2 Up votes1 Down votes

1.2K views248 pagesIts really a great guide

Aug 23, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Its really a great guide

© All Rights Reserved

1.2K views

Its really a great guide

© All Rights Reserved

- Seismic Design With Eurocode 8
- Designers' Guide to Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design 2nd Edition
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 7 Geothechnical Design
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 1 - Actions on Bridges
- Designer Guide - Eurocode 8 - Seismic Design
- Designers’ guide to EN 1992-2 Concrete Bridges (2007)
- Eurocode 4 Design Composite Steel Concrete Structures
- ConcreteCentre - EC2 Bridges Extract
- Designers' Guide to en 1992-1-1 and en 1992-1-2 Design of Concrete Structures Eurocode 2
- EC8 Seismic Design of Buildings - Worked examples
- Designers’ guide to EN 1993-2 Steel Bridges (2007).pdf
- Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
- Designers guide to EC3
- Designers Guide to EN1992-2 Eurocode 2
- Eurocode Load Combinations for Steel Structures 2010
- Designers' Guide to EN1991-1-4 Eurocode 1- Actions on structures, general actions part 1-4. Wind actions.pdf
- Designers-Guide-to-EN1992-1-1-and-EN1992-1-2
- Designs Guide to en 1994-2, Eurocode 4
- Integral Concrete Bridges to Eurocode 2
- Designers' Guide to en 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3 - Design of Steel Structures

You are on page 1of 248

DESIGN OF BRIDGES FOR EARTHQUAKE

RESISTANCE

EN 1998-2

BASIL KOLIAS

DENCO S.A, Greece

MICHAEL N. FARDIS

University of Patras, Greece

ALAIN PECKER

Geodynamique et Structure, France

Series editor

Haig Gulvanessian CBE

Full details of ICE Publishing sales representatives and distributors can be found at:

www.icevirtuallibrary.com/info/printbooksales

Eurocodes Expert

Structural Eurocodes offer the opportunity of harmonised design standards for the European construction

market and the rest of the world. To achieve this, the construction industry needs to become acquainted

with the Eurocodes so that the maximum advantage can be taken of these opportunities.

Eurocodes Expert is an ICE and Thomas Telford initiative set up to assist in creating a greater awareness

of the impact and implementation of the Eurocodes within the UK construction industry.

Eurocodes Expert provides a range of products and services to aid and support the transition to Eurocodes.

For comprehensive and useful information on the adoption of the Eurocodes and their implementation

process please visit our website or email eurocodes@thomastelford.com

www.icevirtuallibrary.com

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

# Thomas Telford Limited 2012

ICE Publishing is a division of Thomas Telford Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Institution of Civil

Engineers (ICE).

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act

1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form

or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of

the Publishing Director, ICE Publishing, 40 Marsh Wall, London E14 9TP.

This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements made

and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or

opinions are or reect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort has been made to ensure

that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide,

no liability or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers.

Associate Commissioning Editor: Jennifer Barratt

Production Editor: Imran Mirza

Market Specialist: Catherine de Gatacre

Index created by Indexing Specialists (UK) Ltd, Hove, East Sussex

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Preface

Aim of the Designers Guide

This Designers Guide to EN 1998-2:2005 covers the rules for the seismic design of bridges,

following in a loose way the contents of this EN Eurocode. It highlights its important points

without repeating them, providing comments and explanations for its application, as well as

background information and worked-out examples. However, it does not elaborate every

single clause in EN 1998-2:2005, neither does it follow strictly the sequence of its clauses.

All cross-references in this guide to sections, clauses, subclauses, paragraphs, annexes, gures,

tables and expressions of EN 1998-2 and EN 1998-5 are in italic type, which is also used

where text from EN 1998-2 and EN 1998-5 has been directly reproduced (conversely, quotations

from other sources, including other Eurocodes, and cross-references to sections, etc., of this

guide, are in roman type). Numbers within square brackets after cross-references in the

margin refer to Parts 1, 2 and 5 of EN 1998: EN 1998-1 [1], EN 1998-2 [2], EN 1998-5 [3]. Expression numbers specic to this guide are prexed by D (for Designers Guide), for example,

Eq. (D3.1), to prevent confusion with expression numbers from EN 1998.

Acknowledgements

This Designers Guide would not have been possible without the successful completion of

EN 1998-2:2005. Those involved in the process were:

g

g

the Project Team of CEN/TC250/SC8 that worked for the conversion from the ENV to

the EN: namely PT4, convened by Alex Plakas.

Contents

Preface

Aim of the Designers guide

Layout of this guide

Acknowledgements

v

v

v

v

Chapter 1

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Scope of Eurocode 8

1.3. Scope of Eurocode 8 Part 2

1.4. Use of Eurocode 8 Part 2 with the other Eurocodes

1.5. Additional European standards to be used with EN 1998-2:2005

1.6. Assumptions

1.7. Distinction between principles and application rules

1.8. Terms and denitions symbols

References

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

4

4

4

Chapter 2

2.1. Performance-based seismic design of bridges

2.2. Performance requirements for new bridges in Eurocode 8

2.3. Compliance criteria for the non-collapse requirement and

implementation

2.4. Exemption from the application of Eurocode 8

References

5

5

7

8

16

16

Chapter 3

3.1. Design seismic actions

3.2. Siting and foundation soils

3.3. Soil properties and parameters

3.4. Liquefaction, lateral spreading and related phenomena

References

19

19

29

30

32

36

Chapter 4

4.1. Introduction

4.2. General rules for the conceptual design of earthquake-resistant bridges

4.3. The choice of connection between the piers and the deck

4.4. The piers

4.5. The abutments and their connection with the deck

4.6. The foundations

References

37

37

38

43

53

59

64

65

Chapter 5

5.1. Introduction: methods of analysis in Eurocode 8

5.2. The three components of the seismic action in the analysis

5.3. Design spectrum for elastic analysis

5.4. Behaviour factors for the analysis

5.5. Modal response spectrum analysis

5.6. Fundamental mode analysis (or equivalent static analysis)

5.7. Torsional effects in linear analysis

5.8. Effective stiffness for the analysis

5.9. Calculation of seismic displacement demands through linear analysis

5.10. Nonlinear analysis

References

67

67

68

69

69

73

92

98

100

107

110

117

vii

Chapter 6

viii

6.1. Introduction

6.2. Combination of gravity and other actions with the design seismic

action

6.3. Verication procedure in design for ductility using linear analysis

6.4. Capacity design of regions other than exural plastic hinges in

bridges of ductile behaviour

6.5. Overview of detailing and design rules for bridges with ductile or

limited ductile behaviour

6.6. Verication and detailing of joints between ductile pier columns and

the deck or a foundation element

6.7. Verications in the context of design for ductility based on nonlinear

analysis

6.8. Overlap and clearance lengths at movable joints

6.9. Seismic links

6.10. Dimensioning of bearings

6.11. Verication of abutments

6.12. Verication of the foundation

6.13. Liquefaction and lateral spreading

References

119

119

Chapter 7

7.1. Introduction

7.2. Objective, means, performance requirements and conceptual design

7.3. Design seismic action

7.4. Behaviour families of the most common isolators

7.5. Analysis methods

7.6. Lateral restoring capability

References

171

171

171

174

174

185

191

191

Chapter 8

8.1. Introduction

8.2. Example of a bridge with ductile piers

8.3. Example of a bridge with limited ductile piers

8.4. Example of seismic isolation

References

193

193

193

210

221

249

Index

251

119

122

124

129

129

132

135

140

142

155

159

164

167

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.001

Chapter 1

1.1.

Introduction

Design of structures for earthquake resistance penetrated engineering practice for buildings

much earlier than for bridges. There are several reasons for this. First, seismic design is of relevance mainly for piers, but is secondary for the deck. The deck, though, receives in general

far more attention than the piers, as it is more important for the function and the overall cost

of the bridge, while its engineering is also more challenging. So, seismic considerations, being

relevant mainly for the less important components of bridges, have traditionally been of lower

priority. Second, a good number of bridges are not so sensitive to earthquakes: the long-span

ones which are also the subject of lots of attention and of major design and engineering

effort are very exible, and their long periods of vibration are outside the frequency range of

usual ground motions. At the other extreme, short bridges, with one or only few spans, often

follow the ground motion with little distress, and normally suffer only minor damage.

However, with the very rapid expansion of transportation networks, the new priorities in land

use especially in urban areas and the sensitivities of recent times to protection of the environment, bridge engineering has spread from the traditional eld of short crossings of rivers, ravines

or other natural barriers or of over- and underpasses for motorways to long viaducts consisting

of a large number of spans on equally numerous piers, often crossing territories with different

ground or soil conditions. The heavy damage suffered by such types of engineering works in

the earthquakes of Loma Prieta in 1989 and Kobe in 1995 demonstrated their seismic vulnerability. More recent events have conrmed the importance of proper seismic design (or lack of

it) for bridge projects.

Owing to these developments, recent decades have seen major advances in the seismic engineering

of bridges. It may now be claimed with a certain amount of condence that the state-of-the-art in

the seismic design of bridges is catching up with that of buildings, which is more deeply rooted in

common design practice and codes. Europe, where even the moderate-to-high seismicity

countries of the south lacked modern seismic design codes for bridges, has seen the development

of EN 1998-2:2005 as a modern and complete seismic design standard, on par with its counterparts in California, Japan and New Zealand. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005a) is quite

advanced from the point of view of the state-of-the-art and of seismic protection technology,

not only compared with the pre-existing status at national levels but also with respect to the

other parts of the new European seismic design standard (EN Eurocode 8) that address other

types of civil engineering works. It is up to the European community of seismic design

practice to make good use of it, to the benet of the seismic protection of new bridges in

Europe and of its own professional competiveness in other seismic parts of the world. This

Designers Guide aspires to help this community become familiar with Part 2 of Eurocode 8,

get the most out of it and apply it in a cost-effective way.

1.2.

Scope of Eurocode 8

Eurocode 8 covers the design and construction of earthquake-resistant buildings and other

civil engineering works including bridges, but excluding nuclear power plants, offshore structures and large dams. Its stated aim is to protect human life and property in the event of an

earthquake and to ensure that structures that are important for civil protection remain

operational.

Clauses 1.1.1(1),

1.1.1(2) [1]

Clause 1.1.1(1) [2]

Eurocode 8 has six Parts, listed in Table 1.1. Among them, only Part 2 (CEN, 2005a) is covered in

this Designers Guide.

Clauses 1.1.1(4),

1.1.3(1) [1]

1

Part

EN

Title

EN 1998-1:2004

2

3

EN 1998-2:2005

EN 1998-3:2005

4

5

EN 1998-4:2006

EN 1998-5:2004

EN 1998-6:2005

seismic actions, rules for buildings

Design of structures for earthquake resistance.

Design of structures for earthquake resistance.

retrotting of buildings

Design of structures for earthquake resistance.

Design of structures for earthquake resistance.

retaining structures, geotechnical aspects

Design of structures for earthquake resistance.

1.3.

Clauses 1.1.1(2)

1.1.1(4), 1.1.1(6) [2]

General rules,

Bridges

Assessment and

Silos, tanks, pipelines

Foundations,

Towers, masts, chimneys

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005a) has as its sole object the seismic design of new bridges. It

focuses on bridges having a deck superstructure supported directly on vertical or nearly

vertical concrete or steel piers and abutments. The seismic design of cable-stayed or arched

bridges is only partly covered, while that of suspension bridges, timber bridges (strictly

speaking, bridges on timber piers), masonry bridges, moveable bridges or oating bridges is

not covered at all. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 also covers the design of bridges with seismic isolation.

Unlike existing buildings, whose seismic assessment and retrotting is covered in Eurocode 8

(CEN, 2005b), existing bridges are not addressed at all.

1.4.

Clauses 1.1.2(1)

1.1.2(3) [1]

g

g

g

[3]

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 builds on the general provisions of Part 1 (CEN, 2004b) for:

the general performance requirements

seismic action

analysis methods and procedures applicable to all types of structures.

All the general or specic provisions of Part 5 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004a) regarding:

g

g

g

g

properties and seismic verication of the foundation soil

seismic design of the foundation or of earth-retaining structures

seismic soilstructure interaction

apply as well.

Clause 1.2.1 [1,2]

Eurocode 8 is not a stand-alone code. It is applied alongside the other relevant Eurocodes in a

Clauses 1.2.2, 1.2.4 [2] package referring to a specic type of civil engineering structure and construction material.

g

g

g

g

2/2:

3/2:

4/2:

5/2:

Concrete bridges

Steel bridges

Composite bridges

Timber bridges.

To be self-sufcient, each package includes all the Eurocode parts needed for design, as

follows:

g

EN 1990: Basis of structural design (including Annex A2: Application for bridges)

EN 1991-1-1: Actions on structures General actions Densities, Self weight and

Imposed loads for buildings

EN 1991-1-3: Actions on structures General actions Snow loads

EN 1991-1-5: Actions on structures General actions Thermal actions

EN 1991-1-6: Actions on structures General actions Actions during execution

EN 1991-1-7: Actions on structures General actions Accidental actions

EN 1991-2: Actions on structures Trafc loads on bridges

EN 1997-1: Geotechnical Design General rules

EN 1997-2: Geotechnical Design Ground investigation and testing

EN 1998-1: Design of structures for earthquake resistance General rules, seismic

actions, rules for buildings

EN 1998-2: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Bridges

EN 1998-5: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Foundations, retaining

structures, geotechnical aspects.

Additional EN-Eurocodes are included in the Concrete Bridges package (2/2):

EN 1992-1-1: Design of concrete structures General General rules and rules for

buildings

EN 1992-2: Design of concrete structures Concrete bridges Design and detailing

rules.

Additional EN-Eurocodes included in the Steel Bridges package (3/2):

EN 1993-1-1: Design of steel structures General rules and rules for buildings

EN 1993-1-5: Design of steel structures Plated structural elements

EN 1993-1-7: Design of steel structures Strength and stability of planar plated

structures subject to out of plane loading

EN 1993-1-8: Design of steel structures Design of joints

EN 1993-1-9: Design of steel structures Fatigue

EN 1993-1-10: Design of steel structures Selection of steel for fracture toughness and

through-thickness properties

EN 1993-1-11: Design of steel structures Design of structures with tension

components

EN 1993-2: Design of steel structures Steel bridges.

EN-Eurocodes which are included in addition in the Composite Bridges package (4/2) are:

EN 1992-1-1: Design of concrete structures General General rules and rules for

buildings

EN 1992-2: Design of concrete structures Concrete bridges Design and detailing

rules

EN 1993-1-1: Design of steel structures General rules and rules for buildings

EN 1993-1-5: Design of steel structures Plated structural elements

EN 1993-1-7: Design of steel structures Strength and stability of planar plated

structures subject to out of plane loading

EN 1993-1-8: Design of steel structures Design of joints

EN 1993-1-9: Design of steel structures Fatigue

EN 1993-1-10: Design of steel structures Selection of steel for fracture toughness and

through-thickness properties

EN 1993-1-11: Design of steel structures Design of structures with tension

components

EN 1993-2: Design of steel structures Steel bridges

EN 1994-1-1: Design of composite steel and concrete structures General rules and

rules for buildings

EN 1994-2: Design of composite steel and concrete structures General rules and rules

for bridges.

Although package 5/2, for timber bridges, does include Parts 1, 2 and 5 of Eurocode 8, EN 19982:2005 itself is not meant to cover timber bridges.

1.5.

g

g

g

EN 1337-2:2000: Structural bearings Part 2: Sliding elements

EN 1337-3:2005: Structural bearings Part 3: Elastomeric bearings.

3

Although EN 1337-5 Structural bearings Part 5: Pot bearings is not specically referenced, it is

also to be used, as relevant.

1.6.

Clauses 1.3(1), 1.3(2)

[1,2]

1.7.

Clause 1.4 [1,2]

Eurocode 8 refers to EN 1990 for the distinction between principles and application rules.

Accordingly, reference is made here also to Designers Guides to other Eurocodes for elaboration. It is noted, though, that, in practice, the distinction between principles and application

rules is immaterial, as all provisions of the normative text are mandatory: non-conformity to a

single application rule disqualies the entire design from being considered to accord with the

EN Eurocodes.

1.8.

Clauses 1.5, 1.6 [2]

Assumptions

Eurocode 8 refers to EN 1990 (CEN, 2002) for general assumptions, so reference is made here to

Designers Guides to other Eurocodes for elaboration. Also, Eurocode 8 adds the condition that

no change to the structure (not even one that increases the force resistance of members) should

take place during execution or afterwards without proper justication and verication.

Terms and symbols are dened in the various chapters of this Designers Guide wherever they

rst appear.

REFERENCES

CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) (2002) EN 1990: Eurocode Basis of structural design

(including Annex A2: Application to bridges). CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004a) EN 1998-5:2004 Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 5:

Foundations, retaining structures, geotechnical aspects. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004b) EN 1998-1:2004. Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005a) EN 1998-2:2005 Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2:

Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005b) EN 1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 3:

Assessment and retrotting of buildings. CEN, Brussels.

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.005

Chapter 2

compliance criteria

2.1.

Paraphrasing for the particular purpose of the seismic design of bridges the b 2010 Model

Code ib, 2012) the seismic performance of a bridge refers to its behaviour under seismic action:

the bridge must be designed, constructed and maintained so that it adequately and in an economically reasonable way performs in earthquakes that may take place during its construction

and service. More specically, the bridge must:

g

g

withstand extreme, occasional and frequent seismic actions likely to occur during its

anticipated use and avoid damage by an exceptional earthquake to an extent

disproportionate to the triggering event

contribute positively to the needs of humankind with regard to nature, society, economy

and wellbeing.

Accordingly, three categories of performance are addressed by the b 2010 Model Code

( b, 2012):

g

Serviceability: the ability of the bridge and its structural components to perform, with

appropriate levels of reliability, adequately for normal use after or even during seismic

actions expected during its service life.

Structural safety: the ability of the bridge and its structural components to guarantee the

overall stability, adequate deformability and ultimate load-bearing resistance,

corresponding to occasional, extreme or exceptional seismic actions with appropriate levels

of reliability for the specied reference periods.

Sustainability: the ability of the bridge to contribute positively to the fullment of the

present needs of humankind with respect to nature, society and people, without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs in a similar manner.

In performance-based design, the bridge is designed to perform in a required manner during its

entire life cycle, with performance evaluated by verifying its behaviour against specied requirements, based in turn on stakeholders demands for the bridge performance and required service

life. Performance-based design of a new bridge is completed when it has been shown that the

performance requirements are satised for all relevant aspects of performance related to serviceability, structural safety and sustainability. If the performance of a structure or a structural

component is considered to be inadequate, we say we have failure.

The Eurocodes introduce limit states to carry out performance-based design for serviceability

and safety (CEN, 2002). Limit states mark the boundary between desired and undesirable structural performance of the whole structure or a component: beyond a limit state, one or more performance requirements are no longer met. For the particular case of seismic design, limit states

are dened conceptually for all transient situations in the service life or the execution of the

bridge during which the earthquake acts in combination with any relevant persistent or transient

actions or environmental inuences. They correspond to discrete representations of the structural

response under a specied exposure for which specic losses/damages can be associated. In

practice, they use simplied models for the exposure and the structural response ( b, 2012).

5

g

g

ultimate limit states (ULSs).

SLSs are those beyond which specied requirements for the bridge or its structural components

related to its normal use are no longer met. If they entail permanent local damage or permanent

unacceptable deformations, the outcome of their exceedance is irreversible. It is considered to be

serviceability failure, and may require repair to reinstate tness for use. According to the b 2010

Model Code ( b, 2012), in seismic design at least one but sometimes two SLSs must be

explicitly considered, each one for a different representative value of the seismic action:

g

The operational (OP) limit state: the facility (bridge or any other construction work)

satises the operational limit state criteria if it has suffered practically no damage and can

continue serving its original intention with little disruption of use for repairs; any repair, if

needed, can be deferred to the future without disruption of normal use.

The immediate use (IU) limit state: the facility satises this if all of the following

conditions apply:

the structure itself is very lightly damaged (i.e. localised yielding of reinforcement,

cracking or local spalling of concrete, without residual drifts or other permanent

structural deformations)

the normal use of the facility is temporarily but safely interrupted

risk to life is negligible

the structure retains fully its earlier strength and stiffness and its ability to withstand

loading

the (minor) damage of non-structural components and systems can be easily and

economically repaired at a later stage.

ULSs are limit states associated with the various modes of structural collapse or stages close to it,

which for practical purposes are also considered as a ULS. Exceedance of a ULS is almost always

irreversible; the rst time it occurs it causes inadequate structural safety, that is, failure. ULSs

address (CEN, 2002; b, 2012):

g

g

life safety

protection of the structure.

g

g

g

g

permanent deformations exceeding a certain limit

loss of equilibrium of the structure or part of it, considered as a rigid body (e.g.

overturning)

sliding beyond a certain limit or overturning.

In seismic design there may be several ULSs, with different consequences of limit state failure,

high or medium. According to the b 2010 Model Code ( b, 2012), in seismic design at least

one but normally both of the following ULSs must be explicitly considered, each one for a

different representative value of the seismic action:

g

The life safety (LS) limit state: this is reached if any of the following conditions are met

(but not surpassed):

the structure is signicantly damaged, but does not collapse, not even partly, retaining

its integrity

the structure does not provide sufcient safety for normal use, although it is safe enough

for temporary use

secondary or non-structural components are seriously damaged, but do not obstruct

emergency use or cause life-threatening injuries by falling down

the structure is on the verge of losing capacity, although it retains sufcient load-bearing

capacity and sufcient residual strength and stiffness to protect life for the period until

the repair is completed

The near-collapse (NC) limit state: this is reached if any of the following conditions are

met:

the structure is heavily damaged and is at the verge of collapse

although life safety is mostly ensured during the loading event, it is not fully guaranteed

as there may be life-threatening injury situations due to falling debris

the structure is unsafe even for emergency use, and would probably not survive

additional loading

the structure presents low residual strength and stiffness but is still able to support the

quasi-permanent loads.

A representative seismic action, with a prescribed probability of not being exceeded during the

design service life, should be dened for each limit state considered. According to the b 2010

Model Code ( b, 2012), multiple representative seismic actions appropriate for ordinary facilities

are:

g

g

g

g

For the operational (OP) limit state: a frequent seismic action, expected to be exceeded at

least once during the design service life (i.e. having a mean return period much shorter

than the design service life).

For immediate use (IU): an occasional earthquake, not expected to be exceeded during

the design service life (e.g. with a mean return period about twice the design service life).

For life safety (LS): a rare seismic action, with a low probability of being exceeded (10%)

during the design service life.

For near-collapse (NC): a very rare seismic action, with very low probability of being

exceeded (25%) in the design service life of the structure.

For facilities whose consequences of failure are very high, the very rare seismic action may be

appropriate for the life safety limit state. For those which are essential for the immediate postearthquake period, a rare seismic action may be appropriate for the immediate use or even

the operational limit state ( b, 2012).

A fully edged performance-based seismic design of a bridge as outlined above for the case of the

b 2010 Model Code ( b, 2012) will serve well the interests and objectives of owners, in that it

allows explicit verication of performance levels related to different level of operation (including

loss) of the bridge under frequent, occasional, rare or quite exceptional earthquakes. However,

the design process may become too complex and cumbersome. Therefore, even the b 2010

Model Code ( b, 2012) recognises that, depending on the use and importance of the facility,

competent authorities will choose how many and which limit states should be veried at a

minimum and which representative seismic action they will be paired with. The seismic design

of a bridge, or at least certain of its aspects, may be conditioned by just one of these limit

states. However, this may hold on a site-specic but not on a general basis, because the seismicity

of the site controls the relative magnitude of the representative seismic actions for which the

multiple limit states should be veried.

In closing this discussion on the performance-based design of bridges, a comment is required on

sustainability performance: it is not explicitly addressed in the rst generation of Eurocodes, but

will be in the next one, as the European Union recently added Sustainable use of resources

to the two essential requirements of Mechanical resistance and stability and Resistance to

re for construction products that must be served by the Eurocodes. The b 2010 Model

Code ( b, 2012), which has raised sustainability performance to the same level as serviceability

and structural safety, speaks about it still in rather general terms. At any rate, the sustainabilityconscious bridge designer should cater in the conceptual design phase for aesthetics and the

minimisation of environmental impact (including during execution) and during all phases,

from concept to detailed design, for savings in materials.

2.2.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005) requires a single-level seismic design of new bridges with the

following explicit performance objective:

Clauses 2.1(1),

2.2.2(1), 2.2.2(4) [2]

7

The bridge must retain its structural integrity and have sufcient residual resistance to be

used for emergency trafc without any repair after a rare seismic event the design

seismic action explicitly dened in Parts 1 and 2 of Eurocode 8; any damage due to this

event must be easily repairable.

Although called a non-collapse requirement, in reality this corresponds to the life safety, rather

than to the near-collapse, limit state of the general framework of performance-based seismic

design outlined in the previous section, since sufcient residual resistance has to be available

after the design seismic event for immediate use by emergency trafc.

Clause 2.1(1) [1,2]

As we will see in more detail in Section 3.12.2 of this Guide, the design seismic action of

structures of ordinary importance is called the reference seismic action; its mean return

period is the reference return period, denoted by TNCR . Eurocode 8 recommends basing

the determination of the design seismic action on a 10% exceedance probability in 50 years,

corresponding to a reference return period of 475 years.

If the seismicity is low, the probability of exceedance of the design seismic action during the

design life of the bridge may be well below 10%, and at any rate difcult to quantify. For

such cases, Eurocode 8 allows for consideration of the seismic action as an accidental action;

also, in these cases it tolerates more damage to the bridge deck and secondary components, as

well to the bridge parts intended for controlled damage under the design seismic action.

Clauses 2.1(2)2.1(6)

[2]

Clause 3.2.1(3) [1]

Again as detailed in Section 3.12.2 of this Guide, Eurocode 8 pursues enhanced performance for

bridges that are vital for communications in the region or very important for public safety, not by

upgrading the performance level, as suits the general framework of performance-based seismic

design delineated in the previous section, but by modifying the hazard level (increasing the

mean return period) for the design seismic action under which the non-collapse requirement

is met. This is done by multiplying the reference seismic action by the importance factor gI ,

which by denition is gI 1.0 for bridges of ordinary importance (i.e. for the reference return

period of the seismic action).

Clauses 2.2.1(1),

2.2.3(1), 2.3.1(1) [2]

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 calls also for the limitation of damage under a loosely dened seismic action

with a high probability of exceedance; such damage must be minor and limited only to secondary

components and to the parts of the bridge intended for controlled damage under the design

seismic action. However, this requirement is of no practical consequence for design: it is

presumed to be implicitly fullled if all the criteria for compliance with the non-collapse

requirement above are checked and met. This should be contrasted with new buildings, for

which Part 1 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004) provides explicit checks under a well-dened

damage limitation seismic action. However, these damage checks (inter-storey drifts)

normally refer to non-structural elements that are not present in bridges.

Clauses 2.3.4(1),

2.3.4(2) [2]

Although not explicitly stated, an additional performance requirement for bridges designed to

face the design seismic action by means of ductility and energy dissipation is the prevention

of the near-collapse limit state in an extreme and very rare, as yet undened, earthquake.

This implicit performance objective is pursued through systematic and across-the-board application of the capacity design concept, which allows full control of the inelastic response

mechanism.

2.3.

Clauses 2.2.2(3),

2.3.2.2(4) [2]

implementation

2.3.1

Design options to meet the bridge performance requirements

For continued use after the design seismic action (e.g. by emergency trafc), the deck of the

bridge must remain in the elastic range. Damage should be local and limited to non-structural

or secondary components, such as expansion joints, parapets or concrete slabs providing topslab continuity between adjacent simply-supported spans, most often built of precast concrete

girders. The latter may yield during bending of the deck in the transverse direction.

If the seismic action is considered in the National Annex as accidental, because the probability

of exceedance of the design seismic action during the design life of the bridge is well below 10%

or undened, Eurocode 8 allows as an exemption some inelastic action in and damage to the

bridge deck.

It is today commonplace that the earthquake represents for the structure a demand to accom- Clauses 2.4(3), 2.4(4),

6.6.2.3(1) [2]

modate imposed dynamic displacements primarily in the horizontal direction and not

forces. Seismic damage results from them. The prime aim of seismic design is to accommodate

these horizontal displacements with controlled damage. The simple structural system of

bridges lends itself to the following options:

To place the deck on a system of sliding or horizontally exible bearings (or bearing-type

devices) at the top of the substructure (the abutments and all piers) and accommodate the

horizontal displacements at this interface.

2 To x or rigidly connect horizontally the deck to the top of at least one pier but let it slide

or move on exible bearings at all other supports (including the abutments). The piers that

are rigidly connected to the deck are required to accommodate the seismic horizontal

displacements by bending. These piers develop inelastic rotations in exural plastic

hinges, if they are not tall and exible enough to accommodate the horizontal

displacements elastically.

3 To accommodate (most of ) the seismic horizontal displacements in the foundation and the

soil, either through sliding at the base of piers or through inelastic deformations of soil

pile systems of the foundation.

4 To rigidly connect the deck with the abutments (either monolithically or via xed bearings

or links) into an integral system that follows the ground motion with little additional

deformation of its own. It then makes little difference if any intermediate piers are also

integral with the deck or support it on bearings.

1

Option 4 (usually termed integral bridges) is encountered only in relatively short bridges with

one or very few spans. It is dealt with in Section 5.4 of this Designers Guide as a special case.

Clauses 4.1.6(9),

4.1.6(10) [2]

Part 5 of Eurocode 8 explicitly allows horizontal sliding of footings with respect to the soil (as

long as residual rotation about horizontal axes and overturning are controlled), but this is an

unconventional design option adopted for major bridges, notably the 2.45 km continuousdeck Rion-Antirrion bridge with a design ground acceleration of 0.48g. For typical bridges, a

non-reversible sliding of one foundation support may entail serious problems. Part 5 of

Eurocode 8, as well as Part 2, also allows inelastic deformations in foundation piles. This may

be the only viable option if the deck is monolithic with strong and rigid wall-like piers placed

transverse to the bridge axis.

Clauses 5.4.1.1(7),

5.4.2(7) [3]

Clause 4.1.6(7) [2]

Most common in practice are options 1 and 2, which are therefore considered as the two fundamental options for the seismic design of bridges. Option 1 is considered in Part 2 of Eurocode 8

as full seismic isolation, with the piers designed to remain elastic during the design seismic

action.

Clauses 2.3.2.1(10),

4.1.6(11) [2]

In option 2, the piers are normally designed to respond well into the inelastic range, mobilising

ductility and energy dissipation to withstand the seismic action. Design based on ductility and

energy dissipation capacity is seismic design par excellence. It is at the core of Part 2 of

Eurocode 8, where it is called design for ductile behaviour, as well as of this Designers Guide.

Clauses 2.2.2(2),

2.2.2(4), 2.3.2.2(1),

2.3.2.2(2), 2.3.2.2(7),

4.1.6(6) [2]

Ductility and energy dissipation under the design seismic action is entrusted by Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 to the piers, and is understood to entail a certain degree of damage at the plastic

hinges (spalling of the unconned concrete shell outside the conning hoops, but no buckling

or fracture of bars, nor crushing of conned concrete inside the hoops). However, as this

damage is meant to be reparable, it should be limited to easily accessible parts of the pier.

Parts above the normal water level (be it in a sleeve or casing) are ideal. Those at a shallow

depth below grade but above the normal water table are also accessible. Those embedded

deeper in ll but above the normal water level are still accessible but with increased difculty.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not distinguish in great detail between these cases. It considers,

though, as accessible the base of a pier deep in backll but as inaccessible parts of the pier

which are deep in water, or piles under large pile-caps; to reduce damage in such regions

Clauses 2.2.2(4),

2.3.2.2(3) [2]

under the design seismic action, it divides seismic design forces by 0.6 should plastic hinges form

there.

2.3.2

Design of bridges for energy dissipation and ductility

2.3.2.1 Introduction

Section 2.3.2 refers to one of the two fundamental options for the seismic design of bridges,

namely to option 2: that of xing horizontally the deck to the top of at least one pier but to

let it slide at the abutments and accommodate the seismic horizontal displacements through

bending of the piers, with ductile and dissipative exural plastic hinges forming at their

ends.

Clauses 2.3.5.2(1),

2.3.5.2(2), 2.3.6.1(8)

[2]

2.3.2.2 Design of the bridge as a whole for energy dissipation and ductility

It has already been pointed out that the earthquake is a dynamic action, representing for a structure a requirement to sustain certain displacements and deformations and not specic forces.

Eurocode 8 allows bridges to develop signicant inelastic deformations under the design

seismic action, provided that the integrity of individual components and of the bridge as a

whole is not jeopardised. Design of a bridge to Eurocode 8 for the non-collapse requirement

under the design seismic action is force-based, nonetheless.

The foundation of force-based seismic design for ductility and energy dissipation is the inelastic

response spectrum of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDoF) system having an elasticperfectly

plastic forcedisplacement curve, F d, in monotonic loading. For given period, T, of the

elastic SDoF system, the inelastic spectrum relates:

g

g

the ratio q Fel/Fy of the peak force, Fel , that would have developed if the SDoF system

were linear elastic, to the yield force of the system, Fy

the maximum displacement demand of the inelastic SDoF system, dmax , expressed as ratio

to the yield displacement, dy (i.e. as the displacement ductility factor, md dmax/dy).

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 has adopted a modication of the inelastic spectra proposed in Vidic et al.

(1994):

md q

md 1 q 1

md 1

1:25TC

5q 4

T

if T 1:25TC

D2:1a

if T , 1:25TC

D2:1b

if T , 0:033 s

D2:1c

where TC is the transition period of the elastic spectrum, between its constant spectral pseudoacceleration and constant spectral pseudo-velocity ranges (see Section 3.1.3). Equation (D2.1)

expresses Newmarks well-known equal displacement rule; that is, the empirical observation

that in the constant spectral pseudo-velocity range the peak displacement response of the

inelastic and of the elastic SDoF systems are about the same.

With F being the total lateral force on the structure (the base shear, if the seismic action is in the

horizontal direction), the ratio q Fel/Fy is termed in Eurocode 8 the behaviour factor (the

force reduction factor or the response modication factor, R, in North America). It is

used as a universal reduction factor on the internal forces that would develop in the elastic

structure for 5% damping, or, equivalently, on the seismic inertia forces that would develop

in this elastic structure and cause, in turn, the seismic internal forces. In this way, the seismic

internal forces for which the members of the structure should be dimensioned can be calculated

through linear-elastic analysis. In return, the structure must be provided with the capacity to

sustain a peak global displacement at least equal to its global yield displacement multiplied

by the displacement ductility factor, md , that corresponds to the value of q used for the

reduction of elastic force demands (e.g. according to Eqs (D2.1)). This is termed the ductility

capacity, or the energy-dissipation capacity as it has to develop through cyclic response in

which the members and the structure as a whole dissipate part of the seismic energy input

through hysteresis.

10

In force-based seismic design for ductility and energy dissipation, exural plastic hinges in piers

are dimensioned and detailed to achieve a combination of force resistance and ductility that

provides a safety factor between 1.5 and 2 against substantial loss of resistance to lateral (i.e.

horizontal) load. To this end, they are rst dimensioned to provide a design value of moment

and axial force resistance Rd , at least equal to the corresponding action effects due to the

seismic design situation, Ed , from the analysis:

Ed Rd

(D2.2)

The values of Ed in Eq. (D2.2) are due to the combination of the seismic action with the

quasi-permanent gravity actions (i.e. the nominal permanent loads and the quasi-permanent

trafc loads, as pointed out in Section 5.4 in connection with Eq. (D5.6a) for the calculation

of the deck mass). As linear analysis is normally applied, Ed may be found from superposition

of the seismic action effects from the analysis for the seismic action alone to the action effects

from that for the quasi-permanent gravity actions.

After having been dimensioned to meet Eq. (D2.2), exural plastic hinges in piers are detailed to

provide the deformation and ductility capacity necessary to meet the deformation demands on

them from the design of the structure for the chosen q-factor value. The measure used for the

deformation and ductility capacity of exural plastic hinges is the curvature ductility factor of

the pier end section, whose supply-value is

mf fu/fy

Clauses 2.3.5.1(1),

2.3.5.3(1), 2.3.5.3(2),

2.3.6.1(8), Annex B,

Annex E [2]

(D2.3)

where fy is the yield curvature of that section (computed from rst principles) and fu its ultimate

curvature (again from rst principles and the ultimate deformation criteria adopted for

the materials). At the other end, the global displacement demands are expressed through the

global displacement ductility factor of the bridge, md , connected to the q factor used in the

design of the bridge through the inelastic spectra, in this case Eqs (D2.1).

The intermediary between mf and md is the ductility factor of the chord rotation at the pier end

where the plastic hinge forms, mu . Recall that the chord rotation u at a pier end is the deection

of the inexion point with respect to the tangent to the pier axis at the end of interest, divided by

the distance between these two points of the pier, termed the shear span and denoted by Ls . So,

the chord rotation u is a measure of member displacement, not of the relative rotation between

sections. If the pier is xed at its base against rotation and supports the deck without the intervention of horizontally exible bearings (i.e. if it is monolithically connected or supported on

the pier through xed e.g. pot bearings), the chord rotation at the hinging end of the pier

is related as follows to the deck displacement right above the pier top, d, in the common

cases of:

Pier columns monolithically connected at the top to a very stiff deck with near-xity there

against rotation for seismic response in the longitudinal direction and inexion point at the

column mid-height (see Section 5.4, Eqs (D5.4) if the deck cannot be considered as rigid

compared with the piers in the longitudinal direction); the horizontal displacement of that

point is one-half of that of the deck above, d, and the shear span, Ls , is about equal to

one-half of the pier clear height, Hp ; Ls Hp/2; therefore, at the plastic hinges forming at

both ends of the pier, u 0.5d/Ls d/Hp .

2 Multiple-column piers monolithically connected at the top to a very stiff deck or a cap

beam with near-xity there against rotation for seismic response in the transverse

direction; the situation is similar to case 1 above, so in the transverse direction Ls Hp/2

and u 0.5d/Ls d/Hp .

3 Piers supporting the deck through xed (e.g. pot) bearings at the top and working as

vertical cantilevers with a shear span Ls about equal to the pier clear height, Ls Hp and

u d/Ls d/Hp .

4 Single-column piers monolithic with the deck and working in the transverse direction of

the bridge as vertical cantilevers; if the rotational inertia of the deck about its longitudinal

axis and the vertical distance between the pier top and the point of application of the deck

1

11

inertia force are neglected (see Section 5.4, Eqs (D5.5) for the case they are not), the

situation is similar to case 3 above, so in the transverse direction Ls Hp and

u d/Ls d/Hp .

In a well-designed bridge, all piers will yield at the same time, turning the bridge into a fully

edged plastic mechanism. Then, in all cases 1 to 4 above, md d/dy will be (about) equal to

mu u/uy:

md mu

(D2.4)

In a plastic hinge model of the inelastic deformation of the pier, all inelastic deformations are

lumped in the plastic hinge, which is considered to have a nite length Lpl and to develop

constant inelastic curvature all along Lpl . Then, for a linear bending moment diagram

(constant shear force) along the pier, the chord rotation at its yielding end(s) is

Lpl

Ls

u fy f fy Lpl 1

3

2Ls

D2:5

3Lpl

Lpl

mu 1 mf 1

1

Ls

2Ls

D2:6

mf

fu

md 1

1

fy

3l1 0:5l

D2:7

where l Lpl/Ls . Then, if the pier plastic hinge length Lpl is estimated through appropriate

empirical relations, Eqs (D2.1) and (D2.7) translate the q factor used in the design of the

bridge into a demand value for the curvature ductility factor of the piers. Note that Part 1 of

Eurocode 8 has adopted for concrete members in buildings the following conservative approximation of Eqs (D2.6) and (D2.7):

mu 1 0.5(mf 1)

i.e. mf 2mu 1

(D2.8)

dating from the ENV version of the concrete buildings part of Eurocode 8 (ENV 1998-1-3:1994).

Clauses 2.3.5.4(1),

2.3.5.4(2) [2]

Clauses 2.3.3(1),

2.3.4(1), 2.3.4(2),

2.3.6.2(2) [2]

If linear analysis is used alongside the design spectrum involving the q factor, the required value

of the curvature ductility factor of the piers is presumed to be provided if the detailing rules of

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 are applied, prescriptive or not. If nonlinear analysis is used instead, the

inelastic chord rotation demands obtained from it are compared with appropriate design

values of chord rotation capacities, obtained by setting f fu in Eq. (D2.5). Details are given

in Chapter 6.

2.3.2.4 Capacity design for the ductile global response

The bridges seismic design determines how the (roughly) given peak global displacement

demand of the design seismic action is distributed to its various components. Eurocode 8 uses

capacity design to direct and limit this demand only to those best suited to withstand it.

Capacity design imposes a hierarchy of strengths between adjacent components or regions, and

between different mechanisms of load transfer in the same member, so that those items capable of

ductile behaviour and hysteretic energy dissipation are the rst ones to develop inelastic deformations. More importantly, they do so in a way that precludes the development of inelastic

deformations in any component, region or mechanism deemed incapable of ductile behaviour

and hysteretic energy dissipation.

The components, regions thereof or mechanisms of force transfer to which the peak global

displacement and deformation energy demands are channelled by capacity design are selected,

12

Their inherent ductility. Ductile components, regions thereof or mechanisms of force

transfer are entrusted through capacity design for inelastic deformations and energy

dissipation, while brittle ones are shielded from them. Flexure is a far more ductile

mechanism of force transfer than shear, and can be made even more so through judicious

choice of the level of axial force and the amount, distribution and ductility of longitudinal

and transverse reinforcement.

2 The role of the component for the integrity of the whole and the fullment of the

performance requirements of the bridge. The foundation and connections between

components (bearings, links, holding-down devices, etc.) securing structural integrity are

most important for the stability and integrity of the whole; the integrity of the deck itself

determines the continued operation of the bridge after the earthquake.

3 Accessibility and difculty in inspecting and repairing any damage. Accessible regions of

the piers (above the grade and the water level) are the easiest to repair without disruption

of trafc.

1

On the basis of the above aspects, a clear hierarchy of the bridge components and mechanisms of

force transfer emerges, determining the order in which they are allowed to enter the inelastic

range during the seismic response: the deck, the connections between components and the

foundation are to be shielded from inelastic action; the last is channelled to exural plastic

hinges at accessible ends of the piers. Capacity design ensures that this order is indeed respected.

As we will see in more detail later, it works as follows.

The required force resistance of the components, regions thereof or mechanisms of force

transfer to be shielded from inelastic response is not determined from the analysis. Simple

calculations (normally on the basis of equilibrium alone) are used instead, assuming that

all relevant plastic hinges develop their moment resistances in a way that prevents preemptive attainment of the force resistance of the components, etc., to be shielded from

inelastic action.

2.3.2.5 How elastic deformations in exible bearings or the foundation ground

affect the ductility of the bridge

Assume that the deck is supported on a ductile pier that can develop a curvature ductility factor

mfo in the plastic hinge(s) and a chord rotation ductility factor muo , and has elastic lateral

stiffness Kp if xed at the base:

Annex B [2]

(a) For a single-column pier presenting exural rigidity (EI )c in a vertical plane in the

transverse direction of the bridge and supporting a deck mass with a radius of gyration

rm,d about its centroidal axis (r2m,d ratio of tributary rotational mass moment of inertia

of the deck about the decks centroidal axis to the tributary deck mass):

"

Kp

H

9r2m;d

8Ls

3EIc

!

#

2

Ls H ycg ycg

D2:9a

In Eq. (D2.9a), ycg is the distance from the soft of the deck to the centroid of its

section, and Ls is the shear span at the pier base (see Eq. (D5.5) in Section 5.4 for this

particular case).

(b) For a pier consisting of n 1 columns, each one with height H and presenting the rigidity

(EI )c within the plane of bending considered, all having the top xed to the soft of a

very stiff deck:

Kp 12Sn(EI )c/H3

(D2.9b)

Single-column piers (n 1) in the transverse direction of the bridge are not addressed by

this case but by case 1 above and Eq. (D2.9a).

13

(c) For a pier as in case 2 above but with the top of its n 1 columns pin-connected to the

deck, instead of being xed to it:

Kp 3Sn(EI )c/H3

(D2.9c)

Assume also that one or more additional components intervene between the deck and the ground

in series with the pier, all designed to remain elastic until and after the pier yields (e.g. through

capacity design according to the previous section). The generic elastic stiffness of these

components is denoted as Kel . Such components can be:

g

the compliance of the ground if the foundation itself has horizontal stiffness Kfh (base

shear divided by the horizontal displacement of the foundation) and rotational stiffness

Kff (moment divided by the rotation at the pier base), giving horizontal stiffness at the top

of the pier Kff/H2 and/or

an elastic (e.g. elastomeric) bearing with horizontal stiffness Kb (Kb GA/t if the bearing

has horizontal section area A, and its material the elastomer has total thickness t and

shear modulus G) needless to say, this case does not combine with piers of case 2 above,

which have their top xed to the soft of the deck.

X 1

1

1

1

1

1

H2

K Kp

Kel Kp Kb Kfh Kff

D2:10

If the pier yields at a base shear Vy , the displacement of the deck at yielding is

dy

Vy Vy X Vy

K

Kp

Kel

D2:11

After the pier yields, additional horizontal displacements are due to the inelastic rotation(s) of its

plastic hinge(s) alone, giving an inelastic displacement of the deck:

Vy

md dy muo 1

dy

Kp

D2:12

where md is the global displacement ductility factor of the bridge at the level of the deck.

According to Eqs (D2.4), (D2.6) and (D2.7), there is proportionality between (md 1),

(mu 1) and (mf 1). Therefore, Eqs (D2.9)(D2.11) state that, to achieve the same target

value md of the global displacement ductility factor of the bridge at the level of the deck, the

curvature ductility demand at a plastic hinge of a pier should increase from mfo to

X Kp

mf 1 mfo 1 1

Kel

D2:13

The horizontal stiffness of an elastic bearing is several times smaller than that of an ordinary pier.

So, Eq. (D2.13) gives unduly large values of the curvature ductility demand that a plastic hinge in

the pier may have to bear for the bridge to achieve the q factor values normally used in the

seismic design of bridges for ductility. So, if piers are intended to resist the design seismic

action through ductility and energy dissipation, elastic bearings have no place on top of them.

By the same token, ductile piers should be nearly xed to the ground: compliance of the foundation will penalise detailing of their plastic hinges for the target q factor of seismic design for

ductility.

The same conclusion can be reached through energy considerations. The pier is an assembly of

components in series, only one of which (the pier shaft having stiffness Kp) possesses the

capability of hysteretic energy dissipation. The other components (elastic bearings at the pier

top and foundation compliance, having a composite stiffness Kel) should remain within the

elastic range. As the same shear force acts on all components in series, the strain energy

14

input in each component at any instant of the seismic response is proportional to their

exibilities, 1/Kp and 1/Kel , respectively. When the portion of the energy input in the dissipative

component is small compared with the input in the series system, the dissipation capability of

the whole assembly is also small. In other words, the behaviour of such assemblies becomes

practically elastic.

2.3.3

behaviour

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives the option to design a bridge to resist the seismic action through

strength alone, without explicitly resorting to ductility and energy dissipation capacity. In this

option, the bridge is designed:

g

g

g

Clauses 2.3.2.1(1),

2.3.2.2(1), 2.3.2.3(1),

2.3.3(2), 2.3.4(3),

2.3.5.4(3) [2]

in accordance with Eurocodes 2, 3, 4 and 7, with the seismic action considered as a static

loading (like wind)

without capacity design considerations, except for non-ductile connections or structural

components (xed bearings, sockets and anchorages of cables and stays), but

observing:

some minimum requirements for the ductility of steel reinforcement or steel sections and

for connement and bar anti-buckling restraint in potential plastic hinges of concrete piers

simplied rules for the ULS verication in shear.

The seismic lateral forces are derived from the design response spectrum using a behaviour

factor, q, not higher than the value of 1.5 attributed to material overstrength. In fact:

(a) if the bridge seismic response is dominated by upper modes (as in cable-stayed bridges) or

(b) concrete piers have:

axial force ratio hk Nd/Ac fck (axial load due to the design seismic action and the

concurrent gravity loads, Nd , normalised to product of the pier section area and the

characteristic concrete strength, Ac fck), higher than or equal to 0.6, or

shear-span ratio, Ls/h, in the direction of bending less than or equal to 1.0,

Clauses 2.3.2.3(2),

4.1.6(3), 4.1.6(5) [2]

As design seismic forces are derived with a value of the behaviour factor, q, possibly greater than

1.0, structures designed for strength and little engineered ductility and energy dissipation

capacity are termed limited ductile, in lieu of non-ductile.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 recommends (in a note) designing the bridge for limited-ductile behaviour

in cases of low seismicity (see below), but does not discourage the designer from using this

option in other cases as well. It species the option as the only possible one, no matter

whether the bridge is a low-seismicity case or not, in two very specic but also quite common

cases:

Clauses 2.3.7(1),

2.3.2.1(1), 2.4(2),

2.4(3), 4.1.6(3),

4.1.6(9)4.1.6(11) [2]

when the deck is fully supported on a system of sliding or horizontally exible bearings (or

bearing-type devices) at the top of the substructure (the abutments and all piers), which

accommodate the horizontal displacements (see option 1 in Section 2.3.1 and the inuence

of non-dissipative components in Section 2.3.2.5 above), or

2 when the deck is rigidly connected to the abutments, monolithically or via xed bearings

or links (listed as option 4 in Section 2.3.1 of this Guide).

1

2.3.4

The balance between strength and ductility

The option described in Section 2.3.3 above, namely to design for strength alone without

engineered ductility and energy dissipation capacity, is an extreme, specied by Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 only for cases a and b and 1 and 2 well delineated in Section 2.3.3. Outside of

these specic cases, the designer is normally given the option to opt for more strength and less

ductility (i.e. for limited-ductile behaviour) or vice versa (for ductile behaviour).

Clause 2.3.2.1(1)

Equations (D2.1) show that, except for short-period bridges, the magnitude of the design seismic

forces decreases when the global displacement ductility factor, md , increases. So, there is an

15

apparent economic incentive to increase the available global ductility, to reduce the internal

forces for which the components of the bridge are dimensioned. Moreover, if the lateral force

resistance of the bridge is reduced, by dividing the elastic lateral force demands by a high qfactor value, the verication of the foundation soil, which is done for strength rather than for

ductility and deformation capacity, is much easier. Last but not least, a bridge with ample

ductility supply is less sensitive to the magnitude and the details of the seismic action, and, in

view of the large uncertainty associated with the extreme seismic action in its lifetime, may be

a better earthquake-resistant design.

On the other hand, there are strong arguments for less ductility and dissipation capacity in

seismic design and more lateral force resistance instead. Ductility necessarily entails damage.

So, the higher the lateral strength of the bridge, the smaller will be the structural damage, not

only during more frequent, moderate earthquakes but also due to the design seismic action.

From the construction point of view, detailing piers for more strength is much easier and

simpler than detailing for higher ductility. Also, some bridge congurations may impart signicant lateral force resistance. In others (notably when the deck is rigidly supported on tall and

exible piers), the dominant vibration modes may fall at the long-period tail of the spectrum,

where design spectral accelerations may be small even for q 1.5, and dimensioning the piers

for the resulting lateral force resistance may be trivial. Last but not least, if the bridge falls

outside the framework of common structural congurations mainly addressed by Eurocode 8

(e.g. as in arch bridges, or those having some inclined piers or piers of very different height,

especially if the height does not increase monotonically from the abutments to mid-span), the

designers may feel more condent if they narrow the gap between the results of the linearelastic analysis, for which members are dimensioned and the nonlinear seismic response under

the design seismic action (i.e. if q 1.5 is used).

Clauses 3.2.1(4) [1]

Clause 2.3.7(1) [2]

2.3.5

The cases of low seismicity

Eurocode 8 recommends in a note designing the bridge for limited ductile behaviour if it falls in

the case of low seismicity. Although it leaves it to the National Annex to decide which combination of categories of structures, ground types and seismic zones in a country correspond

to the characterisation as cases of low seismicity, it recommends in a note as a criterion

either the value of the design ground acceleration on type A ground (i.e. on rock), ag (which

includes the importance factor gI), or the corresponding value, agS, over the ground type of

the site (see Section 3.1.2.3 of this Guide for the soil factor, S). Moreover, it recommends a

value of 0.08g for ag , or of 0.10g for agS, as the threshold for the low-seismicity cases.

Clauses 2.2.1(4),

3.2.1(5) [1]

2.4.

Eurocode 8 itself states that its provisions need not be applied in cases of very low seismicity.

As in cases of low seismicity, it leaves it to the National Annex to decide which combination

of category of structures, ground types and seismic zones in a country qualify as cases of very

low seismicity. It does recommend in a note, though, the same criterion as for the cases of

low seismicity: either the value of the design ground acceleration on type A ground (i.e. on

rock), ag , or the corresponding value, agS, over the ground type of the site. It recommends a

value of 0.04g for ag , or of 0.05g for agS, as the threshold for the very low seismicity cases.

Because the value of ag includes the importance factor gI , ordinary bridges in a region may

be exempted from the application of Eurocode 8, while more important ones may not be.

This is consistent with the notion that the exemption from the application of Eurocode 8 is

due to the inherent lateral force resistance of any structure designed for non-seismic loadings,

neglecting any contribution from ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Given that

Eurocode 8 considers that, because of overstrength, any structure is permitted a behaviour

factor, q, of at least 1.5, implicit in the value of 0.05g for agS recommended as the ceiling for

very low seismicity cases is a presumed lateral force capacity of 0.05 2.5/1.5 0.083g.

If a National Annex states that the entire national territory is considered as a case of very low

seismicity, then Eurocode 8 (all six parts) does not apply at all in the country.

REFERENCES

CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) (2002) EN 1990: Eurocode Basis of structural design

(including Annex A2: Application to bridges). CEN, Brussels.

16

CEN (2004) EN 1998-1:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005) EN 1998-2:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2:

Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

b (2012) Model Code 2010, vol. 1. b Bulletin 65. Federation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne.

Vidic T, Fajfar P and Fischinger M (1994) Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and

displacement. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 23: 502521.

17

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.019

Chapter 3

aspects

3.1.

3.1.1

Introduction

As pointed out in Section 2.2 of this Guide, Eurocode 8 entails a single-tier seismic design of new

bridges, with verication of the no-(local-)collapse requirement under the design seismic action

alone. So, whatever is said in Section 3.1 refers to the design seismic action of the bridge. Note,

however, that in its two-tier seismic design of buildings and other structures, Part 1 of Eurocode 8

(CEN, 2004a) adopts the same spectral shape for the different seismic actions to be used for

different performance levels or limit states. The difference in the hazard level is reected only

through the peak ground acceleration to which each spectrum is anchored.

The seismic action is considered to impart concurrent translational motion in three orthogonal

directions: the vertical and two horizontal ones at right angles to each other. The motion is

taken to be applied at the interface between the structure and the ground. If springs are used

to model the soil compliance under and/or around spread footings, piles or shafts (caissons),

the motion is considered to be applied at the soil end of these springs.

3.1.2

Elastic response spectra

3.1.2.1 Introduction

The reference representation of the seismic action in Eurocode 8 is through the response

spectrum of an elastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDoF) oscillator having a given viscous

damping ratio (with 5% being the reference value). Any other alternative representation of the

seismic action (e.g. in the form of acceleration time histories) should conform to the elastic

response spectrum for the specied value of the damping ratio.

Clauses 3.1.1(2),

3.1.2(1)3.1.2(3) [2]

Clause 3.2.1(1) [2]

Clause 7.5.4(3),

Table 7.1 [2]

Because:

g

Clauses 2.1(1),

2.2.1(1) [1]

earthquake ground motions are traditionally recorded as acceleration time histories and

seismic design is still based on forces, conveniently derived from accelerations,

Sd(T ), are of interest, they can be obtained from Sa(T ), assuming simple harmonic oscillation:

Sd(T ) (T/2p)2Sa(T )

(D3.1)

Sv(T ) (T/2p)Sa(T )

(D3.2)

Note that pseudo-values do not correspond to the real peak spectral velocity or acceleration. For

a damping ratio of up to 10% and for a natural period T between 0.2 and 1.0 s, the pseudovelocity spectrum closely approximates the actual relative velocity spectrum.

3.1.2.2 Design ground accelerations importance classes for reliability differentiation

Clauses 3.2.1(2),

In Eurocode 8 the elastic response spectrum is taken as proportional (anchored) to the peak

3.2.2.1(1),3.2.2.3(1)[1]

acceleration of the ground:

19

g

g

Clause 3.2.1(3) [1]

the horizontal peak acceleration, ag , for the horizontal component(s) of the seismic action

or

the vertical peak acceleration, avg , for the vertical component.

The basis of the seismic design of new bridges in Eurocode 8 is the design seismic action, for

which the no-(local-)collapse requirement should be met. It is specied through the design

ground acceleration in the horizontal direction, ag , which is equal to the reference peak

ground acceleration on rock from national zonation maps, multiplied by the importance

factor, gI , of the bridge:

ag gIagR

(D3.3)

denition gI 1.0.

Clauses 2.1(4)2.1(6)

[2]

Eurocode 8 recommends classifying in importance class III any bridge that is crucial for communications, especially in the immediate post-earthquake period (including access to emergency

facilities), or whose downtime may have a major economic or social impact, or which by failing

may cause large loss of life, as well as major bridges with a target design life longer than the

ordinary nominal life of 50 years. For importance class III, it recommends gI 1.3.

Bridges that are not critical for communications, or considered not economically justied to

design for the standard bridge design life of 50 years, are recommended by Eurocode 8 to be

classied in importance class I, with a recommended value gI 0.85.

Clause 2.1(3),

The reference peak ground acceleration, agR , corresponds to the reference return period, TNCR ,

Annex A [2]

of the design seismic action for bridges of ordinary importance.

Clauses 2.1(1), 2.1(3),

Note that, under the Poisson assumption of earthquake occurrence (i.e. that the number of earth2.1(4) [1]

quakes in an interval of time depends only on the length of the interval in a time-invariant way),

the return period, TR , of seismic events exceeding a certain threshold is related to the probability

that this threshold will be exceeded, P, in TL years as

TR TL/ln(1 P)

(D3.4)

So, for a given TL (e.g. the conventional design life of TL 50 years) the seismic action may

equivalently be specied either via its mean return period, TR , or its probability of exceedance

in TL years, PR .

Values of the importance factor greater or less than 1.0 correspond to mean return periods longer

or shorter, respectively, than TNCR . It is within the authority of each country to select the value of

TNCR that gives the appropriate trade-off between economy and public safety in its territory, as

well as the importance factors for bridges other than ordinary, taking into account the specic

regional features of the seismic hazard. Part 1 of Eurocode 8 recommends the value

TNCR 475 years.

The mean return period, TR(ag), of a peak ground acceleration exceeding a value ag is the inverse

of the annual rate, la(ag), of exceedance of this acceleration level:

TR(ag) 1/la(ag)

(D3.5)

la(ag) Ko(ag) k

(D3.6)

If the exponent k (the slope of the hazard curve la(ag) in a log-log plot) is approximately

constant, two peak ground acceleration levels ag1 , ag2 , corresponding to two different mean

return periods, TR(ag1), TR(ag2), are related as

ag1

TR ag1 1=k

ag2

TR ag2

20

D3:7

The value of k characterises the seismicity of the site. Regions where the difference in the peak

ground acceleration of frequent and very rare seismic excitations is very large, have low k

values (around 2). Large values of k (k . 4) are typical of regions where high ground acceleration

levels are almost as frequent as smaller ones.

Tall free-standing piers, decks built as free cantilevers or incrementally launched, etc., may be

much more vulnerable to earthquake than after completion of the full bridge. It is up to the

designer or the owner of the bridge to specify the seismic performance requirements before completion of the project and the corresponding compliance and verication criteria. Equation

(D3.4) may be used then to determine the mean return period of the seismic action that has a

given probability of being exceeded P (e.g. P 0.05) in the full duration of the bridge construction, Tc , to be used in Eq. (D3.4) in lieu of TL . This mean return period may be used as TR(ag1) in

Eq. (D3.7), to compute the peak ground acceleration, ag1 , with a probability P of been exceeded

during construction. In that case, ag2 agR and TR(ag2) TNCR .

3.1.2.3 Horizontal elastic response spectrum

The Eurocode 8 spectra include ranges of:

g

g

g

Annex A [2]

Clauses 3.2.2.1(3),

3.2.2.2(1) [1]

constant spectral pseudo-velocity between periods TC and TD

constant spectral displacement for periods longer than TD .

The elastic response spectral acceleration for any horizontal component of the seismic action is

described in Parts 1 and 2 of Eurocode 8 by the following expressions:

Short-period range:

T

2:5h 1

0 T TB : Sa T ag S 1

TB

D3:8a

TB T TC : Sa T ag S 2:5h

D3:8b

TC T TD : Sa T ag S 2:5h

TC

T

D3:8c

TD T 4 s: Sa T ag S 2:5h

TC TD

T2

D3:8d

where ag is the design ground acceleration on rock and S is the soil factor.

p

h 10=5 j 0:55 (Bommer and Elnashai, 1999) is a correction factor for viscous damping

ratio, j, other than the reference value of 5% (from Parts 1 and 2 of Eurocode 8); the value

j 5% is considered to be representative of cracked reinforced concrete. The viscous

damping values specied in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for components of various structural materials

are shown in Table 3.1.

Clauses 4.1.3(1),

7.5.4(3) [2]

Note the uniform amplication of the entire spectrum by the soil factor, S, over the spectrum for

rock. By denition, S 1 over rock. The value agS plays the role of effective ground acceleration,

as the spectral acceleration at the constant spectral acceleration plateau is always equal to 2.5agS.

The values of the periods TB , TC and TD (i.e. the extent of the ranges of constant spectral pseudoacceleration, pseudo-velocity and displacement) and of the soil factor, S, are taken to depend

mainly on the ground type. In the Eurocodes the term ground includes any type of soil and

Clauses 3.2.2.2(2),

3.1.2(1), [1]

21

Material

Damping: %

Pre-stressed concrete components

Welded steel components

Bolted steel components

5

2

2

4

rock. Parts 1 and 2 of Eurocode 8 recognise ve standard ground types, over which it recommends values for TB , TC , TD and S, and two special ones, as listed in Table 3.2.

Clauses 3.1.2(1)

3.1.2(3) [1]

The characterisation of the ground is based on the average value of the shear wave velocity, vs,30 ,

at the top 30 m (CEN, 2004a):

30

vs;30 X

hi

D3:9

v

i 1;N i

where hi and vi are the thickness (in metres) and the shear wave velocity at small shear strains (less

than 10 6) of the ith layer in N layers. If the value of vs,30 is not known, for soil types B, C or D

Part 1 of Eurocode 8 allows the use of alternatives to characterise a soil: for cohesionless soils

especially, the SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow-count number may be used (e.g. according

to the correspondence of SPT to vs,30 in Ohta and Goto (1976)); for cohesive soils, the undrained

cohesive resistance (cu).

Clause 3.1.2(4) [1]

The two special ground types, S1 and S2, require the carrying out of special site-specic studies to

dene the seismic action (CEN, 2004a). For ground type S1, the study should take into account

the thickness and the vs value of the soft clay or silt layer and the difference from the underlying

materials, and should quantify their effects on the elastic response spectrum. Note that soils of

type S1 may have low internal damping and exhibit linear behaviour over a large range of

strains, producing peculiar amplication of the bedrock motion and unusual or abnormal

soilstructure interaction effects. The scope of the site-specic study should also address the

possibility of soil failure under the design seismic action (especially at ground type S2 deposits

with liqueable soils or sensitive clays) (CEN, 2004a).

The values of TB , TC , TD and S for the ve standard ground types A to E are meant to be dened

by each country in the National Annex to Eurocode 8, depending on the magnitude of earthquakes contributing most to the hazard. The geological conditions at the site may also be

taken into account in addition, to determine these values. In principle, S factors that decrease

with increasing spectral value because of the soil nonlinearity effect may be introduced.

Instead of spectral amplication factors that decrease with increasing design acceleration

Table 3.2. Ground types in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 for the denition of the seismic action

A

B

C

D

E

S1

S2

22

Description

vs,30: m/s

NSPT

cu: kPa

Very dense sand or gravel, or very stiff clay, several tens of metres

deep; mechanical properties gradually increase with depth

Dense to medium-dense sand or gravel, or stiff clay, several

tens to many hundreds of metres deep

Loose-to-medium sand or gravel, or soft-to-rm clay

520 m surface alluvium layer type C or D underlain by stiffer

material (with vs . 800 m/s)

.10 m thick soft clay or silt with plasticity index .40 and high

water content

Liqueable soils; sensitive clays; any soil not of type A to E or S1

.800

360800

.50

.250

1550

70250

180360

,180

,15

,100

,70

1020

Table 3.3. Recommended parameter values in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 for standard horizontal elastic

response spectra

Ground type

Spectrum type 1

A

B

C

D

E

Spectrum type 2

TB: s

TC: s

TD: s

TB: s

TC: s

TD: s

1.00

1.20

1.15

1.35

1.40

0.15

0.15

0.20

0.20

0.15

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.8

0.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.0

1.35

1.50

1.80

1.60

0.05

0.05

0.10

0.10

0.05

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.30

0.25

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

Eurocode 8 is for two types of spectra:

g

g

Type 2: for low-magnitude ones (e.g. with a surface magnitude less than 5.5) at close

distance, producing over soft soils motions rich in high frequencies.

the ve standard ground types A to E are given in Table 3.3 They are based on Rey et al. (2002)

and European strong motion data. There are certain regions in Europe (e.g. where the hazard is

contributed mainly by strong intermediate-depth earthquakes, as in the part of the eastern

Balkans affected by the Vrancea region) where the two recommended spectral shapes may not

be suitable. The lower S values of type 1 spectra are due to the larger soil nonlinearity in the

stronger ground motions produced by moderate to large-magnitude earthquakes. Figure 3.1

depicts the recommended type 1 spectral shape.

The values recommended in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 for the period TD at the outset of the constant

spectral displacement region seem rather low. Indeed, for exible structures, such as bridges with

tall piers or supported only on movable bearings, they may not lead to safe-sided designs.

Accordingly, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 calls the attention of designers and national authorities to

the fact that the safety of structures with seismic isolation depends mainly on the displacement

Clause 3.2.2.5(8) [1]

Figure 3.1. Elastic response spectra of type 1 recommended in Eurocode 8, for a peak ground

acceleration on rock equal to 1g and for 5% damping

4

Soil A

Soil B

Soil C

Soil D

Soil E

3.5

3

Sa /ag

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

T: s

23

demands on the isolating system that are directly proportional to the value of TD . So, as allowed

in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 specically for design with seismic isolation or energy dissipation devices,

Part 2 invites its National Annex to specify a value of TD for bridges with such a design that is

more conservative (longer) than the value given in the National Annex to Part 1. If the National

Annex to Part 2 does not exercise this right for national choice, the designer may do so, taking

into account the specic conditions of the seismically isolated bridge.

Clause 3.2.2.5(4) [1]

Clauses 4.1.7(1)

4.1.7(3) [2]

A safeguard against the rapid decay of the elastic spectrum for T > TD , is provided by the lower

bound of 0.2ag recommended in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 for the design spectral accelerations (see

Eqs (D3.12c) and (D3.12d) below).

3.1.2.4 Elastic spectra of the vertical component

The vertical component of the seismic action needs to be taken into account only in the seismic

design of (CEN, 2005):

g

g

g

g

Clause 3.2.2.2(1) [2]

any bearings

any seismic links

piers in zones of high seismicity:

if the pier is already taxed by bending due to permanent actions on the deck or

the bridge is located within 5 km of an active seismotectonic fault (dened as one where

the average historic slip rate is at least 1 mm/year and there is topographic evidence of

seismic activity in the past 11 000 years), in which case site-specic spectra that account

for near-source effects should be used.

Eurocode 8 gives in Part 1 a detailed description of the vertical elastic response spectrum, as

follows:

Short-period range:

0 T TB : Sa;vert T avg

T

1

3h 1

TB

D3:10a

TB T TC : Sa;vert T avg 3h

D3:10b

TC T TD : Sa;vert T avg 3h

TC

T

D3:10c

TD T 4 s: Sa;vert T avg 3h

TC TD

T2

D3:10d

The main differences between the horizontal and the vertical spectra lie:

g

g

plateau, which is 3 instead of 2.5

in the absence of a uniform amplication of the entire spectrum due to the type of soil.

The values of control periods TB , TC , TD are not the same as for the horizontal spectra. Part 1 of

Eurocode 8 recommends in a note the following non-binding values of TB , TC , TD and the design

ground acceleration in the vertical direction, avg:

g

g

24

TB 0.05 s

TC 0.15 s

g

g

g

TD 1.0 s

avg 0.9ag , if the type 1 spectrum is considered as appropriate for the site

avg 0.45ag , if the type 2 spectrum is chosen.

The vertical response spectrum recommended in Eurocode 8 is based on work and data specic to

Europe (Ambraseys and Simpson, 1996; Elnashai and Papazoglou, 1997). The ratio avg/ag is

known to be higher at short distances (epicentral or to causative fault). However, as distance

does not enter as a parameter in the denition of the seismic action in Eurocode 8, the type of

spectrum has been chosen as the parameter determining this ratio, on the basis of the nding

that avg/ag also increases with increasing magnitude (Ambraseys and Simpson, 1996; Abrahamson

and Litehiser, 1989), which in turn determines the selection of the type of spectrum.

3.1.2.5 Topographic amplication of the elastic spectrum

Eurocode 8 provides for topographic amplication (ridge effect, etc.) of the seismic action for all

types of structures. According to Part 1 of Eurocode 8, topographic amplication of the full

elastic spectrum is mandatory for structures (including bridges) of importance above ordinary.

An informative annex in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004b) recommends amplication

factors equal to 1.2 over isolated cliffs or long ridges with a slope (to the horizontal) less than

308, or to 1.4 at ridges steeper than 308. However, as a bridge on a ridge is fairly rare, the

need to account for such an effect would be exceptional.

3.1.2.6 Near-source effects

Directivity effects of the seismic motion along the direction of rupture propagation are usually

observed near the seismotectonic fault rupture in a land strip parallel to the fault. This may show

up at the site as a large velocity pulse of long period in the direction transverse to the fault. The

general rules of Eurocode 8 in Part 1 do not provide for near-source effects. However, Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005) requires elaboration of site-specic spectra that take into account

near-source effects if the bridge is within 10 km horizontally from a known active fault that

may produce an event of moment magnitude higher than 6.5. In this respect, it gives a default

denition of an active fault as one where the average historic slip rate is at least 1 mm/year

and there is topographic evidence of seismic activity within the Holocene period (i.e. during

the past 11 000 years).

Annex A [3]

For bridges less than 15 km from a known active fault, the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria

(Caltrans, 2006) increase spectral ordinates by 20% for all periods longer than 1 s, while

leaving them unchanged for periods shorter than 0.5 s, with linear interpolation in the period

range in between. Although not stated in Caltrans (2006), this increase, known as the directivity

effect, should only be restricted to the fault normal component of the ground motion, leaving the

fault parallel component unaffected (Sommerville et al., 1997).

It should be noted that near-source effects are quite usual in seismic-prone areas.

3.1.2.7 Design ground displacement and velocity

The value given in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 for the design ground displacement, dg , corresponding to

the design ground acceleration, ag , is based on the assumption that the spectral displacement

within the constant spectral displacement range, derived as (T/2p)2Sa(TD) with the spectral acceleration at T TD given from Eq. (D3.8c), entails an amplication factor of 2.5 over the ground

displacement that corresponds to the design ground acceleration, ag . Taking (2p)2 40, we

obtain (for ag in m/s2, not in g)

dg 0:025ag STC TD

Clauses 3.3(6),

6.6.4(3) [2]

D3:11

Equation (D3.11) gives estimates of the ratio dg/ag that are rather on the high side compared with

more detailed predictions as a function of magnitude and distance on the basis of Bommer and

Elnashai (1999) and Ambraseys et al. (1996).

The design ground velocity vg may be obtained from the design ground acceleration ag as follows:

vg STC ag/2p

(D3.12)

25

Clauses 2.1(2),

3.2.4(1), 4.1.6(1) [2]

Clause 3.2.2.5(4) [1]

3.1.3

Design spectrum for elastic analysis

For the horizontal components of the seismic action the design spectrum in Eurocode 8 is:

Short-period range:

0 T TB : Sa;d T ag S

2 T 2:5 2

3 TB q

3

D3:13a

TB T TC : Sa;d T ag S

2:5

q

2:5 TC

TC T TD : Sa;d T ag S

b ag

q T

Constant spectral displacement range:

2:5 TC TD

TD T: Sa;d T ag S

b ag

q

T2

D3:13b

D3:13c

D3:13d

The behaviour factor, q, in Eqs (D3.13) accounts for ductility and energy dissipation, as well as

for values of damping other than the default of 5% (see also Section 2.3.2 of this Guide).

The value 2/3 in Eq. (D3.13a) is the inverse of the overstrength factor of 1.5 considered in

Eurocode 8 to always be available even without any design measures for ductility and energy

dissipation. The factor b in Eqs (D3.13c) and (D3.13d) gives a lower bound for the horizontal

design spectrum, acting as a safeguard against excessive reduction of the design forces due to

exibility of the system (real or presumed in the design). Its recommended value in Part 1 of

Eurocode 8 is 0.2. Its practical implications may be particularly important, in view of the

relatively low values recommended by Eurocode 8 for the corner period TD at the outset of

the constant spectral displacement range.

Clause 3.2.2.5(5) [1],

Clause 4.1.6(12) [2]

Clauses 3.2.3(1),

3.2.3(2) [2]

Clauses 3.2.3.1.1(1),

3.2.3.1.1(2),

3.2.3.1.2(4) [1]

Clauses 3.2.3.1.1(3),

3.2.3.1.2(3),

3.2.3.1.3(1) [1]

Clauses 3.2.3(1),

3.2.3(2), 3.2.3(4),

3.2.3(8) [2]

26

The design spectrum in the vertical direction is obtained by substituting in Eqs (D3.13) the design

ground acceleration in the vertical direction, avg , for the effective ground acceleration, agS, and

using the values in Section 3.1.2.4 for the three corner periods. There is no clear, well-known

energy dissipation mechanism for the response in the vertical direction. So, the behaviour

factor q in that direction is taken equal to 1.0.

3.1.4

Time-history representation of the seismic action

Representation of the seismic action merely by its 5%-damped elastic response spectrum is sufcient for linear or nonlinear static analysis. For a nonlinear dynamic (response-history) analysis,

time histories of the ground motion are needed, conforming on average to the 5%-damped elastic

response spectrum dening the seismic action. Eurocode 8 (Parts 1 and 2) requires as input for a

response history analysis an ensemble of at least three records, or pairs or triplets of different

records, for analysis under two or three concurrent components of the action.

Part 1 of Eurocode 8 accepts for this purpose historic, articial or simulated records, while

Part 2 mentions only historic, modied historic or simulated records.

Articial (or synthetic) records can be mathematically produced using random vibration

theory to match almost perfectly the response spectrum dening the seismic action (Gasparini

and Vanmarcke, 1976). It is fairly straightforward to adjust the phases of the various sinusoidal

components of the articial waveform, as well as the time evolution of their amplitudes

(envelope function), so that the articial record resembles a specic recorded motion. This is

the modied historic type of record mentioned in Part 2 of Eurocode 8. Figure 3.2 shows an

example of such a record and Figure 8.47 another one. Note, however, that records that are

equally rich in all frequencies are not realistic. Moreover, an excitation with a smooth

Figure 3.2. Herzegnovi X record from the 1979 Montenegro earthquake modulated to match the

Eurocode 8 type 1 spectrum for ground type C with a peak ground acceleration of 0.1g

1

Modified Hercegnovi

0.6

Target spectrum

Modified Hercegnovi

0.8

2.5

2

0.2

Sa: m/s2

a: m/s2

0.4

0

1.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.8

1

6

Time: s

10

12

0.5

1.5

2

Period, T: s

2.5

response spectrum without peaks or troughs introduces a conservative bias in the response, as it

does not let the inelastic response help the structure escape from a spectral peak to a trough at a

longer period. Therefore, historic records are favoured in Part 2 of Eurocode 8.

Records simulated from mathematical source models, including rupture, propagation of the

motion through the bedrock to the site and, nally, through the subsoil to the surface are also

preferred over articial ones, as the nal record resembles a natural one and is physically

appealing. Obviously, an equally good average tting of the target spectrum requires more

appropriately selected historic or simulated records than articial ones. Individual

recorded or simulated records should, according to Part 1 of Eurocode 8, be adequately qualied

with regard to the seismogenetic features of the sources and to the soil conditions appropriate to

the site (Part 1 of Eurocode 8). In plainer language, they should come from events with the

magnitude, fault distance and mechanism of rupture at the source consistent with those of the

design seismic action (Part 2 of Eurocode 8). The travel path and the subsoil conditions should

preferably resemble those of the site. These requirements are not only hard to meet but may

also conict with conformity (in the mean) to the target spectrum of the design seismic action.

The requirement in Part 1 of Eurocode 8 to scale individual historic or simulated records so that

their peak ground acceleration (PGA) matches on average the value of agS of the design seismic

action may also be considered against physical reality. It is more meaningful, instead, to use individual historic or simulated records with PGA values already conforming to the target value of agS.

Note also that the PGA alone may be articially increased or reduced, without affecting at all the

structural response. So, it is more meaningful to select the records on the basis of conformity of

spectral values alone along the lines of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005), as described below.

If pairs or triplets of different records are used as the input for analysis under two or three

concurrent seismic action components, conformity to the target 5%-damped elastic response

spectrum may be achieved by scaling the amplitude of the individual records as follows (see

Figures 8.48 and 8.49 for an application example):

g

g

Clauses 3.2.3(3),

3.2.3(6), 3.2.3(7) [2]

horizontal components are checked for conformity separately from the vertical one.

The records of the vertical component, if considered, are scaled so that the average 5%damped elastic spectrum of their ensemble is at least 90% of the 5%-damped vertical

spectrum at all periods between 0.2Tv and 1.5Tv , where Tv is the period of the lowest

mode having a participation factor of the vertical component higher than those of both

horizontal ones.

For analysis in 3D under both horizontal components, the 5%-damped elastic spectra of

the two horizontal components in each pair are combined by applying the SRSS rule at

each period value. The average of the SRSS spectra of the two horizontal components of

27

p

the individual earthquakes in the ensemble should be at least 0.9 2 1.3 times the target

5%-damped horizontal elastic spectrum at all periods from 0.2T1 up to 1.5T1 , where T1 is

the lowest natural period of the structure (the effective period of the isolation system in

seismically isolated bridges) in any horizontal direction. If this is not the case, all

individual horizontal components are scaled up, so that their nal average SRSS

spectrum exceeds by a factor of 1.3 the target 5%-damped horizontal elastic spectrum

everywhere between 0.2T1 and 1.5T1 .

Clause 3.2.3.1.2(4) [1] Note in this respect that for analysis under a single horizontal component, Part 1 of Eurocode 8

requires the mean 5%-damped elastic spectrum of the applied motions to not fall below 90% of

that of the design seismic action at any period from 0.2T1 to 2T1 .

Clause 4.2.4.3(1) [2]

If the response is obtained from at least seven nonlinear time-history analyses with (triplets or

Clause 4.3.3.4.3(3) [1] pairs of ) ground motions chosen in accordance with the previous paragraphs, the relevant veri-

cations may use the average of the response quantities from all these analyses as the action

effect. Otherwise, it should use the most unfavourable value of the response quantity among

the (three to six) analyses.

Clauses 3.3(1)3.3(8),

Annex D [2]

3.1.5

Spatial variability of the seismic action

Unlike typical buildings, bridges are extended structures. Therefore, it is very likely that the foundation supports experience different ground motions owing to the spatial variability of the

seismic motion. This phenomenon is known by the generic term decorrelation. Decorrelation

of seismic motions arises from three different causes:

The travelling wave effect: except for vertically propagating waves, the seismic waves

exhibit an apparent velocity in the horizontal direction, causing out-of-phase motions

along the bridge, even when the amplitude remains the same.

2 Scattering of waves, especially at high frequencies: waves travelling through a

heterogeneous soil medium are scattered (diffracted and/or reected) at every

heterogeneity, no matter whether a small lens or an abrupt change in the mechanical

characteristics of the media. As the frequency increases, the wavelength decreases and the

waves perceive and are affected by smaller heterogeneities. Scattering causes the motion at

two adjacent locations to be different.

3 Propagation through different soil proles under each pier location: if the bridge

foundations are not very close to each other, the soil prole under them may be different,

causing different soil amplication from the bedrock.

1

Effects 1 and 3 can, theoretically, be accounted for (although under simplifying assumptions), if the

direction of propagation of the seismic waves is given and the soil proles are accurately known.

Effect 2 does not lend itself to calculation, without complete knowledge of the subsoil conditions

between the seismic source and the bridge. Effect 1 can easily be modelled, by shifting the ground

motion time histories by a time lag equal to the distance between the piers divided by the

apparent travelling wave velocity. Analytical studies and observations suggest that the apparent

wave velocity is not equal to the wave velocity in the upper soil layers, but rather to the wave

velocity at a signicant depth (in the rock medium where the rupture initiates); typical values

exceed 1000 m/s. Effect 3 can be computed through one-dimensional site response analysis. For

effect 2, only random vibration models with empirically determined parameters can be used.

Informative Annex D in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 presents the theory for the generation of incoherent

ground motions, including all three effects above, as well as the mathematical tools for the

analysis of the bridge response under multi-support excitations. However, because the theory

is complex, requiring specic tools for its numerical implementation and statistical site data

for the determination of model parameters, the code allows the use of a simplied approach

to take into account the spatial variability of seismic motions along the bridge. This spatial variability should be taken into account whenever the soil properties along the bridge vary and the

ground type according to Table 3.2 differs from one pier to another, or if the length of a continuous deck exceeds Lg/1.5, where Lg is the correlation distance (beyond which the motion may be

assumed to be fully uncorrelated). Recommended values of the correlation distance are given in

Table 3.4.

28

Table 3.4. Values recommended in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 for the distance beyond which ground motions

may be considered as uncorrelated

Ground type

Lg : m

600

500

400

300

500

The simplied methodology consists of combining via the SRSS (square root of the sums of the

square) rule the dynamic effects of a uniform ground motion acting at every foundation, to the

effects of differential displacements imposed statically at each foundation point. Two patterns

are used for the static imposed displacements, and the results of the most unfavourable one

are retained:

g

a pattern with foundation displacements all in the same direction and proportional to the

distance along the bridge and to the ground displacement, but inversely proportional to

the correlation distance, combined with a small offset at any intermediate pier

a pattern with displacements alternating between consecutive piers.

The same patterns of imposed displacements, with an increased safety factor, are also used in the

checks of deck unseating at movable joints (see Eq. (D6.34) in Sect. 6.8.1.2).

Unlike certain truly dynamic approaches, the simplied method above cannot capture dynamic

features of the spatial variability of the seismic action, as it is essentially a pseudo-static addition

of imposed support displacements. It accounts, however, to a certain degree of approximation, for all three main effects of the spatial variability (Sextos et al., 2006; Sextos and

Kappos, 2009).

3.2.

3.2.1

Introduction

Signicant damage to foundations may be caused by soil-related phenomena: fault rupture, slope

instability near the bridge, liquefaction or densication of the soil due to the ground shaking.

Except in very few cases, such adverse effects cannot be accommodated by a foundation

design. Therefore, these ground hazards should be thoroughly investigated and properly mitigated to the largest possible extent.

3.2.2

Seismically active faults

Seismological evidence suggests that, where seismogenic activity is conned in the upper 20 km or Clause 4.1.2(1), (2) [3]

so of the Earths crust, co-seismic surface rupture tends to occur only if the earthquake has a Clause 3.2.2.3(1) [2]

moment magnitude Mw over about 6.5. Therefore, in Europe, surface faulting is a rather rare

event, except in Turkey and maybe in Greece or Italy. As pointed out in Part 5 of Eurocode 8,

assessment of the surface fault rupture hazard at a site requires special geological investigations,

to show that there is no active fault nearby. Ofcial documents published by competent national

authorities may, of course, map the seismically active faults. Note, though, that there are no

absolute criteria to characterise a fault as seismically active and to consider a site as close to

it. It is suggested in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 that evidence of movement in the late Quaternary

period (10 000 years) or lack of it is used as a criterion, while Part 2 of Eurocode 8 denes an

active fault as one where the average historic slip rate is at least 1 mm/year and there is

topographic evidence of seismic activity in the Holocene period (i.e. in the past 11 000 years).

A distance of several tens of metres may be used as the criterion for the immediate vicinity to

a fault.

3.2.3

Slope stability

When a structure is to be built near a natural or man-made slope, a verication of the slope stability under the seismic action shall be carried out. Although the stability checks recommended in

Part 5 of Eurocode 8 aim at ensuring a prescribed safety factor, the underlying criterion is an

ultimate limit state (ULS) beyond which the permanent displacements it entails become unacceptable. This is reected in the method of analysis proposed in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 for achieving a

safety factor above 1.0, notably a pseudo-static approach with seismic forces taken as equal to

Clauses 4.1.3.1(1),

4.1.3.1(2), 4.1.3.3(1),

4.1.3.3(3)4.1.3.3(6),

4.1.3.3(8), 4.1.3.4(4),

Annex A [3]

29

the product of the potential sliding mass multiplied by 50% of the design PGA at the soil surface,

agS, including the topographic amplication factor of Section 3.1.2.5, if relevant. The 50%

fraction has been chosen empirically and with back-analysis of observed performance of

slopes in earthquakes. It nevertheless reects the observation, rst pointed out by Newmark in

his 1965 Rankine lecture, that when the maximum seismic action, equal to the product of the

potentially sliding mass multiplied by the PGA, is slightly exceeded, only permanent displacements occur without a catastrophic failure. With the recommended value of the ground acceleration, 0.5agS, it is expected that the induced displacements will not exceed a few centimetres.

The design seismic inertia forces in the horizontal and vertical direction are given by

FH 0.5agSM

FV +0.5FH

FV +0.33FH

(D3.14)

if avg . 0.6ag

if avg 0.6ag

(D3.15a)

(D3.15b)

where M is the potentially sliding mass and agS includes the topographic amplication factor of

Section 3.1.2.5, if relevant. The seismic design resistance of the soil should be calculated with the

soil strength parameters divided by the appropriate partial factor, dened in the National Annex

to Part 5 of Eurocode 8.

It is essential not to overlook the applicability conditions of the pseudo-static method of analysis,

that is:

g

g

The geometry of the topographic prole and the ground prole are reasonably regular.

The ground materials of the slope and the foundation, if water saturated, are not prone to

developing signicant pore water pressure build-up that may lead to loss of shear strength

and stiffness degradation under seismic conditions. The same limitation applies to certain

unusual soils, such as sensitive clays, although the mechanism of strength degradation is

different.

For high values of agS it may prove hard to verify the slope stability using the pseudo-static

method. If so, the designer may opt for computing the actual induced permanent displacements

and checking whether they are acceptable. A simplied way to estimate the displacements is the

Newmark sliding block method. This entails the preliminary choice of the most critical sliding

surface and the associated critical value of agS for which the safety factor drops to 1.0. With

the selection of appropriate time histories for the ground motion, double integration of the difference of the input acceleration and the critical one is carried out over the time intervals during

which the former exceeds the latter. The outcome may be taken as the permanent slope displacement along the chord of the critical circular failure surface. More rened analyses, accounting for

the seismic response of the slope in the evaluation of the rigid block acceleration, may be

warranted in some cases.

One essential requirement for the application of pseudo-static analysis or of the Newmark

sliding block method is that the soil strength does not vary signicantly during the earthquake.

When the strength is reduced by a pore pressure build-up, it may be evaluated through the

expression

Du

tan wr 1 0 tan w

sv

D3:16

where wr is the reduced friction angle, Du the pore pressure increase estimated from empirical

correlations or preferably from experimental tests, and s v0 is the effective vertical stress.

3.3.

3.3.1

Introduction: the meaning of soil property values

Many geotechnical tests, particularly eld tests, do not allow determining directly the value of

basic geotechnical parameters or coefcients, notably for strength and deformations. Instead,

30

these values are to be derived via theoretical or empirical correlations. Part 2 of Eurocode 7

(CEN, 2007) denes derived values as:

Derived values of geotechnical parameters and/or coefcients are obtained from test results by

theory, correlation or empiricism. Derived values of a geotechnical parameter then serve as

input for assessing the characteristic value of this parameter in the sense of Eurocode 7 Part

1 and, further, its design value, by applying the partial factor gM (material factor).

The philosophy regarding the denition of characteristic values of geotechnical parameters is

given in Part 1 of Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2003):

The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate of

the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state . . . the governing parameter is often the

mean of a range of values covering a large surface or volume of the ground. The characteristic

value should be a cautious estimate of this mean value.

These excerpts from Eurocode 7 reect the concern that we should be able to keep using the

values of the geotechnical parameters traditionally used, whose determination is not standardised

(they often depend on the judgment of the geotechnical engineer). However, two remarks are due

in this connection: on one hand, the concept of a derived value of a geotechnical parameter (preceding the determination of the characteristic value) has been introduced, but, on the other, there

is now a clear reference to the limit state involved and the assessment of a spatial mean value, as

opposed to a local value; this might appear as a specic feature of geotechnical design which,

indeed, involves large surface areas or large ground volumes.

Statistical methods are mentioned in Eurocode 7 only as a possibility:

If statistical methods are used, the characteristic value should be derived such that the

calculated probability of a worse value governing the occurrence of the limit state under

consideration is not greater than 5%.

The general meaning is that the characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter should not be

very different from the values traditionally used. Indeed, for the majority of projects, the geotechnical investigation is such that no meaningful statistical treatment of the data can be performed.

Statistical methods are, of course, useful for very large projects where the amount of data justies

their use.

3.3.2

Soil properties

Eurocode 8 considers both the strength properties and the deformation characteristics. It further

recognises that earthquake loading is essentially of short duration. Consequently, most soils

behave in an undrained manner. In addition, for some of them the properties may be affected

by the rate of loading.

Clauses 3.1(1)3.1(3)

[3]

For cohesive soils, the relevant strength property is the undrained shear strength, cu . For most of

them this value can be taken as equal to the conventional static shear strength. However, on the

one hand some plastic clays may be subject to cyclic degradation of strength, but, on the other,

some clays may exhibit a shear strength increase with the rate of loading. These phenomena

should ideally be given due consideration in the choice of the relevant undrained shear

strength. The recommended partial factor gM on cu is equal to 1.4.

For cohesionless soils, relevant strength properties are the drained friction angle, w0 , and the

drained cohesion, c0 . They are directly usable for dry or partially saturated soil. For saturated

soils, they require knowledge of the pore water pressure variation during cyclic loading, u,

which directly governs the shear strength through the MohrCoulomb failure criterion:

t (s u) tan w0 c0

(D3.17)

The evaluation of u is very difcult. Therefore, Part 5 of Eurocode 8 gives an alternative approach,

namely using the undrained shear strength under cyclic loading, tcy,u , which may be determined

31

from experimental correlations with, for instance, the soil relative density or any other index

parameter, such as the blow counts number, N, in a standard penetration test (SPT).

The recommended values for the partial factors gM are:

g

g

Clauses 3.2(1)3.2(4),

4.2.3(1)4.2.3(3) [3]

gM 1.4 on c0 .

The soil stiffness is dened by the shear wave velocity, vs , or equivalently the soil shear modulus

G. The main role played by this parameter is in the classication of the soil prole according to

the ground types in Table 3.2 of Section 3.1.2.3 in this Guide. Additional applications that

require knowledge of the shear stiffness of the soil prole include the evaluation of:

g

g

soilstructure interaction

site response analyses to dene the ground surface response for special soil categories

(prole S1).

In the applications listed above, it is essential to recognise that soils are highly nonlinear materials

and that the relevant values to use in calculations are not the elastic ones but secant values

compatible with the average strain level induced by the earthquake, typically of the order of

5 10 4 to 10 3. Part 5 of Eurocode 8 proposes the set of values in Table 3.5, depending on

the peak ground surface acceleration. Note that the fundamental variable governing the

reduction factor is the shear strain and not the peak ground surface acceleration. However, in

order to provide useful guidance to designers, the induced strains have been correlated to PGAs.

In addition to the stiffness parameters, soil internal damping should be taken into account in

soilstructure interaction analyses. The soil damping ratio also depends on the average

induced shear strain, and is correlated to the reduction factor for the stiffness, as listed in

Table 3.5.

3.4.

Clauses 4.1.4(1)

4.1.4(3) [3]

3.4.1

Nature and consequences of the phenomena

Liquefaction is a process in which cohesionless or granular sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid, during strong ground

shaking. Saturated, poorly graded, loose, granular deposits with low nes content are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction does not occur randomly: it is restricted to certain geological and hydrological environments, primarily recently deposited sands and silts in areas

with a high ground water level. Dense and more clayey soils, including well-compacted lls,

have low susceptibility to liquefaction.

The liquefaction process itself may not necessarily be particularly damaging or hazardous. For

engineering purposes, it is not the occurrence of liquefaction that is of importance but the potential of the process and of associated hazards to damage structures. The adverse effects of liquefaction can be summarised as follows:

g

Flow failures, when completely liqueed soil or blocks of intact material ride on a layer of

liqueed soil. Flows can be large and develop on moderate to steep slopes.

Table 3.5. Average soil damping ratios and reduction factors (+1 standard deviation) for the shear wave

velocity vs and the shear modulus G within the upper 20 m of soil in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 (for soil with

vs , 360 m/s)

32

Damping ratio: %

vs/vs,max

Gs/Gs,max

0.1

0.2

0.3

3

6

10

0.9 (+0.07)

0.7 (+0.15)

0.6 (+0.15)

0.8 (+0.1)

0.5 (+0.2)

0.36 (+0.2)

g

g

g

g

Lateral spreading, with lateral displacement of supercial blocks of soil as a result of the

liquefaction of a subsurface layer. Spreading generally develops on gentle slopes, and

moves towards a free face, such as an incised river channel or coastline. It may also occur

through the failure of shallow liqueed layers subjected to a high vertical load on part of

the ground surface due to a natural or articial embankment or cut.

Ground oscillation: where the ground is at or the slope too gentle to allow lateral

displacement, liquefaction at depth may disconnect overlying soils from the underlying

ground, allowing the upper soil to oscillate back and forth in the form of ground waves.

These oscillations are usually accompanied by ground ssures and the fracture of rigid

extended structures, such as pavements and pipelines.

Loss or reduction in bearing capacity, when earthquake shaking increases pore water

pressures, which in turn cause the soil to lose its strength and bearing capacity.

Soil settlement, as the pore water pressures dissipate and the soil densies after

liquefaction. Settlement of structures may occur, owing to the reduction in the bearing

capacity or the ground displacements noted above. In piled foundations the postearthquake settlement of the liqueed layer due to pore pressure dissipation induces

negative skin friction along the shaft, in all layers above the liqueed layer.

Increased lateral pressures on retaining walls, when the soil behind a wall liquees and

behaves like a heavy uid with no internal friction.

Flotation of buried structures, when buried structures, such as tanks and pipes, become

buoyant in the liqueed soil.

Other manifestations of liquefaction, such as sand boils, can also occur, and may pose a risk to

structures, particularly through loss or reduction in the bearing capacity and settlement.

Liquefaction has been extensively studied since 1964. The state of the art is now well established

and, more importantly, allows reliable prediction of the occurrence of liquefaction. So, this

aspect is fully covered in Part 5 of Eurocode 8, including a normative annex for the use of

SPT measurements for the evaluation of the undrained cyclic strength of cohesionless soils.

However, in addition to the SPT, other techniques are allowed for the determination of the

soil strength, such as cone penetration tests (CPTs) and shear wave velocity measurements. Laboratory tests are not recommended, because to obtain a reliable estimate of liquefaction resistance, very specialised drilling and sampling techniques are needed, beyond the budget of any

common project. It should, however, be noted that there have been numerous developments

in liquefaction assessment methodologies in recent years (e.g. Seed et al., 2003; Idriss and

Boulanger, 2008). So, the methods described in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 may be potentially unconservative, especially for materials with a high nes content. It is therefore recommended that an

expert is involved in the liquefaction assessment.

3.4.2

Liquefaction assessment

Clauses 4.1.4(3)

The verication of the liquefaction susceptibility is carried out under free eld conditions, but

4.1.4(6), 4.1.4(10),

with the prevailing situation during the lifetime of the structure. For instance, if a tall

platform is going to be built to prevent ooding of the site, or the water table will be lowered 4.1.4(11), Annex B [3]

on a long-term basis, these developments should be reected in the evaluation.

The recommended analysis is a total stress analysis in which the seismic demand, represented

by the earthquake-induced stresses, is compared with the seismic capacity (i.e. the undrained

cyclic shear strength of the soil also called liquefaction resistance). The shear stress demand

is expressed in terms of a cyclic stress ratio (CSR), and the capacity in terms of a cyclic

resistance ratio (CRR). In both ratios the normalisation is with respect to the vertical effective

stress, s v0 .

A soil should be considered susceptible to liquefaction whenever CRR , l CSR, where l is a

factor of safety, with a recommended value of 1.25. The CSR is evaluated with a simplied

version of the SeedIdriss formula, which allows a rapid calculation of the induced stress

along the depth, without resorting to a dynamic site response analysis:

CSR 0:65ag S=gsv =s 0v

D3:18

33

where sv and s v0 are the overburden pressure and the vertical effective stress at the depth of

interest. Equation (D3.18) may not be applied for depths larger than 20 m. The liquefaction

resistance ratio, CRR, may be estimated through empirical correlations with an index parameter,

such as the SPT blow count, the static CPT point resistance or the shear wave velocity. Note that

all of these methods should be implemented with several corrections of the measured index

parameter for the effects of the overburden at the depth of measurement, the nes content of

the soil, the effective energy delivered to the rods in SPTs, etc. In normative Annex B in Part 5

of Eurocode 8, the CRR is assessed based on a corrected SPT blowcount, using empirical

liquefaction charts relating CRR t/s v0 to the corrected SPT blow count N1(60) for an earthquake surface magnitude of 7.5. Correction factors are provided in Annex B [3] for other

magnitudes.

Clause 4.1.4(7),

4.1.4(8) [3]

A soil may be prone to liquefaction if it presents certain characteristics that govern its strength

and the seismic demand is large enough. Taking the opposite view, Part 5 of Eurocode 8 introduces cumulative conditions under which the soil may be considered as not prone to liquefaction

and liquefaction assessment is not required:

g

soils with a clay content higher than 20% and a plasticity index above 10% or

soils with a silt content higher than 35% and a corrected SPT blow count of over 20 or

clean sands with a corrected SPT blow count higher than 30.

The assessment of liquefaction is also not required for layers located deeper than 15 m below the

foundation. This does not mean that those layers are not prone to liquefaction, although susceptibility to liquefaction decreases with depth; it means, instead, that because of their depth their

liquefaction will not affect the structure. Although it is not spelled out in Eurocode 8, obviously

this condition is not sufcient by itself: it should be complemented with a condition on the foundation dimensions relative to the layer depth.

Clauses 4.1.4(12)

4.1.4(14) [3]

If soils are found to be susceptible to liquefaction, mitigation measures, such as ground improvement and piling (to transfer loads to layers not susceptible to liquefaction), should be considered

to ensure foundation stability. The use of pile foundations alone should be considered with

caution, in view of:

g

g

g

Clauses 4.1.4(12)

4.1.4(14) [3]

the large forces induced in the piles by the loss of soil support in the liqueable layers

the post-earthquake settlements of the liqueed layers causing negative skin friction in all

layers located above

the inevitable uncertainties in determining the location and thickness of such layers.

3.4.3

Liquefaction mitigation

If soils are found to be susceptible to liquefaction and the consequences are considered

unacceptable for the structure (excessive settlement, loss of bearing capacity, etc.), ground

improvement should be considered. Several techniques are available to improve the resistance

to liquefaction: soil densication, soil replacement, sand compaction piles, drainage (gravel

drains), deep soil mixing (limecement mixing), stone columns, blasting, jet grouting, etc. The

most commonly used among these are stone columns and soil densication, the latter through

vibrootation, dynamic compaction or compaction grouting. Some techniques, such as stone

columns, offer the advantage of combining several effects, for example, densication and

drainage.

Not all techniques are appropriate for any soil condition. The most appropriate ones should be

chosen taking into account the depth to be treated, the nes content of the soil and the presence

of adjacent structures. Attention should also be paid to the efciency, durability and cost of the

solution. For instance, dynamic compaction is better suited for shallow clean sand layers; jet

grouting and stone columns may be used to improve the soil and offer a good load-bearing

layer under shallow foundations; compaction grouting, albeit more costly, is very efcient for

almost any soil, etc. Methods based on drainage should be considered with care, as drainage

conditions may change in time and clogging may occur, especially in environments with large

uctuation of the water table.

34

Cyclic shear strain, cyc: %

3

10

103

102

N1 < 40

<30

<20

<15

<10

<5

102

101

15 cycles

101

10

There is signicant experience with all the methods listed above: when properly implemented,

they have a good track record during earthquakes.

3.4.4

Settlements

The magnitude of the settlement induced by the earthquake should be assessed when there are

extended layers or thick lenses of loose, unsaturated cohesionless materials at shallow depths.

Excessive settlements may also occur in very soft clays because of cyclic degradation of their

shear strength under ground shaking of long duration. If the settlements caused by densication

or cyclic degradation appear capable of affecting the stability of the foundations, consideration

should be given to ground improvement methods.

Clauses 4.1.5(1)

4.1.5(4) [3]

Earthquake-induced settlement can be estimated using empirical relationships between volumetric strain, SPT N values (corrected for overburden) and the factor of safety against liquefaction. For example, the approach in Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) is based on relationships between

the volumetric strain, the cyclic shear strain and SPT N values. The peak shear strain computed

from the one-dimensional response analysis and the SPT-corrected N value at that point are

entered into the Tokimatsu and Seed chart (Figure 3.3) to yield the volumetric strain. The

total settlement can then be obtained by integrating these strains over depth.

3.4.5

Lateral spreading

Lateral spreading is a highly unpredictable phenomenon. Nevertheless, empirical correlations

have been developed to estimate the lateral displacement of the ground, DH, in metres due to

liquefaction (Youd et al., 2002):

log DH 16:713 1:532M 1:406 log R 0:012R 0:592 log W 0:540 log T15

3:413 log 100 F15 0:795 log D5015 0:1 mm

D3:19

where M is the moment magnitude of the earthquake; R is the nearest horizontal or map

distance from the site to the seismic energy source (if R , 0.5 km, use R 0.5 km);

R R 10(0.89M 5.64); T15 is the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with a

corrected SPT blow count (N1)60 less than 15; F15 is the average nes content of granular

material (fraction passing the #200 sieve) within T15; D5015 is the average mean grain size of

granular material in T15, and W is the free-face ratio, dened as the height, H, of the free face

as a percentage of the distance, L, from the base of the free face to the point in question.

35

Such relationships should be used with care and by experienced engineers, as there is no physical

theory as yet to conrm them. Note also that large displacements, over 6 m, should not be

taken to apply in engineering practice, because they are poorly supported in the database

(Youd et al., 2002).

REFERENCES

Abrahamson NA and Litehiser JJ (1989) Attenuation of peak vertical acceleration. Bulletin of the

Seismological Society of America 79: 549580.

Ambraseys N, Simpson K and Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in

Europe. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25(4): 371400.

Ambraseys NN and Simpson KA (1996) Prediction of vertical response spectra in Europe.

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 25(4): 401412.

Bommer JJ and Elnashai AS (1999) Displacement spectra for seismic design. Journal of Earthquake

Engineering 3(1): 132.

Caltrans (2006) Seismic Design Criteria, version 1.4. California Department of Transportation,

Sacramento, CA.

CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) (2003) EN 19971:2003: Eurocode 7 Geotechnical

design Part 1: General rules. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004a) EN 1998-1:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004b) EN 1998-5:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 5:

Foundations, retaining structures, geotechnical aspects. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005) EN 1998-2:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2:

Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2007) EN 19972:2007: Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part 2: Ground investigation

and testing. CEN, Brussels.

Elnashai AS and Papazoglou AJ (1997) Procedure and spectra for analysis of RC structures

subjected to strong vertical earthquake loads. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(1): 121155.

Gasparini DA and Vanmarcke EH (1976) Simulated Earthquake Motions Compatible with

Prescribed Response Spectra. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, MA. Research Report R76-4.

Idriss IM and Boulanger RW (2008) Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA. MNO-12.

Ohta Y and Goto N (1976) Estimation of S-wave velocity in terms of characteristic indices of soil.

Butsuri-Tanko 29(4): 3441.

Rey J, Faccioli E and Bommer JJ (2002) Derivation of design soil coefcients (S) and response

spectral shapes for Eurocode 8 using the European Strong-Motion Database. Journal of

Seismology 6(4): 547555.

Seed HB, Cetin KO, Moss RES et al. (2003) Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a

unied and consistent framework. 26th Annual ASCE LA Geotechnical Seminar, HMS Queen

Mary, Long Beach, CA, Keynote Presentation.

Sextos AG and Kappos AJ (2009) Evaluation of seismic response of bridges under asynchronous

excitation and comparison with Eurocode 8-2 provisions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 7:

519545.

Sextos AG, Kappos AJ and Kolias B (2006) Computing a reasonable spatially variable

earthquake input for extended bridge structures. First European Conference on Earthquake

Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, paper 1601.

Sommerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW and Abrahamson NA (1997) Modication of empirical

strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of

rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters 68: 199222.

Tokimatsu K and Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sand due to earthquake shaking.

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering of the ASCE 113(8): 861878.

Youd TL, Hansen CM and Bartlett SF (2002) Revised multilinear regression equations for

prediction of lateral spread displacement. Journal of the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering 128(12): 10071017.

36

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.037

Chapter 4

earthquake resistance

4.1.

Introduction

During the conceptual design phase, the layout of the structure is established, the structural

materials for its various parts are selected and the construction technique and procedure are

decided. Conceptual design concludes with a preliminary sizing of all members, in order to

allow the next phase of the design process to be carried out, namely the analysis for the

calculation of the effects of the design actions (including seismic) in terms of internal forces

and deformations in structural members. Analysis is followed by the detailed design phase

(notably the verication of member sizes, the dimensioning of the reinforcement, etc., on the

basis of the calculated action effects) and the preparation of material specications, construction

drawings and any other information that is necessary or helpful for the implementation of the

design.

Conceptual design is of utmost importance for the economy, safety and tness for use of the

structure. In addition to technical skills and knowledge, it requires judgement, experience and a

certain intuition. Although conceptual design cannot be taught, several authoritative documents

(recently, b, 2009, 2012) give general principles and guidance. Useful general sources for bridges

are b (2000) and (2004), and, for their seismic design, Priestley et al. (1996) and b (2007).

The conceptual design of a bridge is controlled mainly by that of the deck, which in turn is

governed by its use, the preferred construction technique (Table 4.1), aesthetics, topography

and of course cost issues. The three last considerations signicantly inuence the conceptual

design of the piers as well. Gravity loads and the construction technique control the design of the

deck. The deck spans and their erection, alongside the terrain, determine the number and

location of the piers. In seismic regions, the piers themselves and their connection to the deck

are governed by the seismic action. In addition, seismic considerations are taken into account

for some aspects of the deck design, notably its continuity across spans and sometimes its connection with the abutments and the piers. Before delving into these purely seismic aspects, it is worth

recalling that one of the prime objectives of the conceptual design of a bridge for non-seismic

loads is to reduce the deck dead load, as this is normally the prime contributor to the action

effects in the deck, the piers and the foundation for the combination of factored gravity loads

(the persistent and transient loads combination in Eurocode terminology). This is rst pursued

through the choice of the material(s) and the shape of the deck section; once these are chosen,

an effort is made to reduce its dimensions by using higher-strength materials, external prestressing (if relevant), etc. Needless to say, although the conceptual and detailed seismic design of

bridges concerns mainly the piers and the way they are connected to or support the deck,

reducing the decks self-weight is of prime importance for the bridge seismic design as well:

both seismic force and displacement demands increase with the deck mass (they are normally

approximately proportional to its square root), and there is good reason to reduce it.

Clauses 2.4(1)2.4(3)

[2]

As pointed out in Section 2.3.1 of this Guide, the prime decision in the conceptual seismic design

of the bridge is how to accommodate the horizontal seismic displacements of the deck with

respect to the ground. Four options were highlighted there, repeated below for completeness:

1

to support the deck on all abutments and piers through bearings (or similar devices) that

can slide or are horizontally very exible

37

Table 4.1. Span range, erection speed and continuity of the deck across spans and with the piers for

different erection techniques

Deck erection

Normal span

range: m

Erection speed:

m/week

Full deck

continuity

Integral deck

and piers

Prefabricated girders

On scaffolding/falsework on grade

On mobile launching/casting girder

or gantry (span-by-span)

Free/balanced cantilever

Cast-in-situ deck segments

Prefabricated deck segments

Incremental launching

Without temporary props

With temporary props

1050

550

3060

25100a

510

1050

Normally not

Normally yes

Yes

Normally not

Yes or no

Yes or no

60300

40160

615

2060a

Yes

Normally yes

3070

70120

1030

1030

Yes

Normally not

to x the deck to the top of at least one pier (but not at the abutments) and let those piers

accommodate the horizontal seismic displacements through inelastic rotations in exural

plastic hinges

3 to let the base of the piers slide with respect to the soil or allow inelastic deformations to

develop in foundation piles

4 to lock the bridge in the ground, by xing the deck to the abutments as in an integral

system that follows the ground motion with little additional deformation of its own.

2

Option 3 is not central in Part 2 of Eurocode 8, and is not dealt with in detail in this Designers

Guide. Option 4 is also a rather special case, applicable only to short bridges with up to three

spans but often with only one. It is dealt with separately in Sections 4.5, 5.4 and 6.11.3 of

this Guide. Options 1 and 2 are the main ones. The rst amounts to effectively isolating the

deck from ground shaking; it is treated in Eurocode 8 as seismic isolation. The second option

relies on ductility and energy dissipation in the piers. This chapter and most of the rest

focuses on these two options.

The features of conceptual design affecting the seismic behaviour and design of a bridge the most

are:

1

2

(for multi-span bridges) the continuity of the deck across spans over the piers

(for bridges with a concrete deck) whether the deck is monolithic with the piers.

To a certain extent these features are related to the method used for the erection of the deck (see

Table 4.1). It is very unlikely or even impossible for continuous decks to lose support and drop

from the piers. Even unseating from some bearings which is also unlikely will not have catastrophic consequences, and may be easily reversed. Unseating and dropping can be ruled out if the

deck is monolithically connected to the piers. In that case, the prevention of horizontal movement

between the deck and the top of the piers profoundly affects the seismic response of the bridge,

which is then dominated by the inelastic deformations and behaviour of the piers. It also affects

its seismic design, which is then based on the ductility of the piers. Monolithic or rigid connection

of the deck to the pier tops also affects the bridge performance under non-seismic actions. The

effect may be favourable (e.g. the performance under braking or centrifugal trafc actions in

railway bridges) or negative (e.g. the restraint of thermal or shrinkage deformations in a long

deck on stiff piers, which may even be prohibitive for the bridge).

4.2.

bridges

4.2.1

Deck continuity

Clauses 2.4(4), 2.4(9), The most important goal of the seismic design of a bridge is to keep the deck in place under the

2.4(10) [2]

strongest conceivable seismic action. In multi-span bridges, one of the risks to be faced by the

38

seismic design is local loss of support of the deck, due to unseating from a pier. The best way to

prevent drop of a part of a multi-span deck from one or more piers is by providing continuity of

the spans over all piers: a deck continuous from abutment to abutment. An exception may be

made in very long bridges of several hundred or over a thousand metres where intermediate

movement joints may be judiciously introduced. Such joints may be essential if it is considered

likely that a strong earthquake may induce signicantly different movement at the base of

adjacent piers, notably if the bridge straddles a potentially active tectonic fault or crosses

non-homogeneous soil formations. Intermediate movement joints may be placed within a

span as Gerber-type hinges with sufcient seat length. More often they are placed between

two spans whose ends are supported through separate bearings on the same pier. In such a

layout the movement joint should be wide enough to prevent pounding between the ends of

the two spans, in addition to providing sufcient support length against unseating (see also

Section 6.8.1.3).

Apart from breaking up the full continuity of the deck and increasing the chances of a drop-off,

intermediate movement joints increase the uncertainty of the seismic response: the parts of the

bridge separated by the movement joints (the frames of the bridge in US parlance) may

vibrate out of phase and experience pounding at the joints. Opening and closing of joints is a

nonlinear phenomenon, and capturing its effects may require a nonlinear analysis (normally in

the time domain). To take some of these effects into account without recourse to nonlinear

time-history analysis, the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Caltrans, 2006) requires using, in

addition to a stand-alone model of each and every bridge frame between adjacent movement

joints, two global models that consider their interactions:

g

g

a tension model where movement joints are considered to be open and connected only

through the axial stiffness, EA/L, of any cable restrainers linking the deck in the

longitudinal direction across joint(s).

For bridges with several intermediate movement joints, Caltrans (2006) further requires the use

of several elastic multi-frame models, each one encompassing not more than ve frames plus a

boundary frame or abutment at each end; frames beyond the boundary ones are represented

by massless springs, and analysis results for boundary frames are ignored, while adjacent models

overlap by at least one frame beyond a boundary frame. The objective of this complex series of

analysis is to better capture the out-of-phase motion of frames and to account for the important

normal modes and periods of vibration of each frame without resorting to an unduly large

number of nodes from abutment to abutment. Despite its complexity, the above procedure

may not capture important features of the system response for the following reasons:

g

g

pounding between frames or the activation of cable restrainers linking them are unilateral

nonlinear phenomena that cannot be approximated by envelope linear models

if the bridge is long enough to have several intermediate deck separation joints, the effect

of the spatial distribution of the seismic ground motion may be quite important and worth

accounting for, even when such joints are provided.

As Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires none of this analysis complexity, the sole reason for highlighting

here the provisions in Caltrans (2006) is to stress the uncertainty of the seismic response of

bridges with intermediate movement joints and the complexity of the analysis that this entails.

Reducing the uncertainty of the response is an important goal of conceptual design, and in

this case it is served well by avoiding such joints.

Deck spans composed of prefabricated girders, be they of concrete, steel or composite (steel

concrete), are normally simply supported on the piers. Adjacent spans can be connected by

encapsulating their ends in bulky cast-in-situ crossheads. However, this is not a common

practice. Normally, continuity of adjacent spans is pursued through a cast-in-situ topping slab

continuous over the joint between two girder ends (see also Section 5.5.1.4). Figure 4.1 depicts

an example. The slab should have sufcient out-of-plane exibility to allow different rotations

at the ends of the adjacent spans due to trafc, creep (and the ensuing moment redistribution)

and pier head rotation. This detail provides continuity of the pavement for motorist and

Clauses 2.3.2.2(4),

4.1.3(3) [2]

39

Figure 4.1. Precast girders simply supported on pier and connected for continuity via topping slab

Slab cast over the webs on a

2 cm expanding polystyrene layer

Cross beam

Bearings

Pier

passenger comfort and makes redundant intermediate roadway joints and the maintenance they

entail. It also ensures the continuity of seismic displacements of the deck and prevents impact

between adjacent spans under seismic actions. Finally, it serves as a sacricial seismic link

between the two spans against span drop-off after unseating. It is of note that the precast

girders of the twin 2.3 km-long Bolu viaduct were spared from dropping and triggering a

cascading collapse despite their unseating in the Duzce (TR) 1999 earthquake (Figure 4.2(a)),

due to their continuous topping slab. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005) makes specic reference

to such continuity slabs and their modelling.

It is normal practice to support prefabricated girders on a transversely stepped top surface of the

pier or the bent-cap or on corresponding concrete plinths, in order to achieve a transverse slope

Figure 4.2. Bolu viaduct in Duzce (TR) 1999 earthquake: (a) unseating of precast girders; (b) suspension

from the continuity top slab prevented span drop-off

40

of the top surface of the deck without differentiating the depth among the girders. By contrast, a

step of the pier top in the longitudinal direction is not a proper means to accommodate a difference in depth between two adjacent deck spans simply supported on the pier as, during the

longitudinal seismic response, the deeper of the two decks may ram the step. Instead, the

depth of the shallower deck should be increased over the support (through a deeper crosshead) to that of the deeper, so that both can be supported at the same horizontal level.

4.2.2

Uniform seismic demands on piers piers of different height

4.2.2.1 Introduction

For reasons of aesthetics, all piers or pier columns of a bridge usually have the same cross- Clauses 2.4(4), 2.4(6),

2.4(7) [2]

sectional dimensions. If the bridge has several piers with the same type of rigid connection to

the deck (i.e. all monolithically connected, or supporting it on xed bearings) as in option 2 of

Sections 2.3.1 and 4.1, differences in pier height are translated into differences in pier exibility

in a given horizontal direction (longitudinal or transverse), as exibility is approximately proportional to the third power of the pier height. This has certain implications for the longitudinal

or the transverse seismic response of the bridge. Some of these are unfavourable, and should be

avoided at the conceptual design stage, as highlighted in the following sections.

4.2.2.2 Conceptual design of bridges with piers of different heights for favourable

longitudinal response

The longitudinal inertia forces on an approximately straight deck (even one along which the

tangent to the axis does not change direction by more than 608) are about collinear. Owing to

the high axial rigidity of the deck, no matter where they originate, these forces are shared by

the individual piers (approximately) in proportion to their longitudinal stiffness. If the pier

columns have the same cross-sectional dimensions, shorter ones will undertake larger longitudinal seismic shears and develop higher seismic moments (which are approximately inversely proportional to the square of the pier height), requiring more vertical reinforcement than the rest.

This will further increase the effective stiffness of the shorter piers (cf. Section 5.8.1), and may

lead to a vicious cycle. In addition, regardless of the exact amount of their reinforcement, the

shorter piers will yield earlier and develop larger ductility demands than the others, possibly

failing sooner. Note that the shorter piers are normally towards the two ends of a long deck,

and, if rigidly connected to it, they constrain its thermal, creep and shrinkage deformations,

inducing in the deck high tensile forces and suffering themselves from the associated longitudinal

shears. The measures proposed below for the mitigation of non-uniform longitudinal seismic

demands in piers are quite effective in reducing these longitudinal constraints and their effects.

Conceptual design offers various ways around the problems posed by different pier heights:

g

If the height differences are rather small, the free height of the shorter piers may be

increased to be approximately the same as in all others. The added height may be in an

open (preferably lined) shaft under grade. The base of these piers should always be easily

accessible for inspection and repair of any damage, and above groundwater level.

Figure 4.3 shows an example.

If the pier heights are very different, rigid connection of the deck to the piers (monolithic

or through xed bearings) may be limited to a few piers of about the same height

normally the tallest ones. The deck may be supported on all other piers via bearings that

are exible in the longitudinal direction (elastomeric or sliding). Often, the tallest piers are

around the deck mid-length; so, this choice helps to relieve the stresses building up in the

deck and the piers due to the thermal and shrinkage movements of the deck in the

longitudinal direction. A typical example is the bridge in Figure 4.4. The deck is

continuous from abutment to abutment, with a total length of 848 m for the east-bound

carriageway and 638 m for the west-bound one, both with a radius of curvature of 450 m,

interior spans of about 55 m and end ones of about 44 m. It was cast span-by-span on a

mobile casting girder launched from pier to pier. Each deck is monolithically connected to

the ve centre-most and tallest piers, but tangentially sliding on the rest and at the

abutments (see Figure 4.5).

The cross-section of the shorter piers and of the upper part of the taller ones may be

chosen to present much smaller lateral stiffness in the longitudinal direction than the lower

part. In this way, the longitudinal stiffness of the piers can be balanced despite substantial

41

Figure 4.3. Construction of the lower part of the left pier of Votonosi bridge (GR) in a shaft for about

equal pier heights. (Courtesy of Stathopoulos et al. (2004))

L = 490.00

10

25.00

12

10

5.50

20.00

~47.00

5.50

~45.00

5.50

130.00

13.50

230.00

~13.50

130.00

10

20.00

10

25.00

12

differences in height. A usual choice for the longitudinally exible part of the pier is a

twin blade consisting of two parallel wall-like piers in the transverse direction. The lower

and stiffer part (possibly of very different heights in various piers) may be a hollow box.

Figure 4.6 shows a schematic, and Figure 4.7 a real example, of a balanced cantilever

construction (where the twin-blade piers offer additional advantages). Depending on the

relative length of its twin-blade and hollow box parts, plastic hinges may form either at

the very base of the pier or at the base of each of the individual columns of the upper

twin-blade part, or at both, one after the other. These possibilities should be taken into

account in the capacity design of the pier. All these potential plastic hinge regions

(including the top of the individual columns of the twin blades) should be detailed for

ductility.

If the deck is supported on all piers through elastomeric bearings, the stiffness of piers

with different heights may be harmonised by tailoring the total thickness t of the elastomer

so that the bearing stiffness Kb GA/t counterbalances the difference in pier stiffness, Kp ,

giving approximately the same composite stiffness from Eq. (D2.10) for all piers (see point

2 in Section 4.3.3.5). Note, however, that the large exibility of the elastomeric bearings

controls the horizontal stiffness of such bridges (see also Section 2.3.2.5 of this Guide).

If the section of pier columns is hollow, its thickness may be adjusted to balance the

difference in pier height and achieve either approximately uniform shear forces or

approximately uniform maximum moments among the piers. However, as the pier stiffness

is not very sensitive to the thickness of the hollow section, only small differences in the

pier height can be the accommodated in this way.

The transverse inertial forces are distributed all along the deck. The seismic action effects they

induce in piers depend not only on their relative transverse stiffness but also on their tributary

deck length and the in-plane exural rigidity of the deck, which is normally high but does not

dominate the transverse response as much as the axial deck stiffness does for the longitudinal

response. Therefore, except in the special cases pointed out below, rigid transverse connection

of a long deck to all the piers produces a fairly uniform distribution of seismic demands

among them and is therefore acceptable, or even preferred. Exceptions to this rule are listed

below, alongside suggested conceptual design options.

42

Figure 4.4. Krystalopighi bridge (GR), with the deck monolithically connected to ve central piers and

free to move tangentially on ve or three piers near each end

Relatively short bridges (e.g. overpasses of three to ve spans) with transversely exible

piers and stiff abutments. If the intention is to resist the seismic action through ductile

behaviour of the piers (i.e. not as in an integral bridge), the deck should be transversely

unrestrained at the abutments.

Longer bridges, with very high transverse stiffness of the abutments and of the nearby

piers compared with the others. Rigid connection of the deck to all these stiff supports

may lead to a very unfavourable distribution of transverse shears among the supports, as

shown in Figure 4.9. The connection should be made transversely exible either at the

abutments or at the nearby piers.

Bridges with one or more secondary piers that serve the deck erection procedure.

Figure 4.10 shows an example of a balanced cantilever deck with a side span (on the left)

much longer than the central span. The side span is supported on an intermediate short

pier, sliding on it in both horizontal directions to avoid the unfavourable effects of a

transversely rigid connection.

4.3.

4.3.1

Introduction: the effect of the construction technique

The fundamental choice is between connecting the deck monolithically with the piers and

supporting it on them through bearings xed (hinged, articulated) or movable (sliding or

elastomeric) or even via special isolation devices.

43

Figure 4.5. Piers for the bridge shown in Figure 4.4: (a) shorter ones near the ends of the deck,

supporting it without tangential restraint but with xity in the radial direction; (b) taller piers near the

centre, monolithically connected to the deck

3 4 = 12 piles

120

1

1

3 5 = 15 piles

120

For the type of bridges and the range of spans addressed herein, the piers are made of concrete.

They can be monolithic with the deck, but only if the deck is of concrete as well. If it is of steel or

composite (steelconcrete), it can only be supported on the piers via bearings.

The construction technique adopted for a concrete deck may dictate the choice between monolithic connection and support on bearings. As shown in Table 4.1, prefabricated girders are

normally supported on bearings (unless they are made integral with the top of the pier

through a cast-in-situ crosshead). Decks that are incrementally launched from the abutment(s)

are also supported on the pier tops during the launching through special temporary sliders appropriate for that operation. After the launching is completed, the deck is jacked up to replace these

sliders with the nal bearings. It is not practical to try there monolithic connections. Casting the

deck span by span on a mobile girder supported on and launched from the piers (as shown in the

upper right-hand corner of Figure 4.4) is convenient both for monolithic connection and for

support on any type of bearing. Concrete decks erected as balanced cantilevers are normally

monolithic with the pier, to stabilise the cantilever during construction. There are, however

Figure 4.6. Schematic of a bridge with a twin blade section in the upper 30 m of unequal piers and a

box section over the lower part (Bardakis, 2007)

1.50

44

7.40

7.00

7.40

7.00

10.00 30.00

30.00 30.00

144.00

1.50

144.00

91.00

10.00 30.00

144.00

30.00 30.00

91.00

Figure 4.7. Twin blade construction of the upper part of all piers of Arachthos bridge (GR) to reduce

and harmonise pier stiffness (see Figure 4.8 for the outer, shortest piers of the bridge)

cases, where a movable connection (with displacement and rotation in a longitudinal vertical

plane) is desired for the nal bridge, allowing, inter alia, seismic isolation. The deck may then

be supported on the pier during erection through bearings (usually temporary), with the deck

segment right above the pier head temporarily tied down to it (see Figure 4.8 for an example).

As another option, a span of a deck on bearings may be segmentally erected while cantilevering

out from a previously completed span, or with the segments suspended from a temporary pylon

through stays.

4.3.2

Monolithic connection

The simplest and most cost-effective connection of the piers to the deck is a monolithic one. From

the point of view of aesthetics, it is best to directly connect the pier column(s) to a cross-beam

incorporated within the depth of the deck, no matter whether it is a solid or voided slab, a

single- or multiple-box girder, or even a multiple T-beam deck. Monolithic connection of

a concrete deck to the piers is very common in Japan and the seismic prone areas of the

USA, but less common in Europe. The construction technique aside, it offers the following

advantages:

Figure 4.8. Temporary deck tie-down over the support on the shortest pier of Arahthos bridge (GR) via

four elastomeric bearings for stability during free cantilever erection (see Figure 4.7 for an overall

illustration of this bridge)

45

Figure 4.9. Abnormal distribution of seismic shears to supports (bottom) in bridge with transversely very

stiff outer piers and abutments (top)

Elevation

Plan

Wherever it can be applied, it is the cheapest and easiest connection of a concrete deck to

the piers, as the costs of special devices (bearings or isolation devices) and their inspection,

maintenance and possible replacement are avoided. Generally, it is preferable to an

articulated connection with bearings xed in both directions.

2 It is the best way to prevent unseating and drop-off or large residual displacements of the

deck that would be difcult to reverse in order to restore full operation of the bridge.

3 It lends itself best to design for ductile behaviour: energy dissipation and ductility can

develop not only at the bottom of the piers but at their tops as well (this does not apply to

single-column piers under transverse seismic action).

4 Fixity to the deck reduces slenderness and second-order effects in tall piers (except for

single-column piers in the transverse direction, if the deck is not laterally restrained at the

abutments).

1

(a) For more than two spans, the piers restrain longitudinal movements of the deck due to

thermal actions and concrete shrinkage. As a result, signicant axial tension may build up

in the deck, alongside large bending moments and shears in the deck and in the piers

themselves. The longer the deck, the largest are the stresses due to the restraint of imposed

deformations. Ways to mitigate this problem have been discussed in Section 4.2.2.2.

(b) Monolithic connection precludes the use of seismic isolation and/or supplemental energy

dissipation.

(c) In the joint between the deck and the pier column, shear stresses due to the seismic

action are large; bond demands along pier vertical bars anchored there or along deck bars

passing through or terminating in the joint are high. Designing and detailing the joint for

these demands is not trivial.

Figure 4.10. Secondary short pier serving the erection of the long side span of Mesovouni bridge (GR)

46

4.3.3

Support on bearings

4.3.3.1 Types and structural functions of bearings

Supporting the deck on bearings is very common in Europe and Japan, but rather rare in the

seismic prone areas of the USA.

All types of bearings considered here have one common structural function: their articulation

capability. The vertical force to be transmitted is concentrated within the bearing support

area, within which the distribution of compressive stresses is essentially uniform. This is

effected by practically eliminating the rotational resistance within any vertical plane (articulation). To this end, the normal force is transmitted either through two concentric spherical

steel surfaces, one sliding over the other (in spherical bearings), or through a layer of resilient

material presenting a sufciently small rotational stiffness. This material can be either a laterally

encased non-laminated elastomer (as in pot-bearings) or a non-encased laminated elastomer

(in elastomeric bearings where the rotational stiffness is not negligible but acceptably low for

practical purposes).

Depending on their structural role, the following types of bearings are commonly used:

1

Fixed bearings, which are spherical or pot bearings that do not allow relative

displacement of the end bearing plates. Pot bearings are rather common in Europe, and

occasionally used in Japan, but rarely in the USA. Spherical bearings are more

uncommon.

Bearings sliding in all directions, to allow free displacement in any direction in the plane of

the bearing (plane of sliding). These are a fairly common type of movable bearing in

Europe or Japan, but rather rare in the USA. The bearing comprises one stainless steel

plate that can slide on another (the sliding plate), which is in turn anchored to the concrete

and has larger plan dimensions to accommodate the displacements. The sliding interface

material is usually lubricated PTFE, for low friction. Such bearings do not have rotational

capability. Sliding-cum-rotational capability can be achieved by adding a sliding plate to

one of the end plates of a spherical or pot bearing or to the end plate of an elastomeric

bearing pad (see below).

Bearings sliding in only one direction. This is effected by introducing a shear key guide

between the sliding plates of a bearing as above. Owing to the high contact pressure,

austenitic stainless steel and hard composite material are commonly used to form the

mating surfaces of the guide.

Laminated elastomeric bearings, presenting a low and elastic shear reaction to substantial

displacement in the plane of the lamination, according to their low shear stiffness,

Kb GA/tq (where A denotes the horizontal section area of the bearing, and tq and G the

total thickness and the shear modulus of the elastomer, respectively). These are the most

common type of bearing throughout the world (high damping rubber HDR is most

often used for them in Japan, to enhance energy dissipation). If the deck displacement is

governed by the low horizontal stiffness of elastomeric bearings (option 1 in Sections 2.3.1

or 4.1 of this Guide), the fundamental period of the bridge is lengthened and seismic force

demands are reduced. This is the simplest way of achieving seismic isolation, and is

recognised in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 as such.

Shear-key type of devices. Factory-produced devices termed shear keys or pins are fairly

common in Europe. They are capable of restraining the relative displacement in one or

both directions, transferring shear forces. The materials used for the mating surfaces are

the same as for the guides in bearings of type 3 above. As these devices do not transfer any

normal force, they are not bearings in the strict sense of the word. However, as they aim at

providing the other structural functions of xed bearings, they share their problems and

limitations highlighted in Section 4.3.3.4. They should allow free rotation about the two

horizontal axes and the vertical under various loadings or imposed deformations. Such

rotations, especially about the vertical axis, may be difcult to predict in long curved

bridges, erected and post-tensioned span by span, with different xed points at each

erection stage.

Least expensive of the above bearing types for the same axial load capacity are the elastomeric

bearings, with unanchored ones being much cheaper than anchored. Bearings sliding in any

47

direction come next, with those having an elastomeric component for freedom to rotate again

being less expensive. The cost of bearings xed in one or both directions increases with the magnitude of their shear force capacity. Spherical bearings are more expensive than pot bearings, but

present less resistance against and a higher capability of rotation.

4.3.3.2 Special seismic design requirements for bearings and limitations thereof

The problems and limitations highlighted here arise primarily, but not exclusively, from seismic

design requirements. The higher, therefore, the design seismic action, the more acute these

demands and limitations.

4.3.3.2.1 Seating on the deck

Sufcient overlap between supported and supporting elements should be provided at all movable

supports and directions of movement, unless xed bearings (or equivalent devices) are placed

there to preclude relative movement. The minimum overlap length per Part 2 of Eurocode 8 is

estimated according to Section 6.8.1 of this Designers Guide. Seismic links (e.g. via concrete

shear keys) are not required in addition. Fixed bearings or equivalent devices are designed to

carry the increased seismic action effects derived from capacity design (see case (b) in Section

6.3.2 of this Guide). Action effects derived directly from the seismic analysis can be used for

the design of xed bearings only if corresponding seismic links, capable of these capacity

design action effects, are additionally provided.

4.3.3.2.2 Transfer of horizontal forces to the concrete

The transfer of the vertical force of the bearing to the concrete follows the relevant rules of

Eurocode 2, and is normally taken into account in the generic design of the bearing by its

manufacturer. In the horizontal direction where relative displacement is not free, the design

shear force of xed bearings or equivalent devices and of anchored elastomeric bearings

should be safely transferred from the end bearing plate to the concrete. This is usually done

by means of anchor bolts, normally designed by the bearing manufacturer. The transfer to the

concrete of concentrated shear forces alongside the normal ones is not trivial, as reected by

the complexity of the relevant design rules in standards and guidelines (e.g. see CEN, 2008;

b, 2011). For bearings, this transfer is effected through the dowel and fastening action of

anchors, and depends heavily on the resistance along potential failure surfaces in the concrete

surrounding the anchor and extending to the free surface of the concrete element. The generic

bearing design cannot cover all the possibilities. This can only be done for each individual

design case.

The higher the design seismic shears to be transferred, the harder the design of the anchors.

High shear forces are quite usual, not only owing to capacity design but also because the use

of a single transversely xed bearing at the centre of each support is preferable, to avoid the

uncertainty about the distribution of transverse reactions to several xed bearings and the

restraint to imposed deck deformations. By contrast, usually two or more bearings are placed

for the transfer of vertical forces; for example, one bearing underneath each web of the deck

section, especially under the outer ones to minimise the vertical reactions due to the transfer

of torsional moments from the deck. So, in most cases the transfer of transverse horizontal

forces is separated from that of the vertical ones, using the special shear-key devices of point 5

of Section 4.3.3.1. As a result, the design seismic shears to be transferred to the concrete may

easily reach 50% or more of the corresponding vertical forces. If this transfer is not feasible,

vertical sliding bearings may be used instead to transfer the transverse horizontal forces. An

example is shown in Figure 4.5(a) for the tangentially movable supports of a bridge. This

solution is not problem-free either, as it requires provisions for the replacement of parts

subject to ageing, damage, contamination, etc.

4.3.3.2.3 Uplifting

Holding-down devices are normally needed to reliably prevent uplift of all the bearings at the

same deck support (on a pier or abutment) when there is no sufcient safety margin against

this risk in the seismic design situation. Individual bearings at one support do not have to

meet the relevant requirement of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for increased safety. Nevertheless,

uplift under the action effects from the analysis in the seismic design situation should be

prevented at every single bearing.

48

All bearings should be accessible for inspection after an earthquake and under normal service

conditions, as well as for maintenance and partial or full replacement, if needed. To this

end, the design should provide for sufcient room around the bearing for the replacement

works, including the placement against the concrete surfaces of jacks, props and other temporary

means of support and strength. The bearing itself should also provide the appropriate separation

and connections between permanent and replaceable parts.

4.3.3.3 General advantages and disadvantages of supporting the deck on bearings

The construction technique aside, supporting the deck on bearings has its own advantages and

disadvantages. The pros and cons depend on the type of bearings used. On the pro side, no

matter the type of bearing:

Construction is in certain cases simpler than for monolithic connection.

Seismic stresses in the deck are diminished, compared with those in and around a

monolithic deck-column joint; for the longitudinal seismic action, they are almost

eliminated.

3 Single-column piers have similar behaviour in the longitudinal and transverse directions; if

spectral accelerations in these two directions are similar, pier seismic moments and shears

will be similar as well, allowing optimal pier design.

1

2

(a) Bearings require inspection, maintenance and occasional replacement.

(b) If the pier comprises more than one column connected by a cap-beam (a bent cap in the

USA), its columns are not optimally used for earthquake resistance: in the longitudinal

direction they work as vertical cantilevers, while in the transverse direction their top is

nearly xed to the cap-beam.

Further pros and cons depend on the type of bearing, as highlighted below.

4.3.3.4 Fixed bearings

The advantages offered by xed (hinged, articulated) bearings are parallel to some of those of

monolithic connection:

To the extent they do not fail during the earthquake and are used over several piers, they

can prevent unseating and drop of the deck, as well as large residual displacements,

therefore facilitating restoration of full functionality of the bridge. However, they are a less

reliable means of achieving these goals than monolithic connection with some piers.

2 They are the only means, apart from monolithic connection with the deck, to mobilise the

ductility and energy dissipation capacity of piers. Of course, it is at the base (and not the

top) of only those piers that support the deck through at least one xed bearing that

ductility and energy dissipation develop.

1

They also share with monolithic connection cons (a) and (b) below:

(a) Signicant axial forces build up in the deck, alongside large bending moments and shears

in the piers, owing to the longitudinal restraint of deck thermal movements and concrete

shrinkage. In general, the problem is less acute than for monolithic deck/pier connection,

and can be mitigated as suggested in Section 4.2.2.2 in the second and third bullet points.

However, as the deck is free to rotate with respect to the pier in a vertical plane through

the longitudinal direction, the deck bending moments due to prestress and to a vertical

temperature difference component across the deck are lower.

(b) As with monolithic connection, it is not feasible to combine with seismic isolation and/or

supplemental energy dissipation.

In addition:

(c) Fixed bearings are in general more demanding for inspection and maintenance and more

costly than the other types of bearings, except for special isolation devices.

49

Bearings that are xed in one horizontal direction (the transverse) and movable in the other (the

longitudinal) offer advantages 1 and 2 above in the direction where they are most crucial the

transverse while avoiding disadvantage (a) in the direction where it is relevant, namely the

longitudinal.

4.3.3.5 Elastomeric bearings

Laminated elastomeric bearings offer the following special advantages:

1

3

4

5

Owing to their very low horizontal stiffness, Kb GA/tq , they do not materially obstruct

the longitudinal movement of the deck due to thermal actions, concrete shrinkage or (for

prestressed decks) creep. However, near the ends of long continuous decks they may need

to be quite thick, in order to accommodate the deck longitudinal movements (see

disadvantage (c) below). To counter this drawback, sliding bearings (even elastomeric, with

a sliding end plate at the top) may be used near the ends of the deck and anchored

elastomeric ones around mid-length.

They offer a simple way to harmonise the stiffness of piers with different heights, by

tailoring the total thickness t of the elastomer so that the bearing stiffness Kb GA/tq

offsets the difference in pier stiffness, Kp , and give, in the end, about the same composite

stiffness as Eq. (D2.10) for the different piers.

Unless they fail (see disadvantage (f ) below), their behaviour is nearly elastic; they selfcentre after an earthquake, with little residual displacements.

They are of low cost and can be easily replaced.

They can serve as a simple means to achieve seismic isolation (and are recognised as such

in Part 2 of Eurocode 8): the fundamental period of the bridge is lengthened owing to the

low horizontal stiffness of the elastomeric bearings, and hence the seismic force demands

are reduced. In fact, they may be considered as the simplest and least expensive means for

seismic isolation. If the elastomer is not of HDR, the ensuing increase in horizontal seismic

displacement demands may be counterbalanced by supplemental (viscous) dampers. Such a

combination may be competitive with special isolation-cum-dissipation devices.

Unlike sliding bearings, whose friction properties strongly depend on the rate of loading,

the vertical stress and the condition of the sliding interface, the horizontal stiffness of

elastomeric bearings depends on well-dened and documented geometric and material

properties. Hence, the designer is fairly condent about the seismic action effects

transmitted by the bearing to the underlying pier or abutment as determined by the analysis.

Some of the disadvantages (notably those under (a) and (e) below) are the converse of the

advantages of monolithic connection or of xed bearings:

(a) They have such a high exibility compared with the pier that they accommodate almost

fully the seismic displacement demands, without letting the pier use any ductility and

energy dissipation capacity it may have. Hence, the behaviour is limited ductile (with

q 1.50) and the bridge is designed according to Chapter 7 of this Designers Guide for

bridges with seismic isolation. This, however, does not necessarily imply that the design is

not cost-effective.

(b) They are not a good choice over soft soils, because the ground motion may be rich in lowfrequency components due to site effects and/or the piers may tilt or displace differently

leading to deck unseating.

(c) To accommodate the deck longitudinal movements, they may need to be quite thick near

the ends of long continuous decks. As noted under advantage (1) above, this drawback

favours using them near deck mid-length and placing sliding bearings closer to the ends of

the deck.

(d) They are not appropriate or necessary when the piers are tall and the fundamental

period of the bridge would anyway be long even for rigid connection of the piers with the

deck.

(e) They cannot prevent the deck from falling (i.e. such supports are considered movable). To

avoid such a catastrophic event, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires the minimum overlap

length of Section 6.8.1 of this Designers Guide.

(f ) If they exceed their deformation capacity normally by debonding at the interface

between the elastomer and a steel plate, more rarely by toppling the deck will develop

50

large residual lateral displacements that will be hard to reverse in order to restore normal

operation of the bridge.

(g) They are subject to ageing; in addition, their behaviour during an earthquake may be

affected by past loading.

(h) They will tear under net vertical tension. To avoid this, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 includes

rules for holding-down devices.

4.3.3.6 Sliding bearings

Bearings with a horizontal sliding surface offer a single special advantage, in addition to the

general ones for bearings highlighted in Section 4.3.3.3:

1

As their friction coefcient is low under slow rates, they obstruct very little the

longitudinal movement of the deck due to thermal actions, concrete shrinkage or (for

prestressed decks) creep.

However, their drawbacks are several and serious. They share with elastomeric bearings the

limitations listed under points (a), (b), (d) and (e) in Section 4.3.3.5. In addition:

(a) They have no elasticity to restore large lateral displacements, therefore leading to

signicant and essentially unpredictable residual drifts, if not used alongside other elastic

devices capable of restoring displacements. As pointed out in Section 4.3.3.5 under

advantage (1) and disadvantage (c), the single pro of simple sliders may be combined with

pro (1) of elastomeric bearings, if the latter are used around mid-length of a long

continuous deck while sliding ones are used near its ends.

(b) They may be more expensive than elastomeric bearings.

(c) The value of their friction coefcient under dynamic rates is very uncertain and strongly

depends on the rate of loading, the vertical stress (increasing considerably when it is low),

the condition of the sliding interface, etc. If the friction coefcient is well above zero, the

bearing may induce signicant seismic shears in the pier below. If the value is very low,

the design of the bridge (seismic or not) cannot be condently based on the contribution

of a reliable lower bound of the force of the sliding bearings to the equilibrium of any

component of the structure (deck, pier or abutment). By the same token, such sliding

bearings are not reliable means of energy dissipation during the seismic response (see the

Clause 7.5.2.3.5(3) [2]

Note in Clause 7.5.2.3.5(3) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8).

(d) Apart from the large uncertainty in the value of its coefcient and its sensitivity to various

factors, friction is inherently a nonlinear behaviour mode: the direction of the force

changes with the sense of sliding although its magnitude may be constant. So, in theory, it

can be accounted for only through nonlinear analysis. However, this may not be possible

in practice, because a nonlinear analysis requires a well-dened set of external horizontal

actions (braking, wind or seismic) combined with imposed deformation actions (daily and

seasonal temperature variations, concrete shrinkage and creep). From the very large

number of possible scenarios for this sequence, it is evidently unfeasible to foresee the

worst one for the element considered. However, there are practical means to face these

difculties and achieve reliable results through simplied but safe-side estimation, based

on the following considerations:

As the friction forces of such sliding devices are relatively low, their direction should

always be selected so as to induce the worst effect for the case considered.

Although the magnitude of the friction coefcient mmax decreases with increasing

contact pressure sp (see Table 11 of CEN (2000)), the friction shear stress, mmaxsp keeps

increasing. Consequently, the maximum friction force corresponds always to the

maximum vertical force on the bearing.

So, both the magnitude and the direction of the friction force can be easily estimated in a

safe-side way for each case considered. In the seismic design situation in particular, the

following should also be borne in mind:

Clause 7.2.5.4(7) [2]

According to Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (Clause 7.2.5.4(7)), the value of mmax specied in

EN 1337-2 (CEN, 2000) may be used

The maximum normal and the corresponding maximum friction force of the bearing in

the seismic design situation are substantially lower than in the persistent-and-transient

51

one, because in the former the partial and combination factors applied on permanent

actions, Gk, and trafc actions, Qik , are equal to 1.0 or slightly above zero, respectively

(see Eq. (D6.1) in Section 6.2 of this Guide), while in the latter they are both markedly

greater than 1.0.

The seismic effects AEd may change the above picture. They comprise in general the

following components:

The effect of the vertical component of the seismic action.

The effect of the seismic action in the longitudinal direction (normally very small).

The effect of the seismic action in the transverse direction due to the overturning

moment about the longitudinal axis. As far as the total friction force acting on a pier,

abutment or the deck is concerned, this effect is nil; by contrast, it may be quite

signicant (up to almost the full effect of gravity loads) for an individual bearing. If

the bearing is guided in the longitudinal direction, or it is a shear key device as

mentioned in point 5 in Section 4.3.3.1, the friction on the guide or the shear key due

to the transverse seismic shear reaction should also be added. For this case, CEN

(2000) species a value of mmax 0.2 for non-seismic design situations, no matter the

contact pressure. For the seismic design situation conditions, mmax should prudently

be increased to 0.3.

4.3.3.7 Special isolation bearings

It has been pointed out in Section 4.3.3.5 that simple elastomeric bearings are considered in Part

2 of Eurocode 8 as a means for seismic isolation. If their elastomer is HDR or they are used

alongside supplemental (uid viscous) dampers to counter the increase in displacements due

to the lengthening of the fundamental period, they may be considered to give a more

advanced isolation system like those addressed in this section. The latter combine exibility

(to lengthen the period and reduce the spectral accelerations and hence the design seismic

forces), with increased damping (to reduce the spectral displacements that accompany the

longer period). The damping may be provided by the isolation bearing itself (as in HDR

bearings, in leadrubber bearings, in sliders with a horizontal or spherical sliding surface and

higher and well-controlled friction properties, etc.), or by supplemental devices that intervene

between the deck and the top of the pier (or abutment) and are subjected to their relative

displacements without supporting vertically the deck. They may be uid viscous dampers,

ductile steel units dissipating energy through plastic deformations, special magneto-rheological

dampers, etc.

Although the specic advantages and disadvantages depend on the isolation system chosen, some

general observations may be made. On the advantage side:

Like simple elastomeric bearings or sliders, there is very little obstruction to longitudinal

movement of the deck due to thermal actions, concrete shrinkage or (for prestressed decks)

creep.

2 If the necessary skills are available and the necessary design effort is made, seismic

isolation may be the most cost-effective seismic design option, especially in high-seismicity

regions.

3 The devices themselves are subject to much stricter quality control than simple bearings,

and their properties are better known and documented.

4 Isolation systems (at least if designed to Part 2 of Eurocode 8) have self-restoring features

that allow the deck to sufciently recentre even after very strong shocks.

1

Special isolation systems share with elastomeric or sliding bearings the limitations listed under

(a) and (b) in Section 4.3.3.3 and (b), (d), (e) in Section 4.3.3.5. A list of additional ones follows:

(a) They require special expertise and experience in design and analysis (which is normally of

the nonlinear response-history type) and suitable analysis software.

(b) The cost of the devices themselves is relatively high; however, with the necessary design

effort and a judicious choice of the type of isolation system and its devices, the total cost

of the bridge may well be less.

(c) There is some uncertainty regarding the behaviour of the devices and of the bridge as a

whole in case the displacement capacity of the device is exceeded. To counter this, Part 2

52

of the Eurocode 8 requires increased reliability for the displacement capacity of the

isolation devices, by multiplying the seismic displacement demand from the analysis by a

factor of 1.50.

4.3.3.8 Concluding remarks

As repeatedly pointed out and exemplied in Section 4.3.3, the designer may choose to have one

type of connection or bearing at certain locations under the deck and to combine it with one or

more other types elsewhere, in order to maximise the benet from their advantages and counter

their drawbacks to the maximum possible extent. One example is the use of monolithic connection or elastomeric bearings around mid-length of long continuous decks and of sliding ones near

the ends. As also noted (certain), bearings may be chosen to be xed in one horizontal direction

and movable in the other. In choosing among the various options available, the designer should

keep in mind that the connection of the deck as a whole to the piers may be considered as a

parallel system, where the stiffer and stronger component(s) control the behaviour and the

displacements of the bridge.

4.4.

The piers

4.4.1

Sections of pier columns for efcient detailing

4.4.1.1 Solid circular columns

Solid circular pier columns are quite common around the world. A circular section has the same

strength and rigidity in every horizontal direction. So, it seems ideal for pier columns that work

as vertical cantilevers in both directions (e.g. when the deck is supported on the pier through xed

or horizontally exible bearings), or belong to multi-column piers monolithically connected to the

deck. In addition, it lends itself better than any other section to the efcient connement of the

concrete and antibuckling restraint of vertical bars in this case through circular hoops or a continuous spiral, with little need for cross-ties or link legs at right angles to the perimeter of the section.

A circular perimeter hoop or spiral contributes to the shear resistance of the section in diagonal

tension with only p/2 1.57 tie legs, not two. However, this is not a serious drawback of circular

pier columns, because they are commonly quite slender and hence not critical in shear. Also, if

shear resistance in diagonal tension is critical, interior rectangular links or straight cross-ties

may be added, engaging vertical bars across the full section. Such tie legs contribute to the

shear resistance in diagonal tension with their full cross-sectional area, to be contrasted with

circular ties contributing with a fraction of p/4 0.785. This is less material consuming than a

reduction in the spacing of hoops or spirals or the arrangement of the vertical bars in two

layers with a second hoop in addition to the perimeter one in-between.

Solid circular sections with a large diameter (e.g. over 34 m) are normally avoided, not only as

they are not cost-effective compared with hollow circular ones but also because of concerns about

their large volume of unreinforced concrete.

It is sometimes considered harder to mesh the two-way top reinforcement of a pile cap or spread

footing or the bottom one of the deck or a column cap-beam with the dense vertical reinforcement of a circular column, compared with that of a column with sides parallel to those of the

reinforcing mesh in the foundation element.

4.4.1.2 Solid rectangular columns

Compact solid rectangular pier columns are common in Japan, but less so in Europe, and rare in

the USA. The detailing of large sections for plastic hinging is not cost-effective compared with

circular sections, because it requires many long cross-ties or link legs at right angles to the

sides in order to mobilise the straight perimeter stirrup for connement of the concrete and to

restrain against buckling the large number of vertical bars arranged along the side. This is

feasible only if the section is relatively small and does not require unduly long cross-ties or intermediate link legs. If a large square section is chosen over a circular one (e.g. for convenience of

the formwork), its vertical bars may be arranged in a ring and engaged by circular hoops or a

circular spiral. The four corners of the section are unreinforced and would rather be chamfered.

This idea may be extended to solid rectangular sections with a ratio of the two sides of around

1.5:1, employing interlocking circular hoops or spirals. Again, the four unreinforced corners

of the section are chamfered.

Clauses 6.2.1.2,

6.2.1.4(4) [2]

53

Rectangular wall-like piers, with the long dimension in the transverse direction of the bridge, can

provide continuous support almost all along the width of the deck. So, they are quite convenient

under thin concrete decks. They are popular in Japan and becoming increasingly so in Europe,

but not so much in the USA. Owing to the large cross-sectional area, the level of vertical stress is

quite low, and hence connement is not essential, especially in the weak direction of the pier,

where the shear-span-to-depth ratio is high and favourable for ductility. Nevertheless, it can

be conveniently provided by engaging pairs of vertical bars along the two long sides of the

section by fairly short cross-ties or hoop legs at right angles to the long side of the section.

The intermediate vertical bars along the two short sides are normally few; they can be laterally

restrained through short oblique cross-ties or link legs also engaging nearby bars on the long

sides.

In the longitudinal direction of the bridge, such a wall is quite ductile owing to its slenderness.

This may not be the case in the transverse direction. Indeed, if in that direction the shear span

(moment-to-shear ratio) is less than three times the depth of the section, and the pier top is

rigidly connected to the deck, the q factor for ductile behaviour is decreased to reect the

reduced ductility (cf. Table 5.1 in Section 5.4 of this Guide). However, the moment and shear

resistances in the strong direction of such a pier are large enough to resist the design seismic

action effects even for a reduced q factor.

The main drawback of wall-like piers is the very high design seismic action effects they may

deliver to the foundation. If derived from capacity design, these action effects reect the large

overstrength of the plastic hinge in the pier, leading to almost elastic seismic action effects in

the foundation (i.e. with q 1.5). An option that may prove more cost-effective is to use piles

for the foundation and allow plastic hinges in them for seismic design in the strong direction

of the pier (using the value q 2.1 in this case).

Clause 6.2.4(2) [2]

Clauses 6.2.4(2),

6.2.4(3) [2]

Pairs of parallel pier columns with a wall-like section (twin blades) are often used to support

decks built as balanced cantilevers (see Figures 4.6 and 4.7). The pair of pier columns is quite

effective in stabilising the deck during free cantilever construction, but owing to the slenderness

of the individual columns have low longitudinal stiffness and reduce the longitudinal stresses

that develop in the deck due to restraint of thermal or shrinkage strains. As pointed out in the

last bullet point of Section 4.2.2, if the various piers of the bridge have very different heights

(as in Figures 4.6 and 4.7), all the piers may be chosen to have this type of twin-blade section

over a certain length of their upper part, while the lower part of very different height among

the piers may have a hollow box section (see Figure 4.6).

4.4.1.4 Hollow rectangular piers

Tall piers have by necessity a large section. Large sections are normally constructed as hollow, to

increase the strength and the rigidity (against second-order effects as well) for a given volume of

concrete. The reduction in pier weight and mass for a given strength and rigidity decreases

inertia forces and the vertical loads on the foundation. Hollow rectangular sections are quite

common, especially in Europe and Japan.

The vertical bars are arranged all along the outer and inner perimeters, with particular concentration at the corners. Pairs of vertical bars across the thickness of the box section are engaged by

fairly short cross-ties or at the corners of closed links placed within the thickness of the section

(see Figure 4.11 for examples). Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires a web thickness in the plastic hinge

region of at least one-eighth of the clear distance of the webs framing in the other direction, to

prevent local buckling when the web acts as compression ange. When the pier is slender in

one horizontal direction, the thickness of the pair of webs parallel to that direction may be

controlled by the provisions of Eurocode 2 for slenderness and second-order effects. If it is

not slender, ultimate limit state (ULS) resistance in shear (against diagonal compression) may

govern the web thickness. Note also that, at least for the most common layouts of transverse

reinforcement shown in Figure 4.11, only four link legs run the full depth of the section in

each horizontal direction, and count towards the shear resistance of the section in diagonal

tension.

54

Figure 4.11. Examples of reinforcement arrangement in box piers. (Courtesy of Mechaniki SA)

It is possible to vary the thickness of the section along the pier or between piers to suit better the

strength and stiffness needs of the pier and the bridge, without changing the outer dimensions

and appearance of the pier.

What has been said for hollow rectangular piers can be readily extended to polygonal hollow

piers.

4.4.1.5 Hollow circular piers

Hollow circular (annular) sections are less common for tall piers than hollow rectangular or polygonal ones (especially in Europe). The main problem for the use of hollow circular sections in

ductile piers is that circular hoops cannot conne the inner face of the section: the circumferential

tensile force in such hoops produces radial deviation stresses pointing away from the conned

concrete core, and may cause loss of the cover concrete and implosion of the inner face of the

section. So, the hoops around the inner face can serve only as shear reinforcement. To conne

the inner face, radial cross-ties or link legs should be placed across the thickness of the

annular section, as in a hollow rectangular one. Alternatively, the thickness should be large

enough to keep the strain at the inner face below the ultimate strain of unconned concrete

(1cu 0.35%) even when the ultimate curvature is attained and after spalling of the concrete

cover at the outer face. The lower limit of one-eighth of the inner diameter imposed by Part 2

of Eurocode 8 on the thickness of ductile annular piers against the occurrence of local wall

buckling unintentionally helps in protecting the inner perimeter of the section from large

strains at ultimate curvature. Note, though, that radial cross-ties or link legs across the thickness

are useful to supplement the outer face hoops, if the large diameter of the section reduces their

effectiveness for connement and against buckling of the vertical bars.

As in hollow rectangular piers, the thickness of the section may vary up the pier or between piers

to adapt the stiffness and the resistance of the pier to the seismic demands without affecting the

aesthetics of the bridge.

4.4.2

Single- versus multi-column piers

Except for the twin-blade piers often used in balanced cantilever bridges for the reasons

discussed in previous sections, tall piers are normally made of a single column, to increase

rigidity and strength and reduce slenderness for given concrete volume. When the pier is relatively short and the deck wide or shallow, the designer has the option of using either a walllike pier (with the limitations pointed out in Section 4.4.1.3) or a pier with more than one

column across the deck.

If bearings of any type xed, hinged, sliding, elastomeric or even isolation bearings support

the deck at the top of the pier, a single-column pier is an efcient choice, as it is effectively a

55

vertical cantilever in any horizontal direction. If there is more than one bearing across the deck, a

capital or a hammerhead on top of a single-column pier can accommodate them. If the bearings

present the same stiffness in the transverse and the longitudinal directions, a single circular pier

will be subjected to very similar seismic shears and moments in these two directions, and may be

very cost-effective.

The single-column option is simple and the behaviour is clear, but the redundancy is low.

If the pier is monolithically connected to the deck, then in the longitudinal direction all of its

columns have their top nearly xed and a shear span slightly longer than half their free height

(see Eq. (D5.4b) in Section 5.4 of this Guide). If the pier has a single column, in the transverse

direction it works as a vertical cantilever in fact, its shear span is longer than its free height

owing to the rotational inertia of the deck (see Eq. (D5.5) in Section 5.4). Such a singlecolumn pier should have a signicantly larger resistance and rigidity in the transverse than in

the longitudinal direction, and is not a very cost-effective option. If two or more columns are

used across the deck, they will all have the top essentially xed against rotation. Their shear

spans will be similar in the transverse and longitudinal directions, and their design seismic

moments for transverse seismic action will be minimal (equal to the seismic shear force multiplied

by one-half the column clear height, in lieu of the full clear height in a single-column pier).

Additionally, energy dissipation and ductility demands will be shared by plastic hinges at the

top and the bottom of each column, for both transverse and longitudinal seismic action.

Needless to say, a circular cross-section is the optimal choice for multi-column piers.

As pointed out in Section 4.3.2, if the pier (column) is monolithically connected with the deck,

aesthetics suggest a connection with a cross-beam that is fully incorporated within the depth

of the deck. If the deck is shallow without deeper and protruding cross-beams, it is not easy to

verify and detail its joints with pier columns for ductile behaviour of the bridge with plastic

hinges forming at column tops, unless the columns are also small and their number larger.

This will reduce the proportion between the moment transferred by each connection and the

effective volume of the connection (which extends into the deck beyond the perimeter of the

column).

Connecting the head of a multicolumn pier to the deck through xed bearings is not as efcient as

a monolithic connection. Elastomeric bearings are preferred. A continuous slab or box-girder

deck may be directly supported on the column tops through elastomeric or seismic isolation

bearings. If the deck consists of precast girders, the bearings are usually supported by a transverse

cap-beam framing at the tops of the columns (forming a bent in US terminology), with frame

action in the transverse direction and free-cantilever action in the longitudinal. The cap-beam is

normally deep, to allow straight anchorage of the column bars within its depth, and hence stiff.

So, the top of closely spaced columns is nearly xed against rotation in the plane of the multicolumn pier. When the cap-beam supports only horizontally movable bearings, the multicolumn pier should be designed for limited ductile behaviour with q 1.5. Should even one of

the bearings be xed, the multi-column pier should be designed and detailed for ductile behaviour

with a q value larger than 1.5. At any rate, a multi-column pier supporting the deck through a line

of bearings may be a simple choice, but is not so cost-effective. A layout that should be avoided

for the piers is a portal frame of two columns spaced apart by more than the deck width,

supporting a cap-beam that is integral with the deck (i.e. fully or partly within the depth of

the deck). Although such a layout is common in the USA and occasionally used in Japan,

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not address it. A major source of uncertainty and a weak link in

such a portal frame is the outriggering length of the cap-beam between the deck and the pier

columns.

Overpasses with three to four spans are most often supported on piers with several slender

columns each, which may be hard to design for resistance against impact of heavy trafc vehicles.

A multi-column pier (be it monolithic with the deck or supporting it through a string of bearings

on a cap-beam) at a skew to the bridge provides a more complex support condition to the

deck than a single-column pier. A skew bridge may be avoided over a skewed crossing, if the

abutments are placed at right angles to the deck axis and single-column piers are used.

56

4.4.3

Sizing of pier columns

4.4.3.1 General sizing criteria

To complete the conceptual design phase, once a section shape is chosen for the pier columns,

their size should be selected. This section covers general criteria for the selection of the

column size, pertaining to general design situations, including seismic ones for bridges of

limited ductile behaviour. Section 4.4.3.2, by contrast, refers specically to limitations imposed

by seismic design for ductile behaviour.

As repeatedly said in this chapter, for aesthetic reasons normally all the pier columns of a bridge

have the same outer dimensions. Choosing the same shape for different piers or pier columns but

different cross-section sizes may be aesthetically worse than having a different shape altogether.

General criteria for the determination of the dimensions of the pier columns include:

g

g

practical considerations, taking into account the construction technique and procedure for

the piers themselves and the deck, as well as the connection to the deck

the slenderness of the column, in order to limit second-order effects under factored gravity

loads (in the persistent and transient design situation of the completed bridge), or,

preferably, to be able to ignore them as small.

Concerning the construction procedure, often intermediate stages before the deck completion

may be more critical for the stability and design of the piers. In other cases, the geometry of

the piers is conditioned by the need to accommodate and support special and heavy equipment

for the erection of the deck. That said, for the bridge to be cost-effective, the choice of its structural system should strike a rational balance between the requirements of design situations

pertaining to intermediate construction stages and to those of the completed bridge; the latter

should normally govern the design.

A column section depth greater than that of the pile cap or spread footing underneath may make

it harder to verify their joint region for the capacity-design action effects of Section 6.4.4 of this

Guide. By the same token, a column monolithically connected to the deck should have a section

depth in the plane of xity to the underdeck (i.e. in the longitudinal direction, and for multicolumn piers in the transverse as well) less than the deck itself. If the deck is supported on

bearings, the pier top should be sufciently wide to accommodate the bearings, the required

seat lengths (see Section 6.8), any shear keys and the clearance to them. To this end, a hammerhead or a capital may be added to the pier top, or the pier may be ared upwards.

Slenderness considerations are crucial for tall piers. In a bridge designed for earthquake

resistance it is natural to size the pier columns so that second-order effects in the persistent

and transient design situation may be ignored altogether as small. Clause 5.8.3.1(1) in

EN 1992-1-1:2004 (Part 1-1 of Eurocode 2) gives the upper limit for the column slenderness

above which second-order effects should be taken into account in the fairly detailed and

complex way prescribed in Eurocode 2. The effective length of the pier column (i.e. the numerator

in the column slenderness) is a prime factor in these sizing calculations. In the usual case of a deck

simply supported on the abutments and free to translate there in the longitudinal direction, the

effective length of pier columns may be approximated as follows:

1

(a) in the longitudinal direction: the full clear height of the pier column (i.e. column top

free to translate horizontally without rotation)

(b) in the transverse direction:

if the deck is laterally restrained at the abutments and has high in-plane rigidity:

one-half the clear height of the column (i.e. top xed against rotation and transverse

translation)

if the deck is free to translate laterally (i.e. it is unrestrained at the abutments, or is

very long or has low in-plane rigidity):

for single-column piers: twice the clear height of the pier (i.e. free cantilever)

for multi-column piers: the full clear height of the pier column (i.e. column top

free to translate horizontally without rotation).

57

(a) in the longitudinal direction: twice the clear height of the pier column (i.e. free

cantilever)

(b) in the transverse direction:

if the deck is laterally restrained at the abutments and has high in-plane rigidity:

for columns directly supporting the deck: 70% of the clear height of the pier (i.e.

top free to rotate but restrained against horizontal translation)

for multi-column piers framing into a stiff cap-beam: one-half of the clear

height of the column (i.e. column top xed against rotation and transverse

translation)

if the deck is free to translate laterally (i.e. it is unrestrained at the abutments, or is

very long or its in-plane rigidity is low):

for single-column piers: twice the full clear height of the pier (i.e. free

cantilever)

for multi-column piers framing into a stiff cap-beam: the clear height of the pier

column (i.e. column top free to translate horizontally, without rotation).

If the deck is integral with at least one abutment (see Section 4.5.3), the rst bullet point under

cases 1 (b) and 2 (b) applies not only to the transverse but also to the longitudinal direction of the

bridge.

The above refers to the column effective length in the completed bridge. In a free cantilever

bridge, the effective length of single-column piers during deck erection is twice the clear height

of the pier (i.e. a free vertical cantilever) both in the longitudinal and in the transverse directions;

if the upper part of the pier consists of two parallel wall-like columns (twin blades, see

Figures 4.6 and 4.7), the clear height of the column applies as its effective length in the longitudinal direction. Critical for pier slenderness may then be the stage after completion of the hammer

and before connection at mid-span or at an abutment with other completed parts of the bridge.

The permanent loads applied at that time and the value of the creep coefcient at that age of the

pier concrete and not at the end of the life of the bridge should be used in the upper limit for

column slenderness above which second-order effects should be taken into account as per clause

5.8.3.1(1) of Part 1-1 of Eurocode 2; this differences may offset the longer effective length of the

pier at that stage.

A lower limit to the cross-section of non-slender pier columns monolithically connected to the

deck may be imposed by the verication of concrete for the fatigue ULS according to

clause 6.8.7(101) of Part 2 of Eurocode 2 (equivalent damage stress) for railway bridges,

or clause 6.8.7(2) of Eurocode 2-Part 1-1 (simplied verication based on the frequent

combination) for roadway bridges.

4.4.3.2 Specic criteria for bridges with ductile behaviour

The choice between ductile or limited ductile behaviour (including seismic isolation) for the

bridge has a decisive impact on the sizing of its piers and vice versa, as plastic hinges for

energy dissipation zones are allowed only in the piers. If design for ductile behaviour is

chosen, only the pier plastic hinges are dimensioned to resist at the ULS the bending moment

and axial force from the analysis for the seismic design situation. All other sections of the pier

and of all other components of the bridge structure are dimensioned to resist at the ULS the

capacity design effects, computed according to Section 6.4 of this Guide from the design

moment resistance of the pier plastic hinges. Should that moment resistance substantially

exceed what is required according to the analysis results for the seismic design situation, all

other parts of the bridge (including the pier itself in shear) are penalised. The moment resistance

of a plastic hinge section may be unduly large if:

g

g

the vertical reinforcement ratio is governed by non-seismic design situations (including at

intermediate stages of the construction) or by detailing and minimum reinforcement

requirements.

58

The cross-section of the piers should not be larger than rationally needed, and the vertical

reinforcement of their plastic hinges should not be beyond what allows reliable

construction.

The nal vertical reinforcement of the pier plastic hinges should be as close as feasible to

what is required for the biaxial bending moments and the axial force from the analysis for

the seismic design situation.

The q factors to be used in the longitudinal and transverse directions should be as close as

feasible to the maximum values allowed in Part 2 of Eurocode 8, listed in Table 5.1 of

Section 5.4. To this end:

the location of the expected plastic hinges should be accessible

the shear span ratio of the pier, Ls/h, should not be less than the value of 3.0, below

which the q factor is penalised (see Section 5.4 of this Guide)

the pier maximum axial load ratio, hk NEd/Ac fck , in the seismic design situation

should not exceed the value of 0.3, above which the q factor is reduced (see Section 5.4).

The axial load ratio, hk , has a number of important inuences on seismic design, especially for

ductile behaviour, because it is important for the ductility of the pier column. If it is high, the

connement requirements in the plastic hinge are larger, especially in piers designed for ductile

behaviour (see rows 18, 19 and 22, 23 in Table 6.1 of Chapter 6). In addition, the overstrength

factor applied to the moment resistance of ductile piers for capacity design calculations increases

with increasing hk (see Eq. (D6.6b) in Section 6.4.1 of this Guide). More importantly, as already

pointed out, the q factor of bridges designed for ductile behaviour is controlled by the maximum

value of the axial load ratio in any pier column of the bridge (see Section 5.4). In all of these calculations the value of hk is that determined from the maximum axial load in the pier column,

NEd , in the seismic design situation. In multi-column piers and for the transverse seismic

action, the overturning moment may signicantly increase NEd over the value due to the

gravity loads alone. That said, very seldom does the level of hk control the area of the pier

section: the size of pier columns selected on the basis of practical or slenderness considerations

normally gives quite low values of hk in the seismic design situation.

4.5.

4.5.1

The role of abutments

The abutments have a dual role:

1

2

to provide vertical support to the deck, like the piers, but at its very end

to act as a retaining wall for the backll beyond the end of the bridge.

The second role normally governs the form, dimensions and cost of the abutment. In fact, an

abutment has a substantially higher cost than a typical pier, despite its much lower vertical

reaction from the deck and shorter height. Cost is governed by the high, nearly permanent,

earth pressures of the backll, the resultant of which and the impact of the retaining role are proportional to the square of the height of the retained ll. The main consequences of the retaining

role are:

g

The horizontal stiffness of the abutment is much larger than that of a pier:

in the longitudinal direction owing to the contribution of the backll and/or the

required resistance to earth pressures

in the transverse owing to the wall-like shape of the abutment.

It is benecial and cost-effective to brace longitudinally the abutment at the level of the

deck against the action of earth pressures, especially if the depth of the backll is large. A

monolithic connection of both abutments to the deck is very effective to this end, as it

mobilises in the bracing action the opposite abutment and the reaction of the backll

behind it.

To serve its second role, an abutment is usually a deep retaining wall on a footing on competent

ground or on the cap of piles going down to competent and non-liqueable soil. Sometimes the

retaining wall consists of a single curtain of dense piles supporting a shallow beam on which the

deck is seated. A deep continuous retaining wall or a curtain of dense piles may be pushed

inwards by a laterally spreading or liqueed backll. If the nature of the backll does not rule

59

out this possibility (e.g. at a river or lake bank), the piles supporting the shallow seat beam would

be better sparse and deep, for uninhibited lateral ow of the ground between them.

4.5.2

The connection options

As far as the seismic response and design are concerned, the abutments may play a signicant or a

minor role, depending on how they are connected to the deck in the horizontal direction. The

main connection options are:

1

2

to seat the deck on the abutments through bearings movable only in the longitudinal

direction or in both horizontal directions.

Option 1 can be adopted only if both the deck and the abutments are of concrete. They then move

in unison in any horizontal direction. For option 2, the designer may choose:

2a to let the deck free to move horizontally at the abutment

2b to restrain horizontally the deck at the abutment

2c to let the deck move until it comes in hard contact with the abutment and then move with

Option 2b is not very different from option 1. Unlike the integral connection, which refers to both

the longitudinal and the transverse directions and has similar implications for the design of the

bridge in both, one option among 2a to 2c may be adopted in the transverse direction and

another in the longitudinal. More details are given in the sequel.

4.5.3

Deck integral with the abutments

The connection of the abutment to the deck is considered as rigid if it is monolithic (integral), or

if in both horizontal directions (longitudinal and transverse) it is effected via xed bearings or

links designed to carry the seismic action. Unlike in bridges with a movable connection of the

deck to the abutments, the abutments of integral bridges play a major role for the seismic

resistance in any horizontal direction.

As pointed out in Section 4.5.1, the top of abutments integral with the deck is braced horizontally

in a very reliable way, with considerable benets against seismic actions and earth pressures from

the backll. The absence of movement joints improves motorist comfort especially over bridges

of short length and reduces initial and maintenance costs through savings on bearings and

roadway joints. These cost savings are a prime advantage of integral bridges. In railway

bridges, transverse movement of the deck with respect to the abutment is avoided and tracks

are protected.

Integral connection is the best way to prevent the deck from dropping from the abutment. This is

especially important if the deck is very skewed to the abutments or sits on non-parallel ones (i.e. if

the geometry is kinematically favourable for unseating of simply supported decks see the last

two paragraphs of Section 6.8.1.4 of this Guide). Note that, if the end supports are very skewed,

integral connection offers the advantage of eliminating the high and uncertain concentration

of vertical reactions to gravity loads that takes place under the obtuse angle of bridge decks on

bearings. Last, but not least, if headroom below the deck is at a premium, a deck working with

the abutments as a portal frame may be made much thinner than a simply supported one, owing

to its reduced span moments.

The above advantages may be offset by a serious drawback: integral abutments restrain longitudinal deformation of the deck due to thermal actions and concrete shrinkage. As a result,

large tensile forces may build up in the deck, alongside longitudinal forces in the abutments

and their foundation. Additionally, the deck cannot be longitudinally post-tensioned, without

losing the (large) part of the prestressing force that goes not to the deck itself but to the

abutments (and from there to the ground, with undesirable results): the deck may prot only

from the load-balancing effect of the deviation forces of curved tendons, but very little from a

longitudinal compressive force. Note also that the high bending stiffness of the system

abutment-cum-backll prevents efcient use even of these deviation forces. For these reasons,

60

only short decks are built integral with the abutments. They mostly have one span, or sometimes

two or three short continuous ones, but not more than four. Their total length is normally

much less than 100 m. Also, normally such a deck is not post-tensioned. For such bridges,

accounting for a large fraction of the bridgework along motorways (at almost every short

under- or overpass), an integral connection is the solution of choice, and a very robust one

indeed.

As the seismic behaviour and design of integral bridges is normally dominated by the abutments,

any intermediate piers have almost no contribution to the longitudinal earthquake resistance.

Transversely, they have a certain contribution if they have a wall-like section and the deck is

relatively narrow and long (a rare combination for this type of bridge). A row of slender

(e.g. circular) columns, monolithically connected to the deck, may then be optimal for the

intermediate piers.

It makes no sense to support the deck on both abutments through xed bearings (option 2b in

Section 4.5.2) instead of building it as integral: the main drawback of integral connection

remains, while the span moments are not reduced, and deck drop-off in case the xed bearings

fail cannot be precluded. Additionally, the xed bearings should be designed for high horizontal

forces due to the restraint. There is some scope, though, for a deck integral with one abutment

and supported on the other through horizontally exible bearings. This option relieves the

bridge from stresses due to restraint of imposed deformations, allows longitudinal prestressing

and decreases signicantly the chances of deck drop-off compared with a deck simply supported

at both ends. However, the seismic response and behaviour is more uncertain and the analysis

more complex.

Clauses 4.1.6(9),

As explained in more detail in Section 5.4 of this Guide, bridges often having the deck integral

with the abutments may be considered to be locked-in the ground, and follow its horizontal 4.1.6(10), 6.7.3(1)(4),

6.7.3(9) [2]

motion without amplifying it much. If their fundamental period T is less than 0.03 s, Part 2

of Eurocode 8 allows for them to be designed as elastic (i.e. with q 1) but rigid (i.e. with

forces equal to the masses multiplied by the design peak ground acceleration). If, however, T

is longer than 0.03 s, Eurocode 8 requires the analysis to account for the interaction between

the soil and the abutments, using realistic soil stiffness parameters. In that case, the bridge

may be designed for limited ductile behaviour with q 1.50. According to Part 2 of

Eurocode 8, the bridge may still be considered as locked-in (and designed with q 1.0 and

T 0 s) without the need to estimate the period T, if the abutments are embedded in stiff

natural soil over at least 80% of their total surface area that is in contact with the soil/ll

over the backll face of the abutments (Figure 4.12).

Although the seismic integrity and stability of bridges having a deck integral with the abutments

seems assured, their modelling and analysis are quite demanding, both for gravity loads and for

the design seismic action. It normally entails a fairly detailed nite-element discretisation of the

deck and the abutments and modelling of the soil behind the abutments with springs. Even

though these springs may be taken as linear for simplicity, the actual soilabutment interaction

is quite nonlinear and very different when the abutment moves towards the soil or pulls away.

Figure 4.12. A bridge considered as locked-in: the abutments are embedded in stiff natural soil over at

least 80% of their total surface area that is in contact with the soil over their backll face

Original

ground level

Original

ground level

hs2

ht2

Width b2

hs1

Width b1

ht1

61

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives guidance for a conservative analysis, based on superposition of the

inertial response of the structure and of a simplied combination of limit equilibrium and an

elastic approach for the backll or the soil. For uncertain soil behaviour, it recommends using

upper- and lower-bound estimates of the soil stiffness. For single-span box-type culverts, it species as more realistic the use of an analysis based on kinematic compatibility of the structure and

the surrounding soil.

The Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Caltrans, 2006) give simple rules for the estimation of the

stiffness and the ultimate resistance of an abutment in the longitudinal direction of a bridge, due

to the passive resistance of a well-compacted backll. On the basis of static tests reported in

Maroney (1995) for a 1.7 m-tall abutment, the stiffness is about 7 MN/m per square metre

of the projection of the vertical face of the abutment onto a plane normal to the longitudinal

direction of the bridge. The ultimate passive resistance is reached when the top of the

abutment is pushed against the backll by about 2% of the abutment height (in units of MN

and m, this gives an ultimate resistance of about 0.14 times the projection of the vertical face

of the abutment onto a plane normal to the longitudinal direction, multiplied by the height

of the abutment). The results of a seismic analysis of the bridge using this longitudinal stiffness

for the pushed abutment are considered to apply, if the longitudinal displacement of the deck is

less than about 4% of the abutment height; if it exceeds that value by a factor of 2, the abutments are considered to contribute little against the longitudinal seismic action. In this latter

case, the analysis should be repeated with the abutment stiffness reduced to 10% of the value

quoted above. For longitudinal displacements between 2% and 4% of the abutment height,

linear interpolation between these extreme stiffness values may be used, and the analysis

repeated until convergence. Apart from a simple design tool to account for the abutment

backll interaction without recourse to the elaborate analysis alluded to in the previous

paragraph, the Caltrans (2006) simple rules may be used at the conceptual design phase to

estimate the contribution of relatively exible diaphragm abutments against the longitudinal

seismic action.

All things considered, the designers increased effort is a heavy price to pay for choosing this

robust bridge layout.

Clauses 2.3.6.3(2),

2.3.6.3(5), 6.6.1(2),

6.6.3.1(1), 6.6.3.1(2),

6.6.3.1(4) [2]

4.5.4

Deck on bearings

To avoid the main shortcoming of the integral connection, notably the restraint of longitudinal

deck movements and its consequences, a deck seated on the abutments through bearings can

move freely in the longitudinal direction (option 2a in Section 4.5.2). To this end, clearance

should be left between the main body of the deck and the abutment or its back-wall to

accommodate the sum of (see Section 6.8.2.1 of this Guide):

the full longitudinal displacement due to the design seismic action, plus

the displacement of the extreme bres of the deck end section towards the abutment (i.e.

the longitudinal displacement at the centroidal axis of the deck plus the rotation of the end

section multiplied by the distance of the extreme bres from the centroid) due to the quasipermanent gravity actions and prestressing, plus

3 50% of the end section displacement due to lengthening of the deck by its design thermal

action (the extreme one expected to take place during the bridge lifetime).

1

2

components of the bridge (in this case the abutments). If such clearance is too large to be

provided at the roadway level, the movement joint there may be made wide enough to take

the sum of 2 and 3 above plus a fraction of 1; that is, of the deck longitudinal displacement

due to the design seismic action, implying that it will close when this fraction (recommended

to be 40% in Part 2 of Eurocode 8, see Section 6.8.2.2 of this Guide) is attained. Provisions

should then be made to limit the damage to the top of the abutment backwall, when the

movement joint closes at the roadway level. Figures 8.23 and 8.24 in Section 8.2.11.3 of this

Guide show an example of a practical means to this end: the deck slab protrudes from the

main body of the deck towards the backwall in order to reduce the gap at the roadway level,

while the top of the backwall is sacricial, to be knocked off without transmitting the forces

to the abutment and its foundation (this is option 2c of Section 4.5.2 turned into option 2a).

62

Seismic links are sometimes used to connect the deck to the abutments in the transverse direction.

They are arranged between the deck and an element (abutment or pier) supporting it at a

movable support joint, and link the two in a specic horizontal direction against the seismic

action. The link (usually in the form of shear keys or cables) is normally activated after a

specic horizontal displacement is attained and exhausts the gap of a shear key or the slack of

the cable (termed slack of the link). The design behaviour of seismic links according to Part 2

of Eurocode 8 is best understood by considering the following two limiting cases, depending on

the slack:

g

g

At the lower limit of zero slack, the link behaves as a xed bearing. The link is modelled in

the analysis as a xed constraint, and is capacity designed.

At the upper limit the slack is equal to the design seismic displacement (at the relevant

point and direction) of the bridge without the link. Then, it is meaningless to include the

link in the analysis model. The link plays the role of a second line of defence, against

seismic actions exceeding the design action. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 neither requires nor

recommends such a second line of defence. If, however, it is provided, the seismic design of

the bridge is not affected; the design of the link should be based on rational considerations

related by necessity to the reasons for its provision.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives rules for the use of seismic links with slack between the above two

limiting cases:

(i) The link should be included in the analysis model, at least using the composite secant-toyield-point stiffness of the link and the supporting element (which is close to that of the

supporting element if the slack is small). Besides, measures to mitigate the impact are

required.

(ii) The design of the link and of the supporting element should be based on capacity

considerations.

If the abutment is extended upwards in the form of shear keys in contact with the sides of the

deck, the deck may be transversely restrained there (option 2b in Section 4.5.2). Normally,

shear keys are provided only at the sides of the deck, because internal ones (against the underdeck) are harder to inspect or maintain. An elastomeric bearing may be placed between each

shear key and the side of the deck to ensure full and soft contact under any seismic action and

to prevent local damage to the contact surfaces due to rotation of the ends of the deck in a

horizontal plane. In that case, under transverse seismic action the deck exes as a beam with

lateral elastic supports at the locations of the piers and the abutments. Note that the lateral

forcedeformation response of the system of the shear keys, the abutment with any wing-walls

and piles, and the soil is quite complex, and a composite elastic stiffness cannot be easily

estimated for it: its overestimation (let alone the assumption that it is laterally rigid) may be

unsafe for piers between the abutments. In addition, although shear keys are capacity

designed, if they do fail they will do so in a brittle fashion. Note also that, if the bridge is

designed for ductile behaviour in the transverse direction owing to a rigid transverse connection

with the piers, one may question whether the elasticperfectly plastic idealisation of the bridge

(the foundation of design for ductility) applies after the piers yield but the deck and its lateral

supports at the abutments are still elastic: in reality, the system will harden, at a hardening

ratio approximately equal to the elastic transverse stiffness of the deck on rigid or elastic end

supports divided by the elastic transverse stiffness of the pier system. For all these reasons, it

may be prudent to also analyse the bridge under transverse seismic action, disregarding the

shear keys and any restraint they offer, and to design the bridge for the envelope of design

action effects, with or without the shear keys.

In view of the questions raised in the previous paragraph, the designer may choose to let the deck

transversely free (option 2a in Section 4.5.2) and provide ample seating at the abutment to avoid

drop-off under the largest conceivable seismic action. To play it safe, shear keys may be provided

there as well, but with a clearance from the deck more than the transverse displacement due to the

design seismic action (unless the bridge is strongly curved, there is no transverse displacement due

to thermal or quasi-permanent actions). If, instead, the gap is narrower than this transverse

displacement (option 2c in Section 4.5.2), it will close during the design seismic action. Under

63

such circumstances, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires taking the deck as elastically supported on the

abutment, with a spring stiffness equal to the secant stiffness at yielding of the shear key after

closure of the gap (i.e. a stiffness equal to the yield force of the shear key divided by the clearance

plus the elastic deformation of the shear key until yielding). This is not very convenient, as the

shear key has not been dimensioned at this stage of the design. So, option 2c is not a very practical design alternative for the transverse direction.

4.6.

The foundations

Bridges are nowadays built on spread footings or on pile foundations, less commonly on deep

caissons.

Bridges on spread foundations are supported close to the ground surface on rm soil layers or

rock, and have performed well in earthquakes. Spread foundations directly transmit loads

from the superstructure to competent ground. They are dened as such foundations if they

have a ratio of the embedment depth to the foundation width of not more than 0.5. Deeper foundations are referred to as caisson foundations. Deep caisson foundations of bridge piers are

today normally used wherever the available plan area for the foundation is severely limited,

not allowing the use of a spread or pile group foundation.

On a site with weak upper soil layers, the bridge is supported on deep foundations transferring

the vertical and lateral forces to stronger soil layers beneath the soft material. Bridges on soft

clay, silt or loose saturated sand have been damaged by the amplication of the ground

motion or soil failure in earthquakes. Unless massive soil failure has occurred, pile foundations

have performed well in past earthquakes, even when other bridge elements have suffered considerable damage. By contrast, bridges on liqueable soil deposits or soft sensitive clays have

been particularly vulnerable to earthquakes: soil liquefaction can cause a loss of bearing

capacity and, sometimes, lateral movement of the substructure.

Clause 5.4.2(1) [3]

The seismic response of pile foundations to strong earthquake shaking is very complex. It is

controlled by inertial interaction between the superstructure and the pile foundation, kinematic

interaction between foundation soils and piles, and the nonlinear stressstrain behaviour of soils

and of the soilpile interface. In addition, at some sites the build-up of high pore water pressures

during the earthquake or liquefaction add to the complexity. Many different materials and

geometries have been used for pile designs. Although numerous examples of long-span bridges

in seismic areas founded on timber piles still exist in California, the current trend is to use

concrete piles (reinforced or prestressed) or steel piles (H sections, shells or concrete-lled

shells). A special case is an integral pileshaft column arrangement, where the pile is not

connected to a pile cap but extended in the superstructure as a column.

Clause 5.2(1) [3]

Clauses 5.1(1), 5.3.2

[3]

Unlike other types of structures for which only one foundation type may in general be used,

different foundation types may be encountered in the same bridge.

The basic principles of foundation design require the foundation be able to safely transfer to the

ground the applied loads. Accordingly, it should be mechanically stable and prevent detrimental

displacements. Soilstructure interaction should be assessed where necessary, also taking into

account the relevant provisions in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004). To ensure stability, the

foundation must possess the required factors of safety against bearing, sliding and overturning

failure mechanisms. The relevance of these failure modes to each foundation type is shown in

Table 4.2. In addition, the structural elements of the foundation are designed to resist the

action effects.

Table 4.2. Foundation failure mechanisms and stability verications

64

Foundation type

Bearing capacity

Overturning

Sliding

Horizontal displacement

Spread foundation

Caissons

Piles

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

restrict damage to the foundation to a minimum, so that operation of the bridge can easily restart

without repair of the foundations. In general, bridge foundations should not be intentionally used

as sources of hysteretic energy dissipation, and therefore should, as far as practicable, be designed

to remain elastic under the design seismic action. To this end, if the bridge is designed for limited

ductile behaviour, its foundation is designed to remain elastic. If the bridge is designed for ductile

behaviour, the foundation is designed to resist the overstrength capacity of the pier column(s) or

wall for plastic hinges presumed to form at their base. However, in some instances such a design is

not possible. A prime example is a bridge structure with a large force capacity due to factors other

than the earthquake. Under such circumstances, piles are allowed to develop a plastic hinge next

to their connection to the pile cap, where large bending moments develop. The head of the pile up

to a distance to the underside of the pile cap of three times the pile cross-sectional dimension, d, is

detailed as a potential plastic hinge region. To this end, it should be provided with transverse and

connement reinforcement following the rules for pier columns designed for ductile behaviour.

The same applies to regions of the pile up to a distance of 2d on each side of an interface between

two soil layers with a large shear stiffness contrast (ratio of shear moduli greater than 6.0).

Clauses 5.8.1(1),

6.4.1(1), 6.4.2(1)

6.4.2(4) [2]

Clause 5.4.2(7) [3]

Inclined piles are usually not recommended for transmitting lateral loads to the soil. If used, they

should be designed to safely carry the axial loads as well as bending moments arising from soil

settlements. One additional reason for not favouring inclined piles is their less ductile behaviour

as opposed to vertical piles subjected to pure bending.

Piles required to resist tensile forces or assumed as rotationally xed at the top should be

provided with anchorage in the pile cap to enable the development of the pile design uplift resistance in the soil, or of the design tensile strength of the pile reinforcement, whichever is lower. If

the part of such piles embedded in the pile cap is cast before the pile cap, dowels should be

provided at the interface of the connection.

REFERENCES

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras.

Caltrans (2006) Seismic Design Criteria, version 1.4. California Department of Transportation,

Sacramento, CA.

CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) (2000) EN 1337-2:2000: Structural bearings Part 2:

Sliding elements. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004) EN 1998-5:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 5:

Foundations, retaining structures, geotechnical aspects. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005) EN 1998-2:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2:

Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2008) CEN/TC 1992-4-1:2009: Design of fastenings for use in concrete. CEN, Brussels.

b (2000) Guidance for Good Bridge Design. b Bulletin 9. Federation Internationale du Beton,

Lausanne.

b (2004) Precast Concrete Bridges. b Bulletin 29. Federation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne.

b (2007) Seismic Bridge Design and Retrot Structural Solutions. b Bulletin 39. Federation

Internationale du Beton, Lausanne.

b (2009) Structural Concrete Textbook on Behaviour, Design and Performance, vol. 1, 2nd edn.

b Bulletin 51. Federation Internationale du Beton, Lausanne.

b (2011) Design of Anchorages in Concrete. b Bulletin 58. Federation Internationale du Beton,

Lausanne.

b (2012) Model Code 2010 Final Draft, vol. 2. b Bulletin 66. Federation Internationale du

Beton, Lausanne.

Maroney BH (1995) Large scale bridge abutment tests to determine stiffness and ultimate strength

under seismic loading. PhD thesis, University of California, Davis, CA.

Priestley MJ, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic Design and Retrot of Bridges. Wiley-Interscience,

New York.

Stathopoulos S, Kotsanopoulos P, Stathopoulos E et al. (2004) Votonosi bridge in Greece.

Proceedings of the b Symposium: Segmental Construction, Delhi.

65

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.067

Chapter 5

seismic design

5.1.

An analysis carried out in the framework of seismic design determines by calculation the effects

of the design seismic actions in terms of internal forces and deformations, to be used for the

dimensioning of its members; that is, to verify their cross-sectional size and in the case of

concrete members to determine the amount and location of their reinforcement.

This chapter is limited to the essentials for the application of well-established analysis methods to

the design of bridges for earthquake resistance according to Eurocode 8. The reader is assumed to

be conversant with the fundamentals of structural dynamics and their application for seismic

analysis.

The seismic design of bridges according to Eurocode 8 is primarily force-based. Its main workhorse is linear-elastic analysis based on the design response spectrum of Section 5.3; that is, on

the 5%-damped elastic spectrum divided by the behaviour factor q, which accounts on one hand

for ductility and energy dissipation capacity and on the other for overstrength. Its counterpart in

the USA is the force reduction factor or response modication factor, R.

Eurocode 8 provides two alternative methods for linear-elastic seismic analysis:

(a) Linear static analysis (termed the fundamental mode method in Part 2 of Eurocode 8

(CEN, 2005a) and the lateral force method in Part 1 (CEN, 2004a), also known in

practice as equivalent static analysis).

(b) Modal response spectrum analysis, as known in practice and called in Part 1 of Eurocode

8, termed in Part 2 just the response spectrum or linear dynamic analysis or analysis

with a full dynamic model.

Eurocode 8 adopts analysis method (b) as the reference method for the design of bridges, and

fully respects its rules and results. It allows its application to any bridge, except to those with

a strongly nonlinear seismic isolation system. If both methods of linear-elastic seismic analysis

are applicable for the design of a given bridge, an analysis of type (b) gives on average a more

even distribution of peak internal forces over the bridge, translated to material savings. If its

results are used for member dimensioning, the overall inelastic performance of the bridge may

be expected to be better, because peak inelastic deformations are normally closer to its predictions than to those of an analysis of type (a). So, as reliable and efcient computer programs

for modal response spectrum analysis in 3D are widely available nowadays, it can be adopted

as the single analysis tool for the seismic design of bridges. It is worth noting, however, that

quite a few bridges are close to a single-degree-of-freedom (SDoF) system; hence, linear static

analysis based on the fundamental mode provides considerable insight into their seismic

response and still has a role as a practical seismic design tool for bridges.

Eurocode 8 recognises an important role for:

Clauses 4.1.6(1),

4.2.1.1(1) [2]

4.2.5 [2]

(ii) nonlinear dynamic (time-history or response-history) analysis

67

in the seismic design of bridges. However, their stand-alone application is limited to the design of

irregular ductile bridges (see Section 5.10.2 of this Guide) with deformation-based verication

of their ductile members and to bridges with seismic isolation. The limitation is due to concerns

about the correct and prudent application by practitioners of these more rational methods, which

have a very different safety format and entail analysis of structures with known member dimensions and reinforcement in the same phase of the design process as their verication.

Clause 4.2.3.1 [2]

Unlike Part 1 of Eurocode 8, which does not explicitly mention linear time-history analysis, Part

2 of Eurocode 8 does mention the method. However, it is not a very practical alternative to linear

modal response spectrum analysis.

Clauses 2.3.1.1(5)

When linear analysis with the design response spectrum is applied, internal forces for the dimen2.3.1.1(8), 2.3.3, 2.3.4, sioning are taken as equal to those estimated from it, except for regions or members of ductile

4.2.4.4(2) [2]

bridges intended to remain elastic, which are dimensioned on the basis of capacity design

actions. Displacements due to the seismic action are obtained from those derived from the

linear analysis after corrections for (a) any difference of the effective stiffness values from

those initially assumed, (b) damping other than the default value of 5% and (c) deviations of

short-period bridges from the equal displacement rule (see Sections 2.3.2.2, 5.8.4 and 5.9.1).

By contrast, when nonlinear analysis is applied, all seismic action effects (internal forces,

displacements and deformations) are taken as equal to those derived from it. Only safety

factors intervene between these demands and the capacities against which they are checked.

5.2.

Clause 3.2.3.1.1(2) [1] The three components of the seismic action are taken to act concurrently on the bridge.

Clauses 3.1.2(1),

Time-history analysis, be it linear elastic or nonlinear, is indeed carried out applying

3.1.2(2), 3.2.3(5) [2]

simultaneously all seismic action components of interest (the two horizontal ones and occasion-

Clause 4.3.3.5.1(2) [1] Linear static or modal response spectrum analyses give just the peak values of each seismic action

Clauses 4.2.1.4(1),

effect of interest due to the individual seismic action components. These peak values are statisti4.2.2.1(3) [2]

cally combined as outlined below. They are denoted here by EX and EY for the two horizontal

components and EZ for the vertical. As they do not occur simultaneously, a combination rule

of the type: E EX EY EZ is too conservative. The reference rule in Part 2 of Eurocode 8

is the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) combination of EX , EY , EZ in Smebby and

Kiureghian (1985):

E

q

EX2 EY2 EZ2

D5:1

Clause 4.3.3.5.2(4) [1] Part 2 of Eurocode 8 also accepts as an alternative a linear combination rule of the type:

Clause 4.2.1.4(2) [2]

(D5.2a)

(D5.2b)

(D5.2c)

where the meaning of is superposition. A value l 0.275 provides the best average agreement with the result of Eq. (D5.1) in the entire range of possible values of EX , EY , EZ . In

Eurocode 8 this optimal l value has been rounded up to l 0.3, which may underestimate

the outcome of Eq. (D5.1) by at most 9% (when EX , EY and EZ are about equal) and may overestimate it by not more than 8% (when two of these three seismic action effects are an order of

magnitude less than the third).

Clauses 3.1.2(1),

4.1.1(2) [2]

68

To combine the effects of the seismic action components as outlined above, it is computationally

convenient to do the analysis on a 3D model of the bridge, with all seismic action components of

interest applied to it separately but their effects combined within the same computational

environment and analysis run. So, it is not convenient to use a separate model for the

response to the horizontal component in the longitudinal direction of the bridge, another one

in the transverse and a third for the vertical component (if of interest), as allowed by

Eurocode 8. However, as the seismic response to each one of these components is distinctly

different, it is intuitively appealing and very didactic to consider them separately using a different

model for each one. This is often done in this chapter.

The horizontal components of the seismic action are most often taken parallel to the longitudinal and the transverse direction of the bridge. If the deck is straight and the abutments

are at right angles to its axis, the denition of these directions is clear. If the deck is curved

but fairly long, the longitudinal direction may be taken as that of the chord connecting the

two points where the deck axis intersects the line of support at each abutment; the transverse

direction is at right angles to it. If the bridge is skewed and it has a fairly wide deck, it may

make more sense to dene the longitudinal and transverse directions as normal and parallel

to the abutments, because these are the directions in which the bridge, the abutments and the

piers (normally aligned parallel to the abutments) primarily work. If bearings or other devices

(e.g. shear keys) restrain the deck in one direction but not in the other (where it may be

supported with a certain horizontal exibility or be free to move), these two directions also

lend themselves as longitudinal and transverse. A very important point is that the behaviour

factor, q, may be taken different in these two directions, depending on the way the piers are

connected to the deck and the ratio of their shear span (moment-to-shear ratio) to their crosssectional depth in that direction. If these features are radically different along two orthogonal

directions, these directions are prime candidates for the horizontal seismic action components

as well.

5.3.

For the horizontal components of the seismic action the design response spectrum to be used in

linear elastic analysis is given by different expression in four different period ranges (repeated

below from Section 3.1.3 for reasons of their importance and of convenience):

Clauses 2.1(2),

3.2.4(1), 4.1.6(1) [2]

Clause 3.2.2.5(4) [1]

Short-period range:

2 T 2:5 2

0 T TB : Sa;d T ag S

3 TB q

3

D5:3a

TB T TC : Sa;d T ag S

2:5

q

D5:3b

TC T TD : Sa;d T ag S

2:5 TC

bag

q T

D5:3c

TD T: Sa;d T ag S

2:5 TC TD

bag

q

T2

D5:3d

The design spectrum in the vertical direction has also been described in Section 3.1.3 of this

Guide.

5.4.

The concept and role of the behaviour factor q has been outlined in Section 2.3.2.2 of this Guide

as far as the design of ductile bridges is concerned and in Section 2.3.3 for design for limited

ductile behaviour. Section 5.3 illustrated the use of the behaviour factor q in the design

response spectrum. Before venturing into the rules and details of analysis and modelling for

the purposes thereof, the values of the behaviour factor q specied in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for

the design of these two different types of bridges for the horizontal components of the seismic

action are given. Note that the value of q enters in the design response spectrum and therefore

should be known before any analysis can be carried out.

69

Clauses 4.1.6(3),

4.1.6(12) [2]

As the design response spectrum is specied separately for each component of the seismic action,

the q factor can be different for each of them. and normally is. Starting with the vertical direction,

bridge piers and bearings cannot develop ductile behaviour in pumping concentric axial compression and tension, at least at the short natural periods of the vertical eigenmodes. Additionally, vertical modes of vibration excite mainly bending of the deck in a vertical plane; but the deck

is meant to remain elastic under the design seismic action and beyond (except in exible and

ductile continuity top slabs between adjacent simply supported spans). So, we use q 1 in the

vertical direction.

The value of q in the two horizontal directions depends on how the bridge is congured to

accommodate the horizontal seismic displacements of the deck in each of them. Sections 2.3.1

and 4.1 of this Guide highlighted three options to accommodate these horizontal displacements:

in exible bearing-type devices arranged over an effectively horizontal interface between

the deck and the abutments and piers

2 in exural plastic hinges at the base and possibly at the top of piers rigidly connected

with the deck

3 at the interface between the foundation element of the piers and the ground or in plastic

hinges in foundation piles

1

4

locking the bridge in the ground, by connecting the deck and the abutments into an

integral system that follows the ground motion with little additional deformation of its

own.

Clauses 4.1.6(3),

4.1.6(12) [2]

As explained in Section 2.3.2.5, neither option 1 nor option 3 with the base of the piers sliding

with respect to the soil lend themselves to the development of signicant inelastic deformations

in ductile members, such as the piers. Seismic design using these options should therefore be

elastic, with q 1. For seismic design with a q factor that is greater than 1.0 owing to ductility

and the energy dissipation capacity we are left with options 2 and 4 (and with option 3 for

plastic hinging in foundation piles).

Clauses 4.1.6(3),

4.1.6(7) [2]

Clauses 4.1.6(9),

4.1.6(10), 6.7.3(4),

6.7.3(9) [2]

The maximum values of q specied in Eurocode 8 for these options are given in Table 5.1.

Locked-in bridges, or dynamically independent parts thereof, are considered to follow the horizontal motion of the ground without appreciably amplifying it. Their design spectral acceleration

may be taken as equal to the design peak ground acceleration (i.e. as for T 0 and q 1). This

category includes abutments connected to the deck through movable bearings, or integral bridges

having rigid horizontal connection of the deck to the abutments and a fundamental period T in

the horizontal direction of interest less than 0.03 s. This case corresponds to the last row of

Table 5.1. The row above it refers to bridges with an essentially horizontal deck rigidly connected

to both abutments (either monolithically or through xed bearings). For such bridges, Eurocode

8 requires accounting for the interaction between the soil and the abutments, using realistic soil

stiffness parameters. If T is longer than 0.03 s, the design response spectrum should be entered

with that value of T and with q 1.5. Estimation of T may be avoided and the bridge considered

as locked in if its abutments are embedded in stiff natural soil over at least 80% of their surface

area that is in contact with the soil/ll over the backll face of the abutments (see Figure 4.12).

As already noted in Section 2.3.1, if plastic hinges can form in an inaccessible part of any pier,

the design of the bridge should be based on just 60% of the value of q in Table 5.1 (but not less

than q 1). Part 2 of Eurocode 8 considers as accessible the base of piers deep in earth ll, but

as inaccessible those in deep water or groundwater, or piles under large pile caps. At any rate,

locations of the pier below the normal water table at a depth that can be accessed and drained

with reasonable retaining and pumping effort and cost may be considered as accessible for

repairs.

The values of q given in Table 5.1 for reinforced concrete piers apply as long as the maximum

value of the axial force ratio hk (axial load due to the design seismic action in the horizontal

70

Table 5.1. Behaviour factor q for use with the horizontal components of the seismic action

Type of ductile member

Seismic behaviour

Limited ductile

Ductile

Vertical piers in bending

Inclined struts in bending

1.5

1.2

3.5a

2.1a

Vertical piles in bending

Inclined piles

1.0

1.0

2.1

1.5

Steel piers

Vertical piers in bending

Inclined struts in bending

Piers with normal bracing

Piers with eccentric bracing

1.5

1.2

1.5

3.5

2.0

2.5

3.5

In general

Locked-in bridges

1.5

1.0

1.5

1.0

Arches

1.2

2.0

a

If the minimum among all piers of the pier shear span ratio, Ls /h (where Ls M/V is the distance from the base of

the pier to the inexion point for the seismic action direction considered and h ispthe

cross-section

depth in that

direction), is less than 3.0, these value of the behaviour factor are multiplied by Ls =3h. For piers with sides skewed

to the seismic action component considered, use the minimum value of Ls /h along the two sides

direction of interest and the concurrent gravity loads, Nd , normalised to the product of the pier

section area and the characteristic concrete strength, Ac fck) among all piers does not exceed 0.3.

As already noted in Section 2.3.3, if this largest value of hk Nd/Ac fck exceeds 0.6, the q factor of

the bridge is taken as equal to 1.0. For a value of hk between 0.3 and 0.6, linear interpolation

between 1.0 and the value in Table 5.1 is allowed. Again, it is the largest value of hk among

all reinforced concrete piers that controls the q factor of the entire bridge. It should be noted,

though, that in normal practice the values of hk are fairly low. If nothing else, the upper limits

set by Eurocode 2 on the slenderness of pier columns to avoid lengthy and cumbersome calculations of second-order effects under factored gravity loads (the persistent and transient

design situation of EN 1990) lead to fairly large-sized pier columns and drive down their hk

values (see Section 4.4.3.1 of this Guide).

The shear span of the pier, Ls M/V, in the longitudinal and the transverse directions of the

bridge needs to be estimated before any analysis for the seismic action yields the values of the

moment, M, and shear, V, at the sections where plastic hinges may form. The values of Ls

quoted in Section 2.3.2.3 in cases 1 to 4 may be conveniently used for that purpose. Case 1

therein (namely that of seismic response in the longitudinal direction with the top of the pier

columns monolithically connected to the deck) may be rened as follows.

Let us denote by EId the elastic rigidity of the deck for bending in a vertical plane through

its longitudinal axis. For bending within that same plane, EIp is the total effective rigidity of

the pier, which may consist of n 1 columns, each with an effective rigidity EIn ; then, EIp

Sn(EI )c (see Section 5.8 for the effective rigidities). If Ld is the average span length on either

side of the pier (with an exterior span freely supported at the abutment taken with twice its

span value in this averaging) and Hp the clear pier height, the relative stiffness of the deck to

the pier is dened as

k

EId Hp

EIp Ld

D5:4a

71

Ls

k 1=6 Hp

k 1=12 2

D5:4b

Case 4 in Section 2.3.2.3 (namely that of single-column piers as vertical cantilevers for the

response in the transverse direction) may be rened as follows, to include the effects of (a) the

tributary rotational mass moment of inertia, Iu,d , of the deck in a vertical plane through the transverse direction and (b) the vertical distance between the pier top and the point of application of

the deck inertia force, taken for convenience at the centroid of the deck section, at a distance ycg

from the bottom of the deck:

Ls Hp ycg

1:5I

u;d

Md Hp ycg

D5:5

In Eq. (D5.5) rm,d is the radius of gyration of the deck mass (square root of the ratio of Iu,d to

the tributary deck mass, Md). Both Md and Iu,d refer to the full average span length Ld . For

completeness and future reference, they are given here as

c 2 qk

g

rsurf tsurf bsurf side

D5:6a

Md Ld rc Ac;d

g

g

"

!

!#

c2 qk

b2surf

gside b2side

2

2

rsurf tsurf bsurf

hd ycg

hd ycg

Iu;d Ld rc Jp;d

g

12

g

4

D5:6b

In Eqs (D5.6) rc and rsurf are the mass densities of concrete and of the surfacing material (or of

the ballast, in railway bridges), respectively; Ac,d and Jp,d are the surface area and the polar

moment of inertia of the deck section, respectively; c2qk is the quasi-permanent value of the

uniform trafc load; bsurf is the width of the deck over which it is applied; tsurf is the thickness

of the surfacing (or ballast) considered to be applied over bsurf as well; gside is the total weight

of hand rails, parapets and kerbs at the two sides of the deck per linear metre of deck and

bside their distance across the deck; hd is the deck depth; and g 9.81 m/s2, the acceleration of

gravity.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 recommends taking c2 0 for bridges with normal trafc and footbridges.

For road bridges with severe trafc conditions (dened in a note as motorways and other roads

of national importance) it recommends c2 0.2, and for railway bridges with severe trafc

conditions (dened in a note as intercity rail links and high-speed railways) c2 0.3. In both

cases, only the characteristic value, qk , of the uniform trafc load (UDL) of Load Model 1

(LM1) with all of its nationally applying adjustments is recommended to contribute to the

quasi-permanent part of the severe trafc on the bridge. The quasi-permanent value of the

trafc loads is not only considered to give together with the permanent actions the masses

that are subjected to the seismic action and produce the inertia forces but is also combined

with them and the design seismic action in the seismic design situation for which the performance requirements are veried (see Section 6.2 of this Guide).

The discussion above tacitly implies that the bridge deck is (effectively) straight and that the principal directions of bending of the pier sections are parallel and orthogonal to the deck and, hence,

to the longitudinal and the transverse direction of the bridge. The footnote in Table 5.1 mentions

piers with sides skewed to these directions; for example, wall-like or hollow-rectangular piers

with sides parallel and orthogonal to abutments that are skewed to the axis of the deck. Such

piers present to the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge their effective rigidities

in these two directions, as well as a coupling (cross-)rigidity. In terms of moments of inertia,

they work with moments of inertia IL , IT and ILT (cross-moment of inertia) resulting from

rotation of the principal ones, I1 and I2 , to the directions parallel and orthogonal to the longitudinal direction. For bending in a vertical plane in the transverse direction of the bridge, the value of

IT applies. Such bending involves both depths of the section parallel to its principal directions (i.e.

both sides). The larger of these two depths vis-a`-vis the corresponding shear span controls the

72

ductility of the pier (or lack of it). So, it is the smallest of the two shear span ratios that determines

the value of q for both directions of the seismic action.

5.5.

5.5.1

Modelling

5.5.1.1 Introduction

Guidance for modelling given below while presenting the modal response spectrum method of

analysis also applies to the other analysis methods highlighted in Sections 5.6 and 5.10. By

their nature as simplications of modal response spectrum analysis, the linear methods in

Section 5.6 are also open to simplied modelling. By contrast, the nonlinear methods of

Section 5.10 normally require extension of certain modelling aspects into the nonlinear regime.

Linear analysis methods, such as those in Sections 5.5 and 5.6, are not meant to account for

nonlinear behaviour other than in locations intended for energy dissipation through ductility,

notably in exural plastic hinges. Even this type of nonlinearity is dealt with in a conventional,

approximate way, via the behaviour factor, q. The effects of other types, even when they are

of minor importance for the global response, cannot be properly captured by linear analysis.

This includes friction in sliding bearings, abrupt engagement of shear keys when the gap with

the deck closes, the interaction between the backll and the abutment and its wing walls,

closing and re-opening of deck movement joints at the abutments or in between (owing not

only to the longitudinal response but to the transverse response as well, which may close a

joint just on one side of the deck), etc. Such phenomena should be dealt with by nonlinear

analysis. As pointed out in Chapter 4, if the designer is not prepared to resort to nonlinear

analysis, they should avoid altogether sliders, intermediate movement joints, gaps between the

deck and shear keys or the abutments that close in the seismic design situation, or engineer

their way around the nonlinearity. For example, the information from Caltrans (2006)

highlighted in the last paragraph of Section 4.5.3 can be used to design a sacricial backwall

that will be knocked off when the movement joint at roadway level closes in the seismic design

situation.

5.5.1.2 Modelling of the deck and the piers

Clauses 4.1.1(1),

The model of a bridge for the purposes of a modal response spectrum analysis (or a full

dynamic model in the language of Part 2 of Eurocode 8) should account for the distribution 4.1.2(2), 4.2.1.1(2) [2]

of mass all over the bridge; that is, all over the deck and in the piers, down to the top of competent ground. Regarding the mass of the piers, the universal 10% rule of thumb of structural

design implies that the mass of a pier should be accounted for if it is more than 10% of the

tributary mass of the deck. At any rate, it costs nothing to place a string of approximately

equidistant intermediate nodes along the centroidal axis of a pier and lump there its continuously distributed mass. Piers are normally 1D elements, with a straight axis and a constant

or varying (tapered or ared) section. Prismatic 3D beam/column (sub)elements, with

constant cross-sectional properties along their length, connect adjacent intermediate nodes of

the pier. If the pier section varies, the spacing of intermediate nodes should be sufcient for

a good stepwise approximation of this variation. If it does not, at least three intermediate

Figure 5.1. Discretisation of a concrete bridge with a box girder deck built with the balanced cantilever

method, showing the sections at all nodes of the piers and the deck

73

nodes are placed. Similar is the model used for decks consisting of a single girder (commonly a

box girder, of concrete, steel or composite steel and concrete). Figure 5.1 depicts an example

of such a model for a concrete bridge with monolithic connection of the piers with the box

girder deck.

In a discretisation with prismatic 3D beam/column elements, each node possesses all six degrees of

freedom (DoFs): three translations and three rotations (certain DoFs of support nodes are of course

restrained). Masses are assigned to all three translational DoFs of each deck node. Their values are

given by Eq. (D5.6a), with the span length, Ld , replaced by the average length of the two prismatic

deck elements on either side of the node. A rotational mass moment of inertia, Iux , should always be

assigned to the rotational DoF about the centroidal axis, x, of the deck. Its value is given by Eq.

(D5.6b), with the span length, Ld , again replaced by the average length of the two prismatic deck

elements on each side of the node. Similar is the lumping of the mass and of the rotational mass

moment of inertia, Iux , of the piers along their longitudinal axis, x. As the nodes are often closely

spaced along the longitudinal axis of the deck or the pier, there is no need to assign rotational

mass moments of inertia to the two other rotational DoFs, namely those about the centroidal

axes y and z of the section. Closely spaced nodes along the deck and the pier give a model resembling

the continuous spread of the mass all along the deck and the piers, and allow determining modal

shapes that reect this distribution. For example, higher modes may induce more than one inexion

point between the top and bottom of a pier or between adjacent joints of the deck and piers. These

modes cannot be captured, unless a good number of nodes are used between adjacent physical joints

of the pier and the deck. Figures 5.2(d) and 5.3(d)5.3(n), as well as Figure 8.6 in Section 8.2.6 of this

Guide, show examples of such modes for bridges with monolithic connection of the piers and the

box girder deck. Figure 5.3 is for a bridge having very dissimilar pier heights, with the upper

30 m of all piers in the form of twin blades, and the lower part if any with a hollow rectangular

section. Figures 8.32 to 8.35 in Section 8.3.3.4 depict also the important modes of the bridge model

of Figure 8.27.

Masses should be assigned to all nodes down to the top of ground that is competent enough to be

included in the model with its stiffness (be it innite). Liqueable and very weak cohesive or silty

soils are excluded from being considered as competent. Nodes on piles (or other foundation

elements) below the top of competent ground may be considered as massless. By the same

token, earth or water pressures should not be considered to act on these nodes.

A fairly rened model of the deck is normally necessary for the analysis for gravity loads

(permanent and due to trafc, often of quite non-uniform distribution owing to wheel or lane

loads), in order to dimension the deck for the ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability

limit state (SLS) in out-of-plane bending due to the relevant combinations of these actions

(including intermediate stages of construction and taking into account the redistribution of

action effects due to creep, in case the deck consists partly or fully of concrete). If the same

discretisation is used for the modal response spectrum analysis, its results are conveniently

combined with those of the analysis for the permanent actions plus the quasi-permanent value

of the trafc loads (after redistribution due to creep, etc.), to give the design action effects in

the seismic design situation. Although convenient, the choice of the same deck model for the

seismic analysis is not necessary, as inertial seismic loads, being proportional to mass

multiplied by response acceleration, are fairly uniformly distributed over the deck surface.

Therefore, for the purposes of the global seismic analysis, the deck may be modelled as a

spine of beam elements. Such a model cannot capture the intricate distribution of seismic

action effects at and around monolithic connections of the deck with the piers especially

multi-column ones. If the detailed distribution of seismic action effects in these regions is of

interest, it may be derived from those from the global seismic analysis by subjecting the

detailed model of the deck used in the gravity load analyses to unit static forces or moments

in the relevant directions coming from the pier column(s). Note also that in bridges designed

for ductile behaviour the deck and its monolithic connections to pier columns are veried for

capacity design effects.

If the deck consists of a concrete slab, its analysis for gravity loads is normally based on a

very rened mesh of shell-type nite elements (i.e. a combination of plate nite elements

for out-of-plane bending, and plane-stress ones for the in-plane loads and response).

74

Figure 5.2. Shapes, periods and participation factors of four modes of a bridge of the type depicted in

Figure 5.1, which capture approximately 90% of the total mass in each of two horizontal directions: (a, c,

d) transverse; (b) longitudinal direction (Bardakis, 2007)

Mode 1

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 2.0483 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 113.32

0.00

0.00

73.72

(a)

Mode 2

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 1.8889 s

X

Y

Z

127.04 1.12

0.00

91.96 0.01

0.00

Mode 5

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.6810 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00

46.20

0.00

0.00

12.26

Mode 16

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.1532 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00

24.22

0.00

0.00

3.37

(b)

(c)

Y

X

Z

(d)

75

Figure 5.3. Shapes, periods and participation factors of 14 modes capturing approximately 90% of the

total mass of the bridge depicted in Figure 4.6 in (a, d, g, i) the longitudinal direction and (b, c, e, f, h,

jn) the transverse direction (Bardakis, 2007)

Mode 1

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 2.6057 s

X

Y

Z

106.50 0.05

0.00

72.23 0.00

0.00

Mode 2

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 1.7494 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 98.08

0.00

0.00 61.95

Mode 4

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.5015 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 39.92

0.00

0.00 10.26

Mode 6

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.4863 s

X

Y

Z

45.46 0.76 39.92

13.16 0.00 10.26

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

76

Mode 7

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.4717 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 28.13

0.00

0.00

5.09

Mode 8

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.3890 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 16.18

0.00

0.00

1.69

Mode 16

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.2580 s

X

Y

Z

21.29 3.35

0.00

2.89 0.07

0.00

Mode 17

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.2537 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 18.96

0.00

0.00

2.31

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

77

Mode 22

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.2305 s

X

Y

Z

14.11 4.79

0.00

1.27 0.15

0.00

Mode 27

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.1461 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 15.28

0.00

0.00

1.50

Mode 28

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.1408 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 18.84

0.00

0.00

2.29

Mode 30

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.1209 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 17.50

0.00

0.00

1.97

(i)

( j)

(k)

(l)

78

Mode 31

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.1177 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 16.35

0.00

0.00

1.72

Mode 49

Axis

Participation factors

Effective modal mass: %

Period: 0.0749 s

X

Y

Z

0.00

0.00 17.84

0.00

0.00

2.05

(m)

(n)

An example is depicted in Figure 5.4 for a three-span bridge with a prestressed concrete deck

point-supported on four columns. For the reasons of convenience mentioned in the previous

paragraph, the modal response spectrum analysis is normally done with the same nite

element model. The nodes of the deck are located at its mid-surface and normally have ve

DoFs each: three translations and two rotations (the rotation about an axis normal to the

mid-surface is normally not an independent DoF). The tributary mass of each node is

assigned to all its translational DoFs. Owing to the density of the nodes, no rotational mass

moment of inertia needs to be taken into account for the rotational DoFs.

Figure 5.4. Discretisation of a concrete slab deck in a rened mesh of shell nite elements

79

When the deck consists of a number of discrete parallel girders (whether of precast concrete or

steel, or a composite steelconcrete girder), a grillage-type of model is normally used for

gravity load analysis (including trafc loads). In such a model, intermediate nodes are introduced along each girder, and the girder is modelled as a spine of prismatic 3D beam/column

(sub)elements, having a T or I section with a ange width extending up to mid-distance to the

adjacent girder. Cross-(sub)elements, again of the prismatic 3D beam/column type, connect

each intermediate node along each spine to its counterparts on the spine(s) used for the

adjacent girder(s). They represent cross-beams wherever the deck has such elements, including

diaphragms over the supports on piers or abutments. In this case, the cross-(sub)element

has a T, I or inverted L section, similar to the real one, including any effective ange width

from the deck slab(s) at the top and sometimes at the bottom (see Figure 8.27 in Section

8.3.3.2 for an example of a deck consisting of two parallel composite girders with steel crossbeams). At all other intermediate nodes, any connecting cross-(sub)elements just represent the

transverse coupling of adjacent girder(s) by the deck slab at the top and at the bottom (if

there is one). Then, the cross-(sub)element has a rectangular section with an area and

moment of inertia about a horizontal axis equal to the sum of those of the top and bottom

deck slabs.

For concrete slab decks with parallel voids, a similar model may be used instead of a continuous

2D mesh of shell nite elements (in this case, with orthotropic properties reecting the effect of

the voids).

The grillage model of the deck highlighted above for gravity-load analysis may be used for modal

response spectrum analysis as well. To this end, tributary nodal masses are assigned to all three

translational DoFs of each node, but rotational DoFs have no rotational mass moment of

inertia, exactly as in the slab deck model with shell-type nite elements outlined two paragraphs

above. In this model, the extensional and exural rigidity of the deck as a whole was realistically

captured by the nite elements. In a grillage model it is not captured, unless special provisions are

made. The main concern is the in-plane stiffness of the deck. The extensional one is sufciently

represented, if each of the families of (sub)elements used in the longitudinal and the transverse

directions preserve on aggregate the cross-sectional area of the deck in these two directions.

The distribution across the width of the axial rigidities, EA, of the family of longitudinal

(sub)elements can approximate the in-plane exural rigidity of the deck, provided that an

effectively innite in-plane exural and shear rigidity is assigned to the cross-(sub)elements of

the transverse direction, so that these cross-(sub)elements remain normal to the longitudinal

axis of the deck (as in a bre model of a section, where the plane-sections hypothesis

converts

an in-plane distribution of bre axial rigidities, E dA, into a exural rigidity, Ey2 dA, of the

section). Finally, the in-plane shear rigidity of the deck in the transverse direction, GA, can be

effectively reproduced if the girder (sub)elements are assigned innite shear rigidity (zero shear

area) but their length (spacing of intermediate nodes along the girder) DL is about equal to

p

DL b [2(1 n)], where b is the spacing of the girders across the deck and n is the Poisson

ratio. In this way, the in-plane exural stiffness of a girder (sub)element (with its double xity

to the in-plane innitely stiff cross-beams), which equals 12E(tb3/12)/DL3, becomes equal to

G(tb)/DL.

Clauses 2.3.6.1(1)

2.3.6.1(3), 2.3.2.2(4)

[2]

Reecting the intended and expected elastic behaviour of concrete decks under the design

seismic action, Eurocode 8 species using in the linear analysis the properties of their full

uncracked gross section for the exural, shear and axial stiffness, except as prescribed in

Section 5.5.1.4 for continuity slabs over the joint between simply supported prefabricated

girders of adjacent spans. The same properties may also be used for reinforced concrete piers

in bridges designed for limited ductile behaviour. For those of bridges designed for ductile

behaviour, the effective exural stiffness is the secant-to-yield point (see Section 5.8.1).

Special provisions apply for the torsional rigidity of concrete decks, as this is reduced by

diagonal cracking (see Section 5.8.3).

5.5.1.3 Modelling of the connections between the deck and the piers

What has been said in Section 5.5.1.2 applies equally well when:

1

80

the deck is horizontally xed to the top of the piers through rigid bearings, but is free to

rotate there

3 movable bearings are placed between the top of the pier and the deck.

2

In case 1, the top of the pier and the deck immediately above it may share the same node, located

at the theoretical centre of the physical joint between the deck and the pier (or the pier column).

The part of the deck or the pier between that node and the faces of the physical joint (the end

sections of the deck or the pier) are modelled as rigid. Note that, unlike US codes (Caltrans,

2006), Eurocode 8 includes in the model the full width of the deck at and near monolithic

supports on pier columns as working in bending. In case 2, separate nodes are normally introduced: one at the top of the pier and another on the deck centroidal axis (or its mid-surface, if

the deck is a concrete slab as in the previous paragraph). These two nodes are constrained to

have the same translations but different nodal rotations. In case 3, separate nodes are introduced

at the top of the pier and at the deck immediately above it and are connected through a special

element modelling the bearing. This may be a truss element with extensional stiffness (kN/m) in

each direction in which the bearing presents exibility. Special bearings for seismic isolation have

nonlinear force-deformation behaviour, which should be modelled as such in the proper analysis

framework (i.e. with a nonlinear method). Although common laminated elastomeric bearings

also play a role as isolation devices, they are considered as elastic, and have a place in modal

response spectrum analysis. Their elastic stiffness is equal to EvAb/tq in the vertical direction

and to GAb/tq in the horizontal direction, where Ev is the effective elastic modulus of the elastomer at right angles to the lamination, G its shear modulus, Ab the horizontal surface area of

the bearing and tq the total thickness of the layers of elastomer in the bearing. The shear

modulus G can be considered as a material constant, with its value selected as outlined in

Section 6.10.4.1 of this Guide. By contrast, the effective elastic modulus Ev at right angles to

the lamination depends very much on its dimensions (its shape factor S and bulk modulus K,

etc, see Sections 6.10.4.1 and 6.10.4.2). The commonly used elastomeric bearings have relatively

high stiffness at right angles to the lamination, and may normally be assumed to be rigid in that

direction, at least to a rst approximation. If the bearing is xed (rigid) in one horizontal direction, the pier and deck nodes it connects are constrained to have the same displacement in that

direction.

Note that a deck monolithically or rigidly connected to certain piers or the abutment(s) may have

an out-of-phase response with respect to the piers or abutment(s) supporting it through movable

bearings. Such a response will be reected in higher modes; the increase in bearing deformations

and the pier forces it entails will be appropriately captured by the mode combination rules in

Section 5.5.4.

Shear keys are often provided on either side of the deck over a pier or abutment where the

deck is supported through movable bearings (e.g. sliding or elastomeric ones), in order to

prevent it from lateral unseating or fall-off. Closure of the gap between the deck and the shear

key under the design seismic action is a nonlinear phenomenon and cannot be realistically

reected in linear analysis: the secant stiffness allowed for seismic links in Part 2 of Eurocode

8, equal to the lateral resistance of a shear key divided by the travel of the deck until this

lateral resistance is attained, is hard to determine before dimensioning the shear key. To

bypass the problem, the gap may be lled by vertical elastomeric bearings placed between the

side of the deck and the shear key. A transverse stiffness of the spring equal to the aggregate

elastic stiffness, SEvAb/tq , of the vertical bearings of one side, may then be used at that pier or

abutment. If there is no gap or slack, this connection is equivalent to a xed bearing, and the

support transverse stiffness is that of the pier or abutment. A typical wall-type abutment has

quite high transverse stiffness and resistance, even discounting the uncertain lateral contribution of the soil/backll. Such a transverse connection of the deck to the abutment may be

taken as a rigid support.

Modelling and analysis of link slabs between deck spans of prefabricated

girders

A prefabricated deck (be it of a number of parallel girders or of a single box girder) is most often

simply supported on the piers. Elastomeric bearings are often used at both supports of the span,

although a xed bearing at one support and a movable one at the other have been used as an

5.5.1.4

81

option. This option, however, is not recommended, as it gives rise to several problems regarding

the seismic isolation of the deck, especially when used in conjunction with link slabs.

As pointed out in Section 4.2.1 of this Guide, a link slab (or continuity slab) is most often cast in

situ over a joint between the girders of adjacent spans (see Figure 4.1 for an example of the

detail). The link slab provides continuity to the top slab, to avoid a roadway joint and to

enhance motorist comfort, and creates a rigid diaphragm link between the adjacent deck

spans, so that the deck responds to the transverse seismic action as a single extended elastic

body over its entire length. Additionally, it serves as a sacricial seismic link between the two

spans against unseating and span drop-off. The link slab above the joint should be included in

the model. Its stretch between the end of a deck span consisting of simply supported girders

and that of the adjacent span may be modelled as a 3D beam element connecting the end

nodes of the beam elements modelling the deck (the ones above the support nodes at the pier

top). It is preferable to use for the link slab a single beam element along the bridge axis,

having a rectangular section with the vertical dimension the same as the true depth of the link

slab and the horizontal dimension as the full width of the deck slab. This applies even when

the girders of the deck span are not lumped into a single beam element along the bridge axis

but modelled individually, as in the grillage deck model highlighted in the penultimate paragraph

of Section 5.5.1.2. In this case, the single link slab element will connect the mid-point nodes along

the spine of beam elements modelling the diaphragm beams over the support nodes of each deck

span. The model should account for the vertical eccentricity between the centroidal axis of the

girders and the mid-plane of the link slab. To reect the serious damage and other implications

of the unavoidable concentration of inelastic deformations in the short stretch of the shallow link

slab above the joint, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 species for it an effective stiffness of 25% of

the uncracked concrete stiffness. The reduction factor of 0.25 should be incorporated both

in the out-of-plane exural rigidity, (EI )s , of the link slab element (for its exural behaviour

in the longitudinal direction of the bridge) and in its in-plane exural and extensional ones

(for the transverse response).

The following actions and action effects should be considered for the link-slabs:

1

The local bending due to wheel trafc loads on the slab, considered to be supported

beyond its clear span Lc , on the top slab of the rest of the deck (which is, in turn,

transversely supported on the main prefrabicated girders, see Figure 4.1).

The effects of the relative rotation, wd , of the end sections of the deck girders, one either

side of the link slab (Figure 5.5(a)). It induces a bending moment Mc,d (approximately)

constant over the length Lc , equal to

Mc;d

EI s wd

Lc

D5:7

where (EI )s is the out-of-plane exural rigidity of the link slab. Owing to redistribution

due to creep, the rotation wd is due not only to the permanent loads applied after

hardening of the link slab (due to the weight of the pavement, the sidewalks, etc.) but

also to a major part of the loads (about 75%) that were already acting before (the

weight of the deck girders and of the in-situ slab, if cast before the link slab).

A secondary effect is a tensile axial force of

Nc;d

GAb hd

w

tq d 2

D5:8

where G, Ab and tq are the shear modulus, the total horizontal area of the elastomeric

bearings under that span end and the total elastomer thickness of each bearing,

respectively, and hd is the depth of the deck girder (see Figure 5.5(a)). This axial force

should be added to the tensile axial forces that develop as a reaction of the elastomeric

bearings to the shortening of the deck due to concrete shrinkage and temperature

variation. Note that all of these effects of the gravity actions do arise from the analysis

82

Figure 5.5. Action effects in a link slab between precast girders due to imposed rotations: (a) from the

deck under gravity actions; (b) from the pier under seismic action

Lc

Mc,d

Beam axis

d /2

Beam axis

hd

Vb

Vb

Elastomeric bearing

Pier axis

(a)

Lc

Mc,p

Beam axis

Mc,p

hd

Beam axis

Elastomeric bearing

d = pLc

p

Pier axis

(b)

for them, if the link slab is included in the model as recommended above. If, in contrast,

it is excluded, they should be determined via Eqs (D5.7) and (5.8) from the value of wd

resulting from the analysis of the girders as simply supported under gravity actions.

2 For seismic loads:

For seismic action in the longitudinal direction, the main effect is induced by the

rotation, wp , of the pier head. As the link slab length, Lc , is much shorter than the spans

of the deck on either side, the latter may be approximately taken to remain horizontal.

So, the pier head rotation induces an equal chord rotation in the link slab; that is, skewsymmetric moments at its two ends (see Figure 5.5(b)) equal to

Mc;p

6EI s wp

Lc

D5:9

Skew-symmetric end moments equal to Mc,p are applied in turn to the girder deck. If Lg

is the girder length, the girder shear of 2Mc,p/Lg accompanying these moments, plus the

shear of 2Mc,p/Lc in the link slab, produce a vertical reaction in the bearings. If the two

rows of bearings under the girders of adjacent spans are at a centreline distance of Lb

along the deck axis, the couple of these reactions is translated into a total top moment

in the pier equal to

Mp 2Mc;p Lb

1

1

Lg L c

2Mc;p

Lb

Lc

D5:10

This moment, acting on the pier top with a sign opposite to that of the cantilever

moment at the pier bottom, suggests that the link slab induces a secondary framing

83

effect between the pier top and the deck. Note that all of these seismic action effects

arise from the seismic analysis if the model includes the continuity slab as recommended

above and separate nodes at the top of the pier for the two rows of bearings at a

distance Lb apart. If it excludes these, they may be estimated via Eqs (D5.9) and (5.10)

from the value of wp resulting from the seismic analysis with the pier considered as a

vertical cantilever supporting the mass of the girders.

A secondary effect is an axial force due to the different stiffnesses of the piers and the

abutments in the longitudinal direction, which affects the (otherwise equal) horizontal

reactions of the elastomeric bearings to the inertia forces. This effect is minor, owing to

the large shear exibility of these bearings.

For seismic action in the transverse direction, the effects are usually minor: they are due

to the differences in stiffness of the individual piers and abutments, whose importance is

reduced by the dominant exibility of the bearings. However, higher mode effects are

possible in this case, due to the distribution of mass and transverse stiffness of the deck

over the full length of the deck. Nevertheless, the resulting seismic action effects usually

are not a problem for the link slab, owing to the large available section depth for the

deck in-plane bending (the full width of the deck). The seismic action effects in the link

slab deserve attention only if the bearings on either side of it (elastomeric, sliding or

other) have a very different stiffness in the transverse direction.

Clause 4.1.2(5),

Annex F [2]

5.5.1.5.1 Introduction

When bridge piers are immersed in water of considerable depth, hydrodynamic effects on the

seismic response to the horizontal seismic action are important. They are negligible as far as

the seismic response to the vertical component is concerned. For vertical piers, the effect for

the horizontal components may be estimated by means of an added mass of entrained water.

This approach, highlighted in the present section, is based on the following assumptions,

which are generally met when the seismic response of immersed piers is concerned:

g

g

water is incompressible

surface wave effects due to the seismic motion are negligible.

Hydrodynamic effects during the seismic response of an immersed structure are due to variations

in the water pressures on the waterstructure interface, and are, therefore, a function of the

motion of the structure relative to the water. The resultant forces of these pressures may be conveniently expressed as the product of an added mass matrix, Ma , considered as attached to the

structure, multiplied by the minus acceleration vector of the structure relative to the water in the

considered direction, U sw (i.e. MaU sw). The equation of motion of the structure is

MUA CU_ KU MaU sw

(D5.11)

where M, C and K are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the structure, respectively; for

hollow piers the mass of water enclosed within the pier is included in M; UA and U are the

displacement vectors of the nodes of the structure, absolute and relative to the ground, respectively; and U_ and U are the pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration vectors of the structural

nodes, respectively.

The absolute, U A , relative, U and ground ug accelerations are related as U A U ug I, where the

unit vector I has all entries in the direction of the ground motion equal to 1, and 0 in all other

directions. So, the equations of motion become

MU CU_ KU MIug MaU sw

(D5.12)

Having zero shear stiffness, the water cannot follow a horizontal ground motion. Therefore, the

acceleration of the structure relative to the water is equal to its absolute acceleration: U sw U A .

Therefore, Eq. (D5.12) becomes

(M Ma)U CU_ KU (M Ma)Iu g

84

(D5.13)

Figure 5.6. Effect of the vertical component of water pressure on an immersed pier with non-vertical

outer surfaces: (a) destabilising on pier tapering downwards, M zPH bPV/2; (b) stabilising on pier

tapering upwards, M zPH bPV/2

PH /2

PH /2

PV /2

PV /2

z

PV /2

PH /2

PV /2

b

PH /2

This is equivalent to increasing the mass matrix to M Ma . As it lengthens the periods, the

added mass may reduce spectral accelerations; however, it increases the forces and displacements

of the seismic response. Its magnitude may be quite considerable, especially in hollow piers. A

pier of elliptical section and axes with length 2ax and 2ay subjected to a horizontal seismic

action component at an angle u to the x axis has an added mass per unit of immersed length

equal to

ma rp(a2y cos2u a2x sin2u)

(D5.14)

Annex F in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives the added mass of immersed rectangular piers in the

directions of its sides as a function of the aspect ratio of the pier section. Note that the added

mass of elliptical or rectangular piers is different in the two orthogonal principal directions of

the section.

The approach above gives the force resultant in the horizontal direction of the seismic

component and the related moments due to the variation in the water pressures on the lateral

faces of the pier. If those faces are not vertical, the horizontal component of the forces

resulting from these water pressures is well approximated by the simplied added mass

approach, but the vertical components of the pressures and their effects are not captured.

These vertical components produce a moment in the vertical plane of the horizontal seismic

component, which is destabilising (i.e. it increases the overturning seismic moment at the

base) if the outer faces of the pier taper downwards as in Figure 5.6(a); if they taper upwards

as in Figure 5.6(b), they are stabilising. If the non-vertical lateral surface of the pier is

symmetric with respect to a vertical plane at right angles to the horizontal seismic component, the vertical pressure components have a zero vertical force resultant. For immersed

piers with inclined lateral faces, it is recommended to use special nite element approaches

capable of dealing with the general coupled problem of the seismic response of an immersed

structure.

5.5.1.5.3 Vertical seismic component

Being incompressible, the water moves vertically with the ground. So, the acceleration of the

The added mass

structure relative to the water is equal to the one relative to the ground, U.

matrix associated with the vertical relative movement is denoted as Mav . An additional effect

of the water pressure variation on the lateral surface of the immersed pier is not due to the

motion of the structure relative to the water, and therefore not associated with an added

mass. It is due to the vertical acceleration of the water, ugv, which causes its apparent unit

weight to vary. The ensuing variation of the buoyancy force on the structure is conveniently

expressed as MbIugv , where Mb is the mass of the water displaced by the pier.

Before writing the equations of motion, the following should be pointed out:

g

Obviously the added mass of a pier in the vertical direction, Mav , has nothing to do with

that in the horizontal; indeed, if the lateral faces of the pier are vertical, Mav is zero.

85

A signicant added mass in the vertical direction derives from a boundary of the immersed

body in contact with water with a substantial projection on a horizontal plane (e.g. a

submerged pipe or tunnel supported on the piers).

Even for piers with inclined lateral faces (where Mav is non-zero), the relative acceleration

is due to the axial deformation of the pier; its magnitude is therefore

vector, U sw U,

much smaller than that of U sw corresponding to the horizontal directions where bending

deformation is involved.

The hydrodynamic effect due to the added mass in the vertical direction is very small for

piers of common bridges.

With the effects of added and buoyant masses included, Eq. (D5.12) is written as

(M Mav)U CU_ KU (M Mb)Iu gv

(D5.15)

which shows that only the part M Mb of the total vibrating mass M Mav is excited by ugv .

Therefore, for the analysis the mass matrix is increased to M Mav , but the modal excitation

factors must be modied to correspond to the excited mass M Mb instead of the total.

Additionally, the sum of effective modal masses in the vertical direction is less than the total

structural mass.

In conclusion, it is justied for typical bridges to neglect the hydrodynamic effects of the vertical

seismic component, as allowed in Part 2 of Eurocode 8. In exceptional cases where this effect

should be included, either Eq. (D5.15) is solved, or recourse is made to special nite element

software.

Clauses 4.1.4(1),

4.1.4(3), 6.7.3(2) [2]

Clauses 4.2.3(1),

4.2.3(3), 5.4.2(1),

5.4.2(3), 6(1), 6(2),

Annex D [3]

Bridge foundations are either massive shallow footings, deep seated (caissons) or piled. For these

types of foundations, Part 5 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004b) requires that soilstructure interaction

be taken into account in the seismic analysis. Bridge foundations are specically quoted as being

cases where considering soilstructure interaction is mandatory.

A rigorous treatment of linear soilstructure interaction is based on elasto-dynamic theories. A

direct (or complete) interaction analysis, in which both the soil and the structure are modelled

with nite elements is very demanding computationally and not well suited for design, especially

in 3D. A substructuring approach reduces the problem to more amenable stages, and does not

necessarily require repeating the entire analysis should the superstructure be modied. This

approach is of great mathematical convenience and rigour, stemming, in linear systems, from

the superposition theorem (Kausel and Roesset, 1974), according to which the seismic

response of the complete system may be computed in two stages (Figure 5.7):

Determination of the kinematic interaction motion, involving the response to base

acceleration of a system that differs from the actual one in that the mass of the

superstructure is equal to zero.

2 Calculation of the inertial interaction effects, referring to the response of the complete

soilstructure system to forces associated with base accelerations equal to the accelerations

arising from the kinematic interaction.

1

g

computation of the dynamic impedances at the foundation level; the dynamic impedance

of a foundation represents the reaction forces acting under the foundation when it is

directly loaded by harmonic forces

analysis of the dynamic response of the superstructure supported on the dynamic

impedances and subjected to the kinematic motion (also called the effective foundation

input motion).

For rigid foundations, such as those of bridges, the dynamic impedances can be viewed as sets of

frequency-dependent springs and dashpots lumped at the underside of the footing or of the pile

cap. For rigid foundations, the complex-valued impedance matrix in the most general situation is

86

Equivalent

Impedance function

Kinematic interaction

K=

(t)

M

V

Kxx

Kx

Kx K

(t)

a full 6 6 matrix. However, for regular geometries with two axes of symmetry and horizontally

layered soil proles, some off-diagonal terms are equal to zero, and the impedance matrix takes

the simplied form

2

6

6

6

6

6

K 6

6

6

6

4

k11

k15

0

0

k22

0

0

k33

k24

k42

k51

0

0

0

0

0

k44

0

0

k55

7

0 7

7

0 7

7

7

0 7

7

0 7

5

k66

D5:16

DoFs 1 to 3 refer to translations, and DoFs 4 and 5 to rocking about orthogonal horizontal axes

(Figure 5.8). DoF 3 is the vertical translation. Diagonal terms k33 , referring to this DoF, and k66

to the torsional DoF, are uncoupled with respect to the other DoFs. The two translational DoFs

are always coupled with the two rocking ones for piled or embedded foundations; this coupling

may be neglected only for surface foundations or when the embedment of the footing is shallow.

It may not be possible to introduce coupling (i.e. off-diagonal) terms to the stiffness matrix in

most commercial software codes. It is, however, feasible to account for coupling terms by translating the stiffness matrix to a point located at a depth z (.0) below the foundation where the

stiffness matrix becomes diagonal, and modelled with simple springs in all directions. For

instance, referring to directions 1 and 5, a diagonal stiffness matrix with a translational spring

stiffness of k11 and a rotational one of k55 z2k11 connected to the foundation at a depth

z k15/k11 via a rigid beam element produces the correct stiffness matrix at the foundation

(Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8. Modelling of rotational-translational coupling in piles (a); DoFs and pile stiffness (b);

modelling of pile with uncoupled translational and rotational springs

3

Pile

55 = 1

11 = 1

6

K51

K55

K33

5

1

K11

Pile

K15

I=

z = K15/K11

K11

(a)

(b)

87

Analytical expressions for the different terms of the impedance matrix, Eq. (D5.16), for shallow

footings of various geometries, embedded foundations or pile foundations can be found in the

technical literature (Novak, 1974; Gazetas, 1983, 1991). Informative Annex C of Part 5 of

Eurocode 8 provides expressions for the stiffness of the head of individual piles for various

cases of dependence of the soil modulus on depth. Note that the pile head stiffness may be

strongly affected by pile group effects, reecting pilesoilpile interaction. This effect depends

on the cross-sectional size and spacing of piles, the soil properties and the frequency of excitation.

Unlike in static loading, it may be signicant even at large pile spacing. Simplied methodologies

have been developed to compute the group efciency under seismic loading (Dobry and Gazetas,

1988). For common pile sizes and spacing, the group effect on the stiffness typically varies from

2.5 to 6.

Each term in Eq. (D5.16) is a complex number that can be written as

vB d

s

d

d

s

d

k

k

i

a

c

k

i

c

kij

0 ij

ij

ij

ij

ij

vs ij

D5:17

where ksij is the static component of the impedance; the terms in parentheses, kdij and cdij,

correspond to the dynamic contribution to the impedance, and are frequency dependent;

a0 vB/vs is a dimensionless frequency; v is the circular frequency of the excitation; B is a

characteristic dimension of the foundation (radius, width, etc.); vs is the soil shear wave

velocity; and i2 1.

The terms in Eq. (D5.17) have the following physical interpretation: ksij kdij represents a spring and

ksij cdijB/vs a dashpot. The equivalent damping ratio of the system is

jij

d

vB c ij

vs 2k dij

D5:18

It is common and recommended practice in the context of modal response spectrum analysis

to bound upwards the value of the equivalent damping ratio from Eq. (D5.18) to 30%.

Although the substructure approach above is rigorous for the treatment of linear soilstructure

interaction, its practical implementation is subject to several simplications:

g

88

Fully linear behaviour of the system is assumed. However, it is well recognised that this is

a strong assumption, since nonlinearities are present in the soil itself and at the soil

foundation interface (sliding, uplift, gaping near pile heads, etc.). Soil nonlinearities may

be partly accounted for, as recommended in Part 5 of Eurocode 8, by choosing for the

calculation of the impedance matrix reduced values of the soil properties that reect the

soil nonlinear behaviour in the free eld (see Section 3.3.2.2 of this Guide). This implicitly

assumes that additional nonlinearities taking place at the soilfoundation interface (pile

shaft, edges of footing) do not affect signicantly the overall seismic response. For piles it

is recommended to further reduce the soil moduli at the top, starting from an almost zero

value at the pile head and increasing it to the full reduced value at a depth of 46 times

the pile mean cross-sectional dimension. Recommended reduction factors for the soil

moduli are given in Table 3.5 in Section 3.3.2.2.

Kinematic interaction is usually ignored. This means that the input motion used for the

dynamic response of the structure is simply the free-eld motion. Although that

assumption is exact for shallow foundations subject to vertically propagating body waves,

and partly exact for shallow foundations in a more complex seismic environment or for

exible piles, it becomes very inaccurate for embedded or very stiff piled foundations. In

particular, the true input motion to embedded foundations consists not only of a

translational component but of a rotational one as well.

The frequency-dependent terms of the stiffness matrix are approximated as constant.

Except in the very rare case of a homogeneous soil prole, this condition is far from being

fullled. A fair approximation for the constant value of the stiffness term is one

corresponding to the frequency of the soilstructure interaction mode. To nd such a

value, iterations on the spring constant should be carried out for each vibration mode,

until the chosen value corresponds to the computed frequency. More rened models,

involving additional masses and springs, are also possible to represent the frequency

dependence of the impedance term. One such example is shown in Figure 5.9. The model

parameters may be tted to the exact variation of the impedance term (as exemplied in

Figure 5.10), or assessed from simplied assumptions based on cone models (Wolf and

Meek, 2004). Alternatively, frequency domain solutions may be used: they offer several

advantages, such as a rigorous treatment of the frequency-dependent impedance matrix

and full account of the radiation damping represented by the imaginary part of the

impedance matrix. Special software tools have been developed to solve soilstructure

interaction problems in the frequency domain (Lysmer et al., 2000), widely known in the

industry.

A wide class of so-called Winkler models, based on the concept of springs and dashpots to

model the effect of the soil on the foundation have been used extensively. They represent the

Figure 5.10. Example of the accuracy of the rheological model of Figure 5.9 used to model the exact

dynamic rocking impedance of the Rion Antirrion bridge foundation (Pecker, 2006)

1.E+08

Model

Finite element analysis

Stiffness: MN/m

5.E+07

0.E+00

5.E+07

1.E+08

0

1.E+07

2

3

Frequency: Hz

Model

Finite element analysis

Dashpot: MN s/m

8.E+06

6.E+06

4.E+06

2.E+06

0.E+00

0

2

3

Frequency: Hz

89

Figure 5.11. Modelling techniques for linear soilstructure interaction: (a) impedance matrix; (b) Winklertype model

Superstructure

6 1 kinematic

motion time

series

Condensed 6 6

stiffness matrix [K]

Pile cap

Condensed 6 6

mass matrix [M]

(a)

Horizontal

motion 1

Horizontal

motion 2

Superstructure

Depth varying

free field

motions

Pile cap

kh1

kh2

Horizontal

motion 3

kh3

Horizontal

motion 4

kh4

Horizontal

motion n

khn

kv1

Vertical

motion 1

kv2

Vertical

motion 2

kv3

Vertical

motion 3

kv4

Vertical

motion 4

kvn

Vertical

motion n

Pile

foundation

(b)

interaction with the soil using springs and dashpots distributed across the footing or along the

pile shaft. Although conceptually the soil reaction forces are still represented by the action of

springs and dashpots, unlike the impedance matrix approach, there is no rational or scientically

sound method for the denition of these springs and dashpots. Their values, but more importantly their distribution over the foundation, vary with frequency; there is no unique distribution

reproducing the global foundation stiffness for all degrees of freedom. For instance, although

highly questionable, a uniform distribution may be chosen for the vertical stiffness, but cannot

accurately match the rocking stiffness. Furthermore, two additional difculties arise for pile

foundations:

g

g

the choice of the springs and dashpots should reect the pile group effect

as the seismic motion varies with depth, different input motions should be dened at all

nodes shared between the piles and the soil; one should resort to a separate analysis for

the determination of these input motions.

Therefore, in view of all the uncertainties underlying the choice of their parameters, Winkler-type

models, although attractive, should not be favoured. Figure 5.11 depicts both types of modelling:

g

g

that based on the concept of the impedance matrix, which is rigorous in the framework of

linear systems

the approximate Winkler-type model.

5.5.2

Modal analysis results

In modal response spectrum analysis, the modal shapes (eigenmodes) in 3D and the natural

frequencies (eigenvalues) are rst computed. In a full 3D model, each mode shape in general

has displacement and rotations in all three directions, X, Y and Z, at all nodes i of the model.

The eigenmodeeigenvalue analysis gives for each normal mode, n:

1

2

3

The mode shape vector Fn .

Factors of the participation of the mode to the response to the seismic action component

in direction X, Y or Z, denoted as GXn , GYn or GZn , respectively. GXn is computed as

(D5.19)

where i stands for nodes associated with DoFs, M is the mass matrix, IX is a vector with

elements of 1 for the translational DoFs parallel to direction X and all other elements

90

Next Page

Chapter 5. Modelling and analysis of bridges for seismic design

parallel to X and mXi is the associated element of the mass matrix. Similarly for wYi,n ,

wZi,n , mYi and mZi . If M contains rotational mass moments of inertia, IuXi,n , IuYi,n and

IuZi,n , the associated terms are included in the sum at the denominator of GXn . The

denitions of GYn , GZn are similar.

4 The effective modal masses in directions X, Y and Z are MXn , MYn , and MZn , respectively:

MXn (FTn MIX)2/FTn MFn (SiwXi,nmXi)2/Si(w2Xi,nmXi w2Yi,nmYi w2Zi,nmZi); similarly for

MYn and MZn. They give the peak force resultant in mode n along direction X, Y or Z:

VbX,n Sa(Tn)MXn , VbY,n Sa(Tn)MYn or VbZ,n Sa(Tn)MZn , respectively. The sum of

effective modal masses in X, Y or Z over all modes is equal to the total mass.

Peak modal seismic action effects in the response to the seismic action component in direction X,

Y or Z may be calculated as follows:

For each mode n the spectral displacement, SdX(Tn), is calculated from the design

acceleration spectrum of the seismic action component; for example, for direction X as

SdX(Tn) (Tn/2p)2SaX(Tn).

2 The nodal displacement vector of the structure in mode n due to the seismic action

component of interest, let us say direction X, UXn , is computed as UXn= SdX(Tn)GXnFn .

3 Peak modal values of the effects of the seismic action component of interest are computed

from the modal displacement vector of step 2; member modal deformations (e.g.

curvatures or chord rotations) directly from the nodal displacement vector of mode n;

modal internal forces at member ends by multiplying the member modal deformations by

the member stiffness matrix; etc.

1

The so-computed peak modal responses are exact but occur at different instances in the response,

and can be combined only approximately. Section 5.5.4 presents statistical combination rules for

the peak modal responses.

5.5.3

Minimum number of modes

Modal response spectrum analysis should take into account all modes contributing signicantly

to any response quantity of interest. This is hard to achieve in practice. As the number of modes

to be considered should be specied as input to the eigenvalue analysis, either a very large number

may have to be specied from the outset or the eigenvalue analysis may have to be repeated with a

higher number of modes requested this time.

Clauses 4.2.1.2(1),

4.2.1.2(2) [2]

Eurocode 8 considers the total force resultant in the direction of each seismic action component

as the prime response quantity of interest, and sets as a goal of the eigenvalue analysis the capture

of at least 90% of its full value. This is translated into a criterion for the participating modal

mass: Eurocode 8 requires the N modes that are taken into account to provide together a total

participating modal mass along any individual direction of the seismic action components considered in the design, at least 90% of the total mass. In the example of Figure 5.3, three modes

sufce for the longitudinal direction, but nine are needed for the transverse; this requires

computing up to the 49th eigenmode of the bridge.

If the above criterion is hard to meet, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 allows as an alternative the computation of all modes with periods above 0.033 s, provided that they collectively account for at

least 70% of the total mass in the direction of each component of interest. Then, we should

make up for the missing mass by amplifying all computed modal seismic action effects by the

ratio of the total mass to that accounted for so far. If the computed modes with periods

above 0.033 s do not collectively capture at least 70% of the total mass, more modes should

be computed, until the minimum of 70% is achieved. The amplication of computed modal

results follows. Clearly, this option is so conservative and uneconomic for the design that the

designer is motivated to go after as many modes as necessary to capture at least 90% of the

total mass.

5.5.4

Combination of modal results

In modal response spectrum analysis, it is convenient to take the elastic response in two different

modes as independent of each other. The magnitude of the correlation between modes i and j

91

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.119

Chapter 6

components for earthquake resistance

6.1.

Introduction

The rules for the verication of the strength and global ductility of bridge components in Section 5

of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005a), alongside those for detailing the components for local

ductility in Section 6, elaborate and implement the compliance criteria for the no-collapse

requirement set out in Section 2 and in Chapter 2 of this Designers Guide. These rules are

different for bridges with ductile or with limited ductile behaviour. Different rules apply for

bridges equipped with seismic isolation: they are given in Section 7 of Part 2 of Eurocode 8,

and elaborated and exemplied in Chapter 7 of this Designers Guide.

For better illustration and comparison, the rules for the two design alternatives of ductile or

limited ductile behaviour are presented here in tabular form (Table 6.1). Some general aspects

and concepts are highlighted rst, and the rationale behind certain verication procedures and

rules is presented.

6.2.

seismic action

Both at the local level (for the verication of members and sections) and at the global level (for

Clauses 3.2.4(1) [1]

the calculation of masses), the design seismic action is combined with other actions as specied in Clauses 5.5(1), 5.5(4),

4.1.2(3) [2]

EN 1990:2002 (Basis of design CEN, 2002) for the seismic design situation and elaborated for

bridges in Part 2 of Eurocode 8. Symbolically this combination is

Ed Gk Pk AEd c2,1Q1,k Q2

(D6.1)

where Gk is the characteristic (nominal) value of the permanent actions (normally the self weight

and all other dead loads), Pk is the characteristic value of prestress after losses, AEd is the design

seismic action (i.e. that for the reference return period times the importance factor of the

bridge), Q1,k is the nominal value of trafc loads, c2,1Q1,k is the combination value of trafc

loads (normally the quasi-permanent, i.e. arbitrary-point-in-time, trafc loads) and Q2 is the

quasi-permanent value of variable actions with long duration (earth or water pressure,

buoyancy, currents, etc.).

Coefcient c2,1 is dened in normative Annex A2 of EN 1990:2002 as a Nationally Determined

Parameter (NDP). As already pointed out in Section 5.4 of this Guide in connection with

Eqs (D5.6), Part 2 of Eurocode 8 recommends the following values:

g

g

g

c2,1 0.2 for road bridges with severe trafc conditions (dened in a note as motorways

and other roads of national importance)

c2,1 0.3 for railway bridges with severe trafc conditions (dened in a note as intercity

rail links and high-speed railways).

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 recommends taking only the characteristic value, qk , of the uniform trafc

load (UDL) of Load Model 1 (LM1) with all its nationally applying adjustments as contributing to the quasi-permanent part of severe trafc loads. Note that, at least as far as the

calculation of masses is concerned, the small values of c2,1 even for bridges with heavy trafc

119

Table 6.1. Eurocode 8 rules for dimensioning and detailing of bridge piers and deck

q factor

Limited ductile

Ductile

Eurocode 2 Class B or C

Eurocode 2 Class B or C

Eurocode 2 Class C

In plastic hinges

Outside plastic hinges

Ultimate limit state (ULS) strength verication and dimensioning of the deck

ULS in exure

ULS in shear

o

(i) In plastic hinges

MGd MAd DM 2nd-order(1),(6) M Rd(7)

(ii) Outside plastic hinges

o

(i) In plastic hinges

VGd qV Ad(1) VRd /gBd1(4)

(ii) Outside plastic hinges

MC M Rd(7),(8)

Detailing of pier columns for ductility within length Lh from end section of plastic hinge

Length Lh from the end section where full connement and antibuckling reinforcement is required:

o

(i) If hk NEd/Acfck 0.3

Lh max[hc; Ls/5](10),(11),(12),(13)

Lh 0.3LsMRd /(1.3MEd)(10),(11)

(ii) If 0.3 , hk 0.6

Lh 1.5max[hc; Ls/5](10),(11),(12),(13)

Transverse reinforcement(14) for connement:(15),(16)

Maximum hoop/tie spacing along pier

mechanical ratio in each direction

Asw/(shbc)(fyd/fcd)(17)

.0.08

.0.12

mechanical ratio, 4Asp/(shDsp)(fyd/fcd)(18)

.0.12

.0.18

spacing along straight sides of section

200 mm

min(hc; bc)/3(13)

its amount from 0 to Lh

Maximum hoop/tie spacing along pier

Area of restraining tie-legs per linear

metre of pier column length

P

AsLfyL/(1.6fyw)(21)

Minimum steel ratio, rmin(23)

0.1Nd/Acfyd, 0.2%

4%

Diameter, dbL

8 mm

nearest restrained along perimeter

150 mm

Transverse bars (index w) over the part of pier columns where special detailing for ductility is not required (22)

Diameter, dbw

dbL/4

Spacing, sw

120

around the clock are consistent with the action of vehicles on the deck as tuned mass dampers

that reduce the global response of the bridge, as has been shown in shaking table tests.

In the special but common case where only elastomeric bearings resist the seismic action, the

action effects of imposed deformations (thermal actions, shrinkage, support settlement,

ground movement due to seismic faulting, etc.) should also be included in the combination of

Eq. (D6.1). Note, however, that these effects are only relevant for the design of the bearings

themselves, which is normally based on the deformations not the forces imposed on the

bearings by actions. Additionally, in this case the behaviour under the design seismic action is

linear elastic; so is the analysis with q 1.0. Therefore, the action effects of imposed deformations do not vanish, as normally taken in design for the ultimate limit state (ULS) after the

presumed redistribution of self-equilibrating action effects.

Clauses 5.5(2),

5.5(3) [2]

(1) MAd, VAd: moment and shear from linear analysis for the design seismic action, Ad. MGd, VGd: moment and shear from linear analysis for the

quasi-permanent gravity loads concurrent with Ad

(2) Myd: design yield moment of the deck section at yielding of the tension chord, taking into account any prestressing. For bending about the

vertical axis, Myd may be taken to occur when the longitudinal reinforcement yields at a distance from the edge of the deck section of 10%

its depth for bending in a horizontal plane (i.e. 10% of the width of the top slab) but not beyond the outer web of the section

(3) aCD: capacity design magnication factor. It may be approximated as the ratio of the sum of pier seismic shears when overstrength moment

resistances develop at all potential plastic hinges in each pier to the sum of pier shears from the linear analysis for the design seismic action

(Eq. (D6.9)). The seismic shear at overstrength moment resistance at the plastic hinges of a pier is computed assuming the simultaneous

presence of the effects of the quasi-permanent loads concurrent with the design seismic action

(4) gBd1: Nationally Determined Parameter safety factor with the recommended value gBd1 1.25. VRd: design shear resistance per Eurocode 2,

taking into account any prestressing

(5) It is allowed to take gBd equal to the value of gBd1 in note (4) above or to subtract from it qVEd/VC,o 1 (but not to a nal value below

gBd 1), where VEd is the maximum shear from the analysis for the seismic design situation and VC,o is the capacity design shear without the

upper limit VC,o qVEd

(6) DM2nd-order is the additional moment due to second-order effects. It may be taken equal to (1 q)dEdNEd/2, where NEd is the axial force and

dEd is the relative horizontal displacement of the two pier ends in the seismic design situation (see Eq. (D6.3))

(7) MRd: design moment resistance of the pier section, for the concurrent value of the pier axial force and the orthogonal moment component

from the analysis for the seismic design situation

(8) MC: linear bending moment diagram between the overstrength moments at the ends of the pier column where plastic hinges may form (see

Figure 6.1)

(9) VRd,o: design shear resistance per Eurocode 2 computed for a truss inclination of 458 and using as dimensions of the section those of the

conned concrete core to the centreline of the perimeter hoop

(10) Ls M/V: shear span at the end section according to the analysis for the seismic design situation

(11) The maximum length for the two directions of the pier section applies

(12) MEd: moment at the pier end section from the analysis for the seismic design situation. MRd: as in note (7) above, for the pier end section

(13) hc, bc, Dc: depth, width and diameter of the conned core to the centreline of the perimeter hoop

(14) Anchored with 1358-hooks. When hk 0.3, a 908 hook with a 10-diameter extension is allowed at one end of a cross-tie, at alternating

ends in adjacent cross-ties horizontally and vertically. Long cross-ties with 1358 hooks at both ends may be lap-spliced between the ends

(15) Connement is not required in those pier columns where:

g hk NEd /Acfck 0.08 or

g a curvature ductility factor value of

13 for ductile behaviour or

7 for limited ductile

can be achieved in the plastic hinge without connement. This is possible in piers with wide compression anges, e.g. in hollow rectangular

piers, in the weak direction of wall-like piers, etc. On this basis, connement is not required in hollow rectangular piers with

hk NEd/Acfck 0.2

(16) If connement all along the long dimension of a wall-like pier is not necessary per the second bullet point in (15) above, but is required in

the pier strong direction, it should be provided up to a distance from the edges where the strain drops below 50% of the ultimate strain of

unconned concrete: 1cu2 0.0035

(17) Asw/sh: total cross-sectional area of hoop and tie legs at right angles to the dimension bc of the concrete core (measured to the outside of

the perimeter hoop) per unit length of the pier column

(18) Asp: cross-sectional area of the spiral or hoop bar. sh: pitch of the spiral or spacing of the hoops. Dsp: diameter of the spiral or hoop bar

(19) Ac: area of gross concrete section. Acc: area of conned core to the perimeter hoop centreline. hk NEd/Acfck. rL: ratio of vertical

reinforcement

(20) dbL: vertical bar diameter. ftk/fyk: ratio of the characteristic tensile strength to the characteristic yield stress of vertical bars. Eurocode 2 limits

the lower 10% fractile of ft/fy to (ft/fy)k 1.15 for steel Class C and (ft/fy)k 1.08 for steel Class B; these values may be used in lieu of ftk/fyk,

in the absence of steel-specic information

P

AsL: total cross-sectional area of vertical bars restrained

(21) fyw: yield stress of tie. fyL: yield stress of vertical bars.

p at . 908 hooks or corners of

the ties (tie-legs restraining the bar at a 458 corner contribute too with their cross-sectional area divided by 2).

(22) These rules are per Eurocode 2 and apply both to ductile and limited ductile design

(23) Strictly, the minimum steel ratio in pier columns is that of Eurocode 2, because Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not specify a minimum steel ratio

for pier columns. According to Part 1 of Eurocode 8, the minimum steel ratio of 1% applies only to concrete columns in buildings, and is

certainly high for pier columns. Such a high minimum ratio may be the source of irregular seismic behaviour if the piers have the same

section but very different seismic demands (see Sections 5.10.2.1 and 5.10.2.2). Nonetheless, it is often applied in practice by designers who

consider the minimum steel ratio specied in Eurocode 2 for any type of concrete column as too low for earthquake resistance. Note that

the fundamental requirement of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for a minimum of local ductility in all ductile elements is of essence. In this respect, the

amount of steel reinforcement should be sufcient to provide a design moment resistance of the pier section, MRd, not less than the cracking

moment: Mcr Wc(fctm NEd/Ac), where Wc is the elastic section modulus, fctm is the mean tensile strength of concrete, NEd is the axial

force from the analysis for the seismic design situation (positive if compressive) and Ac is the area of the concrete section. Normally, a steel

ratio of 0.5% provides this minimum of local ductility, without causing signicant irregularity

121

6.3.

analysis

In force-based seismic design with linear analysis employing a q factor greater than 1.0, the

verications outlined in the following sections are carried out.

6.3.1

Clauses 5.4(1),

Flexural plastic hinges are dimensioned so that their design moment resistance, MRd , exceeds the

5.6.2(1), 5.6.3.1(1) [2] moment from the analysis for the seismic design situation, MEd , including second-order effects, if

Clauses 5.2.4(1)

applicable:

5.2.4(3), 6.1.3(1),

(D6.2)

MEd MRd

7.1.3(1) [1]

Linear analysis is carried out for the combination of the actions of Eq. (D6.1). Superposition

does apply, so the seismic action effects from an analysis for the design seismic action alone

may be superimposed on those from the analysis for the other actions in Eq. (D6.1). Approximations may be used for the second-order effects in the seismic design situation. Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 invites the National Annex to introduce sufciently accurate methods to include

them. Such methods should account for the less ominous character of second-order effects of

seismic displacements compared with those due to persistent displacements, owing to their

reversed nature. In a non-binding note, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 considers it sufcient to neglect

these effects in linear analysis and simply to increase the moment calculated from the analysis

at pier ends where plastic hinges are expected to form by the following additional moment

(Paulay and Priestley, 1992):

DM2nd-order (1 q)dEeNEd/2

(D6.3a)

where NEd is the axial force and dEe is the horizontal displacement of the top relative to the base

of the pier from the analysis for the design seismic action. According to Paulay and Priestley

(1992), an increase in the moment resistance by the amount of Eq. (D6.3a) compensates for

the absorbed energy loss due to the second-order effects of the peak seismic displacements,

mddEe (with md taken equal to q, see Eq. (2.1a)). Note that, by mistake, Part 2 of Eurocode 8

uses in Eq. (D6.3a) the total design displacement in the seismic design situation, dEd , instead

of the correct dEe; dEd is the sum of (a) the displacements dE , due to the design seismic action

alone (see Eq. (D5.48)), (b) dG , due to the quasi-permanent actions on the bridge, and

(c) c2dT , due to the thermal actions present in the seismic design situation. Equation (D6.3a)

accounts for second-order effects due to the seismic displacements; to account for those due to

displacement components (b) and (c), Eq. (D6.3a) may be generalised as follows:

DM2nd-order [(1 q)dEe/2 dG c2dT]NEd

(D6.3b)

g

g

g

the displacement (eccentricity) dimp due to geometric imperfections, according to clause 5.2

in EN 1992-2 (CEN, 2005b)

the effect of concrete creep (through the creep coefcient w).

A convenient approximation that captures all three effects above on the basis of the nominal

stiffness method per clause 5.8 of EN 1992-1-1 (CEN, 2004b) is

1w

D6:4

dG d0 dimp 1

n1

where

n NB/NEd

(D6.5a)

with

NB p2(EI )eff/L2o

122

(D6.5b)

denoting the buckling load estimated according to the nominal stiffness method of clause 5.8 of

EN 1992-1-1, using the effective stiffness (EI )eff of the pier section in the seismic design situation

(see Section 5.8.1), and Lo is the effective length of the pier column in the direction considered.

Guidance for the value of Lo is given in Section 4.4.3 of this Guide.

The value of MRd in Eq. (D6.2) should be calculated according to the relevant rules of the

pertinent material Eurocode. It should be based on the design values of material strengths;

that is, the characteristic values, fk , divided by the partial factor gM of the material. Being key

safety elements, the partial factors, gM , are Nationally Determined Parameters, with values

dened in the National Annexes to Eurocode 8. Eurocode 8 itself does not recommend the

values of gM to be used in the seismic design situation: it just notes the options of choosing

either the values gM 1 appropriate for the accidental design situations, or the same values as

for the persistent and transient design situation. This latter option is very convenient, because

the plastic hinge may then be dimensioned for the largest design value of the action effect due

to the persistent and transient or the seismic design situation. With gM 1, the plastic hinge

will have to be dimensioned once for the action effect due to the persistent and transient

design situation and then for that due to the seismic design situation, each time using different

values of gM for the resistance side of Eq. (D6.2).

In piers, Eq. (D6.2) is checked using as MEd the algebraically maximum and minimum value of

each uniaxial moment component from the analysis and as MRd the design resistance for the

concurrent value of axial force, NEd , and the acting moment in the orthogonal direction of the

pier in the seismic design situation. If a separate analysis is carried out for each horizontal

component of the seismic action, X and Y, and the outcomes are combined via Eqs (D5.2),

the verication is also done separately for the moment components from Eq. (D5.2a) and for

those from Eq. (D5.2b). By contrast, Eq. (D5.1) gives only the peak absolute values of the

two moment components for the seismic design situation. These values are not concurrent,

and it is too conservative to take them as such. Statistical approaches have been proposed in

Gupta and Singh (1977) and elaborated and extended in Fardis (2009) for the estimation

of the axial force and orthogonal moment components likely to take place concurrently with

the peak value of each moment component under the simultaneous action of the two or

three independent components of the seismic action.

6.3.2

Capacity design of regions, components or mechanisms for elastic response

Regions outside the exural plastic hinges, and non-ductile mechanisms of force transfer within

or outside the plastic hinges, as well as components for which absolute protection from damage

(e.g. the deck, normally the foundation, seismic links, etc.) is desired under the design seismic

action are dimensioned to remain elastic until and after all potential exural plastic hinges

form in the bridge. This is pursued by overdesigning:

(a) all regions outside exural plastic hinges

(b) the non-ductile structural components or mechanisms of force transfer

(c) all parts that are meant to remain elastic (including the deck and the foundation)

Clause 4.3.3.5.1(2)c

[1]

Clauses 2.3.4(1)

2.3.4(3), 2.3.6.2(2),

5.3(1), 5.6.2(2)a,

5.6.3.6(1), 5.7.2(1),

5.8.2(3), 6.5.2(1),

6.5.2(2), 6.6.2.1(1),

6.6.3.1(3) [2]

relative to the corresponding action effects, Ed , from the linear analysis for the seismic design

situation. Non-ductile structural components in the context of (b) include seismic links, xed

bearings, sockets and anchorages for cables and stays, etc.; for concrete, the non-ductile

mechanism of force transfer is by shear. In bridges of limited ductile behaviour, the overdesign

is limited to case (b) and to the foundation; it is normally accomplished by multiplying the seismic

action effects from the linear analysis by q and carrying out the ULS strength verications with

the increased action effects. In bridges of ductile behaviour, by contrast, capacity design is

employed to prevent the components listed above under (a) to (c) from becoming inelastic. In

capacity design, all potential plastic hinges are presumed to develop overstrength moments,

goMRd. Then, simple analysis is employed to estimate the action effects that develop in the

regions to be protected from inelasticity when this complete plastic mechanism forms.

Normally, equilibrium sufces for this.

6.3.3

Detailing of plastic hinges for ductility

Flexural plastic hinges are detailed to provide the deformation and ductility capacity that is consistent with the demands placed on them by the design of the structure for the chosen q factor.

123

6.4.

Clauses 5.3(3) 5.3(4),

5.3(6) [2]

bridges of ductile behaviour

6.4.1

Overstrength moments of exural plastic hinges

In general, capacity design effects are established separately for seismic action in each one of the

longitudinal and the transverse directions of the bridge, each time in the positive or negative

sense. The design moment resistance, MRd , entering in the overstrength moment,

Mo goMRd , refers to the end section of the plastic hinge, and is calculated assuming that the

concurrent values of axial force, NEd , and of the moment in the orthogonal direction of the

pier column (as these are obtained from the linear analysis for the seismic design situation and

for the considered direction longitudinal or transverse and sense of the seismic action

positive or negative) are acting together with MRd . The overstrength factor, go , is meant to

take into account the uncertainty in material strengths and the hardening of the section

between yielding and ultimate strength. It is a Nationally Determined Parameter, with the

following recommended values:

g

g

go 1.25

for concrete members:

go 1.35

go 1.35[1 2(hk 0.1) ]

2

(D6.6a)

(D6.6b)

with NEd from the linear analysis for the seismic design situation and the considered

direction and sense of the seismic action.

6.4.2

overstrength moments of the exural plastic hinges

Clauses 5.3(1), 5.3(6), Normative Annex G of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 outlines a multistep procedure for the estimation of

G.1(1)G.1(5) [2]

the capacity design effects assuming the complete plastic mechanism forms. First, the overstrength moments, Mo goMRd , of the exural plastic hinges are established. Next is the

calculation at each plastic hinge of the difference between the overstrength moment and the

moment, MG , produced at the end section of the plastic hinge by the non-seismic actions in

the seismic design situation:

DMh goMRd MG

(D6.7)

Bending moments enter this calculation with the signs they have in the seismic design situation

for the considered direction and sense of the seismic action. If, by contrast, goMRd and DMh

are always taken as positive, MG is also positive if it acts on the section in the same sense

as goMRd does. The physical sense of the action of goMRd and DMh should be the same as

that of the rotation of the plastic hinge: for example, at the two ends of a pier column that

is xed against rotation at both the top and bottom, they are such that the pier column is in

counterexure.

For the general case, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires the capacity design effects to be determined

separately for each horizontal direction of the seismic action, and each sense of the inertial forces

in each direction (positive or negative). This is to take into account the effect on the moment

resistance of the plastic hinge sections of (a) the magnitude of the axial force and (b) any

asymmetry in the shape or reinforcement of the section (a rarity in pier columns). The sense of

the seismic action component materially affects the magnitude of the axial force if the pier has

more than one column in the direction of this component (e.g. in twin-blade piers see

Section 4.2.2.2 of this Guide under the longitudinal seismic action).

The next step is the estimation of the change in action effects in the plastic mechanism, DAC ,

when the moments of exural plastic hinges increase from MG to goMRd (i.e. by DMh). Often,

this can be done on the basis of equilibrium alone. In the simple example of Figure 6.1 (a pier

column in counterexure with overstrength moments at its two ends), DAC amounts to an

increase from a linear moment diagram up the column to another linear diagram and from

one constant value of shear force to another. In the nal step, the action effect increments,

124

Figure 6.1. Capacity design moments in a pier column forming plastic hinges at the top (index t) and

bottom (index b). Dashed line: moments ME from the analysis for the seismic design situation. Solid line:

capacity design moments, MC, with a cut-off near each end at the design moment resistance, MRd, as

controlled by the reinforcement of the end section and the axial load from the analysis for the seismic

design situation

M E,t

MRd,t

Mo,t = 0M Rd,t

Deck

Plastic hinge

MC

Pier

Plastic hinge

Lh

Mo,b = 0M Rd,b

M Rd,b

M E,b

DAC , are superimposed on the effects of the non-seismic actions in the seismic design situation,

AG . The outcome of the superposition is the capacity design effects:

AC AG DAC AG qAE

(D6.8)

where AE denotes the generic effect of the design seismic action from the linear analysis.

Section 8.2.9 of this Guide exemplies the application of the general procedure above to estimate

the capacity design effects in a bridge deck monolithically connected to the piers, for longitudinal

seismic action.

Normally, simplications of the general procedure are employed. Simplication is indeed

encouraged by normative Annex G of Part 2 of Eurocode 8, as long as it respects equilibrium.

A very common simplication entails using equilibrium to estimate the seismic shear

accompanying the increase in the base moment of pier column i from MbG,i to goMbRd,i (by

DMbh,i) and of its top moment from MtG,i to goMtRd,i (by DMth,i) where the index t is used for

the top, and b for the bottom. If the top is supporting the deck through a hinge, or if we are

dealing with the transverse direction, then DMth,i 0. Capacity design gives for the seismic

shear of pier column i

DVC;i

b

t

DMh;i

DMh;i

qVE;i

Hi

Clauses G.2(1),

G.2(2) [2]

D6:9

which is superimposed on the shear due to gravity and other permanent actions in the seismic

design situation, VG , to give the total capacity design shear in pier column i:

VC,i VG DVC,i

(D6.10)

VE,i in Eq. (D6.9) is the shear of pier column i from the linear analysis under the design seismic

action alone.

Another simplication is to neglect the moments and shears in pier column i due to gravity and

other permanent actions: MG 0, VG 0. With this usually good approximation, the

capacity design shears are the same, no matter the sense of the seismic action and this distinction between positive or negative is no longer necessary.

By far the most important simplication is to assume that the capacity design effects are

proportional to the total shear force in all pier columns of the bridge, despite the departure

125

from linearity that marks the development of the plastic mechanism with the gradual formation

of exural plastic hinges. This assumption facilitates greatly the estimation of the capacity design

effects in the deck, in any seismic links and on foundations and abutments, etc., as

P

V

DAC P C;i AE qAE

VE;i

D6:11

where the summations are over all pier columns, AE and VE.i denote the generic effect and the

shear in pier column i, respectively, due to the design seismic action from the linear analysis,

and DAC is the generic capacity design effect, to be superimposed on the generic effect of the

non-seismic actions in the seismic design situation, AG , according to Eq. (D6.8).

The above, as well as the overall framework for the capacity design of bridges, conforms with the

position of Eurocode 8 (both Parts 1 and 2) that capacity design takes place separately in the

longitudinal and transverse directions. In case, however, a single modal response spectrum

analysis is carried out for both simultaneous horizontal seismic action components and (the

more rigorous and convenient) Eq. (D5.1) is employed to estimate the peak values of the

seismic action effect, one cannot associate AE and VE,i in Eq. (D6.11) to a single component:

they encompass the effects of both. In that case, the ratio SVC,i/SVE,i may be computed separately from the shears in the two directions of the bridge; the minimum of the two ratios is used

then in Eq. (D6.11) to amplify all the seismic action effects, AE . Indeed, it is the minimum of the

two ratios that is associated with the earliest development of a full plastic mechanism in the

bridge.

Clauses 5.6.3.1(2),

5.6.3.2(1) [2]

6.4.3

Capacity design moments outside the exural plastic hinges of ductile piers

As depicted schematically in Figure 6.1, the vertical reinforcement of ductile pier columns stays

the same all along the nominal length, Lh , of the plastic hinge. In case the section of the pier

column decreases from the pier base upwards, the moment resistance of the pier column,

MRd , may also decrease a little as we go up within the nominal length of the plastic hinge (an

additional reduction may be due to a reduction in the axial force, NEd , from the pier base

upwards). Outside that length, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 allows the termination of some vertical

bars according to the linear diagram of capacity design moments, MC , which connects the overstrength moments, goMbRd,i and goMtRd,i at the two end sections of the pier column. This diagram

provides a signicant margin for any increase in the pier moments due to higher modes that

reect the distributed mass of the piers, even when the analysis ignores this mass and such

modes. Note, however, that, in practice, part of the vertical reinforcement is terminated

between the two ends of only fairly tall piers.

6.4.4

Clauses 5.6.3.5.1(1),

5.6.3.5.2(1),

5.6.3.5.2(2) [2]

Capacity design shear in a joint between a ductile pier column and the deck

or a foundation element next to a column plastic hinge

High shear stresses in the core of the joint between a pier column and its foundation element

(spread footing or pile cap) accompany the transfer of the bending moment at the base of the

column to the foundation. High shear develops also in the joint region between the deck and

the top of the column, if the pier column is monolithically connected there to the deck. The

joint may fail under these stresses, and its failure will be brittle. So, if the bridge is designed

for ductile behaviour, the shear stresses in such joints are determined via capacity design, for

the worst possible condition: when a plastic hinge has formed at the end section of the pier

column and has developed its overstrength moment, Mo goMRd , established according to

Section 6.4.1.

In the following, the pier column is indexed by c. The horizontal component monolithically

connected to it whether a deck or a foundation element is called, for simplicity, beam

and indexed by b.

Let us denote by xz the vertical plane within which bending of the pier column takes place (see

Figure 6.2). A nominal shear stress is calculated as the average within the joint core; it has the

same value no matter whether it is parallel to the horizontal axis x and acts on a horizontal

plane normal to the vertical axis z (tzx , denoted for simplicity vx) or is parallel to the vertical

axis z and acts on a vertical plane normal to the horizontal axis x (txz , denoted for simplicity

126

Figure 6.2. Forces on a joint between a pier column (c) and the deck (b) above a column plastic

hinge. (Turn the gure upside down for a joint with a foundation element.)

Vjz

z

y

x

Njz

Vb2c

Plastic hinge

Njx

Vb1c

zb

hb

0FtRc

0MRdc

zc

hc

vz). vx is obtained by smearing a joint horizontal shear force Vjx over the horizontal crosssectional area of the joint, while vz results from smearing a vertical shear force Vjz over its

vertical cross-sectional area bjzb , normal to the plane of bending of the column:

vx

Vjx

bj z c

vz

Vjz

bj z b

vx vz ; vj

D6:12

If the pier column has a depth hc in the plane of bending and width bc orthogonal to it (for a

circular column of diameter Dc , conventionally bc hc 0.9Dc), the effective width of the

joint at right angles to the plane of bending of the pier column is

bj bc 0.5hc

b j bw

(D6.13)

where bw is the physically available width of the deck or the foundation element (the beam)

parallel to bc . The depth dimensions of the horizontal or vertical cross-sectional area of the

joint in Eq. (D6.12) are the internal lever arms of the column and the beam end sections, zc

and zb , respectively (see Figure 6.2). For convenience, zc and zb may be taken as 90% of

corresponding effective section depths:

zc 0.9dc

zb 0.9db

(D6.14)

The nominal shear stress vj of Eq. (D6.12) is normally determined from that of the shear forces,

Vjx , Vjz , which is in the direction of the yielding component. Unlike buildings, where the yielding

component is normally the beam(s), in bridges it is the column. Then, capacity design gives for

the design vertical shear of the joint, Vjz ,

Vjz goFtd,c Vb1C goMRd,c/zc Vb1C

(D6.15)

where Ftd,c is the tension force resultant in the column section corresponding to the design

exural resistance MRd,c , go is the overstrength factor from Section 6.4.1 and Vb1C is the shear

force of the beam adjacent to the tensile face of the column (taken as positive if acting in the

sense shown in Figure 6.2). The design horizontal shear of the joint Vjx may then be calculated

from Eq. (D6.12) as Vjx Vjzzc/zb .

The value of Vb1C should correspond to the capacity design effects of the plastic hinge, according

to the general procedure in Section 6.4.2. Its magnitude is small compared with the rst term in

Eq. (D6.15), and is normally estimated on a case-by-case basis. For example:

1

to the deck: Vb1C goMRd,c/Ld Vb1G/nc (normally negative), where Ld is the average

span length on either side of the pier and Vb1G is the total deck shear due to quasipermanent loads at the face of the pier.

127

a single-column pier in the transverse direction

any pier column in the longitudinal direction:

Vb1C 0, assuming that the weight of the uplifting part of the footing beyond the column

compensates for any soil pressures on its underside.

At the connection of a pile cap with

a single-column pier in the transverse direction

any pier column in the longitudinal direction:

Vb1C goMRd,c/zpc 0.5NEd , with NEd denoting the axial force of the pier column in the

seismic design situation and

zpc (Bp/3)np/(np 1) if np is odd or

zpc (Bp/3)(np 1)/np if it is even,

where Bp is the distance between the extreme piles of the group in the vertical plane of

bending of the column and np is the number of piles in each row of piles parallel to that

vertical plane.

In the transverse direction, at a monolithic connection of a multi-column pier to the deck:

Vb1C 0, as the most adverse joint is that of the column with the largest value of MRd,c

(i.e. of the outer one where the seismic action induces a compressive axial force in the

pier); then, Vb1C arises from the width of the deck beyond the outer column, and is very

small.

In the transverse direction, at the connection of a multi-column pier to a spread footing:

the joint below every single column may have to be considered, from the one nearest the

uplifting edge of the footing, where the value of MRd,c is the lowest (because the seismic

action induces a tensile axial force) but Vb1C 0 with the same reasoning as in case 2

above, to the column closest to the down-going edge, where MRd,c is the largest (owing to

the compressive seismic axial force) but Vb1C may be large; the values of Vb1C next to that

column or any intermediate one may be determined from force equilibrium under the axial

forces in the columns in the seismic design situation, NEd , and the soil pressures on the

underside of the footing when the overstrength moments, goMRd,c , develop at the base of

the columns (the soil pressures taken with a linear distribution across the footing).

In the transverse direction, at the connection of a multi-column pier to a pile cap: the joint

below every column should be considered, from the column nearest to the uplifting edge,

where the tensile seismic axial force reduces the value of MRd,c but Vb1C is low or about

zero, to the opposite one where the compressive seismic axial force increases MRd,c but

Vb1C may be large; the values of Vb1C next to every column may be estimated from force

equilibrium under the axial forces in the columns in the seismic design situation, NEd , and

the pile reactions when the overstrength moments, goMRd,c , develop at the base of the

columns.

6.4.5

Clauses 5.3(7),

5.3(8) [2]

the deck on sliding or elastomeric bearings

In a ductile bridge, where certain piers are rigidly connected to the deck (with monolithic

connection, xed bearings or seismic links without slack or clearance), some other piers or the

abutments may support the deck on sliding or elastomeric bearings. The shears and moments

in these piers or abutments are calculated assuming that the bearings develop the following

capacities:

g

For sliding bearings: a horizontal force of gofRdf , where Rdf is the maximum design

friction force, equal to the maximum friction coefcient multiplied by the maximum

vertical reaction in the seismic design situation and gof 1.30.

For elastomeric bearings: a horizontal force equal to gof 1.30 multiplied by the

horizontal stiffness of the bearing, GbAb/tq , multiplied by the maximum bearing

deformation corresponding to the total design displacement of the deck, dEd , at the

horizontal level where it is seated on the bearing. The value of dEd is estimated from

Eq. (D6.36), according to point 3 in Section 6.8.1.2.

Coefcient gof with a value of 1.30 is meant to account for potential hardening of the bearing due

to ageing, etc., from its installation (possibly as a replacement) until the seismic event.

128

6.5.

or limited ductile behaviour

As mentioned in Section 6.1, Table 6.1 lists the rules for the verication of strength and the

capacity design of the deck and the piers, as well as the rules for the detailing of plastic hinges

for ductility. In addition, the detailing rules per Eurocode 2, applying outside the plastic hinge

region, are given. Supplemented with a long list of footnotes, the table is almost a standalone

design aid.

Most of the detailing rules for Eurocode 8 listed in Table 6.1 are prescriptive and unlike the

important concept of capacity design are not given much attention in the text of the present

chapter.

6.6.

columns and the deck or a foundation element

6.6.1

Stress conditions in the joint

The joint core is considered to be in a triaxial stress state, with shear stresses tzx txz ; vj given

by Eq. (D6.12)(D6.15) and normal stresses sx ; nx , sy ; ny , sz ; nz equal to

nx

Njx

bj hb

ny

Njy

hb hc

nz

Njz

bj hc

Clauses 5.6.3.5.2(3),

5.6.3.5.2(4) [2]

D6:16

Njx and Njy are normal forces in the plane of the horizontal element (deck or foundation element)

into which the pier column frames; they are within and at right angles, respectively, to the plane

of bending of the pier column (see Figure 6.2 for the convention of the axes). They derive from

any prestressing of the horizontal element that may be effective in the joint core (after losses),

plus any other in-plane normal forces in the seismic design situation (the average of analysis

results at opposite vertical faces of the column). The vertical normal force at the centre of the

joint is

Njz

bc

N

2bj Gc

D6:17

where NGc is the axial force in the column due to the quasi-permanent actions in the seismic

design situation; the factor 2 in the denominator reects the reduction in the normal stresses

due to NGc from NGc/(hcbc) at the end section of the column to zero at the opposite face of

the horizontal element. All stresses and forces in Eqs (D6.16) and (D6.17) are taken as

positive for compression.

6.6.2

Verication of the integrity of the joint

The major threat to the joint comes from crushing of its core by diagonal compression. Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 considers that the diagonal strut running through the joint core within the vertical

plane xz will fail in compression upon exceedance of the compressive strength of concrete, as

this is reduced due to tensile strains at right angles to the strut and may be enhanced by the

conning effect of any compressive stress ny normal to the xz plane and any closed reinforcement

transverse to this plane. In the classical variable strut inclination model of Eurocode 2 for

concrete members with shear reinforcement, diagonal compression failure should be checked

against a shear resistance normalised to the cross-sectional dimensions of the web of

VRd;max

fck MPa

0:5 0:6 1

D6:18

fcd sin 2u

bw z

250

Clauses 5.6.3.5.3(2),

5.6.3.5.3(3) [2]

where u is the strut inclination, and the brackets and the factor 0.6 are for the reduction of the

uniaxial compressive strength of concrete due to tensile strains at right angles to the strut. The

maximum resistance is for u 458. So, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 adopts the following simple verication criterion against diagonal compression failure of the joint:

f MPa

vj 0:3 1 ck

ac fcd

250

D6:19

129

where vj is the average shear stress in the joint from Eqs (D6.12)(D6.15), while

(D6.20)

accounts conservatively for the increase in the compressive strength of the diagonal strut

resulting from any conning pressure (ny , from Eq. (D6.16)) and/or reinforcement (ry) in the

transverse direction y; ry Asy/(hchb) is the reinforcement ratio of any closed stirrups at right

angles to the vertical plane xz of the joint, taken to work with a reduced stress,

fsd 300 MPa, in order to limit the width of cracks parallel to the xz plane. The outcome of

Eq. (D6.19) is on the safe side compared with the upper bound of joint shear strength demonstrated by the available cyclic tests on unconned beamcolumn joints (see Fardis, 2009).

6.6.3

Clause 5.6.3.5.3(3) [2] For the purposes of calculating the joint reinforcement, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 adopts for the joint

core the variable strut inclination model of Eurocode 2, which also underlies Eqs (D6.18) and

(D6.19). It again uses the value u 458 for the strut inclination. This gives for the joint core

the following total amounts of vertical (z) and horizontal (x) reinforcement in the vertical

plane of column bending:

Asx (Vjx Njx)/fyd ,

(D6.21a)

or, in terms of steel ratios, normalised to the same joint core areas as the corresponding forces,

6.6.4

(D6.21b)

Clause 5.6.3.5.3(4) [2] Yielding of the joint reinforcement is a ductile failure mode. By contrast, diagonal concrete

crushing, if vj exceeds the limit value of Eq. (D6.19), is brittle. If one places more reinforcement

than required by Eqs (D6.21), the shear stress, vj , that may develop in the joint core may increase

to the limit of Eq. (D6.19), inviting diagonal concrete crushing. For this reason, Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 controls the amount of horizontal joint reinforcement, so that vj from Eq. (D6.19)

is not reached, even when the benecial effects of transverse compression and connement are

discounted:

f MPa fcd

where rmax 0:3 1 ck

fyd

250

D6:22

Clauses 5.6.3.5.3(1),

5.6.3.5.3(6) [2]

The joint will rst crack when the principal tensile stress, sI , under the system of normal stresses,

sx ; nx , sy ; ny , sz ; nz from Eqs (D6.16) and shear stresses tzx txz ; vj from Eqs (D6.12)

(D6.15), exceeds the (design value of ) tensile strength, fctd . Setting sI equal to fctd gives the

joint shear stress at diagonal cracking of the joint according to Part 2 of Eurocode 8:

vj;cr

s

nx

nz

1

fctd

1

1:5fctd

fctd

fctd

D6:23

where fctd fctk0,05/gc 0.7fctm/gc . Theoretically, the joint may rely on the tensile strength of

concrete if vj from Eqs (D6.12)(D6.15) is less than the joint cracking stress, vj,cr . However, in

ULS verications we normally do not rely on the tensile strength of concrete, placing instead

minimum reinforcement that can provide alone the tensile stresses released in case cracking

occurs for any reason. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 derives on the basis of Eqs (D6.21b) and (D6.23)

discounting the benecial effects of any transverse compression the minimum joint reinforcement ratio as

rx ; Asx/(bjhb) rmin

ry ; Asy/(hbhc) rmin

where

rmin fctd/fyd

(D6.24)

The minimum and maximum reinforcement ratios apply in both horizontal directions, even when

framing action with the column takes place only in one of them.

130

6.6.5

Detailing of the vertical reinforcement at joints

The vertical bars of the pier column should be fully anchored into the horizontal element,

extending over its full depth even when it is not necessary for their anchorage. In addition,

excepting those not serving as extreme tension reinforcement in any of the two horizontal

directions of bending, they should have a standard 908 hook inwards or a head at the end (see

Figure 6.3(a)).

Clauses 5.6.3.5.4(1),

5.6.3.5.4(2),

5.6.3.5.4(4)

5.6.3.5.4(6) [2]

The vertical reinforcement of the joint should be in the form of stirrups clamping inwards the

bars of the horizontal element at its outer (far) face. At least 50% of them should be fully

closed stirrups, engaging both the top and the bottom bars of the horizontal element; the rest

may be U bars, engaging the bars only at the outer (far) face, but not at the face where the

pier column frames into (see Figure 6.3(a)).

To reduce the congestion of reinforcement in the central part of the joint in plan, the density of

vertical stirrups may be reduced there, but not below the minimum ratio of Eqs (D6.24). The

balance, DAsz , may be placed outside the central area in plan but next to it. If framing action

of the column with the beam takes place in the vertical plane xz, DAsz may be placed within

the applicable joint width bj in the y direction and not beyond 0.5hb from each column face

along the x direction (Figure 6.3(b)). If there is framing action within the vertical plane yz as

well, this operation takes place separately in that direction, with the values of DAsz and bj now

applicable (Figure 6.3(c)). Vertical stirrup legs in the overlapping areas count for both directions

of framing action.

Figure 6.3. Alternative arrangement of joint reinforcement: (a) vertical section within the plane xz;

(b) joint plan view, if plastic hinges form only in the x direction; (c) joint plan view if plastic hinges form in

the x and y directions

#50%

Aszb

hb

Beam-column

interface

Asx

hb /2

hc

hb /2

(a)

Stirrups in common areas

count in both directions

hb /2

hb /2

bj

hb /2

x

Areas for

placing Aszb

(b)

hb /2

(c)

131

Clauses 5.6.3.5.4(1),

5.6.3.5.4(3),

5.6.3.5.4(5),

5.6.3.5.4(7) [2]

6.6.6

Detailing of joint horizontal reinforcement

Up to 50% of the top and bottom bars in the horizontal element may count towards the required

horizontal joint reinforcement area, Asx , provided they are continuous through the joint or fully

anchored beyond it. The rest of Asx should consist of stirrups or hoops (preferably of the same

shape and diameter as those in the column plastic hinge area) enclosing the column vertical

reinforcement as well as the ends of beam horizontal bars anchored into the joint.

To reduce the congestion of reinforcement in the central part of the joint in elevation, the total

area of horizontal bars may be reduced there by DAsx DAsz , but not below the minimum ratio

of Eqs (D6.24). The balance, DAsx, should then be placed at the top and bottom faces of the horizontal element over and beyond its reinforcement for the verication in exure under capacity

design effects. The additional bars should be placed within the joint width bj and be adequately

anchored in order to be fully effective at a distance hb from the column face (Figure 6.3(a)).

6.7.

Clause 4.2.4.4(2) [2]

nonlinear analysis

6.7.1

Format of verications

If the analysis for the seismic design situation is nonlinear, regions of the bridge intended to have

elastic behaviour (notably the deck, parts of the piers outside the exural plastic hinges, shear

keys and other critical connections, etc.) are veried to remain in the elastic range. In principle,

such verication may take place in terms of either forces or deformations. It is consistent with the

verications for linear analysis, if it is in terms of forces. Then, exure with or without axial load

may be veried as for linear analysis, with material partial factors applied on the resistance side.

Components intended to stay elastic (including the foundation and seismic links) and brittle

modes of force transfer and behaviour in ductile components (notably shear in piers rigidly

connected to the deck), are also veried in terms of forces. Their design resistances are

computed as for linear analysis; that is, with partial factors and, in addition, divided by the

Nationally Determined Parameter safety factor, gBd1 , which divides the shear resistance in

bridges with limited ductile behaviour and has a recommended value gBd1 1.25 (see

Table 6.1). Alternatively, however, the value gBd 1.0 may be applied if capacity design

effects are used, computed with the minimum value of the overstrength factor recommended in

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (go 1.35 or 1.25 for concrete or steel piers, respectively, see Section 6.4.1).

Flexural plastic hinges in the piers are veried in terms of deformations, namely plastic hinge

rotations, u pl. As pointed out in informative Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8, the plastic part

of a hinge rotation at a pier end may be taken as equal to the plastic part of the chord

rotation at that end. Similar to all verications for nonlinear analysis (including those of the

two paragraphs above), the demand is the value from the nonlinear analysis for the seismic

design situation (in this case the value of the plastic hinge rotation computed, u pl

E ). The

?

question is, then, how much is the corresponding design capacity, u pl

Rd

6.7.2

Plastic hinge rotation capacity

pl

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 is not very specic regarding u pl

Rd . As a design value, u Rd should be obtained

pl

by dividing the expected ultimate value, u um , by a safety factor, gR,pl , that reects the natural

variability of materials and components, model uncertainty and/or experimental scatter. Part

2 of Eurocode 8 mentions as possible sources for u pl

um relevant test results or calculation from

ultimate curvatures. In a non-binding note it mentions also informative Annex E as a source

of information for u pl

um and gR,pl .

Annex E [2]

In the absence of specic justication based on actual data, informative Annex E is content with

the value gR,pl 1.40. However, gR,pl is meant to also reect model uncertainty; so its value

should depend on the model used for the calculation of u pl

um .

The model presented in informative Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 is the classic point hinge

model, based on curvatures, f, and on the plastic hinge length, Lpl:

Lpl

Ls

uu fy fu fy Lpl 1

D6:25

3

2Ls

132

where uu is the ultimate chord rotation and Ls the shear span (moment-to-shear ratio) at the end

of the member. The rst term on the right-hand-side of Eq. (D6.25) is the elastic part of uu; the

second is the plastic part, upl

u.

Section analysis is the basis for the calculation of the yield curvature, fy , and of the ultimate

curvature, fu . Both should be determined for the value of the section axial load from the

nonlinear analysis under the seismic design situation. Informative Annex E of Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 refers to the construction of a full momentcurvature curve for this value of the

axial load until the value of fu is reached and to an elasticperfectly plastic approximation of

this curve that maintains the same plastic deformation energy (i.e. the same area under the

curve) from rst yielding of the reinforcement up to fu (see Figure 5.13(a)). The curvature at the

corner of this elasticperfectly plastic curve may be taken as fy . The value of fu is dened on

the basis of the failure criteria of the section, and is independent of the construction of the full

momentcurvature curve (in fact, the value of fu denes a priori the end point of the curve),

while the values of uu and upl

u are not very sensitive to the exact value of fy . Therefore, there is

little point in constructing the full momentcurvature curve a sensitive and often onerous undertaking just for the sake of the value of fy . This is underlined further by Part 2 of Eurocode 8,

which itself suggests (in informative Annex C) the values for fy given by Eqs (D5.57) and (5.58)

in Section 5.8.2. The same expressions may well be used for the purposes of Eq. (D6.25).

Informative Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 proposes using in the section analysis for the

calculation of fu an elasticlinearly strain-hardening stressstrain (s1) law for the reinforcing

steel: a mean yield stress higher by 15% than fyk; a mean tensile strength, ftm , higher by 20%

than the characteristic value, ftk; and the strain at ftm equal to the characteristic strain value at

maximum stress, 1uk . If the values of ftk and 1uk of the specic reinforcing steel used are

unknown, they may be taken as equal to the minimum values specied in Annex C of

Eurocode 2 for the steel class used.

As far as the s1 law of concrete is concerned, informative Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8

proposes the one in Mander et al. (1988), with an ultimate strain of 0.35% for unconned

concrete. The ultimate strength of conned concrete in Mander et al. (1988) is adopted, with a

value according to Elwi and Murray (1979) of

fc fc 1 K

D6:26

where

K 2:254

r

p

2p

1 7:94 1

fc

fc

D6:27

1co 1co(1 5K )

(D6.28)

where 1co 0.002 is the strain at the ultimate strength of unconned concrete, fc . The conning

pressure in Eq. (D6.27) is

D6:29

p 0:5arw fyw

where a is the connement effectiveness factor (Mander et al., 1988):

g

a1

s

2Dc

D6:30a

s

a 1

2Dc

2

D6:30b

133

for vertical bars laterally restrained at distances bi (i indexes the bars) along a rectangular

perimeter tie with sides bcx , bcy and spacing s,

P 2 !

bi =6

s

s

a 1

D6:30c

1

1

2bcx

2bcy

bcx bcy

fyw is the yield stress and rw is the volumetric ratio of conning reinforcement with respect to the

conned core to the centreline of the conning hoop, spiral or perimeter tie:

g

for a spiral or circular hoops of cross-sectional area Asp , pitch s and diameter Dc ,

rw

g

4Asp

sDc

D6:31a

for rectangular ties with total cross-sectional areas Aswx , Aswy at right angles to sides bcx,

bcy of the concrete core, respectively, and spacing s,

s

Asx Asy

rw 2

sbcx sbcy

D6:31b

Informative Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 adopts the ultimate strain of conned concrete in

Paulay and Priestley (1992):

1cu 0:004 2:81su;w

p

fc

D6:32

with p from Eqs (D6.29)(D6.31), f c from Eqs (D6.26) and (D6.27) and 1su,w the strain at the

tensile strength of the conning reinforcement.

For values of fy and fu established as above, informative Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8

proposes the following empirical expression for Lpl , in terms of the shear span, Ls , the

characteristic yield stress of the vertical bars in MPa, fyk (not the mean, fym 1.15fyk , used in

the calculation of fy and fu) and their diameter, dbL:

Lpl 0.1Ls 0.015fykdbL

(D6.33)

If Ls/d , 3 (where d is the effective depth of the pier section), informative Annex E of Part 2 of

p

Eurocode 8 multiplies the second term of the right-hand-side of Eq. (D6.25) by (Ls/3d). The

outcome is the nal expected value of u pl

u , which is further divided by gR,pl 1.40, to yield a

design plastic rotation capacity, u pl

d.

Figure 6.4 compares the predictions of the above procedure (but without dividing u pl

u by

gR,pl 1.40) with the experimental values of the ultimate total chord rotation, uu , in a large

number of cyclic tests to exural failure. The comparison is shown separately for (a) compact rectangular sections (constituting the vast majority of the experimental data), (b) long rectangular

(wall-like) sections, (c) hollow rectangular or other anged sections and (d) circular piers. With

the exception of the very low (safe side) predictions for circular piers, the average agreement is

good (overall median experimental-to-predicted ratio of 1.045, including the circular piers),

but the scatter of test results about the predictions is high (the overall coefcient of variation

of the experimental-to-predicted ratio is 66.5%).

Figures 6.5(a) to 6.5(c) compare the same data of Figures 6.4(a) to 6.4(c) with the predictions of

the expressions given in Part 3 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005c) and Biskinis and Fardis (2010) for

(a) beam/column rectangular sections, (b) rectangular walls sections and (c) non-rectangular

walls or other anged sections. Figure 6.5(d) compares the same data as those in Figure 6.4(d)

with the predictions of the expressions proposed in Biskinis and Fardis (2012) specically

for circular piers. There are small differences between the expressions used in each of

Figures 6.5(a) to 6.5(c); by contrast, the difference between the expression underlying

Figure 6.5(d) and those used for Figures 6.5(a) to 6.5(c) is fundamental. Owing to these

134

Figure 6.4. Experimental cyclic ultimate chord rotation versus predictions of approach in informative

Annex E of Part 2 of Eurocode 8: (a) compact rectangular sections, (b) rectangular walls; (c) hollow or

anged rectangular members; (d) circular piers

25

Median:

u,exp = 0.99u,pred

15

10

Median:

u,exp = 1.35u,pred

u,exp: %

u,exp: %

20

10

15

u,pred: %

20

25

2

3

u,pred: %

(a)

(b)

16

14

Median:

u,exp = 2.53u,pred

12

u,exp: %

u,exp: %

10

8

6

4

Median:

u,exp = 1.21u,pred

4

u,pred: %

(c)

2

6

8 10

u,pred: %

12

14

16

(d)

differences, the agreement is more balanced and good for circular piers as well. The overall

median of the experimental-to-predicted ratio is 1.00. The scatter, although signicant, is

much less than in Figures 6.4(a) to 6.4(d) (the overall coefcient of variation of the experimental-to-predicted ratio is 36.5%).

6.8.

6.8.1

Minimum overlap length

6.8.1.1 General

A deck supported on a pier or abutment via a horizontally movable device (slider, elastomeric

bearing or special isolation device) should be prevented from dropping off by means of a

minimum horizontal overlapping of the underdeck and the top of the supporting abutment or

pier in any direction along which relative displacement between the two is physically possible.

The same applies at a movement joint separating the deck between adjacent piers or a pier

and an abutment, where one part of the span is vertically supported on the other (normally

the shorter on the longer of the two).

6.8.1.2 Minimum overlap length at an abutment

According to Part 2 of Eurocode 8, the minimum overlapping length of the end of the deck

(Figure 6.6) seated on an abutment is

min lov lm deg des

Clauses 2.3.6.2(1),

2.3.6.2(3), 6.6.4(1),

6.6.4(2) [2]

Clauses 6.6.4(1)

6.6.4(3), 2.3.6.3(2),

3.3(6) [2]

(D6.34)

135

Figure 6.5. Experimental cyclic ultimate chord rotation versus predictions of expressions in Biskinis and

Fardis (2012) for circular piers or in informative Annex A of Part 3 of Eurocode 8-Part 3 or Biskinis and

Fardis (2010) for other section types: (a) compact rectangular sections; (b) rectangular walls; (c) hollow or

anged rectangular members; (d) circular piers

4

Median:

u,exp = 0.99u,pred

12.5

3

u,exp: %

10

u,exp: %

3.5

7.5

2.5

2

1.5

1

2.5

0.5

0

2.5

7.5

u,pred: %

10

12.5

2

u,pred: %

(a)

(b)

16

Median: u,exp = u,pred

14

Median:

u,exp = 1.035u,pred

12

5

u,exp: %

u,exp: %

10

4

3

8

6

1

0

2

0

3

4

u,pred: %

6

8

10

u,pred: %

(c)

12

14

16

(d)

where:

lm is the maximum of 0.4 m and the size of the bearing needed to support the vertical

reaction.

Leff

2 deg 2dg min 1;

(D6.35)

Lg

1

is the (static) relative displacement of the abutment and the (other support) of the deck

due to the spatially varying seismic ground displacement. dg in Eq. (D6.35) is the design

displacement of the ground from Eq. (D3.11) in Section 3.1.2.7 of this Guide. Leff is the

Figure 6.6. Minimum overlap length for seating of the deck on an abutment

lov

136

distance from the joint to the nearest point where the deck is considered not to move

horizontally with respect to the abutment in question: if a continuous deck is connected

with xity (including via seismic links or shock transmission units without force limiting

function) to more than one supports along its length, Leff is the distance to the centre of

this group of supports (including the special case of just one xed point all along this

length of deck); if it is supported everywhere on horizontally exible bearings, Leff is

measured to the centre of this group of bearings. Lg is the horizontal distance beyond

which the ground motion may be considered as fully uncorrelated (see Table 3.4 in this

Guide). If the bridge is less than 5 km from a known seismically active fault that can

produce an earthquake of magnitude M of at least 6.5, and unless a site-specic

seismological investigation is available, deg is taken as double that from Eq. (D6.35).

3 des is equal to the slack of any seismic links through which the deck may be connected to

piers or to an abutment, plus the total design displacement of the deck at the horizontal

level where it is seated on the abutment, due to the deformation of the structure in the

seismic design situation dEd:

dEd dE dG c2dT

(D6.36)

where dE is the design seismic displacement from Eq. (D5.48) in Section 5.9 (including any

effects of a torsional response about a vertical axis according to Section 5.7 of this Guide);

dG is the long-term displacement due to the permanent actions (including, for concrete

decks, prestressing after losses, shrinkage and creep); dT is the displacement due to the

design thermal actions; and c2 0.5 is the combination factor of thermal actions in the

seismic design situation in Table A2.1, A2.2 or A2.3 of EN 1990:2002.

The value of dEd at the horizontal level where the deck is seated on the abutment (i.e. at

the underdeck) is equal to the displacement at the level of the deck centroidal axis plus the

rotation of the deck end section multiplied by its centroidal distance from the underdeck.

For dE and dT this displacement and rotation should be taken with signs such that the

underdeck pulls away from the abutment (there is no choice for dG , which should be

calculated on the basis of the long-term value of any concrete creep, shrinkage and

prestressing). The design thermal actions considered for dT are the combination of (CEN,

2003a):

(a) The maximum contraction due to the difference, DTN,con , of the minimum uniform

bridge temperature component, Te,min , from the initial temperature, T0 , at the time the

deck is seated on the support. If T0 is not predictable, it is taken as the mean daytime

temperature during the foreseen construction period. Te,min is derived from the

characteristic value of the minimum annual shade air temperature, Tmin , at the site

according to the National Annex to EN 1991-1-5:2003 or as recommended by EN 19911-5:2003 itself in Figure 6.1 of EN 1991-1-5:2003. Tmin in turn is obtained from the

national isotherm maps at sea level in the National Annex to EN 1991-1-5:2003 and

adjusted for altitude and local conditions (e.g. frost pockets), for instance as

recommended in Annex A of EN 1991-1-5:2003.

(b) The vertical temperature difference component, DTM,heat , when the top surface of the

deck is hotter than the bottom one. Two alternative options are given in clauses 6.1.4.1

and 6.1.4.2 of EN 1991-1-5:2003 for its National Annex to choose one for the

determination of DTM,heat . Tables or gures with recommended values are also given

there.

The effects of the uniform and the temperature difference components are superimposed

linearly, but not in full. In symbolic terms, the combination recommended in EN 1991-15:2003 is the most adverse of

DTM,heat 0.35DTN,con ,

or

0.75DTM,heat DTN,con

(D6.37)

Albeit indirectly, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 makes reference for the above to the longitudinal direction

of the bridge, which is indeed the most critical for unseating. Regarding the transverse direction,

on the supply side the underdeck is usually quite wide; as far as the demand is concerned (i.e. the

right-hand-side of Eq. (D6.36)), dG and dT are normally zero, while the value of dE at the level of

the underdeck does not include a contribution from the rotation of the end section of the deck.

With these qualications, overlapping in the transverse direction may need to be checked only

137

under the narrow bottom ange of a prefabricated girder. In such a case, the torsional seismic

response about a vertical axis may have a non-negligible effect on the transverse displacement

of the end of the outer girder.

Implicit in Section 6.8.1.2 is the assumption that the top of the abutment does not move. This

claim cannot be made for the top of an intermediate pier that supports the end of a deck

girder on bearings. If dEp denotes the design seismic displacement given by Eq. (D5.48) for the

top of the pier, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 makes the conservative assumption that dEp takes place

at the same time as the design seismic displacement of the end of the girder, dE, and out of

phase; so, it nds the minimum required overlapping of the end of the girder and the pier top

by adding dEp to the right-hand side of Eq. (D6.34). This applies, of course, both in the longitudinal and in the transverse directions.

At an intermediate movement joint in the deck within the span between adjacent piers or between

a pier and an abutment, the upper (supported) end of the deck on one side of the joint should

overlap the lower and supporting one by the square root of the sum of the squares of the

values obtained from Eq. (D6.34) for each one of these two deck ends. Note that such joints

are not very common in Europe. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires connection between the two

parts of the deck across the joint through seismic links (see Section 6.9).

6.8.1.4 Overlap lengths in skewed or curved bridges

Particular caution is needed if the axis of the deck is not at right angles to the line of support at

the abutments (skewed bridges), or if the two abutments are not parallel but at an angle to each

other.

If the bridge has a skew angle w . 0 (see Figure 5.12), the overlap length should be checked and

provided in the direction where the seat is narrowest; that is, at right angles to the edge of the deck

rather than in the longitudinal direction of the bridge. To this end, there are a few differences in

the way Eq. (D6.34) is elaborated:

lm 0.4 m still, but if there are bearings that are rectangular in plan, with sides bL and bT

in the longitudinal and the transverse directions, respectively, then also

lm bL cos w bT sin w.

2 If the deck is connected to the abutment or the pier via seismic links having slack sL and

sT in the longitudinal and the transverse directions, respectively, the contribution of the

slack to des is sL cos w sT sin w.

3 If the displacements of the end of the deck due to permanent and quasi-permanent actions

are dG,L and dG,T in the longitudinal and the transverse directions, respectively, and the

corresponding values due to thermal actions are dT,L and dT,T (dG,T 0, dT,T 0), these

displacements enter into dEd in Eq. (D6.36) as dG dG,L cos w dG,T sin w dG,L cos w,

and dT dT,L cos w dT,T sin w dT,L cos w.

4 The design seismic displacement dE in Eq. (D6.36) is the peak value from Eq. (D5.48)

along a local axis at right angles to the edge of the deck; if no such local axis has been

introduced, the design seismic displacements dE,L and dE,T in the longitudinal and the

transverse directions, respectively, are projected onto the normal to the edge of the deck as

dE,L cos w and dE,T sin w, and combined to a single value through Eqs (D5.1) or (5.2).

1

Recall from Section 5.7.1 of this Guide the effects of twisting in skew bridges and the special

provisions in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for their accidental eccentricities. If B and L are the width

and the length parallel to the sides in plan (see Figure 5.12), a twisting angle u produces at the

acute angle a displacement of u(B cos2 w L sin w)/2 normal to the edge of the deck. More

important, as pointed out in Section 5.7.1, if sin w . B/L, any twisting of the deck will

increase the joint width all along the width B of the support. To prevent long and narrow

decks with skew sin w . B/L from dropping by uncontrolled twisting, their seating at the

abutments may have to be much wider than what the calculations suggest.

If the axis of the bridge is at right angles to the abutments but is curved and the two abutments

are at an angle w to each other, the deck is again susceptible to dropping due to uncontrolled

138

twisting: if the projection of the outer corner of the deck (on the convex side) onto the line of

support at the other abutment falls outside the width B of the support (i.e. if the radius of

curvature at the axis is R . 0.5B(1 cos w)/(1 cos w), twisting of the deck will increase the

joint width all along B. Regarding the calculation of the overlap length with the help of

Eq. (D6.34), one should note that the abutments in the global longitudinal and transverse

directions are at an angle w/2 to the deck axis and the edge of the deck, respectively. So, it

would be convenient to apply Eqs (D6.34) and (D6.36) with displacement results from the

analysis in a local system of horizontal axes parallel and at right angles to the edge of the deck.

6.8.2

Clearances between the deck and critical or non-critical components

6.8.2.1 Clearance with critical components

Critical or major structural components should be protected from damage due to hard contact or

impact with the deck, by providing a clearance with it that can accommodate the total design

value of their relative displacement in the seismic design situation. The designer chooses which

components are sufciently critical or major to be fully protected from any damage through

this clearance. Apart from that, this clearance is also a means to avoid restraining the deck in

the seismic design situation in a way that introduces uncertainties in the response or complications of the analysis or design. For example, the clearance may be provided longitudinally

between the end of the deck and an abutment backwall that is not sacricial and not meant to

be engaged during the seismic response of the deck. It may also be provided transversely

between the side of the deck and a shear key that is meant to act as a second line of defence

against unseating in a seismic event beyond the design seismic action that may exhaust the

available overlap length or the displacement capacity of the bearings. The clearance does not

apply between the deck and a seismic link (e.g. a shear key) that is meant to be activated in

the seismic design situation. Any slack to be provided there is a design parameter.

Clauses 2.3.6.3(1)

2.3.6.3(4) [2]

The minimum value of the clearance is given by Eq. (D6.36), discounting the effects of the (static)

relative displacement of the component to be protected and the deck due to the spatially varying

seismic ground displacement (deg in Eqs (D6.34) and (D6.35)); dE , dG , c2 and dT are dened as in

Section 6.8.1.2, but only c2 has the same value, c2 0.5, because the way Eq. (D6.36) is applied

in Section 6.8.1.2 does not serve the purposes of the present section. In Section 6.8.1.2, all

displacement components refer to the horizontal level of the bearing; here, they are examined

at the two extreme horizontal levels where the deck and the component to be protected

overlap in the vertical direction the lowest and the highest (and computed as the deck

displacement at its centroidal axis plus the rotation of the deck end section multiplied by the

vertical distance of the centroid from the horizontal level considered). Second, apart from dG ,

which has a single sign and sense, the sense (sign) of all displacement components in Section

6.8.1.2 is taken such that the horizontal gap between the end of the deck and the supporting

component increases. Here, by contrast, the sense is the one that decreases the gap. Most

notable in this respect is the difference in the design thermal actions considered for dT . They

are the combination of:

(a) The maximum extension due to the difference, DTN,ext , of the maximum uniform bridge

temperature component, Te,max , from the initial temperature, T0 , at the time the deck is

erected, with Te,max derived from the characteristic value of the maximum annual shade air

temperature, Tmax , at the site according to the National Annex to EN 1991-1-5:2003 or as

recommended by EN 1991-1-5:2003 itself in Figure 6.1. Tmax is, in turn, read from the

national isotherm maps at sea level in the National Annex to EN 1991-1-5:2003, adjusted

for altitude and local conditions (e.g. as recommended in Annex A of EN 1991-1-5:2003).

(b) The vertical temperature difference component across the deck. For the displacement at

the highest horizontal level where the deck and the component to be protected overlap

vertically, this component is DTM,heat , when the top surface of the deck is hotter than the

bottom one; for the displacement at the lowest horizontal level of vertical overlapping, it is

DTM,cool when the deck top is cooler than its bottom. Tools or guidance for the

determination of DTM,cool and DTM,heat are given in clauses 6.1.4.1 and 6.1.4.2 of EN 19911-5:2003 and/or its National Annex.

The method recommended in EN 1991-1-5:2003 for the combination of the effects of the uniform

and the temperature difference components is similar to Eq. (D6.37); again in symbolic terms,

139

DTM,heat 0.35DTN,ext

or

0.75DTM,heat DTN,ext

(D6.38a)

DTM,cool 0.35DTN,ext

or

0.75DTM,cool DTN,ext

(D6.38b)

If the component to be protected moves owing to the seismic action, its design seismic displacement relative to the deck, dE , may be taken as the square root of the sum of squares of the values

of the design seismic displacement calculated for each one of them at the horizontal level of

interest via Eq. (D5.48) in Section 5.9 (including any effects of torsional seismic response

about a vertical axis according to Section 5.7 of this Guide).

Needless to say, the clearance should be calculated and provided in the horizontal direction

where the deck and the component to be protected may come the closest.

Repairable damage of non-critical components, such as replaceable roadway movement joints,

sacricial abutment backwalls, etc., due to the design seismic action is acceptable. For such

cases, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 reduces the required clearance between the deck and the noncritical component to a value that may be exhausted under a more frequent combination of

the seismic and the thermal actions (to be specied in the National Annex to Part 2 of

Eurocode 8). Its recommendation is for a clearance that will accommodate without damage

just 40% of the design seismic displacement, dE , plus all other displacement components in

Eq. (D6.36) in full; that is

dEd,oc 0.4dE dG c2dT

(D6.39)

where the sufx oc denotes occasional. Note that this level of protection is consistent with the

seismic action and performance requirements recommended for damage limitation in buildings

according to Part 1 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004a).

6.9.

Clauses 6.6.1(2),

6.6.3.1(1), 6.6.3.1(2),

6.6.3.1(4), 6.6.3.1(5)

[2]

Seismic links

6.9.1

Denition and roles of seismic links

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 uses the general term seismic link for any special-purpose component

devised to transmit horizontal seismic forces from one part of the structure to another

usually from the deck to the piers or the abutments or across an intermediate movement joint

in a deck span without partaking in the vertical transfer of gravity loads. This differentiates

it from xed or elastomeric bearings, whose prime role is to transfer gravity loads from the

deck to the substructure, while sometimes doubling as means to transfer horizontal seismic

forces as well. Another feature of seismic links is that, although they are activated by the

horizontal seismic displacements of the bridge, they generally allow the non-seismic displacements to develop almost unrestrained.

Shear keys are usually employed as seismic links in the transverse direction, transferring horizontal forces across an intermediate separation joint in a deck span or from the deck to an abutment

or less often a pier, through compressive contact stress. Shear keys commonly have the form

of a short concrete corbel (sometimes prestressed), and are dimensioned and detailed as such.

Steel brackets are also used, if a proper connection detail is devised. Normally, non-seismic

displacements are zero in the transverse direction, and there is no need for a clearance

between the shear key and the part of the bridge from where it receives the horizontal force. A

vertical elastomeric bearing is often placed, though, between them, to avoid shock effects and

local damage upon hard contact, and to allow unrestrained relative rotation across the interface.

In the longitudinal direction, seismic links are normally steel linkage bars, bolts or cables,

connecting by tension the two parts of the deck across an intermediate movement joint in the

span, or the end of the deck to an abutment or pier, or the ends of two girders simply supported

over the same pier, etc. They normally have slack to allow unrestrained non-seismic displacements;

they are mobilised once the seismic displacements exhaust the slack. If the link is a rigid steel rod,

the slack may be provided between a steel plate at the end of the bar and the surface of the deck

component or abutment; a rubber ring or another device is provided along that gap for shock

140

absorption. Links connecting the parts of the deck across an intermediate movement joint in the

span serve only as second line of defence against unseating; they are not meant to be activated

in the seismic design situation. So, their slack should accommodate the relative displacement of

the two ends according to the following extension of Eq. (D6.38):

DdEd;12

q

2 d2 d

dE;1

G;1 dG;2 c2 dT;1 dT;2

E;2

D6:40

where the indices 1 and 2 refer to the ends of the two parts of the deck connected by the link. The

displacements due to the thermal action, dT,1 and dT,2 , are calculated for a uniform temperature

difference component causing contraction of the two linked parts of the deck and whatever

temperature difference component increases their distance at the horizontal level bridged by

the link. In symbolic terms, the combination of their effects is the most adverse of

DTM,heat 0.35DTN,con

or

0.75DTM,heat DTN,con

(D6.41a)

DTM,cool 0.35DTN,con

or

0.75DTM,cool DTN,con

(D6.41b)

As pointed out in Sections 4.5.4 and 5.5.1.1 of this Guide, activation of the link only after the gap

between the deck and the shear key closes or the slack of a tension link is exhausted is a nonlinear

feature of the behaviour, and should be taken into account in the modelling. As a minimum in the

context of linear analysis, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires the use of a linear spring with a stiffness

equal to the secant stiffness at yielding of the link; that is, equal to the yield force of the link

divided by the clearance or slack plus the elastic deformation of the link until it yields. It was

also pointed out that this is not very convenient for the analysis, because the link has not been

dimensioned yet at this stage of the design, and its yield force is not known. Of course, links

that are not meant to be activated in the seismic design situation do not need to be included in

the model.

6.9.2

Dimensioning of seismic links

As mentioned out in Section 6.3.2 (in point (b)), a seismic link should be dimensioned for

capacity design effects. In bridges of limited ductile behaviour, these may be taken as the

seismic action effects in the link from the linear analysis multiplied by q. In bridges of ductile behaviour, the capacity design effects should be determined through Eq. (D6.8) and the associated

procedure highlighted in Section 6.4.2; the simplication of Eq. (D6.11) may be employed to this

end.

Clauses 2.3.6.2(2),

5.3(2), 6.6.3.1(3) [2]

As an exception to the general rule above, in seismic links connecting in tension the two parts of

the deck across an intermediate movement joint in the span, or the end of the deck to an

abutment or pier, or the ends of two girders simply supported over the same pier, etc., the

linkage element may be dimensioned for (the results of ) a longitudinal force equal to

1.5agSMd , where ag is the design ground acceleration on type A ground, S is the soil factor

and Md is the mass of the (part of the) deck linked to the pier or abutment, or the least of the

masses of the two parts of the deck on either side of the intermediate separation joint. Alternatively, the longitudinal force for the design may be obtained from a more accurate analysis,

taking into account the dynamic interaction of the parts of the deck connected by the link.

Once the capacity design internal forces are established, the seismic link is dimensioned at the

ULS according to the relevant material Eurocode: a concrete shear key as a corbel according

to EN1992-1-1:2004, a steel bracket or a linkage rod, bolt or cable according to the relevant

part of Eurocode 3. The design shear resistance of concrete shear keys is divided by a Nationally

Determined Parameter reduction factor gBd . Part 2 of Eurocode 8 recommends a value of

gBd 1.25 for bridges of limited ductile behaviour. For those of ductile behaviour, it is

allowed either:

g

g

Clauses 5.6.2(2)b,

5.6.3.3(1)b [2]

to subtract from it qVEd/VC,o 1 (but not to a nal value below gBd 1), where:

VEd is the maximum shear force of the seismic link from the analysis for the seismic

design situation

VC,o the capacity design shear of the link, without the upper limit VC,o qVEd .

141

(see also notes (4) and (5) in Table 6.1). Note that, as the behaviour of any seismic link is normally

non-ductile, it is prudent to reduce its design resistance by the factor gBd specied in Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 for concrete shear keys, although Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not require it explicitly.

6.10.

Dimensioning of bearings

6.10.1 Introduction

Sections 6.10.2 to 6.10.4 refer to bearings supporting the deck over certain piers and/or at the

abutments, while other supports (usually piers) are connected to the deck monolithically or

via xed bearings. Movable bearings and other special devices (isolators) arranged along a

continuous interface between the underdeck and all its supports (isolation interface) are dealt

with in Chapter 7.

Clause 7.5.2.3.5(5) [2] Part 2 of Eurocode 8 also allows the use of common at sliding bearings (without a controlled

lower limit of friction coefcient) and/or common low-damping elastomeric bearings at the

isolation interface of bridges with seismic isolation. Bearings for this use are a special case,

covered in this section. Conformity with EN 1337-2 (CEN, 2000) and EN 1337-3 (CEN,

2005d), respectively, and with certain additional design requirements specied in Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 is sufcient for them.

6.10.2

Fixed bearings

Clauses 6.6.2.1(1),

As mentioned in Section 6.3.2 (in point (b)), xed bearings should be dimensioned in the seismic

6.6.2.1(2), 6.6.3.2(2)b, design situation for capacity design effects. In bridges of limited ductile behaviour this just entails

6.6.3.2(3) [2]

multiplying by q the seismic action effects from a linear analysis. By contrast, in bridges of ductile

behaviour, the general procedure of Section 6.4.2 and Eq. (D6.8) should be used, possibly with

the simplication of Eq. (D6.11). As an exception, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 allows xed bearings to

be dimensioned using only the analysis results for the seismic design situation, provided they can

be easily replaced and are supplemented with seismic links that are capacity-designed to provide

instead the required horizontal resistance (i.e. dimensioned for the horizontal resistance of the

xed bearings with capacity design amplication).

Fixed bearings are normally non-ductile. Although Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not require it explicitly, it is prudent to reduce their design horizontal resistance by the factor gBd mentioned at the

end of Section 6.9.2 for the design shear resistance of concrete shear keys.

Clauses 5.3(7),

7.6.2(1) [2]

Section 6.4.5 pointed out that the elements supporting the deck of ductile bridges should be

designed for a horizontal friction force in sliding bearings equal to gofRdf , where gof 1.30

and Rdf is the maximum design force in the seismic design situation. The dimensions of the

sliding plate of the bearing should be sufcient to accommodate, with adequate safety margin,

the extreme design displacement in the design seismic situation, dEd . The value of dEd is given

by Eq. (D6.36), and computed at the location and the horizontal level of the bearing according

to Section 6.8.1.2, except that, if the sliding bearing belongs to a seismic isolation system, the

value dE,a gISdE , is used in lieu of the seismic displacement from the analysis, dE , with a

value of 1.50 recommended in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for gIS . This value may be considered to

provide the reasonable safety margin for such bearings. For those not belonging to such a

system, and in the absence of more specic guidance from Part 2 of Eurocode 8, this margin

may be taken to be between 20% and 30% of dE , depending also on the sensitivity of the

estimation of dE on the value of (EI )eff used in the analysis.

6.10.4.1 Scope and denitions

Clauses 6.6.2.3(1), 7.2, An elastomeric bearing is a block of vulcanised elastomer with natural or chloroprene rubber as

7.5.2.3.3(1),

the raw polymer reinforced internally with steel plates, chemically bonded to the elastomer during

7.5.2.3.3(2),

vulcanisation. Being nearly incompressible, the rubber exhibits signicant lateral expansion when

7.5.2.3.3(4) [2]

in vertical compression. The steel plates restrain this expansion through shear stresses at the

interface with the rubber. These stresses are largest at the perimeter of the steel plate, and may

cause debonding there. The magnitude of these stresses is usually checked through the associated

shear strains, g. The large magnitude of these shear strains is manifested by the bulging of each

elastomer layer, which is largest at the perimeter and right next to the steel plate.

142

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 distinguishes two types of elastomeric bearing, depending on the damping

they offer under cyclic shear. The low-damping ones exhibit narrow hysteresis loops with an

equivalent viscous damping ratio, j, of less than 6%. Accordingly, their shear behaviour may

be approximated as linear elastic and characterised by the shear modulus of the elastomer

alone, G, which applies throughout the total thickness of the elastomer in the bearing (tq in

Eq. (D6.43b)). The damping they offer is consistent with the default value of 5% used in

linear analysis, as well as the baseline for the q factors adopted in Part 2 of Eurocode 8.

If the deck is not xed to any pier or abutment (not even through seismic links) and is seated on

elastomeric bearings at all of its supports (or possibly on at sliding bearings over certain

supports), therefore forming an isolation interface between the deck and all of its supports,

the full horizontal seismic force of the deck is transmitted through these elastomeric bearings.

Such bearings have a decisive role in the global response of the bridge to the horizontal

seismic components. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 acknowledges them as seismic isolation devices, and

considers the deck as seismically isolated. It calls them simple low-damping elastomeric

bearings, dened as laminated low-damping elastomeric bearings in accordance with EN 13373:2005, not subject to EN 15129:2009 (Antiseismic Devices) (CEN, 2009) nor to any special

tests for seismic performance. Accordingly, they are mainly covered in Section 7 of Part 2 of

Eurocode 8, dedicated to bridges with seismic isolation. The increased reliability required

from the isolation system is implemented in that case by increasing the design seismic displacements to dE,a gISdE , with a value of 1.50 recommended in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for gIS . An

additional requirement is a detailed explicit investigation of the inuence of the variability of

the design properties of the isolators on the seismic response.

Clauses 6.6.2.3(1)

6.6.2.3(4),

7.5.2.3.3(5),

7.5.2.3.3(6),

7.5.2.4(1), 7.5.2.4(5),

7.5.2.4(6), 7.6.2(1),

7.6.2(2), 7.6.2(5) [2]

If the deck is xed to the top of one or more piers (or an abutment), directly or via seismic links,

the seismic action is transferred to the substructure through this type of connection. Any elastomeric bearings used over other supports of the deck have a local role in the overall seismic

response of the bridge. Such bearings are designed, according to EN 1337-3:2005 (CEN,

2005d), to resist all non-seismic horizontal and vertical actions. They are also designed according

to Part 2 of Eurocode 8 to accommodate the imposed deformations due to the design displacement in the seismic design situation, as given by Eq. (D6.36) with the value dE as the design

seismic displacement, without multiplication by gIS . A detailed investigation of the variability

of the design properties of such bearings is not required, in contrast to bearings used as

isolator units. Summing up, with these differentiations, low-damping elastomeric bearings subjected to seismic shear deformations are veried in the seismic design situation with the rules

given in EN 1337-3:2005 and complemented in Part 2 of Eurocode 8.

The following section covers the design and verication of simple low-damping elastomeric

bearings according to EN 1337-3:2005 and Part 2 of Eurocode 8, differentiating wherever

pertinent between seismic and non-seismic design situations. Design with/of high-damping

elastomeric bearings is addressed in Chapter 7 of this Guide. In the remainder of this section,

simple low-damping elastomeric bearings in the sense of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 are termed, for

brevity, elastomeric bearings or even just bearings.

Elastomeric bearings are usually circular, with diameter D, or rectangular, their sides denoted

here as bx and by; the longer side is normally in the transverse direction of the bridge, to

minimise the rotational restraint in the longitudinal direction and if used under a prefabricated girder to stabilise it laterally during erection. The effective plan dimensions of the

bearing are considered to be those of its steel reinforcing plates, denoted here as D0 , bx0 , by0 .

According to EN 1337-3:2005, at least 4 mm of elastomer should cover laterally the edge of

the steel plate:

D0 D 8

bx0 bx 8

by0 by 8

(dimensions in mm)

(D6.42)

The effective plan area of the bearing, A0 , is determined from its effective plan dimensions

above.

If the bearing has n internal layers of elastomer with thickness ti (25 mm ti 5 mm according to

EN 1337-3:2005) and n 1 steel plates of thickness ts (ts 2 mm according to EN 1337-3:2005),

143

and the top and bottom steel plates have an outer cover of elastomer, at least 2.5 mm thick per

EN 1337-3:2005, the total nominal thickness of the bearing is

tb nti (n 1)ts 5

(dimensions in mm)

(D6.43a)

tq nti 5

(dimensions in mm)

(D6.43b)

Only the elastomer is deformable in shear. The nominal value of the shear modulus of elastomeric

bearings, as well as its value determined by testing, denoted in EN 1337-3:2005 as G and Gg ,

respectively, refer to the total elastomer thickness, tq . EN 1337-3:2005 species a target mean

value of 0.9 MPa for Gg (and allows the designer to specify alternative ones of 0.7 MPa or

1.15 MPa), with an acceptable test value tolerance of +0.15 MPa (if one of the two alternatives

is specied, +0.1 MPa or +0.2 MPa, respectively). Accelerated ageing (3 days at 708C) may not

increase the value of Gg by more than 0.15 MPa. Note that, according to Annex F of EN 13373:2005, the value of Gg is measured under normal temperatures between shear strains gq,d 0.27

and 0.58. Such values are representative of the normal-temperature stiffness of bearings in the

strain range allowed under non-seismic design situations (gq,d 1.0). In the signicantly wider

strain range allowed in the seismic design situation (gq,sd 2.0), substantially higher values of

the secant shear modulus at peak strain are expected. For this reason, Part 2 of Eurocode 8

gives a higher value Gb aGg for the nominal design value of the shear modulus of elastomeric

bearings with the value of a (normally in the range 1.11.4) determined from tests. This value is

used as lower-bound design property (LBDP), if the bearing is used as isolator unit, with a

value of 1.2Gb as the upper-bound design property (UBDP) for the minimum bearing temperature

for seismic design, Tmin,b , not less than 08C, or obtained from the appropriate l factor from

Annex JJ of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 if Tmin,b is less than 08C.

Among the various types of elastomeric bearings specied in EN 1337-3:2005, two deserve special

mention: type C, with top and bottom steel plates (proled or allowing xing to the parts of the

bridge on either side of the bearing), and type B, without steel or any other type of plate attached

to the top or bottom surface of the elastomer. If 8 mm ti , steel plates of type C bearings

should be at least 15 mm thick; if ti . 8 mm, their minimum thickness is 18 mm (CEN,

2005d). EN 1337-3:2005 lists recommended standard sizes for type B bearings (which are also

the basis for type C ones). As an indication of the range:

g

g

g

g

bearings from 100 150 mm (or 1200 mm) to 250 400 mm (or 1350 mm) have n 27

elastomer layers with ti 8 mm and steel plates with ts 3 mm

for bearings of 300 400 mm (or 1400 mm) to 500 600 mm (or 1650 mm), n 310,

ti 12 mm, ts 4 mm

for bearings of 600 600 mm (or 1700 mm) to 700 800 mm (or 1850 mm), n 410,

ti 16 mm, ts 5 mm

for bearings of 800 800 mm to 900 900 mm (or 1900 mm), n 411, ti 20 mm,

ts 5 mm.

In these recommended sizes, the ratio of the mean horizontal dimension to the total thickness, tb ,

ranges from about 3 to about 9.

The shape factor, S, is the effective plan area of a bearing, A0 , divided by the product of the

perimeter dened by its effective plan dimensions and the thickness of an inner elastomer

layer:

g

S bx0 by0 /[2(bx0 by0 )ti]

S D0 /4ti

144

(D6.44a)

(D6.44b)

If the top of the bearing is displaced with respect to the bottom by ddx 0 in the horizontal

direction x and by ddy 0 along the orthogonal direction, y (for rectangular bearings, along

the sides), the vertical load passes through the area in plan where the displaced top and

bottom overlap. This is termed the reduced effective plan area, and denoted as Ar:

g

Ar (bx0 ddx)(by0 ddy) (1 ddx/bx0 ddy/by0 )A0

(D6.45a)

Ar A0 (d sin d)/p

(D6.45b)

where

(D6.46)

with

dd

q

2 d2

ddx

dy

D6:47

Eurocode 8

6.10.4.2.1 Verification of shear strains

EN 1337-3:2005 denes the shear strain in the elastomer due to the total design displacement dd

dened via Eq. (D6.47) as

gq,d dd/tq

(D6.48)

where tq is the total thickness of the elastomer from Eq. (D6.43b). It further limits the value of

gq,d at the ULS of the bearing under the total design displacement induced by the fundamental

combination of actions in EN 1990:2002, to a maximum value of 1.0 (see Section 6.10.4.3 for

details about the fundamental combination and the horizontal displacements it induces).

Clauses 6.6.2.3(1),

6.6.2.3(2), 6.6.2.3(4),

7.5.2.3.3(5),

7.5.2.3.3(6), 7.6.2(1),

7.6.2(2), 7.6.2(5)

7.6.2(7) [2]

For low-damping elastomeric bearings veried in the seismic design situation, whether they are

used as isolators or not, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 imposes the following additional requirement on

the maximum total design strain in the seismic design situation, gb,Ed:

gb,Ed 2.0

(D6.49)

where gb,Ed is determined according to Eqs (D6.47) and (D6.48) from the design horizontal

displacements in the seismic design situation, as given by Eq. (D6.36). If the bearing is part of

the isolation system, the value dE,a gISdE is used as design seismic displacement, with a value

of 1.50 recommended in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for gIS . This denition of the maximum total

design strain in the seismic design situation, gb,Ed , applies also in all other verications specied

in EN 1337-3:2005 for elastomeric bearings, wherever bearing shear strains in the seismic design

situation are involved.

Equation (D6.49) is the only additional verication specied by Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for the

seismic design situation in addition to those of EN 1337-3:2005. Equations (D6.43), (D6.47) and

(D6.48) or (D6.49) readily yield a rst estimate of the number of internal elastomer layers, n.

If the elastomeric bearings constitute the restoring element of an isolation system, Eq. (D6.49)

usually controls the elastomer thickness in the bearing, and often its plan dimensions.

Note that Section 7 of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires all verications of elements of the isolation

system, the superstructure and the substructure be carried out for the most adverse results of two

analyses: one based on the UBDP and another on the LBDP of the isolating units.

145

The buckling load of a bearing without lateral displacement dd is (Constantinou et al., 2011)

Ncr lA0 r0

pGS

nti

D6:50

p

where in a rectangular bearing l 1.5 and in a circular one l 2 (Constantinou et al., 2011), A0

p

is the effective plan area of the bearing, and r0 (I0 /A0 ) its minimum radius of gyration, G is the

nominal shear modulus of the elastomer and S is the shape factor from Eqs (D6.44). Therefore:

g

Ncr 0:68A0

0

b02

x by G

nt2i b0x b0y

D6:51a

Ncr A0

D02 G

3:6nt2i

D6:51b

If the bearing is bolted at its top and bottom to mounting plates, Eqs (D6.51) apply in good

approximation in the laterally deformed conguration, using there the reduced effective plan

area Ar from Eqs (D6.45) in lieu of A0 . If it is dowelled to them or kept in recessed plates, the

lateral displacement may roll the bearing over, in which case Eqs (D6.51) are not critical. As

in the fundamental combination of actions in EN 1990:2002, to which EN 1337-3:2005 refers

for the buckling stability of the bearing at the ULS, the lateral displacements are rarely large,

EN 1337-3:2005 does not consider the laterally deformed conguration of not bolted bearings

as a separate case, and checks the buckling stability of the bearing on the basis of Eqs (D6.51)

with a safety factor of about 2 for rectangular bearings or of 1/0.6 for circular bearings:

g

0

b02

Nd 2b0x GS

x by G

Ar

3nti

3nt2i b0x b0y

D6:52a

Nd 2D0 GS D02 G

Ar

3nti

6nt2i

D6:52b

If both ddx and ddy are signicant in magnitude, Eq. (D6.52a) reduces to a quadric equation in bx0

for given bx0 /by0 . In approximation:

1

v

0

s

u

2

u

0

0

1 ddx ddy t ddx ddy

b 3nNd

b

D6:53a

1 x0 A

b0x @

4ti x0

2

2

by

G

by

2

If dd is non-negligible, Eq. (D6.52b) is strongly nonlinear in D0 ; the required bearing diameter

may be found iteratively from Eq. (D6.46) and

s

4

24nt2i Nd

D0

Gd sin d

D6:53b

The above verication of the buckling load of the bearing should be carried out for the fundamental combination of actions in EN 1990:2002, as well as in the seismic design situation with

the relative displacements ddx , ddy (or dd from Eq. (D6.47)) corresponding to the total design

displacement according to Eq. (D6.36), with the value dE,a gISdE used as the design seismic

displacement and a value of 1.50 recommended in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for gIS , if the bearing

146

is part of the isolation system. However, as this verication is controlled by the design vertical

force on the bearing, Nd , whose value in the seismic design situation is signicantly smaller

than in the fundamental combination of actions in EN 1990:2002, the seismic design situation

is rarely critical.

6.10.4.2.3 Verification of the total shear strain, gt,d

As pointed out in the opening paragraph of Section 6.10.4.1, the elastomer may debond from the

steel plate, owing to large shear strains, g, at their interface. The maximum value g in the

elastomer is

(D6.54)

where:

g

g

gq,d is the shear strain in the elastomer due to the total design displacement, dened in

Eq. (D6.48), or in Eq. (D6.49) as gb,Ed for the seismic design situation.

gc,d is the maximum shear strain in the elastomer due to the design value of the vertical

compression, Nd; it takes place at the interface with the steel plate at the mid-side of

rectangular bearings or all around the perimeter in circular ones, and is equal to

gc;d

f1 N d

Ar GS

D6:55

with G, Ar and S as for Eq. (D6.50). Values of f1 are tabulated in Constantinou et al.

(2011) as a function of the geometry of the bearing and of the ratio of the bulk modulus of

the elastomer, K (K 2000 MPa) to its shear modulus G, with an upper bound for circular

bearings of

f1 1 2

S2 G

K

D6:56

Approximate expressions are also proposed for f1 in Stanton et al. (2008), including a

value f1 1.0 for circular bearings. EN 1337-3:2005 xes f1 to

f1 1.5

(D6.57)

which is on the safe side for the G values specied and the bearing sizes recommended in

EN 1337-3:2005, especially for circular and square bearings.

ga,d is the maximum shear strain in the elastomer due to the total design angular rotations

in the vertical planes through axes x and y, adx 0, ady 0, respectively; it takes place at

the extreme compression bres of the bearing in the vertical plane of the rotation and is

equal to (Constantinou et al., 2011)

for rectangular bearings

ga;d f2

nt2i

D6:58a

ga;d f2

ad D02

nt2i

D6:58b

where

ad

q

a2dx a2dy

D6:59

bearing and the K/G ratio of the elastomer, while Stanton et al. (2008) propose

147

approximate expressions for it, including a value f2 3/8 for circular bearings. EN 13373:2005 xes f2 to

f2 0.5

(D6.60)

which is again on the safe side for the G values specied and the bearing sizes

recommended in EN 1337-3:2005, especially so for circular and square bearings.

According to EN 1337-3:2005, the value of gt,d from Eqs (D6.48), (D6.54), (D6.55) and (D6.57)

(D6.60) for the fundamental combination of actions in EN 1990:2002 should be limited upwards

to 7/gm , with gm 1.0. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 also recommends the same upper limit (i.e. with

gm 1.0) to the value of gt,d computed from Eqs (D6.49), (D6.54), (D6.55) and (D6.57)

(D6.60) for the seismic design situation. The upper limit on gt,d is translated to additional

constraints on the plan dimensions or the number of elastomer layers, n. The latter is easier to

implement:

g

02

02

dd adx bx ady by

ti

2t2

i0

n

3ti Nd bx b0y

7

gm G b0x b0y 2 1 ddx =b0x ddy =b0y

D6:61a

dd ad D02

ti

2t2i

n

7

24ti Nd

03

gm GD d sin d

D6:61b

with dd from Eq. (D6.47). For circular bearings, ad is given by Eq. (D6.59) and d from

Eq. (D6.46).

Note that the number of layers, n, comes out of Eqs (D6.48) and (D6.49) as independent of the

size of the bearing in plan. According to Eqs (D6.52) and (D6.53), the taller the bearing, the

larger its plan dimensions should be against buckling under vertical compression. By contrast,

Eqs (D6.61) give fewer layers if the size in plan increases. If the second estimate of n from Eqs

(D6.61) is larger than that from Eqs (D6.48) and (D6.49), Eqs (D6.53) may have to be revisited;

if in that case they suggest a larger size in plan, it is the turn of Eqs (D6.60) to be revisited, until a

stable combination of elastomer thickness and plan dimensions is reached. Note that, if the

number of bearings sharing the vertical reaction increases, the required plan area per bearing

drops due to the reduction in Nd , but the total area increases (see Eqs (D6.53): as the horizontal

displacements of the bearing are independent of its size in plan, the reduction in the effective plan

area according to Eqs (D6.45) is proportionally larger in smaller bearings). Unless it is controlled

by Eqs (D6.48) or (D6.49), the number of elastomer layers may decrease as well.

6.10.4.2.4 Fixing of elastomeric bearings

If the bearing is not positively xed to both the underdeck and the top of the pier or the

abutment, (e.g. for type B bearings), EN 1337-3:2005 requires checking of the transfer of the

design shear force VEd at the ULS through friction:

148

Nd;min

MPa 3

Ar

D6:62a

Vd

b

0:1

Nd;min

Nd;min

MPa

Ar

D6:62b

where

g

g

b 0.3 for bearings on all other types of surface (metallic, bedding resin mortar, etc.).

Vd and Nd,min are the design shear force and the corresponding minimum axial force, respectively, on the bearing, and Ar is given by Eqs (D6.45). Equations (D6.62) are to be met:

g

under the fundamental combination of actions in EN 1990:2002, with the partial factors

applied on span permanent actions so that they produce the minimum vertical

compression on the bearing and with the factored trafc loads arranged along the deck so

that they give the maximum vertical tension

in the seismic design situation, with the seismic action causing the maximum possible

bearing tension and the maximum horizontal displacements, dsd,x , dsd,y , that are consistent

with the design shear force, Vd .

The ratio Vd/Nd,min in Eq. (D6.62b) is dened in EN 1337-3:2005 as the friction coefcient mf .

Although not explicit, such friction refers to the interface between the external elastomeric

layer of a type B bearing and the material of the underdeck, the pier or the abutment in

contact with it. Therefore, Eq. (D6.62b) does not apply if the external steel plates of other

types of elastomeric bearings are appropriately bonded to the bridge elements supported on

the bearing or supporting it.

If Eqs (D6.62) are not met, the bearing should be xed at its top and bottom. The end plates

(those of type C bearings of EN 1337-3:2005) should be bolted or dowelled to the top and

bottom mounting plates or kept in place in recesses of the mounting plates. Note that this

way of xing the bearing also prevents it from slipping from its intended position during

erection and if it is xed by bolting precludes partial uplift due to the combination of

lateral displacements and rotation, which will increase the shear strains on the compressed

side over the predictions of Eqs (D6.54)(D6.60), and may even cause the bearing to roll

over.

6.10.4.3 Action effects for the verication of simple low-damping elastomeric

bearings

Elastomeric bearings should meet the requirements in EN 1337-3:2005 for non-seismic actions,

notably for the fundamental combination in EN 1990:2002, Eq. (6.10),

X

X

gG; j Gk; j gP P gQ;1 Qk;1

gQ;i c0;i Qk;i

j1

i>1

or Eq. (6.10a),

X

X

gG; j Gk; j gP P gQ;1 c0;1 Qk;1

gQ;i c0;i Qk;i

j1

i>1

or Eq. (6.10b),

X

j1

i>1

where in this case Gk are the permanent actions, Pk is prestressing after losses, Qk,1 is trafc loads

with their characteristic value and Qk,i (i . 1) is the characteristic value of thermal actions, Tk,i .

The choice between Eq. (6.10), (6.10a) or (6.10b) in EN 1990:2002 as well as the partial or combination factors gG, j , gQ,1 , gP , j or c0,1 are National Determined Parameters. The reader is

referred to EN 1990:2002 for the recommended choices, those of gQ,1 and c0,1 depending on

the type of trafc load and model. The recommended value of the product gQ,ic0,i for the

thermal actions is gQ,ic0,i 0.9. In what follows, the fundamental combination is symbolically

written as gGP gQ 0.9Tk , with gGP representing the part of the fundamental combination

due to the permanent actions Gk and Pk with the appropriate values of gG,j , gP and j applied, gQ

149

that due to the trafc actions Qk,1 with the associated values of gQ,1 , c0,1 and Tk the characteristic

thermal actions. The total effects of the fundamental combination are indexed by FC, and the

individual ones due to gGP, gQ and Tk as dened above by gGP, gQ and T, respectively.

Note that gQ,1 0 over the plan area of the deck whose loading by trafc is favourable. By

the same token, gG, j 1.0 and j 1.0 over the length of the deck whose loading by permanent

actions is relieving; however, if the action effects are not very sensitive to variations in the

permanent actions along the length of the deck (and in the present case they are not), constant

values of gG, j and j may be used throughout the deck.

Equation (D6.48) should be checked for the maximum horizontal displacements ddx , ddy of the

top of the bearing relative to the bottom due to the fundamental combination of actions. By

contrast, Eqs (D6.52), (D6.53) and (D6.62b) involve both Nd and ddx , ddy, , making it necessary

to search for an arrangement of gravity loads along the bridge that is most adverse for the verication of interest. The relative horizontal displacement of the bearing due to the fundamental

combination of actions is

dFC dgGP dgQ 0.9dT

(D6.63)

where dgGP is the long-term relative displacement due to the factored permanent actions

abbreviated above as gGP, including prestressing after losses, shrinkage and creep, if relevant,

(no partial factor with value greater than 1.0 is applied on deformations due to concrete

shrinkage); dgQ is the short-term relative displacement due to the factored trafc actions

denoted above as gQ; and dT is the relative displacement due to the characteristic thermal

actions.

These displacement components are normally very small (almost zero) in the transverse direction.

Hence, in the following they are assumed to be in the longitudinal direction. They all refer to the

horizontal level where the deck is seated on the bearing (i.e. the underdeck), and are equal to the

displacement at the level of the centroidal axis of the deck plus the rotation of the deck section

above the bearing multiplied by the centroidal distance to the underdeck. As it is the absolute

value of horizontal displacements that enters into the verications, in order for dFC to have

the largest possible absolute value, dgQ and dT should have the (xed) sign of dgGP:

g

Owing to concrete creep, shrinkage and prestressing, in concrete decks dgGP is towards the

mid-length of the deck and away from its nearest end. Then, dgQ and dT should also be

towards the deck mid-length. For dgQ , this means that the arrangement of trafc loads

along the bridge should be that giving the maximum hogging moment (negative) at the

span next to the support in question on the side towards the deck mid-length. (If the

values of gG, j and j are differentiated along the deck, they are taken as gG, j 1.0 and

j 1.0 in the span next to the support of interest on the side towards the deck mid-length

and with their non-unity values in the spans to its left and right, alternating with the unity

values thereafter.) The thermal displacement, dT , is due to the same thermal actions

highlighted in Section 6.8.1.2 in points (a) and (b). Indeed, if a value of dT at a bearing is

computed according to Section 6.8.1.2 for the purposes of overlap length, it applies for the

purposes of Eq. (D6.57) as well.

Under a non-concrete deck, dgGP may be in the same direction as above, or in the reverse

direction (i.e. away from the deck mid-length and towards its nearest end). In this latter

case, the reverse also applies regarding the most unfavourable longitudinal arrangement of

trafc loads and of the spans where gG, j and j assume unity or non-unity values; as far as

dT is concerned, it is the same as the value computed in Section 6.8.2.1 in points (a) and

(b) for the purposes of clearance at the lowest horizontal level (in which case Eq. (D6.38b)

applies).

The values of ddx and ddy are quite sensitive to the thermal actions but insensitive to those due to

trafc that determine dgQ . The reverse holds for Nd . So, when the maximum value of Nd is of

interest, the position of trafc loads (and the spans where gG, j and j may assume their nonunity values) are those producing the maximum vertical reaction on the bearing. By contrast,

the thermal actions are chosen to maximise the concurrent absolute values of ddx and ddy (as

they always affect unfavourably the verication, see Eqs (D6.53), (D6.61) and (D6.62)).

150

When Eqs (D6.61) are veried in the seismic design situation, the value of Nd is derived from the

condition when the seismic actions induce compression in the bearing. The displacements ddx and

ddy are those associated with Eq. (D6.49) in Section 6.10.4.2.1 and specied there. If the deck is of

concrete, the longitudinal displacements are computed as in Section 6.8.1.2, with movement

towards the deck mid-length and away from its nearest end. For other deck materials, the

reverse direction of longitudinal movement may need to be examined in addition, with displacements computed as in Section 6.8.2.1 in points (a) and (b) for the clearance at the lowest horizontal level (with Eq. (D6.38b) applying). It is meaningful to check Eqs (D6.49), (D6.53), (D6.61) or

(D6.62) in the transverse direction only when the design seismic displacement of the bearing in

that direction is markedly larger than in the longitudinal direction, offsetting the almost zero

values of dG and dT .

6.10.4.4 Sizing of simple low-damping elastomeric bearings for seismic isolation

6.10.4.4.1 Introduction

If the elastomeric bearings resist alone the seismic action (considered in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 as

seismic isolators), the elastomer thickness and the bearing dimensions in plan determine the

lateral stiffness and the seismic displacement and force demands. So, the thickness cannot be

obtained from the displacement through simple application of Eq. (D6.49). In the following, a

procedure is proposed for the preliminary estimation of the thickness and the dimensions in

plan of the bearing. It assumes that the exibility of the piers and the abutments may be

ignored compared with that of the bearings, and that all elastomeric bearings have the same

total elastomer thickness, tq . For such a system the rigid deck model may be applied. It is

further assumed that the centre of the horizontal bearing stiffnesses coincides with the centre

of mass of the

P deck, so that no twisting response occurs. The total plan area of the bearings is

denoted by

Ab . The total design vertical load of the deck,Pcorresponding to the total deck

tributary mass in the seismic design situation, is denoted as

Nd . Further, we introduce the

notation:

Sag

(design ground acceleration at the top of the soil in g

g

P

N

sb P d

Ab

a

sb

Gb

D6:64a

D6:64b

D6:64c

P

Witness that, since

Nd is considered as given,P

sb and its dimensionless counterpart r are inverbearings that undertake

sely proportional to the sum of the plan areas,

Ab , of the elastomeric

P

the entire horizontal seismic force. Note also that, even though

Nd is carried by the same elastomeric bearings as this horizontal force,

P sb is not necessarily equal to the normal stress of each

bearing, because the distribution of

Nd to the individual bearings depends on various factors,

unlike that of the horizontal force, which is distributed in proportion to thePplan area of each

bearing. Note also that sb and r can be substantially varied by varying 1/ Ab , not only by

changing the areas of individual bearings: sb and r may increase by assigning part of the

gravity load to a number of at sliding bearings, reducing thereby the elastic restoring force of

the system.

6.10.4.4.2 Seismic demand for the bearing shear strain

Total horizontal stiffness:

Kb

Gb

Ab

tq

D6:65

Period:

s

s

P

r

r

P

rt q

Nd tq

Nd

sb t q

P

T 2p

2p

2p

2p

gKb

gGb Ab

Gb g

g

D6:66

151

gbE

ddE

tq

D6:67

dbE

T2

S T

S T rtg a

2 a

g

4p

D6:68

Equations (D6.67) and (D6.68) and the elastic response spectrum of Eqs (D5.3) yield:

g

if T , TC

gbE 2.5ar

g

if TC T TD

gbE 2:5ar

g

(D6.69a)

TC

T

D6:69b

TC TD

T2

D6:69c

if TD , T

gbE 2:5ar

tbE

P

V

P bE

Ab

D6:70

g

if T , TC

tbE 2.5asb

g

if TC T TD

tbE 2:5asb

g

(D6.71a)

TC

T

D6:71b

TC TD

T2

D6:71c

if TD , T

tbE 2:5asb

Figures 6.76.9 show the inuence on the seismic response of the bridge of:

g

g

g

the thickness tq in the range 40300 mm

the value of r in the range 212.

Note that, in practice tq seldom exceeds 250 mm and r rarely exceeds 7 or 8, as, around these

values, buckling of the bearings in the seismic design situation may become critical.

p

Figure 6.7 and Eq. (D6.66) show that the period T is proportional to (rtq). In the period range

TC T TD , which is of high practical interest, the following are noted:

152

4.0

= 12

3.5

= 10

=8

Period T: s

3.0

=6

2.5

=4

=3

2.0

=2

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

50

100

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

250

300

Figure 6.8 shows that the same value of the seismic shear strain gb can be obtained with

several pairs of values r and tq below a certain maximum value of r. In fact, gb from

p

Eqs (D6.69b) and (D6.66) is proportional to (r/tq). Note also fromPEqs (D6.64b) and

p

p

(6.64c) that (r/tq) and hence gb is inversely proportional to ( Abtq) (i.e. to the

square root of the total elastomer volume of the bearings).

Figure 6.9 shows that, among the above pairs of values of r and tq leading to a certain

shear strain demand gb (i.e. pairs giving the same total volume of elastomer), that giving

the most efcient seismic isolation (i.e. the lowest force reduction ratio) is the pair P

with the

Ab).

maximum values of r and tq (i.e. with the maximum value of tq and the minimum

The parts of Figure 6.8 for different values of TC show that the maximum value of r required

for a seismic shear strain gb meeting Eq. (D6.48) drops substantially as TC increases to 0.8 s.

So, for this value of TC and for large design ground accelerations, seismic isolation with lowdamping elastomeric bearings seems unfeasible in practice without supplementary damping.

Even if such a solution proves feasible, its efciency will be very low, as evidenced by

Figure 6.9(c). Possibilities for supplementary damping are discussed in Chapter 7 of this

Designers Guide.

6.10.4.4.3 Practical selection of tq and

Equation (D6.49) may be expanded as

Ab

(D6.72)

where gbG is the shear strain in the bearing due to shrinkage and creep of the deck and gbT is that

due to temperature variations of and/or through the deck. These strains may be determined as

gbG dG/tq and gbT dT/tq from the relevant displacements dG and dT , which are function of

the maximum distance of a bearing from the centre of stiffness of all the bearings. For

gIS 1.50, Eq. (D6.72) gives

(D6.73)

On the diagram for the shear strain in Figure 6.8 at the applicable value of TC and for the selected

values of tq , one can mark the points corresponding to tq and the value of gbE required by

Eq. (D6.73). They are on a line approximately parallel to the tq axis, dening pairs of r and tq

satisfying Eq. (D6.72).

Note in the corresponding shear strain diagram that the minimum force (i.e. the optimum

isolation effect) is achieved when r is maximum. This selection maximises the period and the

shear strain in the bearings. The selected pair should, of course, be checked that it meets

153

Figure 6.8. Seismic shear strain gbE normalised to a Sag/g, as a function of the parameters tq and r of

low-damping elastomeric bearings and of the corner period of the elastic spectrum: (a) TC 0.4 s;

(b) TC 0.6 s; (c) TC 0.8 s

10

9

8

7

6

= 12

= 10

=8

=6

5

4

3

2

1

50

=2 =3

=4

100

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

250

300

250

300

250

300

(a)

10

9

= 12

= 10

=8

=6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

50

=2 =3

100

=4

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

(b)

10

= 12

= 10

=8

9

8

=6

7

6

5

4

3

=2 =3

=4

2

1

50

100

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

(c)

the verications set out in EN 1337-3:2005, notably that of buckling under the fundamental

combination of actions and in the seismic design situation (see Section 6.10.4.2.2), which is

usually more critical than that for the total shear strain in Section 6.10.4.2.3.

The above verications of elastomeric bearings for the seismic design situation need to be carried

out only for the LBDP of the bearings (i.e. for the nominal value of Gb , as it is the critical one for

the deformation-controlled verications of the bearings). However, the maximum forces are the

critical ones for the design of the substructure and for anchoring the bearings, which are both

force-controlled. The corresponding design forces are determined from the UBDP of Gb ,

which is the nominal one increased by 20% if the minimum bearing temperature for seismic

154

Figure 6.9. Force reduction ratio of the isolation tbE/tbE,max (where tbE,max 2.5asb) as a function of the

parameters tq and r of low-damping elastomeric bearings and of the corner period of the elastic

spectrum: (a) TC 0.4 s; (b) TC 0.6 s; (c) TC 0.8 s

1.0

0.9

0.8

=2

0.7

=3

=4

=6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

50

= 12 = 10 = 8

100

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

250

300

250

300

250

300

(a)

1.0

0.9

=2

0.8

=3

=4

=6

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

50

= 12 = 10 = 8

100

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

(b)

1.0

0.9

0.8

=2

=4

=3

=6

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

= 12 = 10 = 8

0.1

0.0

50

100

150

200

Elastomer thickness tq: mm

(c)

design Tmin,b is not less than 08C, or may be obtained from the appropriate l factor from

Annex JJ of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 if it is.

6.11.

Verication of abutments

6.11.1 General

The abutments and their foundation are designed and veried to stay elastic in the seismic design

situation. Because in these verications the earth pressure action (including seismic effects) is

very important, action effects are normally expressed in the direction of the earth pressure

(i.e. at right angles to the lateral surfaces of the abutment on which the earth pressure acts),

155

which may deviate from the longitudinal or the transverse direction of the bridge. To this end,

peak values of seismic action effects should be available along local axes parallel and at right

angles to the earth pressures. If such local axes have not been introduced at the outset, the

peak values of the effects of the longitudinal and the transverse seismic action are projected

onto the direction of the earth pressures and combined into a single value through Eqs (D5.1)

or (D5.2). The same holds for the seismic action effects at right angles to the earth pressures,

if they are of interest.

Clauses 6.7.2(2),

6.7.2(3), 5.8.2(2),

5.8.2(3) [2]

Clauses 7.3.2.1(1)

7.3.2.1(3), 7.3.2.2(1)

7.3.2.2(7), 7.3.2.3(1)

7.3.2.3(12), 7.3.2.4(1),

7.3.2.4((2), E.3E.9 [3]

If the abutment supports the deck on movable bearings, it is not normally included in the global

model for the analysis of the bridge system, even though that model might include piles under the

piers and their interaction with the soil. Such abutments are considered in the global model as

rigid ground, supporting the bearings with the appropriate kinematic restraints or springs.

The analysis gives, then, reactions on/from the bearings, from which the effects of the seismic

action and of the other ones in the seismic design situation on the abutment are derived and

used as loads in independent static analyses and verications of each abutment. The loads/

actions applied to the abutment in this analysis/verication are the following:

1

4

5

156

(vertical) reactions from the bearings on the abutment, derived from the analysis of the

bridge system

gravity loads of the abutment itself and of any earthll over the foundation of the

abutment.

The seismic action effects from the deck on the abutment, as reactions from the bearings

due to the design seismic action. In bridges designed for ductile behaviour, these are

capacity design effects according to Section 6.4.5; in those designed for limited ductile

behaviour, they are the reactions on the bearings from the seismic analysis back-multiplied

by q, to obtain in the end action effects for an effective value of q 1.0.

Pseudo-static inertia forces arising from the mass of the abutment and of the earthll

overlying its foundation. As pointed out in Section 5.4 of this Guide, abutments

supporting the deck on movable bearings are considered as locked in, and their inertia

forces are computed as the pertinent mass multiplied by the design ground acceleration at

the top of the ground at the site, agS (i.e. with q 1.0 and T 0). Note that this is how

seismic action effects due to the mass of the abutment and the earthll over its foundation

should be accounted for, even when the mass and stiffness of these components have been

included in a global analysis model of the bridge.

Any hydrostatic or hydrodynamic pressures, including buoyancy.

The earth pressures (including seismic effects). These pressures are the controlling actions

on the type of abutments considered herein, both under static conditions and in the seismic

design situation. Therefore, the methods for determining earth pressures for free retaining

walls are applicable. According to Annex C of Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2003b), static earth

pressures may be determined on the basis of two limit equilibrium states of the soil:

the passive state, corresponding to the soil resisting movement of the wall against the

earthll

the active one, for the wall giving way to the soil pressure (and possibly to other actions)

and moving away from the earthll.

The pseudo-static MononobeOkabe approach adopted in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 (CEN,

2004c) for the estimation of the seismic effects on earth pressures conveniently uses the

same limit equilibrium states. It is worth bearing in mind for the seismic design situation

the distinction between, on the one hand, movement of the wall relative to the earthll

that denes the passive or active state of earth pressures and the seismic motion of the wall

base and the earthll on the other, which both move with the ground. In fact, the active

earth pressure state of the pseudo-static MononobeOkabe approach develops when the

seismic motion occurs towards the earthll, with the earthll and the wall base by and

large following this motion. In this case the wall body moves away from the earthll under

the inertia forces on the earthll and the wall mass, due to the deformability of the wall

and mainly the rotation of its foundation. Seismic forces from the deck (under point 2

above) are assumed to act in phase with the aforementioned forces, for the most adverse

effect for the abutment, which may fail only when it moves away from the earthll.

The earth pressures of type 5 acting on a lateral face of the abutment or its wing walls moving

either

(a) against the earthll or

(b) away from it

may be estimated as follows. Those under (a) may be taken as equal to the static earth pressure at

rest, as very large displacements are needed for the passive earth pressure to develop. If the

abutment or the wing wall is free to develop the lateral displacement necessary for an active

state of stress in the backll (see following paragraph), those under (b) are the active earth pressures, including the seismic effects, and are computed with the pseudo-static MononobeOkabe

approach in Part 5 of Eurocode 8. In that calculation, abutments may be considered as nongravity walls, and the effect of the vertical acceleration on earth pressures may be neglected;

the horizontal coefcient kh is taken as equal to the design ground acceleration at the top of

the ground at the site in g: kh agS/g (i.e. the reduction factor r is taken equal to r 1.0).

If, by contrast, the lateral displacement of the abutment or the wing wall is restrained, it is

more realistic and on the safe side to estimate the seismic earth pressures (to be added to the

static ones for the wall at rest) as given in Clause E.9 of Part 5 of Eurocode 8 for rigid structures.

Wing walls monolithic with a large abutment are normally considered to belong in this case. A

signicant lateral displacement, da , is necessary at the top of an abutment for the active state of

stresses to develop in the soil. According to informative Annex C of Eurocode 7, for rotation

about the abutment foundation it takes between 0.4% and 0.5% of the height of the

abutment for loose non-cohesive backll and between 0.1% and 0.2% for dense backll.

About half of these values apply for parallel translation of the abutment. The corresponding

values for the full passive earth pressures in dry soil with an abutment rotating about its

foundation are 725% for loose non-cohesive backll and 510% for dense backll. The

lateral displacement needed for half the full value is 1.54% and 1.12% of the height of the

abutment, respectively (all these values increase by 50100% under the water table); this is

why the static earth pressures at rest are taken to act on the face of an abutment moving

against the earthll. As Part 2 of Eurocode 8 allows consideration of the active earth pressures

on the abutment face moving away from the backll, it is a requirement to check that the

abutment will not fail before the lateral displacement at its top reaches the value, da , where

the MononobeOkabe active earth pressure develops. As the active earth pressure is higher

for lateral displacements less than da , Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires dimensioning of the

concrete structure of the abutment body and foundation for earth pressures higher than

the active earth pressure; namely, for the value at rest plus 1.3 times the seismic part of the

MononobeOkabe active earth pressure (which is equal to the MononobeOkabe active earth

pressure minus the earth pressure at rest). This increase is not required for the verications of

the foundation soil. The designer should provide, in addition, a clearance between the deck

and the abutment backwall that accommodates a lateral displacement of the top of the

abutment of at least da . Taking into account that the end of the deck is moving away from

the backwall, the required clearance is

dad da dE dG c2dT

(D6.74)

where dE , dG , c2 and dT assume the same values as in Section 6.8.1.2, and da is the indicative value

quoted above from Part 1 of Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2003b).

Regarding loads of type 5 in the list above, if the face of the abutment towards the bridge is in

contact with water, the hydrostatic pressure minus the hydrodynamic pressure given by normative Annex E in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 under case E.8 should be considered to act on that face,

but with the abutment also moving away from the earthll, which approximately follows the

ground motion as explained above. The minus sign is because the seismic motion is assumed

to be away from the water, which does not move. The case of hydrostatic plus hydrodynamic

pressure on the front side of the abutment, when the abutment and the seismic motion are

against the water, may be ignored alongside the passive earth pressures on the backside of the

abutment. Note that, if the backll itself is saturated and permeable in the time-scale of the

seismic motion (case E.7 in normative Annex E of Part 5 of Eurocode 8), its pore water can

move independently from the ll material. So, the hydrodynamic pressure should be added to

157

the earth pressures of the soil. As a result, the hydrostatic plus hydrodynamic water pressure

should be taken to act on the backside of the abutment, while the active earth pressure on it is

proportional to the buoyant unit weight of the soil. Note, however, that only a very coarsegrain ll material may be considered to allow the water to move independently of the ll

during an earthquake.

The static analysis and the verications are carried out considering the components of the seismic

action in two (ideally orthogonal) horizontal directions. Load types 2 and 3 arise from the seismic

action alone, and are taken in these two horizontal directions. Load types 4 and 5 include static

components in xed directions, plus seismic ones which are again taken in the afore-mentioned

horizontal directions. The horizontal forces in load types 2 to 4 due to the seismic action are all

taken with the same sense (positive or negative) along the pertinent horizontal direction. Only if

the abutment and any wing walls are parallel to the transverse and the longitudinal directions of

the bridge, respectively, do the two horizontal directions of the abutment seismic forces coincide

with them. In any other case, the two horizontal directions of the static seismic forces are chosen

ad hoc. For example:

g

Clauses 6.7.3(1)

6.7.3(6), 6.7.3(8) [2]

If the abutment is skewed to the longitudinal axis and does not have wing walls, the static

analyses and the verications are carried out with the components of the seismic action at

right angles and parallel to the abutment.

If the abutment is either at right angle or skewed to the longitudinal axis, possibly

monolithically connected wing walls are usually parallel to the longitudinal direction of the

bridge, along the edges of the roadway. Wing walls of up to 8 m horizontal length are

usually triangular in elevation and do not have their own foundation but cantilever from

the vertical edge of the abutment body. This is quite common for cost reasons, but cannot

be applied to tall abutments. A tall abutment and its wing walls usually form the three

sides of a caisson, with a common foundation behind the abutment body. The main

earthll actions on triangular cantilevering wing walls act at right angles to them, and

amount to the earth pressure at rest combined with that due to a trafc surcharge or the

compaction earth pressure. These actions induce mainly out-of-plane bending of the wing

wall, alongside out-of-plane bending and horizontal tensile forces in the body of the

abutment. Additionally, the wing walls should be veried for the accidental action of

vehicle impact on parapets. The seismic dynamic earth pressure increment, normally

according to case E.9 of Part 5 of Eurocode 8, should be taken as a separate load case

when it acts on each wing wall. Earth pressures on the abutment body are, of course, at

right angles to it. The inuence on the abutment of the seismic earth pressure increment

acting on the skew inside face of the wing wall and obliquely to the abutment may be

estimated approximately. For example, the earth pressure increments estimated for the

abutment may be multiplied by the area of the wall projection on it.

Similar approximations may be used for the caisson-type abutments mentioned above,

for an earthquake at right angles to the abutment. Seismic forces at right angles to the

wing-walls of high and narrow caissons (e.g. with a width-to-height ratio less than 2) may

have to be estimated with the relevant rules for silos in Part 4 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2006).

An important case here is that of a deck monolithic with the abutments (integral). The other

case is that of an abutment connected to the deck via xed bearings or seismic links (including

shear keys) designed to carry the seismic action, in lieu of the bearings. For the connection to

be considered as rigid (and for clause 6.7.3 of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 to apply), it should be so

in both horizontal directions. The length and span limitations set out in Section 4.5.3 of this

Designers Guide for integral bridges also hold for decks connected to the abutments through

xed bearings or seismic links designed to carry the seismic action.

Most of the rules in clause 6.7.3 of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (namely the q value of 1.50, the earthll

reaction to be considered according to the next paragraph and the upper limit to the total

design seismic displacement in the last paragraph of this section) refer to short integral

bridges. Where the connection of the deck to the abutment is horizontally movable or

exible, at least in the longitudinal direction (as is always the case in longer bridges), none

of these rules apply.

158

Regarding the activation of earthll reaction against the backside of abutments rigidly connected

to the deck, note the following:

g

In the longitudinal direction, reaction is activated on the face of the backwall towards the

backll. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 recommends using over it equivalent springs with a stiffness

corresponding to the actual geotechnical conditions. To cover uncertainty in the

distribution of the seismic force among any piers and the reacting abutment, it also

recommends using upper- and lower-bound soil compliance properties. Lower-bound

earthll stiffness leads to the maximum seismic forces for the piers and their foundations

and to maximum seismic displacements of the abutment which are subject to the damage

limitation check at the end of the present section. Upper-bound stiffness may be critical

only for the abutment in bending and the adjacent region of the deck.

In the transverse direction, the area where earthll reaction may be activated is the internal

face of wing walls that are monolithically connected to the abutment and move towards

the earthll. Again, upper- and lower-bound soil compliance estimates should be used. The

lower-bound stiffness of the soil may be close to zero if the ratio width/height of the

earthll is low in the transverse direction. Active dynamic earth pressures should anyway

be considered on the opposite wing wall (see Section 6.11.2).

A global model is normally used for the analysis, with a fairly detailed discretisation of the deck

and the abutments. Springs model the soil against which the abutments and any wing walls may

push, with use of upper- and lower-bound estimates of the soil stiffness according to the paragraph above. Bridges with the deck exibly supported on the abutments in the longitudinal direction, but restrained there transversely by seismic links (shear keys), should be analysed for

transverse seismic action with a global model involving soil springs at the interior surface of

the wing walls. In view of the need to consider upper- and lower-bound estimates of soil stiffness,

this is quite taxing. However, there is no need for such a model if the abutments do not have

(signicant) wing walls pushing against the backll.

Bridges with the deck monolithic with the abutments often meet the criteria for the application of

the linear static analysis with the fundamental mode method. With inertia forces on the masses of

the structure estimated this way, the soilstructure system is then analysed for the simultaneous

action of gravity loads on these masses and of earth pressures (static at rest, plus seismic where

pertinent) and hydrostatic and hydrodynamic ones, where applicable. The seismic earth pressures

and the hydrodynamic pressures are computed and applied where pertinent according to Section

6.11.2, but always in the same horizontal direction and with the same sense of action as the inertia

forces on the masses of the structure.

To limit damage to the backll behind an abutment rigidly connected to the deck, Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 requires checking that the displacement of the abutment towards the backll,

computed from the analysis results according to Eq. (D5.68), does not exceed a certain limit.

This limit is a Nationally Determined Parameter, with a recommended value of 60 mm in

bridges of importance class II or just 30 mm for those of importance class III. No limit is set

for bridges of importance class I.

6.12.

For the purpose of the verication of resistance, the design action effects on the foundation

should be determined as follows (see Sections 6.3.2 and 6.7.2):

g

Clauses 4.2.4.4(2)e,

5.8.2(2)5.8.2(4) [2]

For bridges designed for limited ductile behaviour (q 1.5) or for those with seismic

isolation, the design action effects are those from the analysis for the seismic design

situation, Eq. (D6.1), with the seismic action effects computed for elastic response (i.e.

with a behaviour factor of 1.0).

For bridges designed for ductile behaviour (q . 1.5):

if the linear analysis with the design response spectrum is applied, the capacity design

procedure in Section 6.4.2 should be applied, for exural plastic hinges developing in the

piers

159

if nonlinear analysis is used, the design action effects are those from the analysis, but the

design resistance (computed with material partial factors, gM) is divided by the

Nationally Determined Parameter safety factor, gBd1 , with a recommended value of

gBd1 1.25 (see Sections 6.7.2 and 6.9.2).

6.12.2.1 Stability verications

The verications of shallow foundations concern sliding and the bearing capacity of the soil in

the seismic design situation.

For the verication against sliding, the total design horizontal force should satisfy the following:

VEd FH1 FH2 0:3FB

D6:75

where FH1 is the friction over the base of the footing, equal to NEd tan(d)/gM; FH2 is the friction

over the lateral sides of an embedded foundation; FB is the ultimate passive resistance of an

embedded foundation; NEd is the vertical design force acting on the foundation; d is the

friction angle between the foundation and the soil; and gM is the partial factor, taken equal to

gw, with a recommended value of 1.25.

Note that, although full friction on the base and the lateral sides of the foundation may be

considered to be mobilised, relying on more than 30% of the total passive resistance is not

allowed. The rationale for this limitation is that, for mobilisation of the full passive resistance,

a displacement of signicant magnitude is necessary to take place that does not comply with

the usual performance goals set forth for bridges. The values of FH2 and FB should correspond

to the lowest top level of the ground surface expected in the seismic design situation.

Note that, under certain circumstances, sliding may be acceptable, as an effective means for

dissipating energy and shielding the superstructure by limiting the forces that enter it (as in

base isolation systems). Furthermore, a numerical simulation generally shows that the amount

of sliding is limited. For this situation to be acceptable, the ground characteristics should

remain unaltered during the seismic excitation. Additionally, sliding may not affect the functionality of the bridge. Since soils under the water table may be prone to pore pressure build-up,

which affects their shear strength, sliding is only tolerated when the foundation is located

above the water table. It should be further pointed out that the predicted foundation displacement when sliding is allowed strongly depends on the friction coefcient between the footing

surface and the soil, which in turn depends on the surface material, its drainage conditions

and the construction method. If reliable estimates are necessary, in-situ tests are warranted.

Although not required by Eurocode 8, it is common practice to keep the resultant force at the

level of the soilfooting interface within one-sixth to one-third of the footing width from the

centre; if a linear distribution of soil stresses is assumed under the footing, these two limits

are equivalent to not allowing uplift, or restricting it to one-half of the foundation, respectively.

Nowadays, uplift is more commonly tolerated, because it is recognised that rocking of the

foundation reduces the seismic forces that enter the structure and therefore protects it.

However, to avoid yielding of the soil under the loaded edge and the permanent settlement

and tilt of the foundation it entails, rocking must be restricted to very good soil conditions.

To evaluate this behaviour for a spread footing, it is recommended that nonlinear static

(pushover) analysis is conducted to establish its momentrotation characteristics, including the

effects of uplift of the footing and soil yielding. Analytical results from such analyses not only

provide rotational stiffness parameters but also depict the geotechnical mode of ultimate

moment capacity. For spread footings, uplift is the most severe form of nonlinearity, albeit

tolerated by Eurocode 8. The foundation cannot develop overturning moments higher than

the ultimate moment capacity and its momentrotation curve becomes distinctly nonlinear

well before the ultimate moment (see Figure 5.20 for examples).

Clause 5.4.1.1,

Annex F [3]

160

In addition to the sliding verications, the bearing capacity of a foundation under seismic

conditions should be checked, considering the inclination and eccentricity of the force acting

on the foundation, as well as the effect of the inertia forces developed in the soil medium by

Figure 6.10. Ultimate load surface for the foundation bearing capacity

the passage of the seismic waves. A general expression, Eq. (D6.76), is provided in Annex F of

Part 5 of Eurocode 8, derived from theoretical limit analyses of a strip footing (Pecker, 1997).

The condition for the foundation to be safe against bearing capacity failure simply expresses

that the design forces NEd (vertical), VEd (horizontal), MEd (overturning moment) and the soil

seismic forces should lie within the surface depicted in Figure 6.10 and expressed by

c c

c0

c

1 eF T bV T

1 f F M gM M

b

d 1

0

0

a

c

k k

k k

N

1 mF

N

N

1 mF

N

D6:76

N

g

gRd VEd

Nmax

gRd MEd

BNmax

D6:77

F

gRd NEd

Nmax

gRd rag SB

Cu

D6:78a

for purely dry or saturated cohesionless soils without signicant pore pressure build-up

F

gRd ag S

g tan f0d

D6:78b

where Nmax is the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation under a vertical concentric force, as

estimated by any reliable method (strength parameters, empirical correlations from eld tests,

etc.); B is the foundation width; F is the dimensionless soil inertia force; gRD is the model

factor; r is the unit mass of the soil; ag is the design ground acceleration on type A ground,

Eq. (D3.3) in Section 3.1.2.2; S is the soil factor, see Table 3.3 in Section 3.1.2.3; Cu is the soil

undrained shear strength, cu , for a cohesive soil or the cyclic undrained shear strength, tcy,u ,

for a saturated cohesionless (including the material partial factor, gM); and fd0 is the design

angle of the shearing resistance of cohesionless soil (including the partial factor, gM).

The coefcients in lower case in Eq. (D6.76) (a, b, k, cM and cT) are numerical values that depend

on the soil type according to Table 6.2 (from Part 5 of Eurocode 8). The model factor gRD

161

a

b

c

d

e

f

m

k

k0

cT

cM

0

cM

b

g

0.70

1.29

2.14

1.81

0.21

0.44

0.21

1.22

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.57

1.85

0.92

1.25

0.92

1.25

0.41

0.32

0.96

1.00

0.39

1.14

1.01

1.01

2.90

2.80

reects the uncertainties in the theoretical model for the seismic verication of the bearing

capacity, and as such it should be larger than 1.0; it is also meant to recognise that certain

permanent foundation displacements may be tolerated (in which case Eq. (D6.76) is violated),

and then it may be less than 1.0. Tentative values that intend to combine both effects are

proposed in Annex F in Part 5 of Eurocode 8 and repeated in Table 6.3, reecting that for the

most sensitive soils (loose saturated soils) the model factor should be higher than for stable

ones (medium-dense sand).

More recent studies have shown that Eqs (D6.76)(D6.78), as well as these tabulated values, hold

also for circular footings, provided that the ultimate vertical force under vertical concentric

force, Nmax entering Eq. (D6.77), is computed for a circular footing and that the footing width

is replaced by the footing diameter (Chatzigogos et al., 2007). Although Eq. (D6.76) does not

look familiar to geotechnical engineers who are more accustomed to the classical bearing

capacity formula with correction factors for load inclination and eccentricity, it reects the

same aspect of foundation behaviour. This verication is similar to the use of interaction

diagrams in structural design for cross-sections under combined axial force and bending

moment.

6.12.2.2 Structural design of the footing

A footing is usually designed by treating it as a cantilever supported at the verication

sections, or as a simple beam, or as a continuous beam between the columns of rigid frame

piers. However, as footings may behave as a slab with an internal redistribution of stresses,

they may be considered as two-way beams for design purposes. The footing should have

sufcient thickness to be regarded as rigid relative to the underlying soil. Then, a linear

distribution of soil stresses or a distribution corresponding to an appropriate no-tension

Winkler spring model may be assumed for the determination of the internal forces of the

footing at its structural ULS.

As the footing is designed at the ULS as a beam, unless a nite element slab model is used for

the analysis, it is necessary to dene an effective width of the footing for the ULS in bending;

Table 6.3. Model factors for Eqs (D6.77) and (D6.78) (Part 5 of Eurocode 8)

162

Medium-dense to dense

sand

Loose dry

sand

Loose saturated

sand

Non-sensitive

clay

Sensitive

clay

1.00

1.15

1.50

1.00

1.15

Effective footing width

Bottom reinforcement of footing

Top reinforcement of footing

bB

b hc 1.5d B

(JRA, 2002) provides the estimates of effective width in Table 6.4 as a function of the pier width,

hc , and the effective footing depth, d.

6.12.3 Pile foundations

6.12.3.1 Pile internal forces

Piles and piers should be veried for the effects of the inertia forces transmitted from the superstructure to the pile heads and also for the effects of kinematic forces due to earthquake-induced

soil deformations. However, according to Part 2 of Eurocode 8, kinematic interaction needs to be

considered only when the pile crosses consecutive layers of sharply contrasting stiffness.

According to Part 5 of Eurocode 8, consideration of kinematic forces in piles is required when

the weak layer consists of soft deposits (as in ground types D, S1 or S2) with layers of sharp

stiffness contrast, the design acceleration exceeds 0.10g and the bridge is of importance above

ordinary.

Clauses 5.4.2(1)

5.4.2(6) [3]

Clause 6.4.2.2(2)c [2]

For long exible piles, the effects of kinematic interaction may be evaluated assuming that the

piles follow the ground displacement, which may be calculated either from a 1D site response

analysis with a computer code such as SHAKE (Idriss and Sun, 1992) or, in a homogeneous

soil layer overlying bedrock, from a simplied analytical formulation with the soil layer

assumed to respond in its fundamental mode of vibration and the pile modelled with the

appropriate boundary conditions at its tip and head (hinged, pinned). The displacement of the

fundamental mode of vibration of the soil layer is given by

d z d sin

pz

2H

D6:79

where H is the layer thickness and d is the relative ground displacement between the top and the

base of the soil layer. This relative ground displacement can be read from the rock response

spectrum (see Section 3.1.2.3 of this Guide) at the fundamental frequency of the soil layer

( f vs/4H) for the applicable shear wave velocity, vs , and damping ratio (see Table 3.5).

The effects of the inertia forces are obtained from the dynamic analysis. If the piles are modelled

as beams on a Winkler foundation, these results are directly obtained from the analysis. If the

soilstructure interaction is modelled as linear, it should, however, be checked that the

pressure applied by the piles to the soil does not exceed the pertinent ultimate capacity. If it

does, the analysis should be redone with weaker springs wherever the ultimate soil bearing

capacity is exceeded, until compatibility between computed displacements and the pressure is

achieved. If the pile foundation is modelled using the concept of the impedance matrix

introduced in Section 5.5.1.6 of this Guide, the internal forces in the piles can be obtained

only through a separate model for the pile, subjected to the same limitations as above.

The values of the action effects arising from inertial and kinematic loading may be combined

using the SRSS (square root of the sum of the squares) rule, unless the fundamental periods

of the soil layer and the bridge are close to each other. If they are, the sum of their absolute

values is more appropriate.

6.12.3.2 Structural design

Piles are generally designed to remain elastic: a q factor of 1.0 in bridges designed for limited

ductile behaviour; and through capacity design in those designed for ductility. However, with

the large bending moment that develops at the connection of a pile to its cap, designing the

pile to remain elastic there may not be feasible. It is therefore more economical and often

safer to design that location to develop a plastic hinge. This is indeed allowed in Part 2 of

Clauses 4.1.6(7),

6.4.2(1)6.4.2(4) [2]

Clause 5.4.2(7) [3]

163

Figure 6.11. Connement of the compression zone by the soil pressure for in-ground hinges

Soil

pressure

Moment

Eurocode 8, with the q factors of rows 3 and 4 in Table 5.1. In this case, locations of potential

plastic hinges should be detailed:

(a) the top of the pile to a distance of three pile diameters, D, from the underside of a pile cap

that is restrained against rotation in a vertical plane

(b) a length 2D of the pile on each side of the location of maximum bending moment (as

estimated taking into account the effective pile exural stiffness, the lateral soil stiffness

and the rotational stiffness of the pile group at the pile cap) and of an interface between

soil layers with a marked stiffness contrast.

Such detailing consists of conning reinforcement with a mechanical reinforcement ratio as

specied in Table 6.1 for piers of ductile behaviour. At locations of type (b) above, Eurocode 8

does not reduce the required connement steel to account for the experimentally found (Budek

et al., 1997) benecial effect of the soil pressures exerted on the compression side of the pile

(Figure 6.11). In such locations it requires a pile vertical reinforcement of not less than that

placed at the pile head.

Piles where plastic hinges are allowed should be veried for capacity design shear forces. If the

bridge is designed using nonlinear analysis, the head of the pile should also be veried as a

plastic hinge according to Section 6.7.2. In such a verication, the shear span, Ls , of the pile

may be taken as the distance from the point of contraexure to the pile cap.

6.13.

Clause 4.1.4(12) [3]

6.13.1 Introduction

Most seismic codes and current practice are against placing foundations on liqueable deposits.

According to Part 5 of Eurocode 8:

if soils are found to be susceptible to liquefaction and the ensuing effects are deemed capable of

affecting the load bearing capacity or the stability of the foundations, measures . . . shall be

taken to ensure foundation stability.

When designing a foundation on a potentially liqueable deposit three situations need to be

analysed:

g

164

Stage 1: during which limited pore pressures have developed and the soil retains its

original stiffness and strength; at this stage the forces applied to the foundation are most

likely less than the maximum forces that would develop during the earthquake if

liquefaction has not occurred; the response of the bridgefoundation system is purely

dynamic.

Stage 2: here, considerable excess pore pressures have developed (typically Du/sv0 . 0.5,

where sv0 is the vertical effective overburden) but no widespread liquefaction has yet

occurred; at this stage the soil stiffness is drastically reduced but the soil still preserves a

non-zero shear stiffness, allowing the seismic waves to propagate through the soil and

affect the foundation; the response of the bridgefoundation system is still predominantly

dynamic, but signicant nonlinearities take place that reduce the input motion and

therefore the dynamic forces.

Stage 3: this takes place towards the end or after the earthquake shaking has ended; full

liquefaction has developed, and lateral spreading of the liqueed soil may take place under

certain conditions, such as an inclination of the soil layers or of the ground surface,

resulting in a quasi-static, gravity-induced loading to the foundation. The response is

essentially static.

For shallow (footing or mat) foundations, the upward ow of water towards the ground surface

induces a signicant, if not a total, loss of soil resistance. Because the bearing layers are at the

ground surface, the strength reduction occurring in stage 2 or 3 causes loss of bearing

capacity, accompanied not only by vertical settlement but also, in some instances, signicant

tilt. The foundation movements that accompany full development of pore pressures are

unpredictable. Therefore, countermeasures need to be implemented. There is no alternative to

improving the ground conditions.

6.13.3 Pile foundations

6.13.3.1 Development of design approaches

For pile foundations the situation is somewhat different, as the load-resisting elements can be

embedded below the potentially liqueable strata. Therefore, it is feasible to design pile foundations to accommodate soil liquefaction. This has been done in practice at least to accommodate stages 1 and 2. However, until the Kobe earthquake of 1995, it was not foreseen to

design pile foundations to accommodate lateral spreading (stage 3), and signicant soil improvement needed to be implemented to protect the foundations of bridge piers. Soil improvement may

be expensive, especially when a wide area is affected by lateral spreading. For instance, the north

approach viaduct of the RionAntirrion Bridge in Greece is located in a zone where extensive

lateral spreading was predicted under the design earthquake; a costbenet analysis showed

that designing the piles to resist the forces induced by the soil displacement was more costeffective than improving the ground conditions. It is only recently that this type of analysis

Figure 6.12. Pile conguration due to liquefaction

Free field soil

deflection

Non-liquefied

layer

Liquefied

layer

Deformed

shape of pile

Non-liquefied

layer

165

Figure 6.13. Idealisation of ground ow for the seismic design of bridge foundations

Non-liquefiable

layer

qNL

HNL

Liquefiable

layer

qL

HL

Non-liquefiable layer

has been possible. Extensive back analyses of damage to pile foundations during the Kobe earthquake resulted in rational design methodologies (Finn, 2005). The situation to be analysed is

depicted in Figure 6.12. After liquefaction, if the residual strength of the soil is less than the

static shear stress caused by a sloping site or a free surface, such as a river bank, signicant

down-slope movement may occur. The moving soil exerts damaging pressures against the

piles, especially if a non-liqueed layer rides on top of the liqueed layer. Basically, there are

two different approaches to evaluate the forces: a force-based approach and a displacementbased approach.

6.13.3.2 Force-based approach

A force-based analysis is recommended in JRA (2002) for pile foundations in liqueed soils:

g

the non-liqueed surface layer is assumed to apply a passive pressure, qNL , on the

foundation

Ground

displacement

Liquefied

layer

166

Table 6.5. Reduction coefcients for soil springs due to liquefaction according to JRA (2002)

Safety factor, FL

surface, x: m

R 0.3

R . 0.3

FL 1/3

0 x 10

10 , x 20

0

1/3

1/3

1/3

1/3 , FL 2/3

0 x 10

10 , x 20

1/3

2/3

2/3

2/3

2/3 , FL 1

0 x 10

10 , x 20

1/3

1

1

1

the liqueed layer is taken to apply a pressure, qL , less than the equivalent hydrostatic

pressure.

Figure 6.13 illustrates the forces acting on the foundation. It has been found that the pressure

exerted by the liqueed layer may be taken as equal to 30% of the overburden pressure. These

ndings have been conrmed by centrifuge tests (Dobry and Abdoun, 2001), which, in

addition, showed that the moments in the pile are dominated by the lateral pressure from the

non-liqueed layer. Therefore, to minimise the bending moments in the piles arising from the

pressures exerted by the top non-liqueed soils, it is highly desirable to locate the pile cap

above the ground surface, without contact with the in-place soils.

6.13.3.3 Displacement-based approach

Following this approach, forces are not applied to the piles. Instead, free eld displacements are

imposed at the free ends of the springs in the Winkler model in Figure 6.14. The method requires

knowledge of the free eld displacements, which may be estimated via predictor equations

described in Section 3.4.5 of this Guide.

The displacement-based approach relies on two input data: the predictor equations giving the

amplitude of lateral spreading and the values of the spring stiffness to be used in the pile

model. In Japanese practice, the reduction in the spring stiffness for use in liqueable soils

depends on the factor of safety against liquefaction, FL . The recommended reduction factors

are given in Table 6.5 as a function of the product of the resistance to liquefaction, RL , and of

parameter cw , which for the reference seismic action dened in Eurocode 8 can be taken as

cw 1.0

for RL 0.1,

(D6.80a)

cw 3.3RL 0.67

(D6.80b)

cw 2.0

for 0.4 , RL

(D6.80c)

There is no commonly accepted practice in North America for the appropriate modelling of

degraded spring stiffness. The basis of most analysis is a degraded form of the American

Petroleum Institute py curves (API, 1993). The practice is to multiply the py curves by a

uniform degradation coefcient b, which ranges from 0.3 to 0.1 (Finn, 2005).

There is a great uncertainty in the denition of the free eld displacements used as input data to

the analysis. The predictor equations (Youd et al., 2002) are strongly empirical, and based on few

observations. Consequently, the force-based approach is often preferred and recommended

(JRA, 2002).

REFERENCES

API (1993) Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore

Platforms. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Biskinis DE and Fardis MN (2010) Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with

continuous or lap-spliced bars. Structural Concrete 11(2): 93108.

167

Biskinis DE and Fardis MN (2012) Effective stiffness and cyclic ultimate deformation of circular

RC columns including effects of lap-splicing and FRP wrapping. 15th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon.

Budek AM, Benzoni G and Priestley MJN (1997) Experimental Investigation of Ductility of InGround Hinges in Solid and Hollow Precast Prestressed Piles. Division of Structural Engineering,

University of California, San Diego, CA. Report SSRP-97.

CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation) (2000) EN 1337-2:2000: Structural bearings Part 2:

Sliding elements. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2002) EN 1990:2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural design (including Annex A2: Application

to bridges). CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2003a) EN 1991-1-5:2003: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 15: General actions

Thermal actions. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2003b) EN 1997-1:2003: Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design Part 1: General rules. CEN,

Brussels.

CEN (2004a) EN 1998-1:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part

1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004b) EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structure. Part 1: General rules

and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004c) EN 1998-5:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part

5: Foundations, retaining structures, geotechnical aspects. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005a) EN 1998-2:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part

2: Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005b) EN 1992-2:2005: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structure. Part 2: Bridges. CEN,

Brussels.

CEN (2005c) EN 1998-3:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part

3: Assessment and retrotting of buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005d) EN 1337-3:2005: Structural bearings Part 3: Elastomeric bearings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2006) EN 1998-4:2006: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 4:

Silos, tanks and pipelines. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2009) EN 15129:2009: Antiseismic devices. CEN, Brussels.

Chatzigogos CT, Pecker A and Salencon J (2007) Seismic bearing capacity of circular footing on an

heterogeneous cohesive soil. Soils and Foundations 47(4): 783797.

Constantinou MC, Kalpakidis I, Filiatrault A and Ecker Lay RA (2011) LRFD-based Analysis and

Design Procedures for Bridge Bearings and Seismic Isolators. Department of Civil, Structural and

Environmental Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Technical Report

MCEER-11-004:2011.

Dobry R and Abdoun T (2001) Recent studies of centrifuge modeling of liquefaction and its effect on

deep foundations. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics (Prakash S (ed.)), San Diego, CA, pp. 2631.

Elwi AA and Murray DW (1979) A 3D hypoelastic concrete constitutive relationship. Journal of

Engineering Mechanics Division of the ASCE 105(EM4): 623641.

Fardis MN (2009) Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrotting of Concrete Buildings (Based on ENEurocode 8). Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht.

Finn WDL (2005) A study of piles during earthquakes: issues of design and analysis. The tenth

Mallet Milne Lecture. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3(2): 141234.

Gupta AK and Singh MP (1977) Design of column sections subjected to three components of

earthquake. Nuclear Engineering and Design 41: 129133.

Idriss IM and Sun JI (1992) SHAKE 91: A Computer Program for Conducting Equivalent Linear

Seismic Response Analyses of Horizontally Layered soil Deposits. Program Modied Based

on the Original SHAKE Program Published in December 1972 by Schnabel, Lysmer and Seed.

Center of Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California,

Davis, CA.

JRA (2002) Design Specications for Highway Bridges, Part V. Seismic Design. Japanese Road

Association, Tokyo.

Katsaras CP, Panagiotakos TB and Kolias B (2009) Effect of torsional stiffness of prestressed

concrete box girders and uplift of abutment bearings on seismic performance of bridges. Bulletin

of Earthquake Engineering 7(2): 363376.

Mander JB, Priestley MJN and Park R (1988) Theoretical stressstrain model for conned

concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 114(8): 18041826.

168

Paulay T and Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings.

Wiley, New York.

Pecker A (1997) Analytical formulae for the seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations.

In Seismic Behavior of Ground and Geotechnical Structures (Seco e Pinto PS (ed.)). Balkema,

Rotterdam.

Richart FE, Brandtzaeg A and Brown RL (1928) A Study of the Failure of Concrete Under

Combined Compressive Stresses. University of Illinois Engineering Experimental Station,

Champaign, IL. Bulletin 185.

Stanton JF, Roeder CW, Mackenzie-Helnwein P et al. (2008) Rotation Limits for Elastomeric

Bearings. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

NCHRP Report 596.

Youd TL, Hansen CM and Bartlett SF (2002) Revised multilinear regression equations for

prediction of lateral spread displacement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering 128(12): 10071017.

169

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.171

Chapter 7

7.1.

Introduction

The concept of seismic isolation is more familiar to designers of bridges than of buildings or other

structures. Indeed, to avoid restraining thermal elongation or shortening and concrete shrinkage,

bridge designers have since long adopted the practice of separating the deck from the abutments

and some piers, by introducing longitudinally movable bearings (rollers, sliders or even elastomeric bearings). From that point it takes only a short leap to a continuous isolating interface

between the deck and all of its supporting elements, in order to reduce the transmission of

seismic motion from the ground to the deck.

7.2.

design

7.2.1

Objective and means

As pointed out above, the aim of seismic isolation is to reduce the seismic inertia forces on the

main mass of the bridge. To this end, an interface of isolating devices, termed the isolation interface, is introduced between the superstructure (normally the deck) and the substructure (i.e. the

abutments and piers). Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005a) uses the generic term isolators for

the units of the isolation system. Isolators may offer one or more of the following capabilities:

Vertical supporting function with high stiffness, to ensure the safe transfer of the vertical

reactions without deck deformation.

2 Transfer of horizontal forces with the effective displacement stiffness much less than that

of the corresponding element of the substructure (pier or abutment). These horizontal

forces act usually but not always as elastic restoring forces for the isolation system.

3 Enhanced dissipation of seismic input energy through increased damping.

1

The reduction of the horizontal stiffness of the total system Keff (point 2 above) increases its

p

fundamental period Teff 2p (M/Keff) relative to that of the initial structure with horizontally

xed connections, Tf . The acceleration spectrum in Figure 7.1(a) shows that this period shift

brings about a substantial reduction in the spectral acceleration, especially when Teff TC ,

where TC is the corner period between the constant pseudo-acceleration and the constant

pseudo-velocity ranges of the elastic spectrum of Eqs (D3.8). However, the displacement

spectrum in the same gure (derived from Eq. (D3.1)) clearly shows that the displacement is

also increased substantially.

An increase in damping to a value jeff above the default value of 5% of the elastic spectrum,

owing to the additional damping offered by the isolation system, reduces both the displacements,

p

as shown in Figure 7.1(b), and the forces, by the damping modication factor h [10/(5 jeff)]

(used also in Eqs (D3.8) and (D5.48), but allowed to be as low as 0.40 for seismic isolation). The

combination of increased damping and a period shift is a very efcient means to a substantial

reduction in seismic forces without an inconvenient increase in displacements.

7.2.2

Performance requirements

7.2.2.1 General requirements

Bridges with seismic isolation must meet the two general performance requirements set by Part 2 Clauses 2.2, 7.3(1) [2]

of Eurocode 8 for all bridges: the non-collapse and the limitation of damage requirements (see

Section 2.2 of this Designers Guide). However, specically for bridges with seismic isolation,

additional requirements are set, as detailed in the following sections.

171

Figure 7.1. Means for achieving seismic isolation: (a) period shift; (b) increased energy dissipation

(damping)

a

Period shift

d

a

dDisplacement spectrum

ag

d=a

To Tc

Teff

(a)

Clauses 7.3(4),

7.6.2(1), 7.6.2(2) [2]

o to eff

TD

( )

T

Teff

(b)

All components of the isolation system must have increased reliability relative to the other components of a bridge, both in terms of displacement capability and of force resistance. The enhanced

reliability is deemed to be available if the displacement capacity of the isolators can accommodate

a total design displacement in the seismic design situation, dEd , from Eq. (D6.36) in Section 6.8.1.2,

computed with the design seismic displacement, dE , from Eq. (D5.48) in Section 5.9, multiplied by

a safety factor gIS having a recommended value of 1.50. The resistance of the isolators and their

anchorage should accommodate the force developed at this increased displacement level.

The rationale behind the increased reliability demanded from the components of the isolation

system can be seen by comparing the design parameters dening the corresponding ultimate

limit states (ULS):

g

Clauses 7.3(2),

7.6.3 [2]

The ULS of ductile or limited ductile components is dened by resistances equal to the

characteristic design values (i.e. lower 5% fractiles) divided by the material safety factors

(with recommended values of 1.50 for concrete and 1.15 for steel). Therefore, these

components possess substantial safety margins. Should they momentarily and locally

exceed their force limits, the effects will normally be reversible and not catastrophic, owing

to their inherent ductility margins.

The components of the isolation system do not enjoy the above favourable situation. Their

ULS is practically dened by the geometric condition of the displacement capacity,

without margins. Exceeding this capacity is irreversible and usually catastrophic for the

isolator and probably for the bridge as well.

As pointed out in Section 7.2.1, the main benet of the isolation system is the high horizontal

exibility at the connection between the deck (which accounts for most of the system mass)

and its supporting elements (piers and abutments). This produces a fundamental natural mode

of vibration in the isolated horizontal direction with a substantially longer period than higher

modes. The response in the isolated mode(s) dominates the seismic response of the bridge. In

addition, the damping introduced by the isolation system acts directly on the displacements

and forces of the dominant mode(s) and is, therefore, quite efcient for dissipating energy and

reducing the global seismic response. Consequently, the seismic response of the substructure is

substantially reduced, and may be undertaken via elastic or limited ductile behaviour.

One might consider attempting a further reduction in the force response by providing for a

ductile behaviour of the substructure, allowing plastic hinges to form there and exploiting

their inelastic behaviour (partial isolation, instead of full). However, this, in general, will

not be benecial to the bridge for the following reasons, due to which Eurocode 8 does not

allow partial isolation neither for buildings (Part 1 (CEN, 2004)) nor for bridges (Part 2):

g

172

Partial isolation simply transfers part of the displacement demand from the isolation

system to the substructure, to be accommodated there by inelastic deformation (i.e.

larger uncertainty than displacements within the (increased if necessary) capacity of the

isolation system.

The inelastic forcedisplacement relation of the entire system no longer has the simple

linear shape of a fully isolated structure, where the dominant linear branch depends

mainly on the post-elastic stiffness of the isolation system and to a minor degree on the

elastic stiffness of the piers. This branch starts from the early yielding of the isolation

system and runs straight to its displacement capacity. By contrast, in partial isolation a

new linear branch starts at the yield displacement of each pier, with the last one

continuing until the minimum ultimate displacement capacity among all piers or the rst

displacement capacity is reached among the isolators (assumed here without restraining

devices). The determination of such a complex forcedisplacement law requires fairly

accurate evaluation of many parameters, and would in any case be subject to large

uncertainties.

Transferring signicant displacement demands from the isolation system to plastic hinges

in the substructure reduces signicantly the benecial effect of the energy dissipated by the

isolators, which is approximately proportional to the square of their displacement.

An important reason for choosing to seismically isolate a structure is to drastically

minimise or practically eliminate damage in the seismic design situation, by keeping the

structure within its elastic limits. This advantage is lost for partial isolation.

system

The response of an isolated bridge depends heavily on the properties of its isolation system,

which in turn derive from the corresponding mechanical properties of the isolators. Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 recognises the following categories of design properties:

Nominal values of design properties, to be dened by the designer usually in the form of a

range of values characterising an industrial product, such as an isolator. These properties

should be validated in general via special prototype tests. Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives in

its informative Annex K a description of such tests and the relevant requirements,

applicable if the provisions of EN 15129 (CEN, 2009) are not sufcient and there is no

relevant European Technical Approval (ETA). Prototype tests are not required from

normal low-damping elastomeric bearings (LDEBs) per EN 1337-3 (CEN, 2005b) and

ordinary at sliding bearings per EN 1337-2 (CEN, 2000), whose contributions to an

increase in the damping of the isolation system are ignored.

The variation of these properties due to external factors, such as temperature,

contamination, aging (including corrosion) or wear (expressed as cumulative travel),

should be taken into account in the design, according to normative Annex J of Part 2 of

Eurocode 8. The inuence of these factors is either determined through special tests or, for

common isolator types, estimated on the basis of modication factors (l factors) given in

informative Annex JJ of Part 2 of Eurocode 8. The following two groups of design

properties should be determined and used in separate analysis for each one:

lower-bound design properties (LBDP), usually giving the maximum displacements

upper-bound design properties (UBDP), usually resulting in the maximum forces.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives explicitly, usually in a simplied way, the UBDP values for

normal LDEBs and at sliding bearings.

Annex J,

Annex JJ [2]

Large residual displacements of an isolation system after an earthquake should be avoided,

because an offset from the accumulation of such displacements will reduce the displacement

capacity of the system. So, an isolation system should have sufcient automatic restoring

capability (see Section 7.6).

7.2.2.6 Need for sufcient stiffness for non-seismic actions and service conditions

The increased exibility of the horizontal support of the deck due to the isolation system should

not impair the functions of the bridge under service, nor lead to violation of any horizontal

displacement limits set by other Eurocodes for service or ULSs.

173

7.2.3

Conceptual design remarks

The efciency of a seismic isolation solution is measured by the seismic force reduction it entails

in the substructure of the bridge, namely the ratio VI,i/Vf,i , where Vf,i is the seismic shear force of

element i of the xed system and VI,i is the corresponding force of the isolated system, while

keeping the displacements within manageable limits.

As far as the local soil conditions are concerned, the period shift effect referred to in Section 7.2.1

is most efcient if the corner period TC between the constant pseudo-acceleration and the

constant pseudo-velocity ranges of the spectrum is short. Seismic isolation of a bridge

becomes less efcient as the ground type changes from A to B, D, C or E (see Table 3.3 in

Chapter 3). In addition, a longer corner period TD between the constant pseudo-velocity and

the constant displacement ranges of the spectrum adversely inuences the efciency of the isolation. Recall that Part 1 of Eurocode 8 recommends TD 2 s for all ground types; but see,

however, Section 7.3 below.

The effect of the period shift depends also on the value of the fundamental period of the bridge

considered xed, Tf . Bridges with Tf longer than TC and closer to TD do not need seismic isolation, since the forces induced by the seismic action are already low. Examples are bridges on

tall piers, cable-stayed bridges with the deck suspended from the pylon head, etc. Such bridges

may need supplemental damping to reduce seismic displacements and sacricial horizontal tie

systems to control displacements under non-seismic horizontal actions, mainly wind.

A very important favourable side-effect of seismic isolation in bridges is that it very efciently

makes uniform the horizontal seismic forces among piers and abutments of quite different stiffness. Similarly, it reduces the restraint of the deck due to its imposed deformations. This may be

quite important for long continuous post-tensioned concrete decks, which are sensitive to alternating thermal actions. Similar advantages are offered against imposed horizontal displacements

of the foundation, as long as these are small enough to be neglected as far as the displacement

capacity of the isolators is concerned.

7.3.

Clauses 3.2.2.2,

3.2.5(8) [1]

Clauses 3.2.2.3(1),

7.4 [2]

According to Part 2 of Eurocode 8, the design seismic action of isolated bridges should not be

taken as less than specied for non-isolated bridges. Consequently, whatever has been said in

Chapter 3 regarding elastic spectra, the time history representation of the seismic action, nearsource effects and spatial distribution applies to isolated bridges as well.

Seismically isolated bridges have by design a long fundamental period, and are therefore sensitive

to ground motions rich in low frequencies. Specically, elastic spectra with long values of TC and

TD are very demanding for bridges with seismic isolation. In this respect, a note in Part 2 of

Eurocode 8 allows a value of TD longer than the recommended value of 2 s to be adopted

(intended for earthquakes of magnitude up to 6.5).

Spectral ordinates may increase in the long-period range of the spectrum, and TD may shift up

owing to near-source effects in the vicinity of the seismotectonic fault rupture. The rules in

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 highlighted in Section 3.1.2.6 of this Guide cover the special needs of

bridges with seismic isolation in this respect.

7.4.

Clause 7.5.2.3.2 [2]

7.4.1

Bilinear hysteretic behaviour

7.4.1.1 General features

To this family belong many common types of isolators. The most common of them are dealt with

in Sections 7.4.1.2 to 7.4.1.5. Isolators of this family react with a force that depends on the

relative displacement between the isolator interface to the deck and its interface to the supporting

element (pier or abutment). The shape of the cyclic forcedisplacement diagram is very close to

bilinear: unloading branches are parallel to the initial elastic branch at a stiffness (slope) Ke; the

post-yield branches have much lower stiffness (slope) Kp . Figure 7.2 shows a cycle from an

extreme point (Fmax , dbd) to its opposite (Fmax , dbd) and back to (Fmax , dbd). The ratio

Keff Fmax/dbd

174

(D7.1)

F

Fmax

Fy

F0

Kp

Ke

dy

Keff

dd

ED

dr = F0 /Kp

termed the effective stiffness, is the stiffness of an elastic system reacting with the same force

Fmax to the peak displacement dbd . To provide the period

Pshift mentioned in Section 7.2, the stiffness of the isolation system, which is equal to the sum

Keff of all isolators, needs be substantially lower than the stiffness of the xed superstructure. The area enclosed by the hysteresis

loop, Ed , is the dissipated energy by the isolator at the peak displacement dbd .

The basic parameters of the bilinear loop are:

g

g

F0: force at zero displacement (often termed characteristic strength in the USA),

F0 Fy Kpdy

(D7.2a)

As Fmax and dbd both depend also on the seismic demand, the behaviour of a bilinear system is

intrinsically determined by three parameters: F0 , the elastic stiffness Ke Fy/dy and the postelastic stiffness Kp (see Figure 7.2). Equation (D7.2a) can be used to express Fy and dy as

functions of these parameters:

Fy F0/(1 Kp/Ke)

(D7.2b)

dy (F0/Ke)/(1 Kp/Ke)

(D7.2c)

Kp (Fmax Fy)/(dbd dy)

(D7.3)

(D7.4)

LDEBs (depicted in Figure 7.3) offer the possibility of lengthening substantially the fundamental Clause 7.5.2.3.3(2) [2]

period of the system, alongside a practical decoupling of the horizontal response from the inuence of a large stiffness contrast between piers or between them and the abutments. Because in the

early years of application of the pre-standard (ENV) version of Eurocode 8 to bridges, elastomeric bearings were the only devices of European production, widely used, relatively inexpensive

and covered by a European standard that could be used as isolator bearings, Part 2 of Eurocode 8

allows the use of normal LDEBs manufactured per EN 1337-3 (CEN, 2005b) directly as isolators.

Moreover, such bearings have very narrow hysteresis loops and do not lend themselves to

increasing the damping of the bridge above the default value of 5%. Therefore, the usual

elastic response spectrum analysis may be applied with the low shear stiffness of the bearings.

Note, however, that when an elastomer with very low values of the shear modulus is used

(G , 0.6 MPa), scragging may have to be accounted for in determining the design value of G

(see Section 7.4.1.3).

The conceptual rules and verications of these bearings are dealt with in detail in Chapter 6 of

this Guide and their modelling and analysis in Chapter 5. In addition, all the basic principles

175

Figure 7.3. Elastomeric bearings: (a) low-damping elastomeric bearing (LDEB); (b) high-damping

elastomeric bearing (HDEB)

and general rules for seismic isolation relating to the present chapter are consistently applicable

to them as well. The following points are noted specically for this type of isolator:

g

The inability of these bearings to offer additional damping increases the system

displacements to the point that they may prove prohibitive for the shear strains of the

bearings and/or the response of the bridge (see Section 6.10.4.4), unless the bearings are

combined with viscous dampers (see Section 7.4.2). This drawback, alongside the fact that

normal LDEBs per EN 1337 that are included in manufacturers lists of standard bearings

are in essence not specically intended for seismic use, makes them inadequate for use in

cases of truly high seismicity or adverse soil conditions.

Although isolation with these LDEBs is feasible only in not very demanding seismic

conditions and cannot be considered as an optimal solution, it is certainly an inexpensive

and simple one. In this respect, damage to some of these bearings in a strong earthquake

may even be considered as acceptable, as long as it is feasible to replace them.

Clause 7.5.2.3.3(3) [2] The damping capability of elastomeric bearings can be increased by replacing the pure elasto-

meric material by special mixtures of an elastomer with special aggregates. The width of the

hysteresis loops increases substantially, and a damping ratio appreciably higher than 5% can

be reached. An isolation system consisting exclusively of such high-damping elastomeric

bearings (HDEBs) may be analysed with the multimodal response spectrum method, if the effective damping ratio of the isolation modes, jeff , is determined from the dissipated energy per cycle,

Ed , as measured by the appropriate tests (see EN 15129 (CEN, 2009)).

Note that, after even a single cycle of shear deformation to the peak shear strain, this isolator type

presents substantial softening (reduction of shear modulus, G) in subsequent cycles (Figure 7.4).

In fact, the virgin value of G is recovered within a few months. This effect, usually termed

scragging, may lead to erroneous determination of the design value of G from tests on

scragged bearings. To avoid this, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires that the representative value

of G is determined from tests of unscragged specimens as the average in the rst three cycles

at peak shear strain.

7.4.1.4 Leadrubber bearings

Clause 7.5.2.3.3(9) [2] The most efcient way to achieve substantial energy dissipation capacity of the elastomeric

bearing is by replacing its core by lead (Figure 7.5), which yields early, offering the desired

energy dissipation. The shear stiffness of the lead core and the rubber annulus are

176

KL GLAL/h

(D7.5a)

KR GRAR/hR

(D7.5b)

50

40

30

Shear force: kN

20

10

0

300

200

100

10

100

200

300

20

30

40

50

Shear strain: %

where GL , AL and h are the shear modulus, the plan area and the thickness of the lead core,

respectively, and GR, AR and hR are those of the rubber annulus, respectively. If FLy is the

yield force of the lead core, the elastic stiffness of the leadrubber bearing (LRB) is

Ke KL KR

(D7.6)

Fy FLy(1 KR/KL)

(D7.7)

A wide variety of basic parameters of a bilinear system can be achieved by simply varying the

geometry of the lead core and the rubber annulus of the LRB. Many issues concerning the

detailed design of such bearings are given in Constantinou et al. (2011). The values to be

assumed for the material parameters should be in accordance to tests per EN 15129 or to an

applicable European Technical Approval (ETA). UBDP and LBDP bounds should be considered in the design according to Annex J in Part 2 of Eurocode 8. Circular bearings have the

same properties in any horizontal direction, and as such are preferred to square bearings.

7.4.1.5 Steel elastoplastic energy dissipators

These devices are not bearings, as they are not intended to bear gravity loads. Their objective is to

dissipate energy via plastic deformation of ductile steel elements yielding under the horizontal

seismic forces. Such a device is depicted in Figure 7.6(a), while Figure 7.6(b) shows typical

forcedisplacement loops. The restoring capability of systems with such devices may need to

be increased by combining them with other components (e.g. normal LDEBs); alternatively,

the displacement capacity of the system may need to be increased.

7.4.2

Velocity-dependent devices

A velocity-dependent device is connected to the deck and a supporting element (pier or

abutment) at two points, dening its direction of excitation and reaction. It reacts to the

relative motion of the connection points with a force F, which is co-linear to the relative

velocity of these points, v, but in the opposite direction, and has the magnitude

F Cvab

(D7.8)

Exponent ab assumes values in the range 1.000.01, and C is a constant of the device measured by

testing, in units kN/(m/s)ab (Figures 7.7 and 7.8).

Whenever the displacement d becomes a maximum (or absolutely minimum) in a cycle of motion,

and starts decreasing (or increasing), the velocity v passes through zero, as the direction of

motion is reversed. Consequently, the force F also becomes zero. Therefore, for these points

177

Figure 7.5. (a) Leadrubber bearings and (b) their forcedisplacement loops at different temperatures

of all cycles, including the maximum, Keff from Eq. (D7.1) is zero. In other words, velocitydependent devices do not contribute to the effective stiffness of the isolation system.

The forcedisplacement relation of velocity-dependent devices can be determined, if the displacementtime relation in a motion cycle is assumed. It is convenient to assume that the displacement

is a sinusoidal function of time t within a cycle of motion with period Teff or angular velocity

v 2p/Teff. Then (see Figure 7.7),

db dbd sin(vt)

(D7.9)

where dbd is the maximum displacement. The velocity v is the time derivative of d:

v vdbd cos(vt)

178

(D7.10)

Figure 7.6. (a) Steel elastoplastic energy dissipators and (b) typical forcedisplacement loops

F Cvab Fmax[cos(vt)]ab

(D7.11a)

with

Fmax C(dbdv)ab

(D7.11b)

ED l(ab)C(dbdv)abdbd

(D7.12)

lab 22ab

G2 1 0:5ab

G2 ab

D7:13

The values of l(ab) are given in Table 7.1 for a wide range of ab values.

Figure 7.7. Forcedisplacement loop of velocity dependent devices

F

b = 1

Fmax

b < 1

ED

dd

179

a

0.01 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.50 2.00

l(a) 3.988 3.882 3.774 3.675 3.582 3.496 3.416 3.341 3.270 3.204 p

2.876 2.667

Note that the maximum damping force Fmax , as well as the dissipated energy per cycle, Ed ,

depend on v (i.e. on the period of the motion, Teff). The dependence on v is linear and strong

if ab 1.0 (linear damping) or

1.0 and weaker for small values of ab (e.g. 0.01, see

Figure 7.8(b)). Note also that, for any value of ab , the damper force is zero at the point of

maximum displacement, and becomes maximum at zero displacement.

7.4.3

Frictional devices

7.4.3.1 Flat sliding bearings

Friction is a feature common to all sliding bearings. The Coulomb friction law gives the simple

relation between friction force, Ffr , caused by the vertical load, NSd , sliding on a horizontal at

sliding surface (Figure 7.9) with velocity d_b (where d_b is the time derivative of the relative displacement db , i.e. the velocity):

Ffr mfrNSd sign(d_b)

(D7.14)

where mfr is the friction coefcient and sign(d_b) is the sign of the velocity vector, independent of

the magnitude of velocity, depending only on the direction of the motion. However, the value

of mfr depends on the kind and history of the motion. Thus, one may distinguish between:

g

g

g

the dynamic coefcient of friction, md , applicable for seismic motions (i.e. at relatively high

velocities)

the static coefcient of friction ms , representative of very slow quasi-static motion

breakaway friction, for the estimation of the friction force necessary to start sliding after a

longer period of immobility and of load dwell.

Figure 7.8. Velocity-dependent device: (a) a hydraulic viscous damper and (b) its forcevelocity relation

(manufacturer: Maurer-Soehne)

Damper MHD of 3000 kN

3000

Silicon oil

Force: kN

2500

F = C V

2000

1500

1000

500

Piston

Steel cylinder

(a)

0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

Velocity: m/s

(b)

Figure 7.9. (a) A at sliding bearing and (b) its force-displacement loop

F

NSd

F0 = Fmax = dNSd

Fmax

ED

(a)

180

dbd

(b)

During seismic motion cycles the dynamic value of the friction coefcient mfr md is applicable

and depends on several factors, such as the composition of the sliding surfaces, the use or not of

lubrication, the bearing pressure on the sliding surface, the velocity of sliding, etc.

The friction force remains constant (i.e. Ffr Fmax), therefore Eq. (D7.14) is written as (see also

Figure 7.9)

Fmax mdNSd sign(d_b)

(D7.15)

ED 4mdNSddbd

(D7.16)

The above relations apply to an isolator once relative sliding at the sliding surface has started;

that is, when its friction capacity has been reached. This is practically always the case in the

seismic design situation, and can be simply veried by comparing the peak displacement of the

deck with that of the top of the supporting element. For other horizontal actions (wind or

braking load) or imposed deck deformations, certain sliding isolators, especially those supported

on exible piers, may remain inactive if the corresponding connection force demand (with the

connection assumed to be xed) does not exceed the isolator friction capacity.

To use at sliding bearings as energy dissipators in the bridge seismic isolation system, they should

present a reliable lower bound of energy dissipated per cycle, Ed , and, hence, a reliable lower

bound of the friction coefcient md . Normal at sliding bearings conforming to EN 1337-2,

with lubricated PTFE sliding surfaces, may be considered to have a controlled upper bound of

md , but no reliable lower bound under conditions of seismic motion. Therefore, according to

Part 2 of Eurocode 8, these bearings may be used as isolators, but not as energy dissipators.

Clearly, at sliding bearings have no self-restoring capability. So, they may be used as components of an isolation system only in combination with other devices providing the required

restoring capability (e.g. elastomeric bearings).

7.4.3.2 Bearings with one spherical sliding surface

Devices with one spherical sliding surface consist of an articulated slider coated with a special

PTFE material having controlled low friction (Figure 7.10). Sliding occurs on a concave stainless

steel surface with a radius of curvature of the order of 2 m. The coefcient of friction at the sliding

interface is very low, of the order of 0.050.10; it can be reduced even more through lubrication.

The combination of low friction and a restoring force due to the concave surface gives an

approximately bilinear hysteretic behaviour of the bearing, with inherent re-centring capability

(see Figure 7.10). The behaviour consists of the combined effect of:

g

F0 mdNsd

A linear-elastic component that provides a restoring force corresponding to post-yield

stiffness:

Kp

(D7.17)

Nsd

Rb

D7:18

The dissipated energy per cycle at the cyclic displacement dbd is as in Eq. (D7.16)

(i.e. ED 4mdNsddbd).

The maximum force, Fmax , and the effective stiffness, Keff , at displacement dbd are

Fmax

Nsd

d md Nsd sign d_bd

Rb bd

D7:19

181

Figure 7.10. (a) An isolator with one spherical sliding surface and (b) its forcedisplacement loop

dbd

Nsd

Rb

Fmax

Pivot point

(a)

Area enclosed in

loop = dissipated

energy per cycle Ed

Force F

for static analysis

Fmax

Kp = Nsd /Rb

F0 = dNsd

dbd

Displacement d

Ed

Force-displacement loop

for seismic analysis

(b)

Keff

Nsd md Nsd

Rb

dbd

D7:20

Note that Rb is in fact the radius of the spherical surface on which the pivot point is moving (see

Figure 7.10). If this point lies below the sliding surface at a distance h and that surface is concave

with radius Rs , then Rb Rs h; if it is above (at distance h), then Rb Rs h.

The elastic stiffness of the equivalent bilinear system Ke is theoretically innite. Numerical

instabilities may be avoided by using Ke F0/dy , with a small value of dy 0.1 mm.

The following special features of these isolators are worth noting:

g

The reaction, Fmax,i , of each isolator i to mass proportional forces acting on the deck is a

horizontal force parallel to the direction of motion and proportional to the corresponding

vertical reaction, Nsd,i . As the forces Nsd,i are in equilibrium with the total weight of the

deck (including overturning action effects in the direction of the motion), the resultant of

the horizontal reactions Fmax,i of all isolators passes through the horizontal projection of

the centre of mass of the deck. Consequently, the seismic motion causes no rotation about

a vertical axis, as long as the deck deformation and the exibility of the piers remain small,

as is the usual case.

Since the resultant horizontal reaction force of these devices is proportional to the mass of

the deck, as is also its inertia force, the dynamic equations of motion become independent

of mass, as long as the mass of the piers may be neglected. Such a system indeed behaves

as a pendulum.

These isolators consist of two external (main) concave plates, within which slide:

g

182

either a spherical bearing with convex external plate surfaces (double spherical slider, see

Figure 7.11 for a schematic) or

R2, 2

h2

d2

d1

h1

R1, 1

Typically:

R1 = R2 = R; h1 = h2 = h; d1 = d2 = d; 1 = 2 = d

two intermediate convexconcave sliding plates with a central solid convex slider (triple

spherical isolator, shown schematically in Figure 7.12).

The behaviour of the typical double spherical slider has no signicant differences from the simple

one, except that

Rb 2(R h)

(D7.21)

dlim 2d(1 h/R)

(D7.22)

The behaviour of the triple spherical isolator is more complex. The following concise description

corresponds to the triple friction pendulum bearing, manufactured by EPS. Detailed design procedures for such bearings are given in Constantinou et al. (2011). The cross-section of the generic

type is depicted in Figure 7.12, alongside the usual assumptions for typical bearings. Owing to the

distances hi between the sliding surfaces and the corresponding pivot points, the following

effective value of curvature radii should be used:

Reff,i Ri hi

(for i 14)

(D7.23a)

di di(Reff,i/Ri)

(for i 14)

(D7.23b)

d y 2(m1 m2)Reff,2

(D7.24)

m m1 (m1 m2)(Reff,2/Reff,1)

(D7.25)

dlim

d y

2d 1

(D7.26)

Figure 7.12. Triple friction pendulum bearing: geometric and frictional properties

R4, 4

R3, 3

d3

d4

h3

h4

d1

h2

h1

d2

R1, 1

R2, 2

Rigid slider

Slide plates

Typically:

R1 = R4, R2 = R3; h1 = h4, h2 = h3; d1 = d4, d2 = d3; 1 = 4 = d, 2 = 3 < d

183

Force F

22Nsd

1Nsd

Nsd

Nsd/2Reff,1

Nsd/2Reff,2

2Nsd

d*y = 2( 1 2)Reff,2

Displacement d

2dy

dbd

Assuming that the maximum displacement demand, dbd , remains less than dlim (dbd dlim), the

forcedisplacement loops have the trilinear form depicted in Figure 7.13. The energy dissipated is

Ed 4[mdbd 4d y (m m2)]Nsd

(D7.27)

dy d y

(D7.28a)

F0 mNsd

(D7.28b)

Kp Nsd/2Reff,1

(D7.28c)

Ke

m1Nsd/d y

(D7.28d)

g

Regimes I and II for d y d d y (see Figure 7.13) correspond to a force below the

minimum friction m2 or to motion within part of regions d2 and d3 (see Figure 7.12); the

response lies in them during minor seismic events.

Regimes III and IV for d y d dlim (see Figure 7.13) correspond to motion within the

main sliding regions d1 and d4 (see Figure 7.12); the response to the design seismic events

Total displacement

Regime V

Regime IV

Horizontal force

Regime III

Regime II

Regime I

F

dlim

184

lies in these regimes. (The second slightly steeper post-yield line reects the general case

when R4 , R1 .)

Regime V reects an additional displacement margin beyond the design displacement

capacity dlim of the device; it corresponds to a motion within the available remaining part

in regions d2 and d3 .

7.5.

Analysis methods

7.5.1

Analysis methods and their elds of application

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 provides for the following analysis methods of bridges with seismic

isolation:

g

g

g

the fundamental mode method (FMM)

multimode spectrum analysis (MMS).

The rst one is the most general analysis method, and may be applied to all cases. The conditions under which the two spectral methods may be applied in a stand-alone way are given

in Table 7.2.

7.5.2

Nonlinear time-history analysis

As the superstructure and the substructure remain essentially elastic, their stiffness is in general

established considering them as uncracked; the nonlinearity of the model should reect the

nonlinear properties of the isolation system, including:

g

g

Clauses 7.5.6(1),

7.5.7(1) [2]

the interaction of the simultaneous response in at least the two horizontal directions

the effect of overturning forces.

Regarding specically the contribution of the vertical seismic component, alternatively to using a

simultaneous vertical acceleration time history, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 allows its estimation via the

linear response spectrum method and combination of the action effects with those of the horizontal components via Eq. (D5.2c).

Note that the energy dissipation offered by the components of the isolation system, either as

hysteretic damping (through bilinear hysteretic or friction devices) or as viscous (via hydraulic

dampers), is directly accounted for in a nonlinear analysis. It is therefore important to ensure

that the input data given for the damping matrix of the system, intended to represent the

standard structural damping of the substructure and superstructure elements, are not interpreted

by the computational algorithm as applicable to the isolated modes as well (i.e. for the modes

with the longest period). It should also be taken into account that the main part of the seismic

deformation energy in the structure refers to these modes. On the other hand, as always in

nonlinear analysis, it is desirable to use increased damping to lter out possibly inaccurate

results due to very short period modes (i.e. those with a period less than the time-step of the

direct time integration which is usually of the order of 0.01 s). Usually, Raleigh damping is

applied to meet such limitations, with the damping matrix C derived as a linear combination

of the stiffness matrix K and the mass matrix M:

C aK bM

(D7.29)

j ap/T bT/4p

(D7.30)

Spectrum method

Multimodal analysis

Distance from active fault

Ground type

10 km

No limit

A, B or C

A, B or C

0.30

0.30

185

b0

(D7.31)

g

g

for T 0.05 s: j 0.10.

7.5.3

Fundamental mode method of analysis

In the fundamental mode method (Figure 7.15) the entire structure is taken as a single-degree-offreedom (SDoF) system according to the rigid deck model of Sections 5.6.3 and 5.6.4. In its basic

form it considers only the stiffness and dissipation energy properties of the isolation system in

one horizontal direction at a time. Despite its simplied form, the method can capture the

most signicant aspects of the structural response. Certain corrections and adaptations are

discussed in Section 7.5.5.

The method estimates the maximum seismic displacement dcd of the system iteratively, using two

basic approximation tools:

g

The effective stiffness of the system, Keff . The nonlinear forcedisplacement relation of the

isolation (the system is shown schematically in Figure 7.15(a)) is obtained by summing up

the force contributions of all its components, i, corresponding to an assumed displacement

value dcd,a . The effective stiffness is the secant stiffness at the point of maximum

displacement, dcd,a:

Keff Fmax/dcd,a

Fmax,i/dcd,a

(D7.32)

Keff,i

The effective damping of the system, jeff: This is the equivalent viscous damping

corresponding to the sum of dissipated energies, ED,i , of all components of the isolation

system at the cycle of peak displacement dcd dcd,a . It is calculated as

jeff

P

ED;i

1

2

2p Keff dcd

D7:33

The values of ED,i are known isolator properties in terms of the isolator displacement.

The deck seismic displacement is taken as that of a linear SDoF system having a mass equal to

that of the deck, Md, stiffness Keff and an equivalent viscous damping ratio jeff . Its period is

Teff

s

Md

2p

Keff

D7:34

Figure 7.15. Fundamental mode method: (a) forcedisplacement; (b) displacement spectra

= 0.05

Keff

= eff

Fmax

dcd.r

dcd.a

(a)

186

TC

Teff TD

(b)

The peak displacement demand, dcd,r , can be derived as shown schematically in Figure 7.15(b),

from the displacement response spectrum that results from multiplication of the elastic acceleration spectrum for j 0.05 by the damping modication factor, heff , corresponding to the

estimated value of jeff:

s

0:10

heff

D7:35

0:05 jeff

After a few iterations, the assumed value dcd,a converges to the seismic demand dcd,r .

This simple approach gives good estimates of the maximum seismic forces, only if they occur

simultaneously with the estimated maximum displacement. This holds in general if the

reacting force of all isolators of the system is either constant (friction) or depends only on the

displacement (as in elastic or hysteretic isolators). Then,

Fmax ,i Keff,idcd

(D7.36)

When the isolation system also contains devices with a reacting force proportional to velocity

(hydraulic viscous dampers), their maximum force does not take place at the instant of peak

displacement. In such cases, a more complex procedure is required to estimate the peak forces

(see Section 7.5.5.5).

7.5.4

Multimode spectrum analysis

This is an approximate method, combining via the usual combination rules of Section 5.5.4:

1

2

the fundamental mode method described above for the isolation modes,

the multimodal response spectrum analysis with the default damping ratio of j 0.05 for

the higher modes.

(longitudinal and transverse) and to combine the results via Eqs (D5.2). The same applies for the

combination with the computed effects of the vertical component.

Step 2 (a multimodal analysis for the upper modes) is applied as follows in each horizontal

direction:

g

g

g

All isolators i are modelled with their effective stiffness, Keff,i , as derived from the

fundamental mode method in the direction considered.

The substructure and superstructure elements are modelled with uncracked stiffness and a

sufcient number of intermediate nodes to capture the effects of important higher modes.

The modal damping ratio is taken as equal to the default value j 0.05 for all modes with

a period T , 0.8Teff , where Teff is the effective period of the isolated mode from the

fundamental mode method; the effective damping of that mode, jeff , is used for all modes

with periods longer than 0.8Teff .

higher modes. The limitation pointed out in Section 7.5.3 regarding the inability to estimate

well the maximum forces in combinations of viscous dampers and hysteretic isolators still holds.

7.5.5

mode method results

7.5.5.1 Introduction

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 and its counterparts (e.g. AASHTO, 2010) use the results of the fundamental mode method as lower limits for the results of the multimode spectral method or even

the nonlinear time-history approach, as a sort of self-checking by the designer. It is therefore

important to control the approximation it offers and to improve it wherever possible.

The following deals briey with the impact of Keff , jeff and bidirectional excitation on the

approximation of the fundamental mode method and offers suggestions for its improvement

187

did

dbi,d

Deck

Fi

Isolator i

Hi

Pier i

Fi /Kti

Fi /Ksi

Fi /Kbi

Fi Hi2/Kri

where possible. It also describes methodologies for estimating the maximum forces in isolation

systems using viscous dampers

The basic form of the fundamental mode method accounts only for the stiffness of the isolators,

neglecting the exibility of the piers. Although this assumption is acceptable in most usual cases,

it is not for high and exible piers.

The exibility of an abutment and its foundation is usually negligible. The composite stiffness of

pier i may be obtained from Eq. (D2.10), rewritten here as (Figure 7.16)

1

Keff;i

1

1

1

H2

i

Kbi Kti Ksi Kfi

D7:37

where Kbi , Kti and Ksi are the translational stiffness of the bearing, the foundation and the pier

shaft, respectively, Kfi is the foundation rotational stiffness and Hi the height of the pier shaft.

The last three summands are lumped into the pier exibility 1/KPi . Then,

Keff,i KbiKPi/(Kbi KPi)

(D7.38)

Keff,i Kbi/(1 Kbi/KPi) Kbi(1 Kbi/KPi)

(D7.39)

If the isolators over all piers and abutments have the same stiffness, Kbi Kb , then,

Keff

Keff,i

Kb K2b

(1/KPi)

(D7.40)

This correction of Eq. (D7.32) separately in each horizontal direction lends itself to hand

calculation.

7.5.5.3 Damping ratio jeff

Only few of the forcedisplacement loops from an analysis of either an isolated or a non-isolated

ductile bridge reach a displacement near the peak displacement demand among these loops, in

the response to an accelerogram used for the design. Most other loops have substantially

smaller peak displacements. However, the value of jeff corresponding to the loop with the

maximum displacement is used in the fundamental mode method for the estimation of the

peak displacement demand. It is therefore informative to study the variation of jeff as a

function of the displacement in a given loop.

Figure 7.17 shows the variation of jeff in a bilinear hysteretic system as a function of the

displacement normalised by the yield displacement (the displacement ductility ratio m d/dy)

and the hardening ratio, l Kp/Ke . Figures 7.18 and 7.19 depict the evolution of the ratio

188

Figure 7.17. Variation of the effective damping ratio jeff of a bilinear hysteretic system as a function of

the ductility ratio m d/dy for various values of l Kp/Ke

0.60

0.001

0.01

0.50

0.05

0.30

eff

0.40

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.10

0.00

0

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

= d/dy

jeff/jeff,c of effective damping with the displacement amplitude d of the loop normalised to the

peak displacement during the response, dc . Figure 7.18 concerns bilinear hysteretic systems

with the maximum ductility ratio mc dc/dy as the parameter, whereas Figure 7.19 refers to a

system of elastic isolators (e.g. LDEB) combined with viscous dampers, and is parametrised

by the damper exponent a.

It is clear from Figures 7.17 and 7.18 that at ductility levels around 10 and higher, jeff either

remains approximately constant with displacement or even reduces slightly at larger displacement amplitudes. The reduction with the displacement amplitude is more pronounced in

Figure 7.19 for viscous dampers with small a values. For a 1.0 (linear damping), jeff

remains constant over the whole range of d/dc up to 1.0. For this reason, the use of effective

damping, jeff , gives satisfactory results in cases of seismic isolation, because the ductility ratio

demands reached are high. By contrast, Figures 7.17 and 7.18 show that for bilinear hysteretic

systems reaching ductility ratios mc less than 57 (as typical of reinforced concrete or steel

non-isolated ductile structures), jeff is smaller at low displacement amplitudes. More rened

hysteretic models for reinforced concrete structures exhibit similar trends (Fardis and Panagiotakos, 1996). The large scatter of experimental results shown also in Fardis and Panagiotakos

(1996) is an additional reason why effective damping, jeff , cannot be reliably applied for

estimating nonlinear displacement demands in ductile reinforced concrete structures.

7.5.5.4 Bidirectional excitation

The fundamental mode method refers to SDoF systems and motions in a certain direction.

However, real isolation systems have, in general, two horizontal degrees of freedom, with

Figure 7.18. Evolution of the ratio jeff/jeff,c of effective damping to its value at the peak displacement dc

with the ratio d/dc of the peak displacement of a loop d to dc, in a bilinear hysteretic system, as a

function of the nal ductility ratio mc dc/dy, for a hardening ratio l Kp/Ke equal to 0.05

1.6

1.4

c = 12.5

c = 10

c = 7.5

1.2

eff /eff,c

1.0

c = 15

0.8

0.6

c = 5

= 0.05

0.4

c = 3

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

d/dc

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

189

Figure 7.19. Evolution of the ratio jeff/jeff,c of effective damping to its value at the peak displacement dc

with the ratio d/dc of the peak displacement in a loop d to dc, in an elastic system with only viscous

damping as a function of the damper exponent a

3.0

= 0.40

= 0.00

= 0.05

= 0.10

= 0.20

2.5

eff /eff,c

2.0

= 0.60

1.5

= 0.80

1.0

= 1.00

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

d/dc

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

usually (but not always) the same or similar properties in these two directions. Part 2 of

Eurocode 8, as well as AASHTO (2010) and more recently Constantinou et al. (2011), do not

explicitly provide for the estimation of the effect of the transverse seismic action in the context

of the fundamental mode method. In fact, Eqs (D5.2) normally underestimate this effect.

Clauses 3.2.3(3),

3.2.3(6), 3.2.3(7) [2]

The key to the modication of the fundamental mode method to make its results compatible with

those of nonlinear time-history analysis lies in the rules governing the compatibility of the pairs

of horizontal acceleration histories with the elastic response spectrum, highlighted in Section

3.1.4 of this Guide. These rules lead to the following options for achieving compatibility

between the fundamental mode method and nonlinear time-history analysis:

The fundamental mode method is conveniently carried out using an elastic spectrum

multiplied by a factor of 1.251.30. This amplication slightly exceeds the requirement of

Eurocode 8.

2 The results of the fundamental mode method carried out for each horizontal component

strictly according to Part 2 of Eurocode 8 are modied by multiplying the displacements

by a factor between 1.15 and 1.25. This amounts to assuming a concurrent transverse

displacement between 57% and 75% of the estimated peak displacement.

1

For isolation systems consisting of elastic isolators (e.g. elastomeric bearings) and exclusively

viscous dampers, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 gives a methodology for the estimation of maximum

forces occurring simultaneously on elastic isolators and dampers. However, it does not give

any guidance for systems of hysteretic isolators and viscous dampers. A general theoretical

solution for free vibrations of such a system is given in Ribeiro et al. (2007). In this section,

the more practical methodology in Constantinou et al. (2011) is highlighted.

Both the hysteretic isolators with dissipated energy per cycle ED,h from Eq. (D7.3) and the

viscous dampers with dissipated energy ED,v from Eqs (D7.12) and (D7.13) contribute to the

effective damping as

jeff (

ED,h

P

ED,v)/(2p Keffd 2cd)

(D7.41)

P

P

jv ( ED,v)/(2p Keffd 2cd)

190

(D7.42)

Effective

period: s

Effective damping: %

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.3

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.72

0.75

0.82

0.95

1.08

1.05

1.00

1.09

0.95

0.70

0.73

0.83

0.98

1.12

1.11

1.08

1.15

1.05

0.69

0.73

0.86

1.00

1.16

1.17

1.17

1.22

1.15

0.67

0.70

0.86

1.04

1.19

1.24

1.25

1.30

1.24

0.63

0.69

0.88

1.05

1.23

1.30

1.33

1.37

1.38

0.60

0.67

0.89

1.09

1.27

1.36

1.42

1.45

1.49

0.58

0.65

0.90

1.12

1.30

1.42

1.50

1.52

1.60

0.58

0.64

0.92

1.14

1.34

1.48

1.58

1.60

1.70

0.54

0.62

0.93

1.17

1.38

1.54

1.67

1.67

1.81

0.49

0.61

0.95

1.20

1.41

1.59

1.75

1.75

1.81

the maximum velocity vm in sinusoidal motion can then be estimated from the pseudo-velocity

vdcd as

vm rvvdcd

(D7.43)

The correction factors rv are given in Table 7.3 (see Constantinou et al., 2011). The maximum

forces Fm on the system can be estimated as

2pjv

ab

ab

Fm Keff dcd cos d

rv sin d

D7:44

Keff dcd

l

where

2p aj v

d

l

1=2ab

D7:45

and the other variables are dened in Eqs (D7.13) and (D7.42).

7.6.

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires the isolation system present in both horizontal directions sufcient

lateral restoring capability to automatically prevent accumulation of large residual displacements. Note that the absence of residual displacements in the results of nonlinear time-history

analyses using few (usually 310) horizontal pairs of spectrum-compatible ground acceleration

histories is by no means conclusive proof of sufcient restoring capability. The criteria in Part

2 of Eurocode 8 have a solid basis: several hundred thousand nonlinear analyses (Katsaras

et al., 2008) of bilinear hysteretic systems subjected to an exhaustive range of strictly natural

far- and near-source records.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2010) Guide Specications for Seismic Isolation Design. American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Ofcials, Washington, DC.

CEN (Comite Europe de Normalisation) (2000) EN 1337-2:2000: Structural bearings Part 2:

Sliding elements. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004) EN 1998-1:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005a) EN 1998-2:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2:

Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005b) EN 1337-3:2005: Structural bearings Part 3: Elastomeric bearings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2009) EN 15129:2009: Antiseismic devices. CEN, Brussels.

Constantinou MC, Kalpakidis I, Filiatrault A and Ecker Lay RA (2011) LRFD-based Analysis and

Design Procedures for Bridge Bearings and Seismic Isolators. Department of Civil, Structural and

Environmental Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Technical Report

MCEER-11-004:2011.

191

11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Paper 464.

Katsaras CP, Panagiotakos TB and Kolias B (2008) Restoring capability of bilinear hysteretic

seismic isolation systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 37(4): 557575.

Ribeiro AMR, Maia NMM, Fontul M and Silva JMM (2007) Complete Response of a SDoF

System with a Mixed Damping Model. Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica, Instituto

Superior Tecnico, Lisbon.

192

ISBN 978-0-7277-5735-7

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/dber.57357.193

Chapter 8

8.1.

Introduction

This chapter presents examples of seismic design of bridges according to Part 2 of Eurocode 8.

The generic example is a bridge having a continuous deck with one central span and two

shorter side spans. The chapter comprises the following examples:

g

g

g

Section 8.2 example of ductile piers: a bridge with a concrete deck monolithic with piers

designed for ductile behaviour. This earthquake-resisting system is usually cost-effective

for bridges of medium-short spans and medium total length.

Section 8.3 example of limited ductile piers: a longer bridge on tall piers designed for

limited ductile behaviour.

Section 8.4 example of seismic isolation: a longer bridge on short piers with seismic

isolation.

All three examples have developed from the contribution of the senior author of this Designers

Guide (Bouassida et al., 2012).

8.2.

8.2.1

Bridge layout design concept

The bridge is a three-span overpass, with spans 23.50 35.50 23.5 m and a total length of

82.5 m. The deck is a post-tensioned cast-in-situ concrete voided slab. The piers consist of

single cylindrical columns with diameter D 1.2 m, monolithic with the deck. The pier heights

are 8 m for M1 and 8.5 m for M2. The bridge is simply supported on the abutments through a

pair of bearings allowing free sliding and rotation in every horizontal direction. The piers and

the abutments are supported on piles. The concrete grade is C30/37. The conguration of the

bridge and cross-sections of the deck and the piers are shown in Figures 8.18.3.

The selection of single cylindrical-column piers allows arranging the supports at right angles to

the longitudinal axis, despite the slightly skew crossing in plan. For the given geometry of the

bridge, the monolithic connection between the piers and the deck minimises the use of expensive

bearings or isolators (and their maintenance), without subjecting the bridge elements to excessive

Figure 8.1. Longitudinal section of the bridge with ductile piers

A1

M1

M2

A2

193

A1

M1

M2

A2

restraint by imposed deck deformations. Some comments on the cost-effectiveness of the seismic

resistant system are given, as conclusions, in Section 8.2.12.

8.2.2

The earthquake-resisting system

8.2.2.1 Structural system and ductility

The main elements resisting seismic forces are the piers. A ductile seismic behaviour is selected for

these elements. The value of the behaviour factor q, as given in Section 5.4, Table 5.1, depends on

the shear span ratio Ls/h of the piers:

g

For the longitudinal direction (taken as the horizontal direction X), assuming the piers

to be fully xed to the foundation and to the deck and for the shortest pier M1:

Ls 8.0/2 4.0 m and Ls/h 4.0/1.2 3.33 . 3.0; therefore:, qX 3.50.

For the transverse direction (taken as the horizontal direction Y), assuming the piers to be

fully xed to the foundation and free to move and rotate at the connection to the deck and

for the shortest pier M1: Ls 8.0 m and Ls/h 8.0/1.2 6.67 . 3.0, allowing qY 3.50.

8.2.2.2.1 Piers

The value of the effective stiffness of the piers for the seismic analysis is estimated initially and

checked after dimensioning the vertical reinforcement of the piers. For both piers the stiffness

is assumed to be 40% of the uncracked exural stiffness of the gross section.

8.2.2.2.2 Deck

The full uncracked exural stiffness of the gross section of the prestressed concrete deck is taken.

Considering the voided section as closed, the torsional stiffness is 50% of the uncracked gross

section stiffness.

Figure 8.3. Cross-sections of (a) the piers and (b) the deck

(a)

194

(b)

Figure 8.4. Design response spectrum (normalised to the design peak ground acceleration, ag)

0.900

0.821

0.800

0.767

0.700

Velocity

Acceleration

Displacement

Sd(T )/ag

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

TC

TB

0.000

0.00

0.50

TD

1.00

1.50

Period, T: s

2.00

2.50

3.00

8.2.3

Design seismic action

A response spectrum of type 1 applies for the design seismic action. The ground type is C, with

the recommended values of the soil factor S 1.15 and the corner periods TB 0.2 s and

TC 0.6 s in Table 3.3, whereas the corner period is taken as longer: TD 2.5 s. The bridge is

located at a seismic zone with a reference peak ground acceleration agR 0.16g. The importance

factor is gI 1.0, and the design peak ground acceleration in the horizontal directions is

ag gIagR 1.0 0.16g 0.16g

The lower bound factor for design spectral accelerations is b 0.20. For the behaviour factors

qX 3.5 in the longitudinal direction and qY 3.5 in the transverse direction, the design

response spectrum (normalised to the design peak ground acceleration, ag) from Eqs (D5.3) in

Section 5.3 is shown in Figure 8.4.

8.2.4

Quasi-permanent actions for the seismic design situation

The loads applied to the bridge deck (Figure 8.5) in the seismic design situation are as follows.

8.2.4.1 Self-weight (G)

The area of the voided section is 6.89 m2, the area of the solid section is 9.97 m2, the total length

of the voided section is 73.5 m and the total length of the solid section is 9.0 m:

qG (6.89 m2 73.5 m 9.97 m2 9.0 m) 25 kN/m3 14 903 kN

8.2.4.2 Additional dead load (G2)

The area of the sidewalks is 0.50 m2/m, the weight of the safety barriers is 0.70 kN/m and the

width and thickness of the pavement are 7.5 m and 0.10 m, respectively:

qG2 2 25 kN/m3 0.50 m2 (sidewalks) 2 0.70 kN/m (safety barriers) 7.5 m

23 kN/m3 0.10 m (road pavement) 43.65 kN/m

Figure 8.5. Dead, additional dead and quasi-permanent uniform trafc load application

195

The quasi-permanent value of the trafc load is taken as 20% of the uniformly distributed trafc

load (UDL) of load model 1 (LM1), qUDL 45.2 kN/m:

qQP 0.20qL 0.2 45.2 kN/m 9.04 kN/m

8.2.4.4 Thermal actions (T)

The thermal actions consist of:

g

temperature component, Te,max , from the initial temperature T0 108C at the time the

deck is erected;

a uniform temperature difference DTN,con 458C of the minimum uniform bridge

temperature component, Te,min , from the initial temperature, T0, at the time the deck is

erected.

No vertical temperature difference component, DTM, between the top and bottom surfaces of the

deck is considered.

8.2.4.5 Creep and shrinkage (CS)

A total strain of 32.0 10 5 is considered. It is of relevance only for the bearing displacements.

The total load applied on the bridge deck in the seismic design situation is then

WE 14 903 kN (43.65 9.04) kN/m 82.5 m 19 250 kN

8.2.5

Fundamental mode analysis in the longitudinal direction

The fundamental mode period is estimated based on a simplied single-degree-of-freedom

(SDoF) cantilever model of the bridge. The mode corresponds to the oscillation of the bridge

along its longitudinal axis, assuming both ends of the piers as xed.

For cylindrical columns of diameter 1.2 m, the uncracked moment of inertia is Iun p1.24/64

0.1018 m4. The assumed effective moment of inertia of piers is Ieff/Iun 0.40 (to be checked

later). Assuming both ends of the piers xed, for concrete grade C30/37 with Ecm 33 GPa,

the stiffness of each pier in the longitudinal direction is

K1 12EIeff/H3 12 33 000 MPa (0.40 0.1018 m4)/(8.0 m)3 31.5 MN/m

K2 12EIeff/H3 12 33 000 MPa (0.40 0.1018 m4)/(8.5 m)3 26.3 MN/m

The total longitudinal stiffness is:

K 31.5 26.3 57.8 MN/m

The total seismic weight is: WE 19 250 kN, so the fundamental period is

r

r

M

19 250=9:81

T 2p

2p

1:16 s

K

57 800

The spectral acceleration in the longitudinal direction is

Se agS(2.5/q)(TC/T) 0.16g 1.15 (2.5/3.5) (0.60/1.16) 0.068g

The total seismic shear force in the piers is

VE SeWE/g 0.068g 19 250 kN/g 1309 kN

The shear force is distributed to piers M1 and M2 in proportion to their stiffness:

V1 (31.5/57.8) 1309 kN 713 kN

V2 1309 713 596 kN

196

Mode No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

15

16

17

18

26

27

28

30

Period: s

1.77

1.43

1.20

0.32

0.32

0.19

0.15

0.054

0.053

0.052

0.051

0.030

0.029

0.028

0.027

X direction

Y direction

Z direction

0

0

99.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.2

0

0

0.1

3.4

94.8

0

0

0.3

0.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.1

0

0

0

0

0

8.9

0

0

63.1

10.8

0.2

1.8

0.4

0.2

0

5.4

0.1

The longitudinal seismic moments My (assuming full xity of pier columns at top and bottom)

are

My1 V1H1/2 713 kN 8.0 m/2 2852 kN m

My2 V2H2/2 596 kN 8.5 m/2 2533 kN m

8.2.6

Modal response spectrum analysis

The nite element discretisation of the deck is very ne, the same as used for the analysis for

gravity and trafc loads. The piers are also discretised vertically in a fairly large number of

elements.

The characteristics of the 15 most important modes of the structure out of a total of 50 computed

in the analysis are shown in Table 8.1. Some of these modes, as well as those not listed in

Table 8.1, have negligible contribution to the total response. The shapes of the most important

among the rst eight modes are depicted in Figure 8.6.

Response spectrum analysis considering the rst 50 modes was carried out. The sum of the modal

masses considered amounts to 99.6%, 99.7% and 92% in the X, Y and Z directions, respectively.

The combination of modal responses was carried out using the complete quadratic combination

(CQC) rule, Eqs (D5.20) and (D5.22b) in Section 5.5.4. The results of the fundamental mode

analysis in the longitudinal direction and of the modal response spectrum analysis are presented

and compared in Table 8.2.

8.2.7

Design action effects and verications

8.2.7.1 Design action effects for exure and axial force verication of plastic hinges

The combination of the components of the seismic action is carried out according to Eqs (D5.2)

in Section 5.2. Table 8.3 gives the design action effects (bending moment and axial force) at

the bottom section of pier M1, together with the required reinforcement, for each design

combination.

The pier is of circular section with diameter D 1.2 m, of concrete C30/37 with Class C steel of

S500 grade. The nominal cover is c 50 mm, and the estimated distance of the bar centre from

the surface is 82 mm. The required reinforcement at the bottom section of pier M1, which is

critical, is 19 870 mm2. The reinforcement selected is 25 132 (20 100 mm2), as shown in

Figure 8.7. Figure 8.8 displays the MomentAxial force interaction diagram for the bottom

section of Pier M1 for all design combinations.

197

Table 8.4 shows the design action effects of bending moment and axial force at the bottom

section of pier M2 together with the required reinforcement, for each design combination.

The required reinforcement at the bottom section of Pier M2, which is critical, is 16 800 mm2.

The reinforcement selected is 21 132 (16 880 mm2) as shown in Figure 8.9. Figure 8.10 shows

the momentaxial force interaction diagram for the bottom section of pier M2 for all design

combinations.

Pier

1.16 s

1.20 s (third mode)

Seismic shear, Vz

M1

M2

713 kN

596 kN

662 kN

556 kN

Seismic moment, My

M1

M2

2852 kN m

2533 kN m

At top: 2327 kN m. At bottom: 2381 kN m

Fundamental period, T1

198

Table 8.3. Design action effects and required reinforcement at the bottom section of pier M1

Combination

N: kN

My: kN m

Mz: kN m

As: mm2

max My Mz

min My Mz

max Mz My

min Mz My

7159

7500

7238

7082

4576

3720

713

456

1270

1296

4355

4355

19 870

13 490

17 240

17 000

The effective stiffness of the piers for the seismic design situation is estimated according to Eqs

(D5.33)(D5.35) in Section 5.8.1.

8.2.7.2.1 Pier M1

For one layer of 25 132 (20 100 mm2) and an axial force of N 7200 kN, using the design

values of material properties, the design value of yield moment is My 4407 kN m; the steel

yield strain is

1sy fyd/Es 500/(1.15 200 000) 0.00217

Figure 8.7. Pier M1 cross-section with reinforcement

Figure 8.8. Momentaxial force interaction diagram of the bottom section of pier M1

30 000

Section with 2532

25 000

20 000

Design

combinations

15 000

N: kN

10 000

6000

5000

4000

2000

2000

4000

6000

5000

10 000

15 000

M: kN m

199

Table 8.4. Design action effects and required reinforcement at the bottom section of pier M2

Combination

N: kN

My: kN m

Mz: kN m

As: mm2

max My Mz

min My Mz

max Mz My

min Mz My

7528

7145

7317

7320

3370

4227

465

674

1072

1042

3324

3324

10 320

16 800

8980

9250

while the corresponding strain at the extreme concrete bres is 1cy 0.00272. The design value of

the moment resistance (again for design values of material properties) is MRd 4779 kN m. The

yield curvature is

while the approximation of Eq. (D5.35b) for circular sections yields

g

Ic p 1.24/64 0.1018 m4

My/(Ecfy) 4407/(33 000 4.37 10 3) 0.0306 m4

Ieff 0.08 Ic Icr 0.0387 m4

(EI )eff/(EI )c 0.38

(EI )eff 1.2MRd/fy 1.2 4779/4.37 10 3 1 312 000 kN m2

Ieff 1 312 000/33 000 0.0398 m4

(EI )eff/(EI )c 0.39

The assumed value (EI )eff/(EI )c 0.40 was a good estimate for the analysis.

8.2.7.2.2 Pier M2

For pier M2 the nal reinforcement is one layer of 21 132 (16 880 mm2). The axial force is

N 7200 kN. For the design values of material properties the yield moment is

My 4048 kN m, the steel yield strain is 1sy 0.00217 and the corresponding strain at the

Figure 8.9. Pier M2 cross-section with reinforcement

200

Figure 8.10. Momentaxial force interaction diagram of the bottom section of pier M2

30 000

Section with 2132

25 000

20 000

N: kN

15 000

Design

combinations

10 000

5000

0

6000

4000

2000

2000

4000

6000

5000

10 000

M: kN m

extreme concrete bres 1cy 0.00273. The design value of the moment resistance is

MRd 4366 kN m.

From Eq. (D5.33a) in Section 5.8.1: (EI )eff/(EI )c 0.35.

From Eq. (D5.33b) in Section 5.8.1: (EI )eff/(EI )c 0.36.

g

g

The assumed value (EI )eff/(EI )c 0.40 was a fairly good estimate for the analysis.

8.2.7.3 Dimensioning of the piers in shear

8.2.7.3.1 Overstrength moments

The overstrength moment is calculated as Mo goMRd , where go is the overstrength factor and

MRd is the design value of moment resistance (see Section 6.4.1, Eqs (D6.6)). The normalised

axial force is

Since hk 0.22 . 0.1, the minimum value go 1.35 is multiplied by

1 2(hk 0.1)2 1 2(0.22 0.1)2 1.029

So,

and the overstrength moments for the piers are:

g

g

Mo2 1.39 4366 6069 kN m

In the longitudinal direction the shear forces from the analysis in piers M1 and M2 are

V1 713 kN and V2 596 kN, while the capacity shears can be calculated directly from the

overstrength moments:

g

g

VC2 2Mo2/H2 2 6069/8.5 1428 kN

In the transverse direction, the shear in each pier is calculated applying the simplications of

Annex G of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (see Section 6.4.2):

VCi (Mo/MEi)VEi

201

VC2 = 1251 kN

Mo2 = 6069 kN m

Mo1 = 6643 kN m

VC1 = 1476 kN

g

g

ME2 2184 kN m and VE2 450.2 kN

g

g

Vc2 (6069/2184) 450.2 1251 kN

Figure 8.11 shows the capacity design action effects in the transverse direction at the base of the

piers.

8.2.7.3.3 Dimensioning in shear

For a circular section

d r rs 0.60 0.52 1.12 m

while the effective depth is

de r 2rs/p 0.60 2 0.52/p 0.93 m

The shear strength of the section is calculated as

VRd,s (Asw/s)(0.9de) fywd cot u/gBd or as VRd,s (p/4)(Asw/s)(0.9d ) fywd cot u/gBd

where Asw is the total cross-sectional area of the shear hoops, s is their spacing, fywd is their design

yield strength, u is the angle between the concrete compression strut and the pier axis, with

cot u 1 as per Part 2 of Eurocode 2 and gBd is the safety factor in note 5 of Table 6.1, with

the value gBd 1.25 (qVEd/VC,o 1) 1.

For pier M1 the design shear force is VC1 1661 kN, and that from the analysis is V1 713 kN.

Then,

1.25 (qVEd/VC,o 1) 1.25 (3.5 713/1661 1) 0.75

so gBd 1 and the required shear reinforcement is

Asw/s 1.0 1661/(0.84 0.5/1.15 1.0) 4550 mm2/m

or

Asw/s 1.0 1661/(0.7854 0.9 1.12 0.5/1.15 1.0) 4827 mm2/m

For pier M2 the design shear force is VC1 1428 kN and that from the analysis is V1 596 kN.

Then,

1.25 (qVEd/VC,o 1) 1.25 (3.5 596/1428 1) 0.79

202

Asw/s 1.0 1428/(0.84 0.5/1.15 1.0) 3910 mm2/m

or

Asw/s 1.0 1428/(0.7854 0.9 1.12 0.5/1.15 1.0) 4150 mm2/m

8.2.8

Ductility requirements for the piers

8.2.8.1 Connement reinforcement

The normalised axial force is

so connement of the compression zone is required (see note 15 of Table 6.1).

The longitudinal reinforcement ratio is:

g

for pier M2:

The distance from the surface to the spiral centreline is c 58 mm (Dsp 1.084 m), and the core

concrete area is Acc 0.923 m2.

For circular spirals and ductile behaviour, the required mechanical reinforcement ratio, vw,req , of

connement reinforcement is (see Table 6.1) vw,req 0.52(Ac/Acc)hk 0.18( fyd/fcd)(rL 0.01),

and vw,min 0.18. For

g

pier M1:

(0.0178 0.01) 0.176

g

pier M2:

(0.0149 0.01) 0.162

For the worst case of pier M1:

and the required volumetric ratio of conning reinforcement is

while the required area of conning reinforcement (one leg) is

Asp/sL rwDsp/4 0.007 1.084/4 0.0019 m2/m 1900 mm2/m

The maximum allowed hoop spacing is (see Table 6.1):

max sL 1084 mm/5 217 mm

203

Requirement

Connement

Buckling of bars

Shear design

At/sL: mm2/m

max sL: mm

2 1900 3800

217

164

For the transverse reinforcement required to prevent buckling of the longitudinal bars, the

maximum hoop spacing sL should not exceed ddbL , where

(see Table 6.1). For S500 steel, ftk/fyk

1.15:

Therefore,

max sL ddL 5.125 32 mm 164 mm

8.2.8.3 Transverse reinforcement of piers comparison of requirements

The pier transverse reinforcement requirements for each design check are compared in Table 8.5.

The transverse reinforcement is governed by shear design. The reinforcement selected for both

piers is one spiral of 116/85 (4730 mm2/m).

8.2.9

Capacity design verications of the deck

8.2.9.1 Estimation of capacity design effects an alternative procedure

The general procedure in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for calculating the capacity design effects consists

of adding to the action effects of the quasi-permanent loads G, the effects of the loading

DAC Mo G, both acting in the deck-cum-piers frame system of the bridge (see Section

6.4.2 of this Guide).

An alternative procedure for the longitudinal (X) direction is to work on a continuous beam

system of the deck, simply supported on the piers and the abutments. On this system the

effects of the quasi-permanent loads G and those of the overstrength moments Mo are

added. Figure 8.12 demonstrates the equivalence of the two procedures.

The effects of the quasi-permanent loads G are displayed in Figure 8.13. Figure 8.14 shows the

effects of the overstrength loading Mo for seismic action in the X direction. For the effects due

Figure 8.12. Equivalence of general and simpler capacity design procedures for the deck

Permanent load G

G

MG1

MG2

MG1

MG2

MG1

MG2

MG1

MG2

MG1

MG2

MG1

MG2

MO1 MG1

MO2 MG2

MO1 MG1

MO2 MG2

MO1 MG1

MO2 MG2

General procedure

204

MO1

MO2

MO1

MO1

;

MO2

MO2

alternative procedure

Figure 8.13. Quasi-permanent loads (G loading) and resulting moment and shear force diagrams

G

M: kN m

2195

2285

2430

4052

2340

V: kN

3207

(+)

()

3211

4047

to seismic action in X direction, the signs of the effects are reversed. Figure 8.15 displays the

result of the superposition of these two loadings to get the capacity effects for seismic action

in the X direction.

8.2.9.2 Flexural verication of the deck

The deck section at each side of the connection of the deck with a pier is checked against the

capacity design effects, taking into account the existing reinforcement and tendons (shown in

Figure 8.16). Table 8.6 lists the moment and axial force combinations for which the deck

sections are checked. Figure 8.17 compares the momentaxial force ultimate limit state (ULS)

interaction diagram with the capacity design effects.

8.2.9.3 Other deck verications

The ULS verication of the deck in shear is, in general, not critical. So, it is not presented

here.

The verication of the connection between the pier and the deck as a beam/column joint

per Section 6.4.4 is far from critical, and therefore not presented here. It is usually critical

for the shear reinforcement of joints with slender pier columns monolithically connected to the

deck.

Figure 8.14. Overstrength for seismic action in the X direction (Mo loading): resulting moment and

shear force diagrams

Mo1 = 6643 kN m

Mo2 = 6069 kN m

M: kN m

4296

3692

3104

4491

6069

6643

6069

6643

V: kN

()

187.4

256.7

263.8

(+) 1661

161.9

(+) 1428

205

Figure 8.15. Capacity effects for seismic action in the X direction (G Mo): resulting moment and

shear force diagrams

M: kN m

6491

6122

764

2206

6069

6643

6069

6643

V : kN

3795

3045

(+)

()

3398

(+)

4311

1661

(+) 1428

Top layer: 46 20 + 33 16 (210.8 cm2)

4 groups of 3 tendons

of type DYWIDAG 6815

(area of 2250 mm2 each)

Figure 8.18(a) displays the capacity design effects acting on the foundation of pier M1 for the

longitudinal direction, for seismic actions in the negative direction (X). Figure 8.18(b) shows

the capacity design effects for the transverse direction. The sign of the effects is reversed for

the opposite direction of the seismic action in the transverse direction.

206

Connection to

My: kN m

N: kN

Pier

Pier

Pier

Pier

Pier

Pier

Pier

Pier

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6122

2206

6491

764

1262

6776

2101

5444

29 900

28 300

29 500

28 100

28 100

29 500

28 300

29 900

M1

M1

M2

M2

M1

M1

M2

M2

left side

right side

left side

right side

left side

right side

left side

right side

200 000

Design combinations

150 000

N: kN

100 000

50 000

0

60 000

40 000

20 000

20 000

40 000

50 000

M: kN m

Figure 8.18. Capacity design effects on the foundation of pier M1: (a) seismic action in the longitudinal

(X) direction; (b) seismic action in the transverse direction

N = 7371 kN

N = 7371 kN

Vz = 1661 kN

Vz = 730 kN

Vy = 1476 kN

My = 6643 kN m

X

My = 124 kN m

Mz = 6643 kN m

Y

(a)

(b)

8.2.11.1 Bearings

The design displacement of the bearing, dEd , is given by Eq. (D6.36).

The displacements in the longitudinal direction are shown in Figure 8.19(a), and those in the

transverse direction in Figure 8.19(b). The maximum displacement at the bearings is 93.9 mm

and 110 mm, respectively.

The bridge is simply supported on the abutments through a pair of bearings allowing free

sliding and rotation for both horizontal axes. Plan and side views of a bearing are depicted in

Figure 8.20.

Figure 8.19. Bridge displacements (mm): (a) in the longitudinal direction; (b) in the transverse direction

207

Plan

40

140

460

360

95.5

Longitudinal

axis

500

600

140

440

540

40

Uplifting of the bearings is checked. The minimum vertical reaction forces in the bearings are

presented in Figure 8.21, with a minimum resultant value of 17.8 kN (compressive, so there is

no uplifting). The maximum vertical reactions are shown in Figure 8.22, with a maximum

value of 2447 kN.

8.2.11.2 Overlapping length

The minimum overlapping (seating) length at moveable joints is given by Eq. (D6.34), where:

g

g

g

the effective seismic displacement of the support from the analysis for the seismic design

situation is in the present case equal to des 0.101 m

for the effective ground displacement deg (2dg/Lg)Leff:

the design ground displacement is in the present case

dg 0.025agSTCTD 0.025 0.16 9.81 1.15 0.6 2.5 0.068 m

the distance parameter for ground type C is Lg 400 m

the effective length of the deck is in the present case Leff 82.5/2 41.25 m.

deg (2dg/Lg)Leff (2 0.068/400) 41.25 0.014 m , 2dg 0.136 m

Figure 8.21. Minimum reaction forces in the bearings in the seismic design situation (kN)

208

Figure 8.22. Maximum reaction forces in the bearings in the seismic design situation (kN)

Therefore,

min lov 0.50 0.014 0.101 0.615 m

The available seating length is 1.25 m . min lov .

8.2.11.3 Roadway joints

The width of a roadway joint between the top deck slab and the top of the backwall of the

abutment should be designed to accommodate the displacement given by Eq. (D6.39). The clearance between the deck structure and the abutment or its backwall should accommodate the larger

displacement given by Eq. (D6.36).

Table 8.7 gives the displacements for the roadway joint and those for the clearance of the structure. Due to the differences between the two clearances, Part 2 of Eurocode 8 requires detailing of

the backwall to cater for predictable (controlled) damage. An example of such a detail is shown in

Figure 8.23, where impact along the roadway joint is foreseen to occur on the approach slab.

Figure 8.24 displays the selected roadway joint type and the displacement capacities for each

direction.

8.2.12 Conclusions regarding the design concept

Optimal cost-effectiveness of a ductile bridge system is achieved when all its ductile elements

(notably the piers) have dimensions that lead to a seismic demand that is critical for the main

reinforcement of all critical sections and exceeds the minimum reinforcement requirements.

This is difcult to achieve when the piers resisting the earthquake have:

g

g

sections larger than those required for the purposes of seismic design.

g

g

limited ductile behaviour if the design peak ground acceleration, ag, is low or

exible connection to the deck (seismic isolation).

Table 8.7. Displacement for the roadway joint and clearance at the joint region

Displacement: mm

dG

dT

Longitudinal

Opening

Closure

18.5

0

10.5

8.5

Transverse

dE

dEd,J ( joint)

dEd (structure)

76

76

54.5

34.5

100.5

80.5

+110

+44.0

+110

209

Clearance of

roadway joint

Approach slab

Structure

clearance

Capacity in longitudinal direction: 60 mm

Capacity in transverse direction: 50 mm

It is worth noting that Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not specify a minimum reinforcement requirement (see note 23 in Table 6.1). For the bridge in this example, the owner specied rmin 1%

(a fairly high value), as required by Part 1 of Eurocode 8, but only for the columns of buildings.

The longitudinal reinforcement of the piers is derived from the seismic demands, and was over the

minimum requirement (rL 1.78% for pier M1 and rL 1.49% for pier M2).

8.3.

8.3.1

Bridge layout design concept

A schematic of the bridge is depicted in Figure 8.25. The deck is straight, continuous, with spans

of 60 80 60 m. It has a composite (steel, concrete) section, consisting of two built-up steel

girders connected at regular intervals via built-up cross bracings and of a concrete slab.

The piers are of reinforced concrete, 40 m tall. Their section is constant throughout the pier

height, hollow circular, with a thickness of 0.4 m and an external diameter of 4 m. The two

girders are supported on the pier through bearings; each pair of bearings is supported on a

pier head that is 4 m wide and 1.5 m deep. Concrete class in the piers is C35/45, and the steel

is of grade S500, Class B.

Pinned

connection

Pinned

connection

Sliding longitudinal

pinned transverse

Y

C0R

P1R

P2R

C3R

X

C0L

210

P1L

P2L

C3L

The large exibility of the 40 m tall piers has the following structural consequences:

g

g

The connection of the deck to both pier heads can be pinned (hinged) about the transverse

axis, without causing excessive restraints due to imposed deck deformations.

The large exibility of the seismic force-resisting system gives long fundamental periods in

both horizontal directions and quite low response spectral accelerations. For such low

seismic response levels it is neither expedient nor cost-effective to design the piers for

ductility. Therefore, a limited ductile behaviour is selected with behaviour factor q 1.5

(see Table 5.1).

8.3.2

Design seismic action

A response spectrum of type 1 applies. The ground type is B, with the recommended values of the

soil factor S 1.2 and of the corner periods TB 0.15 s, TC 0.50 s and TD 2 s in Table 3.3.

The bridge is in a seismic zone with reference peak ground acceleration agR 0.3g. The

importance factor is gI 1, and the design peak ground acceleration in the horizontal directions

ag gIagR 1.0 0.3g 0.3g. The lower bound factor for design spectral accelerations is

b 0.2. The behaviour factor is q 1.5. The design response spectrum from Eqs (D5.3) in

Section 5.3 is shown in Figure 8.26.

8.3.3

Seismic analysis

8.3.3.1 Quasi permanent trafc loads

The quasi permanent value c2.1Qk,1 of the UDL system of LM1 is applied in the seismic design

situation. For bridges with severe trafc, the value of c2,1 is 0.2.

The load of the UDL system of LM1, with adjustment factors aq 1.0 for the UDL, are:

g

lane 1:

g

lane 2:

g

lane 3:

0.7

Tb = 0.15 s, Tc = 0.5 s, Td = 2.0 s, = 0.2

0.6

Acceleration: g

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0 3.5

Period: s

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

211

residual area:

Total load 47.0 kN/m.

In the seismic design situation the trafc load applied per unit of length of the bridge is

8.3.3.2 Structural model

The structural model employs prismatic 3D beam elements for cross-bracings and the two girders

of the deck. Prismatic elements are also used for the piers and in the pier heads (Figure 8.27). The

piers were considered xed at the top of the foundation. The model of each bearing takes into

account the pertinent constraints between the DoFs of the deck and pier head nodes connected

by the bearing.

Figure 8.28. Momentcurvature curve of a pier section with r 1%

75 000

70 000

Bottom section

65 000

60 000

Top section

55 000

Moment: kN m

50 000

45 000

= 1%

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

N = 15 000 kN

N = 20 000 kN

10 000

5000

0.0

0

212

1 103

2 103

3 103

Curvature

4 103

5 103

6 103

75 000

70 000

N = 15 000 kN

N = 20 000 kN

65 000

60 000

55 000

Bottom section

Moment: kN m

50 000

45 000

40 000

= 1%

35 000

30 000

Top section

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5000

0.0

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

J/Jgross

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

The effective pier stiffness was initially assumed as 50% of the uncracked gross section stiffness,

(EI)c , giving fundamental periods of 3.88 s in the longitudinal (X) direction and 3.27 s in the

transverse direction (Y). The lower bound of the design spectrum in Eqs (D5.3c) and (D5.3d)

of Section 5.3, equal to Sd bag 0.2 0.3g 0.06g, applies for T 3.3 s. So, the exact

value of (EI )eff is immaterial for the design seismic action effects, provided that

(EI )eff , 0.5(EI)c . However, the analysis was carried out in the end with (EI )eff 0.3(EI)c , to

avoid underestimating the displacements. As shown in Figures 8.288.31, in the range of axial

forces (1520 MN) and bending moments (about 60 MN m) of interest here, this value corresponds better to the nally required reinforcement ratio of r 1.5%. With this (EI )eff value,

the fundamental period in the longitudinal direction is 5.02 s, and in the transverse direction it

is 3.84 s.

Moment: kN m

95 000

90 000

85 000

80 000

75 000

70 000

65 000

60 000

55 000

50 000

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5000

0.0

Bottom section

Top section

= 1.5%

N = 15 000 kN

N = 20 000 kN

0

1 103

2 103

3 103

Curvature

4 103

5 103

6 103

213

Moment: kNm

Figure 8.31. Moment(EI)eff /(EI )c ratio curve of a pier section with r 1.5%

95 000

90 000

85 000

80 000

75 000

70 000

65 000

60 000

55 000

50 000

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5000

0.0

0.00

N = 15 000 kN

N = 20 000 kN

Bottom section

= 1.5%

Top section

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

J/Jgross

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

The characteristics of the 11 most important modes out of the total of 30 computed in the modal

analysis are shown in Table 8.8. Some of them, as well as those not listed in Table 8.8, have

negligible contribution to the total response.

The shapes of four modes are presented in Figures 8.328.35.

A response spectrum analysis considering the rst 30 modes was performed. The sum of modal

masses considered amounts to 97.1% and 97.2% in the X and Y directions, respectively. The

combination of modal responses was carried out using the CQC rule.

Figure 8.36 shows the distribution of peak bending moments along pier P1.

No.

1

2

3

4

6

9

11

17

18

23

27

28

214

Period: s

5.03

3.84

1.49

0.79

0.66

0.48

0.42

0.26

0.26

0.16

0.15

0.13

Modal mass: %

X direction

Y direction

Z direction

92.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

76.8

0.0

0.0

8.4

2.1

0.0

6.2

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.0

63.2

0.0

0.0

5.0

0.0

8.8

8.3.4

Second-order effects

8.3.4.1 Geometric imperfections of the piers and second-order effects

The inclination of the pier according to clause 5.2 of EN 1992-2:2005 (CEN, 2005a) is

p

u uoah 1/200 2/ l, where l is the length or height of the pier (l 40 m). Therefore,

3

u 1.58 10 rad. According to clause 5.2(7) of EN 1992-1-1:2004 (CEN, 2004a), this

inclination creates an eccentricity, ei uilo/2, where lo is the effective length:

g

g

transverse direction, Y: (lo 40 m) ey 0.032 m.

215

The eccentricities under permanent loads (G), including the creep effect (for a creep coefcient

w 2.0), are amplied for second-order effects according to Eq. (D6.4) in Section 6.3.1 with

n NB/NEd (NB is the buckling load and NEd the axial force). The results are shown in

Table 8.9.

8.3.4.2 Second-order effects of the seismic action

These effects are estimated using two approaches.

(i) According to clause 5.8 of EN 1992-1-1:2004

The nominal stiffness method (clause 5.8.7 in Part 1-1 of Eurocode 2) is applied using

(EI )eff 0.3(EI), compatible with the seismic design situation. The moment magnication

Figure 8.36. Peak bending moment distribution in the two directions of the section of pier P1

.813

6678304.6

6227

6

829..287

1

26

43.93.3

1313 24

8

86373.0

.193

0

969.494.1

191893

1111334

405.2.831

6

738.4

6564.5

2622

1144223

475.8.087

70.67

1299.59

3273

117733

1232.5.355

30.25

5946.98

393

20206

.88

5847

24068.3

6

4

24241

4165.6

8.6

24

53

216

.13

237 0.89

67

3

5

1612.7

2.1

02

272

87688.2

13.86

Table 8.9. First- and second-order eccentricities due to geometric imperfections of the piers

Direction

ei: m

n NB/NEd

ei,II/ei

ei,II: m

X

Y

0.063

0.032

19.65

78.62

1.161

1.039

0.073

0.033

factor is evaluated at the bottom section as 1 b/[(NB/NEd) 1], where b 1, NEd is the design

value of axial load (19 538 kN) and NB is the buckling load based on the nominal stiffness

NB p2(EI )eff/(b1L0)2, with b1 1. This gives the following moment magnication factors:

g

g

1.034 in the transverse direction Y.

The increase in the bending moments at the plastic hinge section (self-weight of the pier included)

is given by the rst term in Eq. (D6.3b) in Section 6.3.1: DM (1 q)dEdNEd/2, where dEd is the

seismic displacement of the pier top and NEd is the axial force from the seismic analysis given in

Table 8.10. This approach from Part 2 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2005b) gives approximately the

same moments in the longitudinal direction as that of Eurocode 2, but much higher values in

the transverse direction. It is used in the further design calculations in Table 8.11.

8.3.5

Action effects for the design of piers and abutments

Table 8.10 lists the action effects of the individual actions and of their combinations for the

seismic design situations. The effects are given:

g

g

for abutments C0 and C3 at the mid-distance between the bearings.

g

g

g

g

g

g

G

EX

EY

P-D EC2

P-D EC8

Imperf

Earthquake in the X direction (for the design spectrum with q 1.5)

Earthquake in the Y direction (for the design spectrum with q 1.5)

Additional second-order effects according to clause 5.8 of EN 1992-1-1:2004

Additional second-order effects according to EN 1998-2:2005

First- and second-order effects (including creep) of geometric pier imperfections.

8.3.6

Action effects for the design of foundation

Table 8.12 gives the action effects corresponding to the loading combinations of the seismic

design situation for the design of the foundations. The seismic action effects correspond to

q 1.0. The action effects are given:

g

g

for abutments C0 and C3 at the mid-distance between the bearings

with the designation depicted in Figure 8.37. The signs of shear forces and bending moments

given are mutually compatible. However, as these effects (with the exception of the vertical

axial force Fz) are due predominantly to the seismic action, their signs and senses may be

reversed.

Table 8.10. Pier top displacements dEd

Pier top displacement

dx: mm

dy: m

EX 0.3EY

EY 0.3EX

0.373

0.110

0.065

0.197

217

Table 8.11. Action effects for the design of piers and abutments: q 1.50 ((EI )eff 0.3(EI)c)

Actions or combination thereof

Fx Vx:

kN

Fy Vy:

kN

Fz N:

kN

5.4

5.4

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

19539.3

19539.3

3505.2

3505.2

6.8

6.8

0.4

0.4

216.9

216.9

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

Mx :

kN m

My:

kN m

Mz:

kN m

P1

P2

C0

C3

G

G

G

G

P1

P2

C0

C3

EX 0.3EY

EX 0.3EY

EX 0.3EY

EX 0.3EY

1254.4

1254.4

0.0

0.0

187.4

187.4

322.2

322.2

28.8

28.8

21.5

21.5

7885.5

7885.5

1134.3

1134.3

50803.5

50803.5

0.0

0.0

342.8

342.8

0.0

0.0

P1

P2

C0

C3

EY 0.3EX

EY 0.3EX

EY 0.3EX

EY 0.3EX

376.3

376.3

0.0

0.0

624.6

624.6

1073.9

1073.9

8.6

8.6

6.4

6.4

26285.1

26285.1

3781.1

3781.1

15241.0

15241.0

0.0

0.0

1142.5

1142.5

0.0

0.0

P1

P2

P1

P2

EX 0.3EY P-D

EX 0.3EY P-D

EY 0.3EX P-D

EY 0.3EX P-D

EC2

EC2

EC2

EC2

1254.4

1254.4

376.3

376.3

187.4

187.4

624.6

624.6

28.8

28.8

8.6

8.6

8153.6

8153.6

27178.8

27178.8

58576.4

58576.4

17572.9

17572.9

342.8

342.8

1142.5

1142.5

P1

P2

EX 0.3EY P-D EC8

1254.4

1254.4

187.4

187.4

28.8

28.8

9279.0

9279.0

58298.5

58298.5

342.8

342.8

P1

P2

P1

P2

EY 0.3EX P-D EC8

EX 0.3EY P-D EC8 Imperf

EX 0.3EY P-D EC8 imperf

376.3

376.3

1254.4

1254.4

624.6

624.6

187.4

187.4

8.6

8.6

28.8

28.8

30508.3

30508.3

9826.3

9826.3

17451.4

17451.4

59393.1

59393.1

1142.5

1142.5

342.8

342.8

P1

P2

EY 0.3EX P-D EC8 Imperf

376.3

376.3

624.6

624.6

8.6

8.6

31055.6

31055.6

18546.0

18546.0

1142.5

1142.5

P1

P2

C0

C3

G EX 0.3EY P-D EC8 Imperf 1249.1

G EX 0.3EY

0.0

G EX 0.3EY

0.0

187.2

187.2

322.3

322.3

19568.0

19568.0

3526.6

3526.6

9833.1

9833.1

1134.0

1134.0

59610.0

59176.2

0.0

0.0

342.5

343.0

0.0

0.0

P1

P2

C0

C3

G EY 0.3EX P-D EC8 Imperf

G EY 0.3EX

G EY 0.3EX

624.4

624.4

1074.1

1074.1

19547.9

19547.9

3511.6

3511.6

31062.4

31062.4

3780.8

3780.8

18762.9

18329.1

0.0

0.0

1142.3

1142.7

0.0

0.0

381.7

371.0

0.0

0.0

Table 8.12. Action effects for the design of the foundation: q 1.0 ((EI )eff 0.3(EI)c)

218

Fx:

kN

Fy:

kN

P1,

P2

G EY 0.3EX P-D EC8 Imperf

1887.0

569.8

C0,

C3

G EX 0.3EY

G EY 0.3EX

0.0

0.0

Fz :

kN

Mx :

kN m

My:

kN m

Mz:

kN m

280.9

936.7

19582.4

19552.2

13775.8

44204.9

85011.7

26383.4

513.9

1713.5

483.4

1611.1

3537.4

3514.8

1701.1

5671.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Figure 8.37. Positive sense and direction of forces and moments for the foundation design

Vertical

direction Z

Mz

Longitudinal

direction X

Transverse

direction Y

My

Fz

Mx

Fx

Fy

8.3.7

Verication of the piers

8.3.7.1 ULS in exure and axial force

Dimensioning of the reinforcement at the base section is as follows: the nominal cover is

c 50 mm and the estimated distance of the bar centre from the surface is 80 mm. For

design action effects, NEd 19 568 kN, My 59 610 kN m and Mx 9833 kN m ! As,req

67 800 mm2. The selected longitudinal reinforcement is:

g

g

at the interior perimeter: 49 128 (30 100 mm2).

Figure 8.38 depicts the interaction diagram for the design of the base section.

Figure 8.38. Interaction diagram for the design of the pier base section

40 000

= 1.5%

= 1.0%

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

10 000

20 000

Axial force: kN

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

100 000

110 000

120 000

130 000

140 000

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

Moment: kN m

219

For limited ductile behaviour the pier seismic shear force from the analysis is multiplied by

q 1.5 (see Section 6.3.2 and Table 6.1), giving

p

VEd 1:5 1259:22 187:22 1910 kN

while the resistance, VRd, is divided by gBd1 1.25 (see note 4 in Table 6.1).

The shear resistance at diagonal compression failure of a member with annular section is

VR;max

p

t D 2cnfcd sin 2d

4 w

and

fck MPa

35

n 0:6 1

0:6 1

0:516

250

250

VR;max

1 p

0:85 35 000

0:4 4:0 2 0:08 0:516

sin 2d

1:25 4

1:5

9877 sin 2d

6811 kN > VEd

after division by gBd1 1.25 and for the lower limit of tan d 0.4.

Neglecting the contribution of the axial load to shear resistance as small in this slender and lightly

loaded pier, that of the transverse steel, VRs , is

VRs

p Asw

f D 2c cot d

2 sh ywd

after division by gBd1 1.25, the lower limit value of 0.4 for tan d gives

VRs

1 p Asw 0:5

A

4 0:16 2:5 VEd ! sw 182 mm2 =m

sh

1:25 2 sh 1:15

8.3.8

Ductility requirements

8.3.8.1 Conning reinforcement

The normalised axial force is

so, connement is required (see note 15 in Table 6.1).

For circular spirals and limited ductile behaviour the required mechanical reinforcement ratio,

vw,req , of connement reinforcement is (see Table 6.1)

and

vw,min 0.12

vw,req (4.52/3.39) 0.39 0.1236 0.18(500/1.15)/(0.85 35/1.5)

(0.015 0.01) 0.085.

220

and the required volumetric ratio of conning reinforcement is

The required area of conning reinforcement (one leg) is

Asp/sL rwAcc/(pDsp) 0.005474 3.39/(p 3.384) 0.001746 m2/m 1746 mm2/m

8.3.8.2 Prevention of buckling of longitudinal bars

The maximum hoop spacing, sL, of transverse reinforcement to prevent buckling of vertical bars

is ddbL , where d 2.5( ftk/fyk) 2.25 5 (see Table 6.1). For Class B steel, ftk/fyk 1.08, and

So d 5, and

sreq

L ddL 5 28 mm 140 mm

As pointed out in Section 4.4.1.5 of this Guide, at the inside face of annular piers, hoops are not

efcient in preventing buckling of vertical bars or in conning the concrete, as they cannot offer

tensile hoop action. If vertical bars yield in compression or the crushing strain of unconned

concrete is exceeded at the inside face under the design seismic action (which is not the case in

this example), cross-ties as for straight boundaries are necessary. 116/110 (1828 mm2/m) is

nally chosen.

8.3.9

Bearings and joints

Table 8.13 gives the seismic deformation and force demands on the bearings. An example of the

design for overlapping length at the movable supports and for roadway joints has been given in

Sections 8.2.11.2 and 8.2.11.3, respectively.

8.4.

8.4.1

Introduction

This section covers the design of the bridge in the example in Section 8.3 but with a special seismic

isolation system capable of resisting high seismic loads. The seismic isolation system selected in

Table 8.13. Bearing deformations and force demands

Bearing

Direction

M1a

M1a

M1a

M1a

M1b

M1b

M1b

M1b

A1a

A1a

A1a

A1a

A1b

A1b

A1b

A1b

X

X

Y

Y

X

X

Y

Y

X

X

Y

Y

X

X

Y

Y

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

Max

Min

u1: m

u2: m

u3: m

u1: rad

u2: rad

u3: rad

N: kN

V2: kN

V3: kN

0.007

0.007

0.006

0.008

0.007

0.007

0.006

0.008

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.396

0.380

0.126

0.111

0.396

0.380

0.126

0.111

0.003

0.003

0.009

0.010

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.003

0.003

0.001

0.001

0.005

0.005

0.001

0.001

0.005

0.005

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.015

0.014

0.005

0.004

0.015

0.014

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.002

6659

7271

6273

7657

6659

7271

6274

7657

1532

1974

1096

2409

1531

1974

1096

2409

674

669

375

370

674

669

375

370

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

159

159

530

529

174

187

595

609

187

174

609

596

221

C0

P1

P2

60.00 m

Triple FPS

10 m

Triple FPS

60.00 m

80.00 m

10 m

Triple FPS

C3

2.5 m

Triple FPS

2.5 m

this case consists of triple friction pendulum bearings (see Section 7.4.3.3). The analysis of the

seismic isolation system is carried out with both the fundamental mode method and nonlinear

time-history analysis. The results of the two analysis methods are compared.

8.4.2

Bridge conguration Design concept

8.4.2.1 Bridge layout

The bridge has a composite steelconcrete continuous deck, with spans of 60 80 60 m and

two solid rectangular 10.0 m tall piers. The lower 8.0 m of the pier has rectangular crosssection 5.0 m by 2.5 m. The seismic isolation bearings are supported on a widened pier head

with rectangular plan 9.0 m 2.5 m and 2.0 m depth. The pier concrete class is C35/45.

Figure 8.39 shows the elevation, and Figure 8.40 the typical deck cross-section of the bridge.

Figure 8.41 presents the layout of the seismic isolation bearings, and Figure 8.42 that of the piers.

The large stiffness of the squat piers, in combination with the high design ground acceleration on

rock (agR 0.40g) leads to the selection of seismic isolation. This selection offers the following

advantages:

g

g

g

practically equal and therefore minimised seismic action effects on the two piers (this

would have been achieved even if the piers had unequal heights)

drastic reduction in the seismic forces.

The additional damping offered by the isolators keeps the displacements to a cost-effective level.

8.4.2.2 Seismic isolation system

The seismic isolation system consists of eight sliding bearings with a spherical sliding surface, of

the triple friction pendulum system (triple FPS) type. Two triple FPS bearings support the deck

at each abutment, C0 and C3, or pier, P1 and P2. The triple FPS bearings allow displacements in

Figure 8.40. Deck section

7000

222

Girder No. 2

2800

Girder No. 1

12 000

Y

C0_L

P1_L

P2_L

C3_L

X

C0_R

P1_R

P2_R

C3_R

both the longitudinal and transverse directions with a nonlinear frictional force displacement

relation. The approximate bearing dimensions are:

g

g

at the abutments: 0.90 m 0.90 m in plan and 0.40 m in height.

Longitudinal section at piers:

C

B

B

9.00

A

5.00

2.50

2.50

A

8.00

8.00

2.00

10.00

10.00

2.00

9.00

5.00

2.50

7.00

9.00

223

Table 8.14. Reactions at supports due to permanent loads (in MN, both girders)

Self-weight

after

construction

Minimum

equipment

load

Maximum

equipment

load

Total with

minimum

equipment

Total with

maximum

equipment

Time variation

due to creep

and shrinkage

C0

P1

P2

C3

2.328

10.380

10.258

2.377

0.664

2.440

2.441

0.664

1.020

3.744

3.745

1.019

2.993

12.819

12.699

3.041

3.348

14.123

14.003

3.396

0.172

0.206

0.091

0.126

Sum of

reactions

25.343

6.209

9.528

31.552

34.871

0.000

The layout and the labels for the seismic isolation bearings are depicted in Figure 8.41 (X is the

longitudinal direction and Y is the transverse direction). Figure 7.12 shows a typical triple FPS

bearing, and Figure 7.14 its typical forcedisplacement relationship.

The nominal properties of the selected triple FPS bearings for seismic analysis are:

g

g

g

the effective dynamic friction coefcient: md 0.061 (+16% variability of the nominal

value)

the effective radius of the sliding surface: Rb 1.83 m

the effective yield displacement: Dy 0.005 m.

8.4.3

Design for horizontal non-seismic actions

8.4.3.1 Imposed horizontal loads braking force

Table 8.14 gives the distribution of the reactions on the supports due to permanent loads

according to the gravity load analysis of the bridge. The time variation of permanent reactions

due to creep and shrinkage is very small. So, the reactions due to permanent loads are considered

constant in time.

The minimum value of the longitudinal force at sliding of the whole deck on the bearings is

calculated from the minimum deck weight and the minimum coefcient of friction at the

bearings as

Fy,min 25 500 0.051 1300 kN

This force is not exceeded by the braking load of Fbr 900 kN. Therefore, the pier bearings do

not slide due to braking. As the horizontal stiffness of the abutments is very high, sliding will

occur at the abutments, associated with the development of friction reactions mWa , where Wa

is the corresponding reaction due to permanent loads. The appropriate static system for this

loading therefore has a pinned connection between the pier tops and the deck and a sliding

connection over the abutments with the above friction reactions (Figure 8.43). The total forces

at the abutments may be calculated from the corresponding displacement of the deck and the

forcedisplacement relation of the bearings (additional elastic reaction Wa/R (Figure 8.43)). A

similar situation occurs for the transverse wind loading.

*Wa

*Wa

Sliding

Sliding

Pinned

connection

224

Pinned

connection

Sliding

Sliding

Pinned

connection

Sliding

8.4.3.2 Imposed deformations that can cause sliding of the pier bearings

Assuming the structural system in the longitudinal direction to be the same as above, the imposed

deformation that can cause sliding at the pier bearings is calculated from the minimum sliding

load of the bearings and the stiffness of the piers:

g

Fy,min 0.051 12 699 648 kN

pier stiffness:

Kpier 3EI/h3 3 34 000 000 [9 (2.5 m)3/12]/(10)3 1 195 313 kN/m

dmin Fy,min/K 648/1 195 313 0.5 mm

This displacement is very small and is practically exceeded even by small temperature-imposed

deformations. Consequently, sliding occurs at the bearings of at least one of the piers, under

deformations induced by temperature.

8.4.4

Imposed deformation due to temperature variation

A conservative approach for estimating forces and displacements for this case is the following:

because of the inevitable difference between the sliding friction coefcients of the bearings of

the two piers, albeit small, one of the two pier supports is assumed not to slide under nonseismic conditions. The calculation of horizontal support reactions and displacements should

therefore be based on two systems, with the deck pinned on one of the two piers alternatively.

On the other moving supports, an elastic connection is introduced between the deck and the

support, with stiffness equal to Kpb Wp/R (see Figure 7.10, R Rb 1.83 m), calculated on

the basis of a value of Wp equal to the corresponding permanent load. At these supports,

friction forces equal to mWp, should also be introduced, where m is either the minimum or the

maximum value of friction, with opposite signs on the deck and the supporting element, and

directions compatible with the corresponding sliding deformation at the support, as shown in

Figure 8.44. Both displacements and forces can be derived from these systems.

8.4.5

deformations

The superposition of the effects of the braking load and imposed deformations should be done

with caution, as the two cases correspond in fact to a nonlinear response of the system due to the

225

involvement of the friction forces. The application of the braking force on the system on which

imposed deformations are already acting causes, in general, a redistribution of the friction forces

estimated above: namely that the original friction forces, acting on one of the piers and the corresponding abutment, which had the same direction with the braking force, are reversed, starting

from the abutment, where full reversal, amounting to a force of 2mWa , will take place. The

remaining part of the braking force,

Fbr 2mWa 900 2 0.051 2993 595 kN

should be equilibrated mainly by a decrease in the reaction of the relevant pier. This decrease is

associated with a displacement of the deck in the direction of the breaking force, an upper bound

of which can be estimated as

Dd (Fbr 2mWa)/Kpier 595/1 195 313 0.0005 m 0.5 mm

The corresponding upper bounds of the force increase on the reactions of the opposite pier and

abutment amounts to

DdWp/R 0.0005 12 699/1.83 3.5 kN

and

DdWa/R 0.0005 2993/1.83 0.8 kN

respectively. Consequently, for this example both the displacement Dd and the force increases can

be neglected.

A comparison with the forces and displacements resulting from the seismic design situation

shows that the latter are always governing in a bridge with seismic isolation.

8.4.6

Design seismic action

8.4.6.1 Design spectra

The project-dependent parameters dening the horizontal elastic spectrum (see Section 3.1.2.3 of

this Guide) are:

g

g

g

g

g

g

no near source effects

importance factor gI 1.0

reference peak ground acceleration for type A ground agR 0.4g

design ground acceleration for type A ground ag gIagR 0.40g

ground type B with soil factor S 1.20, periods TB 0.15 s, TC 0.5 s and TD 2.5 s.

The value of the period TD is particularly important for the safety of bridges with seismic isolation because it affects proportionally the estimated displacement demands. For this reason,

the National Annex to Part 2 of Eurocode 8 may specify a value of TD specically for the

design of bridges with seismic isolation that is more conservative (longer) than the value

ascribed to TD in the National Annex to Part 1 of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004b). For this particular

example, the selected value is TD 2.5 s, which is longer than the value TD 2.0 s recommended

in Part 1 of Eurocode 8.

The project-dependent parameters that dene the vertical response spectrum (Section 3.1.2.4)

are:

g

g

g

ratio of the design ground acceleration in the vertical direction to the design ground

acceleration in the horizontal direction avg/ag 0.9

periods TB 0.05 s, TC 0.15 s and TD 1 s.

The horizontal and vertical design spectra are shown in Figures 8.45 and 8.46, respectively.

226

1.40

Spectral acceleration: g

1.20

Damping 5%

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Period: s

For the time-history representation of the seismic action, seven ground motion time histories are

used (EQ1 to EQ7), each consisting of a pair of horizontal ground motion time-history components and a vertical ground motion time-history component. Each component is produced

by modifying natural, recorded accelerograms to match the Eurocode 8 elastic spectrum

(semi-articial accelerograms). The modication procedure consists of applying unit impulse

functions that iteratively correct the accelerogram in order to better match the target

spectrum. No scaling of the individual components is required to ensure compatibility with

the Eurocode 8 spectrum, as each component is already compatible with the corresponding

spectrum owing to the applied modication procedure.

Figure 8.47 shows an example. The original record is from the Loma Prieta (CA) earthquake,

Corralitos 000 record (magnitude Ms 7.1, distance to fault 5.1 km, USGS ground type B).

For the produced accelerogram the acceleration, velocity and displacement time histories are

shown. Comparing the initial recorded accelerogram with the nal semi-articial one, it is

concluded that the modication method does not alter signicantly the natural waveform.

The 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration and displacement response spectra of the semi-articial

Figure 8.46. Vertical elastic response spectrum

1.40

Damping 5%

Spectral acceleration: g

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Period: s

2.0

2.5

3.0

227

Figure 8.47. Example of horizontal semi-articial accelerogram produced by modifying natural record

Acceleration: g

Original record:

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

25

30

35

40

45

25

30

35

40

45

25

30

Time: s

Acceleration: g

Modified record:

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0

10

15

20

Velocity: m/s

Time: s

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

10

15

20

Displacement: m

Time: s

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

10

15

20

35

40

45

Time: s

1.40

at time t = 2.580 s

Damping: 5%

Pseudo acceleration: g

1.20

1.00

at time t = 2.545 s

0.80

at time t = 2.305 s

0.60

Vmax/Amax: 0.153 s

0.40

Velocity RMS: 9.017 cm/s

Displacement RMS: 16.542 cm

0.20

0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Period: s

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

0.600

Displacement: m

Damping: 5%

Characteristic intensity (Ic): 0.092

Specific energy density: 3243.860 cm2/s

Cumulative absolute velocity (CAV):

1035.219 cm/s

0.500

Velocity spectrum intensity (VSI): 213.207 cm

0.400

Sustained maximum velocity (SMV): 27.014 cm/s

Effective design acceleration (EDA): 0.568 g

0.300

Predominant period (Tp): 0.380 s

Mean period (Tm): 0.630 s

0.200

0.100

0.000

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Period: s

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

accelerogram are also compared with the corresponding Eurocode 8 spectra, matching the target

spectrum for the full range of periods shown.

The consistency of the ensemble of ground motions is veried in accordance with Section 3.1.4, as

depicted in Figures 8.48 and 8.49 for horizontal and vertical components, respectively. It is

veried that the selected accelerograms are consistent with the Eurocode 8 spectrum for all

228

Figure 8.48. Verication of consistency in the mean of accelerograms used for the horizontal

components with the Eurocode 8 spectrum

2.00

ensemble of earthquakes

1.3 elastic spectrum

1.80

Spectral acceleration: g

1.60

Damping 5%

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Period: s

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

periods between 0 and 5 s for the horizontal components or between 0 and 3 s for the vertical

component. Therefore, consistency is established for isolation systems with an effective period

Teff , 5/1.5 3.33 s and a prevailing vertical period TV , 3/1.5 2 s, which are fullled for

the isolation system of this example.

8.4.7

Modelling of the structural system for seismic analysis

8.4.7.1 Structural model

8.4.7.1.1 Bridge model

For the purpose of nonlinear time-history analysis, the bridge is modelled in 3D with computer

code SAP 2000, fully accounting for the geometry and spatial distribution of the stiffness and

mass of the bridge. The superstructure and the substructure of the bridge are modelled with

linear prismatic beam elements with properties in accordance with the actual cross-section of

the element. Masses are lumped at the nodes of the model. Where necessary, kinematic

constraints were applied to establish proper connection of the elements. The effect of the

foundation exibility is ignored, and piers are taken as xed at their base. The model of the

bridge for the time-history analysis is shown in Figure 8.50.

Figure 8.49. Verication of consistency between target spectrum and mean spectrum of accelerograms

used for the vertical component

1.40

0.9 elastic spectrum

1.20

Spectral acceleration: g

Damping 5%

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Period: s

2.0

2.5

3.0

229

The triple FPS bearings are modelled with nonlinear hysteretic friction elements, connecting deck

and pier nodes at the locations of the corresponding bearing. In SAP 2000 the behaviour of the

isolator elements in the horizontal direction follows a coupled frictional law based on the Bouc

Wen model. In the vertical direction the behaviour of the isolators corresponds to stiff support

acting only in compression. The actual vertical load of the bearings at each time instant is taken

into account to establish the forcedisplacement relation of the bearing. The effects of bridge

deformation and vertical seismic action are taken into account in the estimation of vertical

bearing loads.

8.4.7.1.3 Effective pier stiffness

The effective pier stiffness is taken as equal to the uncracked gross section stiffness. Because the

stiffness of the piers is much larger than the effective stiffness of the isolation system, piers may

be considered as rigid without signicant loss of accuracy. This approach is followed in the

fundamental mode analysis, presented later with detailed manual calculations. In the nonlinear

time-history analysis, the effective pier stiffness is included.

8.4.8

Bridge loads for the seismic analysis

8.4.8.1 Permanent loads

Permanent action effects vary little with time due to creep and shrinkage (see Table 8.14).

Because of this small variation, only the action effects after fully developed creep and shrinkage

are considered. According to the results of the analysis, the longitudinal displacements due to

permanent actions are approximately 8 mm at the abutments and 3 mm at the piers, both

towards the centre.

8.4.8.2 Quasi-permanent trafc loads

According to Part 2 of Eurocode 8, for road bridges with severe trafc (i.e. bridges of motorways

and other roads of national importance) the quasi-permanent value c2,1Qk,1 of the trafc action

to be considered in the seismic design situation is calculated from the UDL system of trafc

model LM1, with the value of the combination factor c2,1 0.2. The division of the carriageway

in three notional lanes according to clause 4.2.3 of EN 1991-2:2003 (CEN, 2003a) is shown in

Figure 8.51.

The values of the UDL system of LM1 are calculated with the adjustment factor for UDL

aq 1.0:

g

lane 1:

230

Modelled girder

1.00

0.50

3.00

3.00

2.00

Lane No. 2

Lane No. 3

Residual area

Girder No. 1

3.00

Lane No. 1

Girder No. 2

3.50

3.50

lane 2:

g

lane 3:

g

residual area:

Total load 47.0 kN/m.

The quasi-permanent trafc load per unit of length of the bridge in the seismic design situation is:

The reactions of the deck supports for the quasi-permanent trafc load are presented in

Table 8.15, according to the analysis of the bridge for the UDL system of LM1.

8.4.8.3 Total weight on the deck in the seismic design situation

The weight Wd of the deck in the seismic design situation includes the permanent loads and the

quasi-permanent value of the trafc loads:

Wd dead load quasi-permanent trafc load 34 871 1880 36 751 kN

Table 8.15. Total reactions due to the quasi-permanent trafc loads

Reactions due to the quasi-permanent

trafc load (for both girders): MN

C0

P1

P2

C3

0.201

0.739

0.739

0.201

Sum of reactions

1.880

231

The minimum ambient air temperature with a mean return period of 50 years for the structure

is assumed equal to Tmin 208C. The maximum ambient air temperature again with a mean

return period of 50 years is assumed equal to Tmax 408C. The initial temperature is taken

as T0 108C. The uniform bridge temperature components Te,min and Te,max are calculated

from Tmin and Tmax using Figure 6.1 in EN 1991-1-5:2003 (CEN, 2003b), for a type 2 deck

(i.e. composite). The ranges of the uniform bridge temperature component are calculated as:

g

DTN,con T0 Te,min 108C (208C 58C) 258C

DTN,exp Te,max T0 (408C 58C) 108C 358C.

According to note 2 in clause 6.1.3.3(3) of EN 1991-1-5:2003, for the design of bearings and

expansion joints the temperature ranges are increased as follows:

g

DTN,con 208C 258C 208C 458C

DTN,exp 208C 358C 208C 558C

8.4.9

Design properties of the isolators

8.4.9.1 Upper- and lower-bound design properties

The nominal values of the design properties of the isolators have been presented in Section

8.4.2.2. They are:

g

g

g

the effective dynamic friction coefcient md 0.061 (+16% variability with respect to the

nominal value)

the effective radius of sliding surface Rb 1.83 m

the effective yield displacement Dy 0.005 m.

As pointed out in Section 7.2.2.4, two sets of design properties of the isolating system are

considered:

g

g

the lower-bound design properties (LBDP).

A separate analysis is performed for each one. For the selected isolation system, only the effective

dynamic friction coefcient md is subject to variability of its design value. The effective radius of

the sliding surface Rb is a geometric property not subject to variability. The UBDP and the LBDP

for md are calculated according to Annexes J and JJ of Part 2 of Eurocode 8:

g

g

g

LBDP: md,min min DPnom 0.051

UBDP: according to Annexes J and JJ of Part 2 of Eurocode 8.

8.4.9.2

where c2 0.5 is the combination factor for thermal actions for the seismic design situation;

Tmin 208C is the minimum shade air temperature at the bridge location having an annual

probability of exceedance of 0.98, per clause 6.1.3.2 of EN 1991-1-5:2003; and DT1 5.08C

232

is the correction temperature for composite bridge decks according to Table J.1N of Part 2 of

Eurocode 8.

8.4.9.3 lmax factors per Annex JJ of Part 2 of Eurocode 8

f1 ageing: lmax,f1 1.1 (Table JJ.5, for normal environment, unlubricated PTFE and

protective seal).

f2 temperature: lmax,f2 1.15 (Table JJ.6 for Tmin,b 5.08C, unlubricated PTFE).

f3 contamination lmax,f3 1.1 (Table JJ.7 for unlubricated PTFE and sliding surface facing

both upwards and downwards).

f4 cumulative travel lmax,f4 1.0 (Table JJ.8 for unlubricated PTFE and cumulative

travel 1.0 km).

Combination factor c 0.70 for importance class II (Table J.2).

Combination value of lmax factors: lU, 1 (lmax, 1)c (Eq. (J.5)).

f1 ageing: lU,f1 1 (1.1 1) 0.7 1.07.

f2 temperature: lU,f2 1 (1.15 1) 0.7 1.105.

f3 contamination lU,f3 1 (1.1 1) 0.7 1.07.

f4 cumulative travel lU,f4 1 (1.0 1) 0.7 1.0.

8.4.9.4

Effective UBDP

(Eq. (J.4))

Therefore, the range of variation of the effective friction coefcient md is from 0.051 to 0.09.

8.4.10 Analysis with the fundamental mode method

8.4.10.1 General

The fundamental mode method of analysis is described in Section 7.5.3 of this Guide. In each of

the two horizontal directions of the seismic action the response of the isolated bridge is determined considering the superstructure as a linear SDoF system using:

g

g

g

g

the effective damping of the isolation system jeff

the mass of the superstructure Md

the spectral acceleration Se(Teff , jeff) corresponding to the effective period Teff and the

effective damping jeff .

The effective stiffness at each support location is the composite stiffness of the isolator unit and

the corresponding substructure, per Eqs (D2.10) or (D7.37). In this particular example, the stiffness of the piers is much larger than the stiffness of the isolators, and the contribution of the pier

stiffness may be ignored (see Eq. (D7.32)). The effective damping is derived from Eq. (D7.33) at

the design displacement dcd . The value of dcd is calculated from the effective period Teff and the

effective damping jeff, both of which depend on the value of the still unknown design displacement, dcd . Therefore, the fundamental mode method is in general an iterative procedure, where a

value is assumed for the design displacement in order to calculate Teff and jeff , and a better

approximation of dcd is then calculated from the design spectrum using Teff and jeff . The new

value of dcd is used as the initial value for the new iteration. The procedure converges rapidly.

In this example, hand calculations are presented for the fundamental mode analysis for both

LDBP and UBDP. Only the rst and the last iteration are presented.

8.4.10.2 Fundamental mode analysis for LBDP

The analysis below corresponds to the LBDP of isolators (i.e. md 0.051). The iteration steps are

presented in detail. It is recalled that the weight is Wd 36 751 kN (see Section 8.4.8.3).

Iteration 1

Assume a value for the design displacement dcd: assume dcd 0.15 m.

Effective stiffness of the isolation system Keff (ignoring the piers):

Keff F/dcd Wd[md dcd/Rb]/dcd 36 751 [0.051 0.15/1.83]/0.15 32 578 kN/m

233

Teff

r

r

m

36 751=9:81

2:13 s

2p

2p

Keff

32 578

ED 4Wdmd(dcd Dy) 4 36 751 0.051 (0.15 0.005) 1087.09 kN m

Effective damping jeff:

jeff

p

heff [0.1/(0.05 jeff)] 0.591

dcd (0.625/p2)agSheffTeffTC (0.625/p2) (0.4 9.81) 1.2 0.591

2.13 0.5 0.188 m

Assumed displacement: 0.15 m. Calculated displacement: 0.188 m ) second iteration.

Iteration 2

Assume a new value for the design displacement dcd: assume dcd 0.22 m.

Effective stiffness of the isolation system Keff:

Keff 36 751 (0.051 0.22/1.83)/0.22 m 28 602 kN/m

Effective period of the isolation system Teff:

Teff

r

r

m

36 751=9:81

2p

2:27 s

2p

Keff

28 602

ED 4 36 751 0.051 (0.22 0.005) 1611.90 kN m

Effective damping jeff:

p

heff [0.1/(0.05 jeff)] 0.652

Design displacement dcd:

dcd (0.625/p2) 0.4 9.81 1.2 0.652 2.27 0.5 0.22 m

Assumed displacement calculated displacemen ) convergence.

Spectral acceleration Sa:

Sa 2.5(TC/Teff)heff

agS 2.5 (0.5/2.27) 0.652 0.4 1.2 0.172g

Isolation system shear force Vd:

Vd Keffdcd 28 602 0.22 6292 kN

234

For the UBDP of isolators: md 0.09.

Iteration 1

Assume a value for the design displacement dcd: assume dcd 0.15 m.

Effective stiffness of the isolation system Keff:

Keff 36 751 (0.09 0.15/1.83)/0.15 42 133 kN/m

Effective period of the isolation system Teff:

Teff

r

r

m

36 751=9:81

1:87 s

2p

2p

Keff

42 133

ED 4 36 751 0.09 (0.15 0.005) 1984.55 kN m

Effective damping jeff:

p

heff [0.1/(0.05 jeff)] 0.511

Calculate design displacement dcd:

dcd (0.625/p2) 0.4 9.81 1.2 0.511 1.87 0.5 0.142 m

Assumed displacement: 0.15 m. Calculated displacement: 0.142 m ) do another iteration.

Iteration 2

Assume a new value for the design displacement dcd: assume dcd 0.14 m.

Effective stiffness of the isolation system Keff:

Keff 36 751 (0.09 0.14 m/1.83 m)/0.14 43 541 kN/m

Effective period of the isolation system Teff:

Teff

s

r

m

36 751kN=9:81m=s2

1:84 s

2p

2p

Keff

43 541 kN=m

ED 4 36 751 0.09 (0.14 0.005) 1799.32 kN m

Effective damping jeff:

p

heff [0.1/(0.05 jeff)] 0.512

Calculate design displacement dcd:

dcd (0.625/p2) 0.4 9.81 1.2 0.512 1.84 0.5 0.14 m

Assumed displacement: 0.14 m. Calculated displacement: 0.14 m ) convergence achieved.

Spectral acceleration Sa:

Sa 2.5 (0.5/1.84) 0.512 0.4 1.2 0.166g

235

Vd 43 541 0.14 6096 kN

Typically, LBDP analysis leads to maximum displacements of the isolating system, and UBDP

analysis leads to maximum forces in the substructure and the deck. However, the latter is not

always true, as demonstrated by this example. In this particular example, the LBDP analysis

leads to larger shear force (Vd 6292 kN) in the substructure than the UBDP analysis

(Vd 6096 kN). This is because the increase in forces due to the reduced effective damping in

the LBDP analysis (jeff 0.1853 for LBDP versus jeff 0.331 for UBDP) is more dominant

than the reduction in forces due to the increased effective period in the LBDP analysis

(Teff 2.27 s in LBDP versus Teff 1.84 s in UBDP).

8.4.11 Nonlinear time-history analysis

8.4.11.1 Analysis method

The nonlinear time-history analysis for the ground motions of the design seismic action is

performed with direct time integration of the equation of motion using the Newmark constant

acceleration integration scheme with parameters g 0.5 and b 0.25. The integration time

step is taken equal to 0.01 s, which is then divided to the half value if convergence is not

achieved. At each iteration, convergence is considered to be achieved when the unbalanced

nonlinear force is less than 10 4 of the total force.

The damping matrix C is determined from Eq. (D7.29) (Rayleigh damping) with the coefcient

values in Eq. (D7.31). Figure 8.52 shows the damping ratio corresponding to the applied

damping matrix C as a function of mode period. The damping for periods T . 1.5 s, where

seismic isolation dominates, is very small (j , 0.3%). For that period range, energy dissipation

occurs primarily from the nonlinear response of the isolators. For very short periods (T , 0.05 s),

damping increases signicantly (j . 10%). This is desirable, because modes with periods of the

same order of magnitude as the time step cannot be integrated with good accuracy, and it is

preferable to lter them out via increased damping.

8.4.11.2 Action effects on the seismic isolation system

Figures 8.538.56 depict the hysteresis loops for an abutment bearing (C0_L) and a pier bearing

(P1_L) for both the LBDP and UBDP analyses. In Tables 8.16 and 8.17 the time-history analysis

results are presented for the left and right bearings at each pier (P1_L, P1_R, P2_L and P2_R)

and abutment location (C0_L, C0_R, C3_L and C3_R). As the analysis is carried out for

Figure 8.52. Damping as a function of the period of the modes

20.0

17.5

Damping, : %

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

0.0

0.0

236

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Period, T : s

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Figure 8.53. Hysteresis loops for abutment bearing C0_L from the analysis with LBDP

Direction X

0.200

400

300

200

100

0

0.100 100 0

200

300

400

Direction Y

600

400

0.100

0.200

0.300

Force: KN

Force: KN

EQ1

200

0.300

0.200

0

0.100

0

200

600

400

400

Force: KN

Force: KN

600

0

0.200

0.100

200

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.200

0.100

400

0.100

0.200

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.100

200

200

0.300

0.200

0

0.100

0

200

400

400

300

200

100

0

0.100 100 0

200

300

400

100

0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200

200

Force: KN

Force: KN

200

0.300

0.200

300

400

Displacement: m

400

400

300

0

0

0.100

0.200

Force: KN

Force: KN

600

200

0.200

0.100

600

300

300

600

200

400

100

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.100

200

300

400

200

300

0.100

0.200

Force: KN

Force: KN

200

0.200

400

200

0

100 0

Displacement: m

300

0.100

0.100

0

0.200

200

100

0.200

0.200

200

Displacement: m

EQ7

0.100

Displacement: m

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.050

0

100 0

200

0

0.100

0.200

100

400

100

0.150

0.100

200

Displacement: m

EQ6

0.300

Displacement: m

200

0.100

0.200

Displacement: m

300

0

0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050

100 0

0.100

400

Displacement: m

0.200

0.100

600

0.300

Displacement: m

200

EQ5

200

400

400

EQ3

EQ4

0.300

0

0.300

Displacement: m

0.200

0.200

200

400

0.300

0.300

Displacement: m

200

0.300

0.200

400

Displacement: m

EQ2

0.100

0.300

0.200

0

0.100

0

200

0.100

0.200

0.300

400

400

600

Displacement: m

Displacement: m

237

Figure 8.54. Hysteresis loops for abutment bearing C0_L from the analysis with UBDP

Direction X

Direction Y

400

300

200

100

0

0.050100 0

200

300

400

400

EQ1

0.200

0.150

0

0.050

0

200

0.100

0.050

0.100

0.150

Force: KN

Force: KN

200

0.200

0.150

0.100

400

Displacement: m

0.200

0.100

500

400

300

200

100

0

100 0

200

300

400

0.100

0.200

0.300

200

0

0.150 0.100 0.050

0

200

600

200

400

0.050

0

200

0.050

0.100

0.150

Force: KN

Force: KN

400

400

0

0.150 0.100 0.050

0

200

600

0.050

0.100

0.150

Force: KN

Force: KN

0

100 0

0.150

0.100

200

300

Displacement: m

600

400

400

300

200

0

0.150

0.100

0.050

0

200

0.050

0.100

0.050

0.100

0.050

600

300

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.100

400

300

200

100

0

0.050100 0

200

300

400

400

100

300

Displacement: m

0.050

0.100

Force: KN

Force: KN

600

200

200

238

0.050

300

0

0.050

0.050

0.100

0.100

0.150

Displacement: m

100

0.100

0.100

Displacement: m

Displacement: m

0.150

0.050

0

100 0

200

400

300

200

100

0

100 0

200

300

400

EQ7

0.200

100

400

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.100

0.150

200

Displacement: m

EQ6

0.100

Displacement: m

Force: KN

Force: KN

EQ5

0.200

0.050

400

300

200

100

0

0.050 100 0

200

300

400

300

100

0.250

0.250

Displacement: m

400

0.050

0.200

400

200

0.100

0.150

200

Displacement: m

EQ4

0.100

Displacement: m

0

0.100

0.050

400

EQ3

0.150

0.150

600

Displacement: m

0.200

0.100

Displacement: m

Force: KN

Force: KN

EQ2

0.050

200

0.200

0.150

0.100

0

0.050

0

200

400

Displacement: m

0.050

0.100

0.150

Figure 8.55. Hysteresis loops for pier bearing P1_L from the analysis with LBDP

Direction X

0.200

2000

1000

1500

0

0.100

0.000

500

0.100

0.200

0.300

Force: KN

Force: KN

EQ1

Direction Y

1500

1000

500

0.300

0

0.100 5000.000

0.200

1000

1500

2000

2000

1500

1500

1000

1000

0

0.100 5000.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.200

500

0.300

0

0.100 5000.000

0.200

1000

1500

Displacement: m

Displacement: m

1500

1000

1000

0.100

0

5000.000

0.100

0.200

1000

Force: KN

Force: KN

1500

500

0.200

0.200

0.100

1500

2000

1500

1500

500

1000

Force: KN

Force: KN

1000

0.300

0.200

0.100

1000

0.100

0.200

500

0.150

0.100

0

0.050

0.000

500

1000

0.050

0.100

Force: KN

Force: KN

1500

500

0.200

0.100

0.100

0

0.000

500

1000

1500

1500

0.100

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

500

1000

1500

Displacement: m

0.200

Displacement: m

0.100

0.200

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.200

0.150

500

1000

0

0.000

500

0.100

Displacement: m

1000

0

0.000

500

0.050

1000

Displacement: m

EQ7

0.200

1500

Force: KN

Force: KN

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0.100 5000.000

1000

1500

2000

0.050

0.100

Displacement: m

Displacement: m

0.100

0

0.000

500

1500

Displacement: m

0.150

0.200

1000

1500

EQ6

0.100

500

1000

0.200

0.300

Displacement: m

500

0.300

0

0.000

500

1000

EQ5

0.200

500

Displacement: m

EQ4

0.100

1000

1500

EQ3

0.300

0.300

Displacement: m

500

0.300

0.200

1500

Displacement: m

EQ2

0.100

1000

0.300

0.200

0.100

0

0.000

500

0.100

0.200

1000

1500

Displacement: m

239

Figure 8.56. Hysteresis loops for pier bearing P1_L from the analysis with UBDP

Direction X

EQ1

Direction Y

1500

1500

1000

500

0

0.050500

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

Force: KN

Force: KN

1000

1000

500

0.150

0.100

0.050

1500

2000

1500

1500

500

0.100

0

5000.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.150 0.100

0

0.050 0.000

500

1500

2000

1000

1500

0.050

0.100

0.150

Force: KN

Force: KN

1500

500

1000

1500

0.050

0

0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000

500

0.050

1500

1000

500

500

0.100

0.150

0.150

0.100

0.050

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

0

0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.0505000.000

0.050

0.100

Force: KN

Force: KN

EQ5

0.100

0.050

1500

1000

1000

500

500

0.050

0.100

Force: KN

Force: KN

1500

0

0.000

500

0.100

0.050

0

0.000

500

1000

1500

500

1000

0

0.000

500

1000

1500

Displacement: m

0.050

0.100

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.150

0.050

0.100

1500

Displacement: m

1500

Displacement: m

0.050

0.100

1000

1000

EQ7

0.050

1500

Displacement: m

2000

Displacement: m

240

0

0.000

500

1000

1500

0.100

0.050

500

1000

0.150

0

0.000

500

1500

Displacement: m

Displacement: m

0.050

0.200

1000

1500

EQ6

0.150

Displacement: m

1000

0.100

0.100

1000

0.050

0.200

500

1500

0

0.000

500

0.150

1000

Force: KN

Force: KN

0.100

0.100

1000

2000

Displacement: m

EQ4

0.050

1000

Displacement: m

Displacement: m

0

0.200 0.150 0.100 0.0505000.000

0.150

500

1000

EQ3

0.100

1000

Force: KN

Force: KN

2000

1000

0.200

0.050

1000

Displacement: m

2000

Displacement: m

EQ2

0

0.000

500

500

0

0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000

500

1000

1500

Displacement: m

0.050

0.100

0.150

Bearing

dEd,x: m

dEd,y: m

dEd: m

aEd: rad

NEd,min: kN

C0_L

C0_R

0.193

0.193

0.207

0.207

0.255

0.254

0.00498

0.00509

848.7

860.4

C3_L

C3_R

0.199

0.199

0.207

0.207

0.258

0.257

0.00486

0.00494

P1_L

P1_R

0.188

0.188

0.193

0.192

0.244

0.243

P2_L

P2_R

0.189

0.189

0.193

0.192

0.245

0.243

NEd,max: kN

VEd,x: kN

VEd,y: kN

VEd: kN

3310.3

3359.4

346.0

363.2

375.7

389.8

469.0

482.4

855.3

858.5

3323.9

3309.3

402.5

418.4

372.0

368.4

501.4

496.0

0.00367

0.00381

4541.1

4435.4

12086.0

11994.8

1328.5

1369.8

1295.0

1284.5

1654.2

1690.0

0.00369

0.00380

4560.3

4498.0

12084.6

11912.9

1336.1

1365.0

1283.5

1283.2

1654.3

1688.5

6929.3

6652.1

Total

seven seismic motions EQ1 to EQ7, the average of the individual responses may be assumed as

the design value.

The results are the combined effect of the seismic action and the quasi-permanent loads. They do

not include the effects of temperature and creep or shrinkage. dEd,x denotes the displacement in

the longitudinal direction, dEd,y that in the transverse, dEd is the magnitude of the displacement

vector in the horizontal plane and aEd is the magnitude of the rotation vector in the horizontal

plane. NEd is the vertical force on the bearing (positive when compressive), VEd,x is the horizontal

force of the bearing in the longitudinal direction, VEd,y is that in the transverse direction and VEd

is the magnitude of the horizontal force vector.

8.4.11.3 Check of the lower bound on action effects

According to clauses 7.5.6(1) and 7.5.5(6) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8, the resulting displacement of

the stiffness centre of the isolating system (dcd) and the resulting total shear force transferred

through the isolation interface (Vd) in each of the two-horizontal directions are subject to

lower bounds equal to 80% of the design displacement and the shear force through the isolation

interface from the fundamental mode analysis, dcf and Vf, respectively. The lower bounds apply

for both the modal response spectrum analysis and the time-history analysis. The verication of

these bounds is presented below:

g

g

g

g

displacement in the Y direction: rd dcd/df 0.207/0.22 0.94 . 0.80 ) bound met

total shear in the X direction: rv Vd/Vf 6929.3/6292 1.10 . 0.80 ) bound met

total shear in the Y direction: rv Vd/Vf 6652.1/6292 1.06 . 0.80 ) bound met.

Witness that the time-history analysis results are 12% smaller for displacements and 10% larger

for the total shear force compared with those of the fundamental mode analysis. This discrepancy

Table 8.17. Bearings: results of the analysis for UBDP

Bearing

dEd,x: m

dEd,y: m

dEd: m

aEd: rad

C0_L

C0_R

0.149

0.149

0.139

0.139

0.182

0.181

0.00469

0.00475

655.0

624.1

C3_L

C3_R

0.157

0.157

0.139

0.138

0.185

0.185

0.00466

0.00461

P1_L

P1_R

0.149

0.149

0.128

0.128

0.173

0.172

P2_L

P2_R

0.150

0.149

0.128

0.127

0.173

0.173

Total

NEd,min: kN

NEd,max: kN

VEd,x: kN

VEd,y: kN

VEd: kN

3157.9

3110.3

352.6

363.4

380.4

366.8

449.8

452.3

677.2

684.8

3112.5

3096.8

400.6

390.6

368.6

360.1

489.6

473.0

0.00361

0.00355

3912.7

3781.8

11246.7

11408.5

1361.8

1352.6

1273.8

1185.7

1630.8

1587.1

0.00359

0.00354

3793.6

3886.4

11246.2

11378.4

1379.7

1370.1

1255.4

1187.1

1605.7

1603.4

6971.3

6377.8

241

between the comparison of displacements and forces is attributed to the effect of the vertical

earthquake component on bearing forces, which is not taken into account in the fundamental

mode method. For spherical sliding bearings, the horizontal bearing shear forces are always

proportional to the vertical bearing loads. The variation in the vertical bearing loads due to

the vertical ground motion also affects the horizontal shear forces. This effect is evident in the

wavy nature of the forcedisplacement hysteresis loops of the isolators presented in

Figures 8.538.56.

8.4.12 Verication of the isolation system

8.4.12.1 Displacement demands on the isolation system

The displacement demand in each direction dm,i is determined as the sum of:

g

g

the seismic design displacement, dbi,d , multiplied by an amplication factor gIS with the

recommended value gIS 1.50

the offset displacement dG,i due to quasi-permanent actions, long-term deformations and

50% of the thermal action (cf. Eq. (D6.36) in Section 6.8.1.2).

The offset displacement due to 50% of the thermal action is determined as follows. The design

value of the uniform component of the thermal action is in the range 258C to 358C.

Assuming that the xed point of thermal expansion/contraction is located at one of the two

piers, this leads to an effective expansion/contraction length LT of 140 m for the abutment

bearings and 80 m for the pier bearings. With the sign corresponding to deck movement

towards the abutment and to movement towards the bridge centre, the offset displacement

due to 50% of thermal action is:

At abutments:

At the piers:

0.5LT

0.5LT

0.5LT

0.5LT

aDT 0.5 140 000 1.0 10 5 (55) 38.5 mm

aDT 0.5 80 000 1.0 10 5 (45) 18 mm

aDT 0.5 80 000 1.0 10 5 (55) 22.0 mm

The total offset displacement, including the effects of quasi-permanent actions, long-term

deformations and 50% of the thermal action, is calculated as follows:

At abutments:

At the piers:

Towards

Towards

Towards

Towards

the abutment: 38.5 mm

the bridge centre: 3 18 21 mm

the abutments: 22 mm

According to Part 2 of Eurocode 8, the displacement demand is estimated and checked in the

principal directions and not in the most critical direction. However, this is not adequate for

bearings with the same displacement capacity in all horizontal directions, such as the FPS

bearings. The maximum displacement of the isolator occurs in a direction that does not

coincide in general with one of the two principal directions. The maximum required displacement

demand in the most critical direction may be estimated by examining the time history of the

magnitude of the resultant displacement vector in the horizontal plane XY, including the

effect of offset displacements due to quasi-permanent actions, long-term displacements and

50% of the thermal action.

In Table 8.18 the displacement demand at the abutment and pier bearings is estimated in both

principal directions, alongside the critical displacement demand in the horizontal XY plane,

which in the present case is larger by about 25%. Therefore, the displacement demand of the

isolators is 407 mm for abutment bearings and 382 mm for pier bearings.

8.4.12.2. Restoring capability of the isolation system

The lateral restoring capability of the isolation system is veried per clause 7.7.1 of Part 2 of

Eurocode 8. The equivalent bilinear model of the isolation system is shown in Figure 8.57,

where F0 mdNEd is the force at zero displacement; Kp NEd/Rb is the post-elastic stiffness;

and d0 is the maximum residual displacement for which the isolation system can be in static

242

Displacement demand

For abutments:

C0_L, C0_R, C3_L, C3_R

For piers:

P1_L, P1_R, P2_L, P2_R

In longitudinal direction X

In transverse direction Y

In horizontal plane XY

329

311

407

305

290

382

Maximum

407

382

equilibrium in the considered direction. For an isolation system consisting of spherical sliding

isolators the displacement d0 is:

d0 F0/Kp mdNEd/(NEd/Rb) mdRb

According to clause 7.7.1(2) in Part 2 of Eurocode 8, an isolation system has adequate selfrestoring capability if dcd/d0 . d in both principal directions, where d is a coefcient with the

recommended value d 0.5. This criterion is veried for both UBDP and LBDP of the isolators.

Lower values of the design displacement dcd give results that are more on the safe side:

g

dcd/d0 0.193/(0.051 1.83) 2.07 . 0.5

dcd/d0 0.207/(0.051 1.83) 2.22 . 0.5

dcd/d0 0.149/(0.09 1.83) 0.90 . 0.5

dcd/d0 0.138/(0.09 1.83) 0.84 . 0.5

Therefore, the restoring capability of the isolation system is adequate without additional increase

in the displacement capacity dm . It is noted that UBDP give more unfavourable results because

dcd is larger and d0 smaller than for LBDP.

8.4.13 Verication of the substructure

8.4.13.1 Action effect envelopes for the piers

In Tables 8.19 and 8.20, action effect envelopes from the time-history analysis (average for the

seven earthquake ground motions EQ1 to EQ7) are given for the substructure. For piers P1

Figure 8.57. Properties of bilinear model for verication of restoring capability of isolator

Force

Kp

F0

Displacement

dcd

d0

d0

243

Envelope

N: kN

VX: kN

VY: kN

T: kN m

MX: kN m

MY: kN m

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

1754.3

6535.1

4930.5

3688.2

5623.1

4124.3

2759.9

2989.8

4930.5

3688.2

3789.3

4324.0

18.3

347.5

616.5

660.5

617.2

469.5

358.3

341.2

616.5

660.5

383.9

493.4

158.3

123.9

163.2

115.7

684.1

694.6

393.2

505.2

163.2

115.7

608.9

730.7

14.6

23.1

85.1

82.2

192.6

190.5

183.1

216.0

85.1

82.2

272.1

312.4

1.8

34.7

61.6

66.0

61.7

47.0

35.8

34.1

61.6

66.0

38.4

49.3

824.8

380.1

475.4

482.2

1933.0

2002.9

1388.7

1867.7

475.4

482.2

2575.8

2701.2

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

1787.9

6439.8

4241.8

3389.9

5460.4

4149.3

1975.2

2760.7

4241.8

3389.9

4001.7

4533.2

105.4

379.4

783.1

562.1

666.9

401.9

257.9

312.5

783.1

562.1

453.0

591.8

113.9

134.5

110.8

106.0

680.5

660.4

301.0

435.8

110.8

106.0

631.7

690.8

31.5

32.2

56.9

66.8

238.2

172.9

172.4

215.7

56.9

66.8

312.7

395.7

10.5

37.9

78.3

56.2

66.7

40.2

25.8

31.2

78.3

56.2

45.3

59.2

654.5

446.2

328.9

429.4

2046.7

1867.8

1131.7

1809.1

328.9

429.4

2622.4

2597.2

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

12756.8

27232.5

16241.5

17636.3

16658.7

15829.2

8022.6

13056.5

16142.4

18598.0

16393.7

18669.2

50.1

228.2

3339.4

2906.9

1112.7

909.9

961.5

2514.3

3319.0

2499.2

1095.0

1073.1

236.8

640.6

500.1

86.6

2666.1

2698.2

813.0

919.9

497.1

1830.2

2623.7

3182.3

60.2

451.2

105.8

77.7

758.9

450.8

575.0

768.1

105.2

240.9

746.9

531.7

254.0

2143.8

29347.6

22629.6

11127.1

9661.0

9403.4

22613.0

29168.5

26831.4

10950.1

11394.4

3971.0

7982.2

4786.2

1838.1

33869.5

27964.5

12731.0

17367.8

4756.9

15284.0

33330.7

32981.8

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

12560.1

27066.2

16266.7

17867.1

16650.4

15988.2

7732.6

12784.1

16195.0

18734.3

16276.3

18798.5

792.5

230.7

3383.2

2879.8

1099.1

956.8

960.9

2478.8

3368.3

2470.9

1074.4

1125.0

174.2

715.6

506.5

84.6

2678.2

2711.5

781.8

860.4

504.3

1809.2

2618.0

3188.1

161.5

339.1

156.6

83.3

777.1

429.9

575.5

766.8

155.9

255.8

759.6

505.5

6724.3

2180.8

29890.9

22406.6

11054.4

10018.0

9395.1

22343.7

29759.0

26514.7

10806.1

11778.9

4432.2

8957.0

4842.4

1807.9

34062.3

28164.0

12189.7

16575.8

4821.0

15186.2

33297.0

33114.5

and P2 they refer to their base, and for the abutments C0 and C3 to the mid-point between the

bearings (at the bearing level). The envelopes include the effect of permanent actions and the

quasi-permanent value of the trafc loads and the design seismic action. They do not include

the effects of temperature and shrinkage. According to clause 7.6.3(2) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8,

244

Envelope

N: kN

VX: kN

VY: kN

T: kN m

MX: kN m

MY: kN m

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

C0

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

1326.0

6076.0

3620.5

3503.1

3737.8

3996.2

2699.6

3260.5

3620.5

3503.1

3222.0

4111.4

116.0

594.2

627.6

693.8

149.9

375.4

22.2

479.0

627.6

693.8

97.5

219.5

80.6

94.3

93.9

158.1

686.9

640.2

197.0

471.3

93.9

158.1

597.8

555.6

12.6

38.4

53.1

133.9

105.3

176.4

300.3

241.3

53.1

133.9

89.8

199.5

11.6

59.4

62.8

69.4

15.0

37.5

2.2

47.9

62.8

69.4

9.7

21.9

62.0

365.0

347.0

687.2

2696.7

2085.3

149.2

1937.6

347.0

687.2

2655.5

2575.7

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

C3

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

1417.6

6053.3

4215.2

3079.4

4496.6

3930.0

2417.7

2709.4

4215.2

3079.4

3961.3

4233.5

76.4

614.1

768.4

586.3

636.9

296.3

325.0

390.4

768.4

586.3

570.8

117.5

45.9

86.6

147.3

151.7

669.0

635.4

359.0

425.5

147.3

151.7

622.0

558.0

61.4

37.5

39.3

96.5

347.4

149.4

233.9

285.9

39.3

96.5

418.1

8.8

7.6

61.4

76.8

58.6

63.7

29.6

32.5

39.0

76.8

58.6

57.1

11.8

384.7

339.1

381.3

525.6

2340.9

2069.0

1283.0

1840.4

381.3

525.6

2690.9

2615.1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

11444.7

25719.8

15188.6

17329.4

16196.9

14597.6

12907.1

11198.9

14829.4

15090.4

15952.1

15337.1

125.6

320.3

3632.5

3190.1

1183.0

1.4

1473.0

2406.9

3546.6

3183.3

1165.1

1.4

566.0

1735.7

168.5

282.4

2666.2

2828.3

804.9

983.3

164.5

127.2

2626.0

2971.5

7.6

382.5

83.2

106.6

949.5

175.7

693.2

1016.0

81.2

99.0

935.1

184.6

1131.0

3219.5

32565.5

27647.3

12871.0

580.6

14798.4

21664.8

31795.4

28584.3

12676.5

610.0

7410.2

22258.8

2160.6

3773.0

33694.2

29913.1

13503.0

18338.9

2109.5

246.6

33185.2

31428.6

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

max N

min N

max VX

min VX

max VY

min VY

max T

min T

max MX

min MX

max MY

min MY

11479.8

25746.2

15433.8

15216.5

20549.5

14855.2

12267.8

11612.0

15110.2

15128.2

16623.8

15508.7

216.1

28.7

3702.6

3197.1

280.4

49.9

1464.3

2520.1

3625.0

3178.6

340.0

52.1

583.7

1764.3

165.4

106.6

2618.8

2856.8

764.4

953.8

161.9

106.0

2495.7

2982.5

1.8

409.5

75.4

115.6

304.4

190.7

741.6

1006.9

73.8

114.9

120.7

199.1

2007.6

372.2

33190.2

28697.8

3324.9

930.3

14684.7

22796.5

32494.1

28531.2

2377.2

971.2

7643.4

22556.9

2114.8

609.4

29039.5

30281.5

12727.1

17940.3

2070.5

605.9

32509.5

31613.6

the design seismic forces due to the design seismic action alone may be derived from the

time-history analysis forces after division by the q factor for limited ductile/essentially elastic

behaviour, q 1.50. This is not included in the present results, but will be applied at the

design stage of the pier cross-sections.

245

g

g

g

g

N is the vertical force (i.e. axial force) (positive when acting upwards)

VX is the shear force along the X axis, VY is the shear along the Y axis

T is the torsional moment

MX is the moment in the vertical plane through the X axis (i.e. that produced by an

earthquake in the longitudinal, X, direction), and MY the moment in the vertical plane

through the Y axis (produced by an earthquake acting in the transverse direction, Y).

The signs of VX/MX are the same when their directions are compatible with earthquake

forces acting in the X direction; the signs of VY/MY are the same when their directions are

compatible with earthquake forces acting in the Y direction.

Envelopes of maximum/minimum and concurrent internal forces are presented for each pier/

abutment location. For instance, envelope max N corresponds to the design situation where the

value of the vertical force N is algebraically the maximum. The values of other forces VX, VY,

T, MX and MY at max N envelope are the concurrent forces when N becomes a maximum.

The maximum/minimum and the concurrent forces for each envelope are derived as follows:

The maxima/minima of each force (say max MX , j 17) over all time-steps of the

response history for each motion j 17 are assessed. The design value of the maximum/

minimum of the examined force (say MX,d) is the average of these maxima/minima for the

seven motions.

2 The results of the seismic motion producing the extreme value (say maxmax MX) of these

maxima/minima for all motions and the corresponding time-step are used as the basis for

the assessment of the concurrent values of the other forces. A scaling factor is applied to

these results, equal to the ratio of the design value of the examined force (MX,d) divided by

the extreme value (maxmax MX) (i.e. MX,d/maxmax MX).

1

8.4.13.2.1 General

The maximum normalised axial force of the piers is

Therefore, according to clause 6.2.1.1(2) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8, no connement reinforcement

is necessary. However, due to the low axial force the pier should be designed taking into account

the minimum reinforcement requirements for beams and for columns.

8.4.13.2.2 Verification for flexure and axial force

According to clause 7.6.3(2) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8, for the design of the substructures the seismic

forces EE due to the design seismic action alone may be obtained by dividing the analysis forces by

the q factor corresponding to limited-ductile/essentially-elastic behaviour, q 1.50.

Clause 6.5.1 in Part 2 of Eurocode 8 prescribes certain reduced ductility measures (for the connement and restraint of reinforcement buckling). It also offers the option of avoiding these

measures if the piers are designed so that MRd/MEd , 1.3. This option is chosen in this

example, for reasons to become apparent soon. Therefore, for the design of longitudinal

reinforcement the design seismic forces, FEd , are derived from forces derived from the timehistory analysis, FEA , as FEd 1.3FE,A/1.5. For the most adverse combination of so-computed

design seismic action effects, NEd , MX,ed and MY,ed , the required longitudinal reinforcement

amounts to As 21 370 mm2, uniformly distributed all around the section.

8.4.13.2.3 Minimum longitudinal reinforcement

Part 2 of Eurocode 8 does not have a specic requirement for a minimum value of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. The minimum reinforcement specied in Eurocode 2 for columns

(including those of bridges) is equal to

As,min max(0.1NEd/fyd , 0.002Ac) max[0.1 27 232.5/(500 000/1.15), 0.002 5 2.5]

0.025 m2 25 000 mm2

(i.e. min r 0.2%).

246

Eurocode 2 species for beams a minimum amount of tensile reinforcement to prevent brittle

failure right after exceedance of the cracking moment of the section (i.e. of the tensile concrete

strength). For uniaxial bending, the minimum tensile reinforcement (i.e. of the side of the

section that is in tension) is r1,min max (0.26fctm/fyk , 0.0013), normalised to bd. For concrete

C35/45 with fctm 3.2 MPa and steel grade 500 with fyk 500 MPa, r1,min 0.001664, which

gives for each one of the two long sides of the section

As1,min 0.001664 5000 (2500 80) 20 134 mm2

(i.e. 20 134/5.0 4027 mm2/m of the perimeter). If the same reinforcement density is adopted

also for the two short sides of the section (which prot from the tension reinforcement of the

end of the long sides, too), we obtain 60 400 mm2 for the total minimum reinforcement of the

rectangular section, and rmin 0.00483 0.483%.

In summary:

g

g

g

required longitudinal reinforcement for the ULS design of the section: 21 373 mm2

(r 0.17%)

required minimum longitudinal reinforcement: 60 400 cm2 (rmin 0.483%)

provided longitudinal reinforcement: one layer 128/135 4560 mm2/m or 64 000 mm2 in

total (r 0.51%).

8.4.13.2.4 ULS verification in shear

According to clause 5.6.2(2) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8, for the design of shear reinforcement,

Eurocode 2 applies with the following additional rules:

g

g

The design action effects are multiplied by the behaviour factor q used in the linear

analysis.

The resistance values, VRd,c , VRd,s and VRd,max derived in accordance with Eurocode 2 are

divided by an additional safety factor gBd1 against brittle failure, with the recommended

value gBd1 1.25. Therefore, the design seismic forces for the ULS design in shear, FEd ,

may be derived from the time-history analysis forces, FEA , as FEd 1.25FE,A.

g

g

g

required shear reinforcement in the transverse direction: 2366 mm2/m.

provided shear reinforcement in the longitudinal direction (116/150 on the perimeter plus

4 112/150 cross-ties with two legs each): 4 2 754 mm2/m 2 1340 mm2/m

8710 mm2/m (rw 0.174%).

provided shear reinforcement in the transverse direction (116/150, only on the perimeter):

2 1340 mm2/m 2680 mm2/m (rw 0.107%).

The provided shear reinforcement satises the minimum requirements of Eurocode 2 for

columns:

g

g

maximum spacing 0.6 min(20 28 mm, 2500 mm, 400 mm) 240 mm; provided

spacing 150 mm

minimum bar diameter max (6 mm, 28 mm/4) 7 mm; provided diameter 12 mm.

The shear reinforcement satises even the minimum with Eurocode 2 requirements for

beams:

g

g

maximum longitudinal spacing sl,max 0.75d 0.75 2420 1815 mm; provided

longitudinal spacing 150 mm

maximum transverse spacing st,max min(0.75d, 600 mm) min(0.75 2420 mm,

600 mm) 600 mm; provided transverse spacing 530 mm

247

5.0 m

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.53

2.5 m

Perimetric hoop: 1 two-legged 16/15 = 2 13.40 cm2/m = 26.8 cm2/m

Longitudinal reinforcement: 1 layer 28/13.5 = 45.6 cm2/m

p

p

minimum shear reinforcement ratio rw,min 0.08 fck/fyk 0.08 35/500 0.095%;

provided shear reinforcement ratio rw 0.174% in the longitudinal direction and

rw 0.107% in the transverse direction.

8.4.14 Design action effects for the foundation

8.4.14.1 Design actions effects from time-history analysis

Table 8.21 lists action effect envelopes for the design of the foundation, on the basis of the timehistory analysis results. The action effects for the foundation design are derived according to

clauses 7.6.3(4) and 5.8.2(2) of Part 2 of Eurocode 8 for bridges with seismic isolation. The

seismic action effects for the foundation design correspond to the analysis results multiplied

by the q value (q 1.5) used for the design of the substructure (i.e. effectively corresponding

to q 1).

The set of forces that are critical for the foundation design are the maximum/minimum shear

force envelopes for the design of the foundation of the abutment and the maximum/minimum

bending moment at the base of the pier, for the design of the pier foundation. The analysis

results for the seismic design situation are given for piers P1 and P2 at their base and for

abutments C0 and C3 at the midpoint between the bearings (i.e. at the bearing level). These

action effects include those of permanent actions, of the combination value of trafc loads

and of the design seismic action. The signs of the forces for foundation design are as in

Figure 8.37.

8.4.14.2 Comparison with the fundamental mode method

The force and displacement results at the abutments and at the base of the piers from the timehistory analysis are compared here with those of the fundamental mode method. LBDP give the

most unfavourable results with respect to the forces in the substructure.

Table 8.21. Seismic design situation action effects for foundation design

248

Fx: kN

Fy: kN

max Fx envelope

max Fy envelope

783

470

111

695

4242

4124

329

2003

78

47

57

191

max My envelope

max Mx envelope

3625

1095

162

2624

15110

16394

2070

33331

32494

10950

74

747

Location

Envelope

C0, C3

P1, P2

Fz: kN

Mx: kN m

My: kN m

Mz: kN m

Table 8.22. Displacements and total shears at abutment bearings in the longitudinal direction for the

two analysis methods

Time-history analysis

Fundamental mode method

Displacement

demand: mm

direction: kN

direction: kN

407

419

783

683

695

683

Before attempting this comparison, the conclusions of Section 7.5.5.4 on bidirectional excitation

are applied:

g

g

g

Applying the second proposal, the effective value dcd,e of the maximum displacement

(length of the vector resultant of the simultaneous orthogonal displacements) is assumed as

equal to dcd,e 1.15dcd .

The increased value dcd,e should be used also for the estimation of the maximum forces

transferred through the isolator in any direction, as the isolator has no preferred direction.

The vertical seismic motion component also has an effect on the variation of the friction

forces of the isolator. The effect oscillates, with approximately equal positive and negative

values and approximately zero mean value. This effect can be observed in the hysteresis

loops of Figures 8.538.56, for some of the seismic motions used (e.g. EQ7 and EQ3). The

oscillations occur at much shorter periods than those of the horizontal motion,

corresponding to the much higher frequency content of the vertical component (cf. the

elastic spectra of the two components). Consequently, this inuence may be ignored, at

least as far as the maximum displacements are concerned. Regarding the forces, the

application to the friction forces of the 1.15 multiplier estimated above is a convenient

approximation.

The displacement demand of abutment bearings and the total abutment shear are presented in

Table 8.22. The table compares the results of the time-history analysis with those of the fundamental mode method multiplied by 1.15, as explained above. The estimated displacement

demand using the fundamental mode method is 3% larger than that from time-history

analysis. The total shear estimated by the fundamental mode method is 13% less in the longitudinal direction and 3% less in the transverse direction than those from time-history analysis.

REFERENCES

structures Part 2: Trafc loads on bridges. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2003b) EN 1991-1-5:2003: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1-5: General actions

Thermal actions. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004a) EN 1992-1-1:2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1: General

rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2004b) EN 1998-1:2004: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 1:

General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005a) BS EN 1992-2:2005: Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures Part 2: Concrete

bridges Design and detailing rules. CEN, Brussels.

CEN (2005b) EN 1998-2:2005: Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 2:

Bridges. CEN, Brussels.

Bouassida Y, Bouchon E, Crespo P et al. (2012) Bridge Design to Eurocodes Worked examples.

Worked examples presented at the Workshop Bridge Design to Eurocodes, Vienna, 46 October

2010. JRC European Commission (Athanasopoulou A et al. (eds)).

249

INDEX

Page locators in italics denote figures separate from the corresponding text, locators in bold denote tables.

Index Terms

Links

A

abutments

conceptual design

46

detailing

155159

135136

nonlinear time-history analysis

role

58

5964

81

236

237238

5960

217

verification

155159

accelerograms

227229

accidental action

89

accidental torsion

99

action effects

detailing

149151

foundations

159160

206207

248249

236

237240

241

217219

236246

248249

67

9297

185191

196197

233234

248249

isolation

lower-bound design properties

241242

pier envelopes

243246

197200

verification

149151

active faults

29

additional uniform traffic load applications

analyses

8486

195

67118

action components

6869

behaviour factors

6973

design spectra

effective stiffness

fundamental mode

26

100107

isolation

185191

211214

215

216

67

68

7392

108

112

197

nonlinear analyses

6768

108109

110117

132135

torsional effects

9899

Index Terms

Links

annular sections

55

application rules

42

45

articulated connections

43

4950

26

27

assumptions

axial force

seismic design examples

197200

219

246

910

5961

62

159

4753

5556

B

backfills

balanced cantilever methods

7374

bars

buckling prevention

204

rotation capacity

134

221

bearings

analyses

70

conceptual design

128

4243

45

58

6264

design examples

207208

221

detailing

145155

156158

dimensioning

142155

elastic deformations

imposed deformations

isolation

1314

225

176177

liquefaction

33

81

236

180181

241

181185

verification

145155

156158

10

6973

behaviour factors

bidirectional excitation

189190

174177

blow-count number

22

boundary frames

39

7374

braking force

224

braking loads

225226

bridge models

229

230

Index Terms

Links

buckling

longitudinal bars

verification

204

221

146147

86

33

C

cables

63

25

39

62

109110

cantilevers

21

42

45

58

191

242243

7274

capability restorations

173

capacity curves

113

capacity design

conceptual design

detailing

58

123

performance requirements

seismic design examples

124128

1213

201202

204206

206

207

verification

123

cascading collapse

40

16

chord rotations

108109

124128

134135

circular

bearings

144148

columns

53

hoops

133

134

piers

55

103

sections

101

clearance lengths

135140

cohesionless soils

elastic response spectra

stability verifications

strength parameters

22

161

3132

cohesive soils

31

collapse

40

161

columns

capacity design shear

conceptual design

effective torsional rigidity

126128

5359

106

136

206

Index Terms

Links

modal response spectrum analyses

92

111

114

compliance criteria

composite pier stiffness

8687

517

188

44

compression models

39

164

conceptual design

3765

abutments

5964

connection choice

4353

decks

3841

ductile piers

109

5964

193194

earthquake resistance

3843

foundations

6465

general rules

3843

isolation

171

piers

174

222224

4445

48

5359

concrete

analyses

72

conceptual design

38

detailing

150

discretisation

7374

modal response spectrum analyses

verification

79

106

7374

7679

80

150

confinement reinforcement

33

203

220221

connections

conceptual design

4353

8081

12

continuous decks

correction factors

191

costbenefit analyses

coupling

3841

165166

87

CQC see complete quadratic combination rule

cracking

80

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

9496

Index Terms

Links

creep

196

critical components

139140

cross-elements

80

curved bridges

138139

3334

3334

134135

136

D

damage limitation seismic action

nonlinear dynamic analyses

time-history records

damping

111112

2728

1015

conceptual design

detailing

52

142143

145

149155

21

22

23

172

175176

145

149155

3841

4353

5964

detailing

120

150

156159

dimensioning

120

discretisation

7374

nonlinear time-history analysis

236

seismic isolation

171

188191

190

soil

32

verification

142143

195

decks

capacity design shear

conceptual design

elastic response spectra

126128

79

106

21

9596

9495

linear analyses

9899

7384

7579

135137

138

overlap lengths

performance requirements

relative displacements

seismic design examples

9

109110

205

206

225226

231232

stiffness of elements

194

verification

150

156159

206

207

Index Terms

Links

decorrelation

28

definitions

fundamental mode analyses

modal response spectrum analyses

9394

96

74

79

80

26

69

226227

design examples see seismic design examples

design spectra

detailing

119169

bearings

142155

129

linear analyses

122123

nonlinear analyses

132135

seismic links

140142

diagonal cracking

80

dimensioning

design examples

joint reinforcement

seismic links

201203

130

141142

discretisation

7374

displacement

167

detailing

79

152

isolation systems

linear analyses

nonlinear dynamic analyses

seismic isolation

verification

25

242

107110

111

186187

152

double spherical sliding surfaces

dry cohesionless soils

182183

161

ductility

analyses methods

6768

1516

conceptual design

5859

design for

detailing

effective flexural stiffness

global response

modal response spectrum analyses

1015

122123

124128

100

1213

80

nonlinear analyses

110111

193221

verification

122123

114

132135

115

87

Index Terms

Links

40

dynamic amplification

99

dynamic analyses

108109

111114

E

effective stiffness

analyses

100107

design examples

213214

linear analyses

seismic isolation

effective torsional rigidity

230

107

174175

188

106

elastic analyses

design spectra

elastic behaviour

26

69

12

182

elastic deformations

flexible bearings

1314

foundation ground

1314

39

96

elastic predictions

displacement calculations

108

elastic response

design ground displacement/velocity

design seismic actions

detailing

25

1925

123

horizontal

2124

near-source effects

25

topographic amplification

25

verification

123

vertical component

2425

elastomeric connections

capacity design effects

conceptual design

128

42

43

5053

5556

detailing

145155

dimensioning

142155

verification

81

145155

encased non-laminated elastomeric bearings

177

179

47

45

47

Index Terms

Links

energy dissipation

design

1015

seismic isolation

171

172

envelope action effects

243246

conceptual design

39

10

exemptions from Eurocode application

9297

16

F

failure

3132

43

47

4950

fixed connections

conceptual design

5556

58

dimensioning

142

fixings

elastomeric bearings

148149

dimensioning

seismic isolation

flexible bearings

142

180181

1314

flexible and nearly straight decks

flexural force

70

99

9596

197198

219

246

206

206

analyses

70

detailing/verification

124126

flexural resistance

verification procedures

122123

flexural rigidity

modal response spectrum analyses

80

flexural stiffness

analyses

100101

flexural verification

seismic design examples

205

flotation

liquefaction

33

flow failures

32

footing structural design

162163

207

Index Terms

Links

force-based approaches

10

152

153

166167

forcedisplacement loops

lead-rubber bearings

176177

184

velocity-dependent devices

177

178

178179

forcedisplacement spectra

seismic isolation

186

forcevelocity relations

177

foundations

180

2930

conceptual design

126128

6465

206207

248249

detailing

163164

165167

elastic deformations

1314

linear modelling

8690

89

90

116117

217

218

159164

165167

conceptual design

42

45

21

verification

219

free cantilevers

free-standing piers

frequency-dependent terms

frictional devices

21

8889

180185

67

88

fundamental mode method (FMM) of analysis

58

9297

196197

67

185

248249

design examples

233234

seismic isolation

186191

geometric imperfections

215216

geotechnical aspects

Gerber-type hinges

girders

1936

39

3940

7374

14

global models

detailing/verification

159

8184

155

Index Terms

Links

global response

ductility

1213

gravity

80

8283

119120

Greece

41

42

43

23

105

45

46

grillage models

80

ground

accelerations

1921

displacement

25

flow

166

oscillation

167

33

types

2122

velocity

25

H

high design ground acceleration

105

176

higher-mode effects

113114

hinges

conceptual design

detailing/verification

hollow circular piers

39

164

55

5455

2124

horizontal non-seismic actions

horizontal reinforcement of joints

224225

132

8485

9596

9495

hydrodynamic effects

103

48

43

177

180

8486

hysteresis

nonlinear static analyses

114

115

236

237240

seismic isolation

174177

I

immediate use (IU) limit states

immersed piers

8486

impedance

8690

7

115116

4950

5556

Index Terms

Links

importance factors

imposed deformations

imposed horizontal loads

in shear dimensioning

8

8283

224

202203

220

in-ground hinges

164

in-plane stiffness

80

65

21

9394

inelastic deformations

108

inertia forces

30

inertia loads

96

inspections

20

9495

49

integral bridges

integral connections

integrity verifications of joints

intermediate design ground acceleration

intermediate movement joints

internal forces

6062

129130

105

109110

138

163

6768

110111

isolation systems

171192

230

analyses

185191

behaviour families

174185

conceptual design

4445

5253

5556

237240

241

174

design seismic action

examples

174

221226

low-damping elastomeric bearings

191

151155

means

171

236

objectives

171

performance requirements

171173

232233

verification

243246

J

joints

capacity design shear

126128

171

Index Terms

Links

joints (Cont.)

clearance lengths

135140

dimensioning

130

horizontal reinforcement

132

integrity verifications

129130

maximum reinforcement

130

minimum reinforcement

130

overlap lengths

135140

relative displacements

109110

207

stress conditions

129

vertical reinforcement

131

209

221

K

kinematic interaction

88

41

43

47

50

lateral force

96

112113

lateral spreading

81

191

32

33

176177

178

3536

LDEBs see low-damping elastomeric bearings

lead-rubber bearings (LRB)

life safety (LS)

67

limit states

57

conceptual design

design examples

detailing

54

219220

121

modal response spectrum analyses

162163

74

172

shear verifications

247

verification

146

103104

seismic isolation

slope stability

58

173

2930

121

146

162163

limited ductile behaviour

effective flexural stiffness

seismic design examples

verification

15

100

210221

129

164167

Index Terms

Links

linear analyses

67

seismic displacement calculations

torsional effects

verification procedures

68

73

107

107110

9899

122123

linear modelling

conceptual design

39

foundations

8690

soil

8690

link slabs

8184

links

conceptual design

detailing/verification

liquefaction

63

140142

3236

adverse effects

3233

assessment

3334

detailing

164167

mitigation

3435

settlements

33

verification

164167

35

liquefied backfill

5960

locked-in bridges

61

70

204

221

longitudinal bars

buckling prevention

longitudinal fundamental mode analyses

196197

longitudinal reinforcement

246247

longitudinal response

conceptual design

4142

162

105

low seismicity

16

low-damping bearings

detailing/verification

143

145

149155

dimensioning

seismic isolation

lower-bound design properties (LBDP)

detailing/verification

fundamental mode methods

nonlinear time-history analysis

142155

173

175176

232234

144

145

154

237

239

233234

236

241

seismic isolation

173

177

241242

Index Terms

Links

LS see life safety

M

maintenance

conceptual design

mass

49

72

190191

130

medium-dense sands

162

minimum longitudinal reinforcement

minimum reinforcement in joints

8486

46

246247

130

modal pushover analyses

modal response spectrum analyses

114

67

displacement calculations

108

112

197

modelling

68

7392

68

7392

67118

behaviour factors

6973

effective stiffness

100107

modal response spectrum analyses

nonlinear analyses

seismic action components

modified historic time-history records

MohrCoulomb failure criteria

momentaxial force interaction diagrams

monolithic connections

conceptual design

9297

67

110117

6869

26

3132

197

199

1112

41

4346

4950

4445

58

5758

detailing/verification

159

106

movable connections

clearance lengths

135140

conceptual design

43

detailing/verification

156158

overlap lengths

135140

movement joints

109110

multi-column piers

11

5556

56

Index Terms

Links

multi-frame models

multi-sliding surface bearings

multi-span bridges

multimode spectrum analyses (MMS)

39

182185

3839

185

187

N

natural eccentricities

near-collapse (NC) limit states

near-source effects

nearly straight decks

Newmarks equal displacement rule

95

7

25

9496

10

nodal inertia loads

non-collapse requirements

96

816

non-concrete decks

150

non-critical components

139

47

47

166

non-seismic actions

173

nonlinear analyses

140

224225

58

6768

108117

185186

236242

6768

108109

111114

6768

112114

160

185186

236242

132135

O

operational (OP) limit states

out-of-plane flexibility

3940

overlap lengths

movable joints

135140

208209

overpasses

56

overstrength moments

124126

201

P

p multipliers

117

parallel voids

80

parametric analyses

partial seismic isolation

106

172173

160

Index Terms

Links

participation factors

74

7579

23

27

182183

184185

517

171173

period shifts

171

172

permanent loads

230

pendulum bearings

performance requirements

piers

action effects

243246

analyses

7072

conceptual design

126128

3940

detailing/dimensioning

120

103

106

21

imposed deformations

225

8081

114

overlap lengths

138

4159

8486

second-order effects

215216

section verifications

246248

193221

230

42

45

213214

230

246248

stiffness

conceptual design

design examples

of elements

194

seismic isolation

188

piles

910

conceptual design

detailing

modal response spectrum analyses

nonlinear static analyses

verification

64

65

163164

165167

90

114

116117

163164

165167

plastic hinges

analyses

70

design

10

1112

detailing

122128

132134

163164

197198

199

200

verification

122128

132134

199

200

Index Terms

Links

Poisson assumptions

post-elastic strength degradation

pot-bearings

20

115

47

precast girders

3940

prefabricated girders

8184

principles

74

7679

73

protection, structural

161

161

pushover analyses

74

80

112114

160

195196

211212

12

6768

py criteria

116117

py curves

167

Q

quasi-permanent traffic loads

119

R

Rayleigh quotients

96

records

artificial time-history

26

27

rectangular

bearings

144148

columns

53

piers

5455

sections

101

ties

134

reduction coefficients

103

167

reduction factors

soil

32

119

reinforcement

detailing

131

dimensioning

130

section verifications

246248

203204

relative displacements

reliability differentiation

132

220221

109110

1921

230231

Index Terms

Links

replacements

conceptual design

response modification factors

response spectra

response-history analyses

49

10

6768

70

215

216

195

214

6768

retaining walls

33

rheological models

89

93

rigid foundations

8687

9496

rigidity

concrete decks

rigidly connected abutments

Rion-Antirrion Bridge

roadway joints

106

158159

9

89

207

209

rocking impedance

89

rotational-translational coupling

87

165166

S

safety

life

67

structural

sands

162

saturated soils

161

scattering of waves

scragging

162

28

176

seating

48

secant-to-yield-points

effective flexural stiffness

modal response spectrum analyses

100101

215217

section verifications

246248

seismic actions

89

ductile piers

211

gravity

103

16

1936

80

second-order effects

102

1925

97

119121

seismic isolation

174

spatial variability

2829

time-history representations

2628

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

104

Index Terms

Links

193249

abutments

217

action effects

197200

217219

236246

248249

axial force

197200

219

246

bearings

207208

221

capacity design

201202

204206

206

206

205

206

206

207

225226

231232

207

207

decks

dimensioning

201203

ductility

193221

effective stiffness

213214

230

flexural verification

205

206

206

foundations

217

218

219

233234

isolation systems

221226

232233

207

209

joints

limit states

219220

210221

221

197

overlap lengths

208209

piers

193221

246248

plastic hinges

197198

199

199

200

230

200

reinforcement

stiffness

203204

220221

194

199201

213214

204206

207

219220

verification

197200

self-weight

195

service conditions

173

serviceability

74

33

35

160163

165

12

46

47

63

settlements

shallow foundations

shear force

126128

shear keys

conceptual design

detailing/verification

modal response spectrum analyses

140

81

shear rigidity

80

shear span

11

71

147148

151153

shear strain

72

132133

Index Terms

Links

shear verifications

shear wave velocity measurements

shrinkage

220

247248

33

196

single-column piers

analyses

26

27

1112

72

conceptual design

effective torsional rigidity

5556

106

analyses methods

67

design

10

19

seismic isolation

single-sliding surface bearings

siting of soils

186

9394

95

189190

181182

2930

sizing

elastomeric bearings

pier columns

151155

5759

skewed bridges

138139

skewed decks

9899

slab decks

7374

79

80

4748

5153

63

slenderness

pier columns

57

sliding connections

capacity design effects

conceptual design

dimensioning

seismic isolation

sliding surfaces

128

43

142

180181

181183

slope stability

2930

soils

conceptual design

64

damping

32

2122

foundation

2930

linear modelling

8690

liquefaction

33

parameters

166167

3032

pile foundations

164

5556

Index Terms

Links

soils (Cont.)

properties

3032

reduction factors

saturated

32

161

siting of

162

29

2930

spatial variability

28

stability

2930

stiffness

32

strength parameters

3132

53

53

spatial variability

2829

5253

spectral analyses

162

185

spirals

181185

133

134

lateral spreading

166

167

117

springs

square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) rule

29

92

114

163

stability verifications

64

160162

22

6768

static analyses

steel decks

9899

111

32

33

34

9297

112117

160

230

44

177

179

stiffness

analyses

100107

conceptual design

42

45

design examples

194

199201

213214

linear analyses

107

174175

188

seismic isolation

soil properties

strain hardening

8889

173

32

115

strength

balance with ductility

design

15

soils

1516

115

3132

Index Terms

Links

129

structural protection

structural safety

229230

substructure verifications

243246

superposition

86

surfacing materials

72

sustainability

symbols

symmetric supports

87

225226

9496

T

target displacement

111

temperature variations

225

tension models

39

terms

109

theoretical eccentricities

thermal actions

95

196

three-span bridges

74

7679

tie-downs

42

45

6768

108109

236242

248

time-history analyses

time-history representations

topographic amplification

227229

196

211212

45

45

2628

25

topping slabs

3940

torsional effects

9899

torsional rigidity

106

147148

traffic loads

185186

119

195

230231

transition periods

transverse reinforcement of piers

transverse responses

travelling wave effect

triple pendulum bearings

10

204

4243

28

182183

truss elements

109

119

Turkey

184185

121

40

twin-blade parts

twisting phenomena

4142

44

54

58

98

Index Terms

Links

U

UBDP see upper-bound design properties

UDL see uniform traffic loads

ULS see ultimate limit states

ultimate limit states (ULS)

conceptual design

6

54

design examples

219220

detailing

121123

58

130

146

148149

146

148149

162163

effective flexural stiffness

modal response spectrum analyses

103104

74

seismic isolation

172

shear verifications

247

slope stability

verification

173

2930

121123

130

162163

uncracked flexural stiffness

uniform seismic demands

uniform traffic loads (UDL)

uplifting

100

4143

119

195

48

detailing

232233

144

145

154155

240

235236

236

238

seismic isolation

173

177

verification

144

145

154155

25

33

177180

V

velocity

verification

abutments

155159

bearings

142155

of components

119169

design examples

197200

204206

foundations

159164

165167

243246

isolation systems

243246

lateral spreading

164167

156158

129

linear analyses

122123

liquefaction

164167

This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

207

241

Index Terms

Links

verification (Cont.)

nonlinear analyses

132135

seismic links

140142

vertical bars

134

vertical components

elastic spectra

fundamental mode analyses

2425

97

vertical loads

116

131

8586

9899

viscous damping

21

35

41

22

190191

42

W

wall-like piers

54

walls

33

water

8486

waves

28

Winkler foundations

33

163

Winkler models

lateral spreading

modal response spectrum analyses

166

167

8990

117

109

- Seismic Design With Eurocode 8Uploaded byLuke
- Designers' Guide to Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design 2nd EditionUploaded byextouts
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 7 Geothechnical DesignUploaded byJoão Gamboias
- Designers’ Guide to Eurocode 1 - Actions on BridgesUploaded byalbsteinpor
- Designer Guide - Eurocode 8 - Seismic DesignUploaded byMayiraMolinaBenavente
- Designers’ guide to EN 1992-2 Concrete Bridges (2007)Uploaded byIalomiteanu Dan
- Eurocode 4 Design Composite Steel Concrete StructuresUploaded byfritzstrobl
- ConcreteCentre - EC2 Bridges ExtractUploaded bymrzap5007
- Designers' Guide to en 1992-1-1 and en 1992-1-2 Design of Concrete Structures Eurocode 2Uploaded byMihnea Horia Ionut
- EC8 Seismic Design of Buildings - Worked examplesUploaded byMarco Fasan
- Designers’ guide to EN 1993-2 Steel Bridges (2007).pdfUploaded byAntoninoCruz
- Designers' Guide to en 1994-2_Eurocode 4_Design of Composite Steel and Concrete StructuresUploaded byRosen Petrov Petrov
- Designers guide to EC3Uploaded byajra_bg
- Designers Guide to EN1992-2 Eurocode 2Uploaded byCheolung Yoon
- Eurocode Load Combinations for Steel Structures 2010Uploaded byAram Chtchyan
- Designers' Guide to EN1991-1-4 Eurocode 1- Actions on structures, general actions part 1-4. Wind actions.pdfUploaded byS Dutta
- Designers-Guide-to-EN1992-1-1-and-EN1992-1-2Uploaded byCristiana Jipescu
- Designs Guide to en 1994-2, Eurocode 4Uploaded byViet Duc Dang
- Integral Concrete Bridges to Eurocode 2Uploaded byRm1262
- Designers' Guide to en 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3 - Design of Steel StructuresUploaded byemil_tase949
- Eurocode Guide - OnlineUploaded byOlynn Arifuddin
- steel_designUploaded byAdrian Pislaru
- Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design - Worked examplesUploaded byPanagiotis Xanthos
- Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design-General Rules-Guide to en 1997-1Uploaded bylnanescu
- Designers Guide to EN1994-2 Eurocode 4Uploaded byAndrei Puscas
- Designers’ guide to EN 1994-2 Rules for Bridges(2006)Uploaded byGregor Kokot
- Designers’ guide to EN 1994-1-1 Composite Steel and ConcreteUploaded byLuis Sequeira
- Eurocode 8 Design of Structure for Earthquake Resistance Part 4 Silos Tanks PipilinesUploaded byharivennela

- Introduction to Sap BridgeUploaded byNGUYEN
- The Millionaire in You.PDFUploaded byPomija
- BIM- Calculating the Return on InvestmentUploaded byAdriano Macedo Silva
- Unreinforced Masonry – Shear LoadingUploaded byPomija
- Kerto Manual Bolted ConnectionsUploaded byM Refaat Fath
- bk2-1b2Uploaded byLeutrim Avdiu
- Wind loading - Delft.pdfUploaded byPomija
- Uplji Profili Pravougaonog Kvadra1tnog i Kru Nog Oblika 1381131503534Uploaded byMarko Šimić
- Tower 7 Uputstvo SRBUploaded bycipsicc
- 2010 Bridges EN1992 GMancini EBouchonUploaded byZahretpalestine
- Chalmers - Unintended InclinationUploaded byPomija
- StrongTie CSA ScrewsUploaded byPomija
- 203.T2D.6.CT204_839FUploaded byPomija
- Keller 32 01E Deep Soil MixingUploaded byPomija
- DWSUploaded bytran_lam
- Designers' Guide to Eurocode 8 Design of Bridges for Earthquake Resistance (Designers' Guides to the Eurocodes)Uploaded byPomija
- m Qp Final DraftUploaded byPomija

- Dynamic Analysis of Multistoried Regular BuildingUploaded byapirakq
- Mae 244 7sep05 Tensile and ImpactUploaded byapi-3730129
- Materials Top TrumpsUploaded bysaud
- Reese’s Stiff Clay below Water TableUploaded byv
- Candidate UserResponse PwdUploaded byUday Sirnaik
- Final Report ABAQUS ProjectUploaded bySandip Pardeshi
- ++ Indicated by Adams Et Al - d 6641 - d 6641m - 01 _rdy2ndevrdy2ndfnUploaded byRodrigo Lameiras
- Trailer Main Beam DesignUploaded byiwan
- Design of Circular ShaftUploaded byจอม อรรฐาเมศร์
- AR-0001Uploaded byOec Eng
- 01Design of Static StrengthUploaded byraqieralynn
- 19- Beam ColumnsUploaded byArfan Haider
- SentryGlas Elastic PropertiesUploaded bywepverro
- Deep Foundation Design MethodsUploaded bychristopherapss
- RCC82 Pilecap Design.XLSUploaded byMohammad Twaha Jaumbocus
- 05May P2 ME2103 Materials Eng and ManufactureUploaded byTharindu Gangenath
- Ass Syllabus 2016 PrllimsUploaded byBalaji Devireddy
- Nonlinear Analysis Methods for Reinforced Concrete Buildings With Shear WallsUploaded byakif-benzer-6764
- RADIOSS Theory Manual V13Uploaded byAnonymous 5RJ3C79GQ
- Emerging Technologies a Suggested Design Method for Curved Jacked Steel PipeUploaded byfalokun
- M312-Report1Uploaded byNoor Liyana Misman
- The Seismotectonic Map of Africa.pdfUploaded byArnold Tunduli
- Orthopaedic BiomechanicsUploaded byIacobescu Emilia
- 6B-2-10Uploaded bygeop74
- Effect of Aggregate on the PerformanceUploaded bySayed Diab Alsayed
- Higher Order AnalysisUploaded byskr2010
- facts-for-steel-buildings-3-earthquakes-and-seismic-design 2.pdfUploaded byjunhe898
- Thermofluids Notes 02 Viscosity ArunnUploaded byArinjayKumar
- creep pptUploaded byNilesh Balkrishna Sunita Apte
- ReWaRD 2.5 Reference ManualUploaded byaselabambarandage

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.