Displacement-Based Design of Cantilever

Bridge Piers
Matthew J. Tobolski, a) M.EERI, and Jos I. Restrepo,b) M.EERI
Performance-based seismic design requires the development of methods that
address a number of explicitly defined performance objectives. Displacementbased design methods are generally recognized as excellent candidates for use
within a performance-based design framework due to the ability to predict
structural damage states. This paper presents a two-level displacement-based
design method for use in the design of bridge piers. The method considers two
performance objectives: immediate operation and life-safety. This method is
formulated in a probabilistic framework to allow for the explicit consideration of
uncertainty associated with seismic design. Results of the method presented
indicate that for many common situations the life-safety performance objective
will control the design. However, it is possible for immediate operation
considerations to control if strict residual drift limits are imposed. Also, it was
shown that for tall columns the flexural design moment is fairly independent of
the column diameter. This procedure is intended to provide bridge engineers with
a simple and transparent seismic design tool.
INTRODUCTION
Performance-based seismic design requires the development of methods that address a
number of explicitly defined performance objectives (SEAOC, 1999). Displacement-based
design methods are generally recognized as excellent candidates for use within a
performance-based design framework due to the ability to predict structural damage states. A
variety of displacement-based design methods have been developed in recent years in an
attempt to meet the overarching goals of performance-based seismic design (Sullivan et al.,
2003). Significant variations in methods and design considerations have been observed
a)

Graduate Student Researcher, University of California San Diego, Department of Structural Engineering,
9500 Gilman Dr. MC 0085, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, mjtobolski@ucsd.edu
b)
Associate Professor, University of California San Diego, Department of Structural Engineering, 9500 Gilman
Dr. MC 0085, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, jrestrepo@ucsd.edu

between these procedures, with the main similarity being the goal of restricting structural
displacements.
Displacement-based design methods began emerging in the early 1990s as a means to
design structures through a more rational means (Moehle, 1992; Kowalsky et. al, 1994; Calvi
and Kingsley, 1995). The method proposed by Moehle (1992) relies on estimates of
structural period and strength to determine displacement and curvature demands. These
values are then compared with system capacities to ensure a given performance objective is
attained. Kowalsky, et. al (1994) proposed a method in which a target drift is selected and the
required stiffness is determined based on a substitute structure which is related to the
structures ultimate displaced state. Calvi and Kingsley (1995) developed a similar
displacement-based design approach that was extended for use on multiple degree-offreedom systems based on an assumed displaced shape of the structure. Aschheim and Black
(2000) presented a method which utilizes yield point spectra relating yield force and
displacement for various ductility levels in order to achieve desired deformation states. This
method then used conventional force based procedures to allocate lateral resistance in a
structure. Browning (2001) proposed a method in which a target drift is specified and design
is carried out with the goal of achieving specified deformation limits. However, in this
method there is no specified limit to member rotation and ductility and consequently no
direct control over damage limit states. The design procedure provided by SEAOC (1999)
similarly specifies a target drift without consideration for the ductility demands imposed on
the structure. Chopra and Goel (2001) have presented a design method which utilizes an
inelastic design spectrum combined with specified drift and rotation limits, thus explicitly
considering inelastic action and damage limit states.
While some procedures consider multiple performance objectives, many of these
procedures consider the life safety objective as the sole criterion. Emerging performancebased design methods dictate that immediate operation must also be considered during a
seismic design procedure as a means to meet societal performance expectations (FEMA,
1997). Therefore, for a displacement based design method to be used in conjunction with
performance-based design, it must also properly consider multiple performance objectives. A
two-level displacement design method is presented in this paper for use with bridge piers that
can be treated as single-degree of freedom; however this procedure can easily be extended to
include a variety of other performance objectives. The method discussed herein is presented

as a framework for use in reliability based design as uncertainties in seismic design are
explicitly considered. This method assumes initial member sizing has been performed such
that an initial column diameter has been previously determined. For this paper, foundation
flexibility is neglected, but this procedure can be easily extended to consider the effects of
flexible boundary conditions.
The two performance objectives that are considered in this paper are immediate operation
and life safety. The goal of the immediate operation performance objective is to control
structural damage and residual displacements such that an aerial structure can be reopened
shortly after a moderately strong seismic event with little to no repair, and minimal
interruption to traffic flow. In the method presented herein, longitudinal reinforcement tensile
and concrete compressive strains and residual displacements are limited in order to meet this
performance requirement. Earthquake demands from a 50% probability of exceedance in 50
years are considered appropriate for this performance objective in this paper (50/50).
The life safety performance objective implies a structure will be brought significantly
beyond the elastic limit during a rare but strong intensity ground motion. Significant inelastic
response and damage, as well as development of life-hazardous conditions, but no collapse,
are expected in parts of the structure. Typically, regions of inelastic response develop in the
form of flexural plastic hinges. These regions must be recognized in the design stage and be
detailed through capacity design to ensure the chosen inelastic mechanism is able to form and
be maintained (Priestley et al., 1996). In the case of the bridge pier discussed in this paper,
this mechanism comes as the development of a flexural plastic hinge at the column base.
Limits on concrete compressive and longitudinal reinforcement tensile strains are used to
determine reliable system displacement limits. Demands for this performance objective are
based on a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 year seismic event (2/50).
DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM CAPACITY AND DEMANDS
PROBABILISTIC FRAMEWORK

In seismic design, much the same as in all structural design, there is uncertainty in both
structural demands and capacities. A fraction of the uncertainty is epistemic in nature and
could be reduced with future knowledge. In terms of demand, the exact nature of future
seismic actions a structure may undergo is not known during design and consequently in

practice structures must be designed to some derived demand. In terms of capacity, the
displacement capacity corresponding to a given damage limit state of a reinforced concrete
member cannot be determined exactly. In seismic design this is even truer as a members
displacement capacity is also a function of the demand due to the progressive formation of
damage during excitation. Furthermore, the uncertainty associated with structural behavior
comes not only in the form of variability in material properties and construction quality, but
also time dependant variations due to such phenomenon as strain rate and strain aging
(Restrepo et al., 1994) and in some special cases due to low temperature (Suleiman et al.,
2006), creep and shrinkage. The uncertainty in both potential seismic actions and structural
behavior exemplifies the need for seismic design of structures to be performed in the context
of reliability based procedures. The method present in this paper is developed within a
framework such that the seismic design can be performed in a probabilistic context. There are
a variety of factors presented in this paper that are intended to address uncertainties in design;
however, significant effort is required to calibrate these values.
DESIGN SPECTRUM

An underlying assumption of the proposed design method is that reasonable elastic design
spectra are employed. The design method presented herein assumes a design spectrum which
is characterized by a constant acceleration, constant velocity, and constant displacement
regions. A representative displacement design spectrum consistent with these parameters is
shown in Figure 1. Design spectra produced through NEHRP, Eurocode 8, and proposed
NCHRP/AASHTO provisions have these characteristics with the exception that Eurocode 8
also includes a fourth region for long-period structures in which the spectral displacement is
equivalent to the peak ground displacement (FEMA, 1997; CEN, 1998; Imbsen, 2006).
NEHRP and NCHRP/AASHTO provisions indicate that the constant displacement region
begins at a significantly longer period as compared to the Eurocode 8 provisions. A
comprehensive study on the characteristics of long period displacement response spectra has
shown that there are a variety of factors influencing the location and relative magnitude of
the constant displacement regions (Faccioli et al., 2003). The significant difference between
the various design provisions combined with the results of the aforementioned study indicate
a lack consistency in codified earthquake characteristics and a general lack of understanding
of the nature of seismic demands.

In a general sense, design spectra are developed through review of earthquake ground
records, an assessment of potential source mechanisms, attenuation laws, structural damping
assumptions and local site conditions. The seismic demands used in practice represent some
probabilistic demand level based on current state-of-knowledge. As the displacement based
method presented herein is intended to be used in a probabilistic context, the uncertainty in
the seismic demands must be unambiguously considered. Consequently, probability of
exceedance for a given spectrum may not be appropriate for achieving an overall reliability
desired. In practice, it is common to consider the mean value of seismic demand for design
(Abrahamson and Bommer, 2005). It is possible that a different probabilistic demand level
may be desirable and for the purposes of the proposed method, a scaling factor, analogous to
the load factor in the Load and Factor Resistance Design (LFRD) in the design for gravity
loading, is introduced to account for uncertainties in the design seismic demand and to
modify a given spectrum to some other probabilistic level. This factor, CQ, will be applied to
the elastic design spectrum to modify the spectral values as desired. It highly likely that this
modification factor be period dependant as the current understanding of earthquake ground
motions creates a situation where the level of uncertainty is not constant for all structural
periods (Crowley et. al, 2005). In the event that site-specific spectra are developed, the design
spectrum can be generated such that the values represent a given level of reliability resulting
in an uncertainty factor equal to unity.
DAMPING

Many displacement-based design methods use the concept of equivalent viscous damping
in developing the displacement demands on a system (Chopra and Goel, 2001; Priestley and
Kowalsky, 2000; SEAOC, 1999). A major assumption used in these cases is that hysteretic
damping can be converted to viscous damping based on characteristics of a quasi-static
hysteretic relationship. Concerns regarding this assumption relate to the nature of viscous
damping, which is velocity dependant, unlike hysteretic damping which relies on large
inelastic displacement cycles. Furthermore, the quantification of hysteretic damping based on
static testing implies the system undergoes full displacement cycles constantly, which is
unlikely to occur during actual earthquake excitation. Increasing the level of damping based
on equivalent viscous damping may lead to an underestimation of seismic displacement
demands and misrepresentation of system response unless statistically based correction
factors are implemented in the design procedure.

For the purposes of this procedure, the authors propose the use of two damping ratios
based on the seismic design level without consideration of equivalent viscous damping.
Damping ratios of 2% and 5% are recommended for the 50/50 and 2/50 level events,
respectively. The lower damping ratio for the immediate operation level is intended to reflect
the lower amount of inelastic action resulting from the seismic demands associated with this
performance objective. As most design spectra are provided for a damping ratio equal to 5%,
a modification factor is needed to alter the spectral values based on the desired damping
level. A variety of methods have been developed to modify the design spectra based on
damping (Kawashima and Aizawa, 1986; FEMA, 1997; Fu and Cherry, 1999, NCHRP,
2001). An appropriate model must be selected in calibrating this design method.
INELASTIC RESPONSE

Both immediate operation and life safety performance objectives are expected to produce
inelastic structural response during seismic actions. Consequently, the elastic spectral
displacements which are used must be modified to account for inelasticity. Many design
procedures currently in use in the United States are based on the Equal Displacement
Concept, that is, the inelastic displacement demand is the equal to the elastic demand
(Caltrans, 2004; AASHTO 2004). This relationship stems back to a study conducted by
Veletsos and Newmark (1960) in which the El Centro ground motion record was analyzed for
a variety of inelastic and elastic systems. Results from that study indicated that for low to
medium frequencies the elastic and inelastic displacements are nearly equal and for higher
frequencies the Equal Energy Concept was valid. Many studies have shown that the Equal
Displacement Concept provides an acceptable estimate for median inelastic displacement
demands for longer periods but is not valid in short period structures (Chopra, 2001; Miranda
and Bertero, 1994). Most importantly, it has been shown that this concept only represents
median response with no consideration for dispersion, which can be significant (Ruiz-Garcia
and Miranda, 2003). Understanding the short-period displacement amplification, Caltrans
(1999) recommends that designers modify the displacement demand for structures with
periods less than 0.7 seconds but provides no insight into the magnitude of this modification
factor. Proposed NCHRP/AASHTO design provisions also include provisions to account for
the increase in displacement demands due to inelastic actions (Imbsen, 2006). The design
method presented in this paper takes into consideration the inelastic displacement
magnification and associated dispersion over all periods in a single formulation.

For the proposed design method, the elastic displacement demand taken from design
spectra are modified by the inelastic displacement ratio, CR , to provide an estimate of the
inelastic displacement demand. The inelastic displacement ratio is defined as:

CR =

i
e

(1)

where i is the inelastic displacement demand and e is the elastic spectral displacement
demand.
Values of the inelastic displacement ratio cannot be determined in closed-form for
general earthquake excitation and must be calculated through a series of non-linear timehistory analyses. Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda (2003) performed a series of analyses on single
degree-of-freedom systems with constant damping to quantify this value over a variety of
parameters when subjected to far field ground motions. A similar study was performed in
developing the design method presented herein except tangent stiffness damping was
considered. Both studies indicate that there is a significant amount of variation in the inelastic
displacement ratio due to the characteristics of the input ground motion record. Figure 2
shows the basic trends associated with the inelastic displacement ratio as compared to the
fundamental period.

Results from the authors investigation were used to develop the

following relationship for the inelastic displacement ratio:

CR =

0.5 1
1.7 T 0.3

+1

(2)

where is the displacement ductility and T is the structural period. This relationship
represents the 90th percentile of results. This percentile is determined based on the apparent
log-normal distribution of inelastic displacement demand for a given period. The relationship
is valid for displacement ductility values up to 8 with structural periods larger than 0.3
seconds located on firm soils.
As multiple damping ratios are proposed for this design method, the influence of damping
on inelastic response was also investigated. Results indicate that a reduction in the tangent
stiffness viscous damping ratio will lead to a reduction in the inelastic displacement ratio for
all periods. For the purposes of the proposed design method, the same inelastic displacement
relationship will be used for both performance objectives, resulting in a slightly higher

percentile of inelastic displacement demands for the immediate operation performance

objective.
The relationship presented in Equation 2 was developed based on a series of non-linear
analyses of single degree-of-freedom systems subjected to far field ground motion records on
firm soils. To determine the effectiveness of the proposed relationship for near fault events, a
series of analyses were conducted on non-linear single degree-of-freedom oscillators
subjected to ground motion records with near field characteristics. The ground motion
records used for this investigation were selected based on directivity and fling-step
characteristics observed in the records. Results from these analyses indicate that directivity
effects can lead to more severe inelastic displacement demands and the proposed relationship
may severely underestimate inelastic seismic demands. Consequently, the proposed equation
is only recommended for structures located where near fault ground motion characteristics
are not anticipated. Future efforts are needed to develop appropriate inelastic displacement
relationships for near field actions.
COMBINATION OF DISPLACEMENT AMPLIFICATION FACTORS

Both the ground motion uncertainty and the inelastic displacement factors must be
applied to the elastic spectral displacement demand to provide an appropriate design
displacement demand. The likelihood that a given input ground motion will result in both an
elastic displacement demand that is larger than the design value and an inelastic displacement
ratio greater than that provided by Equation 2 is small. Consequently, an absolute sum of the
modifications factors may be overly conservative. A more reasonable combination is using a
square-root-sum-of-squares relationship to create a generalized modification factor:

C = (CQ 1) 2 + (CR 1) 2 + 1

(3)

A key objective of this paper is to present a framework for reliability-based displacementbased design. Consequently, future studies may determine other factors need to be applied to
the design ordinate obtained from an elastic design spectrum. Therefore, it is more
appropriate to present this generalized modification factor as a combination of all factors
deemed appropriate for considerations as follows:

C =

(C 1)
i

+1

(4)

where Ci 1 and represents any factor used to modify the elastic design displacement.
The resulting design inelastic seismic displacement demand in the constant acceleration
and constant velocity regions is defined as:
u = C T

(5)

with defined as the slope of the elastic displacement response spectrum in the constant
velocity region for a given performance objective (see Figure 1).
DISPLACEMENT CAPACITY

For the design method presented herein, displacement limits corresponding to a given
damage limit state are calculated based on curvature relationships. Displacement limits for a
member deformed beyond the elastic limit are determined by separating the yield and plastic
displacements. The yield displacement is determined considering a linear variation of
curvature from the center of mass of the superstructure to the idealized yield curvature at the
base of the column. The assumed curvature profile at yield is shown in Figure 3a. The
idealized yield curvature can be determined using the relationship developed by Priestley
(2003):

y =

y
D

(6)

where is a section shape factor, y is the yield strain of reinforcing steel, and D is the
diameter of the column. The related yield displacement for a column of idealized height, h,
is:
y =

y h2
3

(7)

The yield displacement defined from Equation 7 assumes a column on an infinitely rigid
foundation, an assumption which is not acceptable for most bridge applications. Considering
foundation flexibility results in larger yield displacements and can play a significant role in
this displacement design method. If assuming the column behaves elastic-perfectly plastic,
the displacement resulting from flexibility in the foundation is a function of the flexural
design moment, Mdesign, which is an end result of this procedure. This necessitates an initial
assumption and subsequent iteration of the procedure in order to converge on the final

flexural design moment. Foundation flexibility is not explored in the current paper;
consequently the foundation is idealized with perfect fixity.
Beyond the elastic limit, the displacement capacity is derived from a combination of yield
and plastic curvatures. The assumed curvature profile at the ultimate state is presented in
Figure 3b. The plastic curvature can be determined based on a specified ultimate curvature
ductility with the plastic curvature:

p = ( 1) y

(8)

Using the defined curvature profile, the plastic displacement is calculated as:
lp

p = p lp h
2

(9)

where lp is the idealized plastic hinge length. For the life safety performance objective, where
curvature ductility values greater than 5 are anticipated, the plastic hinge length can be take
as one-half the column diameter or it can be calculated based on other recommendations such
as those by Priestley et al. (1996) or Hines et al. (2004). While these references provide fairly
deterministic values for the equivalent plastic hinge length, there can be significant variation
in the actual spread of plasticity. This dispersion can relate to material properties, axial load
effects, and column detailing.
While specifying a value for the curvature ductility provides a means to calculate the
ultimate displacement capacity and affords some level of insight into damage in a member, it
does not directly relate damage and displacement. Strain level in a member offers a more
rational means to predict damage in a reinforced concrete member. Consequently, it is
beneficial to relate the strain state to curvature ductility. Properties of a given section and
axial loading affect the strain-ductility relationship. In order to develop relationships between
strain and curvature ductility, a series of moment-curvature analyses are required. An
example result of this type of analysis is presented in Figure 4, where two moment curvature
analyses were performed for a given column configuration subjected to two different axial
loads.
From the moment-curvature results, strain states are identified and relationships between
axial force and curvature ductility can be developed. For this example three damage states are
considered which represent certain strain states in the concrete and steel. Damage State I

represents minimal damage in a reinforced concrete member, and is associated with a strain
in unconfined concrete of -0.004 or strain in longitudinal reinforcing steel of 0.01.
Damage State II represents a state in which a section is slightly damaged but repairable,
and is based on incipient spalling of the concrete cover when confined concrete strain equals
-0.004 or when longitudinal reinforcing steel begins to buckle due to cyclic loading. The
condition which leads to cyclic bar buckling can be adopted from the work of Rodriguez et
al. (1999) or from the following simple relationship:
4s
3db su

100
2

14

s c =

(10)

where s and c are the strains in steel and concrete, respectively, at the location of extreme
longitudinal reinforcement under a single displacement cycle, s is the transverse
reinforcement spacing, db is the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement and su is the
tensile strain at the peak axial stress of the longitudinal reinforcement. The value of c must
be less than or equal to the spalling strain of the concrete cover (i.e. the cover must have
spalled).
Damage State III represents the ultimate curvature state defined by the crushing of the
confined concrete core or the cyclic fracture of reinforcing steel. An in depth series of
analyses are required to develop equations relating given strain states to curvature ductility.
Table 1 provides a comparison of these three damage states with the seismic demand and
performance levels as considered in this paper.
While the previous procedure provides a reasonable method for determining displacement
capacity of a member based on curvature, there is inherent variability in the actual
displacement capacity due to material variation, construction quality, and relationships
between strain and a given damage state. To address the uncertainty in actual displacement
capacity, a reduction factor is applied to the plastic displacement resulting in what is
classified as the reliable ultimate displacement capacity. The yield displacement will be
assumed valid without modification. The resulting ultimate displacement capacity is:

u = y + DS p

(11)

where DS is the plastic displacement reduction factor for a given damage state. This factor is
analogous to the strength reduction factor employed in LFRD. The value for the reduction

factor is expected to be different for each damage state due to the lack of understanding of
the behavior of reinforced concrete members to earthquake demands at various damage
states.
DESIGN PROCEDURE

The design method presented herein is intended for use with single degree-of-freedom
systems as shown in Figure 5 that can be characterized by elastic-perfectly plastic response.
Only flexural deformation modes are considered in determining the displacement due to
seismic loading of the columns with foundation flexibility neglected. No effects due to
rotatory inertia of the supported mass are considered.
A flow diagram for the design of a bridge pier using this method is provided in Figure 6.
Nearly identical procedures are used for both the immediate operation and life safety
performance objectives. The differences are that the limiting curvature ductility value should
be specified at a lower value based on the desire to limit structural damage and a limit on
residual displacement must also be considered. The end result for both performance
objectives is a seismic base moment for flexural reinforcement design of the plastic hinge,
with the more critical value being used for design. The life safety design procedure is
presented first, followed by the immediate operation procedure, and recommended capacity
design considerations.
LIFE SAFETY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

Prior to performing the seismic design, a preliminary column size must be selected based
on gravity load and anticipated seismic demands. As a first step, an appropriate damage state
must be selected along with an appropriate curvature ductility value. For columns that are
appropriately detailed for significant ductility demand, it is likely that curvature ductility
levels of 14-18 can be achieved. Yield and plastic displacement can subsequently be
determined from Equations 7 and 9, respectively. The resulting displacement ductility
capacity is:

u y + DS p
=
y
y

(12)

To determine the actual inelastic displacement ratio, CR, an initial guess of the structural
period is required. With the initial guess for period, the inelastic displacement ratio can be

determined from Equation 2 and the generalized modification factor from Equation 3. A new
structural period is then calculated by using the relationship from Equation 5 using the
updated modification factor. This process is repeated until the structural period has
converged. The seismic base shear coefficient is then calculated based on principles of
structural dynamics assuming elastic-perfectly plastic behavior:
2
2 y
Cs =

T g

(13)

where g is the acceleration due to gravity. This base shear coefficient is then be used to
determine a flexural design base moment:

M design = Cs W h

(14)

This design moment will later be compared with the design moment for the immediate
operation performance objective to determine the governing performance objective for
flexural design.
IMMEDIATE OPERATION PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE

The curvature ductility selected for the immediate operation performance objective
should be based on strain damage limit states in the column representative of minor and
repairable damage, such as Damage State I as previously described. It is expected that the
curvature ductility based on strain states will be between 4-8 for this performance objective.
An appropriate residual drift ratio should also be considered. Based on Japanese
recommendations following the Kobe Earthquake, a reasonable maximum value for residual
drift for immediate use following a seismic event is 1% (Japan Road Association, 2002). As
stated previously, lower levels of damping should be considered for this performance
objective. The authors recommend considering mass proportional damping of 2%
representing the lower level of damage that is expected for this level of seismic demand.
In specifying lower curvature ductility values it is important to consider the relationship
between curvature ductility and the spread of plasticity in reinforced concrete columns. Prior
research has shown that a non-linear variation of plastic hinge length exists with varying
levels of curvature ductility (Hines et al., 2004). Significant non-linearity between curvature
ductility and plastic hinge length typically stabilizes around curvature ductility of 5. At
ductility levels that are larger than 5, the plastic hinge length continues to grow due in part to
strain hardening of the reinforcing steel, but this increase is much less significant than that

below ductility of 5 and can be idealized as constant. The authors recommend using a plastic
hinge length the same as that recommended for the life safety performance objective when
curvature ductility is greater than 5 and a linear variation from zero to this value for curvature
ductilities between 1 and 5.
As a goal of the immediate operation condition is that the structure have minimal damage
and only minor residual displacements, both criterion must be considered. In order to
determine which case controls, the residual displacement should be calculated based on the
damage criteria and compared to the residual drift limit specified. If this residual
displacement is greater than the specified limit, then the ultimate displacement must be
reduced to satisfy residual displacement requirements.
Unfortunately, appropriate methods to determine residual displacement from a design
aspect have yet to be fully developed (Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda, 2005; Pampanin et al.,
2002; Kawashima et al., 1998) especially considering soil-foundation-structure interaction.
Consequently, the authors recommend considering the residual displacement in a
deterministic basis equal to that obtained upon unloading from peak displacement. In typical
reinforced concrete systems, unloading softening is observed resulting in residual
displacements that are less than the plastic displacement. This behavior can be considered
through the use of an unloading rule that considers Emori Unloading (Otani, 1974). For the
purposes of this study, the residual displacement is defined as:
R = u (1 1 )

(15)

where is a factor between 0 and 0.5 that is used to consider Emori unloading. It is apparent
from Equation 15 that the residual displacement is a function of the ultimate displacement,
which is one of the results from this design procedure. As the Emori unloading factor is an
exponential multiplier and can vary anywhere between 0 and 0.5, there is no general closed
form solution to determine the ultimate displacement based on a given residual displacement
limit. However, for the extreme values where is taken as 0 and 0.5, the plastic
displacement limit based on residual offset considerations is:
p=0 =

and,

R ,max

DS

(16)

 = 0.5

y 2 + 4 y R ,max y
1

+
DS R ,max
2

(17)

where R ,max is the specified maximum residual displacement. For the general case where the
alpha value is not 0 or 0.5, a simple method to determine the maximum plastic displacement
based on residual offset considerations is through iteration, similar to what is done to
determine CR . Alternatively, an approximation for the maximum plastic displacement limit
based on residual offset considerations for an arbitrary is a linear variation between the
two extreme values:

p ( ) = p=0 + 2 ( p=0.5 p=0 ) =

+
R ,max
DS

2y + 4 y R.max y

(18)

For the purposes of the parametric studies in this paper, an Emori unloading factor of 0 will
be considered.
It is important to note that in situations where residual drift considerations limit the
immediate operation design, it is possible that the curvature ductility will be lower than 5 and
the plastic hinge length would not have stabilized. In this case, iteration must occur to
account for the effect of decreasing plastic hinge length.
Once the plastic displacement has been determined, the remainder of the procedure is
identical to that for life safety design.
MEMBER DESIGN

After carrying out the design method for both performance objectives, the largest design
moment shall be used for design of flexural reinforcement in the plastic hinge region. In the
event that the axial load varies due to seismic excitation, the design moment shall be
considered in conjunction with the minimum axial load to designing flexural reinforcement.
Material properties used for design in the plastic hinge region should be nominal strength
values. This design moment is used only for design of flexural reinforcement in the plastic
hinge region; capacity design must be used for the design of all other portions of the column
(Priestley et al., 1996; Caltrans, 2004).
For example, once the column flexural reinforcement has been selected, design shear
demand for the column should be determined based on capacity design principles. To

determine the overstrength shear demand, the nominal moment resistance can be increased
by a series of factors to account for all sources of overstrength or moment-curvature analysis
can be conducted using the actual reinforcement selected with expected material properties
(including work hardening) along with the largest axial load expected. It is essential to
consider the maximum shear that could be induced in the column from flexural hinging in
order to ensure the selected mode of inelastic deformation is able to be achieved and
maintained (Kowalsky et al., 1994).
Capacity design should also be used when bar curtailment is desired. In this case the
overstrength moment demand should also be considered to determine the appropriate location
to terminate flexural reinforcement. Along with overstrength, curtailment of flexural
reinforcement must also be performed considering tension shift effects (Park and Paulay,
1975). Capacity design procedures are essential to ensure the intended deformation mode and
seismic response is achieved.
PARAMETRIC ANALYSES

A variety of analyses were conducted in order to determine the influence that certain
parameters may have on design using the proposed displacement-based design method. The
influence of seismic demand, curvature ductility, residual drift limit, column height, and
column diameter were investigated. For all analyses conducted below, displacement
reduction factors were considered equal to unity.
SEISMIC DEMAND AND CURVATURE DUCTILITY

The effect of seismic demand and curvature ductility was investigated by performing the
design procedure for a range of values of and . The following parameters were held
constant: column diameter (1.8 m), column height (6.0 m), plastic hinge length ( column
diameter), CQ (1.25), and yield strain of steel (0.00215). Results from these analyses are
shown in Figure 7.
To gain insight into the relationship between immediate operation and life safety
performance objective demands, consider a desired based shear coefficient equal to 0.1. Such
a flexural design based shear coefficient typically facilitates construction without significant
congestion of longitudinal reinforcing steel. If the column was detailed to achieve significant
ductility ( = 22 ) with the immediate operation ductility demand limited to = 6 , the ratio

between the relative seismic demand would be on the order of 2. This implies that the
frequently occurring earthquake is significant in relation to the maximum credible
earthquake.
In the same figure three regions are labeled: low seismic, moderate seismic and high
seismic. These regions relate to the required level of seismic detailing for the desired flexural
design base shear coefficient of 0.1. For the specified column configuration (height and
diameter) and desired design coefficient, the required level of seismic detailing can be readily
determined by finding in what region the slope, , lies. For low seismic (i.e. 6 )
minimal prescriptive seismic detailing is required, for moderate seismic (i.e. 6 < 14 )
some level of detailing is required and for the high seismic (i.e. 14 < 22 ) significant
confinement and detailing is required. The region past = 22 is labeled an unfeasible
domain as reliably such curvature ductility is unlikely to be achievable.
RESIDUAL DRIFT RATIO

Figure 8 provides a comparison of the design base shear coefficient for various plastic
drift ratios, R , and for a constant curvature ductility, = 6 , which is a value within the
range expected for the immediate operation limit state. These values were obtained using
identical parameters as the previous case with the addition of the Emori unloading factor,

= 0 . It is evident that the plastic drift ratio selected will have a significant impact on the
design for the immediate operation performance objective. From inspection of the design
equations, it is apparent that for a given column diameter and height, the controlling
immediate operation consideration can be readily determined based on curvature ductility
and residual drift limits when considering a structure that unloads with the same loading
stiffness. From the results for this specific situation, it is apparent that the curvature ductility
limit of 6 will result in similar design requirements as a residual drift limit of 1%. For cases
where the Emori unloading factor is taken greater than 0, the curvature limit would stand out
as the controlling criteria. For the purposes of a frequently occurring earthquake, it is
desirable to specify a residual drift ratio less than or equal to 1% to satisfy the immediate
operation performance objective. For the case shown, it appears that to meet the objectives of
this performance objective both the residual drift limitation and curvature criterion specified

will yield nearly identical design demands; however as the column diameter and height are
varied, this will no longer hold true.
COLUMN DIAMETER AND HEIGHT

The effect of column diameter and height on immediate operation performance objective
was studied by varying these two parameters for a given seismic demand (i.e. set equal to
50 mm/sec). It is observed that for a given column height as the column diameter is increased
the curvature ductility limitation will become slightly more controlling as compared to the
residual drift limitation (Figure 9a). However, it is apparent from this figure that for a
constant curvature ductility there is not a significant increase in the flexural design base shear
coefficient as the column diameter increases. Similarly, when column height is increased
with the column diameter and seismic demand remaining constant, the curvature ductility
limit becomes slightly more controlling as compared to the residual drift limit (Figure 9b).
However, both of these variations are fairly trivial and allude to that fact that the criterion
that controls the immediate operation criteria is fairly insensitive to the column dimensions.
The influence of column diameter and height on the life safety performance objective is
shown in Figure 10. For the life safety performance objected, a similar trend is observed as
for the immediate operation case, where an increase in column diameter leads to an increase
in flexural design moment due to the decrease in plastic curvature for a given curvature
ductility due to the decrease in yield curvature. A counterintuitive trend is observed for the
taller columns where the base shear coefficient appears almost completely insensitive to the
column diameter. This would signify that for the taller column height, the column dimension
could be selected based on a desired reinforcement ratio allowing for freedom in design that
would facilitate constructability.
Also shown on this figure are certain column aspect ratios. The results of this design
procedure are not shown for aspect ratios less than 2.5 as such ratios are not practical for
design. A significant observation is that the base shear coefficient is directly related to the
column diameter and not the aspect ratio. As the column height is typically defined based on
site considerations, the trends observed signify that his displacement-based procedure
facilitates rapid manipulation of the column diameter as a means to optimize the flexural
design.

CONCLUSIONS

Displacement-based design procedures provide rational means to design structures to

resist seismic actions and can provide excellent means to predict structural damage. A twolevel displacement-based method was presented which allows for design considering both
immediate operation and life safety performance objectives. This method was developed in a
probabilistic context to allow for the explicit consideration of uncertainties associated with
seismic design. The goal of the immediate operation performance objective is to limit
structural damage and residual drifts, while the goal of the life safety performance objective
is to prevent loss of life. While iteration is required in carrying out this design method, the
procedure lends itself well to simple computer coding which can perform all necessary
iterations. Though this procedure has been presented for single degree-of-freedom systems
subjected to far field ground motions, it has the potential to be extended to multiple degreeof-freedom systems and near fault systems through the development of appropriate inelastic
displacement ratios and multi-modal behavior for these situations. In order to ensure the
desired structural mode of response is achieved, capacity design considering all sources of
overstrength must be performed to ensure premature failure does not occur.
A parametric study was performed in order to determine the influence that certain design
variables have on the seismic demand calculated with the method presented. Results from
this study indicate that the proposed method is in line with trends observed in the seismic
behavior of structures. An overview of the results of this parametric analysis is:

Based on curvature ductility limits, for common seismic demand levels life safety
performance objectives will control the flexural design as compared to immediate
operation consideration.

Through strict residual drift limits, the immediate operation limit state has the potential
to control the design. However, the resulting curvature ductility demand for immediate
operation indicates the structure would likely not exhibit appreciable damage.

For immediate operation design at a given seismic demand level, an increase in

column diameter causes curvature ductility to become marginally more controlling as
compared to residual drift.

Increasing column height results in curvature ductility limits becoming slightly more
controlling for immediate operation design; however this increase appears negligible.

 Flexural base shear coefficients for life safety increase rather linearly with increasing
column diameter; however this trend appears minor for taller columns signifying the
flexural design base shear coefficient is insensitive to column diameter for tall
columns.

A decrease in column height can lead to a significant increase in the design base shear.
Further work is needed in order to extend this design procedure to multiple degree-offreedom systems such as multi-column bents. Near fault effects must also be considered
through further investigation of their effects on inelastic displacement demands. Instrumental
to these two tasks is the development of inelastic displacement relationships for columns in
double curvature and near fault sites.
The proposed procedure allows designers to design aerial structures rationally and
adequately consider multiple design level events to meet the demands of emerging
performance-based seismic design methodologies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TEXT
APPENDIX A DESIGN EXAMPLE

The following provides a design example using the displacement-based design procedure
presented in this paper. A variety of modification factors are used in this example, however
these values are not considered appropriate for all design situations.
PROBLEM STATEMENT

A portion of an elevated highway structure, similar to the one shown in Figure 5, shall be
designed to resist seismically induced displacements based on the design procedure presented
in this paper. The column is 7.2 meters tall from its base to the center of mass of the
superstructure. Preliminary sizing and form availability indicates an appropriate column
diameter is 1.8 meters (aspect ratio of 4). The equivalent plastic hinge length can be assumed
to equal one-half the column diameter. Seismic demands for the life safety performance
objective can be characterized by a slope of the 5% damped elastic displacement design
spectrum equal to 165 mm/sec. For the immediate operation performance objective, the slope

of the 2% damped elastic displacement design spectrum is 50 mm/sec. The displacement

modification factor, CQ, can be taken as 1.25.
Moment-curvature analyses have indicated that a curvature ductility of 18 may be used
for life safety performance level, and 6 for immediate operation performance level. The
acceptable residual drift limit for the immediate operation performance objective is 1%. The
plastic displacement reduction factor for immediate operation shall be taken as 0.90 while for
the life safety a factor of 0.85 should be used.
The nominal concrete compressive strength shall be taken as 30 MPa with the probable
concrete strength equal to 45 MPa. The nominal yield strength of the reinforcing steel is 414
MPa while the probable yield strength is 460 MPa with the modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa.
The seismic weight of system is 8000 kN (axial load ratio of 0.10), but due to seismic loading
the axial load on the column may vary from 6500 kN to 9500 kN.
Design the reinforced concrete column for flexure based on the displacement-based
design procedure presented and determine the design shear force based on capacity design.
SOLUTION

To determine the seismic design moment, perform the design procedure for both
performance objectives and determine the controlling case.
Immediate Operation Performance Objective

The idealized yield curvature, per Equation 6, is:

y =

y
D

2.25 0.00207
= 2.59 106 rad
mm
1800mm

The reference yield displacement, per Equation 7, is:

y =

y h2
3

2.59 106 rad

mm
3

( 7200mm )

= 44.7mm

The plastic curvature based on curvature ductility considerations, per Equation 8, is:

p = ( 1) y = (6 1) 2.59 106 rad mm = 1.29 105 rad mm

The resulting plastic displacement, per Equation 9, is:

lp

900mm

p = p l p h = 1.29 105 rad

900mm 7200mm
= 78.6mm
mm
2
2

The limiting value of residual displacement is:

R ,max = R ,max h = 0.01 7200mm=72mm

From inspection it is apparent that the residual drift limitation will control this design,
though the curvature limit yields very similar results. The updated plastic curvature, based on
residual drift limit limitations is:

p =

R ,max
72mm
=
= 1.19 105 rad
mm
900mm
l

l p h p 900mm 7200mm

Determine the actual curvature ductility:

6
5
y + p 2.59 10 rad mm + 1.19 10 rad mm
=
=
= 5.6
y
2.59 106 rad

mm

Note: As the curvature ductility remains greater than 5, the assumption that the plastic

hinge length is one-half the column diameter remains valid.

The reliable ultimate displacement capacity, per Equation 11, is:
u = y + DS p = 44.7mm + 0.90 72mm = 109.5mm
Reliable ultimate displacement ductility, per Equation 12, is:

u 109.5mm
=
= 2.4
y 44.7mm

As an initial guess say structural period, T, is 1 second. Inelastic displacement ratio, per
Equation 2, is:

CR =

0.5 1
1.7 T 0.3

2.40.5 1
+1 =
+ 1 = 1.33
1.7 10.3

Generalized displacement modification factor, per Equation 3, is:

C = (CQ 1) 2 + (CR 1) 2 + 1 = (1.25 1) 2 + (1.33 1) 2 + 1 = 1.42

Recalculated period, based on Equation 5, is:

T=

u
109.5mm
=
= 1.63sec
C 1.42 60 mm
sec

Summary of iteration to determine period, T:

T [sec]

CR

1
1.63
1.67
1.67

1.33
1.29
1.28
1.28

1.42
1.38
1.38
1.38

Flexural design based shear coefficient, per Equation 13, is:

2
2
44.7mm
2 y 2
Cs =
=
= 0.06


T g 1.68sec 9810 mm 2
sec

Flexural design moment for plastic hinge, per Equation 14, is:

M design , IO = Cs W h = 0.06 8000kN 7.2m = 3696kN m

Life Safety Performance Objective

The plastic curvature, per Equation 8, is:

p = ( 1) y = (18 1) 2.59 106 rad mm = 4.40 105 rad mm

The resulting plastic displacement, per Equation 9, is:
lp

900mm

p = p l p h = 4.40 105 rad

900mm 7200mm
= 267.2mm
mm
2
2

The reliable ultimate displacement capacity, per Equation 11, is:

u = y + DS p = 44.7mm + 0.85 267.2mm = 271.9mm
Reliable ultimate displacement ductility, per Equation 12, is:

u 271.9mm
=
= 6.1
44.7mm
y

As an initial guess say structural period, T, is 1 second. Inelastic displacement ratio, per
Equation 2, is:

CR =

0.5 1
1.7 T 0.3

+1 =

6.10.5 1
+ 1 = 1.86
1.7 10.3

Generalized displacement modification factor, per Equation 3, is:

C = (CQ 1) 2 + (CR 1) 2 + 1 = (1.25 1) 2 + (1.86 1) 2 + 1 = 1.90

Recalculated period, based on Equation 5, is:

T=

u
271.9mm
=
C 1.90 165 mm

= 0.87 sec
sec

Summary of iteration to determine period, T:

T [sec]

CR

1
0.87
0.85
0.85

1.86
1.90
1.90
1.91

1.90
1.93
1.94
1.94

Flexural design based shear coefficient, per Equation 13, is:

2
2
44.7mm
2 y 2
Cs =

=
= 0.25

T g 0.85sec 9810 mm 2
sec

Flexural design moment for plastic hinge, per Equation 14, is:

M design , LS = Cs W h = 0.25 8000kN 7.2m = 14359kN m

COLUMN DESIGN

Based on the two performance objectives considered, the life safety criteria will control
the design of flexural reinforcement in the column. As the axial load in the column can vary
during a seismic event, consider the minimum axial force in combination with the design
moment from the life safety performance objective to determine the required flexural
reinforcement. Nominal material properties should be considered in performing this design.
Making assumptions for the clear cover and transverse reinforcement, a reinforcing ratio of
approximately 1.7% will be adequate to resist to seismic demands.
Following the selection of the actual size and number of reinforcing bars, the section was
modeled in a moment-curvature program using expected material properties considering
work hardening along with the largest axial load expected. The ultimate moment determined

from this analysis was 1.6 times greater than the moment used for flexural reinforcement
design. Consequently, the shear reinforcement in the column should be design based on a
shear force equal to:

Vdesign =

o M design , LS

1.6 14359kN m
= 3091kN
7.2m

where is the overstrength factor.

As a comparison, the design base moment using a force-based approach considering the
effective column stiffness equal to half the gross stiffness yields a design moment of 49,738
kN-m, or about 3.5 times the design moment obtained through this procedure.
REFERENCES
AASHTO. 2004. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
Abrahamson, N.A. and Bommer, J.J. 2005. Probability and Uncertainty in Seismic Hazard Analysis.
Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 21, No. 2. pp. 603-607.
Aschheim, M.A. and Black, E.F. 2000. Yield Point Spectra for Seismic Design and Rehabilitation.
Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 16, No. 2. pp. 317-336.
Browning, J.P. 2001. Proportioning of Earthquake-Resistant RC Building Structures. American
Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 127, No. 2. pp. 145-151.
Caltrans. 1999. Memo to Designers 20-1. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Caltrans. 2004. Seismic Design Criteria Version 1.3. California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA.
Calvi, G.M. and Kingsley, G.R. 1995. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Multi-Degree-ofFreedom Bridge Structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol. 24, No. 9.
pp. 1247-1266.
CEN. 1998. Eurocode 8 Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures, European
Prestandard ENV Comit Europen de Normalisation, Brussels.
Chopra, A.K. 2001. Dynamics of Structures Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd
Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. 2001. Direct Displacement-Based Design: Use of Inelastic vs. Elastic
Design Spectra. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 17, No. 1 pp. 47-64.

Crowley, H., Bommer, J.J., Pinho, R. and Bird, J. 2005. The Impact of Epistemic Uncertainty on
Earthquake Loss Model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol. 34. pp. 16531685.
Faccioli, E., Paolucci, R. and Rey, J. 2003. Displacement Spectra for Long Periods. Earthquake
Spectra. Vol 20, No 2 pp. 347-376
FEMA. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitations of Buildings FEMA 273. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Fu, Y and Cherry, S. 1999. Simplified Seismic Code Design Procedure for Friction Damped Steel
Frames. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 26 pp. 55-71.
Hines, E.M., Restrepo, J.I., and Seible, F. 2004. Force-Displacement Characterization of WellConfined Bridge Piers. American Concrete Institute Structural Journal. Vol. 101, No. 4 pp. 537548.
Imbsem, R.A. 2006. Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges.
Japan Road Association. 2002. Design Specification of Highway Bridges Part V: Seismic Design.
Japan.
Kawashima, K. and Aizawa, K. 1986. Modification of Earthquake Response Spectra with Respect to
Damping Ratio. Proceedings of the Third U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Vol. 2 pp. 1107-1116
Kawashima, K., MacRae, G.A., Hoshikuma, J., and Nagaya, K. 1998. Residual Displacement
Response Spectrum. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol.
124, No. 5, pp. 523-530.
Kowalsky, M., Priestley, M.J.N., and MacRae, G. 1994. Displacement-Based Design: A Methodology
for Seismic Design Applied to Single Degree of Freedom Reinforced Concrete Structures. SSRP94/16. University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA.
Miranda, E. and Bertero, V.V. 1994. Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for EarthquakeResistant Design. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 10, No. 2. pp. 357-379.
Moehle, J.P. 1992. Displacement-Based Design of RC Structures Subjected to Earthquakes.
Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 403-428.
NCHRP. 2001. Comprehensive Specification for the Seismic Design of Bridges Revised LRFD Design
Specifications, Third Draft. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 12-49.
Washington, D.C.
Otani, S. 1974. Inelastic Analysis of R/C Frame Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers
Journal of the Structural Division. Vol. 100, No. ST7. pp. 1433-1449.

Pampanin, S., Christopoulos C., Priestley, M.J.N. 2002. Residual Deformations in the PerformanceSeismic Assessment of Frame Structures. Research Report No. ROSE-2002/02. European School
for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia, Italy.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. 1975. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Priestley, M.J.N. 2003. Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited. IUSS Press, Pavia,
Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Kowalsky, M.J. 2000. Direct Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Concrete
Buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 33,
No. 4, pp. 421-444.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M. 1996. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Restrepo-Posada, J.I., Dodd, L.L., Park, R., and Cooke, N. 1994. Variables Affecting Cyclic Behavior
of Reinforcing Steel. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 120, No. 11. pp. 3178-3196.
Rodriguez, M.E., Botero, J.C., and Villa, J. 1999. Cyclic Stress-Strain Behavior of Reinforcing Steel
Including Effect of Buckling. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 125, No. 6 pp. 605-612.
Ruiz-Garcia, J. and Miranda, E. 2003. Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Evaluating Existing
Structures.

Earthquake

Engineering

and

Structural

Dynamics.

32:1237-1258.

DOI:

10.1002/eqe.271.
Ruiz-Garcia, J. and Miranda, E. 2005. Residual Displacement Ratios for Assessment of Existing
Structurs. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 35:315-336. DOI:10.1002/eqe. 523.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). 1999. Recommended Lateral Force
Requirements and Commentary, 7th Edition. Sacramento, CA.
Suleiman, M.T., Sritharan, S., and White, D.J. 2006. Cyclic Lateral Load Response of Bridge
Column-Foundation-Soil Systems in Freezing Conditions. Journal of Structural Engineering.
Vol. 132, No. 11. pp. 1745-1754.
Sullivan, T.J., Calvi, G.M., Priestley, M.J.N., and Kowalsky, M.J. 2003. The Limitations and
Performances of Different Displacement Based Design Methods. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering. Vol. 7, Special Issue 1 pp. 201-241.
Veltsos, A.S. and Newmark, N.M. 1960. Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple
System to Earthquake Motion. Proceedings to the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. pp. 895-912.

Constant displacement

Constant velocity
Peak ground displacement
Constant acceleration

Period, T
Figure 1. Assumed displacement design spectrum

Dispersion decreases
Lognormal Fit

CR

CR =

0.5 1
1.7 T 0.3

+1

1
Median

90th Percentile

Period, T
Figure 2. Variation of inelastic displacement ratio compared to period

Idealized Behavior

Idealized Behavior

Actual Behavior

Actual Behavior

lp

u
Figure 3. Curvature profile a.) At idealized yield and b.) At ultimate

Moment

N
= 0.3
f c' Ag

Damage State III

Damage State II

Damage State I

N
= 0.0
f c' Ag

Curvature
Figure 4. Example moment-curvature results with three example damage states

Figure 5. Cantilever bridge pier a.) Transverse elevation and b.) Structural model

DBD
Bridge geometry, materials,
and seismic hazard
Damage limit states,

IO

LS

y =

y h2

y =

p = ( 1) y
l

p = p lp h p
2

u y + DS p
=
y
y

Modify p to
satisfy requirement
Yes

= u = y DS p
y
y
Yes

R = u (1 1 )

No

Modify a for
2% damping

Assume T

CR =

Use Calculated T

Repeat Procedure For Life Safety

Immediate
Occupancy

R > R ,max

0.5 1
1.7 T 0.3

+1

C = (CQ 1) 2 + (CR 1) 2 + 1

T=

u
C

T
Converge

No

Yes
2
2 y
Cs =

T

M design = Cs W h

Yes

Immediate
Occupancy
No

Stop

Figure 6. Design flow chart

No

Base Shear Coefficient

0.5

D = 1.8 m
h = 6.0 m
0

0.4

Moderate
Seismic

Low Seismic

0.3

High
Seismic
fe
Un

0.2

m
Do
le
b
i
as

ain

0.1
Desirable design coefficient

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Slope, , Characterizing a Portion of the Displacement Spectrum

[mm/sec]
Figure 7. Influence of variables and on the design for the life-safety performance objective

Base Shear Coefficient

0.05
= 6

D = 1.8 m
h = 6.0 m
k=0

0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0

10

20

30

40

Slope, , Characterizing a Portion of the Displacement Spectrum

[mm/sec]
Figure 8. Influence of plastic drift ratio on immediate occupancy design procedure

50

0.2

h = 6.0 m
a = 50 mm/sec
k=0

0.15

Base Shear Coefficient

Base Shear Coefficient

0.2

= 6

0.1

R = 1.5%
R = 2.0%

0.05

D = 1.2 m
a = 50 mm/sec
k=0

0.15

0.1
= 6

0.05

0
0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

2.1

Column Diameter [m]

2.4

10

Column Height [m]

Figure 9. a.) Influence of column diameter and b.) Influence of column height on immediate
occupancy design procedure considering various plastic drift ratios

Base Shear Coefficient

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

a = 200 mm/sec
mf = 18

h =8 m

1.2

1.4

h=9 m

1.6

1.8

2.2

Column Diameter [m]

Figure 10. Influence of column diameter and height on life safety design procedure

2.4

Damage
State
I
II
III

Probability of
Exceedance
50% in 50 years
10% in 50 years
2% in 50 years

Performance Level
Immediate Occupancy
Not Considered
Life Safety

Table 1. Comparison between damage states and seismic demand