Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges PDF

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25489 SHARE

   
Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges (2019)
DETAILS
142 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48039-0 | DOI 10.17226/25489
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK David Goodyear and Hans Lund; National Cooperative Highway Research Program;
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Program; Synthesis
Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences,
FIND RELATED TITLES Engineering, and Medicine
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Seismic Design

of Non-Conventional Bridges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25489.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 532

Seismic Design of
Non-Conventional Bridges
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
David Goodyear
Hans Lund
T.Y. Lin International
Olympia, WA
Subscriber Categories
Bridges and Other Structures
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2019
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 532

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 20-05, Topic 49-12
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 0547-5570
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISBN 978-0-309-48039-0
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by Library of Congress Control Number 2019941101
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities
© 2019 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern published or copyrighted material used herein.
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration,
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
United States Department of Transportation. reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
Cover photo credit: T.Y. Lin International
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and NOTICE
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
program sponsors.
chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation
departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these top-
ics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected
from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research
contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 532

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer
Deborah Irvin, Program Coordinator
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Kami Cabral, Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Brian A. Blanchard, HDR, Tallahassee, FL (Chair)
Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Anita K. Bush, Nevada DOT, Carson City, NV
Joseph D. Crabtree, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Mostafa “Moe” Jamshidi, Nebraska DOT, Lincoln, NE
David M. Jared, Georgia DOT, Forest Park, GA
Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH
Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas DOT, Little Rock, AR
Brenda Moore, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC
Ben T. Orsbon, South Dakota DOT, Pierre, SD
Randall R. “Randy” Park, Avenue Consultants, Bluffdale, UT
Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME
Jack Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 49-12 PANEL

Ian Buckle, University of Nevada—Reno, Reno, NV
Xiaohua Hannah Cheng, New Jersey DOT, Trenton, NJ
Lee Marsh, BergerABAM, Federal Way, WA
Lucero E. Mesa, South Carolina DOT, Columbia, SC
Thomas A. Ostrom, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Richard A. Pratt, Alaska DOT and Public Facilities, Juneau, AK
Anne M. Rearick, Indiana DOT, Indianapolis, IN
Sheila Rimal Duwadi, FHWA Liaison
Jia-Dzwan “Jerry” Shen, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Jo Allen Gause
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
The objective of this synthesis is to document seismic design approaches and criteria used for
“non-conventional” bridges, such as long-span cable-supported bridges, bridges with truss tower
substructures, and arch bridges.
Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state
departments of transportation (DOTs), and an analysis of design criteria documents provided by
agencies that have recent experience with seismic design of non-conventional bridges. Seismic
design criteria for 11 bridge projects provides additional information on the subject.
David Goodyear and Hans Lund, T.Y. Lin International, collected and synthesized the information
and wrote the report. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices
that were acceptable with the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation.
As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 Problem Statement
4 Objective of the Study
4 The Wind Conundrum
6 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Survey
7 Survey Results
11 Survey Summary
12 Chapter 3 State of Practice Based on Project Criteria
12 Project-Specific Seismic Design Criteria
16 Review of Criteria Documents
16 Strain-Based Criteria in Current Practice
17 Means by Which Nonlinearity Is Considered
19 Limited Ductility and Capacity Protection
20 Other Elements of Practice
21 Chapter 4 Evaluation and Case Examples
22 Case Example 1—Cable-Stayed Bridge with Single Pylon
23 Case Example 2—Concrete Arch Bridge
26 Chapter 5 Conclusions
27 Research Needs
28 References
29 Glossary of Terms
31 Appendix A Design Criteria Documents
32 Sixth Street Bridge Replacement Project (California)
38 New Benicia Martinez Bridge (California)
43 Tacoma Narrows Parallel Suspension Bridge (Washington)
53 Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project (California)
66 Hoover Dam Bypass Colorado River Bridge (Nevada/Arizona)
73 I-74 Bridge (Iowa)
85 Port Mann Bridge Highway 1 Project (Vancouver, BC)
92 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge (California)
104 San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Skyway Structures (California)
113 Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project (New York)
119 Willamette River Transit Bridge (Tilikum Crossing Bridge) (Oregon)
122 Appendix B State DOT Survey
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.


SUMMARY
Seismic Design of
Non-Conventional Bridges
Design of conventional bridges for seismic demands in the United States is based on one
of two AASHTO documents: the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO BDS) (1) or the AASHTO Guide Specifications for
LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (Guide Spec) (2). The stated scope of these documents for
seismic design is limited to conventional bridges. The objective of this synthesis of practice
is to document the current state of practice for seismic design of non-conventional bridges
that are outside the scope of the two AASHTO documents governing seismic design of
conventional bridges.
Non-conventional bridges outside the scope of these two AASHTO documents, such as
cable-supported bridges and long-span arch bridges, are typically high value investments
designed with special project criteria. There is no current AASHTO standard seismic design
criteria document specific to these non-conventional bridges. Seismic design criteria for
these non-conventional bridges are typically part of a broader project-specific criteria docu-
ment that addresses the special character of the bridge type.
AASHTO BDS is a comprehensive design specification that includes a range of approaches
to seismic design, with design options ranging from an unreduced force-based elastic design
to a ductility-based force reduction for inelastic design (1). The Guide Spec is limited to
inelastic seismic design for conventional bridges and calls for a displacement-based design
that is predicated on design for fully ductile columns as a capacity protection mechanism (2).
In regions of higher seismicity, a ductility-based capacity protection design method is typi-
cally applied using either AASHTO document: the force-based method of the AASHTO BDS
or the displacement-based method of the Guide Spec. This capacity protection design pro-
tocol is a design procedure for conventional bridges that addresses the extreme limit-state
behavior and allows the designer to optimize the structural design for the single no-collapse
limit state that AASHTO applies to conventional bridge designs. Application of the capacity
protection principle takes a different form for non-conventional bridges.
In moderate seismic zones, wind or vessel impact forces can control the lateral forces
design for large, non-conventional bridges. In high seismic areas, the high value and criti-
cal nature of the long-span non-conventional bridge often leads owners to adopt multi-
level seismic inputs (a lower return period event as an operating condition and a longer
period return event as a safety event) and set criteria for non-conventional bridges that
limit ductility levels throughout the primary structure as a means of protecting investment
and providing for continued service even after a major seismic event. All these characteris-
tics of non-conventional bridges make them special cases that fall outside the prescriptive
approaches in the AASHTO BDS and the Guide Spec.
1

2 Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges
The approach to this synthesis was to conduct a literature review about seismic design for
non-conventional bridges, survey the 50 state DOTs for their current practice, and collect
project-specific criteria for seismic design used in recently constructed non-conventional
bridges in the United States.
Forty-three responses to the state DOT survey were received. Ten responses were from
states with low, moderate, or high seismic regions having recent experience with seismic
design of non-conventional bridges as defined for this synthesis. The criteria documents
received through the survey and from practitioners document the current standard of prac-
tice for seismic design of non-conventional bridges. These documents are reviewed in detail
in the body of the synthesis. They represent non-conventional bridges designed and con-
structed in the last 20 years in moderate and high seismic zones, with some bridges in the
moderate zones having lateral design controlled by non-seismic criteria.
The common feature of the criteria reviewed for the non-conventional bridges in mod-
erate and high seismic zones is that all include performance-based design standards that
require a limited ductility design basis that is not typically used for conventional bridges.
The standard practice of a performance-based design approach for non-conventional
bridges provides a basis for developing limited ductility designs through either a grada-
tion of descriptive damage conditions, or a specification of specific strain-based perfor-
mance standards at assigned damage levels in the lateral resistance system. The framework
for these performance standards was established in the 1996 Applied Technology Council
(ATC) report titled “Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional
Recommendations” (ATC-32) (3). While there are a few exceptions revealed in the survey,
non-conventional bridge seismic criteria typically include a multilevel seismic hazard, with
a more frequent earthquake level being associated with functional requirements for contin-
ued operation, and a longer return period event being associated with a life safety require-
ment. The project-specific criteria for major non-conventional highway bridge structures
require limited ductility designs based on a repairable damage level for the higher safety
evaluation seismic event instead of the significant damage associated with the no-collapse
limit state in the AASHTO BDS and Guide Spec.
The descriptive performance limit states are based on the original ATC-32 document (3).
Advancements since the development of ATC-32 in computational capabilities, nonlinear
analysis, and material behavior in seismic events have allowed for more rigorous analysis
and demand forecasting that have led to quantitative criteria that are used in some cases
to validate compliance with the same performance limit states first described in ATC-32.
Advancements in materials and model testing correlated with nonlinear behavioral models
has greatly improved the capability for predicting member resistance to seismic demands and
establishing a quantitative design basis for new non-conventional bridges. This advancing
technology has been assimilated into the standard of practice as the technology has evolved.
Current practices for modeling structures for nonlinear dynamic analysis and for modeling
soil-structure interaction within a nonlinear regime vary among practitioners and projects.
Research needs for the methods of practice for seismic design of non-conventional bridges
fall within the general evolution of tools for engineering design. The primary research needs
relate to codifying the standards of practice for non-conventional bridges into a concise
guideline document for reference in designing non-conventional bridges. The elements of
practice that are unique to non-conventional bridges are combined with elements of prac-
tice that are common to both conventional and non-conventional bridges only through
project-specific criteria and applications. New guidelines are needed to clarify the process
and criteria for seismic design of non-conventional bridges.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Problem Statement
There are two standards for seismic design of conventional bridges in the United States, the
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO BDS) (1)
and the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (Guide Spec) (2). The
forewords or scopes of specifications of the AASHTO BDS and the Guide Spec bound the scope
of application to conventional bridges. The AASHTO BDS and the Guide Spec are formulated
with a focus on the practical design of ordinary beam and column bridge structures; these make
up the vast majority of bridges constructed in the United States.
The definition of “non-conventional” for this synthesis is intended to be consistent with
AASHTO BDS definitions (Art C3.10.1). Non-conventional bridges include long-span cable-
stayed, arch, and suspension bridges, and these are the primary focus of this synthesis. One dis-
tinguishing feature from a seismic design perspective is that non-conventional bridges may not
retain a desirable kinematic system in a high seismic event if a conventional strong-beam weak-
column behavior with full inelastic hinging in the columns (in this case, single towers or arch
ribs) is assumed as a basis for design. For certain long-span bridges in moderate seismic zones,
the design solution may also be affected by the relationship of lateral wind or vessel impact load
to the level of seismic load, where seismic loading does not govern in the elastic sense, but where
simple plastic-hinge capacity protection principles applied against towers or columns controlled
by wind or vessel impact load can make foundation design overly expensive.
Virtually all bridges in the United States are designed for a range of service and strength con-
ditions based on the AASHTO BDS. Non-conventional bridges are generally designed accord-
ing to project-specific criteria to extend the AASHTO BDS design framework to the particular
requirements associated with the non-conventional bridge type. Seismic design criteria for non-
conventional bridges are typically part of this broader project-specific criteria document.
Project-specific criteria for non-conventional bridges address the special conditions required
for the specific design, as well as provide context and clarity to the range of standard criteria such
as those in the AASHTO BDS and the Guide Spec. Non-conventional bridges in regions of low
seismicity are generally designed for seismic loads using the provisions of the AASHTO BDS
(see Chapter 3). Seismic design of non-conventional bridges in moderate to high seismic regions
require interpretation and extrapolation of either the AASHTO BDS or the Guide Spec to extend
criteria beyond the scope of those documents. The project criteria also establish special perfor-
mance standards for the design of non-conventional bridges, which are particularly significant
for seismic design of non-conventional bridges where either the structure type is not representa-
tive of the structural systems addressed in the AASHTO BDS or Guide Spec, or where owners
have a need for a more exhaustive set of performance criteria than the single return period
no-collapse design limit state in the Guide Spec or the force-based design of the AASHTO BDS.
3

Special owner performance requirements can be the result of either financial or operational
incentives. Non-conventional bridges are often high value investments and critical lifeline struc-
tures where the single no-collapse criterion in the AASHTO BDS or the Guide Spec may not
satisfy the owner’s performance needs for the highway network served by the structure. At the
present time, there is no codified standard for non-conventional bridges that provides either
separate comprehensive criteria or a guideline for selective application of certain provisions
within the AASHTO BDS or the Guide Spec.
Objective of the Study

The objective of this synthesis is to summarize the approaches and criteria currently used by
engineers engaged in non-conventional bridge seismic design practice, and how these practices
relate to the Guide Spec, the AASHTO BDS, or other guidelines and references. The AASHTO
BDS allows for seismic design methods ranging from elastic to inelastic, including displacement-
based design. The Guide Spec criteria is based on displacement-based design exclusively for
conventional frames. Both AASHTO standards are formulated to address conventional bridges.
This synthesis documents the current seismic design practice for non-conventional bridges,
including how project-specific criteria address the operational and performance requirements
for non-conventional bridges. Generic questions of ground motion levels, target reliabilities, and
special design strategies, such as base isolation or mechanical damping, are not unique to non-
conventional bridges and are therefore not reviewed in this synthesis.
The Wind Conundrum

One example of the special conditions applicable to non-conventional bridges is the effect of
wind on design for lateral forces. Wind loading on long-span non-conventional bridges can be
a controlling load case for lateral load design. Figure 1 illustrates the condition that can occur
in the case where wind controls lateral force design, and one attempts to apply the single limit-
state capacity protection design principle of the Guide Spec to the foundation design. Since
design for wind is based on pseudo-elastic principles (with reference to concrete foundation
elements, which are not truly elastic, even though typically analyzed as being so), simple applica-
tion of the inelastic pushover approach of the Guide Spec would result in over-strength factors
1.2Fw
Fe Elastic earthquake force level

Fw
Fr Reduced ductility-based force level
Fe Fw Wind force level
δy Yield displacement for seismic design
Fr δp Seismic demand displacement (inelastic displacement

level – See Guide Spec Fig C.3.3-1 )
δ over Over-strength displacement consistent with wind

design section
δy δp δover
Figure 1. Over-strength effect of wind-controlled design.

Introduction 5
being applied against a design section required for wind design forces. The procedure would
increase foundation design requirements without a commensurate benefit for either wind or
seismic resistance. This capacity-protection requirement could result in at least a 20% premium
in foundation design, which for a long-span bridge can be a significant portion of the total bridge
cost. Wind design for conventional bridges is rarely significant in the design for lateral forces,
and so does not enter into the practical design for lateral forces. This is one example of where
design procedures that are effective for conventional bridges may not be appropriate for non-
Controlling design conditions similar to this wind case can occur in the case of lateral designs
for vessel impact, or even from dimensional requirements for loads during construction. Dimen-
sional requirements for strength and service limit-state design for non-conventional bridges can
complicate the straightforward application of the capacity protection limit-state provisions as
they are applied to conventional bridges.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review and Survey
A literature review was conducted through the TRID database and Google searches, as well
as through general industry contacts and personal references. The literature review produced a
number of treatises on seismic analysis and scale testing for cable-stayed bridges. However, most
published papers relating specifically to seismic design of non-conventional bridges focused on
prediction of non-conventional (predominately cable-stayed) bridge response as opposed to design
protocol for the bridge.
The major seismic events in California in the late 20th century resulted in a significant amount
of research into seismic demand and bridge behavior in seismic events. The seminal document
in the literature that presented an evaluation of critical behavior and presented a framework for
future design to address extreme seismic demands was the ATC-32 (3).
The concept of capacity protection as presented in ATC-32 describes the use of “plastic hinge
zones” and “full ductility structures” to provide a basis for directing damage to ductile elements
of the bridge while maintaining selected elements as essentially elastic members. The commentary
in ATC-32 provided guidelines for when to apply full ductility design, and when it should not be
applied, stating “Fully ductile behavior assumes that the designer will take maximum advantage
of plastic hinging while ensuring structural safety. This type of action implies considerable dam-
age and is reserved for Ordinary Bridges only. Structural action consistent with limited ductility
is recommended for Important Bridges and certain critical foundation components.” ATC-32
introduced behavioral criteria for graduated levels for performance-based design (Art 3.21.2.3)
that should be applied to “Important Bridges,” which for the present discussion includes non-
conventional bridges. These graduated performance levels (minimal damage, repairable damage,
and significant damage) and the concept of multilevel hazard specification (ATC-32, Table 1)
have remained the reference for design of non-conventional bridges in California and other high
seismic regions since the publication of ATC-32 in 1996. These general performance criteria have
evolved into more specific strain-based correlations to the qualitative performance levels origi-
nally presented in ATC-32, which are now applied for most non-conventional bridges.
The availability and capability of nonlinear analysis (4, 5) and the research into both sec-
tion and material response behaviors in members subject to dynamic loads in the inelastic
range (6, 7, 8) have also evolved since the advent of performance-based design concepts in the
ATC-32 document. The ability to model explicit moment-curvature response of steel and rein-
forced concrete members within a nonlinear analysis regime allows the structural elements in
nonlinear models to predict the range of response for non-conventional bridge structures that
address performance criteria at a more detailed level throughout the range of seismic demand,
results that are not available to the designer using a bilinear stress-strain definition for rein-
forcing steel and the limit-state plastic hinge assumptions on which the Guide Spec and the
AASHTO BDS are based.

Literature Review and Survey 7
Survey Results
Fifty state bridge engineers were provided a survey to identify the standards of current practice
for non-conventional bridge design in moderate and high seismic regions of the United States.
The survey consisted of 13 questions. The question number is provided in the following sum-
mary of data. Appendix B contains a copy of the state DOT survey.
Question 1: State or Agency?

Forty-three of the 50 states responded (86% of respondents).
Question 2: Has your Agency directed the design of Seismic Design

Category B, C, or D (Guide Spec) or Zone 2, 3, or 4 (AASHTO BDS)
bridges in your jurisdiction?
Twenty-three of the 43 states that responded to the survey answered “yes” to this question
(53% of respondents).
Question 3: Has your Agency directed the design of a non-conventional

bridge (see definition) for Seismic Design Category B, C, or D (Guide
Spec) or Zone 2, 3, or 4 (AASHTO BDS)?
In the survey, the scope of “non-conventional bridge” was defined as any cable-supported
bridge, long-span arch bridge, delta frame substructure, or any other structure where the
owner has elected to adopt special design procedures for a bridge structure or substructure
due to that structure not falling within the parameters applicable to the AASHTO BDS or
Guide Spec.
Twelve of the 43 states that responded to the survey answered “yes” to this question (28% of
respondents).
Figure 2 displays the findings from Questions 1 through 3.
The survey was organized to allow respondents to “opt out” of the details, if they did not
operate in a moderate to high seismic zone or had not designed non-conventional bridge struc-
tures for seismic requirements. As a result, the size of the operative response pool was reduced to
10 respondents (see Figure 2). The detailed inquiry of experience in design of non-conventional
bridges in moderate or high seismic zones included these 10 states:
• California
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Missouri
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oregon
• South Carolina
• Washington
Questions 4 through 13 only pertain to the 10 states with the experience pertinent to the
survey.

No Response: 7
No EQ or NC Exp: 18
EQ Exp Only (Q2): 13
EQ&NC Exp (Q2&Q3): 10
NC Exp Only (Q3): 2
Figure 2. Composition of states with seismic (EQ),

non-conventional (NC) experience, or both.
Question 4: What specification(s) serve as the basis or reference

for your design criteria?
Options to answer Question 4 were AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (AASHTO
BDS), AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (Guide Spec), ATC-49 (9),
agency or project specific only, or other (write-in).
The responses to Question 4 are given in Table 1.
Five out of 10 respondents use project- or agency-specific criteria, with one using agency
criteria exclusively. Those using project-specific criteria are located in the higher seismic regions.
Others utilize some combination of criteria founded on either the Guide Spec or the AASHTO
BDS. There was only one response that the ATC documents (ATC-32 or ATC-49) were used as
references for project-specific criteria (California). Since the ATC-32 and ATC-49 documents are
references for the Guide Spec, the responses have been interpreted to reflect that no state is using
either ATC standard directly as a criteria document. The question on criteria was not formulated
Table 1. Specifications used by states for design of non-conventional bridges.
State BDS Guide Spec ATC-49 Agency/Project Specific Other

California YES YES YES YES
Georgia YES
Illinois YES
Indiana YES YES
Missouri YES
New Jersey YES FHWA SEISMIC RETROFIT MANUAL
New York YES YES YES
Oregon YES YES
South Carolina YES
Washington YES YES

to isolate current practice to a single source, since most agency design specifications encompass
multiple references. Respondents indicated that project-specific criteria were used in some com-
bination with the Guide Spec for all non-conventional bridge projects, and of those, all indicated
that their criteria included some reference to either the AASHTO BDS or the Guide Spec. The
combination of these responses shows that five of 10 work with some form of project-specific
criteria, while nine of 10 work with either the AASHTO BDS or the Guide Spec for criteria.
Question 5: Do you reference any non-U.S. standards for seismic

design criteria?
No respondents indicated using any non-U.S. standards.
Question 6: What bridge types are included in your non-conventional

bridge resume?
Options to answer Question 6 were cable-stayed, suspension, arch, extrados, cantilever truss
or box girder (over 250-ft main span), or other (write-in).
Table 2 documents the bridge types as reported in the survey.
Question 7: Approximately how many non-conventional bridges

in your jurisdiction have been designed for earthquakes
in the last 30 years?
Options to answer Question 7 were “less than 2,” “2 to 5,” or “more than 5.”
Of the 10 respondents with experience pertinent to the survey, two answered less than 2 bridges,
six answered 2 to 5 bridges, and California and New York answered more than 5 bridges (see
Table 3).
Question 8: Did you use nonlinear time-history analysis for design

of any bridge type(s) in Question 6?
Seven of the 10 respondents with experience pertinent to the survey responded that non
linear time-history analyses were used for the design of at least one of the bridge designs (see
Table 3).
Table 2. Bridge types included in non-conventional bridge resume.
State Cable-Stayed Suspension Arch Extrados Cant truss/box girder (250 ft) Other
California YES YES YES YES Various*
Georgia YES
Illinois YES YES YES YES
Indiana YES
Missouri YES
New Jersey YES Moveable Bridges
New York YES YES
Oregon YES YES YES YES
South Carolina YES
Washington YES YES YES Tunnel
*California listed double deck concrete viaducts, self-anchored suspension, long concrete viaducts, long-span plate girder, and
delta girder bridges in the “Other” category.

Table 3. Summary of responses to Questions 7 through 11.
State # Bridges NL TH Analyses EQ Control Multilevel Multilevel Reason

California More than 5 Yes Yes Yes Lifeline, Financial, Life Safety
Georgia 2 to 5 Yes No No
Illinois 2 to 5 No Yes No
Indiana Less than 2 No Yes Yes Lifeline, Financial, Life Safety
Missouri 2 to 5 Yes Yes No
New Jersey 2 to 5 No Yes No
New York More than 5 Yes Yes Lifeline, Financial, Life Safety
Oregon 2 to 5 Yes Yes Yes Lifeline, Life Safety
South Carolina Less than 2 Yes Yes Yes Lifeline
Washington 2 to 5 Yes Yes Yes Lifeline
Question 9: Did seismic demand control the lateral force or

displacement-based design for any of the bridge(s) in Question 7?
Eight of the 10 respondents said seismic demands controlled the design. One state answered
“no.” For New York, no answer was recorded (see Table 3).
Question 10: Have you specified multilevel seismic events

(e.g., a 250-year return for operation and 2,500-year return for
no-collapse or sim) for your non-conventional bridge design(s)?
Six of the 10 states replied that they used multilevel seismic events (see Table 3).
Question 11: The reason for specifying a multilevel event was?

Options to answers to this question were lifeline status of the facility, financial risk, life safety
risk, or other.
Three of the 6 respondents using multilevel events did so for the reasons of lifeline status,
financial risk, and life safety risk. Two of the respondents were mainly concerned with lifeline risk
(see Table 3).
Question 12: What are your primary sources for establishing

performance criteria?
Options to answers this question were AASHTO BDS, Guide Spec, Research, ATC, and Other.
Two of the 10 states used both the AASHTO BDS and the Guide Spec as their primary sources
for establishing performance criteria. Four other states used the AASHTO BDS or the Guide
Spec. California used Caltrans-sponsored research, ATC-32 for projects circa 1996, and listed
internal subject matter expertise, external seismic advisory board, project peer review panels,
and project technical advisory panels in the “Other” category. Table 4 lists the answers received
to this question by state.
Question 13: Please indicate whether or not you can provide a

plan and elevation drawing for specific structures where you
have applied non-conventional bridge seismic design criteria,
along with the criteria document that relates to the seismic design
basis for the bridge substructure and foundation system(s)?
This question was used to track information received from the states.

Table 4. Primary sources for establishing criteria.
State AASHTO LRFD BDS AASHTO Guide Spec Research ATC Other
California Caltrans Sponsored YES* Various**
Georgia YES
Illinois YES
Indiana YES YES
Missouri
New Jersey YES
New York YES YES
Oregon
South Carolina In 2000 a compendium of sources
Washington YES Project specific
* California listed ATC-32 for projects circa 1996.
**California listed internal subject matter expertise, external seismic advisory board, project peer review panels, and project technical advisory
panels in the “Other” category.
Survey Summary
The survey results show that virtually all non-conventional bridges in high seismic regions
of the United States are designed using nonlinear time-history analysis and some degree of
performance-based design. The state DOT survey is presented in Appendix B.

CHAPTER 3
State of Practice Based

on Project Criteria
Project-Specific Seismic Design Criteria

Respondents were able to provide specific criteria documents for new designs. The collection
of project-specific design criteria was the most definitive source for discerning the current stan-
dard of practice for seismic design of non-conventional bridges. A total of 11 project criteria are
included (see Table 5).
Most of 11 projects are located in areas of high seismicity, with one (Project #6) in a region of
low seismicity for comparison (see Figure 3).
The following is a brief summary of the 11 project-specific design criteria included in this
synthesis (refer to Appendix A for complete seismic criteria).
Project 1. Sixth Street Bridge Replacement Project (California) (2016)

Bridge Type: Arch.
Seismic design based on nonlinear time-history analysis.
Design in accordance with Caltrans Memos to Designers, ATC-32, NCHRP Report 472, Guide
Spec, AASHTO BDS.
Two-level performance criteria: SEE (1,000-year) and FEE (100-year).
Demand/capacity ratios based on strain/rotation/ductility limits.
Capacity protected components based on Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria with demand/
capacity of 1.0 or less.
No specifics in terms of components’ strain limits in reference criteria.
Project 2. New Benicia Martinez Bridge (California) (2000)

Bridge Type: Haunched Girder.
Design in accordance with AASHTO BDS, ATC-32.
Two-level performance criteria: SEE and FEE.
Demand/capacity ratios based on strain limits as listed in reference criteria.
Project 3. Tacoma Narrows Parallel Suspension Bridge

(Washington) (2000)
Bridge Type: Suspension.
Seismic design based on nonlinear time-history analysis (10).
Design in accordance with Washington State DOT (WSDOT) BDM and project-specific criteria.
12

State of Practice Based on Project Criteria 13
Table 5. Project-specific seismic design criteria.
ID Project Name State Bridge Type

1. Sixth Street Bridge Replacement Project California Arch
2. New Benicia Martinez Bridge California Haunched Girder
3. Tacoma Narrows Parallel Suspension Bridge Washington Suspension
4. Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project California Cable Stayed
5. Hoover Dam Bypass Colorado River Bridge Nevada/Arizona Concrete Arch
6. I-74 Bridge Iowa Network Arch
7. Port Mann Bridge Highway 1 Project British Columbia (Canada) Cable Stayed
8. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge California Suspension
9. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Skyway Structures California Concrete Segmental
10. Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project New York Cable Stayed
11. Willamette River Transit Bridge (Tilikum Crossing Bridge) Oregon Cable Stayed

Detailed description in criteria for concrete and steel strain limits for towers and pile rein-
forcement and concrete, as well as for steel pile casing.
In-elastic sections designed to achieve curvature ductility above 4.0.
Maximum plastic hinge length defined.
Limitations on permanent lateral drift from SEE inelastic deformations for foundations
and towers.
Figure 3. Geographical location of bridges in NCHRP Synthesis 532 with

project-specific criteria.

Project 4. Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project

(California) (2012)
Bridge Type: Cable-Stayed.
Design in accordance with Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Caltrans Guide Specs for Seismic
Design of Steel Bridges, ATC-32, NCHRP 12-49, AASHTO BDS (refer to criteria for further
details).
Detailed description in criteria for concrete and steel strain limits for towers and pile rein-
forcement and concrete, as well as for steel pile casing.
Detailed definition of Rayleigh damping for various components for dynamic analysis.
Project 5. Hoover Dam Bypass Colorado River Bridge

(Nevada/Arizona) (2003)
Bridge Type: Concrete Arch.
Design in accordance with: No references in provided criteria.
One-level performance criteria (1,000-year).
Detailed description in criteria for concrete and steel strain limits.
Structural steel component displacement demand/capacity ratios defined.
In-elastic sections to have curvature ductility above 4.0.
Project 6. I-74 Bridge (Iowa) (Low Seismic Region) (2010)

Bridge Type: Network Arch.
Design based on elastic response-spectrum analyses.
Design in accordance with AASHTO BDS (2007).
One-level performance criteria (1,000-year).
Supplemental pushover analyses to understand behavior.
Project 7. Port Mann Bridge Highway 1 Project (Vancouver, BC) (2009)
Design in accordance with Canadian code CAN/CSA-S6-06 with British Columbia Ministry
of Transportation supplements.
Three-level performance criteria: 10% in 50-year (1/475), 5% in 50-year (1/975), 2% in
50-year (1/2475), as well as subduction earthquake (deterministic).
Demand/capacity ratios based on strain limits as listed in reference criteria (ATC-32 and ATC-49
listed as reference).
Detailed description in criteria for concrete, reinforcement, and steel casing strain limits.
Project 8. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Self-Anchored

Suspension Bridge (California) (2002)
Bridge Type: Suspension Bridge.
Design in accordance with AASHTO BDS augmented with ATC-32.

Two-level performance criteria: SEE (∼1,500-year return) and FEE (∼450-year return).
Demand/capacity ratios based on strain limits as listed in provided criteria (ATC-32 referenced).
Tower design utilizing energy-dissipating ductile steel shear links with rotation ductility
limit defined (designed in accordance with AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings).
Capacity protected design requirements specified.
Permanent deck displacements due to inelastic behavior specified at deck level for both SEE
and FEE events (300 mm and 50 mm, respectively).
Deck hinge beams to be proportioned for forces and displacements calculated by the time-
history analyses.
Project 9. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Skyway Structures

(California) (2002)
Bridge Type: Concrete Segmental Skyway.
Two-level performance criteria: SEE and FEE [see Project 8 and reference (8)]
Demand/capacity ratios based on strain limits as listed in provided criteria (ATC-32 referenced).
Capacity protected design requirements specified.
Permanent deck displacements due to inelastic behavior specified at deck level for both SEE
and FEE events (300 mm and 50 mm, respectively).
Deck hinge beams to be proportioned for forces and displacements calculated by the time-
history analyses.
Project 10. Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project

(New York) (2015)
Design in accordance with the AASHTO BDS. New York State DOT (NYSDOT) LRFD
mentioned.
Two-level performance criteria: SEE (2,500-year) and FEE (1,000-year).
Definition of limiting damage levels.
No detailed description in provided criteria for component strain limits.
Project 11. Willamette River Transit Bridge (Tilikum Crossing Bridge)

(Oregon) (2011)
Two-level performance criteria: “Serviceable Earthquake Evaluation (500-year)” and
“No Collapse Earthquake (1000-year).”*
Demand/capacity ratios based on strain limits as listed in provided criteria.
*The SEE term is defined as the service evaluation event, with the typical SEE event then termed the NCE for no-collapse
event. However, this is not standard terminology.

Review of Criteria Documents

A review of the entire set of criteria documents provides the common elements of the state
of practice in the seismic design of non-conventional bridges. While there are a few variations
on the basic practices, the criteria identify the following basic elements of current engineering
practice for non-conventional bridges:
1. All project criteria provide for a limited ductility design basis.
2. All projects in moderate and high seismic zones provide for repairable damage at the safety-
level seismic event.
3. Most criteria call for design for both a functional and a safety-level event.
4. Most criteria establish allowable strain levels to establish acceptance for each limit state.
5. All project criteria for bridges in moderate and high seismic zones require design based on a
nonlinear time-history analysis.
6. Most (U.S.) project criteria reference either the AASHTO BDS, Guide Spec, or ATC-32.
One criteria document was obtained for a moderate seismic region (see Project 10). One cri-
teria document was also obtained for a low seismic region (see Project 6), which illustrates how
the AASHTO BDS is applied for seismic design where seismic does not control lateral forces.
The use of elastic seismic forces in a force-based design is used without applying capacity design
provisions; however, pushover analysis was performed to determine the limiting lateral force
mechanism for the structural system. For these elastic seismic design cases, lateral force demands
such as vessel impact and wind are similar to or greater than the level of elastic seismic forces
based on the AASHTO BDS criteria. A full ductility design is not applied in these cases, since
it would result in significant increase in foundation and other related costs without any com-
mensurate benefit in life safety.
Most criteria documents have a direct reference to the AASHTO BDS or the Guide Spec, and
those that do not are covered by the broader application of the AASHTO BDS to general design.
The project-specific criteria address the basis for limited ductility design, which is a local and
global bending design basis. Detailing for confinement, shear design, and minimum reinforcing
requirements all are drawn from the AASHTO BDS and Guide Spec, and as such follow the
design basis for shear and confinement as applied to conventional bridges. This point is described
in more detail as it relates to the approach to capacity protection for non-conventional bridges.
Table 6 summarizes the project-specific criteria for non-conventional bridges drawn from the
criteria documents in this section.
There are variations within the current engineering practice as to how some of these criteria
are implemented. The major items are described in the following sections.
Strain-Based Criteria in Current Practice

Table 7 illustrates typical strain-based performance limits taken from the criteria for a non-
conventional bridge in California [see Appendix A for San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridges
(SFOBBs)]. Other criteria documents obtained from high seismic zone locations have simi-
lar performance measures. The criteria reference the limit-state capacity protection concept
through differential strain limitations for capacity protected elements based on a demand dis-
placement check rather than a singular plastic column criterion (the bridge in Table 7 included
a shear-linked tower) (11). This approach to capacity protection is employed to assess strain-
based damage levels associated with limited ductility design. In the high seismic regions of
California, the dominance of ground motion for lateral forces and foundation design gener-
ally removes the issue of competing demands that can occur in regions of lower seismicity. In
regions with moderate and lower seismic demand, competing lateral force demands can factor

Table 6. Summary of criteria for non-conventional bridge seismic design.

Item Typical Project-Specific Criteria
In regions of high seismicity, the typical project-specific ground motions are based on a probabilistic site
Seismicity Characterization hazard analysis, with a suite of motions to address multiple sources for each level of ground motion
(functional and safety events) (14).
Design is based on damage limit states that apply to both ductile and protected elements within the
structure, based on either a general description of the target damage levels (moderate, repairable, or
Typical Design Standard significant) or on quantitative strain limits that are assigned to these same damage limit states.
Nonlinear, inelastic dynamic analysis is used to determine compliance with strain-based performance
standards.
The separation of ductile element design from protected element design is achieved through a
separation of allowable strains at each damage limit state so that at the given performance limit state,
Member Protection Protocol
the ductility level associated with the damage state is limited to the members and elements selected for
ductile behavior, and the protected elements experience low or essentially elastic strain demands.
Spectrally matched ground motion time histories are typically developed for both functional- and safety-
Ground Motion Definition
level events.
Site Class Definition (geotechnical Project-specific site characterization does not follow conventional bridge standards, since the specific soil
characterization) characteristics are modeled for the soil-structure interaction analysis.
Analysis Type Nonlinear time history for force and displacement.
Discrete foundation modeling with nonlinear soil springs [or as determined from finite element analysis
Deep Foundation Modeling
(FEA models)], ground motion input with depth, and radiational damping.
into the performance measures, and may control design requirements. However, application of
a demand displacement-based capacity check eliminates the conflict that otherwise can occur
with the single limit-state criterion.
Means by Which Nonlinearity Is Considered

The details of nonlinear analysis vary with the specific project criteria, the characteristics of
the structure type, and the differing standards of practice among engineers. The procedures for
nonlinear analysis vary according to the degree of detail needed to address the performance
requirements established for a project. In those cases where performance requirements are
descriptive damage states, the nonlinear material model is sometimes limited to iterative defi-
nitions of effective stiffness or local moment-curvature definitions at assigned inelastic zones
within the structural model. In those projects with defined allowable strain limits for perfor-
mance limit states, material models will be based on full moment-curvature-axial interaction
definitions for nonlinear section response, either over the full extent of major members or at
assigned hinge locations. In both cases, the nonlinear analyses incorporate geometric nonlinear-
ity, which for some non-conventional bridges influence review for drift criteria of towers and
long-span arches.
For non-conventional bridges on deep foundations, particularly those in riparian and marine
environments, foundation modeling for nonlinear analysis represents a significant effort and
source of variability in the design process. In several of the bridges in the criteria review, a full dis-
cretized foundation model of piles was included for soil structure interaction. Sufficient models
exist for liquefied and non-liquefied soil conditions. However, the triggering mechanisms to

Table 7. Sample of performance-based seismic design criteria.

ALLOWABLE STRAINS
7.9.1 Normal weight concrete

Allowable strains in normal weight concrete shall:
Piers (Average extreme fiber strains in plastic hinge):
Functional evaluation earthquake εcFEE = 0.004
Safety evaluation earthquake εcSEE = 2/3 εcu
where εcu is the ultimate concrete strain according to the Mander model
Piles (Maximum extreme fiber strains in potential plastic hinge):

Functional evaluation earthquake εcFEE = 0.004
Safety evaluation earthquake εcSEE = 0.01
7.9.2 Reinforcing Steel

Allowable strains in reinforcing steel shall be:
Piers (Average extreme fiber strains in plastic hinge):

Functional evaluation earthquake εsFEE = 0.015
Safety evaluation earthquake εsSEE = 2/3 εsu
Where εsu is the steel strain at ultimate stress. For ASTMA 706M Gr. 415
reinforcement, εsu may be taken as:
Confinement bars No. 10-25 (No. 3 -8) εsu = 0.12

Main bars No. 29-57 (No. 9-18) εsu = 0.09
Piles (Maximum extreme fiber strains in potential plastic hinge):

Safety evaluation earthquake εsSEE = 0.02
Where εsu is the steel strain at ultimate stress. For ASTMA 706 MGr. 415
reinforcement, εsu may be taken as:
Confinement bars No. 10-25 (No. 3 -8) εsu = 0.12
Main bars No. 29-57 (No. 9 -18) εsu = 0.09
Hardening strains may be taken as:

Bars No. 10-25 (No. 3 -8) εsh = 0.015
Bars No. 29-36 (No. 9 -11) εsh = 0.010
Bar No. 43 (No. 14) εsh = 0.0075
Bar No. 57 (No. 18) εsh = 0.005
7.9.3 Structural Steel Pile Shells (Casings)

Safety evaluation earthquake εsSEE = 0.02
define the transition between the two states and the post-liquefied strength state remain a subject
for continued research. The general practice today is to bracket the liquefied and non-liquefied
conditions when assessing compliance with performance criteria.
The discretization and data management needed for tracking strain time history in a nonlinear
regime is considerably more involved than for the more general structural analysis. The distribu-
tion of inelastic response is a product of the analysis, and the concurrent forces associated with
member response are tracked in the time domain and post-processed back through the associated
moment-curvature section definitions to report element strains. This level of analysis has been

performed on a number of the major non-conventional bridges covered in the criteria reviewed
in this section. Accounting for this level of behavior is needed for those criteria that are based on
explicit strain limits. In the case of descriptive performance limit states, classical section force
analysis can be used to review damage levels, similar to the methods used for conventional design.
Table 8 contains a summary of features currently employed for nonlinear dynamic analysis of
bridges reviewed for this synthesis.
Limited Ductility and Capacity Protection

In regions of moderate and high seismicity, the principle of capacity protection is addressed
differently for non-conventional bridges than for conventional bridges. The singular no-
collapse limit state for conventional bridges provides a two-step procedure for reviewing ductil-
ity demands at the level of demand displacement for those members selected as fully ductile and
applying the resulting demands to review the limited ductility demands in capacity protected
elements. There is no assessment of structural behavior for conventional bridges during the
progression of the seismic event or across a series of events, and there is no means by which to
assess any performance measures other than the no-collapse limit state.
Capacity protection is managed in a different way for non-conventional bridges. Since limited
ductility is required to satisfy the moderate and repairable limit states associated with non-
conventional bridges, the simple threshold between fully inelastic and pseudo-elastic (reinforced
concrete under strength-level loads is never truly elastic) is not used for design. As evidenced in
the criteria documents reviewed, the method of providing capacity protection for non-conventional
bridges is to prescribe appropriate levels of allowable strains for the structural elements selected
Table 8. Standard practice for nonlinear analysis of non-conventional bridges.

Parameter Scope of Practice
Structure Non-Conventional Bridges
Kinematic model Full geometric stiffness
Modeling approach varies from providing full moment-curvature profiles for axial demand across all
Structural Elements—
elements in the nonlinear model to assigning specific plastic hinge zones within the model definition that
Concrete
focus inelastic demand by prescription.
Inelastic material definitions are applied to steel materials. Practices vary as to whether this material
Structure Elements—Steel
definition is bilinear (elasto-plastic) or includes material strain hardening.
Modeling of cables varies from the use of spars (truss member with adjusted stiffness) to full beam-column
Structure Elements—Cables (geometric stiffness) discretized cable models. The choice is often influenced by the level of ground motion
and the degree of geometric nonlinearity in the global bridge response.
The use of Rayleigh damping values along with material (hysteretic) modeling is generally applied for the
Damping
nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Soils and Foundations
Finite difference (FLAC) with liquefaction triggering models to analyze the soil continuum response to free
field firm ground motions are often used to compute a discretized array of nonlinear springs and dashpots
Soil Model
for soil structure interaction analysis of the structural model. Finite element modeling of the continuum
with a simplified structural model is also used by some practitioners.
In cases where soil liquefaction is considered, the structural model generally includes full discretization of
Substructure (Piles and Shafts)
substructure elements as structural members coupled to the soil models noted above.
The standard method for full foundation modeling is to develop depth varying discretized time history based
Ground Motions
on firm ground free field time history of the continuum.

as inelastic or pseudo-elastic elements of the structural system to satisfy the repairable damage
(or other) limit state assigned to the structure. This graduation of allowable strains is verified
through the details of nonlinear analysis. The nonlinear analysis can be extended beyond the
demand displacement derived for the design-level seismic event to review system behavior by
analyzing higher ground motions (nonlinear analysis does not admit scaling results—direct
analysis for a scaled-up ground motion is required). However, the design of elements is based
on the specified limiting criteria for the damage (strain) levels assigned throughout the structural
system for the design event.
Other Elements of Practice

Based on the literature review and procedures provided through the survey, California pres-
ents the most complete protocol for addressing seismic design of non-conventional bridges.
The criteria documents summarized include a number of California bridges, and those criteria
are consistent with the summary of practice. However, California has a number of practices for
non-conventional bridges that are not typical of other states in the survey (8). Caltrans Memo
to Designers (CMD) 20-1 provides instructions that reflect the principles of the Guide Spec for
conventional bridges (12). Caltrans CMD 20-16 provides for a Seismic Safety Peer Review for
non-conventional bridges (13). The terms of CMD 20-16 extend the tenets of CMD 20-1 and
the Guide Spec into a more rigorous performance-based design approach for non-conventional
bridges that requires full nonlinear analysis and review of strain demands that goes well beyond
simple limit-state capacity design principles.
Table 9 contains a summary of these current standards of practice and damage limit states that
are typically addressed in the seismic design for non-conventional bridges in the United States.
Table 9. Seismic design practice for non-conventional bridges.
Performance Limit State Typical Qualitative Criteria Typical Quantitative Criteria Comments
Minor cracking or spalling of

concrete and limited yielding of
steel that does not impair ec ~ .004; eps~.008; es~.01 for
Strain levels are consistent with strength
Minimal Damage bridge function. The rebar and es~.002 for structural
limit-state design parameters.
expectation is that full service steel
can continue through any
repairs.
Strain levels are consistent with nominal

Cracking or spalling of concrete
design strength for confined concrete
and yielding of steel to a level
and ductile behavior for steel. Stability
that may require out-of-service ec~.006 (confined per Mander);
maintained for main members, with
Repairable Damage repairs to restore full function. eps~.015; es~.02 for rebar and
minor buckling or extensive yielding of
Residual drift and permanent .01 for structural steel
replaceable members. Prestress must be
deformations are limited to
reviewed in the damaged state to
maintain future serviceability.
confirm no loss of function.
Significant cracking and spalling

of concrete and yielding of
ec~0.75*ecu (confined per Strain levels provide a margin against
steel, with local buckling and
Mander); eps~.045; es~.75*esu element failure. Prestressing ineffective
Significant Damage significant permanent
for rebar and .025 for structural as prestress and must be reviewed for
deformations allowed provided
steel strength.
overall stability and structural
integrity is maintained.

CHAPTER 4
Evaluation and Case Examples
Design practice for non-conventional bridges is affected by several factors that differentiate it
from the conventions of practice for conventional bridges.
• Non-conventional bridges are generally high value investments, lifeline structures, or both.
• The structural systems for non-conventional bridges are not the classical beam-column viaduct-
type structures that are the core of conventional highway bridges.
• The structural systems for non-conventional bridges often include tall towers, long spans
with non-redundant framing systems, and flexible deck systems where large displacements
and residual drift are far more significant than for the dimensions and scale of conventional
bridges.
The first of these factors is the basis for limited ductility design as first described in ATC-32.
A repairable damage standard is primarily to address the criticality and cost of non-conventional
bridges within the highway network.
The special behavioral characteristics of some non-conventional bridges require that design-
ers review the basic tenets of the weak-column strong-beam design basis of the Guide Spec as
they consider structural performance and seismic safety for unique structural systems. Certain
long-span flexible bridge systems may relate more closely to the strong-column weak-beam per-
formance requirements as applied to the safety analysis of tall buildings. Such a case is reviewed
in Case Example 1.
The dimensions, scale, and character of non-conventional bridge structural systems are not
amendable to the simplified analytical methods for conventional bridges, which has led to the
current practice requiring nonlinear analysis. In the case of strain-based design criteria, material
nonlinearity is necessary to establish the hierarchy of inelastic demand as well as compliance
with the performance limit states for multilevel seismic hazards.
As for the wind conundrum described in the Introduction, the practice of strain-based
capacity protection for limited ductility design removes the conflict of competing lateral load
demands that can occur for large non-conventional bridges. The hierarchy of allowable strain
levels for ductile and non-ductile elements is addressed absent any definition of controlling
load, so that a wind-controlled design when subjected to the nonlinear dynamic analysis for
multilevel ground motions can be qualified based only on the results for demand displacement
from the seismic event. The basic design is not affected by the hierarchy of lateral demand.
Since detailing is governed by the seismic code provisions in the AASHTO BDS or the Guide
Spec, the resulting design satisfies both the safety and limited damage performance objectives
for design.
21

Case Example 1—Cable-Stayed Bridge

with Single Pylon
The long-span cable-stayed bridge presented here is an example of a single tower and flex-
ible deck system that requires performance-based criteria for multilevel seismic ground motion
input (see Figures 4, 5, and 6). This type of bridge is often on deep alluvial soils, which is the case
for this example.
The criteria included the standard performance limit states typical of those long-span bridges
identified in the survey and literature. Beginning with the 475-year return event as the functional
event and progressing to the 2,475-year return event as the safety event, the criteria addressed
strain limits for each performance limit state.
The performance condition assigned to the single tower section was limited ductility at the
safety level 2,475-year event. Even at this limited ductility, the nonlinear analysis models resulted
in ductility demands at a level that was similar to the strength design condition for wind load-
ing (note that for strength design of under-reinforced sections, there is no explicit evaluation
of rebar strains, just the section equilibrium assumption that is associated with a bilinear stress
strain curve). Wind loading on the elastic model was approximately the same demand as the
safety level seismic event on the pylon in the nonlinear model with liquefied foundation condi-
tions. When reviewing the effect of nonlinear section models on demand levels, results show
that even the limited ductility level of rebar strain provides a significant reduction in section
moment at the demand displacement when compared with simple elastic section models. Total
pile section requirements were controlled by seismic for the liquefied case since moments in the
liquefied condition added to axial demands; however, the axial demands were higher for the
non-liquefied case due to higher total response for the stiffer foundation condition (6).
The section size of the lower pylon was also affected by the vessel impact on the main in-water
pier, which controlled section wall and local reinforcing. The general balance of demands was pro-
duced in part by the seismic performance criteria. A classical ductility-based design for the single
stem tower could have reduced reinforcing for seismic demand considerably from the final reinforc-
ing. However, such a reduction would not have been sufficient for the normal factored demand for
wind loading or the local section demand for vessel impact. Once dimensioned for the requirements
for wind and vessel impact, application of a full Guide Spec capacity protection type design for the
base of the single pylon would have added 40% to the pile foundation requirements (there is a syn-
ergistic effect of expanding footing dimensions for additional piles, since the mass of the footing is
Figure 4. Long-span cable-stayed bridge with

single pylon—Port Mann Bridge.

Evaluation and Case Examples 23
Source: Transportation Investment Corporation.
Figure 5. Sample performance criteria for cable-stayed bridge.
a major contributor to pile demand). And perhaps more significant, even absent wind and vessel
impact, a plastic hinge-based full ductility design of the pylon could result in residual drift of the
pylon that would render the single pylon bridge useless after the design event.
Case Example 2—Concrete Arch Bridge

Case Example 2 is that of a concrete arch bridge (see Figures 7 and 8).
A concrete arch relies on the integrity of the springing for both vertical and lateral loads.
While two hinged long-span arches are viable for vertical loads, this is not the case for lateral
loads due to distortion and geometric nonlinearity. For an arch springing supported by rock

Figure 6. Example cable-stayed bridge lateral resistance system.
Figure 7. Example arch bridge—Hoover Dam Bypass.

Evaluation and Case Examples 25
REINFORCEMENT εu εpg εpp
Main Column Bars 0.08 0.03 0.015

#11, #14 & #18

#10 and Smaller
Spirals & Ties 0.12 0.05 NA

#8 and Smaller
Where:
εu = ultimate steel strain

εpg = design level of peak cyclical steel strain for struts and
ductile member "performance goals" i.e., repairable damage
εpp = design level of peak steel strain for arch and spandrel
"performance goals" i.e., minimal damage
Figure 8. Strain performance criteria for

concrete arch.
foundations, the concept of capacity protection for a foundation was not an issue. However,
performance requirements that include repairable damage plastic hinges in the arches for
lateral loads are problematic.
The example structure was developed during the transition of AASHTO BDS and during early
development of the Guide Spec after the proposals to adopt NCHRP 12-49 into AASHTO were
rejected by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures. The project-specific seismic
criteria were developed using various sources that included some elements of NCHRP 12-49 but
essentially followed the performance-based design principles of California non-conventional
bridges for limited ductility critical structures. A single 1,000-year return period was used for
design based on a review of site-specific data and the forecast of ground motion levels versus
return periods in the study sponsored by the owner (not knowing at the time that both the
AASTHO BDS and the new Guide Spec would arrive at a 1,000-year return period for seismic
design).
The framing of the arch structure was established to allow for the potential of ductile strut
elements that could be designed to maintain the limited ductility performance requirements for
the arch ribs, similar in function to the shear links on SFOBB Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge.
Nonlinear analysis was performed as in Case Example 1; however, full moment-curvature defi-
nitions were not utilized in this case due to the level of ground motion and seismic demand levels
in the arch ribs. The potentially ductile strut elements between the arch ribs remained elastic
under the design event once they were sized for the wind demands on the arch structure but
were detailed for ductility.

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions
The sample size in the survey was limited by the concurrent conditions of non-conventional
bridge design and moderate to high seismic regions of the United States. Project examples and
project-specific criteria were consistent in approaching design practice using a well-established
performance-based design process that has evolved from the time of ATC-32 and expanded
in terms of definitions and details to strain-based criteria for assessing member and structure
performance in earthquakes. Based on the criteria obtained for non-conventional bridges in
high seismic regions compared with other regions, the details of nonlinear analysis and model-
ing of inelastic members vary with the relative significance of the seismic input. However, the
performance-based design principles are consistent.
The survey responses listed both the AASHTO BDS and the Guide Spec as references for
project-specific criteria. In some cases, each was listed as the independent criteria document.
Performance standards were applied within project-specific criteria that are not terms in either
specification but are presented in ATC-32 and referenced in most project-specific criteria. Even
though the Guide Spec and the AASHTO BDS are not the independent criteria document for a
non-conventional bridge design, the detailing requirements of these AASHTO documents serve
as the basis for shear and confinement design criteria applied to non-conventional structures,
which is the primary application of these references in the project criteria examples reviewed
for this synthesis.
Guidance is offered for non-conventional bridges in the AASHTO BDS even though the
scope of the document excludes non-conventional bridges. The topical areas of nonlinear
dynamic analysis, number and combination of ground motions, and foundation modeling
serve as a general reference for project-specific criteria, which often vary from the stipulations
in the AASHTO documents due to project-specific studies.
Table 6 contains a summary of the current practice for seismic analysis and design of non-
conventional bridges as determined through this study. Appendix A includes the full listing of
seismic design criteria from selected non-conventional bridges. The findings based on review
of the criteria documents in Appendix A as summarized in Chapter 3 and Table 6 represent
the current standard of practice for seismic design of non-conventional bridges in the United
States. These criteria have their primary origin in the recommendations of ATC-32. As noted
in ATC-32, critical bridges (assumed herein to encompass non-conventional bridges) are not
designed based on the full plastic moment design principles of conventional bridges and are
almost exclusively limited ductility designs based on current practice.
The question of how to assess capacity protection with variable ground motion is addressed
through the hierarchy of strain limitations assigned to damage limit states for non-conventional
bridges. The peer review process employed for critical bridges in the highest seismic regions of
California addresses the question of ground motions and acceptance criteria on a project-specific
26

Conclusions 27
basis. There is no guidance for factoring ground motions to address variance in the level of
ground shaking assigned to the return periods selected for project criteria. Unlike the case for
conventional bridges, where review of ductility demand is based on a simple bilinear moment-
curvature response of full ductility columns, evaluations involving increased ground motion
input for the more detailed and complex conditions for non-conventional bridges are evaluated
by running additional nonlinear dynamic analyses to capture the influence of higher ground
motions, which, owing to the nonlinear regime of the structural system, are not determined by
scaling results or factoring demand displacements from lower intensity ground motions.
Research Needs
The general performance basis for seismic design practice for non-conventional bridges is
well established. Details for the assignment of performance limit states vary, particularly as they
relate to evaluation of the repairable damage performance limit state. In the case of reinforced
concrete design for ordinary loads, the strength limit-state design for conventional loads is not
strain based for reinforcing steel. If one evaluates rebar strain for a typical under-reinforced
section, the computed strain may be on the order of 4 to 5 times nominal yield strain. Assum-
ing the target reliability for the seismic case is similar to other geotechnical safety indices,
most designers assign a target strain value that is the same or greater than those for the normal
strength limit-state values. The research need is to establish a definition of strain values con-
sistent with damage limit states that support the criteria for performance requirements and
practical requirements for design and construction.
There is a need for developing guidelines that include the seismic design of non-conventional
bridges. The broad range of criteria and applications in the AASHTO BDS allow for a concise
inclusion of performance-based design and damage limit states within the current BDS frame-
work, borrowing much of the information presented in ATC-32. Such guidelines would comple-
ment AASHTO BDS to address the current conventional bridge limitation in Section 3.10 and
integrate the detailing methods specifications for reinforcing within AASHTO BDS that are
applied in the current state of practice for non-conventional bridges. The research need in this
regard is to write these guidelines so they are compatible with the current AASHTO BDS.
Key points for a non-conventional bridge seismic design specification section include the
following:
1. Definitions for non-conventional bridges, and the basis for determining when non-
conventional criteria apply.
2. A basis for determining the recurrence intervals for multi-hazard analysis in different regions
of the United States for non-conventional bridges.
3. Assignment of the variable limit states for limited ductility designs for non-conventional
bridges.
4. A basis for establishing strain limits applicable to the range of limit states for concrete and
steel elements that are consistent with the general performance limit states of minimal,
repairable, and significant damage, and the definition of strain differentials for capacity
protection.
5. Acceptable methods for characterizing nonlinear material and element behavior in a non
linear dynamic analysis.
6. Acceptable methods for characterizing foundation structures for analysis within an overall
nonlinear dynamic analysis, particularly those sites with soft or liquefiable soils.
7. A basis for establishing the number of ground motion time histories and a rational procedure
for combining demands or enveloping demands from multiple events at each ground motion
level.

References
1. AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition. Washington,
D.C., 2017.
2. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C., 2011.
3. ATC-32. Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations. Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1996.
4. Chopra, A. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2016.
5. Penzien, J., and Clough, R.W. Dynamics of Structures. McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1975.
6. Lund, H., and Mitchell, R. Seismic Time-History Analysis and Strain-Based Design of Cable-Stayed
Bridges. 39th IABSE Symposium Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, 2017.
7. Marwan, N., Manzanarez, R., and Maroney, B. Seismic Design Strategy of the New East Bay Bridge Suspen-
sion Span. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, NZ, 2000.
8. Seible, F. Long Span Bridges in California—Seismic Design and Retrofit Issues. 12th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, NZ, 2000.
9. ATC-49. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, and Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
and Engineering Research (MCEER), Buffalo, NY, 2003.
10. Jones, M., Treyger, S., and Pence, P. Seismic Analysis of New Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge. 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Aug. 2004.
11. Goodyear, D., and Sun, J. New Development in Cable-Stayed Bridge Design. Structural Engineering Inter
national, Feb. 2003.
12. Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-1. Seismic Design Methodology. Sacramento, CA, July 2010.
13. Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-16. Seismic Safety Peer Review. Sacramento, CA, June 2009.
14. Whittaker, A., Atkinson, G., Baker, J., Bray, J., Grant, D., Hamburger, R., Haselton, C., and Somerville, P.
Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses. National
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST GCR 11-917-15, Gaithersburg, MD.
28

Glossary of Terms
Demand Displacement: The peak displacement profile of the structure based on seismic analysis
for a given ground motion level.
Full Ductility Design: A design criteria that allows for full inelastic behavior in selected mem-
bers without reference to a targeted damage level, and generally based on simple elasto-plastic
material behavior (See reference (2), Fig C4.9-1) only limited by (reduced) ultimate material
strains [See reference (2), Table 8.4.2-1].
Functional Event (FEE): A seismic event level for which the bridge is expected to operate imme-
diately after the event, with only minimal damage that can be repaired without closing the
bridge.
Kinematic System: Dynamic behavior of the assemblage of members and joints of the structure
undergoing a time history of displacement associated with ground motion input.
Limited Ductility Design: A design criteria that sets limits on damage and/or element strains
in members based on computation of damage conditions that are less than full ductility,
generally for the purpose of maintaining function or limiting the amount of repair to the
structure after the earthquake event.
Liquefaction (of soils): A condition where soil strength diminishes from the normal static
strength due to pore water pressure accumulation within the soil framework, which in turn
can greatly reduce strength and stiffness, and in the case of a sloped ground surface, cause
dislocation of the soil mass by lateral flow.
Minimal Damage: A damage level to components of the bridge where local repairs and patching
may be needed, similar to the level of distress assumed for strength design of bridge elements
for normal loads.
Nonlinear Time-History (NLTH) (Analysis): A dynamic analysis of the structure and founda-
tion system for ground motion time-history input that accounts for geometric and material
nonlinearity in the model.
Probabilistic Site Hazard Analysis (PSHA): A site-specific study that combines analysis of local
and regional seismicity, source fault conditions, attenuations from those sources, and the
probability of earthquake occurrence along those source faults that is used to determine the
probabilities and magnitudes of seismic events for design at the bridge site.
Pushover (Analysis): A static analysis procedure where seismic demand displacement is
applied to a structural system to verify that ductility demand does not exceed the limits for a
full ductility design and that non-ductile member demands remain essentially elastic.
29

Repairable Damage: A damage level to components of the bridge where ductile elements experi-
ence considerable damage that is limited to a level that can be repaired in order to place the
bridge back into normal service. Repairable damage levels may require short-term closures
of the bridge.
Safety Event (SEE)*: A significant seismic event level with the longest return period considered
to represent a life safety design-level seismic event where the bridge is expected to experience
considerable damage but not collapse.
Significant Damage: A damage level that precludes structural collapse, may or may not be
repairable, and generally will require extended closure or demolition of the bridge.
Strain-Based Criteria: Design criteria based on a computation of peak strain levels in elements
of members that have been correlated to acceptable damage levels in the members.
Strong-Column Weak-Beam: A seismic resistance system where the ductility is assigned to the
beams, with the columns remaining essentially elastic. This is the standard configuration for
tall buildings.
Weak-Column Strong-Beam: A seismic resistance system where ductility is assigned to the
columns, with the beams remaining essentially elastic. This is the standard configuration for
*Note that in the criteria document for Project 11 in Chapter 3, the SEE term is defined as the service evaluation event,
with the typical SEE event then termed the NCE for no-collapse event. However, this is not standard terminology.

APPENDIX A
Design Criteria Documents
This appendix contains design criteria documents for the following bridge projects described
in this report:
Sixth Street Bridge Replacement Project (California)
New Benicia Martinez Bridge (California)
Tacoma Narrows Parallel Suspension Bridge (Washington)
Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project (California)
Hoover Dam Bypass Colorado River Bridge (Nevada/Arizona)
I-74 Bridge (Iowa)
Port Mann Bridge Highway 1 Project (Vancouver, BC)
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge (California)
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Skyway Structures (California)
Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project (New York)
Willamette River Transit Bridge (Tilikum Crossing Bridge) (Oregon)
31

Design Criteria Reference for
Sixth Street Bridge Replacement Project, California
Photo credit: HNTB

Design Criteria Documents 33
SIXTH STREET BRIDGE

REPLACEMENT PROJECT
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA
DRAFT 6
May 14, 2016
Prepared by
HNTB Corp
Sixth Street Viaduct Replacement May 14, 2016

Design Criteria Draft 6 Page i

Commentary
5. SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic design of the Project shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans
Draft Memo to Designers 20-22 - Seismic Design of Bridges with Isolation
Bearing and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, augmented with pertinent provi-
sions of ATC-32, NCHRP 472, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design and project spe-
cific criteria as detailed in this document.
5.1 General Performance Requirements
Seismic design of the Project shall consider both the Safety Evaluation Earth- RFP page 6 and NCHRP 472
quake (SEE) and the lower level Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE). Table 3.10.1-1
Seismic performance levels, expressed in terms of damage levels, are defined
as follows:
RFP page 7
“No Damage”: Defined for structural members as the nominal capacity as
described in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Nominal, not
expected material properties shall be used and increased member strength
due to the effects of confinement steel shall be ignored. “No damage” is
defined as full serviceability without repair or replacement.
“Minimal damage”: Although minor inelastic response may occur, post-
earthquake damage is limited to narrow cracking in concrete, and inconse-
quential yielding of secondary steel members. Damage to non-structural
components of the cable system would be allowed.
“Moderate damage”: Inelastic response may occur, resulting in concrete
cracking, reinforcement yield, minor spalling of cover concrete and minor
yielding of structural steel. The extent of damage shall be sufficiently lim-
ited such that the structure can be restored essentially to its pre-earthquake
condition without replacement of reinforcement or replacement of struc-
tural members.
“Significant damage”: Damage consisting of concrete cracking, rein-
forcement yielding, major spalling of concrete and deformations in minor
bridge components which may require closure of the bridge to repair. Par-
tial or complete replacement of secondary elements may be required in
some cases. Secondary elements are those that are not a part of the gravity
load resisting system.
As a fully isolated structure, the primary seismic design criteria are specified
by Caltrans Draft Memo to Designers 20-22 - Seismic Design of Bridges with
Isolation Bearing. With the exception of expansion joints that act as an inter-
face of the isolated structure and the approach roadway, the performance goal
of seismic isolation is to provide a structure that remains elastic during the de-
sign earthquake. Therefore, except for abutment expansion joints, the No
Damage criteria will be achieved for both the SEE and FEE.
5.1.1 Safety Evaluation – Structural Components
The SEE for structural evaluation corresponds to a mean return period of 1,000
years, representing approximately a 10% probability of occurrence in 100
years.
Bridge components shall be designed to the following behavior levels under RFP page 7
the SEE:
All Bridge Component except Expansion Joints: No damage.
Expansion Joints: Significant damage. Expansion joints shall not become
unseated from supports and shall continue to support vehicular traffic.
5.1.2 Safety Evaluation – Geotechnical Considerations

Design Criteria Draft 6 Page 14

Commentary
Soil Liquefaction: The SEE event will be used to assess liquefaction potential
and corresponding downdrag forces, if applicable. If liquefiable soils are de-
termined to be present under the design earthquake for the site, the structure
shall be designed to withstand the forces and moments resulting from the lat-
eral and vertical movements caused by the liquefaction. Soil stabilization may
be used to mitigate liquefaction conditions. Additionally, the design of the
foundations shall be evaluated with the soil in a liquefied state.
Slope Stability: For the SEE event, deformations of the supporting ground
mass and displacements of the slopes shall be considered in the design of the
bridge components. If necessary, the soil shall be stabilized to protect the
bridge from damage due to lateral spreading, soil deformation and associated
applied forces.
5.1.3 Functional Evaluation
The FEE is defined as an earthquake that has a return period of 100 years, rep-
resenting approximately a 60% probability of occurrence in 100 years. In this
earthquake, the all components of the Viaduct shall meet the requirements of
the “No Damage” performance level unless noted otherwise. Expansion joints
shall meet the requirements of the “Minimal Damage” performance level.
5.1.4 Performance Assessment
The seismic performance of all structures shall be assessed by verifying esti-
mated structural demands on components are less than or equal to estimated
structural capacities of those components. Methods for determining demands
and capacities are defined in following sections.
When significant yielding of components is allowed, demand and capacity are
defined by strain, rotational or ductility limits. When components are required
to remain elastic or experience minor yielding, demand and capacity are de-
fined by force Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratios.
All capacity-protected components, as defined by Caltrans Seismic Design Cri-
teria or these criteria, shall have a force D/C ratio of 1.0 or less when subjected
to over-strength forces.
When checking seismic conditions, use the corrosion allowance for pile cas-
ings at 50 percent of the 100-year design life.
5.1.5 Seismic Loading during Construction
For all bridges, the seismic loading during all phases of construction shall be
designed to resist forces as described in Caltrans Bridge Memo to Designers
20-2.
5.2 Definition of Ground Motions
Ground motions for use in dynamic seismic analysis of the bridge structures
shall be taken from the Project Geotechnical Report(s). The ground motions
shall consist of seven, 3-component time histories consistent with the SEE and
one, 3-component time history consistent with the FEE. Each time history
shall consist of 2-horizontal orthogonal components and one vertical compo-
nent. For the SEE, the average of the seven time-history ground motion anal-
yses results shall be used to design the bridge.
The Project Site is located in the seismically active southern California area.
The principal faults affecting the seismic hazard of the bridge are the Elysian
Park Fault north of the bridge and the Puente Hills Fault southwest of the
bridge. Since the location of the bridge places it in close proximity to the two
active faults, near-fault directivity effects shall be included in the design.
Non-linear time-history analyses shall be used in the evaluation of the bridges,
as described in Section 5.3.2. The SEE and FEE acceleration response spectra

Commentary
shall be based on the outcrop of the firm ground. Seven sets of reference mo-
tion time histories shall be used for the safety evaluation; one set of reference
motion time history shall be used for the functional evaluation. These time
histories shall be spectrum compatible for their respective firm ground acceler-
ation spectra. Due to close proximity to the active faults, the startup motions
for generating the reference time histories shall contain velocity flings associ-
ated with the near-fault directivity effects.
Development of the Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) curves shall con-
sider wave propagation in local soil conditions and a soil-structure interaction
(SSI) mechanism. The equivalent linear one-dimensional site response analysis
using site-specific soil properties is conducted to evaluate the free-field mo-
tions.
Either acceleration or displacement based input ground motions may be used.
The effects of spatial variation of ground motions shall be considered when
using displacement-based multiple support time histories analysis. The spatial-
ly varying motions shall consider as a minimum the following factors:
Local site response effect
Soil pile interaction effect
5.3 Analyses for Determination of Demands
Demands on structural components of a bridge shall be determined by analysis
of global three dimensional computer models of the bridge that represent its
dominant linear and nonlinear behavior and the effects of soil-foundation-
structure interaction. Grillage models may be used at the Viaduct without ex-
plicit modeling of the deck diaphragm to reduce the size of models. The trans-
verse stiffness of floor beams and edge girders shall be increased sufficiently
so that the eigenvalues and corresponding participation mass ratios are stabi-
lized and therefore comparable to models with the deck explicitly modeled. It
shall be acceptable to use the seismic model for all other strength and services
analyses, with appropriate adjustments to member stiffness. Demands shall be
evaluated as load-type quantities (forces and moments) or as displacement-type
quantities (displacements, relative displacements, and rotations) as required by
the evaluation rules for various components.
5.3.1 Service Load Demands and Combination with Seismic
Demands
For combination with seismic demands, component demands due to dead load,
traffic load, temperature changes, and wind shall be determined by static anal-
yses of global models.
5.3.2 Seismic Demands
Seismic demands shall be determined by nonlinear multi-support dynamic
time-history analysis for the Viaduct. The analysis will be for multiple-support
excitations developed considering the vertical propagation of the seismic
waves in soils and soil pile interaction at the bridge support locations. Con-
stant acceleration and displacement may be used along the length of individual
piles.
Non-linear dynamic time-history analysis shall incorporate the following:
• Both dead load and seismic load analyses will be geometrically non-linear
to account for the geometric stiffness of the arch hanger elements.
• Boundary condition non-linearities will be accounted for in the form of gap
elements at expansion joints and foundation impedances.
• The structural model shall explicitly consider the geometric nonlinearity,
inelastic structural components and other inelastic elements (e.g. dampers).


Commentary
Criteria specified damping is applicable to seismically isolated structures with Modeling Triple Friction
the following damping provisions applicable to modal time history analysis. Pendulum Isolators in Pro-
Rayleigh damping is to be used for the dynamic time-history analysis. Ray- gram SAP2000. A.A.S.
leigh damping shall be set to zero for all isolation modes. For other modes, the Sarlis and M.C. Constantinou
range of dominant periods for the various bridge components used to select
Rayleigh damping shall capture at least 90% of the mass of the bridge compo-
nents under consideration in two orthogonal horizontal directions with a max-
imum Rayleigh damping of 2% selected for the captured mass. The Rayleigh
mass proportional coefficient shall be selected for the highest non-isolated
mode and the stiffness proportional damping coefficient selected for the lowest
mode that captures at least 90% of the mass in the two orthogonal horizontal
directions.
If direct integration nonlinear time-history analysis is used, Rayleigh damping
as specified for modal time-history analysis shall also be used with the follow-
ing modifications. The mass proportional coefficient shall be selected for the
characteristic period of the primary isolation bearings at a displacement equal
to the Total Design Displacement (TDD) as defined by the Isolation Guide
Specifications and a maximum Rayleigh damping of 1% shall be selected for
the captured mass.
The global seismic analysis model for the Viaduct shall use explicit foundation
modeling. The explicit foundation modeling shall include a representation of
each individual pile, with distributed soil supports over the entire length of the
pile. Pile mass may be ignored in models for those portions of piles founded
below grade and in competent soil.
When checking AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Extreme Event AASHTO LRFD Bridge De-
I, a permanent load factor, p, of 1.0 shall be used for Load Type DC. sign Specifications Table
3.4.1-2
5.3.3 Nonlinear Local Analysis for Evaluating Seismic De-
mands
Nonlinear local analyses may be performed on selected bridge elements to
supplement the global three dimensional nonlinear multi-support dynamic
time- history analysis. These analyses shall provide independent assessment of
controlling seismic demands based on the assumption of maximum plastic
moments and forces developed by potential plastic hinges or other inelastic
behavior. These analyses may be used to confirm adequate structural perfor-
mance in the event that the SEE demands obtained from the global time-history
analysis are exceeded.
5.4 Determination of Capacities and Bridge Element Re-
quirements
Capacities of structural components of a bridge shall be determined by analysis
of local elastic and inelastic computer models of the components. Capacities
shall be evaluated as load-type quantities (forces and moments) or as displace-
ment-type quantities (displacements, relative displacements, rotations, and cur-
vatures) as required by the evaluation rules for various components.
5.4.1 Structural Steel Component Capacities
Arch Hangers: Resistance factor for Extreme Events shall be as specified
in PTI Recommendations for Stay Cable Design, Testing and Installation,
Section 5.3.3.
5.4.2 Reinforced Concrete Component Capacities
The expected nominal moment capacity Mne of ductile reinforced concrete Caltrans Seismic Design Cri-
members and capacity protected members shall be based on expected material teria Section 3.4


New Benicia Martinez Bridge, California
Photo credit: Vince Streano

NEW BENICIA MARTINEZ BRIDGE

Contract 59S742
DESIGN CRITERIA
( May 17, 2000)
Revision 3
USED WITH PERMISSION OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Prepared by T.Y.Lin International/CH2M Hill, A Joint Venture

Caltrans/Division of Structures
New Benicia Martinez Bridge- Design Criteria May 17, 2000
Contract 59S742
6. SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic design will be performed in accordance with BDS, augmented with
pertinent provisions of ATC-32 and project specific criteria as detailed in this
document.
6.1 Performance Criteria

The Benicia-Martinez Bridge is classified in the important bridge category. ATC-32 3.21.2
Functional Evaluation: Service Level Immediate, Minimal Damage
Safety Evaluation: Service Level Immediate, Repairable Damage
The intended structural action under seismic loading is that of a Limited- ATC-32 3.21.3
Ductility Structure with potential plastic mechanisms in pier shafts (Criteria
for piles shall be developed later).
6.2 Seismic Loading

Five-percent-damped site-specific elastic response spectra will be provided by
Caltrans for both the safety evaluation and functional evaluation earthquakes.
The depth and characteristics of the soil deposits surrounding the piles shall be
taken into consideration.
Three sets of time histories will also be provided by Caltrans for the inelastic
dynamic analysis.
6.2.1 Seismic Loading During Construction
During normally scheduled construction, the sections of the bridge under
construction at that time, shall be designed to withstand a lateral seismic force
of 0.1g.
If the construction schedule is interrupted, the structure shall be stabilized
against seismic loads.
6.3 Seismic Analysis

6.3.1 Elastic dynamic analysis
ATC-32 3.21.6
6.3.2 Inelastic static analysis
ATC-32 3.21.7
6.3.3 Inelastic dynamic analysis
ATC-32 3.21.8
6.4 Combination of Effects

Seismic effects from elastic dynamic analysis shall be combined in accordance
with the BDS 3.21.1.1.
No highway live load shall be considered on the bridge during the seismic
event.
The effect of vertical ground accelerations shall be considered on the
superstructure only. These effects shall be based on the site specific vertical
response spectrum and shall not exceed 0.5g.
6.5 Design Displacements

ATC-32 3.21.10.3
6.6 Design Forces

ATC-32 3.21.11.1
The force reduction coefficient Z shall be taken as 3 for well confined concrete
pier shafts when the structural period is greater than the predominant ground ATC-32 Fig. R3-13
Prepared by T.Y. Lin International/CH2MHill, A Joint Venture Page 9

Contract 59S742
motion period. The force reduction factor for piles would be as follows:
Steel encased portion: 1.5

Rock Socket: 1.0
The method utilizing the Z factor will be used for preliminary design only.
Final reinforcement will be designed such that strain demands from elastic or
inelastic time history analyses do not exceed the allowable values of section
6.13.
6.7 Capacity Design

ATC-32 3.21.14
6.8 Restraining Features

ATC-32 3.21.12
6.9 P- Effects
P-delta moments may be ignored where the following relation is satisfied:
W u 0.25 M p
where:
W = Weight of the frame
u = maximum displacement of the top of the frame
Mp = plastic capacity of the pier
6.10 Strength Reduction Factors for Columns
ATC-32 8.16.1.2.2
6.11 Material Properties for Ductile Columns

6.11.1 Design flexural strength
ATC-32 8.16.2.4
6.11.2 Maximum plastic moment
ATC-32 8.16.4.4
6.11.3 Steel strain hardening strains

For A706 steel:
sh = .0150 #8 and smaller (25M and smaller)
sh = .0100 #10 and #11 (30M and 35M)
sh = .0075 #14 (45M)
sh = .0050 #18 (55M)
Assumed upper bound steel strength, considering the effects of strain
hardening: fuo = 1.4 fyo
6.12 Displacement Capacity

The displacement capacity shall be assessed from the plastic hinge length
calculated according to ATC-32 8.18.2.4.2 and the plastic rotations
corresponding to the allowable material strains
6.13 Allowable Strains

6.13.1 Normal Weight Concrete
Func
Functional evaluation c 0.004

Contract 59S742
Safety 2/
Safety evaluation c 3 cu
Where cu is the ultimate concrete strain according to the Mander model (Mander et. al. J. Struct.
Engineering, ASCE, 1988
114(8), p 1804-1849)
6.13.2 Sand Light Weight Concrete
Func
Functional evaluation c 0.003
Safety 2/
Safety evaluation c 3 cu
Where cu is the ultimate concrete strain according to the Mander model
6.13.3 Reinforcing steel
Functional evaluation Func = 0.015 ATC-32 C3.21.11.1
s
Safety = 2/
Safety evaluation s 3 su
Where su is the ultimate steel strain. For Grade 60 (A706) reinforcement su
maybe taken as:
Main reinforcing steel Bar No. 9 - 18 (30M - 55M) su = 0.09
Confinement reinforcing steel Bar No. 3 - 8 (10M -25M) su = 0.12
7. GEOTECHNICAL AND FOUNDATION DESIGN
7.1 Pile Capacity

The bearing and uplift capacity of the piles shall be determined by the
geotechnical engineer.
A preliminary estimate of the ultimate shear strength of the pile-rock interface
is:
Compression 0.48 MPa
Tension 0.34 MPa
7.2 Scour
The scour potential will be evaluated by Caltrans.
8. EXPANSION JOINTS
The expansion joint assembly will be selected based on the hinge movement
rating, MR. MR is defined as follows:
MR=1.5x C + 1.5x S + FEE
Where,
C= expected creep movement from the time of installation of expansion joint.
S = expected shrinkage movement from the time of installation of expansion
joint.
FEE = sum of opening and closing movement due to a functional level
earthquake.

Tacoma Narrows Parallel Suspension Bridge, Washington
Photo credit: Washington State DOT


For
TACOMA NARROWS PARALLEL
SUSPENSION BRIDGE
August 31, 2000

Revision 4
Washington State Department of Transportation

United Infrastructure Washington Tacoma
Narrows Constructors
PTG / HNTB Tacoma Narrows Joint Venture
USED WITH PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Tacoma Narrows Bridge – Parallel Crossing August 31, 2000

Design Criteria

References
5. SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic design of the bridge will be performed in accordance with the

WSDOT BDM, augmented with pertinent provisions of project specific
criteria as detailed in this document.
Seismic design of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge – Parallel Crossing shall

consider both the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) and the lower
level Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE).
The performance levels expressed in terms of damage levels are de-

fined as follows:
“No Damage”: Defined for structural members as the nominal capacity ATC-32 C3.21.2.3
as described in AASHTO for LFD or as defined in Section 5.1.3. For
components such as bearings, expansion joints, railings, rocker links,
“no damage” is defined as full serviceability without repair or replace-
ment.

earthquake damage is limited to narrow cracking in concrete and incon-
sequential yielding of secondary steel members. Permanent offsets
should be avoided, except that permanent offsets of the foundations
are permissible if the strain limits specified in Section 5.4 of this docu-
ment are not exceeded. Permanent offsets of the foundations will be
permitted only if they do not prevent immediate use of the bridge sub-
sequent to the SEE event. Damage to non-structural components of
the cable system would be allowed.
“Repairable damage”: Inelastic response may occur, resulting in con-

crete cracking, reinforcement yield, minor spalling of cover concrete,
and minor yielding of structural steel. The extent of damage should be
sufficiently limited that the structure can be restored essentially to its
pre-earthquake condition without replacement of reinforcement or re-
placement of structural members. Repair should not require closure.
Replacement of secondary stiffening truss elements will be allowed if it
can be done under traffic.
“Significant damage”: Although there is minimum risk of collapse, per-

manent offsets may occur in elements other than the foundations.
Damage consisting of concrete cracking, reinforcement yielding, major
spalling of concrete, and deformations in minor bridge components may
require closure to repair. Partial or complete replacement of secondary
elements may be required in some cases. Secondary elements are
those which are not a part of the gravity load resisting system.
The Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) for structural evaluation cor-

responds to a mean return period of 2,500 years. In this earthquake,
the bridge can be subject to primarily “minimal damage” with some “re-
pairable damage” and some “significant damage” in secondary compo-
nents as described in this section.
The basic approach is to design the bridge components to the following

behavior levels under the safety evaluation earthquake:

Design Criteria Page 22

References
Piles/Drilled Shafts: Minimal damage.
Pile Caps: Minimal damage
Tower Caissons: Minimal damage
Anchorage Blocks: No damage.
Anchorage Deck & Girders over “Exclusion Zone”: Minimal Dam-

age.
Towers (above pile caps or caissons): Repairable damage.
Stiffening Truss (except Secondary Elements): No damage.
Secondary Stiffening Truss Elements: Repairable damage
Bearings and Shear Keys: Repairable damage.
Expansion Joints: Significant damage.
Cable System – Structural Elements: No damage.
Cable System – Non Structural Elements: Minimal Damage.
Additional limitations for the SEE event expressed in terms of perma-

nent lateral displacement or drift resulting from inelastic deformation of
structural components or soil deformations at the anchorages are as
follows:
Longit. Transv.
Direction Direction
Tower Foundation Drift between 12” 12”
mudline elevation and Pile Cap
Tower Leg Drift between Founda- 24” 24”
tion and top of Tower
Tower Displacement at Top 12” 36”
Anchorage Displacement 12” 6”
The Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) for evaluation of the following

geotechnical issues corresponds to a mean return period of 2,500
years:
Slope Stability: For this earthquake, stability of the bridge anchorages Commentary C5.1.2
shall be assessed using psuedo-static analysis methods. Deformations
of the supporting ground mass and displacements of the anchorages
shall be considered in the design of the bridge components. If neces-
sary, the soil shall be stabilized to protect the bridge from damage due to
lateral deformation and applied forces.
Soil Liquefaction: This earthquake will be used to assess liquefaction
potential and corresponding downdrag forces, if applicable. If liquefiable
soils are determined to be present, and it has been determined that
they will in fact liquefy under the design earthquake for the site, the soil
shall be stabilized to protect the bridge from damage due to lateral de-

References
formation and downdrag caused by the liquefaction, or the structure

shall be designed to withstand the forces and moments resulting from
the lateral and vertical movements caused by the liquefaction. Addition-
ally, the design of the foundations shall be evaluated with the soil in a
liquefied state.
The Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE) will correspond to an

event with a mean return period of 100 years. For this event, the per-
formance level will be “No Damage”, with no permanent offsets for all
structural elements. For reinforced concrete elements, “No Damage”
for the FEE event shall be based on the member strengths determined
using the strain limitations given in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.
The seismic performance of the bridge shall be assessed by comparing

estimated structural demands on components with estimated structural
capacities of those components. Demands and capacities are defined
in following sections.
When checking seismic conditions, use the corrosion allowance for pile
casings at 50 percent of the design service life (75 years).
Ground motions for use in dynamic seismic analysis of the bridge struc-
ture shall be taken from the project Geotechnical Report. The ground
motions shall consist of three, 3-component time histories consistent
with the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) and one, 3-component
time history consistent with the Functional Evaluation Earthquake
(FEE). Each time history shall consist of 2-horizontal orthogonal com-
ponents and one vertical component.
The ground motions will be based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis (PSHA). Seismogenic sources to be considered in the PSHA
will include but are not limited to the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ),
shallow crustal sources (including the Seattle Fault), and the subcrustal
intraplate zone within the subducted Juan de Fuca plate beneath the
region. Uniform hazard spectra shall be developed for the SEE and
FEE risk levels based on the results of the PSHA. Deaggregation of
the hazard identified in the PSHA at both the SEE and FEE levels will
be conducted to evaluate predominant earthquake sources, magni-
tudes, and distances at the SEE and FEE levels. The ground motion
time histories for the SEE and FEE will be selected based on their re-
spective uniform hazard spectra developed from the PSHA such that
the average spectral intensity of the horizontal ground motion compo-
nents are at least equal to the spectral intensity of the uniform hazard
spectra over a period range of engineering significance for the bridge.
The ground motion time histories for the SEE and FEE will also be se-
lected consistent with the predominant earthquake sources, magni-
tudes, and distances identified in the deaggregation. The ground mo-
tions shall also consider the site response characteristics at each foun-
dation location and spatial incoherency between foundations.
5.3 Analyses for determination of demands
Demands on structural components of the bridge shall be determined

by analysis of global three dimensional computer models of the bridge

References
that represent its dominant linear and nonlinear behavior and the ef-
fects of soil-structure interaction. Demands will be evaluated as load-
type quantities (forces and moments) or as displacement-type quanti-
ties (displacements, relative displacements, and rotations) as required
by the evaluation rules for various components.
5.3.1 Service Load Demands and Combination with Seismic

Demands
For combination with seismic demands, component demands due to

dead load, live load, temperature changes, and wind shall be deter-
mined by static analyses of global models.
For final design, seismic demands shall be determined by nonlinear

multi-support dynamic time history analysis. The analysis will be for
multiple-support excitations developed considering the propogation of
the seismic waves from the fault to the bridge site and the passage of
seismic waves through the site to account for incoherence of the seis-
mic motions. Three sets of ground motions shall be used for the safety
evaluation (SEE); one set of ground motions shall be used for the func-
tional evaluation (FEE). The design shall be based on the maximum
response obtained from these analyses in conjunction with the perfor-
mance goals for the SEE and FEE events.
Seismic analysis will be performed using ADINA general-purpose finite
element software. Both dead load and seismic load analyses will be
geometrically non-linear to account for the geometric stiffness of the
cable elements. Boundary condition non-linearities will be accounted
for in the form of gap elements at expansion joints and foundation im-
pedances. The nonlinear structural model will explicitly consider the
geometric nonlinearity, inelastic structural components and other inelas-
tic elements (e.g. dampers). Any reinforced concrete members with a
force Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratio larger than 0.5 will be modeled with
adjusted material and section properties to represent the cracked sec-
tion. Structural steel members with a force D/C ratio less than 1.5 will
be modeled with elastic elements. Any members with a force D/C ratio
larger than 1.5 will be modeled with nonlinear elements.
Rayleigh damping will be incorporated into the model with values for
each element group representing the expected extent of inelastic ener-
gy dissipation in that group. Groups of members represented with non-
linear properties will exclude Rayleigh damping if energy dissipation
characteristics are modeled.


References
Soil- Structure Interaction shall be considered using nonlinear springs in

the global model. The properties of the springs will be determined from
local models, and shall include group effects. See Section 6.3 for fur-
ther discussion.
For seismic evaluation, reinforced concrete strength shall be calculated
as 30% higher than the 56-day concrete strength.
5.3.3 Nonlinear Stand-Alone Analysis for Evaluating Tower
Seismic Demands for Initial Design
Nonlinear stand-alone analyses shall be performed on the bridge tower-

foundation system to supplement the elastic global three-dimensional
multi-support dynamic time history analyses during the Initial Design
Phase. These analyses will provide an acceptable assessment of con-
trolling seismic demands for tower components for the SEE or FEE
events in support of the Initial Design deliverables. Final design of the
tower-foundation system will be based on results of global three-
dimensional nonlinear multi-support dynamic time history analyses.
5.4 Analyses for determination of capacities
Capacities of structural components of the bridge shall be determined

by analysis of local elastic and inelastic computer models of the com-
ponents. Capacities will be evaluated as load-type quantities (forces
and moments) or as displacement-type quantities (displacements, rela-
tive displacements, rotations, and curvatures) as required for various
components.
Cable System: The load capacity of cables shall be taken as the net
cable area, which is based on the gross wire area, times the propor-
tional limit stress of the wire. The load capacity of the suspenders shall
be taken as half the ultimate strength of the wire rope.
For Group VII and VIIA Load Cases, the stiffening truss, deck plate,
ribs and floor beams will be designed for a demand to capacity (D/C)
ratio of no greater than 1.0. The D/C ratio for the floor truss bracing
members and bottom laterals should not exceed 1.5.
5.4.2 Allowable Concrete Strain Values
SEE event: The stress-strain relationships developed by Mander for Commentary C5.4.2
confined concrete will be used. For all reinforced and prestressed con-
crete elements, including steel cased piles and drilled shafts, the maxi-
mum allowable concrete strains shall be taken as 75 percent of the ul-
timate strains determined by Mander’s equations.
FEE event: A maximum concrete strain of 0.004 shall be used for all
reinforced concrete elements.
5.4.3 Allowable Reinforcement Strain Values
SEE event: To achieve the performance goals for the SEE event, the
strains in tower leg reinforcement shall be limited to pg, and strains in

References
pile and drilled shaft reinforcement limited to pp as follows:
REINFORCEMENT u pg pp

#11, #14 & #18

#10 and Smaller
Spirals & Hoops 0.12 0.08 0.06

#8 and Smaller
Tower Leg Spirals & Ties 0.12 0.05 NA Commentary C5.4.3

#8 and Smaller
Where:
u = ultimate steel strain
pg = design level of peak cyclical steel strain for tower "per-

formance goals"
pp = design level of peak steel strain for pile and drilled shaft "per-
formance goals"
The values of pg and pp given in this table are to be used for evaluat-
ing the moment-curvature relationship for all column and pile plastic
hinges.
FEE event: To achieve the performance goals for the FEE event, the
strains in tower leg and pile reinforcement shall be limited to s = 0.015.
5.4.4 Steel Pile Casings and Permanent Steel Shells
Steel pile casings and permanent steel shells for drilled shafts (herein-
after called “casings”) will supplement the pile strength and ductility
provided that the effective casing thickness after full allowance for cor-
rosion is at least 1/16 inch. For all BDM Load Groups except Groups
VII, VIIA, XIA and XIB, the effective casing shall consider full allowance
for corrosion as defined in Section 3.2.2. For Load Groups VII, VIIA,
XIA and XIB, the effective casing shall consider one-half the allowance
for corrosion as defined in Section 3.2.2.
Steel pile casings may be assumed to act compositely with the interior
reinforced concrete section provided that an adequate shear transfer
mechanism is included at the casing/concrete interface. Shear transfer
may be augmented by the addition of welded shear rings or other me-
chanical devices at the casing/concrete interface. Shear transfer will be
assessed as described in American Petroleum Institute (API) RP-
2A/LRFD, 1st edition, July 1993 and February 1997 supplement - Sec-
tion H.4, Grouted Pile to Structure Connection.


References
At the pile casing tip and casing cut-off elevations, the casing will be
assumed to contribute only lateral confinement for a distance of 2 times
the pile diameter. With the allowance for corrosion considered, the cas-
ing in these regions may be assumed to contribute 100 percent of its
net area for confinement. In any case, piles shall have minimum spiral
or hoop confinement reinforcing equal to #5 @ 6” spacing.
With the allowance for corrosion considered, the casing may be as-
sumed to contribute up to 80 percent of its net area to flexural capacity
of a section and up to 20 percent of its net area to confinement of the
pile interior. In any case, piles shall have minimum spiral or hoop con-
finement reinforcing equal to #5 @ 6” spacing. Also, the pile longitudinal
reinforcing bars within the casing should contribute to at least 50 per-
cent of the pile flexural capacity. Excess pile flexural capacity provided
by the steel casing will be ignored.
The casing contribution to foundation stiffness will be based on the net

casing thickness after allowance for corrosion . A sensitivity study will
be performed to assess the structural seismic response with no allow-
ance for corrosion in pile casings.
The maximum allowable casing strains are as follows:
Longitudinal Tension (along pile axis) 0.02

Longitudinal Compression (along pile axis) 0.01
Where steel casing acts compositely with the concrete pile interior:
Hoop Tension (on net casing with 0.040

corrosion allowance)
Where details are provided such that the steel casing does not act
compositely with the concrete pile interior and longitudinal compression
strains in the casing are negligible:



References
5.4.5 Plastic Hinge Length
The maximum length of plastic hinges (Lp) in a solid section may be

taken as
Lp = 0.08*Lc + 9*db ATC-32
Lc = Distance from point of maximum moment to point of con-

tra-flexure in a column.
db = diameter of reinforcement
For initial design, the maximum length of column plastic hinges in a hol-
low section may be taken as:
Lp = 1.0 * H
where H = Section dimension in the direction of seismic loading.
For final design, the length of column plastic hinges in a hollow section Commentary C5.4.5
shall be determined by detailed component modeling of the section,
considering the section geometry, aspect ratio, working stresses under
dead load and reinforcing ratio.
5.4.6 Curvature Ductility Check Commentary C5.4.6
For reinforced concrete sections which are anticipated to experience

inelastic behavior in a SEE event, the minimum section curvature ductil-
ity capacity shall be :
c u y 4.0
Where :
u section ultimate curvature defined by using u given in

Section 5.4.3.
y section yield curvature defined by using y


Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Project, California
Photo credit: Port of Long Beach

Exhibit 2-13-A
GERALD DESMOND BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
USED WITH PERMISSION OF CALTRANS AND PORT OF LONG BEACH, CA
Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement

Exhibit 2-13-A - Design Criteria Page i

5. SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic design of the Project shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and Cal-
trans Guide Specifications for Seismic Design of Steel Bridges, augmented with pertinent provisions of ATC-
32, NCHRP 12-49, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, with California Amendments,
AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, PTI Recommendations for Cable Stay Design,
Testing, and Installation, and Project specific criteria as detailed in this document.
Seismic design of the Project shall consider both the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE) and the lower level
Functional Evaluation Earthquake (FEE).
Seismic performance levels, expressed in terms of damage levels, are defined as follows:
“No Damage”: Defined for structural members as the nominal capacity as described in AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, with California Amendments. Nominal, not expected material
properties shall be used and increased member strength due to the effects of confinement steel shall be ig-
nored. “No damage” is defined as full serviceability without repair or replacement.
“Minimal damage”: Although minor inelastic response may occur, post-earthquake damage is limited to
narrow cracking in concrete, and inconsequential yielding of secondary steel members. Damage to non-
structural components of the cable system would be allowed.
“Moderate damage”: Inelastic response may occur, resulting in concrete cracking, reinforcement yield,
minor spalling of cover concrete and minor yielding of structural steel. The extent of damage shall be suf-
ficiently limited such that the structure can be restored essentially to its pre-earthquake condition without
replacement of reinforcement or replacement of structural members.
“Significant damage”: Damage consisting of concrete cracking, reinforcement yielding, major spalling of
concrete and deformations in minor bridge components which may require closure of the bridge to repair.
Partial or complete replacement of secondary elements may be required in some cases. Secondary ele-
ments are those that are not a part of the gravity load resisting system.
Meeting the stress and strain limits specified in these criteria form the basis for satisfying the seismic perfor-
mance level goals of the Project.
The SEE for structural evaluation corresponds to a mean return period of 1,000 years, representing approx-
imately a 10% probability of occurrence in 100 years. In this earthquake, the bridge can be subject to primarily
“minimal damage” with some “moderate damage” and some “significant damage” in secondary components as
described in this section.
The Design-Builder shall design the bridge components to the following behavior levels under the SEE:
Piles/Drilled Shafts: Minimal damage.
Pile Caps: Minimal damage
Approach Bridge columns and abutments (above pile caps): Moderate damage.
Main Span Bridge Towers and End Bents (above pile caps): Minimal damage.
Energy Dissipating Shear Links, if used (at Main Span Bridge Towers and End Bents): Significant dam-
age.
Approach Bridge abutment backwalls: Significant damage.
Superstructure: Minimal damage.

Exhibit 2-13-A - Design Criteria Page 11

Bearings, Hinge Beams and Shear Keys: Moderate damage.
Expansion Joints: Significant damage, without collapse of the joint
Cable Systems (structural elements): No damage.
Cable Systems (non-structural elements): Minimal damage.
Permanent offsets at Main Span Bridge towers and end bents at the deck level relative to pile caps must
be avoided, except at the SEE level permanent offsets not exceeding 6” in any direction are permitted.
Such offsets are exclusive of affects from adjoining Approach Bridges. Seismic affects from supported
Approach Bridge spans shall be considered and shall not contribute to the end bents exceeding the 6" re-
sidual displacement. Approach Bridge span residual displacements at the end bents need not comply
with the 6" residual displacement limit. Permanent offsets of the foundations are also permissible if the
strain limits specified in Section 5.4 of this document are not exceeded and the permanent offsets do not
prevent use of the bridge subsequent to the SEE event after repairs are completed.
Soil Liquefaction: The SEE event shall be used to assess liquefaction potential and corresponding downdrag
forces, if applicable. If liquefiable soils are determined to be present, and it has been determined that they may
in fact liquefy under the design earthquake for the site, the structure shall be designed to withstand the forces
and moments resulting from the lateral and vertical movements caused by the liquefaction. Soil stabilization
may be used to mitigate liquefaction conditions. Additionally, the design of the foundations shall be evaluated
with the soil in a liquefied state.
Slope Stability: For the SEE event, deformations of the supporting ground mass and displacements of the
slopes shall be considered in the design of the bridge components. If necessary, the soil shall be stabilized to
protect the bridge from damage due to lateral spreading, soil deformation and associated applied forces.
The FEE is defined as an earthquake that has a return period of 100 years, representing approximately a 60%
probability of occurrence in 100 years. In this earthquake, Approach Bridges can be subject to damage only if
it can be classified as “minimal”. The Main Span Bridge, including Main Span Bridge tower, end bents, sup-
porting piles, superstructure, and stay cable system shall meet the requirements of the “No Damage” perfor-
mance level. Main Span Bridge and Approach Bridge bearings shall meet the requirements of the “No Dam-
age” performance level. The expansion joint between the Main Span Bridge and Approaches Bridges shall
meet the requirements of the “Minimal Damage” performance level. For reinforced concrete elements, “mi-
nimal damage” for the FEE event shall be based on the member strengths determined using the strain limita-
tions given in Section 5.4.
The seismic performance of all structures shall be assessed by verifying estimated structural demands on com-
ponents are less than or equal to estimated structural capacities of those components. Methods for determining
demands and capacities are defined in the following sections.
When significant yielding of components is allowed, demand and capacity are defined by strain or rotational
limits. When components are required to remain elastic or experience minor yielding, demand and capacity
are defined by force Demand/Capacity (D/C) ratios.
All capacity-protected components, as defined by Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria or these criteria, shall have
a force D/C ratio of 1.0 or less when subjected to over-strength forces.
When checking seismic conditions, use the corrosion allowance for pile casings at 50 percent of the 100-year
design life.
The horizontal diaphragms and tension elements that transfer for from one stay to the next between shafts or
elements that make up a tower or end bent column, if used, shall be capacity protected.


5.1.5 Seismic Loading during Construction
For all bridges, the seismic loading during all phases of construction shall be designed to resist forces as de-
scribed in Caltrans Bridge Memo to Designers 20-2.
Ground motions for use in dynamic seismic analysis of the bridge structures shall be taken from the Project
Seismic Ground Motion Report information provided in Book 2, Section 8, Exhibit 2-8-F which documents
the project-specific ARS design curves and spectrum-compatible ground motion time histories for the SEE and
FEE. The Project consists of three soil zones: West Approach, Main Span, and East Approach. For each soil
zone, ARS design curves and earthquake time histories that were spectrally matched to the ARS design curves
were developed using the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses (PSHA) and considering the site response
characteristics of the subsoils. Revision to the project-specific ARS design curves and earthquake time histo-
ries provided in in Book 2, Section 8, Exhibit 2-8-F will not be allowed.
Non-linear time history and response spectrum analyses shall be used in the evaluation of the bridges, as de-
scribed in Section 5.3.2. For the purpose of non-linear time history analyses, the ground motions shall consist
of three, 3-component time histories consistent with the SEE and one, 3-component time history consistent
with the FEE. Each time history shall consist of 2-horizontal orthogonal components and one vertical compo-
nent. For the SEE, the envelope of the three time-history ground motion analyses results shall be used to de-
sign the bridge.
The Project Site is located in the seismically active southern California area. The principal faults affecting the
seismic hazard of the bridge are the Newport-Inglewood (Cherry Hill Segment) Fault northeast of the bridge
and the Palos Verdes Fault southwest of the bridge. Since the location of the bridge places it in close proximity
to the two active faults, near-fault directivity effects, including velocity pulses, shall be included in the time
history analyses.
5.3 Analyses for Determination of Demands
Demands on structural components of a bridge shall be determined by analysis of global three dimensional
computer models of the bridge that represent its dominant linear and nonlinear behavior and the effects of soil-
foundation-structure interaction. Demands shall be evaluated as load-type quantities (forces and moments) or
as displacement-type quantities (displacements, relative displacements, and rotations) as required by the eval-
uation rules for various components.
5.3.1 Service Load Demands and Combination with Seismic Demands
For combination with seismic demands, component demands due to dead load, traffic load, temperature
changes, and wind shall be determined by static analyses of global models.
Seismic demands shall be determined by nonlinear dynamic time history analysis for the Main Span Bridge
and at least one Approach Bridge frame, but not less than 700 feet of Approach Bridge, adjacent to each end of
the Main Span Bridge. The analysis shall be completed for uniform support excitations for all pier locations
within the same soil zone developed for the project.
Appropriate analysis methods as specified in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria shall be used for all other Ap-
proach Bridge structures.
Non-linear dynamic time-history analysis shall incorporate the following:
• Both dead load and seismic load analyses shall be geometrically non-linear to account for the geometric
stiffness of the cable elements.
• Boundary condition non-linearities shall be accounted for in the form of gap elements at expansion joints
and foundation impedances.
• The structural model shall explicitly consider the geometric nonlinearity, inelastic structural components

and other inelastic elements (e.g. dampers). Any reinforced concrete members with a force De-
mand/Capacity (D/C) ratio larger than 0.5 shall be modeled with adjusted material and section properties to
represent the cracked section. Structural steel members with a force D/C ratio less than 1.5 shall be mod-
eled with elastic elements. Any members with a force D/C ratio larger than 1.5 shall be modeled with non-
linear elements.
Rayleigh damping is to be used for non-linear dynamic time-history analysis. Modal damping may be used for
other analytical tools. The range of Rayleigh damping values represents the target maximum and minimum
damping values that apply over the dominant periods of the various element groups.
The maximum upper range of Rayleigh damping for non-linear dynamic time-history analysis shall not ex-
ceed the following:
Reinforced Concrete Columns: 4% - 6%

Reinforced Concrete Towers: 4% - 6%
Steel Towers: 2% - 5%
Steel Superstructure: 2% - 5%
Concrete Superstructure: 3% - 5%
Foundations: 8%
Rayleigh damping shall be incorporated into the model with values for each element group representing the
expected extent of inelastic energy dissipation in that group. The range of dominant periods for the various
bridge components used to select Rayleigh damping shall capture at least 90% of the mass of the bridge com-
ponents under consideration. If higher Rayleigh damping is used at a foundation, the higher damping shall be
limited to piling and pile caps that are entirely below grade and shall be established from bridge foundation
only component models. Anchor points used for establishing Rayleigh damping at foundations shall be se-
lected for the range of dominate periods of the foundation elements that capture at a minimum 90% of the
mass of the foundation elements. When the pile cap dominates the foundations response, it is acceptable to
exclude the mass of piles from the bridge foundation only component model. When soil springs or other
foundation elements are represented by hysteretic elements in global models, total foundation damping shall
not exceed an equivalent viscous damping of 8% with respect to the foundation stiffness and mass in defining
the Rayleigh damping parameters.
Modal Damping for Other Analytical Tools:
Reinforced Concrete Columns: 5%

Reinforced Concrete Towers: 5%
Steel Towers: 3%
Steel Superstructure: 3%
Concrete Superstructure: 5%
Main Span Bridge tower shafts and end bent column shaft seismic energy dissipation elements, if used, shall
be explicitly modeled to represent the energy dissipation characteristics of each seismic energy dissipation
element.
The global seismic analysis model for the Main Span Bridge shall use explicit foundation modeling for the
Main Span Bridge and at least one Approach Bridge frame, but not less than 700 feet of Approach Bridge,
adjacent to each end of the Main Span Bridge. Explicit foundation modeling in the global model shall use the
same spectrum-compatible motions applied uniformly at all depth at the ground nodes along the full length of
the pile. The explicit foundation modeling shall include a representation of each individual pile, with distri-
buted soil supports over the entire length of the pile. The uniform ground motions documented in Book 2, Sec-
tion 8, Exhibit 2-8-F shall be used to excite the soil-pile structure system.
For all other structures, foundation substructure models may be used to capture significant soil-pile interaction
effects. The foundation substructure should consist of a linear stiffness and mass matrices representing the
entire soil-pile system. The linearized foundation stiffness and mass matrices must be approximated with the
anticipated strain levels during the design earthquake. The project ground motions developed in each soil zone
shall be used to excite the foundation substructure. The same input earthquake ground motions shall be used
for all supports within the same soil zone.


When modeling of foundations for seismic demand evaluations, softening effects of local soils shall be consi-
dered including seismic induced large deformations and liquefaction. The ground motions documented in
Book 2, Section 8, Exhibit 2-8-F shall be used for all cases of foundation modeling, with and without soften-
ing effects.
When checking AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, with California Amendments,
Extreme Event I, a permanent load factor , p, of 1.0 shall be used for Load Type DC.
Damping curves shall be submitted with the seismic analysis and design.
5.3.3 Nonlinear Local Analysis for Evaluating Seismic Demands
At a minimum, nonlinear local analyses shall be performed on the following bridge elements or conditions to
supplement the global three dimensional nonlinear multi-support dynamic time- history analysis:
Regions of significant Stress Concentrations (such as seismic energy dissipation elements, tower diaph-
ragms, tower tension ties, mid-span pipe hinges, etc)
Locations of discontinuous load path
Fracture critical elements
Energy dissipating regions and devices
These analyses shall provide independent assessment of controlling seismic demands based on the assumption
of maximum plastic moments and forces developed by potential plastic hinges or other inelastic behavior.
These analyses shall be used to confirm adequate structural performance in the event that the SEE demands
obtained from the global time-history analysis are exceeded.
5.4 Analyses for Determination of Capacities
Capacities of structural components of a bridge shall be determined by analysis of local elastic and inelastic
computer models of the components. Capacities shall be evaluated as load-type quantities (forces and mo-
ments) or as displacement-type quantities (displacements, relative displacements, rotations, and curvatures) as
required by the evaluation rules for various components.
Cable Stays: The load capacity of cable stays shall in accordance with PTI Recommendations for Cable Stay
Design, Testing, and Installation.
5.4.2 Tower Shafts and Strain Limits
The towers shall be designed in accordance with ATC-32 Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California
Bridges: Provisional Recommendations augmented by the following requirements:
l/ lreq > 2.0
b/t 2l
Pmax /Area 0.6Fy
Where:
l = the relative stiffness of the longitudinal stiffener to the tower skin wall
b/t = the width to thickness ratio of the skin wall
Pmax /Area = the maximum axial stress


Main Span Bridge steel tower allowable strain limit value at the SEE Event shall meet the following require-
ments:
Tower without seismic energy dissipation elements: 4* y where y is the yield strain of the steel
Tower with seismic energy dissipation elements: The tower shall be designed to remain essentially elastic.
Main Span Bridge steel tower allowable strain limit value at the FEE Event shall not exceed y.
5.4.3 Tower Connections
Tower splices shall be designed for the expected yield strength capacity of the component in accordance with
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, with California Amendments.
Tower anchorage to the foundation shall be designed based on global push-over of the tower. The capacity of
the tower anchorage shall be larger than the over strength demands associated with plastic hinging of the tower
shaft. The capacity shall be evaluated in accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th
Edition, with California Amendments.
5.4.4 Reinforced Concrete Component Capacities
The expected nominal moment capacity Mne of ductile reinforced concrete members and capacity protected
members as defined in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Section 3.4 shall be based on expected material
strengths:
f’ce = 1.3 * f'c (expected concrete compressive strength)

fye =68 ksi (ASTM A706, Grade 60) (expected reinforcement yield)
Maximum concrete strains at the nominal moment capacity M ne shall not exceed 0.003, and the reinforcing
steel strains shall be limited to the allowable reinforcement strain values defined in Section 5.4.6 of this docu-
ment.
Capacity protected members shall be designed for forces derived from design overstrength moments (M o) of
the members framing into the capacity protected member. The design overstrength moment M o shall be based
on expected material strengths.
Plastic moments shall be determined from moment-curvature analysis that considers the effects of concrete
confinement and strain hardening of the reinforcement. The overstrength moment shall be taken as 1.20 times
the calculated plastic moment at the design deformation of the element.
The horizontal diaphragms between shafts or elements that make up a tower or end bent column, if used, shall
be capacity protected.


The allowable concrete strain values for each earthquake level and components shall be according to the table
below. The stress-strain relationships developed by Mander for confined concrete shall be used to calculate the
values as a percentage of cu. When the “no damage” performance level is required, concrete strain limit of
0.003 pursuant to AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, with California Amendments,
Section 5.7.2.1 shall be taken at the extreme face of the concrete component and not the confined core.
ALLOWABLE CONCRETE STRAIN VALUES
SEE FEE
Location
Dam- Dam-
Strain Strain
age age
0.004 0.003
Main Span Bridge Towers Minimal No
0.4 cu
0.004 0.003
Main Span Bridge End Bents Minimal No
0.4 cu
0.004 0.003
Main Span Bridge CISS/CIDH Piles Minimal No
0.4 cu
Mod- 0.015 0.004
Approach Bridge Columns Minimal
erate 0.75 cu
0.01 0.004
Approach Bridge CISS/CIDH Piles Minimal Minimal
0.5 cu
Mod- 0.015 0.004
All other Elements Minimal
erate 0.75 cu
cu definition shall be per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria.
5.4.6 Allowable Reinforcement Strain Values
To achieve the performance goals for the SEE and FEE event, the strains in reinforced concrete members,
shall be limited to the values in the table below. The design level of peak steel strain values given in this table
are to be used for evaluating the moment-curvature relationship for all potential plastic hinge areas.
ALLOWABLE REINFORCEMENT STRAIN VALUES

SEE FEE
Location Dam-
Damage Strain Strain
age
Main Span Bridge Towers Minimal 0.015 No -
Main Span Bridge End Bents Minimal 0.015 No -
Main Span Bridge Tower + End Bents Lateral Rein- -

Minimal 0.05 No
forcement (Bars #8 and Smaller)
Main Span Bridge CISS/CIDH Piles Minimal 0.015 No -
Approach Bridge Columns (Bars #11, #14 & #18) Moderate 0.05 Minimal 0.015
Approach Bridge Columns (Bars #10 and Smaller) Moderate 0.06 Minimal 0.015
Approach Bridge CISS/CIDH Piles Minimal 0.02 Minimal 0.015
All other Elements Moderate 0.06 Minimal 0.015
R
u, su, sh fu, fue, y, ye, definitions shall be per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria.


5.4.7 Main Span Bridge Tower and End Bent Shaft Energy Dissipating Shear Link (If Energy
Dissipating Shear Link Are Used)
Except for base fixity resistance from the dual columns, frame lateral resistance shall only be from the interac-
tion of the twin columns and Energy Dissipating Shear Links or Seismic Energy Fuses. All loading combina-
tions not including seismic loads shall not exceed the nominal yield strength of the Energy Dissipating Shear
Links or Seismic Energy Fuses.
All components of Energy Dissipating Shear Link or Seismic Energy Fuse connections to Main Span Bridge
tower shafts and end bent column shafts shall be designed as capacity-protected elements and shall be detailed
to permit their removal and replacement after a seismic event.
The rotation demand on Energy Dissipating Shear Links or Seismic Energy Fuses shall be limited to a maxi-
mum value of 0.01 radians at the SEE level and 0.003 radians at the FEE level.
5.4.8 Energy Dissipating Shear Link Testing (If Energy Dissipating Shear Links Are Used)
Full scale proto-type laboratory cyclic load testing of the Energy Dissipating Shear Links shall be performed
to verify the required ductility and strength of the link is achieved; to confirm the adequacy of the connection
to towers; and to demonstrate that the Energy Dissipating Shear Links can be readily removed and replaced
after it has reached the required maximum ductility demand as shown by analysis. The over-strength factor to
be used when designing Energy Dissipating Shear Link capacity protected components shall be established by
the full-scale testing.
The quasi-static loading protocol for testing the Energy Dissipating Shear Links shall consist of three distinc-
tive phases as summarized in Tables 1 to 3 and illustrated in Figure 1.
The first and the second phase of the loading history reflect the actual cumulative link rotation demands under
design earthquake loadings. Each of them representing a complete deformation history resulted from design
SEE event in terms of the maximum link rotation and the total number of inelastic cycles. In Phase I the de-
formation sequence closely follows the response time history which contains large velocity pulses; whereas in
Phase II the deformation sequence is arranged in the order of increasing rotation amplitude.
Table 1: Energy Dissipating Shear Link Test Loading Sequence Phase I

Load Step Link Rotation Amplitude (Radians) Number of Cycles
1 0.00375 1
2 0.03000 1
3 0.01000 1
4 0.00750 1
5 0.00500 2
6 0.00375 1
7 0.01500 1
8 0.01000 1
9 0.00500 1
10 0.00375 2
Table 2: Energy Dissipating Shear Link Test Loading Sequence Phase II
11 0.00375 4
12 0.00500 3
13 0.00750 3
14 0.01000 4
15 0.01500 3
16 0.02000 1
17 0.03000 1

Table 3: Energy Dissipating Shear Link Test Loading Sequence Phase III
18 0.04000 1
19 0.06000 1
20 0.08000 1
21 0.10000 1
22 0.12000 1
FIGURE 1 – Loading History for Energy Dissipating Shear Link Test
In Phase III the loading cycle continues at increments of 0.02 radians, with one cycle at each increment until
link failure occurs. The link is considered as failed when significant loss of strength occurs. If in case the link
failure does not occur when the actuator has reached its maximum capacity (of either force or stroke), the load-
ing cycle shall be kept at the constant rotation amplitude that corresponding to the maximum capacity of the
actuator and repeated until link failure occurs.
The acceptance criterion is set forth as follows: For the given loading protocol, the test specimen must sustain
the required shear link rotation angle for at least one full cycle prior to the link shear strength dropping below
the nominal link shear strength.
The Design-Builder shall provide a Energy Dissipating Shear Link Testing Protocol to the Port that includes
the following:
- Structural laboratory location and name of facility to test the specimen.

- Step by step process for how testing is to be completed
- Test goals and requirements
- Evaluation of test acceptance criteria provided in the Contract Documents as well as additional test-
ing requirements the Design-Builder may want to add
- Explanation of design method with expected theoretical testing results
- Roles and responsibilities of testing laboratory and the Design-Builder
- Schedule
- Test report table of contents
- Post testing evaluation procedures
- Mitigation procedures and strategies to limit impact to the Project if a test were to not meet accep-
tance criteria.

The minimum requirements for structural laboratory are, at a minimum:
- The structural laboratory shall be capable of conducting the required full scale Energy Dissipating
Shear Link test including: provision of loading mechanism, specimen setup, instrumentation installa-
tion, testing of the instrumentation, acquisition and interpretation of the data;
- Principal-in-charge and staff members shall have applicable experiences on similar tests;
- The structural laboratory shall be able to finish the test within the time frame required.
The Design-Builder shall submit a Energy Dissipating Shear Link Test Report showing the specimen(s) have
met the test acceptance criterion provided in the Approved Energy Dissipating Shear Link Testing Protocol.
Data shall be provided and certified by the testers and testing agency.
5.4.9 Concrete Pile Caps
All concrete pile caps shall be designed as capacity protected members for over-strength forces generated from
bent columns, towers, and piles.
5.4.10 Allowable CISS Pile Shell Strain Values
Permanent steel shells for CISS concrete piles (hereinafter called “casings”) shall supplement the pile strength
and ductility provided that the effective casing thickness after full allowance for corrosion is at least 1/16 inch.
For all non-seismic loading conditions, the effective casing shall consider full allowance for corrosion as de-
fined in Section 3.2.3. For all seismic evaluations, the effective casing shall consider one-half the allowance
for corrosion as defined in Section 3.2.3.
Steel pile casings may be assumed to act compositely with the interior reinforced concrete section provided
that an adequate shear transfer mechanism is included at the casing/concrete interface. Shear transfer may be
augmented by the addition of welded shear rings or other mechanical devices at the casing/concrete interface.
Shear transfer shall be assessed as described in American Petroleum Institute (API) RP-2A/LRFD - Section
H.4, Grouted Pile to Structure Connection.
At the pile casing tip and casing cut-off elevations, the casing shall be assumed to contribute only lateral con-
finement for a distance of 2 times the pile diameter. With the allowance for corrosion considered, the casing in
these regions may be assumed to contribute 100 percent of its net area for confinement. In any case, piles shall
have minimum spiral or hoop confinement reinforcing equal to #6 @ 6 inch spacing.
With the allowance for corrosion considered, the casing may be assumed to contribute up to 80 percent of its
net area to flexural capacity of a section and up to 20 percent of its net area to confinement of the pile interior.
In any case, piles shall have minimum spiral or hoop confinement reinforcing equal to #6 @ 6 inch spacing.
Also, the pile longitudinal reinforcing bars within the casing should contribute to at least 50 percent of the pile
flexural capacity.
The casing contribution to foundation stiffness shall be based on the net casing thickness after allowance for
corrosion. A sensitivity study shall be performed to assess the structural seismic response with no allowance
for corrosion in pile casings.
The maximum allowable casing strains are as follows:
Longitudinal Tension (along pile axis) 0.02

Longitudinal Compression (along pile axis) 0.01
Where steel casing acts compositely with the concrete pile interior:

Where details are provided such that the steel casing does not act compositely with the concrete pile interior
and longitudinal compression strains in the casing are negligible:



5.4.11 Shear Design of Ductile Concrete Members
The shear design of reinforced concrete members that are detailed as ductile members that may experience
yielding shall conform to Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, Section 3.6.
In addition, for any hollow sections as described in Section 5.4.12 and shown in Figure 2, the concrete shear
capacity component, Vc, shall be based on the web sections only, where the web section is defined as the
longer slender section parallel to the direction of the demand shear force.
Similarly, the reinforcement shear capacity component, Vs, shall be based on the rebar in and extending along
the full length of the web section, and parallel to the direction of the demand shear force only. No other rein-
forcements (long bars, cross ties, rebars in flange sections) shall be allowed to contribute to the shear capacity,
Vs. The web shear reinforcement shall be fully developed into the web/flange joints.
For cross ties, lap splices shall be the full length of the bars, if lap splices are used.
The maximum length of plastic hinges (Lp) in a solid section shall be as specified by Seismic Design Criteria
Equation 7.25
The length of plastic hinges at CISS pile connection to pile cap shall be as follows:
Lp = G + 0.3fyedbl 0.08L + 0.15fyedbl
Where fye, dbl, and L are defined by Seismic Design Criteria Equations 7.25 and 7.26
G = The gap, if any, between the top of the CISS pile steel shell and the bottom of the pile cap.
The required shape of hollow Approach Bridge bent columns is shown in Figure 2, have been reviewed by the
Department, and have been determined to provide acceptable seismic performance characteristics up to a duc-
tility demand of 3, if the following criteria are met:
• Section Geometry: The hollow section walls with curved faces shall be configured with a flat inside
face as shown in Figure 2.
• Cross Ties in curved walls: 180 degree hooks shall be used for all cross ties in curved walls.
• Cross Ties in flat walls: Cross ties shall have alternating 180 degree and 90 degree hooks. In lieu of
90 degree hooks, T-head bar ends may be used.
The Design-Builder shall evaluate the performance of hollow Approach Bridge bent columns using the plastic
hinge length (Lp) given in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria.
The shear capacity of hollow Approach Bridge bent column sections shall not rely on lap spliced lateral ties.
If the Design-Builder changes the hollow shape from that shown in Figure 2, full scale testing shall be pro-
vided and the Design-Builder shall submit a testing protocol for Approval.


Hoover Dam Bypass Colorado River Bridge, Nevada/Arizona
Photo credit: T.Y. Lin International


For
Hoover Dam Bypass
Colorado River Bridge
October 30, 2003
Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Hoover Dam Bypass Project
HDR/Sverdrup/TYLinInternational
Colorado River Bridge October 30, 2003

Design Criteria page 1

6. SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic design of the bridge will be performed based on limit state design
as an extreme limit state for the final configuration of the structure.

Seismic design shall be based on a 10% probability of exceedance in AMEC, “Seismic Exposure
100 years for the design seismic event for the permanent structure. The Evaluation,” May, 2002
PGA for the site has been established as .2g. Construction stage tem-
porary works design will be based on a 10% probability of exceedance in
2 years.
The performance levels expressed in terms of damage levels are defined

as follows:
“No Damage”: Defined for structural members as the nominal capacity

as described in LRFD. “No damage” is defined as full serviceability with-
out repair or replacement.

earthquake damage is limited to narrow cracking in concrete and incon-
sequential yielding of secondary steel members. Permanent offsets
should be avoided.
“Repairable damage”: Inelastic response may occur, resulting in concrete

cracking, reinforcement yield, minor spalling of cover concrete, and minor
yielding of structural steel. The extent of damage should be sufficiently ATC-32 C3.21.2.3
limited that the structure can be restored essentially to its pre-earthquake
condition without replacement of reinforcement or replacement of struc-
tural members. Repair should not require closure.
“Significant damage”: Although there is minimum risk of collapse, perma-

nent offsets may occur. Damage consisting of concrete cracking, rein-
forcement yielding, major spalling of concrete, and deformations in sec-
ondary bridge components may require closure to repair. Partial or com-
plete replacement of secondary elements may be required in some
cases. Secondary elements are those that are not a part of the gravity
load resisting system.
6.1.1 Evaluation of Structural Components
The Design Earthquake for structural evaluation corresponds to a mean

return period of 950 years. In this earthquake, the bridge can be subject
to primarily “minimal damage” with some “repairable damage” and some
“significant damage” in secondary components as described in this sec-
tion.
The basic approach is to design the bridge components to the following

behavior levels under the design earthquake:
Arch Ribs: Minimal damage.


Skewback Anchor Blocks: Minimal damage.
Arch bracing and cross frames: Repairable damage.
Spandrel Columns: Minimal damage.
Roadway girders: Minimal damage.
Secondary elements, joints and bearings: Repairable damage.
Site specific ground motions for use in dynamic seismic analysis of the
bridge structure shall be taken from the project Geotechnical Report. The
ground motions shall consist of three, 3-component time histories. Each
time history shall consist of 2-horizontal orthogonal components and one
vertical component.
The ground motions will be based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis (PSHA) and be compatible with a defined target response spec-
trum. The ground motions shall also consider the site response charac-
teristics of the canyon and each individual foundation location and spatial
incoherency between foundations.
The following is the governing spectrum for final design:
6.3 Analyses for determination of demands
Demands on structural components of the bridge shall be determined by

analysis of global three dimensional computer models of the bridge that
represent its dominant linear and nonlinear behavior and the effects of
foundation response along the station of the structure, and foundation-
structure interaction. Demands will be evaluated as load-type quantities
(forces and moments) or as displacement-type quantities


(displacements, relative displacements, and rotations) as required by the

evaluation rules for various components.
6.3.1 Load Demands and Combination with Seismic Demands

For combination with seismic demands, component demands due to The value of .25 is based
dead load and live load may be determined by static analyses of elastic on probable traffic loads
global models. The load factor for Extreme Event I ( EQ) shall be 0.25 for for heavy truck traffic dur-
LL only, otherwise 0.0. The load factor for Extreme Event ( p) permanent ing an earthquake.
loads shall be 1.0.

Seismic analysis will be performed using LARSA or ADINA general-pur-
pose finite element software. Both dead load and seismic load time his-
tory analyses will be geometrically non-linear to account for the geometric
stiffness of the arch. Any reinforced concrete members with a force De-
mand/Capacity (D/C) ratio larger than 0.75 will be modeled with adjusted
material and section properties to represent the cracked section. Capac-
ities will be based on code strengths with = 1. Structural steel members
with a force D/C ratio less than 1.5 will be modeled with elastic elements.
Any members with a force D/C ratio larger than 1.5 will be modeled with
nonlinear elements.
6.3.3 Seismic Detailing
Where dynamic analysis indicates inelastic demand, detailing will con- Due to the foundation con-
form to the requirements for Zone 3. Where dynamic analysis shows ditions and column flexibil-
essentially elastic response (D/C <=1.0 by conventional design rules), ity, it is not physically pos-
detailing will conform to the requirements of Zone 2, without special plas- sible for most columns to
tic hinge zone confinement steel. displace sufficiently far in
order to develop ductility
In areas with Zone 3 detailing, the following modifications to AASHTO demand (rock abutments
LRFD will apply (ref ATC 32, Section 8.18): will restrain movement).
-The requirements of AASHTO 5.7.4.2 for precast, post-tensioned col- Therefore, there is no pos-
umns will be satisfied with MN>1.2 Mcr sibility of developing plas-
tic hinges.
- The requirements of AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1d columns shall be modified
by the factor (0.5 + 1.25P/FcAg). Priestly, Seible, Calvi;
Seismic Design and Retro-
- Box column walls will be designed as a solid column for each unit width
fit of Bridges, pg 313
of wall in accordance with ATC 32, 8.18.2.3.2.
6.4 Analyses for determination of capacities for Zone 3 Details
Capacities of structural components of the bridge shall be determined by

analysis of local elastic and inelastic models of displacements in the var-
ious components. Initial analysis will be based on linear material proper-
ties, with adjustments for nonlinear material behavior as noted in 6.3.2.
Capacities will be evaluated as load-type quantities (forces and mo-
ments) or as displacement-type quantities (displacements, relative dis-
placements, rotations, and curvatures) as required for various compo-
nents. Capacities will be verified by pushover analysis to the level of
displacement demand determined by dynamic analyses.



Primary steel arch rib, deck and spandrels will be designed for a force ATC 32-1
demand to capacity (D/C) ratio of no greater than 1.0. The displacement
D/C ratio for transverse strut and bracing members and other secondary
members shall not exceed 2.0.
The stress-strain relationships developed by Mander for confined con- ATC 32-1
crete in plastic hinge zones will be used. For all reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete elements, the maximum allowable concrete strains
shall be taken as 67 percent of the ultimate strains determined by Man-
der’s equations for repairable damage; and 0.004, for minimal damage..
6.4.3 Ultimate Reinforcement Strain Values for Design
REINFORCEMENT u pg pp

#11, #14 & #18

#10 and Smaller
Spirals & Ties 0.12 0.05 NA

#8 and Smaller
Where:
u = ultimate steel strain
pg = design level of peak cyclical steel strain for struts and duc-
tile member "performance goals" i.e., repairable damage
pp = design level of peak steel strain for arch and spandrel "perfor-
mance goals" i.e., minimal damage
The maximum length of plastic hinges (Lp) in a solid section may be taken
as
Lp = 0.08*Lc + 9*db ATC-32
Lc = Distance from point of maximum moment to point of con-

tra-flexure in a column.


db = diameter of reinforcement
For initial design, the maximum length of column plastic hinges in a hol-
low section may be taken as:
Lp = 1.0 * H
where H = Section dimension in the direction of seismic loading.
For final design, the length of column plastic hinges in a hollow section
shall be determined by detailed component modeling of the section, con-
sidering the section geometry, aspect ratio, working stresses under dead
load and reinforcing ratio.
6.4.6 Curvature Ductility Check
For reinforced concrete sections which are anticipated to experience in-

elastic behavior, the minimum section curvature ductility capacity shall
be :
c u y 4.0
Where :
u section ultimate curvature defined by using u given in

Section 6.4.3.
y section yield curvature defined by using y


I-74 Bridge, Iowa
Photo credit: Modjeski and Masters, Inc.

MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 15, 2010
TO: TPM
FROM: NYG
RE: Seismic Study – I74 Bridge
1 Introduction
Due to the importance of the I-74 crossing, MM’s scope included an investigation
of the effects of designing to a higher seismic standard than required by the AASHTO
LRFD Specifications (AASHTO, 2007). Although bridges are designed for earthquake
motions with a return period (Tr) of 1000 years, the Specifications recommend higher
levels of performance for bridges classified as critical. For that reason, a return period of
2500 years will also be considered in this study, and the effects compared to a design for
1000 years. In addition, the effects of increasing the detailing requirements by moving to
a higher seismic performance zone will also be evaluated.
2 Seismic Ground Shaking Hazard

The seismic hazard in this study is defined in terms of acceleration response
spectra and site coefficients determined in accordance with the General Procedure
recommended in Section 3.10.2.1 of AASHTO Specifications (AASTHO 3.10.2.1). The
Site Specific Procedure was not required due to the low level of seismic activity in the
region and the fact that the foundations will be on rock, which we’ve taken as site class B
(AASHTO 3.10.3.1).
The spectral response parameters for the 1000 year Tr design spectrum were
determined based on the 2007 AASHTO Seismic Hazard Maps that represent a spectral
response for 7% of exceedance in 75 years, i.e. Tr = 1000 years. On the other hand, the
2500-year return period spectrum was determined using the 2008 USGS National
Seismic Hazard Maps for a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years (USGS, 2008),
even though AASHTO and USGS 2008 seismic h azard maps are not totally consistent, as
shown in Figure 1. The two different maps were required since AASHTO does not
provide spectra for return periods other than 1000 years, and therefore information from
the USGS must be used.

0.12
0.10
Tr=1000yr - AASHTO 2007
Tr=1000yr - USGS 2008
Tr=2500yr - USGS 2008
0.08
Csm (g)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Tm (s)
Figure 1. Seismic Response Spectra for 1000-year and 2500-year period return events.
3 Performance Criteria
The operational classification of the bridge established by the owners determines
the performance objectives to be considered in design and the corresponding seismic
hazard levels. The I-74 Bridge is classified as “critical” implying higher levels of
performance for the operational objective in accordance with the Specifications:
“…Bridges must remain open to all traffic after the design earthquake and be
usable by emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes immediately after a large
earthquake, e.g., a 2500-year return period event…” (AASHTO C3.10.5)
On the other hand, the seismic requirements for design and detailing are defined
based on the seismic performance zone (SZ) of the bridge which depends on the one
second period spectral acceleration for the design earthquake (AASHTO 3.10.6). Due to
the low seismicity in the region, the bridge is classified in the lowest design category
(SZ=1) where only minimum requirements are required. Consequently, the benefits of
increasing the detailing requirements from SZ1 to SZ3 are evaluated throughout this
document. SZ2 was not included in the evaluation since for most of the details the
corresponding requirements default to SZ3.
The low seismic demand permits the definition of a global seismic design strategy
consisting of an elastic substructure and an elastic superstructure. Structural elements
designed elastically are permissible if no inelastic deformation is anticipated even under a
large earthquake. However, minimum detailing is required according to the bridge SZ.
4 Model and Analysis

The seismic demands in the structural components of the bridge were determined
using a 3D finite element Lusas model of the East Bound Bridge (E.B.) (see Figure 2). A

multimode elastic method was selected for analysis in accordance with the Specifications
for the corresponding operational classification and SZ (AASHTO 4.7.4.3). The seismic
member forces and displacements were estimated using the Complete Quadratic
Combination (CQC) of the individual mode responses. Directional load combinations
that consider orthogonal effects were defined according to the Specifications to obtain the
critical elastic forces and displacements due to earthquake loads (AASHTO 3.10.8).
Figure 2. Finite element model of the East Bound Bridge
The distributions of mass and stiffness throughout the model are consistent with
the permanent loads and the expected behavior of the bridge under a seismic event in that
region. Due to the detailed discretization of the model, a lump mass formulation was
selected to avoid local modes of vibration that do not contribute significantly to the
response. The number of modes and frequency ranges considered in the analyses were
chosen such that the associated cumulative mass participation in the dynamic response
was greater than 90% of the permanent mass in each of the principal horizontal
directions. As a result, a total of 620 modes were required for the spectral analyses since
the fundamental frequencies in each direction only obtain a mass participation of about
35% of the total mass, as shown in Figure 3. Reinforced concrete elements were analyzed
using full section properties in complying with the recommendations for bridges located
in SZ1 (AASHTO C4.7.1.3).

0.12
Tr=1000yr
Tr=2500yr
0.10 X
Y
Z
X
0.08 Y
Z
Csm (g)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
40.00
X
Y
35.00
Z
30.00
25.00
Mass (%)
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Tm (s)
Figure 3. Modal periods and mass participation with relation to the considered spectra
5 Response Modification Factors

Although the response modification factor (R) for substructure components of
Critical bridges is 1.5 (AASHTO T3.10.7.1-1), a value of 1.0 was defined expecting that
the bridge will behave elastically even under a large earthquake. However, the concrete

members shall satisfy the detailing provisions for the corresponding SZ in accordance
with the Specifications (AASHTO 5.10.2.2, 5.10.11 and 5.13.4.6).
The R-factors recommended for connections are independent of the operational
category of the bridge (AASHTO T3.10.7.1-1), as follows:
Table 1. Response modification factors for connection design
Connection Type R
Superstructure to abutment
0.8
(Steel rib - concrete rib)
Pile bents to superstructure
1.0
(Concrete cross beam - stiffening girder)
Columns to foundations
1.0
(Concrete ribs - foundation)
6 Design Forces
6.1 Superstructure
Comparisons of the maximum elastic seismic effects with those produced by wind
in the stiffening girder rib and the critical arch are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5,
respectively. The absolute values of the wind demands were used to compare with the
results from the dynamic spectral analyses shown as positive because they are reversible.
It is observed that the design in both cases will be controlled by load combinations
different from the Extreme Load Event I (AASHTO 3.4.1), i.e. seismic does not control.
Therefore, the assumption of an elastic behavior of the bridge under seismic loads due to
a large earthquake (Tr = 2500yr) is valid.
450
P - EQ (1000yr)
400
P - EQ (2500yr)
P - WS (80mph)
350
300
Axial load (K)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalized length
Figure 4. Magnitude of the seismic and wind axial forces in the stiffening girders

14000
EQ (1000yr) - Mz Brace
C.L.
EQ (1000yr) - My
12000
WS (80mph) - Mz
WS (80mph) - My
10000
Moment (K-ft)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Normalized distance from steel-concrete connection
Symm.
14000
EQ (2500yr) - Mz Brace
EQ (2500yr) - My C.L.
12000
WS (80mph) - Mz
WS (80mph) - My
10000
Moment (K-ft)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Symm.
Normalized distance from steel-concrete connection
Figure 5. Magnitude of the seismic and wind moments in the steel ribs

6.2 Connections
According to the Specifications (AASHTO 3.10.9.2), the design connection
forces for bridges in SZ1 with an acceleration coefficient, As, less than 0.05 (As = 0.035g,
see Appendix A1) shall not be less than 0.15 times the vertical reaction due to permanent
loads. The appropriate R factor is applied to each connection type. On the other hand,
for bridges in SZ3 (AASHTO 3.10.9.4), the design forces shall be taken as the lesser of
the elastic forces reduced by the appropriate R factor or the forces resulting from plastic
hinging of the concrete support elements. In this case, the modified forces are much
lower than the inelastic forces presented in Section 6.3. Regardless of the SZ, the
connection design forces in the restrained directions shall be greater than the tributary
load multiplied by As.
The reaction forces due to the 1000-year and 2500-year return period events and
the permanent loads are given in Table 2, and the corresponding connection design forces
(based on the maximum earthquake) for each SZ considered in this study are presented in
Table 3. It is observed that the restrictions imposed over SZ1 exceed those
corresponding to SZ3 due to the low magnitude of As.
Table 2. Seismic forces in the members at the connection points
Member Axial Major axis Minor axis

P (K) M (K-ft) V (K) M (K-ft) V (K)
Tr = 1000yr
Steel rib 85 1310 22 637 10
Deck system:
Stiffening girder (SG) 149 0 23 0 1
Stringer (Str) 12 0 19 0 0.02
Total = 2 SG + 7 Str 382 0 179 0 2
Concrete rib 258 21500 332 3720 102
Tr = 2500yr
Steel rib 129 2040 34 970 14
Deck system:
Stringer (Str) 18 0 29 0 0.03
Total = 2 SG + 7 Str 588 0 275 0 2
Concrete rib 400 33400 515 5340 147
DL
Steel rib 6240 5490 65 5360 81
Deck system:
Stringer (Str) 19 0 85 0 0.08
Total = 2 SG + 7 Str 375 0 867 0 9
Concrete rib 8860 28900 657 4790 345

Table 3. Seismic forces for connection design

Connection Axial Major axis Minor axis
SZ1 (based on Tr=2500yr)
6240*0.15 6240*0.15
Steel rib at concrete rib 161 2550 1213
=936 =936
867*0.15
Deck system at End floor beam 588 0 275 0
=130
8860*0.15 8860*0.15
Concrete rib at foundation 400 33400 5340
=1329 =1329
SZ3 (Tr=2500/R)
6240*As= 6240*As=
Steel rib at concrete rib 161 2550 1213
218 218
867*As=
Deck system at End floor beam 588 0 275 0
30
8860*As=
Concrete rib at foundation 400 33400 515 5340
310
6.3 Substructure
The inelastic forces of the concrete ribs presented in Table 4 (AASHTO 3.10.9.4)
permit to compare with the modified forces of Section 6.2. The calculations are
conservatively based on the cross section properties of the concrete ribs at the connection
with the steel ribs. It is observed that the plastic hinging demands are much greater than
the modified design forces because of the considerable size of the concrete ribs and the
low seismic excitation.
Table 4. Inelastic forces in the concrete ribs

Connection Axial Major axis Minor axis
Steel - concrete rib connection and
11475 202171 9403 104232 4848
Concrete rib at foundation
For structures located in SZ1 where the acceleration coefficient, SD1, is less than
0.10 (SD1 = 0.036), seismic forces are not required for the design of the concrete
structural elements (AASHTO 5.10.11.2). For SZ3, the modified forces presented in
Table 3 for the concrete ribs at the foundation level are employed and no hinging effects
need to be considered (AASHTO 3.10.9.4.3d).
7 Minimum requirements
7.1 Support length
The minimum support length at expansion bearings without restrainers shall be
the greater between the maximum calculated displacement and a percentage of the
minimum support length, N (AASHTO 4.7.4.4). However, due to the longitudinal

restriction offered by the hangers, only the maximum calculated displacements shown in
Table 5 are considered.
Table 5. Maximum longitudinal seismic displacement of the deck

Tr = 1000yr Tr = 2500yr
Displacement (ft) 0.020 0.032
7.2 P- requirements
Due to the low seismicity in the region and the large size of the concrete support
members, the bridge is not susceptible to instabilities or amplification effects produced
by lateral seismic displacements.
7.3 Concrete detailing requirements for concrete columns in SZ3

According to the Specifications, vertical supports or columns (e.g, concrete ribs)
in SZ3 shall meet additional seismic requirements (AASHTO 5.10.11.4). Comparisons
of reinforcement requirements between SZ1 and SZ3 are presented in Table 6. The
calculations are based on a concrete prismatic member with the cross sectional properties
taken from the steel-concrete rib connection design. It is assumed that the longitudinal
reinforcement will be controlled by load cases different from the Extreme Event Load
Combination I (AASHTO 3.4.1). As a result, the corresponding requirements specified
for SZ3 were defined in SZ1 for comparison purposes.
The total change in reinforcement steel quantity is 11,000 pounds per concrete rib.
With an assumed price per pound of $1.10, this results in a cost increase of
approximately $12,100 per concrete rib.
Table 6. Reinforcement requirements in concrete ribs for Extreme Event Load Combination I
SZ1 SZ3
• Longitudinal reinforcement:
0.04 Ag* 0.04 Ag
Maximum Area
(AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1a) (AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1a)
0.01 Ag 0.01 Ag
Minimum Area
(AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1a) (AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1a)
• Transverse reinforcement (ties):
Standard hooks Standard hooks
(AASHTO 5.10.2.1) (AASHTO 5.10.2.1)
Area and spacing
6 & 9 # 4 @ 7in 6 & 9 # 4 bars @ 7in
(AASHTO 5.8.2.5) (AASHTO 5.8.2.5)
Seismic hooks (AASHTO 5.10.2.2)
14 & 8 # 4 bars @ 4in
Plastic hinge regions - At the top and bottom of the
concrete rib over a length of 15ft
(AASHTO 5.10.11.4.1d, -e)
0.97 K/ft 1.23 K/ft
• Reinforcement weight: 41.7 K 52.7 K
(Increase of 11.0 K 26 %)
*Ag = Gross area of section

8 Hinging mechanism
The assumption that the collapse mechanism begins in the concrete ribs without
participation of the steel ribs is verified by using a push-over analysis (POA). The POA
consists of a series of linear analyses where the bending rotation at the end nodes of the
rib elements is released once the corresponding maximum bending capacity is reached.
The moment resistances were determined using the axial load from the Extreme Event
Load Combination I. The lateral load is proportional to the permanent loads and
accounts for the critical orthogonal effects (i.e., 30% Longitudinal + 100% Transverse).
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the resultant hinging mechanism in the bridge and the
corresponding capacity curve in the transverse direction, respectively. It is observed in
effect that a moment mechanism in the concrete ribs precedes the initial hinging effects in
the steel portion of the ribs. However, significant lateral accelerations, greater than
approximately 1g, would be required to activate this mechanism.
Step 1 Step 2
Minor-axis moment
Major-axis moment
Both moments
Step 3 Step 4
Figure 6. Sequential hinging mechanism
9 Conclusions and recommendations

This study shows that even for a 2,500 year design event, seismic loads do not
control the design. Thus, there is no cost penalty for moving from 1,000 year to 2,500
year design event. Requiring detailing associated with Seismic Zone 3, as opposed to
Seismic Zone 1, will result in approximately 88,000 pounds of additional reinforcing
steel for both bridges, mostly for confinement, with an estimated additional cost of
$96,800 dollars.
Consequently, it is recommended to design for the higher event, even if it has no
practical effect on the design. The detailing requirements for the higher seismic zone are

1.8
1.6
1.4
Transverse acceleration (g)

1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Transverse midspan displacement (ft)
Figure 7. Capacity curve in the transverse direction
also recommended, considering the fact that the difference is only caused by the
transverse reinforcement steel for confinement. The detailing for the plastic zones
significantly improves the ductile behavior of the structure, required in case of an
extreme loading event not considered in the initial design (e.g. blast loads).
No special detailing requirements are specified for the steel ribs as they remain
elastic, since the failure mechanism under a large seismic event would be basically
located in the concrete members only.
10 References
AASHTO. (2007). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. units (4th ed.) –
2008 Interim Revisions. Washington, DC: Author.
Imbsen, R. (2007). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design.
Washington, DC: AASHTO.
USGS. (2008). 2008 United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. Reston, VA: Author.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/
USED WITH PERMISSION OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION

Port Mann Bridge Highway 1 Project, Vancouver, BC
Photo credit: Thomas Heinser

Project: Gateway Project - Port Mann Bridge Design

Document: Port Mann Bridge No. 1614 – Design Criteria Doc No.:ZB-230-FR-1614-001
Revision: 2 Date: June 12, 2009
PORT MANN BRIDGE HIGHWAY 1 PROJECT
PORT MANN BRIDGE #1614

DESIGN CRITERIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Design Criteria is based on Schedule 4 of the Concession Agreement, and by reference to the
CAN/CSA-S6-06 “Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code” (CAN/CSA-S6-06) except as appended
by the BC Ministry of Transportation “Supplement to CAN/CSA-S6-06” (2007) (MoT).
This Criteria Document is presented as the proper interpretation and application of the DB
requirements in Schedule 4, Part 2 of the Agreement, and presents specific criteria used to
implement the performance standards of Schedule 4.
7.0 SEISMIC
7.1 General
For cases where vertical component of ground motion is considered in seismic analysis, ULS 5 and
5A shall be based on a dead load factor = 1.0. (MoT 3.5.1).
For strength load case 5A, a live load factor of 0.5 shall be included for live loads combined with
seismic loads. The inertia affect of live load shall not be included in the dynamic analysis.
Seismic demands will envelope foundation conditions with no scour and with 50% of the Q200
scour depth based on final design conditions.
Seismic design shall meet the criteria in Schedule 4, with details of application as summarized in
Table 1 that follows.
Table 1 Schedule 4 Seismic Design Clauses

Structure Requirement Sched. 4
Part 2
Main crossing and Lifeline structure: Minimal; Repairable; Significant damage, 4.2(a)
approaches No collapse criteria App. D
All other new Economic Sustainability Route Bridges: Repairable; 4.2(b)
structures (incl. Significant damage, no collapse; No loss-of-span damage App. D
retaining walls) criteria
Seismic inputs 4.3
Component level design criteria 4.4
Foundations 4.4.1
Retaining walls 4.4.2
Liquefaction 4.4.3
Slopes and embankments 4.4.4
Base isolation 4.4.5
2 of 7
USED WITH PERMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Structure Requirement Sched. 4

Part 2
Required analysis 4.5
Seismic 4.6
Instrumentation
7.2 Analysis Requirements
Minimum analysis requirements specified in Schedule 4 Part 2 Table 4.5 are associated with
specific ground motions. Our application of these requirements is summarized in Table 2,
associated with the performance objectives. In each case, the (more rigorous) analysis
requirements for longer return period events may be used in lieu of those shown, at the discretion
of the designer.
Table 2 Analysis Requirements

Category Minimum Analysis Requirement
Event Structure Performance Objective Analysis
Lifeline Ground movement
10% in 50
Minimal damage Damage assessment
Pushover
Lifeline
5% in 50 Ground movement
Repairable damage
Damage assessment
RSA (displacement
2% in 50 Lifeline limit)
Significant damage Pushover
Time-history
Damage assessment
Foundations to resist ground Ground movement
Subduction All
movement (nonlinear)
7.3 Performance Requirements
The required performance of structures is summarized in Table 3. The Port Mann Bridge is
designated as a lifeline structure.
Table 3 Performance Requirements

Event Category Lifeline Structures
Service: Immediate use
10% in 50
& Damage: Minimal damage
subduction event
Evaluation: Essentially elastic (see table 4)
Service: Limited access
Damage: Repairable damage

5% in 50
Evaluation: • Residual displacement 0.5%
• Strain limits per table 4
3 of 7


Service: Possible Loss of Service
Damage: Significant damage / No collapse
• Displacements 80% displacement at peak

2% in 50 Evaluation: resistance
• Displacements 80% of elastic displacements
• Strain limits per table 4
7.4 Analysis and Design Parameters
Parameters for seismic analysis and design are given in Table 4.
Table 4 Analysis and Design Parameters

Item Parameters Reference
Sched. 4, Part 2
Art 4, u.n.o.)
GROUND MOTIONS
Three level design: Appendix D
o 10% in 50 yr (1/475)
Design level events o 5% in 50 yr (1/975)
o 2% in 50 yr (1/2475)
• Subduction earthquake (deterministic)

• Firm-ground spectra for all three levels and 4.3
subduction earthquake are provided Golder Report
• Spectra-matched firm-ground time history
records are provided. Baseline correction shall
Seismic inputs
be performed as required.
• Use site-specific spectra and records (to be
developed)
ANALYSIS
• Include P- effects 4.5(e, f)

• See ATC-32 3.21.8 for general guidelines ATC-32 3.21.8
• Design demands are the mean response from
analysis for 3 time history records 4.3
Inelastic dynamic
analysis • Ground displacement, ground motions and soil
undrained residual strength shall be considered 4.4.3.b
for liquefied soils based on nonlinear effective
stress soil column analysis for the three design
earthquakes and the subduction zone event.
4 of 7



Sched. 4, Part 2
Art 4, u.n.o.)
Soil modeling for subsequent global analysis
shall be based on mean response from
analysis of 3 time history sets, for each design
level.
• Use expected properties for analysis and for ATC-32 8.16.2.4.1

evaluation of ductile elements: 1.1fy and 1.3f’c
Material properties
• Use overstrength properties for capacity design ATC-32 8.16.4.4
of adjacent elements: 1.25fy and 1.7f’c
• For reinforced concrete: ATC-32-1, 2.1
o Minimal Damage: c = 0.004, ps = ATC-32-1, 2.1
0.008 and s = 0.01 4.4(a)
o Repairable Damage: c = 0.007,
ps = 0.015 and s = 0.025
o Significant Damage: c = 0.75 cu,
ps = 0.045 and s = 0.75 su
• For main span (single) pylons:

Strain limits (damage o All damage stages: c=.0041 and
states refer to the s=.01
condition of the bridge
as a unit in • For steel piles:
accordance with Table o Minimal Damage: s = 0.002 and
3) p = 0.002
o Repairable Damage: s = 0.01 and
p = 0.01
o Significant Damage: s = 0.025
and p = 0.025
1
Concrete strain based on material curve.
Concrete strain for Whitney stress block shall be
.003.
• Liquefaction assessment per ATC-49 Section 4.4.3(a)
7.6 and Appendix D. In accordance with 7.6.3, ATC-49
lateral spreading forces on foundations shall be
analyzed separately from the time history 4.4.3(b), 4.4.1
demands based on liquefied conditions for the
time history analysis.
Foundations; • Permanent foundation displacements are to be
Foundation considered in satisfying damage criteria.
displacements • Design forces shall be determined from the
time history analysis. Forces shall be verified
by pushover analysis to the level of demand
displacement derived from the time history
analysis.
• Allowable strain for concrete confined within
pipe pile shells shall not exceed c = 0.75 cu.
5 of 7



Sched. 4, Part 2
Art 4, u.n.o.)
• Liquefaction assessment per ATC-49 Section 4.4.4
7.6 and Appendix D
Slopes and • Allowable foundation displacements: by
embankments analysis
• Permanent foundation displacements to be
considered in satisfying damage criteria
• Use non-linear dynamic analysis for all return 4.4.5
Base isolation periods
DESIGN
Geotechnical Properties and Design

• Axial capacities based on lesser of 4.4.1(a);
geotechnical strength and limit of steel strain S6-06 4.4.10.4; ATC-
• Response spectrum analysis, lesser of: 32 4.5.1, 4.5.5
o elastic design forces (R=1)
o column plastic overstrength forces
Pile and shaft • Time history analysis: design forces shall be ATC-49 6.3
foundations derived from modeling columns and pylons with
inelastic elements utilizing overstrength
material properties.
• Pile and shaft foundations shall be designed to
satisfy strain limits for applicable damage
states
• Ultimate bearing capacity, = 1.0 4.4.1(c);
• Single-column footing: area of uplift 0.25 of ATC-32 4.5.6
Spread footings width
• Multi-column bent: eccentricity 0.33 of width
Structural Properties and Design

• Material weights: S6-06, Table 3.6 S6-06 Section 3
Nominal material
properties • Nominal strengths: see project structural
design criteria
• Use nominal material properties, 1.0fy and 4.4(g)
1.0f’c, for design.
Design material • Resistance factors per S6-06, Sections 8 and BCMoT 4.7.4.1.1
properties and section 10
design (non-ductile • Use reinforcement limits from 0.8% to 4% in
elements) columns
• Importance factor (in S6-06) = 1.0 4.5(h)
• Main span (single) pylons shall remain

essentially elastic for all three design level
Main span (single)
events.
pylons**
• Foundations shall satisfy strain limits of minimal
damage for the 10% in 50 year event.
6 of 7



Sched. 4,Part 2
Art 4, u.n.o.)
• Foundations shall satisfy strain limits of
repairable damage for the 5% in 50 year event
and significant damage for the 2% in 50 year
event.
• Use an overstrength factor of 1.4 for plastic ATC-32 8.16.4.4
moments, or moment-curvature analysis with
Capacity design
1.25fy and 1.7f’c
• Orthogonal EQ forces: 100%-30%-30%, to be CAN SCA S6-06

applied to all possible combinations in 3 4.4.9.2
perpendicular directions (L,T,V) for RSA.
• Ductile Substructure Load Combination (ULS
Load combinations 5): S6-06 Table 3.1
1.0D+ EE+ PP+(EQ/R)* modified
* Reduced EQ for flexure only, use R=1.0 from
elastic or push-over results for axial
component
• Comparable ductility to “normal” structures 4.4.5
Base isolation • Displacement capacity = 1.25 times calculated
** The main pylons are designed as essentially elastic members, without implementing the reduced
inelastic demand levels allowed by the S6-06 Code. Demands are based on non-linear time
history analysis for stiffness corresponding to over-strength properties of the pylons. Foundation
capacity is provided corresponding to the essentially elastic seismic demands for all events as
measured by the strain limited resistances noted in this Section.
7 of 7

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge, California
Photo credit: Caltrans












San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

Skyway Structures, California
Photo credit: Caltrans









Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project, New York
Photo credit: HDR, Inc.; New York State Thruway Authority

TAPPAN ZEE HUDSON RIVER CROSSING PROJECT
PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

Volume 6: Structural (Bridges)
Contract D214134
PIN 8TZ1.00
Project TA# TANY 12-18B
Revision 3
5/22/2015
Prepared by
Tappan Zee Constructors
555 White Plains Rd., 4th Floor
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Revision No. Design Package No. or Description Date
A H12D-01: Submitted for Definitive Design Review 4/19/13

1 H12D-01: Definitive Design (Resubmission) 9/18/13
2 H12D-01: Definitive Design (Resubmission 2) 01/03/13

3 H12D-01: Definitive Design (Resubmission 3) 5/22/15
USED WITH PERMISSION OF NEW YORK THRUWAY AUTHORITY


Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project

Project Design Criteria
Reference Rev Date
• Upper level event – 2500 year return period
Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE). Approximately 4%
probability of exceedance in 100 years.
Volume 6: Structural (Bridges) Page 6-39


Reference Rev Date
4.19.4 Seismic performance levels expressed in terms of damage NYSDOT
levels are defined in the NYSDOT LRFD Blue Pages, Blue Pages
which are as follows: 3.10.5
• Minimal Damage: The Bridge should essentially

behave elastically during the earthquake, although minor
inelastic response could take place. Post-earthquake
damage should be limited to narrow flexural cracking in
concrete and masonry elements. There should be no
permanent deformations to structural members. Only
minor damage or permanent deformations to non-
structural members should take place.
• Repairable Damage: The extent of damage should be

limited so that the structure can be restored to its pre-
earthquake condition without replacement of structural
members. Inelastic response may occur resulting in:
concrete cracking, minor cover spalling and
reinforcement yielding; minor yielding of structural steel
members; some damage to secondary members and
nonstructural components; some damage to masonry.
Repair should not require complete closure of the bridge.
Permanent offsets should be small and there should be
no collapse.
• Significant Damage: There is no collapse, but

permanent offsets may occur. Extensive cracking, major
spalling of concrete and reinforcement yielding may
force closure for repair. Similar consequences could
result from yielding or local buckling of steel members.
There could be yielding of member connections, fracture
of limited number of bolts/rivets, serious damage to
secondary structural members and non-structural
components, as well as to masonry. Partial or complete
replacement may be required in some cases.
4.19.5 Safety Evaluation: The Crossing shall survive the Upper Part 3 Project
level event (SEE) with Minimal and Repairable Damage. Req.
Traffic access following this event may be limited: as a 11.3.1.9.5
minimum, access shall be available within 48 hours for
emergency/defense vehicles and within 2 months for
general public traffic.
The Bridge components will be designed for the following

levels:
• Piles: Minimal Damage

• Pile Caps: Minimal Damage
Page 6-40 Volume 6: Structural (Bridges)


Reference Rev Date
• Towers and Anchors Piers: Repairable Damage
• Approach Span Piers: Repairable Damage
• Superstructure: Minimal Damage
• Bearings: Repairable Damage
• Expansion Joints: Repairable Damage
• Cable Systems: Minimal Damage
4.19.6 Functional Evaluation: The Crossing shall survive the Part 3 Project
Lower level event (FEE) with only Minimal Damage. Req.
Access after this event shall be immediate for all traffic, 11.3.1.9.5
with an allowance of a few hours for inspection.
4.19.7 The seismic analysis of the Crossing shall take into Part 3 Project
account the effects of Potential Future Loading and Req.
incorporate both dead loads and live loads in the seismic 11.3.1.9.5
design.
4.19.8 The load factor of EQ shall be 0.50 for the Extreme Event NYSDOT
I Load combination. Inertial effects (mass) due to live Blue Pages
load shall not be included in the structural analysis 3.4.1 &
models. AASHTO
Guide
Specifications
for LRFD
Seismic
Bridge Design
C3.7
4.19.9 Consideration of seismic loads during construction of the

bridge is not required.
4.19.10 For elements protected by seismic isolation, the Response

Modification factor shall be taken as 1.0.
4.19.11 Further discussion on seismic methodology is discussed

in section 7.0.
4.20 Construction Loading
4.20.1 Approach Units
4.20.1.1 Load combinations and load factors for

construction loading shall be in accordance with
AASHTO LRFD Section 3.4.2.
Volume 6: Structural (Bridges) Page 6-41

Willamette River Transit Bridge

(Tilikum Crossing Bridge), Oregon
Photo credit: T.Y. Lin International

Project: Willamette River Transit Bridge

Document: Supplemental Project Design Criteria Doc No.: ST-230-0001
Revision: 2 Date: September 30, 2011
WILLAMETTE RIVER TRANSIT BRIDGE
Supplemental Project Design Criteria
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The supplemental Project Design Criteria for the Willamette River Transit Bridge (WRTB) is based
on the Conformed Project Specific Design Criteria – V10, October, 2010 (Criteria), and by
reference, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4 th Edition, 2007 with 2008 and 2009
Interim Revisions (AASHTO LRFD).
This Criteria Document supplements the Project Specific Design Criteria and presents specific
supplemental design criteria used to satisfy the performance standards of the project.
1.1 Performance Requirements
Concrete and steel reinforcement strain limits for the 475-year return period earthquake
“Serviceable Earthquake Evaluation” (SEE) and the 975-year return period earthquake “No
Collapse Earthquake” (NCE) are specified in Criteria Section 3.D.7.c and 3.D.7.d and are
reproduced in Table 2. The ultimate concrete strain, ecu, shall be based on Mander’s Model for
confined concrete (“Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 1988). The “No Collapse” strain limits shall apply to the structural performance
evaluation from a vessel collision event. Reinforced concrete component capacities for ductile
elements shall be based on expected material properties as defined in Criteria Section 3.D.7.b.
Table 2: WRTB Performance limits for Seismic and Ship Impact Performance Evaluation
Minimal Damage
Structural Material SEE Event NCE Event Cable Loss
Performance Strain
Element Component Strain Limit Strain Limit Strain Limit
Limit
Concrete .005 0.5 cu 0.01
#11,
Longitudinal Mild #18 0.01 #14 & 0.02
Steel #18
Drilled Shafts
Reinforcement #14 & #10 &
0.015 0.02
smaller smaller
Transverse Mild #8 & #8 &
0.015 0.06
Reinforcement smaller smaller
Concrete .005 0.75 cu
#11,
Longitudinal Mild #18 0.01 #14 & 0.05
Steel #18
Main Tower and
Reinforcement #14 & #10 &
Columns 0.015 0.06
smaller smaller
Transverse Mild
#8 & #8 &
Reinforcement - 0.015 0.08
smaller smaller
Towers

Project: Willamette River Transit Bridge

Document: Supplemental Project Design Criteria Doc No.: ST-230-0001
Revision: 0 Date: January 26, 2011
Transverse Mild
#8 & #8 &
Reinforcement - 0.015 0.05
smaller smaller
Columns
Concrete 0.004 0.004
Post-Tensioning
0.008 0.008
Reinforcement
Non-Ductile
#18 0.005
Components
Mild #14 0.0075
.015
Reinforcement #11 &
smaller 0.01
1.2 Prestressing Limits
• Concrete compressive stress of 0.45 f`c for permanent loads and effective prestress
• Concrete compressive stress of 0.6 f`c for SERVICE I limit state
• Crack width of 0.012 in. for tension for the SERVICE limit states
• Crack width of 0.016 in. for tension during construction, with crack closing to 0.012 in. at
end of construction.
USED WITH PERMISSION OF TRI-MET

APPENDIX B
State DOT Survey
This appendix contains the state DOT survey.
122

State DOT Survey 123
NCHRP Synthesis 49-12 Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges
Dear Bridge Engineers:
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is preparing a synthesis of practice for seismic design of non-
conventional bridges. This is being done for NCHRP, under the sponsorship of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration.
The objective of NCHRP Synthesis Topic 49-12 is to document the procedures used by state departments
of transportation (DOTs) for seismic design of non-conventional bridges. For the purpose of this study, the
scope of "non-conventional bridges” includes any cable-supported bridges, long span arch bridges, delta
frame substructures, and any other structures where the owner has elected to adopt special design
procedures for a bridge structure or sub-structure due to that structure not falling within the parameters
applicable to the AASHTO Code or Guide Spec.
This questionnaire is an essential part of the synthesis study and we would greatly appreciate your
response. If your agency has not addressed the question of seismic design criteria for non-conventional
bridges, please answer the first few questions and submit your response. If your agency does have this
experience, the questionnaire will branch to questions about the agency's seismic design practices for these
bridge types. We estimate that it should take approximately 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire (much
less for agencies with no experience with this topic).
This questionnaire is being sent to the DOT voting members of the AASHTO Committee on Bridges and
Structures. If you are not the appropriate person at your organization to complete this questionnaire,
please forward it to the correct person.
Please complete and submit this survey by February 28, 2018. If you have any questions, please contact
our principal investigator David Goodyear at david.goodyear@tylin.com or 360-252-2601
Thank you very much for your time and expertise!
QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS
1. To view and print the entire questionnaire, Click on the following link {pdf survey} and print using
"control p".
2. To save your partial answers and complete the questionnaire later, click on the "Save and Continue
Later" link at the top of your screen. A link to the incomplete questionnaire will be emailed to you from

SurveyGizmo. To return to the questionnaire later, open the email from SurveyGizmo and click on the
link. We suggest using the “Save and Continue Later” feature if there will be more than 15 minutes of
inactivity while the survey is opened, as some firewalls may terminate due to inactivity.
3. To pass a partially completed questionnaire to a colleague, click on the on the "Save and Continue
Later" link at the top of your screen. A link to the incomplete questionnaire will be emailed to you from
SurveyGizmo." Open the email from SurveyGizmo and forward it to a colleague.
4. To view and print your answers before submitting the survey, click forward to the page following
question 14. Print using “control p.”
5. To submit the survey, click on "Submit" on the last page.
DEFINITIONS:
AASHTO Guide Spec: AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, Second Edition
Conventional Bridge: Single or multi-span bridge with slab, beam, box girder superstructure, supported
with concrete pier or pile bent substructure. Conventional bridges include all geometries and configurations
of typical beam-type highway overcrossings and simple span bridges. The bridge may be designated as
critical, essential or non-critical/non-essential (note that the AASHTO Guide Spec does not address
essential or critical bridges).
Non-Conventional Bridge: Cable supported, arch, non-traditional girder section (open web box, Vierendeel
truss or similar), truss or long-span box girder superstructure, supported with mass foundations, box piers,
truss piers or towers where the bridge structure or sub-structure does not fall within the parameters
applicable to the AASHTO Code or Guide Spec, which have long fundamental periods beyond the range of
the AASHTO Design Response Spectrum or for which a strong beam-weak column design methodology
may not satisfy specified performance standards. The bridge may be designated as critical, essential or non-
critical/non-essential.
Seismic Design Category: AASHTO Guide Spec ground motion based classification for seismic design
requirement (from AASHTO Guide Spec), or equivalent category from AASHTO LRFD.
Please enter the date (MM/DD/YYYY). *

1. State or Agency *
2. Has your Agency directed the design of Seismic Design Category B, C or D (definition in the Guide Spec)
or Zone 2, 3 or 4 (definition in AASHTO BDS or similar ground motion levels) bridges in your jurisdiction? *
Yes
No
3. Has your Agency directed the design of a non-conventional bridge (see definition, above) for Seismic
Design Categories noted in Question 2?
Yes
No
4. What specification(s) serve as the basis or reference for your design criteria?
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification (BDS)
AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (Guide Spec)
NCHRP 12/49 (Applied Technology Council-ATC 49)
Agency or Project Specific only
Other - Write In
5. Do you reference any non-US standards for seismic design criteria?
No
Yes - Write In (Required)

*

6. What bridge types are included in your non-conventional bridge resume?
Cable-Stayed
Suspension
Arch
Extrados
Cantilever truss or box girder (over 250ft main span)
Other - Write In (Required)

*
7. Approximately how many non-conventional bridges in your jurisdiction have been designed for
earthquake in the last 30 years?
Less than 2
2 to 5
More than 5
8. Did you use non-linear time history analysis for design of any bridge type(s) in Question 6?
Yes
No
9. Did seismic demand control the lateral force or displacement based design for any of the bridge(s) in Q7?
Yes
No
10. Have you specified multi-level seismic events (eg, a 250 year return for operation and 2500 year return
for no-collapse or sim) for your non-conventional bridge design(s)?
Yes
No (will then skip to Q12)

11. The reason for specifying a multi-level event was:
Lifeline status of the facility
Financial Risk
Life safety Risk
Other - Write In (Required)

*
12. What are your primary sources for establishing performance criteria?
AASHTO LRFD BDS
AASHTO Guide Spec
Research - Write In
ATC - Write In
Other - Write In
13. Please indicate whether or not you can provide a plan and elevation drawing for specific structures
where you have applied non-conventional bridge seismic design criteria, along with the criteria document
that relates to the seismic design basis for the bridge substructure and foundation system(s) {uploading is
within Survey Gizmo using the link in Q14. If respondent prefers using a cloud site for upload, please
contact the PI at david.goodyear@tylin.com}.
Additional information is posted
Additional information will be posted by (date)

*
No additional information is available

14. Are project design criteria documents available from the Agency for reference in the Synthesis? If so,
please upload to the link below (link allows up to a 25MB file and up to 10 files).
Browse...

Please indicate if you are available to be contacted by the principal investigator for further information,
and enter your contact information.
May we contact you for further information?
Yes
No
First Name * Last Name *
Title
Agency/Organization *
Street Address
Suite City State
Zip Code Email Address *
Phone Number *

Thank you for taking our survey! Your response is very important to us. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact David Goodyear at:
E-mail: david.goodyear@tylin.com
Phone: 360-252-2601
Mailing Address: 1115 West Bay Drive, Sui 206, Olympia, WA 98502



Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
500 Fifth Street, NW
U.S. POSTAGE
Washington, DC 20001 PAID
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

90000
ISBN 978-0-309-48039-0
9 780309 480390

Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges PDF

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

Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25489 SHARE

Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges (2019)

142 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Seismic Design

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 532

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 532

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 532

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 49-12 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges

Objective of the Study

The Wind Conundrum

Fe Elastic earthquake force level

Fe Fw Wind force level

δy Yield displacement for seismic design

Fr δp Seismic demand displacement (inelastic displacement

δ over Over-strength displacement consistent with wind

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Survey

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Survey 7

Question 1: State or Agency?

Question 2: Has your Agency directed the design of Seismic Design

Question 3: Has your Agency directed the design of a non-conventional

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Seismic Design of Non-Conventional Bridges

EQ&NC Exp (Q2&Q3): 10

NC Exp Only (Q3): 2

Figure 2. Composition of states with seismic (EQ),

Question 4: What specification(s) serve as the basis or reference

Table 1. Specifications used by states for design of non-conventional bridges.

State BDS Guide Spec ATC-49 Agency/Project Speciﬁc Other

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review and Survey 9

Question 5: Do you reference any non-U.S. standards for seismic

Question 6: What bridge types are included in your non-conventional

Question 7: Approximately how many non-conventional bridges

Question 8: Did you use nonlinear time-history analysis for design

Table 2. Bridge types included in non-conventional bridge resume.