City University London Research in progress at the

Civil Engineering Department Research Centre for Civil

Research Centre for Civil Engineering Structures Engineering Structures

Performance-based
earthquake resistant design of concrete bridges

Konstantinos I. Gkatzogias (PhD student)

Prof. A. J. Kappos (supervisor)

December, 2014
Research in progress at the RCCES

Overview of PBD/DBD methods for bridges

 DDBD procedure by Kowalsky (2002), Dwairi, Kowalsky (2006): Applicable to
multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) continuous concrete bridges with flexible or
rigid superstructures (target displacement profile based on modal analysis: EMS)
 Similar version of the method included in the Priestley et al. book (2007):
Design in longitudinal direction, approximate method for higher mode effects
focusing on deck forces only)
 Adhikari, Petrini, Calvi (2010): Long-span bridges with tall piers (approximate
procedure for higher mode effects on flexural strength of hinges)
 Suarez-Kowalsky (2007-11): SSI in drilled shaft bents, skewed configurations of
piers and/or abutments, conditions for applying DDBD using predefined
displacement patterns, target displacements that account for P-Δ
 Kappos-Gkatzogias-Gidaris (2012-13): Modal DDBD (proper consideration of
higher mode effects + additional design criteria)
 Bardakis, Fardis (2011): ‘Indirect’ displacement-based design of bridges based
on calculating inelastic rotations from elastic analysis
 Kappos and co-workers (1997-2010): Deformation-based design (Def-BD)
procedure focusing on buildings
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Type of analysis Start Earthquake level

Step 1: Flexural design of dissipating

Linear zones based on serviceability criteria <ν0EQII

Selection of seismic Set-up of the partial

actions for PBD inelastic model (PIM)

Nonlinear Step2: Serviceability/operationality verifications EQII

Nonlinear Step 3: Flexural design of non-dissipating EQIII

zones on the basis of life safety criteria

Implicitly Step 4: Design and detailing for shear EQIV

consid.
Implicitly Step 5: Detailing for confinement, anchorages and lap splices EQIV
consid.
End
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Type of analysis Start Earthquake level

Step 1: Flexural design of dissipating

Linear zones based on serviceability criteria <ν0EQII

Selection of seismic Set-up of the partial

actions for PBD inelastic model (PIM)

Nonlinear Step2: Serviceability/operationality verifications EQII

Nonlinear Step 3: Flexural design of non-dissipating EQIII

zones on the basis of life safety criteria

Implicitly Step 4: Design and detailing for shear EQIV

consid.
Implicitly Step 5: Detailing for confinement, anchorages and lap splices EQIV
consid.
End
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 1: Flexural design of plastic hinge zones based on operationality criteria
 Establishes basic level of strength for the bridge to remain operational during
and after the selected level of earthquake (Τr=40110yrs-ordinary bridges):
 yielding zones (pier ends) in PIM have strength determined from an initial
elastic analysis (dynamic or, if permitted, static); pier stiffness (EIefMy/φy)
estimated from simplified procedures (preferably the Caltrans charts)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 1: Flexural design of plastic hinge zones based on operationality criteria
 Establishes basic level of strength for the bridge to remain operational during
and after the selected level of earthquake (Τr=40110yrs-ordinary bridges):
 yielding zones (pier ends) in PIM have strength determined from an initial
elastic analysis (dynamic or, if permitted, static); pier stiffness (EIefMy/φy)
estimated from simplified procedures (preferably the Caltrans charts)
 allowable damage expressed explicitly as rotational ductility factor (μθ)
 R/C pier design typically based on fcd, fyd, but damage verification typically
based on inelastic analysis using mean values (fcm, fym); also, overstrength
is present in some zones, due to detailing and practical requirements
 elastic analysis run for a fraction (ν00.75) of EQII: pier strength
 elastic analysis run for EQII: bearing deformations
 the goal is to reach the target μθ in the piers and γv in the el. bearings
during the operationality earthquake (not to be much lower than it!)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 1 contnd
 inelastic pier rotations are estimated from elastic ones
Elastic
Mel Inelastic
Mel, θel (analysis)

My
θinel ≈ β θel

θy = θinel / μθ,ls

θy θel θinel
Μy from θy (My ≥ MG)
simple approach, assume :
 elastic-perfectly-plastic M – θ β-values from Bardakis & Fardis (2011)
 Mtot – θtot & ME – θE have identical slope  pl ,ls 3  ls  y   Lpl
 ,ls  1  1
(typically applies in bridge piers) y y  heq
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Type of analysis Start Earthquake level

Step 1: Flexural design of dissipating

Linear zones based on serviceability criteria <ν0EQII

Selection of seismic Set-up of the partial

actions for PBD inelastic model (PIM)

Nonlinear Step2: Serviceability/operationality verifications EQII

Nonlinear Step 3: Flexural design of non-dissipating EQIII

zones on the basis of life safety criteria

Implicitly Step 4: Design and detailing for shear EQIV

consid.
Implicitly Step 5: Detailing for confinement, anchorages and lap splices EQIV
consid.
End
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 2: Serviceability/operationality verifications
 Set-up of the partially inelastic model
 PIM for bridges:
 piers modelled as yielding elements (strength from Step 1, stiffness: M-φ
analysis, e.g RCCOLA.net (AUTh))
 all other parts of the bridge modelled as elastic members (including common
bearings; but LRBs should be modelled inelastically)
 Selection of seismic actions
 Pairs of records are required for 3D analysis (or triplets, if vertical motion is
influential)
 Recommended selection criteria: M, R (from deaggregation of hazard analysis),
PGA (e.g. 0.1g), similarity of spectra, accepted variability of response
 Modern tools (like ISSARS, Sextos-Katsanos (2013)) select sets of e.g. 7 records
based on such ‘multi-criteria’, also including the EC8 procedure
 Scaling procedures: EC8-Part 1/2 (based on considered earthq. components)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 2 contnd
 Serviceability/operationality verifications
 PIM analysed for set of records (7) scaled to the seismic action associated
with operationality requirement
 verifications include specific limits for pier drifts, ductility factors (μθ) and
plastic hinge rotations (θp); ideally μθ,an  μθ,ls=f(εc , εs)
 recommended values of μθ and/or θp vary significantly, e.g. proposals by
Eastern (DesRoches et al.) and Western (Priestley et al.) US teams
 εc, εy are good basis for estimating damage to R/C piers
 damage to bearings (γb<0.51.5) should also be checked, might be critical
 joint widths should be such as to prevent damage to backwalls
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Type of analysis Start Earthquake level

Step 1: Flexural design of dissipating

Linear zones based on serviceability criteria <ν0EQII

Selection of seismic Set-up of the partial

actions for PBD inelastic model (PIM)

Nonlinear Step2: Serviceability/operationality verifications EQII

Nonlinear Step 3: Flexural design of non-dissipating EQIII

zones on the basis of life safety criteria

Implicitly Step 4: Design and detailing for shear EQIV

consid.
Implicitly Step 5: Detailing for confinement, anchorages and lap splices EQIV
consid.
End
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 3: Verifications for the ‘life safety’ or ‘damage limitation’ limit state
 PIM is now analysed for records scaled to the seismic action associated with
damage limitation or life safety requirement (Tr  5003000yrs)
 elastomeric bearings γb1.52.0
 verifications of pier drifts, ductility factors (μθ) and plastic hinge rotations
(θp) based on allowable εc , εs
 verifications that members assumed elastic do not yield (except for
continuity slabs)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Type of analysis Start Earthquake level

Step 1: Flexural design of dissipating

Linear zones based on serviceability criteria <ν0EQII

Selection of seismic Set-up of the partial

actions for PBD inelastic model (PIM)

Nonlinear Step2: Serviceability/operationality verifications EQII

Nonlinear Step 3: Flexural design of non-dissipating EQIII

zones on the basis of life safety criteria

Implicitly Step 4: Design and detailing for shear EQIV

consid.
Implicitly Step 5: Detailing for confinement, anchorages and lap splices EQIV
consid.
End
Research in progress at the RCCES

Steps of the deformation-based procedure for bridges

Step 4: Design for shear
 Less ductile failure mode  VE should be calculated for higher seismic actions
(Tr  2500yrs) associated with ‘collapse prevention’
 to avoid 3rd set of response-history analyses, VE from Step 3 could be
empirically scaled; recommended γv  1.101.20
 no need for code-type conservative capacity design, since inelastic analysis
is used!

Step 5: Detailing of critical members

 Detailing of R/C piers for: confinement, anchorages, lap splices
 the actual μφ values from Step 3 can be used, implicitly associated with
‘collapse prevention’ (e.g. γω  2.00)
 bearings should be verified based on stability considerations

   G  S  r '
N 'cr   Ar Constantinou et al. (2011)
tr
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Description of the studied bridge (T7 Overpass)
 3-span structure (27 - 45 - 27m)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Description of the studied bridge (T7 Overpass)
 3-span structure (27 - 45 - 27m)
 Prestressed concrete box girder section (variable geometry)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Description of the studied bridge (T7 Overpass)
 3-span structure (27 - 45 - 27m)
 Prestressed concrete box girder section (variable geometry)
 Deck monolithically connected to the (circular single-column) piers
 Unrestrained transverse displacement at the abutments (elastom. bearings)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Description of the studied bridge (T7 Overpass)
 3-span structure (27 - 45 - 27m)
 Prestressed concrete box girder section (variable geometry)
 Deck monolithically connected to the (circular single-column) piers
 Unrestrained transverse displacement at the abutments (elastom. bearings)
 Different pier heights (longitudinal deck slope of 7%)
 Surface foundations
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Analysis of the bridge
 Software used: Ruaumoko3D
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

7000
Limited Disruption of
Full service
PE (%) in service service 6000

50/100/200 yrs Earth-

Negligible Minimal Moderate 5000
Tr (yrs) quake Severe damage
damage damage damage N=10.4 MN
level 4000

M (kNm)
Bilin.
Minimal Feasible Buckling
50 100 200 No repair
repair repair Replacement** 3000 Hoop fracture
Bar fracture
* * * * EQI ● 2000
Ultimate
40.9 65.1 87.8 95 EQII ● 1000
10.0 19.0 34.4 475 EQIII ●
0
2.0 4.0 7.8 2462 EQIV ● 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040

* Implicit definition according to Step 1 φ (m-1)

** Partial or complete replacement may be required
M-φ for column section

Performance criteria
 EQII: Columns: εc≤3.54.0‰ or εs≤15.0‰, elastom. bearings: γb≤1.0
 EQIII: Columns: εc≤18.0‰ or εs≤60.0‰, elastom. bearings: γb≤2.0
 EQIV: Columns: εc≤εcc,u or εs≤ εs,u, elastom. bearings: toppling
 ‘Limit-state’ (ls) deformations: Based on allowable strains and section analysis
 pl ,ls 3  ls  y   Lpl
e.g.  ,ls 1 1
y y  heq
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Implementation: Selection of input motions (ISSARS)
No. Name Region Date Station Magnitude Distance (km) PGA(g) Hor. Component 1 (HC1) Hor. Component 2 (HC2)
1 Imperial Valley-02 USA 19.05.1940 El Centro Array #9 6.95 12.99 0.258 IMPVALL_I-ELC180 IMPVALL_I-ELC270
3 Imperial Valley-06 USA 15.10.1979 Chihuahua 6.53 18.88 0.270 IMPVALL_H-CHI012 IMPVALL_H-CHI282
5 Imperial Valley-06 USA 15.10.1979 Holtville Post Office 6.53 19.81 0.248 IMPVALL_H-HVP225 IMPVALL_H-HVP315
6 Imperial Valley-06 USA 15.10.1979 SAHOP Casa Flores 6.53 12.43 0.357 IMPVALL_H-SHP000 IMPVALL_H-SHP270
8 Corinth, Greece Greece 24.02.1981 Corinth 6.60 19.92 0.264 CORINTH_COR--L CORINTH_COR--T
10 Northridge-01 USA 17.01.1994 Arleta - Nordhoff Fire St. 6.69 11.10 0.330 NORTHR_ARL090 NORTHR_ARL360
12 Northridge-01 USA 17.01.1994 LA - Hollywood Stor FF 6.69 23.61 0.335 NORTHR_PEL090 NORTHR_PEL360
13 Northridge-01 USA 17.01.1994 LA - N Faring Rd 6.69 16.99 0.246 NORTHR_FAR000 NORTHR_FAR090
16 Kobe, Japan Japan 16.01.1995 Kakogawa 6.90 24.20 0.267 KOBE_KAK000 KOBE_KAK090

Zone Suite of records Scaling factor (SF) Spectral deviation δ P1 SEE (%) P2 SEE (%)
II 1 3 5 6 12 13 16 1.18 0.1651 13.17 13.51
III 1 5 6 8 10 13 16 1.81 0.1956 12.33 14.74

IMPVALL_I-ELC270.AT2 IMPVALL_I-ELC270.AT2
1.20 1.20
IMPVALL_H-CHI282.AT2 IMPVALL_H-HVP315.AT2
1.10 IMPVALL_H-HVP315.AT2 1.10 IMPVALL_H-SHP270.AT2
1.00 IMPVALL_H-SHP270.AT2 1.00 CORINTH_COR--T.AT2
0.90 NORTHR_PEL360.AT2 0.90 NORTHR_ARL360.AT2
NORTHR_FAR090.AT2 NORTHR_FAR090.AT2
0.80 0.80
KOBE_KAK090.AT2 KOBE_KAK090.AT2
0.70 0.70 Average-T Sc.
Average-T Sc.
Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.60 EC8-2 (TD =4.0s) (Unsc.) 0.60 EC8-2 (TD=4.0s) (Unsc.)

0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

T (sec) T (sec)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

Verification
 Assessment using inelastic response-history analysis (RHA)
 Refined ‘limit-states’: Analysis of column sections based on final detailing
 Inelastic modelling of all yielding members, using standard point-hinge
approach (with Takeda model)
 Verification of design for Ζone ΙΙ & ΙΙΙ
 Use of spectrum-compatible synthetic records (ASING code), i.e. a different
set from that used in the Def-BD procedure
SIM1 SIM1
1.00 0.40
SIM2 SIM2
0.90 SIM3 0.35 SIM3
0.80 SIM4 SIM4
SIM5 0.30 SIM5
0.70
Average 0.25 Average
0.60 EC8-2 (TD =4.0s) EC8-2 (TD=4.0s)
Sd (cm)
Sa (g)

0.50 0.20
0.40 0.15
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.10 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

T (sec) T (sec)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

0.40 0.40
0.38 EQII-D-L 0.38 EQII-D-L
0.36 0.36
0.34 EQII-D-NL 0.34 EQII-D-NL
0.32 0.32
0.30 0.30
EQII-A-NL EQII-A-NL
Displacement (m)

Displacement (m)
0.28 0.28
0.26 0.26
0.24 EQIII-D-NL 0.24 EQIII-D-NL
0.22 0.22
0.20 EQIII-A-NL 0.20 EQIII-A-NL
0.18 0.18
0.16 EQIV-D-NL 0.16 EQIV-D-NL
0.14 0.14
0.12 EQIV-A-NL
0.12 EQIV-A-NL
0.10 0.10
0.08 0.08
0.06 MDDBD-D 0.06 MDDBD-D
0.04 0.04
0.02 MDDBD-A 0.02 MDDBD-A
0.00 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Position (m) Position (m)

 EQII: Excellent agreement of design and assessment (for critical

performance level), despite the different input motions used in each case
 EQIII & EQIV: Differences in the area of Abt1 and Pier1 (differences could be
attributed to the fact that the ‘structure-specific’ ground motion selection was
based on linear analysis and was different from assessment set
 P-D effects are not critical
 (EQIII-A-NL and MDDBD-A(EIass) result in similar displacements and drifts)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

18000 18000

16000 16000

14000 14000
ΖΙΙI

Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)

12000 12000
ΖΙΙI
10000 10000

8000 8000

6000 6000

4000 4000 ΖΙΙ

ΖΙΙ

2000 2000

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
EQII Chord rotation (103rad) Chord rotation (103rad)

EQII
 EQII: Controls the design
 SA (section analysis): refers to the ‘limit-state’ deformations (design values)
 Slight exceedance of P1 ‘limit-state’ deformation
 Ζone ΙΙ, D =1.20m → ρl,req,Col1 =ρl,req,Col2 = 10.4‰
 Zone III, D =1.20m → ρl,req,Col1 =12.5‰, ρl,req,Col2 = 9.5‰
 Design was found to be safe during assessment
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

18000 18000

16000 16000
ΖΙΙI
14000 14000
ΖΙΙI
Moment (kNm)

Moment (kNm)
12000 12000

10000 10000

8000 8000

6000 6000

4000 ΖΙΙ 4000 ΖΙΙ

2000 2000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
EQIII Chord rotation (103rad) Chord rotation (103rad)

EQIII
 EQIII: Not critical (although bearing strains were close to the def. limits)
 All pier ‘limit-state’ deformations were easily satisfied
 Pier deformation demand were close to deformation limits corresponding to
minimum transverse reinf. ratio.
Research in progress at the RCCES

Def-BD: Implementation & Verification

18000 18000

16000 16000
ΖΙΙI 14000
14000
D-L ΖΙΙI

Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)

12000 12000
D-NL-SA
10000 D-NL-RHA 10000
A-NL-SA
8000 8000
A-NL-RHA
6000 6000

4000 ΖΙΙ 4000 ΖΙΙ

2000 2000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
EQIV Chord rotation (103rad) Chord rotation (103rad)

EQIV
 EQIV: Implicitly checked (also checked explicitly for verification reasons)
 Critical for the transverse reinforcement (based on curvature ductility
demand)
 D-SA shown is based on transverse steel ρw,min
 Ζone ΙΙ: ρw,req,Col1 =12.4‰, ρw,req,Col2 = 10.6‰
 Zone III: ρw,req,Col1 =13.2‰, ρw,req,Col2 = 10.4‰
Research in progress at the RCCES

Conclusions
 ‘Operationality’ PL: governs the design
‘Damage-limitation’ PL: not critical
‘Collapse-prevention’ PL: critical (with respect to stability) for bearings
deformations
 Very good prediction of structural response while resulting in safe design
 Applicable to most common concrete bridge configurations without practical
limitations related to the irregularity of the structural system considered
 Increased adaptability: Different performance objectives accounting for the
importance of the bridge can be met (inclusion in future codes)
 Further research is required with investigate the effectiveness of the
suggested procedure for complex bridge configurations (e.g. curved in plan
bridges) and /or under challenging loading conditions (e.g. asynchronous pier
excitation)
Research in progress at the RCCES

Relevant publications
 Kappos AJ, Gidaris IG, Gkatzogias KI (2012) "Problems
associated with direct displacement-based design of concrete
bridges with single-column piers, and some suggested
improvements“, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,
10(4):1237-1266
 Kappos AJ, Gkatzogias KI, Gidaris IG (2013) "Extension of
direct displacement-based design methodology for bridges to
account for higher mode effects“, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 42(4), 581–602
 Kappos AJ (2014) Performance-based seismic design and
assessment of bridges, in Ansal, A. (ed.) Perspectives on
European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (Vol.2),
Springer, (in press)
 Gkatzogias KI, Kappos AJ (2015) “Deformation-based seismic
design of concrete bridges” Earthquakes and Structures,
(submitted)