Plastic Hinging Considerations for

Single-Column Piers Supporting Highly

Curved Ramp Bridges

Western Bridge Engineers Seminar

Reno, NV

Greg Griffin, P.E., S.E. - Senior Bridge Engineer

e Griffin, P.E., SE.
September 10, 2015
Senior Bridge Engineer
Overview

• Typical Straight Ramp Bridge Hinging Locations

• Possible Curved Ramp Bridge Hinging Locations

• Any Need for Concern?

• Fixed Bridge Response

• Drilled Shaft Foundations

• Pile Foundations

• Other Design Considerations

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 2

Typical Straight Bridge Hinging Locations

• Typically modelled as a
"flag pole" in transverse
direction
• Bottom of column hinge
location typical
• Assume superstructure
has negligible torsional
rigidity

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 3

Possible Curved Bridge Hinging Locations

• Torsional rigidity in addition

to longitudinal coupling of
superstructure stiffness
increases top of column
rigidity
• Can create reverse curvature
• Hinging possible at top and
bottom of column

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 4

Any Need for Concern?

• The answer is YES! if no hinging is expected from longitudinal EQ

• Due to hinging the top of the column, the shear force will
approximately double as compared to a column in single
curvature.

• Confinement details may not be provided at top of column.

• Column vertical reinforcement may not have proper development

into crossbeam.

• CONCLUSION: The above items could lead to unintended column

performance although the structure met current seismic design
requirements.

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 5

Example Bridge – CIP Box Girder

Variations Considered
• Curve Radii: 1000ft, 800ft, 600ft
• Foundation Types: Fixed, Drilled Shaft, Piles

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 6

Example Bridge – Typical Sections

Typical Section Typical Column Section

 f'c = 4 ksi (all concrete) • 5ft – 6in Diameter

• 64-#10 bars (2.4%)

• #6 spiral @ 3 ½ in pitch

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 7

Example Bridge – Response Spectrum
1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70
Acceleration (g)

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Period (sec)

• Peak bedrock ground acceleration, 0.4g

• 0.2 Sec Acceleration, 0.89g: 1.0 Sec

Acceleration, 0.30g

• Seattle area, Site Class "C"

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 8
Moment Curvature Plot
14,000

12,000

10,000
Moment (Kip-ft)

8,000

Theoretical M-C
6,000
Idealized M-C

4,000

2,000

0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Curvature (1/ft)

• Axial Load = 1,300 kip

• Used expected material properties

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 9

Fixed Based Model

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 10

First Mode: T = 0.49 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.7080

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 11

Second Mode: T =0.42 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.1301

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 12

Seventh Mode: T = 0.13 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.1618

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 13

Fixed Based Response – Pier 1
1600

1400

1200
Column Shear Force (kip)

1000 Straight
R=1000ft
800 R=800ft
R=600ft
600 Single Column
Reverse Curvature
400 Design EQ Disp.

200

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Column Displacement (ft)

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 14

Fixed Based Response – Pier 2
1600

1400

1200
Column Shear Force (kip)

1000 Straight
R=1000ft
800 R=800ft
R=600ft
600 Single Column
Reverse Curvature
400 Design EQ Disp.

200

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Column Displacement (ft)

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 15

Drilled Shaft Model

• Depth to fixity assumed to be 3 shaft diameters

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 16

First Mode: T = 0.68 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.0639

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 17

Second Mode: T = 0.67 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.7357

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 18

Seventh Mode: T = 0.16 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.2034

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 19

Drilled Shaft Response – Pier 1
1400

1200

1000
Column Shear Force (kip)

Straight
800 R=1000ft
R=800ft

600 R=600ft
Design EQ Disp.
Shear Reverse Curvature
400
Shear Single Curvature

200

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Column Displacement (ft)

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 20

Drilled Shaft Response – Pier 2
1400

1200

1000
Column Shear Force (kip)

Straight
800 R=1000ft
R=800ft

600 R=600ft
Design EQ Disp.
Shear Reverse Curvature
400
Shear Single Curvature

200

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Column Displacement (ft)

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 21

Pile Foundation Model

 Lateral pile stiffness estimated to be 27 kip/in

 Group effects not considered

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 22

First Mode: T = 0.82 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.0791

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 23

Second Mode: T = 0.76 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.7293

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 24

Ninth Mode: T = 0.21 sec

• Mode Participation Factor = 0.1916

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 25

Pile Foundation Response – Pier 1
1400

1200

1000
Column Shear Force (kip)

Straight
800 R=1000ft
R=800ft

600 R=600ft
Design EQ Disp.
Shear Reverse Curvature
400
Shear Single Curvature

200

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Column Displacement (ft)

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 26

Pile Foundation Response – Pier 2
1400

1200

1000
Column Shear Force (kip)

Straight
800 R=1000ft
R=800ft

600 R=600ft
Design EQ Disp.
Shear Reverse Curvature
400
Shear Single Curvature

200

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Column Displacement (ft)

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 27

Pier Cap – Free Body Diagram

• Use S&T model or Conventional Design Procedure

• Over-strength factor = 1.0

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 28

Pier Cap - Revised Design

• Over-strength factor = 1.2

• Strength reduction factor = 1.0

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 29

Superstructure Design Checks

Mp = 11,850 k-ft+934k*3ft=14,652k-ft

• Check web shear due to plastic hinging induced torsion

• Check bearing designs at abutments

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 30

Conclusions

• Hinging is possible at the top of column in the transverse direction due to

a combination of superstructure curvature and foundation stiffness.

• Axial load increased up to 10% due to curvature.

• Recommend conducting complete bridge pushover analysis. Distribution

of displacements should be based on mode shapes.

• If moment continuity is not provided in the longitudinal direction in a

curved bridge, provide appropriate confinement, anchorage details at top
of columns. Verify column shear capacity!

• Pier cap and superstructure needs to designed for additional shear due to
plastic hinging forces. If in doubt, capacity protect.

Plastic Hinging Considerations September 10, 2015 Page 31

Thank You

greg.griffin@aecom.com

September 10, 2015