1

Bridge Seismic Engineer, Montana Department oI Transportation, Helena, MT

Comparison of new AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Bridge Design and
updated Seismic Provisions in LRFD Bridge Design Specifications for Montana

Stephanie Brandenberger, P.E.
1


Abstract

The American Association oI State Highway Transportation OIIicials (AASHTO)
recently approved two signiIicant changes in the seismic design oI bridges. First is the
modiIication oI the current Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design
SpeciIications to increase the return period oI the design earthquake Irom 475 years to
approximately 1000 years, in addition to several updates reIlecting modern practice oI
Iorce based seismic design. The second development is completion oI the Guide
SpeciIications Ior LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. The Guide SpeciIications are an
alternate set oI provisions speciIically Iocusing on the ductility and displacement capacity
oI a structure, and as such is reIerred to as a displacement based approach. The purpose
oI this paper is to compare the designs oI a representative case study bridge using both
the 'Iorce based and 'displacement based speciIications and assess the impact to the
Montana Department oI Transportation (MDT) bridge design and construction program.

Introduction

The seismic provisions in earlier versions oI the LRFD Bridge Design
SpeciIications (LRFD SpeciIications) were adopted in 1990 recognizing the urgent need
Ior standardized seismic design aIter the Loma Prieta Earthquake oI 1989. Many
valuable lessons have been learned about the cause oI earthquakes worldwide and the
seismic perIormance oI bridges since that time. Evaluation oI damage aIter Loma Prieta,
Northridge in 1994, Kobe 1995, Turkey 1999, Chi Chi 2000, among others have oIIered
insight to the vulnerabilities oI bridges under seismic attack and provided impetus Ior
seismic research that can be developed and applied to a new generation oI structures.

The earthquake design Irom previous versions oI the LRFD SpeciIications
considered a single level event with a 10 probability oI exceedance in 50-years, or
about a 475-year return period. The response spectrum was based on normalized elastic
seismic response coeIIicients with 5 structure damping, and considering 3 diIIerent soil
proIiles. The long period portion oI the spectrum was inversely proportional to T
2/3

which was intended to provide a measure oI conservatism in Iorce based seismic design.
This design event applied to regular, critical, and essential structures up to 152-meters
(500-Ieet) in length |AASHTO 2006|.

The objective oI the updated LRFD SpeciIications and new Guide SpeciIications
is LiIe SaIety perIormance Ior a seismic hazard corresponding to a 7 probability oI
exceedance in the 75-year design liIe oI a bridge, or a 1000-year return period. LiIe
SaIety implies that the bridge has a low probability oI collapse, but may sustain
signiIicant damage such that partial or complete replacement may be required Iollowing a
design event. Higher levels oI perIormance Ior critical or essential bridges that are
required to be open to emergency traIIic at all times, and Ior other types oI construction
such as suspension, cable-stayed, and truss bridges are not addressed in the Guide
SpeciIications and are subject to the owners` additional requirements. LRFD
SpeciIications maintain coverage Ior critical and essential bridges oI regular construction.
The Guide SpeciIications do not include recommendations Ior near Iault eIIects |Imbsen,
2007|.

JustiIication Ior the 1000-year return period is that the overall population oI
aIIected structures nationwide would not change drastically. Collapse prevention should
be maintained when considering large historical earthquakes by taking advantage oI
inherent sources oI conservatism in bridge components. These sources oI conservatism
have become more obvious based on recent observations oI earthquake damage and
experimental data |NCHRP 2005|.

Modifications to LRFD Specifications

The LRFD SpeciIications have been updated to include ground motion maps
using the 1000-year return period. The Iour Seismic PerIormance Zones have been re-
partitioned using 1.0-second spectral accelerations at ground surIace. Unique response
spectra can be developed Ior each site using a general procedure called the 'two point
method and site speciIic soil classiIications. The rate oI decay oI the long period portion
oI the response spectrum is proportional to 1/T. Flexural resistance Iactor Ior axially
loaded members () has been increased Ior seismic applications. Relaxation oI the -
Iactor and the change in spectral curve shape removes some oI the built in conservatism
preventing strength degradations under large inelastic deIormations. Thus, an explicit P-
A check is now required. Finally, empirical support lengths have been increased to
reIlect new zone boundaries. The design methodology remains Iorce based by relying on
elastic design Iorces modiIied by an R Iactor |AASHTO 2007|.

Guide Specification Philosophy

The Guide SpeciIications were developed using identical ground motion maps as
the LRFD SpeciIications Ior a 1000-year return period and also have LiIe SaIety as the
perIormance goal. Development oI the response spectrum will be the same with both
speciIications using the two point method and site speciIic soil classiIications. There are
Iour Seismic Design Categories (SDC) to diIIerentiate it Irom the LRFD SpeciIications
although the partitioning is identical.

The engineer is directed to choose a global design strategy or Earthquake
Resisting System (ERS) and identiIy particular Earthquake Resisting Elements (ERE)
within the complete load path Ior that system. Elastic methods oI analysis are still used
to calculate seismic displacement demands on a structure Ior all but the highest seismic
zone, but iI these demands exceed the implicit capacity oI the structural elements, a non-
linear static analysis (also called 'pushover analysis) must be used to Iurther deIine
actual demands, and is required oI the highest design category. The demand and capacity
evaluations are primarily related to displacement oI ductile elements within the structure,
rather than a Iorce applied to those elements, and as such the methodology oI this
speciIication is oIten reIerred to as displacement based.

Case Study Bridge

To illustrate the application and comparison oI the two design methodologies and
assess the impact oI the speciIications to MDT`s bridge construction program, a case
study bridge was chosen representing typical construction methods, structural elements,
and span lengths. Case Study Bridge is a regular 3-span continuous rolled steel girder
bridge supported on one prismatic drilled shaIt/column per bent, with steel pipe pile
Ioundations and semi-integral wall at the abutments. Bridge length is 95.5-meters. ShaIt
and column diameter is 1.8-meters. Abutment piles are 508-mm diameter with 12.7-mm
wall thickness. Geology at the site is characterized by a steeply dipping karstic limestone
Iormation (Tertiary Sedimentary Rock) overlain by inter-bedded layers oI sand, gravel
and clay (Quaternary Alluvium).


Figure 1 ELEVATION VIEW OF CASE STUDY BRIDGE

Seismic Hazard Characterization

The seismic hazard characterization is similar Ior both the LRFD SpeciIications
and the Guide SpeciIications. Ground motion maps were prepared Ior AASHTO by the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ior all 50 states and Puerto Rico with detailed
maps oI CaliIornia, central Rocky Mountains, New Madrid Iault region oI the midwest,
and South Carolina. These maps are based on USGS data used Ior the National Seismic
Hazards Mapping Project 2002 update, except Ior Alaska (2006), Hawaii (1998) and
Puerto Rico (2003). Companion soItware was developed to simpliIy determination oI
acceleration values using geographical coordinates.

To illustrate construction oI the design response spectrum, consider the Case
Study Bridge located in southwest Montana at geographical coordinates oI 45.886
latitude and -111.411 longitude. There are no active Iaults within 10-kilometers oI the
project vicinity. LiqueIaction potential is low Ior this site and will not be considered in
this design. The two point general procedure will be used to construct the map response
spectrum. The Iollowing points are Iound Irom the ground motion maps: Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA), short period spectral acceleration (S
s
), and spectral acceleration Ior
1.0 second period (S
1
).

Applying site speciIic coeIIicients to the map spectral accelerations creates the
design earthquake response spectrum. These coeIIicients represent the soil aIIects on
ground motion Irom rock to ground surIace. The site may be categorized using one oI
three soil parameters: average shear wave velocity u
s
; average Standard Penetration Test
blow counts N; and the average undrained shear strength s
u
. There are six diIIerent soil
types and proIiles to choose Irom.


Figure 2 PEAK HORIZONTAL GROUND ACCELERATION


Figure 3 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AT 0.2 SECOND PERIOD


Figure 4 HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AT 1.0 SECOND PERIOD

Data Irom a representative boring log Ior the Case Study Bridge is shown in Table
1. The soil layers above the bedrock have an average N value oI about 12 blows per
0.3m (12 blows/It). The bedrock layer has average N value greater than 50 blows/0.3m
(50 blows/It). The drilled shaIts will extend 2-meters into the bedrock. A wedge oI
compacted backIill with Class C or D soil characteristics will be placed at each abutment.
Soil layers 1 through 6 could be characterized as a Site Class E soil proIile based on the
average N value, while the limestone layer 7 could be a Class B or C rock. Considering
the relatively shallow depth oI soIter soils, the embedment oI the drilled shaIt into a
massive limestone Iormation, and the inIluence oI engineered backIill at the abutments, a
reasonably conservative estimate oI the site eIIects could be made by choosing Site Class
D soils Irom Table 2. This should be veriIied by in-depth geotechnical engineering
analysis, but can be used as a starting point to characterize the seismic hazard. The site
coeIIicients are then interpolated Irom Table 3 Ior the peak ground acceleration (F
pga
),
short period range (F
a
), and long period range (F
v
).

Table 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SUMMARY
Layer (i) Soil Layer Thickness (d
i
) Blow count (N
i
) d
i
/ N
i
N
avg

1 (sand) 4.1 m 7 .585
2 (gravel) 1.6 m 28 .057
3 (gravel) 1.6 m 16 .100
4 (clay) 1.4 m 12 .100
5 (clay) 1.4 m 14 .100
6 (gravel) 1.2 m 50 .024
11.7
7 (limestone) 2.0 m 50 .040 50
Average Standard Penetration Resistance Ior cohesionless soil layers, N Ld
i
/ L d
i
/N
i


Table 2 SITE CLASS DEFINITIONS
Site
Class
Soil Type and Profile
A
Hard rock with measured shear wave velocity,
>

5,000 It/sec.
B
Rock with 2,500 It/sec

5,000 It/sec.
C
Very dense soil and soil rock with 1,200 It/sec

2,500 It/sec, or with either

~ 50 blows/It, or

~ 2.0 ksI.
D
StiII soil with 600 It/sec

1,200 It/sec, or with either 15

50 blows/It, or 1.0

2.0
ksI.
E
Soil proIile with

600 It/sec or with either

15 blows/It or

1.0 ksI, or any proIile with

more than 10 It oI soIt clay deIined as soil with PI ~ 20, w ~ 40 percent and

0.5 ksI.
F
Soils requiring site-speciIic evaluations, such as:
Peats or highly organic clays (H ~ 10 It oI peat or highly organic clay where H thickness oI soil)
Very high plasticity clays (H ~ 25 It with PI ~ 75)
Very thick soIt/medium stiII clays (H ~120 It)


Table 3 SITE COEFFICIENTS


The design response spectrum is then created using the Iollowing points:















Figure 5 TWO-POINT RESPONSE SPECTRUM
A
s
F
pga
*PGA 0.34g
S
DS
F
a
*S
s
0.80g
S
D1
F
v
*S
1
0.37g


Alternatively, the design spectrum could be created using the ground motion
soItware by input oI geographical coordinates and site class deIinition. The Case Study
Bridge, with 1.0-second design acceleration (S
D1
) oI 0.37g would be placed into Zone 3
or SDC C.

Table 4 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY AND PERFORMANCE ZONE
Value of

SDC
Seismic
Zone
S
D1
0.15
A 1
0.15 s S
D1
0.30
B 2
0.30 s S
D1
0.50
C 3
0.50 s S
D1

D 4


Figure 6 DESIGN SPECTRUM FROM GROUND MOTION SOFTWARE

Demand Analysis and Modeling Techniques

At this point the two design speciIications diverge in philosophy. An elastic
dynamic analysis will be appropriate Ior most situations using either speciIication.
However, the LRFD SpeciIication relies on modiIied elastic Iorces to determine the Iorce
demand on the structural elements, which are then designed Ior suIIicient strength to
resist those Iorces. Whereas the Guide SpeciIications provide a simpliIied means to
determine the displacement capacity oI ductile elements which is then compared to the
seismic demands Irom a linear elastic analysis. Designs Ior minimum Ilexural strength,
shear strength, and capacity protection are also completed.

Applying the Guide SpeciIications to the Case Study Bridge, the Iirst task is to
consider the Earthquake Resisting System (ERS) and classiIy it as one oI three general
types: Type 1 uses a ductile substructure with an essentially elastic superstructure; Type
2 uses an essentially elastic substructure with a ductile superstructure (this applies only to
steel superstructures where the ductility is achieved by yielding in the pier cross Irames);
and Type 3 employs a Iusing mechanism or seismic isolation element between an elastic
superstructure and substructure. To encourage appropriate use oI these systems, a series
oI earthquake resisting elements (ERE) are presented in the Guide SpeciIication which
are categorized as permissible, permissible with owners approval, and not recommended.

The global design strategy Ior the Case Study Bridge is Type 1, where the
superstructure remains elastic and drilled shaIt substructure behaves inelastically and
Iorms a plastic hinge. The EREs within this load path are transverse/longitudinal
abutment soil response, and in-ground hinging oI shaIts. Although discouraged in the
Guide SpeciIications, in-ground hinging was deemed acceptable Ior the Case Study
Bridge since inelastic rotation would likely create an annular gap at ground line that
could be easily observable at this site.


Figure 7 EARTHQUAKE RESISTING ELEMENTS (ERE)

Guidance is provided in each speciIication on the minimal and appropriate
methods oI modeling and analysis. However, the Guide SpeciIication presents thorough
discourse and commentary on analytical models and procedures. A summary oI the
requirements Ior each are presented in Table 5 along with the corresponding values Ior
the Case Study Bridge. The procedures Ior modeling the bridge are identical using either
speciIication: bridge components are described geometrically and equivalent stiIInesses
Ior the substructure elements are determined. In this case, the depth to equivalent
stiIIness oI the steel piles and drilled shaIts are determined. The eIIective or 'cracked
section properties oI the prismatic shaIt, which is the primary ductile element in the
system, can be determined by applying the approximate techniques Irom the Guide
SpeciIication or completing a moment-curvature analysis. In lieu oI a more rigorous
analysis, the LRFD SpeciIications simply suggest 50 eIIective stiIIness Ior the column.

LRFD SpeciIications lack direction on the use oI passive pressure at the
abutments as part oI the earthquake resisting system and has oIten been neglected in the
model. This could be a conservative approach Irom a Iorce based perspective because it
tends to increase the Iorce demand on the ductile substructure elements. However, the
opposite eIIect could occur where neglecting the abutment soil stiIIness would tend to
attract less Iorce to the abutment resulting in underestimation oI Iorce on the abutment
structural elements. Additionally, increased Ilexibility oI the structure tends to lengthen
the period oI the structure thus shiIting it onto the decaying portion oI the response
spectrum and decreasing the resulting Iorce eIIect. ThereIore, determine an enveloped
response with and without soil-structure interaction at the abutments using LRFD
SpeciIications. By contrast, approximate methods Ior determining equivalent abutment
stiIIness are presented in the Guide SpeciIications to be used as part oI the ERS.

Support lengths are still considered the Iirst tier method oI preventing collapse oI
a structure. Minimum support lengths in the LRFD SpeciIications are calculated using
the Iollowing empirical Iormula considering the structure length L, column height H, and
skew S. Support length is increased depending on the seismic perIormance zone:

N(inches) (8 0.02*L 0.08*H)(1 0.000125*S
2
)

Minimum support lengths in the Guide SpeciIications are determined using the
same empirical Iormula as LRFD SpeciIications Ior SDC A, B, and C. For SDC D the
empirical Iormula is modiIied to consider the structure skew S, the elastic seismic
displacement demand A
eq
, and modiIication Iactor R
D
which increases Ior short period
structures. Support lengths using this Iormula may be less than those calculated using the
LRFD Iormula.

N(inches) (4 1.65*A
eq
*R
D
)(1.00025*S
2
) _ 24


Figure 8 Support Length

Table 5 SUMMARY OF DEMAND ANALYSIS FOR CASE STUDY BRIDGE
LRFD SpeciIications Guide SpeciIications
Analysis
Procedure
UniIorm Load Elastic,
Single Mode Elastic or
Multimode Elastic
Equivalent Static or
Elastic Dynamic
Soil Structure
Interaction at
Abutments
Designed to resist seismic
Iorce envelope with and
without contribution Irom
abutment soil in both
orthogonal directions.
Secant StiIIness models Ior
passive resistance. Maximum oI
70 soil resistance at abutments
in both orthogonal directions
part oI the ERS.
Force (Flexural)
Demand oI Ductile
Element
M
E
M
elastic
/R
where R
column
3.0
Ior regular, non-essential
bridge


M
E
5435 kN*m
( 0.5 )
0.1
h s
ne trib
H D
M P
+
>
A

where P
trib
column axial load
D
s
depth oI superstructure
A Iixity Iactor oI column
H
h
height oI column
M
ne
5430 kN*m
Shear Demand V
overstrength
905 kN V
overstrength
1005 kN
Connection
Strength
Capacity Protected
V
E
V
elastic
/R
where R
connection
1.0 at pier
V
E
1325 kN
V
D
0.4*P
trib
, or
V
elastic
, V
overstrength

V
D
.4*P
trib
1575 kN
Displacement
Demand
Local displacement demand
A
D
140mm
Local displacement demand
A
D
100mm
Displacement
Ductility Demand
No speciIied requirements.
R Iactor nearly approximates
Ductility Demand SDC C 3
Ductility Design Target 4
Foundation
Flexibility
Model developed to maximize
Iorce demands on substructure
elements.
Model developed to approximate
displacement demands on
structure. Foundation Ilexibility
must be considered in design.

Capacity Analysis and Detailing Requirements

The structural capacity determination using the LRFD method essentially
examines the Ilexural and shear capacity oI the section using over-strength Iactors Ior
expected material properties. Basic guidance on over-strength Iactors Ior concrete and
reinIorcing steel are given in Section 3 Appendix B oI the LRFD speciIications
|AASHTO 2006|. The resistance Iactor Ior Ilexural capacity oI axially loaded
members is determined based on the seismic zone and approaches a value oI 0.9, similar
to that Ior Ilexural members, Ior zones 3 or higher. Secondary moments caused by P-A
eIIects are limited to 25 oI the Iactored nominal resistance oI the section. Maximum
longitudinal reinIorcing limit has been decreased Irom 6 to 4 oI the gross section oI a
column, which is intended to encourage higher member ductility |NCHRP 2003|.
Transverse reinIorcement requirements have not changed.

The Guide SpeciIications diIIer Irom LRFD SpeciIications in the capacity
analysis oI the structure by evaluating the displacement capacity oI the members.
Expected material strengths are determined using well researched and proven models
such as monotonic tensile stress-strain model Ior steel reinIorcing, and Mander`s stress-
strain model Ior conIined concrete. This has an impact on the capacity checks oI the
structure such as minimum lateral strength, transverse reinIorcement requirements,
plastic Ilexural capacity, curvature and displacement ductility oI a column element.


Figure 9 CAPACITY DESIGN MODELS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE

The Case Study Bridge seismic capacity determination is based on the
longitudinal and transverse reinIorcement required to satisIy minimum steel ratios and
resist Strength Load Combination eIIects. Slight diIIerences in the results oI the two
analyses are noted due to the expected material strengths and over-strength Iactors
suggested, as well as minimum reinIorcing limits. The results are summarized and
compared in Table 6.

Detailing procedures Ior joints and end regions oI members is much more explicit
in the Guide SpeciIications. The use oI strut and tie models are applied to the Case Study
Bridge Ior design oI the column cap. For other Iramed connections, additional joint shear
reinIorcing is prescribed.












Table 6 SUMMARY OF CAPACITY AND DETAILING REQUIREMENTS OF CASE STUDY BRIDGE
LRFD SpeciIications Guide SpeciIications
Expected Material
Properties
I`
ce
27 MPa
I
ye
517 MPa
c
cc
0.01 (recommended)
I`
ce
34 MPa
I
ye
455 MPa
c
cc
0.012 (Mander`s Model)
Longitudinal
ReinIorcement
.01 A
g
_ A
s
_ .04 A
g

Used A
s
0.01 A
g

.007 A
g
_ A
s
_ .04 A
g

Used A
s
0.009 A
g

Longitudinal
Splice Location
Center oI Column

Outside plastic hinge region,
Plastic hinge length
L
p
.08*H
column
o
column
2800mm
Transverse
ReinIorcing
Min. reinI. ratio .006
A
sp
#16 75 mm
Min. reinIorcement ratio .005
A
sp
#16 100 mm

Transverse
Detailing
Hoops with seismic hooks,
welded or mechanically
spliced spirals
Butt welded hoops or continuous
spirals in hinge zone
Flexural Capacity
(Expected Strength)
M
n
8700 kN*m (0.9)
M
overstrength
13100 kN*m
M
n
9900 kN*m (1.0)
M
overstrength
13190 kN*m
Local
Displacement
Capacity
Procedure not provided in
speciIications. Results
similar using Guide Spec.
( ) 0.12 2.32ln( ) 1.22 0.12
L
C o o
H x H A = >
205 mm
where H
o
is column height
Support Length N
support length
150 *N
emperical

N
support length
680mm
N
support
680mm ,SDC C criteria
N
support
610mm ,SDC D criteria
Displacement
Ductility Provided
4.4 4.6

Conclusions

This Case Study Bridge is representative oI common construction in Montana.
Application oI either the LRFD SpeciIications or the Guide SpeciIications results in a
structural system that is capable oI resisting seismic loads in a ductile manner. In this
case, simply meeting the minimum seismic design and detailing requirements Ior the
ductile column results in more than adequate Ilexural and shear capacity Ior the Extreme
Event with very little increase in material required Ior Strength Load Combinations as
well. Targeted limited ductility perIormance was slightly exceeded, indicating there is
suIIicient reserve ductility capacity than is demanded Irom the analyses, possibly
resulting in less sustained damage. Computational eIIort required to complete the
designs using either speciIication was similar. The Guide SpeciIication design appears to
provide slightly higher ductility and better economy than the LRFD SpeciIications.





References

AASHTO, 2006, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Interim Specifications, 3
rd
Ed.,
American Association oI State Highway and Transportation OIIicials, Washington, DC.

Imbsen, Roy A., (May 2007), Proposed AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic
Bridge Design, Imbsen Consulting, Sacramento, CA.

AASHTO Bridge Committee General Session (2007), Agenda Item 7, American
Association oI State Highway and Transportation OIIicials, Washington, DC.

NCHRP 20-07/Task 193 Task 6 Report (2005), Updating Recommended LRFD
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highwav Bridges, Imbsen and Associates, Inc.,
Sacramento, CA.

NCHRP 12-49 (2003), Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
Highwav Bridges, Part I. Specifications and Part II. Commentarv and Appendices,
MCEER/ATC, State University oI New York at BuIIalo, BuIIalo, NY.