Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
University of California and the Rose School
2
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW
Introduction
The use of forces rather than displacements to simulate seismic actions may
mislead designers. For example, consider a bridge with unequal pier heights but
similar pier cross-section dimensions, as in Figure 1. The shorter piers are the
stiffer. According to the FBDM, horizontal earthquake forces will be distributed
between the piers in proportion to 1/h3. Therefore bending moment and
reinforcement ratios are approximately in proportion to 1/h2. To resist the
increased earthquake effects, the reinforcement ratio of the short piers relative to
the long piers is increased, which further increases the relative stiffness of the
short piers, which will attract higher shear forces and bending moments,
increasing their susceptibility to failure. Additionally, the displacement capacity of
the short piers is decreased by increasing their reinforcement ratio which makes
the piers stiffer and less capable of withstanding earthquake effects.
New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 31
The use of performance based seismic design that simulates the behaviour of
bridges under seismic events is required, noting that the international trend in
earthquake design is moving in that direction. The Displacement Design Method
(DBDM) was regarded as a more realistic design approach, in which structure
displacements under the design seismic event (i.e. displacement demand) will not
cause unacceptable damage (i.e. will not exceed limiting strains/displacements).
Project TS 1599 [4] was instigated by Austroads in 2009 following the publication
of interim rules for seismic design of bridges by individual state road authorities
after a realisation that the update of AS 1170.4 in 2007 meant that it was no longer
compatible with AS 5100.2, and that the specified return period of 500 years for
earthquake design was not adequate for an ultimate design event.
Determine BEDC
Fig. 2. Updated Seismic Design Procedure for Bridges Using the FBDM
New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 33
Design forces for ductile seismic response are calculated from the elastic response
reduced by the ductility factor ‘µ’. The values of µ range from 1.0 to 4.0
depending on the bridge materials and structural system. Two sets of µ values are
given in the report, depending on the level of damage accepted for the earthquake
event, the first being for the ultimate (damage control) limit state and the second
for the serviceability limit state.
For the ultimate (damage control) limit state, residual cracks and concrete cover
spalling may occur in plastic hinge regions of bridge piers. However, in most
cases, bridges are expected to remain serviceable during repair operations. For the
serviceability limit state, ductility levels are set such that only minor inelastic
action should occur during the design level seismic excitation. Residual crack
widths will be sufficiently small so that remedial action will not be required.
Strains in cover concrete will not reach a level where incipient spalling might
occur. Residual displacements will be negligible and will not impede the normal
use of the bridge.
Bridges deemed to be lifeline by the relevant authority are to be designed for the
serviceability limit state, with this option also being open for all bridges.
The existing bearing seat length ‘Lbs’ formula in AS 5100.2 is dependant on the
length of the bridge, but ignores the effect of out-of-phase displacements which
depend on pier height. The thermal, creep and shrinkage components in the
existing formula are overestimated by a factor of about 4 [4]. The following
equation is proposed.
Lbs = Δ (1.5) + 0.0004 Ld + 0.007 hd + 0.005W ≥ 0.3m (1)
where:
‘Ld’ is length of the superstructure to the next expansion joint;
‘hd’ is average pier height;
‘Ld’ is superstructure length;
‘W’ is seating width transverse to bridge axis; and
‘Δ(1.5)’ is defined as the corner-period displacement as described in Figure 3
below.
34 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett
The third expression in Equation 1 reflects the rotation of the pier foundation
associated with traveling seismic surface waves. The fourth expression reflects
the transverse displacement due to the support rotation about the vertical axis.
Frame-by-Frame Analysis
For longitudinal seismic response, each frame is analysed separately and the
results compared with a further analysis assuming fully closed joints. For
transverse seismic response, each frame is considered separately, with the mass
and stiffness of adjacent frames modeled at the movement joint if the fundamental
period of the adjacent frame differs by more than 25% from that of the frame
under consideration. The provisions simplify the analysis, particularly the
modelling of movement joints, and account for the large variations in stiffness of
adjacent frames. The provisions also recognize that coherent seismic excitation of
piers of long bridges is unlikely.
Capacity reduction factors are not used when calculating the section strength at
plastic hinges. With ductile design, plastic hinges reach their actual capacity
regardless of whether conservative or realistic material strengths are used. Safety
is not significantly influenced by increasing flexural strength, but economy is
adversely affected [6][7].
Moreover, gravity design actions are ignored when determining the required
moment capacity of plastic hinges. The current approach of combining gravity
moments assuming elastic stiffness, and seismic moments recognizing inelastic
response, is illogical and excessively conservative [6][7].
New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 35
Detailing is the most important aspect of providing for safe seismic response,
particularly for earthquakes greater than the design intensity, which could well
occur. The following column design provisions are recommended in the report to
replace the existing provisions in Section 10 of AS 5100.5 for bridges in BEDC2
to BEDC4.
• Area of longitudinal reinforcement to gross area of pier cross-section ratio is to
be between 0.008 and 0.04.
• Longitudinal reinforcement not to be spliced by welding or mechanical splicing
in plastic hinge zones, unless sufficient testing is carried out to ensure
satisfactory behaviour during seismic events.
• The spacing of restraints for longitudinal reinforcement of columns expected to
remain elastic under seismic response, as per the existing provisions, may be
eased to the lesser of 0.4Dc and 15db, where ‘Dc’ is the column diameter and
‘db’ is the diameter of the smallest bar in the column. The existing arbitrary
300 mm spacing will be deleted, as there is no basis for it.
• In plastic hinge zones, the spacing of restraints to the longitudinal
reinforcement will be limited to the lesser of 0.2Dc and (3+6(fu/fy – 1))db, where
‘fu’ and ‘fy’ are the ultimate and yield stress of the longitudinal bars.
• Current provisions of AS 5100.5 for minimum confinement/pier core
volumetric ratio in plastic hinge zones are to be relaxed and extended to apply
to ties, as follows:
• ρs ≥ 0.1f’c/fsy.f for ties and As/s ≥ 0.025f’cDc/fsy.f for helices
• If DBDM is used in design, the confinement ratio in plastic hinge zones will be
dependent on the extent of ductile behaviour of the pier during the design
seismic event.
• The minimum confinement reinforcement/pier core volumetric ratio to be 0.005.
• Bundled bars used as longitudinal reinforcement for seismic design to be
limited to two bars per bundle.
The DBDM detailed in the Austroads TS 1599 report is intended for inclusion in
the revised bridge code as an alternative seismic analysis method. The method
was prepared in a compatible format with the FBDM described above. As with
the FBDM, not all bridges will be required to be designed for earthquake actions.
36 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett
This procedure enables designers to check whether a bridge designed for dead and
live loads will respond elastically to the design level of seismicity. The procedure
essentially comprises the following steps:
1. Determine the design elastic displacement ‘∆(T)’of bridge pier/s at fundamental
period ‘T’ of the bridge, using Equation 2.
Δ(T) = kpZΔh(T) (2)
• where ‘Z’ and ‘kp’ are as specified above, and ‘Δh(T)’ is the displacement
spectrum for the site which depends sub-soil class, as illustrated in Figure 3.
1200
Soil Ee
∆h(T)
800 Soil De
Soil Ce
400
Soil Be
Soil Ae
corner-
1 2 3
period
Δy = C1φy(H+Lsp)2+Δyf+Δb (3)
where:
‘C1’ is a coefficient dependant on pier end fixity conditions;
‘Δyf’ and ‘Δb’ are foundation and pier-cap bearing displacements, respectively; and
‘φy’ is the section curvature at yield.
∆d
∆y
F
pile elastic
rotation at hinge
yield post-yield
3. Compare the design elastic displacement ‘∆(T)’ (i.e. design action effects) and
the yield capacity ‘Δy’ (i.e. strength). If ‘∆(T)’does not exceed ‘Δy’, the pier/s
will behave elastically and no further specific design is required for the bridge.
As a simplification, ‘∆(T)’ may be calculated at ‘T’ of 1.5 seconds (i.e. the corner-
period) instead of the bridge fundamental period ‘T’. It is expected that ‘∆(1.5)’
will not exceed ‘Δy’ for most Australian bridges. However, if this condition fails,
calculate ‘T’ and subsequently ‘∆(T)’ in accordance with the procedure illustrated
in Figure 5.
38 N. Priestley, S. Sedra, G Forster and M Bennett
Is
Yes
Δy ≥ Δ(1.5)?
No
Yes Is No
Δy ≥ Δ(T)?
To carry out seismic design of bridges undergoing ductile behaviour, the bridge
can be represented as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) structure as illustrated in
Figure 6a. The seismic response of the equivalent SDOF structure is represented
by an effective mass ‘me’ and an effective stiffness ‘keff’ that is less than the elastic
stiffness ‘kel’ as illustrated in Figure 6b.
New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 39
Force
me Fu keff
F Fy
he kel
∆y ∆d
Displacement
a. Equivalent SDOF Structure b. Force vs. Displacement
Fig. 6. Representation of Bridges as SDOF structures
The DBDM specifies strain limits for the ultimate (damage control) and the
serviceability limit states, similar to the FBDM. The strain limits for the
serviceability limit state are smaller than those for the ultimate limit state.
ξ = 5%
Damping ‘ξ’ %
Steel
Displacement
ξ = 10%
ξ = 15%
Concrete
ξ = 20%
Unbonded prestress
Damping also increases the effective period of the structure. Figure 7b shows
schematically the relationship between damping and ductile displacement for
different damping levels. After the required ductility is determined, the damping
and other design parameters are then calculated.
The design actions ‘Δd(T)’ are not to exceed the pier ductile capacity ‘Δd’.
The specific seismic design procedure is presented in Figure 8.
Determine the acceptable maximum strain limits for design limit state
Calculate the effective period ‘Teff ’ of the ductile bridge (as in Figure 7b)
Yes
Analyse bridge and add P-∆ effects (for BEDC3 & BEDC4)
Fig. 8. Procedure for Carrying out Specific Seismic Design using the DBDM
New Seismic Design Rules for Australian Bridges 41
Acknowledgments
References
[1] AS 5100.2 (2004) Bridge design - Part 2: Design loads. Standards Australia
[2] AS 1170.4 (1993) Minimum design loads on structures - Part 4: Earthquake loads.
Standards Australia
[3] AS 1170.4 (2007) Structural design actions - Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia.
Standards Australia
[4] Noya L, Priestley N, Lake N (2011) Austroads Project No TS 1599: Bridge Design
Guidelines for Earthquakes. ARRB
[5] AS 5100.5 (2004) Bridge design - Part 5: Concrete. Standards Australia
[6] Priestley M J N, Calvi G M, Kowalsky M J (2007) Displacement Based Seismic Design of
Structures. IUSS Press, Pavia
[7] Priestley M J N, Seible F, Calvi G M (1996) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John
Willey & Sons, New York