1

Seismic Design
of Bridges

Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.
2
AASHTO - Division IA
Draft Specifications, 1996
SCDOT 2001 Seismic Design Specifications
Comparison Between LRFD & SCDOT Specs.
SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps
Training and Implementation
Conclusions
SCDOT Seismic Design Of Bridges
Overview
3
USGS 1988 Seismic Hazard Maps
Force based design
Soil Classification I-IV
No explicit Performance Criteria
Classification based only on acceleration
coefficient
AASHTO Div IA
4
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
August 31, 1886 (Intensity IX-X)
5
Earthquake of August 31, 1886
Charleston, South Carolina
Magnitude=7.3M, Intensity = X
6
Sandblow in Charleston
7

1996 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps

Difference in spectral acceleration
between South Carolina and California

Normal Bridges : 2/3 of the 2% in 50
yr. Event

Essential Bridges: Two-Level Analysis


Draft Specifications
8


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

Draft Specifications
9
Maybank Bridge over the Stono
River
Carolina Bays Parkway
Broad and Chechessee River
Bridges
New Cooper River Bridge
Bobby Jones Expressway
Site Specific Studies
10
SC-38 over I-95 - Dillon County

Maybank Highway Bridge over the
Stono River - Charleston County
SEISMIC DESIGN TRIAL
EXAMPLES
11
SC-38 over I-95
Description of Project
Conventional bridge structure
Two 106.5 ft. spans with a composite
reinforced concrete deck, supported by 13
steel plate girders and integral abutments
The abutments and the interior bents rest
on deep foundations

12
Original Seismic Design

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

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

SC-38 over I-95
13
Maybank Highway Bridge
over the Stono River

14

Highest Hazard
Lowest Hazard

Highest Hazard
Lowest Hazard



Seismicity of South
Carolina 1977 to 1996
1977 to 1997

15

118 spans
1-62 flat slab deck supported by PCP
63-104 /33 -meter girder spans and 2 columns
per bent supported by shafts.
The main span over the river channel consists of
a 3 span steel girder frame w/ 70 meter center
span.
105-118 flat slab deck supported by PCP
Maybank Highway over Stono River
Description of project
16
Original Seismic Design
SCDOT version of AASHTO
Div. I-A (Draft)
Site Specific Seismic Hazard
Bridge classified as essential
Project specific seismic
performance criteria
Two level Analysis:
FEE 10% in 50 yr. event
SEE - 2% in 50 yr. event

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

Maybank Highway over Stono River

17
Table C-1. LRFD Spectral Accelerations and Site Coefficients

Earthquake Spectral Accelerations Site Coefficients
S
S
S
1
S
DS
S
D1
F
a
F
v

Maximum Considered 1.43 0.407 1.43 0.651 1.00 1.60
Expected 0.0503 0.0104 0.0503 0.0167 1.00 1.60

SEE - Compare LRFD to Original Design Curve
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period, T (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

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

18

Original Seismic Design

Soil Classification: Type
II


Trial Design Example

Stiff Marl classified as
Site Class D
Maybank Highway over Stono River

19

The SCDOT 's new specifications adopted the
NCHRP soil site classification and the Design
Spectra described on LRFD 3.4.1

If this structure were designed using the new SCDOT
Seismic Design Specifications, October 2001, the
demand forces would be closer if not the same to
those found using the Proposed LRFD Guideline -
2002 .

20
Cooper River Bridge
Charleston Co.
Seismic Design
Criteria- Seismic
Panel
Synthetic TH
PGA - 0.65g
Sa 1.85 at T=0.2
sec
Sa 0.65 at T=1 sec
Liquefaction
21
22
US17 COOPER RIVER BRIDGES
2500-YR SEE f or Main Pier s
(Ver tical Spectr a)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Period, sec
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Cooper River Bridge
2500 Yr - SEE for Main Piers
23
New Specifications
South Carolina Seismic
Hazard Maps
Need for:
24
25
The new SCDOT specifications
establish design and construction
provisions for bridges in South
Carolina to minimize their
susceptibility to damage from large
earthquakes.
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
October 2001
26
PURPOSE & PHILOSOPHY
(1.1)
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
replace AASHTO Division I-A SCDOT Draft
Principles used for the development
Small to moderate earthquakes, FEE, resisted
within the essentially elastic range.
State-of-Practice ground motion intensities are
used.
Large earthquakes, SEE, should not cause
collapse.
Four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC)
are defined to cover the variation in seismic
hazard of very small to high within the State
of South Carolina.
27
New Design Level Earthquakes
New Performance Objectives
New Soil Factors
Displacement Based Design
Expanded Design Criteria for Bridges
New Concepts and
Enhancements
30
New USGS
Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Maps
New Design Level
Earthquakes
New Performance
Objectives
A706 Reinf. Steel
New Soil Factors
Displacement Based
Design
Caltrans (SDC) new
provisions included

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
Background (1.2)
31
New Provisions meet current code
objectives for large earthquakes.
Life Safety
Serviceability
Design Levels
Single Level 2% / 50 years
Normal Bridges
Essential Bridges
Two Level : 2% / 50 years and 10% / 50
years
Critical Bridges
Upgraded Seismic Design Requirement
(1.3)
32
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
Seismic Performance Criteria
III II I
33
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
October 2001
34
VALUES OF F
a
AS A FUNCTION OF
SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORT-
PERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE
ACCELERATION S
S
(TABLE 3.3.3A)
Site
Class

Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods

S
S
0.25

S
S
=0.50

S
S
=0.75

S
S
=1.00

S
S
1.25

A

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

B

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

C

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

D

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

E

2.5

1.7

1.2

0.9

a

F

a

a

a

a

a

35
SCDOT Pilot Workshop
Imbsen & Associates, Inc.
I I A
1-6
Increasing
performance
Increasing earthquake
hazard
Recent
Technology
b
c
d
e
f
i
h
g
Collapse
Preventi on
Limited
Damage
Essentiall y
Elastic
2% in 50 Yrs.
2/3 (2% in 50 Yrs.)
10% in 50 Yrs.
Proposed Design or Retrofit Objective
a
f, h, i a, b, c, d,
e, g
Secondary
System
Primary
System Design or
Retrofit
Objective
36
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications
October 2001
37
DESIGN SPECTRA FOR SITE
CLASS A, B, C, D AND E, 5%
DAMPING (3.4.5E)
S
s
=1.00g, SEE(2%/50years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 1 2 3 4
SD_4A
SD_4B
SD_4C
SD_4D
SD_4E
Periods T (sec)
Site Class
A
B
C
D
E
S
DI-SEE


38
APPLICABILITY (3.1)
New Bridges
Bridge Types
Slab
Beam Girder
Box Girder
Spans less than 500 feet
Minimum Requirements
Additional Provisions are needed to achieve
higher performance for essential or critical
bridges

39
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND
STRATEGIES
Specifications can be used in conjunction
with rehabilitation, widening, or retrofit
SPC B demands are compared implicitly
against capacities
Criteria is focused on member/component
deformability as well as global ductility
Inherent member capacities are used to resist
higher earthquake intensities
Using this approach required performance
levels can be achieved in the Eastern US
40
Design Approaches
(4.7.1)
May require
closure or
removal
Not
warranted
May be higher
Significant
Plastic Action
May require
closure of
limited usage
May be Used Limited Moderate
Plastic Action
Not required to
Maintain
May be Used Limited Minimal
Plastic Action
Reparability Protection
Systems
Ductility
Demand
Design
Approach
2
D

4
D

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




Other New Concepts and
Improvements
42
Seismic Design
of Bridges

Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.
Thanks