds to the maximum credible earthquake (MCE), as defined by the Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 92-1
2A-5
(CDMG, 1992). A probabilistically assessed ground motion is one with a long return period (approximately 1000-2000 years). For Important Bridges both methods shall be given consideration; however, the probabilistic evaluation shall be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus group. For Ordinary Bridges, the motions shall be based only on the deterministic evaluation. b) Functional-Evaluation Ground Motion: This is a probabilistically
assessed ground motion that has a 60 percent probability of not being exceeded during the useful life of the bridge. The determination of this event is to be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus group. The following performance levels, expressed in terms of service levels and damage levels are defined as follows: a) Service Levels
Immediate:
Full access to normal traffic is available almost
immediately following the earthquake.
Limited:
Limited access (i.e., reduced lanes, light emergency
traffic) is possible within days of the earthquake. Full service is restorable within months. b) Damage Levels
Minimal Damage: Essentially elastic performance. Repairable Damage: Damage that can be repaired with a
minimum risk of losing functionality.
Significant Damage:
A minimum risk of collapse, but damage
that would require closure to repair.
2A-6
Following recommendations of ATC-32, Caltrans published the Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.1, July 1999 (SDC 1.1) with focus on Ordinary Bridges as previously defined in ATC-32. The design spectra (i.e. ARS curves) included in SDC 1.1 were adopted from the ATC-32 design spectra. However, recognizing some of the complexities dealing with the roles of probabilistic and deterministic assessments, it was found that depending on the seismic activity of a given region, the deterministic and probabilistic assessments may be different. In the highly seismic zones of the San Francisco Bay region, the deterministic ground motion assessments using the mean ARS spectra for the MCE correspond to return periods of about 300 to 400 years. This variation between the probabilistic and deterministic approaches is still an outstanding issue in the California Seismic Hazard Practice. Based on the currently adopted SDC 1.2 released in December 2001, an ordinary bridge is designed for a standard 5% damped SDC ARS curve, a modified SDC ARS curve, or a site-specific ARS curve. For preliminary design, prior to receiving the geotechnical engineers recommendation, a standard SDC ARS curve may be used in conjunction with the peak rock acceleration from the 1996 Caltrans Seismic Hazard Map. The standard SDC ARS curves were adopted from ATC-32. If standard SDC ARS curves are used during preliminary design, they should be adjusted for long period bridges and bridges in close proximity to a fault as described below. For preliminary design of structures within 10 miles (15 km) of an active fault, the modified SDC ARS curve is obtained by magnifying the spectral acceleration on the SDC ARS curves as follows:
Spectral acceleration magnification is not required for T 0.5 seconds Increase the spectral accelerations for T 1.0 seconds by 20%
2A-7
Spectral accelerations for 0.5 T 1.0 shall be determined by linear interpolation
For preliminary design of structures with a fundamental period of vibration T 1.5 seconds on deep soil sites (depth of alluvium 250 feet (75 m)) the modified SDC ARS curve is obtained by magnifying the spectral ordinates of the standard ARS curve as follows:
Spectral acceleration magnification is not required for T 0.5 seconds Increase the spectral accelerations for T 1.5 seconds by 20% Spectral accelerations for 0.5 T 1.5 shall be determined by linear interpolation
A site specific response spectrum is typically required when a bridge is located in the vicinity of a major fault or located on soft or liquefiable soils and the estimated earthquake moment magnitude Mm > 6.5. In formally adopting the displacement approach following the release of Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.1, July 1999, the State of Practice is implicitly calibrated to the Mean Hazard as stated above including a 1.2 magnification factor of spectral acceleration ordinates for a period of one second or greater for bridges near a fault. It is deemed important to mention that the normalization shown in Table 1 reveals that Californias one-second spectral ratio is at 1.6 and that the NEHRP 1997 deterministic cap is set at 1.5 of the mean ground motion as previously mentioned under the NEHRP 1997 Seismic Hazard Practice. When considering locations close to active faults, the normalization of the one-second spectral ratio shows average value is close to 1.8 but can be as high as 2.2 using the USGS 1997 maps. This value represents an increase of 12% to 38% in comparison to the 1.6 ratio. This increase is comparable to the 20% increase that the Caltrans Seismic Design
2A-8
SDC 1.2 has adopted in its December 2001 release. Recent studies suggest considerably larger increases that have, however, not been yet endorsed in the practice
NYCDOT and NYSDOT Seismic Hazard Practice

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) practice continues in accordance with 1996 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Division 1-A. New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has adopted modifications to the 1996 AASHTO Division 1-A that reflect the findings of the New York City Seismic Hazard and Its Engineering Application final report prepared by Weidlinger Associates, December 1998. These modifications are applicable to NYC Metro Region including the Counties listed in Table 2-3. Essential and Other. permitted. The following guidelines are adopted for NYCDOT bridges: NYCDOT bridges are classified as Critical, In all cases, No Collapse is Table 2-3 summarizes the relationship of bridge
importance and performance requirements.
For Bridges designed by the one level approach (Essential and Other), Figure 2-1 shows the acceleration response spectra to be used for different soil types (soil classes). Soil classes are defined in Table 2-4.
Site specific soil effects for the two earthquake levels approach (i.e. Critical Bridges) should be obtained from an expert. Soil spectra for different types of soils, base on NEHRP amplification factors are not recommended for design of Critical Bridges.
For Critical bridges, site-specific ground motions shall be computed using rock motions based on the spectra for hard rock (Soil Class A).
2A-9
For Essential bridges where the site condition can be classified as A, B, C, D, or E, the empirically derived soil spectra shown on Figure 2-1 (2/3 (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years)) shall be used.
For bridges classified as Other, including single-span bridges, the spectra shown on Figure 2-1 shall be used for Soil Classes A, B, C, D, and E.
For Soil Class F, regardless of bridge Importance Category, site-specific analysis should be performed.
2A-10
Table 2-3: Performance Criteria and Seismic Hazard Level for Design and Evaluation of Bridges
(Applicable to NYC Metro Region/Downstate Counties: Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland and Westchester)
2A-11
Table 2-4: Soil Classification
Figure 2-1: NYCDOT Soil Acceleration Response Spectra for OneLevel Approach (2% in 50 Years Probability of Exceedance) /1.5
2A-12
A comparison between the panel spectra adopted by NYCDOT and NEHRP 1997 shows the following:
The NEHRP/97 MCE hard rock is lower than the Panel Hard Rock as demonstrated in Figure 2-2.
The short period soil amplification Panel Spectra factors are lower than the NEHRP 1997 corresponding factors as demonstrated in Table 2-5.
The long period soil amplification Panel Spectra factors are essentially the same in comparison to the NEHRP 1997 corresponding factors as demonstrated in Table 2-6.
In Summary,
the long period spectral
acceleration values for
NEHRP/1997 are lower than the NYCDOT adopted Panel Spectral values. However, the difference is less pronounced when comparing the NEHRP 1997 values to the 2/3 NYCDOT values adopted for essential and other bridges as mentioned earlier in this section.
2A-13
Figure 2-2: Spectra Comparison NYC Rock Acceleration Response Spectra 5% Damping-2500 Year Return Period = 2% in 50 Years Probability of Exceedance
Table 2-5: Fa = Short Periods Amplification Factor/Normalized For Soil Class B For 2% In 50 Yrs Probability of Exceedance Curves (*)
For NEHRP 94 Aa = .16g A B C D E 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.48 2.02 For NEHRP 97 Ss = .40g Panel Based Spectra Aa = .30g 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 Ss = .72g - .75g
Soil Class
(*) VALUES FOR Aa AND Ss ARE FOR SOIL CLASS B
2A-14
Table 2-6: Fv = Long Periods Amplification Factor/Normalized For Soil Class B For 2% In 50 Yrs Probability of Exceedance Curves (*)
For NEHRP 94 Av = .09g A B C D E 0.8 1.0 1.7 2.4 3.5 For NEHRP 97 S1 = .09g Panel Based Spectra Av = .13g 0.8 1.0 1.67 2.28 3.41 S1 = .13g
Soil Class
(*) VALUES FOR Av AND S1 ARE FOR SOIL CLASS B
NCHRP 12-49 Seismic Hazard Proposed Practice

The proposed November 2001 NCHRP 12-49 Design Earthquakes and Performance Objectives are best described in Section 1.3 of the Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges Part I Specifications. The USGS probabilistic maps published in 1996 (Frankel et al., 1996) are used in formulating the design Earthquakes Response Spectrum. The provisions provide definitive performance objectives and damage states for two design earthquakes with explicit design checks to ensure the performance objectives are met. The upper-level event, termed the rare earthquake or Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), describes ground motions that, for most locations, are defined probabilistically and have a probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years. However, for locations close to highly active faults, the MCE ground motions are deterministically bounded so that the levels of ground motions do not become unreasonably high. Deterministic bound ground motions are calculated assuming the occurrence of maximum magnitude earthquakes on the highly active faults and are equal to 1.5 times median ground motions for the maximum magnitude earthquake but not less than 1.5 g for the short-period spectral acceleration plateau and 0.6g for 1.0-
2A-15
second spectra acceleration. On the current MCE maps, deterministic bounds are applied in high-seismicity portions of California, in local areas along the California-Nevada border, along coastal Oregon and Washington, and in highseismicity portions of Alaska and Hawaii. In areas where deterministic bounds are imposed, ground motions are lower than ground motions for 3% PE in 75 years. The MCE earthquake governs the limits on the inelastic deformation in the substructures and the design displacements for the support of the superstructure. The lower level design event, termed the Expected Earthquake, has ground motions corresponding to 50% PE in 75 years. frequent or expected earthquake. According to the proposed Guidelines, Bridges shall be designed to satisfy the performance criteria given in Table 2-7. As a minimum, bridge shall be designed for the life safety level of performance. This event ensures that essentially elastic response is achieved in the substructures for the more
2A-16
Table 2-7: Design Earthquakes and Seismic Performance Objectives

Performance Level (1) Probability of Exceedance For Design Earthquake Ground Motions (4) Rare Earthquake (MCE) 3% PE in 75 years/1.5 Median Deterministic Damage (3) Expected Earthquake 50% PE in 75 years Service Damage Service (2) Life Safety Significant Disruption Significant Immediate Minimal Operational Immediate Minimal Immediate Minimal to None
Notes: (1) Performance Levels: These are defined in terms of their anticipated performance objectives in the upper level earthquake. Life safety in the MCE event means that the bridge should not collapse but partial or complete replacement may be required. Since a dual level design is required the Life Safety performance level will have immediate service and minimal damage for the expected design earthquake. For the operational performance level the intent is that there will be immediate service and minimal damage for both the rare and expected earthquakes. (2) Service Levels:
Immediate Full access to normal traffic shall be available following an inspection of the bridge.
Significant Disruption Limited access (Reduced lanes, light emergency traffic) may be possible after shoring, however the bridge may need to be replaced. 2A-17
(3)
Damage Levels:
None Evidence of movement may be present but no notable damage.
Minimal Some visible signs of damage. Minor inelastic response may occur, but post-earthquake damage is limited to narrow flexural cracking in concrete and the onset of yielding in steel. Permanent deformations are not apparent, and any repairs could be made under non-emergency conditions with the exception of superstructure joints.
Significant Although there is no collapse, permanent offsets may occur and damage consisting of cracking, reinforcement yield, and major spalling of concrete and extensive yielding and local buckling of steel columns, global and local buckling of steel braces, and cracking in the bridge deck slab at shear studs on the seismic load path is possible. These conditions may require closure to repair the damage. Partial or complete replacement of columns may be For sites with lateral flow due to required in some cases.
liquefaction, significant inelastic deformation is permitted in the piles, whereas for all other sites the foundations are capacityprotected and no damage is anticipated. Partial or complete replacement of the columns and piles may be necessary if significant lateral flow occurs. If replacement of columns or other components is to be avoided, the design approaches producing minimal or moderate damage, such as seismic isolation or the control and reparability design concept should be assessed. (4) The upper-level earthquake considered in these provisions is designated the Maximum Considered Earthquake, or MCE. In general, the ground motions on national MCE ground motion maps have a probability of
2A-18
exceedance (PE) of approximately 3% PE in 75 years. However, adjacent to highly active faults, ground motions on MCE maps are bounded deterministically as described above. When bounded deterministically, MCE ground motions are lower than ground motions having 3% PE in 75 years. The performance objective for the expected earthquake is either explicitly included as an essentially elastic design for the 50% PE in 75 year force level or results implicitly from design for the 3% PE in 75 year force level. The 2001 Guidelines were amended in May 2002 to delete the Operational Performance Objective. The provisions were edited to reflect the consideration of only the Life Safety Performance Objective. This change was necessary to address the concern of some stakeholders that having more than one performance objective as a minimum standard may create undue liability to stakeholders that choose only a Life Safety Performance Objective with no explicit consideration for the Operational Performance Objective. The main changes of interest to the above-mentioned table are shown in Table 2-8 in the Word Edit format.
Table 2-8: Design Earthquakes and Seismic Performance Objectives

Performance Level Objective(1) Probability of Exceedance (PE)
2A-19
For Design Earthquake Ground Motions (4) Rare Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 3% PE in 75 years/ or 1.5 Median Deterministic Expected Earthquake (EE) 50% PE in 75 years Service Damage
(2)
Life Safety Significant Disruption Significant Immediate Minimal
Operational Immediate
(3)
Minimal Immediate Minimal to None
Service Damage
Notes: (1) Performance Levels Objective: These are defined in terms of their anticipated performance objectives in the upper level earthquake. Life safety in the MCE event means that the bridge should not collapse but partial or complete replacement may be required. Since a dual level design is required the Life Safety performance level will have immediate service and minimal damage for the expected design earthquake. For the operational performance level the intent is that there will be immediate service and minimal damage for both the rare and expected earthquakes. (2) Service Levels:
Immediate Full access to normal traffic shall be available following an inspection of the bridge.
Significant Disruption Limited access (Reduced lanes, light emergency traffic) may be possible after shoring, however the bridge may need to be replaced.
(3)
Damage Levels:
None Evidence of movement may be present but no notable damage.
2A-20
Minimal Some visible signs of damage. Minor inelastic response may occur, but post-earthquake damage is limited to narrow flexural cracking in concrete and the onset of yielding in steel. Permanent deformations are not apparent, and any repairs could be made under non-emergency conditions with the exception of superstructure joints.
Significant Although there is no collapse, permanent offsets may occur and damage consisting of cracking, reinforcement yield, and major spalling of concrete and extensive yielding and local buckling of steel columns, global and local buckling of steel braces, and cracking in the bridge deck slab at shear studs on the seismic load path is possible. These conditions may require closure to repair the damage. Partial or complete replacement of columns may be For sites with lateral flow due to required in some cases.
liquefaction, significant inelastic deformation is permitted in the piles, whereas for all other sites the foundations are capacityprotected and no damage is anticipated. Partial or complete replacement of the columns and piles may be necessary if significant lateral flow occurs. If replacement of columns or other components is to be avoided, the design approaches producing minimal or moderate damage, such as seismic isolation or the control and repairability design concept should be assessed. (4) The upper-level earthquake considered in these provisions is designated the Maximum Considered Earthquake, or MCE. In general, the ground motions on national MCE ground motion maps have a probability of exceedance (PE) of approximately 3% PE in 75 years. However, adjacent to highly active faults, ground motions on MCE maps are bounded deterministically as described above. When bounded deterministically, MCE ground motions are lower than ground motions having 3% PE in
2A-21
75 years.
The performance objective for the expected earthquake is
either explicitly included as an essentially elastic design for the 50% PE in 75 year force level or results implicitly from design for the 3% PE in 75 year force level.
SCDOT Seismic Hazard Practice

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) has initiated the development and implementation of a bridge seismic design program. A central feature of the new SCDOT bridge design program is the development of new seismic bridge design criteria and standards that: 1) incorporate a new generation U.S. Geological Survey seismic ground shaking hazard maps, 2) treat certain inadequacies of existing bridge design codes to adequately address the large earthquake, and 3) address the no collapse bridge criteria and life safety issues in the central and eastern United States. This section summarizes the upgraded bridge seismic design provisions and describes variations in national seismicity that motivated the development of the SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges. Basically, the revised specifications specify that the design of new bridges in South Carolina directly account for the effects of the large earthquake as done by the State of California. This is to ensure conformance with the guiding principle used in the development of AASHTO provisions that the "exposure to shaking from the large earthquake should not cause collapse of all or part of the bridge Several of the revisions were adopted from bridge design provisions of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) [2], because of similar high intensity seismic hazard at the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) level and the state-of-practice progress gained due to recent earthquakes that have not yet been incorporated into AASHTO.
2A-22
At least two developments of the U.S. Geological Survey during the past several years have been a major contribution to bridge earthquake engineering. One development was an assessment of the nature of the seismic ground shaking hazard as it varies nationally that revealed apparent inequalities in safety that result when a single level of probability common to bridge code design is used. The second development was a new generation of probabilistic ground-motion hazard maps that provide uniform hazard spectra for exposure times of 500 and 2500 years and make possible the treatment of the inequality in safety of bridge code design using existing earthquake engineering design and evaluation provisions and methodology. The new generation of probabilistic ground motion maps was produced by the USGS under the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) with significant input from the committee on Seismic Hazard Maps of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). They allow development of uniform hazard spectra and permit direct definition of the design spectra by mapping the response spectral ordinates at different periods. The recommended seismic design procedures were developed to meet current bridge code objectives, including both serviceability and life safety in the event of a large earthquake. The primary function of these new provisions is to provide minimum standards for use in bridge design to maintain public safety in the extreme earthquake likely to occur within the state of South Carolina. They are intended to safeguard against major failures and loss of life, to minimize damage, maintain functions, or to provide for easy repair. For normal or essential bridges (see Table 2-9), the Single Level Design Method is adopted by this code. This method consists of applying seismic
2A-23
design loading calculated based upon the value of the spectral accelerations of the 2%/50-year earthquake (i.e., the Safety Evaluation Earthquake). Table 2-9: Seismic Performance Criteria
Ground Motion Level FunctionalEvaluation SafetyEvaluation
Performance Level Service Damage Service Damage
Normal Bridges NR* NR* Impaired Significant
Essential Bridges NR* NR*
Critical Bridges Immediate Minimal
Recoverable Maintained Repairable Repairable
*Functional Evaluation Not Required.
For Critical Bridges, which are designated by SCDOT, the seismic performance goals are to be achieved by a two-level design approach, one for each of the two earthquakes (i.e., Two-Level Design Method). In addition to the 2%/50-year earthquake (Safety Evaluation Earthquake), critical bridges shall also be designed to provide adequate functionality after the 10%/50-year earthquake (Functional Evaluation Earthquake). The minimum performance levels for the design and evaluation of bridges shall be in accordance with the level of service and damage for the two design earthquakes as shown in Table 2-9. Service Levels and Damage Levels are defined in these criteria. The Bridge Category is also defined in these criteria. The SCDOT may specify project-specific or structure-specific performance requirements different from those defined in the table. For example, for a Critical or Essential bridge it may be desirable to have serviceability following a 2%/50-year earthquake. The SCDOT may
2A-24
require a site-specific design spectrum or a complete hazard study as part of the design. This new SCDOT specification establishes design and construction provisions for bridges in South Carolina to minimize their susceptibility to damage from earthquakes. This specification is intended to be used in conjunction with Additionally, the new specifications include AASHTO Division I [3] and as a replacement to Division I-A, Seismic Design, of the same specifications. Design [4]. The principles used for the development of the new SCDOT provisions are: i. Small to moderate earthquakes should be resisted within the essentially elastic range of the structural components without significant damage. The Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE) is adopted to represent seismic ground motion level produced by small to moderate earthquakes. ii. State-of-Practice seismic ground motion intensities and forces are used in the design procedures. iii. Exposure to shaking from large earthquakes should not cause collapse of all or part of the bridge. Where possible, damage that does occur should be readily detectible and accessible for inspection and repair unless prohibited by the structural configuration. The Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) is adopted to represent seismic ground motion level produced by large earthquakes. The performance levels, expressed in terms of service levels and damage levels, are: references to the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation
2A-25
(a) Service Levels
Immediate:
Full
access
to
normal
traffic
is
available
immediately following the earthquake.
Maintained: Short period of closure to Public. Immediately Open to Emergency Vehicles.
Recoverable: Impaired:
Limited period of closure to Public.
Extended closure to Public.
(b) Damage Levels
Minimal Damage: No collapse, essentially elastic performance. Repairable Damage: No collapse. Concrete cracking, spalling of concrete cover, and minor yielding of structural steel will occur. However, the extent of damage should be sufficiently limited that the structure can be restored essentially to its pre-earthquake condition without replacement of reinforcement or replacement of structural members (i.e., ductility demands less than 4). Damage can be repaired with a minimum risk of losing functionality.
Significant Damage: Although there is minimum risk of collapse, permanent offsets may occur in elements other than foundations. Damage consisting of concrete cracking, reinforcement yielding, major spalling of concrete, and deformations in minor bridge components may require closure to repair. Partial or complete demolition and replacement may be required in some cases.
Bridge structures on the state highway system are classified as normal bridges, essential bridges or critical bridges. For a bridge to be classified
2A-26
as an essential bridge or a critical bridge, one or more of the following items must be present: (1) bridge is required to provide secondary life safety, (2) time for restoration of functionality after closure creates a major economic impact, and (3) the bridge is formally designated as critical by a local emergency plan. Each bridge is classified as Critical, Essential or Normal as follows: (a) Critical bridges: Bridges that must be open to all traffic once
inspected after the safety evaluation design earthquake and be usable by emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes immediately after the safety evaluation design earthquake, i.e., a 2,500-year return period event. (b) Essential bridges: Bridges that will, as a minimum, be open to
emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes after the safety evaluation design earthquake, i.e., a 2,500-year return period event and open to all traffic within days after the SEE event.
(c) Normal Bridges: Any bridge not classified as a Critical or Essential

Bridge. The SCDOT Specifications aims at including state-of-practice in seismic based on displacement analysis for reinforced concrete components. Force reduction factors are used for steel superstructure due to limited use of the displacement approach in steel design of bridges. In addition, only limited level of ductility is so far accepted for members of steel superstructure with a plate girder system. In September 2003, SCDOT adopted new Seismic Hazard Maps for Bridges. These new SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps take into account the sediment thickness and/or the near surface weathering, updating the State seismic
2A-27
hazard information that was originally provided in the 2001 Specifications based on USGS.
2A-28
TASK 3
3 EXPAND THE EXTENT OF THE NO ANALYSIS ZONE 3.1 Introduction
In developing the Displacement Based Approach, reference to the analysis can be separated into two types: a) Analysis conducted to establish seismic displacement demands on the structures. This reference is similar to the reference made by AASHTO Division 1-A for required seismic analysis in regions where PGA > 9% g to determine forces. Analysis. b) Analysis conducted to establish the displacement capacity of the structure, a subsystem or a component of the structure. This can be referred to as Seismic Capacity Analysis. This type of analysis is also commonly referred to as Pushover Analysis. In addition to obtaining the displacement capacity of the structure, the Seismic Capacity Analysis is used to obtain the load path and force distribution on the members of the structure based on the hinging mechanism of these members. These forces are used to design various members such that the developed hinging mechanism of the overall system is confirmed. In summary, the Seismic Capacity Analysis includes two parts. One is the Displacement Capacity and the second is the Capacity Design. This can be referred to as Seismic Demand
3-1
The overall second objective identified in Task F3-4 is to increase the range of applicability for No Analysis or Limited Analysis. This objective is made in reference to NCHRP 12-49 Proposed Guidelines where it was found that considerable amount of analysis was required on a larger number of bridges in comparison with the AASHTO Division 1-A Practice. This finding is well documented in the evaluation conducted on NCHRP 12-49 by performing trial designed in several states. In further examining this objective, several steps that are required to fulfill this objective are identified: 1) At a minimum, maintain the number of bridges under the Seismic Demand Analysis. This objective is accomplished by comparing Proposed Guidelines to current requirements in AASHTO Division 1-A. 2) Relative to Proposed NCHRP 12-49 Guidelines, reduce the number of bridges where Seismic Capacity Analysis needs to be performed. This objective is accomplished by identifying a threshold where implicit procedures can be used. 3) Identify threshold where Capacity Design shall be used. This objective is achieved in conjunction with the Seismic Capacity Analysis requirements. In reviewing the current State of the Practice in addressing the Range of Applicability for No Analysis or Limited Analysis, the following sources are examined: 1. AASHTO Division 1-A 2. Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria 3. NCHRP 12-49 4. SCDOT Specifications
3-2
The review of these four references is documented in Task F3-5 Report AASHTO T-3 Support and included in Appendix 3A as background information.
3.2
Proposed Range of Applicability of Analysis
In addressing the proposed range of Applicability of Analysis, a key issue is the selection of the most pertinent parameter indicative of the seismic demands considered in the design of the bridge structure. The Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 second period, S a1 DS , for the Design Spectrum is adopted considering the following:
S a1 DS is a good representation of the difference in regional demands

(i.e., S a1 DS is considerably lower in the Eastern U.S.)
The choice of high frequency spectral indicator as recommended in NCHRP 12-49 penalizes the Eastern U.S. for no credible justification considering that damage to bridges is associated with low frequency range of bridge period.
The choice of S a1 DS fits well with the adopted displacement approach for bridges considering that ductility is taken into account when assessing the capacity.
Considering the first objective of the recommended specifications addressing the selection of a Return Period and Design Spectrum for a Single Hazard Level pertaining to a No Collapse Criteria of bridges, the Important Classification (IC) as defined in AASHTO Division 1-A is reduced to one classification. Furthermore, considering the second objective of the recommended specifications for defining and increasing the range of
3-3
applicability for No Analysis or Limited Analysis, the Seismic Performance Category definition is changed to include four categories SPC A, B, C, and D encompassing requirements for:

Seismic Demand Analysis requirement. Seismic Capacity Analysis requirement. Capacity Design requirement. Level of seismic detailing requirement including four tiers corresponding to SPC A, B, C and D.
The above-mentioned approach is an extension to the direction taken in NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT Specifications. The Seismic Performance Categories SPC A, B, C and D ranges are partitioned based on the one-second spectral acceleration S a1 DS similarly to the SCDOT Specifications except that the four requirements mentioned above are developed further to achieve the second objective of the recommended specifications (i.e., reduce number of bridges requiring analysis). Table 3-1 shows the partition of the proposed Seismic Performance Categories A, B, C and D.
Table 3-1: Proposed Partitions for Seismic Performance Categories A, B, C, and D Value of S a1 DS Importance Classification (IC)
3-4
S a1 DS < 0.15g
0.15g S a1 DS < 0.30g 0.30g S a1 DS < 0.50g 0.50g S a1 DS
A B C D
For illustration, the one-second acceleration corresponding to 0.5g, proposed to be the threshold for SPC D, is pinpointed in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, showing the acceleration response spectrum for Magnitude 6.5 and 8 (Type D Soil), respectively. As seen from the figures, SPC D would include sites with Peak Bedrock Acceleration greater than 0.3g for magnitude 6.5 and greater than 0.2g for magnitude 8. This shows that SPC D is rather conservative in applying the most stringent criteria on the sites mentioned above. Tables 3-2 thru 3-4 show the one-second spectral acceleration for Caltrans SDC Magnitude 6.5, 7 and 8 for Soil Type B thru E. The numbers that are not shaded represent values greater than the 0.5g threshold considered for SPC D. Table 3-5 shows the one-second acceleration for (Division 1A) design spectrum for Soil Type 1 thru 4. The numbers that are not shaded represent values greater than 0.5g considered the threshold for SPC D. Table 3-6 shows the one-second acceleration modified for Type B and D soil for the sites selected in Task 2. Each site is assigned an SPC based on the proposed partition shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-6 reflects the distribution of SPC A, B, C and D given Type B and D soils.
3-5
Figure 3-1: Elastic Response Spectra Curves (5% Damping) for Soil Profile Type D (M = 6.5 0.25) (Caltrans SDC)
3-6
Figure 3-2: Elastic Response Spectra Curve (5% Damping) for Soil Profile Type D (M = 8.0 0.25) (Caltrans SDC)
3-7
Table 3-2: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 6

"A"(g) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 soil B 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.35 0.41 0.48 soil C 0.14 0.21 0.37 0.48 0.53 0.61 soil D 0.19 0.32 0.45 0.55 0.61 0.70 soil E 0.28 0.52 0.69 0.80

"A"(g) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 soil B 0.10 0.21 0.29 0.42 0.52 0.67 0.92 soil C 0.17 0.32 0.44 0.59 0.68 0.86 1.19 soil D 0.24 0.41 0.54 0.66 0.77 1.00 1.38 soil E 0.36 0.69 0.81 0.99

"A"(g) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 soil B 0.12 0.24 0.35 0.45 0.57 0.72 0.96 soil C 0.21 0.38 0.53 0.63 0.73 0.93 1.25 soil D 0.29 0.48 0.64 0.71 0.90 1.12 1.45 soil E 0.43 0.75 0.93 1.02
Table 3-5: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration (Division 1A)

"A"(g) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 soil 1 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.48 0.60 0.72 0.84 soil 2 0.14 0.29 0.43 0.58 0.72 0.86 1.01 soil 3 0.18 0.36 0.54 0.72 0.90 1.08 1.26 soil 4 0.24 0.48 0.72 0.96 1.2 1.44 1.68
3-8
Table 3-6: Seismic Performance Category for Selected Sites

Type B Soil 5%/50 yr Sa1, g 1.12 0.69 0.62 0.83 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.49 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.04 Type D Soil 5%/50 yr Sa1, g 1.67 1.04 0.93 1.24 0.83 0.81 0.84 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.66 0.26 0.24 0.46 0.50 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.09
State CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA WA WA UT CA IN MO KY TN TN TN SC AZ
SPC D D D D D D D C C C C C C A A B B B B B A
SPC D D D D D D D D D D D D D B B C D C C C A
The three requirements for each of the proposed Seismic Performance Categories are as follows: 1. SPC A a. No Displacement Capacity Check Needed b. No Capacity Design Required c. Tier I No Detailing Requirements
3-9
2. SPC B a. Implicit Displacement Capacity Check Required (i.e., use a Closed Form Solution Formula) b. No Capacity Design Required c. Tier II Level of Detailing 3. SPC C a. Implicit Displacement Capacity Check Required b. Capacity Design Required c. Tier III Level of Detailing 4. SPC D a. Pushover Analysis Required b. Capacity Design Required c. Tier IV Level of Detailing The level of detailing for Tiers I, II, III, and IV will consider at a minimum the following:

Column Longitudinal Reinforcement Splicing Column Transverse Reinforcement Splicing Column Plastic Hinge Zone Identification Joint Shear Reinforcement
3-10
Knee Joint Reinforcement Bent Cap Continuous Reinforcement Superstructure Continuous Reinforcement Footing Shear Reinforcement Bent Cap Shear Reinforcement Plate Girder Bracing/Diaphragm Detailing
The three requirements for each of SPC A, B, C and D will follow the core flowchart that was presented in Task F3-5 and shown in Figure 3-3.
Y es S P C "A"
C o m p le te
No Y es D e m a n d
A n a ly s is
S P C "B "
Im p lic it C ap ac ity
Y es
T ier II D eta ilin g
C o m plete
No Y es S P C "C "
No
D em an d A n a ly s is
Im p lic it C apac ity
Y es C apac ity
D e s ig n
T ier III D eta ilin g
C o m ple te
No
No
Y es S P C "D "
D em an d A n a ly s is
Pu sh over C ap ac ity A n aly s is
1
No
Y es
C apac ity D e s ig n
T ie r IV D e tailin g
C o m plete
D ep en d s on Ad ju stm en ts
A d ju s t B rid g e C h arac te ris tic s
Figure 3-3: Core Flowchart
3-11
The major performance measures that govern the design for each of the Seismic Performance Categories include the following: 1. Column Shear requirement 2. Drift Capacity requirement 3. Seat Width requirement
3.3.1
lesser of:
Column Shear Requirement for SPC B
The shear demand for a column, Vd, in SPC B shall be determined based on the
The force obtained from an elastic linear analysis The force corresponding to plastic hinging of the column
The column shear strength capacity shall be calculated based on
Vn Vo
Vn = Vc + Vs
A f D Vs = v yh , s
= 0.85
(3.1) (3.2)
where
Av = n Ab 2
(3.3)
n = number of individual interlocking spiral or hoop core sections. For tied columns or pier walls (in the weak direction).
3-12
Av f yh D Vs = s
(3.4)
Av =
Vc = vc Ae
Ae = 0.8 Ag
Total area of the shear reinforcement (3.5) (3.6)
P vc = 1 + 2000 A g
Spirally reinforced columns
f c 3.5 f c
(3.7)
= 0.015 s f yt
= 0.030 w f yt
(3.8) (3.9)
Rectangular hoop reinforced columns Where the spiral reinforcement ratio,
s =
and the web reinforcement ratio
4 Asp
Ds
(3.10)
w =
Av bs
(3.11)
3-13
3.3.2
Column Shear Requirement for SPC C
The shear demand for a column, Vd, in SPC B shall be determined based on the force corresponding to plastic hinging of the column including an overstrength factor The column shear strength capacity shall be calculated based on
Vn Vo
= 0.85
(3.12) (3.13)
Vn = Vc + Vs
A f D Vs = v yh , s Av = n Ab 2
where
(3.14)
n = number of individual interlocking spiral or hoop core sections. For tied columns or pier walls (in the weak direction).
A f D Vs = v yh s Av =
Total area of the shear reinforcement
(3.15)
Vc = vc Ae
Ae = 0.8 Ag
(3.16) (3.17)
3-14
P vc = 1 + 2000 A g
f c 3.5 f c
(3.18)
Spirally reinforced columns
= 0.010 s f yt
f yt
(3.19) (3.20)
Rectangular hoop reinforced columns = 0.020 w
Where the spiral reinforcement ratio,
s =
and the web reinforcement ratio
4 Asp Ds
(3.21)
w =
Av bs
(3.22)
3.4
Drift Capacity for SPC B and SPC C
Columns for bridges in SPC B are targeted for a limited drift corresponding to minor damage. Columns for bridges in SPC C are targeted for a maximum drift corresponding to moderate damage. The approach taken to come up with a closed form solution is to equally weigh in the results of numerical methods as well as experimental testing of various columns. Considering the numerical approach as described below, columns with diameter ranging from 3 feet to 7 feet having 1 to 4% longitudinal reinforcement and height ranging between 20 to 50 feet are considered. The
3-15
different permutations are shown in Table 3-7.
A regression analysis is
performed and a lower bound curve is identified in Figure 3-4 for the following: a. Curve 1, designated as C1, showing drift capacity corresponding to column yielding b. Curve 2, designated as C2, showing drift capacity corresponding to concrete spalling c. Curve 3, designated as C3, showing drift capacity corresponding to a column ductility of 4. The drift capacity for all three curves are shown as a function of the slenderness ratio Fb
L
where:
F = Flixity Factor ranging from 1 to 2 b = column width or diameter L = column clear height Experimental results are considered based on the statistical study adopted by Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) and reported by Berry and Eberhand August 2003. The recommended equation by Berry and Eberhard at the onset of spalling is:
P 1 = 1.6 1 1+ A f 10( D ) H g c H
(3.23)
Considering a typical bridge column axial load corresponding to 0.1Ag f c , Curve 4, designated as C4, shows graphically the recommended equation by Berry and Eberhand (PEER).
3-16
The recommended maximum drift capacity for SPC B is further defined as Curve 5, designated as C5, and shown in Figure 3-4.
Curve 5 =
Curve 2 + Curve 4 2
(3.24)
The recommended maximum drift capacity for SPC C is further defined as Curve 6, designated as C6, and shown in Figure 3-4.
Curve 6 = Curve 3 + Curve 4 2
(3.25)
Table 3-7: Column Parameters Column Diameter D (ft) 3 4 5 6 7
(%) 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4
Column Height L (ft) 20 20,30 20,30,40 30,40,50 30,40,50
3-17
6.00 5.00 Drift Capacity (%) 4.00
SPC C
Yield (C1) Spalling (C2) Ductility 4 (C3) Experimental (C4) SPC B (C5) SPC C (C6)
SPC B
3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.1 0.15 0.2 Fb/L 0.25 0.3
Figure 3-4: Proposed Drift Capacity for SPC B and C
3.5
Hinge Seat Requirement
The calculation for a hinge seat width involves four components: a. Minimum edge distance b. Other movement attributed to prestress shortening, creep, shrinkage, and thermal expansion or contraction c. Skew effect d. Relative hinge displacement
3.5.1
Minimum Edge Distance
The minimum edge distance set by Division IA and NCHRP 12-49 is set at 4 inches. It is recommended to retain this value.
3-18
3.5.2
Other Movement
Division IA currently has a movement rating of 2 inches per 100 feet for SPC B and a movement rating of 3 inches per 100 feet for SPC C & D. The seat width based on NCHRP 12-49 is calculated as:
2 B (1 + 1.25 Fv S1 ) N = 0.10 + 0.0017 L + 0.007 H + 0.05 H 1 + 2 cos L
(3.26)
L = the distance between joints in meters H = the tallest pier between the joints in meters B = the width of the superstructure in meters
= the skew angle

100 m or .05 m equal to 2 inches The term .0017L equates to .0017 100 ft 3.3 100 ft
per 100 feet. Three alternatives are considered for including other movement in the seat width equation: a. The first alternative considers the temperature movement t and other movements as calculated for various states based on their extreme temperature range, in addition to prestress and shortening, and thermal expansion or contraction. b. The second alternative is a 2-inch movement per 100 feet, which is quite conservative.
3-19
c. The last alternative has a 1-inch movement rating per 100 feet considered an average nominal value in Practice especially in combination with seismic movement. It is recommended for clarity and transparency to adopt Alternative (a) stated above.
3.5.3
Skew Effect
A comparison of Equation 6.3.1 adopted in NCHRP 12-49 to Division I-A seat width magnification for various skew angles is shown in Figure 3-5. As seen from Figure 3-5, NCHRP 12-49 magnification is larger than Division I-A. Doubling the magnification set in Division 1A as shown in the upper bound curve as 1 + S
4000
) is recommended.
This recommendation is based on the
failures observed in past earthquakes for bridges with skewed bents.
1.45 1.4 Am plification Factor 1.35 1.3 1.25 1.2 1.15 1.1 1.05 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Skew Angle NCHRP 12-49 Division 1A Proposed
Figure 3-5: Skew Effect Seat Width Amplification Factor for Various Skew Angles
3-20
3.5.4
Relative Hinge Displacement
The relative hinge displacement, Deq, is determined following guidelines by Desroches & Fenves adopted by the recently published FHWA Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures, 2004.
Deq =
(D
2 min
2 + Dmax 2 12 Dmin Dmax )
(3.27)
where,
Dmin = Displacement of the short period frame Dmax = Displacement of the long period frame.
The correlation coefficient 12 is calculated as:

8 2 (1 + )( )
2 2 3/ 2 2
12 =
(1 )
+ 4 2 (1 + ) ( )
(3.28)
where
T2 T2 and T1 being the first and second modes of the structure T1
system. The damping
is calculated as:
= 5% +
where
(1 0.95
0.05
(3.29)
is the ductility factor
Consider the displacement ratio
:
=
Dmin Dmax
(3.30)
3-21
Deq = =
( (
2 2 2 Dmax + Dmax 2 12 Dmax )
(3.31)
+ 1 212 )
(3.32)
In the long period range,
, is also equal to the ratio of the short period frame

Tshort Tlong
for the following:
over the long period frame.
(3.33)
Figure 3-6 shows Dmax vs. the ratio
a. Deq for a target ductility of 2 shown as Curve 1 b. Deq for a target ductility of 4 shown as Curve 2 c. Caltrans SDC shown as Curve 3 d. Relative hinge displacement based on (Trocholak is et. al. 1997) shown as Curve 4 Considering that a variation from the design plans of the structure cannot be avoided during the life of the structure and that a substantial drop in the required seat width is only achieved for an recommended that:
greater than 0.8, it is
Deq is equal to 1.1 Dmax the peak value of Curves 1 and 2.
Furthermore, a safety factor of 1.5 is proposed for regions other than California as described in Task 2.
Deq is equal to 1.1 Dmax for California
3-22
Deq is equal to 1.65 Dmax for states other than California
1.60 1.40
Ratio of Deq/Dmax
1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Ratio of Tshort/Tlong
Curve 1 Curve 2 Curve 3 Curve 4
Figure 3-6: Relative Seismic Displacement vs. Period Ratio
The proposed seat width requirement is compared to NCHRP 12-49 Equation 3.26 (shown in Curves 1 and 2 of Figure 3-7) and Division 1A seat width requirement (shown in Curves 3 and 4 of Figure 3-7). considered for Equation 3.26: a) substitution of SDR 2 FvS1 by the maximum value of 0.25. b) substitution of B/L ratio by the maximum value of 3/8. c) Substitution of SDR 3 FvS1 by the maximum value of 0.40. The proposed seat width requirement is shown in Figures 3-7 and 3-8 for H = 20 ft and 30 ft, respectively independent of any skew effect. The proposed seat width requirement is illustrated with four cases identified in four curves: The following is
3-23
1. Curve 5 for FvS1 = 0.15g corresponding to a period of 1 second for the flexible frame with Deq equal to 1.65 Dmax. 2. Curve 6 for FvS1 = 0.5g corresponding to a period of 1 second for the flexible frame with Deq equal to 1.65 Dmax. 3. Curve 7 for FvS1 = 0.15g corresponding to a period of 2 second for the flexible frame with Deq equal to 1.65 Dmax. 4. Curve 8 for FvS1 = 0.5g corresponding to a period of 2 second for the flexible frame with Deq equal to 1.65 Dmax. The calculation for seat width requirement of the four cases above considers a 1-inch displacement per 100 feet for displacement other than seismic. The choice of one inch per 100 feet leads to shallower slope of lines 5 thru 8 and reinforces the choice of a realistic T rather than the conservative 2 inches per 100 feet adopted in NCHRP 12-49. It is expected that the choice of alternative (a) identified in Section 3.5.2 would yield a movement not exceeding one inch per 100 feet of bridge length. The choice of a realistic eq is important for the design of hinges within-a span and the selection of a reasonable dimension for the bent cap width.
3-24
45 40 35 Seat Width (in.) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Bridge Length (ft.) Curve 1 SDR 2 Curve 2 SDR 3 Curve 3 SPC B Curve 4 SPC C&D Curve 5 .15g, 1 sec Curve 6 .5g, 1 sec Curve 7 .15g, 2 sec Curve 8 .50g, 2 sec
Figure 3-7: Proposed Seat Width Compared to NCHRP 12-49 and DIV 1A (H=20ft)
50 45 40
Seat Width (in.)
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Bridge Length (ft.)
Curve 1 SDR 2 Curve 2 SDR 3 Curve 3 SPC B Curve 4 SPC C&D Curve 5 .15g, 1 sec Curve 6 .5g, 1 sec Curve 7 .15g, 2 sec Curve 8 .50g, 2 sec
Figure 3-8: Proposed Seat Width Compared to NCHRP 12-49 and DIV 1A (H=30ft)
3-25
REFERENCE
Berry, Michael and Eberhand, Marc, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Estimating Flexural Damage in Reinforced Concrete Columns, University of California, Berkeley, August 2003. DesRoches, Reginald, and Gregory Fenves, New design and analysis procedures for intermediate hinges in multiple-frame bridges. Berkeley, Calif.: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. 1997. 202p. (UCB/EERC 97/12). Aschheim, Mark, and Jack P. Moehle, Shear Strength and Deformability of RC Bridge Columns Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Displacements, Berkeley, Calif.: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California. March 1992. (UCB/EERC 92/04).
3-26
TASK 3 APPENDIX 3A
3A-1
AASHTO Division 1-A Range of Applicability of Analysis

The analysis requirements based on AASHTO Division 1-A are derived based on the Seismic Performance Category (SPC) and the regularity or irregularity of a given bridge. These requirements are relevant to the Seismic Demand Analysis mentioned above. Each bridge is assigned to one of four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC), A through D, based on the Acceleration Coefficient (A) and the Importance Classification (IC), as shown in Table 3-1. requirements are governed by the SPC. Table 3-1: Seismic Performance Category (SPC) Acceleration Coefficient A A 0.09 0.09 < A 0.19 019 < A 0.29 0.29 < A Importance Classification (IC) I II A A B B C C D C Minimum analysis and design
An Importance Classification (IC) is assigned for all bridges with an Acceleration Coefficient greater than 0.09 for the purpose of determining the Seismic Performance Category (SPC) as follows: 1. 2. Essential bridges IC = I Other Bridges IC = II
Bridges shall be classified on the basis of Social/Survival and Security/Defense requirements, guidelines for which are given in the Commentary of AASHTO Division 1-A.
3A-2
Minimum requirements for the selection of an analysis method for a particular bridge type are given in Table 3-2. distribution of weight and stiffness. Applicability is determined by the Regular bridges have less than seven regularity of a bridge which is a function of the number of spans and the spans, no abrupt or unusual changes in weight, stiffness, or geometry and no large changes in these parameters from span-to-span or support-to-support (abutments excluded). They are defined in Table 3-3. Any bridge not satisfying the requirements of Table 3-3 is considered to be not regular. A more rigorous, generally accepted analysis procedure may be used in lieu of the recommended minimum such as the Time History Method (Procedure 4). Table 3-2: Minimum Analysis Requirements Seismic Performance Category A B, C, D Regular Bridges with 2 Through 6 Spans Not Required Use Procedure 1 or 2 Not Regular Bridges with 2 or More Spans Not Required Use Procedure 3
Procedure 1. Uniform Load Method Procedure 2. Single-Mode Spectral Method Procedure 3. Multimode Spectral Method Procedure 4. Time History Method
3A-3
Table 3-3: Regular Bridge Requirements Parameters Number of Spans Maximum subtended angle (curved bridge) Maximum span length ratio from span-to-span Maximum bent/pier stiffness ratio from span-to-span (excluding abutments) 2 90 3 4 3 90 Value 4 90 2 4 5 90 1.5 3 6 90 1.5 2
Note: All ratios expressed in terms of the smaller value.
Curved bridges comprised of multiple simple spans shall be considered to be not regular bridges if the subtended angle in plan is greater than 20; such bridges shall be analyzed by either Procedure 3 or 4.
Caltrans Range of Applicability of Analysis

The Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) specify the minimum seismic design requirements that are necessary to meet the performance goals established for Ordinary Standard bridges. A structure must meet all of the following requirements to be classified as an Ordinary Standard bridge:

Span lengths less than 300 feet (90 m). Constructed with normal weight concrete girder, and column or pier elements.
3A-4
Horizontal members either rigidly connected, pin connected, or supported on conventional bearings by the substructure, isolation bearings and dampers are considered nonstandard components.
Dropped bent caps or integral bent caps terminating inside the exterior girder, C-bents, outrigger bents, and offset columns are nonstandard components.
Foundations supported on spread footing, pile cap with piles, or pile shafts.
Soil that is not susceptible to liquefaction, lateral spreading, or scour.
Ordinary Nonstandard bridges require project specific criteria to address their non-standard features. Based on Caltrans SDC, each bridge presents a unique set of design challenges. The designer is given the latitude to determine the appropriate methods and level of refinement necessary to design and analyze each bridge on a case-by-case basis. Situations may arise that warrant detailed attention beyond what is provided in the SDC. The designer is referred to other The Senior Seismic resources to establish the correct course of action.
Specialists, the Earthquake Committee, and the Earthquake Engineering Branch of the Office of Earthquake Engineering and Design Support should be consulted for recommendations. The global displacement demand estimate for Ordinary Standard bridges is determined by linear elastic response spectrum analysis utilizing effective section properties. Equivalent Static Analysis is used to determine the displacement demand if a dynamic analysis will not add significantly more insight into behavior. The
3A-5
Equivalent Static Analysis is best suited for bridges or individual frames with the following characteristics:
Response primarily captured by the fundamental mode of vibration with uniform translation
Simply
defined lateral
force
distribution
(e.g.,
balanced
spans,
approximately equal bent stiffness)
Low skew
Elastic Dynamic Analysis is used to determine the displacement demand for all other Ordinary Standard bridges. The global displacement demand estimate shall include the effects of soil/foundation flexibility if they are significant. Following the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria V1.2 the Inelastic Static Analysis commonly referred to as push over analysis is to be used to determine the reliable displacement capacities of a structure or frame as it reaches its limit of structural stability. The two-dimensional plane frame push over analysis of a bent or frame can be simplified to a column model (fixed-fixed or fixed-pinned) if it does not cause a significant loss in accuracy in estimating the displacement demands or the displacement capacities. The effect of overturning on the column axial load and associated member capacities must be considered in the simplified model. Simplifying the demand and capacity models is not permitted if the structure does not meet the following stiffness and period requirements: a) Balanced Stiffness
3A-6
Constant Width Frame Stiffness ratio between any two bents within a frame or between any two columns within a bent. Stiffness ratio between adjacent bents within a frame or between adjacent columns within a bent.
Variable Width Frame
kie k
e j
0.5
kie mi
ke j mj
0.5
kie k
e j
0.75
kie mi
ke j mj
0.75
kie
e j
= The smaller effective bent or column stiffness
mi
= Tributary mass of column or bent i
k = The larger effective bent or column stiffness
m j = Tributary mass of column bent j
b) Balanced Frame Geometry The ratio of fundamental periods of vibration for adjacent frames in the longitudinal and transverse direction shall satisfy:
Ti Tj
0.7
where
Ti = Natural period of the less flexible frame
T j = Natural period of the more flexible frame

In addition to the global analysis conducted on the overall structure to determine displacement demands, a Stand-Alone analysis (i.e., shake down) is performed in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. This analysis is performed on individual frames that are separated by a superstructure expansion joint.
3A-7
In summary, Caltrans SDC v1.2 gives some latitude to the bridge engineer to decide the type and amount of analysis to be conducted. This latitude is offset by a quality control mechanism that is established in Caltrans and may not exist in all other agencies nationwide. Furthermore, as Caltrans uses one set of standard details for the whole bridge inventory, bridges in lower seismic zones may end up with more stringent requirements and detailing that are not needed in lower seismic zones. Therefore, in examining the Caltrans Practice, it is deemed important to recognize that this Practice needs to be selectively replicated for use by other states or agencies.
NCHRP 12-49 Range of Applicability of Analysis

Each bridge is assigned a Seismic Hazard Level that is the highest level determined by the valued of FvS1 or FaSs from Table 3-4 for the MCE event. The spectral acceleration ordinates FvS1 and FaSs are illustrated in Figure 3-1. Table 3-4: Seismic Hazard Levels
Seismic Hazard Level I II III IV Value of FvS1 FvS10.15 0.15 < FvS10.25 0.25 < FvS10.40 0.40 < FvS1 Value of FaSs FaSs0.15 0.15 < FaSs0.35 0.35 < FaSs0.60 0.60 < FaSs
Notes: 1. For the purposes of determining the Seismic Hazard Level for Site Class E Soils, the value of Fv and Fa need not be taken larger than 2.4 and 1.6 respectively when S1 is less than or equal to 0.10 and Ss is less than 0.25. 2. For the purposes of determining the Seismic Hazard Level for Site Class F Soils, Fv and Fa values for Site Class E soils may be used with the adjustment described in Note 1 above.
3A-8
Site Class Spectrum
Figure 3-1: Design Spectrum Each bridge is designed, analyzed and detailed for seismic effects in accordance with Table 3-5. Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) are described in Section 4 of the NCHRP 12-49 document. 7 and 8, respectively of NCHRP 12-49. Table 3-5: Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirements (SDR)
Seismic Hazard Level I II III IV Life Safety SDAP A1 A2 B/C/D/E C/D/E SDR 1 2 3 4
Minimum seismic design
requirements (SDR) for SDR 1 and 2, SDR 3 and SDR 4 are given in Sections 6,
SDAP A1 and A2 do not have dynamic analysis requirements.
Bridges
qualifying for SDAP B do not require a seismic demand analysis but capacity design principles and minimum design details are required. SDAP C is the Capacity Spectrum Design Method. SDAP C combines a demand and capacity
3A-9
analysis. The procedure applies only to bridges that behave essentially as a single degree-of-freedom system. SDAP C is restricted to bridges with a very regular configuration provided the abutments are not considered part of the Earthquake Resistant System. SDAP D is the Elastic Response Spectrum Method. SDAP D is a one-step design procedure using an elastic (cracked section properties) analysis. Either the Uniform Load or Multimode method of analysis may be used. The analysis shall be performed for the 3% PE in 75-year/1.5 mean deterministic and the RFactors given in Tables 3-6 and 3-7. Capacity design principles shall be used for column shear design and the design of all column connections and foundation design. If sacrificial elements are part of the design (i.e., shear keys) they shall be sized to resist the 50% PE in 75-year forces and the bridge shall be capable of resisting the 3% PE in 75-year/1.5 mean deterministic forces without the sacrificial elements (i.e., two analyses are required if sacrificial elements exist in a bridge). SDAP E is the Elastic Response Spectrum Method with Displacement Capacity Verification. SDAP E requires an elastic (cracked section properties) response spectrum analysis for the governing design spectra (50% PE in 75-year or 3% PE in 75-year/1.5 mean deterministic) and P- design check. The results of these analyses shall be used to perform preliminary flexural design of plastic hinges in columns and to determine the displacement of the structure. To take advantage of the higher R-Factors in Table 3-6, displacement capacities shall be verified using two-dimensional nonlinear static (pushover) analyses in the principal structural directions. Design forces on substructure elements may be reduced below those obtained for the 3% PE in 75-year event/1.5 mean deterministic divided by the R-Factor. If sufficient displacement capacity exists, the substructure design forces may be further reduced an additional 30% for a new sizing of the substructure members provided a second
3A-10
displacement capacity is performed. Capacity design principles shall be used to design the connection of the columns to the superstructure and foundation and for column shear design. Table 3-6: Base Response Modification Factors, RB, for Substructure
Substructure Element Wall Piers larger dimension Columns Single and Multiple Pile Bents and Drilled Shafts Vertical Piles above ground Pile Bents and Drilled Shafts Vertical Piles 2 diameters below ground level No owners approval required Pile Bents and Drilled Shafts Vertical Piles in ground Owners approval required. Pile Bents with Batter Piles Seismically Isolated Structures Steel Braced Frame Ductile Components Steel Braced Frame Nominally Ductile Components All Elements for Expected Earthquake Performance Objective Life Safety SDAP D SDAP E 2 3 4 6 4 1 N/A N/A 1.5 3 1.5 1.3 6 1.5 2.5 2 1.5 4.5 2 1.3
Table 3-7: Response Modification Factors, R Connections

Connection Superstructure to abutment Expansion joints within a span of the superstructure Columns, piers, or pile bents to cap beam or superstructure Columns or piers to foundations All Performance Objectives 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Following the NCHRP 12-49 specifications, the displacement capacity verification analysis shall be applied to individual piers or bents to determine
3A-11
the lateral load-displacement behavior of the pier or bent. and transverse direction separately.
The capacity
evaluation shall be performed for individual piers or bents in the longitudinal
The capacity evaluation shall identify the component in the pier or bent that first reaches its inelastic deformation capacity. The displacement at which the first component reaches its maximum permitted deformation capacity defines the maximum displacement capacity, capacity for the pier or bent and this shall exceed the factored displacement demand, , according to the following requirement: 1.5 capacity The model for the displacement capacity verification is based on nominal capacities of the inelastic components. Stiffness and strength degradation of inelastic components and effects of loads acting through the lateral displacement shall be considered. In examining SDAP E, which is based on a force reduction approach with higher Response Modification factors RB provided a displacement verification is performed, it is deemed important to reiterate the following: a) NCHRP 12-49 recognizes a 30% further reduction of substructure design forces provided a displacement capacity is performed. This statement is in tune with current state of the practice highlighting the advantages of using a displacement approach. b) The displacement capacity is established based on the weakest component; therefore no strength loss or degradation is considered acceptable. Even though this practice can be adopted for simplicity, it is considered extremely conservative when it is associated with the following:
3A-12
The use of 1.5 factor for displacement demands established based on the 3% PE in 75-year/1.5 mean deterministic event.
The use of nominal properties for establishing capacities of inelastic components.
As seen above, the NCHRP 12-49 recognizes the advantage of using a displacement approach (a) but then retracts or offsets this advantage by placing a 1.5 factor on the displacement demand. In retrospect, the adoption of displacement capacity determination based on the weakest component (i.e. no strength loss) is consistent with the state of the practice aiming for some degree of simplicity in performing the push over analysis. Furthermore, the use of nominal properties is also consistent with current state of the practice. In summary, the use of a 1.5 factor for displacement demand is considered excessive and unwarranted considering the inherent conservatism in establishing the displacement capacity.
SCDOT Specifications Range of Applicability of Analysis

Similar to AASHTO, Division 1-A, the Seismic Demand Analysis requirements in the SCDOT Specifications are derived based on the Seismic Performance Category (SPC) and the regularity or irregularity of a given bridge. The regularity requirements in the SCDOT Specifications are identical to those from AASHTO Division 1-A Specifications. The seismic hazard varies form very small to high across the State of South Carolina. Therefore, for purposes of design, four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) are defined on the basis of the spectral acceleration for the
3A-13
one second period of the 2%/50-year earthquake, SD1-SEE, and the Importance Classification (IC) as shown in Table 3-6. The design response spectral Different acceleration at 1.0-second period SD1-SEE is shown in Figure 3-2.
degrees of complexity and sophistication of seismic analysis and design are specified for each of the four Seismic Performance Categories. Table 3-6: Seismic Performance Category (SPC)
Value of Spectral Acceleration, SD1SEE
Importance Classification (IC) I B C D D II B C C D III A B C C
SD1-SEE<0.30g 0.3gSD1-SEE<0.45g 0.45g SD1-SEE<0.6g 0.6g SD1-SEE
3A-14
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0
S s=0.60g, SEE(2%/50years)
SD1-SEE
Site Class A SD_6A B SD_6B C SD_6C D SD_6D E SD_6E
2
Periods T (sec)
Figure 3-2: Design response spectrum curve The design spectrum for the FEE (10% in 50 years) and the SEE (2% in 50 years) were developed using the 1997 NEHRP Maps. The curves are anchored to the 0.2 second mapped design spectral accelerations for Site Class B rock site. As shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 the following discrete points for SDS are considered:
SDS = 0.25g, 0.3g, and 0.35g for the FEE level. SDS = 0.4g, 0.5g, 0.6g, 0.8g, 1.0g, 1.25g, 1.5g, and 1.66g for the SEE level.
3A-15
Figure 3-3: Design spectral response acceleration map short period SDSFEE for site class B.
Figure 3-4: Design spectral response acceleration map short period SDS-SEE for site class B.
3A-16
A family of curves for Soil Site Class A thru E referenced to the short period mapped design spectral acceleration SDS =1.0g is shown in Figure 3-5. The curves were developed using both the short period and the one-second period maps.
Ss=1.00g, SEE(2% /50years)
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 1 2
Pe riods T (se c) Site Class SD_4A A B SD_4B C SD_4C D SD_4D E SD_4E
Figure 3-5: Design spectra for site class A, B, C, D and E, 5% damping. The Seismic Performance Category (SPC) definition in the SCDOT
Specifications differs from the AASHTO Division 1-A as follows: 1. The Seismic Performance Category (SPC) is based on the one-second spectral acceleration at the SEE level Earthquake having a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. 2. The Importance Classification (IC) in the SCDOT Specifications include three categories of bridges, Critical, Essential, and Normal associated with IC I, II, and III respectively while AASHTO Division 1-A has two classifications, IC I for Essential bridges and IC II for other bridges. The Specifications are for the design and construction of new bridges to resist the effects of earthquake motions. The provisions apply to bridges of conventional slab, beam girder and box girder superstructure construction with
3A-17
spans not exceeding 500 ft (150 m). For other types of construction (suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges, arch type and movable bridges) and spans exceeding 500 ft, the SCDOT shall specify and/or approve appropriate provisions. Seismic effects for box culverts and buried structures need not be considered, except when they are subject to unstable ground conditions (e.g., liquefaction, landslides, and fault displacements) or large ground deformations (e.g., in very soft ground). The provisions specified in the specifications are minimum requirements. Additional provisions are needed to achieve higher performance criteria for essential or critical bridges. Those provisions are site/project specific and are tailored based on structure type. No detailed seismic analysis is required for any single span bridge or for any bridge in Seismic Performance Category A. For both single span bridges and bridges classified as SPC A the connections must be designed for specified forces and must also meet minimum support length requirements. For SPC B, the displacement demand is checked implicitly against the capacity without performing an elaborate pushover analysis to determine the displacement capacity. For SPC B the displacement capacity, c , is easily obtained for each column using the following expression:
c ( ft ) =
H 5.3 (.0013) X 100

where,
X =D
3A-18
is a fixity factor for the column equal to: a. = 1 for fixed-free (pinned on one end). b. = 2 for fixed top and bottom. D = Column Diameter (ft.). H = Height from top of footing to C.G. of superstructure (ft.).
In summary, the objective in developing the new SCDOT Seismic Design Specification is to balance the required numerical computations to the severity of the seismic hazard established in SPC A, B, C and D.
c H
D H
Figure 3-6: SPC B Drift Criteria (SCDOT)
Range of Applicability of Seismic Demand Analysis

Seismic Analysis is conducted in regions where PGA > 9%g following AASHTO Division 1-A. For illustration of difference in the extent of regions requiring Seismic Demand Analysis following AASHTO Division 1-A and the recommended specifications, a comparison is performed on the area surrounding the New Madrid fault and South Carolina. These two areas are
3A-19
considered since they represent the largest increase in seismic demands when considering larger return period up to the proposed return period of 2500 years adopted in NCHRP 12-49. The reference to the increase in seismic demands is made in relation to AASHTO Division 1-A State of the Practice. Figure 3-7 shows the AASHTO region of required seismic analysis.
Figure 3-7: AASHTO Region of Required Seismic Analysis PGA > 9% With the selection of the one-second spectral design acceleration spectrum
S a1 DS , the regions of required Seismic Demand Analysis vary depending on

the site class (i.e., type of soil) as established in NEHRP 1997 and adopted in the NCHRP 12-49 document. Considering a Site Class B for the New Madrid/South Carolina area, the contour shown in Figure 3-8 in bold black establishes the region of required Seismic Demand Analysis corresponding to the proposed target design hazard. Based on preliminary selection, the target design hazard is calibrated
3A-20
at 2/3 of the spectrum established based on the 2002 USGS hazard maps for a probability of 2% exceedance in 50 years. The proposed region for Site Class B of required Seismic Demand Analysis is substantially smaller than the corresponding AASHTO Division 1-A region. For comparison, the region of required Seismic Demand Analysis for Site Class D is shown in Figure 3-9 for the same area. The proposed region for Site Class D shows relatively small reduction to the corresponding AASHTO Division 1-A region.
Figure 3-8: Region of Required Seismic Demand Analysis for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class B
3A-21
Figure 3-9: Region of Required Seismic Demand Analysis for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class D In comparing the proposed Guidelines to current requirements in AASHTO Division 1-A, the proposed guidelines fulfill the objective of maintaining to reducing the number of bridges subjected to Seismic Demand Analysis.
Range of Applicability of Seismic Capacity Analysis

Seismic Capacity Analysis is performed for SPC B, C, and D. This analysis is incremental as follows: 1. SPC B Implicit displacement capacity check is required similar to SCDOT Specifications. No Capacity Design is required. This category is Given the associated with small displacement demand and drifts.
relatively small demands and based on a minimum level of detailing
3A-22
identified as Tier II, the bridge structure is expected to perform well, with its members targeted to remain essentially elastic at ductility level less than two. 2. SPC C Implicit displacement capacity deck is required similar to SPC B; however, setting the acceptance capacity criteria to a higher level of ductility relative to SPC B. Given the moderate displacement demands on the bridge structure, a Capacity Design analysis is required in order to ensure adequate force distribution and proper design for hinging mechanism. Considering the moderate acceptance criteria, an An elaborate incremental Tier III level of detailing is required. pushover analysis is not warranted. 3. SPC D A pushover analysis is required for this category as a high level of ductility is expected. Proper distribution of forces and Capacity design requirements need to be satisfied to ensure a reliable comparison of the structure displacement capacity against the displacement demands. A Tier IV level of detailing is required in SPC D. The contours presented in Section 3.3.1 coincide with SPC B contours. The same area identified in Section 3.3.1 is used to show the region of required pushover analysis. By illustrating the region of minimum Seismic Capacity Analysis associated with SPC B and the region of maximum Seismic Capacity Analysis associated with SPC D, the reader can appreciate the incremental approach proposed for the Guidelines.
3A-23
Figures 3-10 and 3-11 shows the Region of required Maximum Seismic Capacity Analysis for the target design hazard for Site Class B and Site Class D, respectively. A pushover analysis is required in this region.
Figure 3-10: Region of Required Maximum Seismic Capacity Analysis for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class B
3A-24
Figure 3-11: Region of Required Maximum Seismic Capacity Analysis for the Target Design Hazard, Site Class D As shown in Figures 3-10 and 3-11, the region where a pushover analysis is required is chosen very selectively and is tuned to displacement demands on the bridge structure. The proposed guidelines aim at fulfilling Task F3-4 objective No. 2 identifying range of applicability for NO Analysis or Limited Analysis. This approach is a by-product of the steps taken in the NCHRP 1249 proposed guidelines and the SCDOT Specifications combined with practical applications developed and gained in the seismic design practice over the last decade.
3A-25
TASK 4
4 SELECT THE MOST APPROPRIATE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR STEEL 4.1 General
The objective of this task is to select the most appropriate design procedure (i.e., displacement or force based) for a bridge with a steel superstructure and to examine both the NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT using a trial design. This task emphasis is to address analysis and design requirements for a bridge with steel girders. The seismic design of a bridge system and components needs to encompass two categories: a. System with a restrained connection between the superstructure and the substructure. b. System with an unrestrained connection between the superstructure and the substructure. Emphasis on the load path and design of various components must be established recognizing that a lack of consensus may still be present on some issues. The 2nd Edition of the LRFD Specifications included for the first time a new section about the seismic lateral load distribution that discusses the seismic load path. The focus for these criteria is steel bridges since they normally do not have monolithic connections as the structural concrete box girder bridges.
4-1
The specifications require that a clear and a straightforward load path from the superstructure to the substructure should exist. All elements that lie in the load path are primary seismic members and should be designed to stay elastic during severe ground motions. Diaphragms and cross-frames, lateral bracing and bearings should be part of the seismic load path. The specifications suggest that if these members were designed to respond in a ductile manner or allow some movements, the damage will be limited. However, the specifications require that the cross frames and end diaphragms to stay elastic during earthquakes. On the contrary, NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT seismic specifications allow for ductility (i.e., inelastic action) in the superstructure. None of the specifications contains a uniform and a complete list of primary members identification for the seismic load path.
4.2
Design Examples
Two design examples were selected from the work done by Itani and Sedarat in 2000 entitled Seismic Analysis and Design of the AISI LRFD Design Examples of Steel Highway Bridges. This effort was a continuation to the 1996 AISI published Vol. II Chapter 1B of the Highway Structures, Design Handbook, Four LRFD Design Examples of Steel Highway Bridges. In 1996 these design examples covered the gravity design of the superstructure according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications. purposes in examining this report is to: 1. Identify the performance objective for seismic design of steel girder structures. The main two
4-2
2. Identify the specifications utilized for proper completion of the design process. Appendix 4A includes the portion of AISI-LRFD report used in this task. This appendix contains the design calculations as well as the drawing showing details of each of the two bridges. Example 1 is a Simple-Span Composite I Girder. The design process shown in the report includes: 1. Calculation of lateral load at the end cross-frame. 2. The design of the top strut. 3. The design of the diagonal member. 4. The design of the bottom strut. Two important aspects of the design process are identified: a. The end cross-frame is designed for the full seismic force with no reduction of this force assuming a restrained condition of the bridge (i.e., shear keys capable of sustaining the full seismic force). b. A single angle bracing is used for the diagonal member of the end-crossframe. As this practice is typical and favored for ease of construction, the design process for a single angle bracing needs to be referenced or included for clarity of use by the bridge engineer. AISC has a stand alone document on LRFD Design Specification for Single-Angle Members that can be included or referenced in the Specifications. This document is attached in Appendix 4B. Example 2 is a Two-Span Continuous Composite I Girder. The design process shown in the report includes:
4-3
1. Calculation of the lateral load at the bent cross-frame. 2. The design of the plate girder connections to the R/C Deck. 3. Design of the top strut. 4. Design of the diagonal member. 5. Design of the bottom strut. 6. Calculation of superstructure lateral capacity. Three important aspects of the design process are identified: a. The bent cross-frame is designed to ensure column hinging mechanism assuming a restrained condition of the superstructure to the bent. b. The load path from the deck to the girders or the top strut is checked. c. Double angles with stitches are used for the top strut and the diagonal member due to the higher seismic demand on this bridge located in seismic zone 4. AISC LRFD Specifications Chapter E applies to compact and non-compact prismatic members subject to axial compression through the centroidal axis. The design process for members with stitches is also included. The inclusion or reference of the specifications is needed for clarity and consistency of use by the bridge engineer.
4.3
Load Path and Performance Criteria

SCDOT specifications has a The section from SCDOT
Specifications regarding the load path for a slab-on-girder bridge are examined using SCDOT and NCHRP 12-49 documents. End-Diaphragm in Slab-on-Girder Bridge. general section on load path while NCHRP 12-49 has a section only on Ductile
4-4
specifications is included in Appendix 4D while the section from NCHRP 12-49 is included in Appendix 4E. As seen from examining both of these documents, it is important to differentiate between ordinary bracing referred to in the SCDOT specifications and specially detailed diaphragms referred to in the NCHRP 12-49. The AISC provisions limit the force reduction factor R to 3 for ordinary bracing that is a part of a seismic resisting system not satisfying the special seismic provisions. It is proposed to adopt the AISC limit for an R reduction factor of 3. Special end-diaphragm addressed in NCHRP 12-49 will be considered for bracing system with a reduction factor, R, greater than 3 as stipulated in the AISC provisions. Section 7.1 and 7.2 of SCDOT specifications will be enhanced for general treatment of load path and Performance Criteria. duplication of these two sections. General The Engineer shall demonstrate that a clear, straight-forward load path to the substructure exists and that all components and connections are capable of resisting the imposed seismic load effects consistent with the chosen load path. The flow of forces (see Figure 4.1) in the assumed load path must be accommodated through all affected components and details including, but not limited to, flanges and webs of main beams or girders, crossframes, steel-to-steel connections, slab-to-steel interfaces, and all components of the bearing assembly from bottom flange interface through the confinement of anchor bolts or similar devices in the The following is a
4-5
substructure. The substructure shall also be designed to transmit the imposed force effects into the ground.
a) Pile Footing
b) Drilled Shaft
Figure 4-1: Seismic Load Path and Affected Components
The design of end diaphragms and cross-frames shall include analysis cases with horizontal supports at an appropriate number of bearings, consistent with Section 7.7.2 of SCDOT Specifications. A viable load path shall be established to transmit the inertial loads to the foundation based on the stiffness characteristics of the deck, diaphragms, cross-frames, and lateral bracing. Unless a more refined analysis is made, an approximate load path shall be assumed as follows:
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
The following requirements apply to bridges with either:
4-6
a concrete deck that can provide horizontal diaphragm action or a horizontal bracing system in the plane of the top flange.
The seismic loads in the deck shall be assumed to be transmitted directly to the bearings through end diaphragms or cross-frames. The development and analysis of the load path through the deck or through the top lateral bracing, if present, shall utilize assumed structural actions analogous to those used for the analysis of wind loadings. Criteria This section is intended for design of superstructure steel components. Those components are classified into two categories: the designer has one of three choices: Ductile and Essentially Elastic. Based on the characteristics of the bridge structure,
Type 1 Design a ductile substructure with an essentially elastic superstructure.
Type 2 Design an essentially elastic substructure with a ductile superstructure.
Type 3 Design an elastic superstructure and substructure with a fusing mechanism at the interface between the superstructure and the substructure.
For Type 1 choice, the designer shall refer back to Section 8 of this document on designing for a ductile substructure. For Type 2 choice, the design of the superstructure is accomplished using a force reduction approach. Those factors are used for the design of transverse bracing members, top laterals and bottom laterals. The reduction factors shown in Table 7.1 shall be used.
4-7
Table 4-1: Reduction Factors for Steel Superstructure Bracings

Essential or Critical Bridges 1 2 Normal Bridges 2 4 3
Functional Evaluation Safety Evaluation
For Type 3 choice, the designer shall assess the overstrength capacity for the fusing interface including shear keys and bearings, then design for an essentially elastic superstructure and substructure. The minimum overstrength lateral design force shall be calculated using an acceleration of 0.4 g or the elastic seismic force whichever is smaller. If isolation devices are used, the superstructure shall be designed as essentially elastic (see Section 7.6 of SCDOT Specifications). In this section, reference to an essentially elastic component is used where the force demand to capacity ratio of any member in the superstructure is less than 1.3.
4.4
Summary
In reviewing the SCDOT specifications, the NCHRP 12-49, and the AISI LRFD examples, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. Adopt AISC LRFD Specifications for design of single angle members and members with stitches. 2. Allow for three types of a bridge structural system as adopted in SCDOT Specifications. 3. Adopt a force reduction factor of 3 for design of normal end cross-frame.
4-8
4. Adopt NCHRP 12-49 for design of Ductile End-Diaphragm where a force reduction factor greater than 3 is desired.
4-9
TASK 4 APPENDIX 4A CENTER FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING AND EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH
Report No. CCEER 00-8
Seismic Analysis and Design of the AISI LRFD Design Examples of Steel Highway Bridges
Ahmad M. Itani Hassan Sedarat
Reno
Engineering Research and Development Center College of Engineering University of Nevada, Reno
4A-1
TASK 4 APPENDIX 4B LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR SINGLE-ANGLE MEMBERS
4B-1
TASK 4 APPENDIX 4C CHAPTER E COLUMNS AND OTHER COMPRESSION MEMBERS
4C-1
TASK 4 APPENDIX 4D SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES
4D-1
TASK 4 APPENDIX 4E NCHRP 12-49
4E-1
7.7
Structural Steel Design Requirements Ductile End-Diaphragm in Slab-on-Girder Bridge
7.7.8.2
Ductile end-diaphragms in slab-on-girder bridges can be designed to be the ductile energy dissipating elements for seismic excitations in the transverse directions of straight bridges provided that: a. specially detailed diaphragms capable of dissipating energy in a stable manner and without strength degradation upon repeated cyclic testing are used; b. only ductile energy dissipating systems whose adequate seismic performance has been proven through cycling inelastic testing are used; c. the design considers the combined and relative stiffness and strength of end-diaphragms and girders (together with their bearing stiffeners) in establishing the diaphragms strength and design forces to consider for the capacity protected elements; d. the response modification factor to be considered in design of the ductile diaphragm is given by:
K DED + K SUB R= 1 + K DED K SUB
(7.7.8.2-1)
where is the ductility capacity of the end-diaphragm itself, and KDED/KSUB is the ratio of the stiffness of the ductile end-diaphragms and substructure (unless the designer can demonstrate otherwise, should not be taken greater than 4); e. all details/connections of the ductile end-diaphragms are welded;
4E-2
f. the bridge does not have horizontal wind-bracing connecting the bottom flanges of girders, unless the last wind bracing panel before each support is designed as a ductile panel equivalent and in parallel to its adjacent vertical end-diaphragm; and g. an effective mechanism is present to ensure transfer of the inertiainduced transverse horizontal seismic forces from the slab to the diaphragm. Overstrength factors to be used to design the Capacity Protected Elements depend on the type of ductile diaphragm used, and shall be based on available experimental research results.
8.7
Structural Steel Design Requirements Ductile End-Diaphragm in Slab-on-Girder Bridge
8.7.8.2
Ductile end-diaphragms in slab-on-girder bridges can be designed to be the ductile energy dissipating elements for seismic excitations in the transverse directions of straight bridges provided that: a. Specially detailed diaphragms capable of dissipating energy in a stable manner and without strength degradation upon repeated cyclic testing are used; b. Only ductile energy dissipating systems whose adequate seismic performance has been proven through cycling inelastic testing are used; c. Design considers the combined and relative stiffness and strength of end-diaphragms and girders (together with their bearing stiffeners) in establishing the diaphragms strength and design forces to consider for the capacity protected elements;
4E-3
d. The response modification factor to be considered in design of the ductile diaphragm is given by:
K DED + K SUB R= 1 + K DED K SUB
(8.7.8.2-1)
where is the ductility capacity of the end-diaphragm itself, and KDED/KSUB is the ratio of the stiffness of the ductile end-diaphragms and substructure; unless the engineer can demonstrated otherwise, should not be taken greater than 4; e. All details/connections of the ductile end-diaphragms are welded. f. The bridge does not have horizontal wind-bracing connecting the bottom flanges of girders, unless the last wind bracing panel before each support is designed as a ductile panel equivalent and in parallel to its adjacent vertical end-diaphragm. g. An effective mechanism is present to ensure transfer of the inertiainduced transverse horizontal seismic forces from the slab to the diaphragm. Overstrength factors to be used to design the capacity-protected elements depend on the type of ductile diaphragm used, and shall be based on available experimental research results.
4E-4
TASK 5 5 RECOMMEND LIQUEFACTION DESIGN PROCEDURE 5.1 Objective
The objective of this task is to review applicable recent research and information currently available on liquefaction and to recommend design procedures consistent with the Displacement Approach adopted for the proposed specifications. The proposed approach is to streamline the provisions provided by NCHRP 12-49 in one separate section or appendix. The extent of the provisions are established in light of the overall methodology and framework established in the tasks: a. b. Task 2 Finalize Seismic Hazard Level Task 3 Expand the Extent of the No Analysis Zone
5.2
NCHRP 12-49 Liquefaction Design Requirements
NCHRP 12-49 added considerable amount of information for the provisions on liquefaction. The general design approach outlined in NCHRP 12-49 consists of the following: 1. Specific design requirements for piled foundations, drilled shafts and spread footing exposed to liquefaction with no lateral flow.
5-1
2.
For the above mentioned types of foundations subjected to lateral flow, proceed with the following steps: a. Design the piles or spread footings to resist the forces generated by the lateral spreading. b. If the structure cannot be designed to resist the forces, assess whether the structure is able to tolerate the anticipated movements and meet the geometric and structural constraints of the provisions. c. If the structure cannot meet the performance requirements of the provisions, assess the costs and benefits of various mitigation measures to minimize the movements to a tolerable level to meet the desired performance objective.
Appendix 5A contains NCHRP 12-49 requirements for Foundation Design and Liquefaction Design for SDR 3 (Chapter 7 of NCHRP 12-49) and SDR 4 (Chapter 8 of NCHRP 12-49). In adopting a Displacement Approach for the new specifications and considering a No Collapse Criteria, the new specifications will be altered in determining the adequacy of the structure based strictly on the displacement demands. Minimum strength requirements would be introduced to minimize the effects of any geometric non-linearities. Provisions related to steps a) and c) mentioned above and related to a Force Based Approach will be eliminated for consistency with the overall approach.
5-2
5.3
Damage Severity in Past Earthquakes
In order to gain insight on the damage severity on bridges during past earthquakes, the catalog on the seismic performance of bridges in the presence of liquefaction-induced ground displacement authored by Stephen A. Dickenson, Nason J. McCullough, Mark G. Barkau, and Bryan J. Wavra is used. Each bridge in this catalog has been assigned a damage severity rating DSR according to the classification scheme outlined in Table 5-1. A summary of this catalog is shown in Table 5-2. Table 5-1: Damage Severity Description
DAMAGE SEVERITY RATING (DSR) DSR = 3 DSR = 2 DSR = 1 DSR = 0 DAMAGE DESCRIPTION
Severe Damage: Abutments moved streamward and/or markedly subsided; piers shifted, tilted, settled, or fell over. Large movements of foundation units. Substructure rendered unsalvable. Moderate Damage: Distinct and measurable net displacements as in previous category but to a lesser degree, so that the substructure could perhaps be repaired and used to support a new superstructure. Minor Damage: Evidence of foundation movements such as cracked backwalls, split piles, and closed expansion devices, but net displacements small and substructure serviceable. Minor abutment slumping. Nil Damage: No evidence of foundation displacements.
5-3
Table 5-2: Damage Severity Rating vs. Earthquake Magnitude

Earthquake 1995 Manzanillo, Mexico 1995 Hyogo-ken-Nanbu (Kobe), Japan 1994 Northridge 1994 Mindoro Island, Phillipines 1993 Island of Guam 1993 Hokkaido Nansei-oki, Japan 1992 Erzincan, Turkey 1991 Costa Rica 1990 Luzon, Phillipines 1989 Loma Prieta 1983 Nihonkai-Chuba 1980 El-Asnam, Algeria 1979 Imperial Valley, California 1978 Miyagi-Ken-oki, Japan 1976 Mindanao, Phillipines 1976 Tangshan, China 1975 Haicheng, China 1968 Ebino 1964 Alaska 1964 Niigata, Japan 1948 Fukui, Japan 1923 Kanto, Japan 1906 San Francisco 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Mw 7.5 6.9 6.7 7.1 8.4 7.8 6.7 7.4 7.9 6.9 7.7 7.2 6.5 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.2 6.1 9.2 7.3 6.9 6.9 7.9 ? DSR Minimum 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 2 0 3 DSR Maximum 1 3 0 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3
The full catalog is included in Appendix 5B. As seen from Table 5-2 a DSR equal to 2 corresponding to moderate damage is associated with an earthquake magnitude Mw of 6.7 or higher while a DSR equal to 3 corresponding to severe damage is associated with an earthquake magnitude Mw of 6.9 or higher.
5.4
Proposed Liquefaction Design Requirements
An evaluation of the potential for and consequences of liquefaction within near surface soil shall be made in accordance with the following requirements: Liquefaction is required for a bridge in SPC D unless one of the following conditions is met:
5-4
a. b.
The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.5. The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.7 and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60] is greater than 20.
Procedures given in Appendix D of NCHRP 12-49 and adopted from California DMG Special Publication 117 shall be used to evaluate the potential for liquefaction. If it is determined that liquefaction can occur at a bridge site then the bridge shall be supported on deep foundations or the ground improved so that liquefaction does not occur. If liquefaction occurs then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed in two configurations as follows: 1. Nonliquefied Configuration: The structure shall be analyzed and
designed, assuming no liquefaction occurs using the ground response spectrum appropriate for the site soil conditions. 2. Liquefaction Configuration: The structure as designed in Nonliquefied Configuration above shall be reanalyzed and redesigned, if necessary, assuming that the layer has liquefied and the liquefied soil provides whatever residual resistance is appropriate (i.e., p-y curves or modulus of sub-grade reaction values for lateral pile response analyses consistent with liquefied soil conditions). The design spectra shall be the same as that used in Nonliquefied Configuration unless a site-specific response spectra has been developed using nonlinear, effective stress methods (e.g., computer program DESRA or equivalent) that properly account for the buildup in pore-water pressure and stiffness degradation in liquefiable layers. The reduced response spectra resulting from the site-
5-5
specific nonlinear, effective stress analyses shall not be less than 2/3s of that used in Nonliquefied Configuration. The Designer shall cover explicit detailing of plastic hinging zones for both cases mentioned above since it is likely that locations of plastic hinges for the Liquefied Configuration are different than locations of plastic hinges for the Non-Liquefied Configuration. Design requirements of SPC D including shear reinforcement shall be met for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied Configuration.
5.5
The
Summary
following list highlights the main proposed liquefaction design
requirements: a. Liquefaction design requirements are applicable to SPC D. b. Liquefaction design requirements are dependent on the mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60]. c. If liquefaction occurs, then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied configurations. Design requirements for lateral flow are still debatable and have not reached a consensus worth comfortably adopting. The IAI geotechnical team is preparing a task to address this topic and complement the effort produced in the NCHRP 12-49 document.
5-6
TASK 5 APPENDIX 5A NCHRP 12-49
5A-1
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
7.4
FOUNDATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
damping properties of the soil at some sites, if unusual soils exist or if the foundation is supporting a critical bridge.
7.4.2 Spread Footings
7.4.1 7.4.1.1
Foundation Investigation General
A subsurface investigation, including borings and laboratory soil tests, shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix B to provide pertinent and sufficient information for the determination of the Site Class of Article 3.4.2.1. The type and cost of foundations should be considered in the economic, environmental, and aesthetic studies for location and bridge type selection.
7.4.1.2 Subsurface Investigation
Subsurface explorations shall be made at pier and abutment locations, sufficient in number and depth, to establish a reliable longitudinal and transverse substrata profile. Samples of material encountered shall be taken and preserved for future reference and/or testing. Boring logs shall be prepared in detail sufficient to locate material strata, results of penetration tests, groundwater, any artesian action, and where samples were taken. Special attention shall be paid to the detection of narrow, soft seams that may be located at stratum boundaries.
7.4.1.3 Laboratory Testing
Spread footing foundations for SDR 3 shall be designed using column loads developed by capacity design principles or elastic seismic loads, in accordance with Strength Limit State requirements given in Article 10.6.3 of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 1998a, and subsequent amendments), hereinafter referred to as the AASHTO LRFD provisions. It will not normally be necessary to define spring constants for displacement evaluations or moment-rotation and horizontal forcedisplacement behavior of the footing-soil system (Article 5.3.4). Checks shall also be made to confirm that flow slides and loss of bearing support from liquefaction do not occur (Article 7.6).
7.4.2.1 Moment and Shear Capacity
The overturning capacity of the spread footings shall be evaluated using 1.0 times the nominal moment capacity of the column (Article 4.8) or the elastic seismic design force within the column, whichever is less. Procedures for Strength Limit State Design given in Article 10.6.3 of the AASHTO LRFD provisions shall be used when performing this evaluation. A triangular elastic stress distribution within the soil shall be used. The peak bearing soil pressure for the triangular distribution shall not exceed the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil at the toe of the footing. The width of maximum liftoff shall be no greater than 1/2 of the footing width for moment loading in each of the two directions treated separately.
Laboratory tests shall be performed to determine the strength, deformation, and flow characteristics of soils and/or rocks and their suitability for the foundation selected. In areas of higher seismicity (e.g., SDR 3, 4, 5, and 6), it may be appropriate to conduct special dynamic or cyclic tests to establish the liquefaction potential or stiffness and material
SECTION 7 72
MCEER/ATC-49
If a non-triangular stress distribution occurs or if the liftoff is greater 1/2 of the footing, either the footing shall be re-sized to meet the above criteria or special studies shall be conducted to demonstrate that non-triangular stress pressure distribution or larger amounts of liftoff will not result in excessive permanent settlement during seismic loading. The special studies shall include push-over analyses with nonlinear foundation springs for SDAP E conditions. No shear capacity evaluation of the footing will normally be required for SDR 3.
7.4.2.2 Liquefaction Check
detrimental to the performance of the bridge support system.
Before initiating any evaluations of ground improvement alternatives or before conducting special studies, the potential applicability of deep foundations as an alternative to spread footings shall be discussed with the owner.
Liquefaction with Lateral Flow or Spreading
An evaluation of the potential for liquefaction within near-surface soil shall be made in accordance with requirements given in Article 7.6 and Appendix D of these Specifications. If liquefaction is predicted to occur for the design earthquake, the following additional requirements shall be satisfied:
Liquefaction without Lateral Flow or Spreading
If lateral flow or lateral spreading is predicted to occur, the amount of displacement associated with lateral flow or lateral spreading shall be established in accordance with procedures given in Appendix D. Once the deformation has been quantified, the following design approach shall be used.
Determine whether the spread footings can be designed to resist the forces generated by the lateral spreading without unusual size or design requirements. If the footing cannot resist forces from lateral spreading or flow, assess whether the structure is able to tolerate the anticipated movements and meet the geometric and structural constraints of Table C3.2-1. The maximum plastic rotation shall be as defined in Article 7.7.9 and 7.8.6. If the structure cannot meet the performance requirements of Table 3.2-1, assess the costs and benefits of various mitigation measures to minimize the movements to a level that will meet the desired performance objective. If a higher performance is desired so that the spread footings will not have to be replaced, the allowable plastic rotations for concrete columns given in Article 7.7.9 and 7.8.6 shall be met.
For sites that liquefy but do not undergo lateral flow or spreading, the bottom of the spread footing shall be located either below the liquefiable layer or at least twice the minimum foundation width above the liquefiable layer. If liquefaction occurs below the footing, settlements resulting from the dissipation of excess porewater pressures shall be established in accordance with procedures given in Appendix D. If the depth of the liquefiable layer is less than twice the minimum foundation width, spread footing foundations shall not be used, unless
ground improvement is performed to mitigate the occurrence of liquefaction, or special studies are conducted to demonstrate that the occurrence of liquefaction will not be
The owner shall be apprised of and concur with the approach used for the design of spread footing foundations for lateral flow or lateral spreading conditions.
SECTION 7
73
MCEER/ATC-49
7.4.3 7.4.3.1
Driven Piles General
shall be evaluated in accordance with procedures given in Article 7.4.3.4.

7.4.3.3 Moment and Shear Design
Resistance factors for pile capacities shall be as specified in Table 10.5.4-2 of the AASHTO LRFD provisions, with the exception that resistance factors of 1.0 shall be used for seismic loads. For the effect of settling ground and downdrag loads, unfactored load and resistance factors ( = 1.0; = 1.0) shall be used, unless required otherwise by the owner. Batter piles shall not be used where downdrag loads are expected unless special studies are performed. For seismic loading the groundwater table location shall be the average groundwater location, unless the owner approves otherwise.
7.4.3.2 Design Requirements
The capacity of the geotechnical elements of driven pile foundations shall be designed using 1.0 times the nominal moment capacity of the column or the elastic design force within the column (Article 4.8), whichever is smaller. Unfactored resistance ( = 1.0) shall be used in performing the geotechnical capacity check. The loads on the leading row of piles during overturning shall not exceed the plunging capacity of the piles. Separation between the pile tip and the soil (i.e. gapping) shall be allowed only in the most distant row of piles in the direction of loading. Forces on all other rows of piles shall either be compressive or not exceed the nominal tension capacity of the piles. If the plunging capacity of the leading pile is exceeded or if uplift of other than the trailing rows of piles occurs (see Figure C3.3.1-2), special studies shall be conducted to show that performance of the pile system is acceptable. These studies shall be performed only with the prior consent of the owner and SDAP E is required. Structural elements of pile foundations shall be designed using the overstrength moment capacity of the column or the elastic design force within the column (Article 4.8), whichever is smaller. The maximum shear force on the pile(s) shall be less than the structural shear capacity of the piles.
7.4.3.4 Liquefaction Check
Driven pile foundations subject to SDR 3 shall be designed for column moments and shears developed in accordance with the principles of capacity design (Article 4.8) or the elastic design forces, whichever is smaller. The Strength Limit State requirements given in Article 10.7.3 of the AASHTO LRFD provisions shall apply for design. With the exception of pile bents, it will not normally be necessary to define spring constants for displacement evaluations or moment-rotation and horizontal forcedisplacement analyses for SDR 3 (Article 5.3.4). For pile bents, the estimated depth of fixity shall be used in evaluating response. If liquefaction is predicted at the site, the potential effects of liquefaction on the capacity of the driven pile foundation system
SECTION 7 74
An evaluation of the potential for liquefaction shall be made in accordance with requirements given in Article 7.6 and
MCEER/ATC-49
Appendix D of these Specifications. If liquefaction is predicted to occur for the design earthquake, the following additional requirements shall be satisfied:
Liquefaction without Lateral Flow or Spreading The pile shall penetrate beyond the bottom of the liquefied layer by at least 3 pile diameters or to a depth that axial and lateral pile capacity are not affected by liquefaction of the overlying layer, whichever is deeper. The shear reinforcement in a concrete or prestressed concrete pile shall meet the requirements of Sec 7.8.2.3 from the pile or bent cap to a depth of 3 diameters below the lowest liquefiable layer. Effects of downdrag on the pile settlements shall be determined in accordance with procedures given in Appendix D. Design the piles to resist the forces generated by the lateral spreading. If the forces cannot be resisted, assess whether the structure is able to tolerate the anticipated movements and meet the geometric and structural constraints of Table C3.2-1. The maximum plastic rotation of the piles shall be as defined in Article 7.7.9 and Article 7.8.6. If the structure cannot meet the performance requirements of Table 3.2-1, assess the costs and benefits of various mitigation measures to reduce the movements to a tolerable level to meet the desired performance objective. If a higher performance is desired so that the piles will not have to be replaced, the allowable plastic rotations of Articles 7.7.9.2 and 7.8.6.2 shall be met. Drilled Shafts
the drilled shaft shall also be represented in the design using either the estimated depth of fixity or soil springs in a lateral pile analysis. Diameter adjustments shall be considered during lateral load analyses of shafts with a diameter greater than 600 mm if the shaft is free to rotate, as in the case of a column extension (i.e., no pile cap). Contributions from base shear shall also be considered.
Liquefaction with Lateral Flow or Lateral Spreading
7.4.4
Procedures identified in Article 7.4.3.2, including those for liquefaction and dynamic settlement, shall be applied with the exception that the ultimate capacity in compression or uplift loading for single shaft foundations in SDR 3 shall not be exceeded during maximum seismic loading without special design studies and the owners approval. The flexibility of
SECTION 7 75 MCEER/ATC-49
7.6.3
7.6 LIQUEFACTION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Evaluation of the Effects of Liquefaction and Lateral Ground Movement
7.6.1
General
An evaluation of the potential for and consequences of liquefaction within nearsurface soil shall be made in accordance with the following requirements. A liquefaction assessment is required unless one of the following conditions is met or as directed otherwise by the owner.
Mean magnitude for the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) is less than 6.0 (Figures 7.6.1-1 to 7.6.1-4); Mean magnitude of the MCE is less than 6.4 and equal to or greater than 6.0, and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60] is greater than 20; Mean magnitude for the MCE is less than 6.4 and equal to or greater than 6.0, (N1)60 is greater than 15, and FaSs is between 0.25 and 0.375.
Procedures given in Appendix D shall be used to evaluate the potential for and effects of liquefaction and liquefaction-related permanent ground movement (i.e., lateral spreading, lateral flow, and dynamic settlement). If both liquefaction and ground movement occur, they shall be treated as separate and independent load cases, unless agreed to or directed otherwise by the owner.
7.6.4 Design Requirements if Liquefaction and Ground Movement Occurs
If it is determined from Appendix D that liquefaction can occur at a bridge site, then one or more of the following approaches shall be implemented in the design. If liquefaction and no lateral flow occurs, then the bridge shall be designed by conventional procedures including the following requirements:
a. Piled Foundations, Drilled Shafts and Pile Bents: The pile or shaft shall penetrate beyond the bottom of the liquefied layer by at least 3 pile diameters or to a depth that is not affected by liquefaction of the overlying layer or by partial build-up in pore-water pressure, whichever is deeper. In addition the shear reinforcement in a concrete or pre-stressed concrete pile shall meet the requirements of Sec 7.8.2.3 from the pile or bent cap to a depth of 3 diameters below the lowest liquefiable layer. b. Spread Footings: The bottom of the spread footing shall either be below the liquefiable layer or it shall be at least twice the minimum foundation width of the footing above the liquefiable layer. If liquefaction occurs beneath the base of the footing, the magnitude of settlement caused by liquefaction shall be estimated, and its effects on bridge performance assessed.
79 SECTION 7
If the mean magnitude shown in Figures 7.6.11 to 7.6.1-4 is greater than or equal to 6.4, or if the above requirements are not met for magnitudes between 6.0 and 6.4, or if for the Expected Earthquake, FaSs is greater than 0.375, evaluations of liquefaction and associated phenomena such as lateral flow, lateral spreading, and dynamic settlement shall be evaluated in accordance with these Specifications.
7.6.2 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
Procedures given in Appendix D shall be used to evaluate the potential for liquefaction.
MCEER/ATC-49
If lateral flow or lateral spreading is predicted to occur, the following options shall be considered as detailed in Appendix D.
1. Design the piles or spread footings to resist the forces generated by the lateral spreading. 2. If the structure cannot be designed to resist the forces, assess whether the structure is able to tolerate the anticipated movements and meet the geometric and structural constraints of Table C3.2-1. The maximum plastic rotation
of the piles shall be as defined in Article 7.7.9 and 7.8.6. 3. If the structure cannot meet the performance requirements of Table 3.2-1, assess the costs and benefits of various mitigation measures to minimize the movements to a tolerable level to meet the desired performance objective. If a higher performance is desired so that the spread footings or piles will not have to be replaced, the allowable plastic rotations of Articles 7.7.9.2 and 7.8.6.2 shall be met.
MCEER/ATC-49
80
SECTION 7
Figure 7.6.1-1 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Western United States
MCEER/ATC-49
81
SECTION 7
Figure 7.6.1-2 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Central and Eastern United States
MCEER/ATC-49
82
SECTION 7
Figure 7.6.1-3 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Northwest Alaska

MCEER/ATC-49 83 SECTION 7
Figure 7.6.1-4 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Southeast Alaska
MCEER/ATC-49
84
SECTION 7
7.6.5
Detailed Foundation Design Requirements
Article 7.4 contains requirements for each foundation types.

7.6.6
detailed design of the different
Other Collateral Hazards
The potential occurrence of collateral hazards resulting from fault rupture, landsliding, differential ground compaction, and flooding and inundation shall be evaluated. Procedures for making these evaluations are summarized in Appendix D.
MCEER/ATC-49
85
SECTION 7
8.4
FOUNDATION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
damping properties of the soil at some sites, if unusual soils exist or if the foundation is supporting a critical bridge.
8.4.2 Spread Footings
8.4.1 8.4.1.1
Foundation Investigation General
A subsurface investigation, including borings and laboratory soil tests, shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix B to provide pertinent and sufficient information for the determination of the Site Class of Article 3.4.2.1. The type and cost of foundations should be considered in the economic, environmental, and aesthetic studies for location and bridge type selection.
8.4.1.2 Subsurface Investigation
The design of spread footing foundations located in SDR 4, 5, and 6 shall be based on column moments and shears developed using capacity design principles as described in Section 4.8. Foundation flexibility (Article 5.3.4) shall be modeled for Soil Types C, D, and E if foundation flexibility results in more than a 20% change in response (see Article C5.3.4). For Soil Types A and B, soil flexibility does not need to be considered because of the stiffness of the soil or rock. The potential for and effects of liquefaction and dynamic settlement shall also be determined for spread footing foundations subject to SDR 4 and above. Normally, spread footings shall not be located at SDR 4, 5, and 6 sites where liquefaction is predicted to occur, unless:
the foundation is located below the liquefiable layer. it can be demonstrated by special studies that liquefaction and its effects are very limited, or the ground will be improved such that liquefaction will not occur.
Subsurface explorations shall be made at pier and abutment locations, sufficient in number and depth, to establish a reliable longitudinal and transverse substrata profile. Samples of material encountered shall be taken and preserved for future reference and/or testing. Boring logs shall be prepared in detail sufficient to locate material strata, results of penetration tests, groundwater, any artesian action, and where samples were taken. Special attention shall be paid to the detection of narrow, soft seams that may be located at stratum boundaries.
8.4.1.3 Laboratory Testing
Owner approval shall be obtained before proceeding with a spread footing design at a site where liquefaction is predicted to occur.
8.4.2.1 Spring Constants for Footing (Nonliquefiable Sites)
Laboratory tests shall be performed to determine the strength, deformation, and flow characteristics of soils and/or rocks and their suitability for the foundation selected. In areas of higher seismicity (e.g., where SDR 4, 5, and 6 apply), it may be appropriate to conduct special dynamic or cyclic tests to establish the liquefaction potential or stiffness and material
SECTION 8 104
When required to represent foundation flexibility, spring constants shall be developed for spread footing using equations given in Tables 8.4.2.1-1 and 8.4.2.1-2. Alternative procedures given in the FEMA 273 Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
MCEER/ATC-49
(ATC/BSSC, 1997) are also suitable for estimating spring constants. These computational methods are appropriate for sites that do not liquefy or lose strength during earthquake loading. See Article 8.4.2.3 for sites that are predicted to liquefy. The shear modulus (G) used to compute the stiffness values in Table 8.4.2.1-1 shall be determined by adjusting the low-strain shear modulus (Gmax) for the level of shearing strain using the following strain adjustment factors, unless other methods are approved by the owner.
For FvS1 0.40: G/Gmax = 0.50 for Expected Earthquake ground motions G/Gmax = 0.25 for Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground motions
nonlinearity introduced by uplift, unless the Owner approves otherwise.

For FvS1 0.40: Ra = 1.0 for Expected Earthquake ground motions Ra = 0.75 for MCE ground motions
For FvS1 > 0.40: Ra = 0.75 for Expected Earthquake ground motions Ra = 0.5 for MCE ground motions
For FvS1 > 0.40: G/Gmax = 0.25 for Expected Earthquake ground motions G/Gmax = 0.10 for MCE ground motions
Values of Gmax shall be determined by seismic methods (e.g., crosshole, downhole, or SASW), by laboratory testing methods (e.g., resonant column with adjustments for time), or by empirical equations (Kramer, 1996). The uncertainty in determination of Gmax shall be considered when establishing strain adjustment factors. No special computations are required to determine the geometric or radiation damping of the foundation system. Five percent system damping shall be used for design, unless special studies are performed and approved by the owner.
Uplift shall be allowed for footings subject to SDR 4, 5, and 6. The following area adjustment factors (Ra) shall be applied to the equivalent area to account for geometric
MCEER/ATC-49
105
SECTION 7
Table 8.4.2.1-1
Surface Stiffnesses for a Rigid Plate on a Semi-Infinite Homogeneous Elastic Half-Space (Adapted from Gazetas, 1991)1
Stiffness Parameter Vertical Translation, Kz' Horizontal Translation, Ky' (toward long side) Horizontal Translation, Kx' (toward short side)
Rotation, Kx' (about x axis) Rotation, Ky' (about y axis)
Rigid Plate Stiffness at Surface, Ki'

GL 0.73 + 1.54 1
(B) L
0.85
0.75
GL 2 + 2.5 B L 2
( )
GL 2 + 2.5 2
(B) L
IX
0.75
0.85
GL 0.75
0.25
B 0.1 1 L
G 1
L B
IY
0.75
B 2.4 + 0.5 L
G 1
Table note:
L 0.15 3 B
1. See Figure 8.4.2.1-1** for definitions of terms
Table 8.4.2.1-2
Stiffness Embedment Factors for a Rigid Plate on a Semi-Infinite Homogeneous Elastic Half-Space (Adapted from Gazetas, 1991)1
Stiffness Parameter
Vertical Translation, ez
Embedment Factors, ei
( 2L + 2B D B 1 + 0.095 1 + 1.3 1 + 0.2 B L LB
0.67
Horizontal Translation, ey (toward long side)
1+ 0.15
0.4 d D 2 16 ( L + B ) d 2D 1 + 0.52 B B L2 0.5
Horizontal Translation, ex (toward short side)
0.4 d 0.5 D 2 16 ( L + B ) d 2D 1+ 0.15 1 + 0.52 L B2 L
Rotation, ex (about x axis) Rotation, ey (about y axis)
1+ 2.52
d B
0.20 0.50 2d d B 1+ D L B
0.60 1.9 0.60 2d d 1.5 + D L
2d 1+ 0.92 L
Table note: Embedment factors multiplied by spring
MCEER/ATC-49
106
SECTION 7

L (length) y
B (width)
y Plan z d (thickness) z Homogeneous Soil Properties G (shearing modulus) ( Poisson's ratio) Section D (depth)
Figure 8.4.2.1-1 8.4.2.2
Properties of a Rigid Plate on a Semi-Infinite Homogeneous Elastic Half-Space for Stiffness Calculations
Moment-Rotation and ShearDisplacement Relationships for Footing (Nonliquefiable Sites)
also be developed for the shear component of resistance. This approach shall not be used at sites that will liquefy during seismic loading. See Article 8.4.2.3 for sites that liquefy.
8.4.2.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
The moment and shear capacity of the foundation shall be confirmed for design loads given in Article 4.8. Moment-rotation and shear force-displacement relationships shall be developed as required by Article 5.3.4. Unless approved otherwise by the owner, the moment-rotation curve for SDAP E shall be represented by a bilinear, moment-rotation curve. The initial slope of the bi-linear curve shall be defined by the rotational spring constant given in Article 8.4.2.1. The maximum resisting force (i.e., plastic capacity) on the force-deformation curve shall be defined for the best-estimate case. The footing liftoff shall be no more than 50% of the footing area at peak displacement during the push-over analysis, unless special studies are performed and approved by the owner. A bilinear force displacement relationship shall
An evaluation of the potential for liquefaction within near-surface soil shall be made in accordance with requirements given in Article 8.6 and Appendix D of these specifications. If liquefaction is predicted to occur under the design ground motion, spread footings foundations shall not be used unless the footing is liquefiable layer, located below the
ground improvement is performed to mitigate the occurrence of liquefaction, or

SECTION 7
MCEER/ATC-49
107
special studies are conducted to demonstrate that the occurrence of liquefaction will not be detrimental to the performance of the bridge support system.
The owners approval shall be obtained before initiating ground improvement or special studies.
8.4.3 8.4.3.1 Driven Piles General
C, D, and E, if the effects of foundation flexibility contribute more than 20% to the displacement of the system. For SDAP E foundations flexibility shall be included in the push-over analysis whenever it is included in the dynamic analysis. Liquefaction shall be considered when applicable during the development of spring constants and capacity values for these seismic design and analysis procedures.
8.4.3.3 Axial and Rocking Stiffness for Driven Pile/Pile Cap Foundations (Nonliquefiable Sites)
Resistance factors for pile capacities shall be as specified in Table 10.5.4-2 of the AASHTO LRFD provisions, with the exception that resistance factors of 1.0 shall be used for seismic loads. For the effect of settling ground and downdrag loads, unfactored load and resistance factors ( = 1.0; = 1.0) shall be used, unless required otherwise by the owner. Batter piles shall not be used where downdrag loads are expected unless special studies are performed. For seismic loading the groundwater table location shall be the average groundwater location, unless the owner approves otherwise.
8.4.3.2 Design Requirements
The axial stiffness of the driven pile foundations shall be determined for design cases in which foundation flexibility is included. For many applications, the axial stiffness of a group of piles can be estimated within sufficient accuracy using the following equation:
Ksv = 1.25AE/L
(8.4.3.2-1)
where A = cross-sectional area of the pile E = modulus of elasticity of the piles L = length of the piles N= number of piles in group and is represented by the summation symbol in the above equations.
The design of driven pile foundations shall be based column loads determined by capacity design principles (Article 4.8) or elastic seismic forces, whichever is smaller. Both the structural and geotechnical elements of the foundation shall be designed for the capacity design forces of Article 4.8. Foundation flexibility (Article 5.3.4) shall be incorporated into design for Soil Profile Types
MCEER/ATC-49 108
The rocking spring stiffness values about each horizontal pile cap axis can be computed assuming each axial pile spring acts as a discrete Winkler spring. The rotational spring constant (i.e., moment per unit rotation) is then given by
Ksrv = kvn Sn2
(8.4.3.2-2)
where
SECTION 7
kvn = axial stiffness of the nth pile Sn = distance between the nth pile and the axis of rotation
The effects of group action on the determination of stiffness shall be considered if the center-to-center spacing of piles for the group in the direction of loading is closer than 3 pile diameters.
8.4.3.4 Lateral Stiffness Parameters for Driven Pile/Pile Cap Foundations (Nonliquefiable Sites)
this range, as both the nonlinearity of the pile and the soil must be considered. Programs such as LPILE (Reese and Wang, 1997), COM 624 (Wang and Reese, 1991), and FLPIER (Hoit and McVay, 1996) are used for this purpose. These programs use nonlinear "p-y" curves to represent the loaddisplacement response of the soil; they also can accommodate different types of pile-head fixity. Procedures for determining the "p-y" curves are discussed by Lam and Martin (1986) and more recently by Reese et al. (1997). The effects of group action on lateral stiffness shall be considered if the center-to-center spacing of the piles is closer than 3 pile diameters.
8.4.3.5 Pile Cap Stiffness and Capacity
The lateral stiffness parameters of driven pile foundations shall be estimated for design cases in which foundation flexibility is included. Lateral response of a pile foundation system depends on the stiffness of the piles and, very often, the stiffness of the pile cap. Procedures for defining the stiffness of the pile component of the foundation system are covered in this article. Methods for introducing the pile cap stiffness are addressed in Article 8.4.3.5. For preliminary analyses involving an estimate of the elastic displacements of the bridge, pile stiffness values can be obtained by using a series of charts prepared by Lam and Martin (1986). These charts are reproduced in Figures 8.4.3.4-1 through 8.4.3.4-6. The charts are applicable for mildly nonlinear response, where the elastic response of the pile dominates the nonlinear soil stiffness. For push-over analyses the lateral load displacement relationship must be extended into the nonlinear range of response. It is usually necessary to use computer methods to develop the load-displacement relationship in
The stiffness and capacity of the pile cap shall be considered in the design of the pile foundation. The pile cap provides horizontal resistance to the shear loading in the column. Procedures for evaluating the stiffness and the capacity of the footing in shear shall follow procedures given in Article C8.4.2.2 for spread footings, except that the base shear resistance of the cap shall be neglected. When considering a system comprised of a pile and pile cap, the stiffness of each shall be considered as two springs in parallel. The composite spring shall be developed by adding the reaction for each spring at equal displacements.
MCEER/ATC-49
109
SECTION 7
Figure 8.4.3.4-1
Recommendations for Coefficient of Variation in Subgrade Modulus with Depth for Sand (ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
110
SECTION 7
Figure 8.4.3.4-2
Recommendations for Coefficient of Variation in Subgrade Modulus with Depth for Clay (ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
111
SECTION 7
Figure 8.4.3.4-3
Coefficient of Lateral Pile Head Stiffness for Free-Head Pile Lateral Stiffness (ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
112
SECTION 7
Figure 8.4.3.4-4
Coefficient for Lateral Pile-Head Stiffness for Fixed-Head Pile Lateral Stiffness (ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
113
SECTION 7
Figure 8.4.3.4-5
Coefficient for Pile Head Rotation (ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
114
SECTION 7
Figure 8.4.3.4-6 Coefficient for Cross-Coupling Stiffness Term (ATC, 1996)

MCEER/ATC-49 115 SECTION 7
8.4.3.6
Moment and Shear Design (Nonliquefiable Sites)
The capacity of the structural elements of driven pile foundations shall be designed to resist the capacity design forces of Article 4.8 or the elastic design force within the column, whichever is smaller. Unfactored resistance ( = 1.0) shall be used in performing the geotechnical capacity check. The load on the leading row of piles during overturning shall not exceed the plunging capacity of the piles. Separation between the pile tip and the soil (i.e. gapping) shall be allowed only in the most distant row of trailing piles. Forces on all other rows of piles shall either be compressive or not exceed the nominal tension capacity of the piles. The maximum shear force on the pile(s) shall be less than the structural shear capacity of the piles. If the plunging capacity is exceeded or gapping of other than the trailing row of piles occurs, special studies shall be conducted to show that performance of the pile system is acceptable. Special studies shall be performed only with the prior consent of the owner and require SDAP E.
8.4.3.7 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Evaluations
the use of ground improvement methods to meet design requirements. In light of the potential costs of ground improvement, the owner shall be consulted before proceeding with a design for ground improvement to review the risks associated with liquefaction relative to the costs for remediating the liquefaction potential.
8.4.4 Drilled Shafts
Procedures identified in Article 8.4.3, including those for liquefaction and dynamic settlement, generally apply with the exceptions that, (1) the ultimate capacity of single shaft foundations in compression and uplift shall not be exceeded under maximum seismic loads and (2) the flexibility of the drilled shaft shall be represented using either the estimated depth of fixity or soil springs in a lateral pile analysis. Checks shall be conducted to confirm that minimum shaft lengths occur. The stable length can be determined by conducting nonlinear computer modeling or by using a length (L) > where

= [EIp/Es]0.25 for cohesive soils, and = [EIp/f] 0.20 for cohesionless soils
where If liquefaction is predicted to occur at the site, effects of liquefaction on the bridge foundation shall be evaluated. This evaluation shall consider the potential for loss in lateral bearing support, flow and lateral spreading of the soil, settlement below the toe of the pile, and settlement from drag loads on the pile as excess porewater pressures in liquefied soil dissipate. Procedures given in Appendix D shall be followed when making these evaluations. If liquefaction causes unacceptable bridge performance, consideration should be given to
MCEER/ATC-49 116
= Youngs modulus of the shaft
Ip = moment of inertia of the shaft F = coefficient of variation of subgrade modulus
Es = subgrade modulus of soil Z = embedded depth of the shaft
The nonlinear properties of the shaft shall be considered in evaluating the lateral response of the pile to lateral loads during a seismic event. Diameter adjustments shall be
SECTION 7
considered during lateral analyses of shafts with a diameter greater than 600 mm if the shaft is free to rotate, as in the case of a column extension (i.e., no pile cap). Contributions from base shear shall also be considered.
MCEER/ATC-49
117
SECTION 7
8.6.3
8.6 LIQUEFACTION DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Evaluation of the Effects of Liquefaction and Lateral Ground Movement
8.6.1
General
An evaluation of the potential for and consequences of liquefaction within nearsurface soil shall be made in accordance with the following requirements: A liquefaction assessment is required unless one of the following conditions is met or as directed otherwise by the owner.
Mean magnitude for the MCE event is less than 6.0 (Figures 8.6.1-1 to 8.6.1-4); Mean magnitude of the MCE event is less than 6.4 and equal to or greater than 6.0, and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60] is greater than 20; Mean magnitude for the MCE event is less than 6.4 and equal to or greater than 6.0, (N1)60 is greater than 15, and FaSs is between 0.25 and 0.375.
Procedures given in Appendix D shall be used to evaluate the potential for and effects of liquefaction and liquefaction-related permanent ground movement (i.e., lateral spreading, lateral flow, and dynamic settlement). If both liquefaction and ground movement occur, they shall be treated as separate and independent load cases, unless agreed to or directed otherwise by the owner.
8.6.4 Design Requirements if Liquefaction and Ground Movement Occurs
If it is determined from Appendix D that liquefaction can occur at a bridge site, then one or more of the following approaches shall be implemented in the design. Bridges shall be supported on deep foundations unless (1) the footing is located below the liquefiable layer, (2) special design studies are conducted to demonstrate that the footing will tolerate liquefaction, or (3) the ground is improved so that liquefaction does not occur. If spread footings are being considered for use at a liquefiable site, owner approval shall be obtained before beginning the design process. If liquefaction occurs, then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed in two configurations as follows:
1. Nonliquefied Configuration: The structure shall be analyzed and designed, assuming no liquefaction occurs using the ground response spectrum appropriate for the site soil conditions.
If the mean magnitude shown in Figures 8.6.11 to 8.6.1-4 is greater than or equal to 6.4, or if the above requirements are not met for magnitudes between 6.0 and 6.4 or if for the Expected Earthquake, FaSs is greater than 0.375, evaluations of liquefaction and associated phenomena such as lateral flow, lateral spreading, and dynamic settlement shall be evaluated in accordance with these Specifications.
8.6.2 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential
Procedures given in Appendix D shall be used to evaluate the potential for liquefaction.
MCEER/ATC-49
119
SECTION 7
Figure 8.6.1-1
Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Western United States
MCEER/ATC-49
120
SECTION 7
Figure 8.6.1-2
Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Eastern United States
MCEER/ATC-49
121
SECTION 7
Figure 8.6.1-3
MCEER/ATC-49
Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Alaska

122 SECTION 7
Figure 8.6.1-4
Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Southeast Alaska
MCEER/ATC-49
123
SECTION 7
2. Liquefied Configuration: The structure as designed in Nonliquefied Configuration above shall be reanalyzed and redesigned, if necessary, assuming that the layer has liquefied and the liquefied soil provides whatever residual resistance is appropriate (i.e., p-y curves or modulus of subgrade reaction values for lateral pile response analyses consistent with liquefied soil conditions). The design spectra shall be the same as that used in Nonliquefied Configuration unless a site-specific response spectra has been developed using nonlinear, effective stress methods (e.g., computer program DESRA or equivalent) that properly account for the buildup in pore-water pressure and stiffness degradation in liquefiable layers. The reduced response spectra resulting from the site-specific nonlinear, effective stress analyses shall not be less than 2/3s of that used in Nonliquefied Configuration. The Designer shall provide a drawing of the load path and energy dissipation mechanisms in this condition as required by Article 3.3 since it is likely that plastic hinges will occur in different locations than for the non-liquefied case. Shear reinforcement given in Article 8.8.2.3 shall be used in all concrete and prestressed concrete piles to a depth of 3 pile diameters below the liquefied layer.
the desired performance objective. If a higher performance is desired so that the piles will not have to be replaced, the allowable plastic rotations in-ground hinges of Article 8.7.9.2 and 8.8.6.2 shall be met. 8.6.5 Detailed Foundation Design Requirements
Article 8.4 contains detailed design requirements for each of the different foundation types.
8.6.6 Other Collateral Hazards
The potential occurrence of collateral hazards resulting from fault rupture, landsliding, differential ground compaction, and flooding and inundation shall be evaluated. Procedures for making these evaluations are summarized in Appendix D.
If lateral flow or lateral spreading occurs, the following options shall be considered.
1. Design the piles to resist the forces generated by the lateral spreading. 2. If the structure cannot be designed to resist the forces, assess whether the structure is able to tolerate the anticipated movements and meet the geometric and structural constraints of Table C3.2-1. The maximum plastic rotation of the piles is 0.05 radians as per Article 8.7.9 and 8.8.6. 3. If the structure cannot meet the performance requirements of Table 3.2-1, assess the costs and benefits of various mitigation measures to minimize the movements to a tolerable level to meet
MCEER/ATC-49
124
SECTION 7
TASK 5 APPENDIX 5B ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS TO BRIDGE APPROACH EMBANKMENTS IN OREGON
5B-1
ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS TO BRIDGE APPROACH EMBANKMENTS IN OREGON Final Report
SPR 361
by Dr. Stephen E. Dickenson Associate Professor and Nason J. McCullough Mark G. Barkau Bryan J. Wavra Graduate Research Assistants Dept. of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Group 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE Salem, OR 97301-5192 And Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 November 2002

Updated LRFD Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Updated LRFD Guidelines for Seismic Design of Highway Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCHRP 20-07/Task 193

Imbsen & Associates, Inc. - A TRC Company

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Section No. 1 2 2.1

2.2 3 3.1 3.2

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

TASK 1 1 REVIEW REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Background on Seismic Hazard

Proposed Seismic Hazard for Design of Normal Bridges

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Table 2-1: Identified Sources of Conservatism

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

collapse illustrated in Figure 2-1.

This failure is mainly attributed to

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Table 2-2: Selected Sites for PSHA/DSHA Comparison

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Benicia Martinez Los Angeles Vincent Thomas

Concord Puente Hills blind thrust Palos Verdes

38.000000 34.053700 33.749218

-122.116667 -118.243183 -118.271466

Table 2-3: Design Spectral Acceleration based on NCHRP 1997

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Table 2-4: Probabilistic Spectral Acceleration for 10% and 5% in 50 Years

Table 2-5: Spectral Acceleration (Type B & D Soil) for 5% in 50 Years

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Table 2-6: One-Second Spectral Acceleration Comparison to USGS 1996

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Table 2-7: Probabilistic to Deterministic Comparison of One-Second Acceleration

Figure 2-2: Probabilistic to Deterministic Ratio at Selected Sites

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

NEHRP 1997 Seismic Hazard Practice

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Caltrans Seismic Hazard Practice

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Following ATC-32, all bridges shall be designed to meet the

Formally designated by a local emergency plan as critical

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Full access to normal traffic is available almost

immediately following the earthquake.

Limited access (i.e., reduced lanes, light emergency

minimum risk of losing functionality.

A minimum risk of collapse, but damage

that would require closure to repair.

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

Spectral accelerations for 0.5 T 1.0 shall be determined by linear interpolation

1325 NCHRP 20-7(193) Task 6 Report.doc

NYCDOT and NYSDOT Seismic Hazard Practice