Design of RC Bridge Columns For Near Fault Earthquakes SeyedCCEERReport13-13

Report No.
CCEER 13-13
DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE COLUMNS

FOR NEAR-FAULT EARTHQUAKES
Seyed Mohammad Seyed Ardakani
M. Saiid Saiidi
A report to the Federal Highway Administration

Contract No. DTFH61-07-C-00031
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research

University of Nevada, Reno
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, MS 258
1664 N. Virginia St.
Reno, NV 89557
July 2013
Abstract
Bridges are key components in the transportation network providing access for
emergency response vehicles following major earthquakes. The strong and long period
velocity pulse in the fault-normal component of near-fault ground motions exposes
structures in near-fault regions to high input energy that could result in high residual
displacements in bridge columns. The residual displacement in bridges plays a key role
in assessing whether a bridge should be kept open to traffic or closed for repair or
replacement. Currently there are no reliable provisions to account for residual
displacements caused by near-fault earthquakes in design of reinforced concrete bridge
columns. The main objective of the study was to develop a new guideline for the design
of reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to near-fault earthquakes. The goal of
the study was achieved through the following tasks: (1) determine the adequacy of
existing computer models to estimate residual displacements by comparing the results of
the experimental data for six large-scale reinforced concrete bridge columns to those of
nonlinear dynamic analyses, (2) determine the residual moment capacity of reinforced
concrete columns as a function of maximum displacement ductility, (3) determine critical
residual displacement limit with respect to structural performance, (4) develop a simple
method to estimate residual displacement, (5) develop residual displacement spectra for
different displacement ductilities, soil conditions, and earthquake characteristics, (6)
develop a step-by-step design guideline to control the residual drift ratio utilizing the
simple method or residual drift spectra with an illustrative example, and (7) evaluate the
impact of the proposed design guidelines in terms of cost by redesigning several
representative bridges from different parts of the United States. The analysis of residual
drift ratio limits indicated that circular bridge columns meeting current seismic codes are
able to carry large traffic loads even when the permanent lateral drift is 1.2% or higher,
depending on the column strength and geometry. It was found that residual drift ratio is
negligible (less than 1%) when one-second spectral acceleration is less than 0.4g. Also,
utilizing the proposed design method to control residual drift ratio has negligible effect
on the overall cost of the bridge.
Acknowledgements
The study presented in this dissertation was funded by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) through grant number DTFH61-07-C-00031. However, the
results and opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily
present the views of the sponsor. The support of the FHWA Research Program Manager,
Dr. Phil Yen, is appreciated.
Special thanks are due Dr. Paul Somerville, the consultant of the project, for
generating and providing synthetic near-fault ground motions. Mrs. Lucero Mesa from
South Carolina Department of Transportation and Mr. Josh Sletten from Utah
Department of Transportation are thanked for providing representative bridge plans from
their states. The assistance of Immanuel Pinachos in generating some of the residual
displacement spectra is also deeply valued.
This report is based on a doctoral dissertation prepared by the first author under
the supervision of the second author.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... i
Acknowledgements ...... ii
Table of Contents ..... iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures....... ix
Chapter 1.
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. General Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Characteristics of Near-Fault Ground Motions ......................................................................... 1
1.3. Previous Research ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 2.
Analytical Studies of Test Models ................................................................................... 6
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Column Models ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1. NF-1.................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2. NF-2.................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.3. MN .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.4. ETN .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.5. SETN ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.6. SVTN................................................................................................................................ 8
2.3. Shake Table Setup ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.4. Input Motions ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.5. Analytical Investigation ............................................................................................................ 9
2.5.1. Components of the Model ................................................................................................ 9
2.5.2. Material Models...............................................................................................................10
2.5.2.1. Concrete Models ..................................................................................................10
2.5.2.2. Steel Model ..........................................................................................................10
2.5.3. Strain Rate Effect ............................................................................................................10
2.5.4. Bond Slip Model..............................................................................................................11
2.5.5. Nonlinear Dynamic analyses ...........................................................................................11
2.6. Cumulative versus Single Motions ...........................................................................................12
Chapter 3.
Residual Moment Capacity of RC Columns .................................................................14
3.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................14

3.2. Current Design Practice ...........................................................................................................14
3.3. Formulation of Residual Moment Capacity Factor ..................................................................15
3.3.1. Simple model with no residual displacement ..................................................................16
3.3.2. Simple model with residual displacement .......................................................................16
3.3.2.1. Approach 1 ...........................................................................................................17
3.3.2.2. Approach 2 ...........................................................................................................17
3.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................17
Chapter 4.
Critical Residual Displacement Limits ..........................................................................19
4.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................19

4.2. Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement ...................................................19
4.3. Analytical Models ....................................................................................................................19
4.3.1. Analysis 1 ........................................................................................................................20
4.3.2. Analysis 2 ........................................................................................................................21
Chapter 5.
Simple Methods to Estimate Residual Displacement ...................................................22
5.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................22
iii
5.2. Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement ...................................................22

5.3. Methods for Estimating Residual Displacement ......................................................................23
5.3.1. Residual Displacement Based on Ground Motion Parameters ........................................24
5.3.2. Half-cycle Sinusoidal Method .........................................................................................25
5.3.3. Full-cycle Sinusoidal Method ..........................................................................................25
5.3.4. Main and Simplified Velocity Pulses of Near-fault Motions ..........................................26
5.3.5. Proposed Empirical Method ............................................................................................27
5.3.5.1. Version 1 ..............................................................................................................27
5.3.5.2. Version 2 ..............................................................................................................27
5.4. Comparison of Different Methods ...........................................................................................27
5.4.1. UCSD Column.................................................................................................................28
5.4.2. Results .............................................................................................................................28
Chapter 6.
Residual Displacement Spectra......................................................................................31
6.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................31

6.2. Near-fault Ground motions ......................................................................................................31
6.3. Approximate Zonation of United States ...................................................................................32
6.3.1. Pacific Northwest ............................................................................................................32
6.3.1.1. Site 1. Seattle (M 6.8, reverse (Seattle fault)) ......................................................33
6.3.1.2. Site 2. Eureka, California (M 7 to 8, reverse (Little Salmon and other faults)) ...33
6.3.2. Central and Southern California ......................................................................................33
6.3.2.1. Site 3. San Bruno, California (M 8, strike-slip (San Andreas Fault)) ..................34
6.3.2.2. Site 4. Berkeley, California (M 7, strike-slip (Hayward fault)) ...........................34
6.3.2.3. Site 5. Sylmar, California (M 7, reverse (San Fernando and other faults)) ..........34
6.3.3. Basin and Range (Intermountain West) ...........................................................................35
6.3.3.1. Site 6. Salt Lake City, Utah (M 7, normal (Wasatch fault)) .................................35
6.3.4. Central and Eastern United States ...................................................................................35
6.3.4.1. Site 7. Cheraw, Colorado (M 7, reverse (Cheraw fault)) .....................................35
6.3.4.2. Site 8. Tiptonville, Tennessee (M 7.5, strike-slip / reverse (New Madrid fault)) 35
6.3.4.3. Site 9. New York City, New York (M 6.5, reverse (Undefined fault)) ................36
6.4. Methodology to Develop Residual Drift Spectra .....................................................................36
6.5. Residual Drift Spectra ..............................................................................................................37
Chapter 7.
Bridge Column Design Procedure for Near-Fault Earthquakes ................................40
7.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................40

7.2. Current Design Practice ...........................................................................................................40
7.3. Proposed Design Procedure .....................................................................................................40
Chapter 8.
Cost Estimation ...............................................................................................................44
8.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................44

8.2. Description of Bridges .............................................................................................................44
8.2.1. Washington Bridge ..........................................................................................................44
8.2.2. Utah Bridge-1 ..................................................................................................................45
8.2.3. Utah Bridge-2 ..................................................................................................................45
8.2.4. California Bridge .............................................................................................................46
8.2.5. South Carolina Bridge .....................................................................................................46
8.3. Analytical Models ....................................................................................................................47
8.3.1. Response Spectrum Analysis ...........................................................................................48
8.3.2. Pushover Analysis ...........................................................................................................48
8.4. Redesign for Near-Fault Ground Motions ................................................................................49
8.5. Cost Impact ..............................................................................................................................50
Chapter 9.
Parametric Studies ..........................................................................................................52
9.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................52

9.2. Part 1 Design Based on Average Plus Standard Deviation Spectra ......................................52
9.2.1. Cost Impact ......................................................................................................................52
iv
9.3. Part 2 Effect of Higher Spectral Acceleration .......................................................................53

9.3.1. Cost Impact ......................................................................................................................55
Chapter 10.
Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................56
10.1. Summary ................................................................................................................................56

10.2. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................57
References... ..59
Appendix A. Near-Fault Histories ........ 290
Appendix B. Residual Drift Spectra ....... 308
Appendix C. Design Example ......... 356
List of CCEER Publications......... 363
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table 2.1. Specimen Details .........................................................................................................................66
Table 2.2. Loading Protocol for each Specimen ..........................................................................................66
Table 2.3. Measured Concrete Compressive Strength, ksi (MPa) ................................................................67
Table 2.4. Measured Longitudinal Reinforcement Properties, ksi (MPa) ....................................................67
Table 2.5. Measured Transverse Reinforcement Properties, ksi (MPa) .......................................................67
Table2.6. Percent Increase in Steel Yield and Ultimate Stress (Tension) and Concrete Compressive
Strength (Compression) due to Strain Rate .....................................................................................67
Table 2.7. Rotations and Corresponding Moments at cracking, yielding, and ultimate capacity .................68
Table 2.8. Ratio of Calculated and Measured Residual Drifts .....................................................................68
Chapter 3
Table 3.1.
Table 3.2.
Table 3.3.
Table 3.4.
Table 3.5.
Table 3.6.
NF-1, Yield Displacement= 0.93 in (23.62 mm) .........................................................................69

NF-2, Yield Displacement= 0.97 in (24.64 mm) .........................................................................70
MN, Yield Displacement= 0.7 in (17.78 mm) .............................................................................71
ETN, Yield Displacement= 2.21 in (56.13 mm)..........................................................................72
SETN, Yield Displacement= 2.13 in (54.10 mm) .......................................................................73
SVTN, Yield Displacement= 1.98 in (50.29 mm) .......................................................................74
Chapter 4
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.
Table 4.3.
Table 4.4.
Table 4.5.
Table 4.6.
Table 4.7.
Table 4.8.
Table 4.9.
Column Characteristics ...............................................................................................................75

ResidualDriftRatiosforColumnswith1%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.05f cAg ..............76
ResidualDriftRatiosforColumnswith1%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.1f cAg.................77
Residual Drift Ratios for Columns with 2% Steel Ratio andAxialLoadof0.05fcAg ..............78
ResidualDriftRatiosforColumnswith2%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.1f cAg.................79
ResidualDriftRatiosforColumnswith3%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.05f cAg ..............80
Residual DriftRatiosforColumnswith3%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.1f cAg.................81
Residual Drift Ratios for Columns with 4%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.05fcAg ..............82
Residual Drift Ratios for Columns with 4% Steel Ratio and Axial Load of 0.1fcAg.................83
Chapter 5
Table 5.1. Standard Modification Coefficient k hc0 .....................................................................................84
Table 5.2. Safety Factor ............................................................................................................................84
Table 5.3. Ground Motion Characteristics of NF1 .......................................................................................85
Table 5.4. Characteristics of Velocity History and Response of NF1 ..........................................................86
Table 5.5. Characteristics of Velocity History and Response of ..................................................................88
Table 5.6. Residual Displacement for each Earthquake ...............................................................................99
Table 5.7. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for NF-1 ....................................................100
Table 5.8. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for NF-2 ....................................................101
Table 5.9. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for MN ......................................................102
Table 5.10. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for ETN ...................................................103
Table 5.11. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for SETN .................................................104
Table 5.12. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for SVTN ................................................105
Table 5.13. Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for UCSD ................................................106
Table 5.14. Average and Standard Deviation of Difference and R 2 for Different Columns .....................107
Table 5.15. Average and Standard Deviation of Difference and R 2 for Ductility of two to four .............108
Table 5.16. Average and Standard Deviation of Difference and R 2 for Ductility of four or more ...........108
vi
Chapter 6
Table 6.1. Characteristics of Site 1 (Seattle, Washington) for Vs 360 m/s.................................................109
Table 6.2. Station Names for Site 1 for Vs 360 m/s ...................................................................................109
Table 6.3. Characteristics of Site 1 (Seattle, Washington) for Vs 760 m/s.................................................110
Table 6.4. Station Names for Site 1 for Vs 760 m/s ...................................................................................110
Table 6.5. Characteristics of Site 2 (Eureka, California) for Vs 360 m/s ...................................................111
Table 6.6. Characteristics of Site 2 (Eureka, California) for Vs 760 m/s ...................................................112
Table 6.7. Station Names for Site 2 ............................................................................................................112
Table 6.8. Characteristics of Site 3 (San Bruno, California) for Vs 360 m/s..............................................113
Table 6.9. Characteristics of Site 3 (San Bruno, California) for Vs 760 m/s..............................................114
Table 6.10. Station Names for Site 3 ..........................................................................................................114
Table 6.11. Characteristics of Site 4 (Berkeley, California) for Vs 360 m/s ..............................................115
Table 6.12. Characteristics of Site 4 (Berkeley, California) for Vs 760 m/s ..............................................116
Table 6.14. Characteristics of Site 5 (Sylmar, California) for Vs 360 m/s .................................................117
Table 6.15. Characteristics of Site 5 (Sylmar, California) for Vs 760 m/s .................................................118
Table 6.16. Station Names for Site 5 .........................................................................................................118
Table 6.17. Characteristics of Site 6 (Salt Lake City, Utah) for Vs 360 m/s ..............................................119
Table 6.18. Characteristics of Site 6 (Salt Lake City, Utah) for Vs 760 m/s ..............................................120
Table 6.20. Characteristics of Site 7 (Cheraw, Colorado) for Vs 360 m/s .................................................121
Table 6.21. Characteristics of Site 7 (Cheraw, Colorado) for Vs 760 m/s .................................................122
Table 6.22. Characteristics of Site 8 (Tiptonville, Tennessee) for Vs 360 m/s ..........................................123
Table 6.23. Characteristics of Site 8 (Tiptonville, Tennessee) for Vs 760 m/s ..........................................124
Table 6.24. Characteristics of Site 9 (New York City, New York) for Vs 360 m/s ...................................124
Table 6.25. Characteristics of Site 9 (New York City, New York) for Vs 760 m/s ...................................125
Table 6.26. Number of Records..................................................................................................................125
Table 6.27. Recorded near-fault ground motions .......................................................................................126
Chapter 7
Table 7.1. Member Ductility Requirement for SDC D ...............................................................................127
Chapter 8
Table 8.1. Features of the Bridges ..............................................................................................................128
Table 8.2. Longitudinal and Transverse Steel Ratio ...................................................................................129
Table 8.3. Calculated Response Spectrum Parameters ...............................................................................129
Table 8.4. Residual Drift Ratio for Washington Bridge in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.14 sec) .............130
Table 8.5. Residual Drift Ratio for Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.93 sec) ................130
Table 8.8. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.12 sec) .....................132
Table 8.9. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.10 sec) ........................132
Table 8.10. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.21 sec) ...................132
Table 8.11. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.11 sec) ......................133
Table 8.12. Residual Drift Ratio for California Bridge in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.77 sec) ..............133
Table 8.13. Residual Drift Ratio for California Bridge in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.57 sec) .................133
Table 8.14. Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 0.30 sec) ..................134
Table 8.15. Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.25 sec) .....................135
Table 8.16. WSDOT Unit Prices ................................................................................................................135
Chapter 9
vii
Table 9.5. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.12 sec, S1: 0.6-0.8g).
.......................................................................................................................................................138
Table 9.6. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.10 sec., S1: 0.6-0.8g) .138
Table 9.7. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.12 sec., S1: > 0.8g) .138
Table 9.8. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.10 sec., S1: > 0.8g) ....139
Table 9.9. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.02 sec., S1: > 0.8g) .139
Table 9.10. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.10 sec., S1: > 0.8g) ...139
Table 9.11. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.21 sec., S1: > 0.8g) 140
Table 9.12. Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.11 sec., S1: > 0.8g) ..140
Table 9.13. Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 1.77 sec., S1: 0.60.8g) ..............................................................................................................................................140
Table 9.14. Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.57 sec., S1: 0.6-0.8g)
.......................................................................................................................................................141
Table 9.15. Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.77 sec., S1: > 0.8g)
.......................................................................................................................................................141
Table 9.16. Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.57 sec., S1: > 0.8g)
.......................................................................................................................................................142
Table 9.17. Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina bridge in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 0.3 sec., S1: 0.40.6g) ..............................................................................................................................................142
.......................................................................................................................................................143
Table 9.19. Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina bridge in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 0.3 sec., S1: 0.60.8g) ..............................................................................................................................................144
.......................................................................................................................................................145
Table 9.21. Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina bridge in Longitudinal Direction (T L: 0.3 sec., S1: >
0.8g) ..............................................................................................................................................146
Table 9.22. Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Transverse Direction (T T: 0.25 sec., S1: > 0.8g)
.......................................................................................................................................................147
viii
List of Figures
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Specimen NF-1 (Phan et al., 2005) ..........................................................................................149
Figure 2.2. Specimen NF-2 (Phan et al., 2005) ..........................................................................................149
Figure 2.3. Specimen MN (Choi et al., 2007).............................................................................................150
Figure 2.4. Specimen ETN (Choi et al., 2007) ...........................................................................................151
Figure 2.5. Design Spectra comparison (Choi et al., 2007) ........................................................................151
Figure 2.6. Specimen SETN (Choi et al., 2007) .........................................................................................152
Figure 2.7. Specimen SVTN (Choi et al., 2007).........................................................................................153
Figure 2.8. Schematic of the Test Setup (Choi et al., 2007) .......................................................................154
Figure 2.9. Rinaldi and RRS Acceleration Histories (Choi et al., 2007) ....................................................155
Figure 2.10. Rinaldi and RRS Velocity Histories (Choi et al., 2007) .........................................................155
Figure 2.11. Columns at Completion of Testing ........................................................................................156
Figure 2.12. Schematic Analytical Model ..................................................................................................157
Figure 2.13. Typical Stress-strain Behavior of Concrete01 ........................................................................157
Figure 2.14. Typical Hysteretic Stress-strain Relation of Concrete02 .......................................................158
Figure 2.15. Material Constants for ReinforcingSteel ................................................................................158
Figure 2.16. Moment Curvature Relation for NF-1 ....................................................................................159
Figure 2.17. Moment Curvature Relation for NF-2 ....................................................................................159
Figure 2.18. Moment Curvature Relation for MN ......................................................................................160
Figure 2.19. Moment Curvature Relation for ETN ....................................................................................160
Figure 2.20. Moment Curvature Relation for SETN ..................................................................................161
Figure 2.21. Moment Curvature Relation for SVTN ..................................................................................161
Figure 2.22. Displacement History of NF-1 ...............................................................................................162
Figure 2.23. Displacement History of NF-2 ...............................................................................................162
Figure 2.24. Displacement History of MN .................................................................................................163
Figure 2.25. Displacement History of ETN ................................................................................................163
Figure 2.26. Displacement History of SETN ..............................................................................................164
Figure 2.27. Displacement History of SVTN .............................................................................................164
Figure 2.28. Displacement History of SETN after modification ................................................................165
Figure 2.29. Effect of Number of Integration Points on Residual Displacement in NF-1 ..........................165
Figure 2.30. Effect of Number of Integration Points on Residual Displacement in SETN ........................166
Figure 2.31. Ratio of Calculated and Measured Residual Displacements for Different Columns ..............166
Figure 2.32. Average of the Ratio of Calculated and Measured Data for Different Columns ....................167
Figure 2.33. Calculated Response for Single versus Multiple Motions at a) 2.8% b) 5.1% c) 7.6%
Maximum Drift Ratio for NF-1 .....................................................................................................168
Maximum Drift Ratio for NF-2 .....................................................................................................169
Maximum Drift Ratio for MN ......................................................................................................170
Maximum Drift Ratio for ETN ....................................................................................................171
Figure 2.37. Calculated Response for Single versus Multiple Motions at a) 2.6% b) 4.2% Maximum Drift
Ratio for SETN ............................................................................................................................172
Maximum Drift Ratio for SVTN ..................................................................................................173
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.6.
Moment-curvature of a Bridge Column ...................................................................................174

Measured Moment-curvature Hysteresis for NF-1...................................................................174
Moment-curvature of a well-designed column.........................................................................175
Residual Moment Capacity (RMC) Factor Using Parabolic Model .........................................175
Residual Moment Capacity (RMC) Factor Using Linear Model .............................................176
Moment-displacement (M-)oftheSimpleModelwithNoResidualDisplacement .............176
ix
Figure 3.7. Moment-displacement (M-)ofaSimpleModelwithResidual Displacement ......................177

Figure 3.8. versusDisplacementDuctility()forDifferentColumns ....................................................177
Figure 3.9. Relationship between and Displacement Ductility () Using Simple Model with Residual
Displacement-Approach 1 .............................................................................................................178
Figure 3.10. Relationship betweenandDisplacementDuctility()UsingSimpleModel with Residual
Displacement-Approach 2 ............................................................................................................ 178
Figure 3.11. ResidualMomentCapacityFactor()versusdisplacementDuctility()inDifferentModels
.......................................................................................................................................................179
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. Moment-curvature of a well-designed column.........................................................................180
Figure 4.2. Deformed Bridge Column due to superstructure and the trucks weight ...................................180
Figure 4.3. Moment Curvature Relation for Column with 1% Steel Ratio, Axial Load of 0.05 f cAg and
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................181
Figure 4.4. Moment Curvature Relation for Column with 1% Steel Ratio, Axial Load of 0.05 fcAg and
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................181
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................182
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................182
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................183
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................183
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................184
Figure 4.10. MomentCurvatureRelationforColumnwith2%SteelRatio,AxialLoadof0.05f cAg and
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................184
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................185
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................185
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................186
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................186
Figure 4.15. Moment Curvature Relation for Column with 4% Steel Ratio, Axial Loadof0.05fcAg and
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................187
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................187
Figure 4.17. Moment Curvature Relation for Column with 4% Steel Ratio,AxialLoadof0.05fcAg and
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................188
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................188
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................189
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................189
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................190
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................190
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................191
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................191
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................192
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................192
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................193
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................193
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................194
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................194
Diameter of 36 in (914 mm) ..........................................................................................................195
Diameter of 48 in (1219 mm) ........................................................................................................195
Diameter of 60 in (1524 mm) ........................................................................................................196
Diameter of 72 in (1829 mm) ........................................................................................................196
Figure 4.35. Residual Drift versus Column Diameter ................................................................................197
Figure 4.36. Residual Drift versus Column Height ....................................................................................198
Figure 4.37. Residual Drift versus Steel Ratio ...........................................................................................199
Figure 4.38. ResidualDriftversusResidualMomentCapacityFactor, ..................................................200
Figure 4.39. Residual Drift versus Number of Trucks ...............................................................................200
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1. Modification Coefficient for Zone .......................................................................................201
Figure 5.2. Residual Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Velocity (T vg) and Column
Period (Tc) .....................................................................................................................................201
Figure 5.3. Residual Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Acceleration (T g) and Column
Period (Tc) .....................................................................................................................................202
Figure 5.4. Residual Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Acceleration ...................................................202
Figure 5.5. Residual Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Velocity ..........................................................203
Figure 5.6. Maximum Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Velocity (T vg) and Column
Period (Tc) .....................................................................................................................................203
Figure 5.7. Maximum Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Acceleration (T g) and
Column Period (Tc) .......................................................................................................................204
Figure 5.8. Maximum Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Acceleration ................................................204
Figure 5.9. Maximum Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Velocity .......................................................205
Figure 5.10. Velocity History with Single Pulse (Half-cycle Sinusoidal Pulse) ........................................205
Figure 5.11. Residual Drift versus Ratio of Pulse Duration and Column Period for Different V max .........206
Figure 5.12. Velocity History with Reversed Pulse (Full-cycle Sinusoidal Pulse) ....................................206
Figure 5.13. Residual Drift versus Ratio of Pulse Duration and Effective Column Period for Different V max
.......................................................................................................................................................207
Figure 5.14. ResidualDriftversusRatioofPulseDurationandEffectiveColumnPeriodfordifferentand
1 ...................................................................................................................................................208
Figure 5.15. ResidualDriftversus1 for3.0SecondDurationoftheFirstPulseand=0.5 .....................209
Figure 5.16. ResidualDriftversus1 for 3.0 seconddurationofthefirstpulseand=1.0 ........................209
Figure 5.17. ResidualDriftversus1 for3.0seconddurationofthefirstpulseand=1.5 ........................210
xi
Figure 5.21. ResidualDriftversus1 for 0.5 Second Duration of the FirstPulseand=0.5 .....................212
Figure 5.24. Velocity History of Rinaldi and Column Displacement History ............................................214
Figure 5.25. Main Pulse of Velocity History of Rinaldi and Column Displacement History .....................215
Figure 5.26. Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Rinaldi and Column Displacement History ...........216
Figure 5.27. Velocity History of Chi-Chi_TCU067 and Column Displacement History ...........................217
Figure 5.28. Main Pulse of Velocity History of Chi-Chi_TCU067 and Column Displacement History ...218
Figure 5.29. Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Chi-Chi_TCU067 and Column Displacement History
.......................................................................................................................................................219
Figure 5.30. Velocity History of Tabas and Column Displacement History ..............................................220
Figure 5.31. Main Pulse of Velocity History of Tabas and Column Displacement History .......................221
Figure 5.32. Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Tabas and Column Displacement History .............222
Figure 5.33. Velocity History of Loma Prieta- W Valley Coll. and Column Displacement History ........223
Figure 5.34. Main Pulse of Velocity History of Loma Prieta- W Valley Coll. and Column Displacement
History ..........................................................................................................................................224
Figure 5.35. Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Loma Prieta- W Valley Coll. and Column
Displacement History ...................................................................................................................225
Figure 5.36. Velocity History of Erzincan and Column Displacement History .........................................226
Figure 5.37. Main Pulse of Velocity History of Erzincan and Column Displacement History .................227
Figure 5.38. Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Erzincan and Column Displacement History ........228
Figure 5.39. RelationshipbetweenandDisplacementDuctility()usingDifferentEquations .............229
Figure 5.40. Relationship betweenandDisplacementDuctility()forUpperData ...............................229
Figure 5.41. RelationshipbetweenandDisplacementDuctility()UsingEquation5-12 ......................230
Figure 5.42. Velocity Histories of FN Component during Loma Prieta Earthquake ..................................231
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. Map of the nine sites across the United States .........................................................................232
Figure 6.2. Pushover Curve for a Concrete Bridge Column .......................................................................233
Figure 6.3. Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for lp_cls of Seattle with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec
(360 m/sec) for FN component ....................................................................................................234
(360 m/sec) for FP component .....................................................................................................235
(360 m/sec) for H1 component .....................................................................................................236
(360 m/sec) for H2 component .....................................................................................................237
Figure 6.7. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S1: 0.4-0.6g
.......................................................................................................................................................238
Figure 6.8 Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S 1:
0.4-0.6g .........................................................................................................................................238
Figure 6.9. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S 1: 0.6-0.8g
.......................................................................................................................................................239
Figure 6.10. Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S 1:
0.6-0.8g ........................................................................................................................................239
Figure 6.11. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four, and S 1: 0.6-0.8g
.......................................................................................................................................................240
Figure 6.12. Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four, and S1:
0.6-0.8g ........................................................................................................................................240
Figure 6.13. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S 1: > 0.8g 241
> 0.8g ...........................................................................................................................................241
Figure 6.15. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four, and S 1: > 0.8g
.......................................................................................................................................................242
xii
Figure 6.16. Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four, and S 1:
> 0.8g ...........................................................................................................................................242
Figure 6.17. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of six, and S 1: > 0.8g .243
Figure 6.18. Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of six, and S1: >
0.8g ...............................................................................................................................................243
.......................................................................................................................................................244
Figure 6.20. Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of two, and S1:
0.4-0.6g ........................................................................................................................................244
.......................................................................................................................................................245
0.6-0.8g ........................................................................................................................................245
Figure 6.23. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of four, and S 1: 0.6-0.8g
.......................................................................................................................................................246
0.6-0.8g ........................................................................................................................................246
Figure 6.25. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of two, and S 1: > 0.8g 247
> 0.8g ...........................................................................................................................................247
Figure 6.27. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of four, and S 1: > 0.8g
.......................................................................................................................................................248
> 0.8g ...........................................................................................................................................248
Figure 6.29. Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of six, and S1: > 0.8g .249
Figure 6.30. Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of six, and S 1: >
0.8g ...............................................................................................................................................249
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1. Column Design Procedure .......................................................................................................250
Figure 7.2. Spectral Displacement for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S1:0.4-0.6g ......................................251
Figure 7.3. Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S 1:0.4-0.6g ......................251
Figure 7.4. Spectral Displacement for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S 1:0.6-0.8g ......................................252
Figure 7.6. Spectral Displacement for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S 1> 0.8g ..........................................253
Figure 7.7. Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S 1> 0.8g ..........................253
Figure 7.8. Spectral Displacement for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S 1:0.4-0.6g ......................................254
Figure 7.10. Spectral Displacement for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S 1:0.6-0.8g ....................................255
Figure 7.11. Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S 1:0.6-0.8g ....................255
Figure 7.12. Spectral Displacement for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S 1> 0.8g ........................................256
Figure 7.13. Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S 1> 0.8g ........................257
Figure 7.14. Effective Stiffness of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Sections (SDC, 2010) ..........................257
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1. Washington Bridge Plan and Elevation (ATC 49-2) ................................................................258
Figure 8.2. Washington Bridge Section (ATC 49-2) ..................................................................................259
Figure 8.3. Washington Bridge Abutment ..................................................................................................260
Figure 8.4. Utah Bridge-1 Plan and Elevation ............................................................................................261
Figure 8.5. Utah Bridge-1 Section ..............................................................................................................262
Figure 8.6. Utah Bridge-1 Abutment ..........................................................................................................263
Figure 8.7. Utah Bridge-2 Plan and Elevation ............................................................................................264
Figure 8.8. Utah Bridge-2 Section ..............................................................................................................265
Figure 8.9. Utah Bridge-2 Abutment ..........................................................................................................266
Figure 8.10. California Bridge View ..........................................................................................................267
xiii
Figure 8.11.
Figure 8.12.
Figure 8.13.
Figure 8.14.
Figure 8.15.
Figure 8.16.
Figure 8.17.
Figure 8.18.
Figure 8.19.
Figure 8.20.
Figure 8.21.
Figure 8.22.
Figure 8.23.
Figure 8.24.
Figure 8.25.
Figure 8.26.
Figure 8.27.
Figure 8.28.
Figure 8.29.
Figure 8.30.
Figure 8.31.
Figure 8.32.
Figure 8.33.
Figure 8.34.
Figure 8.35.
Figure 8.36.
Figure 8.37.
Figure 8.38.
Figure 8.39.
Figure 8.40.
Figure 8.41.
Figure 8.42.
Figure 8.43.
Figure 8.44.
Figure 8.45.
Figure 8.46.
California Bridge Section .......................................................................................................267

South Carolina Bridge Elevation ............................................................................................268
South Carolina Bridge Section ...............................................................................................269
South Carolina Bridge Abutment ...........................................................................................270
View of Model for Washington Bridge ..................................................................................271
Design Response Spectrum based on AASHTO for Different Bridges .................................271
Pushover Curve for Bent 1 of Washington Bridge in Longitudinal Direction .......................272
Pushover Curve for Bent 1 of Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction ..........................272
Pushover Curve for Bent 2&4 of Washington Bridge in Longitudinal Direction ..................273
Pushover Curve for Bent 2&4 of Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction .....................273
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction ...............................275
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction ..................................275
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-2 in Longitudinal Direction ...............................276
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-2 in Transverse Direction ..................................276
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of California Bridge in Longitudinal Direction ..........................277
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of California Bridge in Transverse Direction .............................277
Pushover Curve for Bent 3&4 of California Bridge in Longitudinal Direction .....................278
Pushover Curve for Bent 3&4 of California Bridge in Transverse Direction ........................278
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of South Carolina Bridge in Longitudinal Direction ..................279
Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of South Carolina Bridge in Transverse Direction......................279
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1. Pushover Curve for Bent 1 of Washington Bridge in Longitudinal Direction .........................287
Figure 9.2. Pushover Curve for Bent 1 of Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction ............................287
Figure 9.3. Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction .................................288
Figure 9.4. Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction ....................................288
Figure 9.5. Design Response Spectrum Based on AASHTO for Zones with S1 between 0.6 and 0.8g and
Higher than 0.8g ..........................................................................................................................................289
xiv
Chapter 1.
Introduction
1.1.
General Remarks
Near-fault ground motions have caused much damage during recent major
earthquakes. Failures of modern engineered structures observed within the near-fault
region in the 1994 Northridge earthquake revealed the vulnerability of existing structures
against near-fault ground motions. Following the 1995 Kobe earthquake, Kawashima et
al. (1998) reported that over 100 reinforced concrete bridge columns with a residual drift
ratio of over 1.75% were demolished even when the bridge had not collapsed. The 1999
Kocaeli, Duzce, and Chi-Chi earthquakes renewed attention on the consequences of nearfault ground motions on structures. During those earthquakes in Turkey and Taiwan,
bridges spanning adjacent to or across the ruptured fault line experienced extensive
damage (Chang et al. 2000; Yen et al. 2001). Field investigations report that one
overpass collapsed in Turkey and five bridges collapsed in Taiwan due to fault rupture at
the site (Yen et al. 2001).
In sites located in front of fault rupture direction, strong velocity pulses associated
with large ground displacements can potentially cause substantial damage. Bridge
columns are expected to undergo large inelastic deformations during severe earthquakes
that can result in residual lateral displacements particularly under near-fault ground
motions. Residual drift ratio is an important measure of post-earthquake functionality in
bridges and can determine whether a bridge should be kept open to traffic or closed for
repair or replacement. A bridge closure, even if it is temporary, can have tremendous
consequences because bridges often provide vital links in transportation systems. After
an earthquake, closure of a bridge can impair emergency response operations.
Subsequently, the economic impact of a bridge closure increases with the length of time
the bridge is out of commission, the importance of the traffic using the route, the traffic
delay caused by detours, and the replacement cost for the bridge.
Most current seismic design codes are based on research addressing far-field
earthquake effects, which do not include permanent drift. Except for unusual bridges in
which site specific ground motions used in nonlinear response history analyses could
reveal permanent deformation, there are no reliable provisions to account for residual
displacements caused by near-fault earthquakes in design of reinforced concrete bridge
columns. The present research was aimed at developing a new guideline for the design of
reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to near-fault earthquake motions.
1.2.
Characteristics of Near-Fault Ground Motions

The detrimental effects of near-fault ground motions have been recognized during
recent major earthquakes (Northridge 1994, Kobe 1995, Kacaeli 1999, Duzce 1999, ChiChi 1999). Compared to far field ground motions, phenomena such as forward
directivity and fling step are common to near-fault ground motions and can produce a
short duration, high amplitude velocity pulse. These pulse-type motions can place severe
demands on structures in the near-field region. The AASHTO Guide Specification for
LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (2011) requires site specific analysis when the bridge is
located within 6 miles (10 km) of an active fault. According to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) (2010), for sites
1
located within 15.6 miles (25 km) of an active fault, the design spectrum should be
modified to take into account the near-fault earthquake effects.
The most unique characteristic of near-fault ground motions compared to far-field
motions is forward directivity. In the proximity of an active fault, ground motions are
significantly affected by rupture mechanism, direction of rupture propagation with
respect to the site, as well as the possible static deformation of the ground surface
associated with fling step effects. When the rupture propagates forward toward the site
and the direction of slip on the fault is aligned with the site, ground motions oriented in
this forward directivity path may follow certain radiation patterns and generate long
period, short duration, and large amplitude pulses due to the accumulation of shear waves
within a short time frame (Somerville 1998). Such a distinct strong pulse arises in
general at the beginning of the record, and the ground motions tend to increase the long
period portion of the acceleration response spectrum (Somerville 1996; Somerville et al.
1997; Galesorkhi and Gouchon 2002). Forward directivity occurs where the fault rupture
propagates with a velocity close to the shear wave velocity (Abrahamson 1998). Because
shear waves are transverse waves, the large pulse associated with such a shear wave
velocity is oriented in the direction perpendicular to the fault, causing the fault normal
peak velocity to be larger than the fault parallel peak velocity. It is therefore necessary to
specify separate records for the fault normal and fault parallel components of ground
motions (Somerville 2003). Not all structures within the near-field area will experience
an impulsive type loading during the earthquake. Records exhibit backward directivity
are typically less severe and do not have distinctive velocity pulses (Somerville et al.
1997). This is because the arrival times for the waves from different parts of the ruptured
fault are different, a distributed velocity history with smaller amplitudes and longer
duration is expected (Somerville 2000).
Fling step, which is a result of the evolution of residual ground displacement due
to tectonic deformation associated with rupture mechanism, is generally characterized by
a unidirectional large amplitude velocity pulse and a monotonic step in the displacement
history (Kalkan et al. 2006). It occurs in strike-slip faults in the strike parallel direction
as in the Kocaeli and Duzce earthquakes (Kalkan et al. 2004), or in the strike normal
direction for dip-slips faults as in the Chi-Chi earthquake (Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou
2003).
Additionally, simply due to the close proximity to the rupturing fault line, nearfault ground motions generally have higher peak ground accelerations, velocities, and
displacements.
1.3.
Previous Research
The near-fault ground motions and their effects on structures have been the
subject of studies by a number of researchers. Chopra et al. (2001) compared typical farfield spectra to near-field spectra. They concluded that for near-field ground motions, the
velocity sensitive region of the response spectra is much narrower and their acceleration
sensitive and displacement sensitive regions are much wider than for far-field motions.
The narrower velocity sensitive region of near-fault records is shifted to longer periods.
They stated that if design equations explicitly recognize the differences in the spectral
regions, the same equations can be used for both far-field and near-field design.
Following the 1995 Kobe earthquake, Kawashima et al. (1998) reported that the
column stiffness ratio, which is the post-yield stiffness divided by initial elastic stiffness,
has a significant effect on the magnitude of residual displacement. They concluded that
the general trends in the relationship between residual displacement ratio response
spectrum and column stiffness ratio are not significantly influenced by parameters such
as earthquake magnitude, epicentral distance, soil condition, natural period, and ductility.
Based on this finding, a residual displacement response spectrum was proposed for
design of new bridge piers in Japan. They stated that impulsive loads could potentially
cause higher residual displacements than those predicted using their method.
Christopoulos and Pampanin (2004) found that post-yielding stiffness, as well as
hysteretic rule mostly influence residual deformations and the residual/maximum
deformation ratio. Also, the ductility level affects the response of elasto-plastic (EP)
systems in terms of residual displacements more than the Takeda systems and more so for
systems with low post-yield stiffness. A framework for evaluating performance levels
based on a combination of maximum and residual response indices were proposed.
Nonlinear residual displacement spectra were computed for a number of SDOF hysteretic
systems and consequently, design spectra based on residual/maximum displacement
ratios were suggested as a function of effective secant period. Tentative values of
residual/maximum displacement ratios based on the mean plus one standard deviation
results from 20 records with spectrum-compatible mean were suggested for use in design.
In an experimental study by Zatar and Mutsuyoshi (2002), a new technique to
reduce the biased or one-sided responses of reinforced concrete bridge piers under nearfault ground motions was investigated. Nine rectangular bridge columns with variable
ratio of prestressing tendons to non-prestressing reinforcement and flexural to shear
capacities in the form of cyclic loading and pseudo-dynamic testing were included in the
experimental program. Since conventionally reinforced concrete columns can exhibit
high residual displacements and prestressed concrete columns show little ductility
capacity, partially prestressed concrete (PPC) was recommended for bridge piers
subjected to near-fault ground motions. The study found that PPC specimens revealed
very low residual displacements.
Phan et al. (2005) studied the effect of near-fault ground motion on bridge
columns designed based on current codes for far-field earthquakes. Two columns were
constructed and tested on a shake table at the University of Nevada, Reno. One column
represented the current Caltrans far-field design and the other was based on the AASHTO
provisions. The test results were compared to a similar column that was tested under farfield motions (Laplace et al. 2005). The results revealed that the bridge column models
experienced at least a residual drift ratio of 1% even when the PGA of the record was
0.5g, which is considered to be a moderate earthquake. Also, they found that existing
hysteresis models were unable to duplicate residual displacements accurately. Based on
this finding, a new hysteresis model and a framework to include residual displacement in
reinforced concrete bridge column design under near-fault ground motions were
proposed.
Choi et al. (2007) tested four circular large-scale reinforced concrete bridge
columns under near-fault ground motions in order to assess the impacts of the loading
and the adequacy of near-fault seismic design codes. The conclusions drawn from the
study were that the high amplitude velocity pulse associated with near-fault loading
3
caused large residual displacements. The fact that the models were designed based on
near-fault seismic design spectra generally reduced the residual displacement. However,
the residual displacements were still relatively large even under moderate levels of
motion. The study also found that strain rates and the plastic hinge lengths for near-fault
loading were comparable to those for far field motions. In addition, the computer
program DARC-O (Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Columns with O-Hyst)
was used to perform nonlinear dynamic analysis for the four bridge columns. Based on
the overall satisfactory correlation with the measured results and the simplicity of O-Hyst
hysteresis model, this model was deemed adequate for capturing the magnitude of
residual displacements of conventionally reinforced concrete bridge columns under nearfault ground motions.
Lee and Billington (2009) investigated the adequacy of nonlinear dynamic
analysis with fiber element models in predicting the residual displacement. They
observed that a certain type of pinching in the hysteretic behavior led to poor simulation
of residual displacement both in the lumped plasticity models and in fiber element
models. They implemented a modified concrete constitutive model that incorporates
changes in the reloading behavior when moving from high tensile forces to compression
to improve the estimation of residual displacements. Also, the cyclic and dynamic
response of both reinforced concrete and unbonded post-tensioned (UBPT) (as selfcentering to concrete highway bridge columns) systems for bridges were investigated and
compared using a performance based earthquake engineering (PBEE) assessment
methodology developed by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).
In addition, the use of engineered cementitious composites (ECC) and steel jacketing in
thecolumnswasinvestigatedusingPEERsPBEEmethodology.Theyfoundthatboth
of the enhanced-performance UBPT systems show lower residual displacements at higher
earthquake intensity level compared to the ordinary UBPT system.
Yazgan et al. (2011) investigated the dynamic nonlinear response of 12 shake
table reinforced concrete (RC) models. They found that maximum displacements can be
estimated with sufficient accuracy if the adopted hysteresis model takes into account
stiffness degradation. However, accurate estimation of the residual displacements was
found difficult to achieve. They stated that fiber-section models provide relatively more
accurate estimation of residual displacements than modified Takeda hysteretic and
bilinear models. The sensitivity analyses indicated that the simulated residual
displacements are significantly more sensitive to the model idealization than the
maximum displacements are.
1.4.
Objectives and Scope

The main objective of the study was to develop a new practical guideline for the
design of reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to near-fault ground motions by
incorporating an estimate and evaluation of residual lateral drift ratio. To develop the
design methods several other issues had to be studied and methods to address them had to
be developed. Residual drift could pose problems with respect to both aesthetics and
safety. While a limit state for the former would be subjective, safety aspects can be
quantified. As part of the study a comprehensive evaluation of residual drift ratios that
would make the column unsafe was undertaken. The goal of the study was achieved
through the following tasks: (1) determine the adequacy of existing computer models to
4
estimate residual displacements under the fault-normal component of near-fault ground

motions, (2) determine the residual moment capacity of reinforced concrete columns as a
function of maximum displacement ductility, (3) determine critical residual displacement
limit with respect to structural performance, (4) develop a simple method to estimate
residual displacement, (5) develop residual displacement spectra for different
displacement ductilities, different soil conditions, and earthquake characteristics, (6)
develop a step-by-step design guideline with an illustrative example, and (7) evaluate the
impact of the proposed design guidelines on the cost of bridges in different seismic
zones. To accomplish the first task, the results of the experimental data for six largescale reinforced concrete bridge columns were compared to those of nonlinear dynamic
analyses. To determine the residual moment capacity of RC columns, it was assumed
that the residual moment capacity is a fraction of the plastic moment capacity of the
column, and two models using measured data from previously tested columns were
developed. The acceptable residual drift ratio was determined by studying a large
number of reinforced concrete bridge columns with different geometric and
reinforcement parameters subjected to truck loading. To accomplish the fourth task of
the study, an empirical simple method using data from shake table testing of six bridge
columns was developed and the results were compared with those from a method
developed by the Applied Technology Council and the Japanese code. To generate
residual drift spectra, nonlinear response history analyses were conducted utilizing suites
of recorded and synthetic acceleration histories representative of near-fault ground
motions in various locations throughout the United States. To accomplish the sixth task,
based on the proposed simple method and residual drift spectra, a new step-by-step
guideline for the design of reinforced concrete columns exposed to near-fault earthquakes
was developed to control the residual drift ratio. The cost impact of the proposed nearfault earthquake design method was evaluated by redesigning several representative,
actual bridges from different parts of the United States using the proposed design method
and estimating the cost of the redesigned bridge relative to the original bridge design
cost.
Chapter 2.
Analytical Studies of Test Models
2.1.
Introduction
In previous studies by Phan et al. (2005) and Choi et al. (2007), six large-scale
reinforced concrete bridge columns were tested under near-fault shake table motions in
the Large Scale Structures Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). The
focus of this chapter is on describing these columns and the analytical modeling and the
results for these models with the objective of examining the validity of the modeling
assumptions based on the correlation between the analytical and experimental results.
This chapter also presents results to demonstrate the effect of applying multiple motions
on residual displacements through an analytical investigation.
2.2.
Column Models
Six large-scale specimens were previously tested at UNR Large Scales Structures
Laboratory (Phan et al. 2007; Choi et al. 2010) fixed at the base. The columns were all
flexure-dominated circular spiral columns tested as cantilever members. The specimens
were labeled NF-1, NF-2,MN,ETN,SETN,andSVTN,whereNFstandsfornear
fault,MNstandsformedium height near-faultcolumn,ETNstandsforextra tall
near-faultcolumn,SETNstandsforSomerville spectra extra tall near-faultcolumn,
andSVTNstandsforSomervillespectraverytallnear-faultcolumn.Summary
information about the column models are provided in this chapter. Detailed information
about NF1 and NF2 are provided in Phan et al. (2005) and for the rest of the columns are
provided in Choi et al. (2007).
Table 2.1 summarizes information for all six columns.
2.2.1. NF-1
The design of NF-1 was based on the 2004 Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
(SDC) version 1.3 (Caltrans 2004), but did not incorporate modifications for near-fault
ground motions. The design was based on a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.6g, soil
type D, and earthquake magnitude 7.0 to 7.5. The column axial load was 80 kips (356
kN) and the scale factor was 0.333.
The specimen height was 72 in. (1830 mm) and was taken as the distance from
the top of the footing to the centerline of the column head where the inertial load was
applied. Clear column height was 62 in. (1580 mm). The diameter of the specimen was
16 in. (406 mm). The aspect ratio was 4.5, which allows for flexure-dominated behavior.
The column longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 20-#4 bars spaced evenly in a
circular pattern. The transverse reinforcement consisted of galvanized steel wire with a
diameter of 0.25 in. (6.35 mm) and a pitch of 1.5 in. (38.1 mm). Clear cover was 0.75 in.
(19.1 mm). Details of NF-1 are shown in Fig. 2.1.
2.2.2. NF-2
The design of NF-2 was based on AASHTO 2002 Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges (AASHTO 2002). Soil type, seismicity of the site, scale factor, and
dimensions used in the design of NF-1 were also utilized in the design of NF-2. Soil
profile type II (stiff clay), acceleration coefficient of 0.6g, and axial load of 80 kips (356
6
kN) after utilizing the scale factor of 0.333. The longitudinal reinforcement was made up
of 22-#4 bars in a circular pattern. The transverse reinforcement consisted of a 0.25 in.
(6.35 mm) diameter galvanized steel wire spiral at a pitch of 1.25 in. (31.8 mm). Clear
cover was also 0.75 in. (19.1 mm). Details of NF-2 can be seen in Fig. 2.2.
2.2.3. MN
The design of MN was based on the 2004 SDC version 1.3. MN was comparable
to NF-1; however, the current Caltrans acceleration response spectrum was modified to
account for near-fault ground motions. The goal was to determine the effect of using the
Caltrans near-fault motion amplification factor on the response. The difference between
the two specimens was that MN had 45% more longitudinal and 49% more transverse
steel than NF-1. The design was based on a peak ground acceleration of 0.6g, soil type
D, and earthquake magnitude 7.0 to 7.5. Specimen MN was designed using the same
initial parameters such as axial load index and design material properties, as those of NF1. Axial load index is defined as the axial load divided by the product of column area
and the specified concrete compressive strength. The column axial load was taken as 724
kips (3220 kN), which is 62 kips (276 kN) after using a scale factor of 0.3.
The specimen height was 63 in. (1600 mm) and was taken as the distance from
the top of the footing to the centerline of the column head where the inertial load was
applied. Clear column height was 53 in. (1346 mm). The diameter of the specimen was
14 in. (356 mm). The aspect ratio was 4.5, which allows for flexure-dominated behavior.
Column longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 22-#4 bars spaced evenly in a circular
pattern. Transverse reinforcement consisted of galvanized steel wire with a diameter of
0.25 in. (6.35 mm) and a pitch of 1.125 in. (28.6 mm). The clear cover was 0.5 in. (12.7
mm). Details of MN can be seen in Fig. 2.3.
2.2.4. ETN
The design of ETN was based on the 2004 SDC version 1.3. ETN was
comparable to MN; however, the initial period of the prototypes represented by these
columns was different. The prototype initial periods calculated based on cracked
stiffness for MN and ETN were 0.66 and 1.5 sec., respectively. The corresponding
periods for the scaled models were 0.36 and 0.8 sec., respectively.
This column was designed using the same initial parameters as those of MN. The
specimen height was 108.5 in. (2756 mm) and the clear column height was 98.5 in. (2502
mm). The diameter of the specimen was 14 in. (356 mm). The aspect ratio was 7.75.
The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 22-#4 bars and the transverse reinforcement
consisted of galvanized steel wire with a diameter of 0.25 in. (6.35 mm) and a pitch of
1.0 in. (25.4 mm). The clear cover was 0.5 in. (12.7 mm). Figure 2.4 shows details of
ETN.
2.2.5. SETN
SETN was designed to match the initial prototype period of ETN. The Caltrans
SDC provisions were used to design both columns; however the spectral acceleration for
ETN was based on the current Caltrans near-fault spectrum whereas spectral acceleration
for SETN was determined from the proposed near-fault design spectrum by Somerville
(Choi et al. 2009). The goal was to determine the effect of using different design spectra
7
on similar columns. Figure 2.5 shows the modified spectrum for magnitude 7.5, 0.6g
peak ground acceleration, and a site located 3.1 miles (5 km) from strike-slip fault.
Compared to the Caltrans near-fault spectrum, the modified spectrum shows considerably
higher spectral accelerations (SA) at the period of 1.25 seconds or higher. At periods of
less than 1.25 seconds, however, the Caltrans spectra have higher spectral accelerations.
This column was designed using the same initial parameters as those of ETN.
Moment magnitude of 7.5, acceleration coefficient of 0.6g, and axial load of 62 kips (276
kN) after using the scale factor of 0.3. The model dimensions were the same as those of
ETN. The longitudinal reinforcement was made of 18-#5 bars in a circular pattern. The
transverse reinforcement consisted of galvanized steel wire with a diameter of 0.25 in.
(6.35 mm) and a pitch of 0.75 in. (19.1 mm). The clear cover was 0.5 in. (12.7 mm).
Details of SETN can be seen in Fig. 2.6.
2.2.6. SVTN
SVTN was designed based on the new near-fault earthquake design spectrum by
Somerville. SVTN was comparable to SETN; however, the initial period of the
prototypes represented by these columns was different. The prototype initial periods for
SETN and SVTN were approximately 1.5 and 2 sec., respectively. The purpose of
testing SVTN was to determine the response of a long-period column designed according
to the new design spectrum. SVTN was designed using the same initial parameters as
those of SETN. The column axial load was taken as 724 kips (3220 kN), which is 45
kips (200 kN) for a column with a scale factor of 0.25.
The specimen height was 98.5 in. (2502 mm) and the clear column height was
88.5 in. (2248 mm). The diameter of the specimen was 12 in. (305 mm). The aspect
ratio was 8.2. The longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 17-#4 bars and the transverse
reinforcement consisted of galvanized steel wire with a diameter of 0.25 in. (6.35 mm)
and a pitch of 1.0 in. (25.4 mm). The clear cover was 0.5 in. (12.7 mm). Figure 2.7
shows details of SVTN.
2.3.
Shake Table Setup

The shake table test setup schematic is shown in Fig. 2.8. The test setup for all
the columns was identical. The mass rig system was connected to the head of the
specimen via a rigid link. To create the inertial mass, reinforced concrete blocks
weighing approximately 20 kips (89.0 kN) each were placed as part of the mass rig
system. Total inertial mass of the system included the effective mass of the mass rig
frame. To provide the specimen with the target axial load, a steel spreader beam was
bolted to the top of the column head. The axial load was applied using a hydraulic jack
and prestressing bars anchored to the shake table.
2.4.
Input Motions
The fault normal component of the Rinaldi ground motion from the 1994
Northridge earthquake was selected as input motion. The distance from the station to
fault was 4.4 miles (7.1 km). The fault normal component of this motion has a peak
ground acceleration of 0.838 g, a peak ground velocity of 65.4 in/s (1660 mm/s), and a
peakgrounddisplacementof11.3in(289mm).InSETNandSVTN,theRRS(Rinaldi
ReceivingStation)motionwasappliedforhighamplitudeteststoplacehighductility
8
demand on the columns. The RRS record was synthetic motion generated by matching
the Rinaldi motion to the new acceleration response spectrum developed by Somerville
(Choi et al. 2009). Figures 2.9 and 2.10 show full-scale acceleration and velocity
histories for Rinaldi and RRS motions, respectively. Similar to the Rinaldi motion, the
RRS velocity record showed a clear pulse with a peak ground velocity of 63.4 in/s (1610
mm/s), a peak ground acceleration of 0.626g, and a peak ground displacement of 22.1 in
(562 mm).
The loading protocol for all the columns consisted of small amplitude motions
followed by motions with gradually increasing amplitudes from one motion to the next
until the columns failed or the shake table reached its limits. Failure was defined as
rupture in the reinforcements. Table 2.2 presents the loading protocol for all the
columns.
The most unique response seen in shake table testing of the specimens was the
relatively large residual displacements even under moderate motions. Figures 2.11 shows
the specimens after the last test.
2.5.
Analytical Investigation
A nonlinear dynamic analysis program, OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation) was utilized to create the analytical models and perform
nonlinear dynamic analysis of the columns. OpenSees is an open-source software
framework created at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (OpenSees
2006) for simulating the seismic response of structural and geotechnical systems. This
software has advanced capabilities for modeling and analyzing the linear and nonlinear
behavior of structural systems using a variety of constitutive material models, elements
and solution, algorithms.
2.5.1. Components of the Model
The schematic analytical model of the test specimens is shown in Fig. 2.12. The
model included mass rig system and footing. Hence, a three-dimensional model was
created.
The cantilever column was modeled using force based nonlinear beam column
elements discretized into fiber sections. Compared to displacement based elements, by
using force based elements response converges faster and generally improves without
mesh refinement (OpenSeesWiki). The column element was divided into four equal
segments with five integration points, where the force-displacement state of the segment
was determined by integrating the stress-strain characteristics of the fiber at the specific
point. The element response can be obtained by integration of the segment deformations
along the length of the member. In fiber element method, the fiber forces and
deformations are linked through equilibrium between external forces and fiber forces and
compatibility among fiber deformation. The fiber deformations are such that plane
sections remain plane after deformation. In fiber sections, the cross section was divided
into fibers representing the uniaxial characteristic of core (confined) concrete, steel fibers
as longitudinal bars, and cover fibers (unconfined). In addition to fiber elements, a spring
was included in the model to capture bond slip effect. The spring was defined at the end
of the column with a zero length element.
In order to represent the additional forces transferred to the column due to the pdelta effects, the mass rig was modeled using an elastic beam column element with a pin
support. In addition, a truss element was used to represent the rigid link connecting the
mass rig and the head of the column. In all models, measured material properties were
assigned to the fibers.
2.5.2. Material Models
2.5.2.1. Concrete Models
TheuniaxialMaterialConcrete01wasusedtomodeltheunconfinedconcrete
fibers. The stress-strain relationship described by Concrete01 follows the Kent-ScottPark model (Scott et al. 1982) with degraded linear unloading/reloading stiffness
according to the work of Karsan and Jirsa in compression and no tensile strength. Figure
2.13 shows the typical stress-strain relationship for this model. In all the column models
f cu' was assumed to be 0.85 f c' . Also, c and cu were assumed to be 0.002 and 0.005,
respectively to define the behavior of the unconfined fibers. Table 2.3 lists the measured
concrete compressive strengths on the day of testing for all columns. These measured
data was used to calculate the behavior of the confined fibers based on the Mander et al.
(1988)model.TheconfinedconcretewasmodeledusingtheuniaxialMaterial
Concrete02model,whichincludesthetensilestrengthwithlineartensionsofteningin
the stress-strain relationship. The compressive stress-strain envelope is modeled using
the Kent and Park (1971) model. The hysteresis behavior follows the model by Karsan
and Jirsa (1969), where the loading/unloading follow linear patterns with degrading
stiffness. Figure 2.14 shows a typical hysteretic stress-strain relationship for Concrete02.
2.5.2.2. Steel Model
TheuniaxialMaterialReinforcingSteelwasusedforthedescriptionofthe
stress-strain relationship in the longitudinal reinforcing steel. In this model, the uniaxial
stress-strain backbone curve and the hysteresis behavior are based on the Chang and
Mander (1994) model. To account for the reduction in area as the bar is stressed, the
backbone curve is transformed from engineering stress space to natural stress space. Six
parameters are required to define the monotonic stress-strain envelope. These parameters
are yield stress, ultimate stress, modulus of elasticity, the initial slope of strain hardening
branch, the strain at the beginning of strain hardening, and the ultimate strain. Figure
2.15 shows the material constants for ReinforcingSteel. The measured longitudinal
reinforcement properties are listed in Table 2.4. Table 2.5 presents the measured
reinforcement properties for transverse steel.
2.5.3. Strain Rate Effect
Under seismic excitations, a high rate of loading is generally experienced in
reinforced concrete columns. As a consequence, the stress-strain properties of materials
(concrete and reinforcing steel) can be altered due to the rate of straining. Several studies
have shown that at high strain rates, the compressive strength of concrete and the yielding
and ultimate stresses of reinforcing steel exhibit a significant increase compared to the
values obtained from slow monotonic tests (Kulkarni and Shah 1998; Zadeh and Saiidi
10
2007). However, the elastic modulus is not significantly influenced by the rate of
loading.
The percent increase in concrete compressive strength (compression) and steel
yield and ultimate stress (tension) due to strain rate is presented in Table 2.6.
2.5.4. Bond Slip Model
Bond Slip rotation is a result of yield penetration of the longitudinal bars into the
footing. The bond slip effect was modeled with a lumped nonlinear moment-rotation
spring at the bottom of the column.
Wehbe et al. (1999) developed a method to calculate the bond slip rotations
associated to cracking, yielding, and ultimate capacity of reinforced concrete columns.
The applicability of this method is limited to columns with tensile bars having sufficient
development length so as to prevent bar pull out. The bond-slip rotation is assumed to
occur about the neutral axis of the column cross section at the connection interface. The
neutral axis location and the strain and stress in the extreme tensile steel corresponding to
the desired lateral load are determined from moment-curvature analysis of the section.
To calculate strains required for bond-slip calculations, moment-curvature
analyses were conducted using Xtract software (Chadwell 2007). The actual material
properties described in previous sections were used. The calculated moment curvature
curves were idealized using a bilinear curve. The elastic portion of the idealized curve
passes through the point marking the first longitudinal reinforcing bar yielding. The
second portion was constructed by connecting the effective yield point to the ultimate
point. The effective yield point was obtained by balancing the areas between the original
and the idealized curves beyond the first longitudinal bar yield point. The momentcurvatures for NF-1, NF-2, MN, ETN, SETN, and SVTN are plotted in Fig. 2.16 to 2.21,
respectively. The moment rotation then was calculated by applying Wehbe et al. method
to the moment curvature curves. The rotations and corresponding moments at cracking,
yielding, and ultimate capacity for all the columns are presented in Table 2.7.
The bond slip moment rotation relationships were used as the input parameters of
the curve. The hysteresis behavior was defined for the spring by using Hysteretic
material in OpenSees. The springs in OpenSees were defined with zero length element,
which allow assigning a force deformation relationship to a beam column element by
defining a fictitious element connecting two coincident nodes.
2.5.5. Nonlinear Dynamic analyses
The columns were analyzed subjected to the achieved shake table acceleration
histories recorded during the test. A damping ratio of 5% was used in the analyses.
The measured and calculated displacement histories for NF-1, NF-2, MN, ETN,
SETN, and SVTN are plotted in Fig. 2.22 to 2.27, respectively. The measured column
displacement histories show that all columns experienced significant residual
displacements, which are attributed to the unique characteristics of the near-fault ground
motion due to its high velocity pulse. In general, the calculated and measured data
correlated well and the residual displacements were estimated with a reasonably close
agreement in five of the six column models. However, the correlation for SETN was
poor.
11
Figure 2.26 shows that the analytical model was unable to capture residual
displacement in SETN during larger runs. The correlation between the measured and
calculated results was close for the first six runs until approximately 200 seconds in the
analysis. During the remaining runs, the calculated residual displacements were very
small whereas the actual column experienced successively increasing residual
displacements. A sensitivity study was performed to determine if changing the number
of integration points along the column height affects the results. While the number of
integration points is five in all columns, it was found that reducing this number to two in
SETN can improve the correlation between the measured and calculated displacement
histories. The results for the modified element are shown in Fig. 2.28. The analytical
model indicated significant residual displacements in the same direction of the measured
residual displacement. During the last few runs (approximately after 200 seconds in the
analysis) the calculated residual displacements were increased and became acceptable.
The effect of the number of integration points on residual displacements was
investigated further by reanalyzing NF1 and SETN. Figures 2.29 and 2.30 show the
results for the two columns for a sample run. The trends for other runs were similar. It
can be seen that in neither columns the results were affected significantly by the number
of integration of four or higher. This suggests that five integration points is reasonable.
SETN appears to present an exception in the column models.
Table 2.8 lists the ratio of the calculated and measured residual drifts for all the
column models. Figure 2.31 shows the ratio of the calculated and measured residual
displacements for different runs in the columns with five integration points used for
SETN. The relatively small measured data for Run 6 in SVTN resulted in the high ratio
of the calculated and measured data for this specific column. However, the average ratio
for all the columns was 1.665, indicating that the analytical model generally leads to a
conservative estimate of residual displacements. The degree of conservatism appears to
be relatively large and certainly larger than expected for refined nonlinear analyses.
However, it should be noted that residual displacement is a secondary displacement and
its calculation has proven to be challenging as indicated by other researchers (Kawashima
et al. 1998, Lee and Billington 2010, Yazgan et al. 2011). The average value of the ratio
for each column is shown in Fig. 2.32. Even though the fiber element model did not
capture the residual displacement adequately in SETN, the average of calculated and
measured for this column is satisfactory. SVTN has the largest average ratio, which is
attributed to the high ratio of the calculated and measured data in run 6 as seen in Fig.
2.31.
2.6.
Cumulative versus Single Motions

In shake table tests the ground motions were applied in multiple runs with
gradually increasing amplitudes to obtain the performance data under different levels of
earthquake. This might raise a question that applying multiple motions could exaggerate
residual displacements because residual displacements may be cumulative. To
investigate whether the calculated residual displacements are sensitive to applying a
series of earthquake motions versus a single motion, the six test columns described in
Sec. 2.2 were reanalyzed. This issue was not studied in shake table tests but was
investigated using analytical models. The analyses were conducted using the analytical
model described in Sec. 2.5.
12
Figures 2.33 to 2.38 present displacement responses for three of the earthquake
runs applied to the test models, causing maximum drift ratio of approximately 2-3%, 45%, and 6-8%, respectively, during the shake table tests. These drift ratios correspond to
low, moderate, and high levels of nonlinearity, respectively. In SETN, responses for high
level of nonlinearity were not presented because the analytical model became unstable
and was not able to capture this level of nonlinearity. The displacement histories were
calculated for a series of achieved earthquake motions with increasing amplitude and the
resultsforthelastrunoftheserieswereextractedandlabeledasMultiple.Asecond
analysis was conducted for each case with input motion being only the last achieved
recordoftheseriesandtheresultingdisplacementhistorywaslabeledasSingle.
In Fig. 2.33-(a) for NF-1, with a maximum drift ratio of approximately 3%, a
small residual displacement at the end of runs for both individual and multiple run
responses occurred; however, multiple motions caused a larger permanent drift. This
trend was also observed in NF-2. The trend was reversed in SVTN. In MN, ETN, and
SETN, multiple and single earthquakes led to nearly the same residual displacements. In
Fig. 2.33-(b) and (c), where nonlinearity is moderate and high, single motions caused
substantially larger residual displacements. Other columns except SVTN and ETN
showed a similar trend. In SVTN, the individual and multiple run responses were nearly
the same for moderate and high amplitudes. In ETN, the individual motion could not
capture the change of the direction of residual displacement. Also, the cumulative
motion led to a larger residual displacement for the high amplitude. The difference in
trend from small to medium and high level of nonlinearity is attributed to the dynamic
characteristics of the column and input motion. Softening of the column in multiple runs
could place the column in the lower part of response spectrum and lead to lower
maximum and residual displacements. The variable trends that were observed for
different column models and motion amplitudes indicate that applying multiple
earthquakes to a column does not necessarily lead to higher residual displacements.
13
Chapter 3. Residual Moment Capacity of RC Columns

3.1.
Introduction
Bridge columns could undergo large residual displacements after near-fault
earthquakes. This was seen in the shake table tests conducted on the columns described
in Chapter 2. Following major ground excitations emergency response vehicles are
expected to use damaged bridges. These vehicles include fire trucks, ambulances, public
utility assessment, repair units, etc. After a strong earthquake, standing columns that
display significant residual displacement present a risk for rescue teams that need to cross
the damaged bridge. P-Delta effects due to the dead load of the bridge and the additional
live load of emergency vehicle can make the columns susceptible to collapse. Hence, it
is important to develop a relatively quick and simple method to determine the residual
moment capacity of columns with permanent lateral displacement. In this chapter, a
simple method is proposed for calculating residual moment capacity based on the
maximum displacement ductility that the column has experienced.
3.2.
Current Design Practice

A typical moment-curvature relationship of a cantilever reinforced concrete
bridge column is shown in Fig. 3.1. My (moment corresponding to the first reinforcing
bar yielding), Mp (plastic moment), Mu (ultimate moment) are key parameters in the
relationship. The moment-curvature curve can be idealized with an elasto-plastic curve
to estimate the plastic moment capacity of the column. The elastic portion of the
idealized curve is passed through the point associated with the first longitudinal
reinforcing bar yielding (My). The idealized plastic moment capacity is obtained by
balancing the areas between the actual and idealized curves beyond the first reinforcing
bar yield point. According to the Caltrans seismic design criteria (SDC 1.6, 2010), if
Equation 3-1 is satisfied, P-Delta effects can be ignored.
Pdl r 0.20 M p
(3-1)
Where Pdl is the dead load applied at the center of gravity of the superstructure
and r is lateral offset between the point of contra-flexure and the base of the plastic
hinge.
AASHTO 2007 Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (2009 Interim
Revisions) suggest that P-Delta effect can be ignored if Equation 3-2 is satisfied.
Pu 0.25 M n
(3-2)
Where Pu is the axial load on column or pier, is the lateral displacement of the
point of contra-flexure in the column relative to the point of fixity for the foundation,
is flexural resistance factor for column and M n is nominal flexural strength of column or
pier calculated under the axial dead load on the column.
14
According to Seismic Analysis and Design of Concrete Bridge Systems (ACI

341.2R, 2003), it is reasonable to ignore the P-Delta effect if the product of the column
axial load and its maximum deflection is less than 15 percent of the column flexural
capacity.
Based on ATC 49 and Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures
(2006), if the product of the column axial load and its maximum deflection is less than 25
percent of the column capacity, the P-Delta effect can be ignored.
3.3.
Formulation of Residual Moment Capacity Factor

In well-designed columns the moment capacity does not deteriorate until very
large ductility levels have been reached. Figure 3.2 shows the measured momentcurvature hysteresis curves for NF-1, which was described in Chapter 2, Sec. 2.2.1. It is
shown that the moment capacity remains the same before the column undergoes a large
curvature ductility of 13.5 (Phan et al. (2005)). The stiffness of a column undergoing
nonlinear curvatures is reduced. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.3. To reach the moment
capacity in an undamaged column the curvature has to increase to y . When a softened
column is reloaded, it will have to undergo a relatively large curvature of d before it
reaches the moment capacity of the column. The higher the maximum curvature ductility
that the column has undergone, the larger is the difference between y and d .
Following a strong near-fault earthquake, bridge columns are expected to undergo large
residual displacements and curvatures. It is reasonable to assume that the residual
moment capacity of the column is the moment that would develop when the damaged
column undergoes an additional curvature (beyond the residual curvature) that is the
same as y . The magnitude of live load that the column can resist after the earthquake is
controlled by the column residual moment capacity.
The residual moment capacity ( M r ) is assumed to be a fraction of the plastic
moment:
M r M p
(3-3)
Where is the residual moment capacity factor and indicates the fraction of the
plastic moment capacity and M p is idealized plastic moment capacity of the column.
Phan et al. (2005) suggested two preliminary models to determine the residual
moment capacity factor:
exp 2
exp
(3-4)
1.27 0.133 exp
(3-5)
15
Where exp is the estimated maximum column displacement ductility under the
earthquake. In both equations, a lower and an upper bound of 0.2 and 1.0 are applied on
, respectively. Equation 3-4 assumes a parabolic relationship between and exp of
up to 10 (Fig. 3.4) while Equation 3-5 assumes a linear relationship between and exp
of up to 8 (Fig. 3.5). Note that these models are based on judgment not analysis.
In this section, two simple models based on measured data from previously tested
columns and simplifying assumptions are proposed for calculating the residual moment
capacity factor.
3.3.1. Simple model with no residual displacement
Figure 3.6 shows a simplified moment-displacement relationship of a column
with no residual displacement. In this case residual displacement is assumed to be zero to
simplify the formulation. To be able to calculate the residual moment capacity factor (
) based on displacement ductility, it is assumed that residual moment capacity is M p
when the displacement is equal to the yield displacement ( y ). According to similar
triangles theorem for OAB and OCD, is:
(3-6)
Where is displacement ductility of the column.

3.3.2. Simple model with residual displacement
Figure 3.7 shows a simplified moment-displacement relationship of a column
with residual displacement ( r ). Similar to the previous simple model, it is assumed that
residual moment capacity is M p and is reached when the column undergoes a
displacement of y beyond the residual displacement. In this case, is calculated as
follows based on similarity relationships between triangles ABC and ADE:
(3-7)
y r
All the parameters were defined previously.

is defined as a ratio of residual displacement and yield displacement:
r
y
(3-8)
Combining Equation 3-7 and 3-8 results in:
16
(3-9)
Since the objective was to derive a simple formula that relates the residual
moment capacity factor ( ) and displacement ductility ( ), a study was done to find the
relationship between and . Phan et al (2005) and Choi et al (2007) reported
measured data including maximum displacement and residual displacement for each run
and also yield displacement calculated based on the elasto-plastic idealization of the
force-displacement for each of the test columns described in chapter 2. Using these data,
and were calculated for each run. Tables 3.1 to 3.6 summarize these values for
each of the columns. Figure 3.8 shows versus for different columns. The curves
are smoothed. To find a relationship between and , two approaches were
considered. In the first approach, a polynomial curve was fitted and in the second
approach a linear curve was used. Figures 3.9 and 3.10 show the first and second
approaches, respectively.
3.3.2.1. Approach 1
In this approach, the relationship between and was calculated as follows:
(3-10)
0.039 2 0.143
Using Equation 3-9 gives:
1
(3-11)
2
0.039 0.857
3.3.2.2. Approach 2
In the second approach the relationship between and was calculated as
follows:
(3-12)
0.471
Using Equation 3-9 gives:
1
2
(3-13)
0.53
3.4.
Discussion
Figure 3.11 shows the residual moment capacity factor ( ) versus displacement
ductility ( ) for different models. For ductility of approximately 2 and less, the
parabolic model, linear model, and simple model with residual displacement-approach 1
lead to a residual moment capacity factor ( ) equal to 1 while this value at ductility of 2
is approximately 0.7 and 0.5 for the simple model with residual displacement-approach 2
and the simple model with no residual displacement, respectively. For ductility of 4, the
parabolic model, linear model, simple model with no residual displacement, and simple
model with residual displacement-approaches 1 and 2 lead to values of approximately
0.5, 0.75, 0.25, 0.35, and 0.5, respectively. For ductility of 8 and higher, the parabolic
model, linear model, and simple model with residual displacement-approaches 1 and 2
17
lead to an of approximately 0.2; however, the simple model with no residual

displacement leads to an of nearly 0.1.
It seems the simple model with no residual displacement is generally too
conservative in calculating residual moment capacity factor. The simple model with
residual displacement (approach 1) is also too conservative when ductility is less than 5.
For ductilities between 2 and 8, the linear model is less conservative than other models.
Since the simple model with residual displacement (approach 2) incorporates residual
displacement in calculating the residual moment capacity factor and also provides the
user with a simple formula, it was used in this study.
18
Chapter 4.
Critical Residual Displacement Limits
4.1.
Introduction
One of the important measures of post-earthquake functionality in bridges is
residual displacement. This chapter aims at determining the residual drift ratio limit
beyond which bridge columns would be unsafe. To determine residual displacement
limits, a large number of reinforced concrete bridge columns with different geometries
and steel ratios were analyzed subjected to truck loading. The residual moment capacity
of the column and the moment due to the trucks and the P-Delta effects were used to
investigate the critical residual displacement limits.
4.2.
Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement

In Japan, reinforced concrete bridge columns with residual drift ratios (residual
displacement divided by column length) of more than 1.75% were demolished and rebuilt
after the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake in 1995 (Kawashima et al. 1998). Following this
earthquake,Japansseismicdesignspecificationsforhighwaybridgeswererevisedto
specify an allowable residual displacement for bridge piers. Under these provisions, no
more than a 1% residual drift ratio is allowed.
The current California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Seismic Design
Criteria (SDC) include provisions pertaining near-fault ground motion by amplification
of the design acceleration spectra; however, no limits on residual displacements are
specified.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) requires site-specific analysis when the site is close to a active fault, but there
are no guidelines for the design of reinforced concrete bridge columns with respect to the
control of residual displacement.
Based on PEER tall buildings initiative, for MCE (maximum credible
earthquake), the mean of the absolute values of residual drift ratios from the suite of
analyses shall not exceed 1% in each story. In addition, in each story, the maximum
residual story drift ratio in any analysis shall not exceed 1.5%. Based on this guideline,
the residual story drift ratio of 1% is intended to protect against excessive postearthquake deformations that likely will cause condemnation or excessive downtime for a
building. The limits on residual drifts also are based on concern that tall buildings with
large residual drifts may pose substantial hazards to surrounding construction in the event
of strong aftershocks. Repair or demolition of tall buildings with large residual drifts also
may pose risk to the community.
4.3.
Analytical Models
One of the main unique effects of the fault normal component of near-fault
earthquakes is the high potential residual displacements under earthquakes. Residual
displacements may be unacceptable due to aesthetic consideration or safety. While the
former is subjective, to evaluate the safety of the bridges after earthquakes the critical
residual displacement can be found based on strength limits. Columns with permanent
lateral drifts could be unsafe because of potential for failure under traffic loads. To
determine residual drift limits that could pose a safety problem, cantilever single column
19
reinforced concrete bridge piers with different characteristics were considered because
single-column piers are more vulnerable than multi-column piers under the P-Delta
effect. Table 4.1 lists the properties of the columns considered in the analysis. The
longitudinal steel ratio, , for each section was changed from 1% to 4%. In addition, the
heights of the columns were changed from 16 ft. (4880 mm) to 32 ft. (9760 mm) in
increments of 4 ft. (1220 mm). The design of the columns was based on the 2004
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC 2004). It is known that reinforced concrete
members meeting current seismic codes maintain their lateral load capacity to relatively
large drifts. However, columns that have undergone inelastic cyclic deformations have
considerable stiffness degradation and require relatively large deformations before
reaching their residual moment capacity as discussed in detail in Sec. 3.3. Figure 4.1
shows the moment-curvature in a well-designed column. The initial stiffness of the
column is K1. After the column yields, the new stiffness drops to K2 which is lower than
K1. Hence, larger deformation is required to reach the moment capacity, which is the
same as the initial moment capacity.
Lateral deformations under service loads are small because the associated moment
in the column is relatively small. For this reason and also to be conservative according
to the recommendations in Chapter 3, the residual moment capacity in some of the
columns was assumed to be one-fifth of the idealized plastic moment capacity, Mp.
Residual displacement limit was calculated based on the residual moment capacity and
the P-Delta moment induced by the column axial load and the weight of two trucks
placed on one side of the column (Fig. 4.2). The section analyses were carried out using
program Xtract (Chadwell 2007) to determine the plastic moment capacity of the
columns. The study consisted of two analyses: in Analysis 1, residual drift ratio of
columns with different characteristics and axial loads was calculated based on the weight
of two trucks and residual moment capacity factor, , of 0.2 while in Analysis 2, different
number of trucks and residual moment capacity factor, , were used to calculate the
residual drift ratio for only one of the representative columns.
4.3.1. Analysis 1
In the first analysis, for each longitudinal steel ratio, the column axial load was
assumed to be 0.05fcAg or 0.1fcAg. The weight of one truck was assumed to be 71 kips
(316 kN) (Fire Engine Catalog 2010), which is the maximum weight of existing fire
trucks and is approximately the same as the AASHTO LRFD HL-93 truck weight. Two
trucks were assumed to be present on one-half of the superstructure supported on the
cantilever single column reinforced concrete bridge pier (Fig. 4.2). The residual
displacement capacity, , was computed by dividing the residual moment capacity over
the summation of column axial load and the weight of two trucks. Tables 4.2 to 4.9 show
the results for columns with different longitudinal steel ratios and axial loads. Figures 4.3
to 4.34 show the moment curvature relationships for different columns. The momentcurvature relationship was obtained using Xtract software (Chadwell 2007). The
moment-curvature curve was idealized by an elasto-plastic relationship to estimate the
plastic moment capacity. The elastic portion of the idealized curve was assumed to pass
through the point marking the first longitudinal reinforcing bar yielding. The idealized
plastic moment capacity was obtained by balancing the areas between the calculated and
the idealized curves beyond the first reinforcing bar yield point.
20
Figure 4.35 shows the residual drift ratio versus column diameter for different
column heights, axial loads, and longitudinal steel ratios. It can be seen that for a given
column height, longitudinal steel ratio, and axial load, residual drift ratio limit increases
with the increase of column diameter. As the column diameter increases, axial load
increases; however, the increase in plastic moment capacity dominates and results in
higher drift ratios. Also, for a specific column diameter, residual drift ratio limit
decreases when column height increases (Fig. 4.36). Residual drift ratio is defined as
residual displacement divided by column height. As column height increase, it is
expected to reach lower residual drift ratio. Moreover, for similar columns, increasing
the longitudinal steel ratio increases the residual drift ratio limit, which is attributed to the
increase in plastic moment capacity (Fig. 4.37). As expected, when axial load increases,
the residual drift ratio limit decreases to maintain the same P-Delta moment.
In analysis 1, the critical residual drift was 1.2%, for the column with diameter of
36 in. (914 mm), height of 32 ft. (9760 mm), longitudinal steel ratio of 1%, and axial
force of 0.1f'cAg .
4.3.2. Analysis 2
To determine the effect of the residual moment capacity factor and the number of
trucks, in this analysis a specific column with a specific height and diameter was
analyzed. In analysis 1, the critical residual drift ratio obtained for the column with the
steel ratio of 1%, which is the lower limit for a bridge column, and high slenderness ratio.
In this analysis, to be more practical, a column with higher steel ratio and lower
slenderness ratio was chosen. Hence, the column with diameter of 4 ft. (1219 mm),
height of 24 ft. (7315 mm), longitudinal steel ratio of 2%, and axial force of 0.1f'cAg was
assumed. For this column, theresidualmomentcapacityfactor,wasvariedfrom0.2to
1.0 and the number of trucks was assumed to vary from 1 to 4. The residual
displacement limit, , was computed by dividing the residual moment capacity over the
summation of column axial load and the weight of trucks.
Residual drift ratio limits versus the number of trucks and residual moment
capacity factor is shown in Figures 4.38 and 4.39. Figure 4.38 shows that the residual
drift ratio limit decreases when the number of trucks increases. Increasing the number of
trucks means higher weight of trucks, which leads to lower residual displacement because
the denominator in calculating residual displacement has been increased. Figure 4.39
shows that, as the residual moment capacity factor, , increases, the residual drift ratio
limit increases because the residual moment capacity increases. In analysis 2, the critical
residual drift equal of 3.3% for 0.2 and number of truck of four was obtained (Fig.
4.39).
The analyses revealed that even for the most conservative condition of residual
moment capacity, the critical drift ratio is 1.2%. To be more conservative and consistent
with current design codes, it is recommended to use 1% as a residual drift ratio limit if
the column is well confined and meets current seismic code detailing requirements.
Under this recommendation, the post-earthquake deformations of columns will not
increase substantially, which is safe for emergency services.
21
Chapter 5. Simple Methods to Estimate Residual Displacement

5.1.
Introduction
The most direct method to estimate residual displacement is nonlinear response
history analysis which is time consuming and complicated. A simple and rational method
is required to estimate the residual displacement. Indirect methods can be categorized
into residual displacement spectra or simple methods. These methods either depend on
earthquake and structural characteristics or are empirical. Residual displacement spectra
will be discussed in Ch.6 in details. The emphasis of the current chapter is on different
simple methods to estimate the residual displacement. A simple method that was
developed in the current study is presented and compared with other simple methods at
the end of the chapter.
5.2.
Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement

Currently there are no guidelines for the design of reinforced concrete bridge
columns with respect to calculation of residual displacement in either the AASHTO
Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design or the Caltrans SDC. However,
both have provisions regarding the near fault effect.
ATC 58 (ATC 58-1 75% draft 2011) recommends a simple formulation to
calculate the residual story drift for buildings. According to ATC 58, median residual
story drift, r , should be calculated as:
r 0.3( y )
3
y
y
y 4 y
4 y
(5-1)
Where is the median maximum story drift and y is the median yield story
drift calculated by analysis. The yield drift can be calculated as the story drift associated
with story shear forces that cause (a) the beams and/or columns reach their expected
plastic moment capacity taking into account the effect of axial forces in the members, or
(b) the beam-column joint panel reaches its expected yield strength.
After the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake, part V: Seismic Design of the
Design Specifications of Highway Bridges (Japan Road Association) was totally revised
in 1996 (Unjoh 2003). Based on these specifications, in Type B bridges (important
bridges), residual displacement developed at a pier after an earthquake must be checked
as
R Ra
(5-2)
Where
R c R ( R 1)(1 r ) y
(5-3)
W 2
1
R 2 k hc P 1
a
k hc c z k hc0
W Wu c PWP
22
(5-4)
(5-5)
(5-6)
Pa k heW
k he
k hc
2 a 1
a 1
u y
y
(5-7)
(5-8)
(5-9)
In which R is residual displacement of the pier after an earthquake, Ra is

allowable residual displacement, r is bilinear factor defined as a ratio of the postyielding stiffness and the initial stiffness up to yielding of a pier, c R factor depending on
the bilinear factor (r ) which is 0.6 for a RC pier, R is response displacement ductility
factor of the pier, y is yield displacement of the pier, u is ultimate displacement of the
pier, k hc is lateral force coefficient, k hc0 is standard modification factor (Table 5.1), c z is
modification coefficient, which is 0.7, 0.85, and 1.0 depending on the seismic zone (Fig.
5.1), W is equivalent weight, Wu is the weight of a part of superstructure supported by
the pier, W p is the weight of pier, c P is coefficient depending on the type of failure
mode (0.5 for a pier in which either flexural failure or shear failure after flexural cracks
are developed, and 1.0 is for a pier in which shear failure is developed), k he is equivalent
lateral force coefficient, a is allowable displacement ductility factor, is safety factor

(Table 5.2), and Pa is lateral load capacity of a pier when the force is applied at the
gravity center of the superstructure. Ra is 1/100 of the distance between the bottom of
the pier and the gravity center of the superstructure (1% drift).
Table 5.1 presents the standard modification coefficient k hc0 for Type I and Type
II ground motions. The Type I ground motions have been used since 1990 (1990
Specifications), while the Type II ground motions were incorporated in the 1996
Specifications. The Type II ground motions typically represent the ground motions
recorded in Kobe during the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake. It should be noted that the
Type II ground motions comprise pulse-type accelerations with high peak values and
short duration while the Type I ground motions are more repetitive accelerations with
long duration.
5.3.
Methods for Estimating Residual Displacement

It has been observed that near-fault ground motions are frequently characterized
by intense velocity pulses. These pulses expose structures located in near-fault regions to
high input energy that results in severe demands especially high residual displacements in
bridge columns (Saiidi et al. 2012; Choi et al. 2009; Mavroeidis et al. 2004; Zatar et al.
2002). This pulse-type velocity motion is particular to the forward direction, where the
fault rupture propagates toward the site at a velocity close to the shear wave velocity;
causing most of the energy arrives at the site within a short time. Near-fault ground
motions come in large variations and this variety complicates evaluation or prediction of
structural response unless the ground motions can be represented by a small number of
simplified motions that can reasonably replicate important near-fault ground motion
23
characteristics. In this section, five methods are investigated to determine their ability to
estimate residual displacements. The focus of first method is on the effects of ground
motion characteristics on the response. In the second and third method, pulse shapes
including half-cycle and full-cycle sinusoidal shapes are used to simulate the ground
velocity pulses in near-fault records, respectively. The velocity pulse of a near-fault
ground motion is extracted in method four and the effect of this simulated motion on
response is compared to the actual ones. Finally, two versions of an empirical simple
method that was developed based on measured data of previously tested columns
described in Chapter 2 are presented. In the first four methods, NF-1 was the only
column analyzed because no significant trend in terms of residual drift and column
properties was obtained from the investigations on this column. It is expected using these
methods for other test columns would lead to the same conclusion.
5.3.1. Residual Displacement Based on Ground Motion Parameters
The thought behind this method was that ground motion characteristics could
potentially be used to estimate residual displacement. Sv (maximum pseudo velocity), Tg
(period at maximum pseudo acceleration), and Tvg (period at maximum pseudo velocity)
for ground motions were used as indicators of the ground motion characteristics. The
dependency of the maximum drift ratio on characteristics of the motion was evaluated
and whether residual drift ratio could potentially be related to the maximum drift was
investigated. To determine if this approach is viable, it was developed and applied to
NF-1 (previously described in Chapter 2). For NF-1, the maximum pseudo acceleration
(Sa), maximum pseudo velocity (Sv), column period (Tc), period at maximum pseudo
acceleration (Tg), and period at maximum pseudo velocity (Tvg) for each run were
calculated based on measured data using SeismoSignal software (SeismoSoft 2010)
(Table 5.3). The FFT of the column top acceleration was calculated and the frequency
corresponding to the maximum Fourier amplitude was used to calculate the effective
period of the column. Figure 5.2 presents a plot of residual drift ratio versus the ratio of
period at maximum pseudo velocity and column period (Tvg/Tc) for different runs. The
data show that residual drift ratio is independent of Tvg/Tc. Figure 5.3 illustrates the
residual drift ratio versus the ratio of period at maximum pseudo acceleration and column
period (Tg/Tc). It is seen that residual drift ratio is also independent of Tg/Tc. Residual
drift ratio versus the maximum pseudo acceleration (Sa) is shown in Fig. 5.4. As
maximum pseudo acceleration increases, the residual drift also increases in an almost
exponential manner. Figure 5.5 shows the residual drift ratio versus maximum pseudo
velocity (Sv). The residual drift ratio increases in an exponential manner as the maximum
pseudo velocity increases. The corresponding plots for the maximum drift ratio are
shown in Fig. 5.6 to 5.9. Similar to residual drift results, while the maximum drift ratio is
independent of Tvg/Tc and Tg/Tc, it increases as the maximum pseudo acceleration or
maximum pseudo velocity increases in an almost exponential manner. Because the
relationship between residual drift and these parameters did not include the column
structural characteristics, this method was not directly used to estimate the residual
displacement; however, this finding was a basis to account for spectral acceleration at one
second (S1) in developing residual drift spectra, which is described in Chapter 6.
24
5.3.2. Half-cycle Sinusoidal Method

The random shape of ground velocity pulse is modeled by a very simple halfcycle sinusoidal shape to estimate the residual displacement. Figure 5.10 shows velocity
history of a single pulse (half-cycle sinusoidal) with amplitude of Vmax and duration of Td
representative of the main velocity pulse in a near-fault velocity history. Nonlinear
response history analysis was carried out using OpenSees by applying this velocity pulse
to NF-1. Table 5.4 summarizes the characteristics of velocity history (Vmax and Td),
which represents an earthquake run and the corresponding response of NF-1. While the
duration of pulse (Td) is constant, say one second, residual drift increases from 0.23% to
14.01% as amplitude of velocity pulse (Vmax) increases from 0.25 in/sec. (6.35 mm/sec.)
to 15 in/sec. (381 mm/sec.) because of higher energy of pulse. Also, for a constant
maximum velocity (Vmax), residual drift increases as the duration of pulse (Td) or ratio of
pulse duration and effective column period (Td / (Tc/2)) increases. Residual drift versus
ratio of pulse duration and effective column period for different Vmax is presented in Fig.
5.11. It can be seen that residual drift increase linearly as the ratio of pulse duration and
effective column period increases. This is attributed to the higher energy of the longer
period pulses which leads to higher residual drift. The Rinaldi velocity history has PGV
(peak ground velocity) of approximately 65 in/sec. (1651 mm/sec.) and duration of the
main single pulse of approximately 0.8 sec. According to the measured data, residual
drift in NF-1 was 5.9% when it was subjected to 1.05xRinaldi. Based on Table 5.4, an
earthquake run with a velocity amplitude of 20 in/sec. (508 mm/sec.) and duration of 0.5
sec., which is significantly smaller than the main pulse of Rinaldi, led to extremely high
residual drift of 10.44% in NF-1, which implies that this method overestimates the
residual drift and should not be used.
5.3.3. Full-cycle Sinusoidal Method
Another idealization of the near-fault impulsive velocity pulse can be full-cycle
sinusoidal. While the main pulse could cause significant residual displacement, another
pulse in the opposite direction could potentially reverse and reduce the residual
displacement. To investigate the effect of the reversed branch of a velocity history on the
response, a velocity history with reversed pulse (full-cycle sinusoidal) was applied to NFT
1 (Fig. 5.12). The ratio of duration of the second pulse and first pulse ( d 2 ) and that
Td 1
V
) is and 1,
of maximum velocity of the second pulse and first pulse ( 2 max
V1 max
respectively. The characteristics of the velocity history and response of NF-1 are
presented in Table 5.5. Figure 5.13 shows residual drift versus ratio of pulse duration and
effective column period for different Vmax. As the ratio of pulse duration and effective
column period increases, residual drift increases. Residual drift versus ratio of pulse
duration and effective column period for different and 1 is shown in Fig. 5.14. It can
be seen that there is no trend between residual drift and ratio of pulse duration and
effective column period in terms of and 1. Figures 5.15 to 5.23 present the relation
between residual drift and 1 for different duration of the first pulse and . In Fig. 5.15,
where the duration of the first and the second pulse is 3.0 and 1.5 seconds, respectively,
25
the amplitude of second pulse is changed from 0.5 to 1.5 times that in the first pulse. As
the amplitude of the second pulse increases, residual drift decreases. Also, for the same
ratio of maximum velocity of the second pulse and the first pulse (1), residual drift
considerably increases as amplitude of the first pulse increases, which is attributed to the
higher energy of this dominant pulse. Figure 5.16 shows that when the first and second
pulses have the same duration, residual drift is zero when the amplitude of second pulse
is equal to the first pulse (as expected for symmetric full-cycle sinusoidal pulse). Also,
residual drift increases as the amplitude of either the first or second pulse increases. In
Fig 5.17, where the duration of the first and second pulse is 3.0 and 4.5 seconds,
respectively, the amplitude of the second pulse is changed from 0.5 to 1.5 times that in
the first pulse. The residual drift considerably increases as the ratio of maximum velocity
of the second pulse and the first pulse (1) increases. A similar trend is seen when
duration of the first pulse is 1.0 second (Fig. 5.18 to 5.20) or 0.5 second (Fig. 5.21 to
5.23). It was revealed that residual drift is governed by the dominate pulse and increased
as velocity increased.
Based on Fig. 5.23, where the duration of the first and second pulse is 0.5 and
0.75 second, respectively, residual drift is large (approximately 9%) when 1 is 1.5 and
the amplitude of the first and second pulse is small (15 in/sec. (381 mm/sec.) and 22.5
in/sec. (571.5 mm/sec.), respectively). The measured data for NF-1 showed that residual
drift of approximately 8% occurred in Run 10 (1.20xRinaldi) while the amplitude of the
pulses is much higher. This indicates that this method generally overestimate the residual
drift; however, because the results show that the dominant pulse controls the residual
drift, this method was used as the basis the method described in Section 5.3.4.
5.3.4. Main and Simplified Velocity Pulses of Near-fault Motions
To evaluate if the main velocity pulse of a near-fault ground motion can be used
as an indicator of the magnitude of residual displacement, different velocity histories of
recorded near-fault ground motions and the corresponding main pulses were applied to
the prototype of NF-1. The recorded near-fault ground motions were: Rinaldi from
Northridge earthquake (1994), TCU067 from Chi-Chi earthquake (1999), Tabas from
Tabas earthquake (1978), W Valley Coll from Loma Prieta Earthquake (1989), and
Erzincan from Erzincan Earthquake (1992). These records were obtained from the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center website. Two versions of the
main velocity pulse were used: in the first version, the main velocity pulse of the motion
was extracted and used whereas in the second version this main pulse was simplified by
connecting the maximum and zero velocities in each single pulse to investigate how this
triangular pulse affects the residual displacement. Fig. 5.24 to 5.38 show the response to
complete earthquake velocity history, main velocity pulse, and simplified velocity pulse
for each ground motion. Figures 5.24 to 5.26 show that while the residual displacement
in NF-1 prototype subjected to the complete velocity history of Rinaldi is approximately
4 in. (102 mm), it is 24.5 in. (621.28 mm) and 24.9 in. (631.44 mm) for the
corresponding main pulse and simplified pulse, respectively. Table 5.6 lists the residual
displacement from different analyses and the ratio of residual displacement from the main
and simplified pulses and that from the complete earthquake analysis for all earthquakes.
It is seen that the main and simplified pulses overestimate the residual displacement by a
factor of two or more. Note that for Rinaldi and Erzincan earthquakes, where the main
26
pulse is approximately triangle, residual displacements obtained from the main and
simplified pulses were close. The large difference in the estimated residual
displacements indicates that the main pulse by itself cannot be used to estimate residual
displacements, and that the rest of the velocity history can significantly affect the
response.
5.3.5. Proposed Empirical Method
An empirical method utilizing the data from six test columns described in chapter
2 was developed to estimate residual drift ratio. In Chapter 3 section 3.3.2, parameter ,
which is the ratio of residual displacement and yield displacement, was introduced using
two relationships in terms of displacement ductility, based on the measured data for the
test columns. The coefficient of determination R 2 for the polynomial and linear
relationship was 0.82 and 0.75, respectively. Hence, the polynomial relationship that was
selected in that method is used in this section.
5.3.5.1. Version 1
In the first version, for simplicity Equation 3-10 with rounded coefficient is used:
0.04 2 0.14
1.0

(5-10)
1.0
0
Figure 5.39 shows the relationship between and using different equations. It is
shown that the difference between the relationship using equation 5-10 and 3-10 is
negligible. Also, for ductilities between 4 and 8, some data are above the curve obtained
using Equation 5-10, which indicates that is not overly conservative.
5.3.5.2. Version 2
In the second version, to be more conservative, a polynomial curve was fitted
only to the upper cluster of data in Fig. 5.39:
0.1769 2 0.4408 0.3041
1.0

(5-11)
0
1
.
0
Figure 5.40 presents the relationship between and using Equation 5-11. The
coefficient of determination R 2 is 0.98, which shows a strong correlation among the
parameters. To simplify this equation, the coefficients are rounded as follows:
(5-12)
0.18 2 0.44 0.3
The relationship between and using Equation 5-12 is shown in Fig. 5.41. It
can be seen that this Equation can closely capture the obtained using measured data.
5.4.
Comparison of Different Methods

The proposed empirical methods were generated using measured data for
previously tested columns. The ATC 58 (ATC 58-1 75% draft 2011) and Japanese code
(Japan Road Association 1996) are currently the only codes that incorporate a formula to
calculate residual displacement, hence it is important to compare these methods with
measured data and the proposed methods to determine the relative merit of different
methods. In addition to the data for columns tested at UNR, measured data from shake
table testing of a full-scale column recently tested at the University of California, San
27
Diego (UCSD) was included in the study. Also, another full-scale column, C1-5 tested at
the E-Defense facility in Japan, was considered. C1-5 was subjected to the near-field
ground motion recorded at the JR Takatori station during the 1995 Kobe earthquake;
however, this record did not cause appreciable residual displacements. Only after the
column failed a significant residual drift ratio of 1.8% was measured (Kawashima et al.
2012). Because large residual displacements after failure are not unique to near-fault
earthquakes (Phan et al. 2007), C1-5 was excluded from the study. The test data from the
analytical study by Yazgan et al. (2011) were excluded in the present study because those
data were mostly based on RC walls with residual drift ratio of less than 1%. In addition,
the data were only for one single run with low ductility demand.
5.4.1. UCSD Column
A full-scale concrete bridge column was tested at UCSD (Concrete Column Blind
Prediction Contest 2010). The column was a flexure-dominated circular column tested as
a cantilever member. The column height was 288 in. (7315 mm). The diameter of
specimen was 48 in. (1219 mm). The column longitudinal reinforcement consisted of 18#11 bars spaced evenly in a circular pattern. The transverse reinforcement consisted of
double #5 hoops spaced at 6 in. (152 mm) on center. Grade 60, A706 was used for the
column longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. The specified strength of concrete
was 4 ksi (27.6 MPa). The specimen was subjected to ground motions recorded at the
Agnews State Hospital (Run 1), Corralitos (Runs 2 & 4), LGPC (Runs 3 & 6) stations
during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and Takatori station (Run 5) during the 1995
Kobe earthquake. Figure 5.42 presents the velocity history of the FN component of the
ground motions from the Loma Prieta earthquake. It is seen that ground motions at
Agnews State Hospital and Corralitos may not be considered as near-fault ground
motions because the velocity histories do not include a clear strong pulse.
5.4.2. Results
Tables 5.7 to 5.13 list the measured and calculated residual displacements based
on all the methods and error percentage for different columns in the runs causing ductility
of two or more and a measured residual drift ratio of 0.5% or more. Error percentage was
calculated as:
Calculated Data Measured Data
(5-13)
Error Percentage
100
Measured Data
A negative sign indicates that the method underestimates residual displacement
and vice versa.
According to Table 5.7 for NF-1, Japanese code overestimates the residual
displacement in Runs 5 and 6 by 89% and 44%, respectively; however, the residual
displacement is underestimated during the remaining runs by as much as 45%. Based on
ATC, method 1, and method 2, the residual displacement is overestimated in almost all
runs. For ATC, error percentage increases from 45% (Run 5) to 103% (Run 6) then
decreases to 13% (Run 10). The error percentage decreases from 89% (Run 5) to -12%
(Run 10) for method 1. Based on method 2, error increases from 81% (Run 5) to 167%
(Run 6) then slightly decreases to 130% (Run 10).
The results show that all the methods overestimate the residual displacement.
Method 2 considerably overestimated the residual displacements as expected. Also, the
28
Japanese method is less conservative. This method underestimated residual

displacements in many cases. Tables 5.8 to 5.12 list the results for NF-2, MN, ETN,
SETN, and SVTN, respectively. Almost a similar trend of changing the error percentage
was obtained for NF-2 and MN. For MN, Japanese method underestimates the residual
displacement for larger runs. For ETN, Japanese method, ATC, and method 1
underestimate the residual displacement for larger runs. In SETN and SVTN, Japanese
method, ATC, and method 1 generally underestimate the residual displacement. The fact
that the error percentage for method 2 was relatively small for ETN, SETN, and SVTN
shows the effect of the upper cluster of data that was the basis of this method. According
to Table 5.13 for UCSD Column, all the methods significantly overestimate the residual
displacement. Note that for UCSD column Run 4 was excluded from the study because it
was not a run with near-fault ground motion (Sec. 5.4.1).
Table 5.14 lists the average and standard deviation of error percentage and
coefficient of determination R 2 between the measured and calculated residual
displacements based on all the methods for different columns. Coefficient of
determination R 2 was calculated as follows:
( Measured Calculated ) 2
(5-14)
R2 1
2
( Measured Avg. of Measured )
R 2 near 1.0 indicates that the method estimates the residual displacement well.
Also, a negative or small R 2 shows that the method poorly captures residual
displacements.
Based on Table 5.14, for NF-1 and NF-2, Japanese code presents the least average
of error percentage; however, the standard deviation is the highest, which indicates a
relatively large scatter of data for this method especially in NF-1. R 2 of 0.93 for method 1
in NF-1 demonstrates a good correlation between the measured and calculated residual
displacements. For NF-2 and MN, a high average with relatively small standard
deviation of difference for ATC method led to a poor correlation between the calculated
and measured data (negative R 2 ). For NF-1, NF-2, and MN, R 2 based on method 2 is
less than zero because this method significantly overestimates the residual displacement
in all runs. In ETN, the ATC method provides the least average, which resulted in a good
capture of residual displacement ( R 2 of 0.81). R 2 of 0.98 for method 2 shows a very
good estimation of residual displacement. Average of difference is relatively small for
Japanese and method 1; however, high standard deviation of difference led to small R 2 .
All the methods except method 2 underestimate the residual displacement for SETN and
SVTN. In SETN, average of difference is small for ATC and method 1, which with
relatively small standard deviation of difference resulted in the high R 2 of 0.77 and 0.88
for ATC and method 1, respectively. High average and standard deviation of difference
for method 2 led to negative R 2 in SETN. Average of difference is approximately the
same based on Japanese, ATC, and method 1 for SVTN; however, ATC method presents
higher R 2 (0.72) because of lower standard deviation of difference. For this column,
method 2 with low average and standard deviation of error presents a high R 2 (0.97).
For UCSD column, all the methods significantly overestimate the residual displacement.
29
Considering all the columns, the average and standard deviation difference and
R for each method and for displacement ductility of two to four and higher ductilities
are presented in Table 5.15 and 5.16, respectively. Ductility of four was chosen because
in ATC method this ductility indicates a transition as shown in Equation 5.1. For
ductilities less than four, all the methods overestimate the residual displacement. Among
different methods, ATC (average and standard deviation of difference of 21% and 47%,
respectively) and method 2 (average and standard deviation of error of 42% and 38%,
respectively) with the same R 2 of 0.62 have the best ability to capture the residual
displacement; however, method 1 (average and standard deviation of error of 58% and
60%, respectively) and Japanese method (average and standard deviation of difference of
56% and 60%, respectively) with approximately the same R 2 of 0.4 lead to poor
correlation with the test data. For higher ductilities, all the methods still overestimate the
residual displacement. Japanese code presents the least average of error (2%). Method 1
shows the highest R 2 (0.43); however, ATC and method 2 present the significantly high
standard deviation (105% and 163%, respectively), which led to the lowest R 2 (0.11 and
negative, respectively).
Generally all the methods overestimate the residual displacement. For ductility of
four or more, method 2 is too conservative and unrealistic, whereas the Japanese method
and method 1 closely estimate the residual displacement. Of the methods discussed in
this chapter, the Japanese method is more involved and requires several parameters,
whereas other methods are very simple. A more comprehensive approach is to estimate
residual displacement using residual drift spectra, which is presented in Chapter 6.
2
30
Chapter 6. Residual Displacement Spectra

6.1.
Introduction
After an earthquake occurs, the column permanent displacement can be directly
measured during the inspection; however, at the design stage, the engineer needs to
estimate the expected residual drift demand. In Ch.5 a simple empirical method was
introduced for estimating residual displacement based on the maximum displacement
ductility. A more comprehensive and sophisticated method is generating residual
displacement spectra that depend on ductility, column period, soil condition, and
earthquake characteristics. Given the fundamental period and the expected displacement
ductility demand for the column, the residual drift response spectra curves can be utilized
to estimate the residual drift demand. The residual drift spectra were developed to be
integrated in a near-fault earthquake design method that is applicable to bridges in
different parts of US. Residual drift spectra were created based on nonlinear response
history analyses using a comprehensive collection of recorded and synthetic near-fault
ground motions. The synthetic near-fault ground motions were generated based on
seismological studies conducted by Dr. Paul Somerville who served as a consultant to
this project.
6.2.
Near-fault Ground motions

Near fault earthquakes have two main attributes. The first is the rupture
directivity effect, which is manifested in an intermediate to long period pulse of motion
(0.5 to 10 seconds) that is strongest at closest distances from the fault less than about 15
km. The fault-normal component of near fault ground motions is systematically larger
than the fault-parallel component at intermediate and long periods (Somerville et al.
1997). The second attribute is the hanging wall effect (Abrahamson and Somerville
1996), which is manifested in amplified short period ground motions (less than 1 second)
on the hanging wall of a dipping fault.
These near fault effects pertain mainly to shallow crustal earthquakes, which
occur throughout the United States. The ground motion characteristics of shallow crustal
earthquakes in the tectonically stable regions of the United States (east of the Rocky
Mountains) are very poorly known due to the lack of strong motion recordings, but they
are believed to be different from those of the tectonically active region west of the Rocky
Mountains.
Although similar rupture directivity and hanging wall effects are generated by
subduction earthquakes (occurring on the plate interface) and by earthquakes occurring
within subducted slabs, these two kinds of earthquakes occur at greater depths and so
their directivity effects are diminished and will not be treated in this study as near fault
effects. Subduction earthquakes occur in the depth range of 10 to 50 km, with the
shallow part of the plate interface usually located far offshore, and have magnitudes as
large as 9.5. Slab earthquakes typically occur at depths of 40 km or more, beneath the
coastal margin, and have magnitudes as large as 7.5. Further, the effects of large
magnitude in subduction earthquakes are expected to occur at periods longer than the
period range of 0.3 to 3.0 seconds that is of most interest in this study. In the United
31
States, subduction zone earthquakes affect the Pacific Northwest and Puerto Rico
(Somerville et al. 2011).
6.3.
Approximate Zonation of United States

Nine sites across the United States were chosen with different earthquake source
characteristics. The selection of the nine sites was based on an approximate zonation of
the seismic hazard in the United States. Figure 6.1 illustrates these nine sites on the
United States map.
Near fault earthquakes refer to ground motions occurring within approximately 9
miles (15 km) of the earthquake source. Besides distance, earthquake magnitude also has
a strong influence on near fault effects. The approximate zonation of the United States
was developed based on predominant earthquake magnitude as a first order method of
evaluating representative near fault response spectra and ground motion histories
throughout the country.
A brief description of the approximate zonation of the United States for
generating synthetic near-fault ground motions is presented in this section. This formed
the basis for selecting the nine sites for which acceleration histories were provided. For
each of the nine site locations, the predominant magnitude, style of faulting (strike-slip,
reverse, or normal), and the name of the predominant fault are described. This
approximate zonation can be used to select other sites at which the histories may be
applicable. However, to confirm that they are applicable, the deaggregation of the
seismic hazard at the desired site should be compared with that at the site whose
acceleration histories have been selected to confirm that the earthquake magnitudes of the
acceleration histories are compatible with those at the desired site (Somerville et al.
2011).
The ground motions were presented on rock site conditions (class B/C boundary;
Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec)), and soil conditions (class C/D boundary; Vs30 = 1200
ft/sec (360 m/sec)) for inelastic level (having a return period of 975 years). For each
record, there are four spectrally matched horizontal component acceleration histories.
One pair of orthogonal components is rotated 45 degrees from the fault normal (FN) and
fault parallel (FP) directions, which are H1 and H2. These histories contain hanging wall
effects for reverse faulting earthquakes, and average rupture directivity effects. The other
pair of orthogonal components is in the fault normal (FN) and fault parallel (FP)
directions. These histories contain hanging wall effects for reverse faulting earthquakes
and the fault normal (FN) component contains the rupture directivity pulse (Somerville et
al. 2011).
6.3.1. Pacific Northwest
The Pacific Northwest includes the Pacific Coast of Alaska and the coastal
regions of Washington, Oregon and Northern California (north of Cape Mendocino). In
this region, crustal earthquake activity is influenced by subduction zones. In most of this
region, near-fault ground motions are dominated by earthquakes with magnitudes of up to
7.0, for example in Seattle and Portland. In some other regions, such as Humboldt Bay
and the southern coast of Alaska, these earthquakes can have magnitudes as large as 8 on
imbricate faults that are related to the underlying subduction zone.
32
6.3.1.1. Site 1. Seattle (M 6.8, reverse (Seattle fault))

This site is representative of sites mapped near reverse and reverse oblique faults
in Seattle and Portland, which generate earthquakes of up to magnitude 7. The selected
histories were derived from recordings of the Mw 6.9 1989 Loma Prieta, California
(corresponding to earthquake code of lp) and Mw 6.7 1994 Northridge, California
(corresponding to earthquake code of nr) earthquakes. Table 6.1 and 6.3 summarize the
characteristics of components of the acceleration histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec
(360m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), respectively. In these tables, the
acceleration history name consists of two parts: the first part is earthquake code and the
second part is station code. Note that earthquake and station names are abbreviated by
earthquake and station codes, respectively. For example, lp_cls is representative of Loma
Prieta earthquake at Corralitos station. In addition, for each acceleration history, the FNFP and H1-H2 columns present the average value of PGA (peak ground acceleration) or
S1 (spectral acceleration at one second) for FN and FP components or H1 and H2
components, respectively. Because PGA and S1 for different components of an
acceleration history were approximately the same, an average of these parameters was
used as a representative of each pair of orthogonal components. The range of average
PGA for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.49g to 0.64g while it is 0.36g to 0.5g for
Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the range of average S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec
(360 m/sec) is 0.45g to 0.50g which reduces to 0.29g to 0.32g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec
(760 m/sec). This is attributed to the higher amplification effects for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec
(360 m/sec) due to the soil condition compared to rock site condition for Vs30 = 2500
ft/sec (760 m/sec). Tables 6.2 and 6.4 list the station names corresponding to the station
codes of acceleration histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec
(760 m/sec), respectively.
6.3.1.2. Site 2. Eureka, California (M 7 to 8, reverse (Little Salmon and other faults))
This site is representative of sites mapped near large thrust faults in northwestern
California, which generate earthquakes of up to magnitude 8. The selected acceleration
histories were derived from recordings of the Mw 7.6 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan
(corresponding to earthquake code of cc) and Mw 7.0 1992 Cape Mendocino, California
(corresponding to earthquake code of cpm) earthquakes. Table 6.5 and 6.6 summarize
the characteristics of components of the acceleration histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360
m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), respectively. The range of average PGA for
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.84g to 1.14g while it is 0.78g to 1.15g for Vs30 =
2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the range of average S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360
m/sec) is 1.07g to 1.18g which reduces to 0.67g to 0.71g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760
m/sec). Table 6.7 lists the station names corresponding to the station codes of
acceleration histories.
6.3.2. Central and Southern California
The coastal regions of central and southern California (south of Cape Mendocino)
are dominated by the strike-slip San Andreas Fault system. Reverse faulting is also
prevalent in the transverse ranges, including Santa Barbara and Los Angeles.
33
6.3.2.1. Site 3. San Bruno, California (M 8, strike-slip (San Andreas Fault))

This site is representative of sites near the San Andreas Fault, which generates
strike-slip earthquakes of up to magnitude 8 along practically its entire length. The
selected acceleration histories were derived from recordings of the Mw 7.9 2002 Denali,
Alaska (corresponding to earthquake code of dn) earthquake and broadband strong
motion simulations (Graves and Pitarka 2010) of recurrences of the Mw 7.8 1906 San
Francisco earthquake (corresponding to earthquake code of r4h) having three different
hypocentral locations: north (n), central (c) and south (s) (Aagaard et al. 2008). Table 6.8
and 6.9 summarize the characteristics of components of the acceleration histories for
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), respectively. The
range of average PGA for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.84g to 0.94g while it is
0.73g to 0.89g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the range of average S1 for
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 1.07g to 1.16g which reduces to 0.63g to 0.78g for
Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Table 6.10 lists the station names corresponding to the
station codes of acceleration histories.
6.3.2.2. Site 4. Berkeley, California (M 7, strike-slip (Hayward fault))
This site is representative of sites near the other major mapped strike slip faults in
California, including the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles Region, and San
Diego, which generate earthquakes of up to magnitude 7. The selected acceleration
histories were derived from recordings of the Mw 6.9 1989 Loma Prieta, California
(corresponding to earthquake code of lp), Mw 6.9 1992 Erzincan, Turkey (corresponding
to earthquake code of erz) and Mw 6.8 Tottori, Japan (corresponding to earthquake code
of to) earthquakes. Table 6.11 and 6.12 summarize the characteristics of components of
the acceleration histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760
m/sec), respectively. The range of average PGA for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is
0.89g to 1.20g while it is 0.80g to 1.13g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the
range of average S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 1.20g to 1.30g which reduces to
0.73g to 0.79g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Table 6.13 lists the station names
corresponding to the station codes of acceleration histories.
6.3.2.3. Site 5. Sylmar, California (M 7, reverse (San Fernando and other faults))
This site is representative of sites near mapped reverse and thrust faults in
California, including the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara regions, which generate
earthquakes of up to magnitude 7.5. The selected acceleration histories were derived
from recordings of the Mw 7.35, Tabas, Iran (corresponding to earthquake code of tab),
Mw 6.9 1989 Loma Prieta, California (corresponding to earthquake code of lp), Mw 6.7
1994 Northridge, California (corresponding to earthquake code of nr) and Mw 7.6 ChiChi, Taiwan (corresponding to earthquake code of cc) earthquakes. Table 6.14 and 6.15
summarize the characteristics of components of the acceleration histories for Vs30 =
1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), respectively. The range of
average PGA for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.84g to 1.00g while it is 0.81g to
1.05g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the range of average S1 for Vs30 = 1200
ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 1.05g to 1.12g which reduces to 0.62g to 0.70g for Vs30 = 2500
ft/sec (760 m/sec). Table 6.16 lists the station names corresponding to the station codes
of acceleration histories.
34
6.3.3. Basin and Range (Intermountain West)

The Basin and Range Province occupies a broad region extending from the
coastal margin of California, Oregon and Washington to the Rocky Mountains. This
region is characterized by normal and strike-slip faulting.
6.3.3.1. Site 6. Salt Lake City, Utah (M 7, normal (Wasatch fault))
Site 6 is representative of sites near mapped normal faults in the Basin and Range
region of the Intermountain West, including the Wasatch fault near Salt Lake City, which
generates earthquakes of up to magnitude 7. The selected acceleration histories were
derived from recordings of the 1980 Mw 6.06 Mammoth Lakes, California
(corresponding to earthquake code of m1), 1980 Mw 6.2 Irpinia, Italy (corresponding to
earthquake code of i2), 1980 Mw 6.9 Irpinia, Italy (corresponding to earthquake code of
i1), and 1995 Mw 6.4 Dinar, Turkey (corresponding to earthquake code of di)
earthquakes. Table 6.17 and 6.18 summarize the characteristics of components of the
acceleration histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760
range of average S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.35g to 0.38g which reduces to
0.21g to 0.23g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Table 6.19 lists the station names
corresponding to the station codes of acceleration histories.
6.3.4. Central and Eastern United States
The Central and Eastern United States includes the region east of the Rocky
Mountains. It contains only few identified faults, which are characterized by strike-slip
or reverse faulting. These identified faults include the New Madrid Seismic Zone, the
Meers fault, and the Cheraw fault.
6.3.4.1. Site 7. Cheraw, Colorado (M 7, reverse (Cheraw fault))
Site 7 is representative of sites near mapped reverse faults in Colorado (Cheraw
fault) and oblique reverse faults in Oklahoma (Meers fault), which generate earthquakes
of up to magnitude 7. Due to a lack of historical earthquake records, as was explained in
Sec.6.2, the acceleration histories were derived from broadband strong motion
simulations of Mw 7.0 reverse faulting earthquakes (corresponding to earthquake code of
whsb) at hanging wall sites for earthquakes in stable continental regions (Somerville et
al., 2009). Table 6.20 and 6.21 summarize the characteristics of components of the
acceleration histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760
average S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.04g which reduces to 0.02g to 0.03g
for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). The station codes are simulation stations for each
acceleration history.
6.3.4.2. Site 8. Tiptonville, Tennessee (M 7.5, strike-slip / reverse (New Madrid
fault))
Site 8 is representative of sites near mapped reverse and strike-slip faults in the
New Madrid Fault Zone, which generate earthquakes of up to magnitude 7.5. The
35
selected acceleration histories were derived from broadband strong motion simulations of
Mw 7.5 reverse faulting earthquakes (corresponding to earthquake code of whsb) at
hanging wall sites for earthquakes in stable continental regions (Somerville et al. 2009).
Table 6.22 and 6.23 summarize the characteristics of components of the acceleration
histories for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec),
respectively. The range of average PGA for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 1.02g to
1.17g while it is 1.04g to 1.12g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the range of
average S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.67g to 0.74g which reduces to 0.54g to
0.61g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). The station codes are simulation stations for
each acceleration history.
6.3.4.3. Site 9. New York City, New York (M 6.5, reverse (Undefined fault))
This site is representative of sites near unmapped reverse faults in the Central and
Eastern United States which generate earthquakes of up to magnitude 7. The selected
acceleration histories were derived from broadband strong motion simulations of Mw 6.5
reverse faulting earthquakes (corresponding to earthquake code of whlfb) at hanging wall
sites for earthquakes in stable continental regions (Somerville et al. 2009). Table 6.24
and 6.25 summarize the characteristics of components of the acceleration histories for
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), respectively. The
range of average PGA for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.09g to 0.11g while it is
0.07g to 0.08g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). Also, the average S1 for Vs30 = 1200
ft/sec (360 m/sec) is 0.05g which reduces to 0.03g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec).
The station codes are simulation stations for each acceleration history.
6.4.
Methodology to Develop Residual Drift Spectra

To determine residual drift ratios for a range of periods and lateral displacement
ductilities, program OpenSees was utilized. For this component of the study, NF-1,
previously described in Ch.2, with the same mass was used in the response history
analysis. The analysis was carried out based on the same assumptions in Ch.2. A range
of periods was achieved by setting mass constant for all models but allowing variation in
column length. For each model representing a particular column period, critical
maximum displacement and residual displacement were calculated based on the response
history analysis by applying FN-FP and H1-H2 components of different earthquakes to
the model.
The following steps were followed in the construction of residual drift spectra:
Step-1: Assume a column height
Step-2: Conduct pushover analysis to determine the effective yield displacement
(y) and the first yield displacement corresponding to the displacement at which first
yield occurs in longitudinal reinforcement. The ultimate displacement (u) corresponds
to the displacement at which core edge concrete reaches ultimate compressive strain. To
determine the effective yield displacement (y), a bilinear curve was generated using the
first yield displacement and ultimate displacement by balancing the areas below and
above the bilinear curve (Fig. 6.2). The Elastic part of the idealized curve was
determined by connecting the origin to the point of the first yield displacement.
Step-3: Conduct response history analysis to determine the residual displacement
and maximum displacement
36
Step-4: Displacement ductility demand is determined by dividing the maximum

displacement from response history analysis by the effective yield displacement from
pushover analysis
Step-5: Draw the residual displacement versus period for the corresponding
ductility demand
Step-6: Change the column height and repeat the process from step-2.
For each model, a range of displacement ductility demands were generated by
changing the confinement properties.
6.5.
Residual Drift Spectra

AASHTO standard specifications for highway bridges (AASHTO 2007) include
maps for PGA, and response spectral accelerations (Sa) at 0.2 and 1.0 second. The
difference between near fault ground motions and ordinary ground motions is not
significant for Sa at 0.2 sec, but is significant for Sa at periods of 1.0 second and more
(Somerville et al. 2009; Chioccarelli et al. 2010). Assuming that near fault earthquake
effects are present in the AASHTO maps, it would be best to tie the residual displacement
spectrum to the spectral acceleration value at 1.0 second (S1), because it would be
sensitive to near fault effects. This allows an engineer to determine spectral accelerations
for the nominally1000-year return period (which is close to 975-year return period) for
the bridge location based on the AASHTO maps and then check the residual
displacement.
Initial analyses show that residual drift is less than 1% when spectral acceleration
at 1.0 second (S1) is less than 0.4g. Thus, records with spectral acceleration at 1.0 second
of less than 0.4g were ignored. These records were from site 6- Salt Lake City, Utah, site
7- Cheraw, Colorado, and site 9- New York City, New York.
Three ranges of spectral acceleration at 1.0 second (S1) were assumed: 1) 0.40.6g, 2) 0.6-0.8g, and 3) > 0.8g for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500
ft/sec (760 m/sec). Table 6.26 shows the number of records for each range of S1. While
there is a large number of records for each range of S1 for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec),
there is no record for the range of S1 > 0.8g for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec). This is
expected because for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) of which the histories are on the
rock and very stiff site conditions. As a result, compared to Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360
m/sec), there is a considerably less amplification in the spectrum especially at higher
periods leading to few sites having S1 exceeding 0.8g.
To fill the gap in the earthquake records for the range of S1 > 0.8g for Vs30 =
2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) recorded near-fault ground motions were obtained from the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center website. Three criteria were
applied to selecting the ground motions: (1) the earthquake magnitude is 6.5 or higher,
(2) the closest distances from the fault is less than 9 miles (15 km), and (3) 1800 ft/sec
(540 m/sec)Vs302500ft/sec(760m/sec).Sevenrecordswereidentified.Themajor
principal component should be used to represent motion in the fault-normal direction and
the minor principal component should be used to represent motion in the fault-parallel
direction. The recorded near-fault ground motions and their characteristics are presented
in Table 6.27.
Figures 6.3 to 6.6 show examples of near-fault histories for S1: 0.4-0.6g for Vs30
= 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and for different components. Velocity and displacement
37
histories were generated by integrating the acceleration and velocity histories,

respectively. All components show a long period velocity pulse in velocity history.
Examples of histories for other ranges of S1 and different Vs30 are presented in Appendix
A.
Because NF-1 was a scaled column, the time scale of the input records was
compressed to take into account the scaling effect using Equation 6-1:
Wi s
(6-1)
Ts T p
P
Where
Ts is the period of the scaled member, T p is prototype period, Wi is the weight of
the inertial system (mass rig), s is the scale factor, and P is applied axial force on the
column. Detailed information about derivation of scaling is provided in Phan et al.
(2005) and Choi et al. (2007).
Residual drifts were determined for ductilities of 2, 4, and 6. Note that the
ductility demand values were interpolated to arrive at the results for each of the desired
ductilities. Because the scatter in residual drift is relatively high, it is decided that for
each period and ductility demand, residual drift response spectra be constructed for the
average, average plus standard deviation and average minus standard deviation.
The period ranged from 0.1 to 2.0 seconds with increments of 0.05 seconds
(prototype scale). For each period and ductility value, a residual drift response spectrum
for each of the ranges of S1 and soil conditions was generated. Figure 6.7 shows the
residual drift spectrum for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S1: 0.40.6g. As seen the spectra is generated with a distinct valleys in the residual drift ratio
curve as column period increases. This is due to the effective period of the column as it
relates to the frequency content of the ground motion in addition to interpolating of
displacement ductility for each period. It was felt that the envelope of the residual drift
spectra would be a more reasonable set of curves to be used. The envelopes of residual
drift response spectra for average and average plus standard deviation are shown in Fig.
6.8. To be more conservative, the envelopes of residual drift response spectra for average
minus standard deviation were not generated. The envelopes eliminate the valleys in the
curves of Fig. 6.7 and present the more conservative estimate of the residual drift ratios
for the period ranges where the valleys occur. Figures 6.9 to 6.30 show the residual drift
spectrum for different Vs30, ductility, and ranges of S1. Figure 6.9 shows the residual
drift spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two, and S1: 0.6-0.8g.
Compared to Fig. 6.7, higher values for residual drift are obtained because of the higher
range of S1. The envelope of the residual drift spectra presented in Fig. 6.9 is shown in
Fig. 6.10. For an effective period of 1 second, , the estimated residual drift based on
average and average plus standard deviation are approximately 0.55% and 0.75%,
respectively. Residual drift spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four,
and S1: 0.6-0.8g is shown in Fig. 6.11. As demand ductility increased, the residual drift
significantly increased. Based on Fig. 6.12, which shows the envelope of Fig. 6.11,
when the column period increases of approximately 0.5 seconds and 0.45 seconds the
corresponding residual drift is more than 1.0% for average and average plus standard
deviation plots, respectively. As S1 increases the residual drift increases (Fig. 6.13).
While the residual drift even for the average plus standard deviation plot is less than 1.0%
for S1 of 0.6-0.8g and ductility of two (Fig. 6.10), it is higher than 1.0 % for the same
38
ductility and S1 > 0.8g (Fig. 6.14) for the period of approximately 0.90 seconds and 0.55
seconds and higher for average and average plus standard deviation plots, respectively.
This is attributed to the stronger input earthquakes for this range of S1. As demand
ductility increases, the residual drift increases (Fig. 6.15 and 6.17), as expected.
According to Fig. 6.16 for ductility of four, the residual drift is more than 1.0% for
periods higher than 0.4 seconds for the average plot. The corresponding period based on
Fig. 6.18 for ductility of six is 0.3 seconds which shows that columns with high ductility
demand and periods are required to be designed for near-fault ground motion effects. For
Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), the corresponding plots are presented in Fig. 6.19 to
6.30. A similar trend can be seen for this site condition; however, residual drift is
generally lower, which is expected. Note that these diagrams were generated with the
assumption that 50% of the section is cracked. The period axis can be adjusted to
account for different cracked section properties. The diagrams corresponding to a ratio of
cracked to gross moment of inertia for 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.7 are presented in Appendix B.
39
Chapter 7. Bridge Column Design Procedure for Near-Fault

Earthquakes
7.1.
Introduction
Previous chapters demonstrated that one of the critical response parameters of the
bridge columns subjected to near-fault ground motions is generally high residual
displacements that can affect the post-earthquake functionality of the bridges. A new
guideline for the design of reinforced concrete bridge columns exposed to near-fault
earthquakes was developed as part of the current study and is presented in this chapter.
The focus of the guideline is on the control of residual drift, which is determined using
either the proposed simple method described in Chapter 5 or residual drift spectra
presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. The method ties the residual drift to the
AASHTO maps for spectral acceleration at 1.0 second (S1) and 1000-year return period
based on the bridge location and then checks the residual drift. Appendix C provides a
design example.
7.2.
Current Design Practice

The AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design (AASHTO
2011) does not include any specific provisions dealing with the design for a near-fault
ground motion. Instead, a site-specific analysis is required if the site is located within 6
miles (10 km) of a known active fault. Such analysis is costly and complex.
The Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, SDC version 1.6 (Caltrans 2010)
recommends the design spectrum to be amplified to account for near-fault earthquake
effects. No amplification is required if the site is located more than 15.6 miles (25 km) to
the rupture plane. The amplification factor is fully applied at locations within 9.4 miles
(15 km) of the rupture. For distance between 9.4 miles (15 km) and 15.6 miles (25 km),
linear interpolation is used. For sites located within 9.4 miles (15 km), the amplification
factor consists of 20% increase in spectral acceleration if the period is 1.0 second or
higher. If the natural period of the structure is 0.5 second or less, no amplification is
required. For periods between 0.5 second and 1.0 second, linear interpolation is used.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC 1997) incorporates near-fault earthquake
effects by increasing design spectral acceleration using near source factors. These factors
are applied when the closest distance to seismic source is 6 miles (l0 km) or less and
magnitude is greater than 6.5.
7.3.
Proposed Design Procedure

The procedure presented here is to be used for iterative design of reinforced
concrete bridge columns to satisfy the residual drift limit (1.0 %) requirement (in Sec.
4.3.2) when subjected to near-fault earthquakes. A flowchart of the design process is
shown in Fig. 7.1. In the proposed method, for a given site, first the column is designed
based on Caltrans or AASHTO provisions and the capacity is checked against the
demand. Subsequently, the residual drift ratio is checked. If the residual drift check is
satisfactory, no adjustment in the size of the column or longitudinal reinforcement is
required. But if the column fails the residual drift check, the size of the column, the
longitudinal steel ratio, or both need to be increased and the procedure is repeated. Two
40
approaches can be utilized to estimate the residual drift. In the first approach, given the
effective period, the effective moment of inertia for the column, and expected
displacement ductility demand, a residual drift spectra curve can be utilized to determine
a residual drift value. Note that residual drift spectra that were presented in Ch. 6 are for
different spectral accelerations at 1.0 second (S1) and soil types. In the second approach,
residual drift ratio is calculated using the simple method described by Equation 5-10,
which is based on the displacement ductility demand.
Displacement ductility demand is calculated by dividing the maximum
displacement by the effective yield displacement. To determine the maximum
displacement, it was assumed that displacements resulting from the inelastic response of
a bridge are approximately equal to the displacements obtained from an analysis using
the linear elastic response spectrum (Miranda and Bertero 1994). The elastic response
spectra were generated using SeismoSignal software (SeismoSoft 2010) for damping
ratio of 5% and each range of S1 described in Sec. 6.5. To consider the scatter in data, the
spectra were constructed for the average, average plus standard deviation, and average
minus standard deviation. Figure 7.2 shows the spectral displacement for Vs30 = 1200
ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1: 0.4-0.6g. The spectra are jagged. Figure 7.3 presents the
envelope of the spectra. To be conservative, the envelope for average minus standard
deviation was not generated. The spectral displacement for S1: 0.6-0.8g is shown in Fig.
7.4. Compared to Fig. 7.3, higher spectral displacements are obtained, which is expected
due to the higher range of S1. The envelopes of these spectral displacements are
displayed in Fig. 7.5. As S1 increase, the spectral displacement increases (Fig. 7.6 and
7.7). For a column with natural period of 1.0 seconds, the spectral displacement is 5 in.
(127 mm) based on the envelope of average plot; however, the corresponding value is
approximately 7.5 in. (191 mm) and 12 in. (305 mm) for S1: 0.6-0.8g and S1> 0.8g,
respectively. This is attributed to the stronger input earthquakes for these ranges of S1.
For Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), the corresponding plots are presented in Fig. 7.8 to
7.13. A similar trend can be seen for this site condition; however, spectral displacement
is generally lower, which is expected. This is attributed to the lower amplification in the
spectrum for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) of which the histories are on the rock and
very stiff site conditions. Because the difference between the average and average plus
standard deviation spectra is small, it is recommended to use the average envelope
spectra to determine the spectral displacement.
According to AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design,
for higher damping ratios, a reduction factor R D may be applied to the 5% damped
spectra to calculate the maximum displacement:
0.4
0.05
R D
(7-1)

Where is damping ratio not to be taken greater than 0.1.
Also, note that the assumption that displacements of an elastic system will be the
same as those of nonlinear system is not valid for short-period structures. The maximum
spectral displacement shall be multiplied by the displacement magnification factor, Rd to
obtain the design displacement for short-period structures:
1 T* 1
T*
R d 1
1.0
for
1.0
(7-2)
T
T
41
In which
T * 1.25Ts
(7-3)
S D1
S DS
S D1 Fv S1
S DS Fa S s
Ts
(7-4)
(7-5)
(7-6)
Where
is maximum displacement ductility demand, T is natural period of the
structure, Fa is site coefficient for spectral acceleration at 0.2 seconds, Fv is site
coefficient for spectral acceleration at 1.0 seconds, S s is spectral acceleration at 0.2
seconds, and S1 is spectral acceleration at 1.0 seconds. Based on AASHTO
recommendation, for SDC C ( 0.3 S D1 0.5 ) is 3.0. For SDC D ( S D1 0.5 ),
shall satisfy the requirements listed in Table 7.1.
The following steps are recommended for near-fault design of bridge columns:
Step-1: Design the column based on AASHTO or Caltrans provisions.
Step-2: For the given site, determine soil type and the spectral acceleration at 1.0
second (S1) using the AASHTO maps for 1000-year return period.
Step-3: Calculate the natural period ( T ):
m
(7-7)
T 2
k
Where m and k are the mass and stiffness of the structure, respectively.
Step-4: Given the natural period, S1, and soil type, determine the maximum
displacement utilizing the spectral displacement diagrams (Fig. 7.2 to 7.13). The
maximum displacement may also be determined from a linear elastic multimodal
response spectrum analysis. Note that the calculated maximum displacement may need
to be modified by Equation 7-1 and 7-2. Because the magnification factor in Equation 72, Rd , is a function of displacement ductility demand (step-7), an iterative procedure is
required to obtain the maximum displacement if displacement magnification is necessary.
Step-5: Calculate the effective moment of inertia ( I eff ). Two approaches can be
utilized to determine the effective moment of inertia: in the first approach, the effective
moment of inertia is estimated using Fig. 7.14 knowing the axial dead load and
longitudinal reinforcing ratio. In the second approach, the effective moment of inertia is
taken as the slope of the moment-curvature ( M ) curve between the origin and the
point designating the first reinforcing bar yielding:
My
E c I eff
(7-8)
Where
M y is moment of the section at first yielding of the reinforcing steel, y is the
curvature of section at first yielding of the reinforcing steel, and E c is the modulus of
elasticity of concrete.
42
Step-6: Conduct pushover analysis to determine the effective yield displacement

of the column ( y ).
Step-7: Determine the displacement ductility demand by dividing the maximum
displacement from step-4 by the effective yield displacement from pushover analysis.
Step-8: Determine the effective period using Equation 7-7 using the effective
moment of inertia that was used in calculating stiffness ( k ).
Step-9: Determine the residual drift ratio.
Residual drift value can be obtained using one of two approaches: in the first
approach, given the effective period, expected displacement ductility demand, and the
effective moment of inertia for the column, the residual drift is determined from the
corresponding residual drift envelope spectra for specific range of S1 and soil type, which
were presented in Ch.6 and Appendix B. The interpolated value of residual drift should
be used if the displacement ductility demand is between two and four or four and six.
Note that it is assumed that the residual drift ratio is negligible when the displacement
ductility demand is less than two.
In the second approach, utilizing the simple method described in Ch.5, the
residual displacement r is calculated as
(7-9)
r y
In which
0.04 2 0.14
1.0

(7-10)
1.0
0
Where
is displacement ductility demand and y is yield displacement of the column.
Residual drift ratio is obtained by dividing the residual displacement r by the
height of the column.
Step-10: Check if residual drift ratio is less than 1.0%. Otherwise, to decrease the
effective period and ductility demand, increase the size of the column, longitudinal steel
ratio, or both and repeat the process from step-3.
A design example is provided in Appendix C.
43
Chapter 8. Cost Estimation

8.1.
Introduction
A new methodology for design of RC bridge columns subjected to near-fault
ground motions was proposed in Chapter 7. According to the design method, the size of
the column, longitudinal steel ratio, or both may have to be increased to decrease the
residual drift ratio. To evaluate the impact of the proposed near-fault earthquake design
on the cost of a bridge, several representative actual bridges that had been designed based
on current or recent design specifications were redesigned using the proposed method.
The bridges are located in different parts of the United States with one-second spectral
acceleration of at least 0.4g. It was observed that where the one-second spectral
acceleration is less than 0.4g, residual displacements are unlikely to be significant. This
chapter describes the bridges, evaluation of residual displacements and any necessary
design revision, cost analysis, and the overall cost impact for different bridges.
8.2.
Description of Bridges
Five representative bridges from the States Washington, Utah (2), California, and
South Carolina that meet current standards were modeled. The models were analyzed
based on the current location of each bridge and redesigned for near-fault motions when
necessary according to the recommendations in Ch.7. The effect of redesign in terms of
total cost of the bridge was evaluated.
Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 summarize general information and column longitudinal
and transverse steel ratios in each bridge. The bridges cover two to eight spans, have no
or small skew (less than 15 degrees), and are supported on bents with two to four
columns. The one-second spectral acceleration ranges from 0.4g to over 0.8g. The
bridges were labeled according to the bridge location.
8.2.1. Washington Bridge
The bridge is located in Washington State near the city of Olympia at latitude
47.0 and longitude -122.9 with site class of E. The design of this bridge is based on
MCEER/ATC 49 (ATC 49 2003). The design earthquake loading is the maximum
considered earthquake (MCE) with 3 percent chance of exceedence in 75 years (2475
years return period). Based on the design criteria and location of the bridge, spectral
acceleration at 1.0 second (SD1) is 0.986g. Figures 8.1 to 8.3 show the structural details
of the bridge. The bridge is 500 ft. (152 m) long with five equivalent spans and is 43-ft.
(13.1-m) wide supported on seat-type abutments. The bridge is straight and the piers are
oriented normal to the roadway alignment (no skew). The superstructure is a cast-inplace, three-cell concrete box 72 in. (1829 mm) deep with 12-in. (305-mm) interior webs
spaced at 132 in. (3353 mm). The bottom and top slabs are 8-in. (203-mm) and 9-in.
(229-mm) thick. The intermediate piers are integral with the box girder and consist of
two cast-in-place round concrete columns with a diameter of 48 in. (1219 mm). The
longitudinal reinforcement consists of 28#11 bars in Bent 1 (longitudinal steel ratio of
2.4%) and 20#10 bars (longitudinal steel ratio of 1.4%) in other bents. The columns are
supported by a 22 ft. (6.7 m) by 46 ft. (14 m) pile cap with cast-in-place concrete piles.
The diameter of the piles is 24 in. (610 mm). The concrete has a specified compressive
44
strength of 4 ksi (27.6 MPa). Steel reinforcement has a specified yield stress of 60 ksi
(414 MPa).
8.2.2. Utah Bridge-1
This bridge is in Salt Lake City, Utah on GloversLaneoverLegacyParkway.
The site latitude is 40.9652 degrees north, and the longitude is -111.8929 degrees west.
Soil category is site class D. The design of this bridge is in accordance with
MCEER/ATC 49 (ATC 49 2003) for MCE with 3 percent chance of exceedence in 75
years (2475 years return period). Spectral acceleration at 1.0 second (S1) is 0.58g. The
structure details of the bridge are presented in Fig. 8.4 to 8.6. The bridge has two spans
with a total length of 214.5 ft. (65 m). The first span is 114.5 ft. (35 m) and the second
span is 100 ft. (30 m). The piers are oriented at an angle of 11 degrees from a line
perpendicular to the bridge centerline. The superstructure is made up eight prestressed
precast I-girders (AASHTO Type VI beam) spaced at 116 in. (2946 mm) on center. The
roadway is an 8 in. (203 mm) thick cast-in-place slab with a total width of 76.2 ft. (23.2
m). The abutment is integral. The intermediate pier (Bent 2) is made up of 72 in. (1829
mm) deep by 66 in. (1676 mm) wide dropped cast-in-place concrete cap beams supported
by four, 4 ft. (1219 mm) diameter cast-in-place concrete columns. The column height for
all columns is 162 in. (4115 mm) measured from the top of the pile cap to the soffit of the
dropped cap beam. The column longitudinal reinforcement is made up of 21-#9
(longitudinal steel ratio of 1.2%) bars. The columns are supported on a 14 ft. (4.3 m) by
89 ft. (27 m) pile cap with cast-in-place concrete piles. The diameter of the piles is 16 in.
(406 mm). The concrete has a specified compressive strength of 4 ksi (27.6 MPa) for
cast-in-place elements and 8.5 ksi (58.6 MPa) for precast elements. The specified yield
stress of steel reinforcement is 60 ksi (414 MPa).
8.2.3. Utah Bridge-2
The bridge is located in Salt Lake City, Utah on Center Street over Legacy
Parkway. The latitude and longitude of the bridge are 40.8415 and -111.9426 degrees,
respectively. The site is classified as D. The design of this bridge is based on
MCEER/ATC 49 (ATC 49 2003) for MCE with 3 percent chance of exceedence in 75
years (2475 years return period). S1 is 0.59g. Figures 8.7 to 8.9 present the structure
details of the bridge. The bridge is 186 ft. (56.7 m) long with two equal spans. The piers
are oriented at an angle of 10.5 degrees from a line perpendicular to the bridge centerline.
The superstructure consist of six prestressed precast I-girders (AASHTO Type V beam)
spaced at 112 in. (2845 mm) on center. The thickness of the cast-in-place slab is 8 in.
(203 mm) with a total width of 54.2 ft. (16.5 m). The abutment is integral. The
intermediate pier (Bent 2) is 74 in. (1880 mm) deep by 66 in. (1676 mm) wide dropped
cast-in-place concrete cap beams supported by three, 48 in. (1219 mm) diameter cast-inplace concrete columns. The column height for all columns is 193 in. (4902 mm)
measured from the top of the pile cap to the soffit of the dropped cap beam. The
longitudinal reinforcement consists of 18-#10 (longitudinal steel ratio of 1.26%) bars.
Each column is supported by a 20 ft. (6.1 m) by 20 ft. (6.1 m) pile cap with cast-in-place
concrete piles. The diameter of the piles is 16 in. (406 mm). The concrete specified
compressive strength is 4 ksi (27.6 MPa) for cast-in-place elements, and 7.5 ksi (51.7
45
MPa) for precast elements. Specified yield stress of reinforcement steel is 60 ksi (414
MPa).
8.2.4. California Bridge
The bridge is located in California supported on a site class C soil. The bridge
was adopted from the Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Bridges (2006). The
design of this bridge is based on pre 1971 codes. SD1 for the site is 0.56g. Figures 8.10
and 8.11 show the structure details of the bridge. The bridge has four spans and was 470
ft. (72 m) long. The spans are asymmetrical at 160 ft. (49 m) (Span 1), 106 ft. (32 m)
(Span 2), 114 ft. (35 m) (Span 3), and 90 ft. (27 m) (Span 4). The piers are oriented
normal to the roadway alignment (no skew). The superstructure is a cast-in-place
concrete box girder. The intermediate piers are integral with the box girder and
supported by two cast-in-place concrete columns. The diameter of the columns is 48 in.
(1219 mm). The column height for Bent 2 is 40 ft. (12192 mm). For Bents 3 and 4,
column height is 50 ft. (15240 mm). The longitudinal reinforcement consists of 21No.M55 bars for Bent2 (longitudinal steel ratio of 4.5%) and 33- No.M35 bars
(longitudinal steel ratio of 2.8%) for other bents. Each column at Bent 2 is supported by
a 14 ft. (4.3 m) by 14 ft. (4.3 m) footing. A 12 ft. (3.7 m) by 12 ft. (3.7 m) footing is
provided for each column at other bents. The concrete has a specified compressive
strength of 3.25 ksi (22.4 MPa). The specified yield stress of steel reinforcement is 60
ksi (414 MPa).
8.2.5. South Carolina Bridge
The location of the bridge is in South Carolina on US 378 over Little Pee Dee
River. The site latitude is 33.834 degrees north, and the longitude is -79.253 degrees
west. The site is classified as site class D. The design of the bridge is based on
AASHTO 2004 LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with 2005 and 2006 interim
revisions. Seismic design is in accordance with the SCDOT Seismic Design
Specifications for Highway Bridges (2001). The considered earthquake loading is Safety
Evaluation Earthquake (SEE), which is defined as the ground shaking with 3%
probability of exceedence in 75 years (2475 years return period). SD1 for the site is
0.419g. The structure details of the bridge are shown in Fig. 8.12 to 8.14. The bridge is
1034 ft. (315 m) long with eight equivalent spans. The piers are perpendicular to the
roadway alignment (no skew). The bridge is slightly curved (R=5700 ft. (1737 m)). The
superstructure is made up five prestressed precast I-girders (Bulb tee beam (74 in. (1880
mm) modified) spaced at 117 in. (2972 mm) on center. The roadway is a 9 in. (229 mm)
thick cast-in-place slab with a total width of 47.25 ft. (14.4 m). The abutment is integral.
The intermediate piers are made up of 66 in. (1676 mm) deep by 66 in. (1676 mm) wide
dropped cast-in-place concrete cap beams supported by two 60 in. (1524 mm) diameter
cast-in-place concrete columns. The longitudinal reinforcement consists of 30-#11
(longitudinal steel ratio of 1.66%) bars. Each column is supported by a 96 in. (2438 mm)
diameter drilled shaft. The concrete specified compressive strength is 4 ksi (27.6 MPa)
for cast-in-place elements, and 8 ksi (55.2 MPa) for precast elements. The specified yield
stress of reinforcement steel is 60 ksi (414 MPa).
46
8.3.
Analytical Models
The structural analysis program SAP2000 version 15.0.1 (Computer and
Structures, Inc. 2011) was utilized for the analyses. An example of global view of the
model for Washington bridge is presented in Fig. 8.15. X-axis was taken to be along the
longitudinal axis of the bridge, and the Z-axis was taken to be vertical. The bridge
superstructure was modeled as a spine. All spine members were frame elements with six
degrees of freedom. The superstructure had four elements per span and the work lines of
the elements were located along the centroid of the superstructure. Moments of inertia
and torsional stiffness of the superstructure was based on uncracked cross-sectional
properties. The bents were modeled with frame elements that represent the cap beam and
individual columns. In bridges with box girder superstructure, the cap beam was defined
at the elevation of the superstructure center of gravity. A node was defined in plan at top
of each of the column centerlines at the soffit of the box girder and also at the center of
gravity of the cap over the columns. Rigid links were used to connect the cap beam joints
over the columns to the joints at the top of column. In bridges with prestressed girders
superstructure, the cap beam was defined at the cap beam centerline. The superstructure
spine was attached to the cap beam via a rigid link at each pier. The rigid link was
assumed to be between the center of gravity of the superstructure and the top of the cap
beam. For Utah bridges, the superstructure was pin connected to the top of the dropped
cap beams at the intermediate pier. For South Carolina bridge, this connection was
continuous because bearing were anchored to the top of the cap beam. Another rigid link
was made from the bearing location to the center of gravity of the cap beam. Additional
rigid links were used to connect the cap beam joints centered over the columns to the
joints at the top of column. Since a spine was used, the moment of inertia of the cap
beam was increased by a factor of 10000 to ensure reasonable force distribution to the
substructure components during the analysis. The columns were also modeled using
frame elements. The effective moment of inertia was used for the column members.
This parameter was calculated as the slope of moment-curvature diagram of the column
using moment-curvature analysis in SAP2000. For Washington and California bridges,
the foundation spring properties were available from soil and foundation properties. In
the longitudinal direction, the intermediate bent columns and the abutment backfill resist
the longitudinal seismic force. In the transverse direction, the superstructure, individual
piers, and the abutment soil resist the load. The end diaphragm of the box girder is in
contact with the soil behind. Therefore, a longitudinal foundation spring was used to
model the pile stiffness and passive resistance of the backfill. Also, transverse springs
were used to account for the pile stiffness. For Washington bridge, foundation springs
representing the piles were applied to the node at the base of the pile cap. For California
bridge, foundation springs were applied to the node at the base of the column. For other
bridges, due to the lack of geotechnical data, fixed connections were used instead of
foundation springs; however, no abutment restrains were assumed in the longitudinal
direction to be more conservative.
Since the skew angle for Utah bridges was very small (less than 15 degrees), the
skew angle was ignored. Also, because the curvature of South Carolina bridge was
relatively small resulting in a very small central angle of approximately 1 degree, the
bridge was treated as a straight bridge.
47
8.3.1. Response Spectrum Analysis

To determine the maximum seismic displacement demands, linear elastic
multimodal spectral analysis using the response spectrum with 5 percent damping was
conducted. Using the coordinates of the bridges and site classification, response
spectrum coefficients: acceleration coefficient (As), spectral acceleration at 1.0 seconds
(SD1), and short period spectral acceleration (SDS) were calculated in accordance with
AASHTO specifications (AASHTO 2009) for 1000-year return period. Table 8.3 lists
these parameters in additional to the design SD1 for each bridge. The design SD1 is based
on the design criteria that had been used for each bridge. Note that because the exact
location of California bridge was not available, the calculated SD1 was assumed to be the
same as the design SD1. Figure 8.16 shows the design response spectrum following the
three point method based on AASHTO for different bridges. For periods less than T0 (
S D1
), the spectrum acceleration, Sa, increases linear from As to SDS. The spectrum is
S DS
S
capped (spectrum acceleration equals SDS) for periods between T0 and Ts ( D1 ). For
S DS
periods greater than Ts , spectrum acceleration decreases proportionately to the inverse of
0.2
S D1
). Note that design response spectrum for California and Utah-1 bridges
T
is approximately the same because the calculated spectrum parameters (As, SDS, and SD1)
were close. A sufficient number of modes were included in the analysis model to ensure
at least 90 percent participation of the total mass of the structure, with the modal response
contributions combined using the complete quadratic combination (CQC) method. The
response spectra were entered into the SAP2000 model to determine horizontal
accelerations. The accelerations were aligned in the two orthogonal horizontal directions:
(1) longitudinal (along a line from the intersection of the alignment line and the centerline
of the first pier to the intersection of the alignment line and the centerline of the end pier)
and (2) transverse (along a line perpendicular to the bridge longitudinal). The response
spectrum displacements were monitored at the top of the columns. One column from
each pier was selected to determine the displacements for that pier. For short periods, the
displacements may need to be magnified for the longitudinal and transverse directions.
To account for directional uncertainty of the earthquake, the seismic displacements
resulting from analysis in two perpendicular directions were combined to form two
independent load cases:
Load Case 1: demand displacements are 100 percent of the absolute value
resulting from the analysis in longitudinal direction plus 30 percent of the absolute value
resulting from the analysis in transverse direction.
Load Case 2: demand displacements are 100 percent of the absolute value
resulting from the analysis in transverse direction plus 30 percent of the absolute value
resulting from the analysis in longitudinal direction.
the period (
8.3.2. Pushover Analysis

The effective yield displacement of each pier was determined from pushover
analysis using SAP2000. The pushover models were generated from the global response
48
spectrum bridge model modified to include plastic hinges at the top and bottom of each
pier column (where appropriate). The plastic hinge lengths, L p , were calculated using
Equation 8-1 (Priestly et al, 1996).
L p 0.08 L 0.15 f y d b 0.3 f y d b
(ksi)
(8-1)
L p 0.08 L 0.022 f y d b 0.044 f y d b
(MPa)
Where L is the length of column from point of maximum moment to the point of
moment contraflexure, f y is yield stress of longitudinal reinforcing steel, and d b is
diameter of longitudinal column reinforcing steel bars.
The pushover analysis was performed for each pier in two orthogonal directions
to determine the pier transverse and longitudinal load displacement behavior. The pier
was pushed to a target displacement over a specified number of steps. The ultimate
displacement was assumed to correspond to the displacement at which column core edge
concrete reaches ultimate compressive strain. TheMandersconfinedconcretemodel
was used to determine the concrete stress-strain relationship. The unconfined concrete
compressive strain at the maximum compressive stress was taken to be 0.002, and the
ultimate unconfined concrete compressive strain at spalling was taken to be 0.005. The
pushover curve is defined as a function of base shear versus displacement. Figures 8.17
to 8.44 present the pushover curves for each pier in different bridges in the longitudinal
and transverse direction. The first yield displacement corresponding to the displacement
at which first yield occurs in longitudinal reinforcement within the pier. To determine
the effective yield displacement, a bilinear curve was generated using the first yield
displacement and ultimate displacement by balancing the areas below and above the
bilinear curve. The effective yield displacement in longitudinal and transverse direction
is approximately the same in Washington, California, and South Carolina bridges.
However, for Utah bridges the effective yield displacements in the two directions were
noticeably different. This is because in Utah bridges, the columns bends in single
curvature in the longitudinal direction but bends in double curvature in the transverse
direction.
8.4.
Redesign for Near-Fault Ground Motions

Displacement ductility demand for each pier and direction was determined by
dividing the corresponding combined displacement demand at top of the column from
response spectrum analysis by the corresponding effective yield displacement resulting
from pushover analysis. Two approaches were utilized to estimate the residual drift in
each direction. In the first approach, knowing the displacement ductility demand,
effective period (TL: longitudinal period; TT: transverse period), and the effective moment
of inertia for the column, the residual drift for each direction was determined from the
corresponding residual drift envelope spectra for specific range of S1 and soil type. These
spectra were developed in this study and presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix B. Note
that residual drift spectra based on average envelope spectra rather than the average plus
a standard deviation were used because even the average spectra are conservative. The
effect of using average plus one standard deviation spectra on the bridge cost was
determined as part of the parametric studies presented in the next chapter. In the second
approach, residual drift ratio was calculated based on the proposed simple method
49
(Equations (7-9) and (7-10)) presented in Chapter 7. Residual drift ratio is defined as a
ratio of residual displacement and column height. The acceptance criterion is a residual
drift ratio of 1% or less.
Tables 8.4 and 8.5 present the results for Washington bridge. It is shown that the
displacement ductility demand in Bent 1 in longitudinal direction is 2.40, which resulted
in residual drift ratio of 1.34% according to the first approach. While maximum
displacement at top of the column is approximately the same for all piers, Bent 1 presents
the higher displacement ductility resulting in high residual drift, which is attributed to the
shorter column height for this bent. Based on the second approach, residual drift is less
than 1%. In transverse direction, the residual drift ratio is less than 1% in all the bents
using the two approaches. To decrease the residual drift ratio of 1.34% (Table 8.4), the
longitudinal steel ratio in Bent 1 was increased from 2.4% to 3.5%. The transverse steel
ratio was not changed. As a result, longitudinal and transverse periods were reduced to
1.10 sec. and 0.92 sec., respectively. Figures 8.45 and 8.46 present the pushover curves
for this bent in longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. The results for the
redesigned bridge are presented in Tables 8.6 and 8.7. The increase in longitudinal steel
ratio led to higher yield displacement, lower ductility demand of 1.97, and acceptable
residual drift ratio of 1.04% in longitudinal direction based on the first approach. In
transverse direction, the bridge meets the residual drift ratio limit of 1% according to both
approaches.
Tables 8.8 and 8.9 show the results for Utah Bridge-1 in longitudinal and
transverse direction, respectively. Since displacement ductility demand is small, residual
drift ratio is less than 1% in both directions regardless of the method used to estimate the
residual drift ratio. Based on Tables 8.10 and 8.11, the residual drift ratio in Utah Bridge2 meets the limit of 1% as well. It is seen that even though the design SD1 (0.59g) is less
than the calculated SD1 (0.669g), the ductility demand is less than two for the bridge in
both directions.
Results for California bridge are listed in Tables 8.12 and 8.13. The displacement
ductility demands are relatively low because of the high longitudinal steel ratios and the
resulting high yield displacements. The results show that residual drift ratio in each
direction is less than 1.0%, and no redesign is necessary.
Tables 8.14 and 8.15 present the results for South Carolina bridge. The low
period of the bridge in both directions led to small displacements at top of the columns.
Residual drift ratio is negligible based on both approaches. This is expected because the
design SD1 (0.419g) is significantly higher than the calculated SD1 (0.242g), resulting in
low demands for the bridge.
8.5.
Cost Impact
Washington bridge was the only bridge that had to be redesigned for near-fault
earthquake motions because its calculated residual drift ratio exceeded the limit of 1%
when the residual drift spectra were used. The increase in the cost of the bridge due to
the change in design was calculated.
Table 8.16 lists the average unit price for different items according to Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2011). Using this table, total cost of the
bridge was estimated to be 7.434 million dollars (including superstructure, substructure,
abutments, and footings). Note that the exact cost of bridge is higher because of the cost
50
of asphalt or concrete pavement, consultant services, etc.. However, these costs were
excluded in the current study to simplify the process. Furthermore, potential secondary
cost increases due to possible change in design of connections and foundation were
excluded for the same reason. The total cost of the redesigned bridge was 7.442 million
dollars reflecting the change in the longitudinal reinforcement ratio of the columns in
bent 1 from 2.4% to 3.5% for Bent 1. The change led to an increase of approximately
0.1% in total cost of the bridge. It is concluded that using the proposed design method to
control residual drift ratio has negligible effect on the overall cost of the bridge.
51
Chapter 9. Parametric Studies

9.1.
Introduction
The cost impact of designing bridge columns for near-fault earthquakes based on
the method proposed in previous chapters was reported in Chapter 8. The cost impact
study was expanded to determine the effects of variations of the proposed design method
described in chapter 7. This study consisted of two parts: in part 1, the cost impact of the
proposed near-fault earthquake design method using average plus standard deviation
envelope spectra on the bridges described in Chapter 8 was determined. In part 2, it was
assumed that the bridges are located in areas with higher ranges of one-second spectral
acceleration. The bridges were redesigned based on the proposed method described in
Chapter 7 as necessary and cost impact was determined.
Part 1 Design Based on Average Plus Standard Deviation Spectra
As discussed in Chapter 6, two sets of envelope of residual drift spectra were
generated to determine the residual drift ratios: (1) average and (2) average plus one
standard deviation. In Chapter 8, redesign of bridges for near-fault ground motions was
based on average envelope spectra, which was a part of the recommended near-fault
earthquake design method developed in this study. In the first part of this study, the
bridges were redesigned based on average plus one standard deviation envelope spectra
and cost impact was evaluated.
According to Sec. 8.4, Washington bridge was the only bridge that had to be
redesigned for near-fault earthquake motions because displacement ductility demand was
greater than two in longitudinal direction. Tables 9.1 and 9.2 show the results for this
bridge using average plus standard deviation spectra in longitudinal and transverse
direction, respectively. While the residual drift ratio in Bent 1 in longitudinal direction
was 1.34% based on average residual drift spectra (Table 8.4), the corresponding value
using average plus standard deviation spectra is 1.91%. Residual drift ratio is less than
1% in transverse direction in all the bents. To decrease the residual drift ratio, the
diameter of columns in Bent 1 was increased from 4 ft (1219 mm) to 6 ft (1829 mm).
The longitudinal and transverse steel ratios were not changed (2.4% and 1.3%,
respectively). Figures 9.1 and 9.2 present the pushover curves for this bent in
longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. As expected, increase of column
diameter led to a stiffer column and, as a result, lower yield displacement. Tables 9.3 and
9.4 present the results for redesigned bridge in longitudinal and transverse direction,
respectively. Due to the increase in column diameter, longitudinal and transverse periods
were reduced from 1.14 sec. and 0.93 sec. to 0.76 sec. and 0.77 sec., respectively.
Ductility demand in longitudinal direction decreased from 2.40 to 1.86, which resulted in
an acceptable residual drift ratio of 1.05%. In transverse direction, the bridge met the
residual drift ratio limit of 1%.
9.2.
9.2.1. Cost Impact

In Sec. 8.5, the total cost of the bridge was estimated 7.434 million dollars. The
total cost of redesigned bridge using average plus standard deviation spectra is 7.484
million dollars. Note that the cost only reflects the change of column diameter in Bent 1.
52
Also, to simplify the process, possible cost increase due to the change in design of
connections and foundation was excluded. While the increase in cost using average
spectra was 0.1%, the corresponding value using average plus standard deviation is 0.7%
reflecting the fact that even utilizing average plus standard deviation residual drift spectra
will not significantly increase the cost of the bridge.
Part 2 Effect of Higher Spectral Acceleration
Earthquake intensity maps are constantly evolving. As new earthquakes occur
and as new fault lines are identified the seismic intensity maps may improve. This
improvement may shift the bridge into higher seismic demand zones.
As described in Chapter 6, residual drift spectra were developed for three ranges
of one-second spectral acceleration (S1): 0.4-0.6g, 0.6-0.8g, and greater than 0.8g. In
Chapter 8, the bridges were analyzed and redesigned from the corresponding residual
drift envelope spectra for specific range of S1 obtained from the current location of each
bridge. In this part, a parametric study was conducted to determine the cost impact of
changing S1 to a higher value. It was assumed that bridges are located in the areas with
higher ranges of S1 and redesigned for near-fault ground motions when necessary
according to the design recommendations in Chapter 7. Consequently, the cost impact
was determined.
As described in Sec. 8.3.1, a specific location is required to define the
corresponding PGA, short-period spectral acceleration and one-second spectral
acceleration and, consequently, construct the design response spectrum. The design
response spectrum is required to conduct the response spectrum analysis to determine the
maximum displacement demands at top of the columns. The current locations of bridges
described in Ch.8 covered different ranges of S1. Hence, for each bridge location, instead
of assuming a constant PGA and short-period acceleration then arbitrarily selecting a
one-second spectral acceleration, it was assumed that the bridge location has moved to
that of another bridge that has an S1 that is in a higher range.
Washington bridge is located in the area with S1 of 0.859g, which is the highest
range of S1 considered in this study. Therefore, Washington bridge was excluded from
this part of the parametric studies.
The one-second spectral acceleration for the location of Utah Bridge-1 is 0.567g,
which is in the range of 0.4 to 0.6g. To evaluate the bridge using the residual drift
spectra for S1 between 0.6 and 0.8g, it was assumed that the bridge is at the location of
Utah Bridge-2. By this assumption, the new design response spectrum was constructed
with S1 of 0.669g (between 0.6 and 0.8g). This design spectrum was utilized to conduct
response spectrum analysis to determine the maximum displacement at top of the
columns as described in Sec. 8.3.1. Tables 9.5 and 9.6 present the residual drift ratios in
the longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. The two approaches described in
Chapter 8 (average residual drift spectra and simple method) were utilized to estimate the
residual drift in each direction. Since displacement ductility demand was small, residual
drift ratio is less than 1% in both directions regardless of the method used to estimate the
residual drift ratio. Tables 9.7 and 9.8 show the results for Utah Bridge-1 with the
assumption that S1 is higher than 0.8g. This higher S1 was achieved by assuming that the
current location of the bridge is the same as that of Washington bridge. As described
previously, the design response spectrum was constructed based on the new location of
9.3.
53
the bridge to conduct response spectrum analysis. The one-second spectral acceleration
was 0.859g, which is in the range of S1 of greater than 0.8g. It is shown that the
displacement ductility demand in Bent 2 in longitudinal direction is 2.15, which resulted
in residual drift ratio of 1.14% according to the first approach. Based on the second
approach, residual drift is less than 1%. In transverse direction, the residual drift ratio is
less than 1% using the two approaches. To decrease the residual drift ratio of 1.14%
(Table 9.7), the longitudinal steel ratio in Bent 2 was increased from 1.2% to 2%. The
transverse steel ratio was not changed. As a result, the longitudinal period was reduced
from 1.12 sec. to 1.02 sec. Figures 9.3 and 9.4 present the pushover curves for this bent
in longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. The results for the redesigned
bridge are presented in Tables 9.9 and 9.10. The increase in longitudinal steel ratio led to
higher yield displacement, lower ductility demand of 1.99, and acceptable residual drift
ratio of 1% and 0.73% in longitudinal direction based on the first and the second
approaches, respectively. In transverse direction, the bridge met the residual drift ratio
limit of 1% according to both approaches.
The one-second spectral acceleration for Utah Bridge-2 is 0.669g. Assuming that
the bridge is in an area with S1 of greater than 0.8g, the residual drift ratios were
calculated based on the spectral and the simple approaches. Tables 9.11 and 9.12 present
the results in longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively. The residual drift ratio
in the bridge meets the limit of 1% for both approaches, and no redesign is necessary.
California bridge is located in an area with S1 of 0.56g. Tables 9.13 and 9.14
present the results in longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively assuming that S1
is in the range of 0.6 to 0.8g. It can be seen that the residual drift ratio was less than 1%
in both directions. According to Tables 9.15 and 9.16, residual drift ratio meets the limit
of 1% when the bridge was assumed to be in an area with S1 of greater than 0.8g.
The one-second spectral acceleration for South Carolina bridge is 0.242g. Tables
9.17 and 9.18 show the results for the bridge in the longitudinal and transverse directions,
respectively when the bridge was assumed to be in a zone with S1 between 0.4 and 0.6g.
It is shown that residual drift ratio is less than 1% in both directions according to both
approaches. Next, the bridge was assumed to be in a zone of S1 of between 0.6 and 0.8g.
Tables 9.19 and 9.20 list the results in longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively.
Ductility demand was increased but was still less than two meaning that residual drift
ratio is less than 1% in both directions based on both approaches. The results for South
Carolina bridge are presented in Tables 9.21 and 9.22 in the longitudinal and transverse
directions, respectively assuming that the bridge is in an area with S1 of higher than 0.8g.
The residual drift ratio in the bridge met the limit of 1% based on both approaches. It can
be seen that the maximum displacement and displacement ductility demand was
decreased even though the bridge was located in the higher seismicity area. Figure 9.5
shows the design response spectra for zones with S1 between 0.6 and 0.8g and higher than
0.8g. The relatively small period of South Carolina bridge (longitudinal: 0.3 sec. and
transverse: 0.25 sec.) led to lower spectral accelerations for the bridge and a smaller
maximum displacement demand at top of the columns when it was located in a zone with
S1 that exceeded 0.8g.
54
9.3.1. Cost Impact

Utah-Bridge-1 was the only bridge that had to be redesigned when the bridges
were located in higher seismicity areas. Because the average unit prices based on Utah
State Department of Transportation (UDOT) were not available, unit prices for
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) were utilized (Table 8.16).
Note that each state has its own unit prices; however, because the goal of the study was to
calculate the increase in the cost of the bridge due to the change in design, this would not
significantly affect the results. Using unit prices from Washington State, the total cost of
the bridge was estimated to be 2.598 million dollars. The total cost of the redesigned
bridge was 2.608 million dollars reflecting the change in the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio of the columns from 1.2% to 2%. The change led to an increase of approximately
0.4% in the total cost of the bridge. It is concluded that the overall effect on cost of the
bridge is negligible.
55
Chapter 10. Summary and Conclusions

10.1.
Summary
Bridges are key components in the transportation network providing access for
emergency response vehicles following strong earthquakes. Bridge columns can undergo
large residual displacements during near-fault earthquakes due to the high velocity
impulse of fault-normal component of the motions. The residual displacement is an
important measure of post-earthquake functionality in bridges and can determine whether
a bridge should be kept open to traffic or closed for repair or replacement. P-Delta
effects due to the dead load of the bridge and the additional live load of emergency
vehicle can make the columns susceptible to collapse. Currently there are no reliable
provisions to account for near-fault earthquake effects on the design of reinforced
concrete bridge columns. The primary objective of this study was to develop a new
practical guideline for the design of reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to
near-fault earthquakes. The goal of the study was achieved through the following tasks:
(1) determine the adequacy of existing computer models to estimate residual
displacements, (2) determine the residual moment capacity of reinforced concrete
columns as a function of maximum displacement ductility, (3) determine critical residual
displacement limit with respect to structural performance, (4) develop a simple method to
estimate residual displacement, (5) develop residual displacement spectra for different
displacement ductilities, different soil conditions, and earthquake characteristics, (6)
develop a step-by-step design guideline with an illustrative example, and (7) evaluate the
impact of the proposed design guidelines on the cost of bridges in different seismic
zones.
In the first part of the study, nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted using
program OpenSees for six large-scale reinforced concrete bridge columns subjected to
near-fault ground motions that had been tested in previous studies by Phan (2005) and
Choi (2007) to regenerate the shake table test results. The effects of bond-slip, strain
rate, and P-Delta were included in the analyses. The results of the experimental data for
column models were compared to those of nonlinear dynamic analyses to determine the
ability of analytical models to estimate residual displacements. Also, the effect of
applying multiple earthquake motions versus a single motion on residual displacements
was examined through an analytical investigation.
The magnitude of live load that a typical column can resist after the earthquake is
controlled by the column residual moment capacity. In the second part of the study, it
was assumed that residual moment capacity is a fraction of the plastic moment capacity
of the column. In calculating residual moment capacity factor, two simple models
utilizing measured data from previously tested columns were developed. The first model
was based on the assumption that residual displacement is zero in the simplified momentdisplacement relationship of a column. In the second model, it was assumed that there is
residual displacement in the simplified moment-displacement relationship of a column.
The proposed models were in terms of the maximum displacement ductility that the
column has experienced.
The control of residual displacement is important for the design and inspection of
reinforced concrete bridge columns, especially when dealing with impulsive loading
56
conditions. To investigate residual displacement limits in the third part of this study, a
large number of circular reinforced concrete bridge columns with different geometries
and steel ratios were analyzed subjected to truck loading. The residual moment capacity
of the columns and the moment due to the trucks and the P-Delta effects were used in this
part and critical residual drift ratios were determined for different cases.
In the fourth part of study, five simple methods were investigated to determine
their ability to estimate residual displacements. Attempts were made in the first four to
utilize or extract simple characteristics of the input motion and structure and investigate
correlation between these indicators and residual displacements. Subsequently, an
empirical simple method using data from shake table testing of six bridge columns was
developed and the results were compared with those from a method developed by the
Applied Technology Council and the Japanese code.
In the fifth part of this study, suites of recorded and synthetic acceleration
histories representative of near-fault ground motions in various locations throughout the
United States were utilized to generate a series of residual drift spectra. The synthetic
near-fault ground motions were generated by the project consultant, Dr. Paul Somerville,
and his team. Residual drift spectra were created based on nonlinear response history
analyses and were grouped according to the one-second spectral acceleration. This
approach enables engineers to determine the one-second spectral acceleration for the
1000-year return period for the bridge location based on the AASHTO maps. Three
ranges of one-second spectral acceleration were assumed: (1) 0.4-0.6g, (2) 0.6-0.8g, and
(3) greater than 0.8g for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760
m/sec). Residual displacements for S1 less than 0.4g were found to be negligible. The
residual drift ratios were developed for displacement ductility demands of 2, 4, and 6.
The data points that were generated through computer analyses were combined to
construct spectra for average residual drift ratios and average plus one standard deviation
residual drift ratios.
The sixth part of the study was the development of a new step-by-step guideline
for the design of reinforced concrete columns exposed to near-fault earthquakes. The
focus of the guideline was on control of residual drift, which is determined using either
the proposed simple method or residual drift spectra. The method ties the residual drift to
the AASHTO maps for one-second spectral acceleration and nominally 1000-year return
period based on the bridge location and then checks the residual drift. If the residual drift
check is satisfactory, no adjustment in the size of the column or longitudinal
reinforcement is required. But if the column fails the residual drift check, the size of the
column, the longitudinal steel ratio, or both need to be increased.
In the seventh part of study, to evaluate the impact of the proposed near-fault
earthquake design on the cost of a bridge, several representative actual bridges from
different parts of the United States that had been designed based on current or recent
design specifications were redesigned using the proposed design method. Also, the cost
impact of variations of the proposed method was investigated through a parametric study.
10.2.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn based on the studies presented in this
document:
57
1.
Generally good correlation was obtained between the measured and calculated
residual displacements using an existing nonlinear dynamic analysis model despite
the fact that residual displacements are generally sensitive to small variation in
constitutive modeling. The fiber element model can provide a reasonable and
conservative estimate of residual displacements in bridge columns subjected to faultnormal component of near-fault earthquakes.
2. The analytical results showed that applying a series of earthquake motions with
increasing amplitudes versus a single motion does not necessarily lead to higher
residual displacements in columns.
3. It is recommended to use the simple model with residual displacement approach 1
(polynomial relationship) to calculate the residual moment capacity factor.
Compared to approach 2 (linear relationship), this model was more conservative and
also provided higher coefficient of determination.
4. The analysis of residual drift ratio limits indicated that circular bridge columns
meeting current seismic codes are able to carry large traffic loads even when the
permanent lateral drift is 1.2% or higher, depending on the column strength and
geometry. The limit of 1.2% was obtained based on a conservative estimate of the
residual moment capacity and for the worst combination of bridge column geometry
and reinforcement. However, to be more conservative, it is recommended to use 1%
as a residual drift ratio limit if the column is well confined and meets current seismic
code detailing requirements. This limit is the same as that specified in the bridge
seismic design code of Japan.
5. Accurate estimation of the residual displacement is found to be difficult to achieve.
Attempts to estimate residual displacements based on simple characteristics of the
earthquake record and the columns were not successful.
6. The proposed simple empirical method 1 developed based on shake table test data
for six bridge columns led to generally reasonable estimate of residual
displacements.
7. The proposed methods and the methods by ATC and the Japanese codes generally
overestimate the residual displacement. For ductility of two to four, method 2 and
the ATC method provides a better estimation of residual displacement. However, for
ductility of four or more, method 2 is too conservative and unrealistic, whereas the
Japanese method and method 1 closely estimate the residual displacement. The
Japanese method is the most involved method because it requires several parameters
and assumptions, whereas the ATC and the proposed methods are very simple.
8. The residual drift spectra were developed to be integrated in a near-fault earthquake
design method that is applicable to bridges in different parts of US. Assuming
that near fault earthquake effects are included in the AASHTO maps, the spectra
were linked to one-second spectral acceleration.
9. Residual drift ratio is negligible (less than 1%) when one-second spectral
acceleration is less than 0.4g.
10. The proposed design method is effective in reducing the displacement ductility
demand, and, as a result, residual drift ratio of RC columns.
11. Using the proposed design method to control residual drift ratio has negligible effect
on the overall cost of the bridge. Even utilizing average plus standard deviation
residual drift spectra would not significantly increase the cost of the bridge.
58
References
Aagaard, B. T., Brocher, T. M., Dolenc, D., Dreger, D., Graves, R. W. , Harmsen S.,
Hartzell, S., Larsen, S., McCandless, K., Nilsson, S., Petersson, N. A., Rodgers, A.,
Sjgreen, B. and Zoback, L. M.(2008).Ground-Motion Modeling of the 1906 San
Francisco Earthquake, Part II: Ground-Motion Estimates for the 1906 Earthquake and
Scenario Events,Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp.
1012-1046.
Abrahamson, N. A. and Somerville, P.G. (1996). Effects of the hanging wall and
footwall on ground motions recorded during the Northridge Earthquake, Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 86, No. 1B, pp. 93-99.
Abrahamson, N. A. (1998). SeismologicalAspectsofNear-FaultGroundMotions,The
5th Caltrans Seismic Research Workshop, Sacramento, CA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2002). AASHTO
StandardSpecificationsforHighwayBridges,17th edition, Washington, D.C.
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th edition, Washington, D.C.
GuideSpecificationsforLRFDSeismicBridgeDesign,2nd edition, Washington, D.C.
American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (2008). BuildingCodeRequirementsfor
Structural Concrete (ACI318-08),AmericanConcreteInstitute,FarmingtonHills,
Michigan.
American Concrete Institute Committee 341(2003).SeismicAnalysisandDesignof
Concrete Bridge Systems(ACI341.2R),American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan.
ATC (2011).GuidelinesforSeismicPerformanceAssessmentofBuildings,Applied
Technology Council, ATC-58-1 75% Draft, Washington, D.C.
Brown,A.,andSaiidi,M.(2009).Investigation of Near-Fault Ground Motion Effects on
SubstandardBridgeColumnsandBents,ReportNo.CCEER-09-01, Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno.
Caltrans (2004). SeismicDesignCriteria(SDC),version 1.3, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Caltrans (2010). SeismicDesignCriteria(SDC),version 1.6, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
59
Chadwell, C. (2007). <http://www.imbsen.com/xtract.htm>, Xtract, Ver. 3.0.8, Single

User, Educational.
Chang, K., Chang, D., Tsai, M., and Sung, M. (2000).Seismic Performance of Highway
Bridges,EarthquakeEngineering and Engineering Seismology, Vol. 2, No. 1, March,
pp. 55-77.
Chang, G. and Mander, J. (1994).Seismic Energy Based Fatigue Damage Analysis of
Bridge Columns: Part I EvaluationofSeismiccapacity, NCEER Technical Report 940006.
Chioccarelli, E. and Iervolino, I. (2010).Near-Source Seismic Demand and Pulse-Like
Records:ADiscussionforLAquilaEarthquake, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 39, pp. 1039-1062.
Choi,H.,Saiidi,M.,andSomerville,P.(2007).EffectsofNear-Fault Ground Motion
and Fault-RuptureontheSeismicResponseofReinforcedConcreteBridges,ReportNo.
CCEER-07-06, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno.
Choi, H., Saiidi, M., Somerville, P., and Azazy,S.(2010).ExperimentalStudyof
Reinforcement Concrete Bridge Columns Subjected to Near-FaultGroundMotions,ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 107, No. 1, February, pp. 3-12.
Chopra,A.K.andChintanapakdeeC.(2001),ComparingResponseofSDOFSystems to
Near-Fault and Far-FaultEarthquakeMotionsintheContextofSpectralRegions,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30, pp. 1769-1789.
Christopoulos,C.andPampanin,S.(2004).TowardsPerformance-Based Seismic
Design of MDOF StructureswithExplicitConsiderationofResidualDeformations,
Journal of Earthquake Technology, Vol. 41, No. 1, March, pp. 53-73.
ComputersandStructures,Inc.(2011).SAP2000NonlinearVersion15.0.1,Berkeley,
CA.
Concrete Column Blind Competition (2010).
<www.nisee2.berkeley.edu/peer/prediction_contest>.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)(2006).SeismicRetrofittingManualfor
Highway Structures: Part 1- Bridges,PublicationNo.FHWA-HRT-06-032, Research,
Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA.
Fire Engine Catalog (2010), China Fire Engine Manufacturers,
<www.fullwon.en.made-in-china.com>.
Galesorkhi, R., and Gouchon, J. (2002). Near-source effects and correlation to recent
recorded data, Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Seattle, Washington, July.
60
Graves, R. W. and Pitarka, A. (2010). Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Using a

Hybrid Approach, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 100, No. 5A, pp.
2095-2123.
InternationalConferenceofBuildingsOfficials(1997).UniformBuildingCodeStructuralEngineeringDesignProvisions,Vol.2,Whittier,CA.
Japan Road Association (1996). DesignSpecificationsofHighwayBridges,PartV:
SeismicDesign,Tokyo,Japan.
Kalkan, E., Adalier, K., and Pamuk, A. (2004). Near field effects and engineering
implications of recent earthquakes in Turkey,Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, New York, NY, April, pp. 330.
Kalkan, E.,Kunnath,S.K.(2006).EffectsofFlingStepandForwardDirectivityon
SeismicResponseofBuildings,EarthquakeSpectra,Vol.22,No.2,pp.367-390.
Karsan, I. D. and Jirsa, J. O.(1969).BehaviorofConcreteunderCompressiveLoads,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 95, No. 12,
pp. 2543-2563.
Kawashima, K., MacRae, G. A., Hoshikuma, J., and Nagaya, K. (1998). Residual
DisplacementResponseSpectrum,AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,Journalof
Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 5, pp. 523-530.
Kawashima,K.(2000).SeismicPerformanceofRCBridgePiersinJapan:an
Evaluation after the 1995 Hyogo-ken nanbuearthquake,Struct. Engng Mater, 2, pp. 8291.
Kawashima, K., Zafra, R. G., Sasaki, T., Kajiwara, K., Nakayama, M., Unjoh. Sh., Sakai,
J., Kosa, K., Takahashi,Y.,andYabe,M.(2012).SeismicPerformanceofaFull-Size
Polypropylene Fiber- Reinforced Cement Composite Bridge Column Based on EDefenseShakeTableExperiments,JournalofEarthquakeEngineering,Vol.16,No.4,
pp. 463-495.
Kent, D. C. and Park, R. (1971). Flexural memberswithconfinedconcrete,American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 97, No. 7, pp. 19691990.
Kulkarni, S.M. and Shah, S.P. (1998).ResponseofReinforcedConcreteBeamsatHigh
Strain Rates, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 95, No.6, pp. 705-715.
Laplace, P. N., Sanders, D., Saiidi, M., Douglas, B, and El-Azazy,S.(2005).Retrofitted
ConcreteBridgeColumnsUnderShaketableExcitation,ACIStructuralJournal,V.102,
No. 4, July-August, pp. 622-628.
61
Lee,W.K.,Billington,S.L.(2009).SimulationandPerformance-Based Earthquake
Engineering Assessment of Self-Centering Post-TensionedConcreteBridgeSystems,
PEER Report 2009/109, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Lee, W. K., Billington, S. L. (2010). Modeling Residual Displacements of Concrete
Bridge Columns under Earthquake Loads Using Fiber Elements, Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 240-249.
Mander,J.B.,Priestley,M.J.N.,andPark,R.(1988).TheoreticalStress-Strain Model
for ConfinedConcrete,JournalofStructuralEngineering,ASCE,V.114,No.8,August,
pp. 1804-1826.
Mavroeidis, G. P., and Papageorgiou, A. S. (2003). A mathematical expression of nearfault ground motions, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, No.3, pp.
10991131.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna,F.,Scott,M.H.,Fenves,G.L.(2007).OpenSeesCommand
LanguageManual,Berkeley,CA.
MCEER/ATC(2003).Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Highway Bridges,MCEER/ATC-49, MCEER/ATC Joint Venture, NCHRP 12-49
Project Team.
MCEER/ATC (2003).Design Examples,MCEER/ATC-49-2, MCEER/ATC Joint
Venture, NCHRP 12-49 Project Team.
Miranda,E.andBertero.V.(1994).EvaluationofStrengthReductionFactorsfor
Eathquake-ResistantDesign,EarthquakeSpectra,Vol.10, No. 2, pp. 357-379.
OpenSees (2006). <http://opensees.berkeley.edu/index.php>, OpnSees 2.2.1.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER (2000).StrongMotion
Database,University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Phan, V. T., Saiidi, S., Anderson, J. (2005). NearFault(NearField)GroundMotion
EffectsonReinforcedConcreteBridgeColumns,Report No. CCEER-05-7, Center of
Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno.
Phan,V.,Saiidi,M.,Anderson,J.,andGhasemi,H.(2007).NearFaultGroundMotion
EffectonReinforcedConcreteBridgeColumns,JournalofStructuralEngineering,
ASCE, V. 133, No. 7, July, pp. 982-989.
Priestley,M.J.N.,Seible,F.,andCalvi,G.M.(1996).SeismicDesignandRetrofitof
Bridges,JohnWileyandSons,NewYork,USA.
62
Saiidi,M.andSeyedArdakani,S.M.(2012).AnAnalyticalStudyofResidual
Displacement in RC Bridge Columns Subjected to Near-FaultEarthquakes,Bridge
Structures, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 35-45.
Scott, B. D., Park, R. and Priestley, M. J. N. (1982).Stress-strain Behavior of Concrete
ConfinedbyOverlappingHoopsatLowandHighStrainRates, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute, Vol. 79, No.1, pp. 13-27.
SeismoSoft (2010). <http://www.seismosoft.com/en/Download.aspx>, SeismoSignal,
Ver. 4.0.
Somerville, P.G. (1996). Strong Ground Motions of the Kobe, Japan Earthquake of Jan.
17, 1995, and development of a model of forward rupture directivity effects applicable in
California,Proceedings of the Western Regional Technical Seminar on Earthquake
Engineering for Dams, Sacramento, CA.
Somerville, P.G., Smith, N., Graves, R., and Abrahamson, N. (1997). Modificationof
Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations for the Amplitude and Duration
EffectsofRuptureDirectivity,SeismologicalresearchLetters, 68, pp. 199-222.
Somerville, P. G. (1998). Development of an improved representation of near-fault
ground motions, Proceedings of the SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion
Data, Oakland, CA, pp. 1-20.
Somerville,P.G.(2000).CharacterizationofNear-FieldEarthquakeShaking,
Proceedings of the US-Japan Workshop on the Effects of Near Field Earthquake Shaking,
Pasadena, California, March.
Somerville, P. G. (2003). Magnitude scaling of the near-fault rupture directivity pulse,
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, Vol. 137, pp. 201-212.
Somerville, P.G., Graves, R. W., Collins, N. F., Song, S.G., Ni S., and Cummins, P.
(2009). Source and ground motion models of Australian earthquakes,Proceedings of
the 2009 Annual Conference of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society,
Newcastle, December.
Somerville, P. G. and Collins, N. F. (2011). GroundMotionResponseSpectraandTime
Histories,ReportPreparedforUniversityofNevada,Reno(UNR).
Somerville,P.G.(2011).MagnitudeofEarthquakesCausingNear-Fault Ground
Motions,ReportPreparedforUniversityofNevada,Reno(UNR).
South CarolinaDepartmentofTransportation(SCDOT)(2001).SeismicDesign
SpecificationsforHighwayBridges,October.
TallBuildingsInitiative(2010).GuidelinesforPerformance-Based Seismic Design of
TallBuildings,PEERReport2010/05,PacificEarthquake Engineering Research Center,
College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
63
Unjoh,Sh.(2003).SeismicDesignPracticeinJapan,BridgeEngineeringSeismic
Design, CRC Press.
WashingtonDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT)(2011).WSDOTHighway
ConstructionCosts,WA.
Wehbe,N.,Saiidi,M.,andSanders,D.(1999).SeismicPerformanceofRectangular
BridgeColumnswithModerateConfinement,AmericanConcreteInstitute,ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 96, No. 2, March-April, pp. 248-259.
Yazgan,U.andDazio,A.(2011).SimulatingMaximumandResidualDisplacementsof
RCStructures:I.Accuracy,EarthquakeSpectra,Vol.27,No.4,pp.1187-1202.
Yazgan,U.andDazio,A.(2011).SimulatingMaximumandResidualDisplacementsof
RC Structures:II.Sensitivity,EarthquakeSpectra,Vol.27,No.4,pp.1203-1218.
Yen, W.P, H. Ghasemi, and J.D. Cooper (2001). LessonsLearnedfromBridge
Performance ofthe1999Turkish&TaiwanEarthquakes,33rdJointMeetingofthe
UJNR Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, Tsukuba, Japan, May.
Zadeh,M.S.andSaiidi,M.(2007).EffectofConstantandVariableStrainRateson
Stress-StrainPropertiesandYieldPropagationinSteelReinforcementbars,ReportNo.
CCEER-07-02, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV, January.
Zatar, W. and Mutsuyoshi, H. (2002). ResidualDisplacementsofConcreteBridgePiers
SubjectedtoNearFieldEarthquakes,AmericanConcreteInstitute,Structural Journal,
Vol. 99, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 740-749.
64
Tables
65
Table 2.1 Specimen Details

NF-1
NF-2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
Height
in (mm)
72
(1829)
72
(1829)
63
(1600)
108.5
(2756)
108.5
(2756)
98.5
(2502)
Diameter
in (mm)
16
(406)
16
(406)
14
(356)
14
(356)
14
(356)
12
(305)
Long. Steel
Ratio (%)
2.0
2.2
2.9
2.9
3.6
3.0
Trans. Steel
Ratio (%)
0.92
1.10
1.37
1.54
2.05
1.82
Aspect Ratio
4.50
4.50
4.50
Caltrans
nearfault
7.75
Caltrans
nearfault
7.75
8.20
Design
Method
Prototype
Period (sec.)
Scale (%)
Footing
Height in
(mm)
Caltrans
AASHTO
far-field
Spectra by Spectra by
Somerville Somerville
0.72
0.72
0.66
1.50
1.36
1.79
33
33
30
30
30
20
28
(711)
28
(711)
28.5
(724)
25
(635)
25
(635)
26
(660)
Table 2.2 Loading Protocol for each Specimen

Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NF-1
Rinaldi x
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
1.35
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NF-2
Rinaldi x
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
1.35
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MN
Rinaldi x
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
1.35
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ETN
Rinaldi x
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
1.35
1.5
1.65
N/A
N/A
66
SETN
Rinaldi x
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.6
RRS x 0.85
RRS x 0.95
RRS x 1.05
RRS x 1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SVTN
Rinaldi x
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.45
0.6
RRS x 0.85
RRS x 0.95
RRS x 1.05
RRS x 1.15
RRS x 1.25
RRS x 1.35
RRS x 1.45
RRS x 1.60
RRS x 1.75
Table 2.3 Measured Concrete Compressive Strength, ksi (MPa)

NF-1
NF-2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
Footing
5.61
(38.7)
5.83
(40.2)
6.13
(42.3)
6.16
(42.4)
6.47
(44.6)
6.49
(44.7)
Column/head
5.99
(41.3)
6.15
(42.4)
6.35
(43.8)
6.37
(44)
6.79
(46.8)
6.84
(47.1)
Table 2.4 Measured Longitudinal Reinforcement Properties, ksi (MPa)

NF-1
NF-2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
Yield Stress,
fy
68.0
(468.8)
68.0
(468.8)
70.5
(486.1)
70.5
(486.1)
64.0
(441.3)
68.8
(474.4)
sh
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.01
0.009
Ultimate
Stress, fsu
93.37
(643.8)
93.37
(643.8)
103.7
(715.0)
103.7
(715.0)
100.8
(695.0)
96.5
(665.3)
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.15
su
Table 2.5 Measured Transverse Reinforcement Properties, ksi (MPa)

NF-1
NF-2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
Yield Stress,
fy
57.5
(396.4)
57.5
(396.4)
62.0
(427.5)
62.0
(427.5)
58.1
(400.6)
58.1
(400.6)
Ultimate
Stress, fsu
74.05
(510.6)
74.05
(510.6)
83.2
(573.6)
83.2
(573.6)
72.1
(497.1)
72.1
(497.1)
Table 2.6 Percent Increase in Steel Yield and Ultimate Stress (Tension) and Concrete
Compressive Strength (Compression) due to Strain Rate
Strain Increase
(%)
Tension
Compression
NF-1
NF-2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
8
11
8
10
8
11
7
11
8
11
7
14
67
Table 2.7 Rotations and Corresponding Moments at cracking, yielding, and ultimate
capacity
NF-1
NF-2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
Crack Moment, kipin (MN-mm)
393.4
(44.5)
396.5
(44.8)
269.5
(30.5)
269.8
(30.5)
275.0
(31.1)
172.7
(19.5)
Crack Rotation, Rad
4.14E06
4.14E06
4.80E06
4.80E06
5.94E-06
5.45E-06
Yield Moment, kipin (MN-mm)
1934
(218.5)
2072
(234.1)
1773
(200.3)
1779
(201.0)
2011
(227.2)
1128
(127.5)
Yield Rotation, Rad
1.21E03
1.22E03
1.50E03
1.49E03
1.55E-03
1.69E-03
Ultimate Moment,
kip-in (MN-mm)
2073
(234.2)
2241
(253.2)
2024
(228.7)
2061
(232.9)
2471
(279.2)
1283
(145.0)
Ultimate Rotation,
Rad
3.15E03
3.36E03
6.59E03
7.74E03
1.24E-02
7.89E-03
Table 2.8 Ratio of Calculated and Measured Residual Drifts

Run #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Average
Standard
Deviation
NF1
2.946
0.164
0.205
1.122
1.498
1.038
0.778
0.732
0.739
0.707
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.993
NF2
6.452
0.364
5.085
1.376
2.069
1.273
1.050
0.983
1.036
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.187
MN
N/A
1.100
N/A
0.200
3.286
3.442
1.489
1.076
1.006
0.967
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.571
ETN
0.800
0.233
0.100
1.240
3.420
2.315
2.155
2.737
9.445
0.389
0.959
1.001
0.852
N/A
1.973
SETN
0.483
0.286
0.037
0.126
1.298
1.040
1.144
0.746
0.585
0.578
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.632
SVTN
N/A
0.500
0.010
0.014
4.333
17.200
1.700
1.288
1.003
0.995
0.970
1.120
1.557
3.491
2.629
0.79
2.11
1.16
2.46
0.43
4.55
68
Table 3.1 NF-1, Yield Displacement= 0.93 in (23.62 mm)

Run
Maximum
Displacement, in (mm)
Residual Displacement,
in (mm)
Ductility
0.16
(4.06)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.00
0.32
(8.13)
0.03
(0.76)
N/A
0.03
0.81
(20.57)
0.03
(0.76)
N/A
0.03
1.59
(40.39)
0.13
(3.30)
1.7
0.14
3.2
(81.28)
0.47
(11.94)
3.4
0.51
4.98
(126.49)
1.08
(27.43)
5.4
1.16
6.39
(162.31)
2.16
(54.86)
6.9
2.32
7.36
(186.94)
3
(76.2)
7.9
3.23
8.51
(216.15)
4.24
(107.70)
9.2
4.56
10
9.6
(243.84)
6.05
(153.67)
10.3
6.51
11
10.29
(261.37)
N/A
11.1
N/A
69
Table 3.2 NF-2, Yield Displacement= 0.97 in (24.64 mm)

Run
Maximum
in (mm)
Ductility
0.16
(4.06)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.00
0.28
(7.11)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.03
0.73
(18.54)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.03
1.46
(37.08)
0.07
(1.78)
1.5
0.07
2.81
(71.37)
0.29
(7.37)
2.9
0.30
4.36
(110.74)
0.80
(20.32)
4.5
0.82
5.59
(141.99)
1.4
(35.56)
5.8
1.44
6.69
(169.93)
2.11
(53.59)
6.9
2.18
7.68
(195.07)
2.87
(72.90)
7.9
2.96
10
8.65
(219.71)
4.16
(105.66)
8.9
4.29
11
9.20
(233.68)
N/A
9.5
N/A
70
Table 3.3 MN, Yield Displacement= 0.7 in (17.78 mm)

Run
Maximum
in (mm)
Ductility
0.08
(2.03)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.00
0.20
(5.08)
0.01
(0.25)
N/A
0.01
0.45
(11.43)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.04
0.84
(21.34)
0.01
(0.25)
1.2
0.01
1.62
(41.15)
0.07
(1.78)
2.3
0.10
2.74
(69.60)
0.19
(4.83)
3.9
0.27
4.11
(104.39)
0.84
(21.34)
5.9
1.20
5.33
(135.38)
1.76
(44.70)
7.6
2.51
6.35
(161.29)
2.68
(68.07)
9.1
3.83
10
7.51
(190.75)
3.80
(96.52)
10.7
5.43
71
Table 3.4 ETN, Yield Displacement= 2.21 in (56.13 mm)

Run
Maximum
in (mm)
Ductility
0.25
(6.35)
0.01
(0.25)
N/A
0.00
0.54
(13.72)
0.03
(0.76)
N/A
0.01
1.15
(29.21)
0.05
(1.27)
N/A
0.02
1.73
(43.94)
0.05
(1.27)
N/A
0.02
2.80
(71.12)
0.15
(3.81)
1.3
0.07
3.86
(98.04)
0.54
(13.72)
1.7
0.24
4.36
(110.74)
0.66
(16.76)
2.0
0.30
4.44
(112.78)
0.51
(12.95)
2.0
0.23
4.97
(126.24)
0.11
(2.79)
2.2
0.05
10
6.57
(166.88)
0.63
(16.00)
3.0
0.29
11
8.53
(216.66)
2.05
(52.07)
3.9
0.93
12
11.15
(283.21)
5.69
(144.53)
5.0
2.57
13
15.94
(404.88)
13.36
(339.34)
7.2
6.05
72
Table 3.5 SETN, Yield Displacement= 2.13 in (54.10 mm)

Run
Maximum
in (mm)
Ductility
0.26
(6.60)
0.01
(0.25)
N/A
0.00
0.57
(14.48)
0.02
(0.51)
N/A
0.01
1.23
(31.24)
0.06
(1.52)
N/A
0.03
1.89
(48.01)
0.06
(1.52)
N/A
0.03
3.01
(76.45)
0.32
(8.13)
1.4
0.15
4.12
(104.65)
0.88
(22.35)
1.9
0.41
6.13
(155.70)
1.03
(26.16)
2.9
0.48
8.71
(221.23)
3.31
(84.07)
4.1
1.55
11.47
(291.34)
7.46
(189.48)
5.4
3.50
10
25.04
(636.02)
14.50
(368.30)
11.8
6.81
73
Table 3.6 SVTN, Yield Displacement= 1.98 in (50.29 mm)

Run
Maximum
in (mm)
Ductility
0.18
(4.57)
0.00
(0.00)
N/A
0.00
0.37
(9.40)
0.01
(0.25)
N/A
0.01
0.70
(17.78)
0.03
(0.76)
N/A
0.02
1.01
(25.65)
0.07
(1.78)
N/A
0.04
1.54
(39.12)
0.03
(0.76)
N/A
0.02
1.97
(50.04)
0.02
(0.51)
1.0
0.01
3.85
(97.79)
0.02
(0.51)
1.9
0.01
5.28
(134.11)
0.34
(8.64)
2.7
0.17
6.21
(157.73)
0.98
(24.89)
3.1
0.49
10
7.04
(178.82)
1.70
(43.18)
3.6
0.86
11
7.83
(198.88)
2.64
(67.06)
4.0
1.33
12
8.52
(216.41)
3.60
(91.44)
4.3
1.82
13
9.12
(231.65)
4.62
(117.35)
4.6
2.33
14
10.12
(257.05)
6.36
(161.54)
5.1
3.21
15
13.19
(335.03)
10.07
(255.78)
6.7
5.09
74
Table 4.1 Column Characteristics

Column Group No.
Diameter
in (mm)
36
(914)
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
72
(1829)
Concrete Cover
in (mm)
2
(50)
2
(50)
2
(50)
2
(50)
Transverse Steel Ratio

(%)
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
Concrete Compressive
Strength, ksi (MPa)
4
(27.6)
4
(27.6)
4
(27.6)
4
(27.6)
Steel Yield Stress, ksi (MPa)
60
(413.7)
60
(413.7)
60
(413.7)
60
(413.7)
Confined Concrete
Compressive Strength, ksi
(MPa)
6.17
(42.5)
6.11
(42.1)
5.95
(41.0)
6.11
(42.1)
Concrete Strain at Peak Stress
0.0074
0.0073
0.0069
0.0073
Ultimate Concrete Compressive

Strength, ksi (MPa)
5.26
(36.3)
5.19
(35.8)
5.03
(34.7)
5.20
(35.9)
Ultimate Concrete Strain
0.0247
0.0242
0.023
0.0242
75
Table4.2ResidualDriftRatiosforColumnswith1%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.05fcAg
Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
204
(907)
11110
(1257)
2222
(251)
6.4
(163)
3.3
2.7
2.2
1.9
1.7
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
362
(1609)
27170
(3073)
5434
(615)
10.8
(274)
5.6
4.5
3.7
3.2
2.8
142
(631)
565
(2512)
53340
(6033)
10668
(1207)
15.1
(384)
7.9
6.3
5.2
4.5
3.9
72
(1829)
142
(631)
814
(3619)
94800
(10724)
18960
(2145)
19.8
(503)
10.3
8.3
6.9
5.9
5.2
76
Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
407
(1810)
13030
(1472)
2606
(294)
4.7
(121)
2.5
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.2
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
724
(3219)
31910
(3604)
6382
(721)
7.4
(188)
3.8
3.1
2.6
2.2
1.9
142
(631)
1131
(5029)
62940
(7108)
12588
(1422)
9.9
(251)
5.2
4.1
3.4
2.9
2.6
72
(1829)
142
(631)
1629
(7243)
111200
(12558)
22240
(2512)
12.6
(320)
6.5
5.2
4.4
3.7
3.3
77
Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
204
(907)
17550
(1983)
3510
(397)
10.2
(259)
5.3
4.2
3.5
3.0
2.6
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
362
(1609)
43230
(4885)
8646
(977)
17.2
(437)
8.9
7.1
6.0
5.1
4.5
142
(631)
565
(2512)
86580
(9784)
17316
(1957)
24.5
(622)
12.7
10.2
8.5
7.3
6.4
72
(1829)
142
(631)
814
(3619)
152700
(17255)
30540
(3451)
31.9
(810)
16.6
13.3
11.1
9.5
8.3
78
Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
407
(1810)
19270
(2178)
3854
(436)
7.0
(178)
3.7
2.9
2.4
2.1
1.8
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
724
(3219)
47400
(5356)
9480
(1071)
10.9
(277)
5.7
4.6
3.8
3.3
2.9
142
(631)
1131
(5029)
95060
(10742)
19012
(2148)
14.9
(378)
7.8
6.2
5.2
4.4
3.9
72
(1829)
142
(631)
1629
(7243)
167500
(18928)
33500
(3786)
18.9
(480)
9.9
7.9
6.6
5.6
4.9
79
Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
204
(907)
24520
(2771)
4904
(554)
14.2
(361)
7.4
5.9
4.9
4.2
3.7
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
362
(1609)
59090
(6677)
11818
(1335)
23.5
(597)
12.2
9.8
8.1
7.0
6.1
142
(631)
565
(2512)
119100
(13458)
23820
(2692)
33.7
(856)
17.5
14
11.7
10.0
8.8
72
(1829)
142
(631)
814
(3619)
205200
(23188)
41040
(4638)
42.9
(1090)
22.4
17.9
14.9
12.8
11.2
80
Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
407
(1810)
25960
(2933)
5192
(587)
9.5
(241)
4.9
3.9
3.3
2.8
2.5
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
724
(3219)
62690
(7084)
12538
(1417)
14.5
(368)
7.5
6.0
5.0
4.3
3.8
142
(631)
1131
(5029)
126300
(14272)
25260
(2854)
19.8
(503)
10.3
8.3
6.9
5.9
5.2
72
(1829)
142
(631)
1629
(7243)
218200
(24657)
43640
(4931)
24.6
(625)
12.8
10.3
8.6
7.3
6.4
81
Table 4.8 ResidualDriftRatiosforColumnswith4%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.05fcAg

Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
204
(907)
30040
(3395)
6008
(679)
17.4
(442)
9.1
7.2
6.0
5.2
4.5
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
362
(1609)
74170
(8381)
14834
(1676)
29.4
(747)
15.3
12.3
10.2
8.8
7.7
142
(631)
565
(2512)
146500
(16555)
29300
(3311)
41.4
(1052)
21.6
17.3
14.4
12.3
10.8
72
(1829)
142
(631)
814
(3619)
257700
(29120)
51540
(5824)
53.9
(1369)
28.1
22.5
18.7
16.0
14.0
82
Table 4.9 Residual DriftRatiosforColumnswith4%SteelRatioandAxialLoadof0.1fcAg

Diameter
in (mm)
Wtruck
kips
(kN)
Axial
Load
kips (kN)
Mp (Xtract)
kip-in
(kN-m)
Mp
kip-in
(kN-m)
Residual Disp.
Capacity,
in (mm)
16
(4880)
Height, ft (mm)
20
24
28
(6096)
(7315)
(8534)
32
(9760)
Residual Drift (%)

36
(914)
142
(631)
407
(1810)
31360
(3544)
6272
(709)
11.4
(290)
5.9
4.8
4.0
3.4
3.0
48
(1219)
60
(1524)
142
(631)
724
(3219)
77470
(8754)
15494
(1751)
17.9
(455)
9.3
7.5
6.2
5.3
4.7
142
(631)
1131
(5029)
153100
(17300)
30620
(3460)
24.1
(612)
12.5
10.0
8.4
7.2
6.2
72
(1829)
142
(631)
1629
(7243)
269300
(30431)
53860
(6086)
30.4
(772)
15.8
12.7
10.6
9.1
7.9
83
Table 5.1 Standard Modification Coefficient k hc0

Soil Condition
Type I Ground Motion
Group I (Stiff)
Group II
(Moderate)
Group III (Soft)
Group I (Stiff)
Group II
(Moderate)
Group III (Soft)
0.7forT1.4
0.876T2/3 for T > 1.4
1.51T1/3(khc0 0.7) for 0.85 for 0.18 T 1.16T2/3 for T
T < 0.18
1.6
> 1.6
1.51T1/3(khc0 0.7)for 1.00for0.29T 1.59T2/3 for T
T < 0.29
2.0
> 2.0
Type II Ground Motion
2.00for0.3T 1.24T4/3 for T
4.46T2/3 for T 0.3
0.7
> 0.7
1.75for0.4T 2.23T4/3 for T
3.22T2/3 for T < 0.4
1.2
> 1.2
1.50for0.5T 2.57T4/3 for T
2.38T2/3 for T < 0.5
1.5
> 1.5
Table 5.2 Safety Factor

Type of Bridge
Type B
Type A
Type I Ground Motion

3.0
2.4
84
Type II Ground Motion

1.5
1.2
Table 5.3 Ground Motion Characteristics of NF1

Run
Residual
Drift
Ratio
Maximum
Drift
Ratio
Sa (g)
Sv, in/sec
(mm/sec)
0.0023
0.13
3.41
(86.52)
0.44
0.0004
0.0045
0.25
6.85
(174.03)
0.0004
0.0113
0.56
0.0019
0.0221
0.0066
Tc
Tvg
(sec.)
Tvg/Tc
Tg/Tc
0.40
0.50
1.15
0.92
0.44
0.14
0.60
1.38
0.32
14.25
(361.88)
0.51
0.20
0.62
1.21
0.39
0.78
16.50
(419.00)
0.58
0.20
0.64
1.11
0.35
0.0445
1.05
24.49
(622.05)
0.73
0.20
0.54
0.74
0.27
0.015
0.0692
1.33
34.27
(870.35)
0.73
0.20
0.54
0.74
0.27
0.03
0.0888
1.62
44.57
(1132.04)
0.75
0.38
0.54
0.72
0.51
0.0417
0.1022
1.94
54.94
(1395.36)
0.75
0.38
0.54
0.72
0.51
0.0589
0.1182
2.23
65.17
(1655.39)
0.82
0.38
0.54
0.66
0.46
10
0.0841
0.1333
2.52
75.16
(1909.02)
0.82
0.38
0.56
0.68
0.46
11
N/A
0.1429
2.76
84.76
(2152.88)
0.84
0.38
0.56
0.67
0.45
85
Tg
(sec.) (sec.)
Table 5.4 Characteristics of Velocity History and Response of NF1

Td/(Tc/2)
Res. Disp.,
in (mm)
Max. Disp.,
in (mm)
Res.
drift
(%)
22.22
0.50
(12.70)
0.50
(12.70)
0.7
0.50
(12.70)
22.22
1.00
(25.40)
1.00
(25.40)
1.39
0.135
1.00
(25.40)
22.22
2.01
(51.05)
2.01
(51.05)
2.79
0.27
0.135
2.00
(50.8)
22.22
4.02
(102.11)
4.02
(102.11)
5.58
0.28
0.14
5.00
(127.00)
21.43
10.04
(255.02)
10.06
(255.02)
13.95
0.34
0.17
10.00
(254.00)
17.65
20.14
(511.56)
20.17
(512.32)
27.97
0.28
0.14
0.25
(6.35)
14.29
0.33
(8.38)
0.34
(8.64)
0.46
0.28
0.14
0.50
(12.70)
14.29
0.67
(17.02)
0.67
(17.02)
0.93
0.28
0.14
1.00
(25.40)
14.29
1.34
(34.04)
1.34
(34.04)
1.86
0.28
0.14
2.00
(50.8)
14.29
2.68
(68.07)
2.68
(68.07)
3.72
0.28
0.14
5.00
(127.00)
14.29
6.69
(169.93)
6.71
(170.43)
9.3
0.29
0.145
10.00
(254.00)
13.79
13.41
(340.61)
13.46
(341.88)
18.63
0.39
0.195
15.00
(381.00)
10.26
20.18
(512.57)
20.29
(515.37)
28.02
0.26
0.13
0.25
(6.35)
7.69
0.17
(4.32)
0.17
(4.32)
0.23
0.26
0.13
0.50
(12.70)
7.69
0.33
(8.38)
0.34
(8.64)
0.46
0.26
0.13
1.00
(25.40)
7.69
0.67
(17.02)
0.68
(17.27)
0.93
0.26
0.13
2.00
(50.8)
7.69
1.34
(34.04)
1.35
(34.29)
1.86
0.26
0.13
5.00
(127.00)
7.69
3.34
(84.84)
3.37
(85.60)
4.65
Td
(sec)
Tc
(sec)
Tc/2
(sec)
0.27
0.135
0.27
0.135
0.27
Vmax ,
in/sec
(mm/sec)
0.25
(6.35)
86
Table 5.4 Continued

1
0.33
0.165
10.00
(254.00)
6.06
6.72
(170.69)
6.84
(173.74)
9.33
0.34
0.17
15.00
(381.00)
5.88
10.08
(256.03)
10.25
(260.35)
14.01
0.5
0.27
0.135
0.25
(6.35)
3.70
0.08
(2.03)
0.09
(2.29)
0.12
0.5
0.27
0.135
0.50
(12.70)
3.70
0.17
(4.32)
0.18
(4.57)
0.23
0.5
0.27
0.135
1.00
(25.40)
3.70
0.33
(8.38)
0.36
(9.14)
0.46
0.5
0.27
0.135
2.00
(50.8)
3.70
0.67
(17.02)
0.71
(18.03)
0.93
0.5
0.28
0.14
5.00
(127.00)
3.57
1.67
(42.42)
1.74
(44.20)
2.33
0.5
0.51
0.255
10.00
(254.00)
1.96
3.37
(85.60)
3.67
(93.22)
4.69
0.5
0.54
0.27
15.00
(381.00)
1.85
5.21
(132.33)
5.90
(149.86)
7.24
0.5
0.6
0.3
20.00
(508.00)
1.67
7.52
(191.01)
8.39
(213.11)
10.44
0.3
0.27
0.135
0.25
(6.35)
2.22
0.05
(1.27)
0.06
(1.52)
0.07
0.3
0.27
0.135
0.50
(12.70)
2.22
0.10
(2.54)
0.12
(3.05)
0.14
0.3
0.27
0.135
1.00
(25.40)
2.22
0.20
(5.08)
0.23
(5.84)
0.28
0.3
0.28
0.14
2.00
(50.8)
2.14
0.40
(10.16)
0.48
(12.19)
0.56
0.3
0.35
0.175
5.00
(127.00)
1.71
1.02
(25.91)
1.34
(34.04)
1.42
0.3
0.45
0.22
10.00
(254.00)
1.35
2.19
(55.63)
2.93
(74.42)
3.04
0.3
0.51
0.26
15.00
(381.00)
1.17
3.45
(87.63)
4.41
(112.01)
4.79
0.3
0.57
0.28
20.00
(508.00)
1.05
4.69
(119.13)
5.64
(143.26)
6.51
0.3
0.6
0.3
30.00
(762.00)
1.00
6.63
(168.40)
7.51
(190.75)
9.21
0.3
0.68
0.34
40.00
(1016.00)
0.88
8.20
(208.28)
9.00
(228.60)
11.38
87
Table 5.5 Characteristics of Velocity History and Response of NF1
0.27
0.25
(6.35)
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.13
(3.18)
4.5
16.67
0.25
(6.35)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.38
(9.65)
0.26
0.25
(6.35)
0.5
1.5
0.25
(6.35)
4.5
17.31
0.25
(6.35)
0.25
(6.35)
0.50
(12.70)
0.35
0.26
0.25
(6.35)
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.38
(9.53)
4.5
17.31
0.38
(9.53)
0.13
(3.30)
0.50
(12.70)
0.17
0.27
0.25
(6.35)
0.5
0.13
(3.18)
22.22
0.25
(6.35)
0.25
(6.35)
0.50
(12.70)
0.35
0.26
0.25
(6.35)
0.25
(6.35)
23.08
0.25
(6.35)
0.00
(0.00)
0.50
(12.70)
0.00
0.27
0.25
(6.35)
1.5
0.38
(9.53)
22.22
0.38
(9.53)
0.25
(6.35)
0.50
(12.70)
0.35
0.27
0.25
(6.35)
1.5
0.5
4.5
0.13
(3.18)
7.5
27.78
0.25
(6.35)
0.13
(3.30)
0.50
(12.70)
0.17
0.26
0.25
(6.35)
1.5
4.5
0.25
(6.35)
7.5
28.85
0.25
(6.35)
0.25
(6.35)
0.50
(12.70)
0.35
0.26
0.25
(6.35)
1.5
1.5
4.5
0.38
(9.53)
7.5
28.85
0.38
(9.53)
0.63
(16.00)
0.63
(16.00)
0.87
0.27
0.50
(12.70)
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.25
(6.35)
4.5
16.67
0.50
(12.70)
0.75
(19.05)
1.00
(25.4)
1.05
0.26
0.5
1.5
4.5
17.31
0.26
0.5
1.5
1.5
4.5
17.31
0.50
(12.70)
0.75
(19.05)
0.5
(12.70)
0.25
(6.35)
1.00
(25.4)
1.00
(25.4)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
0.50
(12.70)
0.50
(12.70)
0.50
(12.70)
0.75
(19.05)
88
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.50
(12.70)
Res.
drift
(%)
0.52
0.70
0.35
Table 5.5 Continued
0.27
0.50
(12.70)
0.5
0.25
(6.35)
22.22
0.50
(12.70)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.5
(12.70)
0.26
0.50
(12.70)
0.50
(12.70)
23.08
0.50
(12.70)
0.00
(0.00)
1.00
(25.4)
0.00
0.27
0.50
(12.70)
1.5
0.75
(19.05)
22.22
0.75
(19.05)
0.5
(12.70)
1.00
(25.4)
0.70
0.27
0.50
(12.70)
1.5
0.5
4.5
0.25
(6.35)
7.5
27.78
0.50
(12.70)
0.25
(6.35)
1.00
(25.4)
0.35
0.26
0.50
(12.70)
1.5
4.5
0.50
(12.70)
7.5
28.85
0.50
(12.70)
0.5
(12.70)
1.00
(25.4)
0.70
0.26
0.50
(12.70)
1.5
1.5
4.5
0.75
(19.05)
7.5
28.85
0.75
(19.05)
1.25
(31.75)
1.26
(32.00)
1.74
0.27
1.00
(25.4)
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.50
(12.70)
4.5
16.67
1.00
(25.4)
1.51
(38.35)
2.01
(51.05)
2.09
0.26
1.00
(25.4)
0.5
1.5
1.00
(25.4)
4.5
17.31
1.00
(25.4)
1.00
(25.4)
2.01
(51.05)
1.39
0.26
1.00
(25.4)
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.50
(38.10)
4.5
17.31
1.50
(38.10)
0.5
(12.70)
2.01
(51.05)
0.70
0.27
1.00
(25.4)
0.5
0.50
(12.70)
22.22
1.00
(25.4)
1.00
(25.4)
2.01
(51.05)
1.39
0.26
23.08
0.27
1.5
22.22
1.00
(25.4)
1.50
(38.10)
0.00
(0.00)
1.00
(25.4)
2.01
(51.05)
2.01
(51.05)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
1.00
(25.4)
1.00
(25.4)
1.00
(25.4)
1.50
(38.10)
89
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
1.00
(25.4)
Res.
drift
(%)
0.70
0.00
1.39
Table 5.5 Continued
0.27
1.00
(25.4)
1.5
0.5
4.5
0.50
(12.70)
7.5
27.78
1.00
(25.4)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.5
(12.70)
0.26
1.00
(25.4)
1.5
4.5
1.00
(25.4)
7.5
28.85
1.00
(25.4)
1.00
(25.4)
2.01
(51.05)
1.39
0.26
1.00
(25.4)
1.5
1.5
4.5
1.50
(38.10)
7.5
28.85
1.50
(38.10)
2.51
(63.75)
2.51
(63.75)
3.49
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.00
(25.4)
4.5
16.67
2.00
(50.8)
3.01
(76.45)
4.02
(102.11)
4.18
0.26
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
1.5
2.00
(50.8)
4.5
17.31
2.00
(50.8)
2.01
(51.05)
4.02
(102.11)
2.79
0.26
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
1.5
1.5
3.00
(76.2)
4.5
17.31
3.00
(76.2)
1.00
(25.4)
4.02
(102.11)
1.40
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
1.00
(25.4)
22.22
2.00
(50.8)
2.01
(51.05)
4.02
(102.11)
2.79
0.26
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.8)
23.08
2.00
(50.8)
0.00
(0.00)
4.02
(102.11)
0.00
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
3.00
(76.2)
22.22
3.00
(76.2)
2.01
(51.05)
4.02
(102.11)
2.79
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
0.5
4.5
1.00
(25.4)
7.5
27.78
2.00
(50.8)
1.00
(25.4)
4.02
(102.11)
1.39
0.26
1.5
4.5
7.5
28.85
0.26
1.5
1.5
4.5
7.5
28.85
2.00
(50.8)
3.00
(76.2)
2.01
(51.05)
5.02
(127.51)
4.02
(102.11)
5.02
(127.51)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.8)
3.00
(76.2)
90
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
2.01
(51.05)
Res.
drift
(%)
0.70
2.79
6.97
Table 5.5 Continued

Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
Res.
drift
(%)
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.50
(63.5)
4.5
16.07
5.00
(127.00)
7.53
(191.26)
10.06
(255.52)
10.46
0.29
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
1.5
5.00
(127.00)
4.5
15.52
5.00
(127.00)
5.03
(127.76)
10.06
(255.52)
6.99
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
1.5
1.5
7.50
(190.5)
4.5
16.07
7.50
(190.5)
2.53
(64.26)
10.06
(255.52)
3.51
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
2.50
(63.5)
21.43
5.00
(127.00)
5.02
(127.51)
10.06
(255.52)
6.98
0.27
5.00
(127.00)
5.00
(127.00)
22.22
5.00
(127.00)
0.00
(0.00)
10.06
(255.52)
0.01
0.27
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
7.50
(190.5)
22.22
7.50
(190.5)
5.02
(127.51)
10.06
(255.52)
6.97
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
0.5
4.5
2.50
(63.5)
7.5
26.79
5.00
(127.00)
2.51
(63.75)
10.06
(255.52)
3.49
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
4.5
5.00
(127.00)
7.5
26.79
5.00
(127.00)
5.02
(127.51)
10.06
(255.52)
6.97
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
1.5
4.5
7.50
(190.5)
7.5
26.79
7.50
(190.5)
12.56
(319.02)
12.56
(319.02)
17.44
0.34
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
0.5
1.5
5.00
(127.00)
4.5
13.24
10.00
(254.00)
15.11
(383.79)
20.17
(512.32)
20.99
0.35
0.5
1.5
4.5
12.86
0.35
0.5
1.5
1.5
4.5
12.86
10.00
(254.00)
15.00
(381)
10.1
(256.54)
5.07
(128.78)
20.17
(512.32)
20.17
(512.32)
10.00
(254.00)
10.00
(254.00)
10.00
(254.00)
15.00
(381.00)
91
14.03
7.04
Table 5.5 Continued
0.34
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
5.00
(127.00)
17.65
10.00
(254.00)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
10.08
(256.03)
0.29
10.00
(254.00)
10.00
(254.00)
20.69
10.00
(254.00)
0.02
(0.51)
20.17
(512.32)
0.02
0.29
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
15.00
(381.00)
20.69
15.00
(381.00)
10.05
(255.27)
20.17
(512.32)
13.96
0.28
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
0.5
4.5
5.00
(127.00)
7.5
26.79
10.00
(254.00)
5.05
(128.27)
20.17
(512.32)
7.02
0.28
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
4.5
10.00
(254.00)
7.5
26.79
10.00
(254.00)
10.04
(255.02)
20.17
(512.32)
13.95
0.35
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
1.5
4.5
15.00
(381.00)
7.5
21.43
15.00
(381.00)
25.2
(640.08)
25.25
(641.35)
35.00
0.5
0.28
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
0.5
0.25
1.00
(25.4)
0.75
2.68
2.00
(50.8)
0.50
(12.70)
0.71
(18.03)
0.70
0.5
0.29
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
0.25
2.00
(50.8)
0.75
2.59
2.00
(50.8)
0.33
(8.38)
0.71
(18.03)
0.46
0.5
0.32
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
1.5
0.25
3.00
(76.2)
0.75
2.34
3.00
(76.2)
0.17
(4.32)
0.71
(18.03)
0.23
0.5
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
0.5
1.00
(25.4)
3.7
2.00
(50.8)
0.33
(8.38)
0.71
(18.03)
0.46
0.5
0.28
0.5
3.57
0.5
0.28
1.5
0.5
3.57
2.00
(50.8)
3.00
(76.2)
0.00
(0.00)
0.33
(8.38)
0.71
(18.03)
0.71
(18.03)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.8)
3.00
(76.2)
92
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
20.17
(512.32)
Res.
drift
(%)
14.00
0.00
0.46
Table 5.5 Continued
0.5
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
0.5
0.75
1.00
(25.4)
1.25
4.63
2.00
(50.8)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.17
(4.32)
0.5
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
0.75
2.00
(50.8)
1.25
4.63
2.00
(50.8)
0.33
(8.38)
0.71
(18.03)
0.46
0.5
0.28
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
1.5
0.75
3.00
(76.2)
1.25
4.46
3.00
(76.2)
0.84
(21.34)
0.87
(22.10)
1.16
0.5
0.32
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
0.5
0.25
2.50
(63.5)
0.75
2.34
5.00
(127.00)
1.26
(32.00)
1.74
(44.20)
1.75
0.5
0.35
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
0.25
5.00
(127.00)
0.75
2.14
5.00
(127.00)
0.84
(21.34)
1.74
(44.20)
1.17
0.5
0.38
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
1.5
0.25
7.50
(190.5)
0.75
1.97
7.50
(190.5)
0.41
(10.41)
1.74
(44.20)
0.57
0.5
0.29
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
0.5
2.50
(63.5)
3.45
5.00
(127.00)
0.84
(21.34)
1.74
(44.20)
1.16
0.5
0.3
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
5.00
(127.00)
3.33
5.00
(127.00)
0.00
(0.00)
1.74
(44.20)
0.00
0.5
0.29
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
0.5
7.50
(190.5)
3.45
7.50
(190.5)
0.84
(21.34)
1.74
(44.20)
1.16
0.5
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
0.5
0.75
2.50
(63.5)
1.25
4.46
5.00
(127.00)
0.42
(10.67)
1.74
(44.20)
0.58
0.5
0.28
1.5
0.75
1.25
4.46
0.5
0.35
1.5
1.5
0.75
1.25
3.57
5.00
(127.00)
7.50
(190.5)
0.84
(21.34)
2.1
(53.34)
1.74
(44.20)
2.18
(55.37)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
5.00
(127.00)
5.00
(127.00)
5.00
(127.00)
7.50
(190.5)
93
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.71
(18.03)
Res.
drift
(%)
0.23
1.17
2.92
Table 5.5 Continued
0.5
0.57
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
0.5
0.25
5.00
(127.00)
0.75
1.32
10.00
(254.00)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
2.53
(64.26)
0.5
0.57
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
0.25
10.00
(254.00)
0.75
1.32
10.00
(254.00)
1.61
(40.89)
3.67
(93.22)
2.23
0.5
0.64
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
1.5
0.25
15.00
(381.00)
0.75
1.17
15.00
(381.00)
0.77
(19.56)
3.67
(93.22)
1.07
0.5
0.73
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
0.5
5.00
(127.00)
1.37
10.00
(254.00)
1.69
(42.93)
3.67
(93.22)
2.35
0.5
0.79
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
10.00
(254.00)
1.27
10.00
(254.00)
0.00
(0.00)
3.67
(93.22)
0.5
0.79
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
0.5
15.00
(381.00)
1.27
15.00
(381.00)
1.7
(43.18)
3.67
(93.22)
2.36
0.5
0.51
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
0.5
0.75
5.00
(127.00)
1.25
2.44
10.00
(254.00)
0.85
(21.59)
3.67
(93.22)
1.18
0.5
0.51
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
0.75
10.00
(254.00)
1.25
2.45
10.00
(254.00)
1.69
(42.93)
3.67
(93.22)
2.35
0.5
0.37
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
1.5
0.75
15.00
(381.00)
1.25
3.38
15.00
(381.00)
4.22
(107.19)
4.57
(116.08)
5.87
0.5
0.6
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
0.5
0.25
7.50
(190.5)
0.75
1.25
15.00
(381.00)
3.99
(101.35)
5.9
(149.86)
5.54
0.5
0.64
0.5
0.25
0.75
1.17
0.5
0.73
0.5
1.5
0.25
0.75
1.03
15.00
(381.00)
22.50
(571.50)
2.80
(71.12)
1.65
(41.91)
5.9
(149.86)
5.9
(149.86)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
15.00
(381.00)
15.00
(381.00)
15.00
(381.00)
22.50
(571.50)
94
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
3.67
(93.22)
Res.
drift
(%)
3.52
3.89
2.3
Table 5.5 Continued
0.5
0.68
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
0.5
7.50
(190.5)
1.47
15.00
(381.00)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
2.75
(69.85)
0.5
0.79
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
15.00
(381.00)
1.27
15.00
(381.00)
0.15
(3.81)
5.90
(149.86)
0.20
0.5
0.85
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
0.5
22.50
(571.50)
1.18
22.50
(571.50)
2.9
(73.66)
5.90
(149.86)
4.03
0.5
0.51
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
0.5
0.75
7.50
(190.50)
1.25
2.44
15.00
(381.00)
1.42
(36.07)
5.90
(149.86)
1.97
0.5
0.51
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
0.75
15.00
(381.00)
1.25
2.45
15.00
(381.00)
2.48
(62.99)
5.90
(149.86)
3.44
0.5
0.93
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
1.5
0.75
22.50
(571.50)
1.25
1.34
22.50
(571.50)
6.30
(160.02)
6.84
(173.74)
8.75
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.00
(25.40)
1.5
5.56
2.00
(50.80)
1.00
(25.40)
1.35
(34.29)
1.39
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
0.5
2.00
(50.80)
1.5
5.56
2.00
(50.80)
0.67
(17.02)
1.35
(34.29)
0.93
0.28
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
1.5
0.5
3.00
(76.20)
1.5
5.36
3.00
(76.20)
0.34
(8.64)
1.35
(34.29)
0.47
0.27
2.00
(50.8)
0.5
1.00
(25.40)
7.41
2.00
(50.80)
0.67
(17.02)
1.35
(34.29)
0.93
0.27
7.41
0.27
1.5
7.41
2.00
(50.80)
3.00
(76.20)
0.00
(0.00)
0.67
(17.02)
1.35
(34.29)
1.35
(34.29)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.8)
2.00
(50.80)
3.00
(76.20)
95
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
5.90
(149.86)
Res.
drift
(%)
3.82
0.00
0.93
Table 5.5 Continued
0.26
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.00
(25.40)
2.5
9.62
2.00
(50.8)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
0.33
(8.38)
0.26
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
1.5
2.00
(50.80)
2.5
9.62
2.00
(50.8)
0.67
(17.02)
1.35
(34.29)
0.93
0.26
2.00
(50.8)
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.00
(76.20)
2.5
9.62
3.00
(76.20)
1.67
(42.42)
1.69
(42.93)
2.32
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.50
(63.5)
1.5
5.36
5.00
(127.00)
2.51
(63.75)
3.37
(85.60)
3.49
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
0.5
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
5.36
5.00
(127.00)
1.69
(42.93)
3.37
(85.60)
2.34
0.28
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
1.5
0.5
7.50
(190.5)
1.5
5.36
7.50
(190.5)
0.85
(21.59)
3.37
(85.60)
1.18
0.27
5.00
(127.00)
0.5
2.50
(63.5)
7.41
5.00
(127.00)
1.67
(42.42)
3.37
(85.60)
2.32
0.27
5.00
(127.00)
5.00
(127.00)
7.41
5.00
(127.00)
0.00
(0.00)
3.37
(85.60)
0.00
0.3
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
7.50
(190.5)
6.67
7.50
(190.5)
1.67
(42.42)
3.37
(85.60)
2.33
0.26
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.50
(63.5)
2.5
9.62
5.00
(127.00)
0.83
(21.08)
3.37
(85.60)
1.16
0.26
1.5
1.5
2.5
9.62
0.29
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
8.62
5.00
(127.00)
7.50
(190.5)
1.68
(42.67)
4.19
(106.43)
3.37
(85.60)
4.23
(107.44)
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
5.00
(127.00)
5.00
(127.00)
5.00
(127.00)
7.50
(190.5)
96
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
1.35
(34.29)
Res.
drift
(%)
0.46
2.33
5.82
Table 5.5 Continued
0.34
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.00
(127.00)
1.5
4.41
10.00
(254.00)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
5.04
(128.02)
0.6
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
0.5
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
2.5
10.00
(254.00)
3.38
(85.85)
6.84
(173.74)
4.70
0.47
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
1.5
0.5
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
3.23
15.00
(381.00)
1.74
(44.20)
6.84
(173.74)
2.42
0.35
10.00
(254.00)
0.5
5.00
(127.00)
5.71
10.00
(254.00)
3.37
(85.60)
6.84
(173.74)
4.68
0.37
10.00
(254.00)
10.00
(254.00)
5.41
10.00
(254.00)
0.00
(0.00)
6.84
(173.74)
0.00
0.31
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
15.00
(381.00)
6.45
15.00
(381.00)
3.36
(85.34)
6.84
(173.74)
4.67
0.33
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
0.5
1.5
5.00
(127.00)
2.5
7.58
10.00
(254.00)
1.69
(42.93)
6.84
(173.74)
2.35
0.33
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
1.5
10.00
(254.00)
2.5
7.58
10.00
(254.00)
3.36
(85.34)
6.84
(173.74)
4.67
0.33
10.00
(254.00)
1.5
1.5
1.5
15.00
(381.00)
2.5
7.58
15.00
(381.00)
8.4
(213.36)
8.50
(215.90)
11.66
0.41
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
0.5
0.5
7.50
(190.5)
1.5
3.66
15.00
(381.00)
7.58
(192.53)
10.25
(260.35)
10.53
0.47
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
0.5
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
3.23
15.00
(381.00)
5.23
(132.84)
10.25
(260.35)
7.26
0.73
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
1.5
0.5
22.50
(571.50)
1.5
2.05
22.50
(571.50)
2.61
(66.29)
10.25
(260.35)
3.63
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
97
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
6.84
(173.74)
Res.
drift
(%)
7.00
Table 5.5 Continued
0.34
15.00
(381.00)
0.5
7.50
(190.5)
5.88
15.00
(381.00)
Res.
Disp., in
(mm)
5.05
(128.27)
0.37
15.00
(381.00)
15.00
(381.00)
5.41
15.00
(381.00)
0.01
(0.25)
10.25
(260.35)
0.01
0.47
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
22.50
(571.50)
4.3
22.50
(571.50)
5.02
(127.51)
10.25
(260.35)
6.98
0.37
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
0.5
1.5
7.50
(190.5)
2.5
6.83
15.00
(381.00)
2.54
(64.52)
10.25
(260.35)
3.53
0.38
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
1.5
15.00
(381.00)
2.5
6.6
15.00
(381.00)
5.05
(128.27)
10.25
(260.35)
7.02
0.38
15.00
(381.00)
1.5
1.5
1.5
22.50
(571.50)
2.5
6.6
22.50
(571.50)
12.62
(320.55)
12.86
(326.64)
17.53
Td1
Tc
(sec) (sec)
V1max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td2
(sec)
V2max, in/sec
(mm/sec)
Td
(sec)
Td/Tc
Vmax, in/sec
(mm/sec)
98
Max.
Disp., in
(mm)
10.25
(260.35)
Res.
drift
(%)
7.02
Table 5.6 Residual Displacement for each Earthquake

Residual Displacement, in
(mm)
Earthquake
Velocity Main Equivalent

History Pulse Pulse
Main Pulse/
Velocity
History
Simplified Pulse/
Velocity History
Rinaldi
4
(102)
24
(621)
25
(631)
6.12
6.22
Chi-Chi
1
(25)
19
(478)
11
(286)
18.83
11.24
Tabas
4
(102)
23
(582)
8
(202)
5.75
2.00
Loma
Prieta
0
(0)
14
(347)
7
(177)
N/A
N/A
Erzincan
2
(50)
5
(139)
4
(113)
2.50
2.00
99
Table 5.7 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for NF-1

Run
Measured
in (mm)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
0.68
0.89
(17.30)
(22.57)
0.47
(11.94)
Japanese
0.89
(22.63)
1.08
(27.43)
1.56
(39.64)
2.19
(55.63)
1.76
(44.80)
2.16
(54.86)
2.13
(54.23)
3.60
(91.44)
3.00
(76.20)
2.53
(64.22)
4.24
(107.70)
10
6.05
(153.67)
Proposed
Method 2
0.85
(21.66)
Japanese
ATC
% Error
Proposed
Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
89
45
89
81
2.89
(73.35)
44
103
63
167
2.65
(67.33)
5.37
(136.41)
-1
67
23
149
4.57
(116.08)
3.36
(85.35)
7.53
(136.41)
-16
52
12
151
3.03
(76.87)
5.72
(145.29)
4.30
(109.38)
10.55
(268.01)
-29
35
149
3.33
(84.50)
6.81
(172.97)
5.31
(134.82)
13.89
(352.87)
-45
13
-12
130
100
Table 5.8 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for NF-2

Run
Measured
in (mm)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
1.45
1.39
(36.83)
(35.42)
0.80
(20.32)
Japanese
1.31
(33.24)
1.4
(35.56)
1.82
(46.34)
2.68
(68.07)
2.07
(52.61)
2.11
(53.59)
2.23
(56.56)
3.78
(96.01)
2.87
(72.90)
2.64
(66.98)
10
4.16
(105.66)
3.01
(76.57)
Proposed
Method 2
1.90
(48.26)
Japanese
% Error
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
64
81
74
138
3.63
(92.20)
30
91
48
159
2.78
(70.67)
5.65
(143.58)
79
32
168
4.77
(121.16)
3.51
(89.09)
7.86
(199.57)
-8
66
22
174
5.74
(145.80)
4.30
(109.13)
10.37
(263.39)
-28
38
149
101
Table 5.9 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for MN

Run
Measured
in (mm)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
2.01
1.54
(51.05)
(39.13)
0.84
(21.34)
Japanese
1.35
(34.31)
1.76
(44.70)
1.75
(44.57)
3.23
(82.04)
2.37
(60.19)
2.68
(68.07)
2.20
(55.94)
4.25
(107.95)
10
3.80
(96.52)
2.65
(67.23)
5.41
(137.41)
Proposed
Method 2
2.75
(69.73)
Japanese
% Error
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
61
139
83
227
5.17
(131.32)
-1
84
35
194
3.19
(81.11)
7.78
(197.73)
-18
59
19
190
4.27
(108.57)
11.41
(289.78)
-30
42
12
200
102
Table 5.10 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for ETN

Run
Measured
in (mm)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
1.31
1.70
(33.22)
(43.21)
10
0.63
(16.00)
Japanese
1.68
(42.73)
11
2.05
(52.07)
2.47
(62.65)
1.90
(48.16)
2.51
(63.78)
12
5.69
(144.53)
3.55
(90.12)
4.52
(114.81)
13
13.36
(339.34)
5.31
(134.75)
9.31
(236.47)
Proposed
Method 2
1.29
(32.71)
Japanese
% Error
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
167
108
170
104
2.84
(72.04)
20
-8
22
38
3.81
(96.80)
5.88
(149.42)
-38
-21
-33
6.83
(173.49)
14.34
(364.34)
-60
-30
-49
103
Table 5.11 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for SETN

Run
Measured
in (mm)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
1.20
1.56
(30.48)
(39.72)
1.03
(26.16)
Japanese
1.51
(38.29)
3.31
(84.07)
2.59
(65.89)
2.32
(58.93)
2.64
(67.16)
7.46
(189.48)
3.70
(93.87)
5.08
(129.03)
10
14.50
(368.30)
8.62
(218.95)
18.65
(473.71)
Proposed
Method 2
1.12
(28.38)
Japanese
% Error
Proposed
ATC
Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
47
17
52
3.22
(81.73)
-22
-30
-20
-3
4.08
(103.54)
6.71
(170.43)
-50
-32
-45
-10
15.28
(388.12)
42.61
(1082.23)
-41
29
194
104
Table 5.12 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for SVTN

Run
Measured
in (mm)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed Method Proposed Method
ATC
1
2
1.27
1.65
1.37
(32.23)
(41.87)
(34.73)
% Error
Proposed
Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
0.98
(24.89)
Japanese
1.66
(42.17)
10
1.70
(43.18)
1.98
(50.25)
1.52
(38.56)
1.99
(50.47)
2.00
(50.85)
16
-11
17
18
11
2.64
(67.06)
2.23
(56.62)
1.76
(44.58)
2.33
(59.30)
2.72
(69.15)
-16
-34
-12
12
3.60
(91.44)
2.52
(63.97)
2.58
(65.53)
2.66
(67.54)
3.44
(87.49)
-30
-28
-26
-4
13
4.62
(117.35)
2.85
(72.51)
3.18
(80.77)
2.96
(75.11)
4.14
(105.22)
-38
-31
-36
-10
14
6.36
(161.54)
3.25
(82.51)
4.18
(106.17)
3.49
(88.54)
5.45
(138.47)
-49
-34
-45
-14
15
10.07
(255.78)
4.27
(108.44)
7.25
(184.15)
5.36
(136.18)
10.61
(269.40)
-58
-28
-47
105
Japanese
ATC
69
29
68
40
Table 5.13 Measured and Calculated Residual Displacements for UCSD Column
Run
Measured
in (mm)
2.49
(63.34)
Calculated, in (mm)
Proposed
Proposed
Japanese
ATC
Method 1
Method 2
4.53
5.93
4.91
7.75
(115.10) (150.64)
(124.81)
(196.77)
4.11
(104.39)
7.82
(198.54)
14.13
(358.98)
10.42
(264.65)
1.97
(50.00)
6.58
(167.12)
11.01
(279.65)
8.09
(205.55)
% Error
Proposed
Japanese ATC Method 1
Proposed
Method 2
82
138
97
211
23.74
(603.11)
90
244
154
478
16.62
(422.07)
234
459
311
744
106
Table 5.14 Average and Standard Deviation of Difference and R 2 for Different Columns
Japanese
7
50
ATC
53
31
Proposed Method
1
30
39
Proposed Method
2
138
30
0.56
13
36
0.60
71
20
0.93
36
27
<0
158
14
0.73
3
40
<0
81
42
0.76
37
32
<0
203
17
0.62
22
102
<0
12
64
0.72
28
100
<0
38
47
0.27
-17
44
0.81
-4
32
0.51
-2
41
0.98
47
98
0.53
-15
44
0.77
-20
23
0.88
-12
41
<0
5
19
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
0.18
135
86
0.72
280
164
0.41
187
111
0.97
478
267
R2
<0
<0
<0
<0
Column
NF-1
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
R2
NF-2
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
R2
MN
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
R2
ETN
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
R2
SETN
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
R2
SVTN
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
R2
UCSD
107
Table 5.15 Average and Standard Deviation of Difference and R 2 for Ductility of two to
four
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
Japanese
56
60
ATC
21
47
Proposed Method 1
58
60
Proposed Method
2
42
38
R2
0.37
0.62
0.36
0.62
Table 5.16 Average and Standard Deviation of Error and R 2 for Ductility of four or more
% Error, Avg.
% Error, St. Dev.
Japanese
2
64
ATC
61
105
Proposed Method 1
26
77
Proposed Method
2
152
163
R2
0.30
0.11
0.43
<0
108
Table 6.1 Characteristics of Site 1 (Seattle, Washington) for Vs 360 m/s

Acceleration History
lp_cls
lp_stg
nr_0637
nr_0655
nr_kat
nr_ro3
nr_sce
lp_cls
lp_stg
nr_0637
nr_0655
nr_kat
nr_ro3
nr_sce
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.55 0.63
0.52 0.50
0.55 0.65
0.56 0.49
0.55 0.52
0.52 0.49
0.70 0.58
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.49 0.40
0.55 0.43
0.48 0.44
0.49 0.42
0.49 0.43
0.48 0.43
0.49 0.43
H1
0.52
0.47
0.48
0.64
0.55
0.52
0.65
H2
0.68
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.53
0.60
0.58
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.59
0.51
0.60
0.52
0.54
0.50
0.64
0.60
0.49
0.52
0.62
0.54
0.56
0.61
H1
0.52
0.45
0.46
0.48
0.46
0.46
0.46
H2
0.48
0.47
0.45
0.49
0.45
0.47
0.50
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.45
0.49
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.50
0.46
0.46
0.48
0.46
0.46
0.48
Table 6.2 Station Names for Site 1 for Vs 360 m/s

Station Code
cls
stg
637
655
kat
ro3
sce
Station name
Corralitos
Saratoga, Aloha Avenue
Sepulveda VA Bldg (9554)
Jensen Filtration Plant
Simi Valley, Katherine Road
Sun Valley, Roscoe
Sylmar Converter Station East
109
Table 6.3 Characteristics of Site 1 (Seattle, Washington) for Vs 760 m/s

lp_brn
lp_cls
lp_stg
nr_0655
nr_kat
nr_sce
nr_syl
lp_brn
lp_cls
lp_stg
nr_0655
nr_kat
nr_sce
nr_syl
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.39 0.35
0.39 0.40
0.46 0.45
0.37 0.43
0.42 0.39
0.48 0.38
0.52 0.48
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.31 0.28
0.30 0.33
0.31 0.31
0.30 0.33
0.32 0.32
0.30 0.29
0.28 0.32
H1
0.37
0.35
0.43
0.38
0.39
0.46
0.52
H2
0.34
0.56
0.31
0.39
0.40
0.41
0.45
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.37
0.39
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.43
0.50
0.36
0.45
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.43
0.48
H1
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.30
H2
0.30
0.28
0.32
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.30
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.30
0.32
0.31
0.30
Table 6.4 Station Names for Site 1for Vs 760 m/s

Station Code
brn
cls
stg
655
kat
sce
syl
Station name
Branciforte Drive
Corralitos
Jensen Filtration Plant
Simi Valley, Katherine Road
Sylmar - Olive View Hospital
110
Table 6.5 Characteristics of Site 2 (Eureka, California) for Vs 360 m/s

cc_tcu065
cc_tcu067
cc_tcu071
cc_tcu074
cc_tcu102
cpm_cpm
cpm_pet
cc_tcu065
cc_tcu067
cc_tcu071
cc_tcu074
cc_tcu102
cpm_cpm
cpm_pet
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.85 1.26
1.04 1.16
0.93 0.84
0.76 1.20
0.90 1.03
0.93 0.99
0.95 0.94
S1 (g)
FN
FP
1.14 1.01
1.24 1.07
H1
0.94
1.11
1.10
0.82
0.92
0.96
0.89
H2
1.23
1.17
0.81
0.85
0.85
0.95
0.92
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.06
1.10
0.88
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.94
1.08
1.14
0.96
0.84
0.88
0.95
0.91
H1
1.09
1.25
H2
1.27
1.05
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.08
1.15
1.08
1.12
1.11
1.07
1.10
1.18
1.15
1.04
1.06
1.12
1.11
1.09
1.17
1.00
0.97
1.12
1.24
1.00
1.06
1.07
1.17
1.05
1.21
1.02
1.18
0.97
1.10
1.12
1.17
1.04
1.07
1.12
111
Table 6.6 Characteristics of Site 2 (Eureka, California) for Vs 760 m/s

cc_tcu065
cc_tcu067
cc_tcu071
cc_tcu074
cc_tcu102
cpm_cpm
cpm_pet
cc_tcu065
cc_tcu067
cc_tcu071
cc_tcu074
cc_tcu102
cpm_cpm
cpm_pet
PGA (g)
FN
FP
1.04 1.27
1.07 0.87
0.84 0.95
1.02 0.94
0.83 0.96
0.97 0.92
0.91 0.96
FN
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.73
0.75
0.72
0.75
S1 (g)
FP
0.67
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.62
0.59
H1
0.92
1.11
0.77
0.89
1.02
0.74
0.98
H2
1.10
1.21
0.88
0.82
0.79
1.03
0.59
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.15
0.97
0.90
0.98
0.90
0.94
0.94
1.01
1.16
0.83
0.86
0.90
0.89
0.78
H1
0.69
0.67
0.58
0.68
0.64
0.56
0.67
H2
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.73
0.71
0.64
0.48
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.69
0.70
0.67
0.67
0.69
0.67
0.63
0.70
0.67
0.60
0.58
Table 6.7 Station Names for Site 2

Station Code
tcu065
tcu067
tcu071
tcu074
tcu102
cpm
pet
Station name
Chi-Chi - tcu065
Chi-Chi - tcu067
Chi-Chi - tcu071
Chi-Chi - tcu074
Chi-Chi - tcu102
Cape Mendocino
Petrolia
112
Table 6.8 Characteristics of Site 3 (San Bruno, California) for Vs 360 m/s
dn_ps10
r4hc_s118
r4hc_s469
r4hn_s118
r4hn_s469
r4hs_s118
r4hs_s469
dn_ps10
r4hc_s118
r4hc_s469
r4hn_s118
r4hn_s469
r4hs_s118
r4hs_s469
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.79 0.91
0.88 0.94
0.95 0.93
0.92 0.91
0.90 0.86
0.82 0.85
0.88 0.84
S1 (g)
FN
FP
1.22 1.03
1.18 1.03
1.19 1.04
1.15 1.00
1.28 1.05
1.23 0.98
1.30 1.04
113
H1
0.79
0.85
0.91
0.86
0.88
0.93
0.86
H2
0.83
0.84
0.83
0.90
0.88
0.84
0.89
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.85
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.84
0.86
0.81
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
H1
1.13
1.10
1.17
1.17
1.01
1.14
1.16
H2
1.08
1.14
1.19
1.11
1.23
1.13
1.17
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.13
1.11
1.11
1.07
1.17
1.11
1.17
1.11
1.12
1.18
1.14
1.12
1.13
1.16
Table 6.9 Characteristics of Site 3 (San Bruno, California) for Vs 760 m/s
dn_ps10
r4hc_s118
r4hc_s469
r4hn_s118
r4hn_s469
r4hs_s118
r4hs_s469
dn_ps10
r4hc_s118
r4hc_s469
r4hn_s118
r4hn_s469
r4hs_s118
r4hs_s469
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.95 0.82
0.89 0.83
0.69 0.90
0.75 0.78
0.84 0.87
0.77 0.81
0.80 0.87
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.81 0.75
0.70 0.66
0.69 0.68
0.75 0.65
0.64 0.63
0.69 0.60
0.71 0.58
H1
0.75
0.81
0.81
0.74
0.79
0.85
0.72
H2
0.72
0.86
0.85
0.87
0.76
0.73
0.85
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.89
0.86
0.80
0.77
0.86
0.79
0.84
0.73
0.84
0.83
0.80
0.77
0.79
0.79
H1
0.69
0.73
0.66
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.62
H2
0.65
0.63
0.66
0.69
0.66
0.65
0.70
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.78
0.68
0.69
0.70
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.67
0.68
0.66
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.66

Station Code
s118
s469
ps10
Station name
Simulation Station 118
Simulation Station 469
Pump Station 10
114
Table 6.11 Characteristics of Site 4 (Berkeley, California) for Vs 360 m/s

erz_erz
lp_cls
lp_gil
lp_gof
lp_lex
lp_lgp
lp_stg
to_hino
erz_erz
lp_cls
lp_gil
lp_gof
lp_lex
lp_lgp
lp_stg
to_hino
PGA (g)
FN
FP
1.16 0.99
1.25 1.15
0.92 0.94
0.98 1.10
1.22 1.01
0.94 0.83
1.07 1.03
0.97 0.99
S1 (g)
FN
FP
1.31 1.11
1.47 1.13
1.32 1.14
1.33 1.15
1.32 1.14
1.31 1.17
1.36 1.14
1.33 1.07
115
H1
0.95
1.14
1.08
1.12
1.04
0.89
1.04
0.98
H2
1.04
0.99
0.92
1.10
1.02
0.88
1.12
0.94
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.07
1.20
0.93
1.04
1.11
0.89
1.05
0.98
0.99
1.07
1.00
1.11
1.03
0.89
1.08
0.96
H1
1.24
1.27
1.17
1.22
1.22
1.24
1.24
1.25
H2
1.22
1.27
1.24
1.23
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.27
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.21
1.30
1.23
1.24
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.20
1.23
1.27
1.21
1.22
1.21
1.22
1.22
1.26
Table 6.12 Characteristics of Site 4 (Berkeley, California) for Vs 760 m/s

erz_erz
lp_cls
lp_gil
lp_gof
lp_lgp
lp_stg
to_hino
erz_erz
lp_cls
lp_gil
lp_gof
lp_lgp
lp_stg
to_hino
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.99 1.23
1.18 0.96
0.86 0.88
1.00 1.08
0.85 0.91
0.90 0.96
1.14 0.93
FN
0.76
0.83
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.84
0.84
S1 (g)
FP
0.70
0.75
0.69
0.69
0.68
0.69
0.69
H1
1.21
1.09
0.99
0.97
0.88
0.90
1.00
H2
1.06
0.97
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.70
0.92
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.11
1.07
0.87
1.04
0.88
0.93
1.04
1.13
1.03
0.97
0.96
0.92
0.80
0.96
H1
0.75
0.74
0.71
0.78
0.75
0.78
0.73
H2
0.73
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.73
0.78
0.78
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.73
0.79
0.75
0.74
0.74
0.77
0.76
0.74
0.75
0.73
0.75
0.74
0.78
0.75

Station Code
lgp
stg
cls
gil
gof
lex
hino
erz
Station name
Los Gatos Presentation Center
Corralitos
Gavilon College
Gilroy Historic Building
Lexington Dam abutment
Tottori-Hino (ttrh02)
Erzincan
116
Table 6.14 Characteristics of Site 5 (Sylmar, California) for Vs 360 m/s

cc_tcu067
lp_wvc
nr_0655
nr_jen
nr_ldm
nr_rrs
nr_sce
tab_tab
cc_tcu067
lp_wvc
nr_0655
nr_jen
nr_ldm
nr_rrs
nr_sce
tab_tab
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.98 1.03
0.88 0.80
0.86 0.92
0.86 0.89
0.90 0.93
1.09 0.92
0.90 0.84
0.92 0.92
S1 (g)
FN
FP
1.22 1.02
1.14 1.02
1.13 1.02
1.16 0.99
1.12 1.01
1.16 0.96
1.16 0.95
1.10 0.99
117
H1
0.86
0.82
1.03
0.94
0.98
0.96
0.92
0.93
H2
0.86
1.03
0.95
0.98
0.93
0.89
0.90
0.94
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.00
0.84
0.89
0.88
0.92
1.00
0.87
0.92
0.86
0.93
0.99
0.96
0.95
0.92
0.91
0.94
H1
1.05
1.07
1.08
1.05
1.08
1.05
1.09
1.09
H2
1.07
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.06
1.09
1.06
1.10
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.12
1.08
1.08
1.07
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.10
Table 6.15 Characteristics of Site 5 (Sylmar, California) for Vs 760 m/s

cc_tcu067
lp_wvc
nr_jen
nr_ldm
nr_rrs
nr_sce
tab_tab
cc_tcu067
lp_wvc
nr_jen
nr_ldm
nr_rrs
nr_sce
tab_tab
PGA (g)
FN
FP
1.08 0.86
0.93 0.84
0.91 0.85
1.14 0.97
0.99 0.91
0.98 0.90
0.84 0.88
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.74 0.62
0.75 0.64
0.66 0.63
0.71 0.58
0.73 0.59
0.69 0.62
0.72 0.60
H1
0.93
0.83
0.85
0.92
0.92
1.09
1.01
H2
0.98
1.18
0.77
0.90
0.89
0.88
0.89
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.97
0.88
0.88
1.05
0.95
0.94
0.86
0.96
1.01
0.81
0.91
0.90
0.98
0.95
H1
0.61
0.60
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.68
0.66
H2
0.67
0.64
0.69
0.66
0.69
0.67
0.67
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.68
0.70
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.65
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.68
0.66
0.67
0.67
0.66

Station Code
tcu067
wvc
0655
jen
ldm
rrs
sce
tab
Station name
Chi-Chi - tcu067
West Valley College
Jensen Filter Plant Generator
Jensen Filter Plant
LA Dam
Rinaldi Receiving
Tabas
118
Table 6.17 Characteristics of Site 6 (Salt Lake City, Utah) for Vs 360 m/s
di_din
i1_aul
i1_bag
i1_stu
i2_ctr
m1_cvk
m1_mls
di_din
i1_aul
i1_bag
i1_stu
i2_ctr
m1_cvk
m1_mls
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.33 0.32
0.33 0.32
0.34 0.35
0.30 0.31
0.32 0.37
0.36 0.33
0.35 0.31
FN
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.38
0.36
0.41
0.39
S1 (g)
FP
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.34
119
H1
0.40
0.34
0.37
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.35
H2
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.28
0.34
0.33
0.37
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.30
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.38
0.35
0.36
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.36
H1
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.38
H2
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.37
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.36
0.35
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.38
Table 6.18 Characteristics of Site 6 (Salt Lake City, Utah) for Vs 760 m/s
di_din
i1_aul
i1_bag
i1_stu
i2_ctr
m1_cvk
m1_mls
di_din
i1_aul
i1_bag
i1_stu
i2_ctr
m1_cvk
m1_mls
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.31 0.32
0.27 0.27
0.36 0.26
0.31 0.28
0.31 0.34
0.33 0.28
0.26 0.33
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.23 0.22
0.23 0.22
0.22 0.21
0.23 0.21
0.21 0.22
0.24 0.21
0.23 0.21
H1
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.31
0.32
0.30
0.27
H2
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.30
0.33
0.30
0.29
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.31
0.27
0.31
0.29
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.31
0.32
0.30
0.28
H1
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.22
H2
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.24
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.23

Station Code
din
aul
bag
stu
ctr
cvk
mls
Station name
Dinar
Auletta
Bagnoli Irpinio
Sturno
Calitri
Convict Creek
Mammoth Lakes High School
120
Table 6.20 Characteristics of Site 7 (Cheraw, Colorado) for Vs 360 m/s

whsb_r10a050h0
whsb_r10a050h+
whsb_r10a110h+
whsb_r20a030h
whsb_r20a150h0
whsb_r20a150h
whsb_r20a150h+
whsb_r10a050h0
whsb_r10a050h+
whsb_r10a110h+
whsb_r20a030h
whsb_r20a150h0
whsb_r20a150h
whsb_r20a150h+
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.04 0.04
0.04 0.05
0.05 0.05
0.05 0.04
0.05 0.05
0.04 0.05
0.04 0.05
FN
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
S1 (g)
FP
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
121
H1
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
H2
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
H1
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
H2
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Table 6.21 Characteristics of Site 7 (Cheraw, Colorado) for Vs 760 m/s

whsb_r10a050h+
whsb_r10a110h
whsb_r10a110h+
whsb_r20a030h0
whsb_r20a030h+
whsb_r20a150h0
whsb_r20a150h
whsb_r10a050h+
whsb_r10a110h
whsb_r10a110h+
whsb_r20a030h0
whsb_r20a030h+
whsb_r20a150h0
whsb_r20a150h
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.03 0.04
0.04 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.04 0.04
0.03 0.03
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
122
H1
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
H2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
H1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
H2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Table 6.22 Characteristics of Site 8 (Tiptonville, Tennessee) for Vs 360 m/s

whsb_r10a050h0
whsb_r10a050h
whsb_r10a110h
whsb_r10a110h+
whsb_r20a030h+
whsb_r20a150h0
whsb_r20a150h+
whsb_r10a050h0
whsb_r10a050h
whsb_r10a110h
whsb_r10a110h+
whsb_r20a030h+
whsb_r20a150h0
whsb_r20a150h+
PGA (g)
FN
FP
1.06 1.09
1.18 1.04
1.05 1.04
1.09 1.13
1.02 1.11
1.09 1.14
1.12 1.12
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.77 0.68
0.70 0.69
0.76 0.69
0.77 0.68
0.77 0.70
0.74 0.69
0.75 0.69
123
H1
1.05
1.13
1.13
1.11
0.99
1.15
1.09
H2
1.11
1.11
1.08
1.08
1.04
1.19
1.13
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.08
1.11
1.05
1.11
1.06
1.11
1.12
1.08
1.12
1.10
1.10
1.02
1.17
1.11
H1
0.71
0.71
0.69
0.71
0.73
0.65
0.76
H2
0.73
0.71
0.66
0.73
0.71
0.69
0.68
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.73
0.70
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.68
0.72
0.72
0.67
0.72
Table 6.23 Characteristics of Site 8 (Tiptonville, Tennessee) for Vs 760 m/s

whsb_r10a050h0
whsb_r10a050h+
whsb_r10a110h
whsb_r20a030h0
whsb_r20a150h
whsb_r20a150h+
whsb_r10a050h0
whsb_r10a050h+
whsb_r10a110h
whsb_r20a030h0
whsb_r20a150h
whsb_r20a150h+
PGA (g)
FN
FP
1.08 1.09
1.07 1.11
1.16 1.07
1.11 1.00
1.03 1.09
1.09 1.13
S1 (g)
FN
FP
0.62 0.58
0.63 0.54
0.61 0.53
0.58 0.58
0.65 0.55
0.61 0.58
H1
1.10
1.08
1.01
1.05
1.07
1.10
H2
1.06
1.15
1.10
1.16
1.11
0.97
FN-FP
H1-H2
1.09
1.09
1.11
1.05
1.06
1.11
1.08
1.12
1.05
1.10
1.09
1.04
H1
0.55
0.60
0.57
0.51
0.61
0.57
H2
0.62
0.58
0.56
0.57
0.61
0.54
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.60
0.59
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.59
0.58
0.59
0.56
0.54
0.61
0.56
Table 6.24 Characteristics of Site 9 (New York City, New York) for Vs 360 m/s
whlfb_r010_a090h
whlfb_r010_a210h
whlfb_r010_a250h
whlfb_r010_a290h
whlfb_r020_a150h0
whlfb_r020_a190h0
whlfb_r020_a350h0
whlfb_r010_a090h
whlfb_r010_a210h
whlfb_r010_a250h
whlfb_r010_a290h
whlfb_r020_a150h0
whlfb_r020_a190h0
whlfb_r020_a350h0
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.09 0.10
0.10 0.09
0.09 0.10
0.10 0.09
0.09 0.09
0.09 0.10
0.10 0.09
FN
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
S1 (g)
FP
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
124
H1
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
H2
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
H1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
H2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Table 6.25 Characteristics of Site 9 (New York City, New York) for Vs 760 m/s
whlfb_r010_a090h
whlfb_r010_a210h
whlfb_r010_a250h
whlfb_r010_a290h+
whlfb_r020_a150h0
whlfb_r020_a190h0
whlfb_r020_a350h0
whlfb_r010_a090h
whlfb_r010_a210h
whlfb_r010_a250h
whlfb_r010_a290h+
whlfb_r020_a150h0
whlfb_r020_a190h0
whlfb_r020_a350h0
PGA (g)
FN
FP
0.08 0.08
0.07 0.08
0.07 0.08
0.07 0.07
0.07 0.08
0.07 0.08
0.07 0.07
FN
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
S1 (g)
FP
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
H1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
H2
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
H1
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
H2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
FN-FP
H1-H2
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Table 6.26 Number of Records

S1 (g)
Vs30= 1200 ft/sec

(360 m/s)
Vs30= 2500 ft/sec

(760 m/s)
0.4-0.6
0.6-0.8
> 0.8
14
14
60
13
57
0
125
Table 6.27 Recorded near-fault ground motions

Distance,
mi
(km)
4.38
(7.31)
Vs30,
ft/sec
(m/sec)
1810
(543)
7.6
4.16
(6.95)
2267
(680)
2.09
TCU052
7.6
0.14
(0.24)
1930
(579)
0.99
Chi-Chi
TCU074
7.6
8.19
(13.67)
1830
(549)
1.10
Chi-Chi
TCU084
7.6
6.22
(10.39)
2267
(680)
1.70
Northridge
Pacoima Dam (Upper

Left)
6.7
San Fernando
Pacoima Dam
6.6
4.79
(8.00)
1.68
(2.80)
6720
(2016)
6720
(2016)
Earthquake
Station
Magnitude
Chi-Chi
CHY028
7.6
Chi-Chi
CHY080
Chi-Chi
126
S1 (g)
(Avg.)
1.04
0.84
0.98
Table 7.1 Member Ductility Requirement for SDC D
Member
Single-column bents
Multiple-column bents
Pier walls in the weak
direction
pier walls in the strong
direction
127
5
6
5
1
Table 8.1 Features of the Bridges

Bridge
NO.
Bridge
Description
Plan Geometry
Five-Span
Continuous
Tangent Square
Two-Span
Continuous
Slightly Skewed
(11 degree)
Two-Span
Continuous
Slightly Skewed
(10.5 degree)
Four-Span
Continuous
Tangent Square
Eight-Span
Continuous
Slightly curved
Superstructure
Type
CIP Concrete
Box Girder
Prestressed
Concrete
Girder
Prestressed
Concrete
Girder
CIP Concrete
Box Girder
Prestressed
Concrete
Girder
Pier Type
SD1
(g)
Site
Class
Location
Design Criteria
Two-Column
Bent
0.986
Washington
MCEER/ATC 49
Four-Column
Bent
0.580
Utah
MCEER/ATC 49
ThreeColumn Bent
0.590
Utah
MCEER/ATC 49
Two-Column
Bent
0.560
California
Pre 1971 codes
Two-Column
Bent
0.419
South
Carolina
AASHTO LRFD 2004
128
Table 8.2 Longitudinal and Transverse Steel Ratio

Bridge
Longitudinal Steel
Ratio (%)
Transverse Steel
Ratio (%)
Washington
2.4 (Bent 1)- 1.4

(other bents)
1.3 (Bent 1)- 0.9

(other bents)
Utah-1
1.2
1.0
Utah-2
1.3
1.4 (end columns)1.0 (middle column)
California
4.5 (Bent 2)- 2.8

(other bents)
0.2
South
Carolina
1.7
0.8
Table 8.3 Calculated Response Spectrum Parameters
Washington
Utah-1
Utah-2
California
South Carolina
As (g)
SDS (g)
0.365
0.420
0.509
0.400
0.282
0.915
0.987
1.174
1.000
0.571
129
SD1 (g)
Calculated
Design
0.859
0.986
0.567
0.580
0.669
0.590
0.560
0.560
0.242
0.419
Table 8.4 Residual Drift Ratio for Washington Bridge in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.14
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
9.85
(250)
540
(13716)
9.86
(250)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
4.1
(104)
Residual Drift Ratio (%)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
2.40
1.34
0.65
7.1
(180)
1.39
N/A
0.36
9.78
(248)
9.1
(231)
1.07
N/A
0.30
9.96
(253)
7.1
(180)
1.40
N/A
0.36
Table 8.5 Residual Drift Ratio for Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.93
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
5.61
(142)
540
(13716)
9.73
(247)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
4
(102)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
1.40
N/A
0.31
7.1
(180)
1.37
N/A
0.35
10.16
(258)
8.1
(206)
1.25
N/A
0.32
6.24
(158)
7.1
(180)
0.88
N/A
0.00
130
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
9.66
(245)
540
(13716)
9.65
(245)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
4.9
(124)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
1.97
1.04
0.59
7.1
(180)
1.36
N/A
0.35
9.49
(241)
9.1
(231)
1.04
N/A
0.29
9.75
(248)
7.1
(180)
1.37
N/A
0.35
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
5.09
(129)
540
(13716)
9.35
(237)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
4.6
(117)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
1.11
N/A
0.26
7.1
(180)
1.32
N/A
0.33
9.88
(251)
8.1
(206)
1.22
N/A
0.31
6.12
(155)
7.1
(180)
0.86
N/A
0.00
131
Table 8.8 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.12 sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
3.64
(92)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
2.65
(67)

Ductility
1.37
Spectra
Simple
Method
N/A
0.44
Table 8.9 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.10 sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.14
(4)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
1.16
(29)

Ductility
0.12
Spectra
Simple
Method
N/A
0.00
Table 8.10 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.21
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
193
(4902)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
4.94
(125)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
3.37
(86)

Ductility
1.47
132
Spectra
Simple
Method
N/A
0.51
Table 8.11 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.11 sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
193
(4902)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.22
(6)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
1.41
(36)

Ductility
0.16
Spectra
Simple
Method
N/A
0.00
Table 8.12 Residual Drift Ratio for California Bridge in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.77
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
480
(12190)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
9.49
(241)
600
(15240)
9.63
(245)
600
(15240)
9.61
(244)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
9.3
(236)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
1.02
N/A
0.36
10.3
(262)
0.94
N/A
0.00
10.3
(262)
0.93
N/A
0.00
Table 8.13 Residual Drift Ratio for California Bridge in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.57
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
480
(12190)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
3.47
(88)
600
(15240)
600
(15240)
3.90
(99)
2.59
(66)
3
4
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
9.5
(241)
9.9
(251)
9.9
(251)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.36
N/A
0.00
0.39
N/A
0.00
0.26
N/A
0.00
133
Table 8.14 Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 0.30
sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.23
(6)
160
(4066)
0.32
(8)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.88
(22)

Ductility
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.26
N/A
0.00
1.21
(31)
0.26
N/A
0.00
0.33
(8)
1.38
(35)
0.24
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.35
(9)
1.5
(38)
0.23
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.36
(9)
1.51
(38)
0.24
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.38
(10)
1.45
(37)
0.26
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.30
(8)
1.17
(30)
0.25
N/A
0.00
134
Table 8.15 Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.25 sec)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.08
(2)
160
(4066)
0.17
(4)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.96
(24)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.08
N/A
0.00
1.17
(30)
0.02
N/A
0.00
0.26
(7)
1.41
(36)
0.18
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.43
(11)
1.58
(40)
0.27
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.42
(11)
1.52
(39)
0.28
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.26
(7)
1.41
(36)
0.18
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.12
(3)
1.17
(30)
0.10
N/A
0.00
Table 8.16 WSDOT Unit Prices

Quantity
Structural Concrete
Steel Reinforcing
Bar
Structural Steel
Road Excavation
Unit Price ($)

800/ cubic yard
2/ pound
1.65/ pound
11.66/ cubic
yard
135
sec)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
9.85
(250)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
4.1
(104)
540
(13716)
9.86
(250)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
Ductility
2.40
1.91
7.1
(180)
1.39
N/A
9.78
(248)
9.1
(231)
1.07
N/A
9.96
(253)
7.1
(180)
1.40
N/A
sec)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
5.61
(142)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
4
(102)
540
(13716)
9.73
(247)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
Ductility
1.40
N/A
7.1
(180)
1.37
N/A
10.16
(258)
8.1
(206)
1.25
N/A
6.24
(158)
7.1
(180)
0.88
N/A
136
sec)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
6.14
(156)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
3.3
(83)
540
(13716)
5.33
(135)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
Ductility
1.86
1.05
7.1
(180)
0.75
N/A
5.25
(133)
9.1
(231)
0.58
N/A
5.41
(137)
7.1
(180)
0.76
N/A
sec)
360
(9144)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
2.36
(60)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
3.5
(89)
540
(13716)
5.56
(141)
600
(15240)
540
(13716)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
Ductility
0.67
N/A
7.1
(180)
0.78
N/A
6.94
(176)
8.1
(206)
0.86
N/A
4.87
(124)
7.1
(180)
0.69
N/A
137
Table 9.5 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.12 sec.,
S1: 0.6-0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
4.32
(110)
Yield
Disp.
in
(mm)
2.65
(67)

Ductility
1.63
Spectra
Simple
Method
N/A
0.55
Table 9.6 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.10 sec.,
S1: 0.6-0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
0.16
(4)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
1.16
(29)
0.14

Simple
Spectra
Method
N/A
0.00
S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
5.69
(145)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
2.65
(67)
2.15
138

Simple
Spectra
Method
1.14
0.79
S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
0.10
(3)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
1.16
(29)
0.12

Simple
Spectra
Method
N/A
0.00
S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
5.42
(138)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
2.72
(69)
1.99

Simple
Spectra
Method
1.00
0.73
S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
162
(4115)
Max.
Disp.
in (mm)
0.06
(2)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
1.25
(32)
0.05
139

Simple
Spectra
Method
N/A
0.00
Table 9.11 Residual Drift Ratio for Utah Bridge-2 in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.21
sec., S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
193
(4902)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
6.32
(161)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
3.37
(86)
1.88
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.97
0.70
S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
193
(4902)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.13
(3)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
1.41
(36)
0.09
Spectra
Simple
Method
N/A
0.00
Table 9.13 Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.77
sec., S1: 0.6-0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
480
(12190)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
11.36
(289)
600
(15240)
11.53
(293)
600
(15240)
11.51
(292)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
9.3
(236)
Spectra
Simple Method
1.22
N/A
0.45
10.3
(262)
1.12
N/A
0.36
10.3
(262)
1.12
N/A
0.35
140
Table 9.14 Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Transverse Direction (TT: 0.57
sec., S1: 0.6-0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
480
(12190)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
4.12
(105)
600
(15240)
4.63
(118)
600
(15240)
3.08
(78)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
9.5
(241)
Spectra
Simple Method
0.43
N/A
0.00
9.9
(251)
0.47
N/A
0.00
9.9
(251)
0.31
N/A
0.00
Table 9.15 Residual Drift Ratio for California bridge in Longitudinal Direction (TL: 1.77
sec., S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
480
(12190)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
14.49
(368)
600
(15240)
14.73
(374)
600
(15240)
14.68
(373)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
9.3
(236)
Spectra
Simple Method
1.56
N/A
0.61
10.3
(262)
1.43
N/A
0.48
10.3
(262)
1.42
N/A
0.48
141
sec., S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in (mm)
480
(12190)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
3.23
(82)
600
(15240)
3.63
(92)
600
(15240)
2.41
(61)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
9.5
(241)
Spectra
Simple Method
0.34
N/A
0.00
9.9
(251)
0.37
N/A
0.00
9.9
(251)
0.24
N/A
0.00
Table 9.17 Residual Drift Ratio for South Carolina bridge in Longitudinal Direction (TL:
0.3 sec., S1: 0.4-0.6g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.41
(10)
160
(4066)
0.54
(14)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.88
(22)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.46
N/A
0.00
1.21
(31)
0.45
N/A
0.00
0.58
(15)
1.38
(35)
0.42
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.60
(15)
1.5
(38)
0.40
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.62
(16)
1.51
(38)
0.41
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.66
(17)
1.45
(37)
0.45
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.52
(13)
1.17
(30)
0.44
N/A
0.00
142
sec., S1: 0.4-0.6g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.13
(3)
160
(4066)
0.30
(8)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.96
(24)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.14
N/A
0.00
1.17
(30)
0.26
N/A
0.00
0.44
(11)
1.41
(36)
0.31
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.73
(19)
1.58
(40)
0.46
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.73
(19)
1.52
(39)
0.48
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.45
(11)
1.41
(36)
0.32
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.21
(5)
1.17
(30)
0.18
N/A
0.00
143
0.3 sec., S1: 0.6-0.8g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.48
(12)
160
(4066)
0.64
(16)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.88
(22)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.54
N/A
0.00
1.21
(31)
0.53
N/A
0.00
0.68
(17)
1.38
(35)
0.49
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.71
(18)
1.5
(38)
0.47
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.73
(19)
1.51
(38)
0.48
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.78
(20)
1.45
(37)
0.53
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.61
(16)
1.17
(30)
0.52
N/A
0.00
144
sec., S1: 0.6-0.8g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.16
(4)
160
(4066)
0.35
(9)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.96
(24)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.17
N/A
0.00
1.17
(30)
0.30
N/A
0.00
0.53
(13)
1.41
(36)
0.38
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.87
(22)
1.58
(40)
0.55
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.86
(22)
1.52
(39)
0.57
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.54
(14)
1.41
(36)
0.38
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.25
(6)
1.17
(30)
0.21
N/A
0.00
145
0.3 sec., S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.38
(10)
160
(4066)
0.50
(13)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.88
(22)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.43
N/A
0.00
1.21
(31)
0.41
N/A
0.00
0.54
(14)
1.38
(35)
0.39
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.56
(14)
1.5
(38)
0.37
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.58
(15)
1.51
(38)
0.38
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.60
(15)
1.45
(37)
0.42
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.48
(12)
1.17
(30)
0.41
N/A
0.00
146
sec., S1: > 0.8g)
Bent
Height
in
(mm)
134
(3404)
Max.
Disp.
in
(mm)
0.11
(3)
160
(4066)
0.27
(7)
184.5
(4686)
Yield
Disp. in
(mm)
Ductility
0.96
(24)
Spectra
Simple
Method
0.11
N/A
0.00
1.17
(30)
0.23
N/A
0.00
0.41
(10)
1.41
(36)
0.29
N/A
0.00
196.75
(4997)
0.68
(17)
1.58
(40)
0.43
N/A
0.00
198
(5021)
0.68
(17)
1.52
(39)
0.45
N/A
0.00
184.75
(4693)
0.42
(11)
1.41
(36)
0.30
N/A
0.00
159
(4037)
0.20
(5)
1.17
(30)
0.17
N/A
0.00
147
Figures
148
Figure 2.1 Specimen NF-1 (Phan et al., 2005)
Figure 2.2 Specimen NF-2 (Phan et al., 2005)
149
Figure 2.3 Specimen MN (Choi et al., 2007)
150
Figure 2.4 Specimen ETN (Choi et al., 2007)
1.8
1.6
New Spectrum
1.4
Caltrans SDC Far-Field
SA (g)
1.2
Caltrans SDC Near-Fault
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
Period (sec)
Figure 2.5 Design Spectra comparison (Choi et al., 2007)
151
Figure 2.6 Specimen SETN (Choi et al., 2007)
152
Figure 2.7 Specimen SVTN (Choi et al., 2007)
153
Figure 2.8 Schematic of the Test Setup (Choi et al., 2007)
154
Acceleration (g)
0.8
0.6
Rinaldi
0.4
RRS
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (sec)
Figure 2.9 Rinaldi and RRS Acceleration Histories (Choi et al., 2007)
80
2032
Rinaldi
RRS
1524
40
1016
20
508
-20
-508
-40
-1016
0
10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (sec)
Figure 2.10 Rinaldi and RRS Velocity Histories (Choi et al., 2007)
155
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
60
NF-1 (Phan et al., 2005) (b) NF-2 (Phan et al., 2005) (c) MN (Choi et al., 2007)
(d) ETN (Choi et al., 2007) (e) SETN (Choi et al., 2007) (f) SVTN (Choi et al., 2007)
Figure 2.11 Columns at Completion of Testing
156
Figure 2.12 Schematic Analytical Model
Figure 2.13 Typical Stress-strain Behavior of Concrete01
157
Figure 2.14 Typical Hysteretic Stress-strain Relation of Concrete02
Figure 2.15 Material Constants for ReinforcingSteel
158
Curvature (1/mm)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
283
2000
226
Moment Curvature
Relation
1500
170
Moment Curvature
bilinearization
1000
113
500
57
0
0
0.002
0.004
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
0
2500
0
0.008
0.006
Curvatures (1/in)
Figure 2.16 Moment Curvature Relation for NF-1

Curvature (1/mm)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
2500
283
2000
226
Moment Curvature
Relation
1500
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
1000
500
170
113
57
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
Curvatures (1/in)
Figure 2.17 Moment Curvature Relation for NF-2
159
0
0.008
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
Curvature (1/mm)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
2500
283
2000
226
Moment Curvature
Relation
1500
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
1000
500
170
113
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
57
0
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0
0.008
Curvatures (1/in)
Figure 2.18 Moment Curvature Relation for MN
Curvature (1/mm)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
283
2000
226
Moment Curvature
Relation
1500
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
1000
500
170
113
57
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Curvatures (1/in)
Figure 2.19 Moment Curvature Relation for ETN
160
0
0.01
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
0
2500
Curvature (1/mm)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
3000
339
2500
283
2000
226
Moment Curvature
Relation
1500
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
170
1000
113
500
57
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
0
0.01
Curvatures (1/in)
Figure 2.20 Moment Curvature Relation for SETN
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
1200
136
1000
113
800
Moment Curvature
Relation
90
600
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
68
400
45
200
23
0
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
Curvatures (1/in)
Figure 2.21 Moment Curvature Relation for SVTN
161
0
0.01
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
1400
16
408
306
Measured Data
Displacement (in)
Calculated Data
204
102
Displacement (mm)
12
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
-4
-102
Time (sec)
Figure 2.22 Displacement History of NF-1
10
255
204
Calculated Data
153
102
51
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
-2
300
-51
-4
-102
Time (sec)
Figure 2.23 Displacement History of NF-2
162
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Measured Data
10
255
204
Calculated Data
153
102
51
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Measured Data
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
-2
-51
Time (sec)
204
102
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
-4
-8
400
-102
Measured Data
-204
Calculated Data
-12
-306
-16
-408
-20
-510
Time (sec)
Figure 2.25 Displacement History of ETN
163
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Figure 2.24 Displacement History of MN
20
510
16
408
Displacement (in)
306
Calculated Data
204
102
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
-4
-102
-8
-204
Displacement (mm)
Measured Data
12
Time (sec)
Figure 2.26 Displacement History of SETN

24
612
20
510
Measured Data
408
Calculated Data
12
306
204
102
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
-4
-8
350
-102
Time (sec)
Figure 2.27 Displacement History of SVTN
164
-204
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
16
510
16
408
12
306
Measured Data
Calculated Data
204
102
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
-4
-102
-8
-204
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
20
Time (sec)
Figure 2.28 Displacement History of SETN after modification
2.5
50
1.5
40
30
1
20
0.5
10
Residual Displacement (mm)
Residual Displacement (in)
60
0
0
10
Number of Integration Points
Figure 2.29 Effect of Number of Integration Points on Residual Displacement in NF-1
165
35
1.2
30
25
0.8
20
0.6
15
0.4
10
0.2
Residual Displacement (mm)
Residual Displacement (in)
1.4
0
0
10
Number of integration points
Calculated/ Measured
Figure 2.30 Effect of Number of Integration Points on Residual Displacement in SETN
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
NF1
NF2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
10 11 12 13 14
Run
Figure 2.31 Ratio of Calculated and Measured Residual Displacements for Different
Columns
166
Calculated/ Measured
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
NF1
NF2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
Figure 2.32 Average of the Ratio of Calculated and Measured Data for Different
Columns
167
2.5
64
Multiple
51
Single
1.5
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
38
25
0.5
13
0
0
-0.5
10
15
20
25
-1
30
-13
-25
Time (sec)
a)
127
Multiple
Single
Displacement (in)
102
76
51
25
0
-1 0
10
15
20
25
-2
0
30 -25
-51
-3
Displacement (mm)
-76
Time (sec)
6
Multiple
Single
Displacement (in)
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
-2
-4
25
152
127
102
76
51
25
0
30 -25
-51
-76
-102
Displacement (mm)
b)
Time (sec)
c)
Figure 2.33 Calculated Response for Single versus Multiple Motions at a) 2.8% b) 5.1%
c) 7.6% Maximum Drift Ratio for NF-1
168
51
Multiple
1.5
38
Single
25
0.5
13
0
0
-0.5
10
15
20
25
30
-1
-13
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
-25
Time (sec)
a)
4
Multiple
Displacement (in)
76
Single
51
25
0
-1
0
0
10
15
20
25
-2
30
-25
Displacement (mm)
102
-51
Time (sec)
Displacement (in)
Multiple
Single
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
-2
-4
25
152
127
101
76
50
25
0
30 -26
-51
-77
-102
Displacement (mm)
b)
Time (sec)
c)
c) 7.7% Maximum Drift Ratio for NF-2
169
38
Displacement (in)
Multiple
25
Single
0.5
13
0
0
10
15
20
25
-0.5
30
-13
-1
Displacement (mm)
1.5
-25
Time (sec)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0
-1
-1.5
Multiple
Single
10
15
20
25
76
64
51
38
25
13
0
30 -13
-25
-38
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
a)
Time (sec)
b)
127
Multiple
Single
102
76
51
25
0
-1 0
10
15
20
-2
25
0
30 -25
-51
-3
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
-76
Time (sec)
c)
c) 8.0% Maximum Drift Ratio for MN
170
76
Displacement (in)
Multiple
51
Single
25
0
0
10
15
20
25
-1
30
-25
-2
Displacement (mm)
-51
Time (sec)
a)
152
Multiple
102
Single
51
0
-2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-4
-51
-102
-6
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
-152
Time (sec)
Displacement (in)
Multiple
102
Single
51
0
-2
10
15
20
25
30
-51
-4
-101
-6
-152
-8
Displacement (mm)
b)
-203
Time (sec)
c)
c) 6.2% Maximum Drift Ratio for ETN
171
Multiple
Single
10
15
20
25
76
64
51
38
25
13
0
30 -13
-25
-38
-51
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0
-1
-1.5
-2
Time (sec)
a)
152
Displacement (in)
Multiple
102
Single
51
0
-2
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-51
-4
-102
-6
-152
-8
-203
Displacement (mm)
Time (sec)
b)
Maximum Drift Ratio for SETN
172
Multiple
Single
10
15
20
Time (sec)
64
51
38
25
13
0
25 -13
-25
-38
-51
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0
-1
-1.5
-2
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4
-5
Multiple
Single
10
15
20
Time (sec)
127
102
76
51
25
0
25 -25
-51
-76
-102
-127
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
a)
b)
4
Displacement (in)
150
Multiple
100
Single
50
0
-2
0
0
10
15
-4
-6
20
25
-50
-100
Time (sec)
Displacement (mm)
-150
c)
c) 6.9% Maximum Drift Ratio for SVTN
173
Moment
Mu
Mp
My
Curvature,
Figure 3.1 Moment-curvature of a Bridge Column
2500
2000
1500
Moment (kip-in)
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-0.004
0.001
0.006
0.011
Curvature (rad/in)
Figure 3.2 Measured Moment-curvature Hysteresis for NF-1
174
Moment
Res. Mom.
Curvature,
y
Figure 3.3 Moment-curvature of a well-designed column
1.2
RMC Factor,
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
12
exp
Figure 3.4 Residual Moment Capacity (RMC) Factor Using Parabolic Model
175
1.2
RMC Factor,
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
12
exp
Figure 3.5 Residual Moment Capacity (RMC) Factor Using Linear Model
Moment, M
Plastic Mom., Mp
RMC,Mp
A
Displacement,
D
Ultimate Disp.,y
B
O
Yield Disp.,y
Figure 3.6 Moment-displacement (M-) of the Simple Model with No Residual

Displacement
176
Moment, M
Plastic Mom., Mp
RMC,Mp
A
Res. Disp.,r
E Displacement,
Ultimate Disp.,y
Yield Disp.,y
Figure 3.7 Moment-displacement (M-) of a Simple Model with Residual Displacement
7
6
NF1
NF2
MN
ETN
SETN
SVTN
2
1
0
0
10
Displacement Ductility,
Figure 3.8 versus Displacement Ductility () for Different Columns
177
12
y = 0.0392x2 + 0.1434x
R = 0.823
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
Figure 3.9 Relationship between and Displacement Ductility () Using Simple Model
with Residual Displacement-Approach 1
9
8
y = 0.4705x
R = 0.7513
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
14
Figure 3.10 Relationship between and Displacement Ductility () Using Simple Model
with Residual Displacement-Approach 2
178
Parabolic Model
1.2
Linear Model
RMC Factor,
1
0.8
Simple Model
without Res. Disp.
0.6
Simple Model W.
Res. Disp.approach 1
0.4
Simple Model W.
Res. Disp.approach 2
0.2
0
0
10
12
Figure 3.11 Residual Moment Capacity Factor () versus Displacement Ductility () in

Different Models
179
Moment, M
K2
K1
Curvature,
Figure 4.1 Moment-curvature of a well-designed column
Residual Displacement
WTrucks
Column Height
WSuperstructure
Figure 4.2 Deformed Bridge Column due to superstructure and the trucks weight
180
Moment (kip-in)
16000
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
0.0002
1600
14000
1400
12000
1200
Moment Curvature
Rotation
10000
8000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
6000
1000
800
600
4000
400
2000
200
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.005
Curvature (1/in)
Figure 4.3 Moment Curvature Relation for Column with 1% Steel Ratio, Axial Load of
0.05fcAg and Diameter of 36 in (914 mm)
Moment (kip-in)
0.00005
35000
0.0001
0.00015
4000
30000
3500
3000
25000
20000
Moment Curvature
Relation
15000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
2500
2000
1500
10000
1000
5000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
500
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0
0.004
Curvature (1/in)
181
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
70000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
8000
60000
7000
6000
50000
40000
Moment Curvature
Relation
5000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
4000
30000
20000
3000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
2000
10000
1000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
140000
0.0001
14000
120000
12000
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
100000
10000
80000
Moment Curvature
Relation
60000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
40000
20000
8000
6000
4000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
2000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
182
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
3000
2500
20000
Moment Curvature
Relation
15000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
10000
2000
1500
1000
5000
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
25000
500
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0
0.004
Curvature (1/in)
0.05 fcAg and Diameter of 36 in (914 mm)
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
60000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
7000
50000
6000
5000
40000
Moment Curvature
Relation
4000
30000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
3000
20000
2000
10000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
1000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
183
Moment (kip-in)
120000
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
14000
100000
12000
10000
80000
60000
40000
Moment Curvature
Relation
8000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
6000
4000
20000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
2000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
200000
0.00008
25000
160000
20000
140000
Moment Curvature
Relation
120000
100000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
80000
15000
10000
60000
40000
5000
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
180000
20000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
184
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008
35000
0.0001
0.00012
4000
30000
3500
3000
25000
20000
Moment Curvature
Relation
15000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
10000
2500
2000
1500
1000
5000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
500
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0
0.003
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
80000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
9000
70000
8000
60000
7000
6000
50000
Moment Curvature
Relation
40000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
30000
5000
4000
3000
20000
2000
10000
1000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
185
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
160000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
18000
140000
16000
120000
14000
12000
100000
80000
Moment Curvature
Relation
60000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
10000
8000
6000
40000
4000
20000
2000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
300000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

30000
250000
25000
200000
Moment Curvature
Relation
150000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
20000
15000
100000
10000
50000
5000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
186
Moment (kip-in)
40000
0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008
0.0001
0.00012
4500
35000
4000
30000
3500
Moment Curvature
Relation
25000
20000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
15000
3000
2500
2000
1500
10000
1000
5000
500
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.003
Curvature (1/in)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
100000
0.00008
12000
10000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
Moment Curvature
Relation
8000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
6000
4000
30000
20000
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
90000
2000
10000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
187
Curvature (1/mm)
0
200000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

25000
160000
20000
140000
120000
100000
80000
Moment Curvature
Relation
15000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
10000
60000
40000
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kip-in)
180000
5000
20000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
350000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

40000
300000
35000
30000
250000
200000
Moment Curvature
Relation
25000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
20000
150000
100000
15000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
10000
50000
5000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
188
Moment (kip-in)
0.00005
16000
0.0001
0.00015
1800
14000
1600
12000
1400
10000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
8000
Moment Curvature
Relation
6000
1200
1000
800
600
4000
400
2000
200
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
Moment (KN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.004
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
40000
0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008
0.0001
0.00012
4500
35000
4000
30000
3500
Moment Curvature
Relation
25000
20000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
15000
3000
2500
2000
1500
10000
1000
5000
500
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.003
Curvature (1/in)
189
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
80000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
9000
70000
8000
60000
7000
50000
Moment Curvature
Relation
40000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
30000
6000
5000
4000
3000
20000
2000
10000
1000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
0.00004
140000
0.00008
15820
120000
13560
100000
0.00006
Moment Curvature
Relation
80000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
60000
11300
9040
6780
40000
4520
20000
2260
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
190
Moment (kip-in)
25000
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
2825
20000
2260
15000
Moment Curvature
Relation
1695
10000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
1130
5000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
565
0
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0
0.004
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
60000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
6780
50000
5650
40000
Moment Curvature
Relation
4520
30000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
3390
20000
2260
10000
1130
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
191
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
120000
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
13560
100000
11300
80000
Moment Curvature
Relation
9040
60000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
6780
40000
4520
20000
2260
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
250000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

28250
200000
22600
150000
Moment Curvature
Relation
16950
100000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
11300
50000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
5650
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
192
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008
35000
0.0001
0.00012
4000
30000
3500
3000
25000
20000
Moment Curvature
Relation
15000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
10000
2500
2000
1500
1000
5000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
500
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0
0.003
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
2E-05
80000
4E-05
6E-05
8E-05
0.0001
9000
70000
8000
60000
7000
Moment Curvature
Relation
50000
40000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
30000
6000
5000
4000
3000
20000
2000
10000
1000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.0025
Curvature (1/in)
193
Moment (kip-in)
160000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

18000
140000
16000
120000
14000
Moment Curvature
Relation
100000
80000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
60000
12000
10000
8000
6000
40000
4000
20000
2000
0
0
0.0005
0.001
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
300000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

33900
250000
28250
200000
22600
150000
Moment Curvature
Relation
16950
100000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
11300
50000
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
5650
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
194
Moment (kip-in)
2E-05
4E-05
40000
6E-05
8E-05
0.0001
0.00012
4500
35000
4000
30000
3500
Moment Curvature
Relation
25000
20000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
15000
3000
2500
2000
1500
10000
1000
5000
500
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.003
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
0.00002
100000
0.00004
0.00008
11300
90000
10170
80000
9040
70000
0.00006
Moment Curvature
Relation
60000
50000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
40000
7910
6780
5650
4520
30000
3390
20000
2260
10000
1130
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0
0.002
Curvature (1/in)
195
Moment (kip-in)
200000
0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

22600
180000
20340
160000
18080
140000
Moment Curvature
Relation
120000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
100000
80000
15820
13560
11300
9040
60000
6780
40000
4520
20000
2260
0
0
0.0005
0.001
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
Moment (kip-in)
350000
2E-05
6E-05
39550
300000
33900
250000
4E-05
Moment Curvature
Relation
200000
Moment Curvature
Bilinearization
150000
28250
22600
16950
100000
11300
50000
5650
0
0
0.0005
0.001
Moment (kN-m)
Curvature (1/mm)
0
0.0015
Curvature (1/in)
196
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
914
Column Diameter (mm)

1,219
1,524
0.1f'cAg - =1%
1,829
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
0.05f'cAg - =1%
H:16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
36
48
60
72
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
914
36
1,829
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
36
48
60
Column Diameter (in)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
72
914
36
1,524
1,829
36
48
60
0.05f'cAg - =4%
914
1,219
1,524
Residual Drift (%)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
48
60
1,829
48
60
72
914

1,219
1,524
1,829
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
36
48
60
72
0.1f'cAg - =4%
1,829
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
36
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
72
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)

Residual Drift (%)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
1,219

1,219
1,524
0.1f'cAg - =3%

30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
72
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
0.05f'cAg - =3%
914
48
60
0.1f'cAg - =2%
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
0.05f'cAg - =2%
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
1,829
H: 16 ft (4880 mm)
H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)

914
1,219
1,524

1,219
1,524
72
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
914

1,219
1,524
36
48
60
Figure 4.35 Residual Drift versus Column Diameter
197
1,829
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
72
0.1f'cAg - =1%
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
4880
Column Height (mm)

6096
7315
8534
Column Height (mm)

9760
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)

D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)
D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
20
24
28
Column Height (ft)
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
0.05f'cAg - =1%
32
4880
7315
8534
9760
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)

D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)
D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
20
24
28
Column Height (ft)
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)

D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
32
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
4880
4880
9760
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)

D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)
D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
20
24
28
Column Height (ft)
32
6096
7315
20
24
Column Height (ft)
0.1f'cAg - =2%
Column Height (mm)
6096
7315
8534
9760
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)

D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
20
24
28
Column Height (ft)
32
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
4880
6096
7315
8534
9760
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)

D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)
D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
20
24
28
Column Height (ft)
32
Column Height (mm)

8534
9760
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)

D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
D: 48 in. (1219 mm)
D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
32
0.1f'cAg - =4%
28
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
4880
28
D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
0.05f'cAg - =4%
Column Height (mm)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
24
0.1f'cAg - =3%
Column Height (mm)
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
20
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)
0.05f'cAg - =3%
Column Height (mm)
6096
7315
8534
9760
Column Height (ft)
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
6096
8534
D: 60 in. (1524 mm)
Column Height (mm)

30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
7315
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)
0.05f'cAg - =2%
4880
6096
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
32
4880
6096
7315
8534
D: 60 in. (1524 mm)

D: 48 in. (1219 mm)
D: 36 in. (914 mm)
16
20
24
28
Column Height (ft)
Figure 4.36 Residual Drift versus Column Height
198
9760
D: 72 in. (1829 mm)
32
0.1f'cAg- Column Diameter=72 in

(1829 mm)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
Residual Drift (%)
2
3
Steel Ratio, %
Residual Drift (%)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)

(914 mm)
2
3
Steel Ratio, %

(914 mm)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
2
3
Steel Ratio, %
2
3
Steel Ratio, %

(1219 mm)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)

(1219 mm)
2
3
Steel Ratio, %
2
3
Steel Ratio, %

(1524 mm)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)

(1524 mm)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
Residual Drift (%)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
2
3
Steel ratio, %
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift (%)

(1829 mm)
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
H: 16 ft. (4880 mm)

H: 20 ft. (6096 mm)
H: 24 ft. (7315 mm)
H: 28 ft. (8534 mm)
H: 32 ft. (9760 mm)
2
3
Steel Ratio, %
Figure 4.37 Residual Drift versus Steel Ratio
199
Axial load: 0.1f'cAg- Diameter: 48 in (1219 mm)- Height: 24 ft

(7315 mm)- Longitudinal Steel Ratio, : 2%
21
18
Residual Drift (%)
One Truck
15
Two Truck
12
Three Truck
9
Four Truck
6
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Residual Moment Capacity Factor,
Figure 4.38 Residual Drift versus Residual Moment Capacity Factor,
Axial load: 0.1f'cAg- Diameter: 48 in (1219 mm)- Height: 24 ft

(7315 mm)- Longitudinal Steel Ratio, : 2%
21
Residual Drift (%)
18
=0.2
15
=0.4
12
9
=0.6
=0.8
=1.0
0
1
Number Of Trucks
Figure 4.39 Residual Drift versus Number of Trucks
200
Figure 5.1 Modification Coefficient
for Zone
0.07
0.06
Residual Drift Ratio
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Tvg/Tc
Figure 5.2 Residual Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Velocity
(Tvg) and Column Period (Tc)
201
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Tg/Tc
Figure 5.3 Residual Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Acceleration
(Tg) and Column Period (Tc)
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Maximun Pseudo Acceleration (Sa)
Figure 5.4 Residual Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Acceleration
202
2.5
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
10
15
20
Maximum Pseudo Velocity (Sv)
Figure 5.5 Residual Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Velocity
0.14
Maximum Drift Ratio
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tvg/Tc
Figure 5.6 Maximum Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo Velocity
(Tvg) and Column Period (Tc)
203
0.14
0.12
Maximum Drift Ratio
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tg/Tc
Figure 5.7 Maximum Drift Ratio versus Ratio of Period at Maximum Pseudo
Acceleration (Tg) and Column Period (Tc)
0.14
Maximum Drift Ratio
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Maximum Pseudo Acceleration (Sa)
Figure 5.8 Maximum Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Acceleration
204
3.0
0.14
Maximum Drift Ratio
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0
10
15
20
25
Maximum Pseudo Velocity (Sv)

Figure 5.9 Maximum Drift Ratio versus Maximum Pseudo Velocity
Vmax
Td
Figure 5.10 Velocity History with Single Pulse (Half-cycle Sinusoidal Pulse)
205
Vmax=0.25 in/sec
12
Vmax=0.5 in/sec
Vmax=1 in/sec
10
Residual drift (%)
Vmax=2 in/sec
Vmax=5 in/sec
Vmax=10 in/sec
Vmax=15 in/sec
Vmax=20 in/sec
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
Td/(Tc/2)
Figure 5.11 Residual Drift versus Ratio of Pulse Duration and Column Period for
Different Vmax
V1max
Td2=Td1
Td1
V2max=V1max
Td
Figure 5.12 Velocity History with Reversed Pulse (Full-cycle Sinusoidal Pulse)
206
Vmax=0.25 in/sec
Residual Drift (%)
40
Vmax=0.5 in/sec
35
Vmax=1 in/sec
30
Vmax=2 in/sec
Vmax=5 in/sec
25
Vmax=10 in/sec
20
Vmax=15 in/sec
15
Linear
(Vmax=0.25
in/sec)
Linear (Vmax=0.5
in/sec)
10
5
Linear (Vmax=1
in/sec)
Linear (Vmax=2
in/sec)
10
15
20
Td/Tc
25
30
Linear (Vmax=5
in/sec)
Figure 5.13 Residual Drift versus Ratio of Pulse Duration and Effective Column Period
for Different Vmax
207
Alpha=0.5, Beta=0.5
Alpha=0.5, Beta=1.0
Alpha=0.5, Beta=1.5
25
Alpha=1.0, Beta=0.5
Alpha=1.0, Beta=1.0
20
Alpha=1.0, Beta=1.5
Residual Drift (%)
Alpha=1.5, Beta=0.5
Alpha=1.5, Beta=1.0
15
Alpha=1.5, Beta=1.5
10
0
0
10
20
30
Td/Tc
Linear (Alpha=0.5,
Beta=0.5)
Linear (Alpha=0.5,
Beta=1.0)
Linear (Alpha=0.5,
Beta=1.5)
Linear (Alpha=1.0,
Beta=0.5)
Linear (Alpha=1.0,
Beta=1.0)
Linear (Alpha=1.0,
Beta=1.5)
Linear (Alpha=1.5,
Beta=0.5)
Linear (Alpha=1.5,
Beta=1.0)
Linear (Alpha=1.5,
Beta=1.5)
Figure 5.14 Residual Drift versus Ratio of Pulse Duration and Effective Column Period
for different and 1
208
Td1=3.0 sec, =0.5

35
Residual drift (%)
30
25
V1max=0.25 in/sec
20
V1max=0.5 in/sec
15
V1max=1 in/sec
10
V1max=2 in/sec
V1max=5 in/sec
V1max=10 in/sec
0
0
0.5
1.5
Figure 5.15 Residual Drift versus 1 for 3.0 Second Duration of the First Pulse and =0.5
Td1=3.0 sec, =1.0

35
Residual drift (%)
30
V1max=0.25 in/sec
25
V1max=0.5 in/sec
20
V1max=1 in/sec
15
V1max=2 in/sec
10
V1max=5 in/sec
5
V1max=10 in/sec
0
0
0.5
1.5
Figure 5.16 Residual Drift versus 1 for 3.0 second duration of the first pulse and =1.0
209
Td1=3.0 sec, =1.5

35
Residual Drift (%)
30
25
Vimax=0.25 in/sec
20
V1max=0.5 in/sec
V1max=1 in/sec
15
V1max=2 in/sec
10
V1max=5 in/sec
V1max=10 in/sec
0
0
0.5
1.5
Figure 5.17 Residual Drift versus 1 for 3.0 second duration of the first pulse and =1.5
Td1=1.0 sec, =0.5

20
18
Residual Drift (%)
16
V1max=2 in/sec
14
12
V1max=5 in/sec
10
8
V1max=10 in/sec
6
4
V1max=15 in/sec
2
0
0
0.5
1.5
210
Td1=1.0 sec, =1.0

20
18
Residual Drift (%)
16
14
V1max=2 in/sec
12
10
V1max=5 in/sec
8
6
V1max=10 in/sec
4
V1max=15 in/sec
2
0
0
0.5
1.5
Td1=1.0 sec, =1.5

20
Residual Drift (%)
18
16
14
V1max=2 in/sec
12
10
V1max=5 in/sec
8
V1max=10 in/sec
6
4
V1max=15 in/sec
2
0
0
0.5
1.5
211
Td1=0.5 sec, =0.5

10
Residual Drift (%)
9
8
V1max=2 in/sec
7
V1max=5 in/sec
6
5
V1max=10 in/sec
4
3
V1max=15 in/sec
2
1
0
0
0.5
1.5
Td1=0.5 sec, =1.0

10
Residual Drift (%)
9
8
7
V1max=2 in/sec
6
5
V1max=5 in/sec
4
V1max=10 in/sec
3
2
V1max=15 in/sec
1
0
0
0.5
1.5
212
Td1=0.5 sec, =1.5

10
Residual Drift (%)
9
8
7
V1max=2 in/sec
6
V1max=5 in/sec
5
4
V1max=10 in/sec
3
V1max=15 in/sec
2
1
0
0
0.5
1.5
213
80
60
Velocity (in/sec)
40
20
0
-20
-40
0
10
12
14
16
10
12
14
16
Time (sec)
20
15
Displacement (in)
10
5
0
0
-5
-10
-15
Time (sec)
Figure 5.24 Velocity History of Rinaldi and Column Displacement History
214
80
Velocity (in/sec)
60
40
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
10
12
14
16
-20
-40
Time (sec)
35
30
Displacement (in)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
-5
Time (sec)
Figure 5.25 Main Pulse of Velocity History of Rinaldi and Column Displacement History
215
80
60
Velocity (in/sec)
40
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
10
12
14
16
-20
-40
Time (sec)
35
Displacement (in)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
Time (sec)
Figure 5.26 Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Rinaldi and Column Displacement
History
216
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
60
80
100
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time (sec)
50
40
Displacement (in)
30
20
10
0
20
40
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time (sec)
Figure 5.27 Velocity History of Chi-Chi_TCU067 and Column Displacement History
217
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time (sec)
35
Displacement (in)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time (sec)
Figure 5.28 Main Pulse of Velocity History of Chi-Chi_TCU067 and Column

Displacement History
218
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-10
-20
-30
-40
Time (sec)
35
Displacement (in)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time (sec)
Figure 5.29 Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Chi-Chi_TCU067 and Column

219
50
40
Velocity (in/sec)
30
20
10
0
-10
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
25
30
35
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Time (sec)
50
40
30
Displacement (in)
20
10
0
-10
10
15
-20
-30
-40
-50
Time (sec)
Figure 5.30 Velocity History of Tabas and Column Displacement History
220
50
40
30
20
Velocity (in/sec)
10
0
-10
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
25
30
35
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Time (sec)
60
50
Displacement (in)
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
-10
-20
-30
Time (sec)
Figure 5.31 Main Pulse of Velocity History of Tabas and Column Displacement History
221
50
40
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
-10
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
25
30
35
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Time (sec)
80
70
Displacement (in)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
Time (sec)
Figure 5.32 Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Tabas and Column Displacement
History
222
30
25
20
Velocity (in/sec)
15
10
5
0
-5
10
20
30
40
50
30
40
50
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time (sec)
20
15
Displacement (in)
10
5
0
0
10
20
-5
-10
-15
Time (sec)
Figure 5.33 Velocity History of Loma Prieta- W Valley Coll. and Column Displacement
History
223
30
25
20
15
Velocity (in/sec)
10
5
0
-5
10
20
30
40
50
30
40
50
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time (sec)
35
30
Displacement (in)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
Time (sec)
Figure 5.34 Main Pulse of Velocity History of Loma Prieta- W Valley Coll. and Column
224
30
25
20
15
Velocity (in/sec)
10
5
0
-5
10
20
30
40
50
30
40
50
-10
-15
-20
-25
Time (sec)
30
25
Displacement (in)
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
Time (sec)
Figure 5.35 Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Loma Prieta- W Valley Coll. and
Column Displacement History
225
40
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
Time (sec)
15
Displacement (in)
10
0
0
10
-5
-10
-15
Time (sec)
Figure 5.36 Velocity History of Erzincan and Column Displacement History
226
40
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
-10
-20
-30
Time (sec)
25
Displacement (in)
20
15
10
0
0
10
Time (sec)
Figure 5.37 Main Pulse of Velocity History of Erzincan and Column Displacement
History
227
40
30
Velocity (in/sec)
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
-10
-20
-30
Time (sec)
25
Displacement (in)
20
15
10
0
0
10
Time (sec)
Figure 5.38 Equivalent Pulse of Velocity History of Erzincan and Column Displacement
History
228
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Beta- Eq. 5-10

Beta- Eq. 3-10
1
0
0
10
12
Figure 5.39 Relationship between and Displacement Ductility () using Different

Equations
8
7
y = 0.1769x2 - 0.4408x + 0.3041

R = 0.98
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
Figure 5.40 Relationship between and Displacement Ductility () for Upper Data
229
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
12
Figure 5.41 Relationship between and Displacement Ductility () Using Equation 5-12
230
10
20
305
254
203
152
102
51
0
40 -51
-102
-152
-203
30
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Agnews State Hospital

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2 0
-4
-6
-8
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Corralitos
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
-20
-508
-25
-635
Time (sec)
40
1016
30
762
20
508
10
254
0
-10
0
0
10
15
20
25
-254
-20
-508
-30
-762
-40
-1016
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
LGPC
Time (sec)
Figure 5.42 Velocity Histories of FN Component during Loma Prieta Earthquake
231
1- Seattle, WA
2- Eureka, CA
6- Salt Lake City, UT
9- New York, NY
4- Berkeley, CA
3- San Bruno, CA
7- Cheraw, CO
8- Tiptonville, TN
5- Sylmar, CA
Figure 6.1 Map of the nine sites across the United States
232
Force
Fu
Fyeff.
Fy
Displacement,
u
y
Figure 6.2 Pushover Curve for a Concrete Bridge Column
233
FN
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
10
20
30
40
50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
25
635
15
381
127
-5 0
10
20
30
40
50 -127
-15
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
-381
152
102
51
0
-2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
-51
-4
-102
-6
-152
-8
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
-203
Time (sec)
Figure 6.3 Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for lp_cls of Seattle with
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) for FN component
234
FP
0.6
Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
10
20
30
40
50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
25
635
15
381
127
-5 0
10
20
30
40
50 -127
-15
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
-381
152
102
51
0
-2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
-51
-4
-102
-6
-152
-8
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
-203
Time (sec)
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) for FP component
235
H1
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
10
30
40
50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Velocity (in/sec)
20
Time (sec)
25
635
15
381
127
-5 0
10
20
30
40
50 -127
-15
Velocity (mm/sec)
Acceleration (g)
0.6
-381
152
102
51
0
-2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
-51
-4
-102
-6
-152
-8
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
-203
Time (sec)
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) for H1 component
236
Acceleration (g)
H2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
10
20
30
40
50
25
635
15
381
127
-5 0
10
20
30
40
50 -127
-15
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
-381
152
102
51
0
-2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
-51
-4
-102
-6
-152
-8
-203
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) for H2 component
237
S1: 0.4-0.6g , Ductility:2
Residual Drift (%)
0.5
Average
Average+ Standard Deviation
0.4
Average- Standard Deviation
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure 6.7 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two,
and S1: 0.4-0.6g

Residual Drift (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Average
0.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure 6.8 Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility
of two, and S1: 0.4-0.6g
238

1.2
Average
Residual Drift (%)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: 0.6-0.8g

1.2
Residual Drift (%)
Average
1
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
239

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure 6.11 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four,
and S1: 0.6-0.8g

Residual Drift (%)
6
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of four, and S1: 0.6-0.8g
240
Residual Drift (%)
S1> 0.8g , Ductility:2

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: > 0.8g
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average + Standard Deviation

Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of two, and S1: > 0.8g
241

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+Standard
Deviation
Average-Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: > 0.8g

Residual Drift (%)
6
Average
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of four, and S1: > 0.8g
242
S1 > 0.8g , Ductility:6

9
Average
Residual Drift (%)
8
7
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure 6.17 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of six,
and S1: > 0.8g

Residual Drift (%)
9
8
Average
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of six, and S1: > 0.8g
243
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+Standard Deviation
Average-Standard Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: 0.4-0.6g
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
244

1.8
Residual Drift (%)
1.6
Average
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: 0.6-0.8g

Residual Drift (%)
1.8
1.6
Average
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
245
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: 0.6-0.8g
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of four, and S1: 0.6-0.8g
246

1.6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: > 0.8g
Residual Drift (%)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of two, and S1: > 0.8g
247
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
and S1: > 0.8g
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of four, and S1: > 0.8g
248

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+Standard
Deviation
Average-Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure 6.29 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec), ductility of six,
and S1: > 0.8g

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of six, and S1: > 0.8g
249
Preliminary Design using

AASHTO or Caltrans
Determine Soil Type and S1

based on Bridge Location and
AASHTO maps
Determine the effective

moment of inertia
Determine the Effective Yield

Displacement
Determine the Maximum

Displacement
Determine the Displacement

Ductility Demand
Determine the Residual Drift

using the Residual Drift
Spectra or Simple Method
Yes
Revise Design
Residual Drift
Ratio > 1.0%
No
Design Complete
Figure 7.1 Column Design Procedure
250
12
305
Average
10
254
Average+ Standard
Deviation
203
Average- Standard
Deviation
152
102
51
0
0
0.5
1.5
Spectral Displacement (mm)
Spectral Displacement (in)
S1: 0.4-0.6g
Period (sec)
Figure 7.2 Spectral Displacement for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S1:0.4-0.6g
12
305
10
8
Average
254
Average+ Standard
Deviation
203
152
102
51
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1: 0.4-0.6g
Period (sec)
Figure 7.3 Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S1:0.4-0.6g
251
18
457
Average
16
14
406
356
Average+ Standard
Deviation
12
305
Average- Standard
Deviation
10
254
203
152
102
51
S1:0.6-0.8g
0
0
0.5
1.5
Period (sec)
18
457
16
406
Average
14
356
Average+ Standard
Deviation
12
305
10
254
203
152
102
51
S1:0.6-0.8g
0
0
0.5
1.5
Period (sec)
252
35
889
Average
30
762
25
Average+ Standard
Deviation
635
20
Average- Standard
Deviation
508
15
381
10
254
127
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1> 0.8g
Period (sec)
Figure 7.6 Spectral Displacement for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S1> 0.8g
35
889
Average
30
762
Average+ Standard
Deviation
25
635
20
508
15
381
10
254
127
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1> 0.8g
Period (sec)
Figure 7.7 Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=1200 ft/sec (360 m/s) for S1> 0.8g
253
14
356
Average
12
305
10
Average+ Standard
Deviation
254
Average- Standard
Deviation
203
152
102
51
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1: 0.4-0.6g
Period (sec)
14
356
12
305
Average
10
254
Average+ Standard
Deviation
203
152
102
51
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1: 0.4-0.6g
Period (sec)
254
18
457
Average
16
14
406
356
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
12
10
305
254
203
152
102
51
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1: 0.6-0.8g
Period (sec)
18
457
16
406
Average
14
356
Average+ Standard
Deviation
12
305
10
254
203
152
102
51
0
0
0.5
1.5
S1: 0.6-0.8g
Period (sec)
255
S1> 0.8g
635
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
20
15
508
381
10
254
127
25
0
0
0.5
1.5
Period (sec)
Figure 7.12 Spectral Displacement for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S1> 0.8g
S1> 0.8g
635
Average
20
508
Average+ Standard
Deviation
15
381
10
254
127
25
0
0
0.5
1.5
Period (sec)
Figure 7.13 Spectral Displacement Envelope for Vs=2500 ft/sec (760 m/s) for S1> 0.8g
256
Figure 7.14 Effective Stiffness of Cracked Reinforced Concrete Sections (SDC, 2010)
257
Figure 8.1 Washington Bridge Plan and Elevation (ATC 49-2)
258
Figure 8.2 Washington Bridge Section (ATC 49-2)
259
Figure 8.3 Washington Bridge Abutment
260
Figure 8.4 Utah Bridge-1 Plan and Elevation
261
Figure 8.5 Utah Bridge-1 Section

262
Figure 8.6 Utah Bridge-1 Abutment
263
264
265
Figure 8.9 Utah Bridge-2 Abutment
266
Figure 8.10 California Bridge View
Figure 8.11 California Bridge Section
267
Figure 8.12 South Carolina Bridge Elevation
268
Figure 8.13 South Carolina Bridge Section
269
Figure 8.14 South Carolina Bridge Abutment
270
Figure 8.15 View of Model for Washington Bridge
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
1.2
Washington
Utah-1
Utah-2
0.8
California
South Carolina
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Period (sec.)
Figure 8.16 Design Response Spectrum based on AASHTO for Different Bridges
271
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
Pushover
600
2,669
Bilinear Idealization
400
1,779
200
890
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
1200
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.17 Pushover Curve for Bent 1 of Washington Bridge in Longitudinal Direction
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
600
2,669
Pushover
400
1,779
200
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
1200
890
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.18 Pushover Curve for Bent 1 of Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction
272
Displacement (mm)
0
254
508
762
1016
1270
400
1,779
350
1,557
300
1,334
250
Pushover
1,112
200
890
150
667
100
445
50
222
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
450
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.19 Pushover Curve for Bent 2&4 of Washington Bridge in Longitudinal
Direction
Displacement (mm)
0
254
508
762
1016
1270
400
1,779
350
1,557
300
1,334
250
1,112
Pushover
200
890
150
667
100
445
50
222
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
450
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.20 Pushover Curve for Bent 2&4 of Washington Bridge in Transverse Direction
273
Base Shear (kips)
400
254
508
762
1016
1270
1,779
350
1,557
300
1,334
250
1,112
200
Pushover
890
150
667
100
445
50
222
Base Shear (kN)
Displacement (mm)
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Displacement (in)
Base Shear (kips)
400
254
508
762
1016
1270
1,779
350
1,557
300
1,334
250
1,112
200
Pushover
890
150
667
100
445
50
222
Base Shear (kN)
Displacement (mm)
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Displacement (in)
274
Displacement (mm)
51
102
152
203
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
600
2,669
Pushover
400
1,779
200
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
1200
890
0
0
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.23 Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-1 in Longitudinal Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
Pushover
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
0
0
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.24 Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of Utah Bridge-1 in Transverse Direction
275
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4000
Displacement (mm)
51
102
152
203
254
305
800
3,558
700
3,114
600
2,669
500
2,224
Pushover
400
1,779
300
1,334
200
890
100
445
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
0
10
12
Displacement (in)
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
152
178
2500
11120
2000
8896
1500
6672
Pushover
1000
4448
500
2224
0
0
Displacement (in)
276
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
600
2,669
Pushover
400
1,779
200
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
1200
890
0
0
10
15
20
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.27 Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of California Bridge in Longitudinal Direction
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
600
2,669
Pushover
400
1,779
200
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
1200
890
0
0
10
15
20
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.28 Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of California Bridge in Transverse Direction
277
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
2,669
500
2,224
400
1,779
300
Pushover
1,334
200
890
100
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
600
445
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.29 Pushover Curve for Bent 3&4 of California Bridge in Longitudinal Direction
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
2,669
500
2,224
400
1,779
300
1,334
Pushover
200
890
100
445
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
600
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.30 Pushover Curve for Bent 3&4 of California Bridge in Transverse Direction
278
Displacement (mm)
13
25
38
51
64
76
89
31136
6000
26688
5000
22240
4000
17792
3000
Pushover
13344
2000
8896
1000
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
7000
4448
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.31 Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of South Carolina Bridge in Longitudinal
Direction
Displacement (mm)
13
25
38
51
64
76
89
31136
6000
26688
5000
22240
4000
17792
Pushover
3000
13344
2000
8896
1000
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
7000
4448
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Displacement (in)
Figure 8.32 Pushover Curve for Bent 2 of South Carolina Bridge in Transverse Direction
279
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
22240
4500
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
Pushover
2000
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
5000
0
0
Displacement (in)
Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
22240
20016
17792
15568
13344
11120
8896
6672
4448
2224
0
Pushover
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Displacement (in)
280
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
Pushover
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4500
0
0
Displacement (in)
Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
4500
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
Pushover
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
0
Displacement (in)
281
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
152
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
8896
Pushover
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4000
0
0
Displacement (in)
Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
152
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
8896
Pushover
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4000
0
0
Displacement (in)
282
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
152
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
8896
Pushover
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4000
0
0
Displacement (in)
Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
152
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
8896
Pushover
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4000
0
0
Displacement (in)
283
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
Pushover
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4500
0
0
Displacement (in)
Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
127
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
2000
Pushover
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
4500
0
0
Displacement (in)
284
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
22240
4500
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
Pushover
2000
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
5000
0
0
Displacement (in)
Direction
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
22240
4500
20016
4000
17792
3500
15568
3000
13344
2500
11120
Pushover
2000
8896
1500
6672
1000
4448
500
2224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
5000
0
0
Displacement (in)
285
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
1400
6,227
1200
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
Pushover
600
2,669
400
1,779
200
890
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
1400
6,227
1200
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
Pushover
600
2,669
400
1,779
200
890
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
286
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
4000
17,792
3500
15,568
3000
13,344
2500
11,120
Pushover
Bilinear Idealization for Redesigned Bridge
Bilinear Idealization for Original Bridge
2000
1500
8,896
6,672
1000
4,448
500
2,224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
635
4000
17,792
3500
15,568
3000
13,344
2500
11,120
Pushover
2000
1500
8,896
6,672
1000
4,448
500
2,224
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (in)
287
Displacement (mm)
51
102
152
203
1400
6,227
1200
5,338
1000
4,448
800
3,558
600
2,669
Pushover
400
200
1,779
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
890
0
0
Displacement (in)
Displacement (mm)
25
51
76
102
22,240
20,016
17,792
15,568
13,344
11,120
8,896
6,672
4,448
2,224
0
Pushover
0
Displacement (in)
288
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)
1.2
1
S1> 0.8g
S1: 0.6-0.8g
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Period (sec.)
Figure 9.5 Design Response Spectrum Based on AASHTO for Zones with S1 between 0.6
and 0.8g and Higher than 0.8g
289
Appendix A. Near-Fault Histories
FN
Acceleration (g)
1.2
0.7
0.2
-0.3 0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.8
-1.3
30
762
15
381
0
-15
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure A.1 Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for whsb_r10a050h0 of

Tiptonville, TN with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for FN component
290
Acceleration (g)
FP
1.2
0.7
0.2
-0.3 0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.8
-1.3
30
762
15
381
0
-15
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

Tiptonville, TN with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for FP component
291
Acceleration (g)
H1
1.2
0.7
0.2
-0.3 0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.8
-1.3
30
762
15
381
0
-15
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

Tiptonville, TN with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for H1 component
292
Acceleration (g)
H2
1.2
0.7
0.2
-0.3 0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.8
-1.3
30
762
15
381
0
-15
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

293
Acceleration (g)
FN
1
0.5
0
-0.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1
45
1143
30
762
15
381
0
-15 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
55
1397
35
889
15
381
-5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-127
-25
-635
-45
-1143
-65
-1651
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure A.5 Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for cc_tcu067 of Sylmar, CA
with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1> 0.8g for FN component
294
Acceleration (g)
FP
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-0.5
-1
45
1143
30
762
15
381
0
-15 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
55
1397
35
889
15
381
-5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-127
-25
-635
-45
-1143
-65
-1651
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1> 0.8g for FP component
295
Acceleration (g)
H1
1
0.5
0
-0.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1
45
1143
30
762
15
381
0
-15 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
55
1397
35
889
15
381
-5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-127
-25
-635
-45
-1143
-65
-1651
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1> 0.8g for H1 component
296
Acceleration (g)
H2
1
0.5
0
-0.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-1
45
1143
30
762
15
381
0
-15 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -381
-30
-762
-45
-1143
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
55
1397
35
889
15
381
-5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-127
-25
-635
-45
-1143
-65
-1651
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
with Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec) and S1> 0.8g for H2 component
297
Acceleration (g)
FN
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.6
-1.1
20
508
10
254
0
-10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
508
381
254
127
0
50 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

Tiptonville, TN with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1= 0.4-0.6g for FN component
298
Acceleration (g)
FP
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.6
-1.1
20
508
10
254
0
-10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
508
381
254
127
0
50 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

Tiptonville, TN with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1= 0.4-0.6g for FP component
299
Acceleration (g)
H1
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.6
-1.1
20
508
10
254
0
-10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
508
381
254
127
0
50 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

300
Acceleration (g)
H2
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-0.6
-1.1
20
508
10
254
0
-10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
508
381
254
127
0
50 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

301
Acceleration (g)
FN
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-0.6
-1.1
30
762
20
508
10
254
0
-10 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
508
381
254
127
0
90 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure A.13 Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for cc_tcu067 of Sylmar,
CA with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for FN component
302
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
20
30
40
60
70
80
90
-0.6
-1.1
Velocity (in/sec)
50
Time (sec)
30
762
20
508
10
254
0
-10 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Acceleration (g)
FP
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
508
381
254
127
0
90 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
CA with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for FP component
303
Acceleration (g)
H1
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-0.6
-1.1
30
762
20
508
10
254
0
-10 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
508
381
254
127
0
90 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
CA with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for H1 component
304
Acceleration (g)
H2
0.9
0.4
-0.1
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-0.6
-1.1
30
762
20
508
10
254
0
-10 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 -254
-20
-508
-30
-762
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
20
15
10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
508
381
254
127
0
90 -127
-254
-381
-508
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
CA with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1= 0.6-0.8g for H2 component
305
Acceleration (g)
FN
1.2
0.7
0.2
-0.3 0
-0.8
10
15
20
25
-1.3
45
35
25
15
5
-5 0
-15
-25
10
15
20
1143
889
635
381
127
25 -127
-381
-635
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
0
0
10
15
20
25
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure A.17 Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for San Fernando- Pacoima
Dam with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1> 0.8g for PCD164 (FN) component
306
Acceleration (g)
FP
1.2
0.7
0.2
-0.3 0
10
15
20
25
-0.8
-1.3
45
35
25
15
5
-5 0
-15
-25
10
15
20
1143
889
635
381
127
25 -127
-381
-635
Velocity (mm/sec)
Velocity (in/sec)
Time (sec)
15
381
10
254
127
0
-5
0
0
10
15
20
25
-127
-10
-254
-15
-381
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure A.18 Acceleration, velocity, and displacement history for San Fernando- Pacoima
Dam with Vs30 = 2500 ft/sec (760 m/sec) and S1> 0.8g for PCD254 (FP) component
307
Appendix B. Residual Drift Spectra

0.5
Residual Drift (%)
Average
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure B.1 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of two,
effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1: 0.4-0.6g

0.5
Residual Drift (%)
Average
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure B.2 Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility
of two, effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1: 0.4-0.6g
308
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of two, effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1: 0.6-0.8g
309

4
Average
Residual Drift (%)
3.5
3
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure B.5 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of four,

Residual Drift (%)
4
3.5
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of four, effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1: 0.6-0.8g
310
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1> 0.8g
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Daviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
of two, effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1> 0.8g
311
Residual Drift (%)
S1> 0.8 g , Ductility:4

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure B.10 Residual Drift Spectra Envelope for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec),
ductility of four, effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1> 0.8g
312

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Figure B.11 Residual Drift Spectra for Vs30 = 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec), ductility of six,

Residual Drift (%)
7
6
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
ductility of six, effective moment of inertia of 0.3, and S1> 0.8g
313

0.5
Residual Drift (%)
Average
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Average
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
ductility of two, effective moment of inertia of 0.4, and S1: 0.4-0.6g
314

1.2
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

1.2
Residual Drift (%)
Average
1
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
315

6
Residual Drift (%)
Average
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
6
5
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
ductility of four, effective moment of inertia of 0.4, and S1: 0.6-0.8g
316
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Daviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
ductility of two, effective moment of inertia of 0.4, and S1> 0.8g
317
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
318

8
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

8
Residual Drift (%)
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
319
Residual Drift (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Average
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Average
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
320

1.4
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
1.4
Average
1.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
321

Residual Drift (%)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
322
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
323

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

6
Residual Drift (%)
Average
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
324
Residual Drift (%)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
325

0.6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
6E-16
-0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
0.6
0.5
Average
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
6E-16
-0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
326

1.8
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.6
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
1.8
1.6
Average
1.4
Average+ Standard
Deviation
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
327

14
Average
Residual Drift (%)
12
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
14
12
Average
10
Average+ Standard
Deviation
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
328
Residual Drift (%)
2.5
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

2.5
Residual Drift (%)
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
329

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

6
Residual Drift (%)
Average
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
330
Residual Drift (%)

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
331

0.8
Average
Residual Drift (%)
0.7
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

0.8
Average
Residual Drift (%)
0.7
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
332
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
333

3.5
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

3.5
Residual Drift (%)
Average
2.5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
334
Residual Drift (%)
1.5
Average
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)
1.5
Average
1.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
335

4.5
Average
Residual Drift (%)
4
3.5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

4.5
Average
Residual Drift (%)
4
3.5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
336

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+Standard
Deviation
Average-Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
6
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
337

0.9
Average
Residual Drift (%)
0.8
0.7
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
S1: 0.4-0.6g , Ductility:2- 0.4

Residual Drift (%)
0.9
0.8
Average
0.7
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
338

1.2
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
1.2
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
339

4
Average
Residual Drift (%)
3.5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

4
Average
3.5
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
340
Residual Drift (%)
1.5
Average
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
Average
0.3
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
341

4.5
Average
Residual Drift (%)
4
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

4.5
Average
Residual Drift (%)
4
3.5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
342

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
343
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
344

1.4
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

1.4
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
345

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)
7
6
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
346
Residual Drift (%)
1.5
Average
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
Average
0.3
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
347
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
348

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+Standard
Deviation
Average-Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
6
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
349
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
Residual Drift (%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Average
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
350

1.6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.4
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

Residual Drift (%)
1.6
1.4
Average
1.2
Average+ Standard
Deviation
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
351

8
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+ Standard
Deviation
Average- Standard
Deviation
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

8
Average
Residual Drift (%)
7
6
Average+ Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
352

1.6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

1.6
Residual Drift (%)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Average
0.6
0.4
Average+ Standard
Deviation
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
353

6
Residual Drift (%)
Average
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

6
Average
Residual Drift (%)
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
354

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
Average+Standard
Deviation
Average-Standard
Deviation
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)

7
Average
Residual Drift (%)
6
5
Average+ Standard
Deviation
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period (sec)
355
Appendix C. Design Example

The proposed design procedure of Ch.7 is used to design a cantilever column.
The goal of the design example is to cover the features that must be addressed in the
near-fault design process of the columns in accordance with the proposed design
procedure described in Section 7.3.
Step-1:
Assume the following parameters for the cantilever column:
L : 300 in. (7620 mm) (column height)
(column diameter)
D : 60 in. (1524 mm)
(concrete compressive strength)
f c' : 5 ksi (34.5 MPa)
(reinforcement yield stress)
f y : 60 ksi (414 MPa)
l : 1.5%
s : 1.0%
(longitudinal steel ratio)

(transverse steel ratio)
P : 0.1 f c' Ag
(axial load)
Step-2:
Assume the column is located at California with latitude and longitude of 34.29
and -118.84 degrees, respectively. Using the AASHTO maps for 1000-year return
period:
S s 2.02 g , S1 0.72 g
Site class D (600ft/sec (180 m/sec) <Vs < 1200 ft/sec (360 m/sec)) is assumed.
Hence,
Fa : 1.0 S DS Fa S s 2.02 g
Fv : 1.5 S D1 Fv S1 1.08g (SDC D)
Step-3:
2
60
P : 0.1 f c' Ag 0.1 5 1414 kips (6288.2 kN )
2
1414
k. sec 2
kN. sec 2
m
3.68
(637.75
)
32.2 12
in
m
30 4
3EI 3 57 5000
4 284.9 k (49891.1 kN )
k 3
in
m
L
300 3
T 2
m
0.71 sec
k
Step-4:
Utilizing Fig. 7.7 knowing SD1> 0.8g and natural period of 0.71 sec, the maximum
displacement is 8.2 in. (208.3 mm).
Check if the displacement modification is required:
356
Ts
S D1 1.08
0.53 sec
S DS 2.02
T * 1.25Ts 0.67 sec
T * 0.67
0.94 1 R d 1
T
0.71
Therefore, displacement does not need to be magnified.
Step-5:
Using Fig. 7.14 knowing the axial load ratio of 0.1 and longitudinal steel ratio of
1.5%, the effective moment of inertia factor is 0.4.
Step-6:
Yield displacement of the column is 3.35 in. (85.1 mm) from pushover analysis.
The first yield displacement corresponding to the displacement at which first yield occurs
in longitudinal reinforcement. The ultimate displacement corresponds to the
displacement at which core edge concrete reaches ultimate compressive strain. To
determine the effective yield displacement, a bilinear curve was generated using the first
yield displacement and ultimate displacement by balancing the areas below and above the
bilinear curve (Fig. C.1).
Step-7:
8.2
Displacement ductility demand,
2.45
3.35
Step-8:
m
Teff 2
1.13 sec
k eff
Step-9:
First approach:
Because ductility demand is 2.45, which is between 2.0 and 4.0, the residual drift
needs to be obtained by interpolation. Using Appendix B, the residual drift based on
average and average plus standard deviation envelope spectra is 1.27% and 1.72%,
respectively.
Second approach:
0.04 2 0.14 0.58
r y 0.58 3.35 1.95 in. (49.5mm)
Residual drift ratio:
1.95
100 0.65%
300
Step-10:
Based on the first approach, the column needs to be redesigned because residual
drift is greater than 1.0%; however, the column is safe according to the second approach.
357
10.3.
10.4.
C.1.
Redesign
C.1. 1 Redesign Based on Average Envelope Spectra

The longitudinal steel ratio is increased to 3.0%. No change will affect steps 3
and 4.
Step-5:
3.0%, the effective moment of inertia factor is approximately 0.6.
Step-6:
Yield displacement of the column is 4.15 in. (105.4 mm) (Fig. C.2).
Step-7:
8.2
1.98
4.15
Step-8:
m
Teff 2
0.93 sec
k eff
Step-9:
Using Appendix B, the residual drift is 1.0%.
Step-10:
Residual drift is not greater than 1.0% Design Completed
10.5.
C.1. 2 Redesign Based on Average plus Standard Deviation Envelope
Spectra
The diameter and longitudinal steel ratio are increased to 72 in. (1829 mm) and
2.5%, respectively.
Step-3:
36 4
3EI 3 57 5000
4 590.8 k (103454.2 kN )
k 3
3
in
m
L
300
m
T 2
0.49 sec
k
Step-4:
Utilizing Fig. 7.7 knowing SD1> 0.8g and natural period of 0.49 sec, the maximum
displacement is 4.6 in. (117.1 mm).
Check if the displacement modification is required:
T * 0.67
1.35 1
T
0.49
According to AASHTO, assume 5 (Table 7.1)
1 T* 1
R d 1
1.28 max. disp. 1.28 * 4.6 5.91 in. (150 mm)
T
358
Step-5:
2.5%, the effective moment of inertia factor is approximately 0.5.
Step-6:
Yield displacement of the column is 3.05 in. (77.5 mm) (Fig. C.3).
Step-7:
5.91
1.94
3.05
Because R d from step-4 is a function of , an iterative process is required to
obtain the maximum displacement and . In each iteration, from step-7 is replaced in
Formula 7-2 to obtain R d and maximum displacement. Then, is recalculated by
dividing the modified maximum displacement by yield displacement. The process is
repeated until in Formula 7-2 is converged to obtained from step-7. Table C.1
presents the process.
5.33
1.77
3.05
Step-8:
m
Teff 2
0.69 sec
k eff
Step-9:
Utilizing Fig. 6.14 and 6.16 and extrapolation for of 1.77, the residual drift is
0.93%.
Step-10:
Residual drift is less than 1.0% Design Completed
359
Table C.1 Iterative Procedure

Max. Disp., from
Rd
in (mm)
step-7
5
1.28
5.91
(150)
1.94
1.94
1.17
5.40
(137)
1.77
1.77
1.15
5.33
(135)
1.77
360
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
1779
350
1557
300
1334
250
1112
Pushover
200
890
Bilinear
Idealization
150
667
100
445
50
222
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
0
400
0
0
10
15
20
Displacement (in)
Figure C.1 Pushover Curve
Displacement (mm)
127
254
381
508
600
3000
500
2500
400
2000
Pushover
300
1500
200
1000
100
500
0
0
10
15
Displacement (in)
361
20
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
Displacement (mm)
0
127
254
381
800
3558
700
3114
600
2669
Pushover
500
2224
Bilinear
Idealization
400
1779
300
1334
200
890
100
445
0
0
10
Displacement (in)
362
15
Base Shear (kN)
Base Shear (kips)
900
LIST OF CCEER PUBLICATIONS

Report No.
Publication
CCEER-84-1
Saiidi, M., and R. Lawver, User's Manual for LZAK-C64, A Computer Program to
Implement the Q-ModelonCommodore64,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.
CCEER-84-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1984.
CCEER-84-1
Reprint
Douglas, B., Norris, G., Saiidi, M., Dodd, L., Richardson, J. and Reid, W., Simple
Bridge Models for Earthquakes and Test Data, Civil Engineering Department, Report
No. CCEER-84-1 Reprint, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1984.
CCEER-84-2
Douglas, B. and T. Iwasaki, Proceedings of the First USA-Japan Bridge Engineering

Workshop, held at the Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-2, University of Nevada, Reno, April
1984.
CCEER-84-3
Saiidi,M.,J.Hart,andB.Douglas,InelasticStaticand Dynamic Analysis of Short R/C

BridgesSubjectedtoLateralLoads,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER84-3, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1984.
CCEER-84-4
Douglas, B., A Proposed Plan for a National Bridge Engineering Laboratory, Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-84-4, University of Nevada, Reno,
December 1984.
CCEER-85-1
Norris, G. and P. Abdollaholiaee, Laterally Loaded Pile Response: Studies with the
Strain Wedge Model, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-85-1,
University of Nevada, Reno, April 1985.
CCEER-86-1
Ghusn,G.andM.Saiidi,ASimpleHystereticElementforBiaxialBendingofR/Cin
NEABS-86, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-1, University of
Nevada, Reno, July 1986.
CCEER-86-2
Saiidi, M., R. Lawver, and J. Hart, User's Manual of ISADAB and SIBA, Computer
Programs for Nonlinear Transverse Analysis of Highway Bridges Subjected to Static and
Dynamic Lateral Loads, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-2,
University of Nevada, Reno, September 1986.
CCEER-87-1
Siddharthan,R.,DynamicEffectiveStressResponseofSurfaceandEmbeddedFootings
in Sand, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-86-2, University of
Nevada, Reno, June 1987.
CCEER-87-2
Norris, G. and R. Sack, Lateral and Rotational Stiffness of Pile Groups for Seismic
AnalysisofHighwayBridges,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER-87-2,
University of Nevada, Reno, June 1987.
CCEER-88-1
Orie, J. and M. Saiidi, A Preliminary Study of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Pier

Hinges Subjected to Shear and Flexure, Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-88-1, University of Nevada, Reno, January 1988.
CCEER-88-2
Orie, D., M. Saiidi, and B. Douglas, A Micro-CAD System for Seismic Design of
Regular Highway Bridges, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-88-2,
University of Nevada, Reno, June 1988.
363
CCEER-88-3
Orie,D.andM.Saiidi,User'sManualforMicro-SARB, a Microcomputer Program for

Seismic Analysis of Regular Highway Bridges, Civil Engineering Department, Report
No. CCEER-88-3, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1988.
CCEER-89-1
Douglas, B., M. Saiidi, R. Hayes, and G. Holcomb, A Comprehensive Study of the

Loads and Pressures Exerted on Wall Forms by the Placement of Concrete, Civil
February 1989.
CCEER-89-2
Richardson, J. and B. Douglas, Dynamic Response Analysis of the Dominion Road

BridgeTestData,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo. CCEER-89-2, University
of Nevada, Reno, March 1989.
CCEER-89-2
Vrontinos, S., M. Saiidi, and B. Douglas, A Simple Model to Predict the Ultimate
ResponseofR/CBeamswithConcreteOverlays,CivilEngineeringDepartment,Report
NO. CCEER-89-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1989.
CCEER-89-3
Ebrahimpour,A.andP.Jagadish,StatisticalModelingofBridgeTrafficLoads- A Case
Study,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER-89-3, University of Nevada,
Reno, December 1989.
CCEER-89-4
Shields, J. andM.Saiidi, DirectFieldMeasurementofPrestressLossesinBoxGirder

Bridges, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-89-4, University of
Nevada, Reno, December 1989.
CCEER-90-1
Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, G. Ghusn, Y. Jiang, and D. Schwartz, SurveyandEvaluation

of Nevada's Transportation Infrastructure, Task 7.2 - Highway Bridges, Final Report,
Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER 90-1, University of Nevada, Reno,
October 1990.
CCEER-90-2
Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi,AnalysisoftheResponseofReinforced

Concrete Structures During the Whittier Earthquake 1987, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER 90-2, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1990.
CCEER-91-1
Saiidi, M., E. Hwang, E. Maragakis, and B. Douglas,DynamicTestingandtheAnalysis

oftheFlamingoRoadInterchange,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER91-1, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1991.
CCEER-91-2
Norris, G., R. Siddharthan, Z. Zafir, S. Abdel-Ghaffar, and P. Gowda, Soil-FoundationStructureBehaviorattheOaklandOuterHarborWharf,CivilEngineeringDepartment,

Report No. CCEER-91-2, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1991.
CCEER-91-3
Norris,G.,SeismicLateralandRotationalPileFoundationStiffnessesatCypress,Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-91-3, University of Nevada, Reno, August
1991.
CCEER-91-4
O'Connor,D.andM.Saiidi,AStudyofProtectiveOverlaysforHighwayBridgeDecks
in Nevada, with Emphasis on Polyester-Styrene Polymer Concrete, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-91-4, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1991.
CCEER-91-5
O'Connor, D.N. and M. Saiidi, Laboratory Studies of Polyester-Styrene Polymer

Concrete Engineering Properties, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER91-5, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1991.
CCEER-92-1
Straw,D.L.andM.Saiidi,ScaleModelTestingofOne-Way Reinforced Concrete Pier

HingesSubjecttoCombinedAxialForce,ShearandFlexure,editedbyD.N.O'Connor,
364
Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-1, University of Nevada, Reno,

March 1992.
CCEER-92-2
CCEER-92-3
Wehbe, N., M. Saiidi, and F. Gordaninejad, Basic Behavior of Composite Sections

Made of Concrete Slabs and Graphite Epoxy Beams, Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-92-2, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1992.
Saiidi,M.andE.Hutchens,AStudyofPrestressChangesinAPost-Tensioned Bridge
During the First 30 Months, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-3,
CCEER-92-4
Saiidi,M.,B.Douglas,S.Feng,E.Hwang,andE.Maragakis,EffectsofAxialForceon
FrequencyofPrestressedConcreteBridges,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.
CCEER-92-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1992.
CCEER-92-5
Siddharthan, R., and Z. Zafir, Response of Layered Deposits to Traveling Surface

PressureWaves,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER-92-5, University of
Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-6
Norris, G., and Z. Zafir, Liquefaction and Residual Strength of Loose Sands from
Drained Triaxial Tests, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-6,
University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-6-A Norris,G.,Siddharthan,R.,Zafir,Z.andMadhu,R.Liquefaction and Residual Strength

of Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests, Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-92-6-A, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-7
Douglas,B.,SomeThoughtsRegardingtheImprovementoftheUniversityofNevada,
Reno's National Academic Standing, Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-92-7, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1992.
CCEER-92-8
Saiidi, M.,E.Maragakis,andS.Feng, AnEvaluationof the Current Caltrans Seismic

Restrainer Design Method, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-92-8,
University of Nevada, Reno, October 1992.
CCEER-92-9
O'Connor,D.,M.Saiidi,andE.Maragakis,EffectofHingeRestrainersontheResponse
of the Madrone Drive Undercrossing During the Loma Prieta Earthquake, Civil
February 1993.
CCEER-92-10
O'Connor, D., and M. Saiidi, Laboratory Studies of Polyester Concrete: Compressive

Strength at Elevated Temperatures and Following Temperature Cycling, Bond Strength
toPortlandCementConcrete,andModulusofElasticity,CivilEngineeringDepartment,
Report No. CCEER-92-10, University of Nevada, Reno, February 1993.
CCEER-92-11
Wehbe, N., M. Saiidi, and D. O'Connor, Economic Impact of Passage of Spent Fuel
TrafficonTwoBridgesinNortheastNevada,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.
CCEER-92-11, University of Nevada, Reno, December 1992.
CCEER-93-1
Jiang, Y., and M. Saiidi, Behavior, Design, and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Oneway Bridge Column Hinges, edited by D. O'Connor, Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-93-1, University of Nevada, Reno, March 1993.
CCEER-93-2
Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, Evaluation of the Response of the

Aptos Creek Bridge During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-93-2, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1993.
365
CCEER-93-3
Sanders, D.H., B.M. Douglas, and T.L. Martin, Seismic Retrofit Prioritization of
NevadaBridges,Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-3, University of
Nevada, Reno, July 1993.
CCEER-93-4
Abdel-Ghaffar, S., E. Maragakis, and M. Saiidi, Performance of Hinge Restrainers in

the Huntington Avenue Overhead During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-4, University of Nevada, Reno, June
1993 (in final preparation).
Maragakis,E.,M.Saiidi,S.Feng,andL.Flournoy,EffectsofHingeRestrainersonthe
Response of the San Gregorio Bridge during the Loma Prieta Earthquake, (in final
preparation) Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-93-5, University of
Nevada, Reno.
CCEER-93-5
CCEER-93-6
Saiidi, M., E. Maragakis, S. Abdel-Ghaffar, S. Feng, and D. O'Connor, Response of

Bridge Hinge Restrainers during Earthquakes -FieldPerformance,Analysis,andDesign,
May 1993.
CCEER-93-7
Wehbe, N., Saiidi, M., Maragakis, E., and Sanders, D., Adequacy of Three Highway
Structures in Southern Nevada for Spent Fuel Transportation, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-93-7, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1993.
CCEER-93-8
Roybal,J.,Sanders,D.H.,andMaragakis,E.,VulnerabilityAssessmentofMasonryin
the Reno-Carson City Urban Corridor, Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-93-8, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1993.
CCEER-93-9
Zafir,Z.andSiddharthan, R.,MOVLOAD:AProgramtoDeterminetheBehaviorof
Nonlinear Horizontally Layered Medium Under Moving Load, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-93-9, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1993.
CCEER-93-10
O'Connor,D.N.,Saiidi,M.,andMaragakis,E.A., A StudyofBridge Column Seismic

Damage Susceptibility at the Interstate 80/U.S. 395InterchangeinReno,Nevada,Civil
October 1993.
CCEER-94-1
Maragakis, E., B. Douglas, and E. Abdelwahed, Preliminary Dynamic Analysis of a

RailroadBridge,ReportCCEER-94-1, January 1994.
CCEER-94-2
Douglas,B.M.,Maragakis,E.A.,andFeng,S.,StiffnessEvaluationofPileFoundation
ofCazenoviaCreekOverpass,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER-94-2,
University of Nevada, Reno, March 1994.
CCEER-94-3
Douglas, B.M., Maragakis, E.A., and Feng, S., Summary of Pretest Analysis of
Cazenovia Creek Bridge, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-94-3,
CCEER-94-4
Norris, G.M., Madhu, R., Valceschini, R., and Ashour, M., Liquefaction and Residual
Strength of Loose Sands from Drained Triaxial Tests, Report 2, Vol. 1&2, Civil
Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-94-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August
1994.
CCEER-94-5
Saiidi, M., Hutchens, E., and Gardella, D., Prestress Losses in a Post-Tensioned R/C
Box Girder Bridge in Southern Nevada, Civil Engineering Department, CCEER-94-5,
University of Nevada, Reno, August 1994.
366
CCEER-95-1
Siddharthan, R., El-Gamal, M., and Maragakis, E.A., Nonlinear Bridge Abutment ,
Verification, and Design Curves, Civil Engineering Department, CCEER-95-1,
University of Nevada, Reno, January 1995.
CCEER-95-2
Ashour,M.andNorris,G.,LiquefactionandUndrainedResponseEvaluationofSands
from Drained Formulation, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-95-2,
University of Nevada, Reno, February 1995.
CCEER-95-3
Wehbe,N.,Saiidi,M.,Sanders,D.andDouglas,B.,DuctilityofRectangularReinforced
ConcreteBridgeColumnswithModerateConfinement,Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-95-3, University of Nevada, Reno, July 1995.
Martin, T.., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., Seismic Retrofit of Column-Pier Cap
ConnectionsinBridgesinNorthernNevada,CivilEngineeringDepartment,Report No.
CCEER-95-4, University of Nevada, Reno, August 1995.
CCEER-95-4
CCEER-95-5
Darwish, I., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., Experimental Study of Seismic Susceptibility
Column-Footing Connections in Bridges in Northern Nevada, Civil Engineering
Department, Report No. CCEER-95-5, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1995.
CCEER-95-6
Griffin, G., Saiidi, M. and Maragakis, E., Nonlinear Seismic Response of Isolated
Bridges and Effects of Pier Ductility Demand, Civil Engineering Department, Report
No. CCEER-95-6, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1995.
CCEER-95-7
Acharya, S.., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., Seismic Retrofit of Bridge Footings and
Column-FootingConnections,CivilEngineeringDepartment,Report No. CCEER-957, University of Nevada, Reno, November 1995.
CCEER-95-8
Maragakis,E.,Douglas,B.,andSandirasegaram,U.,Full-Scale Field Resonance Tests

of a Railway Bridge, A Report to the Association of American Railroads, Civil
December 1995.
CCEER-95-9
Douglas, B., Maragakis, E. and Feng, S., System Identification Studies on Cazenovia
CreekOverpass, ReportfortheNationalCenterforEarthquakeEngineering Research,
October 1995.
CCEER-96-1
El-Gamal,M.E.andSiddharthan,R.V.,ProgramstoComputerTranslationalStiffnessof
Seat-TypeBridgeAbutment,CivilEngineeringDepartment,ReportNo.CCEER-96-1,
University of Nevada, Reno, March 1996.
CCEER-96-2
Labia,Y.,Saiidi,M.andDouglas,B.,EvaluationandRepairofFull-Scale Prestressed
Concrete Box Girders, A Report to the National Science Foundation, Research Grant
CMS-9201908, Civil Engineering Department, Report No. CCEER-96-2, University of
Nevada, Reno, May 1996.
CCEER-96-3
Darwish,I.,Saiidi,M.andSanders,D.,SeismicRetrofitofR/COblongTaperedBridge
Columns with Inadequate Bar Anchorage in Columns and Footings, A Report to the
Nevada Department of Transportation, Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-96-3, University of Nevada, Reno, May 1996.
CCEER-96-4
Ashour, M., Pilling, R., Norris, G. and Perez, H., The Prediction of Lateral Load
BehaviorofSinglePilesandPileGroupsUsingtheStrainWedgeModel,AReport to
the California Department of Transportation, Civil Engineering Department, Report No.
CCEER-96-4, University of Nevada, Reno, June 1996.
367
CCEER-97-1-A Rimal,P.andItani,A.SensitivityAnalysisofFatigueEvaluationsofSteelBridges,
Center for Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada Report No. CCEER-97-1-A, September, 1997.
CCEER-97-1-B Maragakis, E., Douglas, B., and Sandirasegaram, U. Full-Scale Field Resonance Tests
of a Railway Bridge, A Report to the Association of American Railroads, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, May, 1996.
CCEER-97-2
Wehbe,N.,Saiidi,M.,andD.Sanders,EffectofConfinementandFlaresontheSeismic
Performance of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, Civil Engineering Department,
Report No. CCEER-97-2, University of Nevada, Reno, September 1997.
CCEER-97-3
Darwish, I., M. Saiidi, G. Norris, and E. Maragakis, Determination of In-Situ Footing

Stiffness Using Full-Scale Dynamic Field Testing,AReporttotheNevadaDepartment
of Transportation, Structural Design Division, Carson City, Nevada, Report No. CCEER97-3, University of Nevada, Reno, October 1997.
CCEER-97-4-A Itani, A. Cyclic Behavior of Richmond-San Rafael Tower Links, Center for Civil
Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-4, August 1997.
CCEER-97-4-B Wehbe,N.,andM.Saiidi,UsersManualforRCMCv.1.2:AComputerProgramfor
Moment-Curvature Analysis of Confined and Unconfined Reinforced Concrete
Sections, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-97-4, November,
1997.
CCEER-97-5
Isakovic,T.,M.Saiidi,andA.Itani,InfluenceofnewBridgeConfigurationsonSeismic
Performance,DepartmentofCivilEngineering,UniversityofNevada,Reno,ReportNo.
CCEER-97-5, September, 1997.
CCEER-98-1
Itani, A., Vesco, T. and Dietrich, A., Cyclic Behavior of as Built Laced Members
WithEndGussetPlatesontheSanFranciscoBayBridge,CenterforCivilEngineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada Report No. CCEER-98-1, March, 1998.
CCEER-98-2
G. Norris and M. Ashour, Liquefaction and Undrained Response Evaluation of Sands

from Drained Formulation, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-98-2, May, 1998.
CCEER-98-3
Qingbin,Chen,B.M.Douglas,E.Maragakis,andI.G.Buckle,ExtractionofNonlinear
Hysteretic Properties of Seismically Isolated Bridges from Quick-Release Field Tests,
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-3, June, 1998.
CCEER-98-4
Maragakis, E., B. M. Douglas, and C. Qingbin, Full-Scale Field Capacity Tests of a

RailwayBridge,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-4, June,
1998.
CCEER-98-5
Itani, A., Douglas, B., and Woodgate, J., Cyclic Behavior of Richmond-San Rafael
RetrofittedTowerLeg,CenterforCivilEngineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno. Report No. CCEER-98-5, June 1998
368
CCEER-98-6
Moore,R.,Saiidi,M.,andItani,A.,SeismicBehaviorofNewBridgeswithSkewand
Curvature, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno. Report No. CCEER-98-6, October, 1998.
CCEER-98-7
Itani,AandDietrich,A,CyclicBehaviorofDoubleGussetPlateConnections,Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-98-5, December, 1998.
CCEER-99-1
Caywood, C., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, Seismic Retrofit of Flared Bridge Columns
withSteelJackets,CivilEngineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER-99-1, February 1999.
CCEER-99-2
Mangoba,N.,M.Mayberry,andM.Saiidi,PrestressLossinFourBoxGirderBridgesin
Northern Nevada, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER-99-2, March 1999.
Abo-Shadi,N.,M.Saiidi,andD.Sanders,SeismicResponseofBridgePierWallsinthe
Weak Direction, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER-99-3, April 1999.
CCEER-99-3
CCEER-99-4
Buzick, A., and M. Saiidi, Shear Strength and Shear Fatigue Behavior of Full-Scale
PrestressedConcreteBoxGirders,CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofNevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-4, April 1999.
CCEER-99-5
Randall, M., M. Saiidi, E. MaragakisandT.Isakovic,RestrainerDesignProceduresFor

Multi-Span Simply-Supported Bridges, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-5, April 1999.
CCEER-99-6
Wehbe, N. and M. Saiidi, User's Manual for RCMC v. 1.2, A Computer Program for
Sections, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER-99-6, May 1999.
CCEER-99-7
Burda, J. and A. Itani, Studies of Seismic Behavior of Steel Base Plates, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-7, May
1999.
CCEER-99-8
Ashour, M. and G. Norris, Refinement of the Strain Wedge Model Program, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-8, March
1999.
CCEER-99-9
Dietrich,A.,andA.Itani, CyclicBehaviorofLacedandPerforatedSteelMemberson
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Civil Engineering Department, University,
Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-9, December 1999.
CCEER 99-10
Itani, A., A. Dietrich, Cyclic Behavior of Built Up Steel Members and their
Connections, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER-99-10, December 1999.
CCEER 99-10-A Itani, A., E. Maragakis and P. He, Fatigue Behavior of Riveted Open Deck Railroad
BridgeGirders,CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofNevada,Reno,ReportNo.
CCEER-99-10-A, August 1999.
CCEER 99-11
Itani, A., J. Woodgate, Axial and Rotational Ductility of Built Up Structural Steel
Members, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
369
CCEER-99-12
Sgambelluri, M., Sanders, D.H., and Saiidi, M.S., Behavior of One-Way Reinforced
Concrete Bridge Column Hinges in the Weak Direction, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-12, December 1999.
CCEER-99-13
Laplace,P.,Sanders,D.H.,Douglas,B,andSaiidi,M,ShakeTableTestingofFlexure
Dominated Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-13, December 1999.
CCEER-99-14
Ahmad M. Itani, Jose A. Zepeda, and Elizabeth A. Ware Cyclic Behavior of Steel
Moment Frame Connections for the Moscone Center Expansion, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-99-14, December 1999.
CCEER 00-1
Ashour, M., and Norris, G. Undrained Lateral Pile and Pile Group Response in
SaturatedSand,CivilEngineeringDepartment,University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER-00-1, May 1999. January 2000.
CCEER 00-2
Saiidi, M. and Wehbe, N., A Comparison of Confinement Requirements in Different

Codes for Rectangular, Circular, and Double-Spiral RC Bridge Columns, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-2, January
2000.
CCEER 00-3
McElhaney, B., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders, Shake Table Testing of Flared Bridge
Columns With Steel Jacket Retrofit, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-3, January 2000.
CCEER 00-4
Martinovic, F.,M.Saiidi, D. Sanders,andF.Gordaninejad,DynamicTestingof NonPrismatic Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Retrofitted with FRP Jackets, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-4, January
2000.
CCEER 00-5
Itani,A.,andM.Saiidi,SeismicEvaluationofSteelJointsforUCLACenterforHealth
ScienceWestwoodReplacementHospital,CivilEngineeringDepartment,Universityof
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-5, February 2000.
CCEER 00-6
Will,J.andD.Sanders,HighPerformanceConcreteUsingNevadaAggregates,Civil
Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-00-6, May
2000.
CCEER 00-7
French,C.,andM.Saiidi,A Comparison of Static and Dynamic Performance of Models

ofFlaredBridgeColumns,CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofNevada,Reno,
Report No. CCEER-00-7, October 2000.
CCEER 00-8
Itani, A., H. Sedarat, Seismic Analysis of the AISI LRFD Design Example of Steel
Highway Bridges, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER 00-08, November 2000.
CCEER 00-9
Moore,J.,D.Sanders,andM.Saiidi,ShakeTableTestingof1960sTwoColumnBent
withHingesBases,CivilEngineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report
No. CCEER 00-09, December 2000.
CCEER 00-10
Asthana,M.,D.Sanders,andM.Saiidi,One-Way Reinforced Concrete Bridge Column

Hinges in the Weak Direction, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER 00-10, April 2001.
370
CCEER 01-1
Ah Sha, H., D. Sanders, M. Saiidi, Early Age Shrinkage and Cracking of Nevada
Concrete Bridge Decks, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno,
Report No. CCEER 01-01, May 2001.
CCEER 01-2
Ashour,M.andG.Norris,PileGroupprogramforFullMaterialModelingaProgressive
Failure, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER 01-02, July 2001.
CCEER 01-3
Itani, A., C. Lanaud, and P. Dusicka,Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis of Built-Up

Shear Links, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No.
CCEER 01-03, July 2001.
CCEER 01-4
Saiidi, M., J. Mortensen, and F. Martinovic, Analysis and Retrofit of Fixed Flared
Columns with Glass Fiber-ReinforcedPlasticJacketing,CivilEngineeringDepartment,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 01-4, August 2001
CCEER 01-5
Not Published
CCEER 01-6
Laplace,P.,D.Sanders,andM.Saiidi,ExperimentalStudyandAnalysis of Retrofitted
Flexure and Shear Dominated Circular Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns Subjected
toShakeTableExcitation,CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofNevada,Reno,
Report No. CCEER 01-6, June 2001.
CCEER 01-7
Reppi, F., and D. Sanders,RemovalandReplacementofCast-in-Place, Post-tensioned,

BoxGirderBridge,CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofNevada,Reno,Report
No. CCEER 01-7, December 2001.
CCEER 02-1
Pulido,C.,M.Saiidi,D.Sanders,andA.Itani,SeismicPerformance and Retrofitting of

Reinforced Concrete Bridge Bents, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-1, January 2002.
CCEER 02-2
Yang,Q.,M.Saiidi,H.Wang,andA.Itani,InfluenceofGroundMotionIncoherencyon
Earthquake Response of Multi-Support Structures, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-2, May 2002.
CCEER 02-3
M.Saiidi,B.Gopalakrishnan,E.Reinhardt,andR.Siddharthan,APreliminaryStudyof
Shake Table Response of A Two-Column Bridge Bent on Flexible Footings,
Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-03,
June 2002.
CCEER 02-4
Not Published
CCEER 02-5
Banghart,A.,Sanders,D.,Saiidi,M.,EvaluationofConcrete Mixes for Filling the Steel

Arches in the Galena Creek Bridge, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-05, June 2002.
CCEER 02-6
Dusicka,P.,Itani, A.,Buckle,I.G., CyclicBehaviorof Shear LinksandTower Shaft

Assembly of San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge Tower, Civil Engineering
Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-06, July 2002.
CCEER 02-7
Mortensen, J., and M. Saiidi, A Performance-Based Design Method for

Confinement in Circular Columns, Civil Engineering Department, University of
Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER 02-07, November 2002.
CCEER 03-1
Wehbe,N.,andM.Saiidi,UsersmanualforSPMCv.1.0:AComputerProgramfor
Moment-Curvature Analysis of Reinforced Concrete SectionswithInterlockingSpirals,
371

University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-1, May, 2003.
CCEER 03-2
Wehbe,N.,andM.Saiidi,UsersmanualforRCMCv.2.0: A Computer Program for

Sections, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-2, June,
2003.
CCEER 03-3
Nada,H.,D.Sanders,andM.Saiidi, SeismicPerformanceofRCBridgeFrames with

Architectural-Flared Columns, Civil Engineering Department, University of Nevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER 03-3, January 2003.
CCEER 03-4
Reinhardt, E., M.Saiidi,andR.Siddharthan,SeismicPerformanceofaCFRP/Concrete

BridgeBentonFlexibleFootings,CivilEngineeringDepartment,UniversityofNevada,
Reno, Report No. CCEER 03-4, August 2003.
CCEER 03-5
Johnson, N., M. Saiidi, A. Itani, and S. Ladkany, Seismic Retrofit of Octagonal

Columns with Pedestal and One-WayHingeattheBase,CenterforCivilEngineering
Nevada, and Report No. CCEER-03-5, August 2003.
CCEER 03-6
Mortensen, C., M. Saiidi, and S. Ladkany, Creep and Shrinkage Losses in Highly
Variable Climates, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Report No. CCEER-03-6, September
2003.
CCEER 03- 7
Ayoub,C.,M.Saiidi,andA.Itani,AStudyofShape-Memory-Alloy-Reinforced Beams
and Cubes, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-03-7, October
2003.
CCEER 03-8
Chandane,S.,D.Sanders,andM.Saiidi,StaticandDynamicPerformanceofRCBridge
Bents with Architectural-Flared Columns, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-03-8, November 2003.
CCEER 04-1
Olaegbe,C.,andSaiidi,M.,EffectofLoadingHistoryonShakeTablePerformanceof
A Two-Column Bent with Infill Wall, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
No. CCEER-04-1, January 2004.
CCEER 04-2
Johnson,R.,Maragakis,E.,Saiidi,M.,andDesRoches,R.,ExperimentalEvaluationof
Seismic Performance of SMA Bridge Restrainers, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-2, February 2004.
CCEER 04-3
Moustafa,K.,Sanders,D.,andSaiidi,M.,ImpactofAspectRatioonTwo-Column Bent
SeismicPerformance, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-3,
February 2004.
CCEER 04-4
Maragakis, E., Saiidi, M., Sanchez-Camargo,F.,andElfass,S.,SeismicPerformanceof

Bridge Restrainers At In-Span Hinges, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
372

No. CCEER-04-4, March 2004.
CCEER 04-5
Ashour, M., Norris, G. and Elfass, S., Analysis of Laterally Loaded Long or
IntermediateDrilledShaftsofSmallorLargeDiameterinLayeredSoil,CenterforCivil
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-04-5, June 2004.
CCEER 04-6
Correal, J., Saiidi, M. and Sanders, D., Seismic Performance of RC Bridge Columns
Reinforced with Two Interlocking Spirals, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
No. CCEER-04-6, August 2004.
CCEER 04-7
Dusicka, P., Itani, A. and Buckle, I., Cyclic Response and Low Cycle Fatigue
Characteristics of Plate Steels, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
CCEER-04-7, November 2004.
CCEER 04-8
Dusicka, P., Itani, A. and Buckle, I., Built-up Shear Links as Energy Dissipaters for
Seismic Protection of Bridges, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
CCEER 04-9
Sureshkumar,K.,Saiidi,S.,Itani,A.andLadkany,S.,SeismicRetrofitofTwo-Column
Bents with Diamond Shape Columns, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
No. CCEER-04-9, November 2004.
CCEER 05-1
Wang, H. and Saiidi, S., A Study of RC Columns with Shape Memory Alloy and
Engineered Cementitious Composites, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
CCEER 05-2
Johnson, R., Saiidi, S. and Maragakis, E., A Study of Fiber Reinforced Plastics for
Seismic Bridge Restrainers, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
CCEER-05-2, January 2005.
CCEER 05-3
Carden, L.P., Itani, A.M., Buckle, I.G, Seismic Load Path in Steel Girder Bridge
Superstructures,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,DepartmentofCivil
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-3, January
2005.
CCEER 05-4
Carden, L.P., Itani, A.M., Buckle, I.G, Seismic Performance of Steel Girder Bridge
SuperstructureswithDuctileEndCrossFramesandSeismicIsolation,CenterforCivil
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-4, January 2005.
CCEER 05-5
Goodwin, E., Maragakis, M., Itani, A. and Luo, S., Experimental Evaluation of the
Seismic Performance of Hospital Piping Subassemblies, Center for Civil Engineering
373
CCEER 05-6
ZadehM.S.,Saiidi,S,Itani,A.andLadkany,S.,SeismicVulnerabilityEvaluationand
Retrofit Design of Las Vegas Downtown Viaduct, Center for Civil Engineering
CCEER 05-7
Phan,V.,Saiidi,S.andAnderson,J.,NearFault(NearField)GroundMotionEffectson
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
CCEER 05-8
Carden, L., Itani, A. and Laplace, P., Performance of Steel Props at the UNR Fire
Science Academy subjectedtoRepeatedFire,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquake
CCEER 05-9
Yamashita, R. and Sanders, D., Shake Table Testing and an Analytical Study of
Unbonded Prestressed Hollow Concrete Column Constructed with Precast Segments,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-05-9, August 2005.
CCEER 05-10
Not Published
CCEER 05-11
Carden,L.,Itani.,A.,andPeckan,G.,RecommendationsfortheDesignofBeamsand
Posts in Bridge Falsework, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
CCEER-05-11, October 2005.
CCEER 06-01
Cheng, Z.,Saiidi,M.,andSanders,D., DevelopmentofaSeismicDesignMethod for

Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Bridge Column Hinges, Center for Civil Engineering
CCEER 06-02
Johnson, N., Saiidi, M., and Sanders, D., Large-Scale Experimental and Analytical
Studies of a Two-Span Reinforced Concrete Bridge System, Center for Civil
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-02, March 2006.
CCEER 06-03
Saiidi, M., Ghasemi, H. and Tiras, A., Seismic Design and Retrofit of Highway
Bridges, Proceedings, Second US-Turkey Workshop, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-06-03, May 2006.
CCEER 07-01
O'Brien, M., Saiidi, M. and Sadrossadat-Zadeh, M., A Study of Concrete Bridge

Columns Using Innovative Materials Subjected to Cyclic Loading, Center for Civil
CCEER 07-02
Sadrossadat-Zadeh,M.andSaiidi, M.,Effectof StrainrateonStress-Strain Properties

and Yield Propagation in Steel Reinforcing Bars, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-02, January 2007.
CCEER 07-03
Sadrossadat-Zadeh,M.andSaiidi, M.,AnalyticalStudyofNEESR-SG 4-Span Bridge

ModelUsingOpenSees,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-03,
January 2007.
374
CCEER 07-04
Nelson, R., Saiidi, M. and Zadeh, S., Experimental Evaluation of Performance of

Conventional Bridge Systems, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
CCEER-07-04, October 2007.
CCEER 07-05
Bahen,N.andSanders,D.,Strut-and-Tie Modeling for Disturbed Regions in Structural

Concrete Members with Emphasis on Deep Beams, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-05, December 2007.
CCEER 07-06
Choi,H.,Saiidi,M.andSomerville,P.,EffectsofNear-Fault Ground Motion and FaultRupture on the Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Bridges, Center for Civil
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-06, December 2007.
CCEER 07-07
AshourM.andNorris,G.,Reportand User Manual on Strain Wedge Model Computer

Program for Files and Large Diameter Shafts with LRFD Procedure, Center for Civil
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-07-07, October 2007.
CCEER 08-01
Doyle, K. and Saiidi, M., Seismic Response of Telescopic Pipe Pin Connections,
University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-01, February 2008.
CCEER 08-02
Taylor,M.andSanders,D.,SeismicTimeHistoryAnalysisandInstrumentationofthe
GalenaCreekBridge,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,Departmentof
Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-08-02,
April 2008.
CCEER 08-03
Abdel-Mohti,A.andPekcan,G.,SeismicResponseAssessmentandRecommendations
for the Design of Skewed Post-Tensioned Concrete Box-Girder Highway Bridges,
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER08-03, September 2008.
CCEER 08-04
Saiidi, M., Ghasemi, H. and Hook, J., Long Term Bridge Performance Monitoring,
Assessment & Management, Proceedings, FHWA/NSF Workshop on Future
Directions,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,DepartmentofCiviland
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER
08-04, September 2008.
CCEER 09-01
Brown, A., and Saiidi, M., Investigation of Near-Fault Ground Motion Effects on
Substandard Bridge Columns and Bents, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-01, July 2009.
CCEER 09-02
Linke, C., Pekcan, G., and Itani, A., Detailing of Seismically Resilient Special Truss
Moment Frames, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER-09-02, August 2009.
CCEER 09-03
Hillis, D., and Saiidi, M., Design, Construction, and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of
Three Bridge Bents Used in a Bridge System Test, Center for Civil Engineering
Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-03, August 2009.
375
CCEER 09-04
Bahrami,H.,Itani,A.,andBuckle,I.,GuidelinesfortheSeismicDesignofDuctileEnd
Cross Frames in Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-09-04, September 2009.
CCEER 10-01
Zaghi, A. E., and Saiidi, M., Seismic Design of Pipe-Pin Connections in Concrete
Bridges, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER10-01, January 2010.
CCEER 10-02
Pooranampillai, S., Elfass, S.,andNorris,G.,LaboratoryStudytoAssessLoadCapacity

Increase of Drilled Shafts through Post Grouting, Center for Civil Engineering
CCEER 10-03
Itani,A.,Grubb,M.,andMonzon,E,ProposedSeismicProvisionsandCommentaryfor
Steel Plate Girder Superstructures, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-03, June 2010.
CCEER 10-04
Cruz-Noguez, C., Saiidi, M., Experimental and Analytical Seismic Studies of a FourSpanBridgeSystemwithInnovativeMaterials,CenterforCivilEngineering Earthquake
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-04, September 2010.
CCEER 10-05
Vosooghi, A., Saiidi, M., Post-Earthquake Evaluation and Emergency Repair of

Damaged RC Bridge Columns Using CFRP Materials, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-05, September 2010.
CCEER 10-06
Ayoub,M.,Sanders,D.,TestingofPileExtensionConnectionstoSlabBridges,Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-10-06, October
2010.
CCEER 10-07
Builes-Mejia, J. C. and Itani, A., Stability of Bridge Column Rebar Cages during
Construction, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No.
CCEER 10-08
Monzon, E.V., Seismic Performance of Steel Plate Girder Bridges with Integral
Abutments,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,DepartmentofCiviland
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER10-08, November 2010.
CCEER 11-01
Motaref,S.,Saiidi,M.,andSanders,D.,SeismicResponseofPrecastBridgeColumns
with Energy Dissipating Joints, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
CCEER 11-02
Harrison,N.andSanders,D.,Preliminary Seismic AnalysisandDesignof Reinforced

ConcreteBridgeColumnsforCurvedBridgeExperiments,CenterforCivilEngineering
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-11-02, May 2011.
376
CCEER 11-03
Vallejera, J. and Sanders, D., Instrumentation and Monitoring the Galena Creek
Bridge, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER11-03, September 2011.
CCEER 11-04
Levi, M., Sanders, D., and Buckle, I., Seismic Response of Columns in Horizontally
CurvedBridges,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,DepartmentofCivil
CCEER 12-01
Saiidi, M., NSF International Workshop on Bridges of the Future Wide Spread
Implementation of Innovation, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-01, January 2012.
CCEER 12-02
Larkin, A.S., Sanders, D., and Saiidi, M., Unbonded Prestressed Columns for
EarthquakeResistance,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
CCEER 12-03
Arias-Acosta, J. G., Sanders, D., Seismic Performance of Circular and Interlocking

SpiralsRCBridgeColumnsunderBidirectionalShakeTableLoadingPart1,Centerfor
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-12-03,
September 2012.
CCEER 12-04
Cukrov, M.E., Sanders, D., Seismic Performance of Prestressed Pile-To-Bent Cap

Connections, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
CCEER-12-04, September 2012.
CCEER 13-01
Carr,T.andSanders,D.,InstrumentationandDynamicCharacterizationoftheGalena
CreekBridge, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil
CCEER-13-01, January 2013.
CCEER 13-02
Vosooghi, A. and Buckle, I., Evaluation of the Performance of a Conventional FourSpan Bridge During Shake Table Tests, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-02, January 2013.
CCEER 13-03
Amirihormozaki, E. and Pekcan, G., Analytical Fragility Curves for Horizontally

Curved Steel Girder Highway Bridges, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-03, February 2013.
CCEER 13-04
Almer,K.andSanders,D.,LongitudinalSeismicPerformanceofPrecastBridgeGirders
Integrally Connected to a Cast-in-Place Bentcap, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-04, April 2013.
CCEER 13-05
Monzon,E.V.,Itani,A.I.,andBuckle,I.G.,SeismicModelingandAnalysisofCurved
Steel Plate Girder Bridges, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research,
Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-05, April 2013.
377
CCEER 13-06
Monzon,E.V.,Buckle,I.G.,andItani,A.I.,SeismicPerformanceofCurvedSteelPlate
Girder Bridges with Seismic Isolation, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-06, April 2013.
CCEER 13-07
Monzon, E.V., Buckle, I.G., and Itani, A.I., Seismic Response of Isolated Bridge
SuperstructuretoIncoherentGroundMotions,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquake
Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-07, April 2013.
CCEER 13-08
Haber,Z.B.,Saiidi,M.S.,andSanders,D.H.,PrecastColumn-Footing Connections for

Accelerated Bridge Construction in Seismic Zones, Center for Civil Engineering
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-08, April 2013.
CCEER 13-09
Ryan,K.L.,Coria,C.B.,andDao,N.D.,LargeScaleEarthquakeSimulationofaHybrid
Lead Rubber Isolation System Designed under Nuclear Seismicity Considerations,
Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER13-09, April 2013.
CCEER 13-10
Wibowo,H.,Sanford,D.M.,Buckle,I.G.,andSanders,D.H.,TheEffectofLiveLoad
on theSeismicResponseofBridges,CenterforCivilEngineeringEarthquakeResearch,
CCEER 13-11
Sanford, D.M., Wibowo, H., Buckle, I.G.,andSanders,D.H.,PreliminaryExperimental

StudyontheEffectofLiveLoadontheSeismicResponseofHighwayBridges,Center
for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-11, May
2013.
CCEER 13-12
Saad, A.S., Sanders, D.H., and Buckle, I.G., Assessment of Foundation Rocking
BehaviorinReducingtheSeismicDemandonHorizontallyCurvedBridges,Centerfor
Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report No. CCEER-13-12, June
2013.
CCEER 13-13
Ardakani,S.M.S.andSaiidi,M.S.,DesignofReinforcedConcreteBridgeColumnsfor
Near-FaultEarthquakes,CenterforCivil Engineering Earthquake Research, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, Report
No. CCEER-13-13, July 2013.
378

Design of RC Bridge Columns For Near Fault Earthquakes SeyedCCEERReport13-13

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Design of RC Bridge Columns For Near Fault Earthquakes SeyedCCEERReport13-13

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Report No.

DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE COLUMNS

A report to the Federal Highway Administration

Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research

1.1. General Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 1

Analytical Studies of Test Models ................................................................................... 6

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6

Residual Moment Capacity of RC Columns .................................................................14

3.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................14

Critical Residual Displacement Limits ..........................................................................19

4.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................19

Simple Methods to Estimate Residual Displacement ...................................................22

5.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................22

5.2. Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement ...................................................22

Residual Displacement Spectra......................................................................................31

6.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................31

Bridge Column Design Procedure for Near-Fault Earthquakes ................................40

7.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................40

Cost Estimation ...............................................................................................................44

8.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................44

Parametric Studies ..........................................................................................................52

9.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................52

9.3. Part 2 Effect of Higher Spectral Acceleration .......................................................................53

Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................56

10.1. Summary ................................................................................................................................56

NF-1, Yield Displacement= 0.93 in (23.62 mm) .........................................................................69

Column Characteristics ...............................................................................................................75

Moment-curvature of a Bridge Column ...................................................................................174

Figure 3.7. Moment-displacement (M-)ofaSimpleModelwithResidual Displacement ......................177

California Bridge Section .......................................................................................................267

Characteristics of Near-Fault Ground Motions

Objectives and Scope

estimate residual displacements under the fault-normal component of near-fault ground

Analytical Studies of Test Models

Shake Table Setup

Cumulative versus Single Motions

Chapter 3. Residual Moment Capacity of RC Columns

Current Design Practice

According to Seismic Analysis and Design of Concrete Bridge Systems (ACI

Formulation of Residual Moment Capacity Factor

1.27 0.133 exp

Where is displacement ductility of the column.

All the parameters were defined previously.

Combining Equation 3-7 and 3-8 results in:

lead to an of approximately 0.2; however, the simple model with no residual

Critical Residual Displacement Limits

Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement

Chapter 5. Simple Methods to Estimate Residual Displacement

Current Design Code Provisions for Residual Displacement

In which R is residual displacement of the pier after an earthquake, Ra is

lateral force coefficient, a is allowable displacement ductility factor, is safety factor

Methods for Estimating Residual Displacement

5.3.2. Half-cycle Sinusoidal Method

Comparison of Different Methods

Japanese method is less conservative. This method underestimated residual

Chapter 6. Residual Displacement Spectra

Near-fault Ground motions

Approximate Zonation of United States

6.3.1.1. Site 1. Seattle (M 6.8, reverse (Seattle fault))

6.3.2.1. Site 3. San Bruno, California (M 8, strike-slip (San Andreas Fault))

6.3.3. Basin and Range (Intermountain West)

Methodology to Develop Residual Drift Spectra

Step-4: Displacement ductility demand is determined by dividing the maximum