2 views

Uploaded by Rocas Roaul

save

- Midas Civil 2010 Descripcion
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement
- Seismic Analysis - The Free Encyclopedia
- Caltrans Seismicdesigncriteria2006
- Simplified Procedures for Seismic Analysis and Design of Piers and Wharves in Marine Oil and LNG Terminals
- Chapter02 - Guide to Use the Provisions
- ELNASHAI Et Al-1996-Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics
- 2016_ASCEshortcourse_kircher.pdf
- Design Trial 01
- NHCE-2013-76
- IJRI-CCE-02-006
- Washington Hospital Seismic Study
- Pca Circular Concrete Tanks
- EQTip06.pdf
- 56
- Compression Stiffeners
- Chapter 09
- Chapter 1
- [07203] - Design of Shear Wall Buildings
- Strap Footing
- Pushover Analysis of Structures Considering Strain Rate Effects
- Structural Control
- Shear Conn - Extended Fin Plate
- Seismic Risk Assessment of Public Schools and Prioritization Strategy for Risk Mitigation
- CT26_Design_Guide_for_SHS_CFC_20-03-03.pdf
- AR231_Chap08_MomentofInertia
- CFD-AASHTO-2007
- Indian Temples - A Structural Marvel-Vivek
- Unit IV - Limit State Design of Columns
- Rak-83_3200_lecturenotes_5
- steamcond.pdf
- A5
- Art
- Flu Jode Fluid Os

You are on page 1of 4

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.

- Midas Civil 2010 DescripcionUploaded byJosue Lewandowski
- Aschheim - 2002 - Seismic Design Based on the Yield DisplacementUploaded byLuís Macedo
- Seismic Analysis - The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byseljak_veseljak
- Caltrans Seismicdesigncriteria2006Uploaded byDinko Novak
- Simplified Procedures for Seismic Analysis and Design of Piers and Wharves in Marine Oil and LNG TerminalsUploaded byKalipada Sen
- Chapter02 - Guide to Use the ProvisionsUploaded byGuzmán Alphonse Unam
- ELNASHAI Et Al-1996-Earthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsUploaded bysabareesan09
- 2016_ASCEshortcourse_kircher.pdfUploaded bysf23234
- Design Trial 01Uploaded byJonel Capangpangan
- NHCE-2013-76Uploaded byHaran Pragalath
- IJRI-CCE-02-006Uploaded byijripublishers
- Washington Hospital Seismic StudyUploaded byRomoex R Rock
- Pca Circular Concrete TanksUploaded byFeliciano Esteban Dominguez
- EQTip06.pdfUploaded byDas Tadanki
- 56Uploaded byRonald De Guzman
- Compression StiffenersUploaded byZsuzsa
- Chapter 09Uploaded bybella
- Chapter 1Uploaded byAlfia Magfira
- [07203] - Design of Shear Wall BuildingsUploaded byabudabeejaja
- Strap FootingUploaded byChris Paulo
- Pushover Analysis of Structures Considering Strain Rate EffectsUploaded byovunctezer
- Structural ControlUploaded byChalo Roberts
- Shear Conn - Extended Fin PlateUploaded bykalpanaadhi
- Seismic Risk Assessment of Public Schools and Prioritization Strategy for Risk MitigationUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- CT26_Design_Guide_for_SHS_CFC_20-03-03.pdfUploaded byFrederico Donagemma
- AR231_Chap08_MomentofInertiaUploaded bySiimple Opinion Final
- CFD-AASHTO-2007Uploaded byNazlı Aral Celik
- Indian Temples - A Structural Marvel-VivekUploaded byVivek G. Abhyankar
- Unit IV - Limit State Design of ColumnsUploaded byManikandan
- Rak-83_3200_lecturenotes_5Uploaded bygoggings