MDOT Seismic Design Policy Manual For Highway Bridges

SEISMIC DESIGN POLICY MANUAL
FOR
HIGHWAY BRIDGES
Version 1.0
December 2013
Seismic Design Policy Manual for Highway Bridges
Table of Contents
1.0 General .......................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Software for Seismic Analysis and Design ...................................................................... 4
3.0 MDOT Modifications to AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design .. 6
3.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS) Requirements for SDCs C and D ....................... 6
3.3 Seismic Ground Shaking Hazard .............................................................................. 11
3.4 Selection of Seismic Design Category (SDC) ............................................................. 11
3.5 Temporary and Staged Construction ....................................................................... 16
3.6 Load and Resistance Factors .................................................................................... 16
3.7 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine Seismic Demand.............................. 16
3.8 Local Displacement Capacity for SDCs B and C ........................................................ 16
3.9 End Bents.................................................................................................................. 17
3.10 Foundation – General .............................................................................................. 17
3.11 Foundation – Spread Footing ................................................................................... 17
3.12 Foundation – Pile Foundations and Drilled Shafts ................................................... 18
3.13 Analytical Procedures............................................................................................... 18
3.14 Procedure 3: Nonlinear Time History Method ......................................................... 18
3.15 Foundation Rocking ................................................................................................. 18
3.16 Drilled Shafts ............................................................................................................ 18
3.17 Longitudinal Direction Requirements ...................................................................... 19
3.18 Liquefaction Design Requirements .......................................................................... 19
3.19 Reinforcing Steel ...................................................................................................... 19
3.20 Concrete Modeling ................................................................................................... 19
3.21 Splicing of Longitudinal Reinforcement in Columns Subject to Ductility Demands for
SDCs C and D ............................................................................................................ 19
3.22 Requirements for Capacity Protected Members ...................................................... 20
3.23 Joint Shear Design .................................................................................................... 20
4.0 Computer Analysis Verification .................................................................................... 24
Figures
Figure 3.2‐1 Permissible Earthquake‐Resisting Systems (ERSs) ...................................................... 8
Figure 3.2‐2 Permissible Earthquake‐Resisting Elements (EREs) .................................................... 9
Figure 3.2‑3 Permissible Earthquake‑Resisting Elements That Require Owner’s Approval ........ 10
Figure 3.23‐1 Joint Shear Principal Stress Diagrams..................................................................... 21
MDOT Bridge Division

Seismic Design Manual (Version 1.0) Page | 2
1.0 General
Seismic design of new bridges shall conform to AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design except for as modified by Sections 2 and 3. For nonconventional
bridges, bridges that are deemed critical or essential, or bridges that fall outside the
scope of the Guide Specifications for any other reasons, project specific design
requirements shall be developed and submitted to the MDOT Director of Structures,
State Bridge Engineer for approval.
The importance classifications for all highway bridges in Mississippi are classified as
“Normal” except for special major bridges. Special major bridges fitting the
classifications of either “Critical” or “Essential” will be so designated by the MDOT
Director of Structures, State Bridge Engineer. The performance object for “normal”
bridges is life safety. Bridges designed in accordance with AASHTO Guide Specifications
are intended to achieve the life safety performance goals.
The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design employs a
performance‐based approach to seismic design. This design approach requires the
structure system and its individual components be designed to have enough capacity to
withstand the deformations imposed by the design earthquake.
Displacement based design is used instead of the traditional force based design
approach to overcome the drawbacks of the latter design approach which:
 Does not directly address the inelastic nature of a structural system.
 Requires the use of a somewhat arbitrary force‐reduction factor.
 Provides little insight into actual structural behavior.
 Does not provide a consistent level of protection against reaching a specified
limit state.

2.0 Software for Seismic Analysis and Design

The following software is typically used by MDOT for seismic analysis and design:
 LPILE:
o Soil‐structure interaction
o Pile/Shaft design
o Laterally loaded piles and shafts
 CSiBridge:
o General purpose structural analysis software with steel design, concrete
design, AASHTO LRFD analysis and design, seismic response spectrum
analysis, sectional analysis of reinforced concrete members, pushover
analysis, time history analysis, staged construction…
 RC‐PIER:
o Analysis and design of reinforced concrete bridge substructures and
foundations. Bent design for multi‐column and hammerhead piers, bent
caps, rectangular or circular columns, footings and drilled shafts.
o Considers slenderness effects through optional P‐delta analysis or moment‐
magnification.
o Plastic hinging moment in columns can be considered in the pier cap design.
o Generates pile forces in pile‐supported footings due to plastic hinging.
In addition to the above mentioned software packages, the following programs can be
used to aid in the seismic evaluation of a bridge. This previous list and the following list
are not intended to be all inclusive.
 WINSEISAB
o Seismic response analysis of bridges
 CAPP
o Pushover capacity of bridges
 Response 2000: (http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/home.shtml)

o Section analysis of reinforced/prestressed concrete members
o Modified compression field theory

o Concrete model does not account for confinement effects (confinement

effects can be included by user‐specific input of the concrete stress‐strain
behavior)
o Can store templates for many different sections
 CONSEC: (http://www.structware.com)
o Section analysis of reinforced concrete and structural steel sections
o Confining effects may be included for concrete sections
o Voids may be modeled
 XTRACT:
o Section analysis of reinforced/prestressed concrete, steel, and composite
members
o Templates for common structural shapes

3.0 MDOT Modifications to AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD

Seismic Bridge Design
MDOT amendments to the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design are as follows:
3.1 Definitions
Guide Specifications Article 2.1 – Add the following definitions:
 Owner – Person or agency having jurisdiction over the bridge. For MDOT
projects, regardless of delivery method, the term “Owner” in the Guide
Specifications shall be the MDOT Director of Structures, State Bridge Engineer
or/and the MDOT Geotechnical Engineer.
3.2 Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS) Requirements for SDCs C and D

Guide Specifications Article 3.3 – MDOT Global Seismic Design Strategies:
 Type 1 – Ductile Substructure with Essentially Elastic Superstructure. This

category is permissible.
 Type 2 – Essentially Elastic Substructure with a Ductile Superstructure. This

category is not permissible.
 Type 3 – Elastic Superstructure and Substructure with a Fusing Mechanism

Between the Two. This category is permissible with MDOT Director of Structures,
State Bridge Engineer’s approval.
Type 3 ERS may be considered only if Type 1 strategy is not suitable and Type 3
strategy has been deemed necessary for accommodating seismic loads. Isolation
bearings shall be designed per the requirement of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for
Seismic Isolation. The use of isolation bearings shall be approved by the MDOT Director
of Structures, State Bridge Engineer.
MDOT preferences and limitations on the use of ERS and Earthquake Resisting
Elements (ERE) are presented below.
MDOT prefers to design the bridge without any contribution from the end bents in the
ERS. This ensures that in the event end bent resistance becomes ineffective, the bridge
will still be able to resist the earthquake forces and displacements. In such a situation,
the end bents provide an increased margin of safety against collapse. The use of the
end bents in the ERS requires approval from the MDOT Director of Structures, State
Bridge Engineer.

Instances exists where the use of the end bent foundation and/or passive pressure of
the backfill will be appropriate such as continuous bridges with integral or semi‐integral
end bents or instances where the shear keys and/or anchor bolts are not designed to
fuse due to the seismic loading. The design objective when end bents are relied on to
resist either longitudinal or transverse loads is either to minimize column sizes or
reduce the ductility demand on the columns.
Even though the end bents are not assumed to provide energy dissipation during the
design event, the end bent foundation capacity should be greater than the demand
allowed by any connection of the superstructure to substructure including shear keys,
anchor bolts, bearings and backwall to cap (capacity protected). The horizontal design
connection force shall be addressed from the point of application through the
substructure and into the foundation elements. If each bearing supporting the bridge
superstructure is an elastomeric bearing, there may be no fully restrained directions
due to the flexibility of the bearings. However, the forces transmitted through these
bearings to substructure and foundation elements should be determined in accordance
with this Article and with Article 14.6.3 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications.
ERSs 1 and 3 in Figure 3.2‐1 represent typical conditions for MDOT bridges. These ERSs
are permissible and preferred. ERSs 2 and 4 include the use of isolation bearings which
is atypical for MDOT bridges and requires approval from MDOT. ERS 5 includes the
resistance from the end bent including passive soil pressure. MDOT prefers to exclude
the end bent resistance unless an integral end bent is employed. This approach
requires approval from MDOT. ERS 6 is permissible but not preferred; MDOT
frequently uses a bridge type with a multi‐span continuous unit(s) followed by a longer
simple span and then a multi‐span continuous unit(s). This bridge configuration is
permissible. If this configuration is used, the effects of the joints closed (compression
model) as well as the joints open (tension model) shall be considered.
ERE Types 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13 in Figure 3.2‐2 are atypical details for MDOT bridges and
require approval from MDOT. ERE Types 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 represent the preferred
options for MDOT bridges. ERE Type 4 is not permissible. ERE Types 11 and 14 include
the resistance of the end bents in the ERS; therefore, these types require approval from
MDOT. The ERE Type 8 shown in Figure 3.2‐3 is permissible.
For ERSs and EREs requiring approval, the MDOT Director of Structures, State Bridge
Engineer’s approval is required regardless of contracting method (i.e., approval
authority is not transferred to other entities).

FIGURE 3.2‐1 PERMISSIBLE EARTHQUAKE‐RESISTING SYSTEMS (ERSS)

(GUIDE SPECIFICATION FIGURE 3.3‐1A)

FIGURE 3.2‐2 PERMISSIBLE EARTHQUAKE‐RESISTING ELEMENTS (ERES)

(GUIDE SPECIFICATION FIGURE 3.3‐1B)

FIGURE 3.2‑3 PERMISSIBLE EARTHQUAKE‑RESISTING ELEMENTS THAT REQUIRE OWNER’S APPROVAL

(GUIDE SPECIFICATION FIGURE 3.3‐2)

3.3 Seismic Ground Shaking Hazard

Guide Specifications Article 3.4 – For bridges that are considered critical or essential or
normal bridges with a Site Class F, the seismic ground shaking hazard shall be
determined based on the MDOT Geotechnical Engineer recommendations.
3.4 Selection of Seismic Design Category (SDC)

Guide Specifications Article 3.5 ‐ The following maps depict the Seismic Design Category
for bridges in Mississippi for different site classifications. The maps are based on 1‐
second period design response spectrum accelerations for the 7% probability of
exceedance in 75 years.

Site Class “B”

Site Class “C”

Site Class “D”

Site Class “E”

3.5 Temporary and Staged Construction

Guide Specifications Article 3.6 – For bridges that are designed for a reduced seismic
demand, the contract plans shall either include a statement that clearly indicates that
the bridge was designed as temporary using a reduced seismic demand or show the
Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) used for design.
3.6 Load and Resistance Factors

Guide Specifications Article 3.7 – Use load factors of 1.0 for all permanent loads. Use a
load factor of 0 for live load unless the bridge is located in a large metropolitan area
where there is a high probability of large live load being on the bridge during an
earthquake. The inclusion of live load in the load combination should be discussed with
MDOT on a case‐by‐case basis. If live load is included it should be without impact and
the inertia effects of live loads need not be included in the seismic analysis. Unless
otherwise noted, all ϕ factors shall be taken as 1.0.
The effect of scour on the soil surrounding the substructure of bridges needs to be
taken into consideration. Scour is treated as an extreme event in the AASHTO
Specifications. Typically, two extreme events are not considered simultaneously.
However, since the timing of a seismic event is not predictable, the effect of long term
scour in conjunction with the design seismic event should be discussed with MDOT on a
case‐by‐case basis.
3.7 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine Seismic Demand

Guide Specifications Article 4.2 – Analysis Procedures:
 Procedure 1 (Equivalent Static Analysis) shall not be used.
 Procedure 2 (Elastic Dynamic Analysis) shall be used for all “regular” bridges with
two through six spans and “not regular” bridges with two or more spans in SDCs
B, C, or D.
 Procedure 3 (Nonlinear Time History) shall only be used with MDOT Director of
Structures, State Bridge Engineer’s approval.
3.8 Local Displacement Capacity for SDCs B and C

Guide Specifications Article 4.8 – Push‐over analysis is not required for SDCs B and C. If
the displacement demand is greater than the implicit capacity, the designer may
reevaluate the capacity based on a push‐over analysis. In lieu of a push‐over analysis for
SDC B bridges, the SDC C implicit equation may be used along with SDC C detailing. The
pushover analysis typically results in a larger capacity.

Implicit equations were developed primarily for determining capacities of bridges with
single and multi‐column reinforced concrete bents. They are also applicable for bents
comprising single or multiple drilled shaft columns or prestressed‐concrete pile bents in
which plastic hinging may occur below ground such that the clear height dimension
would begin at the point of fixity in the soil. The implicit equations can also be used for
steel pile bents. The results of the equations will be conservative and a push‐over
analysis can be performed if demand exceeds capacity. For different bent types, Guide
Specifications Article 4.8.2 (push‐over analysis) shall be used. This includes the
following bent types: columns founded on oversized drilled shafts, when steel
construction casing is used, and bents with struts at mid‐height.
The implicit displacement capacity equations generally correspond to a limit state of

initiation of concrete cover spalling for SDC B and an equivalent column member
ductility of 3 or less for SDC C.
Where in‐ground hinging is used in the ERE, the demand displacement shall be limited
to the capacity for SDC B or the methods and limits for SDC D.
3.9 End Bents

Guide Specifications Article 5.2 – For typical MDOT bridges with seat‐type end bents,
MDOT’s preference is to not include the end bent contribution in the earthquake‐
resisting system. With MDOT Director of Structures, State Bridge Engineer's approval,
the end bent and wingwalls may be considered and designed as part of earthquake
resisting system (ERS) in the longitudinal direction of a straight bridge with little or no
skew and with a continuous deck. The wingwall resistance shall be governed by the
wingwall capacity or the applicable soil resistance.
3.10 Foundation – General

Guide Specifications Article 5.3.1 – The use of spread footings for MDOT bridges is
atypical. MDOT prefers to model pile or shaft foundations with an estimated depth to
fixity or p‐y curves. Soil springs with secant stiffness may be used to provide a better
representation based on p‐y curves for the foundation and soil. Bi‐linear springs may be
used in the pushover analysis if there is particular concern with depth of the plastic
hinge and effective depth of fixity. The required foundation modeling method (FMM)
and the requirements for estimation of foundation springs for spread footings, pile
foundations, and drilled shafts shall be based on the MDOT Geotechnical Engineer’s
recommendations.
3.11 Foundation – Spread Footing

Guide Specifications Article 5.3.2 – The use of spread footings for MDOT bridges is
atypical and requires approval by the MDOT Director of Structures, State Bridge
Engineer.

3.12 Foundation – Pile Foundations and Drilled Shafts

Guide Specifications Articles 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 – Group reduction factors should be
considered in the response to seismic loading. Section 10 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications provides guidance on the determination of group reduction factors
for horizontal loading.
3.13 Analytical Procedures

Guide Specifications Article 5.4 – Procedure 2: Elastic Dynamic Analysis (EDA) shall be
used to estimate the demand displacements for all typical MDOT bridges.
3.14 Procedure 3: Nonlinear Time History Method

Guide Specifications Article 5.4.4 – Procedure 3: Nonlinear Time History Method is only
used with approval by the MDOT Director of Structures, State Bridge Engineer. This
type of analysis should be considered for irregular bridges, critical or essential bridges,
SDC D bridges or cases in which seismic isolation is included. The time histories of input
acceleration used to describe the earthquake loads shall be selected in consultation
with the MDOT Geotechnical Engineer and the MDOT Director of Structures, State
Bridge Engineer.
3.15 Foundation Rocking

Guide Specifications Article 6.3.9 – Foundation rocking shall not be used for the design
of MDOT bridges.
3.16 Drilled Shafts

Guide Specifications Article C6.5 – It is cautioned that the scaling factor for diameter
effects should not be used blindly without a sound mechanistic basis. A significant
amount of pile load test data have been accumulated within the offshore industry on
large diameter driven steel pipe piles including tests on 5 ft (1.5 m) piles. The diameter
effects for offshore piles have either been concluded not valid or considered
insignificant within the offshore industry. Juirnarongrit and Ashford (2005) performed
vibration tests and lateral load tests on drilled shafts ranging from 16 in (0.4 m) to 4 ft
(1.2 m) installed in dense weakly cemented sand. Data from the tests for each shaft
diameter were used to back‑calculate p‐y curves. Their analyses indicate that the shaft
diameter has insignificant effect on the p‐y curves at the displacement level below the
ultimate soil resistance. Beyond this range, the ultimate soil resistance increased as the
shaft diameter increased. It has been found that the pile diameter effect depend on the
pile head moment‐to‐shear ratio and the distribution of soil modulus with depth
(Pender, 2004). For MDOT bridges, the scale factor for p‐y curves for large diameter
shafts shall not be used unless approved by the MDOT Geotechnical Engineer and
MDOT Director of Structures, State Bridge Engineer.

3.17 Longitudinal Direction Requirements

Guide Specifications Article 6.7.1 – Typical MDOT bridges employ seat‐type (free‐
standing) end bents. The seismic design of the these end bents should consider the
transfer of seismic forces from the bridge superstructure to the end bents as well as
force imparted on the end bent due to earthquake‐induced active earth pressures.
3.18 Liquefaction Design Requirements

Guide Specifications Article 6.8 – For bridge sites where liquefaction occurs at the
bridge foundations, the bridge should be analyzed for a non‐liquefied condition and a
liquefied condition unless ground modification will be performed to mitigate the
liquefaction. The liquefied soil parameters shall be based on the MDOT Geotechnical
Engineer’s recommendation.
3.19 Reinforcing Steel

Guide Specifications Article 8.4.1 – The Guide Specification requires the use of A706
reinforcing for SDC D structures in areas where hinging is expected. In lieu of restricting
the column bars to A706 material, permit the use of either of the following for column
longitudinal bars:
1. A615 reinforcing with a maximum yield strength of 78 ksi, or

2. A706 reinforcing
This means that a lower over‐strength factor, λmo, of 1.2 may be used, but that the
reduced ultimate tensile strain, εsuR, corresponding to A 615 steel must also be used in
the moment curvature analysis. The net effect will be a reduced over‐strength plastic
shear, but without the added displacement capacity achieved from the use of A706
transverse steel. (See Sections 8.4.2 and 8.5 of the Guide Specification).
The reduced ultimate tensile strain for steel, εsuR, shall be used instead of the theoretical
maximum, εsu.
Guide Specifications Article 8.4.3 – Where in‐ground hinging is anticipated for a

prestressed concrete pile bent as part of the ERS, the ultimate prestress strain limit shall
be reduced to 0.015.
3.20 Concrete Modeling

Guide Specifications Article 8.4.4 – Where in‐ground plastic hinging is part of the ERS,
the confined concrete core shall be limited to a maximum compressive strain of 0.008.
3.21 Splicing of Longitudinal Reinforcement in Columns Subject to Ductility Demands

for SDCs C and D

Guide Specifications Article 8.8.3 – The splicing of longitudinal column reinforcement

outside the plastic hinging region shall be accomplished using mechanical couplers that
are capable of developing a minimum tensile strength of 85 ksi. Splices shall be
staggered at least 2 ft. lap splices shall not be used. The design engineer shall clearly
identify the locations where splices in longitudinal column reinforcement are permitted
on the plans.
3.22 Requirements for Capacity Protected Members

Guide Specifications Article 8.9 – For SDCs C and D where in‑ground hinging is part of
ERS, the confined concrete core should be limited to a maximum compressive strain of
0.008 and the member ductility demand shall be limited to 4.
Bridges shall be analyzed and designed for the non‐liquefied condition and the liquefied
condition in accordance with Article 6.8. The capacity protected members shall be
designed in accordance with the requirements of Article 4.11.
MDOT may elect to use capacity protected oversized pile shafts to preclude hinging
underground. If this approach is taken, oversized pile shafts shall be designed for an
expected nominal moment capacity, Mne, at any location along the shaft, that is, equal
to 1.25 times moment demand generated in the shaft by the overstrength column
plastic hinge moment and associated shear force at the base of the column. The safety
factor of 1.25 may be reduced to 1.0 in the liquefied condition with the MDOT Director
of Structures and State Bridge Engineer’s approval.
Design moments below ground for non‐oversized drilled shafts may be determined
using the nonlinear static procedure (pushover analysis) by pushing them laterally to the
displacement demand obtained from an elastic response spectrum analysis. The point of
maximum moment shall be identified based on the moment diagram. The expected
plastic hinge zone shall extend 3 diameters (3D) above and below the point of maximum
moment. The plastic hinge zone shall be designated as the “no‑splice” zone and the
transverse steel for shear and confinement shall be provided accordingly.
3.23 Joint Shear Design

Guide Specifications Article 8.13.1 – Bent caps/footings and the moment resisting
connection with the column shall be designed to resist seismic forces as an essentially
elastic element.
Additional guidance on joint design may be found in the following:
1. Priestley, M. J. N, et al, Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, 1996, Wiley and
Sons, pages 348‐388.
2. Sritharan, Sri, Improved Seismic Design Procedure for Concrete Bridge Joints,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, September, 2005, pages 1334‐1344.

Guide Specifications Article 8.13.2 – Moment‑resisting joints shall be proportioned so

that the principal stresses satisfy the requirements of the following equations. Refer to
Figure 3.23‐1 for joint shear principal stress diagrams. The permissible principal stress
levels shall be established using the expected concrete strength.
FIGURE 3.23‐1 JOINT SHEAR PRINCIPAL STRESS DIAGRAMS

 For principal compression, pc:

0.25 (8.13.2‐1)
 For principal tension, pt:
0.38 ′ (8.13.2‐2)
In which:
(8.13.2‐3)
(8.13.2‐4)
Where:
fh = Average axial horizontal stress (ksi)
fv = Average axial vertical stress (ksi)
vih = Average joint shear stress (ksi)
If either criterion is not met, the member size (column and/or cap) must be increased
until the limits are met. Typically, it is preferable to increase only the cap dimensions
since changing the column dimensions would necessitate recalculating the plastic shear
and the displacement capacity.
The average horizontal axial stress is based on the mean axial force at the center of
joint, including the effects of prestress. For most projects, fh can be taken as zero due to
lack of prestress in the cap.
Where:
Pb = Beam axial force at the center of the joint including the effects of
prestressing (kips)
Bcap = Bent cap width (in)
Ds = Depth of superstructure at the bent cap for integral joints under longitudinal
response and depth of cap beam for nonintegral bent caps and integral joint
under transverse response (in)
In the vertical direction, the average axial vertical stress in the joint is provided by the
axial force in the column, Pc. Assuming a 45° spread away from the boundary of the
column to a plane at mid‑depth of the bent cap, the average axial stress is calculated by
the following equation:

Where:
Pc = Column axial force including the effects of overturning (kips)
Beff = Effective width of joint (in)
Dc = Diameter or cross‑sectional dimension of column parallel to bent cap (in)
The average axial stress in the joint, fv, shall be modified if the cap beam does not
extend beyond the column exterior face greater than half the bent cap depth by
modifying Ds in the equation above to be 0.5Ds+ the cantilever length if less than 0.5Ds.
As an alternate to the average joint stress, vjv, given in the Guide Specifications Eq.
8.13.2‐7, the average joint shear stress, vjh, can be approximated with the following
equation with adequate accuracy:
Where:
M = The column overstrength moment, Mpo (kip‑in)
Dc = Diameter or cross‑sectional dimension of column in the direction of loading
(in)
hb = The distance from c.g. of tensile force to c.g. of compressive force on the
section (in) This moment arm may be approximated by Db.
Beff = Effective width of joint (in)
The effective width of joint, Beff, depends on the shape of the column framing into the
joint and is determined using the following equations.
 For circular columns:

√2
 For rectangular columns:
For transverse response, the effective width will be the smaller of the value given by the
above equations or the cap beam width.
Guide Specifications Article 8.13.5 – The Guide Specifications do not specifically address
knee joints for non‐integral bent caps. Refer to Sritharan (2005) for additional guidance
on joint proportioning for knee joints of non‐integral bent caps.

4.0 Computer Analysis Verification
The computer results will be verified to ensure accuracy and correctness. The designer
should use the following procedures for model verification:
 Using graphics to check the orientation of all nodes, members, supports, joint,
and member releases. Make sure that all the structural components and
connections correctly model the actual structure.
 Check dead load reactions with hand calculations. The difference should be less
than 5 percent.
 Calculate fundamental and subsequent modes by hand and compare results with
computer results.
 Check the mode shapes and verify that structure movements are reasonable.
 Increase the number of modes to obtain 90 percent or more mass participation

in each direction. CSiBridge directly calculates the percentage of mass
participation.
 Check the distribution of lateral forces. Are they consistent with column
stiffness? Do small changes in stiffness of certain columns give predictable
results?


MDOT Seismic Design Policy Manual For Highway Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MDOT Seismic Design Policy Manual For Highway Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC DESIGN POLICY MANUAL

1.0 General .......................................................................................................................... 3

MDOT Bridge Division

MDOT Bridge Division

2.0 Software for Seismic Analysis and Design

 Response 2000: (http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~bentz/home.shtml)

MDOT Bridge Division

o Concrete model does not account for confinement effects (confinement

MDOT Bridge Division

3.0 MDOT Modifications to AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD

3.2 Earthquake Resisting Systems (ERS) Requirements for SDCs C and D

 Type 1 – Ductile Substructure with Essentially Elastic Superstructure. This

 Type 2 – Essentially Elastic Substructure with a Ductile Superstructure. This

 Type 3 – Elastic Superstructure and Substructure with a Fusing Mechanism

MDOT Bridge Division

MDOT Bridge Division

FIGURE 3.2‐1 PERMISSIBLE EARTHQUAKE‐RESISTING SYSTEMS (ERSS)

MDOT Bridge Division

FIGURE 3.2‐2 PERMISSIBLE EARTHQUAKE‐RESISTING ELEMENTS (ERES)

MDOT Bridge Division

FIGURE 3.2‑3 PERMISSIBLE EARTHQUAKE‑RESISTING ELEMENTS THAT REQUIRE OWNER’S APPROVAL

MDOT Bridge Division

3.3 Seismic Ground Shaking Hazard

3.4 Selection of Seismic Design Category (SDC)

MDOT Bridge Division

Site Class “B”

MDOT Bridge Division

Site Class “C”

MDOT Bridge Division

Site Class “D”

MDOT Bridge Division

Site Class “E”

MDOT Bridge Division

3.5 Temporary and Staged Construction

3.6 Load and Resistance Factors

3.7 Selection of Analysis Procedure to Determine Seismic Demand

 Procedure 1 (Equivalent Static Analysis) shall not be used.

3.8 Local Displacement Capacity for SDCs B and C

MDOT Bridge Division

The implicit displacement capacity equations generally correspond to a limit state of

3.9 End Bents

3.10 Foundation – General

3.11 Foundation – Spread Footing

MDOT Bridge Division

3.12 Foundation – Pile Foundations and Drilled Shafts

3.13 Analytical Procedures

3.14 Procedure 3: Nonlinear Time History Method

3.15 Foundation Rocking

3.16 Drilled Shafts

MDOT Bridge Division

3.17 Longitudinal Direction Requirements

3.18 Liquefaction Design Requirements

3.19 Reinforcing Steel

1. A615 reinforcing with a maximum yield strength of 78 ksi, or

Guide Specifications Article 8.4.3 – Where in‐ground hinging is anticipated for a

3.20 Concrete Modeling

3.21 Splicing of Longitudinal Reinforcement in Columns Subject to Ductility Demands

MDOT Bridge Division

Guide Specifications Article 8.8.3 – The splicing of longitudinal column reinforcement

3.22 Requirements for Capacity Protected Members

3.23 Joint Shear Design

Additional guidance on joint design may be found in the following:

MDOT Bridge Division