Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PB96-194162
Information .
IMPROVED
RECOMMEN~~T~~~~GES: PROV~~~~~:~A
30 JUN 96
U.S. DEPARTM
National TeChniEN,T OF COMMERCE
ca 'nformat"Ion Service
.s our busln.s.
FOR
1111111111111111111111111111111
PB 96 - 194162
ATCBE
REPRODUCED BY:
til,
U.S. Department of CommerceJ
Na.tional Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Disclaimer
While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, ATC and the sponsoring agency assume
no responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication
should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of
its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication
assume all liability arising from such use.
Cover Illustration:
New Pescadero Creek Bridge
Photo by Bob Colin, California Department of Transportation
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
PB96-194162
Report Nos: ATC-32
Title: Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional
Recommendations.
Date: 30 Jun 96
Performing Organization: Applied Technology Council, Redwood City. CA.
S~onSOring Organization: *California State Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento. Div.
o Structures.
ATC-32
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR!
PROJECT MANAGER
Richard V. Nutt
PROJECT SUBCONTRACTORS
1996
2.
ATC-32
PB96 -194162
5. Report Date
7. Author(s)
59N203
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
FINAL
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
16. Abstract
Unclassified
FORM DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
Unclassified
214
22. Price
Preface
In May 1991, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded Applied Technology Council
(ATe) a contract to conduct a critical review of the Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) related to seismic design and to recommend changes where needed.
This contract resulted in the development of the revised
BDS presented in this ATC-32 report, which provides a
number of recommended improvements to bridge
design practice. A companion document, ATC-32-1,
includes additional detailed discussion of these recommendations. The recommendations apply to the seismic
design ofbridges throughout California.
Because of the broad range of expertise required to
develop comprehensive BDS, a 13-member advisory
Project Engineering Panel (PEP) was assembled to
review recommended changes as they were developed
and to provide guidance where needed. This panel was
composed ofIan Buckle (Chair), Robert Cassano, Allen
Ely, Nicholas Forell, James Gates, 1. M. Idriss, Roy Imbsen, James Jirsa, James Libby, Joseph Nicoletti, Joseph
Penzien, Maurice Power, and James Roberts. The affiliations of these individuals are provided in the Project Participants list.
The detailed technical work required for the development of recommendations was performed primarily
by four specialty subcontractors. J.P. Singh and his staff
at Kleinfelder/Geospectra were responsible for developing new ARS spectra and other recommendations
related to seismic loading. Po Lam and his staff at Earth
Mechanics, working with Geoff Martin of the University
of Southern California, were responsible for developing
the foundation design guidelines. Nigel Priestley of the
University of California, San Diego and Jack Moehle of
the University of California, Berkeley developed the recommendations on response analysis and reinforced con-
ATC-32
Preface
Christopher Rojahn,
ATC Executive Director
Contents
Technical Report Documentation Page
iii
Preface
List of Figures
ix
List of Tables
xi
Figure Credits
xiii
Introduction
Summary of Recommendations
13
Section 3: Loads
"
Section 4: Foundations
83
ATC-32
15
"
129
163
References
191
195
Project Participants
203
205
Contents
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure RC3-1
20
Figure RC3-2
24
Figure R3-1
30
Figure R3-2
0.25)
31
Figure R3-3
32
Figure R3-4
33
Figure R3-5
34
Figure R3-6
35
Figure R3-7
36
Figure R3-8
37
Figure R3-9
38
Figure R3-1 0
0.25)
39
Figure R3-11
40
Figure R3-12
41
Figure RC3-3
50
Figure RC3-4
51
57
Figure RC3-6
60
Figure RC3-7
61
Figure RC3-8
62
63
Load displacement relationship for relatively low-aspect-ratio pier wall loaded in its
plane
64
Figure RC3-11
65
Figure RC3-12
66
Figure RC3-13
Figure RC3-5
Figure RC3-9
Figure RC3-10
ATC-32
List of Figures
ix
Figure RC3-14
74
Figure R3-13
Force-reduction coefficient, Z
76
Figure RC3-15
Static aspects of gravity load acting through lateral displacement for a cantilever
77
Figure RC4-1
92
Figure RC4-2
Definition of free face factors, Land H, and ground slope, S, for free-face groundspread displacement
94
Figure RC4-3
Definition of ground slope, S, for long, uniform slope ground spread displacement
94
Figure RC4-4
105
106
Figure RC4-6
107
Figure RC4-7
Coefficient for lateral pile head stiffness (fixed head pile lateral stiffness)
108
Figure RC4-8
109
Figure RC4-9
110
Figure RC4-1O
Comparison of fixed head pile head stiffness at various embedments (0, 5, and 10
feet)
III
112
113
Figure RC8-1
136
Figure RC8-2
146
Figure RC8-3
156
Figure RC8-4
158
Figure RC8-5
159
Figure R8-1
160
Figure RC8-6
162
Figure RClO-1
Knee geometry
184
Figure RClO-2
185
Figure RClO-3
186
Figure RClO-4
186
Figure RC4-5
Figure RC4-11
Figure RC4-12
List of Figures
ATC-32
List of TabLes
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table R3-1
18
Table R3-2
25
TableR3-3
42
Table RC3-1
43
Table RC3-2
45
45
Table RC3-4
46
Table RC3-5
Soil Coefficient Pi
48
Table R3-4
71
Table RC4-1
90
Table RC4-2
95
Table RC4-3
Presumptive Pile Stiffness Values (as Derived From Caltrans BDS 4.3.4.8)
104
Table RC4-4
115
Table R10-1
167
Table R10-2
167
Table RlO-3
180
Table RC3-3
ATC-32
List of Tables
xi
Figure Credits
Geospectra: R3-1 through R3-12
ATC-32
Figure Credits
xiii
Introduction
Bridge failures during the October 17,1989 Loma Prieta,
California, earthquake demonstrated a clear need for
review and revision, as necessary, of the existing seismic
design standards and specifications for bridge structures
in California. Thirteen bridges sustained structural damage severe enough to cause closure for extended periods
of time and 78 other bridges sustained major damage
(Housner et al., 1990). Damage included collapsed and
partially collapsed concrete bents; spalled concrete columns; shifted superstructures; anchor bolt and expansion joint damage; damage to bearings, caps, and
earthquake restrainers; large cracks in concrete box culvert walls and ceilings; and failure of steel rocker bearings. In addition, the month-long closure of the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, where a link span collapsed, and the brief closure of the San Mateo-Hayward
Bridge, which sustained rocker bearing damage, underscored the need for establishing and implementing seismic design standards and criteria that will enable critical
structures to remain serviceable following severe earthquake-induced ground motions.
As a result of the effects of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake on bridge structures, the Governor of California appointed a Board ofInquiry to investigate damage resulting from this earthquake and to develop
recommendations as to appropriate, necessary actions.
The Board made 52 specific findings and eight recommendations (Housner, et al., 1990). Recommendation 6
calls for ensuring "that Caltrans seismic design policies
and construction practice meet the seismic safety policy
and goals established by the Governor". Part A reads:
"Review and revise standards, performance
criteria, specifications, and practices to ensure
that they meet the seismic safety goal established by the Governor and apply them to the
design of new structures and rehabilitation of
existing transportation structures. These standards, criteria, and specifications are to be
updated and periodically revised with the assistance of external technical expertise."
Concurrent with the development of the Board of
Inquiry's recommendations, Applied Technology Council (ATe) submitted a proposal to Caltrans to review and
revise as necessary the existing standards, performance
criteria, specifications, and practices for the design and
construction of new bridge structures and the rehabilitation of existing structures. The intent of the proposed
project was to provide criteria and methodology that will
ensure that California bridge structures of all types per-
ATC-32
Introduction
b.
c.
d.
To develop and/or verify more realistic, universal shear capacity models applicable to all practical situations related to reinforced concrete
bridge columns. Adoption of the appropriate
model should be achieved through a peer
review process.
e.
f.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Further development of the bridge design specifications would benefit from additional research. Specifically, research should be conducted for the
following purposes:
a.
6.
TRIAL APPLICATIONS
The recommended Bridge Design Specifications in this
document have been reviewed by the ATC-32 Project
Engineering Panel (PEP). In addition, bridge design subcontractors were retained to perform trial designs using
the draft design specifications. Additionally, experts not
directly associated with the project were asked to review
portions of these specifications. As with any project of
this type, however, it is not possible to completely evaluate the practical impact of each and every recommendation in all possible situations. This is why projects of this
type and size are traditionally followed by a period in
which the recommendations are applied on a trial basis
to a large number of actual cases. This project is no
exception, and in some ways such a trial application
period is particularly important in this case.
Introduction
ATC-32
2.
ATC-32
3.
4.
Introduction
Summary of Recommendations
Introduction
Recently, Caltrans, with the support of an external Seismic Advisory Board and the ATC-32 project team, has
developed a set of seismic performance criteria for new
bridges. These criteria, which are the basis for the recommended revisions to the BDS, are summarized in Table
EQ
= mgARS
Z
(1)
Table 1
1.
In these criteria, both safety-evaluation and functional-evaluation design earthquakes are defined. The
safety-evaluation earthquake, which Caltrans currently
defines deterministically as the Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE), has only a small probability of
occurring during the useful life of the bridge. A statewide
hazard map given in terms of the peak bedrock acceleration generated by this level of earthquake has been available for some time (CDMG, 1992). In the newly defined
performance criteria, the safety-evaluation earthquake
may alternately be defined probabilistically as an earthquake with a 1000- to 2000-year return period. The
probabilistic safety-evaluation ground motion must be
determined on a site-specific basis.
The functional-evaluation earthquake is intended to
represent an event that has a reasonable probability of
not being exceeded (approximately 60%) during the life
of the bridge. Because no statewide hazard map for these
earthquakes has been developed at this time, the functional-evaluation ground motion must also be determined on a case by case basis through site-specific
studies.
Performance is defined in terms of two criteria: the
service level of the structure immediately following the
earthquake and the extent (or repairability) of physical
damage. Although performance is defined qualitatively,
the recommended revisions to the BDS are based on a
more quantitative definition established by the ATC-32
project. Required performance varies for each of the two
earthquake loadings defined above. Required performance also depends on whether a bridge is classified as
Important or Ordinary.
Ordinary Bridges
Important Bridges
Functional-Evaluation
Ground Motion
Safety-Evaluation
Ground Motion
ATC-32
Summary of Recommendations
Structural Action
A new requirement ofthe recommended ATC-32 BDS is
that the designer identify the type of structural action
desired. Fully ductile behavior assumes that the designer
will take maximum advantage of plastic hinging while
ensuring structural safety. This type of action implies
considerable damage and is reserved for Ordinary
Bridges only. Structural action consistent with limited
ductility is recommended for Important Bridges and
certain critical foundation components. This type of
structural action is intended to limit inelastic response to
levels consistent with reduced structural damage. Elastic
structures carry seismically induced loads elastically and
thus remain undamaged. Finally, the proposed specifications recognize the potential use of protective systems
that incorporate base isolation, passive energy dissipation, and other mechanical devices intended to control
seismic response, although no specific design guidelines
are given for these systems.
The standard design spectra may also not be appropriate for sites adjacent to active faults. At these sites, the
standard spectra may account for the high spectral accelerations, but may not adequately account for the pulsetype motion or the differences between fault-normal and
fault-parallel motions observed in past earthquakes. The
effect of these motions on structural response is most
accurately determined from an inelastic dynamic analysis using spectrum-compatible motions that contain the
appropriate velocity pulses. The ATC-32 recommendations give some guidance for selecting appropriate time
history input motions.
The nature ofvertical earthquake loading is complex: it depends on rupture mechanism, proximity ofthe
earthquake source, local soil conditions, and other factors. The ATC-32 revisions recommend that vertical
earthquake design loading may be taken as two-thirds of
the horizontal loading spectra for typical sites not adjacent to active faults. When available, site-specific vertical
loading spectra are preferred.
Seismic Loading
Analysis
Although the ATC-32 recommendations retain a forcebased design approach, some of the inherent shortcomings of this approach have been overcome. This is done
through the use of new response modification factors
and modeling techniques for analysis that more accurately consider seismic displacement. The ATC-32 procedures also provide specific means for directly
considering geometric and material nonlinearity in special cases.
As shown in Table 3, the ATC-32 project has developed recommended requirements for the minimum
Site Description
Shear Wave
Velocity Range
Medium rock
Soft rock/Dense soil
Stiff soil
Soft soil
Table 3
Ordinary Bridge
Type I
Ordinary Bridge
Type II
Important Bridge
Type I
Important Bridge
Type II
Safety
Evaluation
None Required
AorB
None Required
AorB
AorB
BandC
Summary of Recommendations
ATC-32
type of analysis that should be used under various circumstances. The type of analysis depends on whether or
not the bridge is classified as Important and on the complexity of the structural configuration (Type I =simple
and Type II = complex). These analysis types include
Equivalent Static Analysis, Elastic Dynamic Analysis, and
Inelastic Static Analysis. Basic requirements for each of
these analysis types are also included.
Equivalent Static Analysis allows an equivalent static
force to be applied to the structure. The magnitude of
this force is determined from the value of the design
spectra at the structure's fundamental period ofvibration. This force is applied at the vertical center of mass
and distributed in the horizontal plane based on the distribution of mass in the structure or on the product of
mass distribution and displacement.
Elastic Dynamic Analysis is required when the distribution of stiffness and/or mass within the structure
and/or the configuration is complex enough to preclude
the reliable prediction of response without such an analysis. In most cases a multi-modal response spectrum
analysis using a lumped-mass "stick" model will satisfy
these requirements. It is Caltrans practice to use this type
of analysis for most bridges, since the analytical capabilities are readily available to most designers. Member stiffness values that account for cracking of reinforced
concrete members are to be used in both Equivalent
Static Analysis and Elastic Dynamic Analysis. This differs
from the current Caltrans practice of using gross section
properties for force demands.
Inelastic Static Analysis is required only when the
bridge is classified as Important and it is not simple in
configuration. The analysis, commonly referred to as a
"push-over" analysis, is done in conjunction with Elastic
Dynamic Analysis, and requires a preliminary determination of the strength and stiffness of critical members.
In this analysis, loads are applied incrementally until the
structure has reached ultimate displacements. At each
step, changes in the structure's characteristics due to
geometric and material nonlinearity are considered. The
effects of gravity loads including dead load and a portion
of the live load are also considered. Results of this analysis are used to confirm that the structure is capable of
accommodating the displacement demands determined
from an Elastic Dynamic Analysis. A factor of safety of
1.5 for displacement capacity versus displacement
demand is recommended. In general, results of this analysis cannot be used to reduce design quantities determined from an Elastic Dynamic Analysis.
Although Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is not required
for any structure type, the ATC-32 criteria provide
guidelines for conducting such an analysis. This type of
analysis may be substituted for Inelastic Static Analysis.
Because member strength and stiffness values are a prerequisite, this analysis is used primarily for verifying a
completed design, although its results may be used to
ATC-32
reduce design quantities to 80 percent of those determined from elastic analysis. Both geometric and material
nonlinearity should be considered. In general a lumpedmass "stick" model with five percent of critical damping
is appropriate. The maximum response to three representative input motions or the average response to seven
such input motions is recommended.
As with current Caltrans practice, the results from
Equivalent Static Analysis or Elastic Dynamic Analysis
for orthogonal response spectrum loadings must be
combined to obtain design forces and displacements.
The results for each orthogonal loading are first
obtained by combining the maximum modal responses
according to the complete quadratic combination
(CQc) rule. The ATC-32 recommendations then prescribe the "40 percent rule," as opposed to the "30 percent rule" currently used by Caltrans for combining the
results for orthogonal loadings. In addition, vertical
motion is included when it is critical. Therefore, three
design load cases may be considered, each of which
includes 100 percent of the actions for loading in one of
the orthogonal directions plus 40 percent of the actions
for each of the remaining two orthogonal loadings.
Alternately, 100 percent of all three orthogonal loadings
may be applied simultaneously, and the modal results
combined using the square root of the sum of the
squares (SRSS) method. When either elastic or inelastic
time-history analysis is used, 100 percent of the loadings
in each of the orthogonal directions is applied simultaneously, and the resulting maximum actions are taken
directly from the analysis results.
The ATC-32 recommendations also provide a
method for adjusting the displacement results from an
Elastic Dynamic Analysis to better reflect the actual maximum inelastic displacements that are likely to occur
during an earthquake. The adjustment factor, R d, is
given by the following formula:
(2)
where
T = natural period of the structure
T* = predominant period of ground motion
Z = response modification factor
This adjustment factor was derived empirically for typical ground motions and may not be appropriate for
near-fault sites where pulse-type motions are likely.
Although several simplified methods have been suggested for assessing the impact ofpulse-type motion on
structural response, Inelastic Dynamic Analysis is still
the most accurate method currently available for this
purpose.
Summary of Recommendations
(3)
:ri 4 I----+-+---=r---l----j-----l
o
u
3
1----+--7L--+----f-----+----I
ijl 2
f----r-+-t-=oot----I-----+----l
g
a:
(l)
~ 1
~=t===I====l=====I====+====l
rBrittle elements not designed by capacity design
o 0~---:0:-':.5:-----':1----:-1"::.5--=---'--:-2-=--...:::....-='2.5
Period Ratio, TIT*
Design
:d4
rafts
(l)
o
U
/'(
ijl2
~~
~
"- Brittle elements not designed by capacity design
o
a:
(l)
0.5
1
1.5
Period Ratio, TIT*
2.5
Reinforced Concrete
Modifications to several aspects of reinforced concrete
design have been proposed by the ATC-32 project. These
include the design of ductile elements, the design of
nonductile elements and actions using capacity design,
and detailing of reinforced concrete for seismic resistance.
As with current Caltrans procedures, flexural design
of ductile reinforced concrete columns is based on elas-
Summary of Recommendations
ATC-32
shear strength is suggested to be the sum of a contribution from concrete, Ve, and a contribution from horizontal reinforcing steel, Vs The nominal concrete
contribution to shear resistance is given by
(5)
(6)
(7)
Ps
1.25PJ +O.13[p[-O.Ol]
= O.16f ce [ O.5+TA
Tye
ce g
(4)
(8)
where
fee
=
=
P=
Ag =
PI =
Ire
ATC-32
for spirally reinforced circular sections. In these equations, A v is the total area of shear reinforcement parallel
to the applied shear force, A h is the area of a single hoop,
is the yield stress of horizontal reinforcement, D' is
the diameter of a circular hoop, and 5 is the spacing of
horizontal reinforcement along the axis of the member.
Shear demands in ductile columns are higher than
those required by the current Caltrans specifications.
The recommendations call for determining plastic
moments using capacity design principles in a manner
similar to current practice. They differ, though, in that
plastic moments are based on expected rather than
nominal material strengths and a higher overstrength
factor of 1.4. Alternate methods are recommended for
calculating plastic moments, but these also result in high
shear demands. The net result of the recommended
ATC-32 shear provisions is an increase in the requirements for column shear reinforcement, although the
previously defined confinement requirements will usu-
Irh
Summary of Recommendations
ally control the design of horizontal column reinforcement, except for relatively short columns.
New anchorage provisions from the 1995 ACI committee recommendations are adopted as part of the
ATC-32 recommended design specifications. These provisions have more liberal bar spacing requirements than
the 1989 ACI provisions. They also provide a generalized
method for considering non-standard cover, spacing,
and transverse reinforcing steel in tied columns. In addition, ATC-32 has added a new anchorage equation for
spirally confined column reinforcement. This equation,
which is based on recent laboratory experiments, can
reduce anchorage length requirements within bent caps
and footings, thus making it practical to use largediameter bars (#14 and #18) without hooks. To achieve
these reduced lengths, significant confmement reinforcement is required within anchorage zones unless the
zones are confined by prestress or solid adjacent members.
If sufficient spiral confmement reinforcement is
provided, the ATC-32 recommendations also allow a
reduction in the splice length of column reinforcement.
Splices are prohibited within a zone that includes the
plastic hinge length plus the column diameter. Although
the ATC-32 recommendations for splicing were developed from laboratory testing that included largediameter bars, lap splicing of #14 and #18 bars is
discouraged.
Longitudinal bar sizes in short columns that are
subjected to high moment gradients are limited, due to
flexural bond requirements. The limitation on bar size is
derived from the equations developed for bar splicing.
New design requirements for shear and bending
within footing and superstructure joints are also recommended in the proposed ATC-32 design specifications.
These requirements are based on laboratory test results
and have been used in the design of some Northridge
earthquake replacement structures. The proposal
requires that joints be capable of resisting plastic column
moments through a combination of concrete and reinforcing steel action. Joint reinforcing requirements are
based on the magnitude of principal tensile stresses
within the joint. When these stresses are below 3.5
steel reinforcement is required to carry 50% of these
stresses. For tensile stresses above 3.5
specific vertical, horizontal, and spiral joint reinforcement is
required. This reinforcement, which is specified in terms
of fixed percentages of the longitudinal column steel
anchored in the joint, must be placed in the cap beam or
footing within a distance equal to one-half the column
diameter. In addition, principal compressive stresses
within the joint are limited to 0.25 f c'
Ye,
Ye,
10
Structural Steel
Summary of Recommendations
ATC-32
Foundations
Foundation design guidelines that have been developed
as part of the ATC-32 recommendations include provisions for site investigation; determination ofsite stability;
and modeling and designing of abutments and wingwalls, pile and spread footing foundations, drilled shafts,
and earth-retaining structures. For the most part, these
recommendations tend to validate current Caltrans
practice although there are suggested refinements in
some cases. They include the latest results of research,
for example, abutment research at University of California, Davis (Maroneyet al., 1992). It should be pointed
out, however, that many issues related to the effect of
foundations on total system response are still not fully
substantiated.
The recommendations include guidelines for conducting geotechnical site investigations when there is a
potential for large earthquake loadings. These guidelines
outline the information to be collected during such an
investigation and constitute a standard of practice.
The ATC-32 recommendations require that potential bridge sites be investigated for possible ground instabilities. Site stability is affected by several factors
including liquefiable soils, lateral spreading, the presence
of soft clay soils, slope hazards, and surface fault rupture. The commentary to the ATC-32 recommendations
provides methods for identifying, and guidance on
quantitatively evaluating, these hazards. In addition,
practical methods for mitigating some of these hazards
are discussed.
With respect to the passive pressure generated at an
abutment during an earthquake, the ATC-32 recommendations provide for a uniform ultimate passive pressure of7.7 kips per square foot, as is current Caltrans
practice. This pressure, which is intended for typical
eight-foot high abutment walls, is reduced linearly for
shorter abutment walls. This pressure is developed at lateral wall displacements of 0.01 to 0.02 times the wall
height. Special modeling consideration must be given to
expansion gaps, lateral pile stiffness and abutment skew
angle. Modeling of abutment stiffness follows the current Caltrans procedure in which a trial and error
approach is used to find the appropriate secant stiffness
of the abutments.
The ATC-32 recommendations require that pile
foundations have sufficient capacity to resist forces and
moments transmitted from the rest of the structure. Lateral strength and stiffness is provided by the piles and
ATC-32
Summary of Recommendations
11
ATC-32
13
Section 3
Loads
COMMENTARY
C3.21
Article 3.21 describes design requirements for earthquake resistance. The requirements are based on twolevel performance criteria, intended to preserve functionality after earthquakes having a reasonable probability of occurring once or more during the design life of
the bridge and safety after earthquakes having very low
probability of occurring during the design life of the
bridge. Different requirements exist for Important and
Ordinary Bridges.
The specifications contained in Article 3.21 are considered to represent minimum requirements for producing a structure with adequate proportions and details to
enable the structure to resist earthquake effects without
critical loss in strength. The specifications are based on
the assumption that the structure resists the maximum
specified earthquake effects by virtue of the stiffness
reduction and energy dissipation that result from nonlinear response. It is important that the structure be laid
out and proportioned so that a viable load path exists to
transmit inertial loads to the foundation. It is equally
important that structural elements be provided with
details that enable the bridge to respond in a ductile
manner.
The specifications have been written with the expectation that nonlinear action during a design earthquake
will be restricted to zones that have been selected and
specially detailed for ductility by the designer. The
design process is intended to result in inelastic action
restricted to these locations, with other locations protected from inelastic action. In most cases, inelastic
action should be designed to occur in flexure in supporting columns and pier walls. The reasons are: (1) cross
ATC-32
SEISMIC EFFECTS
15
COMMENTARY
3.21.1
Notation
16
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
4.
V o = Base shear strength of a frame between
superstructure hinges, determined by plastic
analysis.
Vs = Generalized shear wave velocity for upper 100
ft. at a site (commentary to Article 3.21.5.2).
vsi = Shear wave velocity for soil layer i
W = Dead load of bridge or frame. Units shall be
consistent with F.
Z = Force reduction coefficient, see Figure 3-13
Ou = Maximum design displacement of a frame, from
Section 3.21.10.1.
ATC-32
17
3.21.2
Performance Criteria
C3.21.2
All bridges shall be designed to meet the seismic performance criteria given in Table R3-1. Definitions of the
terms in Table R3-1 are given in Articles 3.21.2.1
through 3.21.2.3.
Table R3-1
COMMENTARY
Performance Criteria
Ordinary Bridges
Important Bridges
Functional-Evaluation
Ground Motion
Safety-Evaluation
Ground Motion
3.21.2.1
Bridge Category
C3.21.2.1
Bridge Category
3.21.2.2
Evaluation Levels
C3.21.2.2
18
Evaluation Levels
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Open File Report 92-1 (CDMG, 1992), maybe incorporated in subsequently revised specifications.
Depending on the seismic activity of a given region,
the deterministic and probabilistic assessments may be
different. For example, the deterministic ground motion
assessments using the mean ARS spectra for the MCE in
the San Francisco Bay region correspond to return periods of about 300 to 400 years.
In the future, the role of the two methods in the
design of Ordinary Bridges will be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus group.
3.21.2.3
C3.21.2.3
ATC-32
19
COMMENTARY
Elastic Structure
20
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
21
COMMENTARY
22
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
cific design proportioning and detailing requirements for Elastic Structures have not been
established. Proportioning and detailing criteria
should be established for individual bridges. These
criteria should be independently reviewed.
It is emphasized that the ARS spectra used to establish the safety-evaluation loading represent mean
response spectra, rather than upper bound spectra.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that all potential earthquake sources are identified on current hazard
maps, and it is also unlikely that the potential
ground motions associated with known sources are
completely defined by current knowledge. Therefore, response amplitudes exceeding the calculated
design values are not unexpected. This is why structures designated as Elastic Structures should be
designed to have some ductility capacity, even
though the intention is for effectively elastic structural performance.
3.21.4
ATC-32
C3.21.4
General Considerations
Articles 3.21.4 through 3.21.15 present design specifications that are considered adequate for design of typical
structures intended to meet the performance criteria of
Article 3.21.2. These specifications were developed on
the basis of analysis, experimentation, and experience.
Alternate approaches to design are permitted where it is
demonstrated by experimental evidence and analysis
that the performance criteria of 3.21.2 are satisfied, and
where the alternate approaches are approved by a Caltrans-approved consensus group. Alternate approaches
may be particularly desirable for unusual and complex
structures, for unusual geologic conditions, and for sites
adjacent to active faults.
Design of structures near active faults requires consideration of the effects of near-source ground motions.
At least four effects are prominent. The first of these is
high effective peak ground acceleration, which is
accounted for to some degree by the ARS curves.
23
COMMENTARY
800
MAX 8?6.c
-800 L-.l..-.l..-.L-.L-...l--'--'---L---L-L-L-L----'---l.---L--l---JI....-I.-L.-.I..-..l----'--_..J._~
__.L_'__'
120
".r .
-128.9
MAX
~32.5
.,
-30 L-L.-.l...-.L-..llJ--..l--'--'---L---L-L-L-L----'---l.---L--l---JI.-I.-l...-.::':-.L--'---'--'-.:!c!--l.--L--L--L-::J
o
15
20
25
30
TIME (SEC)
24
ATC-32
Table R3-2
COMMENTARY
Functional
Evaluation
Ordinary Bridge
Type I
Ordinary Bridge
Type II
Important Bridge
Type I
Important Bridge
Type II
Safety
Evaluation
None Required
AorB
None Required
AorB
AorB
BandC
Analysis method "A" is Equivalent Static Analysis (Article 3.21.5); analysis method "B" is Elastic Dynamic
Analysis (Article 3.21.6); and analysis method "c" is
Inelastic Static Analysis (Article 3.21.7) or Inelastic
Dynamic Analysis (Article 3.21.8)1
ATC-32
25
COMMENTARY
26
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
27
COMMENTARY
For the functional-evaluation earthquake, the analysis is applied to a structure for which a safety evaluation
would also be required. Therefore, it would not be necessary to check pounding (between adjacent structures),
instability, and demands in capacity-protected members. Instead, the analysis would be limited to checking
demands at locations where plastic hinges are allowed to
form in the safety-evaluation earthquake. Some inelastic
response is acceptable so long as damage requiring repair
is avoided.
3.21.5
3.21.5.1
(3.21.5
28
The specification permits use of Equivalent Static Analysis for one- and two-span continuous structures with
small skew, even though it is recognized that dynamic
response will occur during an earthquake. The rationale
is that, in most cases, moderately sophisticated dynamic
analysis will not provide significant additional insight
into behavior, and will not in general result in additional
safety. The engineer should recognize that the Equivalent Static Analysis method is best suited for structures
with well-balanced spans and supporting elements of
approximately equal stiffness. For these structures,
response is primarily in a single mode and the lateral
force distribution is simply defined. For unbalanced systems, or systems in which vertical accelerations may be
significant, the Elastic Dynamic Analysis method of Article 3.21.6 should be used.
Two options in applying Equivalent Static Analysis
are allowed. In the first option, lateral load is distributed
to the superstructure in proportion with the mass distribution. This distribution is consistent with the assump-
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
29
2.0
r--,--..,.--....---....---..,...-.,---.,---..,-----r---,--,...--.,......--r---r--...,....-....,
1.6
z
o
-< 1.2
i=
cr.
w
--'
w
U
U
-<
;i 0.8
cr.
f-
0..
(/)
0.4
2
PERIOD (sec)
50
f-
40
I--
.s:
f-
f-
w
:::2
W
30
I--
-<
-'
f-
0..
(/)
0
-'
-<
cr.
20
I--
f-
f-
W
0..
(/)
10
0.60
0.50 -
I--
I-
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-1
30
6.50 0.25)
ATC-32
2.0 ....---..,..--....,--""'"T""---.-----,--,..--..,---.--......,....-----r-----,,...--,....--....,--""'"T""---,----,
0.79
1.6
z
o
t=
1.2
e:::
w
--l
W
U
U
~ 0.8
e:::
f-
W
Q.
(/1
0.4
PERIOD (sec)
50 ....---..,..--....,--""'"T""---.-----,--,..--..,---.--......,....-----r-----,--,....--....,--""'"T""---,----,
40
"'"
.!::
f-
w
w 30
:2
--l
0.79
Q.
(/1
0
--l
20
e:::
u
0.69
f-
W
Q.
(/1
0.59
10
0.49
0.39
0.29
0.19
Figure R3-2
ATC-32
2
PERIOD (sec)
31
2.0 .--.,...--.,...--...,...--...,...---r---...,...--..,..--..,..--.,...--.,...---,----,----,----,---..,----,
0.79
1.6
i=
<:
0::
1.2
....J
W
U
U
<:
<i
0.8
0::
I-
0..
If)
0.4
o.ot:::~~~~~
o
2 3 4
PERIOD (sec)
50 .---.,...--.,...--..,..--..,..---r---..,..--..,..--.,...--.,...---,----,----,----,---..,--..,--..,
40
,..-...
.S:
I-
0.79
w
~
w 30
u
<:
....J
0..
If)
0
....J
<: 20
0::
I-
W
0..
If)
10
oa-....
o
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-3
32
ATC-32
2.0 ,----r---,----,.--,--,-----r-----,--,...---r-----r-----,.--..,...---r----r--r-----,
1.6
~
C]l
f=
1.2
0::
-l
U
U
-l
0.8
0::
f-
0-
(f)
0.4
0.0
PERIOD (sec)
50
f-
40
I--
.~
f-
f-
W
:::i;
30 -
-l
0-
(f)
is
20
-l
0::
f-
0-
(f)
10 -
0.6g
(0.6g) -
0.5g
(0.5g)
0.3g (0.33g)
0.2g (0.24g)
0.10 (0.120)
I
I
3
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-4
ATC-32
33
2.0 .----...,.....--...,...---,---,.---.,..--...,..---,---,.---.,..-----r---,....--...,.....--...,..---,---,.---,
1.6
~
0">
~
Z
0
f=
<l:
a::
1.2
--l
W
U
U
<l:
--l
<l:
a::
I-
0.8
0-
(f)
0.4
PERIOD (sec)
50
.----.,..--...,..----r--,.---.,..--.....,....----r--,.---.,..--......,...--,....--.,..--.....,....----r--,.---.,
40
~
.~
I-
w
::2 30
w
0.7g
(0.7g)
0.6g
(0.6g)
0.5g
(0.5g)
0.4g
(O.4g)
U
<l:
--l
0-
(f)
0
--l
<l:
20
a::
I-
0(f)
10
0.3g (0.33g)
0.2g (0.24g)
0.1g (0.12g)
Figure R3-5
34
2
PERIOD (sec)
ATC-32
2.0 ,..--...,---r--,--;---.,.---r----r--,....--.,...---,---;---.,.---.--....,.--,........---,
1.6
C;;
"--'
i=
1.2
cr
w
-J
U
U
-J
0.8
cr
tU
W
0..
(fl
0.4
PERIOD (sec)
50 .----,........-,........-..,.--,--,.--.....,.--,---,----,---,;---,........-,........-..,.--..,---.---,
40
tZ
W
30
-J
0..
(fl
;i 20
cr
tU
W
0..
(fl
0.29 (0.249)
10
0.19 (0.129)
o~-
o
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-6
ATC-32
0.25)
35
2.0 ,..--..,..---;---r----r--,..--..,..--...,.---,---r----r--,..--.,.--...,.---,---r----r
1.6
~
Q'\
'-"
Z
0
;:::
1.2
0:::
-.J
W
U
U
-.J
0.8
0:::
f-
U
w
a...
U1
0.4
o.o~~~~~
0
PERIOD (sec)
50 ,...--...,......--,-----,---r---r----,-----,r---..,..---r----r--,..----r---,-----r--,..--,
40
~
f-
w
:::2'
w 30
u
-.J
a...
U1
is
-.J
20
0:::
f-
0.6g
a...
0.5g
u
w
U1
.4
0.3
10
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-7
36
ATC-32
2.0 .---.,..----,-----,--,....--.,....---,-----,--,....---,....---.---,----r---,-----r--,-----.
1.6
C;;
i=
<t
0::
1.2
-l
U
U
<t
-l
<t
0.8
0::
......
0...
(fJ
0.4
PERIOD (sec)
50 r----r--...,....----,.--,..---r---,-----,.--,---..,.----,-----..,--,....---,....---,-----..,---,
40
~
.~
0.79
(0.79)
0.69
(0.69)
......
w
w 30
::2
U
<t
-l
0...
(fJ
0
-l
<t
20
0::
0.59 (0.59)
0...
0.49 (0.449)
......
u
w
(fJ
0.39
(0. 369)
0.29
(0. 28 9)
0.19
(0. 169
10
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-8
ATC-32
0.25)
37
2.0 .---.,..--...,......--,..-.....,...---,.--,..--.,..---,----,..-.....,...---,--,--...,......-...,..-.....,---,
1.6
z
o
i=
1.2
a::
...J
W
U
U
~ 0.8
a::
f-
0...
V1
0.4~~~~
0.0
PERIOD (sec)
50 ,..---r---r---r---r-----r-----r-----r-----r-----r----.,.--.,.--.,.--.,.--.,...--.,...----,
40
,......
.S:
f-
Z
W
::;; 30
w
...J
0...
V1
20
-'
a::
f-
0...
V1
10
OL-_~:::::::L__..L.
_L.._
_.L_
Figure R3-9
38
2
PERIOD (sec)
__1
8.0 0.25)
ATC-32
2.0 .---,...------,----,--,--.-......,.-.....,.-.....,.--,---,-,--,--,--,----r--,
1.6
.........
0'
--Z
i=
0:::
w
...J
w
u
u
...J
0:::
t-
1.2
0.39 & 0.49 (0.369)
0.8
0-
(f)
0.4
0.0 ot_.L_-L_-l__L====::::~==2C=~~~~S~~f3~SE~E~~~a4
PERIOD (sec)
.........
40
.f
t-
w
:<
w
30
...J
0-
(f)
0
...J
0:::
t-
20
0.49 (0.369)
u
w
0-
(f)
0.39 (0.369)
10
0.29 (0.349)
0.19 (0.259)
00
Figure R3-10
ATC-32
PERIOD (sec)
39
2.0 r--,...-..,...---r---r--r--.,--...,..---r--,-----;--,---.,...--,---r--,---,
1.6
z
o
F=
1.2
e:::
w
--'
w
<i.
e:::
tu
0.8
0-
V1
0.4
o.o~~~~~~
o
PERIOD (sec)
50 r--,---.,--.,...-..,.---,--,---,--,----;--r--,--...,.--....---,--...,...---,
40
~
.s
t-
w
::2
w 30
u
--'
0-
V1
O.4g (0.36g)
--' 20
e:::
0.3g (0.36g)
t-
0-
0.2g (0.34g)
V1
10
0.' (0.25g)
Figure R3-11
40
7.25 0.25)
ATC-32
2.0 ,..--...,..--...,----r--,..---.--"""T'"----,.--..,.--..,..--.....,..----,..--..,.--..,..--.....,..----,----,
1.6
:
z
0
f=
1.2
0::
--l
W
U
U
--l
0.8
0::
f-
0...
(f)
0.4
0.0
2
PERIOD (sec)
50 ...--...,......-"""T'"----.,.---r---...,------r-----,..--...,..--...,----r--,..--...,..---,----r--,..----,
40
,.....,
.~
f-
w
w 30
u
0.49 (0.369)
::::;:
--l
0.39 (0.369)
0...
(f)
0.29 (0.349)
--l
20
0::
f-
0...
(f)
0.19(0. 259)
10
OL..-_e=:;;;"".........l__........L_ _
_ _.l.__....l..._.......l._ _l..__..J..__.......l__
.l..-_~_.....l.._..-J
'--___I
__l._ _
PERIOD (sec)
Figure R3-12
ATC-32
8.0 0.25)
41
Table R3-3
Soil
Profile
Type
2.
3.
4.
42
COMMENTARY
2.
3.
a.
calculate
b.
c.
Definitions
The defmitions given below apply to the upper 100 feet
(30 meters) of the site profile. Profiles containing distinctly different soil layers shall be subdivided into layers, each designated by a number that ranges from 1 (at
the top) to n (at the bottom), where there are a total of n
layers in the upper 100 feet (30 meters). The symbol i in
the following expressions refers to anyone of the layers
between 1 and n.
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
vs
Nor Nch
< 15
15-50
>50
d.
if'I 1
vs =n- d.
~
r--!.
i = 1 vsi
n
Vsi
= 1
N -
~ d.1
.21
- --;;cr.
1=
r-":
IN
i=
where
ATC-32
43
COMMENTARY
I,~
i= INi
de
su=~
I,--':
i = 1 Sui
where
d.
I, --.:
i = 1 Sui
44
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Table RC3-2
Values of Site-Amplification Factor Fa as a Function of Soil Profile Types and Shaking Intensity
Shaking Levels"
Soil Profile Type
Aa~O.lg
A a = O.2g
A a = O.3g
A a = OAg
Aa'LO.5g
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
2.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
B
C
D
E
F
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
a. Site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine the seismic coefficient for profile types F and E when effective peak acceleration-related accelerations A a exceed 0.4.
Table RC3-3
Values of Site-Amplification Factor Fv as a Function of Soil Profile Types and Shaking Intensity
Shaking Levels"
Soil Profile Type
A v ::; O.lg
A v =O.2g
A v =O.3g
A v =OAg
A v ;;:: O.5g
0.8
1.0
1.7
2.4
3.5
0.8
1.0
1.6
2.0
3.2
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.8
2.8
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.6
2.4
0.8
1.0
C
D
E
F
1.3
1.5
a. Site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis shall be performed to determine the seismic coefficient for profile types F and E when effective peak acceleration-related accelerations A a exceed 0.4.
ATC-32
45
Table RC3-4
COMMENTARY
6.5 0.25
7,25 0.25
8.0 0.25
C
D
R3-4
R3-7
R3-5
R3-10
R3-11
R3-6
R3-9
R3-12
R3-8
3.21.5.3
3.21.6
3.21.6.1
C3.21.6.1
General
46
General
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.21.6.2
C3.21.6.2
Analysis Model
Analysis Model
ATC-32
47
COMMENTARY
Coefficient Pi
Mode
Type of Mode
first symmetric
first antisymmetric
3
4
second symmetric
second antisymmetric
higher modes alternate symmetric and
antisymmetric
2.00
1.3
0.80
1.00
0.67
0.50
2/ i
0.57
0.44
2
(2i + 1)
Five elements per span are sufficient for a good representation ofthe first three vibration modes of a span. If
the higher vibration periods of a span are within the
range of the amplified-acceleration portion of the earthquake response spectrum or near the lower vibration
periods of the entire bridge, it is necessary to include
more elements to capture the higher vibration modes. If
the contribution of the ith vibration mode is to be
included in the analysis, the span should be modeled by
2i -1 elements over the length of the span.
Along with translational inertias, the rotational
moment of inertia of the superstructure should be
48
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.21.6.3
C3.21.6.3
ModeL Stiffness
The structural model shall include the effects of cracking on stiffness of reinforced concrete members and
shall include the restraint of the surrounding soil.
ModeL Stiffness
Representing the linearized structural stiffness of a complex bridge system responding nonlinearly involves significant approximations. Two general approaches are
recognized here. The first approach is to construct a linearized model whose stiffness approximates the stiffness
of the bridge as it approaches the displacement at which
significant yielding occurs. The second approach is to
construct a linearized model with stiffness that approximates the secant stiffness of the bridge at the maximum
anticipated displacement level. Conventional Caltrans
practice is to use a combination ofthese two approaches,
with framing member stiffness taken equal to the stiffness near yield and abutment stiffness taken equal to a
secant value. Only this approach is described here.
Where seismic isolation or other protective systems are
used, the effective stiffness values should be derived considering the characteristics of the system, and the results
should be reviewed independently.
ATC-32
49
Gross-Section
Stiffness
COMMENTARY
Effective
Stiffness
Load
Displacement
Figure RC3-3
50
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Ol
c::::
Jii
0.70
_ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ast/A g = .04
c.so
_ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A s t / A g =.03
ci
a:
en
en
w
_ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - Ast/A g =.02
zu.
u.
~_-------Ast/Ag
j::
en
o
0.-'0
..J
0.30
=.01
C..20 ~......
0.90
O.C~
0.10
O.:~
0.20
0..25
o.io
0..!5
Figure RC3-4 Relationship between cracked-section (l eff) and gross-section (1 9) stiffness values of reinforced concrete columns. See Section 8 for definition of other variables.
plus a width equal to twice the beam depth of the
cap on both sides of the column. Furthermore, the
flexural moment of inertia of a reinforced concrete
span should be reduced to three-fourths of the gross
moment of inertia to account for cracking. For prestressed spans, no stiffness reduction due to cracking is required.
ATC-32
51
COMMENTARY
52
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Soil Stiffness
Although it is not practical to include all the effects of
the soil and foundation on the earthquake response of a
bridge, it is important to recognize that soil-structure
interaction introduces flexibility and energy dissipation.
The stiffness and damping properties of a foundation
depend on the characteristics of the soil, piles, and the
connections between the piles and pile cap. For use in
the Elastic Dynamic Analysis procedure, the foundation/soil rotational and translational flexibilities for columns and pier walls should be secant values based on
the maximum loads expected from the column or pier
wall. Soil springs at abutments and wing walls should be
input as a secant value consistent with the expected level
of deformation. Refer to Section 4 for detailed modeling
procedures for the soil-foundation system.
ATC-32
53
COMMENTARY
C3.21.6.4
Seismic Loading
Damping
The damping for a dynamic analysis using the response
spectrum method must be specified by modal damping
ratios. Studies of flexible reinforced concrete structures
founded on firm materials indicate that reasonable
response quantities can be obtained using viscous damping equal to five percent of the critical value combined
with the effective stiffness described in Article 3.21.6.
Therefore, the ARS spectra were derived for this damping ratio.
An exception is short bridges for which the response
may be dominated by the behavior of the abutment. In
such cases, most of the damping is due to energy dissipation in the abutments. Based on the information from
Seed, et al. (1984) for cohesionless soils, it is reasonable
to use a viscous damping ratio of 8 percent to 20 percent
for abutment fills in which the maximum shear strain
ranges between 0.05 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively. The design spectrum must be modified for these
higher levels of damping. Field studies reported by Tsai
and Werner (1993) indicate that these approaches may
be warranted for some bridge designs. However, use of
five-percent damping is usually a conservative alternative.
Higher damping ratios may also be appropriate for
bridges with seismic isolation or supplemental damping.
These should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and
the conclusions independently reviewed.
54
ATC-32
3.21.6.5
COMMENTARY
Combination of Effects
3.21.7
3.21.7.1
(3.21.7
GeneraL
Seismic response shall be determined as local displacements, individual member deformations, and individual member forces using Inelastic Static Analysis
techniques, considering nonlinear stiffness properties
of the structure and soil.
The analysis model should in general be a three-dimensional space-frame model of the bridge, including the
soil-foundation system. In most cases, it will be sufficient to model individual frames between in-span superstructure hinges; in many cases it will be sufficient to
model individual bents. Frame or individual bent models often are preferred because greater detail in analytical
modeling and interpretation of results is possible. When
individual frame or bent models are used, care must be
taken to represent the interaction effects among adjacent
frames and bents.
The analytical model should be developed to adequately represent important flexural, shearing, torsional,
and axial force deformabilities and strengths. Columns
(including extended pier shafts), bent caps, and outriggers can commonly be represented using line elements
with nonlinear response represented by concentrated
plastic hinges at critical locations. Fiber models are also
suitable. Pier walls can be modeled using line elements,
truss elements, or planar finite elements. The superstructure, if included in the model, can be represented
by line elements. Where the analysis results indicate that
superstructure strength is approached under the design
loading, the model of the superstructure should be suffi-
ATC-32
55
COMMENTARY
C3.21. 7.3
StructuraL ModeL
The structural model shall include the effects of concrete cracking and other material nonlinearities on
stiffness of members, and shall include the restraint of
56
StructuraL ModeL
Framing member models should include at least a bilinear load-deformation relation to represent response of
the member both before and after yielding, although
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
superstructure torsion
movement
tr
(a) Curved Superstructure
superstructure twist
due to varying pier rotation
20-ftcolumn
movement
30-ftcolumn
4O-ftcolumn
ATC-32
57
COMMENTARY
3.21.7.4
Distribution of Loading
C3.21.7.4
Distribution of Loading
The center of mass of the superstructure shall be displaced in steps to displacement amplitudes derived from
dynamic response analyses according to Section
3.21.10.3. In multi-level structures supported by common elements, except where otherwise justified, lateral
forces shall be applied to the center of mass of the major
elements of the superstructure in proportion with the
product of their mass and centroidal height above the
base, and the upper level shall be displaced in steps to displacement amplitudes indicated by dynamic response
analyses. Local displacements and individual member
deformations and forces shall be monitored at each step.
The analysis may be carried out under either displacement control or force control. The displacement or force
increments should be sufficiently small that the development of inelastic response, including force redistribution, can be correctly represented. Some computer
analysis packages will produce erroneous results if large
increments are used. The user should verify that the
increments are adequate to correctly model the
behavior.
Although it is necessary to carry out the analysis
only to the target displacement level, useful information
about ultimate behavior, including margins against collapse, can be obtained by carrying out the analysis to
larger lateral displacements.
C3.21.7.5
3.21.8
(3.21.8
3.21.8.1
C3.21.8.1
General
Seismic response shall be determined as structure displacement and individual member forces using
dynamic analysis techniques that consider nonlinear
stiffness, damping, and mass properties of the structure
and soil.
58
Structural Capacity
General
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.21.8.2
Response-History AnaLysis
C3.21.8.2
ATC-32
Response-History AnaLysis
59
COMMENTARY
Impact Spring
Rigid Bar
Vertical Spring.
Figure RC3-6
60
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
jO~tjgap
.
Figure RC3-7
Bridge Deck
The structural model shall include the effects of concrete cracking and other material nonlinearities on the
stiffness of members, and shall include the restraint of
the surrounding soil. Inelastic response characteristics
of the analysis model shall be justified by experimental
evidence. Viscous damping equal to five percent of the
ATC-32
61
COMMENTARY
150.0~------r------r-------r------'
-en
-c
Il.
52
100.0
50.0
...J
0.0
w
:::i
Il.
Il.
-50.0
-100.0
-150.().
-8.0
-4.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
Figure RC3-8 Load-dispLacement relationship for circuLar cross-section, cantilever-reinforced, concrete column
representative of modern Caltrans bridge designs. Column is subjected to uniaxial lateraL load and constant
axial load.
circular cross-section, cantilever, reinforced concrete
column representative of modem Caltrans bridge
designs (Chai, 1993). Axial load was constant, and lateral
load was applied along one axis only.
Characteristics of the behavior include (1) initial
stiffness degradation due to concrete cracking and reinforcement slip from the foundation block, (2) yielding
in the load-displacement relation due to flexural yielding at the fixed end, (3) moderate strain hardening following yield, (4) unloading slope that decreases with
increasing displacement amplitude, and (5) a moderate
62
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
60 -j---t------i---t---t---+---t---f---J---+---l-267
40 -t---t-----j---t---+--+-;;~~"rl~+-++---;f_---+---+ 178
~
20 -t----j----i---t---+----r-=:JI
89
~
'-'
.--,
'-'
~ 0
00. -20
-40
-t---+----if---t7L----h#HI-i.
-89
~
~
00.
+--+--+---t4-:JIf~~-i----+--I--~-+--I- -178
+-----;I----+--+--+---t--+--4---1---+---I- -356
-80
-12.5
-10
-7.5
-5
-2.5
2.5
Drift
7.5
10
12.5
(%)
Figure RC3-9 Load-dispLacement relationship for circuLar cross-section, cantilever-reinforced, concrete coLumn
representative of modern CaLtrans bridge designs. CoLumn is subjected to biaxiaL LateraL Load and constant axial
Load.
The behaviors described in Figure RC3-9 can be
approximated using either fiber models or concentrated
plastic hinge models with stiffness and strength values
calculated according to conventional procedures. Fiber
models subdivide the column cross-section into steel,
plain concrete, and confined concrete fibers, each having
representative hysteretic material properties, which are
subsequently integrated to compose the section loaddeformation behavior. Concentrated plastic hinge models represent the yielding region with a concentrated
plastic hinge having appropriate hysteretic properties.
Fiber models tend to be better able to represent triaxial
behavior of the column under the relatively random
load histories to which the column is subjected, but are
relatively computationally inefficient. Concentrated
plastic hinge models may not be able to adequately
model triaxial interaction effects, but are more computationally efficient. Whatever model is used, the analyst
ATC-32
63
COMMENTARY
150
.. .. , .. ,
'
II)
100
lli
50
~
<ll
Rexural Crack
c;
.... -50
"tl
~-100
'<:(
-150
",
.. , .... .. ,
.... ,.,
....
Measured
Calculated
-200
-0.8
Figure RC3-l0
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
Lateral Deflect/on at Load PoInt, In.
0.6
0.8
Load displacement relationship for relatively low-aspect-ratio pier waLL loaded in its plane.
in a laboratory test on a wall having aspect ratio near
unity, for which shear cracking preceded flexural yielding (Sozen, 1993). Axial load was constant, and lateral
load was applied in the plane of the wall only. Characteristics of the behavior are similar to those identified for
columns, although there is a tendency for greater stiffness degradation at higher shear stress levels. Although
not clear in the figure, studies indicate that slip of reinforcement from the foundation may cause displacements equal to those caused by conventional flexure
before yielding (Sozen, 1993). Interactions between
biaxial lateral loads have not been investigated in this
system.
The behavior of a pier wall subjected to out-ofplane lateral loading can be modeled using the procedures described for reinforced concrete columns under
64
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Sheor
Deformotion
Slip
Deformotion
ATC-32
65
200
25.4
I V4-'
175
150
50.8
76.2
COMMENTARY
. ELONGATION - mms
101.6 127.0 152.4 1n.8 203.2 228.6 254.0 304.8
889
r .".- ~
-r
778
667
125
556
~IOO
445
en
CL
I
o
c
75
50
25
/} I
I .
..J
222
,
4
334
-6XJ9 C'tlb1fFed.SpectH-w-4IOC)
f4 II I V
2
....-~
.,
567
III
10
II
ELONGATION - Inches
Measured
(Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-3, May 1994)
F
(Tension)
I~
fye-----/i
gc
gt
gc = Impact gap
gt = restrainer gap
dy = restrainer yield
displacement
(Compression)
fy = restrainer yield
force
Idealized
Figure RC3-12
66
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
67
COMMENTARY
3.21.8.5
C3.21.8.5
Combination of Effects
Combination of Effects
68
ATC-32
3.21.9
3.21.9.1
Combination of Effects
COMMENTARY
C3.21.9
General
C3.21.9.1
Combination of Effects
General
3.21.9.2
C3.21.9.2
Design Procedures
ATC-32
Design Procedures
69
COMMENTARY
(b) For structures designed using response-time-history analysis, the input motions in orthogonal
directions shall be applied simultaneously, and
individual responses shall be monitored directly.
Where this is not feasible, analysis may be for individual input motions, and responses may be combined according to paragraph (a) of this article.
3.21.10
Design Displacements
C3.21.10
Design Displacements
70
ATC-32
3.21.10.1
COMMENTARY
C3.21.10.1
~) ~ + ~ ~ 1
R3-1
The value of Z used shall be taken equal to the maximum value of Z used in the design of that frame. Values
of y* are given in Table R3-4.
TableR3-4
M= 6.5 0.25
g
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
--- --0.32
0.37
0.35
0.39
0.37
0.35
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.47
0.46
0.44
M= 8.0 0.25
0.69
0.61
0.64
0.62
0.59
0.60
0.71
0.71
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.70
0.76
0.80
0.71
0.85
0.98
1.04
---
0.46
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.44
0.64
0.73
0.87
0.41
0.42
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.50
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.56
0.53
0.54
0.66
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.59
0.62
0.64
0.76
0.56
0.74
0.76
0.93
0.51
0.47
0.48
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.54
ATC-32
71
COMMENTARY
RIl
8.0
ROCK
(a)
....... " ..
6.0
4.0
2.0
........ Statistical study [21]
- - Miranda (Eqs. 38 & 39)
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PERIOD [sec]
RIl
8.0
(b)
JL=~.
ALLUVIUM
.'
6.0
.....
4.0
.......
-_
-_ .....
- ..
2.0
. Statistical study [21]
- - Miranda (Eqs. 38 & 40)
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PERIOD [sec]
Figure RC3-13 Mean relationships between strengthreduction coefficient (R,J and displacement ductility
demand (/l).
The observation that linear response analysis can be
used to estimate overall nonlinear response amplitude
does not carry over directly to local displacements and
deformations. Where it is critical to identify local nonlinear deformations, for example in Important Bridges,
either Inelastic Static Analysis or Inelastic Dynamic
Analysis is recommended.
The displacement amplification factor, Rd , does not
account for effects of near-source ground motions. I
Design of structures near active faults requires special
considerations with respect to energetic long-duration
pulse-type loadings not taken into account in the ARS
spectra or in developing the factor Rd.
72
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Displacements calculated from Inelastic Dynamic Analysis may be used directly in design, but shall not be less
than 80 percent of the values determined from Article
3.21.10.1.
ATC-32
73
100
eo
11.. /1';.0.2
.,
'I
I--
r I
:I /
t/j/ v!/
')'/ V
./
/./
0/
./ ./
/1/
-f l-)
/y
0.5
./
I Iii v
0.8
_1-
Vv
"'l
......
0.1
0.1
0.2
--{-
P\t ......... v
~V 1---
I'
--,-
' - 1-
-i-
l:::=
[Vyr\ / r\ 1/1\
........
l/
f"\ I.OC-r-
./
t.20+--
'\./"
1.60~
r-....
R~:fzi~
I
I
I
I
I
I
"l
till.
Resistance
tunct>()tl
I
t~/T
--
r,l
r.-j
0.8 1
0.9-l--
:J
,....- ,-
"- r-
Triongulor pulse
; lo~d
I
0.5
~ "./
.-
~ ~r-
~..l.
~-+- ~+
I - 1-
1/
/'
I
I
-~-
0.8-l.-.
II
k':V
~ v-- vI--'
./
VI""~
V/V ~
VI
1.- ,..--
l./
IJ
./1
1/
V /
V /t/
V;(0.2
If
1/
II
1/
0.7-rI
II
1/
l-
1/
~;+-/
2
-/-ij ~+ bl- - II ,-
,.....- -; V- -V I/
V
,l4
!I
~l
71V
!
V
i
I
-i-
~-r-
10
-~
0.5 C"O.6
~~0.*?1=
I
1.0
COMMENTARY
Displacement
function
I
I I I
8 10
r-~I
I
20
Figure RC3-14 Shock spectra for a trianguLar pulse acting on an elastic-perfectly-plastic, singLe-degree-offreedom osciLLator.
3.21.10.3 Target DispLacement Capacity
74
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.21.11
Design Forces
(3.21.11
Design Forces
For functional evaluation of Important Bridges, member forces and moments calculated from Articles 3.21.5
or 3.21.6 shall not exceed member design strengths,
except that larger calculated actions are permitted if
analysis demonstrates that the functionality requirements are satisfied.
For safety evaluation, locations of inelastic action
are to be identified clearly. Design forces and moments
associated with those actions shall be at least equal to
the forces and moments obtained from Articles 3.21.5
or 3.21.6 divided by the force reduction coefficient, Z,
which is interpolated from Figure R3-13. Full-Ductility
values apply only to Ordinary Bridges and only when
intended inelastic action forms in accessible locations.
Otherwise, Limited-Ductility values shall be used.
Design forces and moments associated with locations of inelastic action shall be increased to include the
effects of gravity loads acting through the lateral displacements (P-L1 effects), as required by Article 3.21.15.
Plastic hinge design shear strength and design
strengths of members resisting the plastic hinge
moments shall be determined from the capacity design
procedures of Article 3.21.14. For superstructure elements, the design forces shall also include forces from
vertical seismic input motions where they are important. Design forces in restraining elements shall be
determined according to Article 3.21.12.
ATC-32
75
COMMENTARY
;i41----t---f-----:..r----t----t-----f
3 1----t--7'f<..---t-::----I---:----:--+----f
:g
:::l
a:
2 1---r--t--\-:::;;;;;ooI----I----+----f
Gl
If~
~=.=*===I===*===*====l
1 I-
o L -_ _---I...B_ritt
__le_e_le_m~e_nts_n_ot_d_es_'ig~n_ed_by:..capa_.:.~c_ity:.._de_s...::ig:....n..J
o
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Period Ratio, TfT*
COnfi~ed
:d4
Gl
3
:g
~(
~
:::l
"'02
~
Gl
If
Well
concrete Llumns, _
steel cOluins and pile rafts
Transversely loaded piers;
abutment walls and wing walls
~
"- Brittle elements not designed by capacity design
o
1
Figure R3-13
0.5
1
1.5
Period Ratio, T/T*
Force-reduction coefficient, Z.
2.5
T.::;:r.
Gravity loads acting through lateral displacements
affect the distribution of moments in a structure. For a
bridge column, the effect is illustrated in Figure RC3-15.
There is an increase in the base moment relative to the
value due to lateral load alone, and the moment distribution is changed slightly. For practical cases, the shift in
the moment distribution in a column is not important
and can be ignored. Where a column responds inelastically, the P-A effect does not add to the base moment,
because the moment is limited by the moment capacity.
Instead, the presence of P-A moment reduces the lateralload resistance. The reduction increases with increasing
lateral displacement, which may in some cases result in
76
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
(a) Structure
and Loading
(b) Moment
due to V
(c) Moment
due to P
(d) Combined
Moments
v
"of--J....--=::::::::::=::::::=:======
'{, +---
-- ---- --- -- --
3.21.11.2
Elastic Structures
C3.21.11.2
Elastic Structures
3.21.12
(3.21.12
Restraining Features
ATC-32
Restraining Features
77
3.21.12.1
COMMENTARY
3.21.12.2
Seismic forces in shear keys and other "fixed" restraining devices shall preferably be determined using the
Elastic Dynamic Analysis method (Article 3.21.6).
3.21.12.3
Single-Span Bridges
Restraining features for one-span bridges will not normally require detailed analysis. However, any connections between the span and the abutment shall be
evaluated by the Equivalent Static Analysis method
(Article 3.21.5). One-span superstructures fixed to the
abutment in the transverse direction may be assumed
to have a zero period of vibration in that direction.
78
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.21.13.1
3.21.13.1
General
3.21.13.2
Pile Deformations
Pile design shall consider the consequences of deformations due to seismic ground distortions.
3.21.13.3
3.21.14
ATC-32
C3.21.14
Capacity Design
General
Capacity Design
2.
3.
4.
5.
The structure is reanalyzed to determine the internal forces that will develop throughout the structure
when the plastic moment strengths are reached.
This step is required by Article 3.21.14.2.
6.
79
COMMENTARY
3.21.14.1
AppLicability
C3.21.14.1
AppLicability
Capacity design shall be applied to Full-Ductility Structures and Limited-Ductility Structures. Capacity design
shall be considered for Elastic Structures in which loadings greater than the design loading are likely to result
in inelastic action.
Full-Ductility Structures and Limited-Ductility Structures are expected to develop lateral load strengths in
plastic hinge regions and to require ductile response.
Capacity design is required for these structures to provide reasonable assurance that a predictable and ductile
response mechanism will develop in the design event.
Given uncertainties in definition of the ground motion
and analysis model, it is possible that structures
designed for elastic response will be loaded beyond their
strength and require ductile response. Therefore, capacity design should be considered for these structures as
well.
3.21.14.2
C3.21.14.2
The analysis associated with capacity design should consider all reasonable load combinations. For single-level
structures, the lateral force distribution usually can be
assumed to be a simple pattern of loads applied at the
superstructure level. Gravity loads should be in place for
the analysis. The analysis should consider the likelihood
that biaxial lateral loading is present. In general, it is
acceptable to assume that while the structure is displaced
in one direction to the maximum displacement it is displaced to about 60 percent of the maximum value in the
orthogonal direction. The extent to which biaxial lateral
action should be considered will depend on the unique
characteristics of the bridge.
3.21.14.3
C3.21.14.3
Design Strengths
Design strength values of members and their connections outside plastic hinges, and design shear forces in
plastic hinges, shall be equal to the forces and moments
obtained from the analysis described in Article
3.21.14.2.
80
Design Strengths
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.21.15
P-f). Effects
Vo
au
w ~4 H
R3-2
au
M p pa
Vp = - - -
ATC-32
81
COMMENTARY
82
ATC-32
Section 4
Foundations
4.0
COMMENTARY
APPLICATION
4.3.4
ATC-32
83
COMMENTARY
4.3.4.6
Uplift
C4.3.4.6
84
Uplift
ATC-32
Commentary
higher factor of safety should be adopted in the design of
connection details so that the probability of achieving
the desired soil failure mode is increased (see Commentary to Article 4.5.1).
4.5
4.5.1
ATC-32
C4.5
C4.5.1
The basic process in foundation design involves first estimating the forces and displacements on a specific foundation component, then ensuring that the component
has the capacity to accomodate the forces and displacements. In the case of earthquakes, the most difficult
aspect relates to determining the appropriate level of the
resulting forces and displacements. Unlike static loads,
where forces and displacements are readily determined,
response to earthquake loads depends on the dynamic
response characteristics of the overall bridge, which in
turn is affected by the foundation stiffness.
In many cases, the seismic demand of the foundation obtained from an analysis is an artifact of the
dynamic model. For example, as is the case in structural
design, a linear response spectrum analysis using initial
foundation stiffness often predicts unrealistically high
foundation forces. Response analysis for foundation
design should include sensitivity analyses to evaluate the
potential variations in soil behavior that can occur during the duration of an earthquake.
Another aspect ofthe current design process is that it
does not consider some important loading mechanisms,
namely those associated with ground movements rather
than inertial loading of the structure. Review of performance of foundation systems in past earthquakes (Lam,
1994) suggests that bridge foundations have performed
well during moderate (up to magnitude 7) earthquakes,
with relatively few cases ofbridge collapse due to failure
of foundations. However, past performance records also
indicate that foundation failures were the main causes of
bridge failure for very large earthquakes (Magnitude
above 7), as evident from the 1964 Alaskan earthquake,
the 1964 Niigata earthquake, the 1990 Philippines earthquake, and the 1991 Costa Rica earthquake. In all these
earthquakes, foundation failure related to lateral spreading and loss of foundation bearing capacity associated
with soil liquefaction were the principal cause of bridge
collapse. Such a load case is not accounted for in present
design practice.
A discussion is presented in the ATC-32-1 document (ATC, 1996) on an alternate foundation design
philosophy that emphasizes designing the foundation to
ensure a preferred mode of failure in case of overload
and the need to evaluate displacement aspects rather
than the magnitude of force. This approach is basically
85
COMMENTARY
compatible with present-day practice of applying ductility design principles to superstructures. In addition to
improved performance, such an approach leads to more
economical foundations in high seismicity areas such as
California. Designing to ensure the preferred mode of
failure is very important due to various uncertainties
(i.e., with respect to loading as discussed above).
Irrespective of the design philosophy, a design procedure must address the following three requirements:
1.
2.
3.
86
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
4.5.2
Site Investigation
A site investigation program shall be conducted to provide adequate information for proper foundation
design.
Present Caltrans practice involves site-specific investigations for every bridge project. Some general information
on the basic requirements of geotechnical programs can
be found inAASHTO (1978) and FHWA (1982).
The importance of the site investigation program
becomes more critical when seismic considerations are
included in the foundation design. The following comments discuss the elements of a thorough site investigation, with special reference to current Caltrans practice.
Presenting an accurate, standardized description of
the site soil conditions on the log-of-test-boring (LOTB)
is the first step in proper foundation design. The LOTB
should describe soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System presented in ASTM D-2487. The first is
a field visual inspection, which is followed by conducting index tests (i.e., grain size and Atterberg limits) in
the laboratory. Data from these tests are used to correct
the soil description on the field boring log. Such a laboratory index test program should be conducted to
ensure proper classification of the soil type on the LOTE.
LOTBs for older bridges designed by Caltrans very
often provide only a generic description of the soil type
without blowcount data. The LOTBs for bridges built in
recent years most often have adopted the Unified Soil
Classification. However, it sometimes appears that the
LOTBs are based on visual inspection and lack a parallel
laboratory program to verify the soil type description.
At liquefiable and soft-soil sites (see Commentary
to 4.5.3), extra effort is required to ensure that the data
obtained from the site investigation program are meaningful. The following recommendations cover the special considerations for such sites.
Using the appropriate drilling equipment is most
important for liquefiable and soft clay sites. As discussed more fully below, rotary-wash boring with
drilling mud is the most reliable drilling method for
such sites.
For loose silts and soft clay sites, the use of a thinwall, selby-tube push sampler can enhance the
chance of recovering more undisturbed samples for
laboratory testing.
Other less conventional tests, such as cone-penetrometer and geophysical shear-wave tests should be
considered for such sites.
ATC-32
87
COMMENTARY
88
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
. 4.5.3
Site Stability
(4.5.3
Site Stability
Liquefiable Sites
Table RC4-1 provides a set of criteria that is appropriate
for preliminary screening of liquefiable versus non-liquefiable sites. With the exception of those sites that fall
into the very low liquefaction potential category, further
efforts are necessary to evaluate the liquefaction hazard
of the site by more detailed analyses. Past case histories
(Barlett and Youd, 1992) suggest that liquefaction can
extend to a depth of 60 feet. Therefore, emphasis should
be placed on liquefaction analysis for the upper 60 feet
of the soil profile.
When liquefiable sites (Holocene sand and silt sites)
are encountered, the key information to be developed
during the site investigation includes:
ATC-32
89
COMMENTARY
Table RC4-1 Relationship of Geologic and Water Table Criteria and Liquefaction Susceptibility (Modified from
Tinsleyet al., 1985)
.........................
0-3
Very hifh
to high
3-10
10-15
>15
Moderate2
Low
Very low
Earlier ......................
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
Pleistocene
Late ........................
Low
Low
Very low
Very low
........................
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very low
Very-low
1 Areas are mapped as having very high susceptibility if fluvial channel and levee deposits are known to
be present; sediment deposited in other sedimentary environments is considered to have high susceptibility.
2 fluvial deposits having high suceptibility occur rarely and are not widely distributed; other sediments
are moderately susceptible to liquefaction.
geologic information
ground water data
grain size information
blow count data
The subject of liquefaction has been extensively
researched in the past 30 years. Detailed discussions on
liquefiable soil types can be found in Ishikara (1985);
Seed, Idress, and Arango (1983); and Seed et al. (1985).
Soil Borings. Properly recorded blowcount data are
key for assessment of the liquefaction potential of a
given sandy site. The use of proper drilling equipment
and standardized blowcount procedures are very important for liquefiable sites. Rotary-wash borings are preferred over auger borings for such sites. The use of a
rotary-drill rig in conjunction with casing or drilling
mud has been found to be the most reliable method to
prevent cave-in problems and to enhance the chance of
recovering undisturbed soil samples and reliable blowcount measurements. If a hollow-stem auger is used,
maintaining a water column inside the hollow stem
above the water table is very important in preventing
soils from running up into the stem when the center rod
90
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
91
Sands
Fine
O.075mm
/
"
0
CO
. f
::c:
>-
II
I
'
1/
'
I ,
::
..I L
-:
: /...
/'[
:
'
..
II
'
J:a
~
: /
: I
I
I 1
'
I II
, ' I
I I
V
I,
I
I
J:a
p..
,I
,'I
'
'
'i:
I
........../.
./..
I ,
,,'
I
I
I
Boundaries:
for most:
liquefiable sc}il
"
:/
i
;.. / :
V
1"
I
I'
:
I
" I
I
I
',
II
I
II ,
II
I
" I
--;.. . .. ff l........ -[.... j l /!.. .. [
....Z
, .
C\l
I ,
,J...i........
, -:
"'<t<
, , / ' ,
'.
'
I:,,' :
I
,:
1/
" ,
,"
1/
'
'I'
..........................1
I
4.75mm
'
'
I
':
. . :1.. . . . . . ;
~ 0
to
o:l
J:a
....
J:a
t'
2mm
/ ' ,
/'
Medium: Coarse:
0.425mm
/-
I
I
I
Eo-<
Eo-<
~-------------------,-----------------r--------~ Gravels
I'
I
,
'
I
I'
I
I
d'
::
I
1..
..1
/...
.1..
I
I
I
liquefiable soil!
J
I
,I
~ ,I
/:1
, I
V
;,
I
I
I
I'
oun ane~
for potentially
'
I
I
,
:,
!
I
II
:
I
o-t----,--,-,.--r-r-rrrt---r--,-..,-L,.-.,.-,rrrr---f----,-...,-1....,......,.-r--r-..,..-!
10- 1
92
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
93
3>1
l'
H
OlSPLACEI.IENT VECTOR
x
DISPLACEMENT VECTOR
Figure RC4-2
ment.
Definition of free face factors, Land H, and ground slope,S, for free-face ground-spread displacet
,~
~
I
'z
~-,+--"""'-;:~
Y1
TOE
:~
OI8PlACEWEllTYECTOA---"
CRE&f
'---
:~
i~
-J
llXl"'Yl
031'!
S(")-lD'J(Y/Xl
ICASe,
ffi,
~r~:
~:
~i
1lXl"V1
:;3
~1
TOE~
Figure RC4-3
94
~X1
VI
I
y
Ii:'"----~L:;;~=DlSPLNElENT==-- x~
S (%) -100(Y/Xl
CREST
CPST
TOE
(")-'llll(Y1/X1)
Definition of ground slope, S, for long, uniform slope ground spread displacement.
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Table RC4-2
Models
R(km)
6.5
7.0
0.25
7.5
8.0
10
8.5
25
9.0
50
ATC-32
95
COMMENTARY
96
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
97
COMMENTARY
uefied soil sites. Such empirical procedures are considered reasonable to complement the above-discussed
deterministic slope stability procedure (Newmark's sliding block in conjunction with pseudo-static slope stability analysis). The deterministic procedure allows the
analysis to reflect site-specific soil data (e.g., residual
strength parameters) and the local slope configuration
and detailed ground motion information. It is more
refined than the empirical approach (e.g., Bartlett and
Youd, 1992). The empirical approach is appropriate for
addressing the lateral ground-spread problem for very
gently sloping ground at a site not immediately in the
vicinity of the slope embankment (i.e., several hundreds
of feet from a river bank). The deterministic approach
would be more reliable in the immediate vicinity of the
slope or embankment. However, as discussed earlier,
there is a significant level of overall uncertainty in all
current approaches used to estimate the magnitude of
lateral and vertical ground displacement. Also, there is a
significant uncertainty with respect to the appropriate
soil strength parameter (e.g., residual shear strength of
soils) to be used in such ground-deformation evaluations. More research in the area of ground deformation
is needed. More detailed background information on
the subject has been extracted and included in the
ATC-32-1 document (ATC, 1996).
98
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
99
COMMENTARY
Flexibility of the abutment walls should be considered in determining the extent to which the wall
would be effective in mobilizing backfill resistance.
Simplified models of a cantilever beam on elastic
springs indicate that an 18-inch thick concrete wall
cannot mobilize the soil resistance beyond five feet
from the point of support. For typical box-girder
bridges, the Caltrans practice oflimiting the soil
resistance at the back wall to an eight-foot wall
height is reasonable. Soil resistance mobilized
beyond the effective height should be ignored in
bridge response analysis. For other bridge types
(e.g., slab bridges), a smaller wall height (i.e., the
effective depth below the soffit) would be appropriate. Similarly, only the effective width of the wing
wall should be accounted for in developing soil
resistance to the inertial load in the transverse direction. The soil resistance of deeper back walls or
longer wing walls can be used if the structural configuration justifies the assumption (e.g., non-cantilever walls).
The designer should estimate the backfill pressure
capacity. Research at the University of California at
Davis (Maroney et al., 1994) showed that 7.7 ksf
average soil pressure capacity is reasonable for an
eight-foot wall height. The average unit soil pressure capacity (i.e., 7.7 ksf) should be reduced linearly in proportion to wall height for wall heights
less than eight feet, in accordance with the effective
overburden pressure of frictional backfills. These
are some typical rule-of-thumb parameters for
assessing the backfill capacity for abutment design.
Although these parameters have been found to provide reasonable designs, more rigorous analysis procedures that can implement more site-specific soil
and structural data have been developed from
recent research. Some information from this
research is presented in ATC-32-1 (ATC, 1996).
Site-specific backfill properties can be used to determine abutment capacity in lieu of the presumptive
values based on appropriate passive earth-pressure
theory. Some discussions on passive earth-pressure
theories are provided in ATC-32-1 (ATC, 1996).
The designer should estimate the magnitude of displacement required to mobilize the ultimate passive-pressure capacity. Clough and Duncan (1991)
suggested movements ranging from 0.0 1 to 0.02 of
wall height. The Ue. Davis data suggested a movement of 0.006 of effective wall height. A wall movement of 0.01 of wall height to mobilize the full
100
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
101
COMMENTARY
4.5.5
PiLe Foundations
(4.5.5
102
PiLe Foundations
Cyclic Degradation on Bearing Capacity. Adequate bearing capacity must be ensured to prevent bearing capacity
failure of the pile foundation. The traditional safety factor of two for service-level loads appears to be adequate
for most sites without poor soil. There have been many
case histories of bearing capacity or excessive settlement
failure from past earthquakes at poor soil sites. This
indicates that the traditional static factor of safety of two
may not be adequate to allow for cyclic degradation
effects. Therefore cyclic degradation effects should be
explicitly taken into account in pile capacity evaluations
at poor soil sites. The Caltrans BDS pile design criterion
should be interpreted that "after allowance for cyclic
degradation effects, the ultimate pile capacity should be
two times that of the compressive load required to resist
ATC-32
(g) Rotational and lateral displacements at foundations shall be consistent with the performance criteria described in Article 3.21.2 (See Commentary
4.5.1).
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
the demand for service-level load cases (ie., dead weight
plus live load)". Experience suggests that explicit cyclic
degradation evaluations should be carried out for the
following soil/pile conditions
At river crossings or foundations in open water
At liquefiable sites
At soft clay sites (sensitivity of the clay is four or
greater).
For friction piles where the pile tip is not embedded
in bedrock, or where a high proportion (over 50
percent) of the ultimate capacity would come from
skin friction rather than from end-bearing.
For long and slender piles (pile length over 50 feet)
where the cyclic pile top displacement amplitude is
sufficiently large to initiate cyclic degradation ofskin
friction (i.e., zero-to-peak cyclic pile top displacement in excess ofO.s inch). Past cyclic loading pile
test data suggest that the mechanism of shear stress
reversal (or plastic slippage) at the soil-pile interface, induced by rocking motion of the superstructure is the key mechanism of cyclic degradation of
the skin-friction component of pile capacity.
Lam (1994) presented some procedures for soil-pile
interaction analysis, including aspects for rate and cyclic
degradation effects that can be used in a comprehensive
soil-pile interaction analysis. However, such analyses
might not be practical for common usage. In lieu of soilpile interaction analysis, the factor of safety can be
increased to three to arrive at the allowable compressive
pile load from the ultimate pile capacity as determined
from conventional pile capacity procedures. Some information soil-pile analysis is included in ATC-32-1 (ATC,
1996).
Uplift Capacity. While the presumptive values on
uplift pile capacities (based on structural capacity) typically assumed by Caltrans (ie., 50 percent ofthe ultimate
compressive capacity, as stated in Caltrans BDS Commentary, Article 4.3.4.6) is reasonable, the uplift capacity
of a pile can vary significantly. Therefore, site-specific
evaluation must be conducted to determine the uplift
pile capacity. The uplift soil capacity must then be
checked against the capacity of the pile connection
details and the structural capacity of the pile.
Connection Details. As stated in Caltrans BDS Commentary, the details for the standard Class-45 and 45C
piles, Class-70 and 70C piles, and 16-inch cast-indrilled-hole standard Caltrans piles are adequate for an
uplift force equal to 50 percent of the ultimate compres-
103
COMMENTARY
sive axial load capacity (two times the allowable pile
loads of 45 and 70 tons). When the 50 percent value is
exceeded, the structural capacity of the pile must be calculated from a project-specific analysis. Connection
details must be designed on a project-specific basis as
well, and shown on the design plan. As discussed in the
section on displacement-based foundation design in
ATC-32-1, the connection details should be strengthened whenever possible to exceed the uplift soil capacity.
This enhances the chance that a ductile soil failure mode
will occur.
Lateral Pile Stiffness. The subject oflateral pile stiffness has been heavily researched during the past 20
years. There is no lack of procedures for conducting soilpile interaction analysis. However, many procedures are
not sufficiently simple for practical applications. The
state-of-practice is to use beam-column models supported by nonlinear lateral springs (p-ycurves). The
most widely adopted p-y procedures are those developed
by Reese et al. (1974) for sand and Matlock (1970) for
clays. Linear subgrade stiffness values, as recommended
by Terzaghi, have also been widely used by geotechnical
engineers.
In the past, Caltrans has recommended some presumptive stiffness values (BDS Article 4.3.4.8 dated January, 1993) for service load design at a pile deflection of
one-quarter inch. These stiffness values can also be used
for earthquake design, as summarized in Table RC4-3.
Table RC4-3 Presumptive Pile Stiffness Values (as
Derived From Caltrans BDS 4.3.4.8)
Pile Type
16" CIDH
IS" driven concrete
12" driven concrete
12" or 10" steel flange
8" steel flange
Timber
Stiffness
(kip/in)
13
13
5
5
4
5
52
52
20
20
16
20
104
ATC-32
FRICTION ANGLE.cP
28
29'"
VERY
LOOSE
30"
LOOSE
38
MEDIUM
DENSE
VERY
DENSE
04-----J------....------..----J-----r--1...------.f
oOJ
~------J----__L . - - - - - - + _ - _ ----t----r------t
(\J
-f---------i-------if--~,;--- ""L------+-----i
4------+----~~---_+----...;..----...,
(J)
ro
H
b1)
,..D
~
C/).
20
YO
Rel.ative Density
Figure RC4-4
ATC-32
60
80
100
(Percent)
Recommendations for coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus with depth for sand.
105
BLOWCOUNT (BLOWS/FT)
15
30
VERY STIFF
STIFF
HARD
Q
Q
.....
SOFT
C":>
c:
~
;:::...
-uS
VERY SOFT
Q
QO
C/)
zu.
u.
i=
C/)
W
Cl
II:
\Q
EdLB/IN
(!)
III
////
:::>
CJ)
///
Z
Z
i=
,./
Q
-.:r
,,"'bOW
/""..~~;9
~~
~
II:
>
u.
0
u.:
U.
W
()
COHESION (ksf)
Figure RC4-5
106
Recommendations for coefficient of variation in subgrade modulus with depth for clay.
ATC-32
\0
:::::::
co
...J
c:i
l;::t::
..........-:: ~ l--:
Ifl
()
...Q
~ r..,....-
./'
~ .....
1--'
V
V
~~
I--'
u.
......
C/)
CJ)
w
C"l
i=
C/)
...-
.,..- ~
.,..- .....
.,..- ~
~ l\J,..
..............
........-
...............
V
I--'"
V
~J,..
j..-I-'
L..--'
\\' ~\ 1\/\
KS
K
~~
...........
.......
....... j..-
I" \
1\ \ \
l\\\
.....
<{
I--'"
.....-V ......
...J
a:
w
~
...J
I---'
V"
...-":r\
~ '"\ \ 1\[\
I,..-
--
i-"'"
::,....-"
b;:::j;.o
./
1./
.,..- !-'"
I---'
u.
.....
----- ~ ~ .....
p;::..
<{
zu.
w
:c
w
W
a:
u.
a:
...-:
I.'
j..-
l..-""'"
f
200
f 150
f = 100
f = 80
f =60
f =40
f =20
f = 10
f =5
f =1
f =0.5
f= 0.1
'" I
10 10
1012
1011
K
=KIi - ~
I
I
Ka
,
I
I
I
I
= 0.41
~1\1/5
I
I
Figure RC4-6
ATC-32
~~
T= \T7
107
r-Q
?""4
-co
-w
:::::::
l.----: t::~
v:::
~ b:=:
-I
<0
:c
0
w
x
u:::
CJ)
CJ)
\D
Q
?""4
It'I
Q
?""4
.,......
./ ./'
V-~ t...-"'"
"
~ ~ ......
~ i::=-I,.o
......~
f-'f-'
."
~ t:::: i--'"
~ I,.o~
L,......-:: t::::: l...-
~~
~ ...
V I--" ~
..... ~~
t><
vf"-,
.,.,...
J..-~
./'V
I..-'
i-"'"
I..-'
....
~~
l,..-
......
./'
L...-
I-""
I-"'"
I-""
..........
-I
~
-I
200
150 ~
100 ~
80 ~
60 "-
u.
u.
i=
CJ)
0
=
=
=
=
=
-:
f
f
f
f
f
."V
V .....
j;'
i--'"
i--'"
f-'l-'
I"
I..-'
i"-~ V
J>"
?""4
.....
CJ)
~
~
.,....
a::
lt')
?""4
"" "
J..-"
"
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
.....
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
40
20
10
5
1
0.5
0.1
10 10
, I
10 13
1011
Pt
=KS'5+ Ksse
se Ke' e
Mt = K 5+
K
=1.0765E1
T3
~1/5
Figure RC4-7
108
=\
f I
Coefficient for lateral pile head stiffness (fixed head pile lateral stiffness).
ATC-32
~
~ v~t::
-=
Ci
a:
~~ ~ ,,-~~
"
~
CD
...J
I
~
~
en
Cf)
z~
=-.
=
~
'l
'l
~~ "'->'
""
:;-'
"-
"'- "-
"'-
V.h :;-' ,/
...J
~~ ..-
r/
i=
Cf)
I"~~
IX)
t-
=
=
=
=
=
=
200
100
60
10
5
1
0.5
0.1
' / p /'
a:
r--
~/
/'
10 10
I I II I
10 12
1011
Pt
\
=K6-0+ KIl9-a
Mt =KooO+ Ke-a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATC-32
f
f
f'f
f'f
f'f
f'-f
H
f
i'7/ VV
Figure RC4-8
'"
"l~
=1.499- EI
T3
~1/5
=\
109
-=
m
...J
<Cl
co
,.....
~ 1''''-:::
.....
u..
u..
::J
D.
:::>
0
()
I
CI)
CI)
a:
1/
/'
~A ~
(!J
~ [...01..-
.-I
en
CI)
t;
r;:;
"l'"A
Q()
t--
......
~ ~ ~~
1./
KP.
fQ$ ~ Kt'--
k"
.-I
7
~ ~~
V/,
k:%:; f r;:;
'i
I..-'" [...oJ.-
= ~ r::
/ . r:::
1/ [...oJ.-
\C
1A"
......
..... [...0
.-I
()
"'"
~
~'"i"-
""
i"-
1/
/'
./ ./
v./
......
f
f
'.:::: f
f
~" f
f
f
f
f
1"-. "-. f
f
f
V.)
......
"'"
[...0
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
200
150
100
80
60
40
20
10
5
1
0.5
0.1
./
10 10
'I
II
n-r
10 12
1011
,.....
MI.e
_PI,O
Pt = Ko 5+ Koeoe
0
Mt =K065+ Keoe
Koe =0.999 Eol
T2
0
l.lli1/ 5
Figure RC4-9
110
=\
f J
ATC-32
r--.
............
:z:
EMBEDMENT
O'
............
CD
- - - - S'
.-J
---
------
...0
:::.:::
.--...
0
l.LJ
0
~
::x:
V')
V')
I,{)
i.-'
--
l.L.
l.L.
l-
:z:
100
-q-
........
l---
----
.-
V
t...--
V')
l---
-------
l.LJ
.-J
:.--
l.LJ
"--"
L--
<.D
0
X
l.L.
10'
L--
--
.- ~
I-
. .-1-
vl--"
-i
I-
..-
.-J
V')
,.,.,
0:::
I-
a
-i
.-
L--
------ vI-"
V
--
-- --
;:; -::::
l)o(
--~
--
--
----
---- --
f'-,
'"
I,....-,
k::::'";: vI-'
.:::,~
" "-
----
,.-1-
-vv
V
/'
I-"
.-
:z:
'0>~
.- '-
.- !-
f
f
f
= 10
=1
= 0.1
f-
10 10
10 12
1011
= K& . 0
+ K 6 .8
\.Ie.a
,r--
_FI,~
,,
Figure RC4-10
ATC-32
Comparison of fixed head pile head stiffness at various embedments (0, 5, and 10 feet).
111
-<
.......
>
EMBEDMENT
0'
...--..
:z:
- - - - 5'
<!
-6
---10'
Cl
~p
<!
ro
100
~V ~ V v
-<
a:::
~
!.t
~~
.......
--l
:z:
.~v
/ / / Ih
-----
<D
v J?
V')
V')
UJ
:z:
(])
~:
......
L....
'/.~/
l-
V/ #/
V')
--'
CO
I-
;..-
-'/
l.L..
:z:
/~
'/.fJ
.,,:, l% ~~
~.
......
<X:
v'/
I-
./
0
a:::
.,... ~
i'-~
::::"
~k
"-
~,
/'
"
!.t
"'~r-..
"
"-
"'--
.L.
'f = 10
'f = 1
f = 0.1
r:-
ih'.
1/// h-
I--
V./?
l'-
.......
, 'I
10 10
10 12
10 11
Ki
8 +
~= Ki, 8
Figure RC4-11
112
KHe
+ K.e
Comparison of the rotational stiffness coefficient at various embedments (0, 5, and 10 feet).
ATC-32
EMBEDMENT
0'
- - - - S'
---
....-....
CD
-l
,- i--v
10'
a::>
.......
Ql
..0
./--/
1/ __
1:72
(/)
(/)
l..L.J
Z
L.L.I--
./
~-
l"-
.....1..-
,/
'/
./
/.
"<:
:?'
~
~.1
.......
(/)
......-
<..:>
--;;;
1/..-
1..-
/'
..-[7 L....-
-l
CL
=> co
0
a
u
.......
I
(/)
(/)
v/'
......
.....
ID
.......
"'-"
f'
/--./
'/
..... ~,-/
:/"
= 10
=1
= 0.1
100
--
r--.
4) ~
"-
./
.... ~
. ..-: I"..... v
"-
),,--
....-
v..--
L/".r~
--
"-...
10
10
II
'I
10 12
10 11
K,.'
8 +
K,.e
8 + K.
,e
l.Io.e
C-
Figure RC4-12
ATC-32
pt .&
Comparison of the cross-coupling stiffness coefficient at various embedments (O, 5, and 10 feet).
113
Commentary
years, and guidance is available regarding the input soil
parameters to use in the design charts (e.g., NAVFAC,
1986). The pile stiffness values presented in the design
charts compare favorably with the presumptive stiffness
values tabulated in Table RC4-3. The design charts provide stiffness values for various pile-head embedment
and boundary conditions (these factors significantly
affect pile stiffness). The lateral pile stiffness should be
compatible with the pile-cap connection. For example,
an assumption of a free pile head may be appropriate for
timber and steel piles, whereas an assumption of a fixed
head may be appropriate for concrete piles, based on the
Caltrans standard pile details. In addition to the lateral
stiffness, the charts can be used to estimate pile head
moment versus lateral load (e.g., for a fixed-head pile).
Pile Analysis for Liquefied Soil. Recent unpublished
centrifuge tests conducted by Ricardo Dobry at the
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute indicates that fully liquefied sands (from freefield liquefaction effects) has a
residual strength of about 10 percent of the initial p-y
curve resistance, as determined by Reese's p-y procedure. The 10 percent residual strength is appropriate for
fine sands. Other soil types that are less prone to liquefaction are expected to have higher residual strength values.
Lateral Pile Capacity. The subject oflateral pile
capacity requires an appreciation ofboth geotechnical
and structural engineering principles. The soil resistance
over the entire pile length generally far exceeds the
demand of the lateral load on the pile foundation. The
issue is not whether there is adequate soil resistance, but
whether the resistance can be mobilized before structural failure of the pile and before deflections that would
cause distress to the bridge become excessive. A rigorous
process to evaluate lateral pile capacity would involve a
soil-pile interaction analysis to determine the axial load,
bending moment, and shear load along the pile length,
which can then be checked against the structural capacity of the pile. The results should also be checked to
determine if the deflection is excessive. Table RC4-4 provides Caltrans guidelines for lateral pile capacity and
corresponding stiffness that were used in retrofitting the
San Francisco double-deck viaduct. The guidelines were
based on pile load tests, as interpreted and summarized
by Caltrans. They are applicable for normal soil sites.
Allowable loads and displacements are based on
both pile and pile-cap interaction with surrounding soils
and reflect current Caltrans standard pile details.
The previously presented values on pile stiffness
and capacity represent typical rule-of-thumb values that
can be used for normal soil sites and typical pile footing
configurations. The effects of pile embedment at most
pile footings in the constructed condition would justify a
higher capacity and stiffness, which can be developed
114
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
TableRC4-4
Stiffness
(klin)
100
35
75
25
60
30
Concrete Dense
Granular
40
40
Concrete Loose
Granular
Concrete Soft
Cohesive
40
20
40
20
Pile Type
Steel
Steel
Steel
Ultimate
Capacity
Soil Type (KlPile)
Dense
Granular
Loose
Granular
Soft Cohesive
ATC-32
115
COMMENTARY
action diagrams for standard reinforced concrete piles
are available in Bridge Design Aid 16-9 (October, 1990).
4.5.5.1
C4.5.5.1
116
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
117
COMMENTARY
from pile load tests, only because most pile load tests are
free-head load tests.
Equivalent Cantilever Length
The equivalent cantilever concept has been commonly
used to extend the point of fixity of the shaft to about
three to four diameters below grade to account for the
flexibility of the embedded shaft. The three to four
diameters value arose from linear beam-on-elastic-subgrade analyses that do not account for nonlinear
moment-curvature behavior of the shafts. Research data
from D.C. San Diego (Budek, 1994) indicate that the
plastic hinge would develop at shallower depths due to
such structural nonlinearity. In addition, current subgrade theories tend to underpredict the soil stiffness at
grade. Furthermore, concrete sidewalks or pavements
often exist around drilled shafts. The shear resistance
due to pavements has typically been neglected in analysis. All these factors can lead to an overly large equivalent cantilever length. The overestimate on the
equivalent cantilever length can lead to underprediction
of shear load corresponding to the flexural moment
capacity of the shaft. This is nonconservative and there
have been a number of incidents to indicate that the
presence of concrete sidewalks or floor slabs contributed
to column shear failures in past earthquakes (e.g., Olive
View Hospital in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and
the Imperial County Services Building failure in the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake). The equivalent column
length for shear load determination associated with plastic moment load should be assumed to be no deeper
than two shaft diameters and should be assumed to be at
grade when concrete pavement is present, unless a gap in
the pavement is provided around the shaft.
Cracked Sectional Modulus
Recent test data further show that minor cracking occurs
at a relatively low nominal moment value on largediameter shafts and therefore cracked sectional properties should be used in dynamic response analyses of
structures supported by drilled shafts.
Minimum Pile Length
Current Caltrans practice involves pile length sensitivity
studies using nonlinear load-deformation analysis for
determining the critical pile length that ensures that
minimum stability ratio criteria are met. Whereas the
concept of ensuring some level of stability (safety margin) in the design is quite rational, the parameter called
the "stability ratio" has no physical meaning and can
lead to unreasonable designs in many cases. For exam-
118
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
pIe, for the same soil condition and the same lateral load
demand, the stability ratio concept requires a larger pile
length for a larger diameter pile, even though the larger
pile would have a higher lateral soil capacity and therefore a higher factor of safety in relation to lateral load
demand.
A more rational approach would be to ensure that
the pile length is adequate to provide stable load-deflection characteristics (e.g., meet an absolute deflection
limit or a deflection limit that is a proportion of pile
diameter) for an overload condition (e.g., a factored
load of two times the demand level). The approach
could further require that P-L1 effects be incorporated in
the pile solutions. Such an approach, which recognizes
the safety margin in relation to the loading condition,
are better than the stability-ratio concept, which overly
penalizes large-diameter shafts with respect to the pile
length requirement. This penalty is unreasonable and
often leads to complexities in construction (e.g., the tip
of the shaft needs to be extended below the ground water
table to meet the stability-ratio criteria). The stabilityratio criteria are also unreasonable for many retrofit situations in which large-diameter drilled shafts are used at
abutments, primarily to provide additional lateral stiffness, not to support the weight of the bridge structure.
4.5.5.2
C4.5.5.2
ATC-32
119
COMMENTARY
120
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Batter Piles
There has been controversy regarding the use of batter
piles, based on their performance in past earthquakes.
Before deciding to use batter piles, the benefits of these
piles should be weighed against the additional complexity in design, difficulty in construction, and potential
reduced performance. The major benefit of using battered piles relates to mobilizing larger axial stiffness to
increase the lateral stiffness of the pile group. However,
construction practice generally limits the batter angle.
Although the axial stiffness is relatively large as compared to the lateral pile stiffness, it is finite, and therefore
a realistic assessment of the potential increase in lateral
stiffness by pile battering must be evaluated by a load-
ATC-32
121
COMMENTARY
deformation analysis to account for the pile configuration in conjunction with realistic axial and lateral pile
stiffness characteristics. Experience indicates that in
many cases, the benefit of the increase in the lateral stiffness by pile battering is relatively minor, especially at
poor soil sites, which usually require the use oflong friction piles.
In the past, designers often implicitly assumed that
the axial stiffness of batter piles was infinite relative to
the lateral stiffness, which directly led to the assumption
that all the lateral force in a batter pile group will be
resisted by the axial pile force and that therefore, a batter
pile need not be designed for bending moment. Such an
assumption is probably the cause of poor performance
of batter piles in past earthquakes (e.g., at Port of Oakland during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake). All the
damaged batter piles had poor connection details, as
well as inadequate transverse steel for resisting the flexural moment at the pile head. As discussed above, the
assumption of an infinite axial stiffness is invalid. Experience in load-deformation analyses of batter pile groups
(especially in the post-elastic range) indicates that batter
piles experience a large bending moment that, in most
cases, is of about the same magnitude as that experienced by a corresponding vertical pile group. Therefore,
batter piles must be detailed for moment and shear load.
Soil-pile interaction must also be considered in the
design of batter pile groups. Most conventional design
analyses only address inertial loading from the superstructure and not the loading arising from lateral
ground displacement (e.g., lateral spread ofliquefied soil
or lateral embankment movement). For such conditions, the stiffer batter pile groups attract very large
forces and do not perform well compared to the more
compliant vertical pile groups. Batter pile groups should
be avoided at poor soil sites (liquefiable and soft soil sites
or sites that are known to be unstable), unless detailed
analyses are conducted to address all the above issues by
personnel experienced in soil-pile interaction analysis.
Group Effects
122
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
C4.5.6
123
124
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
4.5.7
Retaining Structures
COMMENTARY
(4.5.7
Retaining Structures
2.
Structural design of the retaining system to withstand a given earth pressure on the retaining wall.
Overall Stability
Review of past practice suggests that most conventional
retaining structures are designed for service level (nonearthquake) loads in conjunction with an adopted factor
of safety. In the overall stability evaluation, the factor of
safety generally varies from 1.5 to 2. In general, servicelevel loads are based on static, active earth-pressure conditions (e.g., the lateral earth-pressure coefficient of 0.3
in Caltrans practice for retaining walls).
Dynamic, active earth-pressure requirements have
been introduced into the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications in the context of requirements for estimating
potential movement of the retaining wall in seismic
design. However, many designers consider the requirement too complex. In manycases, the designer assumes
that the inherent reserve in the static design (static factor
of safety) would be adequate to limit the displacement to
an acceptable level for earthquake loading. In past earthquakes, free-standing retaining walls (not associated
with other structures) appear to have performed well,
even though most retaining walls have been designed
only for the relatively low static, active earth-pressure
coefficients.
Although there are some case histories of earthquake damage to certain type of retaining walls (e.g.,
crib walls) in past earthquakes, the good performance of
retaining walls probably indicates that when allowed to
yield, excessive soil pressure on the wall is relieved, and a
small amount of movement is of little consequence.
Most of the case histories of retaining wall failure
(mostly unrelated to earthquakes) appear to be associated with clay soils, either as retained fill or as foundation soils.
From past performance histories, it is suggested that
typical retaining walls (typically less than 30 feet high
and not associated with adjacent structures) should be
designed using static earth-pressure theories without
considering earthquake loads. However, it is suggested
that the adopted factor of safety should be 1.5 for sandy
soils (both backfill and foundation soils are cohesion-
ATC-32
125
COMMENTARY
Structural Design
It should be recognized that the static, active earth-pressure condition represents the minimum earth pressure
that would be exerted on the wall, and that the wall must
be allowed to move to relieve excessive earth pressure for
the low-pressure assumption to be valid. There are many
scenarios in which the earth pressure would exceed the
static, active earth-pressure coefficient. Whereas the
static, active earth pressure may be adequate for evaluating the overall stability of the retaining wall, it may not
provide an adequate margin of safety for structural
design. Various factors, including unexpected restraint
ofthe wall from nearby constructed facilities and uneven
earth-pressure distribution could result in localized
higher soil pressure on the wall that should be accounted
for in structural design. Although there are load factors
and material strength-reduction factors inherent in
structural design codes to provide for the needed margin
of safety for unusual conditions (ie., wall height higher
than 30 feet or adjacent to other structures), it is recommended that the structural design of the retaining wall
be based on other more refined approaches or a more
conservative basis.
One alternative is to design for a dynamic active
earth pressure condition in conjunction with using the
appropriate horizontal acceleration coefficient (say 0.5 of
the peak ground acceleration coefficient) as suggested in
the 1992 AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications (Section
6 in Division I-A for abutment design). Many designers
consider the dynamic, active earth-pressure theory
overly complex and problematic. In such a case, a more
simple approach would be to design the retaining wall to
a higher static earth-pressure coefficient in the serviceload design scenario; say to the at-rest earth-pressure
condition (coefficient of about 0.5 in conjunction with
the appropriate factor of safety).
126
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
127
Section 8
Reinforced Concrete
COMMENTARY
8.1 APPLICATlON 1
8.1.1
General
Notation
ATC-32
129
COMMENTARY
the joint
bje = effective joint width
D = diameter of circular columns
D' = diameter between centerlines ofperipheral hoop
or spiral
d bb = effective diameter of bundled bars as defined in
Article 8.33.3.2
dbl = nominal diameter of column longitudinal
reinforcement being anchored or spliced
(Article 8.33)
Eds = "double modulus" of steel, defined in C18.2.2.2
Ei = initial modulus of elasticity of longitudinal
reinforcement
Esu = effective secant modulus of elasticity of
longitudinal reinforcement measured from
current stress Isu to ultimate stress Iu
Et = initial modulus of elasticity of transverse
reinforcement
f'cc = compression strength of confined concrete
f'ce = expected concrete compression strength
f'co = maximum feasible concrete compression
strength
Ih = average normal stress in the horizontal direction
within moment resisting connection
Ie' = equivalent uniform confinement stress as
defined in Equation 8-24
Is = maximum tensile stress in column longitudinal
reinforcement (Article 8.33.2.3)
Isb = axial stress in reinforcing bar at inelastic
buckling
Iu = ultimate stress in reinforcing steel
Iv = average normal stress in the vertical direction
within moment resisting connection
= expected yield stress of column longitudinal
reinforcement
= specified yield stress of transverse reinforcement
= maximum feasible yield stress of column
longitudinal reinforcement
Iyv = yield stress of vertical stirrup or tie (Article
8.35.2.3)
H = length of pile shaft!column from ground surface
to point of zero moment above ground
h b = cap beam or footing depth
h c = lateral column dimension (as defined in
C8.34.3.1)
hs = superstructure depth
i! ac = length of column bar embedment into cap beam
or footing (Articles 8.33.1.2 & 8.34.4.4)
i! b = length used for flexural bond requirements
(Article 8.33.3)
i! c = length of column between point of maximum
moment and point of zero moment
ire
irh
iro
130
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
8.16.1.1
Strength Requirements
C8.16.1.1
Required Strength
ATC-32
Required Strength
131
COMMENTARY
8.16.1.2
C8.16.1.2
Design Strength
l/J = 0.90
(b) Shear
l/J=0.85
l/J=0.75
members confined by
rectangular hoops
l/J = 0.70
l/J = 1.0
l/J=0.9
l/J=0.7
132
Design Strength
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
8.16.2.1
DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
AppLication
8.16.2.2
GeneraL Assumptions
ATC-32
133
COMMENTARY
f:e =1.3f:
fye =1.1fy
R8-2
f: .
134
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
8.16.4
Compression Members
8.16.4.1
General Requirements
8.16.4.4
ATC-32
C8.16.4.4
t:e
t:
135
COMMENTARY
steel stress of reinforcement located with maximum distance from the neutral axis may be as high as 20 to 30
percent above actual yield stress, particularly for columns with low longitudinal reinforcement ratios, and
low axial load ratios.
The consequence is that the column moment capacity may greatly exceed the design strength This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure RC8-1, where the ordinate is
the overstrength ratio, Po' which is defined as the ratio of
plastic moment strength to design strength based on
Article 8.16.2.4. This figure indicates that a ratio of 1.4 is
appropriate. It should be noted that the value of 1.3 used
in previous versions of the BDS may not be sufficiently
conservative in some cases, particularly considering the
lower estimate of design strength used.
Article 8.16.4.4.3 allows a relaxation ofthe 1.4 factor
when the overstrength is estimated from a moment-curvature analysis. Design efficiencies will often be available
when this option is taken.
1.0 +-,,-r-'-":"l':""""'''''''"""T'"",-r-....,....,....,.....,....,r-r--'-r-r-r-,....,.....j
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.5.,-------------------,
1.0 -t-.......-.-..-,-.--r-..-....,..........,....,.-.-,.......,-...........,....,.-.-,.......,--.--l
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
A%ia1 Load Ratio PIt'...
136
ATC-32
8.16.6
8.16.6.1
COMMENTARY
Shear2
(8.16.6
Shear Strength
Shear
R8-4
1.
2.
where Vu is the factored shear force at the section considered, and V n is the nominal shear strength, computed
by
R8-S
where V, is the nominal shear strength provided by the
concrete in accordance with Article 8.16.6.2, and Vs is
the nominal shear strength provided by the transverse
reinforcement in accordance with Article 8.16.6.3.
2. The PEP opted not to include the shear capacity model recommended by the subcontractor due to a lack of consensus among project
participants. Many project participants felt that because of the amount
of change being proposed and the fact that these changes may yield less
conservative results than current ACI provisions, a more traditional
peer review similar to that received by American Concrete Institute
CACI) code provisions would be required before adopting these
changes. The decision not to use the proposed shear capacity equations
was made even though some of the trial designs and applications indicated there was a potential for congestion of transverse column reinforcement in some cases. Obviously, this is a potential problem that
Caltrans needs to be aware of during the trial application period.
ATC-32
137
COMMENTARY
8.16.6.2.1 Except for the end regions of ductile columns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial compression
shall be computed using units of pounds and inches by
R8-6
R8-7
8.16.6.2.2 Except for the end regions of ductile col. umns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial tension shall
be computed using units of pounds and inches by
R8-8
Within the end region of columns, extending a distance from the critical section or sections not less than
LSD for circular columns or I.Sh for rectangular columns, the nominal shear strength provided by concrete
for members subjected to flexure and axial tension shall
be computed using units of pounds and inches by
138
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
8.16.6.2.3 Nominal shear strength provided by concrete for members constructed of lightweight concrete
shall be 75% of the values given by the relevant Equations of Articles 8.16.6.2.1 or 8.16.6.2.2.
8.16.6.3
R8-10
8.16.6.3.7 Nominal shear strength provided by transverse circular hoops or spirals in circular sections shall
be computed by
1t
Vs
D'
hb yh
= -2--~s
R8-11
ATC-32
C8.16.6.3.8 Theoretical considerations and experimental evidence [MacLean et al., 1993; Benzoni & Priestley,
139
COMMENTARY
1996] indicate that the shear strength imparted by interlocking spirals should be equal to the sum of the individual spiral strengths.
8.16.6.3.9 Where more than one type ofshear reinforcement is used to reinforce the same portion of the
member, shear strength Vs shall be computed as the
sum of the V s values computed for the various types.
8.16.6.3.10 When shear strength V s exceeds 4 J1cbwd ,
spacing of shear reinforcement shall not exceed onehalf the maximum spacing given in Article 8.19.3.
8.16.6.3.11 Shear strength Vs shall not be taken as
greater than 8 J1cb w d.
8.16.6.3.12 When flexural reinforcement located
within the width of a member used to compute the
shear strength is terminated in a tension zone, shear
reinforcement shall be provided in accordance with
Article 8.24.1.4.
8.16.6.11
8.16.6.11.1 The design shear force V u on each principal axis of each member under Group VII loading shall
be the lesser of the shear force existing in equilibrium
with maximum plastic moments developed in potential
plastic hinges, in accordance with Article 8.16.4.4, or the
unreduced elastic ARS seismic forces, in combination
with the remainder of Group VII loading.
8.16.6.11.2 The amount of transverse reinforcement
provided shall not be less than that required by Article
8.18.2 for confinement or by Article 8.19.1 for minimum
shear reinforcement.
140
ATC-32
8.18
COMMENTARY
8.18.1.1
C8.18.1.1
The upper limit for columns has been reduced from 0.08
to 0.04. For longitudinal steel ratios exceeding 0.04, congestion is excessive, ductility capacity is reduced, and
shear stresses in monolithic connections between columns and cap beams or columns and footings exceed
allowable limits. Thus, dependable ductile response cannot be assured from more heavily reinforced members.
C8.18.1.4
8.18.2
8.18.2.1
Lateral Reinforcement
C8.18.2.1 GeneraL
GeneraL
ATC-32
141
COMMENTARY
8.18.2.2
8.18.2.2.1 Except as permitted by Article 8.18.2.4, spiral and tie ratios shall conform to the requirements of
Articles 8.18.2.2.2 through 8.18.2.2.8.
8.18.2.2.2 Within plastic end regions of ductile columns, as defined by Article 8.18.2.2.5, the volumetric
ratio P5 of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement shall
not be less than
fce[ 0.5 + IT
1.25PeJ
+ 0. 13(P
Ps = 0.16
ye
ce g
r 0.01)
R8-12
Ps = 0.0002 nb
where nb is the number oflongitudinal bars contained
by the spiral or circular hoop and that are subject to
inelastic buckling when cover concrete spalls. Equation
R8-13 need not be satisfied for columns with aspect
ratios MIVD < 4.
142
C8.18.2.2.2 The levels oflateral reinforcement for confinement required by Equations R8-12 and R8-13 have
been set to ensure that the dependable section curvature
ductility capacity will be at least Jl'l' = 'I'z/'lIy = 13.
Expected (ie., mean) curvature ductility capacity will be
about 50% larger; ie., Jlw =20. A value of flw = 13 is sufficient for the levels of displacement ductility implied by
the force-reduction factors Z of Article 3.21.11.
Because of the high levels of strain within the plastic
end region, column longitudinal reinforcement can be
subjected to alternate tensile and compressive yield. This
creates a potential for lateral buckling of the bars. Two
modes ofbuckling need to be considered. The first
involves buckling over a length equal to the vertical
spacing of the transverse reinforcement. The requirement (in Article 8.21.1.1) that the transverse reinforcement not be spaced wider apart than six times the
longitudinal reinforcing bar diameter, will restrain the
longitudinal bar against this form of buckling for effective compression strains of at least four percent.
The second form of buckling involves a buckling
length greater than the spacing of the transverse reinforcement, and occurs when the spacing is small, but the
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
0.45
Ps
nib
= EdsE
t
where
Eds
4E E j
su
= ----~
(~+JE/
RC8-1
RC8-2
Ps = O.00013nb
ATC-32
RC8-3
where nb is the number oflongitudinal bars in the column. If a column has more than one ring (layer) oflongitudinal bars, nb is the number ofbars in the outermost
ring, adjacent to the spiral or circular hoop reinforcement.
Equation RC8-3 does not consider interaction
between confinement and bar buckling. The action of
confinement places lateral pressure on the longitudinal
bar-intensifying the tendency for buckling. This interaction has not yet been successfully modeled, but it has
been found in experiments that Equation RC8-3 is not
always sufficient to restrain longitudinal bars from buckling. As a consequence, this value has been increased by
50 percent to give Equation R8-13, which, from comparison with experiments, has been found to be adequately
conservative.
When the column has a high moment gradient (ie.,
the aspect ratio MND is low), the compression strain in
the reinforcement reduces rapidly with distance from
the critical section, and as a consequence, the tendency
for buckling, which requires a significant length of column bar to be at high strain, is reduced. Consequently
143
COMMENTARY
Article 8.18.2.2.2 only requires Equation R8-13 to be satisfied for comparatively slender columns (MND > 4).
Equation R8-13 may result in large transverse steel
requirements in some cases, particularly large-diameter
columns, which will tend to have a large number ofbars.
In these cases, the designer should consider two or more
rings oflongitudinal reinforcement configured such that
the inner rings will remain laterally supported by concrete even after cover concrete spalls.
8.18.2.2.3 Outside plastic end regions defined in
Article 8.18.2.2.5 of ductile columns, the volumetric
ratio Ps of spiral or circular hoop reinforcement shall
not be less than 50% of the amount given by Equation
R8-12.
8.18.2.2.4 Piles and pile shafts with diameters less
than three feet shall have a volumetric ratio, Ps' ofspiral
or circular hoop reinforcement not less than
P 0.45[~: -1J~:J
s =
R8-14
8.18.2.3 Ties
Tie reinforcement for compression members shall conform to the following:
144
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
R8-15
ATC-32
145
COMMENTARY
R8-16
R8-17
RC8-4
where
JR.
= O.5P sf yh
RC8-S
2.00+--:;---------..,~--:,..._--*_7_,
1.75
f;" 1.50
f'
'"
1.25
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
p,
Figure RC8-2 Design aid for determining the compression strength of confined concrete.
146
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
R8-18
= 1.00D + O.06H
R8-20
RC8-6
It should be noted that this is not the same as the
plastic end region (Article 8.18.2.2.5) over which special
detailing requirements must be met to ensure adequate
confinement of concrete and buckling restraint.
For columns where the plastic hinge forms against a
supporting member, such as a footing or cap beam, the
plastic hinge length comprises two components: 0.08"
which recognizes the spread of plasticity proportional to
the length from the critical section to the point of contraflexure; and 9db, which recognizes the increased
plastic rotation due to strain penetration of the longitudinal reinforcement into the footing.
Analysis and experiments on ductile pile shaft/column designs (Budek, Benzon~ and Priestley, 1995) indicate a longer plastic hinge length, given by Equation R820 is appropriate for this class of structure.
8.21
ATC-32
147
COMMENTARY
8.21.2
Precast Concrete
For precast concrete (manufactured under plant-control conditions) the clear distance between parallel bars
in alayer shall be not less than one bar diameter, 1-113
times the maximum size of the coarse aggregate, or one
inch.
8.21.3
8.21.5
Bundled Bars
148
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Clear spacing of bars being developed or spliced not less than db'
clear cover not less than db ' and stirrups or ties throughout Rd
not less than the code minimum
Rd
or
fP~A
db = 25Jic
Rd
fy<X~A
db - 20Jic
Clear spacing ofbars being developed or spliced not less than 2db
and clear cover not less than db'
Rd
Other cases
3fy<X~A
db = 50Jic
R8-21
ATC-32
149
COMMENTARY
'A = 1.3
fK
6.7 ~J;;
but not less than 1.0
When normal-weight concrete is used: 'A = 1.0
c is the spacing or cover dimension, inches
Use the smaller of either the distance from the center of the bar or wire to the nearest concrete surface or
one-half the center-to-center spacing of the bars or
wires being developed, in square inches
K tT is the transverse reinforcement index
A tr f yt
Ktr
= 1500sn
where
A tr = total cross-sectional area of all transverse
reinforcement which is within the spacing 5 and
which crosses the potential plane of splitting
through the reinforcement being developed, in
2
m.
fyt = specified yield strength of transverse
reinforcement, in psi
150
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
It shall be permitted to use Ktr = 0 as a design simplification even if transverse reinforcement is present.
8.25.5
Excess Reinforcement
8.26.1
Development Length
fy
R8-22
{jf
.jfc
8.26.3
Modification Factors
8.26.3.1
Excess reinforcement
ATC-32
151
COMMENTARY
8.28
8.28.1
C8.28
C8.28.1
C8.28.2
Modification Factors
152
ATC-32
8.33.1
8.33.1.1
COMMENTARY
C8.33.1
Development Length
C8.33.1.1
R8-24
8.33.1.2
Development Length
C8.33.1.2 Confinement
Confinement
R8-25
8.33.1.3
8.33.2
ATC-32
C8.33.2
153
COMMENTARY
fs
O.04db is
Jlc
R8-26
8.33.2.4 Confinement
Lap splices complying with Article 8.33.2.3 shall be confined by hoop or spiral reinforcement of volumetric
ratio not less than
6A b
Ps
R8-27
= Df s
8.33.2.6
Mechanical Splices
8.33.3
8.33.3.1
C8.33.3.1
R8-28
154
C8.33.3
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
where
8.33.3.2
Bundled Bars
Where longitudinal bars in columns are bundled, Equation R8-28 shall apply to the nominal effective diameter
d bb of the bundle, taken as 1.2 db! for a two-bar bundle,
1.5 db! for a three-bar bundle, and 1.75 db! for a four-bar
bundle.
Design Forces
8.34.2
8.34.3
8.34.3.1
C8.34.3
Applied Stresses
C8.34.3.1
Principal stresses in any vertical plane within a connection shall be calculated in accordance with Equations
R8-29 and R8-30.
Principal tension stress is given by:
Pt -
Vhv
R8-29
Pc -
2
v hv
R8-30
Applied Stresses
where fh and Iv are the average axial stresses in the horizontal and vertical directions within the plane of the
ATC-32
RC8-7
155
COMMENTARY
Web
Cap Beam
Web
.b =b
je
I--
b je
he
+ be
--l
Figure RC8-3
culations.
156
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3.5 .flc
p =-S
8.34.3.3
R8-31
f yh
(8.34.4
8.34.4.1
C8.34.4.1
Article 8.34 requires a "rational" design for joint reinforcement when principal tension stress levels exceed
3.5.flc psi A "means of compliance" is provided in
Article 8.34.4. The amounts of reinforcement required
are based on the mechanism shown in Figure RC8-4,
which primarily uses external reinforcement for joint
resistance to reduce joint congestion.
C8.34.4.2
in the joint.
Reinforcement Ajv is required to provide the tie
force Ts resisting the vertical component of strut D2 in
Figure RC8-4. This reinforcement should be placed close
to the column cage for maximum efficiency. In addition,
it will be recognized that the cap beam top reinforcement or footing bottom reinforcement may have severe
ATC-32
Vertical Reinforcement
157
COMMENTARY
from the column or pier wall face. These vertical stirrups shall be distributed over a width not exceeding 2D.
Diagonal Strut D3
l~~~
V
~
~r
, "
, D1
1/"
:'
"-
f-
Ts
~l
~~ ~ ~~
tttt
"
158
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Bridge Axis
O.5A J within core
ateel in overl~ counts
v
for and @)
AJ., in adl of
CD @
I~ II
Hi/2-1
Brid,e Axis
O.5A J., within core
Edge
Bridge Axill
O.5A Jv withln core
1------102DI------\
ATC-32
159
COMMENTARY
8.34.4.3
Horizontal Reinforcement
C8.34.4.3
Ajv,,":...
.>0/2+ld
f--
~ within 0/2
(See Figure RC8-5) 7
I-
--
>0/2+ ld
-Figure R8-1 Additional cap beam bottom reinforcement for joint force transfer.
Horizontal Reinforcement
Figure RC8-1C8.34.4.4
R8-32
8.35
8.35.1
(8.35
FOOTING STRENGTH
Flexural Strength for Group VII Loads
In determining the flexural strength of footings resisting Group VII loads, with monolithic column/footing
connections, the effective width of the footing shall not
be taken to be greater than the width of the column plus
160
(8.35.1
FOOTING STRENGTH
Flexural Strength for Group VII Loads
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
8.35.2
C8.35.2
8.35.2.1
Effective Width
C8.35.2.1
Effective Width
8.35.2.3
C8.35.2.3
In all parts of the footing, a minimum amount of transverse reinforcement in the form ofvertical stirrups or
ties shall be placed, satisfying the expression
50
R8-33
Pv =f yv
ATC-32
161
COMMENTARY
__----D+28,
I
I
I
I
LH-l\
.
I
I
I
j'
/LH.-l
\
\
flared column
162
ATC-32
Section 10
Structural Steel
COMMENTARY
APPLICATION 1
10.1.1
Cl0.l.l
Notations
10.63.3.3)
A = area of cross section (Articles 10.60.3.3)
A e = effective net area (Article 10.62.3)
Ag = gross area (Article 10.61.3, 10.61.4, and 10.62.3)
AI = cross sectional area of longitudinal box stiffener
(Article 10.63.3.2)
As = shear area (Article 10.63.3.3)
b = width of box flange (Article 10.63.3.2)
bf = width of flange (Articles 10.62.2, and 10.62.3)
bbf = width of beam flange (Article 10.19.3.2)
db = beam depth (Article 10.19.3.2, and 10.61.4)
de = column depth (Article 10.19.3.2)
dl = longitudinal box stiffener area ratio (Article
10.63.3.2, and 10.63.3.3)
dz = panel zone depth between beam flanges (Article
10.19.3.2)
D = section depth (Article 10.63.3.3)
Db = beam depth (Article 10.63.2)
De = column depth (Article 10.63.2)
E = modulus of elasticity of steel, psi (Articles
10.60.3.3)
Notations
1. These provisions for the seismic design of steel bridges are entirely
new to the Bridge Design Specifications. It should be noted that no
trial designs have been performed and the impact of these design
requirements is not totally clear. A trial application period is recommended before they are adopted for widespread use.
ATC-32
163
COMMENTARY
RIO-I)
Fy = specified minimum yield point of steel (Table
164
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
ATC-32
165
10.2
10.2.1
COMMENTARY
MATERIALS
General
These specifications recognize steels listed in the following subparagraphs. Other steels may be used; however,
the properties, strength, allowable stress, and workability of any alternate steel materials must be established
and specified.
10.2.2
Structural Steels
C10.2.2
Structural Steels
166
ATC-32
Table RI0-l
COMMENTARY
Type
Structural Steel
M183
A36
A572
A588
Thickness of plates
Up to 8 in. incl.
Up to 4 in. incl.
Up to 4 in. incl.
Shapes'
Minimum Tensile
Strength, Fu (psi)
All groups
58,000
All groups
65,000
All groups
70,000
36,000
50,000
50,000
M222
M224/-
A514b/A517b
A514b/A517b
Up to 2 in. incl. Over 2 in. to 4 in.
incl.
Not applicable
Not applicable
100,000
110,000
100,000
90,000
a. Except for the mandatory notch toughness and weldability requirements, the ASTM designations are similar to the
AASHTO designations. Steels meeting the AASHTO requirements are prequalified for use in welded bridges.
b. Quenched and tempered alloy steel structural shapes and seamless mechanical tubing meeting all mechanical and
chemical requirements ofASTM A514, except that the specified maximum tensile strength may be 140,000 psi for
structural shapes and 145,000 psi for seamless mechanical tubing, shall be considered as ASTM A514 steel.
c. Groups 1 and 2 include all shapes, except those in Groups 3, 4 and 5. Group 3 includes L-shapes over Linch in thickness. HP-shapes over 102 pounds/foot, and the followingW-shapes:
Designation:
W36 x 230 to 300 incl.
W33 x 200 to 240 incl.
W14 x 142 to 211 incl.
W12 x 120 to 190 incl.
Group 4 includes the following W-shapes: W14 x 219 to 550 incl.
Group 5 includes the following W-shapes: W14 x 605 to 730 incl.
For breakdown of Groups 1 and 2, see ASTM A6.
Limited to 4-inch thickness for structural members other than bearing assembly components.
The 1987 Interim Material Specifications will modify M223 to conform with A572 regarding thickness.
Table RI0-2 Minimum Material Properties for Pins, Rollers,a and Rockers
AASHTO Designation with
MI02 to 20 in. in diameter MI02 to 20 in. in diameter M102 b to
Size Limitation
ASTM Designation
A668
A668
Grade or Class
Class D
Class F
Minimum Yield Point, ps~ Fy
37,500
50,000
20 in. in diameter
A668
Class G
50,000
ATC-32
167
COMMENTARY
10.19.3.1
Required Resistance
C10.19.3.1
The required flexural strength, Mu, of each beam-tocolumn joint shall be the lesser of either the plastic
bending moment, M p' of the column or the moment
resulting from the panel zone nominal shear strength,
Vn , as determined using the seismic load combination
and the seismic reduction factor, Z, taken as unity.
Where capacity design is used, the beam column
joint shall be designed for the lesser of 125% of the plastic bending moment, M p ' of the column or 125% of the
panel zone nominal shear strength, Vu '
The required shear strength V u ofbeam-to-column
joints shall be taken as the lesser of that determined
using the load combination 1.2 times the permanent
load plus the shear resulting from M u at the end of the
column or the shear resulting from the governing seismic load combination.
The design strength of a beam-to-column joint may
be considered adequate to develop the required flexural
strength, M u' of the column designed under the weak
column-strong beam philosophy, if the column flanges
are made continuous or are welded to the beam flange
using approved welded or mechanical joints.
The column web joint shall have a design shear
strength, iflvVn ' greater than the required shear
strength, v,;, where iflv is taken as 0.90. Where the nominal flexural strength of the column, M n, considering
only the flanges, is greater than 70 percent of the nominal flexural strength of the entire beam section, the web
joint may be made by means of welding or slip-critical,
high-strength bolting.
Joint configurations using welds or high-strength
bolts, but not conforming to the requirement above,
may be permitted if proven to be adequate by test or
calculation. Where conformance is shown by calculation, the design strength ofthe joint shall be 125 percent
of the design strength of the connecting elements.
168
Required Resistance.
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
3bbl~fJ
RI0-1
where:
Fy = specified minimum yield stress of the steel (ksi)
de = overall column section depth (in)
tp = total thickness of the panel zone including
doubler plates (in)
bbf = width of the beam flange (in)
tbf = thickness of the beam flange (in)
db = overall beam depth (in)
0 v = 0.75 for this application
dz+w z
90
RI0-2
where:
Wz
ATC-32
169
10.20
COMMENTARY
10.20.1
General
10.20.4.1
General
10.20.4.2 Applicability
These provisions shall apply to diaphragms, crossframes, and lateral bracing, which are part ofthe seismic
force-resisting system in common slab-on-steel girder
bridges. Curved bridges are not covered by this article.
10.20.4.3
C10.20.4.3
Design Criteria
The Engineer shall demonstrate that a clear, straightforward load path to the substructure exits and that all
components and connections are capable of resisting
the imposed load effects consistent with the chosen load
path.
170
Design Criteria
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
10.20.4.4
Load Distribution
Cl0.20.4.4
Load Distribution
ATC-32
171
COMMENTARY
10.21
Cl0.20.4.5
LATERAL BRACING
10.21.1 General
The need for lateral bracing shall be investigated.
Flanges attached to concrete decks or other decks of
comparable rigidity will not require lateral bracing. Lateral bracing may be used for seismic load transfer, as
described in Article 10.20.4.
172
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
10.24
ATC-32
173
COMMENTARY
10.25
10.25.6
Seismic Restrictions
10.29
174
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
10.29.8.2
ApplicabilityZ
The provisions shall apply to pin bearings, roller bearings, rocker bearings, bronze or copper-alloy sliding
bearings, elastomeric bearings, spherical bearings, and
pot and disc bearings in common slab-on-steel girder
bridges. Curved bridges, seismic isolation-type bearings,
and structural fuse bearings are not covered by this article.
The strategy taken herein assumes that inelastic
action is confined to properly detailed hinge areas in the
substructure. Alternative concepts that utilize movement at the bearings to dissipate seismic forces may also
be considered, provided that all ramifications of the
increased movements and the predictability of the associated forces and transfer of forces are addressed in the
design and details.
10.29.8.3
General
C10.29.8.4
ATC-32
Design Criteria
175
COMMENTARY
connections to the bearings, and then to the substructure without reduction due to local inelastic action
along that load path.
Deformable-type bearings having less than full
rigidity in the restrained directions, but not designed
explicitly as base isolators or fuses have demonstrated a
reduction in force transmission to the substructure, and
may be used under any circumstance. If used, they shall
be designed to accommodate imposed seismic loads.
and much higher loads than anticipated have caused various types and levels of bearing damage. Because of the
requirement for allowing movement, bearings often
contain elements vulnerable to high loads and impacts.
The performance of bearings during past earthquakes needs to be evaluated in context with the overall
performance of the bridge and the performance of the
superstructure and substructure elements connected to
the bearings. Rigid bearings have been associated with
damage to the end cross-frames and the supporting pier
or abutment concrete. In some cases, bearing damage
and slippage has prevented more extensive damage.
The criteria for seismic design ofbearings should
consider the strength and stiffness characteristics of the
superstructure and substructure. To minimize damage,
the seismic load-resisting system made of the end crossframe, bearings, and substructure should allow a certain
degree of energy dissipation, movement, or plastic deformation, even if those effects are not quantified as they
would be for base isolation bearings or structural fuses.
Based on their horizontal stiffness, bearings may be
divided into four categories:
rigid bearings that transmit seismic loads without any
movement or deformation,
deformable bearings that transmit seismic loads limited by plastic deformations or restricted slippage of
bearing components,
seismic isolation-type bearings that transmit reduced
seismic loads, limited by energy dissipation, and
structural fuses that are designed to fail at a prescribed load.
For the deformable-type bearing, limited and
repairable bearing damage and displacement may be
allowed for the safety-evaluation earthquake.
When both the superstructure and the substructure
components adjacent to the bearing are very stiff, a
deformable-type bearing should be considered.
Seismic isolation-type bearings are not within the
scope of these provisions, but they should also be considered.
Bearings may also be designed to act as "structural
fuses" that will fail at a predetermined load, changing
the articulation of the structure, possibly changing its
period and hence seismic response, and probably resulting in increased movements. This strategy is permitted
as an alternative to these provisions under Article
10.29.8.2. Such an alternative would require full consid-
176
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
Load Distribution
Cl0.29.8.5
10.29.8.6
ATC-32
Load Distribution
177
COMMENTARY
10.29.8.7
Bearing Anchorage
Cl0.29.8.7
178
Bearing Anchorage
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
SCOPE
10.61.1
General
Section Transitions
ATC-32
179
COMMENTARY
Table RIO-3
Description of element
Flangesa ofI-shaped non-hybrid sections and channels in flexure
b'
t
1640
,/Fy
Hollow tubes
Circular tubes
d
d
t
t
Unstiffened rectangular tubes
3480
a. h' taken as the width of projecting flange element, not the entire flange width.
180
ATC-32
10.61.4
COMMENTARY
'" Z (F b
k..
ye
~bPue)
> 1.0
A
RlO-3
General
The provisions of this section apply to all bracing members, other than diaphragms and cross frames in slabon-steel girder bridges, for which the working lines of
members essentially meet at a common point.
The provisions of Article 10.20.4 shall apply to
cross frames and diaphragms in slab-on-steel girder
bridges.
10.62.2
C10.62.2
Bracing Members
The design strength of a bracing member in axial compression should be taken as 0.8ePn ,where cis taken as
0.85 and Pn is the nominal axial strength of a column
(kips).
Bracing members may be either compact or noncompact and shall satisfy:
ATC-32
Bracing Members
181
COMMENTARY
!.L<
2tf -
4460
RlO-4
~Fy-lO,OOO
3350
RlO-5
~ Fyw -16,500
Bracing Connections
182
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
RI0-8
where:
A e = effective net area (in2)
A g = gross area (in 2)
a = fraction ofthe member force that is transferred
across a particular net section
= required strength of the brace (as defined by the
three provisions above) (kip),
<1>t = tensile strength resistance factor = 0.75
P n = nominal tensile strength (kip)
Pt
ATC-32
183
COMMENTARY
General
C10.63.1
General
No fully developed specification for this type of construction has been identified. Some design guidance can
be deduced based on tests of columns and knee joints
conducted primarily in Japan (Fukumoto & Lee, 1992;
Kawashima, et. al., 1992). These tests did not include a
wide range of bit values, so the results should not be
extended far from the range tested.
10.63.2
C10.63.2
The shear strength of an unstiffened box corner connection shall be taken as:
2.29F/ w DiPc
V = ~_!'-c'c'---='---7
y
L(I- D b2:D c
Nishimura, Hwang, and Fukumoto (1992) have published experimental studies dealing with a corner connection of the steel pier, as shown in Figure RC1O-1.
RlO-9
where:
Fy = steel yield strength (psi)
Figure RC10-1
Knee geometry.
The maximum yield point of the steel used to fabricate test specimens was approximately 55 ksi. The rate of
loss of strength is shown in Figure RCI0-2. Specimen
BL-Cll had a bit ratio for the flange of 30. Specimen
BL-CI2 had a bltratio for the flanges of 40. BLR was the
same as BL-Cll, but with a curved corner having a
radius of approximately two inches. The improvement
caused by maintaining a bl t of no more than 30 is
evident.
The provisions of Article 10.61.3 relating to unstiffened box sections may be used.
All of the specimens failed by local buckling in the
corner containing the exterior right angle. The welding
details for test specimens were not provided. The web
plate within the joint was observed to buckle diagonally
across the joint, as would be expected.
184
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
:-:.-.r-:
..~.Tt:~.-:-='. -,. - . - . - - - - - - -....
. .
. ...
..
1.0r----:
..
",
~0.9 i-
'.
:(
., , ,
gO.S ....
a:
........
.... .....
uI
.......
...
-....
.
,,
i<
....
~O.7 ...
."
..
:<
.:Bl-11C
..... : BlR-50
e:Bl-12C
~0.6 i0.5
~u
30
NUMBER O~ REVERSAts
10
40
cal compression
r :'.-.::v;;.::-.----------,
a
1.0r---;;o:;;a~' oll":
D
....
.. .....
~O.9'-
:(
. .
a:
gO.B~
0 0
"'.......
DaDa
...
Goo
.... . . . . . .,
0 0
0. 0
0:
D DO
...
~0.7"i
..
:<
Iiz
D:BL-l1C
~0.6-
T: BlR- 50
0;
BL - 12 C
' ---t:;'_J.-'~Iin-_...l.'_~
' -..J'L--l
0.5O........
10
NUMBER
(bl
Figure RC10-2
O?~eveRS-'lS 30
40
tension
C10.63.3
Columns
10.63.3.1
General
ATC-32
185
COMMENTARY
\ UNIT C5
4:[
Hu= 241KN
I
P=0.50 Py=1323KN
lJ.p= 2.70mm
Hmax=220KN
Hmin =-218KN
200 Hp=149KN
100
3 -IOOt_.-::s~~~~~~~
-200
Figure RC10-3
Figure RC10-4
186
ATC-32
10.63.3.2
COMMENTARY
C10.63.3.2
t =-o
28n p
RIO-IO
t =-o
RIO-II
24n p
RIO-12
YI,req.
~>1.0
RIO-13
bji'; ::;;3160
npt
RIO-I4
dl,req.
for which:
lll
1
Y/=bt 3
RIO-IS
< o an dI t >(bt3J(1+npYI,reqJ
a_a
Il
4a 3
RIO-I6
if t< to
2
Yl,req=4a np(l+npdl )-
(a 2 +1)2
RIO-I8
Otherwise,
if t~ to
ATC-32
187
r-I]
COMMENTARY
RlO-20
= Al
bt
RIO-21
a=b
RlO-22
RIO-23
RlO-24
where:
10.63.3.3
Z e =OSFeQ e ~ Z
RIO-25
for which:
asp = OSF+l
e
Q e =~2Ile-l
RIO-26
RIO-27
RlO-28
188
ATC-32
COMMENTARY
R10-29
K=l
otherwise,
R10-30
R10-31
3
HyL
HyL
3y = 3EI + GA
R10-32
Hy
= ~ = ~(Fy-~Zc
As = 2Dt w
The overstrength factor,
R10-33
R10-34
ATC-32
189
References
AASHTO, 1983, Interim SpecifICations - Bridges, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington D.C.
Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreads, Technical Report NCEER92-0021, August 17,1992.
Bertero, V.V., J.C. Anderson, H. Krawinkler, and E.
Miranda, 1991, "Design Guidelines for Ductility and
Drift Limits: Review of State-of-the-Practice and Stateof-the-Art in Ductility and Drift-Based EarthquakeResistant Design of Tall Buildings," UCB/EERC 91115,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley.
Bielak, J., and M. Romo, 1989, "Working Group Conclusions on Geotechnical Engineering and Foundations,"
Lessons Learned from the 1985 Mexico Earthquake, EERI,
Bertero, and Vitelmo (editors), December, 1989.
Biggs, J.M., 1964, Introduction to Structural Dynamics,
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
Bogard, D.B. and H. M. Matlock, 1983, "Procedures for
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Soft Clay,"
ATC-32
Caltrans, 1986, Bridge Design SpecifICation Manual, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California.
References
191
CDMG, 1992, "Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California," DMG Open File Report
92-1, California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
CEC, 1988, Eurocode No.8 Structures in Seismic Regions,
Commission of the European Community, Brussels,
Belgium.
Clough, G.W., and J.M. Duncan, 1991, "Earth Pressures," Foundation Engineering Handbook, Second Edition, Fang and Hsai-Yang (eds.), Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Clough, RW. and J. Penzien, 1993, Dynamics ofStructures, second edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York.
Cook, A.R., and RE. Klingner, 1992, "Ductile MultipleAnchor Steel-to-Concrete Connections," Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 118, no. 6: pp. 1645-1665.
FHWNCNSD-88/02, 1990, Field Tests ofLarge Diameter Drilled Shafts, Part I - Lateral Loads, March, 1990.
Franklin, A.G. and F.K. Chang, 1977, Earthquake Resistance ofEarth and Rockfill Dams, Report 5, Permanent
Displacement ofEarth Embankments by Newmark Sliding
Block Analysis, Miscellaneous Paper S-71-17, Soils and
Pavement Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterway Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fukomoto, Y. and George Lee (editors), 1992, Stability
and Ductility ofSteel Structures Under Cyclic Loading,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Lam, J.P., 1994, "Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Highway Construction, Task 106-E-4.1 & 4.2 (A&B) Year-1
Report," FHWA ContractDTFH61-92-C-00106, Report
to NCEER, July 11, 1994.
Lam, J.P, G.R. Martin, and R Imbsen,1991, "Modeling
Bridge Foundations for Seismic Design and Retrofitting," Proceedings, Third Bridge Engineering Conference,
March 10-13, 1991, Denver, Colorado, Transportation
Research Record No. 1290, Volume 2, Bridges and
Structures.
Lam, J.P. and G.R Martin, 1984, "Seismic Design for
Highway Bridge Foundations," Proceedings, Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering: Performance Design and Construction, ASCE Convention, San Francisco, California.
Lam, J.P. andG.R Martin, 1986, Seismic Design ofHighway Bridge Foundations, FHWA Report Nos.
FHWNRD-86/l01 through 103, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Lam, J.P. and G.R. Martin, 1995, "Foundation Design,"
in ATC-32-1, Recommended Revision ofCaltrans Seismic
Vol. 1: Japanese Case Studies and Vol. 2: U.S. Case Studies, Technical Report NCEER-92-0001 and 0002,
NCEER, Buffalo, New York.
Haroun, N.M., and R. Sheperd, 1986, "Inelastic Behavior of X-Bracing in Plane Frames," Journal ofStructural
Engineering, vol. 112, no. 4: pp. 764-780.
A Report to Governor George Deukmejian from the Governor's Board ofInquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, State of California, Sacramento, California.
192
Mahin, S. and R. Boroschek, 1991, "Influence ofGeometric Non-linearities on the Seismic Response and
Design of Bridge Structures," Report to the California
References
ATC-32
tions.
NCHRP, 1992, Proposed LRFD Bridge Design Code, 3rd
draft NCHRP Project 12-33, Washington, D.C.
Nishimura, N., W. Hwang, and Y. Fukumoto, 1992,
"Experimental Investigation on Hysteretic Behavior of
Thin-Walled Box Beam-to-Column Connections," in
ATC-32
References
193
Terzaghi, K., 1955, "Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction," Geotechnique, vol. 5, no. 4: pp. 297326.
Tokimatsu, K. and H.B. Seed, 1987, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal
ofGeotechnical Engineering, vol. 113, no. 8: pp. 861-878.
Tsai, N. e. and S. D. Werner, 1993, Evaluation ofModel-
Singh, J.P., 1985, "Earthquake Ground Motions: Implications for Designing Structures and Reconciling Structural Damage," Earthquake Spectra, vol 1: pp. 239-270.
194
References
ATC-32
Appendix A
==
==
==
==
Notations
General
Dead Load
Live Load
Overload Provisions
Traffic Lanes
Highway Loads
3.7.1
Standard Truck and Lane Loads
3.7.2
Classes of Loading
3.7.3
Designation ofLoadings
3.7.4
Minimum Loading
3.7.5
H Loading
3.7.6
HS Loading
3.7.7
P Loading
3.8
Impact
3.8.1
Application
3.8.1.1
Group A
3.8.1.2
Group B
3.8.2
Impact Formula
3.9
Longitudinal Forces
3.10 Centrifugal Forces
3.11 Application of Live Load
3.11.2 Number and Position of Traffic Lane Units
3.11.3 Lane Loads on Continuous Spans
ATC-32
Combinations of Loads
195
196
3.28
4.0
4.1
4.2
Application
Notations
Bearing Capacity of Foundation Soils
4.2.1
Theoretical Estimation
4.2.2
Load Tests
4.2.3
Approximate Values
4.3
Piles
4.3.1
General
4.3.2
Limitations on the Use of Untreated Timber
Piles
4.3.2.1
Untreated and Treated Timber Piles
4.3.3
Design Loads
4.3.4
Load Capacity of Piles
4.3.4.1
General
4.3.4.1.1
4.3.4.1.2
4.3.4.2
Case A - Capacity as a Structural
Member
4.3.4.3
Case B - Capacity of the Pile to Transfer
Load to the Ground
4.3.4.3.1
Point-Bearing Piles
4.3.4.3.2 Friction Piles
4.3.4.4
Case C - Capacity of the Ground to
Support the Load Delivered by the Pile
4.3.4.4.2.1 Point-Bearing Piles
4.3.4.4.2.2 Friction Piles
4.3.4.5
Maximum Design Loads for Piles
4.3.4.6
Uplift
4.3.4.7
Group Pile Loading
4.3.4.8
Lateral Resistance
4.3.5
Required Subsurface Investigations
4.3.5.1
Point-Bearing Piles
4.3.5.2
Friction Piles
4.3.5.3
Combination Point-Bearing and
Friction Piles
4.3.5.4
Scour
4.3.6
Spacing, Clearances, and Embedment
4.3.6.1
Footings
4.3.6.2
Bent Caps
4.3.7
Batter Piles
4.3.8
Buoyancy
4.3.9
Precast Concrete Piles
4.3.10 Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles
4.3.11 Steel H-Piles
4.3.11.1 Thickness of Metal
4.3.11.2 Splices
ATC-32
4.3.11.3 Caps
4.3.11.4 Scour
4.3.11.5 Lugs, Scabs, and Core-Stoppers
4.3.12 Unfilled Tubular Steel Piles
4.3.12.1 Thickness of Metal
4.3.12.2 Splices
4.3.12.3 Driving
4.3.12.4 Column Action
4.3.13 Protection Against Corrosion and Abrasion
4.3.14 Prestressed Concrete Piles
4.4
Footings
4.4.1
General
4.4.2
Depth
4.4.2.1
Minimum Embedment and Bench
Depth
4.4.2.2
Scour Protection
4.4.2.3
Footing Excavation
4.4.2.4
Piping
4.4.3
Anchorage
4.4.4
Distribution of Pressure
4.4.5
Loads and Reactions
4.4.6
Moment in Footings
4.4.7
Shear in Footings
4.4.8
Development of Reinforcement
4.4.9
Transfer of Force at Base of Column
4.4.10 Plain Concrete Footings
4.5
Seismic Design Requirements
Application
8.1.1
General
8.1.2
Notations
8.2
Concrete
8.3
Reinforcement
Part B - Analysis
8.4
General
8.5
Expansion and Contraction
8.6
Stiffness
8.7
Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio
8.8
Span Length
8.9
Control of Deflections
8.9.1
General
8.9.2
Superstructure Depth Limitations
8.9.3
Superstructure Deflection Limitations
ATC-32
Part C- Design
8.14 General
8.14.1 Design Methods
8.14.2 Composite Flexural Members
8.14.3 Concrete Arches
8.15 Service Load Design Method (Allowable Stress
Design)
8.15.1 General Requirements
8.15.2 Allowable Stresses
8.15.2.1 Concrete
8.15.2.1.1 Flexure
8.15.2.1.2 Shear
8.15.2.1.3 Bearing Stress
8.15.2.2 Reinforcement
8.15.3 Flexure
8.15.4 Compression Members
8.15.5 Shear
8.15.5.1 Shear Stress
8.15.5.2 Shear Stress Carried by Concrete
8.15.5.2.1 Shear in Beams and One-Way Slabs
and Footings
8.15.5.2.2 Shear in Compression Members
8.15.5.2.3 Shear in Tension Members
8.15.5.2.4 Shear in Lightweight Concrete
8.15.5.3 Shear Stress Carried by Shear
Reinforcement
8.15.5.4 Shear Friction
8.15.5.4.3 Shear-friction design method
8.15.5.5 Horizontal Shear Design for Composite
Concrete Flexural Members
8.15.5.5.5 Ties for Horizontal Shear
8.15.5.6 Special Provisions for Slabs and
Footings
8.15.5.7 Special Provisions for Slabs of Box
Culverts
8.15.5.8 Special Provisions for Brackets and
Corbels
8.16 Strength Design Method (Load Factor Design)
8.16.1 Strength Requirements
8.16.1.1 Required Strength
8.16.1.2 Design Strength
8.16.2 Design Assumptions
8.16.3 Flexure
8.16.3.1 Maximum Reinforcement of Flexural
Members
8.16.3.2 Rectangular Sections with Tension
Reinforcement Only
197
8.16.3.3
198
Part D-Reinforcement
8.17 Reinforcement of Flexural Members
8.17.1 Minimum Reinforcement
8.17.2 Distribution of Reinforcement
8.17.2.1 Flexural Tension Reinforcement in
Zones of Maximum Tension
8.17.2.2 Transverse Deck Slab Reinforcement in
T-Girders and Box Girders
8.17.2.3 Bottom Slab Reinforcement for Box
Girders
8.17.3 Lateral Reinforcement of Flexural Members
8.18 Reinforcement of Compression Members
8.18.1 Maximum and Minimum Longitudinal
Reinforcement
8.18.2 Lateral Reinforcement
8.18.2.1 General
8.18.2.2 Spirals or Circular Hoops
8.18.2.3 Ties
8.18.2.4 Spirals and Hoops Designed by Plastic
Analysis
8.19 Limits for Shear Reinforcement
8.19.1 Minimum Shear Reinforcement
8.19.2 Types of Shear Reinforcement
8.19.3 Spacing of Shear Reinforcement
8.20 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement
8.21 Spacing Limits For Reinforcement
8.22 Protection Against Corrosion
8.23 Hooks and Bends
8.23.1 Standard Hooks
8.23.2 Minimum Bend Diameters
8.24 Development of Flexural Reinforcement
8.24.1 General
8.24.2 Positive Moment Reinforcement
8.24.3 Negative Moment Reinforcement
8.25 Development of Deformed Bars and Deformed
Wire in Tension
8.26 Development of Deformed Bars in Compression
8.27 Development of Shear Reinforcement
8.28 Development of Bundled Bars
8.29 Development of Standard Hooks in Tension
8.30 Development of Welded Wire Fabric in Tension
8.30.1 Deformed Wire Fabric
8.30.2 Smooth Wire Fabric
8.31 Mechanical Anchorage
8.32 Splices of Reinforcement
8.32.1 Lap Splices
8.32.2 Welded Splices and Mechanical
Connections
8.32.3 Splices of Deformed Bars and Deformed
Wire in Tension
8.32.4 Splices of Bars in Compression
8.32.4.1 Lap Splices in Compression
8.32.5 Splices of Welded Deformed Wire Fabric in
Tension
ATC-32
8.32.6
8.33
8.34
8.35
8.36
ATC-32
199
10.23.1 General
10.23.2 Effective Size of Fillet Welds
10.23.2.1 Maximum Size of Fillet Welds
10.23.2.2 Minimum Size of Fillet Welds
10.23.3 Minimum Effective Length of Fillet Welds
10.23.4 Fillet Weld End Returns
10.23.5 Seal Welds
10.24 Fasteners (Rivets and Bolts)
10.24.1 General
10.24.2 Hole Types
10.24.3 Washer Requirements
10.24.4 Size of Fasteners (Rivets or High-Strength
Bolts)
10.24.5 Spacing ofFasteners
10.24.6 Maximum Pitch of Sealing and Stitch
Fasteners
10.24.6.1 Sealing Fasteners
10.24.6.2 Stitch Fasteners
10.24.7 Edge Distance of Fasteners
10.24.7.1 General
10.24.8 Slip Critical Connections Subject to Seismic
Loading
10.25 Links and Hangers
10.25.1 Net Section
10.25.2 Location of Pins
10.25.3 Size of Pins
10.25.4 Pin Plates
10.25.5 Pins and Pin Nuts
10.25.6 Seismic Restrictions
10.26 Upset Ends
10.27 Eyebars
10.27.1 Thickness and Net Section
10.27.2 Packing of Eyebars
10.28 Forked Ends
10.29 Fixed and Expansion Bearings
10.29.1 General
10.29.2 Bronze or Copper-Alloy Sliding Expansion
Bearings
10.29.3 Rollers
10.29.4 Sole Plates and Masonry Plates
10.29.5 Masonry Bearings
10.29.6 Anchor Bolts
10.29.7 Pedestals and Shoes
10.29.8 Seismic Provisions for Fixed and EJq>ansion
Bearings
10.30 Floor System
10.30.1 Stringers
10.30.2 Floor Beams
10.30.3 Cross Frames
10.30.4 Expansion Joints
10.30.5 End Floor Beams
10.30.6 End Panel of Skewed Bridges
10.30.7 Sidewalk Brackets
200
ATC-32
ATC-32
201
202
10.58.2.2Shear Connectors
10.58.3 Hybrid Beams and Girders
10.59 Deflection
10.60 Orthotropic Superstructures
10.61 Potential Plastic Hinge Regions under Seismic
Loading
10.62 Seismic Provisions for Concentric Bracing
10.63 Seismic Considerations for Box Sections
Section 11 - Aluminum Design
Section 12 - Soil Corrugated Metal Structure Interaction
System
Section 13 - Timber Structures
Section 14 - Elastomeric Bearings
Section 15 - TFE Bearing Surfaces
Section 16 - Steel Tunnel Liner Plates
Section 17 - Soil-Reinforced Concrete Structure Interaction System
Section 18 - Soil-Thermoplastic Pipe Interaction System
ATC-32
Project Participants
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
Mr. Richard Nutt (Principal Investigator)
9048 Hazel Oak Court
Orangevale, CA 95662
CALTRANS
Mr. Mohsen Sultan
Division of Structures
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274
ATC-32
Project Participants
203
SUBCONTRACTORS
Mr. AI Kercheval
Dr. Kosal Krishnan
Kercheval Engineers
4740 Murphy Canyon Rd., Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92123
Dr. John M. Kulicki
Modjeski and Masters, Inc.
P.O. Box 2345
Harrisburg, PA 17105
Dr. Ignatius Po Lam
Earth Mechanics, Inc.
17660 Newhope Street, #E
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Dr. JackP. Moehle
Earhquake Engineering Research Center
University of California at Berkeley
1301 South 46th Street
Richmond, CA 94804
204
Project Participants
ATC-32
One of the primary purposes of Applied Technology Council is to develop resource documents that
translate and summarize useful information to
practicing engineers. This includes the development of guidelines and manuals, as well as the
development of research recommendations for specific areas determined by the profession. ATC is
not a code development organization, although
several of the ATC project reports serve as resource
documents for the development of codes, standards and specifications.
Applied Technology Council conducts projects that
meet the following criteria:
1.
2.
ATC-32
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development ofSeismic Regulation for New Buildings. The second printing of this document
contains proposed amendments prepared by a
205
206
ATC-32
ATC-32
207
quake Ground Motion and Building Damage Potential, was co-funded by the USGS and the NSF.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1984,
259 pages)
Abstract: This document contains 19 state-ofthe-art papers on ground motion, structural
response, and structural design issues presented by prominent engineers and earth scientists in an ATC seminar. The main theme of
the papers is to identify the critical aspects of
ground motion and building performance that
currently are not being considered in building
design. The report also contains conclusions
and recommendations of working groups convened after the Seminar.
ATC-II: The report, Seismic Resistance ofReinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints:
Implications ofRecent Research for Design Engineers,
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1983,184
pages)
Abstract: This document presents the results
of an in-depth review and synthesis of research
reports pertaining to cyclic loading of reinforced concrete shear walls and cyclic loading
of joint reinforced concrete frames. More than
125 research reports published since 1971 are
reviewed and evaluated in this report. The
preparation of the report included a consensus
process involving numerous experienced
design professionals from throughout the
208
and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices for Highway Bridges, was published under a grant from
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
1982,270 pages)
Abstract: The report contains summaries of all
aspects and innovative design procedures used
in New Zealand as well as comparison of
United States and New Zealand design practice.
Also included are research recommendations
developed at a 3-day workshop in New Zealand
attended by 16 U.S. and 35 New Zealand bridge
design engineers and researchers.
ATC-12-I: This report, Proceedings ofSecond Joint
ATC-32
ATC-32
tural Design and Construction Practices, was published joindy by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1989,358 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 21 technical
papers presented at this Tokyo, Japan, workshop in July, 1988, by practitioners and
researchers from the U.S., Japan, China, and
New Zealand. Included are state-of-the-practice papers on various topics, including braced
steel frame buildings, beam-column joints in
reinforced concrete buildings, summaries of
comparative U. S. and Japanese design, and
base isolation and passive energy dissipation
devices.
ATC-15-3: The report, Proceedings ofFourth U.S.Japan Workshop on Improvement ofBuilding Structural Design and Construction Practices, was published joindy by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1992,484 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 22 technical
papers presented at this Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
workshop in August, 1990 by practitioners and
researchers from the United States, Japan, and
Peru. Included are papers on postearthquake
building damage assessment; acceptable earthquake damage; repair and retrofit of earthquake damaged buildings; base-isolated buildings, including Architectural Institute of Japan
recommendations for design; active damping
systems; wind-resistant design; and summaries
of working group conclusions and recommendations.
ATC-15-4: The report, Proceedings ofFifth U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement ofBuilding Structural Design and Construction Practices, was published joindy by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1994, 360 pages)
Abstract: This report contains 20 technical
papers presented at this San Diego, California
workshop in September, 1992. Included are
papers on performance goals/acceptable damage in seismic design; seismic design procedures and case studies; construction influences
on design; seismic isolation and passive energy
dissipation; design of irregular structures; seismic evaluation, repair and upgrading; quality
209
control for design and construction; and summaries of working group discussions and recommendations
ATC-I9: The report, Structural Response ModifICation Factors was developed under a grant from NSF
and NCEER. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1995, 70 pages)
Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation, was published under a grant from NSF.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1986,
478 pages)
Abstract: The report contains 42 papers
describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-thepractice in base-isolation and passive energydissipation technology. Included are papers
describing case studies in the United States,
applications and developments worldwide,
recent innovations in technology development,
and structural and ground motion issues. Also
included is a proposed 5-year research agenda
that addresses the following specific issues: (1)
strong ground motion; (2) design criteria; (3)
materials, quality control, and long-term reliability; (4) life cycle cost methodology; and (5)
system response.
ATC-I?-1: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar on
210
ATC-32
in the field.
ATC-20-2: The report, Addendum to the ATC-20
Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures was published under a grant from the National Science
Foundation and funded by the USGS. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1995,94 pages)
Abstract: This report provides updated assessment forms, placards, and procedures that are
based on an in-depth review and evaluation of
the widespread application of the ATC-20 procedures following five earthquakes occurring
since the initial release ofthe ATC-20 report in
1989.
ATC-20-T: The report, Postearthquake Safety Evaluation ofBuildings Training Manual was developed
under a contract with FEMA. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1993, 177 pages; 160
slides)
Abstract: This training manual is intended to
facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-20 and ATC-20-1. The training materials
consist of 160 slides of photographs, schematic
drawings and textual information and a companion training presentation narrative coordinated with the slides. Topics covered include:
posting system; evaluation procedures; structural basics; wood frame, masonry, concrete,
and steel frame structures; nonstructural elements; geotechnical hazards; hazardous materials; and field safety.
ATC-21: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, was developed under a contract from FEMA.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1988,
185 pages)
Abstract: This report describes a rapid visual
screening procedure for identifying those
buildings that might pose serious risk ofloss of
life and injury, or of severe curtailment of community services, in case of a damaging earthquake. The screening procedure utilizes a
methodology based on a "sidewalk survey"
approach that involves identification of the primary structural load resisting system and
building materials, and assignment of a basic
structural hazards score and performance
modification factors based on observed building characteristics. Application of the methodology identifies those buildings that are
ATC-32
211
212
ATC-32
Utilization ofResearch on Engineering and Socioeconomic Aspects of 1985 Chile and Mexico Earthquakes, was developed under a grant from NSF.
Available through the ATe office. (Published 1991,
ATC-32
113 pages)
Abstract: This report documents the findings of
a 1990 technology transfer workshop in San
Diego, California, co-sponsored by ATC and
the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Included in the report are invited papers and
working group recommendations on geotechnical issues, structural response issues, architectural and urban design considerations,
emergency response planning, search and rescue, and reconstruction policy issues.
ATC-31: The report, Evaluation ofthe Performance
ofSeismically Retrofitted Buildings, was developed
under a contract from the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly NBS)
and funded by the U. S. Geological Survey. Available through the ATC office. (Published 1992, 75
pages)
Abstract: This report summarizes the results
from an investigation of the effectiveness of229
seismically retrofitted buildings, primarily
unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up
buildings. All buildings were located in the
areas affected by the 1987 Whittier Narrows,
California, and 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
earthquakes.
ATC-35: The report, Enhancing the Transfer of
U. S. Geological Survey Research Results into Engineering Practice was developed under a contract
with the USGS. (Submitted to USGS in 1994,
released by ATC in 1996, 120 pages)
Abstract: This report provides a program of
recommended "technology transfer" activities
for the USGS; included are recommendations
pertaining to management actions, communications with practicing engineers, and research
activities to enhance development and transfer
of information that is vital to engineering practice.
ATC-35-1: The report, Proceedings ofSeminar on
213
214
Abstract: This report documents ATe's first selfdirected research program: a series of static and
dynamic tests of narrow plywood wall panels
having the standard 3.5-to-l height-to-width
ratio and anchored to the sill plate using typical
bolted, 9-inch, 5000-lb. capacity hold-down
devices. The report provides a description of
the testing program and a summary of results,
including comparisons of drift ratios found
during testing with those specified in the seismic provisions of the 1991 Uniform Building
Code.
ATC-32
Milton A. Abel
James C. Anderson
Thomas G. Atkinson*
Albert J. Blaylock
Robert K. Burkett
H. Patrick Campbell
Arthur N.1. Chiu
Anil Chopra
Richard Christopherson
Lee H. Cliff
John M. Coil*
Eugene E. Cole
Edwin T. Dean
Robert G. Dean
Edward F. Diekmann
Burke A. Draheim
John E. Droeger
Nicholas F. Forell*
Douglas A. Foutch
Paul Fratessa
Sigmund A. Freeman
Barry J. Goodno
Mark R Gorman
Gerald H. Haines
William J. Hall
Garyc. Hart
Lyman Henry
James A. Hill
Ernest C. Hillman, Jr.
Ephraim G. Hirsch
William T. Holmes*
Warner Howe
Edwin T. Huston*
Paul C. Jennings
Carl B. Johnson
Edwin H. Johnson
Stephen E. Johnston*
Joseph Kallaby*
Donald R. Kay
T. Robert Kealey*
H. S. (Pete) Kellam
Helmut Krawinkler
James S. Lai
Gerald D. Lehmer
James R. Libby
Charles Lindbergh
R Bruce Lindermann
1. W.Lu
Walter B. Lum
Kenneth A. Luttrell
Melvyn H. Mark
(1979-85)
(1978-81)
(1988-94)
(1976-77)
(1984-88)
(1989-90)
(1996-99)
(1973-74)
(1976-80)
(1973)
(1986-87, 1991-97)
(1985-86)
(1996-99)
(1996-97)
(1978-81)
(1973-74)
(1973)
(1989-95)
(1993-97)
(1991-92)
(1986-89)
(1986-89)
(1984-87)
(1981-82,1984-85)
(1985-86)
(1975-78)
(1973)
(1992-95)
(1973-74)
(1983-84)
(1983-87)
(1977-80)
(1990-97)
(1973-75)
(1974-76)
(1988-89)
(1973-75, 1979-80)
(1973-75)
(1989-92)
(1973-75, 1984-88)
(1975-76)
(1979-82)
(1982-85)
(1973-74)
(1992-93, 1994-98)
(1989-92)
(1983-86)
(1987-90)
(1975-78)
(1991-98)
(1979-82)
John A. Martin
John F. Meehan*
Andrew T. Merovich
David 1. Messinger
Stephen McReavy
Bijan Mohraz
William W. Moore
Gary Morrison
Robert Morrison
Ronald F. Nelson
Joseph P. Nicoletti*
Bruce C. Olsen*
Gerard Pardoen
Norman D. Perkins
Maryann T. Phipps
Sherrill Pitkin
Edward V. Podlack
Chris D. Poland
Egor P. Popov
Robert F. Preece*
Lawrence D. Reaveley*
Philip J. Richter*
John M. Roberts
Arthur E. Ross*
C. Mark Saunders
Walter D. Saunders*
Lawrence G. Selna
Wilbur C. Schoeller
Samuel Schultz*
Daniel Shapiro*
Jonathan G. Shipp
Howard Simpson*
Mete Sozen
Donald R Strand
James 1. Stratta
Edward J. Teal
W. Martin Tellegen
John C. Theiss*
Charles H. Thornton
James 1. Tipton
Ivan Viest
Ajit S. Virdee*
J. John Walsh
Robert S. White
James A. Willis*
Thomas D. Wosser
Loring A. Wyllie
Edwin G. Zacher
Theodore C. Zsutty
* President
(1978-82)
(1973-78)
(1996-99)
(1980-83)
(1973)
(1991-97)
(1973-76)
(1973)
(1981-84)
(1994-95)
(1975-79)
(1978-82)
(1987-93)
(1973-76)
(1995-96)
(1984-87)
(1973)
(1984-87)
(1976-79)
(1987-93)
(1985-91)
(1986-89)
(1973)
(1985-92, 1993-94)
(1993-97)
(1974-79)
(1981-84)
(1990-91)
(1980-84)
(1977-81)
(1996-99)
(1980-84)
(1990-93)
(1982-83)
(1975-79)
(1976-79)
(1973)
(1991-98)
(1992-99)
(1973)
(1975-77)
(1977-80, 1981-85)
(1987-90)
(1990-91)
(1980-81, 1982-86)
(1974-77)
(1987-88)
(1981-84)
(1982-85)
ATC-32
215
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services
Department at (703)487-4660.
Always think of NTIS when you want:
Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibillion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government.
R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.
NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
information:
The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
datafiles produced by Federal agencies.
The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.
For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
foreign Government technology. Call (703)487-4650 or send this
sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 221 61.
Ask for catalog, PR-827.
Name
Address
Telephone
(~i~
1Ar
\~I
~~~