MNL-133-97 Chapter 15

CHAPTER 15
PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL
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
CHAPTER 15
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
6/22/04 9:53:26 AM
CHAPTER 15
NOTATION
SEISMIC DESIGN
A
A
Ac
Ag
Ah
Ai
Ajv
Aps
ARS
As
Asc
Avi
bb
bje
Cb
Cc
Cs(long)
Cs(tr)
D
D
Di
Ecc
Ecs
Es
F
Fi
f c
f oyc
fh
fv
fy
fyh
fyv
g
H
hb
hc
IC
= total section area

= seismic acceleration coefficient
= area of pile core measured to the outside of the transverse spiral reinforcement
= gross area of pile
= area of hoop reinforcement
= area of a segment in a bent cap section
= vertical reinforcement to be placed over a distance of hb/2 from the
column face
= area of prestressing steel
= acceleration response spectrum
= area of reinforcing steel passing through shear plane including
prestressing steel
= total area of longitudinal reinforcement in column section
= interior vertical joint stirrup area
= bent cap width parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bridge
= effective width of bent cap
= compression force
= column compression force
= elastic seismic response coefficient in the longitudinal direction
= elastic seismic response coefficient in the transverse direction
= column diameter
= core diameter of spirally confined column
= force in diagonal compression strut within the superstructure/
substructure joint where i = 1 through 3
= modulus of elasticity of deck and column concrete
= modulus of elasticity of concrete in the beam and bent cap
= modulus of elasticity of nonprestressed reinforcement
= bent cap prestressing force after all losses
= force in each quadrant
= specified compressive strength of concrete
= over-strength stress of column reinforcement including strain hardening
= average horizontal stress (due to prestress) in the horizontal direction
= average joint axial stress in the vertical direction
= specified yield strength of non-prestressed reinforcement
= yield strength of hoop or spiral reinforcement
= yield strength of joint vertical reinforcement
= gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/sec/sec)
= average column height in frame
= cap beam section depth
= column length from top of footing to center of gravity of the superstructure
= importance classification
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:27 AM
CHAPTER 15
NOTATION
SEISMIC DESIGN
Ic
Is
K
Kc
L
L
la
M
Mobot
Moi,bentcap
ML
MT
Motop
N
n
P
PDL,BOT
PDL,TOP
Pe
pt
q
R
Rcol
RSA
S
S
SPC
sreqd
T
Tc
Tc
T(long)
T(tr)
Vc
Voi,column
Vjh
vjh
VL
VT
VT(Abutment)
= moment of inertia of column

= moment of inertia of superstructure cross-section about vertical axis
through centroid
= equivalent transverse stiffness
= column shear stiffness
= span length
= length of longitudinal frame between expansion joints
= assumed length of column anchorage reinforcement in joint
= total contributory mass of superstructure and column
= column over-strength moment capacity at column bottom
= moment at middepth of bent cap
= longitudinal moment
= transverse moment
= column over-strength moment capacity at column top
= minimum abutment support length
= modular ratio
= axial force
= axial force due to dead load at bottom of column
= axial force due to dead load at top of column
= axial compression load on the pile
= principal tensile stress
= uniformly distributed load
= response modification factor
= column seismic shear force
= response spectrum analysis
= angle of skew (degrees) measured from a line normal to the span
= site coefficient
= seismic performance category
= required spacing of hoop reinforcement
= external torsion
= partial tension force in column
= partial tension force in column
= period of structure in the longitudinal direction
= period of structure in the transverse direction
= column shear force
= horizontal shear force at top of column
= horizontal joint shear force
= nominal horizontal shear stress in the joint
= longitudinal shear force
= transverse shear force
= abutment transverse shear force
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:27 AM
CHAPTER 15
NOTATION
SEISMIC DESIGN
VV
W
xi, yi
Yb
Z
1
2
s
s,min
= vertical shear force

= total contributory weight of superstructure and column
= distances defining location of quadrant force, Fi
= distance to centroid of superstructure cross-section from extreme
bottom fiber
= force reduction factor
= longitudinal or transverse superstructure displacement at intermediate support(s)
= coefficient of friction over the interface
= ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of concrete
core (out-to-out of spiral)
= minimum required value of s
= shear friction stress
f c
f c
Tc
Yb
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:27 AM
6/22/04 9:53:27 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.1
INTRODUCTION
15.1.1
Seismic Activity
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 affecting 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
region and seismologists indicate the potential for another damaging earthquake.
Other notable sources of earthquakes include the New Madrid Seismic Zone, the
Central Virginia Seismic Zone; the Giles County, Virginia, Seismic Zone; and the
Eastern Tennessee (or Southern Appalachian) Seismic Zone. Low seismic wave
attenuation in the Eastern United States has the potential to cause significant shaking over broad areas, sometimes covering several states. The 1811-1812 New Madrid
earthquakes, for example, caused seismic shaking of Intensity VI on the Modified
Mercalli Intensity scale as far away as South Carolina. Figure 15.1.1-1, from the
Standard Specifications, shows contours of current estimates of peak ground accelerations, expressed in terms of the gravitational acceleration coefficient, g. The accelerations shown have a 10% probability of being exceeded in a 50-year period.
15.1.2
Seismic Design Criteria
15.1.2.1
Background
The first United States highway bridge design standard was published in 1931 by
American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), predecessor to the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Neither the first edition nor subsequent editions of the standard published prior
to 1941 addressed seismic design. The editions published in the 1940s mentioned
seismic loading only to the extent that bridge structures must be proportioned for
earthquake stresses.
The California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has been at the forefront in the development of specific seismic criteria for bridges. The first general
requirements for seismic design of bridges were formulated in 1940. Specific force
level recommendations for earthquake design were established in 1943.
The collapse of several California freeway structures during the 1971 San Fernando
earthquake was a major turning point in the development of seismic design criteria
for bridges in the United States. Prior to 1971, AASHTO and Caltrans specifications
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:28 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
Figure 15.1.1-1
Acceleration Coefficient, A, for the United States (gs)
15.1.2.1 Background
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:32 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 relationship 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 specifications 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 project 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
Performance Objectives
Acceptable seismic performance criteria for bridge structures must satisfy both safety
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
Standard Specifications
AASHTO adopted the ATC-6 recommendations as a guide specification in 1983, a

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 appropriate. 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
6/22/04 9:53:32 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 Specifications
Caltrans bridge engineering practice generally embraced deterministic ground

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
LRFD Specifications
The AASHTO LRFD Specifications incorporates many of the seismic provisions of

the 1992 Standard Specifications, but has updated them in light of new research developments. 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
Effect of Local Geology
and Soil Conditions
As more is learned about the effect of soil-structure interaction (SSI), new guidelines and
procedures continue to be developed to enhance the accuracy of predictions of the bridge
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-specific 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
6/22/04 9:53:33 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 Bridges
Spliced precast concrete beam techniques have received interest in recent years as evidenced by the amount of research in this area and the number of spliced-beam bridges 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 150to 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 precast concrete beam system that can be used in areas of high seismicity.
15.2.2
Current Practice
Seismic design practices and requirements vary from region to region, depending
on the level of anticipated seismic activity. For example, integral superstructure-tosubstructure 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 bearing 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 supported 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 longitudinal 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
6/22/04 9:53:33 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.2 Current Practice/15.2.3 Seismic Response Characteristics of Precast Concrete Bridge Systems
Figure 15.2.2-1
Single- versus DoubleCurvature Column
Force
Fixed
Fixed
Shape
Moment diagram
Shape
Moment diagram
Integral Bent System - Double Curvature

Force
Pinned
Fixed
Precast Beam (Non-Integral) System - Single Curvature
15.2.3
Seismic Response
Characteristics of Precast
Concrete Bridge Systems
The lack of monolithic action between the superstructure and bent cap in precast, prestressed
concrete beam systems causes the column tops to act as a pinned connection. Consequently,
while the transverse stability of multi-column bents is ensured by frame action in that direction, 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 introduce 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-curvature 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
6/22/04 9:53:33 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Moment Distribution
along the Superstructure of a
Longitudinal Frame Unit
140'
160'
Field splice
160'
30'
Reaction
from
adjacent
frame
Support at
expansion joint
or abutment
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 timedependent and construction staging effects, which are not included in Figure 15.2.3-1.
15.2.4
Integral Precast Concrete
Beam System
Recently, a precast concrete girder system was developed, tested and introduced in
California to address the requirements of superstructure and substructure continuity, aesthetics 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
6/22/04 9:53:34 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.4.1 Precast Concrete Pier Segment/15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment

15.2.4.1
Precast Concrete
Pier Segment
The precast concrete pier segment as shown in Figure 15.2.4.1-1. It is a variable

length section comprised of a prismatic bulb-tee beam continuous over the columns.
The length is variable in order to locate the splice at the approximate point of inflection for a given span arrangement. Subject to weight limitations, the web in the central 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
in girders
(full length)
40'-0" Standard length

Post-tensioning
in bent cap
A
Temporary shoring to support

girders and formwork
for bent cap
CIP closure joint

Temporary tie down or shoring
A
Elevation
Erection
bracket
Post-tensioning
in bent cap
Section A-A
Splice posttension ducts
Rebar splice
connectors
CIP Closure Joint
15.2.4.2
Cast-in-Place
Concrete Bent Cap
This portion of the system provides for the connection of the precast pier segment
to the column as shown in Figure 15.2.4.2-1. The pier diaphragm is formed and
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 monolithic 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
Drop-In Precast
Concrete Segment
This drop-in section traverses the positive moment region of a span and utilizes
a standard bulb-tee shape. It is pretensioned for lifting and handling stresses and
contains ducts for the two-stage post-tensioning of the continuous beam and comJUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:35 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
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
and Cross-Section of
Drop-In Segment
Typical drop-in segment

Stage 2 P-T
A
CIP splice (typ.)
Pier segment
Stage 1 P-T
Longitudinal Section
Sym. about CL
P-T ducts
Section A-A
Pretensioning
strands
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:36 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 critical interest in regions where bridge construction occurs in urban areas with minimal
vertical clearances. The proposed construction sequence using the system for a twospan bridge is illustrated in Figure 15.2.4.3-2. Additional details for spliced beams
are found in Chapter 11.
Figure 15.2.4.3-2
Construction Sequence for Bulb-Tee Bridge
Stage 1 (day 1): Pretension strands and cast girder concrete

Stage 2 ( day 2): Detension strands
Stage 3 (days 19 thru 28): Erect segments on temporary suppports
Stage 4 (days 29 thru 38): Form and cast bent cap
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): Complete bridge
15.2.5
Seismic Details
15.2.5.1
Superstructure-to-Bent
Cap Connection
The goal of a seismic connection at this location is to transfer the plastic moment
demands at the top of the column into the superstructure without yielding either
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
6/22/04 9:53:38 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Ductility of Precast
Concrete Piles
Piles in soft soils supporting bridge structures may be subjected to large horizontal
displacements due to design earthquakes. These deformations produce significant
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 recommendations 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 spiral 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
1 c
s = 0.45
Ac
f yh
[STD Div. I-A, Eq. 6-4]
or,
f
s = 0.12 c
f yh
whichever is greater
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:39 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 reinforcement 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 confinement 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 displacements; 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
Pile-to-Cap Connections
The strength and ductility of the connection between precast, prestressed concrete
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 roughened to provide shear transfer.
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:40 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.2.5.3 Pile-to-Cap Connections
Figure 15.2.5.3-1
Alternative Pile-to-Pile
Cap Connections
2'-0"
Spiral
0.6"-dia. prestressed
strands @ equal
spacing
43/4"
45
clr
Section A-A
CIP cap
CIP cap
3"
CIP cap
#9 (total of 8)
2 1/4"- dia. corrugated
metal tubing
Strands
Precast, prestressed
concrete pile
Strands
Case 1 - Pile Embedment

in Cap
Break pile concrete

to expose
A
P-S strands
Precast, prestressed
concrete pile
Dowels in
corrugated
tubing
Case 2 - Break Pile Cover

Concrete and Embed
Exposed P-S Strands
A
Precast,
prestressed
concrete pile
Case 3 - Dowel Bars

Embedded in Cap
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.
The tests indicated that spiral steel, similar to that provided in the potential plastic hinge
regions should be provided within the region of the pile that is embedded in the pile cap,
especially in the broken-back pile head type connection (Case 2) described above. The spiral steel improves the bond of the strands and assists in the transfer of the lateral forces to
the surrounding concrete in the cap. The tests showed that the non-prestressed reinforcement was not essential to the satisfactory ductile performance of the pile but did permit a
greater dissipation of seismic energy by the pile.
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:41 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Typical Monolithic and
Independent Pile Buildup
Details
#5
Ea. side
pile head (4 total)
Bottom of pier cap or
abutment footing
Pour monolithic with deck
Roughen top of pile
surface to 1/4" amplitude
Corrugated
metal tubes
#9 (total of 8)
2"
min.
6"
max.
#5 @ 3 in.
hook ends
4"
min.
Driven prestressed
concrete pile
6'-0" max.
pile build-up
clr.
11/2"
#9 (total of 8)
Top of
driven
pile
clr.
11/2"
24'-0" max.
5" @ Piers
3" @ Abutments
Monolithic Pile Build-Up Detail

For Pile Driven Up to 6" Below
Cut-Off Elevation
Cut-off line
Bottom of pier cap or
abutment footing
W20 @ 21/2" pitch
Roughen top of
pile surface
to 1/4" amplitude
Prestressing strands
Independent Pile Build-Up Detail
15.2.6
Isolation Methods
Seismic isolation is gaining increased acceptance in the United States both as a means of
enhancing the seismic performance of existing structures and as a way of reducing the seismic force demand on substructures for new bridges. Seismic isolators decouple the superstructure from the substructure, which is the opposite strategy to the integral superstructure-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
6/22/04 9:53:42 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 substructure. 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 proprietary seismic isolation bearing systems are available in the United States.
Figure 15.2.6-1
Force-Displacement
Characteristics of Bilinear
Isolation Bearings
Force
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 provide 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
6/22/04 9:53:43 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Analysis Methods
There are two general approaches to evaluate the seismic response of a bridge. The first
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
Conventional Force Method
In this method, the bridge analysis is performed and the forces on its various components
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 component 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
Classifications and Analysis
Requirements
Importance Classification (IC)
Seismic
Acceleration
Coefficient
IC = I
(Essential Bridges)
IC = II
(Other Bridges)
Aa
SPCb
Minimum Analysis
Requirements
SPCb
Minimum Analysis
Requirements
A 0.09
Not Required
Not Required
0.09 < A 0.19
0.19 < A 0.29
0.29 < A
Regular
Not regular
bridges with bridges with
2 through 6 2 or more
spans:c
spans:c
Use
Use
Procedure Procedure
3d
1 or 2d
Regular
Not regular
bridges with bridges with
2 through 6 2 or more
spans:c
spans:c
Use
Use
Procedure
Procedure
3d
1 or 2d
C
C
Acceleration Coefficient, A, is defined in STD Div. I-A, Art 3.2

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
b
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:43 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.3.1.1 Conventional Force Method
Figure 15.3.1.1-1
Basic Steps in AASHTO
Division I-A Seismic Design
START
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
Seismic
Performance
Category D?
Yes
Design Foundations
Design Approach Slabs

STD Div. I-A, Art. 7.4.5
No
Revise Structure
No
Are
Components
Adequate?
Yes
Seismic Design Complete

Prepare Seismic Details
END
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:44 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.3.1.2 Displacement Ductility Method/15.3.2 Computer Modeling

15.3.1.2
Displacement Ductility
Method
In the second approach, a more rational form of ductility assessment is sought by taking the effect of sequential yielding into account when evaluating capacity. Capacity
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
Computer Modeling
In most cases, the solutions to the equations of motion to determine demand forces
and displacements are based on a linear elastic multi-mode Response Spectrum
Analysis (RSA). This type of analysis is considered acceptable for basic regular structures. 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 structure. 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 abutment 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
6/22/04 9:53:44 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.3.2 Computer Modeling/15.3.3.2 Preliminary Design Recommendations
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 counterproductive and create misleading results. This is particularly true in cases where
an attempt is made to use non-linear time-history analysis without the proper model
parameters.
15.3.3
Seismic Design Issues
As more is learned about earthquake mechanics and its effects on structures, the
demand for improved seismic performance of bridges has been increasing. The general trend is toward an increase in seismic design requirements and an emphasis on
the mechanics of resistance.
15.3.3.1
Causes of Failures
Based on experience learned from major earthquakes, bridge failures during an earthquake may be attributed to one or more of the following causes:
1. Unseating of the superstructure at abutments, hinges or expansion joints due to
insufficient support width.
2. Inadequate or poor distribution of lap splices of vertical column steel.
3. Column failure due to longitudinal bar buckling from inadequate lateral reinforcement.
4. Column failure due to horizontal shear forces and inadequate lateral reinforcement.
5. Joint shear failure at critical superstructure-substructure connections.
6. Columns punching through the superstructure due to large vertical acceleration
or inadequate connection details.
7. Footing failure due to lack of a top layer of reinforcement.
A systems approach to seismic design of bridges must be used because of the large
movements usually associated with earthquakes. The ability of the bridge to withstand such movements depends not only on the primary system displacement capacity but also depends on the displacement compatibility of individual components.
The movements of components must be assessed in relation to other components
and to the overall bridge system. By providing the necessary displacement capacities,
the potential for both local and global failures will be minimized.
15.3.3.2
Preliminary Design
Recommendations
Several recommendations can be made regarding the preliminary design stages. These guidelines can help avoid problems during final design and enhance seismic performance.
1. Avoid span arrangements that induce large dead load moments in the columns,
thereby reducing column capacity to resist seismic moments.
2. Use continuous frames.
3. Avoid highly irregular or suddenly changing stiffnesses of members to prevent
concentration of load demands on a particular bent or frame. This will also
minimize the tendency of the bridge to undergo in-plane rotation.
4. Do not allow plastic hinges to form in the superstructure.
5. Consider a depth of flexibility for piers below the actual ground level.
6. Assume the footings to be fixed except where soft soil conditions exist. In those
cases, foundation flexibility should be considered when evaluating the demand.
7. Avoid skews at the abutments and hinges that are greater than 30 from the
normal to the centerline of the bridge.
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:53:44 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
6/22/04 9:53:45 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Introduction
This design example is of a bridge with two 140-ft-long spans supported by abutments 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-tensioning 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.
Figure 15.4.1-1
Bridge Elevation and Typical Sections
C
L
Bearing
C
L
Pier
140'-0"
C
L
Bearing
140'-0"
7'-0"
Field splice, typ.

Abutment
End diaphragm
Abutment
Elevation
Shear key,
typ.
42'-6"
Bearing pad
Bottom of end
diaphragm
A
Abutment Elevation
26'-0"
6'-81/2"
5'-0"
typ.
3 Spaces @ 10'-10"
Bulb-tee beam
6'-0" diameter column
Shear key
Typical Section
Bearing pad
Section A-A
It should be noted that superstructure-to-substructure continuity is not a requirement 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
7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.4.indd 1
6/22/04 9:57:39 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 classification (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 example, 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
Response Modification Factors
[STD Div. I-A, Table 3.7]
15.4.1.1
Bridge Geometry
15.4.1.2
Level of Precision
15.4.2
Material Properties
Component
R Value
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
For design, the bridge has the following dimensions:

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
The calculations in the design example are made using a minimum of three significant
figures.
Beam concrete strength = 6,000 psi
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
6/22/04 9:57:40 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Seismic Analysis in
Transverse Direction
Figure 15.4.3-1
Assumed Transverse
Response According to the
Uniform Load Method
Procedure 1 (Uniform Load Method) may be used because the SPC of the bridge is B.
According to this method, the seismic load is approximated as a uniform static load applied
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 uniform seismic load as a continuous beam supported on a flexible column.
q
L
15.4.3.1
Section Properties
15.4.3.1.1
Beam Properties
Area of cross-section of precast beam = 7.39 ft2

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
6/22/04 9:57:43 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.3.1.2 Composite Section Properties/15.4.3.2 Tributary Dead Load
As a first step, the moment of inertia, Is, of the bridge cross-section about the vertical 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
Geometric Properties
Effective width = 42.5 n = (42.5) (0.816) = 34.68'
1.84'
0.5"
6.38'
X
Yb = 4.54'
C.G.
Girder
1.44'
4'-0"
(typ.)
8"
Deck slab:
A = 23.12 ft2
I = 0.86 ft4
f'c = 4,000 psi
3.10'
15.4.3.1.2
Composite Section Properties
C. G. of
composite
section
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
Is =
12
(0.667 )(34.68) 3
+ 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
Column Properties
15.4.3.2
Tributary Dead Load
The moment of inertia of the uncracked circular column is:

D 4 (6)
Ic =
= 63.62 ft4
=
64
64
4
The total dead load to be included in the seismic analysis is equal to the sum of the
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
6/22/04 9:57:46 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
Equivalent Transverse
Stiffness
In the transverse response mode, the superstructure is assumed to provide negligible

restraint against column-top rotations. Hence, the column is assumed to undergo
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
Column Reaction Due to a
Uniform Transverse Load
q = 1.0 kip/ft
1
a) Applied Transverse Unit Load
2
R col
b) Applied Restoring Force
From Column
q = 1.0 kip/ft
R col
c) Combined Effect
1 =
5q(2L) 4
384E csI s
(Eq. 15.4.3.3-1)
where
1 = lateral displacement from a uniformly distributed load of q
q = uniformly distributed load
L = length of one span
2 =
R col ( 2L )
48E csI s
(Eq. 15.4.3.3-2)
where
2 = lateral displacement caused by a column force of Rcol
Rcol = column force
= 1 2
(Eq. 15.4.3.3-3)
where = net displacement

R col = K c =
3E cc Ic
h 3c
(Eq. 15.4.3.3-4)
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
384E csI s
48E csI s
(Eq. 15.4.3.3-5)
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:57:50 AM
CHAPTER 15
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
384E csI s
384E csI s 48h 3c E csI s
48h 3c E csI s
(Eq. 15.4.3.3-6)
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 =
15.4.3.4
Period of Structure in the
T(tr) = 2
(1.0)(2)(140) = 20, 440 kip/ft 20,500 kip/ft

0.0137
M
W
3, 700
= 0.470 seconds
= 2
= 2
K
gK
32.2(20,500)
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
15.4.3.5
Elastic Seismic
Response Coefficient
Cs(tr) =
1.2AS
2.5A
2/ 3
T(tr)
where Cs(tr) = elastic seismic response coefficient in the transverse direction

Substituting:
Cs(tr) =
(1.2)(0.15)(1.2)
= 0.357 2.5A = ( 2.5)(0.15) = 0.375
(0.470) 2/ 3
Therefore, Cs(tr) = 0.357

15.4.3.6
Column Forces in the
W
3, 700
Equivalent uniform static load = Cs(tr) = 0.357
= 4.72 kip/ft
2L
2(140)
= (4.72)(0.0137) = 0.0647 ft
Rcol =
3E ccI c (3)(3.303 x 10 7 )(0.0647 )

= 225 kips
=
(30.54) 3
h 3c
Column seismic moment at bottom of column: (225)(30.54) = 6,872 ft-kips
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:57:56 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.4 Seismic Analysis in Longitudinal Direction/15.4.4.3 Elastic Seismic Response Coefficient
15.4.4
Seismic Analysis in
Longitudinal Direction
The Uniform Load Method may also be used to calculate the longitudinal seismic
forces on the structure. The superstructure is assumed to displace as a rigid unit as the
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
Equivalent Longitudinal
Stiffness
The assumption of a rigid superstructure implies that the top of the column is restrained
against rotation. Therefore, the column undergoes double-curvature bending, as opposed
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.
Column shear stiffness =
12E ccI c 12(3.303 x10 7 )

=
= 22,550 kip/ft
( 26) 3
H3
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 stiffness. In this example, the total longitudinal displacement is small (0.75 in.), and thus
the abutment contribution to stiffness is ignored.
15.4.4.2
Period of Structure in the
T(long) = 2
15.4.4.3
Elastic Seismic Response
Coefficient
Cs(long) =
M
W
3,700
= 0.449 seconds
= 2
= 2
K
gK
32.2(22,550)
where T(long) = period of structure in the longitudinal direction

1.2AS
2.5A
T(2/3
long )
[STD Div. I-A, Eq. 3.1]
where Cs(long) = elastic seismic response coefficient in the longitudinal direction

Cs(long) =
(1.2)(0.15)(1.2)
= 0.368 < 2.5A = 0.375
(0.449)2/3
Therefore, Cs(long) = 0.368
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:57:59 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.4.4 Column Forces in the Longitudinal Direction/15.4.6 Abutment Design Forces

15.4.4.4
Column Forces in the
15.4.5
Combination of
Orthogonal Forces
Table 15.4.5-1
Summary of Column Forces
Column shear = (0.368)(3,700) = 1,362 kips

Column moment = (1,362)(26/2) = 17,706 ft-kips
A summary of the moments and shear forces are shown in Table 15.4.5-1.
Earthquake
Direction
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
Moment
Shear
ft-kips
kips
6,872
0
225
0
Seismic combination 1:
100% longitudinal force + 30% transverse force
Longitudinal
Moment
Shear
ft-kips
kips
0
17,706
0
1,362
[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
Abutment Design Forces
Reinforced concrete shear keys, such as those shown in Figure 15.4.1-1, will resist
seismic transverse forces at the abutments. From statics, the total abutment reactions are equal to the equivalent uniform static load minus the column reaction (See
Figure 15.4.6-1):
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:57:59 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.6 Abutment Design Forces/15.4.7 Minimum Abutment Seat Width
Figure 15.4.6-1
Transverse Shear at the
Abutments
q = 4.72 kip/ft
VT(Abutment)
Is
225 kips
V
T(Abutment)
Plan
Abutment transverse shear force, VT(Abutment):

(4.72)(2)(140) 225 = 548 kips
VT(Abutment) =
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.
15.4.7
Minimum Abutment
Seat Width
[STD Art. 8.15.5.4]
[STD Div. I-A, Art. 6.3.1]

The minimum support length N (in.), shown in Figure 15.4.7-1, is calculated by
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 displacement 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
6/22/04 9:58:00 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.4.7 Minimum Abutment Seat Width
Figure 15.4.7-1
Minimum Abutment
Seat Width
L = Distance to next expansion joint

or end of bridge deck
[STD Div. I-A, Art. 6.3.1]
Abutment
backwall
Abutment seat
JUN 04
6/22/04 9:58:01 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5 Seismic Design Exampleintegral Bent Cap/15.5.1.3 Material Properties
15.5
SEISMIC DESIGN
EXAMPLEINTEGRAL
BENT CAP
15.5.1
Introduction
This design example illustrates the procedure for integral bent cap design in spliced
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 Geometry
Figure 15.5.1.1-1
Column Cross-Section
Bent cap width = 84 in.

Bent cap depth, hb = 87 in.
Column cross-section: Circular with a 6.00-ft diameter, see Figure 15.5.1.1-1
72 in.
#11(30 total)
#6 @ 4" pitch
Section
15.5.1.2
Reinforcement
15.5.1.3
Material Properties
Column reinforcement: Longitudinal: 30 #11 bars

Transverse: #6 spirals @ 4-in. pitch
Bent cap post-tensioning: Six 19x0.6-in.-dia strand tendons
Cast-in-place concrete strength, f c = 4 ksi
Reinforcing steel yield strength, fy = 60 ksi
Modulus of elasticity of tendons, Es = 29,000 ksi
JUN 04
7602 PCI Bridge Manual 15.5-7.indd 1
6/22/04 10:02:26 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5.1.4 Forces/15.5.3 Principal Stresses in the Bent Cap

15.5.1.4
Forces
Axial load: Top of column, PDL,TOP = 2,225 kips

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
Precision
The calculations in the design example are made using a minimum of three significant
figures.
15.5.2
Design Procedure
The design procedure involves the following steps:

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
Principal Stresses
in the Bent Cap
Horizontal joint shear force, Vjh, is given by:

Vjh =
M otop
hb
14,115 x 12
= 1,947 kips
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
Bridge axis
Web
Cap beam
D
bje
bb
bje = 2D
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:27 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5.3 Principal Stresses in the Bent Cap
bje = 2 D ( for circular sections ) bb

where
D = column diameter
bb = bent cap width parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bridge
bje = 1.414(72) = 101.8 in. > bb = 84 in. Therefore, use bb = 84 in.
Nominal horizontal shear stress in the joint, vjh:
Vjh
1,947
vjh =
=
= 0.322 ksi
bbD (84)(72)
Calculate average joint axial stress, fv, in the vertical direction at middepth of the
bent cap:
fv =
PDL,TOP
2,225
=
= 0.167 ksi
bb (D + h b ) (84)(72 + 87)
The average joint axial stress in the horizontal direction, fh = 0 (I-beam superstructure, no
significant axial stress transferred to bent cap at middepth of bent cap)
The principal tensile stress, pt, in the bent cap/column connection is given by:
pt =
fy + fh
2
f fh
2
v
+ v jh
2
2
(0.167) + (0)
0.167 0
2
=

+ (0.322) = 0.249 ksi
2
2
0.249 ksi = 249 psi = 3.94 f c = 3.94 4,000 > 3.5 f c psi
According to Priestley, et al (1996):
If the principal tension stress 3.5 f c psi, only nominal joint reinforcement is
required.
If the principal tension stress > 5 f c psi, all requirements for joint reinforcement must
be met in accordance with a force-transfer mechanism.
If the principal tension stress is > 3.5 f c psi and 5 f c psi, linear interpolation
between full and nominal requirements for joint reinforcement must be met.
The principal tension stress is between 3.5 f c psi and 5 f c psi, so a linear interpolation between full and nominal joint reinforcement requirement would need
to be provided. However, for the purpose of this design example, the cap will be
designed for the full joint shear requirement.
JUN 04
7/2/04 12:28:37 PM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.5.4
Joint Reinforcement Design
The joint design is in accordance with the procedure described in Priestley, et al

(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
Cb
D1
D2
Joint shear
stirrups
D3
Vc
Column
Cc
Tc'
Integral bent cap

Tc
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
6/22/04 10:02:36 AM
CHAPTER 15
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:
A vi = 0.0625A sc
f oyc
f yv
1.4 fyv
= (0.0625) (46.8)
= 4.10 in.2
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
Locations for Vertical
Joint Reinforcement
Bridge axis
A vi = 0.5Ajv within core
A j v in each area,
and
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
6/22/04 10:02:37 AM
CHAPTER 15
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:
o
3.3 0.09A sc f yc D
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:
s =
=
0.3A sc f oyc
l 2a f yh
(0.3)(46.8)(1.4f yh )
(80) 2 f yh
= 0.00307
However, minimum horizontal hoop reinforcement, s,min, must be provided according

to the following:
s,min =
3.5 f c (3.5) 4000

=
= 0.00369 > 0.00307
f yh
60,000
Use s = 0.00369
sreqd =
4A h
(4)(0.44)
=
= 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
Shear-Friction Analysis
In the absence of the bottom slab in spliced I-beam bridges, column moments and shears
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 torsion design methodologies that are primarily based on this cracking pattern are not applicable. Instead, the torsional capacity is calculated using a plastic friction model as illustrated
in Figure 15.5.5-1.
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:41 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
Figure 15.5.5-1
Torsional Shear-Friction
Mechanism
VL
VV
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, conceptually, into four unequal segments of areas, A1 to A4, as shown in Figure 15.5.5-2.
Figure 15.5.5-2
Conceptual Force Diagram For
Resisting Torque In Bent Cap
bb
x1
x3
F2
y2
A2
VV
hb
VL
y4
F3
T
F1
A1
F4
A4
A3
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
6/22/04 10:02:41 AM
CHAPTER 15
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 segments 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 prestressing 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)
o
Horizontal shear force at top of column, V i,column
=
Mobot + Motop
H
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:43 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
14,340 + 14,115
o
Vi,column
=
= 1,105 kips
25.75
hb
o
Moment at middepth of bent cap, Moi,bentcap = Motop + V i,column

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:
Torsion:
Moi,bentcap (1.1)
2
Longitudinal shear:
Vertical Shear:
(18,120)(1.1) = 9,966 ft-kips
o
V i,column
PDL,TOP
=
2
2
(1.1)
(1,105)(1.1) = 608 kips
2
(2, 225)(1.1)
2
= 1,224 kips
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 Figure
15.5.5-3.
Table 15.5.5-1
Torsional Shear-Friction
Computations
Given
Bent Cap Depth = 7.25 ft
Bent Cap Width = 7.00 ft
Axial Force = 4,553 kips
Friction Coefficient = 1.4
= 125.6 kips/ft2
Segment
Assumed
X-Coordinate = 4.90 ft
Y-Coordinate = 2.90 ft
Area, ft2
Distance from
Centroid, ft
First Moment
about Centroid,
ft3
No.
Size, ft
7.25 x 4.90
A1 = 17.763
x1 = 1.867
33.16
7.00 x 4.35
A2 = 15.225
y2 = 2.175
33.11
7.25 x 2.10
A3 = 7.613
x3 = 2.800
21.32
7.00 x 2.90
A4 = 10.150
y4 = 2.658
26.98
Total
114.57
50.750
Capacity
Required
T = (A1x1 + A2y2 + A3x3 + A4y4),

ft-kips
14,390
9,966
VV = (A1 A3), kips
1,275
1,224
VL = (A2 A4), kips
637
608
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:47 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
Figure 15.5.5-3
Assumed Dimensions for ShearFriction Computations
7.00'
A2
4.35'
7.25'
A1
A3
2.90'
A4
2.10'
4.90'
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.
CL Bent
19 x 0.6"-dia. strand
tendon (total of 6)
#6"
6"
7'-3"
#6 @ 6"
(Ea. Side)
Figure 15.5.5-4
Integral Bent Cap
Reinforcement Details
#6 Stirrups
8-#10 Bott.
& 20-#10 Top
6"
6'-0"
7'-0"
Bottom of beam
6"
Bent Cap Detail at Column
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:48 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.6 Caltrans Research/15.6.1 Test Model Set-Up
15.6
CALTRANS RESEARCH
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 cracking 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 seismic 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 developed 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.
15.6.1
Test Model Set-Up
Figure 15.6.1-1
Prototype Structure for BulbTee System Testing Program
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 midspan 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 actuators 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).
Earthquake force direction studied
585'-0"
BB
132'-6"
Abutment 1
160'-0"
EB
160'-0"
132'-6"
Abutment 5
Bent 2
Bent 3
Bent 4
Region modeled
26'-0"
42'-6"
7'-0" dia.
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:49 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.6.1 Test Model Set-Up/15.6.2.1 Columns
Figure 15.6.1-2
Test Setup
Horizontal actuator
Reaction frame
66'-6"
18'-0"
2'-91/8"
CG posttensioning
Reaction wall
32'-0"
Beam
splice
Hold-down
Test laboratory
floor
Vertical actuators
total (2) each side
The prototype structure for the second test used precast U-beams. The U-beam segments 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
Test Results
Performance of the model bridge structures exceeded the design requirements during
the tests (Holombo, et at, 2000).
15.6.2.1
Columns
Ductile plastic hinges formed at the top and bottom of the column with little strength
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.
Figure 15.6.2.1-1
Hysteresis Loop from Testing
of the Bulb-Tee System
Horizontal force (kN)
Prediction
Vi
Vi
Horizontal force (kip)
Displacement (in.)
Displacement (mm)
JUN 04
6/22/04 10:02:50 AM
CHAPTER 15
SEISMIC DESIGN
15.6.2.2 Superstructure/15.7 References

15.6.2.2
Superstructure
The response of the superstructure to the simulated longitudinal seismic loading was
essentially elastic; only minor cracking was observed. Due to prestressing, the cracking in the bent cap and the beams closed upon removal of the seismic loads, making 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.
15.7
REFERENCES
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
6/22/04 10:02:51 AM
CHAPTER 15
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, MarchApril 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, NovemberDecember 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
6/22/04 10:02:51 AM

MNL-133-97 Chapter 15

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

MNL-133-97 Chapter 15

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER 15

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

SEISMIC RESISTANT PRECAST CONCRETE BRIDGES

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

SEISMIC DESIGN EXAMPLEBULB-TEE, TWO SPANS,

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 1

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

SEISMIC DESIGN EXAMPLEINTEGRAL BENT CAP

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 2

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

= total section area

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 3

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

= moment of inertia of column

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 4

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

= vertical shear force

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 5

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 6

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 7

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 8

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.1.2.1 Background/15.1.2.3.1 Standard Specifications

AASHTO adopted the ATC-6 recommendations as a guide specification in 1983, a

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 9

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.1.2.3.2 Caltrans Specifications/15.1.2.4 Effect of Local Geology and Soil Conditions

Caltrans bridge engineering practice generally embraced deterministic ground

The AASHTO LRFD Specifications incorporates many of the seismic provisions of

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 10

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.1.2.4 Effect of Local Geology and Soil Conditions/15.2.2 Current Practice

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 11

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

Integral Bent System - Double Curvature

Precast Beam (Non-Integral) System - Single Curvature

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 12

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.2.3 Seismic Response Characteristics of Precast Concrete Bridge Systems/

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 13

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.2.4.1 Precast Concrete Pier Segment/15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment

The precast concrete pier segment as shown in Figure 15.2.4.1-1. It is a variable

Variable length pier segment

40'-0" Standard length

Temporary shoring to support

CIP closure joint

Splice posttension ducts

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 14

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment

Section A-A (beams not shown)

Typical drop-in segment

CIP splice (typ.)

7602 PCI Bridge Manual Ch 15.1-3.indd 15

PCI BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL

15.2.4.3 Drop-In Precast Concrete Segment/15.2.5.1 Superstructure-to-Bent Cap Connection

Stage 1 (day 1): Pretension strands and cast girder concrete

Stage 5 (days 39 thru 41): Post-tension bent cap

Stage 8 (days 56 thru 57): Tension first phase tendons

Stage 9 (days 58 thru 72): Construct cast-in-place deck

Stage 6B (days 45 thru 46): Erect right span segments