Performance‐Based Seismic Bridge Design

What Is It and How Is It Different from Today’s 
Practice

Lee Marsh PhD PE 
President/CEO
BergerABAM, Inc

June 12, 2017
2017 AASHTO SCOBS Meeting
Spokane, WA
 Presentation Outline

• Review of Current AASHTO Methods
• NCHRP 12‐106 and Performance‐Based 
Seismic Design
• Fragility and Probabilistic Considerations
• Developments in the Practice
• Possible Structure to the Methodology
Operational Classification – AASHTO LFRD 

Critical Bridges
• Open to all traffic after 1000‐yr event
• Open to emergency vehicles after 2500‐yr event
Essential Bridges
• Open to emergency vehicles after 1000‐yr event

Other Bridges
• No collapse, significant damage, disruption in service
Spec 3.10.1 and Commentary  C3.10.5
Seismic Design Options ‐ AASHTO
Performance
AASHTO (Operational
Classification)

Critical

LRFD Seismic Essential R‐factor Force‐based 

Approach

Other
Seismic Design

Other Displacement‐based 
Seismic Guide 
Spec Approach
(SGS) Critical or  Project‐Specific 
Essential Critiera
 LRFD Force-Based Method (FBM)
Elastic Response
F
F

FElastic
Plastic Hinge
R (based on ductility

Capacity
FYield Displacement Capacity Is Not
Directly Checked. Instead Prescriptive
Detailing Is Required.
Yielding System 

Elastic System

Focus of Force Based Method Is Primarily Design Forces  
 LRFD Response Modification Factors, R
Operational Classification
Substructures
Critical Essential Other
Wall-type piers - larger
1.5 1.5 2.0
dimension
Reinforced concrete pile
bents 1.5 2.0 3.0
• Vertical piles only 1.5 1.5 2.0
• With batter piles
Single columns 1.5 2.0 3.0
Steel or composite steel and
concrete pile bents
• Vertical piles only 1.5 3.5 5.0
• With batter piles 1.5 2.0 3.0
Multiple column bents 1.5 3.5 5.0

§ 3.10.7 16‐7
 SGS Displacement-Based Method (DBM)

Elastic Response
F
F

FElastic
Plastic Hinge
Capacity

Ensured
Displacement Capacity Is
FYield Directly Checked, Based on Actual 
Provided Detailing. (Confinement)
Fnon‐Seismic Yielding System 

Elastic

Only Minimum Required Force, But No Unique Force Required
 Example: Unequal Resistance Piers

F
F demand
(kips)
15 ft
30 ft (full frame)
400
Col. B
(column B)
Col. A
200 yield
(column A)
Designed using DBM where  failure
designer has control over 
column strength selected 6.6”
5 10 15
Displacement (inches)

Note different damage states of the two columns
 NCHRP 12‐106 Project
• NCHRP 12‐106 builds off 
Synthesis 440
• Objective –
– Develop AASHTO Guidelines 
for implementing 
Performance‐Based Seismic 
Design (PBSD)
• Synthesis 440 (2012) – Propose extensions of the 
– Reviewed work to date AASHTO Guide Specifications 
– Identified knowledge gaps for LFRD Seismic Bridge Design
– Recommendations – Design Examples
• Completion March 2019
 NCHRP 12‐106 Project Team

• Tom Murphy, Maria Lopez, Modjeski and Masters
• Lee Marsh, Stuart Bennion, BergerABAM
• Don Anderson, CH2M
• Ian Buckle, Independent Consultant
• Mervyn Kowalsky, North Carolina State University
• Jose Restrepo, UCSD/Advanced Analysis LLC
 Performance‐Based Seismic Design ‐ PBSD

Rational process to link 
decision making to 
seismic input, facility 
response and potential 
damage
Loss  ($, Downtime)
Damage  Analysis
Analysis
Structural  (Immediate Use, No Collapse)
Analysis
Seismic  (Strains, Displacements)
Hazard
(Spectral Acceleration)
PBSD vs AASHTO

PBSD – Start with desired 
performance and work to a 
design which will deliver 
desired performance

AASHTO Code – Start with 
an operational classification 
and work through design 
methodology, but no direct 
assessment of performance
What is Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) ?

• Direct control of the bridge 
system seismic performance 
for distinct seismic input.
• PBSD typically strives to go 
Lower EQ beyond the performance 
Demand
Upper EQ
outlined in the design codes.
Demand – Additional or Enhanced 
Criteria
– Better “control” of design 
outcome
– Applies to both the 
demand and capacity
– Directly estimates/checks 
performance 

Must Consider Both Capacity and Demand –
Deterministic vs Probabilistic Approaches
Visual Catalogs from Cyclic Testing
Spalling Condition at
3.7% Drift
Spalling Onset
2.2% Drift

Bar Buckling & Spiral Fracture
5.6% Drift
Possible Reinforcing Steel Strain Limits
Expected Allowable Tensile Strain
Properties
fue O

fye C? E? Parabola

Necking 
Begins
Main Bars Buckle, 
Onset of 
Then Rupture
Strain Hardening
Thus Use Reduced
Strain Limit, suR
as an Allowable
ye sh suR su Tensile Strain

C – Critical, E – Essential, O ‐ Other 

 Possible Concrete Strain Limits
Confined Concrete
f’cc
O Spiral Rupture
E?
f’ce Unconfined Concrete
C?

Spalling
Onset

co sp cc cu

co = 0.002 cu normally ranges from 0.008 to 0.025
sp = 0.005
Limit States for RC Column
EIeff Mp = 58,200 kip‐in  (= 1.16 Mne)
E? O
C?

Mne = 50,100 kip‐in
(ACI =0.003) cu controls over suR
to define ultimate 
curvature, u
yield = 0.0001115 rad/in

u = 0.000794 rad/in
Actual First Yield
effective yield

Curvature Ductility,  = u/y = 7.0 

 Databases Feed Specification Development
SGS Implicit Displacement Capacity – SDC C
6.00
Experimental (C1)
SDC C was set as the
5.00 Yield (C2)
Analytical  = 4 Average of Analytical
Spalling (C3)
 = 4 and Experimental
Drift Capacity (%)

SDC C
4.00 Ductility 4 (C4)
Spalling.
SDC C (C6)
3.00

2.00
Experimental
Spalling ‐ Database
1.00
Analytical 
Analytical Yield Spalling
0.00
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
D/H, Column Width to Height
 Comparison of Damage vs Performance

Damage
I II III IV V
Level
Damage Descriptors

Classification None Minor Moderate Life Safety Near Collapse

Damage
None Minimal Repairable Significant Near Collapse
Description
Physical
First yield of Wide cracks Bar buckling bar
Description Hairline Onset of
tensile extended fracture confined
(RC cracks spalling
reinforcement spalling concrete crushing
Elements)
Displacement
μΔ ≤ 1 μΔ = 2 μΔ = 4 to 6 μΔ = 8 to 12
Ductility
None/no Minor repair/ Repair/limited Repair/weeks to
Repair Reparability Replacement
interruption no closure closure months closure
Open to
Immediate
Availability Emergency Closed
Open to All Traffic
Performance

Vehicles Only
Descriptors

Performance
Level
Fully
FullyOperational
Operational Operational
Operational Life
Life Safety
Safety Collapse
Collapse
Retrofit
Manual
PL3
PL3 PL2
PL2 PL1
PL1 N/A
NA
 Example Performance vs Hazard 
Open to
Immediate
Availability Emergency Closed
Open to All Traffic
Performance

Vehicles Only
Descriptors

Performance
Fully Operational Operational Life Safety Collapse
Level
Retrofit Fully Operational Operational Life Safety Life Safety
PL3
PL0 PL2
PL1 PL1
PL2 NA
PL3
Manual
Agency or Project-Specific Criteria is shown below
RM-E
100-yr RP
RM-S
VTR
300-yr RP
SFOBB-WA
Seismic Hazard Return Period

SC-OC I SC-OCII ODOT

500-yr RP
CRC
LRFD-C LRFD-E LRFD-O
SGS B/C* SGS-D
RM-E RM-S
CA-SDC
1,000-yr RP ODOT*
VTR
Antioch
SR520*
SFOBB-WA*
I-40 MR (isolated) LRFD-C SC-OC II
2,500-yr RP SC-OC I SC-OCI II
CRC
 Concept of Fragility
F Distribution of Strength

Overstrength (1.7f’c, 1.3fy)

Expected Strength (1.3f’c, 1.1fy)

Design Strength (f’c, fy)

Distribution of First Yield

Distribution of Onset of Spalling

Distribution of Bar Buckling

Δ
Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

1.00
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE

0.75
Fragility Function (typ)
0.50

0.25

Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

DISPLACEMENT
Probabilistic Basis for Performance Level Definition
F Distribution of Strength

Overstrength (1.7f’c, 1.3fy)

Expected Strength (1.3f’c, 1.1fy)

Design Strength (f’c, fy)

Distribution of First Yield

Distribution of Onset of Spalling

Distribution of Bar Buckling

Δ
Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

1.00
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE

0.75
Fragility Function (typ)
0.50
50% Probability of
0.25
Occurrence

Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

DISPLACEMENT
Probabilistic Basis for Performance Level Definition
F Distribution of Strength

Overstrength (1.7f’c, 1.3fy)

Expected Strength (1.3f’c, 1.1fy)

Design Strength (f’c, fy)

Distribution of First Yield

Distribution of Onset of Spalling

Distribution of Bar Buckling

FULLY OPERATIONAL
Δ
Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

1.00
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE

0.75
Fragility Function (typ)
0.50
50% Probability of
0.25
Occurrence

Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

DISPLACEMENT
Probabilistic Basis for Performance Level Definition
F Distribution of Strength

Overstrength (1.7f’c, 1.3fy)

Expected Strength (1.3f’c, 1.1fy)

Design Strength (f’c, fy)

Distribution of First Yield

Distribution of Onset of Spalling

Distribution of Bar Buckling

FULLY OPERATIONAL
Δ
Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling
OPERATIONAL

1.00
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE

0.75
Fragility Function (typ)
0.50
50% Probability of
0.25
Occurrence

Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

DISPLACEMENT
Probabilistic Basis for Performance Level Definition
F Distribution of Strength

Overstrength (1.7f’c, 1.3fy)

Expected Strength (1.3f’c, 1.1fy)

Design Strength (f’c, fy)

Distribution of First Yield

Distribution of Onset of Spalling

Distribution of Bar Buckling

FULLY OPERATIONAL LIFE SAFETY

Δ
Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling
OPERATIONAL

1.00
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE

0.75
Fragility Function (typ)
0.50
50% Probability of
0.25
Occurrence

Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

DISPLACEMENT
Probabilistic Basis for Performance Level Definition
F Distribution of Strength

Overstrength (1.7f’c, 1.3fy)

Expected Strength (1.3f’c, 1.1fy)

Design Strength (f’c, fy)

Distribution of First Yield

Distribution of Onset of Spalling

Distribution of Bar Buckling

FULLY OPERATIONAL LIFE SAFETY

Δ
Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling COLLAPSE
OPERATIONAL

1.00
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE

0.75
Fragility Function (typ)
0.50
50% Probability of
0.25
Occurrence

Δyield Δspall Δbar buckling

DISPLACEMENT
Damage Analysis ‐ Caltrans
COMPONENT vs. SYSTEM Fragility
• Fragilities typically determined from experimental 
research on individual components or
subassemblies
• Component/subassembly fragility often does not 
equal the global system fragility
• System fragility dependent on:
– Structural system
– Redundancy Unique to each bridge 
– Configuration implementation
– Boundary conditions
– Articulation
COMPONENT vs. SYSTEM Fragility

Courtesy: NISEE, EERC UC Berkeley
 Developments in the Practice

• Seismic Hazard
• Evolution of Structural Analysis
• Innovative Materials and Systems
• Public Involvement and Expectations
• Organization‐specific Criteria
• Building Industry
 Future of Seismic Hazard Representation

Nico Luco (USGS) Presentation Excerpt –
AASHTO T‐3 and TRB AFF50 2016
Directional Ground Motion Effects

• RotD50 is median 
motion
• Nearly equal to 
GeoMean
• RotD100 is maximum
• Period dependency
• Not clear how 
directional 
combination 
interfaces
• Should be 
Kowalsky, 2017
investigated
Structural Analysis Techniques Are More Powerful

• High Performance Computing
– Solid modeling, SSI, NLTH, 
Parallel Computing (Open Sees, 
ABAQUS, FLAC, ANSYS, 
SAP2000, etc)
UBC ‐ Vancouver, CAN
 Improved Performance –
Innovative Materials and Systems
• Seismic Isolation
• Shape Memory Alloy (SMA)
• Engineered Cementitious  SMA Constitutive Relation
Composites (ECC) 
• Use of prestress in columns
• Grade 80 steel
• Ultra‐High Performance 
Concrete (UHPC)
• Fiber‐Reinforced Polymer 
(FRP) wraps
• Alternative connection 
technologies
 Public and Engineering Expectations
Washington State Targets of Recovery

City of Seattle 
Recovery Continuum
 Organization‐Specific Criteria

• Caltrans • South Carolina
– Developing SDC 2.0 – Operational Category I, II, III
– Ordinary, Recovery, Important – Two‐level criteria
– Safety (SEE) and Function  – FEE (475 yr)
(FEE) seismic hazard – SEE (2,475)
– Both damage and service  – Modifying geotechnical 
addressed design manual
• Others
• Oregon – Utah
– Essential, Important and  – Japan Road Assoc
Other – FEMA – Bldgs (including work 
– Two‐level criteria by NIST)
– 1000‐yr Life Safety
– CSZ deterministic ‐
Operational
Loss Analysis ‐ ODOT REDARS System Study 
for Retrofit Prioritization 

ODOT Bridge Maintenance Conference – Oct. 2011
Resilience‐based Earthquake Design Initiative (REDi)
Downtime Assessment Methodology

Developed by 
Delay or “Impeding Curve” for post‐EQ inspection Arup
for Buildings

• Similar curves are created for engineering mobilization, review & design, 
repair financing, contractor mobilization, permitting, long‐lead items. 
• Utility disruption curves are also developed. 
• Once delays are characterized total downtime and losses can be estimated.
 Technology Readiness and Knowledge Gaps
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
TRL Description
1 PBSD Concept exists
2 Seismic Hazard deployable
3 Structural Analysis deployable
4 Damage Analysis deployable
5 Loss Analysis deployable
6 Owners willing and skilled in PBSD
7 Design guidelines
8 Demonstration projects
9 Proven effectiveness in EQ
% of development complete
0-25 25-50 50-75 75-100
? types covered evenly
• Gaps related to Engineering:
– Not all materials and construction 
– Link between damage levels and 
return to service
– Probabilistic data for all four steps
• Gaps related to decision makers:
– Tools for decision makers and 
public
– Regional differences vs concensus
– Funding
– Other hazards combined with 
seismic
 General Observations

• Innovative technology is  • Guidelines should be 
moving quickly and broadly flexible to permit new 
– This will continue into the  approaches and technology
future • Possible to capture where 
• Full probabilistic  we are today, but need an 
approaches not likely for  open approach
some time • Owners and Design 
• Education is key Professionals must work at 
• Continued development is  a higher level – “Higher 
key  Bar”
 2015 ICC Performance Code

ICC‐PC • Performance Code used in 
Flowchart Building Industry
• Sits “above” IBC requirements
• Owner and Design Professional 
(DP) agree on performance and 
criteria
• DP coordinates with Building 
Official
• Peer review typically used
• Extensive control and 
documentation requirements
 2015 ICC Performance Code
• Damage levels suggested for natural 
hazards and technological hazards
• Performance Group
– PG I – Low hazard bldgs., 
farm/storage/temp
– PG II – Those not in I, III, or IV
– PG III – Substantial hazard to human life: 
More than 300 people in one area, 
schools, health, jails
– PG IV – Essential: Hospitals w/ emergency 
care, fire and police stations, power plants, 
fuel and hazard storage, water storage, air 
traffic control • Damage Levels specified for:
• Earthquake – Structural, Nonstructural, Occupant 
hazard, Overall extent of damage, 
– Small – 25 years Hazardous material release
– Medium – 72 years
– Large – 475 years
– Very Large – 2,475 years
Possible PBSD Design Methodology

• Use current AASHTO  • More design and detailed 
operational categories cost comparisons at TS&L
• Relate damage limit  • Onus on engineer to 
states to engineering  relate damage to EDPs
design parameters (EDPs) • Open‐ended for 
• Multi‐level approach customization and to take 
• Post‐earthquake  advantage of new 
inspection and expected  developments
performance  • Not fully probabilistic in 
documentation near future
Operational Category – Performance Level

Ground Bridge Operational Category

Motion
Critical Essential Other
Lower Level PL3 – Fully PL3 – Fully  PL2 –
(100 year) Operational Operational Operational
Upper Level  PL3 – Fully  PL2 – PL1 – Life Safety
(1000 year) Operational Operational
2500 year? PL1 – Life Safety?
PBSD Flowchart – 1 of 2

• Changes from a 
typical design 
procedure:
– Determine 
Performance Level, 
inclusive of damage
– Additional lower 
level motions
– Additional SDC’s
– Consideration of 
performance vs. cost
PBSD Flowchart – 2 of 2
• Two demand analyses 
required
• Displacement or force check 
replaced with EDP check –
similar to displacement 
check
• Design is complete when 
performance and damage 
matches EDPs
• Loss could be assessed on a 
case‐by‐case with cost data 
and situational assumptions
 Performance‐Based Seismic Design ‐ PBSD

Rational process to link 
decision making to 
seismic input, facility 
response and potential 
damage
Loss  ($, Downtime)
Damage  Analysis
Analysis
Structural  (Immediate Use, No Collapse)
Analysis
Seismic  (Strains, Displacements)
Hazard
(Spectral Acceleration)
Questions

Thank you!