Seismic Design of Bridges

Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.

SCDOT Seismic Design Of Bridges Overview

AASHTO - Division IA Draft Specifications, 1996 SCDOT 2001 Seismic Design Specifications Comparison Between LRFD & SCDOT Specs. SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps Training and Implementation Conclusions

AASHTO Div IA
USGS 1988 Seismic Hazard Maps Force based design Soil Classification I-IV No explicit Performance Criteria Classification based only on acceleration coefficient

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA August 31, 1886 (Intensity IX-X)

Earthquake of August 31, 1886

Charleston, South Carolina Magnitude=7.3M, Intensity = X

Sandblow in Charleston

Draft Specifications

1996 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps

Difference in spectral acceleration between South Carolina and California Normal Bridges : 2/3 of the 2% in 50 yr. Event

Essential Bridges: Two-Level Analysis

Draft Specifications

Force based specifications N (seat width) Soil classification: I IV Draft Specifications Version of 1999

Site Specific Studies

Maybank Bridge over the Stono River Carolina Bays Parkway Broad and Chechessee River Bridges New Cooper River Bridge Bobby Jones Expressway

SEISMIC DESIGN TRIAL EXAMPLES

SC-38 over I-95 - Dillon County Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River - Charleston County

10

SC-38 over I-95

Description of Project

Conventional bridge structure Two 106.5 ft. spans with a composite reinforced concrete deck, supported by 13 steel plate girders and integral abutments The abutments and the interior bents rest on deep foundations
11

SC-38 over I-95

Original Seismic Design
SCDOT version of Div-IA AASHTO (Draft) 2/3 of 2% in 50 yr 1996 USGS maps used PGA of 0.15g, low potential for liquefaction Response Spectrum Analysis

Trial Design Example

Proposed LRFD Seismic Guidelines MCE 3% PE in 75 yr. Expected Earthquake 50% PE in 75 yr. 2000 USGS maps PGA of 0.33g, at MCE, further evaluation for liquefaction is needed. Response Spectrum Analysis

12

Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River

13

Highest Hazard

Lowest Hazard
Seismicity of South Carolina 1977 to 1996 1977 to 1997

14

Maybank Highway over Stono River

Description of project
118

spans 1-62 flat slab deck supported by PCP 63-104 /33 -meter girder spans and 2 columns per bent supported by shafts. The main span over the river channel consists of a 3 span steel girder frame w/ 70 meter center span. 105-118 flat slab deck supported by PCP
15

Maybank Highway over Stono River

Original Seismic Design SCDOT version of AASHTO Div. I-A (Draft) Site Specific Seismic Hazard Bridge classified as essential Project specific seismic performance criteria Two level Analysis:
FEE 10% in 50 yr. event SEE - 2% in 50 yr. event

Trial Design Example Proposed LRFD Guidelines 2002 Two Level Analysis: Expected Earthquake - 50% in 75 yr. MCE 3% in 75 yr.

16

Table C-1. LRFD Spectral Accelerations and Site Coefficients Earthquake Maximum Considered Expected Spectral Accelerations SS S1 SDS SD1 1.43 0.407 1.43 0.651 0.0503 0.0104 0.0503 0.0167 Site Coefficients Fa Fv 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.60

SEE - Compare LRFD to Original Design Curve

1.6 1.4
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

LRFD Curve Site Specific Original Curve SCDOT Curve, soil type II SCDOT Curve, soil type III * The cumulative mass participation for mode shapes at periods indicated and higher, is approximately 70%. * Transverse * Longitudinal

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Period, T (sec)

17

Maybank Highway over Stono River

Original Seismic Design Soil Classification: Type II Trial Design Example Stiff Marl classified as Site Class D

18

 The SCDOT 's new specifications adopted the NCHRP soil site classification and the Design Spectra described on LRFD 3.4.1 If this structure were designed using the new SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications, October 2001, the demand forces would be closer if not the same to those found using the Proposed LRFD Guideline 2002 .

19

Cooper River Bridge Charleston Co.

Seismic Design Criteria- Seismic Panel Synthetic TH PGA - 0.65g Sa 1.85 at T=0.2 sec Sa 0.65 at T=1 sec Liquefaction
20

21

Cooper River Bridge US1 7 COOPER RIVER BRIDGES

2 5 Yr 0 0 -YR SEEfor f or Main Ma in Piers Pier s 2500 - SEE (Ver tica l Spectr a )

2.5

Spect r a l Acceler a t ion, g

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

Per iod, sec

22

Need for:
New Specifications South Carolina Seismic Hazard Maps

23

24

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

October 2001

The new SCDOT specifications establish design and construction provisions for bridges in South Carolina to minimize their susceptibility to damage from large earthquakes.

25

PURPOSE & PHILOSOPHY (1.1)

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications replace AASHTO Division I-A SCDOT Draft Principles used for the development
Small to moderate earthquakes, FEE, resisted within the essentially elastic range. State-of-Practice ground motion intensities are used. Large earthquakes, SEE, should not cause collapse.

Four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) are defined to cover the variation in seismic hazard of very small to high within the State 26 of South Carolina.

New Concepts and Enhancements

New Design Level Earthquakes New Performance Objectives New Soil Factors Displacement Based Design Expanded Design Criteria for Bridges

27

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

Background (1.2)
New USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps New Design Level Earthquakes New Performance Objectives A706 Reinf. Steel New Soil Factors Displacement Based Design Caltrans (SDC) new provisions included

30

Upgraded Seismic Design Requirement

(1.3)
New Provisions meet current code objectives for large earthquakes.
Life Safety Serviceability

Design Levels
Single Level 2% / 50 years Normal Bridges Essential Bridges Two Level : 2% / 50 years and 10% / 50 years Critical Bridges
31

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

Seismic Performance Criteria

III

II

32

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

October 2001

33

VALUES OF Fa AS A FUNCTION OF SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORTPERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION SS (TABLE 3.3.3A)
Site Class SS 0.25

Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods

SS=0.50 SS=0.75 SS=1.00 SS1.25

A
B C D E F

0.8
1.0 1.2 1.6 2.5 a

0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 a

0.8
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 a

0.8
1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 a

0.8
1.0 1.0 1.0 a a

34

Primary Design or System Retrofit a, b, c, d, Objective e, g

Secondary System f, h, i

c e

b d

f i h
Collapse Prevention Limited Damage Essentially Elastic

a
Recent Technology

g
2% in 50 Yrs. 2/3 (2% in 50 Yrs.) 10% in 50 Yrs.

Increasing performance

Increasing earthquake hazard

Proposed Design or Retrofit Objective

I A I

SCDOT Pilot Workshop

Imbsen & Associates, Inc.

1-6
35

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

October 2001

36

DESIGN SPECTRA FOR SITE CLASS A, B, C, D AND E, 5% DAMPING (3.4.5E)

Ss=1.00g, SEE(2%/50years)
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 1 2
Periods T (sec)
37

SDI-SEE

Site Class SD_4A A SD_4B B C SD_4C D SD_4D E SD_4E

APPLICABILITY (3.1)
New Bridges Bridge Types
Slab Beam Girder Box Girder

Spans less than 500 feet Minimum Requirements Additional Provisions are needed to achieve higher performance for essential or critical bridges
38

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND STRATEGIES

Specifications can be used in conjunction with rehabilitation, widening, or retrofit SPC B demands are compared implicitly against capacities Criteria is focused on member/component deformability as well as global ductility Inherent member capacities are used to resist higher earthquake intensities Using this approach required performance levels can be achieved in the Eastern US
39

Design Approaches (4.7.1)

Design Approach
Minimal Plastic Action Moderate Plastic Action

Ductility Demand

Protection Reparability Systems

May be Used May be Used Not required to Maintain May require closure of limited usage May require closure or removal
40

D 2 D 4
Limited

Limited

Significant Plastic Action May be higher

Not warranted

Other New Concepts and Improvements

Plastic Hinge Region Lpr (4.7.7) Plastic Hinge Length (4.7.7) Seat Width SPC A and B, C, D (4.8.2) Detailing Restrainers (4.9.3) Butt Welded Hoops Superstructrure Shear Keys (4.10)
41

Thanks

Seismic Design of Bridges

Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.

42