Bridge Components

Loading Codal Provisions

Suhasini Madhekar
College of Engineering Pune
Faculty Development Program on

Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics and Application to

Earthquake Engineering
12th December 2015
Sanjay Ghodawat Group of Institutions
Atigre,, Kolhapur
Atigre

Bridge Components
Bridge Bearings: Supported on a bridge pier, which carry the
weight of the bridge and control the movements at the bridge
supports, including the temperature changes.
Types : Metal rockers, rollers or slides or merely rubber or
laminated rubber, POT - PTFE
Bridge Dampers & Isolators: To absorb energy generated by
earthquake waves and lateral load
Bridge Pier: A wide column or short wall of masonry or plain
or RCC for carrying loads as a support for a bridge, founded
on firm ground
2

Bridge Components
Bridge Cap: The highest part of a bridge pier on which the
bridge bearings or rollers are seated.
Bridge Deck: The load bearing floor of a bridge which carries
and spreads the loads to the main beams. (RCC / PSC /
Steel plate girder / Composite)
Abutment: A support of bridge which may carry a horizontal
force as well as weight.
Expansion Joints : These are provided to accommodate the
translations due to possible shrinkage and expansions due to
temperature changes.
3

Bridge - Components

Bridge Components
Superstructure
Pier Cap
Bearings
(Connections)

Substructure
Well Cap
Foundation

Soil Stratum

The FOUR Components::

Foundation :: Well and Well Cap; Pile and Pile Cap
Substructure :: Pier(s) and Pier Cap; Wall; Frame
Connections :: Fixed, Free and Guided Bearings
Superstructure :: Slab; Girder-Slab; Box; Truss;
5

Frame

Bridge Cap and Damper

Loading on Bridges

Cars on a suspension bridge over a river : Colorado

10

Loading on Bridges

Permanent Loads: remain on the bridge for an

extended period of time (self weight of the bridge)
Transient Loads: loads which are not permanent
- gravity loads due to vehicular, railway and
pedestrian traffic
- lateral loads due to water and wind, ice, ship collision,
earthquake, etc.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mass of deck = 3,278,404 kg ( DL = 32784 kN)

LL = 3850 kN
D = 65658 kN, F= 324 kN

Behaviour: Longitudinal shaking

Bridge Vibration Units:
Single-span
Multi-span
Simply-supported

Continuous

Overall Structural Behaviour

21

Behaviour: Transverse shaking

Superstructure
Connections

Substructure

Vertical cantilever action

Mass lumped at the top
Foundation flexibility

Foundation

22

Capacity Design of Bridge Components

Ductile Link

Plastic
Moment
Hinges

Brittle Link

Damage only in piers: mandatory ductile detailing

Elastic design of other components
23

Bridge Performance in past Indian Earthquakes

Gawana Bridge (1991 Uttarkashi Earthquake)
- Shearing off of anchor bolts of rollercumrocker bearings

24

Past EQs...
Gawana Bridge
- Unseating of superstructure from abutments

25

Past EQs
Gawana Bridge

26

Past EQs

Old Surajbadi Bridge (2001 Bhuj Earthquake)

- Bearing damage due to jumping of superstructure

27

Past EQs

New Surajbadi Bridge (2001 Bhuj Earthquake)

- Jumping of Girders Damage to girders

28

Past EQs

Toe Crushing of Stone Wall Masonry Piers

- Old Highway bridge (2001 Bhuj earthquake)

29

Past EQs

Vertical Splitting of Stone Wall Masonry Piers

- Old Highway bridge (2001 Bhuj earthquake)

30

Past EQs

Collapse of Superstructure
- Aman Setu (2005 Kashmir earthquake)

31

Analysis of Bridges : Issues in Modeling

Superstructure
No ductility demand
Usually, stiff in vertical direction

Connections
Simple Bearings :: Rocker, Roller
Model as rigid, with usual freedom

Flexible Bearings :: Neoprene/Rubber/Lead Rubber

Model as Flexible

Substructure
Only structural component with ductility
Detailed idealisation required

Effect of shear deformations to be included

Foundation
Main concern is modeling soil
32

Properties for Modeling

Levels of earthquake shaking
LOW :: Functional Evaluation Earthquake
Un-cracked Section (EIgross)

HIGH :: Safety Evaluation Earthquake

Cracked Section (EIeff)
Spectral Acceleration
Sa/g

EIeff

2.0

Mu

1.5
Safety

0.6Mu

1.0
0.5

Functional

0.0
0

33

EIgross

2
3
4
Natural Period T (sec)

Properties for modeling

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction k

Layered Soil
N Value

Rigid
Foundation

34

Distributed Springs

Lumped Springs

Modeling: Summary

Overall model
for Longitudinal Shaking

35

Cantilever model for Transverse Shaking

Analysis
Methods of Dynamic Analysis
Seismic Coefficient method
Response Spectrum analysis for other bridges
Time History analysis for special bridges
Push over analysis
Geometric and material nonlinearities

36

IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design

Design lateral force calculation
(Interim IRC: 6-2014)
- Structural flexibility
- Response Reduction Factor (R) for nonlinear response

Working Stress Design for bridge substructures

(IRC:21-2000)
- Not applicable for explaining seismic behaviour
- Contradiction with the lateral force calculation
method

37

IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design

No provision on explicit design against lateral shear

force (IRC:21-2000)
- Shear design prescribed only for beams and slabs
- Horizontal steel provided as per the prescribed minimum
amount
- No provision on confinement of concrete

Capacity design not prescribed for any bridge

component (IRC:21-2000, IRC:78-2000)
- No plastic hinge formation in case of extreme seismic event

Limit State Design for bridge (IRC:112 -2011)

38

IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design

Wall piers and column piers (IRC:78-2000)

- No difference in design methodologies
Pier Cap

Pier Cap
:: Shear deformations
:: No plastic hinge
Pile Cap

:: Flexural deformations
:: Plastic Hinge Region
Pile Cap

Wall Pier
39

Column Pier

IRC Codes: Flexure and Shear Design

Well Foundations (IRC:78-2000)

- Three dimensional finite element analysis of the foundation
- Tensile and compressive stresses checked at the critical
sections
- No formal flexure and shear design methodology
prescribed
- Nominal vertical and horizontal steel prescribed
- Proportioning of foundation prescribed on an empirical
basis
- Seismic design procedure not available

40

Earthquake Force

Generated where the mass is (at deck level)

Needs to be transferred safely to ground

41

Ground vibrations

Vertical vibrations
Vertical inertia force
Adds and subtracts to the gravity force
Generally not a problem due to FS in gravity design

42

Gravity Loads

Vertical EQ-Induced Inertia Force

Ground vibrations

Horizontal vibrations

Inertia
Forces

Horizontal inertia force

Need load transfer path

Deck Slab

Need adequate strength

Piers

Foundations

Soil
Earthquake
Shaking
43

Flow of EQ inertia forces through all components

Capacity Design Concept

The Bridge Example
Superstructure

EQ Design
Good Ductility
Adequate Strength

Connections

Substructure

Foundation

44

The Example

The Bridge Example

(FEQ)max

P
(FEQ)max

45

The Example

The Bridge Example

Shear Design

(F )

EQ max

If

(F )

M
=
H0

EQ max

> Vu

design additional
steel for the balance
shear
46

(FEQ)max

H0
(FEQ)max

P
M

The Example

Ductile Link

Brittle Link

47

Plastic
Moment
Hinges

Reinforced concrete bridge :

Slab bridge: span < 12 m
Carriageway

Slab

Cross section of solid slab bridge deck

48

48

Reinforced concrete bridge :

T-Beam bridge : span 12 to 24 m
Footpath
Carriageway

D=1200-1800 mm

T-beam

Cross section of TT-beam bridge deck

49

Cross beam

49

Reinforced concrete bridge :

Slab on girder bridge :
Footpath
Carriageway

D=1200-3000 mm

I-beam

Cross beam (Diaphragm)

Cross section of II-beam bridge deck

50
50

Reinforced concrete bridge :

Box girder bridge : span: 20 to 50 m
Footpath
Carriageway

D= 1000-3000 mm

Cross section of box girder bridge deck

51

51

Steel bridge :
Steel I-beam bridge : Span: upto 20 m
Footpath
Carriageway

Cross section of steel I-I-beam bridge deck

52

52

Common types of failure observed under seismic excitation:

Seismic displacement failure

Abutment slumping failure
Column failure
Joint failure
53

53

Displacement failure : Unseating

Unseating failure of main approach of Nishinomiyako

bridge in Kobe earthquake (Japan)
54

54

Displacement failure: Pounding

55

The longitudinal movement of the new Surajbadi

bridge superstructures led to pounding at the deck slab
55
level in Bhuj Earthquake, 2001 India.

Abutment Slumping failure

Deck

Pile foundation

56

56

Column failure due to improper detailing of plastic hinge region

Crushed column of Santa Monica Freeway

Northridge earthquake 1994 (USA) 57
57

Column failure due to improper detailing of plastic hinge region

Column failure in Mission-Gothic under crossing at Simi Valley

San Fernando Freeway in Northridge earthquake 1994,
USA
58
58

Column shear failure.

Failure of column of Hanshin Expressway, Japan in

Kobe Earthquake, 1995 Japan.
59

59

Joint failure due to poor detailing

Cypress viaduct joint failure in

60

Northridge earthquake in 1994 USA .

Conceptual seismic design:

design:
The bridge should be straight as curve bridge complicates the
seismic response.
Deck should be continuous with few movement joints. Simply
supported spans are prone to unseating.
Foundation material should be of rock or firm alluvial. Soft soil
amplifies seismic response.
Pier height should be constant along the bridge. Non-uniform
height results in stiffness variation and attraction of more
forces to stiffer pier.
Pier stiffness should be uniform in all direction.
61

61

Conceptual seismic design:

design:

Span length should be kept short. Long span results in

high axial forces on the column with potential for reduced
ductility.
Plastic hinges should be developed in the column rather
than in the cap beam or in superstructure.
The

abutment

and

the

pier

should

be

oriented

perpendicular to the bridge axis. Skew supports tend to

cause rotational response with increased displacement.
62

Connection of pier and superstructure :

Bearing

(a) Moment resisting conection

(b) Bearing supported connection

Support alternative for pier and superstructure

63

Beneficial effect of consideration of soil flexibility

Consideration of soil flexibility effect on foundation gives

lesser forces due to shift of period of vibration of structure
because of added flexibility by soil from higher acceleration
zone to lower acceleration zone of design spectrum.
64

64

Outcome:
The substructure of bridge are more vulnerable under
seismic excitation.
Non consideration of inelastic action of structure led to the
failures in plastic hinge region of column.
Seismic deflection of bridge calculated using elastic theory
of design will lead to underestimation of actual deflection
and will result into unseating or pounding of girders during
seismic excitation.

65

65

Outcome (contd..)
Comparative study of possible alternative models of same
type of bridge are required
Comparative results of fixed base and detailed model for
bridge with well foundation considering SSI
Difference in seismic response of bridge model with actual
and simplified location of bearing
Effect of scour of river bed on seismic response
Effect of hydrodynamic pressure on seismic response using
global model.
66

66

Thank you..

67