Bridge Components

Loading Codal Provisions

Suhasini Madhekar
College of Engineering Pune
Faculty Development Program on

Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics and Application to

Earthquake Engineering
12th December 2015
Sanjay Ghodawat Group of Institutions
1
Atigre,, Kolhapur
Atigre
 Bridge Components
Bridge Bearings: Supported on a bridge pier, which carry the
weight of the bridge and control the movements at the bridge
supports, including the temperature changes.

Types : Metal rockers, rollers or slides or merely rubber or

laminated rubber, POT - PTFE

Bridge Dampers & Isolators: To absorb energy generated by

earthquake waves and lateral load

Bridge Pier: A wide column or short wall of masonry or plain

or RCC for carrying loads as a support for a bridge, founded
on firm ground
2
 Bridge Components

Bridge Cap: The highest part of a bridge pier on which the

bridge bearings or rollers are seated.

Bridge Deck: The load bearing floor of a bridge which carries

and spreads the loads to the main beams. (RCC / PSC /
Steel plate girder / Composite)

Abutment: A support of bridge which may carry a horizontal

force as well as weight.

Expansion Joints : These are provided to accommodate the

translations due to possible shrinkage and expansions due to
temperature changes.
3
 Bridge - Components

4
 Bridge Components

Superstructure
Pier Cap
Bearings Substructure
(Connections) Well Cap

Foundation
Soil Stratum

The FOUR Components::

Foundation :: Well and Well Cap; Pile and Pile Cap
Substructure :: Pier(s) and Pier Cap; Wall; Frame
Connections :: Fixed, Free and Guided Bearings
Superstructure :: Slab; Girder-Slab; Box; Truss;
5 Frame
 Bridge Cap and Damper

6
 Loading on Bridges

7
8
 Cars on a suspension bridge over a river : Colorado

9
10
 Loading on Bridges

• Permanent Loads: remain on the bridge for an

extended period of time (self weight of the bridge)
• Transient Loads: loads which are not permanent
- gravity loads due to vehicular, railway and
pedestrian traffic
- lateral loads due to water and wind, ice, ship collision,
earthquake, etc.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
 Mass of deck = 3,278,404 kg ( DL = 32784 kN)
LL = 3850 kN
20 D = 65658 kN, F= 324 kN
 Behaviour: Longitudinal shaking
• Bridge Vibration Units:
– Single-span
– Multi-span
• Simply-supported

• Continuous

Overall Structural Behaviour

21
 Behaviour: Transverse shaking

Superstructure
Connections

Substructure •Vertical cantilever action

•Mass lumped at the top
•Foundation flexibility
Foundation

22
 Capacity Design of Bridge Components

Plastic
Moment
Ductile Link
Hinges

Brittle Link

•Damage only in piers: mandatory ductile detailing

•Elastic design of other components
23
 Bridge Performance in past Indian Earthquakes
Gawana Bridge (1991 Uttarkashi Earthquake)
- Shearing off of anchor bolts of roller–cum–rocker bearings

24
 Past EQs...

Gawana Bridge…
- Unseating of superstructure from abutments

25
 Past EQs…

Gawana Bridge…

26
 Past EQs…

Old Surajbadi Bridge (2001 Bhuj Earthquake)

- Bearing damage due to jumping of superstructure

27
 Past EQs…

New Surajbadi Bridge (2001 Bhuj Earthquake)

- Jumping of Girders – Damage to girders

28
 Past EQs…

Toe Crushing of Stone Wall Masonry Piers

- Old Highway bridge (2001 Bhuj earthquake)

29
 Past EQs…

Vertical Splitting of Stone Wall Masonry Piers

- Old Highway bridge (2001 Bhuj earthquake)

30
 Past EQs…

Collapse of Superstructure
- Aman Setu (2005 Kashmir earthquake)

31
 Analysis of Bridges : Issues in Modeling
• Superstructure
– No ductility demand
– Usually, stiff in vertical direction
• Connections
– Simple Bearings :: Rocker, Roller
• Model as rigid, with usual freedom
– Flexible Bearings :: Neoprene/Rubber/Lead Rubber
• Model as Flexible

• Substructure
– Only structural component with ductility
• Detailed idealisation required
– Effect of shear deformations to be included
• Foundation
– Main concern is modeling soil
32
 Properties for Modeling
• Levels of earthquake shaking
– LOW :: Functional Evaluation Earthquake
• Un-cracked Section (EIgross)
– HIGH :: Safety Evaluation Earthquake
• Cracked Section (EIeff) EIgross
M
EIeff
Spectral Acceleration

2.0 Mu
1.5
Safety
Sa/g

0.6Mu
1.0
0.5
Functional
ϕ
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Natural Period T (sec)

33
 Properties for modeling…

• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction k

– Layered Soil
– “N” Value

Rigid
Foundation

Distributed Springs Lumped Springs

34
 Modeling: Summary

Overall model
for Longitudinal Shaking

Cantilever model for Transverse Shaking

35
 Analysis

• Methods of Dynamic Analysis

Seismic Coefficient method

Response Spectrum analysis for other bridges

Time History analysis for special bridges

Push over analysis

Geometric and material nonlinearities

36
 IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design
• Design lateral force calculation
(Interim IRC: 6-2014)
- Structural flexibility
- Response Reduction Factor (R) for nonlinear response

• Working Stress Design for bridge substructures

(IRC:21-2000)
- Not applicable for explaining seismic behaviour
- Contradiction with the lateral force calculation
method

37
 IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design…

• No provision on explicit design against lateral shear

force (IRC:21-2000)
- Shear design prescribed only for beams and slabs
- Horizontal steel provided as per the prescribed minimum
amount
- No provision on confinement of concrete

• Capacity design not prescribed for any bridge

component (IRC:21-2000, IRC:78-2000)
- No plastic hinge formation in case of extreme seismic event

• Limit State Design for bridge (IRC:112 -2011)

38
 IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design…

• Wall piers and column piers (IRC:78-2000)

- No difference in design methodologies

Pier Cap

Pier Cap
:: Shear deformations
:: No plastic hinge :: Flexural deformations
:: Plastic Hinge Region
Pile Cap

Pile Cap

Wall Pier Column Pier

39
 IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design…

• Well Foundations (IRC:78-2000)

- Three dimensional finite element analysis of the foundation
- Tensile and compressive stresses checked at the critical
sections
- No formal flexure and shear design methodology
prescribed
- Nominal vertical and horizontal steel prescribed
- Proportioning of foundation prescribed on an empirical
basis
- Seismic design procedure not available

40
 Earthquake Force…

• Generated where the mass is (at deck level)

• Needs to be transferred safely to ground

41
 Ground vibrations…

• Vertical vibrations
– Vertical inertia force
– Adds and subtracts to the gravity force
– Generally not a problem due to FS in gravity design

Gravity Loads Vertical EQ-Induced Inertia Force

42
 Ground vibrations…

• Horizontal vibrations Inertia

Forces
Horizontal inertia force

Need load transfer path

Deck Slab
Need adequate strength
Piers

Foundations

Soil
Earthquake
Shaking
Flow of EQ inertia forces through all components
43
 Capacity Design Concept
• The Bridge Example

Superstructure

Connections
EQ Design
– Good Ductility
– Adequate Strength
Substructure

Foundation

44
 The Example…

• The Bridge Example…

(FEQ)max

P
(FEQ)max M

45
 The Example…

• The Bridge Example…

Shear Design (FEQ)max

M
(F ) EQ max =
H0 H0 P

M
If (F ) EQ max > Vu (FEQ)max
design additional
steel for the balance
shear
46
 The Example…

Plastic
Ductile Link Moment
Hinges

Brittle Link

47
 Reinforced concrete bridge :

Slab bridge: span < 12 m

Carriageway

Slab

Cross section of solid slab bridge deck

48
48
 Reinforced concrete bridge :

T-Beam bridge : span 12 to 24 m

Footpath
Carriageway

D=1200-1800 mm

T-beam Cross beam

Cross section of T-
T-beam bridge deck 49
49
 Reinforced concrete bridge :

Slab on girder bridge :

Footpath
Carriageway

D=1200-3000 mm

I-beam
Cross beam (Diaphragm)

Cross section of I-
I-beam bridge deck
50
50
 Reinforced concrete bridge :

Box girder bridge : span: 20 to 50 m

Footpath
Carriageway

D= 1000-3000 mm

Cross section of box girder bridge deck 51

51
 Steel bridge :

Steel I-beam bridge : Span: upto 20 m

Footpath
Carriageway

Cross section of steel I-I-beam bridge deck 52

52
 Common types of failure observed under seismic excitation:

Seismic displacement failure

Abutment slumping failure

Column failure

Joint failure

53
53
 Displacement failure : Unseating

Unseating failure of main approach of Nishinomiyako

bridge in Kobe earthquake (Japan)
54
54
 Displacement failure: Pounding

The longitudinal movement of the new Surajbadi

bridge superstructures led to pounding at the deck slab
level in Bhuj Earthquake, 2001 India.
55
55
 Abutment Slumping failure

Deck

Pile foundation

56
56
 Column failure due to improper detailing of plastic hinge region

Crushed column of Santa Monica Freeway

Northridge earthquake 1994 (USA) 57
57
 Column failure due to improper detailing of plastic hinge region

Column failure in Mission-Gothic under crossing at Simi Valley

San Fernando Freeway in Northridge earthquake 1994,
58 USA
58
 Column shear failure.

Failure of column of Hanshin Expressway, Japan in

Kobe Earthquake, 1995 Japan.
59
59
 Joint failure due to poor detailing

Cypress viaduct joint failure in

60 Northridge earthquake in 1994 USA .

 Conceptual seismic design:
design:

The bridge should be straight as curve bridge complicates the

seismic response.

Deck should be continuous with few movement joints. Simply

supported spans are prone to unseating.

Foundation material should be of rock or firm alluvial. Soft soil

amplifies seismic response.

Pier height should be constant along the bridge. Non-uniform

height results in stiffness variation and attraction of more
forces to stiffer pier.

Pier stiffness should be uniform in all direction.

61
61
 Conceptual seismic design:
design:

Span length should be kept short. Long span results in

high axial forces on the column with potential for reduced
ductility.
Plastic hinges should be developed in the column rather
than in the cap beam or in superstructure.
The abutment and the pier should be oriented
perpendicular to the bridge axis. Skew supports tend to
cause rotational response with increased displacement.

62
 Connection of pier and superstructure :

Bearing

(a) Moment resisting conection (b) Bearing supported connection

Support alternative for pier and superstructure

63
 Beneficial effect of consideration of soil flexibility

Consideration of soil flexibility effect on foundation gives

lesser forces due to shift of period of vibration of structure

because of added flexibility by soil from higher acceleration

zone to lower acceleration zone of design spectrum.

64
64
 Outcome:
The substructure of bridge are more vulnerable under

seismic excitation.

Non consideration of inelastic action of structure led to the

failures in plastic hinge region of column.

Seismic deflection of bridge calculated using elastic theory

of design will lead to underestimation of actual deflection
and will result into unseating or pounding of girders during
seismic excitation.

65
65
 Outcome (contd..)
Comparative study of possible alternative models of same
type of bridge are required

Comparative results of fixed base and detailed model for

bridge with well foundation considering SSI

Difference in seismic response of bridge model with actual

and simplified location of bearing

Effect of scour of river bed on seismic response

Effect of hydrodynamic pressure on seismic response using

global model.
66
66
 Thank you..
67