Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NCHRP 20-7 (193) Task 6 Report As Sent To AASHTO Website 10-29-01 PDF
NCHRP 20-7 (193) Task 6 Report As Sent To AASHTO Website 10-29-01 PDF
Task 6 Report
for
Updating
Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No.
Page No.
2.2
3
3.1
Introduction............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
3.4
3.5
Select the Most Appropriate Design Procedure for Steel ................. 4-1
4.1
General................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Page No.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page No.
iv
TASK 1
1 REVIEW REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
A review of the pertinent documents and information that were available was
conducted and has been included in Tasks 2 thru 5 as needed. The reference
material that was selected for inclusion is attached as appendices for each of
the individual tasks. Their inclusion as appendices makes this Letter Report
somewhat self-contained and additionally, makes it more convenient for our
reviewers.
A separate section is included in this Letter Report for each of the tasks as
described below:
Section 2 presents the justification for the 1000-year return period (i.e., 5%
probability of exceedance in 50 years) as recommended for the seismic design of
highway bridges.
Section 3 includes a description of how the no analysis zone is expanded and
how this expansion is incorporated into the displacement based approach.
Section 4 describes the two alternative approaches available for the design of
highway
bridges
with
steel
superstructures
and
concludes
with
recommended hazard level and the no analysis zone covered in Tasks 2 and 3
1-1
respectively. The recommendations proposed are made taking into account the
outcome of these two tasks for Seismic Performance Category D.
1-2
TASK 2
2 FINALIZE SEISMIC HAZARD LEVEL
2.1
Hazard Map under the control of AASHTO with each State having the
option to Modify or Update their own State Hazard using the most
recent Seismological Studies consistent with the Established Risk
2-1
2.1.1
The current State of the Practice in addressing the seismic hazard for the
design of bridges in the U.S. has evolved from just conforming to AASHTO
Division 1-A requirements to adopting higher standards that take into account
the possible effects of larger earthquakes in the Eastern United States and the
impacts of major earthquakes that occurred recently in the Western United
States, Japan, Taiwan and Turkey.
2.2
2-2
Modification or
2-3
Source of Conservatism
Safety Factor
1.3
1.2 to 1.5
1.2
1.2 to 1.5
Addressed in Task 3
2-4
These two aspects are embedded with different levels of conservatism that
need to be calibrated against the single level of hazard considered in the design
process.
The first aspect is highly influenced by variation in the periods of the frames
on both sides of a joint as well as the damping generated by the ductile
behavior of plastic hinges.
In essence, the
continuity of the superstructure and low axial loads in columns make a typical
bridge more resilient against collapse in a seismic event.
2-5
2-6
2-7
This
CITY
Daly City
San Francisco
SFOBB
Berkeley
FEATURE
Zip Code 94015
City Hall
Site from Po/Roy
Site from Po/Roy
DOMINANT SOURCE
San Andreas
San Andreas
Hayward
Hayward
2-8
LATITUDE
37.681240
37.779083
37.750000
37.871667
LONGITUDE
-122.479000
-122.417450
-122.250000
-122.271667
CA
Concord
38.000000
-122.116667
CA
Benicia
Martinez
Los Angeles
City Hall
34.053700
-118.243183
CA
Vincent Thomas
33.749218
-118.271466
CA
CA
Newport-Inglewood
Rose Canyon
33.813890
32.616667
-118.217000
-117.116667
WA
WA
UT
Long Beach
Coronado
Bridge
Seattle
Tacoma North
Salt Lake City
47.621150
47.250000
40.776367
-122.348950
-122.366667
-111.887983
UT
40.750000
-111.883333
IN
MO
KY
TN
TN
TN
Evansville
St. Louis
Paducah
Union City
Memphis
Memphis
38.023280
38.466780
37.034190
36.428110
35.148750
35.225170
-87.617100
-90.319400
-88.603800
-89.059500
-90.054700
-90.008400
Space Needle
Site from Po/Roy
State Capital
2-9
CITY
Daly City
San Francisco
SFOBB
Berkeley
Benicia Martinez
Los Angeles
Vincent Thomas
Long Beach
Coronado Bridge
Seattle
Tacoma North
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Evansville
St. Louis
Paducah
Union City
Memphis
Memphis
Det Ss, g
1.49
0.88
0.84
1.28
0.96
1.50
1.41
1.28
1.19
1.34
0.47
1.28
1.25
0.27
0.23
0.89
0.86
0.60
0.65
Det S1, g
1.5*Det Ss, g
0.85
2.23
0.44
1.32
0.30
1.26
0.49
1.93
0.31
1.44
0.57
2.24
0.63
2.12
0.51
1.91
0.47
1.78
0.48
2.01
0.18
0.71
0.53
1.92
0.53
1.88
0.09
0.41
0.08
0.34
0.24
1.33
0.23
1.29
0.17
0.91
0.18
0.98
1.5*Det S1, g
1.28
0.67
0.45
0.74
0.47
0.86
0.95
0.77
0.70
0.73
0.28
0.80
0.79
0.13
0.12
0.36
0.35
0.25
0.27
MCE Ss, g
MCE S1, g
2.23
1.28
1.50
0.67
1.50
0.60
1.93
0.74
1.50
0.60
2.19
0.74
2.08
0.92
1.81
0.70
1.37
0.54
1.41
0.48
1.20
0.41
1.71
0.69
1.70
0.69
0.67
0.19
0.61
0.17
1.50
0.47
1.50
0.57
1.40
0.38
1.50
0.41
SDs, g
1.49
1.00
1.00
1.28
1.00
1.46
1.38
1.20
0.91
0.94
0.80
1.14
1.13
0.45
0.40
1.00
1.00
0.93
1.00
SD1, g
0.85
0.44
0.40
0.49
0.40
0.49
0.61
0.47
0.36
0.32
0.27
0.46
0.46
0.13
0.12
0.31
0.38
0.25
0.27
CITY
Daly City
San Francisco
SFOBB
Berkeley
Benicia Martinez
Los Angeles
Vincent Thomas
Long Beach
Coronado Bridge
Seattle
Tacoma North
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Evansville
St. Louis
Paducah
Union City
Memphis
Memphis
Charleston
Phoenix
10%/50 yr
Ss, g
1.60
1.15
1.26
1.65
1.24
1.20
1.02
0.96
0.60
0.73
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.25
0.23
0.54
0.53
0.38
0.40
0.31
0.09
10%/50 yr
S1, g
0.78
0.53
0.50
0.63
0.43
0.41
0.37
0.35
0.22
0.24
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.03
5%/50 yr
Ss, g
2.15
1.45
1.57
2.19
1.58
1.60
1.47
1.30
0.89
0.99
0.89
1.10
1.09
0.40
0.36
0.97
1.06
0.75
0.80
0.69
0.12
5%/50 yr
S1, g
1.12
0.69
0.62
0.83
0.55
0.54
0.56
0.49
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.42
0.42
0.11
0.10
0.24
0.27
0.19
0.20
0.15
0.04
2-10
CITY
Daly City
San Francisco
SFOBB
Berkeley
Benicia Martinez
Los Angeles
Vincent Thomas
Long Beach
Coronado Bridge
Seattle
Tacoma North
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Evansville
St. Louis
Paducah
Union City
Memphis
Memphis
Charleston
Phoenix
Type B
5%/50 yr
S1, g
Type B
5%/50 yr
Ss, g
2.15
1.45
1.57
2.19
1.58
1.60
1.47
1.30
0.89
0.99
0.89
1.10
1.09
0.40
0.36
0.97
1.06
0.75
0.80
0.69
0.12
1.12
0.69
0.62
0.83
0.55
0.54
0.56
0.49
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.42
0.42
0.11
0.10
0.24
0.27
0.19
0.20
0.15
0.04
Type D
5%/50 yr
S DS , g
2.15
1.45
1.57
2.19
1.58
1.60
1.47
1.30
1.02
1.10
1.01
1.17
1.15
0.60
0.55
1.08
1.15
0.89
0.94
0.86
0.19
Type D
5%, 50 yr
S D1 ,g
1.67
1.04
0.93
1.24
0.83
0.81
0.84
0.73
0.58
0.58
0.54
0.67
0.66
0.26
0.24
0.46
0.50
0.39
0.41
0.34
0.09
10%/50 yr 5%/50 yr
S1, g
S1, g
CITY
Daly City
0.78
1.12
San Francisco
0.53
0.69
SFOBB
0.50
0.62
Berkeley
0.63
0.83
Benicia Martinez
0.43
0.55
Los Angeles
0.41
0.54
Vincent Thomas
0.37
0.56
Long Beach
0.35
0.49
Coronado Bridge
0.22
0.34
Seattle
0.24
0.33
Tacoma North
0.23
0.30
Salt Lake City
0.24
0.42
Salt Lake City
0.24
0.42
Evansville
0.07
0.11
St. Louis
0.06
0.10
Paducah
0.11
0.24
Union City
0.12
0.27
Memphis
0.09
0.19
Memphis
0.09
0.20
Charleston
0.06
0.15
Phoenix
0.03
0.04
10%/50yr 5%/50yr
1996
1996
S1,g
S1,g
1.08
1.50
0.64
0.83
0.62
0.79
0.65
0.86
0.55
0.69
0.42
0.54
0.41
0.58
0.42
0.60
0.21
0.31
0.22
0.32
0.20
0.28
0.21
0.42
0.21
0.40
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.20
0.09
0.21
0.07
0.16
0.07
0.17
0.07
0.17
0.03
0.04
2-11
Ratio 1
1.38
1.22
1.24
1.03
1.27
1.02
1.10
1.20
0.95
0.92
0.88
0.86
0.87
0.92
0.85
0.81
0.78
0.81
0.78
1.17
1.11
Ratio 2
1.35
1.20
1.27
1.04
1.25
1.00
1.03
1.23
0.92
0.97
0.93
1.00
0.96
1.08
0.99
0.83
0.79
0.84
0.84
1.11
1.02
CITY
Daly City
San Francisco
SFOBB
Berkeley
Benicia Martinez
Los Angeles
Vincent Thomas
Long Beach
Coronado Bridge
Seattle
Tacoma North
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Evansville
St. Louis
Paducah
Union City
Memphis
Memphis
Det
S1, g
0.85
0.44
0.30
0.49
0.31
0.57
0.63
0.51
0.47
0.48
0.18
0.53
0.53
0.09
0.08
0.24
0.23
0.17
0.18
5%/50 yr
S1, g
1.12
0.69
0.62
0.83
0.55
0.54
0.56
0.49
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.42
0.42
0.11
0.10
0.24
0.27
0.19
0.20
Ratio
1.31
1.56
2.07
1.67
1.76
0.94
0.89
0.95
0.72
0.68
1.63
0.79
0.79
1.24
1.28
1.00
1.13
1.13
1.12
2.50
5%-50 Yr/Deterministic
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
Sa
al
y
C
it y
Fr
an
ci
sc
o
SF
O
B
Be B
Be
rk
ni
el
ci
ey
a
M
ar
tin
Lo
e
s
An z
Vi
nc
ge
en
l
t T es
ho
m
Lo
ng as
C
or
B
on
e
ad ach
o
Br
id
ge
Ta Se
at
co
tle
m
a
Sa
N
o
lt
La rth
Sa ke
C
lt
La ity
ke
C
ity
Ev
an
sv
ille
St
.L
ou
Pa is
du
ca
U
h
ni
on
C
it y
M
em
ph
is
M
em
ph
is
0.00
2-12
TASK 2
APPENDIX 2A
2A-1
The
SDPG determined that rather than designing for a nationwide uniform hazard
- such as a 10%/50 year or 2%/50 year hazard- it made more sense to design for
a uniform margin of failure against a somewhat arbitrarily selected maximum
earthquake level.
This maximum earthquake level was termed a Maximum Considered
earthquake (MCE) in recognition of the fact that this was not the most severe
earthquake hazard level that could ever affect a site, but it was the most
severe level that it was deemed practical to consider for design purposes. The
SDPG decided to adopt a 2%/50 year exceedance level definition for the MCE in
most regions of the nation, as it was felt that this would capture recurrence of
all of the large-magnitude earthquakes that had occurred in historic times.
There was concern, however, that the levels of ground shaking derived for this
exceedance level were not appropriate in zones near major active faults. There
were several reasons for this. First, the predicted ground motions in these
regions were much larger than those that had commonly been recorded by near
field instrumentation in recent magnitude 6 or 7 California events. Second, it
was noted, based on the observed performance of buildings in these
earthquakes, that structures designed ot the code had substantial margin
against collapse for ground shaking that is much larger than that for which the
2A-2
building had nominally been designed; in the judgment of the SDPG members,
this margin represented a factor of at least 1.5.
Consequently, it was decided to adopt a definition of the MCE in zones near
major active faults that consisted of the smaller of the probabilistically
estimated 2%/50 year motion or 150% of the mean ground motion calculated for
a deterministic characteristic earthquake on these major active faults, and to
design all buildings, regardless of location, to provide for protection of occupant
life safety at earthquake ground shaking levels that are 1/1.5 times (2/3) of the
MCE ground motion.
Following the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, the ratio of the mapped acceleration at
one-second period for return periods of 474, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 years is
normalized against the mapped acceleration at one-second period for a return
period of 474 years. The results of this normalization for California, Pacific,
Intermountain, Central US, and Eastern US are found in Table 2-1.
The
California and Pacific Regions are designated with a deterministic cap based
on the description mentioned in the above paragraphs. The normalization is
appropriate for sites where the short period mapped acceleration SS is greater
than 1.5 g (i.e. higher ground shaking).
Table 2-1: Normalized One Second Spectral Acceleration
Return Period
Years
474
1000
1500
2000
2500
Deterministic
CAP
Region
California
Pacific
Intermountain
1
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.6
Yes
1
1.6
2.2
2.6
3.0
Yes
1
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.7
No
Central
US
1
2.3
3.5
4.8
6.1
No
Eastern
US
1
2.2
3.4
4.5
5.7
No
2A-3
motion
Deterministic
hazards
practice
since
the
considers
1971
the
San
Fernando
earthquake.
largest
expected
earthquake.
2A-4
new bridges.
Ordinary Bridges
Important Bridges
Functional-Evaluation
Service Level-Immediate
Service Level-Immediate
Ground Motion
Repairable Damage
Minimal Damage
Safety-Evaluation
Service Level-Limited
Service Level-Immediate
Ground Motion
Significant Damage
Repairable Damage
at Site
deterministically
or
probabilistically.
The
deterministic
2A-5
deterministic evaluation.
b) Functional-Evaluation Ground Motion:
This is a probabilistically
Immediate:
Limited:
Repairable Damage:
Significant Damage:
2A-6
2A-7
This value
2A-8
SDC 1.2 has adopted in its December 2001 release. Recent studies suggest
considerably larger increases that have, however, not been yet endorsed in the
practice
(NYCDOT) has adopted modifications to the 1996 AASHTO Division 1-A that
reflect the findings of the New York City Seismic Hazard and Its Engineering
Application final report prepared by Weidlinger Associates, December 1998.
These modifications are applicable to NYC Metro Region including the
Counties listed in Table 2-3.
Essential and Other.
permitted.
The following guidelines are adopted for NYCDOT bridges:
For Bridges designed by the one level approach (Essential and Other),
Figure 2-1 shows the acceleration response spectra to be used for
different soil types (soil classes). Soil classes are defined in Table 2-4.
Site specific soil effects for the two earthquake levels approach (i.e.
Critical Bridges) should be obtained from an expert. Soil spectra for
different types of soils, base on NEHRP amplification factors are not
recommended for design of Critical Bridges.
2A-9
2A-10
Table 2-3: Performance Criteria and Seismic Hazard Level for Design
and Evaluation of Bridges
(Applicable to NYC Metro Region/Downstate Counties: Bronx, Kings, Nassau,
New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland and Westchester)
2A-11
Figure 2-1: NYCDOT Soil Acceleration Response Spectra for OneLevel Approach (2% in 50 Years Probability of Exceedance) /1.5
2A-12
The NEHRP/97 MCE hard rock is lower than the Panel Hard Rock as
demonstrated in Figure 2-2.
The short period soil amplification Panel Spectra factors are lower than
the
NEHRP
1997
corresponding
factors
as
demonstrated
in
Table 2-5.
The long period soil amplification Panel Spectra factors are essentially
the same in comparison to the NEHRP 1997 corresponding factors as
demonstrated in Table 2-6.
In Summary,
2A-13
Soil
Class
For NEHRP 94
For NEHRP 97
Aa = .16g
Ss = .40g
Ss = .72g - .75g
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.48
1.2
2.02
1.2
2A-14
Soil
Class
For NEHRP 94
For NEHRP 97
Av = .09g
S1 = .09g
S1 = .13g
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.67
2.4
2.28
3.5
3.41
Deterministic
2A-15
2A-16
Life Safety
Operational
Service (2)
Significant
Disruption
Immediate
Damage (3)
Significant
Minimal
Service
Immediate
Immediate
Damage
Minimal
Minimal to None
Notes:
(1)
Performance Levels:
These are defined in terms of their anticipated performance objectives in
the upper level earthquake. Life safety in the MCE event means that the
bridge should not collapse but partial or complete replacement may be
required.
performance level will have immediate service and minimal damage for
the expected design earthquake. For the operational performance level
the intent is that there will be immediate service and minimal damage for
both the rare and expected earthquakes.
(2)
Service Levels:
2A-17
(3)
Damage Levels:
Partial or complete
2A-18
of
interest
to
the
above-mentioned
table
are
shown
in
2A-19
Service
Damage
(2)
(3)
Life Safety
Operational
Significant
Disruption
Immediate
Significant
Minimal
Service
Immediate
Immediate
50% PE in 75 years
Damage
Minimal
Minimal to None
Notes:
(1)
performance level will have immediate service and minimal damage for
the expected design earthquake. For the operational performance level
the intent is that there will be immediate service and minimal damage for
both the rare and expected earthquakes.
(2)
Service Levels:
Immediate Full access to normal traffic shall be available following
Damage Levels:
2A-20
Partial or complete
2A-21
75 years.
central feature of the new SCDOT bridge design program is the development of
new seismic bridge design criteria and standards that: 1) incorporate a new
generation U.S. Geological Survey seismic ground shaking hazard maps, 2)
treat certain inadequacies of existing bridge design codes to adequately
address the large earthquake, and 3) address the no collapse bridge criteria
and life safety issues in the central and eastern United States. This section
summarizes the upgraded bridge seismic design provisions and describes
variations in national seismicity that motivated the development of the
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications for Highway Bridges. Basically, the
revised specifications specify that the design of new bridges in South Carolina
directly account for the effects of the large earthquake as done by the State of
California. This is to ensure conformance with the guiding principle used in
the development of AASHTO provisions that the "exposure to shaking from
the large earthquake should not cause collapse of all or part of the bridge
Several of the revisions were adopted from bridge design provisions of the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) [2], because of similar high
intensity seismic hazard at the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) level and
the state-of-practice progress gained due to recent earthquakes that have not
yet been incorporated into AASHTO.
2A-22
At least two developments of the U.S. Geological Survey during the past
several years have been a major contribution to bridge earthquake
engineering. One development was an assessment of the nature of the seismic
ground shaking hazard as it varies nationally that revealed apparent
inequalities in safety that result when a single level of probability common to
bridge code design is used. The second development was a new generation of
probabilistic ground-motion hazard maps that provide uniform hazard spectra
for exposure times of 500 and 2500 years and make possible the treatment of
the inequality in safety of bridge code design using existing earthquake
engineering design and evaluation provisions and methodology.
The new generation of probabilistic ground motion maps was produced by the
USGS under the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
with significant input from the committee on Seismic Hazard Maps of the
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC). They allow development of uniform hazard
spectra and permit direct definition of the design spectra by mapping the
response spectral ordinates at different periods.
The recommended seismic design procedures were developed to meet current
bridge code objectives, including both serviceability and life safety in the event
of a large earthquake.
provide minimum standards for use in bridge design to maintain public safety
in the extreme earthquake likely to occur within the state of South Carolina.
They are intended to safeguard against major failures and loss of life, to
minimize damage, maintain functions, or to provide for easy repair.
For normal or essential bridges (see Table 2-9), the Single Level Design
Method is adopted by this code. This method consists of applying seismic
2A-23
design loading calculated based upon the value of the spectral accelerations of
the 2%/50-year earthquake (i.e., the Safety Evaluation Earthquake).
Table 2-9: Seismic Performance Criteria
Ground
Motion
Level
FunctionalEvaluation
SafetyEvaluation
Performance
Level
Normal
Bridges
Essential
Bridges
Critical
Bridges
Service
NR*
NR*
Immediate
Damage
NR*
NR*
Minimal
Service
Impaired
Damage
Significant
Recoverable Maintained
Repairable
Repairable
For Critical Bridges, which are designated by SCDOT, the seismic performance
goals are to be achieved by a two-level design approach, one for each of the two
earthquakes (i.e., Two-Level Design Method). In addition to the 2%/50-year
earthquake (Safety Evaluation Earthquake), critical bridges shall also be
designed to provide adequate functionality after the 10%/50-year earthquake
(Functional Evaluation Earthquake). The minimum performance levels for the
design and evaluation of bridges shall be in accordance with the level of service
and damage for the two design earthquakes as shown in Table 2-9. Service
Levels and Damage Levels are defined in these criteria. The Bridge Category
is also defined in these criteria. The SCDOT may specify project-specific or
structure-specific performance requirements different from those defined in the
table. For example, for a Critical or Essential bridge it may be desirable to
have serviceability following a 2%/50-year earthquake.
2A-24
2A-25
Immediate:
Full
access
to
normal
traffic
is
available
Recoverable:
Impaired:
2A-26
2A-27
2A-28
TASK 3
Introduction
Analysis.
b) Analysis conducted to establish the displacement capacity of the
structure, a subsystem or a component of the structure. This can be
referred to as Seismic Capacity Analysis. This type of analysis is also
commonly referred to as Pushover Analysis. In addition to obtaining the
displacement capacity of the structure, the Seismic Capacity Analysis
is used to obtain the load path and force distribution on the members of
the structure based on the hinging mechanism of these members. These
forces are used to design various members such that the developed
hinging mechanism of the overall system is confirmed.
In summary, the Seismic Capacity Analysis includes two parts. One is the
Displacement Capacity and the second is the Capacity Design.
3-1
The overall second objective identified in Task F3-4 is to increase the range of
applicability for No Analysis or Limited Analysis. This objective is made in
reference to NCHRP 12-49 Proposed Guidelines where it was found that
considerable amount of analysis was required on a larger number of bridges in
comparison with the AASHTO Division 1-A Practice.
3-2
3.2
The choice of S a1 DS fits well with the adopted displacement approach for
bridges considering that ductility is taken into account when assessing
the capacity.
3-3
Value of S a1 DS
3-4
S a1 DS < 0.15g
0.50g S a1 DS
proposed partition shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-6 reflects the distribution of
SPC A, B, C and D given Type B and D soils.
3-5
3-6
3-7
soil B
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.35
0.41
0.48
soil C
0.14
0.21
0.37
0.48
0.53
0.61
soil D
0.19
0.32
0.45
0.55
0.61
0.70
soil E
0.28
0.52
0.69
0.80
soil B
0.10
0.21
0.29
0.42
0.52
0.67
0.92
soil C
0.17
0.32
0.44
0.59
0.68
0.86
1.19
soil D
0.24
0.41
0.54
0.66
0.77
1.00
1.38
soil E
0.36
0.69
0.81
0.99
soil B
0.12
0.24
0.35
0.45
0.57
0.72
0.96
soil C
0.21
0.38
0.53
0.63
0.73
0.93
1.25
soil D
0.29
0.48
0.64
0.71
0.90
1.12
1.45
soil E
0.43
0.75
0.93
1.02
soil 1
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.48
0.60
0.72
0.84
soil 2
0.14
0.29
0.43
0.58
0.72
0.86
1.01
3-8
soil 3
0.18
0.36
0.54
0.72
0.90
1.08
1.26
soil 4
0.24
0.48
0.72
0.96
1.2
1.44
1.68
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
WA
WA
UT
CA
IN
MO
KY
TN
TN
TN
SC
AZ
CITY
Daly City
San Francisco
SFOBB
Berkeley
Benicia Martinez
Los Angeles
Vincent Thomas
Long Beach
Coronado Bridge
Seattle
Tacoma North
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Evansville
St. Louis
Paducah
Union City
Memphis
Memphis
Charleston
Phoenix
Type B Soil
5%/50 yr
Sa1, g
1.12
0.69
0.62
0.83
0.55
0.54
0.56
0.49
0.34
0.33
0.30
0.42
0.42
0.11
0.10
0.24
0.27
0.19
0.20
0.15
0.04
SPC
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
Type D Soil
5%/50 yr
Sa1, g
1.67
1.04
0.93
1.24
0.83
0.81
0.84
0.73
0.58
0.58
0.54
0.67
0.66
0.26
0.24
0.46
0.50
0.39
0.41
0.34
0.09
SPC
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
C
D
C
C
C
A
3-9
2. SPC B
a. Implicit Displacement Capacity Check Required (i.e., use a Closed
Form Solution Formula)
b. No Capacity Design Required
c. Tier II Level of Detailing
3. SPC C
a. Implicit Displacement Capacity Check Required
b. Capacity Design Required
c. Tier III Level of Detailing
4. SPC D
a. Pushover Analysis Required
b. Capacity Design Required
c. Tier IV Level of Detailing
The level of detailing for Tiers I, II, III, and IV will consider at a minimum the
following:
3-10
The three requirements for each of SPC A, B, C and D will follow the core
flowchart that was presented in Task F3-5 and shown in Figure 3-3.
Y es
S P C "A"
C o m p le te
No
S P C "B "
Y es D e m a n d
A n a ly s is
Im p lic it
C ap ac ity
T ier II
D eta ilin g
C o m plete
No
No
Y es
S P C "C "
D em an d
A n a ly s is
Im p lic it
C apac ity
Y es C apac ity
D e s ig n
T ier III
D eta ilin g
C o m ple te
C apac ity
D e s ig n
T ie r IV
D e tailin g
C o m plete
No
No
Y es
S P C "D "
Y es
D em an d
A n a ly s is
Pu sh over
C ap ac ity
A n aly s is
Y es
No
D ep en d s on Ad ju stm en ts
A d ju s t B rid g e
C h arac te ris tic s
3-11
The major performance measures that govern the design for each of the
Seismic Performance Categories include the following:
1. Column Shear requirement
2. Drift Capacity requirement
3. Seat Width requirement
3.3.1
The shear demand for a column, Vd, in SPC B shall be determined based on the
lesser of:
Vn Vo
= 0.85
Vn = Vc + Vs
A f D
Vs = v yh ,
s
(3.1)
(3.2)
where
Av = n Ab
2
(3.3)
3-12
Av f yh D
Vs =
Av =
(3.4)
Vc = vc Ae
(3.5)
Ae = 0.8 Ag
(3.6)
P
vc = 1 +
2000 A
g
f c 3.5 f c
= 0.015 s f yt
= 0.030 w f yt
(3.7)
(3.8)
(3.9)
s =
4 Asp
Ds
(3.10)
w =
Av
bs
3-13
(3.11)
3.3.2
The shear demand for a column, Vd, in SPC B shall be determined based on the
force corresponding to plastic hinging of the column including an overstrength
factor
The column shear strength capacity shall be calculated based on
Vn Vo
= 0.85
Vn = Vc + Vs
A f D
Vs = v yh ,
s
where
Av = n Ab
2
(3.12)
(3.13)
(3.14)
A f D
Vs = v yh
s
Av =
(3.15)
Vc = vc Ae
Ae = 0.8 Ag
3-14
(3.16)
(3.17)
P
vc = 1 +
2000 A
g
f c 3.5 f c
(3.18)
= 0.010 s f yt
(3.19)
f yt
(3.20)
s =
4 Asp
Ds
(3.21)
w =
3.4
Av
bs
(3.22)
Columns for bridges in SPC B are targeted for a limited drift corresponding to
minor damage. Columns for bridges in SPC C are targeted for a maximum
drift corresponding to moderate damage. The approach taken to come up with
a closed form solution is to equally weigh in the results of numerical methods
as well as experimental testing of various columns.
Considering the numerical approach as described below, columns with
diameter ranging from 3 feet to 7 feet having 1 to 4% longitudinal
reinforcement and height ranging between 20 to 50 feet are considered. The
3-15
A regression analysis is
performed and a lower bound curve is identified in Figure 3-4 for the following:
a. Curve 1, designated as C1, showing drift capacity corresponding to
column yielding
b. Curve 2, designated as C2, showing drift capacity corresponding to
concrete spalling
c. Curve 3, designated as C3, showing drift capacity corresponding to a
column ductility of 4.
The drift capacity for all three curves are shown as a function of the
slenderness ratio Fb
where:
P
1
1+
= 1.6 1
A f 10( D )
H
g c
(3.23)
3-16
Curve 5 =
Curve 2 + Curve 4
2
(3.24)
Curve 3 + Curve 4
2
(3.25)
(%)
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
3-17
6.00
5.00
SPC C
Yield (C1)
Spalling (C2)
Ductility 4 (C3)
Experimental (C4)
SPC B (C5)
SPC C (C6)
4.00
SPC B
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Fb/L
3.5
3.5.1
The minimum edge distance set by Division IA and NCHRP 12-49 is set at 4
inches. It is recommended to retain this value.
3-18
3.5.2
Other Movement
Division IA currently has a movement rating of 2 inches per 100 feet for SPC B
and a movement rating of 3 inches per 100 feet for SPC C & D.
The seat width based on NCHRP 12-49 is calculated as:
2
B (1 + 1.25 Fv S1 )
N = 0.10 + 0.0017 L + 0.007 H + 0.05 H 1 + 2
cos
(3.26)
100 ft
3.3 100 ft
per 100 feet.
Three alternatives are considered for including other movement in the seat
width equation:
a. The first alternative considers the temperature movement t and other
movements as calculated for various states based on their extreme
temperature range, in addition to prestress and shortening, and thermal
expansion or contraction.
b. The second alternative is a 2-inch movement per 100 feet, which is quite
conservative.
3-19
c. The last alternative has a 1-inch movement rating per 100 feet
considered an average nominal value in Practice especially in
combination with seismic movement.
It is recommended for clarity and transparency to adopt Alternative (a) stated
above.
3.5.3
Skew Effect
curve as 1 + S
4000
) is recommended.
1.45
Am plification Factor
1.4
1.35
NCHRP 12-49
1.3
Division 1A
1.25
Proposed
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Skew Angle
3-20
45
3.5.4
(D
2
+ Dmax
2 12 Dmin Dmax )
2
min
(3.27)
where,
12 =
where
8 2 (1 + )( )
(1 )
2 2
3/ 2
(3.28)
+ 4 2 (1 + ) ( )
2
T2
T2 and T1 being the first and second modes of the structure
T1
system.
The damping
is calculated as:
= 5% +
where
(1 0.95
0.05
(3.29)
:
=
Dmin
Dmax
3-21
(3.30)
Deq =
2
2
2
Dmax
+ Dmax
2 12 Dmax
)
(3.31)
+ 1 212 )
(3.32)
Tshort
Tlong
(3.33)
recommended that:
Furthermore, a safety factor of 1.5 is proposed for regions other than California
as described in Task 2.
3-22
1.60
Ratio of Deq/Dmax
1.40
1.20
Curve 1
Curve 2
Curve 3
Curve 4
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Ratio of Tshort/Tlong
The following is
3-23
3-24
45
40
Curve 1 SDR 2
Curve 2 SDR 3
Curve 3 SPC B
Curve 4 SPC C&D
Curve 5 .15g, 1 sec
Curve 6 .5g, 1 sec
Curve 7 .15g, 2 sec
Curve 8 .50g, 2 sec
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
50
45
Curve 1 SDR 2
Curve 2 SDR 3
Curve 3 SPC B
Curve 4 SPC C&D
Curve 5 .15g, 1 sec
Curve 6 .5g, 1 sec
Curve 7 .15g, 2 sec
Curve 8 .50g, 2 sec
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
3-25
REFERENCE
3-26
TASK 3
APPENDIX 3A
3A-1
Importance
Classification (IC)
I
II
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
C
Essential bridges IC = I
2.
Other Bridges IC = II
3A-2
Regular Bridges
with
2 Through 6 Spans
Not Required
Use Procedure
1 or 2
Not Regular
Bridges with
2 or More Spans
Not Required
Use Procedure
3
3A-3
Value
Number of Spans
Maximum subtended
angle (curved bridge)
90
Maximum bent/pier
stiffness ratio from span-to-span
(excluding abutments)
90
90
90
90
1.5
1.5
3A-4
Dropped bent caps or integral bent caps terminating inside the exterior
girder, C-bents, outrigger bents, and offset columns are nonstandard
components.
3A-5
Equivalent Static Analysis is best suited for bridges or individual frames with
the following characteristics:
Simply
defined lateral
force
distribution
(e.g.,
balanced
spans,
Low skew
Elastic Dynamic Analysis is used to determine the displacement demand for all
other Ordinary Standard bridges.
The global displacement demand estimate shall include the effects of
soil/foundation flexibility if they are significant.
Following the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria V1.2 the Inelastic Static
Analysis commonly referred to as push over analysis is to be used to
determine the reliable displacement capacities of a structure or frame as it
reaches its limit of structural stability.
The two-dimensional plane frame push over analysis of a bent or frame can
be simplified to a column model (fixed-fixed or fixed-pinned) if it does not cause
a significant loss in accuracy in estimating the displacement demands or the
displacement capacities. The effect of overturning on the column axial load
and associated member capacities must be considered in the simplified model.
Simplifying the demand and capacity models is not permitted if the structure
does not meet the following stiffness and period requirements:
a) Balanced Stiffness
3A-6
kie
kie
kie
e
j
e
j
kie
mi
0.5
kie
mi
0.75
e
j
mi
k ej
mj
k ej
mj
0.5
0.75
0.7
where
3A-7
In summary, Caltrans SDC v1.2 gives some latitude to the bridge engineer to
decide the type and amount of analysis to be conducted. This latitude is offset
by a quality control mechanism that is established in Caltrans and may not
exist in all other agencies nationwide. Furthermore, as Caltrans uses one set
of standard details for the whole bridge inventory, bridges in lower seismic
zones may end up with more stringent requirements and detailing that are not
needed in lower seismic zones. Therefore, in examining the Caltrans Practice,
it is deemed important to recognize that this Practice needs to be selectively
replicated for use by other states or agencies.
Value of FvS1
Value of FaSs
FvS10.15
0.15 < FvS10.25
0.25 < FvS10.40
0.40 < FvS1
FaSs0.15
0.15 < FaSs0.35
0.35 < FaSs0.60
0.60 < FaSs
Notes:
1. For the purposes of determining the Seismic Hazard Level for Site Class
E Soils, the value of Fv and Fa need not be taken larger than 2.4 and 1.6
respectively when S1 is less than or equal to 0.10 and Ss is less than
0.25.
2. For the purposes of determining the Seismic Hazard Level for Site Class
F Soils, Fv and Fa values for Site Class E soils may be used with the
adjustment described in Note 1 above.
3A-8
requirements (SDR) for SDR 1 and 2, SDR 3 and SDR 4 are given in Sections 6,
7 and 8, respectively of NCHRP 12-49.
Table 3-5: Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) and
Seismic Design Requirements (SDR)
Seismic
Hazard Level
I
II
III
IV
Life Safety
SDAP
A1
A2
B/C/D/E
C/D/E
SDR
1
2
3
4
Bridges
qualifying for SDAP B do not require a seismic demand analysis but capacity
design principles and minimum design details are required. SDAP C is the
Capacity Spectrum Design Method. SDAP C combines a demand and capacity
3A-9
3A-10
Performance
Objective
Life Safety
SDAP D
SDAP E
2
3
4
6
4
1.5
N/A
2.5
N/A
1.5
3
1.5
1.3
2
1.5
4.5
2
1.3
Connection
Superstructure to abutment
Expansion joints within a span of the superstructure
Columns, piers, or pile bents to cap beam or
superstructure
Columns or piers to foundations
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3A-11
The capacity
3A-12
to
AASHTO,
Division
1-A,
the
Seismic
Demand
Analysis
Categories (SPC) are defined on the basis of the spectral acceleration for the
3A-13
one second period of the 2%/50-year earthquake, SD1-SEE, and the Importance
Classification (IC) as shown in Table 3-6.
Different
Value of Spectral
Acceleration, SD1-
SEE
II
III
SD1-SEE<0.30g
0.3gSD1-SEE<0.45g
0.45g SD1-SEE<0.6g
0.6g SD1-SEE
3A-14
S s=0.60g, SEE(2%/50years)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
SD1-SEE
Site Class
A
SD_6A
B
SD_6B
C
SD_6C
D
SD_6D
E
SD_6E
Periods T (sec)
SDS = 0.4g, 0.5g, 0.6g, 0.8g, 1.0g, 1.25g, 1.5g, and 1.66g for the SEE
level.
3A-15
3A-16
A family of curves for Soil Site Class A thru E referenced to the short period
mapped design spectral acceleration SDS =1.0g is shown in Figure 3-5. The
curves were developed using both the short period and the one-second period
maps.
Ss=1.00g, SEE(2% /50years)
1.2
1.0
Site Class
SD_4A
A
B
SD_4B
C
SD_4C
D
SD_4D
E
SD_4E
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Pe riods T (se c)
Seismic
Performance
Category
(SPC)
definition
in
the
SCDOT
conventional slab, beam girder and box girder superstructure construction with
3A-17
spans not exceeding 500 ft (150 m). For other types of construction (suspension
bridges, cable-stayed bridges, arch type and movable bridges) and spans
exceeding 500 ft, the SCDOT shall specify and/or approve appropriate
provisions.
Seismic effects for box culverts and buried structures need not be considered,
except when they are subject to unstable ground conditions (e.g., liquefaction,
landslides, and fault displacements) or large ground deformations (e.g., in very
soft ground).
The provisions specified in the specifications are minimum requirements.
Additional provisions are needed to achieve higher performance criteria for
essential or critical bridges. Those provisions are site/project specific and are
tailored based on structure type.
No detailed seismic analysis is required for any single span bridge or for any
bridge in Seismic Performance Category A. For both single span bridges and
bridges classified as SPC A the connections must be designed for specified
forces and must also meet minimum support length requirements.
For SPC B, the displacement demand is checked implicitly against the capacity
without performing an elaborate pushover analysis to determine the
displacement capacity.
For SPC B the displacement capacity, c , is easily obtained for each column
using the following expression:
c ( ft ) =
H
5.3 (.0013) X
100
where,
X =D
3A-18
c
H
D
H
3A-19
considered since they represent the largest increase in seismic demands when
considering larger return period up to the proposed return period of 2500 years
adopted in NCHRP 12-49. The reference to the increase in seismic demands is
made in relation to AASHTO Division 1-A State of the Practice. Figure 3-7
shows the AASHTO region of required seismic analysis.
3A-20
at 2/3 of the spectrum established based on the 2002 USGS hazard maps for a
probability of 2% exceedance in 50 years. The proposed region for Site Class B
of required Seismic Demand Analysis is substantially smaller than the
corresponding AASHTO Division 1-A region.
For comparison, the region of required Seismic Demand Analysis for Site
Class D is shown in Figure 3-9 for the same area. The proposed region for Site
Class D shows relatively small reduction to the corresponding AASHTO
Division 1-A region.
3A-21
This category is
Given the
3A-22
An elaborate
3A-23
Figures 3-10 and 3-11 shows the Region of required Maximum Seismic
Capacity Analysis for the target design hazard for Site Class B and Site Class
D, respectively. A pushover analysis is required in this region.
3A-24
3A-25
TASK 4
General
The objective of this task is to select the most appropriate design procedure
(i.e., displacement or force based) for a bridge with a steel superstructure and
to examine both the NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT using a trial design.
This task emphasis is to address analysis and design requirements for a bridge
with steel girders. The seismic design of a bridge system and components
needs to encompass two categories:
a. System with a restrained connection between the superstructure and the
substructure.
b. System with an unrestrained connection between the superstructure
and the substructure.
Emphasis on the load path and design of various components must be
established recognizing that a lack of consensus may still be present on some
issues.
The 2nd Edition of the LRFD Specifications included for the first time a new
section about the seismic lateral load distribution that discusses the seismic
load path. The focus for these criteria is steel bridges since they normally do
not have monolithic connections as the structural concrete box girder bridges.
4-1
The specifications require that a clear and a straightforward load path from
the superstructure to the substructure should exist. All elements that lie in
the load path are primary seismic members and should be designed to stay
elastic during severe ground motions. Diaphragms and cross-frames, lateral
bracing and bearings should be part of the seismic load path.
The
4.2
Design Examples
Two design examples were selected from the work done by Itani and Sedarat in
2000 entitled Seismic Analysis and Design of the AISI LRFD Design
Examples of Steel Highway Bridges. This effort was a continuation to the
1996 AISI published Vol. II Chapter 1B of the Highway Structures, Design
Handbook, Four LRFD Design Examples of Steel Highway Bridges. In 1996
these design examples covered the gravity design of the superstructure
according to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications.
4-2
4-3
4.3
Specifications regarding the load path for a slab-on-girder bridge are examined
using SCDOT and NCHRP 12-49 documents.
general section on load path while NCHRP 12-49 has a section only on Ductile
End-Diaphragm in Slab-on-Girder Bridge.
4-4
The following is a
4-5
a) Pile Footing
b) Drilled Shaft
4-6
Ductile and
For Type 1 choice, the designer shall refer back to Section 8 of this
document on designing for a ductile substructure. For Type 2 choice, the
design of the superstructure is accomplished using a force reduction
approach. Those factors are used for the design of transverse bracing
members, top laterals and bottom laterals. The reduction factors shown
in Table 7.1 shall be used.
4-7
Functional Evaluation
Safety Evaluation
Normal
Bridges
2
4 3
For Type 3 choice, the designer shall assess the overstrength capacity for
the fusing interface including shear keys and bearings, then design for
an essentially elastic superstructure and substructure. The minimum
overstrength lateral design force shall be calculated using an
acceleration of 0.4 g or the elastic seismic force whichever is smaller. If
isolation devices are used, the superstructure shall be designed as
essentially elastic (see Section 7.6 of SCDOT Specifications).
In this section, reference to an essentially elastic component is used
where the force demand to capacity ratio of any member in the
superstructure is less than 1.3.
4.4
Summary
In reviewing the SCDOT specifications, the NCHRP 12-49, and the AISI LRFD
examples, the following recommendations are proposed:
1. Adopt AISC LRFD Specifications for design of single angle members and
members with stitches.
2. Allow for three types of a bridge structural system as adopted in SCDOT
Specifications.
3. Adopt a force reduction factor of 3 for design of normal end cross-frame.
4-8
4-9
TASK 4
APPENDIX 4A
CENTER FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING AND
EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH
Reno
4A-1
TASK 4
APPENDIX 4B
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR
DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR
SINGLE-ANGLE MEMBERS
4B-1
TASK 4
APPENDIX 4C
CHAPTER E COLUMNS AND OTHER
COMPRESSION MEMBERS
4C-1
TASK 4
APPENDIX 4D
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES
4D-1
TASK 4
APPENDIX 4E
NCHRP 12-49
4E-1
7.7
7.7.8.2
+ K
SUB
R=
1 + K DED
K SUB
(7.7.8.2-1)
4E-2
f. the bridge does not have horizontal wind-bracing connecting the bottom
flanges of girders, unless the last wind bracing panel before each support
is designed as a ductile panel equivalent and in parallel to its adjacent
vertical end-diaphragm; and
g. an effective mechanism is present to ensure transfer of the inertiainduced transverse horizontal seismic forces from the slab to the
diaphragm.
Overstrength factors to be used to design the Capacity Protected Elements
depend on the type of ductile diaphragm used, and shall be based on available
experimental research results.
8.7
8.7.8.2
4E-3
+ K
SUB
R=
1 + K DED
K SUB
(8.7.8.2-1)
4E-4
TASK 5
5 RECOMMEND LIQUEFACTION DESIGN
PROCEDURE
5.1
Objective
b.
5.2
5-1
2.
5-2
5.3
liquefaction-induced ground
displacement
authored
by
Stephen A.
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION
Severe Damage: Abutments moved streamward and/or markedly subsided;
piers shifted, tilted, settled, or fell over. Large movements of foundation
units. Substructure rendered unsalvable.
Moderate Damage: Distinct and measurable net displacements as in
previous category but to a lesser degree, so that the substructure could
perhaps be repaired and used to support a new superstructure.
Minor Damage: Evidence of foundation movements such as cracked
backwalls, split piles, and closed expansion devices, but net displacements
small and substructure serviceable. Minor abutment slumping.
DSR = 0
5-3
Mw
7.5
6.9
6.7
7.1
8.4
7.8
6.7
7.4
7.9
6.9
7.7
7.2
6.5
7.3
7.9
7.8
7.2
6.1
9.2
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.9
?
DSR Minimum
1
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
DSR Maximum
1
3
0
3
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
2
2
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
The full catalog is included in Appendix 5B. As seen from Table 5-2 a DSR
equal to 2 corresponding to moderate damage is associated with an earthquake
magnitude Mw of 6.7 or higher while a DSR equal to 3 corresponding to severe
damage is associated with an earthquake magnitude Mw of 6.9 or higher.
5.4
5-4
a.
The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.5.
b.
The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.7
and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count
[(N1)60] is greater than 20.
Nonliquefied Configuration:
5-5
specific nonlinear, effective stress analyses shall not be less than 2/3s of
that used in Nonliquefied Configuration.
The Designer shall cover explicit detailing of plastic hinging zones for both
cases mentioned above since it is likely that locations of plastic hinges for the
Liquefied Configuration are different than locations of plastic hinges for the
Non-Liquefied Configuration. Design requirements of SPC D including shear
reinforcement shall be met for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied Configuration.
5.5
The
Summary
following
list
highlights
the
main
proposed
liquefaction
design
requirements:
a. Liquefaction design requirements are applicable to SPC D.
b. Liquefaction design requirements are dependent on the mean magnitude
for the 5% PE in 50-year event and the normalized Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count [(N1)60].
c. If liquefaction occurs, then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed for
the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied configurations.
Design requirements for lateral flow are still debatable and have not reached a
consensus worth comfortably adopting. The IAI geotechnical team is preparing
a task to address this topic and complement the effort produced in the NCHRP
12-49 document.
5-6
TASK 5
APPENDIX 5A
NCHRP 12-49
5A-1
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
7.4
FOUNDATION DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
7.4.1
Foundation Investigation
7.4.1.1
General
Subsurface Investigation
7.4.2.1
Spread Footings
72
MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Liquefaction Check
SECTION 7
73
MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
7.4.3
7.4.3.1
Driven Piles
General
7.4.3.3
Design Requirements
Liquefaction Check
MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
The shear reinforcement in a concrete or prestressed concrete pile shall meet the
requirements of Sec 7.8.2.3 from the pile or
bent cap to a depth of 3 diameters below the
lowest liquefiable layer.
7.4.4
Drilled Shafts
75
MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
7.6.3
7.6
LIQUEFACTION DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
7.6.1
General
7.6.4
If the mean magnitude shown in Figures 7.6.11 to 7.6.1-4 is greater than or equal to 6.4, or if
the above requirements are not met for
magnitudes between 6.0 and 6.4, or if for the
Expected Earthquake, FaSs is greater than
0.375, evaluations of liquefaction and
associated phenomena such as lateral flow,
lateral spreading, and dynamic settlement
shall be evaluated in accordance with these
Specifications.
MCEER/ATC-49
Design Requirements if
Liquefaction and Ground Movement
Occurs
7.6.2
79
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
MCEER/ATC-49
80
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 7.6.1-1 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Western United States
MCEER/ATC-49
81
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 7.6.1-2 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Central and Eastern United States
MCEER/ATC-49
82
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
83
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
MCEER/ATC-49
84
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
7.6.5
detailed design
of the different
MCEER/ATC-49
85
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
8.4
FOUNDATION DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
8.4.1
Foundation Investigation
8.4.1.1
General
Subsurface Investigation
8.4.2.1
Spread Footings
MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
MCEER/ATC-49
105
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Table 8.4.2.1-1
Stiffness Parameter
( )
GL
2 + 2.5 B
L
2
( BL )
GL
2 + 2.5
2
Rotation, Kx'
(about x axis)
G
1
Rotation, Ky'
(about y axis)
( BL )
IX
GL
0.75
L
B
0.75
G
1
0.85
IY
0.85
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.1 1
L
2.4 + 0.5
L
L 0.15
3
B
Table note:
1. See Figure 8.4.2.1-1** for definitions of terms
Table 8.4.2.1-2
Stiffness Parameter
Vertical Translation, ez
Embedment Factors, ei
( 2L + 2B
D
B
1 + 0.095 1 + 1.3 1 + 0.2
B
L
LB
0.67
0.4
+
D
16
L
B
d
(
)
2D
2
1 + 0.52
2
B
BL
Horizontal Translation, ey
(toward long side)
1+ 0.15
Horizontal Translation, ex
(toward short side)
0.4
d
D 16 ( L + B ) d
0.5
2D
1+ 0.15
1 + 0.52
L B2
Rotation, ex
(about x axis)
Rotation, ey
(about y axis)
0.5
1+ 2.52
d
B
0.20
0.50
2d d
B
1+
B D
L
2d
1+ 0.92
0.60
1.9
0.60
2d d
1.5 +
L D
MCEER/ATC-49
106
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
B
(width)
y
Plan
z
D
(depth)
d
(thickness)
z
Homogeneous Soil Properties
G (shearing modulus)
( Poisson's ratio)
Section
Figure 8.4.2.1-1
8.4.2.2
8.4.2.3
MCEER/ATC-49
107
the footing is
liquefiable layer,
located
below
the
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Driven Piles
8.4.3.3
General
Ksv = 1.25AE/L
Design Requirements
(8.4.3.2-1)
where
8.4.3.2
(8.4.3.2-2)
where
108
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
MCEER/ATC-49
109
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.4.3.4-1
MCEER/ATC-49
110
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.4.3.4-2
MCEER/ATC-49
111
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.4.3.4-3
Coefficient of Lateral Pile Head Stiffness for Free-Head Pile Lateral Stiffness
(ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
112
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.4.3.4-4
Coefficient for Lateral Pile-Head Stiffness for Fixed-Head Pile Lateral Stiffness
(ATC, 1996)
MCEER/ATC-49
113
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.4.3.4-5
MCEER/ATC-49
114
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
115
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
8.4.3.6
8.4.4
Drilled Shafts
8.4.3.7
where
If liquefaction is predicted to occur at the site,
effects of liquefaction on the bridge
foundation shall be evaluated. This evaluation
shall consider the potential for loss in lateral
bearing support, flow and lateral spreading of
the soil, settlement below the toe of the pile,
and settlement from drag loads on the pile as
excess porewater pressures in liquefied soil
dissipate. Procedures given in Appendix D
shall be followed when making these
evaluations.
116
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
MCEER/ATC-49
117
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
8.6.3
8.6
8.6.1
General
If the mean magnitude shown in Figures 8.6.11 to 8.6.1-4 is greater than or equal to 6.4, or if
the above requirements are not met for
magnitudes between 6.0 and 6.4 or if for the
Expected Earthquake, FaSs is greater than
0.375, evaluations of liquefaction and
associated phenomena such as lateral flow,
lateral spreading, and dynamic settlement
shall be evaluated in accordance with these
Specifications.
8.6.2
MCEER/ATC-49
119
Design Requirements if
Liquefaction and Ground Movement
Occurs
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.6.1-1
MCEER/ATC-49
120
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.6.1-2
MCEER/ATC-49
121
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.6.1-3
MCEER/ATC-49
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 8.6.1-4
MCEER/ATC-49
123
SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS
MCEER/ATC-49
124
SECTION 7
TASK 5
APPENDIX 5B
ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF
LIQUEFACTION HAZARDS TO BRIDGE
APPROACH EMBANKMENTS IN OREGON
5B-1
by
Dr. Stephen E. Dickenson
Associate Professor
and
Nason J. McCullough
Mark G. Barkau
Bryan J. Wavra
Graduate Research Assistants
Dept. of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
for
Oregon Department of Transportation
Research Group
200 Hawthorne Ave. SE
Salem, OR 97301-5192
And
Federal Highway Administration
Washington, D.C. 20590
November 2002