Seismic Design of Bridges

4.2 INTRODUCTION

Bridges are very important elements in the modern transportation system. Recent earthquakes,
particularly the 1989 Loma Prieta and the 1994 Northridge Earthquakes in California, the 1995
Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake in Japan, the 1999 JiJi Earthquake in Taiwan, and the 1999
Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey, have caused collapse of, or severe damage to, a considerable
number of major bridges [1,2]. Since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in California [3],
extensive research[418] has been conducted on seismic design and retrot of bridges in
Japan and the United States, especially in California.

This chapter rst addresses the seismic bridge design philosophies and conceptual design in
general, then discusses mainly the U.S. seismic design practice to illustrate the process, and
nally presents briey seismic design practice in Japan.
 4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges

Past earthquakes have shown that the damage induced in bridges can take many forms
depending on the ground motion, site conditions, structural conguration, and specic details of
the bridge [1]. Damage within the superstructure has rarely been the primary cause of collapse.
Most of the severe damage to bridges has taken one of the following forms [1]:
Unseating of the superstructure at in-span hinges or simple supports due to inadequate
seat lengths or restraint. A skewed, curved, or complex superstructure framing
conguration further increases the vulnerability. Figure 4.1 shows the collapsed upper and
lower decks of the eastern portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) in
the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, which can be attributed to anchor bolt failures allowing
the span to move.
 4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges

Figure 4.2 shows collapsed I-5 Gavin Canyon Undercrossing, California, in the 1994
Northridge Earthquake, which can be attributed to geometric complexities arising from 66
skew angle abutments, in-span expansion joints, as well as the inadequate 300 mm seat
width. For simply supported bridges, these failures are most likely when ground failure
induces relative motion between the spans and their supports.
Column brittle failure due to deciencies in shear capacity and inadequate ductility. In
reinforced concrete columns, the shear capacity and ductility concerns usually stem from
inadequate lateral and connement reinforcement. Figure 4.3 shows the collapsed 600 m
of Hanshin Expressway in the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake in Japan where failure
was attributed to deciencies in shear design and poor ductility.
 4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges

In steel columns, the inadequate ductility usually stems from progressive local buckling,
fracture, and global buckling leading to collapse.

Unique failures in complex structures. Figure 4.4 shows the collapsed Cypress Street Viaduct,
California, in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake where the unique vulnerability was the
inadequately reinforced pedestal above the rst level. In outrigger column bents, the
vulnerability may be in the cross-beam or the beamcolumn joint.
4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges
4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges
4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges
4.2 Earthquake Damages to Bridges
 4.3 Seismic Design Philosophies

4.3.1 Design Evolution

Seismic bridge design has been improving and advancing, based on research ndings and
lessons learned from past earthquakes. In the United States, prior to the 1971 San Fernando
Earthquake, the seismic design of highway bridges was partially based on lateral force
requirements for buildings.

Lateral loads were considered as levels of 2 to 6% of dead loads. In 1973, California

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed new seismic design criteria (SDC) related
to site, seismic response of the soils at the site, and dynamic characteristics of bridges. The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) modied the
Caltrans 1973 Provisions slightly and adopted Interim Specications.
4.3 Seismic Design Philosophies
 4.3 Seismic Design Philosophies
Applied Technology Council (ATC) developed guidelines ATC-6 [19] for seismic design of bridges
in 1981. AASHTO adopted ATC-6 as the Guide Specications in 1983 and in 1991 incorporated it
into the Standard Specications for Highway Bridges [20].

Prior to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, bridges in California were typically designed using a
single-level force-based design approach based
4.3 Seismic Designon a no-collapse design philosophy. Seismic
Philosophies

loads were determined based on a set of soil conditions and a suite of four site-based standard
acceleration response spectra (ARS). Structures were analyzed using the three-dimensional
elastic dynamic multimodal response spectrum analysis method. Structural components were
designed to resist forces from the response spectrum analysis that were modied with a Z-
factor. The Z-factor was based on the individual structural element ductility and degree of risk.
Minimum transverse reinforcement levels were required to meet connement criteria [21].
Seismic Design of Bridges
Seismic Design of Bridges