You are on page 1of 4

Since the return periods for the two different probabilities of exceedance are close, using the spectral

acceleration maps which were based on a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years to analyze this bridge for the maximum considered earthquake with a probability of exceedance of 3% in 75 years was proved acceptable.

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

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

Table 3.6. Values of Fv as a Function of Site Class and Mapped One Second Period Spectral Acceleration [MCEER/ATC, 2002].
Site Class A B C D E F Mapped S1 ≤ 0.1 g 0.8 1 1.7 2.4 3.5 a Spectral S1 = 0.2 g 0.8 1 1.6 2 3.2 a Response S1 = 0.3 g 0.8 1 1.5 1.8 2.8 a Acceleration S1 = 0.4 g 0.8 1 1.4 1.6 2.4 a at Short Periods S1 ≥ 0.5 g 0.8 1 1.3 1.5 2.4 a

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

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

Ss = 0.287 g S1 = 0.0833 g [“USGS”, 2002] Since the soil is class B, Fa = 1.0 and Fv = 1.0

29

7-2 of the new LRFD Guidelines. which was taken from Table 3. Therefore Seismic Hazard Level II was assigned to this bridge.8. Table 3. Seismic Hazard Levels [MCEER/ATC. D or E could be required for this bridge. Seismic Hazard Level I II III IV Value of FvS1 FvS1 ≤ 0.25 < FvS1 ≤ 0.2 of the new LRFD Guidelines.7. Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirements (SDR) [MCEER/ATC.7-1 of the new LRFD Guidelines.15 < FaSs ≤ 0. 2002].35 < FaSs ≤ 0.35 0.0)(0.40 0.4.40 < FvS1 Value of FaSs FaSs ≤ 0. Thus SDAP D was 30 . SDAP C.SDS = FaSs = (1. Seismic Hazard Level I II III IV Life Safety SDAP SDR A1 1 A2 2 B/C/D/E 3 C/D/E 4 SDAP A2 C/D/E C/D/E C/D/E Operational SDR 2 3 5 6 Since Seismic Hazard Level II was assigned to this bridge and the operational performance objective was chosen. But according to section 4. When two different Seismic Hazard Levels are required by the values of FvS1 and FaSs. 2002].15 0.0833 g) = 0. Table 3.60 0.15 0.7 of this report.0833 g The values of FvS1 and FaSs were used to determine the Seismic Hazard Level according to Table 3. SDAP C couldn’t be used for this bridge because this bridge had fewer than three spans.8 of this report. the higher level controls.287 g SD1 = FvS1 = (1.287 g) = 0.0)(0.25 0.60 < FaSs The Seismic Hazard Level was used to determine the required Seismic Design and Analysis Procedure (SDAP) and Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) by using Table 3. which was taken from Table 3.15 < FvS1 ≤ 0.

Ie/Ig was approximately 0. Thus. The relationship between the total axial load P (computed in section 3. For this bridge. the cracked section properties of the columns and pier cap beam had to be determined because SDAP D uses an elastic (cracked section properties) analysis.8 of this report. the effective moment of inertia Ie can be calculated by way of P/fc’Ag and Ie/Ig [Priestley and others.12. Cracked Section Properties of the Columns The combined axial loads from the dead and live loads were used to obtain the cracked section properties of the columns. 31 . 3.required for this bridge.8) on the column and its effective moment of inertia (Ie) is described in Figure 3. The required Seismic Design Requirement (SDR) for this bridge was SDR 3 according to Table 3. The spreadsheet for this calculation is also presented in Appendix IV. i.466. the effective moment of inertia about the x-axis (Iexx) and the effective moment of inertia about the y-axis (Ieyy).e. 1996]. with a known reinforcement ratio Ast/Ag.10. In the next step.

1996]. 32 . Inc. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons.12.Figure 3. The relationship between axial load P on the column and its effective moment of inertia Ie [Priestley and others.