Aashto Seismic Force-Based Design Exam

THE INFLUENCE OF THE RECOMMENDED LRFD GUIDELINES FOR THE
SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES ON VIRGINIA BRIDGES

by
Matius A. Widjaja

Thesis submitted to the faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Civil Engineering

APPROVED:

______________________________
Prof. Carin L. Roberts-Wollmann

_______________________ ________________________
Prof. Finley A. Charney Prof. Thomas E. Cousins

February 4, 2003
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
THE INFLUENCE OF THE RECOMMENDED LRFD GUIDELINES FOR THE
SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES ON VIRGINIA BRIDGES
by
Matius A. Widjaja

Committee Chairwoman: Prof. Carin Roberts-Wollmann
Civil Engineering

(ABSTRACT)

The influence of the recommended LRFD Guidelines for the seismic design of
highway bridges in Virginia was investigated by analyzing two existing bridges. The first
bridge has prestressed concrete girders and is located in the Richmond area. The second
bridge has steel girders and is located in the Bristol area.
The analysis procedure for both bridges is similar. First the material and section
properties were calculated. Then the bridge was modeled in RISA 3D. Live and dead load
were imposed on the bridge to calculate the cracked section properties of the bridge. The
period of vibration of the bridge was also calculated. After the soil class of the bridge was
determined, the design response spectrum curve of the bridge was drawn. The spectral
acceleration obtained from the design spectrum curve was used to calculate the
equivalent earthquake loads, which were applied to the superstructure of the bridge to
obtain the earthquake load effects. Live and dead loads were also applied to get the live
and dead load effects. The combined effects of the dead, live and earthquake loads were
compared to the interaction diagram of the columns and moment strength of the columns.
The details of the bridge design were also checked with the corresponding seismic design
requirement.
A parametric study was performed to explore the effects of different column
heights and superstructure heights in different parts of Virginia. The column longitudinal
reinforcing was increased to satisfy the bridge axial loads and moments that are not
within the column interaction diagram.

iii
Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank my thesis advisor and committee chairman Prof.
Carin Roberts-Wollmann, whose guidance helped me finish all the necessary work for
and achieve the goals of this study. I also would like to express my gratitude to my two
other committee members, Prof. Finley Charney and Prof. Thomas Cousins, whose
expertise provided helpful directions in completing this study. Also many thanks to Prof.
Joe Dove, a professor in the geotechnical engineering department, who helped me in
reading the soil boring reports for the two bridges analyzed in this study.
I also would like to thank the people who have given me copyright permissions to
use their work and publications in this research study, including Mark Maday, P.E. of
CH2MHill, William Brown, P.E. of Dewberry & Davis, Jennifer Graves of AASHTO,
Jane Stoyle of MCEER and Paulette Goldweber of John Wiley and Sons, Inc., John
Ferguson of Reed Construction Data / R.S. Means, John Dick of the Prestressed Concrete
Institute and Prof. Nigel Priestley of the University of California San Diego.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents and sisters whose support and
prayers kept me motivated in finishing this study.

iv
Table of Contents

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..iv
LIST OF FIGURES .viii
LIST OF TABLES ...xiv

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Problem Statement .1
1.2. Objectives and Scope .1
1.3. Thesis Organization ...2

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1. Comparison between the new Recommended LRFD Guidelines and the current
AASHTO Standard Specifications 3
2.2. Primary Changes for Virginia 8
2.2.1. Spectral Acceleration ......8
2.2.2. Typical Seismic Design Procedure for Virginia Bridges 10
2.3. Summary ..............12

3. PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER BRIDGE
3.1. Introduction ..13
3.2. Material Properties ...13
3.3. Section Properties 14
3.4. Soil Site Class. .19
3.5. RISA 3D Model of the Bridge .20
3.6. Dead Load Effects 24
3.7. Live Load Effects .25
3.8. Combined Dead and Live Load Effects on the Columns ....26
v
3.9. Determination of the Required Seismic Design and Analysis Procedure
(SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) 28
3.10. Cracked Section Properties of the Columns .31
3.11. Cracked Section Properties of the Pier Cap Beam 33
3.12. Section Properties of the Superstructure ...33
3.13. Period of Vibration ...34
3.13.1. Uniform Load Method ..34
3.13.2. Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method ...36
3.14. Design Response Spectrum Curve 37
3.15. Equivalent Earthquake Forces ..38
3.16. Combined Effects of the Dead, Live and Earthquake Loads 40
3.17. Interaction Diagram of the Columns .42
3.18. Moment Strength of the Pier Cap Beam ...42
3.19. Explanation of the Results 44
3.20. Detailing Changes due to the New LRFD Guidelines ..44

4. STEEL GIRDER BRIDGE
4.1. Introduction ..47
4.2. Material Properties ...48
4.3. Section Properties 48
4.4. Soil Site Class ..49
4.5. RISA 3D Model of the Bridges ...53
4.6. Dead Load Effects 59
4.7. Live Load Effects .60
4.8. Combined Dead and Live Load Effects on the Columns 61
4.9. Determination of the Required Seismic Design and Analysis Procedure (SDAP)
and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) 62

vi
4.10. Cracked Section Properties of the Columns .63
4.11. Cracked Section Properties of the Pier Cap Beam ...64
4.12. Section Properties of the Superstructure ...64
4.13. Period of Vibration ...................................................................................65
4.14. Design Response Spectrum Curve 68
4.15. Equivalent Earthquake Forces ..69
4.16. Combined Effects of the Dead, Live and Earthquake Loads 71
4.17. Interaction Diagram of the Columns .73
4.18. Moment Strength of the Pier Cap Beam ...73
4.19. Explanation of the Results 77
4.20. Detailing Changes due to the New LRFD Guidelines ..77

5. PARAMETRIC STUDY
5.1. Objective ..81
5.2. Bridge Structure ...81
5.3. Bridge Stiffness 83
5.4. Periods of Vibration .86
5.5. Equivalent Earthquake Loads ..88
5.6. Column Interaction Diagram ...91

6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1. Design Effort 95
6.2. Longitudinal Column Reinforcement ..95
6.3. Detailing Requirements ...96
6.4. Increased Construction Cost ....96
6.5. Recommendations for Further Research ..96

vii
REFERENCES 98
APPENDIX I .100
APPENDIX II 101
APPENDIX III ..108
APPENDIX IV ..110
APPENDIX V 111
APPENDIX VI ..118
APPENDIX VII .119
APPENDIX VIII ...120
APPENDIX IX ..121
APPENDIX X 127
APPENDIX XI ..130
APPENDIX XII .140
APPENDIX XIII ...142
APPENDIX XIV 156
APPENDIX XV .159
APPENDIX XVI 160
APPENDIX XVII ..171
APPENDIX XVIII 172
APPENDIX XIX 175
APPENDIX XX .176
APPENDIX XXI 190
APPENDIX XXII ..196
APPENDIX XXIII 220
APPENDIX XXIV .267
APPENDIX XXV ..268
VITA ..269

viii
List of Figures

Figure Page

2.1. Peak ground acceleration map used by the AASHTO Specifications 3
2.2. 0.2-second spectral acceleration map with 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years .......4
2.3. 1.0-second spectral acceleration map with 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years ...5
2.4. Response spectrum curve in the current AASHTO Specifications 5
2.5. Response spectrum curve in the new LRFD Guidelines 6
2.6. Comparison between the response spectrum curves using the old AASHTO
Specifications and the new LRFD Guidelines for the Richmond area ...9
2.7. Comparison between the response spectrum curves using the old AASHTO
Specifications and the new LRFD Guidelines for the Bristol area ...10

3.1. Actual cross section of the prestressed concrete girder bridge superstructure..15
3.2. Simplified cross section of the prestressed concrete girder bridge
superstructure 16
3.3. Pier elevation of the prestressed concrete girder bridge ...17
3.4. Actual pier cap beam cross section of the prestressed concrete girder bridge . 18
3.5. Column cross section of the prestressed concrete girder bridge ...18
3.6. RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete girder bridge ...21
3.7. Embedment of the prestressed concrete girders on the backwall .21
3.8. Section of the continuity diaphragm used between the prestressed concrete
girders ...22
3.9. Plan view of the continuity diaphragm used to connect the prestressed
concrete girders 23
3.10. Loading on the pier performed to determine more accurate dead load effects on
the pier cap beam and columns.24
ix
3.11. Three moving live load cases and the lane load ...25
3.12. Relationship between axial load P on the column and its effective moment of
inertia I
e
.32
3.13. Uniform lateral loading on the prestressed concrete girder bridge ...................35
3.14. Design response spectrum curve in the new LRFD Specifications ..37
3.15. Design response spectrum curve for the prestressed concrete girder bridge 39
3.16. Equivalent earthquake loading using the single mode spectral analysis method
on the prestressed concrete girder bridge ..41
3.17. Interaction diagram for the columns of the prestressed concrete girder bridge 43
3.18. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete girder
bridge 44

4.1. Actual cross section of the West Bound steel girder bridge superstructure .50
4.2. Actual cross section of the East Bound steel girder bridge superstructure ...51
4.3. Simplified cross section of the West Bound steel girder bridge superstructure ...52
4.4. Simplified cross section of the East Bound steel girder bridge superstructure .52
4.5. Pier elevation of the West Bound steel girder bridge ...54
4.6. Pier elevation of the East Bound steel girder bridge .55
4.7. RISA 3D model of the West Bound and East Bound steel girder bridges ...56
4.8. Fixed supports at the ends of the superstructure of the steel girder bridges .57
4.9. Elevations of the West Bound and East Bound steel girders 58
4.10. Loading on the pier performed to get more accurate dead load effects on the
pier cap beam and columns of the steel girder bridges .59
4.11. Three moving live load cases and the lane load ...60
4.12. Uniform lateral loading on the steel girder bridges ..66
4.13. Design response spectrum curve for the steel girder bridges ...69
on the West Bound steel girder bridge ..71
on the East Bound steel girder bridge ...72
4.16. Interaction diagram of the West Bound steel girder bridge columns .. 74
x
4.17. Interaction diagram of the East Bound steel girder bridge columns .... 74
4.18. Actual cross section of the West Bound steel girder bridge pier cap beam ..75
4.19. Actual cross section of the East Bound steel girder bridge pier cap beam ...75
4.20. Simplified cross section of the West Bound steel girder bridge pier cap beam ...76
4.21. Simplified cross section of the East Bound steel girder bridge pier cap beam .....76

5.1. RISA 3D model of the bridge used in the parametric study .81
5.2. Substructure of the bridge used in the parametric study ...83
5.3. Loading on the substructure to get the stiffness in the transverse direction for
the parametric study ..84
5.4. Loading to the substructure, modeled as a cantilever column, to get the
stiffness in the longitudinal direction for the parametric study 85
5.5. Loading to obtain the period of vibration of the bridge in the transverse
direction for the parametric study .86
5.6. Design response spectrum curve for Vienna, VA .89
5.7. Design response spectrum curve for Richmond, VA 90
5.8. Design response spectrum curve for Bristol, VA .90
5.9. Comparison between the column interaction diagram and the axial loads and
moments of the columns for Vienna, VA .....93
moments of the columns for Richmond, VA ....93
moments of the columns for Bristol, VA ..94

II-1. Actual cross section of the prestressed concrete bridge superstructure ..101
II-2. Simplified cross section of the prestressed concrete bridge superstructure 102
II-3. Cross section of the prestressed concrete girders ...103
II-4. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete girder
bridge ..105
II-5. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete
girder bridge 106
xi
II-6. Cross section of the columns of the prestressed concrete girder bridge .107
III-1. RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete girder bridge .108
V-1. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete girder
bridge ..111
V-2. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete
girder bridge 112
IX-1. Cross section of the columns of the prestressed concrete girder bridge .121
IX-2. Column interaction diagram for the prestressed concrete girder bridge .126
X-1. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete girder
bridge ..127
X-2. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the prestressed concrete
girder bridge 127
XIII-1. Actual cross section of the parapet of the steel girder bridge .142
XIII-2. Simplified cross section of the parapet of the steel girder bridge ...142
XIII-3. Simplified cross section of the West Bound plate girders ..144
XIII-4. Actual cross section of the West Bound superstructure of the steel girder
bridge ..145
XIII-5. Simplified cross section of the West Bound superstructure of the steel girder
bridge ..146
XIII-6. Simplified cross section of the East Bound plate girder .148
XIII-7. Actual cross section of the East Bound superstructure of the steel girder
bridge ..150
XIII-8. Simplified cross section of the East Bound superstructure of the steel girder
bridge ..151
XIII-9. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the West Bound steel girder
bridge ..153
XIII-10. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the West Bound steel girder
bridge ....153
XIII-11. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the East Bound steel girder
bridge ...154

xii
XIII-12. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the East Bound steel girder
bridge ....154
XIII-13. Cross section of the columns of the West Bound steel girder bridge ...155
XIII-14. Cross section of the columns of the East Bound steel girder bridge 155
XIV-1. RISA 3D model of the steel girder bridge ..156
XVI-1. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the West Bound steel girder
bridge ..160
XVI-2. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the West Bound steel girder
bridge ..160
XVI-3. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the East Bound steel girder
bridge ..165
XVI-4. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the East Bound steel girder
bridge . 166
XX-1. Cross section of the West Bound steel girder bridge columns ...176
XX-2. Column interaction diagram for the West Bound steel girder bridge columns ..182
XX-3. Cross section of the East Bound steel girder bridge columns 182
XX-4. Column interaction diagram for the West Bound steel girder bridge columns ..189
XXI-1. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the West Bound steel girder
bridge . 190
XXI-2. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the West Bound steel girder
bridge ..190
XXI-3. Actual cross section of the pier cap beam of the East Bound steel girder
bridge ..193
XXI-4. Simplified cross section of the pier cap beam of the East Bound steel girder
bridge ..193
XXII-1. Lap splices used at the bottom of the columns of the West Bound bridge ...202
XXII-2. Lap splices used at the bottom of the columns of the East Bound bridge ....209
XXIII-1. Design response spectrum curve for Vienna, VA 246
XXIII-2. Design response spectrum curve for Richmond, VA ..247
XXIII-3. Design response spectrum curve for Bristol, VA 248

xiii
XXIII-4. Comparison between the column interaction diagram and the axial loads
and moments of the column for Vienna, VA ...255
and moments of the column for Richmond, VA ..255
and moments of the column for Bristol, VA ....256
XXIII-7. Interaction diagram for the columns with 1.5% reinforcement ratio for the
parametric study ...261
XXIII-8. Interaction diagram for the columns with 2.0% reinforcement ratio for the
parametric study ...266

xiv
List of Tables

Table Page

2.1. New design earthquakes and performance objectives in the new LRFD
guidelines 6
3.1. Definition of foundation modeling method ..22
3.2. Multiple presence factors ..26
3.3. Dynamic load allowance ...26
3.4. Load combinations and load factors .27
3.5. Values of F
a
as a function of site class and mapped short-period spectral
acceleration ...29
3.6. Values of F
v
as a function of site class and mapped one second period
spectral acceleration ..29
3.7. Seismic Hazard Levels ..30
3.8. Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) and Seismic Design
Requirements (SDR) .30
3.9. Base response modification factors (R) for substructures 41
3.10. Results of the detailing requirement checks for the bridge using Seismic Design
Requirement 3 ...45

4.1. Results of the detailing requirement checks for the West Bound steel girder
bridge using Seismic Design Requirement 5 77
4.2. Results of the detailing requirement checks for the East Bound steel girder
bridge using Seismic Design Requirement 5 79

5.1. Periods of vibration in the transverse direction for the parametric study .88
5.2. Periods of vibration in the longitudinal direction for the parametric study ..88

xv
III-1. Coordinates of the joints of the RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete
girder bridge ....108
III-2. Member numbers of the RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete girder
bridge ..109
IV-1. Results of the calculation to determine the column cracked section properties
of the prestressed concrete girder bridge 110
V-1. Calculation for the maximum positive and negative moments in the pier cap
beam of the prestressed concrete girder bridge ...117
VIII-1. Complete results of the dead load, live load and earthquake load effects for the
prestressed concrete girder bridge ..120
XI-1. Estimate for the construction cost of the prestressed concrete girder bridge .136
XIV-1. Joint coordinates of the West Bound and East Bound steel girder bridges 157
XIV-2. Member numbers of the steel girder bridge ....158
XV-1. Results of the calculation to get the column cracked section properties of the
steel girder bridges ..159
XVI-1. Calculation for the maximum positive and negative moments in the pier cap
beams of the steel girder bridges 164
XVIII-1. Calculation to get the period of vibration and equivalent lateral loads for the
West Bound of the steel girder bridge using the single mode spectral
analysis method 173
XVIII-2. Calculation to get the period of vibration and equivalent lateral loads for the
East Bound of the steel girder bridge using the single mode spectral
analysis method 174
XIX-1. Complete results of the dead load, live load and earthquake load effects for the
West Bound of the steel girder bridge 175
XIX-2. Complete results of the dead load, live load and earthquake load effects for the
East Bound of the steel girder bridge .175
XXII-1. Estimate for the construction cost of the two steel girder bridges 213
XXIII-1. Period of vibration in the transverse direction for the parametric study
bridge ...245

xvi
XXIII-2. Period of vibration in the longitudinal direction for the parametric study
bridge ...245
XXIII-3. Spectral accelerations in the longitudinal direction for a bridge
in Vienna, VA ..252
XXIII-4. Equivalent longitudinal earthquake loads in kips for a bridge
in Vienna, VA ..252
in Richmond, VA .....253
in Richmond, VA .....253
in Bristol, VA ...254
in Bristol, VA ...254

1
Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1. Problem Statement

The Virginia Department of Transportation is currently using the AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (Standard, 1996) with some modifications
for its seismic highway bridge design. In April 2001, the Recommended LRFD
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges (MCEER/ATC, 2002) were
published. Different parts of Virginia will be affected differently by these new LRFD
Guidelines. In some areas the seismic requirements become more stringent, while in other
areas the seismic requirements become less stringent. For the areas with more stringent
seismic requirements, the resulting column size and reinforcement and pier cap beam size
and reinforcement may be increased compared to designs using current practice. To be
prepared for the transition from the Standard Specifications to the new LRFD Guidelines,
VDOT must have an understanding of the impact of the new LRFD Guidelines on the
cost for design and construction of Virginia bridges.

1.2. Objectives and Scope

The objectives of this study are:
To determine the effects the new recommended LRFD Guidelines on Virginia
bridges.
To assess the required level of design effort and to compare the resulting designs.
To perform parametric studies on simple bridge configurations to evaluate the
economic impact of the new design procedures on bridges in Virginia.

To assess the effects of the new LRFD Guidelines, two previously designed
bridges were evaluated for compliance with the new LRFD Guidelines. One bridge had
2
prestressed concrete girders and was located in the Richmond area. The second had steel
girders and was located in the Bristol District. The units used in all calculations followed
the units used on the drawings, therefore Metric units were used for all the calculations
for the prestressed concrete girder bridge and US Customary units were used for all the
calculations for the steel girder bridge.

1.3. Thesis Organization

The background information is given in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 discusses the
prestressed concrete girder bridge example, while the steel girder bridge example is
presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses the parametric study of different bridges in
different parts of Virginia. Finally, the conclusions are provided in Chapter 6.

3
Chapter 2
Background Information

2.1. Comparison between the new Recommended LRFD Guidelines and the
current AASHTO Standard Specifications

This section describes some of the major changes between the current AASHTO
Standard Specifications, Seismic Design Methods and the new LRFD Guidelines. The
major differences between the new Recommended LRFD Guidelines and the current
AASHTO Standard Specification are as follows:

New USGS (United States Geological Survey) Maps
The AASHTO Standard Specifications currently use a probabilistic map of peak
ground acceleration (PGA) on rock, which is shown in Figure 2.1. The map

Figure 2.1. The Peak Ground Acceleration map currently used by the AASHTO Specifications.
Accelerations are presented as % of g (acceleration due to gravity). The maximum peak ground
acceleration for Virginia is 13%, located at the + sign on the map [MCEER/ATC, 2002].
4
was made by the USGS and published in 1990 [USGS, 2002]. The map shows
the contours of PGA with a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years. On the
other hand, the new LRFD Guidelines illustrate an updating of the ground motion
maps, and give elastic response spectral accelerations for different periods of
vibration. The two maps used by the new LRFD Guidelines are the 0.2-second
and 1.0-second spectral acceleration maps, which both have 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. The maps are shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3.

Figure 2.2. The 0.2-second spectral acceleration map with 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years [Frankel and others, US Geological Survey, 1997]

New Spectral Shapes
The response spectrum curve in the current AASHTO Specifications has a
maximum spectral acceleration for short periods, which are less than
approximately 0.33 second, and decays at a rate of 1/T
2/3
for longer periods, with
T as the period of vibration in seconds. The AASHTO Specifications response
spectrum curve is shown in Figure 2.4. The response spectrum curve in the new
LRFD Guidelines decays at a rate of 1/T and has smaller spectral accelerations for
very short periods, as shown in Figure 2.5.
5

Figure 2.3. The 1.0-second spectral acceleration map with 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years [Frankel and others, US Geological Survey, 1997].

Period (T) (seconds)
C
s

(
%
g
)
Cs = (1.2AS) / T
2/3
Cs = 2.0A or 2.5A*

* Depends on the soil profile type and A (acceleration coefficient from Figure 2.1)
Figure 2.4. The response spectrum curve in the current AASHTO Specifications. From Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16
th
Edition, Copyright 1996, by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Used by permission.

6

Figure 2.5. The response spectrum curve in the new LRFD Guidelines [MCEER/ATC, 2002].

New Design Earthquakes and Performance Objectives
The current AASHTO Specifications have one maximum design earthquake and
two importance classifications for bridges (essential bridges and other bridges).
The importance classification is used together with the acceleration coefficient to
determine the Seismic Performance Category (SPC) for a given bridge. This is
executed differently in the new LRFD Guidelines, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. New Design Earthquakes and Performance Objectives in the new LRFD Guidelines
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Performance Level
Probability of Exceedance
For Design Earthquake Ground Motions Life Safety Operational
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Service Significant Disruption Immediate
3% PE in 75 years Damage Significant Minimal
Expected Earthquake Service Immediate Immediate
50% PE in 75 years Damage Minimal Minimal to None

7
The new LRFD Guidelines have two design earthquakes: the expected earthquake
with a probability of exceedance of 50% in 75 years, and the maximum
considered earthquake with a probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years. In
combination with each of these earthquake events, the designer also has to select a
performance objective, which determines the acceptable level of service and level
of damage for a bridge that has been subjected to a design earthquake. The two
levels are Life Safety and Operational. For the expected earthquake, all
bridges classified in both performance levels are expected to return to immediate
service and suffer only minimal damage. For the maximum considered
earthquake, the Life Safety level bridges are expected to undergo significant
service disruptions, such as partial or complete closure of the bridge, and
significant structural damage. The Operational level bridges are expected to
return to immediate service and suffer only minimal damage.

New Soil Factors
The current AASHTO Specifications have four soil classifications, and each
classification corresponds to a soil factor, which is then used to determine the
seismic response coefficients. The new LRFD Guidelines have six soil
classifications, which are used with the spectral acceleration, design earthquake
and performance objective to determine the allowable seismic design and analysis
procedure (SDAP) and the seismic design requirements (SDR).

New Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures
The current AASHTO Specifications have five different seismic design and
analysis procedures, which depend on the seismic performance category. These
seismic analysis procedures vary from no analysis required to a simple single
degree of freedom system analysis to a more complex multi-degree of freedom
analysis to a time history analysis. The new LRFD Guidelines have six seismic
design and analysis procedures and six seismic design requirements. One of the
two new methods is the Capacity Spectrum Design Procedure, which is a
relatively simple procedure that falls between the no-analysis method and the
8
uniform load method effort wise. It is recommended for very regular structures
in low seismic risk regions. The other new method is an elastic response spectrum
analysis plus a displacement capacity verification. After the displacement capacity
verification is executed, the member forces produced in the elastic response
analysis can be reduced by a larger R factor, which then can produce more cost-
effective designs.

2.2. Primary Changes for Virginia

2.2.1. Spectral Acceleration

Figures 2.6 and 2.7 illustrate a comparison between the design response spectrum
curves of to the old AASHTO Specifications and the new LRFD Guidelines for the
Richmond and Bristol areas, respectively. It is important to note that the design response
spectrum curves of the old AASHTO Specifications were constructed by using the peak
ground acceleration map, which had a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years,
while the design response spectrum curves of the new LRFD Guidelines were drawn by
using the 0.2-second and 1-second period spectral acceleration maps, which had a
probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years. These two different probabilities of
exceedance are not equivalent, because they have significantly different return periods.
Return period is the average frequency of an exceedance of the peak ground accelerations
or spectral accelerations given on the corresponding maps. The formula to compute the
return period is given by equation 2-1:

( ) P
T
RP
=
1 ln
(2-1)

RP = return period (years)
T = the number of years of the probability of exceedance
P = the probability of exceedance (number, not percentage)

9
For a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years, the return period is
( )
years RP 475
10 . 0 1 ln
50
=
=

For a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years, the return period is
( )
years RP 2475
02 . 0 1 ln
50
=
=
[Charney, 2001]

The difference in the probabilities of exceedance between the maps means that
Figures 2.6 and 2.7 could only be used to compare the shapes of the design response
spectrum curves of the old AASHTO Specifications and those of the new LRFD
Guidelines, but not to compare the values of the spectral accelerations using the old
AASHTO Specifications and those using the new LRFD Guidelines.

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
old AASHTO Specifi cati ons
new LRFD Guidelines

Figure 2.6. The comparison between the response spectrum curves using the old AASHTO Specifications
and the new LRFD Guidelines for the Richmond area, which has good soil (soil class B).

10
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
the new LRFD Guidelines
the old AASHTO Specification

Figure 2.7. The comparison between the response spectrum curves using the old AASHTO Specifications
and the new LRFD Guidelines for the Bristol area, which has good soil (soil class B).

2.2.2. Typical Seismic Design Procedure for Virginia Bridges

From the soil profile type and the location of the bridge, the Seismic Hazard
Level can be determined by using Table 3.8 of this report on page 36. Then with an
expected level of performance (life safety or operational), the Seismic Design and
Analysis Procedure (SDAP) can be determined. The six different SDAPs are:
1. SDAP A1 and A2, for which no dynamic analysis is required.
2. SDAP B, which doesnt require a seismic demand analysis but requires capacity
design principles and minimum design details
3. SDAP C, which combines a demand and capacity analysis, including the effect of
inelastic behavior of ductile earthquake resisting elements. This SDAP can only
be applied to bridges that behave essentially as a single degree-of-freedom
system.
4. SDAP D, which is a one step design procedure using an elastic (cracked section
properties) analysis.
11
5. SDAP E, which requires an elastic (cracked section properties) response spectrum
analysis for the governing design spectra (50% Probability of Exceedance in 75-
year or 3% Probability of Exceedance in 75-year/1.5 mean deterministic) and P-
design check.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

For Virginia, the area with the highest seismic spectral accelerations is the
southwestern part of the state, where Bristol is located. In a worst-case scenario, bridges
located in the Bristol area that sit on poor soil are typically classified as Seismic Hazard
Level III. Therefore the bridges with an operational level of performance in the Bristol
area can use SDAP C, D or E. The two bridges analyzed in this study use SDAP D. The
steps taken in this method are summarized as follows:
1. Calculate the material and section properties of the bridge and model it in RISA
3D (or similar three-dimensional frame solver).
2. Apply the dead and live loads to get the axial forces in the columns.
3. Calculate the cracked section properties of the columns.
4. Calculate the cracked section properties of the pier cap beam.
5. Calculate the period of vibration of the bridge using the uniform load method or
the single mode spectral analysis method.
6. Calculate the equivalent earthquake forces for the bridge using the uniform load
method or the single mode spectral analysis method.
7. Apply the equivalent earthquake forces obtained from either method and calculate
the effects of earthquake forces using the appropriate R factors.
8. Combine the effects of the earthquake, dead and live loads.
9. Draw the interaction diagram for the columns and pier cap beam, and see if they
have enough flexural and shear strength to carry the combined effects of the
earthquake, dead and live loads.
10. Compare the bridge details with the detailing requirements of the new
Recommended LRFD guidelines.

12
As stated later in one of the conclusions in Chapter 6, this type of rigorous design
procedures will require approximately two weeks of normal workdays, compared to
merely a few hours to perform the calculations of the design criteria required by the old
AASHTO Specifications.

2.3. Summary

It is apparent that the new seismic guidelines represent many changes for
Virginia. The level of design effort will be increased in areas of relatively high seismic
risk.
It is also possible that some aspects of typical bridge designs will require
modifications to meet the new seismic design requirements. Chapters 3 and 4 present the
analysis of two typical bridges to evaluate the types of detailing changes which can be
expected.

13
Chapter 3
The Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge

3.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis of a prestressed concrete girder bridge, which is
located in Midlothian, a southern suburb of Richmond, Virginia. This bridge was
analyzed to investigate if it could endure the maximum considered earthquake, which had
a 3% probability of exceedance in 75 years. This bridge was also analyzed to examine if
it would satisfy the operational performance level. The maximum considered earthquake
and the operational performance level were chosen to ensure that the bridge was held to
the highest standard, which means it would perform well during the worst possible
earthquake and be operational immediately after the earthquake.
The structure was modeled in RISA 3D to determine the fundamental period of
vibration. Then based on the spectral accelerations for the Richmond area, the equivalent
seismic loads were determined. These loads were applied to the RISA model to determine
earthquake elastic force effects in the structure. After applying the appropriate R factors,
the seismic force effects were combined with the dead and live load force effects. Finally
the structure was evaluated for compliance with the appropriate Seismic Design
Requirement. Metric units were used for all the calculations for this bridge because
metric units were used in the construction drawings.

3.2. Material Properties

The properties of the materials used in the bridge model are presented in
Appendix I. It is important to note that two kinds of concrete are used in the bridge
model. The prestressed concrete girders have a specified f
c
= 55 MPa, while the pier cap
beam and columns have f
c
= 25 MPa as specified in the construction drawings [Maday,
2002]. The superstructure slab has a specified f
c
= 30 MPa, but it is transformed into the
14
concrete used for the prestressed concrete girder in the section properties calculation.
This was required because the superstructure, which consists of the slab and the
prestressed concrete girders, is modeled as one member.
The RISA 3D bridge model also used a link to connect the superstructure and the
pier cap beam. This link was created to account for the fact that the superstructure rests
on the pier cap beam, and therefore the centroid of the superstructure was above that of
the pier cap beam. The link was made rigid so that it would not be flexible enough to
influence the deflections of the other members that it connected. Therefore steel material
properties were used for the link to reflect its rigidity, except that the density of the link
was set to zero, so that it would not impose any unrealistic load on the pier cap beam and
columns.

3.3. Section Properties

The section properties of the superstructure, pier cap beam and columns are
provided in Appendix II.
The superstructure cross section is shown in Figure 3.1. However, to simplify the
section properties calculation, the superstructure cross section is assumed to look like that
shown in Figure 3.2. In calculating the section properties for the superstructure, the slab
properties are transformed into the prestressed concrete girder properties because of the
difference in the f
c
values of the slab and the prestressed concrete girders. The important
section properties of the superstructure are as follows:

A = 8.66 x 10
6
mm
2

I
xx
= 4.47 x 10
12
mm
4

I
yy
= 4.69 x 10
14
mm
4

The pier cap beam doesnt have a constant cross section, because its top surface
has a slight slope. The pier is shown in Figure 3.3. However, for the purpose of
calculating the section properties, the average pier cap beam height was used. The pier
cap beam and column cross sections are shown in Figures 3.4 and 3.5.
15

Figure 3.1. The cross section of the prestressed concrete bridge superstructure [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm.

16
25100
Y
X 200
2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 895
1829
895

Figure 3.2. The simplified cross section of the prestressed concrete bridge superstructure. This figure was not drawn to scale. All dimensions are in mm.

17

Figure 3.3. The Pier Elevation [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm, and the 1:50 scale is no longer correct.
18

Figure 3.4. The pier cap beam cross section [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm, and the 1:20 scale is
no longer correct.

Figure 3.5. The column cross section [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm, and the 1:20 scale is no
longer correct.
19
3.4. Soil Site Class

After the section properties were calculated, the next step was to determine the
site class of the soil underneath the bridge, which would be used subsequently to
determine the appropriate type of support at the bottom of the column. The classification
of the soil under the bridge had to be determined using the site class definitions in the
new LRFD Specifications, which depend on the shear wave velocity (
s
v ), blow count
( N ), or undrained shear strength (
u
s ) in the upper 30 m (100 ft) of site profile. The site
class definitions in the new LRFD Specifications are as follows:

A Hard Rock with measured shear wave velocity,
s
v > 1500 m/s (5000 ft/sec)
B Rock with 760 m/s <
s
v 1500 m/s (2500 ft/sec <
s
v 5000 ft/sec)

C Very dense soil and soft rock with 360 m/s <
s
v 760 m/s
(1200 ft/sec <
s
v 2500 ft/sec) or with either N > 50 blows/0.30 m (blows/ft) or

u
s > 100 kPa (2000 psf)

D Stiff soil with 180 m/s
s
v 360 m/s (600 ft/sec
s
v 1200 ft/sec) or with
either 15 N 50 blows/0.30 m (blows/ft) or 50 kPa
u
s 100 kPa
(1000 psf
u
s 2000 psf)

E A soil profile with
s
v < 180 m/s (600 ft/sec) or with either N < 15 blows/0.30 m
(blows/ft) or
u
s < 50 kPa (1000 psf), or any profile with more than 3 m (10 ft) of
soft clay defined as soil with PI > 20, w 40%, and
u
s < 25 kPa (500 psf)

F Soils requiring site-specific evaluations:
1. Peats and/or highly organic clays (H > 3 m [10 ft] of peat and/or highly organic
20
clay where H = thickness of soil)
2. Very high plasticity clays (H > 8 m [25 ft] with PI > 75)
3. Very thick soft/medium stiff clays (H > 36 m [120 ft])
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

After analyzing the boring results, the soil underneath this bridge was classified as class
B [Dove, 2002].

3.5. RISA 3D Model of the Bridge

Once the soil site class underneath the bridge is classified, the bridge RISA 3D
model could be drawn. The bridge has two spans, 37.9 m. each. The pier consists of a
pier cap beam and five columns. The pier cap beam is 24.6 m. long, and the columns are
5.432 m. high [Maday, 2002]. The RISA 3D model of the bridge is shown in Figure 3.6.
As mentioned in section 3.2, a rigid link was used to connect the superstructure
and the pier cap beam. The end supports of the superstructure were modeled as pins,
because the embedment of the beams into the backwall was relatively short, as shown in
Figure 3.7. The bridge was modeled continuously at the midpoint of the superstructure,
where the two spans met, because the construction drawings showed that a continuity
diaphragm was used to connect the girders from both sides of it. This is illustrated in
Figures 3.8 and 3.9.
The site class of the soil underneath the bridge was determined earlier to be class
B, and spread footings were used for the foundation of this bridge. Therefore according to
Table 3.1 of this report, which was taken from Table 5.3.4-1 of the new LRFD
Guidelines, the support at the bottom of the columns had to be rigid (fixed).
The joint coordinates of the bridge model were calculated according to the
locations of the column center lines, pier cap beam centroidal axis and superstructure
centroidal axis. The joint coordinates of the bridge are provided in Appendix III.

21

Figure 3.6. The RISA 3D model of the bridge.

Figure 3.7. The embedment of the girder on the backwall, which is not deep enough to be considered a
fixed support [Maday, 2002].
22

Figure 3.8. A section of the continuity diaphragm used between the prestressed concrete girders [Maday,
2002].

Table 3.1. Definition of Foundation Modeling Method [MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Foundation
Type
FMM I FMM II
Spread
Footing
Rigid Rigid for Soil Types A and B. For other soil types,
foundation springs required if footing flexibility
contributes more than 20% to pier displacement
Pile Footing
with Pile Cap
Rigid Foundation springs required if footing flexibility
contributes more than 20% to pier displacement
Pile
Bent/Drilled
Shaft
Estimated
depth to
fixity
Estimated depth to fixity or soil-springs based on P-y
curves.
23

Figure 3.9. The plan of the continuity diaphragm used to connect the prestressed concrete girders [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm.

24
3.6. Dead Load Effects

The dead load effects on the pier cap beam and columns were obtained by first
applying the self-weight of the superstructure plus the 1.0 kN/m
2
allowance for
construction tolerances and construction methods as uniformly distributed loads on the
superstructure [Maday, 2002]. The 1.0 kN/m
2
allowance was turned into a uniformly
distributed load by multiplying it by the width of the superstructure, which is 25.1 m.
This analysis didnt produce accurate dead load effects on the pier cap beam and the
columns, because the rigid link only connected the midpoint of the superstructure to the
middle column, and therefore it produced erroneously high axial loads on the middle
column and erroneously low axial loads on the leftmost and rightmost columns. So to get
more accurate results, the axial load on the rigid link due to the self-weight of the
superstructure and the 1.0 kN/m
2
allowance was divided by ten, which was the number of
prestressed concrete girders. Then an analysis was performed on the pier structure, in
which the pier was subjected to ten point loads on the pier cap beam, each representing a
girder that sits on the pier cap beam, plus the self-weight of the pier cap beam and the
columns. This is shown in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10. The loading on the pier performed to determine more accurate dead load effects on the pier
cap beam and columns.
25
3.7. Live Load Effects

The live load effects were found by adding the maximum effects from the three
moving live load cases to the lane load effects. The three moving live load cases and the
lane load are shown below in Figure 3.11. The lane load is a 9.3-N/mm distributed load
[Barker and Puckett, 1997]. The case that always controlled was the third, which was the
two-truck case. Each of these moving live load cases was run along the superstructure,
and the largest axial load produced on the rigid link was used to run an analysis on the
pier similar to that for the dead loads. The same procedure was also used to determine the
lane load effects.
The maximum effects of the three moving load cases, which was always the two-
truck case for this bridge, were combined with the lane load effects by using the

Figure 3.11. The three moving live load cases and the lane load [Barker and Puckett, 1997]. Reprinted by
permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
26

multiple presence factors (m), the dynamic load allowance (IM), and the 0.9 factor, since
the controlling case was always the two-truck case [Barker and Puckett, 1997]. The
multiple presence factors and the dynamic load allowance are shown below in Table 3.2
and Table 3.3, respectively.

Table 3.2. The Multiple Presence Factors [Barker and Puckett, 1997]. ]. From AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, 1
st
Edition, Copyright 1994, by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Used by permission. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Number of Design Lanes Multiple Presence Factors (m)
1 1.20
2 1.00
3 0.85
More than 3 0.65

Table 3.3. The Dynamic Load Allowance [Barker and Puckett, 1997]. From AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, 1
st
Edition, Copyright 1994, by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Used by permission. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Component IM (%)
Deck Joints-all limit states 75
All other components
Fatigue fracture limit states 15
All other limit states 33

Since this bridge has three lanes, m = 0.85. And since deck joints and fatigue were not the
subject of interest in this analysis, IM = 0.33. Thus the formula to calculate the live load
effects of this bridge was
LL = 0.853(1.330.9TT + 0.9LN)
TT = two-truck load effects
LN = lane load effects
27
3.8. Combined Dead and Live Load Effects on the Columns

The dead and live load effects were combined with the load factors from Table
3.5-1 of the new LRFD Guidelines, which was presented as Table 3.4 in this report. Since
earthquake loading was a significant part of this study, Extreme Event-I from Table 3.4
of this report was chosen. Suggested values for
EQ
are 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0 [Barker and
Puckett, 1997].
EQ
= 0.5 was chosen, which means there is no traffic jam on the bridge
when the earthquake happens. Thus the combined effects of the dead load and live load
are

P = DL + (0.5LL)
P = combined dead load and live load effects
DL = dead load effects
LL = live load effects

The complete results of the dead load and live load effects are presented in Appendix IV.

Table 3.4. Load Combinations and Load Factors [MCEER/ATC, 2002].

28
(SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR)

In order to determine the required Seismic Design and Analysis Procedure
(SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) for this bridge, first the following
parameters have to be determined:

S
s
= 0.2-second period spectral acceleration, obtained from the USGS website zip
code lookup for spectral accelerations at the location of the bridge
S
1
= 1-second period spectral acceleration, obtained from the USGS website zip
code lookup for spectral accelerations at the location of the bridge
F
a
= site coefficients for the short-period range, which are given in Table 3.5
F
v
= site coefficients for the long-period range, which are given in Table 3.6

The 0.2-second and 1-second period spectral acceleration maps are based on a
probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years, but all the analyses in this study were
performed to investigate if the bridges could endure a maximum considered earthquake,
which has a probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years. Like in Chapter 2, the return
periods for both probabilities of exceedance had to be computed to prove that they are
approximately equivalent.

For the probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years, the return period is
( )
years RP 2475
02 . 0 1 ln
50
=
=

For the probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years, the return period is
( )
years RP 2462
03 . 0 1 ln
75
=
=
[Charney, 2001]

29
Since the return periods for the two different probabilities of exceedance are close, using
the spectral acceleration maps which were based on a probability of exceedance of 2% in
50 years to analyze this bridge for the maximum considered earthquake with a probability
of exceedance of 3% in 75 years was proved acceptable.

Table 3.5. Values of F
a
as a Function of Site Class and Mapped Short-Period Spectral Acceleration
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Site Class Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods
S
s
0.25 g S
s
= 0.50 g S
s
= 0.75 g S
s
= 1.00 g S
s
1.25 g
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1 1 1 1 1
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1 1
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F a a a a a

Note:
a Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses must be performed.

Table 3.6. Values of F
v
as a Function of Site Class and Mapped One Second Period Spectral Acceleration
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Site Class Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods
S
1
0.1 g S
1
= 0.2 g S
1
= 0.3 g S
1
= 0.4 g S
1
0.5 g
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1 1 1 1 1
C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3
D 2.4 2 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F a a a a a

Note:
a Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analyses must be performed.

This bridge is located in Midlothian, a southern suburb of Richmond. The zip
code for Midlothian is 23113, which was input into the USGS website zip code lookup
for spectral accelerations. For this bridge, the following values were obtained:

S
s
= 0.287 g
S
1
= 0.0833 g
[USGS, 2002]
Since the soil is class B, F
a
= 1.0 and F
v
= 1.0
30
S
DS
= F
a
S
s
= (1.0)(0.287 g) = 0.287 g
S
D1
= F
v
S
1
= (1.0)(0.0833 g) = 0.0833 g

The values of F
v
S
1
and F
a
S
s
were used to determine the Seismic Hazard Level
according to Table 3.7 of this report, which was taken from Table 3.7-1 of the new LRFD
Guidelines. When two different Seismic Hazard Levels are required by the values of F
v
S
1

and F
a
S
s
, the higher level controls. Therefore Seismic Hazard Level II was assigned to
this bridge.

Table 3.7. Seismic Hazard Levels [MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Seismic Hazard Level Value of F
v
S
1
Value of F
a
S
s

I F
v
S
1
0.15 F
a
S
s
0.15
II 0.15 < F
v
S
1
0.25 0.15 < F
a
S
s
0.35
III 0.25 < F
v
S
1
0.40 0.35 < F
a
S
s
0.60
IV 0.40 < F
v
S
1
0.60 < F
a
S
s

The Seismic Hazard Level was used to determine the required Seismic Design
and Analysis Procedure (SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) by using Table
3.8 of this report, which was taken from Table 3.7-2 of the new LRFD Guidelines.

Table 3.8. Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirements (SDR)
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Seismic Life Safety Operational
Hazard Level SDAP SDR SDAP SDR
I A1 1 A2 2
II A2 2 C/D/E 3
III B/C/D/E 3 C/D/E 5
IV C/D/E 4 C/D/E 6

Since Seismic Hazard Level II was assigned to this bridge and the operational
performance objective was chosen, SDAP C, D or E could be required for this bridge.
But according to section 4.4.2 of the new LRFD Guidelines, SDAP C couldnt be used
for this bridge because this bridge had fewer than three spans. Thus SDAP D was
31
required for this bridge. The required Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) for this bridge
was SDR 3 according to Table 3.8 of this report. In the next step, the cracked section
properties of the columns and pier cap beam had to be determined because SDAP D uses
an elastic (cracked section properties) analysis.

3.10. Cracked Section Properties of the Columns

The combined axial loads from the dead and live loads were used to obtain the
cracked section properties of the columns, i.e. the effective moment of inertia about the
x-axis (I
exx
) and the effective moment of inertia about the y-axis (I
eyy
). The relationship
between the total axial load P (computed in section 3.8) on the column and its effective
moment of inertia (I
e
) is described in Figure 3.12. Thus, with a known reinforcement ratio
A
st
/A
g
, the effective moment of inertia I
e
can be calculated by way of P/f
c
A
g
and I
e
/I
g

[Priestley and others, 1996]. For this bridge, I
e
/I
g
was approximately 0.466. The
spreadsheet for this calculation is also presented in Appendix IV.

32

Figure 3.12. The relationship between axial load P on the column and its effective moment of inertia I
e

[Priestley and others, 1996]. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

33
3.11. Cracked Section Properties of the Pier Cap Beam

The cracked section properties of the pier cap beam, i.e. I
exx
and I
eyy
, can be
obtained by using two methods, the moment-curvature method [Priestley and others,
1996] and ACI Equation [Building, 2001]. The moment-curvature relationship uses the
following equation:
y
y
e
M
EI
=
M
y
= the yield moment in the moment-curvature relationship for the cross section
y
= the yield curvature in the moment-curvature relationship for the cross section

The cracked section properties using this method produced I
e
= 0.17 I
g
. The complete
calculation for this method is presented in Appendix V.
The method using ACI Equation revealed that the pier cap beam was not expected
to be cracked at service load level, since M
cr
> M
a
(the maximum positive or negative
moment in the pier cap beam) and therefore I
e
= I
g
.
Despite the discrepancy between the result of the moment-curvature method and
the ACI Equation, the moment-curvature result was used.

3.12. Section Properties of the Superstructure

A RISA 3D analysis was run in order to investigate whether or not the
superstructure was actually cracked during a maximum considered earthquake. An 82-
N/mm uniformly distributed load, which was the equivalent earthquake force obtained
using the uniform load method that will be explained later in section 3.15.1, was applied
along the superstructure. The results showed that the superstructure was not cracked.
Therefore the superstructures gross section properties were used for this bridge. The
calculations for this analysis are provided in Appendix XXIV.

34
3.13. Period of Vibration

After obtaining the cracked section properties for the pier cap beam and the
columns, the RISA 3D model of the bridge was modified by changing the gross section
properties to the cracked section properties. The next step was to compute the period of
vibration of the bridge. There are two methods used to calculate the period of vibration,
the uniform load method and the single mode spectral analysis method [MCEER/ATC,
2002].

3.13.1. Uniform Load Method

The uniform load method is basically an equivalent static method of analysis
which uses a uniform lateral load to approximate the effect of seismic loads. The method
is suitable for common bridges that respond primarily in their fundamental mode of
vibration. The complete calculation of the period of vibration of this bridge using the
uniform load method is presented in Appendix VI.
The first step of this method was to apply a uniformly unit distributed load p
o
,
which can be set arbitrarily to any magnitude according to ones preference, over the
length of the bridge. For this bridge analysis, p
o
was set to 100 N/mm so that the resulting
deflections would have a reasonable magnitude. For this bridge, p
o
was applied only in
the transverse direction. Since the bridge has integral abutments, it was assumed that the
bridge superstructure and substructure would move together in an earthquake in the
longitudinal direction. Each span of the bridge was divided into sections, eleven in this
case, and the lateral displacement of each section was called v
s
(x). The bridge lateral
loading is shown in Figure 3.13.
The bridges lateral stiffness (K) and total weight (W) were calculated by using
equations 3-1 and 3-2, respectively.

MAX s
o
v
L p
K
,
= (3-1)
L = total length of the bridge
v
s,MAX
= maximum value of v
s
(x)

35
K = 3,070,000 N/mm

= dx x w W ) ( (3-2)
w(x) = weight per unit length of the dead load of the bridge superstructure and
tributary substructure
W = 21,700,000 N

Figure 3.13. The uniform lateral loading on the bridge.

The fundamental period of vibration was calculated using equation (3-3):

gK
W
T 2 = (3-3)
g = acceleration of gravity = 9810 mm/sec
2

T = 0.169 sec.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

36
3.13.2. Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method

The primary difference between this method and the uniform load method is that
the equivalent lateral earthquake forces for this method are not uniformly distributed
loads over the length of the bridge. Instead, they are of variable magnitude over the
length of the bridge, as explained later in section 3.15.2. The complete calculation of the
period of vibration using the single mode spectral analysis method is presented in
Appendix VII.
As in the uniform load method, first the bridge was subjected to a uniform load p
o

of 100 N/mm, and the resulting deflection of each of the eleven sections as given by
RISA 3D was called v
s
(x). Then the , , and factors were calculated as follows:

= dx x v
s
) ( (3-4)
= dx x v x w
s
) ( ) ( (3-5)
= dx x v x w
s
2
) ( ) ( (3-6)

w(x) = the weight per length of the dead load of the bridge superstructure and
tributary superstructure.

For this bridge,
= 120,000 mm
2

= 31,400,000 Nmm
= 62,800,000 Nmm
2

Then the period of the bridge can be calculated from the expression:

g p
T
o
2 = (3-6)
T = 0.145 sec. for this bridge.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].
37

As expected, the period of vibration obtained by using the uniform load method was
longer than that obtained using the single mode spectral analysis method, because the
uniform load method uses a uniformly distributed load, which is a larger force on the
superstructure in the transverse direction of the bridge, compared to the different
magnitudes of distributed load along the bridge for the single mode spectral analysis
method.

3.14. Design Response Spectrum Curve

After the period of vibration was determined, the next step was to draw the design
response spectrum curve, from which the spectral acceleration (S
a
) can be obtained. The
general shape of a design response spectrum curve is shown in Figure 3.14, which was
shown earlier in Chapter 2 as Figure 2.5.

Figure 3.14. The design response spectrum curve in the new LRFD Specifications [MCEER/ATC, 2002].
38
S
D1
= 0.0833 g (computed in section 3.9)
S
DS
. sec 290 . 0
287 . 0
0833 . 0
1
= = =
g
g
S
S
T
DS
D
S

T
o
= 0.2 T
s
= 0.2 (0.290 second) = 0.058 second
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

The design response spectrum curve for this bridge is given in Figure 3.15.

3.15. Equivalent Earthquake Forces

After obtaining the spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum curve,
the equivalent earthquake forces could be computed. As for the period of vibration, the
equivalent earthquake forces can be computed using the uniform load method and the
single mode spectral analysis method [MCEER/ATC, 2002]. Spectral acceleration S
a
=
0.287g was the corresponding value for the period of vibration using both methods.


The equivalent earthquake force p
e
was calculated using the expression:

L
W S
p
a
e
= (3-7)
S
a
= the spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum curve
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

For this bridge, p
e
= 82.0 N/mm. The complete calculation of the equivalent
earthquake force using this method is provided in Appendix VI.

39
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (second)
S
a

(
g
)
S
D1
= 0.0833 g
S
DS
= 0.287 g
0.4S
DS
= 0.115 g
T
0
= 0.058 T
s
= 0.29
T = 0.145 sec
S
a
(0.145 sec.) = 0.287g

Figure 3.15. The design response spectrum curve for this bridge.


As explained briefly in section 3.13.2, the equivalent earthquake force computed
using this method is not a uniformly distributed load as in the uniform load method. The
equivalent earthquake force p
e
is calculated using the expression:

) ( ) ( ) ( x v x w
S
x p
s
a
e
= (3-8)

p
e
(x) = the equivalent earthquake force for that section
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

Since each span of the bridge was divided into eleven sections and each section of the
span had a different deflection v
s
(x), each section also had a different equivalent
40
earthquake force. Thus the equivalent earthquake loading for the bridge using this
method will look like that shown in Figure 3.16. The distributed load in the middle is
much larger than the other distributed loads, because the distributed load in the middle
carries the tributary load of the substructure. The complete calculation to determine the
equivalent earthquake force using this method is presented in Appendix VII.

3.16. Combined Effects of the Dead, Live and Earthquake Loads

The final analysis of the bridge was performed using the cracked section
properties for dead, live and earthquake loads. The procedure to calculate the dead and
live load effects for this final analysis was the same as when performing the analysis to
determine the dead and live load effects to obtain cracked section properties, which was
explained earlier in sections 3.6 and 3.7. For the earthquake loads, the axial loads,
moments and shears for the pier cap beam and columns were taken directly from the
analysis on the entire bridge, unlike the dead and live loads, for which a separate
additional analysis was performed on the pier structure. The load factors used to combine
the dead, live and earthquake load effects are given in Table 3.4 (Extreme Event-I). But
for the earthquake loads, the responses (axial loads, moments and shears) were divided
by the R factor given in Table 3.9.
Since SDAP D (Elastic Response Spectrum Method) and the Operational
performance level were used in this research study, according to Table 3.9 the earthquake
load responses on the columns had to be divided by R=1.5. Thus the combined effects of
the dead, live and earthquake loads are given by this expression:

+ + =
5 . 1
0 . 1 5 . 0 0 . 1
EQ
LL DL P (3-9)

The complete results of the dead, live and earthquake load effects are given in Appendix
VIII.

41

Figure 3.16. The equivalent earthquake loading using the single mode spectral analysis method.

Table 3.9. Base Response Modification Factors, R, for Substructure [MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Performance Objective
Life Safety Operational
SDAP SDAP SDAP SDAP
Substructure Element D E D E
Wall Piers - larger dimension 2 3 1 1.5
Columns - Single and Multiple 4 6 1.5 2.5
Pile Bents and Drilled Shafts - 4 6 1.5 2.5
Vertical Piles - above ground
Pile Bents and Drilled Shafts - Vertical Piles-2 diameters 1 1.5 1 1
below ground level - No owners approval required.
Pile Bents and Drilled Shafts - Vertical Piles - in ground - N/A 2.5 N/A 1.5
Owners approval required.
Pile Bents with Batter Piles N/A 2 N/A 1.5
Seismically Isolated Structures 1.5 1.5 1 1.5
Steel Braced Frame - Ductile Components 3 4.5 1 1.5
Steel Braced Frame - Nominally Ductile Components 1.5 2 1 1
All Elements for Expected Earthquake 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.9

42
3.17. Interaction Diagram of the Columns

The interaction diagram of the columns was constructed to determine if the
maximum axial load and moment exceeded the capacity of the column. The complete
calculation to determine the important points of the interaction diagram is provided in
Appendix IX. For all the columns of this bridge, the maximum axial load and moment
were extremely low compared to the capacity of the column, as shown in Figure 3.17.
The maximum shear forces in the columns were also far below the shear strength of the
columns, as shown in Appendix XI.

3.18. Moment Strength of the Pier Cap Beam

The moment strength of the pier cap beam was calculated to see if or not it was
exceeded by the maximum factored moment in the pier cap beam. In order to simplify the
calculation of the moment strength, the side reinforcing bars of the pier cap beam were
ignored. The actual cross section of the pier cap beam, which was shown earlier in Figure
3.4, was simplified to that shown in Figure 3.18. The complete calculation of the moment
strength of the pier cap beam is presented in Appendix X. For the pier cap beam of this
bridge,
M
n
= 3.78 x 10
9
Nmm
M
u
= 1.66 x 10
9
Nmm
M
n
> M
u
Thus the moment capacity of the pier cap beam was not exceeded.

43
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Phi Mn (kNm)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
N
)

Figure 3.17. The interaction diagram for the columns of the prestressed concrete girder bridge. The black
points are the factored axial loads and moments in the columns.

44

Figure 3.18. The simplified cross section of the pier cap beam.

3.19. Explanation of the Results

The fact that the capacity of the columns is far higher than the maximum axial
load and moment in the columns, and the moment strength of the pier cap beam is far
above the maximum moment it was subjected to, showed that this bridge was modeled
with the substructure much stiffer than the superstructure.

3.20. Detailing Changes due to the New LRFD Guidelines

The details of the bridge must be checked according to the appropriate Seismic
Design Requirement, which was SDR 3 for this bridge. The summary of the checks are
given in Table 3.10, with the requirements that were not satisfied are shaded.

#10 rebars
#10 rebars
1270 mm
1781 mm
45
Table 3.10. The results of the detailing requirement checks for the bridge using Seismic Design
Requirement 3.
Number Requirement Required Provided
1a Transverse
Reinforcement
Ratio in Potential
Plastic Hinge Zones
Using the Implicit
Shear Detailing
Approach
0.00285 0.00362
1b Transverse
Reinforcement
Ratio outside the
Plastic Hinge Zones
Using the Implicit
Shear Detailing
Approach
0.00160 0.00362
2a Transverse
Reinforcement in
Potential Plastic
Hinge Zones Using
the Explicit Shear
Detailing Approach
( ) N V V V
c p u
750 , 490 = + N V
s
977 , 480 , 1 =
2b Transverse
Reinforcement
outside the Potential
Plastic Hinge Zones
Using the Explicit
Shear Detailing
Approach
( ) N V V V
c p u
571 , 855 = + N V
s
977 , 480 , 1 =

46
3 Transverse
Reinforcement Ratio for
Confinement at Plastic
Hinges
0.00687 0.00724
4

Spiral Spacing for
Confinement at Plastic
Hinges
100 mm

120 mm

5 Transverse Spiral
Reinforcement Ratio at
the Moment Resisting
Connection between the
Column and the Pier Cap
Beam
0.01481 0.00724
6 Stirrups in the Pier Cap
Beam
2,899 mm
2
6,400 mm
2

To bring this bridge up to the new standards, the spiral spacing must be changed
from 120 mm to 100 mm, and the spiral size has to be changed from #5 to #7. These
changes approximately will result in an additional 0.2% of the total construction cost,
which is insignificant. The complete detailing requirements and cost increase calculations
are presented in Appendix XI.

47
Chapter 4
The Steel Girder Bridge

4.1. Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis of a pair of steel girder bridges, West Bound
and East Bound, which are located in the Tazewell County, 70 miles northeast of Bristol,
in the southwestern part of Virginia. They were built at the same time in 1993. These
bridges are parallel and next to each other. The West Bound bridge has two lanes, and the
East Bound bridge has three lanes [Brown, 1993].
These bridges were analyzed to investigate if they could endure the maximum
considered earthquake, which had a 3% probability of exceedance in 75 years. These two
bridges were also analyzed to examine if it would satisfy the operational performance
level. The maximum considered earthquake and the operational performance level were
chosen to ensure that the bridges were held to the highest standard, which means they
would perform well during the worst possible earthquake and be operational immediately
after the earthquake.
The bridges were modeled in RISA 3D to determine the fundamental period of
vibration. Then based on the spectral accelerations for the Bristol area, the equivalent
seismic loads were determined. These loads were applied to the RISA model to determine
earthquake elastic force effects in the structures. After applying the appropriate R factors,
the seismic force effects were combined with the dead and live load force effects. Finally
the structures were evaluated for compliance with the appropriate Seismic Design
Requirement. US Customary units were used for all the calculations for this pair of
bridges because US Customary units were used in the construction drawings.

48
4.2. Material Properties

The properties of the materials used in the bridge model are presented in
Appendix XII. It is important to note that there are two kinds of concrete used in the
bridge model. The superstructure has a specified f
c
= 4000 psi, while the pier cap beam
and columns have a specified f
c
= 3000 psi. There are also two kinds of steel used for the
bridge, 50 ksi and 36 ksi. The 50-ksi steel is used for the plate girder webs and flanges,
while the 36-ksi steel is used for all other structural steel, including diaphragms,
stiffeners, connector plates, and bearings [Brown, 1993]. Therefore the calculation of the
section properties of the superstructure, which combines the plate girder and the slab,
uses only the 50-ksi steel.
The RISA 3D model of the bridges also used a link for each bridge to connect the
superstructure and the pier cap beam. This link was created to account for the fact that the
superstructure rests on the pier cap beam, and therefore the centroid of the superstructure
was above that of the pier cap beam. The link was made rigid so that it would not be
flexible enough to influence the deflections of the other members that it connected.
Therefore steel material properties were used for the link to reflect its rigidity, except that
the density of the link was set to zero, so that it would not impose any unrealistic load on
the pier cap beam and columns.

4.3. Section Properties

The section properties of the superstructure, pier cap beam and columns are
provided in Appendix XIII. The actual superstructure cross sections for the West Bound
and East Bound bridges are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. But in order to
simplify the section properties calculation, the superstructure cross sections are assumed
to look like those shown in Figure 4.3 and 4.4. In calculating the section properties for
the superstructure, the slab properties are transformed into the steel girder properties
because of the difference in the E values of the concrete slab and the steel girders. The
important section properties of the superstructure are as follows:

49
West Bound: East Bound:
A = 899 in
2
A = 1114 in
2

I
xx
= 373,000 in
4
I
xx
= 521,000 in
4

I
yy
= 25,600,000 in
4
I
yy
= 50,500,000 in
4

4.4. Soil Site Class

After the section properties were calculated, the next step was to determine the
site class of the soil underneath the bridges. The classification of the soil under the
bridges had to be determined using the site class definitions in the new LRFD
Specifications, which depend on the shear wave velocity (
s
v ), blow count ( N ), or
undrained shear strength (
u
s ) in the upper 30 m (100 ft) of site profile. The site class
definitions in the new LRFD Specifications were presented in Section 3.4. After
analyzing the boring results, the soil underneath the two bridges was classified as class B
[Dove, 2002].

50

Figure 4.1. The actual cross section of the West Bound bridge superstructure [Brown, 1993]. The 3/8 = 1-0 scale is no longer correct.

51

Figure 4.2. The actual cross section of the East Bound bridge superstructure [Brown, 1993]. The 3/8 = 1-0 scale is no longer correct.

52

Figure 4.3. The simplified cross section of the West Bound bridge superstructure. Girder-to-girder spacing
= 112 in. This figure was not drawn to scale.

Figure 4.4. The simplified cross section of the East Bound bridge superstructure. Girder-to-girder spacing =
119 in. This figure was not drawn to scale.

676.25 in.
Y
Y
X X
32 in. 8.5-in. slab
56 in.
528.375 in.
Y
Y
X X
32 in.
8.5-in slab
54.875 in.
53
4.5. RISA 3D Model of the Bridges

Both the West Bound and East Bound bridges have two spans. The West Bound
bridge spans are 99 ft. and 96 ft.-4 in. long, while the East Bound bridge spans are 99 ft.-
3 in. and 96 ft.-9 in. long. Both bridges have a skew of approximately 37 degrees. The
pier consists of a pier cap beam and five columns. The West Bound and East Bound pier
elevations are shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6, respectively. The RISA 3D model of both
bridges is shown in Figure 4.7.
As mentioned in section 4.2, for each bridge a rigid link was used to connect the
superstructure and the pier cap beam. The end supports of the superstructure were
modeled as fixed supports, because the type of supports used at the abutments are fixed
supports, which is shown in Figure 4.8. The bridges were modeled continuously at the
midpoint of the superstructure, where the two spans met, because the girder elevations
showed that the girders were made continuous from abutment to abutment with
permissible field splices 1 and 2 for the West Bound bridge, and permissible field splices
3 and 4 for the East Bound bridge. This is illustrated in Figure 4.9.
The site class of the soil underneath the bridges was determined earlier to be class
B, and spread footings were used for the foundation of this bridge. Therefore according to
Table 3.1 of this report, which was taken from Table 5.3.4-1 of the new LRFD
Guidelines, the support at the bottom of the columns had to be rigid (fixed).
The joint coordinates of the bridge model were calculated according to the
locations of the column center lines, pier cap beam centroidal axis and superstructure
centroidal axis. The joint coordinates of the bridge are provided in Appendix XIV.

54

Figure 4.5. The West Bound Pier Elevation [Brown, 1993].

55

Figure 4.6. The East Bound Pier Elevation [Brown, 1993].
56

Figure 4.7. The RISA 3D model of the WB bridge (left) and EB bridge (right).

57

Figure 4.8. The fixed supports at the ends of the superstructure [Brown, 1993].

58

Figure 4.9. The West Bound and East Bound girder elevations, which showed the permissible field splices that made the bridge continuous from abutment to
abutment [Brown, 1993].
59
4.6. Dead Load Effects

The dead load effects on the pier cap beam and columns were obtained by first
applying the self-weight of the superstructure plus the 20 lb/ft
2
allowance for construction
tolerances and construction methods as uniformly distributed loads on the superstructure
[Brown, 1993]. The 20 lb/ft
2
allowance was turned into a uniformly distributed load by
multiplying it with the width of the superstructure, which is 528.375 in. for the WB
bridge and 676.25 in. for the EB bridge. This analysis didnt produce accurate dead load
effects on the pier cap beam and the columns, because the rigid link only connected the
midpoint of the superstructure to the midpoint of the pier cap beam, and therefore it
produced erroneously high axial loads on the middle column and erroneously low axial
loads on the leftmost and rightmost columns. So, to get more accurate results, the axial
load on the rigid link due to the self-weight of the superstructure and the 20 lb/ft
2

allowance was divided by the number of steel girders for the superstructure, which was
five for the WB bridge and six for the EB bridge. An analysis was performed on the pier
structure, in which the pier cap beam was subjected to as many point loads as the number
of the number of steel girders for the superstructure, plus the self-weight of the pier cap
beam and the columns. This is shown in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10. The loading on the pier performed to get more accurate dead load effects on the pier cap beam
and columns. The numbers shown are not the results of any calculation.
60
4.7. Live Load Effects

The live load effects were found by adding the maximum effects from the three
moving live load cases to the lane load effects. The three moving live load cases and the
lane load are shown in Figure 4.11, which is similar to Figure 3.11, except that the units
in the Figure have to be converted to the US Customary units. The lane load is the 9.3-
N/mm (640-lb/ft) distributed load. The case that always controlled was the third, which
was the two-truck case. Each of these moving live load cases was run along the
superstructure, and the largest produced axial load on the rigid link was used to run an
analysis on the pier similar to that for the dead loads. The same procedure was also used
to get the lane load effects.
The maximum effects of the three moving load cases, which was always the two-
truck case for this bridge, was combined with the lane load effects by using the

Figure 4.11. The three moving live load cases and the lane load [Barker and Puckett, 1997].
61

multiple presence factors (m), the dynamic load allowance (IM), and the 0.9 factor, since
the controlling case was always the two-truck case [Barker and Puckett, 1997]. The
multiple presence factors and the dynamic load allowance were presented in the previous
chapter in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3, respectively.

For the West Bound bridge, which has two lanes, m = 1.0, while the three-lane
East Bound bridge has m = 0.85. Since deck joints and fatigue were not the subject of
interest in this analysis, IM = 0.33. Thus the formulas to calculate the live load effects of
these bridges were

LL = 1.02(1.330.9TT + 0.9LN) for the WB bridge
LL = 0.853(1.330.9TT + 0.9LN) for the EB bridge
TT = two-truck load effects
LN = lane load effects

4.8. Combined Dead and Live Load Effects on the Columns

The dead and live load effects were combined with the load factors from Table
3.5-1 in the AASHTO Standard Specifications, which was presented as Table 3.4 in this
report. Since earthquake loading was a significant part of this study, Extreme Event-I
from Table 3.4 of this report was chosen. Suggested values for
EQ
are 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0
[Barker and Puckett, 1997].
EQ
= 0.5 was chosen to reflect normal traffic loading, which
means there is no traffic jam on the bridge when the earthquake occurs. Thus the
combined effects of the dead load and live load are

P = DL + (0.5LL)
P = combined dead load and live load effects
DL = dead load effects
LL = live load effects

62
The complete results of the dead load and live load effects are presented in Appendix
XV.

(SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR)

In order to determine the required Seismic Design and Analysis Procedure
(SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) for this pair of bridges, first the
following parameters have to be determined:

S
s
= 0.2-second period spectral acceleration, obtained from the USGS website zip
code lookup for spectral accelerations at the location of the bridges
S
1
= 1-second period spectral acceleration, obtained from the USGS website zip
code lookup for spectral accelerations at the location of the bridges
F
a
= site coefficients for the short-period range, which are given in Table 3.5
F
v
= site coefficients for the long-period range, which are given in Table 3.6

The 0.2-second and 1-second period spectral acceleration maps are based on a
probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years, but all the analyses in this study were
performed to investigate if the bridges could endure a maximum considered earthquake,
which has a probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years. As proved in Chapter 3, using
the spectral acceleration maps which were based on a probability of exceedance of 2% in
50 years to analyze these two bridges for the maximum considered earthquake with a
probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years was proved acceptable because the return
periods for the two different probabilities of exceedance are similar.
This bridge is located in the Tazewell County, 70 miles northeast of Bristol, in the
southwestern part of Virginia. But the closest town to the bridge is Bluefield, Virginia,
which has a zip code 24605. After inputting zip code 24605 into the USGS website zip
code lookup for spectral accelerations, the following values were obtained:

63
S
s
= 0.405 g
S
1
= 0.118 g
Since the soil is class B, F
a
= 1.0 and F
v
= 1.0
S
DS
= F
a
S
s
= (1.0)(0.405 g) = 0.405 g
S
D1
= F
v
S
1
= (1.0)(0.118 g) = 0.118 g

The values of F
v
S
1
and F
a
S
s
were used to determine the Seismic Hazard Level
according to Table 3.7 of this report, which was taken from Table 3.7-1 of the new LRFD
Guidelines. When two different Seismic Hazard Levels are required by the values of F
v
S
1

and F
a
S
s
, the higher level controls. Therefore Seismic Hazard Level III was assigned to
this pair of bridges.
The Seismic Hazard Level was used to determine the required Seismic Design
and Analysis Procedure (SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) by using Table
3.8 of this report, which was taken from Table 3.7-2 of the new LRFD Guidelines. Since
Seismic Hazard Level III was assigned to this pair of bridges and the operational
performance objective was chosen, SDAP C, D or E could be required for this pair of
bridges. But according to section 4.4.2 of the new LRFD Guidelines, SDAP C couldnt
be used for these two bridges because they had fewer than three spans. Thus SDAP D
was required for this pair of bridges. And the required Seismic Design Requirement
(SDR) for this bridge was SDR 5 according to Table 3.8 of this report. In the next step,
the cracked section properties of the columns and pier cap beam had to be determined
because SDAP D uses an elastic (cracked section properties) analysis.

4.10. Cracked Section Properties of the Columns

The combined axial loads from the dead and live loads were used to obtain the
cracked section properties of the columns, i.e. the effective moment of inertia about the
x-axis (I
exx
) and the effective moment of inertia about the y-axis (I
eyy
). The relationship
between the axial load P (computed in section 4.8) on the column and its effective
moment of inertia (I
e
) is presented in Figure 3.10. Thus with a known reinforcement ratio
A
st
/A
g
, effective moment of inertia I
e
can be calculated by way of P/f
c
A
g
and I
e
/I
g

64
[Priestley and others, 1996]. For the WB bridge, I
e
/I
g
was approximately 0.403, while for
the EB bridge, I
e
/I
g
was approximately 0.390. The spreadsheet for this calculation is also
presented in Appendix XV.

4.11. Cracked Section Properties of the Pier Cap Beam

The cracked section properties of the pier cap beam, i.e. I
exx
and I
eyy
, can be
obtained by using two methods, the moment-curvature method [Priestley and others,
1996] and ACI Equation [Building, 2001]. The moment-curvature relationship uses the
following equation:

y
y
e
M
EI
=
M
y
= the yield moment in the moment-curvature relationship for the cross section
y
= the yield curvature in the moment-curvature relationship for the cross section

The cracked section properties using this method produced I
e
= 0.305 I
g
for the WB pier
cap beam, and I
e
= 0.327 I
g
for the EB pier cap beam. The complete calculation for this
method is presented in Appendix XVI.
The method using ACI Equation revealed that the pier cap beam was not expected
to be cracked at service loads, since M
cr
> M
a
(the maximum positive or negative moment
in the pier cap beam), and therefore I
e
= I
g
.
Despite the discrepancy between the result of the moment-curvature method and
the ACI Equation, the moment-curvature result was used.

4.12. Section Properties of the Superstructure

A RISA 3D analysis was run in order to investigate whether or not the
superstructures were actually cracked during a maximum considered earthquake. Two
distributed loads, 0.262-k/in and 0.327-k/in, which were respectively the equivalent
earthquake forces for the West Bound and East Bound bridges obtained using the
65
uniform load method that will be explained later in section 4.15.1, were applied along the
superstructure. The results showed that the superstructures for both bridges were actually
cracked. Nevertheless the gross section properties were used for the superstructures of
both bridges, because this analysis was performed after all the necessary analyses were
completed. The calculations for this analysis are provided in Appendix XXV.

4.13. Period of Vibration

After obtaining the cracked section properties for the pier cap beam and the
columns, the RISA 3D model of the bridge was modified by changing the gross section
properties with the cracked section properties. The next step was to compute the period of
vibration of the bridge. There are two methods used to calculate the period of vibration,
the uniform load method and the single mode spectral analysis method [MCEER/ATC,
2002].


The uniform load method is basically an equivalent static method of analysis
which uses a uniform lateral load to approximate the effect of seismic loads. The method
is suitable for common bridges that respond primarily in their fundamental mode of
vibration. The complete calculation of the period of vibration of this bridge using the
uniform load method is presented in Appendix XVII.
The first step of this method was to apply a uniformly unit distributed load p
o
,
which can be set arbitrarily to any magnitude according to ones preference, over the
length of the bridge. For this bridge analysis, p
o
was set to 100 k/in. so that the resulting
deflections would have a reasonable magnitude. For this bridge, p
o
was applied only in
the transverse direction. Since the bridge has integral abutments, it was assumed that the
bridge superstructure and substructure would move together in an earthquake in the
longitudinal direction. Each span of the bridge was divided into sections, eleven in this
case, and the lateral displacement of each section was called v
s
(x). The bridge lateral
loading is shown in Figure 4.12.
66
Then the bridge lateral stiffness (K) and total weight (W) were calculated by
using equations 4-1 and 4-2.

MAX s
o
v
L p
K
,
= (4-1)
L = total length of the bridge
v
s,MAX
= maximum value of v
s
(x)

K = 22601 k/in. for the WB bridge
K = 44045 k/in. for the EB bridge

= dx x w W ) ( (4-2)
w(x) = weight per unit length of the dead load of the bridge superstructure and
tributary substructure
W = 1515 kips for the WB bridge
W = 1897 kips for the EB bridge

Figure 4.12. The uniform lateral loading on the bridge.

67

gK
W
T 2 =
g = acceleration of gravity = 386 in/sec
2

T = 0.0828 sec. for the WB bridge
T = 0.0664 sec. for the EB bridge
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].


The primary difference between this method and the uniform load method is that
the equivalent lateral earthquake forces for this method are not uniformly distributed
loads over the length of the bridge. Instead, they are of variable magnitude over the
length of the bridge, as explained later in section 4.15.2. The complete calculation of the
period of vibration using the single mode spectral analysis method is presented in
Appendix XVIII.
As in the uniform load method, first the bridge was subjected to a uniform load p
o

of 100 k/in, and the resulting deflection of each of the eleven sections as given by RISA
3D was called v
s
(x). Then the , , and factors were calculated as follows:

= dx x v
s
) ( (4-3)
= dx x v x w
s
) ( ) ( (4-4)
= dx x v x w
s
2
) ( ) ( (4-5)

w(x) = the weight of the dead load of the bridge superstructure and tributary
superstructure.

For the WB bridge,
= 12986 in
2

= 7662 k-in
= 63585 k-in
2

68
For the EB bridge,
= 6709 in
2

= 4922 k-in
= 21069 k-in
2

Then the period of the bridge can be calculated from the expression:

g p
T
o
2 = (4-6)
T = 0.0708 sec. for the WB bridge.
T = 0.0567 sec. for the EB bridge.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

As expected, the periods of vibration obtained by using the uniform load method were
longer than that obtained using the single mode spectral analysis method, because the
uniform load method uses a uniformly distributed load, which is a larger force on the
superstructure in the transverse direction of the bridge, compared to the different
magnitudes of distributed load along the bridge for the single mode spectral analysis
method.

4.14. Design Response Spectrum Curve

After the periods of vibration were determined, the next step is to draw the design
response spectrum curve, from which the spectral acceleration (S
a
) can be obtained.

S
DS
S
D1
ond
g
g
S
S
T
DS
D
S
sec 291 . 0
405 . 0
118 . 0
1
= = =
T
o
= 0.2 T
s
= 0.2 (0.291 second) = 0.0583 second
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].
69

The design response spectrum curve for this bridge is given in Figure 4.13.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
S
DS
= 0.405 g
0.4S
DS
= 0.162 g
S
D1
= 0.118 g
T
0
= 0.0583 sec. T
0
= 0.291 sec.

Figure 4.13. The design response spectrum curve for this bridge.

It can be seen from Figure 4.11 that for T = 0.0828 sec. (WB bridge) and T = 0.0664
sec. (EB bridge), S
a
= 0.405 g.

4.15. Equivalent Earthquake Forces

After obtaining the spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum curve,
the equivalent earthquake forces were computed. The equivalent earthquake forces can be
computed using the uniform load method and the single mode spectral analysis method
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

70

The equivalent earthquake force p
e
L
W S
p
a
e
= (4-7)
S
a
= the spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum curve
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

For the West Bound bridge, p
e
= 0.262 k/in., and for the East Bound bridge, p
e
=
0.327 k/in. The complete calculation of the equivalent earthquake force using this method
is provided in Appendix XVII.


As explained briefly in section 4.13.2, the equivalent earthquake force computed
using this method is not a uniformly distributed load as in the uniform load method. The
equivalent earthquake force p
e

) ( ) ( ) ( x v x w
S
x p
s
a
e
= (3-8)
p
e
(x) = the equivalent earthquake force for that section
Other variables as defined in section 4.13.2.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002].

Since each span of the bridge was divided into eleven sections and each section of the
span had a different deflection v
s
(x), each section also had a different equivalent
earthquake force. Thus the equivalent earthquake loading for the bridge using this
method looks like that shown in Figure 4.14 and 4.15. The distributed load in the middle
is much larger than the other distributed loads, because the distributed load in the middle
carries the tributary load of the substructure. The complete calculation to compute the
equivalent earthquake force using this method is presented in Appendix XVIII.

71
4.16. Combined Effects of the Dead, Live and Earthquake Loads

The final analysis of the bridge was performed using the cracked section
properties for dead, live and earthquake loads. The procedure to calculate the dead and
live load effects for this final analysis is the same as when performing the analysis to
calculate the dead and live load effects to obtain cracked section properties, which was
explained earlier in sections 4.6 and 4.7. For the earthquake loads, the axial loads,

Figure 4.14. The segmentally uniform loading of the West Bound bridge

72

Figure 4.15. The segmentally uniform loading of the East Bound bridge.

moments and shears for the pier cap beam and columns were taken directly from the
analysis on the entire bridge, unlike the dead and live loads, for which a separate
additional analysis had to be performed on the pier structure. The load factors used to
combine the dead, live and earthquake load effects are given in Table 3.4 (Extreme
Event-I), which was shown earlier in section 3.8. But for the earthquake loads, the
responses (axial loads, moments and shears) were divided by the R factor given in Table
3.9. Since SDAP D (Elastic Response Spectrum Method) and the Operational
performance level were used in this research study, the earthquake load responses on the
columns were divided by R = 1.5. Thus the combined effects of the dead, live and
earthquake loads are given by this expression:

+ + =
5 . 1
0 . 1 5 . 0 0 . 1
EQ
LL DL P (4-9)

The complete results of the dead, live and earthquake load effects are given in Appendix
XIX.

73
4.17. Interaction Diagram of the Columns

The interaction diagram of the columns was drawn to determine if the maximum
axial load and moment exceeded the capacity of the column. The complete calculation to
determine the important points of the interaction diagram is provided in Appendix XX.
For all the columns of these two bridges, the maximum axial load and moment were far
below the capacity of the column, as shown in Figures 4.16 and 4.17. The maximum
shear forces in the columns were also far below the shear strength of the columns, as
shown in Appendix XXII.

4.18. Moment Strength of the Pier Cap Beam

The moment strength of the pier cap beam was calculated for each bridge to see if
or not it was exceeded by the maximum moment in the pier cap beam. In order to
simplify the calculation of the moment strength, the side reinforcing bars of the pier cap
beam were ignored. The actual cross section of the pier cap beams, which are shown in
Figure 4.18 and 4.19, became those shown in Figure 4.20 and 4.21. The complete
calculation of the moment strength of the pier cap beam is presented in Appendix XXI.

West Bound: East Bound:
M
n
= 2674 k-ft M
n
= 2174 k-ft
M
u
= 552 k-ft M
u
= 516 k-ft
M
n
> M
u
M
n
> M
u
Thus the moment capacity of the pier cap beam was not exceeded for either bridge.

74
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Phi Mn (k-ft)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)

Figure 4.16. The interaction diagram of the West Bound bridge columns. The grey points are the factored
axial loads and moments in the columns.

-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Phi Mn (k-ft)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)

Figure 4.17. The interaction diagram for the East Bound bridge columns. The grey points are the factored
axial loads and moments in the columns.

75

Figure 4.18. The actual cross section of the West Bound bridge pier cap beam [Brown, 1993].

Figure 4.19. The actual cross section of the East Bound bridge pier cap beam [Brown, 1993].

76

Figure 4.20. The simplified cross section of the West Bound bridge pier cap beam.

Figure 4.21. The simplified cross section of the East Bound bridge pier cap beam.

48 in.
45 in.
48 in.
45 in.
77
4.19. Explanation of the Results

Similar to the prestressed concrete girder bridge in Chapter 3, the fact that the
capacity of the columns was far higher than the maximum axial load and moment in the
columns and the moment strength of the pier cap beam was far above the maximum
moment it was subjected to, showed that these two bridges were modeled with the
substructure much stiffer than the superstructure.

4.20. Detailing Changes due to the New LRFD Guidelines

The details of the two bridges were checked according to the required Seismic
Design Requirement, which was SDR 5 for these two bridges. The summary of the
checks for the West Bound and East Bound bridges are given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2,
respectively.

Table 4.1. The results of the detailing requirement checks for the West Bound bridge using Seismic Design
Requirement 5.
1a Transverse Reinforcement in
Potential Plastic Hinge
Zones using the Implicit
Shear Detailing Approach
0.00135 0.000572
1b Transverse Reinforcement
outside the Plastic Hinge
-0.00223 0.000572
Zones using the Explicit
( ) k V V V
c p u
9 . 78 = + k V
s
9 . 43 =
78
outside the Potential Plastic
Hinge Zones using the
Explicit Shear Detailing
Approach
( ) k V V V
c p u
5 . 153 = + k V
s
9 . 43 =
3 Transverse Reinforcement
for Confinement at Plastic
Hinges
0.00297 0.00114
4 Spiral Spacing for
Longitudinal Bar Restraint at
Plastic Hinges
6.77 in. 10.5 in.
5 Transverse Spiral
Reinforcement at the
Moment Resisting
Connection Between
Members (Column/Beam
and Column/Footing Joints)
0.01944 0.00114
6 Minimum Required
Horizontal Reinforcement
0.00478 0.00114
Beam
3.2 in.
2
7.44 in.
2
for the
left and right
columns, and 4.96
in.
2
for the center
column
8 Lap Splices at the top and
bottom one-quarter of the
column
Not Allowed Used
9 Column Joint Spiral
Reinforcement to be Carried
into the Pier Cap Beam
0.00584 0
79

Table 4.2. The results of the detailing requirement checks for the East Bound bridge using Seismic Design
Requirement 5.
0.00155 0.000572
outside the Plastic Hinge
-0.00223 0.000572
Zones using the Explicit
( ) k V V V
c p u
9 . 78 = + k V
s
9 . 43 =
outside the Potential Plastic
Hinge Zones using the
Explicit Shear Detailing
Approach
( ) k V V V
c p u
5 . 153 = + k V
s
9 . 43 =
3 Transverse Reinforcement
for Confinement at Plastic
Hinges
0.00339 0.00114
4 Spiral Spacing for
Longitudinal Bar Restraint at
Plastic Hinges
6.77 in. 10.5 in.

80
5 Transverse Spiral
Reinforcement at the
Moment Resisting
Connection Between
Members (Column/Beam
and Column/Footing Joints)
0.0215 0.00114
6 Minimum Required
Horizontal Reinforcement
0.00478 0.00114
Beam
3.52 in.
2
7.44 in.
2
for all the
columns
8 Lap Splices at the top and
bottom one-quarter of the
column
Not Allowed Used
9 Column Joint Spiral
Reinforcement to be Carried
into the Pier Cap Beam
0.00584 0

To bring these two bridges up to the new standards, the spiral spacing must be
changed from 10.5 in. to 6.5 in., and the spiral size has to be changed from #3 to #10 for
the West Bound bridge and from #3 to #11 for the East Bound bridge. These changes
approximately will result in an additional 1.0% of the total construction cost, which is
insignificant. The complete detailing requirements and cost increase calculations are
presented in Appendix XXII.

81
Chapter 5
Parametric Study

5.1. Objective

The objective of this parametric study is to examine common substructure
configurations to determine the influence of the new LRFD Guidelines on column
longitudinal and transverse (confinement) reinforcement. US Customary units were used
for all the dimensions and calculations in this parametric study because US Customary
units are used by the Virginia Department of Transportation and more commonly used
than Metric units in this country.

5.2. Bridge Structure

The RISA 3D model of the bridge is shown in Figure 5.1. In this model, unlike

Figure 5.1. The RISA 3D model of the bridge used in this parametric study.
Y
Z X
82

the RISA 3D models for the bridges in Chapters 3 and 4, the longitudinal (x-direction)
supports at the abutments were released. Thus the bridge had sliding bearings that would
allow only longitudinal movement (x-direction) at the abutments.
The section properties of the superstructure used in this parametric study was
taken from the average section properties of the two steel girder bridges (West Bound and
East Bound) analyzed in Chapter 4. Therefore the section properties for the
superstructure in this parametric study are:

Area = (West Bound Area + East Bound Area) / 2
2
2 2
1007
2
1114 899
in Area
in in
Area
+
=

I
xx
= (West Bound I
xx
+ East Bound I
xx
) / 2
2
2 2
000 , 447
2
000 , 521 000 , 373
in I
in in
I
xx
xx
=
+
=

I
yy
= (West Bound I
yy
+ East Bound I
yy
) / 2
2
2 2
000 , 050 , 38
2
000 , 500 , 50 000 , 600 , 25
in I
in in
I
yy
yy
=
+
=

The substructure used in this parametric study is shown in Figure 5.2. The bent
has three 36-in.-diameter columns at 20 ft center-to-center. The pier cap beam is 45 in.
wide and 50 in. deep. The height of the columns was one of the parameters in this study,
and the five different column heights were 20 ft, 25 ft, 30 ft, 35 ft and 40 ft. For each
column, f
c
was 3600 psi (25 MPa). The reinforcement ratio for each column was 1.5%.
The bridge had two spans, and span length was also a parameter in this study. The four
different span lengths were 80 ft, 90 ft, 100 ft and 110 ft.

83

Figure 5.2. The substructure of the bridge used in this parametric study. Column-to-column spacing = 20 ft.
This figure was not drawn to scale.

5.3. Bridge Stiffness

All the calculations for this parametric study are provided in Appendix XXIII. To
determine the periods of vibration of the two bridges, the stiffness values of the bridges in
the transverse and longitudinal directions were determined. The stiffness in the transverse
direction was obtained by applying the force P to the substructure as shown in Figure 5.3.
Cracked section properties were used for the columns. To calculate the cracked section
properties, the superstructure was assumed to be 12 k/ft, and the weight of the pier cap
beam was assumed to be 120 kips. The ratio P/(f
c
A
g
) was calculated for each
combination of span length and column height. Then the ratio I
e
/I
g
, which was obtained
from using the ratio P/(f
c
A
g
) and Figure 3.12, was also calculated for each combination
of span length and column height. The four different I
e
/I
g
ratios for every column height
were averaged and the I
e
average was used for all the columns of the five bridge models
with that column height to determine the stiffness in the transverse direction. The
stiffness in the transverse direction was calculated by using equation 5-1:

50 in.
varies
36 in.
(typ.)
84

Figure 5.3. The loading to the substructure to get the stiffness in the transverse direction.

t
tb
P
K
=
(5-1)
K
tb
= the stiffness in the transverse direction
P = the magnitude of the force in the transverse direction
t
= the deflection in the transverse direction

The stiffness in the longitudinal direction was obtained by applying the force P to a single
cantilever column, whose section properties represent that of three columns of the
substructure. This is shown in Figure 5.4. The stiffness in the longitudinal direction was
calculated by using equation 5-2:

I
g
, A
g
P
I
e
, A
g
t
85

Figure 5.4. The loading to the substructure, modeled as a cantilever column, to get the stiffness in the
longitudinal direction.

3
3
L
EI P
K
e
L
L
=
= (5-2)

K
L
= the stiffness in the longitudinal direction
P = the magnitude of the force in the longitudinal direction
L
= the deflection in the longitudinal direction
E = the modulus of elasticity of concrete
I
e
= the total cracked moment of inertia of the three columns of the substructure
L = the length (height) of the cantilever column
= height of the column + (0.5 pier cap beam height)

Equation 5-2 comes from the deflection formula for a cantilever column, which is

EI
PL
L
3
3
=

P
E, I
e
L
86
5.4. Periods of Vibration

The period of vibration in the transverse and longitudinal were determined for
each combination of span length and column height.
The period of vibration in the transverse direction was determined by using the
configuration shown in Figure 5.5. A 1 k/ft uniformly distributed load was applied to a

Figure 5.5. The loading to obtain the period of vibration of the bridge in the transverse direction.

simply-supported two-span bridge with a spring, which has stiffness of K
tb
defined in
section 5.3, attached to the midpoint of the bridge. The maximum deflection,
max
, was
then used to calculate the period of vibration in the transverse direction using equation 5-
3:

t
t
gK
W
T 2 = (5-3)

T
t
= period of vibration in the transverse direction
W = weight of the superstructure and pier cap beam (columns excluded)
K
tb
max
L L
1 k/ft
K = [(1 k/ft)(2L)] /
max
87
g = gravitational acceleration = 386 in/sec
2

max
) 2 )( / 1 (
=
l ft k
K
t

l = length of one span of the bridge

The period of vibration in the longitudinal direction was calculated using equation
5-4 for each combination of span length and column height.

L
L
gK
W
T 2 = (5-4)

W = weight of would have been larger the superstructure and pier cap beam
(columns excluded)
g = gravitational acceleration = 386 in/sec
2

K
L
= bridge stiffness in the longitudinal direction

The periods of vibration in the transverse and longitudinal directions for each
combination of span length and column height are given in Tables 5.1 and 5.2,
respectively.
It is important to note that the height of the columns made no difference for the
period of vibration in the transverse direction. This was the case because in this
parametric study, the bridge was modeled with the superstructure much stiffer than the
columns. If the columns had been modeled much stiffer,
t
in Figure 5.3 would have
been much smaller, K
tb
would have been much larger,
max
in Figure 5.5 would have
been smaller, K
t
in equation 5-3 would have been larger and T
t
(the period of vibration in
the transverse direction) would have been different for every column height (the higher
the column, the longer the period of vibration).
It is also important to note that the periods of vibration in the longitudinal
direction are very high. This was the case because K
L
, the bridge stiffness in the
longitudinal direction, is very low. This makes sense, since the bridge is stiffer in the
transverse direction than in the longitudinal direction. Another important thing to note is
88
that the periods of vibration in the longitudinal direction did not increase proportionally
with (column height)
3/2
as may have been implied by Figure 5.4 and Equation 5-4,
because as stated in the definitions of terms in equation 5-2, the L in equation 5-2 is the
column height plus half the pier cap beam height, instead of just the column height.

5.5. Equivalent Earthquake Loads

To determine the equivalent earthquake loads, the design response spectrum curve was
drawn. This parametric study investigates the effects of earthquake loads in three

Table 5.1. The periods of vibration in the transverse direction (sec.)
Column Height
20 ft 25 ft 30 ft 35 ft 40 ft
80 ft 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130
Span 90 ft 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165
Length 100 ft 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
110 ft 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240

Table 5.2. The periods of vibration in the longitudinal direction (sec.)
Column Height
20 ft 25 ft 30 ft 35 ft 40 ft
80 ft 1.237 1.680 2.166 2.692 3.254
Span 90 ft 1.308 1.776 2.290 2.846 3.440
Length 100 ft 1.375 1.867 2.407 2.992 3.617
110 ft 1.439 1.954 2.519 3.131 3.785

locations: Vienna, VA, where the seismic risk is low, Richmond, VA, where the seismic
risk is moderate, and Bristol, VA, where the seismic risk is high. The design response
spectrum curves at Vienna, Richmond and Bristol for soil class B are shown in Figures
5.6, 5.7 and 5.8, respectively.
The equivalent earthquake loads in the transverse direction were calculated for
every span length (80 ft, 90 ft, 100 ft and 110 ft) at every location (Vienna, Richmond
and Bristol) by using equation 5-5:

89
L
W S
p
a
e
= (5-5)

p
e
= equivalent earthquake load in the transverse direction
S
a
= spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum curve
W = weight of the superstructure and the pier cap beam
L = the length of the bridge

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
S
DS
= 0.181 g
0.40 SDS = 0.0724 g
SD1 = 0.0635 g
T0 = 0.0702 Ts = 0.351

Figure 5.6. The Design Response Spectrum Curve for Vienna, VA.

90
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (second)
S
a

(
g
)
S
D1
= 0.0833 g
S
DS
= 0.287 g
0.4SDS = 0.115 g
T0 = 0.058 Ts = 0.29
T = 0.145 sec

Figure 5.7. The Design Response Spectrum Curve for Richmond, VA.

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
SDS = 0.405 g
0.4SDS = 0.162 g
SD1 = 0.118 g
T
0
= 0.0583 sec. T
0
= 0.291 sec.

Figure 5.8. The Design Response Spectrum Curve for Bristol, VA.

91
The equivalent earthquake loads in the longitudinal direction were calculated for
each combination of span length and column height at every location by using equation
5-6:

W S P
a
= (5-6)

P = equivalent earthquake load in the longitudinal direction
S
a
= spectral acceleration from the design response spectrum curve
W = weight of the superstructure and the pier cap beam

5.6. Column Interaction Diagram

The column moment and axial load were calculated for each combination of span
length and column height at all three locations (Vienna, Richmond and Bristol) by using
equation 5-7:

R
EQ
LL DL P 0 . 1 5 . 0 0 . 1 + + = (5-7)

P = the total combined effects from dead, live and earthquake loads
DL = the dead load effects
LL = the live load effects
EQ = the earthquake load effects
R = the base response modification factor from Table 3.9 = 1.5

The column moments and axial loads were plotted and compared to the column
interaction diagram, which was plotted using straight lines to connect the important
points of the curve. The column interaction diagrams were plotted using straight lines
instead of the actual curved line to ensure that no points would fall just inside the curve
interaction diagram, which would mean that some columns were only barely satisfactory.
The comparisons for Vienna, Richmond and Bristol are shown in Figures 5.9, 5.10 and
92
5.11, respectively. As the three figures show, all the Vienna and Richmond bridges are
adequate to sustain the design dead, live and earthquake loads, while some of the Bristol
bridges are not. The inadequate Bristol bridges have short column heights and long spans,
which makes sense, since they have shorter periods of vibration, which result in larger
values of S
a
, and therefore create larger equivalent earthquake forces. Furthermore, those
bridges have larger total weight. In order to make them adequate, the reinforcement ratio
has to be increased from 1.5% to 2%, as shown in Figure 5.11.
In conclusion, the periods of vibration in the transverse direction were not
affected by the height of the columns, but they increased as the bridge spans became
longer. As explained in section 5.4, that was the case because the bridge was modeled
with the superstructure much stiffer than the columns, which was the opposite of the case
with the bridges analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4, where the columns were much stiffer than
the superstructure. The periods of vibration in the longitudinal direction increased as the
columns became taller, and they also increased as the bridge spans became longer. All the
columns, except the Bristol bridges with short columns and long spans, had enough
longitudinal reinforcement. The longitudinal reinforcement for the Bristol bridges with
short columns and long spans has to be increased from 1.5% to 2%. It is important to note
that in this parametric study, unlike the bridges analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4, the column
capacity was not much higher than the maximum axial loads and moments in the
columns, as shown in Figures 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11. This was due to the release of
longitudinal constraints (x-direction) at the ends of the superstructure (at the abutments)
with the use of sliding bearings, which made the columns sustain more loads from the
earthquake forces in the longitudinal direction.

93
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
13336
9837
15007
1044
-823
2539
2987

Figure 5.9. The comparison between the column interaction diagram and the axial loads and moments of
the column for Vienna, VA. The grey points are the factored axial loads and moments in the columns.

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
15007
1044
2539
-823
2987

the column for Richmond, VA. The grey points are the factored axial loads and moments in the columns.

94
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
-823
2987
2539
1047
15007
3204
1044
-1097
16583
2723
Reinforcement Ratio = 2%
Reinforcement Ratio = 1.5%

the column for Bristol, VA. The grey points are the factored axial loads and moments in the columns.
95
Chapter 6
Conclusions

6.1. Design Effort

The amount of time to check a bridge, previously designed, for compliance with
the new LRFD Guidelines is approximately two weeks of workdays (80 hours) if
performed by one person. The analyses require a 3D frame analysis software, which was
used to do all the analyses in this study.
The two-week approximate required time is much longer than the required time to
perform a check on a bridge using the old AASHTO Specifications. Most bridges in
Virginia belong to category A in the old AASHTO Specifications, which requires that the
bridge be checked for its bearing length, and the connections at the abutments and piers
be checked that they can handle at least 20% of the tributary weight. For bridges that
belong to category B, a check using the earthquake force method, which is similar to the
uniform load method explained in Chapters 3 and 4, is required [Standard, 1996].
Thus the old AASHTO Specifications only require a few hours to perform a
check on most Virginia bridges, compared to approximately two weeks using the new
LRFD Guidelines.

6.2. Longitudinal Column Reinforcement

As Chapters 3 and 4 revealed, if the longitudinal (x-direction) supports are not
released, the bridges are adequate to sustain the design dead, live and earthquake loads.
But if the longitudinal (x-direction) supports are released as in the parametric study, in
high seismic risk regions such as Bristol where S
a
is more than 40%, bridges with long
spans and short columns will not be able to sustain the design dead, live and earthquake
loads, as currently designed. This is due to the fact that short-column and long-span
bridges have shorter periods of vibration, which means higher spectral accelerations, and
96
therefore larger equivalent earthquake forces. Furthermore, long-span bridges have more
dead load from the weight of their long superstructures. In order to make the deficient
bridges adequate, the column reinforcement ratio has to be increased.

6.3. Detailing Requirements

Besides the column longitudinal reinforcement, there were other detailing
requirements that were not met by the two bridges analyzed in this study. Those
requirements include:
Column shear reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones
Transverse reinforcement for confinement at plastic hinges
Spiral spacing
Moment resisting connection between members (column/beam and
column/footing joints)
Minimum required horizontal joint shear reinforcement
Lap splices at the bottom of the column, which are not permitted
Column joint spiral reinforcement to be carried into the pier cap beam
Transverse reinforcement in cap beam-to-column joints

6.4. Increased Construction Costs

The additional construction costs to bring the bridges into compliance with the
new LRFD Guidelines will be insignificant. For the prestressed concrete girder bridge
and the steel girder bridges, the increase of construction cost would be 0.2% and 1.0%,
respectively.

6.5. Recommendations for Further Research

In performing the analyses of the two bridges and parametric study, several
assumptions were made, which could be verified through field testing. The assumptions
and subjects for further research included:
97
1. Using a rigid link to connect the superstructure and the substructure for the
purpose of obtaining the load that the superstructure imposes on the substructure.
2. Using the average height of the pier cap beam in calculating its section properties,
i.e. assuming the pier cap beam is not tapered like shown on the drawings.
3. Fixity of the connection between the superstructure and the abutment.
4. Using a stiff superstructure and a flexible substructure instead of a stiff
substructure and a flexible superstructure.
5. Using shear deformation for the analysis.

98
References

Barker, R. M., and J. A. Puckett, Design of Highway Bridges, 1
st
ed. (New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, 1997), chap. 3 & 4. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Brown, W. P., Proposed Bridges on Route 19 over Connection Existing Route 19
Tazewell County, (Fairfax, VA: Dewberry & Davis, 15 June 1993), pp. 1-42.

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute, 2001).

Charney, F.A., Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Structural Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering Class Lecture Notes, (September 2001).

Dove, J., Professor of Geotechnical Engineering (Blacksburg, VA: 2002), personal
interview.

Frankel, Arthur, Mueller, Charles, Barnhard, Theodore, Perkins, David, Leyendecker,
E.V., Dickman, Nancy, Hanson, Stanley, and Hopper, Margaret, 1997, Seismic-
hazard maps for the conterminous United States, Custom Mapping between 84W
- 75W and 36N - 40N Horizontal spectral response acceleration for 0.2
second period (5% of critical damping) with 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years, U.S. Geological Survey. http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/cgi-bin/custom1.cgi

Frankel, Arthur, Mueller, Charles, Barnhard, Theodore, Perkins, David, Leyendecker,
E.V., Dickman, Nancy, Hanson, Stanley, and Hopper, Margaret, 1997, Seismic-
hazard maps for the conterminous United States, Custom Mapping between 84W
- 75W and 36N - 40N Horizontal spectral response acceleration for 1.0
second period (5% of critical damping) with 2% probability of exceedance in 50
years, U.S. Geological Survey. http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/cgi-bin/custom1.cgi

MacGregor, J. G., Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1997), pp. 903.

Maday, M. A., Route 288 PPTA Project, (Herndon, VA: CH2MHill, 18 January 2002),
pp. 1-34.

MCEER/ATC 2002, Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges, Part 1: Specifications, Preliminary Draft, MCEER-02-SP01,
MCEER/ATC Joint Venture, NCHRP 12-49 Project Team, November.

Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2003. Copyright R.S. Means Co., Inc., Kingston,
MA 781-585-7880; All rights reserved.

99
Priestley, M. J. N., F. Seible and G. M. Calvi, Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, 1
st

ed. (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1996). Reprinted by permission of John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

PCI BridgeDesign Manual, (Prestressed Concrete Institute, October 1997), Appendix B.

Probabilistic Hazard Lookup by Zipcode, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/cgi-
bin/zipcode.cgi (United States Geological Surveys, 6 December 2002)

Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16
th
ed, Copyright 1996, by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
http://www.transportation.org/publications/bookstore.nsf/Home?OpenForm

100
Appendix I
Material Properties of the Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge

Steel
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 75,000 MPa
= 0.32
= 7850 kg/m
3

Prestressed Concrete (in prestressed girders)
f
c
= 55 MPa
E = 34,900 MPa
= 0.15
( ) +
=
1 2
E
G = 15,200 MPa
= 150 lb/ft
3
= 2402 kg/m
3

Normal Concrete
f
c
= 25 MPa
E = 23,500 MPa
= 0.15
( ) +
=
1 2
E
G = 10,200 MPa
= 150 lb/ft
3
= 2402 kg/m
3

Rigid Link
E = 200,000 MPa
G = 75,000 MPa
= 0.32
= 0
101
Appendix II
The Section Properties of the Superstructure, Pier Cap Beam and Columns of the Prestressed
Concrete Girder Bridge

Superstructure

Figure II-1. The actual cross section of the prestressed concrete bridge superstructure [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm.
102
25100
Y
X 200
2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 2590 895
1829
895

Figure II-2. The simplified cross section of the prestressed concrete bridge superstructure. This figure was not drawn to scale. All dimensions are in mm.

103

Figure II-3. The cross section of the prestressed concrete girder [PCI Bridge, 1997].

Prestress girders:
mm in H 1829 . 72 = =
MPa f
c
55 ' =
MPa f E
c
900 , 34 55 4700 ' 4700 = = =
104
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
4 10
4
2 3
2
3 2 3
2
3 2 3
2
3 2 3
10 57 . 1
600 , 37
8 10 6 10 6
12
1
3
19
10 5 . 4
2
1
10 5 . 4
36
1
5 . 1 3 72 3 72
12
1
3
11
2 2
2
1
2 2
36
1
4 2 5 . 5 2 5 . 5
12
1
3
31
16 2
2
1
16 2
36
1
13 16 5 . 3 16 5 . 3
12
1
2
mm
in
I
yy
=
=
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
+ |
\
|
+
|
\
|
|
\
|
+
|
\
|
+ +
|
\
|
+
|
\
|
|
\
|
+
|
\
|
+ +
|
\
|
+
|
\
|
|
\
|
+ |
\
|
+ + |
\
|
=

Deck:
MPa f
c
30 ' =
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
4 12
2
2 3
6
2 6
10 47 . 4
4 . 914 1349 000 , 495 10 000 , 000 , 000 , 227 10
1349 8 . 1928 100 , 25 200 739 . 0 200 100 , 25
12
1
739 . 0
1349
10 66 . 8
4 . 914 000 , 495 10 8 . 1928 100 , 25 200 739 . 0
10 66 . 8 000 , 495 10 ) 200 100 , 25 739 . 0 (
739 . 0
34900
25700
700 , 25 30 4700 ' 4700
in
I
mm y
mm A
n
MPa f E
xx
tr
c
=
+ +
+
=
=
+
=
= + =
= =
= = =

105
( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )( ) ( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
4 14
2
2
2
2
2
2 3
10 69 . 4
1295 000 , 495 2 000 , 000 , 700 , 15 2
3885 000 , 495 2 000 , 000 , 700 , 15 2
6475 000 , 495 2 000 , 000 , 700 , 15 2
9065 000 , 495 2 000 , 000 , 700 , 15 2
11655 000 , 495 2 000 , 000 , 700 , 15 2
739 . 0 6275 12550 200 2 12550 200
12
1
739 . 0 2
550 , 12
2
25100
mm
I
mm x
yy
=
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
=
= =

Pier Cap Beam

Figure II-4. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm, and the 1:20
scale is no longer correct.

106

Figure II-5. The simplified pier cap beam cross section [Maday, 2002].

The pier cap beam height is not constant, since the pier cap beam is tapered. Thus the
average pier cap beam height is used, which is calculated as follows:

( ) ( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
2
4 11 3
4 11 3
000 , 260 , 2 1270 1781
10 04 . 3 1270 1781
12
1
10 98 . 5 1781 1270
12
1
1781
882 , 95
2
25 662 , 97 25 714 , 97
mm A
mm I
mm I
mm
Height
yy
xx
= =
= =
= =
=
+
=

#10 rebars
#10 rebars
1270 mm
1781
mm
107
Column

Figure II-6. The column cross section that has a diameter of 1067 mm [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are
in mm, and the 1:20 scale is no longer correct.

( )
( )
( )
4 4
4 10 4
4 10 4
000 , 894 1067
4
1
10 36 . 6 1067
64
1
10 36 . 6 1067
64
1
mm A
mm I
mm I
xx
yy
= =
= =
= =

108
Appendix III
Joint Coordinates and Member Numbers of the Prestressed
Concrete Bridge

Figure III-1. The RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete girder bridge.

Table III-1. The coordinates of the joints of the RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete bridge, units-
mm.
Joint Label X Y Z
N1 0 8562 0
N2 37900 8562 0
N3 75800 8562 0
N4 37900 6323 12300
N5 37900 6323 10400
N6 37900 6323 5200
109
N7 37900 6323 0
N8 37900 6323 -5200
N9 37900 6323 -10400
N10 37900 6323 -12300
N11 37900 0 10400
N12 37900 0 5200
N13 37900 0 0
N14 37900 0 -5200
N15 37900 0 -10400

Table III-2. The member numbers of the RISA 3D model of the prestressed concrete bridge
Member Number Type Begin Joint End Joint
M1 Superstructure N1 N2
M3 Rigid Link N2 N7
M4 Pier Cap Beam N4 N5
M10 Column N5 N11
M11 Column N6 N12
M12 Column N7 N13
M13 Column N8 N14
M14 Column N9 N15

110
Appendix IV
Cracked Section Properties of the Columns of the Prestressed

Table IV-1. The results of the calculation to determine the column cracked section properties.
Load Type M10 M11 M12 M13 M14
Design Truck 65,527 62,744 64,528 62,744 65,527
Design Tandem 44,706 42,807 44,024 42,807 44,706
Two Design Trucks 114,145 109,297 112,405 109,297 114,145
Lane 89,565 85,761 88,199 85,761 89,565
Controlling Load 65,527 62,744 64,528 62,744 65,527
Live Load Effects 1 450,626 431,485 443,755 431,485 450,626
Live Load Effects 2 553,963 530,433 545,517 530,433 553,963
Dead Load Effects 2,575,790 2,523,430 2,584,680 2,523,430 2,575,790
LL2 + DL Effects 2,852,772 2,788,647 2,857,438 2,788,647 2,852,772
P / fc'Ag 0.128 0.125 0.128 0.125 0.128
Ie / Ig 0.467 0.466 0.467 0.466 0.467
Ie x-x 2.971E+10 2.965E+10 2.971E+10 2.965E+10 2.971E+10
Ie y-y 2.971E+10 2.965E+10 2.971E+10 2.965E+10 2.971E+10

Note: Loads are in N
Moments of Inertia (I) are in mm
4

111
Appendix V
Cracked Section Properties of the Pier Cap Beam with the
Moment-Curvature Method and the ACI Equation for the
Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge

Figure V-1. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm, and the 1:20

112

FigureV-2. The simplified pier cap beam cross section.

Moment-Curvature Relationship Method
=
+ =
+ =
kd
c s s y s
kd
s s c y S
S C
dy f b f A f A
f A dy f b f A
C C T
0
0
' '
' '

#10 rebars
#10 rebars
1270 mm
1781
mm
113

Assume the compression steel will not yield:
kd d
d kd
kd d d kd
kd d
kd
kd d kd
y s
y
s
y c
y
c
=
'
'
'
'

( )
( ) ( )
( ) 1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
=
= = =
|
\
|
=
= = =
2
3
2
0
2
0
0
3
1
' ' '
00213 . 0
23500
25 2 ' 2
1576
100
00210 . 0 '
00210 . 0
000 , 200
420
kd d
kd
kd d
kd
bf E A f A
MPa
MPa
E
f
kd mm
mm kd
MPa
MPa
E
f
y y
c s s s y s
c
c
s
s
y
y

kd
d
s

y

d
c
114
By plugging in these following values to the equation above,
( )
( )
mm d
mm N f
mm b
kd mm
mm kd
MPa E
bars mm A
MPa f
bars mm A
y
c
s
s
s
y
s
1576
00213 . 0
00210 . 0
/ 25 '
1270
1576
100
00210 . 0 '
000 , 200
10 # 4 3277 '
420
10 # 8 6555
0
2
2
2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

then a third-degree equation in terms of kd is obtained. The solutions of the third-degree
equation are

kd = 1189 mm or kd = 330 mm or kd = -432 mm

kd = -432 mm is obviously ruled out, and kd = 1189 mm is ruled out because the
reinforcing area at the bottom is less than that at the top, therefore kd is supposed to be
less than half of 1781 mm, which is equal to 890.5 mm. Thus kd = 330 mm is the only
possible solution.
Now the initial assumption that the compression steel will not yield must be checked:

00210 . 0 000388 . 0
330 1576
100 330
00210 . 0
'
' = < =
=
y y s
mm mm
mm mm
kd d
d kd

Thus the initial assumption is correct.
Now
c max
must be checked to see if it is less than
0
. If it is, then the stress block will
have a parabolic shape.

115
00213 . 0 000556 . 0
330 1576
330
00210 . 0
0 max
= < =
=
mm mm
mm
kd d
kd
y c

Thus the stress block will be parabolic. The curvature at the yield point is

mm
mm kd
c
y
/ 10 6848 . 1
330
000556 . 0
6 max
= = =

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) kd kd
kd kd
y
c c
c c
2
0
max
0
max
2
2
0
max
2
0
max
3
1
4
1
3
2

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) mm mm
mm mm
y
330
00213 . 0
000556 . 0
3
1
330
00213 . 0
000556 . 0
330
00213 . 0
000556 . 0
4
1
330
00213 . 0
000556 . 0
3
2
2
2
2
2
=
mm y 217 =

T = A
s
f
y
C
c
C
s
y bar
kd = 330
mm
116
( ) ( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
170 . 0
1781 1270
12
1
10 02 . 1
10 02 . 1
10 39 . 2
/ 10 68 . 1
10 03 . 4
10 03 . 4
100 1576 000 , 254 000 , 500 , 2 217 330 1576
) ' (
000 , 500 , 2
330
00213 . 0
000556 . 0
3
1
330
00213 . 0
000556 . 0
/ 25 1270
3
1
'
3
4 11
4 11
2 15
6
9
9
2
2
2
0
max
0
max
0
=
=
=
=
= =
=
+ + =
+ + =
=
1
1
]
1
\
|
\
|
=
1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
=
=
mm mm
mm
I
I
mm I
Nmm
mm
Nmm
M
EI
Nmm
mm mm N N mm mm mm
d d C C y kd d M
N
mm mm mm N mm
kd kd bf
dy f b C
g
e
e
y
y
e
s c y
c c
c
kd
c c

ACI Equation Method

( ) ( )( )
Nmm
mm
mm mm mm N
M
y
I f
M
mm N psi psi f f
psi mm N f
cr
r
cr
c r
c
9
3 2
2
2
10 09 . 2
5 . 890
1781 1270
12
1
/ 12 . 3
/ 12 . 3 452 3626 5 . 7 ' 5 . 7
3626 / 25 '
=
=
=
= = = =
= =

This cracking moment must be compared with the maximum positive and negative
moments in the pier cap beam, which are given in Table V-1.

117
Table V-1. The calculation for the maximum positive and negative moments in the pier cap beam.
Load Type Maximum Positive Maximum Negative
Design Truck 4.03E+07 -1.13E+07
Design Tandem 2.75E+07 -7.68E+06
Two Design Trucks 7.02E+07 -1.96E+07
Lane 5.51E+07 -1.54E+07
Controlling Load 7.02E+07 -1.96E+07
Live Load Effects 3.41E+08 -9.51E+07
Dead Load Effects 1.45E+09 -4.35E+08
LL+DL Effects 1.62E+09 -4.82E+08

Notes: Moments in Nmm.

Nmm M Nmm M
a cr
9 9
10 62 . 1 10 09 . 2 = > = for the maximum positive moment.
Nmm M Nmm M
a cr
9 9
10 82 . 4 10 09 . 2 = > = for the maximum negative moment.

Therefore according to the ACI Equation method,
( )( )
4 11
3
10 98 . 5
1781 1270
12
1
mm
mm mm
I I
g e
=
=
=

118
Appendix VI
Period of Vibration and Equivalent Earthquake Loads with
the Uniform Load Method of the Prestressed Girder Bridge

( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
mm N
mm
N
L
W S
p
mm N s mm
N
gK
W
T
N N mm mm N W
mm N
mm
mm mm N
v
L p
K
a
e
MAX s
/ 0 . 82
800 , 75
10 17 . 2 287 . 0
. sec 169 . 0
/ 10 07 . 3 / 9810
10 17 . 2
2 2
10 17 . 2 10 86 . 3 75800 / 87 . 234
/ 10 07 . 3
471 . 2
75800 / 100
7
7 2
7
7 6
6
,
0
=
= =
=
= =
= + =
= = =

119
Appendix VII
The Period of Vibration and Equivalent Earthquake Loads
with the Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method for the
Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) x v x w x v x w x v x w
S
x p
ond
s mm mm N g p
T
Nmm dx x v x w
Nmm dx x v x w
mm dx x v
s s s
a
e
s
s
s
143 . 0
000 , 800 , 62
287 . 0 000 , 400 , 31
) ( ) ( ) (
sec 145 . 0
000 , 120 / 9810 / 100
000 , 800 , 62
2 2
000 , 800 , 62
000 , 400 , 31
000 , 120 ) (
2
0
2 2
2
= = =
= = =
= =
= =
= =

120
Appendix VIII
The Complete Results of the Dead Load, Live Load and
Earthquake Load Effects for the Prestressed Concrete Girder
Bridge

Table VIII-1. The complete results of the dead load, live load and earthquake load effects for the
prestressed concrete girder bridge.
Earthquake (UL) Earthquake (SUL) Dead Live Ultimate (UL) Ultimate (SUL)
M4 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
M5 -4.51E+04 -5.35E+04 -1.45E+04 -4.10E+03 -4.66E+04 -5.22E+04
M6 -1.00E+05 -1.19E+05 -1.13E+04 -3.22E+03 -7.96E+04 -9.21E+04
M7 1.00E+05 1.19E+05 -1.13E+04 -3.22E+03 5.38E+04 6.63E+04
M8 4.51E+04 5.35E+04 -1.45E+04 -4.10E+03 1.35E+04 1.91E+04
Axial Load (N) M9 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
M10 -3.47E+04 -4.12E+04 2.57E+06 0.00E+00 2.55E+06 2.54E+06
M11 -4.95E+04 -5.87E+04 2.51E+06 0.00E+00 2.48E+06 2.47E+06
M12 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.60E+06 5.61E+05 2.88E+06 2.88E+06
M13 4.95E+04 5.87E+04 2.51E+06 5.38E+05 2.82E+06 2.82E+06
M14 3.47E+04 4.12E+04 2.57E+06 5.64E+05 2.88E+06 2.88E+06
M4 (z-z) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.45E+09 3.47E+08 1.62E+09 1.62E+09
M5 (z-z) -1.34E+08 -1.59E+08 1.39E+09 3.30E+08 1.47E+09 1.45E+09
M6 (z-z) 3.09E+08 3.66E+08 1.19E+09 2.75E+08 1.53E+09 1.57E+09
M7 (z-z) -3.09E+08 -3.66E+08 1.19E+09 2.75E+08 1.12E+09 1.08E+09
M8 (z-z) 1.34E+08 1.59E+08 1.39E+09 3.30E+08 1.64E+09 1.66E+09
Moment (N-mm) M9 (z-z) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.45E+09 3.47E+08 1.62E+09 1.62E+09
M10 (y-y) 1.51E+08 1.79E+08 -6.13E+07 -1.73E+07 3.08E+07 4.96E+07
M11 (y-y) -1.76E+08 -2.08E+08 1.37E+07 3.71E+06 -1.01E+08 -1.23E+08
M12 (y-y) 1.30E+08 1.55E+08 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.70E+07 1.03E+08
M13 (y-y) -1.76E+08 -2.08E+08 -1.37E+07 -3.71E+06 -1.33E+08 -1.55E+08
M14 (y-y) 1.51E+08 1.79E+08 6.13E+07 1.73E+07 1.71E+08 1.90E+08

121
Appendix IX
Column Interaction Diagram of the Prestressed Girder
Concrete Bridge

Figure IX-1. The cross section of the column, which has a diameter of 1067 mm [Maday, 2002]. All
dimensions are in mm, and the 1:20 scale is no longer correct.

122
( )
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=
2
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
2 2
18117
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
000 , 894 1067
4
1
420
25 '
mm A A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm A
mm mm A
MPa f
MPa f
si st
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
g
y
c

00210 . 0
000 , 200
420
0203 . 0
000 , 894
18117
2
2
= = =
= = =
MPa
MPa
E
f
mm
mm
A
A
s
y
y
g
st
t

Nominal Concentric Axial Load Capacity:
( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
N P
N P P
A N P
N N P
P P
N mm mm N A f P
N
mm mm N mm mm mm N
A f A A f P
n
n
a
g c a
st y st g c
000 , 700 , 16
000 , 700 , 19 85 . 0 85 . 0
' 000 , 700 , 19
000 , 700 , 19 000 , 200 , 26 75 . 0
75 . 0
000 , 970 , 2 000 , 894 / 25 133 . 0 ' 133 . 0
000 , 200 , 26
117 , 18 / 420 117 , 18 167 , 894 / 25 85 . 0
' 85 . 0
(max)
0 (max)
0
0
0
2 2
2 2 2 2 2
0
=
= =
=
= =
= >
= = =
=
+ =
+ =

123
Capacity in Axial Tension
( )
( )( )
( )
' 000 , 850 , 6
000 , 850 , 6 000 , 610 , 7 9 . 0
000 , 610 , 7
117 , 18 / 420
2 2
1
1
E N P
N N P
N P
mm mm N P
A f P
A f P
nt
nt
nt
nt
n
i
si y nt
n
i
si y nt
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=

d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7
d8
d9

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) mm d
mm d
mm d
mm d
mm d
mm d
mm d
mm d
mm d
107 10 cos 5 . 433 5 . 533
158 30 cos 5 . 433 5 . 533
255 50 cos 5 . 433 5 . 533
385 70 cos 5 . 433 5 . 533
5 . 533
682 20 sin 5 . 433 5 . 533
812 40 sin 5 . 433 5 . 533
909 60 sin 5 . 433 5 . 533
960 80 sin 5 . 433 5 . 533
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
= =
= =
= =
= =
=
= + =
= + =
= + =
= + =
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

124
P
n
and M
n
for the balanced failure (
s1
= -
y
)

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) 00243 . 0 003 . 0
565
107 565
00216 . 0 003 . 0
565
158 565
00165 . 0 003 . 0
565
255 565
000956 . 0 003 . 0
565
385 565
000167 . 0 003 . 0
565
5 . 533 565
000622 . 0 00210 . 0
395
565 682
00131 . 0 00210 . 0
395
565 812
00183 . 0 00210 . 0
395
565 909
00210 . 0
565 960
00210 . 0 1 003 . 0
003 . 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
= =
=

=
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm
mm mm
mm mm c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
y s

565 mm
395 mm
cu
= 0.003

s1

125
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
b si c n
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
c
c c
s
s s s
s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
P N F C P
N mm mm N mm N A f f F
N mm mm N A f F
N mm mm N A f F
N mm mm N A f F
N mm mm N A f F
N mm mm N A f F
N mm mm N C
rad
mm
mm mm
h
a
h
h f C
OK mm h mm mm c a
mm N f
mm N mm N mm N E f
mm N f
mm N mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
mm N mm N E f
= = + =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=

=
=

=
= < = = =
=
> = = =
=
> = = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =

000 , 560 , 8
000 , 803 2013 / 25 85 . 0 / 420 ' 85 . 0
000 , 803 2013 / 25 85 . 0 / 420 ' 85 . 0
000 , 622 2013 / 25 85 . 0 / 330 ' 85 . 0
000 , 342 2013 / 25 85 . 0 / 191 ' 85 . 0
200 , 67 2013 / 4 . 33
000 , 250 2013 / 124
000 , 527 2013 / 262
000 , 737 2013 / 366
000 , 845 2013 / 420
000 , 290 , 8
4
47 . 1 cos 47 . 1 sin 47 . 1
1067 / 25 85 . 0
47 . 1
5 . 533
25 . 480 5 . 533
cos
2
2
cos
4
cos sin
' 85 . 0
1067 25 . 480 565 85 . 0
/ 420
/ 420 / 486 / 000 , 200 00243 . 0
/ 420
/ 420 / 432 / 000 , 200 00216 . 0
/ 330 / 000 , 200 00165 . 0
/ 191 / 000 , 200 000956 . 0
/ 4 . 33 / 000 , 200 000167 . 0
/ 124 / 000 , 200 000622 . 0
/ 262 / 000 , 200 00131 . 0
/ 366 / 000 , 200 00183 . 0
/ 420 / 000 , 200 00210 . 0
2 2 2
9 9 9
2 2 2
8 8 8
2 2 2
7 7 7
2 2 2
6 6 6
2 2
5 5 5
2 2
4 4 4
2 2
3 3 3
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
1 1 1
2 2
1 1
2
1
2
9
2 2 2
9 9
2
8
2 2 2
8 8
2 2
7 7
2 2
6 6
2 2
5 5
2 2
4 4
2 2
3 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1

126
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )
( ) Nmm Nmm M
N N P
M
Nmm
mm mm N mm mm N
mm mm N mm mm N
mm mm N mm mm N
mm mm N mm mm N
mm mm N mm mm N
d
h
F
a h
C M
n
n
y s t
b
i
i si c n
000 , 000 , 090 , 3 000 , 000 , 120 , 4 75 . 0
000 , 420 , 6 000 , 560 , 8 75 . 0
75 . 0
000 , 000 , 120 , 4
107 5 . 533 000 , 803 158 5 . 533 000 , 803
255 5 . 533 000 , 622 385 5 . 533 000 , 342
5 . 533 5 . 533 200 , 67 682 5 . 533 000 , 250
812 5 . 533 000 , 527 909 5 . 533 000 , 737
960 5 . 533 000 , 845 125 . 240 5 . 533 000 , 290 , 8
2 2 2
1
9
1
= =
= =
= = =
=
=
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ =
=

=

The column interaction diagram is shown in Figure IX-4.

-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Phi Mn (kNm)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
N
)

Figure IX-2. The column interaction diagram for the prestressed concrete girder bridge. Points in grey are
the factored axial loads and moments in the column.

127
Appendix X
Moment Strength of the Pier Cap Beam of the Prestressed

Figure X-1. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Maday, 2002]. All dimensions are in mm, and the 1:20

Figure X-2. The simplified pier cap beam cross section
#10 rebars
#10 rebars
1270 mm
1781
mm
128

( )( )
2
000 , 260 , 2 1270 1781
420
25 '
mm mm mm A
MPa f
MPa f
g
y
c
= =
=
=

Assume the compression steel will yield.
( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
mm d
mm
mm mm N
mm N mm
b f
f A A
a
Beam
mm mm mm A A A
mm
in
mm
in A A
c
y s s
s s s
s s
100 '
0 . 51
1270 / 25 85 . 0
/ 420 3277
' 85 . 0
'
: 2
3277 3277 6555
3277
. 1
4 . 25
27 . 1 4 '
2
2 2
2 2 2
1 2
2
2
2
1
=
= =
=
= = =
=
= =

lim
1 lim
' '
353 . 0
600
420
1
85 . 0
1
600
1
1 '
96 . 1
0 . 51
100 '
>
=
= =
a
d
a
d
f
a
d
mm
mm
a
d
y

So the compression steel will not yield, the initial assumption was incorrect.
( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) [ ] ( )( )( )( )( )
d
a
d
a
f d
a
mm
mm
d
a
mm a
a a
a a
d A E a f A A E a b f
b
y
b
s s y s s s c
<
=
+
=
+
=
= =
=
=
= +
= +
5 . 0
420 600
600
85 . 0
600
600
0600 . 0
1576
6 . 94
6 . 94
0 3 . 711 , 082 , 167 043 . 787421 5 . 26987
0 100 85 . 0 3277 000 , 200 003 . 0 420 6555 3277 000 , 200 003 . 0 1270 25 85 . 0
0 ' ' 003 . 0 ' 003 . 0 ' 85 . 0
1
2
2
1
2

Thus the tension steel yields.
129
( ) 31875 . 0 85 . 0 375 . 0 375 . 0 0600 . 0
1576
1
= = = < = =
=
t
tcl
t
t
d
a
d
a
d
a
mm d

Thus the section is tension controlled, and = 0.90.
( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )
2
2
2 2
2 2
min ,
9394
1
4 . 25
44 . 0 6555
6672 5957
420
1576 1270 4 . 1
1576 1270
420 4
25
4 . 1
4
'
mm
in
mm
in mm A
mm mm
f
d b
d b
f
f
A
s
y
w
w
y
c
s
=
+ =
=
=
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( ) [ ]
Nmm
Nmm
mm mm N mm mm N
d d C
a
d C M
N
mm
mm
mm mm N
a
d
A E C
N mm mm mm N ba f C
A A
s c n
s s s
c c
s s
9
2 2
1
2
min ,
10 78 . 3
000 , 000 , 780 , 3
100 1576 000 , 200 3 . 47 1576 000 , 550 , 2 90 . 0
'
2
000 , 200
003 . 0
6 . 94
100 85 . 0
1 3277 / 000 , 200
003 . 0
'
1 '
000 , 550 , 2 6 . 94 1270 / 25 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0
=
=
+ =
1
]
1
+ |
\
|
=
=
|
\
|
=
|
\
|
=
= = =
>

This strength is larger than the ultimate moment (1.66x10
9
Nmm) so the pier cap beam is
good enough to carry the ultimate load due to dead, live and earthquake loads.

130
Appendix XI
Detailing Requirements of the Prestressed Concrete Girder
Bridge

1.a. Transverse Reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones using the implicit
shear detailing approach.

A
bh
= cross sectional area of the spiral reinforcement = 0.31 in
2
(#5 rebar)
s = center-to-center spacing of the spiral reinforcement = 120 mm
D = the out-to-out diameter of the spiral reinforcement in the circular section
= 921 mm
( )
( )( )
00362 . 0
921 120
. 1
4 . 25
31 . 0 2
2
2
2
"
=
= =
mm mm
in
mm
in
sD
A
provided
bh
v
[Recommended, 2001]

K
shape
= factor that depends on the shape of the section = 0.32 for a circular section
= fixity factor = 2 for fixed-fixed
t
= ratio of longitudinal reinforcement

( )( )
0203 . 0
167 , 894
. 1
4 . 25
. 56 . 1 18
2
2
2
=
=
=
mm
in
mm
in
A
A
g
st

= resistance factor for seismic shear = 0.85
f
su
= the ultimate tensile stress of the longitudinal reinforcement. If f
su
is not available
from coupon tests, the it shall be assumed that f
su
= 1.5 f
y
.
A
g
= gross area of the column ( )
2 2
000 , 894 1067 25 . 0 mm mm = =
131
A
cc
= area of column core concrete, measured to the centerline of the perimeter hoop
or spiral = ( )
2 2
000 , 666 16 937 25 . 0 mm mm mm =
D = diameter of the column concrete core (center-to-center of the rebars) = 867 mm
L = column length = 5432 mm
160 . 0
5432
867 '
tan = = =
mm
mm
L
D

v
= provided
v
= 0.00362
A
v
= 0.8A
g
for a circular column
( ) 581 . 0 8 . 0
0203 . 0
00362 . 0
2
6 . 1 6 . 1
tan
25 . 0
25 . 0
=
=
g t
A
A

. . tan tan K O >
( )( ) ( ) ( )
00285 . 0
581 . 0
5432
867
000 , 666
000 , 894
5 . 1
85 . 0
0203 . 0
2 32 . 0
tan tan
2
2
=
=
=
mm
mm
mm
mm
A
A
f
f
K required
cc
g
yh
su t
shape v

[Recommended, 2001]
v
provided >
v
required (Good)

1.b. Transverse Reinforcement outside the Plastic Hinge Zones

v
* = transverse reinforcement ratio outside the plastic hinge zone
v
* provided = 0.00362
v
= the steel provided in the potential plastic hinge zone =
v
* provided = 0.00362
00160 . 0
420
25
17 . 0 00362 . 0
'
17 . 0 * = = =
yh
c
v v
f
f
required
v
* provided >
v
* required (Good)
[Recommended, 2001]

132
2.a. Transverse Reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones using the explicit shear
detailing approach.
( )
( )
N
mm
mm
N
P V
V V V V
e p
c p u s
000 , 460
5432
867
000 , 880 , 2
2
2
tan
2
=
=
+

Inside the plastic hinge zone:
( )( )
N
mm
A f V
v c c
000 , 179
000 , 894 8 . 0 25 05 . 0
' 05 . 0
2
=
=
=

( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
c p u s
c p u
s
u
yh
bh
s
yh
bh
V V V V
N N N N V V V
N N V
N V
N
mm mm N
mm
mm
D f
s
A
V
mm
mm
mm mm mm D
mm N f
mm S
mm A
+ >
= + = +
= =
=
=
=
=
> =
>
= =
=
=
= =
=
=
=

000 , 491 000 , 179 000 , 460 85 . 0 200 , 52

000 , 480 , 1 000 , 740 , 1 85 . 0
200 , 52
000 , 740 , 1
581 . 0
1
921 / 420
120
200
2
cot "
2
25 166 . 30
tan tan
160 . 0
5432
867
tan
581 . 0
0203 . 0 2
8 . 0 00362 . 0 6 . 1
tan
921 16 937 "
/ 420
120
200
2
2
25 . 0
2
2

Thus the transverse (shear) reinforcement is adequate (Good).
133
2.b. Transverse Reinforcement outside the plastic hinge zones using the explicit shear
detailing approach.

Outside the plastic hinge zone:
( ) ( )
( )
c p u s
c p u
v c c
V V V V
N N N N V V V
N
A f V
+ >
= + = +
=
=

600 , 855 000 , 608 000 , 460 85 . 0 200 , 52
000 , 608
' 17 . 0

[Recommended, 2001]


3. Transverse Reinforcement for Confinement at Plastic Hinges

s
= transverse reinforcement for confinement at plastic hinges
U
sf
= strain energy capacity (modulus of toughness) of the transverse reinforcement
= 110 MPa
= 110 N/mm
2

P
e
= factored axial load (N) including seismic effects
= 2,890,000 N (from Appendix VIII)

( )
( )( )
00687 . 0
1
000 , 666
000 , 894
25
420
0203 . 0
000 , 894 25
000 , 890 , 2
12
110
25
008 . 0
1
' '
12
'
008 . 0
00724 . 0 00362 . 0 2
"
4
2 2
2
2
=
1
1
]
1
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
= = =
cc
g
c
y
t
g c
e
sf
c
s
bh
s
A
A
f
f
A f
P
U
f
required
s D
A
provided

[Recommended, 2001]
s
provided >
s
required (Good)

134
4. Spiral Spacing for Confinement at Plastic Hinges

Required Spacing s = 100 mm
Provided Spacing s = 120 mm
Provided Spacing > Required Spacing (Not Good)
[Recommended, 2001]

5. Transverse Spiral Reinforcement at the Moment Resisting Connection between
Members (Column/Beam and Column/Footing Joints)

s
provided = 0.00724 (from 2.a.)
c
H
D
= tan
D = diameter of the column framing into the joint = 1067 mm
H
c
= the height of the cap beam / joint = 1676 mm
s
required = transverse spiral reinforcement at the moment resisting connection
between members (column/beam and column/footing joints)
= the maximum of
s
required obtained in 2.a. (
s
required = 0.00687) and the
following formula:

( )
01481 . 0
1676
1067
000 , 666
000 , 894
5 . 1
85 . 0
0203 . 0
76 . 0
tan 76 . 0
2
2
2
2
=
=
=
mm
mm
mm
mm
A
A
f
f
required
cc
g
yh
su t
s

Thus
s
required obtained using the above formula (
s
required = 0.01481) controls.
s
provided = 0.00724 <
s
required = 0.01481 (Not Good).
[Recommended, 2001]

135
6. Stirrups in the Pier Cap Beam

Required stirrups A
jv
= 0.16 A
st
, located within a distance 0.5D from the column face,
where :
A
jv
= total provided stirrups cross sectional area in the pier cap beam
A
st
= total area of longitudinal steel in the column
D = diameter of the column.
0.5 D = 0.5 (1067 mm) = 533.5 mm.
( )( )
2
2
2
899 , 2
. 1
4 . 25
. 56 . 1 18 16 . 0 16 . 0 mm
in
mm
in A
st
=
=

For all five columns, there are 32-#5 stirrups within 0.5D of the column. Therefore,
( )( )
2
2
2
6400
. 1
4 . 25
. 31 . 0 32 mm
in
mm
in A
jv
=
=
[Recommended, 2001]
Provided stirrups A
jv
= 6400 mm
2
> Required stirrups = 2,899 mm
2
(Good)

The total construction cost for the bridge is given in Table XI-1. General
conditions, overhead, profit and contingencies were not included in the total cost, because
the estimate was only intended to be used to illustrate how much approximately the new
LRFD Guidelines were going to impact the construction cost. The calculation to estimate
the additional cost incurred in order to comply with the new LRFD Guidelines is as
follows.

Additional Spiral Reinforcing Steel Calculation

The requirement for transverse spiral reinforcement at the moment resisting
connection between members (column/beam and column/footing joints) controls, because
its required spiral reinforcement ratio (
s
= 0.01481) is the highest. For practical reasons,
that reinforcement ratio will be used for the whole length of the column instead of just at
the connections between the columns, pier cap beam and footings. The spiral spacing will
136
also be reduced from 120 mm to 100 mm, as required for confinement at plastic hinges.
Thus now the minimum required cross sectional area of the spiral reinforcing bar can be
found by using the formula for the provided
s
:

( )( )
( )( )( )
2
2
. 529 . 0
341
4
100 921 01481 . 0
100 921
4
01481 . 0
"
4
in A
mm A
mm mm
A
mm mm
A
s D
A
provided
bh
bh
bh
bh
bh
s
=
=
=
=
=

The required cross sectional area is 0.529 in.
2
, and the smallest sufficient rebar size is
rebar #7, which has a cross sectional area of 0.60 in.
2
, or 387 mm
2
.

Length covered by the spiral reinforcement = 5432 mm + 540 mm + 540 mm = 6512 mm
136
Table XI-1. The estimate for the construction cost of the prestressed concrete girder bridge. All prices are in US dollars. Virginia sales tax (4.5%) was applied to
material price only. From Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2003. Copyright R.S. Means Co., Inc., Kingston, MA 781-585-7880; All rights reserved.
Item Quantity Units Material Unit Price Labor Unit Price Equipment Unit Price Total Unit Price Subtotal Cost
Concrete, Class 25 (25 MPa) 250.8 m
3
96.12 100.45 25,192
Concrete, Class 30 (30 MPa) 648.7 m
3
101.36 105.92 68,711
Slab Formwork 1,943 m
2
65.64 33.03 101.62 197,455
Pier Cap Beam Formwork 123.4 m
2
20.02 49.6 70.52 8,702
Column Formwork 27.16 m 114.8 31.32 151.29 4,109
Footing Formwork 84.5 m
2
17.22 33.68 51.67 4,367
Placing Concrete 899.5 m
3
20.86 11.14 32.00 28,784
Concrete Finishing 1,903 m
2
2.91 2.91 5,538
Concrete Curing Blankets 1,903 m
2
4.52 4.72 8,989
Reinforcing Steel in Place 29,405 kg 0.65 0.59 0.00781 1.28 37,552
Reinforcing Steel in Place
Epoxy Coated 67,180 kg 0.88 0.59 0.00781 1.52 101,940
Prestressed Concrete Beams 20 ea. 16,600 332,000
Bridge Deck Grooving 1,228 m
2
0.22 0.67 0.89 1,093
Structure Excavation 200 m
3
3.24 6.23 9.47 1,894
Steel Piles HP 310 x 79 374 m 41.16 11.22 9.41 63.64 23,802
Dynamic Pile Test 4 ea. 19250 77,000
Pile Points 34 ea. 127 57 189.72 6,450
Retaining Structure 115 m 390 758 114 1,280 147,148
Aluminum Railing 152 m 229.6 51.82 2.82 294.57 44,775
Pedestrian Fence 152 m 67.24 15.65 9.09 95.01 14,441
Total Cost 1,139,941

137
Spiral Diameter = 937 mm 16 mm
= 921 mm

#5 rebars at spacing s =120 mm (as written on the drawings)

The length of one full turn
( )
mm 2896
120 921
2 2
=
+ =

The number of turns
3 . 54
120
6512
=
=
mm
mm

Total length of the spiral reinforcing bar for one column
mm
mm
253 , 157
3 . 54 2896
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for one column
( ) ( )
3
2
592 , 617 , 31
253 , 157 16
4
1
mm
mm mm
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for the whole pier (five columns)
3
3
3
158 . 0
958 , 087 , 158
592 , 617 , 31 5
m
mm
mm
=
=

Total weight of the spiral reinforcing bar for the whole pier
kg
m
kg
m
1240
7850 158 . 0
3
3
=
=

138
#7 rebars at spacing s =100 mm (as required by the new LRFD Guidelines)

( )
mm 2895
100 921
2 2
=
+ =

The number of turns
1 . 65
100
6512
=
=
mm
mm

mm
mm
465 , 188
1 . 65 2895
=
=

( )( )
3
2
955 , 935 , 72
465 , 188 387
mm
mm mm
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for the whole pier (five columns)
3
3
3
365 . 0
775 , 679 , 364
955 , 935 , 72 5
m
mm
mm
=
=

Total weight of the spiral reinforcing bar for the whole pier
kg
m
kg
m
2865
7850 365 . 0
3
3
=
=

Additional rebar that has to be placed in the pier
kg
kg kg
1625
1240 2865
=
=

139
According to the construction drawings, all the rebars in the pier are epoxy-
coated. Therefore according to Table XI-1, the cost of placing 1625 kg additional rebar in
the bridge pier is
dollars
kg
dollars
kg
470 , 2
1
52 . 1
1625
=
=

The total construction cost was approximately $1,139,941. Thus the percentage of
construction cost increase for compliance with the new LRFD Guidelines is
% 2 . 0
% 100
941 , 139 , 1
470 , 2
=
dollars
dollars

140
Appendix XII
Material Properties of the Steel-Girder Bridge

Steel in the Plate Girders
E = 29,000 ksi
G = 11,000 ksi
Poissons Ratio = 0.32
Density = 0.284 lb/in
3
f
y
= 50 ksi

Steel not in the Plate Girders
E = 29,000 ksi
G = 11,000 ksi
Density = 0.284 lb/in
3

f
y
= 36 ksi

Concrete in the superstructure
f
c
= 4000 psi
E = 3605 ksi
( ) +
=
1 2
E
G = 1567 ksi
Density = 150 lb/ft
3

Concrete not in the Superstructure
f
c
= 3000 psi
E = 3122 ksi
141
( ) +
=
1 2
E
G = 1357 ksi
Density = 150 lb/ft
3

Rigid Link
E = 29,000 ksi
G = 11,000 ksi
Density = 0

142
Appendix XIII
Section Properties of the Superstructure, Pier Cap Beam and
Columns

Parapet

Figure XIII-1. The actual cross section of the parapet of the steel girder bridge [Brown, 1993]. The 1 =
1=0 scale is no longer correct.

Figure XIII-2. The simplified cross section of the parapet.

3 in. 8 in. 2 in. 7 in.
19 in.
10 in.
20 in.
32 in.
143
( )( )
( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
. 160 . 8
405
5 . 16 3 7
3
46
7 10
2
1
12 13 2
3
35
19 2
2
1
7 32 8 2 32 3
2
1
. 327 . 13
405
2
3
7 3
3
19
7 10
2
1
2
13
13 2
3
52
19 2
2
1
16 32 8
3
32
32 3
2
1
405
2
3 13 7
2
13 32 2
32 8
2
32 3
2
in
x
in
y
in
in in in in in in
in in
in in
Area
=
+
+ +
+ +
=
=
+ +
=
=
+
+
+
+ + =

( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )
4
2 3
2
3
2 3
2
3
2 3 2 3
4
2 3
2
3
2 3
2
3
2 3
2
3
8 . 7627
160 . 8 5 . 16 7 3 7 3
12
1
160 . 8
3
7
13 7 10
2
1
7 10
36
1
160 . 8 12 2 13 2 13
12
1
160 . 8
3
2
11 2 19
2
1
2 19
36
1
7 160 . 8 8 32 8 32
12
1
2 160 . 8 3 32
2
1
3 32
36
1
249 , 34
5 . 1 327 . 13 7 3 3 7
12
1
3
10
3 327 . 13 10 7
2
1
10 7
36
1
5 . 6 327 . 13 13 2 13 2
12
1
327 . 13
3
19
13 19 2
2
1
19 2
36
1
327 . 13 16 32 8 32 8
12
1
3
32
327 . 13 32 3
2
1
32 3
36
1
in
I
in
I
yy
xx
=
+
+
+
+
+
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
=

144
West Bound Plate Girder

Figure XIII-3. The simplified cross section of the West Bound plate girder. This figure was not drawn to
scale.
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
2 3
2
3
. 375 . 48
14
8
9
54
16
7
12
4
3
. 63 . 365
12
4
3
12
1
16
7
54
12
1
14 125 . 1
12
1
724 , 23
244 . 24 375 . 0 54 125 . 1
4
3
12
4
3
12
12
1
244 . 24 27 125 . 1 54
16
7
54
16
7
12
1
5625 . 0 244 . 24 14
8
9
8
9
14
12
1
. 7
. 244 . 24
375 . 48
5 . 55 12
4
3
125 . 28 54
16
7
16
9
14
8
9
in
A
in
I
in
I
in x
in
y
yy
xx
=
=
=
=
=
+ +
+
+
=
=
=

=

x 12 plate
7/16 x 54 plate
1 1/8 x 14 plate
145
West Bound Superstructure

Figure XIII-4. The actual cross section of the West Bound superstructure [Brown, 1993]. The 3/8 = 1-0 is no longer correct.
146

Figure XIII-5. The simplified cross section of the West Bound superstructure. This figure was not drawn to
scale.

Parapets:
ksi psi E
psi f
p
c
605 , 3 000 , 4 000 , 57
000 , 4 '
= =
=

Deck:
ksi psi E
psi f
d
c
605 , 3 000 , 4 000 , 57
000 , 4 '
= =
=

Steel:
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =

528.375 in.
Y
Y
X X
32 in.
8.5-in slab
54.875 in.
147
( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( )( ) ( )( )( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )( )( )
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( )[ ] ( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( )( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
4
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 2
2
4
2
2 3
2
2 2 2
. 000 , 600 , 25
86 . 262 483 375 . 48 63 . 365
86 . 262 371 375 . 48 63 . 365 86 . 262 371 375 . 48 63 . 365
259 86 . 262 375 . 48 63 . 365 147 86 . 262 375 . 48 63 . 365
35 86 . 262 375 . 48 63 . 365 86 . 262 1875 . 264 375 . 528 5 . 8 124 . 0
375 . 528 5 . 8
12
1
124 . 0 86 . 262 160 . 8 375 . 528 405 124 . 0
8 . 7627 124 . 0 160 . 8 86 . 262 405 124 . 0 8 . 7627 124 . 0
. 86 . 262
899
1295 375 . 48
2
375 . 528
5 . 8 375 . 528 124 . 0 375 . 528 405 124 . 0
. 000 , 373
9375 . 27 450 . 52 375 . 48 5 724 , 23 5
450 . 52 25 . 4 875 . 55 5 . 8 375 . 528 124 . 0 5 . 8 375 . 528
12
1
124 . 0
450 . 52 327 . 13 5 . 8 875 . 55 2 405 124 . 0 249 , 34 2 124 . 0
. 450 . 52
899
244 . 24 375 . 48 5 125 . 60 5 . 8 375 . 528 124 . 0 702 . 77 405 2 124 . 0
. 899 . 375 . 48 5 . 5 . 8 . 375 . 528 124 . 0 405 2 124 . 0
124 . 0
000 , 29
605 , 3
in
I
in
x
in
I
in
y
in in in in in A
ksi
ksi
n
yy
xx
tr
=
+ +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + =
=
+
+
=
=
+ +
+ +
+
+ + + =
=
+ +
=
= + + =
= =

148
East Bound Plate Girder

Figure XIII-6. The simplified cross section of the East Bound plate girder. This figure was not drawn to
scale.

( ) ( )
. 7
. 521 . 23
125 . 50
625 . 0 14
4
5
27 25 . 1 54
16
7
375 . 0 54 25 . 1 12
4
3
. 125 . 50
14
4
5
54
16
7
12
4
3
2
2
in x
in
in
y
in
A
=
=
+ +
+ +
=
=
=

( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )
4
2
3
2 3
2
3
722 , 24
521 . 23 625 . 55
4
3
12
4
3
12
12
1
521 . 23 25 . 28 54
16
7
54
16
7
12
1
625 . 0 521 . 23 14
4
5
4
5
14
12
1
in
I
xx
=

=

x 12 plate
7/16 x 54 plate
1 x 14 plate
149
( )( ) ( ) ( )
4
3
3
3
. 21 . 394
12
4
3
12
1
16
7
54
12
1
14 125 . 1
12
1
in
I
yy
=
=
150
East Bound Superstructure

Figure XIII-7. The actual cross section of the East Bound superstructure [Brown, 1993]. The 3/8 = 1-0 scale is no longer correct.
151

Figure XIII-8. The simplified cross section of the East Bound superstructure [Brown, 1993].

Parapets:
ksi psi E
psi f
p
c
605 , 3 000 , 4 000 , 57
000 , 4 '
= =
=

Deck:
ksi psi E
psi f
d
c
605 , 3 000 , 4 000 , 57
000 , 4 '
= =
=

Steel:
ksi E
s
000 , 29 =

676.25 in.
Y
Y
X X
32 in. 8.5-in. slab
56 in.
152
( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( )( ) ( )( )( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )( )( )
( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( )[ ] ( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( )( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
4
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 2
2
4
2
2 3
2
2 2 2
. 000 , 500 , 50
59 . 336 630 125 . 50 21 . 394
59 . 336 511 125 . 50 21 . 394 59 . 336 392 125 . 50 21 . 394
273 59 . 336 125 . 50 21 . 394 154 59 . 336 125 . 50 21 . 394
35 59 . 336 125 . 50 21 . 394 59 . 336 125 . 338 25 . 676 5 . 8 124 . 0
25 . 676 5 . 8
12
1
124 . 0 59 . 336 160 . 8 25 . 676 405 124 . 0
8 . 7627 124 . 0 160 . 8 59 . 336 405 124 . 0 8 . 7627 124 . 0
. 59 . 336
1114
1995 125 . 50
2
25 . 676
5 . 8 25 . 676 124 . 0 25 . 676 405 124 . 0
. 000 , 521
521 . 23 917 . 51 125 . 50 6 722 , 24 6
917 . 51 25 . 4 56 5 . 8 25 . 676 124 . 0 5 . 8 25 . 676
12
1
124 . 0
917 . 51 327 . 13 5 . 8 56 2 405 124 . 0 249 , 34 2 124 . 0
. 917 . 51
1114
521 . 23 125 . 50 6 25 . 60 5 . 8 25 . 676 124 . 0 827 . 77 405 2 124 . 0
. 1114 . 125 . 50 6 . 5 . 8 . 25 . 676 124 . 0 405 2 124 . 0
124 . 0
000 , 29
605 , 3
in
I
in
x
in
I
in
y
in in in in in A
ksi
ksi
n
yy
xx
tr
=
+ +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ +
+ + =
=
+
+
=
=
+ +
+ +
+
+ + + =
=
+ +
=
= + + =
= =

153
West Bound and East Bound Pier Cap Beam

Figure XIII-9. The actual West Bound pier cap beam cross section [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is
no longer correct.

Figure XIII-10. The simplified West Bound pier cap beam cross section. This figure was not drawn to
scale.
48 in.
45 in.
154

Figure XIII-11. The actual East Bound pier cap beam cross section [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is
no longer correct.

Figure XIII-12. The simplified East Bound pier cap beam cross section. This figure was not drawn to scale.

48 in.
45 in.
155
( )( )
( )( )
4 3
4 3
2
. 000 , 365 . 45 . 48
12
1
. 000 , 415 . 48 . 45
12
1
2160
in in in I
in in in I
in A
yy
xx
= =
= =
=

West Bound and East Bound Columns

Figure XIII-13. The cross section of the West Figure XIII-14. The cross section of the East Bound
Bound column [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 column [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is
scale is no longer correct. is no longer correct.
( )
( )
( )
4 4
4 4
2 2
. 000 , 153 . 42
64
1
. 000 , 153 . 42
64
1
. 4 . 1385 . 42
4
1
in in I
in in I
in in A
yy
xx
= =
= =
= =

156
Appendix XIV
Joint Coordinates and Member Numbers of the Steel Girder
Bridge

Figure XIV-1. The RISA 3D model of the steel girder bridge.

157
Table XIV-1. The joint coordinates of the West Bound and East Bound steel girder bridges, units are in.
Joint Label X Y Z
N1 0 309 0
N2 1191 309 0
N3 2352 309 0
N4 940 233 333
N5 985 233 273
N6 1122 233 91
N7 1191 233 0
N8 1260 233 -91
N9 1397 233 -273
N10 1442 233 -333
N11 985 0 273
N12 1122 0 91
N13 1260 0 -91
N14 1397 0 -273
N15 618 322 -780
N16 1806 322 -780
N17 2962 322 -780
N18 1612 246 -520
N19 1658 246 -583
N20 1806 246 -780
N21 1953 246 -977
N22 2000 246 -1039
N23 1658 0 -583
N24 1806 0 -780
N25 1953 0 -977

158

Table XIV-2. Member numbers of the steel girder bridge.
Member Number Type Begin Joint End Joint
M3 Rigid Link N2 N7
M10 Column N5 N11
M11 Column N6 N12
M12 Column N8 N13
M13 Column N9 N14
M16 Rigid Link N16 N20
M21 Column N19 N23
M22 Column N20 N24
M23 Column N21 N25

159
Appendix XV
Cracked Section Properties of the Columns of the Steel Girder
Bridge

Table XV-1. The results of the calculation to get the column cracked section properties.
Load M10 M11 M12 M13 M21 M22 M23
Design Truck 16.8 17.3 17.3 16.8 22.3 24.9 22.3
Design Tandem 11.5 11.8 11.8 11.5 15.3 17.0 15.3
Two Design Trucks 22.5 23.2 23.2 22.5 29.8 33.2 29.8
Lane 15.4 15.9 15.9 15.5 19.8 22.1 19.8
Controlling Load 22.5 23.2 23.2 22.5 29.8 33.2 29.8
Live Load Effects 104 107 107 104 107 119 107
Dead Load Effects 262 277 277 262 279 316 279
LL+DL Effects 314 331 331 314 332 375 332
P / fc'Ag 0.0755 0.0796 0.0796 0.0755 0.0799 0.0903 0.0799
Ie / Ig 0.402 0.405 0.405 0.402 0.388 0.393 0.388
Ie x-x 61403 61862 61862 61403 59265 60029 59265
Ie y-y 61403 61862 61862 61403 59265 60029 59265

Note- Loads are in kips, and moment of inertias are in kip-in.

160
Appendix XVI
Cracked Section Properties of the Pier Cap Beams of the Steel
Girder Bridge using the Moment Curvature Method and ACI
Equation

West Bound Pier Cap Beam

Figure XVI-1. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is no longer
correct.

Figure XVI-2. The simplified pier cap beam cross section. This figure was not drawn to scale.
48 in.
45 in.
161
Moment Curvature Method
=
+ =
+ =
kd
c s s y s
kd
s s c y S
S C
dy f b f A f A
f A dy f b f A
C C T
0
0
' '
' '

( )( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
. 05 . 43
. 00 . 1 7 . 00 . 1 4
. 5 . 44 . 00 . 1 7 . 5 . 40 . 00 . 1 4
2 2
2 2 2
in
in in
in in in in
d
=
+
+
=

( )( )
( )( )
2 2
2 2
. 89 . 8 . 27 . 1 7 '
. 0 . 11 . 00 . 1 11
in in A
in in A
s
s
= =
= =

kd d
d kd
kd d d kd
kd d
kd
kd d kd
y s
y
s
y c
y
c
=
'
'
'
'

( )
( ) ( )
( ) 1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
=
= = =
|
\
|
=
= = =
2
3
2
0
2
0
0
3
1
' ' '
00192 . 0
3000 57
3 2 ' 2
. 05 . 43
. 5 . 3
00207 . 0 '
00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
kd d
kd
kd d
kd
bf E A f A
ksi
ksi
E
f
kd in
in kd
ksi
ksi
E
f
y y
c s s s y s
c
c
s
s
y
y

162
( )
( )
. 05 . 43
00192 . 0
00207 . 0
3 '
. 45
. 05 . 43
. 5 . 3
00207 . 0 '
000 , 29
10 # 7 . 89 . 8 '
60
9 # 11 . 0 . 11
0
2
2
in d
ksi f
in b
kd in
in kd
ksi E
bars in A
ksi f
bars in A
y
c
s
s
s
y
s
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

equation are

kd = 32.10 in. or kd = 11.45in. or kd = -17.92in.

kd = -17.92in. is obviously ruled out, and kd = 32.10in. is ruled out because the
less than half of 43.05 in., which is equal to 21.525in. Thus kd = 11.45in. is the only
possible solution.

00207 . 0 000521 . 0
. 45 . 11 . 05 . 43
. 5 . 3 . 45 . 11
00207 . 0
'
' = < =
=
y y s
in in
in in
kd d
d kd

Now
c max
0

00192 . 0 000750 . 0
. 45 . 11 . 05 . 43
. 45 . 11
00207 . 0
0 max
= < =
=
in in
in
kd d
kd
y c

163


. / 10 55 . 6
. 45 . 11
000750 . 0
5 max
in
in kd
c
y
= = =

Now the moment at yield can be obtained using Figure V-4.

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) kd kd
kd kd
y
c c
c c
2
0
max
0
max
2
2
0
max
2
0
max
3
1
4
1
3
2

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) . 45 . 11
00192 . 0
000750 . 0
3
1
. 45 . 11
00192 . 0
000750 . 0
. 45 . 11
00192 . 0
000750 . 0
4
1
. 45 . 11
00192 . 0
000750 . 0
3
2
2
2
2
2
in in
in in
y
=
( ) ( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( )
. 800 , 25
. 5 . 3 . 05 . 43 26 . 134 19 . 525 . 49 . 7 . 45 . 11 . 05 . 43
) ' (
26 . 134
. 45 . 11 . 05 . 43
. 5 . 3 45 . 11
00207 . 0 000 , 29 . 89 . 8
19 . 525
. 45 . 11
00192 . 0
000750 . 0
3
1
. 45 . 11
00192 . 0
000750 . 0
3 . 45
3
1
'
. 49 . 7
2
2
2
0
max
0
max
0
in kips
in in k k in in in
d d C C y kd d M
k
in in
in in
ksi in C
k
in in ksi in
kd kd bf
dy f b C
in y
s c y
s
c c
c
kd
c c
=
+ + =
+ + =
=
|
\
|
=
=
1
1
]
1
\
|
|
\
|
=
1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
=
=
=

164
( )( )
305 . 0
. 48 . 45
12
1
. 000 , 126
. 000 , 126
3000 57
. 000 , 000 , 394
. 000 , 000 , 394
/ 10 55 . 6
800 , 25
3
4
4
2
2
5
= =
=
=
=
= =
in in
in
I
I
in
ksi
in kips
I
in kips
mm
in kips
M
EI
g
e
e
y
y
e

ACI Equation Method

( ) ( )( )
. 102 , 7
. 24
. 48 . 45
12
1
411 . 0
411 3000 5 . 7 ' 5 . 7
3 '
3
in kips
in
in in ksi
M
y
I f
M
psi psi f f
ksi f
cr
r
cr
c r
c
=
=
=
= = =
=

moments in the pier cap beam (M
a
), which are given in Table XVI-1.

Table XVI-1. The calculation for the maximum positive and negative moments in the pier cap beam.
East Bound Lane West Bound Lane
Maximum Positive Maximum Negative Maximum Positive Maximum Negative
Design Truck 356 -284 477 -351
Design Tandem 243 -194 326 -240
Two Design Trucks 476 -379 635 -468
Lane 327 -260 423 -312
Controlling Load 476 -379 635 -468
Live Load Effects 2204 -1754 2283 -1682
Dead Load Effects 5049 -3841 5237 -3881
LL+DL Effects 6151 -4718 6379 -4722

Note Loads are in kips.

165

. 6379 102 , 7 in kips M in kips M
a cr
= > = for the maximum positive moment.
. 4721 102 , 7 in kips M in kips M
a cr
= > = for the maximum negative moment.
( )( )
4
3
. 000 , 415
. 48 . 45
12
1
in
in in
I I
g e
=
=
=

East Bound Pier Cap Beam

Figure XVI-3. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Brown, 1993]. The 3/4' =1-0 scale is no longer
correct.

166

Figure XVI-4. The simplified pier cap beam cross section. This figure was not drawn to scale.

Moment Curvature Method
=
+ =
+ =
kd
c s s y s
kd
s s c y S
S C
dy f b f A f A
f A dy f b f A
C C T
0
0
' '
' '

( )( )( ) ( )( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
. 83 . 42
. 00 . 1 7 . 00 . 1 5
. 5 . 44 . 00 . 1 7 . 5 . 40 . 00 . 1 5
2 2
2 2
in
in in
in in in in
d
=
+
+
=

( )( )
( )( )
2 2
2 2
. 43 . 11 . 27 . 1 9 '
. 0 . 12 . 00 . 1 12
in in A
in in A
s
s
= =
= =

48 in.
45 in.
167
kd d
d kd
kd d d kd
kd d
kd
kd d kd
y s
y
s
y c
y
c
=
'
'
'
'

( )
( ) ( )
( ) 1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
=
= = =
|
\
|
=
= = =
2
3
2
0
2
0
0
3
1
' ' '
00192 . 0
3000 57
3 2 ' 2
. 83 . 42
. 5 . 3
00207 . 0 '
00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
kd d
kd
kd d
kd
bf E A f A
ksi
ksi
E
f
kd in
in kd
ksi
ksi
E
f
y y
c s s s y s
c
c
s
s
y
y

( )
( )
. 83 . 42
00192 . 0
00207 . 0
3 '
. 45
. 83 . 42
. 5 . 3
00207 . 0 '
000 , 29
10 # 9 . 43 . 11 '
60
9 # 12 . 0 . 12
0
2
2
in d
ksi f
in b
kd in
in kd
ksi E
bars in A
ksi f
bars in A
y
c
s
s
s
y
s
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

equation are

kd = 32.13 in. or kd = 11.59in. or kd = -19.32in.

168
kd = -19.32in. is obviously ruled out, and kd = 32.13in. is ruled out because the
less than half of 42.83 in., which is equal to 21.415in. Thus kd = 11.45in. is the only
possible solution.

00207 . 0 000536 . 0
. 59 . 11 . 83 . 42
. 5 . 3 . 59 . 11
00207 . 0
'
' = < =
=
y y s
in in
in in
kd d
d kd

Now
c max
0

00192 . 0 000768 . 0
. 59 . 11 . 83 . 42
. 59 . 11
00207 . 0
0 max
= < =
=
in in
in
kd d
kd
y c


. / 10 63 . 6
. 59 . 11
000768 . 0
5 max
in
in kd
c
y
= = =

Now the moment at yield can be obtained using Figure V-4.
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) kd kd
kd kd
y
c c
c c
2
0
max
0
max
2
2
0
max
2
0
max
3
1
4
1
3
2

( ) ( )
( ) ( ) . 59 . 11
00192 . 0
000768 . 0
3
1
. 59 . 11
00192 . 0
000768 . 0
. 59 . 11
00192 . 0
000768 . 0
4
1
. 59 . 11
00192 . 0
000768 . 0
3
2
2
2
2
2
in in
in in
y
=
. 49 . 7 in y =
169
( ) ( )
( )( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
327 . 0
. 48 . 45
12
1
. 000 , 136
. 000 , 136
3000 57
. 000 , 000 , 423
. 000 , 000 , 423
/ 10 63 . 6
000 , 28
. 000 , 28
. 5 . 3 . 83 . 42 178 542 . 58 . 7 . 59 . 11 . 83 . 42
) ' (
178
. 59 . 11 . 83 . 42
. 5 . 3 59 . 11
00207 . 0 000 , 29 . 43 . 11
542
. 59 . 11
00192 . 0
000768 . 0
3
1
. 59 . 11
00192 . 0
000768 . 0
3 . 45
3
1
'
3
4
4
2
2
5
2
2
2
0
max
0
max
0
= =
=
=
=

= =
=
+ + =
+ + =
=
|
\
|
=
=
1
1
]
1
\
|
|
\
|
=
1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
=
=
in in
in
I
I
in
ksi
in kips
I
in kips
mm
in kips
M
EI
in kips
in in k k in in in
d d C C y kd d M
k
in in
in in
ksi in C
k
in in ksi in
kd kd bf
dy f b C
g
e
e
y
y
e
s c y
s
c c
c
kd
c c

170
ACI Equation Method

( ) ( )( )
. 102 , 7
. 24
. 48 . 45
12
1
411 . 0
411 3000 5 . 7 ' 5 . 7
3 '
3
in kips
in
in in ksi
M
y
I f
M
psi psi f f
ksi f
cr
r
cr
c r
c
=
=
=
= = =
=

moments in the pier cap beam (M
a
), which are given in Table XVI-1.

. 151 , 6 102 , 7 in kips M in kips M
a cr
= > = for the maximum positive moment.
. 718 , 4 102 , 7 in kips M in kips M
a cr
= > = for the maximum negative moment.
( )( )
4
3
. 000 , 415
. 48 . 45
12
1
in
in in
I I
g e
=
=
=

171
Appendix XVII
Period of Vibration and Equivalent Earthquake Loads with
the Uniform Load Method of the Steel Girder Bridge

West Bound Bridge
( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
. / 262 . 0
. 344 , 2
515 , 1 405 . 0
. sec 0828 . 0
/ 600 , 22 / 386
515 , 1
2 2
1515
. 6 . 115 . / 0122 . 2 . 6 . 115 . / 4968 . 0 9
. 8 . 118 . / 9713 . 1 . 8 . 118 . / 4968 . 0 9
. / 600 , 22
. 371 . 10
. 2344 . / 100
2
,
0
in k
in
k
L
W S
p
in k s in
k
gK
W
T
k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k W
in k
in
in in k
v
L p
K
a
e
MAX s
= = =
= = =
=
+ +
+ =
= = =

East Bound Bridge
( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
. / 327 . 0
. 352 , 2
897 , 1 405 . 0
. sec 0664 . 0
/ 000 , 44 / 386
897 , 1
2 2
1897
. 1 . 116 . / 5737 . 2 . 1 . 116 . / 6128 . 0 9
. 1 . 119 . / 5243 . 2 . 1 . 119 . / 6128 . 0 9
. / 000 , 44
. 34 . 5
. 2352 . / 100
2
,
0
in k
in
k
L
W S
p
in k s in
k
gK
W
T
k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k W
in k
in
in in k
v
L p
K
a
e
MAX s
= = =
= = =
=
+ +
+ =
= = =

172
Appendix XVIII
The Period of Vibration and Equivalent Earthquake Loads
with the Single Mode Spectral Analysis Method for the Steel
Girder Bridge

West Bound Bridge
( )( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) x v x w x v x w x v x w
S
x p
ond
s in in k g p
T
dx x v x w
dx x v x w
dx x v
s s s
a
e
s
s
s
0488 . 0
585 , 63
405 . 0 7663
) ( ) ( ) (
sec 0708 . 0
986 , 12 / . 386 . / 100
585 , 63
2 2
585 , 63 ) ( ) (
7663 ) ( ) (
986 , 12 ) (
2
0
2
= = =
= = =
= =
= =
= =

East Bound Bridge
( )( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) x v x w x v x w x v x w
S
x p
ond
s in in k g p
T
dx x v x w
dx x v x w
dx x v
s s s
a
e
s
s
s
0946 . 0
21069
405 . 0 4922
) ( ) ( ) (
sec 0567 . 0
709 , 6 / . 386 . / 100
21069
2 2
21069 ) ( ) (
4922 ) ( ) (
709 , 6 ) (
2
0
2
= = =
= = =
= =
= =
= =

173
Table XVIII-1. The calculation to get the period of vibration and equivalent lateral loads for the West
Bound of the steel girder bridge using the single mode spectral analysis method.
Deflection Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Period p
e
(x)
0 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000
-0.386 4 -1.54 1.99 -0.77 1.99 0.30 0.00936
-1.383 2 -2.77 0.99 -1.37 0.99 1.90 0.03353
-2.769 4 -11.08 1.99 -5.50 1.99 15.24 0.06713
-4.349 2 -8.70 0.99 -4.32 0.99 18.79 0.10544
-5.956 4 -23.82 1.99 -11.84 1.99 70.49 0.14440
-7.447 2 -14.89 0.99 -7.40 0.99 55.10 0.18054
-8.708 4 -34.83 1.99 -17.30 1.99 150.69 0.21112
-9.652 2 -19.30 0.99 -9.59 0.99 92.56 0.23400
-10.218 4 -40.87 1.99 -20.31 1.99 207.48 0.24772
-10.371 1 -10.37 1.97 -20.44 1.97 212.03 0.99768
-168.2 -98.8 824.6
6660 3914 32653
0 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00000
-0.366 4 -1.46 1.99 -0.73 1.99 0.27 0.00887
-1.317 2 -2.63 0.99 -1.31 0.99 1.72 0.03193
-2.646 4 -10.58 1.99 -5.26 1.99 13.91 0.06415
-4.174 2 -8.35 0.99 -4.15 0.99 17.31 0.10119
-5.741 4 -22.96 1.99 -11.41 1.99 65.50 0.13918
-7.217 2 -14.43 0.99 -7.17 0.99 51.75 0.17497
-8.49 4 -33.96 1.99 -16.87 1.99 143.24 0.20583
-9.477 2 -18.95 0.99 -9.42 0.99 89.24 0.22976
-10.116 4 -40.46 1.99 -20.10 1.99 203.36 0.24525
-10.371 1 -10.37 2.01 -20.87 2.01 216.43 1.01838
-164.2 -97.3 802.7
6326 3748 30932
Alpha= 12986 Beta= 7663 Gamma= 63585
Period= 0.0708

Note Deflections are in inches, equivalent earthquake loads p
e
(x) are in kips, is in in
2
, is in kips-in,
and is in kips-in
2
.

174
Table XVIII-2. The calculation to get the period of vibration and equivalent lateral loads for the East
Bound of the steel girder bridge using the single mode spectral analysis method.
Deflection Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Period p
e
(x)
0 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.0000
-0.198 4 -0.79 2.45 -0.49 2.45 0.10 0.0115
-0.711 2 -1.42 1.23 -0.87 1.23 0.62 0.0412
-1.423 4 -5.69 2.45 -3.49 2.45 4.96 0.0825
-2.236 2 -4.47 1.23 -2.74 1.23 6.13 0.1296
-3.062 4 -12.25 2.45 -7.51 2.45 22.98 0.1775
-3.83 2 -7.66 1.23 -4.69 1.23 17.98 0.2220
-4.48 4 -17.92 2.45 -10.98 2.45 49.20 0.2597
-4.967 2 -9.93 1.23 -6.09 1.23 30.24 0.2879
-5.26 4 -21.04 2.45 -12.89 2.45 67.82 0.3049
-5.34 1 -5.34 2.52 -13.48 2.52 71.98 1.2752
-86.52 -63.23 272.00
3435 2510 10798
0 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.0000
-0.189 4 -0.76 2.45 -0.46 2.45 0.09 0.0110
-0.679 2 -1.36 1.23 -0.83 1.23 0.57 0.0394
-1.364 4 -5.46 2.45 -3.34 2.45 4.56 0.0791
-2.151 2 -4.30 1.23 -2.64 1.23 5.67 0.1247
-2.959 4 -11.84 2.45 -7.25 2.45 21.46 0.1715
-3.719 2 -7.44 1.23 -4.56 1.23 16.95 0.2156
-4.375 4 -17.50 2.45 -10.72 2.45 46.92 0.2536
-4.883 2 -9.77 1.23 -5.98 1.23 29.22 0.2831
-5.211 4 -20.84 2.45 -12.77 2.45 66.56 0.3021
-5.34 1 -5.34 2.57 -13.74 2.57 73.39 1.3001
-84.60 -62.31 265.39
3274 2411 10271
Alpha= 6709 Beta= 4922 Gamma= 21069
Period= 0.0567

Note Deflections are in inches, equivalent earthquake loads p
e
(x) are in kips, is in in
2
, is in kips-in,
and is in kips-in
2
.

175
Appendix XIX
The Complete Results of the Dead Load, Live Load and
Earthquake Load Effects for the Steel Girder Bridge

Table XIX-1. The complete results of the dead load, live load and earthquake load effects for the West
Bound of the steel girder bridge.
M17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M18 -2.31 -3.14 1.04 0.00 -0.50 -1.05
M19 2.31 3.14 1.04 0.13 2.65 3.20
Axial Load (k) M20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M21 -2.74 -3.71 278 0 276 276
M22 0.01 0.01 317 120 377 377
M23 2.74 3.71 278 107 334 334
M17 (z-z) 0 0 5043 2260 514 514
M18 (z-z) 400 544 5214 2281 552 560
Moment (k-in) M19 (z-z) -400 -544 5214 2281 507 499
except Ultimate M20 (z-z) 0 0 5043 2260 514 514
in k-ft M21 (y-y) 284 386 137 17 27.9 33.5
M22 (y-y) 293 398 0 0 16.3 22.1
M23 (y-y) 282 383 -137 -17 3.56 9.16

Table XIX-2. The complete results of the dead load, live load and earthquake load effects for the East
Bound of the steel girder bridge.
M4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M5 -1.70 -2.32 -0.46 -0.58 -1.88 -2.29
M6 -3.89 -5.32 0.31 -0.11 -2.33 -3.29
M7 3.89 5.32 0.31 0.00 2.91 3.86
M8 1.70 2.32 -0.46 0.00 0.68 1.09
Axial Loads (k) M9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
M10 -1.21 -1.66 254 0 253 253
M11 -3.00 -4.11 270 0 268 267
M12 3.01 4.11 270 103 323 324
M13 1.21 1.66 254 100 305 305
M4 (z-z) 0 0 4502 2065 461 461
M5 (z-z) -179 -245 4796 2047 475 471
M6 (z-z) 323 442 4915 2120 516 522
M7 (z-z) -324 -443 4914 2119 480 473
Moments (k-in) M8 (z-z) 179 245 4795 2046 495 498
except Ultimate M9 (z-z) 0 0 4502 2065 461 461
in k-ft M10 (y-y) 191 261 -56.74 -71.82 2.89 6.79
M11 (y-y) 256 350 95.40 58.33 24.62 29.85
M12 (y-y) 256 350 -95.19 -58.23 3.84 9.06
M13 (y-y) 190 260 56.39 71.64 18.23 22.12

176
Appendix XX
Column Interaction Diagrams of the Steel Girder Bridge

West Bound Bridge

Figure XX-1. The cross section of the West Bound bridge columns [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is
no longer correct.

( )
2
10
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
2 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
0 . 1
4 . 1385 . 42
4
1
60
3 '
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in in A
ksi f
ksi f
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
g
y
c
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=

177
00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
0144 . 0
4 . 1385
20
20
00 . 1
2
2
2
2
11
= = =
= = =
= =
=
ksi
ksi
E
f
in
in
A
A
in A A
in A
s
y
y
g
st
t
si st
s

Nominal Concentric Axial Load Capacity
( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
k P
k P P
A k P
k k P
P P
k in ksi A f P
k
in ksi in in ksi
A f A A f P
n
n
a
g c a
st y st g c
985 , 2
511 , 3 85 . 0 85 . 0
' 3511
511 , 3 682 , 4 75 . 0
75 . 0
552 . 4 . 1385 3 133 . 0 ' 133 . 0
682 , 4
. 20 60 . 20 . 4 . 1385 3 85 . 0
' 85 . 0
(max)
0 (max)
0
0
0
2
2 2 2
0
=
= =
=
= =
= >
= = =
=
+ =
+ =

( )
( )( )
( )
' 080 , 1
080 , 1 200 , 1 9 . 0
1200
. 20 60
2
1
1
E k P
k k P
k P
in ksi P
A f P
A f P
nt
nt
nt
nt
n
i
si y nt
n
i
si y nt
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=

178
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7
d8
d9
d10
d11

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
. 5 . 3
. 36 . 4 72 sin 5 . 17 21
. 84 . 6 54 sin 5 . 17 21
. 7 . 10 36 sin 5 . 17 21
. 6 . 15 18 sin 5 . 17 21
. 21
. 4 . 26 72 cos 5 . 17 21
. 3 . 31 54 cos 5 . 17 21
. 2 . 35 36 cos 5 . 17 21
. 6 . 37 18 cos 5 . 17 21
. 5 . 38
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
=
= =
= =
= =
= =
=
= + =
= + =
= + =
= + =
=
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

179
P
n
and M
n
s1
= -
y
)

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) 00159 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 7 . 10 . 8 . 22
000947 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 6 . 15 . 8 . 22
000237 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 21 . 8 . 22
000388 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 4 . 26
000916 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 3 . 31
00134 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 2 . 35
00160 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 6 . 37
00207 . 0
. 8 . 22 . 5 . 38
00207 . 0 1 003 . 0
003 . 0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
= =
=

=
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in in c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
y s

c = 22.8 in.
19.2 in.
cu
= 0.003
s1
= -0.00207
180
( )
( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )( ) k in ksi C
rad
in
in in
h
a
h
h f C
OK in d in in c a
ksi f ksi ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
c
c c
s s s s
s s s s
s s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s
s
s
585 , 1
4
49 . 1 cos 49 . 1 sin 49 . 1
. 42 3 85 . 0
49 . 1
. 21
. 38 . 19 . 21
cos
2
2
cos
4
cos sin
' 85 . 0
. 42 . 38 . 19 . 8 . 22 85 . 0
60 60 66 . 73 000 , 29 00254 . 0
60 60 47 . 70 000 , 29 00243 . 0
60 60 9 . 60 000 , 29 00210 . 0
11 . 46 000 , 29 00159 . 0
46 . 27 000 , 29 000947 . 0
87 . 6 000 , 29 000237 . 0
25 . 11 000 , 29 000388 . 0
56 . 26 000 , 29 000916 . 0
86 . 38 000 , 29 00134 . 0
4 . 46 000 , 29 00160 . 0
60 000 , 29 00207 . 0
00254 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 5 . 3 . 8 . 22
00243 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 36 . 4 . 8 . 22
00210 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 84 . 6 . 8 . 22
2
1 1
2
1
11 11 11
10 10 10
9 9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
11
10
9
=

=
=

=
= < = = =
= > = = =
= > = = =
= > = = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=

=
=

=
=

181
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( ) k in ksi ksi A f f F
k in ksi ksi A f f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
45 . 57 . 00 . 1 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
9 . 114 . 00 . 1 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
9 . 114 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
12 . 87 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 11 . 46 ' 85 . 0
82 . 49 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 46 . 27 ' 85 . 0
74 . 13 . 00 . 2 87 . 6
5 . 22 . 00 . 2 25 . 11
12 . 53 . 00 . 2 56 . 26
72 . 77 . 00 . 2 86 . 38
8 . 92 . 00 . 2 4 . 46
60 . 00 . 1 60
2
11 11 11
2
10 10 10
2
9 9 9
2
8 8 8
2
7 7 7
2
6 6 6
2
5 5 5
2
4 4 4
2
3 3 3
2
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =

( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
b n
b n
y s t
b
i
i si c n
b si c n
M ft kips ft kips M
P k k P
M
ft kips
in kips
in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
d
h
F
a h
C M
P k F C P

= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
=
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ =
=
= = + =
=
1750 3 . 333 , 2 75 . 0
288 , 1 717 , 1 75 . 0
75 . 0
3 . 2333
000 , 28
. 5 . 3 . 21 45 . 57
. 36 . 4 . 21 9 . 114 . 7 . 10 . 21 12 . 87
. 6 . 15 . 21 82 . 49 . 21 . 21 74 . 13
. 4 . 26 . 21 5 . 22 . 3 . 31 . 21 12 . 53
. 2 . 35 . 21 72 . 77 . 6 . 37 . 21 8 . 92
. 5 . 38 . 21 60 . 69 . 9 . 21 585 , 1
2 2 2
717 , 1
1
9
1

The column interaction diagram is shown in Figure XX-4.
182
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Phi Mn (k-ft)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)

Figure XX-2. The column interaction diagram for the West Bound bridge columns. The grey points show
the factored axial loads and moments in the columns.

East Bound Bridge

Figure XX-3. The cross section of the East Bound bridge columns [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is
no longer correct.

183
( )
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=
2
2
12
2
11
2
10
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
2 2
22
00 . 1
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
00 . 2
0 . 1
4 . 1385 . 42
4
1
60
3 '
in A A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in in A
ksi f
ksi f
si st
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
g
y
c

00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
0159 . 0
4 . 1385
22
2
2
= = =
= = =
ksi
ksi
E
f
in
in
A
A
s
y
y
g
st
t

184
( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
k P
k P P
A k P
k k P
P P
k in ksi A f P
k
in ksi in in ksi
A f A A f P
n
n
a
g c a
st y st g c
058 , 3
598 , 3 85 . 0 85 . 0
' 3598
598 , 3 797 , 4 75 . 0
75 . 0
552 . 4 . 1385 3 133 . 0 ' 133 . 0
797 , 4
. 22 60 . 22 . 4 . 1385 3 85 . 0
' 85 . 0
(max)
0 (max)
0
0
0
2
2 2 2
0
=
= =
=
= =
= >
= = =
=
+ =
+ =

( )
( )( )
( )
' 188 , 1
188 , 1 320 , 1 9 . 0
1320
. 22 60
2
1
1
E k P
k k P
k P
in ksi P
A f P
A f P
nt
nt
nt
nt
n
i
si y nt
n
i
si y nt
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=

185
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7
d8
d9
d10
d11
d12

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
. 5 . 3
. 21 . 4 4 . 16 cos 5 . 17 21
. 28 . 6 7 . 32 cos 5 . 17 21
. 54 . 9 1 . 49 cos 5 . 17 21
. 7 . 13 5 . 65 cos 5 . 17 21
. 5 . 18 8 . 81 cos 5 . 17 21
. 5 . 23 8 . 81 cos 5 . 17 21
. 3 . 28 5 . 65 cos 5 . 17 21
. 5 . 32 1 . 49 cos 5 . 17 21
. 7 . 35 7 . 32 cos 5 . 17 21
. 8 . 37 4 . 16 cos 5 . 17 21
. 5 . 38
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
=
= =
= =
= =
= =
= =
= + =
= + =
= + =
= + =
= + =
=
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

186

P
n
and M
n
s1
= -
y
)
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) 00120 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 7 . 13 . 8 . 22
000566 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 5 . 18 . 8 . 22
0000755 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 5 . 23
000593 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 3 . 28
00105 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 5 . 32
00139 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 7 . 35
00162 . 0 00207 . 0
. 2 . 19
. 8 . 22 . 8 . 37
00207 . 0
. 8 . 22 . 5 . 38
00207 . 0 1 003 . 0
003 . 0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
= =
=

=
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in in c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
y s

c = 22.8 in.
19.2 in.
cu
= 0.003
s1
= -0.00207
187
( )
( ) 00217 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 28 . 6 . 8 . 22
00174 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 54 . 9 . 8 . 22
10
9
=

=
=

=
in
in in
in
in in
s
s

( )
( ) 00254 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 5 . 3 . 8 . 22
00245 . 0 003 . 0
. 8 . 22
. 21 . 4 . 8 . 22
12
11
=

=
=

=
in
in in
in
in in
s
s

( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )( ) k in ksi C
rad
in
in in
h
a
h
h f C
OK in d in in c a
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
c
c c
s s s s
s s s s
s s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
585 , 1
4
49 . 1 cos 49 . 1 sin 49 . 1
. 42 3 85 . 0
49 . 1
. 21
. 38 . 19 . 21
cos
2
2
cos
4
cos sin
' 85 . 0
. 42 . 38 . 19 . 8 . 22 85 . 0
60 60 66 . 73 000 , 29 00254 . 0
60 60 05 . 71 000 , 29 00245 . 0
60 60 93 . 62 000 , 29 00217 . 0
46 . 50 000 , 29 00174 . 0
8 . 34 000 , 29 00120 . 0
41 . 16 000 , 29 000566 . 0
19 . 2 000 , 29 0000755 . 0
20 . 17 000 , 29 000593 . 0
45 . 30 000 , 29 00105 . 0
31 . 40 000 , 29 00139 . 0
98 . 46 000 , 29 00162 . 0
60 000 , 29 00207 . 0
2
1 1
2
1
12 12 12
11 11 11
10 10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
=

=
=

=
= < = = =
= > = = =
= > = = =
= > = = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =

188
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( ) k in ksi ksi A f f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
45 . 57 . 00 . 1 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
9 . 114 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
9 . 114 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
82 . 95 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 46 . 50 ' 85 . 0
5 . 64 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 8 . 34 ' 85 . 0
72 . 27 . 00 . 2 3 85 . 0 41 . 16 ' 85 . 0
38 . 4 . 00 . 2 19 . 2
4 . 34 . 00 . 2 20 . 17
9 . 60 . 00 . 2 45 . 30
62 . 80 . 00 . 2 31 . 40
96 . 93 . 00 . 2 98 . 46
60 . 00 . 1 60
2
12 12 12
2
11 11 11
2
10 10 10
2
9 9 9
2
8 8 8
2
7 7 7
2
6 6 6
2
5 5 5
2
4 4 4
2
3 3 3
2
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =

( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
b n
b n
y s t
b
i
i si c n
b si c n
M ft kips ft kips M
P k k P
M
ft kips
in kips
in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
d
h
F
a h
C M
P k F C P

= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
=
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ =
=
= = + =
=
811 , 1 414 , 2 75 . 0
295 , 1 726 , 1 75 . 0
75 . 0
414 , 2
967 , 28
. 5 . 3 . 21 9 . 114
. 21 . 4 . 21 9 . 114 . 28 . 6 . 21 9 . 114
. 54 . 9 . 21 82 . 95 . 7 . 13 . 21 5 . 64
. 5 . 18 . 21 72 . 27 . 5 . 23 . 21 38 . 4
. 3 . 28 . 21 4 . 34 . 5 . 32 . 21 9 . 60
. 7 . 35 . 21 62 . 80 . 8 . 37 . 21 96 . 93
. 5 . 38 . 21 60 . 69 . 9 . 21 585 , 1
2 2 2
726 , 1
1
9
1

189
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Phi Mn (k-ft)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)

Figure XX-4. The column interaction diagram for the East Bound bridge columns. The grey points show
the factored axial loads and moments in the columns.

190
Appendix XXI
Moment Strength of the Pier Cap Beam of the Steel Girder
Bridge

West Bound Bridge

Figure XXI-1. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is no longer
correct.

Figure XXI-2. The simplified pier cap beam cross section. This figure was not drawn to scale.
48 in.
45 in.
191

( )( )
2
. 160 , 2 . 45 . 48
60
3 '
in in in A
ksi f
ksi f
g
y
c
= =
=
=

( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
. 5 . 3 '
. 10 . 1
. 45 3 85 . 0
60 . 11 . 2
' 85 . 0
'
: 2
. 11 . 2 . 89 . 8 . 00 . 1 11
. 89 . 8 27 . 1 7 '
2
2 2 2
1 2
2 2
1
in d
in
in ksi
ksi in
b f
f A A
a
Beam
in in in A A A
in in A A
c
y s s
s s s
s s
=
= =
=
= = =
= = =

lim
1 lim
' '
365 . 0
000 , 87
000 , 60
1
85 . 0
1
000 , 87
1
1 '
18 . 3
. 10 . 1
. 5 . 3 '
>
=
= =
a
d
a
d
f
a
d
in
in
a
d
y

( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) [ ] ( )( )( )( )( )
d
a
d
a
f d
a
in
in
d
a
in a
a a
a a
b
y
b
s s y s s s c
<
=
+
=
+
=
= =
=
=
= +
= +
503 . 0
000 , 60 000 , 87
000 , 87
85 . 0
000 , 87
000 , 87
116 . 0
. 05 . 43
. 00 . 5
. 00 . 5
0 95 . 2300 43 . 113 75 . 114
0 5 . 3 85 . 0 89 . 8 000 , 29 003 . 0 60 0 . 11 89 . 8 000 , 29 003 . 0 45 3 85 . 0
0 ' ' 003 . 0 ' 003 . 0 ' 85 . 0
1
2
2
1
2

192
( ) 31875 . 0 85 . 0 375 . 0 375 . 0 112 . 0
. 5 . 44
. 00 . 5
. 4 . 37 . 5 . 3
1
= = = < = = =
+ + =
t
tcl
t
t
d
a
in
in
d
a
d
a
in in in d

( )( )
( )( )
2
2 2
min ,
. 0 . 11
. 46 . 6 . 31 . 5
000 , 60
05 . 43 45 200
05 . 43 45
000 , 60
3000 3
200 ' 3
in A
in in
f
d b
d b
f
f
A
s
y
w
w
y
c
s
=
=
=
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( ) [ ]
ft kips
in kips
in in k in in k
d d C
a
d C M
k
in
in
in ksi
a
d
A E C
k in in ksi ba f C
in A A
s c n
s s s
c c
s s
=
=
+ =
1
]
1
+ |
\
|
=
=
|
\
|
=
|
\
|
=
= = =
= >
674 , 2
. 100 , 32
. 50 . 3 . 05 . 43 24 . 313 . 50 . 2 . 05 . 43 75 . 573 90 . 0
'
2
313
003 . 0
. 00 . 5
. 5 . 3 85 . 0
1 . 89 . 8 000 , 29
003 . 0
'
1 '
75 . 573 . 00 . 5 . 45 3 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0
. 46 . 6
2
1
2
min ,

This strength is larger than the ultimate moment (560 kips-ft) shown in Appendix XIX. Thus
the pier cap beam is good enough to carry the ultimate load due to dead, live and earthquake
loads.

193

East Bound Bridge

Figure XXI-3. The actual pier cap beam cross section [Brown, 1993]. The = 1-0 scale is no longer
correct.

Figure XXI-4. The simplified pier cap beam cross section. This figure was not drawn to scale.

48 in.
45 in.
194
( )( )
2
. 160 , 2 . 45 . 48
60
3 '
in in in A
ksi f
ksi f
g
y
c
= =
=
=

( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
. 5 . 3 '
. 298 . 0
. 45 3 85 . 0
60 . 57 . 0
' 85 . 0
'
: 2
. 57 . 0 . 43 . 11 . 00 . 1 12
. 43 . 11 27 . 1 9 '
2
2 2 2
1 2
2 2
1
in d
in
in ksi
ksi in
b f
f A A
a
Beam
in in in A A A
in in A A
c
y s s
s s s
s s
=
= =
=
= = =
= = =

lim
1 lim
' '
365 . 0
000 , 87
000 , 60
1
85 . 0
1
000 , 87
1
1 '
7 . 11
. 298 . 0
. 5 . 3 '
>
=
= =
a
d
a
d
f
a
d
in
in
a
d
y

( ) ( ) ( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )( ) ( )( ) [ ] ( )( )( )( )( )
d
a
d
a
f d
a
in
in
d
a
in a
a a
a a
b
y
b
s s y s s s c
<
=
+
=
+
=
= =
=
=
= +
= +
503 . 0
000 , 60 000 , 87
000 , 87
85 . 0
000 , 87
000 , 87
0939 . 0
. 83 . 42
. 02 . 4
. 02 . 4
0 37 . 2958 41 . 274 75 . 114
0 5 . 3 85 . 0 43 . 11 000 , 29 003 . 0 60 12 43 . 11 000 , 29 003 . 0 45 3 85 . 0
0 ' ' 003 . 0 ' 003 . 0 ' 85 . 0
1
2
2
1
2

( ) 31875 . 0 85 . 0 375 . 0 375 . 0 0903 . 0
. 5 . 44
. 02 . 4
. 5 . 44 . 5 . 3 . 48
1
= = = < = = =
= =
t
tcl
t
t
d
a
in
in
d
a
d
a
in in in d

195
( )( )
( )( )
2
2 2
min ,
. 0 . 12
. 42 . 6 . 28 . 5
000 , 60
83 . 42 45 200
83 . 42 45
000 , 60
3000 3
200 ' 3
in A
in in
f
d b
d b
f
f
A
s
y
w
w
y
c
s
=
=
=
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
( )
( )( ) ( )( ) [ ]
ft kips
in kips
in in k in in k
d d C
a
d C M
k
in
in
in ksi
a
d
A E C
k in in ksi ba f C
in A A
s c n
s s s
c c
s s
=
=
+ =
1
]
1
+ |
\
|
=
=
|
\
|
=
|
\
|
=
= = =
= >
174 , 2
. 100 , 26
. 50 . 3 . 83 . 42 50 . 258 . 01 . 2 . 83 . 42 30 . 461 90 . 0
'
2
258
003 . 0
. 02 . 4
. 5 . 3 85 . 0
1 . 43 . 11 000 , 29
003 . 0
'
1 '
30 . 461 . 02 . 4 . 45 3 85 . 0 ' 85 . 0
. 42 . 6
2
1
2
min ,

This strength is larger than the ultimate moment (522 kips-ft) shown in Appendix XIX. Thus
the pier cap beam is good enough to carry the ultimate load due to dead, live and earthquake
loads.

196
Appendix XXII
Detailing Requirements of the Prestressed Concrete Girder
Bridge

West Bound Bridge

1.a. Transverse Reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones

A
bh
2
(#3 rebar)
s = center-to-center spacing of the spiral reinforcement = 10.5 in.
= 36.625 in.
( )
( )( )
000572 . 0
. 625 . 36 . 5 . 10
. 1
4 . 25
11 . 0 2
2
2
2
"
=
= =
in in
in
mm
in
sD
A
provided
bh
v
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

K
shape
t

( )( )
0144 . 0
. 4 . 1385
. 00 . 1 20
2
2
=
=
=
in
in
A
A
g
st

f
su
su
is not available
from coupon tests, then it shall be assumed that f
su
= 1.5 f
y
.
A
g
2 2
. 4 . 385 , 1 . 42 25 . 0 in in = =
197
A
cc
or spiral = ( )
2 2
. 5 . 053 , 1 . 375 . 0 . 37 25 . 0 in in in =
D = diameter of the column concrete core (center-to-center of the rebars)
= 42 in. 2(3.5in.)
= 35 in.
L = column length = 221.77 in.
158 . 0
. 77 . 221
. 35 '
tan = = =
in
in
L
D

v
= provided
v
= 0.000572
A
v
= 0.8A
g
( ) 399 . 0 8 . 0
0144 . 0
000572 . 0
2
6 . 1 6 . 1
tan
25 . 0
25 . 0
=
=
g t
A
A

. . tan tan K O >
( )( ) ( ) ( )
00135 . 0
399 . 0
. 77 . 221
. 35
. 5 . 1053
. 4 . 385 , 1
5 . 1
85 . 0
0144 . 0
2 32 . 0
tan tan
2
2
=
=
=
in
in
in
in
A
A
f
f
K required
cc
g
yh
su t
shape v

[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
v
provided <
v
required (Not Good)


v
v
* provided = 0.000572
v
v
* provided = 0.000572
00223 . 0
8 . 275
685 . 20
17 . 0 000572 . 0
'
17 . 0 * = = =
yh
c
v v
f
f
required
v
* provided >
v
* required (Good)
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
198
2.a. Transverse Reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones using the explicit shear
detailing approach.
( )
( )
k
in
in
k
P V
V V V V
e p
c p u s
5 . 59
. 77 . 221
. 35
95 . 376
2
2
tan
2
=
=
+

( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
k
in ksi
in
in
D f
s
A
V
in
in
in D
ksi f
in S
in A
k
N
in
mm
in
A f V
yh
bh
s
yh
bh
v c c
7 . 51
25 tan
1
. 625 . 36 40
. 5 . 10
11 . 0
2
cot "
2
25 25 767 . 21
tan tan
158 . 0
. 77 . 221
. 35
tan
399 . 0
0144 . 0 2
8 . 0 000572 . 0 6 . 1
tan
. 625 . 36 "
40
. 5 . 10
11 . 0
6 . 36
604 , 162
. 1
4 . 25
4 . 1385 8 . 0 685 . 20 05 . 0
' 05 . 0
2
25 . 0
2
2
2
=
=
=
= < =
>
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

199
( )
( ) ( )
( )
c p u s
c p u
s
u
V V V V
k k k k V V V
k k V
k V
+ >
= + = +
= =
=

9 . 78 6 . 36 5 . 59 85 . 0 728 . 2
9 . 43 7 . 51 85 . 0
728 . 2


detailing approach.
( ) ( )
( )
c p u s
c p u
v c c
V V V V
k k k k V V V
k
A f V
+ >
= + = +
=
=

5 . 153 3 . 124 5 . 59 85 . 0 728 . 2
3 . 124
' 17 . 0

[MCEER/ATC, 2002]



s
U
sf
= 110 MPa
= 110 N/mm
2

P
e
= 376.95 kips (from Appendix XIX)

200
( )
( )( )
00297 . 0
1
5 . 1053
4 . 1385
3
60
0144 . 0
4 . 1385 3
95 . 376
12
110
685 . 20
008 . 0
1
' '
12
'
008 . 0
00114 . 0 000572 . 0 2
"
4
2
2
2
2
=
1
1
]
1
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
= = =
cc
g
c
y
t
g c
e
sf
c
s
bh
s
A
A
f
f
A f
P
U
f
required
s D
A
provided

[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
s
provided <
s
required (Not Good)

4. Spiral Spacing for Longitudinal Bar Restraint at Plastic Hinges

d
b
= diameter of longitudinal reinforcing bars
Required Spacing s = 6d
b
= 6(1.128 in.) = 6.768 in.
Provided Spacing s = 10.5 in.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

5. Transverse Spiral Reinforcement at the Moment Resisting Connection Between

s
c
H
D
= tan
D = diameter of the column framing into the joint = 42 in.
H
c
= the height of the cap beam / joint = 48 in.
s
= the maximum of
s
s
following formula:

201
( )
01944 . 0
. 48
. 42
. 5 . 1053
. 4 . 1385
5 . 1
85 . 0
0144 . 0
76 . 0
tan 76 . 0
2
2
2
2
=
=
=
in
in
in
in
A
A
f
f
required
cc
g
yh
su t
s

Thus
s
s
s
s
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

6. Minimum Required Horizontal Reinforcement

s
= the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement in the form of spirals or circular
hoops to be continued into the cap or footing to provide continuity of reinforcement at
the intersection between the columns and pier cap beam

00114 . 0 = provided
s
(from 2.a)
00478 . 0
8 . 275
685 . 20 29 . 0
' 29 . 0
= = =
yh
c
s
f
f
required
s
s
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]


Required stirrups A
jv
= 0.16 A
st
where :
A
jv
A
st
0.5 D = 0.5 (42 in.) = 21 in.
202
( )( )
2 2
. 2 . 3 . 00 . 1 20 16 . 0 16 . 0 in in A
st
= =

For the left and right columns, there are 24-#5 stirrups within 0.5D of the column.
Therefore,
( )( )
2 2
. 44 . 7 . 31 . 0 24 in in A
jv
= =

For the center column, there are 16-#5 stirrups within 0.5D of the column. Therefore,
( )( )
2 2
. 96 . 4 . 31 . 0 16 in in A
jv
= =
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
Provided stirrups A
jv
> Required stirrups = 0.16 A
st
(Good)

8. Lap splices are used at the bottom of the column, as shown in Figure XXII-1.
That is not permitted (Not Good). [MCEER/ATC, 2002]

Figure XXII-1. Lap splices that are used at the bottom of the columns of the West Bound Bridge
[Brown, 1993].

9. Column Joint Spiral Reinforcement to be Carried into the Pier Cap Beam

s
= the volumetric ratio of column joint hoop or spiral reinforcement to be carried
into the cap or footing
( )
( )
00584 . 0
. 37
. 20 4 . 0 4 . 0
2
2
2
= = =
in
in
l
A
required
ac
st
s

203
s
provided = 0, because the column spiral reinforcement is not continued into the
pier cap beam.
s
provided = 0 <
s
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

East Bound Bridge

1.a. Transverse Reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones

A
bh
2
(#3 rebar)
s = center-to-center spacing of the spiral reinforcement = 10.5 in.
= 36.625 in.
( )
( )( )
000572 . 0
. 625 . 36 . 5 . 10
. 1
4 . 25
11 . 0 2
2
2
2
"
=
= =
in in
in
mm
in
sD
A
provided
bh
v
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

K
shape
t

( )( )
0159 . 0
. 4 . 1385
. 00 . 1 22
2
2
=
=
=
in
in
A
A
g
st

f
su
su
is not available
from coupon tests, then it shall be assumed that f
su
= 1.5 f
y
.
A
g
2 2
. 4 . 385 , 1 . 42 25 . 0 in in = =
204
A
cc
or spiral = ( )
2 2
. 5 . 053 , 1 . 375 . 0 . 37 25 . 0 in in in =
D = diameter of the column concrete core (center-to-center of the rebars)
= 42 in. 2(3.5in.)
= 35 in.
L = column length = 207.40 in.
16876 . 0
. 40 . 207
. 35 '
tan = = =
in
in
L
D

v
= provided
v
= 0.000572
A
v
= 0.8A
g
( ) 390 . 0 8 . 0
0159 . 0
000572 . 0
2
6 . 1 6 . 1
tan
25 . 0
25 . 0
=
=
g t
A
A

. . tan tan K O >
( )( ) ( ) ( )
00155 . 0
390 . 0
. 40 . 207
. 35
. 5 . 1053
. 4 . 385 , 1
5 . 1
85 . 0
0159 . 0
2 32 . 0
tan tan
2
2
=
=
=
in
in
in
in
A
A
f
f
K required
cc
g
yh
su t
shape v

[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
v
provided <
v
required (Not Good)


v
v
* provided = 0.000572
v
v
* provided = 0.000572
00223 . 0
8 . 275
685 . 20
17 . 0 000572 . 0
'
17 . 0 * = = =
yh
c
v v
f
f
required
v
* provided >
v
* required (Good)
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

205
2.a. Transverse Reinforcement in potential plastic hinge zones using the implicit
shear detailing approach.
( )
( )
k
in
in
k
P V
V V V V
e p
c p u s
6 . 54
. 40 . 207
. 35
77 . 323
2
2
tan
2
=
=
+

( )( )
k
N
in
mm
in
A f V
v c c
6 . 36
604 , 162
. 1
4 . 25
4 . 1385 8 . 0 685 . 20 05 . 0
' 05 . 0
2
2
=
=
=
=

206
( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
c p u s
c p u
s
u
yh
bh
s
yh
bh
V V V V
k k k k V V V
k k V
k V
k
in ksi
in
in
D f
s
A
V
in
in
in D
ksi f
in S
in A
+ >
= + = +
= =
=
=
=
=
= < =
>
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=

9 . 74 6 . 36 6 . 54 85 . 0 596 . 2
9 . 43 7 . 51 85 . 0
596 . 2
7 . 51
25 tan
1
. 625 . 36 40
. 5 . 10
11 . 0
2
cot "
2
25 25 283 . 21
tan tan
169 . 0
. 40 . 207
. 35
tan
390 . 0
0159 . 0 2
8 . 0 000572 . 0 6 . 1
tan
. 625 . 36 "
40
. 5 . 10
11 . 0
2
25 . 0
2

[MCEER/ATC, 2002]


detailing approach.

( ) ( )
( )
c p u s
c p u
v c c
V V V V
k k k k V V V
k
A f V
+ >
= + = +
=
=

5 . 149 3 . 124 6 . 54 85 . 0 596 . 2
3 . 124
' 17 . 0


207

s
U
sf
= 110 MPa
= 110 N/mm
2

P
e
= 323.77 kips (from Appendix XIX)

( )
( )( )
00339 . 0
1
5 . 1053
4 . 1385
3
60
0159 . 0
4 . 1385 3
77 . 323
12
110
685 . 20
008 . 0
1
' '
12
'
008 . 0
00114 . 0 000572 . 0 2
"
4
2
2
2
2
=
1
1
]
1
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
1
1
]
1
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+ =
= = =
cc
g
c
y
t
g c
e
sf
c
s
bh
s
A
A
f
f
A f
P
U
f
required
s D
A
provided

[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
s
provided <
s
required (Not Good)

4. Spiral Spacing for Longitudinal Bar Restraint at Plastic Hinges

d
b
= diameter of longitudinal reinforcing bars
Required Spacing s = 6d
b
= 6(1.128 in.) = 6.768 in.
Provided Spacing s = 10.5 in.
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

5. Transverse Spiral Reinforcement at the Moment Resisting Connection Between

s
208
c
H
D
= tan
D = diameter of the column framing into the joint = 42 in.
H
c
= the height of the cap beam / joint = 48 in.
s
= the maximum of
s
s
following formula:

( )
0215 . 0
. 48
. 42
. 5 . 1053
. 4 . 1385
5 . 1
85 . 0
0159 . 0
76 . 0
tan 76 . 0
2
2
2
2
=
=
=
in
in
in
in
A
A
f
f
required
cc
g
yh
su t
s

Thus
s
s
s
s
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

6. Minimum Required Horizontal Reinforcement

s
= the volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement in the form of spirals or circular
hoops to be continued into the cap or footing to provide continuity of reinforcement at
the intersection between the columns and pier cap beam

00114 . 0 = provided
s
(from 2.a)
00478 . 0
8 . 275
685 . 20 29 . 0
' 29 . 0
= = =
yh
c
s
f
f
required
s
s
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

209

Required stirrups A
jv
= 0.16 A
st
where :
A
jv
A
st
0.5 D = 0.5 (42 in.) = 21 in.
( )( )
2 2
. 52 . 3 . 00 . 1 22 16 . 0 16 . 0 in in A
st
= =

For all the columns, there are 24-#5 stirrups within 0.5D of the column. Therefore,
( )( )
2 2
. 44 . 7 . 31 . 0 24 in in A
jv
= =
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]
Provided stirrups A
jv
> Required stirrups = 0.16A
st
(Good)

8. Lap splices are used at the bottom of the column, as shown in Figure XXII-2.
That is not permitted (Not Good). [MCEER/ATC, 2002]

Figure XXII-2. Lap splices that are used at the bottom of the columns of the East Bound Bridge
[Brown, 1993].

210
9. Column Joint Spiral Reinforcement to be Carried into the Pier Cap Beam

s
= the volumetric ratio of column joint hoop or spiral reinforcement to be carried
into the cap or footing
( )
( )
00643 . 0
. 37
. 22 4 . 0 4 . 0
2
2
2
= = =
in
in
l
A
required
ac
st
s

s
provided = 0, because the column spiral reinforcement is not continued into the
pier cap beam.
s
provided = 0 <
s
[MCEER/ATC, 2002]

The total construction cost for the two bridges is given in Table XXII-1. General
conditions, overhead, profit and contingencies were not included in the total cost, because
the estimate was only intended to be used to illustrate how much approximately the new
LRFD Guidelines were going to impact the construction cost. The calculation to estimate
the additional cost incurred in order to comply with the new LRFD Guidelines is as
follows.

Additional Spiral Reinforcing Steel Calculation

WEST BOUND BRIDGE

s
also be reduced from 10.5 in. to 6.5 in., as required for longitudinal bar restraint at plastic
hinges. Thus now the minimum required cross sectional area of the spiral reinforcing bar
can be found by using the formula for the provided
s
:
211
( )( )
( )( )( )
2
. 16 . 1
4
. 5 . 6 . 625 . 36 01944 . 0
. 5 . 6 . 625 . 36
4
01944 . 0
"
4
in A
in in
A
in in
A
s D
A
provided
bh
bh
bh
bh
s
=
=
=
=

2
, and the smallest sufficient rebar size is rebar
#10, which has a cross sectional area of 1.27 in.
2

213
Table XXII-1. The estimate for the construction cost of the two steel girder bridges. All prices are in US dollars. Virginia sales tax (4.5%) was applied to material
price only. From Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2003. Copyright R.S. Means Co., Inc., Kingston, MA 781-585-7880; All rights reserved.
Item Quantity Units Material Unit Price Labor Unit Price Equipment Unit Price Total Unit Price Subtotal Cost
Concrete, Class A3 (3000 psi) 512.4 CY 70 73.15 37,482
Concrete, Class A4 (4000 psi) 676.4 CY 76 79.42 53,720
Slab Formwork 20,098 SF 6.1 3.07 9.44 189,816
Pier Cap Beam Formwork 1512 SF 1.86 4.61 6.55 9,909
Column Formwork 126 LF 35 9.55 46.13 5,812
Footing Formwork 882 SF 1.6 3.13 4.80 4,235
Placing Concrete 1188.8 CY 15.92 8.5 24.42 29,030
Concrete Finishing 19,380 SF 0.27 0.27 5,233
Concrete Curing Blankets 19,380 SF 0.415 0.43 8,405
Bridge Deck Grooving 2002 SY 0.18 0.56 0.74 1,481
Reinforcing Steel in Place 25.445 Ton 602 460 7.1 1096.19 27,893
Reinforcing Steel in Place
Epoxy Coated 79.450 Ton 812 460 7.1 1315.64 104,528
Structural Steel Plate Girders 218.95 Ton 1,525 430 134 2157.63 472,412
Structure Excavation 910 CY 2.48 4.76 7.24 6,588
Steel Piles, HP 10x42 420 LF 9.8 3.31 2.77 16.32 6,855
Pile Point for 10" Steel Pile 21 Ea. 66.5 70.5 139.99 2,940
Steel Piles, HP 12x53 849 LF 12.55 3.42 2.87 19.40 16,475
Pile Point for 12" Steel Pile 32 Ea. 66.5 70.5 139.99 4,480
Concrete Parapet 87.6 CY 123 223 23.5 375.04 32,853
Porous Backfill 193 CY 0.65 0.8 1.45 280
6" Diameter Pipe Underdrain 392 LF 1.59 1.67 3.33 1,306
Concrete Slab Slope Protection, 4" 1142 SY 8.5 5 2.18 16.06 18,343
Total Cost 1,040,075
214
Spiral Diameter = 37 in. 0.375 in.
= 36.625 in.

# 3 spiral rebars at spacing s =10.5 in. (as written on the drawings)

Length covered by the spiral reinforcement = 18-5 1/2
= 221.5 in.

( )
. 5 . 115
5 . 10 625 . 36
2 2
in =
+ =

The number of turns
1 . 21
5 . 10
5 . 221
=
=

. 2437
1 . 21 . 5 . 115
in
in
=
=

( ) ( )
3
2
2 . 269
. 2437 . 375 . 0
4
1
in
in in
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for the West Bound pier (three columns)
3
3
3
. 467 . 0
. 6 . 807
. 2 . 269 3
ft
in
in
=
=

215
Total weight of the spiral reinforcing bar for the West Bound pier
. 229
.
284 . 0 . 6 . 807
3
3
lb
in
lb
in
=
=

#10 spiral rebars at spacing s = 6.5 in. (as required by the new LRFD Guidelines)
Required length covered by the spiral reinforcement = 18-5 1/2 + 3-0 + 2-0
= 281.5 in.

( )
. 2 . 115
5 . 6 625 . 36
2 2
in =
+ =

The number of turns
3 . 43
. 5 . 6
. 5 . 281
=
=
in
in

. 4988
3 . 43 . 2 . 115
in
in
=
=

( ) ( )
3
2
. 6318
. 4988 . 27 . 1
4
1
in
in in
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for the West Bound pier (three columns)
3
3
3
. 97 . 10
. 18954
. 6318 3
ft
in
in
=
=

216
Total weight of the spiral reinforcing bar for the West Bound pier
. 5383
.
284 . 0 . 18954
3
3
lb
in
lb
in
=
=

Additional rebar that has to be put in the West Bound pier
lb
lb lb
5154
229 . 5383
=
=

EAST BOUND BRIDGE

s
also be reduced from 10.5 in. to 6.5 in., as required for longitudinal bar restraint at plastic
hinges. Thus now the minimum required cross sectional area of the spiral reinforcing bar
can be found by using the formula for the provided
s
:
( )( )
( )( )( )
2
. 28 . 1
4
. 5 . 6 . 625 . 36 0215 . 0
. 5 . 6 . 625 . 36
4
0215 . 0
"
4
in A
in in
A
in in
A
s D
A
provided
bh
bh
bh
bh
s
=
=
=
=

2
, and the smallest sufficient rebar size is rebar
#11, which has a cross sectional area of 1.56 in.
2

Spiral Diameter = 37 in. 0.375 in.
= 36.625 in.

217
#3 rebars at spacing s =10.5 in. (as written on the drawings)
Length covered by the spiral reinforcement = 17-4 5/8
= 208.625 in.

( )
. 5 . 115
5 . 10 625 . 36
2 2
in =
+ =

The number of turns
9 . 19
5 . 10
625 . 208
=
=

. 2298
9 . 19 . 5 . 115
in
in
=
=

( ) ( )
3
2
8 . 253
. 2298 . 375 . 0
4
1
in
in in
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for the East Bound pier (four columns)
3
3
3
. 5875 . 0
. 2 . 1015
. 8 . 253 4
ft
in
in
=
=

Total weight of the spiral reinforcing bar for the East Bound pier
. 288
.
284 . 0 . 2 . 1015
3
3
lb
in
lb
in
=
=

218
#11 rebars at spacing s = 6.5 in. (as required by the new LRFD Guidelines)

Length covered by the spiral reinforcement = 17-4 5/8 + 3-0 + 2-0
= 268.625 in.

( )
. 2 . 115
5 . 6 625 . 36
2 2
in =
+ =

The number of turns
3 . 41
. 5 . 6
. 625 . 268
=
=
in
in

. 4758
3 . 41 . 2 . 115
in
in
=
=

( ) ( )
3
2
. 9094
. 4758 . 56 . 1
4
1
in
in in
=
=

Total volume of the spiral reinforcing bar for the East Bound pier (four columns)
3
3
3
. 05 . 21
. 376 , 36
. 9094 4
ft
in
in
=
=

Total weight of the spiral reinforcing bar for the East Bound pier
. 331 , 10
.
284 . 0 . 376 , 36
3
3
lb
in
lb
in
=
=

219
Additional rebar that has to be put in the East Bound pier
lb
lb lb
043 , 10
288 . 331 , 10
=
=

Thus, total additional rebar that has to be put in both piers = 5,154 lb + 10,043 lbs.
= 15,197 lb.

According to the construction drawings, all the rebars in the pier are epoxy-
coated. Therefore according to Table XXII-1, the cost of placing 15197 lbs. additional
rebar in the bridge pier is
dollars
Ton
dollars
lbs
Ton
lbs
997 , 9
1
64 . 1315
. 000 , 2
1
. 197 , 15
=
=

The total construction cost was approximately $1,040,075. Thus the percentage of
construction cost increase for compliance with the new LRFD Guidelines is
% 0 . 1
% 100
075 , 040 , 1
997 , 9
=
dollars
dollars

220
Appendix XXIII
Results of the Parametric Study

EFFECTIVE MOMENT OF INERTIA TO BE USED IN THE BRIDGE MODELS

80-ft bridge spans & 20-ft columns:
( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
408 . 0
104 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
80 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
20 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
409 . 0
115 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
90 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
20 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
414 . 0
126 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
100 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
20 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

221

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
417 . 0
137 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
110 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
20 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

Therefore for 20-ft columns,
( ) ( )( )
4 4
. 000 , 34 . 448 , 82 412 . 0 412 . 0
412 . 0
4
417 . 0 414 . 0 409 . 0 408 . 0
in in I I
I
I
g average e
average
g
e
= = =
=
+ + +
=

222

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
408 . 0
105 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
80 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
25 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
414 . 0
116 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
90 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
25 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
417 . 0
127 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
100 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
25 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
422 . 0
138 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
110 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
25 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

223

( ) ( )( )
4 4
. 200 , 34 . 448 , 82 415 . 0 415 . 0
415 . 0
4
422 . 0 417 . 0 414 . 0 408 . 0
in in I I
I
I
g average e
average
g
e
= = =
=
+ + +
=

224

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
408 . 0
107 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
80 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
30 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
413 . 0
118 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
90 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
30 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
419 . 0
129 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
100 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
30 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
426 . 0
140 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
110 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
30 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

225

( ) ( )( )
4 4
. 300 , 34 . 448 , 82 417 . 0 417 . 0
417 . 0
4
426 . 0 419 . 0 413 . 0 408 . 0
in in I I
I
I
g average e
average
g
e
= = =
=
+ + +
=

226

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
408 . 0
109 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
80 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
35 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
412 . 0
119 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
90 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
35 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
417 . 0
130 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
100 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
35 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
424 . 0
141 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
110 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
35 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

227

( ) ( )( )
4 4
. 200 , 34 . 448 , 82 415 . 0 415 . 0
415 . 0
4
424 . 0 417 . 0 412 . 0 408 . 0
in in I I
I
I
g average e
average
g
e
= = =
=
+ + +
=

228

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
410 . 0
110 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
80 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
40 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
414 . 0
121 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
90 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
40 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
420 . 0
132 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
100 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
40 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

( )( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( )
427 . 0
143 . 0
. 36
4
6 . 3
110 / 12
3
1
120
3
1
40 / 060 . 1
' 2
=
=
+
=
g
e
g c
I
I
in ksi
ft ft k k ft ft k
A f
P

229

( ) ( )( )
4 4
. 400 , 34 . 448 , 82 418 . 0 418 . 0
418 . 0
4
427 . 0 420 . 0 414 . 0 410 . 0
in in I I
I
I
g average e
average
g
e
= = =
=
+ + +
=

230
PERIOD OF VIBRATION IN THE TRANSVERSE DIRECTION

( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 130 . 0
. / 308 , 12 . sec / . 386
120 . 80 2 . / 12
2
. / 308 , 12
. 013 . 0
. 80 2 . / 1
. 013 . 0
. / 45 . 216
. 462 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 165 . 0
. / 4 . 571 , 8 . sec / . 386
120 . 90 2 . / 12
2
. / 4 . 8571
. 021 . 0
. 90 2 . / 1
. 021 . 0
. / 45 . 216
. 462 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 200 . 0
. / 6 . 6451 . sec / . 386
120 . 100 2 . / 12
2
. / 6 . 6451
. 031 . 0
. 100 2 . / 1
. 031 . 0
. / 45 . 216
. 462 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

231


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 240 . 0
. / 9 . 4888 . sec / . 386
120 . 110 2 . / 12
2
. / 9 . 4888
. 045 . 0
. 110 2 . / 1
. 045 . 0
. / 45 . 216
. 462 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

232


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 130 . 0
. / 308 , 12 . sec / . 386
120 . 80 2 . / 12
2
. / 308 , 12
. 013 . 0
. 80 2 . / 1
. 013 . 0
. / 05 . 119
. 840 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 165 . 0
. / 4 . 571 , 8 . sec / . 386
120 . 90 2 . / 12
2
. / 4 . 8571
. 021 . 0
. 90 2 . / 1
. 021 . 0
. / 05 . 119
. 840 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 200 . 0
. / 6 . 6451 . sec / . 386
120 . 100 2 . / 12
2
. / 6 . 6451
. 031 . 0
. 100 2 . / 1
. 031 . 0
. / 05 . 119
. 840 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

233


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 240 . 0
. / 9 . 4888 . sec / . 386
120 . 110 2 . / 12
2
. / 9 . 4888
. 045 . 0
. 110 2 . / 1
. 045 . 0
. / 05 . 119
. 840 . 0
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

234


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 130 . 0
. / 308 , 12 . sec / . 386
120 . 80 2 . / 12
2
. / 308 , 12
. 013 . 0
. 80 2 . / 1
. 013 . 0
. / 202 . 72
. 385 . 1
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 165 . 0
. / 4 . 571 , 8 . sec / . 386
120 . 90 2 . / 12
2
. / 4 . 8571
. 021 . 0
. 90 2 . / 1
. 021 . 0
. / 202 . 72
. 385 . 1
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 200 . 0
. / 6 . 6451 . sec / . 386
120 . 100 2 . / 12
2
. / 6 . 6451
. 031 . 0
. 100 2 . / 1
. 031 . 0
. / 202 . 72
. 385 . 1
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

235


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 240 . 0
. / 9 . 4888 . sec / . 386
120 . 110 2 . / 12
2
. / 9 . 4888
. 045 . 0
. 110 2 . / 1
. 045 . 0
. / 202 . 72
. 385 . 1
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

236


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 130 . 0
. / 308 , 12 . sec / . 386
120 . 80 2 . / 12
2
. / 308 , 12
. 013 . 0
. 80 2 . / 1
. 013 . 0
. / 773 . 46
. 138 . 2
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 165 . 0
. / 4 . 571 , 8 . sec / . 386
120 . 90 2 . / 12
2
. / 4 . 8571
. 021 . 0
. 90 2 . / 1
. 021 . 0
. / 773 . 46
. 138 . 2
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 200 . 0
. / 6 . 6451 . sec / . 386
120 . 100 2 . / 12
2
. / 6 . 6451
. 031 . 0
. 100 2 . / 1
. 031 . 0
. / 773 . 46
. 138 . 2
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

237


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 240 . 0
. / 9 . 4888 . sec / . 386
120 . 110 2 . / 12
2
. / 9 . 4888
. 045 . 0
. 110 2 . / 1
. 045 . 0
. / 773 . 46
. 138 . 2
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

238


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 130 . 0
. / 308 , 12 . sec / . 386
120 . 80 2 . / 12
2
. / 308 , 12
. 013 . 0
. 80 2 . / 1
. 013 . 0
. / 268 . 32
. 099 . 3
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 165 . 0
. / 4 . 571 , 8 . sec / . 386
120 . 90 2 . / 12
2
. / 4 . 8571
. 021 . 0
. 90 2 . / 1
. 021 . 0
. / 268 . 32
. 099 . 3
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 200 . 0
. / 6 . 6451 . sec / . 386
120 . 100 2 . / 12
2
. / 6 . 6451
. 031 . 0
. 100 2 . / 1
. 031 . 0
. / 268 . 32
. 099 . 3
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

239


( )( )( )
( )( )( )
( )( )
. sec 240 . 0
. / 9 . 4888 . sec / . 386
120 . 110 2 . / 12
2
. / 9 . 4888
. 045 . 0
. 110 2 . / 1
. 045 . 0
. / 268 . 32
. 099 . 3
100
2
max
=
+
=
= =
=
= =
in k in
k ft ft k
T
in k
in
ft ft k
K
in
in k
in
k
K
t
t
tb

240
PERIOD OF VIBRATION IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION
20-ft columns:
( )( )( )
( )
. / 37 . 136
. 265
. 448 , 82 3 3420 3 3
3
4
3
in k
in
in ksi
L
EI
K
L
= = =

from RISA 3D: . / 43 . 136
. 733 . 0
100
in k
in
k
K
L
= =

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 237 . 1
. / 37 . 136 . sec / 386
120 80 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 308 . 1
. / 37 . 136 . sec / 386
120 90 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 375 . 1
. / 37 . 136 . sec / 386
120 100 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 439 . 1
. / 37 . 136 . sec / 386
120 110 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

241

25-ft columns:
( )( )( )
( )
. / 926 . 73
. 325
. 448 , 82 3 420 , 3 3 3
3
4
3
in k
in
in ksi
L
EI
K
L
= = =

from RISA 3D: . / 910 . 73
. 353 . 1
100
in k
in
k
K
L
= =

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 680 . 1
. / 926 . 73 . sec / 386
120 80 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 776 . 1
. / 926 . 73 . sec / 386
120 90 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 867 . 1
. / 926 . 73 . sec / 386
120 100 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 954 . 1
. / 926 . 73 . sec / 386
120 110 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

242

30-ft columns:
( )( )( )
( )
. / 470 . 44
. 385
. 448 , 82 3 420 , 3 3 3
3
4
3
in k
in
in ksi
L
EI
K
L
= = =

from RISA 3D: . / 464 . 44
. 249 . 2
100
in k
in
k
K
L
= =

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 166 . 2
. / 470 . 44 . sec / 386
120 80 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 290 . 2
. / 470 . 44 . sec / 386
120 90 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 407 . 2
. / 470 . 44 . sec / 386
120 100 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 519 . 2
. / 470 . 44 . sec / 386
120 110 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

243

35-ft columns:
( )( )( )
( )
. / 798 . 28
. 445
. 448 , 82 3 420 , 3 3 3
3
4
3
in k
in
in ksi
L
EI
K
L
= = =

from RISA 3D: . / 802 . 28
. 472 . 3
100
in k
in
k
K
L
= =

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 692 . 2
. / 798 . 28 . sec / 386
120 80 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 846 . 2
. / 798 . 28 . sec / 386
120 90 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 992 . 2
. / 798 . 28 . sec / 386
120 100 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 131 . 3
. / 798 . 28 . sec / 386
120 110 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

244

40-ft columns:
( )( )( )
( )
. / 705 . 19
. 505
. 448 , 82 3 420 , 3 3 3
3
4
3
in k
in
in ksi
L
EI
K
L
= = =

from RISA 3D: . / 704 . 19
. 075 . 5
100
in k
in
k
K
L
= =

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 254 . 3
. / 705 . 19 . sec / 386
120 80 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 440 . 3
. / 705 . 19 . sec / 386
120 90 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 617 . 3
. / 705 . 19 . sec / 386
120 100 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

( )( )( )
( )( )
onds
in k in
k ft ft k
T
L
sec 785 . 3
. / 705 . 19 . sec / 386
120 110 2 / 12
2
2
=
+
=

245
SUMMARY OF THE PERIODS OF VIBRATION

Transverse

Table XXIII-1. Period of Vibration in the Transverse Direction (seconds).
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130
90 ft. 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.165
100 ft. 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
110 ft. 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240

Longitudinal

Table XXIII-2. Period of Vibration in the Longitudinal Direction (seconds).
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 1.237 1.680 2.166 2.692 3.254
90 ft. 1.308 1.776 2.290 2.846 3.440
100 ft. 1.375 1.867 2.407 2.992 3.617
110 ft. 1.439 1.954 2.519 3.131 3.785

246
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM CURVES

Vienna, VA
Zipcode: 22180
S
s
= 0.181 g [Probabilistic, 2002]
S
1

Assuming Soil Site Class B:
( )( )
( )( )
( ) . sec 0702 . 0 . sec 351 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0
. sec 351 . 0
181 . 0
0635 . 0
0635 . 0 0635 . 0 0 . 1
181 . 0 181 . 0 0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
0
1
1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
S
DS
D
S
v D
S a DS
v
a
T T
g
g
S
S
T
g g S F S
g g S F S
F
F

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
S
DS
= 0.181 g
0.40 SDS = 0.0724 g
SD1 = 0.0635 g
T0 = 0.0702 Ts = 0.351

Figure XXIII-1. The Design Response Spectrum Curve for Vienna, VA.

247
Richmond, VA
Zipcode: 23113
S
s
S
1

( )( )
( )( )
( ) . sec 0580 . 0 . sec 290 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0
. sec 290 . 0
287 . 0
0833 . 0
0833 . 0 0833 . 0 0 . 1
287 . 0 287 . 0 0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
0
1
1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
S
DS
D
S
v D
S a DS
v
a
T T
g
g
S
S
T
g g S F S
g g S F S
F
F

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (second)
S
a

(
g
)
S
D1
= 0.0833 g
S
DS
= 0.287 g
0.4SDS = 0.115 g
T0 = 0.058 Ts = 0.29
T = 0.145 sec

Figure XXIII-2. The Design Response Spectrum Curve for Richmond, VA.

248
Bristol, VA
Zipcode: 24201
S
s
S
1

( )( )
( )( )
( ) . sec 0583 . 0 . sec 291 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0
. sec 291 . 0
405 . 0
118 . 0
118 . 0 118 . 0 0 . 1
405 . 0 405 . 0 0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
0
1
1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
S
DS
D
S
v D
S a DS
v
a
T T
g
g
S
S
T
g g S F S
g g S F S
F
F

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Period (T) (sec.)
S
a

(
g
)
S
DS
= 0.405 g
0.4SDS = 0.162 g
SD1 = 0.118 g
T
0
= 0.0583 sec. T
0
= 0.291 sec.

Figure XXIII-3. The Design Response Spectrum Curve for Bristol, VA.

249
EQUIVALENT EARTHQUAKE LOADS IN THE TRANSVERSE DIRECTION
Vienna, VA

By looking at the design response spectrum curve, since all the periods of vibration in the
transverse direction are between T
0
and T
S
,
S
a
= S
DS
= 0.181g

80-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 308 . 2
. 80 2
120 . 80 2 / 12 181 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

90-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 293 . 2
. 90 2
120 . 90 2 / 12 181 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

100-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 281 . 2
. 100 2
120 . 100 2 / 12 181 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 271 . 2
. 110 2
120 . 110 2 / 12 181 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

250
Richmond, VA

0
and T
S
,
S
a
= S
DS
= 0.287g

80-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 659 . 3
. 80 2
120 . 80 2 / 12 287 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

90-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 635 . 3
. 90 2
120 . 90 2 / 12 287 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 616 . 3
. 100 2
120 . 100 2 / 12 287 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 601 . 3
. 110 2
120 . 110 2 / 12 287 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

251
Bristol, VA

0
and T
S
,
S
a
= S
DS
= 0.405g

80-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 164 . 5
. 80 2
120 . 80 2 / 12 405 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

90-ft bridge spans:
( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 130 . 5
. 90 2
120 . 90 2 / 12 405 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 103 . 5
. 100 2
120 . 100 2 / 12 405 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

( ) ( )( )( ) [ ]
( )( )
. / 081 . 5
. 110 2
120 . 110 2 / 12 405 . 0
ft k
ft
k ft ft k
L
W S
p
a
e
=
+
= =

252
EQUIVALENT EARTHQUAKE LOADS IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION

Vienna, VA

T
S
S
D
a
1
=

Table XXIII-3. The spectral accelerations in the longitudinal direction for a bridge in Vienna, VA.
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 0.0513 0.0378 0.0293 0.0236 0.0195
90 ft. 0.0485 0.0358 0.0277 0.0223 0.0185
100 ft. 0.0462 0.0340 0.0264 0.0212 0.0176
110 ft. 0.0441 0.0325 0.0252 0.0203 0.0168

80-ft bridge spans: W = (12 k/ft.)(2)(80 ft.) + 120 k = 2040 k

Equivalent earthquake load P = S
a
W

Table XXIII-4. The equivalent longitudinal earthquake loads in kips for a bridge in Vienna, VA.
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 104 77.1 59.8 48.1 39.8
90 ft. 111 81.6 63.2 50.8 42.2
100 ft. 116 85.7 66.5 53.4 44.4
110 ft. 122 89.7 69.6 56.0 46.4

253
Richmond, VA

T
S
S
D
a
1
=

Table XXIII-5. The spectral accelerations in the longitudinal direction for a bridge in Richmond, VA.
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 0.0673 0.0496 0.0385 0.0309 0.0256
90 ft. 0.0637 0.0469 0.0364 0.0293 0.0242
100 ft. 0.0606 0.0446 0.0346 0.0278 0.0230
110 ft. 0.0579 0.0426 0.0331 0.0266 0.0220


a
W

Table XXIII-6. The equivalent longitudinal earthquake loads in kips for a bridge in Richmond, VA.
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 137 101 78.5 63.0 52.2
90 ft. 145 107 83.0 66.8 55.2
100 ft. 153 112 87.2 70.1 58.0
110 ft. 160 118 91.4 73.4 60.7

254
Bristol, VA

T
S
S
D
a
1
=

Table XXIII-7. The spectral accelerations in the longitudinal direction for a bridge in Bristol, VA.
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 0.0954 0.0702 0.0545 0.0438 0.0363
90 ft. 0.0902 0.0664 0.0515 0.0415 0.0343
100 ft. 0.0858 0.0632 0.0490 0.0394 0.0326
110 ft. 0.0820 0.0604 0.0468 0.0377 0.0312


a
W

Table XXIII-8. The equivalent longitudinal earthquake loads in kips for a bridge in Bristol, VA.
20 ft. 25 ft. 30 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
80 ft. 195 143 111 89.4 74.1
90 ft. 206 151 117 94.6 78.2
100 ft. 216 159 123 99.3 82.2
110 ft. 226 167 129 104 86.1

255
COLUMN INTERACTION DIAGRAMS

Vienna
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
13336
9837
15007
1044
-823
2539
2987

Figure XXIII-4. The comparison between the column interaction diagram and the axial loads and moments
of the column for Vienna, VA.

Richmond
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
15007
1044
2539
-823
2987

of the column for Richmond, VA.
256

Bristol
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
-823
2987
2539
1047
15007
3204
1044
-1097
16583
2723

of the column for Bristol, VA.

257
COLUMN INTERACTION DIAGRAM FOR = 1.5%

( )
2
7
2
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
2 2
27 . 1
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
27 . 1
9 . 1017 . 36
4
1
60
6 . 3 '
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in in A
ksi f
ksi f
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
g
y
c
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=

( )( )
00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
0150 . 0
9 . 1017
24 . 15
. 24 . 15 . 27 . 1 12
2
2
2 2
= = =
= = =
= = =
ksi
ksi
E
f
in
in
A
A
in in A A
s
y
y
g
st
t
si st

( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
k P
k P P
A k P
k k P
P P
k in ksi A f P
k
in ksi in in ksi
A f A A f P
n
n
a
g c a
st y st g c
539 , 2
987 , 2 85 . 0 85 . 0
' 2987
987 , 2 982 , 3 75 . 0
75 . 0
487 . 9 . 1017 6 . 3 133 . 0 ' 133 . 0
982 , 3
. 24 . 15 60 . 24 . 15 . 9 . 1017 6 . 3 85 . 0
' 85 . 0
(max)
0 (max)
0
0
0
2
2 2 2
0
=
= =
=
= =
= >
= = =
=
+ =
+ =

258
( )
( )( )
( )
' 823
0 . 823 4 . 914 9 . 0
4 . 914
. 24 . 15 60
2
1
1
E k P
k k P
k P
in ksi P
A f P
A f P
nt
nt
nt
nt
n
i
si y nt
n
i
si y nt
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=

d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7

( )
( )
( )
( )
. 4
. 88 . 5 30 cos 14 18
. 11 60 cos 14 18
. 18
. 25 60 cos 14 18
. 1 . 30 30 cos 14 18
. 32
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
=
= =
= =
=
= + =
= + =
=
o
o
o
o

259

P
n
and M
n
s1
= -
y
)

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) 00237 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 4 . 9 . 18
00207 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 88 . 5 . 9 . 18
00125 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 11 . 9 . 18
000143 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 18 . 9 . 18
000964 . 0 00207 . 0
. 1 . 13
. 9 . 18 . 25
00177 . 0 00207 . 0
. 1 . 13
. 9 . 18 . 1 . 30
00207 . 0
. 9 . 18 . 32
00207 . 0 1 003 . 0
003 . 0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
= =
=

=
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in in c
s
s
s
s
s
s
y s

c = 18.9 in.
13.1 in.
cu
= 0.003
s1
= -0.00207
260

( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( ) k in ksi ksi A f f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi C
rad
in
in in
h
a
h
h f C
OK in d in in c a
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
c
c c
s s s s
s s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
31 . 72 . 27 . 1 6 . 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
63 . 144 . 54 . 2 6 . 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
3 . 84 . 54 . 2 6 . 3 85 . 0 25 . 36 ' 85 . 0
53 . 10 . 54 . 2 147 . 4
01 . 71 . 54 . 2 956 . 27
38 . 130 . 54 . 2 33 . 51
2 . 76 . 27 . 1 60
358 , 1
4
47 . 1 cos 47 . 1 sin 47 . 1
. 36 6 . 3 85 . 0
47 . 1
. 18
. 1 . 16 . 18
cos
2
2
cos
4
cos sin
' 85 . 0
. 36 . 1 . 16 . 9 . 18 85 . 0
60 60 73 . 68 000 , 29 00237 . 0
60 60 03 . 60 000 , 29 00207 . 0
25 . 36 000 , 29 00125 . 0
147 . 4 000 , 29 000143 . 0
96 . 27 000 , 29 000964 . 0
33 . 51 000 , 29 00177 . 0
60 000 , 29 00207 . 0
2
7 7 7
2
6 6 6
2
5 5 5
2
4 4 4
2
3 3 3
2
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
2
1 1
2
1
7 7 7
6 6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=

=
=

=
= < = = =
= > = = =
= > = = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =

261
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )
( )
b n
b n
y s t
b
i
i si c n
b si c n
M in kips in kips M
P k k P
M
ft kips
in kips
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
d
h
F
a h
C M
P k F C P

= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
=
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ =
=
= = + =
=
007 , 15 009 , 20 75 . 0
044 , 1 392 , 1 75 . 0
75 . 0
4 . 1667
009 , 20
. 4 . 18 31 . 72 . 88 . 5 . 18 63 . 144
. 11 . 18 30 . 84 . 18 . 18 53 . 10
. 25 . 18 01 . 71 . 1 . 30 . 18 38 . 130
. 32 . 18 2 . 76 . 05 . 8 . 18 358 , 1
2 2 2
392 , 1
1
9
1

The column interaction diagram is shown in Figure XXIII-7.
Interaction Diagram
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
13336
9837
15007
1044
-823
2539
2987

Figure XXIII-7. The column interaction diagram for the 1.5% reinforcement ratio.

262

COLUMN INTERACTION DIAGRAM FOR = 2.0%

( )
2
9
2
8
2
6
2
5
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
1
2 2
27 . 1
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
54 . 2
27 . 1
9 . 1017 . 36
4
1
60
6 . 3 '
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in A
in in A
ksi f
ksi f
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
g
y
c
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=

( )( )
00207 . 0
000 , 29
60
0200 . 0
9 . 1017
32 . 20
. 32 . 20 . 27 . 1 16
2
2
2 2
= = =
= = =
= = =
ksi
ksi
E
f
in
in
A
A
in in A A
s
y
y
g
st
t
si st

( )( )
( )( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
k P
k P P
A k P
k k P
P P
k in ksi A f P
k
in ksi in in ksi
A f A A f P
n
n
a
g c a
st y st g c
723 , 2
204 , 3 85 . 0 85 . 0
' 204 , 3
204 , 3 272 , 4 75 . 0
75 . 0
487 . 9 . 1017 6 . 3 133 . 0 ' 133 . 0
272 , 4
. 32 . 20 60 . 32 . 20 . 9 . 1017 6 . 3 85 . 0
' 85 . 0
(max)
0 (max)
0
0
0
2
2 2 2
0
=
= =
=
= =
= >
= = =
=
+ =
+ =

263

( )
( )( )
( )
' 1097
1097 2 . 1219 9 . 0
2 . 1219
. 32 . 20 60
2
1
1
E k P
k k P
k P
in ksi P
A f P
A f P
nt
nt
nt
nt
n
i
si y nt
n
i
si y nt
=
= =
=
=
=
=
=
=

d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7
d8
d9

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
. 4
. 07 . 5 5 . 22 cos 14 18
. 10 . 8 45 cos 14 18
. 6 . 12 5 . 67 cos 14 18
. 18
. 4 . 23 5 . 67 cos 14 18
. 9 . 27 45 cos 14 18
. 9 . 30 5 . 22 cos 14 18
. 32
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
in d
=
= =
= =
= =
=
= + =
= + =
= + =
=
o
o
o
o
o
o

264
P
n
and M
n
s1
= -
y
)

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) 00237 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 4 . 9 . 18
00220 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 07 . 5 . 9 . 18
00171 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 10 . 8 . 9 . 18
001 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 6 . 12 . 9 . 18
000143 . 0 003 . 0
. 9 . 18
. 18 . 9 . 18
000711 . 0 00207 . 0
. 1 . 13
. 9 . 18 . 4 . 23
00142 . 0 00207 . 0
. 1 . 13
. 9 . 18 . 9 . 27
00190 . 0 00207 . 0
. 1 . 13
. 9 . 18 . 9 . 30
00207 . 0
. 9 . 18 . 32
00207 . 0 1 003 . 0
003 . 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
=

=
= =
=

=
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in
in in
in in c
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
y s

c = 18.9 in.
13.1 in.
cu
= 0.003
s1
= -0.00207
265

( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )( ) k in ksi ksi A f f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi A f F
k in ksi C
rad
in
in in
h
a
h
h f C
OK in d in in c a
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
ksi ksi E f
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s c cs s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
c
c c
s s s s
s s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
s s s
3 . 72 . 27 . 1 6 . 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
6 . 144 . 54 . 2 6 . 3 85 . 0 60 ' 85 . 0
2 . 118 . 54 . 2 6 . 3 85 . 0 59 . 49 ' 85 . 0
9 . 65 . 54 . 2 6 . 3 85 . 0 29 ' 85 . 0
5 . 10 . 54 . 2 147 . 4
4 . 52 . 54 . 2 169 . 20
6 . 104 . 54 . 2 18 . 41
0 . 140 . 54 . 2 1 . 55
2 . 76 . 27 . 1 60
358 , 1
4
47 . 1 cos 47 . 1 sin 47 . 1
. 36 6 . 3 85 . 0
47 . 1
. 18
. 1 . 16 . 18
cos
2
2
cos
4
cos sin
' 85 . 0
. 36 . 1 . 16 . 9 . 18 85 . 0
60 60 73 . 68 000 , 29 00237 . 0
60 60 8 . 63 000 , 29 00220 . 0
59 . 49 000 , 29 00171 . 0
29 000 , 29 001 . 0
147 . 4 000 , 29 00143 . 0
619 . 20 000 , 29 000711 . 0
18 . 41 000 , 29 00142 . 0
1 . 55 000 , 29 00190 . 0
60 000 , 29 00207 . 0
2
9 9 9
2
8 8 8
2
7 7 7
2
6 6 6
2
5 5 5
2
4 4 4
2
3 3 3
2
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
2
1 1
2
1
9 9 9
8 8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
=

=
=

=
= < = = =
= > = = =
= > = = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =
= = =

266
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( ) ( )( )
( )( )
( )
( )
b n
b n
y s t
b
i
i si c n
b si c n
M in kips in kips M
P k k P
M
in kips
in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
in in k in in k
d
h
F
a h
C M
P k F C P

= = =
= = =
= = =
=
=
+
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ =
=
= = + =
=
583 , 16 111 , 22 75 . 0
047 , 1 396 , 1 75 . 0
75 . 0
111 , 22
. 4 . 18 3 . 72
. 07 . 5 . 18 6 . 144 . 10 . 8 . 18 2 . 118
. 6 . 12 . 18 9 . 65 . 18 . 18 5 . 10
. 4 . 23 . 18 4 . 52 . 9 . 27 . 18 6 . 104
. 32 . 18 2 . 76 . 05 . 8 . 18 358 , 1
2 2 2
396 , 1
1
9
1

The column interaction diagram is shown in Figure XXIII-10.
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Phi Mn (k-in)
P
h
i

P
n

(
k
)
1047
3204
-1097
16583
2723

Figure XXIII-8. The column interaction diagram for the reinforcement ratio = 2%.

267
Appendix XXIV
Superstructure Cracking Analysis for the Prestressed Concrete
Girder Bridge

f
c
of the slab = 30 N/mm
2
= 4351 psi [Maday, 2002].
The cracking stress of the slab:
MPa psi f f
c r
41 . 3 495 4351 5 . 7 ' 5 . 7 = = = =

After applying the 82-N/mm uniformly distributed load (the equivalent earthquake force
using the uniform load method from section 3.15.1) along the superstructure, the
maximum stress in the superstructure was calculated:

yy
a
a
I
y M
=
a
= maximum stress in the superstructure
M
a
= maximum moment in the superstructure
y = distance from the y-y axis to the most extreme point of the superstructure (edges of
the slab)
I
yy
= Moment of inertia of the superstructure about the y-y axis

( )( )
MPa
mm
mm Nmm
a
365 . 0
10 69 . 4
12550 10 36 . 1
4 14
10
=
a
< f
r
, thus the superstructure was not cracked during the maximum considered
earthquake.

268
Appendix XXV
Superstructure Cracking Analysis for the Steel Girder Bridges

f
c
of the slab for the West Bound and East Bound bridges = 4000 psi [Brown, 1993]
The cracking stress of the slab:
ksi psi f f
c r
474 . 0 474 4000 5 . 7 ' 5 . 7 = = = =

After applying the 0.262-k/in and 0.327-k/in uniformly distributed loads, which were
respectively the equivalent earthquake forces for the West Bound and East Bound bridges
obtained using the uniform load method from section 4.15.1, along the superstructure, the
maximum stress in the superstructure was calculated:

yy
a
a
I
y M
=
a
= maximum stress in the superstructure
M
a
= maximum moment in the superstructure
y = distance from the y-y axis to the most extreme point of the superstructure (edges of
the slab)
I
yy
= Moment of inertia of the superstructure about the y-y axis

West Bound:
( )( )
ksi
in
in in k
a
946 . 0
10 56 . 2
. 264 700 , 91
4 7
=
=

East Bound:
( )( )
ksi
in
in in k
a
798 . 0
10 05 . 5
. 338 000 , 119
4 7
=
a
> f
r
, thus the superstructures (slabs) for both bridges were cracked during the
maximum considered earthquake.
269
Vita

Matius Andy Widjaja received his masters degree in structural engineering from
Virginia Tech in June 2003. He was born on August 2, 1978 in Jakarta, Indonesia. His
father, Jahja Widjaja, worked for a construction company for approximately ten years,
and now owns his own construction company in Jakarta. His father took him to many
construction sites when he was still a little boy. The tours around his fathers construction
projects made him interested in becoming a civil engineer.
In school, his favorite subject was mathematics. From the 9
th
grade until the 12
th

grade, Matius participated in nine mathematics tournaments for high school students in
Jakarta, finished 3
rd
place or better in six of them, and finished 1
st
place in three of them.
After graduating from high school, Matius left Indonesia and came to the United
States in August 1996 to study at the University of Wisconsin. As an undergraduate in
civil engineering, he concentrated in construction engineering and management. He
graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in August 2000, and decided to go to
another university because Wisconsin winters were too harsh for him.
Therefore in August 2000 Matius moved to Blacksburg, Virginia to go to
graduate school at Virginia Tech. There he enrolled in the structural engineering
program. In September 2001, he started this research study, which was funded by the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
On September 5, 2002, Matius started working full-time for Turner Construction
Company, the largest construction company in the country, in its Arlington, Virginia
office. He began his career in the estimating department. Then after six months, he was
assigned to work as an assistant engineer at one of Turners current biggest projects, the
Dulles International Airport People Mover Station, where he currently works.

Aashto Seismic Force-Based Design Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Aashto Seismic Force-Based Design Exam

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Aashto Seismic Force-Based Design Exam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE INFLUENCE OF THE RECOMMENDED LRFD GUIDELINES FOR THE

SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES ON VIRGINIA BRIDGES

000 , 491 000 , 179 000 , 460 85 . 0 200 , 52

You might also like