Seismic Design of Bridges

Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.

1

SCDOT Seismic Design Of Bridges Overview
• • • • • • • AASHTO - Division IA Draft Specifications, 1996 SCDOT 2001 Seismic Design Specifications Comparison Between LRFD & SCDOT Specs. SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps Training and Implementation Conclusions

2

AASHTO Div IA
• • • • • USGS 1988 Seismic Hazard Maps Force based design Soil Classification I-IV No explicit Performance Criteria Classification based only on acceleration coefficient

3

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA August 31, 1886 (Intensity IX-X)

4

Intensity = X 5 . 1886 Charleston.Earthquake of August 31. South Carolina Magnitude=7.3M.

Sandblow in Charleston 6 .

Draft Specifications • • 1996 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps Difference in spectral acceleration between South Carolina and California Normal Bridges : 2/3 of the 2% in 50 yr. Event • • Essential Bridges: Two-Level Analysis 7 .

Draft Specifications • • • • Force based specifications N (seat width) Soil classification: I – IV Draft Specifications Version of 1999 8 .

Site Specific Studies • Maybank Bridge over the Stono River • Carolina Bays Parkway • Broad and Chechessee River Bridges • New Cooper River Bridge • Bobby Jones Expressway 9 .

Dillon County • Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River .SEISMIC DESIGN TRIAL EXAMPLES • SC-38 over I-95 .Charleston County 10 .

supported by 13 steel plate girders and integral abutments • The abutments and the interior bents rest on deep foundations 11 .5 ft. spans with a composite reinforced concrete deck.SC-38 over I-95 Description of Project • Conventional bridge structure • Two 106.

SC-38 over I-95 Original Seismic Design • SCDOT version of Div-IA AASHTO (Draft) • 2/3 of 2% in 50 yr • 1996 USGS maps used • PGA of 0. • Response Spectrum Analysis 12 . • Expected Earthquake – 50% PE in 75 yr. low potential for liquefaction • Response Spectrum Analysis Trial Design Example • Proposed LRFD Seismic Guidelines • MCE –3% PE in 75 yr. at MCE. • 2000 USGS maps • PGA of 0. further evaluation for liquefaction is needed.15g.33g.

Maybank Highway Bridge over the Stono River 13 .

Highest Hazard Lowest Hazard Seismicity of South Carolina 1977 to 1996 1977 to 1997 14 .

• The main span over the river channel consists of a 3 span steel girder frame w/ 70 meter center span. • 105-118 flat slab deck supported by PCP 15 .Maybank Highway over Stono River Description of project • 118 spans • 1-62 flat slab deck supported by PCP • 63-104 /33 -meter girder spans and 2 columns per bent supported by shafts.

2% in 50 yr.Maybank Highway over Stono River Original Seismic Design • SCDOT version of AASHTO Div. • MCE – 3% in 75 yr. I-A (Draft) • Site Specific Seismic Hazard • Bridge classified as essential • Project specific seismic performance criteria • Two level Analysis:  FEE – 10% in 50 yr.50% in 75 yr. event Trial Design Example • Proposed LRFD Guidelines 2002 • Two Level Analysis: • Expected Earthquake . 16 . event  SEE .

5 5.0 4. soil type II SCDOT Curve.0167 Site Coefficients Fa Fv 1.5 4. is approximately 70%.0 2.0104 0.8 0.0 3.651 0.2 1 0.4 Spectral Acceleration.00 1.4 0.407 1. T (sec) 17 .0503 0.5 LRFD Curve Site Specific Original Curve SCDOT Curve. Sa (g) 1.43 0.Compare LRFD to Original Design Curve 1.0 0. LRFD Spectral Accelerations and Site Coefficients Earthquake Maximum Considered Expected Spectral Accelerations SS S1 SDS SD1 1.0 Period.60 SEE .2 0 0.6 0.5 2.0503 0.Table C-1.00 1. * Transverse * Longitudinal 3.5 1.43 0. soil type III * The cumulative mass participation for mode shapes at periods indicated and higher.0 1.60 1.6 1.

Maybank Highway over Stono River Original Seismic Design • Soil Classification: Type II Trial Design Example • Stiff Marl classified as Site Class D 18 .

1 • If this structure were designed using the new SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications.• The SCDOT 's new specifications adopted the NCHRP soil site classification and the Design Spectra described on LRFD 3. 19 . the demand forces would be closer if not the same to those found using the Proposed LRFD Guideline 2002 .4. October 2001.

Seismic Panel • Synthetic TH • PGA .65 at T=1 sec • Liquefaction 20 . • Seismic Design Criteria.65g • Sa 1.0.85 at T=0.Cooper River Bridge Charleston Co.2 sec • Sa 0.

21 .

g 2 1. sec 22 .SEE (Ver tica l Spectr a ) 2.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Per iod.Cooper River Bridge US1 7 COOPER RIVER BRIDGES 2 5 Yr 0 0 -YR SEEfor f or Main Ma in Piers Pier s 2500 .5 1 0.5 Spect r a l Acceler a t ion.

Need for: • New Specifications • South Carolina Seismic Hazard Maps 23 .

24 .

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 • The new SCDOT specifications establish design and construction provisions for bridges in South Carolina to minimize their susceptibility to damage from large earthquakes. 25 .

should not cause collapse. FEE.PURPOSE & PHILOSOPHY (1.  State-of-Practice ground motion intensities are used.1) • SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications replace AASHTO Division I-A SCDOT Draft • Principles used for the development  Small to moderate earthquakes. resisted within the essentially elastic range. . SEE.  Large earthquakes. • Four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) are defined to cover the variation in seismic hazard of very small to high within the State 26 of South Carolina.

New Concepts and Enhancements • • • • • New Design Level Earthquakes New Performance Objectives New Soil Factors Displacement Based Design Expanded Design Criteria for Bridges 27 .

2) • New USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps • New Design Level Earthquakes • New Performance Objectives • A706 Reinf.SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications Background (1. Steel • New Soil Factors • Displacement Based Design • Caltrans (SDC) new provisions included 30 .

Upgraded Seismic Design Requirement (1.3) • New Provisions meet current code objectives for large earthquakes.  Life Safety  Serviceability • Design Levels  Single Level – 2% / 50 years  Normal Bridges  Essential Bridges  Two Level : 2% / 50 years and 10% / 50 years  Critical Bridges 31 .

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications Seismic Performance Criteria III II I 32 .

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 33 .

VALUES OF Fa AS A FUNCTION OF SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORTPERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION SS (TABLE 3.2 1.9 a 0.8 1.50 SS=0.1 0.75 SS=1.0 1.6 2.8 1.00 SS1.2 a 0.0 a a 34 .0 1.5 a 0.0 1.25 A B C D E F 0.7 a 0.1 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.3.2 1.25 Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods SS=0.0 1.3A) Site Class SS 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.

Inc. i c e b d f i h Collapse Prevention Limited Damage Essentially Elastic a Recent Technology g 2% in 50 Yrs. Objective e. c. Increasing performance Increasing earthquake hazard Proposed Design or Retrofit Objective I A I SCDOT – Pilot Workshop Imbsen & Associates. – 1-6 35 . d.Primary Design or System Retrofit a.) 10% in 50 Yrs. 2/3 (2% in 50 Yrs. g Secondary System f. b. h.

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications October 2001 36 .

6 0.5E) Ss=1.4.2 0.0 0. SEE(2%/50years) 1.0 0 1 2 Periods T (sec) 37 SDI-SEE Site Class SD_4A A SD_4B B C SD_4C D SD_4D E SD_4E 3 4 . D AND E. 5% DAMPING (3.2 1. B.00g.4 0.8 0. C.DESIGN SPECTRA FOR SITE CLASS A.

1) • New Bridges • Bridge Types  Slab  Beam Girder  Box Girder • Spans less than 500 feet • Minimum Requirements • Additional Provisions are needed to achieve higher performance for essential or critical bridges 38 .APPLICABILITY (3.

or retrofit • SPC B demands are compared implicitly against capacities • Criteria is focused on member/component deformability as well as global ductility • Inherent member capacities are used to resist higher earthquake intensities • Using this approach required performance levels can be achieved in the Eastern US 39 .DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND STRATEGIES • Specifications can be used in conjunction with rehabilitation. widening.

7.1) Design Approach Minimal Plastic Action Moderate Plastic Action Ductility Demand Protection Reparability Systems May be Used May be Used Not required to Maintain May require closure of limited usage May require closure or removal 40 D  2 D  4 Limited Limited Significant Plastic Action May be higher Not warranted .Design Approaches (4.

C.9.3) • Butt Welded Hoops • Superstructrure Shear Keys (4.2) • Detailing Restrainers (4.7) • Seat Width SPC A and B.10) 41 .8.7.7. D (4.Other New Concepts and Improvements • Plastic Hinge Region Lpr (4.7) • Plastic Hinge Length (4.

Mesa. P. 42 .E.Thanks Seismic Design of Bridges Lucero E.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful