Seismic Design

of Bridges
Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.

SCDOT Seismic Design Of Bridges

Overview

AASHTO - Division IA
Draft Specifications, 1996
SCDOT 2001 Seismic Design Specifications
Comparison Between LRFD & SCDOT Specs.
SCDOT Seismic Hazard Maps
Training and Implementation
Conclusions

AASHTO Div IA

USGS 1988 Seismic Hazard Maps

Force based design
Soil Classification I-IV
No explicit Performance Criteria
Classification based only on acceleration
coefficient

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

August 31, 1886 (Intensity IX-X)

Earthquake of August 31, 1886

Charleston, South Carolina
Magnitude=7.3M, Intensity = X

Sandblow in Charleston

Draft Specifications
1996 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps
Difference in spectral acceleration
between South Carolina and California
Normal Bridges : 2/3 of the 2% in 50
yr. Event

Essential Bridges: Two-Level Analysis

Draft Specifications

Force based specifications

N (seat width)
Soil classification: I IV
Draft Specifications Version of
1999

Site Specific Studies

Maybank Bridge over the Stono
River
Carolina Bays Parkway
Broad and Chechessee River
Bridges
New Cooper River Bridge
Bobby Jones Expressway
9

SEISMIC DESIGN TRIAL

EXAMPLES

SC-38 over I-95 - Dillon County

Maybank Highway Bridge over the
Stono River - Charleston County

10

SC-38 over I-95

Description of Project

Conventional bridge structure

Two 106.5 ft. spans with a composite
reinforced concrete deck, supported by 13
steel plate girders and integral abutments
The abutments and the interior bents rest
on deep foundations
11

SC-38 over I-95

Original Seismic Design

Trial Design Example

SCDOT version of Div-IA

AASHTO (Draft)
2/3 of 2% in 50 yr
1996 USGS maps used
PGA of 0.15g, low potential
for liquefaction
Response Spectrum
Analysis

Proposed LRFD Seismic

Guidelines
MCE 3% PE in 75 yr.
Expected Earthquake 50%
PE in 75 yr.
2000 USGS maps
PGA of 0.33g, at MCE,
further evaluation for
liquefaction is needed.
Response Spectrum Analysis

12

Maybank Highway Bridge

over the Stono River

13

Highest Hazard

Seismicity of South
Carolina 1977 to 1996
1977 to 1997

Lowest Hazard

14

Maybank Highway over Stono River

Description of project
118

spans
1-62 flat slab deck supported by PCP
63-104 /33 -meter girder spans and 2 columns
per bent supported by shafts.
The main span over the river channel consists of
a 3 span steel girder frame w/ 70 meter center
span.
105-118 flat slab deck supported by PCP
15

Maybank Highway over Stono River

Original Seismic Design
SCDOT version of AASHTO
Div. I-A (Draft)
Site Specific Seismic Hazard
Bridge classified as essential
Project specific seismic
performance criteria

Two level Analysis:

Trial Design Example

Proposed LRFD Guidelines
-2002
Two Level Analysis:
Expected Earthquake - 50%
in 75 yr.
MCE 3% in 75 yr.

FEE 10% in 50 yr. event

SEE - 2% in 50 yr. event

16

Table C-1. LRFD Spectral Accelerations and Site Coefficients

Earthquake
Maximum Considered
Expected

Spectral Accelerations
SS
S1
SDS
SD1
1.43
0.407
1.43
0.651
0.0503 0.0104 0.0503 0.0167

Site Coefficients
Fa
Fv
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.60

SEE - Compare LRFD to Original Design Curve

1.6

LRFD Curve
Site Specific Original Curve
SCDOT Curve, soil type II
SCDOT Curve, soil type III

Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

1.4
1.2

* The cumulative mass participation for

mode shapes at periods indicated and
higher, is approximately 70%.
* Transverse

1
0.8
0.6

* Longitudinal

0.4
0.2
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Period, T (sec)

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

17

Maybank Highway over Stono River

Original Seismic Design

Trial Design Example

Soil Classification: Type

II

Stiff Marl classified as

Site Class D

18

 The SCDOT 's new specifications adopted the

NCHRP soil site classification and the Design
Spectra described on LRFD 3.4.1
If this structure were designed using the new SCDOT
Seismic Design Specifications, October 2001, the
demand forces would be closer if not the same to
those found using the Proposed LRFD Guideline
-2002 .

19

Cooper River Bridge

Charleston Co.
Seismic Design
Criteria- Seismic
Panel
Synthetic TH
PGA - 0.65g
Sa 1.85 at T=0.2
sec
Sa 0.65 at T=1 sec
Liquefaction
20

21

Cooper River Bridge

2500 Yr - SEE for Main Piers

22

Need for:
New Specifications
South Carolina Seismic
Hazard Maps

23

24

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

October 2001

The new SCDOT specifications

establish design and construction
provisions for bridges in South
Carolina to minimize their
susceptibility to damage from large
earthquakes.
25

PURPOSE & PHILOSOPHY

(1.1)
SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications replace
AASHTO Division I-A SCDOT Draft
Principles used for the development
Small to moderate earthquakes, FEE, resisted
within the essentially elastic range.
State-of-Practice ground motion intensities are
used.
Large earthquakes, SEE, should not cause collapse.

Four Seismic Performance Categories (SPC) are

defined to cover the variation in seismic hazard of
very small to high within the State of South Carolina.
26

New Concepts and

Enhancements

New Design Level Earthquakes

New Performance Objectives
New Soil Factors
Displacement Based Design
Expanded Design Criteria for Bridges

27

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

Background (1.2)
New USGS
Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Maps
New Design Level
Earthquakes
New Performance
Objectives
A706 Reinf. Steel

New Soil Factors

Displacement Based
Design
Caltrans (SDC) new
provisions included

30

Upgraded Seismic Design Requirement

(1.3)

New Provisions meet current code objectives

for large earthquakes.
Life Safety
Serviceability

Design Levels
Single Level 2% / 50 years
Normal Bridges
Essential Bridges
Two Level : 2% / 50 years and 10% / 50
years
Critical Bridges

31

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

Seismic Performance Criteria

III

II

32

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

October 2001

33

VALUES OF Fa AS A FUNCTION OF
SITE CLASS AND MAPPED SHORTPERIOD SPECTRAL RESPONSE
ACCELERATION SS (TABLE 3.3.3A)
Site
Clas
s

Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Periods

SS 0.25

SS=0.50

SS=0.75

SS=1.00

SS1.25

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.0

2.5

1.7

1.2

0.9

34

Primary
Design or System
Retrofit
a, b, c, d,
Objective
e, g

Secondary
System
f, h, i

f
i

b
e

a
d

Recent
Technology

h
g

Collapse
Prevention
Limited
Damage

2% in 50 Yrs.
Essentially
Elastic

Increasing
performance

2/3 (2% in 50 Yrs.)

10% in 50 Yrs.

Increasing earthquake
hazard

Proposed Design or Retrofit Objective

I A I

SCDOT Pilot Workshop

Imbsen & Associates, Inc.

1-6

35

SCDOT Seismic Design Specifications

October 2001

36

DESIGN SPECTRA FOR SITE

CLASS A, B, C, D AND E, 5%
DAMPING (3.4.5E)
Ss=1.00g, SEE(2%/50years)
1.2
1.0

Site Class
SD_4A
A
B
SD_4B
C
SD_4C
D
SD_4D
E
SD_4E

SDI-SEE

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

2
Periods T (sec)

37

APPLICABILITY (3.1)
New Bridges
Bridge Types
Slab
Beam Girder
Box Girder

Spans less than 500 feet

Minimum Requirements
Additional Provisions are needed to achieve
higher performance for essential or critical
bridges
38

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND

STRATEGIES
Specifications can be used in conjunction with
rehabilitation, widening, or retrofit
SPC B demands are compared implicitly
against capacities
Criteria is focused on member/component
deformability as well as global ductility
Inherent member capacities are used to resist
higher earthquake intensities
Using this approach required performance
levels can be achieved in the Eastern US
39

Design Approaches
(4.7.1)
Design
Approach

Ductility
Demand

Minimal
Plastic Action

Limited

May be Used

Not required to
Maintain

Limited

May be Used

May require
closure of
limited usage

Not
warranted

May require
closure or
removal

Moderate
Plastic Action

D 2
D 4

Significant
Plastic Action May be higher

Protection Reparability
Systems

40

Other New Concepts and

Improvements
Plastic Hinge Region Lpr (4.7.7)
Plastic Hinge Length (4.7.7)
Seat Width SPC A and B, C, D
(4.8.2)
Detailing Restrainers
(4.9.3)
Butt Welded Hoops
Superstructrure Shear Keys
(4.10)
41

Thanks

Seismic Design
of Bridges
Lucero E. Mesa, P.E.

42