Chapter 6

Seismic Design of Bridges

Kazuhiko Kawashima
Tokyo Institute of Technology

Seismic Design
z Loading environment (dead, live, wind, earthquake

etc)
z Performance criteria for gravity (deflection, stresses)
and environmental loads (damage, displacement,
collapse)
z Geometric (space) requirements
z Time available for construction
z Soil condition
z Cost
z..

Process of Seismic Design

Functional Requirements

Site Evaluation

Design to Static Loads

Evaluate Seismic Performance Goals by
Equivalent Static Analysis
Evaluate Seismic Performance Goals by
Dynamic Response Analysis
Evaluate Design Detailings

Requirements in Seismic Design

Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)

Dave Cave
Capacity
Capacity Factor
Demand
Load Factor

1 2 ...... n Dave 1 2 ......n Cave

A limit states format is currently based on performancebased design

Probability

Variation of Demand and Capacity

Demand
Capacity
Low frequent but high
consequence events
Demand or Capacity

Seismic Design Process with Emphasis on

Japanese Seismic Design

Japanese Codes for Design of Highway Bridges

Japan Road Association
zDesign Specifications of Highway Bridges
9Part I Common Part
9Part II Steel Bridges
9Part III Concrete Bridges
9Part IV Foundations
9Part V Seismic Design
zThe code applies to highway bridges with a
center span no longer than 200m
9 1980
9 1990
9 1996
9 2002

Year

1990

2020

1995 Kobe EQ

1980
1971

Most bridges
which collapse
during 1995 Kobe
earthquake were
designed
according to this
code.

1996

2000

50

2002

1980

100

1964 Code for Steel Bridges

150

1960

200

1920

Number of Pages

250

1940

300

1923 Kanto EQ
1925 Seismic Design Started

Number of Pages related to Seismic Design of

Highway Bridges in Japan

1971Code and the Latest Code (2002)

1971

2002

Part V Seismic Design, Design Specifications of

Highway Bridges, Japan Road Association
1. General
2. Principles of seismic design
3. Loads considered in seismic design
4. Design ground motions
5. Evaluation of seismic performance
6. Performance evaluation by static analysis
7. Performance evaluation by dynamic analysis
8. Effect of unstable soils
9. Menshin design (Seismic Isolation)

Part V Seismic Design, Design Specifications of

Highway Bridges, Japan Road Association
(continued)
10. Strength & Ductility of RC piers
11. Demand & capacity of steel piers
12. Demand & capacity of foundations
13. Demand & capacity of abutment foundations on
liquefiable ground
14. Demand & capacity of superstructures
15. Seismic design of bearings
16. Unseating prevention devices

Seismic Performance Goals

Seismic Performance Criteria

James Roberts (1999), Previous Caltrans Chief Engineer
z How do you want the structure to perform in an
earthquake?
z How much danger can you accept?
zWhat are the reasonable alternate routes?

Japan Road Association

Ground Motion

Ordinary
Bridges

Important
Bridges

Function Evaluation GMs

Functional

Functional

Safety
Evaluation
GMs

Prevent
critical
damage

Retain limited
damage

Type-I (Kanto)
Type-II (Kobe)

ATC and Caltrans (1999)

Ground
Motions

Service Level

Damage Level

Ordinary

Ordinary

Function
Evaluation

Immediate Immediate Reparable

damage

Minimum
damage

Safety
Evaluation

Limited

Repairable
damage

Important

Immediate Significant
damage

Important

Seismic Performance Goals

SEAOC Vision 2000

Performance Objective
Fully

Operation

Earthquake Operation al
Probability al

Frequent

Occasiona
l
Rare
Very Rare

Life
Safety

Near
Collapse

Definition of Limit States

Limit State

Description of Damage

Fully
Operational

No damage, continuous service

Operational

Most operations and functions can resume

immediately. Repair is required to restore some
non-essential services. Damage is light.
Structure is safe for immediate occupancy.
Essential operations are protected.
Damage is moderate. Selected building systems,
features or contents may be protected from
damage. Life safety of generally protected.
Structure is damaged but remains stable.
Falling hazards remain secure. Repair possible.
Structural collapse is prevented. Nonstructural
elements may fall. Repair generally not be
possible.
Complete structural collapse

Life safety

Near
Collapse
Collapse

Probability of Occurrence of Seismic Ground Motions

Probability of occurrence of a ground motion with its
intensity Y larger than y within a life time of a structure TD
P(Y > y, TD ) = 1 {1 P (Y > y, t = 1}TD

Return Period = Averaged Recurrence Interval

1
TR ( y ) =
P(Y > y, t = 1)

1
P(Y > y, TD ) = 1 1

TR ( y )

Probability of not being exceeded

D

1
P(Y < y, TD ) = 1 P (Y > y, TD ) = 1

TR ( y )

An Exmple of Definition of Probability of

Occurrence of Earthquakes
Classification of
Earthquakes

Recurrent
Interval

Probability of
Occurrence

Frequent

43 years

70% in 50 years

Occasional

72 years

50% in 50 years

Rare

475 years

10% in 50 years

Very Rare

970 years

10% in 100 years

Recommended Maximum Transient &

Permanent Drift
Vision 2000, SEAOC
Limit State

Maximum
Transient Drift
(%)
Fully Operational
0.2

Maximum
Permanent Drift
(%)
Negligible

Operational

0.5

Negligible

Life Safety

1.5

0.5

Near Collapse

2.5

2.5

Collapse

> 2.5

> 2.5

Seismic Design Force

Seismic Design Force

zSeismic design force should be determined based on
the seismic environment (seismicity, fault length and
rupture, etc) around the construction sites
zSeismic hazard map in terms of PGA is frequently
used to scale the seismic design force.
zResponse accelerations are widely used to provide the
seismic design force of bridges. Multiplying it to mass,
lateral force can be directly evaluated.

Seismic Design Force (continued)

zStandard response spectra are generally modified to take
account of regional seismicity as

S A (T , ) design = cz S A (T , ) s tan dard

zImportance of structures are sometimes reflected to
evaluate the design seismic force. There are two groups in
this treatment as
9Larger design seismic force is considered for a
structure with higher importance
9Since seismic force which applies to a structure does
not change depending on the importance of the
structure, the importance is considered in the
evaluation of the capacity

Japan Road Association (1996 &2002)

Function Evaluation

S1 T 1 / 3

S F = k Z k D S2
S / T
3
Safety Evaluation

(0 < T T1)
(T1 T T2 )

(6.1)

(T2 T )

S4T 1 / 3 ( 0 < T T3 )

S SI = k Z k D S5
(T3 T T4 )
S / T
(T4 T )
6

Type II GM
S7 T 2 / 3 (0 < T T5 )

S SII = kZ kd S8
(T5 < T T6 )
S / T 5 / 3
(T6 < T )
9
Type I GM

(6.2)

(6.3)

Design Specifications of Highway Bridges, Japan Road

Association

= 0.05

0.5
0.4

Ground I
Ground II
Ground III

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

1
2
Natural Period (s)

Safety Evaluation GM
Response Accleration S (g)

Response Accleration S (g)

Function Evaluation GM

2.5
2
1.5

Ground I
Ground II Type I
Ground III
Ground I
Ground II Type II
Ground III

1
0.5
0
0

1
2
Natural Period (s)

Seismic Design Force

EC code
Elastic response accelerations for the referenced return
period depending on soil condition
1 + T (k 1)
D 0
T
B

k D 0

S = k I kGC a g
TC

k
D 0 T

T
3
C
k

D 0 3 T

0.9 & 1.0

1.3, 1.0, 0.7

0 T TB
TB T TC
TC T 3s
3s T
(6.44)

Seismic Loads (continued)

Response Acceleration (g)

Eurocode 8
Part Bridges
1994

k I kGC k D a g
kGC a g
TB TC

Stiff (Class-A)

0.8
0.6

Moderate (Class-B)

0.4

Soft (Class-C)

0.2
0

2
3
Period (s)

TD

Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual (1995)

Si = k Z k I kGC S (T )
1.0

2
3
.
.

0.8

Stiff Site

0.6

=1

0.4
0.2
0

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.8

Moderate

0.6

Soft

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2
0

0.2
0

AASHOTO
S=

1.2 a g kGC
T 2/3

2.5a g

1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0

Given as a contour for TR=475 years

ATC-32 & Caltrans (1999)

Response Acceleration (g)

Deterministic & probabilistic evaluation

TR=1,000-2,000 years
Stiff Site (Soil Profile E)
M=8+/-0.25

0.1g

1.5
1

2
0.2g
0.3g
0.4g
0.5g
0.6g

0.5
0

Soft Site (Soil Profile C)

M=8+/-0.25

1
0.7g 3

1
Period (s)

0.1g
0.2g
0.4g

1.5

0.5
5
3

00

1
Period (s)

22

Comparison of Design Response Accelerations

AASHOTO
(1995)

ag=0.8g
Soil profile
II, III & IV

ATC (1996)
& Caltrans
(1999)
ag=0.8g at
stiff site
ag=0.4g at
soft site
M=7.25+/-0.25
M=8.0+/-0.25
Soil profile
C, D. & E

Eurcode 8
(1994)
kI=1.3
ag=0.7g

JRA
(1996 & 2002)

Transit NZ
(1995)

kI=1.0

kI=1.3
kI=1.2

9 Determine the largest elastic design

response accelerations with damping
ratio of 0.05 assuming the largest factor
prescribed in each code

Comparison of Design Response Accelerations

(continued)
New Zealand
EC8
Type I
Japan
Type II
M=7.25 + 0.25
Caltrans
M=8.0 +0.25
AASHTO

Soft Soil Sites

Seismic Coefficient

Stiff Soil Sites

2.5

2.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

0
0

2
Period (sec)

0
0

2
Period (sec)

Deterministic or Probabilistic?
z Deterministic ground motions which occurred
in Tokyo during the 1923 Kanto EQ and in Kobe
during the 1995 Kobe EQ is used with
modification of regional

2009

M7.2, 2008. 6.14

M7.3, 2000.10.6

Max. magnitude which could happen due to hidden

faults inside Japan

M7.3
II

m/s2)

25

20

15

Ground motions
generated by a MJ7.3 is
II
the same level with the

ground motions during

the 1995 Kobe

earthquake.

10

0
0

(m/s2)

Probabilistic response acceleration levels

Is this possible level

for seismic design?

M
Near-field GM by M8
M7
event
Near-field GM by M7
event

Assume longer T

Assume shorter T&

No part of
structural members
are determined by

seismic effect.

z
EC
z

9MJ7.2

9MJ8

Seismic Zoning Map widely

accepted in Japan since 1983
533
This minimum value was
very important to
mitigate damage
0.70.8

12

100

Evaluation of Demand

Evaluation of Demand
Force based seismic design
z Nonlinear dynamic response analysis
z Static analysis
T* *

m S A (T *, * )
Dave =
R

Response modification factor

2 r 1

R = r
.........Empirical values

Japanese practice to consider damping ratio in

the evaluation of elastic load
Since r is not known at the first stage of the design, the
response modification factor is evaluated as
R= 2a 1

Design displacement ductility factor

Q r (<)a

Dave Cave

Where do we consider the damping

characteristics of the bridge in the static
design?

How should we incorporate the damping ratio of

the bridge in the static seismic design?
Dynamic Analysis

Static Analysis

m S A (T , 0.05
))
D=
RR
* *

T* *

Ground Accelerations

Dynamic Response
Analysis

Compute Demands

Response Acceleration

Damping
Ratios

Static Analysis

Compute Demands

How can we estimate the damping ratio of bridges?

zEmpirical relation
on the damping ratio
vs. fundamental
natural period of
bridges
zThis is based on
force excitation tests
on bridges supported
by various types of
foundations

0.02
=
T

Why is the damping ratio inversely proportional

to the fundamental natural period?
T

m km kmkm
=m
T
km kmkm
D 0.05 m
c 0.05

cp 0.15

Radiational
energy
dissipation f >> 0.3

How should we incorporate the damping ratio of

the bridge in the static seismic design?
Damping ratio of the bridge should be incorporated in
the evaluation of response accelerations used in the
static analysis
Not S A (T * ,0.05) but S A (T * , * )

S A (T , ) = S A (T ,0.05) cD ( )
*

where

cD ( ) =
*

=
*

1 .5

40 + 1
0.02
T*

+ 0. 5

How should we incorporate the damping ratio of

the bridge in the static seismic design?
S A (T , ) = S A (T ,0.05) cD ( )
*

1.5

*
= S A (T ,0.05)
+ 0.5
0.8
+1

*
T

How should we incorporate the damping ratio of

the bridge in the static seismic design?

=
*

0.02
1.5
cD ( =
)=
+ 0.5
0.8
T
+1
T

0.02
T

T*

cD
1.0
0.05

SA

S (T ,0.05)

Seq (T )

T = 0.4 s
T

Japanese practice to take the damping ratio of

bridge into account in the static design force
Safety Evaluation Ground Motion
Type II GM

Dynamic response analysis S A (T ,0.05)

S7 T 2 / 3 (0 < T T5 )

S SII = cZ cD S8
(T5 < T T6 )
S / T 5 / 3
(T6 < T )
9

Static analysis S A (T ,0.02 / T )

S s 7T 2 / 3
0 < T T5

SesSII = cZ S s8
T5 T T6

4/3
S
/
T
T6 T
s9

Japanese practice to take the damping ratio of

bridge into account in the static design force
Dynamic response analysis

Static analysis

2.5
2
1.5

S A (T ,0.02 / T )

Ground I
Ground II Type I
Ground III
Ground I
Ground II Type II
Ground III

1
0.5
0
0

1
2
Natural Period (s)

Response Accleration SS (g)

Response Accleration S (g)

S A (T ,0.05)
2.5

Ground I
Ground II Type I
Ground III
Ground I
Ground II Type II
Ground III

2
1.5
1
0.5
0

(b) R

1
2
3
Natural Period (s)
A l i f E i l

Features of the Japanese Practice in the Evaluation

of Design Seismic Forces
9 Explicit Two Level Design Forces are used

9 Near field GMs and Middle field GMs resulted from M

8 EQs are used for the safety evaluation GMs
9Importance is accounted for not in the evaluation of
design ground motions but in the evaluation of design
ductility factors
9 A damping force vs. natural period relation is included
in the design seismic forces for static analysis

Evaluation of Capacity

Evaluation of Capacities

9 Deck
9 Bearings
9 Columns/Piers
9 Foundations
9 Stability of foundations
9 Surrounding ground

Evaluation of Capacities (continued)

Reinforced concrete columns/piers
1) Assume a section based on the requirement for static
loads
2) Evaluate tie reinforcement ratio s
3) Evaluate stress vs. strain relation of confined concrete
and reinforcing bars
4) Evaluate strength and ductility of columns using the
fiber element analysis

Appropriate Idealization of Hysteresis of

Confined Concrete and Reinforcing Bars
Confined Concrete

Rebars

cc

Edes
0.8 cc

cc
Core concrete

Cover concrete

E
s

s2

Evaluate the Yield & Ultimate Curvature

Moment
Bars
E

Ultimate
(Type-I GM)

s2

Yield
Initial Yield

Curvature

u u

cc

Ultimate Strain of Confined Concrete

Type-I GMs

Edes
Concrete

Ultimate
(Type-II GM)

0.8 cc

cc

cc
cu =
cc + 0.2 fcc / Edes
Type-II GMs

Evaluate the Yield & Ultimate Lateral Displacement

Lateral Force
Ultimate displacement
for Type-I GMs
Ultimate displacement
for Type-II GMs

Yield

h
Lp

Lp
2

dy

du

du

Lateral Displacement

Ultimate displacement

du = d y + (u y )(h
Design displacement
du d y
da = d y +

Lp
2

)Lp

Design displacement
du d y
da = d y +

Design displacement ductility

factor d
du d y
a
a =
= 1+
dy
d y
da
Lateral Force
Type-II GM
Ultimate

Type- Type-II
I GM GM
Importa
nt
bridge
Standar
d
Bridges

3.0
2.4

1.5
1.2

du
Lateral Displacement
Lateral Force

da

Type-I GM

Ultimate

du
Lateral Displacement

Failure Mode of RC Columns (continued)

Lateral Force

Flexural failure
Pu

Capacity

Lateral Displacement

Pu

Shear failure
Lateral Force

Lateral Force

Shear failure after

flexural failure

Lateral Displacement

Pu

Lateral Displacement

Design Strength & Ductility Capacities

Pu flexural failure + shear failure after flexural damage
Pa =
Ps 0 shear failure

du d y
flexural failure
1 +
a = d y
1 shear failure after flexural damage + shear failure

(6.26)

Sizing of Structures
Dave Cave
Where,

m S A (T *, * )
Dave =
R
R = 2 a 1

Consideration for the Repairability after an Earthquake

Residual Displacement

Tilting after the 1995 Kobe EQ

They were demolished and rebuilt because of difficulty to repair

Requirement for the Check of Residual

Displacement of Columns

Function & Safety

A wide range of residual displacement occurs for the

same ductility demand

Repairbility

Requirement for the Check of Residual

Displacement of Columns
dr

d R d Ra
Design (allowable)
residual displacement

1
d Ra =
H
100

Determination of residual displacement

Residual displacement ratio response spectra
S RDR =

ur
ur ,max

k2
r=
k1

Maximum possible residual displacement

ur ,max = ( 1)(1 r )u y
ur = S RDR ( 1)(1 r )u y

For reinforced concrete columns

S RDR = 0.6

r =0

ur ,max

Residual Displacement
Significance of Bridges with Fewer Static Indeterminacy
than Buildings

Plastic Hinges

Features of Japanese Practice in the Evaluation of

Design Ductility Capacity
z Compute design ductility factor for every columns
using the fiber element analysis. In the fiber element
analysis, stress vs. strain relations of confined concrete
and bars are explicitly considered.
z Characteristics of ground motions (loading hysteresis
& number of repeated loadings) is accounted in the
evaluation of the ultimate displacement, therefore the
ultimate displacement depends on the ground motions
(Type I & II ground motions).

zImportance of bridges is accounted for not in the

evaluation of design ground motions but in the
evaluation of design ductility factor
zTo account for repairability, residual
displacement that would occur after an earthquake
is checked

Displacement based Seismic Design

Displacement-based Seismic Design

Column Displacement

Equivalent damping vs. ductility

Effective stiffness

Design displacement response

spectrum

Priestley et al, Seismic Design & Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley

Displacement-based Seismic Design

(continued)
It is interesting because
z Displacement which is important in design is always
accounted in the displacement design

However, the following points need further clarification

z Damping ratio which has a large scattering is directly
included in the process of main design calculation
z Determination of the stiffness of a bridge from a
design displacement involves a large error because

k T