Bridge Seismic Analysis Procedure to

Address Near-Fault Effects

December 15, 2005

(Pretest: December 14, 2005)

P.I.: Dr. M. Saiidi

Dr. P. Somerville

Caltrans Project Manager: Dr. S. El-Azazy

R.A.: H. Choi
Abstract:
Characteristics of near-fault ground motions are peculiar compared to far-field ground
motions, which nearly all existing design criteria are based on. Current simple
amplification of far-field design spectra in some codes may not necessarily be adequate
to account for the near-field effect. A site-specific process which is required for bridges
located near active faults in AASHTO and Caltrans SDC can be costly, long, and non-
standard. A simple and rational method to account for the near-fault ground motion
effects on bridges is needed.

The purpose of this study is to investigate near-fault ground motion effects on typical
Caltrans columns. The ultimate goal is to develop practical and proven bridge design
guidelines that incorporate the effects of near-fault ground motions. One task of this
research project is to test and analyze the performance of four large-scale bridge columns.
In addition, a large-scale two-span bridge model supported on three piers, one on each of
the UNR shake tables, will be tested under a near-fault ground motion with incoherent
motions that include the fault rupture effect.

The first two columns, named MN and ETN, were tested in May, 2005. The designs of
both columns were based on the 2004 Caltrans SDC version 1.3, to satisfy the current
Caltrans near fault provisions. The difference between the two specimens was that MN
had 0.66 seconds prototype period, but ETN had 1.50 seconds prototype period. Soil
type, seismicity of the site, and material properties used in the design of MN are also
utilized in the design of ETN. The purpose of these shake table tests was to further
enhance our understanding of near fault ground motion effects on reinforced concrete
bridge columns and to analyze how various period columns designed to Caltrans near-
fault provisions stand up to near fault ground motions. The most distinct issue seen from
both test data was the magnitude of the residual displacements in the responses of MN
and ETN. The data show that residual displacements of MN and ETN were alarmingly
high.

For the seismological part of the study, Dr. Somerville developed a modified ARS curve
to provide a realistic level of demand incorporating forward rupture directivity effects.

After testing column MN and ETN, two new columns, named SETN and SVTN, were
constructed. Unlike MN and ETN, these columns were designed by using the new ARS
curve instead of Caltrans ARS curve. Since new ARS curve provided considerably
higher spectral acceleration value, SETN had about 30% more longitudinal and
transverse steels compare to its sister column ETN. The third column, SETN, was tested
in November 17. The validity of the new spectrum would be evaluated by comparing data
from the SETN and ETN shake table tests.

The forth column, SVTN, is scheduled to be tested December 15, 2005. Unlike SETN,
which had 1.36 seconds prototype period, SVTN’s prototype period was 1.79 seconds.
The purpose of the SVTN shake table test is to investigate how a longer period column
designed to new spectrum stand up to near fault ground motions.
Project Specimen Summary

Axial
Column Column Longitudinal Transverse Axial
Aspect Load Scale Design
Specimen Height Diameter Steel Ration Steel Ratio Load Design ARS
Ratio Index (%) Criteria
(in) (in) (%) (%) (kips)
(%)
Caltrans SDC
SVTN 98.5 12 3.0 1.82 8.2 45 8.0 20 Somerville Ver. 1.3
(2004)

Caltrans SDC
SETN 108.5 14 3.6 2.05 7.75 62 8.0 20 Somerville Ver. 1.3
(2004)

Current Caltrans SDC

MN 63 14 2.90 1.37 4.5 62 8.0 30 Caltrans Ver. 1.3
ARS (2004)

Current Caltrans SDC

ETN 108.5 14 2.90 1.54 7.75 62 8.0 30 Caltrans Ver. 1.3
ARS (2004)
Material Properties

Steel Reinforcement:
SETN SVTN MN ETN
Longitudinal Steel 18-#5 17-#4 22-#4 bar 22-#4
fy (psi) 64,000 71,000 70,515 70,515
fu (psi) 108,806 96,500 103,740 103,740
Transverse Steel ¼” Dia. wire @ 0.750” ¼” Dia. wire @ 1.000” ¼” Dia. wire @ 1.125” ¼” Dia. wire @ 1.000”
fy (psi) 58,130 58,130 61,450 61,450
fu (psi) 72,100 72,100 76,700 76,700

Concrete:
SETN SVTN MN ETN
7 day strength
4558 4558 2292 2292
(psi)
28 day strength
Footing 5938 5938 4232 4232
(psi)
Test day strength
6474 pending 6129 6155
(psi)
7 day strength
4035 4035 2780 2780
(psi)
28 day strength
Column 6336 6336 4327 4327
(psi)
Test day strength
6793 pending 6354 6366
(psi)
SVTN Column Details
 Current Caltrans and Somerville’s ARS Curves

1.8
1.6 Somerville M=7.5
1.4 Caltrans ARS Far-Field M=7.0-7.5
1.2 Caltrans ARS Near-Fault M=7.0-7.5
SA (g)

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (sec )

Acceleration History Plots of the Rinaldi and RRS Motions

0.9
0.6
0.3
SA (g)

0
-0.3
Rinaldi
-0.6
RRS
-0.9
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Time (sec)

Note: RRS motion is spectral matching motion of Rinaldi to Somerville ARS.

For testing, a time compression factor of 0.4287is used.
SVTN Shake Table Setup
 Loading Sequence for Specimen SVTN

Event Motion Amax (g) Dmax (in) µD Flateral (kips) Notes

Quick Release
Tuning
Quick Release
1 0.05x Rinaldi 0.04 0.23 0.14 1.64
2 0.10x Rinaldi 0.08 0.48 0.28 3.42
3 0.20x Rinaldi 0.17 0.97 0.57 6.91
Quick Release
4 0.30x Rinaldi 0.25 1.47 0.87 10.56
5 0.45x Rinaldi 0.38 2.28 1.34 12.20
6 0.60x Rinaldi 0.50 2.25 1.33 12.20
Quick Release
7 0.85x RRS 0.53 4.76 2.80 12.20
8 0.95x RRS 0.59 6.67 2.92 12.21
9 1.05x RRS 0.65 9.40 5.53 12.21
10 1.15x RRS 0.71 18.24 10.73 12.22
11
12
13
14
15
DARC-O Predictions for Specimen SETN
Max. Pos. Max. Neg. Residual Residual Max. Max. Lateral
Run Max. Def. Max.
Motion Def. Def. Def. Drift Drift Force
# (in) Ductility
(in) (in) (in) (%) (%) (kip)
1 0.05x Rinaldi 0.23 0.23 -0.18 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.24 1.64
2 0.10x Rinaldi 0.48 0.48 -0.38 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.49 3.42
3 0.20x Rinaldi 0.97 0.97 -0.77 0.02 0.02 0.57 0.98 6.91
4 0.30x Rinaldi 1.47 1.47 -1.19 0.01 0.01 0.87 1.49 10.56
5 0.45x Rinaldi 2.28 2.28 -1.47 0.81 0.82 1.34 2.31 12.20
6 0.60x Rinaldi 2.25 2.25 -2.03 0.79 0.80 1.33 2.29 12.20
7 0.85x RRS 4.76 4.76 -2.44 0.21 0.22 2.80 4.83 12.20
8 0.95x RRS 6.67 6.67 -1.73 2.24 2.27 3.92 6.77 12.21
9 1.05x RRS 9.40 9.40 -0.49 5.90 5.99 5.53 9.55 12.21
10 1.15x RRS 18.24 18.24 n/a 16.12 16.36 10.73 18.52 12.22
Note: For DARC-O analysis, the O-Hyst model was used.

RC-Shake Predictions of Shake Table Output

Run Peak Actuator Peak Flow Overturning
Motion Peak Acc. (g) Peak Vel. (in/s) Peak Disp. (in)
# Force (kip) (gpm) Moment (ft-k)
1 0.05x Rinaldi 0.0417 1.27 0.11 3.28 18.28 16.53
2 0.10x Rinaldi 0.0834 2.53 0.22 6.66 36.53 32.83
3 0.20x Rinaldi 0.1667 5.07 0.44 13.33 73.06 65.71
4 0.30x Rinaldi 0.2501 7.60 0.66 20.10 109.56 98.40
5 0.45x Rinaldi 0.3751 11.40 0.99 30.16 164.34 133.32
6 0.60x Rinaldi 0.5001 15.20 1.32 38.43 219.10 138.42
7 0.85x RRS 0.5290 21.32 2.57 39.95 307.28 145.26
8 0.95x RRS 0.5913 24.06 3.05 44.00 346.81 162.30
9 1.05x RRS 0.6535 26.60 3.37 44.00 383.39 168.62
10 1.15x RRS 0.7158 29.13 3.69 46.55 419.94 177.81
Note: For RC-Shake analysis, the Clough model was used.
 Load-Deflection Curve for SVTN
16

14

12

10
Load (kips)

2
DARC-O Output

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Deflection (in)
 DARC-O Force vs. Displacement Response Hysteresis for SVTN

15
10
Force (kips)

-5
-10

-15
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Displacement (in)

DARC-O PGA vs. Residual Drift for SVTN

30
SVTN (Rinaldi)
25
SVTN (RRS)
Residual Drift (%)

20 SVTN (Rinaldi+RRS)

15

10

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
PGA (g)
Strain Gauge Locations for SVTN
Curvature & Lateral Deformation Instrumentation for SVTN