Seismic Design of Bridges

Anat Ruangrassamee, Ph.D.

Center of Excellence in
Earthquake Engineering and Vibration

Department of Civil Engineering

Chulalongkorn University
 Course Outline

1. Design philosophy

2. Design response spectra and design procedures

3. Modeling of bridges

4. Design of RC columns

5. Foundation stability and design of foundations

6. Design of bearings and movement joints

 Location of Plastic Hinges
Bridges with single-column bents (longitudinal direction)

primary primary

secondary secondary

Isolated bridges (longitudinal direction)

primary primary
secondary secondary

secondary secondary JRA, 2002

 Location of Plastic Hinges
Bridges with single-column bents (transverse direction)

primary
primary

secondary

Frame bridges (longitudinal direction)

secondary secondary secondary

primary primary

JRA, 2002
 Material Properties in RC Columns

Covering concrete  Unconfined concrete

Core concrete  Confined concrete

Longitudinal reinforcement  Steel

 Stress-Strain Relationship of Concrete

Kent and Park (1971) proposed the stress-strain relation of unconfined

concrete under monotonic loading. Unconfined concrete shows a brittle
behavior

f
c
Deterioration rate
B
f'
c
f c  f c' 1  Zl   c   o  

0.5 f '
c
 2   2  C
fc  fc'  c   c  
  o   o  

A
 
  0.002 50u c
o
 Stress-Strain Relationship of Concrete
Parameters affecting confinement :
1) volumetric ratio, yield strength of hoop
2) distribution of longitudinal reinforcement, tie spacing

[ From Earthquake resistant concrete structure, George G. Penelis and

Andreas J. Kappos ]
 Stress-Strain Relationship of Concrete
Park et al. (1982) proposed the stress-strain relation of confined
concrete by enhancement in the concrete strength due to
confinement

f
c
Modified Kent and Park, Confined (1982)
B
f  Kf '
c c
C
f'
c
Stress

Kent and Park, Confined (1971)

Unconfined,Kent and Park,(1971)

A
0.002 0.002K 0.005 0.02 
c
Strain
 Stress-Strain Relationship of Concrete: JRA
The model proposed by Hoshikuma et al. (1997) was adopted in the JRA code.
Stress fc
Ec cc
fcc n
f c  f cc  Edes ( c   cc ) Ec cc  f cc
0.8fcc
f cc  f c 0  3.8 s f sy
 1    n 1 
f c  Ec c 1   c    s f sy
 n   cc    cc  0.002  0.033
Strain c fc0
f c20
cc cu Edes  11.2
where
 s f sy
fc0 = design strength of concrete   cc (Type-I GM)
Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete 
Ah = Area of a tie bar (1 leg)  cu   0.2 f cc
s = spacing of tie bars  cc  E (Type-II GM)
d = effective length of tie bars
 des

fsy = yield strength of tie bars 4 Ah

 = 1.0 and  = 1.0 for circular sections s   0.018
 = 0.2 and  = 0.4 for rectangular sections sd
 Stress-Strain Relationship of Concrete: JRA
Circular Section Rectangular Section

x-direction:
d = the largest among d1 – d3
y-direction:
JRA, 2002 d = the largest among d4 – d6
 Stress-Strain Relationship of Steel
The longitudinal steel is usually idealized as elastoplastic with/without strain hardening.

Stress

yielding stress

yielding strain
Strain
Stress-Strain Relationship of Steel: JRA
The steel reinforcement is idealized as elastoplastic.

Stress

yielding stress

yielding strain
Strain
 Moment vs. Curvature Relation of Section
where
Mc cracking moment = S(st+N/A)
My0 initial yielding moment
My yielding moment = Mu
Moment M Mu ultimate moment
My = Mu
fc cracking curvature = Mc/EcIg
My0 fy0 initial yielding curvature
fy yielding curvature determined
from fy = (My/My0)fy0

Mc fu ultimate curvature
Curvature f
fc fy0 fy fu = obtained from section analysis
 Lateral Load vs. Displacement Relation of Column
P where
d
Pc cracking lateral force
Py0 initial yielding lateral force
The lateral load vs. displacement Py yielding lateral force = Pu
relation of the RC column is Pu ultimate lateral force
idealized as elastoplastic. dyo initial yielding lateral displacement
dy yielding lateral displacement
Lateral Force P
determined from
Py = Pu
dy = (Py/Py0)dy0
Py0 du ultimate lateral displacement
determined from
du = dy + (fu – fy) Lp (h – Lp/2)
Lp plastic hinge length
h height from the base to the location
Pc where the inertia force of
Displacement d the superstructure is acting
dy0 dy du = obtained from integration of curvature
 Distribution of Curvature over Height of Column
d
P
At initial yielding point At ultimate point

y y
h
f f
Lp
fyo
fy
fy0 fu
Displacement at the column top d at any stage:
n
d   f ydy   (fi yi  fi 1 yi 1 )yi / 2 ; n  50
i 1
For a single-column bent
h2
initial yielding displacement d y 0   f ydy  3 f y 0
Lp h2 L
ultimate displacement d u  d y  (fu  f y ) Lp (h  )  f y  (fu  f y ) L p (h  p )
2 3 2
Column Ductility Factor vs. System Ductility Factor
Displacement profile at yield and at ultimate displacement
u
y
 ft  fr  c  b

elastomeric bearings

 p  (fu  f y ) Lp
Lp Lp/2
 Column Ductility Factor vs. System Ductility Factor
System ductility factor
u Lp
 y  (fu  f y ) Lp (h  )
y s  2
y
 ft  fr  c  b
Column ductility factor
Lp
 c  (fu  f y ) Lp (h  )
c  2
c

h s  1 c

c  1  y
 p  (fu  f y ) Lp Since  c   s ,  s  c
Lp/2
The system ductility factor is used to
compute the force reduction factor.
Evaluation of Strength and Ductility of RC Columns
Capacity Demand
S I or II weight
W
g
Lateral strength capacity Pa 
R force-reduction factor

A response modification factor (force-reduction factor) is determined based on

the equal-energy approximation.

R  2a  1
allowable ductility factor

Note:
Maximum allowable ductility factor = 8
Largest R = 3.8