Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Task 6 Report
for
Updating
Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges
2.2 Proposed Seismic Hazard for Design of Normal Bridges ....................... 2-2
Figure 3-1: Elastic Response Spectra Curves (5% Damping) for Soil
Profile Type D (M = 6.5 0.25) (Caltrans SDC) ................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2: Elastic Response Spectra Curve (5% Damping) for Soil
Profile Type D (M = 8.0 0.25) (Caltrans SDC) ................................... 3-7
Figure 3-4: Proposed Drift Capacity for SPC B and C ........................................ 3-18
Figure 3-5: Skew Effect Seat Width Amplification Factor for Various Skew
Angles ................................................................................................. 3-20
Figure 3-6: Relative Seismic Displacement vs. Period Ratio ............................. 3-23
Figure 3-7: Proposed Seat Width Compared to NCHRP 12-49 and DIV 1A
(H=20ft) ................................................................................................ 3-25
Figure 3-8: Proposed Seat Width Compared to NCHRP 12-49 and DIV 1A
(H=30ft) ................................................................................................ 3-25
Figure 4-1: Seismic Load Path and Affected Components .................................. 4-6
Table 2-3: Design Spectral Acceleration based on NCHRP 1997 ......................... 2-9
Table 2-4: Probabilistic Spectral Acceleration for 10% and 5% in 50 Years ..... 2-10
Table 2-5: Spectral Acceleration (Type B & D Soil) for 5% in 50 Years.............. 2-10
Table 2-6: One-Second Spectral Acceleration Comparison to USGS 1996 ...... 2-11
Table 3-2: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 6 .................................... 3-8
Table 3-3: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 7 .................................... 3-8
Table 3-4: 1.0 sec. Spectral Acceleration for Magnitude 8 .................................... 3-8
Table 3-6: Seismic Performance Category for Selected Sites .............................. 3-9
Table 5-2: Damage Severity Rating vs. Earthquake Magnitude ............................ 5-4
A review of the pertinent documents and information that were available was
conducted and has been included in Tasks 2 thru 5 as needed. The reference
material that was selected for inclusion is attached as appendices for each of
the individual tasks. Their inclusion as appendices makes this Letter Report
somewhat self-contained and additionally, makes it more convenient for our
reviewers.
A separate section is included in this Letter Report for each of the tasks as
described below:
Section 2 presents the justification for the 1000-year return period (i.e., 5%
probability of exceedance in 50 years) as recommended for the seismic design of
highway bridges.
Section 4 describes the two alternative approaches available for the design of
highway bridges with steel superstructures and concludes with a
recommendation to use a force base approach for the proposed specification.
Hazard Map under the control of AASHTO with each State having the
option to Modify or Update their own State Hazard using the most
recent Seismological Studies consistent with the Established Risk
1) Consideration for lower return period for Design based on the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) maps published in 1996 with USGS 2002
Update shall be considered a minimum standard. Modification or
increase in the hazard intensity based on Seismological Studies needs to
be included as an option for states and agencies seeking a higher degree
of hazard identification to a specific region or bridge.
4) Selection of a lower return period for Design is made such that Collapse
Prevention is not compromised when considering historical large
earthquakes. This reduction can be achieved by taking advantage of
sources of conservatism not explicitly taken into account in current
design procedures. These sources of conservatism are becoming obvious
based on recent findings from both observations of earthquake damage
and experimental data. Some of these sources are shown in Table 2-1.
The first aspect is highly influenced by variation in the periods of the frames
on both sides of a joint as well as the damping generated by the ductile
behavior of plastic hinges. This aspect is addressed in terms of
recommendations or limits on periods ratio for frames on both sides of an
expansion joint.
continuity of the superstructure and low axial loads in columns make a typical
bridge more resilient against collapse in a seismic event.
Under earthquake ground motions at the supports, the structure or any of its
components can fail under a smaller displacement than the displacement
collapse illustrated in Figure 2-1. This failure is mainly attributed to
nonsymmetric cumulative plastic displacement that is highly depended on the
characteristics of the earthquake ground motions. The reliable displacement
capacity is typically associated with the displacement corresponding to a
limited decrease in strength of 20% to 30% maximum obtained under
monotonically increasing deformation. As shown in Figure 2-1, the
displacement capacity capacity can only be established given the descending
slope following the point of maximum lateral resistance Fmax. Recognizing the
Table 2-4 shows the short period and one-second acceleration based on a
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) for 10% and 5% exceedance in
50 years. Table 2-4 includes two additional sites to the 20 sites identified in
Table 2-2 and 2-3.
Table 2-5 shows the short period and one-second period acceleration including
Type D soil effect for the proposed 5% exceedance in 50 years Design Spectrum.
Table 2-7 shows the PSHA/DSHA comparison for the one-second acceleration of
the PSHA/DSHA ratio at each of the selected sites. These ratios are shown
graphically in Figure 2-2.
10%/50yr 5%/50yr
10%/50 yr 5%/50 yr 1996 1996
CITY S1, g S1, g S1,g S1,g Ratio 1 Ratio 2
Daly City 0.78 1.12 1.08 1.50 1.38 1.35
San Francisco 0.53 0.69 0.64 0.83 1.22 1.20
SFOBB 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.79 1.24 1.27
Berkeley 0.63 0.83 0.65 0.86 1.03 1.04
Benicia Martinez 0.43 0.55 0.55 0.69 1.27 1.25
Los Angeles 0.41 0.54 0.42 0.54 1.02 1.00
Vincent Thomas 0.37 0.56 0.41 0.58 1.10 1.03
Long Beach 0.35 0.49 0.42 0.60 1.20 1.23
Coronado Bridge 0.22 0.34 0.21 0.31 0.95 0.92
Seattle 0.24 0.33 0.22 0.32 0.92 0.97
Tacoma North 0.23 0.30 0.20 0.28 0.88 0.93
Salt Lake City 0.24 0.42 0.21 0.42 0.86 1.00
Salt Lake City 0.24 0.42 0.21 0.40 0.87 0.96
Evansville 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.92 1.08
St. Louis 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.85 0.99
Paducah 0.11 0.24 0.09 0.20 0.81 0.83
Union City 0.12 0.27 0.09 0.21 0.78 0.79
Memphis 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.16 0.81 0.84
Memphis 0.09 0.20 0.07 0.17 0.78 0.84
Charleston 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.17 1.17 1.11
Phoenix 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 1.11 1.02
Det 5%/50 yr
CITY S1, g S1, g Ratio
Daly City 0.85 1.12 1.31
San Francisco 0.44 0.69 1.56
SFOBB 0.30 0.62 2.07
Berkeley 0.49 0.83 1.67
Benicia Martinez 0.31 0.55 1.76
Los Angeles 0.57 0.54 0.94
Vincent Thomas 0.63 0.56 0.89
Long Beach 0.51 0.49 0.95
Coronado Bridge 0.47 0.34 0.72
Seattle 0.48 0.33 0.68
Tacoma North 0.18 0.30 1.63
Salt Lake City 0.53 0.42 0.79
Salt Lake City 0.53 0.42 0.79
Evansville 0.09 0.11 1.24
St. Louis 0.08 0.10 1.28
Paducah 0.24 0.24 1.00
Union City 0.23 0.27 1.13
Memphis 0.17 0.19 1.13
Memphis 0.18 0.20 1.12
2.50
5%-50 Yr/Deterministic
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
ge
it y
it y
ey
An z
ille
h
t T es
ad ach
La ity
ity
is
is
tle
La rth
o
ng as
Be B
Pa is
e
ca
sc
ph
ph
ou
C
C
C
C
el
tin
at
m
id
sv
ge
O
ci
du
N
rk
em
em
Br
.L
Ta Se
ho
y
on
Sa ke
ke
ar
SF
an
an
al
St
M
ni
o
M
D
Ev
Fr
U
s
a
co
en
Lo
Lo
lt
lt
n
ci
on
Sa
Sa
nc
ni
or
Be
Vi
APPENDIX 2A
There was concern, however, that the levels of ground shaking derived for this
exceedance level were not appropriate in zones near major active faults. There
were several reasons for this. First, the predicted ground motions in these
regions were much larger than those that had commonly been recorded by near
field instrumentation in recent magnitude 6 or 7 California events. Second, it
was noted, based on the observed performance of buildings in these
earthquakes, that structures designed ot the code had substantial margin
against collapse for ground shaking that is much larger than that for which the
Following the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, the ratio of the mapped acceleration at
one-second period for return periods of 474, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 years is
normalized against the mapped acceleration at one-second period for a return
period of 474 years. The results of this normalization for California, Pacific,
Intermountain, Central US, and Eastern US are found in Table 2-1. The
California and Pacific Regions are designated with a deterministic cap based
on the description mentioned in the above paragraphs. The normalization is
appropriate for sites where the short period mapped acceleration SS is greater
than 1.5 g (i.e. higher ground shaking).
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
at Site
For Important Bridges both methods shall be given consideration; however, the
probabilistic evaluation shall be reviewed by a Caltrans-approved consensus
group. For Ordinary Bridges, the motions shall be based only on the
deterministic evaluation.
a) Service Levels
b) Damage Levels
For preliminary design of structures within 10 miles (15 km) of an active fault,
the modified SDC ARS curve is obtained by magnifying the spectral
acceleration on the SDC ARS curves as follows:
For Bridges designed by the one level approach (Essential and Other),
Figure 2-1 shows the acceleration response spectra to be used for
different soil types (soil classes). Soil classes are defined in Table 2-4.
Site specific soil effects for the two earthquake levels approach (i.e.
Critical Bridges) should be obtained from an expert. Soil spectra for
different types of soils, base on NEHRP amplification factors are not
recommended for design of Critical Bridges.
The NEHRP/97 MCE hard rock is lower than the Panel Hard Rock as
demonstrated in Figure 2-2.
The short period soil amplification Panel Spectra factors are lower than
the NEHRP 1997 corresponding factors as demonstrated in
Table 2-5.
The long period soil amplification Panel Spectra factors are essentially
the same in comparison to the NEHRP 1997 corresponding factors as
demonstrated in Table 2-6.
The lower level design event, termed the Expected Earthquake, has ground
motions corresponding to 50% PE in 75 years. This event ensures that
essentially elastic response is achieved in the substructures for the more
frequent or expected earthquake.
Probability of Exceedance
Notes:
The 2001 Guidelines were amended in May 2002 to delete the Operational
Performance Objective. The provisions were edited to reflect the consideration
of only the Life Safety Performance Objective. This change was necessary to
address the concern of some stakeholders that having more than one
performance objective as a minimum standard may create undue liability to
stakeholders that choose only a Life Safety Performance Objective with no
explicit consideration for the Operational Performance Objective. The main
changes of interest to the above-mentioned table are shown in
Table 2-8 in the Word Edit format.
Notes:
The new generation of probabilistic ground motion maps was produced by the
USGS under the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP)
with significant input from the committee on Seismic Hazard Maps of the
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the Structural Engineers
Association of California (SEAOC). They allow development of uniform hazard
spectra and permit direct definition of the design spectra by mapping the
response spectral ordinates at different periods.
For normal or essential bridges (see Table 2-9), the Single Level Design
Method is adopted by this code. This method consists of applying seismic
For Critical Bridges, which are designated by SCDOT, the seismic performance
goals are to be achieved by a two-level design approach, one for each of the two
earthquakes (i.e., Two-Level Design Method). In addition to the 2%/50-year
earthquake (Safety Evaluation Earthquake), critical bridges shall also be
designed to provide adequate functionality after the 10%/50-year earthquake
(Functional Evaluation Earthquake). The minimum performance levels for the
design and evaluation of bridges shall be in accordance with the level of service
and damage for the two design earthquakes as shown in Table 2-9. Service
Levels and Damage Levels are defined in these criteria. The Bridge Category
is also defined in these criteria. The SCDOT may specify project-specific or
structure-specific performance requirements different from those defined in the
table. For example, for a Critical or Essential bridge it may be desirable to
have serviceability following a 2%/50-year earthquake. The SCDOT may
The principles used for the development of the new SCDOT provisions are:
The performance levels, expressed in terms of service levels and damage levels,
are:
(a) Critical bridges: Bridges that must be open to all traffic once
inspected after the safety evaluation design earthquake and be
usable by emergency vehicles and for security/defense purposes
immediately after the safety evaluation design earthquake, i.e., a
2,500-year return period event.
In September 2003, SCDOT adopted new Seismic Hazard Maps for Bridges.
These new SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps take into account the sediment
thickness and/or the near surface weathering, updating the State seismic
3.1 Introduction
In developing the Displacement Based Approach, reference to the analysis can
be separated into two types:
In summary, the Seismic Capacity Analysis includes two parts. One is the
Displacement Capacity and the second is the Capacity Design.
3. NCHRP 12-49
4. SCDOT Specifications
following:
The choice of S a1 DS fits well with the adopted displacement approach for
the four requirements mentioned above are developed further to achieve the
second objective of the recommended specifications (i.e., reduce number of
bridges requiring analysis).
Table 3-1 shows the partition of the proposed Seismic Performance Categories
A, B, C and D.
Value of S a1 DS Importance
Classification (IC)
Tables 3-2 thru 3-4 show the one-second spectral acceleration for Caltrans SDC
Magnitude 6.5, 7 and 8 for Soil Type B thru E. The numbers that are not
shaded represent values greater than the 0.5g threshold considered for SPC D.
Table 3-5 shows the one-second acceleration for (Division 1A) design spectrum
for Soil Type 1 thru 4. The numbers that are not shaded represent values
greater than 0.5g considered the threshold for SPC D.
Table 3-6 shows the one-second acceleration modified for Type B and D soil for
the sites selected in Task 2. Each site is assigned an SPC based on the
proposed partition shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-6 reflects the distribution of
SPC A, B, C and D given Type B and D soils.
1. SPC A
3. SPC C
4. SPC D
The level of detailing for Tiers I, II, III, and IV will consider at a minimum the
following:
The three requirements for each of SPC A, B, C and D will follow the core
flowchart that was presented in Task F3-5 and shown in Figure 3-3.
Y es
S P C "A" C o m p le te
No
Y es D e m a n d Im p lic it
Y es T ier II
S P C "B " D 1 C o m plete
A n a ly s is C ap ac ity C D eta ilin g
No
No
Y es Y es C apac ity
D em an d Im p lic it
S P C "C "
A n a ly s is C apac ity
D 1 T ier III
C o m ple te
C D e s ig n D eta ilin g
No
No
Y es D em an d
Pu sh over Y es
S P C "D " A n a ly s is
C ap ac ity D 1 C apac ity T ie r IV
C o m plete
A n aly s is C D e s ig n D e tailin g
No
A d ju s t B rid g e
C h arac te ris tic s
D ep en d s on Ad ju stm en ts
Vn Vo = 0.85 (3.1)
Vn = Vc + Vs (3.2)
A f D
Vs = v yh , where Av = n Ab (3.3)
s 2
Vc = vc Ae (3.5)
Ae = 0.8 Ag (3.6)
P
vc = 1 + f c 3.5 f c
2000 A (3.7)
g
4 Asp
s = (3.10)
Ds
Av
w = (3.11)
bs
Vn Vo = 0.85 (3.12)
Vn = Vc + Vs (3.13)
A f D
Vs = v yh , where Av = n Ab (3.14)
s 2
A f D
Vs = v yh (3.15)
s
Vc = vc Ae (3.16)
Ae = 0.8 Ag (3.17)
4 Asp
s = (3.21)
Ds
Av
w = (3.22)
bs
The drift capacity for all three curves are shown as a function of the
P 1
= 1.6 1 1+ (3.23)
H A f 10( D )
g c
H
Curve 2 + Curve 4
Curve 5 = (3.24)
2
Curve 3 + Curve 4
Curve 6 = (3.25)
2
5.00 SPC C
Drift Capacity (%)
Yield (C1)
4.00
Spalling (C2)
SPC B Ductility 4 (C3)
3.00
Experimental (C4)
SPC B (C5)
2.00
SPC C (C6)
1.00
0.00
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Fb/L
c. Skew effect
B (1 + 1.25 Fv S1 )
2
100 m
The term .0017L equates to .0017 or .05 m equal to 2 inches
3.3 100 ft 100 ft
Three alternatives are considered for including other movement in the seat
width equation:
b. The second alternative is a 2-inch movement per 100 feet, which is quite
conservative.
curve as 1 + S ( 2
1.45
1.4
1.35
Am plification Factor
NCHRP 12-49
1.3 Division 1A
1.25 Proposed
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Skew Angle
Figure 3-5: Skew Effect Seat Width Amplification
Factor for Various Skew Angles
Deq = (D 2
min + Dmax
2
2 12 Dmin Dmax ) (3.27)
8 2 (1 + )( )
3/ 2
12 = (3.28)
(1 ) 2 2
+ 4 2 (1 + ) ( )
2
T2
where = T2 and T1 being the first and second modes of the structure
T1
system.
= 5% +
1
(1 0.95 0.05 ) (3.29)
= ( 2
+ 1 212 ) (3.32)
In the long period range, , is also equal to the ratio of the short period frame
over the long period frame.
Tshort
= (3.33)
Tlong
Figure 3-6 shows Dmax vs. the ratio for the following:
Considering that a variation from the design plans of the structure cannot be
avoided during the life of the structure and that a substantial drop in the
Furthermore, a safety factor of 1.5 is proposed for regions other than California
as described in Task 2.
1.60
1.40
1.20
Ratio of Deq/Dmax
1.00 Curve 1
Curve 2
0.80
Curve 3
0.60 Curve 4
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Ratio of Tshort/Tlong
The proposed seat width requirement is shown in Figures 3-7 and 3-8 for
H = 20 ft and 30 ft, respectively independent of any skew effect. The proposed
seat width requirement is illustrated with four cases identified in four curves:
The calculation for seat width requirement of the four cases above considers a
1-inch displacement per 100 feet for displacement other than seismic. The
choice of one inch per 100 feet leads to shallower slope of lines 5 thru 8 and
reinforces the choice of a realistic T rather than the conservative 2 inches per
100 feet adopted in NCHRP 12-49. It is expected that the choice of alternative
(a) identified in Section 3.5.2 would yield a movement not exceeding one inch
per 100 feet of bridge length. The choice of a realistic eq is important for the
design of hinges within-a span and the selection of a reasonable dimension for
the bent cap width.
50
45
40 Curve 1 SDR 2
35 Curve 2 SDR 3
Seat Width (in.)
Curve 3 SPC B
30
Curve 4 SPC C&D
25
Curve 5 .15g, 1 sec
20
Curve 6 .5g, 1 sec
15 Curve 7 .15g, 2 sec
10 Curve 8 .50g, 2 sec
5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Bridge Length (ft.)
APPENDIX 3A
1. Essential bridges IC = I
2. Other Bridges IC = II
Maximum subtended 90 90 90 90 90
angle (curved bridge)
Maximum bent/pier - 4 4 3 2
stiffness ratio from span-to-span
(excluding abutments)
Note: All ratios expressed in terms of the smaller value.
Dropped bent caps or integral bent caps terminating inside the exterior
girder, C-bents, outrigger bents, and offset columns are nonstandard
components.
Low skew
Elastic Dynamic Analysis is used to determine the displacement demand for all
other Ordinary Standard bridges.
Following the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria V1.2 the Inelastic Static
Analysis commonly referred to as push over analysis is to be used to
determine the reliable displacement capacities of a structure or frame as it
reaches its limit of structural stability.
The two-dimensional plane frame push over analysis of a bent or frame can
be simplified to a column model (fixed-fixed or fixed-pinned) if it does not cause
a significant loss in accuracy in estimating the displacement demands or the
displacement capacities. The effect of overturning on the column axial load
and associated member capacities must be considered in the simplified model.
Simplifying the demand and capacity models is not permitted if the structure
does not meet the following stiffness and period requirements:
a) Balanced Stiffness
Ti
0.7 where
Tj
2. For the purposes of determining the Seismic Hazard Level for Site Class
F Soils, Fv and Fa values for Site Class E soils may be used with the
adjustment described in Note 1 above.
Each bridge is designed, analyzed and detailed for seismic effects in accordance
with Table 3-5. Seismic Design and Analysis Procedures (SDAP) are described
in Section 4 of the NCHRP 12-49 document. Minimum seismic design
requirements (SDR) for SDR 1 and 2, SDR 3 and SDR 4 are given in Sections 6,
7 and 8, respectively of NCHRP 12-49.
All Performance
Connection
Objectives
The capacity evaluation shall identify the component in the pier or bent that
first reaches its inelastic deformation capacity. The displacement at which the
first component reaches its maximum permitted deformation capacity defines
the maximum displacement capacity, capacity for the pier or bent and this shall
exceed the factored displacement demand, , according to the following
requirement:
1.5 capacity
The seismic hazard varies form very small to high across the State of South
Carolina. Therefore, for purposes of design, four Seismic Performance
Categories (SPC) are defined on the basis of the spectral acceleration for the
The design spectrum for the FEE (10% in 50 years) and the SEE (2% in 50
years) were developed using the 1997 NEHRP Maps. The curves are anchored
to the 0.2 second mapped design spectral accelerations for Site Class B rock
site. As shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4 the following discrete points for SDS are
considered:
SDS = 0.4g, 0.5g, 0.6g, 0.8g, 1.0g, 1.25g, 1.5g, and 1.66g for the SEE
level.
1.0
Site Class
0.8 A
SD_4A
B
SD_4B
C
SD_4C
0.6
D
SD_4D
E
SD_4E
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 1 2 3 4
Pe riods T (se c)
The Specifications are for the design and construction of new bridges to resist
the effects of earthquake motions. The provisions apply to bridges of
conventional slab, beam girder and box girder superstructure construction with
Seismic effects for box culverts and buried structures need not be considered,
except when they are subject to unstable ground conditions (e.g., liquefaction,
landslides, and fault displacements) or large ground deformations (e.g., in very
soft ground).
No detailed seismic analysis is required for any single span bridge or for any
bridge in Seismic Performance Category A. For both single span bridges and
bridges classified as SPC A the connections must be designed for specified
forces and must also meet minimum support length requirements.
For SPC B, the displacement demand is checked implicitly against the capacity
without performing an elaborate pushover analysis to determine the
displacement capacity.
For SPC B the displacement capacity, c , is easily obtained for each column
H
c ( ft ) = 5.3 (.0013) X
100
where,
X =D
H
c
%
H
D
H
the site class (i.e., type of soil) as established in NEHRP 1997 and adopted in
the NCHRP 12-49 document.
Considering a Site Class B for the New Madrid/South Carolina area, the
contour shown in Figure 3-8 in bold black establishes the region of required
Seismic Demand Analysis corresponding to the proposed target design
hazard. Based on preliminary selection, the target design hazard is calibrated
For comparison, the region of required Seismic Demand Analysis for Site
Class D is shown in Figure 3-9 for the same area. The proposed region for Site
Class D shows relatively small reduction to the corresponding AASHTO
Division 1-A region.
1. SPC B
2. SPC C
3. SPC D
The contours presented in Section 3.3.1 coincide with SPC B contours. The
same area identified in Section 3.3.1 is used to show the region of required
pushover analysis. By illustrating the region of minimum Seismic Capacity
Analysis associated with SPC B and the region of maximum Seismic Capacity
Analysis associated with SPC D, the reader can appreciate the incremental
approach proposed for the Guidelines.
As shown in Figures 3-10 and 3-11, the region where a pushover analysis is
required is chosen very selectively and is tuned to displacement demands on
the bridge structure. The proposed guidelines aim at fulfilling Task F3-4
objective No. 2 identifying range of applicability for NO Analysis or Limited
Analysis. This approach is a by-product of the steps taken in the NCHRP 12-
49 proposed guidelines and the SCDOT Specifications combined with practical
applications developed and gained in the seismic design practice over the last
decade.
4.1 General
The objective of this task is to select the most appropriate design procedure
(i.e., displacement or force based) for a bridge with a steel superstructure and
to examine both the NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT using a trial design.
This task emphasis is to address analysis and design requirements for a bridge
with steel girders. The seismic design of a bridge system and components
needs to encompass two categories:
The 2nd Edition of the LRFD Specifications included for the first time a new
section about the seismic lateral load distribution that discusses the seismic
load path. The focus for these criteria is steel bridges since they normally do
not have monolithic connections as the structural concrete box girder bridges.
On the contrary, NCHRP 12-49 and SCDOT seismic specifications allow for
ductility (i.e., inelastic action) in the superstructure. None of the specifications
contains a uniform and a complete list of primary members identification for
the seismic load path.
Appendix 4A includes the portion of AISI-LRFD report used in this task. This
appendix contains the design calculations as well as the drawing showing
details of each of the two bridges.
a. The end cross-frame is designed for the full seismic force with no
reduction of this force assuming a restrained condition of the bridge (i.e.,
shear keys capable of sustaining the full seismic force).
b. A single angle bracing is used for the diagonal member of the end-cross-
frame. As this practice is typical and favored for ease of construction,
the design process for a single angle bracing needs to be referenced or
included for clarity of use by the bridge engineer. AISC has a stand
alone document on LRFD Design Specification for Single-Angle
Members that can be included or referenced in the Specifications. This
document is attached in Appendix 4B.
b. The load path from the deck to the girders or the top strut is checked.
c. Double angles with stitches are used for the top strut and the diagonal
member due to the higher seismic demand on this bridge located in
seismic zone 4. AISC LRFD Specifications Chapter E applies to compact
and non-compact prismatic members subject to axial compression
through the centroidal axis. The design process for members with
stitches is also included. The inclusion or reference of the specifications
is needed for clarity and consistency of use by the bridge engineer.
Section 7.1 and 7.2 of SCDOT specifications will be enhanced for general
treatment of load path and Performance Criteria. The following is a
duplication of these two sections.
General
The flow of forces (see Figure 4.1) in the assumed load path must be
accommodated through all affected components and details including,
but not limited to, flanges and webs of main beams or girders, cross-
frames, steel-to-steel connections, slab-to-steel interfaces, and all
components of the bearing assembly from bottom flange interface
through the confinement of anchor bolts or similar devices in the
Criteria
For Type 1 choice, the designer shall refer back to Section 8 of this
document on designing for a ductile substructure. For Type 2 choice, the
design of the superstructure is accomplished using a force reduction
approach. Those factors are used for the design of transverse bracing
members, top laterals and bottom laterals. The reduction factors shown
in Table 7.1 shall be used.
Essential or Normal
Critical Bridges Bridges
Functional Evaluation 1 2
Safety Evaluation 2 4 3
For Type 3 choice, the designer shall assess the overstrength capacity for
the fusing interface including shear keys and bearings, then design for
an essentially elastic superstructure and substructure. The minimum
overstrength lateral design force shall be calculated using an
acceleration of 0.4 g or the elastic seismic force whichever is smaller. If
isolation devices are used, the superstructure shall be designed as
essentially elastic (see Section 7.6 of SCDOT Specifications).
4.4 Summary
In reviewing the SCDOT specifications, the NCHRP 12-49, and the AISI LRFD
examples, the following recommendations are proposed:
1. Adopt AISC LRFD Specifications for design of single angle members and
members with stitches.
APPENDIX 4A
Ahmad M. Itani
Hassan Sedarat
Reno
APPENDIX 4B
APPENDIX 4C
APPENDIX 4D
APPENDIX 4E
NCHRP 12-49
c. the design considers the combined and relative stiffness and strength of
end-diaphragms and girders (together with their bearing stiffeners) in
establishing the diaphragms strength and design forces to consider for
the capacity protected elements;
f. The bridge does not have horizontal wind-bracing connecting the bottom
flanges of girders, unless the last wind bracing panel before each support
is designed as a ductile panel equivalent and in parallel to its adjacent
vertical end-diaphragm.
5.1 Objective
The objective of this task is to review applicable recent research and
information currently available on liquefaction and to recommend design
procedures consistent with the Displacement Approach adopted for the
proposed specifications. The proposed approach is to streamline the provisions
provided by NCHRP 12-49 in one separate section or appendix. The extent of
the provisions are established in light of the overall methodology and
framework established in the tasks:
Each bridge in this catalog has been assigned a damage severity rating DSR
according to the classification scheme outlined in Table 5-1. A summary of this
catalog is shown in Table 5-2.
DAMAGE SEVERITY
DAMAGE DESCRIPTION
RATING (DSR)
Severe Damage: Abutments moved streamward and/or markedly subsided;
DSR = 3 piers shifted, tilted, settled, or fell over. Large movements of foundation
units. Substructure rendered unsalvable.
Moderate Damage: Distinct and measurable net displacements as in
DSR = 2 previous category but to a lesser degree, so that the substructure could
perhaps be repaired and used to support a new superstructure.
Minor Damage: Evidence of foundation movements such as cracked
DSR = 1 backwalls, split piles, and closed expansion devices, but net displacements
small and substructure serviceable. Minor abutment slumping.
The full catalog is included in Appendix 5B. As seen from Table 5-2 a DSR
equal to 2 corresponding to moderate damage is associated with an earthquake
magnitude Mw of 6.7 or higher while a DSR equal to 3 corresponding to severe
damage is associated with an earthquake magnitude Mw of 6.9 or higher.
b. The mean magnitude for the 5% PE in 50-year event is less than 6.7
and the normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count
[(N1)60] is greater than 20.
If it is determined that liquefaction can occur at a bridge site then the bridge
shall be supported on deep foundations or the ground improved so that
liquefaction does not occur. If liquefaction occurs then the bridge shall be
designed and analyzed in two configurations as follows:
The Designer shall cover explicit detailing of plastic hinging zones for both
cases mentioned above since it is likely that locations of plastic hinges for the
Liquefied Configuration are different than locations of plastic hinges for the
Non-Liquefied Configuration. Design requirements of SPC D including shear
reinforcement shall be met for the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied Configuration.
5.5 Summary
The following list highlights the main proposed liquefaction design
requirements:
c. If liquefaction occurs, then the bridge shall be designed and analyzed for
the Liquefied and Non-Liquefied configurations.
Design requirements for lateral flow are still debatable and have not reached a
consensus worth comfortably adopting. The IAI geotechnical team is preparing
a task to address this topic and complement the effort produced in the NCHRP
12-49 document.
APPENDIX 5A
NCHRP 12-49
7.4.1.1 General
Spread footing foundations for SDR 3 shall be
designed using column loads developed by
capacity design principles or elastic seismic
A subsurface investigation, including borings loads, in accordance with Strength Limit State
and laboratory soil tests, shall be conducted in requirements given in Article 10.6.3 of the
accordance with the provisions of Appendix B LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
to provide pertinent and sufficient information (AASHTO, 1998a, and subsequent
for the determination of the Site Class of amendments), hereinafter referred to as the
Article 3.4.2.1. The type and cost of AASHTO LRFD provisions. It will not
foundations should be considered in the normally be necessary to define spring
economic, environmental, and aesthetic constants for displacement evaluations or
studies for location and bridge type selection. moment-rotation and horizontal force-
displacement behavior of the footing-soil
7.4.1.2 Subsurface Investigation system (Article 5.3.4). Checks shall also be
made to confirm that flow slides and loss of
bearing support from liquefaction do not occur
Subsurface explorations shall be made at pier (Article 7.6).
and abutment locations, sufficient in number
and depth, to establish a reliable longitudinal 7.4.2.1 Moment and Shear Capacity
and transverse substrata profile. Samples of
material encountered shall be taken and
preserved for future reference and/or testing. The overturning capacity of the spread
Boring logs shall be prepared in detail footings shall be evaluated using 1.0 times the
sufficient to locate material strata, results of nominal moment capacity of the column
penetration tests, groundwater, any artesian (Article 4.8) or the elastic seismic design force
action, and where samples were taken. Special within the column, whichever is less.
attention shall be paid to the detection of Procedures for Strength Limit State Design
narrow, soft seams that may be located at given in Article 10.6.3 of the AASHTO LRFD
stratum boundaries. provisions shall be used when performing this
evaluation.
7.4.1.3 Laboratory Testing
A triangular elastic stress distribution within
the soil shall be used. The peak bearing soil
Laboratory tests shall be performed to pressure for the triangular distribution shall
determine the strength, deformation, and flow not exceed the ultimate bearing capacity of the
characteristics of soils and/or rocks and their soil at the toe of the footing. The width of
suitability for the foundation selected. In areas maximum liftoff shall be no greater than 1/2
of higher seismicity (e.g., SDR 3, 4, 5, and 6), of the footing width for moment loading in
it may be appropriate to conduct special each of the two directions treated separately.
dynamic or cyclic tests to establish the
liquefaction potential or stiffness and material
SECTION 7 72 MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
SECTION 7 73 MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
Resistance factors for pile capacities shall be The capacity of the geotechnical elements of
as specified in Table 10.5.4-2 of the AASHTO driven pile foundations shall be designed
LRFD provisions, with the exception that using 1.0 times the nominal moment capacity
resistance factors of 1.0 shall be used for of the column or the elastic design force
seismic loads. within the column (Article 4.8), whichever is
smaller. Unfactored resistance ( = 1.0) shall
For the effect of settling ground and downdrag be used in performing the geotechnical
loads, unfactored load and resistance factors ( capacity check. The loads on the leading row
= 1.0; = 1.0) shall be used, unless required of piles during overturning shall not exceed
otherwise by the owner. the plunging capacity of the piles. Separation
between the pile tip and the soil (i.e. gapping)
Batter piles shall not be used where downdrag shall be allowed only in the most distant row
loads are expected unless special studies are of piles in the direction of loading. Forces on
performed. all other rows of piles shall either be
compressive or not exceed the nominal
For seismic loading the groundwater table
tension capacity of the piles.
location shall be the average groundwater
location, unless the owner approves otherwise. If the plunging capacity of the leading pile is
7.4.3.2 Design Requirements
exceeded or if uplift of other than the trailing
rows of piles occurs (see Figure C3.3.1-2),
special studies shall be conducted to show that
Driven pile foundations subject to SDR 3 shall performance of the pile system is acceptable.
be designed for column moments and shears These studies shall be performed only with the
developed in accordance with the principles of prior consent of the owner and SDAP E is
capacity design (Article 4.8) or the elastic required.
design forces, whichever is smaller. The
Strength Limit State requirements given in Structural elements of pile foundations shall
Article 10.7.3 of the AASHTO LRFD be designed using the overstrength moment
provisions shall apply for design. capacity of the column or the elastic design
force within the column (Article 4.8),
With the exception of pile bents, it will not whichever is smaller.
normally be necessary to define spring
constants for displacement evaluations or The maximum shear force on the pile(s) shall
moment-rotation and horizontal force- be less than the structural shear capacity of the
displacement analyses for SDR 3 (Article piles.
5.3.4). For pile bents, the estimated depth of
7.4.3.4 Liquefaction Check
fixity shall be used in evaluating response.
If liquefaction is predicted at the site, the An evaluation of the potential for liquefaction
potential effects of liquefaction on the shall be made in accordance with
capacity of the driven pile foundation system requirements given in Article 7.6 and
SECTION 7 74 MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
SECTION 7 75 MCEER/ATC-49
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
MCEER/ATC-49 79 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
If lateral flow or lateral spreading is predicted of the piles shall be as defined in Article 7.7.9
to occur, the following options shall be and 7.8.6.
considered as detailed in Appendix D. 3. If the structure cannot meet the performance
1. Design the piles or spread footings to resist the requirements of Table 3.2-1, assess the costs
forces generated by the lateral spreading. and benefits of various mitigation measures to
minimize the movements to a tolerable level to
2. If the structure cannot be designed to resist the meet the desired performance objective. If a
forces, assess whether the structure is able to higher performance is desired so that the
tolerate the anticipated movements and meet spread footings or piles will not have to be
the geometric and structural constraints of replaced, the allowable plastic rotations of
Table C3.2-1. The maximum plastic rotation Articles 7.7.9.2 and 7.8.6.2 shall be met.
MCEER/ATC-49 80 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
Figure 7.6.1-1 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Western United States
MCEER/ATC-49 81 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
Figure 7.6.1-2 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Central and Eastern United States
MCEER/ATC-49 82 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
MCEER/ATC-49 83 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
MCEER/ATC-49 84 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
MCEER/ATC-49 85 SECTION 7
PART I: SPECIFICATIONS 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
8.4.1.1 General
The design of spread footing foundations
located in SDR 4, 5, and 6 shall be based on
column moments and shears developed using
A subsurface investigation, including borings capacity design principles as described in
and laboratory soil tests, shall be conducted in Section 4.8.
accordance with the provisions of Appendix B
to provide pertinent and sufficient information Foundation flexibility (Article 5.3.4) shall be
for the determination of the Site Class of modeled for Soil Types C, D, and E if
Article 3.4.2.1. The type and cost of foundation flexibility results in more than a
foundations should be considered in the 20% change in response (see Article C5.3.4).
economic, environmental, and aesthetic For Soil Types A and B, soil flexibility does
studies for location and bridge type selection. not need to be considered because of the
stiffness of the soil or rock. The potential for
8.4.1.2 Subsurface Investigation and effects of liquefaction and dynamic
settlement shall also be determined for spread
footing foundations subject to SDR 4 and
Subsurface explorations shall be made at pier above. Normally, spread footings shall not be
and abutment locations, sufficient in number located at SDR 4, 5, and 6 sites where
and depth, to establish a reliable longitudinal liquefaction is predicted to occur, unless:
and transverse substrata profile. Samples of
the foundation is located below the liquefiable
material encountered shall be taken and layer.
preserved for future reference and/or testing.
Boring logs shall be prepared in detail it can be demonstrated by special studies that
liquefaction and its effects are very limited, or
sufficient to locate material strata, results of
penetration tests, groundwater, any artesian the ground will be improved such that
action, and where samples were taken. Special liquefaction will not occur.
attention shall be paid to the detection of
narrow, soft seams that may be located at Owner approval shall be obtained before
stratum boundaries. proceeding with a spread footing design at a
site where liquefaction is predicted to occur.
8.4.1.3 Laboratory Testing
8.4.2.1 Spring Constants for Footing
(Nonliquefiable Sites)
Laboratory tests shall be performed to
determine the strength, deformation, and flow
When required to represent foundation
characteristics of soils and/or rocks and their
flexibility, spring constants shall be developed
suitability for the foundation selected. In areas
for spread footing using equations given in
of higher seismicity (e.g., where SDR 4, 5,
Tables 8.4.2.1-1 and 8.4.2.1-2. Alternative
and 6 apply), it may be appropriate to conduct
procedures given in the FEMA 273 Guidelines
special dynamic or cyclic tests to establish the
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
liquefaction potential or stiffness and material
(ATC/BSSC, 1997) are also suitable for nonlinearity introduced by uplift, unless the
estimating spring constants. These Owner approves otherwise.
computational methods are appropriate for For FvS1 0.40:
sites that do not liquefy or lose strength during
earthquake loading. See Article 8.4.2.3 for Ra = 1.0 for Expected Earthquake ground
motions
sites that are predicted to liquefy.
Ra = 0.75 for MCE ground motions
The shear modulus (G) used to compute the
stiffness values in Table 8.4.2.1-1 shall be For FvS1 > 0.40:
determined by adjusting the low-strain shear Ra = 0.75 for Expected Earthquake ground
modulus (Gmax) for the level of shearing motions
strain using the following strain adjustment Ra = 0.5 for MCE ground motions
factors, unless other methods are approved by
the owner. Values of Gmax shall be determined by seismic
For FvS1 0.40: methods (e.g., crosshole, downhole, or
SASW), by laboratory testing methods (e.g.,
G/Gmax = 0.50 for Expected Earthquake resonant column with adjustments for time),
ground motions
or by empirical equations (Kramer, 1996). The
G/Gmax = 0.25 for Maximum Considered uncertainty in determination of Gmax shall be
Earthquake (MCE) ground motions considered when establishing strain
For FvS1 > 0.40:
adjustment factors.
G/Gmax = 0.25 for Expected Earthquake No special computations are required to
ground motions determine the geometric or radiation damping
G/Gmax = 0.10 for MCE ground motions of the foundation system. Five percent system
damping shall be used for design, unless
Uplift shall be allowed for footings subject to special studies are performed and approved by
SDR 4, 5, and 6. The following area the owner.
adjustment factors (Ra) shall be applied to the
equivalent area to account for geometric
Table 8.4.2.1-1 Surface Stiffnesses for a Rigid Plate on a Semi-Infinite Homogeneous Elastic
Half-Space (Adapted from Gazetas, 1991)1
Stiffness Parameter Rigid Plate Stiffness at Surface, Ki'
GL
( BL )
0.75
Vertical Translation, Kz' 0.73 + 1.54
1
GL
( )
0.85
Horizontal Translation, Ky'
2 + 2.5 B
(toward long side) 2 L
GL
( BL ) B
0.85
Horizontal Translation, Kx' GL
2 + 2.5 0.75 0.1 1
(toward short side) 2 L
0.25
Rotation, Kx' G L B
2.4 + 0.5
0.75
IX
(about x axis) 1 B L
Table note:
1. See Figure 8.4.2.1-1** for definitions of terms
Table 8.4.2.1-2 Stiffness Embedment Factors for a Rigid Plate on a Semi-Infinite Homogeneous
Elastic Half-Space (Adapted from Gazetas, 1991)1
Stiffness Parameter Embedment Factors, ei
B ( 2L + 2B )
0.67
D
Vertical Translation, ez 1 + 0.095 1 + 1.3 1 + 0.2 d
B L LB
d
0.4
2D
0.5 D 16 ( L + B ) d
Horizontal Translation, ey 2
1+ 0.15 1 + 0.52
(toward long side) B BL 2
d
0.4
0.5
D 16 ( L + B ) d
Horizontal Translation, ex 2D 2
1+ 0.15 1 + 0.52
(toward short side) L L B2
Rotation, ex d 2d d
0.20
B
0.50
1+ 2.52 1+
(about x axis) B B D L
Rotation, ey 2d
0.60
1.9
2d d
0.60
1+ 0.92 1.5 +
(about y axis) L L D
L
(length)
B x x
(width)
y
Plan
z
d D
(thickness) (depth)
z
Homogeneous Soil Properties
G (shearing modulus)
( Poisson's ratio)
Section
8.4.2.2 Moment-Rotation and Shear- also be developed for the shear component of
Displacement Relationships for resistance.
Footing (Nonliquefiable Sites)
This approach shall not be used at sites that
will liquefy during seismic loading. See
The moment and shear capacity of the Article 8.4.2.3 for sites that liquefy.
foundation shall be confirmed for design loads
given in Article 4.8. Moment-rotation and
shear force-displacement relationships shall be 8.4.2.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic
developed as required by Article 5.3.4. Unless Settlement
approved otherwise by the owner, the
moment-rotation curve for SDAP E shall be
represented by a bilinear, moment-rotation An evaluation of the potential for liquefaction
curve. The initial slope of the bi-linear curve within near-surface soil shall be made in
shall be defined by the rotational spring accordance with requirements given in Article
constant given in Article 8.4.2.1. 8.6 and Appendix D of these specifications. If
liquefaction is predicted to occur under the
The maximum resisting force (i.e., plastic design ground motion, spread footings
capacity) on the force-deformation curve shall foundations shall not be used unless
be defined for the best-estimate case. The
footing liftoff shall be no more than 50% of the footing is located below the
the footing area at peak displacement during liquefiable layer,
the push-over analysis, unless special studies
are performed and approved by the owner. A ground improvement is performed to
bilinear force displacement relationship shall mitigate the occurrence of liquefaction,
or
kvn = axial stiffness of the nth pile this range, as both the nonlinearity of the pile
Sn = distance between the nth pile and and the soil must be considered. Programs
the axis of rotation such as LPILE (Reese and Wang, 1997),
COM 624 (Wang and Reese, 1991), and
The effects of group action on the FLPIER (Hoit and McVay, 1996) are used for
determination of stiffness shall be considered this purpose. These programs use nonlinear
if the center-to-center spacing of piles for the "p-y" curves to represent the load-
group in the direction of loading is closer than displacement response of the soil; they also
3 pile diameters. can accommodate different types of pile-head
fixity. Procedures for determining the "p-y"
8.4.3.4 Lateral Stiffness Parameters for curves are discussed by Lam and
Driven Pile/Pile Cap Foundations
(Nonliquefiable Sites) Martin (1986) and more recently by Reese et
al. (1997).
The lateral stiffness parameters of driven pile
The effects of group action on lateral stiffness
foundations shall be estimated for design
shall be considered if the center-to-center
cases in which foundation flexibility is
spacing of the piles is closer than 3 pile
included. Lateral response of a pile foundation
diameters.
system depends on the stiffness of the piles
and, very often, the stiffness of the pile cap. 8.4.3.5 Pile Cap Stiffness and Capacity
Procedures for defining the stiffness of the
pile component of the foundation system are
covered in this article. Methods for The stiffness and capacity of the pile cap shall
introducing the pile cap stiffness are addressed be considered in the design of the pile
in Article 8.4.3.5. foundation. The pile cap provides horizontal
resistance to the shear loading in the column.
For preliminary analyses involving an Procedures for evaluating the stiffness and the
estimate of the elastic displacements of the capacity of the footing in shear shall follow
bridge, pile stiffness values can be obtained by procedures given in Article C8.4.2.2 for
using a series of charts prepared by Lam and spread footings, except that the base shear
Martin (1986). These charts are reproduced in resistance of the cap shall be neglected.
Figures 8.4.3.4-1 through 8.4.3.4-6. The charts
are applicable for mildly nonlinear response, When considering a system comprised of a
where the elastic response of the pile pile and pile cap, the stiffness of each shall be
dominates the nonlinear soil stiffness. considered as two springs in parallel. The
composite spring shall be developed by
For push-over analyses the lateral load adding the reaction for each spring at equal
displacement relationship must be extended displacements.
into the nonlinear range of response. It is
usually necessary to use computer methods to
develop the load-displacement relationship in
Figure 8.4.3.4-3 Coefficient of Lateral Pile Head Stiffness for Free-Head Pile Lateral Stiffness
(ATC, 1996)
Figure 8.4.3.4-4 Coefficient for Lateral Pile-Head Stiffness for Fixed-Head Pile Lateral Stiffness
(ATC, 1996)
8.4.3.6 Moment and Shear Design the use of ground improvement methods to
(Nonliquefiable Sites) meet design requirements. In light of the
potential costs of ground improvement, the
owner shall be consulted before proceeding
The capacity of the structural elements of with a design for ground improvement to
driven pile foundations shall be designed to review the risks associated with liquefaction
resist the capacity design forces of Article 4.8 relative to the costs for remediating the
or the elastic design force within the column, liquefaction potential.
whichever is smaller. Unfactored resistance (
= 1.0) shall be used in performing the 8.4.4 Drilled Shafts
geotechnical capacity check. The load on the
leading row of piles during overturning shall
not exceed the plunging capacity of the piles. Procedures identified in Article 8.4.3,
Separation between the pile tip and the soil including those for liquefaction and dynamic
(i.e. gapping) shall be allowed only in the settlement, generally apply with the
most distant row of trailing piles. Forces on all exceptions that, (1) the ultimate capacity of
other rows of piles shall either be compressive single shaft foundations in compression and
or not exceed the nominal tension capacity of uplift shall not be exceeded under maximum
the piles. The maximum shear force on the seismic loads and (2) the flexibility of the
pile(s) shall be less than the structural shear drilled shaft shall be represented using either
capacity of the piles. the estimated depth of fixity or soil springs in
a lateral pile analysis.
If the plunging capacity is exceeded or
gapping of other than the trailing row of piles Checks shall be conducted to confirm that
occurs, special studies shall be conducted to minimum shaft lengths occur. The stable
show that performance of the pile system is length can be determined by conducting
acceptable. Special studies shall be performed nonlinear computer modeling or by using a
only with the prior consent of the owner and length (L) > where
require SDAP E. = [EIp/Es]0.25 for cohesive soils, and
8.4.3.7 Liquefaction and Dynamic = [EIp/f] 0.20 for cohesionless soils
Settlement Evaluations
where
If liquefaction is predicted to occur at the site, E = Youngs modulus of the shaft
effects of liquefaction on the bridge
foundation shall be evaluated. This evaluation Ip = moment of inertia of the shaft
shall consider the potential for loss in lateral
bearing support, flow and lateral spreading of F = coefficient of variation of subgrade modulus
the soil, settlement below the toe of the pile, Es = subgrade modulus of soil
and settlement from drag loads on the pile as
excess porewater pressures in liquefied soil Z = embedded depth of the shaft
dissipate. Procedures given in Appendix D
shall be followed when making these The nonlinear properties of the shaft shall be
evaluations. considered in evaluating the lateral response
of the pile to lateral loads during a seismic
If liquefaction causes unacceptable bridge
event. Diameter adjustments shall be
performance, consideration should be given to
8.6.1 General
Procedures given in Appendix D shall be used
to evaluate the potential for and effects of
An evaluation of the potential for and liquefaction and liquefaction-related
consequences of liquefaction within near- permanent ground movement (i.e., lateral
surface soil shall be made in accordance with spreading, lateral flow, and dynamic
the following requirements: A liquefaction settlement). If both liquefaction and ground
assessment is required unless one of the movement occur, they shall be treated as
following conditions is met or as directed separate and independent load cases, unless
otherwise by the owner. agreed to or directed otherwise by the owner.
Mean magnitude for the MCE event is less
than 6.0 (Figures 8.6.1-1 to 8.6.1-4); 8.6.4 Design Requirements if
Liquefaction and Ground Movement
Mean magnitude of the MCE event is less than
6.4 and equal to or greater than 6.0, and the Occurs
normalized Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
blow count [(N1)60] is greater than 20;
If it is determined from Appendix D that
Mean magnitude for the MCE event is less liquefaction can occur at a bridge site, then
than 6.4 and equal to or greater than 6.0, (N1)60
one or more of the following approaches shall
is greater than 15, and FaSs is between 0.25
and 0.375. be implemented in the design.
Figure 8.6.1-1 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Western United States
Figure 8.6.1-2 Mean Earthquake Magnitude Map for Eastern United States
APPENDIX 5B
Final Report
SPR 361
by
for
And
November 2002