Notation 15.1: Pci Bridge Design Manual

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL CHAPTER 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEISMIC DESIGN
NOTATION
15.1 INTRODUCTION
15.1.1 Seismic Activity
15.1.2 Seismic Design Criteria
15.1.2.1 Background
15.1.2.2 Performance Objectives
15.1.2.3 Current Design Specifications
15.1.2.3.1 Standard Specifications
15.1.2.3.2 Caltrans Specifications
15.1.2.3.3 LRFD Specifications
15.1.2.4 Effect of Local Geology and Soil Conditions
15.2 SEISMIC RESISTANT PRECAST CONCRETE BRIDGES

15.2.1 Spliced Precast Concrete Beam Bridges
15.2.2 Current Practice
15.2.3 Seismic Response Characteristics of Precast Concrete Bridge Systems
15.2.4 Integral Precast Concrete Beam System
15.2.4.1 Precast Concrete Pier Segment
15.2.4.2 Cast-in-Place Concrete Bent Cap
15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment
15.2.5 Seismic Details
15.2.5.1 Superstructure-to-Bent Cap Connection
15.2.5.2 Ductility of Precast Concrete Piles
15.2.5.3 Pile-to-Cap Connections
15.2.6 Isolation Methods
15.3 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

15.3.1 Analysis Methods
15.3.1.1 Conventional Force Method
15.3.1.2 Displacement Ductility Method
15.3.2 Computer Modeling
15.3.3 Seismic Design Issues
15.3.3.1 Causes of Failures
15.3.3.2 Preliminary Design Recommendations
15.4 SEISMIC DESIGN EXAMPLEBULB-TEE, TWO SPANS,

DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION I-A
15.4.1 Introduction
15.4.1.1 Bridge Geometry
15.4.1.2 Level of Precision
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 1 6/22/04 9:53:26 AM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.2 Material Properties

15.4.3 Seismic Analysis in Transverse Direction
15.4.3.1 Section Properties
15.4.3.1.1 Beam Properties
15.4.3.1.2 Composite Section Properties
15.4.3.1.3 Column Properties
15.4.3.2 Tributary Dead Load
15.4.3.3 Equivalent Transverse Stiffness
15.4.3.4 Period of Structure in the Transverse Direction
15.4.3.5 Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient
15.4.3.6 Column Forces in the Transverse Direction
15.4.4 Seismic Analysis in Longitudinal Direction
15.4.4.1 Equivalent Longitudinal Stiffness
15.4.4.2 Period of Structure in the Longitudinal Direction
15.4.4.3 Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient
15.4.4.4 Column Forces in the Longitudinal Direction
15.4.5 Combination of Orthogonal Forces
15.4.6 Abutment Design Forces
15.4.7 Minimum Abutment Seat Width
15.5 SEISMIC DESIGN EXAMPLEINTEGRAL BENT CAP

15.5.1 Introduction
15.5.1.1 Bent Cap Geometry
15.5.1.2 Reinforcement
15.5.1.3 Material Properties
15.5.1.4 Forces
15.5.1.5 Precision
15.5.2 Design Procedure
15.5.3 Principal Stresses in the Bent Cap
15.5.4 Joint Reinforcement Design
15.5.5 Shear-Friction Analysis
15.6 CALTRANS RESEARCH

15.6.1 Test Model Set-Up
15.6.2 Test Results
15.6.2.1 Columns
15.6.2.2 Superstructure
15.7 REFERENCES
JUN 04

NOTATION
SEISMIC DESIGN
A = total section area

A = seismic acceleration coefficient
Ac = area of pile core measured to the outside of the transverse spiral rein-
forcement
Ag = gross area of pile
Ah = area of hoop reinforcement
Ai = area of a segment in a bent cap section
Ajv = vertical reinforcement to be placed over a distance of hb/2 from the
column face
Aps = area of prestressing steel
ARS = acceleration response spectrum
As = area of reinforcing steel passing through shear plane including
prestressing steel
Asc = total area of longitudinal reinforcement in column section
Avi = interior vertical joint stirrup area
bb = bent cap width parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bridge
bje = effective width of bent cap
Cb = compression force
Cc = column compression force
Cs(long) = elastic seismic response coefficient in the longitudinal direction
Cs(tr) = elastic seismic response coefficient in the transverse direction
D = column diameter
D = core diameter of spirally confined column
Di = force in diagonal compression strut within the superstructure/
substructure joint where i = 1 through 3
Ecc = modulus of elasticity of deck and column concrete
Ecs = modulus of elasticity of concrete in the beam and bent cap
Es = modulus of elasticity of nonprestressed reinforcement
F = bent cap prestressing force after all losses
Fi = force in each quadrant
f c = specified compressive strength of concrete
f oyc = over-strength stress of column reinforcement including strain hardening
fh = average horizontal stress (due to prestress) in the horizontal direction
fv = average joint axial stress in the vertical direction
fy = specified yield strength of non-prestressed reinforcement
fyh = yield strength of hoop or spiral reinforcement
fyv = yield strength of joint vertical reinforcement
g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/sec/sec)
H = average column height in frame
hb = cap beam section depth
hc = column length from top of footing to center of gravity of the superstructure
IC = importance classification
JUN 04

NOTATION
SEISMIC DESIGN
Ic = moment of inertia of column

Is = moment of inertia of superstructure cross-section about vertical axis
through centroid
K = equivalent transverse stiffness
Kc = column shear stiffness
L = span length
L = length of longitudinal frame between expansion joints
la = assumed length of column anchorage reinforcement in joint
M = total contributory mass of superstructure and column
Mobot = column over-strength moment capacity at column bottom
Moi,bentcap = moment at middepth of bent cap
ML = longitudinal moment
MT = transverse moment
Motop = column over-strength moment capacity at column top
N = minimum abutment support length
n = modular ratio
P = axial force
PDL,BOT = axial force due to dead load at bottom of column
PDL,TOP = axial force due to dead load at top of column
Pe = axial compression load on the pile
pt = principal tensile stress
q = uniformly distributed load
R = response modification factor
Rcol = column seismic shear force
RSA = response spectrum analysis
S = angle of skew (degrees) measured from a line normal to the span
S = site coefficient
SPC = seismic performance category
sreqd = required spacing of hoop reinforcement
T = external torsion
Tc = partial tension force in column
Tc = partial tension force in column
T(long) = period of structure in the longitudinal direction
T(tr) = period of structure in the transverse direction
Vc = column shear force
Voi,column = horizontal shear force at top of column
Vjh = horizontal joint shear force
vjh = nominal horizontal shear stress in the joint
VL = longitudinal shear force
VT = transverse shear force
VT(Abutment) = abutment transverse shear force
JUN 04
NOTATION
SEISMIC DESIGN
VV = vertical shear force

W = total contributory weight of superstructure and column
xi, yi = distances defining location of quadrant force, Fi

Yb = distance to centroid of superstructure cross-section from extreme
bottom fiber
Z = force reduction factor f c
= longitudinal or transverse superstructure displacement at intermedi- f c
ate support(s) Tc

1 = longitudinal or transverse superstructure displacement at intermedi- Yb
ate support(s)
2 = longitudinal or transverse superstructure displacement at intermedi-
ate support(s)
= coefficient of friction over the interface
s = ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of concrete
core (out-to-out of spiral)
s,min = minimum required value of s
= shear friction stress
JUN 04

The threat of seismic hazard is often thought to be limited to California and a few
other western states. However, the discovery of new fault zones and an increased
understanding of their activity have prompted many other states to include some
form of seismic design requirements in their bridge design specifications. Although
most states have not had significant levels of earthquake activity during recent history,
the occurrence of a few notable earthquakes indicates that there may be a significant
earthquake hazard in many states. For example, the most notable earthquake affect-
ing South Carolina was the one that shook the Charleston-Summervale area in 1886
causing loss of life and considerable damage. Small earthquakes still occur in the
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.1.2.1 Background
Acceleration Coefficient, A, for the United States (gs)
Figure 15.1.1-1
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.1.2.1 Background/15.1.2.3.1 Standard Specifications
for seismic design of bridges were based in part on the lateral force requirements for
buildings developed by the Structural Engineers Association of California. In 1973,
Caltrans developed a specification based on research that considered the relation-
ship of the site to active faults, seismic response of the soils at the site and dynamic
response characteristics of the bridge. In 1975, AASHTO adopted interim specifica-
tions that were slightly modified from the 1973 Caltrans provisions.
The 1971 San Fernando earthquake stimulated research activity by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), which, in 1978, funded a major research proj-
ect headed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC). This effort focused on the
development of improved seismic design guidelines for highway bridges that would
be applicable to all regions of the United States. It culminated in the publication of
Report No. ATC-6 entitled Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges (ATC,
1982). These guidelines incorporated an elastic Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA),
with R and Z factors to account for redundancy in the structure, ductility of the
structural components and risk. These guidelines emphasized detailing for ductile
behavior and prevention of collapse even after significant structural damage occurs.
15.1.2.2 Acceptable seismic performance criteria for bridge structures must satisfy both safety
Performance Objectives and economic conditions. Clearly, requiring all bridges to be serviceable immediately
after an earthquake may not be economically feasible. At the same time, it is well
recognized that preventing bridge collapse and possible loss of life can and must be
achieved. The principles used in the development of AASHTO provisions were:
1. The design ground motion must have a low probability of being exceeded during
the normal lifetime of the bridge (10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years
or a 475-year return period).
2. The bridge must have a low probability of collapse due to the design ground
motion.
3. Structural damage is acceptable as long as it does not result in collapse or loss of
life; and, where possible, damage that does occur should be readily detectable and
accessible for inspection and repair. Small and moderate earthquakes should be
resisted within the elastic range of the structural components without significant
damage.
4. Functionality of essential bridges must be maintained.
5. The provisions must be applicable to all regions of the United States.
15.1.2.3
Current Design Specifications
15.1.2.3.1 AASHTO adopted the ATC-6 recommendations as a guide specification in 1983, a
Standard Specifications standard specification in 1990, and incorporated them into the Standard Specifications
in 1992. Subsequent to the earthquakes in Loma Prieta in California (1989), Costa
Rica (1991) and the Philippines (1991), AASHTO requested that the Transportation
Research Board review the provisions and prepare revised specifications as appropri-
ate. Funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research prepared the seismic design
provisions that are included in the Standard Specifications.
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.1.2.3.2 Caltrans Specifications/15.1.2.4 Effect of Local Geology and Soil Conditions
15.1.2.3.2 Caltrans bridge engineering practice generally embraced deterministic ground

Caltrans Specifications motion hazards as established based on Caltrans 1996 California Seismic Hazard
Map. A technical report published with the 1996 Map can be reviewed for further
information on the considered seismic sources. Caltrans uses the mean event for
standard practice and refers to it as the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE).
Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) V1.3, 2004, documents the current state
of the practice. These criteria are intended to achieve a No Collapse condition for
standard ordinary bridges using one level of Seismic Safety Evaluation.
Design spectra for three magnitudes of earthquake established in ATC 32 is used for
the one level Seismic Safety Evaluation unless site-specific spectrum is recommended
according to SDC V1.3. Design spectrum adjustment for long period structures and
proximity to a fault is prescribed in SDC V1.3. The SDC uses a strictly displacement
approach that compares displacement demands obtained from an elastic analysis to
displacements capacities obtained from inelastic static analysis commonly referred
to as Push Over Analysis. The Engineer is referred to SDC V1.3 for a thorough
description of the displacement approach adopted and practiced in California.
15.1.2.3.3 The AASHTO LRFD Specifications incorporates many of the seismic provisions of
LRFD Specifications the 1992 Standard Specifications, but has updated them in light of new research devel-
opments. The principal areas where provisions were updated are:
1. The introduction of separate soil profile site coefficients and seismic response
coefficients (response spectra) for soft soil conditions.
2. Definition of three levels of importance, namely critical, essential and other as
opposed to the two defined in previous AASHTO provisions. The importance
level is used to specify the degree of damage permitted by the use of appropriate
Response Modification Factors (R factors) in the seismic design procedure.
15.1.2.4 As more is learned about the effect of soil-structure interaction (SSI), new guidelines and
Effect of Local Geology procedures continue to be developed to enhance the accuracy of predictions of the bridge
and Soil Conditions response to seismic loading. However, practical limitations prevent detailed incorporation
of SSI effects in every project. Where a situation warrants the development of a site-spe-
cific spectra, extra effort in site investigation, laboratory testing and modeling may be
required. On very long bridges, the subsurface conditions may vary to the extent that a
single-response spectra is not an accurate representation of the soil conditions. In these
cases, multiple-support excitations may be specified. Multiple-support excitation requires
the use of time history analysis, i.e., RSA cannot be used.
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.1.2.4 Effect of Local Geology and Soil Conditions/15.2.2 Current Practice
On large, important structures where the presence of large piles or drilled shafts
can significantly influence the soil response, free-field response spectra may not be
accurate. In these exceptional situations, state-of-the-art knowledge in the area of SSI
should be utilized to improve prediction accuracy.
In addition to SSI analyses, site stability issues should be addressed. These issues
include soil liquefaction, soft-clay sites and slope hazards. Soil liquefaction includes
the analysis for lateral spread, loss of support, dynamic settlement, as well as possible
means of mitigation (site improvements). Large site amplification effects are usually
considered for soft-clay sites. Earthquakes have been recognized as major causes of
slope hazards.
15.2
SEISMIC RESISTANT
PRECAST CONCRETE
BRIDGES
15.2.1 Spliced precast concrete beam techniques have received interest in recent years as evi-
Spliced Precast Concrete denced by the amount of research in this area and the number of spliced-beam bridg-
Beam Bridges es built. The impressive performance and the increased use of these techniques signify
an emerging application, which is expected to expand in coming years. Spliced beams
provide an effective alternative to steel and cast-in-place concrete bridges in the 150-
to 300-ft span range, a range previously unattainable by precast concrete beams. As
a result of continuity, spliced-beam bridges also provide increased redundancy and
improved ductility and seismic behavior. The precast, prestressed concrete industry,
in cooperation with Caltrans, has sponsored the development of a competitive pre-
cast concrete beam system that can be used in areas of high seismicity.
15.2.2 Seismic design practices and requirements vary from region to region, depending
Current Practice on the level of anticipated seismic activity. For example, integral superstructure-to-
substructure connections may not be necessary to resist earthquake forces in areas of
low to moderate seismicity. However, precast concrete bridge systems developed for
some level of seismic resistance may offer certain desirable qualities which can result
in better and more economical designs, even when earthquakes are not among the
major design considerations.
The most common form of concrete bridge consists of a cast-in-place (CIP) concrete
deck on precast, prestressed concrete beams. The beams are set on elastomeric bear-
ing pads, which rest on the multi-column bents consisting of circular or rectangular
columns with a rectangular bent cap or abutments. The columns, in turn, are sup-
ported on either isolated or combined footings.
In California, cast-in-place prestressed concrete box girders monolithically connected

to the substructure are used to create longitudinal frames with multiple spans. The
box girders are, in some cases, supported on single columns. Multi-column bents
are usually provided on wider bridges. Unlike the precast concrete beam system of
a drop-cap pier, the CIP box girder system with a monolithic connection to the
substructure resists longitudinal forces in double curvature bending of the column
as shown in Figure 15.2.2-1. This is a decided advantage in areas where large longi-
tudinal forces are possible such as from a seismic event. However, CIP construction
requires extensive falsework and formwork, which can result in lengthy periods for
construction with possible traffic disruptions in roadways below the bridge.
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 11

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.2 Current Practice/15.2.3 Seismic Response Characteristics of Precast Concrete Bridge Systems
Figure 15.2.2-1 Force

Single- versus Double-
Curvature Column
Fixed
Fixed
Shape Moment diagram

Integral Bent System - Double Curvature
Force
Pinned
Fixed
Shape Moment diagram

Precast Beam (Non-Integral) System - Single Curvature
15.2.3 The lack of monolithic action between the superstructure and bent cap in precast, prestressed
Seismic Response concrete beam systems causes the column tops to act as a pinned connection. Consequently,
Characteristics of Precast while the transverse stability of multi-column bents is ensured by frame action in that direc-
Concrete Bridge Systems tion, stability in the longitudinal direction requires the column bases to be fixed to the
foundation supports. This requirement places substantial force demands on the foundations
of multi-column bents, particularly in areas of moderate to high seismicity. Developing a
moment connection between the superstructure and substructure makes it possible to intro-
duce a pinned connection at the column bases. This results in less expensive foundations.
Integral bent caps are also beneficial in precast, prestressed concrete beam systems
with single-column bents. By introducing moment continuity at the connection
between the superstructure and the cap, the columns are forced into double-curva-
ture bending, which tends to substantially reduce their moment demands. As a result,
the sizes and overall cost of the adjoining foundations are also reduced.
In a seismic event, it is essential to have plastic hinging occur in the column rather than
the superstructure or footing. This is because plastic hinging is accompanied by a certain
degree of damage in the form of inelastic displacements, cracked and spalled concrete and
yielded reinforcement. Allowing such damage to occur in the superstructure near the ends
of a span could reduce the load-carrying capacity of the superstructure, thereby increasing
the likelihood of collapse. Damage to a footing or pile system is not easily detected and
is extremely difficult to repair. Plastic hinging in the column can be quickly identified by
inspection and sometimes repaired. More importantly, a properly confined column will
continue to carry axial load and therefore structural collapse may be avoided.
The longitudinal moment in a typical beam near the pier consists of the sum of the dead
load and a portion of the column seismic (plastic) moment on one side of the pier, and the
difference between dead load and the remaining portion of the column seismic (plastic)
moment on the other side. The result is a high, rapidly changing moment on the side
where the moments are additive and a smaller, relatively constant positive moment on the
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 12

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.3 Seismic Response Characteristics of Precast Concrete Bridge Systems/
15.2.4 Integral Precast Concrete Beam System
Figure 15.2.3-1 140' 160' 160' 30'

Moment Distribution
along the Superstructure of a Field splice
Longitudinal Frame Unit
Support at Reaction
expansion joint from
or abutment adjacent
frame
Dead load
Earthquake
Dead load + earthquake
opposite side. This distribution is reversible depending on the direction of the earthquake
force. Therefore, the beams must be designed to carry both a high negative moment near
the pier, and a smaller positive moment for an extended length on each side of the pier (see
Figure 15.2.3-1). The dead load moment considered should properly account for time-
dependent and construction staging effects, which are not included in Figure 15.2.3-1.
15.2.4
Integral Precast Concrete Recently, a precast concrete girder system was developed, tested and introduced in
Beam System California to address the requirements of superstructure and substructure continuity, aes-
thetics and minimized traffic impact during construction. Cross-sections for both single
and two-column bents are shown in Figure 15.2.4-1. The superstructure of this bridge
system consists of three basic components as described in the following sections.
Figure 15.2.4-1
Typical Bridge Cross-Sections with
Single- and Two-Column Bents
Single-Column Bent
Two-Column Bent
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.4.1 Precast Concrete Pier Segment/15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment
15.2.4.1 The precast concrete pier segment as shown in Figure 15.2.4.1-1. It is a variable
Precast Concrete length section comprised of a prismatic bulb-tee beam continuous over the columns.
Pier Segment
The length is variable in order to locate the splice at the approximate point of inflec-
tion for a given span arrangement. Subject to weight limitations, the web in the cen-
tral portion of the pier segment may be thickened to accommodate the large negative
moments and shear forces at the pier. The section is pretensioned for shipping and
handling stresses and for a portion of the service negative moment over the pier. The
pier segment also contains ducts for two stages of longitudinal post-tensioning: one
for the beam-only section and one for the beam-deck composite section.
Figure 15.2.4.1-1
Details at Integral Cap and CIP Closure Joint
Variable length pier segment
Continuity tendons 40'-0" Standard length
in girders Post-tensioning
(full length) in bent cap
A
Temporary shoring to support

CIP closure joint
girders and formwork Temporary tie down or shoring
for bent cap
A
Elevation
Erection Splice post-

bracket tension ducts
Post-tensioning Rebar splice

in bent cap connectors
Section A-A CIP Closure Joint
15.2.4.2 This portion of the system provides for the connection of the precast pier segment
Cast-in-Place to the column as shown in Figure 15.2.4.2-1. The pier diaphragm is formed and
Concrete Bent Cap poured around the precast pier segments and the entire system is connected by
means of transverse post-tensioning through the complete length of the pier cap.
Reinforcing steel in the top slab and in the cap improves the monolithic response of
the superstructure-column interface. The principal mechanism for developing mono-
lithic response is a combination of torsion and shear-friction through the bent cap,
which then translates into longitudinal bending of the beams. The corresponding
bent cap design procedure is presented in Example 15.5.
15.2.4.3 This drop-in section traverses the positive moment region of a span and utilizes
Drop-In Precast a standard bulb-tee shape. It is pretensioned for lifting and handling stresses and
Concrete Segment contains ducts for the two-stage post-tensioning of the continuous beam and com-
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment
posite sections. See Figure 15.2.4.3-1. The drop-in segment is supported from the
pier segments by erection brackets as shown in Figure 15.2.4.1-1 and described in
Chapter 11.
Figure 15.2.4.2-1 A
Longitudinal Section and
Cross-Section of CIP Pier Cap
Post-tensioning
in bent cap
A
Typical Section at Pier
Section A-A (beams not shown)
Figure 15.2.4.3-1
Longitudinal Section Typical drop-in segment
and Cross-Section of Stage 2 P-T
Drop-In Segment CIP splice (typ.)
A Pier segment
A
Stage 1 P-T
Longitudinal Section
Sym. about CL
P-T ducts
Section A-A Pretensioning

strands
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment/15.2.5.1 Superstructure-to-Bent Cap Connection
One of the important features of the integral system is its minimal impact on traffic
during the construction process, compared to CIP box-girder systems. This is of criti-
cal interest in regions where bridge construction occurs in urban areas with minimal
vertical clearances. The proposed construction sequence using the system for a two-
span bridge is illustrated in Figure 15.2.4.3-2. Additional details for spliced beams
are found in Chapter 11.
Stage 5 (days 39 thru 41): Post-tension bent cap Stage 8 (days 56 thru 57): Tension first phase tendons
Stage 6A (days 43 thru 44): Erect left span segments and tie down Stage 9 (days 58 thru 72): Construct cast-in-place deck
Stage 6B (days 45 thru 46): Erect right span segments Stage 10 (day 73): Tension second phase tendons
Stage 7 (days 49 thru 55): Cast closure joints Stage 11 (days 74 thru 83)1
15.2.5
Seismic Details
15.2.5.1 The goal of a seismic connection at this location is to transfer the plastic moment
Superstructure-to-Bent demands at the top of the column into the superstructure without yielding either
Cap Connection the connection itself or the beam ends. To achieve this, both the connection and
the beam ends must be designed to provide a design strength exceeding the required
strength from the forces transferred i.e., capacity must exceed demand. Additionally,
the connection should be detailed to ensure adequate distribution of the longitudinal
moment from the top of the column to the various beams.
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.5.1 Superstructure-to-Bent Cap Connection/15.2.5.2 Ductility of Precast Concrete Piles
The design procedure involves the following steps:

1. Determination of the plastic moment capacities at the top and bottom of the
column.
2. Calculation of the principal stresses in the bent cap due to joint shear.
3. Design of joint reinforcement.
4. A torsion-shear friction analysis to verify the ability of the bent cap to transfer the
column plastic moments to the bridge superstructure.
5. A check of the bridge superstructure capacity to ensure that the plastic hinges
form in the column rather than the superstructure.
15.2.5.2 Piles in soft soils supporting bridge structures may be subjected to large horizontal
Ductility of Precast displacements due to design earthquakes. These deformations produce significant
Concrete Piles
curvatures in the piles. The pile-cap interface (end fixity of the pile in the pile cap) is
a region of significant curvature. Another region of high curvature is within the soil.
These regions of high curvature need to be designed to possess adequate ductility.
Ductility is improved by confining the concrete with spiral or hoop reinforcement.
In addition to confining the concrete, spiral or hoop reinforcement prevents the
buckling of reinforcing bars and tendons at large deformations and ensures adequate
shear resistance.
Gerwick (1982) and Sheppard (1983) reported on the results of lateral load tests
on prestressed concrete piles conducted in California. They provide specific recom-
mendations for the required transverse reinforcement in critical regions of the pile.
Park and Falconer (1983), summarize the results of experimental tests conducted
on precast, prestressed concrete piles at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
The objective of these tests was to determine if the requirements for transverse spi-
ral reinforcement in concrete columns and piers of the Standard Code of Practice of
New Zealand (1982) would result in ductile behavior of precast, prestressed concrete
piles. The spiral reinforcement in the test specimens was in accordance with the New
Zealand Code requirements for potential plastic hinge regions of ductile reinforced
concrete columns and piers. The tests showed that when there is adequate transverse
reinforcement, piles subjected to cyclic lateral loading are capable of undergoing large
post-elastic deformations without significant loss of load carrying capacity.
For pile bents in Seismic Performance Categories B, C and D, the Standard Specifications
requires that the volumetric ratio of spiral reinforcement in potential plastic hinge regions
be:
Ag f
s = 0.45 1 c [STD Div. I-A, Eq. 6-4]
Ac f yh
or,
f
s = 0.12 c [STD Div. I-A, Eq. 6-5]
f yh
whichever is greater
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.5.2 Ductility of Precast Concrete Piles/15.2.5.3 Pile-to-Cap Connections
where
s = ratio of the volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of concrete core
(out-to-out of spiral)
Ag = gross area of the pile
Ac = area of pile core measured to the outside of the transverse spiral reinforcement
f c = specified compressive strength of concrete
fyh = yield strength of hoop or spiral reinforcement
The Standard Specifications also requires that center-to-center spacing of the spirals
not exceed the smaller of 0.25 times the pile diameter, or 4 in. for Categories C and
D and 6 in. for Category B. At the top of piles in pile bents, the transverse rein-
forcement for confinement must be provided over a length equal to the maximum
cross-sectional pile dimension or one-sixth of the clear height of the pile, whichever
is the larger, but not less than 18 in. At the bottom of piles in pile bents, transverse
reinforcement must be provided over a length extending from three pile diameters
below the calculated point of moment fixity to one pile diameter, but not less than
18 in., above the mud line. Lapping of spiral reinforcement in the transverse confine-
ment regions is prohibited; connections of spiral reinforcement in this critical region
must be full strength lap welds.
In the New Zealand Standard Code of Practice satisfactory results have been obtained by
multiplying the generally accepted AASHTO volumetric ratios, s, by the expression:
P
0.5 + 1.25 e
fc Ag
where Pe = axial compression load on the pile
For a perspective on Caltrans state of the practice, the engineer should refer to
Seismic Design Criteria SDC V1.3, 2004 and applicable references. In summary,
piles with a cap placed in competent soil are not designed explicitly for lateral dis-
placements; typical pile standard details (referred to as XS Sheets and downloaded
from www.dot.ca.gov) are used. For bridges with flexible foundations (i.e. soft or
marginal soil, liquefaction, scour), the piles are explicitly designed for both vertical
and lateral load path.
15.2.5.3 The strength and ductility of the connection between precast, prestressed concrete
Pile-to-Cap Connections piles or pile extensions and reinforced concrete pile caps or bent caps is vital to the
seismic performance of the piles. Gerwick (1993) describes three types of pile-to-cap
connections that have been successfully employed. The connections are illustrated in
Figure 15.2.5.3-1. They are described as follows:
Case 1Pile embedment into the pile cap. The pile is designed to extend into the
cap. Prior to concreting the cap, the surface of the pile is cleaned and rough-
ened to provide shear transfer.
JUN 04

Case 2Break away pile cover concrete and exposed strands. The concrete at the end
of the pile is broken back to expose the strands, which are then embedded
in the cast-in-place cap. The spirals are removed and the exposed strands are
splayed to facilitate the development of the full strand strength in the cap.
Case 3Dowel bars embedded in the cap. Holes may be pre-formed in the pile with
flexible metal ducts that are held in place during concreting by a mandrel.
The holes may also be drilled in the pile after it is driven, provided the pile
is not damaged during driving. The dowels should be embedded a distance
sufficient to develop their full strength and the moment in the pile head.
Dowel bars are typically grouted with a non-shrink grout.
Tests at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, (Joen and Park, 1990) on
prestressed concrete piles showed that well detailed prestressed concrete piles and
pile-pile cap connections are capable of undergoing large post-elastic deformations
without significant loss in strength when subjected to severe seismic loading. The
three connection types mentioned above were investigated. All three permitted the
pile to reach its full flexural strength and all three were found to have satisfactory
ductile behavior.
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.5.3 Pile-to-Cap Connections/15.2.6 Isolation Methods
Figure 15.2.5.3-2 details typical monolithic and independent pile extension or

build-up details for applications where the pile cut-off elevation may be different
from that specified on the drawings due to field conditions.
Figure 15.2.5.3-2 #5 @ 3 in.

Typical Monolithic and hook ends
Independent Pile Buildup
Details
#5 Ea. side
pile head (4 total)
Bottom of pier cap or
min.
abutment footing
max.
4"
2"
6"
min.
Pour monolithic with deck
Roughen top of pile
Driven prestressed surface to 1/4" amplitude
concrete pile Corrugated
metal tubes
#9 (total of 8)
Monolithic Pile Build-Up Detail

For Pile Driven Up to 6" Below
Cut-Off Elevation
3" @ Abutments
5" @ Piers
#9 (total of 8)
11/2"
Cut-off line
clr.
Bottom of pier cap or

pile build-up
6'-0" max.
Top of abutment footing

driven
24'-0" max.
pile W20 @ 21/2" pitch

Roughen top of
pile surface
11/2"
clr.
to 1/4" amplitude
Prestressing strands
Independent Pile Build-Up Detail
15.2.6 Seismic isolation is gaining increased acceptance in the United States both as a means of
Isolation Methods enhancing the seismic performance of existing structures and as a way of reducing the seis-
mic force demand on substructures for new bridges. Seismic isolators decouple the super-
structure from the substructure, which is the opposite strategy to the integral superstruc-
ture-substructure connection. The objective of seismic isolation of bridge superstructures
is to protect the piers, abutments and their foundations by limiting the forces transferred
through the beams. Besides reducing seismic loads, the isolation design helps distribute the
seismic forces to the piers and abutments in relationship to their capacities.
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.6 Isolation Methods
Decoupling the bridge superstructure and substructure from damaging horizontal

components of earthquake ground motions reduces the seismic demand on the sub-
structure. However, it is essential to limit the seismic displacements of isolated bridge
structures to tolerable levels in order to reduce the problem of supporting traffic
across excessive gaps (typically at the end abutments) and other structural problems
arising from large displacements.
In addition to performing the function of regular bridge bearings, seismic isolation

bearings should provide:
1. Additional flexibility in the bearings in order to lengthen the period of vibration
of the structure
2. Additional damping and energy dissipation to control relative displacements
across the isolator
3. Rigidity under service loads such as wind, braking and centrifugal forces
The required characteristics of the isolation bearing system result in the bilinear
force-deformation characteristics such as shown in Figure 15.2.6-1. Several propri-
etary seismic isolation bearing systems are available in the United States.
Figure 15.2.6-1
Force-Displacement Force
Characteristics of Bilinear
Isolation Bearings
Displacement
Two design philosophies are utilized in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic
Isolation Design (1999). The first is to take advantage of the reduced forces and pro-
vide a more economical bridge design than conventional construction. This option
uses the same modification factors as the Standard Specifications and hence provides
the same level of safety. The second option intends to eliminate or significantly
reduce damage to the substructure due to the design event. In this option, an R
(ductility) factor ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 will ensure an essentially elastic response by
eliminating the ductility demand on the substructure. The Guide Specifications also
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.6 Isolation Methods/15.3.1.1 Conventional Force Method
accounts for a reduction in the post-peak Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS)

curve due to the damping characteristics of the isolation bearings.
Further information on isolation methods is provided by Billings and Kirkcaldie,

(1985) and Buckle and Mayes, (1990a and 1990b).
15.3
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN
15.3.1 There are two general approaches to evaluate the seismic response of a bridge. The first
Analysis Methods approach is the conventional force-based analysis while the second involves the use of a
displacement criterion. Caltrans uses the displacement method as described in the Seismic
Design Criteria V1.3, 2004.
15.3.1.1 In this method, the bridge analysis is performed and the forces on its various components
Conventional Force Method are determined. Next, the capacities of the components are evaluated. The component
demand/capacity (D/C) ratios are then calculated. A particular component is said to have
adequate capacity if its D/C ratio is less than a prescribed force reduction factor, R (or
Z). This factor allows for limited inelastic behavior and depends on the type of compo-
nent considered. The provisions contained in the Standard Specifications, Division I-A,
are largely based on this approach. Figure 15.3.1.1-1 is a flow chart of the basic steps of
seismic design in the Standard Specifications. The corresponding AASHTO classifications
and analysis requirements are given in Table 15.3.1.1-1.
Table 15.3.1.1-1
AASHTO Seismic Importance Classification (IC)
Seismic
Classifications and Analysis Acceleration IC = I IC = II
Requirements Coefficient
(Essential Bridges) (Other Bridges)
Aa Minimum Analysis Minimum Analysis

SPCb SPCb
Requirements Requirements
A 0.09 A Not Required A Not Required
0.09 < A 0.19 B Regular Not regular B Regular Not regular

bridges with bridges with bridges with bridges with
2 through 6 2 or more 2 through 6 2 or more
0.19 < A 0.29 C spans:c spans:c C spans:c spans:c
Use Use Use Use
Procedure Procedure Procedure Procedure
0.29 < A D C
1 or 2d 3d 1 or 2d 3d
a
Acceleration Coefficient, A, is defined in STD Div. I-A, Art 3.2
b
Seismic Performance Category, SPC, is defined in STD Div. I-A, Art 3.4
c
Regular bridge requirements are given in Table 4.2B of STD Div. I-A, Art 4.2
d
Seismic Analysis Procedures are defined in STD Div. I-A, Art 4.3 and 4.4
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.3.1.1 Conventional Force Method
Figure 15.3.1.1-1
Basic Steps in AASHTO START
Division I-A Seismic Design
Preliminary Design
Applicablility of the Specification

STD Div. I-A, Art. 3.1
Acceleration Coefficient
Importance Classification
Seismic Performance Category

Site Effects
Response Modification Factors

Determine Analysis Procedure

Determine Elastic Seismic Forces

and Displacements
STD Div. I-A, Section 4
Design Abutments Determine Design Forces Design Foundations
Seismic
Performance Yes Design Approach Slabs
Category D? STD Div. I-A, Art. 7.4.5
No
Are
No Components
Revise Structure
Adequate?
Yes
Seismic Design Complete

Prepare Seismic Details
END
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.3.1.2 Displacement Ductility Method/15.3.2 Computer Modeling
15.3.1.2 In the second approach, a more rational form of ductility assessment is sought by tak-
Displacement Ductility ing the effect of sequential yielding into account when evaluating capacity. Capacity
Method
thus takes on a more global meaning since it refers to the entire structure rather
than to a given component, as in the force analysis. Displacement is taken as the
measure of the capacity of the structure. Failure occurs when enough plastic hinges
have formed to render the structure unstable or when a plastic hinge cannot sustain
any further increase in rotation. Typically, displacement demand is obtained from a
three-dimensional analysis using reduced flexural and torsional section properties. By
relying on the reserve strength of the materials involved in constructing the bridge,
this method results in considerable savings.
15.3.2 In most cases, the solutions to the equations of motion to determine demand forces
Computer Modeling and displacements are based on a linear elastic multi-mode Response Spectrum
Analysis (RSA). This type of analysis is considered acceptable for basic regular struc-
tures. RSA offers the following advantages:
1. It is usually simple to use.
2. It eliminates the need for extensive testing. Representing non-linearities often
requires additional data to describe the behavior of the material.
3. It provides acceptable limit-state solutions. In most cases, there are no real gains
in resorting to a higher level of analysis. When discontinuities or other sources of
non-linearity exist, an iterative procedure based on the equivalent linear solution
may be used to satisfy force and displacement requirements. Limit states are often
used in conjunction with an iterative process to envelop the behavior of the struc-
ture. Each limit state is a worst-case scenario corresponding to a set of boundary
conditions or material properties. Examples of the commonly used limit states are
the tension and compression models of a bridge with expansion hinges and abut-
ment supports. The tension model corresponds to the opening of all expansion
hinges and lack of abutment soil springs (stiffness), while the compression model
corresponds to the closing of all gaps and the engaging of the soil at one or both
abutments.
4. It uses predefined ARS curves, except when required by the size of the project
and/or the geology of the site. The ARS curves take into account such factors as
proximity to fault zone and site geology (primarily the depth to rock).
Typical sources of non-linearity include:

Material:
Soil
Concrete
Soil-structure interaction
Inelastic action (yielding of the reinforcement)
Geometric:
P- effects
Gap elements
Expansion hinges
Abutments
Support system such as bearings
JUN 04

Linear elastic solutions often provide adequate accuracy. The extra effort needed to
produce additional accuracy is rarely justified in the majority of bridge applications.
In fact, there are instances where the effort to obtain added accuracy may be coun-
terproductive and create misleading results. This is particularly true in cases where
an attempt is made to use non-linear time-hist e en eal
15.3.3
Seismic Design Issues
15.3.3.1
Causes of Failures
15.3.3.2
Preliminary Design
Recommendations
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.3.3.2 Preliminary Design Recommendations
8. Make the superstructure depth at integral bent caps equal to or greater than the
maximum column diameter.
9. Use isolation details at column architectural flares, or if the flares are to be relied
upon structurally, use proper confinement.
10. Consider using integral abutments for shorter bridges.
11. Consider using isolation methods.
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4 Seismic Design ExampleBulb-Tee, Two Spans, Designed In Accordance With Standard Specifications Division I-A/
15.4.1 Introduction
15.4
SEISMIC DESIGN
EXAMPLEBULB-TEE,
TWO SPANS, DESIGNED
IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION I-A
15.4.1 This design example is of a bridge with two 140-ft-long spans supported by abut-
Introduction ments at each end and a single column midway between abutments as shown in
Figure 15.4.1-1. The superstructure consists of four precast, prestressed concrete
bulb-tee beams made continuous over the column and bent cap through post-ten-
sioning and a cast-in-place deck slab. The column is supported on a pile footing and
is therefore considered fixed at its base. The superstructure is integrally connected to
the column through a cast-in-place, post-tensioned bent cap.
It should be noted that superstructure-to-substructure continuity is not a require-

ment for seismic design. Introduction of continuity in this example provides a
prototype structure for the integral bent design, presented in the following section.
The seismic analysis procedure presented here is equally valid for other conventional
precast bridge systems.
JUN 04
LOADS AND LOAD DISTRIBUTION
15.4.1 Introduction/15.4.2 Material Properties
Because the bridge is a two-span concrete structure, the seismic loads and analysis
procedures of Division I-A of the Standard Specifications are applicable [STD Div.
I-A, Art. 3.1]. The bridge is assumed to be located in an area where the Seismic
Acceleration Coefficient, A, is 0.15 [STD Div. I-A, Art. 3.2]. Since the bridge
Acceleration Coefficient, A, is less than 0.29, the assignment of importance classifi-
cation (IC) is not required [STD Div. I-A, Art. 3.3].
Since A falls between 0.09 and 0.19, the Seismic Performance Category (SPC) is
B [STD Div. I-A, Art. 3.4].
The soil profile at the site is used to determine the Site Coefficient, S. In this exam-
ple, soil profile Type II is assumed. This soil type corresponds to stable deposits of
stiff clay and sand with a depth exceeding 200 ft. From STD Div. I-A, Table 3.5.1,
the corresponding S is 1.2.
The Response Modification Factors, R values, for the various components are shown
in Table 15.4.1-1
Table 15.4.1-1
Component R Value
Response Modification Factors
[STD Div. I-A, Table 3.7] For a single column 3.0
Superstructure-to-abutment connection (shear key) 0.8
Column-to-superstructure connection 1.0
Column-to-foundation connection 1.0
15.4.1.1 For design, the bridge has the following dimensions:

Bridge Geometry
Span length = 140.0 ft
Bent cap width = 7.00 ft
Bent cap depth = 6.71 ft for structural calculations
Column height = 26.00 ft
Column diameter = 6.00 ft
Beam spacing = 10.83 ft
Deck thickness = 8 in. for structural calculations
Abutment diaphragm thickness = 3.00 ft
15.4.1.2 The calculations in the design example are made using a minimum of three significant
Level of Precision figures.
15.4.2 Beam concrete strength = 6,000 psi

Material Properties
Bent cap concrete strength = 6,000 psi
Deck concrete strength = 4,000 psi
Column concrete strength = 4,000 psi
Unit weight of concrete = 144 pcf
Unit weight of beams and bent cap = 155 pcf
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.2 Material Properties/15.4.3.1.1 Beam Properties
Unit weight of deck, columns, and abutment diaphragms = 150 pcf

Modulus of elasticity of concrete in the beam and bent cap, Ecs:
E cs = 57 , 000 f c psi = 57 f c ksi

where f c = concrete strength, psi
E cs = 57 6, 000 (144) = 635, 800 ksf
Modulus of elasticity of concrete in deck and column, Ecc:

E cc = 57 4, 000 (144) = 519,100 ksf
Modular ratio between the two concretes, n:

E 519,100
n = cc = = 0.816
E cs 635, 800
15.4.3 Procedure 1 (Uniform Load Method) may be used because the SPC of the bridge is B.
Seismic Analysis in According to this method, the seismic load is approximated as a uniform static load applied
Transverse Direction at the center of gravity of the superstructure, transverse to its axis, as shown in Figure
15.4.3-1. The total seismic load (uniform load times bridge length) is taken equal to the
total dead weight of the superstructure plus the tributary weight of the columns multiplied
by the seismic response coefficient. The superstructure is assumed to respond to the uni-
form seismic load as a continuous beam supported on a flexible column.
Figure 15.4.3-1
Assumed Transverse
Response According to the
Uniform Load Method
q
L
15.4.3.1
Section Properties
15.4.3.1.1 Area of cross-section of precast beam = 7.39 ft2
Beam Properties
Overall depth of precast beam = 6.0 ft
Moment of inertia about the centroid of the major axis of the non-composite precast
beam = 36.44 ft3
Moment of inertia about the centroid of the minor axis of the non-composite precast
beam = 3.33 ft2
Distance from centroid to the extreme bottom fiber of the non-composite precast
beam = 3.10 ft
Distance from centroid to the extreme top fiber of the non-composite precast beam
= 2.90 ft
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.3.1.2 Composite Section Properties/15.4.3.2 Tributary Dead Load
15.4.3.1.2 As a first step, the moment of inertia, Is, of the bridge cross-section about the verti-
Composite Section Properties cal axis through the centroid is calculated. The cast-in-place haunch above the beam
contributes very little to the moment of inertia of the section and may be ignored.
However, the deck eccentricity including the haunch thickness is used to determine
the location of the centroid.
Figure 15.4.3.1.2-1
Bridge Cross-Section Effective width = 42.5 n = (42.5) (0.816) = 34.68'
Geometric Properties
Deck slab:
A = 23.12 ft2
4'-0" Y I = 0.86 ft4
8" (typ.) f'c = 4,000 psi
1.84'
1.44'
0.5" C.G.
X Girder X
6.38'
Yb = 4.54'
3.10'
C. G. of
composite
section
Y Bulb-tee beam:
A = 7.39 ft2
I = 36.44 ft4 (Major axis)
I = 3.33 ft4 (Minor axis)
f'c = 6,000 psi
Referring to Figure 15.4.3.1.2-1:

Transformed flange width = n(flange width) = 0.816 (42.5) = 34.68 ft
Transformed flange area = (transformed flange width)(deck thickness)
=
(34.68)(8) = 23.12 ft 2
12
(0.667 )(34.68) 3
Is = + 4(3.33) + 2(7.39)[(5.42)2 + (16.25)2] = 6,669 ft4
12
The location of the centroid of the superstructure from the extreme bottom fiber is
( 4)( 7.39)(3.10) + (23.12)(6.38)
Yb = = 4.54 ft
4( 7.39) + (23.12)
15.4.3.1.3 The moment of inertia of the uncracked circular column is:

Column Properties
D 4 (6)
4
Ic = = = 63.62 ft4
64 64
15.4.3.2 The total dead load to be included in the seismic analysis is equal to the sum of the
Tributary Dead Load weights of the deck slab, four beams with haunches, bent cap, two barriers, future
wearing surface, end diaphragms, and one-half of the column weight. Refer to Figures
15.4.1-1 and 15.4.3.1.2-1 for component dimensions and section properties.
Deck slab, haunch and beams:

[(42.5)(0.667) + (4)(4)(0.5/12)]0.150 + (4)(7.39)(0.155) = 8.93 kip/ft
Bent cap: (7.0)(6.71)(42.5)(0.155) = 309 kips
Barriers (2 barriers at 0.4 kip/ft): 2(0.4) = 0.8 kip/ft
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.4.indd 4 6/22/04 9:57:46 AM

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.3.2 Tributary Dead Load/15.4.3.3 Equivalent Transverse Stiffness
Future wearing surface at 35 psf: (0.035)(42.5) = 1.49 kip/ft

Abutment diaphragm: (3)(6.71)(42.5)(0.150) = 128 kips per diaphragm
2
6
Column: (0.150) = 4.24 kip/ft
2
Total dead weight of superstructure:

(8.93)[(2)(140) 7.00 (2)(3.00)] + 309 + (2)(140)(0.80 + 1.49) + (2)(128) = 3,591 kips
Tributary dead load of column: (4.24)(26/2) = 55.1 kips
Total dead load: 3,591 + 55.1 = 3,646 kips Use 3,700 kips.
15.4.3.3 In the transverse response mode, the superstructure is assumed to provide negligible
Equivalent Transverse restraint against column-top rotations. Hence, the column is assumed to undergo
Stiffness single-curvature bending (i.e., it acts like a cantilever). The column length, hc, used
for calculating shear stiffness is measured from the top of footing to the center of
gravity of the superstructure.
In this example, hc = 26 + Yb = 26 + 4.54 = 30.54 ft.

By referring to Figure 15.4.3.3-1, the following equations may be written:
Figure 15.4.3.3-1 5q(2L) 4
Column Reaction Due to a 1 = (Eq. 15.4.3.3-1)
Uniform Transverse Load 384E csI s
q = 1.0 kip/ft where

1 = lateral displacement from a uniformly distributed load of q
1 q = uniformly distributed load
a) Applied Transverse Unit Load L = length of one span
R col ( 2L )
3
2 = (Eq. 15.4.3.3-2)
2 48E csI s
R col where
b) Applied Restoring Force 2 = lateral displacement caused by a column force of Rcol
From Column
Rcol = column force
q = 1.0 kip/ft
= 1 2 (Eq. 15.4.3.3-3)

where = net displacement
R col
c) Combined Effect 3E cc Ic
R col = K c = (Eq. 15.4.3.3-4)
h 3c
where Kc = column shear stiffness
Substituting Eq. (15.4.3.3-1 and Eq. (15.4.3.3-2) in Eq. (15.4.3.3-3):

5q(16)L4 R col (8)L3
= (Eq. 15.4.3.3-5)
384E csI s 48E csI s
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.3.3 Equivalent Transverse Stiffness/15.4.3.6 Column Forces in the Transverse Direction
Substitute q = 1.0 k/ft and Rcol from Eq. (15.4.3.3-4):
(5)(1.0)(16)L4 24E ccI c ( )L3 80L4 24E ccI cL3

= = (Eq. 15.4.3.3-6)
384E csI s 48h 3c E csI s 384E csI s 48h 3c E csI s
EcsIs (superstructure) = (635,800)(6,669) = 4.240x109 kip-ft2
EccIc (column) = (519,100)(63.62) = 3.303x107 kip-ft2
(80)(140) 4 (24)(3.303 x10 7 )(140) 3

= = 0.0189 0.3752
(384)(4.240 x10 9 ) 48(30.54) 3 (4.240 x10 9 )
0.0189
= = 0.0137 ft
1.3752
Equivalent transverse stiffness, K =
(1.0)(2)(140) = 20, 440 kip/ft 20,500 kip/ft
0.0137
M W 3, 700
15.4.3.4 T(tr) = 2 = 2 = 2 = 0.470 seconds
Period of Structure in the K gK 32.2(20,500)
Transverse Direction
where
T(tr) = period of structure in the transverse direction
M = total contributory mass of superstructure and column
W = total contributory weight of superstructure and column
g = gravitational acceleration
1.2AS
15.4.3.5 Cs(tr) = 2/ 3
2.5A [STD Div. I-A, Eq. 3-1]
Elastic Seismic T(tr)
Response Coefficient
where Cs(tr) = elastic seismic response coefficient in the transverse direction
Substituting:
(1.2)(0.15)(1.2)
Cs(tr) = = 0.357 2.5A = ( 2.5)(0.15) = 0.375
(0.470) 2/ 3
Therefore, Cs(tr) = 0.357
W 3, 700
15.4.3.6 Equivalent uniform static load = Cs(tr) = 0.357 = 4.72 kip/ft
Column Forces in the 2L 2(140)
Transverse Direction
= (4.72)(0.0137) = 0.0647 ft
3E ccI c (3)(3.303 x 10 7 )(0.0647 )

Rcol = = = 225 kips
h 3c (30.54) 3
Column seismic moment at bottom of column: (225)(30.54) = 6,872 ft-kips
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.4 Seismic Analysis in Longitudinal Direction/15.4.4.3 Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient
15.4.4 The Uniform Load Method may also be used to calculate the longitudinal seismic
Seismic Analysis in forces on the structure. The superstructure is assumed to displace as a rigid unit as the
Longitudinal Direction supporting column undergoes bending deformations as shown in Figure 15.4.4-1.
Thus, the longitudinal stiffness is assumed equal to the shear stiffness of the column.
The total dead load that contributes to the seismic load in the longitudinal direction,
W, is equal to 3,700 kips (the same as the dead load used in the transverse direction).
Figure 15.4.4-1
Assumed Seismic Response in
the Longitudinal Direction
Elevation
15.4.4.1 The assumption of a rigid superstructure implies that the top of the column is restrained
Equivalent Longitudinal against rotation. Therefore, the column undergoes double-curvature bending, as opposed
Stiffness
to single-curvature bending, which occurs in the transverse direction. The column length
used for calculating shear stiffness, H, is measured from the top of footing to the bottom
of the bent cap. In this example, H = 26 ft.
12E ccI c 12(3.303 x10 7 )

Column shear stiffness = = = 22,550 kip/ft
H3 ( 26) 3
In general, the abutments and soil behind them may contribute to the longitudinal
stiffness. Their contribution depends on the abutment type (i.e., integral vs. seat
abutment) and the longitudinal displacement of the structure. Several iterations may
be needed to evaluate the abutment effect on the stiffness. Additionally, a minimum
displacement in the range of 2 to 4 in. is typically required to mobilize the soil stiff-
ness. In this example, the total longitudinal displacement is small (0.75 in.), and thus
the abutment contribution to stiffness is ignored.
M W 3,700
15.4.4.2 T(long) = 2 = 2 = 2 = 0.449 seconds
Period of Structure in the K gK 32.2(22,550)
Longitudinal Direction
where T(long) = period of structure in the longitudinal direction
1.2AS
15.4.4.3 Cs(long) = 2.5A [STD Div. I-A, Eq. 3.1]
Elastic Seismic Response T(2/3
long )
Coefficient
where Cs(long) = elastic seismic response coefficient in the longitudinal direction
(1.2)(0.15)(1.2)
Cs(long) = = 0.368 < 2.5A = 0.375
(0.449)2/3
Therefore, Cs(long) = 0.368
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.4.4 Column Forces in the Longitudinal Direction/15.4.6 Abutment Design Forces
15.4.4.4 Column shear = (0.368)(3,700) = 1,362 kips

Column Forces in the
Longitudinal Direction Column moment = (1,362)(26/2) = 17,706 ft-kips
15.4.5 A summary of the moments and shear forces are shown in Table 15.4.5-1.
Combination of
Orthogonal Forces
Table 15.4.5-1 Transverse Longitudinal

Summary of Column Forces Earthquake
Moment Shear Moment Shear
Direction
ft-kips kips ft-kips kips
Transverse 6,872 225 0 0
Longitudinal 0 0 17,706 1,362
Seismic combination 1:
100% longitudinal force + 30% transverse force [STD Div. I-A, Art 3.9]
Transverse moment, MT:

MT = (1.0)(0) + (0.30)(6,872) = 2,062 ft-kips
Longitudinal moment, ML:

ML = (1.0)(17,706) + (0.30)(0) = 17,706 ft-kips
Transverse shear force, VT:

VT = (1.0)(0) + (0.30) (225) = 68 kips
Longitudinal shear force, VL:

VL = (1.0)(1,362) + (0.30)(0) = 1,362 kips
Seismic combination 2:
100% transverse force + 30% longitudinal force [STD Div. I-A, Art. 3.9]
MT = (1.0)(6,872) + (0.30)(0) = 6,872 ft-kips

ML = (1.0)(0) + (0.30)(17,706) = 5,312 ft-kips
VT = (1.0)(225) + (0.30)(0) = 225 kips

VL = (1.0)(0) + (0.30)(1,362) = 409 kips
15.4.6 Reinforced concrete shear keys, such as those shown in Figure 15.4.1-1, will resist
Abutment Design Forces seismic transverse forces at the abutments. From statics, the total abutment reac-
tions are equal to the equivalent uniform static load minus the column reaction (See
Figure 15.4.6-1):
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.6 Abutment Design Forces/15.4.7 Minimum Abutment Seat Width
Figure 15.4.6-1
Transverse Shear at the q = 4.72 kip/ft
Abutments
VT(Abutment) Is 225 kips V

T(Abutment)
Plan
Abutment transverse shear force, VT(Abutment):
VT(Abutment) =
(4.72)(2)(140) 225 = 548 kips
2
The elastic seismic force per shear key = 548/3 = 183 kips
Design shear per key = 183/R = 183/0.8 = 229 kips
The shear key design is typically based on the shear friction method. [STD Art. 8.15.5.4]
15.4.7 [STD Div. I-A, Art. 6.3.1]

Minimum Abutment The minimum support length N (in.), shown in Figure 15.4.7-1, is calculated by
Seat Width
the following equation:
N = (8 + 0.02L + 0.08H)(1 + 0.000125S2) [STD Div. I-A, Eq. 6-3A]
where
L = length (ft) of the longitudinal frame between expansion joints (2 x 140 = 280 ft)
S = skew angle (degrees) measured from a line normal to the span (0 degrees)
N = [8 + (0.02)(280) + (0.08)(26)][1 + (0.000125)(0)2] = 15.7 in. Use 16 in.
The seat width provided should be the larger of N and the elastic seismic displace-
ment in the longitudinal direction = column shear/longitudinal stiffness = (1,362/
22,550)(12) = 0.72 in. While in this example, N clearly controls, additional factors
such as the bearing size may control the final seat width.
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.4.indd 9

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.7 Minimum Abutment Seat Width
Figure 15.4.7-1
Minimum Abutment L Distance to next expansion joint
Seat Width or end of bridge deck
[STD Div. I-A, Art. 6.3.1]
Abutment
backwall
Abutment seat
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5 Seismic Design Exampleintegral Bent Cap/15.5.1.3 Material Properties
15.5.1 This design example illustrates the procedure for integral bent cap design in spliced
Introduction I-beam bridges. The design procedure evolved from successful experimental testing of
a scale model of the Florida-type bulb-tee beam at the University of California at San
Diego. The results of this testing, which verified the longitudinal seismic response of
precast spliced-beam bridges, are reported in Holombo, et al (2000).
The integral bent cap is designed to provide force transfer from the spliced I-beam
bridge superstructure to the foundation through the development of column plastic
moments in a ductile manner.
15.5.1.1 Bent cap width = 84 in.

Bent Cap Geometry
Bent cap depth, hb = 87 in.
Column cross-section: Circular with a 6.00-ft diameter, see Figure 15.5.1.1-1
Figure 15.5.1.1-1
Column Cross-Section 72 in.
#11(30 total)
#6 @ 4" pitch
Section
15.5.1.2 Column reinforcement: Longitudinal: 30 #11 bars

Reinforcement Transverse: #6 spirals @ 4-in. pitch
Bent cap post-tensioning: Six 19x0.6-in.-dia strand tendons
15.5.1.3 Cast-in-place concrete strength, f c = 4 ksi

Material Properties
Reinforcing steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi
Modulus of elasticity of tendons, Es = 29,000 ksi
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5.1.4 Forces/15.5.3 Principal Stresses in the Bent Cap
15.5.1.4 Axial load: Top of column, PDL,TOP = 2,225 kips

Forces Bottom of column, PDL,BOT. = 2,350 kips
Column over-strength moment capacity at the top, Motop = 14,115 ft-kips

Column over-strength moment capacity at the bottom, Mobot= 14,340 ft-kips
The over-strength moment capacities are taken as 20% greater than the plastic
moment capacities.
15.5.1.5 The calculations in the design example are made using a minimum of three significant
Precision figures.
15.5.2 The design procedure involves the following steps:

Design Procedure
1. Calculate principal stresses in the bent cap.
2. Design joint shear reinforcement and ensure minimum embedment length for
column bars with the reinforcement being extended as close as possible to the top
reinforcement in the bent cap.
3. Perform a torsional shear-friction analysis to verify the ability of the bent cap to
transfer column plastic moments to the bridge superstructure.
15.5.3 Horizontal joint shear force, Vjh, is given by:

Principal Stresses
in the Bent Cap M otop 14,115 x 12
Vjh = = = 1,947 kips
hb 87
Effective width of bent cap, bje, by the geometry shown in Figure 15.5.3-1 is
Figure 15.5.3-1
Effective Joint Width for Joint
Shear Stress Calculations
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual 15.5-7.indd 2

JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5.4 The joint design is in accordance with the procedure described in Priestley, et al
Joint Reinforcement Design (1996) and verified by experimental results reported by Holombo, et al (2000). The
assumed joint force transfer mechanism is shown in Figure 15.5.4-1. The assumed
mechanism reduces congestion by placing the joint reinforcing steel outside the
column core region. The joint reinforcing steel facilitates the transfer of the column
tension force to the top of the joint.
Figure 15.5.4-1
Assumed Mechanism for Joint
Force Transfer in Pier Cap
Assumptions:
1. 75% of all column reinforcement providing Tc is clamped by the main diagonal
compression strut D1 (see Figure 15.5.4-1).
2. The remaining 25% of the total longitudinal column reinforcement at appropriate
strain hardening stress, Tc, is clamped by the diagonal compression struts, D2 and D3.
The vertical components of D2 and D3 are assumed equal. External joint stirrups
allow the development of strut, D2, which helps redirect the compression force,
Cb, into the middle of the joint.
The external vertical reinforcement, Ajv, should be placed over a distance of hb/2
from the column face on each side of the column in accordance with the following
equation:
f oyc
A jv = 0.125 A sc
f yv
where
Asc = total area of longitudinal reinforcement in column section = (30)(1.56)
= 46.8 in.2
f oyc = material over-strength stress of column reinforcement allowing for strain
hardening
fyv = yield strength of joint vertical reinforcement
Taking f oyc = 1.4fyv for Grade 60 reinforcement:
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
1.4f yv
A jv = (0.125)(46.8) = 8.19 in.2
f yv
The number of #6 stirrup legs required = Ajv/0.44 = 8.19/0.44 = 18.6, say 20 legs.
Provide 10 #6 two-legged stirrups on each side of the column face over a distance of
hb/2 = 87/2 = 43.5 in. from the column face.
An additional amount of vertical reinforcement equal to half of this amount should

be placed within the joint confines to help stabilize top beam reinforcement and
assist in the transfer of column tension force by bond.
Interior vertical joint stirrup area, Avi, is determined by:

f oyc 1.4 fyv
A vi = 0.0625A sc = (0.0625) (46.8) = 4.10 in.2
f yv fyv
The number of #6 stirrups required = Avi/0.44 = 4.10/0.44 = 9.3, say 10 legs. Provide
(10) #6 single leg stirrups within the column core. As the clamping action occurs at
the top of the joint, these stirrups need not extend to the base of the joint. They are
extended at least two-thirds of the bent cap depth or 2/3(87) = 58 in. Figure 15.5.4-2
indicates the locations for the placement of vertical joint reinforcement.
Figure 15.5.4-2 Bridge axis A vi = 0.5Ajv within core

Locations for Vertical
Joint Reinforcement
A j v in each area, 1 and 2
2D
Note: The reinforcement placed outside the column core over a length of hb/2 is in
addition to the shear reinforcement required for conventional shear transfer in the
beam.
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual 15.5-7.indd 5 6/22/04 10:02:37 AM

SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5.4 Joint Reinforcement Design/15.5.5 Shear-Friction Analysis
Horizontal hoop reinforcement must be provided to resist a force of one-quarter of the

tension force in the column steel due to the plastic moment (0.25Tc) in accordance with
the following equations:
3.3 0.09A sc f yc D
o
s = F
Df yh l a la
where
la = assumed length of column anchorage reinforcement in joint = 80 in.
F = bent cap prestressing force after all losses
Assuming F = 0, the simplified equation is:

0.3A sc f oyc
s =
l 2a f yh
(0.3)(46.8)(1.4f yh )
= = 0.00307
(80) 2 f yh
However, minimum horizontal hoop reinforcement, s,min, must be provided according

to the following:
3.5 f c (3.5) 4000
s,min = = = 0.00369 > 0.00307
f yh 60,000
Use s = 0.00369
4A h (4)(0.44)
sreqd =
= = 6.99 in.
D s (68.25)(0.00369)
where
sreqd = required spacing of hoop reinforcement
Ah = area of hoop reinforcement
D = core diameter of spirally confined column = 68.25 in.
Provide #6 stirrups @ 6 in. spacing. If the hoop reinforcement ratio provided is

less than the required ratio, the difference could be made up with split hairpins as
described in Holombo, et al (2000).
Note: The hoop spacing could be decreased if the cap beam prestress force, F, is considered.
15.5.5 In the absence of the bottom slab in spliced I-beam bridges, column moments and shears
Shear-Friction Analysis are transferred into the beams through the cap completely through torsional mechanisms.
Due to the limited length available between the face of the column and the beam, spiral
cracks typically associated with torsion cannot fully develop. Therefore, conventional tor-
sion design methodologies that are primarily based on this cracking pattern are not appli-
cable. Instead, the torsional capacity is calculated using a plastic friction model as illustrated
in Figure 15.5.5-1.
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
Figure 15.5.5-1
Torsional Shear-Friction
Mechanism
VV
VL
P T
Assumptions:
1. Shearing stress is assumed constant over the cross-section and proportional to the
normal force, P.
2. Shear-friction contribution of each segment is assumed proportional to the area
of each segment.
The bent cap section is subjected to a vertical shear force, VV, a horizontal shear
force, VL, a torsion, T, and an axial clamping force, P. The cap is divided, conceptu-
ally, into four unequal segments of areas, A1 to A4, as shown in Figure 15.5.5-2.
Figure 15.5.5-2 bb
Conceptual Force Diagram For
Resisting Torque In Bent Cap x1 x3
F2
y2 VV A2
VL hb
F3
T
y4
F1 A1 A3
A4
F4
The direction of shear-friction resistance within each of the four segments is taken as
parallel to the outer edge, and the shear-friction stress, , is taken as:
= P/A
where
A = total section area
= coefficient of friction over the interface
JUN 04

SEISMIC DESIGN
The force, Fi, in each segment, is then given by:

Fi = Ai
where Ai = area of the segment.
Equilibrium under external torsion, T, longitudinal shear force, VL, and vertical shear
force, VV, requires that:
VV = F1 F3 = (A1 A3)
VL = F2 F4 = (A2 A4)
T = F1x1 + F2y2 + F3x3 + F4y4 = (A1x1 + A2y2 + A3x3 + A4y4)
where
T = external torsion
x1, x3, y2 and y4 are distances defined in Figure 15.5.5-2
The equations can be solved through trial and error by dividing the section into seg-
ments and trying different values until all three equations are satisfied, then checking
that the implied value of the friction coefficient, , is reasonable. Alternatively, a
limit design value of = 1.4 can be used with F1 to F4 selected to satisfy the first two
equations shown above. The torque predicted by the third equation must then be
checked to ensure that it exceeds the applied torque. The latter alternative is utilized
in this design solution.
The normal force, P, is calculated assuming a dilation strain of 0.0005 developed on

the shear plane.
P = F + As(0.0005)Es
where
F = prestressing force after all losses
As = area of reinforcing steel passing through shear plane including the pre-
stressing steel
= three layers of ten #10 bars
= (3)(10)(1.27) = 38.1 in.2 (ignore prestressing steel to be conservative)
Aps = area of prestressing steel
= (6)(19)(0.217) = 24.7 in.2
F = (202.5)(0.8)(24.7) = 4,001 kips (A 20% loss is assumed)
P = 4,001 + (38.1)(0.0005)(29,000) = 4,553 kips
Assume = 1.4 because surface of beam in joint region is roughened (Caltrans, 2000)
P (1.4)( 4,553)
= = = 125.6 kips /ft 2
A (7.25)(7.00)
Mobot + Motop
o
Horizontal shear force at top of column, V i,column =
H
JUN 04

14,340 + 14,115
o
Vi,column = = 1,105 kips
25.75
hb
Moment at middepth of bent cap, Moi,bentcap = Motop + V i,column
o

2
87
Moi,bentcap = 14,115 + 1,105 = 18,120 ft-kips
(2)(12)
PDL,TOP = 2,225 kips
Using a factor of safety of 1.1 for shear-friction analysis, the required resistances are
as follows:
Moi,bentcap (1.1) (18,120)(1.1) = 9,966 ft-kips

Torsion: =
2 2
Longitudinal shear:
o
V i,column (1.1) =
(1,105)(1.1) = 608 kips
2 2
Vertical Shear:
PDL,TOP
=
(2, 225)(1.1) = 1,224 kips
2 2
Table 15.5.5-1 summarizes the torsional shear-friction computations to ascertain

the ability of the bent cap to transfer the column plastic moment capacity to the
bridge superstructure. The assumed dimensions of each segment are shown in
JUN 04
i
SEISMIC DESIGN
Figure 15.5.5-3 7.00'

Assumed Dimensions for Shear-
Friction Computations
A2
4.35'
7.25'
A1 A3
A4 2.90'
4.90' 2.10'
The bridge superstructure moment capacity must also be checked to ensure that the
plastic hinges form in the column and not in the superstructure. Figure 15.5.5-4
depicts the reinforcement details for the integral bent cap.
Figure 15.5.5-4 CL Bent

Integral Bent Cap
Reinforcement Details 19 x 0.6"-dia. strand
tendon (total of 6) #6"
(Ea. Side)
#6 @ 6"
7'-3"
6"
#6 Stirrups
8-#10 Bott. Bottom of beam
& 20-#10 Top
6" 6'-0" 6"

7'-0"
Bent Cap Detail at Column
JUN 04

Bridges in California have been predominantly CIP box girder systems due to the
requirements for high seismic resistance. The examples presented in Sections 15.4
and 15.5, show that spliced beams with integral bent caps can provide a viable
solution for highway bridges in moderate to high seismic areas. The precast beam,
integral-cap system was tested and has proven to provide levels of seismic resistance
comparable to CIP box girders. With minimal shoring and forming requirements,
the new system will shorten construction time, reduce interruption to traffic, and
lower the environmental impact. Other benefits of precast beams are reduced crack-
ing due to better quality control and efficient utilization of higher concrete strengths.
As a result, significant initial and long term cost savings are possible with the new
system.
Research conducted at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) included

constructing and testing two 40% scale models under fully-reversed longitudinal seis-
mic loading. The first model utilized a modified version of the Florida bulb-tee beam.
The second model, of similar scale, incorporated trapezoidal U-shaped beams. The
objective of the testing program was to verify the structural adequacy of newly devel-
oped integral column-superstructure details under simulated seismic loads, and to
allow Caltrans engineers to evaluate the constructibility of these details via large-scale
models. The following sections describe the tests and results.
The focus of this research was to study the effects of longitudinal seismic forces on
the column-superstructure continuity. The prototype structure for the bulb-tee beam
system is shown in Figure 15.6.1-1. The dimensions and forces of the model test
unit were scaled directly from the prototype structure. The region selected for study
included the column, bent cap and full-width superstructure extending from mid-
span to midspan. Two horizontal actuators placed on either side of the unit applied
load to model the seismic inertia forces acting along the bridge. Four vertical actua-
tors located at the corners of the test unit applied seismic shear into the beams. The
test setup is shown schematically in Figure 15.6.1-2 (Holombo, et al, 2000).
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.6.1 Test Model Set-Up/15.6.2.1 Columns
Figure 15.6.1-2
Test Setup
The prototype structure for the second test used precast U-beams. The U-beam seg-
ments were spliced at the bent cap and at the midpoint of each span. A single-pour,
monolithic bent cap is possible with this system because it is not feasible to make
the U-beams continuous over the bent. A setup similar to the one shown in Figure
15.6.1-2 was used for the second test.
15.6.2 Performance of the model bridge structures exceeded the design requirements during
Test Results the tests (Holombo, et at, 2000).
15.6.2.1 Ductile plastic hinges formed at the top and bottom of the column with little strength
Columns degradation up to a displacement ductility of eight and six for bulb-tee and U-beam
models, respectively. Both models exceeded the design ductility capacity of four.
The force-displacement loop for the bulb-tee model is shown in Figure 15.6.2.1-1.
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.6.2.2 Superstructure/15.7 References
15.6.2.2 The response of the superstructure to the simulated longitudinal seismic loading was
Superstructure essentially elastic; only minor cracking was observed. Due to prestressing, the crack-
ing in the bent cap and the beams closed upon removal of the seismic loads, mak-
ing potential repair of the superstructure after a design level earthquake, essentially
cosmetic.
These tests demonstrate the versatility and flexibility of precast spliced-beam systems.
Specifically, the tests proved that an integral connection between the superstructure
and substructure can be achieved with or without beam continuity through the bent
cap. They also proved that, with proper design and detailing, the beam splice points
could be placed anywhere in the span or over the supports without any measurable
reduction in performance of the system.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Second Edition, American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1998
ATC, Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges, Report No. ATC-6, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1982, 210 pp.
ATC, Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges, Report No. ATC-32,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1996, 214 pp.
Billings, I.J. and Kirkcaldie, D.K., Base Isolation of Bridges in New Zealand,
Proceedings of the US-NZ Workshop on Seismic Resistance of Highway Bridges,
Report No. ATC 12-1, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1985
Bridge Design Specifications, California Department of Transportation, Division of

Structures, Sacramento, CA, 2000
Buckle, I.G. and Mayes, R.L., The Application of Seismic Isolation to Bridges,
Proceedings, ASCE Structures Congress: Seismic Engineering-Research and Practice,
May 1990a, pp. 633-642
Buckle, I.G. and Mayes, R.L., Seismic Isolation History, Application and
Performance A World View Earthquake Spectra, EERI, May 1990b
Budek, A.M., Benzoni, G. and Priestley, M.J.N., Precast Pile Tests Indicate High
Ductility Preliminary Report on Prestressed Pile Shaft Test Units, Prestressed Concrete
Manufacturers Association of California (PCMAC), Technical Update, 1996
Gerwick, B.C. Jr., Seismic Design of Prestressed Concrete Piles, Proceedings, 9th
FIP Congress, Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte, Stockholm, Sweden,
V.2, 1982, pp. 60-69
Gerwick, B.C., Jr., Construction of Prestressed Concrete Structures, Second Edition,

John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1993, 591 pp.
JUN 04
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.7 References
Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design, 2nd Edition, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1999, 80 pp.
Holombo, J., Priestley, M.J.N. and Seible, F., Continuity of Precast Prestressed
Spliced-Girder Bridges under Seismic Loads, PCI JOURNAL V. 45, No. 2, March-
April 2000, pp. 40-63
Joen, P. H. and Park, R., Simulated Seismic Load Tests on Prestressed Concrete
Piles and Pile-Pile Cap Connections, PCI JOURNAL, V. 35, No. 6, November-
December 1990, pp. 42-61
Park, R. and Falconer, T.J., Ductility of Prestressed Concrete Piles Subjected to

Simulated Seismic Loading, PCI JOURNAL, V.28, No.5, September-October
1983, pp. 122-144
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M., Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1996, 704 pp.
SDC, Seismic Design Criteria, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento,

CA, V1.3, 2004 (available at www.dot.ca.gov)
Sheppard, D.A., Seismic Design of Prestressed Concrete Piling, PCI JOURNAL,

V. 28, No. 2, March-April 1983, pp. 20-49 and discussion by Gerwick, B.C. and
Sheppard, D.A., V. 29, No. 2, March-April 1984, pp. 172-173
Standard Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures, NZS 3101, Part 1,
Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington, 1982, 127 pp. and Commentary
on NZS 3101, NZS 3101, Part 2, 1982, 156 pp.
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2002
JUN 04

Notation 15.1: Pci Bridge Design Manual

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Notation 15.1: Pci Bridge Design Manual

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL CHAPTER 15

15.2 SEISMIC RESISTANT PRECAST CONCRETE BRIDGES

15.3 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

15.4 SEISMIC DESIGN EXAMPLEBULB-TEE, TWO SPANS,

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 1 6/22/04 9:53:26 AM

15.4.2 Material Properties

15.5 SEISMIC DESIGN EXAMPLEINTEGRAL BENT CAP

15.6 CALTRANS RESEARCH

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 2 6/22/04 9:53:26 AM

A = total section area

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 3 6/22/04 9:53:27 AM

Ic = moment of inertia of column

VV = vertical shear force

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 5 6/22/04 9:53:27 AM

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 8 6/22/04 9:53:32 AM

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 9 6/22/04 9:53:32 AM

15.1.2.3.2 Caltrans bridge engineering practice generally embraced deterministic ground

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 10 6/22/04 9:53:33 AM

In California, cast-in-place prestressed concrete box girders monolithically connected

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 11

Figure 15.2.2-1 Force

Shape Moment diagram

Shape Moment diagram

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 12

Figure 15.2.3-1 140' 160' 160' 30'

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 13 6/22/04 9:53:34 AM

Temporary shoring to support

Erection Splice post-

Post-tensioning Rebar splice

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 14 6/22/04 9:53:35 AM

Section A-A (beams not shown)

Section A-A Pretensioning

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 15 6/22/04 9:53:36 AM

The design procedure involves the following steps:

where Pe = axial compression load on the pile

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 18 6/22/04 9:53:40 AM

Figure 15.2.5.3-2 details typical monolithic and independent pile extension or

Figure 15.2.5.3-2 #5 @ 3 in.

Monolithic Pile Build-Up Detail

Bottom of pier cap or

Top of abutment footing

pile W20 @ 21/2" pitch

Independent Pile Build-Up Detail

Decoupling the bridge superstructure and substructure from damaging horizontal

In addition to performing the function of regular bridge bearings, seismic isolation

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 21 6/22/04 9:53:43 AM

accounts for a reduction in the post-peak Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS)

Further information on isolation methods is provided by Billings and Kirkcaldie,

Aa Minimum Analysis Minimum Analysis

A 0.09 A Not Required A Not Required

0.09 < A 0.19 B Regular Not regular B Regular Not regular

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 22 6/22/04 9:53:43 AM

Applicablility of the Specification

Seismic Performance Category

Response Modification Factors

Determine Analysis Procedure

Determine Elastic Seismic Forces

Design Abutments Determine Design Forces Design Foundations

Seismic Design Complete

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 23 6/22/04 9:53:44 AM

Typical sources of non-linearity include:

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 24 6/22/04 9:53:44 AM

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 26 6/22/04 9:53:45 AM