Les - 16 - Seismic Design of Bridges

Seismic design of bridges
1/126
BRIDGE DESIGN
SEISMIC
BEHAVIOUR OF
BRIDGES
Politecnico di Torino
Department of structural and geotechnical engineering
Bridge design
SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

Theoretical basis
Bridge design
2/126
Applicative
field
Pier + Deck
Bridge
3/126
Continuous
Isostatic
Single pier
Solid body
One cell
Multiple
bent
Hollow core
Multi cell
Important structural damages
T0 = 475 years
SLU
Openness to traffic
Emergency traffic
Requirements
Negligible structural damages

T0 150 years
SLD
Not urgent restoration

No traffic limitation
Bridge design
4/126
At SLU stable dissipative mechanism (only pier)

Bending dissipation with exclusion of shear failure
Elastic behavior of deck / bearings / abutments /
foundations and ground
Criteria
Capacity Design
Cinematism to avoid hammering and fall from bearings

(uncertainty of evaluation)
Bridge design
Protection
5/126
Importance factor I
Applied to design seismic action (SLU

and SLD) with variation of T0
I = 1
I
I = 1,3
Ordinary bridge
Strategic bridge with high number of
casualties in case of collapse
Bridge design
Ground types
Bridge design
6/126
7/126
Bridge design
Average velocity of propagation of

shear waves within 30 m of depth
hi = Thickness of layer i
Vi = Velocity of layer i
Bridge design
8/126
9/126
(S1) Deposits with at least 10 m of clays/silts

of low consistence with elevated indices of
plasticity (PI > 40) and contents of water
and VS30 < 100 m/sec or 10 cu < 20 kPa
Special soil
(Study ad hoc)
(S2) liquefiable soils, sensitive clays or other
not classified
Bridge design
Seismic zone
Zone
1
i
Representation of
seismic action
aG = P.G.A. on ground (A)

aG/g
Spectrum of elastic response

(Horiz. Vert.)
Accelerograms
Bridge design
10/126
11/126
Spectrum of elastic response

Shape of the elastic response spectrum ag S
Horizontal seismic action
Bridge design
12/126
Spectrum of elastic response of horizontal components

14.0
12.0
(Cat. Suolo A)
(Ground
cat. A)
10.0
Se [m/s2]
(Cat. Suolo
(Ground
cat.B,C,E)
B,C,E)
(Ground
cat.D)D)
(Cat. Suolo
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
T [s]
=1
Bridge design
ag = 0,35 g
13/126
Horizontal seismic action

Ground
category
TB
TC
TD
1,0
0,15
0,40
2,0
B,C,E
1,25
0,15
0,50
2,0
1,35
0,20
0,80
2,0
= viscous damping ratio
= 5%
=1
Bridge design
Vertical seismic action
Ground
category
TB
TC
TD
A, B, C,
D, E
1,0
0,05
0,15
1,0
Bridge design
14/126
15/126
Design spectrum for S.L.U.

Dissipative capacity
Structural factor q
Horizontal components
NB: in any case Sd(T) 0,2 ag

Bridge design
Vertical components
q=1
No resources for dissipation
Bridge design
16/126
17/126
Design spectrum for S.L.D.

Reduction of elastic spectrum with a factor 2.5
Bridge design
Design with accelerograms
Accelerograms
Artificial
Natural
In general 3 directions
Bridge design
18/126
19/126
- Duration of pseudo-stationary region 10 sec

- Minimum number of groups: 3
- Coherence with elastic spectrum
Average spectral coordinate ( = 5%) > 0.9 of
correspondent elastic spectrum in
0.2 T1 T 2 T1
T1 = fundamental period in elastic field
Bridge design
20/126
Seismic action components and combination

2 horizontal components
Linear analysis
1 vertical components
Negligible for L 60 m
and ordinary typology
Separated calculation for the 3 components
Combination of effects
E = E 2x + E 2y + E 2z
Alternatively the more

severe combination
between:
A Ex + 0.3 A Ey + 0.3 A Ez
0.3 A Ex + A Ey + 0.3 A Ez
0.3 A Ex + 0.3 A Ey + A Ez
Bridge design
q=1
Non linear
analysis
21/126
simultaneous application of 3 components

maximum effects as average value of the
worst effects due to each triplet of
accelerograms
Seismic combination with other actions
SLU
Resistance and ductility
I E + Gk + Pk
Compatibility displacements
I E + Gk + Pk + 0 T T
with 0T = 0.4
Bridge design
Behavior factor q
(Flexible
connection to deck)
Bridge design
22/126
23/126
Behavior factor q
Above q factors are valid for bridges with regular geometry
Bridge design
24/126
Bridges with regular geometry
ri =
MEd,i
MRd,i
Acting moment on pier bottom

Resistant moment on pier bottom
r
~
r = i,max < 2
ri,min
Regular if
If
i = pier index
~
r 2 (irregular bridges), the values of q are reduced
2
qr = q ~
r
(q 1)
Arch bridges / Trestle / Cable stayed / Very skew ( 1520) /

Curved (TOT, Rmin)
q=1
q > 1 only if justified with non linear dynamic analysis
Bridge design
25/126
Modeling for linear analysis

Deck (usually not cracked)
Rigidity
modeling
Piers (cracked)
If on the bottom
S.L.U is reached
Secant
stiffness
E c Ieff =
MRd
y
= 1.2 coefficient for un-cracked regions
Bridge design
Only if
relevant
Soil-structure
Interaction
effects 30% on
maximum displacement
modal analysis with response spectrum

Analysis
simplified analysis
non linear dynamic analysis
non linear static analysis (Push-over)
Bridge design
26/126
27/126
Modal analysis with response spectrum

- Important modal shapes for every direction of verification
- If total mass masses related to modal shape
90% total mass
Ej
Ei
j
ri
For independent
shapes
Ei
- combination of modal response
j
ri
. .
Ti
Tj
0
02 1 +
3 2
=
2
2
1
1 +
+ 0 01
For correlated
shapes
i = j = 1,.. , n
0 8
rij = coefficient of
correlation
with Tj < Ti
Bridge design
28/126
Simplified analysis
- Static forces equivalent to the inertia ones
- Forces evaluation from design spectrum with T0 (fundamental period
in the direction considered) and distribution according to the
fundamental shape.
Applicable if the dynamic deflection is essentially governed

by 1ST shape
(1 degree of freedom oscillator)
Bridge design
29/126
Applicable if the dynamic deflection is essentially governed

by 1ST shape
(1 degree of freedom oscillator)
a) Longitudinal direction of straight bridges with continuous beam
deck and effective mass of the piers < 1/5 decks mass (rigid
deck model)
b) Transverse direction of bridges that respect a) and are
longitudinally symmetric (emax < 0.05 lbridge) with e distance
between centroids of masses and stiffnesses of the piers in
transverse direction (flexible deck model)
c) Girder bridges simply supported in longitudinal and transversal
direction with effective mass of each pier < 1/5 mass carried
deck (individual pier model)
Bridge design
30/126
Case a) and c)
M=
Sd =
deck mass and mass of the upper half of all

the piers in a)
deck mass on pier i and upper half mass of
pier i in c)
Response spectrum value for T1
K=stiffness of the system
Case b)
Apply Rayleighs method
The fundamental period is derived by the principle of energy

conservation (kinetic Ek and potential Ep)
Bridge design
31/126
&
t
2
s
o
c
20
v
m
1 2
=
t
2
v
m
1 2
=
Ek
The static deformation of the element subjected to concentrated forces

correspondent to masses is evaluated and Ek = Ep is imposed.
1
1
Ep = p v( t ) = p v 0 sin t
2
2
p v 0 m v 02 2
=
2
2
Epmax = Ekmax
with n masses
=
2
i=1
n
mi v 02i
p v0
m v 02
pi v 0 i
2 =
=g
i=1
mi v 0 i
i=1
n
mi v 02i
i=1
The fundamental period is
T = 2
mi v 02i
i=1
n
g mi v 0 i
i=1
The seismic force in each

node of the model is
Fi = 2
Sd (T )
v i mi (2 = g/v0 for 1 mass)
g
Bridge design
32/126
Displacements calculation (linear analysis)

+ displacements due to spatial variability of motion
displacements evaluated with dynamic or static analysis
with
for
for
FOR non linear dynamic analysis
- Verify coherence of the chosen q value

- actions on piers bottoms and abutments > 80% from linear
analysis
Bridge design
33/126
Non linear static analysis (Pushover)

Assign horizontal forces and increase them until a pre-defined
displacement in a referring node (pier cap) is reached
Evaluation of the
plastic hinges
formation sequence
up to collapse
Analysis of
redistributions due to
the formation of
plastic hinges
Evaluation of rotation
in plastic hinges
under the predefined displacement
Control that for the displacement evaluated with complete modal

analysis and elastic spectrum (q = 1) the ductility requests in plastic
hinges are compatible with those available and that the actions in other
elements are smaller than the resistance, with the capacity design
criteria.
Bridge design
34/126
Capacity design criterion

In the plastic hinges
Mu = 0 MRd,i
. .
0 = 0.7 + 0.2 q 1 factor of over resistance
1 35 Concrete members
1 25 Steel members
0 =
Non dissipative mechanism
(shear)
Structural elements that require to

remain in linear field (supports,
foundations, abutments)

Bridge design
i
,
d
R
M
0
=
c
M
Designed for actions corresponding to
35/126
Safety verification (R.C.)

- m same value used in non seismic verification
- In the plastic hinges MEd MRd
- Out of plastic hinges
Mc MRd
If Mc > MRd in the plastic hinge then Mc = MRd in the plastic hinge
Bridge design
36/126
Pier design
Plastic hinges
Acting moments derived by calculation
Other sections
moments obtained placing 0 MRd,i in

the plastic hinges
Shear with capacity design.
(hinge on top)
Bridge design
37/126
Confinement reinforcement
k 0.08
Not necessary if
Box sections or double T if it is possible to reach

a curvature c = 13 (7) with cmax 0.0035
. .
r.c. gross area

0 18 ductile behaviour
If necessary
0 12 limited ductile
rectangular
section
behaviour
Area of confined concrete
s 6 l
s 1/5 Minimum confined dim.
circular
section
s 6 l
s nucleus
Bridge design
1/3 minimum nucleus dimension

200 mm
Stirrups
Spacing
Extension of
confinement
38/126
dimension of section orthogonal to the axis of the

hinges
sections of Mmax and 0.8 Mmax
(for a further length place half of the reinforcement)

In the hinge zone all the longitudinal bars (no overlap allowed)
have to be held by a transverse bar of minimum area
fys = fyd longitudinal reinforcing
fyt = fyd transversal reinforcing
Bridge design
39/126
Bearings
Fixed bearings
max q = 1
Capacity design (0 MRd,i)
Independent verification in the two directions

Free supports
Stroke with full functionality for design

seismic action
Connections (when theres insufficient room for the stroke)

weight of connected part
Design action: 1.5 Q
(minor weight)
Overlap of displacement
l = lm + deg + dEs
ag/g
relative total
displacement
temperature
effects
= dE + 0.4 dT
d dEd
effective relative displacement of ground
(L = distance between fixed and free bearings)
dimension support
(> 400 mm)

Bridge design
40/126
Foundations
Actions
Remain in elastic field or with negligible residual

deformation in presence of the design seismic
action.
Capacity design (0 MRdx, 0 MRdy) (max q = 1)
Foundations
on piles
Plastic hinges in the connection with

footings and concrete rafts
Criteria
Confining reinforcement
Bridge design
41/126
Abutments
Criteria
Functionality with design seismic action
Free bearings (longitudinal)

- Displacement uncoupled with respect to bridge
- Own seismic forces and friction forces of bearings x 1.3
Fixed bearings (transverse and longitudinal)
- Coupled displacement
transversal dir.
seismic action evaluated with ag
longitudinal dir.
interaction with ground

in any case q = 1
Bridge design
42/126
Seismic isolation
Reduction of seismic horizontal response
Strategy
General
requirement
Increase of T0 to reduce the value of the acceleration

spectrum
Dissipation of relevant part of mechanic energy
transmitted by the earthquake
Deck, piers and abutments remain in elastic field
also for the ultimate combination
Dont apply the capacity design neither the details for ductility
Bridge design
43/126
Characteristic of isolation devices
Isolators
Re-centering of vertical loads

Dissipation capacity
Lateral restraint for non seismic actions
High vertical rigidity and
low horizontal rigidity
Auxiliary
devices
Re-centering of vertical load

Dissipation capacity
Lateral restraint for non seismic actions
Devices with non linear behavior not dependent on
deformation speed
Devices with damping behavior dependent on
deformation speed
Devices with linear or almost linear behavior
Bridge design
44/126
Elastomeric isolators
Ke = equivalent rigidity
force correspondent to d
F
Ke =
d
Characteristic
parameters
K e = Gdin
max displacement in a cycle
A
te
single layer cross section

layers thickness
e = equivalent damping
e =
Wd
2 F d
e =
Bridge design
Energy dissipated
in a complete
cycle
Wd
2 K e d2
45/126
Sliding isolators
Sliding bearings with low friction made of
steel and teflon (0 f 3%)
auxiliary devices with non linear behaviour
response F/ monotonic with decreasing
rigidity, independent from velocity
elastic stiffness K 1 =
parameters
F1
d1
post-elastic stiffness
K2 =
F2 F1
d2 d1
Bridge design
46/126
Auxiliary devices with damping behavior

Resisting force proportional to velocity (V)
(fluid viscous dampers)
- Behaviour characterized by Fmax and dd for a fixed amplitude and
frequency
- Relation F/d for a cycle of sinusoidal displacement
Fmax
(ellipse)
Bridge design
47/126
Auxiliary devices with linear or almost-linear behavior

- Defined by parameters
f
f
eff = equivalent damping
f
f
= 2
M Ke
Te
Keff = equivalent rigidity

- Iperelastic behaviour
Design criteria
- Accessibility / Inspectionability / Easy substitution / Recentering
- Protection by fire / aggressive agents
- Joints and sliding surfaces to allow displacement of the
insulators
Bridge design
48/126
Modelling
Worst combination of mechanical properties in time
System of isolation with linear or
viscoelastic linear behaviour
Deck and piers with

elastic-linear response
Vertical deformability has to be

modeled if Kv / Keff < 800
vertical
rigidity
Sum of dissipated energy of all

isolators in a full deformation cycle
at design displacement
d
c
Bridge design
equivalent horizontal
rigidity j Keff,j
j
,
d
d
c
f
f
e
j
,
d
f
f
e
- With linear model use secant

stiffness referred to the total
displacement for the L.S.
considered
49/126
Linear modeling of system of isolation

When?
- Distance of the bridge from the nearest known seismically
active fault exceeds ten kilometers
- Linear equivalent damping 30%
- Ground conditions corresponding to type A/B/C/E
If the previous requests

are not fulfilled
Non linear model able to describe

the behavior of the structure
Bridge design

Taller piers work better:
Pinerolo bridge
Bridge design
50/126
51/126
Pier
Bridge design
Ground level
360
100
200250
150
400
400
640
700
- longitudinal direction
H/LX=10/1=10.0>3.5
- transverse direction:
H/LX=10.0/4.0=2.5
qx=3.5
qy=2.5
Bridge design
52/126
The height of
the pier has
been enhanced
to 10 m by
placing the
extrados of the
foundation more
than 2 m below
the ground
level. In such a
way we get :
53/126
Pier base section
y
x
Bridge design
Pier reinforcement: base and top sections
Bridge design
54/126
55/126
Pier reinforcement: base and top sections

Pos
Shape
Pos
Shape
Bridge design
Reinforcement under bearings
section
Top view
Bridge design
56/126
57/126
Reinforcement of seismic end of strokes
section
Front view
Bridge design
Reinforcement table
Bridge design
58/126
59/126
Seismic end of stroke (on piers and abutments)

Bridge deck
M12
fasteners
Grouting
M12
fasteners
Grouting
Neoprene layer
60x40x6.9 cm
Neoprene layer
60x40x6.9 cm
Steel plate
S275 JR
Sealing
Steel plate
S275 JR
Policloroprene
(hardness Sh A605)
Policloroprene
(hardness Sh
A605)
Sealing
Abutment or pier
Bridge design
Reinforcement cage of
the pier
Bridge design
60/126
61/126
Detail of reinforcement cage at the foot of the pier
Bridge design

Hysteretic damping bearings application:
Highway in Algeria
Bridge design
62/126
63/126
General dimensions
Carriageway in direction of Oran
Segments for each half hammer
Bridge design
Construction by launching girder
Bridge design
64/126
Tallest pier 24 m
Shortest pier 6.5 m

AXE GENER ALE DE
L'AUTOR OUTE
COUPE A-A
AXE GEN ER ALE DE
L 'A UT OR OU TE
AXE D E
TRACAGE
Ech: 1/50
COUPE A-A
AXE DE
T R AC AGE
Ech: 1/50
CHAUSSEE VERS ORAN
CHAUSSEE VERS ORAN
COUPE B-B
Ech: 1/50
COUPE B-B
ORAN
AXE DE
L A PI LE
AXE DE
L A PI LE
AXE DE
LA PILE
AXE D E
LA PILE
ORAN
ALGER
Ech: 1/50
ALGER
65/126
Bridge design
66/126
Hysteretic damping bearings scheme
Longitudinal damper
Transverse damper
Long. sledge
Bridge design
Trans. sledge
inclination
67/126
Longitudinal damper
Front
view
Top
view
Bridge design

Front
view
VUE FRONTALE
68/126
Transverse damper
Assonometric
view
VUE AXONOMETRIQUE
PLAN
Top view
Longitudinal axis
of the bridge
A-A (1 : 3)
Bridge design
69/126
Finite element model non linear analysis
Bridge design
X axis = East West direction

Y axis = North South direction
Bridge design
70/126
71/126
1st Accelerograms
X direction (horizontal)
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
ag/g
0.0000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
-0.1000
-0.2000
-0.3000
-0.4000
Time [s]
Bridge design
72/126
1st Accelerograms
Y direction (horizontal)
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
ag/g
0.0000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
-0.1000
-0.2000
-0.3000
-0.4000
Time [s]
Bridge design
20.00
25.00
73/126
1st Accelerograms
Z direction (vertical)
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
ag/g
0.0000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
-0.1000
-0.2000
-0.3000
-0.4000
Time [s]
Bridge design
1st Accelerograms spectrum

Bridge design
74/126
75/126

Bridge design

Bridge design
76/126
77/126
1st Accelerograms
Displacement [m]
Longitudinal (abutment C1) damper displacements
Time [s]
Bridge design
1st Accelerograms
Force [kN]
Longitudinal (abutment C1) damper reaction
Time [s]
Bridge design
78/126
79/126
1st Accelerograms
Force [kN]
Longitudinal (abutment C1) damper reaction vs. displacement
Displacement [m]
Bridge design
1st Accelerograms
Displacement [m]
Transverse Pier P1 damper displacements
Time [s]
Bridge design
80/126
81/126
1st Accelerograms
Force [kN]
Transverse Pier P1 damper reaction
Time [s]
Bridge design
1st Accelerograms
Force [kN]
Transverse Pier P1 damper reaction vs. displacement
Displacement [m]
Bridge design
82/126
83/126
Piers dimensions and orientation of the internal actions
M3
M2
Bridge design
Pier P1 design internal actions Seismic combination
Vertical coordinate along the pier [m]
Maximum F1 (axial force)
Internal action F1=N[kN] M2,M3 [kNm]

Bridge design
84/126
85/126
Maximum M2 (transverse bending moment)

Bridge design
Maximum M3 (longitudinal bending moment)

Bridge design
86/126
87/126
Minimum F1 (axial force)

Bridge design
Minimum M2 (transverse bending moment)

Bridge design
88/126
89/126
Minimum M3 (longitudinal bending moment)

Bridge design
Pier P1 (25m tall) reinforcement (base section)
Bridge design
90/126
Pier P1 reinforcement table
Pos
Shape
91/126
Total weight
37019 kg
Bridge design

Lead-rubber bearings application:
Highway in Sicily
Bridge design
92/126
93/126
General dimensions
2 decks made of three 90m spans each with 53m tall piers
Bridge design
Two solutions:
94/126
Hysteretic Damping Bearings (HDB)
Type 1
Type 2
Type 2
Type 1
Type 1
Type 2
Type 2
Type 1
Transverse HDB
Longitudinal HDB
Two direction free bearing
Lead rubber bearings (LRB)
Lead rubber bearing LRB

Two direction free bearing
Bridge design
95/126
Hysteretic damping Bearings

Front
view
fy [kN]
fu [kN]
y [mm]
u [mm]
K1 [kN/m]
K2 [kN/m]
Type1
1750
2012.5
10
150
175000
1875
Type2
1950
2242.5
10
150
195000
2089.286
Type3
7250
8337.5
10
150
725000
7767.857
Top
view
Bridge design
Lead rubber bearings
Bridge design
96/126
97/126
x
Bridge design
1st Accelerograms
ag/g
Time [s]
Bridge design
98/126
99/126
1st Accelerograms
ag/g
Time [s]
Bridge design
1st Accelerograms
ag/g
Time [s]
Bridge design
100/126
101/126

Bridge design

Bridge design
102/126
103/126

Bridge design
1st Accelerograms Lead Rubber Bearings
Displacement [m]
Pier P2 longitudinal damper displacements
Time [s]
Bridge design
104/126
105/126
Force [kN]
Pier P2 longitudinal damper reaction
Time [s]
Bridge design
Force [kN]
Pier P2 longitudinal damper reaction vs. displacement
Displacement [m]
Bridge design
106/126
107/126
Displacement [m]
Pier P2 transverse damper displacements
Time [s]
Bridge design
Force [kN]
Pier P2 transverse damper reaction
Time [s]
Bridge design
108/126
109/126
Force [kN]
Pier P2 transverse damper reaction vs. displacement
Displacement [m]
Bridge design
110/126
1st Accelerograms Hysteretic Damper Bearings
Displacement [m]
Pier P2 transverse damper displacements
Time [s]
Bridge design
111/126
Force [kN]
Pier P2 transverse damper reaction
Time [s]
Bridge design
112/126
Force [kN]
Pier P2 transverse damper reaction vs. displacement
Displacement [m]
Bridge design
113/126
F1max M2max M3max
F1 = axial force
M2 = transverse bending moment
M3 = longitudinal bending moment

Bridge design
114/126
F1min M2min M3min
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
115/126
F1max M2max M3min
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
116/126
F1max M2min M3max
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
117/126
F1max M2min M3min
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
118/126
F1min M2max M3max
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
119/126
F1min M2max M3min
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
120/126
F1min M2min M3max
F1 = axial force

Bridge design
121/126
Pier P1 (53m tall)

reinforcement
Upper half
(front view and
vertical section)
Bridge design
Pier P1 (53m tall)

reinforcement
(section B-B)
Bridge design
122/126
123/126
Pier P1 (53m tall)

reinforcement
Lower half
(front view and
vertical section)
Bridge design
Pier P1 (53m tall) reinforcement

Base (front view and vertical section)
Bridge design
124/126
125/126
Pier P1 (53m tall)

reinforcement
(section A-A)
Bridge design
Pier P1 (53m tall)

reinforcement table
Pos
Shape
Bridge design
126/126

Les - 16 - Seismic Design of Bridges

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Les - 16 - Seismic Design of Bridges

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Seismic design of bridges

Seismic design of bridges

SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

Seismic design of bridges

Negligible structural damages

Not urgent restoration

Seismic design of bridges

At SLU stable dissipative mechanism (only pier)

Cinematism to avoid hammering and fall from bearings

Seismic design of bridges

Applied to design seismic action (SLU

Seismic design of bridges

Seismic design of bridges

Seismic design of bridges

Average velocity of propagation of

Seismic design of bridges

(S1) Deposits with at least 10 m of clays/silts

Seismic design of bridges

aG = P.G.A. on ground (A)

Spectrum of elastic response

Seismic design of bridges

Spectrum of elastic response

Seismic design of bridges

Spectrum of elastic response of horizontal components

Seismic design of bridges

Horizontal seismic action

= viscous damping ratio

Seismic design of bridges

Vertical seismic action

Seismic design of bridges

Design spectrum for S.L.U.

NB: in any case Sd(T) 0,2 ag

Seismic design of bridges

No resources for dissipation

Seismic design of bridges

Design spectrum for S.L.D.

Seismic design of bridges

Design with accelerograms

Seismic design of bridges

- Duration of pseudo-stationary region 10 sec

Seismic design of bridges

Seismic action components and combination

Alternatively the more

Seismic design of bridges

simultaneous application of 3 components

Seismic combination with other actions

Resistance and ductility

Seismic design of bridges

Seismic design of bridges

Above q factors are valid for bridges with regular geometry

Seismic design of bridges

Bridges with regular geometry

Acting moment on pier bottom

Arch bridges / Trestle / Cable stayed / Very skew ( 1520) /

Seismic design of bridges

Modeling for linear analysis

= 1.2 coefficient for un-cracked regions

Seismic design of bridges

modal analysis with response spectrum

Seismic design of bridges

Modal analysis with response spectrum

- combination of modal response