th

9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

APPLICATION OF THE NEW SEISMIC DESIGN

PROVISIONS IN AS 5100
Samia Sedra, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS), Australia

ABSTRACT
The seismic design provisions in the Australian bridge code AS 5100 have recently been revised
to include several improvements and remove ambiguities found in the 2004 edition of the code.
DR AS 5100.2: 2014 provides two design approaches, namely the displacement-based method
(DBM) and the force-based method (FBM). The latter method uses generalised acceleration
spectra to determine the seismic design actions, while the former uses equivalent displacement
spectra.

The FBM provides a conventional approach that can be easily applied using one of the
commercially available software. While, the DBM enables designers to predict the bridge
behaviour at design seismic events, and determine the required ductile detailing accordingly.
The DBM provides a tool to check whether a bridge will remain elastic at design seismic events
and can be exempt from excessive seismic ductile detailing.

This paper summarises the main concepts of the DBM and FBM, and describes the outcomes
of the application of the methods to a case study. The paper highlights the significance of the
initial check of bridge behaviour in the DBM to achieve realistic, economic and safe seismic
design and detailing.

INTRODUCTION
Parts 2 and 5 of DR AS 5100: 2014 [1][2]provide a number of improvements to seismic design
provisions and clarify several ambiguities in the 2004 code edition such as the application of
plastic hinge detailing and response factor magnitudes for different bridge configurations.

The new Australian bridge seismic design is now aligned with the New Zealand bridge code,
except that considerations were given to the low seismicity in Australia in comparison with New
Zealand. Two methods are now included in the bridge code; the force-based method (FBM) and
displacements based method (DBM). The FBM uses generalised acceleration spectra (or
forces) to determine the seismic design actions. Although the use of forces to simulate seismic
actions does not reflect the true behaviour of structures, the method is conventionally used by
designers, and can be easily applied using several commercially available design software
programs.

The DBM uses displacement spectra to express the seismic design actions. The DBM enables
designers to predict bridge ductility at design seismic events, rather than the pre-designated
ductility factors in the FBM, and specifies the required associated seismic ductile detailing.
Moreover, the DBM provides a tool to check whether a bridge will remain elastic at design
seismic events, and can be exempted from ductile detailing. This results in cost effective
solutions particularly for bridges in low to medium seismicity zones.

Unlike the conventional FBM, the DBM is new to Australian designers, and its application
currently requires a series of hand or spreadsheet type calculations, and frame analysis, due to
the lack of relevant specialized software.

Prior to the issue of DR AS 5100: 2014, Roads and Maritime Services has investigated the
application of the new seismic provisions to several case studies. This was to ensure the clarity
of the provisions and assess the ease of their application to bridges. Comparison of the design
outcomes of one of the case studies using the DBM and FBM are included below, followed by
conclusions and recommendations for designers.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 1

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

THE REVISED FBM IN DR AS 5100: 2014

The current seismic provisions in AS 5100.2: 2004[3] use the acceleration spectra/forces to
express design actions. The provisions are out-of-date as they were based on
AS 1170.4: 1993[4]. During Austroads Project TS 1599 [5], the provisions were revised to
accord with AS 1170.4: 2007[6], with adjustment to design parameters to suit bridges rather
than buildings. The design method is now called the FBM in DR AS 5100.2: 2014.

Austroads Project Report TS1599 highlighted the excessive ductility level assigned for bridges
in AS 5100.2: 2004, and consequently the un-conservative seismic design actions assumed.
Therefore, the expected bridge ductility levels, was calibrated and expressed as ductility factor
rather than the response factor R f in AS 5100.2: 2004, with the ambiguity related to their
application to different bridge configurations clarified.

The main concepts of the FBM in accordance with DR AS 5100: 2014 are illustrated in Figure 1,
and the design procedure is described briefly below:

Figure 1: Concepts of the FBM.

1. Classify the bridge in one of four Bridge Earthquake Design Categories (BEDC-1 to 4)
based on its importance. Bridges in BEDC-1 are exempt from seismic design.
2. Determine the annual probability of exceedance P which ranges from 1/500 to 1/2000
depending on the bridge category. Consequently, a probability factor k p is invoked.
3. Determine the site seismicity from the hazard table and maps in Section 3 of
AS 1170.4: 2007, expressed as hazard factor Z (which is similar to the site factor S in
AS 5100.2: 2004).
4. Look-up the site sub-soil class in accordance with Section 4 of AS 1170.4: 2007.
5. Estimate the bridge elastic period T which depends on the pier stiffness accounting for
the level of cracking at yield.
6. Calculate the seismic elastic forces C(T) from Equation 1, where C h (T) is the acceleration
spectra in accordance with Clause 6.4 of AS 1170.4: 2007.
C(T) = k p Z C h (T) Eq 1

7. Determine the level of performance (acceptable damage) of the bridge at design

earthquake. Two performance levels are included in DR AS 5100.2: 2014, damage
control where residual cracks and concrete cover spalling may occur in plastic hinge
regions, and service level where residual cracks are expected to be sufficiently small so
that remedial action may not be required. Bridges deemed to be lifeline, or specified by the
relevant authority, are to be designed for the service performance level. In general, the
damage control performance level should be adopted unless more stringent level required.
8. Assign the ductility factor which ranges from 1.0 to 4.0 depending on the bridge
materials and structural system, and the performance level.
9. Calculate the ductile seismic forces from the elastic forces divided by , and analyse the
bridge accordingly.
10. Provide required seismic detailing, including the ductile detailing at potential plastic
hinges.

Although the application of the FBM is simple, the method may not fully describe the actual
behaviour of the bridge during seismic events. The method does not provide a check to ensure

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 2

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

that the ductility levels assigned for bridges represent the actual behaviour at the design
earthquake. Moreover, bridge members are modelled with pre-assigned stiffness that may not
accord with the actual damage (cracking) at the design earthquake, which may highly alter the
calculated bridge period. Therefore, the design seismic actions calculated may be unrealistic.

To compensate for the deficiencies above, the FBM requires stringent ductile detailing at
potential plastic hinge zones, even where the moment capacity exceeds the design action
effects (demand).

THE DBM IN DR AS 5100: 2014

Overview
The DBM presents a more realistic design approach than the FBM, in which structure
displacement under design seismic events (i.e. displacement demand) will not cause
unacceptable damage (i.e. will not exceed limiting material strains/member displacements).

In the DBM, bridges are represented as single degree of freedom (SDOF) structures. The
ductility factor depends on the calculated displacement at the design earthquake, rather than
the pre-assigned value in the FBM. Stiffness of bridge members is calculated based on the
damage associated with the calculated displacement ductility.

The DBM specifies upper strain limits for ductile bridge members to avoid unacceptable
excessive damage. The strain limits for the crack-control performance level are higher than
those for the service level. Bridges are designed and detailed so that the specified strain limits
will not be exceeded in design.

As in the FBD, bridges in BEDC-1 may be exempt from seismic design.

Procedure
The DBM consists of two procedures; an initial check of the bridge behaviour at design
earthquake, and further specific seismic design. The latter procedure may be omitted depending
on the findings of the former procedure.

Initial check of bridge behaviour

1. Determine the bridge category, performance level, hazard factor, and site sub-soil class
and elastic period T as described in the FBM procedure.
2. Calculate the seismic design actions in terms of displacement (T) (demand) using the
displacement spectra in Figure 2 and Equation 2.
(T) = k p Z h (T) Eq 2

3. Calculate the yield displacement capacity y which characterises the upper limit of bridge
elastic displacement. Noting that y mainly depends on pier dimension and boundary
conditions, and bearing and foundation displacements.
4. Where the displacement capacity in Item 3 exceeds the demand in Item 2, the bridge
remains elastic, and less stringent detailing will be required. However where the check
fails, carry out the second procedure (i.e. the specific seismic) as detailed below.

As a simplification, (T) in Item 2 may be calculated at T of 1.5 seconds (i.e. the corner-period
as illustrated in Figure 2) instead of the bridge fundamental period T. This may eliminate the
need to calculate T. It is expected that (1.5) will not exceed y for some Australian bridges.
However, if this condition fails, calculate T and subsequently (T) as discussed above.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 3

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 2: Displacement Spectra for Different Sub-Soil Classes.

The main concepts of the initial check of the DBM are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Concepts of the Initial Check in the DBM.

Specific seismic design

The specific seismic design of bridges that are expected to behave in a ductile manner
proceeds as below:
1. Calculate the effective stiffness k eff corresponding to the ductile displacement of the
SDOF structure, which is less than the elastic stiffness k el , as illustrated in Figure 4.

Force
Fu
F Fy
keff
he kel

y d
Displacement

Figure 4: Representation of Bridges as SDOF structures.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 4

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

2. Determine the ductile displacement capacity d of piers as the summation of the yield
and the post-yield components, as illustrated in Figure 5. The post-yield component
depends on the material type, section detailing and the maximum strain limits of the
design performance level.

d
y
F

pile elastic
rotation at hinge
yield post-yield

Figure 5: Ductile Displacements of Bridge Piers

3. Determine the equivalent viscous damping of the SDOF structure, based on the bridge
member types and materials, and the expected ductility factor . Where is defined as
the ratio of ductile to yield displacement. Figure 6 (left) illustrates the relationship between
ductility and damping for different materials, which shows that for each material the higher
the ductility the higher the damping.
4. Calculate the effective ductile period Teff of the SDOF structure accounting for damping.
Teff is typically higher than the elastic period T. Figure 6 (right) illustrates the relationship
between Teff and ductile displacement at different damping levels.

= 5%
Damping %

Displacement

Steel
= 10%

= 15%
Concrete
= 20%

Unbonded prestress

Ductility Effective Period Teff

Figure 6: Design Parameters of Ductile Structures

5. Calculate the design (demand) ductile displacement d(Teff) , from Equation 3, where
R is damping modifier that depends mainly on .
d (T eff ) = R (T eff ) Eq 3

The design actions, represented as d (T eff ), must not exceed the pier ductile capacity d in
Item 2, i.e. d d (T eff )

Few iterations are typically required to adjust , , T eff , d (T eff ) at the capacity and demand
sides of Equation 3.

The specific seismic design procedure typically requires set of manual or spreadsheet type
calculations plus frame analysis software to carry out the analysis, which can be seen as a
disadvantage by some design engineers.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 5

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

The main steps in bridge seismic design using the DBM is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Specific Seismic Design Using the DBM

SEISMIC DETAILING OF CONCRETE PIERS

Column/Pier detailing is the most important aspect of seismic design, particularly where an
earthquake greater than the design intensity occurs. Plastic hinges are expected to form in
bridge vertical members, therefore ductile detailing are essential; to eliminate brittle failure.
However, careful design should avoid the formation of plastic hinges in inaccessible vertical
members (i.e. piles), to facilitate repair work following an earthquake.

A major revision of the column seismic detailing provisions in AS 5100.5: 2004[7] was carried
out during Austroads Project TS1599, and the outcomes were included in DR AS 5100.5: 2014.
The code now requires benchmark detailing for all piers of bridges in BEDC-2 to BEDC-4, and
permits less stringent requirements where the initial check of the DBM indicates elastic
behaviour under design earthquake. Below are some examples:
The minimum volumetric ratio of column confinement S is 0.005 and 0.006 for circular
and rectangular cross-sections, respectively, however, these limits may be reduced to
0.0025 and 0.0003 for some bridges, where the DBM indicates elastic behaviour.
The confinement reinforcement inside plastic hinges are as in Equations 4 to 7:
S 0.075 f ce /f sy.t for helices and circular ties Eq 4
A sv 0.055 s y 1 (f ce /f sy.t ) for rectangular ties Eq 5
Where,
A sv is total cross-section area of ties, including cross ties
y 1 is column core dimension in the direction under consideration
f sy.t is nominal yield strength of ties or helices
s is centre-to-centre spacing of ties
f ce is expected concrete compressive strength equals to 1.3 the characteristic value f c

Where the DBM indicates elastic behaviour the following reduced confinement is permitted:

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 6

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

for helices or circular fitments Eq 6

for rectangular ties Eq 7

Where,
M N is nominal moment capacity at the critical section
M E is seismic moment demand, assuming elastic response.

CASE STUDY
This case study illustrates the main design steps and outcomes of the FBM and DBM to a
common type of Roads and Maritime bridges. The bridge described below is an actual project
with a minor modification to the layout to simplify the illustration.

Description of the bridge

Four-span bridge, each span is approximately 30m long (refer to Figure 8). The superstructure
comprises 5 precast Super-T girders, with concrete characteristic compressive strength of
50 MPa at 28 days. The bridge piers are cast-in-situ concrete with a characteristic compressive
strength of 40 MPa at 28 days. The height of the piers above the pile cap, including the height of
the headstock, ranges from 6.8 to 10.32m (refer to Figures 9 and 10).

The superstructure is supported on ten elastomeric bearings (Part No 070908R in accordance

with AS 5100.4: 2004[8]) at each pier and five elastomeric bearing at each abutment. The
superstructure is restrained laterally using shear keys at the abutments and piers.
Reinforcement bars used in detailing are Grade D500N.

The bridge is supported on 18 precast piles at each pier and seven raked piles at each
abutment. There is a deck movement joint at each abutment.

Design parameters

The bridge category is BEDC-4 in accordance with DR AS 5100.2: 2014.

The hazard factor Z is 0.09 in accordance with AS 1170.4: 2007.
The site sub-soil class is C e in accordance with AS 1170.4: 2007.
The damage-control performance level is considered in the design.

Design assumptions

The bridge abutments are fully rigid.

The foundations are rigid with their rotations and/or displacements ignored. Although this
assumption is unrealistic it is made here for simplification purpose only. Noting that if the
piles flexibility is considered, the total pier yield displacement capacity will increase and
consequently the chance of pier ductile response will be minimised.
The pier shear deformation is ignored.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 7

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Figure 8: Schematic Elevation of the Bridge.

Figure 9: Typical Cross Section of the Bridge.

Figure 10: Bridge Pier, Head Stock and Pile Cap.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 8

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

RESULTS

Design using the DBM

The DBM design results in the transverse direction are:
y of Piers 1, 2 and 3 equals to 0.025, 0.053 and 0.042 m, respectively.
The moment of inertia and torsional stiffness of the cracked section of piers equal 50%
and 10%, respectively, of the corresponding values of the gross cross-section.
Accordingly, the bridge elastic fundamental period T in the transverse direction is 0.274
sec.
The characteristic bridge elastic displacement demand (T) is 0.011 m, which produces
elastic displacement demand of 0.0063, 0.0129 and 0.0103 at Piers 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

As the displacement capacity of the piers exceeds the demand displacements, all piers are
expected to remain elastic under design earthquake. Consequently, there is no need to provide
ductile detailing in the transverse direction.

Similarly, the results of DBM design in the longitudinal direction are:

y of Piers 1, 2 and 3 equal to 0.070, 0.153 and 0.121 m, respectively, while the bearing
displacements at the piers are 0.263, 0.174 and 0.197 m. Therefore, the total elastic
displacement capacity of the piers equals to 0.332, 0.327 and 0.318 m. The abutments are
considered fully rigid, therefore, the longitudinal movement of the bridge is restricted by
the bearing movement at the abutments.
Based on the pier cracked section and accounting for the bearing stiffness, T in the
longitudinal direction is 1.451 sec.
(T) in the longitudinal direction is 0.068 m, which is less than the elastic longitudinal
displacement capacity of the piers. However, larger bearings are required at the
abutments to accommodate this displacement.

Therefore, the bridge piers are expected to remain elastic in the longitudinal as well as in the
transverse directions under design seismic actions. Consequently, plastic hinge detailing is
waived. Minimum confinement of N16 at 220 mm spacing, as shown in Figure 11 marked in
red, is adopted over the pier height. Note, that additional seismic shear reinforcement is not
needed in the design.

Figure 11: Pier Confinement Using the DBM.

Design using the FBM

The ductility factor is 4 and 2 in the transverse and longitudinal directions, respectively, in
accordance with Table B5.3 of DR AS 5100.2: 2014, which result in horizontal seismic design
forces of 2167 and 1010 kN.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 9

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

DR AS 5100.2: 2014 requires the design of bridges in BEDC-4 to be further verified using
dynamic analysis. However, only the static analysis was adopted in this paper.

Seismic ductile confinement of N16 at 110 mm spacing is adopted inside potential plastic
hinges. Outside plastic hinges the confinement is taken as N16 at 220 mm spacing. Refer to
Figure 12 for seismic confinement marked in red.

Lap splices of pier longitudinal (flexure) reinforcement are not permitted inside potential plastic
hinges, which adds complexity during construction.

The movement of the bridge in the longitudinal direction is 46 mm, which is less than the value
of 68 mm calculated using the DBM. This discrepancy affects the design of the movement joint
in bridges. However, it should be noted here that DR AS 5100.2: 2014 requires the joints to be
designed for 1.5 times the movement predicted in design.

Figure 12: Pier Confinement Using the FBM.

Discussion of the results

Table 1 shows a comparison of the above analysis outcomes using the DBM and FBM (in black
font). The table shows that the calculated seismic shear and moment using the DBM are much
higher than those of the FBM adopting the ductility factors assigned in the code ( = 2 and 4)
based on the bridge configuration (i.e. capability to perform in a ductile manner). The
underestimated shear force calculated using the FBM is concerning, as some piers may be
under reinforced for shear which may lead to brittle failure.

The initial check of the bridge behaviour in the DBM shows that plastic hinges will not occur in
piers under the design earthquake, yet ductility factors of 4 and 2 for the transverse and
longitudinal directions are used in the FBM design. Therefore, these ductility factors are clearly
unrealistic, particularly where the displacement capacity highly exceeds the seismic action
effects. A ductility factor of 1 is then realistic, and should be used instead.

Table 1: Design outcomes using the DBM and FBM

Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3

DBM FBM DBM FBM DBM FBM
(using =1) (using =1) (using =1)
Seismic shear (kN)
transverse direction 2938 909 (3634) 1980 554 (2214) 2195 592 (2368)
longitudinal direction 807 431 (862) 543 429 (857) 632 427 (854)
Max seismic moment (kNm)

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 10

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier 3

DBM FBM DBM FBM DBM FBM
(using =1) (using =1) (using =1)
transverse direction 22,567 6,981 21,944 6,139 21,931 5,941
(27,922) (24,556) (23,763)
longitudinal direction 5,564 2,973 (5,946) 5,651 4,463 (8,926) 5,820 3,935 (7,870)
Max displacement in 6 7 12 13 9 10
transverse direction (mm)
Note: Italic red font indicates results assuming = 1.

Further Analysis
A further analysis of the bridge is carried out using the FBM with of 1. The results are shown
between brackets in red Italic in Table 1. The table shows reasonable agreement between the
outcomes of the FBM and DBM.

It may be concluded here that the ductility factors should be assigned in the FBM to accord with
the expected ductility levels at the design earthquake, rather than based on the bridge ductility
capability. Therefore, the initial check of the DBM may enable designers to assign realistic
ductility factors when the FBM is used.

CONCLUSION
The DBM procedure includes an initial check to predict bridge behaviour at design seismic level,
and consequently provides ductile detailing as required. The onerous ductile detailing of plastic
hinge zones may be waived for bridges expected to remain elastic. As the seismic activity in
Australia is relatively low compared to countries located at tectonic plate boundaries, it is
expected that most Australian bridges will respond in an elastic manner to the design level of
seismicity.

The low probability of exceeding the elastic displacements in Australia also highlights the
limitations in the high ductility factors pre-assigned in the FBM assuming full utilisation of bridge
ductility. The application of the FBM with the code ductility factors to a case study in low
seismicity showed large discrepancies of the design outcomes to those of the DBM. These
discrepancies were minimised where realistic ductility levels were assigned in the FBM, based
on the DBM initial check outcomes. It was further noted that where the ductility factors used in
the FBM are overestimated, lower pier shear forces will result which may lead to
un-conservative shear detailing.

The specific seismic design required in the DBM for bridges expected to undergo ductile
behaviour usually requires few iterations, therefore, the DBM may be seen as complex and
avoided all together by some designers and the convenient FBM may be used instead.

It is highly recommended that the DBM initial check be carried out regardless of the design
method to be used. Designers may then proceed with the FBM with realistic ductility levels,
which may result in convenient, economic and safe design outcomes.

REFERENCES
[1] Standards Australia 2014, Bridge Design - Part 2: Design loads, DR AS 5100.2-2014,
Standards Australia, NSW

[2] Standards Australia 2014, Bridge Design - Part 5: Concrete, DR AS 5100.5-2014, Standards
Australia, NSW

[3] Standards Australia 2004, Bridge Design - Part 2: Design loads, AS5100.2-2004, Standards
Australia, NSW

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 11

 th
9 Austroads Bridge Conference, Sydney, New South Wales 2014

[4] AS 1170.4, Minimum design loads on structures - Part 4: Earthquake loads, Standards
Australia, 1993

[5] Noya L, Priestley M.J.N and Lake N 2011, Austroads Project TS 1599: Bridge Design
Guidelines for Earthquakes, Austroads, NSW

[6] Standards Australia, 2007, Structural Design Actions - Part 4: Earthquake actions in
Australia, AS 1170.4, Standards Australia, NSW

[7], Standards Australia 2004, Bridge Design - Part 5: Concrete, AS 5100.5, Standards Australia,
NSW

[8] Standards Australia, 2004, Bridge Design - Part 5: Bearings and deck joints, AS 5100.4,
Standards Australia, NSW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the Chief Executive of the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW for
his permission to present this paper.

The author wishes to express her sincere gratitude to Professor Nigel Priestley for his
invaluable assistance during the work outlined in this paper. His insightful guidance and
generous time made this work possible.

The author also acknowledges the contributions of Mr Greg Forster and Mr Mark Bennett of
RMS, NSW, Mr Rudolph Kotz of ARRB, Mr Phil Moloy of DTEI, SA and Ms Giovanna Zanardo of
MR, WA to Austroads Project TS 1599.

DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent the policy of Roads and Maritime Services, NSW.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Dr Samia Sedra is Bridge Engineer (Policy & Specifications) at Roads & Maritime Services,
NSW. She is a member of Austroads Committee TS1599 responsible for revision of the bridge
seismic design rules in AS 5100. Samias experience spans over 30 years in different
engineering facets, focussing on structural design. Along with her experience in the industry,
Samia has lectured for several years at the University of Sydney.

Copyright Licence Agreement

th
The Author allows ARRB Group Ltd to publish the work/s submitted for the 9 Austroads Bridge
Conference, granting ARRB the non-exclusive right to:

publish the work in printed format

publish the work in electronic format
publish the work online.

The Author retains the right to use their work, illustrations (line art, photographs, figures, plates) and
research data in their own future works

The Author warrants that they are entitled to deal with the Intellectual Property Rights in the works
submitted, including clearing all third party intellectual property rights and obtaining formal permission from
their respective institutions or employers before submission, where necessary.

ARRB Group Ltd and Authors 2014 12