Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

19/08/2019
SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BRIDGES

(LECTURE – 12)
EQ-527 Prof. Rashid A. Khan
Course Content
EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges
 Introduction to Bridges
 Bridge Management Systems
 Bridge Condition Assessment
 Seismic Vulnerability and Assessment
of Damage
1
19/08/2019
Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Definition
A successful hazard evaluation program requires tangible management support; sufficient,

technically competent people (some of whom must be trained to use hazard evaluation
techniques); adequate, up-to-date information and drawings; and selection of the
techniques (matched to the complexity and hazard of the process). Fortunately, a variety
of flexible hazard evaluation techniques exist.
Qualitative Techniques: These methods help a multi-disciplinary team (1) identify

potential accident scenarios and (2) evaluate the scenario in sufficient detail to make a
reasonable judgment of risk. If the team is confused on the risk, a scenario identified in a
qualitative hazard review may be further analyzed using one or more of the quantitative
techniques.
Quantitative Techniques: These do not identify possible accident scenarios, but they
instead aid in risk judgment by provide more detailed, statistical evaluations of the risk of
a specific scenario.
Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage

 Lessons Learned from Previous Earthquakes

 Systematic evaluations of bridges based on
failure modes
 Fragility Curves
2
19/08/2019

WHAT EARTHQUAKES HAVE TAUGHT US
• 1964 Alaska (Prince William Sound), AK

• 1971 San Fernando, CA
• 1989 Loma Prieta, CA
• 1994 Northbridge, CA
• 1995 Kobe, Japan
• 2010 Maule Offshore, Chile
• 2011 Tohoku, Japan

3
19/08/2019

 Identify
Liquefiable
Soils
 Accommodate
Relative
Displacements

 Increase Seat
Width
 Provide
Continuity at
Bearings and
Joints
 Design Columns
for Shear and
Moment
 Develop Column
to Footing/Cap
Anchorage
4
19/08/2019

 Simple retrofit helps

 Evaluate
Soil/Foundation
Stability
 Account for
Forces/Displacements
 Evaluate Existing
Inventory

 How many unknown faults that we still
don’t know?
 Complex Geometry Redistributes Forces
 Skew
 Varied Column Heights
 Accommodate Shear & Flexure
 Post ‘89 Designs Reduced Damage
 Retrofit Improves Resistance

 Joint Restrainers
 Column Jacketing
 Preparedness Facilitates Recovery
 Simple retrofit helps
 Evaluate Soil/Foundation Stability
 Account for Forces/Displacements
 Evaluate Existing Inventory
5
19/08/2019

 Consider Structural
Filters / Fuses
 Isolation
 Energy Dissipation
 Displacement
Control

6
19/08/2019

Seismic Load Path and Affected Components

 Skew/ Curved Bridges

 Vertical Acceleration Component
 Identify Liquefaction Potential
 Accommodate Forces & Displacements
 Retrofit Improves Performance
 Evaluate Ground Motion
 Newer Designs Improve Seismic Resistance
Amplification/Attenuation & Long Duration
 Preparedness Facilitates Recovery
 Consider “Near Field” Effects
 Nothing is “Earthquake Proof”
7
19/08/2019

 Newer Designs Improve Performance

 Retrofit Helps…but………..
 US Seismicity is not well understood
 Cannot Reduce Natural Hazards Natural Hazards Can Damage Transportation
Infrastructure System Entirely Even Within Seconds
 Can Reduce the Loss if We Are WELL Prepared Past Performance Experience
 Advanced Research Experiments
 IMPLEMENTATION the Preparations
BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

A Survey of Damages to Bridges in Pakistan after the Major Earthquake of 8 October 2005
Syed M. Ali, Akhtar N. Khan, Shahzad Rahman, and Andrei M. Reinhorn

Survey of an approximately 400-km road network
was carried out, in which 90 bridges were inspected
for earthquake-associated damage, 25 bridges were
located within a 25-km radius from the epicenter,
Fifty-seven bridges were located within a radius
greater than 25 km but less than 50 km, and the
remaining eight bridges fell outside a 50-km radius
from the epicenter. The majority of these bridges
were reportedly designed using American Association
of State and Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) specifications.
According to these estimates the PGA at locations 25

km from the epicenter was in the range of 0.25 g–0.4 The survey revealed some of the
g and the PGA at locations 50 km from the epicenter deficiencies of the construction
was in the range of 0.15 g–0.231 g. The 0.231 g practices in Pakistan and also
PGA recorded in Abbottabad falls closeto the upper highlighted the need for improvement
range of the estimated PGA for locations 50 km from to the country’s current bridge design
the epicenter. practices.
8
19/08/2019


Out of the 90 bridges inspected
during the survey, 14 bridges
were found to have experienced
some form of damage following
the earthquake.

9
19/08/2019


10
19/08/2019

DAMAGE TO ABUTMENTS & POUNDING

UNSEATING/ DROPDOWN

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges
11
19/08/2019

Observed damage patterns
Below is a brief account of the most commonly observed

failure patterns from various earthquakes.
Foundation soil
Soil lateral spreading or liquefaction imposes large
deformation demand on bridge components, such as piles,
abutment walls and simply supported deck spans. Some
bridges founded on soft ground in the Kobe area suffered
damage to piles due to negative skin friction resulting from
soil failure. Also, approach structures and abutments have
suffered substantial movement due to soil slumping.

Foundations and piles
Footings and piles are sometimes under-designed for earthquake
loading, since the over strength of piers they support would not
have been taken into account. In the Kashmir earthquake, titling
of foundations of mass concrete was observed, thus indicating
inadequate consideration of overturning. While in Kobe, several
investigated cases showed damage to footings, which cracked
mainly in shear.
It is relatively difficult to ascertain the cause of failure of sub-
grade structures, but it is likely that such failures are due to un-
conservative estimates of the actions transmitted from the piers
to the foundations. Also, the point of contraflexure of the pile–
footing–pier system is often misplaced, hence the critical sections
are not treated as such.
12
19/08/2019

Substructure
Probably the most commonly observed failure is to the piers of bridges.
Three modes of failure are possible, and their combinations, namely
flexure, shear and axial distress.
 The single-pier substructure of the Hanshin Expressway collapsed in the
Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake due to the failure of gas welds on main
reinforcing bars.
 Several cases of symmetric buckling of reinforcement and compressive
failure of piers may be, at least in part, attributable to high vertical
earthquake forces both in Kobe and Northridge.
 Inadequate confinement in many piers caused premature failure of RC
piers in recent earthquakes.
 Also, misinterpretation of the deformed profile of piers, with respect to the
connection between pier and deck and pier and foundation, led to critical
sections developing at points of reduced longitudinal reinforcement.

Multi-column substructures have also suffered damage in previous
earthquakes.
 In Cypress Viaduct in the Loma Prieta earthquake; here frames collapsed
along a distance of more than a mile due to shear failure of the RC section
at the base of the top-level column.
Superstructure
 Damage to the superstructure is mainly not due to overstressing, since
decks are normally designed to remain near-elastic in earthquakes.
Many cases of collapse were observed in San Fernando, Loma Prieta
and Northridge due to unseating at the seismic/expansion joints.
 Where seismic restrainers are provided, damage to diaphragms
occurred due to the very high local demands imposed at the restrainer
anchorage point. Such effects are further aggravated in asymmetric or
skew bridges, which are difficult to analyse.
 Impact damage between abutment and deck has also been observed,
due to inadequate displacement tolerance there.
13
19/08/2019

Observed damage patterns (Conceptual design issues)
Plan Layout
Many design problems that would lead to unsatisfactory seismic performance and damage could have
been anticipated by an earthquake engineer at the conceptual design phase.
 It is often necessary to construct skew or curved bridges. It should be noted however that
curvature in bridges complicates the design and analysis and leads to difficulties in
uniformly distributing ductility demand.
 It is very difficult to quantify the degree of irregularity of a curved bridge, due to
complicated mode shapes of response and interaction between location of piers, height of
pier and mode shapes of most significance.
 Skew bridges also pose design and analysis problems additional to those faced for
straight bridges. Vibrations along the axis of a skew bridge cause torsional response that
imposes large rotation demands on pier heads and out-of-plane movements on
diaphragms.
 In single-pier bridges, an eccentricity between the deck axis (horizontal) and pier axis
(vertical) would also lead to torsional response and non-uniform distribution of
deformation demand.
It is therefore concluded that the most effective layout is a straight bridge with the axes of piers coinciding with the
centre line of the deck in single-pier systems, or with the support frame axis normal to the deck axis in multi-column
systems

Plan Layout
14
19/08/2019

Layout in elevation
Contrary to common belief, the most regular bridge is not necessarily that with equal pier heights. The
most regular response would be obtained from an elevation layout whereby the height of the pier is
proportional to its distance from the abutment where fixity against out-of-plane displacement is
available, taking into account the mode shape most likely to influence the response.
 In general, bridges are long-period structures that are likely to be affected by higher
modes.
 The relationship between pier stiffness and imposed displacement dictates the degree of
regularity of the bridge.
 Therefore, if the height of the various piers follow a half sine wave spanning between two
abutments where y rotations are free and Z displacements are restrained, the most
regular ductility demand will be imposed on the piers. In the case where the abutments
allow lateral displacements, equal pier heights are the best solution.
Conventionally, geometry considerations were used to quantify bridge regularity measures, or indices.
Further developments of regularity indices that take into account the instantaneous supply and demand,
in the inelastic range, are currently under way.

Deck continuity
 The majority of existing bridges have seismic or expansion joints. These were included in early
design to reduce stresses from thermally induced deformations and/or simplify the analysis of the
deck–pier system. As mentioned above, such joints have caused a large number of failures in
previous earthquakes.
 Therefore, it is recommended that decks are designed as continuous structures wherever possible to
eliminate problems with unseating and pounding.
Span length
 In long-span structures, a large axial force is imposed on piers due to their tributary part of the
deck. Under earthquake motion, horizontal and vertical excitations are imposed, with the distinct
possibility that vertical modes of vibration of the deck (acting as a continuous beam) would be
excited. This will impose very high axial forces (and variations in axial forces) on piers, thus
reducing their flexural and shear capacities.
 It is therefore advisable to use short-span lengths by increasing the number of piers. Otherwise,
analysis under vertical earthquake ground motion should be undertaken and the effect on axial
forces in piers accounted for.
15
19/08/2019

Foundation materials
 Bridges are especially susceptible to damage from large imposed displacements; therefore, it is
important to found them on rock or stiff soil wherever possible.
 In cases where the surface soil is soft or potentially liquefiable, use of piled foundations is
recommended.
 When piles are driven through sloping ground, stability issues should be considered, since slumping
may impose very large lateral forces on piles and piers.
Foundation systems
Foundations are the first points of contact between the ground transmitting seismic waves and the
structure; therefore, the foundation system has a most marked effect on the response characteristics of
the bridge.
 These should be designed to resist the gravity loading in addition to the seismic forces appropriately
scaled up by a factor to account for the force reduction used in the base shear calculation.
 Stability of the footing is provided by the contact with the foundation substrata due to gravity
loading.
 Shear resistance is by friction on the horizontal plane under the footing and bearing on the vertical
faces. Also, shear keys may be provided.

Foundation systems
 Plastic hinges will form in the column base first, and their location
may be controlled by detailing of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement.
 An alternative as shown in Figure(b), where the foundation is
allowed to rock under earthquake motion, thus delimiting the
column base force at the expense of increased top displacements.
 In Figure(c) and (d) integral pier–pile systems are are rather
economical and are used often in practice where concrete-filled
steel circular tubes are used for piers and piles. In this case, the
critical section is underground, hence is difficult to inspect and
repair. To alleviate this shortcoming, the pile section may be
increased, in order to impose plastic hinging in the pier, as shown in
Figure(d).
 The most economical system is the cast-in-drilled-hole RC pile,
shown in Figure(f). In cases of footings supported on piles, the
objective is to keep the piles elastic and concentrate the inelasticity
in the piers. Consequently, and due to cost considerations, the use
of a small number of large-diameter piles is recommended.
 Different foundation systems may be used in major bridges.
16
19/08/2019

Foundation–pier connections
There are two options for this connection, namely pinned and fixed.
 In the pinned case, four bars are inserted at the centre of the pier and are anchored inside the
footing, to resist nominal sliding shear. The pier section is cast discontinuous with the footing, and
rubber or felt sheets are inserted between the two. In this case, large moments will develop at the
pier head acting as an inverted pendulum, but very low forces are exerted on the footing that
requires only nominal reinforcement.
 The second option is full moment connection between footing and pier. In this case, a full design is
required, since possible uplift forces may exist. Also, axial, bending and shear actions on the footing
are much higher than in the pinned case.

Pier sections
There is a wide variety of RC and steel sections, used for bridge piers,
some of which are shown in Figure.
 The circular section is most desirable, especially in cases where the
longitudinal and transverse demands are similar. One of its main
advantages is that it provides uniform confinement (in contrast to
rectangular sections) and adequately restrains the longitudinal bars
from buckling. To provide torsional resistance and stability at the pier–
deck intersection, a flare is commonly used, Figure(i-section C–C).
 The rectangular section D–D shown in Figure(i) has the disadvantage
of inadequate protection of longitudinal bars against buckling. Also,
the core is inadequately confined. These problems are mitigated in
section E–E at the cost of a congested section and added
workmanship.
 Section G–G, representing a shear wall-type pier, is used where the
longitudinal forces are carried mostly by the abutments, and only
transverse stiffness and strength are required. It is noteworthy that
bridge piers similar to those supporting the steel truss Bridge , are not
recommended. The non-uniform distribution of stiffness and strength
along the height of these piers results in high ductility demands at the
base of top columns.
17
19/08/2019

Pier sections
 Hollow sections, Figure(ii) are used where the height of the piers is
excessive, hence the use of a solid section is not advisable (due to its
high self-weight). It is most important however to check hollow sections
against imploding due to the inward buckling of the hoop inner layer
of reinforcement.
 The use of composite sections, constructed from concrete filled steel
tubes, is also popular, due to their high ductility capacity and ease of
construction. The method of load transfer from deck to pier has an
effect on the characteristics of the response, due to load sharing
between the two materials. It is important that the steel tube does not
separate from the concrete core, otherwise local buckling may occur.
Sometimes, shear connectors are welded to the inside of the steel tube
to ensure adequate interaction.

Lateral force resisting system
The frame action resisting earthquake motion may be either
single-column or multi-column structures, as shown.
 Single-column structures are easy to design and construct
and are most suitable to situations where the demand along
and across the bridge is similar. Also, since there is only one
plastic hinge, response prediction is straightforward. It has
several disadvantages however, such as low redundancy,
high moment demand at the base, high seismic actions
imposed on the foundation (due to the necessity of fixing the
base) and high deck displacements.
 Multi-column structures offer the option of fixed or pinned
base solutions, hence drastic reduction in top section
moments. Also, in general, displacements at the deck level
are reduced, especially in the transverse direction.
Moreover, one of the most important advantages of this configuration is the degree of redundancy, since redistribution of
action can occur between the various columns. Finally, load sharing between deck and columns, in monolithic structures, is
better distributed. The main disadvantages of this type of structure are that its response is more complicated, hence less
predictable in the inelastic range, and that there are more detailed connections than in the case of a single column. The
demand imposed on columns will be non-uniform due to variations in axial forces and cap beam flexibility at various
locations. As a consequence, the ductility demand in one column will be higher than that of the overall structure. In cases
of very high piers, linking of the columns may be used & case, care should be exercised in shear design where the link
creates a column of height shorter than about six times its plan dimension.
18
19/08/2019

Connection between deck and piers
This may be either monolithic or bearing supported, as shown.
 Monolithic construction is normally used for slender columns and small
bridges. The energy absorption capacity of this configuration is in
general larger than bearing supported systems due to the double
curvature of the former leading to potentially two plastic hinging
zones, instead of one in the case of bearings.
 For multi-column configurations, use of monolithic systems enables the stiffness in the longitudinal and transverse
directions (when using circular and square columns) to be equal, thus eliminating the potential for a preferential
response direction. Two more advantages of monolithic construction are that it allows consideration of using a fixed
or pinned column–foundation condition and that it leads to higher redundancy of the lateral response system.
 One of the major disadvantages of monolithic deck–pier systems is that large moments are transmitted to the deck
that add to the moments from gravity forces thus creating critical conditions there. This is especially true for single
column systems with wide decks, since the effective deck section resisting these high moments is relatively small.
 Large-diameter bars from the pier should be adequately anchored in the relatively shallow cap beam, thus
reinforcement congestion may become a problem.
 Another problem is the imbalance between the longitudinal and transverse directions for single-pier systems. In the
transverse direction, the torsional stiffness of the deck only is acting against the pier behaving as a cantilever.
Longitudinally, the deck is monolithic with all piers, hence the restraint it applies on pier heads is much larger than in
the transverse direction. Therefore, the pier is normally stiffer longitudinally than transversely.
 Thermal expansion imposes large displacement demand on monolithic systems longitudinally and therefore requires
short spans between expansion joints. This is an unfavorable feature of monolithic pier–deck construction.

Connection between deck and piers
The second option is the provision of bearing support between pier and
deck, allowing one or more translational and/or rotational degrees of
freedom.
 The most significant advantage of bearing supports is that the deck is
not subjected to seismic forces, hence configurations not amenable to
high moment resistance may be utilised.
 Also, the period of the bridge is elongated as compared to monolithic bridges. This may be advantageous when the
bridge is founded on rock or stiff soil, but is not suitable for soft sites.
 Another important advantage of bearing supports is that by suitable adjustment of bearing characteristics, stiff
bearings may be placed on top of flexible piers and vice versa. Hence, a more uniform distribution of stiffness and
strength than the case of monolithic structures would be easy to achieve.
 Bearing supports have serious disadvantages, such as the effect of period elongation of the structure in areas of soft
site conditions subjected to large distant earthquakes.
 Also, the bridge is subjected in general to larger displacements than its monolithic counterpart. For multi-column
structures, the piers are placed in double curvature transversely while the longitudinal response is that of a
cantilever. Since the option of pinned pier–foundation condition is no longer available, footings are subjected to high
seismic forces and are susceptible to uplift.
 Also, due to the existence of one potential plastic hinge in a single column structure, the ductility demand on the
single pier is much higher than that of the overall structure. Finally, bearing systems may undergo large inelastic
displacements that are not restored at the end of the earthquake, hence impairing the use of the bridge. This
drawback can be offset by using self-restoring bearing systems.
19
19/08/2019

Connection between deck and abutment
It is often the case that abutment design is not given due consideration, leading to poor
seismic response. This is partly due to soil–structure interaction representation. However,
site studies indicate that abutment failure is frequently observed to warrant serious
consideration in design. Moreover, studies on bridge models with various abutment
conditions show that boundary conditions at the abutment have a significant influence on
dynamic response characteristics of RC bridges.
It is therefore important to ponder the effects of abutment configuration, stiffness in

various planes and strength on the response of the bridge as a whole. The connection
may be monolithic, bearing-supported or isolated.

Monolithic connections, as shown, are more commonly used for small bridges. They
are designed to resist the total seismic force, while intermediate piers are designed
for gravity loads only, but detailed for ductility as a precaution; in which case, the
system shown in Figure-b, is more reliable than that of (a), since the latter relies at
least in part on soil bearing resistance behind the abutment wall. This system will
also have unequal stiffness in the push–pull longitudinal direction. The rigid
(monolithic) abutment is designed for the peak ground acceleration without
amplification, since it will move as a rigid body with the ground.
For large bridges, it is extremely difficult to resist the total seismic force at one
location. Therefore, a bearing support may be employed, with all other vertical
members sharing in the seismic resistance. Bearing supports have many
configurations, two of which are shown.
The stiffness in the negative longitudinal direction is provided by the wing wall, and the soil bearing stiffness (and
strength) following the closure of the gap, which is designed for temperature changes.
In the positive direction, stiffness depends on the bearing characteristics. Ball and cylinder bearings resting on horizontal
planes or dish receptacles (for self-righting) are used in practice. The alternative shown in Figure-d, utilises a knock-off
detail, in which damage to the transverse wall is allowed in large earthquakes hence a large tolerance for
displacements is afforded. For both configurations shown, the bearings may be substituted by isolators, which normally
double up as dissipaters too, since the effect of period elongation of bridges on the seismic forces is less significant than
the effect of damping by energy dissipation.
20
19/08/2019

 An issue of great significance is the transverse boundary conditions imposed on
the deck by the abutment and the consequence of resulting forces imposed on
the abutment.
 In general, it is more difficult to provide lateral stiffness and strength than it is
for the longitudinal direction, as may be intimated from Figure-a. Hence,
buttresses, as shown in Figure-b, may be utilised to increase resistance in both
directions, which is also contributed to by the piles.
 With regard to the boundary conditions imposed on the deck, Figure-a is
examined. The moment constraint will be a function of the bearings used, their
number and location. For a large number of bearings at some spacing, resting
on a high friction surface will provide a high degree of restraint, and vice versa.
The force restraint depends on the existence and details of shear keys.
 Care should be exercised not to allow a very large difference in stiffness to
develop between abutment and piers, since this will lead to a high concentration
of force and deformation demand imposed on the former, which in turn will
lead to severe distress.

Summary
Seismic Vulnerabilities of a Bridge

Foundation:
 Liquefaction during a seismic event poses the greatest threat to the bridge’s structural systems.
 Existing foundations have too many unknowns associated with their behavior and performance. A
seismic retrofit scheme would assume the existing foundations only take the dead load and all group
VII (seismic group) loadings would be taken by a new foundation system.
Piers
 Existing main reinforcement ratio is less than 1%
 Insufficient concrete confinement exists per current seismic design standards.
 Unknown or inadequate reinforcement details
Bearings
 Existing high-profile bearings would potentially fail if large displacements occur because of loss of
stability due to liquefaction. Unseating of the spans is possible.
21

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges - Lect-12b

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges - Lect-12b

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

19/08/2019

EQ-527 Prof. Rashid A. Khan

 Bridge Condition Assessment

 Seismic Vulnerability and Assessment

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

A successful hazard evaluation program requires tangible management support; sufficient,

Qualitative Techniques: These methods help a multi-disciplinary team (1) identify

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage

 Lessons Learned from Previous Earthquakes

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

• 1964 Alaska (Prince William Sound), AK

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

 Simple retrofit helps

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

 Retrofit Improves Resistance

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

Seismic Load Path and Affected Components

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

 Skew/ Curved Bridges

Seismic Vulnerability & Assessment of Damage:

 Newer Designs Improve Performance

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

According to these estimates the PGA at locations 25

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE

EQ-527 Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Bridges

DAMAGE TO ABUTMENTS & POUNDING

BRIDGE DAMAGES in 2005 EARTHQUAKE