4.

Case Study (I) – Comparison between SDMHR 3rd and 2013

There are two case studies conducted in this project. This is the first case study which focuses
on the comparison between seismic loading estimation between the two editions of SDMHR.
The general information of the case study is introduced in Section 4.1. The results obtained in
the calculation of seismic loading estimation based on SDMHR 3rd edition and 2013 edition are
discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 respectively. The comparison of results obtained based on
SDMHR 3rd and 2013 editions are illustrated in Section 4.4.

4.1. Introduction
In this case study, the seismic loadings acting on the sample bridge are calculated based on
SDMHR 3rd edition and 2013 edition. The description of the sample bridge is provided in
Section 3.1.3. As mentioned in Section 3.1.4, rigid deck model of fundamental mode method
is used for analysing the sample bridge according to SDMHR 2013 edition. The pier C14 is
focused on in this case study as mentioned in Section 3.1.3. General information of the sample
bridge is provided in Appendix A. Calculations of seismic loading based on SDMHR 3rd edition
and 2013 edition are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C respectively.

4.2. Seismic Loading estimated based on SDMHR 3rd Edition

Calculation of seismic loading estimated based on SDMHR 3rd edition is attached in Appendix
B. The results of seismic loading acting on the pier C14 are summarized in Table 1 below.
Referring to Table 1, it is observed that the seismic loading acting on C14 in loading cases 2, 3
and 4 are the same. However, the seismic loading estimated in loading case 1 is much higher
than the other three loading cases. This is attributed to the type of connection between the pier
and the bridge deck.

In loading case 1, the seismic loading under consideration is in the longitudinal direction and
acting at the bridge deck. Since the connection between C14 and the bridge deck is fixed
bearing with guided sliding bearing, the movement of bridge deck in longitudinal direction is
restrained. In addition, other piers do not provide restraints for movement in longitudinal
direction as their bearings are guided sliding bearing with free sliding bearing. Therefore, the
total seismic loading acting on the bridge deck level is resisted by the pier C14 only. In contrast,
in loading case 2, the total seismic loading acting on the bridge deck level in the transverse
direction is distributed to all the piers as all piers of the sample bridge restrain transverse
movement on one side of the bridge.

In loading case 3, although the loading direction is similar to that in loading case 1, the total
seismic loading is distributed among all the piers instead of resisting by the pier C14 only. This
is because the seismic loading acts at the footing level. As all the piers are assumed to be
completely fixed with the foundations, all the translational and rotational movements are
restrained. Therefore, the total seismic loading is resisted by all the piers. The explanation of
result in loading case 4 is similar to that in loading case 3.
 Loading Position Loading Direction Seismic Loading on C14
Loading Case 1 Bridge deck Longitudinal 3157.59 kN
Loading Case 2 Bridge deck Transverse 860.47 kN
Loading Case 3 Pier footing Longitudinal 860.47 kN
Loading Case 4 Pier footing Transverse 860.47 kN
Table 1: Summary of Seismic Loading estimated based on SDMHR 3rd Edition

4.3. Seismic Loading estimated based on SDMHR 2013 Edition

In this section, rigid deck model of fundamental mode method is adopted to analyse the
longitudinal, transverse and vertical component of seismic loading. SRSS rule is applied to
obtain the combined component of seismic loading. Calculation of seismic loading estimated
based on SDMHR 2013 edition is attached in Appendix C. The results of total seismic loading
acting on the structure and seismic loading acting on the pier C14 are summarized in Table 2
below.

Referring to Table 2, it is observed that the longitudinal seismic loading acting on the pier C14
is still larger than the transverse seismic loading on C14. The possible reason why the
longitudinal seismic loading on pier C14 is larger than the transverse seismic loading on C14
is attributed to the connection between the pier and the bridge deck as explained in Section 4.2.
The only restraint of longitudinal movement is provided by pier C14. Therefore, the total
longitudinal seismic loading is completely resisted by pier C14. Nevertheless, every pier
provides restraint of transverse movement. As such, the total transverse seismic loading is
distributed among all the piers instead of concentrating on one single pier. In addition, it is
found that the difference between the longitudinal seismic loading and transverse seismic
loading on C14 is not as significant as the results in SDMHR 3rd edition (Section 4.2). This is
because more factors are taken into account in the analysis method adopted in this calculation.

From Table 2, it is recognized that the transverse component of the total seismic loading acting
on the structure is much larger than the longitudinal component of the total seismic loading.
Since the moment of inertia of all the piers in transverse direction is much larger than that in
longitudinal direction, the stiffness of the piers in transverse direction is also much larger than
that in longitudinal direction. For pier with higher stiffness, the natural period of the pier is
shorter. Such that the piers have shorter natural period in transverse direction and longer natural
period in longitudinal direction. Referring to Figure 6, it is shown that shorter natural period
gives a higher design spectral acceleration whereas longer natural period gives significantly
lower spectral acceleration....

[text and figures omitted for this sample]

It is noted that the vertical component of seismic loading is zero because EN1998-2 allows the
negligence of vertical seismic loading in regions with low and moderate seismicity which is the
case in Hong Kong (CEN, 2005). Therefore, vertical component of seismic loading is neglected
in the calculation.
 Total Seismic Loading on Seismic Loading on Pier
the Structure C14
Longitudinal component 4742.44 kN 4742.44 kN
Transverse component 19378.59 kN 3875.72 kN
Vertical component 0 kN 0 kN
Combined component 19950.45 kN 6124.70 kN
Table 2: Summary of Seismic Loading estimated based on SDMHR 2013 Edition

Design Response Spectrum

4
Design Spectral Acceleration, Sd(T) (m/s2)

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Natural Period, T (s)

Figure 6: Design Response Spectrum obtained in Case Study (I)

4.4. Comparison between SDMHR 3rd Edition and 2013 Edition

During the calculation process, it is found that the SDMHR 2013 edition provides more
comprehensive analysis method than SDMHR 3rd edition. In rigid deck model of fundamental
mode method, some crucial structural properties and site parameters are taken into account.
These factors include stiffness of structure, behaviour factor, importance factor, ground type,
seismic behaviour and damping ratio. However, SDMHR 3rd edition only takes into account
the total vertical load of the system. It is expected that the more comprehensive analysis method
in SDMHR 2013 edition gives a more accurate result on estimation of seismic loading.

Table 3 summaries the results of ratio of seismic loading to total vertical load calculated based
on SDMHR 3rd and 2013 editions. As observed in Table 3, SDMHR 2013 edition in general
gives higher ratio of seismic loading to total vertical load when compared to SDMHR 3rd edition.
This means the seismic loading estimated based on SDMHR 2013 edition is higher than that
based on SDMHR 3rd edition so long as the total vertical load remains unchanged in the two
calculations. One of the major reasons accounting for this is due to the reference peak ground
acceleration adopted. The reference peak ground acceleration used for seismic design in
SDMHR 3rd edition is 0.07g whereas that in SDMHR 2013 edition is 0.12g (Highways
Department, 2006), (Highways Department, 2013). As the reference peak ground acceleration
is significantly raised, the seismic loading induced on the structure significantly increases as
well.

In addition, it is observed that the difference in ratio of longitudinal seismic loading to total
vertical load between the two editions are smaller than the difference in ratio of transverse
seismic loading to total vertical load between the two editions. This is because the major axis
of pier is usually placed along the longitudinal direction of the bridge. This leads to lower
stiffness of piers in longitudinal direction, causing higher natural period and lower longitudinal
seismic loading induced (Section 4.3). In contrast, as the natural period in transverse direction
of pier is usually significantly shorter than the natural period in longitudinal direction, the
transverse seismic loading induced is significantly larger than the longitudinal seismic loading.
Therefore, the difference in ratio of seismic loading to total vertical load in transverse direction
is usually larger than that in longitudinal direction.

As the estimated seismic loading based on the SDMHR 2013 edition gives significantly higher
value than that based on SDMHR 3rd edition, the seismic design based on 2013 edition is more
conservative but more expensive. The result of this case study implies that the existing bridges
designed based on SDMHR 3rd edition may fail the requirements stipulated in SDMHR 2013
edition and EN1998-2. The failure of satisfying the statutory requirements leads to con-
cerns in the earthquake resistance and safety of those existing bridges.

Ratio of Seismic Loading to Total Vertical Load

Longitudinal component Transverse component
SDMHR 3rd Edition 5% 5%
SDMHR 2013 Edition 7.44 % 22.92 %
rd
Table 3: Seismic Loading to Total Vertical Load of SDMHR 3 and 2013 Editions

[text and figures omitted for this sample]

In the short future, more literature review regarding the response spectrum analysis and flexible
deck model will be conducted to enhance my understanding in the application of these two
methods in the second case study. Meanwhile, parametric study has been commenced. The
relationship between span length and seismic loading has now been under investigation. The
investigation of other parameters will be conducted afterwards. Table 4 shows a brief future
working plan showing the previous completed tasks and the tasks to be completed in the short
future.
During the literature review, difficulties related to the understanding on response spectrum
analysis and flexible deck model are encountered. Since response spectrum analysis involves
the concept of multi-degree of freedom and both response spectrum analysis and flexible deck
model require the use of dynamic analysis in computer software SAP2000, more time is needed
to learn the concept and be familiar with the use of dynamic analysis in SAP2000.

Completion
Event Status
Month
September Basic concept of structural dynamics Completed
October Seismic design methodology of SDMHR 3rd edition Completed
October Seismic design methodology of SDMHR 2013 edition Completed
November Case Study (I) Completed
December Seismic design methodology provided by EN1998-2 In progress
January Parametric study In Progress
January Case study (II) Not commenced
January Identifying governing factors in SDMHR 2013 Not commenced
Table 4: Brief future working plan